HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-1007 Council Mtg PACKET m rtant: Any citizen attending council meetings may speak on any item on the
agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you
wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the
entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and Inform you
as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who
wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda.
REVISED
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
October 7, 1997
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting minutes of September 16, 1997
and adjourned meeting of September 17, 1997.
IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Mayor's Proclamation of October 5-11 as "Mental Illness Awareness Week"
in Ashland.
2. Mayor's Proclamation of October 6-11 as "National Fire Prevention Week"
in Ashland.
3. Mayor's Proclamation of Sunday, October 19 as "Senior Citizen Day" in
Ashland.
V. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions and committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports - September, 1997.
3. City Administrator's Monthly Report - September, 1997.
4. Approval of liquor licenses:
(a) PacPizza, Inc. (formerly Pizza Hut) at 2220 Highway 66;
(b) Daddy O's Restaurant at 130 Will Dodge Way.
5. Appointment of Mayor Golden and Councilor Hauck as voting delegates to
League of Oregon Cities Annual Business Meeting.
6. Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1997 from
Department of Finance.
7. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments of Committee to renew ICCA facility
as required by C.U.P. condition.
8. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of David Fine to Traffic Safety
Commission.
VI. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda.
(Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total.)
VII. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Request for water service outside the City limits but inside the Urban
Growth Boundary for Glen Ward and Monte George on property adjacent
to Ashland Municipal Airport.
2. Proposal of Mayor Golden to amend position description for City
Administrator.
3. Memorandum from Dick Wanderscheid regarding public forum on
"Ashland's Future Water Supply."
4. Memorandum from the City Conservation Commission regarding a city
"Adopt a Street" program.
5. Request by Wes Vail for pavement cut on Van Ness Avenue just south of
Heiman Street.
VIII. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1 Second reading by title only of "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of
the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Adopting New Hillside
elopment Standards."
Reading by title only of °A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of
the Election Held in and For the City of Ashland, Oregon, on September
16, 1997," and Mayor's Proclamation Regarding Passage of the Youth
ivities Levy."
Reading by title only of °A Resolution Endorsing a Special Session of the
regon Legislature to Develop an Acceptable Transportation Funding
ackage."
A horization for Mayor and City Recorder to sign renewal of lease with
ivil Air Patrol for hangar at Ashland Municipal Airport.
Authorization for Mayor and City Recorder to sign Rental Agreements with
Don Fitch and Steve Gies for hangars at Ashland Municipal Airport.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
X. ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 16, 1997
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Councilor Hauck called the meeting to order at 7:00 p:m., Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present. Mayor Golden was absent.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of September 2, 1997 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Presentation of Lifesaving Medals and Certificates to Fire Department.
Councilor Hauck recognized Fire Chief Keith Woodley and Assistant Fire Chief Don Paul with Lifesaving Medals
and Certificates which were presented to them from the Oregon Health Division, on behalf of Oregon's entire EMS
community for their roles, while off-duty, in the June 27, 1997 lifesaving effort of a cardiac arrest victim.
2. Introduction and Presentation by the Senior Program Board.
Senior Program Director Sharon Laws introduced Larry Hill and Betty Seymour, members of the Senior Program
Board. Mr. Hill gave brief outline of the Senior Program and history of the Senior Program facility. He explained
that the Senior Program began in 1973 by Roland McCannon. With the monetary help of the City of Ashland,
federal grants, and personal donations the program started in a 1,200 square foot building at Hunter Park. The City
of Ashland took over the program in 1981. He reported that with the help of the City, federal grants and personal
donations, a new 1,200 square foot addition was completed.
Ms. Seymour gave an overall outline of present programs provided by the Senior Program. Noted that the addition
to the senior activity center would allow additional programs and activities.
Councilor Reid, liaison to the Senior Program, noted how the Board had addressed the changing face of the senior
community in Ashland, from the need for balanced diets and utility discounts to the need for a more active place
with diverse programs. Sharon Laws noted that the Senior Program would be offering a flu shot clinic again this
year.
3. Reading of Proclamations by title only by Councilor Hauck:
(a) Crime Prevention Month
(b) United Way Campaign Month
(c) Recycling Awareness Week
(d) Ashland Rose Day
(e) Disability Employment Awareness Month
Councilor Hauck read proclamations by title only.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions and committees.
2. Monthly Departmental Reports -August, 1997.
3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointments to Housing, Bicycle and Historic Commissions.
Councilors Hagen/Wheeldon m/s to approve consent agenda. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM None
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 1
i
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Request for endorsement by the Mayor and City Council of a plan to renovate and upgrade the
Historic Jackson Hot Springs resort.
John Lanz/Via Sanford/PO Box 1199, Ashland/Presented visual aids along with explanation of the flood damage
to the historic Jackson Hot Springs. Requested that the council publicly endorse the preservation and renovation
project.
The project is to form a collective of local educators and healing practitioners who share a vision of transforming the
existing flood damaged, limited use facility into a premier botanical park, garden and healing center serving the
entire Rogue Valley. The new facility would be named Jackson Wellsprings Center which would be a non-profit
organization offering a wide range of benefits to the community. It was explained that additional property would
need to be secured before the project could proceed. It was noted that there is coordination with the adjoining
property owner.
Background information was given on SEEDS, Sustainable Eco-Economic Development Solutions, a public benefit
corporation to build local food efficiency, build sustainable projects, provide for community resource development,
and promote physical, health and environmental education.
Unique landscape features of the property were noted, and it was explained that the location of the natural springs at
the base of the mountain allows riparian plants to grow into an area that would normally he considered more of an
upland zone. Botanical features of the area were discussed as environmental and community resources for physical
and health education.
Lanz explained organization of the present non-profit board to council and asked for the public endorsement of the
council to bring this project to the attention of the community. Councilor Laws endorsed the environmental
education aspect of this project, but not necessarily the organization or the project by itself.
Councilors Laws/Reid m/s to approve the endorsement of the concept of an environmental education and
nonprofit wellness center at this location by a letter from the council. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Paul Nolte
verified for council that the form of an endorsement could be incorporated into a letter. Voice vote: all APES.
Motion passed.
2. Request by Councilor Wheeldon to update councilors regarding facilitated Council Meeting concerning
City Administrator profile and other issues.
Councilor Wheeldon submitted a letter to council members with six points to use as a discussion format for the
review of the administrator profile before the interview process starts. Wheeldon suggested that the council meet the
24th and 25th of October to go over these items.
3. Request by Ashland Chamber of Commerce for Council to support request to Jackson County to
expedite process to allow location of Rest Stop/Visitor Center on I-5, south of Exit 14.
Ann Seltzer, Chamber of Commerce President, submitted request to council asking that they recommend to the
Jackson County Board of Commissioners that the land use process for the location of Rest Stop/Visitor Center on I-
5, south of Exit 14 be expedited. Read statement that covered all the progress made. Requested that council write
letter to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners supporting the request to expedite the land use process.
Councilor Laws explained that the council may not be aware of the complications with Clear Springs Resort and
environmental constraints that may be involved with the placement of this center. It was noted that the Board of
Commissioners need to review the ordinance that would allow this process to happen.
Councilors Wheeldon/Laws m/s to ask City Attorney to draft letter to Jackson County Board of
Commissioners requesting that they take every possible measure to expedite the land use process for the
location of the Welcome Center/Safety Rest Area, and bring back to council for review. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Hagen noted that Clear Springs Resort has received their approval through the landuse hearing board, and
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 2
asked that the letter only focus on expediting the process for the rest area and not indicate support for the resort.
Councilor Laws requested that "possible" be changed to "reasonable." Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
4. Discussion by Planning Director John McLaughlin on modification of Cl and El zoning areas.
Planning Director John McLaughlin submitted suggested amendments to the ordinance dealing with separating out
bars, nightclubs, dancing establishments and other entertainment uses from restaurants. This would make bars and
night clubs conditional uses when adjacent residential areas.
V�_ ?
Councilors DeBoer/Hauck m/s to direct staff to work to t6 and an amendment to the ordinance. DISCUSSION:
Noted that following the complete process, with a full public hearing, would allow input from the business
people effected. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal
Code - Land Use Ordinance, Adopting New Hillside Development Standards."
Cate Hartzell/881 E Main/Voiced support for the proposed ordinance. Noted that this proposed ordinance was
developed out of a public, citizen-led process and there had been many discussions and meetings. Noted that
property owners choose to live on the hillside for the view and it is important to consider the value of the view of the
hillside shared in common by all citizens. Would like to see minimum impact on the view of our hillsides. Noted
that currently, color and signs are regulated in the commercial districts and structure and appearance of buildings are
regulated in historic districts. Areas are zoned for particular value and assets and with that comes responsibility.
The ordinance recognizes existence of hillside and Floodplain zones and calls for the regulation of a variety of
characteristics, including appearance. Stated that regulating color is not a new idea in Ashland, and that this should
be kept in mind in considering this ordinance.
Tim Bewley/1618 Ashland St./Does not believe that there is any current regulation of color in the city, except under
historical classification. Feels that the reality is that the ordinance is coming in the middle of development.
Questioned how the process is structured and what the criteria is in determining legal colors (light reflection value,
hue, chroma, saturation, intensity, value) and would like to see this qualified somewhere in the ordinance. Noted
how quality of color changes with light, and could thus vary at different times of day. Wants to clarify how to
determine what the dominant view is of a hillside building as this will need to be known in deciding on acceptable
colors. Also brought up issues of light pollution at night, and how the color of roof tops and of vegetation are to be
addressed. Does not see where this starts and stops, and so would like to see the color issue revisited.
Claire Collins/315 High Street/Stated that she would like to have seen this process before development of the
hillsides began, but felt this needs to be addressed now. Noted that she participated in prior meetings for the Hillside
Development ordinance. Noted the amount of discussion, planning and research that went into the development of
the ordinance. Would like to see proposed ordinance left as is, mainly because of the hard work that the participants
put into this ordinance.
Mary Wooding/727 Park Street/Resident for 38 years. Appreciates the effort that went into the ordinance, which
she supports, but does not support the color portion. Feels this is a limitation on freedom of expression and
attempting to control what a property owner can do with their own property. Notes that people living in hillside
areas are spending a great deal of money to do so and will present their homes in a tasteful manner, and where color
is concerned they should be able to exercise their own judgement.
Debbie Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Supported the process that was involved in developing the Hillside Ordinance,
and stated that the goal throughout the process was the integrity of the remaining hillsides. Pointed out that there are
societal costs involved when the hillsides are degraded. Asks council to not allow the one sentence about color to
detract from the goal of the whole process, and to focus on maintaining the integrity of the hillsides.
John Fields/845 Oak Street/Supports ordinance due to the community involvement that surrounded the completion
of the proposed ordinance, including participation by members of the design community, geologists and plant
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 3
experts. Noted that one of the issues that was discussed at the committee level had to do with color and other
architectural/aesthetic standards. After a brief outline of discussion, he noted that he took issue with how to regulate
architectural features. Felt that the problem with the issue of color has to do with the fact that color changes, as Tim
Bewley mentioned previously, and how to establish guidelines on color. Feels that the color issue is minimal and
would not like to see this over shadow the positive effects of the rest of the ordinance. Noted that voluntary use of
"subtle colors" would be effective in most cases.
Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified for council, that.there is wildfire protection plan incorporated in the
proposed ordinance that governs safety of the hillside over the'trde protection plan. Explained that in the Historic
District, historic colors are encouraged. In the Commercial District, light and bright colors are not allowed to be
used to attract attention to buildings. Stated that there is a section on building design with mandatory standards on
height limitation (wall heights and where they're measured), building width, pole length for decks, and a mixture of
mandatory and recommended language for roof design.
In reference to the color portion of the ordinance, McLaughlin suggested to council that "shall" be changed to
"should", meaning it would not be mandatory to coordinate colors with the surrounding landscape but would provide
a guideline. Brief discussion of the issue of color and how to communicate the standards as mandatory or
recommended. Noted that the maps mentioned on page 8, chapter 18.62.060 are completed and available, and
discussed whether it will be necessary to explain slope parenthetically in degrees after the percentages currently used
in the ordinance. Councilor DeBoer questioned what rights the city has and whether adequate resources are available
to enforce the ordinance with regard to abandoned projects. McLaughlin stated that the language may not be there
for abandoned property, and the bond process may not address abandoned projects quickly enough to remedy
potential flood dangers.
City Attorney Nolte explained that nothing in this ordinance empowers the city to take action in the case of
abandoned projects, although it would likely fall within their authority under the general nuisance/health and safety
sections of the municipal code. In any case, he said it is difficult to address abandoned projects in a timely manner
as the city would need to go to Circuit Court to get an order. Stated that we could add additional language to
expressly give the city authority and add authority to impose a lien if necessary. Nolte feels specific language would
clarify authority in cases where the hillside, or those below it, were endangered because of abandonment. Councilor
Laws suggests that Nolte draft language as an amendment to this or another part of the code, such as subdivision
code or landuse ordinance, addressing city's authority if an immediate hazard exists due to the abandonment of a
project.
Councilors DeBoer/Reid m/s to approve proposed ordinance with substitution of item g for the color section as
prepared by staff. DISCUSSION: Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified for council how staff would
handle discussion of color with an applicant on the wording "should" versus "shall". Explained that staff does not
have specific experience with property owners building on the hillside at this time, but noted very few problems in
the historic district in reaching agreement over colors. McLaughlin felt voluntary compliance would be in the 90-
95% range, and roughly equal in the multi-family and commercial zones. Noted that there has rarely been any
disagreement, as owners normally understand community's values and want to comply.
Councilor Wheeldon pointed out that this is not about taste. Commented on City Comprehensive Plan and the
aesthetic element in the plan which helped her to make her a decision on this issue. The plan and the expenditure of
Open Space dollars indicates the value the city places on the hillside view. Feels that the citizens do care about
keeping what is left of the hillside. Color is a complex issue, but stated that the ordinance will be administered by
people, at the discretion of the Planning Director, and will give the proper attention to a significant aesthetic resource
in Ashland.
Councilor Laws noted his appreciation for the outstanding work and the time spent by those involved in the process
of preparing this ordinance. He has observed no consensus of agreement within the community to support the color
regulation in the ordinance. Does not think it is worth the fight, bad feelings or possible lack of confidence to stick
with the work "shall".
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 4
Councilor Reid noted a letter that commented on the fads of color in past years. Feels comfortable with the new
wording suggested for the ordinance. Commented on the variety and uniqueness of our community.
Councilor Hagen stated that we are late in the development process, and we are not the first city to address hillside
development or the issue of color on the hillsides. Thanks citizens for carrying this process through to this point.
Notes that color is a design element, along with other areas addressed in the ordnance, and does not think it is too
much to ask that developers minimize the impact color on the hillside.
Councilor Hauck commented on a letter that stated houses will continue to be built and this ordinance will merely
minimize their impact. Explained that the issue came down to one of absolute autonomy versus community.
Council DeBoer spoke about regulation versus guidance, noting that while this gives guidance, he has a problem with
a compliance officer dealing with an owner who has painted their home a color other than what it was originally
painted. Doesn't think it could be enforced.
Councilor Wheeldon stated that homeowners will have to follow covenant's color for their home and that this
provides an opportunity to educate property owners. Felt that the covenant is less of an issue and suggested looking
at the ordinance in a couple of years in terms of enforcement of ordinance.
Councilor Hagen noted that many things in the code are enforced on complaint basis only and the color issue is no
different.
Councilor Laws pointed out that it appeared the council was split on this issue and would mean that the proposed
amendment to the ordinance would lose. He would be prepared to vote against the whole notion if this amendment
loses in order to force it to come up again when the Mayor is present to break a tie. Laws suggested that rather than
do this, he would like to postpone this until the next meeting.
Councilor Laws/Wheeldon m/s to table issue to next council meeting. Roll Call vote: Laws, Hauck and
Wheeldon, YES; Reid, Hagen and DeBoer, NO. Motion failed.
Councilor Reid called for the question on Councilors DeBoer/Reid m/s to approve proposed ordinance with
substitution of item g for the color section as prepared by staff. Roll Call vote: DeBoer, Reid and Laws, YES;
Wheeldon, Hagen, Hauck, NO; Motion failed on a tie vote.
City Attorney clarified for council that if a motion was made to approve the proposed ordinance as is, and it failed,
the ordinance would not be adopted. Explained that it could be motioned, by someone who voted in favor of the
motion, for reconsideration at the next council meeting.
Councilors DeBoer/Reid m/s to postpone second reading of proposed ordinance to next council meeting for a
re-vote. Roll Call vote: Laws, Reid, Hauck and DeBoer, YES; Hagen and Wheeldon, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
2. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Sections 18.24.030.K and 18.28.030.J of the
Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance, Removing the Requirement for Annual Reviews for
Traveler's Accommodations."
Councilors Hagen/Reid m/s to approve Ordinance # 2806. Roll Call vote: DeBoer, Wheeldon, Hagen, Hauck,
and Laws, YES; Reid, ABSTAINED. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
Councilor DeBoer requested that public notices placed in the newspaper mentioning the consent agenda should be
more descriptive.
Councilor Wheeldon congratulated the City Recorder on the publication of the first issue of the Ashland City Source
city newspaper.
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 5
Councilor Reid noted that a group of volunteers from the Pacific Northwest Natural History Museum is still trying to
keep the museum afloat.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was temporarily adjourned at 9:00 p.m. to be reconvened to Wednesday, September 17 to consider revision
to tax levy with regard to the Youth Activities Levy, followed by a study session at 12:30 on the LID process.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
City Council Meeting 9-16-97 6
N104UTES FOR THE ADJOURNED MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
September 17, 1997
Councilor Steve Hauck, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 12:10 p.m., Civic Center
Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer were present. Mayor Golden
was absent.
1. First Reading of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 1997 to and
Including June 30, 1998, Such Taxes in the Sum of$5,368,450.00 Upon All the Real and
Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the
City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon and Repealing Ordinance 2803 And Declaring
An Emergency."
City Attorney Paul Nolte read aloud Ordinance //2807 in full.
Councilors Reid\Hagen mks to approve Ordinance #2807 to a second reading. Roll Call Vote:
Hagen, Wheeldon, Laws, DeBoer, Reid, Hauck, YES. Motion passed.
2. Reading by title only of "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 1997 to
and Including June 30, 1998, Such Taxes in the Sum of$5,368,450.00 Upon All the Real and
Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of
Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon and Repealing Ordinance 2803 And Declaring An
Emergency."
Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to approve Ordinance 1/2807. Roll Call Vote: Wheeldon,
Laws, Reid, Hauck, DeBoer, Hagen, YES. Motion passed.
AD.TOURNMENT
There being no further business Chairperson Steve Hauck adjourned the meeting at 12:15 p.m.
Frances Berteau, Executive Secretary Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Wiuuw Adjeumed Ca it Mentiog 9/17/97)
+�4 4'rJ'i"IJgr $•
y� >.�,x ,p.'tK y.j _�� °i' T �' f t'.y. ♦ V^f 'i M r 4d el �` µj'ir 4.
Jfl +''t"•r I A. .rtQ`TX�1s.s�'l O7•fc7 7s�S. r $Y? .3^. r r S_r >'n +Z,_ M1, .r t +k.l�.Sf t tT•'
gal VVV` A r \N!M S 'y h';(� \Np rl �• q\ \\% (� .� nq7
� JnATr i' x\ i r^x• �+r�t�h/n.\Ih'+r/r `• � Y. ...� Rr�' 1 '�A� ay-i "t d.„yF ilk, i�
F
11P � ry` 9N^11P 7 1` tllIM1N !+•� M^P f IM1P M ;�1�"^ II�v S
21Ih11*ta"I M :{ ss�wi>I re-ii etc N3 � ! s`� C•°.
},�t�Z'`�#` `r�f."�` (r
t I +1.'4(17 xf. � +><• ,:4��,� i �y~ �i..•V < S£'w'�'a *:#YS:1,�' `r „`'. %e*�';g y�?tL' ';-4!�ll�
s"Fs V//(F(D> ,rli, y �t* {rT., y, ,�. >.rt_..p��i%r yri :_+yny!4wy.71h\J �'i'+'` 'er4" 'hTr37• r/�.' i's
yd5 tC �;5) et ` r'�.,-34--ET. Z..si }?�` 'Y'�•te � ' 1�3�' b•
�T
_1 'r Y`1 x n + t <•Sf t ,
Y n"t�• f3'.56 r. Tr7 3 �'t ,,,tt}.i 'w }J hs:b S \+t r x°F-y MAl r i.
,ur + 'rqT l�.4Y i•t"±Y J"viy x �.r.G.J,°T.33.4� .t^z $'w�' "qns, 2(, L°t.of 'Sws `i'�` .F -.Klee
"' , 1$ >� y,,:X.rit•X`Yysr �"J •'�v Y.
ra � ~���h ��xF r t J4�Tf a�'^�}y E,, ��' z3v a c s,`+t 5- Y :+ K fr✓•. '�
\J� �'�QCf ♦ T �,,,((?rnt} e� r• c' \M1 td'r�3.4y�'f`.ta� �cr et.r.R� 3)•r-qi.�` s" �".. - € s{� � �y 7/�`�� ;
.rte .'�i ? t•.v� 'ri
WHEREASmental illnessraffectstmilhonsrof Amencans annually and y ,.
\ A � `
;costs� � ;` } our nahon,bilhons of dollars,each year m lost_
P_roductivit
yp
social dependence, and liealth'care costs, and
r 'at All—
"tWHEREAS,4each yearn million orimore young people amstricken ,i wad
swim mental illness, interfering with'the vital developmental
Z .eX
�c maturational process of our nation s greatest natural r
j
•.nri ,
Sn :a 35�,• S r r P e ., e0 w��A�+`. '�+.• Y x '- ` '!T4 l 1 7^y' f n
ources, and,�4
�"�a�2'" rY{( ar 2 t . � •,rr�yr,��e. -f`l,•,,:t{^r�#�a•�sµw'Y RrR`�};, ^?- E 1s'� }r r..s} rA'' " t� '•y t `�/y 1 }_ t
';l� a x y y +E;.1 �T• ry L c f t u ryt. tz �gS 2r"y»kh" •f a1 t t r 2 , SI yY in 1 ���;tl
�� �'*` '2c§,"rr sue.
'rWHEREAS,ours elde;ly; the fastestTgrowmg<segmentofour,population;
, p;area azttcularly vulnerable,to,mental illness,?and, �
p g
f�` =ey }'X"'�'ty.• bps + " �'C a. \ y x3, .*t��„v m,..' ,wi".. ""sue...it .. ^-. � �rb2 ,,
,� : WHEREAS; mental illness N el widy feared dimsun
antderstood, jLzi Nrt a
} �/ fn
tt'.,i7 r+.i"..;r�P+„�.s'h..3!.f t. t:N'. fc v } TI S^\1•"ti'I }�; L* 'k,. T Ill r'et �t �Wr � .E�'i'� :E �,
increasingly treatable;and t e,;pn erstandmg of�mental\,�
- � R d •v w uy '. £irgtr \'v'* u\ roc` e^S<"t, n - G..yJ 4
illness=itself and of new'and better�treatment"teehmques,can', ,;I.c " 111177
' ^'t.. T {,y„t� r•^c 5". '.' `T+V` w , . ,,ws d w
5r\.°.w s n e . i v�g 7' o'enC c ly o%,v v 4 i{y'p E Yy2S r •;,Iiy'yr3zs:'.p..y lt y'°y�'• - di e hto i'r s'atton✓,Tarnip g
erifi&bout sill betterprospects oa
1
r hosesolflcd yf
_
;
3 - t �� i�.t Th.. > \I^44.* }_,�yx1t�;LG,"� �'•+�J '�C � V'�A, yn�. Y� �Y,�il >, .q,? V//Il✓'
v� NOW;THEREFORE; We;lthe May d City:Coun61" if the
.i..r k..• 'Sf» "9*. 1`t;-t•M. %+ ,'.''.'e xr15..�' Via'a•. ,wh ° r
Ashland,�oin the NahonalrAlliance�fdr-, a Mentally III anddthe American t l n
Ia ; :i;'ufi}�4•-agi.tt ,i 9Y�4C"'C,. (�$n3 "Y"Sa y�''.f✓� S'r n,5"' r 1': ' tl
= Psycluatnc ?issociatton in observance of (�� �
`� '•= 'Z;i % 1F! ,2 V:"
r �Feif•S y, rr 'v"
{,T'r r• �7,`Y, rv.F a`a tt" , \+ pv`
�r E TiSA'ti. `� •ir � .'�'�,'' dr.� +♦$Y-� � ��"'�fi•.o- r ... .,,"y., y '�`; ny� ,;�•�+�
t �" a. Y 'a 3a4. ,•4.'� F'Gn`g } .''�v- �L cl V1xfr Ir � r ��^'s�` t„�,.�y r
.r r" t
�raiJfnravESSxAwAxEIVESS
x �Yt
_ 4-pk A Jf� ue w ��x P�tYh
during the��w����eek of O'c�tober 5�e�-, �1'1, 1997r a'nd_'suppoitefforts toincrease � 'i 1
♦1G^r::,ii3'�SN"� ! "4°"^ r•+^
� scienttiic5knowledge�about�mental illness,and to improve care�fosr�,t�`hose��
`� � ' 4"Yri:}P•.++; i •3.7�:iF°ava 'SW;t P144+ "`*•s 'tr^Msr. bsA�±3 h r'Rg=ti+r''f�2iT
l7 6 persons affected?by/i mental illness -It i i, *
rs a fh rr
<ig{;�, " ,t>�'LyA`Pte � ..n ' !r,' r ' � � . L(•fR'ft�+ a='t�l N 4q��li'J j'_ l �'G:y�i'3",)^_�j a ri, �s�r t y�* /
N let-
d 997 ated>thisZ, 1 .r ��,3\t`,5YA:'"` 7J'rf•'�S�,k 3 u-
i �'+� }"�1 U�'T '•`�j ,A;y SRrq,'�'? s�?��� s�yD�i ��� d� tvy�i�M�.L^" n�{II7f�}b r.
'.7}'rp. ��tl�. " rt.�` � R♦!4' ,p✓�4"a• yr"1 �t��y�{ 9;.. 7� �rf�IYf, `�,�v( �,
�u. Irtf('(1 ./ r .�:.. •Y3 .,Y'{+'�". s`tt+7.c Sf¢. �v"' �� �'�p} c' ��5,�n�^Y:-,�{ `1;�"" ht` f�,
zM �'jt)1 a� ti 'S+S •,:gr �Y mYl. ^� s� a:'t `•�' +yW {^ctw• �, ii^ I� it '�6
'� _ CatheruielM: Golden;Mayor��jh � 4, ;�y,
`rw ' Ly l ti ✓" ta� 1 v"S• h 4 a > 'sr y T t< C
`£riF�'�, . t'KJi > L• r +i��.�'fi."i• i� .f4~.�.2.�. t�; � .�'+��6�{. �� }j p��e i1.
vL. "RtImT i*w 'W'.:-,
IU Bamara Wnnslee en City,Recorder -r 4 ,il
A . MIN
.i aI kin �•fiAAte..s � u� ri� 2'i •� 1{n .. i ii ��Sy
IP •' a: n
ric.r�,r.- !
� {` ���� �1��lff^ Rr'1,3N'!' �'iT• l � � � (���H����.i"'JYl4y1- J� r'1�rb}r'�
f O i• ; }�,t •' t lF \Y.. r «`;�F & F)� tlS� 51'l.J! `.J' '� �
.c c.s-..m.
l of fri KA✓ n\1/ n T]� .a"yW'f /u !',
t (f• '�`Q//\\W9 r� I//•\1v"�y - (�, JM1h 4 \\h .vC `4 / \1 �3 • ��i,�/\
7C rb �1w/ 1...-� ��iyn� r•�/ •t�vl�u 4.-:t..---/ �r aw %• C �.t a�//•`1�Ma
g �' V� # 'tJ/h.�1'L, 1r�v..--•,�ty�uTy1 t'.
\i 9� py' V�+' YJ `�-•ig�/' Y'\ x- t �T,D 5
.r. k'''!!ljtiggJ 2E+r�,! Z si/!. }a `�` i+��)yie �* # ` a/r•�+r h eE � l+se ° ^� �•c b "'a
7n #1P�.1y j�a t - ••tr 1w 1Y' it "(�,t•,'/ r{ZR r ' lh '4� �I+ h.-t• '� �"' { �Y�iF 2- rQ h
7 t�llll.r' � s .jr.t ',� •. ,�...�:� v 6 � lac ,�y}A � '` '1 � r �?
MAY O CL
wORAL ,PRrAMA►TION � �� x ; "
'"��1 < it c. ,.lr, .S. �r .�}+ r :-fo/ a?gti t :l ,•��\,'4T tr 7.`�li �i l
� I � � � ¢ aa, z e5�'( ,",t'S.r�"�,,F \� se.-`t` +"d'y�-k:, Y ".y, $�+ay"�i� �'4e ^, „'.s�w•r� �]kw%� ' ��f v
.ANC.
i { WHEREAS Fre,:deaths,due to,smoke inhalation outnumber�fire deaths,due•to4
i=(i1� a r \ t •+ 7:• K r tiio
lu _ bums by morehan three
1.0 aR
yt 1\- �'a'- Y"dc�v.r k.fl > rc.[ i�$,yl +. _ .1
;+ I , WHEREAS, Smoke detectors are our first`line of defensej`agatnst fire, and%
e11 ✓ ti ., r�.�\. .e.Y N' S� syY.,g r > \ l(11i'
r >� �.�a / \ r w�,ik r ,_ ��.�lri� 5.1�•..'.. � '� J3 S i r �` \,
{f,jll)?., _ WHEREAS, Knowing how to react when we hear a fire�alarm sound ng is a'r.s
',-matter of Irfe a}nd death and /V> r�;irl
y�t�ut �.-%a�'
WHEREAS A safe escape�dunng a fire emergency requires a knowledge of ate
least two ways;�out of any budding,
r £ttlll)�/ } �N� f / l 7 !}.]�"�i'�w•j Y V,�KrY'S r ry'J` .^Y M Y ''! � .T-�`�Y�) Y• 14 l�;\ \)! > .it�4�f � 1�((/
, Fi-^w
( :WHEREAS] Ashland Eire,`(:�W Rescue,recommendsanstall ing,smokedetectors �] r
u Jjl v r rx s. v�5•l' t ,tn[ v t.... < r,.>:L }v:".\ 3 "t- v\ F,.s. ✓'�,'r 1�4 w. n +#i
Nslee
outside eac p#ng area, on each levelf�of tFie home end ..a r M s a.
advocate`s testing smoke detectors atleast�<on�a month and _^ z
n�. ,a r' .Xi„ 7t4. .�h � ,, .+ ,+ic+„ fg I 4.
a ft s planning fot�&e escape,rand=� ! ��` t ,;�r *
eY� q�t7'iSrr 4Ah�9' \+
# i�1►11 �1NHEREAS, AshlandxFre.& Rescue]jomsawlth the clUzensofiAshland !n
e* L .
�( + ;{n]" "'commitment to the safety of,lrfe,and orop6rtybfrom tha evastating'M AQ[R�17
1 effects ofrfire and =re',an d Z vw� NOW;THEREFORE„I,1Cathenne;Golden, Mayor of th"e.iUlty<ofS... ...hereby proclalm thew ek',o�fyOctobaeN:611% 1997,
asNatioralF,ire PrevenronzNMeek 4Thls weeK-commemorates thegceat Chicago Fre of-1871 jwhrchrkilld_more than'250 persons left�f100,000 homeless dh destroyed more'than
++ = S , va•,;,s�; r} t: Sa s ,t=o -r+.�y '•s^yd 3,•. ` { \
€i(jl bUddingS # �F r Mil
\ [
i LSD 4
`t7.Y
.•yn ri {`S t W h- 'a .a i o-7
,R, t ltcall upon°the people of;Ashlandto participate m,fire preve�Uon acUwUes at �h III
�' r` Thorne,workland<°school;and toaheed the message.the;t1997 Fre Preventi on,
tic`
>s Week theme suggests r ? PJ_ ,,�' 3 ,r+
4 '�[r'i �+t �?� v'Y 'rY
`` � j11< v y r il'r �” T7S•ra r�r #`> ? t rtJU t r, KM•y/ -s*�Sr "� 1
sae ( :
llfi ' }h 'Know\When to Go►aReact Fast,to Farer �-
1.\ • - 1' K '� �4i7v�5 p`. :t t "\aYt"'c r S�r ° '� y T +. Ill��t#]
. t m JJ r K
`..... ' r��r�.! #`1 k\+.� vS..td-- *,""+'1.••`" .,��,l.�' iy`r o
R'1� �. tX2 �."� ' p"i• - t c �..y'f a .� t;r .yr^.",YOn •.:%rj ;S ,�-4\�' .C'q� ';✓_ `1y,.
A >Dated this LM day of
October• 11997
[ F o ? - } si '\.c 3 7 4� yY 3nr t 5'' x•.,yc�^' y h�'n �� �)b
S !r 'y�• � r r tmar L• rk.•' xctr�, "$ >S i/= � �d`u _ �r a� ''Y { 'yt��``iia�1 >;n
r r •i �y�� '>•��nt�� �., v r� C� �n -[ ' z• .� A' h E - it r r '�s <��f." rya ��i
h. •c: �� M..�,..# cp\ {. ar�sl.,v r v'4t�rV ti '�#�r\„C.. {�}•.`°.`t r r rn-'� _".� ;1. r r _ /d 1
�fJ/
^?' �'Q>� t /.' ,+ a�%�C' 04�"b/' ^trxvse{�'YZ �`4�+° t5"vk]: �a rr� a{-TIy."3].� �'�`y,' w �.•���•\�' �l��i�'
Y `, Catherine Goldiih;mayoi.i
r `yC! '' " es t iL. .�' •,`zPclo ✓Fi.:tiw "r -µ, yL �'4-c`H•;i ��^" .
+r'r v ry AI�IS
s /a fxStF •� i?,rd����,.,�a 3a ,F�,tlt �N'rcF"-T[�.w'l3t �",+'�S . c-f� � ,t u.��' [`i J'+� a�\.
w ac F �-�"i's'Cr . 'L'S�� �+,�•" t 2 a'` Y Sri��a ?ss3`i 'w r" 1` 1'd(�C-"y"�^ 'tS�;
> '- F t r i �✓r r + }.�a+•✓ .u)�.,•/�� -,/5 r � �.i•� � .{r a �sy .rY , ik��
� ��jli � �r8arbara�Cjtnstensen City` Recorder � � 3 �� r �1 ,�: h t{�((li r
r,
., •ill �. r, r, \ s•'y"-'2Y i' .r .; # # Sr .\ $ ;'4
';''R,'n r X14 "+.y'>♦Stf���'�� �..Gi'.��;���`t ``�a �r..Y c. �� .,� � `:�+s -' Jt �. �� ^.k�}++J. _. .r.X �.tr'.n':
�. 3:h�."r } ��-L5�1�'x pia. *.r riy r
c x
x�rrn''✓a vYM'�.b. ate. tS�
r� •' i C.. 'a u�• }{t {' •:.R. t�;{� �w. 1' " x� 4 x. .S• ft�, 1�. .:r r -nt j ° ^C2 c t �,
' t , n M r vi t7• u. r.—V i•• 1t j,
N ORW •
1,th� ,v,•:jy1�l�, s ( ,- S �`�r.. i• ra 1 ; �` Bc _�(7.,p p
�rytPSf13(�r� - t y � rT "�ct� t. \'�, ra`- . , <i, �",.� p � • •• �- .2C".� M �U/r t �Y
°� i af�h..� '$._ � 1 rw`f'r+j�� { • r r �.{.v a °`� R -�. � :rt. 1�S j.�}� ��ij(kr s `?s .
1)i}�I)1 f 4� .'t� y� x iJ!+ '� � f..•` r r� x���
! t ` :_ di 5r y l f/V,�� t +� .,, 7d xXirn �
M� yt o V A ' NT ,N,a <Y r 14 x. 1 lbe+ S
.,xt s taiiF as ' w < avl 1 x r, 4~•r r d'w s<L Jr r y :•t'�i"• "G-'"_"` Sr}; .`?,�
� +,I�✓: � �k(r,,�� � � �r�,�✓µt ,t'�"•��y�v,. } rrorf'�}�i� s a '���a��+�i�.�..-5d,1d}�, .rr. .t j,"t�r�' 6F� i
„S r 3 y k4 >` �`C�MY 5... 5'rt '� i.- � i1'j 'Z.`E Yo• �` '.i�j+ t� ?r.'"hr `$<g¢' f'P.3� ,ry
°*, C •2{)�5,�, '"t?.v-..6` Y%�f c es r i
� �Tl�lt� � i, .+�-�'�,.uy �`�+��(� �SLr' 'tir'�'d iv dg fr2+ � ,� *'°�•' 5�'�..".rt y°..s.s'$r`� W,U
c r `c >• 1+x.'h 3M-�h K -y} K �`, ''• t _• y ,-nr ' .•k.s .f -• (i//n •�•
WHEREAS It is imperative that°we make useaof�t�hetal resourcestll� ;
•� r j yr,:• r �i a w•� 4 a9u Ia
- our iSenibr Citizens provide �We recognize the tremendous-p 4 ff � _ �� K
s' '{contfibit�o6Ah-6se Seniors°ha e'made-to our community -They are��,
d t' x.Ra '.S G• - v s•:.} .It r +Y^ t wS° L n
,. ,the eo le that 'survived�tne depression, fought the wars,,,built the ��j
1` - p �a r r .i r fir F ♦ , a .«v¢. L} �
v a .7 t
y °lSusmesses nand�raised.our families 7
�}r.�,'..r•5 .t- . p; r 'f ,F Ltd r�sr� *'Z?atiie'«7fi,,�t' ', �.c•�� �.+ �"•y�)17 �t
,p f k �5<.6 •d+t1/ �.�.WO �att.
xFc. "Y.„2t / i •t„ "3;:
}
NOW ,THEREFORE, I,^'bath r1hwGolden,S May6r�of the City;of A �r• ur} , }
.++r•�w R M f}v�2, k. `k ', a YtY•'4??4 r/Tr<.t t6 •st. r Y S
f=s , Ashland ;,Oregon, do.ihereby?proclaim tSundayOctober.19; 1997 as E t.
r f
r.�-Odil,
• Za° �1" �' " + +� S `� � �*.,t. `°� t P,jiry •t-�s
r. Y� Kr�,3' d+-,. a '-•�• r9'e
4f '.�1Fil. i <�Z � ��wc � C ♦r�r i i S M��v>�t.19 �������•"�y > i'�,,_"W, -C �
1 ;SENIOR `CITIZEN `D/A-.Y, iilft
rC'o�Y ir• a ,t,.r. do'�'(vni i,_1f�s�--` '" w`# p'WTt' �. i -
�✓p r 'F•o- �+S 7L j �'++^}^ai4 ST3" 4r n .{a .C•is C4 t
�.$
� 3.7C� y t�,tlF;' - �w�vy�'2'•u r,�a n'^'..•< c r� S"� y`..vr ;�, •, 5� , w1 _ � '',
t �n, N,<�y a ttr t n. .L .Nye.{`S,+ .•^ �s r 9 .T.� ,f..` c "i
; IU ;%rr, ate 3 � ,,r y? s.�<,¢'tj• "�5 ,<, f _ 5`�. <+.fis' "f
S ar' '. •arr�c,�,,, "fr 4. v ' F'•t< 5. } �r' ":5��.`,3ixr.a�`-g "�"`.f`�' � �i"•at
r,ln A`shiand",and�urgwilVditizensftoWoinain thisD senrance�and
✓E, 7• `. ib•. 'e"' t+ ,,.y s-a$ t?vi/� dam• � fiY<Y�iQ' 7'''r +rrwaias�c"`4-V3x��T�'e�WyM u •xs � n
�xiCelebration and continue that s rcppor andiencouragementlall
^vsi• ! + ! yLLns. g+} )F 9. nge.� r 'f, +^c nF
ra rD 'SP T Trr,•E,�r J' 4`•a} �'Yrb3 Y>'e. $ S:` 9 t
=3' ��
3' nf'«)`e it, {" i•.r�55ti.�.'y�. •,c'?}rtlr Q`;?��.f�X<S 'f t r T.
i� y �`Sr`r`Lr�.:•�x' V-f,4" '? "�{X�eT'y+ n �r'4"�>• �. it s•fxrra�7c., sy �SF -i ll 4:
ti �� ' ° r YDated this dray of October,
i ,�„^�'•. .' ' "'S'tP ^r•ra',,.z '` " �1. x
'�',w` £3Wf fir $ 'L„x,.•� ' ��13�� �t ; i��•
,+. . a i :4z, } . -crix':a..' y� ..-✓ '`r'reS �{ '� [�Nm. P lrr, w rK rt }
�A �'�� si< +:�"'C�'�1� ,Ta "'A'!¢`r.��, •4'7 k:. 'ii'tb" �xs �� S ' �+�
Yi'<?-' .vl
WIN
SBarbara '�hristensen'aCity Recorder
�yc fri
.i�} }i • w r Xad < 'W1'
"�,� 't�i�� 'nt^��•+'v4'. '.ik "`, �"'o�Y r �� `\t�t11;, �.
A F r� �ar �J .. -A��,(t1r}~r'7.ry�� � S Y sd�r� 3�F� d<` {�• '%5 w"�� I�.GT`
"w 91
j 3=<T`� `'`•'• ,r4� • v ",,.• •st G,a �*;§` jA`".' ie ,,tr>
X;� ��y�r i� iY( + �x•'.r +. r+��'�"tr�> .+ak���'t'^' .•t.n '}. ... filM '•�,_
x"�i � x CK*'4<. � n.4b •- �� r � ?' _, 't�, sr"�""�'< r :.�rtY.'J "'w'� 07�` � �a`+.
f'r' g ii� �' 0L j.`� i 7"^} t'�"� r �.. '�yr,..7A.eS�i'•a7Gw i r� ` �is'�.�:'`ifr,r+W a E q:�i,�'� '�! ((!�qq�p(F} � .
; T i1i1Cath erine"`Go�ld�en;'vOMayor
A.
.4 r��iv <e§aF �I � "�+sr r' Yi+�i 9•Fsje C; iS+F#3x'k�� ✓ts i 'k 61ir' ,_ .��; I �'�:
�� �'`fl41<ti ^r� „�� r}�� � F �Si?`7 fS"k� "� .p+�',"� a ➢k t,.' •f � j+� �k'
j� `+!�.l�p` 'sue t t`� ( E•ll}
�� 't411�•• rf r r}nt !�r5 .y � '�,'��G� v" ;,'C r�c .�' *�•f fi_ ' .1-�`r ab r �7}� �:
�=i4ili "WrT v'��'1C ...� � 'fir ` � r `f. •ly- T�?.r 4 .y rtb� c n. �(�'l•A�1} �{,3
` r wmmm@xrP y ,.csM✓ �w�Y,c�'7'p- .i' .-�IaJ'Y<4 �'��„ ••q't'y' aw`��t,�• '•C�.c..2 ,` a�C'�.,•''''T S"A' t}�'• .x ..ash•
5\S � ✓; �''• .y 4 � ,�AC� t`ITrr=S�6� '��
4• • ,rt. .4� ?vT 1,4 ✓it t Liti'Moll
^a} u. as
MENUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 17, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Steve Hauck called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. In
attendance: Councilor Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hagen, Wheeldon and DeBoer. Mayor Golden was absent. City
Staff present were Pete Lovrovich, Jill Turner, John McLaughlin, Paula Brown, Paul Nolte, Fran Berteau
and Ken Mickelsen.
A. Overview and Discussion of L.I.Ds
City Attorney Paul Nolte explained this is a continuation of a series of discussions among City Council,
who adopted recommendations in November of 1996 as to what could be done with LIDS to improve the
process. He said some of the recommendations were discussed but not acted upon. One recommendation
discussed was to take no action and to modify the current policy on land use approvals. Instead of an
agreement for future improvements, the developer would prepay the estimated amount of the required
improvements and pre-sign in favor of the formation of an LID. He said there has been great concern by
those individuals affected by LIDS, but no one has come up with a solution as to how to resolve the issue of
LIDS. He said that two other alternatives that the council may want to discuss would be to continue the
present policy, or not carry out any LIDs unless 50% (excluding the 50% of the pre-signers) of current
owners petition the council and ask for the improvements.
Public Works Director Paula Brown exhibited two maps showing the underimproved arterials, collectors and
streets and the unimproved streets (dirt streets). She explained there are about 9-10 miles of dirt roads out
of about 85 miles within the system, which is about 10-12% (dirt roads). She showed what had been done
so far with LIDs versus subdivisions. She determined the status of the pre-sign agreements on proposed
LID areas, and said there are not that many residents with pre-signed agreements.
Planning Director John McLaughlin indicated the examples of the subdivision LIDs were not in contrast to
each other but an indication where neighborhoods paid for the street, either through development or through
an LID where a neighborhood paid.
Councilor Ken Hagen requested clarification on chipseal versus pavement.
Public Works Director Paula Brown explained that chipseal provides an immediate, temporary fix, and the
chipseal has to be renewed every other year or so. There are usually no stormdrain or gutter type
improvements, so there is considerably more maintenance with a chipseal finish.
Councilor Don Laws said that anything less than a full improvement which is up to City standards does not
meet the obligation people have for paying for that street. He said that once a street has been brought to
City standards then the City takes care of the maintenance.
In response to Councilor Carole Wheeldon's question, John McLaughlin explained that street standards are
variable depending on the nature of the street and what service levels are. He explained that in low density
residential areas sidewalk standards can be as small as a four-foot sidewalk on one side of the street and in
higher traffic areas larger sidewalks on both sides of the street can be required.
Councilor Susan Reid questioned whether ADA requirements must be met in some rural neighborhoods.
(Cw il surly swim 9/17/97)
1
City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified that under the Americans with Disabilities Act whenever a program is
provided it must meet the requirements of the act. If an improvement is made that becomes part of the
program and it must be accessible. The only exemption to meet ADA standards would be if it is an undue
burden for the government to comply with ADA then you can have an exception and not be in compliance.
He explained that if there is no sidewalk at all, that is not a violation of ADA standards, but once a
sidewalk is provided, then you must comply.
Councilor Ken Hagen wanted an explanation and reasons for the "sign in favor" agreements.
Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified that the ordinance requires the City to obtain "sign in favor"
agreements when a planning action increases the use of an unimproved road. He said you see these most
often in minor land partitions. He explained there is also a provision in the ordinance that is required when
a new home is built on an existing vacant parcel. Up until the time of the building permit there is no traffic
generated by the parcel so the construction of a home makes it necessary for the provisions of the agreement
to be met. They are also required for accessory units when a separate dwelling is added to a property.
Additions such as bedrooms to a private residence would not require road improvements whereas Bed &
Breakfast establishments are required to make the improvements. Subdivisions are also required to provide
a paved access.
Councilor Susan Reid feels the pre-sign agreements have been fairly successful in the City if you look at the
map overall and see the number of streets put together with LIDs. She feels it is unfair to ask a person to
pave the whole street if they want to divide their lot at some point to build a separate dwelling. This would
not encourage people to stay in the community. She also feels it does not matter whether you have a pre-
sign agreement or not if a person receives notice they are to pay for something they do not want. She
stated it is not just the pre-sign agreement issue but also the money issue.
Councilor Ken Hagen feels that the City must adopt either a pre-sign or pre-pay agreement system.
Councilor Carole Wheeldon questioned other council whether they feel pre-sign agreements are fine and
when all are collected should the City proceed. She asked whether they felt if people were objecting to the
going forward part, not the pre-sign.
Planning Director John McLaughlin questioned council clarification and direction with regard to the LID in
the proposed Sheridan/Schofield LID.
Public Works Director Paula Brown wanted clarification for what is considered underimproved and
unimproved as it takes a lot of time to maintain the streets and stormdrains.
Councilor Don Laws questioned the cost of maintaining a dirt street versus the cost of paving a street, and
was curious as to how much was spent per year by the City to maintain the dirt streets.
Chairperson Steve Hauck opened up the discussion to the public.
Harry Bartel, 365 Strawberry/Said until he moved to Ashland nine years ago he had never heard of an
LID, so feels this is a localized form of improvement. He asked council to abolish the whole plan of the
LID as a street is a public thoroughfare and should be paid for by public funds. He feels that the entire
ambience of neighborhoods, especially in the wooded areas, are destroyed by improvements the residents
don't want to begin with.
(Ca jl Sally swim 9/17197)
2
Ed Pentkowski, 456 Monte Vista Drive/Agrees with Mr. Bartel regarding LIDS, feels the council can stop
the LID process if they want to, and that citizens should not have to pay for something they do not want.
He said a portion could be set aside from the storm drain, street users or utility tax paid into a fund for all
citizens to use. He said LIDS are wrong and he would like the council to get together and use funds strictly
for LIDS, which would benefit the whole community and eliminate bad feelings of the public toward
government officials.
Jack Blackburn, 805 Oak Street/Feels that LIDS penalize small groups of people and from his calculations
using LIDS assessed so far, a sum of$19.23 a year would benefit all citizens from the improvements. He
said he has investigated Medford's LID process and they have stopped it - if a development is to be made
on a residential street, the developer will pay for all of the costs of paving one-half of the street plus an
additional 12 feet to a collector or arterial street. He would like to see Ashland develop a policy wherein at
least two-thirds of the residents approve the LID before it goes forward. Any improvements should be
carried out either by general bond funds or the general funds.
Jackie Reed, 1040 Clay Street/Said that because people sign in favor of LID agreements doesn't
necessarily mean they understand what they are signing. She said that a resident she knows on Clay Street
indicated years back that he became part of an LID because some of the streets were developed that way at
the time but it didn't cost much money then, whereas today it costs a lot. She said she has lived in Ashland
for many years and doesn't want to move if she cannot afford to stay here because of an LID in her
neighborhood.
Kathleen Kahle, 345 Clinton Street/She said that her street is currently under construction with an LID.
She feels this is a policy of coercion, and is hoping the council can come up with another plan. From her
personal experience she stated she discovered her street was up for an LID in 1995 from reading about it in
the paper, attended the meeting and was told to come to come up with a plan within two months. The
residents were unable to come up with a plan within the two months so the LID went ahead. She said that
neighbors adjacent to her received bids to pave their streets which were approved. Her quote from
Mountain View Paving for paving only was $29,000, whereas the bid for paving, including curbs and
sidewalks was $109,000 from the City. She feels council should listen to comments regarding curbs and
sidewalks if they are not desired in the rural areas. She will have to pay $35,000 to the City, whereas if
they had been allowed to pave the streets themselves her share would have been $9,000, which over ten
years is much more affordable. She feels this is being forced upon her, the city is becoming divided as
these issues arise, and the policy should be reconsidered as this is not working.
Patricia Haley, 400 Alnutt Street/She said she cannot understand why the City did not pave around her
neighborhood when they built the reservoir. She said it doesn't make sense that just because there is going
to be a development the residents will have to pay.
Councilor Susan Reid commented there has been no decision as to how the division of payment will be
made, and this will happen at another step when they determine who benefits the most, not necessarily per
lot, but per benefit. She explained that at the time the Bond was passed the focus was on getting the
reservoir built.
Chairperson Steve Hauck said that when the LID is processed if the reservoir road is part of the LID then
the City will pick up that part of the share.
Austin Brayfield, 400 Monte Vista/Said her assessment for benefits is about $9,000 if the LID goes
through and she does not want to pay this just because there is a development going on above.
(Cm ji solar sa.im 9117/sn
3
Planning Director John McLaughlin clarified for council that assessed costs to residents on the proposed
Sheridan/Schofield LID are formulated at 75% based on the possible number of units on a property and
25% based on frontage. A lump sum was also assigned to the developer for the entire neighborhood.
Councilor Alan DeBoer feels that the time for LIDs has gone, and these assessments are much larger now.
He said that LIDs encourage development in open-space areas as people can no longer afford to keep their
large open lots and they in turn have to sell them off. He would propose using Jack Blackburn's figures of
the City's 19 LIDs in place which is $1.5 million, and that the city not mark up the interest rate. He said
that in the past LIDs were done when neighborhoods approached the City wanting improvements done in
their area, and that most of the LIDs in the City have been accomplished that way. However, he said now
when enough signatures are obtained an LID is forced. He said the cost to the city is about$15,000 a year,
but to people affected it is a significant amount. He feels that LIDs should be owner-driven. A fund should
be established to pay for the LIDs, and when a development goes in the developer should pay their share.
Councilor Susan Reid said that because we are under State land use laws to encourage development within
the City of Ashland, we have to provide development within our City boundaries. She indicated she would
like to review some of Alan DeBoer's options.
Councilor Don Laws said he liked Jack Blackburn's idea of funding LIDs.
Jill Turner said that when the City goes through the assessment process is can vary but usually 50% of
citizens choose to pay now instead of over time.
Councilor Alan DeBoer is in support of getting rid of LIDs, although he appreciates an individual's rights to
develop their own property. He feels for instance the proposed 64ot development on Strawberry would not
have a significant impact on traffic as opposed to a 60-lot development.
Councilor Ken Hagen indicated he would be happy to share in the cost of paying for others' LIDs but could
not speak for all the other low-income people in the City or people who have already paid for their LIDs.
He said he would like to see this go to an initiative.
Don Laws indicated he would like the staff to put together some preliminary alternatives following these
thoughts to come back at a study session or council meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m.
Frances Belleau
Executive Secretary
(Cw ii Sb*Suaiao 9/17/97)
4
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Minutes
September 3, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at the Ashland Community Center by Chairperson Jim
Lewis at 7:40 p.m. Members present were Jim Lewis, Terry Skibby, Dale Shostrom, Keith
Chambers, Curt Anderson, Vava Bailey, Joyce Cowan and Carol Abrahamson. Also present
were City Council Liaison Steve Hauck, Associate Planner Mark Knox and Secretary Sonja
Akerman. No members were absent. Cardinale has resigned, and a new member will be
appointed September 16th.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chambers moved and Abrahamson seconded to approve the August 6, 1997 Minutes as
submitted. The motion was unanimously passed.
STAFF REPORTS
Planning Action 97-073
Conditional Use Permit
570 Siskiyou Boulevard
Laura Shrewsbury
Knox explained this application is to expand the existing traveller's accommodation from
four units to five. Overall, the application would meet all the regulations. The only exterior
change proposed is an exterior door for the new unit. The primary concern of Staff has to
do with the applicant's floor plan. The new unit will be created from existing owner's unit
space. According to the findings submitted by the applicant, the kitchen area is not
accessible by guests. This does not make the common area (living/dining rooms) accessible
from the inside. Guests would need to walk outside and to the front of the house. Each
unit has a kitchen area. Staff sees this more as a hotel than a traveller's accommodation.
Knox added it seems unlikely the guests would use the common area. He also stated he
understands the owner/applicant has the property for sale and is moving. Staff feels it
would be premature to approve this application. The owner's living area is getting smaller
and it soon would not fit the needs of a family, but only one or two people operating the
business. For these reasons, Staff is recommending denial or a continuance in order to work
out these issues.
Laura Shrewsbury debated Staff's reasons for denial or continuation. She said all they were
changing is the existing double set of windows to an exterior door. She emphasized the
common area is for the guests and they are served breakfast there or outside in the enclave,
which is covered and opens to the pool. She also said they have a full basement under the
house. They don't live there but they could. They will have three sets of doors opening
onto a beautifully landscaped area that guests like to use.
Chambers asked where the new units were derived and Knox answered from the owner's
bedrooms. Chambers said his understanding of the B & B ordinance is that it allows people
with larger homes to live there, serve the needs of the community and earn money. This
application seems more like a hotel.
Knox said the intent of the ordinance is also to allow people to fix up older homes. He
related it is important to remember the B & B is in a residential zone. A new owner would
also have the same application requirements to ensure the residential areas and the home
itself are respected.
Skibby said he sees all the exterior doors and it seems obvious this is a change from
residential use to a hotel.
Lewis related it is also important to know this is in a multi-residential zone and it is
necessary to look at how easy the B & B can revert back to residential use. He said he feels
it would not take much to do this. He also said to change from four to five units would not
be a big impact.
Bailey said if you keep adding units, parking, etc., it soon won't feel like a residential area.
It will be more like a commercial area. Skibby agreed and said if it reverts back, the units
could be used as rentals.
Chambers maintained this application is pushing the envelope of what the ordinance
envisioned. He said he tends to agree with Staff and this application is nearing the point
in which the neighborhood area stops feeling residential.
Anderson asked for clarification of the status of the house. Shrewsbury said the house is
for sale. She is living in the house but the rest of her family is not. Her family would like
to keep the property, but her children do not want to live there.
Shostrom said this seems to be a planning issue versus a historic issue. Visually and
architecturally, he does not see a problem. He feels, however, it could have an impact on
the area.
Knox said the increase in the number of units probably would not be noticeable in the
neighborhood. He asked how usable the common area is. If it can't be used, it doesn't
meet the intent of the ordinance. Staff doesn't think it will be used. Shrewsbury countered
by stating she serves guests all winter in the living/dining area. Bailey said she would rather
see it worked out where the guest suites are more accessible to the common area rather
than see all the exterior doors. Skibby agreed and added he would rather see it remain
more as a residence. The use, he repeated, seems to be changing.
Chambers said the issue is about houses converting to B & Bs. They need to retain a
residential feel. This is pushing the ordinance because the way neighborhoods function is
It
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 2
part of the purview. By decreasing the size of the owner's quarters, it will be less livable
for a family.
Chambers then moved to recommend denial of this application to the Hearings Board with
the suggestion the owner rethink the interior design of the house in order to keep it more
residential. Anderson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Planning Action 97-082
Variance
872 "B"Street
Dan Heller/Mary Beth Burton
Anderson stated he knows the applicants and owns a rental home not far away. He said he
does not believe it will affect his ability to make a fair decision.
Knox explained the applicants are requesting a Variance to allow the existing rock wall to
remain at five feet in height rather than cutting it down to three feet six inches as required
by ordinance. About seven years ago, Heller stated he came to the City Hall and asked the
Building Official if he needed a permit for the wall. He said he was told by Everett Murrell
(who was the Building Official at the time) he did not. Knox noted the applicant is a stone
mason and the design factor of the wall and expense to Heller should be considered unusual
circumstances. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval.
Dan Heller said he built the wall in 1990 to replace an old five foot wooden fence. He then
read the letter he had submitted with his application.
Darrell Pearce, 107 Fifth Street, testified he lives in the neighborhood and walks frequently.
He sees many fences that probably don't meet the code. There are different styles and
approaches. This is all part of the character of the Railroad District. Heller didn't intend
to build an illegal wall, and to try to cut it back 18 inches would be horrible. It ties in with
his new house. He encouraged the Commission to consider approving the Variance.
Linda Datz, 156 Eighth Street, stated she walks by the rock wall every day and thinks it is
a beautiful piece of art. She loves the neighborhood. A large part of the charm of the
Railroad District is the diversity of the property. This makes it a real neighborhood and the
wall adds to it. She said she feels the wall has been there for seven years and that it is
more of a benefit than a detriment. She would like to see it stay.
Mary Beth Burton related she went around the neighborhood and talked to people to find
out if they supported keeping the wall. There was an overwhelming support and she found
no complaints. She then submitted a petition signed by neighbors to keep the wall.
Skibby asked if a gate would be installed in the cut out. Heller said he didn't plan to put
in a gate, that he thought it would be more friendly to keep it open. He will be creating a
return in the opening going toward the new house, however.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 3
Anderson said he appreciated the fact that Heller applied his trade in creating the wall.
When the wall first went up he felt it was imposing, but has gotten used to it. He then
asked about the opening. Heller said he cut it when he started to build his new house.
Anderson said the issue now is there is a house behind the wall. He doesn't want to have
a neighborhood of walls and would like to have assurance there would not be a big gate.
Burton responded the vegetation behind the wall has been cut so the new house can be seen
better. Bailey asked if a person is allowed to plant tall vegetation in front. Knox said it is
not allowed and added that Staff only acts on a complaint basis if there are problems with
neighbors. Hauck added when there is a planning action, this triggers compliance with
ordinances.
Bailey stated the wall was not inviting before; it still is not inviting. She related she would
also like to ask the owners to keep the vegetation down.
Knox declared this is not something that will set a precedence. It will not happen in the
future.
Lewis said this is a beautiful wall and agreed it would be difficult to cut it down. Chambers
added there is a gray area about what went on with this and stated it is important this not
set a precedence.
Abrahamson asked if the rock wall would meet Historic District criteria if it were built to
code now. The general consensus was that if it were three feet six inches, it would be OK.
Skibby noted if the wall were cut down to three and one-half feet and recapped, it would
not be as attractive.
Shostrom stated he used to live just down the street so he looked at the wall for a long time.
He said he felt there was a mystery lot behind the wall and it was not welcoming. He
commended Heller in the design changes he made for the new house, but he said he still
sees the wall more than the house. He continues to have the same feeling of mystery. He
said it is a shame you can't see the beautiful house until you get to the opening. The four
foot opening just seems too abrupt. Shostrom then asked if Heller would be willing to make
a wider opening in the wall or step it down. He doesn't like to feel as though he is violating
someone's privacy to admire the house. Heller responded he felt it would be enough to cut
the vegetation. He said it would change the look of the wall to widen the opening or cut
it wider. It would be a tremendous project to step it down and he would fight it. Heller
also noted he had talked with Planning Director John McLaughlin about the four foot
opening he recently cut and McLaughlin indicated he had no problem with that width.
Anderson stated McLaughlin would not have spoken for the Historic Commission and added
the saving grace in the wall is that there is an opening.
Chambers commented he didn't feel the wall is quite in step with the neighborhood and the
opening is too abrupt. He asked if Heller would consider stepping down the wall. Heller
replied the cap rocks are woven in and are black shale rocks. He really doesn't want to do
that and pleaded with the Commission to let him leave the wall. Chambers said he would
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 4
like to mitigate this. The wall is in violation and he does not feel it is unreasonable for
Heller to make some adjustments in the opening. Heller stated he will use the thinnest rock
for the return, which will only reduce the current opening by a few more inches.
Skibby said it would help to have a wider opening and that it would be easier than stepping
down the wall. Anderson said a wider opening would only be 1-2% of the 60 foot long wall
and that he didn't feel it would make much difference. Chambers maintained it would be
up to a 50% increase in the opening, however, and that it would make a difference.
Skibby moved to recommend the Hearings Board accept the Variance with a wider finished
opening of six feet and that the hedges be lowered to the approved height. Discussion
followed. Abrahamson seconded the motion, which carried with all voting aye except
Anderson.
After further discussion, Hauck stated the Commission should clarify the motion.
Clarification is as follows: 1) the minimum opening of the rock wall should be at least sixfeet
with a preferred recommendation of a nine to ten foot opening, and 2) the Review Board review
the design of the return walls on the opening of the rock wall before being built.
BUILDING PERMITS
Permits reviewed by members of the Historic Commission and issued during the month of
August follow:
835 Blaine Street Keith & Ann Chambers Revision
110 Pine Street Mark & Nancy Spector Remodel/Addition
255 East Main Street Elk's Lodge Fence Enclosure
219 Almond Street John Javna Addendum to Carport
115 Fork Street Larry Medirger Garage Demolition
115 Fork Street Larry Medinger Remodel/Addition
307 Meade Street Cynthia Ceteras Revision
35 Granite Street Allen Connolly Basement Addition
66 North Second Street Trinity Church Sign
REVIEW BOARD
Following is the schedule (until the next meeting) for the Review Board, which meets every
Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department:
September 4 Anderson, Bailey and Skibby
September 11 Abrahamson, Cowan and Skibby
September 18 Chambers, Cowan, Skibby and Bailey
September 25 Lewis, Shostrom and Skibby
October 2 Abrahamson, Lewis and Skibby
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 5
OLD BUSINESS
Project Assignments for Planning Actions
PA # Address Person(s) Assigned
96-063 62-66 East Main Street Terry Skibby
96-058 264 Van Ness Avenue Jim Lewis
96-086 685 "A"Street Curt Anderson/Jim Lewis
96-110 499 Iowa Street Joyce Cowan
96-112 249 "A"Street Jim Lewis
96-139 545 "A"Street Terry Skibby
97-014 20 South First Street Joyce Cowan
96-143/97-030 136 North Second Street Terry Skibby
97-018 661 "B"Street Jim Lewis
97-039 78 Sixth Street Jim Lewis
97-053 565 "A"Street Jim Lewis
97-082 872 "B"Street. Dale Shostrom
OLD BUSINESS
Downtown Design Review Committee
Knox reported the committee is moving forward with the design standards. All six members
seem to be on the same track. He also noted the design standards will be required, will
have nice illustrations, and be user friendly.
NEW BUSINESS
Election of Officers
With a motion by Skibby and second by Shostrom, it was the unanimous decision to elect
Chambers to be the City Council Liaison.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 6
Railroad District - National Register Grant Approval
Knox reported the City has received word from the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) that we are the recipient of grant money dedicated for the research in applying for
National Register status for the Railroad District. Requests for Proposal will be sent within
the next three weeks.
He also explained the Historic Preservation Ordinance would kick in. This would give
property protection and benefit the property owners. They could apply for National
Register status individually, and in turn get the taxes frozen. Before SHPO approves the
tax benefit, property owners will now be required to submit a plan for significant renovation
to the structure, which needs to be consistent with the guidelines. The financial impact will
be minimal to the City.
Goal Setting/Orientation Meeting
The Commission discussed various ways to incorporate the orientation meeting with the
monthly meeting. One suggestion was to have the orientation meeting in the early
afternoon, then have the monthly meeting in the late afternoon. This will be discussed
again at the next meeting.
Space Needs Committee
Hauck informed the Commission the Mayor will be appointing a new Space Needs
Committee and she would like one member from the Historic Commission. The main
objective the committee will be working on will be the addition of a third story to the City
Hall. The Commission will recommend a member at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission
Minutes
September 3, 1997 Page 7
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
AUGUST 27, 1997
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Gerry Sea at 4:05 p.m.. Other Commissioners present
were Glenn Tiffany, Madeline Hill, Jack Ware, Steve Hauck, Jan Vaughn, Joseph McKeever, and Larry
Medinger. There were no absent members. Staff present were Molnar and Yates.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Item 3: Monthly Payment by Borrower
If someone borrows the money for rent, they probably do not have the money to start payment back
right away. Ware said, though, It could be as many as 50 days until they are required to make a
payment just because of the billing cycle. Molnar said he could look into the utility billing cycle.
Hauck wondered about the length of time to repay. Molnar was not sure anything specific had been
decided and he had given 12 to 18 months as repayment time. Vaughn said a line should be included
saying Mina/payment due on or before '. Each case can be dealt with on an individual basis. it
was decided to have a maximum of 15 months to be paid off on or before
Molnar said a five percent processing fee is added to cover the agency's administrative fee. Vaughn
said there will not be any net gain for the Housing Commission overall but it will defer part of the cost
of running the program. Vaughn has volunteered some time to help offset administering the program.
The processing fee is a one time fee.
Hill thought there should be interest charged on the loan. Hauck said none of the programs he has
looked at have charged interest and he is opposed to the program making money. Ware said this
program will lose money so he would like to see five percent interest charged. Hill said if five percent
interest were charged, it would keep the money there. Medinger believes the Commission should
protect the asset but not make money. McKeever said by charging interest, it makes a statement to the
applicant that this loan is not free. He believes a five percent interest rate is appropriate. Vaughn
agrees with Hauck's objection to the interest rate.
Molnar said the amounts borrowed would be from $500 to$750. Hill said the additional loan fee is just
part of the loan just as the interest rate would be.
After discussion, the Commission decided on charging a flat$25 processing fee for each loan because
no matter what the size of the loan, the administration fee will be the same for each loan. This amount
can be reviewed In a year. If there is no agency that will offer a bid on the request for proposal, the
Commission can go back to the drawing board.
There was additional discussion about including the processing fee with the loan fee. Ware did not
favor that idea because that would not help the person who wanted to pay off the loan early. He felt the
program should help as many people as possible with as fast a turnaround rate as possible. Hill
moved to charge five percent interest per annum. For new applications, once a year the Housing
Commission will evaluate the processing fee, the interest rate and the whole program. Medinger
seconded the motion all Commissioners approved.
Hauck asked ff'Molnar was working on the guidelines and a short explanation of the program. Vaughn
Is going to assist him In the effort. Molnar has begun working on it.
Hill had some concerns about the agreement. She suggested the check be made payable to both the
client and the landlord which will take two signatures to cash. The agreement should specify what will
happen when a partial payment is made and how the money will be distributed. Hill asked if anyone
had checked to see if a person's utilities can legally be cut off if the utility bill is paid but the loan is not
paid. Hill did not see a 'remedies'section if there is a disagreement about it.
Vaughn asked about indemnification. What are the legal responsibilities if some sort of collection has
to be instituted? Hill believes it should say prior to any institution of legal action or court proceedings,
the parties agree to mediate'or some sort of binding arbitration clause. Molnar said the City can
decide whether or not to add this language.
Additionally, Hill has concerns about what happens in the case of divorce-who is legally responsible?
She has questions about the credit report. She suggested that Staff call Carlyle Stout, Attorney for
Southern Oregon Renter's Association and ask for free advice in putting the application together. Sea
said there should be a place in the application where someone can deal with a negative credit report.
She knows of women who have negative credit reports but that is not really an indicator of how they are
doing. Hill thought the non-profit agency should get the credit report not the City.
Sea hoped that Molnar would prepare a request for proposal for the next meeting.
The Commission decided that the applicant would only pay the processing fee if they are approved for
the loan.
FIRST TIME HOME BUYER
Molnar said the only item on here not addressed is the residency requirement. Springfield has a one-
year residency requirement.
McKeever noticed there were no resale restrictions or equity limits. Ware thought most of those items
would be worked out through financing.
Sea wondered if some real estate people should look at the agreement. Molnar suggested talking with
local lenders. Medinger said someone should talk to an underwriter. Ware said this is not a new
program in Oregon and there are lots of examples and many banks that are doing a similar program
right now.
Molnar said the City will continue to qualify people under the current affordable housing program.
Many of the quirks seem to have been worked out in this program. Hill asked how Molnar envisioned
this program working with sleeping second on the deferred Systems Development Charges. Could
someone qualify for both programs? Molnar thought the first time home buyer would target a lower
income group.
note. She had to sign in favor of a
Hill has a philosophical problem with item 3.3 on the promissory g
local improvement district for$70,000 and she did not have to sign anything saying if she did not pay
for the LID that her utilities would be terminated. Why are the poorest of the poor getting threatened
while the rest of the people who have obligations with the City not required to sign such an agreement?
She does not believe this is right or fair.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2
AUGUST 27, 1997
MINUTES
Several Commissioners thought Molnar should talk to the lenders and underwriters regarding
repayment. If there isn't a clause in the agreement about repayment, Medinger thinks it will be
impossible to sell to banks. Hill said Staff should give a draft of the agreement to the major banks
giving them 30 days for them to talk to their underwriters and ask for a written opinion from the head
office underwriters. Tiffany said there are those who are presently doing this, where are they going?
Hill will help Molnar with a letter to the underwriters.
HOUSING ELEMENT
Citizen Involvement Process
Molnar handed out a schedule of the Citizen Participation Process.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 P.M.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3
AUGUST 27, 1997
MINUTES
i
Monthly Building Activity Report : 07/97 Page 1
# Units Value
SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS :
Building:
ADDENDUM 1 5,432
ADDENDUM/PERMIT 9704079 1 3, 000
ADDENDUM/PERMIT 9706054 1 0
ADDENDUM/PERMIT 9706069 1 0
ADDITION 1 12, 000
ADDITION/REROOF 1 39, 900
ATTACHED GARAGE/REMODEL 1 33 , 040
CARPORT & SCREEN PORCH 1 9, 307
DECK 1 3 , 500
DECK & FRONT PORCH 1 10, 000
DEMOLITION OF LAUNDRY RM 1 0
DEMOLITION OF SFR 1 0
DEMOLITION/PARTIAL SFR 1 0
FENCE 2 1, 350
GREENHOUSE ADDITION 1 16, 000
REMODEL 3 62 , 025
REMODEL & ADDITION 1 25, 000
REMODEL OF GARAGE 1 4 , 500
REMODEL/DECK 1 4, 100
REPLACE GARAGE 1 3 , 904
REPLACING DECK 1 6, 500
RETAINING WALL 1 4 , 600
SFR 9 1, 265, 463
SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0
STUDIO 1 49, 240
Subtotal : $ 1, 558 , 861
Electrical :
ALARM SYSTEM 1 656
ELECTRICAL 1 1, 800
ENTRY VOIDING 9707028 -1 -300
ENTRY VOIDING 9707042 -350
FEEDER 1 750
RELOCATE SERVICE 1 450
SERVICE 1 850
SERVICE + 2 BR CIRS 1 500
SERVICE + 2 BRANCH CIRS 1 300
SERVICE PANEL CHANGE 1 800
VOIDED ON 07/14/97 1 300
VOIDED ON 07/16/97 350
Monthly Building Activity Report : 07/97 Page 2
# Units Value
SINGLE/MULTI-FAMILY & TOURIST ACCOMODATIONS:
Electrical :
VOIDED ON 08/01/97 1 3 , 500
Subtotal : $ 9, 606
Mechanical :
AIR CONDITIONER 1 2, 363
GAS FURNACE/AC 1 5, 600
GAS LINE/FURN/AC/SERVICE 1 4, 300
GAS LINE/FURNACE/AC 1 1, 500
GAS LINE/GAS DRYER 1 100
GAS LINE/GAS PAK/AC/2 CIR 1 5, 430
GAS WTR HTR/GAS DRYER 1 400
OIL HEATING SYSTEM 1 1, 750
Subtotal : $ 21, 443
Plumbing:
BACKFLOW DEVICE 6 6, 450
DOUBLE CHECK VALVE 1 400
IRRIGATION SYSTEM 1 400
REPIPE SFR 2 , 500
REPLACE LAVATORY 1 400
REPLUMB HOUSE 1 4, 000
SEWER LINE 1 700
WATER HEATER 1 400
WATER LINE/2 BACKFLOW DEV 1 600
WELL PUMP & PRESSURE TANK 1 4, 000
Subtotal : $ 19, 850
***Total : $ 1, 609, 760
COMMERCIAL:
Building:
FIRE DAMAGE REPAIR 1 27, 084
FLOOD DAMAGE REPAIR 1 0
INTERIOR REMODEL 1 1, 900
REMODEL 1 10, 000
REROOF 3 80, 044
SPECIAL INSPECTION 1 0
Monthly Building Activity Report : 07/97 Page 3
# Units Value
COMMERCIAL:
Building:
SURGERY ADDITION 1 586, 500
Subtotal : $ 705, 528
Electrical :
1 BR CIR FOR AIR COND 1 500
1 BRANCH CIRCUIT 1 200
1 BRANCH CIRCUIT FOR AC 1 260
2 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 200
3 BRANCH CIRCUITS 1 350
ALARM SYSTEM 3 1, 055
SECURITY SYSTEM 1 6, 846
Subtotal : $ 9, 411
Mechanical :
GAS LINE/GAS FURNACE 1 1, 775
GAS LINE/GAS PAC 1 2 , 700
GAS PAC 1 5, 060
Subtotal : $ 9, 535
Plumbing:
BACKFLOW DEVICE 1 700
Subtotal : $ 700
***Total : $ 725, 174
Monthly Building Activity Report : 07/97 Page 4
Total this month: 94 $ 2, 334, 934
Total this month last year: 94 $ 4 , 360, 050
Total year to date : 94 $ 2, 334, 934
Total last year: 94 $ 4 , 360, 050
This month This month This year
last year
Total Fees : 24, 790 40, 500 24 , 790
Total Inspections : 730 661 730
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 7/97
RESIDENTIAL
PAGE NO. 1
10/01/97
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
** SFR
470 TUCKER ST ADAMS CONSTRUCTION 143008 . 00
251 VILLAGE PARK DR37 OREGON LAND DEVELOPERS 119016 . 00
1178 VILLAGE SQUARE DR40 M ROCK CONSTRUCTION 119016 . 00
215 NEVADA ST E OWNER 114068 . 86
322 WIMER ST TURRELL, JON CONSTRUCTION 165000 . 00
802 MOUNTAIN MEADOWS DR MEDINGER CONST. CO. INC. 121524 . 00
294 VILLAGE PARK DR10 M ROCK CONSTRUCTION 108024 . 00
284 VILLAGE PARK DR11 M. ROCK 190013 . 00
681 SPRING CREEK DR STAFFORD, GARY 185794 . 00
** Subtotal **
1265463 . 86
** STUDIO
793 ELKADER ST DOWNEY COMPANY INC THE 49240 . 00
** Subtotal **
49240 . 00
*** Total ***
1314703 . 86
NEW CONSTRUCTION: 7/97
COMMERCIAL
PAGE NO. 1
10/01/97
ADDRESS #UNITS CONTRACTOR VALUATION
**
** Subtotal **
0 . 00
*** Total ***
0 . 00
CITY OF ASHLAND
Administration
Office of the aty Administrator �� " ., EGO
,,',+
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brian L. Almquist, City Administrator
RE: Monthly Report - September 1997
The following is a report of my principal activities for the past month and a status report on
the various City projects, and Council goals and notes to staff for 1996-97 and 1997-98.
1. PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES:
1. Had lunch with Lloyd Haines to discuss flood and related issues.
2. Attended monthly Chamber of Commerce board meeting at Si Casa Flores.
3. Met with Auditor Jerry Burns to discuss division of property taxes under Measure 50
and relationship to City Charter.
4. Met with several department heads to discuss status of FEMA funding.
5. Met with Chamber Executive Committee and Senator Hannon to review status of 1-5
Visitors Center/Safety Rest Area.
6. Had lunch with TCI Manager Dan Bickford to discuss fiber optics and other related
issues.
7. Reviewed bids for cost-of-service study.
8. Had coffee with Councilors Wheeldon and DeBoer to discuss various city issues.
9. Chaired monthly meeting of the Oregon Utility Resource Coordinating Association in
Portland.
10. Attended annual awards dinner of Ashland Chamber of Commerce and was honored
with their Honorary Life Member award.
11. Paul Nolte and I met with TID Attorney Greg Hornecker and Manager Hollie Cannon
regarding the renewal of our contact for 795 a.f. of water which expired this month.
12. Attended annual conference of International City/County Management Association in
Vancouver, B.C. Received a special award for 40 years of service to Local Government.
13. Had coffee with Councilors Wheeldon and Reid to discuss various City issues.
14. Met with several department heads to discuss financing of Winburn Way bridge.
15. Participated in monthly Town Hall show with Mayor Golden and Councilor Wheeldon.
16. Met with City Attorney Nolte and Realtor Donna Andrews regarding acquisition of old
S.P. railroad roundhouse property.
17. Attended farewell dinner for BPA Administrator Randy Hardy in Portland.
18. Had coffee with RVTV Manager Pete Belcastro to discuss cable issues.
19. Attended groundbreaking for Winburn Way bridge.
20. Met with Councilors Hauck, Hagen and Laws regarding various city issues.
21. Attended monthly meeting of the Ashland Coalition at SOU.
22. Had lunch with Councilor Laws to discuss various city issues.
11. STATUS OF VARIOUS CITY PROJECTS:
1. Indiana Siskiy_ou Realignment. Construction began on August 25 and is expected to be
completed in about 60 days.
2. Central Ashland Bikeway Project. In spite of a bid which exceeded estimates by over
$350,000, staff was able to receive Council approval to proceed with the bid award through
borrowing against future gas tax revenues and deferral of several less important projects.
Construction should begin in the next 45 days and take about 6 months to complete.
3. MountainJE. Main Sianalization. Work on the concrete portion has been completed.
Work on the signal installation will begin in the next few weeks, with most of the work being
performed by the Electric Dept. and Street Division crews.
4. Winburn Way Bridge Project. Work began on September 29 and will take approximately
60 days to completion.
III. STATUS OF UNCOMPLETED 1995-96 COUNCIL GOALS:
1. Resolve office building/space needs issue. Council decided at its August Study Session
to proceed with a scaled down building for Public Works, Computer Services and Fire
2
Administration at the East Main site. It was also decided to dedicate future resources to the City
Hall upgrade/third story addition and to modify the CIP accordingly. The Planning Commission
Hearings Board will consider the Site Review for the proposed building at its October 6 meeting.
IV. STATUS OF UNCOMPLETED 1996-97 COUNCIL GOALS:
1. Encourage alternative transportation modes through such means as completing
negotiations for bicycle access from Jackson Road to Crowson Road along the railroad tracks.
(A representative of Railtex will be in Ashland with the next few weeks. I plan on reviewing this
possibility with him at that time)
V. 1997-98 COUNCIL GOALS:
1. Continue to communicate the importance and practice of the "Valdez Principles" in all
aspects of City operations, especially related to flood restoration and control projects. Ensure
that the City supports the activities of the Watershed Partnership and City Forest Commission.
(Dick Wanderscheid presented the first annual report of progress at the July 1 Council meeting.
Framed copies of the Valdez Principles have been posted in all city departments. We will began
incorporating presentations at monthly safety meetings in each department)
2. Ensure that emergency water requirements are adequately addressed through the
examination of an intertie with Talent, Phoenix and the Medford Water Commission, additional
water from TID, or other sources. (Both these studies are in progress)
3. Re-examine flood plain and hillside areas in light of the recent flood event and modify
maps and ordinances appropriately. (In progress)
4. Review Fire Department space needs and acquire appropriate land as opportunities
arise. (Noted)
5. Position the Electric Utility to remain competitive in the coming deregulated electric utility
environment. (The 96/97 Budget includes funds for a cost-of-service study which will include a
look at "unbundling" of our rates. We also have an appropriation to install a dark fiber ring for a
SCATA load management computer program. This fiber ring will give us the capacity to provide
such services as CAN, Internet and many other consumer products)
VI. NOTES TO STAFF FROM 1996-97:
1. Administration will continue to explore purchase of land for a Transportation Center that -
ensures the option for a future rail link. (I spoke with Oak Street Tank owner Gene Morris who
has an interest in moving his business, but who has also been unable to find suitable land in
town)
3
2. City Administrator to recontact Vogels about viability of purchase. (Ken Mickelsen and I
have met several times with the Vogels, the most recent of which was this week. We are
preparing a written offer and financing plan, but we are still substantially apart on the appraised
value and their asking price)
mss= /
Brian L.,AImq#t
City Ad inist for
4
MONTHLY ASHLAND
POLICE
R E P O R T
Vol.2 No. 8 Linda Hoggatt, Editor
August, 1997
New hire process begun to ROAD TO POLICING: Bobby originally
intended to attend law school, but his
fill officer vacancies college roommate introduced him to law
enforcement by asking him to join a
We are beginning to undergo the process reserve program. He worked for Ashland
of filling the vacancies created with the
retirement of Sgt Hooper and Greg k as par patrol, parking control and was
Lemhouse going to Medford Police hired a Patrol Officer.
Department.
We're scrubbing A background investigation has begun on
Statistics
a candidate that was identified on the '"AUGUST"`
up for Open hiring list as well as a recruitment for a PART 1 CRIME 1997 1996
House Sergeant position. It is anticipated that the
vacancies will be filled by mid October. Homicide , 0 1
...September 19 Robbe 6 5
A time of Change is our in ry
Ag ult o
DARE Officer selected to
house theme for our open Burglary
house this year. In the last attend DARE America Residential 43 65
twelve months we have Non-residential 36 7
done a remodel to our 911 conference. Shoplifting 97 127
center, hired new officers Theft from MV 96 67
retired old ones and Officer Bobby Smith has been selected to
attend training in Canada for the RCMP MV Parts-accessories 40 47
welcomed a new Chief. Stop g Bicycle Theft 67 63
by and see what programs representing DARE America. Bob is not Theft from building 28 28
we are working on, have only the DARE officer for Ashland, but Other Thefts 172 130
implemented and how APD involved in the Western Regional Motor Vehicle thefts 14 23
is constantly changing. Mentoring program for DARE officers as a Arson 8 3
Mentor. Being invited to represent the TOTALS 610 567
DARE program in Canada is quite an
We will take any honor for Bob and for Ashland. Good Job Calls for Service
Bobl
help we can get! July 97 July ss
Early in the morning on Police 1012 905
August contact Talent police COP on the Beat! Medical Calls 153 140
made cyfoun had a man gy WHO, Bobby S
who they found had a 'e��_=� y meth, 39 Fire Calls 26 30
restricted warrant out of i *�� 911 Calls 506 522
Ashland Municipal Court, z POSITION: DARE 911 Pass Off" 1 44
serviceable only in Ashland. Officer, Crime Prevention 911 Incoming Pass
When they advised the man Officer. Bobby has been Off Calls` 38 0
of the warrant he stated he `°t } a sworn officer for APD (to another 911 center)
would take care of it I for over 17 years. (from another 911 center)
eventually. He then asked
the officer for a ride PERSONAL: Bobby loves TrainingT.
home...to Ashland. The sports, TV and my
Talent police gladly obliged recently computers as 32 Hours of raining were held during the
and delivered him home well as coaching Babe month of August 1997.August was the
where an Ashland officer Ruth Baseball each summer. He is a first full month for new training officer
was waiting to serve the member and past president of Ashland's Teresa Selby. Teresa is updating files and
outstanding warrant. Masonic Lodge. Bobby has a degree in getting her feet on the ground. She is
Political Science with a minor in planning on utilizing computer tracking
Criminology. He has been married for 13 software for law enforcement training,
years and has one son.
e j OF`�h ''•.
City of Ashland �` City Hall
City Recorder's Office 20 E. Main St.
Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Ashland, Oregon 97520
(541)488-5307(phone) (541)488-5311 ((ax)
September 26 , 1997
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer
SUBJECT: Liquor License Application
Application has been received from James Neill, Jr for a LIQUOR
license for an ESTABLISHMENT, PacPizza Inc . (formerly Pizza Hut)
at 2220 Highway 66, Ashland.
OLCC and the Ashland Police Department has completed the
necessary background investigation and approval of this
application is recommended.
Respec lly submitte x,,,., �
Ba ara Christensen
City Recorder
City of Ashland City Hall
'•.OREGOa ..
City Recorder's Office 20 E. Main St.
Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Ashland,Oregon 97520
(541)488-5307(phone) (541)488-5311 (far)
September 26, 1997
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer
SUBJECT: Liquor License Application
Application has been received from John Each and Nancy Boone for
a LIQUOR license for an ESTABLISHMENT, Daddy O' s Restaurant at
130 Will Dodge Way, Ashland.
OLCC and the Ashland Police Department has completed the
necessary background investigation and approval of this
application is recommended.
Resp ful y submitti� ,
BarjDara Christensen
City Recorder
LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES
1997 ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND BUSINESS MEETING
November 7 - 9, 1997 - Eugene Hilton
Designation of Voting Delegate
At Annual Business Meeting
The annual business meeting will be held Sunday, November 9th, at 7:30 a.m. Each city is entitled
to cast one vote at the business meeting; however, all city officials are encouraged to attend. .
Use this form to indicate those persons who will represent your city as a voting delegate and alternate
delegate. The voting delegate or alternate should pick up a voting card at the Conference Registration
Desk on Sunday morning prior to the business meeting. NOTE: Delegates may not vote without a
voting card and voting cards will be issued only to a person indicated on this form Voting by Proxy
will not be permitted.
FOR THE CITY OF
VOTING DELEGATE:
Name
Title
ALTERNATE:
Name
Title
Submitted by:
(Signature)
Name
(Print)
Return by October 24 to: Title
League of Oregon Cities City
PO Box 28
Salem, OR 97308 Telephone ( )
CITY OF ASHLAND
OREGON srA
OF Asy CO
0
D
W
s " A
T
Un
bys
a
try '1d n�L
FINANCIAL REPORT
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
e '•pF ASq' • ..
♦y
MEMORANDUM
•'•,p4E60�1,••
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
Subject: Financial Report for June 30, 1997
Date: September 26, 1997
Attached is the June 30, 1997 Financial Report for the City of
Ashland. It does not include the Parks and Recreation Commission
report . The Audited Financial Statement should be ready for
review the first of November. Yergen and Meyer are performing
their audit field work in September. Unaudited balance sheets
and expenditure and revenue reports are available for review in
the Finance Office.
Budgetary Compliance Pages 1 through 18 are the Statement of
Resources and Expenditures for the year ending June 30, 1997 .
The statements are prepared on the budgetary basis of accounting.
The expenditures are listed in the same classifications as the -
adopted budget, therefore showing budgetary compliance.
Budgetary compliance was quite high.
Summary Information Page 19 is a summary of the previous 18
pages . Again this does not include the Parks . This summary
shows that the City collected 97 . 5 percent of budgeted resources .
Total revenues, which include other financing resources (borrowed
money) but not working capital carryover, increased 3 . 7 percent
over the previous year. Charges for services, which makes up 60
percent of the City' s revenues, increased $1, 102, 712 or 6 . 1
percent over the previous year. The largest dollar increase in
this category was $391, 000 in the Ambulance Fund. The later year
represented a full year of operations versus one half year in the
previous time period. The second largest dollar increase was
$191, 000 in the Water Fund, this was due to the very hot and dry
summer of 1996 . The sewer charges increased $133 , 000 primarily
because of a rate increase in the spring of 1996 . Electric Fund
charges for services increased $113 , 000 due to more usage .
Overall Charges for Services exceeded budget estimates by 3 . 0
percent . In comparing this information with the previous years
the overall revenue trends are favorable .
Total expenditures/expenses on the budgetary basis of accounting
decreased $5. 1 million or 16 percent less than the previous year.
On the surface this reduction looks great but it needs to be
explored further. The 1996-97 expenditures level is nearly equal
to the 1994-95 level . Personnel services increased 6 . 0 percent
of which 1 .25 percent was related to the New Year' s Day Flood.
Expenditures for Materials and Services were equal to that of the
H
previous year, although purchased power costs decreased $298, 849
in this time period. Capital outlay was the most different from
the previous year and declined $4 . 6 million. The 1995-96 fiscal
year contained expenditures for the construction of the water
treatment plant, purchase of land for the wastewater treatment
process and open space land. These expenditures did not reoccur
in the 1996-97 fiscal year.
In comparing this combined information with the five previous
years the trends look reasonable. Personnel costs have increased
less than 4 . 9 percent on average and Materials and Services have
increased 3 .4 percent on average.
Carryover Analysis The schedule on page 20 is again prepared on
the budgetary basis of accounting and does not include the Parks
and Recreation funds. The first column shows the actual
unaudited carryover at June 30, 1997 . The second column of
numbers is the Budgeted Fund Balance carryover into the current
fiscal year. This schedule demonstrates that the City will be
able to carry on the programs that were planned in the 1997-98
budget .
Because this is on the budgetary basis loan proceeds which are
not repaid within the same year are considered a resource . Under
Oregon Budget Law a loan is considered a resource and the
principal repayment is considered an expenditure. This is
significant in the Restricted Sewer Fund. The large difference
in the Sewer Fund is because a loan was not completed in the
1996-97 fiscal year. The fund is in good financial shape .
The fifth column is a measure of the gain or loss (net income in
private business) during the entire fiscal year. It is a
measurement of whether the fund is better off now than at June
30, 1996 . The overall fund balance compared to previous years
balances are as anticipated. The final column shows the gain or
loss on a five year basis .
General Fund The General Fund balance declined $262 , 000 during
the year. This was as expected in the Budget document. On a
five year basis the General Fund balance (combined with the
Emergency 911 Fund) has increased $444, 037 to a total of
$809, 606 . The present fund balance is equal to 11 .2 percent of
the 1997-98 budget and slightly exceeds the minimum fund balance
target . The 1997-98 General Fund Budget of $7, 200, 000 is less
than the actual 1996-97 expenditures and fund balance by
$225, 410 . Overall General Fund revenues increased $249, 000 or
4 . 0 percent over the previous year. The largest dollar increase
$134 , 103 was in the taxes category although the percentage
increase was less than 3 percent . Building permits and
intergovernmental revenues both increased. The Fines and
Forfeitures category decreased by $13,478 . Overall expenditures
increased $604, 964 or 10 percent . This increase included a one
time upgrade of $272, 000 in Communications equipment . The
Municipal Court and Planning expenditures increased 17 . 3 percent
and 11.4 percent respectively.
iii
Street Fund overall expenditures in the Street fund were similar
to those of last year. Revenues increase from $1, 876, 691 to
$2, 039, 592 .
Ambulance Fund Gross revenues within the Ambulance Fund were
within $2, 800 of budget for the year of operation. Collections
percentages have improved considerably over the first six months
of operations . The number of runs increased from 412 to 493 or
19 . 7 percent in the second six months of operation. The number
of runs remained at this level through the third six month
period.
Water Fund The Water Fund operation shows a five year gain of
$653 , 186 . Water sales are very dependant on the weather, which
was hot and dry in the summer and fall of 1996 . Both cooler
wetter weather and lower rates will result in less revenues in
1997-98 .
Sewer Fund The Sewer Fund operations show a one year gain of
$734, 925 in preparation for the debt on the wastewater treatment
plant . The Sewer Fund construction account shows an increase of
only $807, 144 . An expenditure of $374 , 035 the Sewer Fund' s share
of the food and beverage tax went to engineering and design of
the wastewater treatment plant .
Electric Fund The Electric Fund gained $561, 7334 during 1996-97 .
Rates charged to Ashland customers have not been changed since
July of 1994 . on a five year basis the fund has gained
$1, 008, 128 to a balance of $1. 99 million which is 20 percent of
fund balance. The City purchased 159 . 8 mWh for an average price
of $ . 0264/kWh compared to 151 .5 mWh at an average price of
$ . 0299/kWh in the previous year.
Cash and Investments Page 21 is a listing of cash and invest-
ments by fund and by type and holder of the investment .
Summary The City is in a good overall financial position.
Maintaining our strong financial position, especially in the
general fund in light of the electrical restructuring will be a
challenge .
iv
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
GENERAL FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE $
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 1,072,542 976,000 -96,542 109.89$
Taxes 4,785,748 4,713,000 -72, 748 101.54$
Licenses and Permits 429,301 339,000 -90,301 126.64$
Intergovernmental Revenue 413,931 464,000 50,069 89.21$
Charges for Services 412,627 429,000 16,373 96.18$
Fines and Forfeitures 173,258 193,000 19,742 89.77$
Interest on Investments 70,156 54,000 -16,156 129.92$
Miscellaneous Revenues 67,847 64,000 -3,847 106.01$
TOTAL 7,425,410 7,232,000 -193,410 102.67$
EXPENDITURES
Human Resources 80, 710 82,000 1,290 98.43$
Economic Development 251,000 251, 000 0 100.00$
Miscellaneous 81,392 84,000 2,608 96.90$
Debt Service 85,404 87,000 1,596 98.17$
Operating Transfers Out 89,000 189,000 100,000 47.09$
Operating Contingency 0 37,000 37, 000 .00$
Police 2,334,948 2,426,000 91,052 96.25$
Municipal Court 182,799 183,000 201 99.89$
Communications 632,438 745,000 112,562 84.89$
Fire 1,990,519 2,038, 000 47,481 97.67$
Senior Program 115, 808 127,500 11,692 90.83$
Planning Division 480,228 487,000 6,772 98.61$
Building Division 291,559 340,000 48,441 85.75$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 6,615,805 7,076,500 460,695 93.49$
ENDING FUND BALANCE 809,605 156,000 -654,105 520.65$
1
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
CEMETERY FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE 1
RESOURCES
working Capital Carryover 115,357 104,000 -11,357 110.921
Taxes 167,474 166,000 -1,474 100.891
Charges for Services 56,273 48,000 -8,273 117.241
Interest on Investments 7,146 6,000 -1,146 119.101
Miscellaneous Revenues 595 0 -595
Operating Transfers In 33,112 45,000 11,888 73.581
TOTAL 379, 957 369,000 -10, 957 102.971
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 99,497 101,000 1,503 98.511
Materials and Services 158,543 160,000 1,457 99.091
Capital Outlay 12,100 14,500 2,400 83.45%
Operating Transfers Out 500 500 0 100.001
Operating Contingency 0 15,000 15,000 .00%
TOTAL 270,640 291,000 20,360 93.001
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 270,640 291,000 20,360 93.00%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 109,317 78,000 -31,317 140.151
2
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
BAND FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 66,589 63,000 -3,589 105.703
Taxes 40,824 41,000 176 99.573
Interest on Investments 3,833 2,000 -1,833 191.653
TOTAL 111,246 106,000 -5,246 104.953
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 3,842 - 5,000 1,158 76.843
Materials and Services 33,557 46,000 12,443 72.953
Operating Contingency 0 2, 000 2, 000 .003
TOTAL 37,399 53,000 15,601 70.563
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,399 53,000 15,601 70.56%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 73,847 53, 000 -20,847 139.333
3
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
COMMUNITY BLACK GRANT FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
,RESOURCES
Intergovernmental Revenue 89,878 400,000 310,122 22.471
TOTAL 89,878 400,000 310,122 22.47%
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 33,008 37,000 3,992 89.21$
Materials and Services 56,871 302,767 245,896 18.78
Capital Outlay 0 58,700 58,700 .00%
TOTAL 89,879 398,467 308,588 22.56%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 89,679 398,467 308,588 22.56%
ENDING FUND BALANCE -1 1,533 1,534 - - .078
4
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
STREET FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE $
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 724,682 672,000 -52,682 107.848
99.02%
Intergovernmental Revenue 944,653 856,000 -88,653 110.36% -
- Charges for Services 663,992 623,000 -40,992 106.58%
Interest on Investments 39,045 37,000 -2,045 105.53%
Miscellaneous Revenues 53,237 3, 000 -50,237 1,774.57%
TOTAL 2,764,274 2,533,000 -231,274 109.13%
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services - 525,875 598,000 72,125 87.9416
Materials and Services 1,082,222 1,142,000 59,778 94.77%
Capital Outlay 268,576 369,000 100,424 72.78%
Debt Service 2,934 3,000 66 97.80%
Operating Transfers Out 0 129,000 129,000 .00%
TOTAL 1,879,607 2,241, 000 361,393 83.87%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,879,607 2,241, 000 361,393 83.87%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 884,667 292,000 -592,667 302.97%
5
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
AIRPORT FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE 1
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 30, 502 27,000 -3,502 112.971
Charges for Services 56,038 56,000 -38 100.071
Interest on Investments 2,191 1,000 -1,191 219.101
TOTAL 88,731 84,000 -4,731 105.631
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 0 1,000 1,000 .001
Materials and Services 49,826 53,000 3,174 94.011
Capital Outlay 4,421 10,000 5,579 44.211
TOTAL 54,247 64,000 9,753 84.761
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 54,247 64,000 9,753 84.761
ENDING FUND BALANCE 34,484 20,000 -14,484 172.421
6
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE 3
RESOURCES
working Capital Carryover 860,233 809,000 -51,233 106.333
Taxes 235,116 229,000 -6,116 102.673
Intergovernmental Revenue 239,400 574,000 334,600 41.713
Charges for Services 231,684 165,000 -66,684 140.413
Assessment Payments 47,549 100,000 52,451 47.553
Interest on Investments 73,608 45,000 -28,608 163.573
Miscellaneous Revenues 43,480 40,000 -3,480 108.703
Other Financing Sources 605,000 1,665,000 1,060,000 36.343
Operating Transfers In 0 229,000 229,000 .003
TOTAL 2,336,070 3,856,000 1,519,930 60.583
EXPENDITURES .
Personnel Services 0 1,000 1,000 .00%
Materials and Services 59,259 66,000 6,741 89.793
Capital Outlay 247,743 2,987,000 2,739,257 8.293
Operating Transfers Out 271,000 348,000 77,000 77.873
Operating Contingency 0 100,000 100,000 .003
TOTAL 578,002 3,502,000 2, 923,998 16.503
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 578, 002 3,502,000 2,923, 998 16.503
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,758,068 354,000 -1,404,068 496.633
7
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
BANCROFT BOND FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 319,720 293,000 -26,720 109.121
Assessment Payments 291,653 400,000 108,347 72.911
Interest on Investments 21,283 18,000 -3,283 118.241
TOTAL 632,656 711,000 78,344 88.981
EXPENDITURES
Debt Service 251,033 536,000 284,967 46.83%
TOTAL 251, 033 536,000 284, 967 46.831
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 251,033 536,000 284,967 46.831
ENDING FUND BALANCE 381,623 175,000 -206,623 218.071
8
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
GENERAL BOND FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE %
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 272,029 273,000 971 99.641;
Taxes 187,237 190,000 2,763 98.55%
—Interest on Investments 16,383 14,000 -2,383 117.02%
Operating Transfers In 266, 000 266,000 0 100.00%
TOTAL 741,649 743,000 1,351 99.82%
EXPENDITURES
Debt Service 468,730 470,000 1,270 99.73%
TOTAL 468, 730 470,000 1,270 99.73%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 468,730 470,000 1,270 99.73$
ENDING FUND BALANCE 272,919 273,000 81 99.97%
9
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
DEBT SERVICE FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
working Capital Carryover 106,223 109,000 2,777 97.451
Charges for Services 36,183 0 -36,183
Interest on Investments 16,083 6,000 -10,083 268.05%
Miscellaneous Revenues 6,225 10,000 3, 775 62.25%
Operating Transfers In 279,000 374, 000 95,000 74.60%
TOTAL 443,714 499,000 55,286 88.92%
EXPENDITURES
Debt Service 396,001 388,000 -8, 001 102.06%
TOTAL 396,001 388,000 -8,001 102.06%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 396,001 388,000 -8,001 102.06%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 47,713 111,000 63,287 42.98%
10
II
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
AMBULANCE FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 114,364 41,000 -73,364 278.941
Charges for Services 659,753 657,000 -2, 753 100.421
Interest on Investments 3,181 3,000 -181 106.031
Miscellaneous Revenues 289,494 44,000 -245,494 657.941
TOTAL 1,066,792 745,000 -321,792 143.191
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 181,824 174,000 -7,824 104.501
Materials and Services 312,600 361,000 48,400 86.591
Capital Outlay 0 8,000 8,000 .001
Debt Service 194,751 195,000 249 99.871
Operating Contingency 0 7,000 7,000 .001
TOTAL 689,175 745, 000 55,825 92.511
ENDING FUND BALANCE 377,617 0 -377,617
ll
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
WATER FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE %
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 2,111,760 1,659,000 -452,760 127.29%
Charges for Services 3,091,397 2,856,000 -235,397 108.24$
Interest on Investments 127,847 91,000 -36,847 140.49%
Miscellaneous Revenues 3,060 30,000 26,940 10.20%
TOTAL 5,334,064 4,636,000 -698,064 106.96%
EXPENDITURES
Forest Interface 67,516 100,000 32,484 67.52%
Operations 2,084,068 2,086,000 1,932 99.90%
Debt Service 338,048 339,000 952 99.724;
Operating Transfers Out 266,000 266,000 0 100.00%
Operating Contingency 0 200,000 200,000 .00%
Conservation 89,958 90,000 42 99.95%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,855,590 3,051,000 195,410 93.59%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,478,474 1,555,000 -923,474 163.44%
12
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
SEWER FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE %
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 3,107,905 6,223,000 3,115,095 49.94%
Taxes 939, 795 917,000 -22,795 102.49%
Intergovernmental Revenue 857,128 0 -857,128
Charges for Services 2,085,425 2,181,000 95,575 95.62%
Interest on Investments 173,564 309,000 135,436 .56.17%
Miscellaneous Revenues 409,035 0 -409,035
TOTAL 7,572,852 9,630,000 2,057,148 78.64%
EXPENDITURES
OPERATIONS
Personnel Services 599,480 642,000 42,520 93.388
Materials and Services 968,542 1,242,000 273,458 77.98%
Capital Outlay 1,687,498 2,936,000 1,248,502 57.488
Debt Service 0 370, 000 370,000 .00%
Operating Contingency 0 3,440,000 3,440,000 .00%
TOTAL 3,255,520 8,630,000 5,374,480 37.72%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 3,255,520 8,630,000 5,374,480 37.72%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 4,317,332 1,000,000 -3,317,332 431.73%
13
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
ELECTRIC FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE %
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 1,430,900 1,358,000 -72,900 105.37%
Intergovernmental Revenue 230,278 284, 000 53, 722 81.088
Charges for Services 7,959,071 7,535,000 -424,071 105.63%
Interest on Investments 58,204 60,000 1,796 97.01%
Miscellaneous Revenues 60,437 20,000 -40,437 302.19%
TOTAL 9,738,890 9,257,000 -481,890 105.20%
EXPENDITURES
Conservation 436, 738 461,000 24,262 94.74%
Operations 7,309,519 7,561,000 251,481 96.67%
Operating Contingency 0 356,000 356,000 .00%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,746,257 8,378,000 631, 743 92.46%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1, 992,633 879,000 -1,113,633 226.69%
14
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
CENTRAL SERVICES FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 323,203 350,000 26,797 92.34
Charges for Services 2,425,703 2,465,000 39,297 98.41&
Interest on Investments 21,674 30,000 8,326 72.258
Miscellaneous Revenues 2,585 5,000 2,415 51.708
TOTAL 2,773,165 2,850,000 76,835 97.30%
EXPENDITURES
Administration 662,258 664,000 1,742 99.748
Finance 956,650 1,070,000 113,350 89.41 '
Operating Contingency 0 46,000 46,000 .00%
City Recorder 101,076 107, 000 5,924 94.46%
Public Works 536,697 573,000 36,303 93.66%
Computer Services 356,731 390, 000 33,269 91.47%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 2,613,412 2,850,000 236,588 91.70
ENDING FUND BALANCE 159,753 0 -159,753
15
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
INSURANCE/SERVICES FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE $
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 995,606 1,070,000 74,394 93.05%
Charges for Services 324,676 370,000 45,324 87.75%
Interest on Investments 69,552 88,000 18,448 79.04$
- Miscellaneous Revenues 229,147 10,000 -219,147 2,291.47$
TOTAL 1,618, 981 1,538,000 -80,981 105.27$
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 14, 598 15,000 402 97.32$
Materials and Services 512,333 611,000 98,667 83.85$
Operating Contingency 0 400,000 400,000 .00%
TOTAL 526,931 1,026,000 499,069 51.3696
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 526, 931 1,026,000 499,069 51.36%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,192,050 512,000 -680,050 232.82%
16
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
EQUIPMENT FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE $
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 1,676,599 1,697,000 20,401 98.80$
Charges for Services 1,035,842 1,106,000 70,158 93.66$
Interest on Investments 102,424 100,000 -2,424 102.42$
Miscellaneous Revenues 18,187 20,000 1,813 90.94$
TOTAL 2,833,052 2,923, 000 89,948 96.92$
EXPENDITURES
Personnel Services 150,793 158,000 7,207 95.44$
Materials and Services 388,211 395,000 6,689 98.28$
Capital Outlay 626,336 680,000 53,664 92.11$
TOTAL 1,165,340 1,233,000 67,660 94.51$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,165,340 1,233, 000 67,660 94.51%
ENDING FUND BALANCE 1,667,712 1,690,000 22,288 98.68$
17
CITY OF ASHLAND
STATEMENT OF RESOURCES AND EXPENDITURES
(BUDGETARY BASIS)
For the twelve months ended June 30, 1997
CEMETERY TRUST FUND
ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
RESOURCES
Working Capital Carryover 626,386 623,000 -3,386 100.548
Charges for Services 6,930 8,500 1,570 81.533
Interest on Investments 34,802 45,000 10,198 77.343
Operating Transfers In 500 500 0 100.003
TOTAL 668,618 677, 000 8,382 98.763
EXPENDITURES
Operating Transfers Out 33,112 45,000 11,888 73.583
TOTAL 33,112 45,000 11,888 73.583
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 33,112 45,000 11,888 73.583
ENDING FUND BALANCE 635,506 632,000 -3,506 100.553
18
eevooavevoe ee eeooea e
V c N N aD 0
M 00 M O r (G O M (nD 1� h O r
v � � v
U.
M W O r t0 (0 N w w m 0 (n 0 0 0 0 co
O r O O eD M C (D
0) V CO 7 r r
} O M O N N O 0 0 0 n O CO
W N 0 M M M (0 0 ui M N O M ^ N M M W 0
'C O V O w w M W W N O p a
0 r t0 N (D .N.. (D fD N ao 0 07 v M M 07
e v e e e e s a e s o 0 0 0 0 o a v o s e o 0
W N O M (n O n o m n 0 m
cli
c o acOR cq °o rn °o m OR
W N � n 10 O N aD r O V aD 0 m
mo N M 0) (h - V /0 C 1� N O) 0 7 O 7 V
= 0 0 0 0 0 aD 0 O M O aD W O O M f0 O m aD �
O r N r
N �0 N M .-. 0 aD 0 0) M O 0) O 0 N , 0 O (O O (0 (D
O O O r O M O w (D O O p M M M a0 O n r N
(`0 O M Oct n V N N 0 V N fD 0 N N O O O N
W N O 0 N M ao O N O n 0 O (D a0 O O O
M tD n O r v r O M 00 O co M r W O 10 V M (0 O
0 V a0 v 1D (0 0 0 0 N
v p v M
ON ....
0 0 0 0 0 0 o e a e e e a o o a e e 0 e e e
M O f0 !D O O O M CO 0) O N N
'D a V fD n 0 r CO M rl� O 04 O V M 7 aD N fD n a f0 O N N
O a N 0 1� �[) r (V C r t+I m N r O O a
m O C r 0 00 O) 0 a N 0 O 0 M n O O r V
W W O V N W O V M O O O O 0 M 0 0 a0 O M O W a0
U M O W M V M N r a0 O O O a0 0 (0 � 0 O O O 0
y
act M O O r n O N 07 O r V n 0 O o7 W O W Cl!
Ol (=0 M O 0 (d 0) O Oi W O (D M N 0 O m n r M O IT
O O O M N to 0 M b M f0 co N CO
m > N v N M V O 7 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O r 0 0 0 0 r O r M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0) M
O O O (0 0 0 c 0 (D O O O O N N O (D 0 0 0 1n
07 0 aD 0 M O 0 V) 0 N n O N M aD r M r
❑ ❑
Z Z 0 (0 M 10 V (D O N (D V ('1 n O O M 0 f0 f0 N n
I=i m (D N M N C co 0 O .0 n N V 0 n
� M
2
N Q 0 O V 00 N O V N O O O O V N O M 0
Q n O O V 0 0 0 W r O N O N O V O M CD 0 rn
0� a0 M (0 N N 0 N (D O N co w N Cl) 0 co O O n
Q M M M CO O) O) V W N W aN N M M M M ? rr L
Q Q W V7 O M M aOD M M 1w O) 0 W (D
U M Oi M 7 a C6 N N N
D
(q n O to N (O M co (D M 0 r N 0 (0 M N M O V O U0
co (0 V M M (D M O) N CD (0 O M (D n M N O V N
0� N 0 a0 r (h N O V 0 a0 O V M r N V 0 0 (D
0 N 00 r N M n a0 V N (f) O N M M O M r 0 W M 7
(D n 0 W W V N a W r M O a0 0 (O M O V O O 0
m 0 M O M O Cl) 10 O V (0 O 0 � M (0 (O 0 0 O
Q (D N n r O co r W M r N N N V
M V M M
n N O O O (D S V 0 0 O) 0 0 V O V O
00j M R � N N V N r O CO 0 (Q l") V ONi (00 V (00 O) m
Q V V 1l') 0 V f� r M Cl) N 0 M Cl) h V (O N N N O
M N r (O (D 00 n N r 0 M r M O O 0
0� 01 M W — M (O M O N M W r O) O) N (0 (0 w 0)
(O V Cl)C%r 7 W a r V Y Oi
W N 0 n r (0 07 r O O 0 0) N p (0 O (D O o �0 0 � r
V W O M 0 N O n �} N .D M W O V1 to (D
@ 0 V V V1 (O R (O (O V (O (O N a0 M a0 V (O (0 O
pj Oi CO M n O N M M 7 O M 0 (D (O 10 co
�j M V O 07 N aa n 0 CO) 0 N_ O N O N W M M 0
Q 0 M V - lh CO M m LL) n O N N 0 (0 O O r
M (D (O O (O M N N (0 ui 17
V N yy Cl) N N
(+� N O O Cl) w M M (0 O V `Or M (OD O n M 0 a O a (Mp
0 0 0 N M (A r � N 0 (0 O M M N t(`h) t(`h)
rn o Cl) O
Q 0 a0 (� a a°D n °o ((On °n
n N O M N M (D 0 0
V N N N N M r V N �z N t-: c
W
� W
= N N
Z
> Y « a) J N
r y z ° g
W E W D w 0) U N d 7 of 0 O Q
y w to
U m E o a d c 4 ~ m 0 o F N m F w U o LL
�+ > 0 c E 0 c E a�i ayi D m O d c c ax c 0 O
p y rn M m 0 E W LL Y w o C (� m LL W m ❑ Z
N x W m C 0 a� n t «° o W �a. a s d t ;_a d m 0
s FW- � S U iT Q = O o F �i H W d U D O O H O F°- w
City of Ashland
Analysis of Carryovers
June 30, 1997
Tentative BUDGETED
FUND FUND CARRYOVER 1 Year 5 Year
BALANCE BALANCE BUDGET Gain Gain
Fund June 30 97 June 30 97 DIFFERENCE (Loss) (Loss)
General Fund 809,606 875,000 (65,394) 92.53% (262, 936) 444, 037
Cemetery Fund 109,317 106,000 3,317 103.13% (6,040) 68,930
Band Fund 73,847 64, 000 9,847 115.39% 7,258 33,237
Community Block Grant Fund 0 0 0 0
Street Fund 275,060 200,200 74,860 137.398 64,757 61,131
Street Fund Storm Drain 315,328 383,600 (68,272) 82.20% (14,772) 315,328
Street Fund SDC 294,279 182,200 112, 079 161.51% 110, 000 294,279
Airport Fund 34,484 33,000 1,484 104.50% 3,982 25,990
Capital .Improvements Fund 1,758,067 1, 572,000 186,067 111.84% 897,834 929,825
Hospital Construction Fund 0 0 (428,424)
Bancroft Bond Fund 381,623 395, 000 (13,377) 96.61% 61,903 (53,335)
General Bond Fund 272,919 273,000 (81) 99.97% 890 146, 752
Debt Service Fund 47,712 82,000 (34,288) 58.19% (58,511) (59,809)
Advance Refunding Bond Fun 0 0 0 0 (1,359,834)
Ambulance Fund 377,618 146,000 231,618 258.64% 263,254 377,618
Water Quality Fund 1,112,006 1,151, 000 (38,994) 96.61% 54,328 653,186
Restricted Water 1,509,340 1,213, 000 296,340 124.43% 455,258 (506,792)
Sewer Fund 1,804,102 1,738,000 66,102 103.80% 734, 925 1,531,498
Restricted Sewer 2,845,872 3,943,000 (1,097,128) 72.18% 807,144 2,832,781
Sewer Flood (485,642) 0 (485,642) (485,642) (485,642)
Electric Fund 1,992,633 1,883,000 109,633 105.82% 561,733 1,008,128
Central Services Fund 159,753 180, 000 (20,247) 88.75% (163,450) (110,191)
Insurance Services Fund 1,192,050 1,131, 000 61,050 105.40% 56,444 (92, 818)
Equipment Fund maint (2,282) (2,000) (282) 114.10% (8,521) (1,392,160)
Equipment Fund equipment 1,669, 996 1, 928,000 (258, 004) 86.62% (363) 1,669,996
Cemetery Trust Fund 635,506 637,000 (1,494) 99.77% 9,120 42,713
'Ski Ashland 0 0 0 0 (1,076, 772)
Total City Component 17,183,194 18,114,000 (930,806) 94.86% 3,088,593 4, 869,652
20
City of Ashland
Schedule of Cash and Investments
June 30, 1996 and 1997
06/30/96 06/30/97 variance
General Fund 1,094,824.85 788,478.53 (306,346.32)
Cemetery Fund 119, 937.38 115,206.95 (4,730.43)
Band Fund 67,857.98 74,985.77 7,127.79
Community Block Grant Fund (396.38) 5,501.33 5, 897.71
Street Fund 673, 080.90 717,432.68 44,351.78
Airport Fund 34,695.45 40,724.40 6, 028.95
Capital Improvements Fund 702,355.00 1,569,214.75 866,859.75
Bancroft Bond Fund 317,118.58 380,118.67 63,000.09
General Bond Fund 273,023.68 271,683.25 (1,340.43)
Debt Service Fund 96, 076.42 40,665.20 (55,411.22)
Ambulance Fund 6, 728.33 294,482.93 287,754.60
Water Fund 1,478, 035.85 1,941,808.85 463, 773.00
Sewer Fund 2,694,480.12 3,212,087.38 417,607.26
Electric Fund 1,106,233.73 1,378,591.15 272,357.42
Central Services Fund 514,031.98 386,349.56 (127,682.42)
Insurance Services Fund 1,404,399.58 1,535,679.69 131,280.11
Equipment Fund 1,679,546.62 1,671, 761.71 (7,784.91)
Cemetery Trust Fund 626,386.06 633,816.31 7,430.25
OPERATING FUNDS 12,888,416.13 15,058,589.11 2,170,172.98
Ski Area Fund 542,547.00 570, 148.00 27,601.00
Parks & Recreation 1,776,190.19 2,238, 930.86 462, 740.67
Hospital Fund 5, 517,017.59 0.00 (5,517,017.59)
AGENCY ASSETS 7,835, 754.78 2,809,078.86 (5,026,675.92)
TOTAL CASH 20,724,170.91 17, 867,667.97 (2,856, 502.94)
Petty Cash 973.00 973.00 0.00
General Banking Accounts 47, 955.87 (178,570.53) (226,526.40)
Local Government
Investment Pool 9,983,302.06 4,486,099.65 (5,497,202.41)
• S Treasury Notes and Bills 0.00 1, 799,859.38 1, 799,859.38
• S Agency Investments 10,691,939.98 8,824,014.81 (1,867,925.17)
Certificates of Deposit 0.00 0.00
Bankers Acceptances 0.00 2,935,291.66 2,935,291.66
State and Local Instruments 0.00 0.00
20, 724, 170.91 17,867,667.97 (2,856,502 .94)
I
i
21
f.
CITY OF ASHLAND °•� oF °^�y�
Office of the Mayor
a
MEMORANDUM ..,
DATE: October 3, 1997
TO: All City Council Members
FROM: Cathy Golden, Mayor
RE: APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
I would like to recommend and seek council approval of David Fine to be appointed to
the Traffic Safety Commission for an appointment to expire April 30, 2000.
Letters of interest along with a copy of the advertisement as it appeared in the Daily
Tidings is attached.
Y01114 City Needs You!
A .
OAFOOt�
Apprications are being accepted for the following position:
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION, t vacancy expiring Apr#30,2000
The Traffic Safety Commisslon meets on the 41h Tf mft at 7pm In Coundl
Chambers, For further Information regarding Gds yolanteer position, please
call staff Ralson Pam Barlow in 8ie Public Works Dept.at 488.6567. Please
eubmk your letter of Merest b Mayor Cathedne Golden al Coy HO,20 East
Main Street.The deadline for applying H Friday,September 26.
J. DAVID FINE — Area Code 541 —
50 Third Street Attorney at Law Telephone:488-1458
P.O.Box 66 Cellular:8404804
Ashland,Oregon 97520 Fax:488.1923
Home study tel.&fax:4824978
(800)848-1458
E-Mail:OSecoN1 Aw@BIGFOOT.COM
bltp:llw .asblandwcb.com/mcgmiaw
My ref.: OF:civic YY - n
Your ref.: Traffic Safety Commission Vacancy
15 September 1997, 1109-L �El
r
u
Mayor Cathy Golden --- - —
City Hall
20 East Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Dear Cathy,
I write to express interest in appointment to the currently vacant position on the
Traffic Safety Commission.
It should be my pleasure to forward such information or documentation as you might
require for evaluation of my application, if you'd be so kind as to advise what you may need.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Yours ly
r
J. David Fine
E:Ncivi6golden-05impd
• , rte.
WELLIAM L. SNELL r•„�, 1997 !;: .
478 North Laurel Street
a�
Ashland OR 97520.1113
Phone: (541)482-7981
September 17, 1997
To. The Honorable Catherine Golden
Mayor of Ashland
Ashland, OR 97510
Thru: Ms. Pam Barlow
Public Works Department
Ashland, OR 97510
Subject. Traffic Safety Commission
Dear Mayor Golden,
I am interested being appointed to the Ashland TiahSc Safety Commission.
My resume is attached.
Trusting ffiis will receive your consideration, I remain,
Yours In Service,
WIL SN LL
Atch (1)
Email Address: gmimmackCaNeffnet.org FAX: 541-552-9426
August -25, 1997
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR
Work Related Experience
Name William Lee Snell Age: tiff
478 North Laurel Street
Ashland, OR 97520-111 3
Telephone 541-482-7981
1992 - 1996 - Elected official -County Commissioner, Hamilton County, "Texas
1990 1993 - E.mergency Management Coordinator, Hamilton County, Texas
1983 - 1985 - Contract Manager (Corporate). Contract Manager for The Taylor
Group, an Alabama Corporation. Managed an Eleven Million
dollar year contract for the repair and maintenance of 5280 Military
Family Housing units. Represented the Corporation in negotiations,
andlor disputes with Army Contracting Officers at Ft Hood, Texas.
1982 - 1984 - Self Employed. Owner of Small Business(Snell Ltd, a Sub S Corp.)
in Hamilton, Texas. Investments and Real Estate.
1974 - 1981 - Air Force Contracting Officer, Deputy Chief, Contracts(GS-1 1 ),
Small Business Specialist, Williams AFB, Arizona
1949 - 1973 - Active Duty, United States Air Force. Various assignments. Served
as Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. Air Force Specialty
Code 65190. Release from active duty in 1973 as a Chief Master
Sergeant (E-9).
Awards
Outstanding Performance Award (Civilian, GS-11) 1975
Bronze Star Service in Vietnam(E-9) 1972
Armed Services Meritorious Service Award(E-9) 1970
Air Force Commendation Medal (I Oak Leaf Cluster)(E-9)- 1968
Air Force Commendation Medal (E-8) - 1963
Memberships:
Ashland Lions Club, Air Force Association, American Legion, Veterans of
Foreign Wars
I
September 21, 1997 Q � �
Mayor Catherine Golden
City Hall .............. .. ...... ....
.__
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Re: Traffic Safety Commission
Dear Mayor Golden:
My name is Mark Amrhein and I am interested in serving on the Traffic Safety
Commission. I am interested in traffic safety in Ashland as a civil engineer and as I
have two young sons just entering kindergarten and the first grade at Lincoln
Elementary. As they become more independent, I hope that they will be safe around
the streets of Ashland.
I believe that I can be an asset to the commission with my technical expertise as a civil
engineer. Although my specialty is not traffic engineering, I do understand the
technical concepts of traffic control and safety
I currently am working as an engineer for the City of Grants Pass managing the Merlin
Landfill and also do my own geotechnical and environmental consulting work here in
Ashland and Jackson County. I recently served on the Hillsides Standards Committee
working closely with Bill Molinar and John MacLoughlin. . I have also been working
with the Rogue Valley Civic League as a Round Table facilitator for The Healthy and
Sustainable Communities Project.
Please consider me for the open position on the Traffic Safety Commission.
Sincerely,
Mark A in, P.E.
804 Roca Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Ph: 482-8079
'f3 `/ r6 �s3—
i
i
Fr
J � �
All
~
/
WESTWOOD SUBDV° Page 1 of 2
FR{ Mi1 Anna Hassell and Janos Markus
25 Westwood St. , Ashland, OR 97520
Phone/Fax 541/482-6A75
October 7, 1997
TO: Ashland City Council and Ashland Planning Department
City Hall 20 East Main St. , Ashland, OR 97520
Re:
Exclusion from LID Moratorium
Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Staff: '
We are writing this letter and appearing here tonight to express
our great concern over the consequences of a Potential moratorium
concerning the LID process as it pertains to our small seven lot
subdivision/ including our own let where we live and desire to
continue to reside.
The ordinances on which we relied in the beginning of our
struggle to develop a few lots, and which were the basis for
agreement with the City for road and utility easements through
the property, have been repeatedly changed or interpreted/ to
require other than what was the original intent.
The LID process was a decisive factor in our application for lot
split and subdivision, supported by our reliance on the LID
agreements, signed by neighbors on purchase of their hcmesr and
signed by ourselves at the time of lot split and ,granting of road
and utility land to the City . Using the math applied by Staff,
signed agreements are 80% of the total lots on Westwood.
In the four years we' ve been processing a "simple" division of
this small parcel of land (necessitated by prohibitive taxes) the
"rules" have changed, swinging like a pendulum" Meanwhile, out-
costs are mounting, while others are building' we are waiting,
We have earnestly tried to follow directions from City Staff and
adhered to their suggestions, based on Council policy, even as
Policy changed. We have held back, consented to waiting beyond
the legal time allotment, waited for the floods to recede and, in
general have done all in our power to be cooperative.
We are here tonight to appeal directly to the Council to help
alleviate the hardship position we are in, in trying to imp]ement
the previous approval this Council gave us April, 21 , 1997.
Just to refresh you on background and bring events up to date:
Prior to submitting a plan there The te
� cre was e n year <plus) WATER
MORATORIUM. Our granting of a road and utility easement to the
City was to alleviate that situation and allow development.
After the water moratorium we experienced the
'`STUDY of THE STRAWBERRY\WESTW0O0 AREA", ending ^.....,'//.-l"si,ely
but pitting property "developers" living on their land against
neighbors living in their V previously constructed homes".
� neighbors who deliberately signed agreements to participate in �
`
wEST0OOD SUBDV. Page 2 of 2
the Counril mandated requirement for future street improvements.' `
'
(
The fact is *hat the seven lots we have had approved just do not � �
generate encugh tc pay for all of Westwood, the neighbors lineal
footage being approximately 750 feet and ours 560 feet" It is
nct a cost that can be spread over say, 20 to 25 lots to make it
econm
oically feasible (not to mention the fairness of paying for
all others who will drive on it, and other Ashland streets" )
Being residents of this nArea» and feeling the burden of
providing street improvements for the whole neighborhood before
six lots can he taken off our land (land we have paid taxes on
for many, many years) ' we can certainly empathize with those
neiqhbors who do not want to contribute to improvements,
That their property would be improved seems to be immaterial " '~
That the one-half acre zoning allows land division seems not to
matter. That the Council has a policy of in—fill is irrelevant.
That we are within City limits' a few blocks from the Plaza,
seems to be beside the point"
Too much time, energy and money has already been spent on the '
Westwood neighbor appeal and us" The appeal, a `
thinly disquised LID matter appealed as a subdivision issue, was .
heard Sept. 30 before The State Land Use Board of Appeals (LWBA)'
At a considerable cost to us" We are awaiting that decision.
Mindful of the previous assertions, we respectfully make' the
following request of our City Council:
I . \:}ecause of our unique circumstance, the small number of lots
and the time it has already taken, we are asking that, if you
decide a moratorium is in ardery the council our
little division from that moratorium
submitted our Westwood LID
were encouraged by City poiiP cy— we
- - ' we "^u i ` by the uoon" " Now
let its go forward on the basis you have" Our LID application has
not yet come before the Council but, when it does, it will
contain this request' "In the event street improvements become a .
citywide respmnsibilityr the neighbors in the Westwood ,
Subdivision LID will be relieved of payments to the district. "
It is possi|nle for the Council to do this, if the LID is formed
to the work being done And council moves to do so"
�. Whatever you do' please mzike. a speedy decision. We elected
you to have the courage of leadership" You are collectively' and
individually/ capable of that task. The long wait of a
moratorium' without the exemption of our in process Westwood LIE),
could be financially harmful to us. Please keep this in mind as
you consider a LID moratorium"
.
Thank you for your time and attention to, and consideration of,
this request"
Anna Hassell Janos Markus
�
CITY OF ASHLAND
Office of the Mayor
o ,
MEMORANDUM
°�'•,,OkEGO�,,•�•'
DATE: October 3, 1997
TO: All City Council Members
FROM: Cathy Golden, Mayor
RE: APPOINTMENTS TO AD HOC ICCA COMMISSION
would like to recommend and seek council approval of the following persons for
appointment to the newly formed Ad Hoc ICCA Commission as follows:
Paul Steinbroner, 1330 Iowa Street
Carolyn Johnson, 450 Thornton Way
Antoinette Claypool, 1257 Siskiyou Blvd.
Rich Whitall, 350 B Street
Carole Wheeldon (Council liaison)
John McLaughlin (Staff liaison)
UPPD
CITY OF ASHLAND
o.y�pf AS/y�•e
Department of Public Works
Public Works Administration
MEMORANDUM +„ REGO?,.'"
DATE: September 30, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Paula C. Brown, PE, Public Works Director / City Engineer I(�''
RE: Request for Water Service to Two (2) Properties on Dead Indian
Memorial Road (Ward Family Trust and Monte George)
REQUEST:
Mr. Glen Ward, on behalf of the Ward Family Trust, owner of the residence at 537 Dead
Indian Memorial Road, and Mr. and Mrs. Monte George, owner of 531 Dead Indian
Memorial Road, have requested permission to connect to the City water system. Both
properties are outside the City limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary. Both
property owners have submitted individual requests for this service, but are adjacent
properties and therefore are being submitted as one action item (two separate
recommendations) to the Council.
BACKGROUND:
Both the Wards and the Georges have submitted requests for City water service with
further documentation (attached). Both have experienced similar problems with lack of
adequate water supply and failed water wells. Mr. Ward has two failed wells on his
property at depths of 360 and 580 feet. The Georges have also had documented water
shortages from their well. Adequate well water in the area is not a long term viable or
consistent solution as has been demonstrated by these two families and the adjacent
property to the north owned by Kodaks. Both property owners have received
confirmation of the failed or"dry"wells from Jackson County Health and Human Services
Department (attached). Both property owners have been trucking and holding potable
water for use at their properties. Both are extremely concerned about potential fire
damage and risk due to lack of an adequate water supply.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING FACILITIES:
Currently there is a 2 inch water service line that runs along the taxiway to Mr. Kodak's
Vineyard adjacent to the Ward / George properties. Both properties are within 100 feet
of this line as required by Council Resolution 97-27, Establishing Standards for Water
PAGE 1- (c:water\h20ward.Mem)
Connections Outside City Limits. Although it is feasible to tie two residential services
into the existing 2" service line, it would not be in the City's best interest to service the
two new services off this same line as there could potentially be future problems
(adequate volumes and pressures) with the service line to Mr. Kodak's property. The
line to Mr. Kodak's property is a long run (3600 feet) and has had some pressure and
line loss problems in the past.
It is recommended that the George and Ward services be provided from a new service
connection off the new 8" water main at the edge of the taxiway with meters to be
installed at the road to the two residences (see attached map). This would require
approximately 1200 feet of P.V.C. water line and would be the responsibility of the
property owners to construct to City standards (approximately $3600).
With the completion of the new main line to the Airport, we now have a looped system
and water availability and pressures are not a problem. The connection of two
residential services would have no adverse impact on the water system in that area
either before or after the new water line service connections is made.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both property owners have acknowledged their requirements of City Council Resolution
97-27 and have voiced no objections. Both requests meet the requirements of the
resolution in that:
a) It will not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources.
b) Both applicants have secured statements from the Jackson County
Environmental health and Human Services Department stating the condition of existing
wells to be poor to non-existent.
c) Wells in this area are not adequate nor can they be repaired or improved.
d) The City does have a water service line within 100 feet of the properties,
however it is recommended that the new services be provided off a new service line at
the property owners' expense.
e) Both properties are within the City's Urban Growth Boundary.
As such should the City Council determine that this is in the best interest of the City and
authorizes water service connections be provided, it is recommended that the Council
direct staff to provide City water service connections in accordance with City Council
Resolution 97-27 to:
1) Mr. Glen Ward, Ward Family Trust, at his property on 537 Dead Indian Memorial
Road; and
2) Mr. and Mrs. Monte George at their property on 531 Dead Indian Memorial Road.
It is further recommended that Council direct staff to work with the property owners to
ensure the line to the new meters is constructed to City standards.
PAGE 2—(c:warer\h2Oward.Mem)
- t
12 August 1997
Mayor Cathy Golden
Members of the Common Council
City of Ashland, Oregon
Pursuant to the resolution establishing standards for water
connections outside the city limits, passed by the council and
signed into ordinance by Mayor Golden, I herewith make
application for the establishment of a connection to the water
system of the City of Ashland, Oregon .
The conditions of the ordinance under section 2, subsection
C are addressed in order as follows :
1 . It is definitely in the best interest of the City that a
healthy and safe environment for this residence is provided and
preserved by a dependable source of water.
2 . Attached hereto is a statement from John Manwaring,
Coordinator for the Jackson County Environmental Health Division,
dated 12 August 1997 confirming by his personal inspection, the
existence of two failed wells on this property .
3. The two wells 360 and 580 feet deep are totally non—
serviceable with no prospect of improvement .
4 . An Ashland water line does indeed exist within 100 feet
of this property.
5 . This property is within the City ' s urban growth boundary
as it is currently defined .
In as much as the conditions set forth by the City of
Ashland are met in this situation, I respectfully request that
the connection to the existing city water line nearby be
approved.
I request the other trustees of the Ward Family Trust ,
George F. Ward and Eleanor 0. Ward, be given complete discretion
to negotiate and act on -behalf of the Ward Family Trust , in the
event of my absence .
Thank you for your consideration in this matter, as it has
given cause for great concern dealing with the safety and
protection of the dwelling and its residents for some time .
in erely
Ward Family Trust
I
Jackson Count Ore/won GARY K. NJANAGS
Y ■ ■ PROGRAM MANAGER
VM 54 1/77(3-7316
JACKSON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH • 1005 E. MAIN ST., BLDG. A • MEDFORD. OR FAX:541/776-7260
07504
August 12, 1997
Glen Ward
537 Dead Indian Road
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Sir:
You recently requested that the Jackson County Health and Human Services
Department evaluate the wells which serve your property at 537 Dead Indian Road,
Ashland, Oregon.
I visited this property on July 24, 1997 for the purpose of evaluating the water supply. I
observed two wells. The first well observed was not supplied with a pump. This well is
essentially a dry hole with little or no water entering the hole.
The second well, although supplied with a pump, was not capable of pumping water to
the surface. This well also appears to have little or no water entering the hole.
I observed the truck and storage tank used to haul water to your residence.
The wells at 537 Dead Indian Road do not appear to provide an adequate quantity of
water for a domestic water supply.
Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this
office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
John Manwanng,`R.S.
Water Program Coordinator
9076A.JM
Vol F"
SEP 18 1997 j )
CITY OF ASHL.�t�
September 17, 1997
City of Ashland
20 E. Main. St.
A. laland, Oregon 97520
Monte George
531 Dead Indian Memorial Rd.
Ashland,Oregon 97520
Request: Water hcx)k up at existing residence
Dear City of Ashland/Ashland City Council tiletubers.
Due to the lack of water supply at our present address on Dead Indian NiI«ln-tial
Rd., I am requesting your consideration to authorize us to connect to the city water supply
which is located between the Ashland Airport taxi way and our residence.
Attached to this request, please, find the letter from the Water Program Co-
ordinator of Jackson County and the statement from:affordable Pump Service, attesting to
the Lack of water supply we presently face. Due to the lack of ample water supply, we feet
the e are some situations that could be cicvastating, such as fine. Recently there have been
two fires near by that could have easily become a major threat to structures and property
due to the amount of dry grass and open fields surrounding the airport. At the present time
we are hauling in enough water for our daily use and when the tank is empty we are
helpless,but with a source of continuous water supply it is possible that similar situations
involving the airport and city property may be aided or avoided. As the city of Ashland
experienced during the flood having access to a sutlicient supply of running water In our
homes is a tremendous blessing.
I feel that I sleet the requirements as outlined in the c;tV rea'oluth^n 1111111ber 47__7.
1 am prepared to conform and perform. by way or the requirements of section ! of,arse
mentioned resolution.
If further information or esnlaanations are needed please let rue snow and I wit
gladly supply you with such.
anl:you,
Monte George
• •
GARY K. STEVENS
Jackson County Oregon (541)776-7316` MANAGER
--"ON COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTN SERVICES • 1 005 E. MAIN STREET MEDFORD, OR FAX:(541)776-7260
e 07504
July 29, 1997
Monty and Judy George
531 Dead Indian Rd.
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Monte and Judy:
You recently requested that the Jackson County Health Department evaluate the well
serving your property at 531 Dead Indian Road:
I visited your property for the purpose of evaluating your well on July 24, 1997.
The inspection showed a drilled well and a storage tank. The well is being
supplemented with hauled water through a hose into the storage tank due to
inadequate well production.
An attempt to document the flow of your well by affordable pump service documented
inadequate flows. A copy of affordable pump documentation is included for the record.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this
office at your convenience.
Sincerely, =
OL
.i
John Manwaring, R.S.
Water Program Coordinator
9077
iI N I
P.O. BOX 2271. WHITE CITY, OR 97503 (541) 855-9920 - 179-9422
p\1
� 5,+ � ' .may.•: .,,.v
' 1 • 'fir . i 1`,.,i sr may. ' Ott' r?� 4
Jackson County Health q
1005 t Main
Medford OR 9750'1 " �` `ti ;' ' � •" +. '
S. A
Attn. John Ma ,t•t:.
A n. 1 oB.
Ra> tor
t7Annte. �d fe�•j �SltlQn��'bR �rr4&. ;a:r
x y Gy �G - 531 ,�eaot .Tnolran � _
6m TulY 1411447 We, checkcc( the well 2t the aboVC,
LL 04 C1rc55 . We YOu.nc< If fo 10 Y0 ela.ee less oan / g • �•m .
12SX ly is G0n57cicr�cl $ o be a
cS7hGti G� ��''
ff'FILORAA/3�.E PuIr�P J'E'.2!/iCN ;•;�` ys=°.
t !%
W//i/IliamS0 f.
of
ay..
1 `
L .�.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR
WATER CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. No premises located outside the City of Ashland may be.connected to
the city water system except as provided in this resolution.
SECTION 2. Premises outside the city may be connected to the city water system only
as follows:
A. Connections.authorized by the council prior to the date of this resolution.
B. Connections authorized by the council for city or other governmental
facilities.
C. Connections authorized by resolution of the council where the council finds:
1. The connection is determined to be in the best interest of the City of
Ashland and to not be detrimental to the City's water facilities or resources.
2. The applicant secures, in writing, a statement from the Environmental
Health Division, Health Department, Jackson County, Oregon, that the existing water
system for the premises has failed.
3. The failed water system cannot feasibly be repaired or improved and
there is no other feasible source of water for the premises.
4. An Ashland water main or line exists within 100 feet of the premises.
5. The connection is to premises within the city's.urban growth
boundary.
SECTION 3. Connections authorized under section 2.0 of this resolution shall be
made only upon the following conditions:
A. The applicant for water service pays the water connection fee for
connections outside the city and the systems development charges established by the
City.
B. In the event dwellings or buildings connected to the water system are
subsequently replaced for any reason, then the replacement building or dwelling may
continue to be connected to the water system of the City as long as the use of the
water system will not be increased as determined by the Director of Public Works.
C. The applicant furnish to the City a consent to the annexation of the premises
and a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the land prior to
annexation to the City, signed by the owners of record and notarized so that it may be
PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (P:crdlwntrcon3.rw)(June 12. 1997)
recorded by the City and binding on future owners of the premises. The cost of
recording the deed restriction shall be paid by the property owner.
D.,The property owner shall execute a contract with the City of Ashland which
provides for: payment of all charges connected with the provision of water service to
the property; compliance with all ordinances of the city related to water service and
use; termination of service for failure to comply with such ordinances and that failure
to pay for charges when due shall automatically become a lien.upon the property. A
memorandum of the contract shall be recorded in the county deed records with the
cost of recording to be paid by the property owner.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
§2.04.09 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this z7— day of 1997.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of G4�. 1997.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Rev'�d as o form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 2-RESOLUTION (p:ard(wetrcon9.rec1(June 12. 19971
NOTES --------------
_
1. Footprints are for illustrative purposes only.
Buildings adjacent to tie-downs shall be a b
minimum floor area of 4800 square feet
Sites ad*ent to existing taxi-way shall be a
minimum floor area of 3600 square feet �� \ aarAn,TS , n•• _�•
2 City has minimum landscaping requirements. \
3. All new buildings shall have a 15'separation
from adacent building.
4. All new buildings shall be equipped with
vertical lift doors.
5. Building colors shall be reviewed and approved \
by Atport Commission and public Works Director. ;
Ka95 Row
1 i `\
PLUC555f5 j
_ _ _ _ _ i F `\
,/* ICI \
FMIwr.P MF05Nn NEW v,5
ar .
MOposW New wwWs '
'\ ........ .............. I EXI5/WG fA7(M'AY PrtyaimN 2" lm
`'\ \ \- =� ",�`, �,.�.-.`,2orvS�•1G� wwwa�'� " .a °�.,.,; «� � Fie,2"w,te.im emp„e'w.e�K
\ :.
zw G\
(.Iea-ge's d-ivewal \\ � .. .. I E•ekrq � °'
\
EM dPaeimit .�/ t.' r _..r `�` "•• -�� '�S-r r.' : _�19 f I SIECK d
Wad's drrocxay � � =��\,�-���-�»•w��\�a��.r� rte. �� •�zv ro-�h✓�.r -ix � _ .... 2 wrierLnr �� . . . . . . .
--a,,,re----- i = � R 2'PVC Welai.nM
— -- -- --'-- -- -- -- -- —Ustall(2) water meters. U O fl I j
TH14 of Aztltanb
� 9 j
DEPT.OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION
PROPOSED AMRT MROVEMEM
• •• &AN d II-14-95675 R MH Mea I0.Zf-I6 bey 4
Lmedo3-15-96805 MKI"Id . J.WPM MuR
\NR\AId�RGPOdra':::: :::: : -::•:..._•::-?::.. &Asdd 10-02-97 W5 a rwu c.eaoMN uo�
a
. . ........... .........
AS SNOW
.... ............ .......... .
sin►
1 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.28.050 OF THE ASHLAND
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE
UTILITY SYSTEM
ANNOTATED TO SHOW DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS. DELETIONS ARE 6IN€9�NROUGH AND
ADDITIONS ARE 59M.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.28.050 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read:
2.28.050 City Administrator . in addit+e- tee =fit
i�i �fpC� i� �„general City-wide administrative duties and
responsibilities,
in the
'i he City Administrator shall insure the
x�
proper operation of a modern personnel merit system for the City service
consistent with applicable ordinances and resolutions by advising departments
on personnel problems, administering the classification and salary plans,
recruiting personnel, conducting employee relations, assisting in organizing
studies and FnanpeweF eentF :.:.5 eem , maintaining an
employee roster and related personnel records necessary to facilitate and
control personnel actions, and furnishing the City Council with such personnel
information as it may require.
system planAiRg, Fate studies, eensepiatien pFegFaFns, and maintain elese
liaiseR with state and fedeFal --.-A 0
pffiless one! utility WgagizatieFr�.
The foregoing ordinance was first read on the day of October , 1997, and
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of October , 1997.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1997.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 1-ANNOTATED ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC § 2.28.050 (v:«dw,tw«.wc)
CITY OF ASHLAND o{ oF`ASy
Department of Community Development Cqo.
Conservation Division
k ..
MEMORANDUM 'r IREGO .'
DATE: October 2, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Hal Cloer, Joanne Eggers, Cate Hartzell and Dick Wanderscheid/, ''(
RE: PUBLIC FORUM
Goal 3, Item l of the City's Communication Plan contains the following recommendation:
Initiate public discussion of issues well in advance of when decisions will be made. Invite citizen
involvement in defining problems and generating solutions; make the implicit value choices explicit.
Include at these meetings people who can address questions on specific topics of interest. Where
possible, partner with local civic groups to conduct these meetings and provide staff time and funding
where necessary.
The above group of individuals is prepared to work on setting up the first public forum to implement this portion of the
Plan. There was much discussion about an appropriate topic for the first forum and these three topics gained the major
amount of support: Paying for Streets and Sidewalks, Ashland's Future Water Needs and Options, and Ashland's Optimal
Population Density.
After much discussion, it was the feeling that the subject "Ashland's Future Water Needs and Options" was the best
subject for this first public forum.
Since we feel the success of the first forum is very important to the future continuation, the subject of the first one is
critical. We want a subject that hasn't already polarized people, that is interesting and of vital importance to the public,
has enough lead time before any critical decision needs to be made, and could provide educational benefits about this
issue.
The preferred issue appears to better fulfill the requirements than the other two. This group proposes to initiate discussion
with other local civic groups to partner the initial forum. We are prepared to do the initial research and then report back
to the Council with more specific ideas as to the implementation of this first forum.
The purpose of this memo is to initiate a discussion with the Council and obtain agreement on both the subject and
approach before proceeding to work on this project.
Attached is the criteria used by the National Issues Forum in choosing problems that make good forum deliberation. This
is included to help you decide if the topic we have chosen, or one you might choose, is the best one for the initial forum.
Ask these questions about the problem:
Is the problem an the public's agenda—!s It a concem for both community leaders and the "folks"who
live there?
• You might get a sense of the answer to this question by looking at how—or whether—the problem
is talked about in the newspaper, radio talk shows, public interviews, policy proposals, and even
the local coffee shop. Avoid problems that mostly concern a narrow group of interests in the
community.
Is the problem directly connected with what people really care about?
ll Each problem may be approached from several different angles, and the challenge here is to find
• the angle that hits close to home for many people. For example, most people would not be
interested in talking about the introduction of evidence in a criminal trial. But it is likely that most
people in a community would feel personally affected by questions about the ability of the justice
system to cut down on crime.
Is it a problem that Is difficult to resolve?
Do people seem to look at the problem in very different ways? Issue framing is most helpful for
those problems that are hard to resolve because people come to the problem with very different
concerns and so offer very different solutions.
What to do about the water that is collecting in the post office parking lot may be an important
question in your community, but almost everyone probably agrees on what the problem is (too
much water) and what they would like to see happen (make the water go away). Its just a matter
of how to do that, which doesn't pose a difficult dilemma that the public needs to address.
Do people view this as a multisided issue?
Your problem should need more than a yes" or Ono*answer to resolve it. Policy questions such
v as whether the county should pass a zoning ordinance to deal with rapid growth are'yes/no'
questions. But there might be an underlying issue that is multisided. If the county is considering a
zoning ordinance,then rapid growth may be a broader problem that is a source of tension in the
community because to some people it offers economic opportunity, while to others it promises
overcrowding, and to still others it threatens to strain public resources. In this case, rapid growth is
'at issue.'
Is the °scale"of your problem likely to promote a meaningful discussion of political options?
Make sure that your problem really is a problem, rather than a solution that you wish to promote.
• For example, If you are worried about the lack of public participation in community politics,it might
seemreasonable to write an issue guide on the topic, 'Participating in community fife.' But be
carefull This approach probably assumes much more agreement about the nature of the problem
than there actually is, and so it moves directly to offering a solution.
You should be able to imagine a range of perspectives on the problem and a range of possible
solutions to it. The need for public discussion should be clear.
Also be careful not to look at your problem so broadly that you take all the tension out of the
issue. A question such as, 'What is happening to our community's political fife?' might be a good
one to get a bull session going, but it probably won't push people to consider the options for
addressing the problem.
These are criteria used by the National Issues Forums , in choosing
problems that make good forum deliberation .
CITY OF ASHLAND
r,•�p pgy�°,,
Department of Community Development
v
Conservation Division
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 30, 1997
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Dick Wanderscheid
RE: PROPOSED ADO A STREET PROGRAM
Ashland citizen Colin Boyd approached the Ashland Conservation Commission with the idea
of initiating an Adopt A Street program within the City of Ashland. The Commission
designated a subcommittee to work with Colin and Staff to research and develop a program
that would be suitable for Ashland. The subcommittee met two times and developed a
program that was endorsed by the full Commission at its September 24, 1997 meeting.
This program idea is attached to this memo for discussion and possible endorsement by the
City Council. The Commission has designated $440 of FY 97-98 budget to implement the
initial phase of the program. This funding should enable set up and operation of the program
until July 1998. After that time, a line item in the Public Works budget would need to be
added to continue the program. We estimate the annual budgeted amount required would be
$1,500-2,000 per year.
The program would be operated by Public Works, with the Street Division taking the lead.
Pam Barlow and Jerry Glossop have been working with the subcommittee to develop the
details of the program.
Upon endorsement by the Council, we will develop the necessary waivers and training before
the program is implemented. We anticipate this could probably be accomplished by
December 1, 1997.
I will be at the City Council meeting to discuss this, but if you have questions or would like
to discuss this prior to the meeting, feel free to give me a call at 488-5306.
ADOPT A STREET PROGRAM PROPOSAL
The program will have a commercial and a residential component.
A. Commercial Program
1. Commercial businesses, service clubs or organizations would be in the commercial component.
2. They would adopt street segments on the City's arterial or collector streets (see map).
3. Upon adoption of a street, they will receive signs denoting them as Adopt A Street participants on both
ends of the street segment.
4. The street would be adopted for one year and they can renew their commitment as many times as they
wish.
5. They would be expected to clean up the street at least quarterly.
6. They would be furnished with safety vests, litter bags and gloves prior to their clean up.
7. The filled bags would be deposited at a designated spot for disposal by Ashland Sanitary.
8. They will have to undergo a safety orientation prior to the first clean up and also be required to sign
waivers much like those used by the City of Fountain Hills, Arizona.
9. The two signs for the commercial program will be 18" x 18" and 12" x 18" in size and will cost about $55
for both (see attached drawing).
10. Since two signs would be at both ends of an adopted segment, cost per segment would be $110 for the
signs.
We propose that $440 of the Conservation Commission budget for four commercial segments may be allocated for this
I
rogram through June 1998. After that, a new line item in the Public Works budget would be included in future budgets to
I
over program costs.
B. The Residential Program would allow local residents, neighborhoods or families to adopt their neighborhood streets.
1. No signs would be erected nor would bags or safety vests be issued.
2. Garbage would be disposed of by the individuals in their own garbage.
3. They would be required to attend a safety orientation and also sign waivers.
4. They could adopt a street for a one year period and could renew the adoption as long as they desire.
5. While they would have no sign, once a year an ad would be purchased in the Tidings publicizing adopters in
the residential program. Cost of this ad is estimated at $150.
• , - ..
S •Df
✓ � 1 l • •Ii.�i�i
i i••'y • •
��tif1lrt Way;�•' � ..�' :, : : _
'•yid
••' y•'•[ • --:
Ti••yr• ��iNii•M
rl
w
y ( • • • M1 Q.
• • �'a' • •i i 1• f
y •
y f • • r
i t .. ii•i•.i7 �V i • • NMoWrtaIn AYS• �.
hr•��•�Ii••i�rii�•Iiiiiwi � F `
al 7
op
t h, ° � s • � y4., ! u
X.'
, <, - Wager•Ave a a
Y
Ptlk&t ti y�.�r�•••i�•ai• <.. r
' w
a-
-+.. �ii••iit
••S�i.i•.•�i�i�•i ::Lek Rd •
1'
y'. ••i. .0 600
. _•• ' 0••i• ..
• 400 - 06
18 �� CounTY
SIGN
4�c
C31kc `r
X14 o F iN Sk la,4 UA-,tr-
C'A
S�Y e ct CL r e
GYCe q
ero � v/A vV\ uJb�te
i
Ig "
'1"
KAS
Q,4A 0VT"C J
X X x >c
X X Ix
S,PA
CITY OF ASHLAND
Administration a .
a ,
Office of the City Administrator i
,
MEMORANDUM REGO
DATE: October 7, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council /�j�
FROM: Brian L Ahnquist, City Administrat(r v
RE: Proposed cut in new pavement on Van Ness Street
R ue t:
Wes Vail has submitted a request to cut the asphalt pavement surface on Van Ness Avenue
just south of Helman Street. This pavement was installed in the Fall of 1996, and is
protected by moratorium until the Fall of 2004. The purpose of the requested cut is to
install a spur track to move several historic rail cars to a proposed structure on land Mr.
Vail owns between Van Ness and Central Avenue.
Back
eround:
Van Ness Avenue between Heiman and Oak Streets was paved in the Fall of 1996 by the
City Street Department. Curb and gutter was installed, together with a sidewalk on the west
side. The entire east side abuts the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Vail has several antique
railroad cars including a Pullman Sleeper and Dining Car which he would like to display on
his property which is zoned E-1, just west of Western Oil and Burner.
An application for a rail crossing permit has also been filed with the Oregon P.U.C.
He would like to begin work on the crossing within the next two weeks.
A copy of a survey showing the proposed crossing point and proposed 10' pavement cut is
attached.
Recommendation:
The City Staff recommends approval of this request subject to approval of the crossing by
the P.U.C.
Attachments (2)
w\,\nAC.00t
10/07/97 TUE 13:56 FAX i0ool
Uc�.(Q� IUq�
� ,QD A- ,
1 -5311
Jj
Cie. - q
I-A)
o Pole
h
`dry /
MP 429.55/'�
crossing ,'C"
vole (Ashland, Oregon)
cv
� `p
• orb & ° � �
c `
S d o e / n°h �. o c°
wo/� a Do poi tP\ `
00-b F (6Q2e�
• �I
� e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . /. � \ [/T
%110 \
' Pee ` \ED
d 7.9S. m )
1 tom'
/ (R W)
,
. . . . . . . . . .+
r
`YV
I �P marked. 429.53
SU
STEWART LAND SURVI
8370 Highway 66
oze� F i Ashland, Oregon 97520-9(
SCALE: 1" = 40'
`O t BASIS OF BEARING:
I
/ I
to
4
-N I
/ C
��R,rn
f
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM �
RE 0,101
DATE: September 11, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
RE: Hillside Development Standards - Second Reading
Attached is the Hillside Development Standards ordinance, reflecting the changes
requested by the Council at the last meeting.
Councillor DeBoer has requested that Staff provide a wording option that would modify
the section on color selection for structures from mandatory to recommended. That
section is located on page 25, and a possible recommendation would be as follows:
g. Color selection for new structures shsfl should be coordinated with the
.........:...::
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the
structure and the natural environment.
divelling units eenstr*eted on Hillside Lands. Color- seketien requir&nenfs shall be
F-96-9.rd-P.4- a v G eovenant at the time of final suAv5,plat for all subdivisien:q and
panitiensfei- if ew lots an Hillside Lands.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.62 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE - LAND USE ORDINANCE,
ADOPTING NEW HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 18.62 of the Ashland Municipal Code - Land Use Ordinance is
replaced in it's entirety by Exhibit "A".
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 2nd day of September, 1997,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of 19_.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 1997.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
Exivai r �A
Chapter 18.62
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Sections:
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent.
18.62.020 Regulations.
18.62.030 Definitions.
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required.
18.62.050 Land Classifications.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands.
18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preserve Lands.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands.
18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lando.(Ord 2747, 1994)
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for safe, orderly and
beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of phyoiographic conditions and
significant natural features; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon,
or alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas
that are constrained by various natural features. Phyoiographic conditions and significant
natural features can be considered to include, but are not limited to: slope of the land, natural
drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential landslide areas, natural and wildlife
habitats, forested areas, significant trees, and significant natural vegetation.
18.62.020 Regulations. The type of regulation applicable to he land depends upon the
classification in which the land io placed, ao provided in Section 16.62.050. If those
regulations conflict with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal Code, the more
stringent of the two regulations shall govern.
18.62.030 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined ao they apply to this Chapter:
A. Architect - An architect licensed by the State of Oregon.
F3. Average slope - average slope for a parcel of land or for an entire project, for
the purposes of determining the area to remain in a natural state shall be
calculated before grading using the following formula:
5 = .00229(I)(L)
A
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page I
where "5" i5 the average percent of 510pe, ".00229" is the conversion factor for
Square feet; "I" i5 the contour interval in feet; "L" i5 the Summation of length of
the contour lines in Scale feet; and "A" iS the area of the parcel or project in
acres.
B. Buildable area - That portion of an existing or proposed lot that is free of
building restrictions. For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area cannot
contain any setback areas, easements, and similar building restrictions, and
cannot contain any land that is identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands,or any
land that i5 greater than 35% Slope.
C. Cohesive 5oils - Residual or transported soils, usually originating from parent
rock which contains significant quantities of minerals which weather to clay.
Cohesive Soils have a Flasticity Index of ten or more, based on laboratory
testing by AA51-ITO, or a site-specific Scientific analysis of a particular Soil
material.
D. Development - Alteration of the land Surface by.
1. Earth-moving activities Such as grading,filling, stripping,or cutting
involving more than 20 cubic yards on any lot, or earth-moving activity
disturbing a surface area greater than 1000 Sq. ft. on any lot,
2. The removal of three or more living trees of over Six inches diameter at
breast height (d.b.h.), or the removal of five percent of the total number
of living (or dead trees) over six inches d.b.h., whichever iS greater, on
any lot within five year period, or any form of commercial logging;
3. The removal of one or more living conifers greater than two feet d.b.h., or
living broadleaf trees greater than one foot d.b.h.;
4. Construction of a building, road, driveway, parking area, or other
structure; except that additions to existing buildings of less than 300
Sq. ft. to the existing building footprint shall not be considered
development for section 18.62.080.
5. Culverting or diversion of any stream designated by this chapter.
E. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed by the 5tate of Oregon.
F. Engineering Geologist - A registered professional engineering geologist licensed
by the 5tate of Oregon.
G. Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined in the Flood Insurance
Study for Ashland, Oregon, published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency on December 1, 1980.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 2
H. Geotechnical Expert - An engineering geologist or an engineer with
demonstrable expertise in geologic hazards evaluation and geotechnical
engineering.
I. Gully - A drainage incision, commonly caused by erosion, which does not
experience regular or seasonal stream flow, but does act as a channel for runoff
during periods of high rainfall.
J. Landscape professional - arborist certified by the International 5ociety of
Arboriculture, landscape architect licensed by the 5tate of Oregon, or other
expert with demonstrable expertise in tree and erosion control vegetation
maintenance, and erosion control vegetation methods.
K. Natural Grade - the
elevation of the ground A
level in its natural '/_
state, before o�NATURAL �+ou
FIN ISH60 ERAOfi
construction, filling,or CUT O o
excavation. (see graphic)
L. Natural State - all land
GUT AND FILL G20 O S5 SEGTfON
and water that remains
undeveloped and undisturbed. This means that grading, excavating,filling
and/or the construction of roadways,driveways, parking areas, and structures
are prohibited. Incidental minor grading for hiking trails, bicycle paths, picnic
areas and planting and landscaping which is in addition to and enhances the
natural environment is permitted. Further, vegetation removal for the purposes
of wildfire control in conjunction with an approved fire prevention and control
plan shall also be permitted.
M. Non-cohesive 5oils - Residual or transported soils containing no or very little
clay, usually from crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive soils have a
Elasticity Index of less than ten, based on laboratory testing by AA51-ITO, or a
published scientific analysis of a particular soil type.
N. Professional Arborist - arborist certified by the International 5ociety of
Arboriculture and licensed by the 5tate of Oregon State Landscape
Contractors Board or Construction Contractors Board, or landscape architect
licensed by the 5tate of Oregon.
0. Riparian - That area associated with a natural water course including its
wildlife and vegetation.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 3
P. Slope - The deviation of a surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in
percent. (see graphic)
0. Stripping - Any activity GZA°E W- SLOPE .•
which significantly pE
disturbs vegetated or 35h i
otherwise stabilized soil , 00 i� vGarluL
surface, including iI•G��
clearing and grubbing
operations. �A
4o veer
HO QIZONTAL CISTANGG
R. Wildfire - Fire caused by
combustion of native SLOPE GALGULATION = H
vegetation, commonly CpEG RE6 OF SLOPE = TPNGENT eF N
referred to as forest fire
or brush fire.
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required.
A. A Physical Constraints Review Permit is required for any development, as
defined in 18.62.030.0, in areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preserve, Hillside Land, or Severe Constraint land.
B. If a development is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development,
Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition,or other Planning Action,then
the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action.
C. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted in
Subsection B,then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a
Staff Permit.
D. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a more extensive development
that would require a master site plan,or other planning action,the Staff
Advisor shall require that all necessary applications be filed simultaneously.
E. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development
requiring a Physical Constraints Review:
1. The plans shall contain the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
C. Scale (the scale shall be at least one inch equals 50 feet or
larger) utilizing the largest scale that fits on 22" x 34" paper.
Multiple plans or layers shall be prepared at the same scale,
excluding detail drawings.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 4
I
d. North arrow.
C. Date.
f. Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets
within or on the boundary of the proposed development.
g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
h. Location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences
and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which
buildings are to remain and which are to be removed.
i. Location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed
development.
j. Location of drainage ways or public utility ea5ement5 in and
adjacent to the proposed development. Location of all other
easements.
k. A
topographic 51ope category areae are
map of the areaa of uniform elope
site at a (min 5%)of the maximum
indicated.
contour
interval of
not Ie55 35 a
than two
feet nor a '°
u / i 3o a ns
greater
than five
n.
feet. The
topographic
map shall 6ulldable Area --all
also include areae lees than or perpendicular ie ma o contour
e ual to 35X. perpendicull t
ar to ntour
a slope rnee
analysis,
indicating buildable areas, a5 shown in the graphic.
I. Location of all parking areas and spaces, ingress and egre55 on
the Site, and on-site circulation.
M. Accurate locations of all existing natural feature5 including, but
not limited to, all trees a5 required in 18.62.080.D.1, including
those of a caliper equal to or greater than six inches
native shrub masses with a diameter of ten feet or greater,
natural drainage, swales, wetlands, ponds, springs,or creeks on
the site, and outcroppings of rocks, boulders, etc. Natural
features on adjacent properties potentially impacted by the
proposed development shall also be included, such as trees with
dripline5 extending across propertyline5. In forested area5, iti5
necessary to identify only those trees which will be. affected or
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 5
removed by the proposed development. Indicate any
contemplated modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control,
and tree protection for the development as required by this
chapter.
o. Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that
contain only buildable area, as defined by this Chapter.
P. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation lines.
c1. Location of all areas of land disturbance, including cuts,fills,
driveways, building sites, and other construction areas. Indicate
total area of disturbance, total percentage of project site
proposed for disturbance, and maximum depths and heights of
cuts and fill.
r. Location for storage or disposal of all excess materials resulting
from cuts associated with the proposed development.
6. Applicant name, firm preparing plans, person responsible for plan
preparation, and plan preparation dates shall be indicated on all
Plano.
t. Proposed timeline for development based on estimated date of
approval, including completion dates for specific tasks.
2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070,
18.62.080, 18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of this Chapter.
F. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Permit shall be issued by
the Staff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. Through the application of the development standards of this chapter,
the potential impacts to the property and nearby areas have been
considered, and adverse impacts have been minimized.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and implemented measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the adverse
impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or Planning
Commission shall consider the existing development of the surrounding
area, and the maximum permitted development permitted by the Land
Use Ordinance.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 6
G. The 5taff Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans to
include any or all of the following conditions if it is deemed necessary to
mitigate any potential negative impact caused by the development:
1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds, wetlands, springs, water
courses and other natural features.
2. Require plan revision or modification to mitigate possible negative or
irreversible effect upon the topography or natural features that the
proposed development may cause.
3. Require a performance guarantee as a condition of approval.
4. Require special evaluation by a recognized professional. A professional
consultant may be hired to evaluate proposals and make
recommendations if the hearing authority finds that outside expertise is
needed. The professional will have expertise in the specific area or in the
potential adverse impacts on the area. A fee for these services shall be
charged to the applicant in addition to the application fee.
18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the
classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them:
A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard.
The following lands are classified as Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter
15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain Corridor land in maps
adopted by the Council as provided for in section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the
historical past.
4. All areas within 20 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek designated
for Riparian Preservation in 18.62.05013 and depicted as such on maps
adopted by the Council as provided for in section 16.62.060.
5. All areas within ten feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage channel
depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated as
Riparian Preservation.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Floociplain Corridor Lands are also
designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this section and as
listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman,
Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 7
C. Hillside Lando - Hillside Lands are lands which are subject to damage from
erosion and slope failure, and include areas which are highly vioible from other
portiono of the city. The following lands are claooified as Hillside Lando:
1. All areao defined as Hillside Lando on the Physical Constraints Overlay
map and which have a olope of 25 percent or greater.
D. Wildfire Lando - Lando with potential of wildfire. The following lands are
claooified ao Wildfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constrainto Overlay
map.
E. Severe Conotraint Lando - Lando with Severe development characteriotico
which generally limit normal development. The following lando are claosified ao
Severe Conotraint Lando:
1. All areao which are within the floodway channelo, a5 defined in Chapter
15.10.
2. All lando with a olope greater than 35 percent.
F. Claooificationo Cumulative. The above claoyificationo are cumulative in their
effect and, if a parcel of land fallo under two or more claooificatione, it shall be
subject to the regulations of each cla5oification. Those reotrictiono applied
ohall pertain only to those portiono of the land being developed and not
neceo5arily to the whole parcel.
18.62.060 Official Mano.
A. The City Council ohall adopt official mapo denoting the above identified areao.
Substantial amendmento of these maps ohall be a Type 3 procedure.
B. Minor amendments of the mapo to correct mapping erroro when the
amendmento are intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria
contained in thin chapter or in the findings of the Council in adopting an official
map may be processed a5 a Type 1 procedure.
1862070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lando. For all land use actions
which could result in development of the Floodplain Corridor,the following is required in
addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standard6 for fill in Floodplain Corridor lando:
1. Fill ohall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code, Chapter
70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at leant ten feet outoide of floodway
channels, a5 defined in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed the
angle of repose of the material used for fill.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 8
3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum.
Fill and other material imported from off the lot that could displace
floodwater Shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build
permitted Structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials, and fill associated with
approved public and private street and driveway construction.
G. Plants and other landscaping and agricultural material.
d. A total of 50 cubic yards of other imported fill material.
e. The above limits on fill Shall be measured from April 1989, and
shall not exceed the above amounts. These amounts are the
maximum cumulative fill that can be imported onto the site,
regardless of the number of permits issued.
4. If additional fill i5 necessary beyond the permitted-amount5 in (3) above,
then fill materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting or
excavation only to the extent necessary to create an elevated Site for
permitted development. All additional fill material shall be obtained from
the portion of the lot in the Floodplain Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage Shall be provided for the Stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building Site Shall be located a5 close to the
outside edge of the Floodplain Corridor aS feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek identified on the official maps
adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer.
Stream crossings Shall be designed to the standards of Chapter 15.10, or where
no floodway has been identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood without
any increase in the upstream flood height elevation. The engineer shall consider
in the design the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debris in a severe
flood, and accommodate expected overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging Shall
be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve property access, but is exempt
from the limitations in Section (A) above. Culverting or bridging of Streams
identified aS Riparian Preservation are subject to the requirements of
18.62.075.
C. Non-residential Structures Shall be flood-proof to the standards in Chapter
15.10 to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter
15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by Section
18.62.060, whichever height iS greater. Where no Specific elevations exist,then
they must be floodproofed to an elevation of ten feet above the creek channel
on Ashland, Bear or Neil Creek, to five feet above the creek channel on all other
Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.050.8; and three feet above
the Stream channel on all other drainage ways identified on the official maps.
D. All residential Structures shall be elevated so that the lowest habitable floor
shall be raised to one foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted
in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the official maps adopted by
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 9
Section 18.62.060, whichever height io greater. Where no specific elevations
exist, then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten feet above the
creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five feet above the creek
channel on all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section 18.62.05013;
and three feet above the Stream channel on all other drainage ways identified
on the official maps, or one foot above visible evidence of high flood water flow,
whichever is greater. The elevation of the finished lowest habitable floor shall be
certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be placed on other than
Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the
Floodplain corridor area,then development shall be limited to that area which
would have the shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall locate all
residential Structures outside the Corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot
is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots
that have more than 50% of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located
on that portion of the floodplain corridor that iS two feet or IeSS below the
flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the
channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek. Construction shall be subject to the
requirements in paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor
lands that equal to or above the flood elevations on the official maps adopted
in Section 18.62.060. Second story construction may be cantilevered over the
floodplain corridor for a distance of 20 feet if the clearance from finished grade
is at least ten feet in height, and is supported by pillars that will have minimal
impact on the flow of floodwaters. The finished floor elevation may not be more
than two feet below the flood corridor elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots created from lots which
contain Floodplain Corridor land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s)
which contain(S) buildable area of a sufficient size to accommodate the uses
permitted in the underling zone, unless the action is for open space or
conservation purposes. This section Shall apply even if the effect is to prohibit
further division of lots that are larger than the minimum size permitted in the
zoning ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new or existing Structures or
additions located within the Floodplain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for Storage, parking, and similar uses
are permitted for residential structures but must be flood-proofed to
the standards of Chapter 15.10.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 10
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other hazardous or toxic
chemicals is not permitted in Floodplain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within 20 feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek
designated by this chapter shall be limited to wire or electric fence,or similar
fence that will not collect debris or obstruct flood waters, but not including wire
mesh or chain link fencing. Fences shall not be constructed across any
identified riparian drainage or riparian preservation creek. Fences shall not be
constructed within any designated floodway.
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, if constructed on Floodplain Corridor
Lands and at or below the levels specified in section 18.62.070.0 and D, shall be
flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the
Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for
crossing the Corridor, and except in the Bear Creek floodplain corridor as
outlined below:
1. Public street construction may be allowed within the Bear Creek
floodplain corridor as part of development following the adopted North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan. This exception shall only be permitted for that section of
the Bear Creek floodplain corridor between North Mountain Avenue and the
Nevada Street right-of-way. The new street shall be constructed in the general
location as indicated on the neighborhood plan map, and in the area generally
described as having the shallowest potential for flooding within the corridor.
2. Proposed development that is not in accord with the North Mountain
Neighborhood Plan shall not be permitted to utilize this exception.
18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands.
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as defined in
section 18.62.050(8), shall comply with the following standards:
1. Development shall be subject to all Development 5tandards for
Floodplain Corridor Lands (18.62.070)
2. Any tree over six inches d.b.h. shall be retained to the greatest extent
feasible.
3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or utilities.
The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to the
greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation lands shall be retained.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Hillside Lands. It is the purpose of the
Development Standards for Hillside Lands to provide supplementary development regulations
to underlying zones to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as to protect the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page I1
natural and topographic character and identity of these areas, environmental re5ourcee,the
aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands, and the public health, safety, and general
welfare by insuring that development does not create soil erosion, sedimentation of lower
Slopes, slide damage,flooding problems, and severe cutting or scarring. It is the intent of
these development 5tandard5 to encourage a Sensitive form of development and to allow for a
reasonable use that complements the natural and visual character of the city.
A. General Requirements. All development Shall occur on lands defined as having
buildable area. Slopes greater than 35% shall be considered unbuildable. All newly
created lots either by Subdivision or partition shall contain a building envelope with a
Slope of 35% or less. Existing parcels without adequate buildable area less than or
equal to 35% shall be considered buildable for one unit, but cannot be Subdivided or
partitioned. Variances may be granted to this.requirement only aS provided in Section
18.62.080.1.
1. New 5treeto, flag drives, and driveways Shall be constructed on lands of
less than or equal to 35% slope with the following exceptions:
a. The street i5 indicated on the Gig's Transportation Plan Map -
Street Dedications.
b. The portion of the Street,flag drive, or driveway on land greater
than 35% slope does not exceed a length of 100 feet.
2. Geotechnical Studies. For all applications on Hillside Lando involving
Subdivisions or partitions,the following additional information is required:
A geotechnical Study prepared by a geotechnical expert indicating that the site
is stable for the proposed use and development. The Study shall include the
following information:
a. Index map.
b. Project description to include location,topography, drainage,
vegetation, discussion of previous work and discussion of field
exploration methods.
G. Site geology, based on a 5urficial survey,to include site geologic
maps,description of bedrock and 5urficial materials, including
artificial fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc..., and Structural
data including bedding,jointing and Shear zones, soil depth and
soil Structure.
Cl. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a
potential hazard to the Site, or that may be affected by on-Site
development.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 12
C. 5uitability of site for proposed development from a geologic
standpoint.
f. Specific recommendations for cut and fill Slope stability, seepage
and drainage control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic
hazards.
g. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish
whether an area to be affected by the proposed development is
Stable, additional studies and supportive data Shall include
croo5-Sections showing subsurface Structure, graphic logo with
5ub5urface exploration, results of laboratory test and references.
h. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or
geologist.
I. Additional information or analy5e5 a5 necessary to evaluate the
Site.
j. Inspection Schedule for the project a5 required in
1&.62.OSO. 3.9.a.
k. Location of all irrigation canals and major irrigation pipelines.
5. Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. All development on lands classified as
hillside shall provide plans conforming with the following items:
1. All grading, retaining wall design, drainage, and erosion control plans for
development on Hillside Lands shall be designed by a geotechnical expert. All
cuts, grading or fills 5h.911 conform to Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code.
Erosion control measures on the development Site shall be required to minimize
the 5olid5 in runoff from disturbed areas.
2. For development other than single family homes on individual lots, all
grading, drainage improvements, or other land disturbances shall only occur
from May 1 to October 31. Excavation Shall not occur during the remaining wet
months of the year. Erosion control meaoure5 Shall be installed and functional
by October 31. Up to 30 day modifications to the October 31 date, and 45 day
modification to the May 1 date may be made by the Planning Director, based
upon weather conditions and in consultation with the project geotechnical
expert. The modification of dates Shall be the minimum necessary, based upon
evidence provided by the applicant, to accomplish the necessary project goals.
3. Retention in natural state. On all projects on Hillside Lando, an area
equal to 25% of the total project area, plus the percentage figure of the
average 51ope of the total project area, shall be retained in a natural state.
Lando to be retained in a natural state shall be protected from damage
through the use of temporary construction fencing or the functional equivalent.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 13
For example, on a 12,000 sq. ft. lot with an average slope of 29%,
25%+29%=54% of the total lot area shall be retained in a natural state.
The retention in a natural state of areas greater than the minimum percentage
required here is encouraged.
4. Grading - cuts. On all cut slopes on areas classified as Hillside lands,
the following standards shall apply:
a. Cut slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type
of materials of which they are composed. Where the soil permits, limit
the total area exposed to precipitation and erosion. Steep cut slopes
shall be retained with stacked rock, retaining walls, or functional
equivalent to
control
erosion and
provide slope w-1
stability when Cut 51ope and is' a••a��� ! Slo<ked Rock
necessary. Fill 510 e Maximum // il=ul ' Of wens
p cut Slop• J'- i_
Where cut Requirements Height S J'Minimum
slopes are X •: .... . _ _,i Termx.
Width
required to 20'
be laid back Maximum 5'Maximum
Fill slap. Torma•
(1:1 Or less Height _ c Height
steep), the ` _,r, Required
Er.d..C.nh.l
slope shall be � n - y Netting Not to Scale
protected
with erosion ro For Illustration Only
control
netting or
structural equivalent installed per manufacturers specifications, and
revegetated.
b. Exposed cut slopes, such as those for streets, driveway
accesses, or yard areas, greater than seven feet in height shall be
terraced. Cut faces on a terraced section shall not exceed a maximum
height of five feet. Terrace widths shall be a minimum of three feet to
allow for the introduction of vegetation for erosion control. Total out
slopes shall not exceed a maximum vertical height of 15 feet. (See
Graphic)
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 14
The top of cut slopes not utilizing structural retaining walls shall be
located a minimum setback of one-half the height of the cut slope from
the nearest property
line.
Cut slopes for Reduce Effective Visual
structure foundations Bulk by Utilizing AM
encouraging the Stepped Foundations u
reduction of effective rr��
visual bulk, such as
split pad or stepped
footings shall be
exempted from the
height limitations of rr ,o
this section. (see _ r
Graphic)
G. Kevegetation of cut slope terraces shall include the provision of a
planting plan, introduction of top soil where necessary, and the use of
irrigation if necessary. The vegetation used for these areas shall be
native or species similar in resource value which will survive, help reduce
the visual impact of the cut slope, and assist in providing long term
slope stabilization. Trees, bush-type plantings and cascading vine-type
plantings may be appropriate.
5. Grading - fills. On all fill Slopes on lands classified as Hillside Lands,the
following standards shall apply:
a. Fill slope angles shall be determined in relationship to the type of
materials of which they are composed. Fill slopes shall not exceed a
total vertical height of 20 feet. The toe of the fill slope area not
utilizing structural retaining shall be a minimum of six feet from the
nearest property line.
b. Fill olopes ohall be.protected with an erosion control netting,
blanket or functional equivalent. Netting or blankets ohall only be uoM
in conjunction with an organic mulch such ac straw or wood fiber. The
blanket must be applied so that it is in complete contact with the soil
so that erosion doeo not occur beneath it. Erosion netting or blankets
shall be securely anchored to the slope in accordance with
manufacturers recommendations.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 15
c. Utilities. Whenever possible, utilities sha11 not be located or
installed on or in fill Slopes. When determined that it necessary to
install utilities on fill slopes, all piano Shall be designed by a geotechnical
expert.
d. Revegetation of fill slopes shall utilize native vegetation or
vegetation similar in resource value and which will survive and stabilize
the surface. Irrigation may be provided to ensure growth if necessary.
Evidence shall be required indicating long-term viability of the proposed
vegetation for the purposes of erosion control on disturbed areas.
6. Revegetation requirements. Where required by this chapter, all required
revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, signature of a required Survey plat,or other.time ao
determined by the hearing authority. Vegetation shall be installed in such a
manner as to be substantially established within one year of installation.
7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties for Erosion Control Measures.
a. Maintenance. All measures installed for the purposes of long-term
erosion control, including but not limited to vegetative cover, rock walls,
and landscaping, shall be maintained in perpetuity on all areas which
have been disturbed, including public rights-of-way. The applicant shall
provide evidence indicating the mechanisms in place to ensure
maintenance of measures.
b. Security. Except for individual lots existing prior to the July 1, 1996,
after an Erosion Control Plan is approved by the hearing authority and
prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a performance bond or
other financial guarantees in the amount of 120% of the value of the
erosion control measures necessary to stabilize the site. Any financial
guarantee instrument proposed other than a performance bond Shall be
approved by the City Attorney. The financial guarantee instrument shall
be in effect for a period of at least one year, and 6hall be released when
the Planning Director and Public Works Director determine,jointly, that
the site has been stabilized. All or a portion of the security retained by
the City may be withheld for a period up to five years beyond the one
year maintenance period if it has been determined by the City that the
site has not been sufficiently Stabilized against erosion.
8. Site Grading. The grading of a site on Hilloide Lands shall consider the
Sensitive nature of these areas. Grading plans 61hall be reviewed considering the
following factors:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 16
a. Terracing Should be designed with small incremental Steps,
avoiding wide step terracing and large areas of flat pads.
b. Retain existing grades to the greatest extent possible. Avoid an
artificial appearance by creating smooth flowing contours of varying
gradients. Avoid sharp cuts and fills and long, linear slopes that have
uniform grade.
c. Avoid hazardous or unstable portions of the site.
d. Building pads should be of minimum size to accommodate the
structure and a reasonable amount of yard space. Pads for tennis
courts, swimming pools and large lawns are discouraged. As much of
the remaining lot area as possible should be kept in the natural state of
the original slope.
9. Inspections and Final Report
a. Prior to the acceptance of a subdivision by the City, signature of
the final survey plat on partitions, or issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for individual structures,the project geotechnical expert shall
provide a final report indicating that the approved grading, drainage, and
erosion control measures were installed as per the approved plans, and
that all scheduled inspections, as per 18.62.080.A.2j were conducted
by the project geotechnical expert periodically throughout the project.
C. Surface and Groundwater Drainage. All development on Hillside Lands shall
conform to the following standards:
1. All facilities for the collection of stormwater runoff shall be required to
be constructed on the site and according to the following rec(uiremente:
a. Stormwater facilities shall include storm drain systems
associated with street construction, facilities for accommodating
drainage from driveways, parking areas and other impervicus.eurfaces,
and roof drainage systems.
b. Stormwater facilities, when part of the overall site improvements,
shall be,to the greatest extent feasible, the first improvements
constructed on the development site.
C. Stormwater facilities shall be designed to divert surface water
away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 17
d. Existing natural drainage systems shall be utilized, as much as
possible, in their natural state, recognizing the erosion potential from
increased storm drainage..
C. Flow-retarding devices, such as detention ponds and recharge
berms, shall be used where practical to minimize increases in runoff
volume and peak flow rate due to development. Each facility shall
consider the needs for an emergency overflow system to safely carry any
overflow water to an acceptable disposal point.
f. 5tormwater facilities shall be designed, constructed and
maintained in a manner that.will avoid erosion on-site and to adjacent
and downstream properties.
g. Alternate stormwater systems, such as dry well systems,
detention ponds, and leachfields, shall be designed by a registered
engineer or geotechnical expert and approved by the City's Public Works
Department or City Building Official.
D. Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal. All development on Hillside Lands
shall conform to the following requirements:
1. Inventory of Existing Trees. A tree survey at the same scale as the
project site plan shall be prepared, which locates all trees greater than six
inches d.b.h., identified by d.b.h., species, approximate extent of tree canopy. In
addition, for areas proposed to be disturbed, existing tree base elevations shall
be provided. Dead or diseased trees shall be identified. Groups of trees in
close proximity (i.e. those within five feet of each other) may be designated as a
clump of trees, with the predominant species, estimated number and average
diameter indicated. All tree surveys shall be prepared by a professional
arborist, and shall have an accuracy of plus or minus two feet. The name,
signature, and address of the site surveyor responsible for the accuracy of the
survey shall be provided on the tree survey.
Portions of the lot or project area not proposed to be disturbed by development
need not be included in the inventory.
2. Evaluation of Suitability for Conservation. All trees indicated on the
inventory of existing trees shall also be identified as to their suitability for
conservation. When required by the hearing authority, the evaluation shall be
conducted by a professional arborist. Factors included in this determination
shall include:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 18
a. Tree health. Healthy trees can better withstand the rigors of
development than non-vigorous trees.
b. Tree Structure. Trees with severe decay or 5ubotantial defects
are more likely to reoult in damage to people and property.
C. 5pecie5. 5pecie5 vary in their ability to tolerate impacts and
damage to their environment.
d. Potential longevity.
C. Variety. A variety of native tree species and ages.
f. Size. Large trees provide a greater protection for erosion and
shade than smaller trees.
3. Tree Conservation in Project Design. Significant trees (2' d.b.h. or
greater conifers and 1' d.b.h. or greater broadleaf) shall be protected and
incorporated into the project design whenever p000ible.
a. Streets,
driveways, _ Site Planning
buildings,
utilities, Responsive to
parking areas,
and other Site Tree Locations
disturbances existing Site
shall be located I. with significant
ouch that the trees I
maximum I 5ensitive develonnent . .'1
number of `' '� —I option for property
exioting treeo
on the Bite are preserved, while recognizing and following the otandard5
for fuel reduction if the development io located in Wildfire Lando.
b. Building envelopes Shall be located and Sized to preserve the
maximum number of treeo on Bite.
G. Layout of the project site utility and grading plan Shall avoid
disturbance of tree protection areao.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 19
4. Tree Protection. On •'
all properties where trees 2
are required to be d o Tree Conservation
preserved during the course I y Guideline
of development,the
developer shall follow the
following tree protection B
Protective Fencing
standards: d should be secured by
PIP 0 metal stake or equivalent a. All trees
deli nated for
Flag
gin in r�
Dri Ine 10o'm'tlL
g To Hi li [
conservation shall P tents e�vku 4'minimam fence height
Area
be clearly marked on "a
the project site.
Prior to the start of - A bona 3'Protection
i Area—Hand Excavate
any clearing, fly-No Heavy
stripping, Dripline Fence Demeter Equipment or Perking
stockpiling,
trenching,grading, compaction, paving or change in ground elevation,the
applicant shall install fencing at the drip line of all trees to be preserved
adjacent to or in the area to be altered. Temporary fencing shall be
established at the perimeter of the
dripline. Prior to grading or issuance of ----'Prune
any permits, the Tree Canopy '
fences may be inspected and their location ;r
approved by the Staff Advisor. (see
graphic)
b. Construction site activities, including but not limited to parking,
material storage, soil compaction and concrete washout, shall be
arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protection areas.
C. No grading, stripping, compaction; or significant change in ground
elevation shall be permitted within the drip line of trees designated for
conservation unless indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the
City, and professional arborist. If grading or construction is approved
within the dripline, a professional arborist may be required to be present
during grading operations, and shall have authority to require protective
measures to protect the roots.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage within tree protection
areas shall be minimized. Excessive site run-off shall be directed to
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 20
appropriate storm drain facilities and away from trees designated for
conservation.
C. Should encroachment into a tree protection area occur which
causes irreparable damage, as determined by a professional arborist,to
trees, the project plan Shall be revised to compensate for the loss.
Under no circumstances Shall the developer be relieved of responsibility
for compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
5. Tree Removal. Development Shall be designed to preserve the maximum
number of trees on a site, when balanced with other provisions of this chapter.
When justified by findings of fact, the hearing authority may approve the
removal of trees for one or more of the following conditions:
a. The tree is located within the building envelope.
b. The tree i5 located within a proposed street,driveway, or parking
area.
C. The tree is located within a water, sewer, or other public utility
easement.
d. The tree is determined by a professional arborist to be dead or
diseased, or it constitutes an unacceptable hazard to life or property
when evaluated by the standards in 18.62.080.0.2.
C. The tree is located within or adjacent to areas of cuts or fills
that are deemed threatening to the life of the tree, a5 determined by a
professional arborist.
6. Tree Replacement. Trees approved for removal, with the exception of
trees removed because they were determined to be diseased, dead,or a hazard,
Shall be replaced in compliance with the following standards:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 21
a. Replacement Tree Planting
trees shall be
indicated on a tree Guideline
replanting plan.
Replacement trees
Shall be of similar 6• r""d tllr*
resource value as SWke any Mtrce L3.01a
the trees removed. `°'tUk,.I v.
and stake as by m poeslbb
The replanting plan o h.ro-m Mcatake.
C&W W plan ,area eh.W W M
shall include all V. he eze ofd roothaa.and.n'
locations for na bW eau ah0IM be uea fx M
Aloud s67hty m rattaN water.
replacement trees, i
and shall also , 556E tap cf rootbao A orovd lad.
indicate tree ;;-:; „ Free bvlap f.t k.and
planting details. H - keep kbw grade
Set tree an aovdgwd
b. Replacement _
trees shall be -
planted such that
the trees result in canopy equal to or greater than the tree canopy
present prior to development of the property. The canopy shall be
designed to mitigate of the impact of paved and developed areas, reduce
surface erosion and increase slope stability.. Replacement tree
locations shall consider impact on the wildfire prevention and control
plan. The hearing authority shall have the discretion to adjust the
proposed replacement tree canopy based upon site-opecific evidence and
testimony.
G. The hearing authority may, instead of requiring replacement
trees, require implementation of a revegetation plan. This plan may be
substituted in heavily forested areas or in areas determined to be
appropriate as determined by a professional arborist and approved by
the hearing authority. The developer ohall be required to enter into a
written agreement with the City obligating the developer to comply with
the requirements of the revegetation program. A-security deposit, not
exceeding the cost of the revegetation plan implementation, may be
required to ensure that the agreement is fulfilled.
d. Maintenance of replacement trees ohall be the responsibility of
the property owner. Required replacement trees ohall be continuously
maintained in a healthy manner. Trees that die within the first five
years after initial planting must be replaced in kind, after which a new
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 22
five year replacement period Shall begin. Replanting must occur within
30 days of notification unless otherwise noted.
7. Enforcement.
a. All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree
removal and replacement plan. No trees designated for conservation
shall be removed without prior approval of the City of Ashland.
b. Should the developer or developers agent remove or destroy any
tree that has been designated for conservation, the developer may be
fined up to three times the current appraised value of the replacement
trees and cost of replacement or up to three times the current market
value, as established by a professional arborist, whichever is greater.
G. Should the developer or developers agent damage any tree that
has been designated for protection and conservation,the developer shall
be penalized $50.00 per scar. If necessary, a professional arborist's
report, prepared at the developer's expense, may be required to
determine the extent of the damage. Should the damage result in loss
of appraised value greater than determined above,the higher of the two
values shall be used.
E. Building Location and Design Standards. All buildings and buildable areas
proposed for Hillside Lands shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the
following standards:
1. Building Envelopes. All newly
LIT LINES created lots, either by subdivision or
� partition, shall contain building
[EAR, YARD LINE) envelopes conforming to the following
ReAR. OUILGADI.R I standards:
C
Y^MP I ARE4 L YAFLD G
SRTpKC YY IG^I
' a. The building envelope
601LDING shall contain a buildable area
COVEF'ldE with a slope of 35% or less.
I\ b. Building envelopes and
OUILpING LINE
I I lot design shall address the
FRONT "—"—� retention of a percentage of
YARD NES'I FARO LI p
�LGT6KK� , 6SeTB.KK LINES I REGL"o' the lot in a natural state as
I FRONT YARD required in 18.62.080.8.3.
ST F_F_ E7 .. F_-0.W-
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 23
C. Building envelopes shall be designed and located to maximize tree
conservation ao required in 18.62.080.0.3.
d. Building envelope Retention of hillside
locations shall be located to character and natural
avoid ridgeline exposures, and slope by avoiding
designed s locati
uch that the roofline i n
locations
of a building within the envelope
does not project above the
ridgeline.
2. Building Design. To reduce the vioual bulk of structures from public
rights-of-way, buildings on Hilloide Lands, excepting those lands within the
designated Historic District, shall incorporate the following into the building
design and indicate features on required building permits:
a. Hillside Building Height. The height of all structures ohall be
measured vertically from the natural grade to the uppermost point of
the roof edge or peak,wall, parapet,
mansard, or other feature perpendicular
to that grade. Maximum Hilloide '*0"
Building Height ohall be 30 feet. (see %N
graphico) Permitted 0aO
i N%w
b. Cut buildingo into hilloideo to ��� (Y
reduce effective vioual bulk. J39
(1). Split pad or otepped
footingo shall be incorporated
into building design to allow the
otructure to more clooely follow the olope.
(2). Reduce building maoo by utilizing-below grade rooms cut
into the natural slope.
c. A building otepback shall be Not N\\"ANe�rw
required on all downhill building walla permitted II --toW,
greater than 20 feet in height, as
NsWre\
measured above natural grade. pe
Stepbacko ohall be a minimum of six
feet. No vertical walla on the downhill
elevationo of new buildingo ohall
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 24
exceed a maximum height of 20 feet above natural grade. (see
graphic) i JI
d. Continuous horizontal building
planes shall not exceed a maximum length
of 36 feet. Planes longer than 36 feet
shall include a minimum offset of six feet.
(see graphic)
C. Roof forms and roof lines for new I ��
structures should be broken into a series 6'Minimum� ortg� 36' f
of smaller building components to reflect \ Maximum —
the irregular forms of the surrounding
hillside. Long, linear unbroken roof lines
are discouraged. Large gable ends on
downhill elevations shall be
avoided, however smaller i
gables may be permitted. NO5�N60 c
(see graphic)
i
f. Roofs of lower floor / �Orient;izoof Nam ra\
/ 510pe with the aA0
levels may be used to / Hllleidc
provide deck or outdoor
/
space for upper floor levels.
The use of overhanging Hsx
decks with vertical supports 30 20' Minimum
in excess of 12 feet on 5tepback
6'
downhill elevations shall be
avoided.
g. Color selection for new structures shall be coordinated with the
predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast
between the structure and the natural environment. This provision Shall
only apply to new dwelling units constructed on Hillside Lands. Color
selection requirements shall be recorded as a covenant on the property,
Color selection requirements shall be recorded as a covenant at the time
of final survey plat for all subdivisions and partitions for new lots on
Hillside Lands.
F. Any development or partitioning which is proposed Hillside Lands must be shown
on a master plan at the time the final plan or plat is filed. All development
must comply with the master plan. Any improvements necessary for the
implementation of the master plan (e.g., storm drains and gutters), which
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 25
involve two or more parcels of land must be constructed by the applicant prior
to any development occurring on the parcels.
G. All structures on Hillside Lands Shall have foundations which have been
designed by an engineer or architect with demonstrable geotechnical design
experience.
H. All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must include a
building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area less than 35% slope
of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone,
unless the division or lot line adjustment is for open space or conservation
purposes.
I. Administrative Variance From Development Standards for Hillside Lands -
16.62.080. A variance under this section is not subject to the variance requirements
of section 18.100 and may be granted with respect to the development standards for
Hillside Lands if all of the following circumstances are found to exist:
1. There is demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements of
this chapter due to a unique or unusual aspect of the site or proposed use of the site•,
2. The variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources
protected under this chapter,
3. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty, and
4. The variance is consistent with the stated Purpose and Intent of the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter and section 16.62.080.
Appeals of decisions involving administrative variances shall be processed as outlined in
18.108.070.
1862.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands.
A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance 5tandards Developments,or
Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission
of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance
Standards Development, preliminary plat of a subdivision, or application
to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard
areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to
the Fire Chief within 3 days of the receipt of a completed application.
The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and
submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days before
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 26
the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chiefs report Shall be a part of the
record of the Planning Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the
development plans, shall include the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as
influenced by existing vegetation and topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying,
or severely diseased vegetation.
G. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the
interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that
are to be preserved and removed on each lot. In the case of
heavily forested parcels,only trees scheduled for removal shall be
shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are
required to be installed around each structure, as required by
18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access and
fire suppression activities, including the 51ope of all roads and
driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan when, in addition to the findings required by
this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards
present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree,
balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of
trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
5. The hearing authority may require, through the impooition of conditions
attached to the approval,the following requirements as deemed
appropriate for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a
formal plan for such thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load.
C. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of wildfire
and improve the chances of successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the
public improvements required of a subdivision or Performance Standards
Development, and shall be considered part of the subdivider's obligations
for land development. The Plan shall be implemented prior to the
issuance of any building permit for structures to be located on lots
created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards
developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 27
designee, Shall inspect and approve the implementation of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff
Advisor that the Plan was completed as approved by the hearing
authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for
the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan Shall be
included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of
such covenants, restrictions, and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible for
maintaining the property in accord with the requirements of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
B. Recluirement5 for construction of all structures.
1. All new construction and any construction expanding the size of an
existing structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" i5 defined as an area which is free of dead or dying
vegetation, and has native, fast-burning species sufficiently thinned so
that there is no interlocking canopy of this type of vegetation. Where
necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes,the fuel break may
be planted in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel break does
not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks"
may include structures, and Shall not limit distance between Structures
and residences beyond that required by other 5ection5 of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be installed, maintained
and Shall extend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever
is less, in all directions around 5tructure5, excluding fences, on the
property. The goal within this area is to remove ground cover that will
produce flame lengths in excess of one foot. Such a fuel break shall be
increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in Slope over 10%. Adjacent
property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the development of
primary fuel breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will be installed,
maintained and Shall extend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary
fuel break where Surrounding landscape i5 owned and under the control
of the property owner during construction. The goal of the secondary
fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall intensity of any wildfire
i5 reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with ClaoS B or better
non-wood roof coverings, a5 determined by the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands
area for which at least 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall
be done under approval of a zoning permit. No structure shall be
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 28
constructed or re-roofed with wooden Shingles, shakes, wood-product
material or other combustible roofing material, aS defined in the City1S
building code.
C. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lando Shall be
included in the erosion control measures outlined in Section 18.62.080.
D. Implementation.
1. For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A. (6)
above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of construction with combustible materials.
2. For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section
(B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of
construction with combustible materials on the lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991)
3. AS of November 1, 1994, existing residences in Subdivisions developed
outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to
amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the
requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 13.5.
above. All new residences shall comply with all standards for new
construction in section 18.62.090 B.
4. 5ubdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to
November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary
amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire
Prevention and Control Plans outlined in Section 18.62.090 A. (Ord
2747, 1994)
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely Sensitive to development,grading, filling,
or vegetation removal and, whenever possible, alternative development should be
considered.
B. Development of floodwayo iS not permitted except for bridges and road
crossings. Such crossings Shall be designed to pass the 100 year flood without
raising the upstream flood height more than six inches.
C. Development on lands greater than 35% slope shall meet all requirements of
Section 18.62.080 in addition to the requirements of this Section.
C. Development of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when
the following study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study
approved by the Gig`s Public Works Director and Planning Director establishes
that the site is Stable for the proposed use and development. The Study Shall
include the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location, topography, drainage, vegetation,
discussion of previous work and discuooion of field exploration methods.
3. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include Site geologic maps,
description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill,
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 29
locations of any faults, folds, etc., and Structural data including bedding,
jointing and Shear zones, soil depth and soil Structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential
hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-Site development.
5. Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut Slope stability, Seepage and drainage
control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether an
area to be affected by the proposed development is stable, additional
studies and supportive data Shall include cross-sections Showing
subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration, results
of laboratory test and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer and/or geologist.
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site.
18.62.110 Density Transfer. Density may be transferred.out.of unbuildable areas to-buildable
areas of a lot provided the following standards are met:
A. Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer shall be processed under
F erformance Standards, Chapter 18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area to which the density
will be transferred.
C. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on the area from which
densityio transferred.
D. Density may not be transferred from one ownership to another but only within
the lot(S) owned by the same person.
E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots under common ownership.
F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased to more than two (2)
times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units are to be
rounded down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1989)
18.62.130 Penalties. The following Sections are in addition to the enforcement actions that
may be taken and penalties which may be imposed in chapter 18.112 for a violation of this
chapter:
A. Whenever any work iS being done contrary to the provisions of this chapter or
whenever erosion control measures,tree protection measures, wildfire control
measures, or floodplain corridor development measures are not being properly
maintained or are not functioning properly due to faulty installation or neglect, the
director of community development or the director's designee, may order the work
stopped by notice in writing Served on any persons engaged in the doing or causing of
Such work to be done, and any Such persons shall immediately Stop work until
authorized by the director or designee to proceed with the work.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 30
B. All development under this chapter and all work or construction for which a
permit is required under this chapter shall be subject o inspection by the director of
community development or the director's designee. When an inspection is made under
this section or when it is necessary to make an inspection to enforce this code, or
when the director or designee has reasonable cause to believe that there exists upon
Hillside Lands a condition which is contrary to or in violation of this chapter which
makes the premises unsafe, dangerous or hazardous, the director or designee may
enter the premises at reasonable times to inspect or to perform the duties imposed by
this chapter. The director or designee ohall first make a reasonable effort to locate
the owner or other person having charge of the premises and request entry.
C. The City may refuse to accept any development permit application, may revoke
or suspend any development or building permit, or may deny occupancy on the property
until erosion control measures, tree protection measures, wildfire control measures, or
floodplain corridor development measures have been installed properly and are
maintained in accordance with the requirements of this chapter.
D. The owner of the property from which erosion occurs due to failure or neglect of
erosion control measures,together with any person or parties who cause such erosion
shall be responsible to mitigate the impacts of the erosion and prevent future erosion.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
City Council Adopted Version - Second Reading (2.4) September 16, 1997
Page 31
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE
ELECTION HELD IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON, ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997.
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland met on the 7th day of October, 1997, at
the City of Ashland's Civic Center and proceeded to canvass the vote cast at
the election held in and for the City of Ashland on the 16th day of September
1997.
B. The Council has canvassed the vote and has determined the number of votes
for the measure as follows:
15-62 Ashland Youth Activities Three-Year Yes 4.150
Serial Levy No 1.631
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Measure 15-62 which posed the following question is declared to have
passed: "Shall City levy $1,100,000 per year for three years outside the tax base for
operations beginning in 1997-98? This measure may cause property taxes to increase
more than three percent. The proposed tax is to be imposed for three years."
This resolution was read by tale only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code
§2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of October , 1997.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11997.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
PAGE 1 - RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE
ABSTRACT ELECTION REPORT
rOTI FOR ALL PICKUPS
Special Election - Jackson County
September 16, 1997
i T C P M Y N
Logical Page # 01-01 u u e e e o
r r r a s
n r c s
o e e
u n n 1
t t t 5
T R V 6
h e o 2
1 g t
e i i Y
e n o
E t g u
1 r t
e a h
c t
t i A
1 O c
o n t
n i
I
City Of Ashland
1 Ashland 935 1603 58.3 682 249
2 Ashland 750 1370 54.7 553 185
4 Ashland 772 1529 50.5 548 215
5 Ashland 768 1588 48.4 560 205
9 Ashland 647 1627 39.8 504 139
10 SOU 21 186 11.3 21
it Ashland 794 1474 53.9 554 226
12 Ashland 784 1517 51.7 538 236
13 Ashland 369 718 51.4 190 176 1 1 F
TOTALS: 5840 11612 50.3 4150 1631
Per Ballot Measure#50 criteria, voter turnout was 55.3`%.
1 dertity IFte votes recorded on this abstract correctly Signature of county dark Date of abstract
rite the tally of votes cast at the election
Wlicat
lndkated. 9-,,7 - 97
ABSTRACT OF VOTES AT GENERAL AND ABSTRAOf OF V ES AT PRIMARY ELECTIONS
SPECIAL ELECTIONS
Separate sheets for Democratic,Republican, Nonpartisan and other
Votes cast for governor must be on separate candidates.
page or pages.
Separate sheets for cancridates for dry,county(including precinct)and state
offices.
I R: 0 C ), A A4 1 0 A)
1, Catherine M. Golden, Mayor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, do proclaim that
, ...,th
at the election held in the City of Ashland,P0 regon iX on 16th day of September
1997, there was subrnifted.16 thwvot6rgl.a measure posing the q6ttion: "Shall City
X:
levy $1,100,000 per year f three years outside r er% ti ns. eginning
, or ree ye
... ........
in 1997-98? This measure. may cause properly taxes to rncrease morehan three
percent. The proposed tax is.to be imposed measure is
declared to have passed with voter.,..tUrnout being g.. red:5GO/o,
Dated at Ashland, Oregon, tfirs day of October , 1997 ,L
C
brine Mayor
ay r
PAGE 1-PROCLAMATION (s:kco nciftproc-elac.997)
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE
OREGON LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PACKAGE
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, lack of adequate funding has crippled the ability of Oregon governments,
at all levels, to provide badly needed street and highway infrastructure maintenance
and improvements; and
WHEREAS, growth and other external factors have left the City of Ashland, like many
other cities, with a growing backlog of unfunded projects, contributing to increased
congestion and potential gridlock; and
WHEREAS, the Honorable John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon, on behalf of all
Oregonians, has continually advocated adequate statewide transportation funding as a
priority issue; and
WHEREAS, urgently needed funding for the streets and highways of Oregon's cities
and counties should not be held hostage to partisan politics; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland supports the development of a uniform transportation
funding package originating at a statewide level; and
WHEREAS, failure to develop a uniform transportation funding program will result in
piecemeal and patchwork °solutions" stretching to the four corners of this state.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Honorable John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of Oregon, move posthaste to
convene a Special Session of the Oregon Legislature to develop an acceptable
transportation funding package; and
That any such transportation funding package specifically include consideration of
additional statewide motor fuel tax; and — Y},�r�S��CiJVh Tl(-
3. That Ashland's own Legislative Delegation, District 26 Senator Lenn Hannon and , G
District 52 Representative Judy Uherbelau, lend their support and cooperation to the
effort to convene a productive Special Session for this purpose; and
RESOLUTION ENDORSING A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE OREGON LEGISLATURE TO DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE TRANSPORTATION
FUNDING PACKAGE-Pop I
I
4. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the above-named Governor and
Legislators; and
5. That the City of Ashland encourages other cities and counties to enact similar
resolutions emphasizing the importance of transportation funding issues statewide.
The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council of Ashland on the _ day of , 1997.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 11997.
Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
4
Paul Nolte, City Attorney
I lArm(Aunitre fun
I
RESOLU77ON ENDORSING A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE OREGON U3GL4IAT[EUi TO DEVELOP AN ACCEFN'AEIBTRANSPORTA77
I� FUNDING PACKAGE-page 2
1
I
HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT
FOR THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Lease made this 20th day of June, 1997, between the City of Ashland ("City") and the
Oregon Wing of the Civil Air Patrol, Inc., an auxiliary of the United States Air Force
("Lessee").
RECITALS:
A. City is the owner of the Ashland Municipal Airport (further referred to in this lease as
"the airport".)
B. Lessee desires to lease a portion of the airport for the purposes described below.
City and Lessee agree:
1. Description of leased premises. City shall lease to Lessee that portion of the airport
described in the attached Exhibit "A". Unless from the context a different meaning is
intended, the term "property" refers to unimproved real property, and the term
"premises" refers to the real property and any improvements located or constructed for
use during the term of this lease
2. Term. The term of this lease is five years, commencing at 12:01 A.M. on the 1st day
of July, 1997.
3. Rental to City. Lessee agrees to pay to the City during the term of this agreement,
the following sums and amounts:
3.1. The sum of $1.00 per year payable in advance.
3.2. In addition, it is understood and agreed that at the termination of this lease,
or any subsequent lease, the hangar presently owned by the Lessee and on the
property will be removed by Lessee.
4. Purpose. The Lessee shall use the premises solely for purposes related to or arising
out of Civil Air Patrol's three missions: Emergency services, aerospace education, the
cadet program, and any activity in support of federal, state and local agencies.
4.1. Use of hanoar. The hangar on the property shall house only items licensed
to, leased by or owned by the Civil Air Patrol, such as aircraft equipment and supplies
related to the above purposes.
4.2. Radio. Lessee may maintain and operate such radio equipment as it deems
necessary to function as a search and rescue and training facility, provided that all
radio equipment is operated under the rules of the FCC, FAA, and the rules of the City
of Ashland as they may now exist or hereinafter be adopted.
PAGE 1-HANGAR LEASE (a:airporficao-921m)
4.3. Commercial activities prohibited. Lessee shall not engage in any
commercial activities, but may perform maintenance on its own planes and equipment.
4.4. Competition with FBO prohibited. Lessee shall not engage in any activities
that are in competition with activities permitted any fixed base operator by its lease
with the City of Ashland, unless otherwise permitted by this lease.
4.5. Fund-raising prohibited. Lessee shall not engage in fund-raising activities of
any kind whatsoever on the property or at the airport without the written consent of
the City first being given in advance.
Violation of any of the provisions of this paragraph will result in the Lessee being
subject to forfeiture of the lease.
4.6. Storage of fuel prohibited. Lessee shall not store aviation fuel or other
flammables on the premises.
5. Insurance. Lessee shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during
the term of this agreement, at Lessee's sole expense, the following insurance:
5.1. Comprehensive insurance. Comprehensive general liability insurance
protecting City and its officers, agents and employees against any and all liabilities that
may allegedly in any way relate to the operation by Lessee, this insurance to be in the
minimum amount of $500,000, combined single limit coverage.
5.2. Additional insureds. All policies shall include the City, its officers,
commissions, elected officials, employees and agents as additional insureds.
5.3. Insurance certificate. A certificate evidencing such insurance coverage shall
be filed with the City prior to the effective date of this agreement, and such certificate
shall provide that such insurance coverage may not be canceled or reduced or
changed in any way adverse to the City without at least 30 days prior written notice to
the City. The policy shall be continuous until canceled as stated above. If such
insurance coverage is canceled or changed, Lessee shall, not later than 15 days prior
to the termination or change in the insurance coverage, file with the City a certificate
showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another
insurance company or companies. In the event Lessee shall fail to furnish the City with
the certificate of insurance required, City may secure the required insurance or
self-insure at the sole cost and expense of Lessee, and Lessee agrees to reimburse
City promptly for the cost, plus ten percent of the cost for City administration.
6. Indemnification. Lessee shall keep, indemnify and defend and hold harmless City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits,
judgments, costs, and expenses, including attorney's fees asserted by any person or
persons, including agents or employees of the City or Lessee, by reason of death or
injury to persons or loss or damage to property that allegedly results from Lessee's
PAGE 2-HANGAR LEASE (a:airporrzea-921w)
operations, or anything done or permitted by Lessee under this agreement, except for
the extent attributed to acts or omissions of City of its officers, agents or employees.
7. Compliance with laws. The Lessee shall comply with all State and Federal rules,
including but not limited to, the effluent standards or prohibitions established under
Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for Toxic Pollutants.
7.1. Compliance with minimum standards. Lessee shall comply with the
"Minimum Standards at Ashland Municipal Airport, Ashland, Oregon" adopted by the
City Council on January 4, 1990 (further referred to in this agreement as "the minimum
standards") as they now exist or as they may be changed in the future.
7.2. Noise Impact. Due consideration for the noise impact on the community
surrounding the airport will be given by the Lessee in the selection of aircraft and
related activities, all in accord with the laws, rules and regulations and ordinances of
the City of Ashland as they now exist or as they may be changed in the future.
7.3. Conflicting Standards. In the event the above standards conflict with the
provisions of the City or other applicable local, state or Federal regulatory agency, the
most restrictive standard shall be applied.
8. Lessee compliance with environmental laws.
8.1. Definition of "hazardous material'. As used in this paragraph, the term
"hazardous material" means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste,
including, but not limited to, those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the
United States Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. §
172.101) or by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous
substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205,
466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and such other
substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup authority
under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means those laws cited in this
subparagraph.
8.2. Lessee's compliance with laws and permits. Lessee shall cause the leased
property and all operations conducted on the leased property (including operations by
any subtenants) to comply with all environmental laws.
8.3. Limitation on uses of hazardous materials. Lessee shall not use or allow
any agents, contractors or subtenants to use the leased property to generate,
manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle, recycle, release or dispose of any
hazardous materials, other than at reasonably necessary for the operation of Lessee's
activities as contemplated under this agreement.
8.4. City's Rights. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections
and investigations of the leased property and the operations conducted on the leased
PAGE 3-HANGAR LEASE (a:eirvomao-921m)
property at any time and from time to time, and Lessee shall cooperate fully with City
during such inspections and investigations.
8.5. Indemnification. Lessee agrees to defend (with counsel approved by City),
fully indemnify, and hold entirely free and harmless City from and against all claims,
judgments, damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without
limitation, diminution in value of the leased property, damages for the loss or
restriction on the use of rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the leased
property, damages arising from any adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid
in settlement of claims, attorneys' fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which arise
during or after the lease term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted
against City by reason or on account of, or in connection with, or arising out of
Lessee's generation, manufacture, use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage,
or disposal of hazardous materials, or any release of hazardous materials as a result
of Lessee's use or activities, or of Lessee's agents, contractors, or subtenants.
9. Federalpreeminence. All rights, privileges and liabilities imposed by this agreement
are subject and subordinate to any conditions, restrictions, limitations, rules,
regulations or future requirements for modification of this agreement, by any
agreement or contract pertaining to the airport between the United States Government
or any other department or agency of either the United States Government or the
State of Oregon.
10. Minority Business Plan. The Lessee agrees to the terms and conditions of the
City's adopted Minority Business Plan currently in effect with the FAA and to be
amended from time to time as required by the FAA.
11. Termination. This agreement shall be terminated upon the following conditions:
11.1. Termination by Lessee. This agreement shall be subject to termination by
Lessee in the event of any one or more of the following events:
11.1.1. The abandonment of the airport as an airport or airfield by the
City.
11.1.2. The default by the City in the performance of any of the terms,
covenants or conditions of this agreement, and for the failure to continue for a
period of 30 days after receipt of notice from Lessee concerning the default,
provided that if the remedy takes longer than 30 days, then the term of notice
i
shall be so extended.
11.1.3. Damage to or destruction of all or a material portions of the
airport, and which are necessary for the operation of Lessee's business, and
election by City not to replace such improvements within six months after
destruction.
t
f
PAGE 4-HANGAR LEASE (aafipomoaa-ez.Lw)
11.1.4. The lawful assumption by the United States, or any authorized
agent of the operation, control, or use of the airport, or any substantial part or
parts, in such a manner as to substantially restrict Lessee from conducting
business operations for a period in excess of 90 days.
11.1.5. Any modification of the terms of this lease required as a result of
paragraph 9.
11.2. Termination by City. This agreement shall be subject to termination by City
in the event of any one or more of the following events:
11.2.1. Failure to pay the basic or percentage fee or failure to pay any
money due to the City as set forth in this agreement.
11.2.2. The default by Lessee in the performance of any of the terms,
covenants or conditions of this agreement, provided that City gives Lessee
written notice of the default, with reasonable particularity, and Lessee fails to
cure such default within 30 days. However, if the default is of such a nature that
it cannot be cured within 30 days, Lessee shall be deemed to have remedied
the default if Lessee commences action to remedy the default in 30 days and
thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the
remedy as soon as practicable.
11.2.3. The filing of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, including a
reorganization plan, or filing in Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Act, and general
or other assignment for the benefit of creditors, or as adjudicated as bankrupt
or if a receiver is appointed for the property or affairs of Lessee.
11.2.4. The failure to conduct the business or to perform any duty
required in section 4.
11.2.5. If at any time during the term of this lease, the Lessee ceases to
be active and to carry on the functions described in this lease at the airport,
and specifically on the premises and to the full extent as is presently being
done then the City shall have the right to immediately terminate this lease.
12. Affirmative Action Program. The Lessee assures that it will undertake an affirmative
action program as required by 14 CFR Part 152, sub-part E, to insure that no person
shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, age, national origin or sex, be excluded
from participating in any employment activities covered in 14 CFR, Part 152, sub-part
E. The Lessee assures that no person shall be excluded on these grounds from
participating in or receiving the services or benefits of any program or activity covered
by the sub-part. The Lessee assures that it will require that its covered
sub-organizations will provide assurances to the City that they similarly will undertake
affirmative action programs and that they will require assurances from their
sub-organizations as required by 14 CFR, Part 152, sub-part E to the same effect.
PAGE 5-HANGAR LEASE (a:airvomcea-921w)
1
I ,
13. Public Facilities. The Lessee shall also have a non-exclusive right to use, in
common with others, all public airport facilities and improvements of a public nature
which are now, or may in the future be connected with, appurtenant to, landing,
taxiing, parking areas, and other public use facilities.
14. Airport Closure. The City may choose to do construction work or maintenance
work on portions of the airport and accordingly the City may, when reasonably
necessary, close the airport so that the Lessee will be required to temporarily suspend
activities, and will not have ingress and egress to its operation. Except in cases of
i emergency, City shall give Lessee 30 days notice of such closure.
15. Improvements alterations. maintenance:
15.1. Alterations or Improvements. Lessee may-not make alterations or
improvements without the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Prior to any construction, construction plans must be approved
by the City in writing as to the physical and aesthetic design, site location, color,
landscape design, parking, and land use. All alterations or improvements that Lessee
may desire to make to the premises shall be done by Lessee and at the expense of
Lessee. The term "improvements" means any buildings, structures, or facilities placed
or erected on the property. All such work shall be done in a good and workmanlike
manner in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and ordinances.
15.2. Ownership of Improvements. Title to all improvements of a permanent
nature shall be the property of the Lessee. Lessee shall remove all improvements
upon expiration or termination of the lease.
15.3. Maintenance and Repair. Lessee shall be responsible for maintaining and
repairing the premises and every part thereof, including but not limited to the
foundations, exterior roofs, and structural aspects of the premises. Lessee shall be
responsible for Lessee's use and its employees', agents', or invitees' use of the
premises. Lessee shall, at the expiration of termination of this agreement, surrender
the premises in as good order and condition as when received, reasonable wear and
tear, damage from the elements, fire, acts of God or other casualty excepted. Lessee
shall be responsible and shall pay for all damage or injury done to the premises by
Lessee or any person who may be in or on the premises with the consent of Lessee.
i 15.4. Upkeep. Lessee shall keep the leased premises and buildings under its
control clean and in a neat condition. The premises shall be kept in good repair, free
of waste material and debris. Landscaping shall be maintained and properly watered in
a reasonable fashion.
I City reserves the right to conduct periodic on-site inspections to insure compliance
with this paragraph.
j
I PAGE 6-HANGAR LEASE (v:afrpomcepsz.lse)
16. Damaoe or destruction:
16.1. Proceeds and Repairs. If the improvements are damaged or destroyed by
fire or other casualty, Lessee shall be required to repair and reconstruct the property
and improvements or remove remaining improvements and debris and restore the site
to its original condition. If Lessee elects the latter, this lease shall terminate 30 days
after Lessee makes such election.
Repairs, reconstruction, removal or restoration shall be accomplished by Lessee with
all reasonable dispatch subject to interruptions and delays from labor disputes and
matters beyond the control of Lessee. Nothing contained in this provision is intended
to excuse Lessee's duty to repair pursuant to paragraph 15.3.
17. Utilities. Lessee shall make provision for and pay service and connection charges
on all utilities. All utilities shall be underground and the location of any utilities off the
leased premises shall be only as approved by the City in writing. Nothing contained
herein shall be construed as a representation by the City that a septic tank permit can
be acquired from the County Health Office, nor does the City bind itself to make
available sufficient land to the Lessee for septic tank and drain field purposes.
18. Assignment. Lessee shall not assign, partially assign, or sublet the premises and,
in the event any such assignment, partial assignment, or sublease is made, this lease
may be immediately terminated by the City.
19. Default. The following shall be events of default:
19.1. Rent Delinquency. Delinquency in the payment of rent in excess of ten
days beyond the rental due date unless specifically extended in writing by City.
19.2. Noncompliance. Failure of Lessee to substantially comply with any term or
condition or fulfill any obligation of this agreement (other than the payment of rent or
other charges within ten days) after written notice by City specifying the nature of the
default with reasonable particularity. If the default is of such a nature that it cannot be
completely remedied within the thirty day period, this provision shall be complied with
if Lessee begins correction of the default within the thirty day period and thereafter
proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as
practicable.
19.3. Liens. Failure to remove any lien or encumbrance placed upon the
premises, except that Lessee may in good faith object, on behalf of the City or itself, to
the validity or amount of any lien and may contest the validity or amount of the lien,
provided City's interest in the premises is not jeopardized.
19.4. Other events of default: The occurrence of any of the following events:
19.4.1. The making by Lessee of any general arrangement or
assignment for the benefit of creditors;
PAGE 7-HANGAR LEASE (p:eirpoftap•921m)
II
19.4.2. Lessee's becoming a "debtor" as defined in 11 U.S.C.§101
or any successor statute thereto (unless, in the case of a petition filed
against Lessee, the same is dismissed within sixty days);
i
19.4.3. The appointment of a trustee or receiver to take
possession of substantially all of Lessee's assets located at the premises
or of Lessee's interest in this agreement, where possession is not
restored to Lessee within thirty days; or
19.4.4. The attachment, execution of other judicial seizure of
substantially all of Lessee's assets located at the premises or of Lessee's
interest in this agreement, where such seizure is not discharged.within
thirty days; provided, however, in the event that any provision of this
subparagraph is contrary to any applicable law, such provision shall be
of no force or effect, and not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions.
LESSEE: Civil Air Patrol CITY OF ASHLAND:
Oregon Wing
By: o- By:
Its: Oregon wing comma n at,r Mayor
By: By:
Its: City Recorder
I
I
Approved as ,,to /Form
`-�/�� ✓
Richard H. Mills, Lt Col, CAP
Oregon Wing Legal Officer
i
t
I
(I PAGE 8-HANGAR LEASE (a:eirpomcaa-92.L")
i
Appendix A
T.
T T T T
: • TTTT T ��.
TT T
-IX \�
:
T T T �s
T T T GI
WAN
: : : . . : . :
T T T
T T 1 T li C.A. P. ;
TT1 T � Ilcn
I
CITY OF ASHLAND
T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CITY OF ASHLAND, (CITY) RENTER: Steve Gies
20 E. Main St. Address: 652 So. Valley View Rd.
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
(503) 482-3211 FAX: (503) 488-5311 Telephone: 541-488-55340 (wk.)
488-2273
Date of this agreement: 111. T-Hangar Number: #5 Open
September 29, 1997 1 Aircraft Tail No: #N 7035E
112. Monthly Rental Fee: $121 13. Commencement date: 10/01 97
T-Hangar Rental Agreement made on the date specified above by the City of Ashland and
the person named above as Renter.
City and Renter agree:
1. Description of premises. City rents to Renter the T-Hangar described above ("the
premises") located at the Ashland Municipal Airport ("airport").
2. Rental Fees. Renter shall pay a monthly rental fee in the amount set forth above. The
rental fee is subject to periodic adjustment at the option of the City and is payable at the
office of the fixed based operator, monthly in advance, on the first day of each month. Any
fee required of Renter by this agreement shall, if not paid within 10 days after it is due, bear
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date until paid.
3. Term. The term of this rental agreement is month-to-month beginning on the date set
forth above.
4. Use of Premises. Except as provided in this paragraph, the premises shall be used only
for the storage of aircraft owned by Renter. Other items of personal property may be stored
temporarily when such storage in no way interferes with the normal storage area of the
aircraft in the hangar, and does not otherwise violate this rental agreement.
4.1. Renter shall not store any flammable or explosive liquids or solids within the
premises. For the purpose of this rental agreement, "flammable or explosive liquids or solids"
shall not apply to fuel or other flammable contained within any airplane or automobile placed
in the hangar. Fueling of the aircraft while in the hangar is strictly prohibited.
4.2. Renter shall not, without the City's written consent keep any pets or animals on
the premises. If allowed, Renter agrees to be liable for damage to the premises or other
persons caused by the pet or animal.
5. Compliance with laws. Renter shall comply with
5.1. The "Minimum Standards at Ashland Municipal Airport, Ashland, Oregon" adopted
by the City Council on January 4, 1990 and as may be amended from time to time and the
Hangar Lease Policy attached as Exhibit A and as may be amended from time to time.
PAGE 1-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT omirwrN-henger.iw)
5.2. All federal, state, county, and city laws, orders and ordinances, the rules and
! regulations of the City, and all rules and regulations of the State Department of
Transportation Aeronautics Division and the Federal Aviation Administration.
5.3. Environmental laws. As used is this paragraph, the term "hazardous material"
means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not limited to,
those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of
Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. § 172.101) or by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any
amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and
such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup
authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means those laws cited in this
paragraph.
5.3.1. Renter shall cause the premises and all operations conducted on the
premises (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental
laws.
5.3.2. Renter shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to
use the premises to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle,
l recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than at reasonably
necessary for the operation of Renter's activities as contemplated under this rental
agreement.
5.3.3. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and
investigations of the premises and the operations conducted on the premises at any
time and from time to time, and Renter shall cooperate fully with City during such
inspections and investigations.
5.3.4. Renter agrees to defend (with counsel approved by City), fully indemnify,
and hold entirely free and harmless City from and against all claims, judgments,
damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without limitation,
diminution in value of the premises, damages for the loss or restriction on the use of
rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the premises, damages arising from any
adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys'
fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which arise during or after the rental agreement
term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted against City by reason or on
account of, or in connection with, or arising out of Renter's generation, manufacture,
use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials,
or any release of hazardous materials as a result of Renter's use or activities, or of
Renter's agents, contractors, or subtenants.
6. Utilities. Renter shall promptly pay any charges for electricity and all other charges for
utilities which may be furnished to the premises at Renter's order or consent.
I
7. Liens, Taxes. Renter shall pay all sums of money that become due for any labor,
services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery or equipment which have been
furnished or ordered by Renter which may be secured by lien against the premises. Renter
shall pay all real and personal property taxes assessed against the premises, such payments
to be made no later than November 15 of the year in which the taxes become due and
payable, and will submit a copy of the receipt for the taxes to the City's Director of Finance.
i
i
B. Indemnification. Renter shall keep, indemnify and defend and hold harmless City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits,
I judgments, costs, and expenses, including attorney's fees asserted by any person or
I
PAGE 2-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (v:atrport%t-hangar.1w)
persons, including agents or employees of the City or Renter, by reason of death or injury to
persons or loss or damage to property that allegedly results from Renter's operations, or
anything done or permitted by Renter under this rental agreement, except for the extent
attributed to acts or omissions of City or its officers, agents or employees.
9. Alterations or Improvements. Renter may not make alterations or improvements without
the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Prior to
any construction, construction plans must be approved by the City in writing as to the
physical and aesthetic design, site location, color, landscape design, parking, and land use.
All alterations or improvements that Lessee may desire to make to the premises shall be
done by Renter and at the expense of Renter. All work shall be done in a good and
workerlike manner in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and ordinances.
10. Ground Maintenance. Renter shall maintain the premises and the grounds in and
around the premises in a reasonably neat, clean and orderly condition.
11. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default:
11.1. Default in Rent: Failure of Renter to pay any rent or other charge within ten days
after it is due.
11.2. Default in Other Covenants: Failure of Renter to comply with any term or
condition or fulfill any obligation of the rental agreement (other than the payment of rent or
other charges) within 30 days after written notice by City specifying the nature of the default.
If the default is such that it cannot be completely remedied within the thirty (30) day period,
this provision shall be complied with if Renter begins correction of the default within the 30
day period and proceeds in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable.
11.3. Insolvency: Insolvency of Renter and assignment by Renter for the benefit of
creditors; the filing by Renter of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; an adjudication that Renter
is bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of the properties of Renter; the filing of an
involuntary petition of bankruptcy and failure of the Renter to secure a dismissal of the
petition within 30 days after filing; attachment of or the levying of execution on the rental
interest and failure of the Renter to secure discharge of the attachment or release of the levy
of execution within ten days.
12. Remedies on Default. In the event of a default, the City at its option may terminate the
rentEiiF agreement by notice in writing by certified or registered mail to Renter. The notice may
be given before or within thirty days after the running of the grace period for default and may
be included in a notice of failure of compliance. If the property is abandoned by Renter in
connection with a default, termination shall be automatic and without notice.
12.1. Damages: In the event of termination of default, City shall be entitled to recover
immediately the following amounts as damages:
12.1.1. The reasonable cost of re-entry and reletting including the cost of any
clean up, refurbishing, removal of Renter's property and fixtures, or any other expense
occasioned by Renter's failure to quit the premises upon termination and to leave the
premises in the required condition, any remodeling costs, attorney fees, court costs,
broker commissions and advertising cost.
12.1.2. The loss of reasonable rental fee value from the date of default until a
new tenant has been or, with the exercise of reasonable efforts could have been
secured.
12.2. Re-entry After Termination: If the rental agreement is terminated for any reason,
Renter's liability to City for damages shall survive such termination, and the rights and
obligations of the parties shall be as follows:
PAGE 3-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (a:eraoft-hengadw)
i
i 12.2.1. Renter shall vacate the property immediately, and within 60 days
i remove any property of Renter including any fixtures which Renter is required to
remove at the end of the rental agreement term, perform any cleanup, alterations or
other work required to leave the property in the condition required at the end of the
term.
12.2.2. City may re-enter, take possession of the premises and remove any
j persons or property by legal action or by self-help with the use of reasonable force
and without liability for damages.
12.3. Reletting: Following re-entry or abandonment, City may relet the premises and
in that connection may:
12.3.1. Make any suitable alterations or refurbish the premises, or both, or
change the character or use of the premises, but City shall not be required to relet for
any use or purpose (other than that specified in the rental agreement) which City may
reasonably consider injurious to the premises, or to any tenant which City may
reasonably consider objectionable.
12.3.2. Relet all or part of the premises, alone or in conjunction with other
j properties, for a term longer or shorter than the term of this rental agreement, upon
any reasonable terms and conditions, including the granting of some rental agreement
fee-free occupancy or other rental agreement fee concession.
13. Termination. Upon termination of the rental agreement by the passage of time or
otherwise, Renter shall surrender the premises in good condition. Renter shall provide 30
days written notice when vacating the hangar and otherwise will be responsible for paying
the month's rent in full.
14. Assignment of Interest or Rights. Neither Renter or any assignee or other successor of
Renter shall sublease, assign, transfer or encumber any of Renter's rights in and to this rental
agreement or any interest in the premises, nor license or permit the use of the rights granted
except as provided in this paragraph. Renter shall not permit the use or occupancy by
others without written consent of City. If City does consent to such use or occupancy:
14.1. Renter shall still be responsible to City in accordance with this agreement;
14.2. Any sub-rent charged by Renter shall not exceed the rent charged by City;
14.3. The term of the sub-let shall not exceed six months.
14.4. The City may charge additional rent for such use or occupancy.
15. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either parry of strict performance of any provision of this rental
agreement shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance
of the same provision in the future or of any other provision.
16. Notices. All notices required under this rental agreement shall be deemed to be properly
served if sent by certified or registered mail to the last address previously furnished by the
parties. Until changed by the parties by notice in writing, notices shall be sent to the
addresses listed on the first page of this agreement.
Renter CITY OF ASHLAND
BY - LA• AA- BY
Title City Administrator
i
i BY ATTEST:
Title City Recorder
i
PAGE 4-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (a:arpoft-hanger.1w)
)
I
EXHIBIT "A"
HANGAR LEASE POLICY
FOR CITY-OWNED HANGARS AT THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
1. It is the intent of the City to promote the fair, safe and
efficient use of the City-owned hangars at the Ashland Municipal
Airport. The hangar spaces are to be used primarily to house
aircraft, hangared in a safe manner, and all hangar spaces shall
be used to the maximum.
2 . For new applicant' s who desire to lease City-owned hangar
spaces, the following procedure will be used:
Applicant' s name is to be added to the bottom of the list of
all previous applicants and the list will be a public record.
When hangar space becomes available, applicant' s name
appearing on' the top of the list will be notified and have ten
( 10) days to enter into a lease with Lessor, if the applicant
is qualified. The prospective Lessee shall have a controlling
interest, .by purchase or lease, of the aircraft to be
hangared, and shall furnish proof of said interest. In the
event the applicant does not qualify, does not reply, fails
to sign the lease within the ten (10) days, or declines to
enter into a lease, the applicant' s name will be taken off the
list, or placed at the bottom of the list, if requested by the
applicant, and the next person in line will have the option
for available hangar space.
3 . When an aircraft is sold and leaves the hangar, Lessee must
notify the Lessor within ten ( 10) days and shall vacate the hangar
space within ten ( 10) days. If Lessee certifies to the City, in
writing, that Lessee will be obtaining another aircraft within the
ensuing six ( 6) months, Lessee may maintain the lease, if
approved by the City in writing. Lessee shall keep hangar lease
payment's current while waiting for the new aircraft.
4 . No Lessee may control more than one ( 1) hangar without the
specific permission of the City, which shall be based upon good
cause. An exception is an F.B.O. recognized as such by a lease
with the City.
5 . Lessee' s use of the hangar space shall be subject to the
following prohibitions, violations of any one or more of which
shall be considered a material breach of this policy and the Lease
Agreement. Lessee will:
a. not operate aircraft engines inside the hangar space,
T-Hangar Rental Agreement - 4
i
i
Exhibit "A"
Page Two
r
b. not violate fire regulations, or weld, or create any
hazard to the hangar or other aircraft.
C. not store combustible materials of any kind in the
aircraft or hangar, except in aircraft fuel tanks, and
oil in sealed cans.
d. not make any structural changes or alterations to the
hangar or hangar area without prior written approval of
the City, but any structural changes permitted become
the property of Lessor and may not be removed without ,
prior permission of Lessor.
6 . Hangar doors will be maintained by Lessee (greasing,
adjusting, etc. ) as a way to keep hangar rent low. Any non-
routine maintenance or structural repair needed shall be referred
to the City in a timely manner.
ADOPTED this 9 ) day of 1988.
CITY OF ASHLAND
L. GORDON MEDARIS, MAYOR
I
i
I
T-Hangar Rental Agreement - 5
CITY OF ASHLAND
T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CITY OF ASHLAND, (CITY) RENTER: Donald Fitch
20 E. Main St. Address: 117 6th St.
Ashland, Oregon 97520 Ashland, OR 97520
(503) 482-3211 FAX: (503) 488-5311 Telephone: 541-482-5117 (hm. wk.)
Date of this agreement: ¶1. T-Hangar Number: #3 Open
September 26, 1997 Aircraft Tail No: Ultralight
Re .#10-DCF
1[2. Monthly Rental Fee: $121 113. Commencement date: 9/26 97
T-Hangar Rental Agreement made on the date specified above by the City of Ashland and
the person named above as Renter.
City and Renter agree:
1. Description of premises. City rents to Renter the T-Hangar described above ("the
premises") located at the Ashland Municipal Airport ("airport").
2. Rental Fees. Renter shall pay a monthly rental fee in the amount set forth above. The
rental fee is subject to periodic adjustment at the option of the City and is payable at the
office of the fixed based operator, monthly in advance, on the first day of each month. Any
fee required of Renter by this agreement shall, if not paid within 10 days after it is due, bear
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date until paid.
3. Term. The term of this rental agreement is month-to-month beginning on the date set
forth above.
4. Use of Premises. Except as provided in this paragraph, the premises shall be used only
for the storage of aircraft owned by Renter. Other items of personal property may be stored
temporarily when such storage in no way interferes with the normal storage area of the
aircraft in the hangar, and does not otherwise violate this rental agreement.
4.1. Renter shall not store any flammable or explosive liquids or solids within the
premises. For the purpose of this rental agreement, "flammable or explosive liquids or solids"
shall not apply to fuel or other flammable contained within any airplane or automobile placed
in the hangar. Fueling of the aircraft while in the hangar is strictly prohibited.
4.2. Renter shall not, without the City's written consent keep any pets or animals on
the premises. If allowed, Renter agrees to be liable for damage to the premises or other
persons caused by the pet or animal.
5. Compliance with laws. Renter shall comply with
5.1. The "Minimum Standards at Ashland Municipal Airport, Ashland, Oregon" adopted
by the City Council on January 4, 1990 and as may be amended from time to time and the
Hangar Lease Policy attached as Exhibit A and as may be amended from time to time.
PAGE 1-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (v:eiroor t-nangar.1w)
i
5.2. All federal, state, county, and city laws, orders and ordinances, the rules and
regulations of the City, and all rules and regulations of the State Department of
Transportation Aeronautics Division and the Federal Aviation Administration.
5.3. Environmental laws. As used is this paragraph, the term "hazardous material"
means any hazardous or toxic substance, material, or waste, including, but not limited to,
those substances, materials, and wastes listed in the United States Department of
Transportation Hazardous Materials Table (49 C.F.R. § 172.101) or by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency as hazardous substances (40 C.F.R. Part 302) and any
amendments, ORS 466.567, 466.205, 466.640 and 468.790 and regulations of the Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality, petroleum products and their derivatives, and
i such other substances, materials and wastes as become regulated or subject to cleanup
authority under any environmental laws. Environmental laws means those laws cited in this
paragraph.
5.3.1. Renter shall cause the premises and all operations conducted on the
I premises (including operations by any subtenants) to comply with all environmental
laws.
5.3.2. Renter shall not use or allow any agents, contractors or subtenants to
use the premises to generate, manufacture, refine, transport, treat, store, handle,
fff recycle, release or dispose of any hazardous materials, other than at reasonably
necessary for the operation of Renter's activities as contemplated under this rental
agreement.
5.3.3. City shall have the right to conduct reasonable inspections and
investigations of the premises and the operations conducted on the premises at any
time and from time to time, and Renter shall cooperate fully with City during such
inspections and investigations.
5.3.4. Renter agrees to defend (with counsel approved by City), fully indemnify,
and hold entirely free and harmless City from and against all claims, judgments,
damages, penalties, fines, costs, liabilities, or losses (including, without limitation,
diminution in value of the premises, damages for the loss or restriction on the use of
rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the premises, damages arising from any
adverse impact on marketing of space, sums paid in settlement of claims, attorneys'
I fees, consultant fees, and expert fees) which arise during or after the rental agreement
term and which are imposed on, or paid by or asserted against City by reason or on
account of, or in connection with, or arising out of Renter's generation, manufacture,
use, transportation, refinement, treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials,
or any release of hazardous materials as a result of Renter's use or activities, or of
i
Renter's agents, contractors, or subtenants.
6. Utilities. Renter shall promptly pay any charges for electricity and all other charges for
utilities which may be furnished to the premises at Renter's order or consent.
! 7. Liens, Taxes. Renter shall pay all sums of money that become due for any labor,
services, materials, supplies, utilities, furnishings, machinery or equipment which have been
furnished or ordered by Renter which may be secured by lien against the premises. Renter
shall pay all real and personal property taxes assessed against the premises, such payments
to be made no later than November 15 of the year in which the taxes become due and
payable, and will submit a copy of the receipt for the taxes to the City's Director of Finance.
B. Indemnification. Renter shall keep, indemnify and defend and hold harmless City, its
officers, agents and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits,
i judgments, costs, and expenses, including attorney's fees asserted by any person or
PAGE 2-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT wairporW-haagad. )
i
persons, including agents or employees of the City or Renter, by reason of death or injury to
persons or loss or damage to property that allegedly results from Renter's operations, or
anything done or permitted by Renter under this rental agreement, except for the extent
attributed to acts or omissions of City or its officers, agents or employees.
9. Alterations or Improvements. Renter may not make alterations or improvements without
the prior written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Prior to
any construction, construction plans must be approved by the City in writing as to the
physical and aesthetic design, site location, color, landscape design, parking, and land use.
All alterations or improvements that Lessee may desire to make to the premises shall be
done by Renter and at the expense of Renter. All work shall be done in a good and
workerlike manner in compliance with all applicable building and zoning laws and ordinances.
10. Ground Maintenance. Renter shall maintain the premises and the grounds in and
around the premises in a reasonably neat, clean and orderly condition.
11. Events of Default. The following shall be events of default:
11.1. Default in Rent: Failure of Renter to pay any rent or other charge within ten days
after it is due.
11.2. Default in Other Covenants: Failure of Renter to comply with any term or
condition or fulfill any obligation of the rental agreement (other than the payment of rent or
other charges) within 30 days after written notice by City specifying the nature of the default.
If the default is such that it cannot be completely remedied within the thirty (30) day period,
this provision shall be complied with if Renter begins correction of the default within the 30
day period and proceeds in good faith to effect the remedy as soon as practicable.
11.3. Insolvency: Insolvency of Renter and assignment by Renter for the benefit of
creditors; the filing by Renter of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy; an adjudication that Renter
is bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of the properties of Renter; the filing of an
involuntary petition of bankruptcy and failure of the Renter to secure a dismissal of the
petition within 30 days after filing; attachment of or the levying of execution on the rental
interest and failure of the Renter to secure discharge of the attachment or release of the levy
of execution within ten days.
12. Remedies on Default. In the event of a default, the City at its option may terminate the
rental agreement by notice in writing by certified or registered mail to Renter. The notice may
be given before or within thirty days after the running of the grace period for default and may
be included in a notice of failure of compliance. If the property is abandoned by Renter in
connection with a default, termination shall be automatic and without notice.
12.1. Damages: In the event of termination of default, City shall be entitled to recover
immediately the following amounts as damages:
12.1.1. The reasonable cost of re-entry and reletting including the cost of any
clean up, refurbishing, removal of Renter's property and fixtures, or any other expense
occasioned by Renter's failure to quit the premises upon termination and to leave the
premises in the required condition, any remodeling costs, attorney fees, court costs,
broker commissions and advertising cost.
12.1.2. The loss of reasonable rental fee value from the date of default until a
new tenant has'been or, with the exercise of reasonable efforts could have been
secured.
12.2. Re-entry After Termination: If the rental agreement is terminated for any reason,
Renter's liability to City for damages shall survive such termination, and the rights and
obligations of the parties shall be as follows:
PAGE 3-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (a:eirporte-hanger.1")
12.2.1. Renter shall vacate the property immediately, and within 60 days
remove any property of Renter including any fixtures which Renter is required to
remove at the end of the rental agreement term, perform any cleanup, alterations or
j other work required to leave the property in the condition required at the end of the
term.
12.2.2. City may re-enter, take possession of the premises and remove any
persons or property by legal action or by self-help with the use of reasonable force
and without liability for damages.
12.3. Reletting: Following re-entry or abandonment, City may relet the premises and
in that connection may:
12.3.1. Make any suitable alterations or refurbish the premises, or both, or
change the character or use of the premises, but City shall not be required to relet for
any use or purpose (other than that specified in the rental agreement) which City may
reasonably consider injurious to the premises, or to any tenant which City may
reasonably consider objectionable.
12.3.2. Relet all or part of the premises, alone or in conjunction with other
properties, for a term longer or shorter than the term of this rental agreement, upon
any reasonable terms and conditions, including the granting of some rental agreement
fee-free occupancy or other rental agreement fee concession.
13. Termination. Upon termination of the rental agreement by the passage of time or
otherwise, Renter shall surrender the premises in good condition. Renter shall provide 30
days notice when vacating the hangar and otherwise will be responsible for paying the
month's rent in full.
14. Assignment of Interest or Riohts. Neither Renter or any assignee or other successor of
Renter shall sublease, assign, transfer or encumber any of Renter's rights in and to this rental
agreement or any interest in the premises, nor license or permit the use of the rights granted
except as provided in this paragraph. Renter shall not permit the use or occupancy by
others without written consent of City. If City does consent to such use or occupancy:
14.1. Renter shall still be responsible to City in accordance with this agreement;
14.2. Any sub-rent charged by Renter shall not exceed the rent charged by City;
14.3. The term of the sub-let shall not exceed six months.
14.4. The City may charge additional rent for such use or occupancy.
I 15. Nonwaiver. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any provision of this rental
agreement shall not be a waiver of or prejudice the party's right to require strict performance
j of the same provision in the future or of any other provision.
16. Notices. All notices required under this rental agreement shall be deemed to be properly
served if sent by certified or registered mail to the last address previously furnished by the
parties. Until changed by the parties by notice in writing, notices shall be sent to the
addresses listed on the first page of this agreement.
Renter L� CITY OF ASHLAND
BY BY
Title Mayor
BY i
ATTEST:
Title City Recorder
i PAGE 4-T-HANGAR RENTAL AGREEMENT (F:effyorfd-hangar.1w)
i
I
EXHIBIT "A"
HANGAR LEASE POLICY
FOR CITY-OWNED HANGARS AT THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
1. It is the intent of the City to promote the fair, safe and.
efficient use of the City-owned hangars at the Ashland Municipal
Airport. The hangar spaces are to be used primarily to house
aircraft, tangared in a safe manner, and all hangar spaces shall
be used to the maximum.
2 . For new applicant' s who desire to lease City-owned hangar
spaces, the following procedure will be used:
Applicant's name is to be added to the bottom of the list of
all previous applicants and the list will be a public record.
When hangar space becomes available, applicant' s name
appearing on the top of the list will be notified and have ten
(10) days to enter into a lease with Lessor, if the applicant
is qualified. The prospective Lessee shall have a controlling
interest, by .purchase or lease, of the aircraft. to be
hangared, and shall furnish proof of said interest. In the
event the applicant does not qualify, does not reply, fails
to sign the lease within the ten ( 10) days, or declines to
enter into a lease, the applicant' s name will be taken off the
list, or placed at the bottom of the list, if requested by the
applicant, and the next person in line will have the option
for available hangar space.
3 . When an aircraft is sold and leaves the hangar, Lessee must
notify the Lessor within ten ( 10) days and shall vacate the hangar
space within ten ( 10) days. If Lessee certifies to the City, in
writing, that Lessee will be obtaining another aircraft within the
ensuing six (6) months, Lessee may maintain the lease, if
approved by the City in writing. Lessee shall keep hangar lease
payments current while "waiting for the new aircraft.
4 . No Lessee may control more than one ( 1) hangar without the
specific permission of the City, which shall be based upon good
cause. An exception is an F.B.O. recognized as such by a lease
with the City.
S. Lessee' s use of the hangar space- shall be subject to the
following prohibitions, violations of any one or more of which
shall be considered a material breach' of this policy and the Lease
Agreement. Lessee will:
a. not operate aircraft engines inside the hangar space,
T-Hangar Rental Agreement - 4
CITY OF ASHLAND
+{�pF
Cyti:
Department of Public Works
Public Works Administration
r% O
MEMORANDUM REGO�,%"
DATE: September 29, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Paula C. Brown, PE, Public Works Director / City Engineer
RE: DEMONSTRATION WETLANDS SYSTEM PROJECT
ALLEGATION OF TOXICITY IN THE LINER MATERIAL
Background:
As a part of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades, the City Council recommended
that we evaluate the possibility of having a natural component in the wastewater
treatment process. It was recommended that we study the possibility of a wetlands /soil
filtration system and the effect on phosphorous removal as phosphorous levels have
been the limiting factor in summer (dry weather) discharges to Ashland Creek. The
demonstration wetlands system project incorporated a design-build-monitor-evaluate
project to determine the level of phosphorous removal, long and short term maintenance
issues and the ultimate issues (cost / benefit) related to a larger scale project for return
flows directly to Ashland / Bear Creek. Ancillary benefit include temperature reduction
and overall treatment plant efficiencies potentially gained with the project (nitrification
and denitrification, suspended solids removal and others).
Cascade Earth Sciences (CES) and their team of experts (including wetlands experts
from Engineered Natural System Services (ENSS), engineering support from W&H
Pacific, and others) were chosen from three respondents to the Request for Proposals
(RFP) to complete the project. They were chosen in July 1996 and contracts were
signed in September 1996. After a slow start and significant weather delays, the
construction of the project is complete and we are now moving into the monitoring, data
collection and evaluation stage.
Issue:
Recently, the Ashland Wetlands Coalition has indicated their concern regarding the
potential toxicity of the PVC liner used to contain the experimental wetlands ponds and
sand / soil filter system. The liner is required by DEQ to avoid potential groundwater
contact as this demonstration is part of the wastewater treatment process. As far as I
am aware, the liner as specified and installed is acceptable to DEQ. Informal
discussions have verified this. I am waiting for written confirmation. The contractor has
made modifications on site to comply with manufacturer's directed use to ensure there
1
I .
is adequate cover (8-12 inches of soil) and to minimize exposure to sunlight (u/v
radiation concerns as the liner material will deteriorate more quickly when exposed
directly to sunlight).
The Ashland Wetlands Coalition has made several allegations that the liner is toxic and
has reportedly killed fish in an individual's independent experiment. I am unaware of the
specifics of the independent experiment and do not feel that the experiment and it's
results should be used to determine toxicity issues.
The Ashland Wetlands Coalition has provided me with information on PVC and PVC
liners, none of which explicitly restricts the use of the liners for pond lining purposes
(except as a holding pond for potable water). I am unaware of any restrictions on pond
liners by the EPA or DEQ. I have asked DEQ to provide an opinion on this use of the
PVC liner. In fact, even in the Sunset Western Garden Book (a layman's reference and
landscaping guide) PVC is recommended for pond liners. Attached is a response from
Cascade Earth Sciences with regard to their research on liner specifics. It adequately
explains the situation and the specifics with respect to the liner toxicity allegations. PVC
is a very common product used for a variety of purposes, including drinking water piping.
There are concerns related to the use of PVC under specific circumstances. However,
this is not one of those circumstances.
Current Situation:
We are currently at the point of collecting data for the demonstration wetlands project.
The contractor is frustrated with the lack of support and continual negative response
from the Ashland Wetlands Coalition. Responding to the liner allegations and to
previous requests for information and design change recommendations have demanded
quite a bit of extra coordination and work for the contractor. I have directed the
contractor to proceed with the data collection and analysis phase.
This demonstration wetlands project was approved by the Council and by DEQ so long
as it would provide information prior to the final design and construction of the spray
irrigation system. We have stretched our time limits. Initially, we had proposed to collect
data from two full growing seasons, including this past spring and summer (1997). Due
to weather delays, we were unable to complete construction until August(1997), and are
just now completing the start up phase to enable data collection and monitoring results.
I am proposing to request that DEQ accept results into the summer of 1999, a nine
month extension of this project. This will allow the two full growing and dry weather
seasons (1998 and 1999) to analyze data in the free surface wetlands. Any further
delays, including evaluation of different liners or plant materials, will significantly
compromise the potential success of the project.
As you recall, DEQ has mandated that we complete all WWTP improvements to comply
with all new permit requirements for creek discharge or dry weather spray irrigation by
December 31, 2000. Should the wetlands project prove successful and Council
recommends upscaling the wetlands, we would be able to redirect design for direct
Demo Wetlands - Liner
page 2
stream discharge. Until Council determines that the up scaled wetlands is the correct
decision, we will continue to design for the spray irrigation system through Carollo
Engineers.
Discussion of Ashland Wetlands Coalition Recommendations:
Based upon the Ashland Wetlands Coalition's independent analysis, they have made
four recommendations (verbatim per the attached letter):
1. "...immediate steps be taken to get an extension from DEQ on both the
demonstration time frame and the projected use of spray irrigation - at least two years."
2. "...early assignment of a qualified person to oversee the day-to-day activities at the
site, and potentially become the monitor for the entire period of the demonstration.
Coalition members stand ready to brief, assist and educate the person chosen."
3. "...in the recovery effort from the liner error that there be scientific peer review of the
project. The work performed thus far has been mechanical, civil engineering and soils
largely. It is past time to consider the environmental aspects - botany, biology, and
ecology."
4. "...an immediate, coordinated effort to establish a positive public perception of what
this project is, and is to become."
Response to Wetlands Coalition Recommendations:
I have responded to each in order and would like your support with the following:
1. As stated above, I would like to request that DEQ consider allowing continued
analysis through the summer of 1999. A plan of action could be prepared by the end
of September and taken to the first meeting in October for Council decision on the future
of an up scaled wetlands. In the interim, we continue with final design of the spray
irrigation site. Based upon the Council's decision in October 1999, we would construct
the full scale spray irrigation distribution and holding system (to be operational in May
2001), or just a portion of that system if full scale wetlands are to be constructed. I do
not believe DEQ will grant further extensions on our permit compliance past December
31, 2000.
2. Regarding the Coalition's desire for a "qualified person" to oversee daily operations,
we have that in place. The City hired Cascade Earth Sciences, with concurrence of the
Ashland Wetlands Coalition. They provide the expertise through their team of experts.
Further oversight is unnecessary.
3. Installation of the PVC liner was not an error. Yes, the visible work to date has been
largely a construction effort that has concentrated on mechanical (pumps), civil
engineering (design, WWTP compatibility, excavation and compaction requirements and
assisting to gain DEQ approval), and soils (obtaining the correct soils mix for phosphorus
Demo Wetlands - Liner
page 3
removal rates). However, this project is a study of balancing the environmental needs
with ecology. The design of the entire wetlands system could not have been completed
without the environmental aspects of botany, biology and ecology. The next steps are
to ensure the system works ecologically and produces the desired results for
phosphorous removal and temperature reductions.
4. Communication and public awareness have been a high priority item. You will recall
several articles in the paper, a ground breaking ceremony and information at the site
itself. We had the Ashland YMCA day-camp on site this summer, and received help in
planting the wetlands plants from a local church group. I am not exactly sure what is
meant by "..what this project is and is to become." This is a demonstration project, and
we have discussed it as such. The project and it's significance are discussed in the
facilities Plan, during public meetings on the upcoming WWTP improvements and in
various other forums. As the data becomes available, we will write articles for the
newspaper and develop a fact sheet that can be updated quarterly. Jennifer Lee at
RVCOG has been assisting with these efforts, and public awareness is high.
Staff Actions:
Unless otherwise directed, staff will take the following actions:
1. Request DEQ allow us to proceed with data collection through September 1999.
2. Dismiss allegations of misuse of liner and continue with the demonstration wetlands
project as proposed in CES's proposal.
3. Continue efforts to ensure accurate information regarding the demonstration wetlands
project is disseminated to the community.
Cc: Carl Oates, Ashland Wetlands Coalition
Jon Gasik, Medford DEQ
I
I
� Demo Wetlands - Liner
page 4
n
September 5, 1997 r
r' SEP _ 5 Ig97 f L.i!
Public Works Director/City Engineer j
City of Ashland t,. ( 1T n
20 East Main St., Ashland OR 97520 ! C! tOF- '` S�KLAN D
Subject: Status , Demonstrations Wetlands Project
Good day Paula,
Enclosed is our investigation and report into the uses of PVC as a liner for the constructed
wetlands. It is largely a negative report on the selection of this material as a liner for this
project. However, let us state that we are:
1. Not interested in assessing blame for this mistake.
2. Eager to get on with correction and will assist that effort in any way that we can.
We recommend that immediate steps be taken to get an extension from DEQ on both the
demonstration time frame and the projected use of spray irrigation—at least two years.
We recommend the early assignment of a qualified person to oversee the day-to-day
activities at the site, and potentially become the monitor for the entire period of the
demonstration. Coalition members stand ready to brief, assist and educate the person
chosen.
We recommend in the recovery effort from the liner error that there be scientific peer
review of the project. The work performed thus far has been mechanical, civil
engineering, and soils largely. It is past time to consider the environmental aspects–
botany, biology, and ecology.
We recommend an immediate, coordinated effort to establish a positive public perception
of what this project is, and is to become.
We would be happy to meet with you at a time you choose, to discuss how we may be of
assistance. Please let one of the undersigned know your choice.
Sincerely,
Carl Oates John Sully
482-9735 482-3246
Copies to Coalition Members Only.
Cascade Earth Sciences. Ltd.
L T D. 225 S. Holly St.. • Medford, Oregon 97501 (541) 779-2280' FAX (541) 773-4404'.
September 17, 1997
Paula Brown, P.E. . .,..
Director of Public Works .
City of Ashland
Ashland, OR 97520
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS LINER
Dear Paula::
Several members of the Ashland Wetlands Coalition have expressed their concern to you,`
to Mayor Golden, and to various Ashland City Councilmen about the potential.toxicity of
the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner.that we.used in the,demonstration wetlands ponds and
filter cells. -You have requested that Cascade Earth Sciences, Ltd. (CES) address the issue
of potential liner toxicity. We,have also reviewed the information that you submitted to Jon
Gasik at DEQ, and we.will,comment, on this information also.
We understand that the issue of liner. toxicity was raised when a member of the Coalition
placed a piece of the new liner. in his fish tank/pond.and his fish subsequently died. CES
is unaware of the precise conditions of the experiment and.will not take a position. .
The information you provided to Jon Gasik indicated that `vinyl .chloride, the parent
compound for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is a human carcinogen. There is nothing in the
literature you submitted that discusses toxicity to fish. The information states.that the
Primary route of human exposure to vinyl chloride is through inhalation and dermal contact,
primarily in the workplace (i.e. at the manufacturing facility).. PVC, the polymer form of the
vinyl chloride, is approved for use in drinking water systems. Many homes have PVC pipes,
and the demonstration wetlands is.constructed with PVC pipes.
Mr. Sully's August 25, 1997 letter to you, indicates that the literature shows that PVC is
slightly soluble and that the solute contains chlorine which killed the fish and snails:" He then
provided additional information on' dioxins to support his thesis that chlorine is toxic. I.
agree with Mr. Sully that chlorine is a harmful chemical, when used inappropriately. In fact,
we were concerned about using the chlorinated wastewater in the wetland system. However;
in order to ensure the safety of visitors and workers at the site, and to minimize the
potential public health concern at the site, we agreed to use the fully treated and chlorinated
wastewater. CES is quite sure the residual chlorine from the existing wastewater discharged
directly to Bear Creek is many times greater than the amount of chlorine that would leach .
from the liner into the pond water. Therefore, it does not seem likely that the chlorine
killed the fish. Nor does it seem likely that the chlorine in the vinyl chloride that may leach
from the liner would be toxic to fish in Bear Creek.
Cascade Earth Sciences, Ltd.-Medford City of Ashland Letter (Paula Brown)
September 17, 1997\Doc. 564011/L.etter2 Page 1 of 4
Other Offices In: Albany, OR Boise, ID La Grande, OR Medford,. OR Pocatello-ID Portland, OR . Spokane. WA
(541) 926-7737 (208) 388=1030 (541) 963-7758 (541) 779.2280 (208) 234-2123 (503) 282-7502 (509) 921-0290
Dioxins, as described in the literature you provided Jon Gasik, are a common by-product in
the manufacture of many organ-chlorines (DDT, 2,4,5-T,PVC, etc.): They are also produced
in many other combustion processes. If the liner were burned, dioxins may be formed.
However, we do not expect that dioxins will be leached from the PVC liner in and impact
the environment without incineration. Further discussions of dioxins, as related to the liner,
is therefore not warranted.
Mr. Sully also states that Jon Gasik should have known about EPA regulations concerning
the use of PVC.. There are no known EPA limitations to the use of PVC in constructed
weltands. In fact, the EPA and the Tennessee,Valley Authority (TVA) both suggest PVC.
is an acceptable liner material for constructed wetlands. I have provided you with copies
of the pertinent pages of publications which document their approval of PVC as a liner
material. Mr. Sully does not provide any documentation to the contrary. Mn Sulley, in his
September 1, 19971etter to you correctly states that the liner distributor (Northwest Linings .
& Geotextile Products, Inc.) does not recommend PVC liners for containment uses where.
water quality is an issue. . However, I believe Mr. Sulley confuses the generic term."water
quality" with the specific term "potable water". Water quality is an ambiguous term that
does not have specific standards. Potable water, or drinking water, has specific maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for potential contaminants of concern.. .The current MCL for
vinyl chloride is 0.002 parts per million (ppm)..'.The distributors do'not recommend PVC
liners for potable water systems. PVC is recommended for wastewater systems, such as the
demonstration.wetlands.
I have discussed the issue of the liner toxicity with Northwest Liners and AccuLiner (the
liner fabricator). In addition, HPG International,.Inc., the liner manufacturer provided a
brief letter regarding the potential toxicity of the PVC liner. Copies of the letters are
attached. I have also attached a brief letter.from Dr. Peter Burgoon,.who designed the
wetlands for.CES and has successfully used PVC liners.in other wetlands projects.,.
According to this information, PVC liners manufactured for wastewater applications are
formulated with a biocide%fungicide,to protect the liner from biological attack. The fungicide
is not necessary for potable water systems because the biological activity in potable water
is usually very low. However, the biological activity in wastewater is very high. This is how
wastewater is treated and it is important to the treatment wetlands. Therefore, use of a non-
fungicide treated PVC liner is not appropriate.
According.to.AccuLiner, the,biocide/fungicide is formulated into the liners and is not a
topical application. AccuLiner states that the active ingredient is 2% within a 4 parts per
hundred (i.e. 4%) resin/plasticizer mix. Plasticizers, equal to 4% of liner weight, are added .
to that PVC resins-during manufacturing to keep the liner flexible. The plasticizer includes
2% active ingredient of the biocide. Therefore, the active ingredient is only 0.08% by weight
of the PVC liner.,According to AccuLiner, the biocide is volatile and may be slowly released
over time (i.e. the life of the liner) into the water. The rate of release is probably greatest
immediately after deployment as the most volatile components of the biocide are released.
In addition to the biocide, some 'of the plasticizers are also released over. time with the,
greatest rate of release immediately after deployment. .This is very common, and many
people are familiar with this process when they purchase a new car. The plasticizers in the
vinyl .upholstery are released and create the "new car smell".. We all know that over a.
Cascade Earth Sciences, Ltd.-Medford City of Ashland Letter (Paula Brown)
September 17, 1997\Doc. 564011/Letter2 Page 2 of 4
relatively short period of time that smell goes away. While it is not possible to conclude
what killed the fish in the. tank, it is possible that the release of plasticizers or the biocide
may have contributed. That is why this particular liner would not be specified for fish tanks.
The potential release of biocides or plasticizers from the PVC liner in no way implies that
the liner represents a short-term or long-term liability to the projector the quality of water
discharged to Bear Creek. Our demonstration wetlands was designed to include important
safeguards to protect the quality of water discharged to Bear Creek: As you are aware, all
water treated in our wetland system is returned directly to the Ashland wastewater treatment
plant. This protects against unforeseen problems that may occur in the demonstration .
system, In addition, the intended use of the liner in our demonstration wetlands does not
include any direct contact of the material with fish. The large quantities of water that will
pass through the wetlands, in contrast to the small quantity of water in fish tanks, will also
sufficiently dilute potentially released compounds to safe, probably non-detectable levels. .
Mr, Sully, in a second letter to you dated September 1, 1997, raised.the issue of soil cover
over the liner. He stated that the liner distributor (Northwest Linings) requires a minimum
of 8 to 12 inches of soil over the liner. I have also discussed the soil cover with Northwest
Liners and AccuLiner. .The purpose of the soil cover is not to prevent contact of the water .
with the liner, as Mr. Sully seems to imply. The purpose of the`soil is to prevent
degradation of the liner by ultraviolet (UV) light. We have all seen the effects of UV light
on vinyl in cars. The cracked seats and dashboards result from UV degradation of the vinyl.
Water will also protect the liner from degradation by UV light. Approximately three feet
of clear water will also provide sufficient protection. If the water is turbid, then less depth
As required._ Plant cover will also reduce UV penetration to the liner. Most of the liner in
the wetland system is covered with soil. Only a small area near the influent distribution
system and the effluent collection system in each wetland pond is not covered with soil.
However, these areas are covered by one to two feet of turbid water and will. soon be
covered with aquatic vegetation. Therefore, the combination of water, soil and plants will
provide adequate protection against UV degradation of the liner.
There. area few places in the wetland system where the PVC liner.is not completely
covered. I would like to briefly address the potential for degradation at these locations.
PVC liner was used in the. wetland ponds to construct barriers to prevent the soil from
moving into the influent and effluent distribution systems. These PVC barriers are filled .
with. soil. The tops of these PVC barriers are slightly, exposed when the water is below
normal operating levels. Some degradation of the liner material•may occur here, however,
this degradation will not impact the structural integrity, or function of the pond liner. The
PVC liner is also exposed in the sand and soil filters.. However, only the above ground
portion between the treatment cells is exposed. This part of the liner will not have
significant contact with the water in the system. The plants in these cells will provide some
Protection against UV degradation when they are fully established. As with the soil barriers
in the wetland ponds, degradation of the above ground portion of the liner will not impact
the structural integrity or function of the liner:
Mr. Sulley has expressed his concerns that the use of a PVC liner is a fatal flaw in the design
and construction of the demonstration wetlands. A fatal flaw is a flaw which could
potentially cause failure of the entire system or severely impact the results of the
Cascade Earth Sciences, Ltd.-Medford
September 17, 1997\Doc. 564011/Letter2 City of Ashland Letter (Paula Brown)
Page 3 of 4
demonstration project. Unless the liner material degrades to such an extent that the projeci
must be abandoned prior to completion of the monitoring period (i.e. two years) then the
selection of liner materials will in no way impact the demonstration project. Even if
substances which are toxic to fish were released into the wetland system, this should not
impact.the project since the primary objective of the project is to assess the efficacy of a
wetland system, including the soil filter, on the reduction of phosphorous in the wastewater
effluent. Therefore, the use of the PVC liner cannot be interpreted as a fatal flaw to this
project due to the reasons indicated by.Mr._Sulley.
PVC liners and pipes were selected for this demonstration project because these materials
have been used successfully in other similar projects without.impact to the environment.
The. PVC liner that we installed for this project is safe and does not represent a risk to
human health,welfare, or the'environment. While I respect the Coalitions genuine concerns
for the quality of water in Bear Creek, no scientific evidence:has been, provided to
substantiate the claims that the PVC liner constitutes a threat to the environment. If
pertinent information that the biocide.or the vinyl chloride in..the.liner has significantly
degraded the. environment or: that potentially, toxic:levels. of contamination .are- being .
generated by.the liner in its approved, use, then additional research may be warranted,
and/or an alternate product can be selected for any future wetlands projects. .
I do hope that you, Mayor Golden, and the Ashland City Council.will review the information
provided by the Coalition and by CES and come to.the same conclusion that I have. CES .
looks forward to.continuing to serve.you and the City of Ashland on this project. Please
contact me if you have any further questions. Until then, I expect this matter is closed and
we will continue with our wetlands treatment monitoring and evaluation program.
Sincerely,
sell Strader, CPSSc
Managing Soil Scientist
Project Manager
RHS/kls
fEnc Letter from AccuLiner
Letter from HPG, Inc
Letter from Peter Burgoon
Information from TVA
Information from EPA
c. ; Peter Burgoon-ENSS
Chris Aldrich-ENSS
Tom Davis-W&H Pacific
Stuart Childs-EMI
Jon Gasik-DEQ
Sean Ragain-CES
Cascade Earth Sciences, Ltd.-Medford City of Ashland Leiter (Paula Brown)
September 17, 1997\Doc. 564011/Letter2 Page 4 of 4 .
09-17-1997 05:52PM FROM TO 4886006 P.02
i d, 1��� �/T STN/j{]Jj/R IM
FABRICATORS OF -
IVEMBRANE LINPRS Date: 9.3,97
Our Ref. 090397CE.V"PS
,attention.of Mr. Russell Strader
Cascade Earth Scie�ticcs
Rz:•. PVC Gcomenibrane Material Properties
Dcar'\ir. Strader. ...,
I have discussed the concern over the fungicide level in the .020" PVC material
utilized in the sand filter/pond application with the manufacturer of the filet. Their
count ttfiNl Are ApIVlIAM ill c hear W ffi]Lutcr, Inc. doicd OX 107.
...The incident may have been caused by the release of the fungicide additive to the
industrial grade sheet. It is itnportant to note that the inclusion of fungicide is essential to
maintain t eIritegrity of the sheet in a liigh biological activity envirotunent such as waste
water submersion. 'flie inclusion of Quo fungicide is at the compounding level- i.a. the
additive is dispersed throughout the compound, as opposed to a topical or surface additive.
Generally speaking, the highest release of die fungicide can be expected in die early stages
of liner depluymelit. As die liner stabilizes within the environment, the rate of rcicase will
slow to extremely low levels. There is no reason to expect am negative effect upon
receiving streams aiid waterways.
We do not consider die obvious incompatibility of our PVC sheet with fish to be
indicative in any way of a defect in the manufacturing or fabrication of ilia product. Ilse
huhdamental issue would appear to be one of concentration. As die absolute quantity of
bitwide pies rt in tie sheet is expressed as a 2°.v active ingredient within a 4 pains per
hundred resin"plasticizer mix, we do not believe there is significant potential tier tinnier
problems in the intended application. However, iFan industrial grade liner is submerged in
tie presence of fish in a coniincd envirou nient with no or low water flow:exchange, it is
logical to anticipate that a hannfiil concentration may occur.
TTiaitl:you for your time,
AccuLnnec'Inc.
Douglas Newhouse
President
AccuLinar. Inc.,412 Wallace St., Bakersfield, CA, USA 93307
TF.L805-321-0447 WAT5800.955.4637 FAX$05-321-0449
TOTAL P.02
a..I.TY pU: aLI-UYYJ M1C LIZ
ACS'uDNER
...........
M� FABRICATORS OF
MEMBRANE LINERS Date: 9/2/97
Our Ref: 090297CE.WPS
Attention of Mr. Russell Strader
Cascade Earth Sciences
Re: PVC Geomembrane Material Properties
Dear Mr. $trader,
I have discussed the concern over the biocide level in the .020" PVC material
utilized in the sand filter/pond application with the manufacturer of the filth. Their
comments are appended in a letter to AccuLiner, Inc. dated 08/28/97.
The incident was caused by the release of the biocide/fungicide additive to the
industrial grade sheet. The sheet was not marketed or installed with any intention to be
compatible with fish. There are fish grade liners available, although they carry substantial
premiums in cost. Similarly, there are grades of pipe that are specifically marketed into
drain, waste, and raw water applications, and there are also premium priced products
available for potable water applications.
We do not consider the obvious incompatibility of our PVC sheet with fish to be
indicative in any way of a defect in the manufacturing or fabrication of the product. The
release of biocide from the film is essential to its function as a biological inhibitor.
V VUMA 0.U)' JEICGpili�, 016 I cie0.Je 0 6'1 CIEMML 111 L11C C411y inc of me lmer when the sheet Is
"green", and then stabilizes over the life of the liner. As the absolute quantity of biocide
present in the sheet is expressed as a 2% active ingredient within a 4 parts per hundred
resin/plasticizer mix, we do not believe there is significant potential for further problems
in the intended application.
Thank you for your time,
AccuLiner, Inc.
Douglas Newhouse
President
AccuLiner, Inc., 412 Wallace St., Bakersfield, CA, USA 93307
TEL 805-321-0447 WATS 800-955-4637 FAX 805-321-0449
09/02/1997 13: 44 1305-321-0449 ACCULINER INC PAGE 03
AUG 72697 14 . 17 FROM.NPC INTERNATIONAL INC. ID=9083024240 PAGE 2/2
•TOG
la lcrrtatie na 1, Inc.
2M CoaCn:a;I LLW
Somerset to o98rd
MAEt 732-271-13p3
A11m,�r 7R roo7
Fez:iJL-.1UC-9[1U
Mr. Douglas Newhouse
Acculiner, Inc.
412 Wallace St,
Bakersfield, CA 93307
Dear Sir.
T w.
=., ':.:u:,g ul rorcrence to your recent concern regarding Flalable Membrane Liners
(FMI-)versus liners for use in fish ponds.
Please be advised that IiPG International,Inc, manufactures both FML liners for use in
Sanitary Landfills, waste water treatment, canals, etc. HPG also manufactures li f
ners or
use in potable grade water applications and also fish pond liners.
Flexible membrane liners used for Landfills and waste water are formulated canteiaing a
biocide which protects the liner from biological attack. This biological protection is
necessary due to their environmental use_
Potable grade water liners and fish pond liners are formulated without biocide and with
other ingredients to render them safe when in contact with water.
It is a well known fact that liners containing biocides are harmful to fish, and only liners
formulated with F.D.A. approved raw materials not containing a biocide are used for these
applications,
Yours sincerely,
B:PG DnERNATIONAL, INC.
Arthur A. Arena
Senior Scientist
From:Peter S.Burgeon,Ph.D Engineered Natural Systems Services , 813191al14:35:38 _
ENGINEERED NATURAL SYSTEM SERVICES
tl S
A DIYISIDR Of The KIfI:VI'Ilt2 V1'DUp, h1c.
September 3, 1997
I
To: Russell Strader
From Peter S. Burgoon, PI1.D.
I Re: Toxicity of liners
We have looked uito the"toxicity'ofliners used in the Ashland Demonstration Wetlands. The biocides (toxic
compounds)are placed in the liners to iidiibit bacterial gromh and degradation of the liners. These Idlers are
coininoidy used ul landfills and other.caste treatment systems around the country. The biocides are designed
to stay i l the plastic, but some will leak especially when the plastic is neri,. It is difficult to imagine how this
use could pose a significant threat to fish populations in Bear Creek. There are several aspects of the system
which protect Bear Creek from exposure; these are:
1. A majority ofluier ui wetlands is covered with 8-12 inches of silty clay soil. This minimizes contact of the
water with the liner due to the surface flow of water over the soil. Also clays have high adsorptive properties
so it is unlikely that biocide would diffuse into the grater.
2. Water exiting the vertical flow wetlands(unit with greatest contact of water with liner) is filtered through
die rapid infiltration basin(RIB). Passage through the RIB will expose any biocide to aerobic. anaerobic and
adsorptive degradation processes.
3. All %rater exiting the wetlands\rill be returned for complete treatment in the City's wastewater treatment
plant.
c
I hope this appropriately addresses the issue of liner'uxicity '.
cc: Chris Aldrich
Headquarters Office Eastern Washington Office W esteru Washington Office
4405 7111 AVeuue Southeast,Suite 301 1113 Loe'er Sunnyslope Road 1514 \Iutrhead
Lice r,'Washington 98503 Wenatchee,Washivaton 98801 Olyngria,NVashington 98502
Voice i 360 491-6900 Voice 009 i(61-1303 Voice(360)9-13-UI_7
CITY OF ASHLAND A
Administration v .
MEMORANDUM ''••..°.eeco�,.°
•M 1V 11)
DATE: October 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Greg Scoles, Assistant City Administrator
RE: Status of Ashland Creek Flood Restoration Project
Recently there have been some concerns raised by the Watershed Partnership
regarding the Flood Restoration Project. As you are aware, Winbum Way Bridge is
currently under construction and the Parks Department is out to bid on the flood wall
for lower I-Ithia Park. The final report on the Restoration Project has not been finalized
by OTAK, but is due to be delivered on Oct. 13, 1997, with a presentation to the
Council in November. In advance of the report the Partnership has forwarded to the
city a number of concerns which I have attached for your reference. OTAK has
responded to the concerns which I have also attached.
If you should have any questions regarding this information please give me a call.
cc: Brian Almquist / Paula Brown
i
OCT-03-97 07.47 FROM.OTAK InC. ID•503 635 5395 PAGE liB
rust-R'ruX NOie /ti/1 uaro/ 3 ►8
O
�
To 6= Sete=
A�1.4raoC Co_ OTRIC
Memorandum rer� yas-53/I So3-63r J34s
I
j To: Greg Scoles, City of Ashland
From: ^7 ce M- Ma to P � —
gura,P.E., Project Manager
Ashland Creek Restoration Project
Date: October 3, 1997
Subject: Response to Questions From Ashland Watershed Partnership
Greg, in response to your request,I have reviewed the September 26, 1997 memorandum
from the Ashland Watershed Partnership(AWP)which presents a number of questions,
regarding our work for the City of Ashland. Responses to many of the questions contained
in the memorandum are addressed in the draft final report for the project, which is
scheduled to be delivered to the city on October 13th. I will not attempt to.respond to all of
the AWP's questions in detail in this memorandum,but I will try to provide short answers,
and comment on whether or not the substance of the question is addressed in a more
complete fashion in the draft final report.
1. Request for information - model input and outputs, scenarios, eta
Response: I think if the AWP can be patient a little longer, they will find most if not all
of the information they seek is in our draft final report, which is now in
preparation and is scheduled to be sent to the city on October 13th.
2. Request for information-floodwall design and specifications_
Response: The bid package for the wall is now being drafted and will be sent to Ken
Mickelsen early next week- The design and specifications are in the bid
package. Please note that the wall is a concrete masonry unit structural wall
with a rock facing, and not just a rock wall,which would have limited
structural integrity.
3_ Peer review of the modeling work.
Response: It is certainly without precedent, at least in my experience,to request a peer
review of a document before it has been released. This sounds like a case of
sour grapes on the part ofAWP, and tells me that they may already have
formed a negative opinion regarding the technical merits of our work before
they have had a chance to see our report. If that is the case, a peer review
would accomplish nothing. We would certainly be willing to present our work
to a peer review committee,if the city was willing to pay for the extra work
that this would entail on our part. Our only request would be that the peer
reviewers be selected by and follow the peer review guidelines that have been
i established by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
OCV-03-97 07.47 FROM.OTAK Inc. ID- 503 635 5395 PAGE 2/6
Greg Scoles
October 3, 1997
Page 2
Model
• Did the model run a"no action"alternative and what were the inputs or assumptions
made in doing so?
Response: Yes. Details of the modeling procedure and results are explained in the draft
report. The hydraulic model was run with the existing conditions in Ashland
Creek as the base (I.E.no action)condition. This base condition represented
the hydraulic condition of the creek prior to the January 1997 flood event.
The Winburn Way culvert was modeled as it existed prior to the flood, as was
the cantilevered deck,in the base condition model. The pedestrian bridge
immediately upstream of the Wmburn Way culvert was not included in the
base condition model because no reliable as-built information could be found
for it, and it was probably destroyed before the peak discharge occurred
anyway. The intent of the base condition model run was to reflect pre-flood
conditions to the maximum extent possible.
The 100-year flood event was also run in the existing conditions model,with a
downward adjustment to account for the split flow condition that existed
(significant flow in the Plaza area) at that time_ Our model studies
determined that the hydraulic capacity of the existing Winburn Way culvert
is about 850 cfs, which corresponds to about a 2-year event. hydraulic
capacities and corresponding levels of protection for other Ashland Creek
hydraulic structures are described in the report that is now in preparation.
• Did the model run various flood/storm events under varied conditions?
Response: Yes. The following conditions were run in the model. Each was run for the
100-year flood(3100cfs)and also for lesser flows to determine bridge%ulvert
hydraulic capacities and typical channel backwater effects:
a. A`no structures'run to verify the hydraulic impact of existing structures.
b. Existing conditions were used as a base condition(please see response to
previous question).
C. The proposed new Winbum Way bridge (now under construction), with
different geometries to determine the optimum sizing_ This model was run
both with and without the fl oodwall in lower Lithia Park. For this model, we
assumed that the cantilevered deck had been removed- as will soon be the
case. The proposed new bridge at Winburn Way has 100-year level flood
protection with the wall in place,assuming that the Parks department places
a few sandbags across the walkway at the upstream end of the wall. Without
the wall, the bridge alone provides about 25 year level of flood protection.
d. A"multiple proposed scenarios" model was also run to evaluate the hydraulic
impact of other proposed remedial projects along the creek corridor. Each
scenario is independent(i.e., does not have a hydraulic impact on other scenarios)
OCT-03-97 07.46 FROM.OTAK Inc. ID- 503 635 5395 PAGE 3/9
Greg Scoles
October 3, 1997
Page 3
because of the limited backwater effects in the creek due to its steep gradient. The
levels of protection provided by these other scenarios are all discussed in the report.
Presently, the following scenarios have been evaluated:
Calle Guanajuato improvements
-Bluebird Park improvements
Water Street culvert improvements
Hersey Street bridge improvements
• Is there a backup plan for handling flood waters this winter 1997-98 season if the
water(a)"gets around"or above the rock wall;or(b) fails to pass through any of the
constrictions downstream from Winburn Way?
Response: This really has nothing to do with the modeling effort The draft report
includes a recommendation for the city to prepare, annually test and revise as
necessary a flood emergency plan. We have discussed what sort of
information needs to be included in the plan with city staff,but actual
drafting of the plan has not been included in our scope of work.
As presently designed,the Iathia Park flood wall stops at the walkway near
the duck pond in the park and does not tie into high ground on the east side of
the walkway,because Parks staff is not prepared at this time to ramp up the
walkway to the height of the wall(approximately 4 feet). Under 100-year
flood conditions, about 100 cfs could come around the end of the wall and
enter the Plaza unless the walkway is sandbagged. This item has been
discussed with Park staff on several occasions, and they feel that sandbagging
this location can be easily accomplished. I agree with them.
• To what degree does the model incorporate the realities of the Ashland flood?
Response: The hydraulic model used for this study was the U.S.Army Corps of
Engineers HEC-RAS model,version 2_ This model is in common use for open
channel hydraulic studies and is widely accepted,along with its predecessor
HEC-2, for use in FEMA flood insurance studies. It is a one-dimensional
hydraulic computer model and is designed to predict water levels based on
cross section geometry,channel roughness, structures, and encroachments.
The model is not capable of incorporating sedimentation,debris loading,
avalanche events and/or landslide potential. These are more esoteric
considerations that are usually considered as part of a hydrologic, as opposed
to a hydraulic investigation. All of these factors were considered and
incorporated into our hydrologic analysis of the Ashland Creek watershed,
which made full use of actual flood events from nearby watersheds with soil,
vegetation, and topographic characteristics similar to Ashland Creek_
We were able to incorporate in the model an adjustment for the high sediment
load in Ashland Creek during flood events, in terms of the channel roughness
OG'T-03-97 07.46 FROM.OTAK Inc. 113. 503 635 5395 PAGE 4/6
Greg Seoles
October 3, 1997
Page 4
coefficients that were used. Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated
that flow rates with high sediment loads have lower shear stresses(i.e.,
smoother boundary layer effects, or lower roughness coefficients).
• Was any consideration given to using the experience in the Hamilton Creek drainage
in deciding inputs to the model?
Response: No. Hamilton Creek was not considered in our model development process.
• How is OTAK addressing the request for proposal's specific request for a system-wide
approach in making its recommendations?
Response: The OTAK approach to the Ashland Creek Restoration Project has, from the
inception,been a three-pronged systematic one, with full consideration being
given to the fisheries/environmental, engineering/hydraulics, and social
impacts of our recommended solutions. We feel that there are very significant
opportunities to reduce future flood damage along the Ashland Creek corridor
in a cost-effective manner,while at the same time enhancing fisheries habitat
and providing enhanced opportunities for close human interaction with the
special environment that exists there_
• Was an interim strategy for handling a flood event prior to the completion of all
constrictions/problem areas identified between the band shell and Hersey Street
modeled? Did this scenario include the true characteristics of the 1997 flood event as
observed and reported by local specialists?
Response: No interim strategy was developed or called for in our scope of work.
However, as explained in our response to the previous question on backup
plans, construction of the new Winburn Way bridge will have no impacts
outside of the construction area except for within the Calle Guanajuato reach.
Our scenario for considering the"true"characteristics of the January flood on
Ashland Creek is described below. It was developed based on detailed eye-
witness accounts and anecdotal information received from a number of people,
including city staff members,AWP members, citizens and affected business
owners. While the information obtained tended to fit into a wide range of
precision and detail, some common trends did emerge_ The scenario is as
follows:
The Ashland area experienced intermittent but occasionally heavy
precipitation in the form of rain at lower levels and snow at higher elevations
since before Christmas 1996. On the morning of December 31st, the city
received a warning from the National Weather Service that heavy rain and a
sharp rise in the freezing level was on the way. An emergency meeting of key
city staff members was held, and a series of emergency measures were
activated,which included the distribution of sandbags. At that time,
OCT-03-97 07.49 FROM.OTAK Inc. ID- S03 635 5395 PAGE Sig
I
Greg Scoles
October 3, 1997
Page 5
AshlandCreek was running high,but just barely within its banks. Localized
bank failures were reported in several locations along the creek, and some of
the pedestrian bridges in Lithia Park began to be washed away. Generally
flow was confined to the creek channel and immediate overbank areas. By
late afternoon,some water began running down Winburn Way past the
Pioneer Hall and Hillah Temple. A couple of large trees toppled into the
creek and were washed downstream until they became entangled in the
cantilevered deck in the Calle Guanajuato_ By nightfall, other debris had
become entrapped and a growing backwater condition was created,which
allowed suspended sediment to be deposited in an upstream direction towards
the Winburn Way culvert, which was flowing at capacity with some flow
bypassing down the west side of the creek channel. During the night,the
culvert plugged up almost completely, and flow in the creek continued to
increase. Significant flow started coming through the Plaza area,past the
door to City Hall. The majority of this bypassing flow re-entered the creek
channel at Bluebird Park,where a deteriorated retaining wall on Water
Street gradually collapsed. Some flow continued down Water Street for
several blocks.
By dawn on New Year's Day,there was substantial flow in the Plaza, Calle
Guanajuato, and the creek. Ironically,because of the high amount of split
flow going through the Plaza,when the flood peaked sometime on New Year's
Day, there was considerable channel capacity available in Ashland.Creek
through the Calle area because so much water had left the channel upstream
of the Winburn Way culvert. Significant flow continued through the Plaza
area until late in the day on January 2nd,when a pilot channel way
completed where the'Arizona Crossing'is today, and flow gradually returned
to the creek channel.
Approximately a dozen high water marks were surveyed by the OTAK team,
and the hydraulic model was calibrated against these marks,taking into
account the abnormal conditions caused by the blockage of the Winburn Way
culvert_
• Has a risk analysis or environmental impact assessment been performed by OTAK
for its current or future recommendations?
Response: No,these items were not included in our scope of work,but full consideration
of environmental impacts was made in the development of our
recommendations. A detailed Section 404 permit application was prepared
for the Winburn Way culvert replacement project, and specific fisheries
enhancement measures have been incorporated into the project based on
comments received from regulatory agencies. The unanimous opinion of the
resource agencies is that the Winburn Way culvert replacement project
represents a major fisheries habitat enhancement for Ashland Creek.
• How was the determination made that this was a 60 year flood event? There is
OCT-03-97 07. 50 FROM.OTAK Inc. ID. 503 636 6395 PAGE 6/9
Greg Stoles
October 3, 1997
Page 6
evidence to suggest that the January 1997 flood was a 20-year storm event, a 4.7
year flood event, that there was a 30% sediment load, with half of that as debris.
What process did OTAK use to arrive at its estimate that the January 1997 flood was
a 40-60 year event?
Response: The recurrence interval of the January 1997 flood event was based on
analysis of high water marks and the results of our hydrologic investigation,
which will be included in our report. The flow versus return period(ie.,
recurrence interval)graph as determined in the hydrologic study starts out as
a steep curve for relatively high frequency(more frequently occurring)events,
but becomes flatter for lower frequency events(the 25 through 100 year
floods). The flow determined from high water marks is necessarily rather
approximate. Because of the shape of the flow frequency curve, a fairly small
increase in flow rate can cause a disproportionately large increase in
recurrence interval. It should also be noted that the curve must be based on
average antecedent moisture and watershed conditions, which were probably
exceeded for the January flood event. It is possible for a discrete 20.25 year
storm event to produce a much larger 50 to 100 year flood event, depending on
antecedent moisture and watershed conditions.
• What scenarios were modeled?
Response: Please refer to the response to the earlier question on modeling scenarios.
• At what level is the rock wall essential to the ability of the Winburn Way bridge to
accommodate flow? At what flow rate? What flood interval rate does it translate to?
What's the confidence level for this?
Response: This the flood wall,the Winburn Way bridge is designed to convey the 100-
year design flood event(i.e., $100 cfs). Without the floodwall, the bridge can
convey approximately 2250 cfs,or the 25 year event, prior to flow leaving the
channel and flowing across the entrance lawn to Lithia Park and into the
Plaza.
Our scope of work did not require us to establish hydraulic and hydrologic
parameters in a probablistic manner, which would have been a much more
labor intensive and costly effort. Therefore, statistical confidence levels were
not determined. However,the OTAK team has a high level of confidence in
the present analysis.
Rock Wall
• What's the projected height of the wall? Does it meet FEMA's definition of a flood
wall? Will they (FEMA?) reimburse the city/Parks Department for a portion of the
cost? If the wall is not built to FEMA 100-year height, what return interval flow
does it contain? Does that provide the city with sufficient extra protection above the
"no wall"scenario to be worth the cost of construction?
IOCT-03-97 07. 50 FROM.OTAK Inc. 1D. 503 635 5395 PAGE 7/9
I
Greg Scoles
October 3, 1997
Page 7
Response: The structural wall will be 3 feet 4 inches high above ground, and will be
somewhat higher when the rock facing is added. It will have about one foot of
freeboard during the 100-year flood event. It is not known if FEMA will
reimburse the city for a portion of the construction cost,but the city has just
received a$160,000 hazard mitigation grant from FEMA which is being
applied to the cost of the new Winburn Way bridge. As long as the wall does
not have a high ground tie near the Duck Pond, it is unlikely that it will be
rated as providing 100-year level flood protection by FEMA, although the
agency's position on the effectiveness of floodfighting measures such as
sandbagging has broadened somewhat in recent years_ No cost benefit
analysis has been applied to the cost of wall construction, and none was
requested by the city,but the potential benefits from it would seem to clearly
be sufficient to justify its construction.
• The speed at which Water Street collapsed during the 1997 flood demonstrates the
characteristics of the soil under the downtown area. How were these characteristics
included in the model to predict the results of a channeled water flow being diverted
in and around the Winburn Way area?
Response. This sort of an analysis was never made a part of our scope of work, and the
HEC•RAS model is not capable of generating these types of predictions. The
general intent of this question is not clear to us,but if the issue concerns the
temporary diversion of Ashland Creek during construction of the new bridge,
then this question needs to be addressed to the contractor, who has sole
responsibility for this item. It should be noted that the diversion will only be
in place for 6 or 7 weeks,then the creek will be restored to its(modified)
channel. As for the failed retaining wall on Water Street,we have reviewed
the plans for the new retaining wall, and they call for a structure with a much
more substantial factor of safety than the old one that failed during the flood.
It therefore appears that the risk of a repeat failure at this location has been
effectively mitigated_
• Where were other test holes drilled in the area of the Winburn Way Bridge and the
rock wall? How was it confirmed that this area has high bedrock?
Response: Two holes were drilled for the new Winburn Way bridge • one on each side of
the proposed location for the structure. A third hole was drilled for the Water
Street site to avoid later remobilization of the drill rig. Two test pits were
excavated in Lithia Park on the approximate alignment for the new flood
wall. The precise location of all of these explorations is shown in the
geotechnical report of findings and recommendations prepared by Squier and
Associates of Lake Oswego, OR. Copies of the report are available for
inspection in the Ashland Public Works Department office.
I
OCT-03-97 07. 51 FROM.OTAK Inc. ID• SO3 63S S39S PAGE 8/8
Greg Scoles
October 3, 1997
Page 8
Process
• Who made the decision to plan for a 100-year flood event and did that decision apply
to all work done within the project area?
Response: The 100-year flood event is the most commonly used design standard for
bridges and is also the reference standard used by FEMA for floodplain
delineation and flood hazard reduction projects. Selection of this standard
was discussed with and agreed to by city staff; and is also referenced in the
current city floodplain management ordinance. Depending on what
additional flood hazard reduction projects the city decides to construct in the
future, the decision to design or not to design to the 100-year standard will
ultimately be up to the city to make.
• Does OTAK plan to prioritize its recommendations?
Response: A proposed prioritization of flood hazard reduction projects is included in out
report. It was arrived at through a deterministic process that is also
described in the report.
• When will the report be available? Is a draft report available sooner?
Response: The draft report will be sent to the city on October 13th,if the current
schedule holds up. The draft will be on the agenda for the October 21st city
council meeting. Copies of the draft report will not be available before the
13th_
• If the city intends to contract this work out(design of future flood hazard reduction
projects?)on a project by project basis, how can citizens ensure that information
pertinent to decisions PRECEDE decisions?
Response: The Ashland Creek Restoration Project has included a major public input
process which has helped shape recommendations and set priorities. The
final design of the new Winburn Way bridge included significant public input.
Most of the bridge detailing was actually a result of that process, which
appeared to receive a highly positive approval rating from those citizens who
chose to participate in it. Whether or not the city wishes to follow a similar
process for other specific projects is, of course, a decision for city staff and
elected officials to make.
i
Date: 2-Oct-97 12:41
From: GREGS @fsl (Greg Scoles Admin)
To: -@SMTP (hart @mind.net)
Copies-to: BRIAN,DICK,-@SMTP {amrhein @cdsnet.net) ,
-@SMTP {annesbed @opendoor.com) ,-@SMTP {burnson @jeffnet.org) ,
-@SMTP {georegon @aol.com) ,-@SMTP {kerrykai @mind.net),
-@SMTP {kgreen @mind.net) ,-@SMTP {Kurtz @mind.net),
-@SMTP {nwbiolog @jeffnet.org) ,
-@SMTP {pfishman@ fishenserv.com.parker @sou.edu) ,
-@SMTP {richrok @mind.net),-@SMTP {srolle @or.blm.gov),
-@SMTP {cdagroup @transport.com) ,-@SMTP {larry.magura @otak.com),
-@SMTP {pfishman @fishenserv.com)
,Subject: Meeting
Message-id: 6C8963334015F3179
�I understand you're out of town and I just received your e-mail sent last night
at 11:53 P.M. Your message conflicts with the agreement we reached earlier in
the day yesterday. As you will recall, on Monday Larry Magura from OTAK, let
the Watershed Partnership know that he would not be in town for the meeting on
Friday and you and I subsequently agreed that meeting with out Larry would be
pointless since he is the one who would be able to respond to the specific
questions that the Partnership might have. However, at your request, I agreed
to forward the Partnership's written questions regarding the Ashland Creek
Project to the City Council so they can continue to remain informed as the
project progresses. In addition, I agreed to send copies of Larry's written
responses and Prelim. Report to your group when they become available. Larry
told me today that he would try and Fax his response to me by Friday and the
Prelim. Report should be submitted by Oct. 13, 1997. I will also send Larry's
responses to the Council.
Based on ou discussion/agreement of yesterday I have not scheduled a meeting
room for Friday. In fact, I now have a conflict with the 1:00 P.M. meeting
time, but could meet later in the day. I have discussed this with Joanne and
she indicated she would inform the partnership.
As to your questions regarding the "rock wall", my understanding is that the
Parks Dept. is out to bid at this time. I am not aware of what date the bids
are to be submitted to the Parks Dept. , but Joanne should know or you can call
Ken directly.
I have indicated earlier that even though we've had numerous public meetings o:
the Ashland Creek Project, Larry has told me he would be happy to meet with
some of the Partnership members to discuss the model when he is in town workinc
on the Winburn Way Bridge Project. I will continue to try and coordinate such
a meeting, but as I've told you previously we do not have any more budget for
special meeting where we bring in all of the experts for another public
meeting.
CC: Council
I
i
E
Date: 1-Oct- 23:53:0 -0700
From: HART @S a Hartzell) (hart @mind.net}
To: gregs @fsl
Message-id: CBE94742015F3179
O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <hart @mind.net>
Subject: <none>
Greg,
Joanne will call you today to tell you that we would like to go ahead and
meet on Friday at 1: 00 PM. When you get information from Larry, please call
her at 482-3305. I think it's you and Paula and Councilors that we should be
talking to. It's your responsibility to respond; if that involves Larry,
great, but when he gives us a date then moves it, we've got to work with
what we have.
Whatever we get from him this week is it until his report, (though that has
been moved back now twice, from the end of September to the first week in
October, now to the 13th) . If that's what you and the City Council are using
as the basis for your decision making then it should be sufficient to answer
our questions. If it does not, then I would argue that the decision making
is ill-founded.
I have heard that Ken said something about just adding construction of the
rock wall to the LTM contract. Please tell me: 1) Whether this is a
possibility, been done, been talked about? 2) What are the legal implication:
in whatever has been done in this
regard should the Council decide that the rock wall - should not be built this
year? 3) I.e. has the City taken any action that would legally bind it
regarding
this contract as of today? 4) Does it have any plans to do something that
will legally bind it within
the next week? Two weeks?
We would like to have this meeting Friday: A) with Paula Brown and anyone else
who's expertise on these matters you trust B) in a relatively neutral place,
like the Community Center side room
C) with a trained, hired facilitator; this means not a City staffperson.
Keri Green is available and the City has hired her before.
D) We will be inviting the press
These emails eliminate tone, so in case you're wondering, I'm not feeling
antagonistic. Determined is a good word.
Take care.
Cate
Date: 2-Oct-97 0: 19:05 -0700
From: HART @SMTP (Cate Hartzell) (hart @mind.net)
PTO: GINKGO @SMTP(ginkgo @mind.net}
Copies-to: KGREEN @SMTP(kgreen @mind.net} , RICHROK @SMTP(richrok @mind.net} ,
GEOREGON @SMTP(georegon @aol.com} , KERRYKAI @SMTP(kerrykai @mind.net},
SROLLE @SMTP(srolle @or.blm.gov} , AMRHEIN @SMTP(amrhein @cdsnet.net} ,
NWBIOLOG @SMTP(nwbiolog @jeffnet.org} ,
ANNESBED @SMTP(AnnesBed @Opendoor.com} , KURTz @SMTP(kurtz @mind.net} ,
PFISHMAN @SMTP(pfishman@ fishenserv.com.parker @sou.edu) ,
BURNSON @SMTP(burnson @jeffnet.org) , gregs @fsl, Dick @fsl
Subject: Meeting Friday
Message-id: D2E94742015F3179
O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <hart @mind.net>
Greetings,
There is a meeting scheduled for this Friday, October 3rd at 1 PM to talk
with City staff about questions and requests for information on the flood
restoration project. We are hoping to meet in the side room of the Community
Center. We have requested that the City hire a facilitator to assist in an
effective meeting. The meeting is open to everyone and the agenda will be
focused on the list of questions identified at the Ashland Watershed
Partnership meeting and submitted to the City and OTAK last week.
Though the meeting was scheduled around Larry Magura's (OTAK) planned trip
to town, he has since said he cannot come. Larry has been working on a
response to the list of questions and that should be available from the City
Thursday. Greg Scoles, 488-6002, will know.
Larry said that he may be available to meet next Wednesday, but the Council
meets Tuesday and if there are people who want to request a peer review of
the project, it should be done at the soonest opportunity.
Hope you can come. I encourage you to get a copy of OTAK's response.
Cate Hartzell
To: Greg Scoles,Assistant City Administrator
City of Ashland
From: Ashland Watershed Partnership
Date: September 26, 1997
At the September 23, 1997 meeting of the Ashland Watershed,it was agreed that the
following requests would be presented to the City and that we would request that they be
forwarded to the OTAK team immediately. This is offered in preparation for a meeting
between interested citizens, City of Ashland representatives and Larry Magura on October
3, 1997.
1)We would like to receive the following information:
a. A fist of the inputs that were used in the hydraulic model.
b. A list of the outputs from the model, i.e., what scenarios were modeled and
what were the results.
c. Information on the design and specifications'of the rock wall.
2) We request that the City of Ashland contract with an engineering firm to provide peer
review of the inputs and results of the hydraulic model that OTAK produced. We would
like to be involved in the selection of that firm with the City. The purpose would be to
evaluate the inputs and results of the modeling completed by OTAK. We would like to
stress that this request comes from our recognition of the scale and significance of this
project in addressing the potential threat to life and property.
Questions:
Model
• Did the model nm a"no action"alternative and what were the inputs or assumptions
made in doing so? Fpr example, without the Winburn Way Bridge,with the current
Arizona Crossing, and without the cantilevered deck?What level of protection exists
under these conditions?
• Did the model nm various flood/storm events under varied conditions?For example,
the Winbum Way Bridge,wing walls and rock wall are installed,the cantilevered deck
in the Calle is removed,the downstream constrictions have not been altered from their
current status?What level of protection exists under these conditions?
• Is there a backup plan for handling flood waters this winter 1997-98 season if the
water
a. "gets around"or above the rock wall
b. fails to pass through any of the constrictions downstream from Winbum Way?
• To what degree does the model incorporate the realities of the Ashland flood?
Specifically, but not limited to:
a. sedimentation
b. debris loading and characteristics
c. avalanche events in the watershed and upstream from Winburrm Way Bridge
d. slide potential in the watershed
I
f
I
• Was any consideration given to using the experience in the Hamilton Creek drainage in
deciding inputs to the model?
• How is OTAK addressing the request for proposal's specific request for a system-wide
approach in making its recommendations?
• Was an interim strategy for handling a flood event prior to the completion of all
constrictions/problem areas identified between the bandshell and Hersey Street
modeled?Did this scenario include the true characteristics of the 1997 flood event as
observed and reported by local specialists?
• Has a risk analysis or environmental impact assessment been performed by OTAK for
its current or future recommendations?
• How was the determination made that this was a 50 year flood event?There is
evidence to suggest that the January, 1997 flood was a 20 year storm event, a 4.7
j year flood event,that there was 30% sediment load,with half of that as debris. What
' process did OTAK use to arrive at its estimate that the January, 1997 flood was a 40-
60 year flood event?
• What scenarios were modeled?
• At what level is the rock wall essential to the ability of the Winburn Way Bridge to
accommodate flow?At what flow rate?What flood interval rate does it translate to?
What's the confidence level for this?
Rock W
• What's the projected height of the wall?Does it meet FEMA's definition of a flood
wall?Will they reimburse the City/Parks Department for a portion of the cost? If the
wall is not built to FEMA 100-year height,what return interval flow does it contain?
Does that provide the city with sufficient extra protection above the"no wall" scenario
to be worth the cost of construction?
• The speed at which Water Street collapsed during the 1997 flood demonstrates the
characteristics of the soil under the downtown area. How were these characteristics
included in the model to predict the potential results of a channeled water flow being
diverted in and around the Wmburn Way area?
• Where were other test holes drilled in the area of the Wmburn Way Bridge and the
rock wall?How was it confirmed that this area has high bedrock?
Process
• Who made the decision to plan for a 100 year flood event and did that decision apply
to all work done within the project area?
• Does OTAK plan to prioritize its recommendations?
• When will the report be available?Is a draft report available sooner?
• If the City intends to contract this work out on a project by project basis, how can
citizens ensure that information pertinent to decisions PRECEDE decisions?
I
To: Greg Scoles
From: Ashland Watershed Partnership
Date: 23 Sept 97
Re: Ashland Creek Restoration Process Concerns and Recommendations
A. Public Input and Design Process Questions and Concerns That Need to be
Addressed During the Design Process
1. What are the project goals? Who decided on the goals? What stakeholders were involved in the goal-
setting? If they exist,where can a copy of written project goals,incorporating public input,be found? If
they do not exist,how can we evaluate the level of project success?
2. Who has the written record of all project decisions and who made them? Where is it available for public
review? Why has information presented at meetings been unavailable for review for individuals not at the
meetings and presentations?
3. At what meeting will different design alternatives for comprehensively addressing Ashland's downtown
flooding problems be presented and discussed? The concern,if design alternatives are not comprehensively
examined,is that there is no way of knowing if the best environmental,asset protecting and cost effective
solutions are going to be employed.
4. Where is the data, in written, lay-person's language, that shows how the decisions have been and will be
arrived at?
5. The hydraulic model was a critical part of the design and public input process. However: 1)no written
material was available before, at, or since the meeting, even though it was requested; 2) the date of the
hydraulic modeling meeting was changed and notice for the re-scheduled meeting date was short;3) there
has been no meeting since that time to integrate public input,concerns,or questions into the model. Concerns
include what the model did not account for, like debris.
6. Is a 100 year flood event the size of event that all improvements in the project area will be sized for? If not,
what will happen during a 100 year flood at those points not sized for a 100 year event?
B. Public Input and Design Process Questions That Relate to AWP's Concerns
& May Be Useful Feedback for Future Projects
1. What is the protocol for decision making and how will input be handled? How are decisions being made
and who is making them? What is the organized, generally understood mechanism for how decisions are
made?
2. Who is monitoring the quality of information being used to generate decisions and public input? For
example, in the case of the Winburn Way crossing, it was quoted in the newsletter that 30 some people at a
meeting had generally agreed on an approach (the handout matrix for the meeting did not provide the
AWP Ashland Creek Restoration Concerns and Recommendations
23 Sept 97 1
same information for each alternative, thus any use of the matrix for comparison purposes would be
comparing apples to oranges).
3. Public relations rather than input has been the emphasis. An example would be the front lawn wall, where
a great deal of effort and taxpayer money was expended to convince the public that the wall was the right
decision (even before data was collected).
4. What suspicions and doubts may exist regarding OTAK's credibility since OTAK endorsed and pushed for
the wall concept before collecting data? Might OTAK be tempted to manipulate data to reach the
conclusion that OTAK has already staked there reputation on?
5. What happened to the RFP's support for a comprehensive approach? Where in the contract documents was
the follow-through on a comprehensive approach?
6. The public was heavily involved in the writing of the RFP,but had no input in the contract. The contract
did not seem to support the comprehensive approach. Why not? This lack of follow-through of citizen
input creates disillusionment and suspicion. i
7. Why were specific solutions proposed and argued for before data was collected,rather than collecting data,
then developing a conceptual alternatives for the entire project area, selecting an alternative or modified
alternative, then finally developing specific solutions?
8. Why were virtually all meetings during the summer, at the same time as Lithia Park input, at the same
time that people traditionally reduce their involvement. This stretched everyone's ability to participate
due to vacation and work schedules. What kind of scheduling coordination occurred between the Parks
Department and the rest of the City regarding the timing of the meetings?
9. Why has there been such a defined line between the Parks Department and the City responsibility when it
is the same creek,same watershed,same set of problems,and when there is no obvious natural boundary?
10. Why was the public notified after the Winburn Crossing decision was made, that the wall along the front
of Lithia Park will have to be built in order for the Winbum Crossing bridge to function properly. Since the
lawn levee was controversial, wouldn't it make sense to share this information at the same time that a
decision directly related to the wall was being made?
11. Until all proposed solutions are looked at, especially since the current OTAK solutions look very similar to
what the City and OTAK proposed before the design process began, it will be difficult to believe that the
best solutions have been chosen.
12. Why has there been a number of pre-data determined, piecemeal solutions? e. g. lower lawn wall, Water
Street repair and retaining wall, and rock wall below playground in Lithia Park.
13. These pre-data collection solutions have also been contrary to the RFP call for a "comprehensive
approach," since each piecemeal repair becomes an unnecessary constraint to overall solutions and may be
contrary to the best comprehensive solution.
14. The City is responsible for instrearn improvements and the Parks Department for the "riparian" areas. The
definitions of these areas has not been clear. Why not design these areas together, in a comprehensive
fashion, without the political boundaries?
i AWP Ashland Creek Restoration Concerns and Recommendations
i23 Sept 97 2
C. AWP Recommendations:
1. Provide an easily understood way for the community to be aware of how decisions are being made,what the
decisions are,and before decisions are made,what are the consequences of proposed solutions.
2. Base public discussions and project decisions on full disclosure of all economic,environmental,and political
considerations and information.
f
Create a written project history, to be made available to the public before further decisions are
implemented.
4. Insure that as broad a range of alternatives as possible are thoroughly considered by the design team, and
that the best ones have been presented for public input,before permanent improvements are approved. The
presentations would include the upstream and downstream implications, positive and negative, of each
alternative. Include the alternative of directing overflow water through the Plaza down Water Street in a
controlled fashion.
5. That a peer review,a common practice in a project of this magnitude and importance,be undertaken.
6. Approach the project in an integrated, holistic fashion, rather than piecemeal, for example, integrate
Guanajuato Way improvements into the adjacent Creek improvements and show how proposed
improvements relate to other proposed improvements or remaining obstructions.
7. Except for the construction of the Winburn Way bridge and removal of obstructions,halt all other
construction projects in the project area until the OTAK report is completed and public review and comment
on the report has been completed. From our perspective,putting in the rock wall at this time,precludes
other options,and may create downstream problems that affected property owners and the public are not
currently aware of.
S. Before the rock wall construction begins, which we recommend against,provide a model of what will
happen along Guanajuato Way, North Main crossing,Thai Pepper, etc. if the rock wall is built and all of
the water of a 100 year flood and of other levels stays in the channel (the model must represent the real,
historic situation in terms of sediment load and debris).
(���t�c hit, tG�7o(Matt�N o� 3 l � %f
O�M1Dra
3 _ wj arm c1 "`f .F,kwi itiz Cl ans w\K'v-
AWP Ashland Creek Restoration Concerns and Recommendations
23 Sept 97 3
Date : 17-Sep-97 10 : 11 : 30 -0700
From: BOBJ @SMTP (Robert Janssen) {bobj @ci .medford.or.us}
To: BarbaraC @fsl
Subject : "Ashland City Source"
Message-id: B4D64742015F3179
O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <bobj @ci .medford.or.us>
I just wanted to let you know that I think this little newspaper is an
EXCELLENT idea. I see it as an information source of what ' s going on with City
goverment, and also as a sort of City government 'primer' for citizens .
There are several sections of the paper that I would like to comment on. The
"Resolutions" and the "Ordinances" pages are great ideas. These are almost
never included in the regular daily newspapers . They tend to go after the
sensational stories and ignore the daily workings of the City and people need
to know what the City really does.
The "Guide for Citizen Participationand Attendance at City Council Meetings"
is another great idea. There are a lot of people who just do not understand
the rules and protocol of public meetings . When they do show up and want to
say something, they often are denied that priviledge just because they don' t
know the rules . This section should be a help in correcting that .
Again, I think this little paper is a great idea. Congratulations and keep it
up.
Robert Janssen
78 Pine
Ashland, Ore
488-0653
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Community Development
s
Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
d
DATE: October 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development
RE: Status Update - Railroad District Planning Issues
In 1994, the City of Ashland received a grant to undertake a study of the Ashland Railroad
District, and to attempt to create a community consensus for a neighborhood infill and
redevelopment strategy. This process was the first effort at looking at the Railroad District
in a comprehensive fashion, and while its goal was to create a strategy for the future of the
district, its main result was to identify the primary issues that could serve as future points
of reference for additional study.
The planning process occurred during the first six months of 1995, with the final report
delivered to the City on June 30, 1995. It has been stated that the City never adopted the
"railroad district plan", and in one sense that is true. But it is only true because there was
not a final "plan" to adopt, but rather a list of recommendations for future study, some of
which were conflicting.
So while we have not brought forward a specific plan to adopt, we have been incorporating
some of the recommendations into our planning efforts.
• Several of the goals of the "Draft Infill Strategy" for the Railroad District involved
the creation of a more detailed architectural review process. To that end, we prepared a
"Historic Preservation Ordinance" which would have required a higher level of review for
new construction, remodels, and additions within the Historic District. Public meetings were
held to review the ordinance recommendations, and a final draft was presented in a study
session to the Planning Commission. But as we prepared to take the final version to a
public hearing, the Oregon Legislature modified the law regarding a city's ability to regulate
historic structures, essentially making our new ordinance unenforceable. We have put that
ordinance process aside waiting for adjustments in state legislation, or the designation of
areas of the historic district as National Register Historic Districts.
Y
• Other goals of the "Draft Infill Strategy" have referred to the preservation of the
residential character of the district, and that changes in use from residential to
commercial/office should be prohibited in some areas. Since this strategy was presented
to the City in June, 1995, there have been only two approved conditional use permits for
changes in use on residentially zoned land. One was the highly-charged ICCA
I disadvantaged families/individuals facility at 144 North Second Street. This action was
approved by the City Council on appeal, and resulted in mediation and the formation of a
review committee to examine the neighborhood impacts of the use. That committee is
preparing to meet soon, after confirmation by the Council.
The other conditional use permit was for a travellers accommodation at 136 North Second
Street, almost next door to the ICCA application. Staff ensured that there was adequate
opportunity for public comment on this application by scheduling a public hearing before
the full planning commission, when this would normally be approved administratively by
Staff. The application was approved with essentially no opposition.
The small number of approvals for conditional use permits is related to the Staff's efforts
with applicants during the pre-application process, where issues of neighborhood concerns
are raised, and many times specific uses are discouraged from applying. So while the
ordinance has not been amended specifically prohibiting certain conditional uses, we have
attempted to convey the neighborhood concerns regarding changes in use that could result
in a change in neighborhood character. We believe that this has been a successful process.
Further, in response to concerns over conditional use permits, our Code Compliance
Specialist, Adam Hanks, reviewed all previously approved conditional use permits, and
physically inspected each site for conformance with the conditions of approval. Only minor
problems were found, and at only two sites. Meetings were held with the property owners
to address compliance with the conditions. Overall, the previously approved conditional use
permits in the district are in conformance with their approvals and appear to be compatible
with the area.
• SP/UP Lands across the railroad tracks from "A"Street - 20+ acres. Issues were
raised in the neighborhood process regarding the future of this land, and that its future
development should have a relationship to the Railroad District. Recommendations were
made regarding transportation linkages between "A"Street and this area. As part of the
recent Local Street Plan, conducted during 1997, we have included this area as a specific
neighborhood for review. At the neighborhood meeting for this area, approximately 25
residents participated in a workshop to address the future local streets for this area. Staff
will be bringing forward for adoption specific amendments to the city's street dedication map
indicating future connected streets as recommended in the draft strategy and the local street
plan.
The City is continuing to discuss the future of the SP property with the current owners, and
Railroad District Update
October 3,1997
Page 2
will work towards an appropriate specific plan for this area in the future.
• Issues were raised on compatible commercial development in the "A"Street area with
the residential portion of the district. While construction activity appears to be the most
troublesome aspect of current commercial development, we are aware that it is important
that appropriate commercial uses be located in the commercial and employment zones
abutting the residential areas. On Tuesday, September 30, the Planning Commission held
a study session on revising the land use ordinance to change nightclubs and bars from
permitted uses to conditional uses in the E-1 zone and in the C-1 zone in the historic
district, excluding the downtown overlay. This change, scheduled for a public hearing before
the Planning Commission in November, would help control the location of predominantly
"night time" uses near the residential area of the Railroad District.
Further, with changes made in the E-1 zone, "A"Street has been developing as a mixed use
area, with residential apartments being located above almost all new commercial uses along
the street. This mix of residential and commercial in the same building helps provide a "24-
hour" use of the building, and helps ensure compatibility with the nearby residential area.
• One of the main issues that arose during the process, and still is of concern, is traffic
on "A"Street and "B"Street. As stated, many of the problems currently occurring on "A"
Street are due to the construction activity associated with the new Ashland Hardware, and
two other buildings near Fourth Street. However, after construction is complete, there are
still issues to be addressed. An initial attempt was made at looking at this complex problem
back in August, 1995. Attached is a memo I prepared to Steve Hall, then Public Works
Director, who was working with the Traffic Safety Commission on changes to the street.
"B"Street has had similar difficulties in finding an acceptable solution. While 4-way stop
signs have been installed at several of the intersections, their effectiveness is somewhat
questionable. A true urban design process for the street, and perhaps the important side
streets and "A" Street, should be undertaken, incorporating traffic calming into the
neighborhood. We are exploring funding options for such a process, and will be attempting
to find an overall approach to addressing the neighborhood traffic concerns.
• Throughout the draft infill strategy process, the importance of the Railroad District
as an historic area to the entire city kept being confirmed. In recognition of the importance
of this area, the City has secured a grant to prepare a nomination to have the Railroad
District recognized as a National Historic District. A study session will be held with the
Planning and Historic Commissions on this upcoming process on October 28, 1997.
National register status for the neighborhood will assist in preserving the identity of the
area, allow the City greater opportunities for ensuring future development is compatible,
and perhaps provide additional grant opportunities. We believe that this is an important
step in protecting the future of the neighborhood.
Railroad District Update
October 3,1997
Page 3
I
As shown by these activities, while the city has not adopted a "railroad district plan",
planning efforts have been on-going and will continue. The "Draft Infill Strategy" is not just
sitting on shelf, but is serving as the framework for individual and specific efforts in the
area. We look forward to continued involvment in the district, and the preparation of
specific planning products addressing the issues raised in the overall draft infill strategy for
the district.
Railroad District Update
October 3, 1997
Page 4
August 24, 1995
Steve Hall, Public Works Director
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
Modifications to "A" Street
I would like to provide some comments regarding the proposed changes to "A" Street that are scheduled to be discussed at
the September 19 City Council Meeting.
"No Parking" Allowed on North Side of "A" Street
The current physical width of "A" Street, curb to curb, is 31 feet. Conservatively assuming 7' wide parking spaces
(our ordinance requires 8'), this would only allow for a 17' driving surface. The minimum width for new streets is
20', to allow for two cars to pass. While I am supportive of narrower streets, I believe that the minimum width
allowable for two-way traffic is 18'. Also, with the narrower parking, wider vehicles and improperly parked
vehicles will extend somewhat into the travel portion of the street. Therefore, while I encourage the use of traffic
calming measures such as narrower streets to reduce traffic speeds, I believe that "A" Street is narrowed to such a
width that we are creating a potential safety problem. The removal of parking on the north side will create a 24'
travel width, safely allowing two cars to pass.
I also concur with the parking being retained on the south side of the street. The new developments occurring on
the north side are providing their required parking on-site, accessed by the new alley soon to be improved. The
established structures on the south side will retain their existing on-street parking.
Shared Bike Facility
"A" Street is designated on the recently adopted Bikeway Master Plan as a "shared facility", meaning that both
bicycles and cars will be sharing the same driving surface. Given the existing traffic speeds on "A", and the
conflicts occurring where cars are parked on both sides, I believe that the only way to achieve a safe shared facility
is to remove the parking from one side of the street. The wider travel lanes (increased from 8.5' to 12') will allow
for cars and bikes to share the same road surface without significant conflicts.
Reduced Speed Limit — 20 MPH
While the removal of parking from one side of the street may create an environment where cars feel more
comfortable going faster, I believe that the signing of this area for 20 MPH, as allowed for business districts, is
highly appropriate. This will help encourage the expectation that travel should be slower along this street.
Two-Hour Parking Time Limit for on-street parking on "A" Street - 1st Street to 6th Street
With the removal of parking from one side of "A" Street, it becomes imperative that the remaining parking be
utilized in the most efficient manner possible for the commercial uses along the street. The 2-hour parking limit
will do that, by restricting long term parking, and ensuring that these on-street spaces will be available to customers
of the existing and new commercial ventures.
Curb and Crosswalk Improvements at 4th & "A"
I concur wholeheartedly with the proposal to reduce the street crossing widths at this intersection by the installation
of curb bump-outs. Not only will this increase pedestrian safety, it will also assist in the "traffic calming" of this
intersection, helping to reduce auto speeds. Further, the proposal to provide a scored-concrete surface by cutting
the paved road surface in the crosswalks is also a positive move for this intersection. The change in surface will
help alert drivers as to the pedestrian nature of the intersection. I would request that the Planning Department have
an opportunity to participate and review the proposed design modifications for this intersection.
Relationship to RR District Neighborhood Planning Process
This issue was discussed during the neighborhood planning process. The following comments were included in the
consultants report, and I have included some responses:
Goal: Improve "A" Street transportation conditions.
ACTION ITEMS:
a Thoroughly study parking conditions along A Street. Consider the following options:
a. Remove parking on north side of street; require use of off-street parking this side. (rhis is implemented under this
proposal)
b. Create alternative parking zones on opposite sides of street to create a serpentine traffic flow. (This was examined,
but due to the street being designated for bike use, the serpentine approach creates safety problems)
C. Leave parking on both sides. Let parking on both sides serve as a traffic calming measure, among others. (This
was examined, but the width was too narrow to safely consider this for traffic calming--Option a. above was
implemented. Other traffic calming measures in the form of curb bump-outs and concrete crosswalks are proposed
at the 4th Street intersection)
d. Do not stripe bike lanes; allow bike to travel in automobile lanes. Special lanes for bikes would be inconsistent
with the character of the neighborhood. (This is implemented under this proposal)
e. Reduce speed. (this is implemented under this proposal)
a Improve sidewalks, remove existing safety obstructions(This will be an on-going improvement program through
Public Works)
a Implement timed parking on south side of street(This is being implemented under this proposal)
DATE: October 3, 1997 P
FAX (Main to: Ashland City Administrator, the Mayor, and Members of the Q Council
From : Gerald and Ragan Cavanaugh; fax: 1-541-488-8216; P. O. Box 247, Ashland, O
97520-0009. (tel: 541-482-6543); e-mail: gjcav @jeffnet.org
Greetings:
For a variety of reasons, I believe that the City should maintain ownership
of the municipal electric power system. However, simple belief is not enough.
I would like to review the pros and cons of the issue. If the City can provide me
with a source of pertinent information, or direct me to such a source, I would
appreciate it.
Sincere)
Gerald va augh
j
OCT
tERs�
UT
October 2, 1997
2962 Grizzly Drive —`--
Ashland, Oregon
To: Mayor Golden and the Ashland City Council
When I moved to Ashland seven years ago, I noticed the unusual habit of large delivery trucks
parking in the main lanes of traffic through the center of town. I've heard people cursing the
trucks....it seems to be one of those bun-under-the-saddle blanket issues and is very frustrating.
Some days a car driver must wend one's way through the three blocks of downtown. Brakes
screech, lights flash, and people mutter.
But the other day was the worst. It was about 12:30 to 12:45. I turned left onto Main at the
intersection across from the Bard's Inn and immediately was caught in a traffic snarl. Cars with
out of state licenses were jammed haphazardly into an interesting variety of non-existent lanes.
Three HUGE trucks were parked on both sides of the main street by Munchies and the little park.
Drivers were forced into one-way traffic during the busiest time of the day--lunch hour. Then, as
though to provide the most frustration possible, there was a large truck across the street from Wells
Fargo, then another further down the street by Bloomsbury Books.
All my anger at these trucks-- seven years of it--boiled over, but what can one do? Or more to the
point-- what can YOU do? I realize, after reflection,that there may not be another avenue for
supplying downtown businesses. However, why does it have to be done at noon hour? We
already provide our townspeople and tourists with the jaywalking fun and games, the sidewalk
crowding unemployed youth of unusually unattractive mein, and we continue to drive everyone
crazy with the difficulty of getting around downtown--- and then cap it all with these big trucks
plunked right in the way. Only people's good will and driving skill have prevented a series of
accidents. And, if anyone does get in an accident, my advice to them will be to sue the city. Or the
state-- this is a state highway, right? There must surely be a law preventing indiscriminate
blocking of a state highway.
Can't those trucks do their delivery runs before 9 a.m.? Or, gasp!, during late evening hours?
No one can tell me that deliveries don't accommodate traffic in other towns/cities.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Chloe Winston
October 3, 1997
Ashland City Council
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear City Council,
I urge the City Council to allow common sense to prevail and to take
immediate action to resolve the long drawn out dispute over the
subdivision on Westwood.
LIDs throughout the city pit neighbor against neighbor creating bitterness
and animosity among neighbors that can last a lifetime. We are
destroying the very fabric of what a community should be about. This
must not be allowed to continue. As the LID process is clearly not
working, the city should work on an immediate compromise by
participating in the cost, or paying for existing LIDS through the street
fund while working on a long-term alternative to the destructive LID
process.
Through a neighborhood citizen participation group (Westwood-
Strawberry), the land belonging to Anna Hassell has already been
designated as in-fill land to be zoned at a density of one acre. A fire
access and service road passing through Anna's land has been donated to
the city for the benefit of all citizens living in the area as well as those
passing over the hill for convenience or pleasure.
The use of this land as a subdivision has been already clearly determined
by the citizens and the City Planning Department. At issue is not the use
of the land but over the cost of an LID, or rather the whole LID process
itself.
I urge the City Council to take a hard honest look at what is going on in
our city as the LID process pits neighbor against neighbor. It is not
necessary to have Portland experts do a "feasibility study" to determine
whether this process is working or not. The citizens have spoken. They do
not like the process and it forces them to fight one another to protect
their own economic lifestyle. Is this how we want to live? It would be
better for us to pay for these projects as a community seeing particularly
since they will become public property.
It is time for the City Council to take immediate action to resolve this
ugly bitter issue called an LID. New housing developments already pay a
fee to the city called an SDIC for the added burden of the new
development. Doesn't it only make sense to have the city pay for new
street infrastructure using SDIC money as well as from the general city
street funds rather than forcing neighbors to fight one another? After all,
even streets that aren't major arteries are driven and walked on by people
who don't necessarily live in the immediate area. Are there any of you
who haven't driven on another street? And being city streets, not private
ones, it is your right to use them.
Please do not defer this issue any longer. If in fact the issue is still
whether this land is to be used for housing or not, why not also consider
the alternative of offering to buy the remaining land from Anna Hassell to
create an extension to the existing planned park on the top of the hill for
all citizens to use?
In either case, there is no excuse for further procrastination and delay.
Let's resolve this issue once and for all.
Sinc rely,
W� Z*�--.
Gregory Moore
Ashland, Oregon
10--06-1997 e4t04PM FROM HBH of JRCKSON COUNTY INC TO 4885311 P.02
,
r _
HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC.
1006 East Jackson street
Medford,Oregon 97504
(541)7712872
FAX.(561)773-1189
enmo«mlF
LARRY IAEDINGER
Preaidem
RALPH SALUMALD October 6, 1997
Vice PnstAMl
SANDY THOMAS
Aeaeeime Vim Residem
TOM MORRIS Honorable Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Tnaawer
City of Ashland
JOHN my
Sammy 20 East Main Street
CARLOS REICHENSHaMMBR Ashland, OR 97520
Pans mowAftn
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Dear Mayor Golden and Members of the City Council:
Steven Astor
JUDY GAUDEAMAN
Executive Vim Pios1°"" RE: Proposed Hillside Development Ordinance
BOARD MEMBERS
Diana Bd"u
Steve Oocarlm r
Joe Hubbard
J
Raney MOs"" The Home Builders Association of Jackson County (HBAJC)
R I"'d"ght supports and endorses the Oregon Building Industry Association
BM Moon
Stu Smith (OBIA) position letter dated October 6, 1997, a copy of which is
ion V "'
enclosed.
Gary VYhitlle
The HBAJC is extremely concerned about the negative impact of
the above referenced ordinance, hence urging you to postpone
Its approval pending further analysis and study, as per OBIA's
recommendations.
We are ready, willing and able to participate in the process, H the
City so desires.
Sincerely,
CW��
d
Executive Vice President
cc: HBAJC Board of Directors
SUPPORT YOUR INDUS]RYS ORGANMTION
'Every man owes a pad of his time end money to the husmess or industry in which he is engaged.
No man has the moral right to withhold his support from an organ"ion that is striving 10 improve ootldBiors within his sphere.'
Theodore Roosevelt
10-06-1997 04:05PM FROM HHA of JACKSON COUNTY INC TO 4885311 P.03
rr- Oregon Bu9lding 1"ustry Awoctktinn
375 Street NE• Salem.OIL 97303 ■(503)378-9066 Fax(503)362-5120
October 6, 1997
19970Siam
Hun. Catherine M. Golden, Mayor
Tim City of Ashland
wassmi>; i= 20 E Main Street
��y Ashland, OR 97520
(503)24sA71s
Hand Delivered
Foie vkcAsdder
vamml'abW Re: Proposed Hibide Development Ordinsnoe
ve�1'el zx;
FOS"tea
eW&ota 9M Dear Mayor Golden and Members of the City Council:
(541)389-?806
nwPftddoW7h=WW The Oregon Building Industry Associadon stronaN encourages you to
amens&& postpone adoption of the above-referenced ordinance until additional shidy
AAWH® and analysis can be done. We are making this recommendationn based on the
M9CMaLMI•A'4 following points;thank you in advance for your consideration_
magma M 975M
(541)779,92;(1
1. The proposed ordinance is not needed.
"WPrW adamseo%"7
1'•'�
LLLHUOdtss Ashland already has an ordinance that deals with slopes and related hazards.
roes 15 4 There are no findings that additional restrictions are necessary, end no
tiNW.olt473a1 showing that this ordnance, if adopted,would advance the public health or,
(341)Y1 mi safety
as,ifi,ft rr,WrftMWdd
Md3muin Z The proposed ordinance appears not to comply with state law
sawcsslod8d" regarding natural resources.
P013a s9
=;uR9ztzi
(80a)359.20M Tire proposed ordinance dearly affects Goal 5 resources. by virtue of its
applicabrTity to and discussion of tloodplains, riparian arcs.tree preservation,
and natural areas. If any of these resources or any of the areas to which the
eamae�>k ordinance would apply are listed on Ash Land's Goal 5 inventory, then the
FOB== requirements of Goal 5 must be followed. (OAR 660-23-250) This has not
Cbd=ms,r&97015 occurred
cam)6s9too4
�.-.WP&0Prft*4 a If the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to comply with Goals 6 or 7,then
Dowifthm oy ' the requirements of the Goal 5 rule would lilmly$till apply. (OAR NO-23-240)
Ho405&sL.s M"
POSdc56b 3. The proposed ordinance appears not to comply with state taws
Tgb= LoRgrn41 regarding needed housing.
(503)242.2772
gWWA"Y=pr,�,a To the extent that this ordinance affects land zoned for residential uses. it is
&*BMW sojbjert to the regtlremeras of Goal 10 and ORB 187.303-307. Spedlicaly,
n5T,qjW ez NE the law requires that local regulations of needed housing shall be stated in
s�ossriol
(SM 37&M66
i
i
I ,
10-06-1997 02:37PM FROM HBR of JACKSON COUNTY INC TO SMITH P.03
Mayor Catherine M. Golden
Octoberi 8, 1997
Page 2
dear and objective language, and shall not have the effect of discouraging needed housing
through;unreasonable cost or delay.
On its face, the proposed ordinance would seem to fail this test. For example:
• The section entitled "Criteria for Approval' contains requirements that"potential
impads..thave been considered and adverse impacts minimized' and that`the
applicant;has taken all reasonable steps...' These are scarcely dear and objective
criteria.
• This section also gives the City the authority to require plans to be rewritten, portions
of the laroscape to be preserved, and to bill the applicant for the services of outside
pmfessianals—ail without any standards: or criteria.
• Any applicant must, in order to comply with the proposed ordinance, obtain the
services of a geotachnical engineer, perform expensive engineering work on the site,
probably;retain a professional arborisrt, and so forth. This will result in an
unreasonable increase in the cost of housing. particularly when the ordinance
r ontains'na basis or justification for such requirements.
• The section entitled 'Hillside Development Standards'contains the following
language: "Mhe purpose ... to ensure that development occurs in such a manner as
to protect ... the aesthetic qualities and restorative value of lands ... It is the intent of
these development standards to encourage a sensitive'.form of development! These
are not Oandarde. They provide no guidance to the applicant, and essentially leave
the City free to impose any manner of requirements and to add any amount of cost,
without restriction.
Other examples can be found throughout the proposed ordinance. If the land covered by
this ordinance is part of the City's Housing Inventory, then we believe that the ordinance
must be rewritten to comply with state law.
4. The propooed ordinance appears not to comply with state.laws regarding
urbanization.
We believe:that Ashland is subject to the requirements of ORS 197.295—298 regarding
urban growth boundaries. Ashland is certainty subject to the requirements of Goss 10 and
Goal 14. The proposed ordinance appears to be in conflict with these taws.
Whatever other,effects might occur as a result of the proposed ordinance,it is evident that
residential housing density will be substantially reduced. The'.language of the ordinance
makesithat clear as to certain sites, and the cumulative effect:of the ordinance's provisions
will be to make'mall lot single family or any multi-family development nearly impossible.
This places an obligation on the City to ensure that the devaigpment which would otherdAse
go in areas effected by this proposed ordinance is accornmodiated elsewhere. This can
occur®fther through amendment of the UGB or through upzorgng or other density-
enhaneing measures, but it cannot be assumed away. The proposed ordinance is silent on
10-06-1997 02:38PM FROM HBA of JACKSON COUNTY INC TO SMITH P.04
Mayor gatneruhe M. uoiaen
October 6, 1997
Page 3
j I
these points, and we believe that the City must perform an analysis of the effect this
ordinanpe will have on density and the UGS before It Is adopted.
In addition,the state legislature passed a law last aessWi (HB 2774)which prohibits the use
of design or other aesthetic review In such a way as to reduce density or to deny
development applications. The proposed o�nance would not appear to comply with this
standard.
S. Theiproposed ordinance appears not to comply with state taws regarding"moving
Of dw 90410ests,
Several sections of the ordinance seem to apply to approved but unbuilt subdivisions and to
edsting but undeveloped lots. This would violate the provisions of ORS 92.0400 and
227.178(3). Moreover, the application of such a restrictive ordnance to existing lots and
subd'hvisions might well frustrate titre legitimate economic ex(Pechgcl s of property owners,
and thereby expose the City to I'digation and expense.
it Is not our intent to keep Ashland from adopting an ordinance that responds to legitimate
concertos over public safety and wellbeing. Should the City be interested in doing so,we
would tie more than happy to work with staff and the Council in crafting such an ordinance.
Vile are concerned•though, for the reasons set forth in this letter.that the proposed
ardinance goes!we for and takes in too much territory—whatever the public health and
safety i6terests!of the City are, they must be balanced against other policies and goals_ We
do not believe that this ordinance contains the necessary balance.
Thank i1ou again for your consideration.
Very ti<ty yours,
j
Jon A. Chandler
Direcidr of Govenvnental Affairs
Dick Benner, DLGD
Phil Fell,LOC
4ackson:County HBA
.Oregon Association of Realtors
I
I
i
i
A-S-H-L-A-N•D H-0-M-E-S
October 2, 1997 REAL ESTATE, INC
Mayor Cathy Golden and
7 1 Do.
Ashland City Council
City Hall A097
Ashland, OR 97520
Dear Mayor Golden and Council Members:
I would like to go on the record as someone who is opposed to Chapter 18.62. These are the new
building requirements which are being called the"Hillside Development Standards."
I have lived in the Ashland area wince 1974. 1 currently livejust outside the city limits, and I
work in downtown Ashland. I believe that we already have sufficient laws to regulate
development. We do not need this new set of standards. In my opinion, these new"Hillside
Development Standards" are an attempt by a small group of people, who are against growth, to
discourage development on hillside property.
My major concern is that here in the United States of America, we are supposed to be free and
have the right to decide how we want to use our own property. I agree that some control and
planning is necessary, but when the city starts telling us what color is acceptable and which is
not, I think we are losing property rights and freedom. I have seen homes that are not on
hillsides, which I do not find attractive because of design, color or other reason. When will the
city start regulating the features of these homes? I have noticed some ugly cars on our city's
streets. Is there a way that we could have our police officers encourage that these cars don't
come through town? It would look much nicer. I know that this might seem silly to you, but it
makes as much sense as the city telling people what color to paint their homes.
Just because a small group of people come to you wanting new laws to restrict development
doesn't mean it makes good sense. Whenever a group wants a law passed, what they mean is
that they want the government to force their ideas onto another group. This causes us all to give
up some of our freedom. I am sometimes amazed that intelligent people are willing to give up
our hard-won freedoms so easily. In this case we will give up some of our property rights so that
a small group will be happy about color selection and building design on homes that they don't
even own.
I encourage you to stand firm and protect our property rights. Please vote against Chapter 18.62,
the proposed"Hillside Development Standards."
Sincerely,
Rich Haveman, CRS, GRI
Associate Broker
150 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520 541 -482-0044
Y
e�
1'-C
October 5,1997
Attention: City Recorder
t
Please see that each member of the Council receives a copy of my letter
prior to the council meeting Tuesday evening.
c you, ky`
arie Donovan ,
P: Y
3.
Marie Donovan
189 Logan Dr.
Ashland OR 97520
F ti
N\e
\ J
9
Y.
j:
4.
�' t
September 30, 1997
To: Mayor Golden & Members of the Ashland City Council
I'm writing to express my deep concern over the proposed "hillside development"
ordinance that you are about to vote on. I do not believe the majority of Ashland
residents understand what you are contemplating for approval.
I obtained a copy of the 33 page document and read through it several times.
I sat perplexed by every paragraph.Who would write such a controlling ordinance?
Why would anyone want to control the look of someone else's home, right down to
the color it's painted? We all witnessed the outrage at the idea of controlling
someone's color choice, but that is the only part of the ordinance that reached the
public. The citizens of Ashland have a right to know about the rest of the ordinance.
There are pages after pages of unbelievable requirements. Ashland is a unique
town that prides itself on diversity and acceptance of one another differences. Many
of us continue to live here and raise our families here for that very reason. Yet, you
are considering approval of an ordinance that discriminates on the basis of what
side of the boulevard you live on.
As a community that laments the lack of affordable housing, why on earth
would we consider factoring in yet another layer of cost into building new homes
anywhere? Perhaps the committee felt the hillside property owners should pay even
more for the privilege of building above the boulevard. After all, if these property
owners are wealthy enough to have paid taxes on these lots for the last twenty
years, why don't we make them pay unreasonably for the privilege of building their
dream home. Better yet, why don't we make it so cost-prohibitive that they have no
choice but to sell and move away. The trouble is these lots are build-able, and they
will be developed. This kind of discriminating ordinance only serves to drive away
long-term residents to be displaced by those who are willing to bear the costs of
over-regulation.
Increasing costs for the property owner and discrimination is precisely what this
hillside proposal is intended to accomplish. It will not only encourage excessive
conformity in design standards, but it will dramatically increase the costs of building a
home on a hillside lot. This new proposal will REQUIRE that you hire a licensed
arborist to consult with you about the appropriate trees to plant in your yard. Forget
about using a designer to help you draw up your home plans,.this ordinance if
enacted, will REQUIRE that you hire a licensed architect. If you were thinking of
putting a 12 foot deck on concrete pads, you'll be surprised to know that you'll be
REQUIRED to have a building structure underneath at considerable expense. You'll
also need to build a smaller home on that lot in order to provide more "open space"
on your property. Roof lines will need to be approved for their aesthetic appeal.
Imagine how the hillside will look with homes that have the "conformity" of a
condominium complex. When did Ashland residents agree to give up their most
basic property rights?
This proposed ordinance is all about CONTROL! It was designed by a small
committee who plainly would prefer to see NO houses on the hillside. If you choose
to approve this idea you had better be prepared to compensate the property owners
for the taxes that they've paid over the last decade, and the taking of their basic
property rights.
In short, the design requirements of this ordinance are unreasonably restrictive. They
should be rejected outright. The existing hillside review standards that are already in
place properly deal with erosion control and safety, not aesthetics.
As elected officials who are charged to represent the entire community and protect
our basic rights, I urge you to vote NO!
Marie Donovan
189 Logan Drive
Ashland, Oregon 97520
i
�01,VL- 0 ADA4, ot
e
PIW
!I+,
I
Francene Orrok PhD
1030 Ivy St. Ashland OR 97520
541 488-2495 (Phone &fax) Email.•franorr k(q),uol.com
6 October, 1997
To the City Council of Ashland
Re: Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO)
A flawed document- The HDO is clearly a flawed document which focuses more on aesthetics
than protecting Ashland from Fire and Flood. The members of the Ashland City Council who
in self-righteous arrogance defend dictating color over fire prevention, clearly demonstrate they
have lost sight of priorities.
Wildfire prevention a top priority - We face the threat of wildfire every year. The HDO is
much more concerned with preserving the `view' than in preventing wildfire. The HDO gives
only lip service to tree removal meeting wildfire standards and is totally out of touch with the
reality of the problems of responsible tree management faced by homeowners on the hillside. It is
my understanding that the drafters of the HDO did not even consult the Ashland Forest Lands
Commission. Below are only the most pertinent wildfire prevention standards cited in Home
Protection Guide, 1990, sponsored by BIA, BLM, Oregon Dept. Forestry, Forest Service and
other government agencies:
• A firebreak of at least 30 feet (or 100 Feet + on inclines) should be maintained around all
structures.
• Large trees should be planted at least 10 feet from the outer walls of one's home with
branches pruned to a height of 8 feet.
• Homes that contain flammable fuels (trees) should not be located on hillsides steeper than 30
percent.
• Trim trees away from roofs and no portion of a tree or any vegetation should extend to within
• 15 feet of the outlet of a stovepipe or chimney.
• Thin trees adjacent to building to 15 feet between treetops.
Following these rules strictly, we would have few trees on the hillside!
It is time to start all over on producing a HDO that makes fire, flood, and earthquake the top
priority. Leave aesthetics to the architects.
Yours Truly,
Francene Orrok
Oct.7, 1997
Mayo,. golden & city counci.L mem6eAA:
-7/u:4 is in "-4ponce to an aaticLe in the Mai. J,z 6ane aegoading the
A.uoci.ati.on o� /?eaLtoaa and the.in. pLar to flight the hoped �oa oAz6Lzance
ice hilLaide 6aiLding in A Uand.
They don't aea-4e it but not only ate they out o� touch with the pae-
paevaiLing �eeLinga and wi&dom o� the community, 6ut they aice out o�
touch with their. own paoapectn. 9� 9 we-,ce about to puncA"e a view
paopeaty and houae ovealoohing. AehLaid'a 6eautiAd mountain aimned
vaLLey, 9 would cen tainLy want aZt the pLann.ing.,pnotective oad nance.
in pLace. Cvenyone lhouLd 6e concerned with ea.oaion contn.oL & taee paen-
eavation, atorm drainage, ire paotecti.on accear etc. a,4 &. McLaughlin
.ao aptly naya in the aatirLe.
9n conc&44-on, allow me to a.em.ind the aea,Ltoaa & the 6ui A" that they
don't do their. thing in a vacuum. Ae comnuunity at Lange has a velited
inteae4i in M,& vent' neat place. "No man iii an iaLand"ia a true statement.
The 6uildeaa and the tea- estate inteaests are iimp4 a paid o4 the 'Whole",
os. a&e we all.
9 hope the mayoa and the council wiLL continue to iuppoAt the un eit4
o4 the common .ty at Lange.
.S<�J�tcG/ere.L/ylQ �
Hea6ent L. Cole. aa. ,
685 Chea-uy Lane ,Ashland,97520
c �
CITY OF ASHLAND of`ASy�,,o
Department of Public Works v +
a _
Public Works Administration
MEMORANDUM �'°REGO�',.'
DATE: September 23, 1997
TO: Carole Wheeldon, Councilor
FROM: Paula C. Brown, PE, Public Works Director / City Engineer
f
RE: STREET MILES STATUS
You asked that I provide you with some quick statistics regarding streets and
improvements to streets. Here goes:
Paved Streets (City only, not County or State) 76 miles 89.4%
Unpaved/Unimproved Streets 9 miles 10.6%
TOTAL (City of Ashland) 85 miles
(does not include Siskiyou, N. Main, Ashland Street, etc.)
Streets paved through subdivision agreements 8.4 miles 17%
(note these are subdivision improvements since 1965)
Streets paved through LIDs 41.0 miles 83%
Total Streets paved through subdivisions or LIDs 49.4 miles
(65% of our total street miles)
The rest of our street miles (26.6 miles or 35% of the total) was,paved through prior
"agreements" or by City assessments
Granite Street from existing pavement to the dam is included in our unpaved street
mileage and is just under 2 miles.
The unimproved street mileage includes the LID street improvement work that is being
done at Clinton, Ann, Orange and Mountain this year which is approximately 0.5 miles.
Cc: Brian Almquist
CITY OF ASHLAND CITY HALL
t i ASHLAND,OREGON 97520
telephone(fie 503)482-3211
STANDARD CITY UNIT COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
1. c���Aar� P,C.C.
+�*>� and Gutter: $7.00 per linear foot
$37,000.00 per mile
2 iB ke Lane.: $9.00 per linear foot
$47,500.00 per mile
This item provides for a 6-foot wide bike lane (constructed to
street standards) including striping and signing.
3. v r r. Sidewalk: $18.00 per linear foot
$95,000.00 per mile
This item provides for a 5-foot wide 4-inch thick non-reinforced
concrete walk
4 Traf�e: $15.00 per linear foot
$79,000.00 per mile
This item provides for an 11-foot wide travel lane constructed of
asphalt concrete (by full depth design) on a minimum crushed
rock base. The cost also includes striping and minimal sign
costs.
As 01'051111195
O 8 N O O $8$j O O N YN• � tYWt��I n [NY 0
O p N m Q O m pyi 0 I m r O N n
m Q Q m m a m &
vi pr pQ m m mm pW vi
h 6 t7 O N ^ O N N 6 cm
pWO pn mn W Wy Q p n
`p• Y m 1� F E N W 1p q N t'1 N W !�
N W 8 8 Q 8 A � 8 R 8
� � of 2G I Rn a mm �m r m p$�
S W QqqI m 1� pQ
fV r W m, 89 O O N N 1(1 n 10 m
ec ° � 5 m
W m�1 N pr It m� m m0 pNW N VN b�
la N 1 O ^ m l7 O 1n N 0 li W Q Y Q VpI
N W Q Q W 1I1 n � N O O N N
g W $$ s 8 g n m P W m $
N f W QI W m N ^ mj O 0 8
B 8 8 ts 8 $ o fC
0
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 yQe
Fa
is
o l�
0 p p Le Y�1 N N Fa
5
m L
s � �
U
a
E E
a s a z m f
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jill Turner, Director of Finance
Subject: Local Improvement District - Interest Rate
Date: October 22, 1997
Background: A little about the process. When a Local improvement District is assessed an
interest rate is set by the following language. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act
are required to pay in 20 semi-annual installments together with interest. Interest charged
will be the actual bond sale interest rate plus 1.5 %, with a maximum of 10 percent. The
property owner then has a right to pay over time (Bancroft) or pay the lien in full. Perhaps
as many as half of the assessments are paid in full. The balance are billed starting six months
later. Currently these unbonded assessments are being charged 8.5 percent. The assessments
are bundled with other assessments until a large enough dollar amount exists for a bond sale.
This can take a number of years and there is the risk that interest rates may increase during
this interium period. After the bond sale the interest rate is reviewed and pegged to the bond
sale amount plus an additional amount up to 1.5 percent.
Why does the City charge a markup on the interest rate above the bond amount? It uses a
markup for some of the following reasons:
* ' To cover administrative costs.
* To offset risk of negative net interest earnings on advance payments. This used to be
a big issue although most financing now have call features so that bonds also can be
paid in advance.
* To offset risk of slow payment or no payments or foreclosure.
* Markup is expected in the bond market.
* It is standard practice with Municipalities.
What happens at the end of ten years when the bonds are paid in full? It never completely
comes out even. When a bond issue is completely closed out the balance is either retained
within the Bancroft Bond Fund or the balance is transferred to the General Fund depending
on the overall financial shape of the Bancroft Bond Fund. If the interest rate was not marked
up then most likely there would be a deficit and additional monies would be needed from the
General Fund.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October, 190.
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan,complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un- and under-developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all. "
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvementcosts in two.'The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets, curbs,and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks,mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee (which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.LD. would allow us to make a comprehensive,time-certain plan for.improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But,to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
. ,houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases, the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to'assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D,C.'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL.FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October, 1997.
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing ail of Ashland's un- and under-developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets,curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks,mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee(which would be part of the,present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula'for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide-
L.I.D, would allow us to make a comprehensive,time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D.monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would.be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.LD.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this,vay. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
' houses thatchanges that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth'of the total basic
street costs. Although the LJ.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces.
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D,C.'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un- and under-developed streets. Italso would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all:
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street .
improvement costs in"two., The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets,curbs, and
gutters..The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks,mass transit
improvements on the street;and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee(which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The,second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a.comprehensive,time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy"
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to-pay the amounts we require,
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that "
increase the use of a street.`These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are"
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens,we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for '
the City-Wide L.I.D.to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs._ Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property"owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical "
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or,another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and.created new houses which would pay S.D.C.'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND:UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS ,
Don Laws,October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan,complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un--and under- developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all. .
Quite simply,the proposal requires two actions. First;.we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the.cost of streets, curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a.city=wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee(which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to forma city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
LID. would allow us to make a comprehensive, time-certain plan for impioving.all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D.. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of.streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their.present underdeveloped street, and it is onlythe addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are'willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens,we can adopt .
an L.ID. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the LTD. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford,and it is more in line with the historical"
costs of L:I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the.assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D..costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.DC.'s,
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un-and under- developed streets. It also"would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets, curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee (which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a comprehensive,time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But,to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
_ somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that,in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new .
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens,we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city, the charges would only be'assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop, via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be.based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements. ,
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses"which would pay S.D.C.'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws,October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un- and under-developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets, curbs, and
' .gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee(which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a comprehensive, time-certain plan for improving all the streets
.that need improvement, and it would get the"L.LD. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., We are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful.that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs,of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city, the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop, via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would paymore as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D.C.'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws,October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un-and under- developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply,the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets,curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to.more than average use. The.
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee (which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a comprehensive,time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy,
somewhat. Iris doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases, the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D.to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city, the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical -
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they.develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements. `
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D.G,'s.
i
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October,1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un- and under-developed streets: It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all..
Quite simply; the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would-include the cost of streets,curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee(which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.LD, would allow us to make a comprehensive, time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our.financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L:I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city, the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another.' The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted,houses as they develop, via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements. ,
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D.C:'s.
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October,1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un- and under- developed streets: It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply,the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets, curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee (which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee). .
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to,cover the Basic Street Costs. A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a comprehensive, time-certain plan for improving all the streets
that need improvement, and it would get the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a majority of our landowners if the .
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases,the existing residents are
getting along fine with their presenfunderdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens, we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges_would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford, and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop,via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D.C.'s,
FUNDING PROPOSAL FOR UNDEVELOPED AND UNDERDEVELOPED STREETS
Don Laws, October, 1997
This proposal allows us to adopt a comprehensive plan, complete with a firm timetable,
for developing all of Ashland's un-and under-developed streets. It also would get the funding
hassle behind us once and for all.
Quite simply, the proposal requires two actions. First, we would divide street
improvement costs in two. The Basic Street Cost would include the cost of streets,curbs, and
gutters. The Traffic Reduction Cost would include the costs of sidewalks, mass transit .
improvements on the street, and extra widths or pavement due to more than average use. The
Traffic Reduction Costs would be seen as a city-wide benefit and paid from a Traffic Reduction
Fee (which would be part of the present monthly Street Utility Fee).
The second action would be to form a city-wide Local Improvement District and a new
formula for street System Development Charges, to cover the Basic Street Costs. -A city-wide
L.I.D. would allow us to make a comprehensive, time-certain plan for improving all the streets .
that need improvement,and it would get,the L.I.D. monkey off our backs all at once..
But, to sell a city-wide L.I.D., we are going to have to modify our financing philosophy
somewhat. It is doubtful that it would be approved by a.majority of our landowners if the
benefitted landowners using an improved street were required to pay the amounts we require
under existing L.I.D.'s. The present system is based on the assertion that existing and new
houses benefit equally from the improvement of streets. However, most citizens do not see it
this way. Most citizens believe that improvements are made necessary by the new houses that
increase the use of a street. These citizens believe that, in most cases, the existing residents are
getting along fine with their present underdeveloped street, and it is only the addition of new
houses that changes that.
If we are willing to go along with these beliefs of a majority of our citizens,we can adopt
an L.I.D. funding proposal that will be acceptable to most of our citizens. This proposal is for
the City-Wide L.I.D. to assess existing benefitted properties for one fourth of the total basic
street costs. Although the L.I.D. would be city-wide and require the approval of the landowners
of the entire city,the charges would only be assessed to the benefitted properties. This is an
amount that almost all property owners could afford,and it is more in line with the historical
costs of L.I.D.'s that most of our homeowners have already paid in one way or another. The
remaining costs would be paid by new benefitted houses as they develop, via a revised S.D.C.
formula. That formula would also be based on the assumption that new building is what forces
street improvements.
One other revision of present policies would simplify this whole process and reduce
many feelings of unfairness. That is to assess each existing house equally for its L.I.D. costs.
Larger lots would pay more as they divided and created new houses which would pay S.D.C,'s.