HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0121 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 21, 2014
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of January 6, 2014
2. Executive Session of January 7, 2014
2. Business Meeting of January 7, 2014
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
None
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Acceptance of Commission minutes
2. Approval of contract amendment in excess of 25% with American Industrial
Door for the fixed base operator hangar door replacement project
3. Request for sewer connection to a residence located outside the City limits
and within the Urban Growth Boundary
4. Approval to apply for two grants for public art
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request
form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must
conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to
9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.050})
None
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W WW.ASHLAND.OR.US
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits
to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes
maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Approval of Council Liaisons for 2014
X11. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending
AMC Chapter 6.04, Business Licenses"
X111. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 1 of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
January 7, 2014
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, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS BY MAYOR STROMBERG
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided the first part of the State of the City address and shared the following.
Ashland City government means:
• that when you turn on the tap, clean water comes out;
• when you flush the toilet, your waste is carried away to be treated properly;
• your car does not break axles in potholes;
• when you flip the switch, the electricity comes on;
• police keep a watchful eye on the City and respond if you are the victim of a crime;
• firefighters who are trained emergency medical technicians respond every day to people in
crisis; and
• our parks and trails provide free, world-class enjoyment.
These things do not happen by magic. They happen by virtue of the hard day-to-day work of 250 City of
Ashland employees, who, through their dedication and diligence, provide the services that create the foundation
for the extraordinary quality of life we enjoy in Ashland. Our last citizen satisfaction survey, presented to you
roughly a year ago, found that 89% of respondents rated our employees good or excellent for responsiveness,
87% good or excellent forjob knowledge and 86% good or excellent for courtesy, numbers that are much above
national benchmarks and comparator communities. Those are numbers we hope to build on in the year ahead as
we roll out a new program of customer service standards for City employees aimed at maintaining and
improving those numbers.
The staffs work program is rooted in the goals and objectives adopted by the City Council and the Parks
Commission. Those goals are:
• Public safety and other city agencies, along with the community, collaborate effectively to ensure
security for all and improve overall livability.
• Collaborate with the community to ensure safe, cost-effective, and sustainable public services, facilities,
and utilities to meet the urgent, immediate, and future needs of Ashland.
• Anticipate and identify opportunities to provide for the physical, social, economic, and environmental
health of the community.
• Provide high quality and effective delivery of the full spectrum of city service and governance in a
transparent, accessible, and fiscally responsible manner.
• Maintain and expand park, recreational, and educational opportunities; provide high quality, efficient
and safe services with positive experiences for guests, and other participants while maintaining
community participation in the decision-making processes and protecting the environment.
And so, among other things, our 25 sworn police officers patrolled the 6.6 square miles of the City, 24 hours a
day, seven days a week. Our 26 firefighters respond to more than 3,300 calls for service annually, our Public
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 2 of 10
Works crews maintain 101 miles of streets, 93 miles of storm sewers and 130 miles of water lines and 110 miles
of sewer lines. We treated more than one billion gallons of potable water and 738 million gallons of sewage.
We swept 3,200 cubic yards of debris off City streets and painted more than 340,000 feet of centerlines, fog
lines, curbs, and crosswalks. Our Electric Crews maintain 12,000 service connections, 1,800 streetlights, 2,000
electrical transformers and 3,500 poles and our utility billing office processed more than 125,000 utility bills.
The Community Development Department processed over 1,100 building permits and more than 400 planning
or zoning actions in addition to handling 21,000 phone calls.
The Parks Department maintains 642 acres of parks and 26 miles of trails. On top of all of this day-to-day work,
2013 was a very productive year for the City of Ashland:
• Reconstructed and dedicated our new plaza in downtown Ashland. At the same time, we refurbished
and re-planted the planter boxes downtown.
• The City took several important steps toward helping the most vulnerable members of our community;
establishing a weekly winter shelter in a City building - now a twice-weekly shelter - and providing a
$100,000 grant to ACCESS and 0I4RA to create a help center for those in need, including the homeless.
• Citizen survey
• Council goals
• Transportation Systems Plan
• Major Progress on the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project
• Completed an affiliation agreement between Asante and Ashland Community Hospital
• Completed nearly 100% of the funded projects in our fiscal year '13 capital improvements plan
• Realignment of Hersey/Wimer and Road Diet
• Self-insurance
• Re-financed debt on AFN bonds; savings of $1.7 million
• Rec'd a grant for construction of Ashland Creek Park
• Facilities Energy Audit
• Fire Department hosted "Ashland is Ready" event
• Open City Hall
• New solid waste franchise agreement
• Opened new fire station and newly remodeled police station
• Parks Dept. reconstructed the Enders shelter and built the cover on the ice rink.
In the interest of time, I have only scratched the surface of what your City government provides every day and
what we accomplished in 2013. 1 know I speak for all City employees when I say it is an honor and a privilege
to serve the citizens of Ashland and we look forward to an even more productive year in 2014.
Mayor Stromberg shared the following values and reasons he ran for Mayor:
• Making democracy work
• Decisions based on sustainability
• The amateur Directors - people elected without experience running a municipality
The City was addressing the following projects:
• AFR Funding
• Fire Adapted Community
• Ashland Community Hospital transition to Asante
• The new Housing and Human Services Commission and their task of conducting the Social Service
Grant study as well as a survey of needs and available resources in Ashland
• Winter Shelter facilities partnered by the City and two congregations
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 3 of 10
• Road Diet Experiment/Winner-Hersey realignment
• Downtown Parking and Multi-modal Circulation Committee
• Help Center
• The Planning Portfolio: Unified Land Use Ordinance; Normal Avenue Neighborhood; Croman Mill site
• Nevada Street Bridge
• Open City Hall
• Plastic Bags policy
• Parks & Recreation Dedicated Funding transition and the Memo of Understanding
• Revised Council Rules; changes in liaison/Commission Chair roles
External Influences:
• GMOs and protecting organic farming, gardening, and seed production
• Gun Control
• Pacific Connector Pipeline and the impact from tracking
• Lemelson Places of Invention project and their intention to study Jackson County
• The "All The Way" play created through the Oregon Shakespeare Festival was now going to Broadway
• You Have Options Sexual Assault Reporting Program is a campaign Ashland initiated in 2013 and one
the US Military was currently researching for their own use
Leadership Changes:
• Cynthia Rider - new executive director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival
• Sheila Clough - new executive director of the Asame Ashland Community Hospital
• Jay Hummel -new school superintendent for Ashland School District
ELECTION OF COUNCIL CHAIR
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to appoint Councilor Slattery as Council Chair for the year 2014.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s to add Discussion of Ordinance Updates: City Council Rules (Chapter
2.04), Boards and Commissions Rules and Procedures (Chapter 2.10), and Miscellaneous Chapters (2.18
and 2.28) at the end of the agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Planning, Tree, Public Arts, and Firewise Commissions and on
the Band Board. He went on to request three Council volunteers that would work with three citizens to set
agenda items and a possible work plan for thejoint Council and Budget Committee over the next year during the
current budget.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of December 16, 2013 and Business Meeting of December 17, 2013 were
approved as submitted.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
The Mayor's proclamation of January 11, 2014 as Christmas Tree-Cycle Day in Ashland was read aloud.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Acceptance of Commission minutes
2. Award of a professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for consulting and engineering of the
Ashland Municipal Airport taxi lane extension project
3. Liquor license application for Ashland Food Co-op
4. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement between Medford Area Drug and Gang Enforcement
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 4 of 10
Team and the Ashland Police Department
Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
PUBLIC FORUM
Sydney Klotzer/Questioned the recent change to the Winter Shelter rules prohibiting children 18 years old or
under. She shared her experience as a host of a shelter who spent the night with another 18-year old female
volunteer with 15 homeless men without issue or concern. Guests of the shelter were grateful to have a place to
stay and would never do anything to jeopardize shelter service.
Councilor Lemhouse directed Ms. Klotzer to the Council Business page on the City website that had an email
link that went to Council where they could respond to her inquiry.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution accepting changes to the financial management policies
and accounting methodologies"
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg clarified the following items from the proposed policy and
accounting methodologies:
• Financial Management Policies - General Fund
Staff recommended retaining the 12% until all funding issues regarding the Parks and Recreation Fund and the
City Fund were resolved.
• Financial Management Policies - Accounting - Management Letter
Mr. Tuneberg recommended the auditor provide management letters as needed or required as an efficiency gain
when there were no findings to report. The Single Audit Act required adding comments, if applicable, to the
end of the report instead of issuing a separate letter. However in the event there were comments, the auditor
would write a letter and the City would write a response.
• Accounting Methods - General Fund
City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified the Parks and Recreation Department was not in the General Fund.
Instead, it was a discrete component unit funded by a payment through the General Fund. Parks and Recreation
Department had its own fund.
• Accounting Methods - Internal Service Funds - Equipment Fund
Council noted a change to the language that revenues also came from the replacement funds.
• Accounting Methods - Enterprise Fund - Wastewater Fund
Council noted a change to the language that revenues were from charges for services and taxes.
Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2014-01 as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Letter to Jackson County Board of Commissioners requesting a referral of the question of non-
partisan commission positions
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained at the Council meeting of November 5, 2013 Council agreed to
support the Jackson County Board of Commissioners referring a charter amendment that made their positions
non-partisan. Jackson County Commissioner Skundrick explained the Commission had delayed adding the
amendment to focus on creating Special Districts for the Library and Extension and thought the non-partisan
amendment would be on the November 2014 ballot.
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 5 of 10
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to the approval of the letter that has been drafted for submission to the
County Board of Commissioners. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh noted that Klamath County actually
approved a similar move in their May 2013 election. Councilor Slattery thought it would bring credibility to
government. Councilor Lemhouse thought it was important for citizens to vote on the topic. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
2. Discussion of Ordinance Updates: City Council Rules (Chapter 2.04), Boards and Commissions Rules
and Procedures (Chapter 2.10), and Miscellaneous Chapters (2.18 and 2.18)
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained there were revisions to four sections in AMC 2.04, 2.10, 2.18 and 2.28
concerning the rules of City Council, Boards and Commission, Conservation Commission, and the operating
departments. Proposed changes included:
AMC 2.04.040 Conduct of Meeting - C. Council Deliberations
6. Voting
a. When a question or motion is put to a vote by the presiding officer, each member present must vote
for or against the motion unless a majority of the Council excuses that member from so doing. Unless
excused from voting, a member who is present and does not vote for or against the motion shall be
counted as having cast a negative vote. The Mayor can only vote in the case of a tie, and then is
required to vote.
Council thought the sentence, "Unless excused from voting, a member who is present and does not vote for
or against the motion shall be counted as having cast a negative vote," should apply to the Mayor as well.
b. A simple majority of the quorum present determines the action on ordinance, or resolution and on
most motions. On questions required by City Charter, City Ordinances, or applicable provisions of
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to be decided by a two-thirds vote of the Council, approval
requires an affirmative vote of at least four Councilors.
7. Reconsideration
A member who voted in favor of any Council action may move for reconsideration before
adjournment of the meeting at which the action was approved or of the next regular meeting, unless
the item already has been approved or vetoed by the Mayor pursuant to City Charter Article 4,
Section 3. The motion must be seconded, is debatable if the action under reconsideration is debatable,
is not amendable, and passes upon a majority vote in favor. Any member may second a motion for
reconsideration. A motion to reconsider a Council action may be made only once. A vetoed item may
not be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.
AMC 2.04.050 Order of Business
E. Public Hearings
c. Persons wishing to speak at public hearings are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the
commencement of the hearing and deliver the form to the City Recorder. The Mayor or presiding
officer is to inform the audience of this requirement to submit the form prior to the commencement of
the hearing. No testimony will be accepted on public hearings that have been closed.
F. Public Forum
a. Members of the public may speak during public forum about any topic not on the agenda for the
same meeting. The agenda for public forum is 15 minutes, unless a majority of the Council votes to
extend the time. On behalf of the City, any Councilor may request that any matter discussed during
public forum be placed on a future Council agenda.
Council discussed moving Public Forum on the agenda, and extending the Public Hearing extension currently at
9:30 p.m. Mr. Lohman explained Public Forum could occur before or after the Consent Agenda on the agenda
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 6 of 10
unless there was a Public Hearing scheduled in which case the Mayor or Council would have the discretion to
move it to later. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the rationale behind Public Hearings concluding by
9:00 p.m. allowed Council adequate time to deliberate and get through the agenda. Council could apply
reasonable time limits to the amount of public testimony allowed to each speaker during a Public Hearing.
Council supported moving the cut-off time on Public Hearings from 9:00 - 9:30, to 9:30 p.m. - 9:45 p.m. with
language the Council could reverse cut off times if needed.
Mr. Lohman separated language pertaining to Public Forum without any changes to the language. He removed
verbiage regarding the Mayor setting time limits since other sections of the ordinance implied it already. He
also removed the language giving preference to individuals living within city limits. Council expressed concern
that residents within city limits should have preference and the language should remain.
G. Public Testimony on Agenda Items
a. Members of the public who wish to speak on an agenda item that is not the subject of a public
hearing at the same meeting may do so at the time set aside for that agenda item. If a member of the
public or a Council member has requested time to speak on a consent agenda item, the presiding
officer shall make time for a brief presentation by the requestor prior to the Council's vote on the
consent agenda.
AMC 2.04.070 Rights of Citizens - Deleted
AMC 2.04.090 Commissions and Boards.
A. Establishing Commissions and Boards
Commissions and boards originate from different sources, including Oregon State Statute, City
Charter and Municipal Code; others are established by direction of the Mayor or the City Council.
Advisory Commissions and Boards which are permanent [Regular] shall be codified in AMC Chapter
2, including but not limited to Forest Lands Commission, Planning Commission, Transportation
Commission, Planning Hearings Board, Recreation Commission, Public Arts Commission, Housing
and Human Resources Commission, Historic....
Mr. Lohman would look into why the Parks and Recreation Commission showed in the Charter and not in the
code.
C. Regular Commission and Board Membership Appointments
Except for the Municipal Audit Commission (AMC 2.11) and the Recreation Commission, all
committees and boards not required by state law to be appointed by the City Council shall be
appointed by the Mayor with the consent of the Council...
Council discussed allowing two full term limits instead of three.
F. Regular Membership Removal Process
The City Council, with or without cause, may by majority vote of the City Council at a regular
meeting, remove any regular commission or board member prior to.the expiration of the term of the
appointment....Notwithstanding the above procedure, removal of a Planning Commissioner shall be
governed by the procedures in ORS 227.030 and removal of any member of the Recreation
Commission is not subject to this section....
The Charter established the Recreation Commission so the Council could not remove members. Mr. Lohman
would add language regarding the removal of various Commission and Committee members.
AMC 2.04.100 Council Liaisons to Advisory Boards and Commissions
A. Roles and Responsibilities of Council Liaisons
2. City Councilors serve as liaisons to City commissions and boards, as well as ad hoc committees and
task forces and are expected to represent the full City Council in interacting with such entities.
Council suggested adding "objectively and accurately" to read, "City Councilors serve as liaisons to City
commissions and boards, as well as ad hoc committees and task forces and are expected to represent
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 7 of 10
objectively and accurately the full City Council in interacting with such entities."
B. Attendance
Liaisons should attend regular meetings of the Commissions and Boards, or Ad hoc Committees or
Task Forces to which they have assigned as time permits and should make special efforts to attend
meetings in response to specific requests to participate in discussion on topics the Council may need to
be aware of or provide input on.
E. Council Information
City Councilors will inform the advisory bodies to which they have been appointed liaison of about
Council agenda items and Council decisions that may be of interest to the advisory body. Liaisons
shall also encourage advisory board members to attend Council meetings to keep abreast of Council
action, policy matters and the activities of the city.
Council and staff discussed 2.04.100 Council Liaison to Advisory Boards and Commissions, F. Role of
Liaison as Regards to Vacancies and H. Liaison Appointment Process and Term, and decided not to make
the suggested language changes. Council could decide through resolution when they formed an ad hoc
committee whether to appoint a Council Liaison or not.
G. Reporting to the Council.
Council liaisons may report to the entire Council on significant and important activities of any
advisory body to which they have been assigned. The chair of each advisory body should expect to
give at least one short annual presentation to the Council each year on the advisory body's annual
goals and accomplishments and on recommended goals for the Council to consider adopting. Liaisons
may seek assistance from the relevant staff liaison to accomplish this reporting responsibility.
Council wanted to add language that commission chairs should be objective in their annual presentation to
Council, avoid personal views on any given topic, and expect to answer questions from Council. Council also
suggested changing presentation language to the following, "The chair should be expected to give a
presentation on the accomplishments, work in progress, and planned activities of the commission."
Council and Mayor discussed possibly having a separate policy on addressing the Council annually, with
language having them prepared to present the response to a Council request for recommendation. Mr. Lohman
noted 2.10.105 Reports was similar to Reporting to Council and would ensure the language was consistent.
Council discussed adding definitions regarding conflict and opinion and how the representative would handle a
known conflict of interest regarding 2.04.110 Council Representatives to State, Regional, Community, and
other External Organizations, A. Role and Responsibilities of Council Representatives 4. City
Representative serving as voting members on another organization's Board of Directors (such as the
Rogue Valley Council of Governments) should work in the best interest of that organization when not in
conflict with best interest of the City of Ashland. When presented with a conflict, the member shall
declare the conflict and, it necessary, recuse himself/herself from the matter. Mr. Lohman would add a new
provision concerning conflicts of interest, values, or views and language for Council representatives bringing
issues back to Council or voting the way that best represented Council.
AMC 2.10.020 Terms, Term Limits and Vacancies
All successors to original members of an advisory commission or board, shall have a three (3) year
term... Notwithstanding the three year limitation, Planning Commissioners and Budget Committee
members not on City Council shall serve four (4) year terms. All regular terms shall commence with
appointment and shall expire on April 30 of the third year.... Members may serve three (3) terms on
any single commission or board, after which time the Mayor and Council will give due consideration
to other qualified candidates before making a reappointment.
Council suggested moving the term end date for the Budget Committee from April 30 to June 30.
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 8 of 10
AMC 2.10.025 Meetings and Attendance
Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of meetings related to business needs of an advisory
commission, or boards may be set by the advisory body. Each member must attend at least seventy-
five percent (75%) of the full advisory body's regularly scheduled meetings, study sessions and special
meetings which occur within each twelve-month period from May 1 to April 30 and while the person
is a member of the advisory body.
Council suggested having the City Recorder develop a process regarding attendance. The Mayor wanted the
ability to reinstate a Commissioner terminated regarding attendance with prior notification to Council of the
Mayor's intention. Mr. Lohman noted commissions also wanted a rule regarding attendance. Additionally the
rule might not apply to all the commissions with different attendance standards for the Planning Commission
and the Budget Committee. Council thought it was important to make expectations clear from the start of the
application process and retain the 75% attendance rule.
Generally, advisory bodies may not allow alternates to represent or stand in for a member at a
meeting. Notwithstanding the foregoing preclusion of alternates, on advisory bodies with some
members who are appointed by an entity other than the Mayor and City Council and who serve as a
representative of the appointing entity, an alternate may participate and vote for the named member
by proxy at any meeting of the advisory body, and such participation by the alternate will be deemed
to be attendance by the named member.
Council suggested language that no one appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council should have an
alternate.
A member should provide at least 48-hour notice to both the chair of the advisory body and the staff
liaison regarding any planned absence from a scheduled meeting of the advisory body. In the event
an unexpected emergency will cause a member to be absent from a meeting, the member must notify
the chair or the staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting.
Mr. Lohman suggested replacing "48-hour notice" and "at least two hours prior to the meeting" with
"reasonable notice."
Each advisory body should review member attendance approximately every six months and report to
the Mayor and City Council advising of on the need for appointments or re-appointments, if
necessary.
Mayor Stromberg suggested having the staff liaison fill out an attendance form and forward it to the City
Recorder's office. City Recorder Barbara Christensen would work with the Legal Department on wording.
AMC 2.10.040 Quorum and Effect of Lack Thereof
A meeting quorum shall consist of more than one-half of the total number of authorized members of
the body, including any vacant positions. Non-voting ex officio members, staff and liaisons do not
count toward the quorum. Members need not be physically present at a meeting if another means of
attendance (e.g. telephonic, internet etc.) has been established by the membership and public meetings
law requirements are met.
Mr. Lohman addressed telephonic attendance at meetings and explained Public Meeting Law stated the public
had to have access to the conversation. He would forward the state law provision for Planning Commissions
regarding telephonic and internet meetings to Council.
At least a majority of the quorum is necessary to adopt any motion; some motions require the
affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the members present. If the members in attendance do not
constitute a quorum, no deliberations towards a decision or any other official business may be
conducted, except for informational presentations by staff or invitees, and the members present may
leave.
Mr. Lohman confirmed a lack of quorum meant there was not a meeting under the law and minutes were not
required. The meeting would be informational instead. Staff would take notes instead of minutes, bring
information back to the full commission when there was a quorum, and post the notes on the City website.
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 9 of 10
Council could request verbiage indicating notes and recordings were not official minutes.
AMC 2.10.050 Election of Officers, Secretary, and Subcommittees
At its first meeting following the appointment or reappointment of members each year, the advisory
commission or board shall elect a chair and a vice chair who shall hold office at the pleasure of the
advisory body. Neither the chair nor vice-chair shall serve as an officer for more than three
consecutive annual terms.
Council comments included removing "Neither the chair nor vice-chair shall serve as an officer for more
than three consecutive annual terms," while others supported retaining the language.
Subcommittees may be formed for the purpose of gathering information and forming a
recommendation to be brought forward to the full advisory body. Only the full body can make
recommendations to the City Council. Subcommittees must comply fully with the requirements of
Oregon Public Meetings law.
Ms. Christensen explained the City Recorder's Office and the Legal Department trained each commission
annually on Public Meetings Law.
AMC 2.10.060 Agendas and Minutes
The chair or staff liaison will be responsible for the agenda of all meetings of advisory commissions
and boards. A member or staff liaison will be responsible for taking minutes. Agendas and minutes
will be posted on the City's web site. Members are encouraged to access those documents from the
website. Staff will email or mail documents to members upon request. If the advisory body has a
current Council Liaison, the Liaison should ]periodically] be given the opportunity to report to the
commission or board periodically.
Council wanted at least a 4-business day requirement for posting the agenda and minutes on the City website.
City Administrator Dave Kanner suggested making that request advisory because often delays in posting the
agenda were due to waiting on final approval from the Commission Chair. Ms. Christensen would work with
staff liaisons on posting minutes in a timely manner and work with the Legal Department to improve the overall
process.
AMC 2.10.070 Rules and Regulations
The advisory commission or board may make such rules and regulations as are necessary for its
governance, including the conduct of meetings, when not inconsistent with Ashland City Charter,
Ashland Municipal Code or Oregon law. These rules may be less formal than the meeting procedure
rules in AMC 2.04.40. In the event of conflicts that cannot be resolved less formally, AMC 2.04.040
shall be used as the standard for meeting rules and procedures. Failure to strictly comply with the
rules on meeting procedure in AMC 2.04.040 shall not be cause to void or otherwise disturb a decision
or action. The body will strive to be clear in its proceedings.
AMC 2.10.085 Deliberations - Deleted
AMC 2.10.105 Reports
Each advisory commission and board shall submit copies of its minutes to the City Council and shall
prepare and submit such reports and make such presentations to Council as from time to time may be
requested by the Mayor and City Council. The chair of each advisory body should expect to make at
least one presentation to the Council each year on the advisory body's goals and accomplishments and
on recommended goals for the Council to consider adopting. Unless otherwise expressly provide in
the Ashland Municipal Code or State Law, all reports or recommendations of City advisory bodies
committee shall be considered advisory in nature and shall not be binding on the mayor or City
Council.
AMC 2.18.010 Established Membership
...The commission shall also consist of certain non-voting ex officio members, including the mayor or
Regular City Council Meeting
January 7, 2014
Page 10 of 10
-one council member serving as council liaison, the Department of Community Development Director
and the Electric Utility Director, the Director of Public Works, the Building Official and City
Administrator. The primary staff liaison shall be appointed by the City Administrator and shall
serve as Secretary of the Commission. Voting members shall be appointed by the Mayor with
confirmation by the City Council.
Mr. Lohman would revise the language that implied the Community Development Director, Electric UT
Director, Director of Public Works, Building Official, and City Administrator were voting ex officio members.
AMC 2.28.100 Electric Utilities Dept. - Functions
The functions of the Electric Utilities Department are the construction, operation, and maintenance of
the electric distribution system; the installation of all new lines, services and meters; the maintenance
of the hydro-generation plant; the preparation and submission of proposed work programs including
estimates of cost; and the installation, maintenance and operation of all electrical equipment and
facilities of the City.
AMC 2.28.130 Finance Department - Functions
The functions of the Finance Department are equipment and services for all departments... fiscal
and property accounting for all departments.
AMC 2.28.340 Public Works Department - Functions
The functions of the Public Works Department are supervision of the repair and maintenance of
all motor equipment of the City...
AMC 2.28.354 Community Development Department - Functions
The functions of the Public Works Department are and, with the assistance of the Police
Department, the enforcement of all laws and ordinances governing zoning and land-use as set forth in
Title 18 of this code.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS - None
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Councilor Voisin commended Deputy Police Chief Corey Falls for his efforts regarding the You Have Options
Sexual Assault Reporting Program. She announced a shelter volunteer training would occur the next day. On
January 23, 2014 at 7:00 p.m., the Unitarian Church would host a free screening of the 2012 Documentary film
titled American Winter. Free veterinary vaccinations for guests with dogs using the Shelter or low-income
individuals with pets would happen early February.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
Minutes for the City Council Study Session
January 6, 2014
Pagel of 2
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 6, 2014
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:29 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Morris, Marsh, Slattery, and Lemhouse were present.
1. Look Ahead review
Council moved the date for the Goal Setting session from February 8, 2014 to March 8, 2014 and
discussed hiring a facilitator for the process.
2. Discussion of Current City of Ashland Utility Subsidy Programs (Request of Councilor Marsh)
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained staff anticipated $200,500 for the Ashland Low
Income Energy Assistance Program (ALIEAP), budgeted only $155,540 and clarified the Electric Fund
would make up the estimated difference of $44,960. Weather varied estimates. Currently, there was not
a revenue stream identified so the difference would show as a disparity in the budget and not have a
greater impact on the Ending Fund Balance unless the City stopped giving money or capped the amount.
Alternately, raising rates to pay for increased costs would affect the Ending Fund Balance. Council could
also identify a revenue stream for the subsidies.
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained funding for the subsidy programs came out of the Electric
Fund and the Electric User Tax came from the General Fund. Diverting Electric User Tax monies from
the General Fund would eliminate $100,000 and he equated that loss to salaries for a police officer or
firefighter, or most of the entire social services grants, or the housing program as examples of the impact
to the General Fund.
Mr. Tuneberg clarified a privilege tax was similar to a franchise tax. Both involved charging a fee to use
a right of way. Mr. Kanner added the City charged Pacific Power a privilege tax of approximately $340
annually and charged other companies franchise fees for right of way access.
Council suggestions wanted an assessment of franchise fees to determine if they could provide a revenue
stream for subsidy programs, or a possible cap on the Electric User Tax with intentional increases instead
of automatic to fund the subsidy program. Council suggested showing the amount citizens paid in
Electric User Tax emphasizing it was a program they might need in the future. One suggestion would
dedicate a revenue stream to the subsidy programs. Another did not want funds to come from the Electric
User Tax and wanted the Electric Budget to show a dedicated amount of money as a line item.
Staff would bring scenarios to the Budget Committee meeting in the spring.
Mr. Tuneberg commented adding separate line items for dedicated monies for different programs on the
electric bill would make the bill more complex. An explanation for the Electric User Tax currently
showed on the back of the bill. However, there was a separate line for subsidy programs in the Budget.
Council clarified they wanted a line item added to the Electric Fund, not the electric bill and options for a
dedicated revenue stream.
Minutes for the City Council Study Session
January 6, 2014
Page 2 of 2
3. Discussion of Electric User Tax (Request of Councilor Voisin)
Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg confirmed government, municipalities, and schools did
not pay Electric User Tax. The City lowered the rates for residents and businesses that paid the Electric
User Tax. Those not paying the tax were not eligible to receive lowered rates.
Councilor Voisin wanted to understand how the City used the Electric User Tax, what fund it went into
and how it affected that fund. She referenced electric bill comparisons between Pacific Power and the
City of Ashland and wanted another company included as well. Director of Electric/IT Mark Holden
explained the electric bill comparison between the City of Ashland and Pacific Power were similar
showing taxes, franchise fees, and the Electric User Tax. It was difficult to get electric bill information
from other companies. Ashland electric users paid 18% less than Pacific Power customers did due to the
City's contract with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
Mr. Tuneberg clarified franchise fees were operating expenses covered in the overall rates and did not
show on the bill as separate line items.
Councilor Lemhouse called for a point of order regarding the relevance of the questions during a Study
Session and thought the discussion was out of order. Councilor Voisin explained she wanted an analysis
and discussion at a future Budget Committee meeting regarding the long-term policy of City franchise
fees, where they were placed, how they were managed, and the process that resulted in a 10% franchise
fee for electric while other fees were 7% or below. Mayor Stromberg denied Councilor Lemhouse's point
of order and requested Councilor Voisin state and request Council support for staff direction.
C1~ Councilor Voisin requested adding an agenda item to a future Budget Committee meeting that discussed
all of the City's franchise fees and the franchise fee policy. Council agreed with the request.
4. Discussion of ordinance updates: City Council Rules (Chapter 2.04), Boards and Commissions
Rules and Procedures (Chapter 2.10), and Miscellaneous Chapters (2.18 and 2.28) (continued from
December 2 and December 16 study sessions)
Item moved to the January 7, 2014 Council meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
December 4, 2013
Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room
Call To Order- Regular Meeting, 6:05 pm Chairman Skibby
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford, Tom Giordano, Terry Skibby, Ally
Phelps, Victoria Law
Commission Members Absent: Allison Renwick; Kerry Kencaim
Council Liaison: Greg Lemhouse absent
High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Billie Boswell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Shostrom made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2013
meeting, Ms. Phelps seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unanimously by the remaining
Commissioners.
PUBLIC FORUM: Melissa Syken of 260 N First St, spoke about the Planning Action regarding 270 N First Street
that was presented at the November meeting and voiced concerns about the decision based on the criteria used by
the Historic Commissioners. She did not feel they did a good job of protecting the single family neighborhood.
Steve Barnard, a 258 A St business owner stated he had rented the house at 270 N First St. He felt the proposed
design didn't fit the historic district and could devalue the homes in that area.
There being no one else wishing to speak, the Public Forum was closed.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
PA2013-01701
131 N. Main Street
Scarborough
Chairman Skibby confirmed there was no exparte contact or conflict of interest.
Ms. Gunter explained that the owners have an existing garage with living quarters above. They would now like to
convert it to a Travelers Accommodation with access off the back private drive. There is no access off N Main St. In
order to meet the parking requirement, a variance is needed to allow one of the four parking spaces to be less than
the 22-foot requirement.
John and Margaret Scarborough, the property owners, identified the house as one of the "Three Sisters", a period
Victorian home listed on the National Historic Register. They said that people are very interested in their house and it
makes sense to convert the space above the garage to a Travelers Accommodation. Chairman Skibby asked if there
would be 2 driveways. The Scarboroughs explained that there is a 12 foot easement off Bush Street and even
though the 4'h parking space would be slightly shorter than required, parking there would still allow only one backup
and turn to exit.
There being no further questions of the applicant and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the Public Hearing
was closed.
Mr. Shostrom moved to recommend approval. Mr. Whitford seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Historic Markers Grant - Ms. Gunter said that Oregon Commission Foundation denied the grant. She will
send another grant application to Oregon Heritage Commission by December 16t^.
B. Council Goal - Preserving Historical Structures. Ms. Gunter suggested the Commission begin working on
an ordinance to allow Historic Commission oversight of external items such as siding, trim, windows,
roofing, etc. that affect historic integrity. There was also a discussion of transitional zones added to the
Historic Guidelines.
C. Meeting Process and Procedures - Ms. Gunter reviewed with the Commissioners the rules they should
adhere to during public hearings and regular meetings such as following Roberts Rules of Order,
understanding that Commissioners are citizens first and may step out of their role as Commissioner to
participate as a citizen. It was suggested that if your residence falls within the public notice area, that you
declare that fact and whether you will participate as a citizen or as an unbiased Commissioner.
D. There was agreement to send a letter to the City Council requesting funds from the Transit Occupancy
Tax to use for the Historical Markers program in either the Downtown or Railroad districts.
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Review Board Schedule
December 5t^ Keith, Kerry, Victoria
December 121h Tom, Allison
December 19th Sam, Kerry
December 261h Terry, Dale
January 2°d Terry, Keith, All
Janua 9'h Keith, Ally, Victoria
B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions:
BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR under construction Whifford/Renwick
BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom
BD-2013-00256 175 Lithia W First Place Partners 3-story mixed use building (under constr Giordano
BD-2013-00378 245 Van Ness (Nate Witemburg & Brint Borgilt) Addition (undercons tr Kencalm
BD-2013-00718 5 B Street (Spartan Properties) New Comm Bldg under construction Phelps
BD-2013-00796 15 N First Amuse Walk in Cooler under construction
BD-2013-01363 370 E Main (Staunton) Front Farade under construction Shostrom
PreA 19 Gresham / 374 Har aline No Submittal et Swink
PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Sandlers Restaurant Renwick
PA-2013-01421 270 N First St Nisha Jackson New SFR Renwick
COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Next meeting is scheduled for January 8, 2013, 6:00 pm.
There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted by Billie Boswell.
C I T Y OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
November 26, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager
Debbie Miller Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Tracy Peddicord
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Troy Brown, Jr. Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar slated staff will present updates on the Unified Land Use Code and the Normal
Neighborhood Plan at the Council's December 2, 2013 Study Session. He also noted the December Planning Commission
meeting will include a Type II public hearing, the final section of the Unified Land Use Code, and time permitting an update on
short term home rentals.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
Commissioner Millerrecused herself from the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Normal Avenue Plan Update.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman called attention to the draft ordinance which was included in the packet materials and
clarified the public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for January 14, 2014. He stated tonight's presentation will focus on
the ordinance language that differs from the existing land use code and also the language that differs from the previous
version presented on October 8, 2013.
Mr. Goldman highlighted the following items that differ from the existing land use code: 1) Major and Minor Amendments, 2)
General Use Table, 3) Pocket Neighborhoods, 4) Assisted Living Facilities, 5) Neighborhood Serving Commercial, and 6)
Dimensional Standards Table. Other minor changes include: 1) using the term shared streets instead of woonerfs and to allow
flexibility for these streets to be developed as shared streets, alleys or multiuse paths so long as the primary function of
providing bike and pedestrian connectivity is met; 2) Prioritizing alley access and providing for limited curb cuts on the
neighborhood collector or shared street; 3) Allowing the frontage of a lot on a common green, and 4) Providing a menu of
options to promote consideration of stormwater management at the design phase.
Mr. Goldman updated the Commission on the Transportation Commission's meetings on this subject. He explained the
Commission reviewed the traffic analysis report prepared by SCJ Alliance, which included a review of internal street capacity,
modeling of key intersections, and system improvements. At the conclusion of their review, the Transportation Commission
issued the following recommendations and considerations:
• Recommended one access onto East Main from the new Normal Avenue.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 26, 2013
Page 1 of 3
• Expressed concern over the cost and timing of the improvements to East Main Street, the railroad crossing, and the
new Normal Avenue build out.
• Recommended flexibility in the road relocation to reflect phasing or specific development proposals.
Mr. Goldman noted the Transportation Commission's recommendations were not vetted by the Fire Department in terms of
emergency access, and clarified staffs recommendation differs from the Transportation Commission's. He added the final
plan will likely need to include more flexibility than what they suggested.
Mr. Goldman commented on the timeline for the plan's adoption. He stated staff is scheduled to present an update to the City
Council in December and the Planning Commission will hold their public hearing on January 14. Following the Planning
Commission's public hearing and recommendation, the ordinance will be presented to the City Council for their public hearing
and decision.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners reviewed the plan and ordinance language and issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Comment was made questioning why roads have been placed through the wetland areas.
Mr. Goldman clarified the assumption is that the wetlands are not as extensive as currently shown. In the future a
wetland delineation would be required and if the wetland area does in fact extend that far the applicant would have to
either locate the roads outside the wetland or request a wetland mitigation.
• Suggestion was made to adopt a pre-determined open space regardless of the final wetland delineation for each
property, and for that open space area to be contiguous through the plan area.
• Comment was made questioning how they might approach requiring open space on private property.
Mr. Molnar explained while it may be reasonable to ask an applicant to provide for parkland or a certain amount of
open space for use by the people who reside in the area, there is no guarantee these areas would be open to the
general public. He added if that is the Commission's desire they need to approach this issue carefully and consider
how they would compensate the individual property owners for the possible loss of density on their land.
• Suggestion was made to identify the alley to the west that goes through the wetland as shaded, hashed, or include a
footnote to show that its location is dependent on the wetland delineation.
Public Testimony
Sue DeMarinis/145 Normal Avenue/ Commented on the shifting of roads through the wetland areas and noted if the road
shifts the NA-02 developments will need to be shifted as well. Ms. DeMarinis noted the alternate pan configuration she
submitted which locates the highest density in the center of the plan area and stated this is a much better place to start. She
added the whole point of the plan is to prevent these lots from developing piecemeal and creating a checkerboard
appearance.
The Commission continued their discussion of the plan and issued the following questions and suggestions:
• Comment was made noting the 90% build out requirement and asking staff to make sure they have not created an
impossible standard for any of the individual lots to meet.
• Suggestion was made for the stormwater management options to be an approval criteria and to establish a
percentage of stormwater runoff that must be handled on site.
• Suggestion was made for the Commission to discuss the annexation requirements at an upcoming meeting,
specifically how property owners will meet the housing need requirement.
• Comment was made questioning if the Commission is satisfied with the locations of the zones as proposed. Mr.
Molnar cautioned the group about making any changes to the zoning locations at tonight's meeting. He stated the
individual property owners would likely be very interested in this and it was not advertised that this would be
discussed.
• Staff was asked to provide the previous drafts of the plan with an explanation of why the zoning and density locations
were changed along the way as the plan evolved.
Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 26, 2013
Page 2 of 3
B. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Final Draft Review of Section 18-5.
Planning Manager Maria Harris highlighted several of the proposed changes to the procedures chapter, including:
• The threshold for a public hearing for a site review project in the basic site review zone has been increased to
structures larger than 15,000 sq.ft. or 50% of the buildings square footage.
• The conditional use permit criteria has been changed and language added that allows the impact on the development
of adjacent properties to be evaluated in terms of the cumulative effect of the proposed conditional use with other
conditional uses in the vicinity of the site.
• The effective date of Type II decisions has been changed from 13 days to 10 days to meet state law. If the 1011 day
falls on a weekend or holiday, citizens have until the end of the next business day to submit an appeal.
• Priority processing for economic development projects has been added to the existing language for priority
processing for LEED projects. Ms. Harris noted staff is still working with the Administration Department on this item
and the language may look different when this comes back before the Commission.
• The variance approval criteria has been made more specific. The amended criteria slate: 1) the variance is
necessary because the subject code provision does not account for special or unique physical circumstance of the
site, 2) the need for the variance is not self-imposed by the applicant or the property owner, and 3) the variance is the
minimum necessary to address the special or unique physical circumstance related to the subject site.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Comment was made questioning why the location of outdoor lighting needs to be shown on the conceptual plan. Staff
clarified lighting is regulated under the site design and use standards and the intent is for applicants to start thinking
about this earlier on in the process.
• Suggestion was made amend to the preliminary and drainage plan requirement to allow a landscape architect to
submit this plan in addition to an engineer, or revise the language and use a more general term such as "qualified
professional."
• Suggestion was made for staff to consider allowing the performance standards options throughout town.
• Comment was made questioning the language that requires the landscaping to be installed before the building permit
for a second phase is issued. Staff commented in single family neighborhoods this makes a lot of sense, and in some
cases the City needs a mechanism to make sure the landscaping happens.
• Suggestion was made for the list of conditions the approval authority might impose (pg 5-66) be provided to the
Planning Commission when they review actions.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
November 26, 2013
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
December 10, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Richard Kaplan Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Tracy Peddicord Mike Morris, absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar informed the Commission of a change to the meeting's agenda. He noted the
Commission was directed by the City Council to review short term home rentals in single family zones, however a request has
been received to postpone this item until January due to the late posting of the agenda and the inclement weather. The
Commission agreed to postpone this item to a future agenda.
Commissioner Kaplan announced that on December 5, 2013 the Downtown Multi-Modal Advisory Committee met for the first
time and he and Commissioner Dawkins attended as Planning Commission representatives. He noted the first meeting was a
general orientation and they will continue to meet the first Wednesday of every other month.
Mr. Molnar noted the presentation to the City Council on long range planning projects will be presented on Tuesday, December
17, 2013.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. November 12, 2013 Regular Meeting.
Commissioners Kaplan/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
Melissa Syken1260 N. First Street/Requested the Commission not allow contemporary homes in the Railroad District.
Colin Swalesl143 Eighth StreeVSpoke regarding the Downtown Multi-Modal Advisory Committee and requested the Planning
Commission advocate for public input into that process.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2013.01505, 31 North Mountain.
The Commission requested the following corrections to the Findings: 1) Page 1, Recital #1: Correct the address to read 31
North Mountain, and 2) Page 4, Section 2.9: Capitalize the word "Commission".
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2013
Page 1 of 5
Ex Pane Contact
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings with the noted corrections. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners
Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 5-0.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2013-01506
SUBJECT PROPERTY: North Mountain & Fair Oaks Avenues
OWNERS: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.IScott Lissberger Revocable Trust (Scott Lissberger, Trustee)
APPLICANT: Ayala Properties, L.L.C.
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of Planning Action #2013-806, a Site Review Permit approved by the
Planning Commission in August, which allowed for the construction of a grouping of three-story mixed use
buildings consisting of four commercial spaces and ten parking spaces on the ground floor and ten residential
units on the second and third floors for the vacant parcel (Tax Lot #700) at the corner of North Mountain and Fair
Oaks Avenues. The August approval also included a Tree Removal Permit to remove seven Siberian Elm trees in
the adjacent alley, and a request for a Modification of the original Meadowbrook Park II Subdivision approval to
adjust the number of residential units allocated between the four subject parcels to allow a total of 40 dwelling
units, where only ten units had previously been proposed, based on the permitted densities within the NM-C
district. The modifications requested here involve: 1) clarification of the proposal's density allocations, parking
management, and number of groundfloor commercial spaces between the subject properties; 2) an increase in the
number of upper floor residential units on Tax Lot #700 from ten to 14; and 3) modifications to the proposed
building design for Tax Lot #700. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: North Mountain, Neighborhood Central
Overlay; ZONING: NM-C; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04AD TAX LOTS: 700, 800, 1400,1500 and 5900.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Pane Contact
Commissioners Miller and Dawkins performed site visits; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson noted the City has received a request for the record be left open or for the hearing to be
continued. Mr. Severson explained the Commission cannot deliberate this evening, but they can hear the staff report,
applicant's presentation, and conduct the public hearing. Mr. Molnar clarified if the record is left open only written comments can
be submitted; whereas if the hearing is continued the Commission can also take oral testimony at the next meeting.
Mr. Severson presented the staff report and reviewed the application before them. He stated the applicant's are requesting to
modify their prior approval to: 1) clarify the proposal's density allocations, parking management, and number of ground floor
commercial spaces between the subject properties, 2) increase the number of upper floor residential units on tax lot 700 from 10
to 14, and 3) modify the proposed building design for tax lot 700.
Mr. Severson described the design modifications and reviewed the parking allocation plan. He stated the applicants have
proposed 22 on-site parking spaces for the residential units on the four tax lots and 11 spaces on Plum Ridge Court. They have
also proposed a condition of approval that states: "That no more than 50% of the total residential parking requirement per
individual tax lots will be from the amount of parking located on Plum Ridge Court, except that in the event tax lot 7500's ground
floor is ever temporarily converted to residential use, through an approved process, it can be allocated temporaryparking
spaces from the 23 parking spaces existing on tax lot 7400." Mr. Severson commented on the on-street parking availability in
the NM-C zone and clarified there is adequate space available in the public realm to address the commercial demand district
wide. He also clarified all the on-street parking is within a 200 ft. radius of each lot's center.
Mr. Severson concluded his presentation and summarized the key points of the proposal:
1) Tax Lot 700's upper floor residential units would increase from 10 to 14, and the additional residential units parking
would be met on Plum Ridge Court.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2013
Page 2 of 5
2) Future buildings on remaining lots would be allowed to use Plum Ridge Court as allocated, with no more than 11 total
Plum Ridge Court parking spaces utilized for permanent residential demand and no lot meeting more than 50% of its
combined permanent and interim residential demand from Plum Ridge Court.
3) Plum Ridge Court parking would continue to be treated like on-street parking - available to all, and not signed or
otherwise restricted for individual use.
4) Plum Ridge Court would be within 200 ft. of the buildings as allowed in the Off-Street Parking chapter.
Mr. Severson staled under the proposal, the combination of public on-street parking, quasi-public Plum Ridge Court parking,
and private off-street parking within the district as a whole is sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Additionally,
staff believes that the realization of a mixed-use neighborhood core consistent with the vision of the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan is predicated on a district-wide approach to parking management which balances parking from a diverse mix
of uses between a variety of on-street and off-street resources as proposed by the applicants. He stated should the Planning
Commission concur and determine that the proposal represents the right balance in achieving the Plan's vision for the district,
staff has provided a number of recommended conditions of approval, which are included in the packet materials.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked whether it is conceivable that Plum Ridge Court could be sold separately and developed. Mr. Severson
explained a modification of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan would need to be approved before the use of Plum Ridge
Court could change. He added if this a concern for the Commission they could include a condition for a lease or easement
agreement that makes it clear the parking spaces on Plum Ridge Court are available to other uses and that these spaces are
spoken for.
Staff was asked why there is only a one parking space per residential unit requirement in the North Mountain Plan. Mr.
Severson stated like the downtown area, the Plan envisioned a built environment that did not have a large portion of each lot
dedicated to parking and driveways. Additionally, the Plan describes a mixed-use neighborhood and it is likely that some of the
commercial parking demand would be reduced at night and those spaces would be freed up for overflow parking for the
residential use. He also clarified the one for one requirement only applies to the commercial core of the North Mountain Plan
(NM-C).
Applicant's Presentation
Alan Harper, Applicant's Attorney/Stated it is their desire to take the parking and density approved in the previous Findings
and move them around slightly, and stated the parking for the temporary residential units was resolved in the previous
application and does not need to be rehashed. Mr. Harper commented on their proposed condition which states at least 50% of
the parking will take place on-site. He acknowledged the neighborhood concern over the village core concept, however stated
this is what was envisioned in the master plan. He stated they are not asking for exceptions or variances, but rather are trying to
move the pieces around to make this as developable as possible. Mr. Harper stated they have no issues with a public easement
requirement for Plum Ridge Court which would ensure the parking exists in perpetuity and pointed out that staff has concurred
there is adequate parking spaces for development.
Mark Knox, Applicant's Representative/Commented on the creation of the North Mountain Neighborhood Plan and stated this
proposal complies with that Plan as envisioned. He stated their application requests minor adjustments in order to complete the
neighborhood core piece of the master plan, and stated even though they are able to utilize the parking on Plum Ridge Court to
accommodate the densities envisioned in the Plan, they are willing to limit this to less than 50% (11 spaces) and will distribute
those spaces in a fairway between the four tax lots. Mr. Knox stated the mass, density, and parking of their proposal meets all
of the provisions of the North Mountain master plan and builds in flexibility in order to build this area out as envisioned. He also
commented on the packing demand and noted the daytime versus nighttime factor. He added when complete, this development
will have 45%-55% open parking spaces at any given time.
Mr. Knox commented briefly on the ADA parking requirements and clarified the handicap parking will be located on the
individual building lots and the exact locations will be determined at the building permit stage.
Mr. Harper issued their request for a 7-day rebuttal period if the record is left open.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2013
Page 3 of 5
Public Testimony
Donna Swanson/863 Plum Ridge Drive/Stated she represents the homeowners and residents living in the North Mountain
neighborhood and noted their written statement was distributed to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. Ms.
Swanson stated they did not receive notice of this action and issued their request for a continuance of the hearing.
Mr. Severson clarified notice was sent according to state and city requirements and was mailed to all owners of record within
200 ft. of the subject property, as well as posted directly on the site and noticed in the Daily Tidings newspaper.
The Commission agreed to continue the hearing in order to allow those not present to provide their oral testimony at the
January 14, 2014 meeting. In terms of the 120-day clock, staff stated in order to meet this deadline the Findings document will
likely need to be adopted at the January meeting as well.
Commissioners Brown/Miller mis to continue this action to the first public hearing at the January 14, 2014 Planning
Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Final Draft Review of Section 18-4, Zoning Regulations.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman highlighted a few of the proposed changes to Section 18-4, including:
Building Separation for Large Scale Development: Amended language states buildings located on the same parcel and
not connected by a common wall shall be separated by a distance equal to the height of the tallest building. If buildings
are more than 240 ft. in length the separation shall be 60 ft.
• Plaza/Public Space Requirement for Large Scale Development: Amended language states one sq.ft. of plaza or public
space shall be required for every ten sq.ft. of gross floor area, except that the gross floor area of the fourth floor is
exempt. It was noted that this language is correct in the matrix, but incorrectly has an extra "area" in the draft code. Mr.
Molnar stated this is a partial solution and commented on the difficulties in getting buildings closer to the street in the
downtown because of the plaza space requirement. He added this will likely need to be revisited at some point in the
future to determine if the 1:10 ratio is appropriate.
Adjustments to Minimum Parking Ratios Using Demand Analysis: New criteria slates the City reviewing authority
through a discretionary review may approve a parking standard that is different than the standards if "a) the applicant
submits a Parking Demand Analysis, which is a written request with supporting data prepared by a professional
engineer, planner, architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional." Comment was made expressing
concern with the wording "written request" and Mr. Goldman stated staff would look into this.
Commission Discussion
The commissioners issued their comments and questions to staff, including:
• Staff was asked to clarify what "Y/M" means on pages 4-5 and 4-6. Mr. Goldman stated this means maybe, and
suggestion was made that using "I - in some circumstances" might be clearer.
• Page 4-8, Build-to-Line in Residential Developments: Comment was made questioning if this language was laying the
groundwork for more residential build-to-lines, or if this is in response to something specific.
• Page 4-8, Garages: Comment was made that this is an odd place include the language "Detached single-family
dwellings are not exempt from this section and subject to the following standards" and suggesting it be relocated for
clarity.
• Page 4-23, Section A: "areas" needs an apostrophe.
Public Testimony
Colin Swales/143 Eighth Street/Voiced his disappointment with the recommendations from the focus group and stated what
came out of that meeting seems to benefit architects and developers rather than the City as a whole. Mr. Swales stated he is
specifically concerned with: 1) the exemption of plaza space for fourth floors, 2) overly tall buildings in the downtown, and 3) the
design concept of a continuous storefront streetscape with no breaks in it. He suggested the plaza requirements include a
mandatory standard for public art that would be based on a percentage of the total project cost, and also suggested the
Transportation Commission review the vision clearance requirements.
The Commission continued their discussion of the code language.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2013
Page 4 of 5
• Page 4-39, Accessible Parking Spaces: Recommendation was made for this to reference the specific building code
language. Mr. Goldman noted the concern with incorporating existing building code within the land use ordinance when
the building code is likely to change. Suggestion was made to create a handout that includes the relevant information.
• Page 448: The numbering is incorrect.
• Page 4-41, Off-Site Shared Parking: Comment was made expressing concern with a reduction of up to 100% and
suggesting the language include a maximum permitted distance of the shared parking facility.
• Page 4-39, Parking Management Strategies: It was pointed out the term "written request" appears in this section as
well.
• Matrix page 7: There is a typographical error and "parking are" should be "parking area".
Mr. Molnar noted Councilor Marsh and Councilor Morris will be the Unified Code liaisons and will work with staff and determine
the best way to present this information to the Council. He suggested a representative from the Planning Commission assist
staff as well, and Commissioner Mindlin volunteered to serve in this capacity. Suggestion was made for staff to create a single
document that explains the substantive policy changes.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:46 p.m.
Ashland Planning Commission
December 10, 2013
Page 5 of 5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January 21, 2014, Business Meeting
Approval of a Contract Amendment in excess of 25% with American Industrial
Door for the Fixed Base Operator Hangar Door Replacement Project
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
American Industrial Door was awarded a contract to replace the existing fixed base operator (FBO)
hangar door. The door replacement project has been an Airport Commission priority project for years
as there was a safety concern with the existing door. The required work to finish the project has
exceeded staffs purchasing authority and thus requires Council approval.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The FBO hangar door had been identified as a priority replacement project for many years due to the
serious safety concerns of the existing door and structure. The Airport Commission requested this
project be completed in order to improve safety for the hangar. The FBO maintenance hangar is owned
by the City and leased through an agreement with Skinner Aviation. Skinner Aviation performs the
FBO duties onsite at the airport. These duties include fuel sales, site inspection, rental and lease
collections and aircraft maintenance operations.
Request for quotations for the project were sent directly to contractors on August 8, 2013. The requests
for quotes were sent out directly to American Industrial Door, Ausland Group, Adroit Construction,
Bazter Construction and Southern Oregon Steel. American Industrial Door was the only company to
provide a quote in response to the project. Engineering proceeded with contract award in the amount of
$23,950 for the project.
The project involved removal of the existing sliding hangar door and installation of a new aluminum
clamshell door. The door skin itself was donated to the airport from the Medford airport. At the start of
the project it was identified as installed the new clamshell door would only allow for a 12 foot opening
height severely restricting airplane traffic into the hangar and thus affecting the maintenance operations
of the FBO. At a preconstruction meeting onsite a plan was developed to install the door and allow for
a 16 foot opening to maximize the door height. This change caused labor and materials required to
increase with respect to the original design intention. The additional work included removal of
building facia along with removal of roofing materials and installation of new structural roof supports
as designed by a structural engineer to meet building codes. In addition, it was determined the existing
motors and electrical equipment that operated the doors needed to be replaced in order to function
properly.
Page 1 of 2
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
During the budget process $20,000 was appropriated for the project. The original contract with
American Industrial Door was for $23,950. Due to an increase in materials and labor for the design
alterations the contract required additional funds in the amount of $11,942.20 to complete. The
additional funds required push the contract amount over the 25% threshold and thus require Council
approval.
In addition to the $20,000 appropriated for the hangar door replacement $45,000 was appropriated for
a T-hangar enclosure project. By postponing this project the additional funds can be taken from the
enclosure project and be used to satisfy the final contract payment.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of a contract amendment with American Industrial Door for $11,942.20
for the FBO hangar door replacement project.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve a contract amendment with American Industrial Door for $11,942.20 for the FBO
hangar door replacement project.
ATTACHMENTS:
American Industrial Door Contract Amendment Form #10
Page 2 of 2
Imi,
Foxes#io CITY OF
CONTRACT AMENDMENT APPROVAL REQUEST FORM ASHLAND
Request for a Change Order
Name of Supplier I Contractor 1 Consultant: American Industrial Door Total amount of this
5022 Table Rock Rd. contract amendment:
Central Point, OR. 97502
Purchase Order Number:11892 $15,119.48
Title I Description: FBO Hangar Door Replacement
® Per attached contract amendment
Contract Amendment
Original contract amount $23.950 100 % of original contract
Total amount of previous contract amendments $4.319.48 18 % of original contract
Amount of this contract amendment $11.942.20 67 of original contract
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT $40211.68 167 % of original contract
In accordance with OAR 137-047-0800: 1) The amendment is within the scope of procurement as described in the solicitation documents, Sole Source notice orapproval of Special
Procurement. 2) The amendment is necessary to comply with a change in law that affects performance of the contract. 3) The amendment results from renegotiation of the terms and
conditions, including the contract price, of a contract and the amendment is advantageous to the City of Ashland, subject to all of the following conditions: a) goods and services
to be
provided under the amended contract are the same as the goods and services to be provided under the unamended contract; b) The City determines that, with all things considered, the
amended contract is at least as favorable to the City as the unamended contract; c) The amended contract does not have a total term greater than allowed in the solicitation document,
contract or approval of a Special Procurement. An amendment is not within the scope of the procurement if the City determines that if it had described the changes to be made by the
amendment in the procurement documents, it would likely have increased competition or affected award of contract.
Contract amendment is within the scope of procurement: YES NO* (If "NO", requires Council approval I Attach copy of CC.)
Sourcing Method:
SMALL PROCUREMENT - Less than $5.000 INVITATION TO BID or COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT. ORF or
❑'YES", the total amount of contract and cumulative REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO AMC 2.50
amendments $6,000. ❑ 'YES-, the total amount of cumulative amendments ❑ "YES', the total amount of original contract and
❑If'N0", amount exceeding authority requires 525% of original contract amount or $250,000 cumulative amendments 5$100K for Goods & Services, 5
Council approval. Attach copy of Council whichever is less. $75K for Personal Services, <$50K for Attorney Fees.
Communication. ❑ If 'N9, amount exceeding authority requires ❑ If 'NO", amount exceeding authority requires Council
❑ Exempt- Reason: Council approval. Attach copy of Council approval. Attach copy of Council Communication.
PERSONAL SERVICES Communication. ❑ Exempt-Reason:
❑ "YES", Direct appointment 5$35,000 ❑ Exempt-Reason:
❑ If "NO", re wires approval.
INTERMEDIATE PROCUREMENT SOLESOURCE EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT
Goods & Services - $5.000 to $100.000 ❑ 'YES", the total amount of cumulative amendments ❑ Wntten Findings: Document the nature of the
Personal Services - $5.000 to $75.000 5 25% of original contract amount or $250,000 emergency, including necessity and circumstances
❑ "YES", the total amount of cumulative whichever is less. requiring the contract amendment
amendments !5 25% of original contract amount. ® If ❑ IVNO", amount exceeding authority requires ❑ Obtain direction and written approval from City
'NO", amount exceeding authority requires Council Council approval. Attach copy of Council Administrator
approval. Attach copy of Council Communication. Communication. ❑ If applicable, attach copy of Council Communication
❑ Exempt- Reason: L] Exempt- Reason: El Exempt- Reason:
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT
❑'YES", the total amount of original contract and cumulative amendments are ❑ "YES", the original contract was approved by City Council.
within the amount and terms initially approved by Council as a Special Provide date approved by City Council: (Date)
Procurement. If 'N9, Council approval is required. Attach copy of Council Communication.
❑ If 'NO', amount exceeding authorty requires Council approval. ❑ Contract amendment approved and signed by City Administrator.
Attach co of Council Communication.
Project Number 2013.13 Account Number 280-08.00.00.704200 Account Number -
*Expenditure must be charged to the appropriate account numbers for the financials to reflect the actual expenditures accurately. Attach extra pages if needed.
Employee Signature: Department Head Signature:
(Total amount of contract>_ $5,000)
City Administrator:
(Equal to orgreater than $25,000 or 10%)
Funds appropriated for current fiscal year YES / NO
Finance Director (Equal to or greater than $5,000) Date
Comments:
Form #10 - Contract Amendment Approval Request Form, Request for a Change Order, Page 1 of 1, 1/15/2014
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January 21, 2014, Business Meeting
Request for Sewer Connection to a Residence Located Outside the City Limits and
within the Urban Growth Boundary
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Mr. Ross R. Johnston Jr., the owner of 301 Clay St. has requested a sewer hook-up for the property in
question due to a failing septic system. The Department of Environmental Quality has informed Mr.
Johnston they will not issue a new septic system permit due to current Oregon Administrative Rules
and he must attempt to hook-up to the existing City sewer.
Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Section 14.08.030 lists the conditions and requirements for
connection of properties located outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
This application currently meets or will meet all conditions of the code for connection to the City
sewer system.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Property Use:
The property is zoned RR-5, is .36 of an acre and currently supports an 880 square foot mobile home.
It is one of four adjacent tax lots on lower Clay St. that are outside city limits but within the urban
growth boundary.
Current System Description:
The current septic system that supports the residence at 301 Clay St. is no longer functioning properly.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has requested the property be connected to the City
system since an existing public sewer system is within 300 feet of the property. They will not issue a
permit for repair of the existing system if an option to connect to the public system exists.
Impact to the City System:
The future connection of the property will have minimal impact on the City's sewage system. The
mobile home contains minimal fixtures. The sewer main in this section of Clay St. is an 8 inch
concrete main and can handle the additional flow from one residential until without negative impact.
This section of mainline was modeled during the sewer master plan process. The modeling shows
adequate capacity for additional residential units along Clay St. The system development charges
(SDC) for a residential is determined by the total square footage of the structure. The mobile home is
1512 square feet generating a SDC fee of $1219.73.
Page I of 3
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Adherence to Ashland Municipal Code 14.08.030
An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban growth
boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by the Ashland
City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's
sewerage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the following conditions:
A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development
charges established by the City Council.
B. In the event a dwelling or building connected to the sewer system is subsequently replaced for
any reason, then the replacement dwelling or building may connected to the sewer system of
the City as long as the use of the sewer system will not be increased as determined by the
Director of Public Works.
C. The applicant shall be responsible for the full cost of extending the City of Ashland sewer main
or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested.
D. The applicant shall secure, in writing, statements from Jackson County Health Department
(now DEQ) that the existing sewage system has failed and that the provision of sewer by the
City of Ashland does not conflict with the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan support
documents, rules, or regulations.
E. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the owners
of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future owners of
the land.
F. The applicant shall provide for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of
annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness
previously contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5,
multiplied by the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be
withdrawn from such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or
future expense to the City.
G. The owner shall execute a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land
prior to annexation to the City.
H. That the land is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
This application can and/or does meet all of the above listed criteria. The owner has been provided
signed original copies of the consent to annexations and the deed restriction and is prepared to record
those documents if the Council approves this request.
Policy:
Properties located outside the city limits but inside the urban growth boundary may be connected to the
City sewer system as outlined in section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Property owners with properties located outside the city limits, who connect to the City sewer system,
are required to pay sewer system development fees (SDC). In this instance the property is residential
and is assessed by total square footage of the structure. In addition, this location will pay an established
monthly service fee for the sewer connection that is twice that of a residence inside city limits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of Mr. Johnston's request to connect the property at 301 Clay St., to the
City sewer system. The application meets all requirements set forth in AMC 14.08.030; there is
adequate capacity in the sewer system; and there is a financial benefit to the City for the connection.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve the request to connect the property at 301 Clay St. to the City sewer system.
ATTACHMENTS:
Communication from DEQ
Page 3 of 3
~r,
From: COSTANZO Chuck [COSTANZO.Chuck@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 11:32 AM
To: fleurys@ashland.or.us
Subject: 301 Clay St Ashland OR
This office received an inquiry concerning in regards to a repair of an existing septic system for
this address. The property is outside Ashland city limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary.
Small lots, surrounding wells and other factors make repairs of septic systems difficult and not
the best option for waste water disposal, given public health and environmental concerns. In
addition the current Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-071-0160 (4) (1) requires that this
office deny approval for a septic system repair when the property is within 300 feet of the nearest
sewer connection point, is physically available, and the sewer system owner is willing or
obligated to provide service.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have other questions.
Chuck Costanzo
Department of Environmental Quality
541.776.6130
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January 21, 2014, Business Meeting
Approval to apply for two grants for Public Art
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Public Art Commission seeks Council approval to apply for two grants for the Gateway public art
project.
1) The National Endowment for the Arts grant titled "Art Works" provides grant funds up to
$25,000 for the creation of public art. The National Endowment for the Arts is an independent
agency of the federal government that offers support and funding for projects exhibiting artistic
excellence. The Public Art Commission will apply for $25,000.
2) ARTPLACE America offers grants for the creation of public art. ARTPlace America is a
collaboration of 13 leading national and regional foundations and six of the nation's largest
banks. The Public Art Commission will apply for a grant for $100,000.
Neither entity requires a match from local sources.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City has a policy that requires City Council approval to seek and accept grants to fund projects
whenever it is advantageous to the City to do so. The City Council will authorize the application in
advance of submission and acceptance of a grant before receipt/expenditure to ensure the City can
meet all of the requirements of the grant:
AMC 2.17.070 (H) states "The commission shall pursue gifts and grants for support of art programs
and activities and the procurement of public art."
The Public Art Commission has issued a Call for Artists seeking qualifications of artists, or artist
teams experienced in the creation of original, three-dimensional outdoor public art. The opportunity is
open to artists living in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana and California.
The award for the artist is $100,000.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
If successful, the receipt of the grant awards will occur in the 2014-15 budget cycle. If unsuccessful,
the project is to be funded with the transient tax monies allocated for public art.
Page 1 of 2
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REOUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the request for apply for grant
`~monies for the Gateway project.
v'J _
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move approval for the Public Art Commission to seek grants to offset costs associated with Gateway
public art project.
ATTACHMENTS:
None I '
V
W
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January 21, 2014, Business Meeting
Approval of 2014 Council Liaisons to Boards, Commissions, and Committees
FROM:
John Stromberg, Mayor, john@council.ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is the approval of the 2014 Council liaison assignments to city and regional boards, commissions,
and committees. These appointments will be effective immediately.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Each year the Council liaisons to the City and regional boards, commissions, and committees are
selected by the Mayor and approved by the Council.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
None.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the 2014 list of Council liaison assignments to boards, commissions, and
committees.
ATTACHMENTS:
None. The draft list of liaison assignments will be handed out at the meeting.
Pagc I of 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
January 21, 2014, Business Meeting
First reading by title only of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 6.04,
Business Licenses
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Ashland Municipal Code states that the City will not issue a business license to any business
engaged in an "unlawful activity." Business license codes are intended to be registration and revenue
codes. This provision makes our business license code regulatory and exclusionary. This issue comes
to the fore at this time because the Oregon Legislature in 2013 passed HB 3460, which makes medical
marijuana dispensaries explicitly legal and establishes certain conditions under which they must
operate. Such dispensaries are an "unlawful activity" under federal law. This proposed code
amendment removes the "unlawful activity" provision from the business license code, thus relieving
City staff of the potentially awkward responsibility for possibly having to shut down a business that is
explicitly legal and regulated under state law. This code amendment would not preclude the possibility
of federal prosecution of such a business.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Business license ordinances have traditionally been adopted by municipalities for the purpose of
creating and maintaining a registry of all of the entities, whether for-profit or non-profit, doing
business within the municipality. Such ordinances are also revenue-raising measures. Many cities,
including Ashland, base business license fees on the number of employees, in recognition of the fact
that a business with a larger number of employees has a greater impact on city services and
infrastructure.
Ashland's business license code contains a provision that states, "If the City has knowledge that the
applicant is engaging in, or proposes to engage in an unlawful activity, the City shall return the fee to
the applicant, along with the reason for so doing, and shall refuse to issue a license." In order to apply
this provision equitably to all applicants, City staff would need to have encyclopedic knowledge of all
state and federal laws in order to determine whether to apply this provision to a particular application.
This issue comes to the fore at this time because of the recent change in Oregon's medical marijuana
law. Oregon has allowed physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes since 1999. This
has resulted in the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state that are not
subject to any regulatory regimen, except that they must conform to the provisions of Oregon's
medical marijuana law (ORS 475.300 et seq.). The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed HB 3460,
sponsored by Rep. Peter Buckley, D.- Ashland, to provide this regulatory regimen.
Page I of 2
1r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Under this new law, the Oregon Health Authority must create a registration system for medical
marijuana dispensaries to ensure that the operators of such facilities are residents of the State of
Oregon and have been subject to criminal background checks. The law further requires that licensed
medical marijuana dispensaries must (among other things):
• Be located at least 1,000 feet from any public or private primary or secondary school;
• Be located at least 1,000 feet from any other licensed dispensary;
• Be located in an area that is zoned for commercial, industrial, mixed use or agricultural land;
• Be registered as a business with the Secretary of State's Office; and
• Install a minimum security system, including a video surveillance system, alarm system and safe.
The bill further gives the Oregon Health Authority the authority to establish administrative rules for
the registration system, and those rules are expected to be published in March.
In 2012, the City received a business license application from a medical marijuana dispensary that had
opened on Hersey Street. Given this "unlawful activity" provision in the AMC and given that the
business activity was (and is) illegal under federal law, staff declined to issue the business license.
This put City staff in the uncomfortable position of potentially having to take enforcement action
against a business that was arguably (now explicitly) legal under state law. This situation was resolved
when the business moved to another City that does not have this "unlawful activity" provision in its
business license code.
Though illegal under federal law, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken the position that it will not
interfere with marijuana businesses in compliance with state law as long as their activities do not result
in distribution of marijuana to minors; serve as a cover for the trafficking of other illegal drugs;
generate revenue used for criminal enterprises; or lead to five other prescribed outcomes described in
an August 29, 2013, DOJ memo (attached). Here in Ashland, the Police Department reports there were
no problems generated by or complaints about the medical marijuana dispensary that operated here in
2012.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff has brought this proposal forward because we do not believe the business license code is the
appropriate venue for determining the legality or illegality of a particular business venture. The
business license is merely intended to provide a small general fund revenue stream and a registry for
the City of who is conducting which businesses within our borders. An activity that is illegal will
continue to be illegal whether staff issues a business license or not. Therefore, staff recommends
adoption of this ordinance amending the business license chapter of the AMC.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move first reading by title only of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 6.04, Business Licenses
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft ordinance
HB 3460, enrolled
August 29, 2013, memo from the Deputy Attorney General
Page 2 of 2
IA,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 6.04, BUSINESS
LICENSES
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold ugh and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions,
statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or
impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically
enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the
foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter
specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code, §6.04.010, with regard to business licenses, states,
"The business license taxes imposed by the terns of this Chapter are for revenue purposes only,
and further states "Neither the acceptance of the prescribed tax nor the issuance of the applicable
license shall be constructed to constitute a regulation or approval of any business activity or a
permit to engage in any activity otherwise prohibited by law or ordinance;" and
WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code, §6.04.100, in contrast to the assertion of revenue
purposes only in §6.04.010, states, "If the City has knowledge that the applicant is engaging in,
or proposes to engage in an unlawful activity, the City shall return the fee to the applicant, along
with the reason for so doing, and shall refuse to issue a license;" and
WHEREAS, the inconsistency between the revenue purpose declared in §6.04.010 and the
regulatory purpose implicit in §6.04.100 is confusing to business license applicants as well as
issuers, especially when there are discrepancies between state and federal laws;
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 6.04 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 6.04.100 Issuance of License
Upon receipt of an application duly signed and executed as hereinabove prescribed, together with
the required fee, the Finance Department shall issue a business license to any applicant desiring
to conduct any lawful business activity within the City. if the ib, has lknowledge that the
applieant is eflgnO ~ i I as to engage in an unlawful netivity, the City shall return
the fee to the applienot, along with the reason for- so doing, and shall refuse to issue -a
license. Issuance of a business license shall not preclude enforcement against the licensee of
any City ordinance, state statute, federal law or any other applicable law.
Ordinance No. Pagel of 2
SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "bode", "article", "section", "chapter" or another
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C)
of the City Charter on the day of 2014, and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2014.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 2
77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2013 Regular Session
Enrolled
House Bill 3460
Sponsored by Representative BUCKLEY, Senator PROZANSKI; Representative FREDERICK, Sen-
ator DINGFELDER
CHAPTER 1
AN ACT
Relating to medical marijuana; creating new provisions; amending ORS 475.302, 475.304, 475.309,
475.320, 475.323 and 475.331; limiting expenditures; and declaring an emergency.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. Section 2 of this 2013 Act is added to and made a part of ORS 475.300 to
475.346.
SECTION 2. (1) The Oregon Health Authority shall establish by rule a medical marijuana
facility registration system to authorize the transfer of usable marijuana and immature
marijuana plants from:
(a) A registry identification cardbolder, the designated primary caregiver of a registry
identification cardholder, or a person responsible for a marijuana grow site to the medical
marijuana facility; or
(b) A medical marijuana facility to a registry identification cardholder or the designated
primary caregiver of a registry identification cardholder.
(2) The registration system established under subsection (1) of this section must require
a medical marijuana facility to submit an application to the authority that includes:
(a) The name of the person responsible for the medical marijuana facility;
(b) The address of the medical marijuana facility;
(c) Proof that the person responsible for the medical marijuana facility is a resident of
Oregon;
(d) Documentation, as required by the authority by rule, that demonstrates the medical
marijuana facility meets the qualifications for a medical marijuana facility as described in
subsection (3) of this section; and
(e) Any other information that the authority considers necessary.
(3) To qualify for registration under this section, a medical marijuana facility:
(a) Must be located in an area that is zoned for commercial, industrial or mixed use or
as agricultural land and may not be located at the same address as a marijuana grow site;
(b) Must be registered as a business or have filed a pending application to register as a
business with the Office of the Secretary of State;
(c) Must not be located within 1,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or pri-
vate elementary, secondary or career school attended primarily by minors;
(d) Must not be located within 1,000 feet of another medical marijuana facility; and
(e) Must comport with rules adopted by the authority related to:
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 1
(A) Installing a minimum security system, including a video surveillance system, alarm
system and safe; and
(B) Testing for pesticides, mold and mildew and the processes by which usable marijuana
and immature marijuana plants that test positive for pesticides, mold or mildew must be
returned to the registry identification cardholder, the cardholder's designated primary
caregiver or the cardholder's registered grower.
(4)(a) The authority shall conduct a criminal records. check under ORS 181.534 of a person
whose name is submitted as the person responsible for a medical marijuana facility under
subsection (2) of this section.
(b) A person convicted for the manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in
Schedule I or Schedule D may not be the person responsible for a medical marijuana facility
for five years from the date the person is convicted.
(c) A person convicted more than once for the manufacture or delivery of a controlled
substance in Schedule I or Schedule II may not be the person responsible for a medical
marijuana facility.
(5) If a person submits the application required under subsection (2) of this section, the
medical marijuana facility identified in the application meets the qualifications for a medical
marijuana facility described in subsection (3) of this section and the person responsible for
the medical marijuana facility passes the criminal records check required under subsection
(4) of this section, the authority shall register the medical marijuana facility and issue the
person responsible for the medical marijuana facility proof of registration. The person re-
sponsible for the medical marijuana facility shall display the proof of registration on the
premises of the medical marijuana facility at all times when usable marijuana or immature
marijuana plants are being transferred as described in subsection (1) of this section.
(6)(a) A registered medical marijuana facility may receive usable marijuana or immature
marijuana plants only from a registry identification cardholder, designated primary caregiver
or person responsible for a marijuana grow site if the registered medical marijuana facility
obtains authorization, on a form prescribed by the authority by ivle and signed by a registry
identification cardholder, to receive the usable marijuana or immature marijuana plants.
(b) A registered medical marijuana facility shall maintain:
(A) A copy of each authorization form described in paragraph (a) of this subsection; and
(B) Documentation of each transfer of usable marijuana or immature marijuana plants.
(7) A medical marijuana facility registered under this section may possess usable
marijuana and immature marijuana plants in excess of the ]'amts imposed on registry iden-
tification cardholders and designated primary caregivers under ORS 475.320.
(8) The authority may inspect:
(a) The premises of an applicant for a medical marijuana facility or a registered medical
marijuana facility to ensure compliance with the qualifications for a medical marijuana fa-
cility described in subsection (3) of this section; and
(b) The records of a registered medical marijuana facility to ensure compliance with
subsection (6)(b) of this section.
(9)(a) A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of a reg-
istry identification cardholder may reimburse a medical marijuana facility registered under
this section for the normal and customary costs of doing business, including costs related
to transferring, handling, securing, insuring, testing, packaging and processing usable
marijuana and immature marijuana plants and the cost of supplies, utilities and rent or
mortgage.
(b) A medical marijuana facility may reimburse a person responsible for a marijuana
grow site under this section for the normal and customary costs of doing business, including
costs related to transferring, handling, securing, insuring, testing, packaging and processing
usable marijuana and immature marijuana plants and the cost of supplies, utilities and rent
or mortgage.
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 2
(10) The authority may revoke the registration of a medical marijuana facility registered
under this section for failure to comply with ORS 475.300 to 475.346 or rules adopted under
ORS 475.300 to 475.346. The authority may release to the public a final order revoking a
medical marijuana facility registration.
(11) The authority shall adopt rules to implement this section, including rules that:
(a) Require a medical marijuana facility registered under this section to annually renew
that registration; and
(b) Establish fees for registering and renewing registration for a medical marijuana fa-
cility under this section.
SECTION 3. ORS 475.302 is amended to read:
475.302. As used in ORS 475.300 to 475.346:
(1) "Attending physician" means a physician licensed under ORS chapter 677 who has primary
responsibility for the care and treatment of a person diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition.
(2) "Authority" means the Oregon Health Authority.
(3) "Debilitating medical condition" means:
(a) Cancer, glaucoma, agitation due to Alzheimer's disease, positive status for human
immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for these conditions;
(b) A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces, for a specific pa-
tient, one or more of the following:
(A) Cachexia;
(B) Severe pain;
(C) Severe nausea;
(D) Seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or
(E) Persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by multiple sclerosis;
or
(c) Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the authority
by rule or approved by. the authority pursuant to a petition submitted pursuant to ORS 475.334.
(4)(a) "Delivery" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.
(b) "Delivery" does not include transfer of:
(A) Marijuana by a registry identification cardholder to another registry identification
cardholder if no consideration is paid for the transfer[.];
(B) Usable marijuana or immature marijuana plants from a registry identification
cardholder, the designated primary caregiver of a registry identification cardholder or a
marijuana grow site to a medical marijuana facility registered under section 2 of this 2013
Act; or
(C) Usable marijuana or immature marijuana plants from a medical marijuana facility
registered under section -2 of this 2013 Act to a registry identification cardholder or the
designated primary caregiver of a registry identification cardholder.
(5) "Designated primary caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who has sig-
nificant responsibility for managing the well-being of a person who has been diagnosed with a de-
bilitating medical condition and who is designated as such on that person's application for a registry
identification card or in other written notification to the authority. "Designated primary
caregiver" does not include the person's attending physician.
(6) "Marijuana" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.
(7) "Marijuana grow site" means a location where marijuana is produced for use by a registry
identification cardholder and that is registered under the provisions of ORS 475.304.
(8) "Medical use of marijuana" means the production, possession, delivery, or administration of
marijuana, or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana, as necessary for the exclusive benefit of
a person to mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating medical condition.
(9) "Production" has the meaning given that term in ORS 475.005.
Enmlled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 3
(10) "Registry identification card" means a document issued by the authority that identifies a
person authorized to engage in the medical use of marijuana and the person's designated primary
caregiver, if any.
(11) "Usable marijuana" means the dried leaves and flowers of the plant Cannabis family
Moraceae, and any mixture or preparation thereof, that are appropriate for medical use as allowed
in ORS 475.300 to 475.346. "Usable marijuana" does not include the seeds, stalks and roots of the
plant.
(12) "Written documentation" means a statement signed by the attending physician of a person
diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition or copies of the person's relevant medical records.
SECTION 4. ORS 475.304 is amended to read:
475.304. (1) The Oregon Health Authority shall establish by rule a marijuana grow site regis-
tration system to authorize production of marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, a des-
ignated primary caregiver who grows marijuana for the cardholder or a person who is responsible
for a marijuana grow site. The marijuana grow site registration system adopted must require a
registry identification cardholder to submit an application to the authority that includes:
(a) The name of the person responsible for the marijuana grow site;
(b) The address of the marijuana grow site;
(c) The registry identification card number of the registry cardholder for whom the marijuana
is being produced; and
(d) Any other information the authority considers necessary.
(2) The authority shall issue a marijuana grow site registration card to a registry identification
cardholder who has met the requirements of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A person who has been issued a marijuana grow site registration card under this section
must display the registration card at the marijuana grow site at all times when marijuana is being
produced.
(4) A marijuana grow site registration card must be obtained and posted for each registry
identification cardholder for whom marijuana is being produced at a marijuana grow site.
(5) All usable marijuana, plants, seedlings and seeds associated with the production of marijuana
for a registry identification cardholder by a person responsible for a marijuana grow site are the
property of the registry identification cardholder and must be provided to the registry identification
cardholder, or, if the marijuana is usable marijuana or an immature marijuana plant, trans-
ferred to a medical marijuana facility registered under section 2 of this 2013 Act, upon re-
quest.
(6)(a) The authority shall conduct a criminal records check under ORS 181.534 of any person
whose name is submitted as a person responsible for a marijuana grow site.
(b) A person convicted of a Class A or Class B felony under ORS 475.752 to 475.920 for the
manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in Schedule I or Schedule II may not be issued
a marijuana grow site registration card or produce marijuana for a registry identification cardholder
for five years from the date of conviction.
(c) A person convicted more than once of a Class A or Class B felony under ORS 475.752 to
475.920 for the manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in Schedule I or Schedule II may
not be issued a marijuana grow site registration card or produce marijuana for a registry identifi-
cation cardholder.
(7) A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder
may reimburse the person responsible for a marijuana grow site for the costs of supplies and utilities
associated with the production of marijuana for the registry identification cardholder. No other
costs associated with the production of marijuana for the registry identification cardholder, includ-
ing the cost of labor, may be reimbursed.
(8) The authority may adopt rules imposing a fee in an amount established by the authority for
registration of a marijuana grow site under this section.
SECTION 5. ORS 475.309 is amended to read:
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 4
475.309. (1) Except as provided in ORS 475.316, 475.320 and 475.342, a person engaged in or as-
sisting in the medical use of marijuana is excepted from the criminal laws of the state for pos-
session, delivery or production of marijuana, aiding and abetting another in the possession, delivery
or production of marijuana or any other criminal offense in which possession, delivery or production
of marijuana is an element if the following conditions have been satisfied:
(a)(A) The person holds a registry identification card issued pursuant to this section, has applied
for a registry identification card pursuant to subsection (9) of this section, is the designated primary
caregiver of the cardholder or applicant, or is the person responsible for a marijuana grow site that
is producing marijuana for the cardholder and is registered under ORS 475.304; and
LOA (B) The person who has a debilitating medical condition, the person's primary caregiver
and the person responsible for a marijuana grow site that is producing marijuana for the cardholder
and is registered under ORS 475.304 are collectively in possession of, delivering or producing
marijuana for medical use in amounts allowed under ORS 475.320[.1; or
(b) The person is responsible for or employed by a medical marijuana facility registered
under section 2 of this 2013 Act and does not commit any of the acts described in this sub-
section anywhere other than at the medical marijuana facility.
(2) The Oregon Health Authority shall establish and maintain a program for the issuance of
registry identification cards to persons who meet the requirements of this section. Except as pro-
vided in subsection (3) of this section, the authority shall issue a registry identification card to any
person who pays a fee in the amount established by the authority and provides the following:
(a) Valid, written documentation from the person's attending physician stating that the person
has been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana may
mitigate the symptoms or effects of the person's debilitating medical condition;
(b) The name, address and date of birth of the person;
(c) The name, address and telephone number of the person's attending physician;
(d) The name and address of the person's designated primary caregiver, if the person has des-
ignated a primary caregiver at the time of application; and
(e) A written statement that indicates whether the marijuana used by the cardholder will be
produced at a location where the cardholder or designated primary caregiver is present or at an-
other location.
(3) The authority shall issue a registry identification card to a person who is under 18 years of
age if the person submits the materials required under subsection (2) of this section, and the custo-
dial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the person under 18
years of age signs a written statement that:
(a) The attending physician of the person under 18 years of age has explained to that person
and to the custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the
person under 18 years of age the possible risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana;
(b) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the
person under 18 years of age consents to the use of marijuana by the person under 18 years of age
for medical purposes;
(c) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the
person under 18 years of age agrees to serve as the designated primary caregiver for the person
under 18 years of age; and
(d) The custodial parent or legal guardian with responsibility for health care decisions for the
person under 18 years of age agrees to control the acquisition of marijuana and the dosage and
frequency of use by the person under 18 years of age.
(4) A person applying for a registry identification card pursuant to this section may submit the
information required in this section to a county health department for transmittal to the authority.
A county health department that receives the information pursuant to this subsection shall transmit
the information to the authority within five days of receipt of the information. Information received
by a county health department pursuant to this subsection shall be confidential and not subject to
disclosure, except as required to transmit the information to the authority.
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 5
(5)(a) The authority shall verify the information contained in an application submitted pursuant
to this section and shall approve or deny an application within thirty days of receipt of the appli-
cation.
(b) In addition to the authority granted to the authority under OHS 475.316 to deny an applica-
tion, the authority may deny an application for the following reasons:
(A) The applicant did not provide the information required pursuant to this section to establish
the applicant's debilitating medical condition and to document the applicant's consultation with an
attending physician regarding the medical use of marijuana in connection with such condition, as
provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section;
(B) The authority determines that the information provided was falsified; or
(C) The applicant has been prohibited by a court order from obtaining a registry identification
card.
(c) Denial of a registry identification card shall be considered a final authority action, subject
to judicial review. Only the person whose application has been denied, or, in the case of a person
under the age of 18 years of age whose application has been denied, the person's parent or legal .
guardian, shall have standing to contest the authority's action.
(d) Any person whose application has been denied may not reapply for six months from the date
of the denial, unless so authorized by the authority or a court of competent jurisdiction.
(6)(a) If the authority has verified the information submitted pursuant to subsections (2) and (3)
of this section and none of the reasons for denial listed in subsection (5)(b) of this section is appli-
cable, the authority shall issue a serially numbered registry identification card within five days of
verification of the information. The registry identification card shall state:
(A) The cardholder's name, address and date of birth;
(B) The date of issuance and expiration date of the registry identification card;
(C) The name and address of the person's designated primary caregiver, if any;
(D) Whether the marijuana used by the cardholder will be produced at a location where the
cardholder or designated primary caregiver is present or at another location; and
(E) Any other information that the authority may specify by rule.
(b) When the person to whom the authority has issued a registry identification card pursuant
to this section has specified a designated primary caregiver, the authority shall issue an identifica-
tion card to the designated primary caregiver. The primary caregiver's registry identification card
shall contain the information provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(7)(a) A person who possesses a registry identification card shall:
(A) Notify the authority of any change in the person's name, address, attending physician or
designated primary caregiver.
(B) If applicable, notify the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder, )and] the person
responsible for the marijuana grow site that produces marijuana for the cardholder and any person
responsible for a medical marijuana facility that transfers usable marijuana or immature
marijuana plants to the cardholder under section 2 of this 2013 Act of any change in status
including, but not limited to:
(i) The assignment of another individual as the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder;
. (ii) The assignment of another individual as the person responsible for a marijuana grow site
producing marijuana for the cardholder; or
(iii) The end of the eligibility of the cardholder to hold a valid registry identification card.
(C) Annually submit to the authority:
(i) Updated written documentation from the cardholder's attending physician of the person's
debilitating medical condition and that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms or
effects of the person's debilitating medical condition; and
. (ii) The name of the person's designated primary caregiver if a primary caregiver has been
designated for the upcoming year.
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 6
(b) If a person who possesses a registry identification card fails to comply with this subsection,
the card shall be deemed expired. If a registry identification card expires, the identification card of
any designated primary caregiver of the cardholder shall also expire.
(8)(a) A person who possesses a registry identification card pursuant to this section and who
has been diagnosed by the person's attending physician as no longer having a debilitating medical
condition or whose attending physician has determined that the medical use of marijuana is
contraindicated for the person's debilitating medical condition shall return the registry identification
card and any other associated Oregon Medical Marijuana Program cards to the authority within 30
calendar days of notification of the diagnosis or notification of the contraindication.
(b) If, due to circumstances beyond the control of the registry identification cardholder, a
cardholder is unable to obtain a second medical opinion about the cardholder's continuing eligibility
to use medical marijuana before the 30-day period specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection has
expired, the authority may grant the cardholder additional time to obtain a second opinion before
requiring the cardholder to return the registry identification card and any associated cards.
(9) A person who has applied for a registry identification card pursuant to this section but
whose application has not yet been approved or denied, and who is contacted by any law enforce-
ment officer in connection with the person's administration, possession, delivery or production of
marijuana for medical use may provide to the law enforcement officer a copy of the written doc-
umentation submitted to the authority pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) of this section and proof of
the date of mailing or other transmission of the documentation to the authority. This documentation
shall have the same legal effect as a registry identification card until such time as the person re-
ceives notification that the application has been approved or denied.
(10)(a) A registry identification cardholder has the primary responsibility of notifying the des-
ignated primary caregiver [and], the person responsible for the marijuana grow site that produces
marijuana for the cardholder and any person responsible for a medical marijuana facility that
transfers usable marijuana or immature marijuana plants to the cardholder under section 2
of this 2013 Act of any change in status of the cardholder.
(b) If the authority is notified by the cardholder that a primary caregiver or person responsible
for a marijuana grow site has changed, the authority shall notify the primary caregiver or the per-
son responsible for the marijuana grow site by mail at the address of record confirming the change
in status and informing the caregiver or person responsible for the marijuana grow site that their
card is no longer valid and must be returned to the authority.
(11) The authority shall revoke the registry identification card of a cardholder if a court has -
issued an order that prohibits the cardholder from participating in the medical use of marijuana or
otherwise participating in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program under ORS 475.300 to 475.346.
The cardholder shall return the registry identification card to the authority within seven calendar
days of notification of the revocation. If the cardholder is a patient, the patient shall return the
patient's card and all other associated Oregon Medical Marijuana Program cards.
(12) The authority shall revoke the registration of a medical marijuana facility registered
under section 2 of this 2013 Act if a court has issued an order that prohibits the person re-
sponsible for the medical marijuana facility from participating in the Oregon Medical
Marijuana Program under ORS 475.300 to 476.346.
[(12)] (13) The authority and employees and agents of the authority acting within the course and
scope of their employment are immune from any civil liability that might be incurred or imposed for
the performance of or failure to perform duties required by this section.
SECTION 6. ORS 475.320 is amended to read:
475.320. (1)(a) A registry identification cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the
cardholder may possess up to six mature marijuana plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if a registry identification cardholder has
been convicted of a Class A or Class B felony under ORS 475.752 to 475.920 for the manufacture
or delivery of a controlled substance in Schedule I or Schedule II, the registry identification
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 7
cardholder or the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder may possess one ounce of usable
marijuana at any given time for a period of five years from the date of the conviction.
(2) A person authorized under ORS 475.304 to produce marijuana at a marijuana grow site:
(a) May produce marijuana for and provide marijuana:
(A) To a registry identification cardholder or [that person's] a cardholder's designated primary
caregiver as authorized under this section[.]; or
(B) If the marijuana is usable marijuana or an immature marijuana plant and the regis.
try identification cardholder authorizes the person responsible for the marijuana grow site
to transfer the usable marijuana or immature marijuana plant to a medical marijuana facil.
ity registered under section 2 of this 2013 Act, to the medical marijuana facility.
(b) May possess up to six mature plants and up to 24 ounces of usable marijuana for each
cardholder or caregiver for whom marijuana is being produced.
(c) May produce marijuana for no more than four registry identification cardholders or desig-
nated primary caregivers concurrently.
(d) Must obtain and display a marijuana grow site registration card issued under ORS 475.304
for each registry identification cardholder or designated primary caregiver for whom marijuana is
being produced.
(e) Must provide all marijuana produced for a registry identification cardholder or designated
primary caregiver to the cardholder or caregiver at the time the person responsible for a marijuana
grow site ceases producing marijuana for the cardholder or caregiver.
(f) Must return the marijuana grow site registration card to the registry identification
cardholder to whom the card was issued when requested to do so by the cardholder or when the
person responsible for a marijuana grow site ceases producing marijuana for the cardholder or
caregiver.
(3) Except as provided in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a registry identification
cardholder, the designated primary caregiver of the cardholder and the person responsible for a
marijuana grow site producing marijuana for the registry identification cardholder may possess a
combined total of up to six mature plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana for that registry iden-
tification cardholder.
(4)(a) A registry identification cardholder and the designated primary caregiver of the
cardholder may possess a combined total of up to 18 marijuana seedlings or starts as defined by rule
of the Oregon Health Authority.
(b) A person responsible for a marijuana grow site may possess up to 18 marijuana seedlings
or starts as defined by rule of the authority for each registry identification cardholder for whom the
person responsible for the marijuana grow site is producing marijuana.
SECTION 7. ORS 475.323 is amended to read:
475.323. (1) Possession of a registry identification card [or], designated primary caregiver iden-
tification card pursuant to ORS 475.309 or proof of registration as a medical marijuana facility
under section 2 of this 2013 Act does not alone constitute probable cause to search the person
or property of the cardholder or otherwise subject the person or property of the cardholder to in-
spection by any governmental agency. However, the Oregon Health Authority may inspect a
medical marijuana facility registered under section 2 of this 2013 Act at any reasonable time
to determine whether the facility is in compliance with ORS 475.300 to 475.346.
(2) Any property interest possessed, owned or used in connection with the medical use of
marijuana or acts incidental to the medical use of marijuana that has been seized by state or local
law enforcement officers may not be harmed, neglected, injured or destroyed while in the possession
of any law enforcement agency. A law enforcement agency has no responsibility to maintain live
marijuana plants lawfully seized. No such property interest may be forfeited under any provision of
law providing for the forfeiture of property other than as a sentence imposed after conviction of a
criminal offense. Usable marijuana and paraphernalia used to administer marijuana that was seized
by any law enforcement office shall be returned immediately upon a determination by the district
attorney in whose county the property was seized, or the district attorney's designee, that the per-
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 8
son from whom the marijuana or paraphernalia used to administer marijuana was seized is entitled
to the protections contained in ORS 475.300 to 475.346. The determination may be evidenced, for
example, by a decision not to prosecute, the dismissal of charges or acquittal.
SECTION S. ORS 475.331 is amended to read:
475.331. (1)(a) The Oregon Health Authority shall create and maintain a list of the persons to
whom the authority has issued registry identification cards, the names of any designated primary
[caregivers and the addresses of authorized marijuana grow sites.] caregivers, the names of persons
responsible for a medical marijuana facility registered under section 2 of this 2013 Act, the
addresses of authorized marijuana grow sites and the addresses of registered medical
marijuana facilities. Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the list shall be confi-
dential and not subject to public disclosure.
(b) The authority shall develop a system by which authorized employees of state and local law
enforcement agencies may verify at all times that: [a person is a lawful possessor of a registry
identification card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification
card or that a location is an authorized marijuana grow site.]
(A) A person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card;
(B) A person is the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry
identification card;
(C) A location is an authorized marijuana grow site;
(D) A location is a registered medical marijuana facility; or
(E) A person is the person listed as the person responsible for a registered medical
marijuana facility.
(2) Names and other identifying information from the list established pursuant to subsection (1)
of this section may be released to:
(a) Authorized employees of the authority as necessary to perform official duties of the
authority.[; and]
(b) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies, who provide to the au-
thority adequate identification, such as a badge number or similar authentication of au-
thority, only as necessary to verify that: [a person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification
card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that
a location is an authorized marijuana grow site. Prior to being prouided identifying information from
the list, authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies shall provide to the authority
adequate identification, such as a badge number or similar authentication of authority.]
(A) A person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card;
(B) A person is the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry
identification card;
(C) A location is an authorized marijuana grow site;
(D) A location is a registered medical marijuana facility; or
(E) A person is the person listed as the person responsible for a registered medical
marijuana facility.
(3) Authorized employees of state or local law enforcement agencies that obtain identifying in-
formation from the list as authorized under this section may not release or use the information for
any purpose other than verification that: In person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification
card or the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry identification card or that
a location is an authorized marijuana grow site.]
(a) A person is a lawful possessor of a registry identification card;
(b) A person is the designated primary caregiver of a lawful possessor of a registry
identification card;
(c) A location is an authorized marijuana grow site;
(d) A location is a registered medical marijuana facility; or
(e) A person is the person listed as the person responsible for a registered medical
marijuana facility.
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 9
SECTION 9. (1) Sections 1 and 2 of this 2013 Act and the amendments to ORS 475.302,
475.304, 475.309, 475.320, 475.323 and 475.331 by sections 3 to 8 of this 2013 Act become opera-
tive on March 1, 2014.
(2) The Oregon Health Authority may take any action before the operative date specified
in subsection (1) of this section to enable the authority to exercise, on and after the opera-
tive date specified in subsection (1) of this section, all of the duties, functions and powers
conferred on the authority by sections 1 and 2 of this 2013 Act and the amendments to ORS
475.302, 475.304, 475.309, 475.320, 475.323 and 475.331 by sections 3 to 8 of this 2013 Act.
SECTION 10. Notwithstanding any other law limiting expenditures, the amount of
$803,276 is established for the biennium beginning July 1, 2013, as the maximum limit for
payment of expenses from fees, moneys or other revenues, including Miscellaneous Receipts,
but excluding lottery funds and federal funds, collected or received by the Oregon Health
Authority for administrative and operating expenses incurred in implementing section 2 of
this 2013 Act and the amendments to ORS 475.302, 475.304, 475.309, 475.320, 475.323 and 475.331
by sections 3 to 8 of this 2013 Act.
SECTION 11. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect
on its passage.
Passed by House June 24, 2013 Received by Governor:
Repassed by House July 6, 2013 M............ 2013
Approved:
M............................................................ 2013
Ramona J. Line, Chief Clerk of House
15na Kotek, Speaker of House John Kitzhaber, Governor
Passed by Senate July 3, 2013 Filed in Office of Secretary of State:
M...................... 2013
Peter Courtney, President of Senate
Kate Brown, Secretary of State
Enrolled House Bill 3460 (HB 3460-B) Page 10
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Deputy Attorney General
The Deputy Attorney General Wuhingon, D.C. 20530
August 29, 2013
MEMORANDUM FOR ALL UNITED ST ES ATTORNEYS
FROM: James M. Cole
Deputy Attorne eneral
SUBJECT: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement
In October 2009 and June 2011, the Department issued guidance to federal prosecutors
conceming marijuana enforcement under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This
memorandum updates that guidance in light of state ballot initiatives that legalize under state law
the possession of small amounts of marijuana and provide for the regulation of marijuana
production, processing, and sale. The guidance set forth herein applies to all federal enforcement
activity, including civil enforcement and criminal investigations. and prosecutions, concerning
marijuana in all states.
As the Department noted in its previous guidance, Congress has detemtined that
marijuana is a dangerous drug and that the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious
crime that provides a significant source of revenue-to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and
cartels. The Department of Justice is committed to enforcement of the CSA consistent with.
those determinations. The Department is also committed to using its limited investigative and
prosecutorial resources to address the most significant threats in the most effective, consistent,
and rational way. In furtherance of those objectives, as several states enacted laws relating to the
use of marijuana for medical purposes, the Department in recent years has focused its efforts on
certain enforcement priorities that are particularly important to the federal government:
+ Preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors;
• Preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs,
and cartels;
• Preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in
some form to other states;
• Preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a* cover or pretext for
the trafficking of other illegal drugs or 6 ther illegal activity;
Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 2
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement
• Preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of
marijuana;
• Preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health
consequences associated with marijuana use;
• Preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands and the attendant public safety and
environmental dangers posed by marijuana production on public lands; and
• Preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property.
These priorities will continue to guide the Department's enforcement of the CSA against
marijuana-related conduct. Thus, this memorandum serves as guidance to Department attorneys
and law enforcement to focus their enforcement resources and efforts, including prosecution, on
persons or organizations whose conduct interferes with any one or more of these priorities,
regardless of state law.]
Outside of these enforcement priorities, the federal government has traditionally relied on
states and local law enforcement agencies to address marijuana activity through enforcement of
their own narcotics laws. For example, the Department of Justice has not historically devoted
resources to prosecuting individuals whose conduct is limited to possession of small amounts of
marijuana for personal use on private property. Instead, the Department has left such lower-level
or localized activity to state and local authorities and has stepped in to enforce the CSA only
when the use, possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana has threatened to cause one of
the harms identified above.
The enactment of state laws that endeavor to authorize marijuana production,
distribution, and possession by establishing a regulatory scheme for these purposes affects this
traditional joint federal-state approach to narcotics enforcement. The Department's guidance in
this memorandum rests on its expectation that states and local governments that have enacted
laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct will implement strong and effective regulatory and
enforcement systems that will address the threat those state laws could pose to public safety,
public health, and other law enforcement interests. A system adequate to that task must not only
contain robust controls and procedures on paper; it must also be effective in practice.
Jurisdictions that have implemented systems that provide for regulation of marijuana activity
' These enforcement priorities are listed in general terms; each encompasses a variety of conduct
that may merit civil or criminal enforcement of the CSA. By way of example only, the
Department's interest in preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors would call for
enforcement not just when an individual or entity sells or transfers marijuana to a minor, but also
when marijuana trafficking takes place near an area associated with minors; when marijuana or
marijuana-infused products are marketed in a manner to appeal to minors; or when marijuana is
being diverted, directly or indirectly, and purposefully or otherwise, to minors.
Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 3
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement
must provide the necessary resources and demonstrate the willingness to enforce their laws and
regulations in a manner that ensures they do not undermine federal enforcement priorities.
In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and that have
also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the
cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those
laws and regulations is less likely to threaten the federal priorities set forth above. Indeed, a
robust system may affirmatively address those priorities by, for example, implementing effective
measures, to prevent diversion of marijuana outside of the regulated system and to other states,
prohibiting access to marijuana by minors, and replacing an illicit marijuana trade that funds
criminal enterprises with a rightly regulated market in which revenues are tracked and accounted
for. In those circumstances, consistent with the traditional allocation of federal-state efforts in
this area, enforcement of state law by state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies
should remain the primary means of addressing marijuana-related activity. If state enforcement
efforts are not sufficiently robust to protect against the harms set forth above, the federal
government may seek to challenge the regulatory structure itself in addition to continuing to
bring individual enforcement actions, including criminal prosecutions, focused on those harms.
The Department's previous memoranda specifically addressed the exercise of
prosecutorial discretion in states with laws authorizing marijuana cultivation and distribution for
medical use. In those contexts, the Department advised that it likely was not an efficient use of
federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on seriously ill individuals, or on their individual
caregivers. In doing so, the previous guidance drew a distinction between the seriously ill and
their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other,
and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and
prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment
that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana
trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above.
As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory
system, and an operation's compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an
operation's size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial
discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana
operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the
Department's enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review
marijuana cases on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence,
including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong
and effective state regulatory system. A marijuana operation's large scale or for-profit nature
may be a relevant consideration for assessing the extent to which it undermines a particular
federal enforcement priority. The primary question in all cases - and in all jurisdictions - should
be whether the conduct at issue implicates one or more of the enforcement priorities listed above.
Memorandum for All United States Attorneys Page 4
Subject: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement
As with the Department's previous statements on this subject, this memorandum is
intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion. This
memorandum does not alter in any way the Department's authority to enforce federal law,
including federal laws relating to marijuana, regardless of state law. Neither the guidance herein
nor any state or local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any
civil or criminal violation of the CSA. Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory
systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or
entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances. This memorandum is not
intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by any party in any matter civil or criminal. It applies prospectively to the
exercise of prosecutorial discretion in future cases and does not provide defendants or subjects of
enforcement action with a basis for reconsideration of any pending civil action or criminal
prosecution. Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution, even in the absence
of any one of the factors listed above, in particular circumstances where investigation and
prosecution otherwise serves an important federal interest.
cc: Mythili Raman
Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division
Loretta E. Lynch
United States Attorney
Eastern District of New York
Chair, Attorney General's Advisory Committee
Michele M. Leonhart
Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Ronald T. Hosko
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation