Agendas and Minutes

City Council (View All)

Regular Meeting

Minutes
Tuesday, November 01, 2011

   MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
November 1, 2011

Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
 

ROLL CALL
Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. Councilor Morris arrived at 7:39 p.m.
 
MAYORíS ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced openings on the Tree, Planning, Historic, and Conservation Commissions, the Audit and the Budget Committees. 
 
Jackson County Commissioner Don Skundrick addressed the Mayor, Council, and staff, past, present for their support for the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process over the last 10 years, and explained the next steps.
 
Councilor Slattery introduced Associated Students of Southern Oregon University (ASSOU) Vice President Amanda Stucky, President Hassan Harris, and Volunteer Director of Sustainability Shaun Franks.  
 
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Study Session of October 17, 2011, Executive Session of October 18, 2011, and the Regular Meeting of October 18, 2011 were approved as presented.
 
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS(None)
 
CONSENT AGENDA
1.   Does Council wish to approve already submitted applications and matching funds for two Assistance Firefighter Grant including one for an aerial ladder truck totaling $900,000 of which a $90,000 match would be required from the City and $161,316 for personal protection equipment and radiation monitoring of which $16,131 is required as matching funds from the City?
2.   Will Council approve the appointment of Russ Silbiger as the Council Liaison to the Ashland Community Hospital Board?
3.   Does Council have any questions regarding the results of sale of General Obligation bonds to fund the Fire Station #2 construction?
4.   Should Council approve a resolution to adjust budget appropriations for changes in operational expenses to remain in compliance with Oregon Budget Law?
5.   Does Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Kevin Dikes dba Cebolla Bar and Grill, LLC, 1951 Ashland Street?
 
Councilor Lemhouse pulled Consent Agenda item #1 and Councilor Voisin pulled item #4 for further discussion.
 
Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #2, #3 and #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Fire Chief John Karns explained the 10% match to fund the ladder truck in the Assistant Firefighters Grant would come from the Vehicle Replacement Fund.  Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg further explained they would determine if there were a surplus in the Fire Equipment and Equipment Fund to meet the match and it could be several years before it went into the actual budget. 
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #1. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg addressed the transfer of appropriations resolution and allocating funds and clarified the Conservation Management position was not included because it did not pass the budget process.  The Police and Fire positions were in the budget but staff had recommended not funding them at the time due to a lack of funds.  Given the current the carry forward, this was an appropriate time to reconsider the Fire and Police Department positions.
 
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to appropriate half the salary considered, $40,000 for the Conservation Manager position. DISCUSSION:Councilor Voisin noted the Conservation Commission and staff recommended the Conservation Manager and during the Budget Committee meeting, the vote was a tie and subsequently failed. Additionally, it was a Council and Conservation Commission goal.  Councilor Slattery would not support the motion at this time.  The City needed to hire a City Administrator and Assistant City Administrator and fill Department head vacancies first.  Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Slattery.  Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, YES; Councilor Slattery, Silbiger, Chapman, and Lemhouse, NO. Motion failed 1-4.
 
Councilor Chapman suggested the Conservation Manager position go before the upcoming Budget Committee process.  Mr. Tuneberg added the positions were in the Budget as held but unfunded since 2008.  Council could give direction to use the positions as a placeholder for next yearís budget process. 
 
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Silbiger, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
 
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.   Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, ďAn Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal CodeĒ and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided the history that resulted in the code amendments.  Currently the only locations within Ashland with wireless communication installations were the Holiday Inn Express and the Ashland Springs Hotel. 
 
The proposed ordinance included a clearer definition of feasible.  It would specify that co-location was the preferred design option with a stepped hierarchy.  The collocation feasibility study would require applicants to (1) document alternative sites that were technologically unfeasible or unavailable, (2) demonstrate a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that met the applicants service coverage needs with documented reasons why collocation could or could not be met and (3) require applicants to identify specific circumstances where an applicant may get relief from the collocation.
 
An applicant would need to have one or more of four reasons they were unable to collocate and sought to step down the hierarchy.  One, a significant service gap in the coverage area.  Two, sufficient height unachievable by modifying the existing building or structure.  Three, structural support requirements that could not be fulfilled. Four, collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic obstruction or other radio frequency interference.   
 
Citizens involved in tracking the wireless communications ordinances suggested adding language that required applicants to submit a third party verification of the feasibility study when collocation was not feasible.  Staff included this in the ordinance with the concern on who would fund the consultant.  There was a possibility the City could go through an independent procurement process and obtain the consultant for an independent review.  Another concern was how the requirement would work with a complete Land Use application and stay within the timeliness requirement.
 
