MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
April 5, 2011
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.
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
Police Chief Terry Holderness invited everyone to attend a Public Forum at Southern Oregon University (SOU) April 6, 2011 to hear a speaker share her experience as a survivor of human trafficking and prostitution in an effort to bring more awareness to sexual assault.
Mayor Stromberg noted changes in the order of items on the agenda.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of March 14, 2011, Executive Session of March 15, 2011 and Regular Meeting of March 15, 2011 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Proclamations of April 17 – 23, 2011 as Independent Media Week, the Month of April as Parkinson’s Awareness Month, and April 3 – 9, 2011 as Arbor Week were read aloud.
Assistant Planner Amy Gunter introduced Tree Commission Chair Bobbie Townsend and Derek Burns from the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) and noted Arbor Week events and Tree Commission accomplishments. Mr. Burns presented the City of Ashland as Tree City USA for the 26th consecutive year.
Mayor Stromberg announced the City was currently reviewing applicants for the annual appointment to City Commissions. In addition, openings were available for the Firewise Commission and the AFN Executive Advisory Board.
1. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor’s appointment of Sandra Friend to the Public Arts Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2012?
2. Does Council have questions regarding the City’s Risk Management Report?
3. Does Council have questions regarding the City’s purchasing practices or participation in the national coalition promoting changes in factory working conditions?
4. Should Council authorize the City Administrator or her delegate to sign the Residential Exchange Program Settlement agreement with Bonneville Power Authority?
5. Does Council wish to approve an order amending the 1994 Ashland Gun Club Lease to extend the least by three months and move discussion of the new lease to June 2011?
6. Will Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement to join the regional Emergency Notification System managed by Jackson County, Oregon?
Councilor Voisin requested that Consent Agenda item #5 be pulled for discussion.
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items with the exception of Consent Agenda item #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve the order amending the 1994 Ashland Gun Club lease to extend the lease by 4 months and move the discussion of the new lease to the July 2011 meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1. Will Council award $193,142 in Community Development Block Grant funds to ACCESS, Inc. and St. Vincent De Paul and direct staff to develop the Annual Action Plan?
Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid introduced Housing Commission Chair Regina Ayars and explained the allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) was $224,525. Of that amount, 20% went towards administering the program and 15% was available for public service activities. Carry over funds from the prior year for $13,522 provided a total of $193,142 available for award.
The City received five applications for funding, two for public service activities from Children’s Advocacy Center and St. Vincent de Paul. Three applicants applied for capital improvement activities, ACCESS Inc., Community Health Center, and Living Opportunities. Community Health Center and Living Opportunities withdrew their applications.
Public Hearing Open: 7:23 p.m.
Cindy Dyer/PO Box 4666, Medford/Explained she was the Housing Director for ACCESS and the funds would provide leverage to acquire additional State and Federal resources for the construction of six affordable housing units. The proposal included a 60-year term of affordability and met City goals on affordability. The price for the land was set by the bank who currently owned the foreclosed property. ACCESS did not directly try to lower the price and could not pay more than the appraised value. At the end of 60 years, the units could come out of affordability but the intent was to keep them affordable.
Rich Hansen/1061 Kristen Drive, Medford/St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Team/Noted the success of the 2010 CDBG award for the homeless program. He explained how the program worked and ranged from subsidizing rent to having an individual’s car fueled. The primary purpose of the Home Visitation Program was to help prevent homelessness with a focus on assisting people with eviction notices to stay in their homes. The funds awarded in 2010 successfully assisted 49 families. Overall St. Vincent De Paul received 800 calls for help and assisted 600 families during 2010.
Charlotte Dorsey/988 Hillview Drive/St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Team/Further explained the volume of calls the Home Visitation program received from Ashland citizens. The CDBG award enabled St. Vincent De Paul to allow people to receive rent beyond one month.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:34 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve the award of $30,000 to the St. Vincent de Paul Home Visitation Program. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Chapman, Voisin, Lemhouse, and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s award $163,142 to ACCESS, Inc. for acquisition and predevelopment of a deed restricted six unit lot on Dollarhide on which to develop six units of housing affordable for the period of not less than 60 years targeting families and individuals making 60% of the Area median Income or less. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought ACCESS had proved itself in their ability to take funding and develop projects and Ashland needed more affordable housing. Councilor Chapman thought the City had paid for the land already and that ACCESS was overpaying for value of the land. As a condition for approval of the subdivision, the City was supposed to get affordable housing on that land. It was now encumbered and worth very little. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained when Bud’s Dairy was annexed in 2003 the City required as part of annexation six units to be affordable housing. At that point, the ordinance did not have terms or conditions that required timing. Language was added after that ensures affordable units part of an annexation had to be built in sequence with market rates. The condition goes with the land but there was no vehicle for the City to take ownership. The City did not spend money on the land and the private developer provided the public infrastructure. Councilor Morris understood Councilor Chapman’s point, the condition in the annexation was bonus densities, and in theory, the City did not get the six affordable housing units. He agreed the selling price was high but did not know if it was worth holding back the grant. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, Lemhouse and Morris, YES; Councilor Chapman and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Does Council wish to grant an appeal by Lisa Grant to revise a Staff decision to terminate City Utility Services due to lack of payment?
City Recorder Barbara Christensen stated that an appeal was filed with her office March 18, 2011 and notice of this meeting had been sent to Ms. Grant. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained Ms. Grant had been unable to pay her utility bills. After trying to coordinate alternate services or support from other agencies staff had to resort to termination because the Municipal Code did not allow a customer to receive service without making payment. Customer Service Division Supervisor Bryn Morrison confirmed Ms. Grant did not complete the application for the Ashland Low Income Energy Assistance Program and had informed Ms. Morrison she would not qualify.
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to uphold decision by Administrative Services Department and discontinue City Utility Services to Lisa Grant until account has been paid in full.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger noted the City attempted to work out an agreement with Ms. Grant and she rejected those agreements as well as assistance from the City and staff had done their diligence. Councilor Chapman added that since she was not present to dispute any of the chronology staff put together he did not see what Council could do. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Chapman, Slattery, Morris and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.
Bruce Thauburn/654 Oak Street/Explained he moved to Ashland the year before and found it to be a community full of enchantment. The area was beautiful and a healing place for the spirit and the body. He read “Creating Abundance” by Henri Nouwen as a thank you to Ashland for being a place for people to safely come and learn who they are and why they are here.
1. Does Council wish to adopt the findings to complete the land use ordinance portion of the annexation process for the properties at 590 Clover Lane?
ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS
Councilor Slattery declared no ex parte. Councilor Morris disclosed a conversation with Steve Morjig regarding the process but not about the annexation. Councilor Lemhouse disclosed he lived in the Oak Knoll area and received an email from a neighbor with concerns regarding notification but it was not part of the requirement to notify this particular neighbor. Councilor Lemhouse forwarded the concern to Community Development Director Bill Molnar and did not think is was substantive. Councilor Voisin had no ex parte but did conduct a site visit. Mayor Stromberg, Councilor Silbiger, and Councilor Chapman had nothing to declare.
Mr. Molnar noted there was one change to Condition 1 that reflected testimony regarding compressor noise and placement. The coolers would remain in their original location and the compressors moved away from the residential area.
Councilor Morris/Chapman m/s to adopt the findings for approval of Planning Action #2010-01570
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
2. Does Council approve Councilor Slattery’s revised Council Goal a proposed purpose statement for an ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee? Will Council adopt a resolution creating an ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee? Does Council approve of the Mayor’s appointment of the Citizens listed to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee?
3. Does Council want to proceed with implementing short-term strategies to address chronic homelessness in Ashland? Does Council want the proposed Homelessness ad hoc Committee to address short-term strategy options? Which short-term strategies does the Council want to implement?
Randy Dollinger/240 Ohio Street/Supported the homeless in Ashland and all Americans. Homelessness was a huge problem and the focus had been on a small hardcore group of homeless people downtown that continue to cause problems. He questioned why the City could not just enforce the laws already in effect instead of establishing an exclusionary zone. It seemed systematic of a tendency currently sweeping the country that was rightwing and fear-based that he thought Ashland community could challenge and stop.
