[0:02] All right. Thank you to the recording voice.

[0:06] I'm going to call the Springfield City Council work session to order with roll

[0:08] call. >> Mayor Van Gordon.

[0:10] » Here. >> Councilor Weber.

[0:11] » Here. >> Councilor Moe.

[0:12] » Here. >> Councilor Roddy.

[0:14] » Here. >> Councilor Quadros.

[0:15] » Here. >> Councilor Buck.

[0:16] » Here. >> And Councilor Stout.

[0:18] » Here. Thank you. >> And welcome back to the council and the

[0:20] staff. We are meeting for the first time since June.

[0:25] We have two items this evening. The first one is the city manager 2026

[0:28] performance evaluation introduction and criteria setting with Jim Herz.

[0:34] » Good evening, Mayor and Council. Welcome back.

[0:36] Uh, the purpose of tonight is to introduce uh Council to Eric Jensen

[0:42] uh and also to kind of outline the stages of the city manager evaluation

[0:46] process. Uh your packet uh included some materials from Eric uh

[0:51] and for everybody else uh part of the city manager's employment contract

[0:56] requires an annual evaluation by City Council.

[0:59] Uh and that process is facilitated by Eric Jensen. So, with that I will turn

[1:03] it over to Eric.

[1:11] There. Once it's Okay. Yeah, technology is not my thing.

[1:15] Um hi, I'm Eric Jensen. I am the uh

[1:18] principal and founder of Jensen Strategies.

[1:21] Um we are a management consulting firm uh

[1:25] that works exclusively with the public sector and with local and state

[1:29] government. Um it's a pleasure to be back here again. Um

[1:34] we uh helped uh last year with the evaluation process and um

[1:39] uh are happy to be here again to see to see all of you and I know some of you I

[1:43] haven't met yet and looking forward to talking with you as well.

[1:48] Um I wanted to just uh take a moment and let you also meet a member of our other

[1:55] of our team that is going to be assisting me with this process and he

[2:00] assisted last year some of you may have been interviewed by him, but I'm going

[2:04] to let him do his own introduction and he's on he's on virtual back there with

[2:08] the blue screen. >> Thanks Eric and good evening. I'm Aaron

[2:13] Council. My name is Jeff Aprati. Uh, as Eric mentioned I uh

[2:18] am very happy to be a part of this process. I did assist with the

[2:22] interviews and the report writing for the evaluation process last year.

[2:26] Um, just very briefly about me is I was previously a city manager myself for

[2:32] short time on the Oregon coast number of years ago too many years ago at this

[2:37] point. And then worked for Jensen Strategies full-time as a management

[2:41] consultant for about 4 years. And then over the last 6 years I have served the

[2:45] city of Sandy where I am currently the deputy city manager, but I still

[2:51] help out Jensen Strategies on projects from time to time and very happy

[2:55] to be part of this process. So, thank you very much.

[2:59] » Thank you, Jeff. Um, so tonight

[3:03] what we're looking for from you is just to get

[3:07] a little bit of guidance here in terms of

[3:11] in terms of your general agreement that we're going down the right path in terms

[3:17] of the criteria that we have proposed to you that was sent out to you in the

[3:21] packet. Um, but I'll I'll first tell you a

[3:24] little bit about the process and for those of you who may not have

[3:29] been through the process last time. Uh, and then circle back and talk a

[3:34] little bit about the criteria. So,

[3:39] the way this process works we establish the criteria up front and

[3:45] following that we then do a series of interviews. Um, the interviews are

[3:50] confidential interviews that we do by Zoom.

[3:53] And we will we will interview all of the council

[3:59] members. We will interview all of the executive team and any other direct

[4:03] reports to the city manager. Um as well as

[4:08] the city attorney. And

[4:11] this year we're also going to be talking to some community leaders as well.

[4:17] Um so we will uh get through that process and that usually takes about 3

[4:24] weeks. We would given the go-ahead we're going to go

[4:28] we'll excuse me. We will start scheduling next week for the interviews

[4:32] and they will probably run into the beginning of October. So generally takes

[4:37] about 3 weeks to kind of to get everybody. At that point

[4:42] we will write up a report of our findings and the and the report is

[4:46] anonymous from the standpoint of nothing in our report is should be attributable

[4:52] to any one individual who was interviewed during the process. And

[4:58] so we will and that report will be and the interviews and the questions in the

[5:03] interviews will be based upon the criteria that

[5:06] we are presenting to you tonight. The

[5:11] following the writing of the report we will meet

[5:15] with you in executive session and I will present a draft of the report

[5:21] to you in executive session so that you have a chance to ask

[5:26] questions of us in terms of

[5:30] anything that needs some clarity or anything that you would like to see

[5:39] expounded upon in the report. But basically just an

[5:43] opportunity that to ask questions with regard to the report. I will also do the

[5:48] same with your city manager. I will sit with your city manager one-on-one and,

[5:53] uh, review the report with her as well. Following that, uh, then we have

[5:58] another, and that, by the way, that, um, city council executive session is

[6:03] scheduled for October 19th. Um, so we we plan to be sticking to that

[6:09] schedule. Uh, following that, then we will have a session with the council and

[6:15] the city manager together where the city manager has an opportunity to share some

[6:19] perspectives, uh, with regard to what was in the report, and you have an

[6:23] opportunity for a facilitated discussion with your city manager, um, with regard

[6:29] to the evaluation and and the report. At that same, uh, executive session, you

[6:35] will fill out an evaluation form like you did last year for those of you that

[6:40] were here last year. Um, and that evaluation form will come

[6:45] back to us. We will summarize it, and then we will, uh, send it back, uh, to

[6:50] the mayor, the city manager, and the HR director.

[6:54] Um, so that's

[6:57] that's the the process. Um, by the way, I didn't mention the date of that, uh,

[7:02] second executive session, which is on November 9th.

[7:06] So just, uh, to have on your calendars. Um,

[7:11] so Uh, and first of all, any questions

[7:15] about the process before I move on talk about criteria?

[7:18] » Uh, Council Roddy. >> I might be jumping the gun cuz you're

[7:22] going to talk about criteria, and my question is about what, um, I think it

[7:26] said in there that we did 14 last year and we went down to 12, so I'm curious

[7:30] as to how it's changed cuz I like having a baseline to build on, but you're

[7:34] probably getting to that part. >> Yes, I am, Council, but but thank you

[7:37] for asking the question. Uh, gives me a nice transition into that.

[7:41] » Anybody else that have questions about timing?

[7:44] All right. All right.

[7:46] » Okay, so um I also uh brought tonight a handout. It's a one-page handout that

[7:51] you should have in front of you in addition to what you have in the packet.

[7:54] And um that handout is of the ICMA

[8:00] core competencies. And just as a reminder or if if you weren't around

[8:05] last year, um ICMA is the International City City Managers Association. It's a

[8:11] professional organization that um uh for which county and city managers

[8:18] belong and they have a code of ethics that uh they need to follow uh to be uh

[8:24] part of that. And um they also go through a training

[8:29] process um uh at ICMA. Not everybody, it's

[8:33] voluntary, to become uh an ICMA credentialed manager.

[8:40] In that training, they use 14 core competencies

[8:47] um in evaluating uh the city managers for that that credential.

[8:54] And their training touches all 14 of those points. And that's what you see

[9:00] there in that circle diagram, if you will, uh

[9:04] are the 14 core competencies and

[9:08] that really focus in on, you know, what are the principles that the city manager

[9:14] should be employing, how should they lead uh those

[9:18] principles, and um what how do they move forward with the

[9:23] purposes uh of the government, the local government, and the organization,

[9:28] and what are the skill sets that they use in doing that. So, that that's what

[9:33] you have in and in this uh document here. Last year, we used all 14 core

[9:40] competencies as counselor brought up.

[9:43] And what we have found as we've done more of these city manager evaluations

[9:50] is that a few of the criteria really are pretty closely aligned. And so

[10:01] we thought it would be better to to do some consolidation. And so what

[10:06] you see in the 12 criteria that we sent to you is really not omitting anything

[10:13] from the 14 core competencies, but rather bringing in a couple of them

[10:19] together. So we're going to be asking about the same types of questions, the

[10:23] same issues, and it's going to be based on the ICMA 14 core competencies

[10:30] with those 12 that we had put in your packet.

[10:34] Um Counselor, does that answer your

[10:38] question?

[10:42] Okay, good. Excellent. Excellent.

[10:47] Um But let me just briefly walk through

[10:52] these 12 and this is as a refresher and also to see

[10:59] see 12 instead of 14. So the first criteria here are is

[11:06] personnel and professional integrity. Is your city manager being fair, honest,

[11:12] and ethical in all personal and professional relationships and

[11:14] activities? Goes to goes to the heart of

[11:19] ethics and fairness, objectivity. The second is community engagement. And

[11:26] that is has to do with how your city manager is ensuring that Um, there is

[11:32] uh, community involvement in local government to support uh, good

[11:35] decision-making. Um, and is supportive of uh, diverse

[11:39] viewpoints and bringing diverse viewpoints into the

[11:43] uh, in into the discussion.

[11:46] Um, uh, equity and inclusion. Uh, this is just creating an environment

[11:52] of involvement, respect, uh, connection of diverse ideas and backgrounds,

[11:56] cultures, and talent throughout the organization.

[12:00] Uh, and

[12:02] really come and comes down to inclusion, uh, being

[12:06] a core part of that. So, the fourth one is staff effectiveness, and this has to

[12:12] do with is your city manager uh, taking the

[12:17] responsibility to to help uh, develop uh,

[12:23] and make your employees successful in their jobs and in their careers uh,

[12:28] moving forward. Um, and do they support the best management practices

[12:35] uh, that foster a respectful and a positive

[12:39] work environment, set clear expectation, delegate and empower staff, and they

[12:43] maintain accountability in their management style.

[12:47] The fifth uh, the fifth is uh, personal resiliency

[12:51] and development. This really goes back to how well is is your city manager

[12:56] taking care of themselves, both personally and professionally.

[13:00] Um, are they uh, leading a balanced life that's going to make them a more

[13:05] productive city manager uh, as any employee would you know,

[13:10] would be uh, leading a balanced life.

[13:13] Um, but also looking at their professional development and are they

[13:17] keeping up with their professional development

[13:20] uh, to increase their capacity on the job.

[13:24] Six is to strategic leadership and planning, uh, defining and communicating

[13:29] a vision and leveraging all resources and tools to achieve it.

[13:33] And this has to do with our are they taking

[13:37] a strategic approach to the job? Are they taking a strategic approach to to

[13:44] moving this the city forward in the in the operations of the city and in the

[13:50] decision-making of the city moving forward.

[13:54] Are they presenting a unified vision? Is there a core mission

[13:59] of for the organization and are

[14:03] and are there proactive approaches that are being taken

[14:07] to

[14:11] proactive strategic approaches to complex issues and problems that are

[14:15] coming up. Seven,

[14:18] policy facilitation and implementation. This really gets at the heart of

[14:24] your city manager's interactions and support of you as a council.

[14:30] And are

[14:33] is your city manager engaging you and other appointed officials and

[14:38] stakeholders to create common goals and objectives?

[14:42] Are they providing you with the information that you need to make solid

[14:46] decisions, solid policy decisions as a city council moving moving forward. And

[14:55] um do

[14:57] do they understand the role that they play with the council?

[15:03] And in terms of being able to uh

[15:08] you know, respecting the role and the authority of the council and

[15:12] understanding where they are in in relation to their relationship with

[15:18] you. Um and can they effectively

[15:24] move policy into the operational realm? Do they have the ability to take the

[15:31] policies that you folks come up with and turn that around and move that into the

[15:37] operational side of the city, which is the the side of the city that they run?

[15:43] Um, service delivery, uh, discerning uh,

[15:46] community needs and providing responsive equitable services. Are they providing

[15:51] of the services that the city provides to your community?

[15:55] Are they providing responsive and equitable services, uh, to your

[15:59] community members? Um, and are they being strategic about it

[16:05] and also thinking about are they being strategic about it in terms of a

[16:10] multi-disciplinary uh, a multi-disciplinary department

[16:16] organization? That

[16:20] your when you've got issues that cross

[16:23] departments, are they bringing all the right people, uh,

[16:27] into into play and and moving things forward?

[16:31] Um, technology literacy, um, this does not mean that they know how to code.

[16:37] Um, technology literacy is really just having that understanding of how

[16:43] technology can be used in your organization

[16:47] in uh, for for the city to be able to

[16:51] deliver its services, um, for all for all the different aspects

[16:57] that the city, uh, engages in. Do they understand

[17:02] how to move technology forward in that regard and and at least have that, uh,

[17:07] understanding of of uh, uh,

[17:11] uh, of what those tools are. Um, that that they can employ.

[17:17] Financial management and budgeting is pretty straightforward, but are they

[17:21] implementing a long-term financial uh plan that integrates strategic planning

[17:29] and reflects the community's values in the budget as well as uh

[17:35] just um and the council's priorities and as well

[17:40] as administering the day-to-day of the

[17:43] budget and making sure that the budget is

[17:47] moving forward effectively. And then human resources management and

[17:52] workforce engagement are they ensuring that there are

[17:56] policies and procedures for the operational side of the organization?

[18:01] Um are they motivating and engaging the workforce

[18:05] uh to their greatest potential? Uh do they for do they um

[18:11] foster a work environment that is a work environment that's attractive

[18:18] attractive to new employees coming in attractive to retaining your

[18:23] good talent in the organization. Um and also under that umbrella is also

[18:30] do they understand collective bargaining as well.

[18:34] And then lastly communication and information sharing this really has to

[18:39] do with is your is your city manager making sure that information is flowing

[18:46] where it needs to go. And that includes making sure the

[18:50] information's getting to the council that the council needs to have.

[18:54] Um it also means getting information to the community

[18:59] so that the community is getting the information that they need as as well.

[19:04] Um and and among staff as well. So it's that entire flow of information and of

[19:12] making sure that um that that's moving effectively so that

[19:17] the organization can work at its very best uh moving forward.

[19:22] Those are the 12 criteria. Um any questions about those? I'm going to

[19:27] move on here to the goals for a second. But I counselor Stone.

[19:34] Then let's keep going. Okay. So the one thing that is different

[19:38] this year than uh last year uh last year we

[19:43] uh uh we went through a goal-setting

[19:46] session um with your uh

[19:49] with your city manager and you came up with a series of six

[19:53] goals uh that you would like wanted her to make progress on and or to achieve uh

[20:00] during 2026. And so since those goals were

[20:04] established, we are also incorporating them in as part of the criteria in terms

[20:10] of okay, how far have those goals been moved uh uh

[20:15] and uh has uh your city manager done what is

[20:20] reasonable to do to move those goals forward.

[20:25] Um so those are going to be the criteria that we're going to use overall. Any

[20:29] questions about that?

[20:35] Not seeing any. Uh okay. Thank you very much.

[20:39] Um the other uh the other uh piece I wanted to show you

[20:44] very quickly is also in your packet and that is the evaluation form. What you

[20:49] have in front of you in that uh is an evaluation form that just mirrors what I

[20:55] just walked through with you. And

[20:58] when you get to that point, you will have the ability to rate your city

[21:03] manager based on each of these criteria on a scale of one to five with five

[21:09] being far exceeding expectations to one being far below expectations. And then

[21:15] you've got everything in between as well.

[21:19] So this is what we would present to you at that last meeting

[21:23] executive session. Uh when you fill that out.

[21:28] Um So what I

[21:31] I would uh uh

[21:33] like to ask is I I should also let you know that prior

[21:38] to this meeting this afternoon, I met with your city manager.

[21:42] And uh I asked her if she was comfortable with the criteria that I

[21:47] just outlined. And unless anything's changed in the last hour or two,

[21:53] uh I think your city manager has agreed that these

[21:56] are criteria that she's comfortable with, but we want to make sure you're

[22:00] comfortable with them as well.

[22:04] » All right. Uh counselor Stone. >> Um last year well

[22:09] So this is your second year doing this process with us and I just wanted to

[22:13] remark on what a pleasure it was to go through the process to feel like

[22:16] I felt like both sides were heard and we were able to have a really honest and

[22:20] straightforward conversation and find even those little dark areas where we we

[22:25] didn't realize we weren't communicating about certain things. So this is a great

[22:29] process. I'm looking forward to doing it again. Um so I have one one two small

[22:35] questions. One is uh what advice do you have for people

[22:38] repeating the form? And you know this is our second year

[22:42] doing it. And then the second question is

[22:45] um Well, in our interview, I don't forget

[22:48] this. In our interview, are you looking for different questions than the ones

[22:51] you have on the evaluation form or are you helping us walk through the

[22:54] evaluation form? >> Uh

[22:58] Thank you. So uh let me go to the the last question first. And uh, yes, we are

[23:04] going to be looking for you to to respond to these criteria, and we will

[23:08] be touching base with you on each of these criteria, but they will not be the

[23:12] only questions that we're going to ask you. We we're going to ask you some

[23:16] questions about some general impressions and you know,

[23:21] where you think some of the challenges are, where where do you think there have

[23:24] been some great achievements, and um, so it's got not going to be

[23:29] exclusive to the criteria. Um, in terms of of advice for uh, going

[23:34] through this again, I mean, you've been through this uh, or most of you have

[23:38] been through this once. Um,

[23:41] is to is to look at

[23:46] given your experience and having gone through this before and having that

[23:52] criteria uh, in the back of your minds in this

[23:55] last year,

[23:58] with the feedback that you gave us last year,

[24:02] does that does that

[24:05] where does that feedback grow? What changed in the last year, or did

[24:12] anything change in the last year in that within that criteria?

[24:17] And so, we would be hoping that you would you would address that uh, during

[24:22] your answers. >> I mean, anybody else?

[24:29] » All right. Um, so uh, going forward what uh,

[24:34] we are Well, first of all, I want to make sure

[24:36] I Are we okay with the criteria generally speaking?

[24:40] » I think we are okay. And I think we're okay with the process.

[24:43] Um, the only other piece that I would ask the council to be is that um, is to

[24:49] note that we're adding community leaders this next year.

[24:52] Um, so if you have suggestions for who you might like those be, if you could

[24:56] just get them to Michelle or myself and we will work with uh, Eric to get them

[24:59] added to the list. All right.

[25:03] » Okay. Um in terms of next steps,

[25:07] uh we once we have all the names,

[25:10] uh we will be wanting to start scheduling

[25:13] interviews and probably starting next week, but in advance of that, uh we're

[25:18] going to ask that um probably the mayor uh send out a communication to everybody

[25:23] that's going to be interviewed uh just to let them know we'll be calling and

[25:27] that uh it's not a spam call that's coming from our office.

[25:32] So, uh

[25:34] so they'll be prepared for that. >> Great. Do you have anything else?

