Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, October 07, 2003

October 7, 2003
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

Mayor DeBoer announced Council had held an Executive Session according to ORS 192.660(1)(I) for evaluation of City Administrator Gino Grimaldi.

Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.

Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present.

The Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 16, Study Session of September 22, and Public Input Session of September 30, 2003 were approved as read.

Mayor's Proclamation of October 5 - 11, 2003 as "National Fire Prevention Week" and Proclamation of October 8, 2003 as "Walk our Children to School Day" were read aloud.

1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Liquor License Application from John Edwards dba Los Gordos at 33 Third Street, No. 3.
3. Liquor License Application from McCall, McLaughlin, dba McCall House at 153 Oak Street.

Councilor Morrison/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed.


Councilor Hartzell suggested that Council allow public input during the 15 minutes allocated for the Public Forum. She stated there may be citizens who were unable to attend the Public Input Session and does not want to prohibit anyone from having their chance to speak.

Councilor Hearn voiced his concern for the number of speakers that may come forward. Hartzell clarified that it would only be for the already allowed 15 minutes, and only for those that have not previously spoken. Amarotico supports holding to the time already allowed for public input. Laws does not agree with Hartzell's suggestion and feels that it could create a difficult situation determining who can and cannot speak. Laws clarified that it has been Council's policy not to allow public testimony after a public hearing has been closed.

Councilor Hartzell asked to put on the record that she was not aware that procedure had been set up to not allow any more public input on the Mt. Ashland DEIS, and spoke against the policy of not letting citizens speak during the Public Forum.

Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to allow public input during the 15 minutes allotted, including the Mt. Ashland Expansion, but only for those who have not had the chance to address the Council. Voice Vote: Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Laws, Amarotico NO. Motion passed 4-2.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith Street/ Stated it has always been city policy to allow citizens five minutes to speak on any agenda item. He also noted that at the last council meeting, Russ Dale was allowed to speak on a closed Public Hearing, which was previously restricted, and swayed the Council's position. He firmly stated that citizens have the right to speak on any agenda item, and feels the limitation to 15 minutes is ridiculous. He asked if any council member would admit to the infraction of policy, which allowed public input on a closed hearing at the last council meeting.

Councilor Hartzell noted she and the other council members are always open to phone calls, and also stated that they held the special public input session specifically so that people would have their time to speak and not be limited to the 10:30 cut off time.

Navickas read aloud the 1973 statement from the DEQ which stated significant land disturbances as a result of the work completed at the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, and also stated the City of Ashland will receive further insult to their water supply if watershed activities are increased or expanded.

Shannon Clery/92 Emerick/ Stated that our watershed is more important than our wants and desires of a Ski Area Expansion. She stated our watershed is an incredible resource and feels it is the Council's responsibility as representatives to look out for that interest. She stated that the Mt. Ashland Association is not looking out for our resources, but rather in the interest of the skiers and snowboarders. She stated the Mt. Ashland Association has no accountability to this community, and wants the Council to step forward and look toward the long term and put this issue to rest.

Emma Kurtz/831 Liberty Street/ Stated that she is a member of the Ashland High School ski team, and stated that she, along with many of her teammates, do not favor of expansion of Mt. Ashland. She feels that the expansion will put much of the old growth forest in jeopardy and does not feel that it is worth it.

Stewart McCollum/819 Elkader/ Voiced his appreciation of the council for all that they do. McCollum stated he was familiar with the original Mt. Ashland expansion and noted the McGraw report, which stated there was no relationship between the siltation in Reeder Reservoir and the construction on Mt. Ashland, and also stated the soil was called the "greatest filter system that God could perfect".

Rob Sweeney/92 Emerick/ Stated that he had been drawn to the community due to its small town atmosphere and values. Sweeney stated he is concerned with the Mt. Ashland expansion due to many issues, one of which is that the ski expansion will serve only a minority of the community, and feels the council should take a position of safeguarding the watershed for all of the citizens. He stated staying out of middle fork, improving on the current facility, and implementing a fire plan are just some of the ways the Council could take a more conservative approach.

Marshall Kinkead/747 Butler Creek Road/ Stated the community deserves a ski and snowboard area that serves the people of all abilities better. He stated the Mt. Ashland Association's expansion plan is a result of years of work by ski area professionals and environmental consultants, with the main goal being to provide more easy terrain for an area that is sorely lacking it. He noted too many skies and snowboarders choose to go to Mt. Shasta or Mt. Bachelor rather than out local area because they have more beginner and intermediate runs, which and adds up to a lot of lost business. Reclaiming this business would assure even more financial stability as well as bring more business to local restaurants and lodging. He also noted Mt. Ashland is a huge winter employer, and a survey of SOU students showed a major factor in their choice to attend SOU was the Ski Area. Kinkead stated studies have shown that the expansion will not affect the water supply, and urges the Council to support the expansion.

Katie Holden/107 Alida/ Voiced her opposition to the expansion and sited the Valdez Principals, which encourage bio-diversity and making decisions based on the good of the land. As a tax paying citizen, she is concerned logging will start before it is clear where the money will come from to complete the expansion, and is also concerned her money will go toward something she does not support. Holden stressed that as a community we need to be making decisions that are holistic.



1. Decision and Recommendations regarding Mt. Ashland Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi noted if the Council required additional information staff was present, and reminded the Council that the deadline for submitting comments is October 23rd.

Councilor Jackson explained part of the reason she supported not taking public comment during this meeting is because they held a long meeting last week to take input, as well as received numerous emails on the issue. She stated this is the first time the Council has had the opportunity to discuss this as a group. Jackson stated it seems they have received numerous comments that are business oriented, and feels there may be alternatives other than Alternative 2 that address this issue. She expressed her concern in regards to the Middle Fork and asked that the Council talk about this issue tonight. She also stated she wants to make sure whatever they decide on that it is attainable, and not only wants to see the completion of the ski runs, but also the remodeling of the lodge and the entrance to the facilities. Jackson asked that the Council look at the community values and sustainable resource conservation.

Councilor Morrison commented that the staff's report was primarily focused on water supply, water quality, and fire. There is some mention of financial risk, but it tends to focus on how they would bail out if the ski area were to fail. His concern is not whether they will be able to bail themselves out, but rather to see that the ski area continues to run. He feels there is a high level of risk, especially in Alternatives 2 & 6 which go into the Middle Fork area. Morrison noted that Mt. Ashland has been operating for some time, but with an investment of this sort there is significant financial risk. Morrison stated the money that is necessary for the improvement will carry with it a debt burden if the funds are borrowed, and that this may be more than the ski areas' annual operating costs. On the other hand, he does feel that they need to improve the ski area, and that some expansion is vital. He stated it may not be possible to responsibly come up with a plan that allows the long easy runs, but feels they can certainly come up with improved runs for safety and for intermediate skiers, and do it at a reduced cost. He would like to see something of this affect submitted in the comments to the Forest Service. Morrison also noted he has received a substantial amount of comments from concerned citizens, and clarified that they do not necessarily have to come to a decision tonight, as that this is a decision that needs to be made with the highest level of consideration. Morrison explained his position is to find the middle ground, and stressed keeping the cost of the expansion low.

Councilor Hearn stated this is the most difficult issue he has faced as a council member, and has spent a good deal of time reviewing the emails and materials, as well as meeting with clubs and representatives. Hearn appreciates the differing view points received, and feels it is the Council's responsibility to represent their constituents. Unfortunately their is no clear consensus on this issue, and therefore he is not not going to vote in favor of any of the alternatives. Hearn noted the lease needs to be reviewed, and that the management operations of the ski area goes to the Mt. Ashland Board. He also stated the Council needs to be mindful of guarding the water supply and making sure there is no fire danger, as well as making sure the tax payer liability is protected. Hearn stated his motion will be to accept Attachment 1 (staff recommendations) as they stand today, direct the city attorney to look at the lease, and to not endorse any of the 6 alternatives.

Councilor Hearn/Amarotico m/s to accept the DEIS comments (Attachment 1) as they stand. Discussion:

Councilor Hartzell stated she feels that the DEIS comments assembled is a start, but it is not where she is willing to stop, and expressed her disappointment that a motion was made before the discussion was complete. She noted the QA/QC is a good idea, however it is very vague, and details need to be negotiated between the Forest Service, Mt. Ashland, and the City. Hartzell noted the financial concerns, and how they are using the equipment as security. She, however, is not convinced that a ski lift will be worth a substantial amount in the next 20-25 years. Hartzell asks that the determination be made as to what their liability is with the Forest Service at the end of the use of the special permit, and also for a bond or real money (something that does not depend on snow levels or use or appreciation). Hartzell questioned if she voted in favor of this motion, if the Council would allow her to come back at the next meeting, after she has had more time to digest the material, to discuss the finer details.

Councilor Laws stated the major decision needs to be made tonight for practical reasons. After the decision has been made, there will still be an opportunity to make small adjustments during the final writing stage. Laws stated, however, he does not feel it would be practical to re-write the entire document at the next Council meeting. He noted if this is not decided on until the next meeting, there will not be enough time to assemble the comments into it's final version and have time to discuss it. Laws stated he feels they have a very wide community consensus on protecting the watershed and their financial liability under any of the alternatives. Most agree that if there is any construction on the mountain at all, we need to protect our water quality, water quantity, fire risk, and financial protection. Laws feels the staff has presented creative and sounds ways of achieving this. Laws explained now is the time to add any comments that would further strengthen what the staff has already come up with. Unfortunately there is no consensus as to which alternative is best. He noted Council can have the strongest impact if they make comments that represent a large consensus of the community, and suggests in order to make the comments as strong as possible, that they limit themselves to those that they do have a consensus on. He also noted that although he had seconded the motion, he and Councilor Hearn are still open to hearing suggestions that would strengthen the ways they can protect the community.

Councilor Hartzell commented that she has spent many hours going over information and comments, especially in regards to water quality, and stated it was important to keep water on the land as long as possible. Hartzell stated she had participated in the Water Master Plan Study, and asked what information exists about the the wetlands located at the bottom of the Middle Branch. What function is this wetland playing in the water system, and how many other acres are storing water in the same way?

Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified she is not a wetlands expert, and stated that wetlands do play a part, but a very small one if you look at the overall acreage of the watershed. What site specific information staff has, gives them assurance that the water volume is not going to damage to ability of the sponge. Brown stated the wetlands is only 45 acres of the watersheds 15,000. She commented if they look at the amount of surface water, which is what gets into the reservoir, the sponge will and has gone dry, and they have had as little as less than 100 gallons of water coming into the reservoir. It has gone less than that and will continue to go less, wetlands or not. Brown stated she feels that the Council is focusing on something that is very minor when looking at the entire watershed.

Hartzell stated it may not be appropriate to measure acreage in that system, and perhaps because there is less wetland acres, it makes those acres more significant because they store more water longer. She has yet to get an answer to her questions, or the information that would help to answer these questions, and does understand how they can say there will be no effect when they do not have the specific data that proves so. Hartzell wants to know what those acres contribute to water supply at different times of the year, and until she gets those answers, it does not quantify the risk.

Mayor DeBoer noted that a motion had been made, and he was obligated to limit discussion to the Council, and not involve staff. He stated his goal was to move the Council to a vote on the motion.

Councilor Jackson stated she was wanting to have the opportunity to talk with staff and make suggestions to their recommendations. Jackson would like to talk specifically about the QA/QC team, and define what their term and scope would be.

City Administrator Gino Grimaldi commented that questions are being asked where the staff does not have the information, and feels it might be worth discussing whether or not they can get the information, and how long it will take. He stated there might be information that staff will not be able to get back to the Council prior to the 21st.

Councilor Laws stated in matters of public issues, there is rarely completed information when it is time to act, and sometimes you have to make decisions based on partial information. Laws believes the Forest Service is going to make a decision regardless of whether or not the City asks for more time. At this point he does not feel the Forest Service will slow things down. His advice is if they feel that they will not be able to get more information, they should act on the information they do have, as best they can.

Councilor Morrison stated he is in favor of moving this ahead, but does not like the idea of doing so when there are still unanswered questions. He would like to take what they have been given and add to it as much as they can so that the staff can come back in two weeks, and they will be able to move ahead. Morrison noted there are some areas where nearly everyone agrees, examples: wanting a better ski area, a financially viable ski area, safer, environmentally sensitive, and providing intermediate skiing. Morrison asked Financial Director Lee Tuneberg if they can provide comments to the Forest Service that stress choosing an alternative that has greatest potential for economic success at the lowest possible risk.

Finance Director Lee Tuneberg stated a business plan could be constructed, but at this point the City has not done so, and has left that responsibility to Mt. Ashland. The recommendations that have been made are those that protect the city in the contract they have, and they have stopped at that point, other than recommending certain check points to ensure that the City is covered.

Mayor DeBoer asked in their current agreement, does Ski Ashland have to come to Council before they could borrow money in lien? Tuneberg stated their is some gray area regarding the assets that exist in the City's name and versus what is in their name, but does not believe they can borrow money against the assets that were originally part of Ski Ashland. It has been staff's recommendation to ensure that nothing be pledged that was being considered for reclamation.

Councilor Jackson stated she would like to see the Council reflect the concern of the community that the expansion is viable for the long term and that the project can be completed in a term so that they are able to see the improvement sooner than later. Jackson suggests modifying the financial risk recommendation 'B', to request that the City help define what restoration is. She suggested the following statement: "The City would like to define restoration as including, but not limited to, stable landscape vegetative cover and structural components after removal of the assets necessitated by closure of the ski area."

Councilor Amarotico agreed with Councilor Morrison's comments and that he shared this same sentiment, and feels the Forest Service does as well. He does not believe the Forest Service would choose the biggest risk and the least successful plan.

Councilor Jackson stated the reclamation program does not have to be financed until the area actually closes, and it can then be established what the costs are going to be. Lee Tuneberg commented that the recommendations to the lease include looking at the costs today and any approved expansions from the Forest Service's perspective of what the cost would be. They have also asked what those steps are, and asked that there is a reconciling process to ensure if their is a change in the standards, they are addressed as they go along.

Councilor Hartzell suggests that the City meet with the Forest Service to determine the standards that go into the determination of what constitutes a closure. Hartzell asked if the appropriateness of reviewing the lease has been discussed, as well as looking at the options for making sure there is security to pay for the closure; not in equipment, but in money.

Finance Director Lee Tuneberg stated the current lease agreement addresses reclamation costs, and noted they can test the assets that are available to cover those costs, and if they do not measure up, cash can be put aside into a trust fund.

Councilor Hartzell wanted to know the appropriateness of recommending that the Forest Service hire an independent QA/QC Team, versus the Council requiring this as part of the lease. Does the Forest Service have the authority to require this of the Mt. Ashland Association? Mayor DeBoer stated this was almost two separate issues, one being the EIS and the other the lease agreement with Mt. Ashland Association. DeBoer also noted that Ski Ashland has $300,000 set aside in liquid security in the event of a closure.

Councilor Hartzell stated they are simply sending out a recommendation for the QA/QC Team, and does not feel that this is sufficient. Hartzell stated it appears that they are doing this in a way that gives them no control or authority over whether this team ever comes to bear, and would like to set the authority structure, as well as the budgeted costs in the proposal to the Forest Service and MAA.

City Attorney Gino Grimaldi addressed Hartzell's concern that the QA/QC Team and BMP's is an empty assurance, stating it is not empty if the Forest Service adopts it as part of their plan.

Councilor Laws commented that they can not demand that the lease be changed at this point. He feels that they will not have any problem implementing several of the Finance Director's suggestions, and feels the Forest Service would be very foolish to release the City as the lease holder from the responsibility of restoring the area and allowing the City to turn it over to the MAA. Laws also feels it is not possible to get a commitment from the Forest Service stating exactly what it would cost, but noted that the Forest Service has indicated that an estimate will be provided and updated periodically. Laws stated that they are asking for certainty that they just can't have, and that life is not certain and risks will always exist. He also expressed that authority was given to the MAA, and it is not the City's job to question what is financially viable for the MAA, or to make sure that skiing stays on Mt. Ashland. It is the City's responsibility to make sure that they do not do anything that would hurt the City of Ashland.

Councilor Jackson stated it is difficult to keep the suggestions on modifying the lease out of their discussion, and expressed it is more important to get the comments finished than refining what needs to be done to the lease. Jackson stated she agreed with Councilor Laws statement that they need to make decisions based on the information they have, but feels they need to have a thorough discussion. Jackson would like to further discuss the QA/QC Team, as well as water quantity and impacts on the late succession reserve old growth forest. Jackson noted the DEIS did not look at the forest impact in the same way as they are looking at forest impact in the watershed for fuels reduction and encouraging forest health. Jackson stated she would like to continue to collect information and make necessary adjustments as they go along.

Councilor Hartzell asked Councilor Hearn if he would be willing to change or table his motion that so that staff could come back with some of the requested changes. Councilor Hearn declined, and re-stated he is moving to approve Attachment 1 as is stands. Adding that under the circumstances, it creates the appropriate safeguards.

Councilor Jackson stated she disagrees with the motion on the basis it does not take into consideration any of the input heard. She also disagrees that they have not reached a consensus, stating the community wants a viable alternative, and wants to voice her support for a cautious approach in the middle branch and a viable ski area.

Councilor Hartzell feels it is clear that the community is divided on this issue and the Council has begun to mirror that division. Hartzell proposed waiting another two weeks in order to get their questions answered and possibly include additional language, so that this meeting does not result in a split council. Councilor Amarotico stated he is not confident that two more weeks would produce any further information that would make their decisions any different.

Councilor Jackson stated she is expecting the staff to return with additional text pertaining to the water quality recommendations, and is not ready to close this discussion tonight. Jackson also stated she would like the opportunity to speak with staff and council about how they approach the monitoring of what goes on.

Councilor Laws noted that this is part of what Paula Brown has already recommended, and feels it is perfectly legitimate to speak on this particular aspect tonight. Councilor Hearn agreed.

Councilor Hartzell stated she would like to add language stating if real numbers indicate that there is any risk of damage or change to the water supply and water quality, that nothing happen in the middle branch. Hartzell also asked for percentage points with some information, and stated the model is based on assumptions.

Councilor Morrison stated they have time to come back at the next council meeting and still make their deadline. Morrison stated he would like to avoid going back and forth, and hopes in two weeks time they will be able to frame up the wording and consult with staff, and come back with a document that seems to meet their needs better. He also noted that in doing so, the council will be able to achieve a greater degree of comfort and send a better statement from the community.

Councilor Amarotico proposes calling for the question, and then in two weeks if staff has additional information, they can add an addendum at that time.

Councilor Amarotico called for the question. No second to the request.

Councilor Laws proposes the councilors put their questions in writing, ask the appropriate staff member if it is realistic to find an answer in two weeks, and would like to go ahead with the questions and suggestions to see if the council would like to add them to the motion.

Councilor Hartzell suggests taking it upon themselves to meet with staff and come back at the next council meeting with the specific language they would need to approve the motion, which would free up time tonight to complete the agenda.

Councilor Hearn stated he would be willing to go along with this request, and does not want to stifle anyones input or decision making ability.

Councilor Laws expressed his concern with the possibility of rewriting what has been done, and noted the difficulty of only having two days after the next meeting before the comments are submitted to the Forest Service. Laws stated he is also concerned with one on one readings with the staff, and likes the idea of asking their questions tonight.

Councilor Jackson expressed she agreed with Councilor Laws in that she does not want something brand new coming to the next council meeting. She stated she would like the opportunity tonight to have Paula Brown answer some of her questions regarding the water quality and quantity proposals she has made, as well as make suggestions on how the development can move forward.

Mayor DeBoer stressed that he would like clear direction from the Council regarding public input, and how they should proceed with the next council meeting.

Councilor Jackson proposed a phasing process of gathering more site specific information, taking a closer look at the impacts on the forest in the middle branch, and developing the information as they move along in order to tailor their actions.

Councilor Laws stated he does not believe this is a practical approach, asking how would the MAA know how much money to raise without knowing what they intend to build.

Councilor Hearn motions to withdraw his motion so that this issue can be discussed further. Councilor Amarotico declined as second to the motion.

Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to table the current motion. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico and Hearn, NO; Hartzell, Jackson and Morrison, YES; Mayor, NO. Motion failed 3-4.

Voice Vote on original motion to accept staff recommendation Attachment 1: Laws, Amarotico and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, Jackson and Morrison, NO; Mayor, YES. Motion passed 4-3.

2. Request for Authorization to Participate in Downtown Planning Charrette - Copeland Lumber Block.

Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained Russ Dale and Evan Archerd are proposing to sponsor a public charrette process to look at the Copeland Lumber block, and noted the City has ownership of the parking lot. Staff is asking for authorization to participate, both as a property owners and as a governing body to oversee the regulations. McLaughlin stated the Housing Commission has recommended that the city participate in this process.

Councilor Hartzell expressed her concern that this charrette may propose something to the council that would go against the Big Box Ordinance, and asked if participation in this charrette could jeopardize the Council's legal ability to make a ruling on an eventual appeal. McLaughlin stated in his opinion, No. He clarified the study area would involve several property owners, and therefore would not result in a conflict.

Councilor Hartzell asked how much staff time would be involved in the process. McLaughlin clarified 1 or 2 staff members would be involved, and because this is not City lead, there would not be as much staff commitment.

Councilor Hartzell stated she would like to have a discussion at the Council level, before the charrette, in order to discuss potential criteria, ideas, and policies so the City would have some idea of what they would like done with this property.

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

Councilor Jackson stated she is supportive of the staffs participation in the charrette, and noted that the result of this would not tie the city to a decision in any particular project.

Councilor Hartzell asked if the outcome of this process would exceed the standards that were recently adopted in the Big Box Ordinance. McLaughlin stated the intent of the charrette is to determine the best way to develop downtown, and would show what can and cannot be done under the ordinance. However, it may bring out amendments to the ordinance that had not been previously considered.

Evan Archerd/120 N 2nd/Explained that he is one of the developers that is involved in the charrette. He stated that this will be a three step process. The first step would be to gather facts and public input, those ideas would then be incorporated into a 3-4 day event in December where the ideas will be put into modules, and after approximately a month, there will then be another chance for the public to comment on what has been done. Archerd stated they do not have any preconceived notions to attempt to change what was set forth in the Big Box Ordinance , and the idea of the charrette came up completely independent of the Big Box.

Councilor Morrison asked who has been invited to participate in this charrette. Archerd stated the public has been invited, George Kramer has been invited as a consultant, GBD Architects will be doing the sketching of the designs and building models, as well as local architects and landscape architects.

Councilor Hartzell asked what the impact would be if the City decided not to participate. Archerd stated he felt that would be unfortunate, and that it would be short-sighted for the City to claim they did not want to look at this.

Eric Navickas/711 Faith/ Stated that Russell Dale's intent is to combine three tax lots and build one very large building, and utilize the City's parking lot for their own profit. Navickas stated he is a supporter of affordable housing, but feels that this can be done within the 45,000 limit and stated the downtown area needs to be sub-divided as much as possible to maintain scale and character. He also stated that the Big Box Ordinance was passed for this exact purpose of stopping a single developer from developing an entire city block. Navickas encourages the Council to reject this proposal to participate. He supports the development of the Pioneer Street lot, but does want the tax lots combined, and would like it developed separately for the use of affordable housing.

Councilor Jackson / Morrison m/s to approve request for authorization to participate in Downtown Planning Charrette. Voice Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES; Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

3. Police Chief Recruitment.

City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained staff has scheduled to bring the police chief candidates into town November 6th and 7th for the interviewing process. There will be three panels and Staff is seeking two councilors to participate in the process.

Joanie McGowan/951 Clay Street/ Stated Mike Bianca would make a fabulous police chief, and wanted to voice her support.

Mayor appointed Councilors Amarotico and Hartzell to participate in the Police Chief Recruitment.

4. Seventh Annual Report on implementation of the Valdez Principles.

Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderschied explained that at the request of Councilor Hartzell they have added a description of the new initiatives, and stated he would be happy to answer any of the Council's questions.

Ryan Navickas/711 Faith Street/ Stated the Council's attempt to ramrod the decision for Ski Ashland development underminded the hundreds of people who tried to make input to this process. Navickas stated the Valdez Principles are broad concepts that are designed to send the City in the right direction, and thinks it is up to the city to turn this into a reality. Navickas noted the need to safeguard the water supply and the old growth forests, and reminded the Council of the City's role as a cooperative management partner with the US Forest Service regarding decisions affecting the watershed. Navickas also stated it is up to the City to take a hands on approach to using this powerful document to protect the watershed from logging and development interests, and feels City has failed by not giving this document the power it deserves.

Councilor Hartzell thanked Wandersheid for including what was new, and requested that the next report indicate what was "dead".

Councilor Jackson noted the first two principles include looking out for making a smaller footprint, and stated they have just acted in the watershed and did not consider the impacts on the wildlife habitat and the health of the watershed. Jackson stated she would like to see new and broad ideas come forth on how the City can become even more sustainable than they currently are.

5. Update on Electric Rates.

Electric & Telecommunications Director Dick Wanderschied explained the rate increase will be 2%, which will amount to $28,000. He also relayed the rates will not be discussed again until the next year's budget process.


Mayor DeBoer reminded the Council there is a Study Session tomorrow at noon.

Councilor Morrison stated he appreciated the deliberations this evening, and explained the outbursts by Eric Navickas does not help the cause, and it is unfortunate when such behavior begins to transcend the issues instead of allowing the council to deliberate and work together. Morrison stated that he hoped this behavior is not emulated by others in the future.

Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.


Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
Alan DeBoer, Mayor

End of Document - Back to Top

Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top