Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0630 Charter Agenda Packet CITY OF ASH LAl\r D Agenda Final Meeting Charter Review Committee June 30, 2005 Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. I Welcome, call to order. Approval of minutes from June 16, 2005 II. Public Forum for Items not on the agenda 15 minutes total (each speaker is limited to 3 minutes). III. Discuss proxy vote. ( 15 minutes) IV. Finish "talk through" of Kate's paper (new format by Carole) oftist ofiterns to be deleted' (15 minutes) V Discuss Mayor duties submitted by Hal and compare manger duties described in Ashland Municipal Code 2.28 with duties described in model charter. (45 minutes) VI Discuss inclusion of Minority reports in final report. (30 minutes) VII Review and approve draft water language from City Attorney. (15 minutes) VIII Approve final report and summary submitted by Pam. (15 minutes) IX Debrief and discuss the overall process of the committee. (15 minutes) X Adjourn The Charter Review Committee values citizen comment on our work in reviewing the City Charter. *The Public Forum is the time to speak to any item related to the Charter NOT on the printed agenda. * Agenda items that the public is invited to comment on are listed as "Open for Public Input" on the agenda. * A comment offered on an agenda item does not automatically allow the participant to continue commenting throughout the meeting deliberations. *Written comments are encouraged and always appreciated. Please complete a Blue Speaker Request Form and bring it forward to stall ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEvV COMMITTEE JUNE 16, 2005 PAGE 1 of6 Charter Review Committee June 16,2005 Regular Meeting Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street I. CALL TO ORDER: Committee Co-Chair Carole Wheeldon called the Ashland Charter Review Committee meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. on June 16,2005 in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Members Present: Carole Wheeldon, Don Montgomery, Hal Cloer, Kate Culbertson, Pam Marsh, Laurie MacGraw and Michael Riedeman. Members Absent: John Enders and Keith Massie. Staff Present: Ann Seltzer, Staff Liaison Mike Franell, City Attorney April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder Hal CloerlLaurie MacGraw mls to approve the minutes of June 9, 2005 as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. (Carole Wheeldon abstained) Motion passed. ll. PUBLIC FORUM: Art Bullockl791 GlendowerlSpoke regarding the water protection motion made at the previous meeting. Mr. Bullock stated that the committee had approved a phrase which would authorize the selling of water to businesses and corporations within the City. He stated that their discussion during and prior to the motion clarified that the intent of the committee was to allow water to be sold for the business's internal use, however the language proposed by the City Attorney would allow the business to resell the water. 'Mr. Bullock requested that the committee clarify the precise wording so that it matches their intent and voiced his concerns in regards to process for this charter amendment. ' . - Pam Vavra/2800 Dead Indian Memorial RdlStated that although the committee elected to not recommend IR V to the council, their preliminary review of its potential benefits would be helpful to those who may consider it in the future. Ms. Vavra commented on the voting systems Single Transferable Voting and Serial IRV, and Clarified that these rank choice preference voting-systems could lJe applied to multiple seat elections. She voiced her concern regarding the record of the last meeting and requested that the committee include her suggested corrections in their final report to the council. Ms. Vavra recommended that the IRV topic discussion paper be revised for the record, and requested that her white paper be included in their report or that the committee's discussion paper be revised to reflect her input. Ms. Vavra suggested that the committee recommend some type of criteria that would apply for considering suggestions from the public and suggested that the committee explain the criteria they used for determining what should be placed on the ballot by the Council and which items should be handled through the initiative process. Concern was expressed from one of the committee members that the language of the charter amendment would allow for the city's water to be provided to a water bottling or water distribution company located within the City limits. Mr. Franell stated that this would be a possibility and noted that the committee could insert language which would prohibit the resale of water. The committee discussed the possibility of amending the language to prohibit the resale of water. Several scenarios were mentioned where a business could be very water intensive (such as a chip micro- ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEvV COMMITTEE JL'NE 16, 2005 PAGE 2 of6 processing plant), or businesses that would use substantial water but were not selling it as their primary product (such as a soup or bottled tea company). Concern was expressed that this language might promote growth outside the city limits. Comment was made th~t these concerns should be elaborated on in the committee's report to the council. Suggestion was made for the City Attorney to draft alternative language prohibiting the resale of water. Comment was made that the committee had already 1made a decision and it would be most appropriate to pass this issue forward to the council with the cautions that have been raised, but to not adopt new language. Mr. Franell stated that at the last meeting, the committee left it open to consider specific language and stated that he could bring back draft language for the committee to consider. Comment was made that the committee should not just include additional language in the report, but that the language needed to be definitely phrased and voted on again. A committee member commented that their recollection from the last meeting was that the City Attorney was going to bring back draft language for approval by the committee. Comment was made that ~is was a political decision and the committee should provide their recommendation to the council and allow them to make the definitive decision on the language. Concern was expressed about water being supplied through a city conduit to people outside the city for mass development purposes. Mr. Franell noted that occasionally the city provides water to residents outside the city limits for health purposes, and would not want the language so tight that it would prohibit this~ .Mr. Franell stated that he could provide three or four alternatives to the committee for them to review and forward to the council with their recommendation. Michael RiedemanlKate Culbertson m/s to have the City Attorney bring back several recommendations for language. DISCUSSION: It was clarified that the alternatives should prohibit the water from being the primary product of resale, and should include a clause that would allow the occasional resident outside of the city to be provided with water for health purposes. Concern was expressed that this would not address businesses that would be water i~tensive. Concerned was voiced by a committee member in regards to the committee making a final decision on such a big issue when they did not prepare a white paper on this issue or receive public input. Comment was made that the committee was not making big decision; they were just keeping the current system in tact and clarifying what they all believed to be case, which is that businesses inside that city should be allowed to use the city's water. Roll Call Vote: Carole Wheeldon, Hal Cloer, Kate Culbertson, Laurie MacGraw, Pam Marsh, Don Montgomery and Michael Riedeman, YES. Motion passed unanimously. The committee addressed Ms. Vavra's clarification request regarding IRV. Statement was made that the committee was not ready to recommend that the council adopt IRV and put it on the ballot. Additional comment was made that the other changes recommended by the committee had been done because the majority of the body believed that they were something that the council should adopt and put forward, but they were not ready to make such a determination for IRV. The issue regarding the IRV software was noted, as was the cost issue if this provision were adopted. . - Don MontgomerylKate Culbertson mls to include Pam Vavra's research as a~ appendix in the committee's report to the council. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion pas'sed. III. REVIEW & DISCUSSION OF DRAFT REPORTS TO COUNCIL: Comment was made that several of the draft reports were received within the last 24 hours, and that this was not enough time to have a substantive review of the reports. Suggestion was made for the committee to discuss Ms. MacGraw's report on Parks and Recreation as it was presented last week. It was questioned if the c.ommittee would need to schedule an additional meeting for June 23rd to finish their review of the draft reports. Comment was made that the committee also needed to review the recommendations from Tom Sponslor and Paul Nolte before they are passed along to the council. ASIILAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITl'EE JUNE 16, 2005 PAGE 3 of6 The committee: began discussion of the Parks and Recreation Report. Suggestion was made by Mr. Montgomery to include more discussion on the points he had made relative to the argument to bring the Parks Dept. under the city manager. Mr. Montgomery offered to prepare language that would elaborate on this. The committee: discussed the preferred style and format of the final report. Several committee members voiced support for a more narrative form, such as the format found in Mr. Enders report. Suggestion was made for the re:port to be limited to 10-12 pages, but to include several addendums, including the white papers. Commlent was made that the reader should not have to refer to the white papers located in the appendix to understand the report. Support was voiced for a concise summary and statement was made that if the report is too long, the reader might not take the time to read through it in its entirety. Statement was made that the formatting for each topic should be exactly the 'same and suggestion was made for the compiling of the various topic reports be done by one person to ensure consistent formatting. Comment was made that the report should be able to stand on its one, and the reader should not have to go to other references to understand. Suggestion was made to possibly include an executive summary at the beginning of the report, which would note the recommendations and not include a great deal of rational. Suggestion was made for the report to be formatted into specific paragraphs for each topic, such as: history, researc:h, public Input, options, and recommendations. Staff Liaison Ann Seltzer suggested that the committee ,consider their audience and suggested that they place their recommendation at the top of the page and then have the explanation of how their reached their decision and suggested that they follow the format of the white papers and topic discussion papers. Comment was made agreeing that the recommendation should come first, followed by the committee's deliberations; suggestion was made for everything else: to be in a second document. The committee continued discussion on the best way to present their information to the council, the amount of depth they want to include, and whether this should be attached to the report or in a separate document. Suggestion was made to place the public input in the appendix, with the exception of the input received at the public forum which had approximately 70 attendees. . Ms. Wheeldon summarized that there was consensus for the report to have a narrative form as opposed to an outline, and it was suggested that possibly the history and research could be eliminated and moved to the appendix in order to make the report more concise. Opposition was again voiced to the report being written in a manner that would require the reader to refer to the index in order to obtain a full understanding. . - It was suggeste:d for Pam Marsh to compile the individual reports and prepare a draft of the final report. Ms. Marsh agreed and stated that she believes they need to include enough discussion under each topic so that the reader comes away with an understanding. She suggested that they prepare an executive summary with just the recoInmendations, while the main report would include a paragraph for each of the following: background, discussion, alternatives and recommendations. The committee agreed to have Ms. Marsh work on compiling the final draft in the discussed format. The committee discussed scheduling an additional meeting next week on June 23rd. It was noted that at least two of the: members would not be able to attend this meeting. It was clarified that the meeting on June 30th was to. be reserved for approving the final report. One of the committee members questioned why the report had to be finalized by June 30th. Several committee members voiced their support for meeting on the 23 rd. The committec~ briefly discussed the Public Outreach Draft Report prepared by Ms. Wheeldon. Ms. Wheeldon noted that she would add references to the employee survey and the presentations given by Patti Acklin and Don Laws and questioned if the committee would also like to include the characteristics ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEvV COM,MrrrEE JUNE 16, 2005 PAGE 401'6 of government grid in the appendix. Suggestion was made for the report to also mention that there were significant articles regarding the charter review in the Daily Tidings. The committee began discussion of the paper prepared by Ms. Culbertson which lists the items suggested for removal by Tom Sponslor and Paul Nolte. Ms. Culbertson read through the items and gave a brief explanation of why they had been suggested for removal. Article 1,.Section 3, Boundaries: It was clarified that the. sentence "The Recorder shall keep...hours of the Recorder" was covered by State law. . Article 3, Section 3, Salaries: It was clarified that the committee had voted to remove salary language from the charter and for this to be handled by the Citizens' Budget Committee. It was also noted that the committee had recommended that this be established by ordinance. Comment was made that all ofthes'e changes and reasoning for each needed to be included in the committee's report to the council, not just the ones they specifically discussed and voted on. Suggestion -,;;.,\l~j~'\'~;;was made for this document-to be in~luded as an appendix. Statement was made that if this doo;u.ment is included as an appendix, it needs to have more detail than what is currently before the committee. Mr. Franell noted that the committee had decided to use the model charter as their framework, and stated that the committee should use the model as their base and add to it the agreed upon provisions of the Ashland charter. Article 3, Section 6, Interest in City Contracts: It was clarified that this item was covered by ORS 244. . - Article 4, Mayor, Section 2: Committee discussed whether ,they should add the mayoral duties as reflected in Mr. Cloer's memo dated June 15,2005. Ms. Culbertson noted that the model charter provides for all of the duties of the city manager. It was noted that the only change the committee had approved to the structure of government was the hiring and dismissal power of the city manager, and the committee had not had a discussion of the additional duties and how they would be listed because they had previously said they were adopting the model charter and it was assumed that those were the duties that they were going to accept It was noted that the committee could still recommend changes to the duties listed in the model. Comment was made that because the committee was recommending the tTlodel charter, it would be beneficial to bolster the politicalleadersh.ip of the mayor. It was questioned if the committee should have a more in depth discussion about the manager's duties as outlined in the model charter. Comment was made that these duties are pretty standard. Concern was expressed about the duty of administering the utilities and property and how that would affect the current dynamics. Suggestion was made to recommend the powers of the manager as outlined in the model charter, but rec01nmend to the council that they compare these to what the current city manager is doing and see if there is any potential connict. Comment was made that the term "administer" means manage and this is a duty that does not include setting policy. Recommendation was made for the committee to wait to fonnally adopt the powers as outlined in the model until the committee's next meeting, which would give the1m the opportunity to review the information further. Article 4, Mayor, Section 3: It was clarified that this section pertained to the voting and needed to be rewritten to reflect the decision made by the committee. Article 6, Section 2: It was clarified that this is covered by the Ashland Municipal Code and (:an be removed from the charter. Article 7, Elections, Sections 2 & 3: It was clarified that this is superseded by ORS 254. ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEvV COMMITTEE JUNE 16, 2005 PAGE 5 of6 Section 5: This provision could be handled by ordinance. Sections 6 & 7: These two sections are superseded by ORS 254 and ORS-254.575. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified the concept of "home rule" for the committee and noted that most of the provisions regarding elections are covered by state statute. Article 8, Council, Section 2: It was clarified that this should be rewritten to reflect the committee's decision. Sectilons 5 & 6: Can be removed because they are superseded by ORS 192. Article 9, Spedal Powers of the Council: It was clarified that this article can be removed. Mr. Franell clarified that the reason this had been suggested for removal was because a lot of the language is granted poWers to the council. He noted that the beginning of the charter grants broad powers to the council and stated that if you start enumerating certain powers, it could imply that you didn't really intend to grant the council broad powers and could end up limiting the powers. He added that all of the special powers of the council are assumed within the grant for broad powers. . Article 11, Public Improvements, Sections 1 & 4: It was clarified that this is superseded by ORS 279. Mr. Franell clarified that condemnation is covered by ORS 223, and the bidsar:ec,overed under ORS 279. He added that the state's public bid and contracting chapter went into affect for the City of Ashland in March 2005. ' Article 12, Taxation: This is superseded by ORS 294 and ORS 310. Comment was made questioning if the authority is not stated in the charter, but is covered by state law, could the courts determine that the authority is not there. Mr. Franell stated that the road taxes used to not be set forth in state statue, but now there is a specific provision in state statues that identifies this. He again stated that it would be better to have the broad powers grant than to enumerate specific authorities. Article 13, Ap]~ointive Officers, Section 4: This provision is covered by ORS 224 and can be removed. Mr. Franell clarified that Section 4 is actually the Conflict of Interest provisions. He stated that Section 1 is the Appointive Officers, and Section l(a) is the provision for separate police and fIre departments. Comment was rnade clarifying that the committee had previously decided that the council and the mayor should jointly hire and fire the city manager and that this needed to be reflected in Section 1. Article 14, Chi.ef of Police: It was c~arified that this was inherent and did not need to be included in the charter, and that Section 2 could be rewritten as an ordinance. . - Article 15, Court, Section 2: The last sentence of this section regarding the judge p~esenting a monthly report to the council could be removed because it has never happened. Section 3: Could be removed as it is superseded by ORS 138. Section 4: Could also be removed. It was noted that the committee would continue their review of these provisions at the meeting on June 23,2005. Suggestion was made for the committee to make a formal motion approving this recommendation when they have completed their review. IV. REVIEW TIMELlNE V. NEXT STEPS: The committee members were reminded to bring their copies of the model charter to their next meeting. It was noted thCJlt the committee would be meeting on June 23rd to continue their discussion of the draft final report. Re:quest was made for Mr. Cloer to prepare a summary for the City Band. It was confirmed that the committee was recommending adoption of the model charter with several additions. ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEvV C:OMAlITTEE JUNE 16, 2005 PAGE 60f6 Staff Liaison Ann Seltzer noted that the Council Chambers were unavailable on June 2300, but noted that the committee could conduct their meeting in the Lithia Room of the Community Development Building. Comment was made that one of the next steps for the council would be to launch a voter education campaign and conduct additional research in regards to the City Recorder duties. Statement was made that all of these issues should be studied by the council along with the public to increase awareness before it becomes a ballot measure. Comment was made that stressing the important of dealing with the opposition prior to this charter being placed on the ballot. VI. ITEMS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS: VII. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Assistant to City Recorder . - Draft of items to be changed in the charter upon recommendation of charter review consultant Tom Sponsler Revised for discussion by Carole Wheeldon . - ARTICLE SECTION TITLE ACTION REASON I 3 Boundaries: 2NU Remove State law ORS sentence ORS 192 OAR 166 III 6 Interest in City Remove ORS 244 Contracts III 1 Elected Officers Rewrite Include Judge and Recorder IV 2 Mayor Modify to Complements enumerate model charter powers as section on powers suggested by of manager Cloer memo of 6/15 VI 2 Recorder; Powers Remove Covered by and Duties municipal code 2.08.020 VII 2&3 Elections; Notice & Remove ORS 254 Special VII 5 Elections;Regulation Write Petitioners Ordinance proportional to population? VII 6 Elections; Canvass Remove ORS 254 of Returns VII 7 Tie Votes Remove ORS 254.575 VIII 5&6 Cou ncil; Jou rnal, Remove ORS192 Proceed ings to the public IX All Special powers of Remove "Dillon's Rule" the Council Where I ecprossexpress pO'Nespowers are granted, only those powers and those necessary to carry out the granted power are ,given. See City of Corvallis v.Carlile, 10 or 139 (1882) Broad powers . - grant overcomes this lirnitation. XI 1&4 Public Remove ORS :279 Improvements XII All Taxation Remove ORS :294, 310 XIII 4 Appointive Officers Remove ORS :244 XIV All Chief of Police Remove Inhen~nt in city structure. Sec. 2 possible ordinance XV 2 Court Remove This has never been done. XV 3 Court Remove ORS 138 I xv. 4 r'",. ,.4. ill"'" R'omo'lo + see note below , _V'.... ", J,-"I.1 XVI 1 Public utilities .. Rewrite Clari~ication XVI 2 Torts Remove' ORS 30 XVI 3 Existing Remove from ORS 30 Ordinances., Acts, line 3 to end Proceedings XVI 4 Repeal of previously Remove History of enacted provisions amendments are public record purslJlant to public records laws ORS 192Unnecessary? XVII All Hospital Remove Create ordinance, or leave section 1 XVIII All Cemeteries Trust Remove Create ordinance Fund XX All Airport Remove Creajte ordinance or leave as with hospital Note: Per City Attollley. Leave this section in. Unless specified by ordinance or charter the state provides for a 12 person iury. current charter provides a 6 person iury. E-mail from Hal Cloer re: MayorDuties submitted June 15, 2005. Hi All: In reconllnending that Ashland's charter implement a move toward the council/manager form of government, it is probably desirable to attempt to close th~ political leadership gap (and superior bureaucratic power) that is widely perceived as characterizing that form. Perhaps it would be helpful to enumerate mayoral powers and duties to parallel those of the manager (Section 33e of the model). What is your reaction to the following possible en~meration? Are there desirable additions or deletions? Article IV..Mavor Section 2 Powers and Duties The mayor serves as the political head of city government, and is a voting member of the council. The mayor must: ' (1) Preside: over and facilitate council meetings, preserve order, enforce council rules, and determine the order of business under council rules. (2) With consent of council, appoint members of commissions, boards and committees established by ordinance or resolution. (3) Sign all records of council decisions. (4) Prepan~ and deliver an annual state of the community report to the council and city. (5) Appoint council chairs and committee members and assigns matters to committees. (6) Present the proposed budget to the council with comments and questions for consideration. (7) Cooperate with the manager in coordinating and facilitating communication among elected officials, governmental staff, and (8) Guide the setting of goals and the development and imp'lementation of policies that improve community well being and service delivery. (9) Promote and defend the city, and handle the external relationships of the .City. (10) Facilitate a yearly council evaluation of the manager and other appointed officials. (11) Initiate the hiring and/or termination of appointed officials by the council. Regards, flal. >>>> . - > > > > Charter mailing list >>>> Chm1er@pine.ashland.or.us > >>> hUp:/ /pine.ashland.or. us/n1ailnlan/listinfo/charter 2.28.020 City Administrator - Department Created A City Administrator Department is created, under the direct control and managern,ent of the City Administrator, and shall consist of the City Administrator, the employees provided for by the position classification plan or a position ordinance, and such other employees as the City Administrator may assign to said Department. (Ord. 1399 81, 1965) 2.28.030 City Administrator - Duties - Generally The City Administrator shall have the duties, responsibilities, authorities, and jurisdictions provided by the City Charter, the ordinances and resolutions adopted by the Council, and the laws of the state wherein they relate to the administration of the City. With City C~uncil acknowledgment, the City Administrator is hereby empowered to make such rules and regulations for the conduct of the various administrative departments of the City as may be deemed necessary 'from time to time. . (Ord. 1399 82, 1965) 2.28.040 City Administrator - Administrative Responsibilities The City Administrator shall have responsibility for the general administrative coordination of all City departments except for those officers and employees of the Parks Department. The City Administrator shall have the right to submit recommendations to the Mayor, with confirmation by the City Council, as to the appointment or dismissal of any principal officer or Department head. The Mayor and City Council, City Administrator, or the appropriate Department head may directly appoint or dismiss any subordinate employee. (Ord. 1399 83, 1965; Ord 282681, 1998) , - ~~SHLAND CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE Summary of Recommendations July 1, 2005 The Ashland City Charter Review Committee is pleased to forward our recommendations regarding potential changes to the charter to the City Council. ' Our work 'with the Charter has consumed all of the past year. The attached report reflects thoughtful input from elected and appointed officials and -- most importantly -~ from city residents; extensive research regarding charter theory and practice; and hours of.often- spirited discussion among committee members. Charter review turned out to be a much bigger task than most of us originally envisioned, but we hope you will agree that our Final Report conveys the thorough nature of our investigation. Our major recommendations include: 1. Th(~ City of Ashland should be governed by a partnership between the elected mayor (the political leader), a city manager (the administrative leader), arid the cOUlncil (the legislative body). Elected officials are charged with responsibility for developing policy; the city manager should implement that policy. The manager's administrative powers should be expanded to include staff supervision (hiring, firing, and general accountability). 2. The Ashland mayor should vote on all issues before the council; at the same time, the mayor's veto power should be eliminated. 3. The mayor should continue to appoint members of city commissions and conamittees, subject to council approval. 4. The current position system for selecting council members should be eliminated in favor of city-wide, at-large elections in which the top three vote-getters win the council seats at issue. 5. Charter language'that requires voter approval of all increases in council salaries should be eliminated; salary levels should be established via a city ordinance. 6. Th(~ city recorder should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the city Budget Committee. In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study the position in add.itional depth. 1 7. The municipal judge should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the city Budget committee. As with the recorder, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study issues associated with the municipal judge position in additional depth. 8. Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission should continue to be elected by city voters, and the Parks Department should continue to be administered as an autonomous entity independent of the rest of city government. However, existing charter language should be streamlined to combine the Parks Commission and the Recreation Commission. Finally, charter language that dictates the departmlent's formula should be removed from the charter; the Parks and Recreation budget will be determined via the annual city budget process. 9. The Ashland City Band should be retained in the charter; however, funding language should be removed and budget issues delegated to the city Budget Committee. The committee recommends that the Band be placed under the authority of the city Parks and Recreation Department. 10. The city council should convene a citizen-based Charter Review Committee at least every ten years. We agreed that our findings in each of these areas would be incorporated into the tll10del charter template developed by the Oregon League of Cities. The result would be the new, only-in-Ashland, city charter. In addition to these structural revisions, the Charter Review Committee has compiled a set of suggested changes focused on charter language that is outdated, superfluous,. or better conveyed in a city ordinance. The attached Final Report describes our findings and in more detail; the hefty Appendix contains copies of reports and other documents developed during the committee's process. The City of Ashland is blessed with thoughtful and involved citizens, dedicated elected officials, and capable and energetic staff members. If adopted, we believe that the . recommendations endorsed in this report will result in a new and improved charter that will ably guide the city well into the 21 st century. Please contact anyone of us if~ve can answer questions regarding our findings. 2 RespectfuUy submitted, Ashland City Charter Review Committee Co-chairs John Enders Carole Wheeldon Members Hal Cloer Kate Culhertson Laurie MacGraw Pam Marsh - - Keith Massie Don Montgomery Michael Riedeman Roy Bashaw (resigned December 2004) 3 ASHLAND CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE Final Report & Recommendations July 1,2005 Introduction and Back2round: The Ashland City council initiated a charter review process in May 2004 with the authorization of a 10-member ad hoc citizen Charter Review Committee. The newly constituted committee was directed to conduct an independent assessment of the existing charter (last reviewed in 1978) and, if necessary, to draft a new or amended document suitable to "serve the community well into the future." Appointed by Mayor Alan DeBoer, the committee began work in July 2004. Our ranks included co-chairs John Enders and Carole Wheeldon, and members Hal Cloer, Kate Culbertson, Laurie MacGraw, Pam Marsh, Don Montgomery, Keith Massie, and Michael Riedeman.1 The committee quickly realized that the task at hand would require more than a cursory review, and we agreed to undertake a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the charter. After a year of study, we are now forwarding our findings to the City council. In order to be enacted, charter revisions will need to be placed on the ballot by the council and approved by voters in a citywide election. Our work was ably staffed by Ann Seltzer, who fielded a tremendous number of requests from committee members and interested residents. City Attorney Mike Franell and Assistant Attorney Mike Reeder provided legal guidance, and Nancy Slocum and A..pril Lucas provided us with minutes. In addition, the city engaged the services of Tom Sponsler, a consultant with expertise in charter reviews and revisions and the author of the Oregon Model Charter, who was contracted to assist the committee. This report summarizes our recommendations and work schedule over the past year. (See Appendix 1: Council Approved Documents Establishing the Charter Review Committee) Public Input Process From the beginning the committee understood that public involvement and testimony were critical to our mission, and we attempted to include the community beyond the requirements of the law. Throughout our deliberations the committee adhered to the Oregon Public Meetings laws, and, whenever possible, meetings were broadcast live on 1 Unfortunately, our tenth member, Roy Bashaw, resigned in December 2004. 1 R VTV (later available as streaming video on the city's website ). We scheduled a public input session into each meeting agenda, and we planned a series of public forums and other outreach efforts to solicit comment. These efforts included: ./' Committee interviews with current and former elected and appointed officials. ./' Presentations to tl;1e Lions Club, Rotary, Chamber of Commerce, Green Party, and League of Women Voters. ./' Creation of an information brochure for distribution at public events ./' Anticles in City Source. ./' Development of an employee survey designed to solicit input from city staff ./' So]licitation of extensive coverage in the Daily Tidings and, to a lesser extent, the Medford Mail Tribune. ./' Submission of letters to the editor and op-ed articles explaining the charter process. ./' Development of research documents (white papers and, later, topic papers) that investigated specific .issues. ./' Utilization of the city of Ashland web site. All committee documents have been posted on the web in order to maximize public access and encourage input. ./' USI~ of a Charter listserv to disseminate information and discussion. ./' Appearances on RVTV. In addition to the regular broadcast of our meetings, cornmittee members participated in two interview shows focused on charter reVIew. ./' Establishm~nt of a public outreach subcommittee to plan and'coordinate efforts. Public fonlms included: ./' A January 20th meeting at the SOU Rogue River Room attended by approximately 75 community members. This meeting was structured with small breakout groups in order to provide and overview of charter review and to gather initial public cornment. ./' An April ih meeting, also at SOU, focused on structure of government attended by approximately 30 people. Roundtable discussions invited residents to discuss the qualities/elements that enable government to provide good public service. ./' Issue forums. In addition, we scheduled a public input session on each specific issue priorto committee debate. . , Despite our best efforts, the committee was disappointed with the overall level of citizen participation. We realize, however, that the City council has an opportunity to generate significant public input during your review of our recommendations. A later section of this report ("Next Steps) suggests possible courses of action. (See Appendix II: Public Information Materials) 2 Structure of Recommendations Preliminary study and expert testimony enabled the committee to sort potential charter revisions into three areas of concern: 1) outdated charter language usurped by state law; 2) charter provisions that could be better legislated in the form of city ordinances; and, 3) structural and political provisions that seemed to warrant evaluation. Analyses produced by former city attorney Paul Nolte and by committee consultant Tom Sponsler highlighted significant sections of the charter containing outdated or exfraneous language. After extensive discussion, the committee decided to adopt the Oregon Model Charter (developed by the League of Cities) as a template for the revised Ashland city charter. Our intent was to produce a document that clearly identifies the authority and accountability of local government and that reflects current state law. At the same time, the new streamlined charter would need to reflect the specific history and character that defines the Ashland community. Eliminating outdated language was easy; tackling sensitive political questions posed a much bigger challenge. As a result, the co~~ttee agreed to spend most of our time focused on a few key issues critical to the conduct of local government: ../ . The mayor-manager/administrator relationship ../ Mayoral veto/ability to vote on council issues ../ Appointment of city commissions/committees ../ Election of city council by positions ../Election of the city recorder ../ Election of the municipal judge ../ Election/powers of the Parks Commission and related issues re: the organization of the Parks Department ../ City Band Later in our discussions we identified two. additional issues that seemed to warrant investigation: 1) council salaries; and, 2) periodic charter review. . . Kev Recommendations 1. The City of Ashland should be governed by a partnership between the elected mayor (the political leader), a city manager (the administrative leader), and the council (the legislative body). Elected officials are charged with responsibility for developing policy; the city manager should impJlement that policy. The manager's administrative powers should be expanded to~ include staff supervision (hiring, firing, and general accountability). Background: Article 4, Section 2 of the existing charter stipulates that the elected mayor is the "executive officer of the municipal corporation." Article 13 further delineates the mayor's powers, noting that slhe may "suspend and remove any appointive 3 officer at any time." In effect, the charter empowers the mayor to assume a range of administrative powers; in theory, the city administrator is responsible for implementing policy, but hislher managerial authority can be overshadowed by the mayor' s broadly defined powers. Discussion: Proponents of the existing language argue: 1) that the mayor's position as an elected 'official should empower himlher to serve as a hands-on administrator; and, 2} that designation of a city manager could concentrate too much power in the hands of an appointed official. Conversely, critics of the current system believe: I} that the size and complexity of city issues require professional management; and, 2) that policy is best created and implemented via a respectful partnership forged between elected and appointed officials. Outcome: Understanding and analyzing the appropriate roles and responsibilities that should be assumed by elected and appointive officials consumed months of the committe,e's efforts and generated significant interest from':,elected and appointed officials (current and retired) and from members of the public. In the end, the committee approved this recommendation via unanimous vote. In a subse:quent motion (approved 7-1), the committee agreed that the council and mayor together should be responsible for hiring and firing the manager. Finally, the committee augmented the recommendation by unanimously voting to adopt language in the model charter that clarifies that the council should "determine the rules governing recruitment, selection, promotion, transfer, demotion, suspension, layoff, and dismissal of city employees" that will guide personnel decisions. (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 2. The Ashland mayor should vote on all issues before the council; at the same thne, the mayor's veto power should be eliminated. . - Background: Article 4, Section 3 of the existing charter stipulates that the mayor of the city is allowed to vote on issues before the council only in the case of a tie. At the same time, the rnayor is required to approve or veto all measures within five days of passage. The coun(~il is allowed to overturn a mayor's veto via a two-thirds (4 of 6) vote. Discussion: Proponents of the existing framework argue: 1) that the mayor's non-voting status better equips himlher to facilitate meetings and provide political leadership; 2) that the mayor's veto power is an appropriate tool used to force the council to re-evaluate hasty or ill-considered decisions. and, 3) that veto power conveys more political leverage than the ability to vote. Conversely, critics state: 1) the mayor's non-voting status clouds the public's understanding ofhislher position on the issues; 2) application of the veto produces 4 contention instead of consensus; and, 3) that the mayor's ability to cast a vote is a stronger investment of political power than is contained in the occasional veto. Outcome: The recommendation was endorsed by the committee on a 6-3 vote. A subsequent motion that the veto be retained in addition to the mayor's new voting power failed, 7-2. If approved, the mayoral vote will eliminate an anomaly in the existing charter. Under current conditions, the council is allowed to meet if three members plus the mayor are present. In this circumstance, as few as two council members can constitute a majority. If the mayor becomes a voting member, at least three votes will be required to approve any measure. (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 3. The mayor should continue to appoint members of city commissions and committees, subject to council approval. Background: Under current practice, the mayor is responsible for appointing menlbers of city commissions and committee members, subject to council approval. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that the mayor's appointment powers allow himlher to appropriately set the political tone and direction of the city. Conversely, critics claim that this structure concentrates too much power in the hands of mayor;, they argue that the council should be allowed to nominate and approve candidates for appointment. Outcome: The committee voted 8-1 in favor of the recommendation, effectively retaining the status quo. A second motion that would have specifically allowed Planning Commission members to be proposed'and appointed by the mayor and council failed, 7- 1. . - (See Appendix III: Structure of Government) 4. The current position system for selecting council members should be eliminated in favor of citywide, at-large elections in which the top three vote getters win the council seats at issue. Background: Article 8, Section 2 of the city charter delineates the existing systenlthat governs selection of city council members. Existing language requires council members to be elected by position number (one through six); each candidate is required to designate the number of the council seat to which he or she aspires. A candidate nlay run for one position in any given election. 5 Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue: 1) that the existing system produces richer debate and greater clarification of issues; 2) that the position system lends stability to local government by protecting incumbents from political'movements that might be orchestrated to sweep sitting councilors from office; and, 3) that the position system may , allow less-well known candidates to achieve office. Conversely, critics believe: 1) that , the position system can be used to target specific minority candidates; 2) that it unnecessarily complicates the voting process and stymies a citizen's ability to support the candidates of his /her choice; and, 3) that it can allow unchallenged incumbents to avoid scrutiny. Outcome: This was among the committee's more contentious recommendations, approved in a 5-4 vote. Related issues that the committee discussed and dismissed for lack of interest included changing the number of council members, imposing term limits, and adopting a ward system for council election. The comn1ittee also discussed the possible adoption of charter language that would permit or enact an instant voter runoff system in city elections. In the end, the committee decided not to recommend IRV, citing concerns regarding cost, legality, and insufficient research. However, the committee did agree to forward to the council excellent background materi-al prepared on the s~bject by IRV advocate Pam Vavra and to note the substantial public input we received endorsing IRV. (See Appendix IV: Council Election Materials) 5. Tile ci,ty recorder should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens' Budget Committee. In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study the issues of the city recorder [and municipal judge] in additional depth. . - Background: Article 3 of the current charter describes the recorder as an elected city officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual adjustments. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that election by the voters ensures that the recorder will remain independent and available to city residents; they note that the. recorder is the only fulltime city official elected by the citizens. Conversely, critics point out 1) that most city recorders are now appointed and supervised by councils and managers; and, 2) that election may not guarantee that the winning candidate has the requisite skills to fulfill the duties of the office. Proponents of the task force argued that the council should investigate whether the recorder should retain treasurer's duties now delegated to that office. 6 Speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the inclusion of compensation language in the charter, citing the committee's efforts to remove all specific funding notations from the document. Outcome: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task force endorsement was approved. on a 5-4 vote. (See Appendix V: Election of the City Recorder) 6. The municipal judge should continue to be elected by the voters. However, charter language that dictates compensation should be removed; responsibility for salary issues would be assigned to the Citizens' Budget Committee. In addition, the city council should appoint a task force or committee to study the issues of the [city recorder] and municipal judge in additional depth. Background: Article 3 of the current charter describes the municipal judge as an elected city officer; section 3 pegs compensation to the 1974-75 level with specified annual adjustments. Discussion: Proponents of the status quo argue that the election process allows voters to choose a municipal judge who will understand and incorporate local values iri his~Ler approach to the judiciary. Conversely, critics question whether the curtent system is cost effective. Proponents of the task force suggested that the council investigate the level of judicial salary, imposition of a residency requirement, and the general powers and duties of the judge. -As with the recorder, speakers on both sides of the election issue questioned the in:lusion 'of compensation language in the charter, citing the committee's efforts to remove all specific funding notations from the document. Outcome: The committee endorsed the first recommendation unanimously; the task force endorsement was approved on a 5-4 vote. (See Appendix VI: Election of the Municipal Judge) 7. Members of the Parks and Recreation Commission should continue to be elected by city voters, and the Parks Department should continue to b€~ administered as an autonomous entity independent of the rest of city government. However, existing charter language should be streamlin~~d to combine the Parks Commission and the Recreation Commission. Fin~ll11y, 7 charter language that dictates the department's formula should be removed from the charter; the Parks and Recreation budget should be determined via tht~ annual city budget process. Background: Article 19 of the existing charter (part of the original 1908 document) establishes the Parks Commission as an elected body of five residents invested with the control and management of city parkland and accompanying funding. Section 3 grants the' commission independent taxing authority (not to exceed four and one half mills on the dollar) necessary to support the parks program. Finally, Article 22 specifies that the Park Commissioners also serve as members of the Recreation Commission. Over the years, the Park Commission's independent funding stream and elected status enabled the establishment of an independent Parks and Recreation department within city government. The Parks Commission hires and fires the department manager, establishes internal policy and procedures, and reviews the annual budget. Ballot Measure 50 (1997) effectively eliminated the department's fiscal independence; Parks and Recreation funding is now established through the Citizens' Budget Committee process. IIowever, the Department continues to be administered as an independent arm of city government. DiscussioJIl: Proponents of the existing system argue: 1) that election by the voters provides powerful leverage and independence for the Commission; 2) that the department's autonomy has enabled it to creatively develop and maintain the expansive system of city parks; and, 3) that the city's park system is intrinsic to the aesthetic and character of Ashland, and warrants special charter protections. - - In turn, critics believe: 1) that the Parks Department is most ~ppropriately administered under the auspices of the city administrator/manager, which would be consistent with the committee:'s recommendations to place all administrative functions under the city manager; 2) that the autonomy of the department creates inequities among city 'employees:; 3) that the elected Commission usurps decision making powers that rightfully belong to the council; 4) that appointment, rather than election, might attract better qualified candidates for the commission; and, 5) that the existence of an elected commission no longer provides fiscal protections for the department, given the passage of Measure 50. Outco~e: The recommendation was approved by a vote of 8-1. Our decision to remove n1o~bund funding language from the charter was consistent with . our overaU attempts,to keep the charter free of budget figures. However, the committee acknowledlges that Parks funding is integral to its success; we recommend that the council consider implementing an ordinance that would formalize Parks funding. (See Appendix VII: Parks and Recreation) 8 8. The Ashland City Band should be retained in the charter; however, funding language should be removed and budget issues delegated to the Citizens' Budget Committee. The committee recommends that the Band be placed under the authority of the city Parks and Recreation Department. Background: Article 21 of the current charter requires the council to ~nclude in the annual budget an allocation not to exceed six-tenths (.6) mills on the dollar for the purpose ofa City Band. By tradition (though not function), the Band falls under the auspices of the city finance director; as a result, the Band often operates quite independently from city structure. Discus~ion: Proponents of the current charter language argue that the City Band \vill survive and thrive through the specification of a funding formula embedded in the, charter. Conversely, critics suggest that the charter should never cite specific budget numbers; instead, funding should be allocated through the annual budget process. Speakers on both sides of the funding issue agree that the Parks and Recreation Department is the most appropriate home base for the Band. Outcome: The recommendation was approved via unanimous vote. In addition, the Charter Committee notes that preservation of the band's funding is integral to its success; we recommend that the council consider implementing an ordinance addressing th~~ band's funding requirements. (See Appendix VIII: Ashland City Band) 9. Charter language that requires voter approval of all increases in counc~iI salaries should be eliminated; salary levels should be established via a dty ordinance. . - Background: Article 3, Section 3 of the current charter requires that changes to the level of compensation received by elective officers (except for recorder and judge) be submitted to a vote of the people. Right now, each city council member receives $350 per year and the mayor receives $500; these pay levels have been unchanged since: at least 1976. However, elected officials also receive full medical, vision and dental benefits and a small life insurance policy that covers themselves and dependents. Discussion: Proponents argue that the existing system restrains the council from enacting costly and/or inappropriate pay increases. Conversely, critics claim: 1) that salary issues are best delegated via ordinance; and/or, 2) that council members deserve to be paid for the work that they perform. Outcome: The committee endorsed the recommendation via a 7-1 vote, with one member abstaining. Discussion that preceded the vote focused on the generous health 9 Appendices Charter Review Committee Final Report to Ashland City Council July 21, 2005 I. Council approved documents establishing the Charter Review Committee a. Resolution creating the Charter Review Committee b. Expectations of Charter Review Committee c. Expectations of Charter Review Consultant II. Public Information Materials a. Information brochure b. Articles in City Source (monthly newsletter included in utility bills) c. Articles in Ashland Daily Tidings (daily newspaper) d. Copies of letter to the editor and op-ed articles e. Employee survey and results III. Structure of Government a. White papers b. Topic discussion papers IV. Council Election Materials a. Topic "Discussion paper b. Memo from City Attorney Mike Franell c. Instant Run-off Voting (IRV) (submitted by non-committee member Pam Vavra) d. White papers V. Election of City Recorder a. White paper b. Topic Discussion paper VI. Ele:ction of Municipal Judge a. White paper b. Topic Discussion paper c. Material submitted by Judge Drescher . - VII. Election of Parks and Recreation Commission a. White paper b. Topic Discussion paper VIII. Ashland City Band a. White paper b. Topic Discussion paper IX. Council Salaries and Benefits a. Summary of council salary and benefits in other Oregon cities X Ashland City Charter markups/Model Charters a. Consultant Tom Sponsler markup b. Former City Attorney, Paul Nolte markup c. City Attorney, draft Ashland model charter d. Oregon Model Charter XI. Suggested Language for Article 16, Section 1 (Public Utilities: Water Works) a. Draft provided by City Attorney, Mike Franell XII. Summary of Expenses . -