Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Continued Meeting

Friday, May 19, 2000

May 19, 2000
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street

Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Those present: Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine. Staff present: Mike Freeman, Paul Nolte, Greg Scoles, Paula Brown and Fran Berteau.
1. Wastewater Effluent and Biosolids Management Decision. (CONTINUED FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 16, 2000)

Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a quick overview of the memo provided to council. She explained staff has gone through the options available, and two options appear available to council. The original design has been left in for comparison purposes only. The options available are modifying the irrigation system for poplar plantation, with the biosolids modified to a Class A, and the other option is to discharge year round to the creek and still use the city's property for a Class A biosolid. She recommends the Class A biosolids and the land application as the only viable option at this time. Her recommendation is the poplar plantation. The primary reason for staff's recommendation is Level 2 water is more than adequate for the purposes as shown for poplar plantations, and going to Class A biosolids give staff flexibility, with an easier option offsite. The cost is $1 million less in capital.

Brown explained that with regard to the water transfer or water lease for instream use, staff gave a proposal to modify irrigation rights on the Imperatrice Property and the City's own property and she believes that will work. Her reason for the water trade from the irrigation property is that it is a viable option and makes sense and is something the city can pursue. Brown then explained the Implementation Steps on Page 3. In addition, she clarified the additional water quality monitoring of effluent in the ponds to monitor regrowth. If there is justification for adding sodium hypochlorite prior to putting the water into the irrigation system for disinfection purposes, the city will do that, and in fact is recommended for poplar trees. Air quality monitoring can be done to evaluate the potential travel distance of any pathogenic organisms. It is the city's recommendation that lime stabilization currently used at the treatment plant is continued as it shrinks the size of the lagoons on the offsite property, and the lagoon on the offsite property can be used just for winter storage, with biosolids at all other times of year going into drying beds, or placed in liquid form on the property. It is the city's recommendation that the biosolids go in dry form as the liquid form requires a vehicle or spreading mechanism. The effluent sprinkler and biosolids management redesign for DEQ approval would be completed within 30 to 90 days. It is the City's recommendation to go with membrane filters, as the technology with membrane filters provides the city with better flexibility, use and better long- term operation and maintenance. She reiterated staff's recommendation to go to the hillside, use it for poplar production, monitor that water, and take the Class A biosolids to the hillside for $7 million capital versus an additional $4 million to go to the creek. She added that temperature is an outstanding unknown and something that will not be solved tomorrow, and could take until next year before DEQ has their temperature TMDL's written. This would have to go through the Environmental Quality Commission and the EPA for final approval, and then there would be an implementation period, which could be two to ten years.

Wheeldon questioned the reduction in costs of $1 million, and Brown stated that going to the hillside for a poplar plantation reduces the initial option by $1 million, and this would not make any difference between Class A or Class B if the lime stabilized product is continued.

Fine referred to No. 4 on page 3, and asked that if that recommendation was followed, would the city be completing an effluent sprinkler and biosolids management redesign within 30 - 90 days, and what type of sprinklers would be in that redesign. Brown replied that the city does not have that information yet, although the sprinklers could go from 20 to 30 feet, or 6 -8 feet.

Laws asked about efforts made to compare potential replacement water from water rights with the amount of water that would be taken out of the creek. Brown explained we discharge on average 2 million gallons of effluent into the creek a day, and if you take 2 million gallons a day, 30 days a month, seven months of the year that the city is out of the creek, that makes 420 million gallons of water. Laws asked how much water is available to the city from the city's water rights. Brown said she would not advise replacing the whole 2 million gallons a day for the entire time that it is not in the creek, and that the water should be put in the creek when it needs it, which is typically as soon as TID doesn't use Bear Creek as a transport system in September. That is when the creek is the lowest and when it is most vulnerable for fish.

Laws commented that with regard to reexamining TMDL's and going through the methodology, he had gone through the documents and it did not look like a good idea to reexamine phosphorous TMDL's, but temperature would be something we would want to become involved with. Laws asked if the city went to an increek option of putting the effluent in the creek, and therefore would have to meet temperature TMDL's, could that be phased in in a way that would allow the city to start to get online right away to put water back in the creek and address the temperature control part later. Brown replied we do not have a temperature standard in our current permit.

Bob Eimstad clarified that a temperature management plan would have to be developed if allowed to discharge into the creek, which would become part of the permit if accepted by DEQ.

Reid questioned who controls the water behind the dam and if the City would need to go through TID. Brown clarified that the city's recommendation would be to go directly to the Bureau of Reclamation, as the City is the landowner, with notification to TID that the city would transfer, convert or lease the waters for instream purposes.

Reid questioned the soils and depth needed for growing poplar trees and asked if Sylvan Systems had actually gone onto the site to look at the soil. Brown clarified they had not gone onto the site to do test pits but had seen the site and the foundation engineering report.

Eimstad said he had been on a tour with one of the poplar plantations and the soil situation was discussed at length and they felt confident having reviewed the information and seen the site that it would be suitable for poplar growth.

Wheeldon inquired as to a wetlands solution. Brown replied that the system did not produce the resulting phosphorous levels. Adjustments had been made within the soil filter system and unless a different wetlands methodology is applied the system did not work.

John Gasick of DEQ said he had an opportunity to discuss the issue with a fisheries biologist for the Department of Fish & Wildlife and he commented that the focus should be on the water for the fish. Water quantity is now definitely looked at as an issue. He presented a chart on the overhead projector and explained the stream gauges location one of which is downstream on the confluence of Ashland Creek and Bear Creek, and the other upstream of the Rogue River Irrigation District diversion. There is not a lot of historic data available, but explained that 1997 is an average year for water flow. The goal is to manage Bear Creek to 10 cfs all the way from Emigrant Lake to the mouth, and in 1997 Bear Creek had over 10 cfs the entire year. He added that 60% of the phosphorous loading in Bear Creek comes from Ashland.

Reid agreed that the phosphorous needs to come out of the water, but as far as fish and environmental health is concerned the first thing needed in the creek is water. She added that the water will be cleaner because of the new plant and tertiary third stage with membrane filters.

Hauck questioned the cfs and where it becomes problematic in Medford. Gasick clarified that whatever goes down to Medford gets taken out at Medford as that is the low point in the system. Gasick said that if you were to take out the phosphorous and put in the effluent that will not do anything to change it, and you will have the same situation as you have now as you cannot manage that water down to the mouth. He added that all the effluent goes into the Rogue River Irrigation District at this point.

Laws questioned the City being required to submit a "water quantity management plan to augment the flows in Bear Creek during the critical flow period immediately following the irrigation season, and the proposal to augment stream flows during this critical period by coupling the water rights from the purchased property and the holding reservoir to meet the concerns of ODFW." He asked where we would stand with DEQ if the City did a plan beyond what has been done and didn't get adequate water.

Gasick said they would ask the City to submit a revised plan. He added that the Water Resources Dept. has put together several ways of getting 10 cfs in the creek.

Reid said she thought that 200 people were waiting in line to get water from TID for agricultural use, and there was not enough water in the basin for all the people that wanted water now. Gasick concurred.

Wheeldon asked whether the cost of replacement water was factored in, and as the water rights have been paid for, does the City then pay for the water as well.

Brown clarified that for TID water we pay for the Imperatrice water on the City's property, a maintenance and use fee, regardless of whether or not we use the water, and this is included in the operations and maintenance cost of purchasing the water.

Wheeldon asked if the likelihood of the City getting a permit for agricultural use means that something has to actually go on the Imperatrice property, and wanted to know where we stand if we only use the property for biosolids.

Brown said the use of biosolids is a soil amendment, as it makes the soil better for any type of grass crop even if it is for cattle grazing on the property.

Nolte added that the same issues are involved using only biosolids and not treated effluent and it has to be for a farm use. If a farmer applies fertilizer to farm property no one will question it but when the City applies fertilizer we are challenged, so we have to be in a position to show it is for farm use.

Al Cook, Regional Manager of Water Resources, introduced himself, and said there are a number of things he would like to clarify. He said that Paula is right with her recommendations. There are so many options it makes it difficult to sort out to craft a solution, but is very confident there are sufficient buckets of water in the valley to take a hard look at it and figure how that water may be utilized. The majority of the water rights in the valley right now are going under a process called final proof survey, which means they are not subject to transfer regardless of their ownership. The City has some water rights that are tied in up the final proof survey and the city has water rights that are free and clear from that. That process is near completion and he expects to have that wrapped up as far as the upper valley goes by the end of the year. He said the statement there is more demand for water in the valley than water is true, but not a complete picture as you have to look at the other side of the coin which is the water rights that can be accommodated elsewhere, for example on new land, or new water rights. If Rogue Valley Irrigation District chose to exercise their water right, as they have the oldest and largest irrigation right, you wouldn't have any water in lower Bear Creek. He said that the only way the City today can guarantee a delivery of any quantity of water from a right held by the city would be through a lease or a transfer, and just by putting more water in the stream guarantees that water goes back in the stream.

Brown clarified that you just cannot put it back in the creek as irrigation flow, you have to put it in specifically as an instream use and label it.

Laws said Cook had made an excellent point that the City is going through a whole change in the way water rights and water management are handled and asked if he had any idea how many years it may be before it is sorted out.

Cook said he wasn't sure what "sorted it out" means but they will take a look at given projects and try and work it through the steps. To suggest that within five years we would have a laissez faire market situation with water is probably folly.

Gasick clarified that the fall is a critical time for the anadromous fish return. May and early June are also significant times when the fish are heading out. Those are the times to focus on and a water quantity management plan should take that into account.

Mayor Shaw asked council if there were further questions and this is an opportunity to discuss and deliberate to a decision.

Wheeldon read aloud a statement of her thoughts. She believes that what our consultants, staff, and state agencies have presented is sound and feels that while there are not 100% guarantees is confident that this project has been given considerable attention, it will continue to be a high profile project and many adjustments have been made to the plan to ensure its success. The ongoing monitoring will ensure that the risks are minimized. She feels the scale of the project, although not huge by many cities' standards, has contributed to the concerns. The amount of water held in the reservoir, when and how often it will be sprayed, and the potential of oversaturation of the ground, have all contributed to concerns. The large amount of water was also really a deterrant in our developing a piece of the wetlands solution. The impacts of a project this size on surrounding neighborhoods is a great concern as well. She continues to support the rationale of the initial council decision to keep the effluent in Ashland for use, but is realistic about how it can be used given the recent experiences. She asked if the parents of Ashland's children would be content to have their fields watered with Level 4 water, and doesn't believe so at this time. She doesn't think that Class A sludge is necessarily something that people will accept at this time. She feels that in 10 or 20 years when water rates are high or the Parks maintenance budgets are under fire we will be ready to use these resources in different ways but for now the social acceptance would continue to be low. It will take two to ten years for the temperature issue to be sorted out, and even though we are not subject to that temperature standard right now, she cannot vote for a solution that does not provide for this now. She said we have spent ten years on this issue, and it should not be a temporary solution. As DEQ has suggested, the temperature issue is around the corner and we must plan for it now. Mechanical pooling of the effluent on this scale is unacceptable from the perspective of resource conservation and the potential impact on the immediate neighborhood. The trucking of sludge great distances cannot be supported any longer. She believes the solution to this problem lies in breaking it into smaller pieces with the goal of minimizing the social, neighborhood, and environmental impacts on all the affected parties. She added there is also an additional $8 million financial impact as a burden to the ratepayers over the next 20 years, so would suggest that we proceed with the poplar plan, with the intention of reducing the amount of water actually needed to pursue the plan to one-half or one-third of our flow with the spreading the Class A biosolids on the site to stabilize and enrich the soil for the poplar growth. She feels that to stabilize the impact on the immediate neighborhood we need to look at potentially building a smaller wetlands that might accommodate a portion of the effluent that for a time would go and begin the poplar plantation and focus on putting water in the creek and improve the riparian area in Bear Creek. Once the poplar plantation is established use some of the water to create a viable wetlands. We have not given the wetlands system enough time as an ecosystem needs to develop over time to prove itself. She feels it would stabilize the impacts on the offsite property and while she understands the concerns of the neighbors, we are all in this together.

Fine thanked and complimented the Mayor for running this and the last meeting. He said she had gotten a lot of people, both technical experts and citizens an opportunity to contribute and has helped everyone individually move toward a decision. He feels this is a question of evaluating and balancing risks and alternatives, neither one of which are pretty. Unlike Wheeldon, he is not convinced that the science involved in going to the wetlands is sufficiently sound to satisfy the community. It satisfies him and feels there is no health risk troublesome to him personally. However, he feels that most of the community does not see the risk level in the same way. He feels we have a public duty and the level of risk would not be minimized sufficiently to make any hillside effluent disposal scheme acceptable to our community at this time. He doesn't feel it appropriate for elected officials to do what the latest straw poll suggests would be most popular. On the other hand he is firmly convinced we cannot properly disregard public opinion, and cannot fly in the face of an overwhelming public sentiment. He said his e-mails have been about 50-1 against using the effluent scheme on the hillside, and that includes many people fully aware of the science and costs involved, and we have to balance the remaining risks. There is a risk we may have to use mechanical refrigeration to lower temperatures, but said he is hearing now that is a less proximate risk than heard before. The chances of having to do that are somewhat more remote and the timeframe when that may have to done appears far distant. As EPA imposes the new nationwide temperature rules, he is convinced there will be a groundswell of revolt, not only on the pocketbook sentiment but a realization that we have a dwindling supply of electric production capacity in the US, and the possible minimal benefit of using Bonneville to drain away vital resources to sustain the Columbia and Snake River salmon runs, would not justify using mechanical refrigeration to chill effluent in the hope of restoring a salmon run to an irrigation ditch. He feels it is justifiable to risk the possibility that we will have to burn $2 million worth of electricity, and that our community demands that we do spend the additional roughly $5 million it will cost to get what is likely to be a once and for all solution, socially acceptable, and will put an end to discord in the community by discharging all of the effluent through tertiary membrane filtration and cooling to the extent necessary into Bear Creek. He is not happy with the concept of encumbering all of the City's water rights in perpetuity which we may well need to get replacement water should we go to the hillside. He feels that after the experiment with wetlands that failed at the expense of public funds, he doesn't think a City government should continue in its role as a scientific research establishment, and doesn't care to pursue wetlands solutions further at this time unless the technology has been proven better and can find a certain way of achieving temperature reduction when and if it has to be done. He is prepared to vote for the solution of using the hillside for disposal of Class A biosolids and returning the water to Bear Creek through membrane filtration.

Hauck added he respectfully disagrees with Fine as he feels temperature standards not only will be applied but will be even tougher than before. The history of this is that the science continues to become more refined and standards we are meeting on some of the other TMDL's outside. Going back into the creek is a temporary solution, and that if this was being done from scratch and first building the plant and deciding how to deal with our wastewater, we would be told that we would not be allowed in the creek unless we could absolutely not find an alternative to that. Costs are exorbitant for that option and he cannot vote for that in light of the temperature issue. Just putting the water back in the creek does not solve the problem, and it takes water management and that is the issue.

Laws said he feels it has been narrowed down to two options for effluent. He feels the bird in the hand is the option of putting the water back in the creek because we know the technology is there and it can be done, even when temperature requirements are here. The unknown is the cost. The bird in the bush is going on the hillside, which probably would be cheaper, but TID water rights are uncertain, and if we go on the hill we have to have replacement water. If we use the other city water rights it would be at the expense of our water supply plan which he thinks would give other problems, and there are potential delays involved with that option which could end in it not being permitted at all. He referred to the City of Dallas lawsuit where the City agreed with a manufacturer to take sludge and treat it and use poplar trees to get the phosphorous out as part of the treatment. Dallas is in the process of applying for a land use permit for agricultural use for their tree plantation, and both LCDC and neighbors have appealed this to LUBA. He said that LCDC and the State Dept of Agriculture are probably going to file a brief with the neighbors because they believe it is not an agricultural use but a utility. If it is a utility, then we have a potential block as a utility under state law can only be put on EFU land if you can prove you have no other feasible alternative. He stated the Dallas case is directly applicable to our situation. The question is, is this poplar tree plantation used to clean up sewage and is it an agricultural use or a utility. If decided it is a utility, then our use would also be a utility. For those reasons he does not feel this is a certainty and this could be delayed by other legal processes. He is for the bird in the hand.

Hanson moved to return the effluent to the creek throughout the year.

Mayor Shaw said everyone should have an opportunity to speak.

Reid seconded the motion.

Council Discussion:
Laws wanted to confirm that we are talking just about the effluent now, and separating that from the sludge, and Hanson said we had not gotten to that part yet.

Hanson said he would like to finish his motion, which is to return the effluent to the creek throughout the year. He said he has not decided what to do with the biosolids yet, and directed staff to present a plan to council to be approved.

Mayor Shaw said they have presented a plan and we need to draft something for DEQ.

Reid said Hanson could make any motion he wants and it can be debated.

Hanson continued his motion that council direct the staff to present a draft plan for approval with the biosolid issue and the temperature issue which are non-issues at this point right now, to be worked out at a later date.

Reid seconded the motion.

Wheeldon said she didn't feel the biosolids are a non-issue, that the biosolids are a very real issue and that the permit from DEQ has to address those issues.

Laws said we have an immediate problem of what is to be done with the biosolids. The hillside is not an immediate solution because it will be delayed by legal challenges. Consequently if something is to be done with the biosolids we may as well look for other solutions. He said that is not part of the permit that has to be met by June 3.

Brown said this is a part of the solution for the wastewater treatment plant and we do need to give them effluent and biosolids management options. Right now the biosolids management plan from DEQ is the sludge lagoons and on the hillside. If we are going to change that she will need direction.

Reid said that under discussion of the motion on the floor, council can vote on a motion that deals with effluent and put another motion on the floor to deal with biosolids. She said it is perfectly acceptable to vote on effluent on one motion and biosolids on another motion. Reid said she would like to discuss the motion on the floor which talks about effluent, which is the motion and second on the floor.

Mayor Shaw disagreed and said that the motion on the floor is for staff to come back with a draft of what to do with biosolids and she said she is hearing from staff that is not an option.

Hanson said that is not what the motion was. The motion was to return the effluent to the creek throughout the year and direct staff to present us with a plan for councils' approval which would include dealing with the biosolids and the temperature. But the question is is whether to put the water on the creek or on the hillside.

The Mayor said that Hanson's motion includes both and we don't have the time to come back with a draft of the biosolids. They can be separated out as Reid indicated, and work on the effluent.

Fine indicated council should address to vote first on the effluent issue and have a separate discussion and debate on the other part of the motion relating to the biosolids.

Reid asked if Hanson would accept that amendment. Hanson accepted that amendment and Reid seconded.

Mayor Shaw clarified that what is before the council is discussion of the effluent less the biosolids. She commented she has been with the program for the last twelve years, as have a couple of others. She felt that today some important information was conveyed to the council in terms of concerns about water quantity in the creek. There are four primary areas important for the council and as a governing body to focus on, which have differing values in terms of each of councils' concerns. Her primary and secondary concerns are identical which is environmental and health risk factors as proposed. She found it interesting to find out today that Ashland is not the sole source of water in Bear Creek. In terms of environmental impact we have an opportunity to put water into Bear Creek when the fish need it most, and that is irrespective of the water rights. Quantity is clearly a management issue, and she doesn't believe that given the high complexity as presented that we can hope to impact that distribution system. In terms of health, she has had an opportunity to talk to the Oregon Health Division, both Ken Kaufman and Ron Hall. Kaufman's words were exactly that this has been blown way out of proportion. He said that it has always been a design issue with him, it was his suggestion to come back with smaller sprinkler heads, and to go to more intensive agricultural use. Kaufman's supervisor, Ron Hall, is more than comfortable with what is before the council in terms of using poplars. California currently reclaims 44% of all its treated effluent, 84% of that is used for agricultural purposes, and is used in almost every state in the nation. Her third issue is economics. The poplar plan allows room to grow which DEQ feels is important and she thinks we as a community do too. It provides potential for revenue of $3,500 per acre every eight years in poplar harvest which can go back into reducing our own costs. It is the least expensive for ratepayers, at a time when budget issues are being discussed. It retains water here for our future use. The cost in $1 million over the current plan is significant. We do not have a permit to go in to Bear Creek, and the design and process, requiring staff time and consultants money would start over. Finally, the poplar plantation as well as the spray irrigation is preferred by the Department of Environmental Quality, staff, consultants, specialists and by the Federal Government. The Mayor discussed the public outcry because she has also been receiving e-mails, part of which is propagated by the fact that a great deal of misinformation has gotten out with fear and intimidation about lawsuits. She said that sometimes tough decisions have to be made based on economics, environment and also the health and well-being of a community.

Reid inquired if the council is ready to vote. She said she debates the Mayor on each point but feels the council is moving in the most environmentally friendly and economic way.

Fine concurred with Reid.

ROLL CALL: Hauck, Wheeldon - No. Hanson, Fine, Reid, Laws - Yes. Motion passed 4-2.

The Mayor brought forward the issue that biosolids now need to be discussed.

Brown explained that if she does not have a decision on biosolids it will have to be landfilled at $35 a ton, and she does not feel that is applicable to this discussion which is why she is giving council the only option she sees feasible of Class A biosolids on the hillside. She needs direction in which way to proceed, and if that is not the direction council wants her to go, it will take time and the biosolids will be landfilled, as they are being done today.

Hanson asked how much it takes for council to do biosolids on the hillside now.

Brown explained that a lagoon would have to be built and that we need storage for the time when biosolids cannot be applied. The City would have to get a permit from the county to do this, to build a road, pipeline and drying facilities.

Hanson asked whether the lagoons built on the hillside for storage of the biosolids need to be adjacent to a slope or can they be moved.

Brown said the council had just made a decision to put the effluent back in the creek and the lagoon would be built on the top of the hill, although quite a bit smaller, and the drying beds are the same size.

Fine said he is happy with the staff recommendation on biosolids as long as we are talking about Class A. He said there have been issues raised in the community about the geologic stability of the slope, and has examined the report as against the staff's consultant's report on the geological stability and looking at the two is not convinced there are geological issues that cannot be met. He added he cannot give credibility to a geologists report he received recently that was critical of the city's position, which was withheld from staff for over two months. The report, prepared on February 18, was prepared by a consultant paid for by opponents of the city's plan. His impression is the motive must have been to maximize the potential fear which opponents of the project have been trying to engender as a means of gaining an objective. He finds that distasteful and would like to go on record as saying so. He will support the staff's recommendation on biosolids.

Reid asked about mechanical drying and equipment used in drying if we cannot go to the hillside.

Brown clarified that staff's recommendation is to dry it on the hillside. If the hillside fails and the City cannot get the permit and is not an option, we would have to look at how much room is onsite at the treatment plant. She explained there is not a lot of room there and you still have to find sites for application of the dry biosolids, or landfill. She clarified for Reid that we are landfilling today.

Reid asked if we are landfilling more of a liquid, and are we landfilling before drying.

Brown replied it is dewatered to a certain degree, but this is absolutely wrong and wants to go on record with that. She said you need the landfill space, that she has worked in landfill practice in the past, we do not recycle our waste products and to landfill biosolids that are an absolutely useful product is a shame.

Reid reiterated that she does not want to waste useful products but asked if it is possible like Grants Pass does to come out with a bagged product.

Brown said she is trying to give the council something today for Class A biosolids to be used on the hillside and hopefully used for productive agricultural farming. She clarified that at present we use four truckloads a day which is about 18,000 gallons of biosolid material.

Laws inquired how much of that is going to the agricultural site and how much going to the landfill.

Brown explained that at this point because of winter storage problems we are keeping up with the daily production, but because of delays on the offsite that is the portion going to the landfill.

Laws asked what options do we have in terms of going out to find more places to apply the biosolids.

Brown clarified that we have looked, but the county has rejected one site, as they want more information. Because of recent activities with biosolids programs and because the county doesn't want to make these decisions they are making us go through a 60 - 90 day wait and that could be refuted by Friends of the Creek or anyone else.

Laws asked the process we would go through to make the biosolids a Class A. Brown explained that Class A material would still go through the lime stabilization at the treatment plant and would make that work for long term rather than interim solution. On a daily basis, with the exception of wintertime, those would go to drying beds directly. The liquid material decants back to the plant and serves as feed stock for the plant. Material is then dried for the time period required to meet Class A, mostly a heat application. In the winter time it would stay in storage for 90 - 120 days and then be placed out onto the drying beds, and the liquid decants the same way. These are the steps if it is to go on the hillside. She clarified that the biosolids we are currently dealing with are a Class B.

Laws asked if there was land that could be acquired near the sewage treatment plant. Brown clarified she will pursue that but there is not much land there. The reason they are going to Class A is because of the neighbors. As far as selling biosolids that is speculative, even at Class A.

Mayor Shaw inquired if the Imperatrice property was still owned by farmers and they asked for Class B biosolids applied to a portion of their acreage, what would be done. Brown clarified that we could go to the county and ask for a permit. The Mayor asked why we cannot do the same thing to apply to a portion of the City's own 900 acres. Brown replied there is conflicting information regarding land use because it is city-owned property.

Nolte clarified that farmers can do this but cities are not in the business of making a profit.

The Mayor inquired if the way around that would be to annex that property into the city limits, and Nolte concurred that you could bring in the urban growth boundary.

Hauck asked the position if we were to lease the property and application was made to use our property. Nolte said that would be another issue but as long as the city owns the property it could be appealed at every level.

Hauck motioned that we accept staff recommendation and use city property for the disposal of Class A biosolids. Fine seconded.

ROLLCALL: All yes.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Submitted by Fran Berteau, Executive Secretary

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




back to top