Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, May 06, 2014

May 6, 2014
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Airport, Conservation, Firewise, Forest Lands, Historic, Public Arts, and Tree Commissions and two vacancies for the Citizen Budget Committee.
The minutes of the Study Session of April 14, 2014, the Executive Session of April 15, 2014, and Business Meeting of April 15, 2014 were approved as presented.
1.  Presentation by the Airport Commission regarding Airport Day
Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury and Airport Commissioner Richard Hendrickson invited everyone to attend Airport Day Saturday May 17, 2014 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Ashland Municipal Airport.
2.  Report to the Council on crime in Ashland and use of force by the Ashland Police Department
Police Chief Terry Holderness provided a report on use of force that occurred 27 times during 2013.  Of the 27 instances, 57% required the lowest of use of force.  Six incidents involved a Taser.  In four of the six instances, the officer only displayed the Taser and used the Taser in the other two incidents.  Of all 27 instances 68% of the people were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 
Deputy Police Chief Tighe O’Meara addressed crime rates for 2013, crime clearance rates, and the enhanced law enforcement area (ELEA).  Part one crime was divided into violent crimes and property crimes.  Violent crimes consisted of Homicide, Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault. Property crimes involved Burglary, Auto Theft, and Larceny.  In 2013, Ashland had 697 instances of part one crime, a 7.82% increase from 2012.  There were 25 part one violent crimes in 2013 resulting in a 29% decrease from 2012 with a 40% clearance of all part one cases and an 80% clearance rate of violent crime. 
Chief Holderness explained the You Have Options campaign for sexual assault had made some impact. However, the FBI’s definition of what constituted rape was significantly limited and the majority of sexual assaults that occurred in Ashland did not meet that definition.  Another issue was late reporting of sexual assaults that changed the statistics to the year it happened instead of the year reported.
Deputy Chief O’Meara further explained Council adopted the ELEA in August 2012.  Between inception and March 2013, there was a 19% decrease in drug and disorderly type crimes and violations in the downtown area.  In 2013, sixteen people qualified for expulsion from the downtown area.  Of the 16, eleven left the area prior to being served expulsion papers. During 2013, there were 17 violations of the ELEA filed through the municipal court.  Of the seventeen instances, three people committed 16 violations. 
The Mayor’s proclamations of May 12-18, 2014 as Craft Brewers Week in Ashland and May as National Historic Preservation Month in Ashland was read aloud.
1.  Award of a professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Relocation Study
2.  Liquor license application for Robert Harvey dba Harvey’s Place
3.  Intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County Community Justice
4.  Declaration and authorization to dispose of surplus property in a sealed bid auction
5.  Approval of a change order to a contract allowing structural repairs to be performed as part of the information booth reroofing project
6.  Approval of a contract amendment with Cascade Research for testing of an archeological site at Ashland Creek Park
7.  Special procurement for the purchase of two aerial lift bucket trucks
8.  Approval of contract specific procurement for the construction phase inspections and project   management of the Calle Guanajuato project
9.  Request for approval of a special procurement for wildfire fuels reduction
Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda item #7 and #9 for further discussion.  Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison confirmed the two lift bucket trucks being replaced would go out for sealed bid auction next year.
Division Chief-Forest Resource Chris Chambers explained the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project had exhausted the $6,500,000 funding from the federal stimulus program. The National Forest Foundation (NFF) found money to match the City’s $175,000 for the AFR project.  The City would send $175,000 to the NFF who would send $350,000 to Lomakatsi Restoration Project to complete the work before the end of 2014. 
Councilor Marsh pulled Consent Agenda item #5 for further discussion.  Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison confirmed replacing the existing roof of the information kiosk and rebuilding the structure would cost $4,000.  Council decided to remove that part of the change order and have the Downtown Beautification Committee bring back alternatives for the information kiosk.
Staff pulled Consent Agenda item #4 regarding the sealed bid auction.  Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained that staff removed item #420 a Ranger Pick-up to donate it to the Southern Oregon University instead.  Council agreed with the donation.
Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve of the Consent Agenda items except item #5. Voice Vote: ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
Councilor Lemhouse clarified the Downtown Beautification Committee had added Refurbish the Plaza Poster Kiosk on a list of projects they wanted to consider.
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to approve the change order to a contract allowing structural repair to be performed as part of the information booth reroofing projects and suspend any repairs or replacement to the roof of the kiosk until further notice.  Voice Vote: ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
  1. Public Hearing and first reading of two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan
Mayor Stromberg called the Public Hearing for two Ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan to order at 7:48 p.m. and explained the rules and guidelines associated with the Public Hearing.
Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Rosenthal had no Ex Parte Contacts to declare and no observations from a recent visit to the site. 
Mayor Stromberg disclosed he had reactions to the plans, and had stated the issues publicly.  He thought there were individual issues that had little to do with the organic nature of the land and what was going on in the City.  Councilor Morris stated he was the liaison to the Planning Commission and attended several meetings regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood.  Councilor Marsh disclosed that during a site visit earlier in the day, she had discussed the land with a neighbor.  Mayor Stromberg, Councilor Morris, and Councilor Marsh expressed they had not prejudged the application and were not biased or prejudiced based on their prior contacts and involvement or by any personal considerations and would make decisions based on the public interest and relevant criteria in the record of the proceeding.
There were no challenges.
Community Development Bill Molnar explained the Normal Plan consisted of 94 acres outside city limits within the urban growth boundary (UGB).  The 94 acres already had plan designations that eventually would allow it to annex at residential densities consistent with the plan itself.  The overall plan took a comprehensive look at the entire area through a process that allowed better coordination through property owners, transportation elements, wetlands, and natural areas.  This was not a development application but a detailed guide implemented through a variety of zoning tools.  The plan contained an amendment process for changes.  Currently there were no applications to develop that area. 
Residents in and adjacent to the planning area raised a number of concerns regarding the loss of quality of life of a rural setting of the area.  Staff and the Planning Commission had a series of meetings and changed the plans in response to the testimony from residents although some remained concerned with density.  The area was within the current UGB with a current plan designation that would allow 450-500 housing units.  The Normal Plan would ultimately envision the same number of housing units.
Senior Planner and Project Manager Brandon Goldman provided a presentation and explained the Plan Components involved the Comprehensive Plan Map, Conservation Areas, Land &Use Zoning, Transportation Network, and Code Amendments.  There were 33 individual properties owned by 26 property owners that were largely vacant with existing developments that consisted of single-family homes on large lots and religious institutions.  
The existing Comprehensive Plan Map was adopted in 1981 and identified 50% of the plan area as single family and 50% as suburban residential typically developed as town homes.   It also identified conservation areas that correlated with flood mapping for Cemetery Creek and Clay Creek.  The newly proposed Comprehensive Plan designated the 94 acres as Normal Neighborhood Plan and modified the conservation areas.  Wetlands were identified in 2007 on the local wetland inventory. 
Mr. Goldman clarified adopting the master plan was not the City annexing the land for development.  Any future annexation was developer driven.  A property owner would have to request an annexation from the City.  Mr. Molnar added annexation criteria for annexation of residential property required showing a lack of a 5-year supply of that type of land within the city limits.  The area was zoned single family.  To annex land showing single-family the applicant had to prove the city did not have a five-year supply.  Currently Ashland had more than a five-year supply of single-family zoned property within city limits.  Other requirements included extending public services, adjacency being contiguous to city limits, and the property was consistent with the plan designation or official maps that might guide that area.  Multi family was the only category that met the five-year lack of supply.
Mr. Goldman explained the Water Resource Protection Ordinance defined wetland and riparian buffers that were included in the conservation areas for Normal Neighborhood.  Additionally areas that precluded development was the Federal Emergency Management Agreement (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and the City’s floodplain designation that was broader than FEMA’s.  Combined they became the conservation areas.
Land uses proposed included:
  • NN-01 Single Family Residential (Single family homes, cottage housings, ARUs)
  • NN-02 Mixed housing types (pocket neighborhoods – clusters units, townhomes, duplexes) 
  • NN-03 Multiple dwelling residential (Multifamily, condos, apartments)
  • NN-03C Multiple dwellings and Neighborhood Serving Commercial
Existing Transportation System Plan
  • Normal Avenue (R19)
  • Creek Drive Extension (R20)
  • Railroad Crossing (X3)
  • Planned Bike Paths
  • East Main Street
Transportation System Plan Amendments included:
  • Normal Avenue location and reclassification
  • Eat Main Street added to Planned Roadway Projects
  • Adopt Normal Plan Street Network into Street dedication Map
  • Adopt Multi Use paths into Planned Bikeway Network Map
  • Adopt Standards for Shared Streets
Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments  
  • Implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan
  • Establishes allowable uses
  • Establishes general site development and design standards
  • Provides for preservation of water quality, site hydrology, and natural areas
Mr. Molnar clarified the City could use a portion of the System Development Charges (SDC) from building permits to contribute to the cost of  East Main or the Railroad Crossing if it was determined the benefit of having those facilities was not based on the impact of the development but contributed to the broader transportation network of the City.
  • Minor amendment process included relocation of street, alley or path by more than 50-feet and a change in boundaries or location of Conservation Areas to correspond with wetland buffer boundary
  • Major amendment process included a zone change, the elimination of a street alley or path and the reduction in area, or elimination of a designated Conservation Area
  • Land Uses
  • Dimensional standards
  • Site and Building Design
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to move the Public Hearings regarding Utility rates and Miscellaneous Fees to May 20, 2014.  Voice Vote: ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
Moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting.
Betsy Bishop/280 Normal Avenue/Lived on Normal Avenue for 15 years and supported a well-designed development of the property.  Her family adjusted to the change and embraced the new neighbors.  Now neighbors seemed to oppose the change.  Ashland was losing young families, diversity, and schools closed.  The community should fear becoming a city of wealthy retirees wanting to retain a homogeneous look to their neighborhood.  Everyone who moved to Normal Avenue was aware it was an urban growth area destined for development. 
Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Explained he was the Chair of a committee representing three home owners associations directly affected by the Normal Avenue Plan.  Their primary concern was the development of the Baptist Church property, configuration, and density.  The suggested timeframe for various improvements to the 94 acres was 25 years indicating residents would have to deal with issues for years before mitigations and amenities took place.  The problem was the addition of up to 130 residential units in 10 acres including commercial development all fronting on East Main.  Major concerns were traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles, public transit, sewer, and water and storm drainage.  The focus was the Planning Commission’s proposal to incorporate high density, commercial development including three story buildings.  The committee wanted that section eliminated.
Dale Swire/233 Clay Street/Lived in a two-story townhouse in the proposed area and wanted to retain what little open space he had.  A year ago, there was an agreement with the Planning Commission not to exceed the current 35-foot height requirement.  At the last meeting, they reneged on that promise and put it in as a minor amendment to satisfy a contractor.  He questioned who was making the decisions, the City, or the contractors.
Lorraine Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Addressed the Baptist Church development between Creek Drive and East Main Street.  She noted a steady increase in traffic on East Main Street and the area between Walker and Clay Streets, the conditions were hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists.  It was also hazardous to make left turns onto East Main Street from Clay Street.  The increased residential density without improvements to East Main Street would only make the problems worse.  She urged Council not to approve any plan that included high-density housing or commercial development in the area.
Jim Amberg/353 Meadow Drive/Expressed concern the high-density development on East Main Street would have on existing sewer lines.  The City’s sewage department frequently worked on issues along Creek Drive.  The pump used for pumping sewage uphill often had problems.  The sewer system was inadequate even for current uses.  The residents of Meadowbrook Park Estates also experienced water pressure issues and repeatedly replaced pressure reduction valves.  Drainage on Creek Drive was also a problem.  Further development would compound these issues.  The City must address these concerns and should not allow high-density or commercial units on the Baptist Church property.
Amy Miller/244 Meadow Drive/Strongly urged Council to change the high density NN-03 zone to an NN-02 or lower density.  She noted the area already had condominiums and apartments and felt like this was becoming a dumping ground for high density.
Alissa Lukara/248 Meadow Drive/Agreed with the previous speakers on the Baptist Church property and limiting the area to the at least NN-02 and NN-01 structures.  She questioned why the City was making the exception to this rural area to allow three story buildings while other residential areas were limited to 2.5 stories.  She expressed concern for the displaced wildlife as well.
Paula Skuratowicz/2124 Creek Drive/Explained she was the President of Ashland Meadows Home Owners Association and felt betrayed by the Planning Commission.  The most contentious issue was allowing three-story housing on Clay Street, Creek Drive, and East Main Street.  The Planning Commission made a concession to eliminate the three-story option and abide by 2.5 story limits but at the last meeting, the Planning Commission reinstated the three-story option.  Notification cards for the meeting were delivered the same day of the meeting.  She could not understand why the developer took precedence over the voters or how it would preserve the distinctive character of the neighborhoods. 
Sugar Mejia/18 Crocker/Introduced herself as the assistant to the Board of Chautauqua Trace Home Owners Association and represented the board of directors and members.  She agreed with the water and water pressure issues, Chautauqua Place residents had to replace water system valves several times.  She was concerned with the high-density development on the Baptist Church property, primarily traffic issues.  The streets were very narrow and increased traffic would create problems.  Chautauqua Place had 89 units and she was surprised to learn they were medium density housing and the idea of adding 450-500 units close by was concerning based on current resources.
Barry Vitcon/316 Meadow Drive/Agreed with the previous speakers.  No one was against the development.  He was concerned the planning process was incomplete and urged Council to send it back to the Planning Commission.  The recent proposal made by the Planning Commission was surprising and he felt devalued.  He wanted Council to refer it back to the Planning Commission for continued responsible development.  Citizens were ready to play a more active role in the process.
Randall Jones/815 Alder Creek Drive/Medford, OR/Represented 9 of the properties in the plan.  He worked with staff and the Planning Commission and wanted to be part of the solution.  He agreed with the neighbors on the points they made.  The City did not conduct scientific studies to determine wetland delineations so his group paid to have a scientific study.  Wetland 4 Cemetery Creek showed 3.86 acres with a 50’ foot buffers.  There was actually 1.2 acres of wetland predominantly caused from the City’s storm drain systems.  The entire Cemetery Creek drainage was within city limits, leaking water, and when the irrigation was not running, leaking chlorinated water.   The center wetland was 1.2 acres with creek drainage.  Wetland 12 showed 1.6 acres linear on the City’s report.  The scientific study revealed two wetlands less than a one third of an acre.  He submitted the reports into the record. 
David Harloff/343 Meadow Drive/Addressed the unilateral change in building heights in the high-density area.  One of Ashland’s finest attributes was the visual quality of the town.  He thought it was wrong to raise the height limits.  He also questioned why the definition of affordable and low-income was always how many people they could stuff into a small area.
Howard Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Explained dividing 500 living units by 94 acres resulted in 5.5 units per acre.  It was a tenfold increase over what was already there.  There was no bus transportation for that area and none forecast.  Density generally fit the middle of the town and Normal Avenue was at the periphery.  It affected living space, open space, and the wetlands.  It was concerning the latest maps on open space and wetland showed them as an overlay.  The current plan was too dense.  He asked Council to consider the people who lived in the area.
Deborah Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Declared she was a member of the Planning Commission but spoke on her behalf regarding the issue.  Planning was a good tool but the housing component in the plan seemed to have won over all other values.  She felt the project ignored long time residents and rewarded short-term residents with financial interests with 450 units to build and sell.  She had concerns regarding water.  Some contractors were filling in state protected wetlands.  Building high density on the south side of the street could harm Exclusive Farm Use land (EFU), their wells, and access to ground water.  Another concern was the impact 450 units would have on water curtailment.  Connectivity was an issue.  The Transportation Commission met three times and never agreed where to site streets.  She noted the projected improvement costs for East Main Street was $8,000,000, improvements to the Railroad was $3,000,000 and questioned who was paying.  Several homeowners had no intention of annexing.
Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Drive/Referred to the Baptist Church and two adjacent properties towards Normal Avenue because they appeared to be in a collaborative development and questioned the density.  She read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.  Birds, bees, flowers, and trees pursued happiness according to their nature.  Humans encroached on their environment pursuing happiness more than life and liberty at the expense and exploitation of others.  She wanted Ashland to be a city of vision, uphold values, and be a model for future generations.  There were a lot of animals and fowl, in the area and some that traveled through in their cycles.
Brett Lutz/1700 East Main Street/Described where he lived and was not interested in annexing to the city primarily because of roads and wetlands.  They would lose TID (Talent Irrigation District) water and wetlands water.  He referred to Wetland W-9 and explained developers wanted to put a road right through it.  He was a scientist and worked on drought.  Currently the area was in a severe drought and this was not the time to assess wetlands.  He wanted someone not vested in the development to conduct the study.  Additionally the middle school bus turnaround alleviated traffic problems on Walker Avenue.  A through street would create safety issues for schoolchildren and buses.
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the May 20, 2014 meeting.  Voice Vote: ALL AYES.  Motion passed.
  1. Public Hearing and approval of five resolutions proposing utility rate increases and repealing prior resolutions
Item moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting.
  1. Public Hearing and approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution adopting a Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document and repealing prior fee resolution 2013-17”

Item moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting.
1.   Second reading of a ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2: Rules of City Council; Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards; Recreation Commission; Conservation Commission; and Certain Administrative and Operating Departments”
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to place the second reading of the ordinance regarding plastic bags on the agenda before the Council and Commission Rules ordinance.  Voice Vote:  Councilor Voisin, Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
1.   Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance adopting a prohibition on the distribution of single use plastic bags”
Management Analyst Adam Hanks explained the ordinance would prohibit single use plastic bags, require single use paper bags have 40% minimal recycled content, contain exemptions, and a six month delayed implementation to exhaust current supplies of plastic bags.  Staff had changed the paper bag fee from 25-cents to 10-cents per Council.
Conservation Commissioner Mark Weir explained economic reports from Ireland, Australia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that instituted plastic bag bans showed no adverse affects on low-income individuals as a result.  He went on to address the Conservation Commission recommendation of the 25-cent paper bag fee.  Statistics showed that 16% percent of plastic bag users shifted to paper bag use regardless of the 10-cent paper bag fee.  Creating paper bags took more water and electricity and produced significant amounts of carbon dioxide.  He encouraged Council to adopt the 25-cent fee.  It would produce a larger change in behavior and the environment. 
He clarified the paper bag fee in San Francisco and Los Angeles was 10-cents per bag.  Both cities found that low-income people moved quickly to reusable bags and adapted better than people who were not as affected by the fee.  Ireland started out with a 21-cent paper bag fee that resulted in an 81% reduction of plastic bag use.  Over time, the plastic bag use grew and they increased the fee to 30-cents for a 40% drop in plastic bag use. Currently they had a 2% plastic bag use and did not use paper bags.  They are looking at establishing a 44-cent levy 2015.  Studies showed incentive programs did not work for ecological moves, specifically banning plastic bags.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s approval of Second Reading and adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of single use plastic bags as modified and direct staff to begin appropriate education and outreach efforts to both the business community and residents and reinstall the 25-cent fee.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Slattery understood and supported the idea to move people from plastic bags first, paper bags next and eventually use with reusable bags.  Councilor Voisin supported the 25-cent fee on paper bags.  Earth Day started 25 years ago and a primary goal was moving away from plastic bags, it took years to institute a ban.  The ban would lesson damage to the environment.  Ashland was a leader in sustainability and the City needed to ensure the ban worked.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to split the motion as stated, passage of the plastic bag ban ordinance as one motion and the revision of the fee from 10-cents to 25-cents as a second motion.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor Rosenthal, Voisin, and Slattery, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote.  Motion passed 4-3.
DISCUSSION on the paper bag fees:  Councilor Rosenthal suggested a time limit of a 25-cent paper bag fee for a year and determine its effectiveness then.  Councilor Marsh had a similar suggestion, implement a 10-cent fee, and determine success a year later.  Councilor Morris preferred not instituting a fee and using incentives and education instead.  He would support a 10-cent fee.  Councilor Lemhouse thought it was disturbing that Council was considering using disincentives to change behavior.  It was preposterous to assume studies from other countries would work here.  The studies showing disincentives worked were short-term.  Long-term behavioral change occurred through strong leadership, incentives, inspiration, and encouragement.  The City had not tried any educational outreach or incentives at this point and was opting for disincentives first.  It the community really wanted a paper bag fee it should go on the ballot for the November 2014 elections.
Councilor Voisin commented that many people supported the ban and the direction the ordinance was heading. She did not think low-income people would be the group not changing to cloth bags.  The assumption they need protecting meant they would not change when they would most likely be the first group to change.  Council purposely chose disincentives with the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA).  The 25-cent fee went to the business and not the City.  Councilor Slattery added the fee was more an avoidance tactic than it was a disincentive.  He dealt with many people below the poverty line as students and the university student population supported the ban 100%.  The paper bag fee would help people change behavior that was destructive to the environment.  The 10-cent fee was not as strong as 25-cents.  Councilor Lemhouse did not intend to make it a class issue.  He felt the ban was moving too quickly, that it overlooked a section of the population, and would not achieve the desired lasting impact.
Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Marsh and suggested starting out with a 10-cent fee for a designated period with outreach and education.  If the shift did not occur, increase the fee to 25-cents.  Councilor Slattery noted the focus should be on what was not being paid and which amount would have the better chance on not being paid, 10-cents, or 25-cents.
Roll Call Vote on the 25-cent paper bag fee: Councilor Rosenthal, Voisin, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke tie with a No vote.  Motion failed 3-4.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to amend the main motion to re-evaluate the .10 cent fee January 2016.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Marsh thought it was a reasonable place to start and use the fee as a motivation for the community.  Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion for one-year review and did not support the fee.  Councilor Rosenthal noted the six-month effective date and suggested the fee review occur January 2016 to allow a year.  Council agreed.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed.
Mr. Hanks explained the education component encompassed working with the Conservation Commission, the Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) Subcommittee, and using portions of the Eugene Outreach Plan.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance #3094 prohibiting the distribution of single use plastic bags as modified and direct staff to begin appropriate education and outreach efforts to both the business community and residents as amended and re-evaluate the 10-cent paper bag fee January 2016.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse supported the plastic bag ban and reiterated he opposed the paper bag fee.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Morris, Rosenthal, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Lemhouse explained the Downtown Beautification Committee were meeting twice a month and recently did a walk through downtown and updated projects on the list.  They will start the process of what to forward to Council for completion.
Councilor Voisin and Marsh invited everyone to attend the Bowl Celebration at Peace House Friday, May 9, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The event benefited Uncle Foods Diner, Ashland Emergency Food Bank, ACCESS, and Food Angels.
Councilor Marsh wanted to add a six-month report from the Resource Center to a future agenda with Council consent.
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder    
John Stromberg, Mayor

Online City Services

Pay Your Utility Bill
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2023 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top