Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-1215.REG.MIN MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 15, 1998 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 DeBoer were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting minutes of December 1, 1998, and Executive meeting minutes of December 1, 1998 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS !. Mayor's Proclamation declaring January 9, 1999, as "Christmas Tree Recycle Day in Ashland." Mayor Shaw read the proclamation in its entirety. CONSENT AGENDA I. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Monthly Departmental Reports. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Lowe Ann Belford to Senior Program Board for a term to expire April 30, 2000. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's reappointments of Darrel Jarvis, Tom Giordano, Darrell Boldt, Dale Shostrom and Carol Horn Davis to Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31, 1999. 5. Approval of Liquor License Application from Julie T. Aldwell/Tera M. Wood dba/Whistle Stop Caf6 & Catering Company. Councilors Hauck/DeBoer m/s to approve consent agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing, Staff recommendation and City Council motion regarding the City's long-term water supply. City Administrator, Mike Freeman, gave synopsis, recommendation and background information from the memo submitted to council regarding the City's long-term water supply. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:!0 p.m. Bob Arago/370 Courthey/Voiced support of staff recommendation and urged council to vote yes on recommendation. Mary-Kay Michelsen/2810 Diane Street/Opposed inter-tie to Talent. Shouldn't look at growth as something that has to happen. Feels there is a lot of conservation methods that could be done, along with working with Talent Irrigation District. She doesn't see a need to hook-up with Talent. Joanne Eggers/221 Granite/Feels there are many unknowns at this time and acknowledges that council has a hard decision to make. Requests that council listen to individuals in the community and take more time to research the issue. Russ Silberger/562 Ray Lane/Doing nothing is not sustainable and is in favor of inter-tie. Bob Taber/97 Scenic/Recommends not voting on any recommendation that involves taking water from the Rogue River. Feels this is a threat to the eco-system and diminishes the health and degradation of the eco-system. Urges council to look at options that keep water resources in our community. Shouldn't use water as a control mechanism for our city. Feels citizens have a right to dictate what happens in their community. Should be able to tell the State what Cit~ Council Meeting 12-15-98 I size our city should be and how we use our water. Stated that subsidized growth for 28,000 new homes is a financial burden, which is unfair. Urges council to not vote and open the door for growth. Doesn't believe that the public has had a chance to look and review option seven from the Medford Water Commission. Rick Nagel/450 Siskiyon Blvd/Representing Chamber of Commerce, read statement by members. Ashland Chamber Board feels that the water inter-tie is a good solution to emergency situations. While the board felt it was important to secure water rights, they also felt it was important to utilize the other three options. Felt there was a need to keep the Ashland residents and business owners secure in emergency situations. Urged council to endorse water inter-tie option. Cate Hartzell/881 E Main/Feels the council has not had time to understand the problems that face them. Sited several things that she felt was information that the council did not have to make a decision. Feels without this information council could not make a coherent plan. Urged council not to make decisions based on pleas of emergency. Stated that there is no current water need in Ashland, and to only invest in Ashland's infrastructure. Commented on the investment of $8 million and that there are better things to invest in for our own infrastructure. Commented on storage capacity below Reeder Reservoir that was recommended by the Water Advisory, Group. Requested that council explain their rationale based on their decision that they make this evening. Jim Moore/1217 Park Street/Commented on how the WAG was unable to come to any consensus because of the complexity of the issue. Explained his background in science and how after researching the issue, it has shown time and time again that taking the most least expensive solution doesn't take care of the problem. Reviewed options to temporarily take care of the problem through conservation, TID etc. Looking at the long term, utilize Lost Creek Dam which is available. Solution may not be available 50 years from now, but is available now. Should utilize and take advantage of resources available now, growth should be addressed through our comprehensive plan, not the water issue. Tom Kennedy/209 Crowson Road/Read statement which noted our current water supply needs and noted our needs to connect to the water inter-tie, which he stated may not be available to do in the future. Commented that growth is a different issue, and that the issue is water supply until the year 2050. Believes that environmentally, the inter-tie is good. Stated that with conservation and education, there can be environmental improvement. Stated that if something would happen to our water treatment plant. we have no options for water supply. Commented that other options should be followed up on as time and money allow. Commented on how the water in Shady Cove was not a contributing factor in growth because they have no water. Ron Roth/6950 Hwy 99S/Submitted packet to council which gave irrigation water amounts compared to treated city water. Commented that he has been told that we need a 20% reduction in peak demand 52 years from now. Packet included previous articles involving usage of treated water, prior year photos with comments about water supply. Noted in IBmnation on cost of water from the city utility department on large water users; commented on the differences of costs associated with treated water, irrigation (TID) water and Medford treated water. Would like to see the council say no to what he referred to as '~California methods". John Fields/845 Oak/Commented that if we all started to drink treated sewage water it may be a way to discourage people from moving here. Commented on the duplicate system that is a backup system by TAP. Knows that there is lots of water and many different resources. Commented on the emergency situation if we lost our water treatment plant and how we have no solution to water supply if that should happen. Commented that there are other similar situations with other city services. Issue is that the pipe is going in now and a decision needs to be made now. Not in a rush to connect to pipe, as $8 million is a huge expenditure for an insurance plan. Recommends that we buy into TAP, feels that time is running out, and that there is large sense of concern that we will be left out and will not have this chance again. B.G. Hicks/190 Vista/His critical issue dealt with the Ashland Creek Water Shed. Commented on his involvement and appreciation for this terrain and what his background of expertise is. Believes minimal water supply is necessary for emergency needs, as a separate source of water would be valuable insurance against a seismic event. Current issue of inter-tie is due to lack of water storage, commented that water shed supplies the water supply, but has no storage capacity. Canyon storage may be a simpler solution. Agrees that there are potential problems, but these have been dealt with in the past. Understands rationale for inter-tie, but for emergency purposes only. Paul Copeland/462 Jennifer Street/His concern of spending $8 million for an insurance policy. Feels that citizens are being rushed to make a decision before all the options are presented and knowing what the right decision is. Feels that the real answer lies in the Ashland Water Shed for future storage possibilities. ('it5' Council Meeting 12-15-98 2 Susan Hunt/220 Nutley/Commented on table of impact on water options which was handed out by Director of Finance. Feels that Ashland does not need the water supply now. Commented on how water rates would go up in the near future b? 25%, requiring citizens to pay for water now that isn't needed until the future. Phil Selby/550 Ray Lane/Commented on how not too long ago, the city was faced with hooking up with the Bear Creek SanitaD, and used this as a comparison for current issue. Feels it is wrong to not look at this as a valley issue. Would like to see inter-tie move forward. The idea to pay now for our future is a good idea, and is a benefit for the future and future population. To not join would be short-sighted. Rick Landt/PO Box 874/Submitted letter to council with concerns related to the council's consideration of water options. Should focus on options that focus on taking advantage of gravity, not work against it, used example of water running downhill. To move forward on sustainability, and to save money on maintenance costs, like electricity. Commented on problems with Nell Creek and suggests that this be looked into further. Commented that he is not generally in favor of dams. In this instance, after all environmental costs are considered, believes that it may be a viable option. Questioned if environmental costs had been considered in global perspective. Commented that Ashland does a great ,job of conservation, and that there are many opportunities for further significant water conservation. Evan Archerd/120 N 2"d/This is an opportunity to secure reasonable water supply at reasonable water costs, and the City should take advantage of it. Need to look at the welfare of future generations. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:10 p.m. Councilor Hanson commented that while storage would be the most viable way to address water needs, environmentally it is not feasible. Given that, the intertie to Talent is pro-active and cost effective. Recommends that City take opportunity that has been presented and pursue option #4, all-out City participation in the TAP project. Councilor DeBoer supports staff recommendation in up-sizing to Talent, looking at securing water rights to Lost Creek Reservoir, and looking at option #7 to work with the City of Talent. Emphasized his support of the staff recommendation. Councilor Laws commented on the excellent information that has been given by consultants and staff, and the thoughtful consideration of this issue by members of the community. Concluded that there is still a long list of questions that need to be answered before the ideal decision is made, but it will be years before these questions can be answered. Noted these issues involve growth, weather patterns, conservation, future state and federal regulations, legal decisions on this issue, feasibility of additional reservoirs, and future costs of reclamation. Originally wanted to wait to make a decision, but that would mean possibly losing some of the available options. Suggests deciding to upsize the pipe to Talent, as recommended by staff, to keep all of the options open and allow time to make the right decision in the future. Councilor Hauck commented on statements made by Jim Moore about the environmental pro's and con's of the TAP project. Feels that the staff recommendation is the best option at this point. Allows the opportunity to leave options open, answer necessary, questions and rely on available resources. Councilor Wheeldon