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 Study Session Agenda & Minutes

Minutes
Thursday, March 29, 2018

AGENDA
March 29, 2018

6:00 p.m.
Police Station, Prescott Room
219 S. Ivy Street, Medford, Oregon

 
  1. Review and Discussion of Planning Commission Work Program
     
  2. TSP Project Prioritization

MINUTES
March 29, 2018

6:00 p.m.
Police Station, Prescott Room
219 S. Ivy Street, Medford, Oregon

The Medford City Council Study Session was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Prescott Room of Medford's Police Station on the above date with the following members and staff present:
 
Mayor Gary Wheeler; Councilmembers Clay Bearnson, Kay Brooks, Tim D’Alessandro, Dick Gordon, Tim Jackle, Kevin Stine, Kim Wallan and Michael Zarosinski
 
City Manager Brian Sjothun; Deputy City Attorney Eric Mitton; Deputy City Recorder Winnie Shepard, Planning Director Matt Brinkley; Planning Commissioners  David Culbertson, Joe Foley, Bill Mansfield, David McFadden, Mark McKechnie, EJ McManus; Patrick Miranda, Alex Poythress and Jared Pulver
 
Review and Discussion of Planning Commission Work Program
Planning Director Matt Brinkley outlined Planning Department’s priorities:
  • Housing Strategies
    • Completing the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Amendment
    • Regional Housing Strategy
    • Developing Opportunities for Downtown Housing
    • Define the downtown area
    • Work with the Continuum of Care to ensure homeless mitigation strategies
  • Public Infrastructure
    • Complete the Transportation System Plan (TSP)
    • Complete the Sewer Collection System Master Plan
  • Economic Development
    • Collaborate with SOREDI
    • Provide assistance with industrial/commercial customers
  • Downtown & Redevelopment
    • Develop project list and future for MURA
    • Seek grants seismic retrofitting of downtown properties
    • Establish priorities and funding improvements
    • Complete the transportation growth management plan for Liberty Park
  • Transitional housing
  • HAC reform and economic incentives
  • UGB amendment
    • Wetland inventory and regulation
    • Urbanization Plans
  • Neighborhood Plans for Liberty Park and the downtown
  • Council/Planning Commission Policy Priorities
    • Natural hazards mitigation
    • Sewer Master Plan
    • Indoor/Outdoor Marijuana: the definition of “indoors” and “outdoors” has not be adequately defined and Code Enforcement expects the issue to continue
       
  • Council Comment:
    • Food trucks have higher priority than marijuana issues.
    • Should revert to previous Code regarding chickens; the proposed change was the result of one complaint
    Mayor Requested Comment from the Planning Commissioners on Priorities:
    • Commissioner McManus recommended joint study sessions for the 2050 plan
    • Planning Commissioners noted they did not work on/discuss outdoor marijuana regulation
    • City did not apply for seismic grant, because the required software and staff training made it not cost effective
    • The new HAC recommendations will be approved by the Planning Commission before Council consideration
     
    Discussed Transitional Housing:
    • Planning Commission held study sessions regarding transitional housing shelters
    • Transitional housing throughout the City and the impact of each “village” on neighborhoods
    • Concerns regarding the duration and locations
    • Lack of facilities and utilities for the areas
    • Study session scheduled for April 26
    • Hope Village was never brought directly to the Planning Commission (determined an urban campground); therefore zoning issues remain
    • Mr. Brinkley recommended specific Code requirements for transitional housing and urban campgrounds and that Planning to have input before Council approval
    • Should have regulations for cooling/warming shelters
    • Hope Village was based on a urban campground state statute
      • Only allowed to have two urban campgrounds
      • Hope Village location may actually be large enough to qualify as both approved locations
      • Allows people to live in “houses” that don’t have utilities
      • All housing should be up to Code and perhaps more affordable to rehab an old hotel to provide standard living spaces instead of the structures at Hope Village
      • Transitional housing should have some modicum of meeting building code
      • Hope Village makes substandard housing acceptable
      • Provides a better alternative to slums, sleeping in the streets and/or greenway, etc.
      • Overall, Hope Village has been deemed as successful and people have been placed in homes and remain out of homelessness; was based on other programs in the state
      • It is a “part of a permanent solution” to help eliminate homelessness; it should remain “as is” it if is beneficial
    • Proposed Tiny Houses Code is a different issue than transitional housing or urban campground
    • Planning Commission needs criteria in the Code for transitional housing, urban campgrounds and tiny houses
                                                                     
    Council and the Planning Commission spoke about whether Hope Village should be considered transitional housing, substandard housing or a campground; also whether it was beneficial.
     
    • Should provide “facilities” for those who refuse or are unable to be helped by housing services
    • Should we provide storage facilities for the homeless
      • Facilities provided in the past were vandalized
      • Citizens have voiced concerns with continuing to spend the funding facilities that are destroyed by the people we were trying to help.
         
    TSP Prioritization
    Mr. Brinkley outlined that there are 251 proposed projects with an expense of more than $800 million. He outlined a few main points:
    • Maintain Level of Service (LOS) D for all intersections for $6.645 million, except for two intersections at LOS E
    • Foothills, North Phoenix and South Stage are all combined into one large project, with $15 million allocated
    • The Engineering recommended project list is $53 million, which includes the $15 million to the Foothills, North Phoenix and South Stage project
    • Foothill corridor expense is around $99 million
     
    Funding:
    • SDCs will be adjusted after the TSP is adopted/complete
    • South Medford Interchange funding from 2001 to 2011 generated $10 million
    • Possible other funding options:
      • Local gas tax
      • Local improvement district
      • Regional partners
     
    Council/Planning Commission Comment:
    • Foothills, North Phoenix and South Stage project is far more significant that the other projects
    • May qualify for a federal grant or create partnerships to leverage funding
    • North Phoenix and South Stage mainly provides a path through Medford and not to Medford
    • Gas tax would be great, but citizens haven’t approved that previously; most realistic to increase the street utilities fees
    • Reducing the number of lanes at Lone Pine and Foothill intersection could reduce the expense of moving the substation
    • Concerns with the lack of regional arterial street systems
    • Goals and objectives should be settled before approving projects
     
    Public Works Director Cory Crebbin noted projects are often completed by developers.
     
    • Periodic review the SDC fees to meet the transportation improvements; would be approved through the budget process
    • Collaborate with neighboring communities for possible assistance with expenses
     
    The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
     
     
     
     
    Winnie Shepard
    Deputy City Recorder
     

© 2019 City Of Medford  •  Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Select Language

Share This Page

Back to Top