Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-0416 REG MINMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 16, 1991 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Catherine Golden called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance at 7:32 PM on the above date in the Council Chambers. Laws, Williams, Acklin, Winthrop, and Arnold were present. Reid arrived at 7:40 PM. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The Minutes of the regular meeting of April 2, 1991 were approved as written. CONSENT AGENDA Winthrop moved to approve all items on the consent agenda and Arnold seconded. All ayes on voice vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continuation of public hearing on reconsideration of CUP and Site Review on remand from LUBA, to allow construction of medical offices at Ashland Community Hospital. A letter from Jim Watson, Hospital Administrator, was received requesting a continuation of the public hearing. Williams moved to continue and Winthrop seconded, all ayes on voice vote. Continuation of public hearing on proposed methodology for assessing systems development charges. Almquist pointed out State law basically repeals all the existing development charges and also requires that the City adopt a methodology. There are three steps in the process: first reading of the ordinance, adopting a resolution on the methodology, and setting the fees. The only item under consideration tonight is the first reading of the ordinance establishing the framework for future systems development charges. The public hearing was opened. Wes Reynolds, 1265 Munson, spoke as representative of Parks and Recreation, recommended one change to the proposed ordinance, Section 4.20.90(D) "Credits", amend to replace "constructed as part of development and constructed at city expense" to "provided in conjunction with development and provided at city expense." The reason for this is that The Parks Commission sees land acquisition is the primary use for SDCs. He also recommended adding the following paragraph to the methodology: The methodology for the Parks and Recreation SDC recognizes the service level provided on dedicated park land of the City of Ashland. Pursuant to Section 4.20.90(D) of the Ashland Municipal Code, additions to the supply of dedicated park land or development of planned improvements on dedicated park land are eligible for credits to be allowed against the Parks and Recreation SDC. Credits shall only be allowed upon approval of the Ashland parks and Recreation Commission for completed land acquisition, park development projects as identified in the Commission's adopted Capital Improvement Plan or the Open Space Park Program. Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. I The Parks Commission believes another Study Session before the City adopts the methodology would be a good idea. Larry Medinger, 520 Terrace, represents J.C. Association of Homebuilders and himself as a developer. He felt it is important that this does not go down as a straight out flat charge against an individual new residence. This raises everything $5,000 and the existing housing will follow. Sixty percent of his business is with new housing. He is against making housing more unaffordable. He would like to see the cost of expansion of services spread out, i.e., a use based conservation program whereby the city would determine and average monthly usage and charge a surcharge for anything above that amount. Another way to collect the money is to put a lien on the home. He hoped that the City would listen to the ideas of the association and work with them on alternative methods. Pokey Roberts, 131 Church, regarding the affordable housing issue, said the average price of a house in Ashland is $129,310. Least expensive home that would be considered livable is $60,000. She is concerned with adding $4,500 in systems development charges. She also noted that if there have been three revisions already, it might be worth taking the time to look into this and get input from other sources. She fears Ashland is becoming an elitist community. "Equity, fairness or reasonable" were three words that came up in the proposal and she didn't feel it was being any of those three things. Peter Brauner, 11340 Corp Ranch Rd., said the new charges vastly differ from the old (from about $170 to about $15,088). He's been having trouble finding commercial space for small businesses looking to move to Ashland. There is a problem with space, employment and affordable housing. He said adopting this ordinance tonight would be premature and the City should allow for additional input. Ed Houghton, 185 Scenic, referenced Proposition 13 in California and felt this was a similar situation. Out of 19 new homes he recently developed, 16 bought locally. If the city doesn't think this amount of money is not going to make a difference, then it should call it for what it is, elitist. Buck Munson, 1535 Angelcrest, said developers will rush to get as many permits as they can before the July I st deadline, will work through the summer and then stop doing business because they can't afford to develop in Ashland anymore and will go somewhere else. He suggested phasing in the fees over a period of time and allow the developers a chance to assimilate it. Acklin noted that the adopting the ordinance would set forth process and repeal the existing charges but would not set any new fees or establish the methodology. Reid asked if the existing charges were repealed, would there be a void without any charges before adopting new charges. Almquist said state law provides that all existing fees are defunct as of July 1 st in any case. Willlares said the audience needs to talk to the ordinance. Acklin added that the study session is set for April 30th and the people who wrote the proposed methodology will be present at that meeting. Richard Everly, 777 Palmer Rd., new resident and just located his natural foods business here, said it was expensive to move here. He said the new systems development charges may be just the thing to push new companies away from locating here. You will end up with higher fees and less people being able to pay for them and ultimately get less money. Rick Harris, 4355 Pioneer Road, asked Council to extend public hearing 10 minutes, the amount of time Council spoke among themselves. He quoted and questioned specific sections of the ordinance. He noted interpretations should not be left open but everything should be spelled out. He said Council may have a study session, but will not be having another public hearing so they should put off having the 1 st reading of Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 2 the ordinance tonight. He was concerned with people who have already paid systems development charges will have to pay again. He also said the ordinance was revised as late as 3:00 PM today. Steve Morjig, 610 Chestnut, said he already paid SDCs last year on small subdivision and now is going to be charged again when he gets building permits for the four lots left. It's like agreeing on a price to do a job, getting paid for doing the job, and then springing another bill after the work is done. It's not fair and may not even be legal. Dean Royce, 400 Ashland, people who own unimproved lots need to be notified of such a public hearing so they are aware of fees they will be charged for improving the lots. Jerry Toney, 4866 Grant Rd., felt it is not right for a few people to pay for new the systems, that everyone should pay. Developers are paying twice, i.e., for parks because they are required to put common space in new subdivisions. Marcia Mcnamara, 1007 Ashland St., referenced the ordinance, Section 4.20.090, Credits, City should look into lots that are grandfathered in. Arnold moved to extend the public hearing to 9:00, Laws seconded. Patricia Zoleen, 80 Nutley, felt the public hearing shouldn't be closed if information has only been available since 3:00 PM. Allow more time to absorb the information. Bob Sullivan, 525 Sheridan St., not fair that new development has to pay for services that City has let go and deteriorate. He suggested delaying the adoption until you get more input and get whole city involved. Mary Lou Gross, President of Ashland Board of Realtors, felt the issue needs more time. She's concerned about people not being able to afford to live in Ashland anymore. Darrell Boldt, 1950 Tamarack PI., did not have a copy of the revised ordinance. He requested to continue public hearing until he and others could review revised ordinance. John Field, 845 Oak St., felt the facts of the document seem premature and sudden and wants more time. Steve Asher, 1060 Elkader, wants to see more documentation on the Parks Department because the people he builds for can't afford this increase in charges. The public hearing was closed. Reid asked not to close the public hearing. Golden asked for other opinions of Council. Winthrop said enough questions were raised regarding the specifics of the ordinance and he is not prepared to act on the ordinance tonight. Golden said we must give staff specific clear cut guidance on changes and not just defer. Winthrop said we should go more slowly and may miss July 1 deadline. Williams agreed and wants to see Mr. Harris' points clearly diagramed. Winthrop asked how two revisions were made without being public. Laws said if the ordinance he received 15 days ago was not the same as one in packet, the changes made by the City Attorney will have to be read out loud. Jill Turner explained the methodology report was made available to public about two weeks ago, then the water portion was amended, then the transportation element was changed and amended again. Arnold talked about procedure, said we should continue discussion, not necessarily as a public hearing, stay on task in order to have operative by the 1 st of July. The first reading could be second meeting in May, second reading could be first meeting in June, ordinance would be in place, and could implement methodology. He suggested adopting that time table and have the study session on April 30th. Acklin said these charges would not be necessary if Ashland closed its doors and didn't allow anymore building. We would have to modify Sewage Treatment Plant to meet DEQ standards but there would be enough water, and enough land for parks. These charges need to be addressed for future development. She stressed that it was not to fix ailing infrastructure within the city. This study appeared as a line item in last year's budget. This Council met in a meeting about this Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 3 on March 10th and the public was invited. Golden clarified this in no way will become a source of revenue for open space. Laws said audience should address the issues how much will new development really cost the city and who should pay for the growth. Golden urged the audience to get copies of the ordinance and submit changes to staff as soon as possible. Arnold moved to postpone I st reading of ordinance until May 21, and second reading until June 4, and the implementing resolution on June 18, contemplating a study session on the methodology on April 30. Laws seconded. The motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. Laws assumed the ordinance will be sent out 15 days ahead of next meeting. Reid said some charges will buy into existing systems, and not all are up to date so this needs to be addressed at the study session. Report by Brown & Caldwell on five alternatives for meeting EQC mandates on nutrient control in Ashland and Bear Creeks - Steve Hall said the actual request to Council tonight is to receive the report, conduct a public hearing, and then accept it and the two preferred alternatives. The possible alternative of tying in with TID is still open and may be the least costly. The City is under mandate from the EQC to meet new water quality standards relating to nutrients which translates to phosphate, nitrate and ammonium primarily. Hall introduced John Holroyd and Terry Gould of Brown and Caldwell. Arnold moved to extend the public hearing until 10:00, Williams seconded, all ayes. John Holroyd gave the project status: program plan, first staff review, first council review, second staff review, and DEQ review. The City needs to be in compliance by December 31, 1994. The alternatives were detailed on wall as follows: AIt. 1 is to abandon existing Treatment Plant and all flow would then go to Medford for treatment. AIt. 2 is a higher level of treatment then we are currently receiving, 2A includes spray irrigation on City purchased land during summer and winter discharge to Medford through the Bear Creek sewer, 2B would take that treated effluent to Medford year round. AIt. 3 is another increment of higher treatment that allows discharge through Bear Creek only in Winter, 3A has summer spray irrigation, winter discharge to Bear Creek with wetland discharge option, 3C has summer discharge to Medford and winter discharge to Bear Creek and we will add Alternative 3B, TID disposal option, summer spray irrigation and winter to Bear Creek; AIt. 4 is the most complex, provide highest level of treatment and year round discharge to Bear Creek. The cost evaluation includes three components: capital cost, annual cost and total present worth. Analysis shows under present worth that AIt. 3A and 1A are essentially the same in cost, $21-23 million. AIt. 4 is at $33 million. The environmental evaluation criteria includes air quality, noise, wetlands, and Bear Creek fisheries. The engineering/institutional evaluation criteria include flexibility, reliability, use of existing facilities, and implementation. Potable water evaluation criteria include Ashland source and Talent source. Land that we are considering for purchase for effluent application has Talent Irrigation District water rights currently, and there is hope that that land and their water rights could be transferred to potable water needs. If that is possible, it reflects a very positive value as a resource. The Talent source is a reflection on the fact that any alternative that takes water out of Bear Creek potentially will impact Talent's water supplies. Alternatives 1 a & 3a are the recommended alternatives but we need to determine which is most appropriate. Recommended actions for AIt. la is to resolve the fisheries concerns. The City, B&C/DEQ and the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 4 will meet together to discuss this issue. We also need to investigate effluent water rights; the recent legal challenges and concerns may indicate the City may not have complete control of its effluent. Laws was concerned with continuing public hearing after 10:00 PM. The Public Hearing was open. Phil Clark, 2981 Tolman Creek Rd., wondered why AIt. 1 a and 3a is preferred. Laws said it was the cost issue. Clark encouraged Council to consider the moral imperative of taking water from a natural eco system and not putting it back in as close to the source as reasonable. The Public Hearing was closed. Holroyd continued the report with recommended actions for AIt. 3a. We need to resolve fisheries concerns, besides low flow during the summer, the effect of pH during the winter which DEQ is concerned about. The City needs to assist DEQ with TMDLs, help identify the components of a discharge permit, pursue TID reuse, pursue potable water rights. Holroyd recommended starting with the compliance date (12/31/94) and working backwards in order to see when key elements need to happen. Golden questioned if the City purchased land and irrigated with Ashland effluent, would that land come with water rights to replace the water which is no longer being put in the creek? Holroyd said that was the potential. Williams said the difficulty would come in that time period when TID turns the water off. Laws said we need to know whether that will provide enough water to meet the fish needs and would the same standards be required if we spread the effluent onto soil instead of putting it into the creek. Holroyd said you need to consider what to do in the winter. There are more stringent requirement during the summer and that's the big push for AIt. 4 and the big cost difference between 3 and 4. Reid asked for background figures what the treatment plant puts into Ashland Creek and what Ashland Creek is to Bear Creek. The lowest flows in Ashland Creek are during the early Fall/Winter months when TID quits flowing water in the stream. At that point, Ashland Creek is the bulk of the flow in Bear Creek. Holroyd said the DEQ claims they have recorded a Dec. flow of 3 cfs and if that's correct, that means all the flow is Ashland treatment plant effluent. Reid wants to see a composite tally of Alternatives. Winthrop noted cost analysis of AIt. 2a and 2b, has the same fee but provide different services. On page 9-15, Wetlands are still in there for $200,000, is this an oversight. Holroyd confirmed and said it should be removed. Winthrop was concerned if we go with option 1, could we inherit Medford's headaches if they, in turn, need to comply with DEQ. Williams said that's why the cost of 1 a took a big jump. Winthrop complimented Holroyd for his clear presentation. Klaus Vanderpool, Representative of the League of Women Voters, spoke off the record about the impacts that AIt. 1 and 3a will have on water rights? He also spoke on the issue to replace the roof on the anaerobic digester and suggested it could be postponed. Hall said there are large cracks and movement in the roof of the digester and are leaking methane gas and they have concerns. They plan to drain it down next spring or maybe this winter. Reid noted it was in the budget for this year. Golden asked what action staff wanted of Council. Hall asked that Council approve Alternatives 1 a & 3a (and keep 3b and 4 in wings) to stay on deadline. Winthrop so moved and Arnold seconded. Laws opposed AIt. 1 a. Reid felt too many questions were still unresolved. Winthrop understood that his motion is to follow up what's on page 9-48 to clarify issues regarding AIt. 1 and 3a, and not giving green light to proceed. Laws moved to amend the motion by striking 1 a. Reid seconded for Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 5 discussion. Arnold said I a should not be eliminated and didn't agree with Laws' analysis. Call for question on amended motion. Laws and Reid voted yes and Williams, Acklin, Winthrop and Arnold dissented. Acklin is for AIt. I a and 3a and wants to keep options open. Call for question on original motion which carried on roll call vote with Reid dissenting. Recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding dedication of land for Open Space Program. Laws moved to approved expenditure, Reid seconded, the motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. NEW & MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS Mayor's Appointments were postponed until next meeting. Report from committee appointed to review requirements for City Attorney. Reid wanted to put off until questions could be answered. Almquist said we would be losing Roy Bashaw and need to act now. Reid asked about alternatives. Acklin said the committee thought the scope was too broad. Golden explained that there was talk about combining an Asst. City Administrator with the City Attorney as Grants Pass did. There was concern that Ashland could not afford or have enough work to pursue that route. It might serve the City well to combine an existing position with the City Attorney but Almquist did not agree. Reid said 7 yrs ago Almquist came up with the idea. Golden suggested the RFP include a request for someone with managerial experience, which would plant the seed for potential application for attorney with that background. Reid asked how long would the contract be and Almquist said it was open ended. Almquist said Item 6 already includes that. Winthrop said attendance of Planning Commission should be included in the RFP. Winthrop moved to continue, Reid seconded, all ayes. Winthrop moved to accept the RFP with addition that Attorney be required to attend full Planning Commission meetings. Reid seconded. The motion was denied with only Reid and Winthrop voting yes. Williams moved to accept the RFP as proposed, Arnold seconded, the motion carried with Reid dissenting. Proposal by Carole Wheeldon that City Council establish permanent transportation committee. Arnold moved to postpone until next meeting and Winthrop seconded, the motion carried on roll call vote. Report from committee appointed to review general requirements for siting of electrical facilities. Golden thanked committee volunteers who put in a lot of time and effort. Cate Hartzell requested to postpone the issue because of the late hour. Laws sympathized, but the City is under time constraints on the