questioned staff report on cost of different options and how costs would encompass costs for thture needs. Director of Finance, Jill Turner, explained that this would be determined by what decision is made by council. Explained that she used the dollar numbers cost of operation and converted these to rates, but that timing is uncertain as to whether it would be now or in the future, depending on what option was chosen by council. Noted that water rights would have a purchase price and probably a maintenance/operations fee as well. City Administrator Freeman noted that costs would be $1.2 million to upsize the pipe, $1.3 million for systems development charges, and $ I million to purchase water rights. The systems development and water right purchase could be significantly later in the process. Explained that System Development Charges would be figured into the costs in the future. Questions regarding how to secure water rights and the process involved will need to be explored further, as details are uncertain at this time. Wheeldon would prefer to avoid the TAP project, as so many other viable options are available. Cited storage and reclamation as real possibilities that should be explored. However, given the uncertainties of the next 50 years feels that the TAP option needs to be left open. Not in favor of taking all our water from the TAP project, and likes the potential of the T1D option; feels the City should commit to these types of options. Recognizes people's concern about opening the door to growth, and feels that this has started a good debate. Her choice, under duress, would be to accept staff recommendation and support the inter-tie. After a decision on TAP participation, the City needs to aggressively ('i~y Council Meeting 12-15-98 3 look at what the next steps are, and plan on using sustainable options. Emphasized that she is not in favor of using the TAP in the immediate future. Councilor Reid commented on the amount of mis-information that has been put out to the public. Stated that this has not been a decision that is being made quickly, as the issue has been considered for nearly four years, and this decision itself has been worked on for over a year. Feels that this is an option to be kept open for the future and supports staff recommendation. Would like to see continued progress in looking at other options, though federal regulations would likely prevent pursuing additional storage in the form of dams. Council Laws commented that the reason dams were being taken out had to do with fish issues. Noted how the speakers were evenly distributed as to their points of view, illustrating a lack of consensus on this issue. Feels that the decision the Council is leaning toward will be almost unanimous, but will only be to keep options open. Emphasized that this will allow the community to work toward consensus. Councilor Wheeldon emphasized that the Council is not putting offa decision, or taking this matter lightly. Feels that this is a big step and not a '~non-decision", and that there is a lot of work to be done once this decision is made. Feels that it is important right now to begin to make a master plan while we have the information and to continue with our progress. Councilor Hauck agrees with Wheeldon and looking at all the internal sources is important. Tonight's decision will mean aggressivelb, pursuing looking at internal sources before looking at other options for water supply. Confirmed that Councilors generally are in agreement to make a decision and then continue to look at the options. Mayor Shaw commented on the appreciation of the community input over the past months and years. Stated that this has been a difficult issue and that the community response has shown both the level of concern in the community and how attentive the community has been to the issue. Commented on concerns that there may have been some belief that growth would shape this decision. Used the example, by Tom Kennedy, of Shady Cove with 100% growth despite lack of water. Emphasized City's efforts to mitigate the effects of growth, and noted the Land Use Rules and Guidelines that require the City to accommodate growth. Limits on available water will not have any effect on limiting growth. Thanked the Council, consultants and the community tbr their contributions to the process to date. Councilors Reid/DeBoer m/s to approve the staff recommendation. Roll call vote: Laws, DeBoer, Hauck, Hanson, Reid, and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Cate Hartzell/881 E Main/Called attention that at the next meeting, the Parks Commission will make a request to waive bidding requirements. Requested clarification of and history of waivers for bidding requirements. City Attorney Paul Nolte explained the rules the council adopted involving construction the limit is $25,000, but does not involve personal services. For services, such as an architect or other professional, the limited amount is $15,000. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Presentation and Council action regarding the implementation of measures for changes to the Local improvement District (LID) process. Director of Planning, John McLaughlin presented to council a synopsis and recommendation for changes to the Local Improvement District process. Explained that council had accepted the Ad Hoc LID Committee report, and directed staff to address funding and ordinance implementation. The report recommended that the City participate in LID's at 40% of the total costs, that assessments be based on potential units, that defermerits be allowed, and that a cap be established for lots of $4,000. Stated that changes to the City's LID ordinance and a new resolution outlining the City's policies regarding LID's have been prepared, which set into place the recommendations of the committee. Discussed the financial options to address the City's participation, using a combination of methods to meet the estimated needs. Using the city's match on different street components, with the $4,000 cap per unit, the city match for improvements for streets over the next ten years would be about $1.5 million, which would require raising about $152,000 per year. To raise that amount, a 20¢ increase in the monthly stormwater utility fee is recommended, a 30¢ increase in the transportation utility. fee, and a $125 per unit increase in the transportation system development charges lbr new residential units and an $88 per unit increase in the stomawater system development charges. This would combine with the $233,000 set aside by council would meet the needs for street improvements over the next ten years. C~tv Council Meeting 12-t5-98 4 Wheeldon questioned the City's lands in the projects over the next ten years that would result in additional cost to the City. McLaughlin explained that the amount of City lands involved over this timeframe is negligible. During the second ten year period, there would be more City involvement. Councilor Wheeldon stated that the $33,000 set aside was to be a payback to the sidewalk fund, and was not to be included in this project. Expressed concerns that the sidewalk retrofitting policy needs to be retained. Suggested that money needs to be put aside annually for the system plan, and for the consideration of other goals, including bicycle paths and railroad crossings. Happy to see that SDC's can be used in this way. McLaughlin noted that the amounts discussed are relatively small amount compared !o overall SDC's Wheeldon questioned wording used regarding cost allocation under number four in the neighborhood planning process. McLaughlin commented on how neighbors have different ideas about development and how costs are shared. Wheeldon questions whether this opens the process to unnecessary '~poking"? Discussion of whether language used opens the issue up too far, or merely gives opportunity for comment and discussion of the potential units. Describe how this changes the handling of street paving and LIDs in general. McLaughlin explained that there will need to be long range planning in the capitol improvement plan to meet with neighborhoods and determine which streets will be paved. With the City's match in place, the City will want to move forward with LIDs. Emphasized the need to recognize that there will be remonstrances, but that improvements will be made after the six months remonstrance period has passed in order to complete the list of projects over the ten year planning period. Commented that there is heavy staff involvement in the street paving process, and priorities will have to be looked at to determine where staff is most needed. DeBoer hopes intention is not to go out and force neighborhoods to form LIDs and pave. Expressed concerns with the thought of expecting remonstrances, and hopes that neighborhoods will come forward to be paved under the new process. Laws suggested that situations will need to be dealt with by future councils as they arise. Reid noted that paving is a goal, but situations will need to be looked at one at a time. Emphasized her desire to take citizen input into account in each unique project. McLaughlin explained that any improvements would fall within the street standards, and that council would have a final decision with regard to any waiver of standards. Wheeldon stated that it is important to support staff and recognize that they need to do be allowed to conduct an efficient public involvement process. If the City is going to require certain standards, need to be consistent. Hopes that improvement projects will go from being development driven to neighborhood driven. Would like to send resolution back to staff to look for ways to find additional dollars for other transportation projects, such as retrofitting existing sidewalks. Questioned if there was a need to assign any po, rtion of the $233~000 to other p,,rojects at this point. Council requested staff create a specific line item for the $30,000 for LID retrofitting. DeBoer stated that if staff recommendations are followed, it would create an opportunity to look at financing issues as part of the budget process. Discussion on further looking at budgetary needs, with Mayor Shaw suggesting the need for clear directives at this point to provide guidance in the budget process. Hauck agreed with Wheeldon that the $233,000 was to help meet certain goals that have not been addressed. Noted concerns with allowing those who pre-pay to retain the right to remonstrate and with superseding previous eflbrts to repair sidewalks. Will wait to discuss these items, and the 10% discount on current LIDs, when ready to make a decision. Laws suggested that the $233,000 question is a timing question, and asked that City Administrator indicate where this $233,00 went in the coming budget process. Freeman stated that his understanding is that there are three sources of funds that are not tied to specific projects: the $233,000 for non-specific transportation projects, $450,000 for fire stations and $500,000 for water supply. His thinking was to look at those funds as they were available this year, and submit suggestions for projects staff feels merit using these monies.. Freeman suggested that the coming capitol improvements planning process will allow Council to identify priorities for project funding. Hauck stated that it was his understanding that these funds were set aside for the Council to make a decision on their use, and suggested that Council needs to have some idea of funding options to make their decision for the use of that $233,000. Noted that schedule could be extended, or the fee structure increase could be altered. Wheeldon reiterated that the sidewalk assistance monies and transportation project funding needed to be looked at further. Ci~CouncilMeeting 12-15-98 5 Laws agreed with Wheeldon that the $30,000 in sidewalk assistance funds should not all go into this project. Discussion of how to split these funds between projects. McLaughlin noted that in the past sidewalk monies have been used in l,IDs and the proposed plan includes a sidewalk match. Wheeldon questioned mechanism which carries lots that are not paying in, for instance where only one lot is developed when there is a potential for ten. Director of Finance Jill Turner explained that this doesn't happen often. Noted that currently there is no one using the low-income deferral option. Turner explained that the lien would be placed at the first development. and banks would likely not provide any financing until the lien was paid off. Emphasized that in t~enty years, she has seen only two low-income deferrals. Very unlikely to have this occur, and the remaining parcels would have few lots to deter. In the rare instance that this might occur, it would be a timing issue as to when the property is deferred, for how long, and this should balance against pre-payments. Feels that this is not an issue with which to be too concerned. Concluded that there will likely be more instances where partitions are required to pre-pay tbr improvements than deferrals. Dennis DeBey/2475 Siskiyou Blvd./Pleased with the information he has received. Questioned re-zoning of property that might create more lots. McLaughlin explained that the assessment would be allocated out between the larger number of lots, and that the overall assessment would most likely not be increased. McLaughlin stated that he has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and that the language used should be adequate to address these situations. McLaughlin requested that staff be given some direction with regard to how they should proceed with regard to language, funding, and handling of the four existing LIDs. Mayor Shaw stated that while there seemed to be a general consensus on the approach, there needed to be some clarification regarding funding. Explained that her recollection was that the $233,000 was to be applied toward transportation plan. Suggested that some portion of the budget needs to be committed to the advancement of transportation goals and transportation plan. Wheeldon suggested that some clarification could occur in the strategic planning process. Stated that she does not feel urgency to make these decisions now. Councilor DeBoer/Laws m/s to direct staff to bring back the resolution and ordinance implementing the recommendations of the Ad Hoc LID Committee for adoption, as well as the necessary steps to provide funding in response to the Councils' discussion tonight for the meeting the City's match requirements and to provide a 10% discount to the four existing LID's, that the Council move to direct staff to implement that discount. Discussion: Wheeldon asked for clarification of the last portion regarding the City's match. DeBoer stated that his motion was a verbatim reading of the staff's recommendation, with the addition that the funding will be as per Council discussion tonight to avoid using all of the $233,000 discussed. Laws suggested that staff present alternatives for using the $233,000 to meet Council goals and provide information on other sources for funding LIDs. Roll call vote: Reid, Wheeldon, Laws, and DeBoer, YES. Hauck and Hanson, NO. Motion passed 4-2. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS I. Council Meeting Look Ahead. Item presented to Council for informational purposes. 2. Update from City Administrator regarding Y2K. Brief update on the Year 2000 issue: Project A is working as consultant to conduct an initial assessment which will be completed by the end of December. This will be shared with Council and posted to the web-page. Money has been set aside in the budget this year to replace legacy system software (finance/payroll/utility billing programs) and this process is well underway. Utilities are working with BPA and Pacific Power to ensure that their planning processes meet with the City's requirements for manual wheeling of power. Water and wastewater systems are reliable and require no electricity to run. Ashland Y2K Preparedness Project requested that Ashland Coalition take a leadership role in helping community understand issues and help package information in an understandable way. They have agreed to produce a web-page, with help from Project A, that will link to all relevant sites on this issue. City Council Meeting 12-15-98 6 ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS I. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Dedicating Property for Park Purposes pursuant to Article XIX, Section 3, of the City Charter (Rob Cain property located immediately above Granite Pit on Granite Street)." N~ted that the,4shland Parks & Recreation Commission had given approval of this' item at their meeting December 14'~'. Councilors Hauck/Reid m/s to approve Resolution #98-30. Roll call vote: DeBoer, Laws, Wheeldon, Reid, Hanson and Hauck; YES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Reid noted reading the Downtown Ashland Business Association survey response comments. De Boer noted that he would be absent from the Study Session to be Friday, December 18th and suggested that Councilor- elect David Fine be invited to sit in on this meeting as it is not a decision making session. Shaw acknowledged that tonight would be Councilor DeBoer's last meeting, and thanked him for his hard work on the Council over his term. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. / / Bar~a, /~i Chb r~itse~Ci.tyRelv~rder~--4G~~ City Council Meeting 12-15-98 7