HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0323 Documents Submitted at Meeting
Nevada Street LID-- March 20, 2007
art bullock
By scheduling this hearing, Council is doing what you asked Mt Ashland Association to
NOT do- take final action while a court case is in appeal.
Nevada Street LID is in Oregon Court of Appeals, appealed on several solid grounds
that may overturn the entire LID and make a waste of what you're trying to schedule.
You need to let the appeals process finish before activating liens on people's homes.
Let's remember:
1. The majority of property owners on Nevada Street voted by signed documents
AGAINST this LID.
2. Billings Ranch Golf Group LLC made improvements on Public Works Director
Paula Brown's property, built her a big wooden fence, in direct alleged violation of state
ethics law against receiving financial benefits.
3. City of Ashland admitted to Jackson County Circuit Court that all city councilors
and mayor, plus city recorder Barbara Christensen, city administrator, and city attorney
Mike Franell knew of 8-not 1, 8--conflicts of interest for Paula Brown.
4. Paula Brown at last check has still not submitted ANY disclosures of her conflicts
of interest, yet you folks proceed as if everything is hunky-dory.
5. I took Jim Olson's deposition for the court case. In that deposition, he admitted
that Paula Brown gave him improper percentages, that he knew at the time they were in
violation of Resolution 1999-09, and that he withheld this information from you.
6. City of Ashland admitted to Circuit Court that percentages you used saved Billings
subdivision thousands of dollars. This after the subdivision improved Paula Brown's
property. You then compounded it by a blow-the-budget monopoly bid from l TM that
added more LID costs and more subdivision subsidy. By my calculations, Ashland
taxpayers have now subsidized Billings Ranch by more than $35,000. Yet you do
nothing.
7. Here you have a clear case of staff acting improperly and deliberately misinforming
you about proper procedures, and yet you protect staff instead of taxpayers. Have you
folks no ethics at all? Every taxpayer seeing this can see clearly what's going on, and
it is NOT ethical.
You need to do 4 things:
1. You need to not schedule Nevada LID hearing until appeals are finished. The
courts can still declare Nevada LID to be null and void.
2. You need to not activate liens on Nevada St properties, until you're certain the
Court doesn't make you go back and undo the damage, just as you asked Mt Ashland.
3. You need to require Paula Brown to disclose her 8 conflicts of interests in writing in
the public record, as required by ORS 244.120.
4. You need to fix the LID policy so neighborhoods determine for themselves how
their streets and sidewalks are improved. Staff has their own agenda, and it's NOT the
public interests.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
March 23, 2007
TO:
City Council
FROM:
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
RE:
Consideration of the call up of the Glenn Street proposal.
Section 18.108.110 sets forth the appeal process to city council. l8.108.l1O(B)(3) allows the city
council, by majority vote, to appeal a Planning Commission decision.
As the legal department has previously advised, there are many provisions within our land use ordinance
that compete with other provisions of the ordinance. The purpose of having a multi-member commission
is to be able to have full discussion of the competing provisions, providing appropriate weight to the
most important considerations in each case. The ability of the City Council to appeal a decision of the
planning commission is a power that should be used sparingly and only when significant policy issues
are at stake and the Council determines that it is important to weigh in and provide the Planning
Commission with additional policy guidance.
The issue at hand required the Planning Commission to balance between two interests that in this
particular matter were competing: the challenge of making sure a proposed development is consistent
with the character of an existing nationally registered historic district and the policy of the City to require
larger setbacks along arterial streets to facilitate potential future widening.
The weighing of the competing values was not an easy matter. The Planning Commission considered
this matter during two public hearings, finally making a decision at a third meeting when they had the
option of reconsidering their decision, but instead voted to adopt the findings and conclusions, thus
creating a final order of the Planning Commission. This decision was backed by recommendations for
approval from both staff and the city's Historic Commission. The Planning Commission decision was a
difficult decision, which resulted in a 5-4 vote approving the variance request.
The Council should only appeal this issue if it believes that significant policies are being implicated and
that the Council feels compelled to take a more detailed look at the consideration and weight given to the
competing values between the arterial setbacks as applied in historic districts.
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
www.ashland.or.us
Tel: (541) 488-5350
Fax: (541) 552-2092
TTY: 800-735-2900
Michael W. Franell, City Attorney
Richard Appicello, Assistant City Attorney
Sue Colton, Paralegal
Nancy Snow, Legal Secretary
IAI