City Council (View All)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 16, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Morrison announced the current vacancies on the various commissions and boards.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Special Meeting of September 25, 2007, Study Session Meeting of October 1, 2007, Executive Session Meeting of October 2, 2007 and Regular Council Meeting of October 2, 2007 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison's proclamations of October as National Federation of the Blind "Meet the Blind Month" and October 24 as "United Nations Day" were read aloud. Councilor Hartzell reminded everyone that it is also Breast Cancer Awareness and Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Mayor Morrison noted items on the agenda that would be brought back later for council review/discussion. He further commented that he is using a new format for the council meeting agenda.
Fire Chief Keith Woodley presented the Ashland EOC Exercise Report. Chief Woodley noted that action items are being completed by staff and briefly pointed out issues recognized by exercise including the following: restoration of water, radio traffic, access of city maps, training on emergency management software and form updates.
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2007 to Consider Limiting the Glenn Street Railroad Crossing to Bicycles and Pedestrians Only
Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
Don Stone/395 Kearney/Requested accountability by councilors due to recent media articles and asked why councilors were directed not to speak to the press. He further questioned the need for counseling by Dr. Rick Kirschner and if any other professionals had been requested to provide the same service at a lower cost. He noted questions by some citizens in regards to a possible shadow government and wanted to know if it did exist. He stated that he is of the belief that Councilor Hartzell is at the heart of the Council's dysfunction.
Mayor Morrison requested that Mr. Stone visit him in his office so that he may answer any questions concerning the council.
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke of the cruelty of farm animals in regards to castration without painkillers. She noted this is a double standard in comparison to domesticated pets that receive pain relievers and compared this double standard to pet owners who tether their pets. She shared the dangers of tethering and requested the Council recognize that these animals need a tethering ordinance just as much as dogs do.
Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Spoke regarding an experiment in community dialogue as a way of bridging divides. She noted there is a group of citizens within the community, of varying political beliefs, who meet on a regular basis to discuss values and current City issues. She shared that this particular group decided to conduct an experiment to find out if they could come to an agreement on different issues. She noted they did in fact come to a consensus on the issues they chose to address and gained understanding, appreciation and respect for one another. She stated her belief that this is a model example worthy of repetition and invited the Council to try it. She shared that the organization Peace House can provide space for such meetings, guidelines for effective participation and trained facilitators to assist in the process.
1. Repeat Second Reading of Ethics Ordinance
Interim City Attorney Richard Appicello read the proposed changes aloud in full.
Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Shared her opinion that the Council chose to adopt a much weaker ethics ordinance than what was previously proposed. She voiced her disappointment with this action and noted that in the face of testimony, which alleged that abiding by strong ethics laws might pose an inconvenience for some, it seems the Council chose to weaken the ordinance. She added the community needs a strong moral council as well as leaders who demand the highest ethical behavior, and she suggested the Council return to their previous stand on the ethics issue.
Councilors Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Ordinance #2943. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas clarified that he is voting no because he believes the ordinance is not strong enough. Councilor Hardesty stated that she is also voting no, while recognizing that the Council has been working on this over a long period, because she favors the earlier proposed version. Councilor Hartzell agreed with the statements made. Mayor Morrison noted that the disagreement over the currently proposed ordinance is only one small part of the issue, and added this ordinance will allow for some integrity and direction.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Councilors Hartzell, Navickas and Hardesty, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
2. Review of Lithia Way Parking Lot Development Agreements
Housing Coordinator Brandon Goldman summarized the history of the project, and noted the development team changes and proposed development agreements. He stated, under the current schedule, it will be somewhat difficult for the developers (Access and Kendrick Enterprises) to meet the July 2008 deadline. As a result of this determination, staff requested that developers provide a revised timeline that would stipulate as to how they could meet the original parameters of the development agreement. He noted both developers indicated they are no longer pursuing the project and suggested the Council rescind the offered development agreement. He clarified the property would allow for the development as originally proposed. He noted the Housing Commission supports rescinding the agreement and also recommended the issuance of a new request for proposals for development of afforadable housing over the existing Lithia parking lot. He clarified in order to take a property and make it eligible for low income housing tax credits, a project of 24 units is minimum; this site has a maximum potential of 13 units and therefore would not be eligible.
Councilors Hardesty/Navickas m/s to rescind the agreement with Kendrick Enterprises and Access for the development of the Lithia Way parking lot. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Navickas, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilors Chapman/Hardesty m/s to host an informal meeting to research ideas to make building apartments cost effective through land use changes and incentives with representatives of the Council, Planning and Housing Commissions, planning and administration staff and report to the Council; and table any further action until the report is received. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman explained that his opinion has changed concerning the project, and noted this site may not be the most beneficial to conduct an expirement on because the desired number of housing units is not possible. He added, in reference to the condo ordinance, John Fields noted that building apartments does not work and shared he would like to explore why this is true. He added additional research on the issue would be beneficial. Mr. Goldman stated additonal time would be involved when Council selects an alternative to proceed in regards to the project.
Councilor Navickas suggested the Council extend another RFP for both the Pioneer and Lithia sites to see how much housing can be placed downtown.
Councilor Silbiger agreed the Council should meet with the Planning and Housing Commissions to discuss the project and possible changes to it, without making major changes to the land use code.
Councilor Hardesty encouraged Councilor Navickas to provide input in regards to the project and suggested both parking lots may be an option. She added she supports looking at several different possibilities.
Councilor Hartzell stated she does not agree with the suggestion that there was a problem with the developers submitting paperwork on time. She commented that this is a very complicated project and noted the amount of time and money spent on it. She voiced her concern with how this fits into procedural changes, policy changes and the Planning Commission's current work load. She suggested staff look at a couple of options to move forward, and noted this would not prohibit meetings with developers.
Mr. Goldman stated he is not sure the motion addresses the Lithia Parking Lot discussion and future action on it, but noted it would help direct what action to take concerning future properties.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support of having a discussion as she doesn't fully understand some aspects of the code. Councilor Chapman clarified he does not intend for future discussion to contribute to a long process, and noted changes to ordinances or ideas may come out of such discussion. Councilor Hartzell stated it is important to document lessons learned.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
3. Recommendations from Transportation Financing Taskforce
Public Works Director Paula Brown presented three recommendations, as listed below, and briefly explained the Council's options.
|•||The Overall Condition Index - keep OCI index at a minimal level to save money|
|•||Financing Options - review the different financing options to determine the most cost effective choices|
|•||Implemenation of a Transportation Commission - determine how the City integrates transportation into thought processes, land use codes, etc. and the need for a larger transportation program|
Ms. Brown questioned if the Council will approve the OCI index as prepared, if they are in favor of staff bringing back information in regards to a transportation commission, and what financing options they would like available.
Councilors Jackson/Hartzell m/s to adopt Task Force recommendations in regards to the OCI index. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell m/s to remove the bicycle registration fee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty noted there is already a $3 registration fee for bicycles. Councilor Navickas stated that a bicycle charge of any kind is not a good way to fund the City's transportation needs and noted that, in regards to this specific recommendation, he does not support it. Councilor Chapman noted bicycle registration fees exist so the Police Department can return lost or stolen bikes. He suggested building a list of amendments rather than voting on each individual option.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Brown stated there seems to be support for a County gas tax and asked for Council direction on whether or not staff should support it.
Councilors Chapman/Hartzell m/s to direct staff to research the feasibility of a county wide level gas tax funding both public streets and transportation to include reaching out to the County, local governments and RVTD to gauge interest and gather support. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted a gas tax to pay for both streets and public transit is a close match to what the Council wants to achieve; an incentive and disincentive combined together. He added a gas tax increase discourages use, reducing congestion, improving air quality and saving fuel while also providing funding for a badly needed alternative transportation system. Ms. Brown stated she is unsure if gas tax funds are eligible for RVTD to use towards transit use. Staff will research this issue and return to the Council with this information. Ms. Bennett added she is fairly sure the answer is no. Councilor Chapman commented that it is his understanding that this is true for state taxes but questioned why different communities in Oregon were in fact using such funds for other things.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support for the motion as a way to finance both transit and road maintenance. She added there is a lot going on at the state level around this concept and hopes the City can stay as current as possible with any future legislation.
Councilor Silbiger noted that a possible gas tax works better on a County level, and added every city within the County is looking at the same funding problems for road repairs. He stated his belief that the time is right for a county solution and this would be the best step forward. Mayor Morrison added this holds the possibility for being a workable tax whereas a local tax is usually subject to reaction and avoidance on the part of the average driver. He stated if it is county wide, it allows the ability to inform the general public of how important it is to provide funding for paving, repairs, gravel and asphalt, etc.
Councilor Navickas voiced his support of a county wide gas tax but added it is highly unlikely it will be passed on the county level. He noted the Council needs to be willing to pass a local tax to provide funding.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Hardesty suggested placing the increased transportation utility fee at the bottom of the funding options list, and added it should be considered a "last-resort" option because raising utility fees is regressive and affects everyone, regardless of whether they drive or not.
Councilors Hardesty/Hartzell m/s that staff consider the increase of a utility fee, but consider it a low priority option. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Jackson requested that a property tax be added to the list because it is more fair than utility fees and may be a balance source for maintenance costs.
Councilors Jackson/Chapman m/s to adopt the rest of the Transportation Financing Task Force recommendations for sources of financing and add the possiblity of using property taxes. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell suggested introducing a concept of weight and size in regards to vehicle registration. She also voiced her confusion conerning the meals tax. Councilor Hardesty clarified the committee recommended looking at other food items that are not subject to the meals tax.
Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s that the addition of those foods listed in regards to the Food & Beverage tax in the report would not be included in the motion. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell clarified that the motion would leave the food and beverage (F&B) tax as an option but would exclude the list of applicable items. Councilor Navickas stated he would prefer that the F&B tax be removed. Councilor Jackson stated if there is going to be a variety of choices, and F&B is one of them, there will be a huge discussion about adding to it or raising it when the time comes. Councilor Hartzell stated she does not want to increase a tax on items purchased by those who do not have the ability to cook at home.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell and Navickas, YES. Councilors Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger and Hardesty, NO. Motion failed 4-2.
Councilors Navickas/Silbiger m/s to remove food and beverage fees from the list of recommendations. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilors Jackson and Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Continued DISCUSSION on amended motion: Councilor Chapman noted administrative costs for local vehicle registration may be substantial. He also stated he is not in favor of a 10% administrative fee concerning the payroll tax.
Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Chapman noted a transportation commission would address public transit and transportation planning issues and added the Traffic Safety and Bicycle & Pedestrian Commissions are too narrow in regards to these issues.
Councilors Chapman/Jackson m/s to form a mayors ad hoc Transporation Committee to address transportation planning, public transit and parking issues. The committe should consist of commission members from the Bicycle & Pedestrian, Traffic Safety, Planning and Housing Commissions. Citizens representing businesses, SOU, ASD, RVTD and public transit uses will be included. The staff will be from planning and/or engineering. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman clarified he would like to form a temporary group which addresses and resolves transportation issues, and he would then consider that the commission become a standing commission. Councilor Hartzell stated she would like to institutionalize the integration of all related tasks and voiced her concern with the possible burden on staff. Councilor Hardesty agreed that there could be a burden placed on staff and asked what the thinking was behind the task force recommendations. Ms. Brown noted the goal was to look at the broader picture of transportation issues, recognizing that there are specific bike/ped and traffic safety issues but overall the transportation link is missing. She noted an ad hoc committee will be tough on staff but is not long term. She recommended a permanent transportation commission with the Bicycle & Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions as elements.
Councilors Chapman/Hardesty m/s to amend the motion making the mayors ad hoc Transportation Committee a "standing" ad hoc committee. Roll Call vote: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilors Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
4. Draft Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County for Library Services
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer provided additional changes in regards to "non-appropriation." She noted if the Budget Committee does not appropriate funds for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, termination of the agreement could occur. She added the agreement includes language that allows the City to monitor the services and outcomes of the enhanced services. She noted Exhibit A, and added this section spells out what the City's enhanced services are and stated the City will pay three FTEs to cover the additional hours and outreach services requested. She added services for eight months would cost the City $206,000 ($160,000 for additional hours and $56,000 + $664 for outreach services). She noted the inclusion of Ashland's Living Wage in the agreement, and stated LSSI is in support of it.
Ms. Bennett commented that staff did not have a good estimate of costs for outreach services until just recently and apologized that their estimate was lower than what LSSI's actual cost is.
Councilor Navickas questioned what would happen if the agreement were terminated. Mr. Appicello clarified information in the previous agreement from 2000 does transfer over to the new IGA in terms of termination.
Councilor Hartzell stated the importance of making sure that the definition of "library operation" in the contract means, "open hours." Mr. Appicello explained that the schedule inserted in the agreement does add up to 40 hours a week of operation.
Amy Blossom/140 Susan Lane/Offered her appreciation and thanks for the support given to the Ashland Library and invited everyone to visit the library next Wednesday at 10 a.m. She announced that the following Sunday a middle school band will be welcoming visitors into the building. She also noted lots of energy and excitement concerning the reopening of the library.
Councilors Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve the draft IGA between Jackson County and the City of Ashland detailing the enhanced library services to be provided by the County subject to administrative changes after legal review by County Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition to the IGA, noting he cannot support outsourcing of a public library system, as it is an institution that should remain strictly within the public sector. Councilor Hartzell expressed her appreciation for Councilor Navickas' views concerning the outsourcing of the library, but noted she will vote yes for the IGA as she feels it is an interim solution. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Nomination of Voting Delegate and Alternate to NLC Conference
No action as council member is not planning to attend the conference.
2. Appointment of Systems Development Charge (SDC) Committee Members
Item delayed until future council meeting.
3. RPS report
Community Development Director David Stalheim presented a staff report on the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process. He noted three problems it is meant to address: 1) the lack of a mechanism for coordinated regional growth planning, 2) a loss of valuable farm and forestland caused by urban expansion and 3) the loss of community identity. By agreeing to the planning process, the parties involved would need to agree to the following:
|•||Abide by the plan|
|•||Maintain consistency with the plan and, when necessary and appropriate, either adjust the comprehensive plan, codes and regulations, or pursue amendments to the Regional Plan|
He noted the following implementation techniques for regional growth planning:
|•||Periodic Review of the Regional Plan in 10 years, with 2012 as the first year of review|
|•||Urban reserves provide for doubling of the population|
|•||Parties to the plan would need to agree to agricultural buffering standards|
|•||A Critical Open Space Area Preservation is optional|
|•||Urban Reserves provide for community separation|
Mr. Stalheim stated the Planning Commission staff's largest concern has to do with population allocation and the decision of the City of Ashland not to set aside urban reserves for the next 50 years. He noted that with population change he is not sure that the City Council understands that the population growth rate is significantly different from historical projections. He added in 2003 the City voted not to add urban reserves, and stated this decision was made based on an assumed population. He noted the population of Ashland grew by over 1.35 percent from 1980 to 2005. In contrast, the population growth in the RPS process is much lower at .32 percent annual growth. He commented that if the City wants to have growth at this rate, the decision to not have urban reserves is fine because the City can accommodate that population allocation of a little more than 4,000 people with the existing urban growth boundary. He noted with future growth rates that the City might need to rethink the use of urban reserves. He stated the issue is not an immediate decision that must be made by Council because the Stakeholder's Agreement provides for two options that allow for more discussion and flexibility:
|1.||The process allows for minor amendments to the Regional Plan that add 50 acres or less to the urban reserves. However, in 2003, most of the reserve areas in question were about 100 acres in size. It would be beneficial to have the agreement allow up to 100 acres providing the City with more flexibility.|
|2.||The process calls for the Periodic Review to start in 2012. The City would be in a good position to go back to the Regional Problem Solving process, if it chooses, and ask for population and urban reserve amendments.|
Councilor Jackson stated the importance of finishing the plan and noted once this happens the City will then have two items accomplished; 1) all the cities in the County will talk to each other in more than one venue again, and 2) if the City achieves adopting a long range land use planning map, this map can then be used for transportation planning. She stated this is a first step as well as a strategy that is followed by the normal land use adoption process. She noted a disturbing discussion concerning whether the Stakeholder's Agreement in itself is a land use action. She questioned how soon the City thinks the Council should form an urban reserve as opposed to using the existing UGB. She welcomed any comments the Council would like to make concerning the RPS project. She voiced her interest in having the 100 acres as a special condition for minor amendments because urban reserves have not been identified in the past. She added it would not have to be specific to Ashland but rather any city that does not have growth areas. She stated the current timeline is to have the Stakeholder's Agreement, comments and the Regional Plan, as it's drafted now, go up to the state for review. She recommended visiting the RVCOG website to look at detailed buffering standards.
Councilor Hartzell suggested a possible study session or special meeting to discuss the RPS issue due to time constraints. She noted there is a need for more in-depth discussion and expressed the importance of reading through the documents to gain a better understanding.
Mayor Morrison agreed with Councilor Hartzell that the Council needs to understand all dynamics of the issue before making a decision and recommended the Council hold an additional meeting to include the Planning Commission. He questioned the period to make a decision on the issue, and noted it seems as though the Council should set up a meeting fairly soon.
Councilor Jackson agreed it is a good idea to meet with the Planning Commission, and added it may be important to focus on comments for the Stakeholder's Agreement.
Council directed staff to decide upon a time for a special meeting to address the RPS issue.
Councilors Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
|1.||Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on September 18, 2007; and approval of Proclamation declaring the passage of the measure."|
Councilors Jackson/Navickas m/s to approve Resolution #2007-37. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the Ashland Municipal Code Adopting the 2007 Oregon Fire Code with Ashland Amendments"
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell m/s to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Chapman and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting an Open Burning Permit Fee Schedule Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 10.30.040"
Fire Chief Keith Woodley provided the Council with a summary of the burning permit fees resolution, and noted the downside of a fee is that it may serve as a disincentive for those who dispose of materials such as vegetation and for whom burning is the only logical alternative. He suggested Council consider this disincentive before making a decision on whether or not to implement a fee.
Mayor Morrison asked if there was any public response to the proposed fees.
Councilor Hartzell questioned the costs of the permits and how they differ from past permit charges. Chief Woodley explained that charges differ during specific times of the year as well as during an annual period. He recommended the Council not implement an open burning permit fee but noted a resolution was provided as staff was directed to provide a list of permit fees. He added burning is not allowed without a permit, and stated there were three reports this year where burning took place without permits. He added it is hard for him to comment on whether or not a $10 fee would be a disincentive as it would not cover the cost of processing the fee. Chief. Woodly clarified that the number of issued permits has steadily decreased over the years, and added the Fire Department is promoting alternatives wherever they can reasonably be applied.
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell m/s to deny a permit fee resolution. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas noted he is a strong proponent of using prescribed fires as a means of dealing with fuel build-up. He added any disincentive towards it is not a good idea. Councilor Chapman suggesting choosing a more reasonable fee rather than throwing out the entire resolution altogether. Chief Woodley stated $70 would be a full cost recovery fee, and noted anything substantially less would not be worth the processing fee.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Further Discussion of implementation of July 18, 2007 Council Motion regarding Mt. Ashland Association
Item not discussed.
2. Discussion regarding Mt. Ashland Association wastewater treatment plant
Councilor Navickas requested an update from the DEQ on the current condition of their permit and voiced his desire to find out what issues still exist, since MAA has received a notice of non-compliance. He stated that this non-compliance concerned MAA exceeding nitrogen levels in 2003, and the DEQ stated they would continue to monitor these levels. He noted the large algae blooms in the reservoir and added algae are a result of not only high temperatures but of high nitrogen levels. He felt it is important for the Council to investigate exactly what is going on within the watershed that may increase these algae blooms and requested staff to contact DEQ for information on the test they conduct at MAA's wastewater treatment facility.
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell m/s to direct staff to consult with DEQ on the current status of the effluent discharge and the MAA wastewater treatment facility, and request a formal update from their on-site specialist. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas clarified that this is a request to seek monitor results and interpret them. He further explained that MAA has an on-site specialist who can submit formal reports, and added MAA is required to submit periodic reports of nitrogen levels using outside monitors. Ms. Brown explained there is an on-going monitoring program and offered to provide the Council with reports concerning this information. She noted DEQ does not always do follow-up reports and requested the timeframe of the reports the Council is requesting. Ms. Brown explained that the connection with the algae bloom can be made if nitrogen levels are high enough, and added she will provide additional information to the Council concerning this connection. Councilor Chapman voiced his concern with generating a large volume report. Councilor Hardesty stated part of the problem is that DEQ eliminated requirements for maximum nitrogen levels, and added a report would contain useful information to the Council. Councilor Navickas reiterated he is asking for reports to find detailed information concerning the levels. Councilor Chapman stated he is not sure why the Council would need this information, as it is an issue staff can address on their level. Councilor Hartzell noted the Council is essentially the Municipal Water Board and has a responsibility to investigate the issue.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Councilor Jackson, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Hartzell questioned why the ambulance issue was not included in the Look Ahead Review and noted the Council was waiting for Chief Woodley to bring back information from a conference. Staff stated the item is not scheduled yet but it will be added to the Look Ahead for future scheduling. Councilor Hartzell requested it be addressed several months prior to the budget process.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:19 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John W. Morrison, Mayor
End of Document - Back to Top