Mr. Molnar explained there was one existing building in the downtown C-1-D area greater than 50-feet that could install a wireless communications facility.  He did not think the Land Use Code had a requirement where an applicant hired a third party. 
 
The definition of a significant service gap was not specific because it was continually being defined through the court systems.  City Attorney Dave Lohman researched cases throughout the country and the statute was designed for the community to determine the balance between wireless service and community values.  Currently the Ninth Circuit Court was dealing with a case with Metro PC Inc. of San Francisco CA that explained the existing case law amply demonstrated that significant gap determinations were fact and defied any bright line legal rule.  A significant gap was more than just a few dead spots.   Thurston County in Olympia WA was unable to deny an application using the determination that two to three miles of dead spots created a significant gap.
 
Councilor Morris arrived at 7:39 p.m.
 
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:7:39 p.m.
Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Represented the Respect Ashland Coalition who were concerned with the wireless antenna laws.  The Coalition wanted a periodic review and update of the City ordinances with two objectives.  One was give the City as much control and flexibility as possible locating installations within the limits of the telecommunications act.  The other was mitigating the possibility of lawsuits from either carrier or property owners due to decreased property values.  The Coalition was interested in collaborating with the City to keep the laws up to date in ways that served the City the best.  They supported the current update with some refinements that could occur over time.  He explained using an independent consultant was common with wireless communication applications and provided examples.
 
Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street/Expressed concern in finding a fair and balanced approach in locating sites for wireless communication installations.  It was important to balance the needs of cellular service with the needs and rights of the citizens of Ashland.  He noted the Respect Ashland Coalition was collaborating with City staff and the Planning Commission.  This was the best possible ordinance at this time given the challenges of court decisions and determinations by the Council.  Respect Ashland strongly supported the third party evaluation to ensure integrity.        
 
Timothy Wood/1644 Ashland Street/Explained he was theSenior Vice President of Operations and the Chief Operating Officer of Coming Attractions Theaters.  He commented Coming Attractions Theaters had received hundreds of complaints and concerns from Ashland residents under the assumption the company was involved in the placement of the cell tower on 1644 Ashland Street.  Coming Attractions Theaters in no way supported or was involved in the cell tower placement. The company submitted into the record a statement stating the same.  Coming Attractions Theaters was in the process of converting to digital projection and were concerned the cell tower could cause interference.
 
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED:7:48 p.m.
 
Mr. Molnar commented there was not a standard mechanism in place for periodic reviews of the municipal code.  Since staff was in dialog with the community regarding this section of the code, they anticipated future code revisions over the next two years.
 
Planning Manager Maris Harris explained the definition of feasible in the ordinance was language taken from the Councilís decision on 1644 Ashland Street and based on the State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) definition. Mr. Lohman added Council would determine what was ďsubstantialĒ in the context of the definition of feasible and it would require verifiable reasons why an applicant could not collocate.
 
Mr. Molnar addressed third party verification and the possibility of the City having a list of qualified radio frequency and structural engineers that would review the study and submit results with the application.  Mayor Stromberg thought the consultant should work on behalf of the City. Council requested further clarification on ordinance language regarding third party verification.
 
Mr. Lohman clarified the wireless law partially covered data transmission.  Significant gap applied to cell phone usage only.  Mr. Molnar added wireless communication facilities were defined in the Land Use ordinance so anything that met that definition would be subject to the same process and ordinance.
 
Council thought the ordinance was a good start and requested clear language that the City selected the consultant for third party verification and the applicant paid for the review.
 
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to instruct staff to bring back to Council clear procedures on how the third party verification analysis would be implemented. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
 
Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s not to do the First Reading and move to Second Reading until Council receives an answer from staff.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Chapman noted the previous motion spoke to implementation and would not change the code.  Mr. Molnar thought the third party verification would be an internal policy in terms of how staff went through the third party verification process.  Mr. Lohman thought it might be best to table the motion and bring it back to allow public input. 
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Silbiger and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2.
 
2.   Will Council approve first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and move them on to second reading?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Pedestrian Places project represented a continued commitment by the City to maintain a compact community form in terms of the overall goal in the Comprehensive Plan.  Jackson County Board of Commissioners approved the Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS) that reaffirmed Ashlandís position in the region of not identifying growth area.  Instead, Ashland would maintain a compact urban form, and look at innovative land use strategies to encourage infill.  Pedestrian Places encouraged more efficient land use within the urban growth boundary and was a way to concentrate housing, businesses, and mixed-use areas while remaining mindful and respectful to the character of the community.
 
