MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
August 3, 2010
Council Chambers
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, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson and Silbiger were present. Councilor Chapman was absent.
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Planning Commission, Public Arts Commission, Housing Commission and Tree Commission.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of July 19, 2010, Joint Meeting with Ashland Hospital Board of July 20, 2010 and Regular Meeting of July 20, 2010 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Proclamations of August 6, 2010 as Hiroshima Day and August 9, 2010 as Nagasaki Day were read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Thomas Myers to the Tree Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2013?
3. Will Council accept the quarterly report at presented?
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Will Council approve First
City Attorney Richard Appicello presented the staff report that included a proposed ordinance and resolution. He clarified the proposed fee schedule, how it related to the State imposed surcharge and requested Council to consider the following staff recommendations:
Mr. Appicello went on to address the following concerns and suggestions made by the Municipal Court Judge:
· The proposed $60 fee for Diversion or Deferred Sentence was cost recovery for City Attorney’s office not necessarily the Court.
During this process, the City Attorney acts as the supervisor similar to the Judge for Bench Probation cases. The $60 fee covers administrative costs to defer the case or keep it off the individual’s record.
· Cost recovery for City Attorney’s office for Civil Compromise costs.
The Prosecutor and Defense Attorney perform the majority of the work involved with Civil Compromise cases. State statute indicates upon the victim’s satisfaction and payment of cost and expenses incurred the Judge can dismiss the charge. Cost and expenses can include Court appointed Attorney’s fees and the cost of prosecution. The proposed fee set a dollar amount so there was a clear amount to be paid.
Municipal Court Judge Pam Burkholder Turner clarified the information submitted by the Court Clerk in a 2008 email regarding current Court Fees should not be considered because it was inaccurate.
Judge Turner read a written statement submitted to the record of her concerns the proposed ordinance and resolution would affect the Ashland Municipal Courts ability to retain flexibility and judicial discretion. There were 126 Municipal Courts in
Judge Turner clarified the only written record kept for violations was what the defendant plead guilty to, the sentence, fines, fees, payment plan if applicable and information that applied to the case. This documentation was not considered a finding. Mr. Appicello agreed and added findings were notes supported by the evidence heard and should include the law, pertinent relevant facts and the conclusion. Judge Turner reiterated the burden producing written findings would put on the Court and did not think it was not necessary for Municipal Courts to document waived administrative fees. She confirmed a computer program contained fees but needed further information on the system and would provide that to Council later. She explained Judges under
Public Hearing Open: 8:14 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 8:14 p.m.
Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to reject the proposed ordinance and resolution. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas was discouraged how the ordinance and resolution were initiated. It should come from the Judge with fees she was comfortable with that allowed her the maximum discretion. Councilor Voisin supported the motion based on the fact 126 Municipal Courts did not require written findings on waived fees. Passing the resolution would change the Court significantly. Councilor Silbiger explained the lack of clarity regarding having a fee schedule spoke to the need to have one. Even the Judge had requested an additional fee for second continuances. He commented on removing discretion and noted not having a fee schedule could work in a negative way and remove the balance of power. The ordinance and resolution needed work but there was no reason to reject a fee schedule. Councilor
Mr. Appicello clarified absent State law all Court fees, Municipal Court practices and operations were subject to City ordinances. City Charter states Council has the authority to establish fees and charges as deemed appropriate and can regulate the Court. Establishing fees or charges require public comment and none of the fees and charges the Court currently used has had opportunity for public comment. One of the reasons for creating the ordinance and resolution was to receive public comment. There was also nothing stated in
Staff expressed further concern the Municipal Court was currently charging fees not documented or adopted by resolution that lacked legal authority.
Council discussed approving the ordinance with changes and addressing discretion at this meeting then have the Judge review the proposed fee schedules and make recommendations later. Staff cautioned Council on replacing “shall” and “shall not” with “may” because some fees should not allow discretion. Council stressed the importance of having something in writing regarding local fees. Opposing comments noted findings or written statements on decisions have to be legally defensible, require substantial paperwork and other Municipal Courts did not require written findings. Comments supporting written documentation noted the need for transparency over-rode the burden of paperwork. Staff clarified the language requesting written findings were taken from the State statute.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to identify areas giving the Judge discretion and provide a description of criteria in order to waive fees. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger,
PUBLIC FORUM
Michael Dawkins/646 E Main Street/Spoke regarding deer issues and noted in two years
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS - None
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3022. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas would not support the ordinance because it removed the Judge’s discretion by not allowing her to raise a fine, only lower it. He described cases of ordinances routinely violated by individuals who were comfortable paying the penalty amount established and having authority to raise their fine would actually be a deterrent. The Judge should have discretion to raise fines. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Lemhouse and
2. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #3023. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Silbiger,
3. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance #3024. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
4. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted changes to Section 2, 9.08.020 Dangerous Animals last sentence was changed to read: “Dangerous animals is a Class I violation.” In Section 6, 9.16.020 Vicious Dogs – Control Required last sentence was changed to read: “Vicious Dogs – Control Required is a Class I violation.”
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3025. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
5. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted changes to Section 16, 10.68.330 Camping Prohibited last sentence was changed to read: “Prohibited Camping is a Class IV violation.”
In Section 8, 10.46.020 Camping Prohibited last sentence was changed to read: “Camping prohibited is a Class IV violation.”
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve Ordinance #3026. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger,
6. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3027. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Voisin, Lemhouse,
7. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Silbiger/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance #3028. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin,
8. Will Council approve Second
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3029. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin,
9. Will Council approve First
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted the following changes: “oversized vehicle” replaced “recreational vehicle,” a cross reference was updated; Class B violation changed to Class II violation and language was added that addressed using personal vehicles for storage. Changing truck routes would involve a Public Hearing.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of the ordinance and place on agenda for second reading for August 17, 2010. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Navickas,
Staff clarified the truck route language struck from the ordinance was outdated and not enforceable because the law it referred to was repealed in 1980’s. It was suggested the Transportation Commission review the truck route data and provide input.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to ask Transportation Commission to review truck route for the City.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does Council wish staff to develop a formal legal opinion about whether the City Council can regulate the use of pesticides in parks?
Councilor Voisin requested clarification regarding the relationship between the Parks Commission and Council. She wanted the City Attorney to provide written information whether Council had authority to ban pesticide that excluded individual citizens and if the Parks Commission would be responsible for upholding that decision.
Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to instruct staff to write a brief statement about the authority between the Parks Commission and City Council regarding pesticides. DISCUSSION: Councilor
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS-continued
10. Will Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance,
Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact
Councilor Silbiger declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse him from the discussion.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to recuse Councilor Silbiger due to conflict of interest. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger left the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
The remaining Council and Mayor had no other conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare.
Councilor
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to modify Chapter 18.53.040 Use Regulations (B) Special Permitted Uses with staff’s suggestion of 15% for Special Permitted Uses. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas commented the Planning Commission went through significant deliberation regarding Special Permitted Uses and decided to limit them. He agreed with the Planning Commissions decision but would compromise and support the motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
Councilor
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to delete the Height Bonus Incentive from the Site Design Standards and Chapter 18.53.050 related to LEED. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas explained one of the controversial issues regarding the Croman Mill project was the City not mandating enough green requirements. The height limit was also controversial. He did not think it was a disincentive and would not support the motion. Councilor
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO; Councilor Jackson and Lemhouse, YES. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 2-3.
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Staff clarified changes were reflected in the Council Communication and would be read at Second Reading.
Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to approve First
Councilor Navickas acknowledged the project was controversial and the effort put forward to balance the plan. He agreed with Councilor Voisin regarding the Rail Road District and the downtown area but the Croman Mill property was within city limits and currently had development pressures. The plan was a good decision and a step towards providing jobs that would affect the community for the better in the long term. Councilor Lemhouse noted the compromise that had gone into the project and although it was not perfect, thought not acting was irresponsible. It was the duty of Council to create an economic environment where community will flourish. Councilor
Councilor Voisin responded she was being responsible in her vote by pointing out there were two other plans the City should be implementing. Instead, the City was moving forward on a project that will take 10-15 years to develop. This would not solve the problem the recession had created and Council should exercise a different focus. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, NO; Councilor Jackson, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 3-1.
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending amc 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.017 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and move to Second Reading at the next meeting. DISCUSSION: Councilor
City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres of land within the City Limits from M-1, E-1, and R-1-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Croman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Commercial Center, CM-NC as amended by Council and move to Second Reading at the next meeting.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, NO; Councilor Jackson, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Motion passed 3-1.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to continue to Second Reading of Ordinance #1 amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District designation to Chapter 2 Inter Definitions to add the Croman Mill Plan designation of the adopted land use map legend and adopt a Croman Mill Site redevelopment plan and economic opportunities analysis as support documents to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to the next meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to continue Ordinance #3 amending 18.72.080 (C) Site Design Standards to add a new site design and use standards for the Croman Mill District to the next meeting for Second Reading. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to continue Ordinance #6 amending AMC Chapter 15 to create
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:06 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor