Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/29/2010 Regular City of Springfield Regular Meeting MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING OF THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, MARCH 29,2010 The City of Springfield Council met in special regular session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, March 29,2010 at 12:07 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding. ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie (by conference phone), Leezer, Simmons and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Bill Van Vactor, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 1. Consider a Resolution by the City Council of Springfield to Sponsor an Application for Enterprise Zone Designation. RESOLUTION NO. 10-14 -A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD SPONSORING AN APPLICATION ESTABLISHING AN ENTERPRISE ZONE. Community Development Manager John Tamulonis presented the staff report on this item. The action requested would continue the Springfield Enterprise Zone (EZ) another ten years to assist new investments and create jobs on Springfield industrial sites. Springfield and Lane County had cosponsored two Springfield Enterprise Zones that had included nearly all the industrial land inside the city's UGB and the most recent EZ expired June 30, 2010. An application to continue an EZ for up to another ten years must be submitted to the State of Oregon by April 2, 2010 (Attachment 1 of the agenda packet). The proposed Springfield Community Enterprise Zone would have the City be the sole sponsor, include about 11.5 square miles of property within the current city limits and all industrially zoned property inside the city limits (See map, Attachment 2 of the agenda packet). The application (Attachment 1) included only areas within the current city limits to simplify the application and allow for later adjustments based on any UGB, Plan, or Zoning changes emerging fro~ current land-use policies. The initial application required completing only the frrst 7 sections, but should'the process have more applicants than the 12 slots remaining, additional information may be requested of applicants by the State. As required by current state law, the C~ty notified the potentially affected taxing agencies (Attachment 4 of the agenda packet) in a letter mailed March 1,2010 (see example letter Attachment 5 of the agenda packet) the required three weeks prior to a public meeting to discuss the City's potential application, the boundaries and its potential effects on the agencies. The meeting was held March 22, 2010 and the minutes of that meeting were Attachment 6 of the agenda packet. Firms had expressed interest in industrial sites that were in the current EZ and would be within the proposed EZ boundaries. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 29,2010 Page 2 If the new EZ was approved by the state and a firm would like to develop in a properly zoned area outside city limits, that area would frrst need to be annexed with the City to proceed with development. The City would then need to consider changing the EZ boundary to allow the fmn to use the EZ. The City would need to apply to the State for any boundary amendment in a process similar to this application. Mr. Tamulonis displayed a map of the existing Enterprise Zone. Five businesses had applied and utilized the current EZ, several which were due to expire in the next couple of years. He explained how the new EZ boundary was chosen and which areas were excluded. He noted some of the areas that could possibly be annexed into the City in the future. If property was annexed into the City and added to the EZ, an adjustment to the boundary of the EZ would need to be submitted to the State. When a firm came into an EZ, there was normally a three year exemption period along with other requirements related to employment and wages. Mr. Tamulonis said a copy of the resolution and application were available and had been provided to the Council in their agenda packet. He noted the resolution included in the agenda packet and some minor changes made to that resolution. The first change was on page 1 under the third Whereas, changing "except for a few areas within those city limits" to "except those portions of the city outside the areas outlined in red in Exhibit A". The second change on the second page was to put the words "Now, therefore be it resolved" in bold. He also noted that the resolution in the agenda packet included hotels, motels and destination resorts, but Council may choose not to include those in their fmal resolution. The previous EZ did not include hotels, motels and resort destinations and the application did not include those. A second resolution had been prepared that did not include hotels, motels, and resort destinations. Mayor Leiken confirmed that the County was not participating in this application. Mr. Tamulonis said that was correct. With the upcoming urban growth boundary (UGB), plan or zoning changes underway, staff determined it would be more expeditious to include only land within the City limits. A public meeting was held last week where all affected agencies had been invited. Minutes from that meeting were included in the agenda packet. There were questions during that meeting regarding local option levies and bond measures and whether or not they would be exempt, which they were. He received calls from Rainbow Water District and Glenwood Water District asking if the EZ would only be located in the City limits. He had confirmed with them that it would. Councilor Pishioneri noted a couple of typographical errors in the application. Those were noted by Mr. Tamulonis who would correct those before submitting the application. He asked about the sections on Page 5 and if those would be filled in later. Mr. Tamulonis said there were further calculations to include on the top of page 5. The rest of the sections would only need to be filled out if the State needed additional information because of competition between other cities. The City had 30 days following acceptance of the application to provide additional information if needed. He noted the formatting issues regarding this form. Councilor Pishioneri asked if hotels, motels and destination resorts could include a conference center. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 29, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Tamulonis said it could be part of a destination resort or part of a hotel. Without a hotel or resort attached, it would not be included in this exception. If they allowed that option it would need to be for any hotel or destination resort within the boundaries., Councilor Pishioneri expressed interest in having that opportunity for a conference center. Discussion was held regarding a conference center as an exception in the EZ. Mr. Tamulonis said it couldn't be included as a stand-alone conference center. Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City was able to require a company to stay after the EZ period expired. Mr. Tamulonis said as long a they met the requirements of the State, they could leave at any time. If a company qualified for a 5 year exemption, the City could negotiate other payments to other taxing agencies and/or the City, but would not be able to negotiate anything beyond the 5 years. Mayor Leiken said'the City had no control over a company leaving. He asked what the smallest company was that had applied for an EZ. Mr. Tamulonis said they had a company with one employee inquire, but chose not to apply because of some of the requirements. Councilor Lundberg said she was an advocate of the EZ, but how they dealt with it was important. It was primarily a tool for enticing larger industry. She did have concerns over five year exemptions and wanted to make sure the City negotiated an appropriate amount of in lieu of payments. This was the taxpayers' money so they needed to be careful. She wanted to make sure the partnering taxing agencies were comfortable. Mr. Tamulonis said on applications for a 5 year EZ, the average compensation for all employees had to be at least $48,447 of non-mandated wages and benefits. He also noted that when looking at allowing a 5 year exemption, the City would consult with the other taxing agencies to determine how to soften the impact. Covering fire and police services was also a consideration. Councilor Ralston asked if it was by definition that land not annexed into the City was not included. H asked if it was possible for land outside the City limits to be included. Mr. Tamulonis said it was possible, but if land outside the City limits was included, the County would need to be involved. Mr. Ralston said it bothered him that Jasper Natron was not included because of the potential in that area. He asked what would happen if someone annexed into the City and applied for EZ exemptions, bringing the total to over 12 square miles. Mr. Tamulonis said an adjustment would need to be made somewhere else to keep it under 12 square miles. He explained further. Councilor Ralston confirmed that it could be advertised that those land were available. Yes. City of Springfield Council Regular Meeting Minutes March 29,2010 Page 4 Mr. Tamulonis explained how adjustments could be made. He referred to page 4 of the application and noted that in order to get through the frrst round, the City needed to have at least 200 point~ in at least one of the categories. Springfield exceeded 200 points in three categories. By excluding the high income areas in Thurston, the City gained more points. Councilor Simmons said properties outside of the UGH were not included because of the County. Mayor Leiken said the resolution included hotels, motels and resort destinations and the application did not. He asked if the application could be changed if they chose to add those exceptions. - Mr. Tamulonis said the application could be adjusted. Councilor Simmons said originally he thought leaving the hotels, motels and resorts in the resolution could be a good idea, but he did understand it could be detrimental. ,He supported removing it in the fmal resolution as it did not appear to be a meaningful contribution to growth. Mayor Leiken noted that fmancial institutions didn't fmance hotels and resorts. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCaOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCaOR LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.1, ADDING THE TWO AMENDMENTS NOTED BY MR. TAMULONIS AND DELETING THE PARAGRAPH REGARDING HOTELS, MOTELS AND RESORTS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST. Mr. Tamulonis said he would put together the materials to submit the application by April 2. He said they anticipated there would be twelve or less applications. Mayor Leiken said the City was fortunate to have Mr. Tamulonis on board on this issue. Mr. Tamulonis was regarded highly throughout the State on enterprise zone issues.. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:41 p.m. Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa Attest: CitY~