HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 05 Council Minutes AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 10/21/2013
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D C I T Y C O U N C I L Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION REQUESTED: By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes: a) September 16, 2013 – Work Session b) September 16, 2013 – Regular Meeting
DISCUSSION/ FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 16, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilors VanGordon and Wylie were absent (excused).
1. Scenario Planning Update.
Development and Public Works Department Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this
item. He distributed a flow-chart to the Council regarding the Scenario Planning process. As part of the Jobs and Transportation Act of 2009, the State imposed on the Central Lane Metropolitan Planning
Organization an obligation to conduct a scenario planning exercise with respect to how the impact of
greenhouse gas generation from vehicles of less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight could be reduced to help achieve reduction goals established by the Legislative Assembly in 2007. The State
imposed the obligation on the Portland Metro Area to create a scenario plan and adopt it into their Comprehensive Land Use Plans. The Central Lane Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was to develop one or more such scenarios, but was not directed to implement anything. This effort was to be
undertaken in concert with state actions to provide additional reductions on a statewide basis, and was to be funded by the State.
Subsequent to the adoption of the legislation, the region was able to secure a Sustainable Communities grant from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. One of the tasks under the grant
was to complement the obligation imposed by the Jobs and Transportation Act by transforming the
narrow scenario planning task into a broader range assessment of the region’s future by carrying forward, and building upon, the work done by staff in developing the Springfield 2030 Plan. Because
of the supplementary grant awarded to the Lane Livability Consortium, we had an opportunity to
consider the impact on such diverse things as economic development and public health. This would make it possible to broaden the narrow task in the Jobs and Transportation Act, to encompass a more
holistic view of how Springfield could develop and grow under the changing nature of our economy. This grant was funded by federal money, and by an additional contribution from ODOT. Although no local cash match was required, city staff had and would continue to have, significant staff time
devoted to the effort. Mr. Goodwin said the reason this idea came to the surface and was supported by the jurisdictions was
the recognition that we could reach the greenhouse gas target by looking at a more broad planning perspective. At the time, both Eugene and Springfield were involved in a Comprehensive Land Use Planning update. There was a high probability that those plans would meet the mandate of the Jobs
and Transportation Act, and the cities could go beyond those plans to see if there was something else
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 2
they may have missed that could further the community; things like economic development, public
health and land use. If they found those things useful they could consider whether or not to move forward on those things.
Mr. Goodwin said they started on this process, but it had moved forward slowly. The process was now moving along again with a new project manager, Kristen Hull of CH2M Hill, and they were in the
process of crafting a new work plan. He referred to Attachment 2 in the agenda packet which was the existing work plan. That plan would not remain once this was reviewed again. They would be looking
at it more like the flow chart distributed. He reviewed and explained the flow chart. There was an
Urban Traffic Model which was managed by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG). They were in the process of adding assumptions to that model about how Springfield and Eugene’s urban growth
boundaries (UGB) could expand. They were using the staff proposal as an assumption, although it
wasn’t reliant on the exact location of that expansion. The updates would give the City a new model on what type of transportation characteristics we may have in 2035. The legislative mandate was
adjusted by what the State was doing to reduce greenhouse gases. One of the assumptions of the State
action was that our target was 2035 with a significantly smaller reduction than it was from 1995. The Transportation Model would be tested by using a software application called GreenStep. After running
our Model through GreenStep, a result would be provided. It would do the same for Eugene and urbanized Lane County.
Mr. Goodwin said they were reasonably confident that the result would be that they met the transportation act. It was unclear what would happen if Springfield met the goal, but Eugene didn’t or vice versa. It could be that the city that didn’t meet the goal would need to make some adjustments in
order to meet the targets. If they reached a point where everyone met the targets, they would be done meeting the mandate of the State legislature. They could continue to look at other issues that were
under the HUD grant as they would be beneficial. In preparation for not meeting that mandate, staff
was looking at different things such as how economic development, land use decisions, access for all citizens, and public health impacted our community in relation to transportation needs. They would
make a list of things the City might want to consider looking at and would bring those back to the
Council for direction. Once given direction on which assumptions to look into, staff would examine each and what would be different if they changed some or combined some together. They would bring
that back to Council again for direction. After the list was determined, the jurisdictions that were part of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would decide which ones each jurisdiction wanted to use. The list determined by each jurisdiction would become the scenario selected. The Council
would then choose which of those things on the list relating to Springfield we wanted to move forward on, although it was not required.
Mr. Goodwin said it was a difficult exercise to understand and was very complex. The exercise needed to be completed by end of calendar year 2014 and reported to the legislature in January or February of 2015. The obligation to report was merely to say what we had done. He felt they would find in going
through the exercise and testing the proposed 2030 Plan that the goals of the State had been met. If they found it didn’t quite meet those goals, they could develop a number of alternatives that would
meet the goals.
Mayor Lundberg said one of the reasons she wanted to bring this to Council for discussion was
because it was nebulous and new. It came with requirements that didn’t require any action at the end
and the City had already met some of our obligations. There may not be a lot more that needed to be done and our current planning efforts may meet the goals. The work session was a chance for the
Council to discuss what was important to the Springfield community and give staff direction and help
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 3
them narrow down what they needed to work on. She asked if LTD as an MPO member would be one
of the agencies to approve the scenario.
Mr. Goodwin said they were not required to approve the scenario, but their participation would be beneficial. The work plan that existed included a statement about a regional committee. That was no longer on the table. While it was important to involve private citizens who were interested, particularly
in the business community, there was no reason to get a regional committee together that would have power or advisory ability.
Councilor Ralston said this was just busy work since we didn’t have to implement the scenario. The Mayor was correct in saying that what the City had already done would likely be enough. He asked
why they had hired a new project manager.
Mr. Goodwin said the project had stalled for about a year, so the project management team decided to
get someone more experienced in scenario planning in order to meet the timelines. This was being
funded by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), with a small portion funded from the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant.
Councilor Brew said he didn’t like to spend money just because it was someone else’s money, but he was supportive if there was an opportunity to create good ideas that the City could use as they chose.
He noted the Council Goals this addressed. He supported this in theory, but was concerned that staff time was also being used. The city had so many planning projects and studies that staff was already stretched thin. He didn’t want staff stretched too thin.
Councilor Woodrow agreed with Councilor Brew’s comment regarding staff time. She noted an article
in the paper about a reduction in Oregon’s drive time and asked if that impacted the needed results.
She asked if we had already met our goals.
Mr. Goodwin said that was one of the things they were counting on.
Councilor Moore said she had misunderstood that the current plan was what we were working under
now. She felt that if they were going to communicate this to the public, it needed to be drafted in language that was understandable. She asked if they had a scope of work.
Mr. Goodwin said a session was scheduled with the new consultant and members of the Project Management Team on September 25 to go through the work plan and recreate it in a form that was more consistent with what they were working towards now. It would not come out in simple English
due to the technical nature of the document, but they would need to work on a plan to communicate to the public in a simple fashion.
Councilor Moore referred to the HUD grant and some of the maps that had been developed and would be used for a lot of planning, not just transportation. She had seen some drafts, but wondered when
those maps would be coming to the Council.
Mr. Goodwin said he had acquired a copy of the drafts. They should be finalized the end of September
or early in October and would then be available to all of the elected officials. She was correct in that
those maps would be used for many types of planning.
Councilor Brew asked if we had met the requirements of the legislation at this time.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 4
Mr. Goodwin said they were not sure, but would know after they ran the 2030 Refinement Plan and
assumptions through the GreenSteps software.
Councilor Ralston felt it was impossible to get the right number. Councilor Brew said once the data was collected, it would come back to Council and they could
determine whether or not to move forward.
Mayor Lundberg said in the end they were mandated to have a scenario that was agreed upon by Lane
County, Eugene, Springfield and Coburg. LTD was a partner agency, but not required by legislature. At the end of 2014 we needed a scenario. Somewhere in between, Council had choices of moving
forward or not and at what levels in terms of what they felt was important in our Plan and could bring
Springfield additional benefits. She asked if the Portland model broke everything down. It looked like what we were doing already met the requirements and could be the preferred alternative. She asked if
they needed Council direction at this point.
Councilor Moore noted the direction outlined in the agenda packet was to direct staff to select private
citizens to participate in groups. Mr. Goodwin said that was correct. They wanted to know if Council supported getting private citizens,
particularly business operators, involved at this point. Councilor Moore said she was concerned that the average citizen would have a hard time
understanding this without a lot of education just to participate. She would like to see the revised work plan first. She asked if there was an easier way to explain what they were trying to accomplish.
Mr. Grimaldi said Council didn’t need to provide that direction tonight.
Councilor Ralston said he didn’t feel it was necessary. He would suggest they run what we had
through the GreenStep program and then we could be done. He didn’t feel there was a need for citizen involvement and that they would see this as government waste.
Councilor Brew said he agreed we didn’t have enough data to decide if we needed citizen involvement at this point.
Councilor Woodrow agreed. If they involved the public now it would increase the level of frustration because there was no obligation to implement.
Mayor Lundberg said the data needed to be clarified and the brought back to the Council. They needed a work plan that was more clear and easier to understand.
Mr. Goodwin said it sounded like Council needed to hear more frequently what was happening on this
project. Yes.
2. Amendments to Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan).
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. ORS 197.304 (HB 3337)
established separate Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs) for Eugene and Springfield and was the impetus for the Springfield 2030 Plan and the Envision Eugene planning initiatives. As these planning
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 5
efforts were readied for adoption, amendments to Chapter IV were needed to clarify which governing
bodies would participate in decision making given the establishment of separate UGBs.
Mr. Metzger said they were not getting rid of the whole review process, but were changing things. He referred to the significant changes as noted below and the chart in the agenda packet. Council would be meeting with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners on November 4
for a work session and public hearing on this topic.
The most significant changes to Chapter IV of the Metro Plan were:
• Three types of Metro Plan amendments were established: Type I which required the participation
of all three jurisdictions; Type II which required the participation of the home city and Lane County; and Type III amendments which may be enacted by the home city alone. The current policy defined only two types of amendments: Types I and II. Under the amended Chapter IV,
adoption of the Springfield 2030 Plan and other Springfield-specific amendments would be a Type II decision approved with the participation of the City and Lane County.
• The proposed amendments removed references to Metro Plan amendments with “regional impact.” Removal of the regional impact language did not change similar language found in Chapter VI of
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) which provided for multi-jurisdictional review of public facility projects which had a significant impact
on water, stormwater, wastewater and electrical facilities serving more than one jurisdiction.
• When governing bodies did not reach consensus on a Metro Plan amendment, the current policy
sent the matter to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The proposed amendments would send unresolved decisions to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and one or both of
the Mayors of Eugene and Springfield for resolution, depending on how many governing bodies
were participating in the decision.
These amendments were reviewed in work session on March 11, 2013. Attachment 1 of the agenda
packet contained the proposed Chapter IV amendments which had been updated since last March. Attachment 2 of the agenda packet was a chart comparing the current and proposed standards for
Chapter IV. Mayor Lundberg asked the Council if they needed an overview of this subject. No.
Councilor Ralston said he thought the whole idea of HB 3337 was to detach ourselves from the City of Eugene. He didn’t understand why three types were needed.
Mr. Metzger said there were circumstances where the City (Springfield) made decisions alone (Type III), some were outside City limits but inside our urban growth boundary (UGB) (Type II), and there
were some that required all three jurisdictions (Type I).
City Attorney Mary Bridget Smith said an example of a Type I amendment would be if Springfield
wanted to change the UGB boundary along I-5 which was shared by the City of Springfield and the City of Eugene. There was also a section of the Metro Plan called Fundamental Principles which
included policies that applied to the whole area, not just one city or jurisdiction. If those were to be
changed, it would require all three jurisdictions. Most of the changes would be Type II and Type III. The County would likely be involved in most issues. The instances where all three would need to
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 6
approve something would be slim, but they still needed a process. The amendment tried to make it
clearer of who would be involved.
Mr. Metzger said the City was achieving functional autonomy, but still retaining the ability to weigh in on high level policy in the current Metro Plan that were not site specific. The Metro Plan would be transitional. Staff was working through this process and would be replacing many parts of the Metro
Plan. In the end, there would be some type of structure looking at how Eugene, Springfield and Lane County would collaborate in planning work in the future.
Councilor Brew asked if there was a lot of controversy in the changes being proposed.
Mr. Metzger said they thought it might be on the Eugene side, but now they were more on board as
they moved through their Envision Eugene process. They needed to do it in a way that did not hurt each jurisdiction. They were required by State law to have a Comprehensive Plan. Staff would be
coming back with additional changes over time. The goal was autonomy within a framework that
allowed for collaboration.
Ms. Smith said they had done outreach with potential stakeholders that might have an issue with these changes, but they seemed to be fine with the changes. There may be some that were opposed.
Councilor Ralston said he knew there might not be many cases that would be Type I. He didn’t want to open the door to allow Eugene to object something Springfield was doing and make it a Type I.
Mr. Metzger said the way it was being proposed, if it was site specific within Springfield alone, only Springfield would make the decision. If it was within Springfield’s UGB, Springfield and Lane
County would be involved. There were some issues, such as stormwater channels that ran through
both cities. If one city wanted to do something that would significantly impact that channel on either side, both cities would be involved. If there was no impact, only the affected city would be involved.
That was the way both cities wanted it.
Councilor Ralston said it needed to be clear there needed to be an impact.
Mr. Metzger said current language said only a significant impact on a utility type facility would trigger all three jurisdictions being involved. Also changing of text in the Metro Plan that affected all three
jurisdictions would require involvement by all three. Councilor Moore said they did live in the same region and things did affect one another. They already
had a lot of regional cooperation and in fifty years the two cities could be one. She appreciated the fact we were individual entities, but wanted to maintain good cooperative regional relationships.
Councilor Woodrow said the impact would need to be a tangible impact.
Mayor Lundberg said the Veteran’s Administration (VA) Hospital would impact Springfield’s
transportation significantly so Springfield would want to be involved.
Mr. Metzger said there was a separate chapter on making changes to the TransPlan in its current form.
If the TransPlan had to be amended to accommodate the VA Hospital or to deal with an influx of traffic, there was a financial connection for transportation in particular.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 7
Mr. Grimaldi said if a facility went in and didn’t require a change to the Metro Plan and didn’t show a
significant impact to Springfield, Eugene could act without Springfield’s input.
Mayor Lundberg said we should be looking at the impact of that facility. Mr. Metzger said changes being considered now would be for Chapter IV which would affect how
TransPlan amendments were made.
Mayor Lundberg said that was one place having more autonomy could impact Springfield negatively.
Mr. Metzger said determining where to collaborate in the future was part of Scenario Planning. There
were other communities with similar situations. He explained.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa City Recorder
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013
The City of Springfield Council met in regular session in the Council Chambers, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, September 16, 2013 at 7:02 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Brew. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Finance Director Bob Duey, City Attorney Mary Bridget
Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff. Councilor VanGordon was absent (excused).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Lundberg.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
1. Recognition of Sonny Starr of Starr Talk with Sonny Starr.
Mayor Lundberg introduced Sonny Starr who had a radio program that he broadcast from his home in Springfield.
Mr. Starr introduced John Brambora who had been doing the show with Mr. Starr since the beginning. He introduced his parents, his daughter Stephanie, Erin, and his son Chuck.
Mayor Lundberg read from a letter she had written for Mr. Starr congratulating him on the 300th episode of his successful radio program, “Starr Talk with Sonny Starr” broadcast in Springfield. The
guests Mr. Starr had hosted over the years included some of the biggest names in Hollywood history. His program had been recognized by many in the industry and she thanked him for presenting a positive image of Springfield.
2. Look Me in the Eye Proclamation.
Mayor Lundberg introduced Chrystal Burns and Deborah McClure from Full Access. The Mayor read from the proclamation which proclaimed September 2013 as “Look Me In the Eye” month and
encouraged all citizens of our community to participate in seeing, respecting and including one
another.
Mayor Lundberg presented the proclamation to Ms. Burns and Ms. McClure.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 2
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Claims a. Approval of the July 2013, Disbursements for Approval.
b. Approval of the August 2013, Disbursements for Approval.
2. Minutes
a. July 15, 2013 – TEAM Springfield Meeting
b. July 22, 2013 – Work Session
c. July 22, 2013 – Special Regular Meeting
3. Resolutions
4. Ordinances
5. Other Routine Matters a. Allow Construction Activities Outside of the Hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. with Conditions as
Described in Attachment 1, for the Rehabilitation and Repair of the Westbound Willamette River Bridget on Highway OR-126 (Main Street).
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR RALSTON TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5
FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
ITEMS REMOVED
PUBLIC HEARINGS - Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Request to speak cards are available at
both entrances. Please present cards to City Recorder. Speakers may not
yield their time to others. 1. Proposed Amendment of the Springfield Municipal Code 4.428
[Kim Singleton] (10 Minutes)
ORDINANCE NO. 1 – AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTER 4, GARBAGE AND REFUSE, TO ELIMINATE DISCREPENCIES EXISTING BETWEEN ILLICIT DISCHARGE, SECTION 4.372, AND DEPOSIT OF REFUSE
UPON PROPERTY OF ANOTHER OR UPON PUBLIC PROPERTY, SECTION 4.428, TO ENSURE PROPER HANDLING OF SIDEWALK DIRT AND DEBRIS AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (FIRST READING).
Environmental Services Technician Kim Singleton presented the staff report on this item. The City
held National Pollution Discharge Elimination permit (NPDES) with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) to prevent the introduction of pollutants to our local waterways as they eventually discharged into the Willamette and McKenzie Rivers. A requirement of the MS4 permit
was to develop a stormwater management plan with six minimum control measures. The third of those
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 3
six measures required the detection and elimination of sources of pollutants. Once pollutants were
found, they needed to be addressed. Education was the primary and preferred way those were addressed, but they also had the capability of having permit language in the rare cases enforcement
action was needed. Ms. Singleton said Springfield Municipal Code (SMC) 4.372 stated “No person in charge shall place or
cause to be placed a substance which is harmful to or has a tendency to clog any city stormwater
management system or permit such substance in the control of such person to enter the city stormwater
management system.” It was brought to staff’s attention that there was a discrepancy between SMC 4.372 and SMC 4.428. Currently, the last line of SMC 4.428 permitted the sweeping of dirt and debris from sidewalks into the public right-of-way. That line was added years ago in order for businesses to coordinate with our maintenance staff to sweep debris into the right-of-way just before the sweeper came through. It ended up not being very effective as sweeping schedules changed. SMC 5.272 stated “Except as provided in sections 3.200 to 3.310, no person shall place or deposit upon any street, alley, sidewalk, bike path, parking lot or any other public way, any substance tending to mar the appearance, or to detract from the cleanliness or safety of the street, alley, sidewalk, bike path, parking lot or other public way.”
The current code language is a source of confusion for citizens, and staff may be unable to enforce
necessary sections of SMC 4.372 in order to address situations of larger-scale deposition of dirt and debris
into public streets. Adoption of the proposed Ordinance would remove the sentence from SMC 4.428
which allowed this practice, creating a clear and consistent message to citizens and City staff regarding the
handling of dirt and debris on sidewalks. Staff would not be aggressively looking for people violating this code, but would address the issue when discovered or brought to their attention.
The proposed SMC amendment had been reviewed and approved by the City’s Operations Division, Code Enforcement group, Environmental Services Division staff, and the Office of the City Attorney.
Mayor Lundberg opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Lundberg closed the public hearing.
FIRST READING ONLY. NO ACTION REQUESTED. BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
1. Correspondence from Jim Straub, Oak Management LLC, Regarding the Proposed Expansion of
the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
RALSTON TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – WOODROW)
BIDS
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 4
ORDINANCES
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments
a. Police Planning Task Force Appointment.
Mike Harman, Senior Management Analyst for the Police Department presented this item. The
Police Planning Task Force had one at-large position available from the resignation of Pat Mahoney. One other at-large position was open with an eligible re-appointment candidate.
Jack Martin applied for re-appointment to the Task Force and was eligible for a second term.
Pat Mahoney resigned from her at-large position due to moving away from the area.
On August 29th , a total of five applicants were interviewed by a subcommittee of the Task Force
consisting of Diana Alldredge (Chair), Chris Stole (Vice Chair) and Dave Jacobson. The subcommittee recommended that either Isa Aviad or Carol Ford be appointed to the open position. After discussion at the September 9th work session, the Council requested the opportunity to
review the procedures for making appointments to board and commissions prior to making the appointment to the open position.
The subcommittee further recommended the re-appointment of Jack Martin for a second term. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WYLIE WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO REAPPOINT JACK MARTIN TO THE POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
1. League of Oregon Cities Conference – Voting Delegate Designation.
City Manager Gino Grimaldi presented the staff report on this item. The annual business meeting of the League of Oregon Cities would be held on Saturday, September 28, 2013, in conjunction with the League of Oregon Cities Conference, September 26-28, 2013, at the Red Lion on the River (Jantzen
Beach) in Portland, Oregon. Each city was entitled to cast one vote at the business meeting.
Therefore a voting delegate was needed to represent Springfield.
Those attending from the City of Springfield included City Councilors Wylie and Moore. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR RALSTON WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
WOODROW TO DESIGNATE HILLARY WYLIE AS THE VOTING DELEGATE AND SHERI MOORE AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE UPCOMING LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 26-28, 2013. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST (1 ABSENT – VANGORDON).
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 2013 Page 5
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m.
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg Mayor
Attest:
____________________
City Recorder