[25:39] » Uh no, I think that concludes the presentation unless the council has

[25:43] other questions. >> I'm not seeing other questions. It It's

[25:47] been was a pretty straightforward process um and thanks for helping get us

[25:51] through it because we got to a conversation that was really

[25:53] constructive last year. >> Great. Thank you.

[25:57] » All right. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[26:05] » Okay. The uh the uh next one is city council training

[26:09] with Mary Bridget Smith.

[26:23] » Good evening, Council. Um welcome back. We are here this evening uh to present

[26:29] an item that we come before you periodically on for city council

[26:32] training. It involves uh legal um issues and

[26:37] um uh

[26:39] regulations that you are subject to that can either cause you or the city

[26:44] liability. Uh so, the idea is we come before you

[26:47] periodically to provide some training and information and then that way

[26:51] expands your knowledge base and your effectiveness as a counselor.

[26:54] Uh this time we're trying something a little bit different. There's a memo in

[26:58] your packet which is just a summary of some of those legal issues, everything

[27:02] from political activities to cybersecurity to public records and

[27:06] public meetings. Please give a look to the cybersecurity information in

[27:10] particular. That is something that is becoming more prevalent and

[27:13] sophisticated and as um local government officials you have um city emails which

[27:19] is the way that some of those actors can get into our system.

[27:23] And then for the rest of the uh time tonight we have a guest named Jeff

[27:27] Sinclair. Jeff is a vice president with Brown and Brown Northwest. He's been a

[27:31] partner with the city of Springfield for a long time. He's done uh specializes

[27:36] with local entities and has done this training before before other bodies, but

[27:40] it's about tort claims and liability and sort of when you're under the umbrella

[27:44] and when you're not, I guess it's a good way to think about it. So Jeff is going

[27:47] to be providing the presentation tonight and then a little time for questions.

[27:52] And um if you have other questions about some of these legal responsibilities,

[27:57] please feel free to reach out to my office. It's not a uh public meeting

[28:01] problem if we talk about some of those questions offline at all. So uh I know a

[28:06] lot of this has a lot of acronyms and kind of runs together, but more than

[28:09] happy um to chat with you about it. And without further ado, I'll turn it

[28:13] over to Jeff. >> Great. Uh thank you very much. Um my

[28:17] name is Jeff Sinclair and I'm the insurance agent for the city. And it's

[28:20] my pleasure to be here. Um I've given this this um talk a number of times. I'm

[28:24] kind of a unicorn gives me too much credit. I'm kind of got some interesting

[28:28] experience because uh now 30 years ago I started being a claims adjuster uh for

[28:33] public entities within the state of Oregon having to do with uh special

[28:37] districts, cities and counties, and school districts all at the same time.

[28:40] And uh for 21 years I did that um working for a Special Districts

[28:44] Association of Oregon, City-County Insurance Services Program, and then

[28:47] starting the school pool called PACE, which your school district is member of

[28:50] today. Uh about nine years ago I became a

[28:54] broker. And one of the reasons that I became an agent is that I saw people in

[28:59] your shoes, um people in uh in in cities and and school districts shoes being

[29:04] surprised by wow, I thought we had that coverage. I thought I had that coverage.

[29:08] I thought I was covered. And I was delivering bad news saying,

[29:12] "Hey, counsel in the buck, uh we got problems

[29:15] here. This may not be This may not might be what you think it is." And that

[29:18] surprise and that fear in your eyes made me uncomfortable as cuz I was delivering

[29:22] the bad news as the representative from the insurance company, let's say, or the

[29:25] risk pool at City County. And so today's discussion is just about

[29:30] that. It's about the idea of where where the rules are that we see the coverage,

[29:35] where the the litigation is being seen, but really it's trying to separate out

[29:39] the political reality of your position versus the legal reality of your

[29:43] position. Those are very different. And so, when we talk about that today, that

[29:47] that's my main my main push. I'm not trying to quell your speech. I'm not

[29:52] trying to tell you to to not do this or not do that. Quite the opposite. I want

[29:55] you to know where you will be, likely, if you make certain decisions or certain

[30:00] comments or be sued or otherwise in certain perspectives. This is really

[30:04] interactive. I This will survive and thrive based upon your questions. So,

[30:08] you wait, hang on, Jeff. You're telling me that blah blah blah blah blah. Yes,

[30:11] that's the questions I want from you. And feel free to interrupt me at any

[30:14] point. Okay? Great. Let's see if this works here.

[30:18] Well, that picture's about 10 years ago now.

[30:21] Is that working? >> They

[30:23] » They always are. Promise. >> Is it on?

[30:29] Okay, so I think we're on. >> Oh.

[30:33] » Down arrow? >> Down arrow.

[30:34] » Oh, down. >> There we go. Okay, cool. All right.

[30:37] Cool. Um so, once again, I work for a Brown & Brown. Um City County Insurance

[30:40] Services is the carrier that you belong to. It's a risk pool. It's not an

[30:44] insurance company. So, the insurance commissioner does not govern things.

[30:47] That is the risk pool you belong to. You also have SAFE Corporation for your

[30:51] workers' compensation. Just just a little little ditty about that. So, all

[30:54] these different entities are there to support and and provide you either

[30:56] coverage or services. But, it's important thing to know. Well, so

[30:59] someone calls you and they're part of these three agencies or these three

[31:02] entities, they are they're here because you've paid a lot of money to have their

[31:06] their access to their services, okay? Um, hopefully, you've read or understand

[31:12] what the Oregon Tort Claims Act is. ORS 30.260, 265, and so on and so forth.

[31:18] It's kind of the Bible for public entities, employees, um, volunteers, um,

[31:22] board members, council people. That is really important. It's It talks about

[31:25] the ideas of what coverage is you have, the duties that are owed to you as

[31:29] employees or otherwise. It also talks about limitations, um, and such. But,

[31:34] what is a tort? A tort is a duty owed, a breach of duty, and damages. And they

[31:37] have to be connected. You can't have like like a a broken sidewalk and a

[31:41] person almost trips or almost hurts themselves, and they sue you. That

[31:45] doesn't work. You have to have a broken sidewalk, a duty owed that you breached,

[31:49] and damages, an injury. That is what creates that that that nexus of a tort

[31:53] claim, okay? So, that's what this is this is really about. Who is covered by

[31:57] the Oregon Tort Claims Act? It's people like yourselves,

[32:01] it's employees of the city, and volunteers of the city. It can be

[32:04] others, agents, and otherwise, but truly it's it's those three main groups that

[32:08] it's trying to get to. And it's not It's not we we will endeavor to we'd like to.

[32:13] It's no, no. We shall defend and indemnify you. The city shall defend and

[32:17] indemnify an employee here who's within the course and scope of their duties

[32:22] under the direction and control of the city. They shall defend a city council

[32:26] person. Um, you know, for the same reasons,

[32:28] right? So, so realize that there's no there's no discussion there. Coverage or

[32:32] not, the city is forced to do that. Once again, direction and control, course and

[32:36] scope. I'm going to hit you with that those two terms a lot cuz that's a

[32:39] really big part of what this is. Um limits of damages,

[32:43] this is why we require and um Jamie Aboagye is one of my favorite risk

[32:48] managers in the whole state. She's your risk manager here, of course. She

[32:51] understands the idea that $1.8 million plus is what you're exposed for when it

[32:56] comes to liability of lawsuits on an Oregon tort claim. Okay, duty owed,

[32:59] breach of duty, and damages here in Oregon. $1.8 million in on a on on a per

[33:04] claim basis for for an event. That means that only requiring $1 million of

[33:08] coverage can be problematic. That's why we want to push that to be $2 million to

[33:11] cover that. Now, on a per person basis is 900,000, but on a per claim per

[33:16] occurrence basis, the car has two or three people in it. The The uh other

[33:20] things have it. It's $1.8 million plus right now as the current tort caps.

[33:23] Question?

[33:27] You're not agreeing. Sorry. >> Yeah, yeah, right. Yeah.

[33:30] There you go. And I'm going to try and keep this from going down a technical

[33:33] road because I'm also a broker, so I could go down the the wrong road and it

[33:37] would be and Mary cut me off here. Um but who who sets the

[33:42] Where's the limit? The 1.8? Who's setting that that is that Is that the

[33:48] legislature? >> The state of Oregon has as a mechanism.

[33:51] It's not quite the the um it's not tied to the

[33:55] um to the exact, you know, interest rates of sorts of you know, and

[33:58] inflation, but it's really close. But but the state of Oregon has a mechanism

[34:00] within that. And it talks about it in the Tort Claims Act.

[34:03] » Okay. >> So it's it's it goes up a few thousand

[34:05] dollars. It's random. It's actually right now it's like 1.

[34:10] It's 1.805300. So what 1.8 million 5,300 is

[34:15] is the per per maximum. >> And the reason that stands out to me is

[34:18] is in in the in the current landscape, 1.8, I

[34:23] mean we're seeing we're seeing um decisions come much higher than that.

[34:28] » In actual way. >> And so 1.8 I I

[34:31] I was a little taken aback like, "Wow, that that's

[34:34] kind of nice that it's that it's not like 20 million." And so, the good news

[34:39] is for state torts, that is the cap for state torts.

[34:42] However, employment practices, sexual abuse and molestation, those things that

[34:46] are federal claims brought in federal court, those are not limited. So, the

[34:49] Oregon Tort Claims Act is for that, just Oregon tort tort tort caps. But, federal

[34:53] lawsuits, so that's why you have $10 million of coverage through city county

[34:57] and not $1.8 million because you could be sued for well more than than 2

[35:02] million, 10 million, 15 million. We we have current customers in in in our

[35:06] practice Brown & Brown that are in the midst of, you know, $20 million

[35:11] settlements, $25 million settlements right now. Um some are 10, some are

[35:14] eight, some are five. Those are extremes. But, but but the idea of of

[35:18] one or two million um my point for this slide is the idea

[35:21] is that your how you treat your vendors and what you ask of them to to defend

[35:26] and indemnify the city when they come to you with with work that they want to do

[35:29] for you, requiring things, you know, $1 million is what is what my customers

[35:33] required in 1996 when I started claims. 1996, it was $1 million. And

[35:39] sometimes it's hard to get two out of people these days. So, just be aware of

[35:42] that. That's a real challenge and that's why I brought this up, but that's a

[35:44] that's a really good point. And that's why you should care. That's that that's

[35:47] a big part of this. Thank you for the question.

[35:52] So, my my whole thing about this speech is getting you under the umbrella,

[35:55] understanding where the umbrella is, the umbrella of coverage that is, the

[35:58] umbrella of defense indemnity based upon the coverages that that city county

[36:02] provides the city of Springfield. You being a council counselor with with the

[36:07] city, I want you to be under that umbrella if you so choose, just so you

[36:10] know where that umbrella is at. So, who is a member? A member is is what

[36:15] they describe as being being covered underneath the umbrella. So, a member

[36:18] means that you are officer, employee, agent, volunteer, once again acting

[36:22] course and scope under the direction and control of the

[36:24] governmental proprietary function. So, so when are you a a council person? When

[36:29] are you not? Right now, the umbrella is over you.

[36:33] You are in a meeting of the city council.

[36:36] Great. The gavel goes down and you walk out in

[36:39] the parking lot and you get in the a verbal discussion, heated, and somebody

[36:43] accuses you of slander. Somebody accuses you of of physical violence, whatever it

[36:47] might be. You are not under the umbrella after that gavel goes down and you're

[36:52] walking to her. Now, you're here because of the meeting, but for the meeting, you

[36:55] wouldn't be here. However, you're only a council person

[36:59] because of this meeting during the meeting itself.

[37:02] Now, where that can get expanded is if the council decides that you're also

[37:06] going to be on the committee for X, right? You know, you're now on the

[37:11] committee for to do the the review of of the city manager. Let's say you only

[37:14] have uh three of you or five of you do that. Some do that. Executive committee

[37:17] what what otherwise. Great. Your powers have now been extended. Well, in those

[37:21] meetings, in those discussions, now the umbrella follows you to that.

[37:25] And you know what? And now we've all decided you're actually now you're going

[37:28] to speak for us at the local Elks Club and talk about our our challenges, our

[37:32] needs for whatever. You are We've decided as a group to empower you

[37:38] to do that. If you just do that, the umbrella is likely not going to

[37:42] follow you. That's your political needs. I want to

[37:45] be there for people and tell them what we're doing, all the great things we're

[37:47] doing for the city. I'm deciding that. That's great to do that, but politically

[37:52] speaking, great, but legally speaking, the umbrella is not following you

[37:55] necessarily to do that. Question?

[37:57] » Yeah. Um

[38:00] I want to go back to the parking lot analogy or parking lot example

[38:03] » Sounds great. >> because we all get a a city provided

[38:05] parking pass to park specifically underneath this building. So, I want to

[38:09] be really specific and I'm specifically I have reasons behind this question.

[38:13] When exactly does the cover When is our liability start and stop? Is it just the

[38:19] gavel or do we have any additional coverage that covers us as councilors

[38:23] walking to our vehicles and exiting the premises?

[38:28] » So, each individual event would be separately adjudicated by

[38:33] by your by your carrier and by by your your attorneys.

[38:36] Um I will say that in my experience over the last 30 years, it's gavel-to-gavel.

[38:41] Because you could linger. You could cause issues. You could You could do all

[38:45] kinds of stuff that are not city council approved. They're not city council

[38:50] authorized. You could get here early, 2 hours early, walk into the to to a

[38:54] someone's desk in in engineering and sit down there and cause havoc. Just because

[38:59] you're early doesn't mean you're city council person yet. You're just Jeff

[39:01] Sinclair. You're a nobody until you sit here and the meeting gavels forward. So,

[39:06] I would say gavel-to-gavel is the safest place to be. How you get here and how

[39:10] you leave, th- those can be squishy. There's coming and going rules and that

[39:13] kind of stuff, but but technically speaking, gavel-to-gavel is is how that

[39:17] that is That's th- that's my impression. I'm not an attorney. Should have said

[39:21] that at the beginning, okay? But I'm a practitioner and I've seen

[39:24] this a lot. So, this is This is outside work comp. Work comp's a different

[39:29] animal, right? This is about liability issues that people allege you to have

[39:32] done and whether or not the city county program will cover you or not

[39:36] individually. So, gavel-to-gavel is how I see this, okay?

[39:41] That's That's a good question. And And th- There could be different

[39:44] interpretations of that, but just realize that if you think that way and

[39:48] you Okay, great. Meeting's over. I'm going to move out and move on and go

[39:52] home and and review the documents there or what what have you. Those are the

[39:54] things I see. The The entities that run into trouble

[39:58] with employment practices claims involving councilmen councilwomen who

[40:02] who linger and who want to micromanage and get involved in some other people's

[40:06] business sometimes, it's cuz they're hanging around or or th- they're

[40:09] inserted themselves into the city's business outside of the meetings,

[40:13] outside of you globally as a group. Your power individually is only when

[40:18] you're together. That's it.

[40:21] Or when your togetherness assigns you a task on the record.

[40:28] That's a really hard thing because politically you're always on. You're

[40:30] always going. Right?

[40:32] » Yes.

[40:35] So, I just want I want to poke a little bit around with the like you're assigned

[40:39] a task on the record. Cuz when you said on the record, I'm like, well, sometimes

[40:43] like say the mayor might call me like, I'm stuck in a thing. I can't get to it.

[40:47] Can you cover, right? And so, I might be an alternate or I might be covering or

[40:52] somebody might be going to a ribbon cutting or something at the last minute,

[40:55] right? And so, I'm just curious about that because some of them is like we do

[40:59] have like our assigned committees, but sometimes we just are like, can you

[41:02] cover for me at this thing? And I'm wondering what the like

[41:07] there's no real paper trail for that. >> So, I would recommend, and this is me

[41:11] being conservative, but I want you to be realistic about it as well cuz that's

[41:15] that's our lives. Um if you're assigned tasks as a part of

[41:17] your role, the mayor's a great example. Mayors have certain tasks that are

[41:20] different than yours, let's say. And the mayor adjudicates, you know, the and

[41:24] says, "Hey, could you please on my behalf do X, Y, and Z?" I think that

[41:28] that's that makes sense to me. Um make sure you talk to talk to city council

[41:32] about that, but I would have that in an email form where it's asked and

[41:35] answered. Sure. You know, I've I've got this. Um if you

[41:38] can be a phone call, but that way paper trail to your point is is the mayor, you

[41:42] know, saying, "Hey, can you please take this over for me?" And make sure you

[41:45] talk about X cuz if if you just go and you the the hard part about these rules,

[41:50] let me back up a little bit, is that when a person I hate saying goes rogue,

[41:54] but when a person um is a is a council councilman uh council person, sorry, um

[41:59] that that says, you know, "I'm just going to go to this because it's right

[42:02] thing to do." And they start talking and they say, "I'm Jeff St. Clair, counselor

[42:05] for the city of Springfield." Well, you're not there because of that, but

[42:08] you you have that flag. Everyone knows you, right? As as that person. and they

[42:12] talk. You do not authorize that. That's not

[42:15] yours. So, all these all these speed bumps and these these be carefuls I'm

[42:18] talking about are because of the bad actors that might be going outside of

[42:22] what what those those regulations are. That That's where the challenge.

[42:26] Councilor Buck. >> So,

[42:29] um I would I would imagine that also

[42:33] extends to city staff say inviting us to functions and things like that. We we

[42:38] got emails this this last week about, "Hey, there's these events coming up. Uh

[42:42] the city has a table, and we'd like you know, if you want to go, we'd love to

[42:48] we'd love to have you." Um and and we we attend these events

[42:51] throughout the year. And so, talk a little bit about how those things

[42:59] Listen, so we have it in email form. It's, you know, they asked

[43:04] you and we agreed, all of that kind of stuff. It's

[43:07] I mean, and that is public record. It's not necessarily directed by the council.

[43:11] It's just something the city is supporting, having the council do that.

[43:15] Um and then so, up to that point, that all That's all That all makes sense,

[43:18] right? That's all under the umbrella. And I And I think that that That seems

[43:23] like a reasonable argument. However, we're just asked to attend. What happens

[43:28] at that event can be a different can be a different discussion, right? So, we're

[43:32] not asked to talk. We're not asked to engage with this person or that person.

[43:36] We're asked to attend. So, how do you How do you parse out those

[43:40] those those lines? >> The small details of of those are

[43:43] difficult because it's about your usual and customary engagements.

[43:47] » Yeah. >> If you guys regularly invite, you know,

[43:51] you know, city councilors to certain events, and it's kind of a a like

[43:54] buckshot, like, "If any of you can go, we have a table at the Elks Lodge. You

[43:58] use that, whatever. At the Elks Lodge, please go, and you know, and thank you

[44:01] very much, you know, whatever." That's That's an expected That's normal. That's

[44:05] That's there to everybody. If it all of a sudden is only going to Commissioner

[44:09] Stout, and all of a sudden Commissioner Stout

[44:11] is a de facto person that does Well, it's like we hang a second. Is that now

[44:15] Should we talk about the fact that that is now his role? And you guys authorize

[44:19] that? Those are things where I want you to be I want you to be intentional about

[44:23] about the the things that you can be. There's always going to be the what ifs,

[44:27] and I and I I understand that. I've been doing this once again for almost 30

[44:30] years, over 30 years now. But you want to be intentional with those ideas. So,

[44:33] if it's routine that you're doing that, maybe you have a list of all those

[44:36] expected items on your board packets as upcoming events of things. And who wants

[44:40] to go? Who's going to be attending this? And you have that be a running a running

[44:44] clock of sorts of a you know, of items. Hey, we have these 15 things in the next

[44:47] 3 months that we're going to go to or be a part of. And then okay, great. I can

[44:51] go. I can go. I can go. What I've seen happen in one of the one of the stories

[44:54] of my early career that made me the most concerned was it was an annual

[44:58] conference of of of an organization, and two people said they could go. They they

[45:03] actually took took s- role. Okay, who can go to this this conference? The two

[45:06] of us can go. Great. The third person who couldn't go for a

[45:10] personal reason, that personal reason fell through. They could go now, and

[45:13] they just showed up out of state with, you know, and just showed up. Now,

[45:19] I'm like, "Hang on. You were authorized to go. The budget was there for you two

[45:21] to go. The discussion was there for you two to go. And a third person just

[45:24] showed up. What if all seven of you showed up? We had budgeted for two or

[45:28] three." It's that kind of stuff where unless the the the the city council

[45:32] actually authorizes you to go on these things, especially they're incurring

[45:35] costs or might be politically difficult, be really careful. And and you could

[45:39] have a quick, "Hey, hey, I can go now. Is that okay?" You can have a quick

[45:42] little discussion about what makes the most sense, reauthorize that if it makes

[45:46] sense, and you're good to go. That could happen in real time with city council

[45:49] and with the city attorney's help. But that's the real problem that I I've seen

[45:53] in the past is the Oh, I'll just go to this. Cuz what if one of you guys

[45:58] got invited to go by by a a let's say. Now, hey, I'm going to Chicago for this

[46:03] great thing. Come with me to Chicago. And then the city's going to pay for you

[46:08] to go to Chicago without talking to anybody about this?

[46:11] Those are the kind of things that that you're trying to get around of. The

[46:13] collective decides what we're doing to spend money and authorized vision and

[46:16] authorized voice. The collective will then reimburse you

[46:20] or or help defend and indemnify you because of that.

[46:22] » Could we delegate that to make it explicit in our operating procedures

[46:27] that that I as mayor can ask people to go or you know, as part of you know,

[46:32] uh agenda setting or council leadership, we make a more formal ask to go?

[46:37] » I I'm always up for the intentionality of that. If you have the if you're going

[46:40] to do that, we're going to make that be a part of our process, I want that role.

[46:44] Can I get granted that role? The city attorney signs off on that, that sounds

[46:47] reasonable to me. And and and the coverage should follow

[46:50] that because it's it's the paper trail sorts that this is our duties and go

[46:53] from there. >> Yeah, the commentary around community

[46:56] events has always been around. You will get asked to do a community event to

[47:00] represent the city, right? Like some of the language is there, we may need to

[47:04] formalize it more. But we've always talked about going to things like

[47:09] uh the education foundation fundraiser. Part of your role as a counselor is to

[47:14] represent the city in the public. >> And so, that's where that's where it

[47:18] gets you you're doing you're doing good,

[47:21] right? Think of if you weren't. Think of if

[47:24] I mean and there's a lot of entities right now that are having those one-offs

[47:28] and really difficult times sometimes, right? And so, it's like it's going well

[47:32] now because you guys are well functioning, you're discussing, you're

[47:34] going back and forth, things are well. What if what if you didn't have that?

[47:38] And so, you want to build in build in some walls, but also some ability to be

[47:42] to be nimble when necessary to do that. >> Yeah.

[47:45] » Very good point. >> Okay.

[47:47] » I think you can talk you guys. Sorry. I love this stuff.

[47:50] Okay. Okay, I'll be quick. >> And I won't gavel you off.

[47:53] » I said I will sa- salute and walk away. Um okay. So, the political versus legal

[47:58] reality stuff, I put this slide on there cuz this is this reality of what we're

[48:00] talking about here. So, um, so board members are empowered only

[48:03] during sanctioned board meetings where quorum is present or, as I mentioned,

[48:07] designated. And that that's a big part. Otherwise, you're not a member. And so

[48:11] so being mindful of that, and that's okay, by the way, to not be covered by

[48:14] the umbrella. That's fine. Your role is to do what you would like to do to to

[48:19] either better your family and or better the city. Sometimes they are congruent

[48:22] and parallel. Sometimes they're not. And that's totally fine. And we understand

[48:26] that. Let's go through some ideas here.

[48:28] So, these are real ideas or things that really happened, and it's it's going to

[48:32] happen you've had it happen already. Chain of command. You're approached at

[48:34] Fred Meyer's by a friend demanding help with the with the storm drain. You know,

[48:39] it's like, "Hey, I uh this is the problem, and what should you

[48:42] do as a as a as a city counselor?" First of all, you're helpful people. You have

[48:46] servant's hearts. You wouldn't do what you do without that. It's not going to

[48:49] say, "Talk to somebody else." No, you're going to say, "Can I please get your

[48:52] information and I'll somebody call you?" You take

[48:55] the information down. You thank them for their time, and you

[48:59] go off into the ether. And you've directed to the city city council or

[49:03] city manager right away. Tell them to talk to the person

[49:07] and move on. Um, the idea of you managing that, being

[49:11] the the the in and out um discussion communication person, please refrain

[49:15] from doing that as best as best as best you can. We see a lot of issues with

[49:18] that if you try and stay involved. You can do a check-in and ask city manager,

[49:22] "Hey, how how's that going?" You know, that's okay to do that, but

[49:25] don't just get the information, customer service, servant's heart, and then float

[49:30] off into the ether after you pass it on. Please please try and do that.

[49:35] » I'm probably not going to be the only person who's like, "I want to sit with

[49:37] this for a minute." Um Uh, totally yes. Usually, I'm like,

[49:43] "Neal and Nancy, what do we do about this thing?" But, there's that closing

[49:46] the loop piece, right? There's the like person showing up on your doorstep or

[49:51] running into you in Fred Meyer again. Um and so that's the part that like I I

[49:56] mean maybe I just I'm like I wouldn't feel comfortable not closing the loop

[50:00] with that person or checking back in and I just have to take the risk on that.

[50:03] Because I think there's a piece it's like just just a human relationship

[50:08] piece. It's like I have taken responsibility for this and I want to

[50:11] make sure that it is um that you've gotten what you need or

[50:14] whatever. >> So the I do close the loop to me makes

[50:17] makes sense. Um but you don't want to be in any part of the back and forth.

[50:22] And there could be major back and forth. It could be likely a storm drain is no

[50:26] liability by the city. It's a declination. It's going to the to the

[50:29] the insurance company. They're investigating it. It rained.

[50:32] There was issues we were just out there a little while ago. I mean there's no

[50:35] issues. Declined. Denied. And now you're going to go back and say, "Oh, sorry we

[50:39] denied your claim." And that's going to come up with a lot more a lot more

[50:43] questions than answers. A lot more problems than than than things. You hire

[50:46] people to to do a lot of things for you. So I would be careful of that.

[50:49] » Should you reach back out or ask the city manager to, "Hey, just make sure

[50:52] that you know, let me know if anything I can do. I'd like to know what happens so

[50:55] I can be you know, be aware of it." That makes sense to me. But but if you're in

[50:59] the back and forth of that, it can it can become problematic.

[51:04] » I'm going to follow up again and then other folks can jump in. I'm going to

[51:06] I'm going to assume that I'm not the only city councilor that has people like

[51:10] show up on their doorstep, right? That Um like the stop sign fell down or I

[51:15] knew you'd be I saw you came home and I want to come talk to you about a thing.

[51:18] » Yep. >> I'm

[51:22] Where does that fit? Like that's that's that's not Fred Meyer, that's not a

[51:26] public space, that's not somebody sent me an email. That's like somebody is

[51:30] like stopped me in my yard and or come on to my

[51:34] you know, >> So So once again, you're not you're not

[51:37] a The umbrella's not over you at your house.

[51:40] It's just not. Unless all of a sudden your job

[51:43] description changes, which you know, I'm being facetious. It's You have no you

[51:47] have no power and no protection likely at your home.

[51:51] Anywhere else besides those things I just described.

[51:54] Um Now, could that be extended somehow?

[51:57] Possibly. I I That would just be extremely

[51:59] far-fetched, extremely difficult. So, I don't want to go down that road. But,

[52:02] that's why you want to be as a political as as helpful and and stop that I will

[52:08] turn this in and someone will get back to you as soon as possible. I'll I will

[52:12] deliver it via email to the city manager tonight.

[52:16] And then they'll contact you. It's best you can do that. Please try that. I know

[52:21] it may not be reasonable. But, also you're training them to to to do that in

[52:25] a way as best you can. People come to my house as well for It's

[52:29] part of my job, so I understand this. Um Mayor?

[52:33] » No, I'm just looking around to see if any

[52:36] I think we're good. Keep going. >> Thank you for that question. Um online

[52:40] um Facebook warrior online warrior stuff, this is a real problem. More and

[52:45] more often with schools, to be honest. Um but can have cities and counties as

[52:48] well. But, um you know the truth. You know the truth. You are making

[52:53] decisions. You have all the data. You have all the and you're doing that.

[52:57] It is not your job as a city council person to be on Facebook and write the

[53:01] rights and and decline the wrongs. You can do that. But, the coverage is likely

[53:07] not going to follow you if someone alleges that you slandered them or that

[53:10] you libeled them in this case in writing. Okay? It's okay to do that.

[53:14] Once again, but just realize that when you're doing that it's 11:00 on a

[53:18] Thursday night. Be careful. We're we're we're we're

[53:21] seeing that. Okay? So, that's just my please. Um you can do it. It's your

[53:25] first amendment right. But, the umbrella is going to be

[53:29] not there. Um the press call you at home. Have you

[53:32] guys been contacted by the press at your house? Um I mean I'm sure of it. Um of

[53:37] course. That's up to you what to do that. Um or you have a protocol with

[53:40] with with the city that you're going to you're going to have all those questions

[53:43] go to a certain person at the city and then from there they may have a

[53:46] controlled interview where you come in and discuss it or otherwise, but control

[53:50] that narrative if you can. Otherwise, when you're making comments, you're not

[53:54] a board member officially when you're making those comments legally. You're

[53:57] not. That's your personal opinion about what

[54:00] the board's doing and what the council's doing.

[54:02] But that's not your role with the umbrella over you at the time. That's

[54:06] really hard because you know what the truth and you have an opinion and you

[54:09] might be running for re-election. You you know the answers you want to form

[54:12] the form the the agenda, form the idea of of of the truth because that's what

[54:16] you know is only the truth is there. This could be a problem for that.

[54:20] But try to do that. That is that is a a real issue. Then elections um had this

[54:24] happened during elections one a commissioner took the signs of another

[54:28] and burned them. It was a long story. Just you know, don't do that stuff.

[54:31] That's just kind of interesting one. Um auto vehicle damage.

[54:35] Okay, this is weird but this this happens as well. When it comes to your

[54:38] vehicle, okay? Let's say you're going to go to the city county conference that's

[54:42] going to be next February. And you know, you've been authorized that the council

[54:46] said, yep, you can go you can go you can go. Great. Three of you guys are going

[54:48] to go. You're going to drive there in your personal vehicles and and you get

[54:51] in an auto accident on the way to or on the way back from the conference.

[54:56] You do have auto liability coverage with the city.

[54:59] Yours is primary cuz it's your personal vehicle, but this will be an excess over

[55:04] you. Okay? So your deductible's on you.

[55:07] They're paying you mileage and your coverage is first. Anything above that

[55:10] is on the city. Think of it that way, okay? So but remember that is with

[55:14] that's outside of this. Coming to this meeting does not count.

[55:18] This is expected. This is as as if you're going to your job. You don't get

[55:20] you don't get get get get covered by work comp to go back and forth from your

[55:23] job. But if your job sends you to a conference somewhere, a job sends you to

[55:27] a job somewhere else or a training or whatever somewhere else, that's

[55:30] different. That's specific and that's where the liability of the work comp and

[55:34] liability of the risk pool would likely follow you.

[55:38] Yes, Commissioner Buck? >> Just to clarify, that's specific to

[55:41] liability. >> Right.

[55:43] » And so, you know, I know that that often gets

[55:46] confused. The the property side of that, the

[55:48] liability side of that, people people don't always know where the line is.

[55:52] We're talking about liability here. So, we're not talking about damage to your

[55:56] vehicle and those kind of things. >> Correct. Yeah, there is no coverage for

[55:59] your personal vehicle um that you're driving on on city business. That is

[56:03] what the mileage is supposed to entail is the to cover your insurance costs,

[56:07] your gas costs, your that guy that kind of So, the personal the vehicle damage

[56:11] that you incur cuz you hit somebody or otherwise, your vehicle is not covered

[56:15] by the city. That's personal. The liability that you incur on behalf

[56:19] of the city, direction and control, course and scope, that is within the

[56:23] policy. Great great clarification. Okay? All right.

[56:28] This is amazing stuff, right? Okay, here's the good news, ish.

[56:32] You you do have coverage in fact Oh, this is an older slide. I know, sorry.

[56:35] Um the you do have coverage uh with city

[56:38] county for ethics violations, okay? Um there could be things that that you

[56:42] could be accused of doing. This is a personal allegation. Let's say that you

[56:46] you went into a you gave a session the wrong way, or you might have a perceived

[56:49] um um issue where you have uh

[56:52] you know, your your brother is a is a contractor and there's a conflict of

[56:55] interest. You name it. The OGEC, Oregon Government Ethics um commission, comes

[56:59] in and says, you know, Commissioner Stout, I keep picking on

[57:02] you, sorry. Commissioner Stout, we we believe that you did X improperly, and

[57:06] we're here to find you $1,000. Okay? And that happens. That happens not

[57:11] because of you, I'm just kidding y'all. But um but it could happen any time.

[57:14] City-county and all the other risk pools as well have a a defense cost coverage

[57:19] for the ethic ethics complaint of board members

[57:22] going against them. They've increased that to $25,000 recently, okay, per per

[57:26] member and per um uh per entity. But, the biggest part of

[57:31] that is you have to tell them right away, "Hey, I got this complaint and I

[57:34] want to hire my my attorney, Jeff." And they go, "Okay, you can hire Jeff."

[57:39] They will only reimburse you for that damage if you prevail. You have to win.

[57:43] You can't be actually guilty of it. If that's the case, then they're not paying

[57:47] for that. This was brought up and I love it because a lot of times we'll be um

[57:52] we'll see lawsuits or complaints that are trying to get you to stop doing what

[57:56] you're doing as a city. And they'll use it as a weapon to personally attack you

[58:00] and try and get you to quit. This is to try and stop that. We have

[58:04] nothing to do with with this ethics complaint. It's about the vote we're

[58:06] about to take on parking meters or about whatever it might be. It could be

[58:09] something environmental. It could be something otherwise. Who knows? But when

[58:12] when they mobilize and they weaponize the system, this is there to protect you

[58:16] up to $25,000 of defense costs if you prevail.

[58:20] The biggest biggest take home for this is if this happens to you, you get an

[58:23] OGEC complaint, tell the city manager right away, and then Jamie and I will

[58:27] help give you in the right direction and get you whatever um opportunities you

[58:30] can or or may choose to do. But just don't wait, do it right away, and we'll

[58:34] go from there, okay? Thank you.

[58:38] Um volunteer um just a quick little thing about volunteers um two minutes.

[58:42] Uh volunteers are just unpaid employees. They are they are just as exposed, just

[58:47] as difficult, just as dangerous sometimes. They're just not paid. So, be

[58:50] aware of of volunteers. They're approved. What what they do matters. And

[58:54] so, um it's great that we have volunteers. We love volunteers. We need

[58:56] volunteers. But their liability is yours. It's just unpaid employees.

[59:01] Same thing. Um if this person's driving home from work, strikes a pedestrian on

[59:05] the sidewalk, the employee driving home, that would not be covered. The employee

[59:09] coming back from a conference, that would be covered the same way we talked

[59:12] about that with Commissioner Buck for liability cases.

[59:16] Okay. Hey, one last thing here. So, really um

[59:19] just make sure that you're deliberate about about the ideas that you do, okay?

[59:23] So, course and scope direction control. Before you do things um that are that

[59:27] are you believe on behalf of the city, make sure am I authorized to do that?

[59:31] How do how we talked about that? Is this part of the committee or not? If it is,

[59:34] great. Do your best. If it's not, either accept that or ask the council to be a

[59:39] little more deliberate and make sure that you are under the umbrella. Okay, I

[59:41] want no surprises. I I love what you guys do for the community. It matters.

[59:45] It really does. And I don't want to have surprises for you guys. So, ask those

[59:48] questions. Please let us know if you have any of those and thank you very

[59:51] much. Any questions for me? >> Are there Are there any more questions?

[59:57] I think this was helpful. Um I saw Mayor Bridget taking some notes about places

[1:00:00] we might be able to clean up our process, right? Like there's a lot of

[1:00:03] focus on getting the stuff right right now and so thanks for help helping us to

[1:00:08] think through. And MB, um I'm also thinking about the planning

[1:00:11] commissioners, too, right? Those are people that, you know, have a lot more

[1:00:14] exposure. If we have language that that can make it into their bylaws to help

[1:00:19] clarify when they're acting in role. >> Okay.

[1:00:22] » I would be supportive of that, too. >> I'll follow up and then I'll be back

[1:00:25] before you on September 28th to talk about your operating policies so we can

[1:00:28] continue that then. >> Great. Thank you so much.

[1:00:30] » Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[1:00:34] What's that?

[1:00:37] We We are adjourned from our work session and then we will reconvene at

[1:00:41] 7:05. Right?

[1:00:44] Thank you for your patience, everybody. I'm going to call the Springfield City

[1:00:48] Council regular session to order with roll call.

[1:00:50] » Mayor Van Gordon. Here. >> Councilor Weber.

[1:00:52] » Here. >> Councilor Moe.

[1:00:54] » Here. >> Councilor Bilyeu.

[1:00:55] » Here. >> Councilor Quadros.

[1:00:56] » Here. >> Councilor Beck.

[1:00:57] » Here. >> And Councilor Stout.

[1:00:58] » Here. Thank you. >> Please join me with the pledge of

[1:01:00] allegiance.

[1:01:06] » Pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge

[1:01:08] » allegiance >> to the United States of America.

[1:01:10] » To the Republic for which it stands, >> one nation

[1:01:13] » under God, >> indivisible,

[1:01:15] » with liberty and justice for all.

[1:01:27] » There is one designated time for public testimony this evening under business

[1:01:30] from the audience. If you're attending in person, please complete the request

[1:01:34] to speak card located at the front of the council chambers and turn them into

[1:01:37] the city recorder. If you're joining us online with a

[1:01:40] tablet, smartphone, or computer and wish to speak during business from the

[1:01:44] audience, please raise your hand use the raise your hand feature in Zoom.

[1:01:48] The order for public testimony is as follows. Anyone in person in the council

[1:01:52] chambers and then anybody who has raised their virtual hand.

[1:01:56] First item, please. >> Mayor, the first item is the consent

[1:01:58] calendar.

[1:02:01] » I move approval of the consent calendar. >> Second.

[1:02:05] » All right. Does anybody want have a discussion for the consent calendar? All

[1:02:08] right. Neil, could you call the vote, please?

[1:02:10] » Yes, Counselor Weber. >> Yes.

[1:02:11] » Counselor Moe. >> Yes.

[1:02:12] » Counselor Rodley. >> Yes.

[1:02:14] » Counselor Quadros. >> Yes.

[1:02:15] » Counselor Buck. >> Yes.

[1:02:17] » And Counselor Stout. >> Yes, thank you.

[1:02:19] » All right. Motion passes six yeses, zero noes. Next item, please.

[1:02:22] » Next item is business from the audience. >> All right. I have three cards. I'm going

[1:02:27] to call you up and state your name and location from city for the record and

[1:02:31] then you will have 3 minutes. Uh David Willis.

[1:02:47] » David Willis, resident resident uh 2276 36 Court.

[1:02:53] And tonight I'm representing the uh

[1:02:56] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a Springfield Stake

[1:02:59] Communications Director volunteer.

[1:03:02] And uh I brought some things. Uh we wanted to say we appreciate the very the

[1:03:07] many volunteer hours that you spend in terms of

[1:03:11] helping to make our community a wonderful and a safe place to live.

[1:03:15] Uh the pears were 100% harvested by volunteers with professional oversight.

[1:03:21] They're grown in Southern Oregon on one of our church's humanitarian farms.

[1:03:26] These farms throughout the country are run by skilled farmers and volunteers

[1:03:29] who give of their time and talents to help others.

[1:03:32] From this particular farm, pears will be distributed to community food banks

[1:03:36] throughout Oregon, including Food for Lane County here in our own community.

[1:03:40] Most of the pears will be canned and then distributed throughout the world

[1:03:44] through our church's humanitarian food system.

[1:03:47] We hope the information provided will help you understand the production and

[1:03:51] distribution process a little better and see how many lives are benefited through

[1:03:55] the volunteer work and care of others without placing any demands of

[1:03:58] government. We especially want to thank

[1:04:02] the mayor, the city council, and all of the staff

[1:04:05] of the city of Springfield for your work in bringing to pass the construction and

[1:04:09] dedication of the Willamette Valley Temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of

[1:04:13] Latter-day Saints this past June. The open house during 3 weeks hosted

[1:04:18] 38,000 people. Um,

[1:04:21] I'm just happy if someone talks to me, so that that it was really nice.

[1:04:26] And everything from security, parking, hosting, and so forth was conducted by

[1:04:30] volunteers with a little professional oversight.

[1:04:33] Having attended city council the past 3 years, I feel it is important to

[1:04:36] acknowledge that most of the citizens of all persuasions and service clubs

[1:04:41] quietly go about helping others and the community without being demanding or

[1:04:45] demonstrative. These pears can be representative of

[1:04:48] that type of citizenship. Uh, the the harvest was impacted by a

[1:04:53] late frost, so they're not quite as large, but I'm told they're just as

[1:04:56] sweet. Thank you. >> Thank you. And

[1:05:02] the next uh, next person is Chris Blankenship.

[1:05:15] » All right. Uh yeah, I'd like to talk about um

[1:05:18] a beautification plan restoration plans >> Sir, could you please could you state

[1:05:22] your name and address for the record? >> I'm sorry. Curtis Blankenship, uh Ward

[1:05:26] 4. Is that enough? So, I wanted to talk about doing a

[1:05:30] restoration beautification project for um

[1:05:33] Glenwood. Uh similar to what is done uh it's

[1:05:37] called Seattle Restored .com. I sent you guys a a link to that email in a in a

[1:05:43] general email. But, while I know you have a a redevelopment plan, but I

[1:05:48] wanted to just beautify There's a 30% vacancy rate in all cities

[1:05:54] of commercial property because you're buying stuff online. So, there isn't as

[1:05:58] much big uh brick and mortar. And so, I you guys are waiting for a big box store

[1:06:03] to redevelop uh Glenwood the Glenwood area. And I mean I that's all very good.

[1:06:09] I just want to do some beautification while we wait for that. And it would

[1:06:13] increase our tax base. I own property here. I'd like my property values to go

[1:06:17] up which would increase your tax base. And um

[1:06:21] it would be a better use of your development funds to to do this to

[1:06:26] increase the tax base rather than

[1:06:30] uh spending a huge amount of money hoping

[1:06:32] for big box retail. Where and and I know you're using uh incremental tax funding

[1:06:38] to finance the redevelopment plan. So, again, you can wait longer and wait for

[1:06:42] those tax funds to to pay for your bigger development plan. So, um

[1:06:50] You know, the other way to So, the what you will find on Seattle Restored is a

[1:06:54] way it's the insurance. It's it's uh ironic that you guys are talking about

[1:06:57] insurance cuz it's the insurance is the problem with uh

[1:07:00] with doing this uh restoration cuz I I would like to see, you know, an art uh

[1:07:05] community garden art space and some homeless services put into into there.

[1:07:10] So, the insurance is the issue. You know, like I say, you can use your

[1:07:13] development funds for that. Uh, but you know, there's abusive There's abusive

[1:07:17] land uh, owners in this town that you could tax

[1:07:21] abusive land owners. And you know, um, Walmart removed their trash cans,

[1:07:26] Walmart Springfield, from their parking lot. And you know, they produce

[1:07:31] uh, the packaging. They sell products with packaging. They should be

[1:07:34] responsible for that packaging. So, there's a tax There's an plenty of

[1:07:38] opportunity to tax these corporations, these abusive land owners, and

[1:07:42] corporations. And I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for Target uh,

[1:07:47] shoplifting for my for the police to uh,

[1:07:50] use use their time to protect um, Target and big box stores from shoplifting. I'd

[1:07:55] much rather that money be used to restore and beautify uh, Glenwood while

[1:08:00] we're waiting for the funds for your redevelopment plan. And I'd like to talk

[1:08:04] to the um, economic director if I could on that. I've I've emailed them several

[1:08:08] times. Thank you for your time and your service.

[1:08:10] » Thank you. Uh,

[1:08:12] the last card is Miguel Rivas.

[1:08:26] » Uh, hello. Hope can I get closer? Uh, yep. My name is Miguel Rivas. I'm in

[1:08:32] Ward 2 of Springfield. And I'm mostly here to talk about data

[1:08:38] centers. Uh, currently there is no rumors. There's nothing that I've heard

[1:08:44] of data centers happening in Springfield. But that's why I think like

[1:08:47] it's a great time. It's way better to for me to be talking about this before

[1:08:52] there's any development plans, before there's things that you guys have all

[1:08:55] signed off on, and like can't take back. So, I think this is a a time to be

[1:09:00] talking about data centers. They're a national issue going on, so it's good to

[1:09:06] be preemptive about this. Um

[1:09:09] I don't think and I feel like a lot of people don't really see data centers as

[1:09:13] like a Raising Cane's or a Chick-fil-A. It's not just like another

[1:09:19] business place. I feel like a lot of the public is going to see data centers as a

[1:09:23] very government-based

[1:09:26] uh government-associated thing even if legally it is it isn't.

[1:09:31] Even if it's on private property or not on public land, I feel like it is

[1:09:36] something important to be discussing uh from our local city.

[1:09:42] Um I do know that Springfield is historically very

[1:09:46] friendly to corporations. Um it's very much

[1:09:50] focused on developing the economy of Springfield

[1:09:54] and I see value in that. Um I see

[1:09:57] I do see how that could

[1:10:02] become a point of issue. If data centers did come in, then maybe the enormous

[1:10:08] like tax exemptions given to corporations or the amount of money and

[1:10:14] support that corporations are given, I feel like the public would very much

[1:10:19] finally be looking at these policies as these

[1:10:23] corporate-friendly policies that Springfield has had as something that

[1:10:28] isn't for them. If data centers came because I feel a lot of the public will

[1:10:34] disagree with data centers in general. Springfield doesn't want data centers

[1:10:39] and we really don't want them to be given any kind of red carpet treatment

[1:10:42] where they're given like a ton of tax exemptions and all of that just to be

[1:10:46] built in here. Thank you.

[1:10:50] » Thank you. That was the last card I had. Neil, do you have anybody online?

[1:10:54] » Okay, so we have no hands online. >> Okay. does anybody have council

[1:10:57] response? Council Roddy? >> Thank you. Um and I just want to

[1:11:02] um thank David and Chris and Miguel for coming out tonight. It's our first time

[1:11:06] back, so I love that y'all were tracking. Um I am also interested in us

[1:11:10] having a conversation, particularly around data centers, and I it's starting

[1:11:14] to be a bubbling conversation. I will say that earlier in the year, nobody was

[1:11:19] talking about in Springfield cuz we really like you said, don't have the

[1:11:22] land for it. But more and more um and I think it it would be helpful to have it

[1:11:27] as a city. And also know that we're trying to have this conversation as a

[1:11:30] state, which could sort of preempt whatever we do. But I think more and

[1:11:34] more folks are interested in let's let's start to have a conversation about where

[1:11:38] we're at and and what are our processes and land use and all of that. So, I

[1:11:43] think we're at the beginning of that, but I am someone who's also fairly

[1:11:46] interested in us digging into that. So, thank you.

[1:11:50] » Councilor Buck. >> Yeah. I I also I also appreciate you

[1:11:54] bringing bringing up the conversation. I think that the focus for the council is

[1:12:00] um is is bringing value to to Springfield

[1:12:03] in a lot of different ways. And by supporting businesses that that do

[1:12:07] employ our people here and and do provide something. You you cited Raising

[1:12:12] Cane's or Chick-fil-A. That's a place where where people can

[1:12:16] spend their money, they can work, they can

[1:12:18] that that creates real value on multiple levels. And I think that's what we're

[1:12:22] looking for. And and I'm very interested in in furthering that conversation.

[1:12:26] Because I don't know what was specific to data centers, I

[1:12:29] don't know what value that would really look like. And so, I think that that's a

[1:12:33] great conversation to bring up. So, thank you for that.

[1:12:37] » Uh Councilor Stone. >> Um

[1:12:39] agreed with my fellow councilors there. The other thing I would ask is if Mr.

[1:12:44] Blankenship, can you share I was looking through my emails and I could not find

[1:12:48] the links. I don't know if they just got missed through the city. If you could

[1:12:51] resubmit any of those links, I'd be very interested in your project, especially

[1:12:55] as the one of the things, uh, that I also sit on is the Springfield Economic

[1:12:59] Development Area with, which is all the TIF financing that you were speaking

[1:13:02] about. And I certainly think, um, I I think that's a very involved

[1:13:06] conversation and, um, I think you might we might find we have many things in in

[1:13:11] common on the route that you're thinking there. Uh, but along the way, yes, the

[1:13:14] beautiful cal can we beautify things along the way is a really important

[1:13:16] conversation. So, um, if you could re- resubmit those, I would be very happy to

[1:13:21] look at those. Thank you. >> All right. Anybody else?

[1:13:26] All right. Thank you so much. Next item, please.

[1:13:30] » Uh, next item under ordinances is the International Way annexation. This is an

[1:13:33] ordinance annexing certain territory identified as Assessor's Map

[1:13:37] 17-03-15-00,

[1:13:41] tax lot 5400, and Map 17-03-15-30,

[1:13:47] tax lot 400, to the City of Springfield and the Willamalane Park and Recreation

[1:13:51] District, adopting a severability clause, and providing an effective date.

[1:13:56] This is the fourth reading, and Kristina Kraaz is here for this item.

[1:14:02] » Thank you, Mayor and Council. You know, we write those ordinances to be long

[1:14:05] titled, so we have time to walk up here.

[1:14:09] So, this evening, um, we are here for the International Way

[1:14:15] annexation. And as a reminder,

[1:14:20] there we go. I just want to make sure I I always click the wrong direction on

[1:14:23] this. So, um, bear with me if I go the wrong way on the slides. As a reminder,

[1:14:28] this is a quasi-judicial annexation process.

[1:14:31] Um, application by PeaceHealth and Lane County for 17.99 acres on International

[1:14:36] Way, shown in the map above, and the application number is 81126,

[1:14:42] 00004, type four.

[1:14:46] Um, I'm going to pause for a moment if any city councilors have any ex parte

[1:14:50] contacts that you wish to declare or any um conflicts of interest in this matter.

[1:14:57] » All right, we'll start with uh counselor Mao and if you could declare any ex

[1:15:01] parte contacts or conflicts of interest. >> I had no ex parte contact with anybody.

[1:15:09] » You go ahead. Wait, hang on counselor Mao. Could you

[1:15:13] clarify? Do you have any contacts uh conflicts of interest?

[1:15:19] » I think it's what I was sort of saying. I have no conflict of interest.

[1:15:25] » Uh I have no conflicts of interest and I've had no ex parte contact.

[1:15:31] » I have no new ex parte contact um and I'll just restate I have a potential

[1:15:36] conflict of interest as a property owner in the Gateway area.

[1:15:40] » I had no ex parte contact and I have a potential conflict of interest. My

[1:15:45] employer is in the health care industry and may do business with PeaceHealth.

[1:15:51] » I have no conflicts of interest. Um I will say on August 1st I attended a

[1:15:55] Drifters game and while there Kelly Richardson shared high-level concerns

[1:15:59] with me regarding the draft annexation agreement. I made it clear to him that I

[1:16:03] could not share my opinions or any thoughts on the matter.

[1:16:06] Um the concerns that he mentioned to me

[1:16:09] informally that evening are now reflected in detail in the letter

[1:16:12] submitted on August 6th by Richardson Sports attorney ensuring they are part

[1:16:16] of the official record. >> No ex parte con- contacts and no

[1:16:21] conflicts of interest.

[1:16:24] » I have no ex parte but it was noted in the packet that the site is currently

[1:16:29] within the Eugene School District 4J's boundary.

[1:16:32] Uh 4J appears as only a service provider.

[1:16:35] Um according to the packet there is no residential population generated by the

[1:16:39] project. There is no financial interest nor ethics conflict. However, I felt it

[1:16:44] prudent to mention that I am employed by Eugene 4J School District.

[1:16:51] » We're going to get good at this by the time this is over.

[1:16:55] » Thank you for that. Um because there were no ex parte contacts that were

[1:16:59] disclosed that include information not already provided to the applicants to

[1:17:03] respond to, um there's no need for the council to reopen the record or or

[1:17:07] provide more opportunity for a hearing. To give a quick overview for my plan for

[1:17:14] guiding helping guide you through some discussion this evening, we're going to

[1:17:18] start with a brief process up update to, you know, just this is your first

[1:17:22] meeting back from a well-deserved break and I want to reground with where we're

[1:17:26] at. We'll review the criteria of approval. We'll touch on House Bill

[1:17:30] 2005, which has now been codified in state law.

[1:17:34] Um we'll focus on comprehensive plan consistency and finally next steps.

[1:17:40] As a process update, you last met on this topic on June 22nd. At that

[1:17:44] meeting, you closed the record for new evidence

[1:17:47] and the parties have submitted their final arguments, which are in your

[1:17:51] packet. Um I we have a staff prepared updated

[1:17:55] findings because council has not given direction on whether you want to

[1:17:59] further examine approving or denying. There is a draft um ordinance that

[1:18:04] you've now on your fourth reading of a annexation agreement that was

[1:18:09] negotiated they negotiated by city staff with the express understanding that city

[1:18:14] council needs to review and weigh in. And there are findings both for uh if

[1:18:19] you were to take a direction to approve to give feedback on or if you were to

[1:18:22] take to direction to deny an order that could be used to do that with proposed

[1:18:27] findings there. I want to note some um errors in the

[1:18:31] just really quickly some errors in the staff report that goes with the

[1:18:35] ordinance. Um I had drafted a finding regarding a mistaken version of an IGA

[1:18:41] with ODOT that was submitted by Mr. Gelardi. The error was not attributable

[1:18:45] to Mr. Gelardi in any way. He pointed out that the version he submitted to our

[1:18:50] packet um, for your consideration is what ODOT has published. So, there's

[1:18:53] apparently an incorrect version of um, the executed IGA on ODOT's website. And

[1:19:00] so, we will I will work with city staff to try to follow up to correct that. Um,

[1:19:04] and I want to apologize for Mr. Gelardi if in any way implied that there was

[1:19:07] intentional misrepresentation of facts. That wasn't my intent in the finding.

[1:19:12] Um, and it isn't It certainly isn't what happened.

[1:19:14] And they also made a couple errors in regards to, um, directions. I referenced

[1:19:19] some locations being west of the subject site that are actually east of the

[1:19:24] subject site. Mr. Limbert pointed that out to me, um, and that will be

[1:19:27] corrected in the, um, if that staff report moves forward.

[1:19:32] And then very briefly again, there was a record objection to some information in

[1:19:36] the applicant's final written testimony. That is addressed in the staff report. I

[1:19:41] recommend the council through your adopted findings just reject that

[1:19:45] information that was, um, objected to as being outside the record. And just that

[1:19:49] you adopt a finding that says you're excluding that from your consideration.

[1:19:53] Any questions on those sort of really brief procedural Okay.

[1:19:58] Then, not seeing any questions,

[1:20:02] I want to remind the council that we're going to focus on

[1:20:06] criteria of approval tonight. This is quasi-judicial.

[1:20:10] Quasi-judicial, um,

[1:20:13] decisions are site-specific, um, decisions. This

[1:20:20] decision is not about the value that the applicant's proposed use of this

[1:20:26] property has for the community. This council is not asked to weigh the

[1:20:30] relative importance of crisis stabilization services or behavioral

[1:20:34] health facilities for the community. I understand that that's a very important

[1:20:39] issue to the community, but that's not the city council's role in a quasi

[1:20:43] quasi-judicial annexation process. The council has to follow your criteria

[1:20:49] of approval, and that's a requirement of state law. It's a requirement that is

[1:20:53] grounded in long-standing legal framework for this type of site-specific

[1:20:58] decision-making, and the purpose is to ensure that your

[1:21:01] decisions are based on a fair and consistent process,

[1:21:04] and that that your the rules that apply to that

[1:21:07] process are knowable to all parties in advance.

