Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, May 02, 2017


May 2, 2017
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Darrow were present.
Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to move agenda item #3.  Discussion to rescind Council vote on April 18, 2017 under New and Miscellaneous Business following the Public Hearing.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
The minutes of the Study Session of April 17, 2017, and the Business Meeting of April 18, 2017 were approved as presented.
Police Chief Tighe O’Meara, Detective Carrie Hull, and Christia Currie, the training and information specialist for the You Have Options Program (YHOP) provided the presentation on the program’s success.  Detective Hull created the program in response to obstacles she encountered with sexual assault investigations.  The YHOP was an unmitigated success and propelled the Ashland Police Department (APD) to the national stage in law enforcement and sexual assault advocacy.  They were in the process of transitioning the program out of the APD to another organization or a standalone agency.  
YHOP did not charge law enforcement partners because they did not want fees to get in the way of training and implementation.  The response from other agencies nationally and internationally was phenomenal.  Within Jackson County, several agencies had gone through the YHOP introductory training sessions and were in the implementation phase of the program.  They were in the process of finishing the second phase of training with the New York City Police Department.
They did not promote the YHOP and wanted agencies to join on their own and commit to the program.  The online reporting feature in the program cost $50 a month for agencies that fully implemented.  Agencies paid to come to the introductory session to cover the cost of facilitating the training.  The City’s financial contribution was Detective Hull’s employment.  Registration fees for the program funded travel and training costs.
Kristina Lefever/2359 Blue Sky Lane/Spoke as chair of Bee City Ashland and provided an update on the program.
Louse Shawkat/876 Cambridge Street/Spoke on climate change and encouraged Council to keep it in the forefront. 
1.   Approval of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2.   Endorsement of SOPride for the purpose of hanging a banner
3.   Annual reappointments to commissions, committees, and boards
4.   Approval of, “A resolution consenting to the redesignation of the Jackson County Enterprise Zone with Jackson County serving as the enterprise zone sponsor
Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1.   Public hearing and approval of, “A resolution revising rates for electric service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.16.030 and repealing Resolution 2015-13”
Director of IT/Electric Utility Mark Holden explained the rate increase was the result of an extensive cost of service study that identified costs associated with a class of service and assigned costs to that class.  This ensured each customer paid his or her fair and equitable share of the cost of that service.  They developed the rate design from the cost of service study.  The rate structure was also defensible, and understandable by those paying the rates.  It eliminated or reduced cross class subsidies so no class was paying for another’s customer service.  It created a framework that would effectively integrate future services into a rate structure.
The cost of service study averaged a 6.9% increase across all customer classes.  Each class would have its own unique rate increase.  Staff had begun unbundling fixed costs from the rates.  Keeping fixed costs in consumption rates varied the City’s ability to cover fixed costs.  Customers that conserved would see consumption costs decrease. 
Public Hearing Opened:  7:35 p.m.
Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 South/Annual electric, rates had gone up 20% over the past four years.  He shared history on Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) debt noting it had decreased less than half over the past twelve years.  The rates increase was not about electricity, it was about paying for AFN.  Paying for AFN through utility increases had not worked well.  A year ago, voters approved using Food and Beverage tax to pave the streets that were still in disrepair.
Meredith Overstreet/840 Cambridge/Questioned why City departments had not cut their budgets or had a hiring freeze instead of always taking from the people that lived in Ashland.  The increase in utilities was significant.  She took issue with having a utility surcharge to fund police officers.  Roads were in disrepair and nothing was being done but the City would build the East Nevada Bridge to assist a few to access I-5.  There was not enough economic growth to support the middle class votes.  People were being pushed out to pay for city employees, special projects, and general city maintenance costs.  The City needed to better manage taxpayers’ money and Council needed to focus on the needs of the community.
Councilor Rosenthal commented there were several statements of fact in the narrative but some were false.
Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the Food and Beverage tax allocation to improve city roads. 
The City would receive approximately $1,000,000 in the biennium as the rest continued to pay off the wastewater debt over the next 4.5 years.  At some point, more money would be available for street projects.  In the short term, they would overlay North Mountain Avenue and Wightman Street and do a total reconstruct of Hersey Street.  Target streets following those projects were Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 
Councilor Slattery clarified Council approved moving forward on the proposed five police officers but had not identified a funding stream.  The item would go to the Budget Committee.
Spike Breon/295 E Nevada Street/Thanked Council.
