Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/22/2010 Work Session City of Springfield , Work Session Meeting , MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF ' ~ THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2010 The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the. Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 22, 2010 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Leiken presiding.. . ATTENDANCE Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ralston, Lundberg, Wylie, Moore, Simmons, and Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Joe Leahy, City Recorder Amy Sowa, and members of the staff. 1. System 'Development Charge (SDC) Credits. Assistant Public Works Director Len Goodwin presented the staff report on this item. Following up on a work session held September 27, 2010, staff prepared a draft of an amendment to the Springfield Municipal Code which would, if adopted, make two changes with respect to SDCs: 1) allow excess improvement credits resulting from the construction of a qualified public improvement to be used on other developments of the ,same developer or transferred to other developers for future use (all within the statutory 10 year period); and 2) base SDCs on the net change in intensity of use between the proposed use and the most intense use on the site since the adoption of the last infrastructure system plan. Staff believed that neither of these changes would substantially reduce SDC revenues. Mr. Goodwin explained the two. changes being recommended. The actual revenue impact on the City from either option would be minimal, although it was difficult.to be sure. Regarding the qualified public improvement, there were two to three developments a year that required a qualified public improvement off site. In most cases, the cost of the improvement was less than their SDCs. It was rare that the cost of the improvement exceeded the cost of the SDCs. It could happen in large developments, such as the PeaceHealth complex. From staff s perspective it was. reasonable to allow the excess credits to be transferred because the improvement had been built. . Councilor Ralston said he was surprised that on the first option, excess credits could be used by the same developers or transferred to another developer. He asked if Mr. Goodwin could explain a . situation in which excess credits could be transferred to another developer. Mr. Goodwin said if a developer had to build anoff--site improvement worth $1M and the SDCs were $500,000, they would have $500,000 in credit. From a revenue perspective, it didn't matter where. that , credit was used, on that developer's next project or another developer's project. SDCs were collected citywide, not by geographical area. Once the SDCs were determined, staff looked at the project list citywide. There was no disadvantage to the City as long as the SDCs were used within the City. Councilor Pishioneri asked for clarification on the transfer of SDC's to another developer City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 2 Mr. Goodwin said the. credits would belong to the original developer. Under this proposal, the original developer would be allowed to transfer or sell the credit to another developer who would also have to come in and pay SDCs. Councilor Pishioneri asked if that was the same for non-profits. Mr. Goodwin said all SDCs went into a bank for a list of specific projects. The credit only went into ` existence when the developer built one of those specific projects. If the money was collected because ' it was not needed for a developer's project, it could be construed as the City overcollecting. Councilor Pishioneri asked if this would show whether or not our SDCs were set at an appropriate level and with the correct methodology. He explained. . Mr. Goodwin said it may not address that issue, but could show that- our methodology was not adequately calculating the costs of the projects. Councilor Lundberg said she liked that this. seemed responsive to development issues. It was a tool to manage our public infrastructure. She liked that it had anon-profit component as they often have a difficult time with the costs associated with development. She was concerned about the management . of the program. She asked if the City would be collecting annually. Mr. Goodwin said staff was suggesting a small annual fee, such as $250 a year, to cover managing the program. Councilor Lundberg confirmed the 10 year time frame. She asked when Council would see this again to see if the program was working as it should. Mr. Goodwin, said it would come to Council annually as the budget was prepared for the SDC capital projects funds. One of the things staff would expect to tell the Budget Committee and Council was how the City's revenue streams were developing and if they were adequate. The existence of a large liability from these credits would also be reported. Councilor Moore referred to a statement about the benefit of this credit as the City looked to expand the urban growth boundary. She asked how that would assist. Mr. Goodwin provided the following example. The City contemplated in the next Wastewater :.Revenue Bond to create revenue for the Jasper Natron trunk sewer. If someone wanted a major ' development in Natron, that sewer would be necessary. That would be a $SM-$8M construction project. A developer would have the option to spend that $8M and build a sewer and get an SDC: credit. It was unlikely their SDCs for wastewater would be $8M; so they would run the risk of losing some of that money. Currently, the only option to deal with that was the Reimbursement District where the developer funded the project, then collected as other development occurred connected to the system. That was also a risk to the developer. If they knew they had a. credit they could use on any other project in Springfield, or maybe sell to another developer, they had a better chance of recovering . the full cost of their investment. This could create a good incentive. Councilor Simmons said he agreed with the generic SDC issue. When there were specific development requirements needed, it could be very complex. He gave an example and said Jasper Natron was another illustration. He was concerned it could become very complex, and the citizens would not be gaining any revenue. The generic angle he supported, but the specific development ' - ~ _ City of Springfield . Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 3 requirements those funds were earmarked for needed to be done. If the credits were used as an offset, it complicated where the funds would come from to do the projects. Mr. Goodwin said the development improvements that were required as condition of approval were generally not projects on the SDC capital projects list. Therefore,- the credit would not be available. In situations where the credits were available, they generally involved things like oversizing and overdepth. In those cases, the credit only consisted of that portion of the cost that exceeded what the developer could be required to install as condition of approval. They would not be given credit for things that they were required to do. Mr. Goodwin said this would come back to Council in January as an ordinance. 2: Street Conditions Report. ~ ' Maintenance Manager Brian Conlon and Senior Management Analyst Rhonda Rice presented the staff report on this item. The 2010 Street Conditions Report was an updated inventory of all the City's streets within the city limits and an assessment of street preservation and funding needs. The Report detailed the process, and summarized the results of categorizing the Arterial, Collector and Local street systems into three condition ratings: Good, Fair, and Poor. The importance of a Street Condition inventory was to establish a preservation program based on proven methodology that produced predictable results. City streets were resurveyed every two years. , In 2008, the Mayor's Street Fund Task Force reviewed the Street Conditions Report, which formed the basis for the Task Force's recommendations to the City Council. At that time, the Task Force recommended that the City's streets should be maintained at 85% Fair or Better condition in order to maintain the most cost-effective approach to extend the design lives of the streets. The Task Force also recommended a funding level of $1.6 million annually as necessary to reduce the backlog of streets in need of preservation treatments. Because of declining revenues in the City's Street Fund, the City had not been able to meet that ,funding objective nor perform street preservation activities except for those funded through grant ' sources, and routine maintenance activities had been markedly curtailed. This had resulted in the steady decline of the City street system, and the current inventory of City streets at 56% Fair or Better condition. The .Street Conditions Report illustrated the trend in street conditions given declining maintenance and preservation activities, and provided three forward-looking. illustrative scenarios and the funding requirements for each. While specific direction or action was not requested at this time, Council feedback on the Report and any particular expectations as we moved into the fiscal year 2011- 12 was welcomed. Staff were prepared to explore opportunities to meet the challenges posed by the preservation and revenue needs at a future work session if Council wished to pursue that discussion. Mr. Conlon noted that this report was the most comprehensive edition of the report. Rhonda Rice, Department Assistant, Greg Ferschweiller and his staff also helped to put this report together. There were three phases to this report. The first was to resurvey the streets, which was done during the summer. The second part was entering the information into the Hansen System, and the third part was developing -the report. He noted the power point presentation that would be presented during tonight's meeting. Mr. Conlon said one of the fundamental transportation objectives was to maintain and improve the street system through pavement preservation. That was getting more challenging with the lack of funds. Over the last three construction cycles, the City had not performed any preservation or ~. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 4 maintenance on streets, other than overlays done with STIP-U (Federal) grant funds. He discussed the Mayor's Task Force (see above}. One element not included in this report was the assessment of concrete streets. That would be done in the next assessment. Mr. Conlon referred to the power point and noted that 88% of the City streets were improved. Ms. Rice noted that the street inventory was shown in lane miles. Mr. Conlon shared some examples of some of the street classifications, such as local streets (residential), collector streets (i.e. 21St Street, Daisy, and Laura Street), and minor arterials (i.e. Thurston Road, 42nd Street, Pioneer Parkway, and Centennial). Ms. Rice. reviewed the figures of the condition of each of the types of streets. Mr. Conlon, said the local .and collector streets were starting to deteriorate. Strategically, it was best to . have a more balanced. funding strategy. _ _ % Councilor Ralston said the first slides showed. huge decreases. He assumed that the older streets deteriorated more quickly due to their age. Mr. Conlon said that was correct. Some of the streets were fifty years and older. Springfield had taken a lot of pride in the maintaining their streets over the last twenty-five years. It was frustrating over the last few cycles to see how much decline there had been. He felt they could recapture some of that loss, but it would take strategic .planning to get the funding. The figure of 85% or better was from a survey, not an actual condition reading at that time. We were at about 78%. Mayor Leiken said the County ended the City/County partnership in 2007. The loss of the Secure Rural Schools funds affected not only the County, but also the cities. He always appreciated the County sharing those funds. Losing that funding was a big part of our streets deteriorating. The graphs reflected when that partnership ended and we lost $500,000 to $1M in funding. Mr. Conlon said-that was a good point. Taxpayers paid attention to the streets they lived on. The city was able to slurry seal 18 linear miles of streets with $325,000. He referred to the slides showing the different types of street maintenance: Once the streets started to crack, sealing was the best way to. restore the street. On arterial collector streets, that was the main preservation of the streets. Raveling was deterioration of the surface rock on the asphalt. Slurry seal was a great application treatment for local residential streets, but they didn't often do slurry seals on the arterial collector system as it was not the most effective. They would instead, let it degrade a little further, seal the cracks and then program the overlays. He referred to a slide with base failure, which was more expensive to repair. Mr. Goodwin referred to the slide showing the ten year history of the financial plan from FY2003 through FY2013, showing the local fuel tax as part of the funding. The fuel tax brought in the needed funds when the County money was starting to decline. Staff predicted that funding source would help us get through 2008, which was what had occurred. The cost of repair had also increased since that time. The City had now experienced three cycles of loss of preservation, reaching the point where our streets were deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Conlon and Ms. Rice would present Council with an analysis of what would need to be done to reverse that trend. Mr. Conlon referred to the slide of Optimum Preservation Program which proposed a $2,515,103 funding strategy for preservation maintenance. This would also reduce the backlog of streets. Ms. Rice reviewed this graph and explained it further. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 ~ . Page 5 Mr. Conlon referred to the slide of Maintaining Current Preservation Status. This scenario would maintain 2010 street condition levels at a cost of $1,134,894. The third scenario would maintain Current Level of Funding at $900,149.- Ms. Rice said the third scenario was with FY10 funding, not FYl 1. She referred to a slide showing a bar graph of the different scenarios.. Mayor Leiken said when HB2001 was passed, it implemented a six cent statewide gas tax along with a 4 year pre-emption on cities passing a local gas tax. Also included in this bill was the formula for the funds. The new formula was 50% (ODOT), 30% (counties), and 20% (cities) for the new funds, but would remain 60% (ODOT), 24% (counties) and 16% (cities) for the original gas tax. This would still not be enough to cover our preservation costs. The Mayor's Task Force did have some recommendations. If the City was going to look to protect this critical infrastructure in our City, it . would be important to determine how to do this in the best way and gain the confidence in the voters. This was tough, but not something that couldn't be overcome. A strategy needed to be in place and the Council needed to be on board to look ahead to the next 10 or 20 years. He felt staff had done an outstanding job with the street fund. The report was not as bad as it could have been. It was a good report and there could be some things that could be done. He appreciated staff's work.. Councilor Simmons said it was ironic that the cost per lane mile over a life cycle of concrete was substantially lower than asphalt. He had observed that the City had speed the streets using inferior products for the base. South 42nd Street used a higher quality base. It was important to use the best technology. The examples were due to failure to use higher technology in pavement structure. The issue of revenue was another issue. The specifications for streets needed to be enhanced for the next century because we wouldn't have the revenue we had in the past for maintenance. The reason the County gave Springfield funds was because they had it, and the City had taken over jurisdiction of some County streets: Harlow Road was an example. If we hadn't received Federal funding for repair of that road, we would have been in very bad shape. A life cycle analysis needed to be done along with good quality base work. He spoke regarding crack sealing and noted that Valley River Center, in their parking lot, had used quarter minus to fill those cracks. The traffic then beat down the rock into the crack. He suggested staff try this in some test locations. Staff did super work, but he would like ~to see stronger specifications, quarry material, and constant monitoring of the products to make sure they met specifications. Mr. Conlon said South 42nd was better engineered: The surface would wear, but staff would be able to go in and do minimalistic repair. Councilor Simmons said the~City did a good job, but they needed to work to do a better job.. Mr. Goodwin said they had tightened the specifications recently: They always required bids in both asphalt and concrete, including maintenance costs. At today's costs, concrete streets were being awarded more often because asphalt costs had risen so much. Staff was also doing alternative analysis on all streets. Councilor Ralston said accelerated deterioration coupled with the rising costs of reconstruction caused a serious problem. The question was how to pay. Gas taxes were not allowed right now so that was not an option. He would like to hear the options such as bonding or a transportation improvement fee. The public needed to be educated about the problem. t City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 6 Ms. Smith said they had anticipated a two phase conversation with Council on this topic. Staff hoped to bring it back in follow-up work session with options and processes for engaging citizens. Mayor Leiken said the committee had recommended a Transportation Utility Fee (TUF). Councilor Lundberg said she recalled that streets were one of the City's core services and we needed . to take care of our streets. Springf eld had done a better job than some communities. She noted the signs that had been put up in areas that told citizens. that certain improvements were being paid for by the taxes, and said those were important. Last time the City did have a chance to raise the fuel tax by two cents, the citizens did not pass that vote. There was still the issue of wanting something and being willing to pay. If we couldn't pass a gas tax, we needed to look at a TUF. She referred. to page 15 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet, regarding different funding and different needs. She confirmed that the graph for reducing the backlog by 15% was the wish list, the graph that showed maintaining 2010 condition levels, was in the middle, and current funding was last. She asked why current funding included more for minor arterials than the graph for maintaining. There was very little funding for collector streets. She asked if money could be moved around. Mr. Goodwin said the current funding was due to the infusion of ARRA (America Recovery and.: Reinvestment Act) funding from the Federal Government, which could only be used for certain preservation. It was not a sustainable funding source. Councilor Lundberg said reducing the backlog by 15% would be the ideal. It was going to take a combination of more money and choices of where to repair.. They needed to look at particular areas to determine where we could get the most with our funding. Mr: Conlon said part of the strategy was determining that balance. Slurry seal was the best buy for the local residential system. Staff would continue to look at the arterial collector system because it had the most vehicle traffic. - . Ms. Smith said the graph-was a misnomer. She said preservation was basically down to zero, other than the Federal grants, and the maintenance programs were limited to minor arterials'and some collectors. There was nothing for local arterials. Councilor Wylie said there was a catch 22 in dealing with the citizens. Our roads were in pretty good condition, so people didn't see the crisis until the roads were crumbling, and then it was too late. As communicators, it was a difficult situation to get the public supportive. She was, very interested in ideas of where .we could get funding. ..Councilor Moore thanked the staff for their comprehensive report. She wanted to know how to get this out to the public to get them informed, and in a way that they could understand. She asked if there 'were other ways to simplify this and get the word out there to the public. - Mr. Conlon said for people to support this they needed to be educated. Staff needed to find ways to engage the public. The Task Force was a start. There were_ limited funds, but the costs down the road would be, higher: if nothing was done now. Councilor Moore said the public knew the reality, but we .needed to get the word out to them in a way they could