HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1005_CC MINMINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 5, 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, and Hanson were present; Councilor Wheeldon and Fine were absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 21, 1999 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation regarding World Population Awareness Week.
Mayor Shaw read the proclamation regarding World Population Awareness Week.
2. Presentation regarding Watershed Protection Project.
Presentation by Richard Hart/83 N. Wightman Street/Explained that he had been asked by a community-formed group to represent them as their spokesperson. The group has called themselves
the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. Stated that they are achieving success as a collective by recognizing and fostering a new understanding of our community’s interrelationship
with its watershed. Feels that there is a great responsibility that requires the combined efforts of the Forest Service, community, city government, Southern Oregon University’s Environmental
Department, the REAL Corps, Charter School, Lomakatsi, Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy, Headwaters, and other entities.
Hart explained the composition of the watershed , and how fire has impacted the watershed since 1910. Stated that the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance was formed to create a membership
as diverse as the ecosystem upstream. The Alliance is addressing the challenge by forming three committees: technical; communication and outreach; and Finance.
Stated that the team has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and continue to survey the areas proposed for treatment. Explained that they are drafting a unit-specific
assessment and an alternative set of treatments that address health and resilience to events.
Requested that the city council recognize and support the Alliance’s work and direction, and continue to participate in the community efforts. Feels that this is an important opportunity
for our city to move forward and support these efforts.
Presented the council with the task of the committee: “To create an economically feasible plan to mitigate the risk of fire in the Ashland watershed in a timely manner which reflects
the stated ecological and social values of the community, as well as the management objectives of the Forest Service and the City of Ashland”.
Defined the approach as the following: 1) Refine the project’s cost and potential revenues; 2) Generate funds to support the community’s role in this work; 3) Accept local responsibility
to coordinate and partially compensate labor; 4) Develop value-added production coordination within the region; and 5) Build opportunities which support education and outreach.
Clarified for council that the group was formed to participate in accepting responsibility for the watershed.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Termination of the City's interest in a portion of a water line easement encumbering property at 1130 Ivy Lane (39 1E 16AD Tax Lot 1000).
3. Approval of an Agreement and Deed Restriction Regarding Transfer of Drive-up Window.
Councilors Hauck/Hanson m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
Lyn Horstemeier/920 Cambridge/Requested that the city reconsider the use of city tax dollars in fighting the LUBA decision of spraying effluent on the hillside. Stated that property
owners should check their deeds to determine if this would have a negative effect on their property rights. Asked if the council would consider a vote within the city and urban development
areas as to the process desired.
Russ Silberger/562 Ray Lane/Spoke regarding the dangers surrounding traffic on Ashland Street and the most recent traffic accident involving a mother and child. Commented on the impact
of Hwy 66 in this area and street safety. Suggested that at the time the Transportation Plan is discussed, more attention should be spent on street safety. Stated that donations could
be sent to Bank of America for the family injured on Hwy 66.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Discussion of Draft City Council Reimbursement Resolution.
Mayor questioned whether the resolution would take into account speaking engagements when representing the city. Hopes that this would not limit training, but would allow for presentations
of this type. City Administrator Mike Freeman stated that this was addressed in Section 1 of the proposed resolution. Shaw suggested adding the following wording to the second sentence:
“This may include, but not be limited to, such organizations as ....”.
Laws voiced his concern on the way the proposed resolution was currently worded. Felt that it would open it up to a huge amount of money that could potentially be spent by a council
member representing the city, with no check at all. Stated that the resolution seemed to be excluded from being limited by the budget. Pointed out that the provision in Section 2 should
apply for representation too. That the council should have a set budgeted amount, and that if the budgeted amount is to be exceeded there should some kind of check and balance.
Council discussion regarding flexibility in allowing council expenditures for representation that is tied to departments. It was discussed that these types of expenditures, outside the
normal budgeted council/mayor amount, should receive full council approval on the request. Shaw felt that there should be an individual designated amount budgeted on a yearly basis
for mayor and council to adhere to.
Council requested that staff continue to work with the wording on the resolution, including the suggestions made here, and bring the resolution back to council for approval.
Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve request by Councilor Wheeldon to attend the Pacific Program October 2nd - 9th in Bend, Oregon. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
2. Request from Rara Avis Media Group for $5,000 start up funds for film festival.
Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to send request to Budget Committee. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
3. Consideration of a Program for Domestic Partnership Registry.
Rev. Patt Herdklotz/384 Clinton Street/Spoke in favor of consideration of the Domestic Partnership Registry. Commented on her experiences with couples that have been denied visitation
rights for their partners in hospitalization. Feels that any action that would help individuals in these circumstances is good.
Dan Prince/ 101 Randy Street/Commented on virtues of a society that build a resilient caring community. Questioned the costs surrounding the registry of a domestic partnership. Feels
that this would weaken the covenant of marriage and human commitment. Commented on his pastorship and experience of the difficulties and failures in many marriages. Questioned why
leaders would want to pursue a program that undermines the foundations of our society. Questioned why the city would want to go into the personal records business, when the county
always handles these kinds of records. Questioned why the city’s taxpayers have to pay for a service that does not offer an overall benefit to our community. Questioned legal aspect
of the registry and commented that there is no guaranty that hospitals or other institutions would honor a domestic partnership program.
Alice Knotts/710 N Mountain Ave/Representative of Methodist Church in Phoenix/Talent. Commented on how there is an avenue provided to register for a fishing license, animal licensing,
etc., but how there is no avenue provided to register a couple in a loving relationship. Feels there should be an opportunity allowed for individuals to register as a couple and commented
on how the state does not recognize this type of partnership.
Wayne Christian/1190 Bellview/Stated his opposition to the registry and sees marriage as an institution between a man and wife. Questions if the council has a consensus and has heard
from the community as a whole on this decision. Concerned with how this could create a division within the community. Requested that before council makes an endorsement they allow
for additional time to hear from the community.
John Dezell/5188 Rogue Valley Hwy, Central Point/Questions why council is having a hearing on this matter. Cited jurisdictional rights of the City of Ashland and extending those rights
beyond the city limits. Believes that council is digging their political graves. Commented on the possible degradation of the covenant of marriage and that this is not the business
of city officials.
Timothy Hatfield/67 Woolen Way, Apt. 1/Commented on the value of the council and feels that there is a system in place and does not support the proposed registry. Urged council to deny
approval or face a lawsuit.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to adopt program as set forth in the attached document. Councilor Hanson objected to the consideration of the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mayor Shaw explained that the costs associated with the registry would be considered and factored into the process so that there would be no costs incurred by the city taxpayers.
Stated that benefits are already extended to same sex partners, as are all public agencies, which is required by the state. Clarified that we do not extend this to heterosexual partners,
because these individuals have the choice to marry and there is no insurance carrier for the city. Noted the Massachusetts law that was overturned, and how that was different in that
the Mayor that was referred to was allowing marriage within the city limits. Stated the issue regarding visitation rights in hospitals is a good point, but acknowledged that if a partner
wants access to a domestic partner, and that person is unconscious, the partner can only access the partner with a healthcare power of attorney. Noted that if this is an issue, they
should secure these forms at a local hospital. Shaw commented on how council has had to make hard political decisions in the past and that this would not change. Stated that council
has not placated special interest groups and believes that the council makes decisions based on what is in the best interest of the community.
Reid commented on how individuals have viewed this as a “symbolic act” and the question of why council should be involved in this issue. Reid shared her personal experience of using
a “symbolic act” on the ballot for the Nuclear Freeze Zone. Stated that the current program being proposed was brought forward to council by a community group and was not brought
up by council members.
Hanson pointed out that it was only a few weeks ago that this council decided that “symbolic acts”, “politically contrived resolutions” and the “legislation of morality” was not the
city’s purview. Felt that this was what was happening with the current proposal.
Shaw responded that she had a resident call her on this issue, and that she sees this as quite different in regards to her veto of the moral obligation resolution. Shaw stated, “I am
very close friends with an attorney, who solely handles cases of lawsuits against municipal governments, and it was his feeling that, that particular resolution, put the city in grave
jeopardy of potential lawsuits.” Also, the symbolism of this particular resolution is one that is held by those that hold the paper. Explained that her litmus test for what may be
determined as an empty gesture is whether people come out and testify or have strong feeling toward an issue. Shaw felt that anything that would bring people from all corners of the
city and county together cannot be an empty gesture. Stated that the resolution that was vetoed did not have one person appear for or against.
Hanson stated that if this is the case, based on the number of people that have come forward, he has a greater number of individuals that have either submitted a letter or signed a petition
against the proposal, and only one is in favor. Hanson felt that if this were held to an election, based on the responses he had received, the proposal would be denied.
Hanson made motion to table consideration until council had the chance to determine the will of the people. Motion died due to lack of second.
Hauck shared his personal experience on when he ran for the council seat. He believes that he had an overwhelming win over his opponent due to the other candidate using the platform
of supporting Measure 9, which was a measure regarding anti-gay rights. Feels that this proposal does have the support of the majority of the people in this community.
Laws suggested a change to the proposal to add a requirement that the certificate would be available only if the individuals requesting the certificate were ineligible to marry under
state law. Feels that anything that weakens the state of marriage is a bad idea and people of the same sex do not have this opportunity, but people of the opposite sex do not have
this opportunity.
Laws/Hauck m/s to amend motion to add the following wording: “that they are ineligible to marry under state law.” Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, YES; Hanson, NO. Motion passed
3-1.
Councilor Hanson stated his objection to the city getting involved this type of business.
Roll call vote on original motion: Laws, Reid, Hauck, YES; Hanson, NO. Motion passed 3-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council Meeting Look Ahead.
Freeman noted that items #9 and #10 are the same item, and pointed out that the joint session with the Parks Commission on October 12th would be at 7:00 p.m. in Hunter Park.
2. Ashland Watershed Protection Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Fire Chief Keith Woodley and Public Works Director Paula Brown presented a synopsis, including a brief history of the project and an explanation of the recommendation of the Ashland
Watershed Protection Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Informed council that the comment period on the DEIS expires on October 18, 1999. Woodley explained that
staff recommended that the city council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter endorsing Alternative 5, which best addresses wildfire mitigation concerns. Also noted that the Forest
Service has invited community-based involvement in the preparation of other alternatives to those proposed by the Forest Service in the DEIS.
Woodley stated that staff is not in a position to comment on the feasibility of potential community-based alternatives, as none were available for review. Noted that if no credible
community-based alternative is generated from the current discussions, it is believed that Alternative 5 could still provide opportunities for “community-based” involvement in fuels
management. A portion of the project area could be specifically set aside for “hands-on” public participation. Emphasized that the methods prescribed in Alternative 5 have survived
peer review and are based on longitudinal data. Suggested that potential trade-offs and their impacts be kept in mind when looking at alternatives.
Woodley recognized that more data is needed, but explained that this must be balanced with the need to deal with this in a timely manner. Noted that the Forest Commission had reviewed
this matter, and explained that they did not embrace a particular alternative but rather recommended concepts and principles to develop a more holistic and environmentally sensitive
alternative to more accurately express the relationship between the community and the ecosystem. Noted that the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance is currently designing such a
proposal to substantially reduce fire hazard while maintaining ecological integrity, minimizing soil erosion, enabling community stewardship opportunities and providing for flexible
prescriptions based on site-specific information.
Brown stated that staff’s main focus has been that doing nothing is not an alternative given the danger of catastrophic wildfire. Commented on the amount of time and effort involved
on the part of the Forest Commission in preparing their recommendation.
Laws endorsed the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance and the principles presented by the Forest Commission. Agreed with Alternative 5 as a “fallback” alternative, but suggested that
there is a need to reach a consensus between the Watershed group and the Forest Service.
Woodley commented that a technical review committee has been suggested to gauge the merits and scientific feasibility of community-based alternatives. Brown stated that she felt the
Watershed Stewardship group would likely be willing to work toward a scientifically feasible solution, and applauded what they have been doing.
Reid questioned what deadlines might be involved here.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av/Reminded Mayor of his previous requests that the Mayor had not completed. Gave a brief review on the history of the watershed since its being shifted to an
adaptive management area in 1955. Noted major floods that have occurred as a result of Forest Service activity in the watershed, which led to a DEQ moratorium on Forest Service activities
in the watershed in 1974. Cited the City’s independent study (“the Montgomery Study”) that raised fire hazard reduction projects as a major issue in the watershed, and which concluded
that the Forest Service is often inclined to justify major intensive activities in the watershed in the name of fire hazard reduction. Questioned the city’s seeming to forget this
conclusion; expressed his support for the community-based alternative’s intent to reduce a catastrophic timber sale in the watershed. Suggested that nothing in this project was ever
designed around fire hazard reduction, but rather around removing timber from the watershed, and questioned the Forest Service’s economic interest in timber extraction. Emphasized
that areas in need of fire hazard reduction have been left out, while areas needing no reduction are included. Suggested that there needs to be a real fire hazard reduction project,
completely separate from any economic interest in extracting timber. Noted the need to look at the watershed from a broader perspective, and suggested that an independent outside firm
be employed to look at the watershed and make recommendations. Concluded that the Forest Service is playing on the very real need for fire hazard reduction in the watershed in order
to get a timber sale.
Robert Brothers/Headwaters Environmental Center/596 Helman St/Expressed his excitement at the possibilities presented by the Watershed Stewardship Alliance’s alternative. Stated that
this will meet the needs of the community without taking extreme and unnecessary measures. Stated that he thinks agreement can be reached if the different sides come together in the
watershed and recognize their common interest in and concern for the area. Emphasized that he is encouraged by the openness of the local Forest Service officials, and is excited to
be working with them.
Ruth Coulthard/566 Faith Av/Director of Peace House/Commented on the change in the community and voiced her encouragement of the positive role that the groups have taken in developing
a dialogue to voice concerns and share information. Felt that this process has provided an atmosphere to break down stereotypes and share understanding of individual viewpoints. Would
like the city to endorse their plan, but recognized that there is additional work that needs to be done to fully articulate the plan before the end of the comment period.
Howard Heiner/784 Garden Wy/Expressed his excitement with this project. Noted his background as forestry advisor to the State Department and NATO, and commented on the importance of
getting the local government and community involved in the decision making process in natural resource management. Felt that this is developing in this community with the help of the
US Forest Service. Stated that he serves on the Technical Team looking at the alternatives, and emphasized that they are looking beyond this one project to the landscape management
of the whole watershed. Commented on the need to utilize this area as a natural research area for the Forest Service and the SOU Environmental Sciences Department. Recommended finding
a win-win combination using the better elements of the various alternatives looked at.
Marko Bey/381 Glenn St/Restoration Forestry Manager of the Lomakatsi Restoration Project/Works with community groups and schools in restoration projects. Excited about the partnership
in the watershed and how it relates to reduction of fire hazard and protects old growth at the same time. Concerned with citizens who are cynical of the project and looks to offer
something to these individuals that brings them a connection to the process. Encourages the council to consider showing support for the coalition that has been formed. Commented on
the watershed as a “village” and suggested that the community needs to set an example to protect this environmentally sensitive area.
Richard Hart of the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance clarified for council that Alternative 5 removes large trees to compensate the program and Alternative 4 does not. Hart stated
that the Forest Service put together a timber sale to the best of their ability to cover costs, but suggested that he advocates Alternative 4. Explained that there is a need to look
at the economics of cutting smaller diameter trees to provide for a broader treatment of the land. Shaw asked how the city could help make this a success.
Reid clarified that there is a Finance Committee that would approach the city in the case of a request for funding, and emphasized that Hart was present when the Forest Commission developed
their recommendation. Reid suggested that since the Forest Commission recommendation came out of cooperation with the Alliance, it would be better for the council to endorse the Forest
Commission’s recommendation. Hart stated that there is a need to be far along in a recommendation to the Forest Service by October 18th . Emphasized the quality of the technical review
team.
Shaw questioned what the city can do at this point, given that the next council meeting falls after the deadline for a decision. Hart suggested that his understanding was that the Forest
Service hoped the city would share in the liability in the event of a fire.
Hart stated that what is new is that the community recognize that decisions are not just to be left up to the Forest Service. Emphasized that this is just being worked out, but that
partnerships are developing.
Shaw questioned what the city can do that will work, satisfy the Forest Service’s needs, and meet the timeline.
Laws emphasized that the council does not have final say on this matter anyway, and can only give advice. Suggested that the council endorse the compromise being reached in accordance
with the principles set forth by the Forest Commission. Stated that it was important to make it clear that the council is open to looking at other types or degrees of involvement on
the part of the city to make this work.
Hauck stated that he was unwilling to support alternative #5 at this point, but stated that he would like to support a letter from the Mayor endorsing the principles set forth by the
Forest Commission and the efforts to reach a common ground.
Hanson noted that he would be interested in taking a tour of the area if any one present would be willing to take him into the watershed.
Brothers noted that District Ranger Linda Duffy would have the discretion to take comments after the 18th deadline. Shaw stated that she would speak with Duffy, and if it were amenable
to her, the item would come before the Council at it’s next meeting on the 18th prior to Shaw’s preparing a letter. If this would not work with Duffy’s deadline, Shaw stated that she
would draft a letter as discussed tonight, merging the principles proposed by the Forest Commission and the Ashland Watershed Protection Alliance’s efforts at compromise.
Mayor Shaw called a break until 9:15 p.m.
3. Motion to Adopt findings regarding LUBA Remand No. 98-166, Hunt, et. al. v. City of Ashland.
This item was moved to the October 19th council meeting.
1. Request by Falcon Cable Systems Company II, L.P., to Consent to the Transfer of Control of Falcon Communications, L.P. to Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC.
City Attorney Paul Nolte noted that he had submitted a memo to council with their council packets, and explained that since that memo was issued, he had spoken with Charter Communications
regarding some of the issues outlined in the memo.
Nolte summarized the three issues raised in his memo: 1) That Charter was not authorized or qualified to do business in the State of Oregon; 2) That there are on-going negotiations with
US West over poles owned jointly by the City and US West; 3) That the City would need a commitment from Charter to comply with Ashland’s Telecommunications Ordinance.
Nolte explained that Charter’s response to #1 was that they are not required to qualify to transact business in Oregon because this request is not a request to change a franchisee but
rather to acquire a general partner. Since Falcon is authorized to do business in Oregon, their general partner is also authorized. Nolte stated that while he is not absolutely certain,
he is satisfied that this is not something the City needs to insist on as the franchisee remains the same.
Nolte stated that the letter stated, and he has confirmed, that good faith negotiations are on-going with US West, but he has been unable to ascertain how close the parties are to reaching
an agreement.
Nolte noted that there is an FCC rule requiring that a local jurisdiction react within 120 days of initial filing or consent is presumed. Nolte pointed out that there is some reluctance
on the part of Charter to commit to total compliance with the Telecommunications Ordinance. Nolte requested that council not take any formal action at this time and direct staff to
bring back a formal resolution that may be amenable to all parties for approval at the next council meeting.
Shaw suggested placing this item as Unfinished Business on the next agenda so that it can be dealt with prior to the expiration of the 120-day deadline.
2. Presentation and discussion regarding Tolman Creek Neighborhood Planning Process.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that due to grant monies received, the Tolman Creek Road Neighborhood Plan has been possible. Moving ahead with the neighborhood
plan which utilizes a multi-faceted approach, transportation and growth management. Explained that this is a three-pronged approach (separate but concurrent) which involves neighborhood
plan/land use issues, LID/Street improvements, and Croman Corporation Grants and Improvements.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending the Telecommunications Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Add Provisions Regulating Cable Service and to Clarify Requirements
for Grantees."
Nolte noted that there have been several suggested amendments, which were included in his council communication and delivered to the councilors by Hauck at the last meeting. Explained
that if the council were agreeable, these amendments could be incorporated into the ordinance, and read aloud at the second reading.
Shaw suggested going through the ordinance to discuss the amendments and any necessary changes. Under the August ’99 amendments, Shaw questioned the new B in section 5. Nolte explained
that the proposed amendment was intended to combine three items. In section 8, the new item 2, Shaw noted that “aboveground” should be two words. Shaw asked if section 8, item 3 could
be clarified. Nolte explained that the “not less than two working days” advance notification in section 12 on page 7 was at the request of the department, and is what is being used
in practice now. Shaw pointed out that the adjectival form “above-ground” should be used here, and suggested doing a global search of the document for occurrences of this word.
Hauck emphasized that his amendments have to do with the adopted Telecommunications Policy, and are meant to protect the City’s right of way and promote universal access to communications
services for all Ashland residents.
Nolte clarified for Shaw and Hauck that the last item in section 25 dealing with ORS 456 and 457 is part of the franchise agreements, and was included here at the request of US West.
Stated that he was not aware of the history of the item, but believed that the city has the right to require this even though it has not been done before. Confirmed that if removed
as suggested by Hauck, it would also require undergrounding if there were a public housing project put in.
Hauck explained that the section dealing with effects on public health, safety or welfare has to do with the use of hazardous materials, as well as traffic issues and the disruption
or business, all of which fall under the city’s police power.
Nolte confirmed for Shaw that he saw no problem with adding these amendments on second reading.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to move the ordinance to second reading, incorporating the amendments proposed by Councilor Hauck and listed in the council communication prepared by City Attorney
Nolte. DISCUSSION: Shaw requested that a clean copy of the amended ordinance be provided at the time of second reading. Roll Call vote: Hanson, Hauck, Laws and Reid, YES. Motion passed.
Council commended Hauck on his excellent work in preparing this item.
2. First reading of "An Ordinance Adding Section 2.04.095 to the Ashland Municipal Code to Establish Fiscal Priorities for New Programs."
Moved to October 19th Council Meeting as Fine and Wheeldon were absent.
3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Authorizing the Acquisition of an Easement to Construct, Operate, Repair, Maintain and Replace a Sanitary Sewer Line (Lewis Property)."
Pulled from agenda as Lewis signed an easement for the property prior to council meeting.
4. First reading of "An Ordinance adding section 11.48.040 to the Ashland Municipal Code authorizing certain employees of Southern Oregon University to issue Citations for Minor in Possession
of Alcohol and for Unlawful Possession of Less than an Ounce of Marijuana."
Laws questioned the ORS provisions cited on the second page of the handout provided to the council. Chief of Police Scott Fleuter explained that the items listed were provided by the
Director of Security for the University as supporting information to justify the request. Laws suggested that the “stop and frisk” and “probable cause arrest authority” given in the
ORS should cover the request being made. Fleuter explained that while campus security has arrest authority they do not have the authority to issue citations. Nolte confirmed that
campus security officers presently do not have the authority to issue citations in lieu of making an arrest. Nolte also explained that the right to issue citation can be granted
by law to individuals other than peace officers, and explained that he interprets “by law” to mean by city ordinance.
Joey Ngan, SOU Director of Security, explained that campus security officers are typically the first responders to any incident, and they work in conjunction with the city police. Noted
that his classified officers (not the student helpers) are commissioned peace officers and have certain authority, and explained that they are dispatched by Ashland Police dispatch
and typically are with a police officer on every call. Explained that in minor infraction, where it is not necessary to make a custodial arrest, they would rather be able to summarily
issue a ticket rather than waiting on the scene until a police officer arrives to issue the citation. Noted that Judge Drescher did not have a problem with this proposal. Ngan noted
that this would greatly reduce necessary paperwork, as the police would not need to issue citations on minor matters.
Fleuter confirmed that this would be beneficial in freeing up police officers at busy times, and they are confident in the SOU officers’ abilities. Noted that city citations will be
used, and the cases will go before the municipal court. Also stated that the Police Department would provide training as necessary to ensure that the campus officers are adequately
prepared.
Ngan stated that in 1998 they issued 24 minor in possession citations. Emphasized that they are not trying to change the goal of enforcement, simply the method.
Councilors Hanson/Reid m/s to approve first reading and place on the agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hanson and Hauck, YES. Motion passed.
5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Approving the Oregon Utility Resource Coordination Association Intergovernmental Agency Agreement.
Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #99-59. Roll Call Vote: Hauck, Laws, Reid, and Hanson
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Reid would like to speak about agenda guidelines for “special presentations.” Suggested that these should be items that do not require action or discussion. Reid stated that she
would like to go over guidelines, as there have been rules in the past which guided placement of items on the agenda. Laws stated that presentations should be largely ceremonial.
Laws noted that a letter had been received from John Daggett on the possibility of a cooperative effort to pave as many parking lots as possible for dust abatement. Laws read from the
letter where Daggett noted meeting with Freeman and being told that if the School District covered materials costs, the city could provide equipment and personnel to pave Lincoln, Middle
School, and possibly other parking lots. Daggett suggested encumbering remaining bond resources to make this a reality.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to place this item on the agenda for discussion. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Reid stated that this is a good idea as it would fight dust and track out. Freeman pointed out that he had mentioned this to Public Works Director Paula Brown and she thought that the
crews would have ample time for a project this size. Reid noted that it should be brought back on the next agenda. Shaw noted that she would also like to see some crosswalks at the
middle school included in the work to be done.
Laws noted that the Traffic Safety Commission has identified working on traffic safety issues at schools, such as crosswalks, as a goal for the next year, and could work on the middle
school crosswalks for this project.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m.
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor
City Council Meeting 10/05/99 Page 8 of 8