Staff recommendations in the ordinances focused on the barriers in the current land use code that prevented a property owner from achieving a greater concentration of businesses and residential densities and what impediments might preclude someone from reaching that effort as well as creating more flexibility in those areas.
 
Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the process had two major steps.  The first determined the physical qualities of successful Pedestrian Places and included creating a vision for each of the different locations.  The second step reviewed the zoning and land use ordinance to look for improvements that would support that type of development.  She provided a presentation that included:
 

  • Public Process
  • Series of Three Workshops
  • Open City Hall
  • Key Participant Meetings
  • Study Sessions
  • Overlay Map
  • Sample Concept Plans
  • Recommended Revisions
  • Overlay Zone Boundary Revision
  • Shadow Plan Definition
  • Intensifying Site Over Time
  • Map of the Planning Commission Recommendation:  Relocated Eastern Boundary
  • Map of Tolman Creek Road Pedestrian Place Overlay Area & Buildable Lands Inventory

 
Mr. Molnar explained staff changed floor area ratio (FAR) requirements to allow a minimum of .50 instead of .35, removed the maximum to provide flexibility, and allowed for a shadow plan so development could occur in phases to meet the standard.  It was a similar tool used in residential developments.  Ms. Harris added other provisions were more lenient and flexible and provided examples that included sidewalk and arterial setbacks.  The proposed ordinance removed the 20-foot arterial streets requirement.
 
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN:   8:37 p.m.
Paulena Verzeano/265 Murphy Gulch Road, Rogue River/Explained she owned the lot on East Main that had been in her family for many years.  The Planning Commission and City Council had assured her that nothing would compromise what she might do with her lot.  She strongly opposed the proposed zoning and land use changes in the ordinance.  It would affect the integrity of the family home next to the lot as well as the use of the lot itself.
 
Chris Hearn/515 E Main Street/Represented the Brombacher family and their company, IPCO.  He submitted a document into the record that addressed moving the boundary to the east on Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street.  He explained Ashland had one gateway to I-5 interchange and needed it to accommodate truck traffic to businesses that relied heavily on truck deliveries.  Ashland needed an area that supported businesses for freeway and truck oriented businesses rather than pedestrian orientation. 
 
Colin Swales/143 8th Street/Explained he supported the original Pedestrian Places project but was disappointed when Tolman Creek Road replaced Bridge Street.  The project was about increasing development, not pedestrian places.  The local community participated thinking it was pedestrian driven but the project would increase the density of the buildings, move them closer to the street, remove arterial setbacks and encourage high density housing in an area with heavy truck traffic.  The project did not consider pedestrians or pedestrian places.  
 
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:47 p.m.
 
Mr. Molnar responded to issues raised by Steve Meister in a letter he submitted into the record.  The illustrations in the plan and the festival street idea were conceptual and did not dictate actual standards or plans.  Someone interested in blocking off a street for a festival would have to go through the permit process and a property owner could object. 
 
Ms. Harris addressed the Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street overlay and did not think truck traffic and pedestrian places were mutually exclusive or created a conflict.  The plan was recognizing that in the future, the Pedestrian Places overlay would try to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel. 
 
Mr. Molnar added the ordinance changes that focused on pedestrian orientation and environments were already in the Detailed Site Review Zone.  Removing Mr. Brombacherís property from the overlay, or reducing it and moving it westward would create a loss in flexibility in two areas.  The pedestrian overlay exempted properties from solar access unless they were adjacent to residential.  It would provide more flexibility to allocate pedestrian plaza places towards the landscaping requirement.  The Planning Commission did not discuss moving the boundary until they were in deliberation.  After the decision, staff reviewed the Buildable Lands Inventory and determined most of the development would occur in that area over the next 20-50 years.  This conclusion resulted in staffís recommendation to retain the boundary as originally proposed.
 
Ms. Harris explained the various methods staff used to contact property owners affected by the changes and met with ten individually.  Additionally, staff spoke with Ms. Verzeanoís son on several occasions.  The regulations would only apply if a property owner initiated development and at this time, staff was unaware that Ms. Verzeano had plans for the property.  The area would become mixed use and provide more flexibility.  It was an R-3 Zone with a minimum density requirement.  She went on to confirm the minimum arterial setback was 13-15 feet in the Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street area.  Once the 20-foot arterial setback was removed, buildings could be developed up to 5-feet from the sidewalk.
 