Jeremy Michael/Shared his experiences on being homeless for ten years and with exclusionary zones. He questioned if there were places a homeless person could live like a tree house or a place for a tent. He thought people should enjoy each other and not worry and that things could be resolved.
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Reviewed recent history of the City’s creation of ad hoc committees and submitted information into the record of how Council voted on various committees. She did not think the proposed ad hoc was multi-stakeholder and that Council could change that. There was no one on the list currently working with the homeless nor was there a homeless person on the list. She encouraged Council’s support and thought there were ways to create a powerful ad hoc committee to serve the Council and community.
Daniel Lehner/2135 Siskiyou Boulevard/Shared a poem he wrote with homeless people of Ashland entitled “Include Compassion.”
Caren Caldwell/124 Ohio Street/Explained she was a longtime resident of Ashland and strongly opposed any kind of exclusionary zone the Council might consider. She would be unhappy to expose her children to the meanness and opposition to civil liberties that an exclusionary zone represented.
Helga Motley/693 Clay Street/Spoke against establishing exclusionary issues. Targeting, defining, and punishing people for having violations that accumulate and then not allowing them into specific areas of the town felt like searching for people to target. Stray dogs seemed to receive better treatment than some of the homeless people did. She encouraged compassion and a different solution.
Brian Comnes/444 Park Ridge Place/Doubted an exclusionary zone would be more effective and thought it would give the police more ways to harass people and only pick out a few high incident repeaters. He noted 50-60 court cases of other municipalities that tried to criminalize homelessness and how they lost in court every time. He would rather see the money the City would have to set aside to defend this ordinance in court go towards positive programs that did something about the problem. He thought it was an overreach and a bad idea.
James Henderson/1361 Quincy Street/Did not see the point in an exclusionary zone. There were laws in place to do deal with repeat offenders. Another issue of concern was the sidewalk restrictions that could have a negative impact on street musicians. He opposed sidewalk restrictions and exclusionary zones.
Mountain aka Michael Mauro/2253 Hwy 99 North/Explained he was the RV Camp Host at Jackson Well Springs and thought an exclusionary zone would create more problems. He cautioned about the fires that occurred over the past two years and how everyone was liable for potential wild fire. The best thing to do was take a positive directive, put people in safe places, and not have an exclusionary zone.
Dot Fisher-Smith/945 Oak Street/Was embarrassed to live in a city that would have an exclusionary zone and urged Council to refer the matter to the ad hoc committee. It was a transparent targeting of homeless people. She read a statement from Jack Goodman on how Ashland community helped him get out of homelessness. She believed there were positive solutions more congruent to the values espoused in Ashland and urged Council to let a diverse group of stakeholders work towards a solution.
Suzie Aufderheide/321 North Mountain Avenue/Explained she frequently had homeless people staying with her. She thought community could find a solution with the help of the City. She noted the foreclosures and financial struggles people were experiencing and stressed the need to be compassionate.
Leigh Madsen/176 Orange Street/Agreed homelessness was a complex issue with many faces and there would be challenges to overcome if the City decided to provide compassionate solutions. Ashland was an educated diverse community. The very nature of an exclusionary zone threatened that diverse nature. The people most likely to be excluded were the poor and the homeless, the most vulnerable of the population. Ashland was endowed with a creative and critical thinking populous. The exclusionary zone ordinance was copied from other cities. It had not faced significant legal challenge nor was it proven successful. It would be wiser to engage Ashland’s educated population to work in teams to address real issues. Ashland deserved cutting edge, ahead of the curve outcomes for these complex issues. He urged Council to invest their efforts in collaborative thinking, cooperative problem solving and avoid punitive and demeaning ordinances.
Rich Rhode/124 Ohio Street/Explained he was the Regional Organizer for Oregon Action and was very concerned about the exclusionary zone ordinance. He read the ordinance and was appalled by the language. He observed the Council had the opportunity to address the critical problems the City faced by referring solutions to an ad hoc committee.
Mollie Mustoe/724 ½ Siskiyou Blvd/Was a Southern Oregon University (SOU) student and asked Council to review the short-term alternatives for homelessness in Ashland. She wanted an ad hoc committee that represented all the demographics within Ashland. The committee should address both short-term and long-term solutions. There were alternatives that would support all citizens. She urged Council to support those who have the weaker voice within the city, state, and society.
Sandra Coyner/1160 Fern Street/Expressed her frustration regarding the proposed exclusionary zone ordinance. She hoped Council would establish a committee and work on solutions that could genuinely help the homeless members of the community. She did not see evidence of a health or safety. She was suspicious of a mindset that kowtowed to tourist sensitivities while not tolerating visitors with less money. She agreed there was a possible issue with scofflaw behavior and hoped the City exhibited similar concern for the tourists that tear up their parking tickets. Providing basic human necessities would be a better solution to the “so called” crimes of sleeping and urinating.
Joaquin Saloma/Equated the exclusionary zone with tactics used in Ashland in the past and voiced concern about the police allegedly targeting specific people as “special projects,” and how the exclusionary zone could empower those situations. He asked Council to think on the rights of the people and hoped they would not take it to the level of an exclusionary ordinance.
Emery Way/1100 South Oakdale/Made an appeal to Council to have faith in the community. This was a choice to build community or promote disunity. Many of the problems the proposed exclusionary zone hoped to solve were problems sown by exclusion itself and would not be solved by deepening those lines of division. This was an opportunity to unite not as homeless or homed but as human beings.
Aaron Fein/1401 Oregon Street/Explained he was a former Student Senator at Southern Oregon University. The issues were never ending and they could not be legislated quickly. He noted how easily anyone could find his or her situations reversed and questioned how community takes care of where they might be and where someone else is now.
Ruth Coulthard/566 Faith Avenue/Worked as a coordinator at the emergency shelter during winter and knew several homeless people on the top ten citation list. She thought people were projecting a lot of fear on homeless people that she had not personally encountered. When the homeless were treated with respect they respond in like and suggested respect be the method of interface with this population. She shared her personal experience with one homeless individual named Zero and noted how other homeless people supported him and cared for him like family. He left Ashland knowing he had received the most citations, and was the biggest target for exclusion. She missed him very much. Zero was a good and gracious man. She hoped Council would not project fears and stereotypes on the homeless population. They were individuals and Council should make the effort to interface with them.
Daniel Rueff/Expressed frustration towards Ashland leadership and stated homeless were American citizens living in America. He shared experiences of his friends dying and being murdered for sport because they were not valued and noted people who treated his friends as criminals inadvertently caused that violence. He went on to accuse Council of violating the constitution. He stated his Native American heritage and thought everyone else was illegal aliens and should deport themselves back to their home countries.
Stephanie Joy/Partially quoted the following from Isaiah 10:1: “Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees and the writers who keep writing oppression. To turn aside the needy from justice, and to rob the poor of God’s people of their right. What will you do on the Day of Judgment and the storm, which will come from afar? To whom will you flee for help and where will you leave your wealth?”
Ryan Navickas/2060 Mill Creek Drive, Prospect/Explained why some of the unappealing people living on the streets could not find work or get a home. He addressed those that believe a crackdown would scare the homeless into a disciplined life or run them out of town and asked Council to consider their individual fortune. He listed abusive issues and situations that often lead people to homelessness and cited the exclusionary zone as another form of abuse against those that most need a sympathetic heart, a warm place to sleep and a helping hand. He saw the proposed ordinance as another part of the cycle of abuse and not a solution.
Sue Crader/79 Nutley Street/Worked with the Interfaith Care Community of Ashland (ICCA) in the early 1990s. One of her truths was whatever a person puts out is what they receive. If she treats people with dignity, respect and compassion, that is what she receives. The exclusionary zone would create a path of anger and fear instead of compassion and help. She moved to Ashland because it was progressive, worked towards creating positive change, and wanted Ashland to continue on that path.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve the revised Council Goal and Purpose Statement as presented. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery explained the ad hoc Committee would invite stakeholder groups to present their top three issues and solutions. It would review proposals, forward suggestions to appropriate agencies or to Council for possible action and support. He clarified the committee would have two Council Liaisons as ex officio non-voting members. Councilor Silbiger wanted more information on how the committee would filter ideas. Mayor Stromberg responded the committee would help stakeholders put together substantial proposals. Councilor Silbiger wanted Council to receive proposals within a set timeframe. Councilor Slattery thought Council would most likely receive a report that would require further review through Study Sessions and staff. Mayor Stromberg added the committee would provide stakeholders with a format on how to formulate the proposal. Councilor Chapman supported the idea of community involvement but did not think it belonged in the City organization and had concerns with staff allocating the time for a half time employee. Councilor Voisin supported the committee and noted Homelessness had been on the Council Goals for four years. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Morris, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to adopt Resolution #2011-10 with the addition of two Council Liaisons.
Councilor Silbiger/Voisin m/s to amend motion that the Homeless Steering Committee reports on quarterly basis. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
Ms. Bennett explained the memorandum from the Legal Department in the agenda packet listed seven items that required further definition and clarification. Council could send the first three items regarding the definition of homelessness, issues related to homelessness and possibly redefining the term “stakeholders” to the ad hoc committee to resolve. The fourth issue requested Council clearly define proposal criteria in the resolution. The fifth issue referred to sponsored stakeholder group requirements and adding definition to stakeholder groups. The sixth issue suggested the committee set up rules and process to define its work for Council approval. The seventh issue referenced a termination clause but Ms. Bennett thought the language already in the resolution would suffice. She suggested directing the committee to propose a charge back to Council.
Council discussed whether they should provide more direction and parameters for proposals or wait until the committee formed and presented their process.
Roll Call Vote on main motion: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 5-0. Councilor Chapman was absent from the room.
Councilor Lemhouse suggested Councilor Slattery and Voisin act as Council Liaisons to the Homelessness ad hoc Committee.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve the Mayor’s appointments to the Homelessness ad hoc Committee including Councilor Slattery and Voisin as Council Liaisons. DISCUSSION: Mayor Stromberg read the names of the citizen’s that would comprise the Homelessness ad hoc Committee. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 5-0. Councilor Chapman was absent from the room.
Council discussed concerns on changing a previous motion from February 1, 2011 regarding the seven short-term goals for homelessness. Comments supporting rescinding the motion included how it would allow the stakeholder groups to present solutions and address concerns about a potential exclusionary zone. Opposing comments pertained to Council procedure and issues with Council changing direction.
City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the procedure to rescind a motion and form a new motion.
She read the motion from February 1, 2011: “…to adopt the City Council Goals as revised with one change as well as the Visions and Values statements.” The motion included the Homelessness Issues, ad hoc Committee, Short-term and Long-term recommendations plus other items. Council could specifically rescind the part of the motion that addressed the seven short-term goals.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to rescind the February 1, 2011 recommendation to send the seven short-term goals to be dealt with by Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman reminded Council they originally removed the short-term goals from an ad hoc Committee because they wanted to meet the May 2011 deadline and that was not achievable with a committee. Councilor Slattery thought the process should not be rushed and it would be better to have a good process instead of pushing it through. Councilor Morris would not support the motion. He suggested Council go through the list and determine which items Council could execute or forward to the ad hoc Committee. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Voisin, YES; Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse and Morris, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to send the short-term goals to the ad hoc Committee as a group to be brought back to Council. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought sending the Alternative Giving Boxes and the exclusionary zones to the Homelessness Committee suggested these were homeless issues. They were not mutually exclusive or fully connected. Council should make the policy decisions on behavior issues. Councilor Silbiger agreed the exclusionary zone was not a homeless issue and not an option the ad hoc Committee should review but supported the ad hoc Committee addressing pan handling.
Councilor Voisin explained Police Chief Terry Holderness had suggested the exclusionary zone as a possible solution for a number of individuals, mostly homeless, who had received an excessive number of citations and refused to pay their fines. Chief Holderness explained there was no incentive for some individuals who were not able or desirous to pay their fines and had incurred thousands of dollars in fines to pay them. He was not comfortable with exclusionary zones but researched other cities and found that was the only concept that was effective. When public drinking, blocking sidewalks and public urination go unchecked, there was an increase in other types of violations like disturbances, and fights. This is what Ashland experienced the previous year.
Chief Holderness confirmed an earlier Council decision to change some misdemeanors to violations and wanted to know if that contributed to the increase. Violations were punishable only through fines under Oregon State law. Alternately, people could work off their fines through Community Service. However, if there was no intention to pay the fine there was no incentive to do the Community Service and the multiple offenders the Police Department encountered were not interested in working off their fines. An exclusionary zone created a negative impact by trespassing someone with multiple violations from a specific area for a specific time. The Parks and Recreation Department use this method and found it effective. An individual is told they are trespassed from an area and if they do trespass, could be arrested. They are usually trespassed from an area they want to be in so it creates a negative consequence.
Interim City Attorney Megan Thornton addressed the ordinance that changed classifications and clarified the word infraction was changed to violation and many of classifications did not change. The difference was the City classified levels of violations and changed some to violations. Public drinking and public urinating were already violations.
Councilor Silbiger questioned the point of sending something to the ad hoc Committee that already passed the criteria of being factually supported and capable of implementation. Councilor Slattery wanted the ad hoc Committee to review issues that lead to an exclusionary zone and if they supported it, to have that option come from community. He was interested in solutions that would serve both sides of the issues. Councilor Lemhouse commented Council had directed staff to provide responses that would deal with homelessness and pan handling issues. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted this was a behavioral issue with a disproportionate impact on the homeless. People were cited for urinating and drinking in public regardless of being homeless and most paid their fines. She went on to clarify people who incurred multiple unpaid parking violations were enforced by booting and would not be subject to an exclusionary zone ordinance. She confirmed Council directed staff to provide options and they had, but staff was only providing them and not endorsing them. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Lemhouse and Morris, NO; Slattery and Voisin, YES. Motion denied 2-4.
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to pull the exclusionary zone proposal out and move the other proposals that seem more aligned with the homeless issues to the ad hoc Committee.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse observed Council was not really in favor of an exclusionary zone and sending it to the ad hoc Committee could create a distraction from other options. By removing the exclusionary zone, Council was providing direction they had discussed earlier. He clarified Council was not approving the exclusionary zone just removing it from the list. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion. The exclusionary zone was connected with homelessness and something the ad hoc Committee should address. Councilor Chapman added that panhandling was not a homeless issue.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse and Morris, YES; Slattery, Voisin and Chapman, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to table the idea of the exclusionary zone.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse did not support the exclusionary zone as presented and had issues with the rhetoric that had come along with the exclusionary zone. Referring to an exclusionary zone as a “Final Solution” and comparing it to terrible historic events was disproportionate to the reality and something he did not want. This type of response was a sample of what the Homeless ad hoc Committee would incur repeatedly. There were behavior issues in the downtown area that were affecting the lives of others. Everyone should be held to the same standards with the law equally enforced. No one was above the law or had the ability to do whatever they wanted and affect the livelihoods of people. The ad hoc Committee would explore options and solutions. An exclusionary zone in Ashland would do more harm than good at this time. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin and Morris, YES; Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
4. Does Council wish to affirm, reverse, modify or remand back to the Planning Commission the decision to approve Planning Action 2010-01239 – a Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendment, Site Review, Tree Removal Permit, and Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to construct a 10,632 square foot building at 85 Winburn Way?
Does Council wish to approve the Development Agreement proposed by the applicants, make changes to the agreement prior to approval, or reject the agreement?
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to move Planning Action 2010-01239 85 Winburn Way to May 3, 2011 Regular meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, “An Ordinance Relating to Setting Business License Fees by Resolution” and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained the ordinance would move establishing Business License Fees to a resolution and there were no other material changes.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s Councilor m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading of ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
John Stromberg, Mayor