Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012-0320 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 permitting,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 lime allotted to you,if any. The 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 20, 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.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ill. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. -SHOULD-THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? [5 minutes] 1. Study Session of March 5, 2012 2. Executive Session of March 6, 2012 3. Regular Meeting of March 6, 2012 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS& AWARDS None VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 1. Will Council approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Will Council approve a recommendation from the Public Art Commission to endorse Southern Oregon Arts and Research (SOAR) which will occur on the SOU campus in May? 3. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Contract Specific Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Elstor Sales for the repair and maintenance of City-owned transformers until June 30, 2016? 4. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Class Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance, and service as needed and required on City owned vehicles and equipment until June 30, 2016? 5. Will Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a Class Special Procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive Co UNCI L V11 1:11 N6 AR 1: BROADC.A` 1 1 1V1_ ON CHA`.NIa,L 9 VISI l H 11. C:I"i l Ol A }ILANll'S \1'1;13 SII L AT \4'\1'\1'.-15111.1 iD.UR.I.;S bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service as needed and required to HVAC (Heating, Air& Ventilation) Systems in City-owned buildings until June 30, 2016? 6. Will Council approve the renewal of a Memo of Understanding with the Parks Commission regarding certain services provided between the two organizations and the agreed upon costs? 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, acting as the local contract review board, hold a public hearing, declare the fire hose as surplus, and award a public contract at no cost for the fire hose to the Sixes Fire Department in Sixes, Oregon? 110 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.) 115 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will Council, acting as the local contracts review board, approve a construction contract with Pilot Rock Excavation, Inc., in the amount of $344,164 to construct the Schofield and Monte Vista Local Improvement District (LID)? [15 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 2. Should Council approve the Final Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses on the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? [10 Minutes] XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, it 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). CO11NC11 1IF:I3l1N(i5 :ARi=: IIROAI�Cnti"i I.IV'L ON CI'1;1NNL,1. 9 VISII 1-1-I1-1 CI"IYOF :ASIIL:AND'tiNVI:13SII-FAA WAVW. IIAND.OR.US (.71-Y (,UUNUL N1 UUY NBNN1UN March 5, 2012 Page 1 of MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 5, 2012 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Voisin, were present. Councilor Moms arrived at 5:34 p.m. Mayor Stromberg explained the new format for Study Sessions would allow more free-flowing discussion. It would still prohibit public testimony but take written submissions from citizens prior to the meeting. City Administrator Dave Kanner further explained the provision in the code restricting Council from deliberating had been misinterpreted over the years and that Council could discuss items and provide staff with direction on an action and suggested changing the code provision to reflect that. City Attorney David Lohman added it was difficult using the words `deliberate towards,a decision' because that language was in Public Meeting Law. However, the meaning was different in the code provision. Under State law, a closed meeting could not obtain information regarding items to deliberate but the Ashland code stated it was ok to get information from staff that may lead to a Council decision. As long as the purpose did not involve public input, occurred during a time when Council conferred with each other, and Council did not make final decisions. 1. Look Ahead Review Item not addressed. 2. Will Council provide staff direction on policy issues for the proposed special events policy? Public Works Director Mike Faught addressed the following nine policy issues that required fuuther direction from Council: 1) Scope: "This policy does not apply to the following community events: July 4'"celebration, Children's Halloween Parade, Festival of Lights Parade." Mayor Stromberg noted information received from the Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Sandra Slattery that the Chamber was interested in having the July 4tb celebration exempt since it was more of a community event. However, the Chamber would cover the fees for the Children's Halloween Parade and the Festival of Lights Parade since it was more business oriented. Police Chief Terry Holdemess clarified all three events still required fees from the Chamber. They were on the list as ongoing events and therefore looked at differently. The Festival of Lights Parade would require modification due to the road closure. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained co-sponsorship was no longer in the policy because it was covered under Resolution#2012-03 Commissions and Committees Guide. Staff would add narrative that clarified the fees for the Children's Halloween Parade and the Festival of Lights Parade. Council wanted to know actual City costs for the July 0 celebration. 2) Fees: "All event applicants pay the base fee of$130." Mr. Faught explained the$130 did not cover staff time to review an application. Staff costs were approximately $224 an hour and a review could take up to 4 hours. Additionally, staff recommended a $60 refund for cancelled or unapproved applications. (.Y7'Y CUUNCIL J7 UUY NENNIUN , March 5, 1012 Page 2 of 3 Council discussed automatic refunds and decided the City Administrator and staff would determine refunds and amounts. 3) Fees: "Events that require City staff overtime(determined by the City). City staff will review the proposed route and determine how much City staff overtime will be needed. In addition to the base permit fee of$130,the event applicant will be charged 60%of actual costs." In an effort to reduce costs, staff recommended pre-approved routes, and monthly Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) certified flagger training for non-City flaggers for events'that needed to control intersection traffic. Council supported having ODOT certified flaggers. Staff recommended and Council majority agreed to charging applicants 60%overtime costs instead of actual costs. Council wanted to see actual costs. 4) Rolling Road Closure: "Some special events on roadways with two or more lanes of traffic in each direction can be accommodated with a rolling road closure of one lane of traffic. A rolling road closure event is one that lasts 45 minutes or less, does not block intersections for more than 5 minutes and can be managed with a minimum number of on-duty city staff. These events are subject to the $130 base fee and will not be charged a Rush Fee. Permit approval is subject to staff availability." Council agreed to the recommendation to add hours of daylight because a rolling road closure was not safe after dark. 5) Application and Deadline Rush Fee: "With the exception of rolling road closures, applicants for a special event permit who cannot meet the 90 day requirement will be charged a Rush Fee of$250 if requisite City staff can be made available within the time frame requested Otherwise the permit will be denied and the $250 refunded." The 90-day timeframe provided time for staff to review the application and gave the applicant at least 30- - 60 days to prepare for their event. Council approved the 90-day requirement and the rush fee. 6) Time Limit for Road Closure: "Roads will be closed for no longer than two hours." Chief Holdemess clarified the 4"of July Celebration, Children's Halloween parade and the Festival of Lights parade were exempt from the entire list. Staff would add language to the policy dealing with them specifically. Alternately, Council could add future ongoing events to the exempt list. 7) Bicycle Races: "The downtown area,particularly the Plaza, becomes extremely busy with pedestrians,vehicles,merchants etc. For the safety or the general public and due to the high number of cyclists and the speed of travel, all bicycle races must clear the downtown area 9:30 a.m." Council directed staff to remove bicycle references and have it apply to all races in the downtown area. 8) Neutral Start for Bicycle Races: "A neutral start is used at the beginning of bicycle races to create a parade atmosphere as the event gets underway. This controlled pace protects riders, pedestrians, and vehicles in highly congested traffic zones. A neutral start will be used until the signal is given by an event official. City staff will determine at what point the neutral start ends and the racing begins." . Council suggested having a neutral start as the preferred option for bicycle races but not a requirement and if they chose not to have a neutral start, the applicant would pay 60%of the actual cost. 9) Certificate of Insurance and Hold Harmless Agreement: "The City of Ashland requires a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of no less than one million ($1,000,000) dollars to C17 Y C:UU/VC/L J lUUY J'tNNJUN March 5, 1012 Page 3 of 3 protect the City against claims for personal injury or property damage that could occur because of the event. The certificate will name the City as an additional insured. A copy of the certificate must be submitted with completed permit application. In addition, the City requires the applicant sign a hold harmless agreement (provided by the City)in order to receive a permit." Chief Holdemess explained this applied mostly to protests and insurance companies did not insure demonstrations. Councilor Voisin would research the possibility of challenges to first amendment rights and equal protection. Council majority was in favor of staff gathering additional information regarding insurance for further review. Mr. Faught read the criteria for approval and denial of the applications: 1) Another event is scheduled for the same day/weekend 2) The event is reasonably likely to cause injury to persons or property 3) The event will substantially interfere with the safe and orderly movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic in the area 4) The proposal location is adequate for the size and nature of the event 5) City equipment, staff, and services are available 6) All permit requirements have been met 7) ODOT and/or Jackson County Permits secured 8) All required insurance documents are submitted 9) Previously identified issues have been addressed in the application Torsten Heycke,the organizer of the annual Mt. Ashland Hill Climb Run, Allan Goffe, the organizer for the Mi. Ashland Hill Climb Bike Race, and Rob Cain who worked for both events expressed their concern regarding the certified ODOT flaggers' requirement, the number needed, and how the requirement affected their events. Mayor Stromberg asked them to submit their concerns and suggestions in writing to the Council. Council suggested staff revise the second paragraph on the first page of the Special Event Policy regarding exclusive use of public right of ways. Meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder AJHLA/VU Ul T CUUNCIL MLL77NU March 6, 2012 Page I of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 6, 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 the Ashland Little League needed volunteer umpires. Anyone interested should contact League President Michelle McMahan at the Ashland Little League website http://ashlandoregonlittlelea ug e.ore/. Additionally, the Ashland Water Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee (AWAC) was presenting a Water Information Forum March 14, 2012 at Southern Oregon University in the Rogue River Room at Stevenson Union, starting at 6:30 p.m. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of February 21, 2012, Executive Session of February 21, 2012 and Regular Meeting of February 21, 2012 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Mayor's proclamation regarding March as Red Cross Month in Oregon was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 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. 88? 4. Should Council authorize participation in-the PERC grant offered by The Nature Conservancy? Councilor Voisin pulled Consent Agenda item#2 for discussion. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1, #3 and #4. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin expressed concern regarding Pam Hammond's appointment to the Transportation Commission because she represented the special interests of the Chamber of Commerce. Public Works Director Mike Faught noted Ms. Hammond's prior experience on the Traffic Safety Commission provided an in depth understanding of transportation issues and her diversity would benefit the Transportation Commission. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #2: DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported Pam Hammond and added many Commissions and Committees had people representing special interests for beneficial reasons. Councilor Chapman confirmed that bicycle representation was diminishing and shared his personal experience with Pam Hammond on the Traffic Safety Committee. He thought her interests would help expand the downtown business community. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ASHLAN'UC.77'r C:UUNUL MLL/]NU March 6, 2011 Page 2 of 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained that the green ordinances were created primarily from citizens seeking ways to create flexibility in the City's code system to allow local food production regarding chickens, flexible fencing standards to protect gardens,using rainwater catchment systems on private property to reduce potable use, and solar collection systems. The Planning Commission held a Study Session and a Public Hearing on the five areas and recommended approval to the Council with minor changes in each area. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the green codes that included: Solar Energy Systems • Proposed ordinance allows Commercial and Employment zoned properties in Historic Districts to install solar energy systems without having io obtain Land Use approval. • Affected Properties Map: Commercial and Employment zoned properties within Ashland's Historic District. • Panels installed flush and parallel to place of roof and below roof peak. • Installed on flat roof and screened from view by an existing roof parapet. • Objectives: Promote alternate energy use and provide greater flexibility for solar roof panel installation on structures in historic districts. • Existing Standard: Requires land use approval prior to installation on Commercial and Employment properties in the Historic District and Type 1 Administrative approval. • Proposed Amendment: No land use approval necessary if: Panels installed flush and parallel to plane of roof and below roof peak and installed on flat roof, and screened from view by an existing roof parapet. Eave Extensions • Current code allows eaves to encroach up to 18 inches. • Proposed changes to the Yard Requirements subsection (18.68.04) would allow eaves, and awnings to intrude up to three feet (3') into required yards. • Objective: reduce energy-cooling costs through greater daytime shading of windows. • Existing Standard: Roof eaves permitted to extend 18-inches into a side, rear or front yard setback area. • Proposed Amendment: Roof eaves permitted to extend a maximum of 36 inches-into a side, rear or front yard setback area. Rain Barrels • Located in side or rear yard and screened from view of neighbors and street. • A barrel used to collect and store rainwater runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. o 6 feet or less in height. o 3 feet of clearance provided. o Screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. • Objective: Increase water conservation through harvesting of rainwater. • Existing Standard: Not permitted within side, rear, or front yard setback areas. • Proposed Amendment: Permitted within a side or rear yard setback area (not front) if 6 feet or less in height, 3 feet of clearance provided, screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. A,NHLANU U11 Y C:UUNC IL MLL111VO March 6, 1011 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Goldman explained a water catchment system above 5,000 gallons or fewer than 5,000 gallons and how using electrical equipment triggered a building permit. The 6-foot screening for rain barrels applied to the 6-foot fence requirement. The 3-foot clearance provision allowed enough room for people to navigate for safety and access. Rain barrels were explicitly allowed in setbacks and still considered structures. There were no inspections in terms of a building permit but if violations of existing zoning standards were identified the property owner would receive a correction notice. Keeping Chickens • Accessory Structures and Buildings (Ch. 18.68.140) • 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 feet in area, and chicken run'enclosures shall not exceed 100 square feet in size. • Deleted from Ordinance: Shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and the public right of way with a combination of fencing and/or landscaping. • Health and Sanitation— Nuisances (Ch 9.08) • No more than 5 hens (no roosters)are permitted. • Chickens kept are for personal use (not commercial). • Chickens are secured at all times: during daytime in a chicken run or fenced yard and during night within a coop. • Feed is kept in rodent and raccoon proof containers. • Manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be stored in enclosed containers (not more than 20 gallons)until removed. • Deleted from Ordinance: Chicken slaughtering shall not be done outdoors. • Objective: Increase opportunities for local food production. • Existing Standard: Chickens no closer than 75-feet from a neighboring dwelling, mitigate impacts of odor and debris, cannot roam loose, cannot cause unnecessary noise. • Proposed Amendment: Chickens no closer than 20-feet from a neighboring dwelling, mitigate impacts of odor and debris, must be housed in coop, chicken run, or fenced yard, cannot cause unnecessary noise and no more than 5 chickens with no roosters. Staff stated that five chickens could lay up to 1,200 eggs a year and that the ordinance prohibited roosters due to noise. Staff based the number of chickens on a single-family property. The ordinance for keeping chickens would not extend to multi-family developments or duplexes. The ordinance stated eggs were for personal use and non-commercial purposes only. Additionally, the ordinance was flexible and Council could make adjustments. Fencing • Fence Heights: Below street grade properties, .retaining walls (natural grade is used to determine maximum fence height under the solar ordinance when fence shades a property to the north). • Materials: Security fencing(razor wire, barbed wire, electric fencing). • Deer Fencing: Up to 8' tall (front, side, or rear yard), Open mesh 80%visibility side and rear yard, 85% visibility front yard, minimum mesh diameter 1.5" in front yard, constructed to prevent sagging. • Materials: Existing code prohibits razor wire, barbed wire, electric fencing on adjoining property line and adjacent to public right of way. On commercial, employment and industrial properties, such fencing shall not be visible from the right-of-way. • Deer Fencing Objectives: Increase opportunities for local food production, allow an increase in fence height only to incorporate deer-type fencing. • Deer Fencing Existing Standards: Maximum height of 3'-6' in front yard, maximum height of 6'-6" in side or rear yard setback, maximum height of 4'-0"—adjacent to city street. • Deer Fencing Proposed Amendment: Maximum height of 8'-0" in front yard, setback; 85% transparent AN14LANU U77'Y CUUNU71, MLL77/VU March 6, 2012 _ Page 4 of 8 for additional 4'-6" in height allowance (1.5 squire inch minimum grid size). Maximum