Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, December 17, 2013

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 2013
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, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
 
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Dave Kanner commended City employees that worked on the streets during the recent snowstorm and shared staff experiences.  Mayor Stromberg voiced appreciation to all staff during this time.
 
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree, Public Arts, and Firewise Commissions and on the Band Board.
 
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of December 2, 2013 and Business Meeting of December 3, 2013 were approved as presented.
 
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS - None
 
CONSENT AGENDA
1.   Acceptance of Commission minutes
2.   Endorsement of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Celebration for the purpose of hanging a banner
3.   Appointment to Housing and Human Services Commission
4.   Appointment to Transportation Commission
5.   Request for a contract amendment exceeding 25% of original contract with Roxy Ann Rock
6.   Approval of a special procurement with JACO Environmental for refrigerator/freezer recycling program
7.   Klamath County Intergovernmental Agreement for building inspection services
8.   Special procurement for the purchase of a Schwarze Street Sweeper
9.   Establishment of and appointment to Ad-Hoc Recycle Center and Waste Reduction Committee
 
Staff recommended pulling Consent Agenda Item #6 Approval of a special procurement with JACO Environmental for refrigerator/freezer recycling program for clarification.  Management Analyst Adam Hanks noted an exhibit attachment was not included in the packet information. 
 
Councilor Morris pulled Consent Agenda Item #8 Special procurement for the purchase of a Schwarze Street Sweeper for further discussion.  Public Works Superintendent Michael Morrison addressed the asterisk on line five of the Special Procurement form and explained the Public Works Department added a cushion to vehicle replacement estimates when they did their budget to cover price variances that might occur during the fiscal year.  What was before Council was approval to use a specific Contractor to purchase the Schwarze Street Sweeper.
 
Councilor Rosenthal/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
 
PUBLIC FORUM - None
 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
  1. Discussion of future planning initiatives
Planning Commission Chair Melanie Mindlin explained the Planning Commission heard Land Use Actions, planning for areas in town, and currently were working on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.  The Planning Commission also held public hearings on legislative issues related to land use and made recommendations to Council. Chair Mindlin went on to describe various projects the Planning Commission worked on.
 
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained over the past year the Planning Commission and staff worked on the Unified Land Use ordinance and the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan.  Both projects would go before Council early spring 2014. 
 
Councilor Rosenthal noted the priority project list and suggested adding a reexamination to annex the area from North Main Street by the Rail Road bridge to the intersection of Valley View Road and Highway 99.  That area was the entrance to Ashland and did not reflect aspects of the community.
 
Mr. Molnar explained in the past staff looked at creating an Urban Growth Management Agreement that instead of annexing the property established a gateway overlay in Jackson County where a certain level of city requirements would apply.  However they encountered issues with property owners.  He confirmed part of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) agreement maintained a co-managed zone between city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to create and maintain individual identity between communities as well as ensure areas with the UGB did not continue to develop more intensely under county zoning. There were also provisions prohibiting certain lot divisions.
 
Mr. Molnar explained in the past staff looked at creating an Urban Growth Management Agreement that did not annex the property but in Jackson County established a gateway overlay where a certain level of city requirements would apply but there were issues with property owners.  He confirmed part of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) agreement maintained a co-managed zone between city limits and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB to create and maintain individual identity between communities as well as ensure areas with the UGB did not continue to develop more intensely under county zoning. There were also provisions prohibiting certain lot divisions.
 
Mr. Molnar went on to explain staff initially looked at parking management, circulation, and deliveries and thought it was a good time to include areas in the parameter of the downtown because of their impacts.  Possible zoning code changes that might occur in the future would provide additional techniques as they looked into parking management.
 
City Administrator Dave Kanner noted it was unlikely the Planning Department could accomplish all the priority projects identified in the Council Communication and Council should indicate their priorities on the list. 
 
Mr. Molnar clarified the Railroad District Master Plan project would review remaining elements of the plan not adopted and possibly allow greater flexibility for building design in the district. 
 
Councilor Marsh thought the zoning on Winburn Way was a priority and should be included in the downtown project.
 
Mr. Molnar explained the first four projects on the priority list, the downtown parking management and multi-modal circulation study, the downtown zoning analysis, the Winburn Way corridor analysis, and the Historic Preservation Ten-Year Plan were top priorities that addressed Council objectives.  The Croman Mill opportunities analysis, the Housing Element update, and the Railroad District Master Plan on the potential list were less of a priority.  However, over the next 18 months there would be opportunities for staff to work on aspects of those projects to move them along.
 
Councilor Voisin wanted the code incentives for affordable workforce housing considered a high priority.  She was concerned the City was still looking into the Croman Mill area and wanted the Housing Element Update set at a higher priority.
 
Colin Swales/143 8th Street/Agreed with suggestion to include the annexation of the north end of town in the priorities project list.  It was the gateway to Ashland and not aesthetically aligned with the community.  He thought the Downtown Parking Management and Multi-modal Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee are weighted towards the business community and Chamber of Commerce members with no one representing the people who live around the area.  He wanted to see public outreach to actual residential neighbors of the downtown area, with the meetings occurring in the evening and a time for public input.  He took issue with the approval criteria and review process for non-structural exterior changes to historic buildings stating it created a huge impact on property owners and was sure no one had informed the public on the criteria. The current incentives for affordable workforce housing should emphasize more inflow in the historic districts.  He addressed Croman Mill noting Plexis Healthcare Systems had pulled out of the development and questioned why Council was looking into urban renewal when the developers showed no interest in developing the property or contributing money to create the infrastructure like normal developers did.  The City should focus more on commercial development and creating a plan for the north end of town.
 
Mayor Stromberg suggested discussing each project separately with a joint meeting with Council and the Planning Commission prior to starting work on the projects.  Councilor Lemhouse suggested adding projects to the list then prioritizing them at the joint Council-Planning Commission meeting.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to place Croman Mill opportunities analysis to the list. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought the project was important and did not think anything would happen until the City reanalyzed the plan.  The Croman plan provided an opportunity to establish commerce and housing and help with affordable workforce housing and pocket neighborhoods.  Councilor Slattery concurred and agreed with a joint meeting to prioritize projects with the Planning Commission then delving into each project separately.   Councilor Voisin wanted Mr. Kanner to summarize a meeting that occurred with the property owners regarding their interest in development of Croman Mill.  Mr. Kanner explained the property owners and their consultant would come back with a proposal that laid out what they were willing to do themselves to jumpstart development that the City would evaluate to determine the City’s role.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
Concern was raised that every time the City took on a project it created special districts and rules.  Question was raised as to whether or not a discussion needed to occur regarding basic codes and building flexibility in the code so it is applied in varying conditions.  Mr. Molnar explained doing sub-area plans was a popular process in other communities.  Ashland traditionally used a form-based approach to planning and tended to focus on the character of the different areas then created a sub-area plan to protect those characteristics.  Comment was made that everything seemed to take two years and part of the issue was that the City was writing new code into the process.  It might be easier to have fewer zoning designations with a couple overlays than completely different types of zoning.
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to add to the list of projects an assessment by the Planning Commission as to the basic approach list in terms of complexity.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Rosenthal/Voisin m/s to forward the list of future planning initiatives including pursuing an urban growth management agreement with Jackson County to a joint meeting of Council and the Planning Commission.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Morris wanted to see planning on Jackson Road.  He noted the current entrance to Ashland and thought the road and overpass needed improving.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
2.   Housing and Human Services Commission involvement in social service grant screening
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the four options Council discussed at the November 18, 2013 Study Session:
1.   Continue the social service grant process as it currently exists.  (A subcommittee of the Budget Committee reviews and makes recommendation on social service grant applications.)
2.   Have the Housing and Human Services Commission screen grant applications and make a recommendation to the Budget Committee.
3.   Have the Housing and Human Services Commission screen grant applications and make a recommendation directly to the City Council.
4.   Have the Housing and Human Services Commission conduct an analysis of the current social service grant program, focusing on whether grants are targeted to the right areas and with appropriate allocations, then have them discuss their findings with the Budget Committee in June.
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to ask the new Housing and Human Services Commission to conduct an analysis of current social service grant program, focusing on whether grants are targeted to the right areas and with the appropriate allocations, then have them bring those findings for a discussion with the Budget Committee in June 2014.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought there was potential in having the Housing and Human Services Commission undertake the high-level review.  Councilor Slattery supported the motion but was not comfortable with the June 2014 cut off.  Councilor Marsh withdrew the motion.
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to request the Housing and Human Services Commission to conduct an analysis of current social service grant program, focusing on whether grants are targeted to the right areas and with the appropriate allocations, then have them bring those findings to a discussion with the Budget Committee. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh explained the Housing and Human Services Commission would look at the process for social service grants and come back with a set of recommendations.  Councilor Rosenthal confirmed the motion would have the Commission look at the grant process only.  The Finance Department would still initiate the process.   Councilor Lemhouse supported the analysis and was not ready for the Commission to have a larger role in the actual grant awarding process.  Councilor Voisin thought the Housing and Human Services Commission should screen grant applications and make recommendations to the Budget Committee.  The Commission had expertise in social services and would understand community needs better than the subcommittee.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Rosenthal, Morris, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
Councilor Voisin motion that Housing and Human Services Commission screen grant applications and make recommendations to the Budget Committee in 2015. Motion died due to lack of second.
 
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1.   Acceptance of FY 2012-2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the report showed improvement since 2008.  The City would have significant costs over the next 5-10 years and were taking steps to meet those needs.  The internal controls for the IT (Information Technology) Department and Court were examples of new changes in the financial reporting requirements from the Government Accounting Standards Board.  The IT Department and Court both received federal money that required comments in the report.  IT was in the process of working on establishing internal controls to support the utility billing systems and would complete the task this month.  Staff expected to clear the comment on the report this year.  Court required a segregation of duties relating to processing payments that was difficult at times due to the small department size.  Staff instituted a tracking process where someone outside the department signed off on adjustments daily.  They expected this comment to clear during the current fiscal year.
 
Mr. Tuneberg explained the City saved $175,000 through refinancing water revenue bonds.  Staff also refinanced the Telecommunication debt from 7% to the 2% range that would save the City approximately $1,700,000 over the next ten years.  The $2,700,000 identified in Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liabilities for August 1, 2014 was unrecorded funds because they extended over many years.  PERS (Public Employee Retirement Systems) was a good example of unrecorded funds.
 
City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified the Mayor and the Parks and Recreation Commission Chair were reviewing a draft of the MOU (Memo of Understanding) and would go before a joint meeting of the Council and the Parks Commission soon.  The MOU showed as a comment for the Parks and Recreation Department but not for the City.
 
Mr. Tuneberg went on to explain the City set money aside yearly for the City funded Internal Service Fund for post employment stipend instead of having a reserve.  Mr. Kanner added the stipend was a discontinued practice and there were 15 retirees’ still receiving funds.  Additionally, the new self-insurance did not affect the Post Employment Health Insurance subsidy.  Projections for the cost of healthcare in the biennium included the cost of providing benefits to the entire risk pool including retirees in the pool.
 
Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to accept the Audit Committee Report and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year end June 30, 2013, as presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
2.   Annual appointments to Citizen Budget Committee
City Recorder Barbara Christensen received three applications from Mary Cody, Karen Clarke, and Joan Williamson.  Ms. Christensen, staff and Council discussed appointment options.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Mary Cody and Joan Williamson to the Citizen Budget Committee with a term ending 12/31/2017 and to appoint Karen Clarke to the Citizen Budget Committee if an opening should occur within the next six months.
 
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to divide motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, No. Motion passed 5-1.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Mary Cody and Joan Williamson to the Citizen Budget Committee with a term ending 12/31/2017.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Karen Clarke to the Citizen Budget Committee if an opening should occur within the next six months. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained there was substantial time provided for applicants to apply and he thought the motion was fair and efficient.  Councilor Marsh added this was essentially an alternate position and would allow Council to fill a vacancy quickly.  Councilor Slattery would not support the motion because situations change and he did not want to circumvent the appointment process currently in place.  Councilor Voisin would not support the motion either.  She wanted to ensure anyone interested had an opportunity to apply.  Council could appoint a committee member within a month of a vacancy.  Additionally, Council had never done this in the past and it set a precedent she would not support.  Councilor Rosenthal thought if a vacancy became available in the next few months he assumed Ms. Clarke would reapply.  The motion set a precedent going forward that might be difficult to undo.  Mayor Stromberg would also not support the motion.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse and Marsh, YES; Councilor Voisin, Morris, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Mayor Stromberg; NO.  Motion failed 5-2.
 
3.   Council discussion of creation of a City beautification and improvement plan and the use of transient occupancy tax revenues for City capital projects
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained at the November 4, 2013 Study Session Council supported forming an ad hoc committee to develop a citywide beautification and improvement plan and determine the use of Transient Occupancy Tax funds (TOT) set aside for City capital projects.  The Council Communication included membership suggestions, a draft purpose statement, and a list of beautification projects previously identified by citizens, staff, the Economic Development Strategy, and the Chamber Downtown Task Force.  Council set aside TOT funds for several budget cycles for Other City Capital Projects that qualified.  Resolution 2013-05 allocated an estimated $128,500 for projects in the current biennium but did not address a process to determine how to spend the funds.
 
Staff suggested membership consist of one member each from the  Historic, Planning, Tree, and Public Arts Commissions, two citizens at large, and two members from the Chamber Downtown Task Force.  Mayor Stromberg added Council would confirm a Council liaison to the committee as well as the two citizens at large.
 
The committee would develop a cohesive plan for the beautification of the community with a primary focus on the downtown core.  Duties included:
  • Review the existing list of possible beautification projects and identify others;
  • Establish criteria by which a proposed project can be evaluated;
  • Evaluate how implementation of these projects will tie in with one another to create a cohesive overall look and integrate the north and south entrances with downtown;
  • Prioritize each project and develop a five year timeline for implementation of beautification projects;
  • Seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts;
  • Reach consensus on a final draft plan;
  • Provide to the Council the committee rationale on its final decision and recommendation to the Council.

 
City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified it was not an allowed use under state law to use TOT funds to pave roads.  He suggested setting aside a specific amount of money dedicated for Plaza improvements each budget cycle.  Alternatively, the committee could review potential Plaza improvements and incorporate it as part of the plan.  Ms. Seltzer further clarified using the funds for marketing would only qualify if Council changed the resolution and did not allocate the 11% for City capital projects.  Staff discussed a five-year plan similar to the structure of the Capital Improvement Plan.
 
Staff addressed the Pedestrian Lights Upgrade and explained a prior Council had approved the Sternberg lights as city standard.  Currently the downtown area had Gothic style lights and the Plaza had Sternberg.  Staff confirmed during a July 2013 meeting Council did not direct staff to change the pavers at the Plaza at that time.  Ms. Seltzer clarified Council discussion at the November 4, 2013 Study Session Council supported the committee having a blank canvas to come up with recommendations for Council approval. 
 
David Sherr/Diane Street/Read a comment from the petition regarding the Plaza dissatisfied with the gray pavers.  He had discussions with every Councilor, the Mayor, and others and all but one claimed no prior knowledge regarding the gray pavers.  Citizens were shown a different color in the final approved renderings and completely blindsided by the gray pavers.  He stated the gray pavers were a colossal mistake.  People, including the former City Councilor Russ Silbiger were unhappy with the pavers. Mr. Sherr wanted the pavers replaced with colored ones and more greenery added to the Plaza.  Over 500 petitioners signed a petition to restore the Plaza.
 
Cici Brown/171 Church Street/Equated the Plaza redesign to the Oak Knoll neighborhood after it burned down.  She was stunned the professional designers did not envision how 4,000 plus gray pavers would affect the ambiance and historical surroundings of the Plaza.  She urged Council to set aside a portion of the TOT funds to replace the gray pavers with warm friendly colors.  She asked the Mayor not to appoint any person, staff, or independent contractors that had anything to do with the look of the Plaza as it was today.
 
Mark Brown/171 Church Street/Read comments from people who signed the petition who disliked the gray pavers in the Plaza.
 
Rik Burns/249 Wimer Street #33/Commented on the Plaza’s lack of trees then read comments from petitioners who disliked the Plaza redesign.  He stated one reason for the Plaza redesign was to discourage transients from using the area and noted transients used it more than others did.   
 
Doug Burns/249 Wimer Street #33/Thought a City staff person made the decision to use gray pavers during a Public Arts Commission Subcommittee meeting regarding the Plaza and intimated Council was possibly hiding something by not investigating why the pavers were substituted with the ones the Council and public approved.  He referenced an email response from the City Administrator explaining he did not have the authority to approve $250,000 project and questioned how a member of his staff that reported to him did.  He had issue with the Council and City Administration’s relationship with the Chamber of Commerce and thought it affected the redesign and choice of gray pavers for the Plaza.
 
Colin Swales/143 8th Street/Shared the same concerns expressed by the previous speakers regarding the ad hoc committee.  He noted the Chamber of Commerce was in the proposed committee and how the Chamber was the defacto invisible government that seemed to run Ashland.  He also had issue with the citizen at large appointees.  He wanted the businesses to pay for improvements through an LID (Local Improvement District), or utility surcharge.  He also had issues with the Sternberg lights casting glare at motorists and making pedestrians difficult to see at night.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to form an ad hoc Committee to develop a beautification and improvement plan for the use of tourism related TOT funds for City capital projects focusing on the downtown area. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted staff suggestions to improve areas outside of the downtown.  He had concerns regarding adequate funding and wanted to focus on the downtown area.  Councilor Slattery agreed the committee should have a blank canvas to work with and wanted the committee to address ideas about the Plaza.
 
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to amend the motion that the Committee look at a 4-year plan that potentially used funds from the current and next biennium.   DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the money allocated for the current biennium was clear, and the four-year plan would help the committee have a long-term perspective.  Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion, it added focus, and the plan was not too far out that it became difficult to visualize.  Councilor Slattery clarified it did not have to be limited to TOT funds.  Councilor Lemhouse confirmed if the committee made recommendations, they would address what the TOT funds were available for and make other recommendations that Council could take up separately.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to amend the main motion to add “or other budgeted money as approved by Council,” to read “to form an ad hoc Committee to develop a beautification and improvement plan for the use of tourism related TOT funds or other budgeted funds as approved by Council for City capital projects focusing on the downtown area.”  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Morris thought the infrastructure requirements would exceed TOT money and they would have to use other funds.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s the membership for the ad hoc committee have two citizens at large with no specifications to their backgrounds or expertise. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin wanted the committee to have citizens at large, not citizens representing specific areas or with backgrounds in urban design.  Councilor Marsh thought the citizens could end up having those qualifications but it was fine to keep it general.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the main motion and in the draft purpose of the committee “seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts,” replace that language with “hold four public forums over a month before each recommendation is taken to the Council.”  Motion failed for lack of a second.
 
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to amend the main motion to add to the membership of the committee two downtown business or building owners in addition to the Chamber Downtown Task Force representatives. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh thought it was critical to have strong representation from stakeholders who were downtown on a daily basis. Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion and did not think it was too many people for a committee.  It was important to have individuals from the downtown involved especially if there was a fee that businesses or landowners would have to pay.  Councilor Voisin would not support the amendment.  Adding two additional downtown representatives was overkill and Council should depend on the Chamber of Commerce to make those appointments.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor Rosenthal and Voisin, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
 
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to amend the main motion to reserve ahead of time, monies to replace the hanging baskets in the Plaza in the coming year up to a maximum of $2,500.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought it may take a while for the committee to form a plan and the infrastructure was already in place for the hanging baskets.  Councilor Morris agreed it was something that should continue regardless of what the committee recommended.  Councilor Voisin thought the committee should decide on the hanging baskets and would not support the motion.  Councilor Lemhouse wanted to avoid telling the committee what to do, if it came to a point where the flowers were in danger of dying, Council could take appropriate action.  Councilor Slattery thought the Council was already committed to the hanging baskets and was not part of what the committee would work on. 
Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-3.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed.
 