construction of a new substation and would like to review the committee's proposed guidelines before proceeding. Acklin said for the record that the committee discussed at length to keep and accurate record of people's names and to keep on file the audio tapes. Hartzel gave presentation of Committee recommendations and a copy of that transcript in on record. Lisa Sebrell, 271 N. Mountain, asked what happens if we don't reach the goal of 2.5 milligauss from the fence line but how can that be enforced? She also felt slighted for not being allowed on the committee because it was felt she was too Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 6 involved. This charter amendment might not have gone through if they felt they were being listened to. She felt the City uses scare tactics. Mark Murphy, 492 Linn Street, concerned with document and siting because there are no mechanisms to enforce anything it says. He felt the specific site on Mountain has more problems than has been brought to light and not one house or one life should not be sacrificed for any substation. Two houses will have to be condemned in that location. Alternatives are available. He asked that Council look at sites w~h//o ~ r idences nearby. He recommended City property behind warehouse. ~n~v~Weise, naturopathic doctor and acupuncturist, thanked Council for raising the awareness of EMFs but felt if 2.5 milligauss is dangerous, we should strive to get it lower. He suggested leaving a 50% margin of error. Winthrop asked him if he had any expertise in epidemiology and the answer was no. Betty Camnet, 868 8th St., asked what the importance of the report was? Acklin moved to continue, Reid seconded, all ayes. Camner asked if these recommendations of the committee were guidelines and would they be sent out to all homes? Acklin said it directs City staff in the kinds of techniques we want them to use when we design or look for a site. Camner said the resolution was full of shoulds and mays which are vague. She also noted that "existing homes" were not listed in Section 4(A). Acklin noted they are covered in D and E. Camner felt Council and BPA were acting in everybody's best interest because none of them are directly affected by this location of the substation. She accused that people are not beyond deceiving when it comes to moving things along. She said that a lot of work has been done to come up with alternative sites and nobody seems to care to look at them. Winthrop asked why they were not presented to Council. Ron Thurner stood up and said he did present an alternative report to AI Willlares and Lou Driessen, BPA, and wasn't aware that the Council would be interested in seeing them. Winthrop said they are doing their best to resolve the issues brought upon them. He gets tired of hearing the Council be accused of not listening or responding. Thurner said the health issues may not evolve around EMF itself but the committee focused on it and was even called the EMF Committee. If you want to tighten up or create a site guideline, it needs to be predicated on distance, and the EMF document sets no rule on enforcement. He believes a 500-600 foot minimum for siting a substation would be a real good starting point. Golden noted that some of the comments about Phil Clark and Eric Wallbank, members of the committee, should not have been involved in the process because they live outside the city limits were unwarranted. Eric was the one who originally came to her with the idea. From the beginning the issue was health standards, not siting. Both people were concerned with the issues as hand and committed to the committee. Lou Driessen, BPA, has been working with this issue for several years in Oregon and Washington. Both states have had special committees and have been unable to come up with any conclusory details as far as what level is a safe level. The 2.5 milligauss is the suggested safe level. He suggested eliminating sites by the Freeway or further out from town by putting these 2.0 or 2.5 milligauss limitations on these lines. Ann Bass 270 8th St., said go with more stringent levels of EMFs, is fairly pleased with direction of the committee, and concerned with enforcement questions. Winthrop said this is sufficiently complicated and wants more discussion before voting. Golden suggested turning over changes to the resolution to staff. Arnold agrees to more discussion. Laws confirmed. Acklin said she would like to see Council submit written comments to Roy Bashaw. Arnold said it needs to be done in public forum. Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 7 Golden asked for a consensus to continue this issue at the next meeting and all agreed. Request for authorization to sign 3-year contract with Coopers and Lybrand for audit services. Winthrop moved and Arnold seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS First reading by title only of ordinance establishing expanded emergency water curtailment regulations. Williams moved passage to second reading and Arnold seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on roll call vote. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 Midnight. Minutes - Regular Meeting - Ashland City Council - April 16, 1991 - P. 8