Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Tuesday, February 17, 2004

February 17, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.
Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street

Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.

Councilor Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn were present; Councilor Laws was absent.

The minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of February 3, 2004 were amended to include the following corrections: After the motion for the Mid-Year update on the Ashland Fiber Network (Page 6), insert "Council discussed and clarified that there was consensus that Staff can be doing all that they can to market AFN and high-speed data outside the City." Councilor Amarotico corrected his statement on Page 1, to read "Amarotico declared a direct conflict due to his company being the sole supplier of beer to this establishment."

Travis Cooley presented flag to City Council and flag etiquette was presented by Girl Scout Troop 2750.

Proclamations of March 1 through March 7, 2004 as Peace Corps Week in Ashland and Proclamation of February 27, 2004 in honor of Lenn and Dixie Hannon were read aloud.

1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees.
2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Linda Butler to the Hospital Board for a term to expire June 30, 2007.
3. Adoption of Findings for Planning Action 2003-112 Approving a Request for Annexation of an Approximately 1.32 Acre Parcel located at the end of Clover Lane.

Mayor DeBoer explained the appointment for the Hospital Board is done differently than the City advertised Commissions and that this appointment is due to a resignation that occurred.

Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.

1. Public Hearing and Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget for FY 2003-2004.

Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained that there are three ways to amend a budget after it has been adopted. Tuneberg noted that in the advertisement and the resolution, Staff had identified the following amendments to the budget:
General Fund - Total amount is $91,400, $11,400 of which is for a continuation of the CERT Grant. Tuneberg noted a correction to be made on the Police Department Budget. He explained that Staff had anticipated that the 911 revenues would go directly to Medford, but due to changes they have opted to have them come to Ashland instead. Since this is occurring, the net amount budgeted is not appropriate for the contract. The contract for 911 Services totals $337,000 and the City had budgeted $257,000.
Airport Fund - Staff is recognizing the upcoming construction of 14 T-Hangars in the amount of $375,000.
Capital Improvement Fund - Staff is recognizing the sale of two parcels that were dedicated to Open Space and are appropriating for any other Open Space Land that might be purchased this year.
Water Fund - Staff is recognizing an amount for ForestLand Management (wildfire fuel reduction), and the Debt Service for the Water Revenue Bonds.

Corrections were noted to the Airport Fund amount to reflect correct amount of $375,000 and the correct amount of $78,800 under ForestLands Management.

Public Hearing Open: 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:30 p.m.

Councilor Hartzell/Amarotico m/s to approve Resolution #2003-06 with the noted corrections. Roll Call Vote: Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison and Hearn; YES. Motion Passed.



1. Discussion of Sidewalk Improvement Standards - Letters from Philip C. Lang.

Community Development Director John McLaughlin and Public Works Director Paula Brown explained they that had reviewed Philip Lang's letter and presented responses to the four main areas that Lang had listed as examples.

Brown explained that bricks are not suppose to be used on a walking surface because they can become uneven over time, and that exposed aggregate can be slippery depending on the type of rock that is used. Mainly from a maintenance standpoint, exposed aggregate is not something that the Public Works Department advocates. She explained that it is more expensive to be put in, and Staff requests a broom finish on sidewalks. Brown explained that the APWA standard states broomed concrete, however there are different grades of broomed finish. She also stated that they will always run into public versus private right of way issues, and that they handle these on a case by case basis. The standard is the starting point, not the law, and they have always allowed some deviation.

City Attorney Paul Nolte explained that the City could not be held liable for any injuries that might occur at OSF. The City owns the land, but it is under lease to the Shakespeare Festival and they have the exclusive right to possession. He added that in the 12 years he has worked for the City, there has never been a claim on any brick sidewalk; however, they have had claims on brushed concrete sidewalks.

Brown further explained the maintenance issues for exposed aggregate, stating it is more difficult to repair a crack or replace a section of the exposed aggregate as opposed to plain concrete. She added that any pattern you put into concrete, other than score lines, is more difficult to maintain and eventually you are left with a patchwork of concrete. To maintain the standard makes it much easier to maintain and repair the sidewalks.

Councilor Hearn stated perhaps it is time to take a look at the code language.

Councilor Morrison explained the recommendation states "when it is appropriate", but questioned if the vagueness of this policy is what's causing the confusion. Morrison suggested that the Council set some criteria under which these exceptions could be made.

Mayor DeBoer noted that the property owner is responsible for the sidewalk in front of their building or residence, and also liability. Paula Brown agreed, but noted the downtown is an exception.

Nolte explained that although there is a portion of OSF that is brick and clearly a sidewalk, he has never interpreted this to mean that the entire Shakespeare Plaza is a sidewalk. The bricks that are part of the sidewalk have been there almost 35 years. He noted that in Section 13.040.030, the last section reads "unless otherwise approved by the City Council". He again stated that to his knowledge, the bricks have not caused any claims to be filed.

Nolte clarified for the Council that the bricks comply with ADA standards, they just don't comply with the current interpretation of the ordinance. ADA simply requires a surface over which wheelchairs can travel. The bricks are not an ADA problem and were not identified by the Department of Justice when they did an inventory.

Mayor DeBoer stated he had pulled the 2003 medical responses to Shakespeare, and there were 17 medical responses last year, four of which were reported as fall victims; two tripped on the Theatre stairs and two tripped on the sidewalk curbing.

Philip Lang/758 B Street/ Verified he had also found there were four fall-related responses last year. He stated broomed concrete is the standard, not aggregate, and doesn't understand how Staff can advocate this when they are talking about people at risk. Lang added that there have been accidents, even if there are no claims filed. He stated he would like to know how many accidents have occurred in previous years, and would like Council's assistance in getting this information. Lang explained he is a health care person and has worked with people who have fallen on the bricks (gave an example of a woman who fell on the OSF bricks and broke her leg). He stated that the standards and rules are getting broken for different people, and urged the Council to take action.

Mayor DeBoer stated he has no issues with the safety of the sidewalks and noted regular sidewalk is just as slippery as the other types.

Councilor Jackson noted Section 13.04.030 and stated she feels no need to change the standard. In terms of OSF, she views the sidewalk as their responsibility. Jackson stated she does not want the City to force OSF to take action and is uncomfortable making any more specification than what they currently have.

Paul Nolte clarified that he does not believe the liability of the City has been increased because of what has been discussed. He added in his view, this is a design issue and Council is not liable for design.

Council asked what was Staff's rational in deciding to include bricks in the new development at OSF.

Paula Brown explained there were two things that occurred: 1) Staff allowed the aggregate finish on the sidewalk at the New Theatre, and 2) On the other side where there were existing bricks, Staff required OSF to put in bump-outs and a crosswalk. Brown clarified that at the bump out is where there are some bricks, which were allowed in order to maintain continuity; however the walking surface that goes across the street is concrete.

Brown added that she feels it is a stretch to say that Staff allowed bricks as a walking surface, and clarified that Staff did not make any changes to the brick surface that was already existing. She also clarified that Staff is not worried about maintenance because they have reached an agreement with OSF, which states that they are responsible for maintaining the bricks.

Council questioned the basis of Staff's decision for the sidewalk in front of the DeBoer house.

Paula Brown explained this was pure oversight since the DeBoer's did not contact the City for a permit before installing the exposed aggregate sidewalk. Brown explained that right of ways and sidewalks get installed all the time without permits; sometimes Staff is able to catch it before the concrete is poured, and other times they are not.

Brown concurred that it would be much easier if the City had just one standard to enforce, but that this would not always be the right thing to do. She added there are some things that they could re-write, and possibly with the help of the City Attorney, craft language that would set the criteria for what cases they would allow changes.

Councilor Hearn stated Section 13.04.030 appears to be fairly ambiguous.

Councilor Morrison supports the rewriting of Section 13.04.030, and noted in subsection B, nowhere does it say '"safe" sidewalks. He added the Council needs to be conscious of their role to provide for safety of the residents and visitors, and would like to set criteria so when they make exceptions they are defensible. Morrison suggests making OSF aware of the Council's interest in safety, going through with the work scheduled for the Public Works Building, and taking a closer look at the DeBoer property to see if there is a safety issue.

Mayor DeBoer declared a conflict of interest, stating the property being discussed belongs to his brother.

Councilor Hartzell suggests either writing a letter to OSF asking to have an engaging conversation or ask the City Administrator to go and speak with them.

Councilor Hearn stated that if they are going to single out property owners it should be done universally, and asked if they would be sending out letters to owners in the Railroad District whose sidewalks are pushed up due to tree roots. Hearn added the sidewalks are the property owners responsibility and feels they should be notified of dangerous conditions.

Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s for Staff to return with language related to exceptions and safety. DISCUSSION: Mayor DeBoer reminded the Council that Staff has a lot of work on their plate, and does not feel the sidewalks as a pressing issue. Councilor Hartzell stated it is the Council's responsibility to follow up on issues that are brought to their attention. Councilor Jackson stated that Staff is aware of the importance of this issue and supports following the current policy without making any modifications. Councilor Morrison reminded the Council that Staff has already recommended modifying Section 13.040.030, and he supports getting rid of the ambiguity. Councilor Hearn stated he will be voting against the motion because under subsection B Staff is already allowed to establish supplemental standards and specifications and does not feel this needs to be addressed by the Council again. Councilor Hartzell stated that if Council can reach an agreement with Staff for them to follow through with these actions, she will withdraw her motion.
Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s to withdraw motion.

Councilor Hartzell/Morrison m/s for Staff to operate under subsection B of Section 13.04 to establish criteria for exceptions to this standard. Voice Vote: Hearn, Morrison and Hartzell, YES. Amarotico and Jackson, NO. Motion Passed 3-2.

2. City Attorney Recruitment Process.
Human Resource Manager Tina Gray presented the process for recruiting a City Attorney. Gray explained that she believes the City can do a good job of recruiting in-house, which would save the City money typically spent for a recruiting firm. Gray explained the target market is exclusively Oregon Bar admitted attorneys with municipal experience in Oregon, and submitted a draft job announcement for the Council to review.

Gray clarified that Staff had performed a non-represented salary survey, which led them to propose the salary change. When looking at the current market, Staff found that Ashland is quite a bit above average, and noted that with the proposed reduction Ashland would still be above average.

City Attorney Paul Nolte stated that he doesn't agree, explaining the salary range is being based on the salaries of the Grants Pass and Klamath Falls city attorneys. The proposed rate would be just barely over the rate in these two cities, but Ashland would be under market in terms of the other markets in Oregon.

City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained Staff has been defining the market based on population, including 20% above Ashland's population and 20% below.

Councilor Hearn clarified the applicant has to be a member of the Oregon Bar, which means that they only need to advertise within the state. Hearn noted the exception of the Oregon Bar bulletin, which goes to every licensed Oregon Bar attorney no matter where they live.

Nolte agreed with Hearn and stated the brochure was designed to produce a smooth transition and alleviate a gap in services. Nolte explained that if the Council wished, they could add that the applicant must be a member of the Oregon Bar by July 1st.

Councilor Hartzell explained she is hesitant to extend the requirement to July 1st, and would prefer to attract applicants who have already been practicing law within the State and are familiar with the Oregon Land Use Laws.

Councilor Morrison stated he was in favor of the proposed recruitment process, which would save the City approximately $20,000. Morrison however cautioned the Council stating one mishandled lawsuit could cost the City more than the amount saved. He stated he has faith in the Staff, but explained that recruitment agencies can offer objectivity to the screening process and some of the tests that they offer can screen beyond the law abilities of the individual to ensure the right fit. Morrison also recommended adding a picture of someone at a desk doing work to the brochure.

Councilor Hartzell questioned changing the municipal government experience from highly desirable to required. Mayor DeBoer stated he approved of the brochure as it is, and does not want to exclude any applicant.

Nolte explained that there are clearly differences between public and private law practice. There are attorney's in the private sector that have experience with land use, but in his view, the more experienced an individual has with municipal law, the better their ability to hit the ground running. In his view they should be looking for someone with extensive municipal experience.

Councilor Hartzell stated she would like to make municipal experience a requisite and add this to the brochure.

Councilor Jackson stated she prefers the language as it is.

Mayor DeBoer reminded the Council that they would be a part of the panel interview process.

Upon Council's suggestion, Gino Grimaldi supports requesting a writing sample from the semi-finalists.

Councilor Jackson questioned reducing the salary range, and noted that Ashland has a lot of enterprise functions.

Nolte stated that he believes the City would limit their market by reducing the salary. He explained that it can be reduced somewhat, but by reducing it to this level would limit the number of applicants from other jurisdictions who have more experience with the broader types of functions that Ashland deals with. Nolte stated that Ashland has never used the comparators for Union salaries as a way to set Department Head salaries and feels it is a mistake to do so now.

Grimaldi agreed with Nolte, and stated if they keep the salary set at the existing level, they have a much higher chance of receiving an individual who can step in fill the shoes of the current City Attorney. If they go with a lower salary level, they will probably have an individual who will take 4-5 years to come up to the level of the present attorney.

Mayor DeBoer noted that the only opportunity they have to adjust a salary is when someone retires. He supports looking into this opportunity to bring the City Attorney salary in line with the Department Heads.

Councilor Morrison/Hartzell m/s to approve the job announcement, salary adjustment, and internal recruitment process. DISCUSSION: Morrison stated he would be open to adding specific wording if the Council desired to do so. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. Councilor Amarotico was out of the room.

3. Review of Draft 2004-2005 Council Goals.
City Administrator Gino Grimaldi presented the results of the Council Goal Setting which was held January 9 and 10. Staff requested Council's input in order to make appropriate changes for final presentation to the Council on March 16, 2004. Once the final goals are determined, Staff will take those goals and schedule the various activities that address the issues, and bring that back to the Council in mid April. Grimaldi noted that the goals will also be taken into consideration when preparing next year's budget, and if they cannot fit a goal within the budget constraints, Staff will bring that to the Council's attention during the budget process.

Councilor Hartzell suggested the following changes:
• Goal #6 & #7:
Removing the bullet points from #6 and add them to #7.
• Goal #8:
The last bullet should read "Provide in-kind support to ACLT to further affordable housing for Ashland."
• Goal #14 & #15:
Combining the two goals to read:

0000000000000 "Enhance water supply and conservation by:
• Developing a citywide focus 'the right water for the right use'
• Explore and potentially develop a three-year plan to improve and extend out current TID system
• Negotiate for other water supply options
• Support effluent reuse for the WWTP effluent
• Complete pre-design plan for future extension of TAP water line, including priority for conservation."

• Goal #16:
Stated the second sentence "Invest in and utilize the most appropriate software to maintain, improve, and enhance internal work performance thereby providing the best possible service to Ashland citizens." seems more like a strategy and does not appear to be specific for the coming year.

00000 City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained the first sentence deals with internal uses, and the second sentence deals with making GIS available to the public.

• Goal #18:
Removing the statement in parenthesis at the end of the goal "(with Council approved guidelines)" explaining this already comes to the Council.

00000 Grimaldi explained that the emphasis was to ensure that the Council reviewed the charge of the Committee.

• Goal #23:
Questioned if they had agreed to expand the free bus program.

00000 Grimaldi explained that there had been discussion regarding expanding the service, and used the hospital as an example.

Move Goal #23 to a bullet point for Goal #24 to read: "Explore expansion of the RVTD bus program".
Councilor Morrison suggested "Explore new service options" rather than the word expansion.

• Goal #32 & #33:
Combining the two goals and make Goal #33 a bullet under Goal #32.

Council consensus to direct staff to make the proposed changes and then to bring it back to the Council for review.

4. Purchase of Ashland Creek Open Space Property (Zaller and Geddes, 755 Oak Street).
Parks Director Don Robertson explained that this is a request for the purchase of a property at 755 Oak Street. In July, 2002 Council approved the Open Space Master Plan, which identified a number of properties as potential purchases for Open Space Preservation. 755 Oak was one of those properties identified, and on December 15, 2003 the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously approved the purchase of this property. The property will include 200 feet of Creek frontage, and an additional 100-foot pedestrian access easement along the Creek. One stipulation is that the easement will not be active until 2014. The price of the land and survey costs is $63,400. The recommendation is to approve the purchase of the property and authorize the mayor and staff to execute all documents necessary.

Robertson clarified the stipulation was a condition requested by the property owners. Originally it was for a 25-year activation period, but during negotiations it was reduced to a 10-year activation period. Staff's feeling is that prior to taking advantage of the easement, they will want to complete the additional connections along the way. Staff feels that there is adequate lead-time to complete those tasks. In the event that the work is completed sooner than anticipated, Staff will be able to revisit this issue with the property owner at that time.

Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve the purchase of the Ashland Creek Open Space Property at 755 Oak Street. DISCUSSION: Robertson clarified for Council that there is funding budgeted and available through the Capital Improvements Fund.  Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.

5. Charter Review and Update.
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained that one of the 2003-2004 Council Goals was to consider a Charter Review. Seltzer explained that for a variety of reasons, cities and counties update their Charter. Because the needs of communities change, and State and Federal laws change, it is important that a Charter be updated periodically and reflect the current times. A City Charter is viewed as a city constitution, and for this reason, city powers are generally stated in broad, general comprehensive terms. The Charter should deal only with the basic, broad fundamentals of city government. It should be as concise as possible and adaptable to changing conditions. The goal states "Consider a Charter Review", and Staff is suggesting that the Council schedule a Study Session to discuss and determine where they would like to go from here.

Councilor Hearn stated he has been periodically informed of the Charter's inefficiencies, and feels a Study Session would be appropriate. Councilor Morrison agreed that a Study Session is a good idea, and recommended inviting a representative from the League of Oregon Cities to attend. Sandra Arp was mentioned as a possibility to provide input.

Councilor Hartzell is supportive of the idea and would to like to have the problems and options clearly defined. She suggested that the Council plan for public involvement, discuss the selection of a consultant, and discuss the use of the existing Charter. Hartzell questioned the political sensitivity, explaining the 6-9 month time frame coincides with the turn over of the council.

Nolte explained that the 6-9 month timeframe was suggested as an appropriate time for a review, but the Council can dictate the length.

Mayor DeBoer stated that one of his goals as Mayor was to look at the Charter Review during his 4th year in office and would like to see any changes proposed at the November election.

Council stated they would like to be provided a timeline so they can see what needs to be done to hit the November election.

Seltzer explained that each community handles it differently when determining who will make up the Review Commission, and stated it can be shaped in whatever way the Council determines best.

Councilor Hearn recognizes the need to insulate the process from those who would try to use it for short-term political gain, and stated the goal is to have a far-reaching document for generations to come.

Seltzer stated the most important thing is that the community is able to view this Review Committee as impartial and non-bias. The perception of the community toward the commission is critical and the level of trust must be there.

Council consensus that a Study Session will be held to further discuss this issue.

6. Revision of Public Pedestrian Easement and Trail Improvements in the Lithia Estates Subdivision on Ashland Creek Drive and Release of Funds for Trail Improvements.
Community Development Director John McLaughlin reminded the Council that 3 years ago they approved the relocation of an easement from one part of a subdivision to another. The two property owners affected by the trail have now agreed to slightly modify its location. Staff's recommendation is to approve the relocation of the trail as proposed. McLaughlin explained that the initial request by the owners was to release the funds set aside so they could construct the trail along with the landscaping. Should this occur, Staff is recommending that the plans for the work be submitted to the Planning Department for review and a building permit issued if necessary. After the agreed upon improvements are completed, Staff will then release the funds. Staff's recommendation is that the Council agrees to the relocation of the trail, obtain an easement for the new location if necessary, and that the funds be released upon completion of the improvements.

Mayor DeBoer expressed his concern that the trail goes nowhere, and is hesitant to construct the stairs and trail until they lead to somewhere. Mayor DeBoer does not have a problem moving the easement and agreement but would not recommend releasing the funds until the trail leads to somewhere.

McLaughlin explained the initial request was for the stair improvements to be done in conjunction with the landscape improvements. So even though the stairs did not go anywhere, it would part of the owners long term lawn and landscape improvements and seemed appropriate to do this all at the same time instead of building a retaining wall without the stair system. McLaughlin added that there has been discussion amongst the neighborhood as to when the stairs should be built, and explained that he does not believe that needs to be determined at this time, but rather leave that up to the property owners.

Councilor Hearn stated there are two arguments: 1) they do not want to lead people to trespass, and 2) if the trail is not physically present on the ground, people who buy into the neighborhood can be surprised or feel ambushed when it is put in years later.

Councilor Jackson stated she supports letting the property owners decide when they would like to install the stairs, and added if the owners want to have vegetative screening, it should be established and let to mature for a number of years before the trail opens.

McLaughlin clarified that the initial plan was to have the stairs constructed of wood, however if the owners wish to construct something with a softer appearance they should be allowed to do so as long as it meets access standards. McLaughlin also explained the liability issue, stating that all improvements are done to the best standards possible for the site, and noted that people assume a certain level of responsibility when hiking on the trails.

Councilor Hartzell explained that having this matter come to the Council helps with the exchange of views in the neighborhood, and stated she is concerned that if this is left up to the property owner it may create a conflict. McLaughlin stated that Staff's position was to pull the Council out of that role and simply ensure that the property owners have the stairs in place, as soon the rest of the trail is available.

Council discussed how to diminish the tendency of the public to use the stairs until the trail is complete, and decided that signage should be added to mark the trail.

Councilor Hearn/Hartzell m/s to approve staff recommendation with the following amendments: 1) if the connection is established through the Kennedy parcel than at that point it would trigger the requirement to build the stairs if they had not already been built, 2) provide signage which would say "Not a Through Trail". Voice Vote: Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson and Hearn, YES; Morrison, NO. Motion passed 4-1.

Councilor Morrison explained that he voted against this motion because he would have liked the Council to have determined the timing of the release of the funds and when the stairs could be built.

1. First reading by title only of "An Ordinance creating new Sections 15.28.150 and 15.28.160 of the Ashland Municipal Code to Provide Fees for Uniform Fire Code Plan Review and Inspections Be Set by Resolution."

Item was pulled for future agenda.

Mayor DeBoer stated he could not attend an upcoming MPO meeting on Feb. 24, and wanted to know if any of the Councilors would like to attend in his place.

Councilor Amarotico/Hearn m/s to appoint Cate Hartzell to attend the MPO meeting. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed.

Mayor DeBoer also noted the RVCOG meeting Feb. 25th, and offered his seat to a council member in his absence.

Councilor Hartzell mentioned that people in the community have been asking about the role the Council could play regarding the DeBoer expansion. Hartzell explained that the findings are set to go to the Planning Commission for approval at their first meeting on March 9th, and in order to fit within the set timelines, Council would have to hear it at the second meeting on March 23rd.

Nolte clarified the Council meeting would be on March 16th.

Councilor Hartzell stating she is trying to come up to speed as to what the timelines are for this process. Nolte clarified that a person would have 21 days to appeal from the date the findings are adopted. Council would then have 10 or 15 days to call it up.

Councilor Hearn questioned why the Council would want to deviate from the standard process of a citizen appeal. Stated he understands that this project is a concern for a number of people, but does not feel the Council should jump out of the established protocol.

Councilor Hartzell clarified that this is not what she is suggesting, and explained that this was an option brought up by Staff and she was simply asking for clarification on that option. Hartzell requested that a timeline and explanation be provided from the City Attorney.

Nolte stated he would supply this information to the Council, but noted that the Council needs to be aware that since they have the authority to call it up, they would be subject to exparte contacts. Council would be required to disclose those exparte contacts at the time of the hearing.

Councilor Morrison stated he would like clarification on whether an appellant would have to go directly to LUBA, whether they could come to the Council, or whether the Council would have to initiate the appeal.

Nolte stated it is the type of application that triggers the appeal process. He added that what they have said in the code is that this is a Staff permit, and those are final decisions of the City, and final decisions are appealed to LUBA. This is one that is not appealable to Council, however there is a provision in the code that allows Council to call it up.

Councilor Hearn stated that he feels that LUBA is the best place to handle this should it be appealed.

Councilor Hartzell requested that the City Attorney submit a memo to the Council explaining what materials they could look at without getting into exparte issues and which they need to stay away from.

Meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m.

End of Document - Back to Top

Online City Services

Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Building Permit
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A




twitter facebook Email Share
back to top