[8:07] I call the meeting to order.
[8:08] Good evening and welcome
[8:09] to the July 21st, 2026 business meeting
[8:12] of your Ashland City Council.
[8:14] Councillor Kaplan will offer the land acknowledgement.
[8:22] We acknowledge and honor the aboriginal people on whose
[8:24] ancestral homelands.
[8:26] We work the I K*m Band of the Shasta Nation, as well
[8:30] as the diverse and vibrant native communities
[8:32] who make their home here today.
[8:34] We honor the first stewards in the rogue valley
[8:37] and the lands we love and depend on.
[8:39] Tribes with ancestral lands in and surrounding.
[8:41] The geography of the Ashland Watershed include the original,
[8:45] past, present, and future indigenous inhabitants
[8:47] of the Shasta, Tema, and Athabascan people.
[8:50] We also recognize and acknowledge the Shasta Village
[8:53] of Akaka, where the crow lights
[8:55] that is now the Ashton City Plaza.
[8:58] Councillor Hansen will lead
[8:59] us in the Pledge of Allegiance,
[9:06] The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag
[9:08] of the United States of America,
[9:10] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
[9:15] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[9:21] Roll call please. Alyssa
[9:25] Sharelle.
[9:26] Here, Dale. Here. Bloom Here. Graham. Here.
[9:31] Kaplan. Here. Duquesne. Here. Hansen Here.
[9:36] Thank you. So under Mayor's announcements, couple things.
[9:41] First, thank you to everyone who came out
[9:43] to the informational meeting to learn how to evacuate
[9:47] and prepare for fire season.
[9:49] We know we are in it with the smoke that has happened
[9:51] and it was great to see what,
[9:53] what incredible attendance we had
[9:55] and to see how many people are taking the, the steps
[9:57] that they need to around their home being prepared in case
[10:00] fire comes to Ashland this fire season.
[10:02] So thank you for that.
[10:04] I also want to just make sure that everyone
[10:06] who is here understands how to sign up to speak
[10:09] with a council this evening.
[10:10] So you'll see on the back wall there is a signup sheet,
[10:14] a speaker request form.
[10:16] Please fill that out.
[10:17] Make sure that you write legibly
[10:19] that will help me Call your name, call your name correctly,
[10:22] but also make sure that you indicate
[10:23] what you are here to speak to us about.
[10:26] If you are here to speak about a specific agenda item,
[10:28] please put that on the forum.
[10:30] If you have come here this evening to speak
[10:32] to us about something that is not on the agenda, please
[10:36] indicate that you are here to speak during public forum
[10:39] and then put the your forum in this tray
[10:41] by the city recorder's office.
[10:43] Please make sure that you have your forum in
[10:46] by the beginning of the agenda item that you're planning
[10:48] to speak on, as that will help us manage our time.
[10:52] I also want to just note that we have a, a packed agenda.
[10:55] We have a lot that we're trying to get through this evening,
[10:58] and so we are going to do everything we can to get
[11:00] through the entire agenda
[11:02] and we just ask for everyone's cooperation in
[11:04] helping us keep moving.
[11:07] With that, the minutes are the next item on our agenda.
[11:11] Are there any changes to the minutes? Okay.
[11:15] The floor is open for a motion
[11:16] to accept the minutes. Councillor Dale.
[11:19] Thank you Mayor. Approved to I move to accept the minutes
[11:22] of July or correct.
[11:23] Correction. June 15th and June 16th.
[11:26] Okay. Okay. Roll call please. Alyssa
[11:29] Bloom.
[11:33] Yes. Dale? Yes. Sharelle? Yes. Hansen?
[11:38] Yes. Duquesne? Yes. Kaplan?
[11:42] Yes. Motion passed.
[11:44] Thank you. We are now to the consent agenda.
[11:47] Would any counselor like
[11:48] to remove any item from the consent agenda?
[11:51] I'm sorry. Comment on a expense agenda item.
[11:55] On an agenda item. Okay.
[11:58] So the question then is would the counselor like to
[12:02] with pull it or
[12:04] Automate that?
[12:05] You can hear the public comment first
[12:05] and then decide if you wanna pull it.
[12:07] Okay, very good. So let's go ahead and do that.
[12:09] I wanna pull up Dan Manir.
[12:14] Mayar. Oh, there we go. Mair may wear.
[12:17] You'll have three minutes
[12:21] and please speak into the microphone.
[12:23] And for everyone who's going to speak this evening,
[12:25] you have a display on the podium
[12:27] that will be green while you are still in the allotted time,
[12:31] it will turn to yellow
[12:32] and you'll hear a buzzer when you have 20 seconds left.
[12:35] And then when you hear the second buzzer
[12:37] and it goes to red, that means your time is finished
[12:39] and we need you to complete your testimony.
[12:40] Please tell us your name and the city in which you reside
[12:43] before starting your testimony.
[12:45] My name is Dan Maar.
[12:46] I live in Ashland, Oregon
[12:48] and I am a realtor as well as a forester.
[12:52] And I'm here to encourage the council
[12:57] to place the Fremont Cottonwood at three 80 Clay Street
[13:02] into the heritage tree list.
[13:04] Fremont Cottonwood is pretty unique.
[13:08] Usually it grows in riparian areas from Mexico
[13:13] and we're looking at probably close
[13:16] to the northernmost boundary of the Fremont Cottonwood.
[13:20] It's usually a fast growing tree.
[13:22] It needs a lot of water to thrive
[13:25] and this particular specimen of this tree
[13:28] is relatively large.
[13:30] It's one of the biggest that I've been able to find
[13:34] in the record and I would just encourage the council to
[13:39] protect preserve
[13:41] and just this, this has been a tree that has
[13:46] been around for at least 200 years,
[13:50] given the size of it, it is growing in an ideal situation
[13:55] for it and it has seen the passive time
[13:59] from the native tribes to the early white settlement
[14:04] to this day and it's seen a lot going on.
[14:07] So anyway, that's my comments. Thank you very much.
[14:10] Thank you. Would any counselor like
[14:14] to pull any item from the consent agenda?
[14:17] Okay. The floor is open for a motion
[14:19] to approve the consent agenda. Councillor Blue. I
[14:21] Move approval of the consent agenda.
[14:23] Second. Oh,
[14:25] Roll call please.
[14:26] Alyssa
[14:27] Sharelle.
[14:28] Yes. Hansen? Yes. Duquesne? Yes. Kaplan? Yes.
[14:33] Bloom? Yes. Dale? Yes. Motion pass.
[14:36] Thank you. We are now to public forum.
[14:39] Alyssa, has anyone signed up for public forum?
[14:42] Yes.
[14:56] Okay. Public forum is 15 minutes
[14:59] and we have five PE people who have signed up to speak.
[15:02] So each person will have three minutes.
[15:04] Again, the first buzzer will buzz at 20 seconds.
[15:06] The second one will buzz when your time is up.
[15:09] We will go in this order.
[15:11] Denise Gerke, Nancy Boyer,
[15:16] blaze, Debo, REM Sachs, and Chris McGee.
[15:24] And feel free to adjust the microphone and, and also
[15:26] before we get started here, if you need us
[15:29] to bring a microphone to you
[15:30] because of mobility issues,
[15:31] please just raise your hand when I call your name
[15:34] and we will bring that to you.
[15:35] Go ahead ma'am. Thank you Denise.
[15:37] Kiki, I would like to offer suggestions
[15:40] regarding the proposed management to facilitate
[15:45] facilitator for the night lawn, particularly the possibility
[15:48] of aura taking on that role.
[15:50] I've lived on the night lawn for nearly a year
[15:52] and have experienced homelessness for three years.
[15:55] Before that, I worked as a radiology technician for 20 years
[15:59] and later had a successful career
[16:00] as a realtor in Southern Oregon.
[16:03] Like many residents here, I have skills, experience,
[16:06] and a desire to rebuild my life.
[16:08] My goal has been to regain my financial stability
[16:14] and unfortunately I have experienced rep repeat repeated
[16:18] mistreatment from organizations funded
[16:20] to provide assistance.
[16:22] I have documented incidences including photographs
[16:25] and reports filed with the Ashlyn Police Department.
[16:29] I believe the night lawn should consider a
[16:31] different approach to management.
[16:32] Many residents are homeless due to economic hardship,
[16:36] not just substance abuse.
[16:38] They have professional backgrounds, leadership skills,
[16:40] and the ability to organize, resolve conflicts
[16:43] and support one another.
[16:45] Rather than relying only on outside organizations,
[16:49] residents should have a direct role
[16:50] in managing their community.
[16:52] A resident advisory committee
[16:54] or compensated resident facilitator program would recognize
[16:57] the work people are already doing to maintain order,
[17:01] communicate, and resolve issues.
[17:03] Over the past year,
[17:04] I have seen frequent rule changes create confusion
[17:08] and conflict Effective management requires consistency,
[17:11] transparency, collaboration
[17:14] with those most affected people.
[17:16] Experiencing homelessness do not lose their constitutional
[17:21] rights or their voice,
[17:23] including residents in decision making would improve
[17:26] accountability, cooperation and respect.
[17:30] Every resident I have met wants stability, safety,
[17:33] and a chance to move forward.
[17:35] Forward. Addressing homelessness requires not only services
[17:40] but also the experience
[17:41] and leadership of those living through it.
[17:46] I respectfully ask
[17:47] that any decision about the night lawn management include
[17:50] meaningful resident representation
[17:53] and consideration of a resident led
[17:56] or resident supported model.
[17:58] The people who live here understand what's working
[18:02] and what does not and how
[18:04] to build a safer community for all of us.
[18:08] Thank you. Thank you.
[18:15] Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay.
[18:17] Nancy Boyer Ashland, I'm just here wanting
[18:21] to involve the community
[18:23] with an announcement I think we all should be aware of
[18:27] concerning our beautiful Lithia Park.
[18:29] And we are all owners of Lithia Park recently,
[18:33] R-V-M-B-A Rogue Valley Mountain Bike Association,
[18:37] and a park commissioner Justin Adams has proposed
[18:43] two bike trails through our park.
[18:45] And I'm afraid that the people
[18:47] that don't watch park meetings are not aware of it.
[18:50] And I don't know how to get this out
[18:51] to the community since we all own Lithia Park.
[18:55] So I'm hoping possibly
[19:00] our city manager could put this in her e-news
[19:04] or somewhere we could get the the word out to people
[19:08] who will not know what is happening
[19:11] or wait till something does happen
[19:14] and then say why weren't we told?
[19:17] How can we get this out?
[19:19] The two involve the whole community unity.
[19:22] We're all better together.
[19:24] We, we support our parks,
[19:27] we love all the bikers and the trails.
[19:30] We give them $5 a month
[19:32] and all of us citizens pay that
[19:36] and a large portion of the general budget goes to the parks.
[19:41] So I'm hoping that we can get this out
[19:46] and I'm hoping everybody spreads a word
[19:49] that this is a proposal.
[19:52] That's all I have to say. Thank you.
[19:54] Thank you, Thank you. I'm so excited for it.
[19:59] All right, let's see how this thing works. Hey there.
[20:03] My name is Blaze Debu.
[20:05] I am new to your beautiful city
[20:08] and I just had
[20:10] to move from a rather difficult living
[20:14] situation, hence why I'm here.
[20:16] And I have to say being homeless
[20:19] for the first time has been rather difficult even though
[20:22] this small town has a very nice demeanor,
[20:27] I guess you could say about it.
[20:29] But my biggest frustration is, I suppose
[20:34] being dependent on various services
[20:38] and having my time be dictated by
[20:43] what other people's schedules are available
[20:47] for resources and
[20:51] independence feels quite difficult in this situation
[20:55] that I find myself in.
[20:57] And I feel like my best proposition I can offer
[21:02] is granting the people
[21:06] that are currently on the streets
[21:08] and could possibly get into a worse situation to
[21:15] be thrown out onto the streets,
[21:18] is allowing them the resources that they need to fend
[21:23] for themselves to grow themselves.
[21:25] Because I find myself working very hard every day
[21:31] because I have a job, I don't have any history
[21:34] of substance abuse and I think of myself
[21:38] as a very healthy individual.
[21:39] And I am walking 12
[21:43] to 14 hours a day in order to meet my needs
[21:46] to support myself.
[21:48] And now I have a chosen family out on these streets
[21:51] that I'm trying to help keep alive.
[21:55] And that is, again, quite difficult
[21:58] with our circum blah cur, excuse me,
[22:02] current circumstances.
[22:04] And it is frustrating,
[22:07] but I will put every resource
[22:12] that I have, body, money, mind, everything into
[22:19] finding some kind of solution.
[22:25] And if there's anything that I want to plead to fund,
[22:29] it's a space to do so to get these people food, water
[22:34] that they can grow
[22:36] and create for themselves instead of having
[22:40] to rely on a finite amount of resources given to them
[22:43] by other people who have their own schedules, own troubles
[22:47] and own struggles to deal with.
[22:54] Forgive me a little bit shaken,
[22:56] but I think that's all that I have to say for today.
[22:59] Thank You. Thank you.
[23:04] We have Arum Sachs and Chris McGee.
[23:11] Hi, good evening. So just two simple topics I
[23:15] want, wanted to address.
[23:17] The first has to do with the fire situation
[23:19] that you just referred to.
[23:24] Two years ago when I contracted with the city
[23:27] to do the extreme weather shelter, I was asked
[23:29] to be prepared to do overnight smoke shelter.
[23:32] So I don't understand why we haven't been getting people out
[23:36] of the smoke when it was really bad
[23:38] and it was only during the day.
[23:41] I'm sure there's an answer, but I, nobody's that I've talked
[23:45] to has been able to tell me I have
[23:50] a gentleman I'm supporting is on the nightline
[23:52] with memory issues.
[23:54] And, and during the time of the smoke, his memory
[23:58] got really extremely worse.
[24:01] Now, I can't say the smoke in the heat was the cause of
[24:03] that, but none of us wanna be sleeping out in the smoke.
[24:07] So I, I don't understand why we're not doing a overnight
[24:10] shelter when the smoke is bad.
[24:13] The second issue has to do with
[24:15] when there's an extreme weather shelter called this winter.
[24:19] We were told that when the extreme weather shelter was
[24:21] called the people on the Nightline
[24:23] could keep their tents up.
[24:26] And that was very helpful
[24:27] because there wasn't enough room at 2200 in Aura
[24:32] for all the people on the night lunch.
[24:33] If they would've chosen to want to get out of the cold
[24:36] by having their tents up, they could st stay there all day.
[24:40] They certainly weren't gonna walk all the way
[24:42] to the other end of town and back in the cold.
[24:45] But now in the heat, when we had June 22nd,
[24:48] the extreme weather shelter called,
[24:50] we told the people they could keep their tents up,
[24:53] but we were overruled by the police
[24:54] who told them to take them down.
[24:56] Problem is it means you're setting up at four 30 in the
[24:59] afternoon when it could be still over 90 degrees.
[25:03] I've been out there a few days ago
[25:04] and it was 92 degrees helping somebody set up their tent.
[25:08] It was baking out there.
[25:11] I don't think it's safe that, you know, the danger
[25:13] of heat stroke is a very real thing.
[25:16] So I think we need to address the issue.
[25:20] I, I understand that people could wait till the heat is over
[25:22] and come at seven or eight,
[25:24] but the problem is the volunteers only there
[25:26] with the shed open for an hour.
[25:30] And also the the tent, the Nightline is completely full
[25:34] so people try to get there right at four 30
[25:37] so they can get their spot and
[25:39] and be assured of having a place for their tent.
[25:42] But it's definitely, I mean,
[25:44] I think even when it's 90 degrees it's too hot.
[25:47] But certainly when it's a extreme weather shelter is cold,
[25:51] I think it would be wise for people to be able
[25:54] to keep their tents up.
[25:55] Thank you.
[25:57] Thank you. Chris McGee.
[26:06] Hi, good afternoon. My name is Chris McGee.
[26:08] I'm a representative for the North Coast States Carpenters
[26:11] Union and I am out of southern Oregon.
[26:14] So I just wanted, mainly, I just wanted to come here
[26:16] and introduce myself, but,
[26:19] and I wanted to talk about, you know,
[26:21] the carpenter's Union apprenticeship program,
[26:23] state accredited, you know,
[26:25] which means skilled workforce along
[26:27] with high safety standards.
[26:29] You know, union apprenticeships turned into mo turned
[26:32] motivat people into skilled trades workers, you know,
[26:35] without the college debt apprentices earn while they learn
[26:40] these are family wage jobs that
[26:42] that means keep workers off the safety net
[26:44] and all, you know, all US taxpayers pay into
[26:49] and keep our taxpayer dollars circling in
[26:51] our, in our community.
[26:53] That's what's great about the, the apprenticeship program.
[26:56] You know, it keeps local workers in the community, you know,
[27:00] spending money in the community with your family,
[27:03] taking your daughter to dance recitals instead of spending
[27:06] that money at the gas pump traveling to, to work.
[27:11] But I just mainly, like I said, I just wanted
[27:13] to come introduce myself
[27:15] and hopefully we can create a relationship.
[27:17] But if I can leave my card with somebody
[27:20] With our city recorder, that'd
[27:22] Be great.
[27:23] That's all I have. Thank you.
[27:24] Thank you. So just
[27:29] so everyone knows, when we have people come
[27:31] and speak, the council is not able
[27:33] by our rules to interact with them.
[27:35] But I did want to just point out that, that there is a place
[27:39] to put in your comments around the proposed trails.
[27:43] It's in the, the current,
[27:46] so there the city is actively taking
[27:49] comments about that particular project.
[27:51] So we move on now to ordinances resolution
[27:55] or public hearing, excuse me, the continued public hearing
[27:59] and first reading of Ordinance 33 0 6, establishing notice
[28:02] of sale opportunity to purchase
[28:05] and tenant protect protections from manufactured
[28:08] home park residents.
[28:09] Sabrina?
[28:12] Yeah, this is a follow up from our
[28:14] last council meeting I believe.
[28:16] So I'm gonna go ahead and hand it on over
[28:17] to Brandon Goldman, our Community Development Director.
[28:20] Good evening Council. Thank you for having me tonight.
[28:24] As you know what's coming
[28:25] before you is a continuation of the first reading
[28:28] for Ordinance 33 0 6,
[28:30] which which adds chapter 10.116 to our municipal code
[28:35] establishing notice of sale requirements
[28:39] and opportunity to purchase process
[28:41] and tenant protections for manufactured home park residence.
[28:45] Ordinance 3 3 0 6 is the tenant protection portion
[28:50] of the manufactured home park zone project.
[28:54] You did see three companion ordinances
[28:56] and past first reading on, I believe it was June 9th,
[29:02] I'm sorry, it was on June 16th.
[29:04] So at that meeting, the council approved first reading
[29:06] of those three ordinances
[29:08] and further continued consideration of Ordinance 33 0 6
[29:13] to a date certain July 21st this evening
[29:16] to allow additional legal review.
[29:18] So at that meeting, counsel directed staff to
[29:23] look at four areas, essentially the relationship
[29:26] between the local requirements and Oregon revised statutes.
[29:31] Specifically Chapter 90, the state landlord tenant statute
[29:35] opportunities to streamline the draft ordinance
[29:39] by incorporating state law
[29:40] by reference rather than restating it where appropriate
[29:44] clarification of enforcement mechanisms
[29:47] and looking at the extent that the city has authority
[29:51] to impose requirements that exceed, exceed state law.
[29:55] So staff and the legal department thank you
[29:58] to the legal department have completed that review
[30:01] and revised the draft that's presented
[30:03] before you tonight for consideration.
[30:06] The core objectives of the prior draft are unchanged,
[30:09] essentially meaningful notice
[30:11] and a general opportunity for residents of a manufacturer
[30:15] home park to have an opportunity to purchase
[30:18] the property if it is offered for sale.
[30:21] The overall approach
[30:23] and the revised ordinance uses chapter ORS
[30:27] or Oregon revised statutes chapter 90
[30:31] as the minimum standard, either by quoting that statute
[30:35] directly or incorporating it by reference
[30:38] with limited local enhancements layered on top.
[30:42] So in addition to the direct alignment
[30:44] with state's statutes, I did wanna note that
[30:49] the opportunity to purchase process in our draft ordinance
[30:53] now follows the same model
[30:56] of the Oregon revised statutes using that framework.
[31:01] So it, this is a replacement of the prior draft,
[31:05] having a parallel process to one
[31:08] that works within the state framework.
[31:10] I do need to be clear though
[31:11] that the revised draft establishes different timelines than
[31:16] the state allowances.
[31:18] So it's really a three step process that if a property,
[31:22] a manufactured home park owner offers the park for sale,
[31:25] they have to provide notice to the tenants
[31:27] and the tenants then have a 60 day response period,
[31:31] which is an expansion from the state 15 day period,
[31:35] which is currently in place within those 60 days,
[31:39] should the tenants indicate to the park owner
[31:42] that they would be interested in pursuing a purchase,
[31:45] not actually providing an offer,
[31:46] but demonstrating that they are moving forward with
[31:51] preparing an offer.
[31:52] The property owner has a 15 day financial disclosure period,
[31:58] and that's structured as an affirmative owner obligation.
[32:03] And it's then following that
[32:05] the tenants have a 45 day period to form an entity
[32:09] and submit an offer.
[32:11] And so taken together that provides residents up to 120 days
[32:16] from the notice of sale to ex exercise.
[32:19] Their opportunity to purchase
[32:21] this centerpiece is the 60 day response period,
[32:25] which is four times the state baseline.
[32:28] It gives residents real time to absorb the information
[32:31] that the park is for sale, meet with their neighbors,
[32:35] and organize a committee
[32:38] and potentially work with a, a nonprofit
[32:42] that forms resident owned communities to
[32:45] put together a proposal.
[32:47] And that's often an outcome that is out
[32:49] of reach within the 15 day state timeframe.
[32:53] So that is again, the bulk of changes that you'll see
[32:58] in terms of revisions.
[32:59] You'll see that the ordinance is quite streamlined.
[33:01] It's reduced from eight sections to four sections.
[33:05] The standalone relocation assistance, relocation plan
[33:09] harassment and declaration policy sections
[33:11] that were largely redundant with state law have been removed
[33:16] and the they are go still governed by chapter
[33:20] or the ORS chapter 90, which addresses one
[33:23] of the legal concerns about local requirements
[33:26] that may exceed state standards in those areas.
[33:30] So also the notice of sale also would have to include a copy
[33:35] of the City of Ashland chapter 10.116 to residents so
[33:40] that tenants receive their local rights with
[33:42] that initial notice of sale.
[33:45] And any notice owner must give tenants
[33:49] or the state housing and community services department
[33:53] must also go to the community development
[33:55] department by the same method.
[33:57] So the intention there is that
[34:00] the city is made aware at the same time that the state
[34:03] and the residents are made aware
[34:05] that a profit property is being offered to sale
[34:08] and that gives our housing program the ability
[34:11] to be responsive as opposed
[34:13] to hearing about it late in the process.
[34:16] We also clarified the violations for failure
[34:21] to provide notice are now considered a class A violation
[34:25] under Ashland Municipal Code 1.08020
[34:31] and it would apply to each affected household
[34:34] constituting a separate violation.
[34:36] So that clarity has been added
[34:38] to the ordinance replacing the prior drafts general
[34:41] civil violation language.
[34:44] So one of the primary questions that came out of the
[34:48] council's prior review had to do with where the
[34:53] city's requirements exceeded state limits.
[34:58] And so the legal department did review this question
[35:02] directly and noted that the expanded timeline
[35:05] is a substantive housing policy change
[35:09] and that is generally retained authority
[35:12] to local adopted rules.
[35:14] Specifically the ORS contain no language expressly
[35:20] prohibiting local requirements
[35:22] that exceed the state baseline.
[35:24] And Oregon courts further have upheld that
[35:27] manu local manufactured home park regulations
[35:29] that go further than state law have been upheld.
[35:34] And there are citations
[35:36] provided in the staff report that was presented.
[35:39] So the revised draft was structured specifically
[35:41] to work within the framework of the state law rather than
[35:44] around it, which also strengthens its legal footing.
[35:48] So with that, that essentially was much of
[35:51] what I wanted to cover.
[35:54] I did want to note that there is a trade-off
[35:58] that was done in terms of removing
[36:01] redundant state language from local ordinance
[36:03] and replacing it with reference In the case
[36:06] that the state changes state law,
[36:09] the city may be in a position to reevaluate
[36:12] and look at potential potentially
[36:15] statutory changes at the local level if those changes at the
[36:19] state law don't correspond with what
[36:22] was intended at this point.
[36:24] So at this point it's at first reading
[36:26] it is a public hearing.
[36:28] Counsel, after hearing any public testimony
[36:32] may approve first reading as presented or as amended
[36:36] and with subsequent second reading scheduled
[36:39] to a subsequent business meeting.
[36:42] Or lastly con, continue consideration if further
[36:46] res revisions are required.
[36:49] So with that, if you have
[36:50] any questions, happy to answer them
[36:53] Questions.
[36:54] Councillor Dale.
[36:55] Thank you Mayor. Thank you Brandon.
[36:56] This is phenomenal work. Thanks. Legal.
[36:59] I know you've played a role in this
[37:01] and I think this makes it much more simple and streamlined
[37:04] and, and an objective.
[37:06] I did have a one quick question that I, just speaking
[37:09] of a little bit of ambiguity I was hoping either one
[37:12] of you might be able to address is in section,
[37:17] let's move one window over here.
[37:19] The, it's on 10.11, 16.020.
[37:23] The opportunity to purchase A 1D, the in section one,
[37:27] it's the 60 day tenant response period and it,
[37:30] and it lists a, a handful of things
[37:32] that the tenants will notify the owner in writing of.
[37:35] And and the last 1D says, any financial information
[37:39] that would customarily be
[37:40] provided to a prospective purchaser agree with that.
[37:45] And then right below that, you,
[37:47] you clearly referenced the OS 90.84 relative
[37:51] to the 15 day period.
[37:52] What I wanna ensure,
[37:54] and I believe, I wanna clarify first
[37:56] that I believe the intent of A 1D was to be in alignment
[38:00] with the words of OS 90.844, however,
[38:05] and I'm being, I'm, I'm picking a little bit,
[38:07] so I just wanna make sure that we're okay that
[38:09] that doesn't leave the city open to any kind of
[38:15] subjective determination of
[38:19] what the financial information might be.
[38:21] Can we clearly state
[38:22] or is maybe that's a question for you on that.
[38:25] We would say something like any financial in information
[38:28] that would be customarily
[38:29] provided to a perspec, a prospective purchaser
[38:32] as outlined in OS 90 98 44.
[38:35] You see how those are two different sections.
[38:36] One's the 60 day stuff that needs to be done,
[38:38] the other one's the 50 15 day things that need to be done,
[38:42] one clearly indicates
[38:45] that you're following state law, one does not.
[38:48] I think the intent was to have those the same.
[38:50] I just wanted your guys' opinion on if that needs
[38:52] to be touched up just to get it right.
[38:55] And I will look
[38:56] to Johann if you have any legal opinion on that.
[39:00] Yeah, I think the language matches,
[39:01] but we can certainly throw a
[39:03] Reference that wouldn't be a problem
[39:04] if you just amended that.
[39:05] Okay. That's that's all I have. Okay. That's all I mayor.
[39:10] Other questions? Councillor
[39:11] Rell.
[39:12] Thank you Mayor. Thank you Brandon.
[39:13] I appreciate that and it's good
[39:14] to see our citizens out in force for this.
[39:16] Again, my question is about the, the timeframe,
[39:22] the sum being approximately 120 days.
[39:25] I know the planning commission had asked some questions
[39:26] about the length of that.
[39:29] I read some public,
[39:31] or excuse me, some, some comments on the record
[39:34] potentially from residents and stakeholders
[39:37] and also some i I believe to be property owners about
[39:42] that length of time.
[39:43] I know you had mentioned that speaking
[39:46] to some industry professionals,
[39:47] maybe Casa 90 days seems sufficient or 60 days.
[39:52] What's the, what's the data that you use to come up with
[39:54] that and am I seeing the total right for the 120 days?
[39:58] Yeah, the total is 120 days by mirroring it
[40:02] to the state program.
[40:04] The legal department's review found that that was something
[40:06] that property owners would be familiar
[40:08] with if they were selling a park.
[40:10] And so would be going through that multi-step process.
[40:14] In terms of data, we did talk to Casa of,
[40:18] which is a resident owned community facilitator,
[40:21] for lack of a better term.
[40:23] They did indicate that a 90 day period would be sufficient
[40:27] for them to gauge interest from the properties residents
[40:31] and develop an offer.
[40:34] So again, that is still
[40:35] provided with a 60 day period for them to provide initial
[40:41] interest in pursuing with an offer
[40:42] and getting information back from the owner so that they can
[40:46] formulate an offer.
[40:48] And again, that additional 45 days
[40:50] to formulate an offer and submit.
[40:52] It would also be the period of time
[40:54] where they would form a resident owned community
[40:57] and have that established.
[40:59] So I think that also in speaking
[41:02] with Casa more time is always appreciated.
[41:06] But we also heard testimony in terms of wanting
[41:09] to have a clear path for manufactured home park owners
[41:12] to not have the full period go to the full extent
[41:16] before they know whether the park
[41:18] residents are gonna provide an offer.
[41:20] So in this circumstance, if
[41:22] after 60 days the park residents do not indicate
[41:27] that they want to move forward, the the,
[41:30] that process would be concluded.
[41:32] So I I think you could go to a longer period than 180 days
[41:37] by lengthening that 60 if council felt
[41:40] that there was an advantage
[41:41] for the park residents to have more time.
[41:44] Again, I don't know that there's data out there to reference
[41:48] because Ashland is relatively unique in putting forth these
[41:52] mod modified terms.
[41:53] So we don't have good models
[41:55] to look at other than hearing from
[41:57] resident owned communities.
[41:59] And we also heard from park owners asking to just go
[42:04] with state law in terms of the 15 day period.
[42:07] Thank you. Great questions. Any further questions?
[42:13] Hey, I open, I open the public hearing.
[42:15] Alyssa, do I have all of the signup sheets? Okay, great.
[42:19] We have two people who've signed up to speak
[42:21] to us on this issue this evening.
[42:22] Each of you will have three minutes at the podium following
[42:25] the same structure that we had earlier for public forum.
[42:29] Please again state your name
[42:30] and the city in which you reside when
[42:32] you begin your testimony.
[42:33] We have two people who have signed up to speak with us,
[42:36] Dylan, Dale and Dolores Nims.
[42:39] Please go in that order
[42:41] and again, you'll, you'll hear the first buzzer
[42:43] and your light display will change when you
[42:45] have 20 seconds left.
[42:46] Thank you.
[42:50] Hello Mayor and council. My name is Dylan Dale
[42:52] and I live in Ashland.
[42:54] Tonight I'm here as a member of the Rogue Valley Association
[42:57] of Realtors, the local Realtor association representing
[42:59] Jackson and Josephine Counties.
[43:01] Our members work with homeowners, tenants, buyers, sellers,
[43:04] and housing providers across the region,
[43:06] including many residents
[43:08] and owners of manufactured home parks here in Ashland.
[43:10] I'd like to start by thanking the council
[43:12] and staff for the extensive work
[43:13] that they've put into this ordinance since
[43:15] its previous iteration.
[43:17] We see this as a much less ambiguous proposal
[43:19] and appreciate the time that has gone
[43:20] into getting it to this point.
[43:22] I won't spend much time on tonight on the technical details
[43:25] as we've submitted written testimony covering those
[43:27] points that should be in your packet.
[43:29] Instead, I'd like to focus on a couple of areas
[43:31] where a few small refinements could help the ordinance
[43:33] better accomplish its intended purpose
[43:36] and we believe they're worth the
[43:37] council's attention and review.
[43:39] The first is the notice of sale provision.
[43:41] We absolutely understand the city's goal
[43:43] of providing transparency and building trust
[43:46] and residents deserve meaningful information about a
[43:48] potential change in ownership.
[43:49] At the same time, real estate transactions often involve
[43:52] confidential financial and legal information
[43:55] and my apologies.
[43:57] And as written, the provision would require a seller
[44:00] to hand over the full purchase and sale agreement.
[44:02] In practice when information needs to be shared,
[44:05] it's standard to provide a copy of the purchase agreement
[44:07] with sensitive details.
[44:08] Redacted tenants will learn the buyer's identity
[44:11] before escrow closes.
[44:12] So we'd suggest a redacted copy rather than the entire
[44:15] document that protects confidential information still gives
[44:18] tenants the 10, the transparency the city is after.
[44:21] The second point is one I hope receives careful
[44:24] consideration before the ordinance is finalized.
[44:26] Many manufactured home parks are sold as part
[44:29] of a what's called a 10 31 exchange.
[44:31] In simple terms, that's part of the federal tax code
[44:34] that lets an owner sell one property
[44:35] and roll the money into another one without getting hit
[44:38] with a big capital gains tax bill as long as they abide
[44:40] by very strict federal deadlines.
[44:43] Once the first sale closes, the clock starts,
[44:45] they have 45 days to identify their replacement property
[44:48] and 100, 180 days to close thereafter,
[44:51] those deadlines are federal and they do not move.
[44:54] The challenge lies in the tenant opportunity process in this
[44:57] draft, which can take up to 120 days.
[45:00] If a seller is in the middle of a 10 31 exchange,
[45:03] that 120 days can eat up the the entirety of their window.
[45:07] If there's any dispute over the financial disclosure,
[45:10] the ordinance pauses the clock with no set endpoint.
[45:13] So a seller can't even predict
[45:14] how long this process will take.
[45:16] If that federal deadline passes, the exchange fails
[45:19] and the seller gets an unexpected tax bill
[45:21] that they were never planning for.
[45:22] A seller in that spot may be forced to into a rushed
[45:26] or distressed sale.
[45:27] And that sort of instability rarely works
[45:29] out well for the tenants.
[45:30] This ordinance is designed to protect.
[45:32] Given this, we respectfully encourage the city to con
[45:35] consider a narrow accommodation
[45:37] for these time sensitive exchange transactions.
[45:39] Something that adds a little bit of flexibility for
[45:41] what is a very standard practice while keeping tenant
[45:44] protections well above what current Oregon law requires.
[45:47] We appreciate council's
[45:48] and staff's time for the continued work on this ordinance
[45:51] and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[45:53] Thank you Dolores Nims,
[46:02] Good evening.
[46:03] I'm a resident of Ashland and Wing Spread Mobile Home Park.
[46:08] We have been working on this ordinance for over two years
[46:13] and I know it's taken a lot of staff time, a lot
[46:16] of the council's time, and we are so appreciative.
[46:21] We want those 120 days.
[46:24] We have 116 families
[46:28] and it's going to take us time to get organized,
[46:31] so please don't reduce the 120 days.
[46:35] I just want to tell you that on behalf of Wing Spread,
[46:39] we really appreciate all your hard work on this
[46:43] and we're going to invite you all over for a celebration
[46:47] and a party when it's done.
[46:49] So thank you. Thank you,
[46:51] Thank you.
[46:53] I close the public hearing. Any further questions of staff?
[46:58] Councillor Chave.
[47:00] Thank you, mayor. I didn't see this anywhere in the
[47:03] ordinance and I don't believe it could potentially be in
[47:06] state law, but maybe just for clarification, if, if both you
[47:09] and the city attorney would respond, is there anything
[47:12] in this draft
[47:14] that we're looking at in the first reading tonight that
[47:17] prohibits park owners from organizing currently
[47:22] and proposing an offer to purchase a property
[47:26] that may or may not be on the market?
[47:29] There is not this, or ordinance only deals
[47:31] with the circumstance in which the manufactured home park
[47:34] owner indicates that they're looking at selling.
[47:37] But like any property transaction, if the residents were
[47:40] to form a resident owned community
[47:42] or determined to make an offer on the property,
[47:45] they could do so
[47:46] and at that point the park owner would
[47:51] make notice of sale
[47:52] and move forward with an application
[47:54] that they receive from the park
[47:55] residence as one of the offers.
[47:58] There's also nothing in this ordinance
[48:00] that compels a park owner
[48:01] to accept an offer from the park residence.
[48:06] And so in that sense,
[48:07] the park residents would be well advised
[48:10] to form a resident owned community
[48:12] and develop an offer that is competitive with offers
[48:17] that they might receive from other players.
[48:19] So to clarify, there's no language that ties this
[48:21] to being listed on the open market for sale.
[48:24] They, they could organize
[48:25] and make an offer on the
[48:26] property tomorrow if, if they wanted,
[48:29] They could make an offer.
[48:30] I believe that the park owner would at
[48:33] that point be compelled to provide notice of sale
[48:36] to all the residents.
[48:37] They'd be well aware 'cause they've made an offer,
[48:39] but those provisions would still apply for them
[48:42] to get the disclosures and move forward with acquisition.
[48:46] Okay. And thank you. And you agree with that? Okay.
[48:49] Thank you very much.
[48:52] Any other questions, councilor
[48:53] Dale?
[48:54] Yeah, just a quick one, and it was something
[48:54] that was brought up in public forum and,
[48:56] and about the, that I hadn't thought about about the
[48:58] redacted information.
[48:59] Is there anything, and just because,
[49:01] and I have, I'll have to kind
[49:03] of personally just chew on this for a little bit
[49:05] and maybe it's a second reading, quick little added word,
[49:08] but is there any reason that we can think of why we wouldn't
[49:11] 'cause it is customary to make sure that those are,
[49:13] you know, certain information.
[49:15] Is there, was there an intent to make sure
[49:17] that there was a full unredacted purchase agreement or or
[49:21] So one thing I would note is there's,
[49:23] and Johann can chime in,
[49:26] I don't believe there's any requirement in our ordinance
[49:28] to provide a purchase agreement.
[49:30] Oh, okay. To the residents.
[49:31] What's required is they provide the customarily
[49:35] purchaser information, which could be the, if they,
[49:39] if the owner knew of any defects in the property, in terms
[49:42] of the public infrastructure that would have to be repaired,
[49:46] they'd provide that information.
[49:48] But ideally there is no purchase agreement in place
[49:53] prior to notice of sale
[49:56] because they cannot make that purchase agreement
[49:59] to sell the park without going through either state
[50:02] or local notice of sale provisions.
[50:05] The purchase agreement would come at the end of the 120 days
[50:09] with either a private party or a resident owned community.
[50:14] And I believe the 10 31 exchange would also be similar
[50:17] in that regard.
[50:18] That at that point
[50:19] that a purchase agreement is executed in the property
[50:22] transfers is when the federal clock
[50:25] for a 10 31 exchange begins.
[50:27] And again, that would not happen until the conclusion
[50:30] of the process not at the beginning.
[50:33] So that wouldn't occur until after the 120 days has expired.
[50:37] And so just to, just, if I'm hearing you correctly, the,
[50:40] the, the city would really have
[50:42] basically zero interest in the purchase agreement, correct?
[50:46] Is that what I'm understanding relative to?
[50:48] We just don't, we would not really oversee that
[50:50] or administer it or, correct, correct.
[50:52] Thank you.
[50:56] Okay. If there are no additional questions,
[51:00] the floor is open for a motion.
[51:03] Councillor Blue,
[51:06] I move to approve first reading
[51:08] of ordinance number 33 0 6, adding chapter 10.116
[51:11] to the Ashley municipal code establishing notice
[51:13] of sale opportunity to purchase
[51:15] and tenant protections to man
[51:16] for manufactured home park residence as presented.
[51:20] Sec, just a quick question.
[51:24] Councillor Dale had made a recommended a recommendation
[51:27] for a slight adjustment.
[51:30] Yes. And I apologize I didn't have the language up here.
[51:32] Do you wanna just throw an amendment on
[51:33] After?
[51:35] Yeah, I can, I can move to, I, i, mayor I could move
[51:38] to just amend this to, to add that language if you're okay.
[51:41] Okay. Yeah, I would go ahead.
[51:43] I I would amend it to, I would amend the motion to say
[51:48] to reword section 10 16 1,
[51:52] correction ten one sixteen zero one zero
[51:56] BI am sorry, mayor,
[52:01] I need to start 1 1 0 0.16,
[52:05] 0.02, zero A 1D
[52:10] to read any financial information that would customarily be
[52:15] provided to a prospective purchaser as
[52:18] outlined in ORS 90.8443.
[52:22] Is there a second on the amendment? Councillor Duque.
[52:26] Okay, so we're speaking
[52:28] to the amendment first. Councillor Dale.
[52:30] No, thank you Mayor Councillor Duque.
[52:33] Any further discussion on the amendment?
[52:36] Okay, roll call please.
[52:37] On the amendment. A question, mayor. Oh, go
[52:39] Ahead.
[52:40] Maybe a question to the amend. Yes.
[52:41] Is that just to redact the, the, the,
[52:44] the potential buyer's information
[52:47] Counselor?
[52:48] This has nothing to do with the redaction part.
[52:49] This was actually to my earlier question prior
[52:51] to public forum
[52:52] or public testimony, which was just to make sure that
[52:55] the information provided, the financial information
[52:59] that would be customarily
[53:00] provided is clearly in line with state statute so
[53:03] that there's no ambiguity relative to the city's role.
[53:06] Thank you. Okay, roll call please. Alyssa
[53:11] Sherell?
[53:12] Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom? Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Duquesne?
[53:17] Yes. Hansen? Yes. Amendment Pass.
[53:20] Okay, now we're back to the main motion.
[53:22] Councillor Bloom, would you care to speak your motion?
[53:24] No, just that it, we kind of discussed a lot
[53:27] of the other elements of this at the last meeting,
[53:29] so I'd refer back to those comments.
[53:31] And the second was Councillor Kaplan.
[53:34] Right. Go ahead, Councillor.
[53:36] Yeah, I I I don't have much to add either.
[53:37] I'm just appreciative to the staff
[53:39] and all of the, the folks that have been really with this
[53:41] for many, many years now.
[53:44] I'm thrilled to see this come, come to fruition. Thank you.
[53:47] Councillor Duque.
[53:49] I would like to thank the community that brought it
[53:52] to our attention and it's in alignment
[53:55] with the housing strategic plan.
[53:58] So I love to see things happen.
[54:02] Good things happen. So I'm happy for Wing spread
[54:06] and I'm so glad to see this moving forward.
[54:09] I wish Councilor Hyatt was here to celebrate this
[54:13] with us also.
[54:15] So thank you. Good work. Community
[54:18] Councilor Shero.
[54:20] Thank you Mayor. Thanks for all the hard work
[54:21] and again, for the community for showing up.
[54:23] And I, I just can't help myself but say this,
[54:25] but it would be so awesome to see you guys organize
[54:27] and buy that park.
[54:29] That would be the party that I want to come to.
[54:31] Don't wait for the property to hit the market.
[54:34] Like craft your own terms.
[54:35] Look for seller financing, buy the park. Set a good example.
[54:38] Be the first in town to do it. So the other few follow
[54:42] Councilor Dale.
[54:43] Thank you Mayor. I, this is just a,
[54:46] a wonderfully collaborative effort with staff,
[54:48] with council, with the community.
[54:50] Absolutely appreciate this. And I would just add that I,
[54:53] I would like to go to both parties.
[54:58] The only thing that I would add to this is that sometimes
[55:02] government can take longer than any of us want it to,
[55:05] but it's complicated and it has to be done right.
[55:08] And I think what we saw here this evening is the work
[55:11] that happens to make sure that we come out the gates
[55:14] with something as close to right as we can get it so
[55:17] that we don't have more corrective action later than
[55:20] what we need to have.
[55:21] And so I appreciate the, all of the people
[55:24] who have commented to us about places
[55:27] where they saw might we might be able to improve this.
[55:29] And also to staff
[55:31] and your willingness to go down those pathways
[55:34] and figure out to what extent we need
[55:37] to make changes in order to align
[55:38] with the values of this community.
[55:39] So I think it's a, it,
[55:41] it always feels like it's a long time coming
[55:44] and sometimes it is, but we do get
[55:46] there when we keep working.
[55:47] So thank you everyone. Any further comments?
[55:52] Roll call please. Alyssa
[55:55] Kaplan?
[55:56] Yes. Duquesne?
[55:58] Yes. Hanson? Yes. Sharelle? Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom?
[56:03] Yes. Motion passed. Okay.
[56:06] All right. We move on now to ordinances,
[56:09] resolutions and contracts.
[56:10] The first one is Ashland Police Department, ECSO,
[56:14] contract extension Sabrina.
[56:18] So the chief is here to answer any questions,
[56:20] but we are part of the emergency communications
[56:22] of Southern Oregon, so we contract with them
[56:24] for our 9 1 1 Dispatch dispatch.
[56:27] So this is our annual ask to approve that contract. Chief,
[56:32] Good evening mayor and counselors Police chief.
[56:34] I don't have anything to add.
[56:36] The current contract
[56:37] for 26 27 is $553,466
[56:42] 99 cents and is accounted for in our budget.
[56:46] And we've had this relationship
[56:47] with ECSO since approximately 2009, 2010.
[56:52] And it is the best practice,
[56:55] best option for us.
[56:58] It's worked very well and it, there's every reason
[57:00] to believe it'll work well going forward.
[57:03] Okay. Questions?
[57:08] Councillor. Shell.
[57:09] Thank you Mayor. Thanks Chief.
[57:10] Just real quick, you know, we're always asking for data
[57:12] to support decisions we make and I know that you
[57:15] and your staff are tasked with a lot, a lot of things.
[57:20] Does this service that we buy from our partners across the
[57:24] way, does it come with any tracking mechanism
[57:26] so we can at least get like ditch dispatch calls, times
[57:30] title, potentially outcomes?
[57:34] Like is, is there a mechanism to tap into that database
[57:38] for some of the requests that we make throughout the year?
[57:41] A hundred percent. And a lot of
[57:42] that data is covered in the annual report,
[57:45] which unfortunately has been delayed
[57:47] because of more pressing business,
[57:48] but it's still forthcoming at some point this year
[57:51] we handled approximately 25,000 calls for service last year.
[57:57] So that's roughly about 70
[57:58] or 80 calls through service per day, 365 days a year.
[58:04] All of those calls through service are categorized,
[58:06] broken down, sliced and diced.
[58:08] And we can look at it so many
[58:09] different ways what the outcomes are.
[58:11] One of the things that we also have that goes along with a
[58:16] request for service to ECSO is the Spider Tech platform.
[58:21] 90% of calls made to dispatch or through cell phones.
[58:24] So when you generate a call to nine one one
[58:27] or to the non-emergency number,
[58:28] it automatically generates a link back
[58:31] to your cell phone 90% of the time saying, you know,
[58:35] officer Oir is on the way,
[58:36] his ET is in 10 minutes, he's been delayed.
[58:39] Can you give us some feedback?
[58:40] Can you provide some voluntary demographics?
[58:44] And we've got just a whole bunch of data
[58:46] that we can bring back and I'm planning on bringing back
[58:48] as soon as we can wiggle it into the schedule.
[58:52] It's just been pushed back and pushed back
[58:54] because of more pressing business
[58:56] that has to be accomplished.
[58:58] Okay, Thank you. Yep.
[59:00] Other questions? Okay.
[59:03] The floor is open for a motion. Councillor Dale.
[59:05] Thank you Mayor. I move to approve contract extensions
[59:08] between a PD and ECSO.
[59:11] Second Matt, councilor Dale.
[59:14] Thank you Mary. I, councilor Decay brought up former
[59:17] Counselor Hyatt.
[59:19] And I remember one of the first times on council when I
[59:22] was sitting here and she was sitting there
[59:24] and we were talking about this and she said, just imagine
[59:26] what happens when you dial 9 1 1 and no one answers.
[59:29] And that is a very, very sobering thought.
[59:32] And I do a little bit of work with this in,
[59:34] in my private life
[59:35] and there's an incredible amount of coordination
[59:37] and technology that goes into this.
[59:39] And so this is extremely valuable.
[59:40] Thank you for bringing it to us.
[59:42] Clear, very happy to support this
[59:45] Council Hanson.
[59:46] Thank you Mayor. Yeah, thank you Chief.
[59:48] I've been that person out in the woods trying
[59:51] to resuscitate somebody with a group of people and it's,
[59:54] and it's my cell phone that they're, they're finding
[59:56] so very grateful to all you first responders
[59:59] and this technology.
[1:00:00] It's, it's amazing and happy to support.
[1:00:03] I mean this is, this is our tax dollars at work, right?
[1:00:05] This is, this is the, the social contract
[1:00:08] and, and I appreciate that.
[1:00:10] It, it all works so well and you all
[1:00:11] are so on it with your training.
[1:00:12] So gratitude. Thanks.
[1:00:15] Thank You. Any further comment? Okay.
[1:00:19] Roll call please. Alyssa
[1:00:22] Hanson.
[1:00:23] Yes. Du Kane?
[1:00:27] Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Bloom? Yes. Dale?
[1:00:31] Yes. Cheryll? Yes.
[1:00:33] Yes. Thank you. Thank you Chief.
[1:00:37] We are now to the contract award
[1:00:39] for chemicals acquisition Cascade Columbia
[1:00:42] Distribution company, Sabrina.
[1:00:44] So the Trinity City treats both water and wastewater
[1:00:47] and we would like to continue doing that.
[1:00:49] So tonight we have a chemical contract before you
[1:00:52] and I will let Scott Flury take it from here.
[1:00:58] Can I mimic the chief and say nothing else to add?
[1:01:08] So as the city manager said, we procure chemicals
[1:01:11] for wastewater and water treatment processes annually.
[1:01:15] And we do that through a invitation
[1:01:18] to bid a formal sealed invitation to bid.
[1:01:21] A majority of the chemicals are under the
[1:01:22] council award threshold.
[1:01:24] There are, there is one company
[1:01:27] that's providing two chemicals through the city, one
[1:01:29] for wastewater treatment and one for water treatment.
[1:01:32] And the volume and the cost of those chemicals for alum
[1:01:36] and citric acid exceed the $250,000 threshold.
[1:01:40] So that's why we're before the council asking for approval
[1:01:44] for Cascade Columbia for aluminum sulfate and citric acid.
[1:01:49] One of the things that I will note, if you look in the
[1:01:53] bid tab, the chemicals for those for Cascade Columbia
[1:01:57] and the bid for those two are higher than another provider.
[1:02:01] And the reason for that is the one provider was excluded
[1:02:04] from bidding on aluminum sulfate per the bid documents.
[1:02:08] And for the other chemical citric acid, it was determined
[1:02:13] that the function of the Columbia cascade product was better
[1:02:17] and more usable for the wastewater treatment plant process.
[1:02:20] And so our supervisor would rather have
[1:02:22] that citric acid chemical relative to the Univar chemical.
[1:02:26] And so that's why there's a subtle change
[1:02:28] that you see based on low responsive bid
[1:02:31] versus accepting the bids themselves.
[1:02:34] And so with that, I'll try to answer any questions,
[1:02:39] Questions.
[1:02:41] Councillor Sherell.
[1:02:42] Thanks Mayor. I saw some
[1:02:43] traffic from one of my colleagues.
[1:02:45] I I appreciated that. And I'm just assuming,
[1:02:46] and I I I think the public would assume that we're shopping
[1:02:49] around those bids every year
[1:02:51] and we're looking at bulk purchasing
[1:02:52] and we're looking at ways to keep costs down.
[1:02:53] I would just assume that always.
[1:02:55] Yes. So from an operational standpoint,
[1:02:57] they're always looking at chemical efficiency, you know,
[1:03:00] on the operation side.
[1:03:01] And then we bid this project out,
[1:03:03] this acquisition every year.
[1:03:06] So we get updated pricing.
[1:03:08] Previously they used to do it on a two year cycle
[1:03:10] and the chemical companies could hold their pricing
[1:03:12] for two years, but based on economic changes
[1:03:15] and conditions, they're no longer willing to really hold
[1:03:18] that chemical price for a two year period.
[1:03:21] And so that is switched us over
[1:03:23] to doing it for a one year period.
[1:03:26] Other questions? Councillor Hansen.
[1:03:30] Thank you Mayor Scott, if we didn't do this right,
[1:03:33] what would be the repercussions
[1:03:37] Your treated water would suffer?
[1:03:39] Severely alum is a coagulant that's used in the process
[1:03:43] to filter out organics and the turbidity in the water.
[1:03:47] And so we would be looking at violating organ health
[1:03:51] authority regulatory requirements for potable water.
[1:03:54] Thank you. For the citric acid, it's a little less
[1:03:57] of an issue, but it's cleaning the membrane filtration
[1:04:00] system at the wastewater treatment plant
[1:04:01] that removes phosphorus.
[1:04:03] So you could potentially also have a national pollution
[1:04:06] discharge elimination system permit violation from DEQ if
[1:04:10] you don't adequately remove phosphorus
[1:04:12] from your wastewater stream.
[1:04:14] Right. And that's, I don't know if that's exactly
[1:04:16] what Rogue Valley Sewer service had
[1:04:18] for their EPA violations, but they had to pay a big fine
[1:04:22] and their rate payers had
[1:04:23] to pay a big fine because they didn't do it right.
[1:04:25] Yeah, they're doing massive system upgrades to
[1:04:29] improve their effluent for the wastewater system.
[1:04:30] Well, thank you for doing it. Right.
[1:04:35] Any other questions? The floor is open for a motion.
[1:04:38] Councillor Bloom.
[1:04:40] I move to approve the public contract award
[1:04:42] for chemicals acquisition with
[1:04:43] Cascade Columbia Distribution Company.
[1:04:46] A second. Okay. Councilor Blum?
[1:04:48] No, I, this is the night of Councilor Hyatt,
[1:04:52] former Councillor Hyatt, but I think she told me once when I
[1:04:55] started that the chemicals are always going
[1:04:57] to be the easiest votes for everybody.
[1:04:59] Councilor Dale. I think clean water is a phenomenal idea.
[1:05:03] Yeah. Other comments?
[1:05:07] I know I don't get to vote, but I, I approve of continuing
[1:05:10] to clean our water and our wastewater, all kinds of water.
[1:05:16] Roll call please. Alyssa?
[1:05:18] Duane? Yes. Hanson?
[1:05:23] Yes. Rell? Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom? Yes.
[1:05:28] Kaplan? Yes. Motion pass.
[1:05:31] Thank you. We now have a a,
[1:05:35] the next item is approval
[1:05:36] of a resolution authorizing refunding
[1:05:38] of an interim loan from the Special Public Works fund
[1:05:41] with the Oregon Infrastructure Finance Authority.
[1:05:44] Sabrina.
[1:05:46] So as council may remember,
[1:05:47] you've already approved resolution,
[1:05:49] the authorized interim financing
[1:05:51] for the Ashland Street project.
[1:05:54] The Infrastructure finance Authority is moving forward
[1:05:56] with the bond sale
[1:05:58] and so we need a new resolution to align with that direction
[1:06:01] and I'll hand it over to Scott.
[1:06:04] Ditto. So this is one of the weirder things
[1:06:07] that I've been involved in from a process standpoint.
[1:06:12] So what I will say is, you know, in 2023,
[1:06:15] the council authorized relu a resolution
[1:06:18] utilizing the Special Public Works fund that allowed
[1:06:21] the city to borrow for the Ashland Street
[1:06:23] Rehabilitation Project.
[1:06:26] In that interim loan agreement, it was made clear
[1:06:29] to the city that at some point the Oregon business, Oregon
[1:06:34] would take all of their debt that they've loaned out
[1:06:37] to other communities and do a massive bond sale.
[1:06:40] And at that time you would essentially be tied
[1:06:43] from a funding standpoint
[1:06:45] to your debt payback to that bond sale.
[1:06:47] So three years later, business Oregon is moving forward with
[1:06:51] that bond sale and they are requiring us
[1:06:54] to essentially eliminate the previous resolution
[1:06:58] and install a new resolution that aligns
[1:07:00] with that bond sale.
[1:07:02] In your packet there was the contract
[1:07:05] and the, the anticipated promissory note
[1:07:08] and amortization schedule payback, that's,
[1:07:12] that schedule is draft until
[1:07:14] after the bond sale goes through
[1:07:15] where we actually get the final rate
[1:07:17] and amortization schedule from Business Oregon,
[1:07:20] which should occur in late August, early September.
[1:07:23] I'm suspecting based on
[1:07:25] what they proposed from a schedule standpoint.
[1:07:28] So as a reminder, the food
[1:07:30] and beverage tax covers the cost
[1:07:32] of these rehabilitation projects
[1:07:34] or the debt service as per the municipal code.
[1:07:38] So that debt will be paid back over time,
[1:07:40] that 15 year schedule by the food and beverage tax.
[1:07:43] And we will get the new rate structure
[1:07:46] and schedule in another month or so
[1:07:48] and then the finance department will,
[1:07:50] and I'll coordinate with them on the biennium budgets moving
[1:07:53] forward on ensuring that that debt payment is allocated in,
[1:07:57] you know, the debt service account
[1:07:58] for the street fund moving forward.
[1:08:04] Questions ca, Councillor Kaplan?
[1:08:09] Yeah, thanks. Thanks Scott.
[1:08:11] I thanks for answering my, my questions on this
[1:08:14] 'cause it, as you said, it's kind of a weird animal here
[1:08:17] where we we're actually refinancing a lower interest rate
[1:08:21] with a higher interest rate,
[1:08:22] anticipated higher interest rate,
[1:08:24] but that was actually already anticipated
[1:08:26] because this matures in three years.
[1:08:28] So we would have to pay it one way
[1:08:29] or the other by January as I, as I understand it.
[1:08:34] So, and,
[1:08:35] and thanks also for clarifying that the, the
[1:08:41] notional 5% could probably,
[1:08:43] could possibly be less than that.
[1:08:44] In any case, we would be getting the state's
[1:08:47] higher credit rating.
[1:08:49] The, the pricing, better pricing from the state's higher
[1:08:51] credit rating than are excellent
[1:08:53] but not as high as the the, the
[1:08:56] business Oregon's credit rating for this sort of thing.
[1:08:58] My question is, we've built,
[1:09:01] and maybe it's a question for Brynn.
[1:09:02] Sorry Brynn, I should have thought to ask this earlier.
[1:09:06] We've loaded the budget with debt service for this
[1:09:10] with a slightly lower interest rate.
[1:09:12] We're not talking about a lot of difference I suppose,
[1:09:16] but what's, what are gonna be the changes that we anticipate
[1:09:19] as we get the actual pricing on this
[1:09:22] and have to execute on a slightly different interest rate
[1:09:25] than we had loaded it before?
[1:09:27] Well, the buoy c be seeing a budget
[1:09:28] supplemental or something.
[1:09:30] What, what do we see?
[1:09:32] So the debt wouldn't start till the next budget cycle.
[1:09:36] So we would load up the new debt starting in the next budget
[1:09:39] cycle and that would go through the budget process,
[1:09:41] budget committee, see the council for approval.
[1:09:43] So you would see that as part of that process since
[1:09:48] we didn't really anticipate any current debt based on them
[1:09:52] refinancing or refunding
[1:09:54] and going through this process,
[1:09:56] we did make an interest payment towards it in this
[1:09:59] by any amusing food and beverage tax.
[1:10:01] 'cause we did have a little bit of allocation towards debt.
[1:10:04] We just weren't sure from a timing standpoint when Business
[1:10:08] Oregon would sell the bonds
[1:10:09] and we would have a refinance structure.
[1:10:12] So it'll be fully anticipated in the 27 29
[1:10:16] by and and moving forward.
[1:10:18] Okay, thanks. And, and it's also not going to,
[1:10:21] it's gonna be a fairly small difference than
[1:10:23] what we currently have is what I, what I understand
[1:10:25] 'cause we're talking about a, a few million dollars and,
[1:10:28] and amortization over 15 years still
[1:10:30] Correct.
[1:10:32] Thanks. Other questions? Councillor
[1:10:35] Dale?
[1:10:36] Yeah, just a actually a very quick
[1:10:37] procedural question that is for Alyssa.
[1:10:39] I saw in a previous slide that you had had at 20 20 26 dash
[1:10:44] 17 if the council moves, do you want that added?
[1:10:47] Is that the correct resolution number?
[1:10:49] I know Scott has probably before it was assigned,
[1:10:51] but do you want it read like this
[1:10:53] or do you want, what, what did, what Scott had?
[1:10:56] Correct. Just so we get this right the first time,
[1:11:01] I don't think it matters
[1:11:04] because this one will automatically thinking out loud,
[1:11:07] this one will automatically replace the existing one.
[1:11:12] Makes sense.
[1:11:13] Okay. Do we need, I just wanted to be
[1:11:15] Language that door.
[1:11:16] Yeah, I think we're fine. Okay.
[1:11:21] Any further questions? The floor is open
[1:11:24] for a motion. Councillor Dale?
[1:11:28] Sure. I move to approve a resolution authorizing refunding
[1:11:32] of an interim loan from the Special Public Works fund in the
[1:11:35] Oregon State Infrastructure Finance Authority.
[1:11:37] I'll second that. Councillor Dale.
[1:11:39] Thank you Councillor Ka for the questions.
[1:11:41] I have the same ones and I,
[1:11:42] I appreciate you calling those out and,
[1:11:44] and stating 'em in public so
[1:11:45] that we know everybody is
[1:11:46] as informed as possible. Thank you.
[1:11:48] Councillor Hansen?
[1:11:50] Yeah, I, I briefly remember this coming down the road here
[1:11:54] and way to pivot and totally support it.
[1:11:57] It's gotta be done. Thank you.
[1:12:00] Any further discussion? Roll call please. Alyssa
[1:12:05] Kaplan?
[1:12:07] Yes. Duquesne?
[1:12:10] Yes. Hanson? Yes. LL Yes. Yes.
[1:12:17] Dale? Yes. Bloom? Yes. Motion pass.
[1:12:20] Thank you. Thank you Brynn.
[1:12:23] The last, the next one is
[1:12:28] approval of resolutions for wastewater
[1:12:30] and storm drain rate increases, Sabrina.
[1:12:34] So we would also like
[1:12:35] to support the wastewater system in which we put the
[1:12:38] chemicals and our storm drain enterprise.
[1:12:40] So before you tonight are the rate increases,
[1:12:43] which are developed through our master planning process.
[1:12:47] And I'll hand it over to Scott.
[1:12:51] So as a reminder, we went through a process
[1:12:55] and H City staff coordinated with HDR Engineering
[1:12:58] to do a cost of service rate analysis for the wastewater
[1:13:02] and storm drain enterprises.
[1:13:05] I believe that HDR
[1:13:07] and I were here with the final draft in May
[1:13:10] for the cost of service.
[1:13:13] The council accepted that kind of package
[1:13:15] that analyzed rates over the six year period.
[1:13:18] And so before you tonight are two resolutions.
[1:13:21] One associated with rate increases for the wastewater system
[1:13:25] and one associated with rate increases
[1:13:28] for the storm drain system.
[1:13:30] As you see on the table, E ES four here,
[1:13:33] per the presentation, we're looking at a little over a $3 a
[1:13:36] month service charge increase to the primary account basis,
[1:13:40] single family residential throughout the city.
[1:13:44] One of the policy frameworks that we followed
[1:13:47] with the water cost of service
[1:13:48] and this wastewater storm drain was to try
[1:13:52] to minimize any sort of initial shock
[1:13:54] or impacts to the multi-family.
[1:13:56] And so you notice the multi-family
[1:13:59] monthly service charge remains the same,
[1:14:02] although the commodity charge does get a partial increase.
[1:14:06] And that was all kind of feathered out in the cost
[1:14:09] of service analysis performed by HDR.
[1:14:12] So this structure takes into account the people materials,
[1:14:17] services, and capital program that we have in place
[1:14:21] for the wastewater system moving forward.
[1:14:24] And just a reminder, the last rate increase for
[1:14:27] the wastewater system enterprise itself was 2019.
[1:14:32] So even if you apply just a general two
[1:14:34] to 3% inflationary metric, you would be looking at 14 to 21%
[1:14:40] and we're looking at a 7% increase overall.
[1:14:44] So I think that that kind of bodes to kind
[1:14:47] of good fiscal management of the system
[1:14:49] and making sure we're delivering capital projects at the
[1:14:51] right time and at the right need.
[1:14:54] We've shifted some things around
[1:14:55] and some things have got postponed
[1:14:57] because they have not been needed for the system.
[1:15:01] And moving forward, the one big project kind of remaining
[1:15:03] for the wastewater treatment plan is the Head Works project,
[1:15:07] which you will see a funding resolution come through
[1:15:10] to council in August for,
[1:15:12] and that's really one
[1:15:13] of the bigger projects we have left on the system.
[1:15:15] And this increase this year
[1:15:18] and potentially in the next couple
[1:15:20] of years helps really support that moving forward,
[1:15:26] Much smaller scale system with the storm drain enterprise.
[1:15:31] The storm drain's only been its own fund
[1:15:33] for the last couple budget cycles
[1:15:34] after it was broken apart from the street fund.
[1:15:38] The storm drain master plan in 2020
[1:15:42] had a financial plan associated with it
[1:15:45] and the last storm drain rate increase associated with
[1:15:47] that financial plan was in 2021.
[1:15:51] So the cost of service updated based on our current
[1:15:56] existing conditions with people, materials and services
[1:15:58] and service, and also the future projections
[1:16:02] and our capital program.
[1:16:04] And for the single family you're looking at,
[1:16:07] at a a dollar a month increase for the rate itself,
[1:16:13] a multifamily, again, is pretty
[1:16:17] marginalized from a rate increase standpoint.
[1:16:19] You know, we're talking 43 cents,
[1:16:21] I think increase on a monthly basis.
[1:16:24] And for both these rate increases,
[1:16:26] we're talking about a period of August 1st
[1:16:29] through June 30th, 2027,
[1:16:33] at which time potentially staff would be bringing forward
[1:16:36] new rate increases associated with the 27th
[1:16:39] through 29 budget biennium.
[1:16:41] And again, this funds the fund
[1:16:43] and ensures
[1:16:45] that we meet our MS four municipally separated storm drain
[1:16:49] conveyance system regulatory requirements that are issued
[1:16:52] and controlled by DEQ.
[1:16:57] And with that, I will try to answer any questions.
[1:17:01] Questions. Councilor Sherell. Thanks Mayor.
[1:17:04] I know it's a little bit late to this party,
[1:17:05] but maybe just speak briefly on why we didn't do modeling
[1:17:09] based on impervious surface or drain fixture units.
[1:17:12] And it's based on the actual title of the dwelling itself.
[1:17:16] So it is, it, it's based on an estimated impervious
[1:17:20] of 3000 square feet per surface lot.
[1:17:23] And so that's been kind of a standard of metrics
[1:17:25] that's been used over the years since this,
[1:17:31] since this utility created that enterprise
[1:17:34] and that storm drain fee.
[1:17:36] And speaking with HDR about that, they still felt
[1:17:40] that based on lot size
[1:17:42] and development that that 3000 square foot of impervious
[1:17:46] was still a good metric to use in their calculations as far
[1:17:50] as the cost of service and then the application to the rate.
[1:17:53] Okay. I, I would just provide the, the opinion that if,
[1:17:56] if we look at that again, that we, we look at the, the fact
[1:17:58] that we've removed parking standards,
[1:18:00] therefore a lot of impervious parking spots, access
[1:18:03] and circulation to get to the spots.
[1:18:05] There's a downward trend in the, the housing types
[1:18:08] that we're building that are smaller.
[1:18:10] So it's also an incentive to build, to build smaller,
[1:18:13] it would be a, a, a system to, to,
[1:18:16] to at least explore in future conversations.
[1:18:19] And I think we did kind of talk about
[1:18:21] how you would analyze that moving forward using LIDAR data
[1:18:24] and GIS to kind of calculate existing impervious area
[1:18:30] versus what is bare ground
[1:18:32] and could potentially be developed
[1:18:33] and trying to come up with a calculation
[1:18:36] that would either change that positively or negatively.
[1:18:39] So that's something we did talk about
[1:18:42] and we know that, you know, based on this conversation
[1:18:45] that could potentially come up in the future based on
[1:18:48] changing development standards
[1:18:49] To Totally.
[1:18:50] And just one thing to add, if I may, mayor,
[1:18:51] that there's a pretty good model already out with how we,
[1:18:55] how we put s SDCs on project based on like 500 square
[1:18:58] foot increments and such.
[1:19:00] So there's some good industry practice
[1:19:01] that incentivizes people to use less impervious surface,
[1:19:04] put less hot water into our streams
[1:19:06] and build smother housing that's more affordable.
[1:19:09] And the regulatory requirements for self-management
[1:19:11] of storm drain are increasing.
[1:19:13] So there is less burden on city utility, you know,
[1:19:16] from new development because the retention
[1:19:20] and treatment standards that we follow
[1:19:21] through Rogue Valley Sanitary Services
[1:19:25] who manages the storm drain design manual
[1:19:27] for all municipalities here.
[1:19:29] Yeah, I think I brought that up in a,
[1:19:30] in a previous conversation of like,
[1:19:32] I think it's new state law says if you have more than 5,000
[1:19:34] square feet of impervious surface, you have
[1:19:36] to contain it on site and percolate it into your own ground,
[1:19:38] so therefore it wouldn't even go into the system.
[1:19:39] Yeah. So I appreciate you acknowledging that
[1:19:42] and like knowing
[1:19:43] that it's on your radar makes me feel better. Thanks.
[1:19:46] And it just as another reminder,
[1:19:48] if you do not connect at all existing
[1:19:51] or in the future to a storm drain conveyance
[1:19:53] and you outfall on your property to a stream
[1:19:56] and e femoral stream Ashland Creek, you are not obligated
[1:20:00] to pay the storm drain fee
[1:20:01] because you are not impacting that conveyance.
[1:20:06] Okay. Other questions? Okay.
[1:20:10] The floor is open for a
[1:20:11] motion. Councillor Dale?
[1:20:16] Sure. Thank you Mayor. I'll start
[1:20:19] with the first one I move to approve resolution,
[1:20:22] resolution number 2026 dash 15 a resolution, revising rates
[1:20:26] for wastewater sewer service pursuant
[1:20:28] to ton municipal code section 14.08035
[1:20:32] and repealing resolution 2019 dash 10.
[1:20:37] Councilor Dale. Yeah, thank you Mayor.
[1:20:43] It's never fun to raise rates.
[1:20:46] It, it's, although I,
[1:20:47] as we've talked about almost ad nauseum
[1:20:50] that we're repealing a, a resolution from seven years ago,
[1:20:53] but every time you're standing in front of your sanker
[1:20:55] and you're drain and you're putting something down it
[1:20:57] and you just, you, you're paying for the, for the value
[1:21:01] of saying, I don't ha I don't
[1:21:03] even have to worry about anything.
[1:21:04] And I just wanna say I I appreciate that
[1:21:07] and all that goes into that.
[1:21:09] I do also have a, as, as an aside, I I do want to
[1:21:13] note I have our staffing report here for,
[1:21:17] for the various departments for the past several years.
[1:21:22] And as I was just, I thought about adding these up
[1:21:24] and specifically looking at the wastewater
[1:21:26] and the storm rider FTEs.
[1:21:29] We, we've gone from 2019 when you sum both of those together
[1:21:34] from about almost 21 FTE down to about 17.7.
[1:21:38] So we are actually doing more with less humans.
[1:21:41] So as we see the cost go up, a lot of
[1:21:43] that is materials and service.
[1:21:44] So I just want to say I appreciate the department
[1:21:46] and the labor watching costs that way
[1:21:48] and doing the best they can,
[1:21:50] but this is just the cost of,
[1:21:52] of maintaining these utilities.
[1:21:53] Thank you
[1:21:55] Councillor Kaplan.
[1:21:57] Yeah, very, very similarly. Thank you.
[1:21:59] Thanks for bringing this Scott.
[1:22:00] And also thanks for exercising a lot of care
[1:22:03] to keep our costs low for our wastewater service.
[1:22:06] You talked to, to us earlier, we, we, we approved some
[1:22:09] chemical procurement and you said we used
[1:22:11] to procure it on every two years,
[1:22:13] but now the, the chain prices have gone up so fast that
[1:22:17] the offers won't even give us two year pricing.
[1:22:20] The we have to price it every year.
[1:22:22] So that shows that, that those, those those supplies are,
[1:22:26] are infected by, by inflation.
[1:22:28] So the fact that we haven't raised it for seven years is,
[1:22:30] is, is something thanks waste waters
[1:22:35] treating our, our wastewater is super important
[1:22:37] and we have to pay for it. So thank you
[1:22:41] Councillor Duque.
[1:22:46] I'm glad that I can flush my toilet too.
[1:22:49] Everything goes down the drain.
[1:22:52] And looking at going from 21
[1:22:57] FTEs to 17, the city
[1:23:00] of Ashland hasn't grown in population either.
[1:23:03] And the last time I, I sat in a business meeting,
[1:23:07] Recology went up 8.75%.
[1:23:11] And when I look at the rate increases
[1:23:14] that we've had in such a short time,
[1:23:18] I cannot support this going up at this time.
[1:23:25] Councilor Blue. Thank you. Yeah, appreciate it Scott.
[1:23:29] And, and you know, I think that
[1:23:32] what Councilor Dale brought up is, you know,
[1:23:34] the drop in FTEs is demonstrating that, you know,
[1:23:37] that department is certainly tightening its belt,
[1:23:40] but for me, I'm looking forward
[1:23:43] and I'm looking, you know, at the next budget
[1:23:46] and I'm looking at citywide.
[1:23:48] And for me, going forward, until I see cuts
[1:23:51] and efficiencies in the next budget,
[1:23:53] I can't in good conscious ask voter
[1:23:57] or rate payers to, to continue to pay more given just like
[1:24:01] what Councilor DEA said.
[1:24:02] So for me, going forward until, until the next budget,
[1:24:05] I won't be supporting any rate increases
[1:24:10] Any further discussion, I would just add that
[1:24:16] we pass master plans
[1:24:18] and rate studies that look out as far as we can look
[1:24:23] with some reasonable confidence about
[1:24:24] what these systems are going to need.
[1:24:26] But then as we get closer, we refine those needs, we look
[1:24:30] to see if something really does need
[1:24:32] to be replaced on that timescale.
[1:24:34] And I think what we're seeing here is
[1:24:36] that even though we haven't raised rates since 2019,
[1:24:41] we have been able to manage through that
[1:24:42] because of that careful looking at what actually needs
[1:24:45] to be done up against the plans that this body has passed.
[1:24:49] And it's, those kind of details can sometimes get lost
[1:24:54] in these processes that we have.
[1:24:56] That that there is care.
[1:24:58] It's not just once the council passes something,
[1:25:00] we're on a train and,
[1:25:02] and we do these things, whether they need to be done or not,
[1:25:04] or whether they need to be done on that timescale or not.
[1:25:06] And so I just want to appreciate staff
[1:25:08] for controlling these costs
[1:25:11] and for putting us in a position where we could go
[1:25:13] for seven years without raising any rates.
[1:25:16] That's, that's a remarkable space.
[1:25:19] It is always a difficult time when we have
[1:25:22] to make those increases,
[1:25:23] but we also have to cover the cost of this infrastructure.
