Agenda & Minutes

When available, the full agenda packet may be viewed as a PDF file by clicking the "Attachments" button and selecting the file you want to view.

Agendas are posted until the meeting date takes place.  Minutes are posted once they have been approved.

Mayor & Council (View All)

City Council Meeting Agenda & Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, November 19, 2015

AGENDA                                

November 19, 2015
12:00 Noon & 7:00 p.m.
Medford City Hall, Council Chambers
411 West Eighth Street, Medford, Oregon
 
 
10.    Roll Call
 
Employee Recognition
 
20.    Approval or Correction of the Minutes of the November 12 Regular Meeting
 
30.    Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.  PLEASE SIGN IN.
 
40.    Consent Calendar
        
50.    Items Removed from Consent Calendar
 
60.    Ordinances and Resolutions
60.1     COUNCIL BILL 2015-117 An ordinance amending sections 8.801, 8.802, 8.803, 8.804, 8.805, 8.806, 8.807, and 8.812 of the Medford Code pertaining to transient lodging tax.
 
60.2     COUNCIL BILL 2015-120 An ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in the National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance.        
 
60.3     COUNCIL BILL 2015-121 A resolution initiating annexation to the City of Medford of an approximate 5.01 acre parcel located on the west side of Cherry Street, approximately 140 feet south of the intersection with Prune Street, and concurrent zone change from Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5) to Single Family Residential 00 (SFR-00), and withdrawal of said property from Medford Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, effective pursuant to state law. (A-15-096)
 
60.4     COUNCIL BILL 2015-106 SECOND READING – An ordinance amending the contract with Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture pertaining to redesign services of Fire Stations #2, and #4 in an amount not to exceed $136,500.
 
60.5     COUNCIL BILL 2015-125 An ordinance amending the existing Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) contract with Adroit Construction, Inc. and acceptance of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $7,422,499.82 for the construction of Fire Stations #2 and #4.
 
60.6     COUNCIL BILL 2015-119 SECOND READING – An ordinance replacing sections 5.650 and 5.654 of the Medford Code pertaining to control of recreational and medical marijuana.
                    
70.    Council Business
              
80.    City Manager and Other Staff Reports
         80.1     Travel Medford update by Annie Jenkins
 
         80.2     Freshwater Trust Temperature Trading by Cory Crebbin
 
         80.3     Quarterly Financial Report by Alison Chan
 
         80.4     Further reports from City Manager
 
90.    Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         90.1     Proclamations issued:
                                    Small Business Saturday – November 28, 2015
 
         90.2     Further Council committee reports
           
         90.3     Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
 
100.  Adjournment to the Evening Session
 
 
EVENING SESSION
7:00 P.M.


Roll Call
 
110.  Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
Comments will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization.  PLEASE SIGN IN.

110.1      Police Officer Recognition
110.2      Oregon Stewardship

120.  Public Hearings
Comments are limited to a total of 30 minutes for applicants and/or their representatives.  You may request a 5-minute rebuttal time.  Appellants and/or their representatives are limited to a total of 30 minutes and if the applicant is not the appellant they will also be allowed a total of 30 minutes.  All others will be limited to 3 minutes per individual or 5 minutes if representing a group or organization. PLEASE SIGN IN.

120.1   CONTINUED. Consideration of a proposed Comprehensive Plan/Urban Growth Boundary Amendment affecting the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) map, the Medford Street Functional Classification Plan of the Transportation Element, and portions of the text of both the Urbanization and GLUP Elements. (CP-14-114)
 
120.2   COUNCIL BILL 2015-122 An ordinance vacating unimproved portions of Farmington Avenue and Normil Terrace within the southerly portion of Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development, lying south of Cedar Links Drive and west of Foothill Road. (SV-15-101) (Land Use, Quasi-Judicial)
 
120.3   Consideration of an appeal of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the request for revision to approved plans for the construction of a 1,850 square foot Starbucks on a 1.01 acre parcel located at 2676 East Barnett Road, on the south side of Barnett Road between Black Oak Road and Murphy Road, within a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. (AC-15-013) (Land Use, Appeal)
 
120.4   COUNCIL BILL 2015-123 An ordinance amending sections 10.012, 10.184, 10.713, 10.743, and 10.746 of the Medford Code pertaining to housing types, parking standards, criteria, and definitions. DCA-15-103 (Legislative)
 
130.  Ordinances and Resolutions
        
140.  Council Business
 
150.  Further Reports from the City Manager and Staff
 
160.  Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         160.1   Further Council committee reports
                            
         160.2   Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
 
170.  Adjournment



 

MINUTES

November 19, 2015
12:00 Noon & 7:00 p.m.
Medford City Hall, Council Chambers
411 West Eighth Street, Medford, Oregon

The regular meeting of the Medford City Council was called to order at 12:00 noon in the Council Chambers of the Medford City Hall on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Daniel Bunn, Chris Corcoran, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Eli Matthews, Kevin Stine, Michael Zarosinski
 
City Manager Pro Tem Bill Hoke; City Attorney Lori Cooper; City Recorder Karen Spoonts
 
Employee Recognition
Employees from Police, Engineering, and Technology Services departments were recognized for their years of service; Three new employees were introduced:  Jodi Cope, Karl McNair, and Dawn Bergmann; Tracy Carter was promoted to Planner II; Retirement plaques were presented to Chris Reising, Deputy City Manager for Development Services; Tim George, Police Chief; Curtis Whipple, Police Lieutenant; Dean Riffert, Water Reclamation Division Operator; and Mark Warwick, Water Reclamation Division Supervisor
 
20.    Approval or Correction of the Minutes of the November 12 Regular Meeting
         There being no additions or corrections, the minutes were approved as presented.
 
30.    Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
30.1     Robert Graham, 2442 Fox Run, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He noted that banning homegrown marijuana either indoors or outdoors is precluded by Measure 91 and the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.  Mr. Graham accused the City Council of demagoguery and demonizing medical marijuana patients. He also spoke of Councilmember Bunn’s quote in the Mail Tribune.
 
Mayor Wheeler asked Councilmember Bunn if he would like to respond to the quotes attributed to him in the Mail Tribune; Councilmember Bunn noted that he was misquoted and that his comments were taken out of context.
 
30.2     Riot Schechter, 9400 Little Applegate Road, Jacksonville, stated he is a cannabis grower and employs people from Medford.  He emphasized that marijuana crops create jobs and improve our local economy. 
 
There were many outbursts, shouting and name-calling toward Councilmembers from the audience. Mayor Wheeler requested quiet from the audience in order to proceed.  Councilmember Corcoran spoke to the audience regarding their conduct. 
 
30.3     Mandy Valencia, 1972 Hutchins Circle, noted she was a former journalist for the Mail Tribune. She addressed Councilmember Bunn stating that if he was quoted in the Mail Tribune then he actually said the statement. Ms. Valencia spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas and noted that some people are too sick to leave their house to drive to a dispensary for product and depended on local growers. She accused the City Council of not conducting due diligence and doing a “half-ass” effort at determining how the ban would affect patients.  
 
30.4     Shayne Christen, 285 Upper Powell, Williams, represents the Oregon Sungrown Growers Guild.  He noted he is a patient and a grower for other patients.  He suffers from glaucoma and credits marijuana for saving his eyesight.  He was on hydrocodone for 20 years and now uses cannabis instead.  Mr. Christen spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He also explained his group’s work with state representatives and legislators to create laws protecting patients and small, family farms.
 
30.5     David West, 1533 Jasper, noted that he has never smoked weed or drank alcohol in his life. However, he did not believe that anyone had the right to tell others what they do on their own property and on their own time. He spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.
 
30.6     Andrea Adams, 210 W. Main Street, Phoenix, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.  She is a patient and believes that marijuana is extremely beneficial and healthful to use, and is not harmful in any way.  She was concerned that if her Medford grower were unable to provide her marijuana, she would suffer debilitating pain.  Ms. Adams recommended Council embrace the cannabis community in Medford and not be afraid of cannabis users or growers. She believed the City Council was taking away citizens’ ability to relieve pain.
 
30.7     Bryan Perreard, PO Box 654, Jacksonville, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.  He stated that he is a local contractor and a grower.  Mr. Perreard explained that marijuana odor could be easily remedied by a carbon filter or an ozone generator.  He recommended treating marijuana concerns like other violations, by handling complaints on an individual basis. 
 
30.8     Tere Knight, 2237 South Columbus, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.  She noted she is a grower for one patient with glaucoma.  She stated that some people grew marijuana, as they cannot afford to purchase marijuana from a dispensary.  Ms. Knight was concerned the City could be sued for non-compliance with the law and the potential expense to taxpayers. She also asked Council to understand that people believe their rights were being violated.
 
30.9     Brent Kenyon, 2319 Hillcrest, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He noted that he is the CEO of Southern Oregon Alternative Medicine, a medical marijuana clinic, serves on the OLCC Rules Advisory Committee, sat on the Finance Committee for Measure 91 and has worked closely with state legislators to enact House Bill 3400 (HB 3400). He stated there were two different issues:  banning recreational grows and banning medicine from sick and dying patients.  
 
Councilmember Zarosinski noted he had personally researched clinics and their function in the medical marijuana system.  He asked whether Mr. Kenyon, in his experience running a clinic, found it difficult to align patients with growers.  Mr. Kenyon noted there is a deficit of honest growers that take care of their patients. He believed it is an absolute necessity for people to have the ability to grow for themselves. Mr. Kenyon also expected a huge decline in medical-marijuana growers due to HB 3400 and the inability to grow medical and recreational marijuana on the same property. He clarified that it is more difficult to obtain a medical marijuana card than has been publicly stated. 
 
Councilmember Jackle questioned if Mr. Kenyon agreed with the contractor that testified earlier about installing greenhouses to virtually eliminate odor.  Mr. Kenyon agreed that any barrier between the plants and the air help with the smell, but not everyone can afford to purchase a greenhouse and it should not be required. With indoor growing, he was concerned with electrical safety as well as the equipment needed for growing.
 
Mayor Wheeler noted that his established time limit of 30 minutes had passed and it had actually been 45 or 50 minutes.  He addressed the audience and stated Council would be moving forward with other business.
 
Motion:      Extend the time for citizen comments.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                             Seconded by:  Clay Bearnson
         Motion failed.
 
Mayor Wheeler appreciated the motion, but noted the decision was up to the Chair. 
 
Audience members began shouting out comments regarding continuing the discussion, stating that Council worked for them, demanding additional time, etc.  One person shouted loudly asking whether the public could speak during the evening meeting.  Mayor Wheeler responded that he would not debate the audience, explained the public was welcome to attend the evening meeting and speak during the Oral Requests and Communications.  He again requested quiet from the audience.
 
Councilmember Bunn asked whether Council should move for a vote; City Attorney Lori Cooper explained it is presiding officer’s duty to run the meeting.  She advised that Council could continue the discussion now, continue the topic at the evening session, discontinue the discussion; there were many options.
 
Motion:      Continue 60.6 to the evening session.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                             Seconded by:  Clay Bearnson
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmembers Bunn and Corcoran voting no.
 
Audience members shouted out and Mayor Wheeler again requested quiet from the visitors.  Mayor Wheeler closed Oral Requests and Communications and explained that people could return for the evening session if they wished.  However, those people who have already spoken will not be able to speak again.  Audience members again shouted comments and derogatory statements to the City Council.
        
40.    Consent Calendar
         None.
 
50.    Items Removed from Consent Calendar
None.
 
60.    Ordinances and Resolutions
60.1     COUNCIL BILL 2015-117 An ordinance amending sections 8.801, 8.802, 8.803, 8.804, 8.805, 8.806, 8.807, and 8.812 of the Medford Code pertaining to transient lodging tax.
 
The shouting and negative comments continued and Mayor Wheeler again requested the audience to remain quiet.
 
Motion #1: Adopt the ordinance amending sections 8.801, 8.802, 8.803, 8.804, 8.805, 8.806, 8.807, and 8.812 of the Medford Code pertaining to transient lodging tax.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                           Seconded by:  Eli Matthews
 
Motion #2: Amend 8.807 Section 4 and omit the following “for purposes of imposing penalties and interest for delinquent filing, a 5 day grace period shall be given.  This means that any return and tax remittance delivered within 5 days of the due date will not be assessed penalties and or interest.”
Moved by:  Kevin Stine                                            Seconded by:  Clay Bearnson                                                                                
 
Mayor Wheeler asked for clarification; Councilmember Stine responded he preferred no grace period to enable the Finance Department to close out the month and move forward.  Councilmember Jackle recommended the grace period, because the funds pay for our sports park and five days was not excessive.  Councilmember Bearnson noted that the majority of hotels pay on time and this was to accommodate one particular hotelier.
 
Roll Call on Motion #2: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, and Stine voting yes; Councilmembers Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews and  Zarosinski voting no.
Motion failed.
 
Roll Call on Motion #1:  Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes.
Ordinance 2015-117 was duly adopted.
 
60.2     COUNCIL BILL 2015-120 An ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in the National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance. 
 
Motion:      Adopt the ordinance authorizing the City’s participation in the National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                              Seconded by:  Michael Zarosinski
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes.
Ordinance 2015-120 was duly adopted.
 
60.3     COUNCIL BILL 2015-121 A resolution initiating annexation to the City of Medford of an approximate 5.01 acre parcel located on the west side of Cherry Street, approximately 140 feet south of the intersection with Prune Street, and concurrent zone change from Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5) to Single Family Residential 00 (SFR-00), and withdrawal of said property from Medford Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, effective pursuant to state law. (A-15-096)
 
Motion:      Approve the resolution initiating annexation to the City of Medford of an approximate 5.01 acre parcel located on the west side of Cherry Street, approximately 140 feet south of the intersection with Prune Street, and concurrent zone change from Rural Residential 2.5 (RR-2.5) to Single Family Residential 00 (SFR-00), and withdrawal of said property from Medford Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, effective pursuant to state law. (A-15-096)
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                             Seconded by:  Michael Zarosinski
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes.
Resolution 2015-121 was duly adopted.
 
60.4     COUNCIL BILL 2015-106 SECOND READING – An ordinance amending the contract with Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture pertaining to redesign services of Fire Stations #2, and #4 in an amount not to exceed $136,500.
 
Motion:      Adopt the ordinance amending the contract with Ogden Roemer Wilkerson Architecture pertaining to redesign services of Fire Stations #2, and #4 in an amount not to exceed $136,500.
Moved by: Clay Bearnson                                         Seconded by:  Michael Zarosinski
 
Councilmember Zarosinski noted the project was reviewed for value engineering, but the full savings would not be determined until the design process began. Ms. Cooper expressed concerns about the deadlines, if any, as they related to the conditions of the next agenda item. Facilities and Project Manager Greg McKown clarified that the City’s design schedule can be included in this contract.
 
Councilmember Gordon questioned the potential funds left over after building Fire Stations #2 and #4. Finance Director Alison Chan explained that her spreadsheet outlined the current funds and what has already been spent. She also estimated $500,000 remaining after contingencies have been exhausted.  Councilmember Gordon noted his spreadsheet contained different information; City Manager Pro Tem Bill Hoke ensured the updated spreadsheet would be sent to the City Council.
 
Councilmember Gordon requested the Fire Chief’s feedback regarding the fire station designs; Fire Chief Brian Fish explained that although the structure and size were not modified, there may be additional maintenance costs in the future. Mr. Fish also preferred concrete for the apparatus floor. Councilmember Zarosinski noted the redesign included changes in the siding, windows and the roof.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned whether an independent party had been asked to assist in this process; Mr. Hoke replied that his understanding was to provide assistance and not re‑evaluate the entire process to date.  Councilmember Corcoran explained his personal intention was to ensure ORW and Adroit’s services were appropriate from that date forward, but may not have been the instruction provided to Mr. Hoke. Councilmember Stine was concerned about the expense and time necessary to begin again.
 
Councilmember Gordon recommended beginning with only one station, due to the cost overruns and was concerned that cost-saving changes now may increase maintenance expenses later. By beginning with one station, the actual costs could be determined before moving forward with the second.
 
Mayor Wheeler preferred no additional delay as firefighters are living in temporary housing.
 
Councilmember Bearnson asked to withdraw his motion in light of Councilmember Gordon and Councilmember Jackle’s comments. Councilmember Bunn explained that after a motion had been seconded, it couldn’t be withdrawn.  Council needed to vote on the motion.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski clarified that we had already bid with full 100% permits set for two structures. Although the plans were revised and made more affordable, there is always the potential for unknown expenses.  However the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) allows us to begin work and unless we change our scope, that is our price. Councilmember Zarosinski also noted Council can review the subcontractor contracts as well.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmembers Gordon and Jackle voting no.
Ordinance 2015-106 was duly adopted.
 
60.5     COUNCIL BILL 2015-125 An ordinance amending the existing Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) contract with Adroit Construction, Inc. and acceptance of a GMP of $7,422,499.82 for the construction of Fire Stations #2 and #4.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski requested a staff report.  Mr. McKown provided financial information on the GMP and noted it included some funds already expended. Councilmember Stine questioned if the City can move forward with just one station. Tom Walker, Project Manager for Adroit Construction, noted that the costs could be delineated, but they were not asked to provide separate numbers.
 
Ms. Cooper noted that an amended Exhibit A to the GMP was at Council places and reviewed the changes with Mr. Walker.  The changes included removing the word “early” before the word “GMP” throughout the proposal.  Mr. Walker had no objections to that revision.  Also, in paragraph two, the words “(as deemed [sic] Adroit)” “as accepted in writing”  “at its sole discretion” and “or void the GMP all together” were removed. In the last paragraph, the word “original” was added before the word “GMP” in the third line, the word “discussed” was removed and “by the City” was added at the end of the paragraph.  Mr. Walker responded that the changes made in paragraph two were not minor revisions.  He noted he was taking a risk in issuing a GMP, and for Adroit to complete their work and obligations, he was dependent on others to complete their work and obligations.  Ms. Cooper informed Mr. Walker that Adroit’s project timeline was going to be included in ORW’s contract.
 
Councilmember Bunn questioned the dispute resolution procedure with this contract. Ms. Cooper did not recall offhand, but it did not include arbitration. Councilmember Bunn asked Ms. Cooper and Mr. Walker whether they could cancel the contract at any time; they both agreed that was their recollection.  Councilmember Bunn noted both parties were going to use good faith to come to an agreement and if we couldn’t, the contract would be void. 
 
Motion:      Adopt the ordinance amending the existing CMGC contract with Adroit Construction, Inc. and acceptance of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $7,422,499.82 for the construction of Fire Stations #2 and #4.
Moved by: Chris Corcoran                                        Seconded by:  Michael Zarosinski
 
Councilmember Gordon questioned the process and whether this item would come back to Council before the stations were built.  Mr. McKown stated Council is approving a not-to-exceed contract with Adroit. After the design, the project would go out to bid.  Councilmember Gordon questioned the Site Plan & Architectural Commission (SPAC) and the Planning Department’s review and the authority on the changes to the building’s appearance. Planning Director Jim Huber stated there is a process in the development code for minor and major modifications. Depending on the design, it may go back to SPAC.  David Wilkerson, architect, stated that in order to make the schedule, they were assuming the changes will be minor.
 
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bunn, Corcoran, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmembers Gordon, Bearnson, Jackle voting no.
Motion held for a second reading.
 
Mayor Wheeler noted that due to the time, Council Bill 2015-119 would be moved to the evening meeting. The remaining agenda items were not considered or discussed. 
 
60.6     COUNCIL BILL 2015-119 SECOND READING – An ordinance replacing sections 5.650 and 5.654 of the Medford Code pertaining to control of recreational and medical marijuana.
 
70.    Council Business
        
80.    City Manager and Other Staff Reports
         80.1     Travel Medford update by Anne Jenkins
                    
         80.2     Freshwater Trust Temperature Trading by Cory Crebbin
 
         80.3     Quarterly Financial Report by Alison Chan
                    
         80.4     Further reports from City Manager
                    
90.    Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
90.1    Proclamations issued:
                    Small Business Saturday – November 28, 2015 (read during the evening session).
 
         90.2     Further Council committee reports
                                   
         90.3     Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
                    
100.  Adjournment to the Evening Session
         Council adjourned to the evening session at 2:26 p.m.
 
EVENING SESSION
7:00 P.M.
 
The regular evening session of the Medford City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Medford City Hall on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Daniel Bunn*, Chris Corcoran*, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle*, Eli Matthews, Kevin Stine, Michael Zarosinski
 
*Arrived and left as noted.
 
City Manager Pro Tem Bill Hoke; City Attorney Lori Cooper; City Recorder Karen Spoonts; Police Chief Tim George; Police Lieutenant Kevin Walruff; Planning Director Jim Huber; and Deputy City Attorney Kevin McConnell
 
110.  Oral Requests and Communications from the Audience
110.1      Police Officer Recognition
Police Chief Tim George recognized Officer Tom Venables who received the Medal of Honor from the Oregon Police Officers Association.
 
110.2      Oregon Stewardship
Jim Hutchins introduced Shelby Lane and Kevin Dauphin of the Oregon Stewardship and students at Rogue Community College.  Ms. Lane and Mr. Dauphine have received more than 200 signatures from citizens in support of cigarette receptacles downtown. Ms. Lane explained that keeping our streets clean pertains to Goal 14 of the Medford Strategic Plan.  Mr. Dauphin noted cigarette butts are on the streets, sidewalks and floating down Bear Creek.  Most of the businesses spend about 20 minutes per day cleaning up cigarette butts.
 
Mr. Dauphin requested Council support for at least five cigarette receptacles. Councilmember Bearnson applauded them for bringing this forward and noted that his bar has an issue with cigarette butts as well.  Ms. Lane stated most businesses are willing to clean out receptacles placed in front of their businesses. Councilmember Gordon noted that the City is processing Community Development Block Grants now and recommended they apply for funding.  Councilmember Corcoran and Mayor Wheeler commended the work of Mr. Hutchins and the Oregon Stewardship along Bear Creek.
 
110.3      Jason Osborne, 1925 Sunset, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He stated that he and his wife are growers, users and caregivers.  He did not want to cause an issue with the City or his neighbors, but can’t afford the cost at a dispensary.  Mr. Osborne grew 24 plants and his neighbors have not complained about the odor.
 
110.4      Ira Bartlett, 1984 Myers Lane, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. Mr. Bartlett stated that his business was for profit and noted the state has 24-hour access to inspect his property and requires him to provide projected uses of power, water etc. Councilmember Bunn clarified this particular ban would not affect Mr. Bartlett’s grow, as it was state licensed.
 
110.5      Naomi Forkash, 2121 Archer Drive, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.  She is not a grower or consumer, but didn’t agree with regulating what people do in their own homes.
 
Mayor Wheeler requested no applause from the audience.
 
110.6      Anna Rose Renick, 609 W. Jackson, appreciated the Medford Police Department for their work. She spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas and believed that Police should pursue prosecution for meth and heroin.
 
110.7      Steven Duarte, 1288 Skeene Way, stated that he has been a registered OMMP caregiver for more than 10 years, is a member of the America Herbal Pharmacopeia and is a consultant for the cannabis industry. He spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas and recommended supporting home grows and cultivating marijuana in Medford.
 
110.8      Victoria Vilencia, 203 Kings Way, Central Point, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. She stated that she has a small grow for her personal use and that marijuana is great medicine.  Ms. Vilencia has been licensed in the past, but is not this year.
 
Councilmember Bunn clarified that citizens, like Ms. Vilencia, were not the citizens the City Council was trying to regulate.  He explained Council’s concern is with people moving to the area, growing large amounts of marijuana and then shipping it outside of the state.  Councilmember Bunn asked the audience to provide ideas for how Council could prevent this activity.
 
110.9      Jamie Syken, 260 N. 1st Street, Ashland, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He noted that science has proven that cannabis is an exit drug and not a gateway drug. Mr. Syken didn’t think four plants was an excessive number of plants for residential areas. Mr. Syken is a licensed grower.
 
110.10    Courtney Zehring, 6042 Hillcrest Road, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. She owns a farm and is a licensed grower and user.  She spoke regarding the economic benefits of marijuana in Medford.
 
110.11    Jamie Adams, 48 N. Peach Street, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He noted marijuana is legal in Oregon and Medford should allow it. Councilmember Bunn clarified Oregon repealed the voter-approved Measure 91 and re-wrote the measure. 
 
110.12    Jen Clearbell, 109 N. 4th Street, Central Point, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. She purchases marijuana from a Medford grower to make and sell edibles.
 
Councilmember Bearnson noted that when people grow medicinally, sometimes their excess is used to make medicals and/or sell them to dispensaries.
 
110.13    Azariea Almufleh, Central Point, stated she is a grower, patient and business owner.  She moved to Oregon for easier access to her medicine. She spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. Ms. Almufleh noted that opening a marijuana business in our area was difficult, because landlords didn’t want to rent to people growing or using marijuana and because marijuana businesses needed City approval to open.
              
Councilmember Bunn noted that land-use compatibility statements are issued by the City for the five types of marijuana businesses approved by Council.  If businesses are in the appropriate zone, they will be approved.  Councilmember Corcoran stated that most commercial landlords cannot rent to marijuana businesses due to federal law.
 
Mayor Wheeler noted that statements have been taken for an hour and Council needed to move forward with other business.  He asked how many others wished to speak.
 
110.14    Gabe McColgan, 1308 Clearsprings Drive, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas.  He responded to Councilmember Bunn’s statement that Council did not want to ban legal grows. Mr. McColgan believed that Councilmember Bunn’s statements were inaccurate, because the City was attempting to ban residential grows.  He stated that marijuana was good for him and healthy for citizens.
 
Mayor Wheeler addressed the audience and requested only those with “new thoughts” come forward, due to the time constraints. 
 
110.15    Damion Witham, 1106 Highway 207, Trail, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. 
 
110.16    Matthew Morgan, 2339 Gould Circle, spoke against banning residential growing and also asked for the approval of marijuana lounges.
 
110.17    Nicholas Garrett-Powell, 2216 Polar Circle, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He appreciated Councilmember Bunn’s attempt to provide information and explained the science backing the medical validity of marijuana.
 
Mayor Wheeler noted that with that statement, Council would be closing the Oral Requests and Communications portion of the agenda. 
 
110.18    William Preston, unknown address, spoke against banning marijuana in residential areas. He spoke regarding raw marijuana versus the dry marijuana dispensary. Councilmember Bunn clarified that licensed commercial grows were not banned and that the proposed ban didn’t apply to consumption or processing anywhere in Medford.
 
Mayor Wheeler closed the Oral Requests and Communications and requested Ms. Cooper read the Bill into the record.
 
Out of sequence.
 
60.6        COUNCIL BILL 2015-119 SECOND READING An ordinance replacing sections 5.650 and 5.654 of the Medford Code pertaining to control of recreational and medical marijuana.
 
Police Lieutenant Kevin Walruff clarified the charts previously provided to Council outlined victims reporting theft, robbery and/or burglary of marijuana.  He also noted there are 21 approved dispensaries and 12 licenses pending for dispensaries within Jackson County.
 
Deputy City Attorney McConnell noted the current offensive odor ordinance is successful at handling matters between complainants and growers. He suggested no ban until next year to determine whether complaints have increased. 
 
Councilmember Stine questioned why other cities in Oregon do not have indoor or outdoor bans and which law provided the right to grow four plants. Mr. McConnell explained a premise that if a city prohibits what the state law allows, the city’s ordinance is pre-empted. However, that is not the case with the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (OMMA) or Measure 91.  Based on the City’s Home Rule Authority and our Charter, the City Council may impose laws to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare. The Oregon Legislature didn’t explicitly state a city couldn’t pass a law or ordinance banning residential grows. Even if the city’s ordinance prohibits what the state law permits, it will not be considered pre-empted if the purposes and intent of the state’s law still has effect. OMMA’s purposes enable the use of marijuana and provide the ability to discuss marijuana use with doctors. The City’s residential ban does not impact the stated purposes of the OMMA.
 
Mr. McConnell explained the Marijuana Grow Site Registration System is not a right in itself, but an attempt to effectuate the purposes of OMMA, which was to use marijuana. The grow site registration system allowed people to grow medical marijuana in their yards, because marijuana couldn’t be obtained through a pharmacy or a dispensary.
 
The purposes and intent of Measure 91 speaks of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public, prohibiting people under the age of 21 from accessing marijuana and licensing for the distribution and manufacture of marijuana. The four plants per household provision is part of the exemption portion of Measure 91 and is not a stated purpose or intent.  Pursuant to the City’s Home Rule Authority, if Council were to determine that medical or recreational marijuana grows in residential areas were somehow a danger to the public’s health, safety and welfare, Council would have the right to place regulations beyond what the state law allows.  He identified cases that supported his opinion.
 
Councilmember Stine asked whether our defense would win if a case was appealed. Mr. McConnell responded there was a compelling argument the residential ban could be upheld on appeal.
 
Councilmember Matthews questioned if we could refer recreational sales and home grows to the voters. Mr. McConnell responded yes, if it was done before November 2016, but noted that special elections are costly.
 
Councilmember Bearnson questioned whether voters had the right to ban cultivation within City limits; Mr. McConnell believed they could make a decision unless laws changed in the meantime. He also reminded Council that two ordinances were going to be presented in the next couple weeks: the marijuana retailer ban and the 3% tax for marijuana retailers.   
 
Councilmember Bunn recommended presenting the issue to the voters. Although he didn’t think the ordinance was perfect, Council should vote on the pending motion. He also noted that although marijuana was approved statewide, it was not approved in Medford and a vote would help resolve the question of how Medford citizens feel about residential marijuana.  He also clarified the City decided not to handle the complaints on a case‑by‑case basis, due to concerns about police time and effort. 
 
Councilmember Zarosinski questioned the current number of plants allowed.  Mr. McConnell responded the City has a limitation of four plants per dwelling to prevent offensive odors.
 
Motion:      Adopt the ordinance replacing sections 5.650 and 5.654 of the Medford Code pertaining to control of recreational and medical marijuana.
Moved by: Tim Jackle                                               Seconded by:  Daniel Bunn
 
Councilmember Zarosinski supported this motion originally, but stated he would not support it now. He was satisfied with limit of four plants and hoped that the City could create a simpler system.
 
Councilmember Bearnson noted ex parte discussion and a potential conflict of interest, but it would not impact his vote. 
 
Councilmember Gordon preferred referring the matter to voters and was not sure Council needed to vote on the issue now. He preferred to table the motion and direct staff to come back with a proposal to add it to the May ballot. Councilmember Stine noted he did not support this ordinance or other marijuana ordinances approved by Council.  He suggested regulation and not a ban, because bans don’t work. Mayor Wheeler preferred no outdoor grows in residential areas period. He was also concerned regarding public safety if indoor grows were allowed.  Mayor Wheeler noted the possible health ramifications with marijuana and he didn’t believe it had been researched enough at this time.  However, he will not veto a bill that would move this issue to the voters.
 
Motion:      Postpone this item indefinitely.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                             Seconded by:  Dick Gordon
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Jackle voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
                                                                                 
Motion:      Direct staff to prepare ordinances referring the following questions to voters: 1.) Should the City of Medford ban outdoor marijuana grows in residential zones; and 2.)  Should the City of Medford ban indoor marijuana grows in residential zones.                                                     
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                             Seconded by:  Eli Matthews       
 
Councilmember Bunn noted the motion only directed staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration. Councilmember Stine questioned whether this would be two separate ballot measures; Councilmember Bunn responded his intention was to create two separate measures.
 
Councilmember Gordon stated there were already pending ballot measures and asked why all four issues couldn’t be on the same ballot. Mr. McConnell clarified that tax and marijuana retailer ban issues must be considered during a statewide general election.
 
Councilmember Bearnson stated that he would support the motion and thanked those that came out today. Councilmember Stine was concerned that the City may have a legal fight if these bans pass.
 
Roll call: Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews and Stine; Councilmember Zarosinski voting no.
Motion approved.
 
Mayor Wheeler declared recess at 9:09 p.m.
 
* * * * * * * * * *
 
Council reconvened to the evening session at 9:19 p.m. with the same members present.
 
Back in sequence.
 
120.  Public Hearings
120.1   CONTINUED. Consideration of a proposed Comprehensive Plan/Urban Growth Boundary Amendment affecting the General Land Use Plan (GLUP) map, the Medford Street Functional Classification Plan of the Transportation Element, and portions of the text of both the Urbanization and GLUP Elements. (CP-14-114)
 
*Councilmembers Bunn and Corcoran recused themselves and left the dais.
 
John Adam, Principal Planner, spoke of the continuing work with the property owners to secure their promises regarding development. A meeting is scheduled for November 30 with the property owners on the east side.
 
Councilmember Jackle questioned the Starlite property; Mr. Adam noted the expansion proposal zoned that area commercial, not residential. Councilmember Jackle questioned the pear orchard property belonging to the Church of Latter Day Saints; Mr. Adam responded it is zoned one-third commercial and two‑thirds residential.  Councilmember Zarosinski thought we should be able to make a decision on December 3, no matter what happened November 30.    
 
120.2   COUNCIL BILL 2015-122 An ordinance vacating unimproved portions of Farmington Avenue and Normil Terrace within the southerly portion of Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development, lying south of Cedar Links Drive and west of Foothill Road. (SV-15-101) (Land Use, Quasi-Judicial)
 
*Councilmembers Bunn and Corcoran returned to the dais.
 
Ms. Cooper read a statement regarding conducting a quasi-judicial land use hearing. 
 
Planning Director Jim Huber read the staff report and the recommendation from the Planning Commission. He noted that City Council initiated the vacation request. Councilmember Jackle questioned the vacated spur on Farmington lines up with Farmington on the other side; Mr. Huber noted it is slightly off, but the project will be done in phases and will not be completed until all conditions of approval are met. Councilmember Bunn questioned when it was dedicated, if it changed hands and whether the City was sure there were no utilities; Mr. Huber noted the Planning Commission received no comments back, including none from franchises or utilities.           
 
Public hearing opened.
 
Mayor Wheeler read ex parte communication regulations into the record. Councilmember Gordon noted he lives in the neighborhood and has talked to several homeowner groups involved, but he has not been biased by those discussions.
 
Mike Savage, CSA Planning, was representing the property owners and noted his understanding was that Farmington is to be aligned with the other side of Farmington, as Councilmember Jackle questioned. He also noted he checked with their engineers and there are no utilities in the right-of-ways.
 
Public hearing closed.
 
Motion:      Adopt the ordinance vacating unimproved portions of Farmington Avenue and Normil Terrace within the southerly portion of Cedar Landing Planned Unit Development, lying south of Cedar Links Drive and west of Foothill Road.
Moved by: Daniel Bunn                                             Seconded by:  Chris Corcoran
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes.
Ordinance 2015-122 was duly adopted.
 
Councilmember Bunn noted his potential conflict of interest because he is a manager with Investors One, LLC which is adjacent to the property in question. He also noted an ex parte conversation with Councilmember Gordon.
 
120.3   Consideration of an appeal of the Site Plan and Architectural Commission (SPAC) determination that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the request for revision to approved plans for the construction of a 1,850 square foot Starbucks on a 1.01 acre parcel located at 2676 East Barnett Road, on the south side of Barnett Road between Black Oak Road and Murphy Road, within a C-C (Community Commercial) zoning district. (AC-15-013) (Land Use, Appeal)
 
Councilmembers Bunn and Jackle recused themselves from Agenda Item 120.3.
 
Planning Director Jim Huber presented the staff report and noted the property is located at 2676 E. Barnett Road, on the south side between Black Oak Drive and Murphy Road. He outlined the history of the project. In its original decision, SPAC reduced the required parking by three spaces.  The applicant requested a modification to that approval. At the public hearing, SPAC determined that it lacked the jurisdiction to render a decision.  Mr. Huber recommended two votes from Council: one finding that SPAC had the necessary jurisdiction to consider the modification request of September 18 and the second upholding SPAC’s decision of June 5.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned why SPAC wouldn’t authorize moving the dumpster to give Starbucks the three requested spaces. Mr. Huber responded the issue is the use of the shared access easement. Councilmember Corcoran and Mr. Huber discussed the location of the dumpster and parking spaces. Mr. McConnell noted that SPAC’s decision was legally defensible. He reiterated that on June 5, SPAC reviewed and approved the application without these three spaces.  The applicant attempted to obtain building permits using the original site plan. Starbucks then resubmitted the plan to SPAC without the three parking spaces as a major modification. SPAC noted there was no major modification and they could only hear major modifications. The question for Council is whether SPAC made an error of law in that determination.  Mr. McConnell didn’t believe they did.  If Council decides that SPAC didn’t make an error in the law, then Council denies the appeal.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned why we have not communicated between our Legal Counsel and our Planning Director; Mr. McConnell replied that communication has taken place, but they disagreed.  Ms. Cooper noted this decision would uphold the intent of our Code, and allowing the application would set a precedent. The applicant missed their appeal deadline, then submitted the same plan, which was denied and appealed.  Appeals are heard by SPAC. 
 
Councilmember Stine questioned whether this was a grey area in our Code; Mr. McConnell replied that Council could argue that, but SPAC plausibly interpreted they did not have jurisdiction in this matter.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski questioned whether the original appeal would’ve been made to the City Council.  Mr. Huber responded yes, but noted the applicant’s request was granted which is why the decision was not appealed.  They changed their mind and wanted what they had asked for originally, i.e. three more on-site parking spaces.
 
Public hearing opened.
 
Councilmember Gordon noted ex parte communication with Councilmember Bunn and he attended SPAC’s hearings on this topic.  He stated they have not biased him in any way, but he has developed some opinions on the topic.
 
Motion:      Extend the meeting until 11:00 p.m.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                             Seconded by:  None
Mayor Wheeler asked for objections.  As none were received, he noted the meeting was extended.
 
Jerry Shean, 3521 E. Barnett Road, stated that he agreed that staff recommendation that Council find the SPAC erred in their jurisdiction decision.  Although Mr. McConnell doesn’t agree, the Land Development Code states SPAC has three options:  approve the application, approve it with conditions or deny it.  Regarding the modification application, Council should make a decision tonight.  Mr. Shean recommended Council approve the modification application and explained the parking spaces were not conditioned out, as SPAC never made a decision to reduce parking. He talked about the order from the June 5 meeting states the application was approved and there is no condition stating Starbucks was limited in parking places.
 
Councilmember Corcoran clarified there was no need to appeal the SPAC’s decision as there was no order stating that the spaces be removed.
 
Bret Fox, 190 Ross Lane, stated that this process has taken more than a year. He requested a Council decision tonight and explained he would like access to either a dumpster or three parking spaces using the private easement.  Mr. Fox presented a map of nearby properties using private easements in a similar fashion and noted if used for employee parking, those three spaces will be taken before 6:00 a.m. and changed at other low-traffic times.
 
Mayor Wheeler questioned if there were blind-spots when backing out of those parking spaces; Mr. Fox stated there is no landscaping or other obstacle blocking the drivers’ sight.
 
Councilmember, Bearnson questioned whether Mr. Fox preferred a dumpster or parking spaces; Mr. Fox responded that he had no preference and noted the dumpster would be emptied twice per week. Councilmember Zarosinski clarified Mr. Fox’s request; Mr. Fox wanted to keep all 24 parking spaces. Councilmember Corcoran stated an extension of time is needed for remand.  Councilmember Gordon questioned whether Mr. Fox was willing to extend it for 70 days to allow for Council to remand the decision back to SPAC; Mr. Shean stated that they are not.
 
Councilmember Corcoran asked Ms. Cooper for clarification regarding what Mr. Shean has submitted; Mr. Huber noted the Commission Report dated June 5, on page 6 of 9, rendered the decision which stated the Commission approved the applicant’s site plan with the removal of the three parking spaces along the southern boundary.  The actual motion also states a reduction in parking in order to eliminate the three angled spaces.
 
Sydnee Dreyer, representing Investors One, LLC, stated that, LUBA has held repeatedly that when denying an application, only one basis is needed.  In this case, the application should have been denied as they were not seeking a modification of the application. Ms. Dreyer recommended Council deny this appeal, because SPAC’s decision to remove the three spaces was not appealed. She also noted Starbucks then attempted to get a building permit approved without the modification and believed this was an illegal collateral attack.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned if she was part of a neighboring property; Ms. Dreyer responded yes.  She noted the Black Oak PUD did not get mapped as it should have. The property is owned by many different people and it was agreed to terminate the 1979 PUD.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned what harm there was in allowing the three parking spaces. Ms. Dreyer replied that it is not proper for Council to consider the application.  She clarified the applicant has attempted to use neighboring property for overflow parking, the cross access easement is only 24 feet wide, this easement is the only access to many of the properties in this area and is not designed to accommodate parking, maneuvering or the loading of trash trucks.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski clarified that if Council denies the appeal, it goes back to the June 5 approval.  Ms. Dreyer noted that Council can deny on one appeal.
 
Mr. Shean disagreed and noted there was never a decision to deny the applicant’s request for 24 spaces. There was discussion, but not an order. In fact, the order of June 5 did not have anything to do with the denial.
 
Councilmember Gordon sat through the SPAC meetings regarding this topic and recalled Ms. Dreyer’s comments were more in line with his memory than the appellant’s.  Mr. Shean agreed that SPAC could have looked at that in more detail, but they chose not to approve or deny. Mr. Fox stated this appeal was an attempt to have a proper discussion. Councilmember Gordon noted the only way that could happen, was with a 70-day extension. Mr. Fox thought that was very frustrating as he has been working on this for so long.
 
Councilmember Stine noted the plans for Starbucks have been approved and it can be built; Mr. Fox agreed that it was approved, but with three less spaces.  He also stated that he has not submitted plans without three spaces or the trash receptacle.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned how SPAC approved the design with three less spaces if that design was not submitted and why there was a plan with the note stating “approved with the removal of these three spaces”.  Mr. Huber noted that particular slide was prepared for the September SPAC meeting.
 
Councilmember Zarosinski asked for clarification regarding the language of the final order and whether it approved the plan with the removal of three parking places. Ms. Cooper responded that the order does not specifically state that language, but it does incorporate the SPAC report in addition to the minutes, which do indicate the removal of the three spaces. 
 
Mr. Shean clarified the order states it is ordered with the conditions outlined in the Commission report, which does not state the removal of the three spaces.
 
Councilmember Gordon questioned if Mr. Fox would extend the time by 70 days to remand the plans back to SPAC; Mr. Huber provided the information on the process. The goal is not to exceed the 120 days.
 
Ms. Dreyer noted the full process has taken place and it is very clear that objections were made to the trash enclosure and the three parking spaces.
 
Motion:      Extend the meeting to complete the agenda.
Moved by: Kevin Stine                                              Seconded by:  None
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
 
Councilmember Corcoran questioned postponing the other item to the next meeting. 
 
Public hearing closed.
 
Councilmember Gordon requested Ms. Cooper’s input regarding affirming SPAC’s decision and reaffirming their June 5 decision. Ms. Cooper responded that affirming SPAC’s decision on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application, based upon the fact that it was not a major modification and because that same application had already been heard.
 
Motion:      Affirm SPAC’s decision on the basis that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application because it was not a major modification and because that same application had already been heard.
Moved by: Dick Gordon                                            Seconded by:  Kevin Stine
 
Councilmember Corcoran did not agree with the motion and noted that obviously errors have been made.  Ms. Cooper provided options for Starbucks, including taking the matter to Circuit Court, coming back with a modification requesting the three spaces or they could go to LUBA.  Councilmember Stine agreed with Councilmember Corcoran.
 
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Matthews and Stine voting yes; Councilmember Zarosinski voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
120.4   COUNCIL BILL 2015-123 An ordinance amending sections 10.012, 10.184, 10.713, 10.743, and 10.746 of the Medford Code pertaining to housing types, parking standards, criteria, and definitions. DCA-15-103 (Legislative)
 
Motion:      Postpone Council Bill 2015-123 until December 17, 2015.
Moved by: Chris Corcoran                                        Seconded by:  Eli Matthews
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, Stine, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Bunn voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
130.  Ordinances and Resolutions
         None.
 
140.  Council Business
         a.   Councilmember Bunn spoke regarding hiring an interim police chief. 
 
Motion:  Authorize the City Manager Pro Tem to recruit for the Police Chief.
Moved by:  Daniel Bunn                                           Seconded by: Chris Corcoran
 
Councilmember Stine suggested waiting until the new City Manager is hired and have that person select the Police Chief. Councilmember Bunn noted that the recruitment for city manager has just begun and was expected to take a significant amount of time.
 
Roll call:    Councilmembers Bearnson, Bunn, Corcoran, Gordon, Jackle, Matthews, and Zarosinski voting yes; Councilmember Stine voting no.
Motion carried and so ordered.
 
150.  Further Reports from the City Manager and Staff
         None.
 
160.  Propositions and Remarks from the Mayor and Councilmembers
         160.1   Further Council committee reports
                    
         160.2   Further remarks from Mayor and Councilmembers
                    Proclamations issued:
                    Small Business Saturday – November 28, 2015
 
170.  Adjournment
There being no further business, this Council meeting adjourned at 11:14 p.m.
 
The proceedings of the City Council meeting were recorded and are filed in the City Recorder's Office. The complete agenda of this meeting is filed in the City Recorder's Office.
 
 
 
 
Karen M. Spoonts, MMC
City Recorder

 

© 2017 City Of Medford  •  Site By Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top