MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
February 15, 2011
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
Mayor Stromberg announced the annual process for various positions on the City’s Commissions and Committees was open.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of January 31, 2011, Joint Meeting with Parks of February 1, 2011 and Regular Meeting of February 1, 2011 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS (None)
2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Allyson Phelps to the Historic Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
3. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Ben Scott to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011?
4. Does the Council wish to accept the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA 2010 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, award #EMW-2010-FO-05471 in the amount of $100,446?
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to adopt Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1. Does the City Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve Planning Action #2010-01239 – a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a 10,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way?
Does the City Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make changes to the Development Agreement prior to approval, or reject the Development Agreement?
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the Public Hearing for Planning Action No. 2010-01239 to order at 7:08 p.m. and stated the rules for the conduct of the hearing were in the Public Hearing Format for Land Use Hearings – A Guide for Participants and Citizens and available on the wall in the back of Council Chambers.
ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Slattery declared no conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts. Councilor Morris noted numerous site visits and attended the first Planning Commission meeting where the applicant presented but recused himself for the second meeting. Councilor Lemhouse had no abstentions, conflicts, or ex parte contacts to declare. Councilor Voisin explained a conversation she had with Planning Commissioner Melody Mindlin and how everything discussed was in the Planning Commission minutes. She also disclosed a conversation with Tom Beam during an interview for the Conservation Commission where he discussed the Winburn property and made opposing comments. The discussion had not influenced her in any way.
Mayor Stromberg noted a conversation in 2009 with Mark Knox prior to the application coming forward. Mayor stopped the conversation and indicated the proposal needed to go through the Planning process and Council. Mr. Knox had shared information on the parcels of land involved, the concept and that the property was currently zoned as residential. Mayor Stromberg was unbiased and not influenced.
Councilor Silbiger declared no conflict of interest. Ex parte contact consisted of minor emails forwarded to staff to put into the record. He encountered one individual who stated their opposition regarding the project and he stopped the conversation immediately. He noted site visits and disclosed he had managed the Lithia Café at that location in 1996. Additionally, Council had an executive session prior to the application that lead to the City being a co-applicant for the purposes of discussion. Councilor Chapman declared no conflict of interest or ex parte communication. He attended the same Executive Session Councilor Silbiger noted and frequently made site visits while passing by the location.
Council consensus was there were no conflicts of interest, the application was not prejudged, and they were not prejudiced or biased by prior contacts or involvement.
Mayor Stromberg read the rules on challenges and the legal description. There were no challenges presented.
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained if the project was approved, staff would bring back Findings, a revised development agreement and ordinances to Council at a future meeting. He gave a presentation on the project that included:
· Maps of subject properties and existing C-1-D Zoning.
· Aerial photos
· Site Lay-Out
· Tree Removal
· Planting Plan
· Front and Rear Elevations
· Renderings: Street, Rear, Side Elevations with views from the Ice Rink and Pioneer Hall Basement Plan.
· Ground Floor: Approximately 4,000 square feet of plaza spaces, dining areas, kitchens, etc.
· Upper Floor: Approximately 3,000 square feet with seating overlooking the ice rink, fire places and dining areas.
· Roof Plan: Green roof treated in vegetation and a 316 square foot observation deck with a glass cover.
· Cross-Section (Detail): Depicting height to neighbors on Granite Street and yard levels to the green roof.
· Visible from the Yard Behind
· Staff Recommendations to PC
o Comp Plan Map and Zone Change: Limit to 85 Winburn lot & Ice Rink lot. Determine parking mitigation. (Existing CUP is for 90-seats. 189 seats are proposed)
o Site review, P&E Permit & Tree Removal.
o Development Agreement Recommendation: Limit site development to the building & improvements proposed. Limit future uses to compatible. Address construction timing & staging.
· Balancing Benefits & Impacts
· Impacts on Area Parking
· Potential Means to Mitigate Parking Impacts
Staff explained the parking calculation was based on the number of seats in the restaurant and factored in employee load. The formula used was either one parking space per four dining seats or one space per 100 square feet, whichever was less.
· In-Lieu-of-Parking Fee: A developer on a per space basis typically pays with fees ranging from $10,000-$45,000 per space with a $15,000-$20,000 average.
· PC Decision
o Comprehensive Plan Map & Zone Change: Limited approval to 85 Winburn lot & Ice Rink lot. Parking impacts will be mitigated through demand management and encouragement of other modes.
o Site Review, P&E Permit & Tree Removal: Approved as presented.
o Development Agreement Recommendation: Limit site development to the building & improvements proposed. Limit uses to compatible. Address construction timing & staging.
· PC Recommended Permitted Uses for D.A.
A. Professional, financial, business offices, and personal service establishments.
B. Stores, shops and office supplying commodities or performing services.
D. Theaters, no drive-ins.
E. Limited manufacture or assembly of items sold in a permitted use.
F. Printing, publishing, lithography, xerography, copy centers.
G. Temporary tree sales, from November 1 to January 1.
H. Public and quasi-public utility and service buildings, public parking lots, excluding electrical substations.
· PC Recommended Special Permitted Uses
A. Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses.
B. Residential uses with specific restrictions.
· PC Recommended Conditional Uses for D.A.
A. Medical Office: The Planning Commission was concerned that medical office uses typically have a more intense and constant parking demand due to employees and volume of patients. A medical office use might work under limited circumstances.
B. Temporary uses.
C. Outdoor storage of commodities associated with a permitted, special permitted or conditional use.
D. Churches or similar religious institutions.
· PC Prohibited Uses for D.A.: Formula or “chain” stores and restaurants are prohibited. For the purposes of this provision. For the purpose of this Development Agreement, a formula store or restaurant is a company with ten (10) or more store or restaurant locations nationally, in addition to having two or more of the following characteristics, “branded” trademark, merchandise, uniforms, façade, signage, décor and color. If the formula or “chain” store or restaurant is based in Ashland as its original or “flagship” store or restaurant location, then the use shall be considered permissible under this section.
· Prohibited Uses – revision Proposed by Applicants: Defining characteristics have been removed, number of stores increased from 10 to 20, and the applicant’s business specifically excluded.
· PC Height Limitations: Structures which are greater than 30 feet in height, but less than 40 feet, may be permitted as a conditional use unless approved as part of Planning Action #2010-01239. The definition of height shall be as defined in Section 18.08.290.
· PC Demand Mgmt, & Multi-Modal Encouragement: The applicants shall provide a multi-modal transportation plan.
· Other D.A. Issues to Consider
o Request to returning Hotel & Motel to a CUP.
o Request to return Medical Office to outright permitted.
o Staging, Timeline & Duration.
o Perpetual Easement.
o First Right of Refusal.
o Non-Competition Clause.
o Waiver of SDC’s for Ice Rink Building.
Staff explained the net gain and loss for parking spaces was neutral because the applicant would lose spaces but gain spaces from the ice rink parking lot reconfiguration. An informal parking study was conducted and included in the applicant’s original submittal.
City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that the City ultimately owned all park property and doubted the City could legally grant permanent easements to anyone on City property.
Mark Knox/485 West Nevada ST/Introduced the development team that consisted of Landscape Architect Greg Covey, Designer Don Sever, Architect Carlos Delgado, Project Manager Melanie Mularz, and Attorney Chris Hearn. He explained how the project began and included a design committee made up of neighbors, merchants and other citizens. Mr. Delgado noted the building was 60% circulation and support space with less than a third for dining.
Mr. Sever described the design blended in the hillside and streetscape of Pioneer Hall and the Community Center. Mr. Delgado added that 20% of the building square footage was dedicated to plaza space. Mr. Covey explained how they integrated public open spaces, extending northerly and southerly along the site. The project would widen the sidewalk 4 feet in several places, set the building back to create additional public spaces, have a new street tree canopy, and proposed new lighting and street furniture as well.
Mr. Knox explained the building was over 10,000 square feet, considered large but was deceptive because 65%-70% of the building was dedicated to common and circulation space with small areas for restaurant space. The current site was decrepit, zoned residential and if a business wanted to update their building, it entailed paying $1,000 and a six-month process with the City. The building was also non-conforming use and structure. The result was a building slowly eroding. He added there were no controls over residential single-family designs.
He clarified that the applicant wanting to retain residential uses in the C-1-D pertained to relative uses. A building needed to recycle and needed a market. The applicant did not intend to go after residential at this time but it would happen in the future. They were also proposing medical because the medical profession had the funds to purchase a building and put the necessary capital into it. This was an option for 30-40 years in the future.
Mr. Knox further explained the applicant did not intend the building to be a primary destination but wanted the right to operate like other entities in town. The building would also be open for the Fourth of July celebration with no deliveries.
Council had concerns regarding the variance on parking that the Planning Commission waived because it was not a primary destination. Ms. Mularz responded that the applicant wanted the opportunity to provide live music or an event that enhanced the restaurant experience.
Another Council concern pertained to the non-competition clause that the City would not sell food and beverages on the City parcels during hours that Storyville or its successors were selling food and suggested removing “or its successors.” Ms. Mularz explained the clause only pertained to the Zamboni storage building. Mr. Hearn clarified the clause should pertain to the Ice Rink and parking lot not Pioneer Hall or the Community Center. Additionally, the clause did not extend to vendors selling food and beverages during the Fourth of July Celebration.
Mr. Knox estimated the value of improvement to the City property was approximately $600,000. The applicant’s concern regarding First Right of Refusal was an effort to protect the family from unintentional lawsuits in the future. They would be open to having the City have First Right of Refusal if the family were somehow protected.
Mr. Delgado confirmed any buildings built on the adjacent property would not hinder the fire access path.
Councilor Silbiger/Voisin m/s to extend the Public Hearing 9:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
Robert Davis/162 Alnutt Street/Encouraged Council to approve the zoning change, it was a great solution to the zoning issue in the park. The proposed building was beautiful and the site would attract more people to the park.
Karen DeBoer/234 Vista/Mayor Stromberg read Ms. DeBoer’s statement supporting the project. She thought the restaurant would alleviate parking in the plaza and the project would bring funds to the City through the Food and Beverage Tax as well as enhance the City.
Catherine Razi/110 Pine Street/Hoped Council would approve the plan. The area would be family friendly. The building will support the community that accesses the area and houses would not. She liked the conscientiousness towards environment and the sheer beauty of design. This building was an architectural gem.
Dean Royce/1365 Ponderosa Drive/Noted his experience in the commercial real estate business. He had nothing against the development other than the parking and the impact to the park. He expressed concern regarding band shell activities and parking. People on Granite should also be concerned because often that was the only place to park during band shell performances.
Jeff Benton/263 N 2nd Street/Explained he did not see a shortage of parking but an entitlement of people who wanted to park in front of the places they were frequenting. The ice rink was embarrassing with pathetic conditions. This was an opportunity to improve the area. He did not think it was a destination building. It was as if the community was being gifted. He encouraged Council to approve the project and consider the entire parking picture.
Todd Parks/1101 Village Square Drive/Agreed with Mr. Benton’s testimony and added if the City did not go in this direction, it would languish as Mr. Knox had stated. If the zoning stayed residential, there was no oversight available. Ashland was thriving and this was a gift. He thought the parking issue regarding the restaurant was codified language for “we do not want the competition.” This was a generous donation.
Denise Daehler/310 North Mountain Avenue/Owned the Liquid Assets Wine Bar and was neither for nor against the project. She was concerned that such a large budget on the applicant’s part would make it difficult for small businesses to compete. Parking was an issue especially for customers who live outside of town. She wanted to ensure there would be an appropriate contribution back to the business community to offset the parking issue. She liked the option of the In-Lieu-of-Parking-Fee. She concluded that having Pioneer Hall in the non-compete clause was another issue for her.
Al Silbowitz/1600 East Nevada Street/With a park as beautiful as Lithia Park it was appropriate to have ancillary uses that were in good condition. The project was a gift to the City of Ashland when so many businesses were suffering and projects trying to survive. He encouraged Council to affirm the decision by the Planning Commission and go forward. Parking issues need to be addressed but this an enhancement to the park and slightly separated from the downtown area. He urged Council to approve the project.
Rob Mackinnon/50 West Hersey Street/Explained he was on the Pastoral staff of the Ashland Christian Fellowship. His perspective was from someone who had lived and served in Ashland for a long time. He encouraged Council to approve the project it would enhance the Lithia Park area and be positive for the community. Ashland had always been a pedestrian friendly place with many events that encourage people to park and enjoy the downtown. This project would add to that experience.
Sheri Cellini/335 Kent Street/Questioned the improvement to the sidewalks and parcels to the adjacent area at Pioneer Hall. She noted the Boy Scotts utilize Pioneer Hall and that could create a conflict. Her other concern was how they will handle parking for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The application did not address ADA parking or wheel chair access.
William Heimann/647 Siskiyou Boulevard/Thought it was unrealistic to assume a 189-seat restaurant would be filled with bicyclists and walkers. To fill a 189-seat restaurant four times in a meal totaled 756 people over a 4-hour period. That was a significant amount of people for a residential street. The project needed a formal parking study. The one provided was not sufficient. He commented Storyville was not included in the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and suggested the TSP study review parking and traffic impacts due to the restaurant.
Andrew Kubik/1251 Munson Drive/Agreed with Mr. Heimann’s testimony. He was concerned the project was disproportionately large. He thought the parking study was inconclusive and urged Council to require further study. One thing not mentioned in the project was the potential impact on Main Street itself. There was limited ingress and egress, one way in, and one way out on that street. In addition, the majority of people driving will be visitors.
Marilynn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Expressed concerns about flooding in the area and the basement. She suggested the applicant forgo the basement, put the building on columns, and provide parking underneath. The concept was great but her concern was parking. Good urban planning solved a problem, did not exacerbate the problem and Ashland had a parking issue.
Seth Barnard/855 Reiten Drive/Parking was difficult in Ashland and this project will likely not make it better. Aesthetics were huge, Lithia Park was a world-class gem, and across the street was a world-class piece of junk. He asked Council to approve the project.
Kevin Flynn/605 Elizabeth Avenue/Encouraged Council to approve the project. This was a blessing being offered to the City at no cost to the taxpayer. People were using illegal drugs and alcohol in that area and the homeless slept on the rooftops of the structures. The current set-up for the ice rink was embarrassing. He did not believe there was a parking issue in Ashland and thought most people would walk to this business. Those who drove would park in Lithia Park, not the plaza.
Lisa Walker/1180 Oak Street/Commented on the jobs the project would create.
Juan Camacho/ 830 Kevin Way/Thought this was a great thing for community, it would create jobs. His children love the park and it would be nice to be able to get coffee just across the street.
Art Baden/1120 Fern/Explained that one of the things that drew him to the area was Lithia Park. He noticed the amount of people unemployed or underemployed in the area and added anything that would enhance the economy was a wonderful idea. If there were actually 700 people a night at the restaurant, it would be a wonderful problem to have. He thought the community had enough intelligence to handle any parking problems.
C. Granat/Mayor Stromberg read the letter submitted into the record that suggested parking requirements for the proposed 189-seat restaurant would be mitigated by scaling the restaurant back to 70 seats.
REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT
Mr. Knox explained that parking was a complex issue. Ashland had pushed for infill instead of parking. Parking problems were great issues for a City to have. Parking equaled increased driving and traffic that meant a loss of livability and community identity.
If more conditions were added to the project it would not happen, this was a gift to the community. Additionally, if Storyville moved to a site where parking was not required, there would still be parking problems, no street improvements and the buildings by Lithia Park would continue to decay. Alternately, the project would not move forward if Council wanted to discuss an In-Lieu-of-Parking Fee. Storyville wanted the opportunity to participate like all other merchants in Ashland.
In 1988, Council decided parking was not the burden of one property owner. Parking was the burden of the community. Council formed an assessment district with monthly fees required of downtown property owners and purchased three parking lots. It was done comprehensively, under the management of the City and not put on individuals trying to create jobs and extend the winter season. Pioneer Hall would not be affected as far as use and impact. Instead, it would create a logical seating arrangement using benches to make it more usable. He concluded Council and community should resolve parking issues, not one entity.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Public Hearing closed 9:30 p.m.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to continue item to the March 1, 2011 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
REQUESTS TO SUBMIT FINAL WRITTEN ARGUMENT
Delayed to March 1, 2011 due to time constraints.
ADVICE FROM LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF
Delayed to March 1, 2011 due to time constraints.
COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION
Delayed to March 1, 2011 due to time constraints.
PUBLIC FORUM (None)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Relating to Business Licenses?” and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Tabled motion from February 1, 2011: Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to accept item #3 on the business license fee that does not tax vendors. Interim City Attorney Megan Thornton explained the process to take a motion off the table.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to take motion off the table. Voice Votes, YES, passed.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger opposed the motion because the language was originally designed to address events. It was also not fair to have so many exemptions. The motion would parse identical businesses where one will have to get license and not the other. One option was an income limit and the second would require organizers to pay a license based on the number of booths, the same as businesses with number of employees. Councilor Slattery disagreed there were identical businesses where one was taxed and not the other. The turnover in the Emporium was huge and he was not comfortable adding fees to people trying to sell things in an almost yard sale scenario. The same applied to the Growers and Crafters Market. The City should not tax this level of business activity. There was a difference between a full fledge business and one that rents spaces. The Emporium should pay for a single business license and not an additional per booth fee.
Councilor Voisin noted Section 6.04.030 Licenses Required – Presumption of conducting business (C), that of the five categories that determine conducting business, one might actually affect a vendor. She thought it was an over reach by the City, was unfair and would not support having vendors pay for a business license.
Councilor Lemhouse declared a conflict of interest and explained his wife was a vendor at the Artisan Market and was in the process of applying for a business license. His definition of a market was an area where multiple vendors came and sold their products. He did not think the sole intention of the ordinance was raising revenue and was in favor of the language proposed by staff. He did not support per booth fees, but thought sponsors of the Market and Emporium should maintain a business license.
Councilor Chapman clarified the intention of the ordinance was not to raise revenue. It was an attempt at gathering data and regulation. He thought the Emporium was more of a consignment store. Farmers Market vendors sold product for 4-5 hours once a week. Neither fit the model. He was inclined to require licenses from everyone and charge a small fee. Councilor Morris was in favor of licensing the sponsoring organization except for the Emporium. He thought if an individual had a specific license, they should also have a business license to work in Ashland. He was tending towards a fee per booth as well.
Staff clarified that the motion indicating Option #3 on the Council Communication from the February 1, 2011 meeting was now Option #1 on the Council Communication before Council. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Voisin, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s require all organizers to get a license and pay a fee based on numbers of employees and the number of booths. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger thought a $5.00 fee per booth annually was a fair compromise. Councilor Slattery confirmed the fee per booth could be $0.00. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Morris, Slattery, and Silbiger; YES, Councilor Voisin and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Ms. Thornton had received an email from Councilor Silbiger regarding a language change to Section 6.04.040 (E) for rental units. She suggested removing “…unless the units being rented are part of the Lessor’s primary residence,” and adding that language to 6.04.020 Definitions (L). Council consent directed staff to make appropriate modifications and changes to the ordinance, add the definition of rental unit and the words ‘rental unit’ to 6.04.030 Licenses required - Presumption of Conducting Business.
Councilor Voisin /Lemhouse m/s to approve First Reading and set the matter for Second Reading.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Chapman, Slattery, Voisin and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
2. Will Council adopt a resolution allocating Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue for tourism and non-tourism purposes for FY2011-2012 and establishing criteria for the grant program?
City Administrator Martha Bennett declared a conflict of interest and recused herself. Councilor Slattery also declared a conflict of interest and asked Council to recuse him from the discussion. He was related to someone that benefitted from the grants.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Slattery. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Slattery left the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained TOT revenues provide monies to the General Fund services and the Economic and Cultural Grants. Incorporated in the proposed allocation amounts was an anticipated growth for next year of $84,600 for a total of $1,884,600.
Also proposed were two options for the restricted monies in excess of projections over the last two years that equaled $82,546 currently in the General Fund restricted for Tourism Activities. Option 1 would make no changes to Resolution 2010-06 and allocate 73.4% for Non Tourism that included services in the General Fund and 26.6% for Tourism Activities. Option 2 would revise the allocation and move extra money from small grants to the restricted section of the General Fund for next year’s budget. The Chamber of Commerce would receive additional funds with significant increases for small grantees in tourism and other activities identified in the resolution.
Mr. Tuneberg clarified the $150,000 allocated for Economic Development provided funding for staff through June 2011. He went on to explain that Council could allocate $82,546 for Tourism Activities or reserve it for future tourism-qualified capital project improvements.
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to take the $82,546 and move it into the Capital Tourism Fund for future capital projects related to tourism in the downtown area. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained there were major infrastructure projects for the downtown area. If this money did not go into that fund, he doubted there would be money from other areas in the budget to use on infrastructure capital projects downtown. Councilor Voisin thought it should remain in Grants because part of economic development was developing small businesses. It was important to use taxpayer money for the taxpayers. She would not support the motion. Councilor Morris was not comfortable using TOT funds for maintenance. However, he agreed on using the funds for capital projects. It was taxpayers’ money but came from TOT and should stay associated with tourism in the long term. Councilor Silbiger noted the line item stated the money was City projects for TOT purposes. Councilor Chapman added state law defined how TOT was spent. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Morris, Chapman, Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-1.
Councilor Lemhouse motioned for a third option to increase the Chamber of Commerce Visitors Convention Bureau (VCB) 4.7% as recommended by staff and hold all other levels of allocation to the 2010 levels. Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Chapman suggested establishing a formula that would work for two years using 2008 as a baseline. It would take $500,000 for tourism money and assign 55% to VCB, 22% to Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF), 10% for Small Grants, 3% for Art, and 10% for City Projects. Any amounts remaining or negative amounts would wash. Non Tourism Grants would take a baseline of $1,000,000; allocate 80% to the General Fund, 10% for Large Economic Grants and 10% for Small Grants.
Mr. Tuneberg thought the problem with allocations was putting a fixed dollar amount in the resolution and using percentages for the rest. Using either fixed dollars or all percentages would help amounts stay consistent and might avoid annual or two year adjustments.
Councilor Silbiger suggested designating $150,000 for Economic Development purposes as approved by City Council. He clarified that Council could decide to use the money for a large project or for capital tourism. Mr. Tuneberg added staff could come back to Council for direction on where the $150,000 will go in the budget for the following year.
Councilor Voisin motioned to accept Option 1 for the TOT tax for 2012. Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to accept Option 2. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger thought the option provided reasonable increases for both grants, the Chamber of Commerce, the General Fund and met the criteria for tourism. Councilor Lemhouse wanted to move the extra money into the General Fund but thought Option 2 was better than Option 1. Councilor Morris could support Option 2 but had an issue with the $150,000 allocated for strategic planning. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion. It was important to support individuals developing small businesses. Councilor Chapman was supportive because it was close to what he had suggested, but would vote no because strategic planning needed to be revised. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Morris, NO. The vote on the motion was not completed due to the 10:30 p.m. meeting end time.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor