MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
April 6, 2004
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of March 16, 2004, Study Session Minutes of March 17, 2004 and Minutes for the Special Meeting of March 18, 2004 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Proclamations of April 16 - 18, 2004 as National Youth Service Day and of April 4 - 10, 2004 as Arbor Week in Ashland were read aloud.
1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1. ODOT's Request to Approve Night Construction Work on the Green Springs Highway (OR 66) within the City Limits (MP 0.8 to MP 1.99).
Public Works Director Paula Brown introduced ODOT Project Managers Debbie Timms and Joe Thomas. Mrs. Brown presented the staff report on the request for night construction by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The report included a synopsis, staff recommendation, fiscal impact and background information. Attached to the report was Chapter 9.08.170 Unnecessary Noise from the Ashland Municipal Code and a map of the project area.
Staff recommends the approval of ODOT's request with the following additional conditions: 1) Night work hours should generally coincide with standard work hours for the businesses such that there are no lane restrictions between 8am and 6pm, 2) Contractor should maintain one operable travel lane in each direction on the west side of I-5 during this night work period. Any night work on the east side of I-5 must have adequate detours, signage and contractor must advise emergency dispatch of these closures, 3) The night work may not begin prior to July 12, 2004, and due to the 4th of July holiday, it is the City's preference that work begin after July 7th as opposed to July 1st as specified by ODOT, and 4) NO night work shall be conducted between 9pm Friday through 8am Monday.
Mrs. Brown explained that notification postcards were sent out to property owners within 200 ft. of the work zone to advise them of the upcoming paving project. Discussion was held regarding the hardship on drivers, property owners and project managers in regards to night paving versus day paving. Mr. Thomas explained this type of project requires long lane closures, which could create severe congestion if performed during the day. Mrs. Brown stated that she believes this project will take less time to complete if performed at night. ODOT representatives agreed that the conditions recommended by Staff would be workable. Mr. Thomas clarified that ODOT does not expect an award on the bid until July, and there will be no impacts on the 4th of July festivities. Mr. Thomas explained the process and time involved in paving. Mrs. Brown stated Staff has received about a dozen comments from citizens regarding this project.
Public Hearing Open: 7:20 p.m.
Alea Kent/233 Clay Street/Stated that she was not sure if her property was within 200 ft. of the construction site, but said that she would be affected and had not received notification. Ms. Kent explained that there is currently a day time construction project being performed across the street and if this night time project is approved, it will be very difficult for them. Ms. Kent voiced concern with the decibel levels and the inability to sleep.
Doris Lundall/565 Oak Hill Circle/Voiced concern with the night noise. Ms. Lundall suggests paving the commercial areas during the night and the residential neighborhoods during the day.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:24 p.m.
Mrs. Brown explained that the grinder is the noisiest, but that more complaints are received in regards to the back-up bells and beepers. Mr. Thomas stated the decibel level for the grinder is approximately 90. Mr. Thomas also clarified that this is a moving operation and most residents will only be inconvenienced for 2 nights (one night per lane). It was mentioned that performing the work at night would inconvenience the least amount of people.
Councilor Morrison suggested the ending time on Friday be changed from 8pm to 7pm.
Councilor Hearn/Jackson m/s to approve Staff recommendation with the change to the ending time from 8pm to 7pm on Fridays. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell voiced her desire to see a happy medium in order to give neighborhoods some rest from the noise in the evening. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn, YES. Hartzell, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
2. Appeal of Planning Action 2003-188, a request for a Physical &
Environmental Constraints Permit to construct a single family residential
home on Hillside Lands within a Historic District. Applicant: Sidney and
Mayor DeBoer read aloud the procedure for the Land Use Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:35 p.m.
Mayor DeBoer announced a conflict of interest; he is related to the applicant.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to allow Mayor DeBoer to recluse himself from the Public Hearing.
Councilor Hartzell was asked to chair the Public Hearing as she had been selected as the 2004 Council Chair.
Councilor Morrison stated he was present at the Historic Commission Hearing as the Council Liaison. Council Hearn stated he has read newspaper articles and the emails contained in the packet. Councilor Jackson stated she was the previous Council Liaison to the Historic Commission and was in attendance when the initial proposal was presented. Jackson clarified that the current design is different from the proposal she heard. Councilor Hartzell stated that she had performed a Site Visit.
