HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-0603 Council Meeting MIN
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page I of II
MINUTUES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 3, 2008
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor announced vacancies and noted that if anyone was interested in volunteering for any Commissions they
should contact the City Recorder's Office.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of May 19, 2008, Executive Session of May 19, 2008 and the Regular
Council of May 20, 2008 was approved as amended. The regular meeting minutes of May 20, 2008 were
corrected on page 5 to reflect correct discussion by Councilor Navickas under discussion on continued original
motion. Sentence should state the following "prioritizing public good over private interests."
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor's Proclamation of June 14,2008 as Flag Day in the City of Ashland was read aloud.
Mayor introduced those students that would be representing our City as ambassadors for our Sister City of
Guanajuato.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
04/09 and 04/10/08 Citizens' Budget Committee
04/17/08 Citizens' Budget Committee
04/21/08 Citizens' Budget Committee
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Peter Alzado dba Oregon
Stage Works at 191 A Street?
3. Will the Council approve the Agreement for Services between the City of Ashland and the Rogue
Valley Transportation District?
Councilor Hartzell requested that Consent item #3 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor Chapman/Hartzell mls to approve Consent Agenda items #1 and #2. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Councilor Hartzell noted that next Monday night there would be a transit report by consultant HDR and
wanted to know if there was anything in the report that would have an affect in the coming years or
implications on what the agreement the council was being asked to approve.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer clarified that the options that the consultants are developing for Monday are
long-term transit options and it is unlikely any could be implemented within this next year. The agreement the
council is being asked to approve is just for this upcoming year.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 2 of II
Councilor Hartzell/Silbiger mls to approve Consent Agenda item #3. DISCUSSION: Staff clarified that
the consultants are still working on the options and that if they are ready prior to the Monday meeting they will
be posted on the city web site sooner. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Adoption of FY2009 Budget and conduct First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Levying taxes for the period of July 1,2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the sum of
$8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the
corporate limits ofthe City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move to Second Reading on
June 17, 2008?
Public Hearing open: 7:15 p.m.
No speakers came forward.
Public Hearing closed: 7:16 p.m.
2. Does Council wish to increase the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from 7% to 9%? Does the
Council wish to pass first reading of the attached ordinance?
Public Hearing open: 7:17 p.m.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report and explained that this follows the
direction from council at their April 15, 2008 meeting. Using this information staff is recommending that the
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) be raised to 9%. Staff provided a table with information that came out of the
April 15 meeting which indicated different types of allocation based on existing 7%, staff proposal of9% and
council direction of9%. This table broke down information between non-tourism and tourism. He noted that
during the Economic and Cultural grant development process, applicants showed a little over $40,000 as
tourism related expenses and the total request for Economic and Cultural grants was $320,000 of which
$40,000 was a portion of this. Approximately $125,410 was awarded which reduced the amount going to
tourism, which was $8,719.
Staff included a draft Resolution which would make this increase effective October 1, 2008 and give the
lodging industry time to adjust to the proposed increase. Tax revenues would begin to be received for those
that report on a monthly basis in Novbember 2008 and those that report on a quarterly basis in January 2009.
Katy Bazylewilz/344 IdaholBoard President for Ashland Chamber of Commerce shared their appreciation of
the City's support and appreciation on the increase, if the TOT increase is approved. She noted the good job of
collaboration that has happened between all the entities involved and the opportunity to promote our
community.
Sandra Slattery/110 E Main Street/Exectutive Director of Ashland Chamber of Commerce noted how
important it is for the City to reinvest in the promotion of tourism and economic development through the
Chamber. She noted how the Chamber offers all the tools needed to make the community successful and the
importance of collaboration amongst all the entities in order to deal with the all the unforseen changes in the
future. She noted how the competition for tourism is fierce and that it is important during these economic
challenging times for the Vistor and Convention Bureau (VCB) to receive additional dollars to gamer more
exposure, build more events and remain competitve in the market place. She also noted the importance of
building more events in the off season and create more reasons for people to visit our community. The support
by the City through tourism dollars helps to support independent businesses and the Chamber supports the
City's proposal to grant monies to the VCB.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 3 of 11
Graham Lewis/152 N Pioneer/Encouraged the council to allocate the majority of the 7% required for tourism
to the VCB. He stated that this is the body of the Chamber that provides tourism in our community and it not
only pays for advertising but offers the opportunity for articles in travel magazines, newspapers and other
publications.
Dale Verger/36 S 2nd Street/Owners of Monet restaurant who noted their recognition on the potential that
Ashland has to offer. She noted her membership with the VCB and that she is currently the Board President of
this organization. She stated that as a buisiness owner they rely on the VCB to bring tourism to our community
through their advertising. Urged the council to approve the TOT increase and to dedicate a good portion of
this to the VCB.
Mallory Pierce/885 Tyler Crrek RdlDirectorofMarketing and Communication for the Oregon Shakespeare
Festival (OSF). Stated their support to increase 2% which would keep the City on par with Medford and
Jacksonville and would generate important revenue for promoting Ashland tourism throughout the entire year.
OSF supports the original staff recommendation at the April 15, 2008 meeting. In keeping with the spirit of
the state statute requiring 70% of any increase in the TOT to be spent on tourism the original staff
recommendation allowing $300,000 ofthe estimated available funds to the Ashland VCB and the remaining
balance to a combination of economic development, real property and improvements and Ashland Chamber of
Commerce seems to be the wisest promotion of these monies. She stated that the goal of the VCB is to
promote all of Ashland and should be recognized as a leader statewide in tourism promotion.
Denise Daehler/96 N Main Street #201/Noted that she has been a business owner in Ashland for about two
years. Noted their appreciation of the community and hopes to continue to prosper in this community. Stated
their support for the proposed increase in the TOT and that it be directed toward the VCB in order to continue
the collaborative effort for increase in tourism.
Deanne Anderson/618 Fair Oaks Court/Noted that she is a business owner and voiced her support of the
increase in TOT and that it go towards VCB and Ashland Chamber of Commerce. She noted the difficulty for
businesses due to seasonal tourism and that it is important to try and bring in tourism during winter months.
She stated that these monies will help to promote adjuncts to OSF and noted that they have 20 people who
work for them and that this will help to continue with employment for these individuals. She shared
information about a new Ashland Wellness Tour.
Ginny Aver/1500 E Main Street/lnterim Executive Director of Science Works. She noted her involvment
with VCB and her support that as much monies be directed to the VCB as possible. She voiced her
appreciation of the grant monies that have been awarded to Science Works and shared how these monies had
been used.
Garrett Furnichi/l72 4th Street/V oiced his support for the advertising dollars because he felt it would come
directly back to their business. Commented on the economic crisis at this point and feels that this increase will
help.
Michelle Glass/212 E Main StreetlFood & Beverage Director for the Ashland Springs Hotel. She shared
experience in the food and beverage industry and understands the difficulty with running a successful and
profitable food and beverage business in Ashland. She stated that the hole! has 50 employees and noted the
difficulty when these individuals have to be laid off during the off season. She believes that revenue
opportunities are available in the winter seasons and that increased advertising during this time would affect
the liviability of Ashland for its workers and the revenues that the businesses and the City enjoys.
Jac Nickels/821 Beach StreetINoted that he has lived in Ashland since 1973 and voiced appreciation for the
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3,2008
Page 4 of 11
increase in budget for tourism and the work by the Ashland Chamber of Commerce on increasing tourism in
the community. He also noted that he is the chairman for Economic Stability for the Ashalnd Chamber of
Commerce. He stated that due to the economic times that it is important to bring new businesses into town.
He believes that there will be a decline in tourism and urged the council to increase the budget for the Chamber
to continue its efforts for economic development.
Tom Olbrich/356 AIta StreetINoted that he has been a resident in this community for 28 years and is the
Executive Director of the Ashland Film Festival and has served as a volunteer VCB. He spoke in favor of
increasing the TOT to 9% and felt that this increase would be good for the community. If the proposed
increase is approved, the Economic & Cultural Development subcommittee would see a substantial increase in
funding and the Film Festival is greatful for the grants that have been awarded to them. He voiced his
understanding on the difficulty that this committee struggles with every year when awarding these grants. He
noted the lack of funding for the VCB is dramatic and the proposed increase is based on what other
communities have done. He stated that the annual Film Festival would notexistwithoutthe grant monies from
the City and is aware of how a strong, vibrant, VCB would be an asset to the Ashland Film Festival and other
non profit organizations. He voiced his support on the increase ofthe TOT to the VCB and for the Economic
& Cultural subcommittee grantees.
Pam Hammond/632 WalnutINoted that she is the Vice President of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and
co-owner ofPaddington Station. If council approves the TOT they should consider the VCB and noted the
challenges during the current economic times in regards to costs. She noted their support ofVCB who has the
ability to promote and deve!op events outside our region with proper funding.
Josh Hammock/1239 Old Willow Lane/Noted that he runs the Stratford Inn and voiced his concern with the
timing of the proposed increase of TOT. Commented on how the increase of 2% to the TOT would affect
those customers that have already made reservations to come to their business. He explained how budgets are
shrinking and he is uneasy with the July 1,2008 date and would prefer the October 1,2008 start date in order
to prepare. He voiced his support of increasing the amount given to the VCB who he believes knows better on
how to manage the money.
Chuck Y oung/1313 Clay StreetINoted that he is co-owner of a Bed & Breakfast (B&B) and is the designated
spokeman for B&B organization. He voiced his caution about the current economy and how money is going to
be spent based on past history. He stated that there is a general comfort level with the proposed increase and
their confidence level with the VCB as they are in the best position to spend this money wisely. He challenges
that the state mandates 70% go to tourism and that 30% can be spent at will. He would like that over time to
get more of the 70% of the proposed 2% increase geared toward tourism in order to be more competitve with
other cities in the state.
Don Anway/212 E Main Street/General Manager of Ashland Springs Hotel. He understands how the VCB
should run and asked that the council look at the percentages that the staff has presented. He noted his concern
that Medford has over $400,000 for a promotion budget as compared to Ashland which has only $208,000. He
stated that the proposed 3.9% increase for the VCB is not that much money and is concerned with where the
allocations are. He felt that the council should think about the small tourism grants and that the VCB can work
with small grantees and draw people to come and visit Ashland and promote their events. He felt that it was
more important that the VCB receive more of an increase and explained how the market in the valley is
changing by large corporations coming into Medford and the size of their budgets as compared to Ashland's.
He noted the importance of getting involved in the Portland market and that $225,000 is not adequate for the
VCB to promote and compete.
Katherine Flanagan/110 E Main StreetlPresident of the Visitor Convention Bureau and Marketing Director
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 5 of 11
for the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. She explained how the VCB is well positioned to the lead the way for
tourism promotion in Ashland. She noted the various representatives and members of the VCB and how they
depend on the VCB for promotion efforts. She also noted the existing successful events and those in the
future. She read quotes from a letter of support from Carolyn Hill who is the CEO of Southern Oregon
Visitors Association (SOV A). The quotes shared how a healthy Visitor and Convention Bureau can give
Ashland a competitive advantage and position as an important tourist destination. Increased funding in the
VCB will allow them to participate in meaningful and regional marketing programs and allow them to playa
role in Travel Oregon and other programs. She noted the partnership between VCB and SOV A.
Public Hearing closed: 8:15 p.m.
Mayor Morrison asked for the council to share their positions on the proposed increase. Councilor Hardesty
supported the 2% increase and understands the value of giving VCB more money. She felt that the $225,000
is appropriate and that consideration on giving more next year could happen. She also noted how small grants
have been helpful and are important in the Economic & Cultural area and in tourism area.
Councilor Navickas voiced his support of the 2% increase and is an opportunity to invest in Economic &
Cultural development. He supports the council's direction in distribution and noted how small grantees have
developed over the years. He felt that small grass root efforts are important and how other organizations have
helped stimulate our economy.
Councilor Chapman voiced his support of the increase only if it could be more specific on how the money is
spent. He voiced his concern with the distribution. He noted the budget of$400,000 on Visioning and wouldl
not support the increase until the distribution is better worked out.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support of the 2% increase and is happy to start with councils adopted
distribution. She suggested that the Chamber continue to reach out to small grantees for a partnership with
tourism dollars. She felt that the definition of what is a small grant should be worked out.
Councilor Silbiger voiced his hestitancy about raising the TOT but noted the support from businesses and a
lack of oppositon. He agreed that the allocation is not specific enough and is not comfortable with proposals in
terms of being specific. He does believe that the VCB does a good job and has witnessed how the small
grantees have benefited and grown. If the council would go in this current direction he would suggest allowing
the Chamber of Commerce to particpate in grant funding for specific events. He stated that there is a lot of
cross pollination between small grantees that is not just tourism or cultural, but both. He fee!s that it is the
30% driving the 70% and that it is the council's goal to increase Economic Development. He voiced his
support of focusing on specifics and the economic portion of this.
Councilor Hartzell stated her initial hesitancy on the percentage increase but became more comfortable once
she became more aware of numbers from around the area. She understands the logic in using the current
economic development engine to figure out what comes next and to add to it. She believes that this change
came about, in order for us as a community to do this, not as a City and this is the challenge. Until there is a
Economic Development planning there is an "unkown" and is important to start. She does believe that there
are specifics and that the plan is only for a couple of years and that the outcome will point to projects where
there is community agreement on. She hoped that the Housing Trust Fund would have been included due to its
tie to economic development and urged the council to include this for discussion purposes by including as
many streams as possible.
Council consensus was in supporting the 2% TOT increase and the concerns regarding specific distribution
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 6 of II
was noted.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that staff would come back to the next council meeting with a
Resolution to allocate the funds and if this includes an October 1,2008 start date another Resolution would be
done to pro-rate this amount for tile year. In addition, if the council includes "qualified city projects" then staff
will come back to council on recommendations. She voiced her continued concern with the ability to allocate
$109,000 and understands that staff will need to return to council in order to get some of their questions
answered. She stated that staff will work with the Apriil15 council motion unless directed otherwise.
Councilor Hartzell suggested creating a separate category for medium sized groups on consideration of
awarding grants in the future.
Mayor also voiced his concern with $109,000 and understands the need to meet the economic reality of current
conditions. He understands that there is support for using this money for existing efforts and the VCB due to
the competitive environment. He does believe that there n~eds to be an Economic Study where it is based on
diversification and understanding our community better.
Ms. Bennett clarified that the council needs to decide on the increase, which the proposed ordinance would do
and then staff would bring back a Resolution for discussion on distribution.
Councilor Hardesty/Hartzell mls to increase TOT by 2% increase effective October 1 2008.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas complimented the Chamber of Commerce for organizing a unified
message and challenged the council to attend the Mid Summer Nights Dream that is going to be held and noted
the need for the increase in the TOT that helps support smaller grantees. Councilor Jackson voiced her support
of the current distribution because there has always been more requests for the Economic Grants than can be
funded. She also agrees that being more specific on the amounts between tourism and the Economic grants.
Councilor Silbiger voiced his hesitancy to vote in favor before having the opportunity to discuss qualified city
projects and how to handle small tourism grants. He would prefer to wait for the Resolution and does believe
in the need to visit with the Chamber, middle sized groups and work out qualified city projects with a long-
term plan. He stated he would join the council in supporting the proposed increase as long as there is more
discussion in the future on the flexibility where tourism dollars are used. Councilor Hartzell requested that
when staff brings back a list of qualified city projects, she would like for staff to talk to Planning Commissioin
about the last time the Downtown Plan was discussed and parking signage.
Roll Call Vote: Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Chapman, NO. Motion passed
5-1.
Councilor Jackson/Hartzezll mls to approve first reading of ordinance and move to second reading. Roll
Call Vote: Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-09 Annual Budget and make appropriations as
presented?
Lee Tuneberg Administrative Services Director noted the revisions as recommended to council by staff. He
pointed out an increase in the Airport fund of$38,3000; an increase of$36,500 in the Capital Improvement
Plan; an increase of $4,400 in the Electric Fund Debt Service for the clean renewable energy bonds (CREB);
and an increase of $33,200 in the Central Service Fund to correct for a reduction in stafftaken twice in the
prior revisions. With the results of these changes the total budget amount is $95,206,615 and a proposed
property tax rate of $4.0797. This covers the General Fund and Parks Fund general levy, .13 cents on the
Library levy and a certain amount that is in the budget itself on the Debt Service that was approved. This
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 7 of 11
amounts to a total $4.4179 property tax rate. He clarified that there are four actions that the council needs to
act on which are the following: approve an Ordinance to levy taxes, approve Resolution to qualify for State
Subventions, approve Resolution to receive State Revenues, and approve Resoluition adopting annual budget
and making appropriations.
He explained that due to the action taken on the TOT an adjustment to the appropriation level in the General
Fund on monies to be spent per the higher tax rate for Transient Occupancy Tax needs to be done. He stated
that there is funds included for the Visioning or Economic Deve!opment program but there has been no change
in the grant area. The worksheets provided for the TOT showed $436,000 more in revenue if the tax is done
July 1,2008 but with the delay start date on the TOT tax to October 1,2008 there may be an estimate of
$250,000 more in tax revenue for the next year. Because there is $200,000 in the Administration budget for
projects he would recommend increasing appropriations in the General Fund by the difference. Staff clarified
that this would be done by Resolution for council approval.
Councilor Hartzell voiced her concern with the cuts in the Fire Department budget and fire inspections that are
not going to be done. Ms. Bennett explained that the Fire Department is spending 98-99% oftheir budget
level and to sustain a $107,000 budget cut they would have to cut the position they spoke of at the Budget
meeting, which was the Fire Inspector position. She explained that staff is looking at the revenue side to see if
there could be an increase of fees and charges but the problem is charging for something that may not happen.
Ms. Bennett explained that two of the city's unions had agreed to transition from current health care plan to the
preferred provider plan which will save the city a significant amount and would accrue to the departments.
Council continued to discuss with staff the cuts associated with different departments and how city services are
affected. Mr. Tuneberg explained that the council has the authority through Oregon Budget Law to either
increase any fund by $5,000 or 10%, whichever is the greater. This would mean increasing appropriation
which would then affect the ending fund balance. Ms. Bennett continued to explain what happens when staff
positions become vacant and how departments are hesitant to fill positions that may be cut in the future. Staff
explained to council how funding could be done through a supplemental budget and their desire to find new
revenue streams that have not currently been identified.
Council discussed at length the budget process and how the Budget Committee had full discussion on their
recommendation. There was concern raised with making changes to ending fund balances and doing
something different than what was approved by the Budget Committee even if some councilors did not agree
with this decision. It was pointed out that Oregon Budget Law does allow the council to make changes and
that it is not unusual for this to happen. Continued concern was voiced that buildings were not being inspected
and it was not responsible for the city to allow this to happen.
Mr. Tuneberg clarified that the city may receive monies from Bonneville Power Administration (BP A) but the
amount is uncertain. Ms. Bennett stated that because positions have not been filled does not mean that service
levels are not being met. Staff agreed to keep the council updated on the current transitions and will bring back
alternatives when identified.
Council members voiced concern on taking money out of the ending fund balance but also acknowledged the
importance of inspecting buildings and the safety issues associated. It was agreed that looking for other
revenue streams is a good idea and that departments should be allowed to manage their budgets when faced
with cuts.
Councilor JacksonlSilbiger mls to approve Resolution #2008-15. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hardesty,
Chapman and Jackson, YES; Hartzell and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 8 of 11
2. Should Council certify that the City qualifies for State Subventions?
Councilor Jackson/Hardesty mls to approve Resolution #2008-15. Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Chapman,
Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.
3. Should Council declare that the City receive State revenues?
Councilor Silbiger/Hardesty mls to approve Resolution #2008-14. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Jackson,
Chapman, Hardesty, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.
Continuation on adoption ofFY2009 Budget discussion and First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Levying taxes for the period of July 1,2008 to and including June 30, 2009, such taxes in the
sum of $8,616,000 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the
corporate limits ofthe City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move to Second Reading on June
17,2008?
Councilor JacksonlSilbiger mls to approve first reading of ordinance and move to second reading.
DISCUSSION: Jackson commented that she would not vote against the budget but feels that the approach to
providing quality service to the community should be on how to retain these positions not how to avoid using
property tax authority and is very disappointed in the Budget Committee this year and hopes to have further
community discussion. Councilor Hardesty felt that the Budget Committee did a good job and that it is
difficult to weigh the pros and cons and that keeping taxes modest is a good way to run our city and that there
are ways to economize. Councilor Navickas commented in his disappointment on the decisions made by the
Budget Committee, one of which he felt was a policy decision to maintain fund balances. He voiced his
concern with continued cuts to ending fund balances, which has the potential to effect emergency situations.
He does not feel this is a fiscal conservative policy but a fiscal irresponsible policy.
Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman, Hardesty and Jackson, YES; Navickas, NO. Motion
passed 5-1.
PUBLIC FORUM
Art Bullock/Announced that a Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) case, regarding development on Glenn
Street that had been filed by himself, Philip Lang and Colin Swales had been won against the City of Ashland.
He stated that this was a difficult development and had required five months of council review time. He stated
that LUBA had found that the City had violated its own law and remanded it back to the council. He voiced
his appreciation to those councilors who had voted against this project. He stated his belief that the council is
under heavy pressure from developers and consultants to bend the law in favor of developers and their
interests. He also noted his appreciation to those members on the Planning Commission who voted to support
the law in the public's interest and looks forward to the day when the majority votes in this direction. He
stated that those that had appealed had asked that this be dealt with through alternative dispute resolution
which was denied and which then resulted in unnecessary expense to the taxpayers.
City Attorney Richard Appicello responded to Mr. Bullock's explanation of the LUBA decision. He explained
that the reason why this was remanded back to the City was that there was a request for an exception on Street
Standards. The exception to Street Standards was to have a curbside sidewalk in lieu of a parkrow. LUBA
found that the Findings and Conclusions did not find demonstrable difficulty in meeting the requirement to
build a parkrow to justify an exception to Street Standards to build a sidewalk. This is the only issue LUBA
found with the appeal and is why it was sent back to the City. The council will be asked to look at the question
of whether the applicant wants to proceed with a curbside sidewalk or a parkrow. It could be that the city
should not have granted the exception to the parkrow and this is the only issue and does not include the set
back or design standards.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 9 of 11
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Council approve the public safety dispatch contract with the City of Medford as
proposed?
Police Chief Terry Holderness presented the staff report where he explained that the City had entered into an
agreement with the City of Medford in 2003 to supply dispatch services to the police and fire department. This
contact has expired and the City of Medford has offered a five-year extension ofthe contract. The contract
does include an approximate 18% increase, which provides for the City of Ashland to be responsible for
paying 25% of the total costs for dispatch services. The City of Medford has never charged the City of
Ashland full price and that this is the first full year that Ashland will experience full charges.
Chief Holderness assured the council that the service level being provided, which is 24/7 with one dispatcher
dedicated to the City of Ashland, is sufficient and meets the needs of the City.
He explained that Jackson County is now using grant funding to conduct a study on the feasibility of
consolidating all public safety dispatch services in the county, which is the long-term goal. He felt the five-
year contract protects the city and moves in the direction of consolidation.
Councilor ChapmanlJackson mls to approve public safety dispatch contract. Roll Call Vote: Chapman,
Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
2. Will Council revise City policies and practices to form a Transportation Commission and disband
the Traffic Safety Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission?
Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report and stated that the combination ofthese
two Commissions has been a goal for quite a few years. He explained that both Commissions are different by
having different duties and responsibilities, but do overlap in several areas. He noted that in the past, there had
been broad objections to the combining of these two Commissions but more recently it has changed to more
broad support. He commented that most of the support comes from recognized transportation issues that are not
being addressed in any other Commission or Committee. Mr. Olson stated that staff has met several times with
Commission members to discuss ideas and identify key goals that should be included in the Transportation
Commission. He stated that safety is the number one aspect and is the primary element.
Staff is recommending that part of the duties and responsibilities associated with safety be delegated to a sub-
committee of the Transportation Commission in order to have a better flow and delegation on issues that have a
higher safety interest to the full Commission. He explained that Planning is another element that this
Commission would need to look at and proposed that general recommendations would be made to the City on
long-term transportation plans. He stated that funding would be the ability to prioritize and provide long-term
development plan for transportation and transit projects. Mr. Olson stated that advocacy would be an
important role that this Commission would need to assume and noted that parking is another key element that
would need to be addressed. Staff looked at different configurations on the matter of how many voting
members should be on this Commission and recommended nine voting members. It is understood that this is a
draft ordinance that is being presented and that this is only a starting point in order to begin discussion.
Matt Warshawsky/821 IndianaN oiced his support for the Commission but also voiced his concern that this
Commission not be used as a method for individuals to impede or affect regular planning issues. He stated that
advocacy is an issue of why this has failed previously. He pointed out that the two big events that are
associated with the Bike & Pedestrian Commission, the Bike Swap and Car Free Day are actually run by two
volunteers along with the Parks & Recreation Department. He believes that the Bike & Pedestrian
Commission may not have as much advocacy as believed, and that the Transportation Commission should
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 10 of 11
support advocacy but not necessarily be the advocates.
Colin Swales/461 Allison/Noted that he is the current chair of Traffic Safety Commission and liaisons with the
Bike & Pedestrian Commission. Mr. Swales stated that his comments are personal and does believe that there
is some synergy between the two Commissions. He believes that since the Planning Commission has decided
to take out of their role, the transportation issue, there is a big hole in overall planning. He voiced his support
for the joint Commission and that it is broad enough to attract interest from the members of the community
along with the advantage of cost savings associated with city staff time. He suggested that all the Commissions
should have the same term limits in order for equality between Commissions.
Art BullocklHe stated that the Transportation Commission could be successful if the following three issues are
resolved: 1) Completion of Transportation Plan, 2) Danger of "Car Focus" which has been the focus by the
Traffic Safety Commission and Bike & Pedestrian is more "multi modal" focused which may be an issue if
these two Commissions are combined; and 3) Advocacy. He felt that the Traffic Safety Commission is a
reactive Commission as compared to proactive, planning or advocacy areas. Mr. Bullock stated there needs to
be leadership in establishing bus service, bike lanes and making Ashland more walk able.
City Attorney explained that the version in the packet provided to the council did not include language
associated with term limits as noted by Mr. Swales and that under the Powers and Duties of the sub-committee,
staff had taken out the reference to pre-application conferences on planning actions. Staff changed language to
include more long-range planning which would allow comments, suggestions and concerns to the Planning
Commission on City of Ashland Transportation Plans and Programs with emphasis on long-range and regional
plans. He also explained that in terms of membership, there are 13 ex officio members and that staff had
removed the City Attorney and the Municipal Judge. The reason for removal of the Judge as a member was
that it would place the Judge in a position of recommending legislature where the judge would have to then
enforce and would create a conflict.
Mr. Appicello explained that he had sent these changes out to the council by email earlier that day. He
clarified that there was no reference to long-term planning in the proposed ordinance language and charged the
Traffic Hearing sub-committee to make recommendations to the full Transportation Commission on long-range
transportation plans.
It was questioned why the sub-committee would be called the Traffic Hearing sub-committee rather than
Transportation Planning sub-committee and concern was raised about the Planning aspect. Mr. Appicello
explained that one of the charges of the sub-committee would be to consider recommendations on safety issues.
Mr. Olson explained that the goal was to eliminate some of the extra excess hours of time that the Commission
spends on minor issues. Mr. Appicello explained that the full Commission would still have planning duty and
responsibility but what was removed was the pre-application process.
Council agreed that there was a need for further discussion and staff was directed to schedule a Study Session.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (continued)
5. Should the City Council conduct and approve First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
relating to delegation of duties to the City Administrator for acceptance of interest in real property
and the renewal of intergovernmental agreements and amending AMC Chapter 2.28" and move to
Second Reading on June 17, 2008?
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full. Interest was noted on having periodic lists provided to
the council on what has been approved. Staff suggested that language be added to include a review every two
years.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 3, 2008
Page 11 of 11
Councilor Jackson/Hartzell mls to approve first reading of ordinance with amendent to include review
every two years and move to second reading of ordinance. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his
relunctance to approve and that it was important that the council retain this type of authority of review.
Roll Call Vote: Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, Chapman and Jackson, YES; Navickas, NO. Motion passed
5-1.
4. Should the City Council conduct and approve Second Reading of an Ordinance and approve
adoption ofthe Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code, Land Use
Ordinance concerning special [arterial] setbacks and associated street standards adopted in
Ordinance 2836"?
Councilor Hardesty noted the handout she had provided to council and staff and asked that these issues be
addressed prior to any further discussion.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Councilor Jackson stated that she would like work to begin on the Transportation Commission. City
Administrator Martha Bennett suggested inviting the Bike & Pedestrian, Traffic Safety and Planning
Commission members to the Council Study Session for their input. Ms. Bennett stated that any input that can
be provided to the staff prior to this meeting would be helpful. Councilor Navickas commented that he was not
sure on his support of combining these two Commissions and likes the idea of a Bike & Pedestrian
Commission that works specifically on bike and pedestrian issues.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting w adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
,
~
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder