MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 6, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of May 16 were approved as presented. Approval of the continued meeting minutes of May 19, 2000 was moved to the June 20 council meeting in order to allow council time to read these minutes.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (none)
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Annual Ambulance License Renewal.
3. Annual Liquor License Blanket Approval.
4. Council confirmation of appointment of Greg Scoles to position of City Administrator effective July 14, 2000.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-3. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Councilors Reid/Fine m/s to approve item #4. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
1. Public hearing to consider adoption of the budget.
OPEN: 7:07 p.m.
CLOSED: 7:08 p.m.
City Administrator Mike Freeman clarified that with the passage of the County Library Levy the ending balance was increased $1,000.
Shaw explained that both the Library/Fire Station Levy and the Recreation Levy were incorporated into the proposed budget that was reviewed, which is why you do not see a change in the final proposed budget. She further explained that the library expansion stays within the city budget because the county is granting the city the $5.9 million.
Tax rates were clarified indicating that the Youth Activity Levy rate increased $0.38 per thousand as compared to the prior levy of $1.00 per thousand, the Library Levy rate decreased $0.15 per thousand with the passage of the county library levy, and the Fire Station Levy is $0.24 per thousand. The total rate per thousand for the city, which also includes the General Fund, Parks and Recreation Fund, Water Bond Levy and Flood Restoration Levy, is $5.4890 per thousand.
Sophia McDonald/210 California St #A/Representative from Associated Students of Southern Oregon University gave brief update of campus activities. She introduced Tamara Henderson who will replace her as the Communication Director.
Tamara Rae Henderson/132 S Mountain Av. #3/Introduced herself as the new Communication Director from Southern Oregon University (SOU).
Lyn Horstemeier/920 Cambridge St/Spoke regarding the traffic in the Quiet Village area and concern regarding the speed bumps on Oak Street. She suggested that the bumps be removed permanently and to place a stop sign at Nevada with radar detectors to remind drivers of their speed.
Mayor Shaw noted that she had lived on Oak Street for 17 years and that it is not without cost to have a police car sitting on their street on a daily basis with a radar gun. Commented that she did not believe it was the intent of the neighborhood to redirect traffic. She stated that the reduction of traffic may also be due to residents walking more. She explained that there is awareness that the bumps are not as presented in the literature and the city is continuing to try to find a solution. Laws noted that the Traffic Safety Commission is bringing forward a recommendation to the council regarding the street bumps.
Joe Charter/220 N Oakdale St, Medford, OR 97501/Charter spoke regarding a proposal to put in five aggregate pits on Dead Indian Memorial Road. He suggested that if the council would like to have input to the county commissioners regarding this proposal a meeting could be arranged. He stated that there are environmental impacts that could affect our community. He explained that the gas pipeline runs closely along the area where one of the pits is being proposed.
Councilors Wheeldon/Fine m/s to place the item on a future agenda for council discussion. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Eric Navickas/711 Faith Av./Brought forward a draft letter regarding the Ashland Downtown Historic District and how out of character the Wells Fargo Bank building is. Requested that the council endorse the letter addressed to Wells Fargo Bank urging them to renovate the building or subdivide the lot for additional commercial space.
Shaw stated that she would be willing to send the letter out to key locations and noted that because this is not a Historic Building, they do not qualify for benefit that is provided for being in a Historic District.
Councilor Reid commented that the building will qualify in ten years and will be considered an untouched example of 1960's architecture. Reid cautioned that twenty years from now this building could be viewed differently than it is presently.
Wheeldon commented that she would like to forward this item to staff and hear their ideas on how this could be done.
Laws suggested that this be referred to the Historic Commission. Council concurred.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Council meeting Look Ahead.
Noted that there will be no July 4 meeting and that the item regarding the proposed aggregate pit re-zoning will be placed on the agenda for the June 20th meeting.
2. Request for approval of banner and buntings related to the opening of the University's Center for Visual Arts.
Wheeldon commented on a speaker that spoke on traffic calming, streetscape and street reclaiming. She stated that one of the points the speaker made had to do with the idea of treating streets like rooms instead of corridors. She explained that the intent is to give you a sense that you are in a place and calm things down. Wheeldon stated that she supports encouraging banners and other ideas that give a sense of something happening.
Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve the request. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
3. Oregon Shakespeare Festival Lease Agreement.
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that Exhibit B was previously available and was handed out this evening for council information.
Paul Nicholson presented the lease document to the council for their approval and stated that the agreement addresses the many recommendations, concerns and suggestions that were raised by the council and the OSF board members. He emphasized that OSF recognizes that any motion that the council adopts does not give approval for the project as it stands because it has not gone through the planning process. The lease would become effective upon approval of the project and planning actions.
Nicholson stated that the OSF Board is willing to go on record as being willing to consult with the city council if there is a desire to significantly change the way they are using their venues. He explained that the Black Swan Theater is not being considered a primary venue, but that the Angus Bower, Elizabethan Theater and the new theater are seen as primary venues. He stated that the OSF Board will come to council only when it becomes a primary performing space. Reid commented that she is not prepared to say how many theaters should be built in the City of Ashland.
City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified that on page 3, item 5(e), the section referred to should be section 14 not 12. Nicholson explained that the lease has been written to state that OSF will develop, operate and maintain the parking structure. He stated that after the various elements have been paid off in terms of operating costs, maintenance costs, and reimbursement costs, that anything other than these would be the city's responsibility.
Wheeldon commented that, with the way the lease is written now, it would take the city completely out of the ability to use this component. She suggested that these fees could be a revenue source or a way that the city leverages different projects.
Laws stated that one of the things that the Parking Transit Transportation Committee discussed is the need for incentives and disincentives to be used in trying to bring about the type of transportation results that we would like to see in the city. He suggested that the council consider some type of incentive or disincentive to redirect the parking in different times of the year or to different groups. Laws felt that in order to have flexibility for use of the parking facility, the city needs to retain control. He proposed that the city should own the parking lot and that OSF should build the parking lot, but a provision should be included in the lease that says that the city will pay OSF for construction and structural enforcement of a third level.
Shaw commented on information provided by an outside source from Aspen indicated that parking garages are very expensive to maintain. She noted that these facilities not only are expensive to maintain, but that people also have a tendency to not feel safe in multi-layered parking lots.
Reid questioned if the city had formally requested a third story to the parking facility and voiced her concern that this could become too vertical, and too negative a space. She commented on her support of new parking lots that have an open environment to them.
Nicholson explained that OSF had originally anticipated two levels, but by slightly adjusting the grades, it allowed a third level. He stated that OSF felt that after meeting with the Transit Transportation and Parking Committee (TTP) it seemed appropriate to consider a way to provide additional parking.
Laws restated his suggestion that the city should maintain ownership, including the responsibilities for the parking lot in order to give the city the greatest flexibility in terms of managing our transportation and parking problem in the city. He feels that if this is turned over to OSF, the city will lose that maximum flexibility.
Nicholson explained that the lease currently states that OSF will control parking revenue, but that they would anticipate collaborating and working with the TTP Committee. He stated that the OSF Board is willing to go either way in regards to ownership.
Freeman explained that the reason the language was placed in the lease is because there was anticipation of some type of parking management that would impact how this facility would be managed. Wheeldon stated that "consultation" is not a strong enough.
Wheeldon voiced her concern in protecting the city from making a commitment to payback anything before the maintenance and operation costs are considered.
Nicholson stated that to not consider building the third level would be a lost opportunity for the city in providing additional parking spaces. Wheeldon has been looking at the additional parking as the OSF's contribution to the overall parking obligation in the city. She felt that this was a huge contribution by OSF toward the amount of traffic generation that happens and she had not given a lot of thought to the intermediate level being a trade-off.
Reid noted that there is talk of putting storefronts facing Hargadine Street rather than parking. She felt that if this were to happen it would affect the number of parking spaces on the upper level. Reid noted that parking spaces could be gained, or lost, during the planning process.
Shaw asked the council how they would like to amend Section 14 of the lease agreement. Reid stated that she would agree with Laws, that it should be city owned. Council discussed the removing Section 14 from the lease agreement. It was noted that if this were removed, OSF would want some kind of guarantee of reimbursement for the costs associated with strengthening of the structure and would require staff input on how this could be done.
Laws stated that he would prefer that staff be allowed to work out the changes mentioned and then to bring the amended lease back to the council for approval. Shaw requested that the council continue to work out the issues at this meeting and move toward approving the lease in concept.
Nolte felt that there could be an agreement in concept as to what the language should be and to move forward with staff drafting the lease for signature without it coming back to council.
Wheeldon not comfortable with not knowing what the revenue is going to be and is not sure where this information is going to come from. She stated that if the city is going to be the owner and cover operation and maintenance it cannot be taxpayer supported.
Council continued discussion on the pros and cons of the city owning the parking lot versus OSF owning the parking lot. Included in this discussion was, if the city owned the parking lot, how OSF would be reimbursed for the expense related to building and strengthening of the third level structure. The council continued to discuss how expenses related to operation and maintenance would be covered over and above the reimbursement costs to OSF. Nicholson suggested an agreement that the expense could be reimbursed on an incremental basis over an agreed number of years.
The council discussed the issue of parking fees for the proposed parking lot and how they are imposed depending on who had ownership. The comment was made that if the city owns the parking lot, there is a chance that the public may not agree to paid parking and that would affect the revenue source intended to cover the reimbursement and operation and maintenance costs. Concern was raised on the possibility that the parking lot could be built, incur operation and maintenance expense, but no one used it to the level that is expected. It was clarified that the expense would only be incurred if a three-level parking structure is built and the question was raised on if the decision to build the third level needs to be made at this time.
The council indicated general consensus that they wish for the city to maintain ownership of the parking lot and that there will be an incremental level, should the parking structure make it through the planning action process and be approved. The council continued discussion on how the incremental level would be paid for by city government.
Hauck stated that if the city is requesting something that is beyond what is necessary for the project, it should be reimbursed. Laws gave a brief history of prior discussions regarding the proposed parking structure. He stated that initially the parking structure was going to be two levels and was going to increase the number of parking spaces beyond what was going to be lost with the new theater by a small, but significant number. Then, with the preliminary negotiation with the planning department and looking at city ordinances, the number decreased considerably. At this time, the idea of a third level was considered which would create additional parking beyond the original number.
Laws felt that there is no question that individuals would use the additional parking lot and does not see this as a problem in securing additional revenue to support the operation and maintenance for the third level. Fine suggested that if the city did not impose parking fees, that OSF be given a preference, after operation and maintenance expenses are covered from parking fees, that the lot be available for theater patrons parking during festival.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin clarified that other than landscaping the city cannot impose requirements on what faces the street. Nicholson stated that they have had conversation with Doug Neuman in regards to the parking lot and how it related to the Hotel section. McLaughlin clarified that the Ashland Municipal Code does not require any parking in the downtown core and that is only a negotiation between the city and OSF.
Councilors Wheeldon/Hanson m/s that a third level become a part of the parking configuration. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Wheeldon, Fine, Reid, Hauck and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.
Councilors Hauck/Hanson m/s that the city bear the difference of the incremental level over the two levels.
DISCUSSION: Wheeldon requested that there be a more qualifier as she does not feel it is a good way to present it and suggested that payback over a number of years be included. Laws suggested that we agree in concept and then ask staff to work on alternative ways to fund and how long it would take. He clarified that OSF has proposed to pay for two levels and that unless the city indicates that they would reimburse OSF for the third level, there is no obligation on OSF to build the third level. Council discussed how the structure could be used for alternative reasons, in the case that it was not used for parking, which would fund the expenses associated with the structure. Nolte explained that the current lease states that the expenses are paid out of parking fees and if sufficient parking fees are not generated it is at OSF's risk. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Wheeldon, Fine, Reid, Hauck and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.
Councilors Laws/Fine m/s that the city pay the cost of reinforcing the structure for the third level. Laws, Wheeldon, Fine, Reid, Hauck and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.
Nolte requested clarification on if the parking structure is part of the lease. He stated that the city could require them to build without it being subject to the lease. Shaw suggested that an understanding be included in the lease that the parking would be developed pursuant to the council directive. She also made a suggestion that the parking be pulled out of the lease and a separate agreement drafted with language for the parking structure from the council that indicates, that should this be approved by the planning commission, that the council would like to strike an agreement if OSF would add an additional layer to the parking lot, that the air space would be moved over and reserved for city purposes and is silent on any fees or charges.
Nicholson agreed with the suggestion of a separate agreement, but noted that there is a small piece of the parking structure that has a piece of the proposed theater on it.
Laws feels that the wording of the lease needs to be changed and that the council should be directing staff with their concepts for the changes, and then staff can bring back the redrafted lease agreement for council approval.
The council had discussion on the need for restrooms in this facility and it was noted that the city has complete control over the air space and may want to work with OSF during the construction period for any underground work that may be done at this time.
Laws recommended that instead of the wording in the lease of "3 consecutive 25 year leases", that "75 years" be referenced. He stated that the city has no choice as to whether there is a second or third year lease and that OSF has the power to pull out at any time. Nolte explained that usually in a lease if the lessee wants to get out there are penalties, but because the proposed lease with OSF has no consideration between the parties there is no difference for this wording.
Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to reword the lease agreement to indicate one 75 year lease. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Wheeldon, Fine, YES; Reid and Hauck, NO; Hanson out of room. Motion passed 3-2.
Nicholson clarified for the council that on page 2 under "Use of Property", that the highlighted language is from lease and is not new.
Laws brought forward for discussion, under item 13 page 5, that the city has the right and responsibility in determining what is the best use for this space with due consideration given to OSF. Nolte pointed out that it may not be necessary to reserve the air space because the city has complete control of the facility. Nolte suggested that the language should state that before the city develops its air space it will give due consideration to OSF. The council discussed the need for OSF to have input on what is developed in the proposed air space. Nolte clarified that what the lease says is that if someone approaches the city to do a project, which the city is willing to go along with, the lease would give OSF the right to step in and say that they want to something that is even better for the city than what is being contemplated. He explained that who decides what is better is vague and could be a problem for future councils if the two parties cannot agree. Nicholson requested that language be included in the lease to the effect that if the airspace is developed that OSF has due consideration to minimize impacts.
The council requested that section 13 be redrafted with the previous mentioned issues and concerns taken into consideration, and then brought back to council for approval.
Consideration of a contract extension with Moss Adams, LLP, Certified Public Accountants for municipal audit services.
Interim Finance Director Greg Scoles explained that the Audit Committee recommendation was to extend the contract for two additional years. Scoles clarified that the proposed contract changes that are before the council would have no effect on the consideration of extending this contract.
Councilors Laws/Hauck m/s to approve the contract extension for audit services. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
4. Request for Annexation and Extension of City Sewer Services to 1209 Park Street (Tax Lot 391E15DD 501).
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that the property owner is in favor of the annexation and that because this is a city-desired annexation, the city would incur all expenses associated with the annexation.
Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve request. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
5. Approval of Property Acquisition under the Park and Recreation Department's Open Space Program for Parks and Water Quality Improvements.
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that this would help with water quality improvements, that the Parks Department is willing to put this into the Open Space Plan and that this is something that the council has been asking for with the trail connections.
Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve property acquisition. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution adopting the Annual Budget and Making Appropriations."
Councilors Wheeldon/Hauck m/s to approve Resolution #2000-012. DISCUSSION: Reid noted her past unwillingness to vote in favor of adopting the budget due to the exclusion of the Tolman Creek project, but because the Tolman Creek project is a topic for the next study session, she was willing to vote in favor of adopting the budget. Roll Call vote: Reid, Wheeldon, Laws, Hanson, Hauck and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues."
Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve Resolution #2000-013. Roll Call Vote: Fine, Wheeldon, Hanson, Hauck, Reid and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
3. First reading of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the period of July 1, 2000 to and including June 30, 2001, such taxes in the sum of $6,735,000.00 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon."
City Administrator Mike Freeman noted that the rate for the Fire Station Bond should be .2405 as there is a mistake in the table. It was also noticed that the Fire Station Bond description should be the year 2000 not 1997.
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve first reading with changes to be brought back for second reading of the ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine, YES. Motion passed.
4. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Revising Competitive Bidding Requirements in Chapter 2.50 of the Ashland Municipal Code Entitled "Local Public Contract Review Board."
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to approve first reading and pass on to second reading. DISCUSSION: Laws noted that there had been discussion regarding damage to or interruption of essential services and Fine clarified that the current wording made the point that he had previously raised.
Roll Call Vote: Fine, Laws, Hauck, Wheeldon, Reid and Hanson, YES. Motion passed.
5. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Adopting Rules Exempting Certain Classes of Contracts from Competitive Bidding, Permitting Requests for Proposals and Repealing Resolution LCRB 93-35.
Marty Levine/2122 Creek Avenue/Chairperson for the Audit Committee/Levine noted that the Audit Committee had considered the Auditor's recommendation to create a centralized database of contract information. Levine stated that currently, there is a lack of uniformity and control, and suggested that putting a database in place would provide a degree of uniformity. He recognized that design and implementation might well be handled by the Finance Department, but recommended that an individual independent from Finance and Administration manage the database.
Levine emphasized that the Audit Committee had voted unanimously to place the responsibility for oversight of the database and preparation of regular reports to council in the City Recorder's office. He explained that the Recorder has the requisite independence combined with daily involvement in the accounting systems of the city, and emphasized that this would avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. He stated that the Recorder could make a report to the Audit Committee, and that the Committee could meet quarterly to review that report along with quarterly financial statements and report to the Council.
Levine clarified that he was speaking tonight because Council had previously requested that he wait until staff had prepared their recommendations. He stated that his belief was that the Council wanted to have input from the Audit Committee on staff's proposal before making a final decision.
Councilors Fine/Hanson moved to direct staff to amend section six on page four of this resolution to take into account the recommendations of the Audit Committee. DISCUSSION: Shaw suggested leaving the resolution as submitted, with contract review either by the Finance Director's or with the City Attorney, as a staff member working directly for the Council.
City Administrator Freeman stated his belief that this function should remain with the Finance Director, and noted his concern that the City already has an unusual charter and is moving toward spreading the authority and responsibility for day-to-day functions between many parties.
Shaw expressed concern with the appearance that the council does not have trust in the Finance Director, even if their intent is merely to avoid a perceived conflict of interest.
Levine clarified that at the time this matter was being considered by the Audit Committee, there was a good deal of publicity about the handling of contracts. He stated that adopting the Audit Committee's recommendations would address that issue.
Council discussed the duties of the City Recorder.
Reid suggested that regardless of who administers the database, it should remain open and accessible. Freeman noted that the Auditor's recommendation had to do with needing to be able to audit contracts easily, and suggested that some difficulty arises from the decentralization of duties. Freeman stated that the Audit Committee was going beyond the Auditor's recommendation in making this proposal.
Laws suggested that maintaining the database being discussed is not an auditing function, but is in fact record keeping. Laws noted that he had no problem keeping this function in Finance, and emphasized that wherever this duty rests, it would remain a record keeping function rather than an evaluative one. Freeman explained that the Finance Director is responsible for evaluating whether procedures are followed and emphasized that this is already being done. Freeman stated that adding more steps would only make the process more difficult.
Acting Finance Director Greg Scoles explained that record-keeping functions could be best handled through Finance's EDEN management information system, which tracks purchase orders and contracts. Scoles concurred with Freeman that the Finance Director is responsible for evaluating contracts to see that proper procedures are followed. Freeman clarified that the EDEN contract database module is not yet up and running, but stated that since the Auditor's recommendations, internal procedures have been modified and all contracts are being kept in one file until they can be entered into a database.
Levine explained that all he is recommending is that, given public concern over the handling of contracts, the Recorder as an elected official should have access to the database of contracts in order to make a report to the Audit Committee. Laws suggested exploring a compromise, with the report done in Finance for periodic review by the Audit Committee. He stated that there has to be faith in the accuracy of the records handled by the Finance Director.
Reid clarified that Laws was requesting a Finance administered database with quarterly reports to the Audit Committee. Hauck stated that he had no problem with this, but suggested that it be handled as a policy matter outside of the resolution.
Freeman recommended preparing a quarterly report for council to go along with the quarterly financials. Reid noted that she does not want to see these reports, and stated that the Audit Committee is a group of experts who have the skills and experience for this type of review. Freeman emphasized that this review is one of the duties of the Auditor.
Shaw emphasized that the Finance Director is paid to ensure that these contract records are properly kept, and stated that there is also a paid Auditor to review record keeping. Shaw asked that the people who are paid be allowed to do their jobs.
The motion and second were withdrawn.
Reid suggested passing the resolution as presented, and reviewing it in one year.
Laws noted that the Audit Committee was originally appointed because the councilors lacked accounting backgrounds. He suggested that the original intent in appointing the Audit Committee was that they could spot any red flags that the council might not see.
Councilors Fine/Laws m/s to extend the meeting until 10:30. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed.
Laws suggested that having the Audit Committee meet to review quarterly financial statements and make any recommendations they have to the Council would be the best way to take advantage of the group's expertise. Levine noted that the Committee already receives the quarterly reports, and stated that holding quarterly meetings would merely formalize their review. Levine agreed that this could be discussed at a later date with the resolution approved as it now stands.
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to adopt Resolution #2000-014. Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Hauck, Fine, Hanson, Laws, and Reid, YES. Motion passed.
6. "A Resolution Readopting and Amending the City of Ashland's Rules for Screening and Selection of Persons to Perform Personal Services and Repealing Resolution 94-21."
Councilors Hauck/Wheeldon m/s to adopt Resolution #2000-015.
Councilors Fine/Hauck m/s to amend the resolution to insert the word "essential" before "services" in section 1, the next to the last line.
Councilor Laws/Fine m/s to amend section 1.1 relative to revising scope of services, to add that if the lowest cost proposal is not accepted, a written reason for accepting a higher proposal would be kept on record. Upon review, noted that this section was in a different resolution.
Voice vote on Fine's proposed amendment: All AYES. Motion passed.
Roll call vote on the amended resolution: Reid, Wheeldon, Hanson, Fine, Hauck, and Laws, YES. Motion passed.
7. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Certifying that the City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions."
Councilors Fine/Wheeldon m/s to adopt Resolution #2000-016. Roll call vote: Reid, Fine, Laws, Hauck, Hanson, and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed.
8. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Sections 15.04.210, 15.04.212, 15.04.214, 15.04.216, 15.04.218 and 18.72.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Simplify the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures."
Councilors Reid/Hauck m/s to move the ordinance to second reading. DISCUSSION: Reid questioned what brought about these changes. Nolte noted that there were some problems that came up with the first few demolitions that came before the committee.
Reid questioned why those who had proposed the ordinance were not present. Wheeldon explained that this was simply an effort to make the ordinance applicable to some other scenarios that might arise. Nolte confirmed that the changes are true to the original goal of the ordinance, and give the city a chance to review demolitions before they happen.
Laws voiced a philosophical objection to attempting to get around state laws preventing the prohibition of demolition of historic structures, and suggested that this ordinance would not stand up in Court. Suggested that under the council's oath of office, they have pledged not to violate state law and he feels that the City is doing just that with this ordinance. Laws also stated that under section 15.04 demolition/relocation standards for buildings more than 45 years old, "economically beneficial use" must be defined if it is to be a standard.
Wheeldon stated that the purpose of the ordinance is to raise awareness and allow for some review, and suggested that she does not want more specificity in 15.04. Wheeldon stated that this allows for a process to occur, but also allows for some discretion. Laws disagreed. Fine stated that he does not agree with Laws' interpretation, and noted that staff members Nolte and McLaughlin recommended "economically beneficial use" wording as there is a good deal of case law having to do with land use.
Nolte concurred that he had recommended this wording, but agreed with Laws that the applicant for a demolition will have to show that the building to be demolished would have no value if the building were to remain. Concurred with Laws that if the applicant were not able to show this, they would not be able to tear down the building.
Roll call vote: Wheeldon, Reid, Hauck, and Fine, YES. Laws and Hanson, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Reid asked that the Tolman Creek Road plan be provided to the council.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder