Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, April 18, 2000

April 18, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E Main Street

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.

The minutes of the Regular meeting of April 4, 2000 were approved as presented.

1.     Presentation of Plaque to Finance Director Jill Turner.
Mayor Shaw recognized Finance Director Jill Turner for her 13 years of service and read a letter of appreciation and acknowledgment submitted by prior City Administrator Brian Almquist.

2.     Mayor's Proclamation of April 30 through May 6 as "City Recorders Week."

3.     Mayor's Proclamation of April 22, 2000 as "Earth Day."
Mayor Shaw read proclamations.


1.  Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2.  Confirmation of Mayor's appointments/reappointments to Boards, Commissions and Committees.
3.  Termination of Improvement Agreement No. 89-20059 for Alta Avenue (Tax Lot 39 1E 5DC-1303)

Councilor Wheeldon requested that the Council Study Session minutes be amended to explain that she was asking for a profile of other communities, like the City of Ashland, that had adopted the Living Wage Ordinance. Mayor Shaw noted that on page 3 of 3, 3rd paragraph under City Council Agendas, 2nd sentence should read “Suggested that this had improved....”

Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.


Erik Navickas/711 Faith Street/Spoke regarding the Ski Ashland expansion and felt the reason that this proposal has been so controversial is because there has been very little democratic process in its development. He stated that this is a community owned development and that the city does hold the lease and the power, under the 1929 agreement, that defines the relationship between the Forest Service and the city.

He stated that there are subsequent memorandums of understandings that place the responsibility on the city to input on any project in the Ashland Municipal Watershed. He stated that the critical importance of the watershed as our drinking water supply and the history and potential for taxpayer expenses due to flooding and erosion to Reeder Reservoir demand official council review and approval of input submitted. He stated that “non-neglect” is not acceptable policy in regards to Ashland’s municipal watershed.

He asked that the council request an extension on the public comment period for the DEIS and the Ski Ashland expansion until two requirements are met. The requirements are as followed: 1) that the council officially and publicly review an approved public comment to be submitted by the City of Ashland on the DEIS and 2) that the public comment period is extended until US Forest Service can schedule an open public meeting with the scientists that drafted the DEIS.


1.     Council meeting Look Ahead.
City Administrator Mike Freeman explained that there may be items scheduled for the May 2 and May 16 meetings that may need to be moved due to the significant issues surrounding the wastewater options. Council discussed the option of an additional council meeting on May 30.

2.     Green Power purchase options.
City Administrator Mike Freeman explained that the council had asked that the staff identify options for offering a green power alternative to the community through the electric utility. Director of Electric Utilities Pete Lovrovich presented the four options for the council to consider are as follows:

    1. Purchase 1Mw of green power in FY 2000-1
    Raise rates as of FY 2000-01 1.7% to cover costs

    2. Purchase 1Mw of green power in FY 2000-01
    Implement subscription process in order to pay for costs of $135,000

    3.  Purchase 1Ms of green power in FY 2001-02
    Re-evaluate C.O.S. study and combine rates to cover new BPA contract and green power options.

    4.  Don’t purchase 1Mw of green power

Councilor Reid voiced her support of purchasing green power and being part of the consortium that purchases green power. She suggested that council adopt Option 1 of the options proposed by staff.

Councilor Hanson voiced his preference for Option 4 and stated that he didn’t know if he wanted to pay more for the privilege of using green power. He commented that he is not averse to green power, but that we should consider making our own green power instead purchasing it from someone else.

Reid explained that we are moving forward with the solar program, but to think that we are doing this with resources from this community, are wrong. She stated that we are able to do this with resources from this region, and the reason that these regional resources are available to us, and are being invested in our community, are because other utilities have stepped up to the plate and purchased green power. Because of this, she feels, we have an obligation to become one of the partners in this.

Councilor Fine stated that he would like to put this discussion off until after the entire budget for the coming year has been reviewed and that he views this as a tax increase. He commented that the administration has continued to warn that the general fund and the core city departments funded from the general fund, may be facing tough times in the future. He also commented that at the scheduled Study Session for tomorrow, the council will be reviewing material showing that there are 2,237 households who have extremely low household income. He stated that although this is a very valuable project, he would like to consider this in the overall city finances and tax structure.

Shaw clarified that this is not a tax that we are buying electricity that is more expensive, and that we are paying the going rate.

Laws stated that we would have to assume that this would result in an increase in electric rates. He explained that there is a generalization that people who have low incomes live in houses that are less insulated and have higher costs associated with utilities. Laws voiced his concern with the impact that this may have, but agrees that this is “for the good of the earth” and that it is necessary to do. He agreed that we should wait until after seeing the full budget to make a decision, but acknowledged that he is inclined to move forward on this in the 2000-01 budget.

City Administrator Mike Freeman stated that the only significant increase in any fees, charges or taxes in the proposed budget is in planning fees and airport hangar rental fees.

Councilor Hauck voiced concern with the impact to lower income households, but felt that there is some flexibility with the staff recommendation Option 3. To do this as part of our renegotiating with BPA, as well as when we do the Cost of Service Study so that we have sense of where we are fiscally with the department and whether we can absorb the cost. He also noted the possibility of securing a conservation credit that could be up to half the cost of the purchase of the new power and supports the staff recommendation of Option 3.

Reid clarified that the purchasing of green power is included in the proposed 2000-01 budget and she would prefer that it remain in the current proposed budget.

Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to leave the green power purchase in the 2000-01 budget and if through the budget process it is determined that it is too onerous, then it would be evaluated, and before the budget is passed, it will be reviewed. DISCUSSION: Lovrovich explained that the Super Good Sense program exceeds the initial insulation factors in terms of the conservation program. He explained that the conservation program is still in place and that projects are being funded. Freeman clarified that there are still low interest loans available for retrofitting of insulation in homes. Wheeldon requested that more information from staff be provided on the possibility of increasing the outreach for those homes with this need. Hauck commented that most households, at this level, do not own their own homes. That it is typically the landlord’s responsibility but not the landlord’s concern. Hanson noted that Option 2 offers a subscription so that if you want to bill yourself with the green power you can do that it wouldn’t necessarily affect your neighbor who may have a low income. Shaw urged council to support Reid’s proposal. Freeman clarified understanding of the council that they would like to have the green power as it is proposed in the budget. He explained that there would be no rate increase this coming fiscal year, but that it would be wrapped into a rate increase for the following fiscal year and he referred to this as Option 1A.

Hauck commented on his support of the green power and would like to continue Option 3 to renew the options through our BPA contract.

Reid amended the motion to incorporate Freeman’s Option 1A and Option 3. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, and Wheeldon, YES; Fine, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Ad Hoc Citizen Transportation, Transit & Parking Committee.

Mayor stated that she would prefer to spend more time appointing the members of this committee as she had received 35 requests to fill the intended six spots on the committee. Shaw stated that she would like to have as many participants as possible, and for as long as possible. She agreed to expedite this process by the end of the week to meet the intensity of the upcoming Friday morning meetings.

4. Transportation Issues Related to the RVACT Meeting of April 11, 2000.

Public Works Director Paula Brown presented summary of recommended actions as a result of the April 11, 2000 Rogue Valley Area Commission on Transportation (RVACT). She noted a new program, Local Street Network Program, that is being tested by ODOT as part of the Oregon Livability Initiative. She explained that the frustrating part about the program is that ODOT has identified an amount of money, given deadlines to apply for projects as of May 19, with funding available July 1, and the projects would need to done within 12 months. Brown suggested that she send a letter to ODOT supporting the program, questioning the timing of the program, and the need to provide these types of funds in the future so that local communities can provide better planning.

Brown explained that ODOT is looking for “off system” projects that help to alleviate congestion on the system. She stated that a likely candidate, which might be able to be completed within this short time frame, is the realignment at Wimer Street, Hersey Street and North Main Street.

Reid questioned if the sidewalk improvement project on Tolman Creek is moving forward. Brown explained that there are two pieces to this project that she is aware of. One of them is the Mistletoe Road realignment intersection/sidewalk improvement and the other is sidewalk improvements, but not in this fiscal year.

Reid questioned Freeman regarding discussion that this would happen this coming summer. Freeman explained that staff is back working with the neighborhood group and will bring back a recommendation. He stated that this would likely be a Local Improvement District (LID), and explained that the city budgets as much as it can each year for LID’s. Discussed how project priority is determined. Reid voiced concern with the possibility of this project getting placed behind another project.

Council discussed the possibility of putting fully designed projects together in the future so that if this program continues, we would have projects ready to submit for funding.

Reid voiced concern with the Tolman Creek sidewalk project going back to the neighborhood meeting stage and is concerned with the possible delay of this project. She requested that this issue be taken up at a Study Session.

5.  Decision to Accept Jurisdictional Exchange with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) along Highway 99 (Siskiyou Boulevard) from 4th to Walker Streets in Conjunction with the Approved STIP Modernization Project.

Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that council is being requested to make a decision on whether to accept jurisdictional exchange with ODOT. She explained the middle section, Fourth Street to Walker Street of Siskiyou Boulevard, is what has been referred to as the “spine.” She stated that there are two other projects in the state transportation improvement plan for this year, one of which is to put asphalt on the other two sections of Siskiyou Boulevard. Brown clarified that the modernization project for the middle section is to make it safe and friendly for both bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Brown stated that the project cost is estimated at $2.5million and stressed the importance of holding to this estimation. She explained that the maintenance will double from what ODOT previously put into the street, estimated at $38,000 a year, and that the city will receive $413,000 from ODOT for maintenance. Brown stated that staff has looked at meeting the $2.5million project cost and determined that we would need to borrow ahead about $57,000. She recommended that we set aside the money received from ODOT, less the $57,000 in order to make up the total cost for Siskiyou Boulevard.

Brown clarified for the council, that the $85,000 is what is budgeted for Boulevard maintenance and that staff is working toward developing a more economical and efficient system to water and maintain the Boulevard.

Laws commented that when the modernization of Siskiyou Blvd. was first designed, it was done through the invitation of the public to participate. He stated that because there have been some changes of design to the Boulevard from what these individuals initially came up with, he would like to insist on continued invitation to the public to participate in the design of Siskiyou Boulevard.

Reid noted the importance of Siskiyou Boulevard to the community, both historically and through the use of the Boulevard. She voiced concern that we are trying to accomplish a lot with a very tight budget and that we may be setting ourselves up for disappointment. Another concern that she noted, is that we may be opening a pandora’s box and that we may find additional problems underground that have no funding to fix. Hauck noted that construction is not set to take place until 2002 and that funding has been set aside for under-grounding from the Electric Department.

Brown explained that the majority of the issues have come from storm drains and that most these were identified through the Storm Drain Master Plan. She stated that there are storm drain fees and system development charges that have been set aside for storm drains. Brown stated that she will bring back a financing plan for Siskiyou Boulevard that includes these costs. She explained that council has not been given the final report on the Storm Drain Master Plan because the financing plan is not included.

Councilors Laws/Fine m/s to direct staff to do the following:

    1. accept jurisdictional exchange with ODOT,
    2. direct staff to complete transfer documents and agreements, and
    3. direct staff to continue to pursue obtaining an additional $250,000 from ODOT for
    drainage improvements in conjunction with the modernization project
    4. Request that ODOT retain the Ashland Siskiyou Boulevard 4th - Walker Modernization Project in the 2002 construction year, but authorize a split construction funding so that the project can be completed over the 2002-2004 construction years.

Roll Call Vote: Hanson, Reid, Wheeldon, Laws, Fine and Hauck, YES. Motion passed.

6. Update of the Wetlands Demonstration Project and consultant request for continued system changes and monitoring through the end of October 2000.

Public Works Director Paula Brown introduced Dustin Wasley, Senior Project Manager/Engineer Cascade Earth Science, Dr. Peter Burgoon, Engineered Natural Systems and Tom Debusk DB Environmental Labs. She explained that the consultants were asked to provide a summary on the existing system, proposed changes, where the system worked or didn’t work. She also indicated that the consultants are requesting approval for an additional $125,000 for 5-6 months of monitoring and final evaluation at the end of this calendar year.

Wasley presented overview of the project and explained the significant modifications to the wetlands project. He explained that the current layout of the wetlands is composed of three free water wetlands followed by two sand filters, followed by four soil filters. The idea was that the free water wetland was for TSS and BOD removal as well as temperature reduction and habitat. The sand filters were designed for nitrification of ammonia, PH adjustment and TSS removal. He stated that the backbone for phosphorous removal was the soil filters as well as expected temperature reduction.

Presented the monitoring levels of temperature and phosphorous results in the soil filter effluent and explained the process that they used to lower the levels. Using these methods they have concluded that soil filters are not effective in achieving the DEQ criteria for TP removal and temperature reduction, and that it was not economically feasible for a full-scale system. They recommended abandoning the sand and soil filter and replacing it with a submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and floating aquatic plant vegetation wetland.

Burgoon explained the proposed layout of the wetlands and the general recommendations for the changes to the system. He explained that the estimated land requirements for a full scale natural system are the following: 1) Treatment Train 1(FWS and SAV wetlands), less than 115 acres; 2) Treatment Train 2 (floating plant and SAV wetland) less than 45 acres and 3) Treatment Train 3 (SAV wetlands) less than 85 acres.

He reviewed the rationale for the proposed wetland and SAV pilot system and stated that the project has demonstrated TP concentrations less than .08 mg/l, and that it is a technology supported by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). There are three parallel treat systems to ensure as much design information as possible. They are committed to trying to keep the system operating as much as possible. The overall full scale system should have much less land requirement than the original design. They believe that they can meet the discharge limits for phosphorous and current understanding of the temperature limits and to facilitate discharge to Bear Creek and help maintain the minimum flows. He also noted the aesthetic benefits associated with the wetlands.

Wasley presented results from phosphorous removal from emergent wetlands throughout the U.S. to point out positive results from the operation of these systems. He explained that free water surface systems have played an important role in removal of phosphorous.

Debusk presented the wetland experience of DBEL and noted the companies that they have worked for. He explained the phosphorous removal procedure using emergent wetlands, treatment wetlands, and SAV wetlands. He proposed a SAV wetland demonstration for phosphorous removal, and explained that Oregon has similar performances and plant species as Florida does in the winter. He stated that the major change for this project would be to create a wetland that was designed specifically to remove phosphorous.

He explained that phosphorous is something that is coming through the entire system and that there is some partial removal occurring in the wastewater treatment plant. He suggests reconfiguring the treatment plant to a certain extent in order to remove additional phosphorous. If this was done, it would shrink the foot print of the wetlands that would be needed and suggested that a cost benefit analysis of the cost of getting more phosphorous treatment in the wastewater treatment plant versus a back-end wetland.

Explanation was made for the council on the possibility of lining the wetlands in order to meet concerns raised by DEQ. Additional information was provided regarding the type of vegetation that would be required, potential problems associated with shading of wetlands, temperature control, and required depth of wetlands.

Wasley clarified for the council that the Jackson Bottoms example that was shown was, for an emergent wetland not a submerged wetland. It was explained that Jackson Bottoms is in the Portland area and that they were taking effluent from the Rock Creek wastewater treatment plant to try and meet the .08 phosphorous limits. Wasley stated that the facility has been abandoned.

Reid noted that conventional wisdom seems to be leery of any idea that hasn’t been around or tested for a long time and she understands the need to be skeptical due to the use of public monies. Wasley explained that they try to bring together good sound standard and preventional environmental engineering along with these systems.

Fine explained that our state government has told the city that unless we come up with a firm solution to deal with our effluent in the next 50 days, we are going to be in trouble. Fine understands that the consulting team is not prepared to give an answer in 50 days, but rather than in December. He questioned, that even if we get the best possible results from the experiment, would we be able to get an engineering company to sign an iron clad contract to meet the state government .08 phosphate requirement.

Debusk explained that this is a riskier proposition than the conventional method and that what they are proposing is a lower cost option with higher risk. He feels that the council needs to ask what technology is available to get to the .08 phosphate levels, what is the cost and what is the risk of failure. He feels that what is being proposed fits in this continuum with lower cost and higher risk. Wasley stated that if they can demonstrate their levels that have been demonstrated in Florida, the probability of signing on a contracting engineer is very high, if this could be done by October 2000.

Debusk addressed concerns raised regarding reliability of the system, disease, bad weather or any other adverse situation that would affect the plants. He explained that the pilot demonstration would give a good indication of these concerns and stated that there is a Florida system that has been operating for five years with gradual increases of quality each year. He clarified that there are no municipal wastewater systems in Florida, all of the systems mentioned in Florida are related to agricultural settings.

