Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-1118 SPECIAL MINMiNUI'IES FOil TIIll St~ECIA1, MIZtiTING ASIILAi'4D CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER ] 8, ]97] 1. ROLb CALb: The special meeting of the Ashland City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Charles McKeen in the Council Chambers, City Ha]], Ash]and, on the above date. Councihnsn Roberrs arrived later in the session; all other Council members were present. I I. SPliC IAL AGENDA ITtqMS: At the request of the Mayor, the City Adfiinistrator read a resolution e×pressing apprecistion to Mr. George Ian tlunter for his contribution of $50,000 for development of a community park at Ilomes and Normc~l Avenues. Under suspension of the rules, Soderbcrg moved to pass the resolution to a second reading by title only; McCannon seconded. On roll call, passed unanimously. Almquist gave the second reading by title only. Rob]e moved to adoDt the rer;o]ution; Willstatter seconded; on roll call, passed unan j mous ] y. At this time, the Mayor presented an official framed copy of the resolution to Mr. Hunter, thanking him for his very generous action and noting a similar contribution to the YMCA. He then called a short recess in order to allow a television interview with Mr. flunter and the Mayor and Mr. Dave D'Olivio, Chairn~an of the Parks Commission. Councilwonlan Soderi~erg made s request to authorize a delegation to appear before the State Highway Commission on November 24, ]971 relative to a request for funding of s third interchange and connnect~ng roads to Interstate S freeway. She had received a letter from the State Ilighway Com,nission inviting such a delegation, and suggested it be composed of staff members, the Council or members, inierested citizens to tell the "Ash]and story" to the Commission. In response to a sng,qestion from Roble that a dele-- gation attend the second meeting in Jannary, Soderberg pointed out that the st~!ff was already fairly well along in documentatiou (maps, statistics, traffic counts, etc.) and there was no reason to delay. ~lillstatter presei~ted a set of petitions which had been forwarded to him. The City Adminif;trator read the declaration, as follows: "We lho undcrsjpned, resident~ of Ash]and and Jackson County xd~ci coslom;~rily and coI~tinuous]y use tIighway 66, 'lal Meeting ~c.~Hand City Council November 18, 1971 I1. B. (contiuued) from the junction of Siskiyou Blvd. to Interstate 5, in Ashland, declare that xxle wish this portion of llighway 66 to be the number ONE PRIO1Z]'I"Y FOR COMPI,IiTING TttE IMPROVILMIhNTS that have been planned over the past ten ),ears. We wish it clearly under- stood that we have no objection to a new iuterchange at either Mountain A~cnue or Oak Street AFTER the above indicated portion of llighway 66 haF been widened and completed, but we request that any funds now avail- able or that beeonce available be used FIRST to complete tlighWay 66 ." Roble called attention to action by the Chamber of Commerce and the Ashland Board of Realtors earlier in the week, in which they agreed to go along with a meetSrig in Salem, but did not want to overlook llighway 66. (The City Administrator read a letter from the Chamber of Conlmerce and the Oregon Shakespearean Festival Association, as well as the PTA Coordinating Council-- which stressed safety for the children.) Roble asked that a traffic signal at Walker and llighway 66 and completion of the overpass be doue first. bits. Jensen of the audience felt the freeway project was interfering with obtainSrig such a signal, which would take care of hazardous conditions for a school crossing (uow increased due to the new shopping center). Conklin urged Ceunci3woman Sealerberg to change her goals, and push for an earlier completion date of l]ighway 66, and thus have 100% support frora the Council and citize~s. Soderberg pointed out she had no difference of opinion regarding tlighway 66, and agreed the work needed to be done. llowever, she had been assured this project would be completed and that funds had already been allocated. She added that the matter of a signal at Walker Avenue had been discussed at the last Streets & Traffic Committee meeting and recommended even before Iiwy. 66 is widened. At this Tidings Porter, time, Conklin presented an article in the Ash_l.a_n_d_ D_~i=i~y_ of Noveml~er 18, 3971. It was an interview with R. l,. State Engineer, which said that funds wou].d be conflicting. In light of this article and other documents, Conklan moved that a delegation go ahead to Salem, but to push for an early completion date of ilighx.