HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-1201 Study Session PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Monday, December 1, 2014
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
5: 30 p.m. Study Session
1. Public Input (15 minutes maximum)
2. Look Ahead review
3. Review of liquor license endorsement process
4. Discussion of Plaza master planning
5. Discussion of Council seating arrangements
6. Discussion of temporary waiver of 10-cent paper bag fee
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. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014,
CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST MEETINGS ON CHANNEL 180 OR 181.
VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASFILAND.OR.US
City of Ashland Cour fleeting Look Ahead
*****THIS IS A DRAFT AND atJBJECT TO CHANGE*****
Departments Responsible 1 Discussion of Council procedures for endorsements and Admin SS
proclamations (request of City Council
2 Discussion of succession planning and department head Admin SS
compensation (request of Mayor)
3 Deer education proposal Dave Admin SS
12)16 Regular Council Meeting 12n6
4 Annual presentation b the Planning Commission Bill CD PRES
5 Presentation by Representative Peter Buckley and Senator Alan Admin PRES
Bates on the upcoming legislative session Dave
6 Biennial 2013-2015 fifth quarter financial report Lee Finance NEW
7 Approval of final Social Services Strategic Plan Bill CD NEW
a Annual appointment of Budget Committee and Audit Committee Recorder NEW
Council liaison Barbara
9 Award Approval for the responses to the downtown beautification PW NEW
RFPs Mike/Ann
10 Supplemental Budget Lee Finance NEW
11 Bee Cit USA Resolution (Dave) Admin RES
try t/5
1~ Discussion of pavement management strategy (,-like) P"^J ;S
I Ordinance a)date proposals from the city administrat2~ lDavei ~dmin
1/6 R ar Council M tin v6
14 Election of Council President Barbara Recorder NEW
15 Proclamation re: Christmas Tree Recycling Diana Admin PROC
16 Approval of Council Liaison for 2015 (Mayor) Admin CONS
17 Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) CD ORD-2
1/20 Regular Council Meeting
to Results of the Citizen Sulve tAnny Adrnlin ^l~':' I
212
21a _ "
19 Aerial ladder truck discussion John Fire SS
20 Discussion regarding Culture of Peace Commission (request of Admin SS
Council)
2/3 R ular Council Meebn 213
21 Presentation b SOU on their co- en project Dave Admin PRES
22 Request from ODOT to extend Siskiyou Welcome Center PW Admin NEW
Improvement Agreement Mike/Dave
Two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland CD
23 Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation
ORD 1 ORD-2
System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal
Nei hborhood Plan Bill
Page 1 of 2 11/26/2014
City of Ashland Council Meeting Look Ahead
*****THIS IS A DRAFT AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE*****
Departments
Responsible 216 ~ si i~ ~ _ t[
2117 Regular Council Meeting 2/17
24 Annual presentation b the Transportation Commission Mike PW PRES
25 Semi-annual update from Ashland Community Resource Center Admin PRES
Dave
L27 CIP status update and review Mike PW NEW
Two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland CD
Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation ORD-2
System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal
Nei hborhood Plan Bill
'Art
Discussion of amendments to Special Events Policy iicC]uest of Hdmin
Councilor G✓larshi
s a Regular Council Meeting
_ R
"it
3117 R ular Council Meetin 3117
29 Annual presentation b the Tree Commission Bill CD PRES
Commission Presentation Dates - 2015
February 17 - Transportation Commission
March 17 - Tree Commission
April 21 - Historic Commission
May 19 - Wildfire Mitigation Commission
June 2 - Band Board
Jul 21 -Forest Lands Commission
Au ust 18 - Conservation Commission
Se tember 15 - Air ort Commission
October 20 - Public Arts Commission
November 17 - Housing and Human Services Commission
December 15 - Planning Commission
Resolution declaring fountain surplus property
Pag. 2 A12014
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
Council Communication
December 1, 2014, Study Session
Review of Liquor License Endorsement Process
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SUMMARY
Clarification on process used for endorsement to Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) on
application for liquor license.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 6.32 Liquor License Review is the policy set by council and
followed by City Recorder. This chapter provides for the process used for new licenses, renewals and
other actions requested on application for change of ownership, greater privilege and other.
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the following determination on all liquor license
applications.
The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's
land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has
registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the
OLCC proceed with the processing of this application.
New outlet liquor license applications (approximately 15 a year), along with change of ownership and
other actions are received periodically throughout the year. The following departments are asked to
provide findings on the applications: Community Development to determine if location of the business
complies with the City's land use requirements and Utilities to determine if business has valid business
license and completed filing for City's Food & Beverage Tax program.
Once all departments have reported back that the applicant is in compliance, the application is
presented to the council for endorsement of license. The application is then signed off by the City
Recorder and the applicant is contacted to pick up the application for final processing by OLCC.
The OLCC office requires that the applicant obtain local government endorsement prior to their final
approval.
Renewal of liquor licenses (approximately 100 licenses) is initiated annually in July by the State
OLCC office in Salem. The notice includes a list of the businesses in the City of Ashland who they
have on record as holding a liquor license. There is a deadline (normally beginning of September)
associated with responding to OLCC that allows the city to take any action on the request for renewal.
These are:
Page 1 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Provide a written renewal endorsement to the OLCC for any or all of the licenses on this
list.
• Make a written request for additional time to investigate a specific renewal or renewals.
The request must set forth the reason additional time is needed, state that the local
government is considering making an unfavorable recommendation, and state the specific
grounds being considered toward an unfavorable recommendation.
• Take no action. After deadline date, the OLCC will process the renewal applications as if
you made a favorable recommendation.
The following departments are asked to provide findings on the request for renewal: Utilities to
determine if business has valid/paid business license and current on City's Food & Beverage Tax and
the Police Chief to report on any objection to renewal of the liquor licenses.
Once the departments have reported back that the business are compliant or that there are no objections
by the Police Chief, the request for renewal is presented to the council for endorsement of renewal of
liquor licenses. Based on the action of the council, the above actions as provided by OLCC are
followed.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Current fees associated for liquor licenses are as follows:
• $100 New applications
• $74 Change in ownership, change in location or change in privilege applications
• $35 Renewal of license
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that council consider directing staff to bring an amendment to Chapter 6.32 that
creates opportunity for Police Chief to provide a review of liquor licenses on application for change in
ownership, greater privilege and other to the City Recorder. These findings could then be included in
the request for endorsement by council if necessary.
Staff will also review their own internal procedures for responding back to the City Recorder on steps
taken to determine compliance and recommendation.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
n/a
ATTACHMENTS:
• AMC Chapter 6.32
• ORS 471.164 Authority of cities and counties over establishments that offer entertainment or serve
alcoholic beverages
• ORS 471.313 Grounds for refusing to issue licenses
• Memo from Deputy Police Chief
Page 2 of 2
Ir,
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 6.32
LIQUOR LICENSE REVIEW
SECTIONs:
6.32.010 Purpose and Scope.
6.32.020 Definitions.
6.32.030 Application Process.
6.32.040 Application Fees.
6.32.050 City Council Delegation; City Recorder Duties
6.32.060 Police Department Duties.
6.32.065 License Application.
6.32.067 Criterion for Unfavorable Recommendation
6.32.070 Appeal Procedures
6.32.080 Coordination with Other Fees.
SECTION 6.32.010 Purpose and Scope.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish the principal criteria which shall be considered by the city
council in making recommendations to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (O.L.C.C.) concerning
the granting, denying, modifying or renewing of all liquor licenses within the city; and to establish fees
and a process, pursuant to ORS 471.210(4) to be utilized for the investigation of such license applications.
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.020 Definitions.
A. Administrator. The City Administrator of the City, or a designee.
B. Applicant. The person or persons submitting an application for a liquor license.
C. Application. The application forms supplied by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission.
D. Cam. The City of Ashland.
E. Council. The City Council of the City of Ashland.
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.030 Application Process.
A. Procedure. Any person, firm or corporation requesting a liquor license through the O.L.C.C. shall
present the completed license application forms prescribed by O.L.C.C. to the city recorder.
B. Additional Information. An O.L.C.C. Personal History form shall be completed for each person
named on the license application. (Ord 2774, S13, 1996)
C. Completed Applications. Liquor license applications forms shall be accepted only when all required
forms are properly completed, the requested information is submitted, and the required application
fee, as set forth in Section 6.32.040, has been paid. (Ord 2866, 1998)
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.040 Application Fees.
The city recorder shall charge and collect a license investigation fee at the time the application is filed.
Page I of 3
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
The fees for such services shall be established by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 2352, 1985; Ord.
2622 S2, 1991; Ord. 2774 S16, 1996)
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.050 City Council Delegation; City Recorder Duties
The City Council hereby delegates to the City Recorder the ability to process all OLCC liquor license
applications or requests, except for applications for new or renewal licenses. Upon receipt of an
application for a new or renewal liquor license, the City Recorder shall:
A. Coordinate and conduct an investigation of each application for the purpose of determining what
recommendation shall be made to the City Council. The city recorder may require the applicant
to supply additional information that is relevant to determine if there is a sufficient basis for an
unfavorable recommendation to the OLCC as provided by Oregon liquor laws.
B. Refer the application to the Department of Community Development who shall determine if the
location of the licensee' s business complies with the City' s land use requirements.
C. Detennine if the licensee has met the criterion for an unfavorable recommendation in accordance
with AMC 6.32.067.
D. Report to the city council as to the filing of the application and prepare sufficient documentation
and/or findings to support an unfavorable recommendation to the OLCC if there is a basis for
such recommendation.
E. Mail a letter or personally contact the applicant if an unfavorable recommendation will be made
to the City Council.
F. Make a recommendation and place the license on the consent agenda at the next regular council
meeting.
G. After the recommendation is approved by the City Council, forward the recommendation and any
necessary supporting documentation to the OLCC.
H. Endorse the application, if approved by the City Council.
1. Maintain a record of all OLCC applications.
(Ord 2995, amended, 10/20/2009; Ord 2833, Amended, l (/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.060 Police Department Duties.
Deleted by Ordinance 2833
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.065 License Application.
Page 2 of 3
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Any person or business requesting a city recommendation to the OLCC on a liquor license application
shall apply upon suitable forms furnished by the OLCC. The city recorder shall accept liquor license
applications only when the following conditions are met:
A. An applicant for an initial license or modification of a current license provides legible copies of
the following forms supplied by the OLCC: liquor license application forms, individual history
forms, and business information forms. An applicant for a temporary sales license (TSL)
provides the temporary sales application form supplied by the OLCC.
B. The applicant has obtained a valid city business license when applicable.
C. The application is complete.
D. The applicant has provided any relevant additional information the city recorder requests to
determine the qualifications of the applicant.
E. The application is accompanied by the appropriate fees, as established by resolution of the city
council.
(Ord 2995, added, 10/20/2009)
SECTION 6.32.067 Criterion for Unfavorable Recommendation
The City may make an unfavorable recommendation to the OLCC if it finds sufficient basis for such a
recommendation under Oregon liquor laws, including but not limited to, the Oregon Revised Statutes and
the Oregon Administrative Rules.
(Ord 2995, amended, 10/20/2009; Ord 2995, added, 10/20/2009)
SECTION 6.32.070 Appeal Procedures
An appeal of the City Recorder' s recommendation pursuant to AMC 6.32.050 shall be processed in
accordance with the Uniform Administrative Appeals Ordinance AMC 2.3 0, except that the appeal shall
be filed and processed in the office of the City Administrator. The appeal must be filed within ten (10)
calendar days of the date of the letter or personal notice from the city recorder stating that an unfavorable
recommendation will be made to the City Council.
(Ord 2995, amended, 10/20/2009; Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
SECTION 6.32.080 Coordination with Other Fees.
The application fee set forth in Section 6.32.040 shall be in lieu of all other investigation fees, but shall
not be in lieu of the regular Business License Tax set forth in Chapter 6.04. (Ord. 2318, 1989; Ord. 2581,
1990; Ord 2833, 1998)
(Ord 2833, Amended, 11/18/1998)
Page 3 of 3
471.164 Authority of cities and counties over establishments that offer entertainment or
serve alcoholic beverages. (1) Cities and counties may adopt reasonable time, place and manner
regulations of the nuisance aspects of establishments that offer entertainment or serve alcoholic
beverages if the city or county makes specific findings that the establishment would cause
adverse effects to occur.
(2) The authority granted to cities and counties by this section is in addition to, and not in
lieu of, the authority granted to a city or county under its charter and the statutes and Constitution
of this state. [Formerly 471.213]
471.166 Local government recommendations on license issuance and renewal; rules;
fees. (1) The Oregon Liquor Control Commission may require that every applicant for issuance
or renewal of a license under this chapter acquire a written recommendation from the governing
body of the county if the place of business of the applicant is outside an incorporated city, and
from the city council if the place of business of the applicant is within an incorporated city. The
commission may take such written recommendation into consideration before granting or
refusing the license.
(2) If the commission requires that an applicant for issuance of a new license acquire the
written recommendation of a local government, the applicant must give notice to the local
government when an application is made for issuance of the license. If the local government files
a favorable recommendation with the commission within 45 days after the notice is given, the
commission shall proceed with consideration of the application. The commission shall proceed
with consideration of the application as though the local government had made a favorable
recommendation unless, within 45 days after notice is given to the local government:
(a) The local government files an unfavorable recommendation with the commission with a
statement of the grounds for the unfavorable recommendation; or
(b) The local government files a request for additional time with the commission that sets
forth the reason additional time is needed by the local government, a statement that the local
government is considering making an unfavorable recommendation on the application, and the
specific grounds on which the local government is considering making an unfavorable
recommendation.
(3) If the commission requires that an applicant for renewal of a license acquire the written
recommendation of a local government under this section, the commission shall give notice to
the local government when an application is due for renewal of the license. If the local
government files a favorable recommendation with the commission within 60 days after the
notice is given, the commission shall proceed with consideration of the application. The
commission shall proceed with consideration of the application as though the local government
had made a favorable recommendation unless within 60 days after notice is given to the local
government:
(a) The local government files an unfavorable recommendation with the commission with a
statement of the grounds for the unfavorable recommendation; or
(b) The local government files a request for additional time with the commission that sets
forth the reason additional time is needed by the local government, a statement that the local
government is considering making an unfavorable recommendation on the application, and the
specific grounds on which the local government is considering making an unfavorable
recommendation.
(4) The commission shall suspend consideration of an application subject to this section for a
reasonable period of time if a local government requests additional time under subsection (2)(b)
or (3)(b) of this section and the grounds given by the local government are valid grounds for an
unfavorable determination under this chapter or rules adopted by the commission. The
commission shall by rule establish the period of time that shall be granted to a local government
pursuant to a request under subsections (2)(b) and (3)(b) of this section.
(5) The commission shall by rule establish valid grounds for unfavorable recommendations
by local governments under this section. Valid grounds established by the commission under this
section for an unfavorable recommendation by a local government must be limited to those
grounds considered by the commission in making an unfavorable determination on a license
application.
(6) A person filing an application for issuance or renewal of a license that is subject to this
section must remit to the local government the fees established under subsections (7) and (8) of
this section. The commission shall give notice to the applicant for license renewal of the amount
of the fees and the name of the local government collecting the fees. The commission is not
responsible for collecting the fees charged by the local government or for ensuring that the fees
have been paid. An applicant for a license renewal shall certify in the application form filed with
the commission that the applicant has paid any fees required under this section.
(7) An applicant required to seek a written recommendation from a local government must
pay an application fee to the local government, in an amount determined by the governing body
of the city or county, for each application for a license. The application fee established by a local
government under this subsection may not exceed $25.
