Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0417 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting,the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please fill out the Speaker Request fom 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,if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion,the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 17, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 6:15 p.m. Executive Session for Labor Negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d). 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Study Session of April 2, 2012 2. Regular Meeting of April 3, 2012 3. Executive Session of April 9, 2012 4. Study Session of April 9, 2012 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation of Annual Ragland Volunteer Spirit Award to Joan Spear 2. Proclamation of April 15 - 21 as Independent Media Week 3. Proclamation of April 20 as Ashland-Lithia Springs Rotary Day 4. Proclamation of April 30 - May 6 as Mediation Week VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Appointment of Mike Morris as Liaison to the Homeless Steering Committee 3. Appointment of Colin Swales to the Transportation Commission 4. Approval of a contract amendment in excess of 25% for the Bluebird Park Stairway Replacement Project 5. Endorsement of SOPride event for the purpose of hanging a banner 6. Approval of Recommendation of the Public Art Commission 7. Acceptance of a Certified Local Government Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office for the continued operation of the City of Ashland's historic preservation program COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US 8. Approval of contract with Ausland Group for construction of Fire Station #2 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council (AMC §2.04.050)) 1. Adoption of a resolution levying special benefit assessments for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88 and adoption of findings. IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Award of 2012 Community Development-Block Grant Funds 2. Approval of the Internet Service Provider Annual Contract Agreement 3. Adoption of Water and Wastewater Master Plans 4. Discussion of possible wildlife no-feed ordinance XIL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second Reading of ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the Ashland Land Use-Ordinance to Exempt Solar Energy Sytems Meeting Specific Standards from Site Review Requirements" 2. Second Reading of ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance" 3. Second Reading of ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens Within Residential Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions Within the Health and Sanitation Chapter 9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code" 4. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at(541)488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9 VISI-1 THE CITY OP ASHLAND'S ZNEF3 SITF,A`I' W W W.ASI1LAND.OR.US CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 2, 2012 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 2,2012 Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Morris, Lemhouse, and Voisin were present. Councilor Chapman arrived at 5:35 p.m. 1. Look Ahead Review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 2. Discussion of Draft Water and Wastewater Master Plan. Public Works Director Mike Faught, provided background on the two-year process that included participation from the Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC), Carollo Engineers, Keller Associates, Economic and Financial Analysis,and Shawn Piggott Associates. The draft Water Master Plan included a 10-year Capital Improvement Project list, and financial plan that totaled $30.5 million consisting of the following: New 2.5 MGD water plant $12.0 million Construct new and upgrade Park Estates water tank 8.7 million Pipe TID Canal 1.1 million Construct emergency TAP 2.1 million Pipe replace/maintenance 6.6 million Total $30.5 million The draft Waste Water Master Plan Capital Improvement Project list totaled$10.8 million and included: Shading (tree planting) $ 1,646,000 New pipes that will parallel Bear Creek 1,248,000 New oxidation ditch at the W WTP 4,000,000 Relocate the effluent outfall pipe to Bear Creek 856,000 Pipeline replace and system maintenance 3,041,000 Total $10,791,000 Water Master Plan AWAC looked at three options for peak demand, 1) Construct new backup Water Treatment Plant and TAP Partial Intertie at a total of$30.5 million, or 2) Construct full'TAP for $28.8 million, and 3) Upgrade the existing Water Treatment Plant for $18 million. Of the three, AWAC recommended option number one. The 1998 study forecasted peak demand issues by 2016 that could change to 2018 due to conservation. efforts. Even though population projections in the study were 1.4% and the actual was .7%, it would not significantly change forecasts and staff anticipated peak issues at 2018. Mr. Faught was not sure what the City of Medford would charge to connect to Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Pipeline for emergencies. Staff was currently working with the City of Medford on the feasibility of connecting to TAP,and defining what constituted an emergency. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 2, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Option I would take 5-6 years to complete the larger projects. Shawn Piggott from Shawn Piggott Associates explained how the inflated cost for the 10-year CIP was $35,480,000. Sixty-four percent of that cost in two years prompted a need for rate stabilization and advanced funding to build up a pool of resources to buy down the rate impact when the City purchased bonds. David Kraska, the Vice President for Carollo Engineers explained they took into account current water use, and determined the gap between supplies and demand projections with population. Carrillo Engineers worked with AWAC on conservation goals and agreed to size City supplies assuming 5% additional conservation with a City goal of 15% conservation. Based on that percentage, the City would need additional supplies by 2038. The 2038 target was partially demand analysis and supply analysis. They based supply analysis on prior drought.periods in 1924 and 1928-1931, factored climate changes into the models with results indicating wetter springs and drier summers.. If that proved accurate, Ashland would be out of water during September and October and need more supplies. Alternately, if it did not occur and the community was overly conservative, it would push out the 2038 date further. The worst- case scenario for a dry summer would have Ashland using Talent Irrigation District(TID) supplies earlier in larger quantities. If in 10 years climate change did not occur as predicted, the City could work on controlling how much TID water was used and where. Council noted the cost of conservation in the plan included a half-staff person, and wanted to know if the improvement costs to citizens to reach a 5% or 15% reduction were calculated. Mr. Kraska responded that cost would occur in the next study. Mr. Faught added one option involved SMART controllers for summer irrigation, the toilet rebates had maxed out at this point. Not conserving would increase infrastructure. Conservation efforts applied to summer only, Ashland had met winter use conservation. Mr. Faught explained the 12% rate increase for 2012 included a 10% base rate adjustment that would increase from $16 to $18 with the net increase as 12% of the overall rate. Mr. Piggott explained as they developed the financial analysis for the Master Plan they tracked Capital Improvement Programs and Operations and Maintenance expenses anticipated during the forecast period. A base rate would help stabilize revenues. In FY 2012, the City experienced a 3% under-recovery related to water sales during spring and summer. FY 2011 under-recovery was more severe at 11%. They identified $185,000 of under-recovery annually and determined a '10% increase would cover that amount yearly and recommended implementing the base rate May 1, 2012. If recovery did not occur, AWAC suggested a rate stabilization fund to defer any under-recovery that may happen. The 10% was a reasonable starting point and no rate should remain static, if the City continued to experience spring rain, they could adjust the percentage. The City was not recovering through irrigation usage and the only way to guarantee recovery was adjusting the base fee. The base rate would be a per meter charge and did not include water used. Mr. Faught explained for Council that the City currently uses a four tiered rate structure with 30% increments that worked well. Mr. Piggott agreed the system functioned well and added the City could look at similar features and inject those types of policy considerations in the future. It would require a detailed cost of service analysis instead of the revenue requirements analysis developed for the Master Plan. They constructed a revenue requirements model that could overlay a cost of service analysis cost pools by user and function class. Ashland was a large residential area and the only out layer was irrigation usage that created the under recovery. It would require extensive detail. City Administrator Dave Kanner noted it would be prohibitively difficult to have an income test applied to the rates. The preferred way was to establish a fund that offered rebates to those who could demonstrate need based on income for a limited period. Mr. Piggott clarified that the existing structure provided benchmarks for people who conserve and for those with low-incomes. Mr. Faught reiterated 5%conservation was achievable through sprinkler options and possible connections CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 2, 2012 Page 3 of 4 to TID water where feasible. Mr. Piggott further explained if Council only implemented the 10% flat rate, it would not meet the Ending Fund Balances. Council requested staff to include alternatives of No Change or Do Nothing Options in both Master Plans with points regarding redundancy and its importance. Mr. Faught addressed the 600-acre water right with TID and that staff was proofing beneficial use of water to increase water rights. Mr. Kraska added that the City currently had 795 acres, plus the 600-acres for emergency use. Staff was confident the City would gain additional rights. The study did not look at increased TID rates. Waste Water Master Plan James Bledsoe the Project Manager and Principal of Keller Associates explained that the City wanted to be in a position to maintain their assets. This would require some type of allocation of either debt service or a sinking fund and is addressed in the Waste Water Master Plan. At the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), they looked at replacement needs and calculated them into the Capital Improvement Plan. For the collection system, they built budgets that were target values for developing an ongoing rehabilitation plan. The cost was high.and it would take many years to implement as well as a 10% rate increase annually for the next five years to cover the larger projects. The goal was 2022 when the City retired the largest debt that averaged an annual $2,000,000 obligation. At that time, they would be able to dedicate funds to replace the collection system infrastructure. They estimated $700,000 a year should go into the collection system for maintenance and currently the City was spending less than $200,000 a'year. Pipes tended to have a 75-year life expectancy, some of the pipes in Ashland were 75 years old. Mr. Faught added they currently spent approximately $460,000 annually for pipe replacement. Having adopted Master Plans would allow the City to apply for low interest loans and grants. Mr. Bledsoe explained infiltration and the oxidation ditch process. The project was a large capital improvement that needed to occur over the next 10 years and the City should not delay. However, the City could delay others phases after the initial 10 years. Conservation reduction in the W WTP would help but was not nearly as substantial as the waterside due to the infiltration and inflow component. Using gray water would decrease flow. Membrane technology was improving and it was likely to extend membrane functionality over 15 years. Ashland was innovative when membrane technology first occurred. 3. Discussion of City Council goals for FY 2013. Mayor Stromberg explained that City Administrator Dave Kanner colored coded the Goals and Objectives document from the Council Retreat February 11, 2012. Non-highlighted items Council agreed to, yellow highlighted items Council did not discuss, and green text items were where one or more Councilor's doubted Council agreed to add as objectives. Goal 1: Diversify the economic base of the community Objective 1: After Chamber Business Retention and Expansion survey is complete, provide a plan where necessary to take actions to address issues identified in Chamber's survey to assist with local business retention and expansion. (Green text—one or more Councilors doubted Council agreed to add) Planning Director Bill Molnar explained the survey was complete and they were compiling results with a report to Council due in June to review results and strategies. The survey would lead to a series of actions. Council consensus they did agree to the objective. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 2, 2012 Page 4 of 4 Objective 2: Update Downtown Plan (Yellow highlight—Council did not discuss during Goal Setting.) Council agreed they did not discuss the item, was interested in having a plan, but questioned how it would diversify the economic base. It could go into the Goals as an action item. Council determined they needed more time to review the document and directed staff to set up a special Study Session for the following Monday, April 9, 2012. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder I ANHLA/VU C17 Y CUUNCYL MLL]INU April 3, 2012 Page 1 of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 3,2012 Council Chambers 1175 E.Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced that hard copies of an analysis by the City Attorney regarding the Special Events Policy were available to the Council and public. He went on to add a Consent Agenda item for a Resolution to correct the date for a Public Hearing for the Liberty Street LID. He also removed the Transportation Commission minutes from the Consent Agenda due to attendance concerns. Councilor Voisin noted the passing of Paul Copeland and shared comments from his acquaintances regarding his civic efforts. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of March 19, 2012 and Regular Meeting of March 20, 2012 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Mayor's proclamations regarding April 2-8, 2012 as Arbor Week and April as Fair Housing Month were read aloud. Michael Cavallaro,-the Director of the Rogue Valley Council of Government (RVCOG) presented the annual report. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the Boards, Commissions, and Committees 2. Appointment of Kenneth Schmidt to the Tree Commission 3. Appointment of Evan Lasley to the Housing Commission 4. Approval of grant request for Ashland Creek Park construction 5. Approval of Resolution setting a Public Hearing date for the Liberty Street LID and Repealing Resolution #2012-06. Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Adding New Sections 18.08.662 and 18.08.636 to the Definitions Chapter (18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Amending the historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Greater Clarity and Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained Ashland was a Certified Local Government (CLG) designed to promote historic preservation and needed to meet certain criteria to maintain certification. CLG cities had more opportunities for grants for historic preservation. AJYiLANU U/1 Y CUU/VC1L MLB77NO April 3, 2012 Page 1 of 8 Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the standards applied to four historic districts in Ashland, the Skidmore Academy District, Downtown District, Siskiyou-Hargadine District, and the Railroad Addition District. The proposed ordinance would fine tune existing standards established in 1985. He provided a . presentation on PA 42011-01523 that included the following: • Revisions • Added Definitions • Proposed Historic District Design Standards Revisions • Exhibit A Illustrations Pages 5-15- Updated and Added • Site Design & Use Standards Section VI-Exhibit B Page 1 -Added • Proposed "Historic Building Brief'-- Exhibit F Mr. Severson clarified an exterior finish related to materials and used stucco as an example. Mayor Stromberg asked staff to change the word "lavish," in the first paragraph, last sentence of Section IV Historic District Development A. Development in Ashland's Historic District, to"slavish." Public Hearing Open: 7:24 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:24 p.m. Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to approve First Reading by title only of the ordinance titled "An Ordinance Adding New Sections 18.08.662 and 18.08.636 to the Definitions Chapter (18.08) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Amending the Historic District Design Standards and Downtown Design Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards for Greater Clarity and Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation,"and place on agenda for Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Chapman, Voisin, Lemhouse and Morris, YES. Motion passed. 2. Approval of two quitclaim deeds to terminate-a bicycle and pedestrian easement in Wildcreek Subdivision. Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the existing bicycle and pedestrian easement granted to the City in 1995 was not well defined. The subdivision, Tolman Meadows required a new street and two pedestrian easements that would create better connectivity and replace the 1995 easement. Public Hearing Open: 7:28 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:28 p.m. Councilor Silbiger/Morris m/s to approve approval of two quitclaim deeds to terminate a bicycle and pedestrian easement in Wildcreek Subdivision and authorize the City Administrator to sign the Escrow Instructions. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Slattery, Chapman, Voisin, Lemhouse and Morris, YES. Motion passed. ' PUBLIC FORUM Brian Comnes/444 Park Ridge/Spoke regarding genetically modified organisms (GMO). GMO Free Jackson County had a draft ordinance banning GMO propagation and planting in the county. They planned to seek Council endorsement for a city ban since the County ordinance would not extend to city boundaries. Mark Soderstrom/509 Barnum, Phoenix/Explained he was a candidate for Jackson County Commissioner and stated two major issues in his campaign were solar power and a Nurse Practitioner Clinic in Jackson County, provided details, and cost savings regarding the clinic. Additional information was available at hitp:Helectmarksoderstrom.com/. Lisa Beam/400 Liberty Street/Represented the Ashland Chamber of Commerce and spoke regarding the behavior in the downtown core and its negative effect on businesses. The Homelessness Steering Committee's ASHLAND(,'!7-Y CUUN(.YL MhL77N(i April 3, 2012 Page 3 of 8 statement that inappropriate behavior was not occurring in the downtown area prompted the Chamber of Commerce to conduct a survey of the businesses. It was anonymous and so far, the Chamber had received 76 completed surveys. She read survey comments depicting people harassed by transients when they walked through the Plaza, someone spit on one individual, a general sense of no security, as well as slashed tires. She submitted a letter from Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) into the record. Graham Sheldon/70 Water Street/Owned the Ashland Creek hm on Water Street shared encounters with people on his property that when asked to leave threatened to kill him and brandished a rock. Numerous guests were uncomfortable walking down Water Street after plays. It seemed the perceived rights of a small group held Ashland hostage. He wanted Council to take a leadership role in finding a solution. Michael Majchrzak/2284 McColl/Introduced himself as a member of the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee and voiced concern disbanding the Committee. Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Presented four complaints regarding Recology Ashland Sanitary. One involved garbage cans at multi-use complexes and Recology refusing pick up the cans if they are stored in a sheltered or screened area. The second was Recology did not pick up dumpsters on a regular basis. The third was when Recology finally emptied a dumpster, they did not move it back to where it originated but left it in the street. Four, Recology no longer cleaned out the dumpsters, expected citizens to rinse the dumpster and prompted concern the water used went into the storm drain system. He submitted a letter into the record detailing his concerns and suggestions. Gerry Lehrburger/1639 Jackson Road/Addressed issues with the homeless and stated exclusionary zones would not work, and citations and time in jail were ineffective. He submitted into the record a document sharing solutions to the issue and photos of trash left by transients in the watershed. Ecoli was prevalent in the watershed. He listed the fires that occurred in that past associated with the homeless. He noted The Grove, Pioneer Hall, and the Ashland Community Center_were underutilized and other facilities could absorb their events. Allan Sandlar/1260 Prospect/Submitted into the record a solution that would have Council work with for- profit community and the homeless community to create structure within the law that protected citizens and homeless in general. He asked the Mayor to hold a meeting to hear the concept from business owners and homeless to help turn the counterculture from a negative to a positive connotation. Mayor Stromberg agreed to meet with Mr. Sandlar and his constituents. Pam Hammond/632 Walnut Street/introduced herself as a Board Member of the Chamber of Commerce, a downtown business owner and shared her credentials including Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Community Connections Committee. Their goal was to raise awareness of activities within the community and listed events. Richard Hansen/25 N Main Street/Explained he was the owner of Gold & Gems Jewelry and the recent fire was a wake-up call for something that could have been devastating. The Plaza needed 24-hour police presence and if that was not feasible at least from midnight to 6:00 a.m. He had empathy for the homeless but after 30 years of running a business in the Plaza, he could no longer help them and shared negative reactions he received from them when he had tried in the past. Another issue was the large amount of cigarette butts that littered the sidewalk and Plaza area. He suggested the City attach cigarette butt receptacles to lampposts and possibly trees. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Update on Planning Commission Review of Ordinance Amendments from the Pedestrian Places Project that Apply in the Detail Site Review Zone and Throughout the City. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Planning Commission reviewed the Ordinance amendments and recommended no changes with the exception of two areas that might require additional discussion during future routine updates and they were the arterial setback and pedestrian circulation and ASHLAND U11 T CUUNCIL MLL'11NO April 3, 2012 Page 4 of 8 walkway standards. The arterial setback item depended on the outcome of the Road Diet for North Main in relation to future bicycle lanes. The second item affected the pedestrian walkways and circulation and involved applicants designing their project to create a comprehensive approach when planning a multi family or commercial development that moved people safely through the development. Councilor Morris/Slattery m/s to approve the Planning Commission recommendations to leave the recently adopted ordinance amendments in place that implement the recommendations of the Pedestrian Places Project, and direct the Planning Commission to monitor and suggest revisions to the Arterial Street Setback Requirements and Pedestrian and Circulation requirements as found necessary. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman thought they should reserve bike lane space along North Main in case the road diet did not succeed. Mr. Molnar responded the setbacks were currently non-existing right of way on private property. If they needed additional land beyond the right of way there would be costs associated with acquisition for commercial only since residential would retain a 20-foot setback. Councilor Silbiger confirmed one of the goals was creating space between the sidewalk and the streets. Mr. Molnar explained the setback would include a 7-foot parkrow and 5-foot sidewalk. Planning Commissioner Melanie Mindlin added the Planning Commission was interested in looking at all the arterials individually and the new standard measured from the curb instead of an arbitrary property line. Mr. Molnar clarified the current standard allowed a building to get as close as 18-feet from the existing curb line. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Report to the Council on Crime in Ashland and use of force by the Ashland Police Department Police Chief Terry Holdemess explained Ashland experienced a 22.4% increase in reportable crime during 2011 that was generally minor property crime. Due to jail overcrowding, if someone restricted thefts to Class C misdemeanors they would not go to jail and that knowledge contributed to the increase. The Police Department was researching strategies and now multiple offenders that normally went through Municipal Court went to Circuit Court. There were three multiple offenders in Ashland with one personally responsible for more than 100% of the increase in crime over the past 2 years. One of the three was currently heading for state prison. The Police Department increased their crime analysis capability to better predict and reduce crime across the board. Additionally they were considering booking serious offenders in other counties but at a substantial cost. Violent crime remained in the quarter of the national average but would change in the future when the FBI redefined rape. The revised definition would add 6-8 crimes a year. Use of force increased in 2011 with 32 incidents, from 20 incidents in 2010. Crime during 2010 was down and historically Ashland experienced 30 uses of forces a year. There was one situation where an individual was Tasered during a deadly force situation. Chief Holdemess explained officers received 20-25 hours of training yearly that consisted of firearms training, use of force, and hands on defensive tactics. Sarah Withers/Explained two days prior someone tried to break into her house during the night. She called 911, and when the police arrived, the suspect was still at her door trying to gain entry. It turned out he was extremely drunk and unaware of his surroundings. I The police informed Ms. Withers this type of encounter happened frequently in Ashland. They did not arrest the individual but transported him to detox who released him two hours later. She thought his actions constituted a crime and would have shot the intruder if she had a gun because he represented a real and present danger and she felt vulnerable. 2. Discussion to extend the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee Ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee (HSC) member Heidi Parker introduced present Committee members, provided background on the Committee charge, and shared her involvement with the La Clinica Mobile Clinic who offered free or low cost medical care and dental services. La Clinica just completed its eighth week offering services with more patients than they could handle, all from varying backgrounds. Rich Rhode spoke on the success of the Porta Potty by the Community Development building. Regina Ayars shared her involvement with establishing a Day Center. Graham Lewis spoke regarding the donation boxes and AJ'HLANU U17 C:VUNC/L MtC 171Y0 April 3, 2012 Page 5 of 8 how the Committee was working with City staff for locations and that St. Vincent De Paul would manage the funds. Sarah Powell commented on the communication process with community, groups, service providers, City staff, and downtown businesses and the possibility of establishing a police presence in the downtown area. Connie Saldana noted volunteers had listened to 80 people so far for the Listening Post services and described the people who accessed the service. Sandra Coyner/1160 Fern Street/Attended most of the HSC meetings and was a member of the Citizens Coalition on Homelessness. She expressed appreciation of the HSC and the growing awareness regarding homelessness. She asked Council to extend the HSC and their charge to focus on issue of the Day Center. She referenced the individual who started the fire in the Plaza and explained how having a Day Center would have prevented that action. Vanessa Houk/137 5" Street/Explained there were more than 71 reasons for extending the HSC and they were the homeless children in the Ashland School District. She shared encounters with people who were homeless and agreed with Ms. Coyner's testimony to strengthen the Committee. Jason Houk/137 5" Street/Shared the top concern for homeless people was safety. They were a community held hostage by violence. He encouraged Council to extend the HSC and enhance the mandate. This was an opportunity to create solutions. Councilor Slattery shared his observations and process in deciding the HSC should continue. He made recommendations that included a Joint Study Session with Council for direction, did not think the Committee needed two Liaison's from Council and another Councilor should replace both positions. He supported the Day Use Center and personally wanted to continue working on that project. He thought the Police Chief should develop rules to govern behavior in the downtown area and establish an exclusionary zone. All homeless support facilities and groups used and supported exclusionary zones to manage behavioral issues. Councilor Slattery emphasized this would apply to disruptive behavioral issues, and crimes, not people playing music or asking for money. Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to give the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee another year, along with that focused goal setting with the Council, and member numbers strengthened and different Council leadership. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Slattery. He wanted quarterly reports, supported a change in Council liaison, and thought it was time to address the behavior problem downtown in a fair and reasonable way. Councilor Voisin thanked the Committee for their efforts, wanted them to continue, and supported an urban rest stop. Councilor Chapman disagreed the Council should provide more direction to the Committee. They should solve the issues without Council input. He thought the Committee should be a community organization because a "city" committee could cripple what they are trying to achieve. Councilor Morris requested clarification on what would happen at the Study Session and wanted accountability, quarterly reports, and data on results. Councilor Slattery explained the HSC wanted a Study Session to clarify Council direction. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse and Slattery, YES; Councilor Chapman,NO.Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s that Council recommend Councilor Morris as Liaison to the Homelessness Steering Committee.Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. Councilor Chapman shared the history of the exclusionary zone in the community and explained it was a similar tactic to a "time-out," a temporary exclusion and never intended to exclude a class of people from downtown. Just having an exclusionary tool available could change behavior issues without ever having to take any action. Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to request Police Chief Holderness to produce a policy and any supporting Municipal Code required to implement a "time out" to be enacted by this summer. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse commented that all homeless people were not responsible for the behavior issues downtown and was confident Chief Holderness would bring back a process that was legal, fair AJHLANU C17 Y t.'UUNUIL MEL I]NO April 3, 2012 Page 6 of 8 to all involved and would protect the community. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion. Mental illness was a real condition with the homeless and the community and there were few, if any services available. Additionally, she wanted to ensure the behavior that called for exclusion was justifiable and not based on the person being poor. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Morris, Lemhouse and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO.Motion passed 5-1. Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s direct staff to approach Jackson County with a strategy to possibly have an office located in Ashland where County employees can address mental health walk-ins or referrals. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Approval of Amendment#1 to the Television Head-end Lease and Contract Between City of Ashland and Ashland Home Net Interim Assistant City Administrator and Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the contract adjusted terms set the prior year including fixed charges for reduced services. The impact was estimated at approximately $100,000 on both revenue and expense sides. The changes were similar to prior agreements where the City charged for services provided in a revenue sharing approach. Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve Amendment #1 to the Television Head-End Lease and contract between the City of Ashland and Ashland Home Net. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery and Chapman,YES; Councilor Silbiger,NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Adoption of Special Event Policy, Repeal of Resolution 2011-22, and Adoption of a new Special Event Fee Resolution — Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained the policy incorporated Council input from the March 5, 2012 Study Session and suggested language from an event organizer regarding a neutral start for bicycle races. She - added the two-hour time limit for closures required further clarification from Council. Police Chief Terry Holdemess researched flaggers and discovered state law required certified flaggers only. Additionally, staff recommended allowing rolling road closures without insurance liability. City Attorney Dave Lohman referenced six points in a memo he wrote that stated: 1) The insurance required was permissible in the Special Event policy because an event planner could use alternative routes that did not require a permit, like a sidewalk or park. City insurance eliminated the need for liability insurance for rolling road closure events. 2) Hold Harmless agreements did not burden constitutionally protected expression provided it complied with the various cases that discussed hold harmless agreements. The City would require a Hold Harmless whether insurance was required or not. 3) The proposed Special Event policy provided for spontaneous expression with the $250 rush fee. The event could take advantage of a rolling road closure, or take place in an area that did not require a permit. Mr. Lohman proposed Council make an amendment to the road closure portion of the policy stating the City would provide a response to a permit request for an expedited road rolling closure within three business days after submittal. 4) The policy did not burden constitutionally protected expression by requiring fees as long as it met various court described criteria. 5) The Special Event policy was not required to provide reduced fees for organizers with limited financial resources. 6) It was constitutionally permissible for the Special Event policy to provide for disparate treatment of a AJHLANU C:17 Y C:UUNCIL MLL7ZNC, April 3, 2012 Page 7 of 8 Council-designated community-wide special event. The exception was the Fourth of July parade that did not constitute content-based favoritism. Mr. Lohman suggested the following change to be more consistent with case law: "The July 4`h celebration is a community-wide event for which the permit fees are paid by the City. The City Council may, at its discretion, provide similar support for other community-wide special events." Mr. Lohman reiterated the City was not exposed to liability by, not requiring insurance for large events with street closures for an extended period because the City was covered by insurance. However, there was more risk involved during a larger event. Regarding citywide event criteria, case law gave a legislative body a fair degree of discretion on that matter, other cities had delegated that determination to their City Manager but that presented risk of first amendment violations. He went on to address the term "exempt" and recommended adding language that would make the 4 I of July celebration subject to the same requirements of any other event except the City would pay the normal fees outside of the Chamber costs. The City would cover the cost of staffing and overtime needed for the event where other events pay 60%of overtime costs for city staff. Council suggested changing language under Community-wide Events to state the July 4" celebration was a significant, historical, and community-wide event. Under Pre-approved Routes, add language that an event organizer was not limited to use pre-approved routes. Chief Holdemess explained staff based the time limit for a road closure on the length of time given past history, how long it would take to hold the parade, stage appropriately, and then break it down. Pamela Vavra/457 C Street/Thanked staff for their efforts regarding the Special Events policy. She explained Peace House provided liability insurance for events in Medford and not requiring liability resulted in a cost savings to the organization. - -- Ms. Seltzer read proposed changes: 1. Community-wide Events add the following: "The July 4" celebration is a significant and historical community-wide event and city-associated costs are paid by the City." 2. Pre-approved Routes add the following: "Event organizers are not required to use pre-approved routes." 3. Rolling Road Closure, add the following: "The City will respond to permit requests for a rolling road closure within three business days of receiving the permit application." 4. Time Limit for Road Closure, add the following: "The City Administrator may exempt future events who require a road closure for longer than two hours." Councilor Lembouse/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2012-08 and adopt Special Event Policy with the (first) three amendments as proposed by staff, repeal Resolution 2011-12 and adopt the new fee resolution. Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to amend the motion and substitute City Administrator with Council. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Continued Discussion on main motion: Councilor Chief Holdemess clarified if someone was Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) certified, he or she could flag anywhere the Police Department determined was safe for a certified flagger rather than a Police Officer, except at signalized intersections. The Police Department reserved the right to make that determination, including a state highway. Voice Vote on amended motion: all AYES. Motion passed. 2. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2.10.090 Council as Final Decision Maker and Chapter 2.10.100 Budget, Compensation and Expenses on the Ashland Municipal Code" AJHLANU U/I Y CUUNC/L MttIINIi April 3, 1012 Page 8 of 8 Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3057. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Chapman, Morris, Slattery, Silbiger, and Voisin,YES. Motion passed. 3. Second Reading of ordinances titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Exempt Solar Energy Systems Meeting Specific Standards from Site Review Requirements" "An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter (18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance" "An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens Within Residential Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions Within the Health and Sanitation Chapter 9.08)of the Ashland Municipal Code" Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to postpone item three to the April 17, 2012-meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 4. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties" Division Chief- Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman explained the ordinance would cleanup Definitions, address sparklers, advertising fireworks within city limits, and enforce fire code violations that related to overcrowding, blocking exits, and authorize the Fire Department to issue citations regarding those situations more than once in a day. Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to approve First Reading by title only of the Ordinance and move the Ordinance on to Second Reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Slattery, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Voisin and Morris,YES.Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to put the discussion of improvement of the downtown plaza on a future agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION April 9, 2012 Page I of 2 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 9,2012 Siskiyou Room,51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Voisin, Silbiger, Morris, Lemhouse, and Slattery were present. Councilor Chapman was absent. 1. Discussion of City Council goals for FY 2013. City Administrator Dave Kanner removed goals Mayor Martha 2011 goals, number say continuing that was never discussed in the meeting with Larry Patterson. Had a couple of meetings, did we agree, and give direction to staff to include this for final adoption. Adding nothing except under social equity 2011 direction that setup homelessness steering committee. Voisin thinks there is something Council left out on social equity. Dave K's document 2012-2013 City Council Goals shows Council consensus on this items, was something left out. Dennis would not have 5 or 6 on Economy, that is an event these are tasks. Morris has issues with everything on the list, they are not objectives or action, some are random thoughts. Not measurable. Russ done this backwards, we never had a goal setting session 2011-12 and here is 3rd meeting disussing what we did or did not do. If we continue with goals from last year, lets do that and some have not been done. Slattery agrees with Russ and Voisin wants to add goals that were dropped. Dennis wants a proper goal setting session, this is disjointed. Mayor facing reality we have not developed this years version of the goals, stick with last years version and do goal setting later. Greg Lemhouse, we are quarter way through the year, new CA, if we revisit this later in the year and have a new Council. Lets keep ticking away with the goals we have on the list and revisit it later. Russ agrees with that, retro what we did 2011-12 and call it two year goals. Carol, is this enough in terms of the budget, Dave said the budget is already done. Things on Larry's list more a to do list, some will get done anyway. There was not a lot of opportunity to incorporate goals the way he does, look at the ad package and what we are not doing and that did not happen. Greg if we keep current goals, the session with Larry was helpful. If Coned does not see any action items that are offensive, stick with goals we have, have this list for Dave K to work on when it comes up. Dennis gaps,wants gaps identified and brought forward, these items we couldn't make statement on tape. Dave Kanner, we decided No because we do not have funding. Dave Kanners pointed out two items under social equity, one makes a recomeendation to a date that has passed and the other the decision was made and no need to leave it on the list. Mayor said social equity always important part of goals, dropping it will send strange message. We are talkinga bout going forward to tape. Dennis, lets update the dates, we are committed to continue with social equity issues. CITY COUNCIL STUDYSESSION i April 9, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Carol, tending towards keeping 2011 Council Goals, we need to be clear things can come to Council not on the goals. Mayor Carol say is something is not an assumption that it is not a Council Goal, it can still go forward. On agenda for next Study Session. Mayor tried o change language regarding HSC, continue in all its forms and behavior in the downtown with all its participants. Greg wants quarterly reports to the Council, needs to be more specific. Readd HSC. A SS with HSC so Council give specific direction. Dave will pull things together. Staff direction, make 2011-two year goals, updating and modifications as necessary. Carol Jackson County Fuel Committee, they want to deal with policies and practices dealing with electrical services cut offs. It is not on a goal but can still come forwards. Does not ensure action. Greg will talk about whether to move on things that are not goals. Dennis talking about adding objectives. Mayor we will talk about this in a week at next SS. Greg is a Councilor knows something is coming forward, Councilor needs to alert all of Council. Dennis wants a foundation of rules we are following as we move forward. Meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ° PROCLAMATION E • A.well-informed citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy. • An informed citizenry depends on an objective, responsible and ➢ , ` unrestrained press, which provides greater access to accurate information, more points of view and greater diversity of thought and fact. _ �QC • The trend toward the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in D s fewer media voices which can cause a homogenized message and a lack of variety in points of view. y� yg • Democratic principles support the case for more independent media in ° � this country, with many editorial points of view. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens D o of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of April 15-21, 2012 as Q D INDEPENDENT MEDIA WEEK �y Q and encourage all Ashland citizens to seek out and explore the rich diversity ➢ �� of independent media available within, and to our community. e� °° Dated this 17th day of April, 2012 6 9 P °° John Stromberg, Mayor 6 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder P t ��\ i i•�G' `fib �_V^ b F.�P ��jv.� �"" 'hY �^.e"'Cy�A� � ti' � �� ` �l f�') °!.�° OU `�ldD(J Gr�CioJ CSgVaa 6q�lay ., 6gnviJ ¢qv� ¢oG� QaCra�J 6q�7a�J ¢grlaa PROCLAMATION €, • The Rotary Club of Ashland-Lithia Springs was officially chartered by Rotary r `� International on April 20, 1992. Of the original twenty charter members, seven are still active in the club. • Today, the club's forty-eight members embody Rotary's motto of"Service 1 Q Above Self' and join 1.2 million other Rotarians in over 33,000 clubs in 200 countries to provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards, and promote good will and peace in the world. • Some of the club's early works sought to enhance the public's appreciation of Lithia Park. Projects included; creating the plaques for the park's self-guided Q tree and shrub tour and, following the devastation of the New Year's Day flood of 1997, the donation of the foot bridge over Ashland Creek that sits across from the community center. 6 ° �QQ • Since 1997 the Ashland-Lithia Springs club has raised nearly $400,000 for community grants benefiting area youth organizations and scholarships and for youth-oriented intemational service projects. per` Local service projects include sponsorship of the Virtual Enterprise class at AHS, a dictionary program for area third graders, an annual "Day of the Teacher", volunteering for the DEAR reading program at Bellview Elementary, a Helping Hands program for local elderly residents, working at the Rotary First Harvest Gardens, and collecting items for the Ashland Food Project. �D ' °Q NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim Thursday, April 20, 2012 as: ° Q "Ashland-Lithia Springs Rotary Day" 4 and encourage all citizens to celebrate the Rotary Club of Ashland-Lithia Springs' twenty years of service to our local community and commitment to humanity y everywhere. Dated this 17'h day of April, 2012 G° 6 �Q John Stromberg, Mayor Q e� 5FQ di Barbara Christensen, City Recorder <{ \ � d � (t bY' � �b�v� be P yf b .G �•. _ CCd Qc�,e9� Cd�e9 � CepeD ° Cd�e9 � Cdpe9Cd�e9CepeD ° Qdpe9' Cdp�D� � �{ ✓ t /. PROCLAMATION t • Conflict occurs within the natural rhythms of all human relationships. r� o� o0 Our community's peacemakers demonstrate that conflict offers all of ➢ t us the opportunity to practice mediation skills including listening, t ri clarifying, understanding, finding common ground and coming to t F Q i agreement. t Our community's peacemakers demonstrate that conflict is neither positive nor negative, but carries within it the possibility of Y � . discovering together original, creative solutions to perplexing 1 �Q� problems. y Q NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the M Q` citizens of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of April 30-May 6, D,5 2012 as o 1� MEDIATION WEEK - and celebrate our community's peacemakers, the Imagine Award r t Honorees. `v 9 ' Dated this 17tb day of April, 2012 r o John Stromberg, Mayor Q D ` L D-e. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder p ° CCVpe?7 � C�peS� CdpbD {ddLa� C ��7 Cvq�7 Cwq�7 �d�c 17 C�NU) CONSERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 6:00pm-8:00pm –April 09, 2012 Electric Building, 90 North Mountain Ave --- To be approved at the April 25, 2012 Commission Meeting. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Hartman called the meeting to order at 6:05pm. Attendees: Risa Buck, Sheri Cellini, Stuart Corns, Cat Gould, Jim Hartman, Jim McGinnis, David Runkel Thomas Beam, and Mark Weir were present. New member: Roxane Beigel-Coryell City Council Liaison: Carol Voisin, not present Staff Representative: Adam Hanks, and Mary McClary SOU Representative: Shaun Franks (SOU Stainability Student Director), not present APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Hartman asked for approval of the minutes for February 22, 2012. Commissioner Gould remarked she was present at the last meeting. Commissioner Buck corrected the beginning time from 5:35pm to 6:05pm. Commissioner Buck moved to accept the minutes of February 25, 2012 with the stated changed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Corn announced and introduced the next representative for SOU: Roxane Beigel-Coryell. He expressed his thanks and appreciation to the Commissioners for the work they have performed together and hopes to work with the Commissioners in the future. The Commissioners thanked him for his dedicated service and wished him luck in all his future endeavors. Commissioner McGinnis led the group in (3) Hip Hip Hoorays for Commissioner Corns. The next Commission meeting is scheduled for April 25, 2012. " Compost Classes, Final Dates and Commissioner Assignments The classes are scheduled from 10am to 12noon. June 9-- Commissioner Beam July 14--Commissioner Gould August 11—Commissioner Cellini September 8--Commissioner Weir Commissioner Buck explained the purpose of having a Commissioner attend the classes. She also expressed the hope that she and Chairperson Hartman would be finished with the"remodel' by the time the classes began. Chairperson Hartman inquired about advertisement for the classes, and Commissioner Buck explained there were notices in a variety of places: Recology web site, Sneak Preview, City Source, the City web site and Earth Day. Commissioner Beam remarked attendance for last year was approximately 1l3 less than prior years. The discussion turned to what the members would have at their Earth Day Booth. Chairperson Hartman would bring some composting for the kids to explore, and they would also have a flyer advertising the composting classes. Commissioner Beam announced there was a new start up business on A Street that advertised off the grid home lighting systems: Neopower. Adam Hanks had a postcard from the company and passed it around for each Commissioner to review. Commissioner Cellini asked for 15-20 minutes on the next agenda to discuss improving relations with the City Council and city staff. Commissioner Weir felt the Commission has spent a lot of time in the past discussing this topic and it might be more productive to form a sub-committee that would work on the issue, instead of using the Commission meeting time. Chairperson Hartman approved he agenda item, and stated the Commission would discuss at the next meeting to determine if they wanted to from a sub-committee. PUBLIC FORUM No one present UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Status of Commission letter to Council regarding North Main Road Diet Recommendations Commissioner Runkel reported the Mayor had called him about this topic and explained the Commission could suggest to the City to conduct a study for the Road Diet. Commissioner Beam asked how much spending the city had allocated on the Road Diet Project. He felt it would have been beneficial to conduct a study and consider conservation before undertaking this project. The members discussed the conversation with Mike Faught, the Public Works Director, when he attended their meeting to answer any questions about the project. Commissioner Cellini summarized last year's meeting, recapping the design, intent, information gathering, cost of studies, and multi- transportation. The Commissioners decided not to form a sub-committee to do further research and make recommendations, feeling they had already made suggestions towards conservation efforts on the project. The members wondered if conservation was taken into consideration with all plans for the city. Commission Buck remarked if the city had adopted a sustainability plan that was integrated into a comprehensive plan solving most problems. B. Status of Commission Submittal to Council for February 11, 2012 Goal Setting Commissioner McGinnis expressed frustration based on the past year and half in making very little progress in terms of having any City Council members review and make things happen in terms of sustainability framework. In January, 20111 the Council adopted a sustainability goal, and there has not been any progress with that goal. The Council will be talking about the letter submitted by the Commission at the next study session (April 16"') and he felt all the Commission members should contact all the councilors to help them better understand what the Commission was trying to accomplish. The members discussed how they would pair and which counselors to meet. Commissioner McGinnis explained there are two ways of approaching, one strategic and the other one is the framework. Commissioner Beam left at 6:50pm. C. Commissioner Expenditure Requests for FY 2011-12 (thru June 30, 2012) Commissioner Cellini asked if we needed to allocate monies for a guest speaker on Natural Step. The members discussed holding a public meeting/event for the guest speaker and invite the City Council members to attend. Commissioner Runkel brought up the point that some other government entities use the ICELI process. He felt we shouldn't be associated with any one particular process. Commissioner McGinnis felt the City Council needed to understand that the next step in this process would be to put into a resolution that sustainable framework be adopted. Commissioner Cellini felt we can only make recommendations to the Council. Commissioner McGinnis felt the elected officials work for the members and Commissioner Cellini clarified the Commission works for the Council and the Council represent the citizens. Commissioner McGinnis felt the Council would need to understand sustainability and the Natural Step in how it applies to the city. Commissioner Buck felt it is a great idea, but would like to discuss further how to facilitate communication to the Council in a way that would create productive results. Commissioner Weir made a motion to move forward with a public event before the end of June and at the next meeting Commission members can present ideas of what would be included in the event. Commissioner Runkel seconded the motion. Commissioner Gould wanted to wait and see if they accept the recommendation first before they moved forward. The members discussed how to proceed with the events. Commissioner McGinnis pointed out that the first bullet point on their letter to the Council was they would bring a sustainability framework expert to the City Council for a presentation. Commissioner Runkel believed we cannot create a schedule for the Council. Commissioner Buck believed opening a meeting to the public was a better use of funds supporting citizen education. Adam explained how study session meetings are facilitated. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. D. FY 2012-13 Commission Budget Appropriation Requests Set aside until next meeting. NEW BUSINESS A. Energy Efficiency Program Discussion (CEWO approach) Commissioner Weir asked that a letter be put forward to the Council making a set of energy performance requirements for three main avenues: the sale of property, obtaining building and remodel permits and multi- family rental properties. He would like to put together a letter with outlines of these policies and submit to the Commission at the next meeting for approval to go forward to the City Council. There was discussion among the members about different aspects, and whether that type of report or letter would go to staff or council. The members expressed interest in Commissioner Weir putting together a proposed letter. B. Staff report, Commissioner Draft Idling policies and actions Adam passed out a memo to the Commission and they decided to delay this to the next meeting due to time constraints. C. Staff Report –Update on City Facilities Energy and Water Resource memo of December 7, 2011. Adam gave an update about working with the facilities department and researching software that would integrate with the city's existing software to generate reports that would help track fuel efficiency. He explained they would input 2 years of prior data to establish a baseline and then move forward from there. He plans to discuss the option with Mike Morrison who is the Public Works Superintendant. Commissioner Weir's expectation was to have a resolution in place sooner, since the original memo was in December of 2011. Adam explained the structure of the Public Works department and all their responsibilities. D. Fourth of July Commissioner Buck reported to the Commission about the Chamber of Commerce meetings where they have discussed the Chamber taking the lead with holding "Green" events. She explained the Fourth of July _- event was the biggest garbage maker of the year. The members passed around different ideas for supporting the event, and Commissioner Buck asked the members to consider joining in helping facilitate some control with the generation and handling of the garbage this year. OLD BUSINESS A. Commission Member Assignments/Project Updates & Next Steps Set aside B. Earth Day Planning –Content and Assignments Chairperson Hartman and Commissioner Weir will set up and work 10 -12 noon. Commissioner McGinnis and Commissioner Cellini will take the next shift until 2pm and 4pm. Commissioner Runkel would help with the break-down. Chairperson Hartman will bring some composting for children to experience and Commissioner Buck will have a flyer for the dates for the composting classes. C. Conservation Awards—Discussion/Recommendation of Award Content Commissioner Runkel read the award recipients and asked for the Commission approval. Commissioner Runkel moved to approve the giving of the'Conservation Awards to Misty Munoz, Parker Massie, Albertson and Maureen Page. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Commissioner Cellini introduced the idea of purchasing a tree for the recipients with a name plaque in their honor. She also suggested a bench, or something for a community garden, or some other way of honoring the recipient instead of a monetary gift. The members discussed different aspects of awards. Commissioner Runkel made a motion to give the three students a monetary dollar award in the amount of$100.00. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Voice Vote: All Ayes with the exception of Commission Buck. The motion passed with a majority vote. Commissioner Runkel made a motion to add an additional$100.00 to the project for photography costs. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weir. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. The members discussed having a Councilperson pair up with one of the Commissioners to present the awards to the recipients. Commissioner 'Gould made a motion to approve the award letters, seconded by Commissioner Weir. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Commissioner Buck would like to put on the next agenda on the Water Conservation Analysis position and storm drain marking. D. Green Drinks — Discussion on potential Commission involvement Set aside QUARTERLY LIAISON REPORTS A. Southern Oregon University B. Ashland School District—not ready to give postponed to next meeting C. Recology Ashland Sanitary COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Set Aside OTHER BUSINESS FROM COMMISSIONERS NOT ON AGENDA Future agenda item requests ADJOURNMENT 8:10pm Respectfully submitted by. Mary McClary Administrative Assistant for Electric, Telecommunication and the Conservation Department. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305(TTY phone number is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Titlel). CITY OF ASHLAND MA, CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 7,'2012 Community DevelopmentlEngineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER- REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 pm Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink,Tom Giordano,Ally Phelps, Kerry Kencaim, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford Commission Members Absent: Allison Renwick(E),Tobin Fisher(E) Council Liaison: Greg Lemhouse High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner: Derek Severson; Clerk: Billie Boswell Chairman Shostrom introduced Dave Kanner, new City Administrator. Mr. Kanner explained his background and a little about himself and answered a few questions from the Commissioners. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Boswell pointed out an error in the permit number for 181 Morse and changed it to PA-2011-01755. Mr. Whitford moved to approve the February 8, 2012 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Ms. Kencaim and was approved unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM: No one in the audience wished to speak. PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00237 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 27 Second Street APPLICANT: City of Ashland Public Arts Commission DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to install Public Art at 27 Second Street along the Enders Alley on the Enders Building a Nationally Registered Historic Contributing building. Mr. Severson described the mural that Ashland High School student, Nicole Shutters is proposing to paint on the side of the Dan's Shoe Repair shop facing Enders Alley for her senior class project. He explained that the project had already been approved by both the Art Commission and the City Council prior to it being discovered that the project needed review by the Historic Commission. Mr. Skibby asked if the building was listed on the National Register. Mr. Severson said Ms. Gunter, the planner for the project, had contacted SHPO and they supported the proposal. Chairman Shostrom was concerned about the roof posts supporting baskets and lights, and also about the awning material installed above the roof-line. Applicant, Nichole Shulters,described her Ashland senior project,why she is doing it and the process she has gone through with the Arts Commission. Her father, Dan Shulters,who is also the owner of Dan's Shoe Repair shop where the mural would be painted,explained the awning fabric he put up to keep people off the roof of the building. Ms. Shulters described the mural representing the Ashland hills and the downtown roof lines. Motion activated lights would be used to shine down on the mural from the roof. Tysin Senestraro,owner of Paddy Brannon's Pub, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 4/10!2012 CITY OF ASHLAND supported the proposal saying that sprucing up the area and adding lights would make the area safer. Mr. Severson read an email from Dave of Bloomsbury Coffee House in support of the mural project. There being no further questions and no one in the audience wishing to speak,the public hearing was closed. "Chairman Shostrom introduced Greg Lemhouse, the new City Council liaison, who joined the meeting. Mr. Skibby questioned how the AC unit would be incorporated into the mural design, but overall felt the design would be an improvement over what's there now. Ms. Phelps approved the overall concept of the mural but was concerned about how dark the design was. Mr. Swink felt the mix of urban and quaint town was a good look. Mr. Whitford made a motion to approve the project as presented and Ms. Kencaim seconded d. Discussion followed. Chairman Shostrom brought up the striped awning material across the roof and felt that it detracted from the mural. There was general consensus about the striped awning. The public hearing was reopened to question Mr. Shutters about other options. It was agreed to use a plain, less decorative fabric and raise it above the top of the roof to expose the parapet cap. There was also agreement to paint the posts black to minimize them. Chairman Shostrom made a motion to recommend approval of the project but amended to use a non-descript fabric and to raise the awning above the parapet roof cap. Ms. Phelps seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: A. Review Board Schedule March 81, Terry, Keith,Allison March 151h Terry, Kerry,All March 22n1 Terry, Tom, Tobin March 291h Terry, Tobin, Dale Aril 511 Terry, Keith, Dale B. Project Assii inments for Planning Actions—no changes BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batter-Comm Bld s Recession Extension approved)) Shostrom/Giordano PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formerly 165 Lithia Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 725(10) Renwick BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under construction) Swink/Shostrom BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown) Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks) Balcony on rear(No permit yet,expired 8127110.) Swink PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer Deli Terrell Previous owner taking back ownership&fixing Shostrom BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR Ready to issue Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) Issued 7-12-11 Renwick BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU issued 7-11-11 Swink BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales(appealed-bldg ermitissued 8-25-11 Phelps PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch&food truck no permitl Giordano BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR issued 2-17-12 Whitford BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance issued 7-15-11 Phelps PL-2011-01781 191 Oak St(Cycle Sport)Site Design for enlarging garage issued 1-31-12 Kencaim PL-2011-01656 181 Morse(Malms)CUP to exceed MPFA for ARU Fisher Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 4110!2012 CITY OF ASHLAND OLD BUSINESS: (cont.) C. Mr. Severson reported that the Historic Review Standards document was going through the ordinance process. The only change since the Commissioners last saw the draft was adding in lines addressing the transitional areas between joining districts. There was agreement to the change by the Commissioners. D. Chairman Shostrom requested an OK to attend the March 161^CLG Seminar in Jacksonville regarding brick renovation. Mr. Swink, Mr. Skibby, and Mr. Giordano also expressed an interest in attending. There was consensus from the group for approval. E. Historic Preservation Week—It was agreed that the Historic Preservation Week will be May 13-21,2012. The Historic Preservation Award ceremony will be as the Ashland Public Library on Thursday, May 171,at noon. The Gresham Room has been reserved from 11:30 to 1:30. After reviewing all the nominees,the Commissioners selected the following award winners: • 116 Church Street and 66 Scenic for Historically Compatible New Accessory Structure • 155 Eight Street, 111 Nursery Street and 355 Scenic Drive for Historically Compatible Residential Addition • Ashland Historic Railroad Museum for an Organization Award • JCLS Ashland Library for a Civic Award Note: 69 Oak was selected for a Commercial Renovation Award but was found to be ineligible because it was unfinished. Ms. Boswell will send owner/contractor/arch-designer information on each winner to the Commissioners to assist in the write-ups. There was also consensus on doing the Hargadine Cemetery tour. DISCUSSION ITEMS: COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Greg Lemhouse, Council Liaison reviewed the Land Use Code Revisions discussed at the last City Council meeting. Most of the public discussion had been regarding the keeping of chickens, bees and other backyard animals. The Council remanded it back to the Planning Commission to address some of the concerns. New deer fencing codes were also discussed and revised to require the upper section of the fence to have 80%visibility clearance. New City Administrator Dave Kanner, was introduced and he reviewed with the Commissioners his background and his interest in remaining informed of their issues. ADJOURNMENT: It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 411012012 CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES February 22,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Regina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Regina Ayars Mike Morris Brett Ainsworth Barb Barasa Staff Present: Ben Scott Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk Commissioners Absent: Richard Billin, excused James Dills APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barasa/Ainsworth m/s to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Sangye introduced himself as a Southern Oregon University student interested in becoming the student Liaison for the Housing Commission. He is a senior at SOU and would like to learn more about the political process. After being approved by the SOU Student Senate he will submit a letter of interest to the Mayor. Evan Lasley shared that he is interested in a more long term commitment and is considering applying to be a regular Housing Commissioner. RVTV PROJECT Since Dills was absent Barasa gave an update regarding the progress of the RVTV project. She stated that Dills has taken footage interviewing Brandon Goldman, City Senior Planner as well as footage of himself speaking as a Housing Commissioner. He also has footage of Housing Projects within the City. Barasa said the footage will need to be edited into shorter amounts of time with question and answer periods. Since Dills doesn't have the editing equipment he will need to go to RVTV to do the editing, which is labor intensive. It was suggested that the Commissioners email Dills with their ideas of whom he can interview and what topics to discuss for the program. April is Fair Housing Month and a Public Service Announcement was suggested as the topic for the March program. Put on next month's Agenda a discussion of ways to help Dills with this project. 1 i HOUSING WORK PLAN UPDATE AND RECOMMENDATION The Housing Work Plan is intended to identify specific housing activities that have already been initiated by the City to be completed in the short term (2-year). The plan will provide direction to City staff and provide measurable outcomes for elected and appointed Officials to monitor the objective and the success of the Housing Program. The work plan is for the years 2012 through 2015. A three year time frame ending with the Consolidated Plan update. Reid distributed to the Commissioners a copy of the draft showing just the significant changes that were made. The following three additions were added to the Work Plan. • Extended some of the project timelines out. • Vertical Housing Tax Credit. This is a Program offered through Oregon Housing and Community Services where a City can identify certain zones such as pedestrian places where there would be an increase in development with Mixed Use Residential and Commercial to encourage higher density housing which in turn can promote affordable housing and encouraging multi modal transportation. The applicant would receive tax credits for every floor above the Commercial building for a period of ten years. • Allowing Accessory Residential Units in zones where they are currently permitted without the need for a Conditional Use Permit. This is moving forward. LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION Council — Morris confirmed that the City has hired a new City Administrator, Dave Kanner. The Council made a policy stating that before any City Commission can spend money sponsoring an event they must first go through the City Council for approval. The Council also approved the use of the monies from the purchase of the Clay Street property to be dedicated to the Housing Trust Fund. Staff—At next month's meeting the Commissioners will be listening to presentations from the CDBG applications. General Announcements — Reid met with Professor Pat Acklin from Southern Oregon University. Acklin has a class titled Planning Issues. Half the Class will be looking at the Land Use Ordinance with regard to manufactured homes throughout the state and make suggestions on how the City can make their land use ordinance meet those needs. When finished the class will give a presentation to the City Council. If time allows they will also present to the Housing Commission. Barasa will draft a letter to be mailed to property owners of expiring use units giving them information on incentives for retaining affordable units. Barasa will forward the letter to Reid for editing. HOUSING NEEDS ANALYSIS ONLINE SURVEY SUMMARY Brian, a City intern, worked on the Housing Needs Analysis. Brian put together a questionnaire on survey monkey called "A Housing Needs Survey." He had quite a good response with a total of one hundred and seventy seven people taking the survey. Reid distributed the results from the survey. These are preliminary reports as Reid has not had the opportunity to review the data yet. Brian also sent out a mailer to property owners with different questions then the survey money questionnaire. Four hundred and eighty mailers went out and fifty five have been returned to date. The questions on the mailer were quite minimal, bedroom type, rent prices, and vacancy rate. Reid said that the information will be included in the Housing Needs Analysis Update. Reid pointed out that the average rent is actually still below fair market rent. She also noticed that most owners commented they had very low vacancy rates with long time renters. Reid acknowledged that the City utilized the CDBG Recovery Act money to do a program in conjunction with the 2 Conservation Department where the City gave out a grant of $3,000 for home owners to do energy efficiency upgrades. Dan Cunningham from the Conservation Department did the energy audits on the units and then the owners received rebates or a 0% financing loan that gets paid back through their utility bills. Reid will check with Mr. Cunningham to see if he would be willing to come to one of the Housing Commissions meetings and discuss the City's conservation programs. CDBG funds can be used to do rehabilitation programs including energy efficiency programs. Rental rehab is something that has not been done recently with CDBG funds though it has been done in the past. Grantors tend to shy away from it as an activity because the long term benefits to low income populations are harder to enforce/guarantee. The money coming into the Housing Trust Fund, when it gets repaid, comes from an 1985 CDBG rental rehab program to promote energy efficiency. At this time there is no program available for anyone who rents. MARCH 28. 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS Quorum check; everyone confirmed they will be here, including Evan. Reid will check with James. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Homeless Task Force Meeting-March 20, 2012: 10:30-12:00 Housing Authority Conference Room 2231, Table Rock Road, Medford Reid encouraged the Commissioners to stop by the Community Development office and pick up a Comprehensive Plan. Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting March 28, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM ADJOURNMENT-The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 13,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Eric Heesacker Derek Severson,Associate Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor Pam Marsh Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Dennis Slattery ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Marsh welcomed Dennis Slattery and announced he is the Commission's new council liaison. City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced himself and stated he is always available if the Commission has questions or concerns regarding City business. Commissioner Marsh announced the Planning Commission will hold its annual retreat on May 5; and asked the group to submit . agenda'topics and places to visit on the field trip. Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Green Codes public hearing before the City Council last week,and noted the significant amount of public testimony regarding the keeping of chickens. He stated when the Commission held their hearing no one came to speak, and wished they had received this same level of input. Councilor Slattery stated it was an interesting meeting and the term "urban farming"was used quite a bit. He added the Council will likely be looking at this as a new Council goal. Commissioner Marsh questioned how to raise more awareness of the issues before the Planning Commission in order to improve public participation,and stated it would have been better if they could have been aware of the public's concerns before this item went before Council. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 14, 2012 Regular Meeting. 2. February 28, 2012 Special Meeting. Commissioners Dawkins/Mindlin m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Council Memo—Pedestrian Places Re-Review Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the Pedestrian Places Re-Review will be on the Council's April 3m agenda. No objections were raised to forwarding this Memo to the City Council. Ashland Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION:#2011-01523 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to revise the Historic District Design Standards found in Section IV of Ashland's Site Design and Use Standards. These standards are approval criteria for Site Review applications for multi-family residential, commercial and industrial applications in the four National Register-listed historic districts,as well as for exterior modifications requiring building permits on single family residential properties that are individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed revisions are intended to bring the standards more into line with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and to provide greater internal consistency within the standards themselves. In conjunction with the revisions,supporting educational materials have been created to further explain and illustrate the standards with regard to specific topics including living with historic buildings, windows, exterior materials,additions, garages and outbuildings. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided a general overview of the Historic District Design Standards update. He explained the Standards have served the City well since the 1980s, however in preparing the Historic Preservation Plan it was found that there are occasions where the existing Historic District Design Standards contradict with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. Mr. Severson stated this update is intended as a fine tuning of the standards to address those conflicts. Mr. Severson explained the Historic District Design Standards apply in the City's four historic districts, and only apply to construction that requires site review or conditional use permit approval. He reviewed the locations of the Ashland historic districts and also provided the contributing and non-contributing property figures for each district. Mr. Severson provided an explanation of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and reviewed the specific sections of the Ashland Historic District Design Standards that are proposed to be changed. He noted the Historic Commission met several times to review these changes and have recommended approval by the City Council. Mr. Severson also commented briefly on the Historic Briefs that were prepared,which provide additional information on: Living with Historic Buildings,Windows, Exterior Materials,Additions, and Garages/Outbuildings. Deliberations and Decision Commissioner Mindlin suggested two minor corrections to page one: 1) she stated the word "lavish"is used incorrectly in the first paragraph,and 2)she stated the following sentence in paragraph three seems dated, "Wrought iron columns, asbestos shingles, and aluminum frame windows have only one thing in common—the local hardware store."She also commented that some of the - language makes it sound like these things are required and not advisory,and asked staff to clarify. Mr. Severson clarified for single family homes that do not require site review or a conditional use permit,the standards are advisory. He added the Historic Commission Review Board has the opportunity to make recommendations to the applicant, and typically meets with homeowners or contractors and makes recommendations when the building permit is issued. Commissioner Mindlin asked what would happen if someone wants to tear down their home and build a brand new one. Mr. Severson stated the applicant would have to first obtain a demolition review permit, and the Historic Commission is notified and given opportunity to comment. He also clarified as part of the demolition review, the applicants must provide sufficient evidence that rehabilitation is financially unfeasible. Commissioner Dawkins voiced concern that the standards don't have enough"teeth", and that ultimately it is all just a recommendation. Mr. Severson noted the Historic Preservation Plan outlines a request for the City to consider residential site review for homes in the historic districts, and review by the Historic Commission for things that do not require permits(replacement of siding,etc.). He added the Historic Commission has also voiced their desire to revise the demolition ordinance and give it more teeth. He clarified when the ordinance was first adopted,you could not prohibit demolition based on a structure's historic significance. He added as future grant cycles come up, this might be something the City wants to pursue. Commissioner Dawkins asked if the City could require an additional fee if people decide to not follow the standards; and Commissioner Miller asked if it is legal to have more restricted standards for single family homes in the historic districts. Mr. Molnar commented that 95%of people who purchase properties in historic areas do so because they like the resource and want to maintain those features. He stated more often than not people choose to follow the guidance given by the Historic Review Board, even if it is not mandatory. Mr. Severson commented that in some cases, removing the old building is not bad. He cited the LEED certified mixed-use development on A Street and stated the old building was dilapidated, had no discernable historic features, and Asmami Planning Commission March 13, 2012 Page 2 of 3 was a non-contributing structure. He added there are some instances where demolition is appropriate and supported by the Historic Commission. Commissioner Marsh commented that one of the best things they can do is to affirm as a community people's choices when we see them doing great projects;to give them easy to understand handouts; and to continue to applaud and promote the historical buildings in our community. She also suggested the City assemble a map of the national historic structures in Ashland and believes this would be a great promotional piece for the City. Commissioner Marsh noted the planning application at 400 Allison and questioned if the Floor Area Ratio issue that came up with that action has been resolved. Mr. Molnar indicated staff will add this to the list of items that need to be addressed. Commissioners MillerlHeesacker m/s to approve the Historic District Design Standards as revised and forward to the City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated he is supportive of these standards, but would like to reopen this discussion as it relates to the Downtown Plan, particularly on Lithia Way. Suggestion was made for this to be an agenda topic at the Commission's annual retreat.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Dawkins commented further on Lithia Way. He stated this is a transition zone and suggested they discuss rezoning the north side of the street. He commented on the Northlight property and suggested this area be rezoned as high density residential; and stated a viable downtown needs smaller housing units where people can live,work, and walk. He added he does not believe the downtown area needs to get any bigger. Comment was made questioning if the City has the ability to rezone a property and increase the density to allow for a much taller building. Staff clarified this is possible, however when you rezone a piece of property you do not own, it is best to have support from the property owner. Commissioner Mindlin stated she has some of the same concerns as Dawkins and noted her desire to talk about pocket neighborhoods and denser neighborhood communities. Commissioner Marsh stated she would like to hear about the research Mindlin has done in these areas and asked her to bring this forward for discussion at the retreat. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 13. 2012 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 — Business Meeting Appointment of Liaison to ad hoe Homelessness Steering Committee FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Mayor is seeking confirmation of Mike Morris' appointment as liaison to the ad hoc Homelessness Steering Committee. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Homeless Steering Committee has been extended for an additional year. This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment of Michael Morris as the Council liaison for the Homeless Steering Committee. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: - None SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve Mayor's appointment of Michael Morris as the Council Liaison to the Homeless Steering Committee. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 1 of I CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012.— Business Meeting Appointment to Transportation Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Mayor is seeking confirmation of his appointment of Colin Swales to the Transportation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Transportation Commission on application received. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None - SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of-Colin-Swales to the Transportation Commission with a.term to expire April 30, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Application received Page I of I �r, CITY OF -AS H LA7V APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO (� CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE AFC C f� 7 Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City R cAlpr at 9 1�DB City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email chrisrebQashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name "O t 1") Requesting to serve on: (Commission/Committee) Address 4 16 1 (}'_Li Sa N S-1- - Occupation S ELF " rm P Phone: Home Lt-6 Work Emailc.el�,-���-Y�Irs Fax 1. Education Backeround What schools have you attended? U N.vee61 ry 0,F 62,570 7 K . What degrees do you hold? (3A A2�mt�1 1� - 4 �° u ^ P�'" `7 What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? )� 4o Y J CO NS�NUION N �V $-Ia 31'2 U1 Z N R2e1^r t_.I 64+w,2) Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? I f1 R+n QtZI VE- IN t1F-1� -WN L1 L121I9NIN �. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? Cy 0 r W IurL�etc,-> -7�, « -v%, PLANNIN ) YN ,SN sA-r�( Co Y%^y,�tss , o� . 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? y rV eE S 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 5 ci;�- 1019C> . Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position Date Signature �r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting .Approval of Recommendation of the Public Art Commission FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Public Art Commission recommends Council accept a gift of a bronze sculpture replica of the current wooden sculpture "We Are Here" located at 88 North Main and retire the current sculpture to be donated to a government entity or non-profit. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In a 2004 land use decision. the City Council accepted as public art the tree carving known as "We Are Here". The sculpture was commissioned and donated.to the City in 2005 by Lloyd Haines and carved by artist Russell Beebe. Because the sculpture is wood and subject to deterioration by the elements, it requires significant repair and maintenance each year. The costs to the City are about $1,000 annually. A few years ago, the donor was informed that the sculpture may have to be retired because of the maintenance costs. Lloyd Haines has commissioned another artist to cast the current sculpture in bronze and switch the bronze sculpture with the current wooden sculpture. Mr. Haines will pay for all costs associated with the work including the installation of the new piece and removal of the existing sculpture. He has had initial conversations with SOU about donating the wooden sculpture to the SOU art collection at the Hannon library. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This will eliminate the annual repair and maintenance costs associated with the current wooden sculpture. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council accept the recommendation of the Public Art Commission. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the recommendation of the Public Art Commission to accept a gift of a bronze sculpture replica of the wooden sculpture "We Are Here" and donate the current sculpture to 1116' government entity or non-profit. ATTACHMENTS: _171 �r Proposal from Lloyd Haines Minutes from the Public Art Commission special meeting April 6, 2011 Page I of 1 Received via email from Lloyd Haines March 29, 2011 Hi Ann, 1 hope this note finds you well. Further to our discussion earlier this week, please consider this note a formal donation proposal. It relates to the "We Are Here" tree sculpture. As you are well aware, this beautiful and spiritually meaningful tree sculpture, which was donated to the City in 2005, has begun to deteriorate quite badly. The City is required to spend precious resources every year to retard the decay of the wood. And, in the long run, the sculpture will be ruined. I have considered the matter at length, talked to Agnes Baker Pilgram, the Spiritual leader of the Tekelma tribe, and Russell Beebe, the sculpture. We all believe the following proposal is the best course of action. So, here you go. 1. 1 propose to engage Jack Langford, local sculptor, to cast a bronze replica of the tree sculpture. He will make a mold of the various parts of the tree and use the mold to create a finished, bronze statue. He will use scaffolding to create the mold on site. 2. The process of creating the mold will take between 2-4 weeks. There will be temporary signs attached to the scaffolding informing the public what is happening. The scaffolding will be encircled with safety cones. The process will commence in the spring, after formal approval for the project is given. 3. After the tourist season ends ( probably the beginning of November) the wooden sculpture will be removed and replaced with the new bronze creation. The fence and rock-work base will be removed and reinstalled after the erection of the new piece. 4. The project will be reviewed by Allan Goffe, civil engineer, and he will approve the methods of creation of the sculpture and installation of same for safety. 5. I will bear all cost for creation of the bronze, removal of the wood sculpture, installation of the bronze, removal and re-installation of the rock base and fence. All reasonable precautions shall be taken and the City will be named as an insured party in a $1,000,000 liability insurance policy during the process. 6. 1 will donate the new sculpture to the City in exchange for receiving the existing wooden sculpture. I will then donate that wooden sculpture to an appropriate recipient, whether to a tribal Museum, SOU or another entity. As part of this exchange, I will transfer all rights; title and interest in and to the new bronze sculpture to the City and the City will transfer all right, title and interest in the wooden sculpture to me. 1 March 29, 2011 Proposal from Lloyd Haines 7. After the City receives the new bronze sculpture, it will be responsible for its care and maintenance. 8. This proposal will be implemented after approved by the Arts Commission and the City Council. A formal agreement will be prepared before the work commences. So there you have it. Please present to the Arts Commission and City Council and we will get underway. Thanks and call with questions. Best regards, Lloyd Matthew Haines 2 March 29, 2011 Proposal from Lloyd Haines CITY OF ASHLAND DRAFT Minutes Special Meeting Public Art Commission April 6, 2012 Lithia Room, 51 Winburn Way 8:15 a.m. Attendance Commissioners: Davis, Friend, Bussell, Garrington, Hanks (staff), Lemhouse (Council liaison) Absent Pugh Call to order The meeting was called to order by Commissioner Davis at 8:15. Commissioner Davis stated that the special meeting was called to respond to a proposal by Lloyd Haines to "transfer" the "We Are Here" sculpture and then she welcomed Lloyd Haines to present the concept to the Commission. Mr. Haines referred to the letter submitted earlier to the Commission and explained that the proposal was a combination of a donation of a replacement bronze sculpture for the existing wooden sculpture titled"We Are Here", located adjacent to the Shasta Building at 88 North Main Street in Ashland. The intent is to replace the wooden piece with a nearly exact replica made of bronze using molds from the existing wooden piece. The Commission inquired about the molding, construction methods the ultimate patina of the bronze and Mr. Haines responded that the original artist will be heavily involved and invested in creating a quality replacement piece. The bronze piece will withstand the weather/elements better than the existing alder wood piece, which has required consistent maintenance by the City. The Commission discussed with Staff the process for the transfer agreeing that two motions were required. The first motion was made by Bussell (second Friend) to accept the donation of the bronze replacement "We Are Here" with the understanding that the applicant and representatives will provide recommendations for the future donation of the existing artwork. The motion passed unanimously. The composition of the second motion was discussed by Commissioners and Mr. Haines, specifically the Municipal Code requirement that removal of work from the Ashland Public Art Collection through a donation must be to a recipient that is either a governmental agency or a non-profit. With the understanding and agreement by Mr. Haines, the Commissioner Busse]] made the following motion (second by Friend) "The Commission recommends to Council to remove the existing artwork from the Public Art Collection and donate the work to a non-profit based on the recommendation of the Native American community and the donor of its replacement artwork". The motion pass unanimously. The Commission thanked Mr. Haines for his efforts on both this "exchange" and for his longstanding support and involvement in the Arts in Ashland. Councilor Lemhouse gave the Commission an announcement regarding a future meeting and potential Downtown Plaza improvement project and invited their input in the process. Councilor Lemhouse explained that the Council will discuss the parameters of the project at their next upcoming Council meeting(April 17'h) and suggested they think about how the Commission may want to participate/contribute. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 AM CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Approval of a Contract Amendment in Excess of 25-Percent for the Bluebird Park Stairway Replacement Project FROM: James Olson, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works, olsonj @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The bids for the Bluebird Park Stairway Replacement were recently opened with the results being much higher than the architect's original estimate. The stairway project consists of two separate contracts; one for the sidewalk and wall construction and one for the steel stairway manufacture and placement. The costs for both of these portions of work were higher than estimated as shown below: PROJECT ESTIMATED COST FINAL OR BID COST 1. SidewaWwall reconstruct $ 9,000 $ 10,200 2. Stairway Construction $30,000 $ 48,767 $39,000 $ 58,967 Since the project is now over $50,000, both contractors are required to pay prevailing wage rates as established by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLT). The second contract has been awarded as a prevailing wage rate project, however, the first contract with Cut `N Break has already been completed and was paid at City living wage rates. The City is now required to pay the difference between the wages paid ($13.53 to $15.00 per hour) and the state prevailing wages that will be in excess of$45.00 per hour for some classifications. The difference will be approximately $3;970; an increase of over 38-percent. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In Oregon, nearly all public improvement projects costing $50,000 or more are subject to the State prevailing wage rates as established by BOLT. This requires that each worker be paid at least the minimum wage established by BOLT for various job classifications. Depending upon the job classification, these minimum wages can amount to a 200-percent increase over the City's currently listed minimum living wage of$13.53 per hour. The requirement to meet state prevailing wages generally adds 25 to 35-percent or more to the total project cost. There is some risk on smaller jobs that are bid close to the $50,000 limit. If the total project cost is increased by change orders or by the addition of work, the final project cost may exceed $50.000 in which case, BOLT considers the project to be a prevailing wage rate project and all published wages must apply. It is necessary to repay the workers the difference between what they were paid and what they should have been paid under BOLI rates. Page I of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND POLICY: BOLL rules and regulations are in accordance with ORS 279C.800 through 279.870 and OAR 839-025- 0020 and may also be found at www.orepon.gov/BOLI/WHD[PWR/. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This action adds $3,970.57 to the Cut `N Break contract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:. Staff recommends approval of a contract amendment in the amount of$3,970.57 to be added to the Cut `N Break contract to accommodate the payment of state prevailing wages to its workers. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve a $3970.57 amendment to the existing contract with Cut `N Break for sidewalk and wall reconstruction on the Bluebird Park Stairway Replacement project. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Endorsement of SOPride for the Purpose of Hanging a Banner FROM: Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary, shipletd @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The 2012 SOPride event organizers would like to hang a banner across E. Main Street from October 8 - 14, 2012. However, per ODOT and City of Ashland regulations, the only banners allowed to be hung across E. Main Street are those for City events or City endorsed events. Council must decide if they will endorse this event for the purpose of hanging the banner. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: City of Ashland and ODOT regulations require that all banners hung across E. Main Street be for City events or City endorsed events. Any non-City event must request endorsement by a City commission with final approval by the Council or must directly request endorsement from the Council in order to qualify for banner hanging. The SOPride event is not a City event and therefore is requesting endorsement from the Council. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Endorsement by the Council does not include waiver of any fees. SOPride will be required to pay all fees associated with hanging the banner as well as any fees related to obtaining a special event permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve/deny endorsement of the 2012 SOPride event for the purposes of hanging a banner across E. Main Street. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from SOPride requesting endorsement. Page I of 1 southern oregon s o rI City of Ashland Ms. Diana Shiplet Executive Secretary 20 East Main Street Ashland, Or. 97520 Subject: Request for Endorsement of Southern Oregon Pride to hang our banner The 3`d annual Southern Oregon Pride Parade (SOPride) will be held in Ashland on Saturday October 13, 2012, This event benefits the city of Ashland by bringing people as far north as Washington and as far south as San Francisco to our community. The festival is a four day event. SOPride brings the power of the queer dollar to downtown Ashland, restaurant owners, bar owners and retail stores have enjoyed the benefits. This year we will have a SOPride Shopping Guide. This will allow the LGBTQ community and our supporters to shop all year around at the restaurants, bars and retail store that support us. We will kick it off with an out rally at SOU on Thursday, on Friday night a celebration dance at the Ashland Armory, Saturday is our parade and a champagne brunch for our supporters on Sunday at Ashland Creek Inn. We are hoping to be able to get the word out about this event and in the efforts to do so would like to hang our banner across East Main Street. Per the City of Ashland and ODOT rules, banners across East Main Street are for City endorsed events only. We are requesting that the City Council endorse, for the purpose of hanging the banner only for our SOPride events. This endorsement request does not have any financial obligation. SOPride will pay the $125.00 banner hanging fee as well as any Special event permit fees . associated with the parade. Sincerely, Gina DuQuenne Founder and President Southern Oregon Pride www.sopride.org CITY OF ' ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012, Business Meeting Acceptance of a Certified Local Government Grant from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the continued operation of the City of Ashland's historic preservation program. FROM: Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner, Amy.Gunter @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The City Council's authorization is requested to accept a $14,490 grant from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the National Park Service. The grant is focused primarily on promoting historic preservation and carrying out the objectives and actions identified in the Historic Preservation ten year plan. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On February 5, 2012 the City Council voted to direct staff to submit the Certified Local Government (CLG) grant application to obtain funding to continue the operation of the City of Ashland's historic preservation program. The City received notification of grant approval on March 28, 2012. The grant request includes the following objectives. • Creation of public education documents using the Historic Brief and other information from the previous CLG grant cycle where residential standards for Site Design and Use Standards Section IV were updated with graphics and 'white papers.' • Creation of brochures, postcard mailers, handouts and interpretive panels regarding the value of historic preservation. • Historic Preservation month activities including guest speakers, a workshop, two guided tours and local presery ation awards. The grant provides funds for project completion by April 2013. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Upon approval of the grant, the SHPO program will dedicate $14,490 of the $28,980 project costs. The remaining balance will constitute the City's match in the amount of$14,490. The City's match will consist of staff resources and commissioner time directed toward obligations to the Historic Commission, project management, preparation of background materials, review of deliverables, meeting preparation and contract management accounting consistent with the grant request. As such sufficient funds are presently available for the City's required match without requiring new funds to be budgeted. Pagel of2 I ��, CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the grant and requests that Council move to approve the CLG grant award. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve and accept the CLG grant award of$14,490.00 for continued Historic Preservation activities consistent with the 2012-2013 grant application and approval. ATTACHMENTS: State Historic Preservation Office approval letter and 2012 grant agreement Page 2 of 2 ��, 0 0 R regon � ,,, / •'o Parks and Recreation Department N. Z State Historic Preservation Office 6 John A.Kitzhabir,N1q Governor 725 Summer St NE,Ste C Salem,OR 97,301-1266 (503)986-0671 Fax(503)986-0793 www.oregonlieritage.org March 28, 2012 -01 @CO.y HISTORY 5 OG�V!p Amy Gunter City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 Dear Amy: Congratulations! Your application for a 2012 Certified Local Government Grant has been funded for the amount and propose listed below. Grant Amount: $14,490 Grant No.: OR-12-02 Start Date: 4/1/2012 End Date: 8/31/2013 Summary: Educational programs including brochures,postcards,handouts and interpretive panels regarding the value of historic preservation. Preservation month activities including guest speakers, historic cemetery clean up,guided walking toes,and preservation awards.Development and implementation of design standards.Attendance at the Oregon Heritage Conference.Administration and design review. Enclosed are two copies of your 2012 grant agreement.Carefully review the scope of work and requirements for each category to be sure they are summarized correctly. Have the authorized person sign both copies and return both copies to us.The signed agreements must be returned to our office within 30 days; if not returned in that period, it will be assumed that you are not accepting the grant award. We will return a signed copy and grant reporting informationat that time. I am looking forward to working with you. Please let me know if you have any questions,and, again,congratulations and best wishes for a successful project. Sincerely, /�- Kuri Gill Grant and Outreach Coordinator (503)986-0685 Kuri.Gill@state.or.us Enclosures i Grant Agreement 2012 Certified Local Government Grant (OR-12-02) This Agreement is made and entered into on the date of final signature of this agreement by and between the State of Oregon,acting by and through Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Heritage Programs,hereinafter referred to as the"State"and: City of Ashland 20 E Main Street Ashland,OR 97520 hereinafter referred to as"Grant Recipient." L GENERAL PURPOSE: The general purpose of this agreement is: to undertake the heritage-related proiect as detailed in Attachment A. 2. AGREEMENT PERIOD: This agreement is for the period from 4/1/2012 to 8/31/2013 unless otherwise extended or terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. 3. AGREEMENT COSTS: STATE will pay GRANT RECIPIENT a maximum of 1$ 4A90 for costs authorized by this agreement. 4. ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT: Attachment A: Scope of Work Attachment B: Standard Terms and Conditions 5. SIGNATURES: IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties sign and cause this agreement to be executed. GRANT RECIPIENT: Signature,Authorized Representative Date Name and Title of Signer(Type or Print) STATE: Roger Roper,Assistant Director Date OPRD Heritage Programs 9107 i i Attachment A--Scope of Work 2012 Certified Local Government Grant (OR-12-02) Grantee: City of Ashland Grant AalotnnL _$14,420_ Match Autount: The grant funds and matching local contributions will be used to accomplish the work items detailed in the Budget and Work Description sections that follow. OPRD Heritage Programs staff must approve any changes to this Scope of Work. PROPOSED BUDGET 1 Administration r Staff $1,630 Total $1,630 2. Other Preservation Activities Registration/lodging/food $1,260 Materials&Equipment $240 Travel $245 Staff $1,160 t Volunteer time $510 Total $3,415 3• Planning,Review and Compliance Staff $3,650 Volunteer time $4,630 Total $8,280 4 Public Education Printing,Design,etc. $8,000 Materials&Equipment $2,750 Staff' $2,000 Volunteer time $900 Contractor/Consultant $2,000 Total $15,650 Total Project Budget $28,975 WORK DESCRIPTION 1• Administration $1,630 Products Write grant reports,manage projects,hire consultants,process paperwork and contracts. Standards: Project Standards: Allowable costs and services must be related to the administration of this grant: application/contract processing,project oversight,reimbursement requests,etc. 2. Other Preservation Activities $_3_,415 Products: Attendance of two commissioners and one staff at the Oregon Heritage Conference. Attachment A for Certified Local Government Grant#OR-12-02 Page I of I project.Any purchases or contracts for services over$500 should follow appropriate procurement procedures,including obtaining at least three estimates. •Prior to publication,a draft of all products,newsletters,brochures,etc.must be submitted to and approved by Heritage Programs. •Printed publications must include the following statement: This publication has been funded with the assistance of a matching grant-in-aid from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S.Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race,color,national origin,age of handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program,activity,or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Office of Equal Opportunity,National Park Service, 1849 C Street,NW,Washington,D.C.20240. •Pictures of exhibits,programs and events are required for reimbursement.Digital images of 300dpi or higher are preferred.If the images are not digital,then prints must be professionally printed. i I i 1 i Attachment A for Certified Local Government Grant 9 OR-12-02 Pop 3 of 3 i i Attachment B Standard Terms and Conditions—Historic Preservation Fund Grants 1. Authority: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Amendments, 16 U.S.0 470,authorizes the SHPO to provide grants to Certified Local Governments to carry out preservation projects authorized under the Act; 2. Work Plan Approval:Prior to commencing the project described in Attachment A,Grant Recipient shall receive approval on a final work plan from the State. 3. Renegotiallon or Modifications:This agreement may be amended,modified,or supplemented only by written amendment to the agreement,executed by the same persons or by persons holding the same position as persons who signed the original agreement. 4. Employment Practices Clause:In carrying out its responsibilities under(his agreement,the Grant Recipient shall not deny benefits to or discriminate against any person on the basis of race,color,creed,religion,national origin,sex, disability,or sexual preference,and shall comply with all requirements of federal and state civil rights statutes,niles and regulations including: • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(42 USC 200d et.seq.). • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(20 USC 794). • Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972(20 USC 1681 el.seq.). • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(42 USC sections 12101 to 12213). • ORS 659.400 to 659.460 relating to civil rights of persons with disabilities. 5. Statement of Support:All publicity,visual or oral,and all publications for and related to this project shall be accompanied by the following statement: "This project is supported is part by a grant from the Oregon State Historic Preservation Oj ice, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,Jaided by the National Park Service through the National Historic Preservation Act."A sign to that effect,provided by the State,may be required on the project site as well. 6. Reporting:Grant Recipient shall submit written progress reports and a final report as described in the grants manual and on forms provided by State. 7. Grant Payments:Grant funds are awarded by State on a reimbursement basis.Reimbursement requests shall be in accordance with grant instructions and on forms provided by State. 8. Records Administratlon: Grant Recipient shall maintain,or supervise the maintenance of all records necessary to properly account for the payments made to the Grant Recipient for costs authorized by this contract. These records shall be retained by the Grunt Recipient for at least four years after the contract terminates,or until all audits initiated within flue four years,have been completed,whichever is later. The Grant Recipient agrees to allow State auditors,and State Agency Staff,access to all the records related to this contract, for audit and inspection,and monitoring of services. Such access will be during normal business hours,or by appointment. 9. Tax Obligations:Grant Recipient will be responsible for any federal or state taxes applicable to payments under this Agreement. 10. Indemnity Clause:Grant Recipient shall defend,save,and hold haindess the State of Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,its officers,agents,employees and members,from all claims,suits or actions of whatsoever nature resulting from or arising out of the activities of the Grant Recipient or its contractors,agents or employees under this Agreement. 11. Laws and Regulations:Grant Recipient agrees to comply with all state laws and regulations pertaining to this Agreement and the work to be carried out. 12. Repayment:In the event that Grant Recipient spends Historic Preservation Fund Grant funds in any way prohibited by state or federal law,or for any purpose other than the completion of the project,Grant Recipient shall reimburse the SHPO for all such unlawfully or improperly expended funds. 13. Termination:This contract may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties,or by either party upon a 30-day notice in writing,delivered by certified mail or in person.On termination of this contract,all accounts and payments will be processed according to the financial arrangements set forth herein for approved services rendered to date of termination. 14. Entire Agreement:This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.No waiver,consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver,consent,modification or change,if made,shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given.There are no understandings,agreements,or representations,oral or written,not specified herein regarding this agreement.Grant Recipient,by signature of its authorized representative on the agreement,acknowledges that the Grant Recipient has read this agreement,understands it,and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions." (revised 4/08) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Approval of Contract with Ausland Group for Construction of Fire Station #2 FROM: John Karns, Fire Chief, Fire Department, kamsj @ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The Council, acting as the Contract Review Board, is asked to approve a construction contract with the Ausland Group for the replacement of Fire Station 42 in the amount of$2,184,400. This project is funded from a general obligation bond approved by Ballot Measure 15-109. Ausland Group submitted the winning bid from the five bids that were submitted. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In June 2009 the Council adopted a goal to replace Fire Station No. 2. This goal followed the City's Facilities Master Plan, completed in 2008. In January 2010, the Council appointed a fourteen-member Public Safety Bond Committee to evaluate several capital projects, including replacement of Fire Station No. 2. In May 2010, the Public Safety Bond Committee unanimously recommended the City Council seek voter approval of general obligation bonds not to exceed $3 million and to place a measure on the.May 2011 ballot. On May 17, 2011, the general obligation bond was approved by voters. Plans for the project were finalized by the architect Peck Smiley Enttlin and an invitation to bid was offered. On April 5, 2012, the bids were opened and examined. The Ausland Group met the bid requirements and submitted the lowest bid proposal. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This project is funded through a general obligation bond in an amount not to exceed $3 million. Staff has calculated that $3 million dollars will cost Ashland taxpayers $0.124 per$1000 assessed property value. The bond will be issued for 20 years and based on existing property values; the average property owner would pay approximately $28.36 per year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approval of the construction contract with the Ausland Group in the amount of$2,184,400 for the construction of Fire Station #2. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the contract between the City of Ashland and the Ausland Group for the construction of Fire Station #2, in the amount of$2,184,400. Page ] of 2 PF& C I T Y OF ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: N/A I Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88 and Adoption of Findings FROM: James Olson, Engineering Service Manager, Public Works Dept. olsonj @ashland.or.us SUMMARY To conclude the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID) process, the following actions are being requested for council's consideration and adoption: A. Public Hearing—In accordance with AMC Section 13.02, a public hearing shall be held to consider any objections to the proposed assessments. B. Adoption of Resolution —Adoption of the attached resolution, following the public hearing, will establish the final amount to be assessed. C. Adoption of Findings— Adoption of the attached findings will document the City's actions and decisions regarding the formation of the assessment district and allocation of assessments. D. Consideration of Written Objections— As of this date, no letters of objection have been received, however, one e-mail was received with comments regarding the allocation of assessment units. This e-mail and any letters received subsequent to the date of this communication will be attached, along with staffs response, for the council's consideration. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The LID has long been the most popular method by which Ashland's city street improvements and other public improvements are funded. The LID uses the Bancroft Bonding Act to provide a 10-year funding opportunity whereby private citizens, in conjunction with the City, can pay for improvements to their street. The most current LIDS are the Liberty Street LID which is being concluded with this public hearing, and the Schofield/Monte Vista LID which is currently under construction. The improvement of Liberty Street under LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. In accordance with AMC Section 13.20 the project was then designed, bid and constructed and the final costs calculated and tabulated. Following is a summary and comparison of the original estimated costs and the final costs. Estimated Project Cost Final Project Cost Construction $179,920.00 $179,840.81 Engineering $ 40,080.00 $ 46,780.00 $220,000.00 $226,620.81 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND The increase of$6,620.81 represents a 3 percent increase over the original estimated cost but will not affect the final assessment rate of$5,251.00 per unit which is fixed in accordance with Resolution 99- 09. This LID and the following Schofield/Monte Vista LID are likely the last of the LIDS that were approved under Resolution 99-09 and which set maximum caps on the assessment rate. Resolution 99- 09 has since been rescinded. With the final costs computed and assessment amounts known, we may now proceed to conclude this LID by holding the final public hearing where affected property owners may present arguments regarding the established rate and total assessment amount. Project Description: The Liberty Street LID project improved the southerly 700 linear feet of the street right-of-way. The project included grading, paving and construction of curbs and gutters, storm drains, and sidewalks. In addition to the normal street improvement elements, several existing utilities owned by the City, Qwest, and by Avista Utilities were rebuilt, replaced, and/or extended. Privately owned utilities were reconstructed at the utility owners' expense and the City bore the cost for its upgrades. The costs for utility upgrades are not costs which are assessable to the,adjacent property owners. During the course of construction it was necessary to completely rebuild the buried telephone lines owned by Qwest (now Century Link) and the gas lines owned by Avista Utilities. These utilities were found to have been originally buried too shallow (some less than one foot deep) and were in conflict with the excavation for the street sub-grade. While the actual replacement of these utilities was funded by the respective utility owners, the work caused the project to be delayed which did result in extra costs to the City. Improving a street such as Liberty Street with its steep side hill grades is always difficult. Prior to improvement the gravel street surface was only about 12 feet wide. Widening the street to 22 feet wide had severe impacts on existing street frontages and especially on driveway connections. As the street widens, the connections to existing driveways become steeper. The contractor and City staff spent a great deal of time working with the property owners and engineer to make each and every driveway fully functional, safe, and visually appealing. Approval of Project Findings: The findings, conclusions, and orders are a record of all major activities regarding the project, including all Council motions and determinations. The findings for this project will be presented at the public hearing for final approval. A copy of the incomplete findings is attached for an advanced review. The findings cannot be completed until the final actions of the Council are complete. POLICY: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution 99-09 sets forth the requirements for the improvements of public utilities under a local improvement district. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: LID Costs per Resolution 2008-02: Page 2 of 5 FA, CITY OF ASHLAND The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at $220,000 of which $115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties. The assessment to be levied was set under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-09 which set specific rates of participation (credits) by the City. This resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed (adjusted annually based upon the CPI). The petition for the formation of the LID was received in September of 2007 and the cap was set at $5,251 per unit or potential unit, the computed cap for that year. The costs for development of the Liberty Street LID were estimated as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 .60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total: $ 67.644.50 Assessable Cost ($ 220,000 - $ 67,644.50) $ 152,355.50 Number of lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street Improvement ($152,355.50/22) - $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ . 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be home by the owners, any additional cost must be borne by the City. In addition, a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00 Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 36,833.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 109,729.00 Final Assessment Costs: Following is a summary of the final assessment costs based upon the final construction and engineering costs. FINAL COSTS Page 3 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Total Construction Cost $ 179,840.81 Engineering & Administration Costs $ 46,780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 226,620.81 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 14,196.50 $ 10,647.38 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 151,961.36 $ 30,392.27 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 12,682.95 $ 7,609.77 Total Credits by City $ 72,039.42 Assessable Cost Final Project Cost $ 226,620.81 Less Credits $ 72,039.42 Total Assessable Costs $ 154,581.39 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot (Assessment Rate) ($ 154,581.39/ 22) $ 7,026.43 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 99-09 $ 5,251.00 Resolution No. 99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be borne by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be borne by the City. Costs to be borne by the property owners and the City are as follows: Amount to be paid by owners $.115,522.00* Amount to be paid by City Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 72,039.42 Amount over the maximum cap $ 39,059.39 Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 Total City Cost $ 116,349.81 * Includes one City-owned lot to be assessed at $ 5,251.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: A. Public Hearing— Staff recommends that the Council consider the attached e-mail from Jane Tama and any others that might be presented at the public hearing. I. Tama comments—Jane and Pedro Tama, who own the property at 781 Liberty Street, considered contesting the second potential unit which they are being assessed. However, after realizing that they had actually made an application for a lot division and that the City had constructed an extra wide driveway and additional water and sewer services to accommodate a second lot, they withdrew their objection. Complaints regarding other lot assessments were unfounded. 2. Other comments—Any other objections received after the date of this communication will be addressed in an addendum. Page 4 of 5 CITY OF I ASHLAND B. Adoption of Resolution— Staff recommends that the attached resolution be adopted. The resolution correctly states the assessments to be charged for the improvement of Liberty Street and is as previously set forth in Resolution No. 2008-02. C. Adoption of Findings— Staff recommends adoption of the attached findings which document the City's actions and decisions regarding the formation of the assessment district and allocation of assessments. It shall be understood that the findings will be updated to include the Council's actions on April 17, 2012. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to adopt the resolution titled, "A Resolution Levying Special Benefit Assessments in the Amount of$115,522.00 for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District for Improvements to Liberty Street Consisting of Grading, Paving, and Construction of Sidewalks, Curb, Drainage Improvements, and Other Associated Improvements." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Tama communication Findings Page 5 of 5 �r, RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,522.00 FOR THE LIBERTY STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, CURB, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland has constructed paving, sidewalks, curbs, storm drains, and other improvements as a result of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID). B. The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of$226,620.81, OF WHICH $115,522.00 shall bekpaid by property owners within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District at a rate of$5,251.00 per assessment unit. C. The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments charged against each lot are according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Engineering Staff, in the Council Communication of April 17, 2012, is convincing and-accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited above. D. Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefited to defray the expense thereof. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The amount of the assessment to be charged against each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for$100.00 or more may request the payment be extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is made within thirty days after notice of the assessment is received. SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi- annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. The initial interest to be charged is 10 percent. At the time that these assessments are bonded, the interest rate to be charged will be the actual bond sale rate plus 1.5 percent with a maximum of 10 percent. Page I of 2 i SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in section 1 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 1 b of Artiele XI of the Oregon Constitution. SECTION 5. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code ' 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2012. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 i i o 0 0 0 0 0 ° o 0 0 o o ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o a o CO h h h h h O cn t�� N N q N N Ci q N (i N N N L vi vi V1 vi vi �n vl v'i Vl vi W o Ln 69 Ni 60 b9 Vi 49 yj (A fA fil Gn H9 V! (� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r%j dFd N q N N cl cl N � cl N vi N c N h vi � � vryi vi � h vi vHi � vryi vi 69 69 69 69 fA 69 &9 (n Vi 69 60 69 60 69 F '6l N Q O O N rUA Endyy o 7 O y � a � � � ,r 'Dz Q Wi .t- O O X ti A o Oy�j N00 A cU ^ z o n7o � 0, � N ' 00NW O T0 (7,i NS a 0 b Ur At, A Z "0At- I a � CIO � 0 0 0 P o O M M ' P6 O r val M h M o 10 cs O Vl h M Vl a a $ O $ O O 0 O O a O a p a0 p k' on"00 O O O O O 0 GGGddd a4a � °o °o °o 0 o 0 o 0 0 C. °o O° o F Fa z r n ^ M M M M mM M M pyz. b �O \O %O C% a a a a a a a a a a a a a M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Z ^ N M d' Vl �O 1� w a ^O .". .N+ m g (7 I i O O O O O O N y °r N N N N e�V N' V^ W q v� vl Gq �n E �`i 60 ss vi cn v� vi b'! O O O O O O O O O N cl [y N O (ti UW (� vi vl vi vl vi vi �,y . Vi fA b9 69 Vi N 0 a co O O 6 ,'L' � •gyp �} •� .. � � � � - of 3 C D CD �r N W N .N. ...� O Q O E z P. o c z rn N a Nom' Q ° O O O O F ►1 z "' N N N b H M M M O vi �o � oo rn o 9 Z N i I � I I i TAMA COMMUNICATION Jim Olson From: Jane Tama Uanekona @hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 11:59 PM To: Jim Olson Subject: Liberty Street Assessment District Hello Jim, - In response to your phone call this morning and our discussion, we've decided to accept the 2-unit assessment and defer payment on the second until such time as we actually partition the property into 2 lots. With regard to the proposed Liberty Street Assessment, however, it does not seem fair to assess our property with 2-units when other similar properties have not been so assessed. I call your attention to TL 100 (391E16AC) which is 1.10 acre, has gentler slopes than ours, and has been assessed with an additional building site of 0.5 acre by the County Assessor's office. This should also be assessed 2-units, if ours is. I also call your attention to TL 3405, 1.31 acre; given its relatively high density zoning, it too could accommodate another building site. Finally, TL 200 (391E16AC), 0.99 acre (though 0.01 acre short of meeting zoning requirements),. is prime property to be partitioned into 2 lots. In the interest of equitability, these should also be assessed 2-units. We shall send these written comments to the City Administrator for the Public Hearing. Jane and Pedro Tama j 1i . � 1 l BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL JACKSON COUNTY,OREGON February 5,2012 IN THE MATTER OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ) ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ) CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY ) STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING,PAVING AND ) FINDINGS CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, ) CONCLUSIONS STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND ) AND ORDERS AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ) ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ) PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FORTHE ACTUAL ) COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT ) APPLICANT: City of Ashland ) RECITALS: 1) On December 4, 2007, Council approved Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public hearing with intent to form a local improvement district(LID) for the construction of improvements to Liberty Street consisting of sidewalks, curbs and gutters,paving, drainage and associated improvements.. 2) The Council has declared by Resolution No. 2007-41 to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement;and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the City. All property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. 3) The Council, following proper public notice,held a public hearing on February 5, 2008,at which time a staff presentation was made,citizen testimony received and exhibits presented. Council approved Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing and ordering the local improvements for the construction of improvements to Liberty Street consisting of grading, paving and construction of curb and gutters,sidewalks, storm drains and related appurtenances. 4) On February 5,2008, Council approved Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing the City to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim frnaricing for the actual cost of the local improvement. 5) The Liberty Street LID No. 88 boundary was approved by Council as being all those lots with frontage on or taking sole access from Liberty Street southerly of the existing improved street section. GApub."TWeng\04-21 Liberty Streer\CC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Page I of 6 I � I I 6) Improvement Process A. Engineering On April 18,2008, the City entered into a contract with Thornton Engineering, Inc. of Jacksonville, Oregon to perform preliminary and construction engineering for the Liberty Street LID project referred to as Project No. 2004-21. The engineering services contract was for$36,030.00. On May 4, 2010,the Council approved an amendment to the original contract in the amount of$10,750.00 which increased the contract amount to$46,780.00. The contract amendment funded the following work which was not included within the engineer's scope of services: 1. Acquire DEQ 1200C permit 2. Design alternate street alignments to accommodate the right of way changes 3. Design an extension of the sanitary sewer system to the end of the project 4. Design the replacement of 350 feet of 8-inch water main 5. Design additional retaining walls to accommodate alignment changes 6. Design additional utility installations necessary to remove power poles 7. Design modifications to six driveway approaches including revisions to the street profile B. Neighborhood Consensus City staff met with the Liberty Street neighbors on June 9, 2008 for the first pre- design meeting to discuss the potential design for the project. A subsequent meeting was held on September 1, 2009 to review the 95 percent plans. Following some minor adjustments resulting from the neighborhood review, the plans were completed and prepared for bidding. C. Easement Acquisitions During the projects early design phase, it was discovered that a portion of the original street width was located outside the deeded right of way,on private property. To accommodate the widening of the street, three easements were acquired from the following individuals or entities: 1. Scott Kurtz and Ellen Walsh;2643 square feet recorded as document no. 2009-042873 2. Greg Connell; 370 square feet recorded as document no.2010-013509 3. Park Estates Subdivision, HOA; 1396 square feet recorded as document no. 2010-003289 D. Bidding Process An advertisement for bids was placed in the following publications: • Daily Journal of Commerce—04/19/2010 • Medford Mail Tribune—04/28/2010' • Ashland Daily Tidings—04/26/2010 G:\pub-%7ks\eng\04-21 Liberty StmACC Liberty LTD Resolution 020612.doax Page 2 of 6 I i i ' i i i Plans and specifications were distributed to eight plan centers and builders exchanges,and to fifteen potential bidders. A non-mandatory pre-bid conference was held on April 28,2010 with 10 potential bidders in attendance. On May 6, 2010 at 2:00 p.m., six bids were received for the construction of the Liberty Street LID project. The low bid of$142,798.75 was submitted by VISAR Construction of Central Point, Oregon which was$24,205.25 below the engineers estimate. Bids were also received from Pair-A-Dice Contracting($157,243.25), Pilot Rock Excavation, Inc. ($170,396.00), D. Britton Enterprises($179,489.32), Knife River (189,434.00),and Taylor Construction($240,566.00). On May 18, 2010,the Council approved the award of a contract to VISAR Construction Co. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the construction of the Liberty .Street LID. E. Construction Process A pre-constriction conference was held on site on June 15, 2010. Following the conference, a notice to proceed was issued on June 22,2010 and construction commenced on June 28,2010. The project continued throughout the summer and fall and was completed by the end of November 2010. A number of utility conflicts were encountered during the course of construction which extended the project beyond the original 90-day contract and which resulted in four contract change orders totaling$37,042.06 in extra costs. The final contract amount which was.paid on February 2,2011 was for$179,840.81. Because the utility conflicts resulted in extensive re-constructions by the utility owners, which actions were beyond the control of the contractor,no liquidated damages were assessed for contract calendar exceedance. Now, therefore,the City Council of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: SECTION 1: EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the following exhibits will be used: Exhibit 1 —Council Communication dated December 4,2007 Exhibit 2—Minutes of the December 4,2007 Council meeting Exhibit 3 —Resolution No. 2007-41 setting a public hearing date Exhibit 4—Council Communication dated February 51 2008 f G:\pub-wlks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street\CC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.dmx Page 3 of 6 i Exhibit 5—Minutes of the February 5, 2008 Council meeting Exhibit 6—Resolution No. 2008-02 authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty Street under the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 7—Council Communication dated May 18, 2010 Exhibit 8—Minutes of the May 18,2010 meeting Exhibit 9—Resolution No.12-06 setting a public hearing date for assessments to be charged against lots within the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 10—Council Communication dated March 6, 2012 Exhibit I 1 —Minutes of the March 6, 2012 Council meeting Exhibit 12—Resolution No.12-09 repealing Resolution No.12-06 and setting a public hearing date for assessments to be charged against lots within the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 13—Council Communication dated April 3, 2012 Exhibit 14—Resolution No.12-_ levying special benefit assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 Exhibit 15—Council Communication dated April 17,2012 SECTION 2: CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING NATURE OF IMPROVEMENTS 2. 1 The City Council authorized the improvement of Liberty Street from the end of current improvements southerly to the end of the right of way. The improvements consist of grading and paving,construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains and related appurtenances. 2.2 The proposed LID is in the best interest of the City. Evidence presented indicated that the City will have an improved street for all modes of transportation with reduced maintenance costs; enhanced environmental effects due to improved air quality and better storm water controls;and a demonstrated improved safety with construction of curbs, sidewalks and an asphalt road surface. SECTION 3: CONCLUSORY FINDINGS REGARDING BOUNDARY DETERMINATION 3.1 The City Council finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the Council Communication dated December 4, 2007 and February 5,2008,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. GApub-wrksleng\04-21 Liberty Strcet\CC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Page 4 of 6 I � i 3.2 The proposed LID boundary includes all lots fronting on or taking sole access from Liberty Street southerly of the end of the existing improved section as depicted on the map attached to Resolution No. 2007-41. This boundary was selected as these 20 properties would be directly benefited by the improvements to Liberty Street. The benefit to these lots is readily definable and is much more direct than those who might simply use the street as a throughway to access their property. 3.3 The proposed Liberty Street LID is consistent with the 2007-2012 Capital Improvement Plan and identified in the 2009-2010 budget adopted by Council in June,2009. 3.4 The City Council did not receive a remonstrance sufficient to postpone authorizing and ordering the construction of the local improvement district. SECTION 4: NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 4.1 A notice of public hearing was sent to all listed property owners(determined from Jackson County Tax Assessment rolls)within the proposed assessment district.The public hearing notice was also published in the Ashland Daily Tidings. SECTION 5: ALLOCATION OF ASSESSMENT UNITS 5.1 Each of the 20 lots within the proposed assessment district has been allocated one assessment unit. In addition,several lots have been allocated additional units of assessment. Those lots with additional units are those lots that the Planning Department has determined can be further divided. The number of assessment units is equal to the member of current and future potential residential lots as defined in Resolution No. 99-09 and as shown on the attachments to Resolution No.2007-41. The total number of assessment units under this LID is 22. SECTION 6: COST 6.1 The maximum assessable rate per unit is established by Resolution No.99-09. The maximum rate established in 1999 was $4,000 per unit. This rate is adjusted each April in accordance with the Construction Cost Index established by the Engineering News Record Index(ENR record) for Seattle, Washington. The current rate to be charged for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 is$5,251.00 which is the maximum rate as of Resolution No. 2007-41 establishing the Public Hearing date. All costs over and above the assessment amount will be home by the City. SECTION 7: DECISION 7.1 Based on evidence contained within the whole record on this matter,the City Council concludes that the establishment of the LID boundary is in the City's best interest,is justified as presented by staff and is supported by evidence contained within the record. I GApub-w kskng104-21 Liberty Street\CC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Pnge 5 of 6 7.2 Council finds that the public hearing was properly noticed. 7.3 Council further concludes that the allocation of assessment lots and associated cost complies with Resolution No.99-09 and represents the benefit received by each affected property. 7.4 On March 6, 2012 and April 3,2012 the Council heard a staff report and public comment on the final completed project and the cost associated therewith and, based on the evidence presented adopted Resolution 2012-09 setting the date of April 17, 2012 for a public hearing to levy special benefit assessment costs. On April 17,2012 the Council heard a staff report and public comment regarding the final assessments to be levied against properties within the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Following the hearing,the Council adopted Resolution No.12 - Levying Special Benefit Assessments for the construction of the Liberty Street LID. The Council finds and determines that the final assessment as set forth in the Resolution and supporting documents is consistent with the requirements of AMC Chapter 13. John Stromberg,Mayor Date GApub-%Tkskng\04.21 Liberty StrecaCC Liberty LID Resolution 020612.docx Page 6 of 6 i i II EXHIBIT 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve Liberty Street as well as the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets Meeting Date: December 4,2007 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson,488-5347 Department: PW/Engineering E-Mail: olsonjQashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen,488- 5307 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will Council approve the attached resolution to establish a public hearing date of February 5,2008, to consider the formation of Assessment District No. 88 to improve both Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Street? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets. Background: Staff has received petitions calling for the formation of a local improvement district to fund two projects. The fast petition is for the formation of the improvement district for improvements to Liberty Street, from the present end of improvements southerly to the end of the right of way.The second petition requests formation of the improvement district for improvements to the alley, south of Siskiyou bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. LID Composition These two proposed improvement projects are being considered under a single assessment district in an effort to conserve staff and council time and to provide an economy of scale in the development and construction of the project. It is proposed that theses two projects be designed,bid and constructed as a single project. Both projects are being requested by property owners and in both instances petitions have been submitted from over half of the assessment district. Alley Improvements This proposed improvement consists of grading and paving the existing alley surface between Harrison and Morton Street(south of Siskiyou Boulevard). The pavement would be eleven feet wide and would be constructed with an inverted crown to control drainage.No curbs or sidewalks would be constructed on the alley since the right of way is only 16.feet wide.The east side of Harrison Street at the alley intersection will require extensive reconstruction(see photos).Although the Harrison Street repairs would be included in the construction contract,they would not be funded through the LID. Since Harrison Street is already fully improved,the repair work would be financed from street maintenance monies. Page I of 4 Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 1 107.doc G.t pub-w&sNengtdept-admin\L]WLibuty&Hanson Morton Alley LID PH CC 1107.doc �AA CITY OF ASHLAND Proposed Alley LID Boundary The alley is located along the rear lot lines of five lots that front on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard,between Harrison and Morton Streets. Each of these has vehicular access onto the alley rather than onto Siskiyou. Most of the lots have rear yard garages. Four additional lots front on the south side of the alley with the tenter two lots taking sole access from the alley.The eight lots that would make up the alley assessment district would receive a direct and definable benefit from the improvement of the alley. It is proposed that the boundary of the assessment district be configured to surround these eight lots as shown on the attached map. Petition A petition calling for the improvement of the alley was received in early October bearing nine names and representing five of the nine lots, or 55.6%of the total assessment units.The represented lots include 658 and 670 Siskiyou Boulevard and 162, 164 and 176 Harrison Streets. Funding The estimated improvement costs for the alley,including repair and maintenance work on Harrison Street are as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 48,580.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 12,000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 60,580.00 Less Harrison St Repair(total•bome by City) $ 20,530.00 Less Engineering Cost For Harrison St Repair $ 6,000.00 Total LID Project Cost $ 34,050.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 4,700.00 $ 3,525.00 20% . of street surface cost 0.2 X $23,050.00 $ 4,610.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 300.00 $ 180.00 Sub Total $ 11,315.00 Assessable Cost $ 22,735.00 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 9 Estimated per lot for alley improvement $ 2,526.11 TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,580.00 Cost to be born by City including Harrison $37,845.00(60%) Cost to be born by Property Owners $22,735.00(40%) Liberty Street Improvements i Page 2 of 4 Liberty 8r.Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC It 07.doc O:t pub-wdmNeng\deptadminU.ID%,Uberty&Harrison Morton Alley WD PH CC 1107.doc i i CITY OF ASHLAND The improved portion of Liberty Street consists of curb and gutter and paving with a width of 34 feet. The section of street south of Ashland Street has no sidewalks and ends approximately 290 feet from the actual southerly end of the right of way. The proposed improvement project would continue the street at a lesser of 22 feet to the end of the right of way. Sidewalks could be installed on one side of the street for slightly over half of the total length.The southerly 290 feet of right of way is severely constrained with multiple mature trees, steep cut and fill slopes and drainage issues. It is recommended that the southerly 290 feet of street be reduced to an 18 foot width and that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Proposed Liberty Street LID Boundary This LID is one that, like Plaza Avenue,where the formation of on LID has been previously attempted several times,the last being in 2001. It is proposed that the assessment district be composed of those lots that have actual frontage on the section of street to be improved as well as those lots which take sole access from the section of street to be improved. There are sixteen lots with street frontage and four lots that have sole access from the street including a parcel owned by the City of Ashland. This lot was recently acquired as parks open space and has trail access along the irrigation ditch and a maintenance casement through tax lot 100 to Liberty Street.The lot is not further dividable due to the steep terrain and lack of a viable access. The maintenance easement was granted as maintenance access,not an ingress and egress easement. Petition Petitions calling for the improvement of southerly section of Liberty Street were received on August 7th, August 251h, and September 10, 2007 bearing names representing 11 of the 21 assessment units, or 52.4%of the total proposed assessment district. Fundine The estimated improvement cost for Liberty Street is$220,000 including engineering and administration costs.Following is a breakdown of the estimated development and assessment costs: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 4008000 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost. 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0,2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 501/o of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 21 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement $ 7,255.02 ` Current LID cap (maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 i Page 3 of 4 j Liberty&Hamson Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doc G:\pubwdtskngldept•adminlLlDlLib«ty&Hartison Morton Alley LID PH CC 1107.doc i i CITY OF ASHLAND Since Resolution 99-09 sets a maximum amount that may be born by the owners any additional cost must be born by the City. In addition the single lot owned by the City also receives an assessment which adds to the amount that the City will pay. Amount to be paid by owners $ 105,020.00(47.7%) Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b.Amount over the maximum cap $ 42,084.50 c.Assessment for City owned lot $ 5.251.00 $ 114,980.00(52.3%) TOTAL $220,000.00(100 0%) Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 Local Improvements and Special Assessments Council Options: 1. Council may approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets, or; 2. Council may elect to delay the public hearing for the proposed improvement of Liberty Street and the alley through the LID process,or; 3. Council may elect to approve a revised public hearing to consider only one of the two proposed improvement projects. Potential Motions: I. Council may move to adopt the attached resolution setting a public hearing to consider the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton. 2. Council may move to delay the attached resolution pending further information to be provided by staff. 3. Council may move to approve a revised resolution to set a public hearing date for only one of the two projects, Attachments: Resolution w/Exhibit A and B vicinity Maps LID Boundary Maps Petitions Photographs Letters Page 4 of 4 Liberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 11 07.doc G.,\pub-wrks\ang\dcpt-adminV.lDWberty&Harrison Morton Alley LID PH CC 1107.doe �., i RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD BOUNDED BY HARRISON AND MORTON STREETS CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS &GUTTERS, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the Intention of the Council to commence improvements to construct sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving,drainage and associated Improvements to Liberty and to construct paving and grading Improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as those lots fronting on or having sole access from Liberty and the alley as depicted on the maps referred to as Attachments Nos. 1 and 2 to Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The city engineers estimated cost of these improvements, including engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among each of the property owners specially benefited for Liberty Street is$220,000.00 of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and for the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets is $60,580.00 of which$22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on Resolution 99-09 capped amount of $5,251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for Liberty Street and on $2,526.11 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for the alley within the assessment areas as depicted on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on February 5, 2008, at 7:00 p,m., at which time and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice of the public hearing once In the Dally Tidings, not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roil. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit"A" attached to this resolution. PAGE 1-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION i i SECTION 8 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2008. John W. Morrison, Mayor PAGE 2-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION { � i i I EXHIBIT"A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on February 5, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main-Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local Improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs,gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements to Liberty Street and grading and paving of the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely from Liberty Street or from the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment Nos. 1 and 2, ESTIMATED COST: The estimate of the local Improvements including engineering and administration costs is $220,000.00 for Liberty Street of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and $60,580.00 for the alley, of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Additional information regarding the proposed improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be Installed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefited object to the Improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. PAGE 3-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION i o_� s yyyh O t� rl rv, t•: N "S H W h h h V1 h h h h h h h h V� N V1 '��/Gj3(T.+� Vpi fplf W fpA pK 6p9 6'1 K IpA 1pq fA bpq 6q K K 6q V9 W fq di Vi 69 Vi 69 Vi fA V! if! 69 (A E" o � n r W o Z w E Sin fng iT �n. Q iYin U .raza � ° v o 2Y A > _ >A > q •D ° N Q W F b U N ?: ,o v� � v"i �' � °: v� �' 49 °: z o � w �c � � a � PoMO Q W q D G pp q a ❑ ° w O N a O o U OQ g W > ° tM oD ao da oa ,ol �. d o c d a O o �}j Q v '4 ^+ O O p O z Oz a W' O W ° 8 a � Al ^ O O p p S pp po py y O O S O S N M t��l M f��1 11 MMp M S F a Z r aar ta= aa rr r r oMq ppMqq ppqq oq ppqq [q [pqq C d d Q ¢ 6 a Q < < Q a 6 Z .•o •o ,o •o .o .o •o �o .o .o ;o w •o .o W W W W W W_ W W W W W _W W W W a a a a rn a o• a a a a a M M M M N M O Vf •D 1� W C� •� N y h I i \ } } § \ k 9 - : < $ § m } 64\ ®§ 64 \§ § . - . . [ § 2 /] /] f \# Q � Q �� `u . 2 b ko | § / � k\ 2 0 0 0 & - . § � 0 . B k 2\k k G 4 k § . m � § $ ' § \ § ! ; \ PROPOSED LIBERTY ST LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Proposed Assessment District Boundary resented in Petition . Z WA 0 0 f- w 0 0 3 car/�I��/ %+r,/ 0 FIR z ;0 '! ASHLAND I Inch equals 150 feet �f `•.1' 'Y LT 4 is t r � rm• i N e N I I� a �97 �I �1 1'r�xt-•r��; �'� y��.' r'. 4f r{ r ,� � -�.• ��.•� _ ..tom, 7: , jm City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes City of Ashland Oregon/City Council EXHIBIT 2 City Council - Minutes Tuesday, December 04r 2007 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 4, 2007 Civic Center Council Chambers 1175 E:Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the Civlc Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councllors.Hardesty,Navickas, Hartzell, Jackson, Sllblger and Chapman were present. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS Minutes of the Study Session of November 19, 2007, Executive Session of November 20, 2007 and Regular Council Meeting of November 20, 2007 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS(None) CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions,and Committees? 2. Does the Council wish to approve a change in ownership for a Liquor License Application from Torsten Hirche dba Apple Cellar at 2255 Ashland Street? 3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Connie Morris dba Bonsai Teriyaki II at 2305 Ashland Street? 4. Should the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as recommended by the Ashland Audit Committee? S. Does the Council approve a second amendment to the existing contract for engineering services with Marquess and Associates Inc. for an additional$51,520 In professional services, an Increase of 47.6% over the current contract amount of$108,293.007 6. Does the Council wish to confirm an appointment by the Mayor for the vacancy on the Forest Lands Commission for a term ending April 30, 20097 7. Does the Council wish to consolidate the legal service contracts with Hurrang Long Gary Rudnick PC and authorize the approval of one contract, exclusive of Mt.Ashland,with a total not to exceed$175,000? S. Should the Council approve and authorize the execution of the attached amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement#90G00091 with the Oregon Building Codes Division to receive payment for work performed between October 1, 2007 and November 30, 2007? Councilor Hardesty requested Item#7 be pulled for discussion. Councilor 7ackson/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items#1-6 and*8. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Comment was made questioning how much of the$175,000 would actually be spent for legal services. City Attorney Richard Appicello stated that Jens Schmidt Indicated the"not to exceed amount" Is accurate. He clarified the Nevada Street final assessment case Is now at$5,000 Instead of the$3,000 projected In the memo,and If that case Is dismissed, the appellant might appeal the judge's decision, which could result In additional legal costs to the City. Comment was made questioning what portion of the costs Is a result of suits filed by Art Bullock. Mr. Appicello Indicated Mr. Bullock Is Involved In 8 of the 14 cases, which accounts for approximately $150,000 In legal costs.Councilor Navickas expressed his discomfort with this line of questioning. Mayor Morrison commented on a citizen's right to appeal, but stated the Council and the citizens need to be aware that these cost the City a lot of money. i I of 7 2/1/2012 9:08 AM i City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutcs&AMD--3... study as outlined by Councilor Chapman. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the motion, but noted this Is a more costly study than staff can do. Ms. Bennett clarified staff will have to contract this out for a consultant and If the estimated cost'is outside their ability to spend, staff would return to Council for further discussion. Roll Call Vote:Councilor Jackson, Hartzell, Chapman, Sllbiger and Hardesty,YES. Councilor Navickas,NO. Motion passed 5-1. Roll Call Vote on amended motion: Councilor Sllbiger, Hartzell,Hardesty, and Chapman, YES.Councilor Navickas and Jackson, NO. Motion passed 4-2. PUBLIC FORUM Aaron Corbet/423 N Main Street/Commented that the nature of business In Ashland are tourism and real estate, and there clearly needs to be a third leg to stabilize Ashland's economic table. Mr. Corbet suggested the City form an Ad Hoc citizens committee to assess the viability of various green Industries, how to recruit these resources and relocate them to Ashland. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council wish to direct staff to correct,change or modify the Ordinance Declaring the Approval of the Verde Village Development Agreement, including the attached development agreement, land use findings,or real property exchange findings? City Attorney Richard Appicello reviewed the changes that were made to the documents after the packet Information was released. Councilor Jackson commented on how the annexations are sequenced and stated her concerns relate to the fact the City Is taking voluntary action that It need not necessarily take in order to enable this agreement. She stated the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)could be considered the external boundary and make the properties that back up to it eligible for annexation without having to be"an Island". Councilor Navickas voiced concern with the annexation criteria and stated they have an opportunity to require that the houses not back up to the creek. He stated the current design creates security and privacy Issues and does not believe It Is good planning. He added that he does not believe the applicant has met the requirements for the physical constraints permit for the pathway In the riparian area. Councilor Navickas motioned to deny this, not send It to second reading,and request the applicant come back with a plan that complies with the Street Standard Criteria and protection of the Riparian Area. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading with the changes discussed this evening. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Hardesty,.Chapman, Jackson, Hartzell and Sllbiger,YES. Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Will Council approve the attached resolution to establish a public hearing date of February 5, 2008,to consider the formation of Assessment District No.88 to Improve both Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Street? Councilor Jackson/Hartzell m/s to approve Resolution #2007-41. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,Hartzell, Navickas,Chapman and Sllbiger,YES.Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. UNFINISHED BUSINESS(Continued) 2. Does the Council wish to adopt, by approving first reading of an ordinance, amending the Ashland Municipal Code 2.04 Rules of the City Council? Don Stone/395 Kearney Street/Commented on conlidentlallty In Executive Sessions and stated there should not should be a "gag" placed on council members In regards to what they say to the press. Mr. Stone stated sufficient guidelines have been laid down at the state level and does not see the need for the Council to expand on them. He proposed a revision to Section 2.04.080 and stated any contact with staff or concerns with staff should be channelled through the City Adminsltrator's Office. Councilor Sllbiger/Chapman m/s to adopt Rules of the City Council with the following modifications: 1) Remove paragraph three under Section D-Executive Sessions,and 2) add "in accordance with state law"to paragraph two under Section D-Executive 5 of 7 2/1/2012 9:08 AM EXHIBIT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2007_q i A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING WITH INTENT TO FORM A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRIC'e FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET AND THE ALLEY SOUTH OF SISKIYOU BOULEVARD BOUNDED BY HARRISON AND MORTON STREETS CONSISTING OF SIDEWALKS, CURBS &GUTTERS, PAVING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. It is the intention of the Council to commence improvements to construct sidewalks, curbs,gutters, paving, drainage and associated improvements to Liberty and to construct paving and grading improvements to the alley south of Siskiyou and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. SECTION 2. The boundary description of the local improvement district is described as those lots fronting on or having sole access from Liberty and the alley as depicted on the maps referred to as Attachments Nos. 1 and 2 to Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The city engineer's estimated cost of these improvements, including engineering and administration costs, and the proposed allocation of the cost among each of the property owners specially benefited for Liberty Street is$220,000.00 of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and for the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets Is $60,580.00 of which$22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on Resolution 99-09 capped amount of $5,251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for Liberty Street and on$2,526.11 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit for the alley within the assessment areas as depicted on Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The council will hold a public hearing In the Council Chambers, Ashland Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street on February 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m., at which time and place the owners of the benefited properties may appear or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing as to why the improvement should not be constructed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. SECTION 5. The city recorder is directed to serve notice to the property owners by publishing a notice of the public hearing once in the Daily Tidings, not less than 30 days prior to the hearing, and by mailing copies of the notice by first class mail to the owners of each lot benefited by the proposed improvement as shown on the latest tax and assessment roll. The notice shall be in the form of Exhibit'W'attached to this resolution. PAGE 1-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION I , I i ! SECTION 6 This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of >r , 200 arbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this (o day of 200 hn W. Morrison, Mayor viewed as form: ' ichard Appicen t Attorney PAGE 2-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION I I EXHIBIT"A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on February 5, 2007 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, to hold a public hearing to consider the formation of a local improvement district as follows: NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving,drainage and associated improvements to Liberty Street and grading and paving of the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely from Liberty Street or from the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard bounded by Harrison and Morton Streets as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment Nos. 1 and 2. ESTIMATED COST: The estimate of the local improvements including engineering and administration costs is $220,000.00 for Liberty Street of which $110,271.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties and $60,580.00 for the alley, of which $22,735.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Additional information regarding the proposed Improvement or method of assessment may be obtained at the Engineering Division, 51 Winbum Way, Ashland OR, phone number 488-5347, weekdays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected property owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at the hearing, as to why the improvements should not be Installed or why the benefited properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. If two-thirds of the property owners to be benefited object to the improvement, the improvement will be suspended for six months. PAGE 3-IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTION i I W� O VOA !O� S O O O O S O O yS S S O Cl ri ;q !Y !Y !Y N N N N V! !H Vi Gn N y[z[Z++j yq !q yq Vi fA i9 W 6A IpA b'1 V! W W W S O O O S O O O O O O O O yO S ;q fsl W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N y ffI`I!1 V1 V1 4A VI W V/ W fA iR IN Ni !9 IA 69 Vl i9 U {�{� F• rp A _ h 000 N N y JJ44 � o � o� LJJ N " z a z a o b � x z as �� VI Ul V1 U N j Y V1 j to �O d � I M y j 'a7 a -J I O W .. W � .•, a utl aa T ��Gpp7 qq q� p iTy 44..�� i.�qN ryyN � Oo }}ggggjj Q W a P N o o o Z p a O P O P a oo ao 0 U Q" QO N qn t� ri O O 4 p O z P z M ^ p a � au p 0 p 0 p O O P O O S O P CO} O a O H ya �„� O Z � O r r r r h M•1 M M M M M M ..-� 10 10 10 10 W W W W W W W W W W P P P P P P tP+f M M M M M M M M M M Z I i F o w w w w w w F {� s 8 8 8 8 F 0 y U U W N M1 F-L. 4 All I N IN o A q p � za. za c c a 8 a y a O. p O �( O ppy�9 6 O O S O O O a � � aaa N1 f'1 M o ,o n w a o i i I EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Liberty Street Local Improvement District and Adoption of aResolution Setting a Public Hearing to Consider the Formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the Alley Between Harrison and Morton Streets Meeting Date: February 5,2008 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson,552-2412 Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonjOW111an1.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen552-2084 Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 45 minutes Question: 1. Will Council approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the improvement of Liberty Street by formation of a Local Improvement District? 2. Will Council review the attached draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District? 3. Will Council approve the attached resolution establishing a new date of March 18,200$ for a Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve the alley between H4rrison and Morton Streets? Staff Recommendation: Previously, Council had set a public hearing date of February 5, 2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street and the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets. While the Liberty Street property owners are prepared to address the Council on that date,the owners abutting the alley have asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be postponed to provide adequate time to address two issues which will make the alley improvement more acceptable to the property owners.The residents of the alley intend to petition the Traffic Safety Commission on February 28, 2008 to limit the traffic on the alley to one-way and to install two speed humps in the alley to help control vehicle speeds, Staff recommends approval of the resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District and review of the draft findings pertaining to that action.The findings in their final form will be presented for adoption at the following meeting date. Staff further recommends approval of the resolution setting a new public hearing date of March 18,2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the Alley between Harrison and Morton Streets. Background: Neighborhood Meetings In response to majority petitions received from the property owners on Liberty Street and on the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard and located between Harrison and Morton Streets,the Council on December 4,2007 set a public hearing date of February 5,2008 to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve both Liberty Street and the alley. Engineering staff was able to meet Page I of 6 G•l pub•wrkAmgW ept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJECM007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doe i t CITY OF ASHLAND with the affected neighborhoods on January 16th and 17th to answer questions and.disseminate information regarding LID's and improvement options. On January 16th,a neighborhood meeting was held at 51 Winbum Way to consider the proposed improvement of Liberty Street.Nearly one half of the Liberty Street ownership was represented. All those who attended the meeting were in favor of the project and expressbd a desig)to begin the design process as quickly as possible. The alley neighborhood met on January 17th at the Ashland Public Library with 13 people in attendance.With the exception of one owner,the entire proposed assessment district was represented. The neighborhood was in unanimous agreement that traffic on the alley had increased drastically following the 2004 completion of the Siskiyou Boulevard renovation. It was contended that the median closures at Union Street,Harrison Street and Liberty Street have caused traffic to be redirected onto adjacent streets including the alley. It was estimated that traffic volumes have more than doubled since 2004.The residents asked that the public hearing for the alley improvement be delayed to allow consideration by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation for the alley. Since one-way traffic often relates to faster traffic in alleys,the residents will also petition the Traffic Safety Commission to authorize the installation of two speed humps to help control traffic speeds. Alley Improvements This proposed improvement consists of grading and paving the existing alley surface between Harrison and Morton Street(south of Siskiyou Boulevard).The pavement would be eleven feet wide and would be constructed with an inverted crown to control drainage.No curbs or sidewalks would be constructed on the alley since the right of way is only 16 feet wide.The east side of Harrison Street at the alley intersection will require extensive reconstruction(see photos). Although the Harrison Street repairs would be included in the construction contract,they would not be funded through the LID. Since Harrison Street is already fully improved,the repair work would be financed from street maintenance monies. Proposed Alley LID Boundary The alley is located along the rear lot lines of five lots that front on the south side of Siskiyou Boulevard,between Harrison and Morton Streets. Each of these has vehicular access onto the alley rather than onto Siskiyou. Most of the lots have rear yard garages.Four additional lots front on the south side of the alley with the center two lots taking sole access from the alley. The nine lots that would make up the alley assessment district would receive a direct and definable benefit from the improvement of the alley. It is proposed that the boundary of the assessment district be configured to surround these nine lots as shown on the attached map. Petition A petition calling for the improvement of the alley was received in early October bearing nine names and representing five of the nine lots,or 55.6%of the total assessment units.The represented lots include 658 and 670 Siskiyou Boulevard and 162, 164 and 176 Harrison Streets, a Fundin The estimated improvement costs for the alley,including repair and maintenance work on Harrison Street are as follows: Page 2 of 6 O:\pub-wrkak ng\dapt-admin\ENOINEERIPROJECIV007107.25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doc 1 CITY. OF ASHLAND Total Construction Cost $ 48,580.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 12 000.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 60,580.00 -Less Harrison St Repair(total borne by City) $ 20,530.00 Less Engineering Cost For Harrison St Repair $ 6000.00 . Total LID Project Cost $ 34,050.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 4,700.00 $ 3,525.00 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $23,050.00 $ 4,610.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 300.00 $ 180.00 Sub Total $ 11,315.00 Assessable Cost $ 22,735.00 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 9 Estimated per lot for alley improvement $ 2,526.11 TOTAL PROJECT COST $60,580.00 Cost to be bom.by City including Harrison $37,845.00(60%) Cost to be bom by Property Owners $22,735.00(40%) Liberty Street Improvements The improved portion of Liberty Street consists of curb and gutter and paving with a width of 34 feet. The section of street south of Ashland Street has no sidewalks and ends approximately 290 feet from the actual southerly end of the right of way.The proposed improvement project would continue the street at a lesser width of 22 feet or less to the end of the right of way. Sidewalks could be installed on one side of the street for slightly over half of the total length.The southerly 290 feet of right of way is severely constrained with multiple mature trees, steep.cut and fill slopes and drainage issues. It is recommended that the southerly 290 feet of street be reduced to an 18 foot width and that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Proposed Liberty Street LID Boundary This LID is one that,like Plaza Avenue,where the formation of on LID has been previously attempted several times,the last being in 2001. It is proposed that the assessment district be composed of those lots that have actual frontage on the section of street to be improved as well as those lots which take sole access from the section of street to be improved.There are sixteen lots with street frontage and four lots that have sole access from the street including a parcel owned by the City of Ashland.This lot was recently acquired as parks open space and has trail access along the irrigation ditch and a maintenance easement through tax lot 100 to Liberty Street.The lot is not further dividable due to the steep terrain and lack of a viable access. The maintenance easement was granted as maintenance access,not an ingress and egress easement. Page 3 of 6 0:\pulrwrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC7\2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 1 08.doc i i i CITY OF ASHLAND Petition Petitions calling for the improvement of southerly section of Liberty Street were received on August 71h;August 25th, and September 10,2007 bearing names representing 15 of the 22 assessment units,or 68.2%of the total proposed assessment district. If the City owned lot is included in the"in favor" computation the percentages increases to 72.7%. undin The estimated improvement cost for Liberty Street is$220,000 including engineering and administration costs. Following is a breakdown of the estimated development and assessment costs: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 220 000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap(maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 sets a maximum amount that may be born by the owners any additional cost must be born by the City. In addition the single lot owned by the City also receives an assessment which adds to the amount that the City will pay. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00(52.5%) Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 31,582.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 104,478.00(47.5%) TOTAL $ 220,000.00(100%) Findines The attached draft findings document the Council's considerations and decisions relating to the formation of the Liberty Street local improvement district. Following the public hearing the findings will be updated and presented to Council for adoption at a subsequent meeting. i Page 4 of 6 G:\pub-wdcaleng\dept-adminkENGINEER\PRO)EGT2007107-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doc ��� i CITY OF ASHLAND Importance of Paved Streets Ashland has a firm understanding of the importance of its public street system.As stated in the Ashland Street Standards Handbook adopted by Council in March of 1999,Ashland's streets are some of the most important public spaces in the community and can shape and define a neighborhood. Ashland's streets are intended to enhance,accommodate and promote all modes of travel including bicycle,pedestrian, vehicle and transit use.Although many profess to enjoy the rural feel provided by a gravel or dirt surface street,it is impossible to provide enhanced and safe accommodations for all modes of travel under unimproved street conditions. The Ashland Comprehensive Plan and the Ashland Land Use Ordinance both address the importance of well designed, well constructed streets.These documents,along with the Ashland Transportation . System Plan and the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, all deal with the need to improve streets and provide a uniform set of development standards: From a Public Works viewpoint there are a number of equally compelling reasons to improve gravel streets with curb and gutter and paving including: I. Reduced Maintenance Cost—Each year the Public Works Department spends thousands of dollars to maintain gravel surfaces and drainage ditches. Once the street is paved,maintenance costs are reduced to near zero for the first 10 to 15 years. 2. Drainage Control—The use of concrete curb and gutter with catch basins and storm drain piping prevents the uncontrolled surface flow of water along an unimproved street eliminating the need for unsafe and unsightly drainage ditches and eliminates erosion within the ditches. 3. Safety Improvement—The vertical curb contributes to safety by defining the edge of the street for drivers,pedestrians and children. The curbs show drivers where to drive,where to turn and where to park. Curbs also provide protection of street lights, fire hydrants signs and mail boxes. The uniform paved surface also provides a much safer surface for all modes of transportation. This is especially true in granitic surface streets where loose individual grains of decomposed granite act as ball bearings beneath shoes and tires. 4. Environmental Improvements—The paving of dirt or gravel surfaced streets is a proven remedy to reduce dust and particulate levels in the air and water born silt from the storm system. LID Support A notice of public hearing was sent to all property owners within the proposed Liberty Street assessment district advising them of the date of the hearing. Owners were advised that they could appear at the hearing or submit written comments as to why the improvements should not be installed or why properties should not be assessed in the manner.proposed. As of this date,no comments, either written or otherwise have been received in opposition to this proposed improvement.Little opposition is anticipated at the public hearing except from the usual sources. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 sets forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Page 5 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEC7\2007\07-25 CC PH for Liberty&Setting PH for Alley 108.doe OMAN j i i CITY OF -ASH LAN D Council Options: Liberty Street LID 1. Council may approve or reject the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of an LID to improve Liberty Street; or 2. Council may elect to delay approval of the improvement resolution pending additional information from staff. . Alley LID Council may approve or reject the attached resolution establishing a new public hearing date to consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley or to establish on alternative date. Potential Motions: Liberty Street LID 1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the formation of a Local Improvement District to improve Liberty Street;or 2. Council may move to reject or take no action on the attached resolution and may direct staff to provide further information. Alley LID 1. Council may move to approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing date of March 18, 2008 for a public hearing to consider the formation of a LID to improve the alley south of Siskiyou Boulevard between Harrison and Morton Streets;or 2. Council may move to delay approval of the attached resolution. Attachments: Resolution,with exhibits, authorizing the improvement of Liberty Street Resolution,with exhibits, setting a public hearing date for the alley improvement Vicinity maps Petitions Letter from petitioners Photographs Draft Findings and Orders e Page 6 of 6 G:\pub-wrks\enaept-admin\ENGINEER\PROJEGT2007107-25 CC PH for Liberty&Seaing PH for Alley 108.doe RESOLUTION NO. 2008- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1.A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Liberty Street Local Improvement District, No. 88. SECTION 2.The council intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described in the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $220,000.00 of which $115,522.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $5251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7). SECTION 4. The City of•Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION G:VecordeAClty,council PacketsTecket FIIes12007-200812008-02051020508 PH Liberty&Settin0 PH.resi.doe i i 1 i bonds or other obligations (the'Reimbursement Bonds") and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project. To permit interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City.declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $117,200.00. SECTION 5.The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties is characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city. SECTION 7.This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of . 2008. John Morrison, Mayor PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION Wrecorder%Clty council PacketslPackel Fsesl2007.20=2008-MM0508 PH Liberty At setting PH.resl,doc i °o• o °o, � °o, °o, o y N f N N N [+� kn Vl h h N Vl N h Vf V1 Nn Vf '!a23iry, rA (A Vi Vi r9 fA yy rA rA rA b9 FA 64 69 O vO� O O O O !+ r N N ray, ri N Ci N K N Cli N N N VI h Vl Vl h h N Nn h h h N V1 h Vi b9 Vi 69 rA rA 69 df 69 4f 69 CA N N A `!rar13 2G� N C40 w M vaN a O i5 1\ W O V ° q a cn o z ¢ x w + F W w" v d ccro .W v a c v x a ad go es O p � _„ rn '� UAvnYgi'rn � Qai j A .. v u � d rA .`['. W .y S Q N +O �.•A d u a N to q O. W a xvWi '� v � t 0o U � ttl 0 'O 'r 00 TC4 GI i.VJ h Ga orn `boo u %n .a 9rn AN AoUNZorn rn �' fnrv� c� ¢ � 2c7C Qap4 MnrnUt` 0 0 0 w 0 M h m v°Oi o M rs� PG w � a o N w a Z ° 2a a o 0 o Z QzM G a d o o p O 0 bor" p O O o 0 o S a o a a as o d o 0 0 (0� In 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F s s z h h h M H T O% O. Q 0% ON M M M M M rn M M M M M M M M x .. N M V Vf %O 1� W 1 i i § § b ] § f ) ) - § Nam § § § § ¥ } ON . � q ( . § 2 . ] ] C ] t \j ƒ A ) ) / A ) R \� cn m . k\ Om � g � � � r � r / k \ CD § =& a§ } ) & & a § ~ ) ~ ° ° ° k � !C4 C-4 § § § k R G C4 � ) k ) } / } \ \ \ m � i City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes EXHIBIT 5 City of Ashland.Oregon/City Council City Council - Minutes Tuesday, February 05, 2008 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL February 5, 2008 Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. In the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. ROLL CALL Councilors Hardesty,Jackson, Navlckas, Hartzell, Sllbiger and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor Morrison encouraged citizens Interested In serving on a City Commission to contact the City Recorder's Office for Information. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the City Council Study Session of January 14, 2008, Special Meeting of January 14, 2008, Executive Session of January 15, 2008 and Regular Council Meeting of January 15, 2008 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS The Citizen's Library Advisory Ad Hoc Committee presented an Interim progress report to the Council. Committee Chair Pam Vavra stated the Committee's charge Is to advise the City Council on matters . relating to the Ashland Public Library and she elaborated on their specific duties. Ms.Vavra stated the Committee's recommendations are to: 1)Extend the local library option levy for four years through fiscal year 2012/13,2)Request voter approval In November 2008,and 3) For the dollar amount recommended In June be based on the community assessment of services levels,other funds available, and possible additional Information. Ms.Vavra stated their next steps Include conducting public forums and assessing the Input, establishing a plan for evaluating the library services, and establishing a plan for pursuing various long-term governance and funding options. Comment was made questioning how the Committee would determine the next tax rate. Ms. Vavra stated they do not know the rate at this time and It will depend on the funding available and the level of service the community wants. Ms.Vavra provided a brief explanation of the"federaUon of libraries"concept. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards,Commissions, and Committees? 2. Will the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter Into a public contract with IKON Office Solutions for a 48-month copier rental? 3. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract with Hatch Energy for $100,660 for Independent Inspection services required at Hosier Dam to meet Federal Energy Regulatory Commission dam safety regulations? 4. Does the Council approve the engineering services contract Amendment#2 with Brown and Caldwell far$73,000 Tor engineering services to Improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir? S. Will the Council approve the 2008 Council liaison appointments to City boards and commissions,to be effective Immediately? 6. Does the Council wish to apply for Federal appropriations for 2009? 7. Should Council accept the quarterly report as presented? I of 6 211/2012 9:09 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3... S. Should Council approve revisions to the agreement documents between the City and Brammo Motorsports, LLC,for the financing and construction of the Jefferson Street extension protect? 9. Should the Council reset the date of the continued SDC appeal hearing to March 41 2008 and notify the appellant of the revised date? Consent Agenda Items#4 and #6 were pulled for discussion. Councilor Jackson/Slibiger m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items#1,#2, #3, #5,#7, #8 and #9.Voice Vote:all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson addressed the amended contract with Brown&Caldwell for engineering services to Improve water quality at Reeder Reservoir. He clarified the two solar powered recirculation units will be utlllzed to Improve the taste and smell of the water. He also noted these units would be rented Initially so that the City can test their efficiency. Mr. Olson briefly commented on the blue/green algae problem and noted one of the goals of the Brown &Caldwell study Is to Identify the sources and Impact of the silt on the water quality. Councilor Jackson spoke regarding the Federal Appropriations Item and stated her support for the staff recommendation. Councilor Jackson/Silblger m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items#4 and #6.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council approve the resolution authorizing and ordering the Improvement of Liberty Street by formation of a Local Improvement District? Mayor Morrison called the public hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. Ex Porte Contact s Mayor Morrison and Councilors Chapman, Slibiger, Hartzell and Hardesty reported no ex parte contact.Councilor Navickas Indicated he formerly lived on Pract Street, which Is off of Liberty . Street. Councilor Jackson stated she conducted a site visit. It was noted that no bias challenges were submitted. Staff Report Interim Public Works Director Jim Olson presented the staff report. He noted the affected owners of the proposed alley Improvement have requested that the public hearing be delayed in order to allow consideration by the Traffic Safety Commission of a one-way traffic designation. Mr. Olson commented on the Liberty Street Improvements and explained 68%of the property owners submitted a petition requesting a hearing for the formation of a local Improvement district. He noted a portion of the roadway Is severely constrained with mature trees and It Is recommended that sidewalks be eliminated from this section. Mr. Olson provided a brief explanation of the project costs. He noted the benefits of these types of Improvement projects and stated staffs recommendation is to approve the formation of the Liberty Street local Improvement district. Those Wishing to Speak: Richard Hay/707 Liberty Street/Stated the storm drainage at the crest of unimproved Liberty Street Is not provided for and the runoff is a hazard. He requested the Council approve the formation of this local Improvement district. . Gary Afseth/695 Liberty Street/Voiced support for the formation of the Liberty Street LID and shared his concerns regarding water runoff, air quality, and on-street parking. David Seulean/696 Liberty Street/Noted the runoff that flows onto his property and explained he has sandbags placed In front of his home in order to divert the flow Into the street. Mr. Seulean voiced his support for the LID and stated the street needs to have curbs and gutters to direct the water to the stormdrain system. Steve Sincerny/790 Liberty Street/Stated It Is cheaper for the homeowners and the City to do this project at this time because the cost will continue to rise. He also noted his concerns regarding dust and the parking situation. Public Hearing Closed: 7:59 p.m. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution#2008-02. DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified they would likely be able to Include a modified turnaround at the south end of the ax 2/1/20129:09 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes httpJ/www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=3 Councilor Hardesty expressed concerns regarding the project and suggested they postpone this LID unlit after the City's LID policy Is examined. Mr. Olson clarified this project would not be completed until the 2009 budget cycle and stated they will only have minor engineering costs In this budget year. He commented that this project Is high on the department's prioritlzatlon list primarily due to the slope and the runoff problems. Roll Call Vote:Councilor Navlckas,Slibiger, Hartzell,Jackson and Chapman,YES.Councilor Hardesty, NO. Motion passed 5-1. Does the Council have any revisions to the draft findings and orders pertaining to the formation of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District? Councilor Hartzell/Jackson m/s to approve the findings and orders for the Liberty Street LID.Roll Cell Vote:Councilor Slibiger,Chapman, Navlckas, Hardesty, Hartzell and Jackson,YES. Motion passed 6-0. Will Council approve the resolution establishing a new date of March 18, 2008 for a Public Hearing to consider the formation of a Local Improvement District to Improve the alley between Harrison and Morton Streets? Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to approve Resolution#2008-03.DISCUSSION: Mr. Olson clarified that traffic Issues are usually addressed during the design process, but In this case It Is being addressed prior to the formation of the LID. He stated If the Traffic Safety Commission approves the one-way designation with speed bumps, the owners who have opposed the LID have Indicated they would support the project. He added this Issue would be brought before the Traffic Safety Commission prior to staff returning to Council for the public hearing. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed hearing date. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the residents of the alley petitioned under the existing policy and the City would have to apply the existing policy regardless of the public hearing date. She added that the Council still has the option to hold the hearing, but deny the formation of the LID. Roll Call Vote:Councilor Hartzell, Jackson, Chapman, Navickas, Hardesty and Slibiger,YES. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM Philip Long/756 B Street/Shared concerns regarding the proposed historic preservation levy and commented on the affect these taxes are having on affordable housing. Mayor Morrison stated the tax Mr. Lang Is speaking to Is not a City tax and clarified the City granted permission for the Rogue Valley Heritage District to place this Issue before the Ashland voters In November. Kathy Ettinger/1584 Jasmine Avenue, Medford/Voiced opposition to Ambuja Rosen's anti-tethering ordinance. Hal Cloer/615 Creek Stone Way/Presented material to the Council on the Charter Review process and Measure 15-76 and requested that It be placed In the public record. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Is the Council Interested in negotiating a cooperative agreement with Jackson County to provide for the voluntary transfer of residential development rights (transferable development credits)from approved Jackson County Measure 49 claims to City of Ashland designated receptor zones? City Attorney Richard Applcello explained Measure 49 allows for the transfer of development credits from one jurisdiction to another. He stated this Measure allows the City to enter Into a cooperative agreement with Jackson County and provides the City opportunity to affect development outside Its boundaries. Mr.Applcello stated staff recommends that the Council allow them to explore an agreement with the County. He added that If Council Is Interested,staff would take this Issue to the Planning Commission, Mr.Applcello clarified the first step Is for the City to express Interest.The Council would then designate areas where they feel Increased density Is appropriate and determine the parameters under which that Increased density would be used. He added at this point staff just needs to know whether Council Is Interested In pursuing this option. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to accept the staff recommendation to explore an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County concerning Measure 49 transfer of development credits. DISCUSSION: Councilors Chapman and Slibiger voiced support for exploring this option. Councilor Navlckas shared concerns and stated this may result In unforeseen problems. Councilor Hartzell/Hardesty m/s to amend motion to Include a Study Session on this i i 3 of ?Ilr)nl?9•n9 A. f EXHIBIT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2008. Oa- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, STORM DRAINS AND RELATED APPURTENANCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO BORROW MONEY AND ISSUE AND SELL NOTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING INTERIM FINANCING FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT RECITALS: A. The Council has declared by resolution Its intention to develop the improvements described in the above title and in the improvement resolution previously adopted and to assess upon each lot or part of lot benefited by the improvement its proportional share of the cost of the Improvement; and B. Notice of such intention was duly given, a public hearing was held and it appears to the Council that such Improvements are of benefit to the city and all property to be assessed will be benefited to the extent of the probable amount of the respective assessments to be levied for the costs. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: SECTION 1.A local improvement district is created and shall consist of all the tax lots described in the attached Exhibit A. The district shall be called the Liberty Street Local Improvement District, No. 88. SECTION 2. The council Intends to make local improvements to provide the improvements described In the above title. Such improvements will be in accordance with costs estimated to be $220,000.00 of which $115,522.00 will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $5251.00 per equivalent dwelling unit or potential equivalent dwelling unit within the assessment area. Lots will be assessed as specified on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland is authorized to borrow money and issue and sell notes for the purpose of providing interim financing for the actual cost of the local Improvement. The notes may be payable from the proceeds of any bonds, issuance of additional notes or from any other sources from which the bonds are payable. This borrowing shall be issued according to the terms of ORS 223.235(7). SECTION 4. The City of Ashland expects to make expenditures from its available funds to pay for the costs of the Improvement project. The City reasonably expects to issue PAGE 1-FORMATION RESOLUTION GArecordeACIy Cound PadmmlPad;e1 Poe8'2007-200812008-0205=NE02050e PH warty a ssaut PH.resi.dx I bonds or other obligations (the "Reimbursement Bonds')and to use the proceeds of the Reimbursement Bonds to reimburse the City for the expenditures it makes from its available funds for the improvement project.To permit Interest on the Reimbursement Bonds to be excludable from gross Income, the Internal Revenue Code of the United States requires that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from Reimbursement Bond proceeds within 60 days after the expenditures are made. The City expects that the principal amount of the Reimbursement Bonds will not exceed $117,200.00. SECTION 6.The assessment imposed upon benefitted properties Is characterized as an assessment for local Improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local Improvement district and file it In the lien records of the city. SECTION 7. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duty PASSED and ADOPTED this S day of , 2008. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of'W 2008. J hn Morris n, Mayor PAGE 2-FORMATION RESOLUTION G*ecorde=ty Coundl PadwtWadmI F11"%2007-20D812008-02o51DONE1020508 PH LbeM1y a SaWn PHiesi.doo i i 0 0 0 0 0 ° rt N, CIL K r!. r!. Ci l N N N ry N N Vl Vl Vf F9 V1 V1 h 69 0 V1 V1 V1 Vt V1 V1 V/ 69 GR 69 69 fA 4i 69 iy to tN Vi 69 fn 69 O O O O O O O O O O p O O 0 0 0 0 `'b, o O o o g o 0 0 0 0 a s ry N N N H h N rl E. W vi v9 w 69 6% ays i 64 v4 64 v4 'A w vi 64 v4 Gn vv9 Go w vi v) N V1 ~ i4 14 � C4 = z a d 9y U I1 xgd 00 a y o Qy is o ,8NT� 13 �aG p 30 HEr icJ;; a Ay a° ON goo a GVNzto0 — mew Vll� ¢ z o n. 0% (n m 0 0 o Q W Z O 0 0 0 o x x O O Ow a as � w � Q � e %O w ^ �O �D � 10 �p M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M I f j K q Ci ri N N N N N 69 v? 69 69 f9 to S o 0 0 C5 WN Fp �i to to w en v) E' N - s U W � W7 1 � � � oo a e vNx � x � 9 F # 0 0 c boo 4 P. z °rza a a 0. o o a XOFD o °O c. N9 FCF r� iL N N •6 �D �D w w ua w w M M M M M O. %a r- w a o Z N i EXHI BIT 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Contract to Construct the Liberty Street LID Project Meeting Date: May 18,2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail• faughlM@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Community Development Secondary Contact: Morgan Wayman Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will the Council,acting as the Contract Review Board,approve a contract with Visar Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID)? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve a contract with Visar Construction Co.,Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street LID. Background: Executive Summary On May 6,2010,the City received six valid bids for the construction of the Liberty Street LID Project No. 2004-21. The low bid of$142,798.75 was submitted by Visar Construction Co.i Inc. of Central Point, Oregon.The bid is$37,121.25 less than the original 2008 engineer's estimate of$179,920 which was used to determine the proposed assessment cost as outlined on Resolution 2008-02. The proposed total of cost of the project at$189,578.75 including the engineering contract costs of$46,780 is well within the established budget. Contractor Information The low bidder is a local contractor who has performed projects for the City including a runway safety overrun and creek realignment at the Ashland Municipal Airport and at least one subdivision project. Staff has received several good references from individuals and companies that have previously done work with Visar Construction Co.,Inc. Bidding Process The Liberty Street Improvement Project was advertised for bid on April 19,2010. It was advertised locally in the Daily Tidings,the Mail Tribune,the City's website and statewide in the Daily Journal of Commerce.A pre-bid meeting was held on April 28a'with ten prospective bidders in attendance. Six bids were received and publically read on May 6,2010 in accordance with the advertisement.All bids were received on time,complete and included the required signatures,acknowledgements and bid bond.The list of bidders is shown on the attached bid summary sheet. Proposed Schedule The contract is a 90 day contract and,if approved, staff will push for a rapid startup. Page I of4 0:bub•wdcskngl04.21 Ubuly 8treetlA AdminTons Pro Contraut04.21 CC Visar Contract Approval 5 18 10.daa A.� CITY OF ASHLAND LID Costs Per Resolution 2008-02 The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at$220,000 of which$115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties. The assessment district was formed under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-09 which set specific rates of participation(credits)by the City.The resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed(adjusted annually based upon the CPI).The petition for the formation of the LID.was received in September of 2007 and the cap was set at$5,251 per unit or potential unit,the computed cap for that year..t he costs for development of the Liberty Street LID were estimated as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost E$ 220,000.00 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street improvement $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap(maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be bore by the owners, any additional cost must be bore by the City. In addition,a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00(52.5%) Amount to be paid,by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 31,582.50 c, Assessment for City owned lot $ 5,251.00 $ 104,478.00 (47.5%) TOTAL $220,000.00(100%) Estimated Total Assessment Following is a summary of the anticipated assessment costs based upon the Visar Construction bid and the current Thornton Engineering contract. The final assessment costs will not be precisely known until the project is completed and all actual costs can be computed.The final assessment will be Page 2 of 4 G.'Vub-wrks1cng\04-21 Liberty SbaOA AdminTms Pro Con1mc804-21 CC Vimr Contrwt Approval 5 lB 10AW. I-Will CITY OF ASHLAND established by resolution and will include a public hearing whereby property owners may express any objections to the costs. ASSESSMENT COSTS BASED UPON BID Total Construction Cost $ 142,798.75 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 46,780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189,578.75 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 x $ 12,144.00 $ 9,108.00 20% of street surface cost 0.2 x $ 123,906.75 $ 24,781.35 50% of engineering cost 0.5 x $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 x $ 6,748.00 $ 4,648.80 Total Credits by City $ 61,328.15 Assessable Cost Total Estimated Project Cost $ 189,578.75 Less Credits. $ 6®,32 Total Assessable Costs $ 128,250.60 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot(Assessment Rate)($128,250.60/22) $ 5,829.57 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 1999-09 $ 5,251.00 Resolution No. 99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be born by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be born by the City. Costs to be born by the property owners and the City are as follows: Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00* -(60.94%) Amount to be paid by City. Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 61,328.15 Amount over the maximum cap $ 7,477.60 Total City Cost $ 74,056.75 -(39.06%) Includes one city-owned lot to be assessed at$5,251.00 Although the property owners' portion of the cost has remained constant,the amount to be funded by the City has been reduced by$30,421.25 based upon the current low bid.Therefore,staff is recommending approval of the construction contract with Visar Construction Co,Inc. Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution No. 99-09 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Page 3 of 4 i G ub-wikstrn -21 Uberly SlreeaA Admin%Cons Pro Conl=004.21 CC Visar Conlrna Approval 5 18 10.doc WA& i CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: • The Council may approve the construction contract with Visar Construction Co.,Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88;, • The Council may decline to approve a contract with Visar Construction by rejecting all bids received on May 6,2010; • The Council may reject,with cause,the low bid offered by Visar Construction Co. and select the second bid offered by Pair-A-Dice construction for award of contract. Potential Motions: • Move to approve,with cause,a contract with Visar Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • Move to reject,with cause,the bid offered by Visar Construction Co,Inc. in the amount of $142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; • Move to approve the bid offered by Pair-A-Dice in the amount of$157,243.25 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88; Move to reject all bids received on May 6,2010 for the improvement of Liberty Street. Attachments: Vicinity Map Bid Summary Unit Price Comparison Visar Construction Co,Inc.Proposal Resolution No.2008-02 Resolution No.99-09 Page 4 of 4 0\pub wrkskne\04-21 Liberty 8taetXA Admin%Cons Pre Contm&04-21 CC Visw Contmct Approval 5 18 I O.doc MEN i o � o a 0 d' di N M O O W C Qq Coll w � F �I N M ~ N rl cD qq m (n O v O� O owp' ZF (n (A . W O a ZF d V r r N In M dM ° iv V O tn FM N 69 vii N O � r bO � rn ., a r• y, a �w. m > v H H � d g v d U 18 ° y ° °w ^' 4 z Muz Z ypq � f� m 'p p m m p p O p p S O O S O O S 00 S O O O O S S O O O O S N S pp S (py 8 Op C OO {O{�� A O pff pp O p Gp pqq Oy NO H0• 0 O `Q� H A N N N N N h O O O S O O O O O O S O o yO S O g S O O n O N y w w N S S o o 8 0 8 8 S m o S W o 8 8 8 S $ ci Y N N N N H H N O O U OY yOE g�C G m j.� :'•l•••.. p Nm O a V°p��N$pp l $O N S Q�`A gp b N p O�N( O prp N O YN p$Oh. RQ YO�oON°op i i,• ai 0VN yo19 u OI b O lNN O 0 S N M'a o 1 d S O N N O 0 R M pIN$C D d O H O o A N 8 o d G W O d x�0 d H N Y{HH N o y I S O S g S S O O S O o° 9p A�AU H{c o O y $^N g IIIIII m1myN S Y` S O N N N N o O V{N O o H°o M i . N N S N N A S 0 01 o o=a S• b }N yc I , ' a° a s N b W Q y pp � iA a skW � pNN u a3 SS3 m C 0 m s a - e . . . . § q ® m # # 919988 . � . 2 § | ! f § - - © » § � . . . ! ; m # a m9 | k § § dkB_ § ■ � e | n 2 am m # m q@ § 4 § 228 ; & § 2 ) 13 - ■ 2 . ` r # q ; m ; q ; ; aa@ ; ; „ e § § § § @m ° am # . § § k § ! § , ; - ; ■ 2 � BB m # | BBk §mm k � B ® . § § ■ | - 2 . 1 - = - � a ■ qa - § . w . § � k7k ) ■ � k � | kk § � � ■ 7m ; | ■ k ■ m2 § ; , ; „ . City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes City of Ashland Oregon/Clty Council EXH I BIT.*i8 City Council - Minutes Tuesday, May 18, 2010 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 18,2010 Council Chambers 1175 E.Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Jackson and Chapman were present: Councilor L.emhouse and Silbiger were absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg noted vacancies on the Historic,Planning,Housing and Tree Commissions. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The Regular Meeting minutes of May 4,2010 were approved as presented. The Mayor and Council discussed delaying two items on the agenda pertaining to the adoption of the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Campus Master Plan and the recommendation for the Compensation Class Study. The decision retained the SOU Campus Master Plan and delayed the Compensation Class Study. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS L Mayor Stromberg's Proclamation of Craft Beer Brewers week was read aloud. 2. Does Council accept the final report and recommendation of the Public Safety Bond Committee. Management Analyst Ann Seltzer presented the staff report and introduced Chair Don Mackin and members of the committee. Mr. Mackin noted how well the group worked together and thoroughly evaluated each proposed project. He stated the Committee found there was a valid need to replace Fire Station#2 and that it had reached a critical level. They unanimously agreed on the expansion and improvement efforts for the Police Station and that it should be a top prioiity. The committee noted a more cost effective option was relocating the Police Department to The Grove. The committee recommended the following: Move forward with a General Obligation Bond election in May 2011 for Fire Station#2 in an amount not to exceed$3million Move forward with a Bond in a future election for the Police Station Consider using The Grove for the Police Station Seek other resources for a ladder truck and training tower for Fire Department Ms. Seltzer stated the architect had evaluated parking needs if the police station should move to The Grove. Comment was made that the Finance Department was designated for The Grove in the Facility Master Plan. Staff explained for the long-term Finance would remain at City Hall. If the Police Station moved to The Grove, the Information Technology Department would use the s o 2/1/2012 9:13 AM . City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes httpJ/www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4...' space vacated by the Police Department. Additionally, concern was raised regarding the lack of funding for a Fire Inspector. Mr. Mackin explained that the architect provided potential costs and options for savings to the Committee. The proposal for Fire Station 02 was for a steel building rather than a wood building. Ms. Seltzer further explained the architect scaled back the project using the existing footprint in order to apply for Stimulus Money the City did not receive. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified that the original project was significantly scaled back and designed for the long-term.and would require less maintenance cost. She also noted there has never been "sinking funds"for the ladder truck. Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to accept the report and recommendations of the Pubic Safety Bond Committee and direct staff to prepare an implementation plan for Council review at a future meeting,targeting May 2011 for a ballot measure for Fire.Station No. 2 as recommended. DISCUSSION: Council thanked the Committee for their effort and work. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson,Voisin,Chapman and Navickas,YES.Motion passed. Mr. Mackin stated that the Committee has offered to help in preparing the implementation of the General Obligation Bond for Fire Station tl2. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of Boards,Commissions,and Committees? 2. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an ordinance creating a new Chapter 13.30, relating to the Advanced Financing of Public Improvements from May 18,2010 to August 3,2010? 3. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Jody Waters to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30,2011? 4. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, consent to enter into a contract with Footprint Recycling for collecting and recycling used cooking oil for a term to begin May 19, 2010 and expire June 30, 2012, with the option to renew the contract for an additional 12 months? 5. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinances from May 18,2010 to May 26,2010? Councilor Voisin/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS(None) PUBLIC FORUM Gary Miller/Access-3630 Aviation Way, Medford/Introdticed himself as the Executive Director for Access and provided an update on the services Ashland residents received in 2009. Family and Senior Services provide eviction prevention, housing the homeless, rental and energy assistance and had assisted 15 households in Ashland. The Access Housing programs ranging from housing counseling to weatherization helped 29 families in Ashland during 2009. Through Access Food Share, 236 household received food assistance. Access also provides free use of medical equipment,crutches,wheel chairs,etc,to individuals. Another program is Access Junior Achievement on financial literacy for children Kindergartin-12th grade that 55 students from Ashland participated in 2009. Access receives 70% of their funding through Federal Funds and the remaining comes from property fees and fund raising. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will Council authorize staff to implement the recommendations for the non-represented j i 2/1/2012 9:13 AM City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4... employees found to be more than 5% below market in a recent study? 120 Minutes] Item delayed due to the absence of Councilor Lembouse and Silbiger. 2. Will Council, acting as the Contract Review Board, approve a 'contract with Visor Construction.Co. Inc., in the amount of $142,798.75 to construct the Liberty Street Local Improvement District(LID)? Public Works Director Mike Faught presented background information regarding the bid process for the LID. He stated the lower bid was a $37,121.25 reduction from the previous estimate. Staff was confident the low bid would not generate future change orders. Councilor Chapman/Jackson m/s to approve, with cause, a contract with Visor Construction Co. Inc. in the amount of$142,798.75 for the improvement of Liberty Street under Assessment District No. 88. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman noted that staff had reduced the amount over the cap the City was responsible for from$30,000 to$7,500. Councilor Jackson commented on the process and staffs involvement with the property owners. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman,Navickus,Voisin and Jackson,YES.Motion passed. 3. Does Council wish to adopt the SOU Campus Master Plan update and approve First Reading of the three implementing ordinances? Abstentions. Conflicts,Ex�,rarte Contact Councilor Voisin declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse her from the discussion. Councilor Jackson/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Voisin on this item. Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 8:01 p.m. Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report and explained the three ordinances for the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Master Plan. One incorporated the SOU Mater Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. The second ordinance would update the Land Use Section Chapter 18.64 SOU Zoning District referencing the new SOU Master Plan as the guiding document for the next 10 years. The third ordinance modified the actual zoning district boundary to ensure only properties under the ownership of SOU or controlled by SOU were within the boundary of the zoning district. This ordinance removed seven properties privately owned from the SOU boundary and returned them to adjacent residential zoning. Staff requested an additional motion for an ordinance that would apply the detailed site review zone overlay to the area between Walker Avenue and Wightman Streets for the proposed multi-story mixed-use project. Mr. Molnar clarified the normal process for a housing project included a site review approval that applied the City's design standards for multi-family housing. SOU is bond by the same process. Because the projects are within 50 feet of privately owned property, it also triggers a Condition Use Permit(CUP)requiring additional review. SOU proposed eleven additional standards for the housing projects as well. City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the SOU Master Plan aloud. Councilor Jackson/Novickas m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading the Ordinance amending Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the updated SOU Master Plan. DISCUSSION: Roil Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickus and I i of R ?/12012 9-13 AM • I � EXHIBIT 9 I RESOLUTION NO 12 - M9 A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.88. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged against each lot within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District;orders that a public hearing be held to consider written or oral arguments to these assessments at 7:00 p.m.,April 24,2012 in -the City of Ashland,City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notices of the proposed assessments to the*owners of the lots to be assessed. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in qccordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly SSED AND ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen,City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of 2012 h Strom erg,Mayor App ved as to form: 9�lnrlic�. avid Lohman,City Attorney Page l of 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR OBJECTIONS TO FINAL ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.88 Please take notice that the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing to consider written objections to the final assessments for the assessment districts described above. The final assessments,a description(by tax lot)of the property to be assessed,and the name of the property owner are attached to this notice. The public hearing will be held at: 7 p.m.April 24,2012 . Council Chambers 1175 East Main Street The Ashland Municipal Code requires that any objections that are filed must be in writing and must state the specific grounds for the objection. Objections must be received by: 5 p.m.,April 13,2012 and may be delivered or mailed to the: City Administrator 20 East Main Street Ashland,Oregon 97520 Please note that assessments may be modified by the council and will be levied by the council after the hearing. Assessment will be charged against the property,and will be immediately payable in full or in installments(if applicable) following the levy. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Publish:March 23,2012 I i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Ashland will meet on April 24, 2012 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street,to hold a public hearing to co?!er oral and written objectives to the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local I rovement District No. 88. NATURE OF THE IMPROVEMENT: Sidewalks, curbs, gutte , paving, drainage, and associated improvements to Liberty Street. BENEFITED: Those lots fronting on or having access solely fr Liberty Street as depicted on the attached map referred to as Attachment No. 1 FINAL COST: The final cost for the improvement of arty Street is$228,620.81 of which, $115,522.00 will be paid by special ssessments on the benefitted properties at a rate of$5,251.00 per assessment uni The estimated cost of the Liberty Street improvement, per Resolution 2 8-02 was$220,000.00. The assessment rate of $5,251.00 is unchanged fro he resolution. Additional information r arding the improvement or method of assessment maybe obtained at the Engin ring Division, 51 Winburn Way,Ashland OR, phone number 541-088-5347, wee ays during the hours of 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. All affected pro rty owners may appear at the hearing or submit written comments prior to or at 1 hearing, as to why the benefitted properties should not be assessed in the manner proposed. a:1put>wkslengl04.21 t body SlnelWatke of Pubk Naaring Lberty Strwtduc ' i i i i i e . � °o, g `�, g vo}1 °o, � v°off• von � vS� � °. � . N N N N N N � N N N N N •�.� N . fA H H H H H y� H H H H H off H b O O 0 0 0 0 O O • -� w n W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rVAj H f9 H H H M H H H H H H H H t"1 W w N w N ACA rn r e to x a x G Z I C I N OVr fig{ En y, `n Z9 m� C5 1�5 IM E+ ter 9 a F-• .rN-. a O pTA .[7 N q Q X00 'd0 O O ' N •o h R . !a � •eCg x� Ji�o � � inr6hmr G� -- Zvr'CnaW '.�rPyira g LWl a tl°` a x a .p O� C 1D p� .OaD 00 �•1 � � Vql M h O 1�+1 P TP4 w $ N G N C P4.0 Ow sg � do � A ° zp O O O O Q `d1 ~ O O O O O p• � ' w a ff(o (off . h<h rl� r r I^ 1�• f� (� 1� M M 1�1 �•1 M M M � . w w w w O� O. 0• Q T O• O� O� O. 01 P O. O� , M M M m M m M M I 1 d \ k . 120 R _% 22 ]R )§ . k . 7 ` a � - ■ F - ` � � §§k \ k \ 2 § k \ - % � . k • 2 § e e e e e ' � � . . ■ \ \ \ « \ � \ � . . EXHIBIT 10 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Adoption of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing for the Final Assessment of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88 Meeting Date: March 6,2012 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olson'@ashlaiid.or.us ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal/City Recorder Secondary Contact: Morgan Wayman Approval: Dave Kanner Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District(LID)No. 887 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Background: The improvement of Liberty Street under LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. In accordance with AMC Section 13.20 the project was then designed, bid and constructed and the final costs calculated and tabulated. Following is a summary and comparison of the original estimated costs and the final costs. Estimated Project Cost Final Project Cost Construction $179,920.00 $179,840.81 Engineering $ 40.080.00 $ 46.780.00 $220,000.00 $226,620.81 The increase of$6,620.81 represents a 3 percent increase over the original estimated cost but will not affect the final assessment rate of$5,251.00 per unit which is fixed in accordance with resolution 99- 09. This LID and the following Schofield/Monte Vista LID are likely die last of the LID's that were approved under resolution 99-09 and which set maximum caps on the assessment rate. Resolution 99- 09 has since been rescinded. With the final costs computed and assessment amounts known we may now proceed to conclude this LID by holding the final public hearing where affected property owners may present arguments regarding the established rate and total assessment amount. Project Description: The Liberty Street LID project improved the southerly 700 linear feet of the street right-of-way. The project included grading, paving and construction of curbs and gutters, storm drains,and sidewalks. In addition to the normal street improvement elements, several existing utilities owned by the City, Page I of 4 1 � CITY OF ASHLAND Qwest,and by Avista Utilities were rebuilt,replaced, and/or extended. Privately owned utilities were reconstructed at the utility owners' expense and the City bore the cost for its upgrades. The costs for utility upgrades are not costs which are assessable to the adjacent property owners. During the course of construction it was necessary to completely rebuild the buried telephone lines owned by Qwest(now Century Link)and the gas lines owned by Avista Utilities. These utilities were found to have been originally buried too shallow(some less than one foot deep)and were in conflict with the excavation for the street sub-grade. While the actual replacement of these utilities was funded by the respective utility owners,the work caused the project to be delayed which did result in extra costs to the City. Improving a street such as Liberty Street,with its steep side hill grades is always difficult. Prior to improvement the gravel street surface was only about 12 feet wide. Widening the street to 22 feet wide had severe impacts on existing street frontages and especially on driveway connections. As the street widens the connections to existing driveways become steeper. The contractor and City staff spent a great deal of time working with the property owners and engineer to make each and every driveway filly functional,safe, and visually appealing. Approval of Project Findings: The findings, conclusions,and orders are a record of all major activities regarding the project, including all Council motions and determinations. The findings for this project will be presented at the public hearing for final approval. A copy of the incomplete findings is attached for an advanced review. The findings cannot be completed until the final actions of the Council are complete. LID Costs per Resolution 2008-02: The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5,2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at$220,000 of which$115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties. The assessment to be levied was set under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-09 which set specific rates of participation(credits)by the City. This resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed(adjusted annually based upon the CPI). The petition for the formation of the LID was received in September of 2007 and the cap was set at$5,251 per unit or potential unit, the computed cap for that year. The costs for development of the Liberty.Street LID were estimated as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost 220,000.0 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5,988.00 Sub Total: $ 67,644.50 Page 2 of 4 �r, i I CITY OF ASHLAND Assessable Cost($220,000-$67,644.50) $ 152,355.50 Number of Lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street Improvement($152,355.50/22) $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap(maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be borne by the owners,any additional cost must be borne by the City. In addition,a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00 Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 36,833.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5.251.00 $ 109,729.00 Final Assessment Costs: Following is a summary of the final assessment costs based upon the final construction and engineering costs. FINAL COSTS Total Construction Cost $ 179,840.81 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 46.780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $226,620.81 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X' $ 14,196.50 $ 10,647.38 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 151,961.36 $ 30,392.27 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 12,682.95 $ 7,609.77 Total Credits by City $ 72,039.42 Assessable Cost Final Project Cost $226,620.81 Less Credits $ 72,039.42 Total Assessable Costs $ 154,581.39 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot(Assessment Rate)($ 154,581.39/22) $ 7,026.43 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 99-09 $ 5,251.00 Resolution No.99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be borne by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be borne by the City. Costs to be home by the property owners and the City are as follows: Page 3 of 4 I CITY OF ASHLAND Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00• Amount to be paid by City Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 72,039.42 Amount over the maximum cap $ 39,059.39 Assessment for City owned lot $ 5.251.00 Total City Cost $ 116,349.81 Includes one city-owned lot to be assessed at$5,251.00 Related City Policies: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution No.99-09 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a Local Improvement District. Council Options: • The council may approve the attached resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. • The council may decline to approve a resolution to set a date for a public hearing to establish assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88 or may select an alternate date. Potential Motions: • Move to approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish the final assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. • Move to deny approval of a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to establish the final assessments for the Liberty Street LID No. 88. Attachments: 1. Resolution w/Exhibit A 2. Resolution No. 99-09 3. Photos 4. Draft Findings w/Exhibits Page 4 of 4 i i City of Ashland,Oregon-Agendas And Minutes http:/hvww.ashland.or.usfAgendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID--4... City of Ashland. Oregon/City Council EXHIBIT 11 City Council - Minutes Tuesday, March 06, 2012 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 6, 2012 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Sliblger, and Chapman were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the Ashland Little League needed volunteer umpires. Anyone Interested should contact League President Michelle McMahan at the Ashland Little League website htto://ashiandoregonlittieleague.org/. Additionally,the Ashland Water Advisory Ad-Hoc Committee (AWAC)was presenting a Water Information Forum March 14, 2012 at Southern Oregon University In the Rogue River Room at Stevenson Union, starting at 6:30 p.m. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of February 21, 2012, Executive Session of February 21, 2012 and Regular Meeting of February 21, 2012 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS&AWARDS The Mayor's proclamation regarding March as Red Cross Month in Oregon was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of the Boards, Commissions,and Committees? 2. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Pam Hammond to the Transportation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2014? 3. Will Council approve a resolution setting a date for a public hearing to consider written and oral testimony regarding the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District (LID) No. 88? 4. Should Council authorize participation in the PERC grant offered by The Nature Conservancy? Councilor Voisin pulled Consent Agenda Item #2 for discussion. Councilor Sliblger/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda Items #1, #3 and#4.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin expressed concern regarding Pam Hammond's appointment to the Transportation Commission because she represented the special Interests of the Chamber of Commerce. Public Works Director Mike Faught noted Ms. Hammond's prior experience on the Traffic Safety Commission provided an In depth understanding of transportation Issues and her diversity would benefit the Transportation Commission. Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda Item#2. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported Pam Hammond and added many Commissions and Committees had people representing special Interests for beneficial reasons. Councilor Chapman confirmed that bicycle representation was diminishing and shared his.personal experience with Pam Hammond on the Traffic Safety Committee. He thought her Interests would help expand the downtown business community. Voice Vote:all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Will Council approve First Reading of the following ordinances? • An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08)and General Regulations Chapter(18.68)of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance 1 of 7 4/10/2012 8:05 AM EXHIBIT 12 RESOLUTION NO 12-off_ A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 88, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 12-08. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged against each lot within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District; orders that a public hearing be held to consider written or oral arguments to these assessments at 7:00 p.m., April 17. 2012 in the City of Ashland, City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notices of the proposed assessments to the owners of the lots to be assessed. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.0 and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3 day of .. ' Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of�� 2012 John Strom g, Mayor Approved as to form: D v d Loi an, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 A:lpubredmlengWep"drnIaWD1LID Resolution No.12- Liberty Street LID 0126 20124od i C. ry. ri N r C N N h N N N C N N N N N �' N 69 Vd 69 Vp9 64 M 60 69 fig Hp 'M Vy by V) O S O S O O O O S O O O O S N W N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V! d! (A 69 Vf 69 Vy 69 69 69 iR fA di Vy A ^ 0 N � h vuli u a A o x O axQ < a a Q �� gg < '2 � 5 a FY7 � � � oLr, ma`s uQfnA < r'rn rnNN � N co T d d O u yO.� � b Oh x m N Q �a N d 0°� ' .C N �qq u 0 0 0 O r, 0 O V 1 b F h 'A �oC� .- Z �ofn �ohfnnQv� h a. xh (-� haCgc� Q En a o Pp. z' aQa 'Jrn o a a °m j ° M a a w g G a 6 [J � � O � a a C C ° ° Ct_SgJ G - C O� .o 0 0 � o 0 0 0 o o . • O O O O h O O O C 8 t' F+0 2 8 • O� O\ O. O� 0% 0% T 0% 0% m 0% m Q m . M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Z 141 M a N b h 00 O� O N M •V' . I � i � . § § } Ci \ k § k 9 " - ) - Go m _ rt § / en fie so � 69 - fn � � § / | f \ En . \ / \ j $ ii2® ® ej ® 3 � g2 ®\o 2 a - 6 � goN a § \]_ \� \ / ° |§ . m A § / § f ° I . . � 2§k \ ~ ° . k @ S . r 1 I EXHIBIT 13 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 3,.2012 Business Meeting (Consent ) REPEAL RESOLUTION NO. 12-06'AND APPROVE A NEW RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC BEARING DATE FOR THE LIBERTY STREET LID FROM: James Olson,Engineering Services Manager,Public Works Department, olsoniRashland.or.us . SUMMARY - On March 6,2012,Resolution No. 12-06 was approved which set a date for a public hearing for the final assessment of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88. The date for the publie hearing shown on the resolution was in error and must be corrected to reflect the correct date of April 17,2012 rather than April 24,2012. BACKGROUND.AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: All property owners have been notified,by first class mail,of the correct date of the public hearing. The deadline for receipt of written responses will remain unchanged from the original notice. A notice has been placed in the Daily Tidings reflecting the correct date for the public hearing. All other aspects of the notice and resolution,except the date of the hearing,are correct and remain unchanged. POLICY: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution 99-09 set forth the requirements and regulations for the improvement of public facilities under a local improvement district. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Resolution No. 12-06 be repealed in its dntirety and that the attached resolution ... be approved setting a date of April 17,2012 for a public hearing for the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to repeal Resolution No. 12-06 and approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing date of April 17,2012 for the final assessment for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 12-06 Revised Resolution Peso]of 1• . iW.�., 1 RESOLUTION NO 12 - 0(o A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.88. THE CffY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged against each lot within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District;orders that a public hearing be held to consider written or oral arguments tor these assessments at 7:00 p.m.,Aoril 24.2012 in the City of Ashland,City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notices of the proposed assessments to the owners of the lots to be assessed. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This res lution was read by title only in ccordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly SSED AND ADOPTED this day of J< Barbara Christensen,City Recordei SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of 2012 h Strom erg,Mayor App ved as to fo n: " avid Lohman,City Attorney Page I of 1 I RESOLUTION NO 12 - A RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ASSESSMENTS TO BE CHARGED AGAINST LOTS WITHIN THE LIBERTY STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 88, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 12-06. ' THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council having received proposed assessments to be charged against each lot within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District; orders that a public hearing be held to consider written or oral arguments to these assessments at 7:00 p.m., April 17. 2012 in the City of Ashland, City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. The City recorder is directed to mail the attached notices of the proposed assessments to the owners of the lots to be assessed. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 and duly PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012 " John Stromberg, Mayor Approved as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 G:1pub-w*9%angWept-admin1LIDLL1D ResoNllon No.12- Liberty Street LID 0126 2012.doe C! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C14 Cq kn CD y O N ry• H, fY, ri fi W N N ry, cl ci ry, vi h h v1 vl Vl CO h Vl vt Vt vl O' Vt Q H 69 fA fA fry 69 6q fA fA fA 'fA fA Fy fA O O O O O O O ty C O O C O O O O O O O O O O Vl Vl Vl Vl C' Vl C Vl N, N. H. H. N, � H. � tV. N' f'1 fY, �, r1, V1 h V7 V7 Yl Vl Vl to Vl V7 H V1 ti1 Vl 09 (9 V) 69 69 fA 69 fA 69 fA fA V3 69 El) cl C-4 w F C3 ° C � a ` Pi _W of b Z 'd b N b G O N 9 N x CD a �+ - § •az d a a On %D „ v`ri 'coviaa'i ygiv� � Av'ri ? p v� vwzfn � 00 ion a �+ n ° Vl oo u O� �j N •� °� J7 N q O, 'co, ° t` Fib U .-� z fqb iii- VJCr V7 f-4 ¢ .. zb t� a. r Fc� Ucz � a a p o 0 o � w a0 O a • rn ° °o° PG a � " M°o g a •� � M o o c R' •-i Vl fV V1 j� C yG .� Vl M vl gi p; c°O• �' O o �. M X o o C% o 0°0. A p" a O O O O O p v a a ww a N F O O O O O - •+ N N O V1 1, O O O O O O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O `[ O 'O :+ N M M M M V' d' 'cP v1 b r- F aaa...11l z 1, I� l� l, (� l� ['� M M M M M M m7M Z b b b b b b b b b b b b W W W W W W °% °% T °\ C� a M M M M M M M M M M M M M M G '+ N M V to b f` i § \ j ) ' § } \ \ \ \ \ } . o q . § \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 . < ) §( - - - - - - N • . / ) § § � 3 � ) k \ A } ) ƒ§ J \k24 {4 \ � 4 § - 7 #J # w m C) \} 0 (71 a C4 w t . . § © § ) / \K © ) $_ \ w � / k ) & \\ . . e 2 § k k � \ / . ) . k \ \ \ 2 w e e § @ W a m m m . . 2 . 2 = _ & = e Q J EXHIBIT 14 RESOLUTION NO. 2012- A RESOLUTION LEVYING SPECIAL BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $115,522.00 FOR THE LIBERTY STREET LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO LIBERTY STREET CONSISTING OF GRADING, PAVING, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS, CURB, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland has constructed paving, sidewalks, curbs, storm drains, and other improvements as a result of the Liberty Street Local Improvement District(LID). B. The total cost for these improvements is in the amount of $226,620.81, OF WHICH $115,522.00 shall be paid by property owners within the Liberty Street Local Improvement District at a rate of$5,521.00 per assessment unit. C. The total assessments in this district are reasonable assessments and the assessments charged against each lot are according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to it from the improvements. The council finds that the evidence presented by Engineering Staff, in the Council Communication of April 17, 2012, is convincing and accepts such evidence as the basis to support the conclusions recited above. D. Special benefit assessments should now be levied against properties benefited to defray the expense thereof. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1, The amount.of the assessment to be charged against-each lot within the local improvement district according to the special and peculiar benefits accruing to each lot for these improvements are set forth in the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2. Any owner of property assessed for $100.00 or more may request the payment be extended in the manner and under the provisions of the Bancroft Bonding Act, if the request is made within thirty days after.notice of the assessment is received. SECTION 3. All assessments using the Bancroft Bonding Act are required to pay in 20 semi-annual (twice a year) installments together with interest. The initial interest to be charged is 10 percent. At the time that these assessments are bonded, the interest rate to be charged will be the actual bond sale rate plus 1.5 percent with a maximum of 10 percent.. SECTION 4. Classification of the assessment. The assessments specified in section 1 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution. I SECTION 5. This Resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Page 1 of 2 O:lpub-w*sbngWept-adminWDLLID Resolution No.06 Plaza Ave 5 06.doc I This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04:090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 G.,Vubwe,mlengldept-admin%LID1LID Resolution No.OB Plaza Ave 8 OO.doc I D C, °o, °o• °o• o o °0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 to N tq f�`�, q N Cl N N N N � N � tn h vi vi vi vi Rn vi vii vi °' vii C b9 Vi Vi fA f9 Vi CA 69 4i 49 'Vf fA M 41 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F O O O O O O O O O O O O O C rA W ri � N CA N CA CA N N cl N N H cq ���yyi �•l Vl �n Vl V! Vi R9 Vl fie Hi Vi 43 63 b9 Vi 69 Vi Vi 49 Go A F �y q ti iii h � vi A a x a o z a v R3 U o 0 0 b CIS N o W vlujb wN 5N ° N In x Wx ' pA of m > � � o� an a4 (7 k O .Q�G n •`� v a b A O o 0 0 •oq '� o pqp o �] eV � Z � fn � � 'v�i � � b°iA 6 � ze ° a� °hF � rnV � W 0 CQ 4 � N 9 O O °O " b o. O P4 O � ja w M in C ti N 1 Za. a a p o o z : o o (71 °o rn O o p O p e� � O O O O O p Y a' a a as a N O Q O O O O O O O O O O O o O O F ..1 z h n r n cn M M M M M M H R b b b b b b b b b b b b NO b a . W W W W W W W W W W W W W W M M M M M M M M M M M M M M z ^-• N .N. O O O O O O O O O O O O O N y ��•11 vl h h h h h h C 43 ffi V3 69 69 4Y FA O O O O O E'� O O O O O O VJ V) Vl V1 Vl h h h h q H 0 rA pq v} by fA Vf fA Vi 49 N a � � w A F4 •� .. .: .iy .d ai O ,� v'Iiati F p W w� rn oo c� �--1 .-I N W U .� � o°o ro ° O ° rn 00 C4 P4 CD cli 00 _ o w qaa O O O kQF0 0 0 .. oo hiD o d N z N N E•' b b 9 N ° a m M M M M i EXHIBIT 15 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Public Hearing and Adoption of a Resolution Levying.Special Benefit Assessments y for the Liberty Street Local Improvement District No. 88 and Adoption of Findings FROM: James Olson,Engineering Service Manager, Public Works Dept. olsonj @ashland.or.us . SUMMARY To conclude the Liberty Street Local Improvement District(LID)process,the following actions are being requested for council's consideration and adoption: A. Public Hearing—In accordance with AMC Section 13.02,a public hearing shall be held to consider any objections to the proposed assessments. B. Adoption of Resolution—Adoption of the attached resolution,following the public hearing, will establish the final amount to be assessed. C. Adoption of Findings—Adoption of the attached findings will document the City's actions and decisions regarding the formation of the assessment district and allocation of assessments. D. Consideration of Written Objections—As of this date,no letters of objection have been received,however,one e-mail was received with comments regarding the allocation of assessment units. This e-mail and any letters received subsequent to the date of this communication will be attached,along with staff's response, for the council's consideration. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Summary: The LID has long been the most popular method by which Ashland's city street improvements and other public improvements are funded. The LID uses the Bancroft Bonding Act to provide a 10-year funding opportunity whereby private citizens,in conjunction with the City, can pay for improvements to their street. The most current LIDs are the Liberty Street LID which is being concluded with this public hearing,and the Schofield/Monte Vista LID which is currently under construction. The improvement of Liberty Street under LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5, 2008 by Resolution No.2008-02. In accordance with AMC Section 13.20 the project was then designed, bid and constructed and the final costs calculated and tabulated. Following is a summary and comparison of the original estimated costs and the final costs. Estimated Project Cost Final Proiect Cost Construction $179,920.00 $179,840.81 Engineering $ 40,080.00 46,780. $220,000.00 $226,620.81 PeRe t of S G:\pub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Skeet CC Public Hearing Levy 04 09 2012.doc CITY OF ASHLAND The increase of$6,620.81 represents a 3 percent increase over the original estimated cost but will not affect the final assessment rate of$5,251.00 per unit which is fixed in accordance with Resolution 99- 09., This LID and the following Schofield/Monte Vista LID are likely the last of the LIDs that were approved under Resolution 99-09 and which set maximum caps on the assessment rate. Resolution 99- 09 has since been rescinded. With the final costs computed and assessment amounts known,we may now proceed to conclude this LID by holding the final public hearing where affected property owners may preseitl;arguments regarding the established rate and total assessment amount. Project Description: The Liberty Street LID project improved the southerly 700 linear feet of the street right-of-way. The project included grading,paving and construction of curbs and gutters, storm drains,and sidewalks. In addition to the normal street improvement elements, several existing utilities owned by the City, Qwest,and by Avista Utilities were rebuilt,replaced,and/or extended. Privately owned utilities were reconstructed at the utility owners' expense and the City bore the cost for its upgrades. The costs for utility upgrades are not costs which are assessable to the adjacent property owners. During the course of construction it was necessary to completely rebuild the buried telephone lines owned by Qwest(now Century Link)and the gas lines owned by Avista Utilities. These utilities were found to have been originally buried too shallow(some less than one foot deep)and were in conflict with the excavation for the street sub-grade. While the actual replacement of these utilities was funded by the respective utility owners,the work caused the project to be delayed which did result in extra costs to the City. Improving a street such as Liberty Street with its steep side hill grades is always difficult. Prior to improvement the gravel street surface was only about 12 feet wide. Widening the street to 22 feet wide had severe impacts on existing street frontages and especially on driveway connections. As the street widens;the connections to existing driveways become steeper. The contractor and City staff spent great deal of time working with the property owners and engineer to make each and every driveway fully functional, safe,and visually appealing. Approval of Project Findings: The findings, conclusions,and orders are a record of all major activities regarding the project, including all Council motions and determinations. The findings for ties project will be presented at the public hearing for final approval. A copy of the incomplete findings is attached for an advanced review. The findings cannot be completed until the final actions of the Council are complete. POLICY: AMC Chapter 13.20 and Resolution 99-09 sets forth the requirements for the improvements of public utilities under a local improvement district. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: LID Costs per Resolution 2008-02: The Liberty Street LID No. 88 was authorized by the Council on February 5,2008 by Resolution No. 2008-02. That resolution established the estimated cost of construction at$220,000 of which$115,522 was to be paid by special assessments against the benefitted properties. The assessment to be levied PAge 2of5 G:\pub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street CC Public Hearing Levy 04 09 2012.doc CITY OF -ASHLAND was set under previous LID ordinances and in particular under Resolution 99-.09 which set specific rates of participation(credits)by the City. This resolution also established a maximum cap which the assessments could not exceed(adjusted annually based upon the CPI). The petition for the formation of the LID was received in September of 2007 and the cap was set at$5,251 per unit or potential unit, the computed cap for that year. The costs for development of the Liberty Street LID were estimated as follows: Total Construction Cost $ 179,920.00 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 40,080.00 Total Estimated Project Cost 220,000.0 Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 13,870.00 $ 10,402.50 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 156,070.00 $ 31,214.00 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 40,080.00 $ 20,040.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 9,980.00 $ 5.988.00 Sub Total: $ 67,644.50 Assessable Cost($220,000-$ 67,644.50) $ 152,355.50 Number of lots in proposed assessment district 22 Estimated per lot for Liberty Street Improvement($152,355.50/22) $ 6,925.25 Current LID cap(maximum assessment amount as of April 2007) $ 5,251.00 Since Resolution 99-09 set a maximum amount that may be home by the owners,any additional cost must be home by the City. In addition, a single lot owned by the City also received an assessment which adds to the amount the City pays. Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00 Amount to be paid by City a. Participation per Resolution 99-09 $ 67,644.50 b. Amount over the maximum cap $ 36,833.50 c. Assessment for City owned lot $ 5.251.00 $ 109,729.00 Final Assessment Costs: Following is a summary of the final assessment costs based upon the final constrtiction and engineering costs. FINAL COSTS Total Construction Cost $ 179,840.81 Engineering&Administration Costs $ 46.780.00 Total Estimated Project Cost $226,620.81 Page 3 of 5 C1:\pub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street CC Public Hearing Levy 04 09 2012.doc I ME, CITY OF ASHLAND Less City Participation per Resolution 99-09 75% of storm drain cost 0.75 X $ 14,196.50 $ 10,647.38 20% of street surface cost 0.2 X $ 151,961.36 $ 30,392.21 50% of engineering cost 0.5 X $ 46,780.00 $ 23,390.00 60% of sidewalk cost 0.6 X $ 12,682.95 $ 7.609.77 Total Credits by City $ 72,039.42 Assessable Cost Final Project Cost $226,620.81 Less Credits $ 72.039.42 Total Assessable Costs $ 154,581.39 Number of Lots in Assessment District 22 Computed Cost per Lot(Assessment Rate) ($ 154,581.39/22) $ 7,026.43 Maximum Assessment Rate per Resolution 99-09' $ 5,251.00 Resolution No. 99-09 sets a maximum cap on the assessment rate to be borne by the owners within the LID. Any costs over the maximum rate must be borne by the City. Costs to be borne by the property owners and the City are as follows: Amount to be paid by owners $ 115,522.00* Amount to be paid by City Credits per Resolution 99-09 $ 72,039.42 Amount over the maximum cap $ 39,059.39 Assessment for City owned lot $ 5.251.00 Total City Cost $ 116,349.81 • Includes one City-owned lot to be assessed at$ 5,251.00 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: A. Public Hearing—Staff recommends that the Council consider the attached e-mail from Jane Tama and any others that might be presented at the public hearing. I. Tama comments—Jane and Pedro Tama,who own the property at 781 Liberty Street, considered contesting the second potential unit which they are being assessed. However, after realizing that they had actually made an application for a lot division and that the City had constructed an extra wide driveway and additional water and sewer services to accommodate a second lot,they withdrew their objection. Complaints regarding other lot assessments were unfounded. 2. Other comments—Any other objections received'after the date of this communication will be addressed in aft addendum. B. Adoption of Resolution—Staff recommends that the attached resolution be adopted. The resolution correctly states the assessments to be charged for the improvement of Liberty Street and is as previously set forth in Resolution No. 2008-02. C. Adoption of Findings—Staff recommends adoption of the attached findings which document the City's actions and decisions regarding the formation of the assessment district and allocation of assessments. It shall be understood that the findings will be updated to include the Council's actions on April 17,2012. Page 4 of S G:\pub-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street CC Public Hearing Levy 04 09 2012.doc 9W, -Jp y ccCITY OFF T 7J H LA r D SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to adopt the attached resolution levying special benefit assessments for the Liberty Sheet LID No. 88 and to adopt findings regarding the City's decisions in that LID process. ATTACHMENTS: Tama communication Resolution Findings I Pace 5 of 5 G:1pgb-wrks\eng\04-21 Liberty Street CC Public Hearing Levy 04 09 2012.doc IA, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business meeting Award of 2012 Community Development Block Grant Funds FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist, reidl @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The City of Ashland has received four applications (two public service applications totaling $34,000 and two capital improvement applications totaling $150,000) for the $131,645 in 2012 Community Development Block Grant funds available for award. Of the available 2012 funds, a set aside of 15% (approximately $24,000) is available to award to public service projects. Through acceptance of the Housing Commission and/or staff s recommendation, the grant awards will be directed toward assisting identified low-income and special needs populations. Recommended grant awards include $24,000 for St. Vincent DePaul, $20,000 for Living Opportunities and $87,000 reserved for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank. If Council amends the City's CDBG plan, $14,000 would be awarded to St. Vincent DePaul and $10,000 to the Maslow Project. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2012 program year is expected to be approximately $164,556. This estimate is derived from the previous year's allocation and includes the administrative portion of 20% (approximately $32,911). Per CDBG regulation not more than 15% or approximately $24,000 can be awarded to public service activities; there is no limit on the percentage of funds'that can be awarded to capital improvement projects. In total there is approximately $131,645 available for award. The 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan sets a policy of limiting the.award of funds to not more than two projects in a program year (see attached). All CDBG awards must be to projects meeting the CDBG national objectives low-income populations, and which are consistent with the goals identified in the City's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. The City has carried forward an unexpended balance from the 2010 award of$27,623 in CDBG funding awarded to the Public Works Department to complete public facilities improvements in designated low to moderate income census block groups. This activity, to install audible signals at downtown intersections will serve to provide safe and convenient access in designated low-income census block groups for all City of Ashland residents and visitors including those sight impaired who qualify as a presumed benefit low-income population. This project was not completed in the 2010 or 2011 calendar years. Staff expects this project to be completed in the 2012 calendar year(see details attached). The City will reserve the right to award more or less than this estimate, depending on the final entitlement amount authorized by Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Page I of 3 �r, • i CITY OF ASHLAND The City of Ashland Housing Commission held a public hearing on March 28`h to take public comments, review the grant requests and make a recommendation to forward to the City Council. CDBG funds will be available upon the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) approval of the 2012 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held before the Housing Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. HUD must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with the local Consolidated Plan; the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan for the use of CDBG funds. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The CDBG program is funded by Federal grants through HUD and no general funds will be used for CDBG activities. Further $32,911 in grant funds will be made available to cover administrative costs associated with carrying out grant requirements. $131,645 in CDBG grant funds will be available July 1, 2012 upon approval of the 2012 Annual CDBG Action Plan and completion of a grant agreement between the City and HUD. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTED ACTION: The Housing Commission reviewed proposals on March 28`h and recommends award of the CDBG funds as follows: • $14,000 to the St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation proposal to fund emergency rent assistance for qualified low income households in an effort to prevent homelessness. $10,000 to the Maslow Project for outreach and case management for homeless youth enrolled in the Ashland school district. • $20,000 to the Living Opportunity ACES remodel Capital Improvement proposal. • $87,000 be placed in reserve for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank pending the results of their fundraising efforts which could include a second application for the 2013 CDBG REP. • Request Council to direct staff to draft an amendment to the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan to allow for the award of no more than three projects in a program year rather than the previously stated policy of allowing for the award of no more than two projects in a program year to allow the funding of both St. Vincent de Paul and Maslow as recommended. Staff s recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year, Consolidated Plan goals, readiness to proceed, and in consideration of the limited number of proposals that may be funded in any given year. Should the Council direct staff to amend the Consolidated Plan to allow three projects to be awarded in a given year staff would concur with the Housing Commission. For a more detailed review of each proposal see 2012 Staff Evaluation attached. Staff recommends award of the 2012-2013 CDBG funds as follows: • $24,000 to St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program to fund emergency rent assistance for qualified low-income household in an effort to prevent homelessness. • $20,000 to Living Opportunities for capital improvements to 747 Normal. • $87,646 to be held in reserve for Ashland Emergency food bank to acquire a permanent location. Page 2 of 3 WIPF4 i CITY OF -ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to direct staff to amend the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan to allow CDBG funds to be awarded to up to three projects in a given program year. I move to award CDBG funding for the 2012-2013 Program year as follows: • $14,000 to the St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program; • $10,000 to the Maslow Project; • $20,000 to Living Opportunity's Ashland Community Employment Services building remodel; • The balance of the funds (est. $87,646) be placed in reserve for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank site acquisition project contingent upon successful fundraising being completed by March 2013 and in recognition that the AEFB may apply for additional CDBG funds in the 2013 CDBG program year as needed to complete the acquisition. ATTACHMENTS: • 03/28/2012 Housing Commission Regular Meeting Minutes • CDBG Staff Evaluation • Maslow Project-School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Application • St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program Application • Living Opportunities-ACES (Ashland Community Employment Services Remodel Application • Ashland Emergency Food Bank-Building Acquisition Application • Memo: Excerpt from 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan relating to number of projects available for funding each program year. The full text of the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan can be found on the City's website at: http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=l 2758 • Public Works Letter regarding project timeline Page 3 of 3 I I CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES March 28,2012 CALL TO ORDER Chair Regina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St. Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Regina Ayars Carol Voisin Brett Ainsworth Barb Barasa Staff Present: Ben Scott Linda Reid, Housing Specialist James Dills Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk Richard Billin No Commissioners Were Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES Billin/Dills m/s to approve the minutes of the February 22, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM No public comments-were made. CDBG APPLICANT PRESENTATIONS Reid briefly went over the staff evaluation of the four applications that were received. It is the City's policy to award no more than two projects in any given year. Reid acknowledged that all of the applications were wonderful and they appreciated everyone's effort. The following are the two applications that staff is recommending. For public services staff is recommending the funding of St. Vincent De Paul. Reid acknowledged that both the Maslow Project and St. Vincent De Paul are fabulous projects and are much needed in this valley. One reason staff is recommending St. Vincent De Paul over the Maslow Project is they serve similar populations and have similar goals but Maslow did not provide clarity on how the CDBG funding would substantially increase the services that they would be offering. St. Vincent De Paul staled they would be helping thirty additional families with the grant money; Maslow did not quantify a number. For Capital improvement projects staff is recommending to fund $20,000 to Living Opportunities for renovations at 747 Normal Street and that $87,646 to be held in reserve for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank to acquire a permanent location. The Ashland Emergency Food Bank would not be prepared to acquire a site until completion of an extensive fundraising campaign and as such could not feasibly acquire the property in this program year. Staffs recommendation to reserve the money would be contingent upon successful fundraising which allows AEFB to consider the CDBG funding as leverage for further grant applications but the City would have the ability to re- allocate those funds should fundraising efforts fall short or other unforeseen circumstances necessitate a change in 1 plans prior to March 2013. The applicants gave their presentations Maslow Project— Lacy Renae, Mental Health Counselor and Art Therapist as well as the newly appointed person for overseeing program evaluation was present to represent the Maslow Project. Maslow Project is a non-profit agency providing homeless children and youth with basic needs and support services including case management and counseling support services through agency partnerships and Community resources to best meet the needs of our youth. Our biggest goal is helping kids graduate from High School despite their homelessness, said Renae. Their school based program places case managers in Medford, Rogue River and now Ashland schools to identify youth in need of services. Renae introduced Ali LaJuenesse new Ashland case manager. She is based out of Ashland High School though she also serves Ashland Middle School as well as the elementary schools. Currently there are ninety-nine children and youth who are identified as fitting the criteria for homelessness in Ashland. Of the ninety-nine children identified as needing services LaJuenesse said fifty-three students are under grade five, twenty-three are between six grade and eighth grade and another twenty-three are between ninth grade and twelfth grade. A question and answer period followed the presentation What year did you get the ninety-nine student count? The current year, 2012. Referrals come to Maslow from the school councilors and attendance administrators. The correct count is probably closer to one-hundred and twenty-five youth. LaJuenesse is helping an Ashland High Senior set up an emergency clothes closet as part of their senior project. What would be the impact of not getting these funds? Due to their budget LaJuenesse is serving two days at week at the Ashland Schools. The grant would allow LaJuenesses' position to expand to three or four days a week. She would be able to have more of a presence in the schools and be able to identify the additional children and youth who are under the radar. The grant money would be used to expand your program. If you don't get the money would you continue to serve the youth of Ashland two days a week? They are committed through June of 2012. They would need to acquire more funding to start up the program again in the fall. Explain what you guys do different then what Community Works does in our Community. Community Works has a street outreach worker who works in Ashland. She works with the kids who are more visible in the downtown area. LaJuenesse is in the process of contacting her to hopefully bring some of those kids into their program. Primarily the difference is in the population they serve. Maslow is the only organization that serves just the children and youth so they can provide more services for them. They do not feel they duplicate Community Works but complement each other. St. Vincent De Paul — Rich Hanson and Charlotte Dorsey along with past recipient of the program Desirea Flowers were present to discuss the application of the Ashland Home Visitation program. Mr. Hanson thanked the Commissioners for their confidence they have placed in them by awarding them with the public service grants for the last two years. With the combination of HUD funds, their twelve volunteers and their own budget monies St. Vincent De Paul has been successful with the challenge of preventing homelessness. The CDBG funds of$30,000 from 2010 enabled them to help eighty-seven people, thirty-six households and move three families out of homelessness. With the HUD funds St.Vincent DePaul is able to help with transition housing by providing rental deposits and several months' rent. All the funds go directly to people in need as St. Vincent De Paul is entirely run by volunteers. Hanson is optimistic that with the continued CDBG funds they can move more families out of homelessness in the coming years. 2 I . I Charlotte Dorsey has volunteered with St. Vincent De Paul serving in the Ashland and Talent area for over 13 years. Dorsey addressed the issue of homelessness and what the CDBG money is used for. Presently they are working with six individual people; two woman living in their cars, one woman living in a barn, one living at the Dunn house and two senior men. St. Vincent De Paul is able to work with more individuals this year then prior years due to the CDBG funds. Desirea Flowers introduced herself and shared what an honor it was to be here. St. Vincent De Paul volunteers Charlotte and Allison have been awesome and Flowers has developed a wonderful friendship. She was made aware of St. Vincent De Paul from Pam at the Peace Church. At one point Flowers was living in her car with her two dogs. After receiving some funds she was able to move to a trailer but needed further assistance with first and last month's rent, food, gas money etc. St. Vincent De Paul provided those things for Flowers. She is forever grateful. Flowers is currently working and hopes that some day she too can help people get off the streets. A question and answer period followed the presentation Sounds like you give people a fishing pole not a fish to enable them to become who they want to be. You give them the resources they need. The nature of the mission is we cannot do it for anyone they must participate at the level they are able. What do you do with mentally ill individuals? Because of the personal nature of the team working together it's possible to work over an extended period of time getting to know the clients. Many who come for help don't fully understand the safety net that is available to them. St. Vincent De Paul gives the client the assistance and education they need to know the agencies that can help them. Seniors are especially unaware of what is available to them often not having been in the situation before. If the CDBG funds are not available or more funds are needed do you use your own money for the same purposes? St. Vincent De Paul spends from their own funds each month anywhere from $7,000 to $13,000 in Ashland and Talent. If we chose to use our own money for rental.assistance we would run out of money, stated Hanson. When CDBG funds end they can no longer provide those specific services until it is replenished. ' Their current budget this year is $120,000 of which $30,000 comes from the City's Block Grant. From their own funds $50,000 is used to pay utilities, $35,000 for rent, and lesser amounts for transportation, medical etc. The block grant has enabled us to work with people who are in serious situations and need that additional help to leave homelessness. What type of success have you had in keeping people in housing over a long period of time? After checking back with people who have received CDBG funds the success rate appears to be 100%. Clients need an income before moving into housing in order to move forward and meet the responsibility of the expenses associated with housing. That is what we try to help them secure. The majority of people we find are not able to work and we assist by advocating for social security, veterans pension, disability etc. By receiving some income it allows the client to make housing possible. At what point is it considered a success story and no need for follow-up? We leave that decision up to the individual. They always have support from us as long as it takes. Ashland Emergency Food Bank — Susan Harris, part time AEFB manager and Ward Wilson board member spoke regarding their application. Harris is the only paid position everyone else is volunteers. The Food Bank was started in 1972 from a handful of women who decided there was a need to address the hunger issues families were experiencing in the Ashland, Talent area. In any given month the AEFB serves anywhere from 425 to 450 households. Twenty percent come from Talent, five percent are homeless and 38 percent are individuals under the age of 18. The average household size is 2.5 people. This is the first time they are seeking funds in order to purchase a permanent home located at 560 Clover Lane. Ward Wilson introduced himself. He stated they are a faith based organization and by far the largest food bank 3 i I functioning in Ashland. The Food Bank expects to deliver 380,000 pounds of food to anywhere from 5,500 to 6,000 households. Roughly twenty-five percent of all households within the City of Ashland contribute food to the food bank. The AEFB has entered into a lease to buy agreement with People's Bank in Medford. They have two years to raise the money and purchase the building at a fixed price of$475,000. The bank has allowed the AEFB to pay a small rent of$600.00 a month allowing them to be successful. A question and answer period followed the presentation Have you at this time applied for any of the other non-governmental grants that you are expecting to receive? No we have not applied yet. It is unknown if those funds will be received. What would the impact be if we weren't to award the grant at this time but ask that you apply again next year? The biggest thing is that the restricted award would give us something to say to potential donors letting them know we are on our way. We do feel we will be able to meet our goals but that first drop in the bucket is a big help with our promotion. We are also planning a campaign for direct asks of donors in town to supplement the other requests. What type of relationship do you have with the other businesses in the area? A very good relationship. We are located next to Brammo Manufacturing and owner Craig Bramscher is very supportive of our project. Holiday Inn Express and the Best Western have been exceptionally supportive as well. We have been very well received in our area. Is all the space currently being used? Yes, extensively. Are there other additions you will need to make on the building? No, not at this time. We don't anticipate our donated food becoming a whole lot bigger; hopefully the economy will be improving. The bank is giving you a break on the price. Sounds like they have been a good partner. We have been impressed with the willingness from the bank to consider the lease to buy proposition and their willingness to contribute their support to the community. Will you be able to gel the option extended? There is no guarantee we could. Due to the changing economic atmosphere it's hard to determine what could happen in the next couple of years. Reality is if the economy improves and they receive another offer they could accept that offer and not extend our option. We do think the possibility of an extension is feasible though we don't believe we will need it; our goals are achievable. With property taxes and upkeep what are you doing to continue ownership? One of the advantages of being a 50103 is they have been granted a property tax exemption. Since we are the tenant the bank doesn't have to pay taxes on this property. Our overhead runs less than 10% of the dollar value of the 380,000 pounds of food given out each year. Our rent runs $7,200 a year and utilities along with Susan's salary run around $65,000. Our monthly needs are not that great. What other organizations are you collaborating with? Private foundations, individual donors and hopefully the City of Talent. Living Opportunities — Jim Gochenour, Development Director for Living Opportunities was present to give an overview of the application. Living Opportunities has been around since 1983. They are the largest provider of services for people with developmental disabilities in Jackson County, serving over 300 people. Their mission is "For people with developmental disabilities to work for the same employers, live in the same neighborhoods and 4 I I i i have the same experiences everyone aspires to in our community." Living Opportunities has housed the employment and leisure activities in the Ashland building located at 747 Normal. They have over 100 individuals that are employed, over 50 businesses that employ their clients and 45 staff members working in their employment office. Ashland has been very receptive of them and they have many local businesses partners. Their placement rate is 99.5%for employees with disabilities. Living Opportunities is requesting $20,000 in order to complete the renovation at 747 Normal Street. The first phase of the renovation was the installation of a new roof, including patching and repairing the current understructure, for $15,000; phase two included rewiring the buildings existing electrical and overlaying the ceiling with drywall to accommodate new lighting, for $13,581.23. Matching funds of $20,000 are needed in order to complete the remodel project, plumbing that needs repaired, interior walls, windows and doors along with additional electrical work and a new heating system. The total amount needed to complete the project is $40,000, $20,000 of which they already have., A question and answer period followed the presentation You indicated that you had a project that was previously funded by CDBG funds, what was that. , No we have never received any funding from Ashland though we have applied in the past. The completion cost is$40,000 and you already have in hand$20,000 is that correct? Yes, we purchased the building in 1986 which had been the old Goodwill building. Will you be able to continue to use the facility while it is being remodeled? During the last phase we had different people in the community who volunteered to house the people while it was being completed. Darex gave us space as well as a local church. We are not planning on spending any money to house the folks while the project is being done. Without the money what will you do? We would not be able to go forward with the project at this time. HOUSING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS The Commissioners deliberated and discussed the presentations in order to make a recommendation. One topic of discussion was whether the City had the ability to award more than two applicants grant money. Reid said in order to award more than two projects it would take an amendment to the consolidated plan which can be done only through the direction of the City Council. Reid stated the rule was put into place because earlier in the CDBG cycle the City would award multiple grants or split them creating an administrative burden on both the grantee and city staff. Also as the City developed a priority for housing splitting the grants would eventually make them too small to do those projects. Reid acknowled the process would entail drafting an amendment to the consolidated plan, publishing a notice about the change in the newspaper and sending the amendment to HUD for approval. Ainsworth/Scott m/s to "Recommend funding the St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation proposal in the amount of $14,000 and funding the Maslow Project for $10,000 and that the Living Opportunity ACES remodel Capital Improvement proposal be fully funded in the amount of $20,000. The Commission would also recommend that the balance of the funds $87,646 be placed in reservation for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank pending the results of their fundraising efforts which could include a second application for the 2013 CDBG RFP and also request Council to direct Reid to draft an amendment to the consolidated plan allowing more than two awards but no more than three in any one year." The Commissioners discussed the motion. The Commissioners main concern was that if in the future several projects were brought before them how many could they award? The Commissioners agreed that they needed to inform all applicants of other available funds and resources including the Housing Trust Fund. The Commissioners asked St. Vincent De Paul if they received a reduced award, how would that effect the number 5 .of people they could serve? On average expend approximately $860.00 per client with the Block Grant money, making that total approximately 42. The Commissioners agreed St. Vincent De Paul has many positive attributes; an all volunteer organization, no administrative overhead, a proven record and they serve a lot of people. On the other hand we would like to encourage other agencies to come to Ashland and be part of the Ashland Community. The Commissioners voted: The motion passed unanimously. LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION Council — Voisin reported that the Council Study Session on Monday April 16 may include a discussion regarding whether to combine the Homeless Committee with the Housing Commission. It was suggested that the Commissioners might like to attend the meeting. General Announcements — Dills announced that a Demographer by the name of Charles Rynerson visited the Ashland School Board. Rynerson had recently reviewed the 2010 census report in comparison to the 2000 census report and discovered the dwindling enrollment in Ashland Public Schools. He determined there was a direct relationship with lack of affordable housing in the community. If we want to attract young families in our community we need to offer more affordable housing, stated Dills. Dills is working on getting the report that Rynerson completed. It may be posted on the web soon. Dills announced that being a newly married man, a full time student and having a job is making it difficult to remain on the Commission. His term is up next month and he will not be reapplying. He intends to be at next month's meeting in order to discuss the RVTV project. The Commissioners acknowledged how much they will miss Dills and hate to see him go, but respect his decision. Dills said he had gained a lot from the Commission and will continue to volunteer in various capacities.- Reid reminded any Commissioner whose term is expiring to send an email to the City Recorder, Barbara Christianson, acknowledging their desire to reapply. APRIL 25TH, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS CDBG Action Plan Approval RVTV project discussion Preservation letter from Barasa and discussion of incentives Quorum check; Scott will be out of town everyone else will be there. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Homeless Task Force Meeting-April 17th, 2012: 10:30-12:00 Housing Authority Conference Room 2231, Table Rock Road, Medford Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting April 25th, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener 6 CITY OF -ASHLAND Staff Evaluation To: Ashland Housing Commission Title: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2011 REP Date: March 28, 2012 Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist The City of Ashland has received four applications for 2012 Community Development Block Grant funds that are competitively available. The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2012 program year is expected to be approximately $164,556. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated from the previous year's allocation and have had the administrative portion of 20% removed (or approximately$32,911 for administration of the CDBG program). Of the available 2012 funds a set aside of 15% or approximately$24,000 is available for Public Service projects. In total there is approximately$131,645 available for award. The City will reserve the right to award more or less than this estimate dependant on the final entitlement amount authorized by Congress and the Department of Housing athd Urban Development. The City of Ashland Housing Commission will hold a public hearing on March 281h to review the grant requests and make a recommendation to forward to the City Council. Staffs recommendation regarding the allocation of the 2012 CDBG funds is provided on the following pages." Proposals Received Organization Proposed Project CDBG. Goal Consolidated _ Funds Plan Goal # and _ Requested _ Rank* St. Vincent De Assist low income and at risk $24,000 Provide 29 low Goals 6.1 Paul Households with emergency income households Need Rank A funding to prevent with emergency Goals 6.2 homelessness. services Need Rank B Goals 8.2 Need Rank B Maslow Project Encourage stability, self- $10,000 Provide access to Goal 6.1 sufficiency and school basic needs, Need Rank A achievement for homeless information and youth. referral. Provide case management to improve stability to approximately 35-99 identified homeless youth. Living Renovations to Ashland $20,000 Renovations to Goal 8.2 Opportunities Community Employment building that serves Need Rank B Services Building to support 22 special needs Goal 14.1 employment and leisure clients with Need Rank B activities for special needs employment and life populations skills assistance Ashland The acquisition of the $130,000 The acquisition of Goal 6.1 Emergency Food building located at 560 the building which Need Rank A Bank Clover Lane, which they they now occupy at Goal 8.2 now lease from Peoples 560 Clover Lane. To Need Rank B Bank of Commerce continue serving 5,600 households with need food items Funding Requested/Available A total of$131,645 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2010- 2014 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is limited to approximately $24,000. The 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan sets a policy oflimiting_the award of funds to mot more than two projects in a program year. These funds will be available upon approval of the 2012 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held before the Housing Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council.-The US department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with the local Consolidated Plan. Assessment Criterion Staff has assessed the proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and address the priorities identified within the City of Ashland 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. • Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant Program. • All CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the Community Development Block Grant Program. • If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded projects are; all projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Certain construction projects must use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to•mitigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the i i i :'A\ i application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements. Areas of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing Commission and the City Council can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as outlined in the City's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Priorities within the City,of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking-by letter. The rankings of A, B and C are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs. In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects(s) that are ranked the highest will be funded. A-The City of Ashland plans to use the CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs. B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG.for projects that meet these needs. C-The City of Ashland does not plan to use CDBG funds for projects meeting these needs but will consider certifications of consistency_for other entities which are applying for federal assistance to meet these needs. Additionally such needs may also be addressed by the City through the allocation of Economic Development and or Social Service Grants from the City General Fund. Public Service Proposal Evaluation Maslow Project-School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Staff has reviewed the Maslow Project, School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Maslow Project requested 510,000 in Public Service Grant funds to assist them in placing a'case manager in the elementary, middle and high schools, providing outreach to high risk homeless youth and providing them with immediate needs, case management to keep youth engaged in school and promote stability and self-sufficiency for the homeless youth and their families. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective; homeless populations are a presumed benefit population under the CDBG program. • Services to homeless and at-risk populations are and eligible use of CDBG funds. • Maslow's proposal expects to provide services to 99 identified homeless school children currently enrolled in the Ashland School District. • Maslow Project has proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funds. • Staff finds that Maslow Project's proposal is consistent with goals number 6.1 and 8.2 of the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Goal 6: Support services for homelessness prevention and transition. Where possible, give funding priority to services that are part of a comprehensive approach that improves the living conditions of clients. Safety net services that meet basic needs shall only be funded with CDBG dollars if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self-sufficiency. • 6.1 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that assist the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, provide transition assistance to the homeless, and help prevent homelessness (A) I In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of"A" as a priority indicates that this is the highest priority use for the CDBG funds. A-The City of Ashland plans to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that Maslow Project's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income households. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program providing double the requested grant funds and leveraging further funds from other sources St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program Staff has reviewed the St. Vincent de Paul program proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2010-2014 Consolidated plan. St. Vincent's has requested $24,000 to assist them in defraying the cost of rent and utility relief for people facing eviction and shut offs thereby preventing homelessness. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Generally Income payments (payments to an individual or family, which are used to provide basic services such as food, shelter (including payment for rent, mortgage, and/or utilities) or clothing) are ineligible public service activities when such payments are provided has a grant. However, such expenditures are eligible if, the income payments do not exceed three consecutive months; and the payments are made directly to the provider of services on behalf of an individual or family. This project meets those criteria. • St. Vincent has a,proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funding. • St. Vincent expects to assist approximately 29 households or between 75-100 people with the granted funds. • Staff finds that St. Vincent's proposal is consistent with goals number 6.1 and 8.2 of the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Goal 6: Support services for homelessness prevention and transition. Where possible, give funding priority to services that are part of a comprehensive approach that improves the living conditions of clients. Safety net services that meet basic needs shall only be funded with CDBG dollars if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain sell-sufficiency. • 6.1 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that assist the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, provide transition assistance to the homeless, and help prevent homelessness (A) • 6.3 Support activities that expand service-enriching housing for the homeless and other special needs populations, including increased shelter, transitional and permanent supportive housing resources. (B) Goal 8: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs. People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly,p persons with P•`, i developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe mental illness, parsons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with HIV/AID or related illnesses. • 8.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that provide support services to extremely low- and low-income special needs populations. (B) In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of"A" as a priority indicates that this is the highest priority use for the CDBG funds. A-The City ofAshland plans to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that St. Vincent's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income and special needs households. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program providing double the requested grant funds and leveraging further funds from other sources. Capital Improvement Proposals Living Opportunities-ACES (Ashland Community Employment Services) Remodel Staff has reviewed the Living Opportunities ACES Remodel Capital Improvement proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated plan. Living Opportunities requested $20,000 in grant funds to assist them in the renovations and repairs on their ACES, employment and leisure activities building that serves peoples with disabilities. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective; peoples with disabilities are a presumed benefit population under the CDBG program. Barrier removal and/or ADA accessibility are an eligible use of CDBG Capital Improvement funds. • This proposal anticipates serving approximately 22 individuals with special needs. • Staff finds that Living Opportunities' proposal is consistent with goal number 8 and 8.2 of the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Goal 8: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs. People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe mental illness, persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with HIV/AID or related illnesses. • 8.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that provide support services to extremely low- and low-income special needs populations. (B) In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of"B" as a priority indicates that this is an activity that the City may use CDBG funds to support. B- The City ofAshland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs. . �`, Staff sees that Living Opportunities' proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity supports Living Opportunities in providing employment and life skills assistance to special needs individuals. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program. Ashland Emergency Food Bank-Food Bank Building Acquisition Staff has reviewed the AEF Bank Capital Improvement proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated plan. Ashland Emergency Food Bank has requested $130,000 in grant funds to assist them in acquiring the building that they currently lease from People's Bank of Commerce. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI)benefit national objective; the nature of the activity, i.e. food bank, qualifies the beneficiaries of the activity as a presumed benefit population under the CDBG program. • The acquisition of real property by a non-profit organization to be used to provide a service to low income and presumed benefit populations are an eligible use of CDBG Capital Improvement funds. • This proposal anticipates serving approximately 5,600 households or 14,000 individuals. • Staff finds that Living Opportunities' proposal is consistent with goal number 6.1 and 8.2 of the City of Ashland's 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan. Goal 6: Support services for homelessness prevention and transition. Where possible, give funding priority to services that are part of a comprehensive approach that improves the living conditions of clients. Safety net services that meet basic needs shall only be funded with CDBG dollars if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain - self-sufficiency. • .6.1 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that assist the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, provide transition assistance to the homeless, and help prevent homelessness (A) • 8.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that provide support services to extremely low- and low-income special needs populations. (B) In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of"a" as a priority indicates that this is an activity that the City may use CDBG funds to support. A-The City of Ashland plans to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that Ashland Emergency Food Bank's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity will allow the Food Bank to continue to provide emergency food supplies to those most in need. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends award of the 2012-2013 CDBG funds as follows: • $24,000 to St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program to fund emergency rent assistance for qualified low-income household in an effort to prevent homelessness. • $20,000 to Living Opportunities for capital improvements to 747 Normal. • $8,7,645 to be held in reserve for Ashland Emergency food bank to acquire a permanent location. Staffs recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, readiness to proceed, and in consideration of the limited number of proposals that may be funded in any given year. Public Service Projects: In examining the two applications for public service funding (SVDP & Maslow) staff found both to be needed activities in our community that would benefit CDBG eligible populations. The SVDP program has a successful track record of providing counseling services, and direct financial assistance, to those at risk of homelessness and homeless household seeking housing. The Maslow-project has also proposed an activity that would benefit this same target population with an emphasis or homeless children enrolled in Ashland schools. In evaluation the proposal it was unclear to staff to what degree CDBG funding would result in a quantifiable increase in the current level of services as is required of CDBG funded projects. Further, the Maslow Project, although valuable is and activity that is similar in nature to services currently being offered by Community Works within the community. Unfortunately the public service cap of 20% of Ashland's annual award precludes multiple awards to otherwise comparable services in a given year. Capital Projects: The Consolidated plan will allow the City to make one award to an eligible capital improvement or site acquisition project is a given year. The two such proposals received, Living Opportunities and Ashland Emergency Food Bank both qualify as eligible projects. In evaluation of each proposal it was evident to staff that Living Opportunities is ready to proceed in this program year, whereas Ashland Emergency Food Bank would not be prepared to acquire a site until completion of an extensive fundraising campaign and as such could not feasibly acquire the property in this program year,: staff s recommendation to reserve $87,645 for AEFB contingent upon successful fundraising allows the AEFB to consider the CDBG funding as leverage for further grant applications, but retains for the city the ability to re-allocate those funds should fundraising efforts fall short or other unforeseen circumstances necessitate a change in plans prior to March 2013. Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the St. Vincent de Paul Home Visitation proposal in the amount of$ 24,000 and that the Living Opportunity ACES Remodel Capital Improvement proposal be fully funded in the amount of$20,000. The Commission would also recommend that the balance of the funds $87,645 be placed in reservation for the Ashland Emergency Food Bank pending the results of their fundraising efforts which could include a second application for the 2013 CDBG REP. CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria The final step in the process of evaluating the proposals typically is for the Housing Commission to apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best meet the City's spending priorities. Projects are given a rating of High (3 points), Medium (2 points), or Low (1 point), on each of the criteria listed below. The categories proposed provide a valuable way for individual Commissioners to gauge the effectiveness of the proposal in meeting City objectives. :�AINh A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net" services or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs. C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem. D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low 'and moderate income people. The longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given. F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization 1. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic K. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project L. The project is ready for implementation within a year of a CDBG award notification M. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity. Letter SVDP Maslow .. Living AEFB - Project Opportunities A. High High Medium High B. High High High Low C. Medium High High Low D. N/A N/A N/A N/A E. N/A t N/A High N/A F. High High High High G. High High High High H. High High Low High I. High High High High J. High High -High High K. Hi h Medium Medium High L. Hi High High Low M. High High High High 32/33 32/33 32/36 27/33 i I I CITY OF ASHLAND 2012 Program Year Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be Included as the first pages on all submittals. 1 APPLICATION FORM I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Maslow Project Executive Director's Name(s): Mary Ferrell Board Member Names (attach separate sheet): See attached sheet Applicant Whiling Address: 500 Monroe Street Medford,OR 97501 . Applicant Street Address: 500 Monroe Street Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: 501(c)3 public charity Federal Tax ID#: 27-0734969 Mission Statement: (may be attached) Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Total Employees: 9 Total Volunteers:45+ I I II. CONTACT PERSON(designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Mary Ferrell Title: Executive Director Phone Number: 541-608-6868 Fax Number: 541-608-6869 E-mail Address: mary@maslowproject.com III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: School-Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Expected Completion Date: June 30, 2013 Requested CDBG Funds: $10.000 Organizational Match: $13,000 Funds from Other Sources: $3,500 I Total Project Cost: $26,500 I I 2 I F.OeJlE�l.� J� 2) PROJECT SUMMARY SCHOOL-BASED SERVICES FOR ASHLAND HOMELESS YOUTH Project Background: Maslow Project is a non-profit agency providing homeless children and youth with basic needs and support services. Maslow Project promotes a youth-centered safety-net model that utilizes a comprehensive web of support, Including case management and counseling,support services through agency partnerships, and community resources to best meet the needs of our youth. Maslow Project delivers services to youth in three fields. The Resource Center in Medford offers a"one- stop" location providing basic needs,emergency assistance, Intensive case management, and wrap- around services to ensure stability and success. The Street Outreach Team has three strands of service delivery: schools, agencies, and public locations. Street outreach gets information and supplies to homeless youth primarily in Medford and encourages them to seek support through the resource center. The School-Based Program places case managers in Medford, Ashland, and Rogue River schools to identify youth in need of services. Case managers get immediate needs to youth, track academic and attendance progress, provide mentorship, and refer to additional services at the resource center and other agencies to help youth stay in school and increase chances of graduation. Maslow Project recognizes that a successful goal-oriented program requires both the meeting of basic needs and wrap-around case management. Simply providing food, clothing, and other basic needs will not solve the root of the problem. Conversely, youth cannot reach higher level goals without having their basic needs met. Our program encompasses both basic needs and case management to ensure the most comprehensive response to the systemic challenges associated with youth homelessness. We propose a partnership with the City of Ashland to support Maslow Project's School-Based program in Ashland. A Case Manager works with homeless students and parents to ensure stability and school. achievement, supporting our mission to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life.The total cost of this project is$26,500. Maslow Project secured $15,000, has a$1,500 request pending, and respectfully requests$10,000 from City of Ashland CDBG. Project Objective: Encourage stability, self-sufficiency and school achievement for homeless youth. Project Outcomes: • 100%of individuals seeking assistance through Maslow Project's case manager will have access to basic needs and information or will be referred to appropriate services through our"No Wrong Door"policy. (99 youth) • 80%of case managed youth will demonstrate improvement in one or more areas as measured by Youth Self-Sufficiency Outcome Scales as compared to baseline info collected at initial assessment(35 youth) • 80%of youth receiving case management will report an increase in access to basic needs, Improved stability as reported on client surveys(35 youth). Thank you for your consideration.We look forward to discussing our project with you further. Mary Ferrell, Maslow Project Executive Director 500 Monroe Street, Medford, OR 97501 541-608-6868 i Soo Mowro6 Street,Medford, OP—_97,50i � 541-608-6868 i i 2 PROJECT SUMMARY See attachment. 3 PROPERTY INFORMATION This is a social service application; section is not applicable. 4 SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Services to be Provided: Maslow Project is partnering with Ashland School District to place a Case Manager in the elementary, middle, and high schools, identifying high-risk and homeless youth in need of basic and supportive services. The Case Manager provides youth with immediate needs such as clothing, school supplies, and medical resources (including eye glasses, lice treatment, and prescription assistance). Additionally, the Case Manager assists parents in navigating the maze of social services available in the community, connects them with resources, provides wrap-around case management and coordinates with a variety of outside agencies to create a safety net that decreases the possibility of youth and families getting lost in the system. The Case Manager also assists children in remaining in their school of origin, and coordinates transportation to school of origin with First Student bussing company when necessary. This comprehensive approach helps keep youth engaged in school and connected to resources, while empowering parents to work toward their personal goals, gaining stability and self-sufficiency. I Eligible Target Population: The population served includes children between the ages of 0-21 residing in Ashland and meeting the McKinney-Vento definition of homeless who are eligible for public school enrollment. Homeless is defined by the McKinney-Vento Act as "any student who lacks a regular, fixed night time residence." This includes couch surfing, doubled-up, living in weekly rate motels, shelters, parks, streets, and ,campgrounds, or in substandard blight conditions. Children may be unaccompanied or with their parents/guardians. Maslow Project also offers school-based services for youth in Rogue River and Medford, as well as a drop-in resource center in Medford. Youth in the outlying Jackson County regions are offered services through the Jackson County McKinney Vento Consortia, which Maslow Project leads. Homeless youth are identified in several ways: at point of enrollment in school, by school staff throughout the school year, self-referral to the Maslow Project resource center, by Maslow Project outreach staff, and through partnering agency referrals. Maslow Project practices a "No Wrong Door Policy,"and people not 3 i meeting the criteria for Maslow Project services will be referred to a more suitable service provider. 5 WORK PROGRAM & TIMELINE Maslow Project partnered with Ashland School District in February 2012 to provide school-based services for homeless youth in Ashland. Maslow Project hired a Case Manager at that time. Services are currently being provided in Ashland on a limited basis. The project outlined in this application will be conducted from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Please see attached project schedule (Form A). 6 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Payroll is based on one Case Manager compensated at$13.50/hour for 24 hours per week x 52 weeks. Payroll tax and benefits are 22% combined. These costs are based on actual payroll reports. Payroll costs are based on agency salary schedules and assume a 2.5% increase each year due to benefit cost increases and pay raises. Overhead and indirect costs are at 10%, which is consistent with the overall agency budget. The client assistance funds will be used solely for direct supplies and materials to clients. That cost is based on funds awarded for this purpose. Rent costs are fixed for the duration of a five year lease with Medford School District. The lease expires or may be renewed in August 2016. Utility costs are based on actual usage and assume a standard rate increase per year. Additional overhead costs including professional services (bookkeeping) and insurance assume a minimal annual rate increase. Materials assume a minimal increase proportionate to overall agency budget increases. 7 ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING The proposed activities will include the follow activities: • Client Services a. The proposed project is within the Ashland City Limits, and will take place at the Ashland public schools. b. Clients are classified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. c. Maslow Project has secured funding for the project from the following sources: Title X Education Funds $2,000 Anonymous Donor $13,000 d. This is a social service application; sections "d'-"i" are not applicable. 4 8 AGENCY'S MISSION AND SERVICE HISTORY Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Maslow Project was founded in 2007 in response to the growing critical needs of homeless youth in Medford, Oregon and received 501(c)3 not-for-profit status in 2009. ' Maslow Project evolved out of the federally-mandated McKinney-Vento Act, which requires all school districts to ensure homeless youth have barrier-free school enrollment, transportation to school, and access to their school of origin regardless of current residence. As the District-appointed McKinney Liaison since 2000, Mary Ferrell founded Maslow Project, leveraging federal education resources to expand funding and services for this vulnerable population's growing needs. Now serving as the Executive Director of Maslow Project, Mary continues to be the Medford District Liaison and has expanded Maslow Project services to provide a wrap-around integrated support model for homeless youth including basic needs, case management, positive youth development and support services. Maslow Project leads the Jackson County McKinney-Vento consortia project, helping to establish resources and services for homeless youth and families throughout the county. 9 SELF-SUFFICIENCY Maslow Project's mission to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life is based on the concept of promoting self-sufficiency amongst homeless youth. Homeless children face many obstacles to success, from access to health care to educational achievement. Nationally, homeless youth score 16% lower in reading and math proficiency than their housed peers. Homeless children have a higher rate of moderate to severe health conditions than middle-class peers, and the rate of emotional disturbances in homeless youth is double that experienced by their middle-class peers (National Center on Family Homelessness, 2009). These barriers combine to create a population that struggles to become self- sufficient. Maslow Project addresses both basic needs and wrap-around case management to ensure a comprehensive response to the systemic challenges associated with youth homelessness. Once these challenges are addressed, youth have the ability to focus on their long-term success and self-sufficiency, rather than focusing on the immediate, short-term basic needs and safety requirements. 5 10 BENEFITS TO LOW-INCOME & SPECIAL NEEDS INDIVIDUALS The population served includes children between the ages of 0-21 residing in Ashland and meeting the Federal Education McKinney-Vento definition of homeless who are eligible for school enrollment. In the 2010-2011 school year, Ashland School District reported 99 enrolled homeless youth, although we believe there are likely many additional students who have not yet been identified as homeless. During the first year of the program, we anticipate serving the 99 unduplicated youth already recognized as homeless. As we improve the identification of homeless youth within the Ashland school system, we anticipate the number of youth served by Maslow Project will increase, as follows: School Year Estimated Youth Served 2012-2013 99 2013-2014 125 2014-2015 150 All youth in this population are presumed by HUD to be low or moderate income. In our experience, more than 95% of homeless youth and families we serve fall within the "extremely low income"category, at 30%or less of the Area Median Income. The youth served will benefit from the following services: • Provision of basic needs (food, clothing, hygiene supplies, etc) • Intensive case management • School-based McKinney-Vento services • Enrichment opportunities • Mental health counseling 11 BENEFIT TO EXTREMELY-LOW, LOW- & MODERATE-INCOME Youth must be identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento definition of homeless. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. Enrolled homeless youth who qualify for services will be able to access services regardless of the number of qualifying moderate- income individuals. There will be no effect on the benefit provided to low- and extremely low-income individuals due to the services provided to moderate- income individuals. 12 DEMOLITION OF LOW-AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING This is a social service application; section is not applicable. 13 PROJECT FEASIBILITY Maslow Project has administered a Community Development Block Grant from the City of Medford for the past four years, and has the administrative capacity and qualifications to complete this proposed project serving homeless youth. 6 i i I � I Executive Director Mary Ferrell has directed programs to homeless youth in Medford for the past 13 years and founded Maslow Project in 2009 based on her work and experience. Key personnel include highly qualified case managers, all with Bachelor degrees and extensive training in best practices for working with this vulnerable population. They attend annual conferences and hold trainings locally for other service agencies. A Master's level Mental Health Counselor and Art Therapist operates under the clinical supervision of Phoenix Counseling Center. In the coming year, she will also serve as the Supervisor of Direct Services, overseeing case management and ensuring goals, objectives, and outcomes.are being met. Our Project Coordinator is a degreed professional trained in grant writing and fund development. Both the Executive Director and Project Coordinator attend numerous trainings on nonprofit development. Executive Director Mary Ferrell serves on the Board of Rogue Valley Development Professionals (RVDP) and is an American Leadership Forum senior fellow. Maslow serves as a model for other communities, heading the Jackson County McKinney-Vento Consortia project and providing consultation for programs across the nation, including the Gates Foundation. The National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth (NAEHCY) recognized Maslow Project as the "Outstanding School-Based Educational Program Providing Services to Students in Homeless Situations." The community of Ashland has shown a great deal of interest in this project, with $13,000 in private donations already secured. An additional $2,000 in Title X funds have been secured through the Ashland School District. This is a social service application; there are no applicable land use or property issues. 14 IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES This is a social service application. Project will not have any impact on historic or i architecturally significant properties or on the environment. I 15 OTHER MATERIAL Please find a letter of support from Ashland School District, Maslow Project's most recent newsletter, and an agency brochure attached. 16 CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST & OTHER FORMS CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B, & C. 7 CITY OF ASHLAND 2012 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of.Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. ApplicanCs Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant.made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? I I I I C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over$2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded grants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Pro ert Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 9 I I Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Hire of Case Manager February 2012 February 2012 Identify clients and establish February 2012 June 2012 program at Ashland School District Implement School-Based July 1, 2012 June 30, 2013 Services Collect outcome data and June 2013 submit final reports 10 I Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $3,500 $0 $3,500 Wages (of personal $20,554 $10,000 $10,554 providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies $391 $0 $391 Marketing/Outreach $0 $0 $0 Program Administration $2,055 CDBG Funds $2,055 Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program(accounting,management, available for grant administration)but that does program not provide direct benerds to the client. . administration Total Project Cost 26,500 $10,000 16,500 II I i i Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants 2,000 12/2011 State Grants Local Grants 10,000 04/2012 Non Governmental 1,500 0512012 Grants Donations/Gifts 13,000 1212011 Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL 15,000 11,500 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Maslow Project secured an Individual donation of$13,000 and Ashland School District Title X funds of$2,000 in December, 2011. Maslow Project applied for$1,500 in Community 101 funding from Ashland High School and$10,000 in funding from City of Ashland CDBG in Feburary, 2012. We will be notified of funding decision in May and April, respectively. 12 I i i Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Maslow Project Organization is: 1. Corporation () 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each"employee"of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned"organization"or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department n/a 2. State the name(s)of any current or prior elected or appointed'official',of the City of Ashland having a potential"financial interest" in the organization or project. Namerritle . n/a • I i 3. Provide the names of each"board member'of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee(may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1. Sharilyn Cano, Board President, Executive and Advancement Committees 2. Royal Standley, Vice President, Advancement Committee 3. Roger Stokes, Treasurer, Executive and Finance Committees 4. Paul Robinson, Executive Committee 5. Jamie Hazlett, Advancement Committee 6. Mike Budreau, Program Committee If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. j 13 i I PROJECTI A Hand Up,Not a Handoutl MASLOW PROJECT Board of Directors List Sharilyn Cano, Board President Paul Robinson,Secretary Human Resources Director,Southern Retired non-profit and pastor Oregon Child&Family Council Executive Committee Executive and Advancement Committee 11 North Keeneway Drive 2080 Martin Dr. Medford,OR 97504 Medford,OR 97501 (541) 840-5640 cell (541) 734-5460 work robinsonpaul22730yahoo com (541) 951-0530 cell sharilyn.cano(@socfc.org Jamie L. Hazlett Attorney at Law Royal Standley,Vice President Advancement Committee Financial Planner,Oregon Pacific Event Planner Financial Advisors,Inc 910 E. Main Street Advancement Committee Medford, OR 97504 210 W. 8th Street (541) 773-3619 work Medford, OR 97501 (541) 326-1097 cell (541) 772-1116 work iamiehaziettesgOgmail.com (541) 531-1138 cell rstandley0o fn axom Mike Budreau Detective Sergeant,Medford Police Roger Stokes,Treasurer Department Retired business owner Program Committee Executive and Finance Committee PO Box 731 314 Medford Heights Lane Medford,97501 Medford, OR 97504 (541) 774-2212 work (541) 773-9878 home (541) 261-8833 cell (541) 944-4678 cell mike.budreau@dtyofinedford.org rwstokes0clearwire.net I Updated: 1-3-2012 500 Monroe Street,Medford,Oregon 97501 541-608-6868 i i ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS JULI DI CHIRO BOARD OF DIRECTORS Superintendent I RUTH ALEXANDER JILLTURNER CAROL DAVIS Business Manager KEITH MASSIE JOHN WILLIAMS - SAMUEL BOGDANOVE EVA SKURATOWICZ Director of Student Services Inspiring Learning for Llfe February 21, 2012 To the City of Ashland Community Block Grant Devepment Connnittee, This letter is to share our support for the Maslow Project as Community Block Grant recipient. The Ashland School District has a long standing relationship with the Maslow Project and we rely on them for information and resources to serve the growing number of homeless youth and families in our schools. This year,we expanded our relationship through private funding to provide a pall-time Maslow case worker directly serving students and families in our district and community. We anticipate that this partnership will continue to grow and provide outreach for our neediest students in a manner we could not offer without the Maslow Project. I know the Maslow Project to be an organization with a clear vision staffed by individuals with a high level of integrity and passion for serving youth. The Maslow Project has made a significant contribution to the lives of many youth and in so doing,the entire Rogue community over the last several years. Their continued,operation and expansion will make a critical contribution to the quality of our community and the youth that are part of it. Over the last several years,we have seen an increase in the number of homeless students and a sharp rise in the level of need as our economy has struggled. Our relationship with Maslow has been invaluable as we work to j address the needs. I strongly encourage your support for the Maslow Project. Thank you for your help and consideration in serving the needs of Ashland's homeless students. Sincerely, i i uel Bogd nov Director of S d t Services ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 885 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 541-482-2811 FAX 541-482-2185 i MASLOW ATTACHMENT—CDBG IMPACT STATEMENT Maslow Project is requesting$10,000 from the City of Ashland Community Development Block Grant to expand the hours of services we are currently providing to the Ashland School District serving homeless students with basic needs and support services. The expanded hours would provide the following: • Maslow Project case manager will have an additional 8-hour day(from the current 2 days/wk to 3 days/wk)stationed at Ashland High School to help identify and meet the needs of homeless students K-12. • An additional 26 youth served (youth defined as either enrolled or eligible for public school K- 12)with basic needs,advocacy,outreach and wrap-around case management. • Additional time to network in the community and help build community support for Ashland homeless youth(clothes drives,school supply drives,referral networks,etc.) The impact of this project is to help ensure that every homeless youth enrolled in the Ashland School District has the support and resources(both basic needs and support services)to remain in school, increase the potential of graduation and build self-sufficiency skills. Our motto is a hand-up not a handout,we strive to give homeless youth the tools and life skills necessary to reach their full potential. I I a�s� VINC, ROGUE VALLEY DISTRICT COUNCIL ti n SOCIETY OF ST. VINCENT DE PAUL U a P.O. BOX 1663 • 2424 N. PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 ?1P1 ^c PHONE: (541)772-3828 • FAX: (541) 772-6886 • E-MAIL: vincent @mind.net U.S.N. Feb. 15, 2012 Ms. Linda Reid, Housing Specialist City of Ashland, Dept. of Community Development 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Linda: Attached are 14 copies of St. Vincent de Paul's 2012 CDBG application. Attachments include Board of Directors, IRS 501 (c)(3)notification and three letters of endorsement. If you have any questions, please contact me at (541)770-6062. Thank you. Sincerely, Rich Hansen Foundation/Government Liaison RECEIVED FE44 5; iof City of Ashland Field Office County CITY OF ASHLAND 2012 Program Year Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: _Rogue Valley District Council of SC Vincent de Paul_ Executive Director's Name(s):_Dennis Mihocko Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) See attached Applicant Mailing Address: P.O.Box 1663,Medford,OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: 2424 N. Pacific Highway,Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: _501 (c) (3) Federal Tax ID#: 93-0831082 Mission Statement: The Rogue Valley District Council of St. Vincent de Paul is dedicated to providing compassionate support and care to the poor and needy in Jackson County, regardless of race, religion, creed, sexual preferences or ethnic origin. Although the Society's name is recognized around the world, each council is locally organized, funded and staffed. Our council has no financial connection or obligation to any church and no effort is made to preach, convert or proselytize. St. Vincent's was founded over 100 years ago by a group of Catholic laymen in Paris and we are often thought of as a Catholic organization. While we come from this Catholic tradition, we are not part of the Catholic Church. We have received funding and in-kind support from several different denominations and have volunteers from many faiths. Our Council was established in 1982 and provides a 48-bed emergency shelter, hot lunches six days a week, free groceries, social services,(counseling, rent, utility and prescription drug relief payments, help to obtain legal IDs, clothing, home furnishings, camping equipment, etc.) thrift store and warehouse, school supplies, emergency dental care, health screening, hot t I showers, laundry, hair cuts and other services. We have no paid employees and rely on 275+ volunteers to provide all our services, saving $500,000- 900,000 annually. Therefore, we can assure the City of Ashland that none of its CDBG funds will be used to pay employee salaries or benefits. All funds will be used to help avoid the growth of homelessness or to assist homeless families to achieve housing and self-sufficiency. Total Employees: Zero Total Volunteers:_275+ II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Rich Hansen Title: Foundation Liaison Phone Number: _(541) 770-6062 Fax Number: _(541) 770-6062 E-mail Address: _dchhansen39 @charter.net 111. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Decreasing Homelessness in Ashland With Fewer Rental Evictions. Expected Completion Date: Ongoing, Fiscal Year Oct. 1 — Sept. 30 Requested CDBG Funds: $_24,000 Organizational Match: $_60,000 Funds from Other Sources: $_41,000 Total Project Cost: $ 125,000 i 2 I IV. Project Description St. Vincent's has sponsored an Ashland Home Visit conference for nearly 30 years. We call on families at times of financial crisis to address their immediate problems. In many cases,the primary objective is to avoid homelessness by helping clients in danger of losing their homes. We also help with utility bills, prescription drug costs, food, clothing, transportation and other personal needs. CDBG funds are used to expand rental assistance and ongoing client support toward self-sufficiency for Ashland residents. HUD guidelines give us the flexibility to offer up to three months of assistance with rent and/or deposits. I • Our team of a dozen volunteers responds to calls for help on St. Vincent's Ashland phone line. The families we call on are referred to us by area churches, other non-profit and government agencies. We go to clients' homes, campsites or other locations and listen to their stories of financial crisis, observing their living conditions, counseling them on how we and other groups can help them, encouraging them on ways to find permanent jobs and helping them transition from welfare to work. We ask for proof of income:jobs, child support, public assistance, unemployment,workers comp, medical coverage,food stamps, Social Security, disability, etc. One hundred percent of our clients are at or below the federal low-and moderate-income poverty levels, as defined for family size. We do not offer clients direct cash help, but intervene with landlords, utilities, pharmacies, etc. to discuss payments. When appropriate, we will also refer clients to other agencies who might help them, including ACCESS,The Salvation Army,United Way, the Job Council,HELP NOW Advocacy Center, Oregon Dept. of Vocational Rehabilitation and the Oregon Dept. of Human Services. In addition, St. Vincent's participates in Ashland's Homeless Taskforce. In recent years our area has seen a significant growth in community outreach programs to provide meals, shelter, food, heat assistance and other services to the area's growing needy population. In 2009,before St. Vincent's received its first Ashland-based CDBG grant,our total annual budget for the area was$68,000 and we spent$25,000 on rental assistance. With these vital CBDG grant monies, our overall budget last year increased to$120,000. We spent over$60,000 for rental assistance--$30,000 from CDBG funds and $30,566 from our funds. We are budgeting$35,000 for rental assistance in the coming year and hope to match it with your$24,000 grant. Direct support from St. Vincent's has also grown steadily, starting at$24,000 in 2009, increasing to$51,500 last year and currently budgeted for$60,000 this coning year. This overall budget growth is partially in response to the prolonged stagnant economy and the growing calls for help. It is also due to the stimulus received from prior CDBG funds and our efforts to more effectively leverage these funds, and allow us to double our funds and efforts. I We operate in teams of two and respond to calls throughout Southern Jackson County. Sixty percent of our clients are Ashland residents and CDBG funds are only spent for Ashland residents. We firmly believe the joint Ashland/St. Vincent's rental assistance program has been highly effective in reducing the growth of homelessness or j moving families out of homelessness. Last year,we helped 172 households or about 415 people stay in their homes. Of these, 36 households and 87 people were helped directly by the CDBG grant. With three of these families, we actually were able to move them out of homelessness) We are very proud of this and expect this number to grow in the future. We could not have accomplished this without your block grant. Generally, St. Vincent's will only assist a family once a year with an average of$225 per household for rental assistance. We can go up to$300 for a family of three or more once a year. HUD guidelines for CDBG funds encourage us to help families for up to three months with deposits and rental assistance. Therefore,we average about$833 per household with these funds, which definitely help families in financial distress to move towards self sufficiency. The intimate nature of our Home Visit program allows our volunteers to work with clients over an extended period. That time is especially important in moving families out of homelessness. Without the specifically earmarked funds provided through the Ashland CDBG grant,these families would not be served. V. How Program Fits National and Local Priorities One hundred percent of our clients are at or below the poverty level, as defined by HUD. Our CDBG program's goal is to slow or stop the growth of homelessness in Ashland. Thus, we meet the National Objective of"Primarily benefit low and moderate income persons." Similarly,we meet Ashland's Homeless Goal#6 to provide"Support services for homeless prevention and transition." HUD/CDBG statute 24 CFR 570.201(e)lists"Public Service Rent Subsidies" as an"eligible" activity. Our Home Visit teams often remain in contact with a client over an extended period to work with them to help them over their financial difficulties and transition to self-sufficiency. In 2012-13, we hope to keep 155 families from becoming homeless and get them back on their feet. The Ashland CDBG funds would enable us to help another 30 families and move some of them out of homelessness into a permanent residence. The 2011 Jackson County Point-in-Time Homeless Survey estimates there are over 1,000 people in Jackson County without homes, up significantly since 2009. A third of these individuals are children. There is evidence that the total number of homeless may actually be double these reported totals. The survey lists"lack of money to pay rent"as a primary cause of homelessness. Dealing with this growing homeless population has become a key focus issue in Ashland. St. Vincent's rental assistance program is designed specifically to help alleviate this problem. . We have a 30-year track record of working with the needy in the area and hope to continue this work for many years to come. The City of Ashland has enabled St. Vincent's to significantly increase its outreach and we hope this partnership can continue. We provide 700/9 of the total project costs in matching funds and use an all-volunteer staff to provide our services. Therefore,we believe St. Vincent's presents the City of Ashland with an outstanding way to leverage its limited funds to aid the needy. t CITY OF ASHLAND 2012 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and Include It as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No NIA 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of government? X 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? I i i I • C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please s eci . 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X j round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No NIA 1. Does the project involve construction over$2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over$18,703 in City X awarded grants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No NIA 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes I No NIA 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? i I Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals I Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Provide Rental Assistance Ongoing Ongoing Apply for US Bank, Pacific March, 2012 April, 2012 Power, Avista Foundation furiding Recruit new volunteers Ongoing Ongoing Social services providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects(IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, Initiation of direct client services, etc) Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $112,500 $24,000 $88,500 Wages (of personal 0 0 0 providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies 11000 0 1,000 Marketing/Outreach 0 0 0 Program Administration 0 CDBG Funds 0 Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to adMnlaler the program(accounting,management, available for grant administration)but that does program not provide direct benefits to the - client. administration Total Project Cost $113,500 $24,000 $89,500 I I i Form C SOURCE(S)OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants $24,000 May, 2012 State Grants Local Grants $5,000 Non Governmental 500 2,500 Aug. 2012 Grants Donations/Gifts 33,000 Ongoing Applicant 60,000 Contribution Program Income Loans Other(specify) Other (specify) TOTAL $65,500 $59,500 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. U.S. Bank($2,500) Application will be submitted by March, 2012. Will also apply to Pacific Power and Avista Foundations but not yet certain if we will be successful. CDBG ($24,000) Application submitted Feb. 15,2012 Donations&Fundraising($33,000) Ongoing with totals based on historical averages " i Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: _Rogue Valley District Council, St. Vincent de Paul — Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 ( X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each"employee"of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest In the above mentioned"organization"or project proposed. Name, Job Idle and City Department NONE 2. State the name(s)of any current or prior elected or appointed"official",of the City of Ashland having a potential"financial Interest"In the organization or project. Namernile NONE 3. Provide the names of each"board member"of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board,Commission,or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) (see attached) i If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. I Cr. Society of St. Vincent de Paul C Rogue Valley District Council Directors a.. Posibon Name Address Phone President Dennis 47 Pebble Creek Dr., Eagle c541-531-3832 Mlhocko Point 97524 In 541-82135953 ret.Fire Captain -1 Past President Len Hebert 570 Coachman Dr., h 541-89"511 Jacksonville 97530 c 541-944-6950 ret. Bus Exec/Educator VP-Special Patrick Wilson 1520 Wagon Trall Dr., h 541-8998103 Projects Jacksonville 97530 c 541-8905402 Exec Development Consult VP-Operations AI Zon 903 Gilman Rd.,Medford h 541-770-9461 7". 97504 ret Educator VP-Community Tedde Ridley 567 Brandon St,Central h 541-8645800 Outreach Point 97602 c 541-324-4334 Educ Adminlrescher VPSpirduality Dave Moosman 2444 Upper Applegate Rd., h 541-8998331 _.. 16� Jacksonville 97530 c 541-944-4941 rat Physician VP-Finance Mario La Prove 3554 Michael Park Dr., h 541-245-9550 _ 14 Medford 97504 ret CPA Treasurer Jim Van Orsow 880 Bybee Dr.,Jacksonville h 641-899-9909 97530 c 541-261-8432 ret. Business Exec 7 secretery Nancy Hunt 1898 Bristol Dr.,Medford h 541-857-4987 n 97604 Ret. Librarian T Store Manager Karen McNellly 55 Kellogg h541-855-2008 /0 Gold Hill,Or 97525 Marketing Exec Volunteer Dee Stormberg 6068 Foothills Rd.,Central h 541-8264752 stormly@juno.com a Coordinator Point 97502 c 541-941-0475 ret.Nurse Conference Officers Phone E-mail Address Social Services Socorro Holloway,President 641-7768413 C� Sacred Heart,Conference 1 1898 Filmore Dr Medford 97504 ret Banker Thrift Store John Hoffman,President ashlandrQmsn.com BI.Anna Maria, Conference 2 39 S Berkeley Way, Medford,Or 541-324-6206 Land Investor a 97504 Kitchen Ed Hernandez, President 541-324-3213 . 41-3243213 ` I. ., St.Teresa, Conference 3 900 Slsklyou Blvd#B1 Pharmaceuticals Medford 97504 School Supplies Bob Christian,President c 541-821-7893 Rat.Pharmacist dJ St.Francis,Conference 4 3960 Independence School Rd Medford 97501 Office Irene Vaughn,President h 541-6642517 Rot. Nursingleducator SL Anna Conference 5 558 Brandon Central Point 97502 c 541540.2552 Ashland Social Services Chid Cutting,President h 641-482-3675 Our Lady of the Mountain, 1447 E Main St c 541-973-5052 Oflica Clerk Conference Ashland 97520 Food Pantry Charlie Burgess, President h 541-773-3804,c 541- Lumberman Shepherd of the Valley, 2111 Kings Hwy 631-9002 Conference 7 Medford 97501 Shelter Al Zon,President h 541-770.9461 Rat,Educator Z St.Anthony, Conference 8 903 Gilman Rd.,Medford 97504 h 541-8303037 Home VIsIUMed Assist Chris Forsythe,President h 541-732-0868,c 541- Menial corn yth McMel Health Counselor U St.Augustine,Conference 9 . 3908 Bridgeport Dr Medford 97504 2824575 7 1/2/2012 I i Internal*Revenue Service. Department of the Treasury - District Director P 0 Box 2350 Room 5137 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Employer IdentiAlsation Numbers Date: DEC. 15, 1986 Case Nu 08era 93-oB3la8 9563023 SOCIETY OF ST VINCENT DE PAUL Contact Persona ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL KORELL, ANTOINETTE PO BOX 1663 Contact Telephone.Number: MEDFORD, OR 97501 (213) 894-4405 Our Letter Hated: Aug. 299 1964 Caveat Applies: no Dear Applicants This modifies our letter of the above date in•which we stated.that you would be treated as an organization which (s not a prIvate`fouhdatldn u_ntII the expiration of your advance ruling period. Based on the information you submitted, we.have 4etermins4-that yob,are not a private foundation within the meaning of section.-5$9ta) 'a)$'tfii3-ltiternai Revenue Code, because you are an organization of th�' tyibe`desec14h7 Yii°§sZ> lon 509(x) (1) and 170(b) (1) (A) (vi). -Your exempt stat s under`se o 5 12 'TT3T"A L the code is still in effect. & _ Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unit-C-the Internal Revenue Service publishes- a notice to-trip contrmry.""'NoNevA's, a grantor or a contributor may not rely on this dstbriihaCion I hh`:or. she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the att or fa'i'lure to 'act'`that: resulted in your loss of section 509(a) (1) statud, or acqui'-cf.khohrl'9dge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice t6t"jrbu'woiil.d iie-removed from classification as a section 509(a) (1) organization. ' Because this letter could help resolve any questions-spout your private foundation status, please keep It In your permiAent `re "cbl`ds: If the heading. of this letter indicates theft a caveat applies, the caveat below or on the enclosure is an integral part of this .letter. =- If you have any questions, please contact the.person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, / v Frederick C. Nieledh District Dlrecibr j Letter' jP9.(CG) I �,f".��,..1 First Congregational f 7n and, OR Blvd. United Church of Christ �F Ashland, 9897520 Ashland ucc@opendoor.biz 4" uccC�opendoor.biz d Rev. Pamela Shepherd, Minister January 18, 2012 Dear Ashland City Council, I am writing a letter of support for the St.Vincent dePaul's CDBG application for funding for services for the homeless and for homelessness prevention. They have a history of helping arrange rent and utility support for low-income people in Ashland. Their all-volunteer efforts in their Home Visit program are direct and effective in helping those in need to reestablish self-sufficiency. They provide skilled advice and support to those they serve. As pastor of the United Church of Christ, I am also excited to see a coordinated approach that will add services for our neediest population. The creation of a "Special Needs Fund" that Is flexible for referrals may help create the foundation for larger community projects In the future and the local St.Vincent's is an ideal site for such funding. Sincerely, Rev. Pamela Shepherd Pastor, United Church of Christ 717 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland,OR 97520 I Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church 987 Hillview Drive Ashland,OR 97520-3521 (541)482-1146 Fax: (541)4885174 Email:olmon @mind.net I February 3, 2012 Ms. Linda Reed Housing Program Specialist City of Ashland ' Department of Community Development 20 E, Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 I Dear Ms. Reed: This letter is to acknowledge that Our Lady of the Mountain Catholic Church continues its support of the St. Vincent de Paul Ashland/Talent Home Visitation program in its outreach to the poor and needy in our area. We would strongly encourage the City of Ashland to continue lending them financial support in whatever way possible. If you need further endorsement from me or any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact our parish office at 541-482-1146,ext. 0. Respectfully, 4, Rev, can Weeks, Pastor A l / Community HEALTH CENTER ; February 15,2012 ATTN: Members Ashland Housing Commission 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 RE: St.Vincent De Paul CDBG Application Dear Members: It has been said and proven to be repeatedly true that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of treatment. This refrain came quickly to mind in speaking with the volunteers from St. Vincent de Paul regarding their plans to apply for a social services grant through the Ashland City CDBG process. Over the past 25 years, Community Health Center has worked diligently with a variety of community partners in Ashland and Medford with the single goal of preventing homelessness. Our staff has seen a variety of ideas come and go based on varying degree of success, changes In public policy and funding streams. Without question, one of the most successful of the interventions has been St. Vincent de Paul's Ashland program to reduce and prevent homelessness, thus It is that I write this letter of support requesting that the City of Ashland continue its support for the St. Vincent de Paul's program through approval of a 2013 CDBG grant. In thanking you for the sagacious consideration I know St Vincent de Paul's request will receive, I remain, Very Truly Yours, Peg Crowley, MPHyitN Executive Director 99 Central Avenue 19 Myrtle Street 8385 Division Road Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 White City, OR 97503 Appointments: 482-9741 Appointments: 773-3863 Appointments: B28-5853 Fax: 488-8141 Fax: 778-2892 Fax: 826-5843 www.communityhealthcenterorg A4lnitedgOyAgency I i I GENE FEB 14 2012 City ofAshlarrd rield Qftice Ciollniy CITY OF ASIILAND 2012 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)Application These completed Sheets shall he included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Organization Name: Living Opportunities, hic. Executive Director's Name: Roger Hassenpflug Board Member Names: See Allachment #1 Applicant Mailing Address:PO Box 1 105 Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: Administrative Offices: 861 Valley View Dr. Medford, OR 97501 Ashland Office: 747 Normal Ave, Ashland, OR 97520 IRS Classification: 501(c) 3 Federal Tax ID#: 93-0640525 Mission Statement: For people with developmental disabilities to work for the same - emplt yers, live in the same neighborhoods and have the same e.yeriences evegone aspires to in our community. Total Employees: 140 Total Volunteers: 92 IL CON TACT PERSON - Name: Jim Gochenour Title: Development Director Phone Number: 541.772.1503 Fax Number: 541.772.41 16 E-mail Address: gC��livin pps_u 111. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name o•'Title: ACES (Ashland Community Employment Services) Remodel Expected Completion Date: April 15"i, 2013 Requested CDBG Funds: $20,000 Organizational Match: $20,000 Funds from Other Sources: n/a Total Project Cost: $40,000 llnu 1 of'20 I 2)A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives Living Opportunities, Inc. is a private, nonprofit organization governed by a Board of Directors comprised of volunteers. It was founded in 1974 for the exclusive charitable purpose of supporting people with developmental disabilities and assisting them in their aspirations to live in the sane neighborhoods, work for the same companies, and engage in the same activities as other individuals in our community. To fulfill this founding mission, Living Opportunities provides a wide array of individualized supports to more than 300 individuals falling into five categories: (1) 24-hour assisted living; (2) semi-independent supported living; (3) employment services; (4) leisure activities; and, (5) behavioral consultation for families. Although historically restricted to Jackson County, Oregon, Living Opportunities has expanded to provide consultation services statewide. The project addresses the underlying need for renovations to Living Opportunities' ACES (Ashland Community Employment Services) building. Living Opportunities has been housed in the building, located at 747 Normal Avenue, since 1986, and has owned the title outright since 1993. At the time that ACES was first opened, it was designed as support services to Living Opportunities' main offices in Medford, and served very few individuals. Nonetheless, today, the agency utilizes ACES as its `home-base' for all employment and leisure activities to Ashland individuals. Due to the increase in traffic over the years, there is significant wear to the building, and renovations are necessary. The project will be completed in three phases: phases one and two were completed in 2008 and 2009 respectively. Phase one was the installation of a new roof, including patching and repaving the current understructure, for $15,500; phase two included rewiring the buildings existing electrical and overlaying the ceiling with drywall to accommodate new lighting, for$13,581.23. Living Opportunities covered the cost of phase one and two without outside funding sources. Phase three's objectives are straightforward: To complete, within budgetary parameters, and in a timely manner, the following renovations to the ACES building: 1. Develop office space in an open area by installing interior walls, including windows to allow visual access for staff to the main room; 2. Add a changing room, including plumbing for shower usage; 3. Update plumbing in kitchen to include dishwasher and move sink (includes cutting concrete& concrete repair); 4. Add electrical wiring to the newly installed walls; 5. Install a new heating and air system with spiral pipe ducting; 6. Complete sheet rock & finish walls in new office space; 7. Install countertops in the kitchen and in an office for use as desk space. 3) Property and Project Information relating to acquisition, rehabilitation, site clearance, and development (section not applicable for social service applications involving direct services to qualified low- or extremely low- income persons). Page 2 of 20 i Not applicable-social service application. 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). The Living Opportunities' Ashland Community Employment Services (ACES) building houses both employment services, the main goal of which is to support 11* Living Opportunities' Ashland individuals with developmental disabilities in jobs within Ashland businesses, and Out and About services, which provides social activities to 22 Living Opportunities' Ashland individuals with developmental disabilities. All individuals served at ACES are developmentally disabled, fall under the 'special needs' specifications, and are low-income. *This number is also counted under the 22 Out and About individuals served 5)A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached Form A -Project Schedule). Form A -Project Schedule Activity" Start Date Completion Date Contractor Bid 2/1/12 3/1/12 Secure Funding 1/1/12 7/1/12 Contract with Contractor 7/1/12 7/1/12 Interior Construction 8/1/12 10/1/12 Plumbing/Electrical 10/1/12. 11/15/12 Heating 11/15/12 12/15/12 Windows and Doors Install 1 12/15/12 1/30/13 6) Financial Information: A budget describing total cost, cost per task, existing (secured) project funds and unfunded costs. Identify any and all source(s) of funding. This would include other Federal and State grants and loans, monetary donations, in-kind contributions, volunteer labor, donation of materials and supplies, etc. In addition to addressing the questions below please complete attached Form B - Uses of Funding & Form C -Sources of Funding. Provide a detailed financial description of the proposed project, including Rent Schedule, Sources/Uses of Funding and Operating Budget Income/Expense,and utility allowances. The project budget appears as Attachment#3. No rent schedule is necessary. a) Describe the assumptions used to determine4he total project cost. Indicate the sources consulted and how costs were determined. Total costs were projected utilizing contractor bids for the remodel. Page 3 of 20 b) Was consideration given to remaining economic life of the property and potential cost increases such as unanticipated repair or relocation costs? Maintenance costs? Operating costs? The property does not produce intone, as it is not a residential or office complex where rent is required. Therefore, there is no 'economic life' of the property. Consideration for the remodel was given to unanticipated repairs and maintenance costs, as well as to operating costs. Living Opportunities will ensure that all associated costs are covered. c) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating budget. Include projected rent increases,other sources of income for operation and maintenance expenses, and inflationary factors. For social service award requests please include financial assumptions relating to increases in wages, materials and overhead, or other costs associated with the proposed activity. Living Opportunities was established in Ashland in 1983. For the last 29 years, the agency has been able to sustain the costs of its Ashland-based programs and services. Budget assumptions are based on the agency's historical budgeting process, with adjustments made for potential decreases in government financial participation. (1) Discuss non-typical expenses or those outside industry standards. Not applicable. e)Attach letters of funding commitment from other sources,if available. Not applicable. f) Will a property tax exemption be requested for the project? If so, what is the estimated dollar value of the tax exemption over the twenty-year period? Please briefly detail the calculation method used to estimate the value and the process your organization would undertake to obtain the exemptions or appraised value adjustment. Living Opportunities' ACES property is currently tax-exempt and is not assessed any property taxes by the Jackson County Tax Assessor's Office. I 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project? • Property Acquisition : No • New Construction (non-residential) : No • Removal of Architectural Barriers : No • Rehabilitation Costs ; Yes Development Costs : No • Client Services : No • Specification Preparation (Construction/Rehab) : No Page 4 of 20 i I • Relocation Benefits(if required) : No • Appraisal (for acquisitions) : No General Information a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? Yes. b) Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; state in terms of percentage below area median for the Medford-Ashland standard metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The current income guidelines are included on page 10 above. All individuals served by Living Opportunities meet HUD's CDBG requirements as they are considered extremely-low or low-income persons, with household incomes of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty index. c)Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project. Living Opportunities has committed $20,000 to this project. d) Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished?If so,how many? No. e) Is the proposed housing site located in a 100-year flood plain? Not applicable. f) Has a Level I environmental assessment been done for the site? If yes,attach the report. Not applicable. g)Is the proposed housing site located adjacent to a major arterial road or near a railroad? . Not applicable. h) Is the proposed site located adjacent to an aboveground flammable storage tank? Not applicable. i) Will the proposed project impact historic features? If yes,explain No. Page 5 of 20 8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. Living Opportunities, Me. is a private, nonprofit organization governed by a Board of Directors comprised of volunteers. It was founded in 1974 for the exclusive charitable purpose of supporting people with developmental disabilities and assisting them in their aspirations to live in the same neighborhoods, work for the same companies, and engage in the same activities as other individuals in Jackson County. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low-, moderate-income families,or individuals with special needs? One of Living Opportunities' overarching goals is to assist individuals with developmental disabilities to have access to employment and leisure activities. Therefore, the project, which falls directly within the scope of Living Opportunities' mission, helps promote self-sufficiency for these individuals by providing them the space necessary to learn, grow, and thrive in their community. 10)Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-,low-,and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. The project provides direct benefits to those special needs individuals served by ACES (comprised of persons with developmental disabilities) by renovating the building which acts as their employment and recreational base. Also, all of the individuals served by ACES are considered low income. a) For proposed projects serving a low-income area (i.e. public facility improvements; community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: •Number of extremely low-,low-,and moderate-income individuals served in the project area on an annual basis. 22 •Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis 22 b)For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e, homeless families, battered women,people with AIDS,special needs populations,etc,) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. •Specify the target population to be served. I Page 6 of 20 I Twenty-two (22) people with developmental disabilities will be served through ACES. • Number of low,and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repealed visits or use by the same individuals.) 22 • Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. 22 • Percent low and moderate income. i 100% i I ]l) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. Due to the fact that only people with developmental disabilities are served at ACES, all individuals are extremely-low or low-income individuals, and no moderate-income individuals will be served. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate-income housing to be demolished or converted to another use(see attachment"Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so,explain. No. 13) Project reasibility: Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. Living Opportunities owns the property which the project's proposed renovations are for. Therefore there are no land use issues in place. Living Opportunities has the financial and administrative capacity to take on the renovations proposed, as noted in the project budget. Describe the feasibility of the project: a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and or manage the project proposed? Briefly describe applicants capacity and experience in providing, maintaining and managing housing,particularly low-income housing similar to the proposed project. Living Opport unities has completed one capital construction project and multiple facility acquisition and remodel projects. Each project was completed on time and within established Page 7 of 20 i budgetary parameters. There is no doubt that the agency's management staff are capable of efficiently and effectively administering this renovation project. b)Are the ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve estimates reasonable? Not applicable. c) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property,letter of support from the property owner(s),or some other assurance that the properly is available for acquisition? The facility is owned in fee simple on a debt-free basis by Living Opportunities. d)Does the project require temporary or permanent relocation and if so have comparable units been identified and costs of relocation been accurately determined? Provide a tenant relocation strategy,cost estimate,and existing tenant survey to address federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements which may impact your project. No relocation is required. e) Describe relocation strategy for the project. Not applicable. f)Does the project require land use approvals such as Site Review,Annexation, Zone Change, Minor Land Partition,Demolition,or Conditional Use permits? No. g) Has a pre-application been completed with the Ashland Planning Department? Not applicable. h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is the expected life of the properly? The facility has a usable life expectancy of'a( least 30 years, pending the renovations recommended in this proposal. i) Describe commitment of project funding from other sources Living Opportunities is requesting $20,000 from the.City of Ashland's CDBG Fund in order to complete this renovation. Living Opportunities is providing the remaining $20,000. No other funds are being sought or solicited. 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. All projects will be subjected to i Page 8 of 20 i i I an Environmental Review Report and certain projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. The ACES building is not itself historically or architecturally significant and is not adjacent to any historically or architecturally significant properties. The renovations to the ACES building will be internal, and therefore will have no impact on the surrounding environment. i i Page 9 of 20 I I City of Ashland 2012 Program Year CDBG Application Checklist A.Ap'plicant's Background, : Yes..:'' • No, n/a 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of government? x 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? x 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written x income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial commitment to a proposed project? x 5. is the applicant primarily a religious organization? x 6. llas the applicant administered a CDBG project x previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? x B. Project Location and Land Use Issues ` Yes No ' n/a 1. Has a location for the project been selected? x 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? x 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and land use laws? x 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? x 5. Have these approvals been obtained? x 6. Does the project comply with current building code requirements? x 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility x requirements? C. Environmental Issues Yes No n/a 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? x 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? x 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified on the project site? x 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? x 5. If project involves an existing structure, was it built x, 1965 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. is the proposed project located on a major arterial'or near the railroad? x Page 10 of 20 i 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above ground flammable storage lank? x S. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is 50 years or older? x 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental review upon receiving a CDBG award? x D. Labor:Requirements Yes '' No .l: n/a I. Does the project involve construction over$2,000 in cost? x 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage requirements? x 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? x 4. Does the project involve over$18,703 in City awarded x grants or contracts? i E.`Displacement and Relocation Yes No n/a 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? x 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? x 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? x F. Property Data Yes No n/a 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple title? x 2. Are taxes on the property current? x 3. Is insurance current? x 4. What is the current debt against the property? x 5. What is the current use of the property? Employment Services 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? x Page I 1 of 20 I Form A — Project Schedule Activit Start Date Com letion'I)ate Contractor Bid 2!1/12 3/1/12 s Secure Funding 1/1/12 7/1/12 Contract with Contractor 7/1/12 7/1/12 Interior Construction 8/1/12 10/1/12 Plum bin Electrical 10/1112 11/15/12 Heating 11/15/12 12/15/12 Windows and Doors Install 12/15/12 1/30/13 Page 12 of 20 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals USES OF FUNDING For Facility Rehabilitation (e. . Removal of Architectural Barriers) Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Ac wsntion Costs ..' Land Improvements $40,000 $ 20,000 $20,000 Liens and other Taxes Closing costs Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL $40,000 $ 20,000 $20,000 Development Costs Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges (SDCs) j Relocation Costs Environmental Report/Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report survey Marketing Insurance Other Fees Architectural/Engi neeri ng Legal/Accounting Appraisals Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL ` $40,000 1 $ 20,0001 $20,000 Page 13 of 20 j Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Sources Secured Conditional Pending Commitment (awarded wi th- Date' conditions) Federal Grants State Grants $ 180,571.91 6/30/2011 Local Grants Non-Govemmental $10,570.95 6/30/2011 Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other(United Way) Other(specify) TOTAL $ 191;142.86 a) Describe the assumptions used to determine the total project cost. Indicate the sources consulted and how costs were determined. The total project cost is based on the contractor's bid obtained by Living Opportunities in January, 2011. All personnel costs will remain the same, and the contractor's bid includes the price of labor and supplies/materials. Living Opportunities Maintenance Director, Marty Balzarini, will oversee the renovation construction, and no additional wages will be required for that. b) Was consideration given to remaining economic life of the property and potential cost increases such as unanticipated repair or relocation costs? Maintenance costs? Operating costs? The project's goal is the repair of the current building in order to avoid unanticipated repair and relocation costs in the future. The economic life of the property is expected to be solid, and the likelihood of unanticipated repairs, slim. Page 14 of 20 i i Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Living Opportunities, Inc. Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501C3 (X) 3. Partnership( ) 4. Sole Owner( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary,please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. None. 2. State the name(s)of any current or prior elected or appointed 'official," of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. None. 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board,Commission,or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) Please reference Attachment# I Page 15 of 20 i Attachment# Board of Directors List Attachment# 2 Map showing projects location Attachment# 3 Project Budget Attachment#4 Preliminary Floor Plan I i it I I. i i Page 16 of 20 ,I Attachment # I — Board of Directors John Ferris Chair Jennifer Sieg, Vice-Chair Refired Attorney Marketing Representative, ODS Companies Term of Service.,May 2008-present Term of Service:2010-present 446 Terrace Street 310 Crater Lake Alenue Ste 101 Ashland, OR 97520.3004 Medford, OR 97504 I-Rime: (541)482-2242 Cell:(541)778-3330 Work:(541)324-0903 Email:jfor®jeffnet.org Email: siegj®odscompanies.com Chris Dye, Treasurer Dr.Michael Hall,Secretary Certified Public Accountant Endodonfist Term of Service.,Mamh 2009-present Term of Service:2006-present 2968 Waledy Way 2650 Country Park Lane Medford, OR 97504 Medford,OR 97504-6396 Home: (541)779-1402 Work: (541)772-8666 Home:(541)734-9488 Work:(541)779-3324 Email:ch4s @jdpcpa.com Email:mhall®scepc.com Todd Anderson Marge Bernard Pharmacist, Evergreen Pharmacy Registered Nurse Term of Service: 1992 to present Term of Service:2011-present 603 Seventh Fairway Drive 378 Terrace Street Medford,OR 97504-9320 Ashland,OR 97520 Work: (541)779-5627 x3 Home: (541)779-8236 Home: (541)488-1377 Email: t.k.andersonigq.com Email: margeb@damx.com Les Crecraff Tom Harrison Employee Beneris Consultant,United Risk Solutions Inc. Personal Broker, Oregon Opportunities Term of Service: 1987-present Term of Service.,2012-present 207 Island Point P O Box 1083 Medford,OR 97504.9453 Eagle Point,OR 97524-1083 Home:(541)772-0005 Work:(541)245.1111 Cell:(541)944-3131 Work:(541)826-3000 Email:les.cracrah Ounited4sk.com Email:hardson@orop.com Will Holmbeck Bayles LaVoie . Gospel Mssion Program Manager, Former Darter Golden Spike Pizzeria Retired,Media Sales Term of Service: 1986-present Term of Service:2012-present 544 Fairmont Street 740 Easlddge Drive Medford, OR 97501-2426 Medford,OR 97504-8918 Cell: (541)218-6960 Cell:(541)951.2175 Email: mgmvvill®gmall.com Email:ado_l Ochartecnet Rob King Steve Rinkle Sales Executive, OPUS Broadcasting General Counsel, Pacific Retirement Services, Inc. Term of Service:2010-present Term of Service:2011 -present 511 Rossanley Drive 1200 Mira Mar Avenue Medford, OR 97501 Medford, OR 97504 Work:(541)772-0322 Cell: (541)324-1750 Work:(541)857-7226 Cell: (541)601-6926 Email: rob®opusradio.com Email:srinkle6retiremenl.org Emilie Sampson Program Director, Families for Community Parent of individual Wth disabilities Term of Service:2011-present 1398 Bonita Atenue Medford,OR 97504 Cell:(541)621-1910 Email:emllie®familyslorcommunity.org Page 17 of 20 At(achment 412— flap showing location II DO Page 18 0t'20 Attachment# 3 - Project Budget Revenue: CDBG Grant Funding $20,000 LOI Match $20,000 Total Revenue $40,000 Expenses Plumbing $6,600 Interior Walls $9,400 Counter Tops $2,500 Indoor Windows $1,000 New Interior Doors $500 Additional Electrical $4,500 New Heating System $15,500 Total Project Cost . $40,000 i I i Page 19 of 20 Attachment#4— Preliminary Floor Plans I ( � I I. II I I .' z I}I ' w J. IF 1 f•) I , , I} I I (,} 1 I I l I I hi ' Iii I• VY ��� � ,,, ' F III - I Ili I. I� Page 20 of 20 I ' RECEIVED FEP ? 4 1012 CITY OF ASHLAND City of Ashland 2012 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be Included as the first pages on all submittals. I. APPLICANT INFORMATION i i Applicant Organization Name: Ashland Ememency Food Bank Executive Director's Name(s): Susan Harris, Food Bank Manager Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) (Please see attached Board of Directors List) Applicant Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3578 Ashland, OR 97520 Applicant Street Address: 560 Clover Lane Ashland, OR 97520 IRS Classification: 501 C 3 Federal Tax ID#: 93-1329669 Mission Statement: (may be attached) Through alliance with local faith groups, we provide emergency food supplies, without charge, to individuals and families in the AshlandfTalent area who would otherwise go hungry. Total Employees: One Total Volunteers: 66 per month 16 i II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who Is familiar with the project) Name: Susan Harris Title: Food Bank Manager Phone Number: 541-488-9544 Fax Number: E-mail Address: susan.ashlandemergencyfoodbankogmail com 111. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Food Bank Building Acquisition Expected Completion Date: July 2013 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 130,000 Organizational Match: $ 32.000 Funds from Other Sources: $ 313.000 Total Project Cost: $ $475.000 i 17 I i i �A , li B Ashland Emergency Food Bank P.O. Box 3578 Ashland, OR 97520 February 24, 2012 RE: City of Ashland 2012 CDBG Application. 1) Complete Application Form. The complete Application Form is attached for your review. 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a-list of project objectives. We believe that no one should go hungry and that all should be treated with dignity. Since 1972, AEFB, a food bank and pantry, has distributed food to hungry community members of Ashland and Talent. Each month, on average, we provide over 1,300 children and adults with a three to five-day supply of essential food items. We anticipate nearly 15,000 individuals will seek assistance from us in 2012. We are unique in that we do not offer a box of pre-selected items to those who come through our door. Instead, we allow our clients to "shop"for their food, pushing carts around the pantry shelves as if they're in a grocery store. We also distribute non-perishable food items to several organizations that offer prepared meals, or that serve a specific niche of people in need, such as seniors and homeless teens. As the largest food pantry serving Ashland and Talent, we are open Monday through Friday and the first Saturday of every month from 9:30AM- 12:30PM. Food assistance is provided without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap, marital status, religion, sexual preference or national origin. 3) Property and Project Information. Provide a map showing the project's location. If the project will serve a specific area, proposed project boundaries should be shown. The project is the acquisition of the building at 560 Clover Lane in Ashland. At this site (see attached Map) now home to the Food Bank, we will serve low-income residents of Ashland and Talent only. The building has a total floor area of 3,240 square feet of commercial space, and the land size is 31,363 square feet. The building, home to the Food Bank is near Ashland Street off Exit 14 of Interstate 5. It is very close to jobs, shopping and services. (4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). Our basic objective is to serve hungry low-income children and families in Ashland and Talent Our reports show that we served more than 5,600 households in 2011, which represents more than 14,000 individuals. We are a 40 year old charity with a service territory whose economy is based primarily on "services", largely tourism: we have no industrial or manufacturing base to support the work force here. Most of those that are www.ashiandemergencyfoodbank.org i employed often have no health insurance coverage, and many work only part-time. We are innovative and efficient with the work that we do, and know that the gift of food that is offered to our clients is appreciated and valued by our community as a whole. (6) Financial Information Form C—Sources of Funding. The total acquisition cost of the purchase of building from the bank is $475,000. The sources of funding are detailed in the attached Form C and Form C Additional Schedule. a) Describe the assumptions used to determine the total project cost. Indicate the source consulted and how costs were determined. The cost of the acquisition was negotiated between AEFB and People's Bank. General Information a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not, explain. Yes, the building is within the Ashland City limits. b) Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; state in terms of percentage below area median for the Medford-Ashland standard metropolitan statistical area. As the tenant, we are a non-profit entity. But, the clients we serve because of the nature of our activities (emergency food distribution) are presumed to meet the income guidelines of the MSA, and we believe that most are extremely low income (30 916AMI) or low income (60%AMI) and that virtually all are below the moderate. income (80%AMI) level median income. c) Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project. We do have a lease purchase agreement with People's Bank of Commerce. 8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of j the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project, Our mission, in alliance with local faith groups and the community at large, is to provide emergency food supplies, without charge, to individuals and families in the Ashland and Talent areas who would otherwise go hungry. We believe that no one should go hungry and that all should be treated with dignity. Since 1972, AEFB, a food bank and pantry, has distributed food to hurtgry community members of Ashland and Talent. Each month, on average, we provide over 1,300 children and adults with a three to five-day supply of essential food items. We also distribute non-perishable food items to several organizations that offer prepared meals, or that serve a specific niche of people in need, such as seniors and homeless teens. As the largest food pantry serving Ashland and Talent, we are open Monday through Friday and the first Saturday of every month from 2 www.ashlandemergencyfoo.dbank.org 9:30AM- 12:30PM. Food assistance is provided without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap, marital status, religion, sexual preference or national origin. Our reports show that we served more than 5,600 households in 2011, which represents more than 14,000 individuals, 4,200 were under the age of 18 years. 70% of our client base can be defined as the working poor, and 40% of our clients are children; we seek to feed children, families,and individuals who need nourishment. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low- moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs? Yes, potentially it will promote self-sufficiency for these individuals. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-, low-and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. Food assistance from the AEFB will benefit these individuals to the extent that they do not need to spend their limited economic resources to purchase food for their families. a) For proposed projects serving a low-income area (i.e. public facility improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: Each month, on average 1,200 children and adults living in Ashland and Talent turn to us for a temporary food supply(3-5 days). More people than ever now rely on us for assistance. We anticipate nearly 15,000 people will seek assistance from us in 2012. 13) Project Feasibility. Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. Describe the feasibility of the project: a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and or manage the project proposed? Briefly describe applicants capacity and experience in providing, maintaining and managing housing, particularly low-income housing similar to the proposed project. We have served our mission and clients for 40 years as a food bank and pantry to distribute food to hungry community members of Ashland and Talent. That includes the distribution of non-perishable food items to several organizations that offer prepared meals, or that serve a specific niche of people in need, such as seniors and homeless teens. As the largest food pantry serving Ashland and Talent, we are open Monday through Friday and the first Saturday of every month from 9:30AM- 12:30PM. The community has come to depend on us for this vital support. Our capacity to serve is structured around our long-range plan to provide emergency food assistance, in alliance with local faith groups, without charge to children and families in the Ashland/Talent area who would otherwise go hungry, and to increase awareness about the problem of hunger in our communities. 3 www.ashlandemergencyfoodbank.org i a) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property, letter of support from the property owner(s), or some other assurance that the property is available for acquisition? Yes, we have a purchase option on the property. b) Does the project require land use approvals such as Site Review,Annexation, Zone Change, Minor Land Partition, Demolition, or Conditional Use permits? Yes, the project will require a Site Review. 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. All projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. There are no negative impacts associated with the project. 15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, evidence of financial support from other funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. There are no attachments. 16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B. & C. Please see attached Checklist, Form C, Board of Directors List, Project Location Map, and Lease Agreement with Option to Purchase. I i j i 4 www.ashlandemergencyfoodbank.org i i CITY OF ASHLAND 2012 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all Items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No NIA 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 25 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger SOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded grants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will-housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? $510,000 26 i Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housina Pro osals Activity Start Date Completion Date Site Planning & Development Option Site Acquisition (See Attached Acquisition Timeline Plan Development Pre-application Land Use Approval Construction Plans Final Bids Contractor Selection Building Permits Grant applications local state federal February 24, 2012 July 2012 Non-government(See attached April 1, 2012 June 2012 Sources of Ac uisition Funds)_ Other (See attached Sources of April 1, 2012 April 30, 2013 Acquisition Funds Loan Applications Construction loan Permanent Construction Phase Construction Certificate of Occupancy Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 27 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housina Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Acquisition Costs Land Improvements(including land) $475,000 $130,000 $345,000 Liens and other Taxes Closing costs Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL $475,000 $130,000 $345,000 Development Costs _ ... . ._ Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges SDCs Relocation Costs Environmental Report/Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report Survey Marketing Insurance i Other Fees j Architectural/Engineering Legal/Accounting Appraisals Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL $475,000 $130,000 $3451000 29 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR BUILDING ACQUISITION WORK SHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants $130,000 July 2012 State Grants Local Grants Non Governmental $210,000 Dec 2012 Grants Donations/Gifts $103,000 May 2013 Applicant $32,000 Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL $32,000 $443,000 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Please see attached Form C Additional Schedule I i i 31 III Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 50103 (X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each"employee"of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned"organization"or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department N/A 2. State the name(s)of any current or prior elected or appointed"official",of the City of Ashland having a potential"financial interest"in the organization or project. Namerritle Greg Lemhouse Member of City Council i 3. Provide the names of each"board member"of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee(may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 32 Form C Additional Schedule Sources of Funds for Building Acquisition City of Ashland CDBG for AEFB Federal Grants: City of Ashland CDBG Date Application 1$1 Date Award Date$Available Goal CDBG Feb 2012, $130,000 Request July 2012 July 2012 $130,000 Non-Governmental Grants (Private Foundations): Funders Name Date Application Date Award Date$Available Carpenter Foundation April 2012, $ 5,000 planned June 2012 July 2012 Ford Family Foundation April 2012, $40,000 planned July 2012 Aug 2012 Meyer Memorial Trust May 2012, $30,000 planned Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Ben B. Cheney Fn. May 2012, $ 10,000 planned Aug 2012 Sep 2012 Collins Foundation June 2012, $25,000 planned Aug 2012 Sep 2012 MJ Murdock Trust June 2012, $1100,000 planned Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Sub-total non-government grants $210,000 Planned $210,000 Donations/Gifts: 2012 AEFB Community Campaign ' $80,000 Dec. 2012 2013 AEFB Community Campaign $23,000 May 2013 Sub-total community donations $103,000 Planned $103,000 Applicant Contribution (2012) $ 32,000 Secured $ 32,000' Total source of funds needed for acquisition $475,000 i i Board of Directors Ashland Emergency Food Bank Name Address and Phone Number Occupation #of Years on the Board Kate Jackson 359 Kearney,Ashland Self-employed, retired from 9.5 yrs. as City- 541-482-2612 Ashland City Council Board liaison Greg 2850 Wedgewood, Ashland Businessman/Ashland City 1.5 yrs. Lemhouse 541-944-7185 Council member Herb 999 Morton,Ashland Retired pharmaceutical co. 3 yrs. Petschek 541-482-3642 executive Liz Cooper 144 Nutley,Ashland Retired commercial banking 3 yrs. 541-488-0770 executive Patti Chase 500 Ann St.,Ashland Retired hospital surgery 2.5 yrs. 541-488-0403 scheduling coordinator Carita 1069 Henry St.,Ashland Retired college librarian 5.5 yrs. Culmer 541-482-5075 Bob Pech 371 Idaho St.,Ashland Retired carp. industrial 4.5 yrs. 541-482-2669 marketing engineer Gema Soto 150 Lincoln St.,Ashland Food Service Manager,Ashland 4/11 541.482.7148 School District Ward Wilson 189 Logan Dr.,Ashland Retired Banker & Business 4/11 541.708.0189 Executive Ava 106 S. 2nd St., Talent Food & Beverage Dir., 4/11 DeRosier 541.787.5117 Ashland Springs Hotel George 386 North Laurel,Ashland Restoration Consultant, Kramer 1/12 Kramer 541.482.9504 & Company Jane Dow 540 Pheasant Run Dr., Retired high school English 1/12 Talent 541.727.2614 teacher Pat 194 Logan Dr., Ashland Freelance Musician, 1/12 O'Scannell 541.482.9752 Music Director, OSF 560 Clover Lane, Ashland, OR - Google Maps Page 1 of I To see all the details that are visible on the Got use the"Print"link next to the map. Go NIS Ile a- R le Ain �, S r Ae111And St (L it Ashland St (e°") y A'hLUm.C.vn 'i l?, l 9 iPOp n Kad j 9 1 A n O � 1.!IPJtann ! Clay Cle°4 t LUay 4 .i,,,40ti i ra4etma Way nFll.. I GnLdYO a . ... .ry v A O i x - (Annln nt � Map data 02012 Google- : � I I http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl 2/23/2012 i i REAL PROPERTY LEASE AGREEMENT WITH OPTION TO PURCHASE THIS LEASE AGREEMENT Is entered into by and between PEOPLE'S BANK OF COMMERCE (the "Lessor") and ASHLAND EMERGENCY FOOD BANK, an Oregon non-profit corporation (the "Lessee"). RECITALS: Lessor owns real property located at 560 Clover Lane, Ashland, Oregon ("the leased premises"),and Lessee desires to Lease the premises, and to have an option to purchase the leased premises upon the terms set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the indicated meanings: (a) "Leased Premises" shall refer to the real property and improvements identified as 560 Clover Lane,Ashland, Oregon. The Improvements are approximately 3240 square feet, more or less. (b) "Hazardous Materials"shall refer to and Include: (i) any and all substances defined as "hazardous substances", "hazardous materials", or "toxic substances" in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (42 USC Section 9601, at. seq.), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act(49 USC Section 1801, et. seq.), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC Section 6901, et. seq.); and (ii) any and all substances which now or In the future are deemed to be pollutants, toxic materials or hazardous materials under any other state or federal law. (c) "Lease" shall mean and refer to the lease arrangement between Lessor and Lessee which Is established under this Agreement. (d) "Lease Term" shall refer to the entire two year term of the Lease. 'Lease Month' shall refer to each calendar month (full or partial)during the Lease Tenn. 2. Lease. Lessor hereby leases the Leased Premises to Lessee, and Lessee leases the Leased Premises from Lessor, subject to all of the terms and conditions contained In this Agreement. 3. Term Of Lease. The initial term of the Lease shall commence on September 1, 2011 and shall terminate on August 31, 2013, unless sooner terminated as provided in this Agreement, but this provision is subject to the provisions of section 27 below. Possession is to be provided to Lessee on September 1, 2011 if all of the conditions set forth In section 27 are satisfied or released by Lessee by that date. 4. Rental Payments and Deposit Reaulred. (a) With respect to each full calendar month during the Lease Term, Lessee shall be obligated to pay to Lessor a base rental amount of Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00) per month. If the Lease Terrn does not commence on the first day of a calendar month, then the monthly lease payments required of Lessee for the short first and last months of the Lease Term shall be pro-rated on a daily basis. The lease payment for the first calendar month (full or partial) of the Lease Term shall be payable on the Lease Commencement Date, with all subsequent lease payments being due and payable in advance on the first day of each subsequent calendar month. All lease payments shall be payable to Lessor at whatever address i Lessor may specify in writing from time to time. Lessor will provide Lessee prior reasonable written notice of Page 1 of 17 I changes to the address for payment of rent hereunder. The parties agree that the market rate for the rental of premises of this kind and quality is at least $.80 per square foot, and that the rental rate payable by Lessee under this Lease has been established at below market rate (1) because Lessee is a nonprofit corporation providing essential services to members of the community in need, and (2) to reflect the expected tax savings Lessor will receive in connection with an exemption from the payment of property taxes to Jackson County (the rent payable by Lessee under this Lease has been reduced by at least the amount of the expected real property tax savings resulting from the exemption of taxation that would otherwise be payable by Lessor). Lessee agrees to cooperate with Lessor to make any applications with Jackson County that may be required for Lessor to obtain such exemption from taxation. (b) If Lessee fails to pay any installment of rent or other payment required hereunder within ten (10) days after the date when due, then Lessee shall be obligated to pay to Lessor as additional rent a late fee equal to five percent (5%)of the past-due amount, together with interest on the past-due amount from the due date of the past-due amount to the date of payment at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum. The provisions of this subparagraph (b)shall not limit Lessor's right to treat any late payment as an event of default as provided in Paragraph 21. (c) Lessee shall pay to Lessor at the time specified in subsection 27of executlon of this lease the sum of $1,200.00 as a security deposit. The deposit shall be a debt from Lessor to Lessee, refundable within 30 days after expirabon of the lease term or other termination not caused by Lessee's default, or by Lessee's purchase of the Leased Premises. Lessor may commingle the deposit with its funds and Lessee shall not be entitled to interest on the deposit. Lessor shall have the right to offset against the deposit any sums owing from Lessee to Lessor and not paid when due, any damages caused by Lessee's default, the cost of curing any default by Lessee should Lessor elect to do so, and the cost of performing any repair or cleanup that is Lessee's responsibility under this lease. Offset against the deposit shall not be an exclusive remedy in any of the above cases, but may be invoked by Lessor, at its option, in addition to any other remedy provided by law or this lease for Lessee's nonperformance. Lessor shall give notice to Lessee each time an offset is claimed against the deposit, and,unless the lease Is terminated, Lessee shall within 10 days after such notice deposit with Lessor a sum equal to the amount of the offset so that the total deposit amount, net of offset, shall remain constant throughout the lease term. The Deposit shall be applied as a credit for Lessee against the purchase price at closing if Lessee purchases the Leased Premises. 5. Utilities. Lessee shall be responsible ponsible for and shall pay the cost of all water, electricity, natural gas, heating oil, telephone service, refuse collection, sewage and other utilities and services provided to the Leased Premises, or used on or In connection with the Leased Premises, during the Lease Term. Lessee shall make payment for all such utilities and services directly to the providers of those utilities and services. Lessor shall not be liable to Lessee in the event of any Interruption in the supply of any utility or service to the Leased Premises (other than an Interruption caused by the Lessor), and Lessee shall not be entitled to any abatement of rent In the event of any interruption in the supply of any utility or service to the Leased Premises (other than an interruption caused by the Lessor). Lessee agrees that it shall not Install any equipment which will exceed or overload the capacity of the existing utility facilities supplying the Leased Premises. If any equipment installed by Lessee shall require additional utility facilities, those additional facilities shall be installed at Lessee's expense in accordance with plans and specifications approved in advance and in writing by Lessor (with Lessor having the right to refuse to consent to any installation which Lessor believes to be unreasonable). 6. Taxes On Real And Personal Property. (a) Lessor shall pay all real property taxes, general and special assessments, and other Page 2 of 17 taxes and charges which are levied on or assessed during the Lease Term against the Leased Property or Improvements located on the Leased Premises (all of which taxes, assessments and charges shall hereinafter be referred to as the"Real Estate Taxes"). (b) Lessee shall pay all personal property taxes and other taxes and charges which are levied on or assessed against personal property, leasehold improvements, fixtures, equipment, furniture, inventories, merchandise and any other personal property installed or located on the Leased Premises during the Lease Term, as those taxes become due and payable, and before delinquency, and regardless of whether such levy or assessment Is made against Lessee or against Lessor, and regardless of whether the property has been installed by Lessee or by Lessor. Lessee shall make all personal property tax payments directly to the taxing authorities. Lessee shall furnish to Lessor receipts or other proof of payment of all taxes, assessments and charges payable by Lessee hereunder,within ten(10)days after Lessor's written request for such proof. 7. ljse Of Leased Premises. Lessee shall use the Leased Premises solely for the purpose of operating.a food.distributlon and storage facility, and aq office and other uses incident to the distribution of food to the needy. Lessee shall not use or permit the use of the Leased Premises for any other purpose without the advance written consent of Lessor,which consent may not be unreasonably withheld by Lessor. (a) Lessee shall not use, or permit any other person or entity to use, the Leased Premises in any manner which would create or tend to create waste or a nuisance or would be unreasonably offensive to owners or users of neighboring premises. Lessee shall refrain from any activity which would make it Impossible for Lessee to insure against loss or damage to the Leased Premises or against personal injury or property damage, or which would significantly increase the cost of insuring the Leased Premises against loss or damage by fire or other causd. (b) Lessee shall promptly comply with all statutes, laws, ordinances, orders, judgments, decrees, injunctions, rules, regulations, licenses, directives and requirements of all federal, stale, county, municipal and other governments, commissions, boards, courts, authorities, officials and companies or associations insuring the Leased Premises, which now or at any time hereafter may be applicable to the Leased Premises or any part thereof, or to any use of or condition of the Leased Premises or any part thereof. Lessee shall remedy at Lessee's expense any failure of compliance created through Lessee's fault or by reason of Lessee's use. '8. Repairs And Maintenance. (a) Lessor shall be responsible for maintaining the utility services to the building, repairing and replacing (if reasonably required)the HVAC system, the roof, foundation and the bearing walls of the improvements which constitute the Leased Premises. As to the walk-in freezers and coolers at the east end of the building, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 9, Lessor shall be responsible to make any repairs required, as determined by Lessee's Oregon licensed refrigeration contractor referred to in 27(m)(4) below, to put those units in good and serviceable condition at the inception of Lessee's occupancy; but any repairs required subsequent to that time shall be Lessee's responsibility. (b) Except as provided in subparagraph (a), Lessee shall be solely responsible for maintaining in safe, workable, neat and attractive condition (free and clear of foreign objects, papers, debris, obstructions, standing water, snow and ice), the structures and improvements which constitute the Leased Premises, including but not limited to all Interior and exterior wall surfaces, interior ceilings, lights, windows, plate glass, plumbing fixtures, electrical fixtures, doors, door frames, door closures, Page 3 of 17 floor coverings, non-bearing walls, floors, decking and landscaping. Except as provided in subparagraph (a), Lessor shall have no responsibility to perform any repairs or maintenance with respect to the Leased Property. Lessor and its authorized agents shall have the right to inspect the Leased Property during regular working hours upon reasonable written notice to Lessee to determine whether Lessee is complying with its obligations under this Agreement. If Lessee shall fall to keep and preserve the Leased Property in the state or condition required under this Paragraph 8, then Lessor may, after ten (10) days written notice to Lessee, make whatever repairs are necessary to place or return the Leased Property to safe,workable and neat condition, without liability to Lessee for any loss or damage which may result to Lessee's business by reason of those repairs. In the event of such repairs by Lessor, Lessee shall be obligated to reimburse Lessor. 9. No Warranties By Lessor. Lessor makes no we either express or implied, as to the condition, merchantability or fitness of the Leased Premises and the equipment In it, or the suitability of the Leased Premises for any purpose. Lessee agrees that neither Lessor nor any agent of Lessor has made any representations or warranties as to any of the following: (i) the suitability of the Leased Promises for Lessee's permitted uses (as specified In Paragraph 7), (ii) the physical condition of the Leased Premises, (iii) the expenses of operation of the Leased Premises, or (iv) any other matter affecting or relating to the Leased Premises except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. (a) Prior to executing this Agreement, Lessee has not thoroughly Inspected the Leased Premises, and has not become thoroughly acquainted with the condition of the Leased Premises. Inspections tha.Lessee intends to perform after this agreement Is signed are set forth in subsection 27(m) below. The taking of possession of the Leased Premises by Lessee shall be an acknowledgment by Lessee that the Leased Premises are in good and satisfactory condition as of the date when possession Is taken, and that Lessee has determined the Leased Premises to be suitable for Lessee's permitted uses (as specified In Paragraph 7), except as may be specified in writing by Lessee prior to September 1,-2011. Lessor shall not be required lo.make any alterations or improvements of any kind to the Leased Premises, except those that may be necessary as disclosed by Lessee's Inspections. (b) Although it is the expectation of the parties that Lessee shall use the Leased Premises for the purposes identified in Paragraph 7, It Is expressly agreed that the obligations of Lessee under this lease (including but not limited to the obligation to pay rent) shall be abated by the inability of Lessee for any reason whatsoever to use all or any portion of the Leased Premises for those purposes as a result of the actions of the City of Ashland. At such time as it Is determined that any such abatement will continue for a period of 30 days or more, Lessor shall have the option to terminate this Lease, and Lessor shall deliver written notice of that election to Lessee immediately upon making that election. If Lessor so elects to terminate, Lessee shall comply with the provisions of subsection 16 (a). There shall be no penalty assessed against Lessee as a result of the termination, and Lessee shall not be obligated to pay any additional rent, or any other sums other than those that may be due Lessor as specified in subsection 16 (a). 10. No Liens. Lessee shall not allow the Leased Premises to be subjected to any mortgage or other lien as security for a loan or other obligation of Lessee, without first obtaining the express written consent of Lessor. Lessee shall keep the Leased Premises free and clear of all personal property tax liens and encumbrances. Lessee shall pay as due all claims for labor or work done on, and for services rendered or material furnished to, the Leased Premises, and Lessee shall keep the Leased Premises free from any mechanic's, workman's or materials lien of any kind. If Lessee receives notice of the filing of any claim or lien against the Leased Premises or the commencement of any action which might affect the title to the Leased Premises, Lessee shall give prompt written notice thereof to Lessor. Page 4 of 17 11. Insurance. (a) Lessee shall maintain and shall pay all premiums with respect to insurance protecting Lessor and Lessee as the named insureds against loss or liabilities arising from personal injury or death or damage to property caused by any accident or occurrence in connection with the use, operation or condition of the Leased Premises, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident or occurrence on account of personal Injury or death, and $500,000 per accident or occurrence on account of damage to property, together with a blanket excess liability policy'ln an amount of not less than $1,000,000. Any proceeds of the insurance referred to in this subparagraph shall be applied towards extinguishment or satisfaction of the liabilities with respect to which those Insurance proceeds are paid. (b) Lessee hereby releases Lessor and Lessor's agents and employees from responsibility and liability for loss or damage occurring to, or in connection with the use of, the Leased Premises, if and to the extent that said loss or damage is covered under any insurance policy maintained by Lessee with respect to the Leased Premises, and Lessee waives all right of recovery against Lessor and Lessors agents and employees for such loss or damage. Lessee agrees to: (1) notify Lessee's insurance carrier(s) of the release and waiver set forth In the preceding sentence, and (it) obtain from Lessee's Insurance carrier(s), at Lessee's sole cost, a written waiver of all subrogation rights against Lessor and Lessor's agents and employees. (c) All Insurance required to be carried by Lessee under subparagraph 11(a) shall be issued by responsible Insurance companies, qualified to do business in the state of Oregon, and reasonably acceptable to Lessor and any person or entity holding a mortgage Interest in the Leased Premises by reason of any loan to Lessor. Each insurance policy shall.name Lessor as an additional insured. No insurance policy shall be subject to cancellation or material modification except after ten (10) days prior written notice to Lessor. At least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of any Insurance policy, Lessee shall obtain renewals or binders for the issuance of one or more replacement insurance policies. (d) Lessor shall maintain, and'shall pay all premiums for, replacement cost Insurance of the Leased Premises to its full insurable value, against loss or damage to the improvements located on the Leased Premises caused by fire, lightning,vandalism, malicious mischief, sprinkler leakage, breakage of plate glass, or other perils or casualties, with an all rlsk endorsement. All such Insurance shall be in an amount sufficient to cover the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed Improvements. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph 12,all such Insurance shall be for the benefit of Lessor only, 12. Destruction Of Improvements. Except as specifically provided in this Paragraph 12, Lessee shall not be entitled to any abatement of rent on account of any damage to or destruction of the Leased Property, and no other obligations of Lessee shall be altered or terminated as a result of such damage or destruction. (a) In the event of any,damage or destruction to the Leased Property which causes the fair market value of the Leased Property-to be reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) or more, Lessee shall have the right to elect to terminate the Lease. (1) If Lessee elects to terminate thls Lease, Lessee shall so notify Lessor by written notice delivered to Lessor within fifteen(15)days after the date of the damage or destruction. If Lessee so notifies Lessor of the termination of the Lease, then the termination shall be effective as of the date of damage or destruction. If Lessee fails to notify Lessor of the termination of the Lease Page 5 of 17 I I within fifteen days after the date of damage or destruction to the Leased Property which is covered by this subparagraph (a), then Lessee shall be deemed for all purposes to have surrendered and waived its election to terminate the Lease under this subparagraph (a). In the event of any termination of the Lease under this subparagraph, Lessee's right of possession and obligation to pay rent in connection with the tenancy created hereunder shall cease as of the date of termination, and Lessee shall be entitled to reimbursement of any prepaid rent, security deposits or other amounts paid by Lessee and attributable to the portion of the anticipated Lease Term which is subsequent to the termination date. In the event of termination of the Lease pursuant to this subparagraph, Lessee shall have fifteen (15) days within which to vacate and surrender the Leased Property in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 16. (2) If Lessee does not elect to terminate this Lease, then Lessor shall elect to receive Insurance proceeds on a "replacement cost' basis, and shall use and apply all insurance proceeds received by Lessor by reason of the damage or destruction of the subject improvements to restore (to the extent possible given the amount of those insurance proceeds) those improvements to substantially the same form and condition as prior to the damage or destruction. Repairs shall be accomplished with all reasonable dispatch, subject to interruptions and delays from labor disputes and matters beyond the control of Lessor. Until the restoration is completed Lessee shall be entitled to a pro rata abatement of rent with respect to the portion of the Leased Premises which may not be used by Lessee by reason of that damage or destruction. (b) In the event of any damage or destruction to the Leased Premises which causes the fair market value of the Leased Premises to be reduced by less than twenty-five percent (25%), Lessor shall be obligated to use and apply all Insurance proceeds received by Lessor by reason of the damage or destruction of the subject Improvements to restore (to the extent possible given the amount of those insurance proceeds) the damaged improvements to substantially the same form and condition as prior to the damage or destruction and provide Lessee with usable space equivalent in quantity and in character to the space available prior to the damage or destruction. Until that restoration Is completed, Lessee shall be entitled either to a.pro rata or complete abatement of rent with respect to the portion of the Leased Property which may not be used by Lessee by reason of that damage or destruction (with there being a complete abatement of rent during any period when the Leased Premises may not reasonably be used for the purposes specified in the first sentence of section 7 above). Lessor shall not in any event by obligated to expend for the restoration of damaged or destroyed Improvements any amount In excess of the insurance proceeds received by Lessor by reason of that damage or destruction. Repairs shall be accomplished with all reasonable dispatch, subject to interruptions and delays from labor disputes and matters beyond the control of Lessor. 13. Eminent Domain, (a) If, during the Lease Term, there shall be a total taking of the Leased Premises by any public authority under the power of eminent domain, then the leasehold estate of Lessee in and to the Leased Premises shall cease and terminate as of the date when the condemning authority takes possession of or title to (whichever occurs first) all or any portion of the Leased Premises. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "total taking" shall mean the taking of so much of the Leased Premises that the remainder of the Leased Premises is not suitable to conduct the business which Lessee intends to conduct on the Leased Premises. (b) If, during the Lease Term, there shall be a partial taking of the Leased Premises by any public authority under the power of eminent domain, then the leasehold estate of Lessee in and to the portion of the Leased Premises so taken shall terminate on the date when the condemning authority takes possession Page 6 of 17 of or title to (whichever occurs first) that portion, but Lessee's leasehold estate shall continue In full force and effect as to the remainder of the Leased Premises; In such event, the monthly rent payable by Lessee for the balance of the Lease Term shall be equitably abated by Lessor (based on the ratio between the value of the portion taken and the value of the Leased Premises prior to the taking).. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term "partial taking" shall mean the taking of a portion of the Leased Premises which does not constitute a total taking as defined in subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph 13. (c) Sale of all or part of the Leased Premises to a purchaser with power of eminent domain, in the face of the threat or probability of the exercise of the power of eminent domain, shall be treated for purposes of this Agreement as a taking by condemnation. All compensation and damages awarded for the taking of all or any portion of the Leased Premises shall be equitably apportioned between Lessor and Lessee as their interests may then appear. (d) Lessee shall have the right, at its sole cost and expense, to assert a separate claim in any condemnation proceedings for the value of Lessee's leasehold interest. Whenever notice of a taking of all or any portion of the Leased Premises Is received by either party, that party shall notify the other party thereof, and Lessor and Lessee thereafter shall jointly negotiate with the taking authority as to the value of their respective interests in the Leased Premises or the Improvements located thereon to the end of being fairly compensated therefor. --- 14. Alterations. Lessee shall not make any construction, reconstruction, alteration, Improvement, change, modification, utility installation or other alteration (hereinafter referred to in the aggregate as "Alterations") in, on or to all or any portion of the Leased Premises without first providing to Lessor detailed plans, specifications and explanations relating to the proposed Alterations and obtaining Lessor's express written approval to those Alterations (which approval may be withheld by Lessor for upon any reasonable ground). If Lessor shall give its consent to any Alteration,the consent shall be deemed to be conditioned upon Lessee acquiring all necessary permits to do the Alteration prior to commencement of the Alteration, and upon the compliance by Lessee with all of the conditions of those permits in a prompt and expeditious manner. Lessor may require Lessee to provide to Lessor, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, a performance and/or payment bond In an amount equal to one and one-half times the estimated costs of any proposed Alteration, to ensure that the Alteration is completed In a manner satisfactory to Lessor. (a) All Alterations by Lessee shall be done at the sole cost of Lessee, and shall become the property of Lessor and shall remain on the Leased Premises and be surrendered to Lessor upon termination of the Lease Term. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Lessor shall have the right at any time on or before the thirtieth day after the termination of Lessee'elease to require Lessee to promptly remove any and all Alterations made to the Leased Premises by Lessee, and to repair any damage occasioned by such removal, all at Lessee's expense. (b) Lessee shall ensure that all work with respect to Alterations is done in a good and workmanlike manner and diligently prosecuted to completion. Any Alterations shall be performed and done strictly in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations, and the requirements of all insurance carriers and fire rating bureaus with respect to the Leased Premises. (c) Lessee, at its expense and subject to the other provisions of this Agreement, may install any trade fixtures, equipment and furniture in, on or about the Leased Premises as necessary to the furtherance of the business use permitted under this Agreement. All such trade fixtures, equipment and furniture shall remain the property of the Lessee and shall be removed by Lessee at Lessee's expense at the end of the Lease Term. Lessee shall repair all damage to the Leased Premises caused by the Installation and/or removal of any such trade fixtures. Page 7 of 17 i i (d) Lessor agrees that Lessee may (1) remove part or all of the existing service counter on the premises. (2) remove selected non-load bearing walls in the former Kentucky Fried Chicken cooking area, (3) remove any and all floor mounted electrical outlets, (4) convert the existing raised floor drains into Flat floor drains, and (5) remove cooking ventilation equipment, including related fire suppression equipment, at its choice. All work to be done by Oregon licensed contractors. The cost for all of the work referred to in this subsection shall be borne by Lessee. 15. Indemnification Aaainst Damage Or Iniurv. Lessee shall forever indemnify, reimburse, and hold Lessor harmless and, at Lessor's election, defend Lessor from, and against any and all claims, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees), losses, damages, fines, charges, actions, or other liabilities of any description rising out of or in any way connected with (1) Lessee's possession or use of the Property, (2) Lessee's conduct with respect to the Property, (3) any condition of the Property to the extent the same arises after possession of the Property by Lessee, or(4) Lessee's breach of any warranty or representation made by Lessee in this agreement, excepting only those claims, costs, expenses (including attorney's fees), losses, damages, fines, charges, actions, or other liabilities of any description arising from (t) a condition of the Leased Premises which existed at the inception of this Lease, and/or (ii) any negligent, reckless, wanton, or intentional act committed by any director, officer, partner, agent, employee, contractor, tenant, invitee, permittee, or trustee of the Lessor. in the event of any litigation or proceeding brought against Lessor and arising out of or In any way connected with any of the above events or claims, against which Lessee agrees to defend Lessor, Lessee shell, on notice from Lessor, vigorously resist and defend such actions or proceedings In consultation with Lessor through legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to Lessor. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the obligations of Lessee pursuant to this Paragraph 15 shall remain in full force and effect after the termination of the Lease Term and until the expiration of the latest period stated in any applicable statute of limitations during which a claim, cause of action or prosecution relating to the matters described herein may be brought, and until payment in full or satisfaction of any and all,_losses, claims, causes of action, damages, liabilities, charges, costs and .expenses shall have been accomplished. (b) In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Paragraph 15 and Paragraph 23, the provisions of Paragraph 23 shall take precedence. Any loss, liability, damage, claim or cause of action arising by reason of contamination of the Leased Premises by a hazardous substance while this Lease is in effect shall be subject to the indemnification provisions of Paragraph 23, and shall not be subject to the indemnification provisions of this Paragraph 15. (c) The obligations of Lessee pursuant to this Paragraph 15 shall apply to the acts or omissions of any director, officer, partner, agent, employee, contractor, tenant, invitee, permittee, or trustee of the Lessee.' 16. Surrender Upon Termination. (a) Upon expiration of the Lease Term, or upon earlier termination of the Lease for any reason, Lessee promptly and peaceably shall remove any of Lessee's equipment and property, and shall surrender the Leased Premises in good condition. Depreciation and wear and tear from ordinary use permitted under this Agreement need not be restored by Lessee. All repairs for which Lessee is responsible shall be completed prior to the surrender of the Leased Premises. (b) If Lessee remains in occupancy of the Leased Premises after termination of the Lease Term, then Lessor shall have the option to treat Lessee as a tenant from month-to-month, subject to all of the Page 8 of 17 i provisions of this Agreement except the provisions for rental amounts, term, and renewal, and in that event Lessee shall be obligated to pay monthly rent to Lessor at a rate equal to one and one-half (1.5) times the monthly rental amount in effect as of the last month of the Lease Term. Acceptance by Lessor of rent subsequent to termination of the Lease Term shall not result in a renewal of the Lease and shall not constitute a waiver of Lessor's right to re-enter the Leased Premises, remove Lessee or exercise any other rights available to Lessor under this Agreement or provided by law. If Lessee fails to surrender the Leased Premises in accordance herewith upon termination of the Lease Term, Lessee shall indemnify and hold Lessor harmless from all losses and liabilities, including but not limited to any claims made by any succeeding tenant, which result from or are based upon Lessee's failure to so surrender the Leased Premises, 17. Good Title. Lessor warrants that it has good right to lease the Leased Premises and will defend Lessee's right to quiet enjoyment of the Leased Premises against the lawful claims of all persons during the Lease Term. 18. Sale Of Lessor's Interest. Lessor may only sell all or any portion of the Leased Premises during the Lease Term as allowed in section 27 below. Any such sale shall be subject to the terms of this Lease. 19. Limitation On Assignment Or Sublease By Lessee. Lessee shall not voluntarily or by operation of law assign this Lease, or sublease any portion of the Leased Premises, or enter into any license agreement,franchise agreement, or.conceaslon agreement with respect to.the Leased Premises, or mortgage hypothecate, or otherwise encumber all or any portion of Lessee's interest in this Lease or the Leased Premises, or In any other manner permit the occupation or shared possession of all or any portion of the Leased Premises. 20. Landlord's Lien. Lessee hereby grants to Lessor a lien upon the improvements, trade fixtures and furnishings of Lessee to secure full and faithful performance of all of the terms of this Agreement. 21. Lessee's.Default. (a) The following shall be "events of default" under this Agreement, and the terms"event of default"or"default"shall mean, whenever used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events: (1) The failure by Lessee to pay or cause to be paid the full amount of any rent or other charge specified in this Agreement, within ten (10) days after the date when due. Before declaring a default in the making of any payment required under this Agreement, Lessor shall provide to Lessee a written notice specifying that there has been a default in the making of a required payment, and Lessee shall have five (5) days from the effective date of that notice within which to pay the delinquent amount and prevent the occurrence of a default hereunder. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, Lessor shall not be obligated to provide any written notice to Lessee of a particular delinquent payment if Lessor shall have provided to Lessee written notice of a prior delinquent payment twice or more during the then Immediately preceding 365 day period; in that event Lessor shall not be required to provide any notice to Lessee before declaring a default arising out of Lessee's failure to make any payment required under this Agreement, but no default shall be declared until ten(10)days after that payment is due. (2) The failure by Lessee to comply with any term or condition, or fulfill any obligation of this Agreement (other than the payment of rent or other charge) within thirty (30) days after written notice by Lessor specifying the nature of the default with reasonable particularity and requesting that the default be remedied. If the default is of such a nature that it cannot be completely remedied within the 30- day period, this provision shall be complied with if Lessee begins correction of the default within the,thirty-day Page 9 of 17 i period and thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and good faith to affect the remedy as soon as possible. , (3) An assignment by Lessee for the benefit of creditors, the filing by Lessee of a voluntary petition of bankruptcy, an adjudication that Lessee is bankrupt, the appointment of a receiver for the properties of Lessee, the filing of an involuntary petition of bankruptcy and the failure of Lessee to secure dismissal of the petition within thirty (30) days after filing, or levying of execution upon. Lessee's leasehold Interest and the failure of Lessee to secure release of the levy or execution within ten (10) days after Lessee's actual notice thereof. (b) Whenever any event of default shall have occurred, Lessor may take any one or more of the following remedial steps: (1) Declare, by written notice to Lessee, that all unpaid and delinquent installments of rent, and all other unpaid and delinquent charges and payments due under this Agreement shall be immediately due and payable,whereupon those amounts shall become immediately due and payable. (2) Terminate the lease and all rights of Lessee under this Agreement, by giving written notice of termination to Lessee. In the event of such termination, Lessor shall have the right to re-enter and take possession of the Leased Premises and remove all persons and property therefrom by summary proceedings or otherwise, and to recover from Lessee: (1) any unpaid rent earned at the time of termination, plus (It) The fair market value of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination and prior to the end of the Lease Term the amount of rent which Lessee proves can reasonably be earned by Lessor during that time, plus (Iii) any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all detriment proximately caused by Lessee's failure to perform Its obligations under this Agreement or which in the ordinary course of affairs would be Ilkeijr to result therefrom, plus (iv) all other amounts available to Lessor at law or in equity. In the event of any re-entry of the Leased Premises following termination of the lease, Lessor may make any suitable alterations or changes in the character or use of the Leased Premises, provided that Lessor shall not be required to relet the Leased Premises for any use or purpose Lessor may reasonably consider injurious to the Leased Premises. Lessor may relet all or a portion of the Leased Premises, either alone or together with other properties, for a term longer or shorter than the term of this Agreement, and upon any reasonable terms and conditions (including the granting of rent-free occupancy or other rent concessions (3) To the extent permitted by law, terminate Lessee's possessory interest in the Leased Premises, without terminating Lessee's lease, in which case Lessor shall have the right to enter and take possession of the Leased Premises and to remove and exclude Lessee from possession of the Leased Premises and to use its best efforts to lease the Leased Premises to another person for the account of Lessee; any such entry and other actions shall not operate as a waiver or satisfaction, in whole or in part, of any claim or demand arising out of or connected with any breach or default by Lessee of its obligations under this Agreement. If Lessor re-enters the Leased Premises but does not elect to terminate Lessee's leasehold interest, then Lessor may from time to time, without terminating Lessee's lease, either recover from Lessee all rentals as they become.due, or relet the Leased Premiss or any portion thereof for such term or terms and at such rental or rentals and upon such other terms and conditions as Lessor in Its sole discretion may deem advisable. Any rentals so received by Lessor from such reletting shall be applied as follows: first, to the payment of any damages and indebtedness, other than rent due hereunder, owed by Lessee to Lessor; second, to the payment of any costs of such reletting; third, to the payment of the cost of any alterations and repairs to the Leased Premises required in connection with such reletting; fourth, to the payment of rent due and unpaid hereunder; and last, to the payment of any future rent as the same may become due and payable hereunder. If the portion of the rental amount received from reletting which is applied to the payment of rent Page 10 of 17 hereunder is less than the monthly rent payable by Lessee, then Lessee promptly shall pay the deficiency to Lessor. Lessee also shall pay promptly to Lessor any costs and expenses incurred by Lessor in connection with a retetting or in making alterations and reasonable repairs to the Leased Premises which are not covered. by the rental received from retetting. (4) Have a receiver appointed to take possession of, and to manage and control, the Leased Premises and to collect the profits and pay the net income from the operation of the Leased Premises as ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The right to appoint a receiver shall be available without regard to the adequacy of the security for the balance due Lessor or the solvency of Lessee, or the absence of waste or danger of loss or destruction of the Leased Premises and without the necessity of notice to Lessee, it being understood that the careful and prudent management, care, and control of the Leased Premises is an essential form of Lessor's security for the faithful'performance of Lessee's obligations under this Agreement. Any receiver so appointed may serve without bond. The employment of a person by Lessor shall not disqualify that person from serving as a receiver. Upon taking possession of all or any portion of the Leased Premises, the receiver may (1) use, operate, manage, control and conduct any business located upon the Leased Premises and make whatever expenditures for maintenance and Improvements as the receiver in its judgment shall deem proper; and (it) collect all revenues, income and profits from the Leased Premises and/or any business located on the Leased Premises, and apply those sums to the reasonable expenses of use, operation and management thereof. If the revenues produced by the Leased Premises and/or any business located on the Leased Premises are insufficient to pay expenses, the receiver may borrow, from Lessor or from any other source, whatever sums as the receiver may deem necessary for the purposes stated in this subparagraph (4), and the repayment of those sums shall be secured by this Agreement. Amounts borrowed from or advanced by Lessor shall bear Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of expenditure until repaid, and shall be paid by Lessee on demand. (c) No remedy conferred upon or reserved to Lessor under this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy, but each and every remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or existing at law or in equity. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, and any such right or power may be exercised from time to time and as often as deemed expedient by Lessor. In order to entitle Lessor to exercise any remedy reserved to Lessor, It shall not be necessary to give any notice other than a notice which is expressly required in this Agreement. 22. Lessor's Default: Lessee's Remedies. If Lessor fails to observe or perform any obligation required to be observed or performed by Lessor under the terms of this Agreement, and Lessor fails to cure that breach within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof from Lessee, then Lessor shall be deemed in default under this Agreement. Upon Lessor's default, Lessee, at its option, may exercise any one or more of the following remedies, in addition to other rights or remedies available at law or in equity: (a) Lessee may cure the default by performing Lessor's obligation, in which case Lessor shall reimburse Lessee for all costs and expenses reasonable incurred by Lessee in making that cure; (b) Lessee may terminate this Lease immediately upon written notice to Lessor; (c) Lessee may recover all damages and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) Incurred by Lessee as a result of Lessor's default; and (d) Lessee may seek equitable relief including, but not limited to, specific performance. 23. Lessee's Responsibility For Contamination By Hazardous Substances. Page 11 of 17 (a) Lessee shall not intentionally or unintentionally cause or permit any hazardous material to spill, leak or be discharged onto the soil or other surface of the Leased Premises or be discharged into any plumbing drain, storm drain, sewer or other waste disposal system located on the Leased Premises which is not specifically designed for, and intended to be used solely for, the retention and disposal of that hazardous material. In the event of any such spill, leak or discharge, Lessee shall file all reports, take all remedial actions and pay all fines and other levies as shall be required by applicable federal, state and local statute, ordinance, regulation and order. (b) Lessee shall at all times use, sell, store, transport, dispose of and treat hazardous materials (as defined In Paragraph 1(b) of this Agreement) in strict accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations (collectively referred to in this Paragraph 23 as the "Laws"). If, prior to termination of the Lease and completion by Lessee of the obligations imposed under Paragraph 16, there occurs upon the Leased Premises any release, spill, leak or discharge of hazardous materials which is in violation of any of the Laws and is caused by any activity or activities of Lessee on or with respect to the Leased Premises, then Lessee shall be obligated to cause and complete the repair, cleanup, detoxification and/or decontamination of the Leased Premises, and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plan or plans in connection therewith, all as required by the Laws. Under no circumstances shall Lessee be obligated to pay for or remediate any condition that was in existence at the beginning of the lease, (c) Lessee shall indemnify, defend, protect and hold harmless Lessor and each of Lessor's partners, employees, agents, successors and assigns (collectively referred to in this Paragraph 23 as "Lessor"), from and against any and all criminal and civil claims and causes of action (including but not limited to claims resulting from, or causes of action Incurred in connection with, the death of or injury to any person, or damage to any property), liabilities (including but not limited to liabilities arising by reason of actions taken by any governmental agency), penalties, forfeitures, prosecutions, losses and expenses.(including reasonable attorney fees)which directly or indirectly arise from or are caused by either: (1)the presence in, on or about the Leased Premises of any-hazardous materials which result from any activity or activities of Lessee an or with respect to the Leased Premises, or (it) the Lessee's use, sale, storage, transportation, disposal, release, threatened release, discharge or generation of hazardous materials to, in, on, under, about or from the Leased Premises. Lessee's obligations under this subparagraph 23(c) shall include, but not be limited to, the obligation to bear the expense of any and all costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, of any necessary (as required by the Laws) repair, cleanup, detoxification or decontamination of all or any portion of the Leased Premises, and the preparation and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plan or plans in connection therewith. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the obligations of Lessee pursuant to this Paragraph 23 shell remain in full force and effect after the termination of the Lease Term and until the expiration of the latest period stated In any applicable statute of limitations during which a claim, cause of action or prosecution relating to the matters described herein may be brought, and until payment in full or satisfaction of any and all losses, claims, causes of action, damages, liabilities, charges, costs and expenses for which Lessee is liable hereunder shall have been accomplished. (e) For purposes of subparagraphs 23(a), 23(b) and 23(c), any acts or omissions of or by any one or more employees, agents, assignees, sublessees, franchisees, licensees, permitees, customers, invitees, contractors, successors-in-interest or other persons permitted by Lessee to have access to the Leased Premises (other than Lessor or Lessor's agents) or acting for or on behalf of Lessee (whether or not the actions of such persons are negligent, intentional,willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. Page 12 of W (I) If any claim, demand, action or proceeding is brought against Lessor which is or may be subject to Lessee's obligation to Indemnify Lessor as set forth under this Paragraph 23, Lessor shall provide to Lessee immediate notice of that claim, demand, action or proceeding, and Lessee thereafter shall defend Lessor at Lessee's expense using attorneys and other counsel selected by Lessee and reasonably acceptable to Lessor. Lessor agrees to cooperate with Lessee In Lessee's defense of Lessor. 24. Exnenses. Each of the parties shall pay its own expenses incidental to the preparation and consummation of this Agreement,Including but not limited to the attorney fees and expenses. 25. Notices. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been duly given when actually delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, certified and return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to such addresses as may be specified from time to time by the parties in writing. 26. Time Of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations of Lessor and/or Lessee under this Agreement. 27. Lessee's Option To Purchase Leased Premises. At any time prior to the conclusion of the Lease Term, Lessee shall have the option to purchase the Leased Premises from Lessor, under the terms and conditions set forth In this Paragraph 27. (a) Definitions. For purposes of this Paragraph 27, "Closing" shall refer to the consummation of the purchase and sale of the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27. "Closing date"shall refer to the actual data of Closing. (b) Option may be Exercised Only during Lease Term. Lessee shall have no right to exercise the purchase option granted under this Paragraph 27 after the last day of the Lease Term. If Lessee exercises the purchase option granted under this Paragraph 27 on or before the last day of the Lease Term,. then Lessee shall have the right to close the purchase at any time on or before the 301° day after the last day of the Lease Term. Lessor shall not have the right to sell all, or any portion, of the Leased Premises to a third party so long as this option to purchase may be exercised by Lessee. (c) Notice of Exercise. If Lessee wishes to exercise its option to purchase the Leased Premises from Lessor pursuant to this Paragraph 27, Lessee shall be required to deliver to Lessor a written notice specifying: (i) Lessee's desire to exercise the option, and (ii) the proposed closing date for the purchase (which closing date shall be not more than 30 days after the last day of the Lease Term. Lessee shall be deemed to have exercised the option to purchase the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27 when the written notice referred to in the preceding sentence is delivered to Lessor. If Lessee exercises the option to purchase the Leased Premises from Lessor as provided in this Paragraph 27, and if that purchase and sale subsequently closes in accordance with this Paragraph 27, then Lessee shall be obligated to pay rent with respect to the Leased Premises through the date of closing of the purchase and sale. The option rights granted to Lessee under this Paragraph 27 shall apply only to the entire Leased Premises, and this Paragraph 27 shall not give Lessee the right or option to purchase any portion of the Leased Premises which is less than the entire Leased Premises. (d) Purchase Price and Payment. If Lessee exercises the option to purchase the Leased Premises from Lessor as provided in this Paragraph 27, then the total.purchase price for the Leased Premises shall be Four Hundred Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($475,000.00). The entire purchase price for the Leased Premises shall be payable by Lessee at Closing by cashier's check drawn against a bank of Lessee's choice having offices located in Jackson County, Oregon, or by any other method acceptable to Lessor, I I Page 13 of 17 (e) Lessor's Obligation to Sell. If Lessee exercises the option to purchase the Leased Premises from Lessor as provided in this Paragraph 27, and if Lessee tenders to Lessor full payment for the Leased Premises (on or before the proposed closing date), then Lessor shall be obligated to sell and deliver to Lessee good and marketable title to the Leased Premises, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances not allowed pursuant to subparagraph 27(f). The real property and all improvements thereon shall be and is expressly sold and transferred to Lessee in 'As Is'condition,without any warranty of any kind by Lessor. (f1 Title Report. (1) Promptly after delivery to Lessor of written notice of Lessee's exercise of the option to purchase granted under this Paragraph 27, Lessor shall furnish to Lessee a preliminary title report with respect to the Leased Premises. Lessee shall have ten (10) days after receipt of the preliminary title report within which to examine that report and notify Lessor-of-any objection(s) to any one or more of the exceptions set forth on that report. If Lessee does not notify Lessor in writing, within that ten (10) day period, of Lessee's disapproval of any one or,more of the exceptions set fort h on the preliminary title report, then that exception (or those exceptions) shall be deemed to have been accepted and allowed by Lessee. If Lessee provides written notification to Lessor,within that ten (10)day period, of Lessee's disapproval of any exception set forth In the preliminary title report which Is In the nature of a lien placed against the property in connection with a borrowing by Lessor subsequent to the date of this Agreement which can be discharged by payment of a sum of money, then Lessor shall be obligated to pay and discharge that lien prior to closing of the sale of the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27. If Lessee provides written notification to Lessor, within that ten (10) day period, of Lessee's disapproval of any other type of exception set forth in the preliminary title report, then Lessor shall have the option either to remove that exception or refuse to do so. If Lessor refuses to remove any disapproved exception which is not in the nature of a lien placed against the property in connection with a borrowing by Lessor subsequent to the date of this Agreement which can be discharged by payment of a sum of money, then Lessee shall have the option either to close the purchase of the Leased Premises (and take the Leased Premises .subject to that allowed exception) or to rescind the purchase transaction and thereby terminate all liabilities which either party'might have to the other party under this Paragraph 27 (in which event all other obligations of the parties under this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect), and Lessee shall have no claim or right of action of any kind against Lessor by reason of Lessor's refusal to remove that exception. Promptly after closing, Lessor shall furnish to Lessee, at Lessor's expense, a policy of title insurance In the amount of the purchase price, showing title to the Leased Premises to be good and marketable, with the usual endorsements and exceptions contained in such policies and with the additional exceptions which are allowed pursuant to the preceding sentences of this subparagraph 27(f). If Lessee exercises its option to purchase the Leased Premises but falls through no fault of Lessor to close that purchase, then Lessee shall reimburse Lessor for any cost of the preliminary title report(s) referred to in this subparagraph (f). (2) Within five (5) business days after an authorized representative of Lessee has signed this Agreement, Lessor shall furnish to Lessee the preliminary title report referred to in subsection (1) immediately above, and all of the terms and deadlines set forth in (1) shall apply. The purpose of this provision is to give Lessee an opportunity to review the status of title as soon as possible. If, after Lessee's review, and Lessor's correction of any objections made by Lessee, the review and approval of the preliminary title condition shall be deemed completed; except that the process set forth in (1) shall be repeated at the time Lessee exercises its option to purchase except that Lessee shall not have the right to object to any exception to title that Lessee previously accepted' (g) Closing Escrow. If Lessee exercises its option to purchase the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27, the parties agree to establish a closing escrow account at a title company to be Page 14 of 17 selected by Lessor (the "Closing Escrow Agent'). Lessee and Lessor each shall pay one-half (1/2) of the closing escrow fees. Lessee and Lessor agree to execute whatever reasonable escrow instructions may be required by Closing Escrow Agent in connection with the consummation of the purchase of the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27. In the event of any conflict between those escrow instructions and this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail, and nothing contained in the escrow instructions shall be deemed to change or modify the terms, provisions or conditions of this Agreement unless the parties expressly so state in writing. (h) Closing. If Lessee exercises its option to purchase the Leased Premises pursuant to this Paragraph 27, then: (1) The parties agree to close the transaction at the offices of the Closing Escrow Agent, or at such other location as shall be selected by agreement of the parties. Possession of the Leased Premises,—and-all risk of loss, damage or destruction with respect to the purchased portion of the Leased Premises,shalt pass from Lessor to Lessee at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on the date of Closing. (3) At Closing, Lessor shall deliver to Lessee a statutory warranty deed which conveys the Leased Premises free and clear of all encumbrances, except those encumbrances identified in the preliminary title report which are allowed pursuant to subparagraph 27(f), fully executed by Lessor and naming Lessee as the grantee. (4) Personal property taxes, operating expenses, rental income, prepaid rents and deposits, and other Income and expenses with respect to the Leased Premises shall be prorated as of the date of Closing. The parties shall share equally all escrow, recording and related fees; Lessor shall pay for the cost of the title Insurance policy premium. (5) , Prior to Closing, Lessor shall furnish to Lessee any and all documentation - required under Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to a "Certificate of Non- Foreign Status". If Lessor falls to furnish Lessee a Certificate of Non-Foreign Status, Lessee shall be authorized. to withhold and deduct from the purchase price any and all amounts which are required to be withheld under IRC§1445, and to transfer those sums to the Internal Revenue Service in accordance with the provisions of IRC §1445. (6) Each party shall pay its own attorney fees incurred in connection with the Closing of the transaction. (i) Brokerage Commissions. Lessor warrants to Lessee that no brokerage commissions will be payable by Lessee to any person or entity in connection with the purchase and sale of the Leased Premises in accordance with this Paragraph 27. Q) Option is Non-Transferable. The option granted to Lessee under this Paragraph 27 is personal to Lessee, and is not transferable to any other person or entity. (k) Limitation on Binding Effect. After an authorized representative of each party has signed this Agreement, Lessor shall be bound by its terms, but Lessee shall have the option to terminate the Agreement without penalty, or the payment of any rent or other charges, if its Board of Directors does not act to approve the Agreement within fourteen (14) days of the date that it has been signed by both parties' authorized representatives. Page 15 of 17 (1) payment After Board Approval. If the Board of Directors of Lessee approves this Agreement, then Lessee shall within 2 business days deposit with Lessor the sum of$15,000, which shall act as a security deposit, to be utilized as specified in section 4(c) above, in the event that the option to purchase is not exercised by Lessee; and which shall be applied to the purchase price if Lessee exercises the option and completes its purchase of the Leased Premises. (m) Additional Conditions. If the Board of Directors of Lessee approves the Agreement, the Lessee shall have until September 1, the date upon which Lessee may have occupancy of the premises, within which to eliminate the following conditions: (1) confirmation with Jackson County or any other appropriate taxing authority that Lessee, a non-profit corporation, will be exempt from the payment of property tax once it becomes an owner of the Leased Premises; (2)confirmation from the City of Ashland that the zoning of the Leased Premises is E-1, and that Lessee's business is acceptable within that zoning district to the City of Ashland; (3)confirmation that the 12 parking spaces currently available on the Leased Premises are acceptable to the City of Ashland, in light of Lessee's anticipated use of the premises; (4)that the refrigerator and freezer units on the Leased Premises are acceptable to Lessee following an inspection by an Oregon licensed refrigeration contractor; (5)obtaining a flood plain certification acceptable to Lessee; (6) and approval by Lessee of an inspection of the Premises by an Oregon licensed commercial building inspector and/or general contractor. All these items shall be conducted by Lessee, and the cost of said activities shall_ be borne by Lessee. Lessor shall provide Lessee timely and sufficient access to the premises to allow Lessee to conduct any required inspections, (n) Capital Campaign. The parties understand that Lessee will 'undertake a capital campaign to raise the sum of$575,000(net of fundralsing expenses)by July 31, 2013, and if Lessee is able to raise that sum by that deadline, Lessee will complete the purchase of the property.. 28. Miscellaneous. This Agreement shall be governed and performed in accordance with the laws of the state of°Oregon. Each of the parties hereby irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction.of the courts of Jackson County, Oregon, and agrees that any legal proceedings with respect to this Agreement shall be filed and heard In the appropriate court In Jackson County, Oregon. The paragraph headings set forth in this Agreement are set forth for convenience purposes only, and do not In any way define,'Iimit or construe the contents of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be void by any court of competent jurisdiction, then that determination shall not affect any other provisions of this Agreement, and all such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. It is the Intention of the parties that If any provision of this Agreement Is capable of two constructions, only one of which would render the provision valid, then the provision shall have the meaning which renders it valid. If suit or action is Instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party In that suit or action or any appeal therefrom shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief, the sum which the court may judge to be reasonable attorney fees. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the successors, assigns, heirs and personal representatives of the parties. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute a single instrument, when signed by the parties. There are no oral agreements or representations between the parties hereto which affect this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes and cancels any and all previous negotiations, arrangements, agreements, warranties, representations and understandings, if any, between the parties. Waiver by either party of strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be a waiver of, and shall not prejudice the party's right to subsequently require strict performance of, the same provision or any other provision„and no delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any breach shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof. The consent or approval of either party to any act by the other party of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act. No remedy conferred upon or reserved to either party under this Agreement is intended to be exclusive of any other remedy available to that party by Page 16 of 17 r reason of the other party's breach, but each and every remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or existing at law or in equity. 29. SBA Approval. The parties acknowledge that there is a Small Business Administration guarantee in place effecting the Leased Premises, and therefore that Lessor must obtain SBA approval to enter into this Agreement, which Lessor undertakes to obtain with all due dispatch. Lessor will provide written confirmation of SBA approval to Lessee as a condition to this Agreement becoming effective. If.SBA approval has not been received by Lessor by September 1, 2011, the closing date shall be extended to September 15, 2011, the Lease Inception date shall be September 15, 2011, and the rent for the partial rental month of September, 2011 shall be prorated to reflect the actual date of closing. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have exec led this Agreement effective on the dates indicated below. LESSOR: PEOPLE'S ANK OF COM By its authoriz rasentative Dated LESSEE: ASHLAND EMERGENC// FOOD BANK, an Oregon non-profit cQ poration By Its authorized representative Dated I i I i ,I i Page 17 of 17 C I T Y OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 4/11/2012 TO: City Council FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist RE: Excerpt from the 2010-2014 Consolidated Plan for the use of CDBG funds Strategic Plan for 2010-2014 Given the limited amount of Ashland's annual entitlement the City can not address every goal in any given program year. In order for the City to utilize the CDBG funds most efficiently and effectively to address the highest priority needs, the City has limited the award of CDBG funds to not more than two projects in a'-program year. One Capital Improvement project (Capital Improvement Projects are eligible activities as listed in 24 CFR Part 570.201 through 570.206. Examples of eligible Capital Improvement activities include acquisition of real property,public facilities and improvements, rehabilitation, and homeowner assistance.) And one Public Service project (Public Service activities as listed in 24CFR Part 570.201(e). Some of the eligible activities-include health care, services for senior _. -and disabled citizens, service for homeless.persons, and.piograms.to reduce-dependency on drugs and alcohol). All public service activities are subject to a cap of 15%of the overall annual grant amount (approximately$30,000 for the City of Ashland). The entire amount can be awarded to one eligible Capital Improvement Project or any of the above mentioned eligible activities in combination but no more than two in any given program year. Thus the City foresees primarily using Ashland's allocation of CDBG funds to address those goals which are representative of the most pressing and unmet needs identified within the community as outlined below. The City will also continue to utilize City General funds, and administrative support funded in part by the CDBG program to address the remaining goals noted in this plan over the 5 year planning period. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax 541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w =,.ashland.or.us i i C I T Y OF ASHLAND April 9, 2012 Linda Reid Elousing Program Specialist City of Ashland Community Development 20 G. Main St. Ashland OR 97502 RE: CD130 Grant-btslallatiou of Audible Signals Scope of Work: The City of Ashland Public Works Department will contract with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to install the audible signals on signal lights throughout the downtown corridor of the City of Ashland. 'file City of Ashland will administer the project and MOT will be responsible for the installation on the traffic signals, including verification of operation. Contact Person: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager. 541-552-2416 (office) fleurys]r ishland.onas Timeline: The project is slated to begin in the SLannI r of 2012 and the expectation is to have the project completed by January of 2013. "Phis will be at the discretion of MOT as time allows for installation and testing of the audible signals. _ Budges: The City of Ashland-Public-Works Department has budgeted $28,000 as parl of a-Capifal Improvenleilt Project for the installation of the audible signals. If you have any questions feel free to contract our office at 541-488-5347 Thanks, C Scott A. Fleury Engineering Services.Manager j City of Ashland Public Works i HACDBG Grant-Audible Pedestrian Signals 4-9-2012.doc(4.10.12) 20Eac Works Englneearing Tel:541-488-5W 1,1600 20 East Main SUeel Fax:541-0880008 - Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-7352900 mmashland,or.us 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Approval of the Internet Service Provider Annual Cooperative Agreement FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Acting Assistant City Administrator, tuneberl @ashland.or.us SUMMARY Council is asked to approve a standardized agreement to be used with all certified Internet Service Providers (ISP)providing services to the community through the Ashland Fiber Network system for consistent, manageable terms to follow. This agreement spells out service levels, certification requirements, payment terms, etc., but does not change any current fees or charges. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At one time the City had nine certified ISPs on the network. Over time that has reduced to three. The previous contract did not meet current operations and was allowed to expire in 2008. All parties would like an agreement that clarifies rights and responsibilities and the proposed agreement does that. It also clarifies the status of the ISP as either a partner or a reseller of services across the AFN system. The main differences between the two is a partner uses the AFN network exclusively to provide services, does not offer competing services to those provided on the AFN network and cooperatively shares customer data on a confidential basis to better serve the community. The proposed contract is consistent with the prior business plan approach to partners and resellers working with AFN. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: This contract does not change any current charges from AFN to the ISPs. There is no direct, detrimental financial impact from employing this agreement over not having an agreement but it does provide guidance on future decision making. One example is the ability to charge for services rendered at an agreed upon amount. It also provides for cost sharing and identifies what steps an ISP must take to elevate the relationship from Reseller to Partner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the City approve the contract for use with all certified ISPs going forward. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the Internet Service Provider Annual Cooperative Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Internet Service Provider Annual Cooperative Agreement with attachments Page I of 1 �r, How Ashland Connects Cooperative Agreement between the City of Ashland, by and through its, Ashland Fiber Network Department("AFN"), and Internet Service Provider("ISP") named below for the certification of ISP for AFN Internet services on AFN's telecommunications system through its fiber optic network ("the network"). ISP Name: Telephone: Billing Address: Email: ISP's Business Relationship with AFN Partner Reseller ISP Office Contact name: Effective Date At/AFN's sole discretion, Reseller may be 1. PARTNER/ RESELLER PROGRAM. AFN will designate included on .AFN's POP (Point of Purchase) material ISP as a certified internet service provider on the network and/or on AFN's website. 'Reseller may purchase a and the ISP's business relationship with AFN in one of the presence on AFN's website, co-branded advertising, or following categories: 1) Partner or 2) Reseller. other marketing,efforts undertaken and underwritten by 1A. To qualify as a Partner, the certified ISP must AFN at a negotiated cost. AFN will maintain a list of its meet minimum criteria as defined by AFN; a) Promote, sell ' ISP's and will provide this to the public upon request. Only and service AFN Internet products as their primary certified ISPs in good financial status will be listed. business activity within the confines of the urban growth 1C. Nothing in this agreement prohibits AFN from boundary and the immediate area outside of the UGB having a business relationship with other vendors through where AFN presently provides wireless services. Primary the AFN system. is defined as representing 95% of their gross business a 2. AFN SERVICE LEVELS. income from the geographical area. b) Does not offer 2.1. INSTALLATION. AFN will install coaxial cable competitive Internet services provided by another wired or from the network to the residence or business of ISP's wireless system or network. c) Shares customer database customer and install the interior wiring within the residence information on a confidential basis including, but not or business to the location specified by the customer for limited to, customer name, address level of service and the cable modem connection. Installation services which MAC address. d) Provides a minimum advertising may or may not include a "truck roll" will be billed to the expenditure of $1000 per calendar year identifying the ISP following the rate schedules of the published rates partnership with AFN and exclusively promoting AFN- attached as Exhibit B. based products. e). Provides minimum customer service 2.2. SERVICE CHARGES. Service calls by AFN standards as defined in attached Exhibit A. and 0 requested by ISP shall be billed to ISP at AFN's published Maintains a zero balance due to AFN and City of Ashland service rates, attached as Exhibit B if it is determined as reconciled on the 20th of each month, solely by AFN that the customer's problem was not the At AFN's sole discretion, AFN Partners will primary fault or responsibility of AFN. Le. Non AFN receive presence on AFN's website, co-branded network related issue. advertising placed by AFN, opportunities for collateral 2.3 RIGHT TO PERFORM. If ISP falls to provide marketing material prominently displayed in the point of responsive customer service within the time frames set purchase Utility Billing Counter, and up to one bill stuffer forth in Exhibit A of this agreement, AFN shall have the inserted into utility bills envelopes. (non-sorted) per right, but shall not be required to, step in and perform calendar quarter. (Partner is responsible for the cost of necessary service to meet the customer needs. In the creation, printing, and folding of bill stuffers.) event AFN provides such service in response to ISP 1B. A certified ISP that does not meet the default, AFN will bill ISP for the technical support at the requirements in 1A is considered a Reseller. The Reseller published rates as described on Exhibit B. ISP shall pay ISP may also sell other product lines and services in the such bill no later than 10 days from the date of such Bill. AFN service area that could represent competitive services to AFN's offerings. 3 CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ISP. ISP agrees Reseller is completely responsible for growing and to comply with the following requirements and procedures maintaining its AFN customer base and providing in order to utilize the network as a certified internet service minimum customer service standards as defined on provider. attached Exhibit A. Reseller maintains good financial 3.1. ISP SERVICE LEVEL. ISP shall provide internet status with AFN and the City of Ashland as reconciled on services to all Ashland residents or businesses who the 20`h of each month as represented by zero balance request service and who otherwise meet the hardware due. and credit or payment requirements of ISP. ISP will Draft3/09/2012 connect customers within ten business days from the date (or sunset date) unless agreed to in writing by both the customer requests service and otherwise meets the parties.) requirements of ISP for service, or when the necessary 5. PAYMENT. Amounts required to be paid under this wiring of the customer's residence or business for paragraph shall be established by AFN by periodic connection to the network is installed, whichever date is publication of rates. Rates may be changed by AFN upon later. ISP will respond to all customer complaints within 45 days prior notice to ISP. one business day of the date the complaint is submitted 5.1. RESIDENTIAL. ISP shall pay AFN an amount and shall provide a reasonable solution to all valid per month at the published rate for each residential complaints in a timely fashion. internet account of ISP connected to the network. A 3.2. REQUIRED MODEMS. Retailer shall be residential internet account is an account limited to one responsible for supplying the cable modem necessary to dynamic IP address allocation. connect its customer to the network. Retailer shall use 5.2. COMMERCIAL. For each commercial internet only those cable modems which meet AFN's cable account of the ISP connected to the network, ISP shall modem specifications for use on the network. Retailer pay AFN an amount per month, at the published rate, for may supply the device through leasing, direct sale, a single IP-address plus an amount for each additional lease/purchase, or through third-party vendors or address. A commercial internet account is an account with contractors, at Retailer's discretion. AFN reserves the right a maximum of six fixed IP addresses. to remove and/or replace problematic and/or inferior 5.3. PAYMENT REPORT, DEPOSIT. All sums shall performing modems at its sole discretion (as determined be paid monthly by the 15`" of the month for all of ISP's by AFN technical staff and with no prior consultation with accounts connected to the network in the previous month the ISP) if such action is determined to be in the and for all service charges. For those modems that were customer's best interest and/or the most efficient means of active less than a full month, the ISP will pay a prorated correcting the issue. amount based on the number of days the modem was active. 3.3. RATE PUBLICATION. ISP shall publish its rates Beginning July 1, 2012, the minimum monthly rate for internet service in a manner that allows accurate for an ISP shall be the equivalent of the amount for 200 comparisons for like services from different internet residential internet account multiplied by $25 ($5000 service providers. ISP shall notify AFN of its rates and minimum monthly payment) irrespective if the ISP's actual provide 30-day prior notice of any change in such rates. customer account falls below 200 customers. If ISP fails 3.4. CO-BRANDING. All publicity and advertising by to pay amounts due by the 151", ISP agrees to pay a 10% a partner ISP for service utilizing the AFN network shall late charge on the unpaid balance plus interest of 1%% indicate the integral relationship between ISP and AFN per month on such balance. and comply with the requirements of AFN's co-branding AFN may require ISP to pay a deposit in advance guidelines. of the provision of any access. Any such deposit shall be 3.5 ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY. ISP shall comply- held by AFN in a non-interest bearing account and used to with AFN's acceptable use policies. These policies apply satisfy(in whole or in part) any obligation of ISP under this to ISP and to any other person, organization 'or entity agreement. using ISP's services. The acceptable'use policies are 6. RECORDS AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS. ISP shall subject to change at any time by AFN acting in its sole maintain a current customer list, including address, phone discretion, and all such changes shall be binding upon ISP upon written notice to ISP b AFN. Copies of such olicies number, email address and MAC address for each P y P P subscriber. ISP shall also maintain fiscal records on a will be furnished by AFN upon request. current, monthly basis to support its reports to City as to 4. Term. This agreement supersedes all previous the number and types of customers. AFN or its authorized agreements and shall be effective upon the date identified representative shall have the authority to inspect, audit, above, confirmed by both parties signature and dated and copy on reasonable notice and from time to time any within 30 days by the AFN representative signature below. records of ISP regarding its customer list, reports or The agreement shall continue for one year, unless services directly pertinent to this agreement. All required terminated as provided in this agreement. In the event records must be maintained by ISP for three years. No written notice is not given by either party to terminate this more frequently than once per month, ISP shall provide agreement at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date, AFN a current customer list within 15 days of AFN's this agreement shall automatically renew for a successive written request for such. AFN agrees to keep all ISP's year under the same terms and conditions in force at that records confidential to the extent permitted by law. time except for: a) the connection rates specified in 7, TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this paragraph 5; b) amended rates, fees or terms agreed to in agreement for cause, provided written notice is given the the prior year; and/or c) other changes agreed to in the other party specifying the cause for termination and prior year. requesting correction within 10 days for failure to pay a Agreement will not renew automatically after four sum due, or within 30 days for any other cause, and such times. (Le: The agreement expires on the 51h anniversary Draft 3/09/2012 i cause is not corrected within the applicable period. Cause 10. NO WARRANTIES. THERE ARE NO is any material breach of the terms of this agreement, WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING including the failure to pay any amount when due, the BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against ISP or ISP's MERCHANTABILITY AND • FITNESS FOR , A inability to meet obligations when due; or failure of ISP to PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR FOR ANY INFORMATION, cure any violation (other than failure to pay) of the SERVICE OR MERCHANDISE PROVIDED THROUGH provisions of this agreement within 30 days notice by THE NETWORK, OR ANY TRANSACTIONS AFN. CONDUCTED ON THE NETWORK. ISP UNDERSTANDS 7.1. AFN may deny ISP access to the network AND AGREES FURTHER THAT THE INTERNET and cease to provide all or part of any services described CONTAINS VIRUSES, WORMS, TROJAN HORSES AND in this agreement without notice if ISP (a) violates any OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. ISP AND ISP'S provision of applicable acceptable use policies; (b) CUSTOMERS ACCESS SUCH COMPONENTS AND engages in any conduct or activity that AFN, in its sole MATERIALS AT ISP'S OWN RISK. AFN HAS NO discretion, reasonably believes causes a risk that AFN CONTROL OVER AND ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY OR may be subjected to civil or criminal litigation, charges, or RESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR SUCH damages; or (c) would cause AFN to be denied access or COMPONENTS OR MATERIALS. to lose services by AFN's bandwidth provider. 11. UNCONTROLLABLE CONDITIONS. Neither party shall 7.2. If AFN ceases to provide or denies ISP be deemed in violation of this agreement if it is prevented access to the network pursuant to this paragraph, neither from performing any of the obligations under this ISP nor any of its customers shall have any right (a) to agreement by reason,,of severe weather and storms; access the network through AFN (b) to access any earthquakes or other natural occurrences; strikes or other materials, including voice or data messages, stored on the labor unrest; power failures; nuclear or other civil or network, (c) to obtain any credits otherwise due to ISP, military,emergencies; acts of legislative, judicial, executive and such credits shall be forfeited, or (d) to access third or administrative authorities; or,any other circumstances party services, including but not limited to, security which are not within its reasonable control. services, emergency services or any other service utilizing 12. INDEMNIFICATION. ISP shall hold harmless, defend an automatic dialer. AFN shall have no responsibility to and indemnify AFN, its elected or appointed officials, notify any third-party providers of services, merchandise officers, employees and agents, from all claims, damages, or information of any discontinuance of any services losses, liability and expenses arising from the negligent or pursuant to this paragraph, nor any responsibility for any ;other.tortious acts or omissions of ISP and its officers, consequences resulting from lack of such notification agents, employees and independent contractors. AFN, to 7.3. If AFN terminates meat without agreement for cause, /the extent of the Oregon Tort Claims limitations set forth in or if ISP terminates this agreement without cause, ISP ORS 30.265, et seq. shall hold harmless, defend and shall pay AFN a termination fee equal to the,lesser (a) indemnify ISP, its officials, officers, employees and the remaining charges applicable through the end of the, agents, from all claims, damages, losses, liability and 7.4. If AFN terminates this ag scheduled term, or(b) six months of sges. expenses arising from the negligent or other tortious acts agreement for cause, or omissions of AFN and its officers, agents, employees or if ISP terminates this agreement without cause in such and independent contractors. a manner that its customers will be left without service, 13. ATTORNEY FEES. If this agreement is placed in the without further notice .to'•,ISP, AFN may, in its sole hands of an attorney due to a default in the payment or discretion, absorb ISP's customers into AFN's system or performance of any of its terms, the defaulting party shall may sell ISP's customer list Ao another h9f aAny pay, immediately upon demand, the other party's actual proceeds received by AFN for,the sale of the customer fees and expenses together with reasonable attorney list, shall be considered liquidated damages for the costs fees, even though no suit or action is filed. AFN incurs in promoting and consummating the sale and transfer of the customers to another provider. 8. ASSIGNMENT OR TRANSFER. This agreement is ISP: By: unassignable and not transferable. ISP shall not sell, assign, or in any other manner transfer its rights under this Title: Date: agreement or any interest of ISP in this agreement. 9. Limitation of Liability. AFN SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO ISP FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, AFN: By: SPECIAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY LOSS OF Title: Date: USE, LOSS OF BUSINESS, OR LOSS OF PROFIT. REMEDIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ARE EXCLUSIVE AND LIMITED TO THOSE EXPRESSLY DESCRIBED IN THIS AGREEMENT. Draft 3/09/2012 EXHIBIT A AFN MINIMUM CUSTOMER SERVICE GUIDELINES How Ashland Connects The guidelines listed below provide minimum levels of customer service which should be provided by an AFN Internet Service Provider. These guidelines address issues such as the Internet Service Provider's communications with customers over the telephone, installations, service problems, changes in rates or service, billing practices and information that must be provided to all customers. Customer Calls to an AFN Internet Service Provider During normal business hours, hereby defined at a minimum of 9am-5pm Monday through Friday, company sales and technical representatives must be available to respond to customer inquiries. After normal business hours, (the hours during which most similar businesses in the community are open to serve customers), Internet Service Provider may use an answering service or machine so long as messages are answered the next business day:In addition, the Internet Service Provider's customer service and bill payment office must be conveniently located and must be open at least during normal business hours. A call to an Internet Service Provider must be answered -- including time the caller is put on- hold within 30 seconds after the connection is made. If the call is transferred, the transfer time may not exceed 30 seconds. Also, Internet Service Provider customers may receive a busy signal no more than three percent of the time. Although no special equipment is required to measure telephone answering and hold time, Internet Service Providers should use their best efforts in documenting compliance. These requirements must be met 90 percent of the time, measured quarterly, under normal operating conditions. Installations, Service Interruptions and Service Calls Standard installations must be completed within seven days after an order has been placed. Except in situations beyond its control, the Internet Service Provider must begin working on a service interruption no later than 24 hours after being notified of the problem. The Internet Service Provider must begin to correct other service problems the next business day after learning of them. Internet Service Provider will escalate a trouble call to AFN only after performing complete cable modem diagnosis using AFN online tools to confirm the customer's issue is beyond all of their CPE devices. Internet Service Provider may schedule appointments for installations and other service calls either at a specific time or, at a maximum, during a four- hour time block during normal business hours. Internet Service Providers may also schedule service calls outside of normal business hours for the convenience of the customer. No appointment cancellations are permitted after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment. If the Internet Service Provider's technician is running late and will not meet the specified appointment time, he or she must contact the customer and reschedule the appointment at the convenience of the subscriber. These requirements concerning installations, outages and service calls must ordinarily be met at least 95 percent of the time, measured quarterly, under normal operating conditions. Changes in Rates or Service and Billing Practices Thirty days advance written notice (using any reasonable written means including email) must be given to subscribers of any changes in rates and/or services. Internet service bills must be clear, concise and understandable, with full itemization. Internet Service Providers should respond to written complaints about billing matters within 30 days. Refunds must be issued no later than either the customer's next billing cycle or 30 days following resolution of the request, whichever is earlier, or upon the return of equipment when service is terminated. Credits must be issued no later than the billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. Information to Customers The following information must be provided to customers at the time of installation and at least annually to all subscribers and at any time upon request: products and services offered; purchasing, leasing, and replacement prices for equipment (modem), prices and additional optional services; installation and service maintenance policies; instructions on how to use the service; and billing and complaint procedures. EXHIBIT B AFN RATE SCHEDULE Installation Fees Basic installation $ 20.00 additional charges for parts and supplies Standard outlet $ 20.00 Add trap ("filter") $ 10.00 Disconnect Fees Disconnect $ 50.00 Remove trap ("filter") $ 10.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate Non-standard work such as advanced troubleshooting, $ 40.00 non-standard outlets, fishing wire inside walls, etc. Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate For support issues not related to AFN infrastructure, performance, $ 70.00 and reliability (Non-City Employee) Staff Screening Charge for each vendor employee submitted for authorization to $ 150.00 access AFN and City Service Center facilities CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 Business Meeting Water and Wastewater Master Plan Adoption FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, Public Works Department, faughtm @ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) and the Wastewater Technical Review Committee have completed their work on the respective master plans and staff is now submitting the draft water and wastewater master plans for Council adoption. Both plans call for significant capital improvements and rate increases to pay for these improvements over the next ten years. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The draft water master plan represents a comprehensive 20 and 50 year evaluation of the water system and reflects the two years AWAC spent working on Ashland water issues. A summary of AWAC's $30.5 million capital project recommendations to address the 2018 peak day water demand problem, redundancy, pipeline life-cycle replacement, fire flow, treated water storage and staffing needs are as follows: • Construct a new 2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant by Glenview Street ($12 million) • Construct a new treated water tank and upgrade the existing Park Estates tank (8.7 million) • Pipe the Talent Irrigation Ditch (TID) ($1.1 million) • Construct an emergency Talent, Ashland, Phoenix (TAP) pipe ($2.1 million) • Pipe Replacement Projects ($6.6 million) • Staffing Year Position Purpose 2013 .5 FTE Engineering Tech To help meet State DEQ and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requirements 2013 .5 FTE Water To meet additional water conservation goal Conservation position 2018 1.0 FTE Water Treatment To staff the new water treatment plant Plant Operator AWAC focused much of their research on Ashland's water supply and the Water Treatment Plant's vulnerability to catastrophic events (forest fire, flood, drought, toxic algae bloom, etc). As such, their recommended capital projects provide dual levels of redundancy in the event one of the potential catastrophic events leaves the community without water for any length of time. The proposed 2.5 MGD plant can provide the community sufficient water to meet daily drinking water demands (no Page I of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND irrigation) in the event the existing water plant was destroyed and the emergency TAP line would provide up to 1.5 MGD in the event the water supply was compromised. If AWAC's proposed redundant solutions are not approvedi a catastrophic event could render the community without water for up to a month. AWAC also evaluated Ashland's long term water supply issues and determined the water supply is sufficient through 2038, so AWAC recommended that further evaluation of water supply options (groundwater, increasing Reeder Reservoir impoundment, etc.) be undertaken in the next water study. However, AWAC's recommendation to pipe the Talent Irrigation District (TID) canal increases TID water supply by 135 acre feet and the recommended project list includes funds to test four existing ground water wells next year. It is important to note the 1998 Water Master Plan projected that by 2016 the existing water treatment plant would not be able to produce sufficient treated water to meet peak day demand. The current draft Water Master Plan, with an additional 5% water conservation goal, extends that time to 2018. Following the completion of the 1998 master plan, the City invested funds to upsize the TAP line from Medford to Talent and purchased Lost Creek water rights in preparation for connecting to TAP. TAP was intended to meet the peak day demand needs by supplementing Ashland's water supply with 1.5 MGD of Medford's treated drinking water. In 2008, the City Council placed the TAP project on hold and created AWAC to take a new comprehensive look at Ashland's water needs for the next 20 to 50 years. The draft Wastewater Master Plan was developed by consulting engineer Keller and Associates and was reviewed by staff and a Technical Review Committee. Projects outlined in the Wastewater Master Plan are primarily regulatory and include pipeline replacement projects, riparian shading, relocation of the effluent outfall pipeline, a new wastewater treatment plant oxidation ditch, pipe upsizing and pipeline replacement projects. A summary of the Wastewater$10.8 million capital projects is as follows: • Shading (tree planting) ($1,646,000) • New pipes that will parallel Bear Creek ($1,248,000) • New oxidation ditch at the W WTP ($4,000,000) • Relocate the effluent outfall pipe to Bear Creek ($856,000) • Pipeline replace and system maintenance ($3,041,000) • Staffing Year Position Purpose 2013 .5 FTE Engineering Tech To meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and storm water NPDES permit regulatory requirements. 2014 1.0 FTE Wastewater Currently the wastewater treatment plant supervisor Collections Lead Foreman manages both treatment and collections. This proposal will appropriately divide supervisory responsibilities between two distinct disciplines. Page 2 of 4 �r, I CITY OF ASHLAND April 2 2012 Council Study Session At the April 2, 2012 Council Study Session, Council requested additional information about the.5 FTE conservation position and requested that staff add a"Do Nothing" option to the financial plan. Conservation AWAC recommends adding one additional .5 FTE conservation position to meet the 5% conservation goal that is built into the design feature of the water master plan. Specific conservation measures are outlined in Chapter 8 of Technical Memo 3. These program include water audits, toilet rebates, clothes washer rebates, sub-meter incentives, lawn conversion rebates, free conservation devices (low flow hose nozzle, toilet flush bags, faucet aerators), smart irrigation controller rebates, daily/weekly irrigation information, water efficient landscape design guidelines, water budget calculator, mulch discount, commercial water broom rebates, and information about rainwater harvesting and greywater reuse. Based on staff audits, adding a .5 FTE conservation position would increase program productivity greatly. A full-time conservation specialist can complete about 10-15 audits per week, or approximately 650 audits per year. Staffing the program with 1.5 FTE will allow approximately 950 audits per year to be completed. With 8,140 domestic meters and 357 irrigation meters, it would take staff 13 years to audit all customers. The additional .5 FTE would reduce that to less than nine years. "Do Nothing Option" Council requested that staff add a"Do Nothing" option to the Forecast of Average Single Family Residential Water Bills graph. "Do Nothing" is not actually an option for Water or Wastewater systems, since these systems are regulated and when a system is out of compliance the City has to either declare a moratorium on growth or face penalties, or both. Moratoria require upgrades to the system within a specified timeline. Therefore, doing nothing really means doing only the minimum required to avoid a moratorium on regulatory penalties. To meet the Council intent, staff eliminated the 3% cost of living option and added a new minimum requirement (those projects required to meet regulations, fire flows and maintenance/replacement) option. The primary difference between the bridging strategy and the minimum requirements is that AWAC's bridging strategy included ground water well testing, .5 FTE Conservation and TID piping. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Both the water and wastewater master plans include a financial component that evaluates rate impacts for a 10-year period. Details of the financial plans can be found in Chapter 9 of the water master plan and Chapter 14 of the wastewater master plan. Sample rate scenarios are included in the attached water forum PowerPoint presentation. For discussion purposes, the following forecast of a single family residential water bill (which now includes the new minimum requirements graph) is included. Page 3 of 4 PIFFMAS-1 CITY OF -ASHLAND Forecast of Average Single Family Residential Water Bills $70 $71.59 $65.52 $64.41 $60 $59.38 $57.68 $50 $40 $36.0 Average monthly rate at 10 ccf-New WTP without funding a rate stabilization account $30 Average monthly rate at 10 ccf-New WTP with the funding of a rate stabilization account $20 �I Average monthly rate at 10 ccf-Updated TAP Supply Only Option' $10 +Average monthly rate at 10 ccf-Updated Bridging Strategy $ � Average monthly rate at 10 ccf-City Council"Minimum Requirements'Strategy 0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:. Staff is recommending the Council adopt the Water and Wastewater Master Plan as recommended by AWAC and the Wastewater Technical Review Committee. SUGGESTED MOTION: , Move to adopt the Water and Wastewater Master Plan as recommended by AWAC and the Wastewater Technical Review Committee. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Water Master Plan documents may be viewed online at http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=13401 2. The Draft Wastewater Master Plan may be viewed online at http://www.ashland.or.us/Paize.asl2?NavlD=l 4696 3. Keller& Associates Wastewater Power Point Presentation 4. Water Forum Presentation 5. Matrix 6. Summary of Current and Anticipated Conservation Staff Activities Page 4 of 4 rB. � CL TFS�3_� Ul f 1 vi,, s��IC # ui W Z W W W W C-4 a Q Z Q N •L 0 ca � a N l.O T ^0^' CL) L. co �/ M (7 O m O M N V n O M t+] C] M I() O M OO m O a (D M •� CR L L��' }+ T N � N m N N C 0 00 U - M O N O O t0 M M 0) (9 CD M V f- M � Ow` N N N N M 10 I� O LL W N �/� N v/ U O O 10 O N O O O O. O N O r N N N m r N M nO U O O W O N w CD O n d Q d N M In •� _ co no. �.J E d (� 0 C4 r N M Ii O � N q 0 N N N N M If1 P � � Z II II r `�` t t / aD Y/ N O y m ^ , O M O 3 3 3 03 O - (�, C0 O N N i- O to A� O Lf 22 N LL 5 � Q d �) 0 5 c QQ W T \ 5 a ¢ a a a v a m T O > m d 2 V d CD` N M N O L 6 /`J O (D ca m .c 2 L m 4-7 m 0 >� 3 8 2. > O m M E H 4-a O > d �. o rn 0 rn 0 O 5 O1 4— m m � a`> m c d m m m m n a' � ¢ a' � a a a a o xv7d uusvw NIV1d o,aao'arry u�stl )m xL{J W3.i.SiS 11a.LtlM9.LStlM H31svw lei Ez ir Ll 41, :roc.+aw wi „�ey n of lv • � � l � ��'/ j4 Y � : � l y+ ��y7 � �t r .bA i�■ 1� �'(�?�2 W ..� mow";• �. .. s . . Sig 9 O N O ++ _- m •� C �_ LJ — X Q Y 'O U + �O— fl. of N 4-0 C n 1 U N 43 ++ f0 G1 O O W u o •3 � La, co o 4-J o Vf i N c U c0 all S E F 5 i a? 0 ad R ! Y O I � m I � m N C N m {' Ik 1 5. .tt 12 VVE Q - = r - ° N 0 o c 4-J u a, 4—+ 4—P � CL V) O a1 L 00 X -.p "O -O L a) 2 a) N C a) v N +•+ CO co a CL f0 +-j a 'O a •� Ov 'O O � -J O V)4 � W • • • I A � r ' EC M co cu N � •� j v o o m U U a-1 N W � O L c CU m v � a 0 4-J cu> - N a O cv C N O i N C •Q _ o O E m N U m f� a •c a W o o Q v CU C O O O O 0 O O O L N O U) W co — U O N N d fA to to (H 69 (H ffi Efi W O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O U U) M � O 0 Sn N co O Q Hl fA fA fA fA EA df fA IA O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q V N N N co co V �� • IL �O V' b y 4 U I fN EH EH fA EA M fA fA W O O O O 0 0 O O O u O O O O O O O C: .0 c O r of v ri o o 0 .2 N N a0 w C c7 N m N L° vi ^ ' U Q V W f» Envjd, 64f» d, 40 g L D Q D o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o f m o o v o n v of vi a $ I V O N ' N P') O N N 0 C _j-_J O T� 4! V) fA fA E9 fA EA to fA N N O. 0 O ^ \ O c �/ '• V O G 7 N O N o U U U p { ° 0 O N M U 0 '6 cc O. 0V w m ' N Q m O m N, CD U 0 m a 4-J E D N c C O N o 0 $c ITS 0 O O > O r M C O a � Q � Q H Q o Q W O co Q w +; ii /f C r-I N V M V/ E _Q o ca o 0 0 m o w cn CL O o I O O '�n • O O aO O O O O O O n _O cs !00 V t0 O O r- � M N N V Vi fA y� f9 f9 fA Vi Vl O O O_ O O O O O v 1� 06 N O co t0 w N fA EA 64 ER EA to EA b I Q O O O O Q O O Z O O O O Z O O csi N M CO) EH fA b9 Ey 69 W ' N O N V N N o O 4-J p o OO U w o o N_ O U O O N U N U Z U U d 0 N O c O D L m E a co c c m H W U N U Q Q FO- �o N Q I 4-J CU N f0 N L N tjo 0 on �. (� 0 (U 00 c E 0 m a, c co N i u v }, O fl- > CL OD N 0 U++ V I 41 U m a. 4A f9 N _ ++ C > _ QD *L O •� L 0 4-- L Q N E M L O cn � Q � O CL �o O � Q O o tl3113M NOMHOlcmvlHSV NVicimaisvw NOISNVaxa • ti ®r a� ia� wss.S."sHuvm3lsvm a.M+a t Zt +W P•-d N :MILL :P j ,. AaOPBP IUUOPIPPV r Z': •r+- �s+ } (;' luewaoeldaA wsluegoew A)PUD Z .�5.'ii�,. r 95rgAuw 1BUDIUM 1 7 . +. ., a .��_rrl� r .I• A '; (Orozpuo"q) $ ` • ( t „ 7 .. 9M3W3AONdWI r MAGRld � m 'Vic,�"" ��i�� edwnd Ae0leq tplM weldea g IuewsoBldeA wsluogoew As9PBlo 9 •w : a 191'' '� ) 3uoweoeldw luewdlnbe 4071P uo!IBPnro Ou!Ism3 L 8 slewelu!449 uo!leP.0 9 Q Iu eldaj weysAs len w IPO 5 l f.Il - M1 luaweoelft ue ieq jwluo4Oapy 4 2 epeMn V s�MM M uol l ppV r a f 'i. NOLLtl7PI1BV1r t r--+ OM..3N Iuewwolde1 Owd d V sd=d Pea)euwgweyy Z (sauwgwaw ie0isl)Iue ojdej euwgweyy L L (OrOZ•OZOZ Aq) e m3Lma I _/ SLN3W3AOtldNl Z ALRIOrdd Dams � ' 1 •L t r. ]uelUeaelda dwnd SVN G IlaUS gOPp ua9eP!:O 9 juewweldw euwgweri 5 dwnd(epapod)dmpeg q 'JNro71ne. �. sOP M uow 1 r n9L711 (Rb-N)11WO ny u-4sld Z C, 3NVMBW9W rt " •. UOPeMW llsmo L ❑ . (OZOr-ZLOZAq) •I SLN3W3AOMdWI LAARIORyd {1e B oNlmme � Ali '� r1 , .r1 t. ❑ � pAu�1T 1 �r 1 dwnd_ `ff` �bVM/sd9 8 `r 6i' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Its m6 n r r m � a; m M I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 t0 m 0 i!'f m m O 06 N m m tD N m M t+I O N a m N i� N N m M th N � m NI w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w - .k•� ° ° o e e o e p o e o 0 0 0 o a o 0 IT r o 0 o I cn N in r N in a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • -„ W 0 0 0 w m t0 E N O C%! E a o w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w C C C ^W' E m E m n E m U b w W W u o W m u W o 'W oS W u o W u o W o o a 0 W U U U U U U U 0 U O W W W W o W W W o O U U ov W ro �H E O 3 0 U E y m o W O N L` o m co m ) 'e o W �c IRE c N 'm E E E d R g c ° U O a W 0 O o a0 «0' aN v o 3° C !a o- IL c m g y E }, p U) CM13 CL ® 4 3 N fh a �n m n m rn 3 Q a0 U D w LL C7 S ^ , fu V 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 01 N M M ill tl1 N C` C W 00 N VS N N f\ o o 0 0 0 O O O O O .-� O ° c o o O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O ryi N M edY 0 N ^ b V rli a ti O N r` O V N N N h M .ti O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O N V Ol vt a0 O d N W %p a m C e + ro M � N N � cl� ill O O o ° ° ° ° o o o o •o 0 80 ° ° ° K g g O tri CO .-I 1p 06 e4 N t` o m & N N N N N 00 M N O 0 0 .ti t0 �A N rl � rl N V O O O O O O O O O O O O f.. 0 O ° O N O O O O O O O O o 00 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N .�i i0 at O O O e C W at e0 N tl1 i} f•1 N N a N N O N T N t0 N N M 01 JcN N N H V N N 0N rN l arlD l 1p 8M 8 O 8N 88N 8 0M 00 0 00 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f� f� f/1 rl - 0 f/1 a O 00 N w b O N lfw Ln N N 8 0 0 N N N N N N rl rl rl o °o ° °o °o H0880000 § 88° ° ° 8 O o 00 U OO0008 § OO 0 0 d N N H O 01 N M N ti N p N N N N N m LL y > c O b O 2 c C b 4 a Y n 9 b d W U c w 0 m u C Ew I c a a m d S c j w M ° m c o. ¢ o s o O Y c >• '^ o L c w m J m �m W J b C CL r E c J t m E a o .� m « 3 ., b E 5 � wL m y }aE�i '� m e m j D o la- q u m c E S. a o � � o °� � 3 G 0 d N N y 0 t O vi Gl m N m J O O « ?� fy 3 v « c v o c a a s y v Q.� ¢ o w LL m o m ; E m m a' °«3' !' .m. b m f Yn .�i N Uw m E 10 b o 79` L Oi W j L V K a T T N 10- 00 V m N N 0 ~ C v IF V32 Oaf 2O K 3i LL U .ti .ti OQ .ti .y � auf a O N O ` N 0 O 0 O � N d 7 u�i ON W CL ` K W A O W to N O V C C U') M Q C i 0 O C N ' m d A � O W N y A N m [i.)L C) u O u X N N � LL N W O N ' O C) c O N O O N O N O \ O N 0 \ O O N O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O\ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O fl, 0 ' C' M N - +n V N N tf N N V . tjo L C: Q N 2 4-J 06 w a -C a V) 4 3 a` ° (L) D c L � cu a O L W ' L m Q L V Q V X OC7 .� 0 W ate.., w N m O C N B 1 0 N J Ql m 0 a) O 0 W d I I O c 0 ° co III Y ? O LO 1 N U r CL O N W , N M I m - fy C1 [O m O m �` V V V 7 O G 11 a of N G ac O m ! O N�4 m f` ,Vl J 0 o � LL 0 J � 0 � o � o co ' N O ' O N N ' O O W N O O 0 O O T N O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O �N-1 NVDI N tN/f W N N CL X LU c co — CL a f6 =3 M ° o U- -0 ." ai }^' -a L o w N ° o � E m lam ' N N v N \ N E co VU W ._ Q Q — c-I c 4-J -0 M O 1 0 0 1 O N 1 W N 1 O N n O N L ` Lo U U O > M a N N O Y ` C 1 c 1 1 w 1 ° a a I V � N ` O N ` O � � O Ot � N � � O •� 1 N i n ' O O LO N O N O O O O O O V1 O O O O O O co O O O O O O O V1 O V1 O Ln to to N V1 to V_ wo E > �4-J o O c L O N C vl _Q W v) O N 40-- >U G1 i s N O t C E Q Q Q N an d 00 0 a N o a N N N H N a ° VA t o H (r T T o N n r O 1 en CT; ° c N � 00 L c « U N M C m ON W oG O NIn } 3 � m �+ ro m u Qto O LL M tD In v L t 0 N o LL = ca . O 2. m m . n 0 LL 5 Ol L N o \ ` t N ^ , 4— 7 d ✓ W U h N luaiin:) o O N 0 to 0 Ln 0 in 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 T� to C V m m N N H V) VI ^ V v/ to N in N V1 iA V1 V U T W _r_ asnOH Allwej-aISUIS IN A143uOV11 ageJany L 4J 0 N LL p >_ N cc ro cz >` N T cu � •� O O co w N co LL °>c N 5 c$o i (U W o \ W -0 b 3 u o L-n ap V �n .� l I 1 li i 'r I 1 1 � 1 9A 1 T _ 1 m - N O � L L � N 0 f ,{ a ECD CN • o�rl • �. i u \ j • • • CL • • • co . • • i . • • • . � .. A� G 1 �Ye, ,P.� lt... , . _ Y • r•�{ I - } FJ t� mvp ilk Al IJ- cYVNI Iql all 4 . ilk . 7 ! @ ; ! , � \ « y � , \ ` a = - � \ � � ^ A Ja i ) \ ) -9 ) { { r k � � \ \ \ \ \ ` - - f ` ■ � $ - z « ! E & , \ f } ] ƒ k \ / ) | / k ¥ \ : C k C , 7 ; £ | ! { \ \ k ) } § # ( ) { ( § / \ Cl) - � n E c: . � 2 0 2 @ CU Q c , CD % 1 \ o E > o k k ® c: : � % ® 0 o 70 cz `\ � 0 E¢ � 4--Q c o � . .. co 0 A C cz @ 0 > 2 o / ; O CD d 40, S ,v Q eS , a� � a �s ` rn i a,o � •• y a. l f'sb CTJ to c • u� Beat Q*% 0 . d y r C N d w • 'Y 7 C 6 G C y 9 C G�f d CO CdB eon 9 � Oe 3e a aM cc e 4-1 °i' E a E C=) 1 y ego °vd c may gi E W `= d Q M f d V�«. '� ••� U c C U -a E � A 4 m c14_ Y'aA44. kSJ<5 •„ A N � a N N - O i'' S d 3 c 5 � � •� � � U� N � o � � D � ° T Q � c • E m O) U U� tt LD t > nE � Y � � C c e t C\j © § CJ g � kkk � E = B 2o \ { kj $ % > § � ! § , R C/) ( \ o ka ; ! o. I ) � _ ■ ; ; , K CZ k ® � \, # | _ % { { k § 7 ) , E \ � ! ! | C0 E : C \ § / # ] \ Qa@ \ \ { � \ ct m ! ; E E > P \ \ � ` ° E : \ � ; � \ } \ / C ; ! 2 ) ) E ; = ; 7k § m . \ � S 16\ § { . . . . . . kw R | ; : e k 's ; eE ff- - e § ) ZB » � { _ £ ! $ LO \ 2k0 C 001 Co t : f , \ @ 70 0 0 1E § 7 000 _ « ! - - ■ : g 77777 | f ® R § k AkE I k k 4 2 § � # C % cm cz q / cm ta CD LL CL : § } \ \ " \ } 2 k } 0 , a a ! ) | ) ` > > | \ ' / \ / ( / \ | cz as f = ! � - � E E ■ � � - # A \ \ t ; { ` \ 0 ; ! $ e ® \ 0 o U3 § CL M / CL Cl? > ' * CY , 2 CL e CL s ® ! ! i � e § \ 2 0 , . t � . � I . . ] 01 N N O N 1n Ln a n a .+ ui v n 00 1� l0 1D N a VT N an �A V} N N O N Y N O ?a N = M C W 7 O 0 N c u O c W c H N O Y m m L y j] O ate+ � y N m 3 0 y c a o a v oo ^' LL O ++ ty N L L —ego 3 3 c co C C c O C LL Vf O O Z: m CL v_ D N a G O L O OD O O ? L N CL L Y a 3 3 a a v ar Q c '^ U Ll u V u V N �O O O O O M N N N (U W c H W Gl 4J C O Y L L L L •u N O Y Y Y Y L C C C C y E E E E 2 +, m m to w O N V / to (0 (0 d d G!4) G! � w O O O O O o O 3� L.L m K n C m m m CL 3mo `gg° � ID � C oi7r gs� K CL n � n.o gr IaS f n l y CL CD 00 3 m ax 11 03 pr r° Se° � c q °m Sd33 �' �.n 4T C2 G d m d 9p N ' R N CD O n m� -mj d m 03 M ° o n o w w o B m W m y � ,, d / i ..... .Ql N -: :40 i off 0 § L6 . Ike � ( / ¥ E - 0 ! ® * kfEf > � ! 2Jy § & ; ^ � ) \ _rZ IZ- U % § ■ � . E \ 2 • § � k k \ ) \ ( q � � k2 7 \ { ( ) / f k - - Et ! { 2 ■ k ! & � _ < � t . . CL k � Lm 0 2 Ek \ k 2? T o \ kf 2 \ k } \ / / / k ^ � E � § ■ o tle � ! R � : ( \ \ \ E \ 15 7k ® R \ � 0c te = a | k m z ! o G 0 ! ) ¢ \ ) E m o , , \ \ 00 C 2 0 . Ea ° . O 0 ° ® 2 ; a k � �� ca . ■ | ) 7 �} m . © k � ¢ m � f ® R � k \ k � i � C E _ oopp CpN aVTFM N y a 0 N N J w � I E9 E r cc� N i O. ` ppipp u�2o z N sfRF � - l�l y m d d Lo a� 3 fR E a s �op�3� ao 3 ER F N • : sd3F � � Lnwm 10 bra F N Ln cz Y • u • � ; fR E T 00 n \tea 3ts}F N r c !11 NSA N E • N _ N N r ; �F N � � C E uO�� m f0 E • � E N N _ M Y ; 6rAE N y CL 0 iG N N LEI O d N Rl m 3 0 369E N cz � ep f9 N f0ne " i d9 E c41 • A O l0 me 000 H- 3 N O0ow CD N N w o a tim ,%N • 3 �E ^ N � C `m m d u00N � y sE9E � � E s• « MGM N y 3tRE N a CL CM 0 N N ® lcC N L N .® d N N d " aEM9E Nm 3O T cl0 G 00 O co e=e�n 4% ^ 1 3VJE N 3 CO ^�p $ MN N 3tHE CC� ® - co of 2° 10 Jq " 3ENR+E � N O n e ' +� 3tHE cc� CM Ln _ N O n, to 3 44 E r cn 3° N C-4 0 3to+ N I i 69 E >. m E E O N y � Y 3 EN9+ N CL 0 N cn r N d c Q 3E9E m m to n a O�44 t�0o 340+ N ro �p m 2 N co w T f13+ N o N 44 C-4 3 E W co) t0 _ - - � CO N — M N N 3 F T 1 m® g To TM f Q ER?+ N 3 N) 06 � M ° s64) E >% m ER E N I � o G � D E Via° N y _ M �° 64F N CL 0 N la C-4 N 7 o m _W N M m CL M N "s �F Ri m 3 0 - Lo a t2 .• may} � N N a° CO _ �n l9 T N QN 'A CO rp , T . 8 T Vl N _ i fJ)E >, -0000 O C N n o y ANN O ■ ■ ^` 3 1R E N O 3 E N I vl W vl LU 1 U C (0 C O p } } Z N N .V5. = o = Ol Y U o 00 ° d e � U O L C C Q ma G W 80 W O O v E �i > 0300 > 0s ° L .. VJ m u° v 2 .0- E ; tO = o z o o L : C 9 O M2 Q E 12 ° 6 6 O W G L - 0 `0 y 6 W O $ p 0 'r T p N 9 C C W C O O m 0 O O 0 v n e°0'o3 m " ° v N E u m 9 0 2 v D a N O 0 m0."°..D • • • • • • • • • • 0 B a � m 5 70 W m > > c ° s :3 W 02 43T 0 W a aE v - n � B X W ° O y G 3 0 L a q 4 - •y @ a . ° ii y o o c@ o 0 p L F N u 6 FE 5 mF °� L00 v O O E O. ya` oO .E 3z E E c ya`TO E - L C O O C 22 L L G O L p ' 0 E 2 -2 a U K O O t X 0 6 O Q T O O � a d0. $ U uC • • • • • • • • • • • • {•� a Ef :4:..5._ _. . Via . N O O O C F C) c E LL O p. O p, O n O d 'c ` w L N L O O p p O m O C d 0 r U r U , a) ' O O 0 O O O r Oy d TTE o o m To T o a) m m o w 7 C O c 0 C O c 0 C 0 m y Z O N 0 N O N 0 N 0 O d .N Z W 0 a m "O m 'O m 'O m "O m W 0 a) c N c N c a) c_ 0 0 E a) ur MM m r m 7 m 7 m ` m ` m m o O mU CO -D M '00 m "00 mN W a O N 0 4L E CL C c N O '� m 0 0 y m V) c m 0 0 N E a) r 0 N "O > N ° L T 5 m W m O O y c m m N C N N C E m 0 O 0 m a) m E a) m a) O Y "O a) O t 0 U C U C w C W 'p N c (a m 0 0 a) L im m> m NT Tm D. r N U O_ a) c C_ '(p Y 0 C O E O o 3:N ° T Z c U 0 C 3 N ' ` >, d aim a) m3 ° mm � (� na S ur a vi a C n ( m v > m 0 0 U N O LO, O 3 L (D U T N 0) Cam) N U U V L 0 a) a) m N m Q of > (n n ` > U c c :+ a) N 0 of ° m 0 0 N C c O_ m 0 m > E mw m a3 m c 0 �c E E . w « E E Io N O W .0. .c p a) .0 O .2 N V O � ° 0 a) 'N c w C Q O 0 C N aL.. a .0. w ai ( y N 'c ? ` N w m0_'� m o ° oi 33 ca c y $ am) EE � � 3 L m r ° N CL -00 0 7 0 '0° 'r T p)j 0) V m co0.co '� 0 EE @c (D d oN mo w mm c o E nE '°- c E CL dw m rn o T-0 ° o a) c mo � m o 3 m mw m o V a) ° m m 'W ° c °) c r a) rnci 3 ° c ° v Z v ° 0 0. 0 � '� o :3 c ° mo m 3 m m � � 4)) .nm� a) ur � '- ° a2m � p E m R C: m° 0ca�im O) � ° ai o � nw S c 3 E o c a m > o > m T o 0 O m m 0 "6 L O m a m 0 w 7 a) a c � c U33m < E 2 =1 mm = a) 0 Q aa) X 3 0 O ` j;z m O N e m Co a) 0 O O O E m C u W W ai 0 c CL 'a 0 -2�. 0 7 4) 2 cQm w > ` M LO r r O a a 'y O J O O O O ' �.., c 0 N m U 0m m E EL (0 0 Cc r ) a m E c c w 0 O N 3 m c c m m o m O .- m m ,C O m3m ` " N cm c'= 'm O me d -° c v, m ZF .c .> V m .0 T O. = .O -° C O C E Nin Q m > 2' a0 7 c N a m 0 m m C,O O_ C E N d . T C O O m N LL U E 2 m �.Y £ m N 'C ° m 0 4.I N M B NEv m 00m'> o m n > 30 F � 0m � 03: .s 3d Ocn ~ Z CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012, Business Meeting Second Reading of three ordinances amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and Municipal Code to implement the Green Codes Updates. FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Brandon.Goldman @ashland.or.us SUMMARY: Three "Green Code" ordinance updates are being presented for the City Council's consideration that collectively provide for greater flexibility regarding the number and location of chickens permitted on single family properties (including allowances for the the selling of surplus eggs), establish new standards for deer fencing, allow commercial and employment zoned properties within Ashland's designated historic districts the ability to install solar panels without obtaining planning approval. and exempt rain barrels and eave extensions from meeting certain yard setback requirements. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City Council held a public hearing on March 6, 2012, and passed first reading of the ordinances incorporating numerous revisions as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. On April 3, 2012 the public hearing on the second reading of these ordinances was postponed to-April 17, 2012. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 14, 2012, and recommended approval of the ordinances with specific revisions as outlined in the Planning Commission Recommendation Findings presented to Council at first reading of the proposed ordinances. During the City Council's March 6, 2012 first reading of the proposed ordinances Staff was further directed to present additional amendments for consideration. The amendments discussed by Council have been included in the attached ordinances and are described in the attached Memo to Council dated April 3, 2012. Letters received relating to the code amendments have been provided to the City Council in the March 6 and April 3, 2012,packet materials. Additional written testimony received after the prior materials were delivered is attached. The proposed "green code" amendments are intended to remove regulatory barriers to promote local food production and energy and water conservation. These amendments address the 2011 City Council Goal: Adopt land use codes, building codes, green building standards, and fee structures that creates strong incentives for development that is energy, water, and land efficient and supports a multi-modal transportation system. Comprehensive Plan Policies relating to the proposed ordinance amendments include the following: Chapter 1: Historical Sites and Structures: Page I of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Goal: ' To preserve historically significant structures and sites in Ashland. 1-7: The City shall develop and implement through law design guidelines for new development as well as for alteration of existing structures within the historic interest areas for structures and areas that are historically significant. Chapter XI: Energy, Air, and Water Conservation The City shall strive, in every appropriate way, to reduce energy consumption within the community. XI-2) Existing Housing c) Program experience from other areas indicates that water conservation in existing homes can provide additional water for growth. Programs aimed at acquiring this resource shall be thoroughly evaluated on equal footing with new supply options. g) Passive solar design and sun tempering has application in existing homes. Also, solar water heating technology and photovoltaic might prove to be very cost effective in the future in existing homes. Consequently, solar access protection is still very important. Therefore, we shall continue our aggressive policy of protecting solar access. XI-7 Water Conservation c) Irrigation is a large water usage and it also can be`accomplished with lower quality water. Therefore, water conservation efforts shall be directed toward an overall reduction of water usage (conservation) and substitution of lower quality water for outdoor irrigation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve Second Reading of the ordinances as amended. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: To independently address each of the three ordinances presented for consideration, the City Council - must make three separate motions. 1) 1 move to approve second reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to Exempt Solar Energy Systems Meeting Specific Standards from Site Review Requirements." 2) 1 move to approve second reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance." 3) 1 move to approve second reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing Provisions for the Keeping of Chickens within Residential Districts, and Repealing Fence Provisions within the Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance amending the Site Design and Review Chapter (18.72) of the ALUO Ordinance amending the Definitions Chapter(18.08) and General Regulations Chapter (18.68) of the ALUO Ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code Memo to Council dated 4/03/2012 Page 2 of 3 �A, CITY OF ASHLAND University of New Mexico white paper: Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An examination ol'25 Cities. Additional Letters Received Subsequent to 4/3 Council Packet distribution Kim Blackwolf dated 3/31/2012 Donald Kay dated 4/02/2012 and 4/6/2012 Doug Munro dated 4/9/2012 The City Council 3 10612012 packet contains the following materials presented at First Reading. Exhibit A — Planning Commission Recommendation Findings dated February 28, 2012 Exhibit B— Alternative Ordinance language options. Exhibit C— Planning Action 2011-01731 Staff Report dated Feb 14, 2012 Exhibit D—Applicability of Ordinance Amendments by Location Exhibit E— Fence Study and Opacity Illustrations provided by Dale Shostrom Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated February 14, 2012 Draft Historic Commission Minutes dated February 8, 2012 Draft Rain Barrel Guide Letter to Council from Amy Haptonstall dated February 15, 2012 Letters: Pam Lott dated 3/05/2012 Amy Haptonstall dated 3/8/2012 and 3/12/2012 Barbara Barnes dated 3/12/2012 Jeanne Powell dated 3/13/2012 Kim Blackwolf dated 3/13/2012 Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SITE DESIGN AND REVIEW CHAPTER (18.72) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO EXEMPT SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS MEETING SPECIFIC STANDARDS FROM SITE REVIEW REQUIREMENTS Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold 1ined4hfough and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Oregon House Bill 3516, adopted in 2011, established that installation and use of solar photovoltaic energy systems or solar thermal energy systems on residential or commercial buildings shall be an outright permitted use in any zone where such structures are an allowed use. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote the use of solar energy systems to help reduce peak power demands, provide residents and business owners with an alternative source of power during power outages, and to help control the rising costs of electricity; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices including the installation of solar energy systems; WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it is appropriate to provide standardized requirements for the placement of solar energy systems within Ashland's designated historic districts to minimize the aesthetic impact upon the character of the historic resources; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; Page 1 of 4 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to , amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2 AMC Chapter 18.72.030[Site Design and Use Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.030 Applicability Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC, CM and M-I zones. . b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Mixed-use structures or developments containing_commercial and residential uses in residential zoning districts within the Pedestrian Places Overlay. d. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. e. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which alters or affects circulation on adjacent property or a public right-of-way. f Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy, as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which requires a greater number of parking spaces. g. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. h. Any exterior change to a structure which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. i. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). j. Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. Page 2 of 4 b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). f Installation of wireless communication facilities in accordance with Section 18.72.180. (Ord 2984, amended, 05/19/2009; Ord 2951, amended, 07/01/2008; Ord 3036, amended, 08/17/2010, Ord 3054, amended 12/16/2011) B. Exemptions. The following development is exempt from Site Design Review application and procedure requirements provided that the development complies with applicable standards as set forth by this Chapter. 1. Detached single family dwellings and associated accessory structures and uses. 2. Land divisions regulated by the following chapters: Partitioning (18.76), Subdivisions (18.80), Manufactured Housing (18.84) and Performance Standards (18.88). 3. The following mechanical equipment:. a. Private, non-commercial radio and television antennas not exceeding a height of seventy.(70) feet above grade or thirty(30) feet above an existing structure, whichever height is greater and provided no part of such antenna shall be within the yards required by this Title. A building permit shall be required for any antenna mast, or tower over fifty (50) feet above grade or thirty(30) feet above an existing structure when the same is constructed on the roof of the structure. b. Not more than three (3) parabolic disc antennas, each under one (1) meter in diameter, on any one lot or dwelling unit. c. Roof-mounted solar collection devices in all zoning districts, with the exception of Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. Roof-mounted solar collection devices on Employment and Commercial zoned properties located within designated historic districts if the footprint of the structure is not increased, the plane of the system is parallel to the slope of the roof and does not extend above the peak height of the roof or existing parapets, or is otherwise not visible from a public right of way. The devices shall comply with solar setback standards described in 18.70 and height requirements of the respective zoning district. d. e. Installation of mechanical equipment not exempted by (a,b,c, d) above or(e 1) below, and which is not visible from a public right-of-way or adjacent residentially zoned property and consistent with other provisions of this Title, including solar access, noise, and setback requirements of section 18.68.140(c). e-. f. Routine maintenance and replacement of existing mechanical equipment in all zones. Page 3 of 4 SECT/ON 3. Severability. The sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection,paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections,paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-letteied, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of . 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER (18.08) AND GENERAL REGULATIONS CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the Ashland City Council has determined that it would be advantageous and beneficial to the citizens of the City of Ashland to create procedures and incentives for the implementation of green building practices; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds it is in the interest of the City and its citizens,to provide standards for fences for the purposes of protecting vegetation from . deer, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City to promote energy efficiency, water conservation, and increased self sufficiency; WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on February 14, 2012, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary Page 1 of 7 to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add a new definition to read as follows: 18.08.175 Deer Fence. An open fence used to prevent entry by deer or other wildlife for the purpose of protecting gardens, vegetation and yards. 18.08.616 Rain Barrel: A barrel used to collect and store rain water runoff from rooftops via rain gutters for non-potable use. 48.08 16 18.08.617 Reconstruct To recreate or reassemble a structure or building with a new or replacement structure that recreates or reproduces its form, shape and location as originally built. (ORD 2951, 2008) SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.68.010 [Fences] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.010 Fences Fences, walls, hedges and screen planting shall be subject to the following standards: A. Height A.] In any required front yard, provided they do not exceed three and one-half(3 %2) feet in height. 132. In any rear or side yard, provided they do not exceed six and one-half(6 %2) feet in height. 63. The height of fences or walls in rear or sideyard setback areas abutting a public street shall be four (4) feet or less if said fences or walls are within ten (10) feet of any public street except an alley. 4. The height of a fence is the vertical distance measured from the natural grade to the highest point of the fence, including the structural supports. a) Below-Grade Lots. On lots that are not generally level with the adjacent street, height may be measured from the top of the adjacent sidewalk or curb, or, where curbs are absent, from the crown of the adjacent street plus six inches. Page 2 of 7 'm x Curb Sidewalk LL Street Grade �� ---- --- Property Line' ; r. � b) When fences are built on top of retaining walls, or one lot is markedly higher than an adjacent lot, height shall be measured from the highest adjacent grade;except that the solar access of adjacent properties to the north shall be maintained in accordance with AMC 18. 70. --- "n m n - m N Adjacent Grade ,. Natural Grace is used to determine - _tU=l Gfa-zd maxirnum fence height under the " +.� solar ordinance when fence shades a property to the North. B. Construction B1. The framework for newly constructed fences and walls shall face toward the builder's property, except where fences are jointly constructed. 1r2. Fences shall lean at an angle from the vertical plane no greater than five (5%) percent. In cases where this limitation is exceeded and a written complaint is received by the Planning Department, the property owner shall be notified, in writing of the problem. The Planning Department shall take action only on the basis of a written complaint, or on its own action. 3. Fences shall not be constructed across any waterway or stream identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to Section 18.62.060. Fences shall not be constructed within any designated floodway. Fences within water resource protection zones shall be located and constructed in accordance with Section 18.63.060.B.3. C. Materials Page 3 of 7 1. The use of barbed wire, razor wire, electrified wire and similar security fencing materials shall be limited as follows: a) shall not be located adiacent to a sidewalk, a public way. or along the adjoining property line of another person: b) shall not be erected or maintained at less than six and a half(6%:) feet above grade,• C) may be located in commercial, employment or industrial lands if not visible from the public right of way, or with approval from the Community Development Director on properties deemed to be hazardous or in need of additional security. D. Deer Fencing 1. Deer fencing may be attached to a permitted front, side, or rear yard fences provided the area in excess of the allowable fence heights per 18.68.010 is designed and constructed to provide a clear view through the fence. a) Within required front yards at least eighty five percent (85%) of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. b) Within required side and rear yards at least eighty percent (80%), of the surface shall be unobstructed to both light and air when viewed perpendicular to the plane of the fence. 2. Deer fencing shall have a minimum height of six and a half feet (6 'h' ) and .. .. shall not exceed eight feet (81) above grade. 3. Permitted deer fencing materials may include, woven wire fencing, field . fence, "hog panels", wire strand or polypropylene mesh net that is open and visible through the material. Within front yards all mesh material shall have a minimum open diameter of one and a half(1 '/2) square inches. 4. Deer fencing shall be supported by structural supports, or tension wires, that run along the top of the fence to prevent sagging. 5. Chain link fences shall not be considered to be deer fences under this section even if they meet the criteria above. :open' mesh ': :: :: ': 4.5' deer fencing.. .. . w . . . . . . . . . : 35 0 00000100000001 irear or side yard front yard i SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.68.040 [Yard Requirements] is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 18.68.040 Yard Requirements Page 4 of 7 All yard measurements to and between buildings or structures or for the purpose of computing coverage or similar requirements shall be made to the building or nearest projection. Architectural projections may intrude eighteen (18) inches into required yards. Eaves and awnings may intrude three feet (3') into required yards. 18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following limitations: A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district. B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house. C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained accessory to a single family dwelling in a residential district provided the following conditions are met: 1) No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area; 2) No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area;up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or maintained on properties greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area, - 3) No roosters shall be kept on the property at any time. 4) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as follows: a) they shall be located within a side or rear yard only, and shall be at least twenty 12,0 feet from dwellings on adjoining properties. - b) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 1 chicken coops shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area, or four- (4) square feet uer chicken, which ever is greater. d) chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in area, or ten (10) square feet per chicken, which ever is greater. 3� aminimum Coop - setback GhioKen d The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch. 9.08.040). Page 5 of 7 Q D Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building permit. E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, and as follows: 1) Rain barrels shall not exceed six (6) feet in height; and 2) Rain barrels shall be located so that a minimum clear width of three (3) feet is provided and maintained between the barrel and property line; and 3) Rain barrels shall be secured and installed on a sturdy and level foundation, or platform, designed to support the rain barrel's full weight. 4) Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from view of adjacent properties and public streets. DY Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated-from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and - is no more than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to _ an accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Tide for accessory residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review. SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance . are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of '12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 6 of 7 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 7 of 7 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND REPEALING FENCE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH AND SANITATION CHAPTER 9.08 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Section 9.08.040 of the Municipal Code regulates the keeping of animals within the City; WHEREAS, under the Municipal Code it is unlawful to keep poultry within 75 feet of another dwelling, whicb limits the opportunities for residents to keep chickens within the City; WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Ashland, Oregon, finds that the keeping of a limited number of chichi ns in residential districts should be authorized, and that adoption of this Ordinance promotes more sustainable food practices and reasonably furthers the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Ashland; WHEREAS, Section 9.08.140 of the Municipal Code addresses requirements for fences which are more appropriately addressed in Chapter 18.68.010 of the Ashland Land Use Code which provides standards for fences location, construction and materials; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on March 6, 2012; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the Page ] of 4 comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide standards for the keeping of domesticated chickens. It is intended to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens (up to 5) on a non-commercial basis while creating standards and requirements that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 9.08.040[Health and Sanitation: Keeping of Animals] is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.08.040 Keeping of Animals A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more than three (3) dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1) parcel or tract of land. B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or the provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to as Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrofa vittatus) is allowed, subject to the following: 1. Such pigs shall not-exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or weigh more than 95 pounds. 2. No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land. 3. Such pigs shall: a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such other person has given express permission; b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise confined; or c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length. 4. Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310. 5. Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park. C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another dwelling, except that chickens may be kept or maintained rn say s f (75) fo ch of the following requirements is continuously met inside the buffer zone: 1. No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area; 2. No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or Page 2 of 4 maintained on properties Greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area, 3. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-family complexes, including duplexes; 4. In residential zones chickens shall be kept for personal use only, a*d-nflt f e o o s—ummudities with the exception of the sale of surplus eggs directly to the end consumer. 5. No roosters shall be allowed; 7s 6. Chickens must be secured at all times and located at least twenty feet-( from dwellings on adioining properties: a. During non-daylight hours a secure chicken coop shall be provided to protect chickens from predators, b. During daylight hours, chickens shall be located in a chicken run that meets the requirements of AMC 18.68.140(C)(2) or in a securely fenced backyard; 7. To protect public health, the areas in which chickens are kept must be maintained in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 and the following requirements: a. Chicken feed must be kept in rodent- and raccoon-proof containers; b. Chicken manure must be collected, stored, and removed from the property on a regular basis in accordance with the following requirements: i. All stored manure shall be within a non-combustible, air-tight, container and located in accordance with the Oregon Fire Code relating to the outdoor storage of combustibles, ii. No more than one 20-gallon container of manure shall be stored on any one property housing chickens; and iii. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be removed 8. Chicken coops and runs shall be built in compliance with AMC 18.68.140(C)(2) and with all applicable building and zoning codes, 9. The requirements of AMC 18.20.020(D) regarding of the keeping of livestock shall not apply to the keeping of chickens or the buildings and structures that house chickens. 10. Noise resulting from the keeping or maintaining of chickens must not exceed the limitations set forth in AMC 9.08.170. D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk. E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any kind or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another dwelling or within one hundred fifty(150) feet of a street or sidewalk. F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred (100) feet of another dwelling. Page 3 of 4 G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from those imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control. H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals identified in this section. I. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation. SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 09.08.140 [Fences] is hereby repealed as follows: feet,AMC 9.08.140 Fenees A. No owner- or-per-son in eharge of property shall eonstruet or- maintain n bar-bed wire fenee thereon, or- permit barbedwire to remain as part of a fenee, along a sidewall thnn six (6)ph-PtAp &HPP Along a sidewalk or publie way or Meng the adjoining pr-opeAy line o six (6) inehes high, another-person. C. Fences is a Class II vi SECTION 5. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code_ and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 2,,5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical.errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: 4/03/2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner RE: Green Code amendments for second reading The City Council reviewed numerous proposed amendments to the Land Use and the Health and Sanitation chapters of the Municipal Code at their regular meeting on March 6`h, 2012. During deliberations the City Council provided specific direction to Staff to further amend the draft ordinances. Below is a summary, of the City Council direction received relating to each of the five main components of the Green Codes amendments, including a general description of the changes to the ordinances that will be presented for consideration at second reading scheduled for April 3`d, 2012. Keeping of Chickens The City Council requested Staff further evaluate the proposed maximum number of chickens allowed.°Specifically, Staff was directed to identify a method of correlating the number•of_ . chickensTermitted to be proportionate with lot size. The ordinances to be presented at second reading have been modified to allow up-to five chickens on any single family property (as was originally proposed), and allow An additional chicken for each thousand square feet of lot size in excess of 5000sq.ff, up to a maximum of 20 chickens on lots 20,000 square feet in area or greater. The City Council requested Staff present an amendment to allow residents to engage in limited commercial activity with the intent to allow people to sell their surplus eggs to their neighbors. The ordinance to be presented at second reading retains the general prohibition on commercial activity in residential zones but now provides an explicit exception allowing the sale of eggs to the end consumer(e.g. neighbors). This new exception is consistent with Oregon Department of Agriculture regulations that allow individuals to sell eggs "directly to the end consumer" without first obtaining an egg handler's license. Alternatively, wholesale distribution of eggs or meat (e.g. sold to restaurants, or secondary retailers) would necessitate site inspections and special licensing by the ODA and as such this increased level of commercial activity would not be permitted in residential zones as the ordinance is drafted. DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel 541488-5305 20 E.Main Steel Fax:541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 =, x .ashland.or.us The City Council requested Staff confer with the Fire Department regarding any fire hazard relating to heat buildup in a container of manure. The ordinance to be presented at second reading contains new wording that addresses two suggestions provided by the Fire Department. They requested that the provision be modified to stipulate the 20 gallon container shall be "non-combustible and air-tight", and that the code provide an acknowledgement of the applicability of the Oregon Fire Code relating to the outside storage of combustibles materials (chicken manure).. The City Council supported the proposed prohibition on the keeping of chickens on multi-family complexes and duplexes. The ordinance to be presented at second reading retains this prohibition. The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission recommendation to remove the prohibition on outdoor slaughtering. The ordinance to be presented at second reading eliminates this prohibition. The City Council requested Staff further address the proposed requirement that "During non- daylight hours' that chickens be kept in a coop, noting that some chickens may prefer to roost outdoors at night, but that a coop should be available. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been amended accordingly. • Rain Barrels: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove the 90 gallon size limitation on rain barrels originally proposed. The City Council was supportive of the six foot height and three foot clearance recommendations but wanted staff to further research structural and clearance issues. The City Council specifically requested Staff confer with the Fire Department regarding the adequacy of the proposed three foot minimum clearance to property line. The ordinance to be presented at second reading incorporates the recommendations of the Planning Commission"and Staff, and has further been amended to clarify that rain barrels shall be located on a level foundation, or platform, designed to accommodate the weight of the barrel when full: The Fire Department reviewed the proposed three feet (3') clearance requirement and had no concerns as 3' is sufficient to enable firefighter access. The Fire Department expressed a general concern relating to the potential for repurposed barrels (i.e. 55 gallon drums) to be erroneously labeled as containing hazardous material if those pre-existing labels are not removed. To address this concern and provide guidance to residents the informational Rain Barrel Installation Guide has been amended to note that all pre- existing labels should be removed and barrels should only be labeled as"non-potable water" • Deer Fencing: The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations to amend the draft ordinance to require the following: 0 80% transparency in side and rear yards; 0 85% transparency in front yards; DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541-4885305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 =, w .ashland or.us • Elimination of the 2"x2" structural support size limit in front yards; • Clarification of the provision requiring that deer fencing be supported to keep from sagging; • Mesh used in front yards shall have a minimum 1.5"diameter. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been modified to incorporate each of these changes. • Eave Extensions The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the ordinance amendment including Staff's proposed amendment to eliminate "gutters" from the listing of what can encroach up to 3' into required setbacks. The ordinance to be presented at second reading has been modified to eliminate the word "gutters" but is otherwise unchanged. • Solar Energy Systems on Commercial and Employment properties in Historic Districts The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission and Staff recommendations to approve the ordinance amendments as presented. The ordinance amendments to be presented at second reading are unchanged., DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541488-5305 20 E.Main Street Fax:541488-6006 Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 =, w ashland.or.us Residential Urban Chicken Keeping: An Examination of 25 Cities p. i 0 Missoula Residents with their backyard chickens. Source:http://www.nussoula.com/news/node/226 KT LaBadie CRP 580 Spring 2008 University of New Mexico May 7th 2008 Table of Contents Introduction.......................................................................................................................4 ResearchMethods............:................................................................................................5 Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 6 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances............................................................... 12 Number of Birds Permitted.............................................................................................7 Regulation of Roosters.................................................................................................... 8 Permitsand Fees............................................................................................................. 8 Enclosure Requirements................................................................................................. 9 NuisanceClauses............................................................................................................ 9 Slaughtering Restrictions.............................................................................................. 10 Distance Restrictions.................................................................................................... 10 UniqueRegul ations....................................................................................................... 11 Findings and Recommendations.................................................................................... 12 Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 14 References........................................................................................................................ 16 AppendixA...................................................................................................................... 17 25 Ordinances Analyzed............................................................................................... 17 AppendixB...................................................................................................................... 18 Sources for 25 Ordinances............................................................................................ 18 AppendixC...................................................................................................................... 19 Exampleordinance........................................................................................................ 19 2 Abstract City councils across the United States and Canada are increasingly being faced with the task of deciding whether or not to allow chicken keeping in residential backyards. In many cases this issue has two opposing sides: those citizens who want to keep chickens for egg production and those citizens who are concerned about the effects of chickens on their communities. This paper provides an analysis of pro-chicken ordinances from 25 cities in an effort to define the components of a just and well functioning chicken ordinance. Of the 25 ordinances, no two were identical but a variety of common regulatory themes were found across cities. Based on these findings, some considerations are suggested when forming an urban chicken keeping ordinance. 3 Introduction "I can't say that!would have envisioned chickens as an issue, but I've heard from a lot of people about them, and it seems like it's something maybe we ought to pay a little attention to."t -Stacy Rye, Missoula City Councilwoman It's happening right now in cities across the United States and Canada. Community members are organizing themselves into groups and approaching their city councils about an important urban planning issue: chicken keeping in the city. This question of whether or not cities should allow backyard chicken keeping has increased substantially over the past 5 years as citizens become more interested in participating in their own food production. The issue has appeared recently before city councils in Missoula2, Halifax3, and Madison", and a case is currently pending in Ann Arbor, Michigan. In many cases this interest in backyard chicken keeping has been met with much opposition and city councils often do not know how to begin approaching the issue. The recent increase in urban backyard chicken keeping has come about for three main reasons. First, the local food movement itself has become very popular which has sparked a new interest for many in backyard food production. Since chickens are one of the smaller protein producers, they fit well into a backyard food production model. Second, rising energy and transportation costs have caused concern over increases in food costs, and backyard eggs offer a cheaper solution as they do not have to travel far to reach the plate. Lastly, many citizens are becoming increasingly concerned about food safety, and with meat recalls and other animal industry issues in the news, backyard chickens offer many a safer solution. For these reasons, backyard chickens have become Moore,Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. .Available online at http://www.missoula.conVnews/node/226 s Medley,Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video:Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/art icle/missoulas_urban_chicken_Squabble/C8/L8/ 'CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2008/02/12/chicken-report.html 4 Harrison-Noonan,Dennis. Urban chicken keeper,Madison,Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8,2008. s Kunselman,Steve.City Councilor(ward 3)Ann Arbor,Michigan. Interviewed on April 29,2008. 4 increasingly popular, but not everyone likes the idea of chickens living in their neighborhood. There are generally two sides to the chicken keeping issue: those who are for allowing Gallus domesticus in residential backyards, and those who are opposed. There are a variety of reasons why people want to keep chickens,ranging from having a safe source of protein to gaining a closer relationship to the food they consume. Those who are opposed to backyard chickens however,often express concerns about noise, smells, diseases,or the potential for chickens running loose. There is also debate between the two sides as to the appropriateness of chickens in a city environment and if chickens qualify as pets or livestock. Chicken keeping in urban environments is nothing new, but it is now something that needs to be planned for in all major cities and small towns across the United States. As the interest in the local food movement continues to increase, and as citizens become more interested in growing their own food, municipalities will eventually be faced with the issue of regulating backyard chicken keeping within their city limits. Planning for chickens can either be pro-active on the part of the city council and planning staff, or reactionary as citizens will eventually bring the issue to city hall. Municipalities often do not know how to approach the chicken keeping issue, and this paper serves to provide some insight through an analysis of urban chicken ordinances from across the United States. Research Methods The main goal of this paper was to analyze how residential backyard chicken keeping is regulated through the examination of chicken ordinances from a variety of cities. To achieve this,data was gathered through the examination of residential chicken ordinances,as well as through a variety of interviews, newspaper articles, video footage, and other resources. Residential chicken ordinances from over 30 cities were gathered, however only 25 of the cities allowed the keeping of chickens, so only those were used in the analysis (see 5 Appendix A). The ordinances were sourced from city web sites, online web ordinance databases, and other online sources (see Appendix B). In a few instances calls were made to city planning departments to verify language in the ordinances. Interviews were conducted with the following city officials, urban chicken keepers, and urban food/gardening community organizations: • Steve Kunselman,City Councilor(ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. He proposed pro-chicken ordinances for Ann Arbor, which are being voted on in May of 2008. • Thomas Kriese: An urban chicken keeper in Redwood, CA and writer about urban chickens at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ • Dennis Harrison-Noonan, urban chicken keeper, Madison,Wisconsin. He was involved in the adoption of pro-chicken ordinances for Madison. • Debra Lippoldt, Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR These interviews served to provide personal insights into urban chicken keeping, stakeholder positions, and the urban chicken movement. The interviews were also crucial in receiving feedback about chicken ordinances and the process involved in legalizing chicken keeping. Analysis Of the 25 cities evaluated, no two were identical in their restrictions and allowances (see chart of detailed findings in Appendix A). There were, however, common regulatory themes that emerged from the set evaluated: These common themes are as follows: • The number of birds permitted per household • The regulation of roosters • Permits and fees required for keeping chickens • Chicken enclosure/containment restrictions • Nuisance clauses related to chickens • Slaughtering restrictions • Coop distance restrictions in relation to homes or property lines The findings of the above commonalities, as well as unique regulations that emerged, are discussed in detail below. The ease and accessibility of finding the ordinances is also discussed. 6 Number of Birds Permitted Of the 25 cities evaluated, only 6 had unclear(or not specifically stated) regulations on the numbers of birds permitted, while 13 stated a specific number of birds. Of the remaining, 3 cities used lot size to determine the number of chickens permitted,2 cities used distance from property lines as a determining factor, and l city placed no limit on the number of chickens allowed. Over half of the cities evaluated stated a specific number of allowable chickens, which ranged from 2 to 25 birds. The most common number of birds permitted was either 3 or 4 birds, which occurred in 8 cities. The most common number of birds permitted was 3 or 4, which will supply on average between 1 and 2 dozen eggs per week. Depending on the size of the family in the household, this may be sufficient. In some cases however, 3 to 4 birds may not be enough for larger family sizes or allow for giving away eggs to neighbors. In cities where it is legal to sell your eggs at farmers markets, 3 or 4 birds would not be sufficient. So what is a good number of chickens to allow in residential backyards for home consumption? Thomas Kriese, an urban chicken keeper who writes online about chicken keeping and ordinances, feels that no more than 6 birds should be permitted. "That's approximately 3 dozen eggs a week which is a LOT of eggs to consume, plus that's a lot of food to go through, and excrement to clean up," he stated in a personal correspondence.6 The answer of how many birds to allow is not an easy one, as other factors such as average property sizes and controlling for nuisances should be considered. A good example of how to address the issue surrounding the number of birds is Portland, Oregon's chicken ordinance. Portland allows the keeping of 3 birds per household; however you are allowed to apply for a permit to keep more (See Appendix A). In this case the ordinance is flexible, as a sufficient number of birds are permitted outright, and those wishing to keep more can apply to do so. 6 Kriese,Thomans. Urban chicken keeper,Redwood City,CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at http://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ Regulation of Roosters The regulations regarding roosters were unclear in 14 cities and in 7 cities the keeping of roosters was not permitted. Of the remaining 4 in which the keeping of roosters was permitted, 1 city allowed roosters if kept a certain distance from neighbors residences, 1 allowed roosters only under 4 months of age, 1 allowed a single rooster per household, and 1 placed no restrictions. Many cities choose to not allow the keeping of roosters, as neighbors often complain about the crowing which can occur at any hour of the day. Since one of the main reasons people choose to keep chickens is for the eggs, which roosters do not provide, it is generally accepted to only allow hens. In the case of Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1 rooster is allowed per household but it is still subject to noise ordinances (see Appendix A). So in this case, you can keep your rooster if your neighbors do not mind the crowing. This does allow people to have more choice, however it can also increase the costs associated with enforcing noise complaints. Permits and Fees The regulation of chickens through city permits and fees was unclear in l l of the cities evaluated, while 4 required no permits or associated fees, and 10 required permits, fees, or both. The fees ranged from$5.00 to$40.00, and were either 1 time fees or annual fees. Of the 10 that required permits/fees, 3 required permits only if the number of birds exceeded a set amount which ranged from 3 to 6 birds. In two instances, it is also required that the birds be registered with the state department of agriculture. Requiring a permit for chickens is no different than requiring one for dogs and cats, which is the case in most cities. From the perspective of affordable egg production however, attaching a large fee to the permit undermines that purpose. If a fee is too steep in price, it can exclude lower income populations-from keeping chickens by increasing the costs of egg production. Fees may be necessary however to cover the associated costs for the municipality to regulate chickens. Another option, which was the approach of 3 cities, was to allow a certain number of birds with no permit/fee required, and anything 8 above that required a permit/fee. This allows equal participation and lowered costs, while still providing revenue for the regulation of larger bird populations. Enclosure Requirements In 9 cities the ordinances were unclear in regards to enclosure requirements or the allowance of free roaming chickens. Of the remaining, 2 had no restrictions and 14 required that chickens be enclosed and were not permitted to "run at large". In one case, the approval of a coop building plan and use of certain materials was required. Over half of the cities evaluated required that chickens be enclosed, and this regulation can help to alleviate the concerns of neighbors. Many chicken keepers want to keep their chickens confined in a coop and outdoor run, as this helps to protect them from predators. However, it is very restrictive to require confinement of chickens at all times, as many keepers enjoy watching their chickens free range about the yard. Just as there are regulations for leashing your dog, so too could there be regulation for only allowing chickens to roam in their own yard. Requiring a building permit with specific material requirements, is also restrictive to lower income populations, and takes away from the sustainability of keeping chickens for eggs. In many cases, chicken coops are built with scrap materials and suit the design needs of the owner. Requiring a specific design or materials takes those choices away from the chicken keeper. Coops should be treated similar to dog houses, which are generally not subject to this type of regulation. Nuisance Clauses There were a variety of nuisance regulations stated in 17 of the cities evaluated, while the remaining 8 cities had unclear nuisance regulations. The nuisances that were stated in the 17 ordinances included one or more of the following: noise, smells, public health concerns, attracting flies and rodents, and cleanliness of coops/disposal of manure. Chicken keeping alone does not cause the nuisances listed.above, but rather they result from improper care and maintenance which can sometimes occur. 9 A properly shaped ordinance can prevent potential nuisances by establishing clear guidelines for chicken care and maintenance, such as only allowing smaller sized flocks and not permitting roosters. An active community led education campaign, such as chicken keeping classes and coup tours, is another way in which to educate the public to ensure proper care and reduce the potential for nuisances. In many cities, chicken keeping community organizations have helped to educate the public on how to properly keep chickens within the limits of the law, thereby reducing nuisances and complaints. Slaughtering Restrictions Regulations regarding the slaughtering of chickens in residential areas were unclear in 19 of the cities evaluated. Of the remaining, 4 allowed slaughtering of chickens while 2 stated it was illegal to do so. This regulatory theme had the highest level of unknowns, most likely due to the issue not being included in the ordinance, or it being stated in another section of the general animal ordinances, and not referring specifically to chickens. Although slaughtering chickens within city limits seems gruesome to some, others may wish to slaughter their birds for meat. Rogers, Arkansas for example, only allows the slaughtering to take place inside(Appendix Q, which could help prevent neighbor complaints about the process. Allowing for slaughtering however, may also have its benefits, such as being a solution to aging urban chickens that no longer produce eggs. Distance Restrictions Distance restrictions between the location of the chicken coop and property lines, or coop and nearby residences, were stated in 16 of the ordinances evaluated. There were no restrictions in 3 of the ordinances and 5 were unclear. Of the 16 with distance restrictions, 12 were distances required from residences, while 3 were distances required from property lines. The distance required from property lines ranged from 10 to 90 feet, while the distances from residences ranged from 20 to 50 feet. If a city chooses to have distance restrictions, the average lot sizes need to be taken into consideration. For example, Spokane,WA has a property line distance restriction of 90 10 feet (see Appendix A), which may be impossible to achieve in many residential yards. This large of a requirement would prevent many people from keeping chickens. The lower distance requirements, such as 10 or 20 feet are more feasible to achieve for those with smaller lot sizes. Distance requirements to neighboring homes (vs. property lines) are also easier achieve as the distance considers part of the neighbors property in addition to the chicken keepers property. Unique Regulations All 25 ordinances evaluated had some combination of the above common themes, but there were also some unique regulations that one (or a few)cities had related to residential chicken keeping. These unique regulations are as follows: • Chicken feed must be stored in rat proof containers • Pro-chicken regulations are on a 1-year trial basis with only a set number of permits issued until the yearly re-evaluation. • For every additional 1,000 sq. feet of property above a set minimum, 1 additional chicken may be added to the property. • The allowance of chickens in multi-family zoned areas (allowance in single family zoning is most common) • Coops must be mobile to protect turf and prevent the build up of pathogens and waste. • Chickens must be provided with veterinary care if ill or injured • Minimum square footage requirements per bird for coop/enclosure The unique regulations listed offer some innovative solutions to possible issues such as pests and waste, as well as defining minimum space and health care standards for , chickens. Some of these regulations also allow for more flexibility, such as extending the right to keep chickens to those living in multi-family dwelling units or allowing more birds on larger property sizes. In the case of Portland, ME, the permitting of chickens is on a trial basis, which may be a good option if a city wants to reevaluate residential chicken keeping after a certain time frame. 11 Locating and Understanding the Ordinances Of the 25 pro-chicken ordinances, very few were actually easy to locate. In most cases, pages of code had to be searched in order to find the regulation and even then the chicken ordinances were often vague, incomplete, or regulations were spread throughout multiple sections of the code. This is an issue that should be considered, as unclear or hard to find ordinances can only lead to increased non-compliance. The most easily accessible chicken ordinances were those specifically stated on city web pages, and those found through websites and literature from urban gardening organizations or community groups. One example of easily accessible ordinances is that of Rogers, Arkansas (Appendix Q. Their chicken ordinance is not only easily accessible directly from the city website, but it is also clear and comprehensive. A clearly stated and easily accessible ordinance allows resident to know how they can keep chickens within the limits of the law, which can reduce complaints and other issues related to non- compliance. Findings and Recommendations "Issues such as rodent control are a real concern and the ordinance can have a positive influence on keeping an already urban issue from being exacerbated any more than it already is". -Debra Lippoldt,Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR The original question for this paper was "What is a good urban chicken ordinance?"This was based on the idea of examining a variety of ordinances and then singling out those that were better than most and could serve as an example. After having conducted the analysis however, the question was changed to "What are the good components and considerations that make up a just and functional urban chicken ordinance?" There is no superior"one size fits all"ordinance to regulate urban chickens, as each city has different physical,environmental, social, and political needs. Although each ordinance will be different from one city to the next, a pro-chicken ordinance should be built upon the following considerations: 7 Lippoldt,Debra Executive Director of Growing Gardens,Portland,OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8,2008. 12 • It satisfies the needs of most stakeholder groups and acknowledges that some stakeholders on both sides of the issue will be unwilling to compromise • It does not discriminate against certain populations, such as those of lower incomes who can not afford high permitting fees, or those with smaller property sizes • It allows for flexibility and provides choice, such as giving chicken keepers the right to choose their own coop design and building materials • It allows for citizen input and participation in the ordinance forming process to assure that the ordinance fits the needs of, and is supported by the community • It recognizes the role chickens can play in developing a more sustainable urban environment • It recognizes the importance of the ordinance being clearly stated and easily accessible to the public, which will help ensure compliance and reduce violations. The general considerations above are a good compliment to the specific allowances that each municipality chooses to fit its needs and that of its citizens. These specifics however can be more difficult to choose and looking to other cities as examples can provide insight into the best possible choices. The evaluation of 25 different chicken ordinances showed a wide spectrum of choices that municipalities have made in the regulating of chickens. Looking at the number of chickens permitted, for example, cities ranged anywhere from 2 chickens to unlimited chickens. Only allowing for 2 chickens may not be an ideal choice, as they are social, creatures and if one were to become ill an die, only one chicken would be left. Two chickens also do not produce enough eggs for a larger sized family. On the other hand, allowing for unlimited chickens may mean increased nuisance enforcement, or allowing for that many chickens may be met with increased public opposition. Often the average allowances found(not the most extremes)are the best choices of an example regulation for other cities to look to when considering the formation of their own chicken ordinance. In the case of the cities evaluated, the most common allowance was 4 to 6 birds, which can provide enough eggs for a family and does not highly increase the potential for nuisances. It also allows for a more sustained population if a bird becomes ill and dies. 13 Another example of the middle ground being a good option would be permitting and fees for keeping chickens. In some cities there were high fees for permitting, while in others no fee or permit was required. A few cities, which only required permits and fees if you have over a certain number of birds, show a good middle ground for how to permit chickens. That model allows for citizens to keep a certain number of chickens without added costs, while also creating revenue for enforcement and regulation when people choose to exceed that amount. Many cities are concerned over increased costs if chicken keeping is legalized, and this is one way to alleviate those concerns while still allowing citizens to keep chickens. In some of the regulatory themes, such as in the examples above, the middle ground does provide a choice which can alleviate concerns while still allowing for the keeping of chickens. Other regulatory themes, such as the slaughtering of chickens, may come down to more of a yes of no answer, as was seen in many of the cities. In either case, if a city is going to adopt a pro-chicken ordinance, the most important part is to first allow for the keeping of chickens, with the understanding that the ordinance can be revisited and changed at a future time. Allowing for the keeping of chickens is the best way to see if the concerns surrounding chicken keeping ever come to fruition, and the ordinance can then be adjusted accordingly. In many cases,cities adopt a more restrictive ordinance as that is what will pass public approval and city council. Then as time passes with few complaints or nuisances, those regulations become more relaxed and tailored specifically to the needs of the city and its residents. Conclusions "!t seems that if we want to be a town that does its pan for sustainability, this is something we ought to consider./think we want to allow folks to use their good judgment and move toward more sustainable food practices." -Mayor John Engen,Missoula, MT" Many cities and towns are now looking at how they can be more sustainable, and allowing urban chickens is one step towards that goal of increased sustainability. Not e Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. Available online at http://www.missoula.com/newstnode/226 14 only can backyard chickens provide residents with a fresh and important food source, but they also bring about an increased awareness of our relationship to the food cycle. By forming a just and well thought out pro-chicken ordinance, cities can allow citizens the right to keep chickens while also addressing the concerns of other stakeholder groups. With that said, city councils should approach the issue of urban chicken keeping with a "how" rather than a"yes" or"no", as a growing list of pro-chicken cities across the nation shows that it can be done successfully. 15 References (References for 25 City Ordinances: See Appendix B) CBC News. Halifax to Study Chickens in Cities. Available online at http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story' /2008/02/12/chicken-report.html Harrison-Noonan, Dennis. Urban chicken keeper, Madison,Wisconsin. Interviewed on April 8, 2008. Just Food. City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Kunselman, Steve. City Councilor(ward 3) Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interviewed on April 29, 2008. Kriese, Thomans. Urban chicken keeper, Redwood City, CA. Personal correspondence on April 28, 2008. His coverage of urban chicken ordinances is available online at htt p://myurbanchickens.blogspot.com/ Lippoldt, Debra. Executive Director of Growing Gardens, Portland, OR. Personal Correspondence on April 8, 2008. Medley, Ann and Jonathan Stumph. Video: Missoula Squabbles Over Urban Chickens. Available online at http://www.newwest.net/city/article/missoulas_urban_chicken_ squabble/C8/L8/ Moore, Michael. Urban Chickens Scratching up a Controversy in Missoula. . Available online at http://www.missoula.com/news/node/226 16 Appendix A 25 Ordinances Analyzed City/State #of birds Roosters Permit/ Enclosure Nuisance Slaughter Property line Details or unique permitted allowed permit cost required clause perm itied restrictions regulations Los Angeles, unclear only if 100 unclear unclear Yes unclear 20 it from owners CA jt from home,35 it from nei hhors neighbors Rogers,AK 4 No $5/yr Yes Yes inside only 25 it from nei hbors house Keywest,FL unclear Yes None Yes Yes No No Can't use droppings as fertilizer,feed must be stored in rat proof containers Topeka,KS unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from nei hbors house South 6 No $25/yr Yes, Yes unclear Yes On trial basis till Portland,ME building November 2008,only permit 20 permits issued fill re u re yearly evaluation Madison,WI 4 No $61yr Yes Yes No 25 ft from nei hbom house New York, No limit No Yes No Yes unclear No NY Albuquerque, 15 1 per None No Yes Yes No NM household Portland,OR 3 without unclear $31 one time Yes Yes unclear unclear rmit fee for 4+ Seattle,WA 3 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 10 it from property 1 additional chicken per line 1,000 sq it of property above minimum Spokane,WA 1 per unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 90 it from property Chickens allowed in 2,000 sq it line multi-family zoned areas of land San Antonio, property unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum 5 birds allowed 20 ft TX line from another from home,12 birds at dependent dwelling 50 ft 50 birds at 150 it Honolulu HI 2 unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Oakland,CA unclear No unclear unclear unclear unclear 20 ft minimum from another dwelling St.Louis,MO 4 max. unclear $40 permit unclear unclear unclear unclear without for more than rmit 4 birds San Diego, 25 unclear unclear unclear Yes unclear 50 ft from Feed must be stored in CA neighbors house rat proof container San Jose,CA dependent only permit Yes unclear unclear Ranges from 0 to <15 ft-0 birds allowed, on coop to roosters< needed for 6 50 h,determines 15 to 20 it-4 birds,etc, property 4 months or more birds #of birds up to 50 it=25 birds line old Austin,TX unclear unclear unclear unclear unclear Yes 50 it from neighbors house Memphis,TN unclear unclear unclear Yes Yes Yes unclear Feed must be stored in rat proof container Ft.Worth;TX based on unclear No Yes Yes unclear 50 ft from <1/2 acre-12 birds, lot size neighbors house >1/2 acre=25 birds Baltimore, 4 unclear Must register Yes Yes unclear 25 It from Coops must be mobile MD with animal neighbors house to prevent waste build control and up,minimum 2 sq Dept of Aft. fVbird Charlotte,NO based on unclear $40/yr Yes Yes unclear 25 it from property minimum 4 sq.fVdrd, lot size line no more than 20 1acre Missoula,MT 6 No $15 permit Yes Yes unclear 20 it from Feed must be stored in neighbors house rat proof container Boise ID 3 No unclear Yes unclear unclear unclear San 4 Unclear No Yes Yes unclear 20 feet from door Francisco, or window of CA residence 17 Appendix B Sources for 25 Ordinances City/State Source for Ordinance Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Animal Services. http://www.laanimalservices.org/permitb7ook.pdf 'Rogers, AK Ordinance No. 06-100 hftp://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp Keywest, FL Part 2, Title 5 Section 62 www.keywestchickens.com/cfty Topeka, KS Section 18-291 www.municode.com South Portland, ME Chapter 3Article 2 Section 3 httplAvww.southportiand.org/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC=(93286El E-9FF8- 40D2-AC30-8840DEB23A29 Madison, WI hftp://www.madcitychickens.com/and www.municode.com New York, NY Just Food's City Chicken Project. City Chicken Guide. Information available online at http://www.justfood.org/cityfarms/chickens/ Albuquerque, NM City ordinance chapter 9,article 2, part 4, §9-2-4-3, c-3 http:/Avww.amlegal.com/albuquergue nm/ Portland, OR Ordinance 13.05.015 httpJ/www.portiandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28228#cid 13497 Seattle,WA Ordinance 122311 section 23 www.seattleurbanfarmco.com/chickens Spokane,WA Title 17 Chapter 17C.310 Section 170.310.100 http:/Aovww.spokanecfty.org/services/documents/smc/?Section=l 7C.31 0.100 San Antonio,TX Municipal code 10-112, Keeping of farm animals www.sanantonio.gov/animalcare/healthcode.asp Honolulu, HI Chapter 7 Section 7-2.5 www.honolulu.qov/refs/rah Oakland, CA Ordinance 6.04.320 www.oaklandanimalservices.org St. Louis, MO Ordinance 62853-7 www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/tl 02001.htm San Diego, CA Ordinance 42.0709 htt J/docs.sandie o. ov/municode/municodech ter04/ch04art02division07. df San Jose, CA Ordinance 7.04.030, 140, &150 www.sanjoseanimals.com/ordinances/simc7.04.htm Austin, TX Title 3 Chapter 3-2 www.amlegal.com/Austin-nxt/gateway.dIVTexas/austin Memphis, TN Title 9Chapter 9-80-2, 9-68-7 httpl/municipal odes.lexisnexis.com Ft.Worth, TX Section 11A-22a www.municode.com Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Health Code Title 2-106;Title 10, Subtitles 1 and 3 www.baftimorehealth.org/press/2007 02 02 Anima]Regs.pdf Charlotte, NC Section 3-102 http://www.charmeck.org/d epartme nts/ani mal+control/local+ordinances/perm its/htm and municode.com Missoula, MT Ordinance Chapter 6 Section 6-12 ftplAvww.ci.missoula.mt.us/Packets/CounciV2007/2007-12- 17/Chicken Ordinance. df Boise, ID Chapter 6 Section 14 httpJ/www.cityofboise.org/cfty_clerk/citycode/0614.pdf and httpJ/home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.htmi San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Health Code Section 37 httpl/sfgov.org/site/acc—page.asp?id=5476 18 Appendix C Example ordinance Rogers, AK ORDINANCE NO.06- 100 AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE CONTAINMENT OF FOWL AND OTHER ANIMALS WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ROGERS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROGERS, ARKANSAS: Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person to permit or allow any domesticated fowl to run at large within the corporate limits of the,city. It shall be lawful to keep poultry flocks of any size in A-I zones of the city, so long as they are confined. Section 2: It shall be lawful for any person to keep, permit or allow any fowl within the corporate limits of the city in all other zones,except A-I, under the following terms and conditions: a. No more than four(4) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling. No birds shall be allowed in multi-family complexes, including duplexes. b. No roosters shall be allowed. c. There shall be no outside slaughtering of birds. d. All fowl must be kept at all times in a secure enclosure constructed at least two feet above the surface of the ground. e. Enclosures must be situated at least 25 feet from the nearest neighbor's residence. f. Enclosures must be kept in a neat and sanitary condition at all times, and must be cleaned on a regular basis so as to prevent offensive odors. g. Persons wishing to keep fowl within the city must obtain a permit from the Office of the City Clerk, after an inspection and approval by the Office of Animal Control, and must pay a$5.00 annual fee. Section 3: The above Section 2 is not intended to apply to the 'ducks and geese in Lake Atalanta Park, nor to indoor birds kept as pets, such as, but not limited to, parrots or parakeets, nor to the lawful transportation of fowl through the corporate limits of the city. Neither shall it apply to poultry kept in areas of the City which are zoned A-I. Section 4: Fowl currently existing in the city shall not he "grandfathered" or permitted to remain after the effective date of this Ordinance; however, owners of the poultry will have 90 days from the effective date to come into compliance with this ordinance. Source: http://www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp 19 Green Code Updates - Additional Letters received From : Kim <fineday @mind.net> Sat, Mar 31,2012 02:46 PM Subject : Re: Ashland Green Codes updates To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman @ashland.or.us> t Responding to your information below: ONE counselor suggested correlating chicken numbers to lot size(Morris). A flock size has no relation to lot size except with the 20 foot from neighbors house rule. If some one wants half their backyard to be for chickens why should Ashland stop this if it is kept clean. LIMITS SHOULD BE RELATED TO SPACE THE ANIMAL NEEDS not lot size. Ultimately it really 1S NOT a city issue as long as the set back is met. Relating it to lot size could be prejudicial against those that can only afford a small lot/home. Again no one is going to have a flock large enough to have an egg factory so having ANY clause about sales is unnecessary. The USDA rules are for the poultry owner to follow and not a city issue. WHY NOT have Farm activity in residential areas. It used to be common place. Cities and towns all over the country are changing their rules to ALLOW farm activity - See San Diego, San Francisco,Columbia Mo., Detroit, Boise-(which did not mention urban farming and changed their codes to encourage it)and more. Many are changing codes to both allow and foster farming including requiring all un-used city owned land to be leased out for farms. - You know I think writing anything about storing chicken waste is unnecessary other than a coop should be kept clean and odor free. Requiring people to keep their chickens inside during dark is also UNNECESSARY. If they want to keep their chickens alive they will do this. Chickens left outside will not bring predators to our neighborfioods. They are already here. In my neighborhood the apartments behind me not shutting their garbage has the raccoons there nightly and they do not come over to my coop. Thanks for all your work on this. I overall believe we are in an over legislating spiral in Ashland and that this rule could be so much simpler. Ultimately I just want the city to encourage self-sufficiency. Best, Kim From : Kim<wolf @mind.net> Sun,Apr 01,2012 09:10 AM Subject : Chicken coops To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman @ ashland.or.us> Another request. Drop the size requirements for chicken coops. They are too small and do not work even for a few birds. We should be encouraging people to have more room for an animal not less. More humane. Thanks, Kim Blackwolf Correspondence regarding the Keeping of Chickens From: "Donald Kay' <Ilk322 @charter.net> To: "John Stromberg" <john @council.ashland.or.us> Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 1:30:36 PM Subject: Re: Chicken Coop Health Concerns Dear Mayor Stromberg, - I am a professor at Southern Oregon University.About 25 years ago I became quite familiar with fungal disease caused by bird droppings when I became ill from pigeon droppings that contaminated Churchill Hall- Another Professor working in Taylor Hall became so seriously III from pigeon droppings that she could not return to work.There was a large legal settlement from this professors case and a very costly cleanup of the contaminated sites. It is possible for one neighbors chicken raising activity to injure another neighbor and contaminate their house. A 20' distance between a chicken coup and a neighbors house greatly increases the likelihood of fungal contamination. I am not a lawyer,but I do know that there are issues of liability if there is personal injury or property damage. I hope that City of Ashland spends more time researching these issues before revising Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08)of the Ashland Municipal Code. Sincerely, Donald Kay .. On Apr 2, 2012, at 11:16 AM, John Stromberg wrote: Hi, Donald Thanks for this message. Can you give me a little background information: who are you and what do you do? how does it happen that you have the understanding/experience to make this suggestion? John Stromberg Mayor 541 552 2104 (direct) 541 488 6002 (secretary) This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and is subject to the Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541.552.2104. Thank you. From: "Donald Kay" <II0220charter.net> To: John(o)council.ashland.or.us Sent: Monday, April 2, 2012 10:24:14 AM Subject: Chicken Coop Health Concerns Dear Mayor Stromberg, I understand that in April the City of Ashland will be deliberating on a request to revise Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08)of the Ashland Municipal Code. shortening the distance from 75'to 20'for the location of chicken coups from neighboring houses,for the purposes of expanding egg and poultry production for personal use. Effectively controlling H. capsulatum spores from becoming aerosolized when droppings are removed during coop cleaning takes a level of expertise and attention that the average chicken hobbyist does not possess. There is real health risk in exposing the hobbyist, their family members and their neighbors to the inhalation of the fungi spores that cause the lung disease, histoplasmosis. Because of the health hazard, posed by increasing the proximity of chicken coups to neighboring houses, I urge the City of Ashland to deny the 20' distance request. 1 am attaching links that give more detailed information on health risks and safety issues: Article from the CDC- Histoplasmosis: Protecting Workers at Risk http://www.cdc g ov/n ios h/d ocs/97-146/ Article on Chicken Coops 8 Respiratory Disease http:/Avww.ehow.com/facts 5837848 chicken-coops-respiratory-disease html Article on Chickens 8 Lung Disease http://www.ehow.com/about 6636998 chickens-lung-disease.html thank you for your consideration, Donald Kay - 1 Request for Exemption from revised "Health and Sanitation Chapter 09.08" Email Dated 4/6/2012 Dear Mayor and Councilors, The revised "Health and Sanitation Chapter 09.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code"jeopardizes the of health of "Children younger than 2 years of age, persons with compromised immune systems, and older persons, in particular those with underlying illnesses such as diabetes and chronic lung disease... this is the group the CDC describes"at having increased risk for developing symptomatic histoplasmosis."(1) With a Doctor's letter, individuals at risk would be allowed by the City of Ashland to apply for an exemption from the newly proposed 20'chicken coup/house distance, and revert to the earlier 75'distance. This exemption would provide some relief to a medically vulnerable portion of the City's population who do not need the additional health risk of being exposed to the aerosolized H. capsulatum spores from a chicken coup that may be located just 20'from their bedroom window. ' Please forward this request to your legal Department and work with them to add this exemption to the revised "Health and Sanitation Chapter 09.08." Respectfully, Donald Kay ----------- ----------------------- 1. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publication [2005] "Histoplasmosis: Protecting Workers at Risk' (revised edition)" :4 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-109/pdfs/2005-109.pdf Doug Munro letter to Council RE: Keeping of Chickens Ordinance Email Received: 4/912012 , Dear Mayor Stromberg, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Molnar, and esteemed City Councilors, My name is Doug Munro and I currently live within the city of Ashland at 434 Terrace Street, just up from Holly Street. I am no stranger to chickens. My former wife and I raised up to 15 chickens at a time for over 12 years on the two acres we currently own on East Nevada Street, across the freeway from the city limits. I am well acquainted to the upsides and distinct downsides of raising chickens. Please move very cautiously before changing the current reasonable ordinance of 5 chickens per household and 75 feet from a neighbor's house. Once you change the ordinance it will be near impossible to modify it. (Just remember the problems we are currently having with domesticated deer within city limits to get a preview of the dissention that will follow any change in the current ordinance). I am advocating that the current chicken zoning standards of 5 chickens, 75 feet from a neighboring dwelling be maintained within the City of Ashland. Please consider the following: Why were zoning laws passed about 100 years ago? A hundred years ago, when zoning laws became a feature of American urban life, most on the new urban dwellers migrated to cities from farms and wanted to leave the noise, stink, muck, and flies behind. City fathers and mothers wisely realized that raising livestock in a crowded urban neighborhood was not conducive to creating and maintaining a pleasant ambience and quality of life, hence zoning laws prohibiting animal raising were enacted. Please do not compromise the wonderful quality of life currently enjoyed in Ashland. There are thousands of acres in Jackson County for chicken lovers to raise chickens to their hearts' content. Rural rents are much cheaper that renting in the City of Ashland. If someone wants to be a farmer let them get a hobby farm. The current zoning law of 5 chickens per lot 75 feet from a neighbor is reasonable. The current law allows people to raise some eggs for their family, teach their kids about animals, and be relatively non-disruptive to neighbors. Allowing people to have 20 chickens, 20 feet from my bedroom and then commercially sell, or barter eggs is most unreasonable. What is next?: someone starting an organic bakery, or beeswax candle-making operation in their garage? Why can't 1 have a pig or two? How about a small mink farm (less than 20 mink, 20 feet from your house)? What's wrong with a puppy mill? Once you let the chickens out of the coop, the problems will come home to roost. I repeat: There are thousands of acres in Jackson County for chicken lovers to raise chickens to their hearts' content. Rural rents are much cheaper that renting in the City of Ashland. Let wanna-be chicken farmers do the appropriate thing and go rural if they want to raise more than 5 chickens. Bartering and selling eggs: According to Brandon Goldman, the senior planner for Ashland's Planning Division, research he accessed from the U of O and U of New Mexico, stated that 5 chickens can produce up to 1,200 eggs per year. So 20 chickens yields a whopping 4,800 eggs (400 dozen per year!). The average household size in Ashland is, my estimate, probably less than 3 people per household. (Ashland has an affluent, aging population, with a smaller number of people per household, and a declining school enrollment). So 20 chickens will product on average 13 eggs per day. What household of less than 3 people will consistently eat 13 eggs each day?! You know that people are going to be bartering and selling these eggs, especially if they have 20 hens. One of the advocates of changing the chicken ordinance Ms. Kim (Quinn?) Blackwolf makes her living growing food and eggs for her and five families in the city limits of Ashland. Sneak Preview, April 5, 2012 issue on page 45 states the following: "Additionally, current law considers selling eggs to neighbors a violation of the City ordinacnce. This doesn't bode will with Blackwolf, who makes her living raisingfoodforftve families in addition to her own......(Blackwolf states): '7 would like to seethe words 'non- commercial'taken out of the proposal. " Of course she would, she will be increasing her living at the expense of other, considerate neighbors. Chicken poop, ammonia, and asthma: htto://%vNvw.theswcepdoctor.com/2010/07/5-da n eerou s-tri e eers-ol=a I Icre v-asthma-attacks/ Ammonia off gases from decaying chicken poop. Ammonia specifically triggers asthma attacks. So, I who have asthma, will have possibly 20 chickens 20 feet from my open bedroom window? How fair is that? I will have to keep all my doors and windows shut and run my air conditioner all summer-how ecological is that? Salmonella and chickens: the CDC website offers the following: "While anyone can become ill from exposure to these germs, the risk of infection is especially high for children, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems; for example, people receiving chemotherapy or who are HIV-infected. One of the most important bacteria you need to be aware of is Salmonella. Salmonella lives in the intestine of infected chickens, and can be shed in large numbers in the droppings. Once shed, bacteria can spread across the chicken's body as the bird cleans itself and throughout the environment as the chicken walks around. Therefore, it is especially important to carefully wash hands with soap and water after handling young birds or anything that has come in contact with them...People accidentally ingest Salmonella in many ways, including eating after handling chickens or by touching their hand to their mouth while working with the birds." I have auto-immune disease and am especially at risk if I contract salmonella-this bacteria could easily kill me. Many chicken fanciers will let their flocks roam around their backyards pooping at will. I am not a Howard Hughes, tissue-on-the-door- knob kind of guy, but there is a lot of wind up in the hills where I live, and the possibly of air-borne salmonella bacteria is worrisome for me and anyone with young children, elderly in their home, or anyone with an auto-immune condition. I How liable will the City of Ashland be if someone gets salmonella giving away, bartering, or selling eggs? hup://wtwr.cde.eoc/hcaltltvoets;Ddl%intot+'n Ilocks.Ddl httD:/%topicsbloes.netimes.aim/2009/OSiOR/manure-snit-or-noU htgiJ/%vxyw.edc.eovi'mmt+r/previ eat•/m nnrrhtin L.1=4914a I.hnn Procrastination and cleaning out the chicken cook Question: when was the last time you looked forward to putting a plastic bag over your hand and going out into your backyard to spend 5-10 minutes cleaning up dog doo on a Saturday moming? Most people do not like cleaning up animal excrement. Cleaning out a chicken coop and then moving and working the poop and straw into a garden bed or hauling it away is hard, dirty, dangerous work. Many Ashland urban farmers live on steep-sloped lots, so they will be hauling wheelbarrows of chicken poop up or down a steep slope-dam hard work. If they don't work it into their garden (more dam hard work) then they will most likely take it out to the dump, which defeats the whole concept of urban-based farming. By putting off responsibly cleaning up after their chickens, urban barnyarders will create a most unpleasant situation for their neighbors. What rules will the council make about how often someone must clean out their coops and how will they enforce it? Noise: Anyone who has ever raised a group of hens knows that they are very noisy when they are brooding. They gawk and squawk in unison daily from about loam-3pm. It is much louder than a human conversation. Flies: Flies love fresh stinky,chicken poop. 1 currently can have my windows and doors open, some without screens, on summer afternoons and evenings to cool down my house and bring in the lovely fresh air that Ashland is blessed with. When you have chickens, fly season is from July to the first frost in October, with the heaviest months being August and September. If the new regulations are passed, open windows and fresh, fly-free air will become a thing of the past. Fly spackle ruins drapes, and lampshades and is hard to get off painted surfaces. Plus my experience of chicken flies is that they are really annoying and hard to swat either by hand or with a fly swatter. Chicken Predators and vermin: http://www.raising-chickens.ore/chicken-predators.htm I Bears, coyotes, fox, raccoon, opossum, and skunks are attracted to either the chickens, their eggs, or their feed. Rats and mice are endemic to chicken coops and cannot be gotten rid of(ask anyone who works at the Grange). You can trap or poison them, but others will move right in. Bears: Bears are likely to become a real problem with chickens up in the Ashland Hills where the city meets the forest. I had a 300 lb. black bear walk through my yard last August at 1 pm in the afternoon and I live on Terrace St. near Holly! Anyone foolish enough to get between a black bear and a food source is likely to be injured. Bears that are naturally attracted to chicken coops will be destroyed for doing what comes naturally to them-packing on pounds. Bears are notorious for tearing apart chicken coops. I had friends out in the Applegate that rebuilt their chicken coop three times after bears tore them apart. They finally gave up on it. Chickens are notorious for slopping their chicken feed around inside and outside the coop and chicken feed is like crack to bears. Creating a situation within the city limits of Ashland that impacts bears is completely at odds with the recent Draft Black Bear Plan by ODFW concerning black bears and the urban interface. "Most human-bear problems occur when bears are being fed by people, which led the Oregon Legislature to pass a bill last year that bans most instances ofplacing_ ood garbage or other attractants for black bears and some other wildlife species." hup:i"i www.dai lytidi nee.comrap�s/pbcs.d I1 1'aniclOA 1 D=/201203 29/N F W S0^_/203290308&cid=si tcscarch Feral Roosters: I predict that many of the owners of the new "urban barnyards"will not have the "heart"to have their roosters killed and many will release them either into Lithia Park or the forested hills above Ashland. Someone will most likely release hens to keep them company and then we will have a problem with feral roosters and hens breeding and hence feral roosters crowing all the time. Unfortunately there are no coyotes in Lithia Park or in the forests above Ashland to control this population. If someone then suggests culling out the offending roosters they will be shouted down and nothing will happen. Think I am being silly? You cannot even do a scientific study of f the deer population in Ashland without being shut down by the "bambi" crowd. I would hate to think of what the quality of life would be with a population of feral roosters crowing day and night.0 Eco-consciousness and the ecological impact of importing chicken feed from the American Cornbelt some 1,800 miles from Ashland. The major component of chicken feed is field corn. There is virtually no field corn of any quantity grown west of the Cornbelt, comprised of the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska. You cannot feed a flock of chickens with vegetable scraps from the family kitchen. How ecological is shipping corn for your backyard chickens 1,800 miles from Illinois?! This is not the warm, fuzzy self-sustaining agriculture that it is being presented as. I know that this was a lot of information to read and consider. So thanks for your consideration. I hope you have a sargeant-at-arms at the council meetings when I present this information, as I am sure that there are many that will want to shout down any discussion. Sincerely, Doug Munro 434 Terrace Street Ashland Cell: (541) 301-1788 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 17, 2012 City Council Meeting Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Updating the Ordinance Regarding Fireworks FROM: Margueritte Hickman, Division Chief/ Fire Marshal hickmanm @ashland.or.us SUMMARY This represents the second reading by title only of an ordinance which both cleans up conflicting sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and simplifies the fireworks ordinance adopted by the City of Ashland in 2010. In addition, this amendment will modify the penalties section of the Oregon Fire Code adoption to allow multiple life threatening violations occurring in one day to be cited. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In 2010, the Ashland Municipal Code was amended to prohibit the use of retail fireworks within the city limits of Ashland. Included in the definition of fireworks are wood-cored sparklers. After the adoption of this ordinance, it was found that wire-cored sparklers are considered a "novelty" item and not regulated by the state or included in the definition of retail fireworks. Based on oral history from the Oregon State Fire Marshal's office, years ago, there was a "gentleman's" agreement by the wholesalers to not sell wire cored sparklers because of the-dangers they present to kids. There were no formal agreements or restrictions. Now that we are many years past, new wholesalers have emerged and do not follow the same informal agreement. This conflict causes challenges to both public education and to enforcement. In fact, both wood cored and wire cored sparklers are hot enough to cause injuries or start fires. By eliminating the use of both, neither will be allowed to be used in a manner which will cause fires or injuries. The second modification being presented is to modify the penalties section to make it consistent with existing penalties sections of the AMC and to provide the ability to issue more than one citation in a day when a life threatening code violation exists. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Council approved Ordinance without changes at its first reading on April 3, 2012; Staff recommends Council approve the second reading by title only and adopt the ordinance. Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND i SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Repealing AMC Chapter 10.24 Fireworks and Amending AMC Chapters 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code and 15.28.100 Penalties". ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 2 of 2 1`, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AMC CHAPTER 10.24 FIREWORKS AND AMENDING AMC CHAPTERS 15.28.070 AMENDMENTS TO THE OREGON FIRE CODE AND 15.28.100 PENALTIES Annotated to show d°'�s-and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Iined4hfottgh and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above-referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local]660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1875). WHEREAS, fuel loading, terrain slope and aspect, and narrow steep streets make fires both more likely and more difficult to fight in Ashland; WHEREAS, the City can best protect against fires caused by fireworks by prohibiting fireworks in the City limits; and WHEREAS, life-threatening code violations need to be stopped immediately and shall not continue or be repeated within the same day. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. AMC Chapter 10.24 [Fireworks] is hereby repealed as follows: 10.24 Fir-eworks 10.24.010 Adoption of stnte fir-eworks low Seetions 480. 110 through 480.170 of the Oregon Revised Statutes are adopted and ineor-porated herein by refer-enee-. 10.24.020 Pennity for violation Any per-son who violates an), pr-ovision of this Chapter shall be punished us set forth in Seetion 1.08.020 of theAshliand Munieipal Code. Page 1 of 5 SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 15:28.070 [Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code] is hereby amended as follows: 15.28.070 Amendments to the Oregon Fire Code The Oregon Fire Code is amended in the following respects: Oregon Fire Code section 105.6.30 Open Burning. Delete and replace with the following: See Ashland Municipal Code 10.30. A. Section 506.1 Add the following sentence: The key box shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. B. Section 507.5.1 Delete and replace with the following: Where required. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 300 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exceptions: 1. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 300 feet. 2. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). - C. Section 3301: Notwithstanding ORS 480.110 through ORS 480.165 and OAR 837-012-0600 through OAR 837-012-0675, the snip, of_pt..:i fire- ,,._,,s fis defined in OAR 917 011 0616 :.. the following are prohibited within the City of Ashland-: Tr.,. ugL ,.r retail fire a -liq within the City is ..rohibi a 1. The sale and/or use of retail fireworks as defined in OAR 837-012- 0610 is prohibited at all times; 2. The sale and/or use of sparklers as defined in ORS 480.110 is prohibited at all times; 3. The use of retail fireworks within the City is prohibited at all times; and 4. The advertising of retail fireworks or sparklers is prohibited within the City of Ashland in accordance with ORS 480.152 and OAR 837- 012-0665. D. Section 3301 Storage of Explosives - Prohibited. The scope referred to in Chapter 3301.1 of the Oregon Fire Code which references the Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules related to explosives is amended as follows. The sale, manufacture, possession, transfer and storage of explosives as defined by ORS 480.200 (3) are prohibited in all areas within the City of Ashland. Page 2 of 5 E. Above-ground Storage of Flammable or Combustible Liquids. The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.6.1 of the Oregon Fire Code in which the storage of Flammable or combustible Class I and 11 liquids in above-ground tanks outside of buildings is restricted are established as follows: All City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. F. Storage of Liquefied Petroleum Gases - Restricted. The limits referred to in Section 3804.2 of the Oregon Fire Code, in which storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are established as follows: All City of Ashland residential and historical district areas as defined in the Comprehensive Plan are limited to the aggregate capacity of anyone installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 500 gallons. 1. Exception: In particular installations, this capacity limit shall be determined by the Fire Code Official,' after consideration of special features such as topographical conditions, nature of occupancy, and proximity to buildings, capacity of proposed containers, degree of fire protection to be provided and capabilities of the City of Ashland Fire & Life Safety Division. G. Appendix D105 —Aerial Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Remove and replace D105.1 with the following: Where required. Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 24 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Remove and replace D105.2 with the following: Width. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 24 feet in height. H. Appendix A 10 10.1 1 - If the complainant or appellant is aggrieved by the final order of the Ashland Board of Appeals, the complainant may file an appeal to the Oregon State Fire Marshal's Office within 10 days of the Board's final order. SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 15.28.100 [Penalties] is hereby amended as follows: 15.28.100 Penalties A. Any person whe-violates violating or causing violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, has committed a Class I violation, and upon conviction thereof, is punishable as prescribed in Section 1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Such person, firm or corporation is guilty of a separate violation for each and every day during which any violation of this Chapter is committed or continued by such person, firm or corporation.the Oregon Fir-e Code as adopted in this ehapter Ar- who Shn-11 violate or- kill to eoFnpty with any or-der mnde thereunder, or whe shid! build in violation of any Page 3 of 5 detailed statement of speeffientions or plans submitted and approved— thereunder-, or- any eertifiente or permit issued thereunder-, and from whieh no appeal has been Wien, or who shall W! to eomply with sueh an order a affirmed or- modified by the Ashifind Appeals Board or by a eour-t a eempetent jur-isdietion, within the tome fixed herein, shfill severally for eseh and every sueh violation and noneofliplifinee, r-espeetively, be guilty of a Seetoon 1.08.020. The imposition of one pensity for any violation shall exeuse the violation or- permi! it io eontinue, and a'! sueh per-sons shall required to eer-reet or r-emedy such violatiaiis or defeets within a reasonable time; nnd when not otherwise speeified, eseh ten daYs that prohibited— B. For any violations of this Chapter deemed to be life threatening, a citation can be issued for each and every occurrence, including multiple occurrences in one day. Life threatening hazards include but are not limited to overcrowding, locking or obstructing doors designated to remain unlocked, and shutting off or removing designated fire protection equipment. BC. The application of the above penalty shall not be held to prevent the enforced removal of prohibited conditions. SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain.valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 5. Severabilitv. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. a SECTION 6. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 4-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of -12012, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 4 of 5 SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of , 2011 John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney l Page 5 of 5