[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6276753,"mediaKeyId","2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180","parentId",2658857,"title","CETA weighs demolition, fire‑sale or covenants for aging Memorial Building","audioSeconds",113,"startMs",1918000,"endMs",2031000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180&start=1918&end=2031","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180/thumbnail_1918000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6276753/Springfield/Lane-County/Oregon/CETA-weighs-demolition-firesale-or-covenants-for-aging-Memorial-Building","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276753-ad74262aa79b948579ded21ae8975554/orig.mp4?Expires=1770686016&Signature=GY0OzZH2VH02D6ntJWuj69c8EecsRLRAzhRzzXhbBdEIzQPjFg2cbcq~8xen4ivRKO2gviD-MibHyrTjBqY9caLDH7dzM2~vHQu8gP5Kbg6WZ41LQfDzf9Z33cYcvvT98rqiOqfgR6FHMULvTmZe51Q~C6EqWpP8pnuqi6VIlQt6x-zP8m6P4o2DQ5SF64NBCmrUvNY145nkgQYo1TY4LX61s9u7uloyWvn2I160hJwm6nyQAZeT7oCX7pEXfAsindvkBtBeWxHc76oS1Gz4~KoVjyHaZoalr01WdyP~4Sj-LE6YVPx0y~1BCRZnwI98SLu3N2DOX6IDv9QGs6FnAA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Springfield, OR","date","2025-02-08T00:00:00Z","article","CETA discussed several paths for the Memorial Building — from structured sale with development covenants to demolition if no viable buyer appears — and asked staff to return with a concrete proposal for the board’s regular session.

The issue is time-sensitive because the building has been used recently as a warming site but staff said it is no longer suitable for that purpose and is in poor physical condition.

Neil, a CETA staff member, described the building’s condition bluntly: “That building is not long for this earth. I mean, it is falling apart as we have folks in there.” He told the board the structure required repeated repairs this year just to remain usable as a warming site and warned that maintaining it as-is would continue to cost the agency money.

Board members weighed three basic options: 1) list the building for sale at a highly favorable price with binding covenants and a relatively short timeline for redevelopment, 2) require a structural/environmental analysis and then market the property to buyers for full due diligence, or 3) demolish the structure and either hold the lot as clean parking or prepare it for future redevelopment if no buyer emerges.

Questions from board members covered liability and standards for sale. Staff noted CETA’s past practice of doing a Phase I environmental assessment at acquisition, and board members observed that a Phase I does not typically include lead or asbestos testing, which would require additional study. One board member argued for a short market test (nine months to one year) and said if no credible redevelopment interest appears within that time the board should proceed to demolition.

Mayor Van Gordon suggested an aggressive option: “We sell the building for a dollar. It’s off our table,” a comment offered as a way to quickly transfer redevelopment responsibility while using covenants to control outcomes. Several members proposed a small subcommittee to draft sale conditions and covenants to return to the full board for approval.

No formal sale, demolition or other binding action was adopted at the retreat. Staff were directed to prepare a proposal for the regular board meeting that will lay out a recommended timeline, options for a Phase I or additional hazardous‑materials studies, and proposed covenants or sale terms for board consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","February 8, 2025 SEDA Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","At the retreat CETA members debated selling the Memorial Building with covenants, requiring structural analysis, or demolishing it if no acceptable redevelopment offer arrives; staff said the building is deteriorating and not suitable as a warming site going forward.","taxTitle","Springfield, Lane County, Oregon","taxId",3839,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276758,"CETA members favor US Bank site as first downtown development focus",664,936000,1600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180&start=936&end=1600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180/thumbnail_936000.jpg","/articles/6276758/Springfield/Lane-County/Oregon/CETA-members-favor-US-Bank-site-as-first-downtown-development-focus","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276758-845bba8c1c12509b12b5d160421f5a35/orig.mp4?Expires=1770686016&Signature=mkxJm6mAmbOwNhw-ii0JVcieeKl5C3isn9~ebNW9jYLBE-wHKrsMImje3-vG1UIaMI~vlsTqsZmpnWaqeOM24PeR3x5j4CV3mbaMuAjhlvtfAXAE2QrQx0SMIce~MfbAlluKOWLWQEZEddqebYHAnh6BNGki~F6OsXg1XALoflpdEhrqz9XofbIAgIj2zfTQz4LXZHFk488Lhk5zvaRboVpSSwmbzWt-yd78Y2B1kbYxFKh2gpmROLDDDIcA1WC6wZtVUXApHTHqcAAU~hfXqWbVo3Ll73CrSe5U03A-CIWh-HqDjZLjzUYHb-8uaYcy9HXMextZjHWPSHTY-HsGGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Springfield Economic/Urban Renewal board discussed which of several downtown-owned parcels should be the immediate focus for CETA’s development work, and several members said the US Bank site should be the first priority.

That choice matters because infrastructure already exists at the US Bank site and it could catalyze infill across adjacent blocks; board members also noted the Buick assembly surface-parking parcels provide short-term flexibility but are lower on the priority list.

Board members and staff framed the choice around available capital, timing and coordination with other city-owned parcels. Staff reminded the board that CETA borrows against the tax base and must plan borrowing in multi-year chunks to match development timelines and market conditions.

Several members suggested “poking” the market — publishing interest and soliciting developer proposals — to surface creative concepts and private partners. One board member said that soliciting interest could “get some people to the conversation and the table,” and staff agreed that market outreach would help clarify how downtown parcels would interact with the city-owned museum/arts-center parcel.

Board members raised design and livability concerns including building height, shading of the north side of the street and the desire to prioritize pedestrian-friendly, denser development rather than a car-centric suburban pattern. Staff cautioned that full commitment to design or construction dollars should wait until the city reaches specific land-use approvals and financial readiness.

No formal motion was taken at the retreat. The board asked staff to pursue market outreach on the US Bank property and to return with the results and any recommended next steps. Members also discussed maintaining balanced focus between Glenwood and downtown projects given deadlines in the urban renewal plan for planning and implementation over the next five to ten years.

The board did not adopt a binding timeline at the retreat, but members discussed staging priorities and asked staff to report back as market interest is gathered.","Board members at the CETA retreat signaled a preference to prioritize the US Bank property for downtown redevelopment while keeping the Buick assembly parcels on a secondary track; members urged market outreach to identify developers and to coordinate with city-owned parcels nearby.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6276763,"CETA: Glenwood master plan moves forward despite one landowner withdrawing",676,1992000,2668000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180&start=1992&end=2668","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2658857-90bb3c8637e150d912b132c8d9fbc180/thumbnail_1992000.jpg","/articles/6276763/Springfield/Lane-County/Oregon/CETA-Glenwood-master-plan-moves-forward-despite-one-landowner-withdrawing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6276763-68b10889116097d7bf52133f19417930/orig.mp4?Expires=1770686016&Signature=Qdp6y5zAtOzvMz-PpCCNluy92cANBUDJmzyhJyuYdWWpHvweTO0s7giRvfp4uaQFrLVpCPOgdNtBCFEfIA-Nj-vXdPSWa7S6OC-Ki0I32F6yZQu8ExHc60t2r9tN0k0ZAlH3FuKu-ZCmA9rS14k9wJkOM9FjnIzZOE-jI-a1ekBhNpWsh7duGXdohi1YHt4to705oNq6daPCI7gM03b6WMNLGLD-vCH4DqdAwRAOCYU27aGZnGZ8dR34p~fu0mxa0e46naJSkE9igN917U9~pNhZkN6qoTHseEBVQ2i2CfVm32TiGocQlRjg-n6NluHNjig-~jK1c7j3a8MbvjZXlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Allie, a CETA staff member, told the board the Glenwood future master plan will advance without participation from one private landowner on the east side of the proposed area.

The update matters because the annexation step — currently under staff expectation to be considered by City Council in April — is the immediate milestone that will allow the city to proceed with zoning and code amendments and, later, a preliminary master plan that would enable infrastructure design.

“All of the land use work and the future master planning work will move forward without those tax lots,” Allie said, describing a revised ownership map in which private partner parcels are orange, city- and SEDA-owned parcels are green, and Homes for Good property is yellow. Allie said the Homes for Good parcel totals about 22 acres within the study area.

Allie walked the board through a multi-step schedule staff calls the “land use waterfall.” She said the annexation application includes the green and orange properties and that staff “expect an annexation decision to come to council sometime in April, which is great.” Consultants listed by staff — Raub Brokaw and Walker Macy — are preparing a zoning map and code amendments with a target submission in Q2 2025. The board was told the next significant milestone is the preliminary master plan, which staff described as the point when phasing, infrastructure commitments and design confidence would allow investment in street and utility engineering.

On design impacts, staff said losing the eastern landowner does not substantially change the proposed street grid. The presentation included a high-level overlay showing where stubs or small right-of-way adjustments might be needed; staff said those could be accommodated without changing the overall concept.

Staff also reported contract and budget details for the master planning team: the current contract with Raub Brokaw and Walker Macy is $911,000 and the city has expended about 53% of that amount to date. No vote or expenditure beyond the existing contract was taken at the retreat.

Transportation and amenities were discussed: the riverfront-adjacent green area in the concept is proposed as a park and staff said Glenwood’s Refinement Plan includes a bike-access requirement when property redevelops. On the community identity front, staff outlined a multi-year effort to move Glenwood addresses out of the Eugene ZIP code and into Springfield’s ZIP code; Allie said the change would require a U.S. Postal Service–administered survey with a 50% plus one response threshold among property owners and noted a prior survey attempt failed.

Board members asked for clarification about annexation status, whether the eastern parcel remains on the market, and the sequencing of design and financing. Staff emphasized that the preliminary master plan step is the moment when the city can begin committing dollars to infrastructure design and engineering.

Staff said they will continue advancing the zoning/code packages and return to the board with updates as the annexation and subsequent land-use steps progress. No formal board action was taken at the retreat; staff were directed to continue work toward the April annexation and Q2 zoning/code deliverables.

The board also heard brief status notes about related downtown properties during the same session and reserved further questions for future meetings.","City staff told CETA the Glenwood future master plan will proceed without one east-side private landowner; annexation is expected to go to council in April and consultants are preparing zoning and code amendments for Q2 2025.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

CETA weighs demolition, fire‑sale or covenants for aging Memorial Building

CETA members favor US Bank site as first downtown development focus

CETA: Glenwood master plan moves forward despite one landowner withdrawing