[1:21:12] The criteria for annexation are in Springfield Development Code 5.7140.

[1:21:17] Two criteria are clearly met with this application, and there's no there's been

[1:21:21] no dispute at any point that these two are not met, and that is that the

[1:21:24] property is inside the urban growth boundary, and it is contiguous to city

[1:21:27] limits. The other three criteria are more

[1:21:30] substantive and are in dispute between the applicants and and some public

[1:21:34] testimony that you've received. The first criteria is what I want to focus

[1:21:38] this session tonight on, and that is consistency with the comprehensive plan.

[1:21:43] The city's comprehensive plan is a long-term

[1:21:46] planning document that guides how the city how the city council, with input

[1:21:52] from the community, intends for the city to develop in the next approximately 20

[1:21:56] years for meeting our need for employment land,

[1:21:59] for housing, and then for other public facilities and services designed to

[1:22:03] support those various uses. So, that's what um we're going to focus on tonight.

[1:22:08] I recognize there are significant issues and a lot of public comment on

[1:22:13] the ability to provide this property and these proposed uses with key urban

[1:22:18] facilities and services, infrastructure, and as well as some concerns with the

[1:22:22] staff annexation agreement. We've talked about um previously I

[1:22:27] talked about with you that the criteria for annexation follow a hierarchy.

[1:22:32] So, really the council needs to make a decision, and not necessarily final

[1:22:37] decision, but needs to give some direction on if you think this

[1:22:39] annexation is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies about the

[1:22:44] proposed uses, um, or it could be consistent with the right

[1:22:47] infrastructure, or if you think that it is just not consistent with the

[1:22:52] comprehensive plan policies around campus industrial designation. Because

[1:22:56] your decision on that point will govern whether it's necessary for you to make

[1:23:01] decisions about infrastructure and the annexation agreement.

[1:23:06] So, I'm hoping we can stick to that middle one, and we'll get to what with

[1:23:10] the next two when we get to next steps at the end of the session.

[1:23:15] Before we get into the comprehensive plan, I want to touch base again on

[1:23:19] House Bill 2005. There's been a lot of discussion about

[1:23:22] the superseding bill, as it's called, um, and how it relates to this

[1:23:26] annexation. I want to be clear that the statute, now codified at ORS 197A.386,

[1:23:35] does not apply to your annexation decision. It's relevant to the

[1:23:39] annexation because it governs, or not doesn't govern, it is relevant to what

[1:23:44] the applicants intend to do with the property and how they want to move

[1:23:48] forward after annexation. So, it's a reason

[1:23:52] for assuming certain uses may be developed on the site, but it does not

[1:23:56] bind or apply as law to your decision at annexation.

[1:24:00] And the reason for that is because there is no pending development application

[1:24:05] for either of the proposed future uses.

[1:24:11] And then, there's this also, in addition, there's a second part of the

[1:24:14] statute that is up here. The House Bill 2005, Section 60, does not apply on land

[1:24:20] where the local government, that's you, determines the facility cannot be

[1:24:24] adequately served by those services that the city provides, water, sewer,

[1:24:28] stormwater, drainage, or streets. Even if there were concurrently submitted

[1:24:33] development applications with the annexation,

[1:24:36] the city council would still have the role and authority to determine if the

[1:24:40] facility can be provided adequate adequately with those services, which is

[1:24:45] also going to depend on your comprehensive plan and the policies that

[1:24:49] you've set for this property.

[1:24:53] But, to be clear, at this time, the state law does not apply. So, I want to

[1:24:57] get that out of the way and I answer any questions that you have about that

[1:24:59] before we move forward. >> All right. Any questions?

[1:25:03] Is that disputed at all in the record? Are Are does everybody agree that state

[1:25:07] law is not applying in this the superseding appeal is not applying in

[1:25:10] this situation? >> The applicants have acknowledged that

[1:25:13] the superseding bill does not apply. However, they've also made the argument

[1:25:17] that it does still apply because you can't apply policies. That would mean

[1:25:22] they have to change the comp plan before it can be annexed. I don't know how both

[1:25:25] of those things can be true. I'm not sure what the legal theory is there that

[1:25:29] it doesn't apply, but you also have to use it.

[1:25:31] Um and so, my recommendation is just that it doesn't apply, and I don't think

[1:25:35] there's any serious legal dispute that it governs your decision.

[1:25:39] » Okay, thank you.

[1:25:46] » Okay. So, getting into the comprehensive plan

[1:25:49] criteria. I'm going to walk my my plan for this section is to sort of walk you

[1:25:53] through the decision-making framework that I recommend.

[1:25:57] Um and then we'll get to a point where, once we have kind of gone through the

[1:26:04] way this criteria plays out with the what I feel is the the

[1:26:10] most important first policy to address around planned urban uses, um

[1:26:16] then there'll be time that either the city council can begin your discussion

[1:26:19] if you're ready or we I can give some examples of two different paths you

[1:26:23] could take and we can talk about that further.

[1:26:26] So, the comprehensive plan consistency criteria says the proposed annexation,

[1:26:30] so this is the requirement to approve it, if it is consistent with applicable

[1:26:34] policies in the Springfield comprehensive plan, metro plan, and any

[1:26:38] applicable refinement plans or plan districts.

[1:26:41] As some background here, the Springfield comprehensive plan is the city's own

[1:26:45] specific long-range urban development plan that um, replaces the metro plan in

[1:26:52] several key areas. The metro plan is the prior long-standing Eugene-Springfield

[1:26:57] total area plan. Since 2007, Springfield and Eugene have been working on our own

[1:27:02] independent metro independent plans that will eventually replace the metro plan.

[1:27:07] For um, the housing element, for economic um,

[1:27:13] the economic element, so that's employment opportunities, for land use

[1:27:16] specific policies, and for urbanization, which is the process of annex annexing

[1:27:21] and developing urban uses, the Springfield comprehensive plan controls

[1:27:26] the metro plan. The metro plan still applies in Springfield for issues around

[1:27:30] topics like natural hazards, natural resources, public facilities and

[1:27:35] services. And then this area is in the Gateway

[1:27:37] refinement plan, there is no plan district that applies.

[1:27:44] Getting into the urbanization element, the number one policy, the very first

[1:27:48] policy in the element is the one that I think is most important for you to

[1:27:51] consider first. And that is that urbanizable lands within the 2030 UGB,

[1:27:56] that's the Springfield UGB, shall be converted to urban uses as shown in the

[1:28:00] Springfield comprehensive plan map, and more particularly described in

[1:28:04] neighborhood refinement plans and the policies of this plan.

[1:28:08] I also included a little bit of text from urbanization element policy 30 that

[1:28:13] I think um calls back to policy one and reinforces

[1:28:17] the importance of policy one. And that's And the part the relevant part of that

[1:28:22] policy is that unincorporated land in the Springfield UGB may be developed

[1:28:26] with permitted uses at maximum density only upon annexation to the city when

[1:28:30] it's found that key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area to

[1:28:33] be annexed in an orderly and efficient manner.

[1:28:39] So, how do you interpret what that policy means and it whether this

[1:28:43] annexation complies? First, we have to know what some terms

[1:28:46] mean. Urbanizable land is land that is in the Springfield UGB but not yet

[1:28:50] annexed. That clearly applies here. Urban uses

[1:28:54] I recommend are uses described in the applicable plan based on the

[1:28:58] comprehensive plan map designation. And that's looking at the definition of

[1:29:02] urban uses in the context of the statewide planning goals that that

[1:29:06] policy language comes from, which are statewide planning goal 14 and 11.

[1:29:11] The comprehensive plan map designation for this property is campus industrial.

[1:29:15] The land use element is one part of the Springfield comprehensive plan that

[1:29:19] gives an explanation of each of the city's designations. And then the

[1:29:23] Gateway refinement plan also has policy language describing the campus

[1:29:26] industrial plan designation.

[1:29:30] The Gateway refinement plan refers to this property as part of the Gateway SLI

[1:29:34] site. SLI means special light industrial.

[1:29:38] And states that it's intended to implement the Metro plan's special light

[1:29:41] industrial designation. When the land use element for

[1:29:45] Springfield was adopted, that SLI designation is superseded and replaced

[1:29:49] with the campus industrial designation. So, instead of special light industrial,

[1:29:53] it's referred to as campus industrial in Springfield and that better matches the

[1:29:57] name of the zone. Um otherwise, the purpose and

[1:30:00] description of those two designations were um

[1:30:03] essentially equivalent. The land use element then gives a long

[1:30:07] description of the purpose of the campus industrial designation, and that's in

[1:30:11] the staff report and findings, but I'm also putting it up on the slides.

[1:30:15] And the council we can come back to this as many times as we need to, so I'm not

[1:30:20] going to read it all out loud, but some key

[1:30:23] I think parts of this uh policy language is that the primary

[1:30:27] objective of the designation is to provide opportunities for

[1:30:30] diversification of the local economy through siting of light industrial firms

[1:30:34] in a campus-like setting. The activities of such firms must be

[1:30:37] obscure from public view and have external impacts less than or equal to

[1:30:41] office uses, such as noise pollution and vibration.

[1:30:44] Then there's more explanation around large-scale large-scale light industrial

[1:30:49] uses are the primary focus of the designation, but provision should also

[1:30:54] be made for small and medium-scale industrial uses within the context of

[1:30:57] industrial and business parks, which will maintain a campus-like setting. It

[1:31:01] describes some complimentary uses like corporate office headquarters and

[1:31:04] supporting commercial establishments serving primary may also be cited on a

[1:31:08] limited basis. And then the description also has

[1:31:12] requirements for conceptual like this is site-specific requirements now.

[1:31:16] Conceptual development planning performance standards or site review

[1:31:18] processes to be applied to ensure some goals of that campus um industrial

[1:31:24] district. Adequate circulation functional coordination among uses on

[1:31:27] each site, high-quality environmental setting and compatibility with adjacent

[1:31:30] areas. There's a 50 minimum minimum lot size

[1:31:34] um to protect undeveloped sites from

[1:31:36] piecemeal development until site plan development plans been approved. That's

[1:31:40] doesn't apply to this application because this application's not seeking

[1:31:43] to divide anything. So, it's really the first part of this policy um

[1:31:48] that is going to govern the how the city council wants to

[1:31:53] interpret whether this annexation is consistent. So, this is a big this is I

[1:31:57] think this is the main crux of the question in front of council tonight is

[1:32:01] do you um

[1:32:04] support interpreting this policy language that the proposed annexation

[1:32:09] for proposed future uses is consistent with this policy language or do you

[1:32:14] believe that it's inconsistent? Um and this is a good point for me to ask if

[1:32:19] you have any questions. If you want to begin deliberations after

[1:32:24] we've asked answered questions, we can do that, but we also have I also have a

[1:32:28] framework if you're struggling can walk through some options of what

[1:32:31] interpretations are I think legally permissible.

[1:32:36] » All right, Council Redly. >> All right, I'm just going to dive in. Is

[1:32:39] there a land use designation that is specific to medical or that sort of use?

[1:32:45] Do we have a land use or do we often tuck this into other things?

[1:32:50] » I that's a really great question and I could take a moment to look at the

[1:32:54] commercial um description in the land use element.

[1:32:58] The medical services district is one that is a zoning district that's

[1:33:03] intended for medical uses and it implements the commercial designation.

[1:33:07] So typically um when medical uses are intended to be a very important or

[1:33:12] primary part of a development, the medical services district can be

[1:33:16] appropriate and that implements a commercial designation. But medical uses

[1:33:20] are also um service oriented uses or um sort of

[1:33:25] that those public service oriented types that are talked about generally in a

[1:33:30] commercial or a mixed use with a commercial element to it.

[1:33:36] And I can do a really quick search to see if medical specifically discussed in

[1:33:39] the >> Well, and you're getting to what I was

[1:33:41] trying to get to is if there is another land use designation that we often find

[1:33:45] and that's the mixed use and such. But the zoning is a different layer, right?

[1:33:50] » Correct and that's a good point. I want to I would I should clarify one of the

[1:33:54] comments that was made um by both the applicants and the opponents was to call

[1:33:59] back to the council's EWEB annexation decision

[1:34:03] um that you previously made. And um if

[1:34:06] you'll recall on the same night you held your first public hearing in this

[1:34:09] matter, you also adopted the ordinance on um EWEB's proposed code amendments.

[1:34:14] So, uh applicants have said in the EWEB

[1:34:17] annexation, you knew that the EWEB was going to use the property for something

[1:34:21] not allowed in the code, and you didn't apply the comprehensive plan to prevent

[1:34:25] that annexation. The um opponents have said, "Well, that's a completely

[1:34:30] different context, and it's not It doesn't govern your decision here." Um

[1:34:35] and what I would say is it's D, none of the or C, none of the above. In the EWEB

[1:34:39] annexation, the council considered the proposed future uses, but the council

[1:34:43] did not make a finding that those proposed future uses were inconsistent

[1:34:47] with the comprehensive plan for that property.

[1:34:51] And in fact, the council on in May amended the development code

[1:34:56] to say that those proposed uses were allowed, which required a finding of

[1:34:59] consistency with a comprehensive plan. So, I will acknowledge that the findings

[1:35:04] are not necessarily very clear in that EWEB annexation decision that's

[1:35:06] mentioned in the record, but um it does reinforce when you read through all the

[1:35:11] findings that the proposed uses were part of the city council's decision

[1:35:15] making. Um and so yes, I would say that what the zoning allows doesn't govern.

[1:35:20] Something can be not allowed under the development code other than zoning, but

[1:35:23] still consistent with the comprehensive plan if it just hasn't been added to the

[1:35:26] code because the code can't cover every conceivable circumstance. But also, the

[1:35:31] fact that something is not allowed in the code may be persuasive evidence that

[1:35:36] it's inconsistent with the designation. >> Uh Counselor Weber.

[1:35:42] » Thank you, Kristina. I don't have any questions. Um if other councilors do, um

[1:35:47] I think we should hear those, but if if not, I'm ready to just make a

[1:35:51] statement. >> you want.

[1:35:53] Okay. Uh so I wrote this out just so I don't

[1:35:57] kind of get lost in my thoughts here. The decision we make today isn't about

[1:36:02] whether the need for a behavioral health facility exists. I think we all agree

[1:36:06] it's a really serious issue and it's one that needs to be addressed. Today's

[1:36:09] decision at its core is a land use decision that requires this council to

[1:36:14] fairly and consistently apply annexation criteria.

[1:36:18] House Bill 2005 does not take effect until an annexation agreement is

[1:36:22] approved. That means the bill's provisions are not active today and they

[1:36:26] cannot be used to justify annexation before the agreement itself is

[1:36:31] finalized. We are still required to make our

[1:36:34] findings under the comprehensive plan, the urbanization element, and the

[1:36:38] gateway refinement plan. I do not believe this application meets

[1:36:42] the criteria established in these plans and I am uncomfortable approving a

[1:36:46] one-off annexation agreement that would effectively set a precedent for future

[1:36:50] one-offs. Springfield has worked hard to maintain

[1:36:53] consistency and predictability in our land use decisions and I do not believe

[1:36:57] it serves the community to make exceptions that later become

[1:37:01] expectations. Instead, I think the responsible path is

[1:37:05] to take a holistic look at our zoning requirements, particularly in areas

[1:37:09] where we may want to support econom- economic development, and determine

[1:37:14] whether a broader rezoning approach is appropriate.

[1:37:17] If the council believes certain types of uses are important for Springfield's

[1:37:20] long-term long-term economic future, then we should evaluate that through a

[1:37:25] comprehensive, transparent process that includes community input.

[1:37:29] My interest is in what best serves Springfield's future development needs

[1:37:33] and not in creating isolated exceptions that bypass the larger policy

[1:37:37] conversation. For that reason, I am not prepared to

[1:37:40] support this annexation request.

[1:37:45] » All right. Other folks, do you guys have questions?

[1:37:51] Um could you take a second Oh, good, Counselor Stone.

[1:37:55] » So, I think I'm a little bit confused about the exact status of the annexation

[1:37:58] agreements. Uh I see the I see an agreement here, but

[1:38:04] I I'm just confused. Are Are we trying to discern whether or not this is a

[1:38:09] valid one? Can you just Can you walk me through this, please?

[1:38:12] » Yeah, I'm going to go back up to the slide that has the criteria of approval.

[1:38:20] » And I think one of the point, I mean, one of the criteria is that we have an

[1:38:24] annexation agreement with signed with the city, and it was not there in any of

[1:38:27] the previous meetings that we've had. >> Correct. After the the um

[1:38:32] my understanding of the direction from Council in June 22nd was we're not sure

[1:38:36] if we will if we are prepared to approve or deny this, but one of the concerns

[1:38:40] would be if there's an annexation agreement that moves forward, if that's

[1:38:44] not included in the record, then that might be grounds for a procedural

[1:38:48] challenge later on. So, knowing that the Council may want to approve this

[1:38:51] application, um we felt as staff it was important to develop um

[1:38:57] an annexation agreement that staff could support um

[1:39:01] and negotiate that with the applicant so that it could be put in the record,

[1:39:04] um and there could be response to it for Council's consideration if you want to

[1:39:08] move that forward. We're on step what I would say step three of applying the

[1:39:12] criteria, and the annexation agreement's at step five.

[1:39:16] So, I think that um an annexation agreement or some other

[1:39:20] form of mitigating fiscal impact, sorry, would be appropriate, but you can't get

[1:39:24] to that step unless you decide whether it's consistent with a comprehensive

[1:39:29] plan at a higher level because um

[1:39:33] I mean, if if the annexation is not consistent with the comprehensive plan,

[1:39:38] we can't determine if the minimum level of key urban facilities and services can

[1:39:42] be provided to a use that's the council finds is inconsistent with a

[1:39:46] comprehensive plan. Um

[1:39:50] » Are you done, Councillor Stout? >> Yep. Yeah, that's

[1:39:52] » Uh Councillor Rodli.

[1:39:56] » You'll see what I do. Um Thank you.

[1:39:59] So, I I feel a little differently about this or I'm thinking a little

[1:40:03] differently about this than Councillor Webber. Um I I'm really First of all, I

[1:40:09] appreciate that we have reined it in cuz I think that's part of it felt like like

[1:40:13] we do annexation conversations all the time. And this particular one got taken

[1:40:18] to a whole other place that was not at all what we're all used to doing, which

[1:40:22] I think caused a little bit of friction as we're like trying to say, "Look, we

[1:40:26] don't usually talk about these things. We we know how to do annexation

[1:40:29] agreements." I think for me um exactly where we're at

[1:40:33] right now is the conversation that I wanted to have, whether or not this

[1:40:36] fits. And the fact that it's still a little wiggly, I'm not convinced that it

[1:40:40] doesn't fit. So, I'm more interested in um

[1:40:45] to Councillor Webber's point of wanting to have a process, like is is this is

[1:40:50] this a means to that process? To have this conversation, and this is you know,

[1:40:54] we had a about a year or so ago, we had another business that came in and wanted

[1:40:58] to do something that folks some folks felt outside of the um the business use.

[1:41:04] It wasn't an annexation conversation, but it was like, "Can we do this

[1:41:07] business in the gateway area?" And we had to have that conversation to make

[1:41:10] that decision. So, I am I am interested in

[1:41:15] how do we how do we, if we can, get to yes on

[1:41:19] this? And if we can't, where can this facility go? So, that's where I'm at.

[1:41:24] I'm I'm not convinced that it doesn't fit the comprehensive plan. That's why I

[1:41:28] was asking like, "Do we have other designations?" And if we don't, where

[1:41:31] would we ordinarily fit this? And the fact that um we have so many other

[1:41:36] medical uses in that area also sort of pulls me in the direction of is there a

[1:41:42] way to get there? I'm also not convinced that there's a way to get there based on

[1:41:46] just the simple annexation criteria, but I'm not ready

[1:41:50] to shut the conversation down in terms of trying to figure out does it fit or

[1:41:54] seeing how my fellow my fellow counselors feel about whether or not it

[1:41:57] could or couldn't fit. >> Uh Council Buck.

[1:42:04] » Uh I I I appreciate some of the articulation, you know, um

[1:42:08] I am extremely supportive of of Peace Health in the and and and

[1:42:13] the project that they're they're wanting to put in our community.

[1:42:16] Uh you know, I spent 5 years as the crisis

[1:42:19] worker that was in the ER that had the conversations that said, "Are you going

[1:42:24] to go to a secure facility or can we create a plan to support you to go

[1:42:28] home?" So,

[1:42:30] you know, I I need no convincing about the value

[1:42:34] of what Peace Health brings. Like none whatsoever. And I feel it's extremely

[1:42:39] important that we find a way to make sure that this facility has a

[1:42:43] home in Springfield. I think that

[1:42:49] a couple of the places that I'm still unsure about the fit on on this

[1:42:55] and and and and largely the I don't want us to get into a place that

[1:43:00] is if if if we're make if the criteria fits then it fits and great, but if

[1:43:04] we're if we're having to kind of you know, make adjustments or exceptions

[1:43:10] or amendments to to to make it fit, then I then I think that needs to get looked

[1:43:16] at because as I look at the the Gateway refinement

[1:43:19] plan, um and this may be just how I'm looking

[1:43:22] at it. I'm looking at

[1:43:26] as somebody who works in that area, like there's a lot of refining that

[1:43:29] needs to happen, right? I mean, it's not uh you know, I I don't think there is a

[1:43:33] plan that anybody says, "Hey, this is the direction we're going." I think it's

[1:43:37] still very much a work in progress and figuring out how it all fits

[1:43:42] um with a clear process that that creates a long-term vision.

[1:43:47] I I think it's is is important. Um sitting sitting here today

[1:43:53] I think that the question still remains for me

[1:43:58] does this does does this actually fit inside um our

[1:44:03] our criteria? I don't know that it does. I don't know

[1:44:07] that it doesn't, kind of like Councilor Rodli said, but

[1:44:11] I also very agree very much agree with Councilor Webber that

[1:44:14] we have to stick to something that's consistent. We have to stick to

[1:44:18] something that makes sense because this will not be the last time this comes up

[1:44:22] and it's going to have far-reaching impacts over what we do because we know

[1:44:26] that that changes need to be made in that area of the city. So

[1:44:30] I'm really hesitant to approve something not really clear about

[1:44:36] what that ramification is. However, I am very interested to keep the conversation

[1:44:41] going about how we can make this work. So, I got two conflicting things there.

[1:44:46] You know, and so I'm not sure that the land use applies

[1:44:49] but I'm not sure that it doesn't, either.

[1:44:52] » I If I can take a minute, I think um I'm

[1:44:56] hearing I want to recap and make sure that I'm

[1:44:59] understanding. I'm hearing some interest from

[1:45:03] Councilor Rodli and Councilor Duck to maybe look at larger legislative actions

[1:45:07] in the future that might clarify things. Um

[1:45:11] I'm I'm not sure what the questions are in relation to the annexation the state.

[1:45:15] So, maybe help me understand a little bit better what additional information

[1:45:19] or guidance that you know, we we can walk through

[1:45:22] tonight. I do have slides that show two different ways to interpret the campus

[1:45:26] industrial designation um as it relates to the application and there probably

[1:45:31] are other ways, but these were the two that um

[1:45:34] you know, I think are legally defensible. Um and then how some of the

[1:45:38] facts relate to those proposed interpretations and then what the

[1:45:42] consequence would be to this annexation if you went either of those ways.

[1:45:46] Um but then also, you know, it's all the council does always have an option to

[1:45:51] begin a legislative process to change the gateway refinement plan or to

[1:45:56] redesignate and rezone, you know, multiple part parcels or areas of a

[1:46:00] city, but that can't be within a quasi-judicial process and you have to

[1:46:04] make a quasi-judicial decision based on the plan and and plan provisions that

[1:46:10] existed when the application was filed. So, it we can't you couldn't pause the

[1:46:14] annexation, pick up legislative amendments to do something, you know,

[1:46:18] more policy-based and then resume the annexation. So, I just want to be clear

[1:46:21] on that. >> And I think you're hearing us kind of

[1:46:23] struggle with different avenues here, right? Like one of them is very

[1:46:26] distinctly um there needs to be a conversation out

[1:46:30] in in North Gateway about what our vision is, what our zoning is, how do we

[1:46:34] balance between, you know, our tourism uh sector, our campus industrial sector,

[1:46:40] and a growing medical sector that people are not aligned on, right? So,

[1:46:44] as we as I'm thinking about it, we have this conversation about this annexation

[1:46:47] and this piece of property that we're dealing with, but underneath that,

[1:46:51] you're hearing a lot of questions about, you know, the future gateway, how do we

[1:46:56] deal with the transportation, and I would expect that some of those things

[1:46:59] are going to sort of spin off into additional work after whatever we do

[1:47:02] with this this uh annexation. And then I think

[1:47:08] I'm hearing you tell us we can't work those problems, we got to work the

[1:47:11] annexation. That's the thing that's right That's the thing that's right in

[1:47:14] front of us. Um my question,

[1:47:18] and if this is in your slides, uh Uh, we can we can definitely go down we could

[1:47:22] definitely go down that road. As I'm thinking about, you know, the work we

[1:47:26] did around the Haas property, right? We basically had a clinic go into, you

[1:47:30] know, 555 International. Um, we've had another Haas, but like, what are those

[1:47:35] zonings? Cuz the map you showed does have a,

[1:47:38] uh, does have, I think still has them as campus industrial.

[1:47:42] » Correct. And the the Haas Office Park, which was the applicant for those

[1:47:46] development code changes, >> Right.

[1:47:47] » um, is zoned campus industrial and continues to be. The findings in that

[1:47:51] decision were based around what's allowable in business parks, which

[1:47:54] you'll notice, um, provision should also be made for small and medium-scale

[1:47:58] industrial uses within the context of industrial and business parks, which

[1:48:01] will maintain a campus-like setting with minimal environmental impacts.

[1:48:05] While I don't have that ordinance directly in front of me, I, um, I could

[1:48:08] certainly follow up with the council with more information, but my

[1:48:11] recollection from that process is that the findings were around those medical

[1:48:15] uses would be limited to business parks. Um, and so they're, and also would have

[1:48:20] sort of the same type of external impacts because of their status in

[1:48:23] business parks, and then also because business parks have to go through, on

[1:48:27] the second slide, um, those performance, those campus industrial site performance

[1:48:32] standards and site review process, um, and impacts to surrounding properties

[1:48:38] needed to be reviewed as part of that, um,

[1:48:42] those changes. There were also changes made for more, um,

[1:48:46] more just more public-facing services in general. Medical services weren't the

[1:48:50] only ones, um, based on some public testimony and opposition to stand-alone

[1:48:54] medical uses, and public testimony based on incompatibility with sort of at all

[1:49:00] hours types of medical services or urgent cares, the council included a

[1:49:04] provision that said, we, you know, urgent cares or emergency services are

[1:49:09] not permitted because of the impacts that those would have that the council

[1:49:13] at that time thought would be, um, not necessarily compatible with the

[1:49:18] campus industrial setting. That doesn't necessarily mean that you couldn't make

[1:49:22] a different like you couldn't apply the purpose of this district and make a

[1:49:26] different decision for the applicants for annexation for the applicants

[1:49:30] proposed uses looking at the um, the

[1:49:35] policy link, sorry, the this policy language. Um, but that was

[1:49:39] the decision the council made at that time around business parks specifically,

[1:49:43] which are called out in the policy differently than stand-alone

[1:49:46] developments. >> And what about um, what about the where

[1:49:49] the clinic is at 555 International? That's the Pacific Source building.

[1:49:55] » Um, which sorry, specify which clinic? >> I think they opened a clinic that is uh,

[1:50:02] it's Pace maybe? >> Okay. Um, the my understanding is that

[1:50:07] the Pace clinic was approved as a secondary or accessory use to the

[1:50:12] overall campus industrial use.

[1:50:17] » Okay.

[1:50:21] I think and I'll I'll turn it over to folks if they've got more questions. I

[1:50:24] mean, I think it would be helpful to go through the slides, right? Because where

[1:50:28] where I'm thinking about about it is I still have questions around does it fit

[1:50:34] in the campus industrial? It uh, when I think about the annexation,

[1:50:38] um, it you know, it feels like we can generally serve it. I think

[1:50:42] Councilmember brings up a good good uh, good point that we have a lot of work in

[1:50:47] front of us, right? Until we have the final final annexation agreement, until

[1:50:51] we have the transportation questions, the wheels can kind of come off the bus

[1:50:54] on this thing a couple of a couple of different ways.

[1:50:57] And I feel like it it meets the employment standards, but

[1:51:01] where I want to see a little bit more is around this

[1:51:04] question of okay, how does it fit in this campus industrial framework?

[1:51:08] » Okay. Um, so >> Before we get

[1:51:11] off track, I know there's some people that haven't asked questions. I'm just

[1:51:14] going to give folks a chance to

[1:51:17] Okay, I don't think we have no questions. So maybe your two your two

[1:51:20] slides about two competing frameworks would help us?

[1:51:23] » Yes, but I want to back up briefly to this slide really quickly

[1:51:28] with the urbanization element um just to make sure I touch on this

[1:51:33] well. So urbanizable lands in the 2030 UGB

[1:51:36] shall be converted to urban uses. It does say as shown on the Springfield

[1:51:40] Comprehensive Plan Map. Um and the plan map is what provides those designations.

[1:51:46] So I just want to reinforce that that is the reason that we're talk that's one of

[1:51:49] the reasons we're talking about the anticipated future uses um because I

[1:51:54] know that that's been a point of contention. There's an argument that the

[1:51:57] city has to look at annexation in a vacuum and not consider how the property

[1:52:01] would be used in the future. And I don't recommend that that's consistent with

[1:52:04] the way that the um comprehensive plan is written. So before we get to into how

[1:52:09] to interpret that campus industrial language, I want to make sure the

[1:52:11] council understands and doesn't have questions about sort of that fundamental

[1:52:15] interpretation because that's different than what the applicants have asked you

[1:52:18] to to do with this policy. >> So you're asking us whether or not we're

[1:52:23] clear on can we interpret the annexation in a

[1:52:26] vacuum versus understand their proposed use in the absence of I guess a

[1:52:31] development application? >> Yeah. You're not looking at whether

[1:52:33] their proposed use is specifically approvable and meets specific criteria

[1:52:38] for development, but whether the anticipated future uses are My

[1:52:41] recommendation is that you look at whether their anticipated future uses

[1:52:45] fall within the description of urban uses as shown in the Springfield

[1:52:49] Comprehensive Plan Map, which means that you would look to the Comprehensive Plan

[1:52:52] designation policies that are either in the assignment plan or the land use

[1:52:56] element or both. And I just want to make sure that that that's a fundamental

[1:52:59] framework that applies to both ways I'm recommending you could interpret the

[1:53:03] campus industrial designation. So if you had an issue with that approach, I would

[1:53:07] need to back it up again a level. >> Okay, but uh

[1:53:11] » pedance >> I'm seeing some pedance, but we expect

[1:53:14] land use certificates by the time this is done.

[1:53:16] » think he'll have earned more than certificates. I think like bull bull and

[1:53:19] diplomas with some tassels to turn. Um Okay. So,

[1:53:25] sorry, skipping ahead. I'm jumping around a whole bunch, sorry.

[1:53:29] So, again, there there may be more than two ways to interpret it, but I think

[1:53:33] there are sort of two general approaches that you can take when you look at this

[1:53:36] policy language. And I also want to be clear the city council has discretion to

[1:53:41] interpret your comprehensive plan policies. The land use board of appeals

[1:53:45] will give you leeway. They can think you didn't make the best interpretation.

[1:53:50] They would have liked the other interpretation better, as long as your

[1:53:53] interpretation is plausible and doesn't clearly contradict sort of the overall

[1:53:58] legal framework and purpose for your policies, then they will give you

[1:54:02] discretion on the interpretation that you make. So, I my

[1:54:05] um purpose I think is to bring to you those options that you have for

[1:54:08] interpreting that. So, with that said, I think there's kind

[1:54:10] of two ways you could look at this. One is you could look at, well, what types

[1:54:14] of other employment uses are generally compatible with a campus industrial

[1:54:18] area, um based on the sort of broader language in

[1:54:24] that policy. So, other employment kind of way to summarize this, other

[1:54:28] employment uses may be allowed when their characteristics are compatible

[1:54:32] with the CI designation and the area remains primarily focused on light

[1:54:35] industrial uses. So, when the campus industrial district district as a

[1:54:39] whole, looking at it in as an entire area,

[1:54:42] maintains its campus industrial primarily for light industrial uses,

[1:54:47] then you can have sites that develop for different uses that aren't those

[1:54:50] described in the um designation, as long as they're have they have some level of

[1:54:55] compatibility. The other way that you could interpret

[1:54:58] that policy is maybe more not more limited, but more specific.

[1:55:02] Other employment uses, so not light industrial firms. There's no dispute, I

[1:55:06] will say, that what the that the planned future uses of the property is light

[1:55:10] industrial. I don't think anyone is arguing to you that it fits in that

[1:55:13] primary purpose of the campus industrial district. So, other employment uses, um

[1:55:18] another way to relate to this is other employment uses must primarily serve,

[1:55:22] support, or relate to industrial uses, or be secondary to industrial uses.

[1:55:27] Um I think either of these interpretations are consistent with the

[1:55:30] code changes you made in the Haas um application because it either way you

[1:55:35] look at it, in one the other medical or retail or food service type uses, um

[1:55:44] still ensure the area remains primarily for campus industrial, light employment,

[1:55:48] or light industrial types type of uses, and the area um and those business park

[1:55:52] uses are compatible with the surrounding CI district. On the other industrial

[1:55:57] related uses, those other retail uses are still within a business park, which

[1:56:02] is approved as itself a campus industrial use, and is intended to

[1:56:06] accommodate light industrial uses. And so, those other sort of public-facing

[1:56:10] uses would be secondary to industrial uses within that business park as a

[1:56:15] whole. Um so, I want to be clear, I think both

[1:56:18] of these ways kind of keep consistency with other ways you've applied this this

[1:56:22] designation in the past. If you took those approaches, then some

[1:56:26] of the facts you might consider to be relevant, I should change it on here and

[1:56:30] on my own computer because you can't see my own computer. Um so, looking at

[1:56:34] compatibility with employment uses generally. So, the the site is about 18

[1:56:39] acres out of uh 280-acre SLI site in the Gateway Refinement Plan. So, using that

[1:56:45] like sort of area-wide metric, allowing

[1:56:48] isolated sort of medical type uses on this site does not primarily change the

[1:56:53] campus industrial area as a whole. And anticipated uses could be found to

[1:57:00] be like light industrial uses in that they also diversify diversify local

[1:57:04] economy. They provide jobs. They would be

[1:57:08] set in a campus-like environment. That's the way the applicant has proposed it.

[1:57:11] It would be a campus of these two facilities together. Um the primary

[1:57:16] activities on the site are obscured from public view. Usually we think of

[1:57:20] obscuring primary activities to mean like we don't do outdoor storage of

[1:57:23] heavy machinery. We're not doing, you know, um vehicle repair out in the

[1:57:29] open. We're not uh it's not a lumber mill type situation where you have store

[1:57:33] like storage of bulk um commodities, uh you know, open to the public or visible

[1:57:39] to public. And then limits external impacts um noise pollution and

[1:57:43] vibrations similar to office uses. So I think medical facilities do have

[1:57:48] generally noise pollution and vibration similar to off- office uses. I think on

[1:57:53] this compatible employment uses you could adopt this interpretation but find

[1:57:56] other facts to be more important and still conclude that the annexations for

[1:58:00] these proposed uses is inconsistent and isn't compatible with employment uses,

[1:58:04] but I think there are a lot of facts in the record that could lead to you

[1:58:07] concluding it is consistent. On the side of industrial-related uses,

[1:58:12] um the site's surrounded by light industrial uses and property owners um

[1:58:16] have given you public comment that they're concerned about specific

[1:58:19] compatibility of this site to their light industrial uses. There's no link

[1:58:24] between the anticipated uses and light industrial employment or light

[1:58:27] industrial uses. So this is not like medical services for people visiting a

[1:58:31] light industrial user. This is not um in the example of the PeaceHealth and

[1:58:37] Pace program, this is not an example of um a program being operated in the

[1:58:42] context of a larger light industrial use. Um and the anticipated uses aren't

[1:58:47] accessory or complimentary to light industrial uses. They're not you know,

[1:58:52] being carried out in the same sort of common development or as part of a

[1:58:57] related light industrial use.

[1:59:02] So, generally um with these two two interpretations,

[1:59:07] if you find that it's sort of more about compatibility and overall area

[1:59:13] um then criterion B is um met for campus industrial designation. Again, you could

[1:59:18] apply different facts on the record to come to the opposite conclusion, I think

[1:59:21] on this one, but reading where a lot of the facts are, I think it you know, it's

[1:59:26] likely met. Um but for two, if you took this approach, I think criterion B is

[1:59:31] not met for campus industrial designation. I don't think there are the

[1:59:34] set of facts um that you could find to be more important under the second

[1:59:38] interpretation that also allows you to approve the annexation. So, I want to be

[1:59:43] clear. I think the first way you can make a decision

[1:59:47] still either way, you'd have to get into the facts more and find, you know, way

[1:59:50] compatibility. Um but the second way, I think it would be clearly not met if you

[1:59:55] prioritize sort of the very specific wording of that um comp plan designation

[1:59:59] description for each sort of each side as as it's proposed to develop.

[2:00:04] I can talk through either of those interpretations more, answer questions.

[2:00:07] I know this is this really is like very

[2:00:11] nuanced um and specifically land use decision-making.

[2:00:16] » Do other folks have questions? So, uh

[2:00:20] I would assume what you're kind of setting us up is if we wanted to choose

[2:00:25] going down one path or the other, that's going to help us get to the final

[2:00:29] decision on what we what we're talking about from these sort of this planning

[2:00:34] consistency question. >> Correct.

[2:00:36] » Understanding that we probably do have transportation that is not sort of

[2:00:40] solved at all. >> Yes.

[2:00:41] » And this question around the annexation agreement, which we haven't even

[2:00:44] touched. >> Correct. This is not to say if you take

[2:00:46] number one, you have to approve the annexation. If you take number two, you

[2:00:49] don't. If you take number one, you still have a lot of decision-making left to do

[2:00:54] if you take an interpretation like number one.

[2:00:57] Um but I think that that could lead you to

[2:01:01] approving the annexation. If you take the approach of number two, that is more

[2:01:06] spec- that is more tied into the specific text. Um but I don't think it's

[2:01:11] necessarily any more legally defensible. I think both approaches to interpreting

[2:01:15] it is allowed, but under number two, I think the comprehensive plan consistency

[2:01:19] would not be met. And so then I would recommend that we don't even get into

[2:01:22] discussions of infrastructure and the annexation agreement because I don't

[2:01:26] think there's any benefit. Um it's legally valid. You only need one

[2:01:31] reason to deny an application. You have to show all criteria are met to approve

[2:01:35] it. So it's generally not um

[2:01:39] I don't know that it's helpful to the council to spend a lot of time

[2:01:42] deliberating over whether other criteria are met if you can't get past the comp

[2:01:47] plan and campus industrial designation. Um but you will have a lot more

[2:01:51] deliberation to do if you if you decide that this um that it could be a

[2:01:55] compatible employment use and the area-wide approach.

[2:01:58] » Great. Councilor Stout. >> Uh just real quick, I'm wondering if

[2:02:02] you can foresee any unintended consequences of sort of the interpretive

[2:02:06] leap that I see of the compatible employment uses path of the first path.

[2:02:11] I see it as a bit of an interpretive leap.

[2:02:13] What I mean, it's been alleged that the EWEB decision may have had some, you

[2:02:17] know, consequences for how we are to apply things consistently. So I'm

[2:02:21] curious to you and you don't have to have an answer right now for this, but

[2:02:25] can we talk through like, okay, what are some of the unintended consequences that

[2:02:28] are going to happen on a development level

[2:02:31] um for future applications that come down the pike?

[2:02:34] » Yeah, that's a great question. So I think the first answer I would say is

[2:02:38] that the comprehensive plan is typically not a criteria of approval for a

[2:02:41] development application. So, typically the comprehensive plan gets applied to a

[2:02:45] very limited scope of decisions that the council makes. One of those is

[2:02:49] annexation. Another type of decision is a plan

[2:02:52] amendment and zone change. Typically in that case you would be

[2:02:56] looking at whether the zoning that's proposed fits with the description of

[2:03:01] the comprehensive plan designation. And so on in that way

[2:03:05] somebody may make the argument that a zone that is not campus industrial still

[2:03:09] fits within the campus industrial designation based on it being a very

[2:03:13] small site. I think that would be different enough that the council's

[2:03:17] decision in this annexation would not bind that other decision.

[2:03:22] Um I also think that, you know, it would

[2:03:25] apply to other annexations in the campus industrial district. What is unique

[2:03:28] about this one that I don't see applying elsewhere is that um

[2:03:33] we would not enter an agreement with the applicants that said this annexation is

[2:03:37] approved but you have to do a plan amendment zone change.

[2:03:40] And anyone else wanting to annex in the campus industrial district for a use

[2:03:44] that isn't allowed in the campus industrial district

[2:03:47] I think would typically understand, absent a state superseding law, that

[2:03:50] they would need to do a plan amendment zone change

[2:03:53] um and would be understanding of an annexation agreement that contemplated

[2:03:57] that or or that made findings stating that would be required.

[2:04:00] Um So, I I don't think either of these

[2:04:04] binds the council in a way that would be problematic or would prevent or limit

[2:04:07] council's decision making. Um while I don't in

[2:04:12] I would never in give you an interpretation as plausible that I would

[2:04:17] expect you to reverse later, but the law does allow councils, you know, a future

[2:04:21] council that views things differently can change their mind as long as they

[2:04:25] give notice of a different interpretation

[2:04:28] um and allow the applicants in that case to respond to a different interpretation

[2:04:31] and and um give input. But I I think it's likely that the

[2:04:36] council does will do some work to maybe look at this in more depth. Um, and

[2:04:40] you'll be continuing to do comprehensive planning. So, the likelihood that the

[2:04:43] exact facts arise again, um,

[2:04:46] it seems pretty unlikely. >> Uh, Councilmember Buck.

[2:04:53] So, I I I think what I'm struggling to kind of

[2:04:58] really wrap my my my my head around here is

[2:05:03] when we look at that criteria one, right? Like that that that first path.

[2:05:08] Um,

[2:05:10] and I kind of step back and I'm like, yes, but it is we're talking campus

[2:05:13] industrial. So, so path two, I see how that applies.

[2:05:18] Um, and and I and I absolutely

[2:05:23] hear you and you're saying, you know, legally it's defensible and all of tho-

[2:05:26] those kind of things. I just

[2:05:31] when I look at the criteria here and I look at the

[2:05:34] this and as much as I want to see this project move forward,

[2:05:40] I'm just looking at this and seeing like I don't see I don't see

[2:05:44] I'm struggling with how that applies that that criteria one. So, maybe if you

[2:05:48] could just restate it again because I I see it as trying

[2:05:53] to interpret like some piece of this, but at the but but at the

[2:05:58] the base of this is does it meet campus industrial?

[2:06:03] Um, and and the agreement, I mean, there's

[2:06:07] no argument that this is not necessarily that. So,

[2:06:12] how we can justify using a different interpretation, I'm

[2:06:16] I'm unsure. >> So, that

[2:06:20] » and again, I would love to see the conversation continue. I'd love to see a

[2:06:23] path forward on here, but we have to do it in a way that's consistent and and

[2:06:27] can be defensible and and repeatable. Like if somebody else came in

[2:06:31] and this >> I think it's absolutely defensible for

[2:06:34] the council to say that um the types of uses that are consistent the types of

[2:06:40] urban uses that are consistent with campus industrial are light

[2:06:44] industrial firms that um that are like large-scale ones

[2:06:49] and then small and medium ones industrial and business parks and then

[2:06:55] limited complimentary uses um on um that support

[2:07:00] established sort of primary uses. Um I also think the council could decide we

[2:07:05] want to be broader. And so I think so I think like that's

[2:07:08] where you're headed. I think that is a 100% um a defensible interpretation of

[2:07:13] that district. If that's how the council views that district and what this

[2:07:17] language that's on the monitor right now means to you. It is your plan.

[2:07:22] Um you also could say we think comprehensive plans are a little higher

[2:07:26] level. We think it ought to be a little bit more flexible. And so we're going to

[2:07:29] read this language that that's the primary objective of the designation

[2:07:33] does not mean the exclusive objective or the objective, you know, not and not

[2:07:39] other employment things. So if you took that broader view

[2:07:43] um which is not I will not say is necessarily something the city's done in

[2:07:47] a lot of cases. Um I don't know that you've taken a broader view of other it

[2:07:52] it's not binding on your decision, but I don't know that the council has ever

[2:07:55] taken like a much broader view of what the low-density residential designation

[2:08:00] is for, for example. Um state laws required us to adopt code amendments

[2:08:05] that do that, but I don't know that the council has ever made that call itself.

[2:08:09] Um that's probably not relevant information to the record. So I

[2:08:12] guess I should counsel you to ignore what I said, but um

[2:08:17] I I think like that's you can take a broader view even if you

[2:08:20] haven't done that in the past is what I'm trying to say. Um and so if you're

[2:08:23] taking a broader view, you would say, "Well, sure. The primary objective is to

[2:08:28] provide for light industrial firms. And there are about 200 some acres

[2:08:33] designated for light industrial firms that will remain for those uses. So,

[2:08:38] this one specific site doesn't conflict with the primary objective of the campus

[2:08:43] industrial designation. So, then the council looks at, "Well, is it somehow

[2:08:47] going to detract from or take away from or prevent that primary objective from

[2:08:53] moving forward?" So, then you would look at compatibility. Um and the

[2:08:56] compatibility factors that this calls out specifically are noise, pollution,

[2:09:00] and vibration, but you could look at others. Oh, and and and being in a

[2:09:04] campus-like setting. You could look at other impacts, as well. So, kind of two

[2:09:08] ways to approach it. >> All right, Council Weber.

[2:09:16] » I really appreciate that that we want to find a path forward here,

[2:09:21] but I I'm sitting here and I'm listening to all of this, and we've we've spent so

[2:09:25] many hours, staff have spent so many hours going through all of this

[2:09:29] material, giving us, you know, trying to educate

[2:09:32] us around all of these different things. And I'm just I'm I'm listening to this

[2:09:37] thinking to myself, yes, this is such an important thing, and nobody wants to say

[2:09:42] no. But at the same time, if we have to

[2:09:44] stretch this far to determine whether this is compatible

[2:09:49] in a in a in a zone or a

[2:09:53] plan or any of these things that this council has put in place,

[2:09:59] this just for me is not the this isn't the decision we should be making today.

[2:10:04] We should be making this around a more holistic approach.

[2:10:07] Do we want to change the zoning? What do we want the zoning to be?

[2:10:11] We just keep putting ourselves on this slippery path of one-off decisions, and

[2:10:16] I I'm really struggling to to to be supportive of that.

[2:10:21] » Hi, Council Quadros. >> So, we've talked this through, I think,

[2:10:25] three or four times. We've acknowledged, um, the difficulty of this conversation,

[2:10:29] and I do really appreciate it, Christina, that, um, that you've stated

[2:10:34] it as well, um, because of the needs in this community for a project like this.

[2:10:39] Um, but ultimately, that's not the question that you're asking us. Um, and

[2:10:45] Councilor Weber, you used the word stretch, and I have that written like

[2:10:49] four times on my paper. Um, that this comprehensive plan, um,

[2:10:55] with the designation of the comp- campus industrial, we're being asked to fit

[2:10:59] this comp plan for annexation purposes, but path one, I believe, is a stretch.

[2:11:05] Taking it at a higher level, I believe, is also a stretch. Path two, fairly

[2:11:10] obvious. Um, it's just not it's not it's not

[2:11:15] fitting, um, in my opinion, for that consistency that we're looking for.

[2:11:25] » You ready to get in here, Steve?

[2:11:28] » Everything we're talking about, plans and goals and everything for this area,

[2:11:32] is irrelevant. We need to annex it to the city first.

[2:11:36] It's going to be annexed eventually. Let's get that done, and then we go on

[2:11:40] with the rest of the stuff.

[2:11:44] » And I think, um, between the between the two issues, I

[2:11:49] actually see one as less of a stretch. I mean, if I kind of play this, uh, North

[2:11:53] Gateway area out, and I kind of imagine it filled out with the way it's

[2:11:57] developed the last 20 years, I don't feel like any one of these is inherently

[2:12:01] incompatible, and our goal as a city has always been specifically to diversify

[2:12:05] our employment up there. Now, that doesn't get me all the way,

[2:12:09] but I I agree that if we go if we choose to go down path two, this thing's

[2:12:14] essentially done, right? Because I don't think it meets the rules for for path

[2:12:18] two, but I do think that having the conversation at this level

[2:12:23] around that it there are it is an employment use,

[2:12:27] and it does look and feel and talk like a like a campus-like environment, and

[2:12:32] it's got some of those some of these other elements. I think we keep talk I

[2:12:35] think we keep talking about it unless folks want to try voting on which

[2:12:39] direction they want to go. >> Councilor Bock.

[2:12:47] So, is it fair to say the understanding of

[2:12:51] um if if we go down uh route one, that we're acknowledging like

[2:12:58] this still has some some real obstacles that that that could

[2:13:04] kill us down the road. We This is

[2:13:07] we're not we're not saying that we can get through all of that. We're just

[2:13:10] saying that we want to keep working on it because we think that, you know, it's

[2:13:14] important and there's value here, but that there's still some real barriers.

[2:13:19] Is that Is that what I'm Is that what I'm understanding we could

[2:13:23] be saying with with adopting route one? >> I think if we chose route one, that does

[2:13:29] not mean this thing that we're not going to find another issue that essentially

[2:13:33] causes us to deny it, but it would also mean that effective

[2:13:38] » Keep this conversation going. >> And in route Yeah, and go ahead,

[2:13:41] Councilor Nu. >> I want to clarify because

[2:13:43] I want to be really specific. Um there's if you're talking about a a

[2:13:47] conversation, then that conversation could be

[2:13:51] siting mental health services in Springfield, which is not the annexation

[2:13:55] decision. Um and so when and I've heard the council use that like keep the

[2:13:59] conversation or keep this issue moving forward as like a broader discussion

[2:14:03] around siting a a facility like this versus applying the annexation criteria

[2:14:09] to the application and how many more meetings the council continues to

[2:14:13] deliberate on the specific annexation criteria. So, um the what I will say is

[2:14:19] that the city's annexation decision does not stop any public

[2:14:24] discussion or city efforts to you know, help identify land or like any

[2:14:30] discussion on this facility. Um and and this need for this kind of service in

[2:14:35] Springfield. It does not stop development from happening in the future

[2:14:39] on this land. It simply denies the application based on the

[2:14:43] the annexation based on the application you have in front of you. There could be

[2:14:48] a different application. There could be a different set of facts. There could be

[2:14:51] different plan designation um or an agreement

[2:14:56] you know, to seek a plan you know, there could be some other set of facts in a

[2:14:59] different application that the council might reach a different decision. So, I

[2:15:03] I'm just wanting to be really clear when you talk What do you What do you mean

[2:15:06] when you talk about the conversation moving forward?

[2:15:09] » So, to be clear, I mean talking about this piece of property applying the

[2:15:13] annexation criteria, not necessarily the broader the broader policy issue around

[2:15:18] around mental health. Go ahead, Council.

[2:15:20] » Agreed. That's what I'm talking about as well.

[2:15:23] Acknowledging that we could we could apply the annexation

[2:15:27] um criteria and do that and as we after

[2:15:31] that happens, there could be a whole lot of other things. We might not get to

[2:15:34] agreement about other pieces of it. >> All right.

[2:15:39] All right. So, I think we got to decide how we want to move forward here. Do we

[2:15:42] want to just take a a brief straw poll about which one of these versions you

[2:15:46] see it as? Um looking at Christina to make sure that

[2:15:50] » You can certainly do this. The record and the hearing are closed. There's no

[2:15:54] issue of bias. You are allowed to start coming to a decision. Um I will say your

[2:15:58] straw poll on how you would interpret the comp plan does not bind you in any

[2:16:02] way to any future vote. It's just to sort of help you narrow down where

[2:16:05] you're at, where you might have a majority for a vote um in the future.

[2:16:10] » Okay, so do do folks want to talk about it more, have more

[2:16:13] questions, or just take an initial cuz we've got we still have other items to

[2:16:17] get to. Um

[2:16:19] so want to take an initial kind of count about kind of what they're thinking.

[2:16:24] » Um >> Go ahead.

[2:16:25] » Mr. Mayor, this is this is one of the first opportunities where we've actually

[2:16:29] had to speak about this topic that we've heard quite a bit about at time.

[2:16:33] I would actually be in favor of and I know you love hearing this, of moving

[2:16:37] this to a following meeting so that we have an opportunity to digest the final

[2:16:42] information that's presented to us here. And if that's not okay, I understand

[2:16:45] that, but I'm just saying there's a tremendous amount riding on this. I'd

[2:16:48] like to be able to think through it and take a little bit

[2:16:52] more time with it. >> I I think that is a I think that is a

[2:16:54] reasonable I think that is a reasonable approach too. If people aren't ready to

[2:16:57] start making some decisions to to take a little bit more time to think about it.

[2:17:02] I'm going to look over to this side and see what

[2:17:10] All right, you guys are going to have to jump in here because no matter what we

[2:17:15] our obligation is to keep moving this moving this thing forward, but we get to

[2:17:18] move it forward at the pace that we want. If you want more time, we can take

[2:17:21] some more time cuz I know it's on the agenda for next week to deliberate more

[2:17:26] further. >> Yeah, my intent was to deliberate on the

[2:17:29] infrastructure issues that the council gave that direction. Um I'm not sure

[2:17:32] what you would like me to do if you're still not resolved on this matter

[2:17:36] because that I I don't know how to prepare for that work session without

[2:17:39] direction on the sort of

[2:17:42] condition precedent. >> Okay, so let's do this. Hang on to that

[2:17:46] thought. Let's see where everybody if people are ready to either start

[2:17:49] deciding uh kind of path one or path two or if they

[2:17:54] want a little bit more time to think about it.

[2:17:57] You want a little bit more time? Council Quadros, are you are you ready to kind

[2:18:01] of pick a path or do you want more time?

[2:18:06] » I think that I'm ready to pick a path. >> Okay. So, why don't why don't we try why

[2:18:12] don't we try that? So, Councilwoman Quadros, what are you thinking about a

[2:18:14] path?

[2:18:17] » I am more landing in the path two at this point.

[2:18:22] » All right. We'll we'll let Councilman Stout have a little bit more time

[2:18:26] because he asked for it. Councilman Webber?

[2:18:30] » I'm in neither path.

[2:18:37] » Okay. So, >> Okay.

[2:18:39] » You have to interpret your comp plan in order to make a decision. And so, is

[2:18:42] there a different interpretation? So, to be clear comp the the

[2:18:47] There are other interpretations, but my recommendation is that these are the two

[2:18:50] that are obvious to me. Um interpretation one is

[2:18:54] broader, may allow the annexation. Interpretation two does not allow the

[2:18:59] annexation. >> So, let me propose an alternative here.

[2:19:05] Do folks want to go to the next week work session and work the other issues

[2:19:09] and then come back to this one?

[2:19:13] Oh, we can do whatever we want here. Well, I shouldn't say that. We got to we

[2:19:17] got to You guys know. >> I need to have a framework under which

[2:19:21] the council wants me to discuss infrastructure issues, which is going to

[2:19:24] depend on what do you see this comprehensive plan

[2:19:27] policy meaning meaning? Um And so, I'm not sure how to present meaningful

[2:19:32] deliberations to you and relevant information without one of two

[2:19:36] approaches. >> Okay. So, Councilman

[2:19:38] » I I got it. Yes. Thank you for for adding additional clarification for me.

[2:19:43] Um path two. >> Okay. Councilwoman Rodli?

[2:19:47] » Path one. >> Councilman Buck?

[2:19:54] » I

[2:19:56] path path two. I mean, I could get to path

[2:19:59] one, but I'm I'm path two right now. >> Okay.

[2:20:04] Councilor Moe? >> Well, I'm path one, but again,

[2:20:07] annexation is a big bright criteria right now.

[2:20:11] » Path two. So, that Okay. So, that would

[2:20:15] effectively direct you to deny it. Uh for the record, I would be path one. I

[2:20:18] think talking about this thing is and continuing to work the other issues, but

[2:20:22] if we go down path two, then then we should just make a motion now to deny

[2:20:26] it. >> I I don't believe you need to make a

[2:20:29] motion now. One option is the council could bring it back with an order to

[2:20:33] deny based on an interpretation under path two, um for review at your next

[2:20:37] regular meeting on October 5th. You could use the work session to review

[2:20:41] that staff report um and reasoning um an order in more detail at a work session.

[2:20:48] Um Those are both options. Um I I don't

[2:20:52] recommend the council needs to vote tonight unless the majority of the

[2:20:56] council was feeling like the order in the packet with the findings there were

[2:21:00] they were very confident about that being the right set of findings for an

[2:21:03] order to deny based on this interpretation.

[2:21:05] » No, let's let's This is a big enough and complicated enough thing that us

[2:21:09] continuing to work the order a little bit more a little bit further is going

[2:21:14] to you know, would probably help everybody.

[2:21:16] » Okay. >> Um so, I think we let's bring it back

[2:21:19] next week when we have the work session. >> Okay.

[2:21:21] » And then we can work that and then we can work that piece.

[2:21:23] » Okay. >> Um and then and then I get and then can

[2:21:27] you give us other options for what what might happen next, right? Because we're

[2:21:31] denying this application a different set of facts may change it.

[2:21:35] » Correct. Um I think that, you know, I one thing I think I want to

[2:21:40] caution the council on is that I'm expecting you'll receive new ex parte

[2:21:44] contacts um as a result of the meeting tonight. And so, um it is not

[2:21:51] So, if you want to factor in new information you learn that's outside the

[2:21:55] record into your decision-making, you have to reopen the record in hearing. Um

[2:21:59] and the council can decide to do that at a later regular session if you get ex

[2:22:04] parte contacts and it or things submitted into the record that are too

[2:22:08] late, which is what, you know, they might not be they might be in business

[2:22:11] from the audience at a future regular session, for example.

[2:22:14] Um so you'll have that option. I would

[2:22:16] still caution you to respond that you can't discuss it. Um that it's still an

[2:22:21] ongoing process in the same way that I believe councilors have been responding.

[2:22:25] Um and I um

[2:22:28] you know, provide any communications you do receive to planning staff um and to

[2:22:33] city manager's office and city attorney's office so that we can keep

[2:22:35] track of things um and the council can make decisions in

[2:22:38] the future on if you want to reopen the record um for additional information.

[2:22:41] You can also just vote to um be clear that you're excluding later submitted

[2:22:46] information into the record, later submitted information from your

[2:22:50] consideration. So, you don't have to consider things that people tell you um

[2:22:54] going forward. And I think no matter what direction I got from council

[2:22:56] tonight, you were going to hear from people after this meeting um probably

[2:23:00] regardless. So, that's just some some caution. And um yes, I can have um

[2:23:05] options available for you or just information to consider at the work

[2:23:08] session. >> Well, and I

[2:23:09] » to be a tight turnaround, so I probably won't have a lot there, but we can

[2:23:12] definitely discuss. >> Well, if we need more time, we got to

[2:23:14] take more you know, we we got to take more time, so that gives us

[2:23:17] » a decision in the work session anyway, so it'll be time for Yeah.

[2:23:21] » And I think the other question is what we just did what we just talked through

[2:23:24] right now is non-binding, right? >> Correct. It is absolutely non-binding.

[2:23:28] It's just It's just a way for you to gauge where you're at currently so that

[2:23:32] we can figure out where it's most beneficial to council to spend more time

[2:23:36] um discussing and and what document staff should bring forward for further

[2:23:40] consideration. >> Okay. Are there any other questions?

[2:23:44] All right. Thank you, Christina. Next item, please.

[2:23:50] » Uh the next item is under resolutions. This is a resolution of necessity of

[2:23:54] walking and biking network improvements, project number P21196.

[2:24:00] And Jeremy Shear is here for this item.

[2:24:14] » Good evening, Mayor, counselors. Um this subject is uh no less weightier

[2:24:20] than the last, but hopefully less complicated.

[2:24:24] Um City of Springfield um approved walking and biking,

[2:24:29] which is a project intended to improve pedestrian and bicycle

[2:24:34] uh um

[2:24:35] connectivity. This project is our first federal aid

[2:24:40] project as a certified city, federal certified city.

[2:24:46] So, this is our test.

[2:24:51] The city must acquire various permanent and temporary

[2:24:55] uh construction easements and uh utility easements from affected

[2:25:01] properties along the project corridors. Adoption

[2:25:06] authorizes the city to negotiate with affected property owners, and if

[2:25:11] necessary, proceed with condemnation

[2:25:15] proceedings pursuant Oregon law. The right-of-way acquisition phase is a

[2:25:20] critical path for a successful project.

[2:25:25] And it will help maintain the project schedule and allow

[2:25:28] construction activities to proceed in a timely manner.

[2:25:32] And that's all I have. I'll take any questions.

[2:25:36] » Does anybody have questions?

[2:25:40] All right. I think we're ready for a motion.

[2:25:42] » I do. What what? >> The term actually I power of eminent

[2:25:46] domain I don't see that very often. I see that hidden back in some documents,

[2:25:51] but this is very prominent here. How does that apply?

[2:25:54] » The power of eminent domain it is the power that the Yeah, well,

[2:25:59] it's the powers that you have um to uh enter into um con- condemnation

[2:26:07] proceedings. And and really condemnation is a process. So, it begins

[2:26:13] through negotiations and so on and so forth.

[2:26:16] Uh and that is your your power of eminent domain is

[2:26:22] is the process of condemnation. If that kind of makes sense, I'm not

[2:26:27] sure if it does, but

[2:26:36] I'm I'm sorry. I can't >> Are there particular properties that are

[2:26:38] impacted right now? >> So, there there's um essentially there's

[2:26:44] uh five properties in this packet here. Um one of them happens to be Odot

[2:26:49] property, which they're going to uh relinquish to us. So, we're really not

[2:26:54] going to condemn on them. >> I think we should.

[2:26:57] » Okay. Um and then the other is um McKenzie

[2:27:02] Willamette, and they've already agreed, you know,

[2:27:06] that they they want to um play. So, the rest of them are just pri- private um

[2:27:11] » Yeah, I I I imagine most people will do go through that, but I just haven't seen

[2:27:16] it that prominent before. >> Yeah, the the these are these would be

[2:27:20] considered strip takings. They're very minimal. Um so, uh and um

[2:27:27] mostly um temporary construction easements to

[2:27:30] allow us to do the work. So, they're they're not uh we're not taking up a lot

[2:27:35] of property, let's just say. >> Yeah. Or property rights.

[2:27:39] » Thank you very much. >> Councilor Quadros.

[2:27:42] » If you were to incite the eminent domain, uh would that come before us

[2:27:46] again? >> Um I don't think it would be necessary,

[2:27:50] but I think we would do it as a courtesy. You can talk to our council,

[2:27:54] but this this this would I'm let me just state this. Um that is the last resort.

[2:28:01] So, there's other processes we can go through arbitration. There's a lot of

[2:28:05] other things that we can do through negotiate

[2:28:08] to negotiation process before it even gets there. So, um if we did go had to

[2:28:15] go to condemnation and it was something that was um that we well, I think we

[2:28:21] would we would just come. I would make that recommendation. We'd come and let

[2:28:24] you know, but this order, the way I understand it, already gives us the

[2:28:30] authority to to initiate the um condemnation proceedings.

[2:28:36] » Uh Councilor Bucknum. >> It it just to clarify, I think this is

[2:28:41] what you just said, but

[2:28:46] the the approach forward is to engage with property owners, have

[2:28:50] conversations, see if we can't come to some sort of

[2:28:55] arrangement so that it really has minimal to no impact on their property,

[2:29:00] the property value, all of those things, and then we're doing all of all of what

[2:29:05] can be done to ensure that we're maintaining, you know, private the

[2:29:10] integrity of the private property. So, so the the home owners are going to or

[2:29:15] property owners or whoever it is is going to be able to have conversations

[2:29:20] around, okay, these would be my concerns, how can we work through that?

[2:29:23] So, the with consideration to um privacy and safety and property values and all

[2:29:31] that, like that's all baked into the process that we try to get to an

[2:29:35] agreement um long before we start talking about eminent domain.

[2:29:41] » That That That's correct. So, uh the the the the law says the greatest

[2:29:47] public good for the least private injury. So, when the engineers are

[2:29:51] designing this, they're considering what's the least amount of impact for

[2:29:56] the greatest public good. And so, part of what uh we do prior to

[2:30:03] negotiations is right away is involved with this process to make sure that uh

[2:30:09] the impacts are minimized as much as possible. And a lot of these things have

[2:30:14] to do with uh design and and engineering and what's what needs to happen in order

[2:30:20] for the project to be successful. So, we have our input and usually they'll give

[2:30:26] it to me and I'll say, "Okay, do we really need that much? Can we do a

[2:30:29] little bit more?" So, there's We We have There's some internal negotiations that

[2:30:33] occur as well through the process. >> Okay.

[2:30:38] I think we're ready for a motion.

[2:30:42] » I move to adopt a resolution exercising the power of eminent domain and

[2:30:46] authorizing a resolution pursuant to ORS 223.005,

[2:30:52] ORS 223.105, and ORS 35.600-625

[2:30:59] concerning acquisition of right-of-way necessary for walking and biking network

[2:31:03] improvements, Project P21196. >> And I will second that.

[2:31:09] » Any other discussion to the motion? All right, Neil, call the vote, please.

[2:31:12] » Councilor Weber. >> Yes.

[2:31:14] » Councilor Moe. >> Yes.

[2:31:16] » Councilor Rodley. >> Yes.

[2:31:17] » Councilor Quadros. >> Yes.

[2:31:19] » Councilor Buck. >> Yes.

[2:31:22] » And Councilor Stout. >> Yes, thank you.

[2:31:23] » Motion passes six yeses, zero noes. Thank you, Jeremy.

[2:31:27] Next item, please. >> Any business from the city council?

[2:31:30] » Councilor Stout. I just want to bring up with my fellow councilors. I know that

[2:31:34] our police chief does a great job looking at e-bikes and also the speed

[2:31:38] and where they are operating. Um but I I just want us all to be aware

[2:31:43] about how it is a bit more pernicious than we might think. And that it is is

[2:31:48] causing upsets to many of our neighbors, many of our friends, and a lot of people

[2:31:52] have very justly raised safety concerns about e-bikes. So, I just want us as a

[2:31:56] council to do what we can in small ways and certainly in coordination with our

[2:32:01] excellent police force, uh consider ways we might um if

[2:32:05] strengthen our policy on e-bikes uh even to make it more restrictive than uh the

[2:32:11] Oregon state law might have on there. Um and I'm doing I want to make that

[2:32:16] suggestion primarily out of the respect for public safety and also the overall

[2:32:21] livability of our neighborhoods. Countless bikers telling me how they are

[2:32:25] very concerned about getting run off the road uh by e-bikes or just regular uh

[2:32:30] folks. So, I just think it's an important conversation to have

[2:32:33] um even more publicly um even though I know we certainly have

[2:32:38] the state laws that apply um but I think there's more to say on that. Thank you.

[2:32:44] Councilor Buck. >> Uh I just want to comment. I I

[2:32:48] appreciate you bringing this up uh Councilor Stout and um one of the things

[2:32:52] that I appreciate about the experience that

[2:32:55] that we have on our council is is Councilor Quintero actually has

[2:32:58] quite a bit of history with this um and

[2:33:02] and has watched other communities go through exactly what we're going through

[2:33:07] with e-bikes specifically and how um those and and

[2:33:13] it's kind of the routes around safety and all of those things kind of

[2:33:18] kind of impact each other. So, I'm really excited to have those

[2:33:21] conversations. I wholeheartedly with you. I'm really excited that we have the

[2:33:25] experience and an expertise on on Council to to speak

[2:33:30] to what other communities

[2:33:33] um comparable in Oregon comparable to ours

[2:33:37] um have experienced and gone through with this particular subject.

[2:33:43] » All right, thank you. Anybody else? Council Quadrus.

[2:33:47] » Does anyone have any more conversation about e-bikes or

[2:33:50] a different topic or two? >> Go ahead.

[2:33:53] » Okay. So, um I'd like to talk library for a moment um and I'm interested in

[2:33:58] circling back on the library discussion from our budget process.

[2:34:02] Um during those conversations, there were several clear questions that were

[2:34:06] raised about library services, priorities, and how we make the best use

[2:34:10] of the resources that we had of have available. And I don't think we

[2:34:15] necessarily have uh those answers

[2:34:18] uh from those questions yet. Um I also know there was a survey conducted this

[2:34:22] summer that specifically sought input from library users.

[2:34:27] Um I'd like to understand what we learned from that survey, how that

[2:34:30] information is being evaluated alongside the questions that Council raised during

[2:34:35] the budget process, and what next steps staff are considering.

[2:34:40] Um I'd like to make sure that we can get some follow-up on the questions that

[2:34:43] were left outstanding and understand what we can expect will come back to

[2:34:47] Council this fall.

[2:34:53] » Uh thank you uh Council Quadrus. Next week we have uh our library

[2:34:59] director scheduled to give a presentation to Council. And um part of

[2:35:03] that would um I've she and I have talked about this presentation because the

[2:35:07] library does do a lot of things in the community and there's a lot to report

[2:35:11] on. So, you know, in the um interest of prior excuse me, prioritizing time, Um I

[2:35:18] requested that uh we first address that some of the

[2:35:21] questions that may still be outstanding from the budget process and then also um

[2:35:26] talk about the survey and um what some of the results were and it was um not

[2:35:33] necessarily a conventional survey in the scientific sense, but but rather more of

[2:35:37] a customer satisfaction and awareness type of survey. And um you know, talking

[2:35:43] about both the library and uh to a lesser extent the museum. So, um more to

[2:35:48] come on that and I I I think we should have some continued discussions as we um

[2:35:53] move through the year. Thank you.

[2:35:58] » Go ahead. I think you had one more. >> Perfect. Thank you. I do want that back

[2:36:01] um in front of us. Um and then uh after a crash at 35th and Oregon Streets in

[2:36:08] Ward 4 this summer, uh staff, council, and the mayor spent time in conversation

[2:36:12] with neighbors about their concerns. And I'd also like to get um to hear from

[2:36:17] staff about the outcome of that work and whether there are any further

[2:36:20] considerations or next steps that we're going to make.

[2:36:26] » Councilor again, I think I'm I would uh say that first of all, I appreciate

[2:36:31] the rapid response of yourself and other members of the council,

[2:36:35] um our public works crew, and our law enforcement community. Um I'm going to

[2:36:40] have Neil Andadi give a little bit more specificity. There were some things that

[2:36:43] we did right away to uh address this and then uh there are some some things that

[2:36:49] were still in in the pipe. So, Neil. >> Yeah, thank you, Nancy, and thank you,

[2:36:53] Councilor, for the question and for your time out there that evening. So, we, as

[2:36:58] you remember, put together a list of interested parties that were at that

[2:37:03] meeting and two in particular uh residents in a leadership role to help

[2:37:08] us work through the problems and then report back to the community.

[2:37:12] Uh, initially we went out the next that very week and re installed the kind of

[2:37:19] stop bars they're called. It's the thick white line that's in the street. And

[2:37:23] also there was a stop stencil in that street that had worn out. So we ordered

[2:37:29] those stencils and those will go back in. We also trimmed trees around the

[2:37:34] stop sign to give better clearance. Um, and over the last I think week and a

[2:37:39] half we've had cameras in the area that are counting traffic and looking at

[2:37:43] speeds and really getting that data so we can answer the questions properly.

[2:37:48] Um, and continued discussions are happening with our staff and the two

[2:37:53] neighbors who've um, been assigned to keep in touch with

[2:37:57] us. So that's ongoing. Once we have that data put together, we'll have a more

[2:38:01] broad broader picture of what can be done in that area.

[2:38:06] » Thank you. That's great. I appreciate that.

[2:38:09] » And one note, we also forwarded the concerns related to Willamette Lane to

[2:38:13] Willamette Lane that came out of that meeting.

[2:38:17] » Thank you. Anybody else? Next item, please.

[2:38:21] » Uh, next item under business from the city manager is the Springfield Police

[2:38:24] Association or SPA 2026 through 2029 collective bargaining agreement CBA.

[2:38:31] Chaim Hertz is here for this item.

[2:38:43] » Good evening again, Council. Mayor, Chaim Hertz, HR Director here at the

[2:38:46] City of Springfield. I will be reasonably brief. I know it's been a

[2:38:50] long night. I am here seeking a motion to authorize or not authorize the city

[2:38:55] manager to sign a 3-year successor agreement with Springfield Police

[2:38:59] Association. The details of that agreement are outlined in the packet and

[2:39:03] I'll pause if there's any questions. >> Any questions? I thought we just did

[2:39:08] this. >> Was it 3 years ago?

[2:39:10] » It was 3 years ago. >> Go ahead.

[2:39:13] Go ahead, counselor Stout. >> Um and this is different than the

[2:39:16] sergeants um

[2:39:17] » That's correct. Yeah, the police sergeants negotiations are ongoing.

[2:39:26] » I move to authorize the city manager to execute the successor collective

[2:39:29] bargaining agreement between the city of Springfield and the SPA for the term

[2:39:34] July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2029. >> I'll second that.

[2:39:39] » Is there any discussion to this? All right.

[2:39:42] Neil, could you call the vote? >> Yes, Counselor Weber.

[2:39:45] » Yes. >> Counselor Moe.

[2:39:46] » Yes. >> Counselor Rodley.

[2:39:47] » Yes. >> Counselor Quadros.

[2:39:49] » Yes. >> Counselor Buck.

[2:39:50] » Yes. >> And Counselor Stout.

[2:39:52] » Yes, thank you. >> Motion passes, six yeses, zero noes.

[2:39:55] Next item, please. >> Any other business from the city

[2:39:56] manager? >> Just quickly, I want to thank Jane for

[2:40:00] your efforts in getting this contract completed and as well the leadership of

[2:40:05] the Springfield Police Association. No further business for me.

[2:40:10] » Any business from the city attorney? >> No, no business, thank you.

[2:40:13] » All right, thank you everybody. We're adjourned.

September 8, 2026 City Coucil Work Session and Regular Session Meeting

Transcript