Document text
Ashland exempts ad deal from bids Council says service critical for Net work By DANI DODGE ASHLAND -- After sometimes contentious debate Tuesday night, the Ashland City Council exempted a controversial advertising contract from the city's public bidding requirements. "Because this is an ongoing service, it's optimal to not change horses mid-stream", said Councilwoman Carole Wheeldon. The city first executed a contract with the communications group inc. on Dec. 11, 1998, for advertising and marketing of the city's Ashland Fiber Network. More contracts for advertising and marketing services were given in July and November. But city watchdog Russ Silbiger made an issue of the contracts over the past few months, alleging they did not conform to city and state competitive bidding rules. The city staff countered the contracts were exempt from competitive bidding because advertising was exempt. The City Council removed the advertising exemption from city competitive bidding rules last month to avoid problems in the future. City administrator Mike Freeman said the exemption is necessary in this case because it's important to continue working with the communications group inc. The city is in a critical phase of marketing AFN, a cable and high-speed Internet service that will soon be available to Ashland residents. He said it would be both costly and inconvenient to change consultants in the middle of a marketing campaign. Freeman added the Ashland-based company has been very responsive and creative in their approach to marketing AFN. The council voted to continue to contract with the communications group inc., for the next 12 to 18 months while the rollout of the new service is completed. The cost is expected to between $93,000 to $143,000. Councilman David Fine was the only vote against the exemption. He said while he saw the business reasons for it, he couldn't justify it under the terms of the current law, which require that an exemption won't hurt competition. Meanwhile, the council passed an ordinance modifying the requirements for demolition or moving of structures. The ordinance requires anyone wanting to demolish or relocate a structure to go before a newly created Demolition Review Committee. For homes built before 1955, the property owner must have an approved development plan that demonstrates that the redevelopment is more compatible with the neighborhood than rehabilitation of the structure. Violation carries penalties including fines up to the market value of the structure. The council also responded to the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) remand of several points in its controversial 1997 hillside development ordinance. LUBA had asked the city to determine whether there is enough land zoned for single family residences within the city's urban growth boundary if the hillside ordinance is adopted. The ordinance lowers buildable land from 40 percent slope to 35 percent slope, eliminating five single-family lots from the city's inventory. Citing a September survey, the council agreed there is plenty of land to accommodate the loss of five single family units on the hillside. The buildable lands inventory showed Ashland has enough land to accommodate growth for the next 31 years. The council, in response to another question, said that the ordinance recommending painting hillside houses colors compatible with the surrounding nature was not a mandate on decor, but simply a suggested color scheme. Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA