Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-1019 REG MINblINUTES OF THE RfiGULAR NEETING ASIILAND CITY COUNCIL OCTOBiiR 19, 1971 I. P, OLL CALL: The regular meeting eL-' the City Council was held in the Council Chambers, City Ilall, on the above date at 7:30 p.m. The meeting was called to order by ,Hayor PdcKeen; on roll call, Councilman Roble was absent due to his recent hospitalization for back surgery Council~'oman Sealerborg v,-as late in arriving. II. APPROVAL OF ~XlINUTES: ]'here being no corrections or additions to the minutes of the minutes of the regu]ar meeting of October S, 1971, the Hayor approvcd them as read. III. SPECIAL REQUEST by Council~;~oman Soderberg to make a staten~ent. As Nrs. Soderberg had not yet arrived, no action was taken. IV. DEPARTiqENTAL REFOI{TS: McCannon moved to accept the departmental reports for the month of September, 1971 and place them on file. Conk]in seconded, On voice vote, passed unanintously. At this point, the blayor departed front the agenda to hear a request by the Civil Air Patrol to relocate at Ashland Airport. City Administrator Almquist cited several conditions to be met for this re]ocation, ~ncluding: approval of hangar location by the F.A.A.; certification of the hangar by an Oregon registered engineer that the structure meets the Ashland Building Code; site preparation, including excavation of the area, grading and graniting of the taxiway', arr~lnge- ments for separate metering of utilities (water and electric); and construction and maintenance of a road to the hangar and provision [or automobil e parkin~. Iic then reviewed a master plan of the airport with the Counci], ~oting the proposed location. A letter front the fixed base operator (Southern Oregon Sk)-v:ays, Illmerit George) was read accepting the offer to locale the Civil Air Patrol ba~t~ar there. -1- Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 Charles Lockridge of the Civil Air Patrol said they had been given a short notice from Siskiyou County Airport to relocate by January, 1972 (duo to a change of owners). He 'said a statement from the City for a lease would be required. Willstatter asked if the matter had been checked with the F.A.A., to which Lockridge replied that the C.A.P. would comply with all such regulations, in addition to moeting with F.A.A. representatives in the area. Willstatter had no objections in principle; and moved that the City Attorney be directed to work ont an agreement; McCannon seconded. City Administrator Almquist noted that a letter of intent might also be in order, and Soderberg suggested an amendment to include this. Willstatter moved and amended; McCannon seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Lockridge gave his thanks to the Council for acting promptly in the matter. At this point, the regular agenda was resumed. V. S]'ANt)ING CO,~L\IITTEE REPORTS: A. Finance & Prop_qrtT_ Committee: Roberts deferred to McCannon to give the reports, as he had been unable to personally attend the Committee meeting. McCannon recommended that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an Ordinance providing for deferral of street improvement assessments for low--jncolae senior citizens. He so moved; Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimous ly. McCannon recommended that a Resolution be prepared authoriz- ing the purchase of the Homes Avenue property for park purposes front the Cemetery Trust Fund for $1.1,778, with annual payments of not less than $2,000 plus 6% interest on the unpaid balance, beginning in Fiscal Year 1972-73. McCannon noted this property was adjacent to the Walker Elementary School. tie moved that this Resolution be prepared. Soderberg seconded. Willstatter noted the property was presently being utilized by the Little i.eague, and had been fixed up by thcnt t'ith the help of the National Guard. lie didn't feel the Cjty should pick fit up at their expense since someone v~,as already taking care of it. Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 V. A. 2. (continued) Soderberg pointed out the property was not suitable for cemetery use and that the agreement with the Little League would not be upset. She noted the property had beeu adopted for park purposes jn the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. Soderberg also stated it would be putting money back into the Cemetery Trust Fund that paid for the land to begin with and free it for other Cemetery purposes. Willstatter stated that maintainance should come out of the Parks Fund, and felt the Council should look into the parks budget. FIe felt their income was great enough to make provision for this. George Jones of 1336 ~ladrone said he had information on this property, and proceeded to quote dollar figures and background to the Council. He did not feel the $11,778 price to be paid was f~ir market value snd that the people of the City of AslHand were losing on the transaction. Conklin pointed ou~ that $20,000 was paid for the property. One half of the land was sold to the schools for $13,000 and the $5,000 return received ~as "not too bad a return for the money". On roll call, Conk]in, ~IcCannon, Roberts and Soderbcrg voted to prepare the resolution. Willstatter opposed. McCannon recommended that the City Administrator be authorized to approve Dance license applications and waive the required bond and license fee for religious, charitable and non-profit organizations, subject to appeal to the City Council. City Administrator Almquist noted that there was a require- ment for at least ten days advance in making the application to allow time for the Police Department to check it out. At the present time, some applications were being received only two to three days in advance of the requested date, thereby not allm~'ing time to present it to the Counci] for approval. McCannon moved for passage of the resolution; Conklin seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. ~IcCannon recomn~cnded that the City accept deeds from tx,.ro Oak Street property owners for the proposed Parkway Road in lieu of Street Improvement assessments, and that Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 V. A. 4. (continued) $750.50 be transferred from the General Fund Operating Contingency to the Assessment Improvement Fund. McCannon so moved, and Soderberg seconded. Willstatter wondered what good were two isolated pieces of property. He asked "What about those across the street who might like to contribute property?" This was discrimina- tory. Soderberg noted that people buy property where they choose, and the City was not discriminating against citizens if they decide to put a roadway in a certain area. Roberts noted there were only positive responses from two property owners (and relatively small parcels of land). He felt the recommendation had merit and fits in with planning, but would like to give it more consideration. McCannon and Soderberg withdrerv and agreed to return the matter it on the next agenda. their motion and second to Committee and present B. Public Service Committee: None C. Streets & Traffic Committee: Conklin noted the following were not Committee recommendations, but minority reports since a quorum was not met for a meeting. 1. Conklin moved that an Ordinance be prepared relative to traffic and parking regulations in the Lithia Park Extension Project. They ~.~'ould include the following: One-way traffic from Winburn lVay northerly to North IMain Street; commercial or delivery trucks only; · Stop sign at North .Main St. Loading Zones signs in Plaza area to be renteyed no parking on access road 2-hour restriction on parking lot. Willstatter seconded the motion. Jim Busch of the Planning Commission questioned whet]ter there would be parking from the Parkview Apartl~tents, and Chief of Police flays noted it would be prohibited. (It was stated that other property had been pnrchased for that parking.) Ashland City Council October 19, 19Yl V. C. 1. (continued) City Attorney Salter recommended placing a time limit on deliveries also for better enforcement. Busch suggested making it one leading zone, to which Salter noted it had not been dedicated as a City Street and therefore could not be so designated. On voice vote, passed unanimously to prepare an Ordinance. Conklin recommended that "C" Street and Lithia Way from Oak Street to Third Street be designated as 2-hour parking during the summer months only, and establishing 2-hour parking on Pioneer Street from Main to Hargadine (Ord. No. 1578). He so moved, and Willstatter seconded. Conk]in stated this would help to alleviate parking at least through tile winter months. Alsing noted there were two parking spots by the Shakespeare ticket booths which should remain as "iS-Minute Parking". On voice vote, passed unanimously to prepare an Ordinance. Conklin recommended the use of "Authorized Vehicles Only" in the Plaza area be designated as "8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday". This would create additional parking on weekends and evenings. He so moved, and ~Villstatter seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Conklin recommended that the 1,oading Zone at 25 N. Main St. and the yellow curb in front of Lithia Motors used car lot be removed and replaced with three parking spaces. noted these drives were no longer in use for the faci]ities. fie so moved to prepare a Resolution; Willstatter seconded. On voice vote, passed unanimously. Conklin recommended that an amendment to the Ordinance relative to inoperable vehicles parked on streets be read and also a Resolution read establ~sh~ng a 72-hour limitation on parking any vehicle on a City street. He so moved; and Willststter seconded. City Administrator A]mquist gsve the first reading of the Ordinance and the Resolution. Conklin moved to pass both to a second reading, the Resolution by title on]y; PieCannon seconded. Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 V. C. 5. (continued) Busch of the Planning Commission questioned the definition of "operable", stating that anyone could just park their car and start the motor when an officer came around. It was explained that the resolution would take care of cars being parked for any length of time over the 72-hour limitation. Chief Hays noted that two common problems were: a person owning several vehicles and parking them all on the City streets, not allowing others to do so; or college students who parked their cars on the streets but rode bikes to school. Almquist gave the second reading of the reso].ution by title only. Soderberg questioned the impact of the Resolution if a person should go on vacation for more than three days. The City Administrator noted the intent of the new Resolution was to have something to fall back on when a person called the Police Department with a complaint. He said they weren't looking for problems. Majorie Smith, a lady in tile audience, noted it was the nature of the town which caused parking problems. There were not enough alleys or garages with old houses. Willstatter felt that off-street parkjng should be reviewed and some arrangements had to be made for parking. On roll call, Soderberg voted NO because she felt the wording should be better. Roberts also voted NO because he felt the Resolution should be given more consideration, although he agreed with the intent. Willstatter, Conklin and McCannon voted YES, passing the Resolution. Soderberg suggested it be referred to tile Streets & Traffic Committee again for further study. The Mayor did so for possible improvenlents.' VI. COMblUNICATIONS: Oral from the Audience There was no new material presented at this time. VI[ . COMHUNI CATiONS: Writ ten Soderberg moved to accept the minutes of the Planning Conm~ssion for Septcruller 13, Septen~ber 20 and September 27, ]971 and place on file; Willstatter seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VI I. COMMUNICATIONS: Written (Continued) Soderberg moved to accept the minutes of the Development Commission for September 24, 1971 and place on file; McCannon seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. A letter from the Sign Review Board was read recommending an amendment to the Sign Ordinance relative to dangerous or unauthorized signs. Conklin suggested it be referred to the Public Service Committee for study. A letter of resignation from W. E. (Bart) Bartelt was read by City Administrator Almquist. Mr. Bartelt was resigning from his elected post as City Recorder/Treasurer effective January 1972. Council members expressed their regret at the announce- ment. Conklin asked whether they had to accept the resig~a~on. Roberts thought Bart would "go on forever". Willstatter hoped he could be induced to stay until May. To all of this, the City Recorder stated his decision had been made and he hoped the Council would honor his request. McCannon moved to accept the resignation with seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. they would all miss him terribly. regret; Conklin Soderberg stated The Mayor pointed out to the Council that this position would have to be filled by non~ination and election by the Council. Mr. Bartelt did not have any recommendations for a replacement. Upon a question from the Mayor, Bart stated the position ~,-ould be filled for the duration of the unexpired term. A letter of recommendation to fill the vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission was read. Under the terms of the City charter, the vacancy had been caused by the resignation of E. E. McGrew due to his move out of Ashland. The post was to be filled by nomination and election by the Council. The Mayor opened the floor for nominations. Willstatter said the recon,nendation of the Parks Commission of Don II. Dealrick, St. be accepted. Conklin made the nomination; Willstatter seconded. Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VII · (continued) As there were no other nominations, McCannon moved to close the nominations; Soderberg seconded; on roll call, passed unanimonsly. Willstatter moved that the staff draw up a resolution thanking Mr. MeGfew for his service; SodetherS seconded; on voice vote, passed unanimously. The City Adminis- trator noted the move by Mr. McGrew also left a vacancy on the Citizens Budget Committee, which the Council should consider. Soderberg moved to confirm the appointment of Mr. Dedrick; Willstatter seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. VIII. SPECIAL, AGENDA ITEMS: A. Unfinished Bus~ness: City Administrator Almquist Howland, ttayes & Merryfield questions asked at the last Sewerage System Study. read a letter from Cornell, (CH2M) in response to some council meeting regarding the Willstatter brjefed Roberrs on his question concerning cooling water being dmnped in the City sewer system by Bag]ey Canning. He had felt commercial entities in sewage systems could bring down the sewage capacity. The report, and Roberrs, noted that this action was requested of the company by the Oregon State Department of Enviromnental Quality. Soderberg moved to accept the resolution accepting the Sexverage System Study plan and pass to a second reading by title only. McCannon seconded. On roll call, passed unanimously. Almquist gave the second reading by title only; Soderberg moved to adopt the resolution; Conklin seconded; on roll call, passed unanimously. New & Miscellaneous Business: Public [learing - 8:00 p._.m_.: Proposed annexation of property Fituated south of Ilighway 66 and west of Interstate S Freeway (Harry i',lmore, et. al., applicants). Before opening the Public flearing, the ,Mayor suggested limiting discussion to thirty minutes. ilichard Cottlc, represent:inS McGrew Brothers Saw Mill and employees, st:,tod that the matter being consi. dered before the Council w~s in a Public i!earing rather th~n art election of the people and should be gi~eu more than a hail hour. -8 Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (continued) Willstatter stated he resented substituting a Public flearing for the "voice of the people" because of its long-range ramifications. The Mayor the~ decided that some ground rules should be made: after a person has spoken, he should allow others to speak before again speaking himself. fie also suggested remarks be kept as brief as possible. He then opened the floor. City Administrator Almquist gave the general background for calling the public hearing, noting all necessary publications had been made. He read a letter front Marilyn Briggs of 590 Glenview Avenue opposing the annexation, noting the industrial potential of the land (and that neighbors should also be given relief) in addition to the fact that no public letters had been in favor of the annexation other than property owners involved, but opposed. Soderberg felt that, planning-wise, it was not good to put 200 families next to an industrial area, and that people must have some objection to living next to an industrial area and railroad tracks (if not intially, then in due time). Because of its "unl~vab~l~ty" and the need of a buffer zone, she was not in favor of annexation for this purpose. McCannon reminded the Council of the questionnaire sent to citizens of Ashland. Of the 1600 responses, 80% favored mobile home parks, providing they met high standards. He then asked the City Administrator to read the aarcement with Elmore for conditions to be met in developing the property as a mobile home park. The City Administrator stated this was only a draft and was being worked out between the attornies. Willstatter raised a point of order, in that the Council was studying an annexa- tion and not an agreement. tle was "unalterably opposed" to this annexation for (1) the urban spra~.H it created, (2) like areas in the City should first be deve]oped, and (3) the City could not afford the annexation. The Mayor allowed the r.eading of the conditions of the drafted agreement in order to understand the proposed development, and Almqulst read the items. Conklin asked whether all conditions had been agreed upon, to which Sjd Ajnsworth (attorney for ILlmore) replied that Mr. Elmore had agreed to all conditions at a Public llcaring held by the Planning Comm i s s i on. -9- Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (continued) Ainsworth told the Council that they had directed the staff to prepare an agreement regarding the proposed annexation. It was then sent to the Planning Comlnission for a Public Hearing (which was held), at which time the Planning Commission did not vote in favor of annexation of the property to the City. After going to the Council, the applicants were again referred to the Planning Commission to review conditions or instructions for a conditional use permit. This was the second Public Hearing with the Planning Commission, at which time they voted against a zone change and subsequent conditional use p e rm i t. Conklin asked whether the applicants had applied to the County for a zone change. Elmore stated there would be no reason unless the property would be taken into the City under agreement. tie stated he spent $]25 for plans and didn't get to say a word. Ainsworth pointed out the County was not equipped to give services to the area. Elmore agreed he did understand he would have to go through the County Planning Commission, but would have to have an agrecnlent with the City of Ashland be.forehand. Ainsworth noted that, through some of the hearings and discussion, the question of cost to the City was raised. He sa~d there would be none, basically, because of the property line today (bounded on three sides by City limits). He noted the 1~ per sq. ft. assessed against the property would more than pay for any fees. He noted, in answer to a question by the City Administrator as to assessed value of a mobile home, that it was assessed the same as a house. For tax purposes, they are assessed the same as any area of a subdivision. tie pointe~ out that a study showed costs for the City as far as fire, police protection, etc. was low compared to any other area. Ainsworth then presented information that the State had adopted a plan to rearraage Clover Lane for an interchange and that would allow 110 spaces in the proposed park at the maximum on the property now, and not the "200" referred to by Firs. Sodcrberg. He also pointed out that one of the reasons for entering into an agreement with the City to make improvements first was to give the advantage of an increase in the tax base for the City. Ainsworth again referred the Council to the Comprehensive Plan, which showed the area as use in h~gh- density population and as such as a mobile home park. A map showing the location of the proposed development in relation to HcGrew l~rothers Saw Hi I] was presented te the -10- Ashland City Council October 19, 197]. VIII. B. 1. (continued) Council for review. Ains~vorth pointed out the Oak Knoll develop~r~ent across the freeway from the saw mill, and noted no complaints had been received from them. FIe also said that mobile home owners leased the property and did not buy it; tenants would not be a problem to McGrew Brothers. Elnlore agreed. Willstatter stated this was "inverse condemnation". He felt that if there were no annexation, there would be no problems. He said the Oak Knoll development was out of City limits and that Ainsworth was "mfix~ng apples and oranges". Willstatter said, "The only reason you want to annex is for sewer and water services". To this, Ainsworth replied, "Exactly." McCannon asked what the annexation fee totaled, to which Elmore replied about $12,000. Conklin noted the srea was already practically snrrounded by City limits. Ainsworth then pointed these out on the map, amd noted it answered Mrs. Soderberg's question about an "island" by the adjoining property owners request for annexati on. George Jones, of ]356 Madtone, felt that due to the magnitmde of the question, it should be submitted to a vote of the people. He felt the annexation would cost the people ~n the future as far as police, f~re protection, and other services in addition to overloading the sewage plant and a lack of water to service these people. McCannon asked Alsing, Director of Public Works, what the "real story" was on the water situation. He replied that Ashland had been using Talent Irrigation District water with Ashland Creek water during dry periods as far back as 20 years, and it was a matter of loo~ing ahead. He pointed out the City was looking into another possible site for a dam in the watershed, and that water and sewer services would grow with the needs of the City. ~illstatter reminded the Council that there were 75 individuals within the City to which they had a moral obligation for serwices. He did not feel the City should take on this "instantaneous growth" to the water and sewer serv~ces. Two gentlemen from the audience sopke up: the first stated that there had been al~nexations to the City over 15 years sgo to ¥;bich utilities have not been connected; the other man fclt the City was "looking too far ahead". Ainsworth told the Conacil if water w~s a problem, just sewer services; the development could provide an e×cellent source of water from we]is in the area. to Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (continued) At this time, Richard Cottie (representing McGrew Brothers and some employees) stated they opposed this particular annexation. They felt there was a land use problem in question, and that the only point in favor of it was its contiguous area with City limits (bounded on three sides). McGrew BroiLhers were afraid of what would happen when the area would become populated with a high~ density ratio. He stated the saw mill had been in Ashland since 1964 and had a present payroll of 162 persons. He questioned the security of their future if this "mobile home park and overnight stand" were developed. This would affect working people and not retired persons. Cottle then briefed the Council on the possible economic impact: (1) McGrew Bros. employed both full-time personnel and part-time help from the college; (2) there was a $3,000,000 payroll (which was figured to turn over 16 to 17 times in the community); (3) tire company paid approxin~.ate]y $42,000 for utilities in the plant, and $56,000 in personal property taxes; (4) sales of $~.~000,000 annually--most of whicl~ was from outside the Ashland area; and (5) $530,000 worth~ of improvements had been put in since they began. Cottie stated this was better than tour]sm; this was "butter and egg" type of business from this payroll. Employees purchased autos, trucks, shoes, etc. tte then cited a case in I~hoenix in 1967, wherein the Steve Wilson Lumber Company was declared a public nuisance. The majority of complaints had come froin tenants of a trailer court and a townhouse development. What was once overlooked for a while snddenly became a "public nuisance". Cottie then went to the aerial photo map e~rlier presented to the Council, and pointed out the log deck areas ("a noisy operation") in addition to traffic area~s ("smoke, noise and dust"). The proposed area for annexation would be good for physical use, but even high standards could not counteract the noise and dust produced. McGrew Brothers was not fighting annexation in general. They did no~ want to seem to make the town stand still, but to encourage other industries to come to this area. They just opposed the annexation from a standpoint of what was good for property use. McGre~I Brothers was asking t~te Council to protect the wage- earner. Cottlo pointed out the qucstionuaire did not say the mobile borne parks favored should be located ia this psrticu]ar spot, tie felt more planni~g should be givo~q to location of sttch dev e 1 opmc~ ts. Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (continued) Rlr. Yates, an employee of FIcGrew Brothers and a member of the Ashland Police Reserves, felt that the proposed annexation would jeopardize his job and was not fair. He pointed out the noise created and the unpredictable winds in the area. Gordon Mauer, another employee, said he felt the same. His wife and children were dependent on his paycheck and the Council should give some thought to the working man. Dick Soderberg spoke up from the audience. t!e informed the Council that the Ashland Economic Development Commiss~on had made a study checking into new areas for industrial and job-making prospects in Ashland, noting railroad access, flat lands, etc. The Commission had recommended tile land in question for annexation for use as an industrial area and that plans should he changed accordingly. Another employee of McGrew Brothers felt that any business that moved into the area would possibly be plagued with complaints from the proposed trailer court, and put even more jobs in jeopardy. In answer to these statements, Ainsworth pointed out that there were three other industrial facilities in the vicinity which expressed no concern over the matter. He also stated he was the owner for many years of the property in question raising catt]e, and was not bothered by the "pollution". He also ~rought up the fact that the Steve Wilson Lumber Company referred to (not burned down) was not in an industrial zone to begin with. As far as good industrial property, the proposed aunexation was substantially above the railroad tracks and could not get a spur in there; therefore that argument was not feasible. And the cost for locating in Ashland was prohibitive to any company when compare~] to the benefits offered, say in White City, with roads, railroads and financing available, Willstatter felt, that while the property owner should not be asked to hold his property for some future use, the City had no moral obligation to annex the property. Another employee of blcGrew's suggested the Council consider the type of mobile home park planned (i.e., children, dogs, etc.) and should impose limitations. Ainsworth stated the plaus were for a "first quality" park, and that it would include a swimn!ing pool and a recreation center. Ashland City Council October ]9, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (contint',ed) Richard Cottle pointed out that tile real issue with the Steve Wilson Lumber company was not zoning but dust and fall-out which hampered the "convenience" of the residents of the trailer park. Jim Busch of the Planning Commission emphasized to the Council that they had not reconm~.ended approval of the proposed annexation but simply made recommendations for terms to be included in an agreement should the annexation be made, He said the job of the Planning Commission was to insure that plans for the mobile home park would comply in every way as those within the City of Ash]and would be required to do, The major purpose of the Planning Commission is to study applications in light of the laws for land use, Busch was also concerned with an is]and developing of surrounding County area, lie asked the Council just how they wanted to bring it in, Bnsch also questioned whether there was a need for this type of establishment, since there were some vacant or uncomp]eted ones within City limits. He stated if these were not using the zones within the City for what they were intended, why annex something outside the City. Busch also noted the Comprehensive Plan of 1966 referred to was "the plan of the day" and ~,,'as currently being updated. Conklin questioned whether there would be a time l~mit established in the development of such a mobile home park. Salter pointed out that, under the proposed agreement, it would be built in two phases, including such things as roads, etc. in Phase I. Ainsworth added that the entire peripheral wall would be completed, and ~%lr. Elmore was willlug to post bond to have it look like a finished product (as defined in Phase II). A discussion on developing property and tax bases ensued, with Dick Soderberg noting that the City of Ashland has a record of assisting new business (water, sewer, roads, etc.) At this time, the Rlayor closed the public hearing and called a recess for ten minutes. When the meeting was ag~lin called to order, lV~llstatter moved to deny the annex~tion request. Sealerborg seconded. Roberts felt it was ap?ropriatc to take action on the matter at that time, s~ncc the Council had already used a grcat deal of ~dr. Elmero's time and c:,:po~se r~nc] he was entitled to hear a decision. Ash] and City Counci 1 October 19, 1971 VIII. B. 1. (continued) Before voting, McCannon remarked be ]lad abstained the first tinlc in order to get more information. He felt McGrew Brothers were unduly disturbed about the development, siuce McCannon's interviews with residents indicated no objections to living close to the mill. tie stated that, if in his opinion there was any danger to the business, his vote would change. ttowever, the proposed annexation seemed to be an asset for the City of Ashland. On roll call, McCannon and Conklin voted "NO", thereby giving approval to the annexation. Roberts, Soderberg and Willstatter voted "YIiS" to deny the request. The Mayor so declared the annexation request DENIED. Due to tire late hour, the Mayor changed the order of the agenda, to not act upon items 2 through 6 of "New and Miscellaneous Business". The following selected items were considered under the next heading. C. Ordinances, _P~e__s~J_u._t.i__o_ni__&_C__o.!Lt_ra+cts: Contract with the State thmlan Resources Department (Employ- ment I)ivision) implementing the provisions of the Emergency timployment Act of 1971. Almquist noted tile funds allocated to the City of Ashland totaled $53,975. The local matching share was $S,475. This last amount was for services, such as' training expenses, supervision, administrative costs, etc. tie noted the federal government was picking up 100% of the cost of employees' salaries. The City Administrator also told tile Council funding was for a period of nine or ton months, and that it would expire on August 23, 1972. At that time, it would be assumed that the program would be continued, provided the unemployment rate in Jackson County continues above 6%. If at any time it should fall below that rate for three consecutive months, the program would only continue for three more months. Willstatter questioned v:hether the prospective employees would be informed of this period of employment, to v.lhich Almquist replied it v:as included in the job announcements and also brought up during the interview. Conklin moved to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Ashland; Soderberg seconded; on roll call, passed un an i mo u s ] y. -1S- Ashland City Council October 19, 1971 III, %ff%~jViT~ffS~jST by Council;,,oman Sealerberg to make a Statement. The Mayo~' backtracked on the agenda at the request of ~lrs. Soderberg to allow her to read a prepared statement (attached). In reply, Conklin stated either route chosen would affect his property (in fact, the Oak Street interchange would benefit it more). Willstatter informed }.ira. Sealerberg that an option was available on his Twin Plunges if she cared to pick it up. tie also stated that appointlnents to the BCATS Committee (for he and Conklin) were made in January, and the study hact been going on five years. The Mayor felt the Councilmen would have withdrawn their vote if they felt there was a "cottflict of interest". All members of the Council had an interest in the interchange jn d~fferent ways, but personal accusations were not ~ood and the Council should move away front them. He reminded the Council they had indicated an interest in getting more information about the interchange, and that couldn't hurt. Councilwoman Soderberg apologized for "feeling she had to bring documentation of conflicts, but thought it was necessary after Conkiln insulted her ini'egrity as a Councilwoman". Conklin did not feel that x'entark deserved a reply, but stated his primary concern was priorities. He could not justify a $5- or $4- million project when s~reets and sewers needed repair. Roberrs said the issue had gotten out of proportion and it pained him to see this type of conversation continue. It was d~fficult to determine how someone could have a "conflict of interest" with sometiring that might occur' in 1980 or 88. The Council had decided by a majority vote to write a letter on the freeway interchanSe; they should write it and drop the issue. There was no point mn continuing such discussions. The Rlayor agreed and suggested the Council continLle with the agenda. /nck Roberrs moved to adjourn; Willstatter seconded. Jim Ragland of the Planning Comluission told the Cm~ncil the item skipped on the agenda was a matter of concern, and be would wr~te a letter explaining the details to the Council for their consideration. On voice vote, passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting at ll:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted. q ~': ~. W. E. Barie] t City Recorder/Tre~surer (Attachment A to the Minut'es) ' "' '' ~ -' -. October 19, 1971 TO: ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL FROM: COUNC I LWOHAN SODERBERG Recently, I proposed that the City of Ashland send an official request to the State Highway Commission forState and Federal funding of a ne~ freeway interchange at Eagle Mill Road( Oak St.) with connecting routes to downtown .Ashland. and to Southern Oregon College perimeter road area. ( as illustrated in the BCATS Plan.) I was sure that this was one City project that all City CounciL members could wholeheartedly support. The need was urgent. Previous councils had accepted the concept as shown in the 1966 Comprehensive Plan and the 1967 Central Area Plan. Councilmen Willstatter and Conklin both had taken interest in and represented the City of Ashland on the BCATS Committee. 'The Whole Council had accepted the BCATS Plan Interim Report earlier this year with no adverse comments. This was a step in getting Ashland moving again - solving its problems planning for %he future - encouraging business investment and protecting the livabili~y values that Ashland has. ~Vhen strong opposition ~rose to my request and none of the teasong given for the opposition made sense, I was amazed. I felt there must be other reasons than those stated, especially after Councilman Conklin requested that I quit any further research into the freeway question. After further research, I believe I now know the reason for this opposition, and I feel it is in the best interests of the Community to speak out now. Ifthis opposition cause. a la~k of Community support for the freeway interchange and that'in turn?cahsei!Lthe loss,>6f the interchange, then Dressure will come from the community to relieve the traffic congestion in downtown Ashland in another manner. The BCATS Plan provides an alternate Plan for such relief. (See BCATS Report, INTERIM REPORT, daied June 1970, p. 24, par." The CBD ") This aI'ternate (Van Ness -"C" Street Couple't) will provide temporary relief for only the downtovrn area traffic problems. It will provide no help for the Siskiyou Blvd. or the North Hain St. traffic problems. This alternate (Van Ness ,C" St'. couplet)' as shown in the' BCATS Plan will pass through Councilman Willstatter's TWIN PLUNGES and Councilman Conklin's fuel storage yard. Therefore, I feel it important for the Council and the Community to be a~are of the personal interest of Councilmen Conklin and Willstatter in deciding ~hich is the first "Priority" - - - The freeway interchange and connecting roads orI the altern-ate Van Ness "C" St. Couplet. Now Gentlemen, that we understand each others position' better, I would ask you at this time to join together to get Ashland moving again; to forget our differences; and do the job we were elected to do in a responsible manner.. j -]8- Southern Oregon College it one of the principal, if not the principal, traffic generator in the town. It is necessaxS, to provide .sufficient capacity for coilego-bound traffic and the best way to do this is by new routes that use no part of the existing system which will be overloaded in the future. Therefore, a new fail interchange ts proposed for the I-5 freeway, at Eagle Mill Road, or Mountain Avenue, or somewhere in between. For illustrative purposes only the proposed interchange is shown at. Eagle Mill Road. This proposed new interchange will be connected to the college pa~41ing areas by a combination of new controlled access sections and portions of existing Mountain Avenne, Morse Average and Beach Street. This is to be a two-lane facility from the. freeway to Siskiyou (with four-lane right-of-way purchased or reserved) and four lanes on Beach. The importance of the effect of the location of parking lots and access ico the college cannot be over-emphasized because a major change in college plans could destroy tile effectiveness of the plan in relieving overloads on Siskiyou and Green Springs. To provide for an expanding campus, the college has proposed the vacating of Mountain, Pahn and Indiana Streets south of Siskiyou Boulevard. It is further proposed that a new east-west collector be built between Ashland Street and Oregon Street bordering the campus on the south. This new facility would use Madrone Street. a section of Oregon Street as well as new sections to be constructed. It is a proposed 48' wide facility with two, twelvesfoot lanes and parking. Should additional capacity be needed in the future, it is proposed that parking be removed. The CBD : " To relieve the congestion on the Lithie WaysEast Main Street Couplet ~nd allow the redevelopmeat of the Plaza and tire CBD, it is proposed that East Main revert to two-way traffic. The present northbound portion of the couplet would be changed to southbound except for the section of Lithia Way between "C" Street and Siskiyou Boulevard, which. would be two-way traffic. A new northbound couplet; ~vould be constructed from the intersection of Lithie Way and "C" Street using new yi~t-of-way to Van Ness Street and then by an ~proved Van NesS to junctio~ with ~e southbound leg of the couplet at North Main Street. These facilities are prolSosed to be two-lane with parking. If greater capacity is needed in the future, parking is to be removpd permittin~ four _n~oyin~ lanes o.n each section. _ . "" ..... I~i*"'iSrd~i~ "~'G'iS~t"'ilfe" 'CBD" 'i.'Gtti" tfid pfcip'b~e~" h~z::;'~L'd'v'intd~5~ihnge;: i hi~-grade, two-lane controlled access facility with parking, will be built between the interchange and Water Street, following generally, the course of Ashland Creek. Water Street will also be hnproved. : Green Springs ·: , The Green Springs Highway is to be impfox;or to four-lane traffic from, and including, the structnre over the I-5 Interchange to Siskiyou Boulevard. Parking will be limited should increased capacity be required. A Paralleling Route to Siskiyou Boulevard " Within the City of Ashland, no alternative presently exists to the through route (Green Sprlngs-Sisl:iyou-Main) which was mentioned earlier. The City has long desired to deveAop a paralleling street to Siskiyon and Main, not only to relieve traffic on the present througtl route, but to se5,e as an emergency alternative in the event of major fire or other disaster. The plan shov:s the proposed new two-lane, bypass beZinning at the Green Springs Highway, just east of the railroad track, a~d cocmectiz~g with existtug Walker to Main Street. From this intersection a new two-lane facility would take a northeasterly