Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0306 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed- Time permining,the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please fill out the Speaker Request form located new the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you,if any. "rhe time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL . March 6, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 6:00 p.m. Executive Session for Legal Counsel pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(h), 192.660(2)(c), 192.660(2)(f), and 192.502(4). 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Study Session of February 21, 2012 2. Executive Session of February 21, 2012 3. Regular Meeting of February 21, 2012 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Proclamation of March as Red Cross Month in Oregon VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Will Council approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Pam Hammond to the Transportation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014? 3- Will Council approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID) No. 66? 4. Should Council authorize participation in the PERC grant offered by The Nature Conservancy? C01IN'CI1 \II:ETiN(tS AR F" IlIZOADC \S'I' LIVI_ ON CIIANN ?.L 9 VISI 11'I IF CI"1'1' OF 4SI \V1_13 SI I F AT \V\\1\V'.ASf ILAND.OR.1!S VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council (AMC §2.04.050)) 1. Will Council approve First Reading of the following ordinances? • An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance An Ordinance Amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Exempt Solar Energy Systems Meeting Specific Standards From Site Review Requirements • An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens Within Residential Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions Within the Health and Sanitation Chapter 09.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code [45 Minutes] IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council adopt a resolution urging Congress to approve an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give Congress and the states the authority to set limits on campaign contributions and regulate political spending? [20 Minutes] XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council, acting as the local contracts review board, authorize the City Administrator to enter into a personal services contract with Bell and Associates, Inc. for solid waste collection rate consulting services in conjunction with the rate request submitted by Recology dba Ashland Sanitary for an amount not to exceed $9;826 unless other analysis beyond the scope contained in this agreement is requested? [10 Minutes] 2. Shall the Mayor and Council approve an-appointment for the vacant position on the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31. 2012? [15 Minutes] 3. Will Council approve the Mayor's appointment of Councilor Slattery as liaison to the Forest Service for 2012? [5 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). CO!!V'C:11 i11_ET11CiS ARF BROADK.ASF L.IVI. ON CHANNEL ,) 9 V1111 "FI II CI I Y lit= `,51ILANlYS iVF 13 S I F A F Al VA'VA!.;ASI7LAND.0R.IIS Cif Y CUUNCYL N/'UUr SLSSIUN . February 11, 1011 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 21, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Mayor Stromberg called the Study Session to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Councilors Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. 1. What questions and suggestions does City Council have regarding the new policy and scoring approach for the City's annual economic, cultural, and Sustainability grant program? City Attorney Dave Lohman explained Councilor Slattery could participate in the discussion based on a "potential"conflict of interest. Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Lee Tuneberg noted staff would incorporate the $5,000 minimum into the new policy. Council directed staff to re-add Tourism to the Resolution and discussed having four grant categories, Economic Development, Cultural, Sustainability, and Tourism with three to four criteria for each category. Other suggestions included adding a non-traditional event to Tourism, moving the criteria Encouragement of a "buy local first" paradigm from Sustainability to Economic Development in place of Increasing total employment, and having a 0-4 point system. Possible criteria for each category included: Economic Development Grants • Likely to increase total employment • Likely to increase employment and number of enterprises in the target industries • Likely to assist existing businesses to remain or expand • Likely to result in jobs above the median income Cultural Development Grants • Remove: Increase in number of jobs in the local cultural arts sector • Retain: Increase in number, type, or availability of cultural events • Retain: Important to provide long-term access for residents to a particular cultural institution or to the visual and performing arts • Retain: Significant collaboration with existing cultural program or leverage of existing program • Retain: Significant increase in access to people who might not otherwise have access, e.g., low income, children, minority groups Tourism Grants • Add: Creating or supporting a new non-traditional tourism event • Retain: Increase in hotel/motel occupancy or increase in local restaurant and retail business sales • Retain: Increase in total number of tourism,hotel, restaurant, or retail jobs • Retain: Increased occupancy or restaurant/retail business will occur in October through April Sustainability Grants • Educational programs that focus on sustainability efforts in the community • Likelihood that the proposed activity will reduce consumption of a critical resource by citizens or businesses in the community • Reduction of Environmental Collateral Damage • Likelihood that the proposed activity will be"transferable"to another situation, resource, or community Meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page I of 6 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 21,2012 Council Chambers 1175 E.Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin,Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger,and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Planning, Historic, Housing, Public Arts, Tree, and Transportation Commissions and the Audit Committee. Additionally, there was one opening on the Citizen's Budget Committee with a March 1, 2012 deadline for applications. Consent Agenda items 11. Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of Dave Kanner as City Administrator?, and 12. Will Council approve the attached resolution to formally adopt a Commissions and Committees Operations Guide?, were moved under NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS for further discussion. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of February 6, 2012, Executive Session of February 7, 2012, Regular Meeting of February 7,2012 and Council Goal Setting of February 11, 2012 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS(None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of the Boards,Commissions,and Committees? 2. Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, approve an Intergovernmental Agreement to join a consortium with the State of Oregon, Department of Administrative Services, GEO to acquire aerial photos? 3. Will Council approve the 2012 Council Liaison appointments to the City boards and commissions to be effective immediately? 4. Will Council approve an amendment to the 2010 Fund Exchange Agreement No. 26612 to extend the completion date for the Laurel Street Safe Route to School Project by one year? 5. Does the proposed budget for Mayor and Council for Fiscal Year 2013 meet the needs of the Mayor and Council? 6. Does Council approve the recommendations of the Public Art Commission to install a mural on Enders Alley? 7. Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, authorize the disposal of surplus transformers and approve the contract award to Transformer Technologies for submitting the highest bid of$14,746.05? 8. Should Council authorize signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement with Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS) to allow DCBS to install Accela building permit software for use by the City of Ashland Community Development Department Building Division for electronic construction permit issuance and plan review? 9. Will Council authorize staff to apply for a Certified Local Government grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for the continued operation of the City of Ashland's historic preservation program and to facilitate the City's Comprehensive Plan Goal to preserve historically significant sites and structures? ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 2 of 6 10. Will Council, acting as the Local Contracts Review Board, approve a Special Procurement requesting approval to enter into a two year contract with JACO Environmental to continue to operate a refrigerator and freezer recycling program to Ashland residents as part of the City's overall energy efficiency/conservation incentive program? 11. Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of Dave Kanner as City Administrator? 12. Will Council approve the attached resolution to formally adopt a Commissions and Committees Operations Guide? Councilor Silbiger pulled Consent Agenda item#10 for discussion. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 through #9. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. Interim Assistant City Administrator and Financial Director Lee Tuneberg explained the process citizens used to recycle their refrigerators or freezers and would forward participation regarding to Council. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #10. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Should Council purchase 2,773 square feet of property located along the east bank of Ashland Creek? Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson explained the property was part of a 20-year plan to establish a trail system that would link Lithia Park to the Bear Creek Greenway. Public Hearing Open: 7:09 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:09 p.m. Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve purchase of 2,773 square feet of tax lot 2705 for the appraised price of$8 per square foot minus a trade of 269 square feet of adjoining City property along with surveying and title costs for a total projected cost of$23,532. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted the value of the trail connection in the future. Voice Vote: All AYES.Motion passed. 2. Should Council re-designate approximately 14,000 square feet of City-owned housing property to Parks property? Parks and Recreation Director Don Robertson explained the organization responsible for workforce housing on the property went out of business 2011. The Planning Commission recommended Council transfer the property to the Parks and Recreation Department and in January 2012, the Parks and Recreation Commission approved the transfer. Public Hearing Open: 7:13 p.m. Regina Ayars/199 Hillcrest/Spoke as the Chair of the Housing Commission and read from the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance 2966. She encouraged Council to approve the transfer of monies from the sale of upper Clay Street to the Ashland Housing Trust Fund. Councilor Chapman clarified the decision to transfer the funds to the Housing Trust Fund was determined fall 2011. Public Hearing Closed: 7:18 p.m. Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve the transfer of the 14,000 square feet property from City housing designation to Parks designation. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse wanted Council to ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 3 of 6 add a priority to the Housing Trust Fund to spend funds on housing preservation instead of acquiring new land for affordable housing. Councilor Lemhouse motioned to amend that the Housing Trust Fund is its priority and the preservation of low-income housing. Councilor Lemhouse withdrew the motion, as it did not apply to the current action. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s that the funds in the Housing Trust Fund be prioritized and used on housing preservation. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman thought language in the Housing Trust Fund regarding spending would have to change. Interim Assistant City Administrator and Financial Director Lee Tuneberg explained the amount was currently held as a restricted fund in the General Fund and would require an appropriation if Council wanted to use it in the next year. Councilor Voisin wanted the Housing Commission's input prior to making the decision. Councilor Morris noted the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance already stated funds supported creation or preservation of housing. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the Operations Guide for Commissions and Committees contained a procedure that dealt with proposed expenditures, involved the relevant Department Head and if needed, Council. Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson suggested staff come back to Council with information for further discussion. Councilor Chapman was not comfortable having the Housing Commission making budgetary decisions on $150,000. Councilor Voisin thought Council should designate a specific amount for housing preservation instead of allocating the full amount. Councilor Lemhouse withdrew the motion with Councilor Slattery's consent. Council directed staff to bring possible changes and additional information to a future meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Marc St. Andre/1565 Siskiyou Boulevard/Explained he was homeless and Municipal Judge Pamela Burkholder Turner suggested he come before the Council and ask the City to designate a park where the homeless could go to drink alcohol without repercussion. Ron Roth/6950 Old Hwy 99 South/Shared his history and involvement with Mt. Ashland Ski Resort and asked the Council to consider donating one tenth of 1%of the City's annual budget, approximately $100,000 to the Mt. Ashland Association to fund a seven day operation. It would benefit the after-school program, create an economic development affect, and work towards resolving any rifts between MAA and the City. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supporting the creation of a constitutional amendment to eliminate 'personhood' for corporations and unions for purposes of campaign expenditure limitations and to stop treating money as speech for political purposes? Mayor Stromberg provided background on the Supreme Court's 2010 decision regarding Citizens United and how the group Move to Amend formed to challenge corporate personhood and treating money as speech. He listed groups and government officials that were calling for a constitutional amendment that would allow congress to regulate corporate political contributions. Ron Boutwell/1259 Munson Drive/Spoke as the President of the Meadow Hawk Home Owners Association to urge Council to authorize a resolution supporting the creation of a constitutional amendment to eliminate personhood for corporations and unions for the purpose of campaign expenditure limitations and stop treating money as speech for political purposes. He noted other groups and cities participating in eliminating personhood. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 4 of 6 John Limb/606 Iowa Street/Spoke on behalf of Peace House who supported passing a constitutional amendment to deny personhood status to corporations and free speech status to money. Historically local government tended to embrace change before federal government endorsed it. Herbert Long/745 Alaska Street/Explained corporations did not have "feelings." He felt strongly about what was happening to democracy, and how access to the political process was available only to those with money. He appealed to Council to take a stance and oppose the Supreme Court decision. Evan Lasley/110 7'h Street/Commented how corporations could dominate elections and policymaking. The amendment made the statement that people must have a voice within the political system. Alison Keith/3151 E Main Street/Explained the immense impact Citizens United had on local politics and used local State Representatives as an example. She urged Council to join the growing numbers of cities passing the resolution supporting a constitutional amendment. Joyce Segers/1345 Tolman Creek Road/Commented on the mockery of the political system and the need to regain the respect back for the political process. A vote for the resolution was a vote for a community full of respect. Barry Tillman/Expressed his anger regarding the political system, concern that Council might vote against the resolution and his commitment to see the Councilors who did not pass the resolution replaced. Rich Rhode/124 Ohio Street/Spoke as a member of Oregon Action and stressed it was appropriate and essential that local governments supported the resolution. Paula Sohl/283 Scenic Drive/Explained corporations were not people and stressed the importance to amend the Constitution and to educate people on the issue by passing the resolution. Keith Haxton/110 7'h Street/Spoke on the history of Move to Amend and Ashland's chapter established 2010. He explained the process to amend the US Constitution and noted cities that passed similar resolutions. Councilor Voisin/Silbiger m/s to direct staff to prepare a resolution supporting the creation of a constitutional amendment to eliminate "personhood" for corporations and unions for purposes of campaign expenditure limitations and to stop treating money as speech for political purposes. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin asked Council to take a formal stand on the issue by calling for a constitutional amendment to counteract the Supreme Court's action. Councilor Silbiger would support the motion but preferred a resolution that stated very clearly the City supported a constitutional amendment where money was not speech and allowed Congress and states to regulate elections and the financing and expenditures of elections. Councilor Slattery supported the motion but was not comfortable with how it came before the Council. He observed that as long as Political Action Committees (PAC) existed there would be problems. Another issue was the resolution would hinder well-meaning corporations. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the motion even though he supported the sentiment. He took serious issue politicizing a local elective body whose job was to govern. Council was not the place to set up a political platform. He objected to the format used and suggested interested parties put a measure on the ballot. Councilor Chapman supported the motion but leaned towards Councilor Silbiger's suggestion and added that it was more effective to support the Federal Representatives who were already moving in the direction of an amendment. He too had concerns with how the item came before Council and thought the resolution might be ineffective. Councilor Morris noted Mr. Haxton's testimony that it would take either two thirds of Congress or State legislators to amend the constitution and the process could take decades. He was uncomfortable how the issue came to Council, did not think the resolution would make a difference, but ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 5 of 6 agreed contacting State and Federal legislators was a more effective route. Councilor Voisin took issue with Councilor Slattery and Lemhouse implying the agenda item was a political move on her part and stressed it came from many citizens working on Move to Amend. Councilor Slattery reiterated his disappointment in how the item came before Council and thought it was divisive. Mayor Stromberg thought the corporate personhood issue was good for a political movement to pursue, and noted that Senator Merkley had already taken a position to amend constitution to allow congress to regulate corporate contributions. He would not support the motion and did not think it was appropriate for Council to associate itself with the particular approach. However, he would support a constitutional amendment that gave Congress the power to regulate corporate contributions to political campaigns. Councilor Lemhouse clarified what he meant regarding politicizing the issue and hoped the lesson learned was that democracy was a collaborative process. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman,Morris,and Lemhouse, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 3-4. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to direct staff to bring back a resolution for a constitutional amendment that affirms that congress and the states may regulate the financing and expenditures of elections. DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger explained it was not just corporations and unions, the financing of elections needed to be equal and fair for everyone. Councilor Silbiger explained the resolution would remove references to corporate personhood and supported Senator Merkley's position. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, Silbiger, Chapman, and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse,NO. Motion passed 5-1. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Does Council wish to confirm the appointment of Dave Kanner as City Administrator and approve a contract for employment? Interim City Administrator Larry Patterson stated the employment agreement was a three-year contract with salary starting at $132,684, standard benefits, a $400 per month automobile allowance, housing assistance allowance of$1200 per month as well as a severance pay clause. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to accept the contract and hire Dave Kanner as City Administrator. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse expressed his appreciation of the panel members involved in the interview process and Lary Patterson's efforts as Interim City Administrator. Councilor Voisin commented that Dave Kanner had the skills needed at this time. Councilor Slattery voiced his appreciation to Mr. Patterson. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger and Chapman,YES. Motion passed. 2. Will Council approve the attached resolution to formally adopt a Commissions and Committees Operations Guide? Interim Assistant City Administrator and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution provided a guideline on how or if a Commission would spend City monies. City Attorney Dave Lohman noted the resolution should have included a reference to Ashland Municipal Code 2.10 Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards and would come back to Council at a future meeting with an amendment to the ordinance. Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2012-03. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Will Council approve a resolution adopting goals,criteria and requirements for the new policy and scoring approach for the City's annual economic,cultural,and sustainability grant program? Councilor Slattery disclosed a potential conflict of interest due to his spouse being the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 21, 2012 Page 6 of 6 Council decided on four grant categories, Economic Development, Cultural, Sustainability, and Tourism with four criteria in each category for scoring. Project Manager Adam Hanks distributed updated documents with changes from the Study Session earlier that evening. Staff originally left Tourism out of the resolution because of a prior direction that considered it a subset of Economic Development. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2012-05, adopting goals, criteria, and requirements for the Economic, Cultural, Tourism, and Sustainability Grant Program and to accept the scoring criteria submitted by staff during the February 21, 2012 Study Session held earlier. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted corrections and suggested having a radial button. Councilor Silbiger commented on previous concerns that Ashland move from depending on tourism and thought the changes were a step in the right direction. Councilor Chapman encouraged regional tourism. Councilor Voisin expressed concern that Tourism was still a primary focus in economic development and stressed the need for Ashland to diversify. Mayor Stromberg clarified the Economic Development Strategy was addressing that concern. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Will Council approve the resolution allocating TOT revenues consistent with discussions and approval by vote taken on February 7,2012? Councilor Slattery declared a conflict of interest due to his spouse being the Executive Director of the chamber of Commerce and recused himself. He left the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Council addressed the Non Tourism Portion 2"" Priority table and discussed restricting Economic Development Program funds to prohibit spending without Council approval. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution#2012-04. Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s amend the motion that the City Economic Development Program, be restricted and not be spent without Council approval. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman suggested changing the first sentence following the Priority tables from: "Economic Development programs or other projects are City activities unless otherwise specified by Council prior to the budget process," to "Economic Development programs specified by Council prior to the budget process." Councilor Silbiger did not think the change would be as effective as restricting the funds. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger,Morris,and Chapman,YES; Councilor Voisin,NO.Motion passed 4-1. Roll Call Vote on main motion: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Morris, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 4-1. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor PROCLAMATION • The American Red Cross has touched many lives in Oregon, as well as across the country and around the world. ° • During American Red Cross Month, we thank those who contribute to the mission of the Red Cross, whether through time, money or blood, and we o° ° invite others to support the Red Cross in helping people in need down the street, across the country and around the worlds • In Oregon the Red Cross works tirelessly through its staff and volunteers to support local communities when disaster strikes, when someone needs life- e'° saving blood, or when someone needs the comfort of a helping hand. The Red D Cross provides 24-hour support to members of the military, veterans and their families, and provides training in CPR, aquatics safety, and first aid. ° For nearly 100 years, United States presidents have called on the American people to support the Red Cross and its humanitarian mission. Our community depends on the American Red Cross and because it is not a government �Q. agency, the Red Cross depends on support from the public to continue its S c ° humanitarian work. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Q Ashland, hereby proclaim the month of March as: D � "RED CROSS MONTH IN OREGON" ➢ � and hereby urge all citizens to support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission. ` Dated this 6'" day of March, 2012. S John Stromberg, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder T��ylv�i c J<✓ � v11::f�' a1VU �^JYE:.. ° ��V Cf ��'"Y �� �� �°�9C�,pe9 o CdpeD Qs�e9 Cdpb77CZd��77Cepe9 ° Qdpe9 Cvpe9CSe�e9 C�°e9�( CITY O F ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes October 5, 2011 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Keith Swink, Sam Whitford,Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick,Ally Phelps, Commission Members Absent: Kerry Kencaim (e) Council Liaison: Michael Morris, absent High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter, Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Whitford pointed out an error showing him listed as present. Mr. Giordano moved to approve the August 3, 2011 minutes as amended and the motion was seconded by Mr. Swink and were approved unanimously. Mr. Whitford abstained due to his absence. PUBLIC FORUM: None COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01283 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 440 Normal Avenue APPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the temporary relocation of Fire Station#2 equipment and personnel to the Mountain View Cemetery offices located at 440 Normal Avenue for the duration of construction for the new Fire Station#2 building. Cemetery offices will be temporarily housed in a modular building to be placed on the site during this period. The only proposed exterior modification to the existing cemetery building is the enlargement of an existing garage door to accommodate ambulance parking in the building's garage. Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no conflicts of interest. Mr. Skibby said he took pictures at the site and chatted with one of the employees, but nothing that would qualify as ex parte contact. There were no concerns. Ms. Gunter said the City had received some letters of concern from some of the neighbors but all issues were addressed in the applicant's submittal. She said the City Planner, Derek Severson,placed the style and color conditions recommended by Historic Commission when the PreApp was reviewed last month, as conditions of the approval. Mr. Whitford moved to approve the project The motion was seconded by Ms. Phelps and approved unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: PreApp-160 Lithia Way. Project is for a 3-story hotel with commercial space on the first floor.The Commission generally felt the building looked'flat'and lacked a strong sense of entry and street presence.The following recommendations could remedy these: Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 C I T Y OF ASHLAND • The commission recommends that the base be more prominent and add strength to the anchoring of the building by incorporating a flared cap. • The Commission recommends that the headers around the windows extend past the jams to make them look structural and not tacked on. Also recommend that the applicant consider using precast headers. • The Commission recommends that there be some further variation in the front facade,either by pushing the center section out to off-set the right and left sides or recess the left side similar to the right side recess. • The Commission recommends that the second and third story awnings be made of cloth/canvas to relieve the repetitive design of the metal awnings. The Commission also felt that the lower level awning should be more prominent to add to the pedestrian scale,provide protection from weather,and provide a visual anchor for the first story. ' • The Commission also recommends that the center section parapet be raised to break-up the continuous horizontal line of the roof. • The Commission requested that materials be clarified,specifically with regard to:brick color,cornice material,and awning material. B. Review Board Schedule October 6th Terry, Keith, Kerry October 1311 Terry,Allison, Kerry October 201 Terry, Sam, Tom October 271h Terry, Dale,All November 31d Terry, Keith C. Project Assi nments for Planning Actions BD-2007-01764 160 Heiman Batzer-Comm Bldgs){Recession Extension approved)] Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formerly 165 Lithia Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg-(Expired 71251io) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under constructiol Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main (Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet;expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer(Deli)Terrell (no permit-code compliance letter written) Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison (Robin Biermann) New SFR (Ready to issue) Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) (Issued 7-12-11)' Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Cliarter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St Syken house to retail,sales(appealed-bldg permit issued 8-25-11) Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch&food truck no perrn Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR(Ready to issue Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phelps DISCUSSION ITEMS: Jay Leighton brought an old wooden water pipe dug up at the Helman Baths site into the office to show the Historic Commission. Ms. Gunter said the project was briefly stopped but thefnd was riot considered significant. Ms. Gunter reviewed with the Commissioners the Council's interpretation of the quorum requirements that a majority consists of all commission seats whether filled or not. There was also discussion of the absence rules. Tie Commissioners felt absences should be looked at over a 12-month period of time rather than 6-month. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 212912012 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes November 2,2011 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Kerry Kencaim, Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick, Ally Phelps Commission Members Absent: Sam Whitford(e), Terry Skibby(e) Council Liaison: Michael Morns High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Giordano moved to approve the October 5, 2011 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swink and was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: Philip Krayna spoke regarding his remodel project of a historic home at 247 Sixth St. He explained to the Commissioners that there was never intent to demo the existing home,only to add a second story. However, once the initial interior demo began they uncovered previous remodeling done with substandard framing. The contractor,Michael Hodgin, advised that the existing framing be redone to make the home safe.By the time they pulled down all the bad framing the house was nearly gone.Chairman Shostrom explained that from Historic's point of view, a historically contributing cottage home was destroyed and the redesigned 2-story changes the streetscape. There was further discussion of the mistakes and assumptions that were made on both sides. Mr. Krayna asked that the code be clarified to add a secondary component to the demo ordinance to address this type of situation. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: None PUBLIC_HEARING: Chairman Shostrom received consensus from the Commissioners to change the order of the public hearing since there were no applicants present for the 151 Church St project. PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01452 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 400 Allison Street APPLICANT: Heiland Hoff Architect for Robin Bierman DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification to a 2010 and 2011 Site Review and Conditional Use Permit(PAs 2010-00992&2011-00043)approvals to adjust the approved structure based on findings of a recent survey.As adjusted, the proposed home will be at 8%, over the MPFA where 9% was approved. Additionally, the request includes a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three (3) trees which were to be retained as per the previous approval. The subject property is located at 400 Allison Street. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Ms. Kencaim recused herself because she is the landscape architect on the project. She left the room. Heiland Hoff said the original site plan was inaccurate and the property was actually longer and narrower than originally shown. As a result the footprint of the house had to be modified in order to meet setbacks. One bump-out was Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 I G i T Y OF ASHLAND removed and several of the interior rooms decreased in size. Ms. Renwick felt the back entrance was still fairly prominent. Mr. Giordano made a motion to recommend approval of the modification as shown. Ms. Renwick seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Ms. Kencaim returned to the meeting. PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01377 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 151 Church Street APPLICANT: Steve Schein DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification to a 2005 Minor Land Partition(2005-004)for a Building Envelope Modification and a Tree Removal Permit to address six(6)trees which were removed without permits following the partition approval. The request also involves the request to remove two(2)additional trees which are located within the modified building envelope. Additionally, based on a slope analysis conducted by an Oregon Licensed Surveyor, the Planning Director has determined the proposed development is not subject to the Development Standards for Hillside Lands because the slope,based on the natural grade of the property is less than 25%. The Development Standards for Hillside Land apply to lands with slopes 25%and greater. The applicant has submitted a slope analysis establishing the natural grade of the property between 18.8 and 20.3%. The subject property is located at 151 Church Street. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Giordano explained that he had Worked on the original design but not on this current plan. He said he would like to stay to hear the discussion but wanted to abstain from voting.Ms.Kencaim also worked on the project but there was no financial involvement. The Commissioners agreed they could both stay. Ms.Gunter explained that the new house design was more of a modern ranch style with fake stone on the front and a 2-car attached garage. No elevations were submitted with the plans but the developer had built several other homes of this style. There were also several trees that were removed from the site that were supposed to have been kept. The Commissioners felt the proposed footprint is not historically compatible and is out of character with the neighborhood. They want to see elevations that show a style more in keeping with the historic district including recessing the garage behind the front far ade a minimum of 10-30 feet. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to deny the modification based on these concerns. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed. Mr. Giordano excused himself from the meeting NEW BUSINESS: None B. Review Board Schedule November 31d Terry, Keith,All November 10th Terry,Allison, Kerry November 17th Terry,Ally, Tom November 231d Wed Terry,Allison December 1s' Terry, Dale December 81h Terry, Keith C. Project Assignments for Planning Actions—no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman (Batter-Comm Bldgs){Recession Extension approved Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formerly 165 Lithla Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg-(Expired 7125110) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(underconstructoq Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 C I T Y OF ASHLAND PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet;expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer Deli Terrell no permit-code compliance letter written Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR (Ready to issue Whitlord/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh(Annie McIntyre Issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St(Ste) house to retail sales(appealed-61dg permit issued 8-25-11) Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch 8 food truck no pennft) Giordano 6D-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR(Ready to issue Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic Forsyth Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phelps DISCUSSION ITEMS: There was some additional discussion regarding the 247 Sixth St demo. Ms. Gunter said the owner had taken interior pictures showing the poor construction such as not using proper headers and installing odd bracing designs. Ms. Renwick still feels the 2-story design is not suited to the neighborhood. Ms. Gunter reviewed an article from Terry Skibby containing information about the Nosler family and their production of the Nosler bullet. Their original home is now used as a shop on the SOU campus. He thinks it may be tom down during the expansion of SOU and wants it listed on the National Historic Register. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p-m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 C I T Y OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes December 7, 2011 Community Development/Engineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER- REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 PM Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink,Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick,Ally Phelps, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford Commission Members Absent: Kerry KenCaim(u) Council Liaison: Michael Morris High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Shostrom moved to approve the November 2, 2011 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swink and was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: None COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Mr. Moms discussed the previous night's Council meeting.At that meeting they discussed lighting the Central Ashland Bike path,the Council discussed the Pedestrian Places ordinances and that it was not realized by the Council and some of the Planning Commission that some of the ordinance modificptions applied to areas outside of the Pedestrian Places Overlay.Council asked staff to draft a report on what changes are outside of the Ped Places overlay for discussion. The Council also passed first reading of an ordinance that would - permit the Planning and Housing Commissions to reduce their member numbers from nine to seven. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01529 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 212 E. Main Street APPLICANT: Technology Associates DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Review approval for the installation of a new antenna and upgrade of an existing.unmanned wireless communications facility on the roof of the Ashland Springs Hotel for the property located at 212 East Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial;ZONING: C-1-D;ASSESSOR'S MAP:39 1E 09 BC; TAX LOT: 100 Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any expaite contacts or conflicts of interest. Ms. Gunter explained the proposal. That the antennas were to be co-located with other wireless communication facilities and that the application was to upgrade the facilities to keep up with rapidly changing technology. The proposed antenna will be behind the existing louvers on the parapet and that the louvers will be replaced with radio frequency permeable canvas that would match the existing.Other antenna will be located behind the darkened glass of the elevator shaft. Ms. Renwick made a motion to recommend approval of the modification as shown. Mr. Whifford seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes' 2/29/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND, NEW BUSINESS: None B. Review Board Schedule November 31d Terry, Keith, All November 101h Terry, Allison, Kerry November 171h Terry,Ally, Tom November 23rd Wed Terry,Allison December 151 Terry, Dale December 81h Terry, Keith C. Project Assignments for Planning Actions—no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bld s Recession Extension approved)) Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia WMformedy 165 Lithia)Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 7R5/to) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under construction) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet,expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer(Del) Terrell (no permit-code compliance letter written) Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR (Ready to issue Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) Issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales a eakd-bldg ermit issued 8-25-11 Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch &food truck no permit Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman) New SFR(Ready to issue) Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building'under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phelps DISCUSSION ITEMS: Ms. Renwick asked why the Historic Commission Review Board had not made recommendations on a remodel that was occurring at 115 Fork Street. Ms. Gunter explained that potentially the work did not require a permit or possibly the property owner/contractor had not obtained a permit as that address did not ring a bell. Ms. Renwick said she would contact the owners., Ms. Gunter shared a letter from Bill Emerson, Building Designer regarding his participation in the plan drawings for the restoration of Perozzi fountain in Lithia Park. He wanted the Historic Commission to know about his participation. The letter was to the editor of the Mail Tribune. ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 6:41 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes January 4, 2012 Community Development/Engineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick, Kerry Kencaim, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford,Tobin Fisher Commission Members Absent: Ally Phelps Council Liaison: Michael Moms High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed , Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter, Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES The December 7, 2011 minutes were not available to review. They will be brought to the February 811 meeting. PUBLIC FORUM: None COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Mike Moms - 2 neighbors near the Gun Club are suing the City over the sound levels, lead contamination and environmental concerns. All of the Gun Club officers are also listed as defendants. Mike also said the Council has started discussing the ramifications of the City Electric Department changing to electric meters that can be read by radio transmission PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01656 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 159 Alida APPLICANT: Erika Kamitz DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review permit for a 400 square foot accessory residential unit to be constructed in the garage off of the alley for the property located at 159 Alicia Street. No additions to the unit are proposed. The applicant also is requesting an administrative exception to side yard buffering requirements and to not pave the parking spaces. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. Mr. Giordano said the applicant had come to the Historic Review Board to discuss the project. There were no conflicts of interest. Ms. Gunter explained the proposal to is to relocating the existing accessory unit to the garage at the rear, and a request for an exception requirement to pave.the parking area. Without an elevation it was not possible for the Historic Commission to review the modifications to the garage door. Concerns regarding sense of entry, the placement of the trash and recycle enclosure, the materials used, and locations for egress, doors and windows were raised. The Commissioners felt there was not enough information provided to make a decision and recommended that the application be continued until February to review elevations and provide comment. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 212912012 - CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01781 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 191 Oak St. APPLICANT: Ken Baker I Cycle Sport DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review approval for the reconstruction and expansion of an existing garage located in the rear of the property at 191 Oak Street.The garage is currently 194 square feet and the applicant is requesting that the garage be expanded 6 feet to the west for a total of 270 square feet. Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any exparte contacts or conflicts of interest. There were none. Ken Baker, the applicant's contractor, explained the original garage had been built on the ground without a foundation and much of the building was rotted out. They would like to expand the garage to provide more usable storage space and replace the existing hip roof with a gabled roof. 5" v-groove siding would be used to match the house. No one in the audience had any comments or questions so the public hearing was closed. Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed plans with the following recommendations: 1) A 7:12 pitch gable roof is recommended 2) The Commission recommends the applicant use a 2:1 ratio single, double or casement window or a 4X2 awning window instead of the proposed side by side slider. (The public hearing was reopened to question the applicant about the design of the garage door and then closed). 3) The Commission recommends a plain or historically compatible wood or metal garage door without windows. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01656 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 Morse APPLICANT: Reichenshammer Building Design for the Malm's DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA) within a Historic District by 9 percent or 262 square feet to allow for a 699 square foot addition to the existing 488 square foot cottage. Properties in the Historic Districts are allowed a specific square footage of structures in relationship to the size of the parcel. The removal of a six-inch in diameter at breast height apple tree is also requested to be removed. The property owner Donald Malm and his architect, Tamara Reichenshammer, explained that the expansion was to house parents. They showed the hip roof with gable design and pictures of similar styles from around town. Ms. Renwick and Mr. Giordano felt the addition created too massive a front fagade and made the structure too boxy which was not compatible with the original cottage design. It was suggested by several Commissioners that the addition be set back from the front and the original gable-style roof be used. There was consensus with the Commissioners felt they could not support the increase in MPFA (Maximum Permitted Floor Area)as presented and suggested the hearing be continued to the February 8, 2012 meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to address the following issues: 1) The mass of the 40-foot fagade needs to be broken up by off-setting or jogging the addition to the existing cottage in order to maintain architectural compatibility.and give prominence to the existing cottage. 2) Maintain 6112 roof pitch to maintain and relate to the existing roof form and roof forms in the vicinity. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND i 3) Eaves and overhang projections should reflect the existing structures overhangs. 4) Commission recommends applicant modify the proposal to reflect suggested changes Mr. Giordano made a motion for the continuation as stated above, 9 was seconded by Ms. Renwick and passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule January 511 Terry, Keith,Allison January 121h Terry,Allison,All January 191h Terry, Kerry, Tom, Tobin January 2611 Terry, Tobin, Dale February 2nd Terry, Sam, All February 911 Terry, Keith,Allison B. Project Assignments for Planning Actions-no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bldgss{Recession Extension approved) Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formerly 165 Llthla Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 7/15r1 o) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork-New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under mnstrudon) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet,expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 0 175 N Pioneer(Deli)Terrell (no permit-code compliance letter written) Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison (Robin Bierman n)New SFR Ready to issue Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh (Annie McIntyre) Issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St) (Charter)ARU (issued 7-11-11)) Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales a ealed-bldg permit issued 8-25-11 Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch&food truck no permit) Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR(Ready to issue Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico) New faeade on building_(under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phel s PL-2011-01781 191 Oak St Cycle Sport) Site Design for enlarging garage Kencaim NEW BUSINESS: A. CLG Grant-The Commissioners said they would really like to begin the process of strengthening the Site Review Standards in the code or amend the demo ordinance to better protect the integrity of the historical buildings in the City. However, in the current economic climate and the strong opposition to more regulation they felt there would not be the support needed. There was consensus to use the money to produce better public brochures and provide training to historic homeowners, realtors, design professionals and contractors. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to use the CLG Grant money to produce better public brochures and provide training to historic homeowners, realtors, design professionals and contractors. The motion was seconded by Ms. Kencaim and was approved unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 CITY O F ,ASHLAND ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes - 212912012 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Regina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Regina Ayars Mike Morris Brett Ainsworth Barb Barasa Staff Present: Richard Billin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist James Dills Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk Commissioners Absent: Ben Scott, excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Billin/Dills m/s to approve the minutes of the October 26, 2011 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented. Ayars made a change to the agenda moving the RVTD project discussion to the February 22nd meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Evan acknowledged that he is interested in becoming the SOU Student Liaison. Evan is actively trying to get students more involved with student government though he finds it a challenge. There is a Student Senate meeting next Tuesday and he will discuss with the President and Vice President about his desire to become the Housing SOU Liaison. Reid explained he needs to write a letter of interest to the Mayor who will then make the appointment. GOAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL The following goals were identified by the Housing Commission on December 17, 2011 in an effort to forward to the City Council specific items for consideration in establishing the Council goals for the coming year. • Education and Outreach— RVTV Project • Preservation of vulnerable properties • Landlord Tenant Brochure • Housing Trust Fund Innovative Funding Source • Implement Action Plan steps based on the results of the Updated Housing Needs Analysis The Commissioners discussed the goals and determined which Commissioner would work on which goals. • Billin will work on a Landlord Tenant Brochure • Dills and Barasa will work on the RVTV project focusing on gaining funds for the Housing Trust Fund • Ayars will work on preservation of vulnerable'properties 1 • Ainsworth will work on the Housing Trust Fund funding source • Reid and Brian Cole, SOU intern, are working on the Housing Needs Analysis The City Council will be getting together on February 11, 2012 to do goal prioritizing but will not be addressing new goals at that time. Reid is not sure when these Housing Commission goals will be forwarded. Morris explained that Larry Patterson, interim City Administrator, has asked the Councilors to work on tightening up their prior goals narrowing them down in order to quantify them. Ayars will contact Don Robertson, City Parks Director, to get the Housing Commission on the agenda to address the issue of the $125,000 from the sale of the Clay Street property. FAIR HOUSING UPDATE Reid stated that last week the Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center invited Diane Hess from the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to speak about how the SOHRC people could coordinate around Fair Housing. Currently everyone in the group is required to do various Fair Housing activities but is working independent of one another. It was suggested to create a regional coordination group so as not to duplicate each others' efforts in the region. April is Fair Housing month and it was suggested that a Public Service Announcement about Fair Housing could run on public television such as RVTV. Reid thought this would be a good project for the Housing Commission. Suggested topic was to interview people about their experience around housing discrimination. HOUSING WORK PLAN REVIEW Reid explained that the Housing Work Plan is a document that was recommended by the Zucker report, an organizational audit, done for the City of Ashland in 2006. The Housing Work Plan is intended to identify specific housing activities that have been initiated by the City to be completed in the short term. The Plan will provide direction to City staff and provide measurable outcomes for elected and appointed officials to monitor the objectives and the success of the housing program. This plan should be approved and adopted by City Council. The Commissioners discussed the Housing Development Projects in the City for the years 2004 thru 2011. The total of all Deed Restricted Affordable and Subsidized Units in the City is three hundred seventy-four. Five properties that are designated for preservation are Ashley Garden, Ashley Senior, Donald E. Lewis-Senior, Star Thistle-Disabled and Sun Village. Reid encouraged the Commissioners to submit any changes or corrections regarding the Housing Work Plan to her before the February meeting. After the final draft the plan will go before the Council probably in March. HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS UPDATE Reid stated that the last time the Housing Needs Analysis was updated it was contracted out to Fariani and Associates. The Action Plan was also sent out to consultants to be completed. It was not within the City's scope of work to do an Action Plan for the Housing Needs Update. Reid anticipates that the completion of the Needs Analysis will be April in order to help inform the consultants that are working on the Normal Street Master Plan. The narrative draft needs to be completed by the first part of April and then will go to the Housing Commission as well as the Planning Commission for their review. Reid gave an overview of the Community Development Block Grant program. An RFP was made available on January 3, 2012 with completed applications due the 25'h of February. Reid will review the applications and make recommendations to the Commission at their regular March meeting. The applicants will give presentations at that meeting also. The Commissioners will then make their recommendation to the Council. Though Reid has not received any applications yet she has had two inquires. CDBG funds can be used for a variety of activities including: Historic Preservation, Housing Rehab, Public Facilities, ADA accommodations/architectural barrier removal even in public buildings. All activities must meet one of the three national objectives: elimination of slum and blight, predominate low income benefit, and urgent need. The City of Ashland generally addresses low income benefit rather than urgent need or sum and blight. 2 CDBG does have the capacity to fund economic development. Examples of activities are employment related day care, micro enterprise loans, as long as the workers qualify as 50% low to moderate income, or the activity is an area wide benefit that benefits low to moderate income people. Grantees themselves also can be low to moderate income. LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION City Council- Morris said the interviews for the new City Administrator will be taking place on Friday and Saturday. Tomorrow night at 5:30 there will be a meet and greet at the Plaza Inn and Suites. The liaison commission change will be happening soon and there most likely will be different liaisons on each of the Commissions. Staff- Reid said the Homeless task force is currently working on the Point in time Homeless count this week. The Ashland Citizens Coalition is conducting their own survey in conjunction with the task force. The landlord survey for the housing needs analysis went out in the mail this week. This is a business reply mailer attempting to gather information about rental rates for different bedroom size units and vacancy rates for Ashland. The purpose was to get a better idea of the private market inventory out there, and find out which units are in the most in demand. 480 people received the mailing. Morris asked how the Commissioners felt about the idea of the Homeless Committee joining the Housing Commission. After a discussion the consensus of the Commissioners was that they did not feel it was a good idea. Perhaps a joint meeting might be appropriate regarding specific topics that might apply. MEETING AGENDA ITEMS Quorum check for next meeting. Possibility that Billin might be absent. Dills and Barasa will discuss RVTV Final Housing Work Plan Billin will try and put together a draft regarding foreclosures UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Homeless Task Force Meeting-February 21, 2012: 10:30-12:00 Housing Authority Conference Room 2231, Table Rock Road, Medford Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting February 22, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM ADJOURNMENT-The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener 3 CITY OF -ASH LAN D PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION January 12, 2012 Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street Minutes Planning Commission Attendees: Mick Church, Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Pam Marsh (Chair), Deborah Miller, and Melanie Mindlin. Transportation Commission Attendees: Tom Burnham, Shawn Kampmann, Steve Ryan, Corinne Vieville, and David Young Absent: Brent Thompson, Colin Swales Council Liaison: David Chapman, absent Staff Present: Mike Faught, Mary McClary, Jodi Vizzini Fit Officio Members: Maria Harris Phone: Susan Wright, Consultant CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:35 pm.by Chairperson Marsh. She explained to the Commissioners at that present time they were lacking a quorum within the Transportation Commission. She took the opportunity to introduce and welcome the newest member of the Planning Commission, Richard Kaplan. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES Set aside until Quorum present with both Commissions. Chairperson March summarized a meeting she attended at the Chamber of Commerce that morning, along with Mike Faught, the Public Works Director,and Commissioner Miller. They discussed some of the recommendations for the citywide elements in the TSP. Mike gave them a brief power point presentation about some of the road concepts that were in the plan,and they also discussed roundabouts. Mike expressed the continued relationship with the Chamber was highly valued and thanked the Commission members for attending the meeting. He believed open communication was important to discuss concepts,for example, roundabouts. General concepts the Commissions are familiar with,are new to most other people,therefore, he placed a lot of importance on dialogue to also help create support for the Commissions. PUBLIC FORUM Chairperson Marsh suggested they move next to Public Forum. She called upon Shery Smilo to speak. Shery Smilo/215 Tolman Creek Rd spoke to the Commissions stating she had attended Commission meetings for over 1 year and has put over 60 hours of work into her quest to not have a road placed/built in back of her home. She had also represented her neighbors and at times,they have attended the meetings also. The area considered for a road, and is of their concern,was Clay St.to Tolman, next to Snowberry and through the YMCA and right in back of their homes. She wanted to show the Commissions a thank-you card and gift certificate her neighbors gave her in acknowledgement of her hard work toward this issue. She felt this experience has taught her a lot about local government and really appreciated the opportunity to create a change for the better. Page 1 of (Time Stamp 8.28) Zach Brombacher/642 Tolman Creek Rd expressed his frustration in attending the Commission meetings and not knowing when they would be discussing his particular issue. He expressed his constant attendance and felt if he was not in attendance he would miss the issue he was concerned about. He did not receive any communication regarding the Commissions proposed change from the beginning and therefore does not understand how effectively to deal with the issue. Commissioner March explained the agenda's are issued and all the meetings are regularly noticed. She explained they would not address significant issues that were not on the agenda. She then explained the packets of recommendations would be submitted to the Planning Commission and viewed through public forums. In addition, he could communicate with staff prior to any meeting to find out when his issue would be addressed. Mike Faught offered to inform Zach and Shery when this issue would be addressed. He explained the process would be about 2-4 months before they would be addressing and making decisions on the issues at hand. He said he would also make it clear on a future agenda so they would know when their issues would be discussed. Commissioner Miller explained his issue would be under the road connections section on the Agenda. (Time Stamp 15:29) Commissioner Dawkins agreed it would be helpful if the agenda would be red flagged specifically for Shery and Zach, remarking it was easy to get confused with what was discussed at each meeting. Commissioner Miller explained the process is not decided in one evening, the Commissions come to a consensus and then it goes through about(3)three more processes. The Commissions had now reached a quorum and could move forward to any regular business items. Commissioner Ryan made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Commissioner Church. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Chairperson Marsh announced the motion was carried. FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSIONS ON THE DRAFT PREFERRED AND FINANCIALLY CONSTRAINED PLAN FACILITATED BY MIKE FAUGHT: In preparation for the meeting, a review of Draft Technical Memo 9–Preferred and Financially Constrained Plans is suggested. The Draft Preferred and Financially Constrained Plan is available for download at: hltp://www.ashlan&p.com/statics/draft documents Road Intersections, Railroad Crossings, Transit, and Sidewalks Groups: Group A: Debbie Miller, Eric Heesacker, Colin Swales Group B:Tom Burnham, Steve Ryan, Pam Marsh Group C Michael Dawkins, David Young, Melanie Mindlin, Richard Kaplan Group D: Shawn Kampmann, Mick Church, Corinne Vieville (Time Stamp 22:05) Mike Faught briefly went over the scope of work for the next portion of the meeting and explained the color odes for the different sharpie pens. Black—delete or remove Orange—non-consensus Yellow—unknown, (need more information) Blue—use for comments He further went over areas of concerns with more details to enhance the discussions. Commissioner Dawkins asked about the status to connect Heiman and Oak Street with a walk bridge. Mike Page 2 of 3 replied this project was in an unfunded category, but would recommend it stay in capital projects. Commissioner Dawkins remarked before this area was developed there were funds to create the bridge. Chairperson Marsh addressed the Commissions stating that was an opportunity to correct their processors if needed. The next and interesting challenge of this process would be to prioritize the long list of projects: sidewalks, bikes, streets, and intersections. The Commissioners adjourned to the small groups to further work on the maps. (They reconvened at tape stamp 26:25) Chairperson Marsh reminded the Commissions they would meet again in two weeks at 6:00pm not 6:30pm. Mike recapped their work,and stated areas that would be brought back for the next meeting. In addition, at the next meeting he wanted to encourage diverse discussions regarding the proposed underground or over ground crossing at the SOU Campus. Chairperson Marsh stated a summary of the small group activities would be helpful. Mike recommended discussing the summaries in the small groups. He would like the Commissions to take as much time as they need to discuss thoroughly each step and not worry about a time deadline. Commissioner Mindlin felt it was very important to have public hearings about the issues, because they had significant comments that should be heard. The Commissioners discussed when the public hearings would take place in the process. Commissioner Church felt it would be useful to have an overview from staff about the logic for some of the recommendations before breaking into small groups. Commissioner Young reminded the members, himself included,that they represent the community and at times that might conflict with their own personal opinions. He discussed there were a number of specifics that would take some discipline to move beyond personal points of view or lifestyle. He added it was a general statement not specific to any one issue. The Commissioners discussed how representing citizens they have Teamed to represent the whole community and all views and opinions. In addition, they discussed keeping the public informed. Mike talked about the Commissions establishing a consensus on issues before projects were represented to the public. He believes the overall project was not yet at the point for public input. Chairperson Marsh stated she looked forward to the master map which would include the road projects, the sidewalk improvements,and the bicycle, looking at the whole project. The project's success with end with a truly multi-mobile design plan that includes all the different ways people move in town. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn. NEXT MEETING DATES: February 9, 2012(6:30—8:30 pm) February 23,2012(6:00—8:00 pm) ADJOURN: 8:45 PM Respec�lly submitted by: Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant to the Electric Department Page 3 of 3 ASHLAND JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES January 26,2012 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Steve Ryan at 6:00 p.m. Transportation Commissioners Present: Tom Burnham,Shawn Kampmann,Steve Ryan(Chair), Brent Thompson,Corinne Vieville,and David Young Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Pam Marsh, Debbie Miller, and Melanie Mindlin Members Absent: Colin Swales Staff Present: Mike Faught,Jodi Vizzini Council Liaison: David Chapman Ex Officio Members: Brandon Goldman Consultant: Susan Wright,Kittelson&Associates, Inc.(via conference call) INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES January 12,2012 minutes were not available at this meeting. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA Chair Ryan suggested that Roadway Projects R22, R23, R25 be moved to the top of the agenda so the consultant could give a synopsis, followed by public comment on the proposed roadway projects and discussion amongst the Commissioners.The Commissioners agreed to the adjustment of the agenda. Roadway Projects R22 and R23 Susan Wright stated the driving need for R22 and R23 is system connectivity. R22 and R23 are included in the minutes as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. She stated the proposed roadway was based on complaints regarding lack of connectivity to other areas of town. She added there is not a strong trigger now that indicates the need to construct R22 and R23, but it should be in place if development or redevelopment occurs in the future. Commissioner Mindlin promoted a previous suggestion of an underpass beneath Hwy 66 connecting Clay Street with a pedestrian walkway, or an entire street into the Bi-Mart parking area. She added if this area redevelops it could provide a nice circulation route.She would like to see this concept as a consideration. Mr. Faught asked Ms.Wright if she thought this would work. Ms. Wright stated she did not remember prior conversations about this suggestion, but would look into it.Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins added they are also in favor of this concept and would like to explore it further. Commissioner Young stated he does not support R23 for a vehicular use, but would support R23 as a pedestrian/bike path. Ms. Wright replied she understands this concept but concluded it would not address the general connection needs and did not see it as a replacement. She reiterated the importance of R22 and R23 for long term protection for possible future development. Mr. Faught summarized that Planning would like the ability to declare a road is needed in this area in the event of development or redevelopment. Commissioner Miller asked if Kiffelson had considered combining R22 and R23 into one vehicular road and keep R23 as a pedesbian/bike path. Ms. Wright replied one connection could serve the need if a pedestrian/bike path is included.She added from a capacity standpoint this is not a problem; however there is a timing issue of not knowing when or where parcels will develop in the future. Mr. Faught asked if an option would be to simply identify that a connection will be needed in that general area if redevelopment occurs. Ms. Wright agreed that would be satisfactory. Jaint TGPC January 26,1012 Page I of 3 Chair Ryan questioned the effect of property value if the proposed roads are designated on maps. Commissioner Kampmann commented he was under the impression that the lines on the map are schemafic and not necessarily fixed in stone. Ms. Wright replied there is flexibility with the exact location of the proposed roads. Commissioner Heesacker added the Commissioners are approving lines on a map that show an idea of possible circulation in the event of redevelopment;not lines cast in stone.Commissioner Mindlin stated that putting lines on a map does indeed impact property values,but the need to indicate available space for future construction is vitally important. Brandon Goldman provided information that was not reflected in the material which includes a 60 unit Housing Authority of Jackson County development, a new road, and a 20 foot set aside area of land for potential annexation at some point. PUBLIC COMMENT Sherry Smilo/215 Tolman Creek/Stated she was grateful for the intelligent attention to this problem. She addressed the issue of disclosure and how that would impact her and her neighbors if they wanted to sell their property. She stressed there is not enough room for a road in this area. She did not offer an alternative to R22, but added the existing walking path is functional. She suggested improving the intersections to alleviate traffic, but does not feel congestion is a problem.She concluded by stating that R22 is not a good idea. Jason Stranberg/406 Clinton/Lisa Molnar/155 Hillcrest/Stated he was speaking on behalf of the Ashland YMCA as a past board president and currently serves as the interim president. He stated he was speaking in objection of R23 as the proposed road alignment appears to divide critical components of the YMCA property and the soccer park owned by the Parks Department. He described the various services the YMCA offers to the community.He stated on a daily basis, hundreds of members cross the property line as indicated on R23, and the thought of a road dividing those critical operations of their organization is difficult to fathom. He concluded by stating the property was once owned by the YMCA and donated to the City of Ashland Parks Department with the sole intent of remaining an active park. They currently operate with a use agreement with the Parks Department. Commissioner Young asked if a pedestrian/bike trail would work through the area. Mr. Stranberg replied it would be difficult to designate a route between those two properties due to potential blind spots caused by zero lot line set- back. He provided information about a current pedestrian connection in place that is functional. Mr. Goldman provided specific information and illustrated the area on the map. Other possible solutions for an alternate path were discussed. Commissioner Heesacker asked Ms. Wright if Kittelson could approve a shaded area on the map that indicates if redevelopment occurs at some point in the future,there shall be a road and/or pedestrian/bike connection between Clay St.and Tolman Creek Rd,without including specific lines on the map. Ms.Wright stated this is entirely possible. Dan Linder/15097 Hwy 66/Stated Roadway Project R22 would put a road ten feet from his window, which is a personal concern. He keeps hearing the word community used, yet he has yet to find one person in this area of the community who wants these roads constructed. He questions at what point is this process representing the real community. He commented that he appreciates the idea of planning ahead, but putting this on a map is a threat. He disagrees with the need for the connection as represented in the proposed projects. He ended by stating the City's plan is somehow more important than the people who live there; the plan is supposed to be for them; but the people living there do not want it. Mr. Goldman clarified that R21 has been constructed between R22 and R23. He explained a road currently goes from Clay St.,to where R21 is shown,going north from Vllard St.up to the terminus at the Cooper property to where the north half of R21 terminates. The south half has an existing alley that goes through Barkley Square that was dedicated as public access and meanders over and connects to Clay St. He referred to R23; the area west of R21, Viilard St.,was established for the Snowberry property. Joint TGPC January 26,2012 Page 2 of Roadway Project R25 Ms. Wright explained the main reason this connection is in the plan is because the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has determined they will not accept a signal at the location of Washington and Ashland Streets. For the foreseeable future, Washington Street will remain as a full access intersection, but the Interchange Area Management Plan (TAMP) states when traffic volumes or safety warrants it, the median will be extended to Tolman Creek. There may not be a need for 20 years, but ODOT will evaluate the implementation of the IAMP. She explained the possibility of an access to the south and maybe another connection to Benson Way, but that will not guarantee vehicular trips in that location. ODOT wants the local connectivity to provide the second outlet.Mr. Faught summarized it was driven by the IAMP and development of Washington Street. Roadway Project R25 is included in the minutes as Exhibit C. PUBLIC COMMENT Zach Brombacher/11370 Tolman CreeklThanked the Commissioners for the time and effort put into this process. He stated he has been a land owner in Ashland for 45 years and gave an overview of the history of his property between Tolman Creek Road and Washington St.and how it is currently utilized. He stated the proposed R25 will construct a 63 foot road that will ruin an existing site plan he has had in place for quite some time. He added the City has never had a discussion with him about R25. He outlined the completed infrastructure improvements,induding stubbing out utilities for future development of IPCO's property which the City directed him to do. He stressed the need to know what will happen to his property. He summarized his statement by saying he does not feel this is fair; he does not need the traffic; he has cooperated with the City on other projects; paid his share of fees;and strongly opposes the development of this road. Chris Hearn/515 E. Main StJStated he was representing the Brombacher family and IPCO Development and Printing. He gave an overview of the history of the Brombacher/IPCO property including the recent Tolman Creek LID improvements. He explained how this property is the Brombacher's livelihood as well as other businesses he has brought into the area, including Maranatha Natural Foods, Inspired Foods and Dagoba Organic Chocolate, which provide living wage jobs to many employees. Mr. Hearn presented a document outlining a request to the Commissioners to adopt Roadway Project R29 and abandon Roadway Project R25. The document is included in the minutes as Exhibit D. Mr. Hearn explained that R25 will bisect the Brombacher/IPCO property from end to end, solving the City's problem at his expense,yet will provide no benefit to his client. Mr. Hearn stressed concern for his clients'property value and marketability if this project is approved. The Commissioner's asked Mr. Brombacher clarifying questions regarding the possibility of a compromise, current encumbrances, and connectivity to Washington St. Mr. Brombacher reiterated he is not interested in a road going through his property. Based on comments from Mr. Brombacher regarding his resistance to allow a public right of way through his property, Mr. Heesacker asked staff if this is a question of eminent domain. Mr. Goldman deferred the question to Mr. Faught who replied the City could draw the line on the map which would lead to the conversation of just compensation and the impact to Mr. Brombacher's long term site plan. He encouraged the Commissioner's and the consultant to consider an alternative way of achieving connectivity,such as R29 presented by Mr. Hearn. Commissioner Marsh offered an observation that all the discussions help reinforce the commitment to a multi-modal TSP. She encouraged foresighted thinking and to keep brainstorming about an alternative solution. Mr. Faught suggested R29 as a topic of discussion at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant II Joint TGPC January 26,2012 Page 3 of 3 City of Ashland TSP Update Project#: 10633 September 1011 Page 21 r Project It: R22 New Roadway(B) Description: Construct a new roadway from Clay Street to property northwest of Exit 14 Southbound Off Ramps. Coordinate project with IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street(OR 66)and surrounding development.Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Street Development&Access Management Driven $2,815,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ Vj R1 Project Location: r t a� '•�, � R21 °o R23 \•,�1 ry' r S '� #)fit{}'t�' '�r ll�r-` '.'`lt,•, . :�;, }- I •1tl l��'1:�, .f I r rif fly ;_ i ij•.,I t \�i iftr,► rl. Project Image: f"@" ""� - - -� lASHlANO:. - ,=—r.�„m•=-'„� m=__=ui ,rte ��, Side ParkROW Parking Travel Parking ParkROW Side ne Walk 8 7'-8' �— 7' 11�'-t A' T 7--8' . 'I L6'Curb 0'Curb Neighborhood Street (Parking on Both Sides) ROW 60'-67' t Klttelson A Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update Project#., 10633 September 2011 Page 22 Project#: R23 New Roadway (C) Description: Construct a new roadway from Clay Street to property northwest of Exit 14 Southbound Off Ramps. Coordinate project with IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street(OR 66)and surrounding development.Right-of-way costs are not included In the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Street Development&Access Management Driven $2,465,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access El W Project Location: WIN fA L D. Project Image: Side ParkROW Parking Travol Parking P kROW Side Walk Lane Walk 6' T-8' 7- 7_8. 6. LG"Cuib 6-Cub Neighborhood Street (Parking on Boil) Sides)ROW 60'-57' Kittelson&Associates, Inc. Portland, Oregon City of Ashland TSP Update _ Project X: 10633 September 2011 Page 24 it( Project#: R25 Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road Description: Extend Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road.Coordinate project with IAMP Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland Street(OR 66)and surrounding deveopment. Right-of-way costs are not included in the cost estimate. Category: Functional Classification: 11 Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector Development&Access Management Driven $1,015,000 Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access ❑ ❑ 17 to Project Location: ! z t r 4�11 it F r x 11 uj C•% , Project Image: n Side ParkROW Parking Travel Travel Parking ParkROW Side J,k 6"-10' 7._8. 7' 1-10' �. 0-10' �. 7 7 8 Wag 1_0"Curb L 6*Curb Neighborhood Collector Commercial(Parallel Parking on Both Sides)ROW 57'-63' Klttelson&Associates, Inc. Portland,Oregon $ BARNGES JACK DAMS SAM S.DAVIS-R.%Md CHRISTIAN E.NEARN• NDERSON SIDNEY E.AINSVNDRTN(M7-20(0)j DONALO M PINNOCK-RdOwl JENNIFER A BRIDGES 8, JEFFREY K MCCOLLUM A T T O R N L+ Y S AT L A W DAVID V.GILSTRAP-RSl"d EUGENE V.ANDERSON SUSAN VOGEL SAUDOFF-R.Ib •A¢.AdmMW bPnC11uNCA A Professional Corporation Established 1953 515 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 (541)452-3111 FAX(541)4884455 www.davlsheam.com January 26, 2012 VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission Members and Transportation Commission Members c/o Mike Faught, Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 RE: City of Ashland Transportation System Plan Update Joint Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting 01/26/2012 Further Commissioner Discussion of Preferred and Financially Constrained TSP Amendment Updates Road Project R25 - Washington St. Extension to Tolman Crk.Rd. i Dear Planning and Transportation Commission Members: Thank you for entertaining my comments offered, on behalf of our clients, I IPCO and the Brombacher family (collectively "IPCO"), during the public forum portion of your previous November 7111 and November 29th joint meetings concerning City's proposed updates to Its Transportation System Plan. IPCO owns the property between Tolman Creek Road and Washington Street, as indicated on the attached aerial map. See attached "B"depicting IPCO Property. Two Washington Street Extension alternatives are offered in the Plan documents (Roadway Project # R25 and Roadway Project #R29). As suggested during the previous joint Commission meetings on November 7, 2011 and November 29, 2011, joint meetings of the Planning and Transportation Commissions, we hoped that your recommendation to Council concerning any future extension of Washington Street could include adoption of Roadway Project #11129 (Washington Street extension to Benson Way) as Page-2- City of Ashland Planning and Transportation Commissions January 26,2012 an alternative to Roadway Project #11125 (Washington Street extension to Tolman Creek Road). See: attached Exhibit "A" (Summary of Project # R-25 and Project # R-29). Our hope is that the joint Commission members will recommend adoption of the proposed future Washington Street Extension reflected in Project #R-29, and abandon the alternative Washington Street Extension through IPCO's property to Tolman Creek Road (Project # R-25). See attached Exhibit "A". First, Tolman Creek Road is a one-lane collector street which is already over- burdened by traffic. Second, the proposed Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road is clearly depicted in the Report (Project # R25) as bisecting IPCO's property with a new "Neighborhood Collector Commercial" street, with a Right-of-Way width being taken from IPCO in a 57' to 63' wide swath, for the entire length of the proposed R25 Washington Street extension. Third, A few years ago IPCO paid roughly $50,000 for its share of the LID Improvements to Tolman Creek Road. During that time, IPCO also committed substantial additional investment by "stubbing out" various utilities for future development of IPCO's property, as directed by City officials at the time, Fourth, IPCO's property would in no way be benefitted by the proposed new public street from Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road, which is depicted on attached Exhibit "A" as bisecting IPCO's property for its entire width. Again, IPCO already paid a substantial amount for the LID improvements to Tolman Creek Road, completed just a few years ago. These improvements were designed to accommodate full build-out of IPCO's property. Fifth, IPCO is extremely concerned about the effect of "condemnation blight"on the value and marketability of its property (described in the DAVIS,HEARN,BRIDGES R ANDERSON A PmNssimW Cnp.*t. 515 EAST MAW STREET ASHLAND.OREGON 87520 (511)152-3111 FAX(511)4"55 Page -3- City of Ashland Planning and Transportation Commissions January 26,2012 Endnote to my letter previously submitted at the November 7, 2011 meeting). Lastly, IPCO again respectfully voices its strenuous objection to the proposed Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road (Project # R25), and requests the Joint Commission instead recommend the Benson Way extension alternative for Washington Street (Project # R29). Sincerely, DAVIS, HEARN, BRIDGES & ANDERSON, P.c. r CHRISTIAN E. HEARN chearn @davishearn.com Enclosures: Exhibit "A": Attachment "A", Pg. 24, Project # R25; and Pg. 28, Project # R29. And, Exhibit "B"r IPCO Property cc: Clients ��(�1"f►°�IT Iln )) PCA 51"� GAr�l DAVIS,HFARN,BRIDGES R.ANDERSON A P,ofa441oml CeWalbn S1S EAST NWN STREET ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 (501)482.8111 FAX(641)4984455 Attachment A Project Prospectus Sheets Intersection and Roadway Projects 0� to j Ebi Fagel.._of City or Ashland TSP Update Project d: 10633 Sepbarnb r2a11 Page 24 Project Ifs R25 Washington Street Extension to Tolman Creek Road Description: Extend Washington Street to Tolman Creek Road.Coordinate project with IAMP Exit iA Access Management on Ashland Street(OR 661 and surrounding deveopment.Right-of-way costs are not Included In the cost estimate. Category: Functional Ciassificati0n: Time Freme: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadwayelghborhood Collector ` Development&Access Management Driven Project Goals Met: Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Edonomic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility Template Small Town Character and Access p D Project Location: tt I V I i 1 Project Image: MON .. . . ..�sl.(r'n; �.ty, ,b?�.•r .:.4;� t�55t{��pp��r r+AfpO� �mc,:. ��. .,.. W�ah ftkPOW Pail" Lam Pe" ,"Ow i Walk 1 0'-10' 7' 7�& $%-a, 6'(Mb Or Gab Neighborhood COROdOr Commercial(Parallel Parking on Both Sides)Row 67'-ST q i �xhibi� X- KRtelson dAs9otletes,AM Page—&t Portland,Oregon 1 i City or Ashland TSP Update Project A: 10633 September 201 f Page 28 -ProJectA: R29 Washington Street Extension to Benson Way Description: Extend Washington Street to Benson Way.Right-of-way costs are not Included In the cost estimate, i i Category: Functional Classification- Time Frame: Engineering and Construction Cost: Roadway Neighborhood Collector bevelopment Driven _ — �—— Construction — Project Goals Met: i i Create a Green Improve Safety Facilitate Economic Growth and Maintain Balance Mobility ! Template Small Town Character and Access II O Project Location: I I i i I Projectlmage: I L 0J___ 71-6 Pe7rkR0W Perkhg 8�OI_ :kIng PerkR(7AI Walk 6 - �41_ � B,Curb -B'Qab Neighborhood Collector Commercial(Paragel Parking on Both Sides)ROW 67'-69' Kittelson aAssodates,fnc. Exhi jo {, Portland, Oregon Pages ®f St _ '� '� :j� t�,gt i� � t4r .;°a,��p i Yap �{��•" J/\(JKSOId COUNTY MY �>';��,.. y<�°'i'SS:E-(f~``� :E �i:+t�� }1' ��1 � i � t t,.. Y 1 -•f., i w 'Fas r -.J "e F� '+K m g"`4S;rF�4..v.r r�u• .'� � x vt ��( n-.. .:.+. -- `: µ�� I l�r.>i'at�. tf � r �r '.:y •t I 1. e 4 ». ry�n f *:Jig La > � e rvs 7��1*-,_•:...� t, ��lm .4 � �L �' Sl• / ar i 1. y�, ce`+.'�,�� •1 a '?t�`�z t �i � �� oaf � S�� r�.,, / ' . w 'f.+o.� <>S' J tR < L ,�. :{}( vn 't• G mot'. �1 ` ' 3t W ` CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Transportation Commission Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg Approval: Dave KannerplL Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Pam Hammond to the Transportation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Transportation Commission on application received. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 Council Options: Approve or disapprove the Mayor's appointment of Pam Hammond to the Transportation Commission. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Pam Hammond to the Transportation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014. Attachments: Application received Page 1 of I I`, CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall,20 E Main Street,or email christebQashland or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name_ °gym vri 0 N�L Requesting to serve (Commission/Committee) Address 69 U)o- t-1 oA— G L 45k\u 1A, Occupation__ Phone: Home a —rl Lo �}L Work �- Email o ac(uhoO .Ci,� Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? el—,t�t.� 4 a, ti;s�J s �, bacc� LA tzl5 . �4 nQ1ta.J1`I� What degrees do you hold? c What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? t-t-2oQ \ t-L 7�0 ( trs orso yr C, � \ d h\c�� ��D 11 1 ► 6 r`� L-r7 4 4' f�! � // d Of 0-v `1 O pho.14- TcLyK D�:I �( OF Sh U Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field,such '1 as attending conferences or seminars? Why? T,) 1 b , OVA tri r) AZ C4�U►t r (5� rtv14r C-e `-\ -42C'M5 I 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? ��I�HIaP� ('or��l erc2 Le)ckt A4►�eec�s s e���5 e�4 � a� 4. Availability / � e bJStF�SS CU(1ll'Y)J11t- }� Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regul scheduted meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? l��S— FpCt rj 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Iva f C� Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you-have for this position Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication' Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for the Final Assessment of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88 Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonjnashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Morgan Wayman Approval: Dave Kanner p}! Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID)No. 88? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and ' oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Background: The improvement of Liberty Street under LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. In accordance with AMC Section 13.20 the project was then designed, bid and constructed and the final costs calculated and tabulated'. Following is a summary and comparison of the original estimated costs and the final costs. Estimated Project Cost Final Project Cost Construction $179,920.00 $179,840.81 Engineering $ 40,080.00 $ 46,780.00 $220,000.00 $226,620.81 The increase of$6,620.81 represents a 3 percent increase over the original estimated cost but will not affect the final assessment rate of$5,251.00 per unit which is fixed in accordance with resolution 99- 09. This LID and the following Schofield/Monte Vista LID are likely the last of the LID's that were approved under resolution 99-09 and which set maximum caps on the assessment rate. Resolution 99- 09 has since been rescinded. With the final costs computed and assessment amounts known we may now proceed to conclude this LID by holding the final public hearing where affected property owners may present arguments regarding the established rate and total assessment amount. Project Description: The Liberty Street LID project improved the southerly 700 linear feet of the street right-of-way. The project included grading, paving and construction of curbs and gutters, storm drains, and sidewalks. In addition to the normal street improvement elements, several existing utilities owned by the City, Page 1 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Qwest, and by Avista Utilities were rebuilt, replaced.,and/or extended. Privately owned utilities were reconstructed.at the utility owners' expense and the City bore the cost for its upgrades. The costs for utility upgrades are not costs which are assessable to the adjacent property owners. During the course of construction it was necessary to completely rebuild the buried telephone lines owned by Qwest (now Century Link) and the gas lines owned by Avista Utilities. These utilities were found to have been originally buried too shallow (some less than one foot deep) and were in conflict with the excavation for the street sub-grade. While the actual replacement of these utilities was funded by the respective utility owners, the work caused the project to be delayed which did result in extra costs to the City. Improving a street such as Liberty Street, with its steep side hill grades is always difficult. Prior to improvement the gravel street surface was only about 12 feet wide. Widening the street to 22 feet wide had severe impacts on existing street frontages and especially on driveway connections. As the street widens the connections to existing driveways become steeper. The contractor and City staff spent a great deal of time working with the property owners and engineer to make each and every driveway fully functional, safe, and visually appealing. Approval of Project Findings: The findings, conclusions, and orders are a record of all major activities regarding the project, including all Council motions and determinations. The findings for this project will be presented at the public hearing for final approval. A copy of the incomplete findings is attached for an advanced review. The findings cannot be completed until the final actions of the Council are complete. LID Costs per Resolution 2008-02: The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at $220,000 of which $115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties. The assessment to be levied was set under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-09 which set specific rates of participation (credits) by the City. This resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed (adjusted annually based upon the CPI). The petition for the formation of the LID was received in September of 2007.and the cap was set at $5,251 per unit or potential unit, the computed cap for that year. The costs for development of the Liberty Street LID were estimated as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 179.920.00 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220,000.0 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total: $ 67.644.50 Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Assessable Cost ($ 220,000 - $ 67,644.50) $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street Improvement ($152,355.50/22) $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be bome by the owners, any additional cost must be home by the City. In addition, a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00 Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 36,833.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 109,729.00 Final Assessment Costs: Following is a summary of the final assessment costs based upon the final construction and engineering costs. FINAL COSTS Total Construction Cost $ 179,840.81 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 46,780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 226,620.81 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 14,196.50 $ 10,647.38 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 151,961.36 $ 30,392.27 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 12,682.95 $ 7,609.77 Total Credits by City $ 72,039.42 Assessable Cost Final Project Cost $ 226,620.81 Less Credits $ 72,039.42 Total Assessable Costs $ 154,581.39 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot (Assessment Rate) ($ 154,581.39/ 22) $ 7,026.43 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 99-09 $ 5,251.00 Resolution No. 99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be borne by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be borne by the City. Costs to be borne by the property owners and the City are as follows: Page 3 of 4 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00* Amount to be paid by City Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 72,039.42 Amount over the maximum cap $ 39,059.39 Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 Total City Cost $ 116,349.81 * Includes one city-owned lot to be assessed at $ 5,251.00 Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution No. 99-09 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Council Options: . The council may approve the attached resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. • The council may decline to approve a resolution to set a date for a public hearing to establish assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 or may select an alternate date. Potential Motions: • Move to approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish the final assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. • Move to deny approval of a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish the final assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Attachments: 1. Resolution w/Exhibit A 2. Resolution No. 99-09 3. Photos 4. Draft Findings w/Exhibits Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO 12 - A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 88. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged against each lot within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District; orders that a public hearing be held to consider written or oral arguments to these assessments at 7:00 p.m., April 24, 2012 in the City of Ashland, City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notices of the proposed assessments to the owners of the lots to be assessed. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012 John Stromberg, Mayor Approved as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on April 24, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider oral and written objectives to the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88. NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, drainage, and associated improvements to Liberty Street. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely from Liberty Street as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment No. 1. FINAL COST: The final cost for the improvement of Liberty Street is $226,620.81 of which, $115,522.00 will be paid by special assessments on the benefitted properties at a rate of$5,251.00 per assessment unit. The estimated cost of the Liberty Street improvement, per Resolution 2008-02 was $220,000.00. The assessment rate of $5,251.00 is unchanged from the resolution. Additional information regarding the improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR, phone number 541-488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments - prior to or at the hearing, as to why the benefitted properties should not be assessed in . the manner proposed. G:\pubwrks\eng\0421 Liberty StreeMotice of Public Hearing Liberty StreeLdoc z O O O O O O N O O O O O N O Uj Vt V1 Vl V1 Y1 V1 V1 Vl N Vt h Vl N N N N N N L Vl h h V1 Vl H � h Vl h .� di 69 V3 69 fA vi 69 yj (R Vi fA 69 Fi4 � 69 d N(I pj 4 N N N N N N N .�,� W'W vi vi vi �n vi v° vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi W � 69 69 69 6q 69 64 fA 69 fA EA 69 fA 69 69 a U!y � Fcn Q Q a o o z Q F jF�j a � v b❑ � ova .� � � ,N� o � � � � � � ° °d O t�tl y Qbd oQ . .anzd � Q - W 3 mo o .ra � rn v 5 .Y [ � 7 Ez � on vp ° c > uo � a° n b � � vn •, E . . H x •`�- � Q - � � L# Q � Q C a�i � �M s c� � . - ° x » a° o � op w � a Asaa :5a � a ba � �.N �O Ovri W da, NT Z 71 Cm .�T. o wri Np •° vib ° r N .] v� �° 3rv� rQ �nr 6 .• rQ W xrl rc� Ur - - c Q o K �I Fr •-• P. ^• O M O N O Pr .Q U M .�. 'N O ..] C° pp °, N T "' v� o o o 0% 0' 0 0 °, rn `* o v 0 ° o o rn o rn o z ° z ° a a a a: z 0 = m a c w a o: cC a" A ,6 ^5.. 6a O O O p O �.� a''� O O O O O O X w a aw N y O C 00 O O O N O O O O a V O vO b F .a z r r r r r r r M M M M M M M v u a °. rn rn o` rn rn rn ON cl rn a rn rn a+ M M M M M M M M M M M M M M a a Z i O O O O O O O N Q fA fA 69 69 fA 69 � ) , a F 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Vl zH N ° r� Q W Q rn 12 Fa y� �p r cq 0 0 0 o '+ o •c 0 ° Fr °-P� cq P. v. r O O N 5 C O O O O ON N F a Z N N b b u a a p Q o o a 3 Ol M M M M _o z i 1 � ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO EXHIBIT A LIBERTY ST LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ® Represented in Petition Proposed Assessment District Boundary ' 1 3B1E1EAB J 391E16M;�,. ld 7000 C; 391E16M • 391E18P8 _ - 1p 7007*': :' 3 391E16M tof]100: ,;.L013403. , - 391E16:48 '1M 340] - ..391EtEM'..• - ,' - LOt T200 .' .381 E16M. ' - .�• ld]300' ' -,391E16AB '1tl3500 - - :1tl 7304 - � 391E7646 391E1BAB' 1n19]00'' r ..;� lot 3000 .'', .+,�� ; �_.• ., 7 ' •:. 391E13AC .30fEt6AD - ;"F Id 6202[:: 1p 8204 F a r r' 1391E1WD F� .- -tJ 1c1 3Ld 164C -C _j�6 100 ;. r ,1 �i 391E16AC 391E164C d31 i J CITY OF ASHLAND A 1 inch equals 150 feet i RESOLUTION.NO. 99- 0 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS (LIDS)AND ESTABLISHING: THE-CITTS PARTICIPATION.IN LIDS; THE POTENTIAL UNIT METHOD TO DETERMINE ASSESSMENTS; THE MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND REQUIRED PROCESS TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOODS IN LID PLANNING. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. City Participation in LIDs. A. Except as provided in paragraph B, the city shall contribute the following amounts to reduce assessments.in any local Improvement district (LID)formed after the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood:' 60% of the total costs for sidewalk improvements; 75% of the total costs for stonn drain improvements; 20% of the total costs for street surface improvements; and 50% of the total costs for engineering and administrative. B. Unless the council so directs by further resolution, no contribution will be made by the city under this section for LIDS formed after the.date of this resolution if the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition. SECTION 2. Potential Unit Method to Be Utilized. In determining the method to be utilized for charging assessments against benefitted properties irr LIDS formed after the date of this resolution to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood, the potential unit method, rather than the frontage foot method, shall- be the preferred method. The potential unit method is that method which determines. the maximum number of potential units on properties within a proposed local improvement district by taking into consideration the zoning, densities, topography, transportation, utilities and such other factors as necessary to evaluate the development potential.of.the properties. The planning department shall be responsible for initially determining the potential units for each property within a proposed LID. SECTION 3. Maximum Assessment on Residential Properties. A. The maximum amount any residentially zoned lot may be assessed as a benefitted property within an LID to improve local streets serving a residential neighborhood and which is formed after the date of this resolution is $4,000 plus $4,000 for each potential unit within such residentially zoned lot. This maximum amount shall be increased to account for inflation annually on April 1 based on the PAGE 1-RESOLUTION F%USERWnuuoRDmd m0 n9S.-O Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR Index) for Seattle, Washington. The current index is established at 5990.77. B. There shall be no maximum amount, however, on lots owned by the city or on lots where the LID improvements are required to be made by an owner or developer as a condition of approval for a subdivision or partition. C. Prior to the adoption of the assessment resolution levying final assessments as provided in AMC § 13.20.060.E: 1. Any owner may pay the estimated assessment on the lot and potential units;plus ten percent, or 2. Any owner not subject to subsection B above, may pay the lesser of the estirrlated'assessment on the lot and potential units, plus ten percent, or the maximum amount described in subsection A above. Upon such payment,the assessment shall be deemed satisfied and the final assessment resolution shall reflect that the assessment has been paid. SECTION 4. Neighborhood Planning Process. Prior to the formation of an LID, city staff shall notify the residents of the affected neighborhood of the possibility of the LID formation. Residents shall be given the opportunity to comment and make suggestions on initial street design and potential units. Minimum street standards shall be maintained, however, unless the council by resolution specifically authorizes specific changes for a particular project. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with"Ashland*Municipal Code §2A049O duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 0� day of 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder -17 SIGNED and APPROVED this 3 day.of 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Refine ed as to form. Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION FsUSEMPAUUORDNid reav n98.wpd pk� _!/' t t 1 fi'., � Ma'mG97�-'rte is v 3� Y � r� ,•�I,pa. _.�ay :, s s � i•ea't'�. 2 .¢¢'sµ '§ �t ss ,w f-' i 'L � s � A *N i'` ��a. 7e"' R W�y rr �t�'�?° 1 r 4 r•r !ar �C:; � Jf �� t�a'{y�'� �^ tt •+r ��Ix e'-"e�€C ,�} ys. Lis�.� kC 4. Y SN J =E t ` Pf J !r _ .a-x xy4 A�•�t.S t 1 s`ta.t a"g i f. ,yvf�rj i 1 I.' •w s f '� _ � r e � ' r reAt ���u'L+ '�r Yt �"4 y `3: 1� a'.l.f` _ j PiS fT{� ��a°;v,�`t isi i" u / J \ �L C S F".2' 41!"r i e �'t T '"sral �'.,c s'c 1(�.Lrr "� �`x a S+r Y >,.. ^� F�i,5..� SIv+• + r .R.. It \ R 1l f MR 2' 4 } y i 4 }Wf F % 1 rY SiD .,� , �i *3�pS-•,� ��yt� d r tr+ ,I� r1V"r+a ,i'b�L,t �Nsa .a� tiA -� - ).} i t. J J � �.�.�z�^' , 4 = �..a -'r ,{ft r• it �`'+>� ''�'`-� 3"""M'kri �R zt �)�Srd 14 a t E vy V f C 5c?xainx ,;� NAI ye iy.i.`z �` �r t! axc 11.4 + y� .1.t Y v. a� _ i�' 1 #\� .� t C s �� + -ra7� F`t'•,M 4v t r Si --t, k''',t •< > _ J loo! b. y1i a.Myt: 3 a L It 1 � t "Ur MIMI t-�� -g, - t t >r i} la�` r harxAYT'",=1' 1.rJ '�s ,�y t Lx Ise Acv -�)�'�`yr�,+S..ePtiP'�V� . R i_.r. MMOM, nmg [ � *4 T.Y� .FU � 1 _ t• S'4Fyr ; 7_`� •'"�rz"1„ �§°�Q*�; �` � �i,, A g�a+,�- E �T�'�� .�. ,rJ�,�� , .art' ,,; r , '�i�s q Sgt s''N3 .'* x3 `}'"1` +�.4 ``, -'v,. 9df888°°° " y"p`.r -_::e�..?':.'^i f✓1 \ �j S 3 i € "At �y�- Rz r, g",q,btr !' �-bh!rat• �;r,y, e t Ke y"° 2 S Lu ✓ ti ���, icy ti iAi x by a v }y. L�S.'�4 r<ty'"�'P v "T'+f -'�1 r -�'^���`S r, a7Tuu '2. � fiti ✓. t v t Y 9 i � . wilt'L rlt.rr�i 1 y�w a ? iF 2.rirsi liT S 1 } F, h�PofL3 k Fail a r{L4 c t ✓Ar r 1 `f4 5,�'K*l t .�1 e .+:r � n �It {^� r✓ 5 e'c 4 r Y;�' °^ 4.Gn'lAt�'-� ."�`� 7� �1'U--r� RZ a Y E Y i G x4 ;x P` iit. Y rt tA�4yAsE ' F .J�"£ 7v t >�-/wt'flv'" '�•`-'��.r i'S.."'l�di+ .� -i 'r�7s'Wz.. S'�ii7�.J'C��z�. nag r i"+L-y 0} , ' ➢ ^4 s'ygt,-• a1,� y. y,� a > ('-}+;_ r 4>:y>,,.-.,r rz��'+A yy 1 I "iY n ; s a41 �( "LY ✓`A'Y Y' t �'Ll 7e.`".4 '.�- ia� ,rV��s "*.'"*.�� L/.v. .2A r S xt c[ e _ --, � i ,✓nsy f �'IC°''1{�3n ti� xt['�'ru3' t L,sa �� X��`+ � f„', s / �`4 4 ./ r. 9 .t B� P'1 F✓ �. - t 4 N t k`h� �xx v X} }L u e g F� r 4fi x v ; 1i t u.Y ilj r Y S} t 1 1 t � ♦ yet r< 1 1 '^' tS J 2• - r.b � i4;��+. } .' 1�'°j! ic• , , � �. ;'.w 1� �� ♦r�L.tri! 3^'L ���t1 it ° _r ` r �r , ��T ' / ��~ - "s � �i � ��3! \`h bt\ h � 'f't 1t d 1a,a ;f It 4 F •$ 1 1 j � 11.[.T� � 11`.. I �`4+-.E� `Z 4- � }- mow} � r ,�y � � � �'• *'r.• v �'a'J { a1 1 � T,= rr1Y�T�,�M.y, r�yd_�� 4 11 i' ,l@.ei c gel Y✓°� e rya .�' ♦. Y.. ° s Ir } �}Y {)`�� "$SSt++�, -.r 4� ._ 1 !i ♦6 `S•d wti ��3 �3 J.i �yy�� v � bar ;' �i.. �XC, a r t � D r,h sy'tst., 1 � t 1--'Sr ;', ,.� .. U r � ��. �'`.,•. - h\ - �..,: S F f l ,fd F' t♦ 13 wi t _. Y` iY�� � WE PP IN ;lx%y rv�.}rr}•'���x�' > A ♦ L1 irk 1 1 �. W .. ��°'�ysYC p�Yt 'rr 1 �5- �'4�' �' 11x4 x .sA -yai� ..� ': .5 1 & "}'y`y' r, + - ♦r 1, ty.l � 2�' f' jri�.Y i' t r � r. i sv�,{i4 �°• r' -, '°�} -y! i," ^n fly? � �♦ '1. f. a.5 tl t" Y°. v ,�. j p 1��(vi�� >•� ','7-s t1� � z. � � ���iF�s�q LTn Y r}- r?it° 7n� k k�' a L '�a i,rti hen �� P r� ♦� � � .a 1 7 ;:j, v r. �rt���p4 Ada�+�` - �A �•�` y oY I�'�l' �;! U� rJ'� �"z`'rl �'G'k`y);-�5 is�`n-�� n a A 1. y ' ., ` i4"R�� ¢` � -51^ r•.,t.,r'r�?'^iS�3s, x e Py,1 ... ... R11 )t�y1b� f2SS me i. - - � i, � `M3 ���" nw" x �e�SFV•.t S s, t 't�}�{as.-'�r f i� y{{ s " M+u^,k;�° vn i i ' \ AsAl > r7 :_.. f [ zc^ma1dR.�5k,cly 5-iyi�dx t i j 1 ? a t 14 No VYit 4 ''., t t"r r., fb �'R '�•zq'%€r"k 5 - . y �{ 3✓L, 1. ` I� �[ ti .0 f"i ^2 j�^'}Y r s t - x _ ( y4 �� "ki�� rrnw _ t L �;�ri. '+'nni s4v N51 ay r. t x A✓ f #! S vA 4 r u TAKINTi 9-F 4t p \�Sv t R �aa •�' Rea h '� � F '� •� T{2 Vo'�,4 �y,`�}}y � �9 �F c ' t }tu`. }�5, i atR' �4 x '} x �� S�1 -� � �-y { ��'Y q�': ,.� � is�,p+�a •;T� R-t' tnZ y . �b fl4�^+h t, c 1 , t - L3 bx Sit x A I rz• .�4ksr.. a �x«r,N » 1 -4tx r n + At f°� �y , t fxh y"` V3 3 ty IA L..E .yx A? TAC-3 Any} SZ f � :t Y iX' .A, L F t� �- i• r i yr J n i�'•.� K.� 4, P t � c a�.x+4E F�'x$�� i i $ 4x ej Y#� } 3�.� t�' -•'� t'e� .�-�'� 'x''�ay . . tic �Y ix r � J S t ° � >< t Rios Al a rervsawy°J"F:JI�y Y( } A-` � -�?:,}• x c ; r�� p � � ,,� ex •x t?C ,ti ,� t, {5 iV .�v. xi , t ,� r, ,"n'+ ww ­02 WX < r k Y r n r i A i s Rg ' eat W VOW; S y4 Too fr n .I qns, will a iu,Ry� t 19 v y o ' 4 Vol JMM. N 4 e rSi V�j N pGl 1.. Ell: smov , I �-.-.• � � Pro�P V�s)�r'g��'�r zr�+n '9'➢Fyg�vt �i S" I ' a � �K t S L Qy psi L- 1 I 9 1,�.aar is E d S' r I l'4n. N�ri"4n. y.,R F11i� £l t-Tp, j tl � h Vol NOW Yes O u �( MV _ �x E - POEMS, l es. s x.A ' ' i`UIlk" i "}t+�v�.3' �}r All It BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JACKSON COUNTY,OREGON February 5,2012 IN,THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ) ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ) CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY ) STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING,PAVING AND ) FINDINGS CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, ) CONCLUSIONS STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND ) AND ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ) ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FORTHE ACTUAL ) COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland ) RECITALS- 1) On December 4,2007, Council approved Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public hearing with intent to form a local improvement district(LID)for the construction of improvements to Liberty Street consisting of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements.. 2) _ The Council has declared by Resolution No. 2007-41 to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the City. All property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. 3) The Council, following proper public notice,held a public hearing on February 5, 2008, at which time a staff presentation was made,citizen testimony received and exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the construction of improvements to Liberty Street consisting of grading,paving and construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and related appurtenances. 4) On February 5,2008,Council approved Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. 5) The Liberty Street LID No. 88 boundary was approved by Council as being all those lots with frontage on or taking sole access from Liberty Street southerly of the existing improved street section. GApub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty SlaeACC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Page I of 6 6) Improvement Process A. Engineering On April 18, 2008,the City entered into a contract with Thomton Engineering, Inc. of Jacksonville,Oregon to perform preliminary and construction engineering for the Liberty Street LID projeci referred to as Project No. 2004-21. The engineering services contract was for$36,030.00. On May 4,2010,the Council approved an amendment to the original contract in the amount of$10,750.00 which increased the contract amount to $46,780.00. The contract amendment funded the following work which was not included within the engineer's scope of services: 1. Acquire DEQ 1200C permit 2. Design alternate street alignments to accommodate the right of way changes 3. Design an extension of the sanitary sewer system to the end of the project_ 4. Design the replacement of 350 feet of 8-inch water main 5. Design additional retaining walls to accommodate alignment changes 6. Design additional utility installations necessary to remove power poles 7. Design modifications to six driveway approaches including revisions to the street profile B. Neighborhood Consensus City staff met with the Liberty Street neighbors on June 9, 2008 for the first pre- design meeting to discuss the potential design for the project. A subsequent meeting was held on September 1, 2009 to review the 95 percent plans. Following some minor adjustments resulting from the neighborhood review, the plans were completed and prepared for bidding. C. Easement Acquisitions During the projects early design phase,it was discovered that a portion of the original street width was located outside the deeded right of way, on private property. To accommodate the widening of the street, three easements were acquired from the following individuals or entities: 1. Scott Kurtz and Ellen Walsh; 2643 square feet recorded as document no. 2009-042873 2. Greg Connell; 370 square feet recorded as document no.2010-013509 3. Park Estates Subdivision, HOA; 1396 square feet recorded as document no. 2010-003289 D. Bidding Process An advertisement forbids was placed in the following publications: • Daily Journal of Commerce-04/19/2010 • Medford Mail Tribune—04/28/2010 • . Ashland Daily tidings— 04/26/2010 GA\pub-wrlskng\04.21 Liberty Sued\CC Liberty LID Raolution 020612.docx Page 2 of 6 Plans and specifications were distributed to eight plan centers and builders exchanges, and to fifteen potential bidders. A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on April 28,2010 with 10 potential bidders in attendance. On May 6, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., six bids were received for the construction of the Liberty Street LID project. The low bid of$142,798.75 was submitted by VISAR Construction of Central Point, Oregon which was $24,205.25 below the engineers estimate. Bids were also received from Pair-A-Dice Contracting ($157,243.25), Pilot Rock Excavation,Inc. ($170,396.00),D. Britton Enterprises($179,489.32),Knife River (189,434.00), and Taylor Construction($240,566.00). On May 18,2010,the Council approved the award of a contract to VISAR Construction Co. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the construction of the Liberty Street LID. E. Construction Process A pre-construction conference was held on site on June 15, 2010. Following the conference, a notice to proceed was issued on June 22, 2010 and construction commenced on June 28,2010. The project continued throughout the summer and fall and was completed by the end of November 2010. A number of utility conflicts were encountered during the course of construction which extended the project beyond the original 90-day contract and which resulted in four contract change orders totaling $37,042.06 in extra costs. The final contract amount which was paid on February 2,2011 was for$179;840.81 Because the utility conflicts resulted in extensive re-constructions by the utility owners, which actions were beyond the control of the contractor,no liquidated damages were assessed for contract calendar exceedance. Now,therefore, the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1.EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings,the following exhibits will be used: Exhibit I —Council Communication dated December 4, 2007 Exhibit 2—Minutes of the December 4, 2007 Council meeting Exhibit 3 —Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public hearing date Exhibit 4—Council Communication dated February 5, 2008 G\pub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street\CC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Page 3 of 6 Exhibit 5—Minutes of the February 5,2008 Council meeting Exhibit 6—Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty Street under the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 7—Council Communication dated May 18,2010 Exhibit 8—Minutes of the May 18, 2010 meeting Exhibit 9—Resolution No. 20012 - setting a public hearing date for assessments to be charged against lots within the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Exhibit 10—Council Communication dated February_2012 Exhibit 11 —Minutes of the February 2012 Council meeting Exhibit 12.—Resolution No. 2012 levying special benefit assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 13—Council Communication.dated SECTION 2: CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. 1 The City Council authorized the improvement of Liberty Street from the end of current improvements southerly to the end of the right of way. The improvements consist of grading and paving, construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and related appurtenances. 2.2 The proposed LID is in the best interest of the City. Evidence presented indicated that the City will have an improved street for all modes of transportation with reduced maintenance costs; enhanced environmental effects due to improved air quality and better storm water controls; and a demonstrated improved safety with construction of curbs, sidewalks and an asphalt road surface. SECTION 3. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION 3.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Council Communication dated December 4,2007 and February 5, 2008,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 3.2 The proposed LID boundary includes all lots fronting on or taking sole access from Liberty Street southerly of the end of the existing improved section as depicted on the map attached to Resolution No. 200741. This boundary was selected as these 20 properties would be directly benefited by the improvements to Liberty Street. The benefit to these lots is readily definable and is much more direct than those who might simply use the street as a throughway to access their property. GApub-wrkslengk04-21 liberty SueetNCC Liberty LID Resolmim 020612.doa Page 4 of 6 33 The proposed Liberty Street Local Improvement District is consistent with the 2007- 2012 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2009-2010 budget adopted by Council in June,2009. 3.4 The City Council did not receive a remonstrance sufficient to postpone authorizing and ordering the construction of the local improvement district. SECTION 4.NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 A notice of public hearing was sent to all listed property owners (determined from Jackson County Tax Assessment rolls)within the proposed assessment district. The public hearing notice was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. SECTION 5. ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENT UNITS 5.1 Each of the 20 lots within the proposed assessment district has been allocated one assessment unit. In addition, several lots have been allocated additional units of assessment. Those lots with additional units are those lots that the Planning Department has determined can be further divided. The number of assessment units is equal to the number of current and future potential residential lots as defined in Resolution No. 99-09 and as shown on the attachments to Resolution No. 2007-41. The total number of assessment units under this LID is 22. SECTION 6. COST 6.1 The maximum assessable rate per unit is established by Resolution No. 99-09. The maximum rate established in 1999 was$4,000 per unit. This rate is adjusted each April in accordance with the Construction Cost Index established by the Engineering News Record Index (ENR record)for Seattle, Washington. The current rate to be charged for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 is $5,251.00 which is the maximf in rate as of Resolution No 2007-41 establishing the Public Hearing date. All costs over and above the assessment amount will be borne by the City. SECTION 7.DECISION 7.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter, the City Council concludes that the establishment of the LID boundary is in the City's best interest,is justified as presented by staff and is supported by evidence contained within the record. 7.2 Council finds that the public hearing was properly noticed. 7.3 Council further concludes that the allocation of assessment lots and associated cost complies with Resolution No. 99-09 and represents the benefit received by each affected property. G:Vub-wrks%cng\0421 Liberty Sheet\CC Liberty LID RaDlutiao 020612.doar Page 5 of 6 7.4 On the Council heard a staff report and public comment on the final completed project and the cost associated therewith and, based on the evidence presented adopted Resolution 2012—setting the date of June , 2012 for a public hearing to levy special benefit assessment costs. On June_1 2012 the Council heard a staff report and public comment regarding.the final assessments to be levied against properties within the Liberty Street Local improvement District No. 88. Following the hearing,the Council adopted Resolution No. 2012 - Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the construction of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District. 1 The Council finds and determines that the final assessment as set forth in the Resolution and supporting documents is consistent with the requirements of AMC Chapter 13. John Stromberg,Mayor Date G:tpub-wrksYngt04-21 Liberty St=ACC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.dom - - Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve Liberty Street as well as the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets Meeting Date: December 4,2007 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson,488-5347 Department: PW/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj @ashland:or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen, 488- 5307 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will Council approve the attached resolution to establish a public hearing date of February 5,2008, to consider the formation of Assessment District No. 88 to improve both Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Street? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets. Background: Staff has received petitions calling for the formation of a local improvement district to fund two projects. The first petition is for the formation of the improvement district for improvements to Liberty Street, from the present end of improvements southerly to the end of the right of way.The second petition requests formation of the improvement district for improvements to the alley, south of Siskiyou bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. LID Composition These two proposed improvement projects are being considered under a single assessment district in an effort to conserve staff and council time and to provide an economy of scale in the development and construction of the project. It is proposed that theses two projects be designed, bid and constructed as a single project. Both projects are being requested by property owners and in both instances petitions have been•submitted from over half of the assessment district. Alley Improvements This proposed improvement consists of grading and paving the existing alley surface between Harrison and Morton Street(south of Siskiyou Boulevard). The pavement would be eleven feet wide and would be constructed with an inverted crown to control drainage. No curbs or sidewalks would be constructed on the alley since the right of way is only 16 feet wide. The east side of Harrison Street at the alley intersection will require extensive reconstruction(see photos). Although the Harrison Street repairs would be included in the construction contract, they would not be funded through the LID. Since Harrison Street is already fully improved, the repair work would be financed from street maintenance monies. Page I of Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.dm G:\pub-wrks\cng\deptadminVLID\Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doe �., CITY OF ASHLAND Proposed Alley LID Boundary The alley is located along the rear lot lines of five lots that front on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard,between Harrison and Morton Streets. Each of these has vehicular access onto the alley rather than onto Siskiyou. Most of the lots have rear yard garages. Four additional lots front on the south side of the alley with the center two lots taking sole access from the alley.The eight lots that would make up the alley assessment district would receive a direct and definable benefit from the improvement of the alley. It is proposed that the boundary of the assessment district be configured to surround these eight lots as shown on the attached map. Petition A petition calling for the improvement of the alley was received in early October bearing nine names and representing five of the nine lots,or 55.6%of the total assessment units. The represented lots include 658 and 670 Siskiyou Boulevard and 162, 164 and 176 Harrison Streets. Funding The estimated improvement costs for the alley, including repair and maintenance work on Harrison Street are as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 48,580.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 12,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 60,580.00 Less Harrison St Repair(total borne by City) $ 20,530.00 Less Engineering Cost For Harrison St Repair $ 6,000.00 Total LID Project Cost $ 34,050.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 4,700.00 $ 3,525.00 20% . of street surface cost 0.2 X $23,050.00 $ 4,610.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 300.00 $ 180.00 Sub Total $ 11,315.00 Assessable Cost $ 22,735.00 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 9 Estimated per lot for alley improvement $ 2,526.11 TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,580.00 Cost to be born by City including Harrison $37,845.00(60%) Cost to be bom by Property Owners $22,735.00(40%) Liberty Street Improvements Page 2 of 4 Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doc G:\pub-w ks\eng\dept-admin\LID\Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doc �., CITY OF ASHLAND The improved portion of Liberty Street consists of curb and gutter and paving with a width of 34 feet. The section of street south of Ashland Street has no sidewalks and ends approximately 290 feet from the actual southerly end of the right of way.The proposed improvement project would continue the street at a lesser of 22 feet to the end of the right of way. Sidewalks could be installed on one side of the street for slightly over half of the total length. The southerly 290 feet of right of way is severely constrained with multiple mature trees, steep cut and fill slopes and drainage issues. It is recommended that the southerly 290 feet of street be reduced to an 18 foot width and that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Proposed Liberty Street LID Boundary This LID is one that, like Plaza Avenue, where the formation of on LID has been previously attempted several times,the last being in 2001. It is proposed that the assessment district be composed of those lots that have actual frontage on the section of street to be improved as well as those lots which take sole access from the section of street to be improved.There are sixteen lots with street frontage and four lots that have sole access from the street including a parcel owned by the City of Ashland. This lot was recently acquired as parks open space and has trail access along the irrigation ditch and a maintenance easement through tax lot 100 to Liberty Street. The lot is not further dividable due to the steep terrain and lack of a viable access. The maintenance easement was granted as maintenance access,not an ingress and egress casement. Petition Petitions calling for the improvement of southerly section of Liberty Street were received on August 7th,August 25th, and September 10, 2007 bearing names representing 11 of the 21 assessment units, or 52.4%of the total proposed assessment district. Fundine The estimated improvement cost for Liberty Street is$220,000 including engineering and administration costs. Following is a breakdown of the estimated development and assessment costs: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost. 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $. 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 21 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement $ 7,255.02 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Page 3 of 4 Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 1 107.doc Gc\pubwrks\eng\dcpt-admin\LID\fibcrty&Harrison Morton AIIcy LID PH CC I 1 07.doc �', CITY OF ASHLAND Since Resolution 99-09 sets a maximum amount that may be born by the owners any additional cost must be born by the City. In addition the single lot owned by the City also receives an assessment which adds to the amount that the City will pay. Amount to be paid by owners $ 105,020.00(41.7%) Amount to be paid by City a.Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b.Amount over the maximum cap $ 42,084.50 c.Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 114,980.00(52.3%) TOTAL $220,000.00(100%) Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments Council Options: 1. Council may approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets,or; 2. Council may elect to delay the public bearing for the proposed improvement of Liberty Street and the alley through the LID process,or; 3. Council may elect to approve a revised public hearing to consider only one of the two proposed improvement'prof ects. Potential Motions: 1. Council may move to adopt the attached'resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton. 2. Council may move to delay the attached resolution pending further information to be provided by staff. 3. Council may move to approve a revised resolution to set a public hearing date for only one of the two projects. Attachments: Resolution w/Exhibit A and B Vicinity Maps LID Boundary Maps Petitions Photographs Letters Page 4 of 4 Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doc G:\pub-wdcs\m&cpl-admin\UDW'bcrty&Harrison Moron Alley L D PH CC 11 6.doc RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD BOUNDED BY HARRISON AND MORTON STREETS CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS & GUTTERS, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to commence improvements to construct sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements to Liberty and to construct paving and grading improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as those lots fronting on or having sole access from Liberty and the alley as depicted on the maps referred to as Attachments Nos. 1 and 2 to Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The city engineer's estimated cost of these improvements, including engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among each of the property owners specially benefited for Liberty Street is $220,000.00 of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited,properties and for the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets is $60,580.00 of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on Resolution 99-09 capped amount of $5,251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for Liberty Street and on $2,526.11 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for the alley within the assessment areas as depicted on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers,Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on February 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., at which time and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. SECTION S. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit "A" attached to this resolution. PAGE 1-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION 0 SECTION 6 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor PAGE 2-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on February 5, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements to Liberty Street and grading and paving of the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely from Liberty Street or from the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Hanson and Morton Streets as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment Nos. .1 and 2. ESTIMATED COST: The estimate,of the local improvements including engineering and administration costs is $220,000.00 for Liberty Street of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and $60,580.00 for the alley, of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be installed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefited object to the improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. PAGE 3-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION F wz o o g o C! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry N N N N N N N N N yam' vi w w eri w ea w w w w v+ sv v+ uv +» ° z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p ,p Q N N N N N N ry N ry ry ry N N N N �.. w 7i vl h Vl h vl Vl Vf Vl h YI v1 vl Vt h h Vl h K W W W K fr9 fA Fn 49 Vf (n �A 4f 4H 69 [s7 m cW NX • 2 � � � N N W rA x CA z z a z ¢ u Q F- W .c my a C 0 .°, m m °m �' w 3 w a °' rn � U � in .`� i7 - 5 ❑ •-r .-1 a Z � ...1 d � 'gg" �1 ¢ a>i u E °oQ C-` Q u ❑ ❑ on ?E C7 ms' s „ a t 'a aviv'�i � Q ° W o o a 0 z O� '� S O � � O• w � � O � a o. m d' O N 0: l•y 0. � 4 � RO 4 �.pq .C-� NT Q O ` oO= Q h o h 19 ,v z 4 z p' 4, 'y. a ° z `o M U o o o• o o•. o o c d a u O O p O O O O O O O a a a 4 0 c S z z w — Q W W W W W W W W W W _W W W _W W m E 'o` rn o� a o. o` .c o. a a a rn o• rn a � M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M D. z — V j \ \ - � § ! � ( . < . ; ; § fa & a } � � . ! k } / mar:•�� � c ° CLARENU-u . r a� v/Molo O N Q �� Q rl IF i. ' Y f 1 ' 11 1 L: D TT c °�T �F ..: r J 1' 11 1 i '• 11' 1- 1 City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes EXHIBIT 2 City of Ashland, Oregon./City Council City Council - Minutes Tuesday, December 04, 2007 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 4, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E.'Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty, Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS Minutes of the Study Session of November 19, 2007, Executive Session of November 20, 2007 and Regular Council Meeting of November 20, 2007 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS (None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards,Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does the Council wish to approve a change in ownership for a Liquor License Application from Torsten Hirche dba Apple Cellar at 2255 Ashland Street? 3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Connie Morris dba Bonsai Teriyaki II at 2305 Ashland Street? 4. Should the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as recommended by the Ashland Audit Committee? S. Does the Council approve a second amendment to the existing contract for engineering - services with Marquess and Associates Inc. for an additional $51,520 in professional services, an increase of 47.6%over the current contract amount of$108,293.00? 6. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Forest Lands Commission for a term ending April 30, 2009? 7. Does the Council wish to consolidate the legal service contracts with Hurrang Long Gary - Rudnick PC and authorize the approval of one contract, exclusive of Mt. Ashland,with a total not to exceed $175,000? - - S.Should the Council approve and authorize the execution of the attached amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement#90G00091 with the Oregon Building Codes Division to receive payment for work performed between October 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007? Councilor Hardesty requested Item #7 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items#1-6 and#B. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Comment was made questioning how much of the$175,000 would actually be spent for legal services. City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that lens Schmldt Indicated the "not to exceed amount" Is accurate. He clarified the Nevada Street final assessment case Is now at$5,000 Instead of the$3,000 projected In the memo, and if that case is dismissed, the appellant might appeal the judge's decision, which could result In additional legal costs to the City. Comment was made questioning what portion of the costs is a result of suits filed by Art Bullock. Mr. Appicello indicated Mr. Bullock Is involved in 8 of the 14 cases, which accounts for approximately $150,000 In legal costs. Councilor Navickas expressed his discomfort with this line of questioning. Mayor Morrison commented on a citizen's right to appeal, but stated the Council and the citizens need to be aware that these cost the City a lot of money. 1 of 2/1/2012 9:08 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http:/Yw .wfil and.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display—Minutes&AMID=3... study as outlined by Councilor Chapman. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the motion, but noted this is a more costly study than staff can do. Ms. Bennett clarified staff will have to contract this out for a consultant and if the estimated cost Is outside their ability to spend, staff would return to Council for further discussion. Roll Call Vote:Councilor Jackson, Hartzell, Chapman, Silbiger and Hardesty,YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Silbiger, Hartzell, Hardesty, and Chapman, YES.Councilor Navickas and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2. PUBLIC FORUM Aaron Corbet/423 N Main Street/Commented that the nature of business in Ashland are tourism and real estate, and there clearly needs to be a third leg to stabilize Ashland's economic table. Mr. Corbet suggested the City form an Ad Hoc citizens committee to assess the viability of various green Industries, how to recruit these resources and relocate them to Ashland. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council wish to direct staff to correct, change or modify the Ordinance Declaring-the Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, including the attached development agreement, land use findings, or real property exchange findings? City Attorney Richard Appicello reviewed the changes that were made to the documents after the packet Information was released. Councilor Jackson commented on how the annexations are sequenced and stated her concerns relate to the fact the City is taking voluntary action that it need not necessarily take in order to enable this agreement. She stated the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) could be considered the external boundary and make the properties that back up to It eligible for annexation without having to be "an island".. Councilor Navickas voiced concern with the annexation criteria and stated they have an opportunity to require that the houses not back up to the creek. He stated the current design creates security .. and privacy issues and does not believe It is good planning. He added that he does not believe the applicant has met the requirements for the physical constraints permit for the pathway In the - riparian area. Councilor Navickas motioned to deny this, not send it to second reading,and request the applicant come back with a plan that complies with the Street Standard Criteria and protection of the Riparian Area. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading with the changes discussed this evening. Roll Call Vote:Councilor Hardesty, Chapman, Jackson, Hartzell and Silbiger,YES.Councilor Navickas,NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS _ 1. Will Council approve the attached resolution to establish a public hearing date of February 5, 2008,to consider the formation of Assessment District No.88 to improve both Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Street? Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2007-41. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Hartzell, Navickas, Chapman and Silbiger,YES.Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. - UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Continued) 2. Does the Council wish to adopt, by approving first reading of an ordinance, amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council? Don Stone/395 Kearney Street/Commented on confidentiality in Executive Sessions and stated _- there should not should be a "gag" placed on council members in regards to what they say to the press. Mr. Stone stated sufficient guidelines have been laid down at the state level and does not see the need for the Council to expand on them. He proposed a revision to Section 2.04.080 and stated any contact with staff or concems with staff should be channelled through the City Adminsitrator's Office. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to adopt Rules of the City Council with the following modifications: 1) Remove paragraph three under Section D- Executive Sessions,and 2) add "in accordance with state law"to paragraph two under Section D - Executive - 5 of7 2/1/2012 9:08 AM EXHIBIT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007-!-4I A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD BOUNDED BY HARRISON AND MORTON STREETS CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS & GUTTERS, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to commence improvements to construct sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving,drainage and associated improvements to Liberty and to construct paving and grading improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as those lots fronting on or having sole access from Liberty and the alley as depicted on the maps referred to as Attachments Nos. 1 and 2 to Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The city engineer's estimated cost of these improvements, including engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among each of the property owners specially benefited for Liberty Street is $220,000.00 of . which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and for the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets is $60,580.00 of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on Resolution 99-09 capped amount of $5,251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for Liberty Street and on $2,526.11 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for the alley within the assessment areas as depicted on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers,Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on February 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., at which time . and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice'of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit"A" attached to this resolution. PAGE 1-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION SECTION 6 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 200l� arbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this 4 day of 200 hn W. Morrison, Mayor viewed as form: J Richard Appicell Attorney PAGE 2-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION EXHIBIT"A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on February 5, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements to Liberty Street and grading and paving of the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely from Liberty Street or from the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment Nos. 1 and 2. ESTIMATED COST: The estimate of the local improvements including engineering and administration costs is $220,000.00 for Liberty Street of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and $60,580.00 for the alley, of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be installed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefited object to the improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. PAGE 3-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION F zF o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y OTS N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F N Ci ,n N Cl vi N - y < N N N N N N N N N N N F � C vi vi vi vi .n h vi .n h vi v� vi h vi vi tx] < F U_ ti F Q FMM- W w C p Oy 000 N N ] Ln j LLI vj En Z 6 Z G UU T' 0 0 Oct) 0 Z x � v o G D > .� ¢ Ll u A v o m p o C d .; O _ r d < 6* K d m JL ° C7 cv p . WC o' �' wFF » dNm og' K O $' oC[ vaf� a .d�oCZC., m ,n ° .0 .8 C w w �.;� . 00 O O t0 0�0 U vii L N 70 w W O N vl 'y Yf �D L N Nt E .ate Urav yZ �o v� -- rnn G � .-. w � ¢ .• Z S — a� na rnn JC oo . Q A z p0 ri vi q cz 0 y . o u a u 0 0 0 0 a O O O O O $ 0.�' O O O 6 O O O u g x F J _ w x g o °o o g o 0 0 °0 0 o Q o o° o ? 0 0 F .] Z 5 Q Q ¢ Q G 4 C 4 a F < w w w w w Lij w _w w w w w w y w b z "- F rNj O CJ N N N N N s7 r o6 � 69 49' b9 69 fA Q � F N N N N N ° a � D F O A w U U W 6 o 0 • 0 � 3 � 3 � �a g�� � Ur°vmJCmn .5r r E C C O O 0. N 0. N q O Q ry Q q ZF aza o 0 a 88 0 a a0 W a i g K W a�SG O - ry W F O, z � �°•� � .NO � z 5 U U y Z < o b v O b r m P O 5 Z N (j 90) OW4 OIL- EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication a Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Liberty Street Local Improvement District and Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the Alley Between Harrison and Morton Streets Meeting Date: February 5, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson, 552-2412 ID Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonifr�ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen552-2084 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 45 minutes Question: 1. Will Council approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty Street by formation of a Local Improvement District? 2. Will Council review the attached draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District? 3. Will Council approve the attached resolution establishing a new date of March 18, 200$ for a Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets? Staff Recommendation: Previously, Council had set a public hearing date of February 5, 2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets:While the Liberty Street property owners are prepared to address the Council on that date,the owners abutting the alley have asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be postponed to provide adequate time to address two issues which will make the alley improvement more acceptable to the property owners. The residents of the alley intend to petition the Traffic Safety Commission on February 28,2008 to limit the traffic on the alley to one-way and to install two speed humps in the alley to help control vehicle speeds. Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District and review of the draft findings pertaining to that action. The findings in their final form will be presented for adoption at the following meeting date. Staff further recommends approval of the resolution setting a new public hearing date of March 18, 2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets. Background: Neighborhood Meetings In response to majority petitions received from the property owners on Liberty Street and on the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and located between Harrison and Morton Streets,the Council on December 4,2007 set a public hearing date of February 5,2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve both Liberty Street and the alley.Engineering staff was able to meet Pagc 1 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-adminlENGINEER\PROJEC7\2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doc OW CITY OF ASHLAND with the affected neighborhoods on January 16'h and 17'h to answer questions and.disseminate information regarding LID's and improvement options. On January I e, a neighborhood meeting was held at 51 Winbum Way to consider the proposed improvement of Liberty Street.Nearly one half of the Liberty Street ownership was represented. All those who attended the meeting were in favor of the project and expressed a desire to begin the design process as quickly as possible. The alley neighborhood met on January 17'h at the Ashland Public Library with 13 people in attendance. With the exception of one owner,the entire proposed assessment district was represented. The neighborhood was in unanimous agreement that traffic on the alley had increased drastically following the 2004 completion of the Siskiyou Boulevard renovation. It was contended that the median closures at Union Street, Harrison Street and Liberty Street have caused traffic to be redirected onto adjacent streets including the alley. It was estimated that traffic volumes have more than doubled since 2004. The residents asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be delayed to allow consideration by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation for the alley. Since one-way traffic often relates to faster traffic in alleys,the residents will also petition the Traffic Safety Commission to authorize the installation of two speed humps to help control traffic speeds. Alley Improvements This proposed improvement consists of grading and paving the existing alley surface between Harrison and Morton Street(south of Siskiyou Boulevard). The pavement would be eleven feet wide and would be constructed with an inverted crown to control drainage.No curbs or sidewalks would be constructed on the alley since the right of way is only 16 feet wide.The east side of Harrison Street at the alley intersection will require extensive reconstruction(see photos). Although the Harrison Street repairs would be included in the construction contract, they would not be funded through the LID. Since Harrison Street is already fully improved,the repair work would be financed from street maintenance monies. Proposed Alley LID Boundary The alley is located along the rear lot lines of five lots that front on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard,between Harrison and Morton Streets. Each of these has vehicular access onto the alley rather than onto Siskiyou. Most of the lots have rear yard garages. Four additional lots front on the south side of the alley with the center two lots taking sole access from the alley. The nine lots that would make up the alley assessment district would receive a direct and definable benefit from the improvement of the alley. It is proposed that the boundary of the assessment district be configured to surround these nine lots as shown on the attached map. Petition A petition calling for the improvement of the alley was received in early October bearing nine names and representing five of the nine lots, or 55.6%of the total assessment units. The represented lots include 658 and 670 Siskiyou Boulevard and 162, 164 and 176 Harrison Streets. Funding The estimated improvement costs for the alley, including repair and maintenance work on Harrison Street are as follows: Page 2 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\cng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC"R2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 1 08.doc CITY OF ASHLAND Total Construction Cost $ 48,580.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 12,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 60,580.00 Less Harrison St Repair(total borne by City) $ 20,530.00 Less Engineering Cost For Harrison St Repair $ 6,000.00 Total LID Project Cost $ 34,050.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 4,700.00 $ 3,525.00 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $23,050.00 $ 4,610.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ . 300.00 $ 180.00 Sub Total $ 11,315.00 Assessable Cost $ 22,735.00 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 9 Estimated per lot for alley improvement . $ 2,526.11 TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,580.00 Cost to be born by City including Harrison - $37,845.00(60%) Cost to be born by Property Owners $22,735.00(40%) Liberty Street Improvements The improved portion of Liberty Street consists of curb and gutter and paving with a width of 34 feet. The section of street south of Ashland Street has no sidewalks and ends approximately 290 feet from the actual southerly end of the right of way.The proposed improvement project would continue the street at a lesser width of 22 feet or less to the end of the right of way. Sidewalks could be installed on one side of the street for slightly over half of the total length The southerly 290 feet of right of way is severely constrained with multiple mature trees,steep cut and fill slopes and drainage issues. It is recommended that the southerly 290 feet of street be reduced to an 18 foot width and that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Proposed Liberty Street LID Boundary This LID is one that, like Plaza Avenue, where the formation of on LID has been previously attempted several times, the last being in 2001. It is proposed that the assessment district be composed of those lots that have actual frontage on the section of street to be improved as well as those lots which take sole access from the section of street to be improved.There are sixteen lots with street frontage and four lots that have sole access from the street including a parcel owned by the City of Ashland. This lot was recently acquired as parks open space and has trail access along the irrigation ditch and a maintenance easement through tax lot 100 to Liberty Street. The lot is not further dividable due to the steep terrain and lack of a viable access. The maintenance easement was granted as maintenance access,not an ingress and egress easement. Page 3 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC7,2007\07-25.CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH fnr Allcy 108.dm CITY OF -AS H LAN D Petition Petitions calling for the improvement of southerly section of Liberty Street were received on August 7'h,August 25th, and September 10, 2007 bearing names representing 15 of the 22 assessment units,or 68.2% of the total proposed assessment district. If the City owned lot is included in the"in favor" computation the percentages increases to 72.7%. Funding The estimated improvement cost for Liberty Street is$220,000 including engineering and administration costs. Following is a breakdown of the estimated development and assessment costs: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 S 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 S 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 S 5,988.00 Sub Total S 67,644.50 Assessable Cost S 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement S 6,925.25 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 sets a maximum amount that may be born by the owners any additional cost must be born by the City. In addition the single lot owned.by the City also receives an assessment which adds to the amount that the City will pay. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00(52.5%) Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 31,582.50 c.Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 104,478.00(47.5%) TOTAL $ 220,000.00(100%) Findings The attached draft findings document the Council's considerations and decisions relating to the formation of the Liberty Street local improvement district. Following the public hearing the findings will be updated and presented to Council for adoption at a subsequent meeting. Page 4 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\mg\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEGT2007\07-25 CC PH fm Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 1 08.dm CITY OF ASHLAND Importance of Paved Streets Ashland has a firm understanding of the importance of its public street system. As stated in the Ashland Street Standards Handbook adopted by Council in March of 1999,Ashland's streets are some of the most important public spaces in the community and can shape and define a neighborhood. Ashland's streets are intended to enhance, accommodate and promote all modes of travel including bicycle,pedestrian,vehicle and transit use. Although many profess to enjoy the rural feel provided by a gravel or dirt surface street,it is impossible to provide enhanced and safe accommodations for all modes of travel under unimproved street conditions. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan and the Ashland Land Use Ordinance both address the importance of well designed,well constructed streets. These documents, along with the Ashland Transportation . System Plan and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, all deal with the need to improve streets and-provide a uniform set of development standards: From a Public Works viewpoint there are a number of equally compelling reasons to improve gravel streets with curb and gutter and paving including: I. Reduced Maintenance Cost—Each year the Public Works Department spends thousands of dollars to maintain gravel surfaces and drainage ditches. Once the street is paved,maintenance costs are reduced to near zero for the first 10 to 15 years. 2. Drainage Control—The use of concrete curb and gutter with catch basins and storm drain piping prevents the uncontrolled surface flow of water along an unimproved street eliminating the need for unsafe and unsightly drainage ditches and eliminates erosion within the ditches. 3._ Safety Improvement—The vertical curb contributes to safety by defining the edge of the street for drivers,pedestrians and children. The curbs show drivers where to drive,where to turn and where to park. Curbs also provide protection of street lights, fire hydrants signs and mail boxes. The uniform paved surface also provides a much safer surface for all modes of transportation. This is especially true in granitic surface streets where loose individual grains of decomposed granite act as ball bearings beneath shoes and tires. 4. Environmental Improvements—The paving of dirt or gravel surfaced streets is a proven remedy to reduce dust and particulate levels in the air and water born silt from the storm system. LID Support A notice of public bearing was sent to all property owners within the proposed Liberty Street assessment district advising them of the date of the hearing. Owners were advised that they could appear at the bearing or submit written comments as to why the improvements should not be installed or why properties should not be assessed in the manner,proposed. . AS of this date,no comments, either written or otherwise have been received in opposition to this proposed improvement. Little opposition is anticipated at the public hearing except from the usual sources. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 sets forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Page 5 of 6 0:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECT\2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: Liberty Street LID 1. Council may approve or reject the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street; or 2. Council may elect to delay approval of the improvement resolution pending additional information from staff. Alley LID Council may approve or reject the attached resolution establishing a new public hearing date to consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley or to establish on alternative date. Potential Motions: Liberty Street LID 1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street; or 2. Council may move to rejector take no action on the attached resolution and may direct staff to provide further information. Alley LID 1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing date of March 18, 2008 for a public hearing to consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard between Harrison and Morton Streets; or 2. Council may move to delay approval of the attached resolution. Attachments: Resolution,with exhibits, authorizing the improvement of Liberty Street Resolution,with exhibits, setting a public hearing date for the alley improvement Vicinity maps Petitions Letter from petitioners Photographs Draft Findings and Orders Page 6 of 6 G:\pub-wrkskng\dept-admin\ENGFNEER\PROJECT\2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE.LOCAL IMPROVEMENT RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1.A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Liberty Street Local Improvement District, No. 88. SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $220,000.00 of which $115,522.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $5251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7). SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION GA rder\C8y Council PacketslPackel F Ies\2007-200812008-02051020508 PH Liberty 8 Setfig PH.ml.doc bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $117,200.00. SECTION 5.The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6.The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city. SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of . 2008. John Morrison, Mayor PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION G:VecordenClly Council PacketsWacket FIIes12007-2008\2008-02051020508 PH Liberty.&Setting PH.resl.doc F L25;7y O O O O C O N O O O O O N O rq in vi h vi h ° N N N N N N � fA 69 6'f fA Vi 6A � 69 69 (A 69 fA y� 64 Q F VJ � d3 fA 69 R9 rA b9 69 fA 69 69 b9 69 69 fA fr] Q F kZl ti N N vFi Q £ � Q • N -. :1: o rl �i F W a �d ° v m Q v 3 aI U ,� v •o •O v x ° W °� Nxcn shy � '8 ° y .b v � :a C7s � FG p •O 6 t � � a: o � °a � � ' Q � L � Q � d ti pu 'r� ¢� _ '> U u Ala `ow dya . b , a � a r O T m o�0 U vl F ON .G OOi .0 A- V N ,Z �D rn — �n � vi r` Qrnr QS -- Z .o 'x -- Qa. x — c� � o. Ut� A 0. O O O w O P.. z Cr �+ `Q In o zaz ° 04 z 0. x° o a 0 0 0 0 0 s d 7 W p p oo ~°0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o oa o e o 5 F .a z r r r In rn M M rn in rn M a Y 0. o UO rn o. a. rn rn rn a\ rn rn o+ a a a M M M M M rn In M M M M M M rn MQ F N vi W � vi vi vi vi vi - tn a aF � Q fR W V, fA 69 69 Y3 FA. a M z wz z N a � N F O O W Cl) rA U U � Q m QQ �C _ °"•¢ °�' ¢ � �� � �. - 0.00 v y Q •� y P n y n o �n U 2 r a x a C C o 0 0 $ Si P. P, 7 w o00 °0 0 00 0 IN m IN Y qq 0. O Q 6 Q A C U �e1 U M M M M Ot M ^ O b oo rn O ,Z N City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes - EXHIBIT 5 City of Ashland Oregon/City Council City Council - Minutes Tuesday, February 05, 2008 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 5, 2008 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty,Jackson, Navickas, Hartzell, Silbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison encouraged citizens Interested In serving on a City Commission to contact the City Recorder's Office for Information. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the City Council Study Session of January 14, 2008, Special Meeting of January 14, 2008, Executive Session of January 15, 2008 and Regular Council Meeting of January 15, 2008 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS The Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee presented an interim progress report to the Council. Committee Chair Pam Vavra stated the Committee's charge into advise the City Council on matters relating to the Ashland Public Library and she elaborated on their specific duties. Ms. Vavra stated the Committee's recommendations are to: 1) Extend the local library option levy for four years through fiscal year 2012/13, 2) Request voter approval in November 2008, and 3) For the dollar amount recommended In June be based on the community assessment of services levels, other funds available, and possible additional Information. Ms. Vavra stated their next steps Include conducting public forums and assessing the input, establishing a plan for evaluating the library services, and establishing a plan for pursuing various long-tens governance and funding options. Comment was made questioning how the Committee would determine the next tax rate. Ms.Vavra stated they do not know the rate at this time and it will depend on the funding available and the level of service the community wants. Ms. Vavra provided a brief explanation of the "federation of libraries" concept. CONSENT AGENDA - 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions,and Committees? 2. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a public contract with IKON Office Solutions for a 48-month copier rental? 3. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract with Hatch Energy for $100,660 for independent inspection services required at Hosler Dam to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dam safety regulations? 4. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract Amendment #2 with Brown and Caldwell for$73,000 Yor engineering services to improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir? S. Will the Council approve the 2008 Council liaison appointments to City boards and commissions,to be effective immediately? . 6. Does the Council wish to apply for Federal appropriations for 2009? 7. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented? 1 of 6 - 2/1/2012 9:09 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3... S. Should Council approve revisions to the agreement documents between the City and Brammo Motomports, LLC, for the financing and construction of the Jefferson Street extension project? - 9. Should the Council reset the date of the continued SDC appeal hearing to March 4, 2008 and notify the appellant of the revised date? Consent Agenda Items #4 and #6 were pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items#1, #2, #3, #5, #7, #8 and #9.Voice Vote:all AYES.Motion passed 6-0. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson addressed the amended contract with Brown &Caldwell for engineering services to improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir. He clarified the two solar powered recirculation units will be utilized to Improve the taste and smell of the water. He also noted these units would be rented Initially so that the City can test their efficiency. Mr. Olson briefly commented on the blue/green algae problem and noted one of the goals of the Brown &Caldwell study Is to identify the sources and Impact of the silt on the water quality. -Councilor Jackson spoke regarding the Federal Appropriations item and stated her support for the staff recommendation. Councilor Jackson/Silbiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #4 and #6.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. - PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council approve the resolution authorizing and ordering the Improvement of Liberty Street by formation of a Local Improvement District? Mayor Morrison called the public hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. Ex Parte Contacts Mayor Morrison and Councilors Chapman, Silbiger, Hartzell and Hardesty reported no ex parte contact. Councilor Navickas indicated he formerly lived on Pract Street, which is off of Liberty Street. Councilor Jackson stated she conducted a site visit. It was noted that no bias challenges were submitted. - - Staff Report Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report. He noted the affected owners of the proposed alley improvement have requested that the public hearing be delayed in order to allow consideration by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation. Mr.Olson commented on the Liberty Street improvements and explained 68% of the property owners submitted a petition requesting a hearing for the formation of a local improvement district. He noted a portion of the roadway is severely constrained with mature trees and it is recommended that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Mr. Olson provided a brief explanation of the project costs. He noted the benefits of these types of improvement projects and stated staffs recommendation Is to approve the formation of the Liberty Street local Improvement district. Those Wishing to Speak: Richard.Hay/707 Liberty Street/Stated the storm drainage at the crest of unimproved Liberty Street is not provided for and the runoff is a hazard. He requested the Council approve the formation of this local improvement district. - Gary Afseth/695 Liberty Street/Voiced support for the formation of the Liberty Street LID and shared his concerns regarding water runoff, air quality, and on-street parking. David Seulean/696 Liberty Street/Noted the runoff that flows onto his property and explained he has sandbags placed in front of his home In order to divert the flow into the street. Mr. Seulean voiced his support for the LID and stated the street needs to have curbs and gutters to direct the water to the stormdmin system. Steve Sincerny/790 Liberty Street/Stated it is cheaper for the homeowners and the City to do this project at this time because the cost will continue to rise. He also noted his concerns regarding dust and the parking situation. Public Hearing Closed: 7:59 p.m. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution#2008-02. DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified they would likely be able to include a modified tumaround,at the south end of the o „v c 2/1/2012 9:09 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashl and.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3... road. Councilor Hardesty expressed concerns regarding the project and suggested they postpone this LID until after the City's LID policy Is examined. Mr. Olson clarified this project would not be completed until the 2009 budget cycle and stated they will only have minor engineering costs in this budget year. He commented that this project is high on the department's prioritization list primarily due to the slope and the runoff problems. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas,Silbiger, Hartzell, Jackson and Chapman,YES.Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 5-1. - Does the Council have any revisions to the draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District? Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve the findings and orders for the Liberty Street LID. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson,YES. Motion passed 6-0. Will Council approve the resolution establishing a new date of March 18, 2008 for a Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets? Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution #2008-03. DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified that traffic Issues are usually addressed during the design process, but in this case It Is being addressed prior to the formation of the LID. He stated if the Traffic Safety Commission approves the one-way designation with speed bumps, the owners who have opposed the LID have indicated they would support the project. He added this Issue would be brought before the Traffic Safety Commission prior to staff returning to Council for the public hearing. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed hearing date. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the residents of the alley petitioned under the existing policy and the City would have to apply the existing policy regardless of the public hearing date. She added that the Council still has the option to hold the hearing, but deny the formation of the LID. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM Philip Lang/758 B Street/Shared concerns regarding the proposed historic preservation levy and commented on the affect these taxes are having on affordable housing. Mayor Morrison stated the tax Mr. Lang is speaking to Is not a City tax and clarified the City granted permission for the Rogue Valley Heritage District to place this Issue before the Ashland voters in November. Kathy Ettinger/1584 Jasmine Avenue, Medford/Voiced opposition to Ambuja Rosen's - anti-tethering ordinance. Hal Cloer/815 Creek Stone Way/Presented material to the Council on the Charter Review process and Measure 15-76 and requested that It be placed In the public record. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Is the Council interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to provide for the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable development credits)from approved Jackson County.Measure 49 claims to City of Ashland designated receptor zones? City Attorney Richard Appicello explained Measure 49 allows for the transfer of development credits from one jurisdiction to another. He stated this Measure allows the City to enter Into a cooperative agreement with Jackson County and provides the City opportunity to affect development outside Its boundaries. Mr. Appicello stated staff recommends that the Council allow them to explore an agreement with the County. He added that If Council Is Interested,staff would take this Issue to the . Planning Commission. Mr. Appicello clarified the first step is for the City to express interest.The Council would then designate areas where they feel increased density Is appropriate and determine the parameters under which that increased density would be used. He added at this point staff just needs to know whether Council is interested in pursuing this option. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to accept the staff recommendation to explore an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County concerning Measure 49 transfer of development credits. DISCUSSION:Councilors Chapman and Silbiger voiced support for exploring this option. Councilor Navickas shared concerns and stated this may result in unforeseen problems. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to amend motion to include a Study Session on this 3 of6 . ?nnlm 0.00 Ann t EXHIBIT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- Oa A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1.A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Liberty Street Local Improvement District, No. 88. SECTION 2. The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be$220,000.00 of which $115,522.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $5251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.2350. SECTION 4.The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION • G:4ecortle"CounGl PedcetsY+eckat FIIes'20D7-200812008-020SDONE1024508 PH Leery b Setlirp PH.resl.0oc bonds or other obligations (the"Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income,the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $117,200.00. SECTION 5.The assessment imposed upon benefited properties is characterized as an assessment for local Improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this S day id—m-Att 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this to day of 12008. YJhn)Mords , Mayor PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION G:Ve rde"Count]Packet$Wadret FBes%2007-2008'200842051DONE%D2D508 PM Liberty 6 SeWN PRm d= � < vi vi Hf vi sa sa of w yi sv of vi vi vj us a 0 ri vi vi vi CO vi vi vi vi vi vi vi vi y a N N N N n N N N N N N N N N 'N E. W 6' Vi vi vi Vl vl vi vi vi Vl Vi Vl Vi Yi v1 Yi W � fq 69 fA fq 69 '69 69 69 69 Vi di 69 i9 fA 69 a F - W W N Q N ti xi C O iy O vFi 3 v m pro > U +cbn 1Q Z� o..1 Q.1 m m a c O in Q Q rWF]Cn a Ev O r -UY O VpN i. ocpo{p �O d V v_i trn00 N r GO r m 00 C U ` � O mo -a2 P4 j = .8 � h °E w ' 5 a .0 tn ° ^ N O ZOa u TW 0.N h° vU•`d� ^v'h^ b n^ Lb o0 .N 0 ga' �nOi a M j K W < V7 O O O Q a , O O 4 V w ° u o d a rn o * dE 0 ^ °o rn o° a v n V W m W 8 . m a Cie d a cd a C4 � 0. O O O O O O O E 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 O p p o aa. a 0 0 F O O N M M M M 7 V Vl b n O C .a Z n r J h o ¢ ¢ a ¢ a a ¢ a ¢ < a ¢ ° Z �_ o e e A. w w w w w w w w m m w w m w w r P M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M A F y 0 N N N N N N ya a '^ F o c447 F vi rn N N Cl N N O a F _ y F O q W U U W s r O v 4 Q ti y 0 e W �4 O O Ei 0 P N mO N N q O O 6d. da o c a c °U' 4L 4 E U V O q q a, M M M M M J PROPOSED LIBERTY ST LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ® Represented in Petition :a Proposed Assessment District Boundary ;F 391E16AB ck� 391E16M • 1 l` s I i 3 �'""C' J`E r r a 391E1NN ' t � r1 e w 391E16AB�_, �, ry1rn 7(101°_ � _ r 391E16M` nil *,ia'",v '• f _ 1nt 390.5 f '»391E16AB E16M -- •'•g r i La 7x99':= 391E16" wt73k rvc 391E16M � . x f = • r;�vr r 1a73ve - . 391E18AB� - ' r r ca+1:11ea _ _ --�-�39tE16A0 + 391E16/�➢ . "�:vt Ld 6N71�.:.f'lul fi301 F -e� erk� ,€itaaax` i ,y.'�l�k r a. d - a191E18AO a 391E16AC F `� �qil ld 62(ID RN - r = _isis- 4T!Z4Y4LY�# — ea CITY OF ASHLAND A1 inch equals 150 feet EXHIBIT 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Contract to Construct the Liberty Street LID Project Meeting Date: May 18,2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: fau bg tm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Development Secondary Contact: Morgan Wayman Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will the Council, acting as the Contract Review Board, approve a contract with Visar Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID)? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve a contract with Visar Construction Co,Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street LID. Background: Executive Summary On May 6,2010,the City received six valid bids for the construction of the Liberty Street LID Project No. 2004-21.The low bid of$142,798.75 was submitted by Visar Construction Co.,Inc. of Central Point, Oregon. The bid is $37,121.25 less than the original 2008 engineer's estimate of$179,920 which was used to determine the proposed assessment cost as outlined on Resolution 2008-02. The Proposed total of cost of the project at$189,578.75 including the engineering contract costs of$46,780 is well within the established budget. Contractor Information The low bidder is a local contractor who has performed projects for the City including a runway safety overrun and creek realignment at the Ashland Municipal Airport and at least one subdivision project. Staff has received several good references from individuals and companies that have previously done work with Visar Construction Co.,Inc. Bidding Process The Liberty Street Improvement Project was advertised for bid on April 19,2010. It was advertised locally in the Daily Tidings,the Mail Tribune,the City's website and statewide in the Daily Journal of Commerce.A pre-bid meeting was held on April 28`s with ten prospective bidders in attendance. Six bids were received and publically read on May 6, 2010 in accordance with the advertisement. All bids were received on time, complete and included the required signatures, acknowledgements and bid bond. The list of bidders is shown on the attached bid summary sheet. Proposed Schedule The contract is a 90 day contract and,if approved, staff will push for a rapid startup. Page 1 of 4 GApub-wrUeng\04-21 Liberty Street\A AdminlCons Pre Contract\04-21 CC Visar Contract Approval 5 18 1 0.doc r C I T Y OF ASHLAND LID Costs Per Resolution 2008-02 The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02.That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at $220,000 of which$115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties.The assessment district was formed under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-09 which set specific rates of participation (credits)by the City. The resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed (adjusted annually based upon the CPI). The petition for the formation of the LID.was received in September of 2007 and the cap was set at $5,251 per unit or potential unit,the computed cap for that year.[The costs for development of the Liberty Street LID were estimated as follows: -7 Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering &Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement $ 6,92525 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be bore by the owners, any additional cost must be bore by the City. In addition, a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00 (52.5%) Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 31,582.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5251.00 104-478.00 (47.5%) . TOTAL $220,000.00 (100%) Estimated Total Assessment Following is a summary of the anticipated assessment costs based upon the Visar Construction bid and the current Thornton Engineering contract. The final assessment costs will not be precisely known until the project is completed and all actual costs can be computed. The final assessment will be Page 2 of 4 - G92ub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Stmet\A Admin\Cons Pm Conoac604-21 CC Visar Contrau Approval 18 1Uoc. P., CITY OF ASHLAND established by resolution and will include a public hearing whereby property owners may express any objections to the costs: ASSESSMENT COSTS BASED UPON BID Total Construction Cost $ 142,798.75 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 46,780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189,578.75 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 x $ 12,144.00 $ 9,108.00 20% of street surface cost 0.2 x $ 123,906.75 $ 24;781.35 50% of engineering cost 0.5 x $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 x $ 6,748.00 $ 4,048.80 Total Credits by City $ 61,328.15 Assessable Cost Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189;578.75 Less Credits. $ 61.328.15 Total Assessable Costs $ 128,250.60 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot(Assessment Rate)($128,250.60/22) $ 5,829.57 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 1999-09 $ 5,251.00 Resolution No. 99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be born by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be born by the City. Costs to be born by the property owners and the City are as follows: Amount to be paid by owners S 115,522.00* -(60.94%) Amount to be paid by City. Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 61,328.15 Amount over the maximum cap $ 7,477.60 Total City Cost S 74,056.75 -(39.06%) • Includes one city-owned lot to be assessed at$5,251.00 Although the property owners' portion of the cost has remained constant,the amount to be funded by the City has been reduced by $30,421.25 based upon the current low bid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the construction contract with Visar Construction Co, Inc. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution No. 99-09 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Page 3 of 4 G:\ ub-wrks\en \04-21 Ubcrty Street\A Admin\Cons Pre Contmet\04-21 CC Visor Contract Approval 5 18 10 doc Wr� i CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: • The Council may approve the construction contract witb Visar Construction Co.,Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • The.Council may decline to approve a contract with Visar Constriction by rejecting all bids received on May 6, 2010; • The Council may reject,with cause,the low bid offered by Visar Construction Co. and select the second bid offered by Pair-A-Dice constructiotrfor award of contract. Potential Motions: • Move to approve,with cause, a contract with Visar Construction Co.,Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • Move to reject,with cause, the bid offered by Visar Construction Co,Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • Move to approve the bid offered by Pair-A-Dice in the amount of$157,243.25 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • Move to reject all bids received on May 6,2010 for the improvement of Liberty Street. Attachments: Vicinity Map Bid Summary Unit Price Comparison Visar Construction Co, Inc.Proposal Resolution No. 2008-02 Resolution No. 99-09 6 Page 4 of 4 C\p b wrk\ g\1M-21 Liberty Strect\A Admin\Cons Pre Contract\04-21 CC Visar Contract Approval 5 18 10.doc uO O y Jn oa oc,4 To p A o �/� VJ °i v y q0 � r A CO CD W O O T Cl w d 1 ✓' d A a m N o � W °m AO � d B�1 '�+ °• 42 Q^. Crn @ S O � o 0 O W G b b d U o . z � � b � o b3 E 0 o w o o Z p; P`". A u z, O p p p O p O O S O p p O p Op p p p 00 00 h S N m f p p pO p Op 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O S O S O O S O S S O S S S O O 1� O N N S mO N N O N O O H N N n N VI`1 m fO] 0 Q p�O N tN�l 10 IO V n N H M � g O N N H N C m oo CD yp N N 01 O O O ON OO 01 N � N Q A Ol l9 H � P p � N N�S 1O(f p OQ NH O P O YS N I g^N h N 0 Mimi C 0 N S C N N O N N CI N N N N N N N NH H N H mQ N N H N H N N p 6 'E 0 U p N o O N N o 0 o m o 0 0 oc O O O N f O O C Q O O O O fO m n g g N W N H M :C N NH p N N N M N N H C N m O O S O S O O S O O O S O O S O O S O O S O 6 O O S B O�OO O N N O S O N O O O C V OA ap O S O S S O S S !OY N M S M r m W W N N O O O N O N N N N1 H N N M O N O N N N H N H N f O O y N p N N y N H S H H N m a J F Q U p < E r v r u a a LR 5 El o L ¢ n =o Q O V ri u C 5 C V r 5 N T W U N S U S V o e � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a o o a 0 0 fi N y 0 N m N O (V W N b O N f� N O O O O O O O O O N O O O - O O O N O p Op O x (9 w w d m w 0 0 0 0 0 ° . 0 0 0 o N o S L6 H n m v0i o w w w uoi N w w w w w w w � w ^ M - O O O O O O O O N O O N O O OO N N W O N m N w w W O W O ^ N W N W N W N H N b N e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o g g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ^ r N w • d d d a V t d 0 0 0 b o m a — h .3 ^u El m K 3 - ry a a° m P :� City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes EXHIBIT , City of Ashland Oregon/City Council _ City council - Minutes Tuesday, May 18, 2010 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 18,2010 Council Chambers 1175 E.Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin; Navickas, Jackson and Chapman were present: Councilor L.emhouse and Silbiger were absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg noted vacancies on the Historic,Planning, Housing and Tree Commissions. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE,THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The Regular Meeting minutes of May 4,2010 were approved as presented. The Mayor and Council discussed delaying two items on the agenda pertaining to the adoption of the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Campus Master Plan and the recommendation for the Compensation Class Study. The decision retained the SOU Campus Master Plan and delayed the Compensation Class Study. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Mayor Strom berg's Proclamation of Craft Beer Brewers week was read aloud. 2. Does Council-accept the final report and recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented the staff report and introduced Chair Don Mackin and members of the committee. Mr. Mackin noted how well the group worked together and thoroughly evaluated each proposed project. He stated the Committee.found there was a valid need to replace Fire Station #2 and that it had reached a critical level. They unanimously agreed on the expansion and improvement efforts for the Police Station and that it should be a top priority. The committee noted a more cost effective option was relocating the Police Department to The Grove. The committee recommended the following: Move forward with a General Obligation Bond election in May 2011 for Fire Station #2 in an amount not to exceed $3million Move forward with a Bond in a future election for the Police Station Consider using The Grove for the Police Station Seek other resources for a ladder truck and training tower for Fire Department Ms. Seltzer stated the architect had evaluated parking needs if the police station should move to The Grove. Comment was made that the Finance Department was designated for The Grove in the Facility.Master Plan. Staff explained for the long-term Finance would remain at City Hall. If the Police Station moved to The Grove, the Information Technology Department would use the ..vc - 2/1/2012 9:13 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashlmd.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID--4... space vacated by the Police Department. Additionally, concern was raised regarding the lack of funding for a Fire Inspector. Mr. Mackin explained that the architect provided potential costs and options for savings to the Committee. The proposal for Fire Station #2 was for a steel building rather than a wood building. Ms. Seltzer further explained the architect scaled back the project using the existing footprint in order to apply for Stimulus Money the City did not receive. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that the original project was significantly scaled back and designed for the long-term.and would require less maintenance cost. She also noted there has never been "sinking funds" for the ladder truck. Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to accept the report and recommendations of the Pubic Safety Bond Committee and direct staff to prepare an implementation plan for Council review at a future meeting, targeting May 2011 for a ballot measure for Fire Station No.2 as recommended. DISCUSSION: Council thanked the Committee for their effort and work. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,Voisin,Chapman and Navickas,YES.Motion passed. Mr. Mackin stated that the Committee has offered to help in preparing the implementation of the General Obligation Bond for Fire Station 92. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of Boards,Commissions,and Committees? 2. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an ordinance creating a new Chapter 1330, relating to the Advanced Financing of Public Improvements from May 18,2010 to August 3,2010? 3. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Jody Waters to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30,2011? 4. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a contract with Footprint Recycling for collecting and recycling used cooking oil for a term to begin May 19, 2010 and expire June 30, 2012, with the option to renew the contract for an additional 12 months? 5. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinances from May 18,2010 to May 26,2010? Councilor Voisin/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS(None) PUBLIC FORUM Gary Miller/Access-3630 Aviation Way, Medford/introduced himself as the Executive Director for Access and provided an update on the services Ashland residents received in 2009. Family and Senior Services provide eviction prevention, housing the homeless, rental and energy assistance and had assisted 15 households in Ashland. The Access Housing programs ranging from housing counseling to weatherization helped 29 families in Ashland during 2009. Through Access Food Share, 236 household received food assistance. Access also provides free use of medical equipment, crutches, wheel chairs,.etc,to individuals. Another program is Access Junior Achievement on financial literacy for children Kindergartin-12th grade that 55 students from Ashland participated in 2009. Access receives 70% of their funding through Federal Funds and the remaining comes from property fees and fund raising. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council authorize staff to implement the recommendations for the non-represented ... 2/1/2012 9:13 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4... employees found to be more than 5% below market in a recent study? 120 Minutes] Item delayed due to the absence of Councilor Lemhouse and Silbiger. 2. Will Council, acting as the Contract Review Board, approve a contract with Visar Construction.Co. Inc., in the amount of $142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street Local Improvement District(LID)? Public Works Director Mike Faught presented background information regarding the bid process for the LID. He stated the lower bid was a $37,121.25 reduction from the previous estimate. Staff was confident the low bid would not generate future change orders. Councilor. Chapman/Jackson m/s 'to approve, with cause, a contract with Visar Construction Co. Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted that staff had . reduced the amount over the cap the City was responsible for from $30,000 to $7,500. Councilor Jackson commented on the process and staff's involvement with the property owners. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman,Navickas,Voisin and Jackson,YES.Motion passed. 3. Does Council. wish to adopt the SOU Campus Master Plan update and approve First Reading of the three implementing ordinances? Abstentions.Conflicts,Eaparte Contact Councilor Voisin declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse her from the discussion. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Voisin on this item. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 8:01 p.m. L Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report and explained the three ordinances for the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Master Plan. One incorporated the SOU Mater Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. Ibe second ordinance would update the Land Use Section Chapter 18.64 SOU Zoning District referencing the new SOU Master Plan as the guiding document for the next 10 years. The third ordinance modified the actual zoning district boundary to ensure only properties under the ownership of SOU or controlled by SOU were within the boundary of the zoning district. This ordinance removed seven properties privately owned from the SOU boundary and returned them to adjacent residential zoning. Staff requested an additional motion for an ordinance that would apply the detailed site review zone overlay to the area between Walker Avenue and Wightman Streets for the proposed multi-story mixed-use project. Mr. Mohtar clarified the normal process for a housing project included a site review approval that applied the City's design standards for multi-family housing. SOU is bond by the same process., Because the projects are within 50 feet of privately owned property, it also triggers a Condition , Use Permit (CUP)requiring additional review. SOU proposed eleven additional standards for the housing projects as well. City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the SOU Master Plan aloud. Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading the Ordinance amending Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the updated SOU Master Plan. DISCUSSION: Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas and Inf3Z - 9/112012911 AM CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Promoting Ecosystem Resiliency through Collaboration (PERC) Grant Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Chris Chambers Department: Ashland Fire & Rescue E-Mail: chamberc @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: John Karns Approval: Dave Kanner VV_ Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should Council authorize participation in the PERC grant program offered by The Nature Conservancy? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council approve participate in the PERC grant program. Background: Due to the City's partnership with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in the Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project on U.S. Forest Service federal land, this grant opportunity was presented by TNC to accomplish forest resiliency work on adjacent non-federal land. Funds were offered to 11 high- priority projects across the country and our local project area captured 28% of the available funds for a two year period. The City's role encompasses 4 components: • Implement City Winburn Property Management Plan recommendations (Council approved 2007) for forest health and ecological sustainability. • Implement City forestlands prescribed burning on at least 20 acres. • Implement fuels reduction work in conjunction with Ashland Parks Department to accomplish 14 acres fuels reduction and 20 acres burning. • Assist private landowners with strategic fuels reduction work in high fire risk areas in the city's wildland urban interface zone (77 acres). There is a match requirement that will be met by already authorized budget of 27,000 dollars for the Winburn property project preparation (marking and cruising), existing staff salaries, private landowner matching payments, and the commercial value of excess trees thinned from the Winburn Property. The Winburn Property thinning will likely be a deficit operation which will be backfilled by this grant at an estimated cost of 204,000 dollars. This operation will be done in conjunction with adjacent AFR helicopter based thinning, spreading costs across both projects. This represents a unique opportunity for the City to accomplish approved work that would otherwise be cost prohibitive. Related City Policies: Ashland Forest Plan (1994), Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative (2005), 2011-2012 Council Goals: Infrastructure (watershed health). Council Options: Approve or deny participation in the grant. Pagel of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Potential Motions: Motion to approve or deny participation in the PERC grant project. Attachments: None. � s i Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Green Codes Updates Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman Department: Community Development E-Mail: goldmanb @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Dave Kanner `j(L Estimated Time: 45 Minutes Question: Will Council approve first reading of three separate ordinances that establish new standards for deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, solar panels on commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated historic districts, and yard setback requirements relating to rain barrels and eave extensions, and move the ordinances on to second reading? Recommendations: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following public testimony and deliberations the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinances with specific revisions as outlined in the Planning Commission Recommendation Findings (Exhibit A) as attached. Staff has evaluated the specific recommendations provided by the Planning Commission at their February 14'h meeting, and has provided alternative ordinance language for Council's consideration in Exhibit B. On February 8, 2012, the Historic Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance relating to the installation of solar energy systems upon commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated Historic Districts and had no objections or recommended changes to the ordinance as proposed. Staff recommends Council approve first reading of each of the three proposed ordinances, with revisions as deemed appropriate, and schedule second reading of the ordinances. Background: Proposed are three separate ordinances intended to encourage building and land use practices that save energy and water, and increase opportunities for local food production. These proposed ordinances directly address the City Council's 2011 Goal as follows: Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that create strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi- modal transportation system. Each of the areas of code revision proposed appear to have widespread interest from homeowners, the public at large and individuals working in the local building trades. With the relatively minor code revisions proposed,property owners can have more flexibility to pursue actions that increase local food production (e.g. deer fencing & keeping of chickens), decrease water consumption (e.g. harvest rainwater) and reduce energy consumption by lessening heat gains (e.g., greater allowance for roof eaves) and address potential impediments to solar collection installation (e.g., installation in employment and commercially zoned Historic District properties). Page I of 3 �r, CITY OF -ASH LAN D The three attached draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) address the following categories: • Solar Energy Systems • Fencing o Deer Fences o Fence Heights o Barbed wire, razor wire, and electric fences • Keeping of chickens • Health and Sanitation • Accessory Structures • Rain Barrel location in required yard areas • Eave Extensions into required yard areas The purpose and associated standards for each of the proposed provisions are more fully described in the attached Staff Report for Planning Action 2011-01731 (Exhibit C). The applicability of each proposed ordinance amendment by location (zone or district) is outlined in attached Exhibit D. A listing of each of the Planning Commission's specific recommendations is attached (Exhibit B) in which Staff has presented alternative ordnance language for Council's consideration intended to address the Commission's concerns. Related City Policies: City Council 2011 Goal: Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that creates strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi- modal transportation system. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: Historical Sites and Structures: Goal: To preserve historically significant structures and sites in Ashland. . 1-7: The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as fir alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. Chapter XI: Energy, Air, and Water Conservation The City shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. X1-2) Existing Housing c) Program experience from other areas indicates that water conservation in existing homes can provide additional water for growth.. Programs aimed at acquiring this resource shall be thoroughly evaluated on equal footing with new supply options. g) Passive solar design and sun tempering has application in existing homes. Also, solar water heating technology and photovoltaic might prove to be very cost effective in the ,future in existing homes. Consequently, solar access protection is still very important. Therefbre, we shall continue our aggressive policy of protecting solar access. XI-7 Water Conservation Page 2 of 3 c �`, CITY OF • ASHLAND c) Irrigation is a large water usage and it also can be accomplished with lower quality water. Therefore, water conservation efforts shall be directed toward an overall reduction of water usage (conservation) and substitution of lower quality water for outdoor irrigation. Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or take no action on the first reading of ordinances amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72), Definitions Chapter (18.08), General Regulations Chapter(18.68) and Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code. Potential Motions: To independently address each of the three ordinances presented for consideration, the City Council must make three separate motions. I. Move to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance relating to the installation of solar energy systems, and request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on April 3, 2012. 2. Move to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance, with proposed amendments as noted, and request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on April 3, 2012. 3. Move to approve the first reading of ordinances amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code, with proposed amendments as noted, and request that the ordinance be brought back for second reading on April 3, 2012. Attachments: • Ordinance amending the Site Design and Review Chapter(18.72) of the ALUO • Ordinance amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08) and General Regulations Chapter(18.68) of the ALUO • Ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code • Exhibit A — Planning Commission Recommendation Findings dated February 28, 2012 • Exhibit B —Alternative Ordinance language options. • Exhibit C — Planning Action 2011-01731 Staff Report dated Feb 14, • Exhibit D—2012Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location • Exhibit E—Fence Study and Opacity Illustrations provided by Dale Shostrom • Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 14, 2012 • Draft Historic Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2012 • Draft Rain Barrel Guide • Letter to Council from Amy Haptonstall Page 3 of 3 ILVI ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND REVIEW CHAPTER (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MEETING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FROM SITE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold llined4hrouo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City s}iall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Oregon House Bill 3516, adopted in 2011, established that installation and use of . solar photovoltaic energy systems or solar thermal energy systems on residential or commercial buildings shall be an outright permitted use in any zone where such structures are an allowed use. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote the use of solar energy systems to help reduce peak power demands, provide residents and business owners with an alternative source of power during power outages, and to help control the rising costs of electricity; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices including the installation of solar energy systems; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is appropriate to provide standardized requirements for the placement of solar energy systems within Ashland's designated historic districts to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the character of the historic resources; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; Ordinance No. 12- Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2 AMC Chapter 18.72.030[Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.030 Applicability Site Design and Use Standards shall apply to all zones of the City as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: [No Change] B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with the applicable standards a set forth by this Chapter. L [No Change] 2. [No Change] 3. The following mechanical equipment: a. [No Change] b. [No Change] c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Roof-mounted solar collection devices on Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts if the footprint of the structure is not increased, the plane of the system is parallel to the slope of the roof and does not extend above the peak height of the roof or existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from a public right of waV. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. e. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a,b,c, d) above or(e D below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of section 18.68.140(c). Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 3 e-. E Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder i SIGNED and APPROVED this _day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) AND GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession.. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the ' implementation of green building practices; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds it is in the interest of the City and its citizens to provide standards for fences for the purposes of protecting vegetation from deer, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and increased self sufficiency; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and Ordinance No. 12- Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add a new definition to read as follows: 18.08.175 Deer Fence. An open fence used to prevent entry by deer or other wildlife for the purpose of protecting gardens,vegetation and yards. 18.08.616 Rain Barrel: A barrel with a capacity of ninety (90) gallons or less used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. 1.8.08 616 18.08.617 Reconstruct To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that recreates of reproduces its form, shape and location as originally built. (ORD 2951, 2008) SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.68.010 [Fences] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.010 Fences Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A. Height A.1 In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 %2) feet in height. B2. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half(6 %z) feet in height. ' Q. The height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street shall be'tbtty eight (48` :f four (4) feet or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. 4. The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured from the natural grade to the highest point of the fence, including the structural supports. a) Below-Grade Lots. On lots that are not generally level with the adjacent street, height may be measured from the top of the adjacent Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 7 sidewalk or curb, or, where curbs are absent, from the crown of the adjacent street plus six inches. • z 0 x m U C Curb Sidewalk LL Street Grade ----------- --- Property Line' ; b) When fences are built on top of retaining walls, or one lot is markedly higher than an adjacent lot, height shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade, except that the solar access of adjacent properties to the north shall be maintained in accordance with AMC 18. 70. ---- -n m 0 W 2 N Adjacent Grade _ Natural Grade is used to determine "I„a9tur=/Grad, maxirnum`r3lCe height under the "' ti solar ordnance v+hE fenao shades a property to the North. B. Construction M. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed. E2. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing of the problem. The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Fences within water resource Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 7 protection zones shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 18.63.060.B.3. C. Materials 1. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, electrified wire and similar security fencing materials shall be limited as follows: a) shall not be located adiacent to a sidewalk, a public way. or along the adioining property line of another person; b) shall not be erected or maintained at less than six and a half(6'/z) feet above grade; - c) may be located in commercial, employment or industrial lands if not visible from the public right of way, or with approval from the Community Development Director on properties deemed to be hazardous or in need of additional security. D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per AMC 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence so that at least eighty percent (80%) of the surface is unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade. 3. Deer fencing structural supports within ten (10) feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed two (2) inches in width or depth. 4. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, "hog panels", wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. 5. Polypropylene mesh deer fencing requires a monofilament line that runs along the top of the fence that supports the fence and prevents sagging. 6. Chain link fences shall not be considered to be deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. 2'I .. . . . . . . . . r sti . . . deer fencing: .. I I II II IIIII I IIIIII �3.5' ---i - - -- -- - - -- , — rear or side yard front yard Ordinance No. 12- Page 4 of 7 SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.68.040 [Yard Requirements] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.040 Yard Requirements All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection. Architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into required yards. Eaves, awnings and gutters may intrude three feet (3') into required yards. 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district. B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guesthouse. C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained accessory to a single family dwelling in a residential district provided the following conditions are met: 1) Not more than five (5) hens, and no roosters, shall be kept on the property at any one time. 2) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as follows: a) they shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. b) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in total height. C) chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area. d) chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. e) structures shall be screened from view from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping to create an opaque screen. CN 3 minimum Copp setback Chicken Ordinance No. 12- Page 5 of 7 3) The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 09.08.040). Q D Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code. Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. DY Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section', or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charier on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Ordinance No. 12- Page 6 of 7 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12-• Page 7 of 7 ORDINANCE NO. l2- AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND REPEALING FENCE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CHAPTER 09.08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold . lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. v WHEREAS, Section 9.08.040 of the Municipal Code regulates the keeping of animals within the City; WHEREAS, under the Municipal Code it is unlawful to keep poultry within 75 feet of another dwelling, which limits the opportunities for residents to keep chickens within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds that the keeping of a limited number of chickens in residential districts should be authorized, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably_furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS, Section 9.08.140 of the Municipal Code addresses requirements for fences which are more appropriately addressed in Chapter 18.68.010 of the Ashland Land Use Code which provides standards for fences location, construction and materials; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Ordinance No. 12- Page ] of 4 n comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide standards for the keeping of domesticated chickens. It is intended to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens (up to 5) on a non-commercial basis while creating standards and requirements that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 9.08.040[Health and Sanitation:Keeping of Animals] is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more than three (3) dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1)parcel or tract of land. B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or the provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to as Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrota vittatus) is allowed, subject to the following: 1. Such pigs shall not exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or weigh more than 95 pounds. 2. No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land. 3. Such pigs shall: a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such other person has given express permission; b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise confined; or c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length. 4. Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310. 5. Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park. C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another dwelling, except that, notwithstanding AMC 18.20.020(D. No person shall keep or maintain more than five (5) chickens on any single family residential lot. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-family complexes, including duplexes. 1. Chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities. 2. Only female chickens are allowed and no roosters. 3. Chickens must be secured in an enclosure at all times located at least twenty feet (20') from dwellings on adjoining properties. Ordinance No. 12- Page 2 of 4 a) During non-daylight hours chickens must be kept in a coop. b) During daylight hours, chickens may be located in.a chicken run or in a securely fenced backyard. 3) The environment chickens are kept in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 to protect public health and as follows: a) Chicken feed must be kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. b) The chicken owner must provide for the storage and removal of chicken manure. All stored manure shall be within a fully enclosed container. No more than one, twenty gallon container of manure shall be stored on any one property housing chickens. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed. c) There shall be no outdoor slaughtering of chickens. 4) Chicken coops and runs shall be built in accordance with AMC 18.68.140 and in compliance with all applicable building and zoning codes. 5) Chickens can not cause a noise disturbance as per AMC 9.08.170. D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk. E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any kind or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling or within one hundred fifty (150) feet of a street or sidewalk. F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling. G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from those imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control. H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals identified in this section. I. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 09.08.140 [Fences] is hereby repealed as follows: A4C n no 1,10 a,...ees A. No owner ..a,....,.e of....,.. ere ..hall .. .,..t_..et ,. ntai" a barbed wiree fenee f r maintain,B. No owner- or- per-son in ehar-ge of pr-opeAy shall eonstruet, or- operate an another per-son. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. Ordinance No. 12- Page 3 of 4 SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 2, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of '12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. 12- Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION City of Ashland, Jackson County,Oregon February 28,2011 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION # 201 1-01 73 1, A REQUEST ) TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08), GENERAL ) REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68), AND SITE DESIGN AND USE ) STANDARDS (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE ) (ALUO) TO ADDRESS DEER FENCING, KEEPING OF CHICKENS, ) SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS ON COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT ) RECOMMENDATION ZONED BUILDINGS WITHIN DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS, ) RAIN BARRELS, AND EAVE EXTENSIONS INTO REQUIRED YARD ) AREAS.. ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland ) RECITALS: 1) The application is to amend the Definitions (18.08), General Regulations(18.68), and Site Design and Use Standards (18.72) chapters of the ALUO to provide new standards for deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, solar energy systems on commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated historic districts, and address yard requirements relating to rain barrels and eave extensions. 2) The requirements for a Legislative Amendment are described in 18.108.170 and 18.08.345 as follows: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. PA#2011-01731 Green Code Amendments February 28th,2012 Exhibit A: Page I D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. SECTION 18.08.345. Legislative amendment. An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section 18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships. 3) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on February 14, 2012, at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. The Planning Commission held their deliberations and recommended to the City Council approval of the amendments to the Definitions (18.08), General Regulations(18.68) and Site Desi&r and Use Standards (18.72) chapters of the ALUO and further provided revisions regarding the proposed ordinances as described in Section 2. Now, therefore, The Planning Commission of the City of Ashland recommends as follows: SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to this recommendation, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. SECTION 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a recommendation based on the Staff Report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received The public hearing at the Planning Commission on February 14, 2012 was noticed in the newspaper as required in 18.108.170.D. 2.2 The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendments exempting the installation of solar energy system installation on commercial and employment zoned properties within historic districts (18.72.030) from obtaining Site Design Review approval, are appropriate amendments necessary to promote energy conservation objectives and to retain the historic integrity of buildings within Ashland's,Historic Districts. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this ordinance amendment as proposed. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendments addressing the PA 42011-01731 Green Code Amendments February 28th,2012 Exhibit A: Page 2 measurement of fence height, fence construction, and fence materials (18.68.010 A, B, &C), provide greater clarity in the ordinance and recommends the Council approve these amendments as proposed. 2.4 The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendments addressing deer fencing(18.68.010 D) will allow residents to better pr6tect their gardens from the foraging of Ashland's urban deer population while preserving largely unobstructed views through the deer fencing materials. The Planning Commission recommends specific revisions to the proposed ordinance to ensure that deer fencing located within the front yard area is less visually obstructive than is proposed for rear and side yard deer fencing. Testimony provided at the hearing indicated there is a concern regarding section 18.68.10(D)3 as proposed which limits the size of structural supports adjacent to a public street to no greater than 2"x2". The Commission expressed that the approach proposed, to limit the size of structural supports, may unnecessarily restrict designs which are compatible with existing fences, and may be insufficient to provide adequate support for larger expanses of fencing when dimensional lumber is utilized instead of steel. To address these concerns and allow a greater degree of flexibility in structural materials used for deer fencing, the Planning Commission recommends 18.68.10(D)3 be stricken and that front yard deer fencing be instead regulated by establishing a higher percentage of visibility through the deer fence than is otherwise proposed for rear and side yard fences. The Commission recommends Staff evaluate a range of 85-90% clear view above the regular fence height to provide a recommendation to Council a standard that minimizes the visual prominence of front yard deer fences to the greatest degree feasible. Regarding front yard deer fences the Commission expressed concerns that wire and polypropylene mesh materials with a small diameters were either too visually obstructive (e.g. wire mesh used for rodent fencing) or not durable and prone to sagging(e.g. a/" square polypropylene mesh used as bird netting), and as such these materials were considered inappropriate for use as front yard deer fencing. The Commission requests that a minimum mesh diameter be further evaluated (i.e. greater than 1.5" square) to potentially exclude the use of small diameter mesh material in front yards. The Planning Commission recommends modifying the proposed provision requiring a monofilament line atop polypropylene fences (18.68.10(D)5) to instead require all types of mesh deer fencing be constructed with a support at the top of the fence that functions to prevent sagging. In consideration of the recommendations noted above the Commission recommends the Council approve these amendments. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendment allowing eaves, awnings, and gutters to intrude up to three feet into required yards (18.68.040) provides greater latitude to design buildings in a manner that capitalize on passive solar and natural cooling opportunities. The Planning Commission recommends approval of this amendment as proposed. 2.6 The Planning Commission finds the proposed ordinance amendments allowing chicken coops and chicken runs to be maintained as accessory structures on properties containing a single family dwelling in residential districts (18.68.140 C) provides increased opportunities for the keeping of chickens and thus promotes local food production. The Planning Commission PA#2011-01731 _ Green Code Amendments February 28th,2012 Exhibit A, Page 3 recommends that structures housing chickens need not be screened from the view of the public right-of-way or adjacent properties, and as such that subsection 18.68.140(C)2e should be stricken in its entirety. In consideration of the specific recommendation noted above the Commission recommends the Council approve these amendments. 2.7 The Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments to the Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal regarding the keeping of chickens as the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance cite them by reference (I 8.68.140C3). The Commission suggested that the Council eliminate the provision that prohibited the slaughtering of chickens outdoors (9.08.040(D)3c) expressing that due to the limited number of chickens permitted on a given property (five or less) slaughtering would not be prevalent or adversely impact adjoining properties. 2.8 The Planning Commission finds the proposed amendment allowing rain barrels to be located within side and rear yard setbacks (I 8.68.140E) promotes individual water conservation practices. The Commission expressed concern that the proposed definition of rain barrels, as less than 90 gallons in size (18.08.616), may be too limiting in consideration of large capacity rain water storage systems presently available. The Commission recommends that Staff examine the size limitation as proposed in the interest of allowing larger rainwater storage systems in side and rear yard setbacks. In consideration of the specific concern noted above the Commission . recommends the Council approve these amendments. SECTION 3. DECISION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Action 42011-01731. The Planning Commission recommends the Council further consider revisions to the proposed ordinance amendments as described in Sections 2.3, 2.4. 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8. t Planning Commission Approval Date PA#2011-01731 Green Code Amendments February 28th,2012 Exhibit A: Page 4 Exhibit B Green Codes Alternative Ordinance Language The following optional amendments are presented by Staff to assist the City Council in evaluating each of the Planning Commission's recommendations (Exhibit A) and consider potential amendments intended to address their recommendations. Further,. the Legal Department has reviewed the proposed codes and has provided alternative language for the Councils consideration as presented below. Planning Commission and Legal Optional amendments to proposed ordinance } Department Recommendations Potential revisions to the originally proposed and/or Concern amendments are bolded and underlined Solar Energy Systems: Commercial and Employment building in Historic Districts No changes-recommend approval as presented • No Concerns ....... ....... General Fence Regulations: Fence Heights, Construction and Materials No changes-recommend approval as presented • No Concerns Deer Fences: D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear • Modify proposed standards for yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence front yard to ensure greater heights per 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a visibility while removing the clear view through the fence-so-that. limitation of structural support a) Within required front vards at least eighty five percent size to be less than 2"x2„ (85%) of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. • Modify proposed standards to b) Within required side and rear vards at least eighty require support to prevent all percent (80%), of the surface is-shall be unobstructed to mesh types (wire or both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane polypropylene) from sagging of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall not exceed eight (8) feet and shall not be less • Evaluate the establishment of a ! than six and a half(6 1/2 ) feet above grade. of minimum mesh size for both - wire and plastic netting. ,_other- than an I shall no! exeeed Av- 4. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, "hog panels", wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. Within front vards all mesh material shall have a minimum open diameter of one and a half(1 '/,) square inches. 5. Deer fencing reguires-a that shall be supported by structural supports or tension wire that runs along the top of the fence that supports the f"ee find to prevents sagging. 6. Chain link fences shall not be considered as deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. City Council First Reading 3/6/2012 Exhibit B: pg.1 --- ---- - - -- -- --- - -- 18.68 Keeping of chickens, 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures Accessory Structures C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained ' accessory to a single family dwelling in a residential district • Modify the proposed ordinance provided the following conditions are met: to eliminate the requirement to 1)Not more than five (5) hens, and no roosters, shall be screen chicken coops and kept on the property at any one time. chicken runs from public right 2) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as of ways and adjacent properties. follows: a) they shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. b) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in total height. c) chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area. d) chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area. er-ente 3) The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 09.08.040). 9 08.040 Keeping of Animals C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five • The Legal Department reviewed (75) feet of another dwelling, except that, notwithstanding of the Health and Sanitation AMC 18.20,020(D), chickens may be kept or maintained section and has suggested new even within said seventy-five (75) foot buffer zone provided language and reordering the each of the following requirements is continuously met provisions to provide greater inside the buffer zone: clarity. These revisions are 1. No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or provided to,the right for maintained on a single-family residential lot; Council's consideration. 2. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-familv complexes, including duplexes; 3. Chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities; 4. No roosters shall be allowed; 5. Chickens must be secured at all times and located at least twenty feet (20') from dwellings on adjoining properties: a. During non-daylight hours, chickens must be kept in a coop; b. During daylight hours, chickens shall be located in a chicken run that meets the requirements of AMC 18.68.140(C)(2) or in a securely fenced backyard; 6.To protect public health, the areas in which chickens are City Council First Reading 3/6/2012 Exhibit B: pg.2 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals (cont.) kept must be maintained in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 and the following requirements: • The Planning Commission j a. Chicken feed must be kept in rodent- and raccoon- recommended the Health and j proof containers; Sanitation section be modified b. Chicken manure must be collected, stored, and to permit outdoor slaughtering removed from the property on a regular basis in of chickens. This original accordance with the following requirements: provision is no longer included j i. All stored manure shall be within a fully-enclosed in the language provided to the container; ri ght. ii. No more than one 20-gallon container of manure shall be stored on any one property housing chickens; and iii. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed, 7.Chicken coops and runs shall be built in compliance with AMC 18.68.140(0)(2) and with all applicable building I and zoning codes; 8.Noise resulting from the keeping or maintaining of chickens must not exceed the limitations set forth in AMC 9.08.1706 Rain Barrel location in required 1 18.08.616 Rain Barrel: A barrel • th a eawke yard area j Rffuffly__&�used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. • Evaluate whether the proposed j limitation on rain barrel size (90 18.68.140 gallons) can be increased to E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation and operation is consistent with other allow larger capacity rain water i provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, and as storage systems in side and rear ! follows: yard setbacks. 1. Rain barrels shall not exceed six (6) feet in height; and 2. Rain barrels shall be located so that a minimum clear width of three (3) feet is provided and maintained between the barrel'and property line; and 3. Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. i . Eave Extensions into required yard areas • No Concerns No changes—recommend approval as presented I City Council First Reading 3/6/2012 Exhibit B: pg.3 Exhibit C ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT . STAFF REPORT February 14, 2012 PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01731 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.08 [Definitions] AMC]8.68 [General Regulations] AMC 18.72 [Site Design and Use Standards] AMC 09.08 [Health and Sanitation] REQUEST: Recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of Ordinances amending the City of Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance to provide new standards for deer fencing, the keeping of chickens, solar panels on commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated historic districts, and yard requirements relating to rain barrels and eave extensions. I. Relevant Facts A. Background Proposed are three separate ordinances intended to encourage building and land use practices that save energy and water, and increase opportunities for local food production. Each of the areas of code revision proposed appear to have widespread interest from homeowners, the public at large and individuals working in the local building trades. With the relatively minor code revisions as proposed, staff believes property owners can have more flexibility to pursue actions that increase local food production (e.g. deer fencing & keeping of chickens), decrease water consumption (e.g. harvest rainwater) and reduce energy consumption by lessoning heat gains (e.g. greater allowance for roof eaves) and address potential impediments to solar collection installation (e.g. installation in Employment and Commercially zoned Historic District properties). The Planning Commission held a study session on October 25'h, 2011 to discuss each of the areas of code revision more fully described below. At that meeting the Commission expressed support for such ordinance revisions to be brought back to the commission for consideration. The attached draft ordinance amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) address the following categories: Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 1 of 9 a • Solar Energy Systems • Fencing o Deer Fences o Fence Heights o Barbed wire, razor wire,and electric fences • Keeping of chickens • Rain Barrel location in required yard areas • Eave Extensions into required yard areas Solar Energy Systems The Oregon Legislature's 2011 session resulted in a bill (House Bill 3516) that directed jurisdictions throughout the state to permit the installation of solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy systems on commercial and residential buildings without added Planning review processes and fees. The City ordinance currently allows solar energy systems outright on all residential properties and commercial properties outside of the designated historic districts. Commercial and Employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated Historic Districts currently must obtain Site Review approval prior to installation. Under the new State law the City retains some measure of latitude to regulate installation of solar systems specifically within designated Historic Districts. In consideration of this latitude the proposed amendments would permit solar energy system installation on commercial and employment zoned properties within historic districts, without a land use review, only when all of the following conditions are met: • the system is mounted parallel to slope of the roof • the footprint of the structure is not increased; • the system does not extend above the peak height of the roof, is screened by existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from the public right of way. These amendments would facilitate the installation of solar energy systems while providing standardized requirements for the placement of such systems within Ashland's designated historic districts in a manner that minimizes their aesthetic impact to preserve the character and integrity of the historic resources. Proposed instillations that meet the criteria would be able to simply obtain building permits for the system's installation and not be subjected to a planning Site Review process or incur the cost of the planning application fee. Applicants that design a system that does not meet the provisions above would still be required to obtain Site Review approval prior to installation under the proposed code and demonstrate how the installation could not be compliant with the standards above. Numerous examples of solar energy system installations exist on commercial buildings within Ashland Historic Districts that received Site Review approval and met the standards noted above. Many installations are not visible from the street as Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 2 of 9 they are located on flat roofs and entirely screened by existing parapets such as the installation on the Standing Stone Brewery. However some installations are readily visible from the street but were mounted parallel to the slope of the roof to retain a low profile. The Historic Ashland Armory's installation is one such example as pictured below. Such installations would be permitted outright under the proposed ordinance revisions. f� i� ®i��Eta® ��r�. `�•!�I� � * x � t Historic Ashland Armory Solar Panels The Ashland Historic Commission is scheduled to review these specific changes at their regular meeting on February 8'h' 2012, and their recommendations will be presented by staff during the Planning Commission Hearing. Fences Deer Fencing The City often receives requests from property owners to increase their fence height in order to maintain their gardens and properties from the foraging of Ashland's urban deer population. The Fences section of the Land Use Code (18.68.010) currently limits the height of a fence to three and one-half feet (3 %2') in front yards, six and on-half feet (6 %z') in rear and yards, and four feet (4') within ten feet of a public street. Fencing is considered the most reliable way to exclude deer from an area however the existing fence height maximums are insufficient to limit deer access as they can readily jump over such fences. A new subsection entitled "Deer Fencing" is proposed to provide standards for fences that exceed currently allowable fence heights which are specifically designed for the purpose of protecting vegetation and gardens from deer. The proposed ordinance aims to enable the addition of fencing up to eight feet tall that maintains a clear view above the regular fence height. An eight tall foot fence is typically considered sufficient to physically exclude deer from an area. Open wire and polypropylene mesh are commonly used materials for such deer fencing and would be permitted under the proposed ordinance. As proposed section 18.68.01 OD would establish the following standards: Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department-Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 3 of 9 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence so that at least eighty percent (80%) of the surface is unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall not exceed eight (8) feet above grade. 3. Deer fencing structural supports within ten (10) feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed two (2) inches in width or depth. 4. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field fence, "hog panels'; wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. 5. Polypropylene mesh deer fencing requires a monofilament line that runs along the top of the fence that supports the fence and prevents sagging. 6. Chain link fences shall not be considered as deer fences under this I section even if they meet the criteria above. 2 " . . .. . deer fencing; OOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBIBIBBIBBI 113.5' rear or side yard front yard Fence Height Presently Chapter 18.68.010 provides standards for the maximum height of fences with the side or rear yard. These standard heights are unchanged by the proposed ordinance (excepting deer fencing as described above), however there is often confusion by applicants as to how the `.`height"of a fence is measured. Specifically questions have been continually raised regarding the application of fence height measurements along the street when a property is located below the existing street grade . To clarify within the ordinance how such heights are determined new code language is proposed within this section that would stipulate that the top of the existing sidewalk, curb, or 6" above the crown of a street (when no curb is present) can be used as the grade basis for measuring fence height. L U U C Curb Sidewalk ___________ ___ LL Street Grade Property Line Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 4 of 9 --- -n m n CD X CD Adjacent Grade _ s Natural Grade is used to determine Grade maximum fence height under the ... _ solar ordinance when fence shades a oroper v to the North. The question of how a fence height is measured when a fences is built upon a retaining wall has been another area of the code subject to interpretation. The proposed amendments aim to codify the longstanding practices the of determining height based on the highest adjacent grade. The proposed ordinance amendment further clarifies that such fence installations shall preserve the solar access of properties to the north. Barbed Wire, Razor wire, Electric Fencing The proposed ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code would repeal a section on fencing (9.08.140) which regulates use of barbed wire and electric fencing. These regulations would be relocated to the fences section within General Regulations Chapter(18.68). This relocation is intended to streamline the code and locate all regulations relating to fence materials and construction within the same section of code. Under the proposed ordinance in 18.68 the use of barbed wire, razor wire and electrical fencing would be limited as follows: • shall not be located adjacent to a sidewalk, public way, or the property line of a different property owner. • shall not be installed at less than 6 % feet above grade. • a new provision stipulating that such security fencing used on commercial, employment and industrial properties shall not be visible from the public right of way. o An allowance is provided that if the Community Development Director determines a commercial, employment or industrial property is hazardous, or in need of additional security, such fencing may be installed however such fences would still be subject to the prohibitions noted in the two proceeding bullet points above. Keeping of Chickens Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 5 of 9 To allow the keeping of chickens within on single family properties within the City, two separate sections of the Ashland Municipal Code need to be amended. The Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) includes a Nuisances subsection that specifically addresses the requirements for the keeping of animals within the City. The second code provision to be amended is found within the Land Use Code concerning Accessory Structures and Buildings (Ch. 18..68.140). Amending the Accessory Buildings and Structures subsection is necessary to provide clear standards for the minimum distance between chicken enclosures (coops and runs) and adjacent dwellings, and to delineate the allowable sizes for the structures built to house chickens. Health and Sanitation The AMC code section on the Keeping q Animals (9.08.040) currently precludes any poultry from being located within 75'of another dwelling. Given the lot sizes of the typical single family property in Ashland this provision alone limits the ability of the majority of residents from specifically raising chickens for food production on their properties. Further the existing code does not provide for standards to keep chickens in an environment that is clean and protects the welfare of the animals. An ordinance is proposed which amends section 9.08.040 to allow specifically for the keeping of chickens provided the following conditions are met: • no more than 5 hens (no roosters) are permitted • chickens kept are for personal use (not commercial). • chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors. • chickens are secured at all times o during daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard o during night within a coop o coops and runs shall be constructed in accordance with the section on accessory structures to be a minimum of 20' from dwellings on adjoining properties and not exceed six feet in height (18.68.140 amendments) • feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. • manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in an enclosed container(not more than 20 gallons) until removed. As drafted the amendments apply exclusively to chickens. All other poultry such as geese, ducks, and turkeys would still be held to the existing ordinance requirement that they be no closer than 75' from a dwelling. Review and recommendations regarding amendments to AMC Chapter 9 fall outside of the Planning Commission's powers and duties, however this ordinance is presented for consideration as it directly relates to the Chapter 18 ordinance amendments described below. Accessory Structures (chicken coops and runs) The proposed amendments to the Accessory Buildings and Structures section of the Land Use Code (18.68.040D) would require such structures built to house chickens meet the following requirements: Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 6 of 9 • contain no more than 5 hens on any property. • shall be at least 20 feet away from any dwelling on an adjoining property. • shall be less than six feet (6) in height • chicken coops shall be less than 40 square fee in area, and chicken run enclosures shall not exceed 100 square feet in size. • shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and the public right of way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping. t 4 t'f 3 ft 3 ft. minimum G�p(J setback GMIGKen Note: The graphic above shows the reduced yard requirements currently codified (I 8.68.140D)which allows three foot(3')side and rear yard setbacks for any accessory structure that is further than 50' from a street (other than an alley), at least 10' from other buildings,and less than 15' in height. It is anticipated that many chicken coops would be eligible for this reduced setback. Rain Barrels The proposed amendments would allow rain barrels to be located within a property's side or rear yard. A new definition for Rain Barrels is proposed as follows: "A barrel with a capacity of ninety (90)gallons or less used to collect and store rain water runo. from rooftops via rain gutters for non potable use." Barrels come in various sizes with a standard barrel being 55 gallons and most ready-made rain barrel kits having a 65 gallon capacity. The Accessory Buildings and Structures section of the Land Use Code is amended to allow rain barrels (I 8.68.040E) within side or rear yards provided they installed so that every attempt is made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. Eave Extensions To provide for greater latitude to design buildings that capitalize on passive solar and natural cooling opportunities, an ordinance amendment is proposed to allow eaves to extend up to three feet into required setbacks. Presently the code allows eaves to encroach up to 18 inches, which may be insufficient in some cases to optimize passive cooling opportunities. A relatively straight forward amendment to the Yard Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department-Green Codes 2012 Staff Repotl Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 7 of 9 Requirements subsection (18.68.04) would specifically allow Eaves, Awnings, and Gutters, to intrude up to three feet (3') into required yards. II. Procedural The procedure for a legislative amendment is described in 18.108.170 as follows: A. It may be necessary.from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. III. Conclusions and Recommendations The recommended zoning and ordinance amendments are intended to support community efforts to pursue local food production and to reduce energy and water use. Promoting such sustainable food practices and conservation efforts are in the best interest of the City and the ordinance amendments proposed will remove identified regulatory barriers that otherwise limit such opportunities. Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amendments. Potential Motion Two separate motions (one for each Chapter 18 Land Use ordinance) Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 8 of 9 Move to recommend approval to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to exempt solar energy systems meeting specific standards from Site Review Requirements. Move to recommend approval to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapters 18.08 and 18.68 to establish standards for deer fencing, yard requirements relating to eaves, and standards for accessory structures including chicken enclosures and rain barrels. Attached: • Ordinance amending Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] and 18.68 [General Regulations] • Ordinance amending Chapter 18.72 [Site Design and Use Standards] • Ordinance amending Chapter 9.08 [Health and Sanitation] • Planning Commission 10/25/2011 Study Session Minutes • DRAFT Rain Barrel Guide Planning Action PA 2011-01731 Ashland Planning Department—Green Codes 2012 Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Exhibit C- Page 9 of 9 Exhibit D Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location Green Codes 2012 I. Solar Energy Systems Current Standard • Requires commercial and employment zoned properties in historic districts to obtain Site Review approval to install solar energy systems. New Standard • Allows commercial and employment zoned properties in historic districts to install solar energy systems without planning approval provided specific standards are met. Area covered: Commercial and Employment zoned properties within Ashland's Historic Districts. A " ODesignated Historic Districts _ Commercial and Employment Properties h U Hersey St. mg� — r di 0 1 s Exhibit D: pg.1 II. Fencing Current Standard • Defines fence height in relation to "natural grade" and does not address the circumstances of properties located below existing street grades.. • Does not define how height is measured in relation to retaining walls and in consideration of maintaining solar access for properties to the North. • Maximum height of any fence is limited to 6 '/ feet in rear and side yards, and a maximum of 3 '/z in front yards, and thus "deer fencing" is not permitted in excess of the allowable heights New Standard • Provides a definition as to how to measure fence height and provides graphic examples. • Allows a new fence type "Deer Fencing" to be up to 8' tall when constructed to meet specified standards. • Consolidates various fence provisions into one section (18.68) relocating the existing fence standards from the water resources protection zone ordinance (18.63), Physical and Environmental Constraints Flood plain section (18.62), and Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08.140), Area covered: • Fencing standards apply City wide in all zones. III. Keeping of Chickens Current Standard • No person shall maintain poultry within 75' of another dwelling. This standard essentially limits the ability to raise chickens for egg production to only households occupying large lots. New Standards • Specifically distinguishes the keeping of chickens as separate from other poultry and provides new standards for the location of chicken enclosures and the maintenance of the environment where chickens are kept as listed below:. • no more than 5 hens(no roosters) are permitted • chickens kept are for personal use (not commercial). • chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors. • chickens are secured at all times • during daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard • during night within a coop • coops and runs shall be constructed in accordance with the section on accessory structures to be a minimum of 20'from dwellings on adjoining properties and not exceed six feet in height(18.68.140 amendments) Exhibit D: pg.2 • feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. • manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in an enclosed container (not more than 20 gallons) until removed. Area covered: • Residentially zoned properties occupied by a single dwelling provided the special setback requirements could be met on the subject property (minimum 20' from adjoining dwelling). • Chicken Coops could not be maintained as accessory structures on commercial, employment, industrial, health care, SOU zoned properties, or on multifamily properties containing more than one dwelling. IV. Rain Barrels Current Standard • There is no current standard specifically addressing rain barrels. Currently they would be considered structures subject to the base setback requirements within a zone. New Standards • Defines a rain barrel as a rainwater collection devise that captures roof runoff and is less than 90 gallons in size • Allows rain barrels to be located within required side or rear yard setbacks. • Establishes that every attempt shall be made to screen rain barrels from view. Area covered: • Rain Barrels would be permitted in all zoning districts City wide. V. Eave Extensions into required yard setback. Current Standard • Eaves, awnings, and gutters can only extend 18".into required setbacks. New Standards • Allows Eaves, awnings, and gutters to extend up to three feet into required yard areas. Area covered: • As a change to general regulations this change would apply to all zones City wide. Existing Building Code issues relating to firewall protection and overhangs within three feet of a property line would still apply. Exhibit D: pg.3 Exhibit E Deer Fencing Illustrations The following illustrations were presented by Dale Shostrom during the Planning Commission Public Hearing on 2/14/2012. These drawings illustrate how a requisite percentage of the surface being unobstructed to both light and air would affect design alternatives. 9b Yd Opp'M ASV, 3,4, 6�i'' 2K2e 46°o.c.fn )� 51EFJ WiM ZW F i d f., 'M w 81�� Exhibit E pg.1 �lo OWJ A& - 31-to \ rl g�-OUMhY 2118 2101 , 7i� -r. �,f,.,`�.�� •.- axe+-.!- �J , J �k i� M , ItL 1 Exhibit E pg.2 $2% OPEnI W. 31� El "WiDa IV"z11" I 8 91� -fi Exhibit E pg.3 Subsequent to the Planning Commission 2/14 meeting Mr. Shostrom provided the following calculations to further illustrate how existing fences within Ashland would be evaluated in considerations of the minimum visibility percentages proposed. Example A (High Street) 4 l J 1 40O MA-14 Any lop - - !- -=r- WIAQK) A*,M-it T MOST DfoJSE I , a i p 3' =13Age �9oT tz lb 'Sdq� .Nf015S i ,� i n 8 Exhibit E pg.4 Example B (Pine Street) =r r . ■ yr_ DIN (3Yi 'j l Wes, P 7�+r. A4X4 = 39 XIVI 4i' ) �_: _{�... _rSr ZX4 z tWA'1zao): 30' EVIC 687. } Mz 01) 3 ' WDO Z�I,�SF 19,5 ., x $�"�� aP Exhibit E pg.5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES February 14, 2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Richard Kaplan Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: Eric Heesacker Russ Silbiger, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh and Community Development Director Bill Molnar reviewed the Commission's upcoming meeting schedule. Commissioner Marsh suggested the Commission hold their annual retreat in May and asked the members to check their schedules. She also noted the vacancy on the Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit applications to the Mayor's office. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. January 10, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2. January 24,2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote:all AYES. Motion passed 5.0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011.01699, 763&777 Jefferson Avenue(Brammo Motorsports) Ex Parte Contact: Commissioner Mindlin stated at the Commission's Joint Meeting with the Transportation Commission,Zach Brombacher made a comment questioning why the Planning Commission would approve this application without first looking at the transportation issues on Washington Street. No ex parte contact was reported by Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller or Marsh. Commissioners Miller/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011-01699.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5.0. Commissioner Marsh commented on the issue raised by Mindlin and clarified there was extensive consideration of the transportation network when the Brammo property was annexed into the City a few years ago. Mr. Molnar agreed with Commissioner Marsh and added there was also a limited traffic impact analysis submitted with this current application. He stated the street network has been evaluated and the biggest issue long tens is whether future interchange improvements will restrict access in and out of Washington Street. Ashland Planning Commission Febromy 14, 2012 Page 1 of 5 a B. Pedestrian Places—Continue Public Hearing to February 28, 2012. Commissioners KaplanlMiller m/s to continue the public hearing to the February 28, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011.01731 DESCRIPTION:Amendments to the Ashland Land Use Ordinance(ALUO) including Chapters 18.08 [Definitions], 18.68 [General Regulations], 18.72(Site Review),and Chapter 9.08[Keeping of Animals]. The proposed amendments provide new standards to allow deer fencing,the keeping of chickens, rainwater harvesting,greater eave extensions, and the installation of solar panels within historic districts. The Planning Commission will review the ordinance amendments and make recommendations to the Ashland City Council. Mr. Molnar stated this work is prompted by the Council Goal to promote sustainability and green building. He stated this is an opportunity to look at minor code revisions that provide incentives for more green development and the changes put forward focus on energy efficiency, local food production,water conservation, and address some of the repeated questions staff receives from the public. Staff Report Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the proposed ordinances address solar energy systems, rain barrels,keeping of chickens,eave extensions,and fencing, and provided a brief overview of each code section. Solar Energy Systems Mr. Goldman stated the proposed amendment would allow commercial and employment zoned properties in historic districts to install solar energy systems without having to obtain site review approval if the following three conditions are met: 1)the system is mounted parallel to the slope of the roof, 2)the footprint of the structure is not exceeded,and 3)the system does not extend above the peak height of the roof, is screened by existing parapets,or is otherwise not visible from the public right of way. Mr. Goldman noted the proposed amendment was taken before the Historic Commission for review,since it directly pertains to historic districts, and the Commission raised no objection. Rain Barrels Mr. Goldman stated this is another minor change that would allow homeowners to capture some of the stor mwater runoff from their roofs. He explained this code amendment defines a rain barrel as "a barrel with a capacity of 90-gallons or less used to collect and store rainwater runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use". He added the 90-gallon definition comes from the building code,and clarified anything larger than 90-gallons is defined as a cistern in the building code and additional building code requirements apply,Mr.Goldman stated the code change allows rain barrels to be located within the property's side or rear yard, and requires property owners to make every attempt to place the rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. Commissioner Mindlin questioned why the code amendment limits the size of the rain barrel to 90-gallons. Mr. Goldman stated this figure was included because anything larger than 90-gallons is considered a cistern and requires a building permit. Mindlin stated there are 350-gallon barrels that fit under the eaves, and if the intent is to keep barrels within a certain distance from the property line the language should clarity this and they should allow larger barrels. She also questioned staffs statement that permits are required for larger barrels. Keeping of Chickens Mr. Goldman stated this amendment aims to address local food production opportunities and provided a brief review of the current requirements for keeping chickens within the city limits. He stated the proposed amendments address the health and sanitation section of the code, as well as accessory structures and buildings. Mr. Goldman reviewed the recommended changes for the two sections of the code: • Health&Sanitation -AMC 9.08: 1) no more than five hens are permitted (no roosters), 2)chickens are kept for personal use(not commercial), 3)chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors,4)chickens must be secured at all times(during the daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard, and within a coop at night), 5)feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof Ashland Pianning Commission February 14. 2012 Page 2 o/5 containers,and 6)manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in an enclosed container(not more than 20-gallons)until removed. • Accessory Structures&Buildings—AMC 18.68.170: 1)shall be at least 20 feet away from any dwelling on an adjoining property, 2)shall be less than six feet in height, 3)chicken coops shall be less than 40 sq.ft. in area, and chicken run enclosures shall not exceed 100 sq. ft. in size, and 4) structures shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and the public right of way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping. Commissioner Dawkins questioned whether they should require chicken runs to be screened. Mr. Goldman stated this is how the ordinance is drafted but the Commission can recommend changes if they do not agree with this provision. He also clarified how the 6-foot maximum structure height is measured and suggestion was made to amend 18.68.140(C)2.b to read "structures shall not exceed six feet in total height". Commissioner Dawkins questioned the slaughtering provision that prohibits this from being done outdoors and stated not many people would want to do this inside. He added since they are limiting it to five chickens, he does not believe people will be doing a lot of slaughtering. Commissioner Miller commented on the odor produced by manure and asked if homeowners can discard this material with the normal garbage pickup. Mr. Goldman stated he can look into whether Recology will pick up this material,and noted there is already a provision in the Nuisance Chapter regarding odors. Eave Extensions Mr. Goldman stated this is a simple change. He explained the current code allows eaves to encroach up to 18 inches, and the proposed change would allow eaves, awnings, and gutters to intrude up to 3 feet into required yards. Fencing Mr. Goldman stated the three main issues are fence heights,fencing materials, and deer fencing;and provided an overview of each area. He stated the current code language provides a clear definition of fence height, but this ordinance provides further clarification for fences that are on properties that are below street grade and fences on retaining walls. Regarding fencing materials, he stated the majority of the proposed security fencing language already exists in the code and this ordinance would just move it to the land use general regulations section. The one addition is the language that states on commercial, employment,and industrial properties such fencing shall not be visible from the right-of-way or with approval on properties deemed hazardous or in need of additional security. Mr. Goldman commented on the proposed deer fencing amendments and provided several photos of various deer fencing treatments being used throughout town. He stated staff is recommending property owners be allowed to build up to an 8 foot fence in front, side or rear yards,with 80%visibility through the open mesh deer fencing material.Additionally,any structural supports within 10 feet of a public right of way, other than an alley,cannot exceed 2 inches in width or depth. He clarified chain link fences are not permitted, and if propylene mesh is used there must be a tension line across the top. Comment was made questioning the 2"x2"supports. Mr. Goldman stated 2"x2"posts are sufficient to keep deer out of a property and the smaller post size also addresses the opacity issue. Dale Shostrom/1240 Tolman Creek/Stated he reviewed this item when it was presented to the Historic Commission and commented on his experience with deer fencing. He noted he performed a tour this morning and commented on the variety of materials he saw being used. He stated very often property owners are choosing to use very flimsy materials and supports and questioned if this is because people are unsure if the City will require them to take it down and therefore do not want to invest a lot of time or money. Mr. Shostrom provided several fencing samples for the Commission to view, including: rodent fencing,chicken fencing, welded wire mesh,horse fencing,field fencing, cattle fencing, and hog fencing. He commented on the size of the posts and stated he saw lots of different sizes and shapes when he conducted his tour. He questioned what the appropriate size should be, and noted from a distance you do not detect the fencing or mesh materials and only notice the posts. Mr. Shostrom stated the 2" verticals could be too limiting and recommended the opacity requirement be based on the entire structure. He provided several drawings that contained different fencing styles and post sizes but would still meet the 80%opacity intent. He added the code should be simple enough to allow some design flexibility for professionals, but also simple enough_for homeowners to install a deer fence themselves. Ashland Planning Commission Februnty 14, 2012 Page 3 o/5 1 Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Commissioner Dawkins voiced concern with the aesthetics of some of the existing front yard deer fences. Commissioner Marsh agreed and stated she is not as concerned with side or rear yard fencing, but even a wonderfully designed front yard fence can have a big impact in the way the streetscape feels. She voiced her opinion that the code be more generous in rear and side yards, and more specific for front yards. Several suggestions were proposed by the commissioners, including:excluding arterials from the front yard fencing provision,encouraging compatibility between existing fences and the deer fencing, and prohibiting bird netting. The Commission briefly discussed the 2"x2" post size limitation. Comment was made that this is not heavy enough and perhaps 4"x4" posts should be allowed.Commissioner Marsh commented that front yard fencing should be as inconspicuous as possible and suggesting limiting the post size to 2"x2"for front yards only. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Marsh recommended the group worked through each issue one at a time. • Solar Energy Systems: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment. • Fence Height: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment. • Fence Materials: Commissioner Marsh noted this is the relocation of existing language regarding security fencing. No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment. • Keeping of Chickens: Commissioner Dawkins objected to the requirement for fencing or screening chickens from public view. Mr. Goldman stated staff s concern was making sure the structure is screened from view and stated this could be accomplished by using plants, vegetation, hedges, etc. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is not in favor of a screening requirement for side or rear yards but is unsure about front yards. Mr. Goldman noted the proposed ordinance already states that chicken coops and chicken runs shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least 20 feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. Commissioner Dawkins recommended they delete 18.68.140(C)2.e,which states "structures shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and the public nght-of-way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping to create an opaque screen."The Commission voiced support for removing`this language from the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Dawkins also recommended they remove the slaughtering requirement(9.08.040(D)4.c). Comment was made that there is an existing process for people to report concerns under the nuisance ordinance. Dawkins stated the ordinance places a limit on the number of chickens a person can keep and most people will not slaughter more than one chicken at a time. The Commission voiced their support for removing the slaughtering requirement from the proposed ordinance. • Eave Extensions: No concerns or objections were raised to the proposed code amendment., • Rain Barrels: Commissioner Mindlin stated she has a difference of opinion with staff that needs to be researched and stated she is resistant to making it more difficult to install a rain barrel than it is now. Mr. Goldman clarified under the current standards if someone proposed even a 50-gallon barrel attached to the wall in the side yard setback they would not be allowed to do so. Mindlin asked what would happen if the barrel was not in the side yard setback and staff clarified this provision would not apply and this requirement only addresses structures placed within the setback area. Mr. Molnar added the main question is how big of a structure is the Commission comfortable allowing in a setback area, and staff has proposed a 90-gallon limit. Mindlin noted there are larger water containers available that are specifically designed to fit within the intent of the language and questioned why they would want to prohibit them. Mr. Molnar noted the weight with larger containers can be an issue, especially if it is placed close to the foundation and not property placed or secured. Mindlin stated she would like to obtain additional information on this subject and would like to hear from building staff and professionals that are working in the field regarding this issue. Ashland Planning Commission Fabr'uaty 14. 2012 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Marsh recommended they move forward and come back to this issue later. She stated approving this would allow people to do something that is currently prohibited, and the Commission can continue research on expanding the size of the containers. Mindlin suggested they more clearly define what the intent is, such as not more than (x)feet in height and not closer than(x)feet from the setback. Commissioner Marsh asked if the Commission was comfortable moving this amendment forward but including a recommendation that staff look into the capacity issue before this goes before Council for review. The Commission voiced support for forwarding this language to the Council and for staff to look into whether the size of the barrel can be expanded and still meet the intent of the amendment. • Deer Fencing: Commissioner Marsh suggested increasing the deer fencing opacity requirement in front yards to 90%and removing the 2"x2"support requirement.Additional recommendation was made for the Commission to limit the mesh size and have a 2 inch minimum. Commissioner Miller suggested deer fencing in front yards should incorporate elements of the existing fence, and recommended an 85%-90%opacity requirement. The Commission continued their discussion and agreed that they are not concerned with rear or side yards. In regards to the compatibility recommendation, Mr. Goldman suggested including language that states"every effort be made to use compatible materials with the existing fence". Mr. Molnar clarified fence permits are a ministerial permit and stated judgment calls on a counter permit could be problematic and recommended against this. Commission Marsh suggested a handout be provided with the fence permit encouraging compatibility and the Commission voiced their support for this. The Commission continued their deliberations on deer fencing and recommendation was made to eliminate 18.68.010.D.3, which states"deer fencing structural supports within 10 feet of a public right of way, other than an alley, shall not exceed 2 inches in width or depth"and requiring a 85-90%opacity for front yard deer fencing. The Commission voiced their support for this change and including a recommendation for materials to be handed out at the counter that encourage design compatibility. , Commissioners DawkinslMindlin m/s to forward this item to the Council with the recommendations as discussed.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ash/and Planning Commission February 14, 2012 Page 5 of 5 ( C I T Y OF ASHLAND DRAFT ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 8,2012 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER- REGULAR MEETING. 6:00 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Tom Giordano,Allison Renwick, Kerry Kencairn, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, Tobin Fisher Commission Members Absent: Ally Phelps Council Liaison: Michael Moms High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter; Clerk: Billie Boswell APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Renwick moved to approve the January 4, 2012 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Whitford and was approved unanimously. Mr. Whitford moved to approve the December 7, 2012 minutes. . The motion was seconded by Mr. Swink and was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: No one in the audience wished to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Mike Moms-No report. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01656 (Continuation) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 159 Alida APPLICANT: Erika Kamitz DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review permit for a 400 square foot accessory residential unit to be constructed in the garage off of the alley for the property located at 159 Alida Street. No additions to the unit are proposed. The applicant also is requesting an administrative exception to side yard buffering requirements and to not pave the parking spaces. Chairman Shostrom confirmed there were no conflicts of interest or exparte contact. Ms. Gunter went over the additional plans and detail supplied by the applicant. Chairman Shostrom asked if the lean-to structure would remain. Ms. Gunter said it would stay and be used for bike parking. There was discussion regarding the lack of a sense of entry off the alley but concluded it was OK because it was an alley. Mr. Skibby made a motion to recommend approval of the project as presented. Mr. Fisher seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2011-01656(Continued) SUBJECT PROPERTY: 181 Morse APPLICANT: Reichenshammer Building Design for the Malm's DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to exceed the Maximum Permitted Floor Area (MPFA)within a Historic District by 9 percent or 262 square feet to allow for a 699 square foot addition to the existing 488 square foot cottage. Properties in the Historic Districts are allowed a specific square footage of structures in relationship to the size of the parcel. The removal of a six-inch in diameter at breast height apple tree is also requested to be removed. Ms. Gunter pointed out the changes made by the applicants to apply the suggestions of the Historic Commission. The net resulted in 20 square feet less than originally than originally requested to exceed MPFA. There were several comments from the Commissioners praising how well the applicants responded to the suggestions and how well the final design turned out. Mr. Giordano made a motion to recommend approval of the project as amended. Ms Renwick seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Giordano thanked the applicants for their cooperation. PLANNING ACTION: 2012-0001 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 237 B St. APPLICANT: Schnitzer DESCRIPTION: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing office in the R-2 zoning district into a 3-unit Travelers Accommodation located at 237 B Street. The proposal will create four off-street parking spaces in the rear of the property off of the alley. No exterior additions or modifications to the structure are proposed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low-Density Multi-Family; ZONING: R-2;ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA; TAX LOT: 5400 Ms. Gunter explained that the interior spaces would be repurposed to create the three units including an additional bath. Chairman Shostrom asked about exterior changes.A rear doorway and stairs would be removed and the exterior wall closed in. There was also discussion about the interior bathrooms and their accessibility to the guests. There being no further questions and no one in the audience wishing to speak,the public hearing was closed. Ms. Kencaim made a motion to recommend approval of the project as presented. Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule February 91^ Terry, Keith,Allison February 161h Terry, Kerry, Tobin February 231 Terry, Tom, Sam March 1st Tegy,Ally, Dale March 8th Terry, Keith,Tobin Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2292012 CITY OF ASHLAND B. Project Assi nments for Planning Actions—no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bld s Recession Extension?roved)) Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W (formerly 165 Lithia Archerd 8 Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 7/2sq) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(untler wnstrudon) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet;expired 827110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer Deli Terrell Previous ownertaking back ownership 8 fixing) Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR Ready to issue Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales(appealed-bldg ermit issued 8-25-11 Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch &food truck no Remo Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR issued 2-17-12 Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building near C of 0 Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth) Solar Variance issued?-15-11 Phelps PL-2011-01781 191 Oak St(Cycle Sport)Site Design for enlarging garage issued 1-31-12 Kencaim PL-2011-01656 181 Morse(Malms) CUP to exceed MPFA for ARU Fisher NEW BUSINESS: A. Solar Panel Green Code Update—Brandon Goldman explained a Municipal Code amendment to allow solar energy systems in Commercial and Employment zoning within the Historic District. If 3 design criteria are met, site review would be waived. The criteria would apply as long as the energy system cannot be seen above a parapet or from a public right-of-way. If it goes through Planning Commission and City Council it could be in place by early May. The amendments also include allowing a 3'encroachment into setbacks for eaves;deer fencing;and rainwater systems in setbacks. Any concerns or comments need to be submitted to Planning Commission by 2-14-2012. B. Historic Preservation Week—Ms. Gunter said the theme of this year's event is"Discover America's Hidden Gems". She asked for ideas for our event. Mr. Skibby suggested tying into the Ashland Library's 100'^ Anniversary. Ms. Renwick suggested a picture gallery. Ms. Kencaim thought a Cemetery Clean-up Day should be included. Mr. Skibby said he would do a walking tour. It was suggested that the theme be to highlight some of the"quirkey"history of Ashland. The third week in May was selected and the award ceremony location was discussed. Incorporating the Railroad Museum was also suggested. There was discussion of coordinating with the"Meet the Pioneers"organizers. It was also suggested that the Historic Preservation League be asked to host a workshop. Mr. Skibby and Mr. Shostrom said they would look into the Ashland Library and the Railroad Museum as possible meeting sites. Ms. Boswell will prepare a nominations list for eligible award projects completed in the Historic District over the past 2 years. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Ms. Gunter said she would arrange a tour of the Gun Club for mid to late April. ADJOURNMENT: It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2/29/2012 D p r� BARREL GUIDE f kz;t r f ( t -� .. i••. . .- r �r; `�, te L✓ �l � � � �i7. � .�Uyyr ( � IFS.. � t � �. c� ��'." _� of -� ✓ ' �. r� p`x is t I➢ 'V �•_ CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development r v (541) 488-5305 ti y, www.ashland.or.us '. Rain Barrel Guide What is a rain barrel? A rain barrel is a simple rainwater collector that captures and stores a portion of the runoff from a roof downspout for non-potable, exterior uses, such as irrigation. Rain barrels come in a wide variety of materials, designs, and colors. Rain barrels used for residential landscape watering range in size from as small as 30 gallons to as much as a thousand gallons in capacity. They are usually installed on the ground next to buildings. A rain barrel is not a stormwater disposal method, but is a way to capture a small fraction of the rainwater that flows off your roof. The rest of the runoff will still need to go to an approved stormwater discharge location. Are there incentives to installing a rain barrel? Using rain barrels to temporarily store and reuse rainwater can conserve drinking water by providing a water source for gardens. Capturing and reusing rainwater from your roof surfaces also reduces demand on the sewer system and protects the quality of streams and groundwater. Step 1: OBSERVE YOUR SITE To determine if a rain barrel is right for your property, the first step is to identify your sites drainage conditions. Answer the questions below as you walk around your property. Where does the runoff from your roof area go now? Sketch a site plan. Mark the locations of downspouts and roof lines, estimate the square footage of your roof and paved areas, and map where all these areas drain. Downspout Locations a qqqp LP _ Il�l�il�Il I' jA Rain Barrel located in side or rear yard and screened from view of neighbors and street 1 Rain Barrel Guide Where would you like to locate your rain barrel? Install your rain barrel based on where you will use the water in your yard and in a location where it is screened from view by your neighbors or the public street. Keep in mind that it may be possible to rehang the gutter and move the downspout to a more desirable location. The rain barrel must be located at the base of one of the downspouts draining your roof gutter. This is the downspout you will work with. Where does that downspout currently drain? The downspout you will divert to your rain barrel probably drains into a standpipe or to your yard. This is the stormwater discharge point and is the same location where the rain barrel should overflow to. If you wish to change your stormwater discharge point, please refer to step 2. Step 2: PLAN YOUR RAIN BARREL Rainwater collection for residential, external, non-potable uses such as irrigation, do not require a city permit, but there are still design considerations to follow. Overflow All rainwater collection systems must have an overflow to a safe disposal location. The average residential roof generates about 30,000 gallons of rainfall runoff every year, and an average 55 gallon rain barrel captures only a fraction of that. Even if you have multiple rain barrels, you must have an overflow to a safe discharge location. If your rain barrel overflows into the standpipe, be sure the overflow pipe is attached and sealed to the standpipe discharge location opening. If the downspout to be connected to your rain barrel currently drains to a surface infiltration area in your yard, the overflow from your rain barrel should also discharge to that location. Safety Considerations • Your rain barrel must be secured on a firm, level surface. A full 55-gallon rain barrel weighs over 400 lbs. and tipping is a risk if it's unsecured or on uneven ground. • The barrel must be structurally sound and should be a food-grade container made to hold liquid. Containers such as trash cans are not designed to withstand the pressure of the water. • The barrel must have a lid and a sturdy fine mesh covering all openings to prevent mosquitoes and debris from getting inside. • The water from the rain barrel should never be used for drinking, cooking or other potable uses. • Your rain barrel must have an overflow to a safe discharge point. • If you use a moss-control product on your roof, be sure to use a product that is garden-safe. Larger or more complex systems More complex rainwater collection systems have a much larger storage container (a cistern), and/or use pumps to move water to desired locations. Some use their captured rain water indoors for toilet flushing. These projects involve factors not applicable to simple rain barrels, such as plumbing and electrical work, soil excavation, or concrete foundations and other structural components. For rainwater collection projects of this scale, you should consult a professional to review design, construction, and safety considerations. Rain Barrel Guide Step 3: CONSTRUCTION Many nurseries and yard supply stores sell fully assembled rain barrels, but you can get an unmodified barrel and convert it into a rain barrel yourself. Assemble your tools and supplies then follow the construction steps on the following pages. Gutter Inlet Downspout Security Strap Outlet all /(spigot) a rre Overflow. - Diseharge Raised Level Locatlon Base Tools If you build your own rain barrel: To disconnect downspout and attach • drill to rain barrel: • inch hole saw for overflow pipe • hacksaw • one-inch spade bit for spigot 0 drill • tin snips or heavy-duty 0 tape measure scissors for cutting screen 0 screwdriver or nut driver • adjustable wrench 0 pliers or crimpers • utility knife • safety glasses Materials • One 55 to 90-gallon food grade plastic barrel (can be found online or at local restaurant suppliers, nurseries, or gardening supply stores) The following items can be found at most plumbing or hardware stores: • hose spigot with 3/4 inch threaded inlet and 3/4 inch male hose end • two 3/4 inch galvanized locknuts to secure spigot from the inside of the barrel • four 1-inch (opening) washers to provide rigid surface to fasten hose bib • Teflon tape • silicon adhesive or outdoor caulking • two 8"x 8" x 12" concrete or wooden blocks • window screen mesh (enough to cover the barrel opening) • downspout elbow to route the downspout to the barrel • clincher strap (attaches downspout and barrel to house) • small pieces of wood blocking to use behind clincher strap (if necessary) • any additional materials necessary for the overflow location • 1/4" #6 sheet metal screws for downspout • 3/4" screws for clincher strap • 2" overflow pipe fittings Rain Barrel Guide Construction in 7 Easy Steps 1 Inlet: Create an opening with fine screening through which the rain barrel will collect water from the downspout elbow. This can be a single screened opening large enough to accommodate the downspout elbow, or a series of smaller screened openings directly in the top of the barrel. 2 Overflow: Drill a hole near the top of the barrel to accommodate an overflow pipe that is at least 2 inches in diameter. If the overflow pipe elbow seals and seats securely, it can be threaded directly into the barrel opening. If not, it should be secured with washers on both sides of the barrel and a nut on the inside. Use Teflon tape around the threads and a bead of silicon caulking around the opening to ensure a tight seal. 3 Foundation: Create a raised, stable, level base (like concrete blocks) for the rain barrel to sit on. You might want to test stability by filling the rain barrel with water before attaching to your structure. A full rain barrel is very heavy and tipping is a risk if it's unsecured or on an uneven surface. 4 Downs: Cut the downspout with a hacksaw so that the elbow will sit just above the rain barrel inlet. Attach the elbow over the downspout with a screw and secure the downspout to the house with the strap. 5 Attach Barrel: Set up the barrel beneath the elbow and secure the barrel to the house with a strap. Cut and attach the overflow pipe to the overflow elbow and direct to the existing discharge location. 6 Outlet: Drill a hole near the bottom of the empty barrel to attach the drain spigot. If the spigot seals and seats securely, it can be threaded directly into the barrel opening. If not, it should be secured with washers on both sides of the barrel and a nut on the inside. Use Teflon tape around the threads and a bead of silicon caulking around the opening to ensure a tight seal. 7 Use: After a rainfall, fill a watering can using the bottom spigot or attach a hose to use the water where it's needed. Rain Barrel Guide Step 4: MAINTENANCE Simple maintenance of your stormwater system can prevent problems. • Clean gutters at least twice a year, more often if you have trees. • Make sure gutters are tilted to direct water to downspouts and fix low spots or sagging areas along the gutter line with spikes or place new hangers as needed. • Make sure roof flashing directs water into the gutter. • Make sure all parts are securely fastened together and the rain barrel is securely fastened to the building. • Clean out the rain barrel and check for leaks at least once a year. Check and clear downspout elbows, rain barrel screening, and overflow to prevent clogging. Caulk any gutter, downspout, barrel, and overflow leaks and holes. • Make sure the rain barrel remains securely screened to prevent mosquito entry. • If overflow is to a surface infiltration area, monitor the overflow area and regrade soil if necessary to make sure water drains away from structures and does not flow onto pavement, sidewalks, or neighboring properties. The materials provided in this Guide are for informational purposes only. Please consult with the Building Division regarding any specific questions regarding ap- plicable Building Codes. CITY OF ASHLAND Department of Community Development 51 Winburn Way, Ashland (541) 488-5305 www.ashland.or.us. Cab u • fl7�tl9 February 15, 2012 To Mayor and City Council, I am writing in regards to the poultry ordinance and requesting that it be revised to make it less restrictive for people in the city to have urban chickens.The current ordinance requiring 75 ft. from other dwellings makes someone on almost every block of Ashland in violation. Chicken have become a common species in urban yards, encouraging modem sustainablity. The ordinance should be mainly in accord to odor and cleanliness, not distance. I was recently reviewed the rules by Kip due to a neighbor(I believe three homes away) who had reported my chickens, not due to odor, filth, or loose chickens, but due to me humanely trapping her cat that was trying to attack the chickens in my-fenced property and taking it to aniinal control. I had previously asked my immediate neighbors if they had cats due to watching two cats chase the chickens, they had none. We did not know who's cat it was until animal control was able to safely remove the ca[ from the cage and read the collar. Lies were made by this person or animal control to make us look horrible (claiming we were going to shoot cats in our back yard [per Kip], which we would never due and never said). We did everything right. Hav-a-hart trap and off to animal control. The cat was trespassing on our property. Even if we didn't have chickens we do not allow cats in our yard. Unlike chickens that poop in your own yard and you scoop it up and fertilize a tree or two, cats are pooping in everyone's yard and flower bed and you get the pleasure of finding their excrement when you do the hand weeding. We don't really.like that, not to mention cat feces is dangerous and can cause women to miscarry during pregnancy as well as spread many other diseases. I keep my chickens secured in a fully fenced yard and a coon and cat proof coop at night. The area is clean and the hens help me create natural compost for our yard and garden rather than chemicals, they eat all our produce scraps eliminating lots of garbage, keep the bugs and weeds down in the yard, and of course nourish us with food every morning. 1 ask that the council lift the 75 feet rule. This complaint was not due to the distance, which I am being informed about and seems to be the only way I would possibly be in violation. 1 know this for a fact because if the person complaining had a problem with chickens too close to her residence they would have complained about their immediate neighbor across the alley whom also has a flock of chickens, not me down the road. Currently all our chickens lives are in danger of being slaughtered due to this ordinance, not to mention our breakfast, our yard and garden, and everyone's chickens in town. Amy Haptonstall 341 Beach St Ashland OR 541-951-7714 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution Supporting Regulation of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: David Lohman Department: Council E-Mail: lohmand @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: N/A Approval: Dave Kanner pqC Estimated Time: 20 minutes Question: Will Council adopt a resolution urging Congress to approve an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give Congress and the states the authority to set limits on campaign contributions and regulate political spending? Staff Recommendation: None. Background: In a 2010 US Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, five of the nine Justices determined that unions and for-profit and non-profit corporations can make unlimited indirect political contributions because money spent on political expression by such organizations, as well as individuals, constitutes constitutionally protected free speech. A number of cities, citizens groups, and others have passed resolutions and signed petitions urging Congress to reverse the Citizens United decision by undertaking the process to amend the U.S. Constitution. At its February 21, 2012 meeting, the City Council passed a resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare a resolution urging Congress to approve a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: • Adopt a resolution urging Congress to approve a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures, effectively overturning Citizens United. • Decline to take a City position on efforts to overturn Citizens United. Potential Motions: 0 Move to adopt the attached advisory resolution urging Congress to approve an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Page ] of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • Move to amend the attached resolution concerning a constitutional amendment on regulation of campaign contributions and expenditures, and then move to adopt the amended resolution. • Move to take no City position on efforts to overturn Citizens United. Attachments: Draft Resolution Page 2 of 2 !1VALAIN, RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REGULATION OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES RECITALS: A. The City has an interest in fair electoral processes for candidates and measures; B. Previous federal and state legislative measures to regulate campaign financing were largely invalidated by the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, J C. The consequences of Citizens United could well be distortion and corruption of electoral and governing processes and loss of citizen confidence in federal, state, and local democratic institutions; D. Some Members of Congress and others are attempting to gather support for a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures; and E. Expressions of support for efforts to reverse the adverse consequences of Citizens United increase the prospects for passage of such a constitutional amendment. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City of Ashland urges Oregon's Members of Congress to approve an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give Congress and the states the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures on federal and state elections. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Solid Waste Collection Rate Consulting Services Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Dave Kanner Department: Administration E-Mail: dave.kanner @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Public Works Secondary Contact: Ann Seltzer Approval: Dave Kanner( Estimated Time: °'10 Minutes Question: Will the City Council, acting as the local contract review board, authorize the City Administrator to enter into a personal services contract with Bell and Associates, Inc. for solid waste collection rate consulting services in conjunction with the rate request submitted by Recology d.b.a. Ashland Sanitary ("Recology") for an amount not to exceed $9,826 unless other analysis beyond the scope contained in this agreement is requested? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Administrator to enter into a personal services contract with Bell and Associates, Inc. for solid waste collection rate consulting services in conjunction with the rate request submitted by Recology as stated above. Background: In 2011 Recology_requested a rate increase of 23%. After deliberations, the City Council awarded,an 11.2% increase and committed to conduct a rate analysis to determine if an additional rate increase is justified and to follow up with subsequent actions dependent upon such analysis. A qualified, experienced rate analyst will be engaged through a personal services contract under $35,000, which requires the City to solicit three proposals. Administration contacted: 1. Bell and Associates, the only firm that submitted a proposal; 2. FCS Group, which declined because they only do rate analysis for public entities; 3. Armanino McKenna LLP, which did not respond to the City's request. Administration checked with some other cities in Oregon which have used Bell and Associates for solid waste collection rate analysis and found a high level of satisfaction with their work. A staff member of the League of Oregon Cities provided a similarly favorable review. Note that under Ashland's contracting rules, Council approval is not required for a personal services contract in this amount. However, given the sensitivity of and community interest in this matter, staff elected to seek Council concurrence with this contract. Related City Policies: Solid Waste Franchise Agreement Council Options: 1. Conduct rate analysis and determine subsequent rate increases or adjustments and franchise agreement modification if both the City and Recology agree; Page 1 of 2 �r, CITY OF -ASHLAND 2. Do not conduct a rate analysis and award a rate increase based on request of Recology; 3. Do not conduct a rate analysis and do not award an additional rate increase to Recology based on the current request. This action probably would result in arbitration as indicated in the Franchise agreement. Potential Motions: Move to authorize the City Administrator to enter.into a Personal Services Contract with Bell and Associates, Inc. for solid waste collection rate consulting services in conjunction with the rate request submitted by Recology in an amount not to exceed $9,826, unless additional analysis beyond that indicated in the rate proposal is requested; Attachments: • Proposal to Provide Independent Waste Hauler Financial and Operational Rate Review to the City of Ashland from Bell and Associates, Inc. • Emails illustrating contact to FCS and Armanino McKenna, LLP Page 2 of 2 �r, Proposal to Provide Independent Waste Hauler Financial and Operational Rate Review to the City of Ashland December • ProposaO tiUtdllll(tGO1 by jw7iB=ELLAssociates, Camass,, Washington _ BELL & Associates, Inc. 1628 NW 33rd Way•Camas,WA 98607•360.326.8937• Fax 360.326.8925 December 26,2011 Larry Patterson, City Manager City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Independent Waste Hauler Financial and Operational Data and Rate Review Dear Mr. Patterson: Bell &Associates is pleased to submit a proposal to provide the City of Ashland (the City)with solid waste collection rate consulting services in conjunction with the rate request submitted by Recology d.b.a.Ashland Sanitary. In this proposal, we will demonstrate that we have the experience and qualifications necessary to provide these services to the City. Chris Bell, CPA, will be the Project Manager and the primary point of contact. Mr. Bell has been working with the Oregon jurisdictions since 2001 on solid waste and recycling collection rates and program implementation costs. Mr. Bell is experienced with setting solid waste and recycling collection rates for public agencies and franchised collection companies. During the calendar year 2011, he has reviewed the operational and financial performance of 49 private franchised collection companies and three municipal collection operations and set collection rates for 113,700 residential customers and 8,300 customers. In addition to the review of the rate proposal, we will also review the City's current franchise agreement and provide recommendations to update and strengthen to be responsive to all stakeholders. Unlike larger accounting and consulting firms, we don't have numerous levels of staffing or utilize unqualified junior staff which increases project costs. Our success is attributed to understanding the solid waste industry, a high quality work product, and responsiveness to the needs of our clients. Our team's breadth and depth of hands-on experience with relevant projects in the area of solid waste will result in a work product that will fulfill the needs of the City. We look forward to assisting City staff with their regulatory obligations. This proposal is valid for 90 days past the submission date. Mr. Bell has the authority to bind Bell &Associates to a contract with the City of Ashland signs this letter. Please contact him with any questions or comments concerning this submission. 4terJ. Bell, CPA ell&Associates, Inc. city of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysts Proposal Table of Contents 1.0 Overview of Bell&Associates..........................................................................................................1 2.0 Qualifications of Professional Staff...................................................................................................1 2.1 Qualifications and Experience in Solid Waste..................................................................................2 3.0 Solid Waste& Recycling Project References...................................................................................3 4.0 Rate Review Project Understanding.................................................................................................4 4.1 Project Management Approach.........................................................................................................4 5.0 Project Budget...................................................................................................................................6 Resumefor Chris Bell...................................................................................................................................7 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal 1 .0 OVERVIEW OF • Bell & Associates, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing in financial and operational analysis of integrated solid waste management. Founded in 2003 by a licensed Certified Public Accountant, our primary mission is to serve the solid waste and recycling needs of local governmental agencies and municipalities. Located in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan area in the town of Camas,Washington, our client base of municipalities and private companies extends from Washington to Wyoming and from Alaska to New Mexico. In addition to collection systems analysis, rate review and rate setting,compliance services, and financial auditing, we team with a network of highly qualified professionals to offer solid waste and recycling consulting services ranging from planning, program analysis and implementation, franchise procurement, training, and outreach. 2.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF • • Chris Bell, CPA (Oregon License 10,451)will be the Project Manager and primary point of contact and the individual who will complete a majority of the work on this engagement. Mr. Bell is a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the field of integrated solid waste management with an emphasis in the financial analysis and operational evaluation of solid waste and recycling collection systems and facilities. He has assisted numerous public and private entities with setting collection rates, service procurement, program implementation, financial and performance audits, planning, and facility and systems analysis. In the calendar year 2010, Mr. Bell reviewed the operational and financial results of over 49 separate solid waste collection companies for 14 municipalities, assisted seven jurisdictions with solid waste management plans, audited the financial and operational performance of five collection companies, and set collection rates for 224,000 residential and 15,000 commercial customers in seven jurisdictions. Prior to solid waste consulting, Mr. Bell served as Assistant Divisional Controller for Waste Management of Oregon. His responsibilities were the monthly financial close, budgeting, reconciliation, reporting, operational performance analysis, audit preparation, and annual franchise reporting for three separate collection companies and two transfer stations. In addition, Mr. Bell was in charge of fixed assets and accounts payable for all six Oregon and Southwest Washington collection companies. ADBell&Associates, Inc. 1 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE IN SOLID Bell & Associates understands all aspects of the solid waste industry and we have been assisting jurisdictions in the Portland-Salem-Eugene area with setting collection, disposal, and program rates since 2003. The following are Oregon jurisdictions we have assisted with rate setting, financial analysis program implementation, program review, and long-term program planning: City of Beaverton City of Hillsboro City of Fairview City of Milwaukie City of Gresham City of Tigard City of Troutdale City of Tualatin I City of Salem City of Eugene City of Wilsonville Metro Clackamas County Wheeler County Washington County Columbia County Douglas County Tillamook County Coos County Clatsop County Lane County Linn County Curry County Yamhill County We have also completed the following solid waste projects for jurisdictions outside of Oregon: City of Bellevue,Washington Annual Collection Contract Compliance Audit City of Tucson,Arizona Alternative Energy Study(CNG, LNG, Biodiesel) Silver City, New Mexico System Analysis/Program Implementation City of Mercer Island,Washington I Rate Review/SW Consulting City of Coolidge, Arizona System Analysis/Service Procurement Kodiak Island Borough,Alaska SW Management Plan/Collection System Procurement City/Borough of Juneau,Alaska SW Management Plan City of Richland,Washington Operational/Program Review and Rate Setting South Utah Valley SW District, Utah SW Facility Plan Wyoming Planning Areas, Wyoming SW Management Plans(21 plans) Hunt Corporation, El Paso,Texas Landfill Feasibility Analysis Santa Fe SWMA, Santa Fe, New Mexico I SW Management Plan City of Laramie,Wyoming SW Rate Setting We have developed several rate models for residential, commercial container, and roll-off collection services as well as for transfer operations, long-haul transport, and landfill disposal. But knowing what numbers to input into a spreadsheet is only a small portion of the knowledge necessary to set rates. The consultant needs to also understand the daily operations of waste management, operational costs, the changes in the economy, evolving regulatory requirements and customer demands so that they can construct a rate structure that is responsive to these changes while ensuring adequate revenue to provide the services expected by the citizens of Ashland. aBell&Associates, Inc. 2 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal 3.0 SOLID WASTE & RECYCLING PROJECT Operational Review and Rate Setting/Commercial Food Waste Analysis Client: City of Eugene, Oregon — Reference: Nancy Young, Ph. 541-682-6849 In 2010 Bell 8 Associates assisted the City with an update of the annual cost and operational reports submitted by the City's six licensed haulers as well as the method used to calculate collection rates. The new approach was in response to the implementation of new programs being considered by the City. During 2011, Mr. Bell assisted City staff with an updated rate schedule for residential, commercial, and drop box service as well as the implementation of a commercial food waste collection program. Annual Collection System Financial /Operational Review and Rate Setting Client: Clackamas County, Oregon — Reference: Rick Winterhalter, Ph. 503-742-4466 Mr. Bell has performed the annual solid waste review for this county since 2001. The financial and operational review consists of 16 separate hauling companies serving the county's 46,300 residential and 2,100 commercial customers in the unincorporated urban and rural areas. The county is segregated into four distinct regions: the heavily populated Urban Region near the 1-205 corridor, the sprawling Rural Region just outside the Metro Urban Growth Boundary, the Distant Rural Region adjacent to the Mount Hood National Forest, and the Mountain Region on Mount Hood. Operating results for each region are analyzed, adjusted, aggregated, and then projected for the current year. Annual Solid Waste Contract Compliance Audit Client: City of Bellevue, Washington — Reference: Tom Spille, Ph. 425-452-6964 Mr. Bell had completed the annual review of Allied Waste of Bellevue's k collection operation for the Utility Department for the past seven years. The J, overall objective is to determine whether specific requirements have been fulfilled in accordance with the collection contract. In addition, data reported to the City is analyzed and the methodology used to collect the data is reviewed. An agreed upon procedures report is issued to the City on the findings of the [ engagement. Residential Roller Cart Recycling Implementation Client: Cities of Beaverton and Tigard, Oregon — Reference: Scott Keller, Ph 503-526-2271 Mr. Bell worked with City staff, franchised haulers, and recycling processors to implement a fully automated roller cart collection system for the neighboring Cities' 28,000 combined residential customers. The dual-stream, co-mingle system allows the mixing of all materials with the exception of glass and motor 1 ® � oil. The overall objective was to keep the implementation and collection system cost low by increasing collection productivity and collected materials, and by standardizing the entire collection fleet (solid waste, recycling, and yard debris). The cart program is expected to collect 10,350 tons of recoverable material a year, or 750 pounds per residential customer. The rate impact in the City of Tigard was$0.70 a month and$0 in the City of Beaverton. aBell&Associates,Inc. 3 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal 1 RATE REVIEW PROJECT The project consultant's primary objective is to assist City staff with their regulatory responsibility of setting collection rates for the franchised collection companies. This is accomplished by reviewing the annual reports submitted by the franchised collection companies and other necessary information to determine the cost of providing solid waste and recycling services. To complete the rate review tasks, Bell & Associates utilizes an in-depth and proven work plan. Once the review of the annual reports has been completed, assessing the cost of providing services is the next step. If the rates need to be adjusted to keep the franchised companies within the allowable margins, then the final step is to calculate the adjustments to the collection rates. PROJECT • The following approach is a proven program used to meet the project objectives requested by the City and it ensures that our evaluation techniques are uniformly prescribed and performed on a coordinated basis. It lays out the procedures and responsibilities for specific tasks necessary to complete the rate review. The approach is based on the assumption that we will receive a certain level of assistance from City personnel and the franchised hauler. This assistance includes preparation and delivery of requested information, responding to inquiries and requests for additional information, and project input. The project consultant will assist the City by reviewing the rate increase submitted by the franchised hauling company and other necessary information to determine the cost of providing solid waste and recycling collection services to the City. We will complete the following tasks: 1. Review and analyze data submitted on the rate request. Adjustments to the report will be made when necessary to correct anomalies or reflect the cost of service. 2. Calculate the returns for each line of business as well as the composite. 3. Project composite revenues and expenses for future years. 4. Report the results of the review to the City project manager and City Council. Our project management approach is based on three following critical elements: 1) Effective communication, 2) Being responsive to City staff and the franchised hauler, and 3) Executing a proven and effective work program with experienced personnel. All work will be thoroughly planned and documented both electronically and in hard copy. These elements used in combination during the project will ensure the work is completed on schedule and within budget. The table on the following page summarizes the project tasks and the estimated hours for completion. Bell&Associates,Inc. 4 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal Program Rate Review — Cost of Service Analysis Summary Work Time 1. Data request of City solid waste collection franchise agreement and solid waste regulations. Current agreement will be reviewed and suggestions and/or 6 hours recommendations on current and future rate policy and approach. 2. Data request of hauler cost and operational information. In additional to the rate increase request,additional information will be required to substantiate the claim for the rate increase.Additional information will include, but not limited to the 6 hours following: operational costs, customer data, equipment depreciation schedules, disposal and recycling tonnages, and administrative costs. 3. Import submitted information into the analysis templates. Review reported information for completeness and any obvious errors. Once the initial review has 4 hours been completed,the report will be sent to the City program manager. 4.Analysis of the Hauler Cost and Operational Data a) Using a predictive test of revenue for each line of business,ensure the reported revenues are reasonable for the number of reported customers. b) Based on the market conditions for the reviewed year,determine if recycling revenues from the sale of materials is reasonable based on the reported customers. c) Using the reported Direct Cost line items determine if the expense is reasonable in 8 hours relation to the census data entered from the detailed cost report. d) Determine if the reported tip fee is reasonable using a predictive test of disposal cost. e) Using the reported G&A line items,determine if the expense is reasonable in relation to the census data entered from the detailed cost report. f) Perform additional analysis if necessary. g) Compare current year results to prior years. 5. Follow up with hauler on cost and operational questions. If necessary, adjustments to the rate request will be made to ensure an accurate portrayal of the cost of service that will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Each 6 hours adjustment will be discussed with all stakeholders prior to being made on the cost of service analysis. 6. Projection of future year costs will be completed using known costs to project the future year's results to determine the need for a rate increase. Rate Setting(if 8 hours necessary).Assess fees based on the cost of service for each line of business or on the composite system. aBell&Associates,Inc. 5 City of Ashland Solid Waste Cost and Rate Analysis Proposal 7. Complete a draft report of the results and present to City Council in a work session for review and consideration. Report will include recommendations of 24 hours current and future rate policy issues and annual reporting of costs to the City. 8. Follow up on City Council input and submit final report and collection rates to 8 hours City program manager for consideration by City Council 1 PROJECTBUDGET This proposed approach and schedule are based on the assumption that we will receive an adequate level of assistance from City staff and franchised hauler personnel. This includes preparation of the requested information, responsive to inquiries and requests for additional information, and project input. 1 Task Description Hours Cost 1. Data Request and Review of City Agreement and Regulations 6 $536 2. Request of Hauler Information 6 $536 3. Import Cost Data and Initial Review 4 $1,072 4. Analysis of the Detailed Costs 8 $2,144 5. Adjusting Reports 6 $1,072 6. Projection of Future Costs/Rate Calculation 8 $536 7. Draft Report/Works Session Meeting with City Council 24 $804 8. Finalize Report 8 $1,608 Travel from Camas to Ashland (600 miles @$0.55) $330 Project Totals 70 $9,826 The fees for this project are based on the estimated time to complete the project. This proposed fee is a not to exceed fee based on the outlined work program. If the projects can be completed in less than our estimates, then Bell &Associates will bill accordingly. If we find it will take considerably more time, due to a change in scope, we will discuss any changes with City staff and will not proceed without prior written authorization. Fees for the project are estimated at$ 9,826 (70 hours x$140 per hour). Unless otherwise agreed in writing,fees will be billed monthly at the first of each month for the preceding month and will be payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Bell&Associates, Inc. 6 Christopher J. Bell, CPA BELL & Associates, Inc. President— Bell & Associates, Inc. Solid Waste & Recycling Consultants Certifications Chris Bell, CPA is a Certified Public Accountant practicing in the field of integrated solid waste management with an emphasis in the Certified Public Accountant financial analysis and operational evaluation of solid waste and Oregon (10,451) recycling collection systems. He has assisted numerous public and Illinois (73,391) private entities with setting collection rates, program implementation, financial and performance audits, planning, franchise reporting, and Affiliations systems analysis. American Institute of Certified Prior to solid waste consulting, Mr. Bell served as Assistant Divisional Public Accountants (AICPA) Controller for Waste Management of Oregon. His responsibilities Oregon Society of Certified were the monthly financial close, budgeting, reconciliation, reporting, Public Accountants operational performance analysis, audit preparation, and annual franchise reporting for three separate collection companies and two Solid Waste Association of North transfer stations. In addition, Mr. Bell was in charge of fixed assets America (SWANA) and accounts payable for all six Oregon and Southwest Washington Association of Oregon Recyclers collection companies. New Mexico Recycling Coalition During 2010, Mr. Bell has completed the following solid waste related tasks: Work History • Reviewed the operational and financial results of over 49 Bell&Associates, Inc. separate solid waste collection companies for 14 different President 2003-Present jurisdictions from Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, New Menna & Company, LLP Mexico, and Arizona. CPAs and Consultants • Provided seven jurisdictions from seven western states with Manager of Consulting Services integrated solid waste management assistance. 2001—2003 • Set solid waste and recycling collection rates for over 224,000 residential and 15,000 commercial customers in seven Waste Management of Oregon jurisdictions. Asst. Divisional Controller 1999-2001 Recent Project Experience Bidwell& Company, Accountant • Integrated SW Management Plan —Kodiak Island, Alaska 1998- 1999 . Solid Waste & Recycling System Planning —North Pointe Quincy Broadcasting Company Solid Waste District, Orem, Utah Accounting Supervisor . Financial Analysis and Rate Setting for a County SW System 1995- 1998 Yakima County, Washington Moore Corporation . Financial I Operational Reviews of Franchised Solid Waste& Cost Analyst Recycling Collection Operations—Six Oregon cites 1994-1995 United States Air Force • Solid Waste Collection Procurement—Mercer Island,WA Law Enforcement Patrolman . Alternative Fuels Study—Tucson, Arizona 1989- 1993 . Integrated SW Plan— 1-80 Planning Group, Wyoming Education • Automated Collection System Implementation— Fairview, OR Bachelor Management . Solid Waste Transfer Rate Setting Columbia County,Business Management g— �� 1993, Park University . Solid Waste& Recycling Collection Contract Compliance Audit Bellevue, Washington 1628 NW 33rd Way Phone 360.210.4344 Camas, WA 98607 Fax 360.326.8925 Q a) d E v) in N in V 000 O 10 O d N O N M m c� E rn T ttoo ttoo N N N C V N y U N Cp ..0. m K G7 N N U Q Q U !/� a) 0 LL t T Q. C a C E 0E 0E c tic � � T a �• Q E m m ca � �_ °� �` m o m � a _U V Li n ° aEi a aE) 0 a) N 0 > <n a) cn a E c ._ a) E co 3X 333miii 3 � E � coEa) m nd may N CC yr a>) a>) > of `0 a>) o• EU) m m � EU m "U o 0 N ¢La W of Fa W W X E , of C C N N O C C C C O C , N W C d a) � a) N N m W 7 7 2 W a) a) N a N N a] O t0 m a m m M 0) N N m d a d O O U d d d N a a c Cc T— c U a O EOf IX Of o >. Ex E '2 p ca Yo cG � ccca � � ca) .6a) � � 'nmaa)immma) a) mm > cd _ o0r a7 a7 ca ca 3 N 7 0 (a N N N x x 3 �p m N d a. d N N O a a) a) N W o N N y I a) a) c c c j nQd c mQ mv � jQ CO m 'Z`.Z` m m vai =` mm 1 0 a) m mcn O pl fp O O O p 0 E'j O C C = L N C C .UU U C C m 'V W € C LL — C O L L C C N N N � .0 N � � N � N N 0 IL IL U- IL � V m � nmm 0. Q. 2m 0poa. a� i.>ioam .� � �i � � � � � � 2ma�i �i m � � � CL 0u. LL000Of L0 (nOv D <n (nxxIT (nv).0) 0) COU) cnvncnCOm -jM 0 -100W N �r V d p N C C No U 0 0 IL °''a) p 0 �D N � C 1 aio D � c 8 c3 � O C C O) C OD .) . z V 0 o10 � N cm ; m0 0 � aa)) a) d 0 d0co Ec 0 U `° c rnt � m > cc c c oc0 orn � Er o c rn� m3 oL a) S N d oic oL a tl ~ c Cc E d p a) N O a7 O N x c 3 N C L a) < in y N 0 y a) O OO � O o 0 0C7 � c00m m �' `20 ai O o � y a) mca a) 00 � o) :3 - � � H f0 (a a) 1 2-1 N ` 0)m L T C m C - C) C)T�N 0 N 3 ° E � L .0 > � 0 > n � ozai� do � co)c0o > mai �0d :3 cr2 - � E C N N O Y 2 L d N 7 0 C N o O N N (Na N 3 O)U p C m N Op la o o U f0 .O m C 0 0 L a p fn .+ .~-. U) m(DXca N (rca -j.. w " Om om � (JY �oU 07 mm and o. m 1 0 LL -J 0 o o N o o o � o o o o w o U 0 O O m L� E O 3 L ,00 E , o „ — M o U) °' Lm mmL L > 0 'c 'oLYto > � o � 2L) ?-1 om « UUU 05 5 :j55 0 Y5 C1) FtA �: 5 FZ0 } x0x0W0 c 0 t >� cc 00 , , O Ito OOO O p Go 1 0 0 C) a 00 r O0 C) C) Oa00 00 OD C) 00 O O � O_ C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C) O O O 0 0 x 0 O M a N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O o 0 o N O N O N M � oC O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N p N p N p 3 3 � 0 0 � t0 to W 0 W M W W P P- I.- h f, h ), P a0 a0 a0 M W M O O O O Z la a1 O O o C) 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 O C) O 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N E IL } N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N tp � U Diana Shiplet From: Larry Patterson [pattersonl @ashland.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:01 AM To: 'Diana Shiplet' Subject: FW: Rate Analysis Diana, This was the other company contacted. They decline to submit a proposal. From: Scott Lester [mailto:ScottL @fcsgroup.com]' Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:58 PM To: Larry Patterson Subject: RE: Rate Analysis Thanks, Larry. See below the signature blocks for both Angie and John. Angie Sanchez Yirnoche Principal v: (425) 867-1802 ext. 230 f: (425) 867-1937 Redmond'rown Center 7525 166th Ave-v13. Suite D-21 Redrnond. NVA 48052 FCS CROUP i n e i e s!;i;I'c s e ro u n.c u rn John Ghilarducci Principal v: (425).867-1802 ext. 2 25 f: (425) 867-1937 Redmond Town Center - 7525 1661h Ave.NF9 Suitc D-215 R2 dnwnd. WA 99052 FCS CROUP johnOtMeserouo.com Scott W. Lester Marketing and Business Development Manager v: (425) 867-1802 ext. 231 f: (425) 867-1937 . c: (425) 241-4551 Redmond Town Center 7525 166th Ave. NE, Suite D-215 _ Redmond, WA 98052 FCS GROUP scotil @tcsgroug.com From: Larry Patterson [mailto:pattersonl @ashland.or.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 3:40 PM 1 To: Scott Lester Subject: Rate Analysis Thank you for your call today. As I indicated to you I am not 100%certain of what all we need, but to get our discussion started we are looking for the following assistance in reviewing the rate increase request. 1. Review and analyze the data submitted on the rate request. 2. Calculate the returns for each line of business as well as the composite to help determine if appropriate rate increase if any. 3. Project revenues and expenses for future years (The franchise does not expire until 2018. We have talked with Recology about implementing the 23.3%increase if that what it is over a three year period.) 4. Report the results of the review to the City. If possible if you could lay out the task involved in each of the above, the hours required and costs it would be helpful. As I said we will probably want to talk about additional work before a contract is drawn up, but this will enable us to get started with whoever we contract with. As you know I have to take at least three quotes before we can select a consultant. Thank you for your interest in this project. Larry Patterson, City Administrator City of Ashland 20 East Main Street,Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2103 or (541)488-6002,TTY 800-735-2900 FAX: (541)488-5311 This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know.Thank you. 2 Diana Shiplet From: Larry Patterson [pattersonl @ashland.or.iis] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:01 AM To: 'Diana Shiplet' Subject: FW: Your Message to Armanino McKenna Diana, This is one of the companies contacted regarding the rate study. They did not respond. From: info=amllp.com @emailer.hubspot.com [mailto:info=amllp.com @emailer.hubspot.com] On Behalf Of info @amllp.com Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 10:55 AM To: pattersonl @ashland.or.us Subject: Your Message to Armanino McKenna Thank you for contacting Armanino McKenna. This email is a confirmation that we have received your message and will be in contact with your promptly. If you need immediate assistance, please contact us at 925.790.2600. 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Citizen Budget Committee Appointment Meeting Date: March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: none Secondary Contact: none Approval: Dave,Kanner<)I- Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Shall the Mayor and Council approve an appointment for the vacant position on the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31, 2012? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This vacancy occurred with the resignation-of Dee Anne Everson. The position was noticed on the City website with a deadline for submission of applications on March 1, 2012. Three applications were received from Joseph Graf, Denise Daehler, Kenneth Wilson and Evan Lasley. Related City Policies: Oregon Budget Law ORS Chapter 294 Council Options: • Select one application for appointment to the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31, 2012. (If needed - ballots will be provided at the meeting) Potential Motions: Motion to approve to the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31, 2012. Attachments: Applications received Page 1 a I CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christcbYrashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Joseph Graf Requesting to serve on: Citizens Budget Committee (Commission/Committee) Address 1160 Fern St., Ashland, OR 97520 Occupation_Retired (Emeritus Professor, SOU)_ Phone: Home 541-488-8429 Work N/A Email_graf @sou.edu_ Fax _N/A 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Columbia Univ. and Yale Univ. What degrees do you hold? BA from Columbia, MPhil. and Ph.D. from Yale, all in Geology What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Over five years working in the business of mineral exploration, including economic analysis of mineral prospects. Over twenty years in academic administration in Kansas (Head of Geology Department at Kansas State University for 10 years) and Oregon (Dean of Sciences at SQU for 12 years). At both these academic positions, I managed budgets, both state general fund and foundation accounts. At SOU, I had to work with the University-wide budget and the State Budget as well as those of Sciences and its seven departments and programs. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? No. I believe I can learn from other Committee members and staff what I need to know. ��, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position?. I am a citizen observer 6f the AWAC process and serve on the Wastewater advisory committee. Both of these activities have significant potential impact on the City Budget and I think knowing more about that budget would be interesting to me. I also think that I am good at both understanding details and spreadsheets and at seeing the big picture when it comes to budgets and projects. Lastly, since our retirement both my wife and I are wanting to devote more time to serving our community 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes, available. Either day or evening is ok. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 16 years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position December 19, 2011 Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street,or email christeb ashland or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name 1 )en',S2-—\b • L )Ae�`2 Requesting to serve on: w cart}— ((Commission/ mmittee Address rl-� ©4per o011C �Fi- Occupation a Phone: Home 5y I-Uo I-n7-7 O Work Email Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Cokke - - Nct"4ke rn Arizona,l�ni ptiS���t What degrees do you hold? What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? ESA'\ NV n,wtA -SJCC.Q Zk \00S 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Prl1 „d QA1%v t; ,C OJS'" 6`na � a . Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training,in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? l Imoi-f 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? a:- 0.w {¢res{enl rv� b2i .r n 4N"o- P_ow..x.w�.�y r�-- osly a.s n' Cc'- n d p lojs;4.acs 0 �iyiG 4. Availability VT u Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? $ -t) tic 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? i„v WaJ, 7%7 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this U position �hf f� IS v wo —_�A �b tr9oC�L w��1 ' S -40 _ aeeaw.p 'al. 4oale '�q_ s�lD �P�%_ltC. IT a„V. nrGci,�i�ec� Gt��P vtto�i�la+ecY Z lz-4�1901 z Date Signature MAN CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street,or email christeb(o)ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Fya11 [aJp-U U DD t� Requesting to serve on: iii"ct11s ' UdOkf Ccdt;rzh (Commission/Committee) Address %1 ) Occupation Sfisyd. (ialtlii Phone: Home 75q5 Work Email ongtilr7us(a> nnt1. G1%, Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? 5ou(l:6h PIR601 l j111t��51'i4l, U I What degrees do you hold? NG1te: T an m, riv- vtr:r tLt.jr ren L�Tira c+ a_^ rn /11a,flser rs Auld hi5T01V1 What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? ( �1! 1 i 1,4v `W1 8-4) 1.� CA,rIvAs rIyAs r,,1 rcr.v"s nf04V 1%n:9, alttiti'ial;P ew,1)�s car} CAP.roilir1 �i1� �.r�t: T Gn1 oft f / AI v G , ( of 1.r fo4Gt'^� Uilfli /vk],nr As,r,(l11W oJ19, v Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field,such b I as attending conferences or seminars. Why?. )G,a — Anu, r"rr 5." �liolv�lr,r'r: ci r oil. Vtd.[ys VJ' U 14i-'Pj V LGl31R�fQ7IIX G.1'%� FIB. 3. Interests /) �/ L Why are you applying for this position? 1 IatG)9Cl 11A- I6 SIdw O'd Y U11��FJYf)1� � 6u�r.?` n:r�✓�5� Tor �� G4. :r1'� cnk ire n�l�r a 1 ,,�� I}iS� (PIP a.GI %1, AS 6. (/%/%I7 )1 ili'I 1Uu91L71->7!(1/7. DiG /.55 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings,in addition to the regularly scheduled, , meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? i 011 141-Y v�.�nr�s, eW..tt)r1!s 1+�•llh� ,�irl; oi��h �. U I/ 5. Additional Information _ How long have you lived in this community? 10-1.1114. 01p 5 . 0 u Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position r, J1(Cr,� ft7 n=• l�rsl Yil� tt%1�'� ix1, �1kVrF7 (IBi,id 111 V i 0.{1� lxnoP M1 in J'NIM• o f Pod-PIA Rjt CcN:^:1l�ail lu"J?a:1T�Tif� Ift t,f V.';lbf. h:,k P, I I I stii7lu . � U I p 1.'14 C / t 7Gr �C:J, mill JIM . py" Intl l4'1 litc 'fJF G;IIG -JAS / 6t it . li'? 01 I l�cdrl >z11Q !fS 1'C11 (1 S '!'r;ll;t r F�U1i f'1Gil li? 11d/Ili (91197r U o„A101;e orGAl 14u)- W1 help-r'5-V IIJ dA13rrs, _►' lit ill UIIrA 1 y U 0. fihl)t 1.Glitltli7fiult) i(I po ts% 1.;;� aci' G k. grrlr V�tIl� 1phtd!.d ) U 01 INS �)i 't,�.!T pia. v G2 129h G I Z Date Signature Ashland City Recorder Evan Lasley 20 E. Main St. 110 Seventh Street Ashland, OR 97520 Ashland, OR 97520 541-890-7545 anuminus@gmail.com 02/28/12 Re: Appointment to Citizens' Budget Committee and Housing Commission Dear Mayor and/or City Council, I am applying for volunteer positions on the Housing Commission and Citizens' Budget Committee, and ask to be strongly considered for the positions. With the Housing Commission looking to revisit the Fair Housing Ordinance, and wanting student involvement within this process, I have recruited a student to take on the role of Student Liaison, and am myself applying to be a Commissioner after discussion with members of the Commission.After speaking to several Councillors regarding the importance of the budgetary process to any understanding of City affairs, I have decided to pursue this in line with my interest in serving the City. My interest in serving stems from a deep-seated interest in government, history, law, and economics, as well as a commitment to further understanding the decision-making process of the City of Ashland, of which I have been a resident for twenty years. During my time at Southern Oregon University, I have studied mathematics, history, economics, science, music and philosophy, and am now in my senior year, completing a BA in mathematics and history. It was not until 2009 that I began to become actively involved in my community, educating myself on local issues,joining local non-profits such as the regional chapter of the United Nations Association and Peace House, each of which I now serve on as a member of the Board of Directors.As a student, I have worked to reach out to my fellow students and encourage them to become more actively involved in their community. Through volunteering and organizing educational events, I have had the opportunity to meet many members of the Ashland community. Through this, I have acquired a better understanding of the diversity of people who inhabit Ashland, and the part they play within our community. Within the last year I have become further interested in City affairs, examining past budgets and historical documents concerning Ashland, attending City Council meetings and studying the relation of various committees and commissions to the Council and its duties. As a student beginning Honors theses in mathematics and history, I have experience with examining the grounds of arguments in a variety of contexts and would bring an attention to detail and commitment to research to my service in the City. Through my involvement in a variety of communities in Ashland, I have worked to understand a variety of points of views, and value the ability to listen respectfully to differing opinions in any context. Within City affairs, I understand the crucial importance of working together to accomplish the duties set forth for each given body, and will bring a commitment to actively listen to and work with others. Discipline and responsibility are among my personal core values. The work 1 have pursued with the greatest discipline up to the present has been primarily academic in nature, but in the last several years I have been pursuing how I can best make our City a better place to live for all its residents. I hope to bring this attitude to the fulfilment of my duties to the City, and look forward to learning further about the process of local government in practice, speaking with other commissioners and citizens to get a variety of perspectives. It is my belief that a government can only serve its true purpose when a variety of diverse citizens are actively involved in and educated about it, working together as a community to serve all of its members. If you have any more specific questions regarding my interest in these bodies, please contact me. I hope to get to know each of you better through this process and understand your experience within City affairs to inform my own. Thank you for considering me for these positions. I hope to have an opportunity to serve the City in these capacities and put my best abilities and interest towards fulfilling the duties therein. Sincerely, Evan Lesley CITY OF -ASH LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall,20 E Main Street,or email christeb6bashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name: Kenneth Wilson Requesting to serve on: Citizens Budget Committee Address: 190 Logan Drive Occupation:Vocational Counselor/Consultant Phone: Home: 541 482 1305 Work: 541 482 8888 Email: kwilson@marcopoloassociates.com Fax: 541482 1046 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Purdue University,University of Minnesota, Eastern Michigan University What degrees do you hold? BSEE, MBA-Finance What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Past training on several accounting systems (no longer proficient), CUFFS financial modeling software, QuickBooks and extensive Excel training and use. I have also been trained in Robert Bradford's Simplified Strategic Planning process and offer this through my consulting practice. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position?(see attached resume) Worked as Controller,Director of Financial Planning and in various management positions requiring development and management of budgets. Also served for 3 years on the Board and as Treasurer for Havurah Shir Hadash. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars?Why? - I don't see any training requirements at this time. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I feel this is a meaningful way I can use my experience and capability to help Ashland be on sound financial footing so it can continue to be a great community to live in. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Because of my semi-retirement status my time is quite flexible and with sufficient notice I can be available for both day and evening meetings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? My wife Susan and I have been living in Ashland for almost 8 years and prior to that have visited for attending OSF since 1984. Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position VI apiZ Date Signature Kenneth C. Wilson 190 Logan Drive • Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-1305 • kwilson @marcopoloassociates.com Work Experience �I Vocational Resource Consultants - Ashland, OR (3/09 - Present) 1 Vocational Counselor Marco Polo Associates - Ashland, OR (2103-Present) Post Sales, Marketing &Strategy Consulting Retirement Park Industries, Inc. - St. Cloud, MN (7/99-12/05) Board Member Remmele Engineering, Inc. - New Brighton, MN (9/91-1/03) VP Sales &Marketing Director of International Marketing Research Inc. - Minneapolis, MN (4/86-8/91) Senior VP, General Manger - Controls Division Management VP, Corporate Development Business Incentives - Minneapolis, MN (12/81-3/86) VP, Client Information Systems — Operations Director Director, Asset Management Sales Finance & Northern Telecom/Sycor, Inc. - Edina, MN/Ann Arbor, MI (4/73-11/81) Accounting Controller, Field Operations Marketing Controller Director, Financial Analysis & Planning Product Manager Marketing Harris Corporation/UCC/Date) - Dallas, TX/Riverton, WY (9/67-3/73) Product Manager New Products Manager Manager, Electrical Engineering _ Control Data Corporation - Minneapolis, MN (6/63-8/67) Engineering Project Engineer Electrical Engineer J Education MBA: Eastern Michigan University - 1979 Beta Gamma Sigma (Honorary) Alpha Iota Delta (Honorary) BSEE: Purdue University - 1963 Eta Kappa Nu (Honorary) r CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Council Liaison to Forest Service Meeting Date:. March 6, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: John Stromberg, Mayor Department: Mayor & Council E-Mail: john @council.ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Dave Lohman Approval: Dave Kanner'� Estimated Time: 5 Minutes Question: Will Council approve the Mayor's appointment of Councilor Slattery as liaison to the Forest Service for 2012? Staff Recommendation: None. Background: On February 14, 2012 District Ranger Donna Mickley sent me a draft email to the Council suggesting that a liaison would be helpful in facilitating communications with the Forest Service. I consulted with the City Attorney who informed me that, under the City's MOU with the Forest Service, the City Administrator is the official contact person but that I, as Mayor, may also appoint a liaison if I consider it helpful to do so. I've discussed his-'response with Ms. Mickley and also have discussed this possibility with Councilor Slattery, who would be willing to serve. Therefore I would like to appoint Councilor Slattery to the position of liaison because, as he reported at the Council Goal-setting, he is already communicating with interested parties regarding the Mt. Ashland Association's plans to expand in the watershed. While Council confirmation is not required, I think it would-be appropriate in this case. Therefore I'm putting this item on the Council Agenda for March 6, 2012, under New Business so the Council may discuss the matter; Councilor Slattery can share his views on the liaison role; and the Council can vote on a motion to confirm his appointment. If the Council confirms this appointment I suggest we schedule an update from Councilor Slattery at a study session in March or April. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: Approve or deny appointment. Potential Motions: I move to approve/deny the Mayor's appointment of Councilor Slattery as liaison to the Forest Service. Attachments: E-mail from Donna Mickley Page I of 1 �r, From: "Donna -FS Mickley"<dmickley @fs.fed.us> To: "John Stromberg (john @council.ashland.or.us)" <john @council.ashland.or.us> Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:34:58 AM Subject: Suggestion for FS liaison Hi John, Do you have any suggestions for the message I drafted below to send to the City Council Members? Thanks! Greetings City Council Members, Prior to the holiday break I had a meeting with Dennis Slattery, as liaison the MAA, to discuss the ski areas special use permit. I thought this was a very productive meeting and a great opportunity to share information and field questions. As the Forest Services continues to move forward on re-issuance of the permit, I was thinking it would benefit the City and the Forest Service if the council appointed a similar representative to serve as liaison to the Forest Service. I think it would provide a consistent means for open dialog in a more informal setting than a public meeting. I am curious if the council would be receptive to this idea? Thanks for your consideration, Donna Donna M. Mickley Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 6941 Upper Applegate Road Jacksonville, OR 97530 541-899-3800 or Ashland 541-552-2900 dmickley @fs.fed.us fax: 541-899-3888