(8) After public notice and hearing, the governing body of a city or county may adopt an
ordinance, rule or resolution prescribing licensing guidelines to be followed in making
recommendations on license applications under this chapter and in allowing opportunity for
public comment on applications. If the guidelines are approved by the commission as consistent
with commission rules, after public notice and hearing the governing body may adopt an
ordinance, rule or regulation establishing a system of fees that is reasonable and necessary to pay
expenses of processing the written recommendation. Processing fees under this subsection are in
lieu of fees under subsection (7) of this section. In no case shall the processing fee under this
subsection be greater than $100 for an original application, $75 for a change in ownership,
change in location or change in privilege application, and $35 for a renewal or temporary
application. [1999 c.351 §20; 2003 c.337 §1]
471.313 Grounds for refusing to issue license. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission may
refuse to license any applicant under the provisions of this chapter if the commission has
reasonable ground to believe any of the following to be true:
(1) That there are sufficient licensed premises in the locality set out in the application, or that
the granting of a license in the locality set out in the application is not demanded by public
interest or convenience. In determining whether there are sufficient licensed premises in the
locality, the commission shall consider seasonal fluctuations in the population of the locality and
shall ensure that there are adequate licensed premises to serve the needs of the locality during the
peak seasons.
(2) That the applicant has not furnished an acceptable bond as required by ORS 471.311 or is
not maintaining the insurance or bond required by ORS 471.168.
(3) That, except as allowed by ORS 471.392 to 471.400, any applicant to sell at retail for
consumption on the premises has been financed or furnished with money or property by, or has
any connection with, or is a manufacturer of, or wholesale dealer in, alcoholic liquor.
(4) That the applicant:
(a) Is in the habit of using alcoholic beverages, habit-forming drugs or controlled substances
to excess.
(b) Has made false statements to the commission.
(c) Is incompetent or physically unable to carry on the management of the establishment
proposed to be licensed.
(d) Has been convicted of violating a general or local law of this state or another state, or of
violating a federal law, if the conviction is substantially related to the fitness and ability of the
applicant to lawfully carry out activities under the license.
(e) Has maintained an insanitary establishment.
(f) Is not of good repute and moral character.
(g) Did not have a good record of compliance with the alcoholic liquor laws of this state and
the rules of the commission when previously licensed.
(h) Is not the legitimate owner of the business proposed to be licensed, or other persons have
ownership interests in the business which have not been disclosed.
(i) Is not possessed of or has not demonstrated financial responsibility sufficient to
adequately meet the requirements of the business proposed to be licensed.
0) Is unable to read or write the English language or to understand the laws of Oregon
relating to alcoholic liquor or the rules of the commission.
(5) That there is a history of serious and persistent problems involving disturbances, lewd or
unlawful activities or noise either in the premises proposed to be licensed or involving patrons of
the establishment in the immediate vicinity of the premises if the activities in the immediate
vicinity of the premises are related to the sale or service of alcohol under the exercise of the
license privilege. Behavior which is grounds for refusal of a license under this section, where so
related to the sale or service of alcohol, includes, but is not limited to obtrusive or excessive
noise, music or sound vibrations; public drunkenness; fights; altercations; harassment; unlawful
drug sales; alcohol or related litter; trespassing on private property; and public urination.
Histories from premises currently or previously operated by the applicant may be considered
when reasonable inference may be made that similar activities will occur as to the premises
proposed to be licensed. The applicant may overcome the history by showing that the problems
are not serious or persistent or that the applicant demonstrates a willingness and ability to control
adequately the premises proposed to be licensed and patrons' behavior in the immediate vicinity
of the premises which is related to the licensee's sale or service of alcohol under the licensee's
exercise of the license privilege. [Formerly 471.295; 2001 c.785 §1; 2011 c.165 §1; 2013 c.149
§1]
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: December 1, 2014
TO: City Council
FROM: Tighe O'Meara, Deputy Police Chief
RE: Police Procedures for Liquor License Renewal/Expansion/Transfer Requests &
Data on Police Activity at Downtown Area Venues
In an attempt to better review applications for the renewal of liquor licenses, the police
department has been working with the City Recorder's office. This on-going discussion has lead
to the following procedure being agreed upon.
-Each year the City Recorder receives, from the OLCC, a list of local liquor licenses that are up
for renewal.
-The City Recorder will provide that list to the Police Chief for review.
