City Council (View All)
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 17, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Executive Session minutes of April 3, 2007 and Regular Council minutes of April 3, 2007 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison swore in new Police Chief Terry Holderness.
The 2007 Ragland Award Winner - Ashland City Band was announced.
Mayor's Proclamations of Independent Media Week and Respite Care Awareness Week were read aloud.
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees.
2. Approval of Engineering Services Contract Amendment No. 1 for Water Treatment Plant Process Improvements between the City and Brown and Caldwell (06-02).
3. Annual Appointments to Commissions/Committees.
4. Liquor License Application - Ashland Bakery Café.
5. Declare Vehicles and Equipment as Surplus and Authorize a Public Sale.
6. Approval of Sole Source Procurement and Public Contract Greater than $75,000 Small Woodland Services, Inc.
7. Annual Ambulance License Renewal.
Councilor Navickas requested Consent Agenda Item #6 be removed for discussion. Councilor Hartzell requested Consent Agenda Item #3 be removed for discussion.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #2, #4, #5, and #7. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Navickas requested further information regarding then Small Woodlands Services contract. He has an issue with this, as it has not come through the Forest Lands Commission. He suggested that this contract be sent to the Forest Lands Commission for approval before it comes to the Council and that the Commission defines, send out the RFP and then open it to bid.
Councilor Hardesty stated that it is important for the Commissions to have input and suggested the Forest Lands Commission could determine whether they feel the RFP is adequate.
Fire Chief Keith Woodley explained that the relationship between Small Woodlands and the Forest Lands Commission is a long-standing one. In his 16 years, he has worked with the Forest Commission and this contractor and that the city has not undertaken any major activity in the watershed that has not been discussed with the Commission or part of a plan that the Commission had previously approved. He stated that the consulting forester attends all of the meetings and provides a work report to the Commission each month, direction is then provided by the Commission at that time. He is not aware of any disconnect or falling out of any philosophy between the Forest Lands Commission and this contractor.
Councilor Hartzell supports the idea of having the Commission look at the RFP. Agrees that she has not heard any dissatisfaction, but thinks there have been times where the Commission could have had more influence and input into what was getting done. She thinks it would be hard to replace Small Woodlands, but suggested a RFP might be an appropriate way for the Forest Lands Commission to influence the direction of the work along with staff. She is not supportive at this time of sending the RFP back out and supports having a contractor-contractee relationship. She stated that at times the contractor has felt like staff.
Chief Woodley questioned if the Council would feel comfortable with a letter from the Commission recommending renewal of the contract.
Councilor Hartzell clarified she is looking for assurance that the Commission had a discussion on the focus of the contract and making sure there is a mechanism to ensure what the Commission is wanting is happening.
Councilor Navickas voiced his preference to allow the Forest Lands Commission to define this RFP. Councilor Hartzell thinks there is validity to the issues raised by Councilor Navickas. Stated an RFP requires the contractor to put forward some effort and work into it. She suggested they might not be seeing a lot of competition for the contract because other contractors may assume that Small Woodlands has an "in" with the City. Suggested perhaps awarding the contract for a shorter timeframe and allowing the Commission to work on this.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #6. Voice Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman and Jackson, YES. Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty and Navickas, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Hartzell raised concern with the appointment of Pam Marsh to the Planning Commission. She explained that the issue is of bias and suggested that staff re-double their efforts to work with Commissioners on the issue of conflict of interest.
Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #3. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman voiced his support of Pam Marsh and stated she is a strong, smart, and articulate woman. He stated his support for her being on the Planning Commission. Mayor Morrison clarified that he had recommended Ms. Marsh for reappointment because she has not yet served a full term. He feels that she has demonstrated a good understanding of planning issues. It was clarified with the legal department that there is problem associated with this appointment. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Concerning Conversion of Existing Rentals into For-Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Zoning Districts to Provide Additional Incentives, Contractual Commitment, Density Bonus and Other Voluntary Mechanisms to Increase Affordable For-Purchase Housing Stocks and Affordable Rental Units in Multi-Family Zoning Districts."
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman presented the staff report on the purposes of the proposed changes. He noted that there are three ordinances that relate to the same issue. The purpose behind all three is to provide for the housing needs of the citizens of Ashland and that Ashland is falling short in providing rental housing. Mr. Goldman explained that the conversion of multi-family rental housing triggeres the displacement of existing rentals and the Building Department regulations regarding the conversion of multi-family units are neccessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of such units. The City of Ashland mailed notice of the proposed land use changes to parties that may be impacted by the proposed ordinance. He also noted the recent condo conversions that have taken place in Ashland with a total of 98 units in existing apartment complexes having been converted to condos since 2001.
Mr. Goldman explained the Land Use provisions provided for in the ordinances before Council establish a number of options for individuals who are looking to convert their multi-family apartments into for-purchase housing. Option 1 is a new option that allows conversions to be permitted outright where at least half of the units are retained as rentals; noted this option would not trigger affordability requirements. Option 2 establishes a voluntary option to convert 100% of the units into individual units of ownership if 25% are affordable. Noted the proposed ordinance identifies a number of incentives and mechanisms for providing affordable units and also establishes procedural avenues for applications.
Staff recommendation is for Council to direct staff to revise the proposed ordinance to remain consistent with the policy implications with the draft that was originally recommended for approval by the Housing and Planning Commissions, and to bring this revision back to Council for review. Mr. Goldman stated if the Council proceeds with the recommendation, staff would reschedule the hearing before the City Council to May 15, 2007. He added if the Council wishes for the Planning Commission to have further review, staff would reschedule the hearing to July 17, 2007.
Public Hearing Open: 7:30 p.m.
Jennifer Hanson/67 Woolen Way/She explained that she has five units on their property and would like to transfer each unit to one of their four children. During investigation of this possibility, she found that her taxes would double if they converted to condos and 2 of the units would become affordable housing. She does not see the fairness in this and stated if she changed the units to condos and kept them as for rent units, the taxing would be so high the income from one unit would go solely to taxes. Ms. Hanson questioned where the incentive is to keep these units as rentals. Instead of incentives she gets strong-armed to try and prevent her from converting. She stated right now her best option is to convert them to condos and sell immediately because of the regulations and how things are set up.
Philip Lang/758 B Street/He stated that the proposed ordinance is meaningless and useless for the following reasons: 1) Allowing condo conversions effectively violates the City of Ashland's housing goals regarding affordable housing, 2) In 1979 an ordinance was adopted that allowed condo conversions in R-2 and R-3 zones subject to a demonstration of public need and lack of detrimental effect on the supply of rental units and stated there is no reason why an identical ordinance could not be readopted, 3) The proposed of the ordinance will do nothing to slow or stop the condo conversions, 4) The requirement that 50% of the units be retinaed at market rate has no inspection or enforecement guarantees and many of the units are currently rented at less than market rates, 5) The Planning Department is misleading the public about how such conversions will benefit afforeable housing, and 6) The claim that families will now be able to afford homes is preposterous. Mr. Lang's written testimony was submitted into the public record.
Building Official Mike Broomfield clarified for council that "condominium" is not a structural form and that there is a lot of varibility in construction types and these are not defined in the ordinance.
Mr. Goldman noted that 50% of the City's population are renters. He stated that the intention behind modifying this ordinance was not to stop condominium conversions, nor was it to impede them to a degree, it was to ensure that when they do occur there are at least options to create housing that serves the residents of that apartment complex. In looking at the 98 units that have converted since 2001, he cannot think of one instance where he has heard of an existing tenant being the purchaser of one of the units. M.r Goldman added that the affordable units have been sold to individuals who qualify, but typically not the existing residents. In many cases the units were kept as rentals and the existing tenants are still renting those units. He clarified that the 25% affordablility requirement currently does not distinguish between rentals and for-purchase units.
Councilor Navickas expressed concern with the development agreements and questioned who would negotiate these agreements.
Community Development Director David Stalheim clarified that development agreements are set out in statute and are considered a land use decision, so by statute if they adopted the provisions as proposed they would go throug the Planning Commission and City Council. He clarified that it would need to be an ordinance adopted by the City Council in order be be effective and stated that the percentage of housing is not necessarily a land use thing so this could be a different process. Mr. Stalheim noted that staff needs to work through some of these issues and return to Council. City Adminsitrator Martha Bennett noted that Council could provide direction and that this sort of thing could not be a staff decision and it has to come to Council if they so choose.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that staff could look into whether the 1979 ordinance would be possible under current state law, but suspects that it could be challenged. Councilor Hartzell noted that what they are trying to do is comply with state and federal laws and goals.
Councilor Hartzell motion to continue this hearing and ask staff to contiue to pursue the goal under which this draft was prepared, look at other opportunities for doing that, and that they not pursue negotiated agreements exclusive of the development of a process for doing so more broadly in our land use than just applied to this. Motion was withdrawn.
It was requested by Ms. Bennett that if Council should decide to continue the hearing that they specify a date.
Mr. Stalheim explained that in regards to determining the proper balance of rental housing, there is mix of housing that is needed and they are finding that the lower end housing is where they are facing challenges. He noted testimony from the Planning and Housing Commissions which indicated that not all indivuals want to be homeowners and there is a desire for rental housing.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support for continuing this hearing.
Councilor Chapman stated that he does not feel that this ordinance acheives the stated goals to meet State Goal 10. He feels that AMC section 18.24 needs to be amended and should be reviewed for policy implications. He does not support continued work on the proposal that Housing and Planning approved and that there needs to be more discussion about identifying the goals of this change before they write the code. Mr. Chapman supports continuing the public hearing to the July 17 date with more review. He would like this to be sent back to the Planning Commisson and allow for additional discussion about what the goals of this amendment would be and what the changes should be to achieve those goals.
Councilor Hardesty suggested that if they send it back to the Planning Commission that the Housing Commission be involved in some way. She agreed that this particular amendment may not accomplish what they want it to, but does not support waiting too long to address this.
A Study Session on this topic where both the Planning and Housing Commissions could be invited to provide input was suggested
Councilor Hartzell stated that she prefers contuing this to June 19 because the longer they wait to put something in place, the more nervousness gets created on the part of land owners.
Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to continue this hearing to June 19, 2007, direct staff with the understanding that they have access to the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission to explore strategies to acheive the overall goal, and that staff not pursue negotiation agreements related to this until there is a more comprehensive negotiated agreement structure in place. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell clarified on which goal the motion referred to as the preservation of rental stock in Ashland. Councilor Jackson felt that the primary goal is the provision of adequate rental affordable housing and not necessarily preservation.
Councilor Chapman stated that there is a need to generate new ideas, and that this ordinance does not acheive the goal just stated. Councilor Hartzell agreed and clarified that staff needs to look at the overall goal and if they need to backup on this ordinance and approach it from a different direction. She stated that the overall goal is the provision of rental and especially affordable rentals in Ashland. Councilor Chapman voiced support for this goal.
Councilor Jackson stated that it was important to say that they should not be limited to the strategies identified in the Housing Action Plan. She is not sure that 60 days is enough time to accomplish this. Councilor Hartzell clarified that she selected the June date in order to set priority on this item and does not want to keep losing ground. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Chapman, Hartzell, Navickas and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.
2. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 15.04, Regarding Conversion of Existing Multi-Family Rental Units into For-Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Districts."
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman explained the proposed code provisions under AMC Chapter establish the following:
1) Inspection be completed by the Building Department,
2) Inspection Report that lists required corrections be provide to the owner,
3) A follow up inspection be completed showing all items have been corrected,
4) A copy of the report and the final inspection clearance be provided to prospective buyers, and
5) A resolution establishing a fee schedule is adopted in order to cover the special inspection costs.
He clarified that the provisions outlined related to both units created for ownership or will be retained by the owner for rental. He stated that there is concern that without some trigger to initiate some type of inspection by the Building Department an existing apartment complex could be converted into condominiums that have unsafe situations in place. He explained that the intention is not to bring it up to the 2007 building code, but rather to ensure that it is in compliance with the code allowance for those previously existing buildings.
Mr. Goldman explained that the purpose of providing the report to the potential new owner and by going through the step of conversion is that it is an opportunity for the Building Department to look and see if it has had deferred maintenance. If you buy a single family home, the individual may hire a private inspector, but it is not a City requirement to do so. He clarified that the provision of providing the inspection report was taken from model ordinances and that the intention is a "buyers beware" disclosure.
Mr. Stalheim explained that this could trigger a building permit if they are not in compliance or there is a lack of maintenance and gave examples. He stated that any new work would need to meet the current code requirements.
Mr. Broomfield clarified that staff has not worked out the mechanics of all of the inspections or the report at this time.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that staff could change the proposed language in the ordinance to "a copy of this report will be maintained in the Planning Department." He stated that the intention was to make sure the person who purchased the units is aware of changes that were reported were actually done.
3. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Adding a New Chapter 10.115, Tenant Rights in Condominium Conversion."
Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman explained the proposed Tenant Rights ordinance provisions includes the following:
One-year notice be provided to the tenants,
Relocation benefits be provided to the tenants if they are displaced prior to the 12 month period,
Tenants would be provided with the first right of refusal,
Tenant would be provided Right to Non-Disturbance during the first 120 days,
During the period of continued occupancy, rents could only increase in accordance with the written rental agreement, or rent may be increased to an amount no greater than the Portland-Salem Consumer Price Index,
Notice of conversion shall be served to all tenants and the City,
The draft ordinance does not alter or amend existing contractual relationships between the tenant and landlord,
Lastly, the ordinance as drafted establishes penalties for non-compliance with the relocation assistance, right to purchase, and other provisions of the chapter.
Mr. Goldman provided a timeline regarding noticing and conversion. Stated staff recommendation is to approve the tenant rights ordinance with the modifications as outlined in the Council Communication.
Assistant City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that the land use timeframe is not tied to this conversion timeline and commented on the state requirements.
Public Hearing Open: 8:47 p.m.
Art Bullock/He stated that the issue for all three of these ordinances is the same, that they do not solve the problem and that the problem is the loss of rental units. He stated that staff is balancing the amount of rentals versus for-purchase units and there is nothing to stop this process from continuing. The issue of tenant's rights ameliorates the negative effects on the tenants, but does not keep them in town. The option of having incentives has not been proved effective. Mr. Bullock stated what will solve the problem is the Council setting a clear objective. That direction cannot get these condominiums converted if we are losing housing in that zone. He noted that State requirement is to maintain livability of neighborhoods by maintaining a balance of housing types. In addition, that in order to solve the problem Council needs to establish numerical goals by zone and for the neighborhoods based on the current number in the neighborhoods and does not approve conversions if we are not maintaining the current level plus the growth percentage. He stated that there is a need to maintain or improve on the current mix.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:51 p.m.
Councilor Chapman commented on the inspections provision and explained why he does not support this ordinance. He felt that it would give false expectation to the potential buyer that the City has certified the structure. He felt that there should be a buyer's acceptance of an owner's disclosure form as used with other residential purchases where an owner would have to disclose any structural defects and the work that has been done. In addition, the sale should be contingent upon acceptance of a professional house inspection and report. He stated that the buyer needs to hire this person independently and it may be desirable to allow the buyer to recover the costs of the inspection at closing.
Councilor Navickas voiced his disappointment that this had not gone further and felt that they could meet the State requirements by stating it would allow condominium conversions in R-2 and R-3 zones subject to a demonstration of a public need. He stated that he would vote in favor of the ordinances because this is all they have at this point and it is a step in the right direction.
Councilor Hartzell stated that she does not think they are creating loopholes but are creating processes that ensure the public good.
Councilor Chapman clarified that he does not think that the inspections that this calls for does what they need and there are already private inspections in place that do. He believes that they should not do anything with this ordinance and does not feel it is necessary.
Mr. Stalheim understood Councilor Chapman's point and noted that staff has witnessed a lot of illegal activity when they go out and inspect. He stated that there is a possibility that they will find out things that have occurred without their knowledge and that this process would identify them and then allow them to be taken care of. He noted that the training and certification of City inspectors is at a different level than for home inspectors.
Mr. Goldman stated that this section of the building code is an amendment to a provision that is currently in place, which is vague and this as an opportunity to clarify. He does not think this provision alleviates the homebuyer from the due diligence to have a private inspection. In addition, it would ensure that from the City's end we have checked and made sure there are no substandard conditions or non-permit actions.
Mr. Stalheim clarified that the report could indicate that the structure does not meet current standards, but complies with the codes in place at the time it was constructed.
Councilor Silbiger voiced his support for not requiring that the owner give a copy of the final inspection report to the buyer and does not see why they should be doing this unless they do it for every other situation. He does not think the City should be requiring the owner to furnish the report to the buyer and stated that the owner could do this if they wanted. He noted that it is public record and the potential purchasers could get it themselves.
Mr. Goldman clarified that the language was modeled after ordinances from around the country that deal with condominium conversions. And, because it is different from new construction and because you are taking existing buildings and converting them into ownership units, it triggers these efforts to make sure the building is in conformance with current building code. He commented on Councilor Silbiger concerns and stated that if the Council directed that this section requiring the owner to furnish the report be eliminated, the ordinance as drafted still has the ability to provide that information to any prospective buyer.
Mr. Goldman explained that any individual unit of ownership that is converted into a for-purchase housing unit would have to be inspected under this ordinance.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 15.04, Regarding Conversion of Existing Multi-Family Rental Units into For-Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Districts" and place on agenda for second reading, with amendment to remove the sentence in Section 1 that states "Owner shall also furnish a copy of the report and approved final inspections to the buyer." Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Councilor Chapman and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Navickas/Hartzell m/s to approve First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Adding a New Chapter 10.115, Tenant Rights in Conversion of Existing Multi-Family Rental Units into For-Purchase Housing" and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell questioned if the language listed under Staff Recommendations in the Council Communication is incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Goldman explained that what is shown as a highlighted section in the draft ordinance. The motion would need to specifically request the modified sections to be included in the final ordinance.
Councilor Hartzell/Navickas m/s to amend motion to include the staff recommendations for Section 10.115.030(c) and Section 10.115.050. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Navickas, Hartzell and Jackson, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
DISCUSSION on Amended Motion: Councilor Silbiger stated that he could not support a one-year extension of someone's rental agreement and noted that the State's requirement is 120 days. He feels that the one-year requirement is way out of balance and that the ordinance is "nasty" in terms of how it portrays landlords. He would not support anything for more than 6 months.
Councilor Jackson stated that she does not support this and could not follow the logic of these ordinances. She felt that there needs to be better understanding of condominium conversion laws at the State level.
Mr. Appicello clarified that there is a State statute that provides protections for tenants. That it gives them 60 days right of first refusal, cannot give offer for first 30 days after the notice, and that the notice has a 120-day minimum. He also explained that there is also specific authorization where local governments are authorized to control the rent after the notice period and the relocation benefit. He stated that staff's exemption is the one-year notice, so it does not say you have to give one-year notice. It states that if you give a one-year notice you are relieved of paying relocation benefits to the tenants. The owner would have to give at least 120 days notice as mandated by the State, but could then remove tenants and pay the relocation benefits.
Councilor Hartzell felt that the longer period of time is justified based on Ashland's high cost of housing and the availability in Ashland. She noted that mobile home conversions also requires one-year notice period.
Mr. Goldman commented that staff felt the one-year was appropriate based on the decreasing rental housing stock in Ashland.
Councilor Navickas stated that there is a serious problem of losing rentals in this community. He stated that if the goal is to protect rental housing, that this ordinance only mitigates it and provides basic protection to the tenants that are being displaced. He feels that this is the least that could be done for the tenants who are being displaced and voiced support for passing this ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, and Jackson, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
Dennis Slattery/1405 Pinecrest Terrace/Informed the Council that the Chamber of Commerce has reorganized its Legislative Committee and he has been appointed Chair. As chair, he has made a commitment to be at the Council Meetings every Tuesday. The purpose is to watch things develop in an incremental basis and keep up-to-date with Council deliberations. He stated that the Chamber of Commerce has great interest in the Council's success.
Art Bullock/Commented that Ashland Constitution Dialogue group will be having a ballot measure forum in the Council Chambers on April 25, 2007 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. He stated that there was an issue with the lack of an official copy of the text for the two Charter ballot measures and claimed neither ballot measure is in the voter's pamphlet and that it was not filed with the County. He stated that it is not clear what it is the citizens are being asked to vote on. Mr. Bullock requested that the Council direct staff to provide an audit trail of all the changes to the online version since March 15, identify the name of the person who made the changes, and to specify what the changes were.
City Recorder/Elections Officer Barbara Christensen clarified that all requirements and deadlines have been met as required by State law for filing Measures 15-76 and 15-77 with the County. The County has both of these measures in the exact form and text that was submitted to her by the Legal Department. Both of the measures are on the City's website and have been available on the website since they were approved by the City Council. She stated that the text form of what the charter would look like is not required to be submitted to the County. The language of the proposed charter text was created by the Legal Department and is available on the City's website. She explained that staff has corrected anything that was identified as incorrect.
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke regarding an anti-tethering ordinance. Explained that she knows intuitively that the tethering ordinance will pass. She suggested those who are against the ordinance should let go and go with the flow. Ms. Rosen stated that tethering limits is a nationwide trend and Ashland is one of the most progressive towns in the country and it is only logical that Ashland should be one of the first 100 communities to limit the tethering of animals at their homes. She commented on the individuals who oppose the ordinance.
Christopher Iverson/868 A Street/Stated that he has the idea to make the area from Ashland to Shasta, CA into the "sustainability valley" and voiced his support for an anti-tethering ordinance. He is surprised that the Council has not already moved forward with this.
1. Tripartite Housing Committee Report.
Councilor Hardesty explained that she brought this forward in order to provide the Council an update on what the Tripartite Committee is doing. She noted that this is a subcommittee consisting of the members from the City Council, Parks & Recreation Commission, Ashland School Board, Housing Commission, a citizen member and a staff liaison. She explained that two new members had joined recently representing Ashland Community Hospital and Southern Oregon University (SOU) Ms. Hardesty stated that the Committee has identified three major goals. They are 1) To bring 200 new students to Ashland through the creation of workforce/affordable housing with the goal of opening an elementary school, 2) Bring additional families to Ashland to maintain the viability of the community hospital, and 3) Inventory all public lands and identify potential sites for workforce/affordable housing. Requested they ask staff to look at the possibility of identifying some land.
Councilor Silbiger voiced his surprised at how this committee has grown beyond its original intent. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that she had approved Housing Program Specialist Brandon Goldman to attend one meeting and if it fit within his job duties, he could continue to attend. She stated that it is the Community Development Director's decision as to whether Mr. Goldman should continue to with this group.
Councilor Hartzell stated that she is comfortable with the fact that this is moving forward and that it has staff participation. She voiced her support for the hospital and SOU being involved.
Councilor Jackson stated that in terms of the City of Ashland's piece that this is clearly something that should be done by the Housing Commission.
Councilor Silbiger/Hartzell m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Jackson did not favor this being a three-way official committee.
Councilor Navickas felt that there is very little overlap between the three governments and that the more communication is facilitated the better off the city would be. He voiced his support.
Councilor Hartzell felt that they need to be working on the things they all have in common. She stated that the Housing Action Plan specifically states that the Housing Commission needs to work in partnership with other jurisdictions and non-profits. She is not sure what is being asked of the Council and noted that staff already has the authority to identify land for possible workforce/affordable housing use.
Councilor Jackson/Hardesty m/s to approve acceptance of report. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty clarified that the items they are working on with the Housing Commission and stated that the Commission supports the work they are doing. She explained that the Committee would continue to meet even if they do not have a staff liaison. City Administrator Martha Bennett commented that the discussion about city yards needs to take place in the larger context of our overall operational needs. She shared her concerns that the representatives from each agency are sharing the discussions with their policy makers. Ms. Bennett stated the need to make sure the staff level coordination is taking place so that we do not surprise one another. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Silbiger, Jackson, Chapman, Navickas and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Council shared their preferences on how to prioritize the remaining agenda items. Mayor Morrison announced they would move to the Report on AMC Sections with References to the City Charter.
2. Report on AMC Sections with References to City Charter.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer provided a report on the AMC sections that will need to be revised if the City Charter measures pass. Noted staff engaged former City Attorney Paul Nolte to review the code, the existing charter and the proposed charter and to identify the sections that would need to be modified. Ms. Seltzer reviewed the affected sections as outlined in the report.
Comment was made questioning the language in 10.68.025(B).
Councilor Hartzell questioned if any of these provisions could be changed, since ordinances can be amended. She also suggested that they forward the language proposed for Parks and Open Space to the Parks & Recreation Commission for review and opinion.
3. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance Titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials."
Delayed due to time constraints.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Repealing Resolution Nos. 81-20, 81-63, 89-14 and Appointing Park Commission to Facilitate Senior Program."
Delayed due to time constraints.
2. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Updating the Forest Lands Commission Membership, Quorum, Powers and Duties and Repealing Resolution 2005-31."
Delayed due to time constraints.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Information on the City Website Relating to the Charter Ballot Measure.
Delayed due to time constraints.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top