The new overlay chapter had design standards and provisions for residential zones that would apply to East Main and North Mountain and included meeting the .50 FAR and the 5-foot maximum setback from the sidewalk.  Plaza requirements for large buildings had not changed.  Council could add that requirement to the Pedestrian Places Overlay for smaller scale buildings.  The FAR requirement as well as 50% of the landscape could apply to plaza space.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve First Reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places project, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011.  DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported the Planning Commissionís recommendation. 
 
Councilor Lemhouse withdrew his motion with Councilor Silbigerís consent.
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Map and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission, and move to request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on November 15, 2011.  DISCUSSION:  Councilor Morris had an issue with taking half the intersection away, it would create different sets of FAR and setbacks on both sides of Tolman Creek Road and he would not support the motion.  Alternately, the proposal offered a better chance to develop than under the current code.  Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Morris.
 
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained there were four different ordinances in the motion and Council needed to vote on each one individually.
 
Councilor Lemhouse withdrew his motion with Councilor Silbigerís consent.
 
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s that Council accept an ordinance amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to add a Pedestrian Places Overlay proposed by the Planning Commission and First Reading and move to Second Reading.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Morris and Chapman NO.  Motion passed 3-2.
 
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s adopt an ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new chapter 18.56 Overlay Zones including the Residential Overlay and Airport Overlay including the Planning Commissionís recommendations for the Shadow Plan Allowance and Diagram, and approve the First Reading and move to Second Reading.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s Council accept an ordinance amending AMC 18.72.080 Site Design and Use Standards Implementing the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project and adopt the Planning Commissionís recommendations for the Shadow Plan for First Reading of the ordinance and return for Second Reading.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO.  Motion passed 5-1.
 
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve an ordinance amending AMC 18.08.651, 18.12.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.080, 18.72.090, 18.88, 18.88.080, 18.92, 18.108.060 and 18.108.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance Implementing the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project and the Planning Commissionís recommendation for the Shadow Plan Design, for First Reading of the ordinance and brought back for Second Reading November 15, 2011.  Roll Call Vote:  Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
 
PUBLIC FORUM
Keith Haxton/Homeless/Explained how he became homeless due to a series of events beyond his control and personal choice.   He addressed the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) 10.46 Prohibitive Camping and explained how it violated the Eighth Amendment, the United Nations Resolution 217 that the United States was a signatory of and Oregon State Law.  He encouraged Council to amend or eradicate AMC 10.46 or establish a homeless shelter.
 
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.   Will Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, ďAn Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to Adopt the Buildable Lands Inventory as Supporting Documentation to the City of Ashland Comprehensive PlanĒ and move the ordinance on to Second Reading?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar did not think the pedestrian places project would affect the buildable lands inventory. 
 
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve First Reading of the ordinance and schedule Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Slattery, Chapman, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.
 
2.   Will Council approve a resolution replacing the annual budget process with a biennial (or two-year) approach, beginning with the budget for July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015, and for each biennium thereafter until this resolution is repealed?
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained staff recommended starting the biennial budget July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2015.  The Citizenís Budget Committee role during the off year was not yet determined but the original intent would have the Committee look in depth at various funds, plan for fiscal stability, and address management policies.
 
Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson further explained Oregon Budget law required a supplement budget process whenever there was an overall change in the budget greater than 10% per fund.  Mr. Tuneberg clarified the Budget Committee would set the rate for two years and each year Council would levy taxes.
 
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2011-32. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained having a biennial budget would not make things easier in the short term but would make the process more efficient with a cost savings in staff and Council time.  The alternate year would provide the opportunity to discuss needed changes.  Councilor Slattery would not support the motion and thought a two-year budget would be harder to manage and move away from citizen oversight. He noted the difficulty the State of Oregon was experiencing trying to adhere to a biennial budget.  Councilor Voisin was not in support of the motion either.  She understood the need to deal with policy issues and thought Council should have Study Sessions with the Budget Committee or half day sessions to deal in depth with those issues instead.  She stressed the economic uncertainty, issues with PERs contributions, healthcare, and not having the Budget Committeeís role defined as reasons she would not support a biennial budget at this time.   Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Lemhouse, Silbiger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO.   Motion passed 4-2. 
 
 
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1.   Will Council approve a contract with JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct additional soil and groundwater sampling, testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property?
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained this was the next step in the process of the Ashland Gun Club site and ecological assessments. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) did not agree with previous studies on lead distribution on the property and required additional testing. Staff worked with DEQ and JBR Environmental Consultants to develop a Site Characterization Work Plan to address the six remaining tasks needed to complete the work.  The City would pay for this process as part of the new lease agreement with the Gun Club. 
 
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve the contract with JBR to complete additional soil and groundwater sampling testing and monitoring at the Lithia Springs property. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Chapman, Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed.
 
2.   Who will Council designate as the Council Liaison to the Mount Ashland Association Board of Directors?
 
Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve the appointment of Councilor Slattery as the MAA Council Liaison. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
3.   Should Council accept the Quarterly Report as presented?
Interim Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained changes to the report and noted a correction on page 6 of 6 in the table in the General Fund Carry Forward, it should be $420,000 above projected.
 
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to accept the First Quarterly Report. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
 
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None)
     
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1.   Does the Council have direction related to a request from Councilor Silbiger for guidelines for Commissions and Committees to sponsor events.
Councilor Silbiger noted the Climate Change event hosted by the Ashland Conservation Commission, cited concern the Conservation Commission had no documentation on the event, there were two contradicting requests for reimbursement from Commissioner Jim McGinnis, one for $255, and another for $800-$1200 to cover event costs.  He had issues with the lack of guidelines the City had regarding Commissions sponsoring events, potential liabilities of cost disbursements, and the need for written guidelines on spending money for both the City and Commissions regarding sponsorship.  He thought the requests for reimbursement was not appropriate, unethical, and a conflict of interest.
 
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s that no money be spent by the City in reimbursements on the Climate Change event.  DISCUSSION:   Conservation Commissioner Jim Hartman explained one of the goals the Conservation Commission had was supporting education on climate change.  He confirmed Commissioner Jim McGinnis asked for sponsorship for the event and the Conservation Commission unanimously agreed to support the event.  At the time, Commissioner McGinnis did not think he needed money for the event.  At this time, the Conservation Commission was still deliberating whether to reimburse the amount requested.  Councilor Voisin added when Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if the Commission could be reimbursed for the posters and the response was no, he found a volunteer to make them free.  The request for reimbursement of $255 would cover a hired sound person the Historic Ashland Armory required that the Conservation Commission was unaware of prior to the event.  Commissioner Hartman added the community donated over $3,000 worth of services for the event that included the Historic Ashland Armory donating their space.  Councilor Slattery agreed the City needed to define their role as a sponsor.  He did not think Commissioner McGinnis was ill intended and should not have to pay for the $255 himself.  Commissioner Hartman clarified the Conservation budget was approximately $3,000.
 
Councilor Chapman was concerned with the Commissionís lack of finding out what sponsoring the event entailed prior to moving forward.  He agreed it was a conflict of interest.  Councilor Morris agreed with Councilor Silbiger that sponsorship, liability, and involvement needed a clear definition.  City Attorney Dave Lohman confirmed in Ashland Municipal Code 2.10.090 Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards, the City Council was the final decision maker on all City policies and the use of City resources. 
 
Mayor Stromberg clarified Commissioner McGinnis contacted the Mayor with the $800-$1200 request.  The Mayor contacted then City Administrator Martha Bennett who said the Commission could reimburse $80-$100.  Councilor Lemhouse thought it was well intended but the Commission went about it in the wrong way.
 
Mr. Lohman referenced the State Ethics Rules and could not find the circumstance an ethical conflict.  Mayor Stromberg responded that Commissioner McGinnis incurred the liability on his own and was asking the City for assistance.  Councilor Slattery did not think it was an ethical issue either.  Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO.  Motion passed 4-2.
 
Councilor Silbiger motioned the City Attorney to gather the facts, present them for Councilís approval, and send to the State Ethics Commission. Motion died due to lack of second.
 
Councilor Silbiger addressed the City policy of no alcohol at City events.  The Climate Change project had alcohol.  He referred to the City policy requiring proof of insurance for events.  Mayor Stromberg clarified that once the Conservation Commission was aware of the alcohol rule, they did not serve it at the event.  He went on to direct staff to bring back possible guidelines that could apply to Commissions and Council in regards to sponsored events.
 
2.  Report from Councilors on attendance at League of Oregon Cities.
Delayed due to time constraints.
 
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 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