-The City Recorder will present expansion/transfer applications to the Police Chief as they come
up.
-Upon review the Police Chief will provide data to the Council on venues that are known to be
areas of interest. A venue would be considered an area of interest if its activities had been the
focus of complaints to the police department or if the Police Chief is asked specifically by the
Council or city administration to present data. The number of on-site consumption license
holders in the City is sufficiently low that a review of these venues for known problems is
feasible.
-This data can then be used by the Council or Recorder to make a recommendation to the OLCC.
The Police Department has never (in recent memory) officially made an unfavorable
recommendation to the Council in reference to a renewal. However, the department has used the
ability to make such a recommendation when trying to bring bar owners on board with making a
better attempt to control their areas. Specifically, the department worked with the owner of the
Vinyl Club "two owners ago" to make positive changes in lieu of a negative recommendation
being made.
The police department has, and will continue to work with bar owners to deal with behavioral
issues.
In the past the Police Chief has followed these steps, but in a less formalized manner. The recent
license transfer of the Vinyl Club was not given an unfavorable recommendation by the Police
Chief after cases and calls for service were scrutinized and a downward pattern was seen over the
ASHLAND POLICE DEPT. Tel: 541-482-5211
1155 E. Main St Fax: 541-488-5351
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us APD Form #2, Rev 8112
last 3 years. This indicated to the police department that the problems there were subsiding,
pursuant to the department's attempts to work with the owners.
The question as to when a negative-recommendation-threshold has been reached has also been
raised. I don't think that there is always a quantitative answer to this. One establishment might
have one or two incidents that are so egregious it merits a negative recommendation, while
another may garner several complaints that given the totality of circumstances may not merit a
negative recommendation. Again, the number of on-site consumption license holders is
sufficiently small that the problem venues should become apparent throughout the course of
year.
These procedures will be followed for license renewals, transfers or expansions. The thought is
that this does not need to be done for new licenses as these new venues have not developed a
history of criminal or violation activity, and therefore the police would have nothing to report. A
review of new applications would be better suited to the planning department to assess the
appropriateness of such a venue in a particular neighborhood.
I have also pulled some numbers from the department's history for the last two full years, and
2014 year to date. One of the most note worthy items found in this data, is that the vast majority
of calls for service on Will Dodge Way were initiated by an officer. I think this demonstrates
that we are being very proactive in our attempts to deal with the issues in that area.
2012 2013 2014
On On On
Cases CFS View Cases CFS View Cases CFS View
Vinyl
Club 17 58 33 18 58 44 12 37 5
WDW 7 48 41 19 109 108 13 109 109
O'R ans 21 70 45 15 45 27 20 71 46
Beau
Club 0 19 12 0 17 9 0 11 6
Armor 14 67 28 15 56 32 17 73 38
CFS=Calls for Service
On View=A CFS that the officer initiated
Cases=The CFS resulted in a case number being generated for an incident or documentation
ASHLAND POLICE DEPT. Tel: 541-482-5211
1155 E. Main St Fax: 541-488-5351
Ashland, OR 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us APD Form #2, Rev 8112
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 1, 2014, Study Session
Discussion of Plaza master planning
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council, at its October 21" business meeting, requested a study session discussion of creating a
master plan for the downtown plaza to guide additions and projects for the next 10-20 years.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At its September 2, 2014, business meeting, the Council accepted the recommendations of the ad hoc
Downtown Improvement and Beautification Committee, which had been appointed earlier this year for
the purpose of developing a plan for the use of transient occupancy tax money that has been set aside
in the budget for qualifying capital projects. Two of the recommended projects involved
improvements to the downtown plaza: 1. Adding free-standing planters, additional plants and
decorative fencing to protect new plants; and 2. Partial replacement of pavers (within the half-circle on
the plaza). In addition to approving the Committee's recommendations, the Council requested that the
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for design services for these projects come back to the Council for its
review before the RFPs were issued.
As requested, the RFPs were presented to the Council at the October 21, 2014, business meeting. At
that time, the Council voted to defer issuance of the RFP for plaza design services until a study session
could be held on creating a master plan for the plaza. Such a plan would presumably look 10-20 years
into the future so that as this or future Councils look to add or change features on the plaza, projects
are not done independently of each other, possibly resulting in a melange of projects that conflict with
one another.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
14. Encourage and/or develop public spaces that build community and promote interaction.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A. This item is scheduled for discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 1 of 1
,r,
CI'T'Y OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 1, 2014, Study Session
Discussion of Council seating arrangements
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Mayor and other Councilors have requested a study session discussion of Council seating
arrangements, specifically how seats around the Council dais should be assigned and whether there
should be a formal process in place if a Councilor would like to move to a different seat. Ashland
currently has a standard practice for assigning seats, but no formal policy or codified rule.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Ashland assigns seats to Councilors around the Council dais based on the number of the Council
position for which a Councilor is elected. That is, the Mayor sits in the center of the dais, and the six
Councilors are seated around the dais (clockwise, facing the dais) in numerical order from position one
through position six. There is no formal City policy that dictates seating be done in this manner, but
this is how it has been done for as long as anyone currently employed by the City can recall.
This procedure, as well as the procedure for a Councilor changing to a different seat, has recently been
called into question, thus prompting a request for a study session discussion. There are a number of
options the Council can consider for assigning seats. This list is by no means inclusive of all potential
methods:
• Assign by numbered Council position, as is done currently;
• Assign seats based on seniority, with the most senior member(s) given the choice of where to
sit at the beginning of each year;
• Assign seats by drawing lots;
• The Mayor assigns seats at the start of each year at his/her discretion
How do other cities do it?
I put that question out to the Oregon City Manager's List Serve and received 19 responses. Those
responses reveal no common theme. In every city, the mayor sits in the center of the Council, except
in two cities where the Council meets around a table. Methods used include:
• City Recorder just puts out name tags and Councilors sit behind their name tag. May be
different seating at each meeting. (two cities)
• Mayor decides, typically at first meeting of odd-numbered years. (three cities)
• Random selection (three cities)
• In order of numbered position, as in Ashland. (three cities)
• By seniority, with least senior Councilors farthest from Mayor. (four cities)
• Each sits where their predecessor sat. (two cities)
Page 1 of 2
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
None of the responding cities have a formal process for a councilor to switch their seat after it has been
assigned.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A. This item is scheduled for discussion only.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 2 of 2
Ir,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
December 1, 2014, Study Session
Discussion of temporary waiver of 10-cent paper bag fee
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Under the City's plastic bag ban ordinance, which went into effect on November 6th, retailers are
required to charge 10 cents for each paper bag given to a customer. Councilor Lemhouse has
requested a discussion of whether to hold the enforcement of that requirement in abeyance through the
holiday season.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On May 6, 2014, the Council approved ordinance no. 3094 (now codified as AMC 9.21) which
prohibits the distribution of most single-use plastic bags in Ashland. The ordinance also requires that
"When a retail establishment makes a recyclable paper bag available to a customer at the point of sale
pursuant to section 9.21.040 (b) of this code, the retail establishment shall: (a) Charge the customer a
reasonable pass-through cost of not less than 10 cents per recyclable paper bag provided to the
customer." (AMC 9.21.030.A(1))
AMC 9.21.040(e), "Plastic Bag Use - Exemptions," states, The city administrator or the designee may
exempt a retail establishment from the requirement set forth in sections 9.21.020 and 9.21.030of this
code for a period of not more than one year upon the retail establishment showing, in writing, that this
code would create an undue hardship or practical difficulty not generally applicable to other persons in
similar circumstances. The decision to grant or deny an exemption shall be in writing, and the city
administrator's or designee's decision shall be final.
Councilor Lemhouse has requested a Council discussion as to whether the Council will direct the City
Administrator to utilize the exemptions section of the code to exempt a defined class or group of
businesses (smaller, specialty retail) from the ten-cent fee section of the code, at least through the
holiday season.
This item can be continued to the business meeting of December 2nd if time constraints do not allow
for its consideration at the study session.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
Page 1 of 2
1r,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A. This item is scheduled for discussion and direction to staff only.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 2 of 2
Er,