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
. -