HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-07-31 SEDA Meeting Minutesvilik
® MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
SPRINGFIELD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD MONDAY,JULY 31,2006
The Springfield Economic Development Agency met in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon,on Monday,July 31,2006 at 6:45 p.m.,with Board Vice-Chair John
Woodrow calling the meeting to order.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Board Vice-Chair John Woodrow and Board Members Tammy Fitch(by
conference phone),Anne Ballew, Sid Leiken, Christine Lundberg,Bill Dwyer,Joe Pishioneri,
and Dave Ralston. Also present were Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas,Community
Development Manager John Tamulonis and City Recorder Amy Sowa.
Board Member Faye Stewart was absent(excused).
APPROVAL MINUTES
a. Minutes of July 10,2006.
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER DWYER WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
MEMBER LEIKEN TO APPROVE THE JULY 10,2006 SEDA MINUTES. THE
QMOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 8 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—Stewart).
COMMUNICATIONS
a. Business from the Audience
None
b. Correspondence
None
c. Business from the Staff
1. Update of Revised Loan Agreement with City of Springfield
John Tamulonis said the Springfield City Council approved the revised loan agreement that the
SEDA Board forwarded on to them following the last meeting. That had been signed and was in
place. SEDA had the ability to borrow from the City through FY08-09.
REPORT OF CHAIR
None
REPORT OF COMMITTEES
None
OLD BUSINESS
QNone
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
July 31,2006
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
a. Recommendation Regarding Developers and the Glenwood Riverfront Plan.
John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. SEDA asked that the four firms
submitting Letters of Intent to develop along the Glenwood Riverfront be evaluated and a
recommendation made on which should be included in Stage 2 for full proposals due August 25,
2006. The materials submitted by developers were provided to each member of the Evaluation
Committee. Except as noted below,each member contacted SEDA staff with a recommendation.
The Evaluation Committee members considered the criteria below.
A. 15%_Experience and qualifications
B. 30%_Financial resources and capabilities
C. 25%_Background and past performance
D. 5% _Availability to be responsive to City/SEDA schedule
E. 10%_Familiarity with local conditions
F. 15%_Management techniques
The participating Committee members each indicated a basic difficulty in evaluating firms'
qualifications regarding the criteria and an, as yet,unspecified development proposal in the 48
acres in Glenwood included in the RFQ. Each participating member of the Committee reviewed
the set of four qualifications and individually indicated to SEDA staff that each firm received
100%relative to the criteria for this stage in the process. Each participating member
recommended that all four firms be included in the process for the next stage and invited to
submit a proposal for developing Glenwood's Riverfront as outlined in the RFQ solicitation.
Each developer and the proposal each submits in Stage 2 of the process could then be ranked
more readily based on the criteria above and the specifics of what each firm proposes.
The Committee's recommendation, in summary,to the SEDA Board is to include inviting all
four developer firms into Stage 2.
Note: Steve Roth declared a potential conflict of interest though none of the proposals now
includes his property,but might in future Stages of Glenwood Redevelopment discussions.John
Brown withdrew from the Evaluation Committee to avoid any perception of conflict of interest.
The City's Financial Advisor,Pat Clancy, did not evaluate the financial strength of firms
because there was no specific development proposal.
Mr.Tamulonis discussed the four responses from the RFQ. He discussed the process and some
of the difficulties the committee had regarding the criteria.
IT WAS MOVED BY BOARD MEMBER DWYER WITH A SECOND BY BOARD
CHAIR FITCH TO ADOPT THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE THE FOUR DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS
THAT SUBMITTED LETTERS OF INTENT AND QUALIFICATIONS FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF GLENWOOD,AND NOTIFY THEM THAT THEY ARE INVITED
TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AS SPECIFIED IN THE RFQ FOR
STAGE 2 OF SEDA'S SELECTION PROCESS.
Board Chair Woodrow disclosed that four years ago he worked for Senior Living Magazine,
which was published by Diana Graff,the wife of one of the members of a company that
Springfield Economic Development Agency Minutes
July 31,2006
Page 3
a proposal. He said that relationship would in no way affect his decision,but he wanted it on the
record.
Board Member Ballew said she had concern about a new company because they had nothing to
evaluate. She said the individuals may have a lot of experience,but not as a company. If they
wanted to compete,that was fine,but she didn't have a lot of confidence in the results because
they didn't have experience as a company.
Board Member Lundberg asked how many of these companies would have the ability to develop
such a large project. If the next step would cost a lot of money, she would feel more comfortable
looking hard at this point to prevent some of the companies from moving forward. She said she
only felt comfortable with two of the companies with experience.
Mr.Tamulonis said he had indicated to the companies that the recommendation was to move
forward and that they would have to conform to the requirements of the next stage,which were
substantial. He said some organizations may combine with others and there could be some self-
selection as to whether or not they would move forward to the next level. A consortium of firms
could be put together. He said he was not sure what any one of them might propose or the size
of their proposal. He suggested informing the organizations they were invited to move ahead,
but there could be some strengths that needed to be improved to get through the next phase to
provide the strongest competition possible.
Board Chair Fitch said the committee looked at these proposals,realizing there could be some
new partnering before they were totally submitted. Even those that may not be selected for this
p first step could attract the attention of other landowners in Glenwood to spur additional projects,
which was the purpose of the Urban Renewal District. There was a lot of excitement from the
committee that there were four proposals and an interest to see them move forward with the
Request for Proposal (RFP).
Board Member Dwyer said this would move forward one phase at a time. Those that submitted
proposals knew what would be required and they felt they could compete or they wouldn't be at
the table. If they wanted to put forward a proposal or review,he was willing to accept that. Who
knew what the future would bring. Some may partner together. With more proposals,there was
a better chance for having one feed off the other one.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 8 FOR AND 0 AGAINST(1 ABSENT—
Stewart).
PUBLIC HEARING
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm.
Minutes Recorder—Amy Sowa
/i/).-0
O Christine Lundberg /
Secretary