Bill Street/180 Mead St/Stated he is concerned over Councilor Hearn's participation. Mr. Street listed several references where Councilor Hearn made comments in regards to the Maximum House Size Ordinance, the DeBoer Property, and Ex Parte Contact. Mr. Street stated Councilor Hearn's strong emotional statements suggest a lack of impartiality in this matter and asked that he recluse himself.
Councilor Hearn explained the Planning Action that Mr. Street is referring to was brought to the table by a fellow councilor and at that time all of the councilors offered their opinions. If this were the basis for a recusal, the entire Council would need to step down. Councilor Hearn stated he did not have any specific Ex Parte Contact or any financial interest in this matter.
Councilor Laws stated Hearn's concerns were regarding the process of this proposal, they did not show a bias in terms of content.
Assistant Mike Franell explained the Council does not need a specific vote to deal with the allegations raised by Mr. Street. If the Council is satisfied with Hearn's assurance that he can remain impartial, the Public Hearing can continue.
Councilor Laws explained that City Attorney Paul Nolte had previously informed the Council that when it comes to Ex Parte Contact, they are free to speak with anyone and do not have to report it up until the matter has been appealed.
Mr. Franell clarified the purpose of the Ex Parte Prohibition is to ensure that whatever is being considered to make a decision is cited for the public, so that both sides have an opportunity to comment on what may influence the Council's decision. Mr. Franell stated if any councilor has had any information that has influenced their decision (other than the information contained in the Public Record), it should be disclosed at this time.
Gary Peterson/201 W. Main St./Attorney for the applicants/ Questioned Councilor's Hartzell ability to be fair and impartial given her significant contact with the vocal opponents in this matter. [Councilor Hartzell assured the applicants that she could remain impartial.] Mr. Peterson entered into the records an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the City Council to hear this matter.
Mr. Franell explained that City Attorney Paul Nolte has stated that this is a Type II procedure and therefore can be appealed to the City Council. Mr. Franell explained there is some degree of ambiguity in the code and the Council has the opportunity to make an interpretation as to whether they believe this is a Type II procedure and appealable to the Council, or whether the Staff decision is final and any appeal would need to be heard by LUBA. Mr. Franell further explained Section 18.107.70 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which deals with the provisions of decisions and appeals. Mr. Franell stated it is the Legal Staff's opinion that the Council does have jurisdiction to hear this matter.
Councilor Hearn/Amarotico m/s to accept the City Attorney's decision on this issue. DISCUSSION:Councilor Morrison stated the logical process would be to follow the code and hear this appeal at the Council level. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mr. Franell stated the applicant's second objection deals with section 18.108.110, Paragraph A2. Mr. Franell explained that Paul Nolte originally drafted this language 10 years ago and it was his intent to draft language so that there was some notice as to the objections that would be raised. He did not necessarily desire that they be specifically laid out. Mr. Franell stated it is the Legal Staff's opinion that the references that were included in the Notice of Appeal satisfy the requirements.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin and Associate Planner Mark Knox presented the criteria and applicable standards. McLaughlin presented the synopsis of Planning Action 1003-118, which included the grounds for the appeal, staff's response to appellants' argument, and the recommendation by Staff. The report indicated that the record for Planning Action 2003-118 had previously been sent to the Council on March 26th. Attached to the report was information provided for the Council from appellant Colin Swales, and letters from Philip Lang and Gordon Hull.
Mr. McLaughlin explained the timeline of events leading to this Public Hearing, stating the application was filed on September 2, 2003, and Staff deemed the application complete on October 10, 2003. On October 20, 2003 a request for a Public Hearing was received. The Historic Commission at their meeting on November 5, 2003 voted to deny the request, stating the structure did not fit the Historic District by it's mass and scale. The Tree Commission reviewed the application on November 6, 2003 and recommended several conditions regarding tree protection and mitigation measures. The Public Hearing was held in front of the Planning Commission's Hearings Board on November 12, 2003, and the application was approved at that time. The Hearings Board adopted the Applicant's Findings, making the decision final on March 9, 2004. On March 17, 2004, an appeal was filed by Colin Swales, Bryan Holley, and Bill Street.
Mr. McLaughlin clarified there are no requirements for size or style of a single-family home; only commercial and multi-family use buildings require a Site Review. He added that had this home been proposed on a slope of less than 25%, it would have had no review at all. Mr. McLaughlin also clarified the Historic Commission's role is purely advisory. They can make recommendations in regards to the betterment of the Historic District, but the Historic Commission does not have the authority to deny the application.
Mr. Knox clarified the maximum lot coverage permitted in this zone is 45%. He added the Hillside Ordinance contains a formula for the percentage of property that must be retained in its natural environment. Mr. Knox stated the applicants will argue that nothing on this site is natural, after being disturbed over the years through previous home development. Mr. McLaughlin stated the Hearings Board found that the standard was inapplicable because no portion of the property is presently in its natural state. Mr. McLaughlin clarified the trees on the property cannot be removed and are still protected by the Ordinance.
Mr. Franell explained that the Council should treat this matter as a brand new hearing. They are not judging on whether the appeal is appropriate, but rather if the application meets the required criteria and standards in the Municipal Code. It is up to the applicants to prove they have met the criteria. Mr. Franell stated that Mr. Peterson has submitted a memorandum refuting this opinion, however it is the Legal Staff's opinion that this hearing is a de novo hearing, the applicant bears the burden of persuasion, and Council's job is to determine whether the application meets the criteria of the code.
Craig Stone, representing Sidney and Karen DeBoer, moved that all evidence put before the Hearings Board be placed in the record. Mr. Stone explained this application was not hurried along, but it is a piece of architecture that has been worked on for several years, and coincidentally comes before the Council on the heals of the Maximum House Size Ordinance. Under Oregon Law, the applicants are entitled to a decision based on the standards in effect at the time the application was filed. Mr. Stone stated this application does not involve neighborhood impacts, other than those that are of an environmental and physical nature. He also stated that the approval criteria does not deal with the size, appearance, architecture, or the historical compatibility of the home. Mr. Stone claimed the Historic Commission was not operating under the standards the approval criteria require and because of this asked that their recommendation be given little weight. Mr. Stone explained the applicants do not believe there is any existing natural areas to be protected on their property. Mr. Stone referred to their expert Geo-Technical Engineer, who concluded that after the site is fully developed in accordance with the applicant's plans, the site will be fully stabilized and there will be no adverse environmental impacts. In addition, the consideration of hazards and mitigation measures have been completed in accordance with the provision of the land development ordinance. Lastly, the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse impact on the environment. Mr. Stone stated the area surrounding the proposed site is a fully developed urban area with mixed housing. He also explained that single-family dwellings are permitted as long as the City's requirements have been observed, and he asserted that they have been. Mt. Stone stated none of the natural features mentioned in the Physical & Environmental Constraints Ordinance exist on the property or in the nearby area because it is fully developed. All of the mitigation that has been recommended by the applicants' qualified experts has been incorporated into the design plans that are before the Council tonight. Mr. Stone questioned the opponents' argument that states reducing the dwelling size is required in order for the applicant to take all reasonable steps to reduce adverse impacts on the environment. Mr. Stone explained why they believe this is a flawed argument. Mr. Stone also stated his clients have agreed to any reasonable forms of mitigation with the exception of reducing the size of their home. He explained that they are in possession of a number of emails that have been sent to the Council, and stated that if they do not speak of the criteria and standards of the environmental constraint, than they are irrelevant. Mr. Stone concluded by stating if the standards in place at the time of the application have all been met, than the applicant is entitled to a permit.
Mr. Stone clarified for Council that this application deals with the reconfigured property that would result from a lot line adjustment. Mr. Stone explained that Staff has informed the applicants to proceed with this application before concluding the lot line adjustment
Councilor Morrison mentioned the applicant had provided the information regarding the slope of the property.
Mr. Stone clarified the City had possessed aerial photography, which was not very accurate. As part of their application filing, the applicants were required to prepare maps that broke the area up into 5% gradient increments. This was completed and was based on the evidence from the surveyor. Mr. Stone submitted additional maps to the Council, which established that none of the slopes approach 35% within the area to be built upon.
Mr. Stone explained the intent of the Hillside Ordinance was the establishment of a formula that would ensure that in the development of Hillside properties, there was a requisite percentage of each parcel to be left in a natural state. Mr. Stone stated that this ordinance does not apply to a redevelopment application, stating you can't preserve what does not exist. He explained that the applicants did examine what percentage of a property this size would need to be left in it's natural state, and made certain their landscaped areas and areas not developed with structures met that required percentage (which is 55%).
Council questioned if the driveway and pool were being excluded from this percentage.
Ken Ogden, Architect for the Applicant, stated the driveways' paving pattern utilized material that allow the water to seep into the soil underneath. Mr. Ogden further clarified there is a certain percentage of the driveway that was included in the 55% figure. The swimming pool was initially anticipated to be an enclosed structure, however the current plan is to cover the pool with a canopy, and is not included in the overall calculation.
IN FAVOR OF APPLICANT:
Jon Harbaugh/212 Vista/Voiced support of the project and does not feel this home would impact the streetscape. Mr. Harbaugh feels it would be inappropriate to change the rules and the project should be judged on the law at the time the permit was applied. Mr. Harbaugh feels the home will be an asset to the neighborhood and encouraged approval of the application.
Bill Greenstein/191 N Wightman/Encouraged looking at current historic homes and how they were unique in their own time and have been well preserved. Mr. Greenstein explained that our treasured historic homes would have never been built if our previous residents had used the opponents' standards. He stated these homes provide a meaningful link to our past, and that Mr. DeBoer is not doing anything that our founding fathers didn't do. Mr. Greenstein noted the importance of diversity and asked the Council to approve the DeBoer's vision.
Doug Forsyth/65 Granite/Commented on what America stands for, including private ownership. Mr. Forsyth proclaimed that it is a travesty for someone to come along and tell the DeBoers' what they should do with their land, and voiced strong support for the applicants.
William Sauer/55 Granite Street/Noted his longevity in the community and how it has changed into a negative, divisive, and always questioning community. Mr. Sauer stated he supports the DeBoers' and asked the Council to look at their plans as being reasonable and definite. Mr. Sauer explained that he is an International Corporate Lawyer, and relayed a story that he asked the Council to consider when voting on this issue.
Craig Pennington/455 Fernwood Drive/Commented on his friendship with the DeBoers'. Mr. Pennington spoke regarding the rule of law and noted how the DeBoers' have worked with all parties to meet all of the requirements the City has set forward. He also stated they have created a design that will be compatible with the adjacent buildings. Mr. Pennington proclaimed that 100 years from now, the residents would look upon the DeBoer house as we do our favorite old homes. He stated the size of the house fully complies with the laws and regulations in place when it was approved, and noted that the Planning Commission has concluded that all requirements have been met. Mr. Pennington explained that if the Council were to deny this application it would produce some very negative effects, and cited several examples including a lack of credibility with the Council.
Nola O'Hara/232 Vista/Commented that she lives in an historical home near the DeBoers', and explained that the street is not all historical on the street, citing the condominiums, apartment buildings and duplexes. Ms. O'Hara stated this home would be an asset for Ashland and to the neighborhood.
Gordon Hull/320 Gearky Creek/Stated his family owns the home next door to the DeBoers'. Initially his family had concerns with the original build, but when the project was completed they were extremely pleased. Mr. Hull stated his family is fully behind this project and feels the DeBoers' should be judged on the kind of work they have done so far.
Chris Borovansky/205 Glenview/Stated that he is a neighbor to the applicant and supports the project.
Jerry Taylor/375 Alnutt/Feels the quality of this project will be an asset to the community. He voiced his concern over the City Council being brought into this matter after extensive efforts by the Planning Commission. Mr. Taylor stated there is so much good that this community could do if it channeled all of the negative energy focused on this matter. He stated they are about to go down a very dark road if the Council now reverses the decision, and feels it will make Ashland look like a very negative place if they cannot follow the letter of the law. Stated this home will be an asset to the community and hopes the Council will support this project.
Jed Meese/88 Granite/Stated that he lives in the historic Perozzi house, which when it was originally built was large for it's size. He explained that in the Historic Districts there has always been a flux in the sizes of homes. Mr. Meese urged the Council to consider what has been said about the letter of the law and grant the DeBoers' the right to build this home.
Claudia Everett/140 S Pioneer Street/Stated she came as a friend to support the applicants. She also noted that she had submitted a letter to the Planning Commission in support of the DeBoers'.
Bill Patton/110 Terrace/Stated he and his wife were initially concerned with the proposed project, but after reviewing the plans they are now in full support. He stated this project will enhance the neighborhood and will not be visually apparent to most people because it is set back from the street. Mr. Patton asked the Council to be fair in their consideration of this matter.
Robby Harfst/2560 Siskiyou Blvd/Stated the DeBoer's application met all of the requirements at the time it was submitted and it would be very disappointing if this project was denied. He asked the Council to not compromise Ashland's integrity.
Bob Rasmussen/1530 N Mountain/Noted his longevity in the area and stated he was part of the Downtown Design Standards Committee. Mr. Rasmussen stated this neighborhood is more like a historic neighborhood on the fringe. He also commented on a hillside city in Italy, and used it as an example to state that a variety of home sizes do not take away from a beautiful hillside. He stated in the future, this home will stand the test of time.
John Mauer/1085 Elkader Street/Acknowledged that he did not know the applicant or anything about this project. Mr. Mauer stated he is offended by these people who want to dictate the historic value of homes and decide what Ashland should look like in the future. He stated the DeBoers' have lived in this community for a long time and represent something different from the appellant. Mr. Mauer explained that 100 years from now our progeny should have the opportunity to know what it was like to live in Ashland in 2004.
Council discussed the process for completing the Public Hearing.
IN OPPOSITION OF APPLICANT:
Larry Anderson/311 Ravenwood Place/Spoke regarding the current traffic congestion and stated this project will increase the traffic problems. Mr. Anderson stated Ashland does not need hotel sized homes, and questioned how many people would be living in this home.
Council agreed to continue the Public Hearing to Thursday, April 8th at 6 p.m.
PUBLIC FORUM (None)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
1. Ratification of Labor Contract between the City and Ashland Firefighter's Association.
Mayor DeBoer noted the Council had met in Executive Session to discuss the labor contract.
Councilor Morrison/Amarotico m/s to authorize the City Administrator to sign the labor contract, ratifying the tentative agreement reached in negotiations. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2. Recommendation from the Ad Hoc Grove Committee.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented a staff report on the recommendation from the Ad Hoc Grove Committee. The staff report included a synopsis and background information. Attached to the report was the Ad Hoc Grove Committee recommendation to the City Council of April 6, 2004, memo from Mayor DeBoer requesting that the summary of work of the Ad Hoc Grove Committee be included in the Council packet and the Ad Hoc Grove Committee Summary Report of April 6, 2004. Also submitted was a memo from Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson.
Councilor Hartzell stated the committee had discussed having the Parks & Recreation Department perform some of the coordination with an eye to expand the facility into programs for youth as they became available. The long-term commitment of the committee was to see the use of this facility remain dedicated to the youth. Hartzell explained they wanted to make it a place where the young people wanted to be at, and as they came they could create and be apart of programs, as well as access social services that are unavailable elsewhere in the community. Hartzell explained that the committee felt strongly about the need for a youth board or commission to help oversee and ensure the mission stayed true. Hartzell explained that one of the options considered by the committee was to write a Request For Proposals (RFP) in order to have some of the services contracted out.
Councilor Morrison stated the concept of having these different organizations work together was a good idea, and noted that Mr. Robertson's memo (Item B) indicated the possibility of a mixed use concept and asked if this was discussed by the committee.
Councilor Hartzell clarified the Committee discussed an interim strategy to bring in income, which was to use the building for a broader use while retaining its' identity as a youth facility.
Councilor Hearn asked if too much mixed use would make the facility unattractive to teens.
Councilor Hartzell stated that if there was an over abundance of those types of groups the young people might let go of the identity that this facility is for them. Hartzell explained there was a fair amount of discussion on this issue and the committee decided they wanted to create a sense of ownership that would make it an interesting place to be, and not limit it to one type of program or one age group. Hartzell stated the facility would also serve as a clearing house for the kinds of activities and services directed toward young people in the community.
Councilor Laws voiced his concern. He stated that when the City originally began financing the teen center, it was primarily for recreational purposes. When The Grove came along, they tried to mix recreational activities with social service activities, and it was a bad mix. Laws also questioned how much it would cost to keep the facility operating.
Mr. Robertson stated they have estimated $42,000 a year for the basic maintenance and utilities, but explained that a lot of the budget will depend on what types of activities will be occurring at the facility.
Councilor Hartzell/Hearn m/s to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor DeBoer noted a decline in interest among the committee, and expressed his disappointment that The Grove remained unopened. He stated he believes this is a budget item that will exceed $100,000, citing the need to have Staff at the facility. Mayor DeBoer also noted the lack of equipment at the facility. DeBoer stated he would like to see the Council write a RFP based on the memorandum that came out of the Committee's second meeting which identified the needs, and see if there is an agency that is willing to take over the operation of The Grove. DeBoer explained that at the first few meetings there was a clear consensus that the committee wanted this facility to be a teen center and there was concern expressed that it would become something else. There was even some concern that if you started other programs there, they would become permanent. Mayor DeBoer explained that the Council could give funding to the Parks Department to get the facility up and running, utilize a variety of providers, and begin the formation of a new group. However, the Mayor warned the Council that leadership and funds would be hard to obtain. He stated if there is an organization that is willing to run the facility based on the needs identifies by the Committee, The Grove could be functional in 45-60 days. DeBoer clarified the two options for the Council: 1) Provide funding to the Parks & Rec. Department to get the facility open, and then begin a process where a group will be formed and hopefully return to take over management, or 2) submit an RFP to see if there is a not-for-profit organization that is willing to run the facility based on the needs identified by the committee.
Councilor Jackson expressed her disappointment that there wasn't more clarity on what it is they can accomplish with the facility. She stated offering social services is a different thing than operating a recreational center and does not know that there is enough information provided to make a decision at this time.
Councilor Hartzell stated that they had wanted a program that responded to a broad cross-section of teen interests, with the understanding that if it were perceived as a place to come, they would also be able to provide outreach. Hartzell added their discussions did include the need for a shelter. Hartzell explained the committee would like to model the potential programs to those that were successful for Kids Unlimited.
Councilor Hearn questioned if the intent was to provide recreational purposes for all teens, and then if someone needed social services those would be provided quietly on the side.
Councilor Hartzell clarified the committee would like to have the Parks Department start the process, and then create a parallel process where they would approach other organizations in the community that have an interest in youth, and begin pull those services into The Grove.
Councilor Laws stated the fundamental question was whether they wanted to start something like this at all. He explained that The Grove failed after attempting to do exactly what this committee is recommending. Laws stated that he does not want to be negative, but feels they need to consider where the $100,000 a year funding will come from. In order for the City to start this program, they would need to give up an existing program, and there would be no certainty that The Grove would succeed. Laws feels the need for this type of youth facility is great, however he does not think the City is ready to take this on at this time, unless they can find an organization that would supplement the costs and run the facility.
Mr. Robertson stated it is not uncommon for a Parks & Recreation Department to operate a teen center, although he has not personally had experience. He has however operated mixed generational use facilities. Mr. Robertson explained the Parks & Rec. Department has the capability to run The Grove, however they lack the funding. Robertson explained that currently Pioneer Hall and the Community Center cost approximately $80,000 per year to manage, which does not include the labor of the custodial services, and they are only generating only about $35,000 a year in revenue.
Council discussed needing additional information before making a recommendation, and determined this item should come back to the Council on a future date.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS:
1. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Creating the Charter Review Committee."
Action was delayed to future council meeting.
2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution Establishing Cable Television
and Internet Rates for the Ashland Fiber Network, readopting all other Rates
without change and Repealing Resolution No. 2003-03."
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report on the resolution to establish Cable Television and Internet rates for the Ashland Fiber Network. The report included a synopsis, staff recommendation, fiscal impact and background information.
Background information included a table illustrating the proposed monthly CATV rate increase. These fees are inclusive of the $.75 PEG Fees that go to RVTV. Premium Packages would be increased by 5%. Also included was a table illustrating proposed increase for Cable Modem fees. No changes in High Speed Data Rates were proposed.
Attached to staff report was a proposed resolution and rate schedule effective on Cycle 4 Billing - June 2004 and Resolution 2003-03 and rate schedule effective Cycle 1 Billing - May 2003.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi stated that the new rates would still remain less than those of Charter Communications for similar services.
Councilor Amarotico/Morrison m/s to approve Resolution #2004-07. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell questioned the rational for the increase on the majority of the packages. Mr. Tuneberg explained this was the rate recommended for our market. Roll Call Vote: Hearn, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, Laws and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed.
3. Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Creating New Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for the Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution."
Councilor Laws/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #2906. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hearn, Morrison, Hartzell, Amarotico and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Meeting was continued at 10:25 p.m. to Thursday, April 8, 2004 at 6 p.m.
End of Document - Back to Top