Mr. Kanner noted allegations made regarding Ms. Seltzer during public testimony were grossly unfair and unwarranted.  He commended Ms. Seltzer on her role in the process.  Mayor Stromberg added her behavior was ethical.
 
Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1.   Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution accepting changes to the financial management policies and accounting methodologies”
Item delayed due to time constraints.
 
2.   Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a city building for a winter shelter two nights per week through April, 2014, and repealing Resolution No. 2013-30”
Councilor Slattery received inquiries to extend the shelter to two nights per week.  There were enough volunteers to staff a second night and the best night the Parks and Recreation Department could offer was Tuesdays.  The proposed resolution was the same as the Thursday night shelter only extended to Tuesday nights.
 
Fran Adams/292 Gresham/Supported the addition of a second City sponsored shelter night on Tuesdays at Pioneer Hall. It reduced the risk of someone freezing to death and left three nights not covered. The model of using volunteers, the City, and faith-based organizations may not be expandable indefinitely and recommended possibly having a temperature based model instead.  CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) provided four nights of emergency shelter last year when there were 14 nights at 20 degrees or below and 9 nights not covered by existing shelters.  This indicated the CERT emergency shelter was not working as well as planned.
 
Julio Delgado/Homeless/Explained he was houseless and a traveler who had spent the past two weeks in Ashland.  He was able to sleep in shelters Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday.  People referred to Friday as “Fend for Yourself Friday,” because the library was closed and no shelter provided.  He shared information on weather related deaths explaining 700 people died from hypothermia yearly, and many more incurred frostbite.  Most deaths occurred between 30-40 degree temperatures. 
 
John Wieczorek/165 Orange Avenue/Thanked Council for expanding the shelter nights.  He was the Chair of the Social Justice and Action Committee for the Unitarian Universalists Fellowship in Ashland who collaborated with Temple Emek Shalom to staff the shelter.  Both organizations were interested in extending the shelter to a second night.  They also looked forward to working with the Housing and Human Services Commission.  He clarified the existing resolution included dogs and did not require crates where the proposed resolution required crates.  He urged Council to remove that language from the proposed resolution.
 
Leigh Madsen/176 Orange Avenue/Shared his experience as a volunteer who hosted a shelter night where 18 people attended, including two elderly and a toddler who accessed the shelter when it had snowed 8 inches.  Their feet were wet and they were at high risk for freezing.  Last week he saw the same people and had to turn them away because there was no shelter.  It was a heart breaking experience because he knew they would suffer.  An additional shelter night was great but he thought they needed to work with the faith community to cover every night.
 
Councilor Marsh noted a conflict in the current resolution.  The Council required people to self-certify they were at least 18 years old and the proposed resolution had language regarding families and children. 
Councilor Slattery clarified the intent was the resolution reflect the current Thursday night shelter and that included dogs and no crates.  City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified the resolution before Council was not the one they passed. 
 
Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve Resolution #2013-37  authorizing the City of Ashland to provide a City building for Winter Shelter two nights per week through April 2014 repealing Resolution 2013-30 but retaining the language with this addition.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery credited the people that made the shelter happen.  Councilor Rosenthal thanked Councilor Slattery for his compassion in bringing the shelter forward.  Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion but thought crates were a good idea due to the risk. 
 
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to amend the motion that participants must self-certify they are 18 years old.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh did not think the City could protect children in a shelter environment.  An alternative would have families stay in motels or provide transportation to family shelters.
 
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s called for the question.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Roll Call Vote on the amendment:  Councilor Slattery, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Slattery, Marsh, Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
 
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 
 
 
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 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