Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Business Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, June 19, 2012

MINUTES FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL

June 19, 2012
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

 
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
 
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
 
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree Commission, Public Arts Commission, Conservation Commission, Transportation Commission, and the Audit Committee.
 
He went on to move agenda item 3.  Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2012 to and including June 30, 2012, such taxes in the sum of $10,083,098 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon” under ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS after the CONSENT AGENDA with Council consent.
 
Mayor Stromberg invited citizens to attend two public outreach meetings to review conceptual designs and provide comments on Plaza improvements in the Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way, June 22, 2012, and July 9, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for both meetings.  Covey Pardee would present the final concept plan to Council during the July 16, 2012 Study Session.
 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of June 4, 2012 and Business Meeting of June 5, 2012 were approved as presented.
 
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS - None
 
CONSENT AGENDA
1.   Approval of Commission, Committee, and Board Minutes
2.   Approval of Airport Rate Resolution
3.   Award of a contract to the apparent low bidder on the Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project.
4.   Award of a contract to the apparent low bidder on the Ashland Creek bank restoration project
5.   2012-2013 Chamber of Commerce/Visitor & Convention Bureau and Oregon Shakespeare Festival tourism promotion contracts
6.   Approval of a special procurement from Neilson Research for water quality testing
7.   Approval of a sole source procurement from Dry Creek Landfill
8.   Approval of a contract with Pathway Enterprises for janitorial services
9.   Appointment of Sylvia Schmelling to the Band Board
10. Re-appointment of Doug Diehl, M.D. to the Ashland Community Hospital Board of Directors
11. Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution transferring appropriations within the FY 2011-12 budget”
12. Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2011-2012 budget”
13. Approval of a ground lease for the Civil Air Patrol hangar
14. Approval of an amendment to the contract with Urban Development Services, LLC for additional costs on the Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project
 
Mayor Stromberg pulled Consent Agenda item #11 for further discussion. 
 
Councilor Slattery noted Consent Agenda item 5.        2012-2013 Chamber of Commerce/Visitor & Convention Bureau and Oregon Shakespeare Festival tourism promotion contracts, and agenda item 5. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Section 1.08.005F., 1.08.0101A.(1), and 1.08.020 to Effectuate Proposed Ordinance Adding AMC 10.120 ‘Persistent Violation’ and AMC 10.125 ‘Persistent Failure to Appear’,” under ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS, disclosed his wife was the Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and declared there was neither an actual nor a potential conflict of interest regarding these items.          
Councilor Silbiger pulled Consent Agenda items #3 and #14 for further discussion.
 
Councilor Chapman/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of #3, #11, and #14.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained the transfer of appropriations would ensure the City did not incur a budget violation.  Staff increased the total amounts in the transfer to accommodate two departments that indentified expenses that could push them over the total, and submitted the updated resolution into the record.
 
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #11. 
Voice Vote: Councilor  Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
Councilor Silbiger was not comfortable with exceeded costs for the Hersey-Wimer re-alignment, disagreed with cost overruns in general, and would not support either agenda items.  Councilor Chapman agreed the project had escalated in costs but would support it at this time.  Councilor Slattery shared Councilor Silbiger’s concern.
 
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the project involved complicated land transfers and adjustments to fix the intersection.  During the process, they found a better option that resulted in the re-design but the schedule remained the same.
 
Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #3 and #14. 
Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.   Public Hearing to increase miscellaneous fees and charges and approve Resolution.
Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg described the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document.  He corrected the date on the draft resolution and noted a correction to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document under the Conditional Use Permit fee for Type 1 review for Accessory Residential Units changing the fee to $638 instead of $982.  Another change clarified Jackson County Commissioners set the mileage rate for an ambulance run.  Mr. Tuneberg suggested a new fee for Daily Parking permits of $5 for the first day then $1 for each additional day for parking.
 
Public Hearing Open: 7:27 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:27 p.m.
 
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Resolution #2012-21.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Silbiger, Morris, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES.  Motion passed.
 
PUBLIC FORUM
Mark Dennett/328 Otis Street/Submitted a document into the record and requested Council reconsider their policy towards vacation home rentals and direct staff to review the 30-year old ordinance.  He thought vacation home rentals should be separate from the hotel-motel category.
 
Eliza Kauder/709 Glendale Avenue/Read from a document submitted into the record that described the odor from her neighbor’s medical marijuana garden was so strong it created a nuisance that violated the Ashland Municipal Code 9.08.060 Nuisances Affecting the Public Health.  She requested Council consider a preventative ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana gardens within 75-feet of a neighbor’s property line.
 
Council consensus directed staff to research and bring information regarding the vacation home ordinance and medical marijuana growing to a future Study Session.
 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.   A Resolution adopting an opt-out policy for the Automated Meter Reading Program and repealing resolution No. 2012-14
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided background on the radio frequency meters that resulted in the Opt-out Policy Council passed during the May 15, 2012 meeting.  Since then, the City received 398 calls requesting to opt-out.  Councilors Morris and Chapman each requested a resolution creating an opt-out fee go before Council for further discussion.
 
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to limit Public Testimony to two-minutes per person.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Silbiger thought an hour and a half was an excessive amount of time for public testimony on a topic previously discussed.  Councilor Voisin did not agree to limiting testimony to two-minutes.  Councilor Chapman clarified the discussion was whether the City should charge a fee for the Opt-out Policy not health issues relating to the meters.  Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
 
John Hacker/865 Wrights Creek Drive/Reviewed prior Budgets and determined citizens who planned to opt out would actually save the City money. He asked Council to stop the smart meter conversion and not charge an opt-out fee.
 
Allan Peterson/807 Beach Street/Agreed with Council’s earlier decision not to charge an opt-out fee, and thought bringing the fee back for discussion was unfair.
 
Alan Sasha Lithman/669 Park Street/Questioned the ethics and reason Council was re-considering an opt-out fee after so many people had opted out.  He hoped Council would stay with their original decision.
 
Selene Aitken/446 Helman Street/Expressed concern for future situations where technologies created unanticipated consequences.  She wanted the process to be collaborative with City, Council, and citizens instead of antagonistic.
 
Will Wilkenson/2940 Old Hwy 99 South/Commented citizens received automated meters without their permission and should not have to pay an opt-out fee.
 
Curt Anderson/248 Fifth Street/Opposed having to shoulder the costs of others wanting to opt-out of the program and thought Ashland was infested with a conspiracy of quackery regarding smart meters. 
 
Dr. Bonnie Nedrow/730 Walnut Street/Explained she was a naturopathic physician specializing in environmental medicine.  She noted the hidden health costs with smart meters and expressed concern lower income people might not be able to afford to opt-out.
 
Elissa Walsh/1409 Talent Avenue, Talent, OR/Read a letter from Paula Baker Laportte.
 
 
Shady Sirotkin/164 Eastbrook Way/Explained the California Public Utility Commission received thousands of health complaints relating to smart meters and subsequent lawsuits.  She did not see how others would shoulder opt-out costs that Mr. Anderson stated during his testimony, noted health related facts, and supported Ms. Aitken’s testimony regarding collaboration.
 
Eric Sirotkin/164 Eastbrook Way/Encouraged Council to reject the fee and conduct a financial study based on facts not a company’s profit.
 
Avram Sacks/1059 Park Street/Followed Marin County in California regarding the harmful health effects of smart meters and just discovered he had a smart meter on his house.  He disagreed with charging a fee on something he was unaware he had in the first place.
 
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Agreed with several speakers.  She had a smart meter unbeknownst to her, did not know the health affects either way, but thought the pre-cautionary principle was prudent.
 
Joan Franklin/615 Talent #9, Talent, OR/Shared her experiences being hypersensitive to radio frequency radiation, living in a condominium with extremely high radio frequencies and how those symptoms were alleviated by moving.  She supported the Opt-out Policy but not charging a fee.
 
David Winston/615 Talent #9, Talent, OR/Supported Ms. Franklin’s testimony, and everyone opposing an Opt-out Policy fee.
 
Dr. Casey Frieder/374 Cambridge Street/Thought the City should completely opt out of the conversion to smart meters.
 
Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Spoke on behalf of Respect Ashland Coalition and explained their premise.  He stated the Coalition would elect councilors interested in finding solutions for the city, and addressing healthcare concerns of the citizenry as well as other issues.  The Coalition also wanted the City to stop installing radio frequency meters and allow for analog meters.
 
Brooks Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Addressed the health consciousness of the community and suggested adding smart meters to the ballot, stopping the conversion and mandating analog meters.
 
Greg Carey/268 Myers Creek Road/Wanted to know if there was a cost benefit analysis on smart meters and what the opt-out fee actually covered.
 
Yasna Pecaric/1172 N Main Street/Read a letter from a Chief Executive Officer of the Marine Association of Realtors to the President San Francisco Utilities Commission supporting analog meters and not charging opt-out fees.
 
Anna Keppen/886 Palmer Road/Had financial and health risk concerns regarding the Opt-out Policy and read quotes from other areas opposing opt-out fees.
 
Ali Wessel/333 Idaho Street/Was willing to pay a fee to opt out even though she had an analog meter but wanted to know what the real costs were.
 
Dr. Doug Falkner/Ashland/Read from an Ashland Physicians Position Statement on smart meters he submitted into the record. 
 
Dominique Shelton/55 Brooks Lane/Suggested charging customers with smart meters the $120 it cost the City to replace their meter then give them the $1-$2 monthly discount it would cost to read their meters wirelessly and commented that the conversion did not make sense overall.
 
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Submitted documents into the record, shared her experience with public information requests, commented on the operating decision process and the need to listen to the constituency.
 
Orianna Spratt/212 Patterson/Commented on the cost residents had paid and would pay to replace analog meters with smart meters when the only benefit for the conversion was eliminating one Meter Reader position.  She urged Council to uphold the earlier decision not to charge opt-out fees.
 
Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street/Summarized public input, and urged Council to not charge an opt-out fee, stop the conversion until there was a cost benefit analysis, and mandate the option for analog replacement meters in the interim.
 
Mr. Kanner explained the original fee staff proposed was $60 to remove a radio frequency meter with a $10 dollar monthly charge to cover reading analog meters. Council doubled both fees then during the May 15, 2012 meeting made the decision not to charge fees.  Staff was now suggesting any resident with a smart meter could opt out at no charge prior to July 31, 2012, after that date it would cost $60, slightly less than the actual cost to disconnect-connect.  When a route was ready for conversion, the City would provide a fee-free deadline to opt out as well.  Staff recommended a $5 monthly fee to read a meter manually that was half the actual cost.  Council could decide to start the monthly fee after a route was converted, or when the entire city converted.
 
Currently one Meter Reader with the help of temporary workers read all of the 11,000 meters monthly.  Having 200 residents opt out would increase temporary workers slightly, having 1,000-2,000 residents opt out would require hiring a half time employee.  One option to retain one Meter Reader was converting the entire city to radio frequency meters immediately and allow people to opt out free of charge.  Mr. Kanner added the new Utilities Director would explore other options.  Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg clarified the cost to change out radio frequency meters, parts and labor was approximately $92 without the overhead.
 
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to continue with a no-fee Opt-out Policy and have additional discussion with staff on the cost benefit analysis or if we do not have it, do it now.
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Slattery thought the City needed to do a cost benefit analysis and be cognizant of health issues.  It was unfair to make people pay extra because they had health concerns.
Councilor Voisin thought citizens had the right to opt out without any charge and was not convinced meter reading cost $5 per residence.  Councilor Lemhouse noted the economic factor involved taxpayers’ and therefore was important.  He was not comfortable having the City install items on someone’s property that could cause injury without the property owners’ full knowledge.  He supported a no fee opt-out policy but had reservations continuing to install radio frequency meters in the city.
 
Councilor Silbiger would not support the motion and clarified it was radio frequency meters, not smart meters.  Smart meters provided load management needed for the future.  Radio frequency technology was already prevalent in households through others means.  Not installing them would prove costly and regressive.  Councilor Chapman thought the City should have instituted an Opt-in Policy initially and provided those who did a $5 discount. He would support the motion but thought staff’s proposed switch out fee was reasonable and most likely the City would have delayed the $5 monthly charge anyway.
 
Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Silbiger. Eventually Ashland would have to convert to some form of smart meter or similar technology in order to meet all the demands placed on the grid. He shared his experience reading meters with Environmental Biologist Jim Haim, the numbers were not there, and expressed disappointment to see fear tactics happening in his home town.  He wanted Ms. Hartzell to explain when she was on Council and they initially approved radio frequency meters where the cost analysis was that supported that decision.  Mayor Stromberg observed the different views expressed and recognized persuasion would not change them.  He suggested a citizen measure to establish a policy about adopting certain technologies in the city.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Chapman, Slattery, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Morris and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
 
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1.   Discussion of elimination of Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) fare reduction program and increase in funding for the bus pass program
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained in 2009 Council added a 15 minute service by reinstating Route 15 and reduced and subsidized fares within city limits to increase ridership that proved unsuccessful.  When Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) extended hours and provided Saturday service, there was a 22.5% increase in ridership within city limits.  In 2011, RVTD reduced frequency from 30 minutes to 20 minutes service and Council was able to eliminate Route 15.  If Council decided to discontinue the fare reduction program, staff recommended increasing the amount of money for the bus pass program through the Senior Center from $10,000 to $33,000.  The Department of Health and Services would administer the fixed fare for riders aged 18-61 years old.  The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) would provide a free bus program to Ashland residents who received open benefits from the State of Oregon similar to the Oregon Trails program. 
 
When the City eliminated Route 15, the budget went from $270,000 to $80,000.  Continuing the fare reduction program would cost $96,000 and cover the 22.5% increase in ridership.
 
Mr. Faught confirmed the $33,000 was an appropriate amount for the bus pass program for the Senior Center.  Staff would review the process in two months to monitor success and ensure no one slipped through the cracks. 
 
Removing the fare reduction subsidy would not affect bus service.  RVTD would continue their extended program.  Ashland was the only city in the Rogue Valley with a fare reduction program.  Currently RVTD had a $1 fare reduction program for  riders’ 10-17, 62 and older, Medicare holders, and people with disabilities.  Staff was working with Southern Oregon University (SOU) and RVTD regarding programs for students. 
 
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to discontinue the current Transit Fare Subsidy program with RVTD effective June 30, 2012 and to increase the bus program from $10,000 to $33,000 to be allocated as described in the staff report. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Chapman thought the $33,000 was a reasonable amount and was interested in the City collaborating with businesses to share the cost of bus passes for employees.  Councilor Lemhouse thought cities should subsidize mass transit to increase ridership and help people in need.  Councilor Silbiger noted pluses and minuses for keeping the dollar subsidy and increasing bus pass program.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1.   Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2012 to and including June 30, 2012, such taxes in the sum of $10,083,098 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon.”
 
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Ordinance #3065.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Chapman, Morris, Voisin, Silbiger, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - continued
2.   Discussion of whether to refer to the November ballot an advisory resolution expressing City of Ashland’s support for a Constitutional amendment to eliminate “personhood” for corporations and unions for purposes of campaign expenditure limitations and to stop treating money as speech for political purposes.
 
John Tyler/812 Plum Ridge Drive/Explained they were not asking Council to vote on the merits of the amendment but to use Council authority to get it on the ballot so the people of Ashland could have a say.
 
Elizabeth Hallett/938 Mt. Meadows Circle/Shared her experience voting in Oregon and why she supported Move to Amend.
 
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Compared personhood for corporations and unions as legalized bribery and hoped Council would give them a chance to vote regarding it.
 
Jeff Golden/925 Oak Street/Spoke on jurisdiction and hoped Council would put it on the ballot.
 
John Wieczorek/165 Orange Avenue/Asked Council to place it on the ballot and join the largest bipartisan grass roots movement in the country that consisted of 272 communities that had passed Move to Amend resolutions and went on to share how personhood affected local businesses.
 
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Supported Move to Amend and thought it was an appropriate initiative to forward to the constituency because it affected governance at the local level.
 
Evan Lasley/110 7th Street/Described the first meeting of Jackson County Move to Amend and noted Move to Amend was growing nationally and Council should consider adding it to the ballot. 
 
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to instruct staff to prepare an enabling advisory ordinance for the November ballot with an emergency clause to come to the Council’s July 17, 2012 meeting. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Voisin explained the citizenry did not have the option of placing an advisory question on the ballot by direct petition according to Article 4 of the Oregon Constitution because it applied to legislative issues only not advisory but Council could.  Councilor Slattery supported the motion.  Councilor Lemhouse commented on his earlier objections regarding how the item came before Council, supported it going on the ballot, and suggested the citizens have it apply to all organizations specified in the Supreme Court decision.  Councilor Chapman supported enabling legislation that allowed advisory questions by referral and initiative but not by declaring an emergency to get it on ballot.  Council needed time to discuss appropriate process.  Councilor Silbiger confirmed the motion would allow Council to refer a measure to the voters and not have voters add it via initiative petition. 
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris, Silbiger, and Chapman, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote.  Motion passed 4-3.
 
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS - continued
 

  1. November 2012 Local Option Levy for enhanced library services draft ballot measure and approval of a resolution titled, “Resolution of the City of Ashland and Jackson County, Oregon to submit to the voters at the November 6, 2012 General Election a funding initiative to levy up to $.21 per $1000 assessed property value for the purpose of providing enhanced library services at the Ashland Public Library for a period of four years beginning July 1, 2012”

Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
3.   Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10 Public Peace, Morals, and Safety by adding Sections 10.120 ‘Persistent Violations’ and 10.125 ‘Persistent Failure to Appear’.”
 
Gretchen Vos/1673 Parker Street/Spoke on behalf of the citizens’ group Ashland for Inclusion who supported efforts to reduce crime in ways that were affective and constitutional.  The group disagreed with the persistent violations laws and thought the City had not sufficiently addressed the issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
 
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Read from an email she received from ACLU of Oregon Executive Director David Fidanque in response to City Attorney Dave Lohman’s correspondence describing alternatives to both ordinances. 
 
 
Eric Navickas/2060 Mill Creek Drive, Prospect/The ordinance would not address situations like the fire that took place in the downtown area.   He thought the City could have been prevented the fire if there was a day use center with trained staff  providing outreach.  There was no reason that someone should not have addressed this individual’s problem, found his medication, and contacted the Veterans Administration Services.  The exclusion zone was not a solution to these types of situations and if applied in the extreme, could discriminate and exclude specific groups of people.
 
Assistant City Attorney Doug McGeary explained the process for the Persistent Failure to Appear ordinance.  If someone failed to appear for court three times within a 12-month period, the City Attorney’s office would file a failure to appear, the Ashland Police Department would serve the citation requesting the individual come to Court within three days to explain why they failed to appear.  If they did not appear at that point, the Court would decide whether to expel them from the area they committed the violation.  This aspect of the ordinance would apply throughout Ashland and not just the downtown area.
 
City Attorney Dave Lohman read the ordinance title aloud, and changes that removed Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 10.120.020 Section C.  Changes to AMC 10.120.040(B) added:  “…or more than one year unless the court finds it necessary to:” In AMC 10.25.010, staff changed the reference to AMC Subsection 1 from 10.120.020 to ORS 133.060 or 133.070AMC 10.125.010(1)(a) added:  “…requiring a court appearance,” to the end of the paragraph.  AMC 10.125.020 Subsection (2)(B) (i) added:  “…requiring a court appearance,” to the end of the paragraph.  In AMC 10.125.020(b) following AMC 120.020.010B:  “…or other area of the city of Ashland the court deems materially related to the persons, crimes, or violations, or the protection of the public...”  AMC 10.125.020(3) added:  “…but not to exceed one year…” to the end of the sentence.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3066 as amended.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin did not think there was enough evidence to indicate an increase in crime in the downtown area harmful to citizens or an increase of problems period and that the ordinances targeted the homeless. 
 
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance to require regular reporting to the Council on relevant issues related to this ordinance effects including but not limited to numbers and types of violations, offenders, failures to appear, exclusions and arrests after exclusion.  Motion died for lack of a second.
 
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance so it will sunset after a specific period of time and not be renewed unless at that time, a majority of Council vote that a preponderance of evidence shows that is beneficial.  Motion died for lack of a second.
 
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance AMC 10.120.020 Section A to remove point 4 which lists the five city ordinances that could be used as a basis for an order of exclusion.  Sections 1 23 naming felonies and misdemeanors as grounds would remain as they stand in the proposed ordinance.  Motion died for lack of a second.
 
Councilor Slattery clarified this was an issue about abusive behavior, not homelessness, and citizens had the right to establish behavior. 
 
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s called for the question.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
 
 
 

  1. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Section 1.08.005F., 1.08.0101A.(1), and 1.08.020 to Effectuate Proposed Ordinance Adding AMC 10.120 ‘Persistent Violation’ and AMC 10.125 ‘Persistent Failure to Appear’.”

 
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3067.  DISCUSSION:
 
Councilor Silbiger called for the question.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Morris, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Silbiger, Morris, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
5.   Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution amending the pay schedule for management and confidential employees for Fiscal Year 2012-2013”
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
6.   Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution of the City of Ashland clarifying certain conditions of employment for management and confidential employees and repealing Resolution 2011-21”
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
7.   Second Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending the development standards for wireless communication facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance”
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
8.   First Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending the general regulations chapter (18.68) if the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish setback requirements for chicken coops and chicken runs”
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
9.   First Reading of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance establishing provisions within the health and sanitation chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code for the keeping of chickens within residential districts”
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
 
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
 
 
 
_________________________________                  _______________________________
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder                             John Stromberg, Mayor
 
                      
 
 

Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

Email Share