Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-0403 Documents Submitted at Mtg LID Study Session- Monday, April 2, 2006 art bullock Council needs to change City's LID policy for 4 reasons: 1. Survey shows Ashland wants change in LID policy. AshlandConstitution.org's survey of over 400 Ashlanders showed that 91% wanted to require a majority neighborhood vote to implement an LID. People didn't have a problem with a neighborhood deciding how to improve their streets-- they had a problem with council forcing an LID on a neighborhood that the majority didn't want. Ashlanders believed in majority vote. If the neighborhood majority wants to improve their streets and put a lien on their homes to pay part of the costs, respondents thought that would be reasonable for taxpayers to consider. AshlandConstitution.org survey: If a majority of property owners object to an neighborhood LID project, should the city be able to implement it anyway and put a lien on homeowners' properties to pay for it? 80kyes 92%no Should the city be required to obtain support from a majority of property owners in the neighborhood before implementing an LID design? 91%yes 9%no Should developers be allowed to vote for all unsold lots in an LID? 9%yes 91%no When a homeowner wants to remodel their house, should the Planning Dept be allowed to require the homeowner to sign an agreement giving up their right to vote in a future LID? 1%yes 99%no 2. LIDs are generating much ill will toward council. The current LID policy generates significant ill will toward council and City and Public Works. Neighborhoods don't forget it when council uses a heavy-handed approach to put liens on people's properties against the majority will of the neighborhood. In the Scofield LID, one property owner's lien is more than $20,000. 3. Public Works' role continues to be a problem. In Nevada St LID, Billings Ranch Golf Group LLC improved the Public Works Director Paula Brown's property inside the LID. Jim Olson then gave council cost-sharing percentages favoring the Billings developer even though Olson knew at the time they violated Resolution 1999-09. In Plaza St LID, one property owner signed another property owner's name to the petition, and Public Works reported the support percentages to council inaccurately, even with an explanation letter on file from the person who signed another's name. And 'Ne have more alleged improper actions in planned liDs. 4. SkyrOCketing asphalt costs cripple the budget-- for projects neighborhoods don't want. Costs for asphalt paving have skyrocketed in the past 18 months. Refining capacity to produce asphalt has dropped, causing supply restrictions. Asphalt is petroleum- and energy-intensive, and is rapidly becoming cost prohibitive as energy costs rise. Given Ashland's serious problems with AFN debt and ballooning budget, it's not justifiable to spend millions of dollars on neighborhood 'improvements' that neighborhoods don't want. People say that if neighborhoods don't want it, the rest of Ashland taxpayers shouldn't be saddled with huge costs and debts to pay for it. There are many other things taxpayers might want to pay for, so there's no need for budget increases for services neighborhoods don't want. Laurel LID is the last sidewalk LID scheduled. After that, it's 10.42 miles of streets and alleys that Public Works wants to pave. ALL these streets and alleys are in areas on record as saying they DON'T want their streets and alleys paved. You'll generated a large amount of HI will and anger if you try to pave the streets and alleys over neighborhood objection and further cripple our over-stretched budget. Turning LIDs into a positive. Council could turn the LID controversy upside down and make it a positive by requiring LIDs to be as intended-- neighborhoods coming together to design and vote in their own street improvements and pay their share of the costs. DRAFT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF HB 2761 04/03/2007 Whereas, the City of Ashland values its rights under Home Rule Charter, and specifically, the ability of its electorate to choose the method by which local officers are elected; and Whereas, the Oregon State Constitution expressly permits preference voting as a method for elections; and Whereas, Instant Runoff Voting (IR V) is a specific example of a preference voting method; and Whereas, municipalities have been discouraged from adopting IRV for lack of State Statutes that describe counting rules for IR V ballots; and Whereas, HB 2761 expressly allows for municipalities to adopt IRV and describ~s the rules by which IR V ballots would be counted; Therefore, be it Resolved that the Mayor and City Council of Ashland do hereby support HB 2761 and direct Staff to notify State legislators of our support, urging a YES vote on HB 2761. I _ support _J~b.iCC1 the SchofieldlMonte Vista LID as proposed. }/2 Date: /?a.,Ll.;J, L 2007 71---)u'le AI .~..L.&2'V~isnalure 11") ~'Y1 A, D /1 T..L.';~~ l?nntoo Name .~ (-,")OO._Tax Lot ..;y'V1''5SESS M r;;~'T Iti'il D u/J r '::' tj d.C, 5,--5' ;J., 00 Second .Prope~ Owner ~JtJ. ?t1J/a,tf;- Signature bn'AtJ.__tlf_Dt;l.. ffc..a..-Printcd Name G'd ESl. 1 8S... l"'S 1 ac"mas u ~ ew al..ll eS2t[1 l.O L.2 ...Ie\ol 'l/J/o r I am a resident at 445 Schofield Street, project. I am opposed to the proposed "road and sidewalk improvements" for several significant reasons, ranging from aesthetic to environmental to fiscal prioritization: 1) One of the things that makes this street so nice is the natural feel and appearance, due to the natural vegetation, the unpaved road, and the lack of sidewalks. 2) Do we realty want to become another cookie-cutter community, and to force each neighborhood to conform to the average American model of manicured, paved-over, squared-off surfaces? Let's find another way to address our neighborhoods, and maintain the uniqueness and diversity of streets within Ashland and of Ashland as a whole 3) The proposed pavement of roads and sidewalks would significantly increase the amount of black and paved surface along our street, which has several negative (and cumulative city-wide) environmental impacts. It would i. significantly increase absorbed heat and ambient temperature in our neighborhood in the hot summer 1. months; reduce ambient moisture; ii. add to use of power and water for cooling and gardening; and iii. increase the amount of runoff and reduce the local groundwater. 4) To leave the road unpaved would help in maintaining a cooler and more moist environment, for humans, animals and plants alike, and in maintaining groundwater levels. The more natural our environment, the healthier, and the less we contribute to environmental degradation. 5) Paving this steeply inclined road would add to the occurrence of frozen, icy surfaces on cold days and nights in winter, making the street more frequently undrivable -- which greatly inconveniences the residents as well as service vehicles such as postal and deHveJy trucks, poHce and utiHty vehicles. Apparently this has been a major problem on Strawberry Lane which was paved in recent years, and on other hilly streets. The postal delivery woman on our route has stated so, based on her daily travels over our neighborhood streets. Similar1y, paved sidewalks would pose an icy hazard to people, especially older people, walking. 6) Paving could encourage more traffic and higher speeds on this residential hilly street with quite a few young children residents. 7) Sidewalks are absurdly unnecessary on our quiet side streets. What little foot traffic there is now is from people walking leisurely in appreciation of the increasingly rare natural environment. 3} Any problematic issues such as dust raised by traffic, or possible runoff from the above development causing gravel deposits, can be addressed in much less costly and much more environmentally friendly ways, such as applying natural substances to the road periodically, or installing a surface water diverter. There must be some of these approaches that have not been considered, some of them have been used successfully in limited ways in the past, and there surely must be some newly developed technologies that have not been researched. At the very least, all these approaches should be fully researched and applied in a systematic way, rather than in the Hmited, piecemeal or outdated way they've been used in the past. Once the pavement is put in, there's no taking it out. We owe it to our children and other future residents and visitors to Ashland to maintain as much as possible our rapidly- disappearing natural environment. 9) Finally, to spend the amount of money required for this project would be extremely irresponsible - given the context of current and recent cutbacks in services, and the urgent need for funds for far more important priorities - the library, schools, fire and police departments, etc. It is incumbent upon us to allot our financial resources - both public and private - to address those needs. In summary, the proposed changes to Schofield Street and Monte Vista Drive are both unnecessary and fiscally and environmentally irresponsible; they would degrade the aesthetics of our uniquely natural and beautiful streets and subvert the priorities we need to uphold. Any possible problems the unpaved roads pose should be addressed in an alternative, comprehensive way rather than by making the proposed destructive and irreversible changes. Let us honor the values that Ashland represents to its residents and to the thousands of people who visit here every year, and find another solution - for our climate, for our connection with nature, for education, libraries and public safety. If we're to spend $387,000 as a community, let's put that money where it rightly beloogs. Yours truly, Yehudit Platt, L.Ac. Scofieldl Monte Vista LID Quasi-Judicial Hearing, Tue 2007April3 art bullock Council is asked to reschedule this hearing to allow the parties to remedy extensive quasi-judicial errors occurring in last night's improper quasi-judicial discussion on Scofield! Monte Vista LID ("Scofield LID"). 1. Council improperly held a quasi-judicial hearing on Mon, 2007 Apr2 without public notice. The study session on LID policy scheduled for 2007 Apr2 became a discussion of Scofield LID issues, which was noticed and scheduled only for quasi-judicial hearing on 2007 Apr3. Last night's discussion was improper and seriously prejudiced the parties' rights to a procedurally fair and impartial quasi-judicial process. Irs not possible on 2007 Apr3 for the parties to review and rebut the 2007 Apr2 hearing due to lack of opportunity to review the DVD and discuss its accuracy and misrepresentations. The only known remedy is for council to reschedule the 2007 Apr3 hearing to allow parties to review and rebut the OVO showing many Scofield LID issues discussed improperly on 2007 Apr2. 2. The 2007Apr2 hearing didn't disclose ex parte contact, conflicts of interest, or bias, or allow any party to dispute same. Scofield LID issues were extensive and embedded in councilors' views of LID policy, City's votes for the Scofield LID cemetery, calculation of support/remonstrance percentages, who pays the cemetery LID assessment and effect on neighbors and taxpayers, boundaries involving those not attached to the LID, councilors' view of 'pave-all-streets' policy, formula for financial participation, role of developers, remonstrance process, LID divisiveness for neighborhoods, etc.. Instead of providing the legally required opportunity for procedural objection, the session generated more ex parte contact and bias, for which the parties haven't had opportunity to review or prepare a response. This major error also means the 2007Apr3 session should be rescheduled to allow the parties adequate time to discuss and present rebuttals to ex parte and bias occurring at the 2007 Apr2 hearing. 3. It was not possible to timely acquire and submit the physical copy of the 2007 Apr2 DVD for the 2007 Apr3 hearing. Author wants to submit the physical copy of the OVO for Scofield LID and lacked adequate opportunity to acquire and submit it. Council is asked to add to the record the entire DVD for the 2007 Apr2 session, or to provide opportunity for the parties to submit the DVD of that hearing as part of record evidence for Scofield LID, once the parties have opportunity to copy. 4. The improper 2007 Apr2 hearing DVO video was produced by a property owner proponent in Scofield UD. In 2 separate cases, before different judges, author demonstrated in circuit court that RVTV video of council sessions is the controlling document to resolve factual disputes for council's quasi-judicial hearings. (1) In Nevada St LID, alleged minutes inaccuracies by city recorder Barbara Christensen led to a Court order for City to submit OVD videos of key council sessions. After the order, Christensen erased a critical video tape and lost another one. Court used available OVOs to resolve factual disputes. (2) In the Park St Apts LLC planning action case, Court, City, Relator, and Intervenors all agreed that the DVD video was the controlling document to resolve questions of fact for related quasi-judicial hearings. The Court then used the oVOs to resolve factual disputes. For Scofield LID, council's DVD video for 2007 Apr2 was produced by RVTV Director Pete Belcastro, who solely operated cameras and microphones during council's session. Belcastro is a property owner in Scofield LID and a signed proponent FOR the LID. Scofield LID was not listed on the study session agenda, so ifs probable that Belcastro didn't know Scofield LID would be discussed. Given this DVD video is the controlling document to resolve factual disputes, of which we have several, the parties are entitled to an impartial operator producing the video used to resolve the disputes. City recorder's audiotape is inadequate because historically it has poor sound, has many unintelligible sections. has a long section missing when the tape is turned over, and is positioned next to a noisy computer with no microphone attachment to the audio system. The parties are entitled to an impartial record of the improperly held quasi-judicial hearing, which at this point is not possible. Again, the only known remedy is for council to re-notice and reschedule the hearing, with the stipulation that no party involved in the LID case be involved in producing council's record, and provide the parties to opportunity to determine accuracy and completeness of the 2007 Apr2 video and audio record. 5. Allegation: Council has been improperly biased in its discussion of percentage support and opposing due to improper actions of PubUc Works Department. A Pu~ic Works employee told at least 1 property owner that if they don't support the LID, Public Works will use their discretion to require the property owner to pay the entire amount for street improvement when they want to subdivide their lot into 2 lots. This is improper manipulation of an LID vote by coercion and threat of massive financial damage. Public Works is forcing the properly owner(s) to improperly choose between paying $10,000+ through the LID lien (and encouraging others to do the same). or paying the entire amount (Scofield LID is about $380,000) to pave the street as a condition for approval to subdivide. Council and mayor, through one or more subordinates in Public Works Department, have now indirectly coerced a property owner to support Scofield LID based on improper threat of financial damage and an improper condition for subdividing a lot. This causes Ashland taxpayers to pay 75% of Scofield LID, while Public Works maintains that a planning application would require as a condition. This improperly shifts the bulk of the financial burden from those wishing to develop the property to neighbors and City taxpayers. This has led to a grossly unfair distribution of costs for this LID between those benefiting and City, thus taxpayers. Council has now been improperly biased by Paula Brown's incorrect representation of the support-opposition percentages as a result of this coercion and unethical threat. The parties have a statutory right to an impartial quasi-judicial decision without threats and coercion, directly or indirectly. The remedy for this bias is (1) for Council to clarify on the record that: (a) No such condition exists for this or any other property owner in Scofield LID. (b) No one in Public Works has authority to make such a threat or claim, or to make deals or promises in exchange for LID support. (d) Every property owner is free to support or oppose this LID without City penalties or promises. (2) The remedy's second component is for Council to reschedule this public hearing for the property owners to independently decide without this threat and coercion whether to support or oppose the LID. Without this 2-lot vote supporting to avoid higher future costs, this LID would probably have a 2/3 remonstrance, 12-7 rather than 10-9. 6. Councilor David Chapman has actual bias and should be recused. At the 2007 Apr2 hearing, Chapman claimed that LID property owners got it easy because he had to pay $8,000 for a sidewalk at his house because the developer hadn't done it and should have. He demonstrated an angry resentment to LID property owners, which he has also shown in the past. He compounded the bias by claiming City shouldn't be required to follow City's Street Standards Handbook, which is governing law for this and other LIDs. He claimed that neither he nor his neighbors used the sidewalk, and instead walked in the street, so neighborhoods shouldn't have to follow street standards. Chapman showed actual bias in using his position in city government to work. against neighborhood interests in Nevada St LID. He also has a personal bias and history of angry attacking outbursts in public against the author, who is one of the same parties involved in Scofield LID though not an LID property owner. All parties are entitled to impartial decision-makers, not someone who self-identifies on City's web site as a 'contrarian' and who has a history of bias against those who opposed to LIDs. "The Oregon Supreme Court has held bias exists when a decisionmaker is predisposed to interpret the law in a particular fashion" 1000 Friends Of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, LUBA No. 81-132, 1986. 7. Council is biased because it is ruling on its own LID property. The parties are entitled to an impartial decision maker, yet in this LID, City is judging itself, which isn't allowed under Oregon law. The small Scofield LID includes a cemetery that City decided gets 4 LID votes and assessments because the graves could be dug up and the cemetery subdivided into a 4-lot housing project. This was a significant change from the 1-lot claim 2 years ago. This situation has had a chilling effect on the LID it makes it difficult to impossible for the neighborhood to achieve the 213 remonstrate threshold with City voting for itself, creating a hopeless situation for those opposed. Because of the impact of City's poSition on this, it's not accurate to calculate the percentages with and without, because City's poSition that the cemetery has 4 votes has affected the LID process and people's reactions to it. Remedy is thus NOT to calculate the percentages as if City had said otherwise, because that would be speculative. Rather, one remedy is to require City to declare the cemetery will pay 4 assessments in the LID and have NO votes in the LID, then allow the neighborhood to digest this new situation, and determine if their position has changed as a result of at last partial removal of quasi-judicial bias of City adjudicating itself. 8. Mayor, without council approval, just set, via a new speaker request form, an allegedly illegal process for showing bias. Oregon's required procedure for bias has been established by case law, including and not limited to a series of cases involving 1000 Friends Of Oregon v. Wasco County Court (62 Or.App. 663, 662 P.2d 813, 1983; 620r.App. 180,659 P.2d 1006,1983; 295 Or. 259, 668 P.2d 381,1983; 298 Or. 68, 688 P.2d 845,1984; 14 Or LUBA 544, 1986; 14 Or LUBA 315, 1986; 80 Or.App. 525, 723 P.2d 1039, 1986; 80 Or.App. 532, 723 P.2d 1034, 1986; 302 Or. 299, 728 P.2d 531,1986; 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39,1987). Oregon Supreme Court requires quasi-judicial proceedings to be procedurally fair and substantively correct in their decisions. This series of cases showed that prejudgment bias is grounds for recusal and must be considered by the quasi-judicial body in making the recusal decision. "The public interest in appearance of propriety over public interest in efficiency is so great in judicial proceedings that readjudication is required regatdJess of whether decisions were fair when appearance of impropriety is present." 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 304 Or. 76, 742 P.2d 39, 1987. 9. City is not properly charging the cemetery costs. As with other property owners, the cemetery fund can't afford to pay the LID assessments. Council is improperly shifting the burden to pay for this assessment to other budget areas, when the correct and fair procedure would be for the person/group responsible for the cemetery fund to oppose the LID as un affordable, not benefiting the property owner, and an improper use of City funds, which place an unreasonable cost burden on a few property owners to pay $380,000+ for street paving, when less expensive alternatives exist. Council is improperly using its discretion to simultaneously act as property owner and adjudicator by shifting funds from a property owner that can't afford this LID. AMBUJA ROSEN'S SPEECH IN PUBLIC FORUM For fifteen months I've been hearing that you have more pressing priorities and you can't take time for the tethering ordinance. I've heard, for example, that the library issue is more pressing. I probably use the live at libraries. web there. I take nt';!l,\lspaper there. library more than almost anyone. I practically I'm not on line, so I check e-mail and surf the out books, CDs, movies and periodicals. I read the Years ago, when the library needed letters of support, one librarian asked me to write the Tidings. She said she picked me because I use the library so much. I'll miss our library more than most people will. But I still think it's more important for dogs, cats, horses, and other domesticated mammals to be able to walk than for me to be able to read library books. Reading is very important, and it enhances our lives greatly. But many people in the world can't read and they still live fruitful lives. And for thousands of years, no one could read and yet people probably still enjoyed their lives. If you had a choice betl,\/een living on a chain and being able to read all the library books you wanted, or being free to walk but not have a library, I can't imagine you'd choose the chain. The animals' needs to be free of their chains is much more pressing, in mv opinion, than our need to have a library. You may be thinking, "But I,\/e're more important than animals. It's more important that our needs be met than that their needs be met." Many people believe that we humans are the center of the universe, and all the other species revolve around us, much like planets revolve around the sun. That animals are just here for our use and benefit. But I see it differently. I believe we're not the center of the universe. I believe Mother Nature is (or you could call it God if you like. I believe we're Just one species revolving around Mother Nature, the same as other species do. We're all children of Nature, or God, if you want to think of it that way. I think our society is gradually shifting to this point of view. That might be why so many Ashland environmental leaders signed the tethering petition. Many environmentalists share this view--that humans should not dominate the planet but be part of the community of species. That humans should humbly take their place, not as rulers of the l,>,or'ld, but as fello~l/ beings tel all '.:>1 Nature. "Live and let live." When the other animals on the planet start mattering more, I think one's priorities start to change. I don't see how I could value my ability to read library books, for example, more than a dog's or horse's ability to walk. The ability to walk is far more basic and necessary than the ability to use a library, or even read. So we can always say our needs are more important than the needs of animal family members in our community. And I think there will alw~ys be something like the library or affordable housing that will feel more pressing to us than whether a dog or cat can walk. But I suggest we start thinking more from this perspective [point to second chart], if we aren't already. That an animal family member's need to move freely is more basic than many of our needs that we've considered to be of higher priority. Thank you..