Heidi Parker/344 Bridge Street/By adding a potential additional $16.73 per month to already high utility fees, and five more police officers in a low crime small city, Council had made the housing crisis even worse.  This was taxation without representation.  Council should take a history lesson from the Boston Tea Party.  Instead of taxing tea, the City should tax marijuana.  Adding $201 a year to the utility bill was difficult for students, families, and people on fixed incomes.  If something were not done soon regarding the rising costs of living here, all the inhabitants would be elderly, wealthy people.  She urged Council to slow down, consult with citizens, and find a better solution that did not increase utility fees for the most vulnerable.
Mayor Stromberg explained the City had special programs for those struggling with utility rates.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:49 p.m.
Mr. Holden explained the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) began their rate case study October through August to determine increases.  Staff had a high certainty these numbers would accurately reflect BPA’s final rate in August.  A fluctuation either way would be less than one percent.  Historically, what BPA projected at this time was typically what was determined in August.  The franchise fees were what the Electric Utility paid the City for use of right of way.  This was the first rate increase in two years.  BPA set their rates on a two-year basis through a rate case.  The City would start a new rate period this August that would be redistributed to the customers.  The City also paid for the transmission.  Other costs effecting rates was the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS), and health insurance costs.  Materials and infrastructure also affected rates. 
Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to postpone this item until the next meeting. 
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Rosenthal wanted to know what percentage of the increase was tied to the cash balance.  He thought they could reduce the percentage increase and focus on the Ending Fund Balance over the course of the next year to lower the increase this year.  It was a substantial increase for the average customer.  Councilor Lemhouse would support delaying it to review more information.  The City had to raise rates to pay for the increased costs.  The alternative was huge debt, and a crumbling infrastructure.  Having a cost of service study was encouraging.  Councilor Slattery supported a delay.  He suggested Mr. Holden host a community meeting outlining the reasons for the increase and discuss the options.
Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to amend the motion to consider the electric rate increase June 6, 2017.  DISCUSSION:   Councilor Darrow did not think it gave Council enough time to weigh the different increases.  Mayor Stromberg explained postponing beyond the implementation date would involve catching up.  Mr. Holden confirmed it was in the budget.  Voice Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Darrow, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Morris would not support the motion.  Council had participated in two Study Sessions.  It was a difficult decision that Council needed to make.  Roll Call Vote on amended main motion:  Councilor Slattery, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris and Darrow, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
2.   Public hearing and approval of resolutions titled, “A resolution adopting a storm drain utility fee schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 2016-07,” and “A resolution revising rates for water service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2016-09,” and “A resolution revising rates for wastewater (sewer) service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2016-08.”
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained for the Stormwater Master Plan, they were recommending a 2.4% cost of living for inflation purposes.  They had not completed the master plan but wanted to stay current with inflation.
Hearing Opened:  8:16 p.m.
Hearing Closed:  8:16 p.m.
Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2017-09 adopting a storm drain utility fee.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Rosenthal thought an eleven-cent inflationary increase had a minimal impact on residents.  It was also tied to an overall strategy.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Darrow, Lemhouse, Slattery, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Morris, YES.  Motion passed.
Mr. Faught explained in 2012, Council adopted a Water Master Plan that contained several large capital projects.  Staff hosted a town meeting to discuss both the water and sewer master plans, and various projects.  One of the projects was the new 2.5 million gallon a day (mgd) water plant, the 2.6 mgd Crowson II Reservoir, and piping the Talent Irrigation District (TID) ditch.  They had approved funding the water plant through the Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) at 1.77% with a $950,000 loan forgiveness.  Staff was proposing to raise the water rate 4.5% as outlined by the last cost of service study to continue to fund and meet debt service requirements for those projects.  The big hit on rates was the PERS and health insurance impact.  The IFA awarded the City a $15,000,000 loan at 7.7%.  For the TID piping project, staff bundled it with sewer projects and would get 1% on all sewer projects because it provided the green alternative for sewer improvements.  Previously for TAP, the City had a 1% loan for $3,000,000 that also included a $950,000 loan forgiveness.
Public Hearing Opened:  8:24 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed:  8:24 p.m.
The average amount a household would pay due to the increase was $2.45 a month.
Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2017-08 revising for water service rates.
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Rosenthal explained the rate increase was tied to a Water Master Plan that multiple committees worked on for years.  It was an investment in the future.  Councilor Lemhouse agreed.  Councilor Morris had trouble with the rate increase.  He thought the master plan needed review.  He would support it because Council had approved the master plan but had concerns.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Slattery, and Darrow, YES.  Motion passed.
Mr. Faught explained the big projects for wastewater included the solution for the wetland temperature requirements from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), a new oxidation ditch, and collection system improvements for an approximate total of $11,000,000.  Staff recently learned the City would get a 1% interest on the loan instead of the 3% to 4%.  The interest rate change resulted in a 5% increase instead of 10% even with the rate incorporating PERS and healthcare.
Public Hearing Opened:  8:30 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed:  8:30 p.m.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to approve Resolution 2017-09 revising wastewater rates. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse commented it was good the rate increase was lower than expected.  Cooling the effluent to DEQ standards was necessary.  Councilor Seffinger added it was important to cool effluent for wildlife.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal, Lemhouse, Morris, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Darrow, No.  Motion passed 5-1.
3.   Discussion to rescind Council vote on April 18, 2017
Mayor Stromberg explained the discussion to rescind came from the outcome of the social services grant allocations that occurred during the April 18, 2017 Council meeting.  During that meeting, Council voted to allocate $4,000 to Options for Homeless Residents in Ashland (OHRA) instead of the agency’s request for $41,958.  While Councilor Seffinger agreed with Councilor Lemhouse that Housing and Human Services Commissioner Harris should have recused herself, she thought the reduction in OHRA’s social services grant was too severe.  The Ashland Community Resource Center served a challenging population.  The Center had worked hard in improving their delivery model.  She recommended increasing the allotment to $22,000. She had also prepared a document detailing changes in the overall allotments to accommodate the increase.
Ken Gudger/497 Lori Lane/Was the Treasurer of OHRA and on the board of directors.  He corrected the record and addressed statements made by Council and in the media that OHRA was unable to secure funding from other sources.  He shared past fund raising and donations. The City provided 27% of OHRA’s funding, the remaining 73% would come from charitable donations and nonprofit foundations.
Montye Male/769 Lisa Lane/Addressed some of the issues of OHRA’s performance.  She explained the center protected 70 families a year from losing their homes.  Thirty-five families previously homeless were homed through OHRA.   They assisted 30 people in finding temporary employment.  Other services were identification verification, employment assistance, access to showers, laundry services, and case management.
Leigh Madsen/176 Orange Avenue/Was the Executive Director of Ashland Community Resource Center.  The center evolved out of a partnership of OHRA and ACCESS with City grant funds for a homeless help center.  Navigating the myriad of social service agencies could be overwhelming to someone struggling with homelessness, job loss, health issues, or other crises. He described how volunteers at the Center put people in touch with the right agency. The key to the Center’s success was having a facility that people could access.
Cate Hartzell/859 C Street/Shared her background as a Councilor and Budget Committee member.  She had contacted the Government Ethics Commission today, shared the scenario where Commissioner Harris could not participate in the vote because she was on the board of OHRA.  She was told that was incorrect.  There was an exception.  She went on to read from the 2010 Oregon Standards and Practices Laws Guide for Public Officials regarding a conflict of interest.  She was disappointed and did not feel represented if Council was unable to correct the issue.  Ms. Harris acted legally. 
Councilor Seffinger/Slattery m/s to rescind the Council approved recommendation of allotments for the social service grants approved at the April 18, 2017 City Council meeting.  
DISCUSSION:  Assistant City Attorney Doug McGeary explained the difference between rescinding and reconsidering a vote.  Councilor Seffinger explained the purpose was to increase the funding to OHRA.  She was also concerned about not decreasing the allotment to St Vincent De Paul.  OHRA had made tremendous improvements in their ability to help the homeless in Ashland.  Councilor Slattery agreed with rescinding the vote.  He did not think Commissioner Harris should have been at the table.  It was a huge penalty to an organization for a misstep.  OHRA had come through some growing pains.  It was important to rethink this and find the funding for OHRA. 
Councilor Lemhouse clarified public testimony on the matter.  The City Attorney advised Commissioner Harris not to attend and she did.  This was not an allegation of a state ethics violation.  It was the appearance the process was not fair for everyone involved.  Council made several points regarding the reduced allocation.  It was more than a penalty, there were issues with the process.  The initial creation of the Ashland Community Resource Center was not as a homeless help center.  It was a center for all residents.  He was not against doing a reallocation but it meant taking away from other agencies that did good work.  Since that vote, he had not received any communication from OHRA.  What he did receive was public shaming, cyber bullying, and hostility.  He supported OHRA and wanted them to do well.  A grant was an investment.  He would oppose rescinding the vote.    
Councilor Darrow commented it was unfortunate the appearance of conflict of interest or conflict of interest had become the issue and not really looking at the numbers served at the Ashland Community Resource Center.  She supported the work they were doing and supported rescinding the vote.  Councilor Morris noted OHRA’s improvement over the last year.   He was not in favor of the reduced allocation.  He had intended to the move to rescind the vote until he saw what was happening in the newspaper and social media.  City ethics rules were stricter than state ethic rules.  He did not support awarding OHRA the original $41,958.  However, OHRA was trying to turn the organization around.  He was not sure if he would support the motion or not.  Councilor Rosenthal did not think the vote was about Commissioner Harris or supporting OHRA.  It was about what message it sent regarding the social service grant process.  He would not support the motion.  He suggested having a Study Session to review the social service grant allocation process.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Seffinger, Slattery, and Darrow, YES; Councilor Morris, Rosenthal, and Lemhouse, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote.  Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Slattery/Seffinger m/s to have staff bring forward a funding mechanism to add $25,000 to the social service grants Thursday night during the Budget Priorities meeting.  This one time addition to the social service grants will allow for a reestablishment of a certain amount of money to OHRA without reducing other allocations.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Slattery stated it was hugely unfair to pull money back from the other grantees.  Council needed to review the funding process.  He was never in favor of having the Housing and Human Services Commission manage the process.  He clarified the $25,000 was in addition to the $4,000 already allocated to OHRA.  Councilor Seffinger noted the City was on hard times regarding what was happening with the federal and state government.  Many things were happening right now and it made sense to support the vulnerable people in the city and the world.  In addition to homeless people, she was looking at the increased rate of sexual assault, abuse in families, unemployment, and drug use.  Trying to put money into this situation was important. 
Interim City Administrator John Karns explained they would have to defund something in one of the departments to cover the amount.  Allocations for some of the agencies received substantially more than they had requested.  Councilor Seffinger added she had taken over allocated amounts into consideration when she was reallocating the grant award for OHRA.  Councilor Lemhouse would not support the motion due to the timing of the budget and the lack of discretionary money.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Morris, Darrow, and Rosenthal, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote.  Motion failed 4-3.   
Councilor Darrow/Slattery m/s to look at reallocation of the social service grants with an increase to OHRA in a way that did not increase the overall budget but reallocated within that framework.
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Darrow explained the motion would put the allocations of the social service grants back on the table.  It could go back to the original allocations from the Commission or the numbers could change. 
Councilor Slattery/Darrow m/s to amend the motion to direct staff to come back with a plan that allocated $25,000 to OHRA and reorganized the $135,000 to achieve that in the most equitable manner.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Seffinger explained there were some discrepancies in what agencies requested, the Housing and Human Services Commission approved, and Council approved.  She forwarded a document of her recommendations that she had developed for reallocation.  Councilor Lemhouse would support the amendment and questioned when it would return to Council for review.  Mayor Stromberg suggested bringing it to the next Council meeting.  Councilor Lemhouse wanted to review the process for grant allocation.  Councilor Morris commented that staff would now set allocations when Council should set them.  He would not support the amendment.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Darrow, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Morris and Rosenthal, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
Council directed staff to bring the reallocations to the next Council meeting.
Roll Call Vote on the amended motion:  Councilor Darrow, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Morris and Rosenthal, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to move agenda item #2. Selection of Interim City Recorder under Unfinished Business after agenda item #1. Appointment to Citizen Budget Committee under New and Miscellaneous Business.  Voice Vote:  all AYES.  Motion passed.
1.   Appointment to Citizen Budget Committee
Assistant to the City Recorder Dana Smith explained the vacancy would fill Pamela Lucas’ position on the Budget Committee.  The City received applications from Tonya Graham, Pauleen Miller, James Nagel, Michael Pavlik, and Peter Schultz.
Council participated in three rounds of voting that resulted in the appointment of James Nagel.  Round One had three votes for Tonya Graham from Councilor Darrow, Mayor Stromberg, and Councilor Slattery.  Two votes for Pauleen Miller from Councilor Rosenthal and Morris, and two votes for James Nagel from Councilor Seffinger and Lemhouse.
Round Two had three votes for Pauleen Miller from Councilor Darrow, Mayor Stromberg, and Councilor Slattery.  James Nagel received four votes from Councilor Rosenthal, Seffinger, Lemhouse, and Morris.
Round three had three votes for Tonya Graham from Councilor Darrow, Mayor Stromberg, and Councilor Slattery.  James Nagel won with four votes from Councilor Rosenthal, Seffinger, Lemhouse, and Morris.
Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve the appointment of James Nagel to the Citizens Budget Committee with a term ending 12/31/2018.  Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
1.   Selection of Interim City Recorder
Council did not consider the late submittal of an internal applicant, discussed the qualifications of the three remaining candidates, and determined the best fit for the position was Melissa Huhtala.
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to appoint Melissa Huhtala as Interim City Recorder. 
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Slattery thought Ms.  Huhtala had the experience and met all the qualifications.  Councilor Lemhouse added Ms. Huhtala had previously worked for the City.  If she had not applied, one of the other two candidates could have stepped up.  Ms. Huhtala was a good team member, was willing to run for reelection, and hopefully, would provide sustainability.  He supported her.   Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Darrow, Slattery, Rosenthal, Morris, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES.  Motion passed.
2.   Downtown parking management strategy
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation ad hoc Advisory Committee recommended Council approve the parking strategy.  Rick Williams from Rick Williams Consulting provided the following presentation:
  • Extensive work and engagement with the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation ad hoc Advisory Committee – 9 meetings
  • Review of previous parking planning effort – 2014 Community Planning Workshop and University of Oregon
  • Collect comprehensives off-street data set – August 2015
  • Develop consensus priorities and decision-making triggers – Guiding Principles
  • Develop 36 month strategy plan
Key Findings
  • On street parking is heavily utilized peak season (>85%)
  • Off-street parking presents an opportunity for absorbing demand
  • More data needed during non-peak periods
  • Status quo systems will not result in desired solutions
  • Comprehensive nature of managing parking will require on-going and focused management, reporting, marketing/communications and public engagement
  • Tasks associated with implementing a new parking management plan will require a level of time, resources and engagement that are not currently in place
  • Active participation of the private sector will be essential
  • The parking plan is iterative and divided into two phases: 
  1. PHASE 1:  0-18 months
  2. PHASE 2:  18-36+ months
PHASE 1:  0-18 months – Strategies 1-15 set the stage for:
  • Solving near term problems
  • Implementing basic improvements to the system
  • Gathering data to inform good long-term decision making
  • Maximizing existing supply
  • Setting the stage for new infrastructure
PHASE 1 Strategies include:
  • Formalize Guiding Principles and 85% Rule
  • Centralize Parking Management.  A single division headed by a professional parking manager.  Supported by a Downtown Parking Advisory Committee (DPAC)
  • A reasonable schedule of data collection to better assess performance of the downtown parking supply
  • Create a new parking brand
  • Implement shared use strategy for off-street (employees)
  • Simplify on-street time stays, using new brand
  • Deploy new off-street signage package
  • Implement four-tiered strategy to improve bicycle parking
  • Design wayfinding system/program
  • Evaluate feasibility of on-street pricing.
18 – 36+ month:  Strategies 16-20 set the stage for:
  • Pricing parking
  • Creating new access capacity
  • Coordinated parking management in neighborhoods
  • Identifying funding options for new capacity/growth
  • Sustained management and service delivery
PHASE 2 Strategies include:
  • Transition to on-street pricing
  1. Explore residential and employee permit programs (on-street)
  2. Initiate rigorous public engagement and communications/rollout strategy
  3. Implement on-street pricing (est. January 2018)
  • Explore expanding access capacity – new parking supply and/or transit/shuttle options
  1. Identify parking sites
  2. Identify transit/shuttle routes and frequencies
  3. Cost forecasting
  4. Develop funding options
  5. Initiate new capacity plan (est. June 2019)
Mr. Faught addressed funding and corrected an earlier statement that they had money for parking management.  There was $370,000 in the account. They would bring in additional funds due to parking fees.  However, it was allocated in the General Fund and staff could not spend it on parking management without depleting the whole fund.  It made it difficult to fund a new employee and expand the Diamond Parking program.  He recommended Council adopt the program and determine funding in the future.  Not approving the plan could jeopardize implementation.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to accept the Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan as presented and wait until additional funding is available to implement certain aspects.
DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse appreciated the work that went into the plan.  It did not mean the City would implement all aspects.  Councilor Slattery thought the plan had merit with possible smaller projects that could be implemented inexpensively.  Councilor Seffinger did not have many positive thoughts regarding the plan.  There were several points to consider, the aging population, riding bikes on icy hills, the demographics of the town, and people working at night.  The plan felt urban and not small town oriented.  Councilor Morris appreciated all the work but could not support the plan without a funding stream.  Councilor Rosenthal acknowledged the almost three years of work from staff and citizens.  Most of the strategies were common sense based.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Rosenthal, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris, Darrow, and Seffinger, NO.  Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote.  Motion failed 4-3.
2.   2017 Council liaisons to boards, commissions and committees
Delayed due to time constraints.
1.   Approval of second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Section 1.08.005F(2) to reflect prior amendment to AMC 10.120.020 persistent violation”
Delayed due to time constraints.
2.   Approval of second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, “An ordinance amending AMC 14.04.060 Water Connections outside the city limits” [with the correction of one word in Section “direction” to “discretion”]
Delayed due to time constraints.
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 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