City Council Transcript

Okay, let's move on to item 40, oral requests and communications. The City Council sets aside 30 minutes for in-person public comments. Comments are limited to two minutes per person or organization. As outlined in the agenda, the public may also submit written comments to the Council. Winnie, please note the written comments received for the record.

We received written comments from 34 people. The following 19 people wrote in support of option three for the Main Street reconfiguration: Sherry Kittle, Abigail Schilling, Zoe Barton, Andy and Emily Whitlock, Chris Fott, Warren Kahn, Gloria Thomas, Caitlin Kinney, Becky Esquibel, Christine Coltelero, Justin Carson, John Allen Walker, Virginia Hodson, Samantha (no last name), Marlon Hernandez, Amber Weaver, Tyler Pickett, Alicia Higley, Amelia Brown.

The following 15 individuals did not indicate a preference for option three. However, they requested that the Council revisit its decision to restore Main Street to its prior configuration: Brandon Binger, Amanda Dixon, Danielle Seay, Brandon Hebbison, Chrissy Milner, R.M. Hart, Ariel Love, Bob Morse, Brianna Bozeman, Ross Woodward, Chloe Bell, Alessandro Venni, Laura McCormick, Akita Katt, and Carmen Whitlock.

Comments were submitted to the Mayor, the City Council, and appropriate staff. Comments are also available on the City's website. There were no other written comments received for Agenda Item 40.

Before hearing public comments, I would like to note the decorum policy for the Council Chambers. The use of noisemakers or disruptive audience behavior, such as applause, cheering, or shouting, is not permitted. Decorum violations are time-consuming and disrespectful to the speaker and all attendees. Failure to follow the basic standards of decorum may result in removal from the meeting.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this is your opportunity to provide comments to the Council, and it's not intended to be a time for questions and answers. If you have completed a public comment form, please come to the front of the room when your name is called. The time is 6:19. Public comments will be heard until 6:49 p.m.

Just a note, we will probably go a little bit longer on this tonight. We know that we have a lot of speakers here, so we'll try to get through everyone. Don't feel obligated to use your entire two minutes if you don't need to, and that will potentially allow us to hear from more people.

Main Street is not a highway. It is the heart of downtown Medford. It's where people park, cross the street, shop, and build community. Turning it back into three lanes makes it a faster thoroughfare, and it hurts the very thing we're all saying we want — a thriving, walkable downtown.

I need to be clear about a misconception. People think that they voted and that this was a mandate. It was not a vote. It was an online survey. Only 3% of respondents with no residency verification, meaning anyone could click. I personally have spoken to people who have admitted that they clicked multiple times from different IP addresses. That alone tells us it wasn't reliable, and the council's own decision was tied. So this clearly is not a mandate.

I'm also confused by the process. If city staff recommended option three, if the chamber supports it, and if the businesses and building owners most impacted are asking for it, why was the motion framed as a yes or no on option one? Who were we listening to? A flawed survey should never outweigh the lived reality of the people operating on Main Street every single day.

And what is the rush? Doesn't anybody realize that if we wait a little longer, we won't have to pay back a half-million-dollar grant? Why would we sprint into the most expensive, most disruptive path when time could give our city more flexibility?

My husband and I have been downtown for three years, but we made a huge decision just shy of one year ago to move into a larger space so that we could bring both our retail and our production to Main Street. We put a large portion of our savings into that move. We haven't even settled. We haven't even caught our breath, and now we are bracing for months of construction and closures. For a small business, that isn't inconvenient. That is survival.

But if something has to change, then make it better for the future. Don't just react to the loudest voices. Think critically. Choose the smartest, most balanced path — option three. And please, don't repeat another bad decision.

Fifth generation Southern Oregonian. My family has been in the Rogue Valley since 1854.

The survey this decision was built on has a history. In 2022, a talk radio host urged his multi-county audience to flood a Medford transportation survey. Called bike lane supporters "the spandex bike mafia." Your own transportation commission flagged it. Staff confirmed they couldn't filter out non-residents. Three years later, same topic, same show, same audience. A thousand fraudulent duplicates thrown out. Still no residency verification. That's the foundation under a million-dollar decision. At least I live here.

Even the mayor said from this dais that he cannot see how three lanes make sense on Main Street. Staff agreed. The chamber agreed. We agree. We're asking this council to agree with him, too.

Since we started speaking up, we've been told to leave. Threatened with boycotts by people who've never been through our door — and worse. For asking the city to save $410,000. Apparently showing up makes you a complainer. The same talk radio host who manipulated surveys on this topic in 2022 is still at it. The same one who regularly hosts local elected officials. Funny how that works.

We've been in business nearly three decades. In downtown Medford for three. We moved our product production to Main Street a year ago. Now this council is going to tear up our street for months. Some of these businesses will be going through that for a second time — to install a configuration that costs $410,000 more and that staff did not recommend.

Yes, we said publicly that we're evaluating our future here. So is every other business owner on this street. How does any business owner or investor trust that what this city builds today won't be torn out tomorrow?

Central Point and Grants Pass are investing in their downtowns right now. Medford is paying $410,000 extra to go backwards. I doubt that's the pitch economic development is leading with. Over 50 businesses, investors, and organizations support option three. Most of them downtown, many on Main Street itself. And that number is growing. I've submitted that list to this council.

We just lost Rogue Ware to Central Point. Those are the people who make a downtown — deep roots, long commitments. Give them reasons to stay, not reasons to leave.

I'm here to talk about optics, and I think we've got some good optics to see. This is the list of downtown business owners and building owners that we have rallied to support option three. And as you can see from the list in front of you, we hit 50. And that list is growing daily.

I have never noticed in the 25 years of being on Main Street such downtown business community pride. We have a high civic self-esteem and our morale is high because I see this movement as being strong and growing.

And every time I go down to a business and knock on the front door and talk to a business owner or a building owner and explain the issue to them, they understand what is at stake here. And they support this cause — going back to option three and the new configuration — when you explain it to them. I just feel a lot of people are uneducated about what it is we're trying to accomplish here.

Unscientifically, I went down to the corner of Central and Main at the light there and observed the traffic flow on Central at two lanes. By far, there's twice as many cars traveling north-south on Central as on Main. But for some reason, we need to add another lane for half the amount of traffic that flows down Main.

Madam President and members of the Medford City Council, I'm David Browder speaking on behalf of Siskiyou Velo Bicycle Club.

First, we want to thank the City Council for including discussion of the Main Street reconfiguration on the agenda for your study session on April 8th. We recognize the decision made on January 21st was made after consideration of public feedback, safety, parking, costs, business impacts, and biking accommodations. However, since then, you have received numerous written and verbal inputs questioning that decision. We hope the outpouring of support for a safer Main Street has demonstrated that there are at least as many people who are opposed to returning to the previous configuration as those who have criticized the current configuration. Including reconfiguration on the April 8th agenda demonstrates that you are continuing to listen to the community.

Second, we want to address those Councilors who voted to return Main Street to its previous configuration. We think that vote may have been premature. We consider it prudent to identify all of the implications associated with each option before selecting a specific option. Specifically: Is it fiscally responsible to select an option that requires using City funds to repay the multimodal grant? Does returning Main Street to the previous configuration comply with the ODOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Implementation Plan, the City of Medford Transportation System Plan, and the City of Medford Transportation Safety Action Plan? Is it even feasible to restore Main Street to the original configuration and be compliant with the current City, State, and National Transportation Safety requirements?

We understand the Council feels compelled to do something. We believe options exist that address the criticism the Council has received while keeping Main Street safe for cyclists and pedestrians. We strongly encourage you to take the time necessary to identify all the costs and implications associated with each option and reach a decision that truly reflects the needs and priorities of the community.

I'm going to talk a little bit tonight about survey design and the way that surveys can go horribly wrong. We've already heard that the survey didn't control for anybody taking it from outside of the Rogue Valley. I have a few figures for you.

Out of the approximately 3,100 non-bot and non-duplicate survey responses, 911 were from outside of the Rogue Valley. That's approximately 29.4% of the entire survey response. Out of those, 359 were from Portland, 105 were from Eugene, 145 were from San Jose, 78 from Seattle. The United Kingdom overwhelmingly preferred option 3. Japan wanted option 2. And Thailand was split evenly between options 1, 2, and 4.

The survey also didn't take into account a number of different biases and survey design considerations. Those being: order bias — basically people gravitate towards the order in which options are presented; label anchoring — the way that an option is labeled implies an implicit rank for that option; primacy bias — people leave things in order that they're presented in when they're not entirely engaged. There was only a single question asked, so no validation or follow-up to make sure that the survey responses were consistent across all of the different options. And there was no randomization of the options and no follow-up given.

I'd urge the Council not to consider this a scientific or valid survey in deciding what option to go with. And I'd really prefer to see the Council revisit their decision on Main Street.

As a wheelchair user and a hand cyclist, the bike lanes made downtown accessible for me. I'm much shorter than cars, so without them I would be stuck to hand cycling on the sidewalks, navigating curb cuts, sidewalk grades, gutters, puddles — all of that.

So I just wanted to say, as a wheelchair user and a hand cyclist, I like the current configuration, but I will be looking into the options and seeing what those are about.

In 1971, there was a fellow by the name of Don Stathos. He was a Jackson County representative for the state of Oregon. And he sponsored the famous — or the now famous — Bicycle Bill of Oregon. This bill was revolutionary. It guaranteed 1% of highway funds to be dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian pathways in Oregon. And states have modeled it throughout the nation.

What Medford is doing by reverting Main Street to its original configuration is really a disgrace to Don and his legacy. That bill originated from Southern Oregon and it should be something that we are proud of. And instead of tearing down a perfectly good bike path, we should instead be using the money to be building out more bike paths.

So I would ask this council to please reconsider their decision to go back to the original configuration.

My name is Josh Moffitt. I live three blocks away on 6th and Ivy. I work for Verity Construction, which rents an office on 6th and Front. And our company also owns a building on West Main that fronts the bike path — 131 West Main. We purchased this building right before the construction of the bike lane.

Most of my life happens downtown. I work out at the Y. I jog downtown three mornings a week. And much of my social life happens within a few blocks from where I live and work. About 98% of my life is spent downtown, and I get around almost entirely by walking.

My son is a student at RCC. He regularly visits the library, Astral Games, and gatherings at Medford Draw — all downtown. He walks or rides his scooter from our apartment to each of these places and back. As a family that lives and spends most of our time downtown, we're grateful for the bike lane. It makes everyday walking — and for my son, scootering — feel safer and more comfortable.

As an employee of a locally owned general contractor, I'm grateful for the bike lane. We often work with families moving to Medford from places like Portland and the Bay Area. Features like safe bike infrastructure are exactly the kind of things people look for when deciding where they want to live, giving our company more opportunities to build custom homes.

And anecdotally, most of the complaints I hear about the bike lane come from people who live and work outside of downtown and drive on Main once or twice a week. The complaint I hear the most is that the bike lane looks unfamiliar or inconvenient to drive through. I don't want to downplay the hardships that people from East Medford and Central Point have to endure by driving on something strange. Certainly their voices should be heard, but I hope that when decisions are being made about the bike lane, adequate weight is given to the people who live, work, and spend their daily lives downtown.

I'm here today to complain, unconstructively. I don't want option 3. I don't want it at all. I think option 3 is a begrudging concession that I shouldn't have to make. But I also recognize that the current bike lane has generated some friction. It's generated friction in the driving community — it's strange, like was just mentioned. It's generated friction in the biking community, too. Having to merge across a lane of traffic that's narrowing from 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 and a strange sidewalk thing in the middle causes cyclists to just get off, walk, walk, and then get back on their bike. If you designed a bike lane — a two-way bike lane that was built to fail — you would design it very similar to the one that is there.

Nonetheless, it is the least worst bike lane Medford has ever built. The greenway is isolated. There's no one there if you need help. And everywhere else in the city is either so torn down that you're just avoiding cars well because cars are avoiding that street, or you're protected by a 6-inch line of paint, which, as we all know, is magical and keeps everyone from getting hurt ever.

I would like to see more, not fewer, protected bike lanes. So I'm not here to promote option 3. I'm here to begrudgingly accept option 3 if you choose to revisit this and go that direction. I'm actually here to urge you to pause. Revisit what a good bike lane downtown might look like. Revisit these options. And rather than throwing away half a million dollars doing something that a few people have complained about — myself included at this point — spend that money, if you must, on reimagining what a good protected bike lane structure in Medford could look like and how we can spread that from downtown outwards.

We moved to the Rogue Valley in 2018, into Ashland, and then moved a year and a half later when a drunk driver hit our car that was parked in the street. And we knew the street wasn't safe because it was very narrow and there were no sidewalks. And my children were taught to run into people's front yards when they were on their bikes or playing in the front yard because it was dangerous, and that was the final straw.

So we moved to South Medford because we loved the street and we loved that our children could walk and bike around town. And since then, we bike up to the Pear Festival. My wife works on Main Street. And we enjoy living and playing downtown and around.

But I don't know what the best option is, but I know that when there was a three-lane road downtown, it felt very unsafe to ride the bike. Since the bike lanes have gone in, we can ride around and we feel safe in that. So whatever the decision is made, I hope that we don't revert back to the previous.

I am here to support option 3. I mean, it's the best of the options. I heard a fellow commenter say that maybe we pause and look at other options, and I would support that as well.

But I am a bicyclist. I'm a runner. I am a food enthusiast. And I'm also part of this community, and downtown does need help. And I thought the bike lanes were a step in the right direction, for sure, and would be really sad to see them go, because I think it actually has brought even a little bit of beauty to downtown, where before it was just very much like a throwaway and people were just going too fast. And it didn't help the businesses and didn't help revitalize that area, because it is historic and could be a cool place to hang out.

I just want to make the simple request of the Council to revisit the vote and to choose an option — whether it be the same option we have now currently, or option 3, or a totally new option — for safe accessibility to the downtown area. That way we're not backpedaling into the past, and we want to see future growth of this city for all of the people here and the residents.

Since there have already been numerous comments on the merits of the current configuration from a significant cross-section of the community, tonight I want to focus on how we got here.

The streetscape we have behind you folks today is not an accident. It is a culmination of years of careful, data-driven work by our city planning department in collaboration with state authorities and expert consultants that included public input at multiple stages. The friction that you may have experienced in response to the current configuration is not a failure of the built environment. It is a failure of change management. The existing configuration is already succeeding according to every available urban design measurement that I am aware of.

It is imperative to consider that this project essentially fast-forwarded our downtown through a century of urban design evolution in a single step. The whiplash our community felt was a direct result of a decades-long systemic failure to incrementally keep pace with modern safety standards. Because this corridor had not been meaningfully updated in over 50 years, the necessary leap was bound to cause discomfort. This friction is not the fault of anyone in leadership today. It is simply a symptom of long-term stagnation that finally required a significant correction.

Let's be clear. This is not a bike issue. It is an issue of public safety and inclusive transportation that benefits everyone. It enhances the quality of life for our downtown businesses, visitors, and residents alike. It undeniably makes the corridor safer for the very drivers navigating it via reduced speeds and fewer accidents.

While better public education both before and after the rollout might have helped ease discomfort, the undeniable reality is that even then, some citizens would still feel unhappy. We must ultimately recognize that we do not need to like public infrastructure for it to be successful. What matters is that it serves the primary purpose of increasing safety and providing optimal utility across the broadest possible range of uses.

Please prevent a disastrous step backward. Do not discard years of careful and dedicated planning. Trust the guidance and commitment of our city staff. Trust the data. Do not revert to the pre-2023 configuration.

I've spoken before asking you to reconsider the Main Street bike lane revision.

On February 4th, 15 of the 17 people who showed up to give public comment and ask for a revision were downtown business owners. These are the people with the most skin in the game. There's now, as we've seen, 50 downtown business owners and building owners who are against a full revision. We hope that this council can revisit this decision.

The business community is asking for it. The data supports it. And we keep showing up because we believe Medford can make a better choice. People have a lot of options of where they can live, and infrastructure like the bike lane signals so strongly about where this town is headed.

Option 3 still exists. It costs half as much, it preserves the safety gains, and has the support of the people who live and work on Main Street every day and those who will live here for decades to come. Please reconsider.