Mayor and Council expressed their appreciation of the Commission.

Mr. Olson reported that this vacation is an intent to divide the property owners existing lot at 290 Skycrest Drive into two lots. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed alley but is tied to a Planning Action. He further explained that although it would be difficult to develop because of the steep grades and lack of connectivity, the alley could offer a possible pedestrian route. As compensation for the loss of the alley right of way, the applicant has offered to dedicate a 0.38-acre parcel of land as parks open space for potential trail purposes. With the alley vacation, the City would relinquish 5,457 square feet of right of way, but would receive in return 16,701 square feet of open space.

Mr. Olson suggested that the following conditions be appended to the vacation of the alley:

He clarified that the public utility easement would not allow a building and that the Fire Department has reviewed the vacation.

Public Hearing Open: 7:32 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:32 p.m.

Councilor Jackson/ Amarotico m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading with the conditions outlined above. Roll Call Vote: Chapman, Hartzell, Amarotico, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.

Councilor Silbiger voiced his concern with the additional $1million transfer of appropriations to contingency. Mr. Tuneberg explained that funds would only be drawn from this contingency fund through the approval of the council. Due to the public noticing requirement, staff felt that it would be better to do this at this time.

Public Hearing Open: 7:40 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:40 p.m.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Resolution #2006-01. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Chapman, Hartzell, Hardesty, Jackson, YES and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

George Kramer/386 North Laurel/Spoke regarding infill and how he felt it was important to our community. He voiced his concern that some in the community are using infill as "growth." He shared his concern regarding two members of the Planning Commission, who intend to hold public forums on growth have personal agendas and would not provide a balanced point of view. He felt that it is a total disregard to the Planning Commission for these members to go off on their own without the support of the Commission. He asked that these Commissioners be removed from the Planning Commission. Mr. Kramer provided a draft resolution adopting infill development as the preferred method to accommodate future population growth in the City of Ashland. (SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.)

Suggestion was made that a study session be scheduled to discuss how the debt service for AFN would happen. Mr. Grimaldi stated that this could be part of the Budget discussion or prior to the Budget discussion. It was council's desire that this discussion happen prior to the Budget discussion.

Council commented on the importance of discussion regarding the Croman property and the Study Session with the Forest Service and Forest Commission. Item #2 was deleted from future study session topics.

Hartzell requested that joint sessions be held in the future with the Planning Commission in order to discuss issues that may necessitate municipal code changes. Council suggested that staff bring back a report on how this would affect the workload of staff.

Mr. Goldman explained how other commissions (Tree Commission and Historic Commission) review applications to determine whether the applications comply with the criteria relating to their specific area of oversight are met. The Housing Commission would review work in a similar capacity. Additionally, the Housing Commission could make suggestions to applicants that could be incorporated into their proposal, on a voluntary basis, to better structure their projects to address the community needs.

The addition of the Housing Commission to the established plan review process would necessitate additional administrative responsibilities as well as a change in the regular meeting time of the Housing Commission to allow the review within the 120-day time line allocated for current plan review. The proposed change would have an impact on the focus of the Housing Commission in that a significant percentage of their regular meeting time would be dedicated to this new responsibility.

Mr. Goldman stated that staff had not determined the full extent of the impact on the Community Development Department and that the organizational audit will be advantageous in evaluating how significant these impacts would be, given the existing and projected workloads. If council should direct staff to proceed with the modification, an evaluation of the measurable impacts upon the review process, timing, noticing requirements, and estimated workload on Community Development staff can be provided to the council.

Mr. Molnar felt that it would be helpful to use the Housing Commission as a resource but that impact on staff should be considered. He suggested that it would help to get the Housing Commission involved early for projects involving zone changes or annexations.

Staff provided examples of applications where it may have been helpful if the Housing Commission had been involved in the application process.

Housing Commissioners Jennifer Henderson and Bill Street made themselves available to the council for any questions that they have. The Commissioners commented that they are an integral part of the process, which would be helpful when bringing applications forward to the Planning Commission. Stated that by having the Housing Commission involved would bring greater awareness of what works and what does not work. Mr. Street commented that this would be an opportunity for the council to raise awareness of Affordable Housing and the importance of Affordable Housing to the community. He requested that the council identify this as a priority now and that the planners find the time to accommodate this modification.

Mr. Grimaldi stated that we should concentrate on what we want to accomplish and to accomplish it in a timely manner. Hartzell voiced strong support for using staff in order to advocate moving Affordable Housing forward. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that if input comes in pre-app, it does not come in as automatically part of the record.

Councilor Jackson voiced concern with the workload on staff and the complexity of review on applications by the Housing Commission. She stated that given the current goals of the Housing Action Plan and the Housing Commissions own goals this modification would require a substantial workload on staff and the Commission. She would prefer to see evaluations of our municipal code in how we could accommodate housing needs. She is reluctant to add another Commission to the review sequence. She would prefer staff's recommendation that meetings happen early on in the application process.

Mr. Street noted the diversity of the Housing Commission members and felt that the council has the ability to give the Commission this charge.

Councilor Amarotico supports the idea of the review process before the application and voiced concern with the workload associated with the modification. Councilor Silbiger sees benefit of the Housing Commission's involvement in the pre-app process but voiced concern with anything more than that. Councilor Chapman felt that pre-app is too late. Councilor Hartzell felt that there is a need for the Planning Commission to know what the Housing Commission is learning. She felt that this would be an education of the Planning Commission and that it is very important for the Housing Commission to be involved in order to facilitate Affordable Housing. Ms. Hartzell offered to work on modifications to the Historic Commission or any other Commission that would remove their responsibility to review in order to free up staff time for support of the Housing Commission review process.

Mayor commented that staff has agreed to bring back an assessment on time commitment and where to insert this process. He suggested that council allow staff to do this and hold further discussion once this information has been provided to the council. Mr. Street offered another suggestion that the Housing Commission could be involved in the pre-app and then again at the review process. It was suggested that all commissions be reviewed on their involvement with planning actions. Councilor Jackson felt that in order to do this would require a study session for further discussion.

Councilor Amarotico/Jackson m/s to direct staff to come up with a policy for the Housing Commissions involvement in the pre-app process and for the Housing Commission to report back in a year to see how it is working. DISCUSSION: Mr. Street felt that this is a good start but that meeting with the Planning Commission would be a good two-way street discussion and opportunity for education. Voice Vote: Amarotico, Jackson, Chapman, YES; Hardesty, Hartzell and Silbiger, NO; Mayor Morrison, YES. Motion passed 4-3.

Current purchasing rules exempt bandwidth from bidding but the City's purchasing rules require that the contract come before the Local Contract Review Board for approval. Mr. Tuneberg explained that quotes were requested from several supplies for internet bandwidth. The 2-year agreement amounts to $156,793.00.

City Attorney Mike Franell clarified that the Oregon State Public Records law does provide for confidential of records if there is confidential clause in the contract.

Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve public contract with Qwest for internet bandwidth and local loop connection be approved based on written findings. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Staff clarified that there are no vacancies in the department and that there has been no recent turnovers.

Councilor Chapman/Hardesty m/s to approve IBEW Electrical Workers Union contract. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Mr. Olson explained that two of the projects associated with this contract have grant monies associated with them and to delay them may affect these grants. Staff is recommending that the contract be awarded for Schedules B and C at a total cost of $372,320 and that Schedule A be delayed until a later date. He explained that the only schedule not encumbered by grant driven time constraints or LID requirements is Schedule A, which is a sidewalk construction project.

He further explained that the resolution governing Local Improvement Districts would not allow the estimated assessment to increase any more than 10% even though the bid is approximately 42% higher than estimated.

Mr. Olson stated that they had considered breaking the project into smaller projects but the smaller companies were not interested. He noted that the cost of concrete has increased substantially. He clarified that some of the areas that have potential liability issues for sidewalks, that LTM has agreed to include these areas in the contract. He stated that in many cases the responsibility of sidewalk repair actually is with the property owners, the areas he is speaking of are on city property.

Mr. Olson clarified that the downtown sidewalk project needs to be considered in regards to the grants monies associated with this project and that it would be best to have the project completed before summer. He clarified that the bump outs were identified in the prior downtown plan and it was determined that due to the pedestrian benefit it would be best to move this forward. Mr. Olson stated that if this project were held off, it would result in the loss of grant monies.

Councilor Amarotico disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to his ownership of a business in the downtown area and would not have an impact on his decision-making in this matter.

Mayor Morrison noted that one of the intersections involved in this project is a particular dangerous intersection and did result in a loss of life previously.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Anthony Kerwin/300 W. Nevada/Expressed his support of approving the contract for improvement of Nevada Street and the downtown area.

Nora Knox/276 W Nevada Street/Voiced her support on the acceptance of this bid by the council. Noted the amount of time and energy that has been put into this LID and requested that the council approval this contract in order to move forward with the project.

Art Bullock/791 Glendower/Voiced his concern with what he perceived as a 42% increase in the Nevada Street Local Improvement District. He stated that there had been incorrect cost sharing percentages and that the City Attorney had not corrected this problem. He feels that this request shifts thousands of dollars more from the subdivision onto the shoulders of the Ashland taxpayers. Mr. Bullock stated that the council could not approve this contract without a resolution. He further cited what he felt were numerous ethic violations by Public Works Director Paula Brown, concern by the lone bid from LTM, unsafe concrete sidewalks, and painted ladder crosswalks. (COMPLETE WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD.)

The following individuals submitted written comments into the record:
Daniel DeNeui/216 W. Nevada Street; Christina Linquist/266 W. Nevada Street, Helen Troutman/95 West Nevada Street and Mark Knox/276 W Nevada Street.

City Attorney Mike Franell stated that he does not agree with Mr. Bullock's statements and that the council would not be making a decision based on false information. He commented on the appropriateness of the proposed sidewalks, how this project would benefit all the property owners in the area because the city is participating at a greater extend rather than doing a technical breakdown. He explained that because it is being viewed as a pedestrian improvement project and is classified under the 60% sidewalk improvement. He clarified that the city is operating under an estimated assessment and allows the city the ability to obtain funds over the 10%. Does not feel there would be a breach of trust on the council's part if they were to approve this contract.

Mr. Olson offered some examples of where costs could be cut in the project, but noted that these changes would be subject to the review of the contractor

Councilor Chapman voiced concern with changes associated with the downtown and his concern with being held hostage by one concrete company.

Councilor Jackson/Amarotico m/s to approve a contract to LTM Inc. for $372,320. DISCUSSION: Mr. Franell clarified that Mr. Bullock had asked the court for an injunction on moving forward on this LID, but the court denied his request. If the court finds that there has been an incorrect cost sharing percentage then the city would need to hold another public hearing. Voice Vote: Amarotico, Hartzell and Jackson, YES; Hardesty, Silbiger and Chapman, NO; Mayor Morrison, YES. All AYES. Motion passed 4-3

Councilor Silbiger/Amarotico m/s to approve the award of a contract to Tobiasson Excavation for the 2005 Utility Construction Project at a total cost of $359,967. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.