Brown clarified for the council that the study previously done, in regards to land requirements for wetlands, was the land between the treatment plant and Valley View.

Bob Eimstad from Carollo Engineers explained that the new WWTP was not designed to remove phosphorous but noted that it will be a significant improvement over the old plant. He stated that it is a matter of the cost tradeoff, on what it would cost to treat it in a wetland versus what it would cost to treat it at the treatment plant. Eimstad explained that they would be able to determine and provide information on what the level of discharge for phosphorous would be.

Freeman requested the council take into consideration the following important points: 1) that there is already $500,000 into the project; 2) the DEQ deadline and their non-support of this technology; 3) no guarantee that it will work although it sounds very promising in regards to the results from Florida; and 4) the track record being only five years. He feels that these points need to be kept in focus because we are on a fast track to make a decision if DEQ does not give us any flexibility in terms of decision making. He stated that from his perspective, this is a risky venture to consider as a sole solution.

Reid stated that we could ask for more time from DEQ and possibly get support from the Governor’s office. She feels that if we need more time, we should be asking for support to do that. She feels we should ask DEQ for more time to either study the .08 limits or more time to provide additional information along with support from the environmental community.

Fine agreed with the points that Freeman brought up and stated that he doesn’t see that the experiment, even if it is successful, would get the result that we need within the required time frame. He feels that we would be dividing our staff’s attention between alternative solutions if we ask the staff to cooperate with this project in the next 40-50 days.

Shaw feels that we can do all of this and explained that the neighbors have promised to appeal to LUBA and noted that all of this takes time. She feels that this is exactly what the council asked of staff, to keep options open. Shaw noted that we have an interesting window that would allow the city to continue with this project to meet the requirements and at the same time checking out the wetland proposal data. Shaw feels that we should focus on the fact that new data and new information is being provided for the wetlands. Fine was persuaded by Shaw and agreed that the possible upside of the project may justify risking $125,000 along with the possibility of buying more time. Hauck stated that, assuming that the council goes with the modified plan for the wetlands, the data and the final report will be back before the council makes the final decision in putting out contracts for construction of this project.

Councilors Wheeldon/Hauck m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Wheeldon voiced her concern on getting sidetracked and losing the focus. She clarified that the council was counting on the neighbors suing the city and that the city is going to ask for more time from DEQ. Laws stated that the council may be forgetting that we need to have a plan by June 3. He reminded the council that the city needs to do the following: 1) revise the spray irrigation plan; 2) provide a plan that would use the new plant to its maximum; 3) continue to gather information on taking effluent to Medford; and 4) consider the modification to the wetlands experiment.

Councilors Hanson/Reid m/s to approve continuation of this experiment if for no other reason that we are going to add to a body of knowledge that is going to be useful in the future and to hold Cascade Earth Science to the $125,000. DISCUSSION: Shaw questioned if it were necessary to continue to push the Medford option using staff time. Laws requested that council wait until the letters and information that had been requested are received before making this decision. Laws understood that our wetlands have been getting the temperature below the 64-degree level. Assuming that the phosphorous doesn’t work, he questioned if the wetlands would still be the solution and would it mean, if we had more wetlands, would it meet the temperature requirement. Wasley explained that they are proposing to put a continuous temperature monitoring device in the wetlands to get an idea what the fluctuation is throughout the day period. Brown clarified that they did not take into account any cleaning of storm water effluent. Shaw noted that there had been discussion regarding the difference of when we had to be out of the creek and when storm water actually happened. Reid stated her support of the wetland’s option and her desire for the plant to bring down the phosphate level, understood that the direction is to resize the sprinkler heads for spray irrigation, of which she does not want to do, but she is willing to support this because it is inclusive and we have not eliminated all our options. Reid stated her goal as doing the best cost analysis on getting us to the creek. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed.

Shaw emphasized the need for council to take the Medford option off the table. She suggested that staff not spend any more time on this, but to only collect the requested information.

Councilors Reid/Hanson m/s that staff not spend any more time on the Medford option other than to collect requested information. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

7.  Discussion regarding group serving as Advisory Board to City of Ashland with regard to management of the Ashland Watershed.

Wheeldon stated that she had been working with the Watershed Alliance and that they have been contact with Linda Duffy regarding the need of the city to be involved. She noted that there are watershed issues coming up and the need to discuss and move quickly is important. Wheeldon felt that Linda Duffy’s letter was clear, in regards to the level of experience that she is looking for, which would help her to act on the city’s behalf and further the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the activity in the watershed.

Fine shared a concern of the chairperson for the Forest Lands Commission, that the council may make a decision on appointing an advisory body, without consulting the Forest Lands Commission. He pointed out that there are members of the commission with technical expertise and experience on resource management of forest lands around the city. Shaw explained that the difference between the Forest Lands Commission and Advisory Board, is that there is a need for more technical advice expertise with broad representation and that the Board would also be responsible for a much larger area of management. She feels that the Forest Commission needs to be kept focused on the lands around Ashland, but that the two groups are to coordinate with each other, and that there be members shared between these two groups.

Laws voiced concern that the present Forest Commission had trouble getting a quorum to conduct a meeting. He feels that the Ashland Ranger District is asking for a larger scope of expertise than what our Forest Commission has. He suggested that we do away with the Forest Commission and turn its functions over to either staff or the new commission. Shaw did not agree with this suggestion as she feels both groups are needed and that they serve different purposes. Reid commented that as a liaison to this committee for a year, there was only one meeting that did not have a quorum. She stated that in the ordinance outlining the duties and responsibilities of this commission, it states that the Forest Commission is to work with the Forest Service in the watershed.

Shaw clarified that, as Mayor, in appointing an ad-hoc committee, she does not have to secure permission from the council.

Council agreed to put continued discussion on this item off until next council meeting due to time constraints.

8.  Continuing discussion of wastewater effluent management options.

Public Works Director Paula Brown introduced Bob Eimstad from Carollo Engineers who presented a memo on the question of, when does temperature effect us if we were to release to the stream year around.

Eimstad explained that there were a number of issues that were not addressed at the time the permit was being negotiated with DEQ that related to summer time water quality conditions. He explained that Bear Creek and Ashland Creek have been identified as water quality limited for temperature and that DEQ is obligated to develop a TMDL for temperature. He stated the current standard is set at 64-degrees to protect salmonid fish rearing which occurs in Bear Creek and Ashland Creek. That this is to be applied on a year around basis, in the entire basin, except in those waters and those times which support native salmonid spawning, egg incubation, and fry emergence. He stated that these occur March through July, with no impact in August through October, but would return in November. What this means is, that if we have these activities in locations that would be impacted by our discharge, the 55-degree limit would apply during those months.

Eimstad stated that influent around treatment plants is typically around 70-degrees in the summer months and going out of the treatment plant would raise the temperature by 2 or 3-degrees through the treatment plant process. He commented that there would be a lot of cooling required in order to reach the 64-degree limit. He explained that DEQ has stated that municipalities and other point sources, which are causing more than .25 degrees of increase at the edge of the mixing zone, have to develop a surface water temperature management plan.

He stated that the city needs to get the effluent down to the criteria temperatures for those seasons, or get out of the stream. Or, find some other way to bring, through a combination of reducing the temperature of effluent and doing other management practices, streams into compliance. He explained that decreasing the temperature of Ashland’s effluent alone will not bring Bear Creek into compliance with water quality standards. That, in order to meet water quality standards, there needs to be a lot of change made watershed wide.

Eimstad reported that the city does not have a permit for the following: 1) discharge to the creek for roughly one half of the year (May through Novemer); 2) temperature issue; 3) BOD in the summer months; and 4) ammonia limits in the summer months. He explained that all of this needs to be negotiated with DEQ which will involve a lot work in determining what those limits are. He stated that when they worked on this initially, the focus was strictly on the months that the city would be discharging to the creek.

Eimstad agreed to attend the continuing council meeting tomorrow at noon for further discussion.

1.  Reading by title only of "A Resolution Establishing the Name of Old Masonic Walkway to be Applied to the Public Walkway at 25 N. Main Street.

Moved to continued council meeting April 19, 2000.

Moved to continued council meeting April 19, 2000.

Meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. to the continued meeting on April 19, 2000.

Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder

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

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top