comprehend exactly what it meant. City of Springfield. _ Council, Work Session Minutes November 22, 201 U - .Page 7 . Mayor Leiken said when they went out for the gas tax, it was difficult because the economy was turning and it was challenging to convince people. People needed to have confidence that the City was using the tax revenue we said we would. He appreciated the signs indicating that the gas tax was being used for specific projects. If the City chose to go with a TUF, they should first meet with Ginny. (Virginia Lauritsen) on the Springfield Utility Board (SUB) because they collected that fee.. If they could get support from Ms. Lauritsen, they could probably get support from the rest of the Board.. Mr. Grimaldi said this topic would come back to Council. Councilor Pishioneri asked about South 70~' Street. Mr. Conlon said staff was doing outreach to property owners. In 2008, Council allowed for unimproved streets to receive overlay with property owners paying for the materials. He noted a . couple of other streets that~would be overlaid this summer because the residents would be paying for materials. Ronna Frank, a member of the task force, was also pursuing 32 property owners from the top of South 71 sc to E Street for purchase of materials. People were seeing it was a good deal for them. . Councilor Pishioneri said South 70'~ Street was in the City and was part of the core service which was shared by all. When there were a certain percentage of homes on a street occupied by renters, the landlords .had no interest in paying for the street improvement, so it was difficult to get property owners interested. Mr. Conlon said he would like to speak to Councilor Pishioneri further about options of a cost share using future maintenance and repair costs in the formula. Councilor Pishioneri noted the number of times that street had been repaired with gravel. 3. Mayor Vacancy Process. ' City. Manager Gino Grimaldi and City Attorney Joe Leahy presented the report on this item. Mayor Leiken had submitted his letter. of resignation, effective on or before December 3, 2010, due to his election to the position of Lane County Commissioner. The position of Mayor was-to be filled by appointment by the Council. The Springfield Charter stated that when there was a vacancy in the position of Mayor or Council, it "shall be filled by appointment by a majority of the Council"..The Council could determine the process used to fill the vacancy. In the past, when a vacancy had occurred in the Mayor's position, Council had chosen to appoint a ,member of the Council to fill the vacant Mayor's position. The Council also has the option of selecting a citizen of Springfield who was not currently a Council member, either through a recruitment/interview process, or some other process. The appointee would fill the remainder of Mayor Leiken's term, which expired December 31, 2012.If the person appointed chose to run for another term, the election for this position would be held in May of 2012. Mr. Grimaldi said Council had some decisions to make when moving through this process. City of Springfield ~ . Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 8 Mayor Leiken said he had drafted some questions that could be used for those interested in putting - their name in for Mayor. The City Recorder distributed copies of those questions. He noted that there were no instructions on how to be a Mayor and the Charter had few details other than mandated duties. He appreciated where Springfield had come over the years, and the elected officials that had come - before him. There were a lot of exciting things that would be happening in our community. Being part. of the Oregon Mayor's Association had been a big help. Mr. Leahy said he had written down some practical things in the memo included in their agenda packet. He included all things, even those that would most likely be eliminated. Tonight was just discussion about the process. . Mayor Leiken said he was still serving as Mayor until up to December 3; 2010. Mr: Leahy said Mayor Leiken would be Mayor until he decided to leave. Councilor Ralston said his number one priority was to make this as simple as possible. They had not- talked about it before, but implied they would be choosing from the Council membership. Councilor Pishioneri said it hadn't been discussed. Councilor -Ralston said they had talked but not officially. The last two people who had filled the. Mayor position were Councilors. He was originally under the impression that a person could not nominate themselves, but he had learned that those that wished to be Mayor could nominate themselves with no second necessary. Then they could'do a public vote in the regular meeting or.a ballot vote during the regular meeting. They would need to receive a vote of 4 for to~ win. He felt that process would be the most simple. Mayor Leiken said the final Council meeting was scheduled for December 6. The Charter stated that the Mayor would deliver an annual message to the Council at the start of each calendar year. If the Council did not have a decision, he asked who would deliver the Mayor's State of the City address in January. Councilor Simmons said they couldn't replace the Mayor until the Mayor had stepped down. If they voted on December 6 or any other time, the Mayor had to have stepped down at that point. so there was a vacancy. They could discuss and nominate tonight, but couldn't decide unless the Mayor stepped down. Mr. Leahy said they had not, noticed publicly that they would elect tonight, so it would be in their best interest not to appoint tonight. If they didn't have a Mayor by the first part of January, they could either reschedule the State of the City to the end of January or the Council President could deliver the message. He spoke regarding the process outlined by Councilor Ralston, and noted that it wouldn't be required that someone drop off if they got the least amount of votes, unless Council made that part of the process. Councilor Ralston said. he was just suggesting that as a possible scenario and something for the Council to discuss. He was not suggesting making a decision tonight, but rather on December 6. Tonight the Council was just discussing the process. Councilor Wylie said she would like to make some decisions on the process tonight, and also formalize the nominations so they would be prepared to vote on December 6. City of Springfield . Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 9 Councilor Moore asked if they needed to make a motion to choose from the sitting Council.. She wanted it to be part of the public record. Councilor Ralston said they could do that by consensus rather than by motion: All Councilors agreed. Councilor Wylie said she had received questions about why they were not going out to the public. There were three very qualified Councilors that had interest, so she felt there was no need to go . outside of the Council. They were up to date on what was going on with the City and were qualified. Councilor Ralston said generally it was perceived that the Councilors were already elected to represent the citizens. Appointing someone from outside was more risky than appointing someone already elected and who knew the issues of the City. Councilor Moore said she wanted to let the public know why they were choosing from among themselves, and she appreciated the comments explaining.. She appreciated the questions submitted by the Mayor. If they created nominations tonight, she would like ~to hear some answers to the questions . proposed. She felt that anyone who would like to be the Mayor should answer the questions. Councilor Lundberg said she liked it simple and how it was laid out. She liked having the nominations now, and she liked the questions submitted. Other questions could also be added if needed. She felt . ~~those interested should answer the questions either verbally or in written form. Councilor Ralston said he wasn't sure each nominated person should sit and answer all of the questions verbally, but rather in written form. Councilor Lundberg said if they chose to have questions, each nominated person should answer them. Councilor Simmons said it made sense to have written responses by a date certain so they could be included in the agenda .packet for December 6. ~ ' Mr. Grimaldi said the packet would go out Thursday, December 2, so they could be received by Tuesday, November 30 in the City Manager's Office. Councilor Pishioneri said these were just examples of questions. He might be interested in adding other questions and would like all of the Councilors to have that opportunity.. , Councilor Simmons said they would need a date certain for revisions. Councilor Pishioneri said it sounded like things were getting more complicated. If councilors had questions of the interested councilors, perhaps they could call and talk individually with those people.. . Mr. Leahy said it might be difficult. for all councilors to have one on one conversations with each other. It might appear the process was not done in public. He agreed that it may be better to choose two or three questions that were important and stress those. Have those questions written and provided in the packet.. Councilor Wylie said she liked the questions presented by Mayor Leiken. She asked if each councilor - could add two questions of their own and email them to the City Recorder who could send them out to those that were nominated. Those that were nominated needed to have the same set of questions. City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010 Page 10 Councilor Pishioneri felt that just three general questions could be used. Discussion was held on some of the questions drafted by the Mayor. . . Mayor Leiken noted that Councilor-elect Woodrow would be on the Council soon. He asked for her thoughts. Councilor-elect Woodrow said she liked keeping it simple and choosing just a few questions. She liked questions. 3, 4 and 6, but also question 2 regarding the role of the Mayor in relation to the community and the Council. She explained further. They could get the answers they needed from those four questions. If choosing from the current Council, there was no need to discuss civic or work . involvement since they would already know that information. Councilor Moore suggested that the role of the Mayor .should be a question for all councilors. Each councilor would have a different idea of the role of the Mayor. Mayor Leiken had set the bar very high. : . .Mayor Leiken said he believed that whoever was selected Mayor, needed to put their own fingerprint on the position. He wanted the next Mayor to do the job how they saw fit. The issues would be similar; but the community could be moving in different direction. The role of the Mayor would be how that . individual felt. ~ ~. . Councilor Woodrow said that's what made their response important, so she could hear each candidate's perspective. Councilor Ralston said it looked like they would be going with questions 2, 3, 4 and the first part of 6. Councilor Pshioneri said those were good questions. He commented on the last part of question 7 . regarding bringing unity to the Council. He felt that ,this could indicate. that there could be an issue and he felt that the Council always displayed a professional manner and demeanor. Each Councilor represented the citizens, so regardless of who was selected, there was no loss of community.. Mayor Leiken said Councilor Pishioneri just answered the question. Question 7 would not be included. Councilor Pishioneri said he wanted the public to know this was not a .battle in any way. Mr. Leahy said staff-understood that. , Mr. Grimaldi said answers to the questions needed to be to the City Manager's Office by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 30. . Discussion was held regarding whether or not to have nominations this evening. Mr. Leahy said they could either indicate by turning in the questions by the 30~', an expression of interest, or indicate interest during tonight's meeting. `- City of Springfield Council Work Session Minutes November 22, 2010. Page 11 . Councilor Simmons said he would like the privilege to nominate. Christine Lundberg as a potential candidate for the Mayoral position. He had said that to the media and the other councilors. This was . his third Mayoral replacement process. Each of the previous Mayors had left for different reasons and each had served admirably. Springfield had been fortunate to have a series of good Mayors. Mr. Leahy said Councilor Lundberg should first express her interest. Then others that were interested could also express that interest. Councilor Ralston said the nominations could be presented on December 6. Councilor Lundberg said she was interested. Councilor Ralston said he was interested. ~ - Councilor Pishioneri said he was interested. The City Recorder confirmed the questions. She said she would send the questions to the Council that night or the next day. Mr. Leahy asked. what process they would like to use for voting on December 6. Councilor Ralston asked the Council their preference: vote by raising of hands, by written ballot, etc. Council wanted to vote using the voting board. Because there could be more than one candidate, it was decided that voting by raising hands for each candidate might be more appropriate. Mr. Leahy said if no one candidate received four votes on the first round, they could vote again until a majority was reached. Mr. Grimaldi asked if the order of the vote would matter. , Council said it was not an issue. Councilor Ralston said the vote should be unanimous if possible. Discussion was held regarding a unanimous vote. It was determined- that the vote may not be .unanimous, which was fine. Councilor Moore said one of the suggestions on the City Attorney's memo was to consider public involvement. Mr. Leahy said there was public involvement in that the public.would have access to the questions and , would hear the answers. Mr. Grimaldi asked if they wanted the answers to the questions presented by the candidates or just in written form. Council consensus was to have them in written form. 4. Other Business. City of Springfield ~ . Council Work Session Minutes ~ November 22, 2010 . Page 12 Councilor Simmons spoke regarding the issue of the Emerald Empire Arts Association request. Letters had been received by the Councilors that day (some had not yet read the. letter) regarding roof . replacement. This was a critical issue. The community needed to come together with either a City loan or some other support. It was critical that they did not have major structural damage to that building as a result of the roof leak. This building was an anchor point for downtown. Mr. Grimaldi said staff could present something to Council on December 6. It was discussed that if the Arts Association applied for grants, it would be too late by the time they received the funds, and this was a timing issue: Councilor-elect Woodrow asked which of the councilors wanted to be part of the Christmas Parade. All of them said they wanted to participate. Mayor Leiken said this was his last meeting as Mayor. It had been his honor'and he had enjoyed serving with the Council. He was looking forward to his next challenge. Serving as Mayor was one of . the greatest opportunities a person could have. He noted the great things that had happened in Springfield over the years. One of his predecessors had talked about planting the seed in the Gateway area that the current Council had seen come to fruition. He felt good knowing he had a part in planting the seeds for Downtown and Glenwood. The Council offered applause for Mayor Leiken. a ADJOLRNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:58 p:m. Minutes Recorder -Amy Sowa ~~ . t Mayor ,Attest: Amy Sov~ a . City Rec er ..