~ay 66; Roble seconded. Conk]in wanted to finisl~ one job before starting another; Roble pointed out the power poles had already been movc'd. lie suggested the delegation go to Salem to "plant a seed" about the freev:ay interchange. ia] Meeting Asnland City Councj] November 18, 1971 I1. B. (continued) McCannon was in favor of the delegation for a first priority on Iiighway 66, but indicating interest in a futnre freeway interchange as soon as feasible. He pointed out there may be a great deal of pressure for such in five or ten years. Soderberg agreed that a request should be made to proceed as quickly as possible with IHghway 66, but the purpose of this meeting was specifically to choose a delegation to go to the State Highway Commission on the interchange request. She had no objection to incorporating ~ request on widening of llwy. 66 (and doesn't want it dropped, but funds x~lere allocated). Conklin pointed out that improvement of ltighway 66 would alleviate some of the problems, espec~al].y with proper signing. tic stated the Council would look foolish to go to Salem on the interchange rectucst when these letters and petitions for Highway 66 completion had already bcerl sent to the State tligbway Commission. Garth McGuirc, Parks & Recreation Director, felt that something needed to bc said about the interchange, if only for direction for the proposed Ash]and Creek Parkway as to the location of a futnre interchange in order for the Parks Commission to proceed with property designations, etc. tle was also in agreement with the issue of tlighway 66 cornpierSon, bnt felt some presentatiop_ should be made (as a secondary reqnest) for the interchange. McCannon stated that a delegation should go in January, and include members of the Chamber of Commerce, the Festival, the Park Commission, Southern Oregon College, the Council and staff members. He said .there was nothing wrong in writing a letter to let the State tt:ighway Comnxission know Ashland is interested in an interchange, hut should indicate~ the first priorty to be completion of Highway 66. Wil]statter stated there was burgeoning bureaucracy around them, and the Cou!~ci]. should not delegate their responsibility but be the only ones to go as a delegation. Soderberg pointed out that~ with a change of direction of purpose, more time would be needed to prepare a presentation. At this time, considerable discussion ensued abont the traffic light for Walker Avenue and Ilighway 66 and possible funding. Soderbcrg moved the add the words "...and to present a request for a new freeway interchange and commcting routes." McCannon seconded for purposes of di. scussion. Sealerberg pointed ont that any project takes time, and the Council should be forward~thi~king enough to realize this should bc started ~ov:, and plan for the future of Ash]and. i al Meeting ~snland Cjty Council 'November 1S, 3971 II. B. Councilman Roberrs arrived at this time, and was briefed by the Mayor on prior discussion and motions, that the Council was i~ agreement on ilighway 66 completion, but questione~ whether to pursue another interchange or 3~ot. Roberrs stated it was not his intention to jeopardize something already in the mill. Soderhcrg stated the Council should be planning for a healthy city, and that there was a heavy traffic problem now and they should at least fillc~ out if an interchange would be feasible. Don Provojt, representing School District No. 5, stated they were not in agreement with the arterial roads and wanted to voice their disapproval of the interchange connecting routes as proposed in the DCATS interim R~port. Conklin pointed out that these routes v:ero up to the City~ and not definite. Roberts felt fit was geod to hc involved in long-range planning, but that there was no urgency fin getting this before tile State Highway Commission. The Council should consider deferring the m~tter so as not to bc fill-prepared, although pofiniing out the need for another interchaugc would not jeopardize Ilighway 66. McCannon moved to amend the motion to read "...send a delegation for the January meeting of the State IIi2bway Commission." Soderbcrg A roll call vote was the January meeting: YF, S; Roble, Conkliz~ taken on the amendment for a delegation to McCaunon, Rober~cs, Soderberg, Willstatter - NO. Motion carried. A roll call vote wa.s taken on the amendment to add a request for an interchange and connecting routes: Sodcrberg - YES; Conklin, Roberrs, Willstatter, Rob]e, McCannon ~ NO. Motion denied. A roll call vote was taken on the original motion to ~ive tlighway 66 first priority and send a delegation: Roblc, BicCsnnon, Cqnklin, Roberrs, Willstatter- YES; Sodcrberg Motion carried. NO. Conklin moved to direct the sinaff to prepare an appropriate letter to the State IHghway Conim~ssion informing them of the intent of the de]cgatiou and when they would be attending; Willstatter seconded. On voice vote, passed with Soderberg voicing the only ~udib]c "NO". At this time, Soderl:lerg asked the Council if t]xey were disclaiming any future interest in an interchange and connectilng roul es, to which members of the Council rcpl:ied they were no_~. :i ~,1 Meeting ,~s,~land C5 ty Counc~ ] November 18, 1971 II. C. Counc[lmm~ Roble presented a couple of items not scheduled on the agcnda for the attention of the Counc:i]. tte expressed appreciation to A1 AJsing and the Street Del3artn~ent on taking i~rompt action on a request to widen the sidewalk near Fire Station #1 for the safety of those crossing at that point. Rohle pointed out that Ordinance 1544, pertaining to rules and procedures for Council action, had no provision for an "Abstain" vote, and would like to see the Ordinance revised to include this. The Mayor poini. ed out that, under P, oberts Rules of Order, such a voi. e was the san!e as a negative one. However, Roh]e preferred to ]lave an "Abstain" vote spelled out. Conklin moved to place it on the next agenda; McCamlon seconded. On voice vote, passed unan/tmous]y. There heft rig no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. subject to the call of the Mayor. Respectfully submi tted, /nck Brian L. A]mquist City Admin :i s trator