One Firm, Two Memos, No Clarity
Two Springfield Township board memos issued less than a month apart show a change in how township officials proposed working with consulting firm Giffels Webster.
In a March 12, 2026 memo to the Township Board, Supervisor Ric Davis recommended terminating the township’s planning contract with Giffels Webster and approving a new contract with Carlisle Wortman. The memo said Carlisle Wortman had been assisting with approved projects, had strong knowledge of Springfield Township ordinances and planning procedures, and would help preserve the township’s rural character. The memo also stated that Giffels Webster’s experience was primarily in larger urban communities and described limits in the consulting arrangement then in place.
Less than 4 weeks later, a separate memo dated April 9, 2026, shows that Davis later recommended, as part of the Consent Agenda, that the board authorize him to renew and execute the 2026 engineering agreement with Giffels Webster. The memo said the contract had already received prior board approval and “was not attached”due to the length of the contract, it has not been attached because of its length. It did not reference the earlier March memo.
The two memos address different categories of township services. The March memo concerns planning services, while the April memo concerns engineering services. Still, the documents show that township officials recommended ending one contract with Giffels Webster while continuing another within the span of just a few weeks.
Based on the board materials alone, the documents do not provide a detailed public explanation of how the two decisions relate to one another. Residents reviewing the memos side by side would see a recommendation to replace Giffels Webster in one role and a recommendation to renew an agreement with the same firm in another.
The memos use different terms to describe Giffels Webster’s work for the township, but they do not fully explain whether those terms reflect separate functions or different descriptions of the same broader relationship. The April 9, 2026 memo recommends that the board authorize renewal and execution of the 2026 agreement even though the contract itself was not attached because of its length. Without that document in the board materials reviewed here, the scope of work and specific services covered by the agreement cannot be determined from the public record presented.
Giffels Webster has also been involved in site plan review activity related to the Levy matter, making the scope of the township’s continued relationship with the firm a matter of public interest.
View the documents here:
