The five "Tree of the Year" finalists were noted and the Pacific Madrone located at the Mt. View Cemetery was announced as the 2006 "Tree of the Year".

Mr. McDonald explained an Interchange Area Management Plan is a 20 year plan for managing interchanges to achieve a balanced land use and transportation relationship. He stated IAMPs are needed because without effective management, the network may become overly congested and clogged, leading to interchange and local street traffic problems, and an IAMP provides the management tools necessary for the long-term sustainability of the network.

Mr. Pyles presented diagrams of: 1) The Transportation-Land Use Development Cycle, 2) Basic Functional Classes, and 3) Balance Between Increments of Development and Improvements in Transportation Facilities. Mr. Pyles reviewed the IAMP content and displayed a process flowchart. Potential IAMP management tools, IAMP future effects, and Ashland's role were also reviewed.
[ODOT's presentation was submitted into the public record.]

It was clarified there will be a single technical advisory committee and a single citizens advisory committee covering both interchanges, and that the City and the County will work through this process together over the next several months. It was also clarified that representatives from the City and the County would be meeting to determine the make-up of the citizens advisory committee, but if they are unable to come to a decision this committee could be split.

Suggestion was made for the advisory committee to not be limited to property owners and business owners as many commuters will also be affected.

Mayor Morrison announced the following changes to the Council Agenda: 1) Under New & Miscellaneous Business, the Ratification of the Police Union Contract has been added, and 2) Item #5 under Ordinances, Resolutions, and Contracts has been removed.

Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #3 and #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Councilor Hartzell noted staff's recommendation included that the quitclaim deed not be signed until such time as the existing utility line is relocated at the owners expense and the old line removed and received verification from Public Works Director Paula Brown that this provision would be included in Council's approval of the termination of easement.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item #2. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Marilee Jenkins/Commented on the trail of Lt. Ehren Watada and noted she had submitted information on this subject. Ms. Jenkins commented on the changes she has seen in Ashland, stated she would be leaving Ashland, and read a short poem aloud.

Ambuja Rosen/Stated the tethering ordinance is scheduled to come before Council on December 5, 2006 and commented on some of the questions that might come up during the hearing. Ms. Rosen noted that: 1) for almost two year, Topeka, Kansas has required that animals have a tip-proof water supply, 2) Big Springs, Texas has a requirement for a minimum living space for dogs, and 3) Tucson, Arizona has banned all tethering of animals except horses. She noted that she has researched tethering ordinances of several municipalities and submitted her findings to the Council.

Mr. Wanderscheid noted that last spring, staff was directed to return to Council with a proposed schedule to revise the Conservation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed schedule outlines the following timeline:

Mr. Wanderscheid explained this schedule is being proposed for the following reasons:

Councilor Hartzell expressed concern with waiting for BPA's decision before moving forward and questioned if they could begin other activities, such as setting appropriate targets.

Mr. Wanderscheid noted there are water conservation targets in the Carollo Report and commented on the difficulty of separating the water and energy programs. He stated the City is on track to meeting the targets listed in the Carollo Report; however if the Council wishes to accelerate this it will require more budgetary and staffing facilities. Mr. Wanderscheid clarified there are a number of new programs staff is considering and stated the existing element provides them authority to do this. He advised that they focus on rolling out programs and revising the element right the first time.

Comment was made that the Council could decide to officially adopt the targets listed in the Carollo Report.

Mr. Molnar commented on the Carollo Report and stated it was very thorough and identifies a general goal and over 60 policies. He clarified there is ample policy within the City's Comprehensive Plan that would allow, from a land use perspective, staff to initiate any amendments related to resource conservation if they decided to do so in advance of the update to the Conservation Element.

Mr. Wanderscheid clarified he anticipates being involved with this update through its adoption.

Councilor Chapman/Amarotico m/s to agree with the proposed schedule. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell indicated her preference that they move forward faster. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

It was questioned if the task force could look into funding sources for sidewalks as well as pavement. Ms. Brown clarified that this could be included in the goals. Councilor Jackson suggested they include an additional goal (Goal #7), which would address a funding source for sidewalks and parkrows.

Suggestion was made for Goal #6 to coordinate with the budget process. Ms. Brown stated the 3-4 month timeline does coincide with the tail-end of this year's budget process. City Administrator Martha Bennett commented that 3-4 months was optimistic and they may not have conclusions that everyone agrees with in time for this year's budget process.

Ms. Brown stated the way the streets are maintained now is good, and hopes they do not lower the standards. Councilor Silbiger questioned if Goal #3 should be removed. He stated if the Council does not want to reduce the standards this should not be included as an option. Ms. Brown clarified Goal #3 relates to the Council agreeing on a standard and directing staff to meet that standard.

