HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-1016 Council MIN
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 16, 2007
Civic Center Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 1 of9
Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLLCALL
Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Morrison announced the current vacancies on the various commissions and boards.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Special Meeting of September 25, 2007, Study Session Meeting of October 1, 2007,
Executive Session Meeting of October 2, 2007 and Regular Council Meeting of October 2, 2007 were
approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Morrison's proclamations of October as National Federation ofthe Blind "Meet the Blind Month" and
October 24 as "United Nations Day" were read aloud. Councilor Hartzell reminded everyone that it is also
Breast Cancer Awareness and Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Mayor Morrison noted items on the agenda that would be brought back later for council review/discussion. He
further commented that he is using a new format for the council meeting agenda.
Fire Chief Keith Woodley presented the Ashland EOC Exercise Report. Chief Woodley noted that action
items are being completed by staff and briefly pointed out issues recognized by exercise including the
following: restoration of water, radio traffic, access of city maps, training on emergency management software
and form updates.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees
2. Set a Public Hearing for November 20, 2007 to Consider Limiting the Glenn Street Railroad
Crossing to Bicycles and Pedestrians Only
Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. V oice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
Don Stone/395 Kearney/Requested accountability by councilors due to recent media articles and asked why
councilors were directed not to speak to the press. He further questioned the need for counseling by Dr. Rick
Kirschner and if any other professionals had been requested to provide the same service at a lower cost. He
noted questions by some citizens in regards to a possible shadow government and wanted to know if it did
exist. He stated that he is of the belief that Councilor Hartzell is at the heart of the Council's dysfunction.
Mayor Morrison requested that Mr. Stone visit him in his office so that he may answer any questions
concerning the council.
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 20f9
Ambuja Rosen/Spoke of the cruelty offarm animals in regards to castration without painkillers. She noted
this is a double standard in comparison to domesticated pets that receive pain relievers and compared this
double standard to pet owners who tether their pets. She shared the dangers oftethering and requested the
Council recognize that these animals need a tethering ordinance just as much as dogs do.
Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Spoke regarding an experiment in community dialogue as a way of bridging divides.
She noted there is a group of citizens within the community, of varying political beliefs, who meet on a regular
basis to discuss values and current City issues. She shared that this particular group decided to conduct an
experiment to find out if they could come to an agreement on different issues. She noted they did in fact come
to a consensus on the issues they chose to address and gained understanding, appreciation and respect for one
another. She stated her belief that this is a model example worthy of repetition and invited the Council to try it.
She shared that the organization Peace House can provide space for such meetings, guidelines for effective
participation and trained facilitators to assist in the process.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Repeat Second Reading of Ethics Ordinance
Interim City Attorney Richard Appicello read the proposed changes aloud in full.
Pam Vavra/457 C Street/Shared her opinion that the Council chose to adopt a much weaker ethics ordinance
than what was previously proposed. She voiced her disappointment with this action and noted that in the face
of testimony, which alleged that abiding by strong ethics laws might pose an inconvenience for some, it seems
the Council chose to weaken the ordinance. She added the community needs a strong moral council as well as
leaders who demand the highest ethical behavior, and she suggested the Council return to their previous stand
on the ethics issue.
Councilors Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Ordinance #2943. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas
clarified that he is voting no because he believes the ordinance is not strong enough. Councilor Hardesty stated
that she is also voting no, while recognizing that the Council has been working on this over a long period,
because she favors the earlier proposed version. Councilor Hartzell agreed with the statements made. Mayor
Morrison noted that the disagreement over the currently proposed ordinance is only one small part of the issue,
and added this ordinance will allow for some integrity and direction.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger, YES. Councilors Hartzell, Navickas and
Hardesty, NO. Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
2. Review of Lithia Way Parking Lot Development Agreements
Housing Coordinator Brandon Goldman summarized the history of the project, and noted the development
team changes and proposed development agreements. He stated, under the current schedule, it will be
somewhat difficult for the developers (Access and Kendrick Enterprises) to meet the July 2008 deadline. As a
result of this determination, staff requested that developers provide a revised time line that would stipulate as to
how they could meet the original parameters of the development agreement. He noted both developers
indicated they are no longer pursuing the project and suggested the Council rescind the offered development
agreement. He clarified the property would allow for the development as originally proposed. He noted the
Housing Commission supports rescinding the agreement and also recommended the issuance of a new request
for proposals for development of afforadable housing over the existing Lithia parking lot. He clarified in order
to take a property and make it eligible for low income housing tax credits, a project of 24 units is minimum;
this site has a maximum potential of 13 units and therefore would not be eligible.
Councilors Hardesty/Navickas m/s to rescind the agreement with Kendrick Enterprises and Access for
the development of the Lithia Way parking lot. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Navickas,
Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16,2007
Page 3 of9
Councilors Chapman/Hardesty mls to host an informal meeting to research ideas to make building
apartments cost effective through land use changes and incentives with representatives ofthe Council,
Planning and Housing Commissions, planning and administration staff and report to the Council; and
table any further action until the report is received. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman eXplained that
his opinion has changed concerning the project, and noted this site may not be the most beneficial to conduct
an expirement on because the desired number of housing units is not possible. He added, in reference to the
condo ordinance, John Fields noted that building apartments does not work and shared he would like to
explore why this is true. He added additional research on the issue would be beneficial. Mr. Goldman stated
additonal time would be involved when Council selects an alternative to proceed in regards to the project.
Councilor Navickas suggested the Council extend another RFP for both the Pioneer and Lithia sites to see how
much housing can be placed downtown.
Councilor Silbiger agreed the Council should meet with the Planning and Housing Commissions to discuss the
project and possible changes to it, without making major changes to the land use code.
Councilor Hardesty encouraged Councilor Navickas to provide input in regards to the project and suggested
both parking lots may be an option. She added she supports looking at several different possibilities.
Councilor Hartzell stated she does not agree with the suggestion that there was a problem with the developers
submitting paperwork on time. She commented that this is a very complicated project and noted the amount of
time and money spent on it. She voiced her concern with how this fits into procedural changes, policy changes
and the Planning Commission's current work load. She suggested staff look at a couple of options to move
forward and noted this would not prohibit meetings with developers.
Mr. Goldman stated he is not sure the motion addresses the Lithia Parking Lot discussion and future action on
it, but noted it would help direct what action to take concerning future properties.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support of having a discussion as she doesn't fully understand some aspects of
the code. Councilor Chapman clarified he does not intend for future discussion to contribute to a long process,
and noted changes to ordinances or ideas may come out of such discussion. Councilor Hartzell stated it is
important to document lessons learned.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hardesty, Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Councilor
Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
3. Recommendations from Transportation Financing Taskforce
Public Works Director Paula Brown presented three recommendations, as listed below, and briefly eXplained
the Council's options.
Recommendations:
. The Overall Condition Index - keep OCI index at a minimal level to save money
· Financing Options - review the different financing options to determine the most cost effective
choices
. Implemenation of a Transportation Commission - determine how the City integrates transportation
into thought processes, land use codes, etc. and the need for a larger transportation program
Ms. Brown questioned if the Council will approve the OCI index as prepared, if they are in favor of staff
bringing back information in regards to a transportation commission, and what financing options they would
like available.
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 4 019
Councilors JacksoulHartzell mls to adopt Task Force recommendations in regards to the OCI index.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell and Silbiger, YES.
Motion passed 6-0.
Councilors NavickaslHartzell mls to remove the bicycle registration fee. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Hardesty noted there is already a $3 registration fee for bicycles. Councilor Navickas stated that a bicycle
charge of any kind is not a good way to fund the City's transportation needs and noted that, in regards to this
specific recommendation, he does not support it. Councilor Chapman noted bicycle registration fees exist so
the Police Department can return lost or stolen bikes. He suggested building a list of amendments rather than
voting on each individual option.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell, Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Hardesty and Navickas, YES.
Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Brown stated there seems to be support for a County gas tax and asked for Council direction on whether or
not staff should support it.
Councilors ChapmanlHartzell mls to direct staff to research the feasibility of a county wide level gas tax
fnnding both public streets and transportation to include reaching outto the County, local governments
and RVTD to gauge interest and gather support. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted a gas tax to
pay for both streets and public transit is a close match to what the Council wants to achieve; an incentive and
disincentive combined together. He added a gas tax increase discourages use, reducing congestion, improving
air quality and saving fuel while also providing funding for a badly needed alternative transportation system.
Ms. Brown stated she is unsure if gas tax funds are eligible for RVTD to use towards transit use. Staff will
research this issue and return to the Council with this information. Ms. Bennett added she is fairly sure the
answer is no. Councilor Chapman commented that it is his understanding that this is true for state taxes but
questioned why different communities in Oregon were in fact using such funds for other things.
Councilor Jackson voiced her support for the motion as a way to finance both transit and road maintenance.
She added there is a lot going on at the state level around this concept and hopes the City can stay as current as
possible with any future legislation.
Councilor Silbiger noted that a possible gas tax works better on a County level, and added every city within the
County is looking at the same funding problems for road repairs. He stated his belief that the time is right for a
county solution and this would be the best step forward. Mayor Morrison added this holds the possibility for
being a workable tax whereas a local tax is usually subject to reaction and avoidance on the part of the average
driver. He stated if it is county wide, it allows the ability to inform the general public of how important it is to
provide funding for paving, repairs, gravel and asphalt, etc.
Councilor Navickas voiced his support of a county wide gas tax but added it is highly unlikely it will be passed
on the county level. He noted the Council needs to be willing to pass a local tax to provide funding.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES.
Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Hardesty suggested placing the increased transportation utility fee at the bottom of the funding
options list, and added it should be considered a "last-resort" option because raising utility fees is regressive
and affects everyone, regardless of whether they drive or not.
Councilors HardestylHartzell mls that staff consider the increase of a utility fee, but consider it a low
priority option. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell and
Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 5 of9
Councilor Jackson requested that a property tax be added to the list because it is more fair than utility fees and
may be a balance source for maintenance costs.
Councilors Jackson/Chapman m/s to adopt the rest of the Transportation Financing Task Force
recommendations for sources of financing and add the possiblity of using property taxes.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell suggested introducing a concept of weight and size in regards to vehicle
registration. She also voiced her confusion conerning the meals tax. Councilor Hardesty clarified the
committee recommended looking at other food items that are not subject to the meals tax.
Councilors Hartzell/Chapman m/s that the addition of those foods listed in regards to the Food &
Beverage tax in the report would not be included in the motion. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell
clarified that the motion would leave the food and beverage (F&B) tax as an option but would exclude the list
of applicable items. Councilor Navickas stated he would prefer that the F&B tax be removed. Councilor
Jackson stated if there is going to be a variety of choices, and F&B is one of them, there will be a huge
discussion about adding to it or raising it when the time comes. Councilor Hartzell stated she does not want to
increase a tax on items purchased by those who do not have the ability to cook at home.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Hartzell and Navickas, YES. Councilors Jackson, Chapman and Silbiger,
and Hardesty, NO. Motion failed 4-2.
Councilors Navickas/Silbiger m/s to remove food and beverage fees from the list of recommendations.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas and Hartzell, YES. Councilors Jackson and
Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Continued DISCUSSION on amended motion: Councilor Chapman noted administrative costs for local
vehicle registration may be substantial. He also stated he is not in favor of a 10% administrative fee
concerning the payroll tax.
Roll Call Vote on motion as amended: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty, Jackson and
Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Councilor Chapman noted a transportation commission would address public transit and transportation
planning issues and added the Traffic Safety and Bicycle & Pedestrian Commissions are too narrow in regards
to these issues.
Councilors Chapman/Jackson m/s to form a mayors ad hoc Transporation Committee to address
transportation planning, public transit and parking issues. The committe should consist of commission
members from the Bicycle & Pedestrian, Traffic Safety, Planning and Housing Commissions. Citizens
representing businesses, SOU, ASD, RVTD aud public transit uses will be included. The staff will be
from planning and/or engineering. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman clarified he would like to form a
temporary group which addresses and resolves transportation issues, and he would then consider that the
commission become a standing commission. Councilor Hartzell stated she would like to institutionalize the
integration of all related tasks and voiced her concern with the possible burden on staff. Councilor Hardesty
agreed that there could be a burden placed on staff and asked what the thinking was behind the task force
recommendations. Ms. Brown noted the goal was to look at the broader picture of transportation issues,
recognizing that there are specific bike/ped and traffic safety issues but overall the transportation link is
missing. She noted an ad hoc committee will be tough on staff but is not long term. She recommended a
permanent transportation commission with the Bicycle & Pedestrian and Traffic Safety Commissions as
elements.
Councilors Chapman/Hardesty m/s to amend the motion making the mayors ad hoc Transportation
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 60f9
Committee a "standing" ad hoc committee. Roll Call vote: Councilors Chapman, Hartzell, Silbiger,
Hardesty, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilors Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson and
Hardesty, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
4. Draft Intergovernmental Agreement with Jackson County for Library Services
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer provided additional changes in regards to "non-appropriation." She noted if
the Budget Committee does not appropriate funds for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, termination of the agreement
could occur. She added the agreement includes language that allows the City to monitor the services and
outcomes of the enhanced services. She noted Exhibit A, and added this section spells out what the City's
enhanced services are and stated the City will pay three FTEs to cover the additional hours and outreach
services requested. She added services for eight months would cost the City $206,000 ($160,000 for additional
hours and $56,000 + $664 for outreach services). She noted the inclusion of Ashland's Living Wage in the
agreement, and stated LSSI is in support of it.
Ms. Bennett commented that staff did not have a good estimate of costs for outreach services until just recently
and apologized that their estimate was lower than what LSSI' s actual cost is.
Councilor Navickas questioned what would happen ifthe agreement were terminated. Mr. Appicello clarified
information in the previous agreement from 2000 does transfer over to the new IGA in terms of termination.
Councilor Hartzell stated the importance of making sure that the definition of "library operation" in the
contract means, "open hours." Mr. Appicello explained that the schedule inserted in the agreement does add
up to 40 hours a week of operation.
Amy Blossom/140 Susan Lane/Offered her appreciation and thanks for the support given to the Ashland
Library and invited everyone to visit the library next Wednesday at 10 a.m. She announced that the following
Sunday a middle school band will be welcoming visitors into the building. She also noted lots of energy and
excitement concerning the reopening ofthe library.
Councilors HartzelVJackson m/s to approve the draft IGA between Jackson County and the City of
Ashland detailing the enhanced library services to be provided by the County subject to administrative
changes after legal review by County Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced his opposition
to the IGA, noting he cannot support outsourcing of a public library system, as it is an institution that should
remain strictly within the public sector. Councilor Hartzell expressed her appreciation for Councilor Navickas'
views concerning the outsourcing of the library, but noted she will vote yes for the IGA as she feels it is an
interim solution. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, YES.
Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Nomination of Voting Delegate and Alternate to NLC Conference
No action as council member is not planning to attend the conference.
2. Appointment of Systems Development Charge (SDC) Committee Members
Item delayed until future council meeting.
3. RPS report
Community Development Director David Stalheim presented a staff report on the Regional Problem Solving
(RPS) process. He noted three problems it is meant to address: I) the lack of a mechanism for coordinated
regional growth planning, 2) a loss of valuable farm and forestland caused by urban expansion and 3) the loss
of community identity. By agreeing to the planning process, the parties involved would need to agree to the
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 7019
following:
. Abide by the plan
· Maintain consistency with the plan and, when necessary and appropriate, either adjust the
comprehensive plan, codes and regulations, or pursue amendments to the Regional Plan
He noted the following implementation techniques for regional growth planning:
. Periodic Review of the Regional Plan in 10 years, with 2012 as the first year of review
. Urban reserves provide for doubling of the population
. Parties to the plan would need to agree to agricultural buffering standards
. A Critical Open Space Area Preservation is optional
. Urban Reserves provide for community separation
Mr. Stalheim stated the Planning Commission staff's largest concern has to do with population allocation and
the decision of the City of Ashland not to set aside urban reserves for the next 50 years. He noted that with
population change he is not sure that the City Council understands that the population growth rate is
significantly different from historical projections. He added in 2003 the City voted not to add urban reserves,
and stated this decision was made based on an assumed population. He noted the population of Ashland grew
by over 1.35 percent from 1980 to 2005. In contrast, the population growth in the RPS process is much lower
at.32 percent annual growth. He commented that if the City wants to have growth at this rate, the decision to
not have urban reserves is fine because the City can accommodate that population allocation of a little more
than 4,000 people with the existing urban growth boundary. He noted with future growth rates that the City
might need to rethink the use of urban reserves. He stated the issue is not an immediate decision that must be
made by Council because the Stakeholder's Agreement provides for two options that allow for more discussion
and flexibility:
1. The process allows for minor amendments to the Regional Plan that add 50 acres or less to the
urban reserves. However, in 2003, most of the reserve areas in question were about 100 acres
in size. It would be beneficial to have the agreement allow up to 100 acres providing the City
with more flexibility.
2. The process calls for the Periodic Review to start in 2012. The City would be in a good
position to go back to the Regional Problem Solving process, if it chooses, and ask for
population and urban reserve amendments.
Councilor Jackson stated the importance of finishing the plan and noted once this happens the City will then
have two items accomplished; 1) all the cities in the County will talk to each other in more than one venue
again, and 2) if the City achieves adopting a long range land use planning map, this map can then be used for
transportation planning. She stated this is a first step as well as a strategy that is followed by the normal land
use adoption process. She noted a disturbing discussion concerning whether the Stakeholder's Agreement in
itself is a land use action. She questioned how soon the City thinks the Council should form an urban reserve
as opposed to using the existing UOB. She welcomed any comments the Council would like to make
concerning the RPS project. She voiced her interest in having the 100 acres as a special condition for minor
amendments because urban reserves have not been identified in the past. She added it would not have to be
specific to Ashland but rather any city that does not have growth areas. She stated the current time line is to
have the Stakeholder's Agreement, comments and the Regional Plan, as it's drafted now, go up to the state for
review. She recommended visiting the RVCOO website to look at detailed buffering standards.
Councilor Hartzell suggested a possible study session or special meeting to discuss the RPS issue due to time
constraints. She noted there is a need for more in-depth dis.cussion and expressed the importance of reading
through the documents to gain a better understanding.
Mayor Morrison agreed with Councilor Hartzell that the Council needs to understand all dynamics of the issue
before making a decision and recommended the Council hold an additional meeting to include the Planning
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 80f9
Commission. He questioned the period to make a decision on the issue, and noted it seems as though the
Council should set up a meeting fairly soon.
Councilor Jackson agreed it is a good idea to meet with the Planning Commission, and added it may be
important to focus on comments for the Stakeholder's Agreement.
Council directed staff to decide upon a time for a special meeting to address the RPS issue.
Councilors Hartzell/Silbiger mls to extend the meeting until 10:30 p.m. V oice Vote: all A YES. Motion
passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading of a Resolution titled. "A Resolution Declaring the Canvass ofthe Vote of the Election Held
in and for the City of Ashland, Oregon, on September 18, 2007; and approval of Proclamation
declaring the passage of the measure."
Councilors JacksonlNavickas mls to approve Resolution #2007-37. Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson,
Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapmau, YES. Motion passed 6-0.
2. First Reading by title only of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15 of the
Ashland Municipal Code 'Adopting the 2007 Oregou Fire Code with Ashland Amendments"
Councilors Navickas/Hartzell mls to approve first reading and place on agenda for second reading.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson, Navickas, Chapman and Hardesty, YES. Motiou
passed 6-0.
3. Reading of a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting an Open Burning Permit Fee Schedule
Pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 10.30.040"
Fire Chief Keith Woodley provided the Council with a summary of the burning penn it fees resolution, and
noted the downside of a fee is that it may serve as a disincentive for those who dispose of materials such as
vegetation and for whom burning is the only logical alternative. He suggested Council consider this
disincentive before making a decision on whether or not to implement a fee.
Mayor Morrison asked if there was any public response to the proposed fees.
Councilor Hartzell questioned the costs of the pennits and how they differ from past penn it charges. Chief
Woodley explained that charges differ during specific times of the year as well as during an annual period. He
recommended the Council not implement an open burning pennit fee but noted a resolution was provided as
staff was directed to provide a list of penn it fees. He added burning is not allowed without a penn it, and stated
there were three reports this year where burning took place without pennits. He added it is hard for him to
comment on whether or not a $10 fee would be a disincentive as it would not cover the cost of processing the
fee. Chief. Woodly clarified that the number of issued pennits has steadily decreased over the years, and
added the Fire Department is promoting alternatives wherever they can reasonably be applied.
Councilors NavickaslHartzell mls to deny a permit fee resolution. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas
noted he is a strong proponent of using prescribed fires as a means of dealing with fuel build-up. He added any
disincentive towards it is not a good idea. Councilor Chapman suggesting choosing a more reasonable fee
rather than throwing out the entire resolution altogether. Chief Woodley stated $70 would be a full cost
recovery fee, and noted anything substantially less would not be worth the processing fee.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Jackson, Hartzell, Silbiger, Hardesty and Navickas, YES. Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Ashland City Council Meeting
October 16, 2007
Page 90f9
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 discussed.
2. Discnssion regarding Mt. Ashland Association wastewater treatment plant
Councilor Navickas requested an update from the DEQ on the current condition of their permit and voiced his
desire to find out what issues still exist, since MAA has received a notice of non-compliance. He stated that
this non-compliance concerned MAA exceeding nitrogen levels in 2003, and the DEQ stated they would
continue to monitor these levels. He noted the large algae blooms in the reservoir and added algae are a result
of not only high temperatures but of high nitrogen levels. He felt it is important for the Council to investigate
exactly what is going on within the watershed that may increase these algae blooms and requested staff to
contact DEQ for information on the test they conduct at MAA' s wastewater treatment facility.
Councilors NavickaslHartzell m/s to direct staff to consult with DEQ on the current status of the
effluent discharge and the MAA wastewater treatment facility, and request a formal update from their
on-site specialist. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas clarified that this is a request to seek monitor results
and interpret them. He further eXplained that MAA has an on-site specialist who can submit formal reports,
and added MAA is required to submit periodic reports of nitrogen levels using outside monitors. Ms. Brown
explained there is an on-going monitoring program and offered to provide the Council with reports concerning
this information. She noted DEQ does not always do follow-up reports and requested the timeframe of the
reports the Council is requesting. Ms. Brown eXplained that the connection with the algae bloom can be made
if nitrogen levels are high enough, and added she will provide additional information to the Council concerning
this connection. Councilor Chapman voiced his concern with generating a large volume report. Councilor
Hardesty stated part of the problem is that DEQ eliminated requirements for maximum nitrogen levels, and
added a report would contain useful information to the Council. Councilor Navickas reiterated he is asking for
reports to find detailed information concerning the levels. Councilor Chapman stated he is not sure why the
Council would need this information, as it is an issue staff can address on their level. Councilor Hartzell noted
the Council is essentially the Municipal Water Board and has a responsibility to investigate the issue.
Roll Call Vote: Councilors Chapman, Hardesty, Hartzell, Silbiger and Navickas, YES. Councilor
Jackson, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Hartzell questioned why the ambulance issue was not included in the Look Ahead Review and noted
the Council was waiting for Chief Woodley to bring back information from a conference. Staff stated the item
is not scheduled yet but it will be added to the Look Ahead for future scheduling. Councilor Hartzell requested
it be addressed several months prior to the budget process.
\;j\
or