Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, May 04, 2010



May 4, 2010

Council Chambers

1175 E. Main Street



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



Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.



Mayor Stromberg described the Demobilization Ceremony for the 41st Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon National Guard (1/186) April 24, 2010 at the Spiegelberg Stadium and displayed a medal he received during the presentation.  He asked the community to remember these soldiers as they settle into civilian life.


He went on to thank those who volunteered for Commissions and noted vacancies on the Historic, Planning, Housing and Tree Commissions.


Mayor Stromberg announced a public open house by the Ashland Water Advisory Committee May 5, 2010 at Ashland High School commons regarding alternative water sources and improved water use.


He then addressed Council and explained the Public Hearing on the Croman Mill Site would reopen for public input due to a Traffic Study recently received.  Public input would pertain only to the Traffic Study.  He also wanted to postpone the process following the Public Hearing and resume discussion once the Council had completed the remainder of the agenda.   



The minutes of the Study Session of April 19, 2010 and Regular Meeting of April 20, 2010 were approved as presented.



Mayor Stromberg’s Proclamations of May 8-14 as National Tourism Week and the week May 9-15 as National Historic Preservation Week were read aloud.



1.   Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?

2.   Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance creating Chapter 11.43 relating to storage of personal and recreational vehicles and amending AMC 11.24.020" from May 4, 2010 to June 29, 2010?

3.   Should Council approve continuance of the First Reading of nine ordinances concerning classification of offenses and court fees from May 4, 2010 to July 20, 2010?

4.   Should Council extend the Charter Communication Franchise Agreement for eighteen months to facilitate negotiation of a new franchise agreement?

5.   Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, approve a Change Order for an additional amount of $55,000 (total aggregate cost change of 47%) for disposing of biosolids during the remainder of the current fiscal year?

6.   Does Council wish to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigations to participate in the Southern Oregon High-Tech Crimes Task Force (SOHTTF) in order to recognize investigations related to high-tech and internet crimes?

7.   Will Council approve a $10,750 contract amendment to the existing contract with Thornton Engineering for the design of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District project?

8.   Will Council approve a City of Ashland Municipal Airport 10 year extension to a ground lease as well as a Specialized Aviation Service Operator Agreement for Valley Investments?

9.   Should Council authorize the City Administrator to sign an Intergovernmental Agreement between Jackson County School District #5 (Ashland School District) and the City of Ashland in relation to collection of the Construction Excise Tax?

10. Does Council accept the quarterly financial report as presented?

11. Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?

12. Does the Council wish to appoint Donald Morris as an "at large" member of the Ashland Water Advisory Committee?


Councilor Silbiger requested that Consent Agenda items #5 and #7 be pulled for discussion.  Councilor Voisin requested that Consent Agenda item #6 be pulled for discussion.


Councilor Jackson, Navickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda items 1-4 and 8-12. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the additional $55,000 for disposing biosolids was the outcome of a rate increase that occurred January 2010 that resulted in a full year cost increase of $21,000 and the other corrected a $34,000 underestimation of disposal costs made last year.  Staff adjusted next year’s budget accordingly.


Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson described the additional costs to the Liberty Street LID and noted that LID projects are based on preliminary estimates, not the actual design that comes later in the process.  One discovery was a portion of Liberty Street was on private property subsequently requiring easements and negotiations that resulted in additional costs.  The original estimate of $180,000 had increased to $243,000 but staff anticipated the project coming in well under.  Council will have the opportunity to review the bids associated with the project during the construction contract approval. The Liberty Street LID fell under the old ordinance where the City absorbs any cost over half.   Mr. Olson clarified the parts of the project the City and property owners were responsible for funding and noted the LID came with a 70% approval rate. 


Council expressed concern the project was more expensive than anticipated.  Staff will put the construction contract approval on a future agenda under Unfinished Business for further discussion.


Police Chief Holderness explained the Intergovernmental Agreement with the FBI would not offset the officer ratio.  The agreement will provide training and resources to pursue High Tech Crimes proactively.  Council will have another IGA with the FBI before year-end discussing logistics.   


Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #7. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #6. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.



1.   After considering comments at the public hearing, will Council approve a Resolution titled, "A Resolution Establishing Rates for the Ashland Municipal Airport, and Repealing Resolution 09-21" which increases rates?

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson and Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the staff report and explained the  annual review and application by the Airport Commission to adjust Airport rates.   Rates were predominantly the main revenue-generating source and reflected regional fees.


Public Hearing Open: 7:39 p.m.

Public Hearing Closed: 7:39 p.m.


Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2010-12.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.


2.   Should Council approve a resolution adjusting the FY 2009-2010 Budget to create appropriations and authorize expenditures for unanticipated expenses during this year?

Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report identifying two additional revenues not anticipated for this year and corresponding expenditures.  The first one in the General Fund related to Administration Department Municipal Courts receiving reimbursement fees for court appointed attorneys. The second pertained to the Water Fund and was an additional $77,314 from an approved grant for forest interface work.  


Public Hearing Open: 7:41 p.m.

Public Hearing Closed: 7:41 p.m.


Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2010-13.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Jackson, Voisin, Chapman, Silbiger and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.


3.   Does Council approve First Reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments?


Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact

Councilor Silbiger declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse him from the discussion.


Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Silbiger. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Silbiger left the room at 7:43 p.m.


The Council and Mayor reported no other Exparte contacts or conflicts of interest.


Public Hearing and Record Re-opened 7:45 p.m.


Staff Report

Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a presentation that included:

Testimony Received – Main Themes

  • Guiding Principles
  • Phase II Central Blvd Improvements
  • Degree of Regulation

Phased Street Improvements

  • Original Central Blvd Proposal
  • Central Blvd Alternative
  • Mistletoe Alternative

Transportation Analysis – Mitigation

  • Required for No-Build
  • Required for CMD Plan

Central Blvd

  • Mitigation
  • Required for CMD Plan Signal

Using Exiting Mistletoe Location

  • Mitigation
  • Required for CMD Plan – Signal @ 75% Build-out

Ashland Street-Tolman Creek Road Intersection

  • Mitigation – Required for No-Build
  • Westbound Lane @ 50% Build-out
  • Northbound Lane @ 90% Build-out

Ashland Street-Washington Street Intersection

  • Mitigation – required for No-Build or CMD Plan Right In Right Out
  • Signal
  • Washington Street RxR Crossing

Basic Site Review 

  • Existing standards
  • New standards

Compatible Industrial Site Review 

  • Existing standards
  • New standards

Office Employment Area – Existing Standards

  • Parking
  • Orientation
  • Façade Articulation
  • Pedestrian Amenities

Office Employment Area – New Standards

  • Green Parking Standards
  • Setbacks
  • Water Conservation
  • Green Streets


  • Incentive Based
  • Voluntary height bonus
  • Certification Levels:  Gold & Silver

Croman Mill District – Approval Procedures

  • Public Hearing (Planning Commission) – Major Amendments; Conditional Use Permits for new Buildings
  • Administrative approval for all other actions


Mr. Molnar clarified a property owner with a permitted use who wanted to alter a dimensional requirement would be a minor amendment with administrative approval and could be done concurrent with the approval process and not require a CUP or a Public Hearing. 


City Attorney Richard Appicello noted a letter that came in after the record closed and did not pertain to the Traffic Study and therefore would not be included.  Another letter requesting the record be left open for comments’ regarding the Traffic Study was included into the record.


Those Wishing to Provide Testimony – Traffic Study Comments Only

John Kruesi/148 Greenway Circle, Medford/Sited issues with Mistletoe Way, one regarding a 100-foot right of way.  Phase II was conceptual.  He would be hesitant supporting a conceptual plan with big dollars attached; there needs to be at least a partial final plan to finish the project. 


Zach Brombacher/640 Tolman Creek Rd/Opposed the plan and publicly stated he will not pay for the project’s infrastructure.  It was his understanding that Mistletoe Road was owned by the Rail Road and questioned why the City would redevelop a road they did not own.  He noted past information indicating the City would use a piece of his property for a road from Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road, clarified there was no such agreement to use his land and wanted it removed from the map.  He was not part of the Croman project and wanted to ensure the current owners will not lose their infrastructure and rights.


Marilyn Briggs/590 Glenview Drive/Explained the Right-In Right-Out will not work, a traffic light would be better and allow left turns.  The proposed plan shows three northern exits for Mistletoe Road but the current existing Mistletoe Road was the best option because it left Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) out and eliminated the need for the land trade.  Retaining the existing exit will prevent four residences from having to deal with heavy truck traffic.


Mark DiRienzo/700 Mistletoe Road #106/Voiced his confusion on the latest changes to Mistletoe Road and concerns regarding the curve and the impact to his property between Mistletoe and Mr. Kruesi’s property.  He widened Mistletoe three years prior, installed a park row and a sidewalk and wanted to know if the new plan would demolish that work.  He did not understand the impacts to his property with this change.  He questioned what “new information” was and commented that Modern Fan could not rebuild on Croman because of the amount of warehouse space they required. 


Public Hearing Closed: 8:26 p.m.


Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to hold record open for written submittals regarding Traffic Study until 4:30 p.m. May 12, 2010.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Jackson, Lemhouse and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.


Councilor Silbiger returned to meeting at 8:37 p.m.







1.   Will Council approve a fund exchange agreement with ODOT to fund the Laurel Street Sidewalk project and an engineering services contract with Thornton Engineering for design?

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson presented the staff report and explained the project would provide sidewalks from the eastside of Laurel Street to Hersey Street and Helman School.  He shared the history of the project on the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) and listed the grants staff applied for unsuccessfully.  The project is currently on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Surface Transportation Program (STP) list and recently moved into top position.  He further explained how the Fund Exchange Agreement works and that it would cover sidewalks on Laurel Street as well as the Hersey-Laurel Rail Road crossing.  Mr. Olson clarified sidewalk installation on the rail road crossing would not include crossing gates due to the expense, the cost was approximately $700,000, would be installed by the Rail Road and charged to the City.


Drew Bailey/455 N Laurel Street/Voiced his support for the project and encouraged Council approval.  He hoped the design would take into consideration that Laurel Street is an established neighborhood and there could be potential issues with park rows and traffic flow.  Overall he thought this was a great use of funds for the whole community and expressed gratitude.


George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Submitted written comments into the record supporting the project.


Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to approve both the fund exchange agreement with ODOT and the personal services contract with Thornton Engineering.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas noted the project had been a priority for the Council for a number of years and thanked staff for their efforts.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin, Navickas, Jackson and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.




2.   Does the Council wish to direct staff to submit written comments on the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement?

Public Works Director Mike Faught summarized the April 19, 2010 Study Session regarding the proposed expansion draft of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and recommendations from Ethan Rosenthal an Ecologist from David Evans and Associates.  Recommendations included submitting written comments regarding the water quality specifically related to the new Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) at Reeder Reservoir, establish close coordination during implementation and request clarification on how the Ski Lodge meets bonding requirements in the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD).  Mr. Faught noted changes in the draft letter and submitted suggestions from Councilor Navickas. 


Diane McKelvey/205 Hidden Lane/Introduced herself as a member of the Mt. Ashland Board of Directors, explained her history with Ashland and stressed the health of the watershed was imperative.  The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) studies show there will be no increased sedimentation in the watershed. Additionally 25 restoration projects will decrease the amount of sediment into Reeder Reservoir.  She supported working with City staff and professionals to monitor the improvements and wanted to create a cooperative relationship with the City and Mt. Ashland Board.


Alan DeBoer/2260 Moranda Lane/Explained that Mt. Ashland was one of the biggest economic drivers the City had and had just experienced one of their most successful years this year.  Consultants have told the Board the ski area will not survive without improvements.  The proposed improvements are minor.  He hoped the mountain would not incur debt and the expansion will occur only as citizen support generates the funds to pay for the improvements.  He encouraged Council to make the letter positive and support the ski area.


Darrel Jarvis/125 N 2nd Street/Introduced himself as a member of the Mt. Ashland Board of Directors and distributed and read a copy of Resolution 90-52 Council passed in 1990 supporting the Mt. Ashland expansion. He described the ski area as 80% advanced terrain and 20% intermediate and beginner while 80% of skiers were intermediate and beginner with 20% advanced.  He read a quote from the proposed draft letter from David Evans and Associates stating the City should allow the development of the Mt. Ashland Ski area in an environmentally sound manner that allows for compliance with the Reeder Reservoir sediment TMDL.  For some reason that statement was removed and replaced with critical language in the current proposed draft.  He expressed concern that a council of lay people rejected the science and conclusions and instead made a political statement in the letter.  He noted the reference to establishing a coordination committee and explained that the Mt. Ashland Board has always been open to monitoring throughout the improvement process. 


Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Stressed the importance the City had in securing the Forest Service analysis of impacts of climate change on the area.  Studies by the UN and global academia point to changes in global rainfall and the cycles and intensities of rain now.  Reclassifying the Landslide Hazard Zones revealed the characteristics of those slopes.  The expansion, changes in rainfall and snow patterns will disturb the slide areas.  Sediment dumping into the wetland will at some point risk the collapse of that system.  That collapse and long-term sedimentation from the hills that occur prior to the collapse will end up in the reservoir similar to the 1997 flood.  She encouraged Council to leave or add language to the letter requesting an analysis based on regional and global climate changes and the how it will affect Mt. Ashland and the surrounding area.


Angie Thusius/897 Beach Street/Spoke on behalf of herself and the Grandmothers and Friends in Green and expressed their concern regarding the SEIS.  The US Forest Service is backing the expansion where 70 acres of old growth forest would be cut in the roadless area of the middle branch.   The Ashland Ski Association would build 16 new runs in the wild eastern fork of the headwaters of Ashland creek at a lesser snow level.  The middle branch contains native and rare plants along with wildlife and is a hazardous slope area prone to landslides.  David Evans and Associates did not consider the Forest Service was basing its analysis on the 1991 Master Plan that is outdated.  When it was published, there was no knowledge of the delicate eco system in the middle branch.  The US Forest Service did not take into account the possible perils and impacts of global warming and the computerized model soil studies were not based on Mt. Ashland soil conditions.  After the expansion, if the Ashland Ski Association goes bankrupt the City and community will be liable and there is a possibility the Ski Association would sell to a private company.  Old growth forests cannot be restored.  David Evans and Associates were also unaware of the Community Alternative that would allow expansion but protect the middle branch.


Tom Dimitre/901 Beach Street/The Ninth Circuit Court made a ruling in 2007 stating the ski area could not build ski runs through unstable areas.  Instead of revising the proposed expansion to comply with the Ninth Circuit Court opinion, the US Forest Service did a paper exercise, changed nothing and now states everything will be fine.  The new analysis shows clear cutting in riparian reserves include these unstable areas and since reclassification have increased from 4.5 acres to 15.   This will make these areas more susceptible to landslides and the Forest Service has not reanalyzed or adjusted amounts regarding these impacts.  The economics of the ski area were poor 5 years ago and are worse now.  According to their last financial statement, cash on hand is zero.  Attendance was down this year and the ski industry across the country is flat to declining.  The proposed expansion will cost at least $5million and there is a risk of having a partially built, partially cleared ski area, with no money to finish it.  In 2006, the Council asked the US Forest Service to analyze the Community Alternative and they did not.  Mr. Dimitre encouraged Council to add a second request to review the Community Alternative in the letter, it was a reasonable compromise and the Forest Service should review it.


Shelley Austin/385 Cherry Lane/Explained she was a member of the Mt. Ashland Board of Directors and reiterated the Board’s willingness to create an environment of cooperation with the City and the monitoring process.  The Board has had and will continue discussions with environmental groups that oppose the expansion.  It was a passionate issue and open communication is critical for success no matter the outcome.


Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 S/Described his experience and involvement with Mt. Ashland over the years.  He spoke on the need for open communication and voiced surprise the City had not notified Mt. Ashland Board members it had hired a consultant or was having a Study Session April 19, 2010 regarding the Mt. Ashland Ski Area Expansion Draft SEIS.  There should have been communication with both groups being proactive.


Tracy Harding/334 Bridge Street/Urged the City to send a strong letter.  The testimony regarding cooperation was a good idea and support for the Ski Area could come in the form of a compromise that included the Community Alternative.  The project could move along safely with all possible protection to the watershed, removing areas of inadequate analysis and unknown impacts and keeping the best interest of the drinking water in the forefront. 


Council discussed which letter they supported with some favoring the draft from Dan Evans and Associates and others the current proposed letter.  Suggested changes included removing the third paragraph from the current letter, requesting the US Forest Service to review the Community and Knoll Alternatives, provide relative analysis to all the alternatives suggested in the 2004 final Environmental Impact Statement, and request climate change analysis.


Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to remove the third paragraph from the end of the draft letter presented tonight  regarding economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought it was irresponsible to go into a major development project the City was financially liable for and not request current economic data.  Councilor Silbiger clarified that Council had added a section on the SEIS regarding the bonding issue that would protect the City from liability.  Councilor Voisin noted the financial climate of the country had dramatically changed since 2004 and that was reason enough to ask for additional analysis of the risk, this was a need to know what was going on financially.  Councilor Lemhouse thought Council was being extremely responsible by asking very specifically for an update, if there was one, in the cost of restoration and whether Mt. Ashland Association can fulfill the amount.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES; Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2.


Council discussed a statement regarding pre-decision bias towards the C-6 Expansion and the lack of analysis on the US Forest Service’s part on other alternatives.  Adding a statement to the comment letter for alternatives went beyond the scope of what the US Forest Service was asking.  Other comments included a need to determine if the information the US Forest Service provided was in the City’s best interest and a reminder that it was the City’s responsibility to protect the watershed, not decide on the expansion.  The current draft requested coordination committees, addressed concerns about TMDL and bonding that were not typical responses for a comment letter.


Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to direct staff to send the draft DSEIS comment letter as amended with suggested formatting to the Forest Service.


Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to amend the motion adding a request to the US Forest Service that a climate change analysis be completed.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin explained in 2002 global climate change was an unknown, it was appropriate to request the US Forest Service to provide some form of analysis. Councilor Jackson was satisfied with the conclusions the Forest Service drew in the SEIS regarding climate changes.  Councilor Navickas explained the ski area consistently failed economically due to snowfall and listed financial downfalls due to consecutive dry years and supported requesting a climate change analysis.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO; Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES. Motion failed 2-4.


Roll Call Vote on Original Motion: Silbiger, Chapman, Lemhouse, Navickas and Jackson, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.



1.   Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance relating to Water Curtailment, Definitions, Exhibits, Determinations of Water Shortage, Water Curtailment Stages, Exemptions and Appeals, and Amending Sections 14.06.010 through 14.06.060"?

Public Works Director Mike Faught confirmed the allotment for residences with irrigation and residential meters during Stage 1 would receive 5,400 cubic feet (cf) of water.  The Conservation Department conducted site visits and evaluated each property prior to recommending a second meter for irrigation.  Residences with two meters pay two base rates.  Staff recommended not changing additional irrigation meter allocations.


Staff also recommended retaining water waste restrictions.  Removing the waste restrictions for water would eliminate the City Administrator’s authority prior to curtailment to declare a prohibition on water waste.  It would also affect water conservation efforts for “right water for right use.”  The current waste restrictions have worked well in the community for immediate reductions of water, removing that restriction could result in Stage 2 curtailment.  Staff did recommend removing the additional 25% allocation for residential gardens due to its impact on Conservation Department staff.


Pam Lott/798 Oak Street/Spoke against removing waste restrictions, it was critical to have as much ability as possible to prevent water waste and going into curtailment sooner.  It was also important to educate the community on what water waste is and let them take initial steps.  She did not support someone using drinking water for inappropriate purposes just because they had a certain amount.  These choices affect everyone and there are viable alternatives.  The issue was the volume of water used for these activities, not the right to use it as an individual saw fit.  Water use affects everyone.


Councilor Lemhouse thought it was illogical to allot something then penalize people if they waste it.  Waste restriction should occur through public education, the community was responsible enough not to waste water and electricity.  It was difficult to legislate how something is used or to enforce it. 


It was clarified that prohibiting waste applied when the start of a water emergency was determined.


City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.


Council discussed removing the 25% allotment for residential gardens, there were methods for maintaining gardens during curtailment.  Concern was voiced on allowing a second meter for irrigation as well as the larger water allocation for more than four member households.


Councilor Jackson/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance #3011.


Councilor Navickas/Chapman m/s to remove 14.06.060 (C)(6):  “For residential gardens where water supply restrictions will result in loss of food production crops…” 

Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.


Mr. Appicello read the change aloud removing from 14.06.060 (C)(6):  “For residential gardens where water supply restrictions will result in loss of food productions crops, residential water curtailment rates identified in the Water Allocation Table can be increased up to 25% after confirmation by the City that the account has instituted water efficiency improvements.”


Roll Call Vote on amended motion:  Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson, Navickas, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.


City Administrator Martha Bennett requested that a Special Meeting be scheduled to complete the discussion and decision on the Croman Mill Site Project.


Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to continue discussion on the Croman Mill Site Project to the next meeting at which time staff will have rescheduled a  meeting for consideration. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.


2.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Public Contracting and Personal Service Contracts and Repealing Chapters 2.50 and 2.52"?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted the numerical limitations on discretion went to $35,000 on personal services by direct appointment.  He explained Council could retain Findings by the Department Head that state when the City enters into a contract over $5,000 for personal services and staff does not have adequate personnel there should be a plan to accomplish those services and ensure the consultant has the appropriate expertise.  The Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) contained similar language but staff could add it to 2.52.040 Provisions of Findings under the Personal Service Contract Provisions 2.50.120 if Council wanted it added.  


Council suggested defining “competitive process” under 2.50.120 Personal Service Contracts (4)Continuation of Work Exemption:  “…work under a prior contract may be awarded without competition if the prior contract was awarded under a competitive process…” as the full Request for Proposal (RFP) process.  Another suggestion directed staff to look into adding language on doing business locally.     


Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of Ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.





Meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m.


Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor

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