Councilor Hartzell stated that sidewalks and parkrows are addressed in the CIP and questioned if this should be included as one of their goals. She also questioned if they should identify a tolerable cap for the cost on an annual basis. She suggested they could ask the task force to bring back a funding strategy that would identify investing 'x' amount a year over 'y' years in order to meet the needs identified in the assessment. Ms. Bennett stated it is important for the Council to first set the standard and determine the costs.

Councilor Jackson left the meeting at 9:00 p.m.

Ms. Brown noted that the City has a great master plan and transportation system plan, what they lack is a consistent and reliable funding source to accomplish the work.

Councilor Hardesty recommended two additional members be added to the task force composition: 1) a planning commissioner, and 2) a citizen at large member.

Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s that the Council give consent to Ms. Brown to move forward on the task force; in addition, add a Goal #7 that addresses sidewalks and parkrows. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hartzell shared her concern with including parkrows with the sidewalks.

Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s amend motion to eliminate Goal #6 and add the following members to the Task Force composition: One representative from the Planning Commission, one representative from the community at-large, and one representative from the handicap community. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Voice Vote on Original Motion as Amended: all AYES. Motion passed.

Michael Riedeman/632 Iowa Street/Commented on why it is important to question authority when that authority's research is funded by industries with financial and political interests at stake. Mr. Riedeman noted the ties between researchers and the companies that support fluoridation and listed the results of a report released by the National Academy of Sciences which identified the harmful effects of fluoride in water. Mr. Riedeman requested the Council adopt an ordinance prior to the 2007 legislative session that clearly opposes the mandatory fluoridation of the City's drinking water.
[A copy of Mr. Riedeman's testimony was submitted into the public record.]

Art Bullock/Stated the proposed ordinance is poorly written and does not accomplish the Council's objective. He shared his concern that the ordinance fails to define the term "medication" and given the lack of definition the Supreme Court would base the definition on Webster's Dictionary which describes medication as a drug used to treat illness. Mr. Bullock suggested the following modifications be made to the ordinance: 1) Define the word "person", 2) Define the word "medication", 3) Specifically add terms like "minerals, vitamins, and health supplements" to prevent the argument that fluoride is not a medication, and 4) Include the term "fluoride" to insure the ordinance is upheld by the Oregon court or an Attorney General ruling.
[A copy of Mr. Bullock's testimony was submitted into the public record.]

Michael Framson/207 Bradford Way, Medford/Stated he provides educational services throughout Oregon on this issue and encouraged the Council to adopt the ordinance. Mr. Framson stated that people want safe, high quality drinking water, which is what the City of Ashland does, and this ordinance would acknowledge that this is the City's highest obligation to its consumers. He commented that Dr. Charles Gordon Hyde, who was a past president of the American Medical Association, had stated that he was appalled at the prospect of using water a vehicle for drugs, that fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis, and attempts to use water this way is deplorable.

Nick Frost/224 N. Third Street/Voiced his support of the proposed ordinance and stated that Mr. Bullock's brought up some good points. Mr. Frost noted that the American Dental Association had recently suggested that fluoridated water not be mixed with baby formula and stated there are a lot of questions remaining from a scientific basis on how flouride affects children. He stated there are still too many questions about fluoridation and not enough research.

City Administrator Martha Bennett stated that staff reviewed whether this ordinance would effect the City's connection to TAP if Medford decides to fluoridate their water and noted the City Attorney had submitted draft language to the Council that would address this issue.

In regards to questions made by Mr. Bullock, City Attorney Mike Franell clarified the law has recognized the term "person" to include a corporation, partnership or business entity and does not feel this term is ambiguous as it would cover anyone putting a substance into the water. He added he would not object to the addition of "or entity".

Councilor Hartzell suggested alleviating the issue raised regarding the term "medication" by modifying Section A to read, "...or add any substance to the public water supply for the purpose of treating or preventing illness". Mr. Franell stated he is not sure that tooth decay would be considered an illness. He also disagreed with the claim that the Courts would turn to Webster's Dictionary to determine the definition of "medication". He added that Oregon courts have consistently held that when a local government passes an ordinance, that local government is principle in interpreting the ordinance where there may be ambiguity.

Councilor Hartzell suggested that it would strengthen the ordinance to state "medication or health supplement". She also questioned why there was no language on the penalties included in the ordinance. Mr. Franell stated the penalty for violations of the code that are otherwise unspecified makes it a misdemeanor, which is up to a $500 fine and up to 60 days in jail.

Councilor Silbiger shared his concern that there has been no community discussion on fluoridation and opposed passing this ordinance before this discussion has been had.

Councilor Silbiger motioned to table this ordinance until there is formal discussion with the public. Motion died due to lack of second.

Comment was made that it is appropriate for the Council to set policy that that protects citizens against being treated through something as essential as water.

Councilor Hardesty submitted an American Dental Association eGram into the public record.

Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to approve Ordinance #2935 with the following amendments: 1) add "or entity" after the word "person" in Section A, 2) add the words "or health supplement" after the word "medication" in Section A, and 3) add Section C as drafted by staff. DISCUSSION: Council and staff discussed whether the amendments were substantiative enough to require a new first reading. City Attorney Mike Franell clarified if the ordinance is read aloud in full it can be adopted with the amendments at second reading. Mr. Franell read the ordinance with proposed amendments aloud in full. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Amarotico, Chapman, Hardesty, and Hartzell, YES. Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-1.

Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to extend meeting until 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Hardesty, Amarotico, and Chapman, YES. Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-1.

Councilor Hardesty/Amarotico m/s to appoint Councilor Hartzell. DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented on the number of families that are homeless. She stated the precursors to homelessness are often unaffordable housing and jobs that don't pay enough and stated that these are critical issues for Ashland. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.

Ms. Bennett stated that staff agrees with the proposed agreement between the Parks Department and the School District with the exception of the provision that the City will pay for the water at the two schools. She added that if all three boards (City Council, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Ashland School District) agree on this conceptual agreement, it will be sent to Legal for drafting of the actual agreement.

Parks & Recreation Director Don Robertson clarified that: 1) Overhead has not been charged in the past and was not included in this agreement, 2) The Parks Department would complete the maintenance at no charge for 18 months, with billing taking effect on July 1, 2008, and 3) The Parks Department would abide by the School District's current policies for vegetation control.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to direct staff to continue working on the intergovernmental agreement and to formulate it into a formal document with the elimination of Item #10. DISCUSSION: Mr. Robertson further clarified it has been the Department's practice to keep things as affordable as possible for the schools, and noted they also don't charge overhead for the City functions they maintain. He noted this document is still a work in progress, as they have not received approval from the School District or the Parks Commission. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Hartzell, Amarotico, and Silbiger, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-1.

Councilor Amarotico/Silbiger m/s to approve ratification of police union contract. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Amarotico, Hartzell and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed.

Art Bullock/Stated this ordinance shifts power from Council to staff and makes it easier for consulting contracts to be initiated without coming to Council. He stated this prevents accountability, openness and transparency and reduces the public's opportunity to hold their public officials accountable. Mr. Bullock asked the Council to not approve the change, keep it at $25,000, and increase the accountability and the transparency of these consulting projects.
[A copy of Mr. Bullock's testimony was submitted into the public record.] 

Councilor Silbiger/Amarotico m/s to approve Ordinance #2933. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty, Silbiger, Hartzell, Chapman and Amarotico, YES. Motion passed.

Art Bullock/Stated if less people review these contracts it is more efficient in the sense that it gets done quicker, but this does not assist with accoutability and transparency. Mr. Bullock commented on the potential abuse of power by staff and suggested the approval to form be done by either the Mayor or the City Council as well as the City Administrator.
[A copy of Mr. Bullock's testimony was submitted into the public record.] 

City Adminsitrator Martha Bennett clarified there are two kinds of review that take place. One is a review on the contracts merits and the second is a review as to whether the document is in appropriate legal form. She stated it is appropriate for the Legal Department to perform the legal review and clarified herself and the Administrative Services & Finance Director are the two members of staff who review the merits of the contracts. She shared her opinion that the proposed ordinance strikes an appropriate balance between getting things done efficiently and doing it in a transparent and open manner.

It was questioned if the changes made at the first reading should be identified. Mr. Franell stated that typically only changes made by staff between first and second reading are highlighted in the ordinance. It was noted that the wrong version of the ordinance was accidentally included with the Council's packet materials, however the correct version was posted for the citizens to view on the City's website. The changes made at first reading were listed and are as follows: 1) Strike exemptions #4 and #9, 2) Remove the phrase "including bandwidth" from exemption #14, and 3) Insert a provision in exemption #10 to define used vehicles as being at least 12 months old.

Mr. Franell clarified that as long as the Council is clear on what they are adopting it is fine to approve the ordinance. He recommended Council approve the ordinance, with the changes made at first reading, as well as the correction made to Exhibit B.

Councilor Silbiger/Amarotico m/s to approve Ordinance #2934 with the noted correction to Exhibit B. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Amarotico, Chapman, Silbiger and Hardesty, YES. Motion passed.

Request was made for future drafts between first and second reading include the mark-ups.