City Council (View All)
Monday, June 15, 2009
MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, June 15, 2009
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Voisin, Jackson, Lemhouse and Silbiger were present.
Mayor Stromberg added a discussion regarding the Gas Tax to the agenda.
1. Will Council review and discuss the draft RFP for the future use of the “Imperatrice Ranch” property and authorize the advertisement for a request for proposals for that use.
Public Works Director Mike Faught, Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson and GIS Coordinator Jason Wegner provided a presentation of the Imperatrice ranch that included:
·Use of Land Since Purchase
·Is Cattle Grazing the Best Use of the Property?
·Draft Request for Proposal (RFP)
Conditions of development could include a tree preservation area, riparian protection zones, environmental and cultural overlays, recreational uses, soil hazard area and must comply with Jackson County Land Use ordinances.
RFP’s would address sustainability, public benefit, business plan, environmental stewardship, possible wastewater effluent use, water right usage and must comply with Jackson County Land Use ordinances. Staff included a point system for the criteria to help weigh requirements.
The City’s effluent is Level 4 Class A, can be applied to crops for human consumption and the Imperatrice property is a good resource for that usage. Effluent could be placed into the Talent Irrigation Ditch (TID) on the property to supplement the water removed through the effluent transfer. The City was more than the 40% of total flows during that time of the year at the creek and therefore needed to replace the effluent. Staff recommended the Council retain the effluent option in order to deal with the temperature issues.
Staff clarified the point system associated with the RFP criteria could be changed to a Yes-No category. They would also add a Quality of Overall Design requirement to the criteria.
Adding Indemnification to the lease would make the lessee liable instead of the City.
·Base Map: 2005 Aerial Photo, Parcels, PPL and Access Points
Staff discussed how a specific lot that was difficult to develop due to preserves and utility lines could merge with the adjacent lot as one parcel.
·Soils Wetlands and Springs Map
·Geology, Debris Flow Hazard, and Relative Earthquake Hazard Map
·Zoning, Vegetation Overlay, Elevation and Water Features Map
·Potential Conservation Values Map
Diane Garcia from the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy explained public access on a conservation easement was not required unless the landowner authorized access. The City could apply to the State for the special assessment on a conservation easement and receive a reduced tax.
·Conservation Easement Pros
·Conservation Easement Cons
It was explained that restricting portions of the property with a conservation easement would require a public hearing and the City could add an indemnification process to the lease to protect against violations.
Staff confirmed the upper tax lots do not have water rights.
If the Council established a conservation easement, the City would negotiate the types of uses allowed on the easement. The Council could use the conservation easement as a master plan to establish which areas to protect first.
Interest was expressed in using the land for utilities, solar and wind power with the City receiving a return for any kind of power generation that might occur on the property. Staff stated proposals for power generation from solar or wind energy would have to connect to the City’s grid. Large solar projects were usually a combination of public and private enterprises. Establishing wind power was more complicated and required specific studies, some prior to initiating the project.
The Council commented on the need for a master plan, if an easement was necessary for the entire property, possibly requesting RFPs for the lower lots with water rights now and addressing the remaining property later.
Alex Amarotico/Commented that the City as landowners had authority to make restrictions without a conservation easement at any time and could establish restrictions to protect the viewshed if they sold the land.
Ms. Garcia explained how a conservation easement could be a tool the City referred to when reviewing proposals to help retain important values like conservation, trails, recreation, use of effluent. Mr. Amarotico cautioned on the possibility of having a good opportunity precluded due to a conservation easement.
David Wick/Inquired on next steps. Ms. Bennett explained there would be another Study Session in approximately two months and if an RFP process went to a City Council meeting, there would be a Public Hearing noticed accordingly.
2. Gas Tax discussion.
Mayor Stromberg explained to the Council that establishing a 1-cent per gallon gas tax locally could generate $144,000 for the City annually and offset the Transit Utility fee. He noted a 3-cent per gallon gas tax had been suggested and asked for the Council’s level of interest in pursuing a local gas tax. The Council discussed pros and cons and debated whether to discuss the gas tax further at another meeting.
3. Does Council want to adopt the City Council Goals for 2009-2010? Does Council wish to release the Draft Values Statement and Draft Vision for a two-month public comment period?
Mayor Stromberg explained he would work with staff to coordinate the Council goal setting and budget processes in their normal sequence for this year.
Councilor Lemhouse commented on the Meeting Summary at the end of the regular City Council meetings. He suggested the Council use that time for reports and announcements instead.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
Assistant to the City Recorder