Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, July 20, 2010

MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 20, 2010
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street

 

CALL TO ORDER

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

 

ROLL CALL

Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.

 

MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mayor Stromberg gave an update on the 1/186th Infantry Battalion of the 41st Brigade Combat Team of the Oregon National Guard reintegration after deployment.  The troops attended mandatory 30-day and 60-day Yellow Ribbon Reintegration events.  They are anticipating 50% unemployment.  Soldiers and family members participated in military and civilian resources that were helpful in the readjustment process.

 

Mayor Stromberg went on to note vacancies on the Historic, Planning, Public Arts, Housing, and Tree Commissions. 

 

SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?

The Special Meeting minutes of June 29, 2010 were approved as presented.

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS

1.   Does Council have questions regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission's Integrated Pest Management Policy?

City Attorney Richard Appicello reviewed Oregon State policy on pesticides and explained the City’s ordinance regulating pesticide was a codified policy that did not include the Parks and Recreation Department and for the most part addressed City employee protection from exposure.

 

Park Commissioner Mike Gardiner introduced Parks Director Don Robertson and provided the history on developing the plan adopted by the Parks Commission in May 2010.  The plan does not eliminate pesticides but restricts use with an annual review by the Parks Commission every winter.  The key decision was not to eliminate pesticides but retain them as options.  Garden Way and Glenwood parks were currently pesticide free.  Several parks retain pesticide free areas and 99% of the open space, and natural areas are pesticide free.  The annual review of the plan will allow the Parks and Recreation Department to determine ways to reduce pesticide use and budget and implement those reductions.

 

Mr. Robertson reviewed highlights of the policy that included how the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) determined best pest management if needed, information gathering, decision-making, managing results and effective low risk strategies and practices.  The Parks and Recreation Department had trained professionals and used methods endorsed by the State and Federal regulatory agencies.

 

He provided examples of policies in place for years that pertained to mulching, using plants naturally resistant to pests and utilizing volunteers.  Design features included concrete mowing strips that will reduce the need to spray to control and maintain lawn edges.  The Parks and Recreation Department have not used broad leaf control on any of the lawns for decades with the exception of golf greens and have relied on proper mowing, irrigation and fertilization of park turf to deter weed seed using a selective application of herbicides.

 

The Parks and Recreation Department will work to reduce or eliminate the use of pesticides and conduct annual reviews of pest management activities, use the safest pesticides with the lowest toxicity, post areas 48 hours in advance of any application and remove 48 hours following the application.  No employee will use or apply pesticides without prior training or event specific authorization.  They will attend a review of policies, procedures and reduction strategies.  Pesticides are stored in a safe environment.

 

During the annual review before the Parks and Recreation Department will provide records on pesticide use, why, how, where, frequency, targets, and outcomes.  They will also present a strategy for the following year that identifies ways to reduce pesticides.  

 

Mr. Robertson noted reduction efforts will require volunteers to ensure its success and described reduction options.  The State requires all jurisdictions to retain records of pesticide usage for a minimum of three years.  He provided handouts of record codes, an approved list of herbicides for various City properties and the IPM Reduction Plan that will go before the Parks Commission.  The Parks and Recreation Department did not calculate the additional costs preparing the plan or enforcement.   Training that occurs annually was not included in the plan. 

 

Mr. Gardiner clarified this past year was spent documenting process and the goals are to eliminate or reduce use of pesticide with the help of community, volunteers and staff and maintain documentation.  

 

Mr. Robertson cited studies conducted by Portland OR that focused on three parks regarding a comparison of annual pesticide free costs versus an integrated pesticide plan that was similar to Ashland. Results showed the average annual management cost was $3,621 for a pesticide free park after $9,455 in start up costs and an additional 261 volunteer hours.  The total annual cost using a traditional IPM was $371 annually.  Lincoln City eliminated pesticides voluntarily and after three years reinstituted the use of Round-Up because staff was unable to manage the excessive weeding. 

 

Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Read a letter from Terry Mitchell noting that Arcata CA has been pesticide free for 10 years and Seattle WA has not used Tier 1 chemicals for years.  The letter noted the health impact of the chemicals used was severely mis-represented and explained why.  The affect of pesticides on children in utero and as they grow were unknown.  Children’s health has declined and there is an increase in adult chronic diseases.  She understood Ashland would eventually be pesticide free and questioned why not now and asked Council to reject the recommendation and support pesticide free.

 

Allan Peterson/807 Beach Street/Expressed his disappointment in the continued use of pesticides. Despite public support for pesticide free parks and information provided on the affects of the chemicals and inert ingredients, the Parks Commission choose to take a baby step approach to a public health issue that overrides issues of tidiness and grooming.  With an annual review and a board resistant to complete elimination it will take many years to reach the ideal solution meanwhile continuing to expose locals and visitors.  He urged Council to recognize the threat to public health and enact a ban on further use of pesticides. 

 

Julie Norman/596 Helman Street/Shared facts on Round-Up and expressed concern China now has 37 Glyphosate manufacturers.  She appreciated the steps the Parks and Recreation Department were taking and encouraged them to work with the Public Works Department to look at pesticide practices in the City as a whole and inspire landscapers and residents using copious amounts of pesticides to reduce as well.  She wanted pesticide reduction to succeed and hoped a study group would emerge to investigate alternatives and embrace pesticide reduction.

 

Angie Thusius/897 Beach Street/Spoke on behalf of the Grandmothers and Friends in Green and referenced a petition signed by 600 people supporting a pesticide free Ashland.  She referred to two environmental groups from Eugene OR that stated Ashland parks were highly dependent on toxins and added it was impossible to know the ill affects of pesticides when the inert ingredients were unknown.  At Glenwood Park she went with volunteers for an annual clean up but the neighbors were lax and hardly showed up.  In Seattle staff handles the majority these tasks and prevention is key.  Arcata CA banned pesticides in 2000 and their Superintendant of Parks is willing to meet with the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department and explain the process used in Arcata. She would support an ordinance that transitioned to pesticide free over the next three years.

 

Tom Dimitre/901 Beach Street/Represented the Rogue Group Sierra Club and stated the Parks and Recreation Department did not share that 99% of the 150 written and oral comments received requested the Parks Commission to adopt a pesticide free park policy.  The Rogue Group Sierra Club requested the City to evoke the precautionary principle and require all the areas currently sprayed by the City to be pesticide free by January 2011. He urged the City to prohibit the Parks and Recreation Department from spraying at City schools.  Council had the power to ensure the City of Ashland and the Parks and Recreation Department did not spray pesticide and encouraged Council to be the model for private citizens and implement a policy of pesticide free parks.

 

Darwin Thusius/897 Beach Street/There were discussions regarding other cities IPM’s and his impression was the policies varied with the exception that each had a citizen input group that provided oversight, and was unsure if the Ashland IPM included an oversight committee. It would be reasonable to have a review twice a year.  Additionally some felt there was resistance from the Parks Commission to interact with other City Park Commissions and noted the cities Mr. Robertson contacted were different with varying climate factors.  He thought there should be a meeting with people from the City of Seattle, the City of Arcata and other green jurisdictions to exchange information.  He confirmed the use of Round-Up on school grounds and thought the Parks and Recreation Department should educate the School Board and make it known to parents spraying occurs on school grounds.  It was his understanding the City’s ordinance was more restrictive than the Parks and Recreations Department and questioned why they did not adopt the City ordinance.

 

Councilor Navickas voiced concern the Parks Commission did not take aggressive action and set a strict date for removing pesticides.  He had issues with the cost analysis not including how much money went into pesticide use. The Parks and Recreation Department presented examples of failures not successes and noted an interview he heard with the Arcata Parks Director who stated costs benefits, savings and explained the main issue was reconciling community aesthetic biases.

 

Councilor Navickas motioned to direct staff to come back with a policy to remove Tier 1 pesticides from City properties by January 2011.  City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested the item be added to the agenda for Council discussion.

 

Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to bring the item back for further discussion at the end of the current agenda.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought this was an important issue for the community and needed further discussion.  Councilor Silbiger  clarified this was a Parks Commission issue, Parks Commissioners were elected by Charter and the Charter states the Parks Commission is in charge of management and control of all park lands.  Councilor Voisin noted one of the Values that the Council adopted was the wellbeing of the community.  Based on input from the citizenry and her own research on pesticide use this was a public health issue that required a decision from Council.  Councilor Lemhouse added it was also a Council goal to be cooperative and maintain strong partnerships in and outside the City.  The Parks Commission was not required to present the IPM report to Council and had not presented it for Council ratification or as a recommendation.  He respected the decisions the Parks Commission made and thought the motion went beyond a pesticide issue and made it a governance issue.  Councilor Jackson agreed with Councilor Silbiger and Lemhouse that the separately elected Parks Commission by the Charter of the City of Ashland had the authority to make this decision.  She attended half of the meetings the Parks Commission and its Ad Hoc Committee held to develop the policy and would not support Council taking action on the IPM.  Councilor Chapman would not support the motion and thought the Parks Commission had a very open public process, evaluated everything well and came up with a reasonable compromise.  It was clear from their statement they wanted to move towards reducing or eliminating pesticides.  He hoped they would use Arcata California as a resource.  

 

Councilor Navickas did not think the discussion was relevant to the motion and thought there were various regulations that apply to the Parks and Recreation Department that the City passes.  The issue was one the City had authority over.  Councilor Voisin asked whether Council could make an ordinance that applied to the Parks and Recreation Department or if the current City ordinance could be more restrictive.  City Attorney Richard Appicello explained the City owns the parklands but there was specific Charter language on control, management and expenditure of funds vested to the Parks Commission. 

 

Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to call for the question.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.

 

Roll Call Vote on original motion: Councilor Navickas and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Jackson and Lemhouse, NO. Motion failed 2-4.

 

CONSENT AGENDA

1.   Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?

2.   Does Council wish to approve a liquor license application from Torsten Hirche dba Apple Cellar at 165 E Main Street?

3.   Should Council continue the public hearing on adoption of amendments to Chapter 18.62 (Physical and Environmental Constraints), Chapter 15.10 (Flood Damage Prevention Regulations) of the Ashland Municipal Code, and revisions to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps?

4.   Will Council approve the Mayor's request for Judge Allen Drescher to be re-appointed as Ashland Municipal Judge Pro Tem?

5.   Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a special procurement for the direct award (purchase) of flame retardant clothing from the Tyndale Company for a period of five years?

6.   Will Council authorize the solicitation of formal bids and proposals for four public works projects?

7.   Does Council approve the recommendations of the Public Art Commission to implement another round of Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project?

8.   Does Council wish to approve a resolution updating the program to protect its customers from identity theft?

9.   Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, approve multiple contract awards resulting from an invitation to bid for water treatment plant and wastewater treatment plant chemicals?

10. Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, approve the award of a public contract to Hunter Communications, the highest ranked proposer, for internet bandwidth?

11. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a special procurement for the direct award (purchase) of Metal Storm Drain Markers from Almetek for a term of three years?

12. Does Council have questions about the progress on Council Goals?

 

Councilor Navickas requested that Consent Agenda item #7 be pulled for discussion.

 

Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-6 and #8-12. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.

 

Councilor Navickas expressed his appreciation on what the Public Arts Commission did with the utility boxes and encouraged the Commission to focus future requests on conservation oriented messaging.

 

Councilor Voisin/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #7.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1.   Will the Council approve a resolution to update Public Works, Engineering Fees?

Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained Engineering fees had not been updated since 2000.   Due to the table being omitted from a 2006 update staff was recommending adding standard language for annual administrative updates.  The goal was to incorporate all miscellaneous fees into one resolution along with information on original documentation and resolutions. 

 

Public Hearing Open: 8:36 p.m.

 

Staff clarified the Engineering Development fee of .75% of valuation was an estimated value based on the permit at the time of application.   

 

Public Hearing Closed: 8:37 p.m.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Navickas m/s to approve Resolution #2010-25.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson thought coordinating miscellaneous fees was a good example of efficiency measures and was productive.

Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson and Navickas, YES.  Motion passed.

 

NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS

1.   Will Council approve the six requested changes in the relationship between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Community Hospital, as outlined in the memo dated July 7, 2010?

City Administrator Martha Bennett explained staff was seeking direction from Council to prepare relevant documents to adopt new articles of incorporation, draft lease and a definitive agreement.  The changes will better separate the Ashland Community Hospital from the City and add protection from possible liable actions on the hospital’s part.  Changes included the status of the official City Liaison as an ex-officio, increase Hospital Board of Directors from 12 to 14, have the Hospital provide a mid-year report, remove two financial benchmarks, add conditions where the City resumes operations of the hospital and update indemnification language in all agreements.

 

Council and staff discussed removing the City Liaison as an ex-officio, non-voting member of the Hospital Board.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve the six recommendations to include eliminating the City’s liaison position altogether.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought number 1. Removing the City Liaison required further discussion and thought items 2-6 were reasonable changes as long as regular reports occurred.  Councilor Silbiger confirmed the motion would make the City Administrator the point of contact.  Ms. Bennett clarified item 4. Replacing Alternative Financial Benchmarks would have alternative measures of financial performance.  Item number 5. Add Provision to the Definitive Agreement and the Facilities Lease would require the Hospital to provide a six-month notice to the City.  This would ensure a merger or sale could not happen without the City knowing and require a six-month notice.    

 

Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to amend motion to remove item 1. Removing the City Liaison for further discussion and approve items 2-6.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Jackson and Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

 

Council and staff further discussed the conditions where the City can take back the hospital while at the same time the lease agreement provides right of first refusal. 

 

Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.

 

Council discussed the importance of having someone attend Board Meetings but did not think the member needed to be an ex-officio or a liaison.  There was concern whether it was appropriate for liability reasons to attend meetings.  Staff explained an ex-officio non-voting member would not incur liability and could participate in the actual meeting.  A liaison would only participate if the Chair invited their participation and a staff contact could attend the meeting but not participate.  Council asked if language was added stating a member has the right to attend Board Meetings not as ex-officio or member of the Board would provide adequate separation. 

 

Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to appoint a City Liaison who can attend Board Meetings but who is not a member of the board (1b).  DISCUSSION:  Mr. Appicello confirmed adding language allowing Council to attend Board Meetings could be added and noted option 1. B. would provide additional separation as well.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin and Navickas, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

 

2.   Does Council have questions regarding the current status of the Lithia Springs Property lease extension including the environmental assessment work and implementation of the best management practices by the Ashland Gun Club?

Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Maintenance Safety Supervisor Mike Morrison and

Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson and provided a presentation on the Gun Club Lease Update that included:

·         Aerial photo of the property

·         Background

o        April 5, 2010 – Council Study Session to review results of the draft Level II Ecological Risk Assessment report.

o        April 6, 2010 – Council approved a second 1-year lease extension to the Ashland Gun Club to complete the Level II (expires May 30, 2011)

·         Lithia Springs management Plan identified measures to protect the remaining historically significant features.

·         The Ecological Risk Assessment Report has been completed and submitted to DEQ for review.

·         DEQ informed the City that cleanup is voluntary as long as the use remains the same.

Mr. Faught explained per the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) until there was a change of use on the property, clean up and environmental review of the site was not required and clean up at this time was voluntary. Staff was moving forward with a voluntary consult that consisted of signing an agreement with DEQ to approve site-specific technical consultation cost recovery.  Recently a DEQ representative walked through the property with the Gun Club.  The additional consulting will determine other levels of environmental clean up the City can expect in the event the lease changes.  Concentrations of lead in the ground water did not pose a risk to animals and plants in the area because there was not a complete pathway. 

 

·         Gun Club Progress Report

o        EPA “Best Management Practices for Lead at Outdoor Shooting Ranges” (EPA-902-B-01-001).

o        Testing soil pH levels (20 feet in front and at the berms) indicator for lead migration.

o        Sent two of its members to a weeklong training course on these management practices.

o        Developing plans to install a new entry gate that will require an identification card to gain entry.  This gate will provide a computer log of all uses time of entry.

·         Neighborhood Meeting – July 12, 2010

o        5 Neighbors, 4 Gun Club members attended.

o        Staff mailed invitations to 87 properties within a half-mile radius.

o        Agenda included History, Progress Report and Next Steps.

·         Next Steps

o        DEQ Review – Authorize City Administrator to sign DEQ Consultation Cost Recovery Agreement.

o        City Council Study Session – Site Tour.

o        Additional Neighborhood Meetings.

Staff explained the DEQ consultation would provide site-specific technical consultation in regards to the investigation and or clean up of hazardous material and contaminants at the site and generate a record of decision.

 

John Ward/1525 Baldy Creek Road/Explained his involvement with the Gun Club as a project manager on the Immigrant Watershed Assessment conducted on the Lithia Springs property ten years prior.  Lead levels that exceeded the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards would require hazardous waste treatment that could be expensive and he did not see language in the lease requiring the Gun Club to perform clean up practices.  He was concerned the Gun Club was on land outside City limits subject to potential flooding that could mobilize the lead.  He noted the hydrogen sulfide in the wetlands reports found in sites B and D were the same as the water in the Lithia Springs fountain in the plaza downtown.  Hydrogen sulfide is a mild acid that has the ability to interact with lead.  He questioned whether the City has done lead analysis on the water supplied to the public.

 

Bill Longiotti/245 Arnos, Talent/Introduced himself as the Vice President of the Ashland Gun Club and expressed his appreciation working with staff.  He explained that Lisa Freeman the Tech Assistant for DEQ came and inspected the property and was pleased with the results.  The Gun Club had Neilson Laboratories, perform pH factor tests on lead throughout the facility and results showed the pH was within the standards and the lead would not migrate.  The Gun Club was researching gates and had best management practices regarding shot, prevention of lead migration, documenting activities and record keeping.

 

Cathy DeForest/1067 Emigrant Creek Road/Shared four major concerns regarding the Gun Club studies and lease.  The first was only one ground water sample was taken when there should have been multiple samples.  The Gun Club leased over 35 acres and one ground water sample was not adequate. The Brown and Caldwell study done in 2009 occurred during one of driest months of the year and did not address the rainy season.  The Gun Club has used this land for 42 years and no official clean up has happened, targets could have changed with many areas on the land affected by accumulative lead and antimony waste leading to ground water contamination.  Her second concern was the Scientific Study done by the Rogue River Basin for Southwest Oregon by the University of Oregon and the Conservation Science and Policy Study showed there will be flooding in the near future and thought how the affects of a large flood would impact Emigrant Creek should be investigated.   The third concern was if the lease was approved the Gun Club will have the land for $1 until the year 2040 and EPA Best Management Practices are difficult to enforce.  She proposed Council change the lease from 30 years to 3 year so the City could better monitor the Gun Club’s implementation of the EPA Best Management Practices.  The fourth concern was the continued use of lead shot.  The Brown and Caldwell report recommended banning lead shot for trap and skeet ranges to reduce impact on wildlife.  The Gun Club stated they will not be able to enforce this recommendation.  She proposed Council change the new lease to phase out lead ammunition from all areas leased by the Gun Club by July 2011.

 

Edward Kerwin/955 Dead Indian Memorial Road/Explained he was a resident with an organic vineyard on 55 acres above the Gun Club.  The lead in the ground was a hazard.  The City of Ashland needed better communication, information gathering and to look at alternatives in order to make a good decision.  He received a letter from Public Works seven days prior to the July 12, 2010 meeting, but knew other neighbors were not notified and thought public meeting notice procedures should improve.  The recommendation from Brown and Caldwell was to perform additional sampling of groundwater, soils and pH’s for ground water tests and it could be disadvantageous if the City made a decision without adequate information.  He did not think a Gun Club belonged in a wetland, flood plain or close to the City of Ashland.  There were currently 87 residents near the Gun Club and there was noise pollution and active lead pollution of the grounds.  He urged the City to take a responsible position, get more information, communicate with all residents of Ashland and make the best decision they could.

 

Mr. Faught explained the current estimate for further assessments was approximately $5,000 but could be higher.

 

Councilor Navickas/Jackson m/s to direct staff to work with DEQ.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought it was worthwhile to do further assessments to ensure low pH levels were not causing excessive acid from the sulfates in the area as well as determine flood potential.  Councilor Voisin wanted additional groundwater tests conducted.  Staff explained DEQ would review the Level II study to ensure the conclusions were correct and recommend whether the City needs to move forward to Level III and IV testing.  They could recommend more ground water testing but would not do the actual testing.  Mr. Morrison clarified the Lithia Springs water supplies the fountain in the plaza, is groundwater and tested twice a year.  Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion and expressed appreciation to the Gun Club for all their willingness to cooperate and their efforts.  Councilor Jackson supported the relationship the City had with the Gun Club and wanted staff to continue to upgrade knowledge of the site and the way it operates but was not sure having DEQ do additional studies was the right path.  Councilor Silbiger thought it was important to have an official opinion even if there were disclaimers.  When the lease ended, City and Gun Club responsibilities would be clearly defined.  Mayor Stromberg expressed concern the further assessments appeared open ended.  Mr. Faught explained both parties could terminate the agreement within 15 days.  Councilor Voisin would not support the motion and suggested using the money to gather more information before bringing in DEQ for further assessments.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Navickas, Silbiger and Jackson, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.

 

Councilor Voisin requested staff come back in three months with a status report on mitigation.

 

ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS

City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested Council continue agenda item number 9 because the judge was unable to attend the meeting.  Mayor Stromberg moved item number 9 to number 1.

 

1.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing Fees and Charges for Municipal Court Administration" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

 

Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to continue item to the August 3, 2010 meeting. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought Council could not make an informed decision without the Judge’s input.  Councilor Lemhouse had issues continuing the item but did not see the harm in starting the discussion at this meeting.

Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin and Navickas, YES; Councilor Jackson, Chapman, Silbiger and Lemhouse, NO. Motion failed 2-4.

 

The agenda item was moved to number 10. under Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts.

 

2.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 1.08 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

 

Bill Heimann/647 Siskiyou Boulevard /Expressed concern on the change of classifications and found it was more than just removing unnecessary language and provided examples.  He had further concern Council might not understand the changes or the affect they would have on the citizens of Ashland.  The weed abatement ordinance did not have sufficient notification and he wanted to know if that had been updated.

 

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse thought it was a good decision that gave the Judge flexibility but supported a classification system as well.  Councilor Navickas did not support the motion and thought it removed discretion from the Judge.  The current system worked well and maximized the Judge’s discretion.  Councilor Silbiger disagreed and thought being subject to a $500 fine for a minor offense was inappropriate.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson, YES; Councilor Voisin and Navickas, NO. Motion passed 4-2.

 

3.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 4 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted in the Council Communication where changes other than classification were made.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Voisin, Navickas, Chapman and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.

 

4.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 6 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.

 

Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, Navickas, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.

 

5.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 9 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted bullet points in the Council Communication that addressed changes made.

 

Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to amend motion to change 9.08.020 Dangerous Animals and 9.16.020 Vicious Dogs-Control Required to Class I Violations.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Lemhouse explained 9.08.020 and 9.16.020 should have the same classification.  Police Chief Terry Holderness agreed the classification should be the same and added the issues the Police Department tends to have regarding unnecessary noise applied mostly to parties.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Jackson, Lemhouse, Navickas and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.

 

Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Jackson, Lemhouse, Navickas and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.

 

6.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 10 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted amended sections.

 

Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve first reading or ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. 

 

Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to amend motion to change sections 10.46.020 Camping Prohibited and 10.68.330 Sleeping Prohibited to Class IV violations. DISCUSSION:   Councilor Navickas explained the violation generally applies to impoverished individuals and the fine seemed cruel and unusual.  Councilor Lemhouse added it would be difficult getting payment even as a Class IV violation.  Councilor Voisin noted the mess created by people camping illegally and wanted the money from the fine designated for cleaning up their campsites or have the offenders clean the campsites.  Mr. Appicello clarified clean up was already included and would be taken into consideration.  Councilor Jackson stated camping in the watershed was a fire risk and suggested leaving it as a Class III.  Councilor Chapman supported changing the classification but disagreed with the argument on the impoverished level of offenders and the decision on the actual fine amount was at the discretion of the Judge.  Councilor Lemhouse agreed but did not think the offense was that serious.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Navickas, Jackson, Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.

 

Councilor Navickas/Voisin m/s to amend motion to change section 10.44.020 Penalties to Class IV violation. DISCUSSION:  Councilor Navickas thought public nudity violations would typically occur as a means of expression and protest and should not incur a harsh fine.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, Lemhouse and Chapman, NO; Councilor Navickas and Voisin, YES. Motion failed 4-2.

 

Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Silbiger, Navickas, Jackson, Lemhouse, Voisin and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.

 

7.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 11 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.

 

Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve first reading or ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  DISCUSSION:  Staff clarified 11.60.040 Truck Routes – Penalty pertained to a truck leaving a designated truck route and 11.16.010 Speed Limits Public Parks was amended because the Police Department thought is was adequately covered by the vehicle code.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Motion passed.

 

8.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 13 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud and noted changes.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Voisin m/s to approve first reading or ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Chapman, Silbiger, Voisin, Jackson and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.

 

9.   Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 14 to add provisions concerning the classification of offenses, and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud.

 

Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading or ordinance and place on agenda for second reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.

 

10. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing Fees and Charges for Municipal Court Administration" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?

Item delayed due to time constraints.

 

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m.

 

Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 
John Stromberg, Mayor

                      

Ashland 24/7

Pay Your
Utility Bill
Connect
to AFN
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Apply for
Building Permits
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2017 City of Ashland, OR | Site by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twittertwitter facebookfacebook Emailemail Share
Back to top