height of 8'-0" for side or rear yards adjacent to City Street; 80%transparency for additional 4'-0" in height allowance. Built to prevent sagging. Mr. Goldman noted there was nothing in the current ordinance that would require a grandfather clause with the exception of barbed wire on properties in the front yard. Everything presented were new allowances. Public Hearing Open: 7:58 p.m. Sarah Rudeen/126 Lincoln Street/Explained she was a recent graduate from Southern Oregon University Environmental Studies. Overall, she supported the proposed ordinance and asked Council to consider shortening the setback length for beekeeping. Edwin Chapman/]13 Pine Street/Supported the changes for deer fencing but had issues with limiting chickens to five. He explained why hens could not produce 1,200 eggs a year unless on hormones, that in town most considered them pets and chicken coops did not smell if the owner kept them clean. He agreed with prohibiting roosters and noted chickens stopped making noise after sundown. He urged Council not to limit flock size to five hens. A reasonable flock size depended on the size of the yard and 20 would likely be the most. Council could base the limitation on the size of the yard. A 40-square foot coop would work only for chickens to sleep in and could accommodate 10-15 chickens. Nicole Graham/418 Lit Way/Explained she did not want to violate the law if she sold extra eggs to her neighbors. She had issues with flock size and described her quarter acre yard. She wanted the ability to offset the cost of feed by selling extra eggs to her neighbors. She questioned the 100-foot setback for rabbits, noted that rabbit manure was odorless, and thought the setback was extreme. Yehudit Shemesh/862 Michelle Avenue[Mought Council should increase the limit of chickens. She made noise and waste comparisons of several chickens to three dogs. Additionally, Council should allow trading, battering and selling. Sarah Red-Laird/1503 South 3rd Street, Jacksonville/Spoke in favor of changing the 150-foot setback for beehives to best management practices for beekeeping consisting of no more than four hives per quarter acre or less lot size. She suggested reducing the hive location setback from 150-feet to 20-feet and have the beekeeper provide adequate water within 25-feet of the hives, a 6' hedge or solid fence if the colonies were within 10-feet of a property line and substantial barriers to protect animals and children. Another requirement was colony inspections by a beekeeper or their delegate three times a year between March and October. Bees increased pollination, plant healthy, biodiversity, local production of honey products as well as education. Katie Latham/]149 Oak Street/Supported increasing the number of chickens and commented that five chickens produced 3-4 eggs a day, less in the winter and that was not enough for most families. Additionally, 100 square feet for a chicken run was too small for her acreage. Ryan King/420 Chestnut Street/Shared his educational background and that he was pursuing the installation of three beehives on Southern Oregon University campus with the intention that beekeeping serve as a model for educational purposes. The installation would also serve as a hub to train local beekeepers, provide research, and conservation biology. He noted bees were ecologically vital to the bioregion and local economy. Kim Blackwolf/354 Liberty Street/Provided her educational background and expertise as a professional gardener and urban homesteader. She noted her experience raising turkeys, ducks, geese, and chickens and shared statistics on chickens regarding noise, and waste. She supported decreasing the setback for chickens to 20-feet. Other provisions in the ordinance did not go far enough or were too restrictive. She wanted a re-write of the entire animal part of the ordinance to support home growing and self-sufficiency including chickens, rabbits, bees, and pigs with each based on the best practices for the backyard animal, not an arbitrary number or AJHLANU C/7 Y t-UUNC/L MLL/7NU March 6, 2012 Page 5 of 8 pen size that did not relate to the animal in particular. In addition, Council should remove non-commercial from the ordinance for the same reasons previously stated during public testimony. A 20-foot setback for rabbits and bees was reasonable. She encouraged the City to restructure the animal ordinance to support front and back gardens, chickens,turkeys,bees, and other food-producing animals in backyards. Amy Haptonsta1U341 Beach Street/Explained chickens had become an urban animal in the community and requested that the ordinance be clear on odor and cleanliness, in line with property size and not distance and number. Chickens help create natural compost, decrease the amount of garbage, minimize bugs and weeds, and nourish the owner with food. She researched the City of Medford ordinance, noted it required the area to be odor and debris free and create no noise problem and thought the City of Ashland should word their ordinance in a similar manner. Elaine Delsman/555 Fairview/Owned a farm partially in the city and in the county. She described her chicken yard that contained 15 chickens and shared her experience raising chickens over the past 45 years. They paid taxes as a farm and sold eggs. She was concerned the ordinance would not grandfather barbed wire and electric fencing. Her farm used both and it extended to the property within city limits. She supported changing the ordinance to allow more chickens but thought the focus should concentrate on odor and noise. Oshana Catranides/321 Clay Street/Spoke as a beekeeper and shared how she got started. She wanted the 20- foot setback to apply to beekeeping as well. She also supported increasing the number of chickens allowed in the ordinance. Public Hearing Closed: 8:29 p.m. Council majority thought the ordinances were clear with the exception of chickens and animals. They supported the 20-foot setback and using yard space as a scale to determine numbers of chickens. Some comments wanted to include bees and other animals while other comments suggested a Study Session to develop a home growing food ordinance to address all animals. Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending the Site Design and Review Chapter 18.72 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to exempt solar energy systems needing specific standards from site review requirements and move to Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,Morris, Chapman,Silbiger, Lemhouse and Slattery,YES. Motion passed. Councilor Silbiger/Morris m/s to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Definitions Chapter 18.08 and General Regulations Chapter 18.68 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Ordinance and move to Second Reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman had an issue with roof extensions, preferred large overhangs, and did not like the idea of them encroaching into setbacks. For deer fencing, he thought the transparency should be consistent instead of 85% for the front and 80% for the side and backyards. Mr. Goldman clarified the original ordinance requirement was,80% transparency for the entire yard with vertical and structural supports in the front yard no greater than 2X2. The Planning Commission felt that limited design alternatives and suggested 4X4 to preserve the intent of making them less visible. Councilor Silbiger referenced Exhibit B Green Codes Alternative Ordinance Language and explained going with the Planning Commission's recommendation of 85% on the front yard and 80% for the sides and backyard would require an amendment. Mr. Goldman clarified a 6 foot fence could be solid, but an 8 foot fence required the top 2 feet to be 80%transparent. Councilor Chapman was not comfortable removing the rain barrel size limits or having the clearance requirement at 3 feet and wanted staff to review fire safety in regards 3-foot clearances. Council majority supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to strike the 90-gallon limit on rain barrels. Mr. Goldman explained when the Planning Commission recommended removing the size limitation, staff responded with the 6-foot barrel height in relation to the 6-foot fence height requirement and 3-foot clearance limitations. Council majority was in favor of the Planning Commission's suggestion regarding height and clearance but ANHLANU Gil Y CUUNUIL MLtllNU March 6, 1011 Page 6 of 8 wanted staff to further research structural and clearance issues. Council consensus also supported the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding deer fencing as a whole. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Slattery,Voisin, Morris and Lemhouse,YES.Motion passed. It was clarified that the direction to staff included the number of hens, the 20-foot setback, and coup size requirements. The remaining ordinance was an amendment to the Health and Sanitation Ordinance. Councilor Voisin suggested changes to Section 3, Chapter 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals (C) increasing the number to no more than 20 chickens on a single-family residential lot and strike 9.08.040 Cl: "Chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities." She questioned the reference to AMC 18.20.020(D) in the 75-foot setback. City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the 75-foot setback pertained to turkeys, geese, ducks, and provided a special exception for chickens. For Second Reading staff would change the language regarding chickens. Mr. Lohman clarified the changes Councilor Voisin suggested pertained to the Health and Sanitation Ordinance and not Chapter 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures (C) regarding chicken coops, numbers and chicken runs. Council directed staff to bring back additional information regarding the number of chickens allowed on a property. Councilor Silbiger/Slattery m/s to approve of First Reading of an Ordinance establishing provisions for keeping of chickens within a residential districts and repealing fence provisions within the Health and Sanitation Chapter 9.08 and move to Second Reading. DISCUSSION: Mayor Stromberg clarified the 75- foot setback applied to other kinds of poultry and chickens were an exception with a 20-foot setback. Councilor Voisin suggested striking strike 9.08.040 Cl: "Chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities." Council addressed Exhibit B Green Codes Alternative Ordinance Language from the Planning Commission recommendations regarding 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals. Council majority supported recommendation (C)(2) that prohibited chickens on multi-family complexes and duplexes. Council directed staff to come back with flexible language regarding (C)(3) Chickens shall be kept for personal use only,and not for the commercial exchange of goods or commodities. Council supported (C)(4) prohibiting roosters. Council directed staff for further information regarding (C)(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. Council supported (C) (6, 7, and 8). Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris and Chapman, YES. Motion Passed. PUBLIC FORUM Nancy Nelson/149 Clear Creek Drive/Submitted a document into the record on the negative impact genetically modified organisms (GMO) food had in India that contributed to 200,000 suicides. She stressed the importance of people's right to know and to choose and commented on the destructive impact of GMO foods on farmers, organic consumers, and the harmful pesticides used for GMO foods. The US needed more community seed banks and open source seeds for organic seeds. She supported a GMO free agriculture. 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? ANHLANU CH Y CUUNCIL MEL I11VO March 6, 2012 Page 7 of 8 Keith Haxton/110 7" Street/Explained "corporate personhood" was a way to assert rights. He supported the proposed resolution but did not think it adequately covered all the rights that corporations had and subsequently would seek a ballot initiative that he hoped Council would support. Evan Lasley/110 7'" Street/Supported the resolution but wanted a ballot initiative that came from either the community or Council. Jan Waitt/147 Manzanita Street/The amendment as it stood overturned Citizens United. The resolution discussed in February 2012 had the added advantage of overturning a long line of legal decisions that gave corporate entities constitutional protections not envisioned by the authors of the Bill of Rights. The current resolution was an important step forward. She suggested Council pass the resolution and refer the previous resolution as a referendum on the ballot. Michael Dawkins/646 East Main Street/Thought any amendment to control spending in political campaigning was futile, misguided, and just Band-Aids on federalism. It was not only a step away from liberty but also a step away from taking responsibility. He questioned whether people were so "dumbed down" and lazy they needed the government to protect them from themselves. He noted the irony that people talked about localization but wanted more federal control that included campaign spending. Councilor Silbiger/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2012-07. DISCUSSION: City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained citizens could file for an initiative to place it on the ballot. It would require collecting signatures. Alternately, the Council could choose to place it on the ballot themselves and eliminate the need for signatures. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the motion. He objected to the process and Council being used as a political platform but strongly supported a citizen-based initiative on the ballot. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Voisin, Silbiger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Lemhouse NO. Motion passed 5-1. Council discussed making a motion for an initiative or placing the item for further discussion on the next meeting agenda. . Councilor Voisin motioned that Council ask for this issue of finance campaign reform and ending of corporate personhood be put on the November ballot and have staff prepare the language. Mayor Stromberg ruled the motion was out of order and not the stibject of the agenda item. 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? Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse would support a rate increase if the study results justified one. Councilor Slattery questioned the need for a special consultant. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained Bell and Associates expertise were more suited to understanding Recology's financial statements than staff. If it went to arbitration it would be helpful to have this expert analysis. Additionally, the cost plus method of determining rates was the industry standard and 9%-12% the customary rate of return as 9%-10% operating margin on pre-tax revenues. The City's franchise agreement was outdated. A franchise agreement allowed exclusive rights for specific services within city limits and in turn the City ensured a fair rate of return on business. The alternative would be to do away with exclusivity. He AJHLANU(.'/7'r C UUN(.7L Mtt771V(i March 6, 2011 Page 8 of 8 confirmed most rate studies used a template and the consultant would determine industry standards that met Ashland's market conditions. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Shall the Mayor and Council approve an appointment for the vacant position on the Citizen Budget Committee with term ending December 31? 2012? City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained Dee Anne Everson resigned from the Citizen Budget Committee and the City had received four applications to fill the vacancy. Councilor Lemhouse thanked Dee Anne Everson for her contributions to the Budget Committee. Councilor Slattery/Silbiger m/s to appoint Denise Daehler to the Citizen Budget Committee with a term ending December 31, 2012. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. 3. Will Council approve the Mayor's appointment of Councilor Slattery as liaison to the Forest Service for 2012? Councilor Lemhouse/Silbiger m/s to approve Mayor's appointment of Councilor Slattery as liaison to,the Foresi Service for 2012. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted Councilor Slattery had a history of bringing sides together to find a common ground and was a good choice. Councilor Voisin commented the Forest Service and Mt. Ashland Association were mutual partners and did think there was opposition. Having another councilor as a liaison to the Forest Service would offer varying perspectives and a broader base of representation. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None) OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 6:00pm-8:00pm—February 22, 2012 Community Development Building--- To be approved at the March 28, 2012 Commission Meeting CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hartman called the meeting to order at 5:35 pm. Attendees: Risa Buck. Sheri Cellini(arrived at 7pm)Stuart Corns, Jim'Hartman, Jim McGinnis, David Runkel Thomas Beam, and Mark Weir were present. Cat Gould was absent. City Council Liaison: Carol Voisin, Staff Representative: lee Tuneberg,Adam Hanks, and Mary McClary SOU Representative: Shaun Franks (SOU Stainability Student Director) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Hartman asked for approval of the minutes for January 25, 2012. Commissioner McGinnis moved to accept the minutes of January 25, 2012. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Corns. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Next meeting is scheduled for March 28, 2012. Commissioner Runkel stated there was a press release for the Conservation Awards. He also mentioned the funds approved for the event only would cover the cost of the awards, if the awards stayed the same as last year, and the funds would not cover a picture and frame. The discussion was set aside for budget items. Chairperson Hartman went over the timeline of the rest of the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM Shaun/SOU, The Student Sustainability Director, was in attendance and also would contribute later in the meeting to the SOU quarterly report. Item VIII, Quarterly Liaison Reports was moved to first item. Commissioner Corns spoke to the Commission about one of SOU's capitol projects, North Campus Village, a 47 million dollar project. The project will be approximately 200,000 plus square feet including dorms and kitchen facilities. The 4-story wood structure will be minimum LEED Silver certified, with a possibility of Gold certification. The project is the largest construction project within the City of Ashland was approved within 60 days through the City. This project will create some local employment opportunities, and hope for a completion date in the fall of 2013. The other project he mentioned was Churchill Hall with a 4.7 million dollar remodeling price tag and would mostly look the same,with a lot of the construction addressing the infrastructure. Shaun Franks reported SOU was going to hire a Sustainability Coordinator. There will also be a sustainability council meeting tomorrow and Shaun asked Mark Weir to attend, thereby creating a city presence. Kay Brown, the Secretary of State and also a member on the Oregon Sustainability Board,came to the University in January. Shaun spoke with her regarding some sustainability measures around campus. He would like to receive funds from Oregon Best, who uses some lottery funds to fund projects for renewable energies and sustainability studies for the bigger universities like OIT, PSU, OSU and U of O. He is working to align with them to invest in SOU as well. He reported that in the past SOU had offset their energy uses by purchasing renewable energy credits, (green lags) and now they would like to be more diverse and invest in clean energy, water and campus sustainability. The fund will be renamed the SOU Green Fund. Their hope was to invest more locally. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Review/Follow-up of January 25, 2012 Presentations 1) Rain Barrels in Ashland—Mabrie Ormes ' Set aside 2) Rogue Valley Green Drinks—Fred anULynn Blanch Commissioner Weir felt a community based event that held discussions on a monthly basis was a great source of education and communication. He asked if the Commission was interested in supporting the organization. Commissioner McGinnis brought up the point that the City cannot support any alcohol events. The Commissioners discussed different ideas for support, and Commissioner Weir asked for this item to be placed on the.agenda. B. Recap of Commission Submittal to Council for February 11, 2012 Goal Setting Commissioner McGinnis recapped the process to get the materials together for submission to the City Council's meeting on February 11. Unfortunately, the documents were not included in the Councilor's packets. He read emails from Lee Tuneberg and Larry Patterson regarding the meeting. Adam explained the PDF file wad forwarded to the City Administrator's office. Councilor Voisin remarked comments from the Council indicated they would like to receive feedback and information before goal setting. She said there was about a 5 minute discussion about current goals. Again, there was discussion among the members about the meaning of sustainability and the importance of having a Council discussion about sustainability. The Commission members discussed sending Council the Federal definition of sustainability, and also the difference between the meaning and sustainability principles. The members were disappointed their - documents were not included in the Council packet. Commissioner Buck remarked prior to the last three years, the Conservation Commission would achieve different accomplishments based on set goals. During the past three years,they have decided to communicate, work and integrate more with the Council to support the city goals to have a greater impact. She didn't feel the Commission was being effective and she appealed to staff and Council to help them make different choices. Commissioner Weir asked about how to get the documents to the Council so the Commission can hear back about the decisions they make, for example adopting a Leed Silver standard for all future construction for city buildings. Lee Tuneberg read to the Commission Larry's Pattern's email about how the Council will wait and determine necessary goals regarding homelessness and sustainability,beyond city efforts. He explained they might look at new goals after they received the Commission's information. He slated the city was in a transitional period, and he hoped to ask for a study session to discuss the things the Commission had accomplished and the issues recommended, before they meet to set new.goals. Commissioner McGinnis believed the Commission was asking for direct communication with the City Council or to ask them to vote on specific issues. Lee will ask the City Administrator which is the best way to proceed. Lee will inform the Commission by email. A NEW BUSINESS A. Process Review–Council Goal Setting Submittal Adam Hanks explained he was trying to make sure the Commission did not take any form of action after they had voted on the specific issues. (Documents for Council) In addition he would like to make the agenda more concise and organized. The members discussed procedures, items to be brought before Council for direction and items for the Commission, city operations, and Council issues. They discussed conservation measures for gasoline and restructuring that into a % of reduction in fuel consumption. Lee remarked staffs main goals are to engineer, educate and enforce. Commissioner McGinnis restated the sustainability plan would become a % of reduction in energy use by a certain time. They also discussed different ideas about the idling policy, for example, Recology has signs at the recycling center as gentle reminders to turn engines off. Commissioner Cellini arrived at 7:08pm. Commissioner Gould reintegrated the Commission would like to see a reduction in fuel consumption and save money for the City. She asked for the fuel consumption by the City vehicles and the standard consumption. After the Commission is able to review the statistics, then they would be able to come up with a more measureable goal for a reduction in fuel consumption. The Commissioners discussed in length what they hoped to accomplish and their expectations from staff for supporting information. B. Guidelines for Commission Expenditures and Sponsorship of Events Lee explained this item went before Council to uniformly establish processes and consistency that apply to the different Committees and Commissions for expenditures and sponsorships of events. He explained some items would need to go before Council, and some expenditures like Earth Day, which is a typical annual cost, would not. Council will need to approve everything that we endorse or sponsor as a Commission. He also explained as they motion and approve expenditures, the item goes before the Department Director and that person approves the payment. If the item was over a'certain dollar amount,the item would require Council approval. If the Department Director does not approve the item,the Commission may appeal their decision. Next year, January would be a good time for the Commission to decide items they would like to submit for their next year's budget. Commissioner Cellini asked to begin in November. The Commissioners asked staff for reminders. C. Earth Day Planning—Content and Assignments Delayed to next meeting —set aside D. Commission Expenditure Requests for FY 2011-12 (thru June 30, 2012) - The Commissioners discussed briefly items for budgetary purposes: Earth Day demonstration Annual Retreat Prepaid Leaf Program Noted Speakers Sustainability Presentation They asked to put this item on next month's agenda. Commissioner Weir asked for a progress report on the City Utility accounts and baseline data, including the breakdown of individual buildings from the November Commission meeting. He would like to discuss the next step. Commissioner Beam would like a report back about the Road Diet Letter,wondering if Council received the information. Commissioner Buck gave the dates for the compost classes: June 9 July 14 August 11 September 8 She asked the Commissioners to let her know which dates would work for which Commissioner to attend. The Commissioners asked for a review on the Storm Drain Project, and also asked that the 4'"of July discussion be added to the next month's agenda. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hartman adjourned the meeting at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Mary McClary Administrative Assistant for Electric, Telecommunication and the Conservation Department. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Community Development office at 541488-5305(TTY phone number is 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 Titlel). CITY OF IF"Al -ASHLAND DRAFT Minutes February-8, 2012 Ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee Ashland Public Library 4:00- 6:00 p.m. Attendance Ayers, Parker, Lewis, Rohde, O'Bryon, Hopkins-Powell, Voisin (Council liaison), Slattery (Council Liaison) Reid (City staff) Absent Saldana Call to Order Parker called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Approval of Minutes Hopkins-Powell/Rohde m/s to approve the minutes with corrections of the January 23`d meeting. Agenda Item #4: Chief Holdemess ag ve a presentation on the Fontana California TEN-4 program and the Community Assistance Program Chief Holdemess noted that the issues are different in Ashland than the issues that these programs worked to solve in Fontana. The TEN-4 model came out of a problem solving methodology. The effort began with officers meeting with churches to find out what they were seeing. The Methodology that they used was known as SARA: Scan: What is the nature of the problem? Analysis: Why Fontana? Talked extensively to the homeless, found that Fontana was not usually their ultimate destination. But, because of the major transportation hubs in Fontana it was easy to get to and that there were a lot of churches offering free (maintenance) services to the homeless. It was easy to be homeless in Fontana so they stayed. Response: Went to the churches, let them know that they were empowering the homeless to remain homeless. Asked those offering services what their goals were, what they were trying to accomplish as a community. Everyone agreed that it was to get people off the streets. They pooled their resources. Designed and developed a processing center and established a committee to develop guidelines and procedures for the program. Assess: Used baseline information from before the implementation of TEN-4, i.e. the number of complaints, crime states, and the#.of homeless. Then Compare those numbers annually to rate the success of the program. In the first year the TEN-4 program assisted 652 people with their program. 54% of those assisted remained in housing, 10% dropped out of the program. The TEN-4 program was eventually replaced by the Community Assistance Program (CAP). This program utilized a $20,000 grant from the City of Fontana and was hosted by a partner church that provided office space and a meeting room. The CAP program applied the same philosophy as the TEN-4 program, providing Rehabilitation programs to help move participants out of homelessness. The CAP program specializes in connecting people's needs with the people who have the needed resource or service. The CAP program worked to get people registered with services, held an annual resource fair, and held monthly meetings with service providers and community partners to network and work on finding solutions to their participants problems. The CAP program also offered several life skills classes, most of which are taught by Page 1 of 3 volunteer police officers. The CAP program operates on an annual budget of approximately $40K. Hopkins-Powell asked what about the participants with issues of mental illness, how did 10-4 deal with them? Holdemess answered that when possible the program tried to get those participants with issues of mental illness some counseling, and tried to connect them with the necessary resources. Often those with mental illness were allowed to go through the program multiple times, unlike others, who where only allowed to participate in the program two times. Slattery asked whether the Fontana programs received any resources or support from the County, or were they just instituted/maintained alone by the City. Holdemess replied that the Fontana programs did utilized county resources, mainly in the form of services and program coordination. 'Employment Department representatives and other County and State service providers provided outreach efforts on site weekly. Both programs came out of the police dept. then were run by community volunteers only requiring on average approximately one hour a week of staff time to maintain the program after initial set up. Agenda Item #3-Report from Regina Ayars, RE: Plaza Merchant Interviews and Discussion Ayars interviewed several of the plaza merchants to find out what the merchants were seeing as bad behavior on the plaza. Some specific comments were: that aggressive panhandling was when the people panhandling spoke. Many of the merchants mentioned that they would really like to see more police presence downtown. Many people had high praise for former officer Terry De Silva who formerly patrolled the downtown and worked out of the downtown police annex. Some felt that the downtown annex is being underutilized. Everyone interviewed stated that they have had to call the police at least once about an issue with the homeless. Ayars asked Chief Holdemess if there is a plan to get someone, like former officer De Silva in the downtown again. Chief Holdemess replied that at the beginning of last summer there were a lot of complaints and once that second person came on board the complaints went away. Once the budget is passed there will be funding for two officers in the downtown, but it won't be implemented for a while. There will be community service officers in the park/downtown this summer. Agenda Item #5-Discussion with Chief Holdemess about possible ways to address bad behavior in public areas Slattery asked Chief Holdemess how an exclusionary zone would work. Chief Holdemess replied that an exclusionary zone would apply to individuals who have recieved a certain number of violations, after reaching that number they would then be trespassed from the downtown area for a specified period of time. Based on police data, this would apply to a small group of repeat offenders; the vast majority of the homeless population has no interface with the police department. Chief Holdemess stated that currently the issue for the police with regard to behavior in the downtown is that there are very few repeat offenders, but of those offenders there is no reprimand to deter them from engaging in bad/unacceptable behavior. Currently the only tool that the police have to use is to issue class B violations, which do not carry jail time, only fees and fines. Most of the repeat offenders do not pay the fines or have any Page 2 of 3 intention of paying the fines or completing community service to work off the fines. An exclusionary zone may provide enough of a negative consequence to compel better behavior in the downtown. Hopkins-Powell stated that lately she has been hearing a lot of stories and hearing a lot of mental illness. If a person is clearly mentally ill, and the police get called and they find that the individual has a warrant, then the police are required to take them. How do we deal with these people, who suffer from mental illness, trespassing wouldn't seem like a deterrent to them. Chief Holderness replied that the mental health system is terribly broken, there are not enough resources for those experiencing mental illness, currently there are only 16 beds throughout Jackson County to house people experiencing mental illness. Chief Holdemess did state that in his experience even mentally ill people have a sense of right and wrong. They would be able to understand what being trespassed would mean. Audience Member Coyner stated that the community needs to come together to tell the problem people that this behavior is unacceptable. Coyner expressed concern as to whether there might be room for abuse should an exclusionary zone be enacted. Agenda Item #6-Goal Setting exercise The Committee members made suggestions as to what goals they would like the Committee to focus on over the next two and half months, and then ranked the goals individually using dot stickers. Goal #1: Identify specific behaviors that are not welcome in Ashland, Identify a strategy to help people change their behaviors and develop a plan for consequences. Goal #2: Ask the Council to extend Committee, develop a narrative through community outreach and information. Goal #3: Identify a day center location; identify an agency to run the day center. Goal #4: Identify a management plan and what facilities/services a day center will provide. Announcements Community Works has offered to sponsor Heidi as the volunteer for the La Clinica Medical Van. The Van is scheduled to be at the Methodist Church on February 21', from 1:00 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. rather than February 14'h as originally scheduled. It will be first come first serve. A 3`d listening post site will be operating at the UCC church on Mondays from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. Meeting adjourned at 6:10 Next meeting dates February 27- City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main 4:00-6:00 March 14`h—Ashland Public Library 4-6 PM Page 3 of 3 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 February 14, 2012 Page 1 of 5 B. Pedestrian Places—Continue Public Hearing to February 28, 2011 Commissioners Kaplan/Miller 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 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 stormwater 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 cistem 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 clarify this and they should allow larger barrels. She also questioned staff s 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 Planning Commission February 14, 2012 Page 2 of 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 February 14, 2012 Page 3 of 5 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. • Keeoing of Chickens: Commissioner Dawkins objected to the requirement for fencing or screening chickens from public view. Mr.Goldman stated staffs 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 right-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 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 properly 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 February 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 property line. 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 mis 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 Ashland Planning Commission February 14, 2012 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES February 28,2012 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 Eric Heesacker Maria Hams, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Pam Marsh April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery,absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh reviewed the Commission's upcoming meeting schedule and announced Dennis Slattery is the Commission's new Council Liaison. She also noted that May 5 and May 19 have been proposed for the Commission's annual retreat and asked each member to check their schedules so that they can make a selection at their next meeting. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of Findings for PA-2011.01731,Green Codes Updates. Commissioner Mindlin questioned why the Commission's decision is moving forward as a recommendation rather than changing the draft ordinance as discussed. She stated she does not support sending this onto the City Council in this format and stated since the Commission is bringing this change forward,the proposed ordinance should say what they want it to say. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the public hearing before the City Council has already been noticed for March 6 and in order to stay with that timeline it was not possible to bring a revised ordinance back before the Planning Commission. He stated the Findings do reflect the direction given by the Commission and they will be presented to the Council along with the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman commented on items the Commission had requested further research on,and stated the following recommendations will also be presented to Council: 1)front yard deer fencing shall be 85%pervious, 2)mesh materials placed in a front yard shall have a minimum open diameter of 1.5 square inches,3)deer fencing (wire or polypropylene)shall be supported by structural supports or tension wire,4)eliminate the requirement to screen chicken coops and runs from public right of ways and adjacent properties, 5)eliminate the prohibition again outdoor slaughtering of chickens,and 6) modify the rain barrel requirements to state barrels shall not exceed 6 ft. in height and shall be located so that a minimum clear width of 3 ft. is provided between the barrel and property line. Commissioner Miller agreed with Mindlin and stated she also would have preferred to see their recommendations incorporated into the draft ordinance. Commissioner Marsh stated she is not concerned with moving forward the materials in this format. Commissioner Dawkins agreed and stated the current format makes it much clearer for the Council to understand what was discussed and flushed out by the Planning Commission, Ashland Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Page 1 of 3 Commissioners Dawkins/Kaplan m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2011.01731.Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller and Marsh,YES.Commissioner Mindlin, NO. Motion passed 4.1.[Commissioner Heesacker abstained] PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011-01734 DESCRIPTION:A continuation of the January 24, 2012 public hearing to review the pedestrian access and circulation standards(AMC 18.92)that were adopted as part of the Pedestrian Places project.The zoning and land use ordinance amendments associated with the Pedestrian Places project were approved by the City Council on November 15,2011 and went into effect on December 16, 2011. Subsequent to the approval,the City Council directed the Planning Commission to re-review the ordinance amendments that apply to the Detail Site Review Zone and citywide,and make recommendations to the Council for changes as appropriate. Pedestrian Access and Circulation Planning Manager Maria Hams commented on the pedestrian access and circulation standards and clarified these standards only apply to multi-family and commercial developments. She provided an overview of the site layout and design standards and stated: • To the greatest extent possible,walkway systems should be extended throughout the development and connect the buildings to adjacent public sidewalks; parking areas;trails, public parks and open space antis; building entrances; and future phases of the development. • Walkways have to provide safe, reasonably direct and convenient walkway connects. Ms. Hams clarified walkways through parking lots are only required for lots with 50 or more parking spaces(or greater than 100 feet in width or depth). She also noted the provision which states "topographic or existing development constraints may be cause for not making certain walkway connections"and stated this language was intentionally included to provide flexibility. Ms. Harris also reviewed the walkway design and construction standards,which state: • Walkways must be 5 feet wide. • Be made of concrete, asphalt, brick or masonry pavers,or other durable surface. • Be raised and curbed through parking areas of 50 or more spaces or when adjacent to driveways; however the decision body may approve same grade walkways. • Provide crosswalks where walkways cross parking areas or driveways. • Meet the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)requirements. • Provide pedestrian scale lighting no greater than 14 feet in height. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided several visual samples of existing multi-family and commercial developments in Ashland, and displayed how the developments might look if the new standards were applied. Commissioner Mindlin questioned if her co-housing development on Calypso would have violated these standards. Staff noted there is flexibility built into the ordinance and the decision body has the ability to approve same grade walkways like what was approved for the Calypso development. Commissioner Marsh commented that there are all different types of lots and while it is beneficial to set guidelines, they need to acknowledge that the intent is the most important part and incorporate flexibility that people can trust. Mr. Molnar stated the main goal of this ordinance is to get applicants thinking about how pedestrians will get through a site early on in the process. He also commented on the possibility of modifying the ordinance to provide additional leniency for residential developments. Arterial Setbacks Ms. Harris provided some history of the arterial setback requirements and stated prior to the Pedestrian Places ordinance the requirement for all arterials(except in the downtown and the croman mill areas),was for buildings to be setback 20 ft.from the property line. She explained the revised ordinance establishes a"build-to line"approach and instead of working from the property lines,you are working from the curb line and reserving enough space for future parkrow and sidewalk improvements. Ms. Hams reviewed the benefits of this approach and stated: l) buildings located in the commercial and employment zones have the ability to come closer to the back of the sidewalk and therefore utilize the land more efficiently, 2)the character of the residential zones is maintained because the underlying property line setback still applies and properties will have 10 ft.to 20 ft.for front yard space, and 3)you gain predictability because when you work from the curb line you are dealing with a fixed point whereas property lines are fairly arbitrary and can shift. Ashland Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Goldman provided several visual samples of properties located along the arterials and displayed what development under these new standards might look like. Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with applying this standard to North Main and questioned if this approach would eliminate their opportunity to widen the street and install bike lanes.The Commission discussed whether there is potential to install bike lanes on North Main, and also discussed the proposed Road Diet. Commissioner Marsh stated the Road Diet would be a great solution to this problem and hopes it will move forward. Ms. Hams stated staff believes there are some areas that could use refinement,and noted there will be opportunity to adopt some housekeeping measures through the Unified Land Use Ordinance project. She stated staff is starting to work on this project now, and it will come before the Commission starting in April and will continue for the next 12 months. Commissioner Marsh clarified these changes were passed by the City Council and are currently in effect, and asked how the Commission would like to proceed. She stated they could keep everything the same, request modifications to the entire ordinance, or affirm the actions to this point and ask staff to place specific refinements in the code cleanup project. Mr. Molnar noted one other option is to direct staff to come back immediately with the housekeeping updates and not wait for the Unified Code to come forward. Commissioner Dawkins restated his concern with the arterial setbacks on North Main and how to establish a bike corridor; but noted this concern is dependent on whether the City adopts the Road Diet. Commissioner Marsh agreed that a bike lane is essential there, but stated this is a corridor issue and asked if the group was comfortable revisiting this after they see what happens with the Road Diet. The group voiced their support for the adopted amendment to the arterial street setback for Ashland, Siskiyou and East Main;and if the Road Diet does not occur,to revisit the setbacks on North Main to address the bike lane issue. Commissioner Mindlin stated she is unsatisfied with the circulation language and having a rule that is left to discretion, and suggested removing the parking lot standards for residential developments. Commissioner Marsh noted staff had recommended taking another look at whether to apply the parking lot standards to multi-family developments and in lots greater than 100 feet in width or depth, and asked if the Commission was comfortable dealing with these issues in the next 12 months during the code cleanup project. The group voiced their support for revisiting this issue during the Unified Land Use Code project. Mr. Molnar clarified staff would capture the Commission's decision in memo format and bring it back to the Commission for review and approval before sending it along to the City Council. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Dawkins stated he would still like to revisit the sidewalk requirements for areas where they aren't necessary and don't get used. Commission Marsh encouraged the members to think about retreat topics. Suggestion was made by Commissioner Mindlin for them to add pocket neighborhoods to the agenda. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission February 28, 2012 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Recommendation for Endorsement from the Public Art Commission Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer Department: Administration E-Mail: ann @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Dave Kanner Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council approve a recommendation from the Public Art Commission to endorse Southern Oregon Arts and Research (SOAR) which will occur on the SOU campus in May? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the PAC's recommendation. Background: On February 17, representatives from SOAR attended the Public Art Commission monthly meeting requesting endorsement of their event. The PAC voted in favor of the endorsement and is now forwarding their recommendation to the City Council for approval as is required by the Commission and Committee Operations Guide adopted by the Council on February 21. Endorsement; as defined in the Operations Guide, is a public expression of support for a program, activity or event and requires there be a correlation between the event and Commission purpose. Staff believes the event meets the criteria stated in the Operations Guide and that the event has a direct connection to the purpose of the Public Art Commission which reads in part: "...the arts are an important part of the cultural and economic life of the entire community of Ashland and enrich the participants in the arts as well as those who observe them. The Public Art Commission will assist organizations and individuals to make arts a more important part of the city's life..." City endorsement of SOAR allows SOAR to hang a banner over Main Street. The Oregon Department of Transportation Guidelines for Banners Located on State Highway Right-of-Wav requires an event be sponsored or endorsed by a.city, county or state agency. Related City Policies: Resolution 2012-03 AMC 2.17.005 Council Options: Approve the recommendation as presented. Do not approve the recommendation and provide direction to staff. Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Attachments: • Letter from SOU • Minutes from the Public Art Commission, February 17, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Ir, so lJ Southern OREGON UNIVERSITY February 13,2012 City of Ashland Public Arts Commission C/o Ann Seltzer Ashland City Administration 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Request for Endorsement of Southern Oregon University's SOAR 2012 Southern Oregon University seeks the endorsement of the Public Arts Commission for our 5th annual Southern Oregon Arts & Research (SOAR) event taking place May 14-18,2012,on the SOU Ashland Campus. A week-long exploratorium of events,SOAR 2012 showcases the impressive research and artistic activity of SOU faculty, and students. Last year,410 presenters conducted 100 poster sessions, 53 podium presentations,21 panels and symposia, G exhibitions,5 performances,with 15 campus labs and studios open for`behind the scene'tours.Admission and parking are free,and the commuiity is invited. The purposes of SOAR are consistent with the values and goals of the Ashland City Council, particularls,those for educa- tion and economic development, as well as the mission of the Public Arts Commission. SOAR provides an opportunity for students, faculn',and members of the community to experience the arts as part of Ashland's cultural and economic fife. It celebrates the vitality of the arts in Ashland and demonstrates how SOU contributes to the cultural,intellectual,and artistic life of the region. Outreach includes bringing area high school students to campus,inviting Osher Lifelong 1..eaniing students and faculty to both attend and present,and conducting presentations at area retirement communities. This year's promotion efforts will include displaying posters in community businesses,distributing brochures to hotels and bed and breakfasts,and advertising in Ashland Chamber's 'In &Around Ashland' to attract visitors and tourists. Hndorsement from the Public Arts commission will allow SOU to seek approval to install a banner across Main Street in earh Mai.The banner will inform the community about the event and heighten awareness of the partnership between the City of Ashland and SOU. SOAR is a tremendous addition to the cultural life of our region. We appreciate your consideration of our request for endorsement. `Sincerely, ^w^ Man-Cullinan Office of the President Churchill Hall 125 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland,Oregon 97520-5063 T:541.552.6111 r:541.552.6337 CITY OF -ASHLAND Minutes Public Art Commission February 17, 2012 Regular Meeting Attendance Commissioners: Davis, Friend, Pugh, Bussell, Garrington, Shiplet(staff), Capovilla (student liaison) Absent �. Slattery (Council liaison) Guests Michael Piha, Planner, Deborah Hofer, SOU representative, Jim Mills, Owner of Caldera Brewery, and Nicki, also from Caldera Brewery Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. Minutes Minutes from the January meeting were approved. SOU Endorsement Request Deborah Hofer, from SOU gave the group a short presentation on their upcoming event, Southern Oregon Arts &Research (SOAR), in which the community is invited to tour SOU art, nursing, and theater labs to get a better understanding of the work they do. She invited the PAC to come tour these facilities. Stated that admission for all is free and parking is available for free on those days as well. She said she is requesting this endorsement for the purpose of hanging a banner across East Main Street only. Commission asked for information on why this request needed to be made and staff member, Shiplet, explained the banner process and requirements. Pugh/Carrington m/s to endorse the SOAR event by the PAC. Discussion: the commission requested that SOU make every possible attempt to get the information out to the community, they suggested contacting the Tidings/Tribune for placement in the Revels and Tempo. Hofer stated that SOU has already requested articles and will also be giving brochures to all hotels and bed and breakfasts in the area. The commission asked that SOU also get the information to the high school, especially as the tour date is a day off from school. Hofer appreciated the suggestion. Voice vote: All ayes, motion passes. Caldera Brewery Request Jim Mills, owner of Caldera Brewery gave a brief overview of the history of the Caldera Brewery building and how a storm door on the building came to be installed and painted with a mural of their caldron logo. He stated that they recently received a letter from the Community Development Department of the City stating that they mural violates sign code and would need to be removed. Michael Pina, planner with the City, explained the sign code and how the mural Pagel of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND is viewed as an additional sign, which puts Caldera'over their allotted limit. He explained that without understanding the PAC's no-commercial advertisement in murals policy he suggested that Caldera might be able to gain assistance from the PAC. The commission reminded staff and the Caldera representatives that when the sign code was updated, it was never intended that the PAC murals policy would work as an exemption to that code. They suggested that Caldera go through the mural process with a new design, one lacking any commercial references and not related to the brewery or brewing in general, and the PAC would be glad to work with them to enliven that part of the building. Group discussed the challenges associated with other buildings in town, including the Ashland Art Center and their"mural" designed awning which also is in conflict with the Sign Code and does not allow for any additional signage. The PAC reiterated that they want a clear distinction between a sign and a mural. Caldera Brewing representatives agreed that a new mural, done through the proper process was the best way to proceed. Commissioner Davis agreed to send Caldera representatives all the mural process information. Review of DRAFT Fire Station RFP The commission reviewed the document, made minor changes, including re-instating and modifying the bullet, "Consider water and lighting in the design of the artwork', on page two remove the statement that we would be including with the RFP photographs of the site, as that will be changing so drastically from its current state to the remodeled state. The commission would like dimensions of the site plan included to aid the artist in conceiving of the piece with the proper size. The commission discussed a timeline draft created by Commissioner Davis. They discussed whether or not the June 1 deadline was appropriate, ultimately deciding that it was. After discussing all that is required after the submissions are received, the group decided to move the final award date from September 1 to October 1,just to ensure that it goes through the process without any rush or errors due to time constraints. They agreed, however, they would like to award as soon as possible to avoid any increases in costs related to construction or materials. The commission discussed the desire to have an architect or engineer on the final evaluation panel, to help ensure that the piece does not have any of the structural issues that have been faced with previously installed public art (specifically mentioned the piece on the corner of Pioneer and Lithia). Bussell/Pugh m/s to approve the RFP,with revisions made today. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion passes. Hardesty Memorial Pedestal Commissioner Bussell stated that she had received one more bid of$1280, which was ok but she would like to seek at least one more. She created a rough design for the new pedestal, trying not Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND to have it be too large but still fit the engineer requirements for safety. The commission discussed whether or not there would be enough support on the ends of the piece. Ultimately they decided that as the new design fits closer to the actual shape of the piece, there should be greater support. Commissioner Bussell stated that she wasn't happy with the color choice she viewed at the most recent bidder, the charcoal color had too much of a green cast. The commission suggested looking at natural cement color to see if that grey worked better. The commission discussed the need for another concrete person bid. They gave Commissioner Bussell the names of several local landscape architects, who may have used concrete fabricators in the past to install art in their designs. Commissioner Bussell with talk to those suggested and requested that if the group thinks of others they send her an e-mail. Update to City Council Commissioner Davis agreed to do a written update to Council, with information similar to the gallery guide. Reminders Commissioner Davis reminded the group that the Enders Alley mural recommendation is scheduled for the February 21" Council meeting. She will be in attendance, but as it's on the Consent Agenda, she doesn't think the entire commission needs to be in attendance. The Commission discussed the need for recruitment of new members. They discussed the desire to have at least one new member be male to gain a balanced perspective in the group. The group discussed the possibility that the times of their meetings might be a challenge to some, and showed openness to re-scheduling if that truly is a deterrent. Meeting adjourned at 9:25 a.m. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Approval for Transformer Repairs and Maintenance Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Electric E-Mail: tuneber](2ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Purchasing Secondary Contact: Warren DiNapoli Approval: Dave Kannei` � Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the City Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a contract-specific special procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Elstor Sales for the repair and maintenance of City-owned transformers until June 30, 2016? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the contract-specific special procurement be approved. Background: A special procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process, custom designing a contracting'approach, or the direct selection or award of a public contract or series of contracts. E]stor Sales is the only contractor in the State of Oregon that is able to do this work, thus the request for a contract-specific special procurement. Related City Policies: - Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A — 279C and the Model Rules except for the following: G. Special Procurements— a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures described in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060,27913.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be custom designed to meet the procurement needs. 1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 27913.085 and all other applicable provisions of law. Council Options: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, can approve (or decline) the contract-specific special procurement. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, moves to approve (or decline) the contract- specific special procurement. Attachments: Request for Approval Form Page I of I �W, CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Lee Tuneberg, Interim Electric Director Date: March 20, 2012 Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Electric Department 2. Department Contact Name: Lang Christensen - 3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement 4. Time Period Re4uested: From March 21,2012 To: June 30,2016 5. Total Estlmated�:Cost: Repair and maintenance costs determined as needed per individual transformer. Y Actual costs for previous calendar years: Jan-Dec 2010$9.318:Jan-Dec 2011 $12.503:Jan-March 2012 54,811 6. Short title of the Procurement: Transformer Repairs and Maintenance Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired: Contractor(Elstor Sales)to determine repairs and maintenance required for each City owned transformer-provide labor and materials to complete the repairs and maintenance, including pickup and delivery to the City of Ashland. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure.The Agency may,but is not required to,also include the following types of documents:Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s),Contract Form(s),and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. Background: Elstor Sales has consistently provided timely-reliable and efficient transformer repair and maintenance services for a number of years. Elstor Sales is the only known business in the State of Oregon that can determine the necessary repairs and maintenance required for each individual Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 3,3/13/2012 transformer,provide the labor and materials to make the necessary repairs and pickup and deliver the transformers to the City of Ashland The next closest repair facility is in the Seattle area. Proposed procedure: The Electric Department is seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process to DIRECTLY AWARD a public contract to Elstor Sales to perform repairs and maintenance on City owned electric transformers 8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances thaijustify the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. At this time Elstor Sales is the only known business physically located in Oregon that repairs electric transformers. 9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement: X_(a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because: At this time.Elstor Sales is the only known business physically located in Oregon that repairs electric transformers. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);and X (b)(i)will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because: Elstor Sales has consistently provided reliable services and competitive prices for transformer repairs and maintenance. (Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings);or X (b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055,279B.060,2798.065, or 279B.070,or any rules adopted thereunder because: Elstor Sales has consistently provided timely,efficient and reliable services and is the only known business physically located in Oregon that repairs transformers. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.) Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 2 of 3,3113012 Public Notice: Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5)and OAR 137-047-0285(2),a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority s approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4)and OAR 137-047-0300.The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special-Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven(7)Days before Award of the Contract. After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven(7)day protest period. Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us-/iVhv ch 21, 2012-11'approved hp Conntcil/ PUBLIC NOTICE Approval of a Special Procurement First date of publication: . li-lurch 21, 2 GI2—lfaptrru ced l?ti (:onncil Lntc r date J A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on 1i14areh 20. 201-'-if approred by Council Eraer daw]. This "Contract-speck special procurement"was processed to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process and directly award a contract to Elstor Sales to perform repairs and maintenance on electric transformers on an as needed basis. At this time, Elstor Sales is the only known business in the State of Oregon that can determine the necessary repairs and maintenance required jar each individual transformer,provide the labor and materials to make the necessary repairs, and pickup and deliver the transformers to the City of Ashland. It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts,and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055,27913.060, 279B.065,or 27913.070. An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of Ashland,Purchasing Representative, Kan Olson,90 N.Mountain Avenue,Ashland,OR 97520. The seven(7)protest period will expire at 5:O0pm on fl(powed on March 21. 2011 -expiralion dale will he ,Much 28. 2012[ This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a Special Procurement. Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of 3,3/13/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Approval - Vehicle and Equipment - Repairs, Maintenance & Service Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Mike Faught Department: PW/Fleet Maintenance E-Mail: Mike.faught(a�,ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Purchasing Secondary Contact: Stu Wilkie Approval: Dave Kanner ©4! Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the City Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a class special procurement to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service as needed and required on City owned vehicles and equipment until June 30, 2016? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the class special procurement be approved. Background: A class special procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process, custom designing a contracting approach, or the direct selection or award of a public contract or for a series of contracts. Certain types of highly specialized vehicle repair and maintenance can be done more cost-effectively by outside contractors. The contractor to be used would be determined by the type of vehicle and the type of repair needed. The attached and completed Special Procurement, Approval Request Form, is attached for your review and consideration. Related City Policies: Section 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A — 279C and the Model Rules except for the following: G. Special Procurements — a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures described in ORS 279B.055, 27913.060, 279B.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be custom designed to meet the procurement needs. 1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 27913.085 and all other applicable provisions of law. Council Options: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, can approve (or decline) the class special procurement. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, moves to approve(or decline) the class special procurement. Page ] of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Attachments: Special Procurement Request for Approval Form i Page 2 of 2 CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Stu Wilkie, Maintenance Safety Supervisor Date: March 20, 2012 Subject: REOUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Public Works/Fleet Maintenance 2. Department Contact Name: Stu Wilkie 3. Type of Request: X Class Special Procurement Contract-specific Special Procurement ' 4. Time Period Requested: From March 21 2012 To: June 30,2016 5. Total Estimated Cost: Cost will be determined by the actual repairs,maintenance and service that are rewired to be outsourced to maintain City vehicles and equipment. 6. Short title of the Procurement: Repairs, maintenance and service that are required to be outsourced to maintain City owned vehicles and equipment. Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired: The majority of vehicle and equipment repairs and maintenance are performed by the Fleet Maintenance Division. However, there are times when a vehicle or piece of equipment must be outsourced for repairs and maintenance. This is due to the specialized tools and diagnostic Nuipmen t required to diagnose and repair each individual vehicle and/or piece of equipment. Highly specialized tools and diagnostic equipment are very costly,proprietary, and require costly annual upgrades. The cost of maintaining these specialized tools and diagnostic equipment would be more costly to the City then outsourcing the needed repairs,maintenance and service. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may,but is not required to,also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 3,3114/2012 Background: Contracts are awarded to contractors based on competency,qualifications, certifications, workmanship, expediency, availability and competitive pricing. Proposed procedure: Fleet Maintenance is seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process to DIRECTLY AWARD public contracts on an as needed basis to highly skilled and reliable contractors to perform repairs,maintenance and service on City owned vehicles and equipment. 8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. On occasion,work to repair City owned vehicles and/or equipment must be outsourced. If so, trouble shooting may be required to determine what repairs and maintenance are required to repair a specific vehicle or piece of equipment. There are also critical pieces of equipment that require immediate attention if a problem develops, and the work must also be completed immediately. 9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement: X (a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because: The City currently contracts with various qualified,highly skilled and competent contractors to perform these services. There are also specific mechanics, service facilities,dealerships and/or manufacturers that are competent and certified to do specific work on specific vehicles and/or equipment. The City considers competency, qualifications, certifications,reliability,expediency, availability and competitive pricing when making the decision as to who will perform the required services on City owned vehicles and Nuipment. If the City is contacted by additional competent contractors, they too will be considered to perform these services. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);and X (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because: It is mandatory that repairs and maintenance be performed on City owned vehicles and equipment by highly skilled,qualified and competent contractors for their continued use and safe operation. (Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings);or X (b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055,279B.060,279B.065, or 279B.070,or any rules adopted thereunder because: It is in the City's best interest to contract with comQetent and reliable contractors that are reliable, dependable and qualified to provide these services. It is imperative that the City maintain City owned vehicles and equipment in a manner that ensures their continued use and safe operation (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement) Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 2 of 3,3/14/2012 Public Notice: Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5)and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract. After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council,the following public notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven(7)day protest period. Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us-[.March 2I. 2012-Ifapproved by C Ouncill PUBLIC NOTICE Approval of a Special Procurement First date of publication: [.1lirrch 21. 2012-If approved by Council Finer date] A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on[March 20, 2012-If approved by Council Enter dale]. This "Class Special Procurement"was processed to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process and directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service on City owned vehicles and equipment. The majority of vehicle and equipment repairs and maintenance are performed by the Fleet Maintenance Division. however, there are times when a vehicle or piece of equipment must be outsourced for repairs and maintenance. This is due to the specialized tools and diagnostic equipment required to diagnose and repair each individual vehicle and/or piece of equipment. Highly specialized tools and diagnostic equipment are very costly,proprietary, and require costly annual upgrades. The cost ofmaintaining these specialized tools and diagnostic equipment would be more costly to the City then outsourcing the needed repairs, maintenance and service.It is imperative that the City maintain City owned vehicles and equipment in a manner that ensures their continued use and safe operation Public contracts will be awarded to contractors based on competency, expediency, workmanship, availability and competitive pricing. It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts,and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 279B.055,279B.060,27913.065,or 279B.070. An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of Ashland,Purchasing Representative,Kan Olson,90 N.Mountain Avenue, Ashland,OR 97520. The seven(7)protest period will expire at 5:00pm on[Ifposted on March 21. 2011-expiration date will he March 28, 201?]_ This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a Special Procurement. Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of 3,3114/2012 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Request for Approval for HVAC Repairs, Maintenance & Service Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Mike Faught Department: PW/Facilities Maintenance E-Mail: Mike.faught n,ashIand.or.us Secondary Dept.: Purchasing Secondary Contact: Dale Peters Approval: Dave Kanner` Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the City Council, acting as the local contract review board, approve the request for approval of a "Class Special Procurement" to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process to directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service as needed and required to HVAC (Heating, Air& Ventilation) Systems in City owned buildings until June 30, 2016? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the"Class Special Procurement'be approved. Background: A Special Procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process, custom designing a contracting approach, or the direct selection or award of a public contract or for a series of contracts. The attached and completed Special Procurement, Approval Request Form, is attached for your review and consideration. Related City Policies: _.. Section 2.50.090 . Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (invitation to Bid) or Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A — 279C and the Model Rules except for the following: G. Special Procurements — a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures described in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 279B.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be custom designed to meet the procurement needs. 1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 279B.085 and all other applicable provisions of law. Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the "Class Special Procurement'. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the,Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the "Class Special Procurement'. Attachments: Request for Approval Form Page I of 1 CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Dale Peters, Facilities Maintenance Date: March 20, 2012 Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Public Works/Facilities Maintenance 2. Department Contact Name: Dale Peters 3. Type of Request: __ X Class Special Procurement Contract-specific Special Procurement 4. Time Period Requested: From March 21,2012 To: June 30,2016 5. Total Estimated Cost: Cost will be determined by the actual repairs,maintenance and service required to be performed on HVAC(Heating.Air&Ventilation)systems in City buildings. Estimated cost to maintain 14VAC systems per fiscal year is$25.000. 6. Short title of the Procurement: Repairs, Maintenance and Service to HVAC Systems Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired: Contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service as required to HVAC (Heating, Air& Ventilation) systems in City owned buildings. There are critical areas within some of the systems that control the environment in sensitive areas and require immediate service if a problem develops. It is mandatory that critical systems not fail in sensitive areas, such as the AFN Headend Control Room, WWTP,and WTP. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a'description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may,but is not required to,also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 3,3114/2012 Background: Contracts are awarded to HVAC contractors based on competency, expediency, workmanship, availability and competitive pricing. I Proposed procedure: Facilities Maintenance is seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process to DIRECTLY AWARD public contracts on an as needed basis to highly skilled and reliable contractors to perform repairs,maintenance and service to the City's HVAC systems. 8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. Often times,trouble shooting is s required to determine what repairs and maintenance are required and the work must be completed immediately. There are also critical systems that control sensitive areas that require immediate attention if a problem develops, and it is mandatory that the systems in these critical areas do not fail. 9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement: X (a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because: The City currently contracts with 34 contractors to perform these services. If the City is contacted by additional competent contractors,they too will be considered to perform these services. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meet%this requirement.);and X (b)(i)will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because: It is mandatory that critical systems not fail in sensitive areas, such as the AFN Headend Control Room WWTP and WTP. (Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings);or X (b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 27913.055,279B.060,279B.065, or 279B.070,or any rules adopted thereunder because: It is in the City's best interest to contract with competent and reliable service providers on an as needed basis to maintain the City's HVAC systems. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.) Form#9-Special Procurement—Request for Approval,Page 2 of 3,3114/2012 Public Notice: Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5)and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4)and OAR 137-047-0300.The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven(7)Days before Award of the Contract. i After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7)day protest period. Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.onus-[Alarch 21. 2012-/f approved by Council] PUBLIC NOTICE Approval of a Special Procurement First date of publication: [11arch 21, 2012-1]'approved by Council Enter date] A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on [&March 20. 2012- If approved by Council Enter date]. This "Class Special Procurement"was processed to seek an exemption from the competitive bid process and directly award public contracts to contractors to perform repairs, maintenance and service to the City's HVAC(Heating, Air& Ventilation)systems in City owned buildings. There are critical areas within the systems that require immediate attention ifa problem develops, and it is mandatory that the systems in these critical areas do not fail. Public contracts will be awarded to HVAC contractors based on competency, expediency, workmanship, availability and competitive pricing. It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 2798.055, 279B.060, 27913.065,or 27913.070. An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Purchasing Representative, Karl Olson, 90 N. Mountain Avenue,Ashland, OR 97520. The seven(7)protest period will expire at 5:00pm on[If polled on March 21, 2011-expiration date will be March 28. 2012]. This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of Special Procurement. Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of 3,3/14/2012 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Memo of Understanding Regarding Shared Services and Costs Between the City of Ashland and the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Parks Secondary Contact: Don Robertson Approval: Dave Kanner / Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will Council approve the renewal of a Memo of Understanding with the Parks Commission regarding certain services provided between the two organizations and the agreed upon costs? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the attached document. Background: This agreement was last reviewed and approved in February 2010 for that budget year and the following one. It has an automatic renewal, renegotiation and cancellation provisions to provide both parties the ability to manage it, the services and costs covered within, and related operational issues as needed. As part of the annual audit the auditors have asked for the agreement to be more specific in certain areas so this document includes more detail in the accounting tasks and responsibilities area and is being brought back to both parties for approval. This agreement will go to the Parks Commission at its March 2012 monthly meeting. Attachments: MOU Exhibit A —Table of Services Exhibit B—Map of Mowing at Ashland Airport Exhibit C —Responsibilities for Parks Accounting Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CITY OF ASHLAND AND ASHLAND PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION FY 2012-2013 Agreement made this _20th_ day of_March_, 2012, between the City of Ashland ("City") and the Ashland Park and Recreation Commission ("Parks") are effective for the next adopted budget. RECITALS A. Local government may enter into agreements for the performance of any and all functions and activities that any party to the agreement, its assigned personnel or agents have authority to perform. B. City and Parks have successfully shared the cost of operations and staff at various levels including the use, operation and maintenance of facilities, landscaping, accounting and repair work for many years and desire to share resources and work collaboratively to jointly maintain and manage facilities, grounds and cooperatively provide services. C. City and Parks desire to formalize their commitment by entering into this agreement in the spirit of cooperation and with the understanding that the facilities and grounds shared and maintained and service provided will be done to provide cost savings and economies of scale to both parties. D. Attached as Exhibit A is a summary list of services provided between agencies for FY 2012-2013. E. City and Parks may agree to provide other services to one another, or to cost share other services, as part of this agreement without prior revision. Changes in identified services-, service levels, payment for services and additional services will be agreed upon administratively and in writing in advance of providing the service. The specifics of such changes will be addressed in the next revision of this agreement if warranted. The City and Parks agree: 1. Internal Services. The City provides Parks with administrative services via the Central Service, Insurance Service, Equipment funds and Facilities Division. These services include Administration and oversight, Legal, Human Resources, Risk Management, Budgeting, Purchasing, Accounting & Financial Reporting, Computer and Telephone Technology, Facilities Maintenance and other services as needed. The listed services are annually calculated and allocated based upon estimated benefit received to all departments of the City and Parks is charged their prorated share. Specific accounting tasks transferred to the City and responsibilities are identified in Exhibit C. 2. Other Services and Staff. Services are routinely provided between the City and Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. Unless otherwise indicated, these services are treated as revenue and expenses in the budget in the General Fund and Parks and Recreation Fund on a monthly basis. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2009-2010: 2.1. Central Area Patrol - The City Police Department provides security patrols to Lithia Park, Plaza area and the City is reimbursed by Parks for 50% actual wages to a cap of $51,000. FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft i 2.2. Park Patrol - The City Police Department provides security patrols to Lithia and the outlying Park areas during April — October and is reimbursed by Parks at 50% to a limit of $30,000. The Police Department provides the equipment. 3. Facilities and Structures. Services are routinely provided between the City and Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2012-2013: 3.1. Community Center& Pioneer Hall — The City reimburses Parks on maintenance and repair costs for agreed upon work. Parks provides all custodial labor and supplies for the Community Center and Pioneer Hall; handles small repairs such as fixing faucets, drapery hanging, and landscaping such as planting flowers, weed control, and shrub pruning. Parks also handles all scheduling and coordination for the buildings. In return, Parks receives and keeps all rental revenues from the facilities. All capital improvements such as roof repair, painting, and floor refinishing and replacement are the responsibility of the-City. 3.2. Band Shelter - The City pays the Parks for maintaining and repairing the shelter as needed within the budgeted $4,800 ($1,200 per quarter). Maintenance involved at the band shell including cleaning and setting of park benches; cleaning the stage and storage areas. Parks is responsible for all landscaping in the band shell area. All capital repairs including painting, electrical, doors, and structural work are responsibility of the City. 3.3. The Grove - Parks coordinates access to the building and schedules. The City provides maintenance and repair work. Revenues for events accrue to Parks but some costs may be shared between agencies to minimize the impact. 4. Landscaping and Grounds Maintenance. Services are routinely provided to the City by Parks to meet various needs on an ongoing and sometimes on an ad hoc basis. These services are treated as revenue and expense between funds with a $197,000 annual limit that can be adjusted over time. The following list identifies the agreed upon services for FY 2012-2013: 4.1. The Plaza & Downtown Entry Areas — The City pays Parks to maintain lawns and plants in the Plaza and entry areas to downtown. Parks provides all landscaping and irrigation maintenance at The Plaza, north entry, downtown. This includes all plant pruning, weeding, flower replacement and minimal tree pruning for visibility and safety, turf mowing and care, irrigation scheduling and testing repair as necessary. Any capital repairs such as planter replacement, complete removal, and large structural pruning of downtown trees is the responsibility of the City. 4.2. Siskiyou Boulevard & Ashland Street - The City pays Parks to maintain the plants and mow grass on these streets. Parks is responsible for all mowing, edging, fertilizing of turf, weed control in beds, pruning and replacement of occasional shrubs, litter pickup on a routine basis, and flowers replanted according to season, as well as irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. Any major rework or complete change will be the responsibility of the City. 4.3. Airport - The City pays Parks to mow the grass at the airport. Parks is responsible for mowing areas around runway, taxi-way and hangar facility, as well as landscaping around FBO FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft building, including lawn area, shrubs, pruning, flower replacement, and irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. (See Exhibit B - map) 4.4. Substations - The City pays Parks to mow grass at substations. At the substation on North Mountain Avenue the City pays Parks to maintain shrubs, control weeds, and irrigation scheduling and repairs as needed. 5. Fleet Maintenance. The City will provide fleet maintenance and repair for Parks and charge for services in a manner consistent with City Departments. Fleet operations overhead will be allocated to Parks in a prorated share based upon number and type of vehicles/equipment to be maintained and shared benefit of the Division. City will accept Parks employees dedicated to their shop program. City will maintain transferred positions for at least one year and employ transferred employees for as long as it is feasible based upon operations, budget and performance. 6. Other Services. The City and Parks will, on occasion, need to trade services or share costs and any sharing of expenses or potential-payment of fees for those services will be negotiated at that time. 7. Length of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2012, and continue for a period of one year. It will automatically renew on an annual basis unless terminated by either party per this section. The City and Parks shall periodically review this Agreement and modify it as they mutually agree to be appropriate during the year. Changes in services and/or responsibility for costs or revenues will be agreed upon annually as part of the budget process prior to a proposed budget is submitted to the Budget Committee. Changes to the proposed services may.be done during the budget process with mutual agreement. 8. Termination. Neither party may terminate this Agreement for a breach by the other party without first providing the other party written notice of the specific nature of the alleged breach and a reasonable opportunity to cure the breach. A reasonable opportunity to cure the breach shall be 30 days or such other lesser or greater time as is appropriate given the nature of the breach and the time necessary to cure it. Annual renewal of this agreement will occur unless either party provides written notice during the budget process but no later than 60 days prior to the start of a fiscal year. CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: FY2013 MOU 2-10-2012 Draft FY 2012-2013 MOU Exhibit A Method of SERVICE ACTIVITIES/TASKS PROVIDER WHO PA S FAMOUNTI2 Calculation All Administrative functions including but not limited to Human Resources,Legal, City of Ashland- Recording,Treasury, Applicable Purchasing,Technology, Departments in Risk Management, Internal Service Prorated share Internal Services-General Facilities,etc. Divisions Parks $340,000 established in budget Accounting functions including but not limited to City of Ashland Prorated share financial reporting,GL, Admin established in budget Internal Services-Finance PR,AR,AP-See Exhibit Services/Finance included in internal &Accounting C Department Parks Included above services charge Maintains Downtown Central Area Patrol Area Security Police I Parks $51,000 Park Patrol Maintains Park Security Police Parks $30,000 Set amount City of Ashland Building maintenance Admin functions agreed upon Services/Finance Prorated share Facilities Maintenance annually Department Parks $45,000 established in budget Prorated share established in budget, Liability,Auto and Property Workers Compensation premiums&claims Insurance-Parks Insurance City of Ashland Parks $40,000- cost. Workers Compensation Workers Compensation Paid with payroll per Insurance-Parks Insurance l City of Ashland Parks As calculated state required rates City of Ashland Band Shelter Maintenance Parks Maintenance $4,800 Set amount Public Works- Airport Mowing Maintenance Parks Airport $4,300 Set amount Substation Mowing Maintenance l Parks Electric $1,000 Set amount Substation, Fire Public Works- Grounds Boulevard/Plaza landscape and airport Street&Fire - maintenance, Maintenance mowing Parks Dept. $197,000 including supplies iO Maintains Park Fleet& • _ ..c_a Fleet Maintenance Related Equipment City of Ashland Parks $204,000 TBD I I C:\Documents and Settings\shipletMI-oval Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\MOU Exhibit A 3-20-2012.xls IGA Svc372krff012 11:31 AM ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORTCOAMUSSIONAL-1P kA 1 : In 1 L )_Jyll r' l �X Nq _��� �� ,��.(� ., �.\ •.'�,r,, ,r, Vin. (N � .�\` SCALE' Y'400, 103 0 100 300 300 4G0 500 600 Feel f L . City of Ashland Accounting and Finance Services Provided to Ashland Park Commission Exhibit C 1 OF 4 NOTE: Only accounting processing and necessary tasks have been transferred and are paid for. Responsibility for the audit,financial report,audit comments, responses to the auditor comments and any other managerial issues remain with the Parks Director,consistent with those required of the City Administrator. The City Finance Department is a resource to Parks but cannot assume managerial or audit responsibilities for Parks Management. , If, in the normal performance of accounting tasks or while processing accounting documents. City staff observes errors and/or documents that raise questions, Finance Mangement will contact Parks Manage- ment for clarification or action. Parks Management retains the responsibility to oversee, manage,train and review the work and processes in their areas, performed by their staff and volunteers, including, but not limited to: 1 Cash handling and documentation 2 Data input 3 Software selection,use,updates and processing 4 Internal controls and risk management 5 Security of assets. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED BY FINANCE: Ongoing: All accounts payable: pay invoices,vendor maintenance -.All payroll: bi-weekly payroll, employee input and maintenance, payroll payables, quarterly taxes and reports Manage Youth Activity Levy fund(revenues and contractual transfers to Ashland School District) Other duties as assigned Daily: -.. ._- Deposits(Park Office, Community Centers, Nature Center) Spreadsheet updates: Daily cash, Oak Knoll, Daniel Meyer Pool, Ice Rink Bi-Weekly: Oak Knoll: calculate Golf Pro payment for daily receipts(payable through ap) Monthly: Oak Knoll:calculate Golf Pro payment for annual memberships(payable through ap) Journal entries: Revenues for Oak Knoll, Pool, Ice Rink,Tax turnovers(from City) City internal charges(central services,insurance,fuel,warehouse, misc:ap invoices paid through City) Interest allocation from City Balance Park to City cash(checks issued,cash receipts,clearings) Financial statements and Eden detail reports to Park Admin. Group:. Park combined statements Financials by department(Oak Knoll, Community Centers, Nature Center, Senior Center) Quarterly Invoice/Billing: City(Siskiyou Blvd and other City area maintenance) Ashland School District(Nature Center school programs, grounds maintenance(if applicable)) Ashland Community Hospital(grounds maintenance) Misc. items as requested from Park staff Payroll quarterly tax reports,workers comp reports, and all regulatory items as needed C:\Documents and Settings\shipleld\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\MOU Exhibit C City-Parks Accounting 3-20-2012.xis 3/14/2012 City of Ashland ' Accounting and Finance Services Provided to Ashland Park Commission Exhibit C 2 OF Quarterly-continued Journal entries: Personal service allocation from Youth Activity Levy to Recreation Division Equipment replacement from Park and Golf Divisions to Capital Improvement Fund Transfer from Park Fund to Capital Improvement Fund Annual Event statements and record keeping(Bike Swap,4th of July Run, Mt Ashland Run) Youth Activity Levy materials and service allocations to Recreation Division PIERS annual reports,W2s, 1099s Budget Audit CAM COLAs Gas tax refund application GFOA award application C:\Documents and Settings\shipletd\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\63KU614S\MOU Exhibit C City-Parks Accounting 3-20-2012.xis 3/14/2012 ' r a 0 O Ol N U C d y y N � E ✓+ O c L d C y y n C d n d d C c ° d o o Y m m o 'Y m n v u a o- v I- w E o ° ? m w m o m y m E d E LL = o f = ° W « a a o t E m E ti m e u to o D N w d y C d C d � C y O d CL n d O O d 0 y «O O T d O d n o o y u d d U O N d C ddC ° O > CO n0. Wdy > dj .E dLd Ta .xF 5 xx d 3 n m v 3 E n t c d T n a c 3 d o n N > ` d d O y d m 0 x v d m v v d a v v a n t m d y £ c v E c d E nn ° y 7 d y o _ v n t u d n N E .- N t C O m n 0 o r m m E 0 o ° d v : v v c c o o c d m m c 0 o m 1 Q U F Q > U H > K F (X W LL H W m 1 t7 W ❑ O O M d OI N ' a E d y T U) N d = y d c 0 A L j V C W a v O E T 3 c ii o `m > o m t 0 "d E 0 c 0 E y � c u '° n o u v ° °y y "o c � .o m a = c 'Ifl! v y H o Va u o o c m m d m u o m v ° 0 1 d a w e w y a w c m m o c y 0 v s j m y ? a u a uni E o o d '� v Y O v `c° = E d y w E o d o oO M c u ° o Eta y `m m a ° ro o t0 y x x a E a E > d n u a r 'Z M o N d C T= a N E d a O d N a L N p) C U O N N a U a V t0 TL d N U d L_ O O d y N N n C d V C C d U LL C c '3 O — O o o S Qc ' n c ' ynn._ J y 10 wcd w` ¢ w` � tt w w` w z � w` w xm � � Q m Z w Y ` c s o a u v Q d r y C y C tat, d y m y a a y v w 2` 'F 0 m c 'O . 00 to U o U o R : = ° ILNaw d o^, U r UO d o O C U LL ¢ 0 m n O m >> a �_ a m d p w D v E o E •� " m o L E m m y o m ° gi C).Q c' o 'Id � u o w `o E N n J ° c "� o. w a o o o o o c m m c m m o o w o m c E m > m a m m m x o c w > E m o n o J m w 0 u m ° = m ` m N p m Jm o d ? o u o N Q m a m E m = ` =� ° o m .o ami w D a �° `c_ " °1 w m ° ,Z c = m , a E w r E vJ w a w n ma ma m m ,2` E m w m ._ o 3 E a a - o L w > m m m m m `u ° w U ' Vm 30 °c a m m '� E m n m a c - 3 a �2 m s c p d m E m o c p w m u y m y m o 0 o > U o' as o c > E a -o n w J O O O O O .� y m n GI m U 03 op d c C J m m r VI wH UZ f- � � a > 5 » > U a. > > m ma` ¢ ¢ v `o a c N m E o x m 2 am m 'o 'w p off, c o a m > n w L c n n a d m E m 0 ._ > w .n y am„ U c m y m c w _v .:C y ° A m O M m I .m _ m O 3 ° O ° N m U m m m m v m U N w E c c o o E a _ C Om I w . E ° r > m T m w w m 0 a a _ n yn c .yo i wc m . J D v U O Q 9 y 0 J U C lq m O U 0 n d E c m m O N ¢ N3N N tr .O 0, ow mi ° 0 .2 a LL m E a m a � m u a o ¢ U E 1 m m C o m N m m n v m 3 m 3 d y m 3 J3 d v m m a a¢¢° ° 0 O m E 2 -OO E E E c E° U o E w y U v (7 ¢ < m m U m u N m `- c 0 u ¢ m m N c a v c zl d O U U m Q C x Od M j O O O a m a . CI T Y OF ASHLAND Council Communication Transfer of Fire Protection Equipment — Fire Hose Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: John Karns Department: Fire E-Mail: John.kams c(�i ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Purchasing � f Secondary Contact: Kariann Olson Approval: Dave Kanner l�'t� Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Will the Council, acting as the local contract review board, hold a public hearing, declare the fire hose as surplus, and award a public contract at no cost for the fire hose to Sixes Fire Department in Sixes, Oregon? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends declaring the fire hose as surplus and awarding a public contract at no cost to Sixes Fire Department. Background: The fire protection equipment consists of 134 each of 50' lengths of various size diameter fire hose. The current market value for this hose is $5.00 each for a total of$670.00. This inventory of old fire hose is out of date with NFPA regulations and is no longer of value to Ashland Fire & Rescue. Related City Policies: ORS 279A.190 Transfers of fire protection equipment between fire departments. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Fire protection equipment" has the meaning given that term in ORS 476.005. (b) "Public contract" includes a sale at no cost. (c) "Regularly organized fire department" has the meaning given that term in ORS 652.050. (2)Notwithstanding any other provision of the Public Contracting Code, transfers of fire protection equipment under public contracts between regularly organized fire departments may be made without competitive sealed bidding, competitive sealed proposals or other competition required in ORS 279B.050 to 279B.085, provided: (a) The recipient regularly organized fire department makes a written request for the fire protection equipment to the transferor regularly organized fire department; (b) The fire protection equipment is surplus to or unusable by the transferor; (c) The total fair market value of fire protection equipment received by the recipient does not exceed $50,000 per calendar year; and (d) The transferor holds a public hearing, with hearing g otice published in at least one trade newspaper of general statewide circulation a minimum of 14 days before the hearing, and finds that the public contract is in the public's interest. [2003 c.794 §241 Council Options: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, can declare (decline) the fire hose as surplus and approve (decline) the contract award. Page 1 of 2 Ir, CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the local contract review board, moves to declare (decline) the fire hose as surplus and approve (decline) the contract award. Attachments: Written request from Sixes Fire Department Public notice Page 2 of 2 �r, Sixes Rivei- Fii'e F>i-oteCtion District Chief WayneMoore 1 Y.O. Box 298 Sixes,Or.97476 Post Office Box 246 541-348-9927 . � Sixes, Oregon 97476 541-253-6028 i F John Karns February 27, 2012 lskiyou Blvd. ' Ashland,, OR. 97520 : I Chief Karns, Thank you for allowing our fire department to possibly receive your surplus fire hose. Because we are a small department, with an annual operating budget of just under $11,000, the hose would be a tremendous asset for our community. The hose would be utilized immediately for protecting lives and property. Many thanks, Sincerely I v Chief Wayne Moore E City of Ashland, Oregon -PUBLIC NOTICE - Transfer of Fire Protection Equipment Page 1 of 1 City of Ashland, Oregon/City News I PUBLIC NOTICE - Transfer of Fire Protection Equipment PUBLIC NOTICE Transfer of Fire Protection Equipment between Fire Departments First date of publication: February 27, 2012 In accordance with ORS 279A.190, fire protection equipment declared as surplus and/or unusable by the City and having a total fair market value that does not exceed $50,000 may be awarded as a public contract, without competition and at no cost, to a"regularly organized fire department". The fire protection equipment consists of 134 each of 50'lengths of various size diameter fire hose. The current market value for this hose is $5.00 each for a total of$670.00. The City's Intent Is to declare this fire hose as surplus and award a public contract at no cost for the fire hose to Sixes Fire Department in Sixes, Oregon. This 14-day public notice is required prior to the public hearing, which will be Included in the Council agenda for Tuesday, March 20, 2012. If you have any questions, concerns and/or need additional Information, please contact the Purchasing Representative, Karl Olson, at 541-488-5354. Release Date: 2/27/2012 i 1 I i i http:/hvww.ashlancl.or.us/News.asp?NewSID=2471&Print=True 2/27/2012 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Contract to Construct the Schofield & Monte Vista LID Project Meeting Date: March 20, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: James H. Olson Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsoninashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Development Secondary Contact: Scott A. Fleury Approval: Dave Kanner Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will the Council, acting as the Contract Review Board, approve a construction contract with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc., in the amount of$344,164.00 to construct the Schofield & Monte Vista Local Improvement District (LID)? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve a construction contract with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc., in the amount of$344,164.00 to construct the Schofield & Monte Vista LID. Background: a Executive Summary On March 8, 2012 the City received two valid bids for the construction of the Schofield & Monte Vista LID Project No. 2005-08. The low bid of$344,164.00 was submitted by Pilot Rock Excavation Inc. of Central Point, Oregon. The bid is $34,289 more than the 2011 engineer's estimate of$309,875.The proposed total of cost of the project is $367,764, including the engineering contract of$23,600. The total project cost is within the total project budget established in resolution 2007-10 of$387,000. Contractor Information The low bidder is a local contractor who has performed projects for the City including the A St. reconstruction project. Staff has received several good references from individuals and companies that have previously done work with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc. Previous Bid The Schofield & Monte Vista Improvement Project was advertised for bid in August of 2011. The City of Ashland received only one bid on the project. The bid was $111,000 over the engineers estimate and it was determined to be in the best interest of the City to reject the bid and re-bid in spring of 2012. Bidding Process The Schofield & Monte Vista Improvement Project was advertised for bid on February 16, 2012. It was advertised locally in the Mail Tribune, on the City's website and statewide in the Daily Journal of Commerce. A pre-bid meeting was held on February 28, 2012 with seven prospective bidders in attendance. Two bids were received and publically read on March 8, 2012 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 �`, CITY OF -ASHLAND LID Costs Per Resolution 2007-10 The Schofield & Monte Vista LID No. 87 was authorized by the Council on April 3, 2007 by Resolution No. 2007-10. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction and engineering at $387,000 of which $111,235.82 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 May of 2006 and the cap was set at $5,138.00 per unit or potential unit, the computed cap for that year. The costs for development of the Schofield & Monte Vista LID were estimated as follows: ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT COSTS Total Construction Cost $ 353,000 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 34,000 Total Estimated Project Cost rS 387,000 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 29,650.00 $ 22,237.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 296,310.00 $ 59,262.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 34,000.00 $ 17,000.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 27,040.00 $ 16,224.00 Sub Total $ 114,723.50 Assessable Cost $ 272,276.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 20 Estimated per lot for Schofield & Monte Vista improvement $ 13,613.82 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,138.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be bome by the owners, any additional cost must be bome 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 $ 97,622.00 (25.2%) Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 114,723.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 161,040.18 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 13,613.82 $ 289.377.50 (74 8%1 TOTAL $ 387,000.00 (100%) Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Anticipated Total Assessment Following is a summary of the anticipated assessment costs based upon the Pilot Rock Construction bid and the current Marquess 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 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 $ 344,164.00 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 23,600.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 367,764.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 x $ 42,252.00 $ 31,689.00 20% of street surface cost 0.2 x $ 272,772.00 $ 54,554.40 50% of engineering cost 0.5 x $ 23,600.00 $ 11,800.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 , x $ 29,140.00 $ 17,484.00 Total Credits by City $ 115,527.40 Assessable Cost Total Estimated Project Cost $ 367,764.00 Less Credits $ 115,527.40 Total Assessable Costs $ 252,236.60 Number of Lots in Assessment District 20 Computed Cost per Lot (Assessment Rate) ($252,236.60/ 20) $ 12,611.83 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 1999-09 $ 5,138.00 • 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 born by the City. Costs to be home by the property owners and the City are as follows: Amount to be paid by owners $ 111,235.82* (30.2%) Amount to be paid by City Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 115,527.40 Amount over the maximum cap $ 141,000.78 Total City Cost $ 256,528.18 - (69.8%) * Includes one city-owned lot to be assessed at $13,613.82 Although the property owners' portion of the cost has remained constant, the amount to be funded by the City has been reduced by $32,849.32 based upon the current low bid. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the construction contract with Pilot Rock Construction Co, Inc. Page 3 of 4 �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: Resolution 99-09 and Resolution No. 07-10 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Council Options: • The Council may approve the construction contract with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc., in the amount of$344,164.00 for the improvement of Schofield & Monte Vista under Assessment District No. 87 • The Council may decline to approve a contract with Pilot Rock Construction by rejecting all bids received Potential Motions: • Move to approve a contract with Pilot Rock Excavation Inc. , Inc. in the amount of $344,164.00 for the improvement of Schofield & Monte Vista under Assessment District No. 87 • Move to reject all bids received for the improvement of Schofield & Monte Vista Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Pilot Rock Excavation Inc. Bid Summary 3. Preliminary Findings,Conclusions and Orders April 3, 2007 Page 4 of 4 �r, S rR:. IL NA tA Ar � Idi y. i a . ,', � • ; .. ♦ . , . .. , haw- •, �' �r�- � � 111 �+y,♦� � _. ` .t _ y -:n♦ `• 'tom.'. - �j i `1.►' y1' 1 71 it e, 35 Ij r � I k�i a `I"•"r+ , .r f� � Irk Olt Schofield Monte Vista LID 1:1,800 ,� Proposed District Proposed 1 A 1 inch = 150 1 ' Boundary Boundaries Mapping is schematic only and bears no warranty of accuracy. Taxiots As features,structures,facilities,easement or roadway locations should be independently field verified for existence and/or location. CONTRACT & BID DOCUMENTS & TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION City Project Number: 2005-08 Project Name: Schofield and Monte.Vista IAD Project Location: Schofield Street (N. Main Street to Blossom View Subdivision) Monte Vista Street (Schofield Street to Sheridan Street) Project Type: Street Improvements Project Completion: 90 Calendar Days Pre-Bid Conference: 2:00 P.M.,February 28,2012 Proposals Due by: 2:00 P.M.,March 8,2012 Submit Questions& Bid Proposals to: James Olson, City of Ashland CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 20 EAST MAIN.STREET(mail) 51 WINBURN WAY (delivery) ASHLAND OR 97520 541/488-5587 (voice) 541/488-6006 (fax) . Page 2_ This page left intentionally blank Page 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE PART 1— BID & CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 5-50 Advertisement for Bids..................:............................................................... 6-7 Proposal & Bid Schedule................................................................................. 8-15 BidBond ........................................................................................`........ 16 Performance &Payment Bond...................................................................... 17-20 Public Improvement Contract.........:............................:................................. 21-50 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, PART 00100.......................................... 50-60 SP110 Organization, Conventions,Abbreviations, and Definitions ..... . 51 SP120 Bidding Requirements and Procedures...................................... 51-53 SP130 Award and Execution of Contract.............................................. 53 SP140Scope of Work............................................................................ 54 SP150 Control of Work &Valdez Principles...................................... 54-56 . SP160 Source of Materials .................................................................... 56 SP165 Quality of Materials.................................................................... 56-57 SP170 Legal Relations and Responsibilities......................................... 57-58 SP180 'Prosecution and Progress............................................................ 58 SP195Payment ..................................................................................... - 58-60 S11196 Payment for Extra Work............................................................. 60 SP197 Payment for Force Account Work.............................................. 60 SP199 Disagreements,Protests and Claims .......................................... 60 PART 11 —TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 61-76 TEMPORARY FEATURES AND APPURTENANCES......................... 62-69 SP210 Mobilization SP220 Accommodations for Public Traffic SP225 Work Lone Traffic Control SP280 Erosion and Sediment Control SP290 Environmental Protection DRAINAGE AND SEWERS...................................................................... 69-73 SP405 Trench Excavation,Bedding, &Backfill SP440 Commercial Grade Concrete SP495 Trench Resurfacing WEARING SURFACES ............ ............................................................ 73-75 SP730 Asphalt Tack Coat SP745 Hot Mixed Asphalt Concrete(HMAC) MATERIALS....'....."................................................................................... 75-76 SP2001 Concrete PART III —PLANS—BOUND SEPARATELY Project Plans Page 4 FOREWORD The documents and forms which are attached, or for which provisions are made, must be used in submitting proposals for the Schofield and Monte Vista LID Project for the City of Ashland, Oregon, as covered by the "Oregon Standard Specifications for Construcfion. 2008" Oregon Department of Transportation and American Public Works Association, Oregon Chapter and other appurtenant specifications where indicated. These bid and contract documents; specifications, and plans, although bound separately, are made a part of the complete document.with the same force and effect as though all parts and plans referred to were under one binding. Should addenda to the specifications.become necessary and be issued prior to the date of receiving bids,they shall be deemed a part of the Special Provisions. This project is funded with City money. Page 5 PART I BID & CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Page 6 CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ASHLAND, OREGON ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS Sealed proposals addressed to the City of Ashland, Oregon, and endorsed Schofield and Monte Vista LID Project Attn: James Olson, Engineering Services Manager, will be received at the Siskiyou Conference Room located at 51 Winbum Way (mailing address: 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520), until 2:00 P.M., March 8, 2012, at which time proposals will be publicly, opened and read. If the total amount of the contract exceeds $100,000, the award of the contract must be approved by the Local Contract Review Board (Ashland City Council). A contract for work will be awarded or bids may be rejected, separately or entirely, within thirty(30) days after opening. The project completion date is 90 calendar days. The work shall consist of supplying all labor, equipment, and materials necessary to construct improvements including but not limited to the following approximate quantities for major work items: • 12" Storm Drain Pipe (Max. 5' Depth)—550 LF • Concrete Curb and Gutter— 1,980 LF • Straight Concrete Curb— 665 LF • Concrete Sidewalk—3,000 SF • Plain Concrete Pavement; 6 Inches Thick— 1,690 SF • Level 2, '/z Inch Dense HMAC—485 TONS Plans, specifications and documents may be examined at: I. City Engineering Office 2. Medford Builders Exchange City of Ashland 701 East Jackson 51 Winbum Wav Medford OR 97504 20 E Main Street (mailing Address) 541/773-5327 Ashland OR 97520 541/488-5347 3. Rogue Valley Builders Exchange 4. Klamath Builders Exchange 111 SE G Street 725 Main Street Room 214 Grants Pass OR 97526 Klamath Falls OR 97061 541/476-0298 541/882-9480 5. Daily Journal of Commerce Plan.Center 2840 NW 35`h Avenue Portland, OR 97296 503/274-0624 503/274-2616.FAX Page 7 A ❑ mandatory ® non-mandatory pre-bid conference will be held at the Community Development Building, Siskiyou Conference Room, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, Oregon at 2:00 P.M.,February 28, 2012. All bidders are encouraged to attend this meeting. Copies of the plans and specifications may be obtained,at the City Engineering Office, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland Oregon. No bid shall be received or considered unless the bidder is registered with the Construction Contractor's Board. The "Oregon'Standard Specifications for Construction, 2008" shall apply to work done under this contract. Copies of the Standard Specifications are available from: ODOT Contractor Plans Office Room 28 Transportation Building 355 Capitol Street NE Salem OR 97301-3871 Standard Specifications may also be downloaded from the ODOT Web Site: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/SPECS/standard suecifications.shtml Bidders shall pre-qualify as provided by ORS Chapter 279C.430 and in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, Oregon Chapter of APWA. .Pre-qualification applications must be received by the City of Ashland at least five days prior to the opening of the bids. Contractor or Sub-Contractor do.not need to be licensed under ORS 468A.720(No asbestos removal). Each bid must contain a statement as to whether the bidder is a resident bidder as defined in ORS 279A.120. All projects in excess of$50,000.00 require the Contractor to pay prevailing wage rates. No bid shall be considered unless the bid contains a statement by the bidder as a part of the bid that the provisions of ORS 279C.800 through 279C.870 Prevailing Wage Rates will be complied with. All projects require the Contractor to provide a "Performance" bond and a "Payment" bond, each equal to the total amount of the contract. Contractor is required to read the ORS 279 subchapter A and ORS 279 subchapter C. Contractor is also required to read City of Ashland's Public Contracting rules as found in the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.50, "Public Contracts." The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive formalities, or accept any bid which appears to serve the best interests of the City in accordance with ORS 279B.100. By Order of the City Council Ashland, Ore on James Olson Engineering Services Manager Page 8 PROPOSAL Mayor&City Council Ashland, Oregon The undersigned bidder declares that the bidder has received, read and understood all bid documents; received,read and understood all addenda; the bidder has taken no exceptions other than those clearly stated in this proposal; the bidder will be liable for increased costs (and attorney fees) for retaining a replacement bidder if the undersigned bidder is awarded the contract but refuses to sign the contract; the bidder has examined the plans and specifications,has visited the site,and made such investigation as is necessary to determine the character of the materials and conditions to be encountered in the work and that if this Proposal is accepted, the bidder will contract with the City of Ashland, Oregon for the construction of the proposed improvement in a form of contract contained in the bid documents, will provide the necessary equipment, materials, tools, apparatus, and labor, in accordance with the plans and,specifications on file at the City Engineering Office, Ashland, Oregon, under the following conditions: . L ' It is understood that all the work will be performed under a lump sum or unit price basis and that for the lump sum or unit price all services, materials, labor, equipment, and all work necessary to complete the project in accordance with the plans and specifications shall be furnisbed for the said lump sum or unit price named. It is understood that the quantities stated in connection with the price schedule for the contract are approximate only and payment shall be made at the unit prices named for the actual quantities incorporated in the completed work. If there shall be an increase in the amount of work covered by the lump sum price, it shall be computed on a basis of "extra work" for which an increase in payment will have been earned and if there be should a decrease in the lump sum payment, it shall be made only as a result of negotiation between the undersigned and the Owner. Furthermore, it is understood that any estimate with respect to time, materials, equipment, or service which may appear on the plans or in the specifications is for the sole purpose of assisting the undersigned in checking the undersigned's own independent calculations and that at no time shall the undersigned attempt to hold the Owner, the Engineer, or any other person, firm or corporation responsible for any errors or omissions that may appear in any estimate. 2. The undersigned will furnish the bonds required by the specifications and comply with all the laws of the Federal Government, State of Oregon, and the City of Ashland which are pertinent to construction contracts of this nature even though such laws or municipal ordinances may not have been quoted or referred to in these specifications. 3. All items for the contract for which forms are provided in the bid documents have been completed in full by the showing of a lump sum price or prices for each and every item and by the showing of other.information indicated by the proposal form. The undersigned submits the unit prices set forth as those at which the bidder will perform the work involved. The extensions in the column headed "Total" are made-up for the sole purpose of facilitating comparison of bids and if there are any discrepancies between the unit prices and the totals shown, the unit prices shall govern. 4. The undersigned agrees that the "Time of Completion" shall be as defined in the specifications and that the bidder will complete the work within the number of consecutive calendar days stated for each schedule after"Notice to Proceed" has been issued by the Owner. Page 9 Bidder furthermore agrees to pay as liquidated damages, for each calendar day thereafter, the amounts shown in Subsection 00180.50 of the Special Provisions, for each day the project remains incomplete. 5. The undersigned, as bidder, acknowledges that addenda(s)numbered N through have been received by the bidder and have been examined as part of the contract documents. 6. If the proposed bid price will exceed $50,000.00 the undersigned, as bidder, acknowledges that provisions of ORS 279C.800 — 279C.870 relating to workers on public works to be paid not less than prevailing rate of wage shall be included in the contract, or in the alternative, if the project is to be funded with federal funds and is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §276a) bidder agrees to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act requirements."Prevailing Wage Rates for Public Works Contracts in Oregon," which are incorporated herein by reference, and can be accessed at:http://www.oegon.govBOLI/WHD/PWRJpwr_book.shtml. 7. Instructions for First-Tier Subcontractors Disclosure. Bidders are required to disclose information about certain first-tier subcontractors (those subcontractors contracting directly with the bidder) when the contract price exceeds $75,000 (see ORS 279C.370). Specifically, when the contract amount of a first-tier subcontractor is greater than or equal.to: (i) 5% of the°project bid, but at least $15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage, you must disclose the following information about that subcontract within two working hours of bid closing: 7.1 The subcontractor's name and address; 7.2 The subcontractor's Construction Contractor Board registration number, if one is required, and; 7.3 The subcontract dollar value. If you will not be using any subcontractors that are subject to the above disclosure requirements, you are required to indicate"NONE"on the form. THE CITY MAY REJECT A BID IF THE BIDDER FAILS TO SUBMIT THE DISCLOSURE FORM WITH THIS INFORMATION WITHIN TWO HOURS OF BID CLOSING. To determine disclosure requirements, the City recommends that you disclose subcontract information for any subcontractor as follows: 1) Determine the lowest possible contract price. That price will be the base bid amount less all alternate deductive bid amounts (exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract award). 2) Provide the required disclosure information for any first-tier subcontractor whose potential contract services (i.e., subcontractor's base bid amount plus all alternate additive bid amounts, exclusive of any options that can only be exercised after contract award) are greater than or equal to: (i) 5% of the lowest contract price, but at least $15,000, or (ii) $350,000 regardless of the percentage. Total all possible work for each subcontractor in making this determination (e.g.,if a subcontractor will provide$15,000 worth of services on the base bid and $40,000 on an additive alternate, then the potential amount of subcontractor's services is $55,000. Assuming that $55,000 exceeds 5% of the lowest contract price, provide the disclosure for both the$15,000 services and the ($40,000 services). The disclosure should be submitted on the following form: Page 10 City of Ashland FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACTOR DISCLOSURE FORM (As Required by ORS 279C.370 and OAR 137-049-360) SCHOFIELD AND MONTE VISTA LID PROJECT 2005-08 Bid Closing Date: March 8,2012,2:00 P.M. NAME. OF SUBCONTRACTOR CATEGORY OF WORK DOLLAR VALUE 1. /1 P,co 60Nk�i&-64,jv; 1,4 • ll�v � � �20 UOO 2. MOIA-OfAA ieW PN% 1S Q G PP J 1.J G� 1 r ow — 4. 5. 6. 7 a. 9. to 'Attach additional pages if needed. Pace 11 SCHOFIELD AND MONTE VISTA LID PROJECT NO. 2005-08 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON NO DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNITPRICE AMOUNT (FIGURES) 00210-Mobilization I IMobilization for'i L11¢,'C�{'f�6�..sn,1� Dollars 1 LS $30,000 $ -so 10(k-) 00225-Work Zone Traffic Control Temporary Traffic Control + . 2 for (%tom (•{=1 t J. 11,.a 7(G� Dollars ) Ls $SS $ ,5 7 00280-Erosion & Sediment Control Erosion&Sediment Control 3 for -1-W o Ti-I,, tS �o Dollars 1 LS $ 000 $ Z 000 - 00310-Removal of Structures & Obstructions Removal of Asphalt Patvlg q for a"r Dollars 55 SY $ 1 $ 5 S Removal of Concrete Curb _ $ 5 for i.l ze Dollars 25 LF 3 $ 1 S Removal of Concrete Curb and Gutter I _ 6 for Dollars 60 LF Removal of goncrete Curb Inlet 7 for e3NJ%, 41uh)o¢BO j 1=tFT`f Dollars I ' EA 1SC's t Sd Removal ofgoncrete Catch Basin - - g fornkle vN tt=T Dollars 5 EA $ I 1r;(D $ �S:_0 Removal of 12"Storm Drain Pipe _ $ q for 1=uv R-- Dollars 35 LF Removal of Concrete Sidewalk $ $ / _ 10 for `�--' I x: Dollars 85 SF Removal of E1j�ting Tree I l for Oele TNo A- ` - r Dollars q EA ()oQ $ q-{�Q Removal of Existin€€,,Streetlight ^^��^^ 12 for 'F-0"2- ♦}u a.aZ-c] Dollars I EA $'q100 $ `"f W Removal of spha11 Draina a Bump on Schofield 13 for -T- Dollars I EA Removal of Exi' ing Mailbox Structure _ 14 for (-)Qv Dollars IT EA $ 1 dd S d 00320-Clearing and Grubbing Clearing and Grubbing _ 15 for frut.rr- '(l-�UA Sb.>JO Dollars I LS 00330-Earthwork Page 12 . NO DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (FIGURES) General Exc vatien 16 for Lt2,T��"-� Dollars 1 600 CY $ $ �I WU Embankment In Place 17 for 1 W L-J � Dollars 400 cv $ $ O 00350-Geosynthetic Installation Subgrade Geotextile ' IS for � `iS`S Dollars 3,350 SY $ I •SU $ S,dZS 00445-Sanitary, Storm, Culvert, Siphon & Irrigation Pipe 12" Storm Drain Less than 5'Depth _ 19 fm-7'r - 1 Dollars 550 LF .$z 5 $ 4"Storm Drain Less than 5(Depth _ 20 for G IG.J TE Z •.! Dollars 14 LF $ 8 S Z sZ- - 12"x4"Wye 21 for�.n L0, �n . 'T� Dollars I $ ZED $ ZsU 4" Sanitary Sewer Sery ce Lateral 22 for �1c,J'`Ee� Dollars 79 LF $ IPs $ 00470- Manholes,Catch Basins & Inlets 48"Concrete Storm Drain Manhole(per city of Ashland . 6) $ $ 23 fSor dDgD3 _ . 4' Concrete Inlet with 4' GalleT 24 for ��..��.3"C�f-o..i-?' 1-1 u�2.Z� Dollars 4 - 4' Concrete Inlet with 4' Gall and Modified Base ��^h��n 25 for-y- 2 i Dollars 1 EA $"tw. $ 2 2.5' Concrete Curb Inlet with Modified Base 26 forGti- r4 --) k��..1r�R-E� Dollars 1 EA OU $ lJ W ODOT CG-2 Inlet $ $ 27 forSt,cEe-.-� ...NntLk :> Dollars 5 EA (900 00490-Work on Existing Sewers & Structures Connect Existingg 8"SD to CG-2 Inlet 28 for `1�W H' %o DR�.D Dollars I EA ! $ZOJ $ �(J Connect Existia 4" SD to New 4"SD 29 for dill N uu'DQA Dollars I Fn ( Go 100 Connect New 4"Sanitary Sewer Service to Existing Sanitary S wer Main ! $ I C� $ 30 for Ue1 Q.-C-0 I Dollars 2 EA Adjust Exis�ng Water Valve Box 31 fo>(�I_$ 14t oLt'o - Dollars 5 'EA $ 11jQ $ V7 49 Adjust Existing Stoqrm Drain Manhole /L,' 32 for p:yLk - N l,a:�?-e'er Dollars 2 EA $400 $ 800— Adjust Existing Sagqrtary Sewer Manhole 33 for Dollars 4 EA $`7'^ D $ 1 (000 Adjust Exist Water Meter Box $ �Q 34 for DwtE o' Yl Dollars 2 EA Page 13 NO DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT (FIGURES) 00596—Retaining Walls Retaioin Wall,conventional Segemental 35 for :St - Dollars 100 Se $ 00641 —Aggregate Subbase,Base, and Shoulders Aggregate Base(Includes base material under sidewalks and drive�q}ays) $ $ 36 for --i+1 t CL-fit Dollars 1,200 CY 3&L7QD 00744—Minor Hot Mixed Asphalt Concrete (MHMAC) Level 2, %,Inch rise MHMAC Mix 37 for c�t„IL Lll.+�+r�lL- '"� Dollars - 485 00756—Plain Concrete Pavement Plain Concrete Pavement,6 Inches Thick with 7.5 Ibs/CY of ovomesh 950 38 for G5t„I� � tAy,ac -Ec:> Dollars 365 sv 00759—Miscellaneous Portland Cement Concrete Structures Concrete Curb and Gutter- 39 for aT Dollars 1,980 IF Straight Conprete nth 40 for \ f" Dollars 665 [,F Concrete S' ewalk 41 for t��f: Dollars 3,000 SF $ `a $ 14: OC-XO Concrete Driveway ,( 42 for t—>nc . Dollars 1,690 SF $ $ T d ~ Concrete Valley Gut r 43 for �1 Dollars 415 SF $ Concrete Pedestri n Ramp 44 1 for NE ti !!=�Dollars 4 6"Extruded Curb for Driveway at 465 Schofield 4.5 for——Q e-tt Dollars 30 lF $ 00970—Highway Illumination Install(2)Streetlight per CD60a(Includes junction - boxes and conduit ins allation to power source) $ $ 46 for r "' P a Dollars I IS -7n on 01070—Mailbox Supports Mufor ltipl ailb0�(Supports _ 47 *'"14 .' S N 2 EA $�`±J $ OW 00940— Signs Relocate Existi g.Stop Sign , 48 for "ivs7 wJotL Dollars 1 EA $20© $ u.� 01170—Potable Water Service Connections,2 Inch and Smaller Install Water ervice(Excavation and Backfill Only) $ $ 49 for i `t: t Dollars 2 EA Page 14 BID SUMMARY SCHOFIELD AND MONTE VISTA LID PROJECT NO. 2005-08 S GRAND TOTAL ��11 Y Page 15 The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids, waive formalities, or accept any bid which appears to serve the best interests of the City in accordance with ORS 27913.100. The foregoing prices shall include all labor, materials, equipment, overhead,profit, insurance, and all other incidental expenses to cover the finished work of the several kinds called for. Unit prices are to be shown in both words and figures. In case of discrepancy, the amounts shown in words will govern. Upon receipt of written notice of the acceptance of this bid, Bidder shall execute the formal contract attached within ten days, deliver surety bond or bonds as required, and deliver required proof of insurance. The bid security attached in the sum of five percent of the total price for the bid or combination of bids is to become the property of the Owner in the event the contract and bond are not executed within the time above set forth as liquidated damages for the delay and additional expense to the Owner caused thereby. The Bidder is or is not a resident Bidder as defined in ORS S2279A.120. Pilot Rock Excavation, Inc. Firm Name of Bidder rgnature of Bidder Printed Name of Bidder FMS I D L-"-r Official Title State of Incorporation CCB Number Dated this day of 2012. Name of Bidder Pilot Rock Excavation, Inc. Address (rjSb tF— (fit rat t= ST i OZ Li, GE"TZ " _ j-75e Telephone No. S+1 BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JACKSON COUNTY,OREGON April 3,2007 IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ) ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ) CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHOFIELD ) STREET AND MONTE VISTA STREET CONSISTING OF ) FINDINGS GRADING, PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND ) CONCLUSIONS GUTTERS,SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS AND RELATED ) AND ORDERS 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 ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland ) RECITALS: 1) = On February 20,2007,Council approved Resolution No. 2007-03 setting a public hearing with intent to form a local improvement district(LID)for the construction of improvements to Schofield and Monte Vista Streets consisting of sidewalks,curbs and gutters,paving,drainage and associated improvements.. 2) =°' The Council has declared by Resolution No. 2007-03 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 properly 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 April 3,2007, at which time a staff presentation was made, citizen testimony received and exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 2007-_authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the construction of improvements to Schofield and Monte Vista Streets consisting of grading,paving and construction of curb and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and related appurtenances. 4) On April 3,2007,Council approved Resolution No. 2007-_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 Schofield/Monte Vista LID No. 87 boundary was approved by Council as being all those lots with frontage on or taking sole access from Schofield Street between North Main Street and the east boundary of Blossom View Subdivision and Monte Vista Street between Sheridan Street and Schofield Street. Page 1 of 4 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 February 20,2007 Exhibit 2—Minutes of the February 20, 2007 Council'meeting Exhibit 3—Resolution No. 2007-03 setting a public hearing Exhibit 4—Council Communication dated April 3, 2007 Exhibit 5—Minutes of the April 3,2007 Council meeting Exhibit 6—Resolution No. 2007- authorizing and ordering the improvement of Schofield Street and Monte Vista Street under the Schofield/Monte Vista Street LID No. 87 SECTION 2: CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. 1 The City Council intends to improve Schofield Street from North Main to the easterly boundary of Blossom View Subdivision and Monte Vista Street between Sheridan Street and Schofield Street.The improvements are to 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 February 20,2007 and April 3,2007,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 3.2 The proposed LID boundary includes all lots fronting on or taking sole access from Schofield Street between North Main Street and the east boundary of Blossom View Subdivision or Monte Vista Street between Sheridan Street and Schofield Street as depicted on the map attached to Resolution No. 2007-03.This boundary was selected as these 16 properties would be directly benefited by the improvements to Schofield and Monte Vista Streets. 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 Page 2 of their property. Many of the surrounding lots outside the proposed district,have already participated in LIDS to improve lower Sheridan Street,Tucker Street and the north section of Walnut Street.The district boundary is proposed to encompass only 16 lots as shown on the attached maps. 3.3 The proposed Schofield Street Local Improvement District is consistent with the 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2006-2007 budget adopted by Council in June,2006. 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. In addition a notice has been sent, for informational purposes,to all property owners within the affected area. The affected area is defined as those lots situated near Schofield Street and Monte Vista Street which could be reasonably expected to use Schofield Street and/or Monte Vista Street as a residential access route.The public hearing notice was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. SECTION 5.ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENT UNITS 5.1 Each of the 16 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.2007-03. 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 Schofield/Monte Vista LID No. 87 is$5,138.00 which is the maximum rate as of Resolution No 2007-04 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 Page 3 of 4 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. 7.4 Therefore, based on our overall conclusions,the City Council authorizes and orders the construction of improvements for the Schofield/Monte Vista Local Improvement District No. 87. � 7 John orrison,Ma r at Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses of the AMC Meeting Date: March 20, 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 Time: 10 minutes Question: Should the Council approve the First Reading of an Ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses on the Ashland Municipal Code" and move the ordinance on to Second Reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve First Reading by title only of the ordinance and set the matter for a Second Reading. Background: The City Council wishes to have the Ashland Municipal Code section on Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards reference the adopted policies and guidelines for obtaining approval of board and commission expenditures, endorsements or sponsorships of events, activities or programs through the City Council, established by Resolution. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption provisions. Council Options: 1) Move to approve the First Reading and set the matter for a Second Reading; 2) Postpone consideration of the proposed ordinance. Potential Motions: • Staff: [Conduct First Reading of the ordinance by title only.] • Council: Motion to approve First Reading and set the matter for Second Reading. Attachments: • Draft Ordinance • AMC 2.10.090 • AMC 2.10.100 Page I of 1 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.10.090 COUNCIL AS FINAL DECISION MAKER AND CHAPTER 2.10.100 BUDGET, COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Kned4lifego 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 City Council wishes to have the Ashland Municipal Code section on Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards reference the adopted policies and guidelines for obtaining approval of board and commission expenditures, endorsements or sponsorships of events, activities or programs. 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 2.10.090 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker With the exception of certain delegated quasi-judicial actions, most advisory commissions and boards do not make final decisions subject to appeal but rather make recommendations to, or act in an advisory capacity to the council. The City Council is the final decision-maker on all city policies and the use of city resources. Proposals by boards and commissions for endorsement or sponsorship of events, activities or programs must receive approval by City Council as provided by Resolution. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 2.10.100 is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses Money is set aside in department budgets for Commission and Board expenses. Should an advisory body require additional funds, requests should be submitted to the department head through the staff liaison. Regular members,of the advisory commissions and boards shall receive no compensation for services rendered. Members must receive permission and instructions from An Ordinance Amending Chapters 2.10.090&2.10.100 Page I the staff liaison in order to be reimbursed for training or conferences and associated travel expenses related to official business. Procedures and criteria for boards and commissions to obtain approval of expenditures are established by Resolution. . SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 4- 5) 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 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending Chapters 2.10.090&2.10.100 Page 2 'City of Ashland; Oregon - Municipal Code Page I of 1 r 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker With the exception of certain delegated quasi-judicial actions, most advisory commissions and boards do not make final decisions subject to appeal but rather make recommendations to, or act in an advisory capacity to the council. The City Council is the final decision- maker on all city policies and the use of city resources. (Ord 3003;2010) http://www.aslilaud.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodelD=3848 3/2/2012 U City of Ashland, Oregon-Municipal Code Page 1 of 1 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses Money is set aside in department budgets for Commission and Board expenses. Should an advisory body require additional funds,requests should be submitted to the department head through the staff liaison. Regular members of the advisory commissions and boards shall receive no compensation for services rendered. Members must receive permission and instructions from the staff liaison in order to be reimbursed for training or conferences and associated travel expenses related to official business. (Ord 3003;2010) http://www.asliland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodelD=3850 3/2/2012