City Council (View All)
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL ASHLAND
June 15, 2010
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
Councilor Voisin announced the passing of Housing Commissioner Aaron Benjamin. Mayor Stromberg held a moment of silence in his honor.
Mayor Stromberg noted vacancies on the Historic, Planning and Tree Commissions.
City Administrator Martha Bennett added an item to the Consent Agenda from the Fire Department regarding the Title III Jackson County Funding Program for the Ashland Fire and Rescue as item #9.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Special Meeting of May 26, 2010, Executive Session of June 1, 2010 and Regular Meeting of June 1, 2010 were approved as presented.
1. Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of
3. Should the Council adopt a resolution to provide a recommendation to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) to allocate more than 50% of Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funding to the hardest hit counties in the State of Oregon in accordance with the U.S. Treasury Hardest Hit Housing Market?
4. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the award of a public contract to Answer Page for a term of one year, with the option of two one-year extensions, for a total of up to three years?
5. Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor’s re-appointment of Nick Frost to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
6. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Melody Noraas as the Parks Commission Liaison to the Forest Lands Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
7. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for the direct award of Aluminum Sulfate 48.5% from Rhodia for a term of five years?
8. Should Council approve the reappointment of Steve Minor, Anne Golden and Carol Christlieb as recommended by the Board of Directors for the
9. Does the Council wish to approve a funding agreement between the City of
Councilor Voisin/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion approved.
1. Will Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Annual Budget as presented or with modifications?
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained this was the third phase of the budget process where the Council would adopt the budget approved by the Budget Committee or make modifications. The process included appropriations through resolution, qualifying for state subventions, a new resolution to clarify sources and uses to the Reserve Fund established last year and an ordinance setting the property tax rates as approved by the Budget Committee.
He stated the extra 1.6cents was part of setting aside turn out equipment and hoses and included in the City’s rate as an operating tax levy of the permanent rate. The Fire Department General Fund pays $30,000 into the Equipment Fund’s sinking fund. Expenditures are incorporated in the total tax for the General Fund.
He went on to explain the Community Development building is paid for by balances that have accumulated over time in the Capital Improvements Fund. Money is set aside to replace capital facilities every year and an actual balance grew because the City deferred a project. Appropriations transferred from the CIP into the Debt Service Fund are paid from that fund. The loan will be paid 2.5 years early and will reflect a reduction in internal payments by Public Works in 2012.
Public Hearing Open: 7:22 p.m.
City Administrator Martha Bennett stated the current budget was $2,500 and explained how it was allocated. She acknowledged the remarkable relationship the City has with its
Ms. Turner clarified the amount requested for the 2011 budget was $4,390 and described the activities the funds would support.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:29 p.m.
Councilor Silbiger/Voisin m/s to approve Resolution #2010-16 adopting annual budget and making appropriations. Voice Vote: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Lemhouse, Voisin and
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson to approve Resolution #2010-17
Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Silbiger, Navickas,
Councilor Silbiger/Voisin m/s to approve Resolution #2010-15
Voice Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2010-18 Identifying Sources and Uses of a Reserve Fund. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas was disappointed the Budget Committee did not approve an increase to the Reserve Fund and wanted 1cent of the tax rate dedicated to the fund. Councilor
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of an Ordinance levying taxes for FY 2010-2011 and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman stated this budget season was the least hurtful he had experienced but objected to the 1.6cent increase to property taxes stating funds could come from other areas instead. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Voisin,
1. Will the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing and Implementing a Program to Charge User Fees for the Deployment of Public Safety Services Rendered by the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire and Rescue?
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the scrivener’s error on the ordinance discussed at the June 1, 2010 meeting was corrected. The ordinance would authorize the fees and a Public Hearing at a subsequent meeting would determine the amounts Council will adopt through resolution.
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Voisin/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of the ordinance and move to second reading.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse,
2. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone for Consistency with the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan"?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact
Councilor Voisin declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse her from the discussion. The remaining Council and Mayor had no conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to excuse Councilor Voisin due to a conflict of interest. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Councilor Voisin left the room at 7:43 p.m.
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3019.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson and Mr. Appicello discussed separating the last sentence in Section 2: “Notwithstanding their inclusion in the Detailed Site Review Zone, developments in these designated areas shall be exempt from the maximum floor area requirement in Section 11-C a (1) of the Site Design and Use Standards,” and creating a new paragraph or Section.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to amend the motion and make the last sentence in Section 2 of the ordinance a separate paragraph. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse,
Roll Call Vote on main motion: Lemhouse,
Councilor Voisin returned to the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve awarding a contract for a period of three years beginning June 30, 2010 and allowing for two one-year extensions to Bank of America for City of Ashland Banking and Merchant Services?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen presented the staff report that recommended approving a contract with Bank of America. She described the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, clarified the contract applied to banking transactions only and was not intended for investment purposes. She listed the potential proposers and noted Bank of America ranked the highest with a $1,025 a monthly flat fee for banking services and a discount on fees associated with merchant services. Some proposals were vague regarding costs and did not follow the RFP close enough for the group to determine the cost to the City. Ms. Christensen confirmed part of the selection criteria required the bank to have a local branch.
Councilor Voisin/Silbiger m/s that the Council, acting as a Local Contract Review Board approve the contract recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse,
Ms. Christensen noted local banks that submitted proposals ranked well in the process except for the cost.
2. Will the Council approve a proposal to adjust the angle of parking in the Plaza to increase traffic safety and available parking as recommended by the Transportation Commission?
Associate Engineer Pieter Smeenk presented the staff report that would change the angle of parking in the plaza from 60 to 75 degrees. The change improved geometric efficiency and allowed eight additional parking spots. The Transportation Commission approved the plan with one revision to parking spot #10 in front of City Hall they thought was a hazard to pedestrians. Traffic Engineers reviewed the angle and agreed the change improved safety but did not agree on removing space #10. They suggested a curb bump instead with motorcycle parking against the curb line. Funding for the curb pop-outs would cost an additional $3,000-$4,000.
Staff explained how a parked truck that was unloading would reduce the Level of Service (LOS) from A to B because it diminished the amount of back up space. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained there was $180,000 allocated for miscellaneous projects, if Council approved this project, staff would do the striping and concrete projects at the same time.
Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to accept staff’s variously revised proposal for the new angle on the parking spaces. DISCUSSION: Councilor
3. Does the City Council wish to adopt a resolution making a recommendation to Jackson County on issues to be addressed prior to the adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the Regional Plan that included:
Problems that the Regional Plan is meant to address through the identification of Urban Reserve Areas (URA’s):
· Lack of a Mechanism for Coordinated Regional Growth Planning
· Loss of Valuable Farm and
· Loss of Community Identity
· Draft Regional Plan: rps
· RPS Urban Reserves Map
· Urban Reserve Area Candidates Maps
· In November 2003, Planning Commission recommended not to add URA’s
· In December 2003, Council passed a resolution not to add Urban Reserve Areas (2003-37)
· Reason: Focus on more efficient land use on existing lands within the UGB
Issues Raised in 2007 Letter
· Efficient Land Use
· Transportation Planning & Implementation
· Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands
· Regional Approach to Housing & Economic Development
· Coordinated Population Allocations
Regional Problem Solving Participants Agreement
· The six cities agree to abide by the RPS Plan, adopted by
· May be necessary to make adjustments to the Plan, as a result of the Plan amendment, adoption process
· Cities provide formal comment on the Draft Plan to County Planning Commission by Resolution.
· County Planning Commission conducts hearings on Cities’ URA’s & makes recommendations to County Board of Commissioners (Ashland 8/12/10)
· Board of Commissioners conducts hearing and makes a decision on plan adoption. (TBA)
· Cities incorporate County-adopted plan into their Comprehensive Plans, Maps and Ordinances. (TBA)
· DLCD Acknowledgement (and any appeal)
Monitoring the Adopted Plan
· Every 5-years, parties submit a self-monitoring report (beginning in 2015)
· Urban Reserves are first-priority lands used for future UGB expansions
· Conceptual plans for urban reserves shall have sufficient detail to determine size & location of regional trans. Facilities
· County population element shall be updated consistent with gradual implementation of Plan
· Council is asked to adopt a resolution providing a recommendation on the RPS Plan to inform the County’s decision
· Staff has provided a draft resolution with the following recommendations for modifications to the current draft plan
· Mayor’s Letter raised the issue…
· Plan’s Response…amendment could occur as early as 2009 as part of RPS plan adoption
· Current Plan Treatment of
o 2,176 (0.28% AAGR) by 2040 (reduction of 3001 over our previous 2026 estimates)
o 4.038 (0.32% AAGR) by 2060 (reduction of 8,222 over our previous 2056 estimates)
· That the population allocation be reviewed and adjusted prior to adoption
· Specifically, amend RPS Plan to reflect a 2040
Mr. Molnar explained the population allocation figures in the plan were significantly less than what staff would have estimated. The Coordinated Population Forecast was important because it was based on maintaining a 20-year supply of inventory for residential and employment growth. Staff went on to explain under the Oregon Land Use planning system Counties allocate population to their jurisdictions and this is done independent of RPS. For unknown reasons in 2006, the City of
Efficient Land Use/Transportation
· Incorporate a commitment to:
Ö Transit Oriented Development and/or
Ö Higher density planning scenario of at least 7.26 dwelling units per acre (as suggested by DLCD) – conducive to a successful regional transit system
· Verify compliance of any proposed urban growth boundary expansion by preparation of a conceptual development plan, specifying target residential and/or employment densities
· Provide formal assurance that the 10-acre minimum lot size currently in place under Oregon Administrative Rules will remain in place within our urban fringe (i.e. within one mile of the UGB) until
· Jurisdictional transfer of County roads within existing city limits, suggested in June 4, 2010 letter from Jackson County should not be tired to the adoption and acknowledgement process for the RPS Plan
· Issue was only recently raised and may have budgetary implications, which need to be further considered by the Cities and the County
Mary-Kay Michelsen/2810 Diane Street/Urged Council to support the proposed Resolution because it spoke to the RPS Goal of each jurisdiction maximizing the potential infill and redevelopment within its current boundaries before designating farmland for future development. She objected to the use of “or” in item 2, line three under Section 2 of the proposed resolution and thought it gave jurisdictions a choice between a commitment to transit oriented development or higher density. It was an invitation to low density and the continuation of sprawl. Maximizing infill preserved at risk farmland.
Daniel Gregg/195 Mobile Drive/Shared how long he has lived in the area and his experience with farming. He urged Council to pass the resolution to protect the farmland and encourage other jurisdictions to do the same. He supported education on sharing, using fewer resources and provided examples.
Sarah Vaile/ 140 Lincoln Street/Introduced herself as the Project Coordinator for Rogue Advocates that supported sustainable communities in the
Greg Holmes/432 NW 6th Street, Grants Pass/Introduced himself as the Southern
He requested that the word “or” be removed from the language in Section 2, item 2. Affordable Housing was not addressed in the plan and he suggested Council add a new Section 5 requiring the RPS to address Affordable Housing.
Council discussed Section 1 – RPS Plan 1. Population and expressed concerns regarding the population allocation and its affect on the amount of land included in the urban reserves. Staff suggested changing the language of the first sentence to read: “That the population allocation be reviewed and adjusted accordingly prior to adoption by Jackson County Commissioners,” and revise the last sentence to read: “Population estimates must be corrected for all jurisdictions in RPS to reflect these projected growth rates, or alternate growth rate based upon an accepted, empirically based population project methodology.” Council consensus agreed to the language changes and adding an additional Section 5 to address land in the urban reserves.
Council went on to discuss Section 1 – RPS Plan 2. Efficient Land Use and Transportation Planning/Implementation. Staff explained the primary concern for removing the word “or” was target densities were focused for urban reserve areas, and density in the wrong location could have unintended consequences. Council directed staff to revise the language and bring back suggestions for consideration.
Council consensus agreed with the suggested language for Section 1 – RPS Plan 3. Urban Fringe.
Staff explained Section 1 – RPS Plan 4. Jurisdictional Transfer was an issue for the County Roads Department and added at the County Road Director’s request. Council agreed with the suggested language.
Staff discussed with Council adding a new Section 1 – RPS Plan 5. High Value Farmland that would request
Council and staff discussed adding a new Section 1 – RPS Plan 6. Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development with the possible language: “
Councilor Jackson/Voisin m/s to direct staff to revise the Resolution as discussed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse and
4. Will Council approve an engineering services contract with Keller Associates in an amount not to exceed $303,400 to provide a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan?
Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Engineering Technician II Scott Fleury who provided the background on the selection process where Keller Associates ranked the highest. The Wastewater Master Plan will include all regulatory requirements, analyze the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the collection system, and review staffing needs for service levels and look at pre-treatment needs for the City. It will also cover a hydraulic model that will analyze the flow of the sanitary sewer system. Another component of the Master Plan is analysis on the Wastewater Treatment Plant’s current capacity, membranes, inline treatment of the plant and bio-solid management with recommendations for improving the carbon footprint of the pant. Mr. Faught further explained the plan would provide an overall comprehensive view of the system, help determine rates and projects for the CIP. The study contract duration is 20-months but has a schedule end date of September 2011.
Council discussed concerns regarding the cost of the study and benefits the Master Plan would provide.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve contract with Keller Associates in an amount not to exceed $303,400. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin requested detailed quarterly reports on the progress of the study. Councilor Chapman thought there must be a more cost effective way to get the information and would not support the Master Plan. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger,
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Does the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments?
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to continue item until June 29, 2010 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion approved.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor