HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0517.SS.MINMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
Council chairperson Steve Hauck called the meeting to order ~t 12:04 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
v
at 12:10 p.m.
DISCUSSION WITH MEMBERS QF THE ASHLAND COMMUNITY LAND TRUST (ACLTI
Ashland Community Land Trust board member Carins Harris introduced Senior Planner Bill Molnar and fellow board
member Larry Medinger. Harris explained that ~he nont~ofit, community-operated organization was incorporated in
September of 1999 to provide a sustainable affordable housing program for low and moderate-low income families.
I-le stated that the A CL T, through Comm unity Development Bock Grant ( CDBG ) monies, have been able to purchase
land for development of affordable housing.
Harris noted that through work with ACCESS, Inc. the ACLT ~as been able to garner the essistanc~ of the Institute for
Community Economics, the foremos~ consultant fwm forthe community land trust concept and the group which began
the first land uust, in Burlington, Vermont.
Harris discussed the ACLT program, and noted that they have been able to make home ownership possible for
Ashlenders who are at 57% of the area median income. High ighted the partnership between the City, ACCESS Inc.
Housing Development DeparUnent, and Key Bank that has made it possible to offer homes at 44% of the average cost
in Ashland, with that level of affordability to remain and increese in perpetuity. Noted that the program will also work
for rentals and possibly cunperativas. Ernphesized that Ashla~d's program will be used as the model by the Institute
for Community Economics in their fund-raising eftotis, nationwide.
Hauls stated that the ACLT's next project is to use $74,0~0 CDBG funds toward the purchase of lend for the
development of affordable housing. He explained that ACLT applied for thes~ funds with the intent of negotiating a
purchase option through June of 2001 on a portion of City-owned property at 667 North Main Street. He stated that
this is approximately a 2-acre piece of property acquired for the pro-pose o f developing a neighborhood park, and noted
that the option would allow the A CL T to explore the poss~ility o f acquiring the adjacent property, secure rehabilitation
funds, and to explore federal requirements for the use of CDBG funds on this purchase, including historic preservation
requirements end the need to consider the presence of lead-based paints.
Larry M edinger, Housing Commissioner end local businessmab, presented a map o f the area that the A CL T is proposing
to pur~hese and noted that cost to rehabilitate the home built in~1904 would be ~'om $25,000 to $50,000. He qm,'ationed
the value and condition of the homes on the prope~y. He vis~aily indicated the area they suggest to be used for park
purposes and what could be used for private housing.
Reid expressed her desire to create multi-family housing homes instead of single-family housing. Madinger noted that
there is multi-family potential, but emphasized the importance ~ f retaining a small town street scapo as much as possible
on North Main SWeat.
Moinar noted that in speaking with die Parks Direa0r, there had been discussion of using the area for resWooms for the
park to be developed and moving the structure.
City AdminisWator Mike Freeman pointed out that the propeay was purchased with open space revenue and that fixis
revenue would need to be paid back into die open space program. Councilor Laws suggested developing aiteruatives
May 17, 2000 Study Session
Page ! of 5
for the use of this land end stated that he would prefer that en agreement with the Parks Department end the ACLT be
reached before council action is requested.
Council discussed the possibility ofconnacting GreenbPi~ Pla~e with Scenic Drive, closing the North Main access, end
providing pedestrien access.
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that it is not necessary f~r council to take action right away in mmsferring this
property, but that it would be possible for the staff, Perks Conu~ission end the ACLT to work out a plen before bringing
the request to the council. ~
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S CO 'dPETITIVE BIDDING RULES
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that the competitive bidding chenges are being submitted to modernize the
competitive bidding rules end bring them in line with recent statutory chenges from the lest legislative session. Nolte
presented the proposed changes: en ordinance revising Cornpet itive Bidding Requirements in Chapter 2.52 of the AMC
entitled "Local Coniruct Review Boerd"; a resolution edopting rules exempting certain classes of conU'acts from
competitive bidding, pertaining requests for proposals end repealing Resolution LCRB 93-35; end a resolution re
adopting end amending the City of Ashlend's rules for screening end selection of persons to perform personal services
end repealing Resolution 94-21.
Fine requested that sequential contnw~s be included in the bidding rules' resolution as well as the personal service
selection rules.
Nolte stated that a $25,000 contract is too low to justify com itively bidding the conU'act, but stated fluit it is up to the
as purchasing personal computers.
Nolte noted that he now Ionks at conWacts from $15,000 to $25,000. Nolte further explained that he does not look to
make sure proper steps have been taken, such as public noticing, but that he looks to see that the contracts meet legal
Discussed the exemption oftelecommunication products, noting that it was not the intention to exempt large orders of
moderns, head-end equipment, or programming, end that! this paragraph was recent to apply to the sale of
telecommunications equipment by the city.
Nolte noted paragraph six, which stated that the Director of Finence would establish internal procedures for the review
ofail contracts. Fine noted the Audit Committee's recommendation to place conWact review with the City Recorder's
office. Shaw suggested that the person reviewing contracts should ha directly responsible to the Council. Reid noted
that the Audit CommiUee' s request was at the recommendatioa of the Auditor, as the Finenee Director would not have
the freedom to criticize his/her supervisor, the City Administrator.
Laws noted that this is a longstanding issue in local end state g~verument, end neerly all model ordinences that he has
seen, recommends against the audit funodun residing with aS elected official. Rather, the models propose that the
auditing power lie with a person responsible to the legislative body but outside of the adminiswative chain of command.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen suggested that if a happy medium were needed, this duty could be shared between
her office end the Finance Director.
Freemen noted that the auditor' s concern had to do with the fg~t that there was no database in place to U'ack conwacts.
Freemen emphasized that this duty should logically lie with the Finance Director, end placing it elsewhere would create
May 17, 2000 Study Session
Page 2 of 5
background. Fine requested that council review the auditor's4~recommendanion.
er would be suxT~ient. Discussed changes being proposed~ including the elimination of advertising in a statewide
newspaper, the adminiswator declaring an emergency, and th~ bidding of non routine legal services outside the City
Attoroey's office.
Russ Sfibiger/~62 Ray Ln/Questioned why personal services and contract review were not included in the fn'st
ordinance. Nolte stated that he did not believe these divisions of the state statute were applicable to the local level.
Silbignr noted that he had no problem with raising the exemption on contracts to $75,000 but than he has a big problem
with raising the personal services contracts exemption to that level. Noted problems in the past with personal services
contractsexemptionsbeingoverlooked. Suggestedthan$25,00)shouldbetheabsointemaximumexemptiunhere. Also
questioned giving the Administrator the power to decide whether there is only one person or entity in the area qualified
to provide services. Noted examples of contrncts being written after the work was already done. Suggested than the
Recorder should be the person m review contracts, as the Finance Director writes some of the contracts and would be
reviewing them as well.
Cate Hart~ell/881 E Main StJQuestloned the change in the advertising notice requirement from 30 days to 14. Nolte
clarified than this is whan the state does, and noted than the 30-~ay role can delay projects. Hertzell questioned whether
14 days notice is acceptable to prepare a bid on larger projectS. Also, questioned advertising as only locally. Shaw
noted that this simply se~s a minimum flint local papers will also be noticed. Nolte confn'med that the city can be more
stringant than the state, or less stringent, at the council' s discreLon. Fine noted that she was also aware ofcootract work
being done before contracts were prepared, and in some cases ~nyment had even been made prior to the contract being
complet~l. Also, questioned the chnnges made in the auditor's report from the draft to the final version. Suggested
that the F innrice Director does not fall under Laws' model ordinance criteria for being outside the Administrator' s chain
of command. Suggested that there needs to be a consistent ccnWact review and reporting back to the council.
Fine voiced his personal discomfort with exempting up to $75,000 for penonal services contracts, and suggested that
he felt competitive bidding would be appropriate at this level. Shaw noted that this level could be an architectural firm
to do design review for a specific project. Director of Comm unity Development John McLaughlin noted that with fwms
he has dealt with recen~y, it is hardly worth their time to prepare a proposal at the $50,000-$60,000 range. Freeman
noted than up to a certain level, services can be compared by leoking at bids informally, without having m go through
the formal process of an RFP.
OSF Executive Director Paul Nicholson noted that items for discussion were highlighted. Noted the Festival's desire
for a three-term option on the lease, and noted the Festival's ~trong feeling on this issue given the invesU~ent being
madc.
Freeman noted that he and the City Attorney had compared the draft lease to notes of previous discussions and shaded
those areas where a consensus was yet to be reached.
affirmative obligation on the Fastival's
Pointed out that item # 12, "Real Property Taxes," had not been previously discussed, but than if laws change and taxes
are assessed, the Festival would be responsible for their payraant.
May 17, 2000 Study Bession
Page 3 of 5
For item #13, "Reserved Air Space," Nicholson stated that ~t may be appropriate to delete this from the lease all
together, but that the Festival would want to be involved in ~he approval process if it is to be retained in the lease.
Voiced the Festival's very significant concern with building affordable housing in this area, specifically with the City
selling rights to develop the area above the structure.
with the neighborhood. Also emphasized that the street scape never been restored, and that this could go a long way
Chuck Buffer stated that the concern for OSF is the unknown factor, given the sensitive nature of the theater business.
Re 'd co mented on the mention of"office type" conslruction d she did not remember there being any discussion of
pro active involvement here.
could not justify giving additional assurances or protections to OSF.
Meese pointed out the value of the property, due to its location on the OSF campus. Suggested that in the future, OSF
Shaw suggested taking this one step at a time, as when this was initiated there was no discussion of the airspace, and
now it is moving further toward expanding the OSF campus. S~aaw pointed out previous statements that the Black Swan
theater was for educational programs. Shaw emphasized thst the proximity of residential housing to the city core
enhances the community end makes Ashlend as vibrant end alive as it is. Suggested that at this point, the project be
prepared for building and turned over to the city. In the future, if proposals evolve, they can be presented to the council.
Reid noted that she is happy to entertain ideas from the OS~, but suggested that an agreement may require some
additional thought on both sides.
Festival representatives indicated their preference for removing the air space item from the lease entirely at this point,
with the possibility for dealing with it joinfly in the future as ~haw suggested.
Laws suggested that this land is not part of the OSF campus, b~t that the city is granting the use of city lands to extend
the campus. Laws questioned the Festival trying to gain more lend by taking this air space. Nicholson stated that the
concern is not with using the air space, but simply ensuring that any future use is compatible and allowing them to plan
for future development type when they cons~u~t the lower levels of the structure.
Discussion, indicating it would not be parking or library construction, but rather two additional floor levels of standard
consiruction. Noted that it would be safer and cheaper to build the foundations for this additional conslruction now.
Shaw noted that the city wented to restore the street scape end provide a mixed-use interface to the nearby residential
neighborhood. Suggested that giving veto power to the Feitival this early on would unnecessarily complicate the
relationship.
May 17, 2000Study Session
Page 4 of 5
noted that under the land use ordinance, there would be a twenty-day comment period and the planning action would
be a site review for design issues. Meese requested that the city hot sell development rights; Hauck noted that an outside
developer could be used to develop the units for the land m~s~
Nicholson suggested that it be written into the lease that whcev~er develops the upper levels would pay the proportional
share of the cost of preparing the underpinnings for the additional levels.
Shaw encouraged moving this item from the lease. Laws stated that he is not sure if he is comfortable with having
OSF own the parking lot. Laws suggested that ownership shunld go to the city when built, and any charges end fees
would go to the city. Shaw suggested a compromise with free ~wking until 6:00 p.m. with revenue generated bat~een
6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. going to transit proglares or paying for reinforcement of the structure. Reid noted difficulty
with making a decision of paid parking at this time. Hauck stated that has not made any decisions yet. Reid agreed that
whoever develops the airspace should pay the incremental costs of consWuction.
Freeman stated that there needs to be further discussion regl'ding the mentioned concerns regarding air space and
ownership end operation of the parking lot.
Nich~ls~nn~tedthecurrenth~peist~~ddath~rd,intermadi.~eve~~fparkingwithrcugh~yf~rtyadditi~nalspaces.
maintenance costs.
Shaw stated that if the city will have a vested, financial interest!because of the parking fees that it clouds the objectivity
of the issue at a planning level. Suggested that these decisinn~ would be better dealt with later. Shaw suggested that
in terms of the city possibly getting afee, it should be decided separately from the land use process.
Nicholson explained that it is important to have this settled now so as to allow this matter to move ahead to the Planning
Commission. Emphasized that the Festival does not want to ge~ planning approval for a three level s~ucture if they will
not have a mechanism in place to pay for the third level.
Shaw reiterated that if the city is receiving a piece of the revenue from parking, it gives the appearance ofclouding the
councirs objectlvity in the land use decision.
Laws suggested that the lease be written to allow fees to covex the consWuction end maintenance costs. Hauck read
from the lease language which indicates that OSF and the City will work together to establish policies for parking.
Nicholson emphasized that nothing in the lease gives funds b,ck to OSF; all revenue goes to beering up the structure
or is returned to the city,
Freeman agreed to work further with OSF on the lease agreement and bring a revised version back to the council.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Submitted by
Barbara Christensen
City Recorder
May 17, 2000 Study Session
Pag~ 5 of 5