HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1207.REG.MIN MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 1999
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid. Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular meeting of November 16, 1999 were approved as mended to indicate on page 8, last
paragraph, that Councilor Hauck did not feel that the speakers were rushed. Mayor Shaw also pointed out a
grammatical error in the use of the word "when", on page 5, 3I'd paragraph.
CONSENT AGENDA
I. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Mayor's reappointments of incumbents to Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31,
2000.
3. Mayor's appointment of Beverly Morris to the Bicycle & Pedestrian Commission for a term to
expire April 30, 2000.
4. Liquor License Application from Susan Battenburg Poweli dba/Pilaf.
Councilors HaucldFine m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing regarding Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District.
Public Works Director Paula Brown reminded council that the Penny/Palmer LID is for street improvements,
paving. curbs, gutters and sidewalks on one side. Explained that the Penny/Palmer Street goes into a cul-de-sac at
the top of a hill. Stated that objections to the LID by property owners are not in forming the LID, but are in regards
to sidewalks. Brown stated that city engineer, Jim Olson has met with all of the neighbors. Clarified that all of the
property owners have agreed to participation in the benefit for street improvements.
Public Hearing Open: 7:08 p.m.
Ruben Vasquez/885 Palmer Drive/Explained that he had been asked to speak for a group often home owners who
have formed a neighborhood LID to pave two small streets that make up their neighborhood. Presented visual map
of area which showed that the area is landlocked and is relatively secluded. Voiced concern with putting in a 570-
toot sidewalk along one side of the street which dead-ends into a cul-de-sac and would be the only sidewalk in this
area. Stated that in perspective to the whole picture, that the next nearest sidewalk in this developed area, is at the
end of the Oregon Street and Indiana Street.
Vasquez commented on their concern regarding fiscal responsibility, and pointed out that the budget this year for
sidewalks was $25,000, with an additional $30,000 federal money for sidewalks. Stated that this particular
sidewalk would cost the city and themselves, $8,000 and they feel that these monies could be better spent in areas
that have a higher priority level.
Stated that the property owners are not asking for a waiver of the sidewalks, but asking for a deferment. Explained
that if the sidewalk improvement is deferred, until such time that there is connecting sidewalks to the area, they
would encourage the opportunity in having a sidewalk in this area at that time. Another concern mentioned, are that
Citx, Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page I of 11
this would be the only sidewalk in the area, and the safety issues surrounding the use by children with skates,
skateboards, bicycles, etc., that this would create a false sense of security because the sidewalk ends into a very
steep street.
Vasquez also mentioned that one of the neighbors in the area is wheelchair bound and explained the difficulty that
th is neighbor would have in negotiating sidewalks. Vasquez commented on their support of an article in the City
Source which called for more alternative modes of transportation, and that there may be a need in redirecting
deferred sidewalk dollars to higher priority areas.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:17 p.m.
Councilor Reid explained that she had visited the area and the neighborhood. Stated her support of installing
sidewalks in the city, but agreed that this is may not be a high priority area. That if we could spend our dollars
closer to a school, she would be very happy. Commented on the safety issues surrounding Oregon and Indiana
Street.
Councilor Hanson commented that as long as it is equal to the amount of a sidewalk that is put in somewhere else,
that it goes along with the spirit of infill regarding sidewalks.
Councilor Fine commented on his connection with the neighborhood group, and how they are one of the most
generous and public-spirited groups he has met with, in addressing this issue. Stated that this group wants to pay
the money and they want the city to use it where there is the greatest public benefit. Commented on concern
regarding the future installation of these sidewalks in this area, and that property owners may forget and plant
shrubbery or trees in the easement area where sidewalks would eventually be installed. Fine recognizes that this
may be a problem he wouldn't normally want to encounter, but feels that this may be an instance where the council
should exercise their discretion in favor of the neighbors request.
City Administrator Mike Freeman voiced view points from the staff, in that over the last year, the council has given
significant direction to staff to emphasize sidewalks in LID's. Voiced concern that, if the city is going to be
backing off from this direction, there are several LID's anticipated being formed in the near future and his suspicion
is that every one of these LID's will include requests for special dispensation regarding sidewalks because of the
same issues. Requested that council think about making a decision regarding the request and how it may be setting
a precedent for future LID's.
Mayor Shaw clarified that council has in the past made concessions on streets that don't go through, or where there
is very minimal traffic. Pointed out that what may be important in not setting precedent, is that if the neighbors are
in favor of contributing the same amount of money for sidewalks in a more traveled area, the council is not truly
forgiving sidewalks in this case.
Councilor Laws stated that if we go along with this request, that the city would collect the money, and that the
money would be for sidewalks on these streets. Explained that the city would defer using this money at this time
and would request to borrow the money for other sidewalks in a higher priority area. Commented on two
disadvantages to making exceptions for sidewalks in the past have been: 1 ) Money was not collected at the same
time and then later property owners were not aware they were obligated to finance a LID; and 2) Placement of
shrubbery and trees in the easement area. Felt that if the neighborhood fully understood that there eventually may
be a sidewalk in this area, and that the city does not want them to place any shrubbery or trees in the easement area,
it could work out.
Shaw stated that when sidewalks are put in, they can be somewhat contagious in the surrounding area, and may
encourage other neighborhoods to improve their streets with sidewalks. Suggested that council may forgive the
neighbors on the cul-de-sac, but go ahead and require the sidewalks on the larger street.
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 2 of 11
Neil Martin/925 Penny Drive/Spoke regarding his concern with the installation of sidewalks. Stated that because
ot' his disability and the required use of a wheelchair, sidewalks would make it very difficult to get around in the
neighborhood.
Earlene Martin/925 Penny Drive/Clarified that it is the angle of the sidewalk that makes access difficult.
Councilor Wheeldon shared conversation she had with an engineer, and that this engineer indicated that they are
looking at the ADA standards to reduce the slope of sidewalks so that it is not as extreme.
Wheeldon commented on use of the sidewalk by children, but sees the benefit of using these dollars more
et'liciently in a neighborhood where more people would be accommodated. Stated that this would be a huge
exception in her case and that there are certain circumstances in this instance. Clarified that this would not be a
decision that she would normally make, but sees the merit in investing the money in another area.
l,aws stated that he did not see this as the neighbors investing in another neighborhood, but as them giving the
money to the city for their neighborhood, and it being deferred before it is expended for that purpose.
Wheeldon voiced her hesitancy with the statement made by Laws because she believes there has been a good case
made for why you don't need a sidewalk in this area. Stated that there is not going to be any more houses built in
this area, that there is not going to be any more traffic in this area, and that this neighborhood is not going to
change.
l.aws explained that the standards for development do not make these exceptions. And, that if the council is going
to begin to make these exceptions we should change our ordinances for all construction to allow this. Stated that
council was very adamant that they would make such exceptions. Laws voiced his approval on deferral of
sidewalks in this area, and that he would like to have it stated that this is an indefinite deferral of construction for
sidewalks with the neighbors paying for the sidewalks. In addition, he asked that council not consider the
wheelchair issue as a precedent because it could be argued anywhere that there could be problems associated with
wheelchairs and sidewalks. Laws would rather it be an engineering problem in solving the sidewalk access for
wheelchairs.
Hauck agrees with deferment, because it is not that a case has been made that there would never be a need for
sidewalks in this area. Stated that he does believe that sometime in the future there will be a need for sidewalks in
this area, and he would agree to defer until that time.
Reid stated that she does not want this money held in an account. but would like to see this money borrowed and
spent to improve areas that have a need for sidewalks. Would like to prioritize these areas and use the deferred
monies to provide sidewalks to these areas. Conceded that this is an exception to the normal requirements that
council usually places on local improvement districts regarding sidewalks.
Brown explained that there is a priority list for annual sidewalk and concrete projects based on the TPAC list
Laws reminded the council that they are using the opportunity to build sidewalks when money is received from
l.lD's and it is not easy to get LID's. Felt that we need to continue the opportunistic approach and put in sidewalks
where we can.
Mayor Shaw read the following Resolution:
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny
Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains,
Sidewalk and Associated Improvements within the Local Improvement District and Authorizing the
Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements against Property to be Benefitted and Authorizing the City to
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 3 of 11
borrow Money and Issue and Sell Notes for the Purpose of Providing Interim Financing for the Actual Cost
of the Local Improvement."
Councilor Reid motion to strike sidewalk and add sentence talking about the collection for the money for
sidewalks and that the construction would be deferred indefinitely.
City Administrator Freeman asked that it be made clear in the resolution that the city is responsible for the
improvement when it is called up.
Council consensuses to allow City Attorney Nolte to bring back a resolution with correct wording that the council
could adopt at the next council meeting.
Councilor Reid withdrew the motion.
Wheeldon suggested that council think about the cost of the sidewalk when it finally happens. Brown concurred
that there would be additional cost associated with installing sidewalks in the future.
Reid stated that from her perspective, she is not looking at putting in a sidewalk on this street and that she was
trying to craft a motion that the council could support. Explained that if she thought that this street needed a
sidewalk in the future, she would want to do it right now.
Laws voiced his concern with ethically charging this neighborhood for a sidewalk if the city does not intend on ever
installing sidewalks. Stated that the argument has been, that sidewalks encourage pedestrians. And, even if the
sidewalk encourages only one pedestrian, the same argument is the same in encouraging people to walk. Feels that
council should stick to this theory.
Brown stated that the amended resolution would be mailed out to the property owners involved in the LID for their
input and information.
Hauck stated that if the legislative thrust of doing this deferment is as Councilor Reid stated, he is not going to
support the request. Wheeldon also stated that, in spirit, she is not in favor of this, and would like to go on the
record stating she would hardly ever make this exception.
2. Hillside Development Ordinance Remand Hearing.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that this is a public hearing regarding the Hillside
Development Ordinance to determine issues remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals in the case of the Rogue
Valley Board of Realtors versus the City of Ashland. The council will hear and determine if the following: 1) the
1(~0 acres unincorporated single family residential lands outside the city limits, but within the urban growth
boundary can be developed into the Hillside Development Ordinance with a sufficient number of units; a) to offset
the loss of five units on single family residential zone lands within the city limits under the Hillside Development
Ordinance; and b) to address the existing 46 acres shortage of single family residential lands within the city limits;
and 2) determine that the actual land use ordinance section 18.62.080 E(2)G that this section is a suggestion and not
a mandatory approval standard. The section states the following: It is recommended that the color structure for new
structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between
the structure and the natural environment. Explained that these are the only issues that will be considered by the
cormell at this hearing. Stated that all other issues have been resolved or are subject to future hearings and action by
the Planning Commission or Council in the future.
McLaughlin explained that staff sees this as a housekeeping to deal with ordinance language. Stated that LUBA is
asking that council finds that this is a suggestion and not mandatory approval language. That another part of this
ordinance, involves the impact of this ordinance on developable or buildable lands within the city. Stated that in the
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 4 of 11
staffs analysis, they found that there would be a reduction of 33 housing units, potentially by this ordinance. Of
these 33 units, 28 units were located on low density residential zoned lands, of which there is a large inventory.
Stated that LUBA agreed that there are plenty of other lands within the city limits to accommodate that loss of 28
units in these zones. Explained that the five units were on single family zoned lands, and that LUBA was confused
with the city comprehensive plan in how our inventory works. McLaughlin felt that LUBA was asking the city to
take another shot at this, and make it clearer to them.
McLaughlin explained that council has adopted the Buildable Lands Inventory, which is in place. Stated that they
used the inventory methods that are required by the state, looked at it knowing that there was an adopted Hillside
Development Ordinance, and that there would be lots affected it. McLaughlin found that we had, a 31-year supply
or' single family zone lands within our city limits, which exceed what our comprehensive plan. Explained that we
are in excess of state requirements and our comprehensive plan requirements for buildable lands in the single family
,,oned category, which easily handles the loss of the five units through the adoption of this ordinance.
Mayor Shaw noted the gift by the real estate community that we should look at our urban growth and city limits
boundary, and bring both within conformity of state land use laws by making both smaller.
McLaughlin stated that in using the Buildable Lands Inventory that they found no need to expand the boundary over
this next five-year period and will wait until the next period of review to review buildable lands inventory. Stated
that staff is not recommending any adjustments to the boundary at this point.
McLaughlin explained that the recommendation is for the council to: 1 ) Find that the adoptable lands inventory
indicates that there are adequate lands in all land use classifications affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance
to accommodate growth in the next 20 years and that there is no issue with this at this point based on the evidence
of the buildable lands inventory; and 2) Find that the one section in the code is truly a recommendation and not a
mandatory standard.
McLaughlin clarified that the issue of point "B" was part of the misunderstanding that LUBA had with our
comprehensive plan and what the inventory is. This said that we were 46 acres short of providing the entire 20-year
supply within our city limits. Stated that LUBA did not understand that our comprehensive plan only requires that
we have a 5-year supply within the city limits at any one time, but we need a 20-year supply within the urban
growth boundary. Explained that we had a 18-year supply of land within our city limits in our previous inventory
before it was updated.
Reid voiced her concern with having a comprehensive plan that can be easily understood, by both LUBA and
community members. McLaughlin stated that this is exactly why we have a buildable lands inventory that says
there is a 31-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits based on the state required
methodology.
Public Hearing Open: 7:58 p.m.
Debbie Mi!!er/160 Normal Avenue/Stated that she was involved with the committee that wrote the ordinance.
Reminded council that this was a long process in writing this ordinance and urged council to approve the ordinance.
Rick Harris/2675 Quail Run, Talent/Representative of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors/Read definition
of suggestion and recommendation and found that there is a difference. Stated that what LUBA has said to the city,
is to show that this a suggestion and not mandatory. Suggested that council insert the word after recommendation
to read as the following: "It is recommended, but not mandatory that color selection for new structures fit in with
the surrounding....". Harris felt that this language would make it very clear and made the council aware of House
Bill 3410 requires that these be clear and objective standards on the face of the ordinance.
Harris stated that the current language is not clear and objective on the face of the ordinance which is required by
Citv Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 5 of 11
HB3410. Requested council to accept the recommendation by the Board of Realtors by inserting the words "but not
mandatory" into this piece of the ordinance to make it very clear. In addition, Harris pointed out that when you
look at the growth projections that are in the buildable lands inventory, there is less humeric growth projected in the
next 19 years than what occurred in the last 10 years in that projection for single family developable units. Harris
urged council that when they look at those buildable lands projections, that they look at this growth pattern.
Bob Strosser/3917 Bridgeport, Medford/Legislative Committee Chair of Rogue Valley Association of
Realtors/Submitted letter to the council that commented on their opportunity to listen to the council's input on the
remanded issues brought about by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case #97-260. The Rogue Valley
Association of Realtors would also like to include into the record that House Bill 3410-A dealing with the approval
standards for residential development. which went into effect October 23, 1999, also be referenced by staff while
deliberating remand issues. Stated that it is the desire of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors to continue to
establish standing in these matters for future hearings.
Shaw questioned how much money had been spent by the real estate community to fight this ordinance. Harris
responded that it was less than the citizens of Ashland. Shaw used an example of a possible combined expense of
S300,000 which would be equal to $100,000 per word that we are not required to pay. Harris responded that this is
contention that these are the only two issues. Stated that the regulation of aesthetics is greater than the word
"suggest" versus required, or mandatory, and that it took the city two years to get its buildable lands inventory into
a IBrm that can be supported and what LUBA wanted to see. Harris stated that if the cost was $100,000 per word, it
is well worth it, and that "We the People," are three words that are worth more than $100,000 a piece, and that is
exactly what this is about.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:06 p.m.
McLaughlin clarified that the growth patterns were all in the buildable lands inventory and are based on our current
population projection. Explained that our projections are coordinated with all other cities in Jackson County based
on the Jackson County estimate. Stated that we have been tracking the same line for population projection for the
last 20 years and expect to continue to track it.
Hauck commented that consolidated population estimates are based on state requirements that the county had to put
together. Stated that he is comfortable with the way we have been doing things and that we have been accurate for
the past 20 years.
kaws stated that our projection is based upon a constant rate of an increase at 1 V2 %. McLaughlin clarified that we
do not have a constant rate of an increase and that our population estimate is declining. That it is a straight line
projection opposed to a curve projection and that the rate drops below 1%. McLaughlin explained that the straight
line means that there will be a lower percentage year after year of increase, which is what is expected based on our
urban growth boundary and development pressures in the community.
McLaughlin recommends that council leaves the language as written because it matches more clearly what the
council has wanted. That, it is clearly not mandatory, but a value to the community.
Shaw voiced her concern in the possibility of spending additional monies of the Ashland taxpayers, if without these
three words, the Board of Realtors will continue to liftgate.
Nolte clarified that we cannot add any language to the ordinance at this time because it takes a different type of
notice and process that goes through the planning commission and then to the council. Explained that what LUBA
wants from the council, is that if this is a standard, it must be made clear. The council needs to say that this is not a
standard, but a recommendation.
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 6 of 11
Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to request staff to bring back findings that the council find, based upon the
recently adopted Buildable Lands Inventory, that there is a greater than 20-year supply of all residential
lands affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance and that the adoption of the new ordinance will not
result in shortage in any residential land use classification. Further, we recommend that the council confirm
that the language in 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not mandatory. DISCUSSION: Nolte clarified for
the council that this not a '~Findings of Fact", but as "Findings." Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck,
Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Explained that President Clinton is working on policy to end developments in logging
operations into roadless areas, and that the president needs communities from the pacific northwest to endorse his
roadless policy. Stated that our county commissioners are already working to build a grassroots opposition to
President Clinton's policy here in Southern Oregon. Navickas requested that the City of Ashland stand up to these
timber interests and endorse President Clinton's policy. Navickas feels that our community is behind Clinton's
policy and requests that the council officially endorse the roadless moratorium.
Navickas offered a gift to Mayor Shaw in hopes that she would align herself with this effort and not with the county
commissioners.
Tom Dimitre/901 Beach Street/Representing Headwaters. Read statement regarding President Clinton's Roadless
Policy. Noted other communities that have taken a stand and asked that council to consider adopting a resolution
supporting President Clinton's proposal to protect roadless areas at their next council meeting.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Presented facts regarding sludging of Reeder Reservoir. Stated that he had met with a
city engineer who confirmed that 67,000 cubic yards were removed from Reeder Reservoir following the 1997
flood at the cost of $370,320. Stated that he is asking for responsibility because Reeder Reservoir has a problem
with sedimentation and the removal is costly. Asked that the council make a responsible choice in taking a stand
against the proposed renovation of the Mt Ashland ski area because it cuts into a pristine roadless area.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
I. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
For council Information only.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
I. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding the Contract with the
communications group, inc., for Advertising including Public Relations, Marketing and Designing
and Preparing Advertising for Publication."
Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid presented request to the council for allowing exemption from
competitive bidding and to extend the contract that we have with the Communications Group for the marketing of
the Ashland Fiber Network. Explained that we originally entered into a contract with this group on December l 1,
1998 after asking five local firms to bid on the contract, of which one firm did. Subsequent to this process, staff
ti3und out about the Communications Group, Inc. and requested a bid from them also. The bid that was presented
b~ the Communications Group, Inc. was for an overall long term marketing plan of which we entered into a
contract and began implementation. Stated that there is an addendum to this contract on July 21, 1999.
W'anderscheid reminded council that an amendment on the competitive bidding resolution had been approved by
council which removed advertising from the list of items that were exempt. Explained that the proposed resolution
would provide a one-time exemption to extend the contract throughout the entire roll-out of the AFN.
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 7 of 11
Wanderscheid estimated that the roll-out time is between 12-18 months.
Staff is recommending that council approve this exemption stating the following reasons: 1) staff is very happy with
the work that has been accomplished under the contract; 2) now would be a very inappropriate time to switch firms;
3) there is a complete direct mail marketing plan ready to implement when the program is rolled out; and 4) to start
right now and go out to get bids, bring a new firm up to speed, and develop a new marketing plan would not be in
the best interest of marketing AFN to residential customers.
Wanderscheid explained that the AFN Business Plan projects that public relation marketing and advertising
expenses for the next 2-2 V2 years would be about $143,000. Stated that if this roll-out lasts between 12-18 months
that this contract extension could have an expense of approximately $93,000-$143,000.
Wanderscheid noted that there is a concern not to over market the product so that the installation of the service will
not be heavily backlogged. Explained that much of the way the marketing is implemented is going to be contingent
upon how fast customers can be hooked up. Stated that right now is a very critical time for the AFN project.
City Administrator Mike Freeman commented that the bid that was put out for the work, did not anticipate that the
marketing was going to be chopped up into different discreet pieces. Freeman explained that this was why the
successful bidder was asked to put together a full marketing plan for the first several years of the program. Stated
that the assumption was that we would stay with the firm that was selected initially, at least through the roll-out
period. Clarified for the council that there is not an existing reason to have a multi year marketing plan. Explained
that this consultant is only being asked to do the work that is needed, as we need it.
Councilor Laws asked if there were any other provisions in our ordinances other than what was indicated in the
resolution, to an exempt a contract from competitive bidding, if it finds that it doesn't cause favoritism and that the
exemption will result in substantial cost savings. City Attorney Nolte clarified that both of these provisions would
have to be met. Laws understands that there would be considerable inconvenience, but not sure that the evidence
that has been presented so far shows him that there would be substantial savings by staying with existing
contractors.
Freeman clarified that the savings would be in multiple areas. Stated that first there would be a delay period in
offering services for AFN, a new firm would need to be brought up to speed through a tremendous amount of staff
time and the potential loss of revenue by not being able to provide the service to the community.
Councilor Fine stated that, in addition to the two provisions previously mentioned, that the ordinance requires the
council to make written findings of fact that include that the exemption would not substantially diminish
competition in awarding the contract. Fine questioned that, if the public bidding requirement is disregarded, are we
not only substantially diminishing competition, but totally removing all possibilities of competition. Fine feels that
there may be players in the industps' that may wish to bid on this contract. Recognized that there were very few
initially, but feels that the situation has changed.
Nolte responded that the city already has given competition opportunity to bid. Explained that this is an extension
of an existing contract and that competition has already occurred.
Fine stated that if the action being requested by council is a granting of a contract, subject to the state and city
public bidding laws, the council must comply with the requirements. Clarified that the council is required to put in
writing, and give findings to justify, that by exempting this process council will not be substantially diminishing
competition.
Hauck stated that this is an extension of an original contract and there is no change in the request for service.
Commented on how at the original bidding of the contract, there was no competition to the existing contract.
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 8 of I 1
Laws rationalized that given what we know' about the situation we would not have awarded the contract to anyone
else. and w'ould not be reducing competition based on this rationalization.
Council discussion regarding past decisions by council to exempt competitive bidding, when considering fiscal
responsibility.
Freeman reiterated that it is not the intent of the staff to circumvent policy when requesting exemption of bidding
that they are only asking to get past this phase of the project.
Russ Silberger/562 Ray Lane/Stated that the RFP specifically asked for one year term and was not competitively
bid. Pointed out that there are 30 advertising and marketing firms in the Medford telephone book. Questioned how
five were chosen and 25 were not. Commented that there was unfair advantage given to five firms initially, and
that now there is unfair advantage being given to one firm. Felt that if there was not adequate response to the
initial bid. then we should have taken it for bid again. Believes that with current staff, there is an opportunity to
build a better RFP that may generate additional rims' interest in bidding for the contract. Suggested that there
could be a shorter time frame required in awarding a new contract to finishing out the critical phase for AFN.
Requested that new firms have the opportunity to submit bids.
Shaw asked what the motivation was behind Silberger's concern regarding the bidding process. Stated that she was
unaware of any firm that had called and complained they were not given the opportunity to bid on this contract.
Council discussed the appropriateness and irrelevance in the questioning of Mr. Silberger's motivation. Silberger
stated that the public policy of encouraging competition is what is the issue, it is not whether the Communications
Group, Inc. or any other group did or did not do a good job.
Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution #99-68. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Wheeldon, Hanson,
Laws and Reid, YES; Fine, NO. Motion passed.
Councilor Laws stated that regardless of Mr. Silberger's motivation, Silberger was trying to make sure that the City
of Ashland follows its own rules. Stated that it is also the council's duty to make sure that the City of Ashland
tilllows its own rules. Felt that in this case. by giving a liberal interpretation of the words, the council can do this.
But, Silberger's point was well taken and does not feel the council should question people's motivation.
Shaw agrees we should not be trying to interpret motivation, but should be allowed to say when we don't
understand what the driving force is, and request clarification.
Laws commented on how a mindful council is in trying to encourage citizen participation and that council will
discourage participation if they indirectly or kindly question motivation of a citizen in a negative manner. Shaw
agreed with Laws and responded that it flows both ways. Shaw felt that it was important to have a conversant
dialogue with citizens.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution setting a Public Hearing to Hear Petitions for/and any
Objections to the Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street."
Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve Resolution #99-67. DISCUSSION: Public Works Director Paula
Brown clarified for the council that this does not require a fence, but only that it provide a public easement.
Roll Call Vote: Reid, Laws, Hauck, Fine, Hanson and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for
Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving, Curbs, Gutters,
Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements within the Local Improvement District and
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 9 of 11
Authorizing the Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements against Property to be Benefitted and
Authorizing the City to borrow Money and Issue and Sell Notes for the Purpose of Providing
interim Financing for the Actual Cost of the Local Improvement."
Item dealt with under Public Hearings.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and
for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on November 2, 1999," and Mayoral Proclamation.
Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution #99-69. Roll Call Vote: Fine, Wheeldon, Hanson,
Hauck, Reid and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting Fees for Telecommunication Registration,
Applications, Construction, Franchises and Other Services under Ashland Municipal Code Title 16;
and Repealing Resolution 98-24."
Councilors Fine/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution #99-70. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hanson, Reid,
Wheeldon, Hauck, and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
Reading by title only of "A Resolution Accepting Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street from Jackson
County to the City of Ashland."
Item pulled from the agenda.
First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other
Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the
Demolition and Moving of Structures."
Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.
DISCUSSION: City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified that this involves both demolition and relocation. Read
the definition, which is an important part of the proposed ordinance. Clarified for the council that only 40%
of the external walls could be taken down, or if it is the facade you would only be able to take down 10%.
Hauck voiced his support of the ordinance because it is directed at solid waste management. Reid voiced her
appreciation of those that worked on the proposed ordinance. Nolte recognized Councilor Fine, George
Kramer, John McLaughlin and Mike Broomfield.
Laws voiced his support of preserving historic buildings and his concern that the proposed ordinance is not
stopping the tearing down of historic structures, but is designed to prevent from tearing down any structure.
Laws feels that individuals should be able to tear down their structure if they want, unless there is a really
good public reason why they shouldn't. Stated the public reason that is implied in the proposed ordinance is
to save on solid waste, which he feels goes too far.
Fine explained that the ordinance differentiates between structures built prior to 1955 and those built in or
after 1955. Clarified that the object of the committee was to allow Ashland to commensurate with federal
and state laws in preserving structures that have historic significance in the context of this community.
Agreed that there is no desire to clog the solid waste stream with building debris, and explained that experts
are saying that is what is filling up our landfills prematurely. Feel that we need to be environmentally
responsible and not require that new landfills be required.
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 10 of I I
Fine clarified that requirements to demolition or move a post 1955 house, are very liberal in the proposed
ordinance and that the requirements to get approval to demolition pre-1955 are more strict. Stated that the
committee tried to be sensitive to the needs of private property owners to do what they need to do in order to
get economic utility out of their property while balancing that against two community interests, the
environmental interest and the historic interest.
Council discussion of the reasons behind property owner demolition of a building and how this relates to the
proposed ordinance. Council consensuses to bring changes or suggestions back for second reading of the
proposed ordinance.
Roll Call Vote: Reid, Fine, Hanson, Hauck and Wheeldon, YES; Laws, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor Reid noted article from the Parks Department regarding combining resources which had been included in
the packet. Also mentioned her support of Police Chief Scott Fleuter who is teaching classes at Southern Oregon
U n iversity.
Councilor Hauck noted his attendance at the National League of Cities Conference and that the focus of the
conference was on youth and how it interacts with city government.
ADJOURNMENT
Meetin~g as adjourned at :~7 p.m.
~'rbara Christensen, City Recorder
City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 11 of 11