[1:25:26] So I appreciate that care
[1:25:28] and appreciate all of the, the hard work
[1:25:31] that goes into making those plans
[1:25:33] and then refining them as the time comes
[1:25:35] near for the big projects.
[1:25:37] If there are no further comments, roll call please.
[1:25:40] Alyssa? Bloom?
[1:25:44] No. Dale? Yes. Shell. Yes. Kaplan?
[1:25:48] Yes. Duquesne?
[1:25:50] No. Hansen? Yes. Motion pass.
[1:25:54] Thank you Scott. Next up we One more.
[1:25:59] Oh, you have one more? That's right.
[1:26:00] There's a second resolution. The floor is open for a motion.
[1:26:03] Councilor Kaplan,
[1:26:05] I move to approve resolution number 2026 dash 16 a
[1:26:09] resolution adopting storm drainage utility fee schedule
[1:26:11] pursuant to the Aston Municipal code section 4.2 7.050
[1:26:16] and repealing resolution 2021 dash zero nine. Okay,
[1:26:20] I I'll second that.
[1:26:22] Okay. Councilor Catherine?
[1:26:25] Yeah, I mean this is a similar, similar situation,
[1:26:29] although this goes directly,
[1:26:31] this storm drain collection goes directly
[1:26:33] into our, our streams.
[1:26:35] So this is, you know, this, this is super important
[1:26:38] to make sure that we're taking care of our, our environment.
[1:26:42] Again, we haven't raised rates for five years on this
[1:26:46] and I appreciate staff's diligence about
[1:26:50] keeping rates as low as possible.
[1:26:52] Councillor Hanson,
[1:26:54] Thank you.
[1:26:55] Yeah, I appreciate staff
[1:26:56] and I also know that we're reacting to
[1:26:59] a different environment with climate change.
[1:27:01] We're getting, you know, less water perhaps,
[1:27:04] but we're getting it at different times
[1:27:06] and different quantities
[1:27:07] and keeping up with, with all that is something
[1:27:11] that I can appreciate.
[1:27:12] I can appreciate that that staff's ahead of it
[1:27:16] and we don't have erosion problems and sinkhole and roads
[1:27:19] and things that other communities that are ignoring
[1:27:21] and kicking this down the road.
[1:27:23] So I, again, I I also don't like raising rates on things
[1:27:27] and I understand the economics of it.
[1:27:29] So it's part of that social contract.
[1:27:31] You know, we expect this stuff to work. Thank you.
[1:27:36] Further comments? Roll call please. Alyssa
[1:27:43] Hanson?
[1:27:44] Yes. Duane No. Kaplan? Yes. Bloom? No.
[1:27:49] Dale? Yes. Sherell? Yes. Motion pass.
[1:27:53] Thank you Scott. We now are onto second reading
[1:27:57] of ordinances 20 or 32 96, 32 97
[1:28:02] and 32 98 manufactured home park zone
[1:28:06] MHPZ amending the manufactured
[1:28:09] housing development standards,
[1:28:12] adopting related comprehensive plan
[1:28:14] and zoning map amendments and adopting findings
[1:28:17] and conclusions of law.
[1:28:19] Sabrina?
[1:28:21] Well with that title, I'm not sure I have much left
[1:28:23] to say other than I'll let Brandon here walk you through it.
[1:28:26] This is the second reading so it was
[1:28:28] approved for the first reading.
[1:28:29] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:28:31] So council held a public hearing
[1:28:33] and approved first reading on all three ordinances presented
[1:28:35] this evening as amended.
[1:28:37] Your prior public hearing was on June 16th.
[1:28:41] Tonight these come back for a second Reading
[1:28:43] with no amendments.
[1:28:45] A quick reminder for those at home what these ordinances do.
[1:28:48] Ordinance 32 96 establishes
[1:28:52] the manufactured home park zone
[1:28:54] and updates the related land use standards.
[1:28:57] It also addresses manufactured homes on individual lots
[1:29:03] and it also provides allowances for childcare
[1:29:06] and residential care facilities.
[1:29:08] Citywide ordinance 32 97 applies
[1:29:12] that new manufactured home park zone designation on the
[1:29:15] zoning map to the eligible parks within the city limits.
[1:29:20] And ordinance 32 98 makes the matching change
[1:29:25] to the comprehensive plan map.
[1:29:27] So alongside these ordinances, staff is also asking counsel
[1:29:31] to adopt findings of fact
[1:29:33] and conclusions of law, which are included in your packet.
[1:29:36] This is a requirement of land use actions such as
[1:29:40] legislative planning actions.
[1:29:43] The findings were updated since you first saw them
[1:29:46] at first reading to reflect the amendments
[1:29:48] that council made on June 16th, including the removal
[1:29:51] of Upper Pines Mobile Home Park, Ashland RV Park,
[1:29:55] and Jackson Wells Wellsprings property from the maps
[1:29:59] as I mentioned, the findings further document
[1:30:02] how the amendments satisfy
[1:30:04] the applicable comprehensive plan, municipal code
[1:30:09] and statewide planning goal criteria.
[1:30:12] And they support tonight's decision on all three ordinances.
[1:30:17] Staff does recommend council approve second reading
[1:30:20] by title on only of ordinance 32 9 6 32 9 7
[1:30:24] and 32 9 8 and adopt the accompanying findings.
[1:30:28] And so four separate motions were included in your packet so
[1:30:32] that you can act on each of those independently.
[1:30:35] And I'm happy to take any questions.
[1:30:37] Questions. Councillor Bloom? Yeah,
[1:30:39] parliamentary question for city attorney over there.
[1:30:43] Since this is second reading, we can do it by,
[1:30:46] we can just move the ordinance number.
[1:30:48] We don't need to read the entire title.
[1:30:51] You should read the title but you don't have to read it.
[1:30:53] Well there are no amends. Right?
[1:30:54] You can read it by the number.
[1:30:55] Right? Okay. Just wanted to check
[1:30:59] Any further questions.
[1:31:02] Okay, the floor is open for a motion. Councillor Blum.
[1:31:05] Yeah, I move.
[1:31:07] Approval of ordinance number 32 96, ordinance number 32 97,
[1:31:11] ordinance number 32 98.
[1:31:14] Second Councilor Blum.
[1:31:20] You know city council meetings are fun.
[1:31:21] I encourage everybody to go back
[1:31:22] and watch the last one where we talked about this.
[1:31:27] Ditto. Yeah, Duane. So a quick question.
[1:31:30] Johann, do we, does the motion need to identify
[1:31:33] that this is second reading?
[1:31:37] No, I don't think so. Okay.
[1:31:39] Just, yeah, just wanted that clarification.
[1:31:41] Any other discussion? Roll call please.
[1:31:46] Alyssa
[1:31:49] Dale?
[1:31:50] Yes. Sherell? Yes. Hansen? Yes. Duquesne? Yes.
[1:31:55] Kaplan? Yes. Bloom?
[1:31:57] Yes. Motion pass.
[1:31:58] Mayor? Yes. May I make the following motion?
[1:32:01] Yes. Councillor Blum. I move to adopt the findings
[1:32:04] of fact and conclusions of law and planning.
[1:32:05] Action. PA L 2026 dash 0 0 0 1 8
[1:32:10] as presented in support of ordinances number 32 96, 32 97
[1:32:14] and 32 98.
[1:32:16] Second Councillor
[1:32:18] Blum. No comment.
[1:32:19] Councillor Kaplan. Oh, did du Kain.
[1:32:23] You guys went at the same time? Go ahead Councilor Duque. No
[1:32:25] I didn't.
[1:32:28] Okay. Any further discussion?
[1:32:30] So we have Councillor du Kain as the second.
[1:32:33] Is there for any further discussion.
[1:32:37] Roll call please. Alyssa
[1:32:40] Duquesne.
[1:32:42] Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Bloom?
[1:32:46] Yes. Dale? Yes. Sharelle? Yes. Hansen?
[1:32:52] Yes.
[1:32:55] Yes. Motion pass.
[1:32:58] Great, thank you. The second reading
[1:33:01] of Ordinance 33 0 5,
[1:33:04] an ordinance amending 6.04 business licenses.
[1:33:07] Section 6.0 4.105.
[1:33:10] Duplicate license 6.0, 4.20.
[1:33:14] Temporary license and 6 0 4 delinquent penalty.
[1:33:20] Sabrina.
[1:33:22] So as a reminder, this is a second reading
[1:33:24] of these ordinances and what this will do is remove fees out
[1:33:27] of EMC and put them in our miscellaneous fees
[1:33:31] and charges resolution where they belong.
[1:33:33] And Bryn can answer any questions.
[1:33:37] Questions? Okay,
[1:33:42] the floor is open for a motion.
[1:33:43] Councilor Hansen,
[1:33:46] I move to approve the second reading of ordinance 33 0 5
[1:33:49] and ordinance amending 6.04 business licenses,
[1:33:52] sections 6.0 4.105, duplicate licenses,
[1:33:58] 6.0 4.120 temporary license
[1:34:01] and 6.0 4.130 delinquent penalty.
[1:34:07] Is there a second? Okay.
[1:34:11] Councillor Hansen?
[1:34:12] Yep. Again, just thank you staff for house cleaning
[1:34:15] and this is all in the miscellaneous fees book now.
[1:34:17] It'll be evergreen. Thank you.
[1:34:19] Councillor Kaplan. Okay, any further discussion?
[1:34:24] Roll call please. Alyssa
[1:34:28] Kaplan?
[1:34:29] Yes. Excuse me. Duquesne? Yes. Hanson? Yes.
[1:34:34] Rell? Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom?
[1:34:38] Yes. Motion pass. Right.
[1:34:39] Thank you Mayor, I have a request
[1:34:42] if you would consider moving up Agenda item 13 B,
[1:34:46] given the timeliness, I believe that there's a timeline on
[1:34:49] that in order to, if we do potentially decide
[1:34:52] to put on the ballot, it needs to be decided tonight.
[1:34:55] So I'm just concerned about the the time. Time.
[1:34:57] So it's my understanding that it could be decided at this
[1:34:59] meeting or at the first meeting of August, is that correct?
[1:35:02] So we do still have one more.
[1:35:04] I think we can still get to it.
[1:35:05] It is new business again this evening
[1:35:07] because it was dis,
[1:35:08] the council dispatched it when it came before in a study session.
[1:35:11] So we're gonna going to keep it where it is for now,
[1:35:13] but we'll, we'll pay attention
[1:35:14] as we move forward. Yeah, as long
[1:35:15] As there's another meeting that's, that's
[1:35:17] Fine.
[1:35:18] Yes, counselor.
[1:35:18] So we will, we are going to take a short recess.
[1:35:21] Please be back in your seats at seven 40
[1:35:24] by this clock to the right.
[1:35:26] Thank you.
[1:35:33] Another
[1:42:31] I call the meeting back to order.
[1:42:38] So we are now to unfinished
[1:42:41] businesses, unfinished business.
[1:42:43] We start with the internal services director item.
[1:42:47] Just as a note, just as a note,
[1:42:52] we are having a discussion this evening about the internal
[1:42:55] services director as a way of helping the council
[1:42:59] and the public understand the administrative changes
[1:43:02] that are underway at the city.
[1:43:04] I note that this is an operational decision,
[1:43:05] it's fully within the purview of the city manager,
[1:43:08] but we also recognize that it's important that we understand
[1:43:11] what major changes are a afoot
[1:43:14] and to give us a chance to ask questions about
[1:43:16] how this will help to improve the servicing
[1:43:19] of the residents through the city.
[1:43:21] So with that introduction, I'll turn it over to Sabrina.
[1:43:24] Thank you Mayor. So part of
[1:43:26] what we've been doing over the last year is looking
[1:43:29] for operational efficiencies as well as cost savings.
[1:43:32] So one of the areas we've been evaluating is our it, HR
[1:43:37] and finance departments.
[1:43:38] So you may remember finance and IT work combined a while ago
[1:43:43] and HR was a standalone department.
[1:43:45] We have several kind of technology upgrades going on.
[1:43:49] One is our new payroll HR software.
[1:43:53] We still have paper for everything.
[1:43:55] So this will be a big time saver and process improvement.
[1:44:01] And there's a lot of crossover in our HR
[1:44:03] and finance functions, particularly around payroll,
[1:44:06] benefits, risk, even our union negotiations with costing.
[1:44:11] And so looking at that and looking at our budget overall
[1:44:16] and kind of what's being done in the field,
[1:44:19] having an internal services director makes sense moving
[1:44:22] forward at least trying to recruit for one that will help
[1:44:26] oversee all of these functions as well as continue
[1:44:29] to streamline the processes between them.
[1:44:31] And so in your packet tonight, you have some bullet points
[1:44:33] around that as well as the job description
[1:44:36] that we will be advertising for.
[1:44:38] With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:44:40] Council bloom. Yeah, so see, looking at this,
[1:44:44] so it's finance IT and human resources.
[1:44:46] I'm just curious if you know a decision is made
[1:44:49] hypothetically, whether it's it's this year going into the
[1:44:52] next biennium to outsource IT
[1:44:55] and hr, would you eliminate this position given
[1:44:58] that it would only be overseeing the finance department?
[1:45:02] I think we'd have to assess if we have,
[1:45:07] that would be a significant change
[1:45:08] to the organization and what we do.
[1:45:10] So we'd have to assess it at that time
[1:45:12] and potentially make changes.
[1:45:14] Quick follow up and then follow up on that kind of
[1:45:17] around going into the next biennium.
[1:45:18] I'm just curious that if, if council
[1:45:20] and the, the budget committee decided to
[1:45:23] effectively not fund this position,
[1:45:27] would the responsive administration be
[1:45:28] to just find savings in other places in order to fund,
[1:45:31] to continue to fund that position?
[1:45:33] So to not have a department head
[1:45:36] at the level over the internal services, we'd have to kind
[1:45:39] of do an assessment of the organization to see
[1:45:42] how to make it work.
[1:45:44] You know, we have kind of drawn down what were three
[1:45:48] director roles and two, one,
[1:45:50] which is fairly significant cost savings over time.
[1:45:53] So, you know, I think this position has a potential
[1:45:57] to be a very good strategic partner
[1:45:59] with the administrative team in terms of dealing
[1:46:02] with processes and infrastructure
[1:46:03] that affect all of our staff.
[1:46:06] And so I don't think I would recommend, you know,
[1:46:09] removing this position if we still have all
[1:46:11] of these functions in house.
[1:46:13] But that would be up for discussion.
[1:46:15] Okay. Thank you Councillor Hansen.
[1:46:18] Thank you. These are three very different jobs.
[1:46:24] And I'm curious just I I, I've never,
[1:46:28] I I've never heard of this before.
[1:46:29] Is this, is this done in other municipalities?
[1:46:33] 'cause you know, HR is its own little island
[1:46:36] and it, you know, you know, come on.
[1:46:39] Those people are really weird. And in finance,
[1:46:41] I mean those people speak a totally different language
[1:46:44] and I'm, I'm joking, but in all seriousness,
[1:46:46] they have specialties and a real strong strength.
[1:46:48] So I'm just curious, like
[1:46:50] I've just never heard of this before.
[1:46:52] Could you help us understand?
[1:46:54] Yeah, so you know, I've seen this in multiple other
[1:46:58] municipalities most recently, one in Livermore, California
[1:47:01] and one in the city of Florida I just saw come up.
[1:47:05] So I think as municipalities are looking at their operations
[1:47:09] and seeing, so while they have distinct responsibilities
[1:47:13] and functions, they often overlap.
[1:47:15] So one of our biggest technology users is finance with Muni.
[1:47:18] So there is a lot
[1:47:19] of cross department collaboration dependency already.
[1:47:22] So I think having leadership
[1:47:24] that can help foster those relationships
[1:47:26] and kind of align priorities
[1:47:28] and make sure that we're functioning a
[1:47:30] hundred percent will be helpful.
[1:47:31] Okay. And is,
[1:47:33] and the second part of that question is, is what kind of,
[1:47:37] I know like in, in HR certification,
[1:47:40] very different from a finance certification.
[1:47:42] Like how does one, you know Yeah. Find this person or
[1:47:47] Advertise for it.
[1:47:49] Okay. Yeah, so I think, I think, you know, it's,
[1:47:52] you want someone who has experience in both
[1:47:55] areas does exist.
[1:47:58] I think also, you know, what you have in each
[1:48:00] of these departments are very strong deputy roles
[1:48:03] that will help with, you know, oh,
[1:48:06] right within each department.
[1:48:08] Right. Bren included,
[1:48:09] She's Brendan included.
[1:48:10] If she's not, she fled. So, okay.
[1:48:12] Okay. All right. Well thank you.
[1:48:14] Yeah, that makes, that makes sense.
[1:48:15] I appreciate shedding a little bit more light on that.
[1:48:17] Councillor Dale. Thank you mayor.
[1:48:20] So Sabrina, I I just heard you use the word deputy and,
[1:48:24] and real quick counselor, it guys we're okay.
[1:48:29] Anyway, the, the I I help me understand,
[1:48:33] these wouldn't be department heads anymore then the, the HR
[1:48:37] and finance and it, they would, they would report
[1:48:40] to a department head if I understand it.
[1:48:42] So then in similar organizations,
[1:48:44] and I understand they're trying this,
[1:48:45] but I'm, I'm, I, I am struggling to understand
[1:48:50] how we wouldn't want a finance director just kind
[1:48:53] of being the right hand person.
[1:48:54] Like that's in that room as like a CFO.
[1:48:56] So how do, how would we manage that chain
[1:49:00] of communication, not having that direct alignment with
[1:49:04] what is fundamentally the probably one
[1:49:06] of our most critical departments there.
[1:49:08] You help me understand how that would work relative
[1:49:11] to this, this new structure. So
[1:49:12] I need clarification on your question.
[1:49:14] Not in alignment with, well saying
[1:49:16] that like a finance director is a department head
[1:49:18] that would report directly to the city manager.
[1:49:21] Yeah. I understand
[1:49:22] that this internal services director would have some finance
[1:49:25] functionality and it would go through that.
[1:49:28] But it, it is something that I just want to understand
[1:49:31] because as we go through this,
[1:49:32] that finance director is like, we, we don't
[1:49:35] like another organiz, you have a CFO,
[1:49:38] you don't have a someone that has,
[1:49:40] and then a finance person reports to person
[1:49:42] that reports to the CEO.
[1:49:43] So that, that, that just seems like a critical,
[1:49:46] critical role that needs to to be a department head.
[1:49:47] But happy to hear why.
[1:49:49] So the internal services director effectively will
[1:49:52] be the CFO, right?
[1:49:53] It's just a different title.
[1:49:56] Okay. So they'll still answer to the city manager
[1:49:59] and they'll have three divisions essentially
[1:50:02] with deputies to support.
[1:50:05] Okay. Councillor sre,
[1:50:08] Thank you mayor and thank you for putting this together.
[1:50:11] I'm going through the, the job description here
[1:50:12] and like the essential functions I, I can't help
[1:50:15] but kind of just echo what Counselor Hanson said that like,
[1:50:18] these are very unique skill sets
[1:50:19] and to, to find somebody that would have, you know,
[1:50:23] be a potentially a certified CPA
[1:50:26] and also be up to date and bully and,
[1:50:29] and I know that there are some,
[1:50:32] some special people out there
[1:50:33] and I think maybe your skill's, one of 'em,
[1:50:35] you've been in a, at least two of the three
[1:50:36] of these departments, at least here.
[1:50:38] And I would assume, and don't take this the wrong way
[1:50:40] please, but like you're currently doing
[1:50:43] a lot of these functions.
[1:50:44] So I guess my question is, if this were
[1:50:48] to be a filled position, it,
[1:50:50] I would assume it would free you up to do,
[1:50:52] to do other things, focus more on the day-to-day
[1:50:55] or the more long-term 40,000 foot view be the visionary.
[1:50:59] Could you just kind of describe how this would take work off
[1:51:02] of your plate today and what you would do?
[1:51:04] Yeah, so I think, you know, not having a finance director,
[1:51:10] you know, we've had those responsibilities spread out
[1:51:12] between the deputy Jordan and I working with that.
[1:51:16] But we have been continually kind
[1:51:18] of pairing down our operations because we are smaller
[1:51:21] and smaller in kind of what we're doing
[1:51:23] as we have outsourced some of our items.
[1:51:26] And so I think generally this will allow
[1:51:30] more strategic thinking in the city manager's office
[1:51:33] and more day-to-day operational to rely
[1:51:35] with the internal services director.
[1:51:38] I think, you know, like I said, there's a lot of crossover
[1:51:41] particularly, you know, payroll personnel actions,
[1:51:46] investigations, risk between HR and finance.
[1:51:49] And then same with it, there's a lot of analysis
[1:51:53] cost studies, business models with, excuse me, A FN.
[1:51:57] So there's a lot of like synergy between these roles.
[1:52:03] Chancellor dk,
[1:52:07] So Sabrina I heard, heard you mention
[1:52:11] that you have outsourced some things
[1:52:16] and when I, so my question
[1:52:19] before that's answered is when I look at these three
[1:52:24] positions and kind of like what Counselor Hanson said,
[1:52:27] they all speak different languages.
[1:52:30] We don't have a finance director.
[1:52:32] Our finances are in a precarious situation.
[1:52:36] The finance director is a very definite role.
[1:52:41] So I don't understand how,
[1:52:45] and then I heard mention this person would be in a
[1:52:48] deputy position?
[1:52:51] No, they're department head.
[1:52:53] A department head. Okay.
[1:52:55] I, to me I just, when I look at that,
[1:52:57] we don't have a finance director.
[1:52:59] And what made sense to me is something that was brought up
[1:53:04] as we move towards this biennium looking at outsourcing
[1:53:09] hr, IT perhaps,
[1:53:12] but to me it would make more sense
[1:53:14] to spend the money on the defined role
[1:53:17] of a finance director.
[1:53:18] And can you tell me what you've outsourced
[1:53:21] you, you mentioned that. So
[1:53:23] We moved a lot of our software
[1:53:24] to a third party provider instead of hosting it in-house.
[1:53:28] So we are kind of consolidating some of our IT functions
[1:53:31] and we have a lot of cross training going on between a FN
[1:53:33] and our internal IT to kind of optimize our employees.
[1:53:37] We've also relied more on our auditors for assistance
[1:53:42] with our audit instead of doing that in-house
[1:53:44] as we're looking for areas
[1:53:46] to bolster our capacity without adding staff members.
[1:53:51] If I'm just can put a bow on it.
[1:53:53] Actually, I think outsourcing can be better
[1:53:57] because we don't have, you know,
[1:54:00] we have enough full-time employees
[1:54:01] and pers so that makes sense to me. Council bloom.
[1:54:06] Yeah, thank you. So kind of doing some some research here
[1:54:10] to, to understand at least in Oregon's context, you know,
[1:54:12] where this position might, might exist.
[1:54:14] So we have a good comparator.
[1:54:18] The closest I could find is, is Tualatin, where
[1:54:22] that's something that for them it's the assistant city
[1:54:24] manager, they kind of oversee that role.
[1:54:26] What there is the other closer comparison in terms of
[1:54:31] function would be the administrative services director,
[1:54:35] which is what the city of Portland has
[1:54:37] that does exactly kind of what you're proposing.
[1:54:39] So I'm just trying to understand how a town of Ashland
[1:54:43] can have a similar position to the city of Portland.
[1:54:47] And where I'm going with this is that given the salary
[1:54:50] that is kind of proposed for this position, I'm wondering if
[1:54:53] that salary level is competitive enough to attract somebody
[1:54:56] with a specialized skillset to be able to oversee all three
[1:55:00] of these departments.
[1:55:01] And furthermore, since finance director is no longer gonna
[1:55:05] be a director, I'm imagining
[1:55:06] that they're gonna be at a lower pay scale.
[1:55:08] So then how do we find the kind of person that,
[1:55:10] that this city really desperately needs to fulfill that kind
[1:55:14] of finance position.
[1:55:15] So I'm, I'm, I'm worried that
[1:55:18] creating this position is basically going to price us out
[1:55:22] of a qualified, essentially finance
[1:55:24] director, we'll call it like a deputy.
[1:55:25] And what actually is going to cost us more than, than
[1:55:28] what is proposed, given how specialized that field is.
[1:55:32] And the closest comparator to it is Portland,
[1:55:34] which I'm sure offers significantly more money for,
[1:55:37] for salaries for those kind of positions than, than we do.
[1:55:39] So I'm just wondering if the, the, you know,
[1:55:41] that's been part of your thought process.
[1:55:44] Yeah, so I think just to clarify, you know, we have
[1:55:48] a finance deputy, we have a IT deputy in place,
[1:55:53] HR would have a rework.
[1:55:55] So you know, that isn't changing.
[1:56:00] So, you know, I think we don't know until we try,
[1:56:03] we've never been competitive for finance directors.
[1:56:07] So this may offer us the opportunity to have someone
[1:56:11] who is more broadly skilled be interested in this position.
[1:56:17] Go ahead. Yeah, and I think, you know, I want
[1:56:19] to also emphasize to the mayor mayor's point, you know,
[1:56:22] in the beginning that this is ultimately your decision,
[1:56:24] but I'm, I'm not convinced
[1:56:26] Councillor Dale.
[1:56:28] Thank you Mayor. Just a quick procedure
[1:56:32] or a logistical question.
[1:56:33] So just looking through the code, would we have
[1:56:35] to rework 2.28, which in the, the finance department
[1:56:40] 'cause it, we have a lot of references to the director
[1:56:41] of finance and they're responsible
[1:56:44] for the general supervision of all that.
[1:56:46] I, is that, would we have
[1:56:48] to just update the code or,
[1:56:49] or how does that work? No, it, no, it's
[1:56:50] Responsible.
[1:56:51] So I think for example, we had an IT department for many,
[1:56:53] many years and it was never in the code.
[1:56:55] So the code outlines the responsibilities of, you know,
[1:56:59] what we're responsible for.
[1:57:01] So we could look to do that eventually,
[1:57:03] but it's not necessary at this point.
[1:57:05] Okay. Council Hansen,
[1:57:07] Thanks.
[1:57:08] Yeah, I can Google too.
[1:57:10] And I see similar positions in Portland, Eugene, Salem,
[1:57:14] Corvallis, and Tualatin just at a, just at a glance here.
[1:57:18] But what what is interesting to me is that we can get
[1:57:23] leadership under one umbrella for three departments
[1:57:27] for one price.
[1:57:29] And ultimately if it's the right person that can
[1:57:34] bring out the strengths of those deputies
[1:57:37] that are already, you know, crushing it.
[1:57:39] I mean arguably Bryn is, is crushing it.
[1:57:42] And, and I would love to see her personally as a finance
[1:57:46] director, but if she's, she's doing her thing as
[1:57:51] the, the deputy
[1:57:53] and we have somebody to pull these resources together,
[1:57:57] you know, I can, I can totally support it.
[1:57:59] I can totally get her on board with it.
[1:58:03] Councilor Dale? Oh no, thank you mayor. Oh,
[1:58:06] You're done.
[1:58:08] I think it's interesting when I, when I talk with other
[1:58:13] mayors across the state, I realize
[1:58:15] how similar we are in complexity
[1:58:18] to bigger cities like Portland and Salem and Eugene.
[1:58:21] We have so many of our own utilities.
[1:58:23] We have a, an airport, we have a federally regulated dam,
[1:58:26] we have all sorts of things.
[1:58:28] We have our own fiber network.
[1:58:30] There's a lot of, of those elements that make us almost
[1:58:34] as complicated or complex in terms of management.
[1:58:37] So it doesn't surprise me
[1:58:38] that we would be looking at a structure
[1:58:40] that might be typically seen to be
[1:58:43] designed for a bigger city.
[1:58:45] One of the things that is interesting to me about this is,
[1:58:48] is the idea of being able to break down silos.
[1:58:51] So one of the difficulties that governments have
[1:58:54] that organizations have is when they have enterprise,
[1:58:58] or not enterprises,
[1:58:59] but departments that have their own specialty
[1:59:02] but are very much closely linked to others,
[1:59:05] but they become so siloed that they, they don't realize
[1:59:07] that they're causing inefficiencies between them
[1:59:10] because there isn't anybody keeping
[1:59:12] the whole picture in mind.
[1:59:14] And so I'm, I'm intrigued by this idea.
[1:59:16] I think the fact that it's happening by,
[1:59:18] or it's being done by larger cities
[1:59:21] with very sophisticated systems tells me
[1:59:23] it's a reasonable bet.
[1:59:25] And we have been looking for ways to be more efficient,
[1:59:28] to save costs, to be more integrated across our departments.
[1:59:32] And, and I think it's, I think, you know, this makes,
[1:59:35] this makes sense and appreciate the the thought
[1:59:38] that has gone into this.
[1:59:39] So I, I'll be interested to see how it, how it works out.
[1:59:42] I do have one question, and that is for us,
[1:59:46] for the engagement with the council, I would imagine
[1:59:49] that when we had mostly it'll be finance questions,
[1:59:53] we would take those to the,
[1:59:55] this new internal services person
[1:59:58] and then when we had in-depth financial reports here,
[2:00:02] they would come and if they felt like they needed
[2:00:05] to have their deputy here to answer sort
[2:00:08] of more detailed questions, they would bring their deputy,
[2:00:11] we would be able to have access to that full length of,
[2:00:14] of expertise in the department.
[2:00:16] Is that correct? Yeah,
[2:00:17] So if you're a member, the former finance director often
[2:00:19] brought her deputy and finance manager.
[2:00:21] So I think it's pretty common.
[2:00:23] So we, we wouldn't see anything different in terms
[2:00:25] of the level of service to this body?
[2:00:27] No. No. Okay. Any further thought questions or thoughts?
[2:00:33] Okay, thank you. We will move on next to the development
[2:00:36] of the concept plan
[2:00:37] and management plan for the Madone Ridge property. Sabrina.
[2:00:42] All right. So we have been kind
[2:00:44] of conversing about the Madone Ridge
[2:00:46] property for several years now.
[2:00:47] So we are at the point where we're seeking counsel approval
[2:00:50] for initiating the development of a concept
[2:00:53] and management plan for this property.
[2:00:56] And thank you to Deputy
[2:00:57] Brooklyn who's been championing this.
[2:00:58] So I'm gonna go ahead and turn it on over to you.
[2:01:00] Yeah, great. Thank you Sabrina. Good evening Counsel.
[2:01:04] As a brief reminder for all our viewers out there,
[2:01:07] the Madone Ridge is a 1900 plus acre property
[2:01:11] that the city has been working as a partner on
[2:01:13] for many years for forest management.
[2:01:15] There's the opportunity for the city to acquire this
[2:01:18] through a Western Rivers Conservancy
[2:01:20] who is currently applying for grants
[2:01:22] and fundraising to purchase the property.
[2:01:24] And we are in discussions
[2:01:25] with them about city then taking ownership after purchase.
[2:01:30] We have the city as well
[2:01:32] as Boston Rivers Conservancy has been doing due diligence
[2:01:35] about what can and cannot be done on that property.
[2:01:38] Which brings us to the next phase of the property, which is
[2:01:41] after doing that due diligence, actually detailing out
[2:01:43] what can be done with that property
[2:01:45] and where the purpose for this is,
[2:01:47] it helps us better understand the maintenance
[2:01:49] and management of that property, as well as apply for grants
[2:01:54] to reach that full purchase price
[2:01:58] that Western Rivers Conservancy is aiming for
[2:02:03] this asset for you all.
[2:02:04] Western Rivers Conservancy would use their funds
[2:02:06] to hire a facilitator.
[2:02:08] So it would be city staff participating as part
[2:02:10] of a larger stakeholder group to discuss
[2:02:12] what can be done on the property
[2:02:14] and where to make a recommendation for a general concept,
[2:02:17] an eventual management plan.
[2:02:20] And I'm happy to take any questions. Councillor Hansen.
[2:02:25] Thank you Mary. Thank you,
[2:02:26] Jordan, this is really exciting.
[2:02:29] Curious, before we get into the, the, the, the planning
[2:02:34] approach and stakeholders
[2:02:36] and whatnot, could you just highlight some of the community
[2:02:41] objectives and values that this project hits, touches on?
[2:02:46] Yeah, absolutely. You know, one of the primary purposes
[2:02:50] of this property is as a fire mitigation property.
[2:02:54] It is directly west of our city, west of downtown.
[2:02:57] And it has been earmarked as one of the major properties
[2:02:59] where historically winds have blown fires through.
[2:03:03] It is also a large network of trails.
[2:03:05] Those trails are not sanctioned trails,
[2:03:07] but it has potential for trail connectivity, particularly
[2:03:10] between our watershed and the forest land.
[2:03:12] That is on the other side.
[2:03:14] It's also a big conservation parcel
[2:03:16] that is Western River's Conservancy.
[2:03:18] Guiding value is conservation
[2:03:22] and what we're discussing through this concept plan process,
[2:03:25] if council gives a thumbs up to move forward with it,
[2:03:27] is looking for potential partners
[2:03:29] who could be the folks managing that land for us
[2:03:34] at a reduced cost to the city.
[2:03:37] So yeah, hope that hit all the, hit all the, the dots
[2:03:41] That hit, that hits a bunch of 'em.
[2:03:42] The only one I would add would be equity.
[2:03:46] I mean this is 1900 acres that was locked up as private land
[2:03:50] that would now be public land
[2:03:52] and would be a connector between,
[2:03:55] between the trails we already have
[2:03:57] and the greater forest service.
[2:03:59] And we would be remiss if we didn't also hit on economic
[2:04:02] development because have you seen this flyer
[2:04:06] that Western Rivers put out?
[2:04:09] This is one of their marketing pieces
[2:04:11] and I'm not sure if they're going to further distribute this
[2:04:14] or whatnot, but when,
[2:04:16] but when we talked to Western Rivers, you know, in addition
[2:04:19] to fire mitigation
[2:04:20] and conservation of the land, they were,
[2:04:23] they were looking at the, the heat mapping
[2:04:27] of Strava and, and Strava trail use.
[2:04:31] And they saw so much activity on the east side
[2:04:35] of the watershed with our established
[2:04:36] trail system over there.
[2:04:37] But there's actually quite a bit of running
[2:04:40] and biking that happens over there on the west side trails
[2:04:44] that are forest service trails that abut this property.
[2:04:47] And then on this property there's a half dozen already
[2:04:50] trails that were used for different races
[2:04:53] and different things under special permission
[2:04:56] that are already established.
[2:04:57] So they were really excited about all the things. Right.
[2:05:02] And, but one of the things that I hear people talking about
[2:05:05] in livability terms is like, you know, why would,
[2:05:08] why are new people moving to Ashland?
[2:05:11] Why are young families moving to Ashland?
[2:05:14] And, and trails is one of 'em.
[2:05:16] And another thing I hear from a livability standpoint is
[2:05:19] people are, you know, feeling the pressure of more
[2:05:22] and more biking and hiking on our existing trails.
[2:05:25] And this would give Ashland an opportunity to segregate
[2:05:29] and have more space, more trail designation.
[2:05:33] You know, this is just for e-bikes, this is just for
[2:05:37] trail running, this is just for dog walking.
[2:05:39] So, you know, that was, that was a great highlight,
[2:05:42] but I just wanted to add those things.
[2:05:44] I have another question, which is
[2:05:46] the identified stakeholder representatives on
[2:05:49] there are vast.
[2:05:51] Could you tell us a little bit about
[2:05:53] who they are and why you chose them?
[2:05:57] Absolutely. So, and this is also subject to addition.
[2:06:00] So if you all have recommendations of other folks
[2:06:02] who are important, please email me.
[2:06:04] I know Chris Chambers, a forestry officer has also had
[2:06:07] some ideas come forward.
[2:06:09] I have to admit, I probably won't remember them right now,
[2:06:11] so I will update you all when I get updated.
[2:06:14] But a trail representative, exactly
[2:06:16] that there are already existing trails.
[2:06:18] A huge potential use of a portion of this property is
[2:06:21] to expand our trail system.
[2:06:23] Loma Cozi Loma Cozi is very interested in using the site
[2:06:27] as an education program to help train workforce
[2:06:32] for fire mitigation,
[2:06:34] wildfire reduction in natural resource protection,
[2:06:37] a conservation specialist,
[2:06:38] because this, you know, primary, the primary goals
[2:06:41] of this land would be conservation.
[2:06:43] That is one of the purchases reasons for purchasing,
[2:06:45] you know, a fire mitigation specialist that'll likely be our
[2:06:48] forestry officer who knows the land well
[2:06:50] and knows what kind of fire mitigation work would need
[2:06:52] to happen to maintain that property into the future.
[2:06:55] Jackson County, because this is in Jackson County
[2:06:58] and if the city ever decided to do something more with it,
[2:07:01] like make it a use park, et cetera, we would go
[2:07:03] through a county process for that
[2:07:05] rogue workforce partnership once again for
[2:07:07] that workforce connection.
[2:07:09] Particularly as we're working towards more environmental
[2:07:11] stewardship SOU environmental Science department.
[2:07:14] 'cause there's high interest in using that site
[2:07:17] for outdoor based education, both 'cause of its biodiversity
[2:07:21] and it's through that fire mitigation education program.
[2:07:26] Same with the K 12. You know, I think one
[2:07:28] of the concepts being passed around that we'd like to vet
[2:07:30] with this group is the development
[2:07:31] of an outdoor classroom on this site for that.
[2:07:34] And then, then of course the tribal liaison since this land
[2:07:39] was held by some of the local tribes here in Oregon.
[2:07:44] Yep. Thank you for that since your invitation.
[2:07:47] I I would, I would love to add,
[2:07:49] I think it would be incumbent under the trail
[2:07:51] representatives, the, the two major groups that
[2:07:54] maintain our trails in the city of Ashland, free of charge.
[2:07:58] I mean they're, they're, you know, member based user groups,
[2:08:01] myself included, go out
[2:08:02] and volunteer to maintain our mountain biking
[2:08:04] and hiking trails oftentimes on city land.
[2:08:09] You know, we, we, we donate thousands of hours every year
[2:08:12] to maintain the trails around here.
[2:08:15] I would add that we would specify the R-B-N-B-A
[2:08:18] and the A WTA, which have, have built
[2:08:21] and maintained the trails in and around Ashland,
[2:08:24] but then also a couple liaisons, one from city council and,
[2:08:27] and one from parks.
[2:08:29] And, and I would also be remiss that, that there's a road
[2:08:33] that goes from Ashland Mine Road all the way
[2:08:37] through the property to Wagner.
[2:08:40] And I would think a neighborhood association
[2:08:43] or a neighborhood group, 'cause
[2:08:44] that those folks aren't in the city of Ashland,
[2:08:46] they're county folks would also want to be a part of that.
[2:08:50] Because another thing that this property does is unlock,
[2:08:53] regress and egress for those people in the event
[2:08:57] of a wildfire, any kind of disaster.
[2:08:59] I mean, there's a large number of people
[2:09:02] that live up Ashland Mine Road
[2:09:04] that are very concerned about their,
[2:09:07] their fire emergency plans.
[2:09:10] And this road goes all the way through there and out.
[2:09:13] So it's, this is very exciting
[2:09:15] and I'm, I hope that I'm on council long enough
[2:09:19] to see this start and, and be a part of it.
[2:09:21] But I trust that, you know, whoever's sitting in this seat
[2:09:26] will, you know, theoretically whoever's on council will,
[2:09:30] will be able to be a part of this.
[2:09:32] And this is one of those like legacy projects.
[2:09:35] Like we're not making any more land. Right.
[2:09:37] And this is falling into our lap Western Rivers Council.
[2:09:41] I, I wish him the, the best of luck.
[2:09:43] Thank you Councillor
[2:09:44] Dale.
[2:09:45] Thank you. So couple questions,
[2:09:49] Jordan is, is there, the first quick question is,
[2:09:53] in those number of meetings
[2:09:54] with at least one public meeting, would it,
[2:09:56] would it be possible or considered
[2:09:57] to have probably two or up to three?
[2:10:00] Just because I think one, I mean this is,
[2:10:02] this is a huge thing and I think we should get his
[2:10:04] maximum public engagement.
[2:10:05] Of course. So then the, the, the question I have is
[2:10:10] understand that the capital is being taken care of relative
[2:10:13] to grants and so forth and everyth think it's handled
[2:10:14] by Western River and phenomenal organization.
[2:10:18] My question is, is relative to the concept
[2:10:21] of management plan, is it, is it going to, is
[2:10:24] that plan going to include just a really strong,
[2:10:27] really robust financial operating model
[2:10:31] that shows exactly how this is gonna cost?
[2:10:33] I just don't want to, there's all kinds of things,
[2:10:35] as Councilor Hanson said,
[2:10:37] that are opportunities to be able to do this.
[2:10:38] We just wanna make sure that we're not,
[2:10:40] that we can actually run it correctly.
[2:10:43] And sometimes we, we, we make
[2:10:46] that mistake sometimes as we're doing that.
[2:10:47] So I just wanna make sure to buy that community trust
[2:10:50] and get the buy-in
[2:10:51] because this is for the community, for the larger community
[2:10:54] that is maximum number
[2:10:55] of people you can decide whether you want to do it or not.
[2:10:58] That's a different story is actually like,
[2:11:00] does the community understand how we're funding it,
[2:11:04] how we can keep it, how we can keep it moving.
[2:11:06] So will that be part of this, this plan?
[2:11:09] Yes, I'll, I'll speak to your first question is yes,
[2:11:12] we can absolutely add more public input meetings.
[2:11:14] You know, part of the goal of a concept plan is it is a tool
[2:11:17] that we can then have much more public input gathering with.
[2:11:21] So even with the development of a concept plan, you know,
[2:11:24] that's the start of the public engagement process
[2:11:26] to really weigh the pros
[2:11:28] and cons of do we wanna move forward as a community
[2:11:30] with taking over stewardship of this land.
[2:11:34] To your second point of will the management plan give us
[2:11:38] that detailed understanding of how much it would cost
[2:11:40] to maintain this property?
[2:11:42] You know, I think what this management plan will give us is
[2:11:44] it'll give us a bottom line of if we weren't able
[2:11:47] to find any partners, if we were having
[2:11:49] to do everything ourself, what would the cost be?
[2:11:52] But it would also build the relationships
[2:11:54] to understand if there's partners willing to partner with us
[2:11:57] to find cost saving measures
[2:11:59] to still get the work done in a beneficial community way.
[2:12:03] So that is the, the hope for outcome
[2:12:06] part, part of this process.
[2:12:07] Thank you Councillor Kaplan.
[2:12:10] Yeah, thanks. Thanks Jordan.
[2:12:11] I have a similar, I'm on a similar line
[2:12:14] of thinking is Councilor Dale.
[2:12:15] So that, that, that's helpful
[2:12:17] and I think that certainly the concept plan,
[2:12:19] having broad stakeholder input is, is really,
[2:12:21] really important and I appreciate that
[2:12:24] and taking the time necessary to do it right
[2:12:27] and get broad stakeholder input, including
[2:12:31] suggestions from Councilor Hansen.
[2:12:33] I guess I worry a little bit more about the management plan,
[2:12:36] the process for developing the management plan
[2:12:37] because in my experience developing a management plan for
[2:12:42] par, a large parcel like this, I'm familiar,
[2:12:45] I'm not familiar with this exact kind of thing,
[2:12:49] but in, I know that in preparing management plans
[2:12:52] for like a national park, which is a much bigger
[2:12:54] and a little different thing, but it's a, it's, it's kind
[2:12:57] of a technical, it's more of a technical
[2:13:02] exercise than it is a stakeholder exercise.
[2:13:04] Now I appreciate getting input from stakeholders
[2:13:06] that might wanna take a piece of it co-management
[2:13:09] with, with us or whatever.
[2:13:10] But that's your, that I I would think that
[2:13:12] that would be subsequent to really deciding, you know,
[2:13:16] what needs to be managed
[2:13:17] and what are the actual actions that are gonna have
[2:13:20] to happen month after month, season after season, year
[2:13:22] after year on this piece of property to to, to,
[2:13:26] to manage it according to our, our, our standards.
[2:13:28] So I appreciate that they're sequential here,
[2:13:32] but I think i, I worry a little bit
[2:13:34] that there's too little time that's maybe allocated
[2:13:37] to really do a thorough job on the management plan
[2:13:40] to yield the kind of cost and capacity.
[2:13:44] It's not just how much it costs, it's
[2:13:46] how do we do we have the capacity to do, it's gonna do it,
[2:13:49] what, what specific agreements we're gonna have.
[2:13:51] So can you reassure me a bit on, on some of those things?
[2:13:54] Yeah, absolutely. And, and I would be
[2:13:57] remiss if I didn't mention if Chris Chambers would've called
[2:13:59] me out if you hadn't brought this question up.
[2:14:00] So thank you. So there are technical documents
[2:14:03] that we are gonna be required to have
[2:14:05] with this land if we choose to take it
[2:14:08] 'cause it's under certain federal grant programs.
[2:14:10] And that'll be a management plan that is highly technical,
[2:14:13] that details much like the forest management plan
[2:14:16] that we have for our watershed,
[2:14:18] exactly the technical maintenance of this piece of property.
[2:14:21] At this point in the process, we are not gonna develop that.
[2:14:24] What we'll be developing is we know the acreage in the areas
[2:14:27] that will require specific types of fire mitigation work.
[2:14:31] We know the specific acreage
[2:14:33] after the concept plan of how many trails
[2:14:35] and miles of trails there will be
[2:14:36] and what our level of maintenance would likely be on those.
[2:14:39] Similar for our watershed, you know,
[2:14:41] there's roughly a third quarter to a third
[2:14:43] of the property is our watershed.
[2:14:45] So, so when I say management plan in this context, it is
[2:14:49] to get us that basic understanding of A,
[2:14:52] what would the cost be and b what is the capacity needs.
[2:14:57] The next phase after that, if we decide to continue
[2:14:59] to move forward, will be starting
[2:15:01] to create those highly technical documents
[2:15:03] that get into those nuanced details.
[2:15:09] This is con sequential. So start with the concept plan.
[2:15:12] Once we know what goes where, there'll then be a subgroup
[2:15:15] of folks that work on that basic management plan
[2:15:18] and then ultimately that technical management plan will be
[2:15:20] taken up by our technical experts to, to craft
[2:15:24] and timeline wise, you know, the hope is
[2:15:28] by this fall to have a clear understanding of
[2:15:30] what we'd wanna do with the property
[2:15:32] and what the cost estimate would be from there.
[2:15:37] We have until September, 2027 currently
[2:15:39] to make the final decision in that process.
[2:15:41] After that, between the end of this year
[2:15:44] and September, 2027 would be those
[2:15:45] technical plan assessments. Does that make sense?
[2:15:49] That's actually some, it's somewhat reas reassuring
[2:15:52] because I think we'll get the kind
[2:15:54] of depth that I was looking for.
[2:15:56] The more technical management is, is much more costly than,
[2:16:00] than this more preliminary planning approach.
[2:16:07] Who would, is there financing for that management plan?
[2:16:10] Is that, what's the cost of doing that, that technical work
[2:16:13] and when does it have to be completed in order
[2:16:15] to satisfy federal regulations to to to to use money?
[2:16:19] Yeah, so when it would have to be, so, you know,
[2:16:23] if we move forward with the acquisition of the property,
[2:16:26] we would accept the federal grant funding.
[2:16:29] That'll be through resolution via the council.
[2:16:31] And then we will have a set time period,
[2:16:33] I believe it's two years for us to then develop
[2:16:35] that technical document.
[2:16:41] Yes, and I apologize, I
[2:16:42] forget the first half of your question,
[2:16:44] But that, but that's two years that would extend past the,
[2:16:47] the, the deadline for actually purchasing it.
[2:16:49] So it sounds like we wouldn't have the technical level
[2:16:52] detail for the management plan by the time we would be,
[2:16:56] you know, we'd need to purchase it.
[2:16:57] Yeah. Or we purchase it Western
[2:16:59] Western Rivers purchasing it. Yeah. Us accepting it.
[2:17:02] Lemme do a quick clarification. I think we'd have a pretty
[2:17:03] good idea before that because since we currently all already
[2:17:07] have a technical plan document for our watershed,
[2:17:09] this would be an extension of that plan.
[2:17:13] You know, the other thing that Western Rivers has offered is
[2:17:16] through this process of concept planning
[2:17:18] and management planning to hire technical experts,
[2:17:20] for example, we will likely have to do a biodiversity study
[2:17:23] of the site to be able to receive conservation based awards.
[2:17:28] So that's the kind of technical work that would be done
[2:17:30] by Western Rivers during this three
[2:17:33] to six month period of planning.
[2:17:36] Councillor Sherell,
[2:17:38] Thank you mayor.
[2:17:39] Two things real quick, Jordan, thank you.
[2:17:40] The, just to get the public
[2:17:42] and myself included,
[2:17:43] caught up on are we in a delayed purchase agreement
[2:17:46] and we already have figured out most of the terms,
[2:17:49] the way I understand it, looking at your timeline.
[2:17:52] Yeah. So Western Rivers Conservancy is in a delayed
[2:17:55] purchase agreement with the private property owner
[2:17:57] and they're currently working with us as the most likely
[2:18:00] steward of that land.
[2:18:02] Okay. And we have, I'm just looking at
[2:18:03] total cost to the citizens.
[2:18:04] So like we have some earnest,
[2:18:06] the the research I did said we had some potentially some
[2:18:08] hard earnest money down that we won't get back.
[2:18:10] And then the, the, the main question is if we decide to go
[2:18:14] with this motion and direct staff to look at
[2:18:17] a conceptual plan, preliminary conceptual plan
[2:18:21] that is just staff cost.
[2:18:23] I'm assuming there's not a dollar amount, it would be you
[2:18:25] and consulting with Western Rivers, I'm assuming
[2:18:28] to, to put together that.
[2:18:29] So we're not, we're not bleeding,
[2:18:31] we're not putting any more money out Correct.
[2:18:34] To get to the next step. Yeah.
[2:18:35] So we have a contract with Western Rivers,
[2:18:38] that is the money that the city has put in
[2:18:40] to consider acquisition of this property.
[2:18:42] It's 25,000 a year for three years for this stage
[2:18:47] of the process, there is no additional money the city would
[2:18:49] put in beyond the staff time of the staff
[2:18:51] who are participating to help develop the concept plan.
[2:18:55] And the basic management plan is
[2:18:57] what I'm gonna rephrase it as.
[2:19:00] And you have the hours available in your schedule to,
[2:19:03] to devote to this really interesting project, I'm assuming.
[2:19:06] Yes. And I would put most likely Chris Chambers as a city
[2:19:10] of representative on this committee
[2:19:12] because he is the one most knowledgeable about
[2:19:15] what we would need to do on that property as well
[2:19:17] as the other stakeholders he has the relationships with.
[2:19:20] I would be there in a support role most strongly. Thank you.
[2:19:24] So I have a, a a couple of questions that,
[2:19:27] and I appreciate the, the questions
[2:19:29] around the management plan, getting
[2:19:31] to the financial reality.
[2:19:32] We've had, you know, months
[2:19:34] and months if not years
[2:19:35] of conversations about the squeeze on the general fund
[2:19:38] and what this means.
[2:19:40] And so to me, and I think
[2:19:43] the council would at some point have deeper discussions
[2:19:46] about this, but the need to make sure that we can pay
[2:19:50] for this property with revenue
[2:19:52] that is generated in some fashion by this property, knowing
[2:19:56] that there are restrictions on the property,
[2:19:58] but also knowing that it is likely
[2:20:00] to draw more people into town.
[2:20:01] There's likely to be a economic benefit, specifically if we
[2:20:06] plan it in a, in the right way.
[2:20:08] Right? So, so when I, when I see this,
[2:20:12] we have the concept plan first
[2:20:13] and then it rolls into a management plan.
[2:20:16] But I, and let me know if I,
[2:20:18] if I've not seeing this correctly,
[2:20:21] but I don't see the time
[2:20:26] when it comes back to council.
[2:20:28] So I see that there's one public meeting to, to, you know,
[2:20:32] look at the concept plan,
[2:20:33] but I don't see it coming back to this council
[2:20:36] for the council to say, yes, that looks right.
[2:20:39] The, the priorities are balanced correctly across the
[2:20:43] various things that could be in this place.
[2:20:45] And so I'm wondering about how do we make sure that it,
[2:20:49] that we're nodding and saying concept plan looks right
[2:20:52] before it, the next management plan piece happens.
[2:20:55] That'll be my first question.
[2:20:57] Yes, absolutely. So in the final part of the report,
[2:21:01] next steps fall 2026 is when for sure the concept plan
[2:21:05] and the basic management plan would come before council.
[2:21:09] We are a month delayed since this agenda item got pushed.
[2:21:11] So I would put that more in the November
[2:21:13] timeframe. Right. But
[2:21:14] I'm suggesting this council should see the concept plan
[2:21:19] and have that discussion
[2:21:20] before the management plan is developed.
[2:21:22] Because it, it says that the concept plan is the
[2:21:24] precursor to the management plan.
[2:21:26] But that's a natural point of checking back in
[2:21:29] with this council, making sure we're in agreement
[2:21:31] that it's in the right direction
[2:21:33] and then going into that deeper dive
[2:21:35] because that management plan will then set the stage
[2:21:38] for future planning efforts.
[2:21:39] And so if it's off course in some fashion,
[2:21:42] that's the correction point.
[2:21:44] I am, yeah. More than happy to do it in that order.
[2:21:46] Okay. I also would support the idea of getting
[2:21:52] somebody, and it, it's likely to be you if you're,
[2:21:54] if you're already planning to serve on it,
[2:21:56] but to have that economic development, recreation,
[2:22:00] not just recreation, but the, the,
[2:22:01] what is the likely economic impact to this?
[2:22:04] Make sure that we are covering that.
[2:22:05] So it sounds like that is happening.
[2:22:08] And then the, the last piece of this is that this is one
[2:22:13] of the steps that we always knew was in this process.
[2:22:16] So we still are not at the place where we're saying, yes,
[2:22:18] we're accepting this, but we're taking the next step
[2:22:21] that we've, we said we would take
[2:22:23] to do our due diligence on this.
[2:22:25] So I'm just confirming that for the folks who are
[2:22:28] watching from home, we're getting messages about people I
[2:22:31] think who might be, have some confusion about
[2:22:32] where we're at in the process.
[2:22:34] So we are still doing due diligence.
[2:22:36] We're still investigating this potential opportunity.
[2:22:39] The council's not on the edge at this point
[2:22:41] of accepting the property,
[2:22:42] nor is it, you know, fully funded yet.
[2:22:44] Correct. Correct. This is part of the due diligence process.
[2:22:47] Okay. Thank you. Is there any further questions
[2:22:50] or, yeah, any further questions of staff?
[2:22:54] Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Councillor Hansen.
[2:22:57] Thank you, mayor. I move to direct staff
[2:22:59] to initiate the process for developing a concept plan
[2:23:02] and management plan for the Madone Ridge property.
[2:23:06] Second Councillor Hansen.
[2:23:09] Yeah, I mean, we've said a lot
[2:23:11] and we're not there in terms of funding
[2:23:15] with Western Rivers,
[2:23:17] and we have a lot of stakeholders in this list
[2:23:20] and a lot of public engagement that needs to happen.
[2:23:23] So I'm, I'm really excited to get the ball rolling.
[2:23:26] And again, you know, this is something
[2:23:29] that I think every Ashland will benefit from in fire
[2:23:32] mitigation and a, a public land and equity standpoint
[2:23:36] and economic development and educational opportunities.
[2:23:38] Just, I think they're so exciting for Ashland.
[2:23:41] It's, it's something I'm, I'm very, very hopeful for.
[2:23:45] So it's with that, that I support this
[2:23:48] Councillor Kaplan.
[2:23:51] Yeah, I think I, I,
[2:23:52] this is just another step in the decision making process
[2:23:55] and to really do, as
[2:23:57] somebody described the due due diligence to figure out,
[2:24:00] you know, what, what exactly we'll be, we'll be able
[2:24:02] to use this property for how,
[2:24:04] and how we'll manage it and what's your all cost.
[2:24:06] So I'm, we need this information
[2:24:08] and I'm, I'm happy to, to, to pro proceed forward with it.
[2:24:13] Councilor Bloom.
[2:24:15] Yeah, abso, I mean, we've been talking about
[2:24:17] that I think since the beginning about how we need
[2:24:19] to have some kind of plan, we need more information.
[2:24:22] For me, this is critical
[2:24:24] and fundamental to deciding how I'm going
[2:24:26] to vote on this property is, is understanding the numbers
[2:24:30] and, and the scale of this.
[2:24:31] And if this is something that, that the city can,
[2:24:34] can actually take on.
[2:24:35] So yeah, very grateful for, for you doing this.
[2:24:38] And you know, the way I see it is that, you know, we've got
[2:24:41] until, you know, December of next year.
[2:24:44] So this is one of the rare times
[2:24:47] where personally I'm not too worried if,
[2:24:49] if you go over a few months to figure this out, like
[2:24:52] to take, take the time you need to, to get it right so
[2:24:55] that we're going off of the right information. So thank you
[2:24:58] Councillor Duque.
[2:25:01] I was looking at this and Councillor Bloom is right.
[2:25:05] We've been here for how many years.
[2:25:07] I think the money that we've invested in this,
[2:25:11] I wish we hadn't have done that.
[2:25:14] I feel like wildfire mitigation,
[2:25:19] that is a nice point.
[2:25:21] However, when we look at wildfires, most fires are started
[2:25:25] by human, by people.
[2:25:27] So we put a lot of people up there. Good luck with that.
[2:25:32] And so, but I just, in, in the bigger picture of things,
[2:25:35] it's a wonderful notion, a nice thought.
[2:25:37] But when I look at the presentation
[2:25:39] that my colleagues presented to us yesterday,
[2:25:43] and when I see the state of our budget, we don't know
[2:25:46] what direction we're going in.
[2:25:48] I know that this isn't gonna cost any money
[2:25:50] to put this together, this concept.
[2:25:52] However, if staff is so thin, which I keep hearing, we are,
[2:25:57] I, I feel our time would be better spent taking care
[2:26:00] of what's in front of us in Ashland in town.
[2:26:04] So I do not support this.
[2:26:06] I have 'em from the start and I can't start now.
[2:26:10] Any further discussion? Roll call please.
[2:26:18] Kaplan? Yes. Duane?
[2:26:23] No. Hanson? Yes. Rell?
[2:26:28] Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom? Yep. Motion pass.
[2:26:32] Great, thank you. We are now to new business.
[2:26:34] We have the property surplus,
[2:26:38] or excuse me, we're finishing up unfinished business.
[2:26:40] We have the proposed ordinance for utility bill fees.
[2:26:44] So you have your council communication here,
[2:26:47] and what this is, is a request for the council
[2:26:51] to consider developing an ordinance that would thank you,
[2:26:58] that would,
[2:27:02] That would outline the process
[2:27:04] by which this council would go
[2:27:06] through public engagement efforts prior
[2:27:09] to two particular instances.
[2:27:10] One is the creation of a new fee on utility bills.
[2:27:14] The other is any sort of increase that would go out
[2:27:17] beyond the, the inflationary increases
[2:27:20] that are already structured into those fees.
[2:27:23] So in either of those cases, if the council were looking to
[2:27:28] make a bigger change or make a new fee, they would have
[2:27:30] to go through this process by ordinance.
[2:27:34] And so what this is, it's not an ordinance yet,
[2:27:36] even though it says that that's what it is, it's a,
[2:27:38] it's a conversation that says,
[2:27:40] is this council interested in putting in directing staff
[2:27:44] to go forward and to start
[2:27:46] to put this into an ordinance forum?
[2:27:48] And if so, are there any elements of this
[2:27:50] that we think should be changed?
[2:27:52] And you'll notice that there are a couple of things
[2:27:54] that are specifically designed into this process.
[2:27:58] One is to make sure that it, it is a,
[2:28:00] it is at least a couple of months long process so
[2:28:03] that the community has plenty of time to understand it.
[2:28:05] There are multiple, there structured requirements
[2:28:09] for public engagement.
[2:28:11] There are time limits.
[2:28:13] So you, there are requirements for a certain amount of time
[2:28:16] to elapse between certain points of this so
[2:28:19] that the community can have adequate time to respond.
[2:28:22] And, and then,
[2:28:24] and then the, the i I guess the, the, the final element
[2:28:29] of it is really building in that space so
[2:28:33] that the council can get the full
[2:28:37] response back from the community in terms
[2:28:39] of whether the community supports that move or does not.
[2:28:43] This came up in a conversation we had towards the end
[2:28:46] of last year when I mentioned that I, I thought we needed a
[2:28:50] more clear structure so that there couldn't be
[2:28:55] rushed processes for this.
[2:28:58] No matter what is spurring this on, it's going
[2:29:01] to take several months in order to put it into place.
[2:29:04] And so the community wouldn't ever have
[2:29:05] to worry about something coming onto the agenda
[2:29:09] and moving forward really quickly
[2:29:10] before they understood what was happening.
[2:29:13] So that's what it is. You have your, the, the
[2:29:17] council communication in front of you.
[2:29:19] So I'm not going to necessarily go
[2:29:20] through the whole process, but that's what this, this is,
[2:29:23] and we're very stacked up in our study sessions,
[2:29:27] so we went ahead and put it on the agenda
[2:29:29] last for the last meeting.
[2:29:30] So it's coming up as the last item
[2:29:32] of old business this time.
[2:29:34] So questions Councillor Dale.
[2:29:39] Thank you Mayor. Just a really quick question.
[2:29:41] I just wanna make sure that, that when it says,
[2:29:44] and I, I appreciate you saying it's gonna be a conversation,
[2:29:46] but the last sentence in the summary there,
[2:29:48] it says throughout this document, fee increases means
[2:29:51] fee increases larger than the inflation index.
[2:29:53] And I just wanna, I I would, I would say that
[2:29:56] I would feel comfortable if it was just, if
[2:29:58] that was all inclusive in that,
[2:29:59] because we do have these things where sometimes
[2:30:02] the inflation index just isn't do it.
[2:30:04] Sometimes it's too much.
[2:30:05] And so I just want to have that conver that
[2:30:06] that this conversation, if this is passed includes that
[2:30:10] and we just don't pass over the inflation index is kind
[2:30:13] of a given because I think
[2:30:14] that's a very important calculation
[2:30:16] that's used in the overall thing.
[2:30:17] It would be a comprehensive discussion that would include
[2:30:19] that would, would you be acceptable with that?
[2:30:22] Yeah. And and
[2:30:23] and what I was looking at with that is that with some
[2:30:26] of our fees we have now set them to ru to
[2:30:30] to go up incrementally based on indexing.
[2:30:33] Right? But, and so the point of this is
[2:30:37] that if the council wants a fee increase that's more than
[2:30:40] what the policy is allowing the increase
[2:30:42] to be year over year, that
[2:30:44] that would necessitate this policy in the same way
[2:30:47] that building a new fee would also
[2:30:49] Ah, I see. That makes sense. Okay. So
[2:30:51] If we, if we think about what we, what just happened
[2:30:52] with the wildfire fee where we went, we,
[2:30:56] we increased it significantly.
[2:30:58] We hadn't increased it for a long time,
[2:31:00] but then we, we did a much more significant jump
[2:31:03] that would require the same structure
[2:31:04] and process as if we opened up a brand new fee.
[2:31:09] Any other questions? Councillor Kaplan?
[2:31:12] Yeah, so I'm just, I don't know, putting myself back,
[2:31:17] was it just last year, two years ago?
[2:31:19] Last year when we were last spring when we were in the,
[2:31:21] in the receiving the budget, we were in the budget committee
[2:31:25] and all of a sudden we were presented with the, the need
[2:31:29] to raise some revenue in order to, in order not to slash
[2:31:35] cost very extensively, including in our wildfire
[2:31:40] staff because we lost purchasing power.
[2:31:43] But if we were, if we were to be in that situation again,
[2:31:47] then we, we would be in a multi-month process of
[2:31:53] deciding that we need to increase, for example, our,
[2:31:55] our wildfire fee in order to maintain our wildfire staff,
[2:32:01] a our Aston Forest resilience staff, et cetera.
[2:32:05] But I'm, I, I I think am am I right
[2:32:08] that your intention here is
[2:32:10] that we'd be much more deliberate
[2:32:11] and bring those things much earlier
[2:32:13] so we wouldn't be facing kind
[2:32:15] of a last minute emergency kind of request?
[2:32:21] Yes, exactly. I think alongside this requirement is also
[2:32:24] the other work that we've been doing to, to do a more robust
[2:32:29] and continual forecasting process with our finances.
[2:32:33] So those two things together, making sure
[2:32:36] that we take the time when we are presented
[2:32:38] with potentially needing to do something with these fees
[2:32:42] alongside our responsibility to make sure
[2:32:44] that we're not doing, you know, coming to this as a rushed
[2:32:48] kind of surprise to the council or to the community.
[2:32:51] So I think both of those things have to exist.
[2:32:54] And by putting this into ordinance, it basically says
[2:32:59] we can't actually do a
[2:33:04] hurried, rushed process, therefore we must bring it earlier.
[2:33:08] So, so the question now to the city manager
[2:33:11] and in the budget preparation process, 'cause
[2:33:13] 'cause last time it was a, it was a rush.
[2:33:15] We were faced with a situation with our ambulance service
[2:33:18] that we were losing or still losing a lot
[2:33:19] of money in our ambulance service.
[2:33:21] But the substantial, we were faced with a substantial
[2:33:24] presented with a substantial in increase
[2:33:27] to our public s public safety fee in order to try to
[2:33:32] cut that gap a little bit.
[2:33:34] Do you have the ca the ability,
[2:33:36] or will you have the ability in this next biennium
[2:33:39] to really be able to put that forecasting together earlier
[2:33:42] so that we're, we've got those months if that's the choice
[2:33:46] that we can consider either increase, fee increase
[2:33:51] or cutting the service.
[2:33:54] I mean we, we didn't have to in cover the service.
[2:33:57] We could have cut our number of ambulance drivers
[2:34:02] personnel do, will you be in a position to be able
[2:34:06] to give us those kinds of trade offs
[2:34:07] so we can make a considered judgment?
[2:34:09] So we're, you know, we're forecasting more
[2:34:13] and more so we're ahead of where we were last time.
[2:34:17] So I think we have the processes
[2:34:18] and know-how in place to be able
[2:34:20] to present those items sooner.
[2:34:24] I think, you know, we have some unanswered questions still
[2:34:27] around the parks fee, around the ambulance service.
[2:34:30] And so, you know, until we have kind
[2:34:34] of the decisions
[2:34:35] and which trigger kind of the financials to put into place,
[2:34:39] it's hard to get an overall picture.
[2:34:41] So I think what will be important is kind of
[2:34:45] systematically making sure our agendas are moving at a pace
[2:34:48] and we're getting the policy decisions that we need
[2:34:50] to be able to forecast those things.
[2:34:52] And, and I appreciate the, the inflation adjustment
[2:34:54] that you added the last time
[2:34:56] because we had seen the deterioration in the purchasing
[2:34:59] power of those fees and that we weren't able to,
[2:35:01] to cover the things that they were able to cover previously.
[2:35:04] 'cause we hadn't raised them in seven years, eight years.
[2:35:09] Councillor Hansen.
[2:35:13] Yeah. Thank you. I certainly appreciate the transparency
[2:35:19] and experiencing the
[2:35:22] rush of those fees.
[2:35:25] It was, it was surprising and it had fallout
[2:35:29] and it had unintended consequences
[2:35:33] and the bottom line was, you know,
[2:35:36] it was either services or revenue.
[2:35:39] So my question is, at
[2:35:41] what point are you thinking there's a delineation
[2:35:44] between fees and other revenue sources?
[2:35:47] There's, you know, other opportunities
[2:35:49] that other municipalities have levered
[2:35:53] that I'm just curious, you know, relative
[2:35:56] to lots of different things.
[2:35:59] What kind of input are we going to be, you know, seeking?
[2:36:02] What kind of freedom will this, you know, council have,
[2:36:06] you know, like let's say, you know, we parks wants
[2:36:09] to instigate fee parking.
[2:36:12] What if we wanna have trailhead fee parking, you know,
[2:36:17] I mean the list goes on and on and on
[2:36:19] and I'm, I'm not sure if I quite understand
[2:36:22] where the delineator is between
[2:36:24] know different revenue sources
[2:36:26] and how they in in fact impact the people.
[2:36:28] And in a representative government,
[2:36:30] I'm not quite sure exactly what you're getting at with,
[2:36:34] you know, what is, you know,
[2:36:37] what we're trusting our electeds with and
[2:36:39] and what we're, what we wanna have
[2:36:40] community in involvement on.
[2:36:43] Yeah, it's a great question.
[2:36:45] So when we put a standard fee on our utility bill,
[2:36:50] everyone has to pay for it no matter what they're doing.
[2:36:52] So if we put a parking fee on something at a trailhead,
[2:36:55] that's going to impact the people who are using
[2:36:57] that particular service and they can choose
[2:36:59] whether or not they use that service.
[2:37:00] When we, when we add a utility fee, everyone has
[2:37:04] to pay it regardless of, you know,
[2:37:06] what their circumstances are
[2:37:08] or how they interact with it,
[2:37:10] whatever it is that this is paying for.
[2:37:12] And so this would be restricted specifically to
[2:37:16] new fees on the utility bills
[2:37:19] or fees that are increasing beyond the policy cap
[2:37:22] that is already built into those fees.
[2:37:24] So it's only for those two circumstances.
[2:37:26] Would you set this process in motion?
[2:37:29] The way we sit right now, it would be a terrible idea
[2:37:32] to do something like this,
[2:37:34] but the council could get a packet
[2:37:36] with a proposed fee increase on Thursday
[2:37:39] and vote it in on Tuesday.
[2:37:41] And what this is doing is saying you don't get to do that.
[2:37:46] You have to plan better, you have
[2:37:47] to have a deep conversation with this community.
[2:37:50] And it's got a lot of specifics
[2:37:52] and certainly open to any thoughts about whether you know
[2:37:55] these, there are entities in here, the spec,
[2:37:58] the specifics need to be changed,
[2:37:59] but it requires public hearings,
[2:38:01] it requires an online survey.
[2:38:03] It requires that we advertise it differently than we just
[2:38:06] advertise regular meetings.
[2:38:08] There are time limits.
[2:38:09] The survey has to be open for four weeks.
[2:38:11] You can't, between the, the hearing and, and
[2:38:14] and putting it forward for vote,
[2:38:16] there has to be at least two weeks.
[2:38:17] So there's a, there's a structure that gets put in place so
[2:38:22] that the community has plenty of time to communicate
[2:38:25] with their counselors who still at the end
[2:38:26] of the day will be the ones who make the decision.
[2:38:29] Right. But, but it requires
[2:38:32] that we have a better conversation with the community
[2:38:35] before we in insti
[2:38:37] before we put those types of fees in place. Follow
[2:38:40] Up mayor.
[2:38:41] Yes. Do you have any idea how much staff time
[2:38:43] and expense that's gonna cost?
[2:38:46] I do not, but I, you know, we have pub,
[2:38:49] we have public meetings anyway
[2:38:50] and we have communication staff
[2:38:52] and everything that's in here would
[2:38:54] be done by those two things.
[2:38:55] But Sabrina could tell us if we, if you think that there's,
[2:38:58] that's an onerous, I mean, to what extent do you think that
[2:39:01] that's a, a difficult expense for us to
[2:39:04] integrate into our business world?
[2:39:08] I think we can do it. I think, you know, the idea
[2:39:11] of a survey, we'd probably wanna think about that.
[2:39:15] But in terms of online materials holding a, a meeting,
[2:39:20] you know, study sessions,
[2:39:22] regular meetings or public meetings.
[2:39:24] I know we've been cutting meetings due to, due to,
[2:39:26] you know, budgetary constraints.
[2:39:28] So I'm wondering what the dollar figure is.
[2:39:32] I don't have a dollar figure And it should only,
[2:39:34] it shouldn't happen often.
[2:39:36] This process is not something that should happen
[2:39:39] very often at all.
[2:39:40] Right. So that's, that's the, that's the idea behind it.
[2:39:44] We do have two people who have signed up to speak to.
[2:39:46] Does anybody else have any questions? Councillor Sherell?
[2:39:49] Just one quick question.
[2:39:50] Thanks Mayor, for bringing this forward
[2:39:52] and I I think we're all starting to get fee fatigue.
[2:39:55] Just a kind of a direct question that's semi-related
[2:39:58] to another item on the agenda tonight is the timing of this.
[2:40:02] Does it have anything to do with, like,
[2:40:03] we're just hearing from the citizens,
[2:40:05] like we're moving too fast at raising fees
[2:40:07] or in the future we wanna do better.
[2:40:10] Can you talk about maybe the timing
[2:40:11] and how it could potentially overlap or piggyback
[2:40:15] or collaborate with another citizen driven initiative
[2:40:17] that's has similar, I mean, one of them,
[2:40:20] we lose a little bit of power, one of them,
[2:40:21] we lose a little bit of speed in both cases.
[2:40:24] We can potentially act when we need to.
[2:40:27] Can you just kind of speak to like the hard details of that?
[2:40:29] Sure. So I first announced that I wanted to the council
[2:40:34] to take up something like this last November.
[2:40:36] And I think I sent my first draft over
[2:40:38] to Councilor Dale in like March of this year.
[2:40:41] So, but it hasn't been a, an issue of real timeliness
[2:40:46] because we've had other things on our agenda.
[2:40:48] So it got bumped from the last, the last meeting.
[2:40:52] But they're not, they're, we shouldn't think of these
[2:40:56] as pick one or the other.
[2:40:58] Even if the other one goes to the ballot in November,
[2:41:01] if we put this ordinance in place ahead of that
[2:41:04] and it passed, then it would just make the ordinance moot
[2:41:07] and we would just take it off.
[2:41:09] If it went to the ballot
[2:41:10] and didn't pass, then we would have this structure in place
[2:41:13] that the council would still have
[2:41:14] to have a robust public engagement process.
[2:41:16] So I don't, I, they may very well be trying
[2:41:19] to address the same thing in different ways,
[2:41:20] but I don't see them as necessarily mutually exclusive.
[2:41:24] Does that help? Yeah,
[2:41:25] Totally.
[2:41:26] Thank you so much for the clarification. Okay.
[2:41:29] Okay. So we're going to call up the two folks
[2:41:30] who have signed up to speak with us this evening.
[2:41:32] We have Paul Mina and George Kramer.
[2:41:43] Mayor, how much time would you like to give
[2:41:45] Them?
[2:41:46] Three minutes. Okay.
[2:41:49] Thank you for this opportunity.
[2:41:50] My name is Paulina, I live in Ashland
[2:41:52] and I was, I was just really surprised
[2:41:54] by Councilor Kaplan's comment that and,
[2:41:57] and Councilor Hansen
[2:41:59] that the ambulance services losing money when,
[2:42:01] when you all were, were reviewing the public safety fee
[2:42:05] increase back in May of LA of 2025.
[2:42:08] He had a study session with Chief sar, his last meeting
[2:42:10] before you, and it was a celebration.
[2:42:13] I mean the, the data he presented
[2:42:15] and I included in my public comments showed a,
[2:42:17] an even accounting for a $1.5 million
[2:42:21] fully loaded eight staff, an estimate of 1.1 million
[2:42:26] above that net position for 2024
[2:42:29] and 1.3 million net position for 2025.
[2:42:33] That that was on May on March 3rd.
[2:42:35] On, on March 31st, the city administrator came forward
[2:42:38] to y'all and said, oh, the,
[2:42:40] the EMS service isn't covering its costs.
[2:42:43] We we're not, we're not making enough money.
[2:42:46] And so I, you know, I mean when you, when you gonna have,
[2:42:49] and I, and I made many comments asking for that information.
[2:42:52] I filed FOIA requests how, what was in that position
[2:42:55] of the EMS when it was embedded in the fire department
[2:42:58] with dual role fire personnel.
[2:43:00] And then what was the deposition that Mion Barry
[2:43:05] and Chief SAR presented on March 3rd,
[2:43:08] which showed a tremendous success for that program.
[2:43:12] I asked for that. The city administrator made the point
[2:43:16] that this program wasn't covering its costs
[2:43:19] and it was certainly covering its costs and,
[2:43:21] and making money handled fist.
[2:43:24] One of the things that's missing here is what in your,
[2:43:26] in your plan is a requirement
[2:43:30] to respond to public comments.
[2:43:32] A serious public comments.
[2:43:33] I I got no response even to a foyer request.
[2:43:36] And then there there's a requirement you need to follow up
[2:43:40] Colin, you guys are saying that the,
[2:43:41] the ambulance service is losing money.
[2:43:43] I beg to differ and you should put the
[2:43:45] data on the table here.
[2:43:46] Chief Fraser hasn't made a a appearance
[2:43:49] in, in front of this council.
[2:43:50] And except for five minutes at that budget meeting,
[2:43:53] he should be in front of this council.
[2:43:54] He should be reviewing the status of the MS program.
[2:43:57] When you, when you increase the fee, you have
[2:43:59] to pay attention to the premise for that fee increase
[2:44:02] and see if it's still justified.
[2:44:04] And another thing that's really important is accurate,
[2:44:07] honest presentation of information.
[2:44:09] When this, when this public safety fee was presented,
[2:44:12] it said that the current program was a pilot program
[2:44:14] and the money was to, to make it a regular program.
[2:44:17] This is in March and May of 2025.
[2:44:20] There had been eight full-time EMS people for all
[2:44:24] of 2024 or the, the four more were hired in 2024.
[2:44:28] So this program was well established way
[2:44:30] beyond the pilot program.
[2:44:32] And the last thing is the fiscal impact was said that the
[2:44:37] time to make this last point that, oh all the, oh the money,
[2:44:41] all the revenue from public safety fee was gonna be
[2:44:43] dedicated to the EMS program.
[2:44:45] Well it wasn't dedicated at all
[2:44:47] because it was less than 1% of the,
[2:44:48] of the general of the fund.
[2:44:50] The money went right into the general fund.
[2:44:53] So it was not an honest presentation.
[2:44:55] Thank you George Kramer.
[2:45:04] Good evening. In general, I am in supportive
[2:45:08] of public discussion and a fulsome detailed process
[2:45:14] before this council adopts new fees or increases fees.
[2:45:19] I think that's a good thing to do.
[2:45:21] I think if you had had something like
[2:45:22] that in place a year ago,
[2:45:24] I wouldn't be on your agenda later tonight.
[2:45:28] However, I am on your agenda later tonight
[2:45:32] and hopefully the people of Ashlyn will get a chance
[2:45:36] to weigh in on the other matter as you talked about it,
[2:45:39] Councillor Cheryl and I think
[2:45:42] that this ordinance right now
[2:45:44] or this process right now is ill-timed, let's wait
[2:45:49] and see if the people want
[2:45:53] to adopt a charter amendment.
[2:45:55] We should work together
[2:45:57] and create exactly the kind
[2:45:59] of ordinance I can quibble about some of the, the survey
[2:46:03] and how the public process works.
[2:46:05] Those are details. But I do think
[2:46:09] that the council having some sort of standard
[2:46:13] before it adopts a new fee
[2:46:14] and avoids these rush
[2:46:16] to decisions in the budget process is a good idea.
[2:46:20] I just don't think you should be wasting time
[2:46:22] and staff time doing it
[2:46:24] before the election in November. Thank you.
[2:46:28] Thank you. Alright, so we,
[2:46:33] if there are no additional questions then
[2:46:36] what we are looking for is if there is
[2:46:39] interest in directing staff to form to move this forward
[2:46:43] to an ordinance process.
[2:46:45] Are there, yeah, so we can just go around
[2:46:49] and each counselor can let us know
[2:46:51] and then we'll take the, the decision of the body.
[2:46:56] Councillor Rell.
[2:46:57] Yeah. Yeah. More process when we're going
[2:47:00] to put another burden on our citizens is, has
[2:47:04] to be a positive thing.
[2:47:06] Councillor Dale? Yes,
[2:47:07] I'm interested in the conversation.
[2:47:08] Councillor Bloom. Yeah, of course.
[2:47:10] Councillor Kaplan. Yeah,
[2:47:12] Me too.
[2:47:13] Councillor Duque. Sure.
[2:47:18] Councillor Hansen. Yes. Okay.
[2:47:20] So do you need anything else in terms
[2:47:22] of moving this forward?
[2:47:26] No, we will work to draft an ordinance and bring it back.
[2:47:28] Okay, great. Thank you Councillor Blum,
[2:47:31] Just so that we're, we're very clear
[2:47:33] and specific with the direction
[2:47:34] that it include the elements that are presented here.
[2:47:37] The suggestions not, I don't want something to get left out.
[2:47:41] The suggestions, The suggestions that you
[2:47:43] provided in terms of the process.
[2:47:45] I just wanted to be very clear in terms of the wording that
[2:47:48] that's the direction that I'm assuming
[2:47:49] that's the direction we're giving.
[2:47:51] Yes. In accordance with the the council packet, correct?
[2:47:54] Yes. Clarification.
[2:47:56] Can this come back? I mean I appreciate
[2:47:57] that we're doing this tonight,
[2:47:59] but I really wish it had been in a study session.
[2:48:03] Can we visit this in a study session
[2:48:05] before it comes back in a full blown ordinance?
[2:48:08] That's what we're doing tonight is is talking
[2:48:11] through the concept and then
[2:48:14] I hear that, but I'm curious.
[2:48:16] So our study sessions have been much more stacked recently
[2:48:19] than our business meetings have been.
[2:48:21] And so we have, there have been a couple of things
[2:48:23] that we've moved into the business meeting because
[2:48:25] otherwise we don't have time
[2:48:26] for them and that's what this is.
[2:48:28] So if there is a structural element of this
[2:48:30] that you would like to have done differently,
[2:48:32] then now would be the time.
[2:48:33] Or we can do it on first reading
[2:48:36] because there's still time to ad adapt the elements
[2:48:39] of it at first reading.
[2:48:41] True. But I mean, I mean,
[2:48:44] I mean here we are till nine 30 tonight or whatever.
[2:48:46] Study sessions are much, I think more loose.
[2:48:49] So my impression is that we have more time
[2:48:51] during study sessions, so that's why I asked that we could
[2:48:53] have it in a study session.
[2:48:55] We could talk about it and learn more,
[2:48:56] but I'll, I'll defer to the group,
[2:48:58] but it seems as though we'd actually have
[2:49:00] more time that way.
[2:49:01] But whatever.
[2:49:04] Go ahead Sabrina. We don't have an open study
[2:49:07] session until November now.
[2:49:08] Yeah, yeah.
[2:49:10] That's, we're trying to manage around that timing issue,
[2:49:14] but I appreciate the, the concern counselor.
[2:49:17] Alright, so we are now to do business.
[2:49:19] We've got the property surplus, a portion
[2:49:21] of the Briscoe school property.
[2:49:23] Sabrina if May I, councilor King
[2:49:26] Mayor.
[2:49:27] I am looking at the time and I, we are a new business
[2:49:30] and I was hoping we could put the citizens' petition ballot
[2:49:34] measure first
[2:49:36] Only take a minute.
[2:49:37] So we have a timeliness issue. Is there,
[2:49:40] So this will only take A couple minutes.
[2:49:42] I think it, yeah, it seems like it's a pretty quick item.
[2:49:45] Que question. We say that and sometimes it is long.
[2:49:49] I I would, I would also appreciate
[2:49:51] because though I get, we have August 4th,
[2:49:52] it's pretty clear here Yeah.
[2:49:54] That we have to approve a resolution by August 4th. Exactly.
[2:49:57] So if we don't give direction on what
[2:49:58] that resolution looks like and will be,
[2:50:00] we can have a conversation August 4th.
[2:50:01] There is no resolution and
[2:50:03] therefore whatever decision we make is
[2:50:05] going to be impacted by that.
[2:50:06] This is time. It,
[2:50:09] It's very only.
[2:50:10] So I, I will go ahead and switch the order.
[2:50:12] So we'll take up the citizen's petition ballot measure
[2:50:15] discussion, and then we'll move back to
[2:50:18] the Brisco school property.
[2:50:20] So this has been brought forward by two counselors
[2:50:24] and so I just want to open that up for them to,
[2:50:28] to bring it forward.
[2:50:29] So I, I believe it's Councilor Duquesne and Councilor Rell.
[2:50:32] Is that right or no? Councilor Bloom. So Councilor Duane,
[2:50:37] Honestly for the sake of time,
[2:50:39] I believe we all know what this is about.
[2:50:42] We have 1500 residents of Ashland, more than 1500 residents
[2:50:47] of Ashland who would like to see this on the ballot.
[2:50:51] It came in front of us.
[2:50:53] The chief petitioner was told to go out and get signatures.
[2:50:56] That happened. There was a hiccup and now we're back again.
[2:51:00] So I would like to vote on this tonight
[2:51:03] and hopefully it will move forward by this body.
[2:51:05] Thank you.
[2:51:08] Yes. Council bloom. Yeah,
[2:51:09] and I, I would just add that this is similar for me is that,
[2:51:13] you know, we said, you know, democracy go out,
[2:51:17] do the process and
[2:51:18] and the process was done, signatures were collected.
[2:51:20] The, the needed signatures were collected.
[2:51:22] We're looking at, obviously there's some technicalities here
[2:51:26] and I've been very open in the past that I,
[2:51:29] this is not a ballot measure that I would be voting for,
[2:51:31] I would support, but I do believe
[2:51:33] that we have a responsibility to say, you know
[2:51:35] what the democratic process was carried out.
[2:51:37] Some, some mistakes were made in terms of of of
[2:51:41] how the filing and everything was done and all those rules.
[2:51:44] And I think the appropriate thing for us to do is
[2:51:46] to say we're not trying to, you know,
[2:51:48] tip the scales in terms of of, of how this process works.
[2:51:51] So put on the ballot
[2:51:53] and those of us that are opposed to it, we need
[2:51:55] to do a good enough job, you know, explaining
[2:51:57] to the citizens that this is not something that should pass.
[2:52:05] Councilor Kaplan?
[2:52:06] Yeah, I have some questions. Yes. Yep.
[2:52:10] Yeah, I appreciate this and I appreciate that.
[2:52:12] There, there was some errors in
[2:52:16] collecting the signatures.
[2:52:18] It's in the packet that
[2:52:20] what there is actually were not so small.
[2:52:22] There are quite a few of them,
[2:52:24] but there's also in the packet a notion that the,
[2:52:27] the 1500 number was inaccurate.
[2:52:32] Can I ask Alyssa, because I think you said that you,
[2:52:35] it says the actual account is thir 1,316 signatures
[2:52:40] slightly more than the 1,308 signatures
[2:52:43] that are required under the democratic
[2:52:45] process to put this on the ballot.
[2:52:48] Sure. So to clarify, when Mr.
[2:52:51] Kamer dropped off the signature sheets, I counted
[2:52:56] sheets, not actual number of signatures
[2:53:00] and went off of the count he submitted, which
[2:53:04] was 1537.
[2:53:07] So the analysis,
[2:53:09] the original analysis I did was based off of that number.
[2:53:12] So I took 1537,
[2:53:15] there were 194 electronic signature sheets.
[2:53:19] And that's how I sort of did mathed out the rest.
[2:53:22] When this came to council on the agenda, myself
[2:53:28] and a colleague counted the actual number of signatures
[2:53:32] and that's when we discovered that the actual number
[2:53:36] of signatures collected was 1316,
[2:53:40] not 1537.
[2:53:42] Which is eight signatures more than required under
[2:53:46] the democratic process
[2:53:48] for measure ballot measure. Correct? Correct.
[2:53:50] 1,308 are required.
[2:53:52] So because this,
[2:53:54] because the, the,
[2:53:56] the signatures were not collected properly.
[2:54:00] I mean that's one thing,
[2:54:01] but the implication of that is that the county clerk
[2:54:04] didn't then validate the signatures.
[2:54:08] I've talked with, I just collected some signatures
[2:54:11] for reelection.
[2:54:12] I've talked with other candidates who collected signatures
[2:54:15] for reelection and had to go back out and,
[2:54:17] and get more signatures
[2:54:18] because a third of their signatures were invalidated
[2:54:21] by the county clerk because they were not registered voters.
[2:54:25] People signed, but they weren't, they didn't, it hadn't,
[2:54:28] didn't happen to be a registered voter.
[2:54:30] So their, their signature was not valid for the purpose
[2:54:33] of putting the candidate onto on the, on the ballot.
[2:54:37] Do you have information about what's the typical
[2:54:40] rejection rate of the, of, of signatures?
[2:54:44] Not well and it's not just the signature,
[2:54:46] it's also they can't be duplicates, they can't have
[2:54:48] to be registered, they can't be duplicates.
[2:54:50] Right. So that question, so I did talk
[2:54:55] with the county elections office.
[2:54:57] They are not able to verify any amount of signatures due to
[2:55:02] the legal compliance issue.
[2:55:04] But I got curious about the same thing.
[2:55:07] So I went back and I looked at the water bond petition
[2:55:11] that we had a few years ago
[2:55:13] and the county did verify those signatures
[2:55:15] and the rejection rate was 13%.
[2:55:18] So if you apply 13% to the amount
[2:55:23] the petitioner submitted,
[2:55:27] that only leaves
[2:55:30] 1,145 valid signatures.
[2:55:35] In addition, 'cause I like numbers too, with all
[2:55:40] of the candidates turning in signature sheets
[2:55:42] for verification, I did a quick average
[2:55:46] and it's 15% of signatures that were verified
[2:55:50] by candidates in the,
[2:55:52] in this election that are being rejected.
[2:55:55] So there's, so there's some reason to think that
[2:55:58] that 15% rejection rate
[2:56:00] or even 10% rejection rate is, is,
[2:56:04] would be applicable in this case as well.
[2:56:05] So less than the actual number of signatures required.
[2:56:08] Correct. So I've I I've, I've got another question
[2:56:12] 'cause it's also in the packet, it's actually for,
[2:56:16] for our city attorney.
[2:56:19] You have in there some concerns about the actual language.
[2:56:21] When George, when you presented this back in November,
[2:56:25] I said that I wasn't supporting putting this on the ballot
[2:56:27] at that point without going to,
[2:56:30] well I said I wasn't supportive of putting
[2:56:31] that ballot ballot at that point.
[2:56:33] 'cause I, I didn't like the wording,
[2:56:35] I thought the wording would actually
[2:56:38] keep us from the inflation adjustment,
[2:56:39] which I talked about earlier this evening.
[2:56:42] We hadn't raised our fees
[2:56:46] for seven, eight years, so they lost purchasing power
[2:56:50] and I thought that this would then you,
[2:56:52] the way you had worded this would require us to go back
[2:56:55] and get a voter approval every time we want to adjust
[2:56:58] for inflation, one of the, one of these fees.
[2:57:01] And we just wouldn't do that.
[2:57:03] But can, so my question
[2:57:05] for the city attorney is you expressed the same thing in the
[2:57:08] packet and you added an additional concern
[2:57:12] about franchise fees. Could you explain that?
[2:57:17] Yeah, and I haven't done a deep dive into it.
[2:57:19] It actually just occurred to me
[2:57:20] after we went through the stuff with the Vista.
[2:57:24] I think realistically it's more of a, a practical
[2:57:28] and financial question, but a franchise fee not being rated.
[2:57:32] So the, the bill language itself refers to utility bill.
[2:57:35] So I believe that would include non
[2:57:38] municipally owned utilities to include a vista.
[2:57:41] So in my reading of that,
[2:57:43] then I started thinking about a franchise fee is not
[2:57:45] necessarily related to operations.
[2:57:47] So if we, if council wanted to then raise a franchise fee,
[2:57:52] they would have to take that to a voters.
[2:57:55] And then I started thinking more about that
[2:57:57] and started thinking if there was an OAR
[2:58:01] that required a certain level set
[2:58:03] for a franchise fee like natural gas
[2:58:07] and we took it to the voters
[2:58:08] and they did not agree with it,
[2:58:09] then we wouldn't be in compliance with that.
[2:58:13] And then again, these are just kind
[2:58:14] of hypotheticals I started thinking about
[2:58:15] 'cause this is not a, You know,
[2:58:19] not brought forth by by council.
[2:58:20] I haven't done a deep dive into it yet.
[2:58:22] But then also looking at some of the other schemes
[2:58:25] that exist with public utility commissions
[2:58:28] and service territories and whether
[2:58:30] or not we would have then a potential issue if
[2:58:35] essentially there was a territorial agreement
[2:58:38] and we couldn't comply with it based on not being able
[2:58:41] to get our voters to go along with those fees.
[2:58:44] So again, these just occurred to me
[2:58:47] after the Vista conversation.
[2:58:51] So I had some concerns if it were gonna be, you know,
[2:58:54] the council putting forward the,
[2:58:55] a task endorsement basically of putting it on the ballot.
[2:58:59] I thought they should at least be addressed on the surface.
[2:59:02] I think that the language of, you know,
[2:59:05] just quote utility bill extends
[2:59:08] beyond just the city's utility
[2:59:11] Councilor Duque.
[2:59:13] So Mayor, for the sake of time, can we extend the time
[2:59:18] We have until nine 20?
[2:59:20] So we still have a good period of time and at that PO
[2:59:22] or until nine 30
[2:59:24] and at that point we have
[2:59:25] to have a motion on the floor
[2:59:26] in order to get 10 more minutes.
[2:59:27] But we still have a considerable amount of time.
[2:59:30] Counselor Hansen,
[2:59:32] Please, I can appreciate gathering signatures
[2:59:37] for this seat and certainly had some hiccups
[2:59:42] and I can also appreciate the efforts of citizens going
[2:59:45] after something like this.
[2:59:47] So I, again, I appreciate that.
[2:59:50] But Johanna,
[2:59:51] I was hoping you could read the
[2:59:53] proposed language for us please.
[3:00:17] Let's see. Just, I'll read the summary.
[3:00:20] I against vote Amends absent city Charter,
[3:00:22] charter Article nine Special powers of Council as follows,
[3:00:26] section eight Fees and taxes.
[3:00:28] The city council by majority vote, may propose new fees,
[3:00:31] taxes, or increase existing fees
[3:00:33] or taxes on a utility bill unrelated to the operation
[3:00:37] of those, the utilities, oh, I'm sorry.
[3:00:40] I'm sorry guys. So charter amendment as follows,
[3:00:45] section eight, fees and taxes.
[3:00:47] The city council by majority vote, may propose new fees,
[3:00:50] taxes, or increase existing fees
[3:00:51] or taxes on a utility bill unrelated
[3:00:54] to the operation of the utilities.
[3:00:56] Notwithstanding any other provision, no such fee, tax
[3:00:59] or increase will be assessed, imposed
[3:01:01] or collected until at least 30 days following a positive
[3:01:04] vote to affirm by Ashland voters at the next
[3:01:07] regularly scheduled election.
[3:01:10] Thank you.
[3:01:13] Okay. Councillor Blum?
[3:01:15] Yeah, thank you. No, I think all, all, all good points
[3:01:18] and, and I would like to point out that, you know, we
[3:01:23] control this now at this point
[3:01:25] and we can change the language.
[3:01:27] It's, it's not a we have to go
[3:01:29] with the proposed language or, or nothing.
[3:01:31] We can certainly add in, you know,
[3:01:33] to protections first for inflation.
[3:01:35] We can exclude franchise fees
[3:01:38] and, you know, exclude any, you know, pro proposed fees
[3:01:41] outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Ashland.
[3:01:42] So we can put protections in place in the event
[3:01:46] that the voters do decide to pass it.
[3:01:48] We at least, you know, have some ability
[3:01:50] to put some safeguards here
[3:01:52] so we're not completely causing damage or harm.
[3:01:55] And so, you know, that's, that's kind of where I am is
[3:01:59] that we actually have the benefit of, of, you know,
[3:02:01] making some improvements here or we don't do anything
[3:02:05] and more signatures are collected
[3:02:07] and it still goes to the ballot,
[3:02:09] but maybe with language that is problematic for the,
[3:02:12] for the city down down the road.
[3:02:13] So I think that this is a great opportunity to,
[3:02:15] to improve the language
[3:02:17] and still those of us that are opposed to, to this idea of,
[3:02:20] of having to wait for an election to be able
[3:02:22] to have this conversation can still
[3:02:24] go out and make that case.
[3:02:26] So for, for me, I think that this is kind
[3:02:28] of a winning opportunity for us to, to tweak this a bit
[3:02:31] and then still go to the voters
[3:02:32] and make the case that, that this isn't the right
[3:02:34] process that we should be using.
[3:02:36] Councillor King, If I may, I'd like
[3:02:40] to ask this body if we can suspend the rules
[3:02:42] for about five minutes
[3:02:44] and have our chief petitioner speak to this.
[3:02:48] I, I would, I would second that
[3:02:50] and I think that it'd be valuable for all
[3:02:52] of us in case we have questions
[3:02:53] of the chief petitioner as well.
[3:02:56] So I'm open to having the, the
[3:03:01] an you can go ahead and make that motion.
[3:03:03] I'd like to move that we suspend the rules for
[3:03:08] 10 minutes and have our chief petitioner come up
[3:03:11] and speak to us and we can ask questions.
[3:03:14] Second, Are there any questions or discussion?
[3:03:18] Roll call please. Alyssa
[3:03:22] Sharelle.
[3:03:23] Excuse me. Dale? Yes. Bloom? Yes. Kaplan? Yes.
[3:03:29] Du Kane? Yes. Hanson? Nope. Motion.
[3:03:32] Mr. Kramer, if you can just make sure
[3:03:35] that you turn on your microphone.
[3:03:36] It's the little button in the front.
[3:03:38] It'll make the it go red and that's how you know it's on.
[3:03:41] Okay, great. Thanks. Okay.
[3:03:44] Councillor du Kane, did you have any questions
[3:03:48] I wanted to ask you?
[3:03:49] Thank you, George. When it comes time
[3:03:52] to changing the language
[3:03:53] and looking at the time, something that I know
[3:03:56] that this body has the, the ability to go ahead
[3:04:01] and put it on the, to move, move it forward as is.
[3:04:06] And I know that everybody is talking about 1300,
[3:04:10] 1500, but the people have spoken to it
[3:04:15] and this body has the right, the, the authority, the ability
[3:04:20] to put it out there.
[3:04:21] What do you think about counselors Blooms
[3:04:26] ask to change the language?
[3:04:30] Thank you. So certainly legally the counsel can
[3:04:34] do anything it wants to do.
[3:04:35] It can create an entirely different
[3:04:38] proposal to change the charter.
[3:04:39] It can use the language that we, we used.
[3:04:44] I think some history here is appropriate.
[3:04:46] The language that was put onto the petition that we went
[3:04:50] and talked to 1500 voters about was language that I
[3:04:55] and the city attorney agreed to.
[3:04:58] And that was the language that was presented
[3:05:01] to 1500 Ashland voters.
[3:05:04] The information about the change in count is new to me.
[3:05:07] We counted those before we submitted them.
[3:05:10] I don't know if that's accurate or not.
[3:05:12] It doesn't really matter. When we came before you in October
[3:05:16] or November, I guess it was, we were basically told
[3:05:21] to go out and show that there was interest in the public in,
[3:05:24] in voting on this charter amendment.
[3:05:26] And the language that we agreed to is
[3:05:29] what people said they wanted to vote on.
[3:05:33] The council has the ability to change whatever it wants
[3:05:36] to do, but I think it is disrespectful
[3:05:39] to the citizen process, to the initiative process
[3:05:41] and to the 1500 voters
[3:05:43] that signed a petition thinking they would have a chance in
[3:05:47] November to vote.
[3:05:50] I would say to Councilor Kaplan's concern
[3:05:53] or yours to Councilor Bloom,
[3:05:57] I answered this for you.
[3:05:59] In, in November,
[3:06:01] step increases were something this council created on the
[3:06:03] fly when it created all
[3:06:05] of these fees last June, two Junes ago.
[3:06:08] If council, if this were to have be put on the ballot
[3:06:11] and become law and council wants to adopt a policy
[3:06:16] for step increases for utility,
[3:06:18] for fees on our utility bills unrelated to the utilities,
[3:06:22] you can put that on the ballot and we can vote on it.
[3:06:27] I would probably vote for it.
[3:06:30] But what we're talking about
[3:06:31] with the mayor's proposal earlier today was
[3:06:34] to have a public process about
[3:06:36] how Ashland uses its utility monopoly to create revenue
[3:06:42] from residents.
[3:06:44] We don't have a choice about that.
[3:06:46] It's not a parking fight,
[3:06:48] a parking ticket like you said Madam Mayor.
[3:06:51] It's something we all have to pay.
[3:06:53] We should have a voice including step increases.
[3:06:57] I think the thing for you to do, we made a mistake.
[3:07:02] There's a lot of forms involved in trying
[3:07:04] to get a petition signed,
[3:07:06] but we did the work, we did what you asked us to do
[3:07:10] and we demonstrated
[3:07:11] that the public is interested in voting on this.
[3:07:15] And I think the appropriate thing is to let them vote
[3:07:18] on the petition that they signed.
[3:07:21] And if it were to pass
[3:07:24] and you want to adopt step increases, you can ask
[3:07:28] for step increases
[3:07:29] and we'll vote on it just like we would anything else.
[3:07:33] And so I'm happy to answer whatever questions you have about
[3:07:37] how the process went sideways about the joy
[3:07:42] of trying to collect 1500 signatures in Ashland
[3:07:46] and talking to people.
[3:07:47] I bumped into most of you holding a clipboard.
[3:07:50] A lot of us did.
[3:07:51] It's not an easy thing to do, but we did it.
[3:07:56] And the public is very interested in this
[3:07:58] and I think it would be good for the city
[3:08:00] and it would be good for the council for you
[3:08:03] to honor the process that we're in the middle of
[3:08:06] and not change it on the fly.
[3:08:11] Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Blum?
[3:08:17] Thanks Mr. Kramer.
[3:08:18] I would just kind of pause it to you that, you know,
[3:08:23] you suggested that we should, we should honor the language
[3:08:25] that that people decided
[3:08:28] and if, if that was the case
[3:08:31] and we decided to move forward with that,
[3:08:33] there should also be an understanding
[3:08:34] that it might not end up on the ballot in November.
[3:08:38] That there is an opportunity here for this council to decide
[3:08:41] to move forward with your petition,
[3:08:44] but correcting some issues around franchise fees,
[3:08:47] around fees that, you know, maybe the county would impose
[3:08:50] that that could create legal issues
[3:08:52] for us and and inflation.
[3:08:55] And it's an opportunity to keep, it's the same,
[3:08:57] same mechanism we still any new fees
[3:08:59] because that's what this all was about.
[3:09:01] This isn't necessarily about inflation.
[3:09:03] I mean, my understanding is this is us deciding to come up
[3:09:06] with new fees like the parks fee
[3:09:08] or the wildfire fee without much public or any public input.
[3:09:13] And then just kind of moving forward.
[3:09:14] And I, and I agree that that's wrong
[3:09:15] and that there needs to be a process
[3:09:17] and you know, we can, we can debate this, you know,
[3:09:20] ad nauseum about should we wait for an election
[3:09:22] and pay for an election to do this
[3:09:24] or should we have, you know, maybe a more condensed timeline
[3:09:27] and, and I'm ready to have that debate, you know, publicly
[3:09:30] with, with the electorate.
[3:09:32] But I think that there needs to be an understanding that
[3:09:34] that, you know, there is an opportunity
[3:09:36] to get this on the ballot with some, some important changes
[3:09:40] that this council could potentially get behind
[3:09:43] or risk not passing this
[3:09:46] and having to wait until 1500 signatures are collected.
[3:09:50] So I I just, something, something to think about.
[3:09:52] It was more a comment than a question.
[3:09:54] And that's how I'm thinking about this is
[3:09:56] that I wanna honor the people that sign those that,
[3:09:59] that want this conversation to happen in the community
[3:10:02] and I want to do it in a way
[3:10:03] that also doesn't break the city potentially.
[3:10:07] And I, and I think that there's a middle path here,
[3:10:08] so just wanted to make that comment.
[3:10:11] Okay. Any other questions?
[3:10:13] I just wanna be mindful of time.
[3:10:16] I have a question for Johann.
[3:10:18] So Johann, when, when a petitioner comes forward
[3:10:23] with ballot language, what is that process
[3:10:25] that your department goes through?
[3:10:27] 'cause I I I'm hearing a language around we agreed and,
[3:10:31] and I, I would like to understand better what,
[3:10:34] what that process looks like.
[3:10:35] Yeah, primarily I'm just looking at
[3:10:36] clarity and that it makes sense.
[3:10:38] I'm not looking at like the substantive impacts
[3:10:40] or, you know, in this case, like I said, the Avista thing,
[3:10:44] I didn't even, it didn't occur to me until
[3:10:46] just a few months ago,
[3:10:48] but I'm not doing a deep dive into it.
[3:10:50] I'm looking, we were, we went back
[3:10:51] and forth on things like having comma placement
[3:10:56] and word choice, but that's what I'm looking at.
[3:10:59] But it's not an assessment of the impact
[3:11:01] of any particular ballot language on the city.
[3:11:03] Like it's not a, it is not a guidance process that way.
[3:11:06] It's a, it's a, it's a legal process
[3:11:08] around a ballot initiative
[3:11:09] and making sure it's got clear language and things,
[3:11:11] Making sure it's the requirement, the legal requirements
[3:11:13] Of legal requirements are made, met
[3:11:14] Of the ballot measure, you know, process.
[3:11:17] But I'm not providing legal guidance as to
[3:11:20] The, the impact potentially.
[3:11:21] Okay. I think that's, that's helpful
[3:11:22] to have that clear clarification.
[3:11:23] Thank you. Any further questions?
[3:11:27] We do have someone who has signed up to speak
[3:11:28] with us this evening and thank you Mr. Kramer.
[3:11:32] Oh, you had one more question.
[3:11:33] Hold, hold on just a moment. Councilor Cap?
[3:11:35] Yep. One, one more question there.
[3:11:36] There's a date of Ste of August 4th.
[3:11:38] We've got a council meeting on the fourth.
[3:11:41] There is a deadline for submitting ballot measures.
[3:11:45] Is that August 4th or is that later than August 4th?
[3:11:48] That's the last, the last council meeting
[3:11:51] before the deadline.
[3:11:52] You could call a special study or a special meeting.
[3:11:58] What, what is, I'm sorry, what is the deadline for the,
[3:12:00] for submitting a ballot
[3:12:01] measure? That's, that's what probably
[3:12:02] In the packet.
[3:12:04] Just one second please.
[3:12:09] It's the very last page.
[3:12:15] I think it's August 16th. 16th
[3:12:18] I think so.
[3:12:19] I, okay. So we could, we could consider a
[3:12:22] different ballot language.
[3:12:24] We could direct staff to come back with a resolution
[3:12:27] with a different ballot language on the August 4th
[3:12:31] meeting. Okay.
[3:12:33] Okay. Thank you. It's August 14th. 14th,
[3:12:36] Okay.
[3:12:38] Yes. Thank you Mr. Kramer.
[3:12:40] The one person who has signed up to speak
[3:12:42] with us this evening is Catherine Shaw.
[3:12:44] You will have three minutes at the podium.
[3:12:50] The podium and the light display will, will turn
[3:12:54] to yellow when you have 20 seconds left.
[3:12:56] It will go to red when your time is up
[3:12:57] and you'll hear buzzers at both of those time points. Okay.
[3:13:00] Appreciate it. Just a couple comments of clarification.
[3:13:05] The initial process is not necessarily democratic process.
[3:13:08] It is a phenomena that happened in the western states
[3:13:11] of the United States.
[3:13:13] It happened in the early 19 hundreds, only as far as I know,
[3:13:17] only a couple states east of the hundredth meridian
[3:13:21] actually allow the initiative process, except
[3:13:24] with the exception of Illinois,
[3:13:25] which put it in place in 1970.
[3:13:29] Just so you know, also, you can't make changes
[3:13:34] after the voters have voted on it.
[3:13:36] You need to make those changes.
[3:13:37] Now, once the voters have voted on an initiative process,
[3:13:41] it is sanctioned.
[3:13:42] It can't be changed in any way, shape or form
[3:13:45] unless, you know, as people said,
[3:13:47] it goes back out to a vote.
[3:13:49] So you want to be careful about what you put on the ballot
[3:13:53] because that's what voters approve.
[3:13:55] And you can't just like fudge with it after,
[3:13:58] after that's been approved by the voters.
[3:14:01] So I, it,
[3:14:06] I'm deeply opposed to this and in large part
[3:14:09] because let's say for example, we have a flood this year.
[3:14:12] It happens and you suddenly need a lot of money
[3:14:17] to cover that flood until possibly FEMA money comes through.
[3:14:21] If it ever does, and you wanna put this out
[3:14:25] to a vote, well, in putting it out to a vote, it will,
[3:14:29] it will cost you quite a bit of money to put
[3:14:32] that on the ballot unless you put it in
[3:14:34] an even year election.
[3:14:35] That would be a midterm general primary
[3:14:38] or a presidential general or primary.
[3:14:40] Those elections are free.
[3:14:42] Everything else, you're gonna pay a lot
[3:14:44] of money to put it on the ballot.
[3:14:46] So that means if you have a flood this fall,
[3:14:49] you will wait two years
[3:14:51] before you can ask voters to
[3:14:55] increase some income for you to cover any flood damages,
[3:14:59] earthquake, fire, whatever.
[3:15:02] It takes away your power.
[3:15:04] You are members, you are elected
[3:15:07] by us in a representative form of government
[3:15:10] because we want you to make these decisions
[3:15:14] for us voters do not have the same amount of time
[3:15:18] or dedication or commitment that you have by running
[3:15:21] for office to study the issue and,
[3:15:25] and decide whether it should or should not happen.
[3:15:29] And, and by way of example, most of the voters
[3:15:33] or most of the people who've commented on social media,
[3:15:35] that they're in favor of this particular initiative
[3:15:39] are also people who are surprised that we continue
[3:15:43] to buy Parkland.
[3:15:44] Even though they led the charge
[3:15:46] to vote against Parkland being used, or excuse me, food
[3:15:50] and beverage tax money being used
[3:15:53] for park maintenance.
[3:15:56] They didn't know that
[3:15:58] and they, you know, were strong, strongly advocating,
[3:16:01] had lawn signs, everything.
[3:16:03] So when you say you want to have,
[3:16:08] this is so distracting.
[3:16:09] Thank you. It's so distracting. Thank
[3:16:10] You.
[3:16:11] Yeah, the time is up.
[3:16:12] Okay. I don't get Thank you.
[3:16:15] You know, I was cut off before last time I was here.
[3:16:17] Thank you. Okay,
[3:16:21] So we are back to the council discussion.
[3:16:23] Is there anything else? Any further questions of staff?
[3:16:29] Okay, so the Go ahead. You have a question?
[3:16:33] No, councilor Hanson, I don't have a question. I'm ready for
[3:16:35] Discussion.
[3:16:36] So the, what we need to do, if they don't have,
[3:16:39] if there are no more additional questions, then we move
[3:16:41] to the place of motion.
[3:16:43] So the floor is open for a motion. Councillor Blum.
[3:16:46] Thank you mayor. Yeah.
[3:16:48] I direct staff to create a resolution to bring back
[3:16:50] to council at the August 4th meeting
[3:16:52] to put the petition on the ballot with changes in language
[3:16:54] to allow for inflationary increases no more than
[3:16:59] the CPI West to exclude franchise fees
[3:17:03] and to exclude any effect that it would have on
[3:17:06] outside fees imposed by outside jurisdictions.
[3:17:10] Obviously you're gonna have to play with how
[3:17:13] that language looks and I, I trust you to do so.
[3:17:16] And then I would also add that I'm open
[3:17:19] to additional suggestions to language.
[3:17:23] Is there a second? I'll second.
[3:17:26] Councillor Blue. Yeah, I look again, I,
[3:17:30] I think it's the right thing to do.
[3:17:31] You know, we, when this came to us last time, it was,
[3:17:36] it was, you know, four to three I think vote
[3:17:39] of whether we should just go ahead and put it on the ballot.
[3:17:41] And, and what I heard from, from those that were opposed
[3:17:44] to just put it on the ballot was, you know, hey,
[3:17:46] like you need to, to do what we require of everybody else
[3:17:49] and you need to go out and you need to get signatures.
[3:17:51] And, and I understand, you know, we can talk about,
[3:17:53] well actually it was 1300 signatures
[3:17:55] and 15% failure maybe unfortunately.
[3:17:58] We'll, we'll never know.
[3:18:00] To me the point is twofold, really, it's, it's one
[3:18:05] at least a thousand people if we're applying, you know,
[3:18:07] that, that fail rate on there.
[3:18:09] And I think that that's significant enough.
[3:18:11] If a thousand people showed up in this room
[3:18:13] and have a council meeting and asked us to do something, we,
[3:18:16] we would probably do it.
[3:18:17] I mean, I've heard counselors say that
[3:18:19] before of like, well these people are here asking,
[3:18:20] so since they're putting in the effort,
[3:18:22] then we should listen to 'em.
[3:18:23] I don't think that this is any different. One.
[3:18:26] Two, this is about taking accountability
[3:18:29] and building confidence
[3:18:31] and faith in this council and in this city.
[3:18:34] You know, we have had to make some really hard choices
[3:18:39] with regard to, to fees and, and cuts for that matter.
[3:18:43] And I think that, you know, there's been a lot
[3:18:46] of the citizenry on, on both sides
[3:18:48] that have been frustrated by those decisions.
[3:18:50] And I think that this is an opportunity for us
[3:18:52] to go out and say, you know what?
[3:18:53] We're gonna put this in front of you
[3:18:55] and we'll, we're gonna let you decide and,
[3:18:57] and we're all gonna kinda line up
[3:18:59] and we're gonna make our arguments
[3:19:00] to the people about whether this should pass or not.
[3:19:02] And to me, that is very democratic.
[3:19:06] That is, that is exactly, you know, what we all strive for,
[3:19:10] why we're doing this is
[3:19:11] to have those conversations about policy.
[3:19:13] And this is an opportunity to, to do that,
[3:19:15] to put a foot front and center.
[3:19:17] And I look forward to going toe to toe with Mr. Kramer
[3:19:20] on this and knocking on doors if I have to.
[3:19:23] So it's for that reason that, that I hope
[3:19:25] that we move forward with this
[3:19:26] and absolutely, you know, any suggested amendments
[3:19:29] or changes to, to language.
[3:19:30] I would also be supportive of
[3:19:32] Councillor Kaplan.
[3:19:35] Well, I don't know that a whole lot to add
[3:19:37] to Councillor Bloom's.
[3:19:38] Lengthy justification wi much of which I agree with.
[3:19:43] For me, I, as I said last November,
[3:19:46] I I think it's the fiscally prudent thing to do, to adjust,
[3:19:50] to allow fees to adjust for inflation.
[3:19:53] We don't take raise fees lightly in this body as these,
[3:19:57] that the fees that raise that we raised last year
[3:20:01] was the first time in, in half a dec,
[3:20:03] half a decade, more than half a decade.
[3:20:06] I don't foresee that we're gonna be doing that again.
[3:20:09] But purchasing power, you know,
[3:20:11] does decline little by little.
[3:20:14] And we find ourselves in a situation where we gotta
[3:20:17] increase it just in order to, to, you know, keep up with
[3:20:20] where we were five, five years ago.
[3:20:22] So that takes away some of the concern that I had,
[3:20:26] and I'm happy to have the conversation with, with our,
[3:20:30] our constituents and our electorate about the financial
[3:20:35] stability of, of our city
[3:20:36] and when we need to raise revenues, what,
[3:20:40] what's the best way to do it?
[3:20:41] So I, that's why I seconded this and I'll be supporting it.
[3:20:45] Councillor Duque.
[3:20:49] Well, after all of this time here, we are
[3:20:57] looking at the time, the effort.
[3:20:59] First off, I appreciate every citizen, every resident
[3:21:03] that signed the petition
[3:21:05] and found the circulators and signed it.
[3:21:09] I, I appreciate them and their time.
[3:21:11] And when you're out there circulating, you get a chance
[3:21:14] to talk to our constituents and our community one-on-one,
[3:21:18] and you hear exactly what's on their mind, their concerns
[3:21:23] and what keeps them up at night.
[3:21:25] And one of them is the utilities.
[3:21:29] I'm aware of inflation and I am aware of franchise fees.
[3:21:35] I'm curious to see
[3:21:37] what this will look like when it comes back August the
[3:21:40] fourth, because there's no percent
[3:21:42] that you put on this counselor.
[3:21:49] And on that day, we will definitely be up against the wall.
[3:21:56] I don't really know how I feel right now.
[3:22:00] I want it to be on the ballot. I wanna see the language.
[3:22:05] And so I guess I'll make my decision then,
[3:22:09] but I'm kind of disappointed that
[3:22:12] it's not moving forward as is what the people saw
[3:22:16] and what they signed and what they want.
[3:22:21] Councillor Dale,
[3:22:24] Thank you, mayor.
[3:22:26] That's one I've done a lot of reflection about.
[3:22:29] And you know, I voted last November to not put this on
[3:22:34] or not, not have council support this
[3:22:36] 'cause I, I don't believe in the language.
[3:22:37] I think there's a lot more to it.
[3:22:40] And we asked the petitioner to go out and get the signatures
[3:22:45] and to actually show that that was something
[3:22:47] that was important to this community.
[3:22:49] And I, I agree that, you know, there's hypotheticals
[3:22:52] around the numbers, but there's a,
[3:22:55] a good faith effort out there.
[3:22:57] And I think that while we've covered the fact that it is
[3:23:02] extremely important to read the fine print,
[3:23:04] and I say that for people,
[3:23:05] and this is not a, a slight by any means,
[3:23:07] but literally it, these documents are very difficult.
[3:23:12] And those that are running for office
[3:23:13] or anything else, you let this be a lesson that,
[3:23:16] that's very important to read.
[3:23:17] Those. That being said, given the effort
[3:23:20] that was put into it, I think we afford
[3:23:23] at least an equal amount of grace.
[3:23:26] And the other thing that I would say is that we need
[3:23:31] to be very cognizant,
[3:23:32] or at least I am, of separating process from merit.
[3:23:36] And this is going to allow the opportunity
[3:23:41] for this community to really understand
[3:23:45] what it takes to raise things.
[3:23:47] And, and the, and as we talk a lot about here, the, the law
[3:23:51] of unintended consequences this process is, is,
[3:23:56] is not unique to just Oregon.
[3:23:58] But it's, it's a part of the history of Oregon to be able
[3:24:01] to do malon initiatives.
[3:24:02] And I think that if we were to,
[3:24:07] to go against what I think was a reasonable showing
[3:24:09] of people that be careful what we wish
[3:24:13] for, 'cause we might just get it.
[3:24:14] So I will be supporting this
[3:24:17] Councillor Hanson.
[3:24:20] Yeah, thank you. You know, again,
[3:24:22] I support the democratic process.
[3:24:24] And when I voted no on this originally,
[3:24:29] I, it was, you know, go forth, gather your signatures
[3:24:33] and you know, go for it.
[3:24:35] I find it distressing the, you know, to come back to counsel
[3:24:39] and, and ask to have it put back on the ballot.
[3:24:43] My vote will be to, you know,
[3:24:45] as the suggested motion in the packet is
[3:24:47] to allow the endemic process to continue.
[3:24:49] But as a business owner, I have to manage my, my business.
[3:24:54] I have to stay in the black.
[3:24:56] I have 20 employees as a counselor.
[3:25:00] 60% of the Ashland voters voted for me.
[3:25:04] And I carry a responsibility for 21,000 people to take care
[3:25:08] of them and make sure that this city is in the black.
[3:25:11] And with all due respect, some of my counselors won't vote
[3:25:14] for modest rate increases that cover 7% that,
[3:25:18] that are necessary to keep us in the black.
[3:25:22] I do not trust that if we have ballot initiatives,
[3:25:26] that there will be clear communication information,
[3:25:30] deep dives, and the things that are necessary
[3:25:33] to keep our city functioning properly.
[3:25:36] I know that we have a lot of challenges coming up
[3:25:41] and I want the people that I vote for in this seat
[3:25:45] to have all the information to make the best decisions
[3:25:48] that they can and to keep our government strong.
[3:25:52] And in the mount, in the invent of emergencies
[3:25:57] and disasters and all the things that we encounter.
[3:26:00] We need this body to be able to rally and come together
[3:26:04] and pivot and do their jobs.
[3:26:06] And I do not believe that I will be voting
[3:26:09] for this if it were to come to ballot.
[3:26:12] I wish, I wish the democratic process the best of luck.
[3:26:15] And you know, I hope
[3:26:17] that I will not be supporting this motion
[3:26:19] and I will look forward to
[3:26:22] another motion if it, if it fails.
[3:26:26] Councilor Shrill. Thanks Mayor.
[3:26:28] I supported this the first time. I'll support it this time.
[3:26:31] I think that the, the, the small changes are in line
[3:26:35] with what's reasonable
[3:26:36] and other policies that we've set as a council.
[3:26:39] And I think there's a lot
[3:26:40] of really educated people here in this town.
[3:26:42] And I think they deserve a vote.
[3:26:44] And I also think that if it passes,
[3:26:46] they deserve the responsibility for the repercussions
[3:26:48] that we get sometimes when we, when we pay for things
[3:26:51] or we don't pay for things.
[3:26:55] Yeah. Sabrina, Just curious if there's any interest in
[3:26:59] putting something in the resolution to speak
[3:27:02] to emergencies like that was brought up this evening.
[3:27:06] I'll speak to that. Council Bloom.
[3:27:08] I believe that that's why we have a reserve fund
[3:27:09] that we need to continue to fund.
[3:27:11] But you know, to address the point that was made is
[3:27:14] that when you have a flood, you're supposed
[3:27:16] to have a healthy reserve fund.
[3:27:18] And we're obviously, we're talking about
[3:27:20] that and that's what that's for.
[3:27:22] And there's other mechanisms.
[3:27:23] So yeah, I I just don't think that there's a need
[3:27:26] to exclude for emergencies.
[3:27:28] There's already process for that.
[3:27:32] Is there any further discussion? Roll call please.
[3:27:37] Alyssa Duque?
[3:27:44] Sure. Yeah. Hansen? No.
[3:27:50] Sharelle? Yes. Dale? Yes. Bloom?
[3:27:55] Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Motion passed.
[3:28:00] Okay. Thank you. We will move our
[3:28:03] property surplus discussion to the next meeting. We
[3:28:06] Got three minutes. Three
[3:28:07] Minutes? No, I've got
[3:28:08] Motion.
[3:28:09] I'll make a motion. I'll suspend the
[3:28:10] rules. I'll
[3:28:15] Just sit here. Okay,
[3:28:16] Mayor, I move, I move to spend the rules in terms
[3:28:19] of time limits for council meetings so
[3:28:21] that we can finish this agenda item.
[3:28:23] So johan's
[3:28:27] Two things.
[3:28:28] One, you could just make the motion
[3:28:28] to surplus the property meetings for aada a reasons.
[3:28:31] And then we could just do this and
[3:28:32] Then we have the extra 10 minutes.
[3:28:33] Yes, I'm, that's the motion that we need.
[3:28:35] I'm happy to do that. So do you withdraw your previous
[3:28:37] I withdraw my previous motion.
[3:28:38] Go ahead. And I would like to make another motion.
[3:28:40] I moved to surplus 188 square feet
[3:28:42] of Briscoe school property as outlined
[3:28:43] by the Oregon Department of Transportation
[3:28:45] and the acquisition summary statement dated
[3:28:47] April 28th, 2026. Second.
[3:28:49] Second. Now you do a motion to extend by 10 minutes.
[3:28:52] Yes, I could just we're
[3:28:55] I could just go.
[3:28:56] Go. Okay. ODOT wants to put in a ramp.
[3:28:58] We own the property, they wanna pay us for it.
[3:29:00] They'll do all the work. Let's give it to 'em. Yeah.
[3:29:04] Are there any questions of staff?
[3:29:07] We all have the agenda, the packet material. So, okay.
[3:29:13] I did Kaplan. Kaplan.
[3:29:15] So did you wanna speak to your motion? No Cap.
[3:29:18] Councillor Kaplan. Any further discussion? Roll call please.
[3:29:22] Alyssa,
[3:29:24] Dale?
[3:29:25] Yes. Bloom? Yes. Kaplan? Yes. Duquesne? Yes. Hansen?
[3:29:30] Yes. Sherell? Yes. Motion pass.
[3:29:33] Thank you. We are at 9 29.
[3:29:36] We have consistently missed having city manager reports
[3:29:40] and so until we make any adjustments in the public hearing
[3:29:43] time, I would like to move that up in the agenda
[3:29:47] to where it comes in.
[3:29:48] Right behind ordinances is
[3:29:51] because that way we can make sure that we get
[3:29:53] that element in it's a critical piece
[3:29:56] and we keep missing it.
[3:29:58] So with that, the floor is open for a motion to adjourn.
[3:30:02] So moved. Second. All in favor? A meeting is adjourned.