Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m.  Regular Meeting

Mayor Stromberg called the Business Meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

Councilors’ Slattery, Graham, Akins, Seffinger and Jensen were present.

The Mayor announced the current Commission and Committee vacancies.

City Administrator Kelly Madding spoke that Councilor Graham will be gone November 5^th and requested to move Canal Project Item to the November 15^th Council Meeting.
Madding also announced that she met with members of the faith community and talked to them about the Winter Warming Shelter.  She spoke that many people in the Community are stepping up to help.   Seffinger questioned what ways volunteers can help.  Madding suggested if anyone is interested in volunteering to contact OHRA: www.helpingashland.org.

Akins/Seffinger moved to approve the minutes.  Discussion:  None.  All Ayes.

City Administrator Assistant Adam Hanks introduced Conservation Commission Chair James McGinnis. 
Chair McGinnis introduced Commissioners Marion Moore, Larry Cooper and Marni Koopman who were in the audience.  Mr. McGinnis gave the annual report.  He announced that there will be 2 vacancies soon. 
MINUTES OF BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES

(Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
Huelz Gutcheon – Ashland – Spoke regarding climate change, mandating fossil and electric cars.
Louise Shawkat – Ashland – Spoke regarding the climate change emergency and urged Council to address this urgency.

 
Akins pulled this item.  She asked for clarification to this item.  Madding explained the process and spoke that this item is just to allow Staff to begin looking at this item. 
 
Public Input-
 
Barry Thalden – Ashland – Spoke in support of having the Council look at this Ordinance.  He spoke that it is a bad practice to pass an Ordinance and never look at them again. 
 

Madding gave a brief Staff report.  She explained that this discussion has been going on for about 20 years.  She explained that Staff followed Council direction and brought back 4 options.
Madding spoke that from a Staff perspective that the best option would be for City Hall to remain at 20 East Main. She explained that this option would be the least costly alternative for City Hall.     She suggested for Staff to put together an asset plan within the next 45 days.
Public Works Director Paula Brown gave a Staff report.  She gave a summary of where we have been with this project since 1993. 
Mayor Stromberg suggested we look at whether or not to do an asset plan and where we go from here on the project.
Jensen/Slattery moved to have an urgent Study Session to discuss an asset plan. Discussion: Jensen spoke that these 2 items can be separated.  He spoke that he cannot make a comprehensive decision on City Hall without having the comprehensive land structure inventory.  He spoke that it would be hard to move forward with 20 East Main with the chance that this option might not be the best decision.  Slattery spoke that he agrees that Council needs to discuss both items.  He spoke that an asset plan needs to be discussed ASAP; and also give approval to get moving on 20 East Main. He spoke that he will vote against this motion due to the need for moving ahead with both items not just one. Seffinger spoke that regardless of where things go the need to retrofit 20 East Main is important. She spoke in support of option #4 and the asset plan.   Akins agreed with Seffinger and spoke in support of moving forward with option #4.     Graham spoke regarding looking into retrofitting 20 East Main and the 2 story option.  Brown explained that in phase 2 Staff would bring back predesign options. Brown recommended to Staff to move forward with scope of work for phase 2 and ask engineering to look at a quick design for the 2 options and keep moving forward.  She explained that this would be brought back to Council and that it would take 2-3 months for the conceptual planning; and another 6 months to finish design.  Graham spoke in support of looking at the asset plan. She suggested to also look at it with essential services and value services that have been identified.    She spoke that with the options given it is most likely City Hall will stay where it is at and the importance to begin this quickly.  Jensen spoke that he doesn’t see the linkage that there has to be a motion that would include 20 east main. 
Jensen/Akins moved to amend the motion to direct Staff to compile a comprehensive land and structure inventory to include market appraisal to be used by City Council to assist our comprehensive asset decision making. Discussion:  Akins spoke that this is a good idea.   Slattery made a point of order that this is not on the agenda for discussion.  City Attorney David Lohman spoke that Slattery is correct. He explained that Council can add an item on to the agenda but there would have to be a vote to do that.  He spoke that Council can direct Staff to bring this topic back in a Study Session.  He explained that Jensen can withdraw this motion and then the City Administrator will be directing Staff to come back with asset management plan.
Jensen withdrew his motion.
Council direct staff with a sense of urgency to bring an asset management plan back to Council. 
Public Input
Philip Lang – Ashland – Thanked Council for their decision to conserve resources.  He spoke in support of doing an asset review.
Ed Finklea – Ashland – Spoke that he was a member of the City Hall Advisory Committee.  He spoke that the current City Hall is unsafe.  He explained that the Committee voted with the majority of advisory committee in favor of building a new City hall at 20 East Main.  He spoke that a significant amount of people would oppose the City Hall moving from downtown. He spoke that action needs to be taken and this is an urgent matter.
Rick Vezie– Ashland – Spoke that he was on the City Hall Advisory Committee in 1993.  He spoke that it is essential that the City Hall stays in its current location.  He spoke that it is also important to maintain and have a balanced budget.  He suggested it would be a good idea to come up with a plan for the rest of the downtown.  He proposed a study be done that addresses the other buildings. 
 
Ron Roth – Ashland – Spoke to the where, when and why. 
Where: 20 East Main.
When: He suggested after the AFN Bonds are paid off.   
Why: Fear of Cascadia. He spoke that this is unknown so no need to rush.
Slattery/Seffinger approval of staff’s recommendation to move forward with option 4 which will make all necessary seismic improvements, rebuild the interior of City Hall. And to further direct staff to bring back phase 2 of the design contract.  Discussion:  Slattery spoke that this has been talked about a lot and the importance of moving forward.  Seffinger spoke that the longer we wait the more it will cost. She spoke that it is a good idea to look at the rest of the downtown buildings and the importance of all citizens to be safe. Jensen questioned if we vote on this will 20 East Main be locked in stone. Madding responded that what we are doing is a parallel path and some resources will be spent.  She spoke that if during this process with the management plan there is a determination that City Hall shouldn’t be at 20 East Main then Council can change their plan and there would not be any lost time by moving forward with this plan. Slattery spoke in support of keeping City Hall at 20 East Main.   Akins agreed with Slattery.  She spoke that Staff has made this recommendation and a decision needs to be made.  She spoke that City Hall belongs where it is.  She spoke in appreciation of the other buildings and the importance to figure out a way to assist them as well.   Graham spoke that Staff has assessed several buildings.  She spoke that it is likely we are going to stay on the path with low risk in moving forward.  She spoke that it is true there may be a change but if so probably would not spend that much.
Graham/Slattery amended the motion to look at the potential of a complete rebuild of the site as a 2 story level.  Discussion:  Graham spoke that it is important to compare what it would look like not only at the cost but also energy efficiency.  Slattery agreed with Graham. Akins questioned the timeline. Brown responded that an architect and engineering team to give a statement of work and bring back to Council in the next month or 2. She explained that cost comes back at different phases of the project. Jensen spoke in agreement to the amendment. Roll Call Vote:  Jensen, Slattery, Graham, Seffinger and Akins:  YES.  Motion passed unanimously.  
Roll Call Vote to the main motion:  Seffinger, Graham, Jensen, Akins and Slattery:  YES.  Motion passed unanimously.
 

Paula Brown introduced Deputy Public Works Director Scott Fleury and announced his new certification with regional and federal FERC organizations.  Council and Staff congratulated Fleury.
Fleury gave a Staff report.  He went over the background on how we got to this point. He explained the requirements that must be followed by FERC.  He spoke that inspections are done every 5 years. He spoke that Husler Dam is a strong robust dam and in great shape he spoke that there is no concern over the dam.  He spoke that the purpose of this project is to continue to protect the City’s drinking water system.
 
Fleury went over the timeline for this project.  He explained that the preliminary of this project will take 4-6 months to develop costs and mitigating proposals. Once proposals move into a final design the project will come back to Council. 
Council and Staff discussed the possibility of overtopping. Fleury explained that there is no visual record of the dam overtopping.
Graham questioned if this was in the CIP.  Fleury explained when Staff recommended approval there was a general budget estimate for this project and would have adequate funds.   
Slattery asked for clarification that the dam is not in danger.  Fleury explained that there have been years of analysis and the dam is in great shape and a concrete structure with no signs of significant deterioration or leaking.   
Fleury went of failure mode categories.
Jensen/Graham moved to approve a Legal Department approved professional services contract with the attached scope of services with GEI Consultants for preliminary engineering of dam safety improvements in the amount of $299,684. Discussion:  Jensen spoke that this has been well discussed and spoke in support. Graham spoke that when Council is presented with a top tier need with our dam it is important to address it.  Roll Call Vote:  Graham, Slattery, Akins, Jensen and Seffinger: YES.  Motion passed unanimously.

 
Brown gave a Staff report.  She gave a background on this LID.  She explained that the property owners that have paid will be refunded. 
 
City Attorney David Lohman explained that this property is very steep and the possibility for development is unlikely.   
 
Seffinger/Jensen moved to approve a resolution titled “A Resolution to Terminate the Waterline Road Local Improvement District and Repealing Resolution 1999-19”. Discussion:  Seffinger spoke in support for terminating this LID. Jensen spoke in support and spoke that it is great when there is any opportunity to give money back. Roll Call Vote:  Slattery, Graham, Akins, Seffinger and Jensen:  YES.  Motion passed unanimously.     
 

Slattery suggested to move this item to a time when there is a full Council.
Council gave consensus to move this item to a future meeting.

Graham spoke that at last council meeting Council directed Staff to look at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and see what can be done to get to the 60% level certification with the institute for sustainable infrastructure ranking process.  Staff has limited its size of solar at that site. She
She suggested to direct staff to look at what would need to be done to optimize solar implementation at the site in the relationship to keep power moving in an emergency situation.
Lohaman suggested to direct Staff to put this item on a future agenda to allow the public to view it.
Madding spoke that she talked to Fleury about this and won’t be losing any time or opportunities if we put this on a future agenda.  
Council directed Staff to bring this item back to a future meeting.

The Business Meeting was adjourned at 9:03
 
Respectfully submitted by:
 
_______________________________________________
City Recorder Melissa Huhtala
 
 
Attest:
 
_______________________________________________
Mayor Stromberg
 
 
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900).  Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).