HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1002 Council MIN
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 2, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page I of 11
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Morrison noted the vacancies on the various Commissions and Boards, specifically the number of youth
liaison vacancies.
Mayor Morrison addressed the citizens, based on the upcoming training session scheduled for the council, and
the questions brought forward on this issue. He clarified that the upcoming council sessions are to provide a
level of training to Council members in the name of fairness, prudence, professionalism, productivity and
efficiency. He stated that the some ofthe past actions by councilors has been unacceptable and that he would
not accept that type of behavior again at any meeting of the council.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Study Session minutes of September 17,2007, Executive Session minutes of September 18, 2007 and
Regular Meeting Council minutes of September 18, 2007 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison's Proclamation of October 7- 13,2007 as National Fire Prevention Week was read aloud.
Members of the Fire Department were recognized.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee
3. Issuance of a Request for Qualifications for the Development of Affordable Housing at the Parks
Clay Creek Property
4. Approval of a Public Contract Greater than $75,000 Distribution Rack Expansion Project
(Materials Only)
5. Adoption of Findings for P A 2007-00455, 247 Otis Street
6. Approval of Agreement No. 23720 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Program-
Beach Street: Glenwood to End - between the City of Ashland and the Oregon Department of
Transportation
7. Approval of a Contract for the 2007 Utility Construction Project
8. Mayor's Appointments to Various Commissions
9. Approval of Contract for Update the Transportation System Plan
10. 11th Annual Report on Implementation of the Valdez Principles
Councilor Hardesty requested that items 4 and 9 be pulled for discussion.
Councilors SilbigerlHartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda items 1 through 3, items 5 through 8 and
item 10. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilors Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda item 4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 2 of ] ]
Under item 7, Councilor Hardesty noted the construction of the lower reaches of the storm system and
questioned if the developer would share in the expense of the project. Public Works Director Paula Brown
clarified the developer does pay a portion of the expenses, and added she will provide the Council with a
percentage upon doing some research.
Under item 9, Councilor Hardesty questioned how much ofthe plan is implemented and followed by the City.
Ms. Brown responded that the City follows the plan unless there's a reason to deviate, if the conditions have
changed. She noted the Transportation System Plan (TSP) update is available online and stated now is a good
time to consider the possibility of a Transportation Commission. She added the TSP could be strengthened in
terms of reducing vehicle trips per day and is geared toward project development. She announced three open
houses for the TSP update. Additionally, Ms. Brown noted the Metropolitan Planning Organization is
currently going through their update for the Regional Transportation Plan, and she added the City is updating
the TSP to meet the regional plan.
Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item 9. Voice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
Under Item 3, Housing Coordinator Brandon Goldman clarified the Request For Qualification (RFQ) has not
yet been drafted and suggested the RFQ be structured to request that property remain affordable for a 99-year
period through a land lease, as opposed to requesting that it be under the ownership of the Ashland Community
Land Trust. Council members voiced their agreement.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
Mat Marr/31 Union Street/Stated Dr. Rick Kirschner has worked in the past with the Ashland School Board.
He noted the board originally approached Dr Kirschner due to a study which showed that effective leadership
from school boards can have a direct, positive impact on student achievement. This type of training can also
provide effective leadership from the City Council which would result in a positive effect on the City of
Ashland. In closing, he voiced his support of council therapy sessions with Dr. Kirschner.
Bill PhillipsIPO Box 667 N oiced his concern with the dysfunctionality that seems to be taking shape among
the council and requested stronger leadership from the mayor. He stated council positions are a privilege and
each member has a responsibility, to the Citizens, to do the best job possible.
Tonya Ozone/1257 Siskiyou Blvd.lRequested public records showing when a discussion of the possibility of
training took place. She noted training is valuable and suggested the councilors pay for their own training.
John Stromberg/252 Ridge RdN oiced his support of council training with Dr. Kirschner and noted the
workload each councilor has. He added working together, managing workflow, setting priorities, making
decisions etc., is very complex and difficult, and training will be beneficial.
Don Stone/395 Kearneyl Acknowledged and appreciated the comments made earlier by Mayor Morrison but
still voiced his opposition to the spending of taxpayers' money for training. He noted recent actions by the
council as juvenile and suggested the council go back to lessons learned in kindergarten. He referenced
comments made by Ms. Christensen in July concerning a recall election costing $7,000. He noted that in
January $7,600 was spent on "teamwork training" and stated it obviously did not have an impact on the
Council.
Richard Hansen125 N Main StreetINoted that he was previously a proponent of a recall election for several
council members, and that he pulled back when he realized taxpayers would have to pay this expense. He also
stated it is not fair for taxpayers to be burdened with a cost of $37,000 for council training. He suggested
Mayor Morrison and the entire Council immediately resign so the City may hold another election. He noted
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 3 of II
citizens could then decide whether they want to re-elect the council members or vote in new members who
already have the training, business sense and ability to make decisions. He commented that he has lived in
Ashland since 1972 and has never before seen such a dysfunctional council. He suggested other options for
spending the $37,000 such as providing shelter and food to Ashland's homeless, improving the library system
or providing financial assistance to schoolchildren who need athletic department equipment.
Jennifer Carr1388 Grandview Drive/Noted she was a past city councilor in Aspen, Colorado who served
with a functional council that worked together. She found the comments made by the mayor, about the
difficulties of councilship, to be naIve and juvenile. She suggested three options concerning the council;
resignation, a recall or the act of the council taking their collective thumbs out of their mouths. She stated the
use of public money for training is both appalling and embarrassing to citizens. She noted good manners are
useful and reminded the council they are not here to represent themselves but rather the citizens of Ashland.
Art Bullock/Questioned why the upcoming Saturday meeting was not made public and noted Oregon has a
very strict public meetings law. He stated council meetings must be held in public with very limited exceptions
and noted these exceptions did not apply to the Saturday meeting in question. He noted spending taxpayer
money on council issues is absolutely City business and must be made public. He asked Ms. Christensen to
provide the details of the next meeting in which council therapy sessions will be addressed, and provide a
public notice.
Bill Skillman/635 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated board training is appropriate for the council and noted his
comments are directed specifically towards Councilors Navickas and Chapman. He stated the council operates
under Robert's Rules of Order and noted these rules are specifically designed to ensure a civil, organized
conducting of business, even though differences of opinion exist. He noted it is the Chair's job to enforce an
orderly conducting of business. He commented that the credibility of the City Council has been seriously
compromised by the behavior of a few members. He voiced his resentment of the suggestion that the council
should spend citizens' tax dollars on personal behavior therapy and suggested Councilors Navickas and
Chapman pay for their own individual training.
Derek V olkartlPO Box 3384/0ffered his thanks to the council for their leadership and work, and stated he is
glad to hear from citizens whom he has not heard from before, despite not sharing their passion on this
particular issue.
Interim City Attorney Richard Appicello referenced the Attorney General's Meetings Manual to clarifY that the
meeting Mr. Bullock referred to during his comments was not a meeting in which official business is
conducted and was exempt from the Public Meetings law. This meeting will be closed to the public.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Second reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland
Municipal Code, Land Use Ordinance, Regarding Conversion of Existing Rentals Into For-
Purchase Housing in Multi-Family Zoning Districts."
Housing Coordinator Brandon Goldman provided the following two options to the Council to distinguish
between two specific definitions referenced in the ordinance:
Option A: (Would establish that the ordinance would apply only to a conversion of apartments that were built
prior to this ordinance.) For the purposes of Section 18.24.020 and 18.24.040, existing multi-family rental
units are defined as dwelling units designed to house multiple households within one or more structures on a
single property that were constructed and occupied prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Any units
constructed after the effective date are not subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.24.040L.
Option B: (Would establish that both currently developed apartments and any apartments developed in the
future as apartments would be subject to the requirements of the ordinance.) For the purposes of section
18.24.020 and 18.24.040, existing multi-family rental units are defined as dwelling units designed to house
multiple households within one or more structures on a single property that were constructed and occupied
prior to application for conversion into for-purchase housing.
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page40fll
Mr. Goldman explained because the existing ordinance requires that 25% of the units in a conversion be
provided as affordable housing, developers doing new construction typically build condominiums from the
group up which are then not subject to this provision. He noted there is no time limit in the ordinance in terms
of how long units would have to be retained as apartments before being exempt from the condominium
conversion ordinance.
Mr. Goldman responded to question on incentives explaining that there are incentives in place and noted
system development charges, community development charges and engineering fees are all waived. He added
there are also incentives as far as taxes are concerned in terms of developing apartments as opposed to
individual condominiums, if the intention is to own them all and rent them all out. He clarified the distinction
between a condominium and an apartment.
Mr. Goldman stated either options would have the same measureable outcome. He noted if Option A is
selected, it may encourage more multi-family units as apartments and stated Option B may cause people not to
build condominiums from the ground up. He noted tenant relocation assistance would be applied to
apartments built two years from now, converting four years from now.
Councilors Hardesty/Jackson m1s to approve Ordinance #2942 with amendments choosing Option A.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty stated Option A gives developers the opportunity to build apartment
buildings, which may need to be encouraged. She noted there is a chance an apartment could be built and
converted after six months but does not believe this would be practical for developers.
Councilor Jackson stated the conversion process is a permitted use rather than a conditional use. She noted the
conditional use proceedings raised a lot of questions on the individual applications. She voiced her
unhappiness with regulating condominum conversion but stated this is the change she supports for permitted
use.
Councilor Navickas stated his preference for Option B and suggested staff provide more incentives for building
rental units. He noted the possibility of creating an additional ordinance on top of Option B rather than
choosing Option A.
Councilor Chapman voiced his opposition to the ordinance, stating it does not support housing goals of
maintaining and increasing the amount of rental properties. He noted the Planning Commission voted 7-2 not
to recommend the ordinance in this form. He stated the type of ownership is not a land-use and should not be
in the land-use code, noting the Council's focus should be to create incentives for building new aparhnents.
Councilor Hartzell stated the Council does have legal authority to do what they are doing in this particular
ordinance. She voiced her support in what staff has brought forward to eliminate the disincentive against
having new rentals built in the future. Councilor Navickas stated he prefers Option B but is willing to support
the ordinance at this point.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Navickas, Jackson, Hartzell, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Second Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC 3.08.020 To
Apply Ethics Provisions to Employees, Appointed Officials and Elected Officials."
Interim City Attorney Richard Appicello read aloud the ordinance which included amendments noted in red.
Mr. Appicello explained he did not add "elected officers" to Section K and did not add the word "removal," as
it is much more complicated to talk about the removal of elected officers.
Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek Rd/Chair of the Historic Commission, voiced his concerns with the
proposed changes to the City's Ethics Ordinance and stated it may lead to discrimination, arbitrary applications
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 5 of II
and unintended consequences if passed as it is. He stated it is too restrictive and suggested tbe council strike
the language stating "no appointed official shall represent a client for hire in any action or proceeding before
another board, commission or city council on matters which came or will come before tbe Board of
Commissions of which tbat official is appointed. He provided tbe following reasons as to why this language
should be struck from the ordinance:
I. It would prohibit architects, planners, landscape architechts, landscape contractors, archeologists from
presenting tbeir expertise for hire before city proceedings if tbey serve tbe City and tbe public as
members of a commission.
2. There would be a loss of present professional members to tbe Historic Commission, Tree Commission
and the Building Appeals Board. Witbout the staff to represent tbem at city required proceedings,
many individuals would be compelled to choose tbeir livelihood over a volunteer commission
appointment.
Spoke as a group: Ralph Temple/150 Myer Creek Rd/Art Bullock/Allan Sandler/1260 Prospect/Pam
Vavra/457 C Street/Paul Moss/Ron Hansen/ Read aloud a letter that was previously sent to council
requesting that iftbere were any change(s) made to the ordinance, it be considered at the first reading to give
tbe community a chance to respond at the second reading. In general, tbey support a more restrictive
ordinance tban what was passed at first reading. They asked, if the ordinance is changed at the current
meeting, that tbe council consider it a first reading regardless ofwhetber tbe change is more or less restrictive.
They support the ethics ordinance, as is written, so everyone can have a level playing field in doing business in
Ashland. They noted the importance of allowing time for tbe community to review, discuss and fully
understand any changes made to tbe ordinance.
Keith Swink/1655 Peachey/A member of tbe Historic Commission, he stated that tbe impact on tbe
commission, as noted earlier, will be profound. He voiced his hope that impacted commission members will
be recognized as people who want to volunteer their time without having to choose between the potential of
having to make a living or serving tbe community.
Colin Swales/46I Allison/Noted this ordinance has been on tbe council's agenda for over a year and urged
them to pass it, after including the elected officials and pro bono prohibition. He noted tbe Historic
Commission has a huge influence on tbe planning process and stated there is nothing in the ordinance tbat
prevents tbem from submitting their ideas or on behalf on their clients in writing, but ratber it prevents them
from representing their clients before a public hearing.
Mr. Appicello stated he did not add pro bono prohibition to tbe ordinance since tbere was no direction from
council to do so. He noted tbe language in question had to do with Section E( 4) and provided the council witb
tbe current state law information pertaining to tbis language. He added, if elected officials are prohibited from
appearing at a public hearing, this alternative language would appear in the ordinance.
City Administrator Martba Bennet questioned if a city employee, who is also a volunteer for an organization,
could or could not represent a group in tbeir free time. Mr. Appicello explained that no "appointed official"
can represent various volunteer groups, and this includes city employees.
Councilors Hardesty/Hartzell m/s to approve Ordinance to include sections in red that have been added.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger stated tbere is always a balance on what one is trying to accomplish and an
important element is having qualified people on board. He added there is a question of fairness and stated
discriminating against smaller individuals is not fair. He noted tbe first section tilts to unfairness and voiced
his opposition to it.
Councilor Hartzell provided various examples of when past projects were approved witb one ofthe conditions
being that some part ofthe plan was sent back to a commission for review. She added there are possiblities for
conflicts of interests if a person presenting a project happens to also sit on tbe commission tbat is reviewing tbe
plans for said project. She noted this particular rule does not restrict someone from being on a commission and
questioned if an "appearance" of a conflict of interest is a good trade-off. She voiced her concern witb tbe
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page60fll
motion not including the City Administrator's recommended changes to include "for a fee."
Councilor Hardesty noted the changes are procedural and questioned whether or not a commission member
involved with a project would be working pro bono. Mr. Appicello eXplained the Council has different options
concerning the inclusion of the words "pro bono," and he noted various way the council can change the
language of the ordinance to reflect their intentions.
Councilor Navickas voiced his support of including the pro bono language in the ordinance.
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell mls to amend motion to include language under Section E(4) to change
the word represent to "appear" and to include a pro bono restriction in additon to "working for hire."
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Motion
passed 6-0. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman voiced his concern for small businesses and stated there is
too much restriction in the ordinance. He added he would like to vote in favor of excluding the last clause.
Councilors Chapman/Silbiger m/s to place a period after the word "appointed," and strike the final two
lines, plus the additional word "appointed." DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas stated his opposition to
the motion and noted there is an abuse of this issue. He stated restricting the language in the ordinance opens
the door to conflicts of interest.
Councilor Hartzell noted the amendment on the table is appropriate to maintain ethics.
Councilor Hardesty commented this is a major change and stated she does not favor it.
Councilor Jackson stated she is in favor of the amendment and noted the change will encourage individual
practicioners who run small business to also volunteer for the City. She noted she is not in favor of extending
this to the entire city.
Mayor Morrison reminded council there is another level of screening through the appointment process. He
suggested the council keep the definition of "perception" in mind before voting.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman and Mayor Morrison, YES. Councilors
Navickas, Hartzell and Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 4-3.
Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilors Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman and Mayor Morrison, YES.
Councilors Hardesty, Hartzell and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-3.
3. PERF Report
Police Chief Terry Holdeness spoke regarding the new Taser Policy. He noted the policy maintains the same
level of control officers have used previously and stated the State of Oregon recommends tasing be used at a
state of force consistent with "active resistance." He defined active resistance to be when an individual not
only resists but takes an active, physical role in resisting. He noted the policy authorizes the use oftasers at the
"ominous resistance level," when an individual is not only physically resisting but also putting the arresting
office or another person at direct risk of injury. He noted the Ashland Police Department (APD) has worked
closely with ACLU to develop clear language of when a taser can or cannot be used. He noted the policy
restricts the use oftasers and requires them to be equipped with both audio and video features. He noted these
features will allow the APD to ensure the Taser Policy is being carried out correctly.
Chief Holderness explained that each officer will carry a taser to ensure they will have one available at all
times, since many shifts are staggered and one officer may be away from another, resulting in only one officer
in possession of a taser. Over time, he noted the APD foresees savings due to less repairs of taser equipment.
Chief Holderness explained that it is an accurate assumption that under the new policy, instances oftaser use
would be reduced, but noted there will be more tasers available and this may have an effect on the number of
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 7 of II
tasering instances. He noted once tasers are used, they will be immediately turned in to prevent corruption of
evidence, so the APD may require a few extra tasers to provide to officers when this happens. He stated
training would take place once approved by the council and shared recommendations from Southern Oregon
University (SOU) students concerning training. He noted the policy review portion, when lasers are used, will
be treated exactly the same as a fatal shooting would be; reviewed before a board who then provides a written
recommendation to the police chief for review and agreement.
Councilor Navickas referenced a past incident in Ashland where a death resulted from the use of a taser and
questioned whether this particular case would have happened under the new policy. Chief Holderness stated
this case is under some form of litigation and did not feel it appropriate to comment on it but did note the new
policy is significantly more restrictive than the old policy.
Ralph Temple/150 Myer Creek Rd/Noted that copies of the ACLU chapter were submitted to the Council.
He voiced his appreciation that the recommended restrictive standard is the same one that is being proposed.
He referenced the ACLU chapter to state that it has not been established that tasers are not dangerous and
noted that, across the country, there have been instances of police misuse of tasers. He stated the ACLU
recommends that taser use be authorized for a three-year period with intense oversight as well as public input.
He recommended that all reports oftaser use and review oftaser use be immediately and publicly available
and that no more than the recommended eight tasers be purchased. Additionally, he recommended there be an
investigation of the Nicholas Hanson case to identify whether of not the use of a taser was justified, adding the
ACLU calls for it.
Derek V olkart/200 Mowetza/ Stated officers should not have tasers at all and questioned what restriction
standards are in place in Medford. He noted a particular incident when a teenager was threated with a taser
and did not believe an officer would have used a gun in the same instance had a taser been unavailable. He
noted the taser is a "pain compliance" and shared that his brother, who is a law enforcement officer, does not
support the use of tasers. He stated having an "ominous resistance" level is not enough of a restriction. He
shared an article highlighting taser controversies.
Steve Ryan/657 C StreetINoted a previous meeting held with former Police Chief Bianca in which the chief
promised APD training to prevent cases such as the Nicholas Hanson case. He stated an SOU student's
recommendation was that the taser be raised as high as possible on the Use of Force Continuum. He suggested
continuous training for officers to include diversity issues, invisible disability issues, recognizing intoxication
and so forth.
Spoke together: Philip Shilts/396 IdaholBrian Fox/140I Oregon Street #242/Suggested a list of
amendments concerning the Taser Policy to include structured additional training. They noted a correlation
between intoxicants leading to deaths while a taser is used, and stated it is very important that training be
extremely comprehensive. They suggested the establishment of strict punishments for taser abuse and asked
that in almost all instances tasers be treated as, or similarly to, an officer's duty weapon. They asked that in any
case where a laser is unholstered, it be logged in a police report to include just cause as to why it was
unholstered. Additionally, they asked that it be made clear to the officers of APD, the Ashland public and
SOU students that the use of tasers, or the threatened use of tasers, only be used under the most extreme
circumstances. They requested the purchased tasers be independently tested to ensure the voltage meets the
standards stated by Taser International. In any instance where a taser is used, they requested the officer be
immediately placed on paid, administrative leave pending the results of an independent use-of-force review.
Bruce Albert/1411 Ponderosa DriveN oiced his support of the chief s request for the addition oftasers to the
Use of Force Continuum. He noted the stress involved by being a police officer and stated every "tool" the
chief can put in his tool box will help him resolve many issues. He agreed there needs to be a level of control
with the taser issue, and added he is speaking from his experience serving in law enforcement for 20 years.
Art Bullock/Questioned the need for 30 tasers within the APD and noted the total cost of these tasers. He
stated it doesn't make sense to purchase a lot of tasers to save money, as these devices are updated
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 8 of 11
continuously and need to be replaced with more efficient ones. He stated the suggestion that each officer needs
their own taser because they will better take care of it is troubling. He also noted the comment concerning
increased taser use is disturbing and indicated that the easy availability of the taser may lead to inappropriate
application. He asked the council to only approve the purchase of the minimum number of tasers needed.
Bill Skillman/635 Oak Knoll Drive/Spoke in favor of every officer having a taser, assuming that the officers
will be fully trained. He noted the potential for fatality is extremely low and stated officers need an interim
device between their own physical strength and training, and having to draw a weapon.
Councilor Navickas stated tasers are prone to abuse because they are not lethal weapons and noted they can be
used as pain compliance devices rather than used in extreme circumstances. He voiced his concern with the
chief s comments that issuing tasers would result in increased taser use and stated his personal preference is to
ban lasers alltogether. He is disturbed by the direction the APD is taking by putting a police sub station
dowtown and questioned the image the City is presenting to the community concerning the intimidation by
police presence. He noted the policy should be more restrictive and stated the additions put forth by the
students of SOU are important. He agreed that the policy for pulling a gun should be the same as the policy for
pulling a taser, and officers should be put on paid leave upon using a taser to allow for an investigation of the
matter.
Councilor Navickas motioned to approve the taser policy with the added amendments that the same
protocal used when pulling a gun would be required wben pulling a taser, the number of tasers is
restricted to eight and upon using a taser, officers will be placed on paid leave. Motion failed due to
lack of a second.
Councilors Hartzell/Silbiger m/s to accept tbe PERF Report timeline and the area command as
proposed by Chief Holderness. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Navikas, Hardesty, Hartzell,
Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilors Hartzell/Navickas m/s to approve the purchase of 12 tasers, a review in three years, reports
being made public when legally approporiate, testing tasers upon receipt, unholstering reports and
reconciling of Sections 3.028 and 3.027. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell explained her motion by stating
she feels each proposed item in the motion is appropriate. She stated there is incongruity between the two
named sections and requested the police chief review these sections to ensure they are congruent.
Councilor Navickas motioned to amend the existing motion to include that an officer is placed on paid
leave upon using a taser. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
DISCUSSION continued: Chief Holderness stated reviewing the policy in three years is very reasonable. He
noted testing prior to use is somewhat confusing as he is not sure of how to test with the tasers. He stated
unholstering reports of any taser incidents will be included in the initial reports as well. He commented that
reconciling the two sections is a minor technical change.
Councilors SilbigerlHartzell m/s to amend the existing motion to include the words "look into" before
"testing of tasers upon receipt." Voice Vote: all AYES. Motiou passed.
Councilor Jackson stated she would like to be convinced as to why officers should only have tasers per shift
rather than for every officer.
Councilor Navickas stated some lasers are used for intimidation and noted a "drive fire" is an intimidation tool
using a spark. He cautioned abusing this kind of "drive fire" intimidation technique. He noted it is important
to obtain logging reports of unholstering as well as tracking intimidation tactics used by officers. He suggested
rotating these tasers among officers to promote maintenance and added it is a major cost savings.
Chief Holderness stated each taser unit is $1,300 and added iftasers are with officers at all times, it would
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page90fll
reduce the wear and tear of the taser equipment. He commented that iftasers are used more often, it is because
it has been proven over and over that it reduces injuries to officers and suspects.
Councilors HartzelllHardesty mls to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed.
Chief Holderness stated there are currently no new tasers on the market, and he does not expect to see a new
generation of tasers any time soon.
Councilors ChapmanlHardesty mls to increase the numher of tasers from 12 to 30. Roll Call Vote:
Councilors Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and Chapman, YES. Councilors Navickas and Hartzell, NO.
Motion passed 4-2.
Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilors Silbiger, Jackson, Hardesty, Chapman and Hartzell,
YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Harztell questioned the possibility of an investigation into the Nicholas Hanson case. Mr. Appicello
stated he requires time to talk to the City Insurance Defense Council and will get back to the council with this
information at a later time.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Gift of Public Art
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer stated eight pieces of art were installed under the ODOT bridge as well as
electrical lighting to illuminate the art. She noted ODOT and city permits were not secured for the project, and
she added if the City is interested in moving forward with the project, they can apply for the appropriate
permits. She provided the Council with three options to choose from concerning the project:
I. The City can decline the gift.
2. The City can recommend that Mr. Haines approach the Public Arts Commission and either wait for a
recommendation from them or have them make a decision at their level.
3. The City can accept the gift at the Council level and obtain the appropriate permits.
Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated there are three different permits the City would have to obtain; an
ODOT permit, an electrical permit for the lighting (which would go through ODOT but also be a local
electrical permit) and a local permit process to address sign code issues.
Ms. Seltzer noted the permit process would take between five-six months to complete. She added if the project
is referred to the Public Arts Commission, some additional months would be added to the process as well. She
stated ODOT has allowed Mr. Haines to keep the art pieces installed up until now.
Councilor Navickas questioned what process the City would take to request code compliance in any project if
someone put up a sign in violation of the current sign ordinance.
Mr. Hanks explained the process of code compliance for any project in violation of the current sign ordinance
that some type of initial contact would be made to request both compliance and the correct permits would be
requested, or the signs would be taken down. He read aloud the definition of what is or is not considered a
sign.
Councilor Hartzell noted that if were a gift that upholds the sign ordinance she would be interested in accepting
the gift. She noted she is not in favor of accepting the art in the manner that it has been presented and added
that it is inconsistent with other forms of art that citizens have put up around the City. She voiced her concern
with setting a precedent for prompting violation or consideration of an ordinance.
Councilor Jackson noted the Public Arts Commission has developed procedures for evaluating whether or not
to accept donated art. She suggested going through this process rather than short-circuiting.
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page 10 of II
Councilor Navickas voiced his unhappiness with the way the art project has moved forward and sees it as an
attempt to undermine land-use regulations.
Councilor Hardesty stated the art is very attractive and added the entire area has been improved tremendously.
She agreed the process leaves a great deal to be desired and favors Mr. Haines coming before the Public Arts
Commission.
Councilor Silbiger voiced his disappointment with the way the art was given and suggested that Mr. Haines go
before the Public Arts Commission to develop an ordinance that allows murals. He noted accepting the art in
the current manner does not work.
City Administrator Martha Bennett noted the possibility of taking the art displays and the related sign down but
leaving the electrical fixtures up. She stated if the council is interested in leaving the fixtures up, the City must
apply to ODOT for a permit.
Councilor Hartzell stated she is not in consensus with sending the project to the Public Arts Commission, as
she is concerned with having equipment installed on the bridge before first talking to ODOT about safety
issues.
Councilor Navickas agreed, taking into consideration that the area is a spot that needs some improvement but
also recognizing that there is a specific process that first needs to be completed before such art can be displayed
there.
Lloyd Hainesl96 N Main Street/Noted the placement of murals on public or private structures is not
permitted by Ashland's anti-mural ordinance and stated this statute no longer benefits Ashland's artistic and
creative spirit. If the City chooses not to accept the gift of art he has given, he will remove it until the City
decides whether or not such a donation is in the City's best interests. He requested the City consider whether
the creation is artistically significant, beautifies the City and is a value to the public. He voiced his agreement
that the re-development ofthe ODOT property was difficult for the City. He noted the positive changes around
the area and stated it would not have happened if it had not been pushed the way it was. He stated ODOT is
not concerned with the bridge falling, that their only concern is that proper fasteners hold the panels in place so
any vibration does not cause them to fall down.
Skip Andrew/216 Scenic Drive/Stated Mr. Haines made a mistake by not going through the process but
understands thatthe City wouldn't have this art ifhe hadn't displayed it in such a way. He noted it is a worthy
gift to accept and requested the Council not penalize the citizens of Ashland because Mr. Haines gave it in an
improper manner.
Denise Baxter/11459 Corp Ranch Road/A business owner in Ashland, she shared that she is one of the
artists who painted the murals now located under the bridge. She stated she is very proud of the environment
created and now feels safe walking with her children in this area. She understands why Mr. Haines went
outside ofthe structured rules to install the work, and stated citizens are tired of working within the confines of
the City's bureaucracy. She asked the Council to look past the actions of Mr. Haines and help to facilitate the
legal and permanent installation of the murals.
Councilor Chapman stated his understanding is that the process was incorrect but also believes the council
should follow staff s recommendation to choose from one of the three suggested options.
Conncilors Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve staff recommendation to seek input from the Public Art
Commission, apply for permit from ODOT and apply for a Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION: Ms.
Bennett questioned whether staff is being asked to apply for the electrical permits prior to meeting with the
Public Arts Commission or after. Councilor Chapman recommended staff wait until after the commission
meets before taking any action. Ms. Bennett clarified ODOT is waiting on the City's decision on whether or
City Council Regular Meeting
October 2, 2007
Page II of II
not the artwork will be allowed to stay where it is. If not, the entire installation must come down by Friday.
Councilors Chapman/Jackson m/s to amend the motion to ask staff to apply for an electrical permit.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his emphasis that the space is public and a public process is
required before such changes are made to it. He stated the City ordinance specifically restricts murals.
Councilor Hardesty noted one of the three options is that Mr. Haines meets with the Public Arts Commission
and waits for their recommendation before any action is taken. She voiced her favor of this option. Councilor
Hartzell questioned if graffiti appears in the area between now and the next few weeks, will the City ticket the
individuals responsible. Mr. Appicello noted that Mr. Haines is not exempt from prosecution and responded
that if there are any occurrences of criminal mischief, it will be prosecuted. He noted that in this particular
case is not within the City's jurisdiction to prosecute Mr. Haines because the art was displayed on a bridge.
Roll Call vote: Councilors Silbiger, Navickas, Hardesty and Hartzell, NO. Councilors Jackson and
Chapman, YES. Amendment to motion passed 4-2.
Meeting adjourned due to time constraints. No vote on original motion took place.
2. Review of Lithia Way Parking Lot Development Agreements
Item not addressed due to time constraints.
3. Recommendations from Transportation Financing Taskforce
Item not addressed due to time constraints.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Further Discussion of implementation of July 18, 2007 Council Motion regarding Mt. Ashland
Association
Item not addressed due to time constraints.
2. Discussion regarding Mt. Ashland Association wastewater treatment plant
Item not addressed due to time constraints.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
I"~-
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder