Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-1221 Council PACKET Important;" Any Itizen`atYe`nding counK: 21 Hgs may speak on any item on the agenda, unless if is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. If you wish to speak, please fell out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the C-ouncil Che chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time u. Tranted we dee nature of the cussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the a enda. AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 21, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. II. ROLL CALL: III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of December 7, 1999. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS: 1. Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Everett Swain. 2. Update and Presentation by the Building Appeals Board. 3. Mayor's Proclamation of Christmas Tree Recycle Day. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Adoption of Findings supporting the Decision of the city Council in the remand by LUBA in the case of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. the City of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-26 —Hillside Development Ordinance. 3. Liquor License Application from Robert C. Harvey dba Beast's on the Creek. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting). VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total) VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Deferred Sidewalk and associated improvements within the Local Improvement District and Authorizing the Assessment of the cost of the Improvements against Property to be benefited 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." VISIT THE CITY Uf ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W W W.ASFILAND.OR.US IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council meeting Look Ahead. 2. Proposal to Pave Ashland School District Parking Lots at the Ashland Middle School (main lot and the overflow area), Helman School and Lincoln Elementary School. 3. Update on the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. 4. Adoption of Citizen Participation Plan. 5. A motion to approve the move of a designated historic structure at 66 North Second Street to a vacant lot on Laurel Street. X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and —al-1 Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying 0� the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures." 2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Approving an Amendment to �7 the State Revolving Fund by Increasing the Amount of the Loan for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII. ADJOURNMENT: r REMINDER�ar Stud sson,on Wednesday„December 22 at noon m Council Chambers: fopics,to include 1})3Hillah Temple r ,, Finanang; and, 2)`"Continuation df Transddiscrssion. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need spectal assutgnceaopanc�tpate in, -this meeting ipleasecontact.the'City Administrator_-'s office aG(541)488;6002 nphonen'umber�, 1=800-7331900) Nohficaaon 98,hours prior.to the meehng�wrll enable,the C*t�tyfo make reasonable arrangements`to ensure}gaccessibility to the meeling(18 CFR35°101,35:-104 AD°A_Tatle I). VISIT THE CITY OE ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASEILAND.OR.US ry� ilmoortant A y citizen atte ding counciumeetmgs"may speak on any item 6r the agenda rE �; runless it is,the sublect`of a public=heanng`which has been closed. If you Wi.§h,to speak; ver ;, i ypl'ease fillrout throe'—aker'Request form located near the entrance to the'Council � - e Md Chambers°"'The chair will recogniz you A and inform you as to the amountof trine � allotted to4you The=Ume granted wilhbe dependent to some extent on the nature of,the, ft item under�discussion, the number of people whowish to5be heard and the th o lengf AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL w December 21, 1999 i U Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street w I O I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 7:00 p.m., Civic Center Council Chambers. G � O II. ROLL CALL: W III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular meeting minutes of December 7, 1999. 0 U IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS &AWARDS: 1. Presentation of Retirement Plaque to Everett Swain. 2. Update and Presentation by the Building Appeals Board. 3. Mayor's Proclamation of Christmas Tree Recycle Day. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards. Commissions and Committees. 2. Adoption of Findings supporting the Decision of the city Council in the remand by LUBA in the case of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. the City of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-26— Hillside Development Ordinance. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting). VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Limited to 5 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes total) VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving, Curbs, Gutters, Storm Drains, Deferred Sidewalk and associated improvements within the Local Improvement District and Authorizing the Assessment of the cost of the Improvements against Property to be benefited 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." VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council meeting Look Ahead. 2. Proposal to Pave Ashland School District Parking Lots at the Ashland Middle School (main lot and the overflow area), Helman School and Lincoln Elementary School. 3. Update on the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance. 4. Adoption of Citizen Participation Plan. X. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. Second reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures." 2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Approving an Amendment to the State Revolving Fund by Increasing the Amount of the Loan for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project." XI. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS: XII. ADJOURNMENT: �+ -..0, c 2 REMINDER „, rStudy Sesswn on Wednesday, December 21 al noon m Council Chambers. Topics to include: 1) Hillah Temple, Einanang, and 2) Conttnuaon of Transit discussion ' EAR es �.aS .sx, x.rra , ... ..................................._.......... .. _....... ' .. In compliance with the Americans with,Drsabilities Act if you need special assistance'to panccapate>m this meeting,please contact the'City Adminrstrator.'s of ce at:(541)48&6001,(TTYphone number 1-800-735-1900). Notafication'98 hours prior tbthe meeting;wrll enable the City to rndke reasonable ,arrangements.to.ensure accessibility to the meettmg(18 CFR=35 101 35:104 ADA Title I). VISIT THE CITY OF ASL-ILAND'S WEB SITE AT WW W.ASHLAND.OR.US MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 7, 1999 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 7:OO p.m., in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilors Laws, Reid, Hauck, Hanson, Wheeldon and Fine were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Regular meeting of November 16, 1999 were approved as amended to indicate on page 8, last paragraph,that Councilor Hauck did not feel that the speakers were rushed. Mayor Shaw also pointed out a grammatical error in the use of the word"when",on page 5, 3rd paragraph. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of Boards,Commissions and Committees. 2. Mayor's reappointments of incumbents to Building Appeals Board for terms to expire December 31, 2000. 3. Mayor's appointment of Beverly Morris to the Bicycle&Pedestrian Commission for a term to expire April 30,2000. 4. Liquor License Application from Susan Battenburg Powell dba/Pilaf. Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing regarding Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District. Public Works Director Paula Brown reminded council that the Penny/Palmer LID is for street improvements, paving,curbs,gutters and sidewalks on one side. Explained that the Penny/Palmer Street goes into a cul-de-sac at the top of a hill. Stated that objections to the LID by property owners are not in forming the LID, but are in regards to sidewalks. Brown stated that city engineer,Jim Olson has met with all of the neighbors. Clarified that all of the property owners have agreed to participation in the benefit for street improvements. Public Hearing Open: 7:08 p.m. Ruben Vasquez/885 Palmer Drive/Explained that he had been asked to speak for a group of ten home owners who have formed a neighborhood LID to pave two small streets that make up their neighborhood. Presented visual map of area which showed that the area is landlocked and is relatively secluded. Voiced concern with putting in a 570- foot sidewalk along one side of the street which dead-ends into a cul-de-sac and would be the only sidewalk in this area. Stated that in perspective to the whole picture, that the next nearest sidewalk in this developed area, is at the end of the Oregon Street and Indiana Street. Vasquez commented on their concern regarding fiscal responsibility,and pointed out that the budget this year for sidewalks was$25,000,with an additional$30,000 federal money for sidewalks. Stated that this particular sidewalk would cost the city and themselves,$8,000 and they feel that these monies could be better spent in areas that have a higher priority level. Stated that the property owners are not asking for a waiver of the sidewalks, but asking for a deferment. Explained that if the sidewalk improvement is deferred, until such time that there is connecting sidewalks to the area, they would encourage the opportunity in having a sidewalk in this area at that time. Another concern mentioned,are that City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 1 of 11 I this would be the only sidewalk in the area, and the safety issues surrounding the use by children with skates, skateboards, bicycles, etc.,that this would create a false sense of security because the sidewalk ends into a very steep street. Vasquez also mentioned that one of the neighbors in the area is wheelchair bound and explained the difficulty that this neighbor would have in negotiating sidewalks. Vasquez commented on their support of an article in the City Source which called for more alternative modes of transportation,and that there may be a need in redirecting deferred sidewalk dollars to higher priority areas. Public Hearing Closed: 7:17 p.m. Councilor Reid explained that she had visited the area and the neighborhood. Stated her support of installing sidewalks in the city,but agreed that this is may not be a high priority area. That if we could spend our dollars closer to a school, she would be very happy. Commented on the safety issues surrounding Oregon and Indiana Street. Councilor Hanson commented that as long as it is equal to the amount of a sidewalk that is put in somewhere else, that it goes along with the spirit of infill regarding sidewalks. Councilor Fine commented on his connection with the neighborhood group,and how they are one of the most generous and public-spirited groups he has met with, in addressing this issue. Stated that this group wants to pay the money and they want the city to use it where there is the greatest public benefit. Commented on concern regarding the future installation of these sidewalks in this area,and that property owners may forget and plant shrubbery or trees in the easement area where sidewalks would eventually be installed. Fine recognizes that this may be a problem he wouldn't normally want to encounter, but feels that this may be an instance where the council should exercise their discretion in favor of the neighbors request. City Administrator Mike Freeman voiced view points from the staff,in that over the last year,the council has given significant direction to staff to emphasize sidewalks in LID'S. Voiced concern that, if the city is going to be backing off from this direction,there are several LID's anticipated being formed in the near future and his suspicion is that every one of these LID's will include requests for special dispensation regarding sidewalks because of the same issues. Requested that council think about making a decision regarding the request and how it may be setting a precedent for future LTD's. Mayor Shaw clarified that council has in the past made concessions on streets that don't go through,or where there is very minimal traffic. Pointed out that what may be important in not setting precedent, is that if the neighbors are in favor of contributing the same amount of money for sidewalks in a more traveled area,the council is not truly forgiving sidewalks in this case. Councilor Laws stated that if we go along with this request,that the city would collect the money,and that the money would be for sidewalks on these streets. Explained that the city would defer using this money at this time and would request to borrow the money for other sidewalks in a higher priority area. Commented on two disadvantages to making exceptions for sidewalks in the past have been: 1)Money was not collected at the same time and then later property owners were not aware they were obligated to finance a LID,and 2) Placement of shrubbery and trees in the easement area. Felt that if the neighborhood fully understood that there eventually may be a sidewalk in this area,and that the city does not want them to place any shrubbery or trees in the easement area, it could work out. Shaw stated that when sidewalks are put in,they can be somewhat contagious in the surrounding area,and may encourage other neighborhoods to improve their streets with sidewalks. Suggested that council may forgive the neighbors on the cul-de-sac, but go ahead and require the sidewalks on the larger street. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 2 of I I Neil Martin/925 Penny Drive/Spoke regarding his concern with the installation of sidewalks. Stated that because of his disability and the required use of a wheelchair,sidewalks would make it very difficult to get around in the neighborhood. Earlene Martin/925 Penny Drive/Clarified that it is the angle of the sidewalk that makes access difficult. Councilor Wheeldon shared conversation she had with an engineer, and that this engineer indicated that they are looking at the ADA standards to reduce the slope of sidewalks so that it is not as extreme. Wheeldon commented on use of the sidewalk by children,but sees the benefit of using these dollars more efficiently in a neighborhood where more people would be accommodated. Stated that this would be a huge exception in her case and that there are certain circumstances in this instance. Clarified that this would not be a decision that she would normally make,but sees the merit in investing the money in another area. Laws stated that he did not see this as the neighbors investing in another neighborhood, but as them giving the money to the city for their neighborhood,and it being deferred before it is expended for that purpose. Wheeldon voiced her hesitancy with the statement made by Laws because she believes there has been a good case made for why you don't need a sidewalk in this area. Stated that there is not going to be any more houses built in this area, that there is not going to be any more traffic in this area,and that this neighborhood is not going to change. Laws explained that the standards for development do not make these exceptions. And,that if the council is going to begin to make these exceptions we should change our ordinances for all construction to allow this. Stated that council was very adamant that they would make such exceptions. Laws voiced his approval on deferral of sidewalks in this area, and that he would like to have it stated that this is an indefinite deferral of construction for sidewalks with the neighbors paying for the sidewalks. In addition,he asked that council not consider the wheelchair issue as a precedent because it could be argued anywhere that there could be problems associated with wheelchairs and sidewalks. Laws would rather it be an engineering problem in solving the sidewalk access for wheelchairs. Hauck agrees with deferment, because it is not that a case has been made that there would never be a need for sidewalks in this area. Stated that he does believe that sometime in the future there will be a need for sidewalks in this area, and he would agree to defer until that time. Reid stated that she does not want this money held in an account,but would like to see this money borrowed and spent to improve areas that have a need for sidewalks. Would like to prioritize these areas and use the deferred monies to provide sidewalks to these areas. Conceded that this is an exception to the normal requirements that council usually places on local improvement districts regarding sidewalks. Brown explained that there is a priority list for annual sidewalk and concrete projects based on the TPAC list Laws reminded the council that they are using the opportunity to build sidewalks when money is received from LID's and it is not easy to get LID'S. Felt that we need to continue the opportunistic approach and put in sidewalks where we can. Mayor Shaw read the following Resolution: Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving,Curbs,Gutters,Storm Drains, Sidewalk and Associated Improvements within the Local Improvement District and Authorizing the Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements against Property to be Benefitted and Authorizing the City to City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 3 of I I borrow Money and Issue and Sell Notes for the Purpose of Providing Interim Financing for the Actual Cost of the Local Improvement." Councilor Reid motion to strike sidewalk and add sentence talking about the collection for the money for sidewalks and that the construction would be deferred indefinitely. City Administrator Freeman asked that it be made clear in the resolution that the city is responsible for the improvement when it is called up. Council consensuses to allow City Attorney Nolte to bring back a resolution with correct wording that the council could adopt at the next council meeting. Councilor Reid withdrew the motion. Wheeldon suggested that council think about the cost of the sidewalk when it finally happens. Brown concurred that there would be additional cost associated with installing sidewalks in the future. Reid stated that from her perspective,she is not looking at putting in a sidewalk on this street and that she was trying to craft a motion that the council could support. Explained that if she thought that this street needed a sidewalk in the future,she would want to do it right now. Laws voiced his concern with ethically charging this neighborhood for a sidewalk if the city does not intend on ever installing sidewalks. Stated that the argument has been,that sidewalks encourage pedestrians. And,even if the sidewalk encourages only one pedestrian,the same argument is the same in encouraging people to walk. Feels that council should stick to this theory. Brown stated that the amended resolution would be mailed out to the property owners involved in the LID for their input and information. Hauck stated that if the legislative thrust of doing this deferment is as Councilor Reid stated, he is not going to support the request. Wheeldon also stated that, in spirit, she is not in favor of this,and would like to go on the record stating she would hardly ever make this exception. 2. Hillside Development Ordinance Remand Hearing. Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained that this is a public hearing regarding the Hillside Development Ordinance to determine issues remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals in the case of the Rogue Valley Board of Realtors versus the City of Ashland. The council will hear and determine if the following: 1)the 160 acres unincorporated single family residential lands outside the city limits, but within the urban growth boundary can be developed into the Hillside Development Ordinance with a sufficient number of units;a)to offset the loss of five units on single family residential zone lands within the city limits under the Hillside Development Ordinance;and b)to address the existing 46 acres shortage of single family residential lands within the city limits; and 2)determine that the actual land use ordinance section 18.62.080 E(2)G that this section is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. The section states the following: It is recommended that the color structure for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment. Explained that these are the only issues that will be considered by the council at this hearing. Stated that all other issues have been resolved or are subject to future hearings and action by the Planning Commission or Council in the future. McLaughlin explained that staff sees this as a housekeeping to deal with ordinance language. Stated that LUBA is asking that council finds that this is a suggestion and not mandatory approval language. That another part of this ordinance, involves the impact of this ordinance on developable or buildable lands within the city. Stated that in the City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 4 of I I staffs analysis, they found that there would be a reduction of 33 housing units,potentially by this ordinance. Of these 33 units,28 units were located on low density residential zoned lands,of which there is a-large inventory. Stated that LUBA agreed that there are plenty of other lands within the city limits to accommodate that loss of 28 units in these zones. Explained that the five units were on single family zoned lands, and that LUBA was confused with the city comprehensive plan in how our inventory works. McLaughlin felt that LUBA was asking the city to take another shot at this, and make it clearer to them. McLaughlin explained that council has adopted the Buildable Lands Inventory, which is in place. Stated that they used the inventory methods that are required by the state, looked at it knowing that there was an adopted Hillside Development Ordinance,and that there would be lots affected it. McLaughlin found that we had,a 31-year supply of single family zone lands within our city limits, which exceed what our comprehensive plan. Explained that we are in excess of state requirements and our comprehensive plan requirements for buildable lands in the single family zoned category, which easily handles the loss of the five units through the adoption of this ordinance. Mayor Shaw noted the gift by the real estate community that we should look at our urban growth and city limits boundary, and bring both within conformity of state land use laws by making both smaller. McLaughlin stated that in using the Buildable Lands Inventory that they found no need to expand the boundary over this next five-year period and will wait until the next period of review to review buildable lands inventory. Stated that staff is not recommending any adjustments to the boundary at this point. McLaughlin explained that the recommendation is for the council to: 1)Find that the adoptable lands inventory indicates that there are adequate lands in all land use classifications affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance to accommodate growth in the next 20 years and that there is no issue with this at this point based on the evidence of the buildable lands inventory; and 2)Find that the one section in the code is truly a recommendation and not a mandatory standard. McLaughlin clarified that the issue of point`B"was part of the misunderstanding that LUBA had with our . comprehensive plan and what the inventory is. This said that we were 46 acres short of providing the entire 20-year supply within our city limits. Stated that LUBA did not understand that our comprehensive plan only requires that we have a 5-year supply within the city limits at any one time, but we need a 20-year supply within the urban growth boundary. Explained that we had a 18-year supply of land within our city limits in our previous inventory before it was updated. Reid voiced her concern with having a comprehensive plan that can be easily understood, by both LUBA and community members. McLaughlin stated that this is exactly why we have a buildable lands inventory that says there is a 31-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits based on the state required methodology. Public Hearing Open: 7:58 p.m. Debbie Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Stated that she was involved with the committee that wrote the ordinance. Reminded council that this was a long process in writing this ordinance and urged council to approve the ordinance. Rick Harris/2675 Quail Run,Talent/Representative of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors/Read definition of suggestion and recommendation and found that there is a difference. Stated that what LUBA has said to the city, is to show that this a suggestion and not mandatory. Suggested that council insert the word after recommendation to read as the following:"It is recommended, but not mandatory that color selection for new structures fit in with the surrounding....". Harris felt that this language would make it very clear and made the council aware of House Bill 3410 requires that these be clear and objective standards on the face of the ordinance. Harris stated that the current language is not clear and objective on the face of the ordinance which is required by City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 5 of 11 H133410. Requested council to accept the recommendation by the Board of Realtors by inserting the words"but not mandatory" into this piece of the ordinance to make it very clear. In addition, Harris pointed out that when you look at the growth projections that are in the buildable lands inventory,there is less numeric growth projected in the next 19 years than what occurred in the last 10 years in that projection for single family developable units. Harris urged council that when they look at those buildable lands projections, that they look at this growth pattern. Bob Strosser/3917 Bridgeport, Medford/Legislative Committee Chair of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors/Submitted letter to the council that commented on their opportunity to listen to the council's input on the remanded issues brought about by the Land Use Board of Appeals(LUBA)case 997-260. The Rogue Valley Association of Realtors would also like to include into the record that House Bill 3410-A dealing with the approval standards for residential development,which went into effect October 23, 1999,also be referenced by staff while deliberating remand issues. Stated that it is the desire of the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors to continue to establish standing in these matters for future hearings. Shaw questioned how much money had been spent by the real estate community to fight this ordinance. Harris responded that it was less than the citizens of Ashland. Shaw used an example of a possible combined expense of $300,000 which would be equal to$100,000 per word that we are not required to pay. Harris responded that this is contention that these are the only two issues. Stated that the regulation of aesthetics is greater than the word "suggest"versus required,or mandatory,and that it took the city two years to get its buildable lands inventory into a forth that can be supported and what LUBA wanted to see. Harris stated that if the cost was$100,000 per word, it is well worth it,and that"We the People,"are three words that are worth more than$100,000 apiece,and that is exactly what this is about. Public Hearing Closed: 8:06 p.m. McLaughlin clarified that the growth patterns were all in the buildable lands inventory and are based on our current population projection. Explained that our projections are coordinated with all other cities in Jackson County based on the Jackson County estimate. Stated that we have been tracking the same line for population projection for the last 20 years and expect to continue to track it. Hauck commented that consolidated population estimates are based on state requirements that the county had to put together. Stated that he is comfortable with the way we have been doing things and that we have been accurate for the past 20 years. Laws stated that our projection is based upon a constant rate of an increase at 1'/:%. McLaughlin clarified that we do not have a constant rate of an increase and that our population estimate is declining. That it is a straight line projection opposed to a curve projection and that the rate drops below 1%. McLaughlin explained that the straight line means that there will be a lower percentage year after year of increase,which is what is expected based on our urban growth boundary and development pressures in the community. McLaughlin recommends that council leaves the language as written because it matches more clearly what the council has wanted.That, it is clearly not mandatory,but a value to the community. Shaw voiced her concern in the possibility of spending additional monies of the Ashland taxpayers, if without these three words,the Board of Realtors will continue to litigate. Nolte clarified that we cannot add any language to the ordinance at this time because it takes a different type of notice and process that goes through the planning commission and then to the council. Explained that what LUBA wants from the council, is that if this is a standard, it must be made clear. The council needs to say that this is not a standard,but a recommendation. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 6 of I I Councilors Hauck/Fine m/s to request staff to bring back findings that the council find, based upon the recently adopted Buildable Lands Inventory,that there is a greater than 20-year supply of all residential lands affected by the Hillside Development Ordinance and that the adoption of the new ordinance will not result in shortage in any residential land use classification. Further,we recommend that the council confirm that the language in 18.62.080(E)(2)(g)is a suggestion and not mandatory. DISCUSSION: Nolte clarified for the council that this not a"Findings of Fact", but as"Findings." Roll Call Vote: Laws,Reid,Hauck, Hanson,Wheeldon and Fine,YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Explained that President Clinton is working on policy to end developments in logging operations into roadless areas,and that the president needs communities from the pacific northwest to endorse his roadless policy. Stated that our county commissioners are already working to build a grassroots opposition to President Clinton's policy here in Southern Oregon. Navickas requested that the City of Ashland stand up to these timber interests and endorse President Clinton's policy. Navickas feels that our community is behind Clinton's policy and requests that the council officially endorse the roadless moratorium. Navickas offered a gift to Mayor Shaw in hopes that she would align herself with this effort and not with the county commissioners. Tom Dimitre/901 Beach Street/Representing Headwaters. Read statement regarding President Clinton's Roadless Policy. Noted other communities that have taken a stand and asked that council to consider adopting a resolution supporting President Clinton's proposal to protect roadless areas at their next council meeting. Eric Navickas/711 Faith/Presented facts regarding sludging of Reeder Reservoir. Stated that he had met with a city engineer who confirmed that 67,000 cubic yards were removed from Reeder Reservoir following the 1997 flood at the cost of$370,320. Stated that he is asking for responsibility because Reeder Reservoir has a problem with sedimentation and the removal is costly. Asked that the council make a responsible choice in taking a stand against the proposed renovation of the Mt Ashland ski area because it cuts into a pristine roadless area. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Council Meeting Look Ahead. For council Information only. ORDINANCES.RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Exempting from Competitive Bidding the Contract with the communications group, inc.,for Advertising including Public Relations,Marketing and Designing and Preparing Advertising for Publication." Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid presented request to the council for allowing exemption from competitive bidding and to extend the contract that we have with the Communications Group for the marketing of the Ashland Fiber Network. Explained that we originally entered into a contract with this group on December 11, - 1998 after asking five local firms to bid on the contract, of which one firm did. Subsequent to this process, staff found out about the Communications Group, Inc. and requested a bid from them also. The bid that was presented by the Communications Group, Inc. was for an overall long term marketing plan of which we entered into a contract and began implementation. Stated that there is an addendum to this contract on July 21, 1999. Wanderscheid reminded council that an amendment on the competitive bidding resolution had been approved by council which removed advertising from the list of items.that were exempt. Explained that the proposed resolution would provide a one-time exemption to extend the contract throughout the entire roll-out of the AFN. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 7 of t I J Wanderscheid estimated that the roll-out time is between 12-18 months. Staff is recommending that council approve this exemption stating the following reasons: 1)staff is very happy with the work that has been accomplished under the contract;2)now would be a very inappropriate time to switch firms; 3)there is a complete direct mail marketing plan ready to implement when the program is rolled out;and 4)to start right now and go out to get bids,bring a new firm up to speed,and develop a new marketing plan would not be in the best interest of marketing AFN to residential customers. Wanderscheid explained that the AFN Business Plan projects that public relation marketing and advertising expenses for the next 2-2 '/,years would be about$143,000. Stated that if this roll-out lasts between 12-18 months that this contract extension could have an expense of approximately$93,000-$143,000. Wanderscheid noted that there is a concern not to over market the product so that the installation of the service will not be heavily backlogged. Explained that much of the way the marketing is implemented is going to be contingent upon how fast customers can be hooked up. Stated that right now is a very critical time for the AFN project. City Administrator Mike Freeman commented that the bid that was put out for the work,did not anticipate that the marketing was going to be chopped up into different discreet pieces. Freeman explained that this was why the successful bidder was asked to put together a full marketing plan for the first several years of the program. Stated that the assumption was that we would stay with the firm that was selected initially,at least through the roll-out period. Clarified for the council that there is not an existing reason to have a multi year marketing plan. Explained that this consultant is only being asked to do the work that is needed,as we need it. Councilor Laws asked if there were any other provisions in our ordinances other than what was indicated in the resolution,to an exempt a contract from competitive bidding, if it finds that it doesn't cause favoritism and that the exemption will result in substantial cost savings. City Attorney Nolte clarified that both of these provisions would have to be met. Laws understands that there would be considerable inconvenience,but not sure that the evidence that has been presented so far shows him that there would be substantial savings by staying with existing contractors. Freeman clarified that the savings would be in multiple areas. Stated that first there would be a delay period in offering services for AFN, a new firm would need to be brought up to speed through a tremendous amount of staff time and the potential loss of revenue by not being able to provide the service to the community. Councilor Fine stated that, in addition to the two provisions previously mentioned,that the ordinance requires the council to make written findings of fact that include that the exemption would not substantially diminish competition in awarding the contract. Fine questioned that, if the public bidding requirement is disregarded,are we not only substantially diminishing competition, but totally removing all possibilities of competition. Fine feels that there may be players in the industry that may wish to bid on this contract. Recognized that there were very few initially, but feels that the situation has changed. Nolte responded that the city already has given competition opportunity to bid. Explained that this is an extension of an existing contract and that competition has already occurred. Fine stated that if the action being requested by council is a granting of a contract,subject to the state and city public bidding laws,the council must comply with the requirements. Clarified that the council is required to put in writing, and give findings tojustify,that by exempting this process council will not be substantially diminishing competition. Hauck stated that this is an extension of an original contract and there is no change in the request for service. Commented on how at the original bidding of the contract,there was no competition to the existing contract. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 8 of I 1 Laws rationalized that given what we know about the situation we would not have awarded the contract to anyone else, and would not be reducing competition based on this rationalization. Council discussion regarding past decisions by council to exempt competitive bidding, when considering fiscal responsibility. Freeman reiterated that it is not the intent of the staff to circumvent policy when requesting exemption of bidding that they are only asking to get past this phase of the project. Russ Silberger/562 Ray Lane/Stated that the RFP specifically asked for one year term and was not competitively bid. Pointed out that there are 30 advertising and marketing firms in the Medford telephone book. Questioned how five were chosen and 25 were not. Commented that there was unfair advantage given to five firms initially,and that now there is unfair advantage being given to one firm. Felt that if there was not adequate response to the initial bid,then we should have taken it for bid again. Believes that with current staff,there is an opportunity to build a better RFP that may generate additional firms' interest in bidding for the contract. Suggested that there could be a shorter time frame required in awarding a new contract to finishing out the critical phase for AFN. Requested that new firms have the opportunity to submit bids. Shaw asked what the motivation was behind Silberger's concern regarding the bidding process. Stated that she was unaware of any firm that had called and complained they were not given the opportunity to bid on this contract. Council discussed the appropriateness and irrelevance in the questioning of Mr. Silberger's motivation. Silberger stated that the public policy of encouraging competition is what is the issue, it is not whether the Communications Group, Inc.or any other group did or did not do a good job. Councilors Laws/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution#99-68. Roll Call Vote: Hauck,Wheeldon,Hanson, Laws and Reid,YES; Fine, NO. Motion passed. Councilor Laws stated that regardless of Mr. Silberger's motivation, Silberger was trying to make sure that the City of Ashland follows its own rules. Stated that it is also the council's duty to make sure that the City of Ashland follows its own rules. Felt that in this case, by giving a liberal interpretation of the words,the council can do this. But, Silberger's point was well taken and does not feel the'council should question people's motivation. Shaw agrees we should not be trying to interpret motivation, but should be allowed to say when we don't understand what the driving force is,and request clarification. Laws commented on how a mindful council is in trying to encourage citizen participation and that council will discourage participation if they indirectly or kindly question motivation of a citizen in a negative manner. Shaw agreed with Laws and responded that it flows both ways. Shaw felt that it was important to have a conversant dialogue with citizens. 2. Reading by title only of"A Resolution setting a Public Hearing to Hear Petitions for/and any Objections to the Vacation of an Alley off Bush Street." Councilors Hauck/Laws m/s to approve Resolution#99-67. DISCUSSION: Public Works Director Paula Brown clarified for the council that this does not require a fence, but only that it provide a public easement. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Laws, Hauck, Fine, Hanson and Wheeldon, YES. Motion passed. 3. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Authorizing and Ordering the Local Improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the Paving,Curbs,Gutters, Storm Drains,Sidewalk and Associated Improvements within the Local Improvement District and A. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page 9 of I I Authorizing the Assessment of the Cost of the Improvements against Property to be Benefitted 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." Item dealt with under Public Hearings. 4. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Declaring the Canvass of the Vote of the Election Held in and for the City of Ashland,Oregon,on November 2, 1999," and Mayoral Proclamation. Councilors Reid/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution#99-69. Roll Call Vote: Fine,Wheeldon, Hanson, Hauck, Reid and Laws,YES. Motion passed. 5. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Adopting Fees for Telecommunication Registration, Applications,Construction, Franchises and Other Services under Ashland Municipal Code Title 16; - and Repealing Resolution 98-24." Councilors Fine/Wheeldon m/s to approve Resolution#99-70. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Hanson,Reid, Wheeldon,Hauck,and Fine, YES. Motion passed. 6. Reading by title only of"A Resolution Accepting Transfer of a Portion of Clay Street from Jackson County to the City of Ashland." Item pulled from the agenda. 7. First reading by title only of"An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of,and Adding Other Sections to,the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures." Councilors Fine/Reid m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: City Attorney Paul Nolte clarified that this involves both demolition and relocation. Read the definition,which is an important part of the proposed ordinance. Clarified for the council that only 40% of the external walls could be taken down,or if it is the facade you would only be able to take down 10%. Hauck voiced his support of the ordinance because it is directed at solid waste management. Reid voiced her appreciation of those that worked on the proposed ordinance. Nolte recognized Councilor Fine,George Kramer,John McLaughlin and Mike Broomfield. Laws voiced his support of preserving historic buildings and his concern that the proposed ordinance is not stopping the tearing down of historic structures, but is designed to prevent from tearing down any structure. Laws feels that individuals should be able to tear down their structure if they want, unless there is a really good public reason why they shouldn't. Stated the public reason that is implied in the proposed ordinance is to save on solid waste,which he feels goes too far. Fine explained that the ordinance differentiates between structures built prior to 1955 and those built in or after 1955. Clarified that the object of the committee was to allow Ashland t commensurate with federal and state laws in preserving structures that have historic significance in the c ntext of this community. Agreed that there is no desire to clog the solid waste stream with building de ris,and explained that experts are saying that is what is filling up our landfills prematurely. Feel that we ed to be environmentally responsible and not require that new landfills be required. City Council Meeting 12-07-99 ��� Page 10 of 1 I Fine clarified that requirements to demolition or move a post 1955 house,are very liberal in the proposed ordinance and that the requirements to get approval to demolition pre-1955 are more strict. Stated that the committee tried to be sensitive to the needs of private property owners to do what they need to do in order to get economic utility out of their property while balancing that against two community interests,the environmental interest and the historic interest. Council discussion of the reasons behind property owner demolition of a building and how this relates to the proposed ordinance. Council consensuses to bring changes or suggestions back for second reading of the proposed ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Reid, Fine, Hanson, Hauck and Wheeldon, YES; Laws, NO. Motion passed 5-1. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS Councilor Reid noted article from the Parks Department regarding combining resources which had been included in the packet. Also mentioned her support of Police Chief Scott Fleuter who is teaching classes at Southern Oregon University. Councilor Hauck noted his attendance at the National League of Cities Conference and that the focus of the conference was on youth and how it interacts with city government. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Barbara Christensen,City Recorder Catherine M. Shaw,Mayor City Council Meeting 12-07-99 Page I I of I I �illr// �3`yMN/l4J 1`'+v7n`,ir J9\ k�fiy $�C al�4iibi.. .��\hAJYf ����aX\'hr�bf 'VI n'. �� 4,6° y�� r+- "Gf'aa. . vSM1,ge 4" ++,.Aa.f' ,y;°ry f"\ fJ +''``�%`�g,'j`a'^°%tirt�°Co+yM'I'v\v ;;rHyyM , *'h "r '•2�,,,!J'a' S rN.+`F;y'',n e 2l.µ r,f`,�' " `-. y��r,�w/y ��„�xy'c'• $r�"'yw �,�`�\ y�5.;:" / �"�nw'�'s x:�r" ��y`�r9,:�s,'.y�!u�es•''"nM i�xr�"`�'��:s�i.�9�/�F`;'�'a�'"�h#��i'�� ��, ���:. - "74THANNUAL CHRISTA L4S,TREERE •CYCLE DAY" WHEREAS,\solid waste disposal and'a dwindling capacity iri ouraandGlls is,a critical ; '-- {� national problem, and " g '..�\ fi'hTp, WHEREAS;�garden waste contributes a sag"ficant volume in our land6lls;,and', �� � ♦ vA >vA��l j�: �Ai l WHEREAS, Troop.112 of the by Scouts<of America, with assistance from the 4c v v A V v A V�� v V A v v A v iAshland Parks'Department, picked up and chjpp6d over 6,000„ Chn//simas w°-- �v > v J x AAAA. A v vi�\l vl -yi WHEREAS;�the chtpp`d\material�was, used on park trails and as mulch.for plants and1 � dtd not enter th�,waste stream , and , �) \\j �s WHEREAS„ the Ashland�Host Ltonsand�Early Bird'Lions'aresupportmg�this effort donating volunteer po er`>n`d egwpment`to transport'the pick up 1n < r((<C < vim«<< /! fit < l� <A l< <Cv ( \vv v>`v ` NbW THEREFORE; , Catherine M Sliaw, l�layor of tfie Ctty ofAshland do hereby I proclaim Saturday;January 8 2000 as \ ` ` , 4 A `X, V`V A vAA w \ti "CHRISTMAS TREEfRECYCLE;DAY,INASHLAND"' v ! r< + C 1 and hereby,,u%e all cinzens.to•set out iheir tree near the curb omFrlday;.January 7; to be picked up on Saturday,January 8,'between,9!00 a m,and 3 00,p m , and'to. consider making a donation J&assist the Troop in their commumty,sernee activities \ > � i / L\ f � �( `� !lf�c//CC !/�`r \ { / <• ir�lC ! I ! c < fc . Dr \ \ day adthis'21 o DeicAem,�b�er, 19v 9 9\�`,`�/ \. Barbara Chnstensen;'Recorder r. a r Catherine M Shaw';Mayor L } 5 ✓%:, �} ar 1� ++r � U. 56 � ji v% �Y'� `///\`rY s}h/ \ 'S YiI 5M1y \ � /`:�# V�£ /,\\.M1 e A w s•E \ M1F�(/+` ,d' J S5 w • o ms' : r y ♦ !� ��9 F+�µVt�x twi'/�M.Fd/ ✓r,,K.,r„s ,,�e('�Atih'` ��,y. �'� wd Cyf'Uy „i6'ryr�J"„a Y�°�aa� ,�4�nv d'� ���q�" �w.�a°!_y'�M�`�\�(��F'\ u Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Members From: Paula Brown,Public Works Director Date: December 17, 1999 Re: RETIREMENT RECOGNITION FOR EVERETT SWAIN,ASSISTANT CITY SURVEYOR It is my privilege to recognize a long time friend of the City of Ashland and an employee of the City's since October 1, 1990. Everett Swain has been in the same office for nearly 30 years—21 years owning his own private business and the past 9, in the same place, but as a City employee. He has dedicated his life to the pursuit of excellence in surveying. For those of you that know Everett, you know this as a fact. Everett is not happy with a 1% margin of error, and strives for perfection — one-one hundredth (1/100'h ) of a percent is better. Everett is responsible for much of the surveying accuracies that we have in the City today. He helped develop a vertical and horizontal control network and has aligned all the information from the City's latest aerial photography and digital topographic mapping to this control. This will be used by many within the City for decades to come. Although not always valued by some because of the detail he required,Everett is almost always right. He has helped many young surveyors and engineers present accurate information, sometimes after many attempts at doing things over, and over, until they got it right. Everett's reputation for excellence is statewide. He was past president of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping for the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. He is a licensed Professional Land Surveyor with the states of Oregon and Washington. A native of Oregon, Everett grew up in Yamhill, played baseball and graduated from Yamhill Union High School in 1959, received his Surveying Technology degree from OIT in Klamath Falls in 1963, worked for the City of Klamath Falls and Jackson County before establishing his own business in Ashland, then finished his surveying career with the City of Ashland. After many long hours, and nights and weekends of being away from his family, he is calling an end to his working career. Everett officially retired on December 1'. He is soon to be a grandfather for the first time. He has vowed to continue fishing, traveling ("snowbirding" as he calls it) and will learn how to have fun without coming to the office quite as much. Everett has to wean off work slowly and has a couple projects to finish,so you might just see him around for the next couple of months—until fishing season starts... Good luck to you Everett! Thanks for your instance on accuracy! Thank you for your dedication and service to the City of Ashland. T' ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1999, 5:30-7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jo Anne Eggers, Fred Binnewies, Richard Brock, Bill Robertson (Chair), Eric Schehen, Pete Seda, John Morrison, Susan Reid (Council Laision) Staff: Keith Woodley, Pieter Smeenk, Nancy Slocum Members Absent: Paula Brown Guests: Jeff McFarlane, Parks Department, Bill Fleeger, REAL Corp, Richard Hart, Headwaters I. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:38 P.M. Il. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 1999 minutes were approved with the comment from Brock and Schehen that the minutes were hard to follow, but content was appropriate. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Ashland Watershed Protection Project - Robertson stated the goal tonight is to come up with a written recommendation for Council. The Council will address to the Watershed Protection Project at its October 5th meeting. Reid noted that several commission members and others attended a field trip through the Watershed that day. She wondered if anything learned from the tour would help discussion tonight. Brock stated that his trip to the watershed confused his position. Robertson said he knew there was a definite fire hazard and something needs to be done, but he is not sure how or when. Some believe the fire hazard is severe and the survival of trees is also in jeopardy. He felt a sense of urgency. Egger asked main issues from the members who had attended the field trip. Brock said that the heavy fuel break as marked by the Forest Service wasn't appropriate because of soil erosion, the drying of surface layer and old growth characteristics. He felt more trees could be saved. Robertson commented that some of the untreated areas look good and some look terrible. Brock said that the field trip participants critiqued the tree markings: why some trees and not others. There was lots of mistletoe in the overstory leaving some trees in danger of dying and increasing risk of fire spreading to dense understories. Schehen added that mistletoe could be an important part of the health of an ecosystem, but that too much is harmful. Morrison reviewed from last meeting that the "no action" alternative is not an alternative. He asked if commission had gravitated towards Alternative 5 and away from Alternative 3 by the end of September 15' meeting. Robertson answered, no, some commissioners leaned towards other alternatives, but consensus was that Alternative 3 was better than nothing. GDnwn\Forest\Minutes\Sept29 99 wpd Schehen felt it would be helpful if commissioners were up-to-date on community coalition efforts. He had a paragraph from them and asked to read it. Robertson thought it inappropriate since the information was in preliminary form and not approved for public desemination. Eggers stated that the group has an official name, the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance, with a stated vision, mission statement and goals. She read, "We envision a sustainable Ashland Creek Watershed ecosystem that through a new understanding of the interrelationships between the community and the land, will ensure a quality of life for present and future generations of its people and their watershed." Its vision is "To build respectful, responsive and learning relationships between people, government, commerce and their environment." The goals are in a draft form and include environmental goals, economic goals and social/educational/organizational goals. Thirty one people attended their last meeting and she was excited to see people working together on such a complicated issue. Schehen had a written statement that he hoped the commission could use in their recommendation to Council: "We agree there is a need to intervene with hazard reduction work, not just within the `proposed project area,' but across the entire Watershed landscape. We are in support of the coalition's efforts to design a more holistic and environmentally sensitive alternative that more accurately expressed the relationships between the community and ecosystem in which we live and depend. Alternative H5 falls short in achieving this in several aspects: 1) continues policy of fire exclusion, 2) focuses on a small portion of watershed, 3) lacks long range vision of watershed management, 4) fails to be specific in unit prescriptions, and 5) relies on timber sales for funding." Robertson expressed the need to think about funding for the project. Woodley said he had spoken with Councilor Carole Wheeldon (City Administrator was out of town) regarding the council agenda and the Watershed Protection Project recommendations to be presented. Both agreed that Council hadn't heard Alliance and neither has the commission. They both felt it might be premature for the commission to make a recommendation prior to the Alliance presentation to Council. He had been asked to prepare a preliminary Council Communication for internal use but, it had not been released. Then the Alliance formed and Marty Main attends Alliance meetings and reported back to him. Woodley's Council Communication has since changed to say that if Alliance proposal is not scientifically viable, the staff would then recommend Alternative 5. Council will want to hear all the information and may not make a decision October 5. Agenda presently includes a presentation from Alliance group and he will read his staff recommendation into the record. Reid indicated that the Council had charged the Forest Commission with looking at forest issues. Although she appreciated that Freeman and Wheeldon had attended the Alliance meetings, she felt that, as experts, the Forest Commission was charged with the task of a recommendation. Robertson added that when the commission hired Marty Main to do prescriptions, they set out to recruit professionals to sit on the commission and review the prescriptions. Reid stated that she had attended one Alliance meeting and felt there were real divisions within that group. She wondered if the Council would see a minority opinion from the Alliance group. Eggers replied that for the Council presentation, two people from the group were charged with speaking for the group. Robertson said there is a small concern that the group was not broadly based. Reid wondered how much power the Council had in the Forest Service decision on treatment of the Watershed. Eggers felt the Council's voice was that of the entire community and therefore very important. Since the Alliance had four commission members on it, Schehen felt that his written paragraph supporting the Alliance's efforts could reach be supported. Robertson's concern was the difficulty in being explicit in a recommendation. Time limits are at hand, but business plan and the basic data needed for a decision are not available. What will be the community's responsibility? Some people feel they can raise the needed money, some don't. The change of philosophy in watershed treatment where management is done locally will be slow and threatens the existing status quo. Eggers agreed. Brock suggested waiting for the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance to come up with an "Alternative 6." G:Doren\ForesAN1inutes\Sept2999 wpd This group represents a collaborative effort and he is a member of this group's technical team. He is t pessimistic that an alternative can be proposed soon because of the lack of needed data, however, portions of an alternative such as treatment alternatives and advocating for stewardship units with local responsibilty can be done now. The difficulty lies with trees, which ones to remove, where and why. He felt there would never be a consensus. He got the sense from the field trip that some people felt no big trees should be cut only underbrush. In looking at the health of the stand, there are some units that contain almost all larger size trees where many are dying, the downed trees are a fire hazard. Reid reiterated the problem of using a single prescription for an area because the units differ greatly. She said the watershed is not a natural habitat because it contains Hosler Dam and represents an urban impact. Brock thought that, although a specific prescription could not be written, a guiding principle could. Robertson added his concern for how the Forest Service might handle site specific sensitivity and how they might adjust a prescription. Woodley asked Brock about applying underburn modifications to different alternatives. In response Brock read: "In proposed underburn units on areas above the reservoir, it is in the city's interest to reduce soil erosion to a minimum. Therefore we advocate for a pretreatment consisting of manual cutting and burning to thin out conifer sapling patches and Manzanita patches." Schehen added that this prescription could be applied throughout the watershed. Brock stated that the Forest Service recommends underburns without pretreament creating hot Spots and erosion. Woodley stated that there were additional issues such as funding. Seda felt the commission should try to recommend a workable solution and treat funding is a separate issue. He agreed with Brock's statement. Shehen agreed that funding is not up to the commission. Eggers said that if the 5250,000 funding needed over the next 8-12 years was accurate, the community itself should be able to come up with funding. Schehen reminded commission that the Forest Service has not counted 5-9" diameter trees as a source of funding. Robertson noted that each alternative has differences in fire and erosion risks; whether an understory is removed or large trees removed or nothing is done, there is a risk of problems later on. Brock felt Alternative 4 was too limiting and said that it is important to remove larger trees. Robertson said commission needed to define an Alternative 4 tfz. Woodley asked Brock if he is in favor of adopting a set of principles and methodologies for modifying Alternative 5. Robertson was in favor and indicated that they could be worded to include handpiling, less spacing on the flanking, and commercial extraction of 5-9" class of trees. Morrison agreed that the commission should focus on coming up with general principles and finding all the alternatives inadequacies and view the funding issue as separate. Reid thought this line of discussion was important. As a councilperson, she welcomed a technical guideline from the commission - money issues aside. Egger asked the guests in the audience for their opinion. Richard Hart of Headwaters commented on the lack of needed data history on the watershed. He specifically identified the missing data on the effects of broadcast burning, soils condition and ground cover. Because of the loose description of prescriptions in the draft EIS, they must build another from scratch. For example, there are areas were one could apply seven different prescriptions. He felt the most important goal was to create data benchmarks. Forest Service wants to help support this with access, monitoring, past successful treatments, and past fire history. This is a long-term goal. His concern was the immediate and complex needs and priorities. He felt it important to honor the new relationships needed with people and the watershed. Brock felt the Forest Service was withholding significant stand information for fear of lawsuits. His group is operating on walk-through data. Reid knew of several sources of data, but Robertson felt it was not the right type of data. Reid said it was important for her to honor a citizens group's decisions. Schehen read his paragraph again and asked to make it part of the recommendation. Seda thought the statement was very general. Brock read from his notes: "Several of the alternatives have features which are important to consider. However, none of the alternatives are entirely adequate as proposed. The 17" diameter limit of Alternative 4 is too restrictive. Alternative 5 appears to remove too much of the overstory in some locations. We advise, therefore, that an alternative based on a combination of features G:Dmvn\Forest\Minutes\Sept29 99.,rpd from 3 and 4 and 5 be designed." 1 Morrison agreed with Brock's statement and recommended adding several guiding principles. He sited examples such as site specific flexibility, stage treatment and, if possible, the separation of funding from forestry. Robertson didn't feel funding could be separated from technical work. Morrison felt that funding shouldn't be a "guiding aspect" of the recommendation. Eggers added that production of clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation use were hard to translate into dollar values. Morrison stated that the community's overall goal was high-quality drinking water. It would be "pound foolish tolook at the cost of obtaining a different source of water versus extracting some trees to finance this treatment. Robertson's greatest fear was that the Forest Service could run out of money and time and select Alternative I where no treatment was done. Eggers didn't feel that was a concern. Robertson asked the commission to agree on a recommendation to combine Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Schehen desired more holistic and environmentally sensitive language. Commission agreed to include Schehen's paragraph as the opening to the recommendation. Reid said that the recommendation need only be preliminary. Woodley noted that Linda Duffy and the Forest Service would have to deal with funding. Although, the commission could separate the issue of financing the project, he felt it would not be fruitful to do so in the recommendation. Brock thought it better to refer the details to the Alliance. Reid noted that funding could be left out of the commission recommendation. Brock recommended pretreatment on commercial units. Morrison offered three principles: site specific flexibility, the pre-treatment issue and the separation of funding. He noted that the commission is not responding to the Forest Service, but to the citizens of Ashland and the Council. Brock added the principle of maintaining ecological integrity, minimize soil erosion and enabling stewardship opportunities. Seda thought the statement about pre-treatment was important to add. Commission came to consensus and directed Schehen and Brock to give their notes to Slocum to type up as council recommendation. VII. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR/NEXT MEETING A. Next Meeting: October 13, 1999 VIII. ADJOURN AT 6:52 PM G:Dawn\Forest\Nlinules\ScpL9 99.Nk pd City of Ashland PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES November 15, 1999 ATTENDANCE: Present: Teri Coppedge, JoAnne Eggers, Sally Jones, Rick Landt, Laurie MacGraw, Councillor Don Laws, Director Ken Mickelsen Absent: None I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Eggers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main. Il. ADDITIONS or DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA None III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting - October 18, 1999 Commissioner Coppedge said that in the last paragraph on page 3 the word "expressed" . should be substituted for the word"said" in order for the sentence to read clearly. Commissioner Landt made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Joint Special Meeting - October 12, 1999 Commissioner Coppedge commented that on page 3 in the third paragraph under "Council/Commission Comments", concerning Councillor Laws comments, that in the last line the word 'has' should be changed to 'as' in order to read "as requested by Council". Commissioner Landt indicated that on the same page, two paragraphs down that the phrase "East-side of the creek"should be changed to"West-side of the creek". Commissioner Jones said that she believed that on page 2, the last sentence prior to "Council/Commission Questions" is not accurate when it indicates that there was an interest in making the Calle"more like its namesake, the City of Guanajuato." She said that she believed it would be more accurate to the discussion if the sentence read: "It was pointed out that there was an interest in having the Calle include a feature or features that would reflect its namesake, the City of Guanajuato." Other Commissioners concurred. Commissioner Landt made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 12, 1999 as corrected. Commissioner Jones seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no III. REVIEW OF FINANCES C. Approval of previous month's disbursements Commissioner Coppedge moved approval of the previous month's disbursements as indicated by checks #26669 through #26781 and checks #100560 through #100700 in the amount of $325,155.16. Commissioner Jones seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 1 abstain (Landt) I Minutes- Regular Meeting- November 15, 1999 Page 2 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission - IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A. Phoenix-Talent High School students -2000 Graduation Chair Eggers asked Director Mickelsen to give a brief synopsis of the topic related to the agenda item. He said that due to an unusual situation this year, a conflict has come up related to the scheduling of the three commencement exercises which the Commission has authorized for the Bandshell in Lithia Park: SOU, Ashland High School, and Phoenix-Talent High School. As it turns out, because of the timing of their school years, all three schools have requested to schedule the Bandshell within the same 24 hour period. Currently, Ashland High School is scheduled for Friday night, June 9"'with SOU following Saturday morning June 10'. When Phoenix requested the afternoon of June 10"', staff denied its request because three back-to-back ceremonies would place undue stress on the Bandshell lawn and surrounding areas. Phoenix-Talent asked to come to the Commission to appeal staff's decision. He said that, if the Commission granted use of the area by Phoenix-Talent for the afternoon of the 10", the lawn area would certainly not be destroyed. However, it would take additional maintenance to mitigate the stress to the area including possibly roping off sections for a period of time, particularly if it is a wet spring. Leading into the summer months in which the Bandshell area is frequently used, "it may not look as good or as highly maintained" as usual. Dave Willard, Superintendent of Schools for Phoenix-Talent, said that he and Director Mickelsen had looked at other dates to determine whether or not there would be an alternative to having the three ceremonies back-to-back. It simply would not work this year. However, he also said that if the weather were inclement, they would move inside and had arranged the gym at SOU as a back-up location. Three students from Phoenix-Talent High School spoke to the Commission outlining their reasons for preferring graduating at the Bandshell. They also spoke about the investigation they had done related to the stress which would be placed on the lawn area and how it might be mitigated. They assured Commissioners that the school would do everything possible to protect the area and to cooperate with SOU to make the back-to-back graduations work. Stressing the importance of graduations being a "once in a lifetime experience", the students asked Commissioners to allow them the use of the Bandshell on June 10" following the SOU ceremony. In discussion, Commissioners inquired about some of the logistics with the Director. Referring to the memorandum which staff had written on November 9'", Director Mickelsen said that if the Commission decided to allow PTSD to utilize the Bandshell following SOU that there would need to be close coordination between the school and college; that normally, SOU begins immediate clean-up after its ceremony. Commissioner Landt asked whether or not staff opinion had changed related to permitting the event. Director Mickelsen said that it had not, however, as the lawn would not be destroyed, it was a judgement call for the Commission on whether or not the third ceremony should take place. He said that he would be most concerned if the lawn were very wet. Commissioner MacGraw commented that her preference would be to support the young people as the lawn would recover. { Minutes-Regular Meeting-November 15, 1999 Page 3 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Phoenix-Talent High School students-2000 Graduation-continued MOTION Following further brief discussion, Commissioner Jones made a motion to permit PTSD to use the Bandshell for its high school commencement ceremony on June 10, 2000 under the following conditions: that it does not interfere in any manner with SOU's graduation, that PTSD contacts SOU to coordinate activities and that SOU writes a letter to the Department indicating that it does not have any objections to the PTSD ceremonies following their ceremonies on that date, and, that the decision related to calling a "rain-out" be solely left to the discretion of Department staff. Commissioner Coppedge seconded. Commissioner Eggers said that although she would support the motion, she also was concerned that the Granite Street neighborhood would be so heavily impacted in such a short period of time. Commissioner Landt said that he too could support the motion as long as staff was on the look-out so that area didn't turn into a quagmire. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no B. Open Forum 1. Greg Howe, Ashland Soccer Club Mr. Howe spoke to the Commission briefly to introduce an item of interest to the Ashland Soccer Club. He said the Club would like to propose a concept whereby it will be authorized by the Commission to assist with the scheduling of soccer games and fields. Considering the development of N. Mountain Park, he said that there was some concern about how the scheduling would be done,for all the different groups. Referring to the joint-usage agreement between the School District and the Parks and Recreation Department which gave each priority scheduling of the other's facilities, he said that there was some concern that the District would be granted priority usage of those fields similarly to other fields in town. His request was that somehow the Soccer Club be granted some kind of status which would allow them to be included in that mix. In essence, he said he was asking that the City co-sponsor the Ashland Soccer Club so that it would have a priority status when it came to the scheduling of fields. Commissioner Coppedge inquired whether or not he really wanted the City meddling in Soccer Club business. Mr. Howe responded that what they really wanted was fields. Following brief discussion among Commissioners, staff, and Mr. Howe concerning the complexity of setting priorities for field usage throughout the community, Commissioner Landt made the suggestion that Mr. Howe work with staff to find a common ground and that the topic be brought back to the Commission at a future meeting. Other Commissioners concurred that there was insufficient information to proceed at this time but agreed to"give it some thought'and address the topic of priorities for field scheduling at some future date. 2. Steve Kiesling-Ashland High School Crew, Inc. Mr. Kiesling was present to thank the Commission for its support last year which helped the team purchase an outboard motor for the newly formed Ashland Crew team. He briefly reviewed the activities of the team in the past year and indicated that interest among the young women was continuing to grow. He also said that one of the reasons that he was present this evening was to let the Commission know that they were still active and would be interested in any additional support the Commission might be able to offer. Minutes- Regular Meeting-November 15; 1999 Page 4 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Ashland High School Crew-continued In discussion, Commissioners advised Mr. Kiesling that shortly after the first of the year the Commission would be entering the budget process for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. It was suggested that he contact the Department to obtain information to apply for community monies from the Youth Activities Levy for the upcoming year. Commissioner Jones also made the suggestion that he contact Emily Jones, the Department's Recreation Supervisor, to determine whether or.not summer activities related to crew could be sponsored in cooperation with the Department. VI. OLD BUSINESS A. Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project At its Regular Meeting in October 1999, the Commission authorized the Director to enter into an agreement with Cameron, McCarthy and Gilbert for Phase 2 of the Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project. At that time, based on preliminary information from Brian McCarthy, a "not-to-exceed"figure of $175,000 had been estimated for Phase 2. Referring to a staff memorandum dated November 10,1999, Director Mickelsen said that since then CMG has been able to develop more complete information and that a more accurate"not-to-exceed" figure would be $215,000. He pointed out that within that amount is the$15,500 which the Commission has previously authorized and a Contingency of approximately$11,000 which may or may not be needed. He said that unless the Commission chose to do something different, that he would proceed with the contract using the new figure of$215,000. Commissioner Eggers indicated that she had been shocked when she saw the newly revised dollar amount. She inquired about Mr. McCarthy's statement that "another approach" might be considered. Director Mickelsen explained that one approach was to enter into an agreement with a "not-to-exceed"figure. An alternative approach would be to enter into an agreement to proceed on an hourly basis with simply an estimated total; no outside limit would be set. A"not-to-exceed"figure guarantees that the project would be completed within that dollar amount even if more hours are required by the contractor than provided in the dollar amount. Fees would still be paid on an hourly basis and if fewer hours are needed, the total dollars expended would come in under the"not-to-exceed" amount. A third option would be simply to set a flat fee which would not be based upon the number of hours it takes to complete the project. Commissioner Landt also expressed shock about the amount of money which the Commission was being asked to consider for Phase 2. He said that combined with the fees for the Master Plan, we were talking about a quarter of a million dollars in design fees alone. He said that he did not believe that all the problems had been solved and that some of this work will have to be done again. He said that he did not feel that he could justify this kind of fee to the taxpayers and voters, particularly since the Commission has no outside verification that this "not-to-exceed"fee is a reasonable fee. Further expressing his concerns, he said that the work done on the Master Plan does not reflect three issues which are important to him as a Commissioner -- environmental protection, a full and open public process, and fiscal responsibility. Therefore, he is very disturbed by the fact that the Commission is even considering a quarter million dollar design project without outside verification that it is a reasonable cost. i Minutes- Regular Meeting-November 15, 1999 Page 5 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calle Guanajuato Restoration Project-continued Commissioner Coppedge said that she too was a little appalled when she saw the new figure so she called the Director to see if he could explain the numbers in CMG's proposal. As he couldn't answer all her questions, the Director asked Brian McCarthy to telephone her to help explain the costs as outlined. She said that essentially Mr. McCarthy indicated that initially he had underestimated the dollars which would be needed from sub-contractors, primarily those associated with engineering. He said, however, that having discussed those charges in detail with the engineering firm, that the work indicated was appropriate for the project. And, as indicated by Director Mickelsen, if the $15,500 previously approved for the topographic survey and geo-technical investigations plus the $10,971 proposed Contingency were backed out, the "not-to-exceed"figure would be much closer to the originally estimated fee. Referring again to the combined professional fees for both the Design Phase and Phase 2 which would amount to approximately$250,000, Commissioner Landt said that a rule-of- thumb estimate on construction projects is for design costs to come in within 10% - 15%of total construction costs. Based on that rule-of-thumb estimate, this would mean that the construction costs for this project would come in over two million dollars. It's one of the reasons why he believes that the"not-to-exceed"fee proposed by CMG should be independently verified to determine whether or not it is reasonable. Commissioner Eggers said that she felt that we were in a bind in a way because we want to be working in-stream by June 15"'. However, she did not believe we would be acting responsibly to approve a contract of this amount without some kind additional information to verify that it is reasonable. Commissioner Coppedge said that the only way she knew to verify how"reasonable"the fees are would be to go out for bid again. She said that she was not willing to do that. Commissioner Landt suggested that another way to verify would be to hire a firm to review the Master Plan and determine whether or not the proposed fee for Phase 2 was reasonable related to the plan. Commissioner Coppedge said that she did not believe another firm would be willing to"critique"the fees of a similar firm; that it simply was not sound business practice. And, although she agreed that the fees as proposed for Phase 2 represented a lot of money, that the project was a complex one with a significant engineering component which adds to the cost. Indicating that CMG was a reputable firm and that in her opinion had produced sound work for the Commission in the past, she would be satisfied to authorize the director to move forward with the "not-to-proceed"figure as proposed. Commissioner Landt expressed again his concern that the Master Plan and the process related to developing the Master Plan had been significantly flawed in some ways, in particular, because stakeholders such as Fish and Wildlife and other environmental agencies had not been included as an integral part of the process. He felt that this was an important weakness which might cause major obstacles down the road. He reiterated that the Master Plan simply does not address the east side of the creek, the alley side. He said that he probably would be more comfortable with the numbers if he felt that we had done a thorough job on the Master Plan. Inquiring of Director Mickelsen, Commissioner Eggers said that it was her understanding that when CMG was awarded the contract for the Design Phase that there would be contact with the permitting agencies so that whatever design was developed would have some assurance I r, Minutes- Regular Meeting- November 15, 1999 Page 6 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Contract for Phase 2 of Calls Guanajuato Restoration Project-continued of being approved. Director Mickelsen said that he knew of no formal inquiries between CMG and the permitting agencies related to the Design Phase. However, the co-consultants such as OBEC and Fishman Environmental work with the permitting agencies on a regular basis and that he was confident if they had any questions about aspects of the design, the permitting agencies would have been contacted, even if informally. Commissioner Jones said that because the Calle Project is very likely one of the most visible projects the firms in question will work on, she did not believe they would allow themselves to falter. Indicating that she "feels sick"whenever she sees the Calle in its current state and that she believed that there had been sufficient discussion related to the proposed fee, she said that it was time to move on. The Calle needs attention and the project needs no more delay. MOTION Commissioner Landt made a motion to obtain independent verification of the cost of$215,000 before entering into a contract. Commissioner Eggers seconded the motion. Commissioner Coppedge said that she would be unwilling to vote in the affirmative on the motion as it does not indicate how it would be done or how long it would take. She said that if having Paula Brown, Director of Public Works, review the figures would help put his fears to rest, she could possibly agree to that. But she was unwilling to delay the project any longer— a couple of days at most. Commissioner Landt said that his preference would.be to contact an outside firm, ask them to review the Master Plan document and offer an opinion as to whether this was a reasonable figure to do the work. He said receiving information related to other City projects would also be useful and, for any major project, that the Commission should have that kind of information prior to making a decision. The vote was: 3 no -2 yes (Landt, Eggers) Based upon the discussion and the results of the motion, Chair Eggers indicated that as the Commission had not chosen to proceed in a different manner, that the Director was authorized to move forward to enter into a contract for Phase 2 of the Calle Project for a not- to-exceed figure of $215,000. B. Review revised Job Description and Performance Evaluation Form for position of Department Director Regarding the two style drafts for a Performance Evaluation Form, the committee would continue to work on the form taking into consideration comments made by Commissioners during the Study Session this evening. MOTION Commissioner Landt made a motion to adopt the Job Description for Department Director as discussed and modified during the Study Session earlier this evening. Commissioner MacG raw seconded. The vote was: 5 yes - 0 no C. Review revised format for Youth Activities Lew requests for support Commissioners reviewed a revised draft of criteria and a request form related to how funds will be awarded to organizations or groups applying for support monies from community Youth Activity Levy monies. After making comments related to the draft, Commissioners directed staff to continue to work on the information which would be reviewed again by the Commission at a future date. Minutes-Regular Meeting- November 15, 1999 Page 7 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission VII. NEW BUSINESS A. YMCA City Park -Ashland Garden Apartments Briefly reviewing information in a memorandum to the Commission dated November 8, 1999, Director Mickelsen outlined an issue which has developed related to the YMCA City Park and errant soccer balls which are being kicked from the park onto the property of the Ashland Garden Apartments. In a recent letter to the YMCA, a copy of which was also sent to the Department, Paul Henderson, an attorney representing the Ashland Garden Apartments, indicated that he was putting the City on notice asking that immediate steps be taken to resolve the dangerous situation. As representative of the Apartments, Mr. Henderson said that they would be willing to work with the City and/or YMCA to resolve the problem. Lisa Molnar, Executive Director of the YMCA, indicates that the Y's soccer program no longer includes older children but is exclusively for elementary aged children. Therefore, she did not believe that the problem is arising from the YMCA's programs. Director Mickelsen reported that he had met with City Attorney Paul Nolte and Planning Director John McLaughlin to discuss the City's liability and possible solutions to the problem. Mr. Nolte had contacted the City's insurance carrier which advises that once the City has been put on notice regarding a potential hazard that some type of corrective action should be taken. Mr. Nolte agrees with the insurance carrier. The memorandum outlined the advantages and disadvantages of four possible solutions to the problem: restricting the use of the fields to programs for younger children, re-aligning the fields, requiring semi-organized and fully organized groups who want to use the fields to carry their own liability insurance to protect the City from lawsuit, and, constructing a system of poles and netting approximately 25 - 35 feet high which would keep the balls within the park. During discussion of the options, Commissioners indicated that the option of establishing poles and netting would be most preferable because, considering the already limited number of soccer fields in the community, it would be the least restrictive related to use of the fields. Staff estimated that the cost of the structure would be between $16,000 -$20,000 and indicated that there would very likely be enough room to plant trees which would shield the view of the structure in time. It was also noted that John McLaughlin had indicated that the structure would require a variance to the current fencing ordinances due to its height. The Commission asked staff to continue to work with City staff and Mr. Henderson to determine whether or not constructing such a barrier using poles and netting would be an appropriate resolution to the problem. Commissioner Landt suggested that a perspective drawing be made which would give an idea of the structure's appearance. Director Mickelsen said that that could be done. B. Discussion and approval of golf course fees for calendar year 2000 Commissioners reviewed information related to the current fee structure for Oak Knoll Golf Course and for other courses within the area. Director Mickelsen briefly commented, referring to financial information discussed during Study Session related to the overall financial picture Minutes- Regular Meeting- November 15, 1999 Page 8 of 9 - Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Discussion and approval of golf course fees for calendar year 2000-continued of the course, that there is some concern about the course being able to continue to support itself. Rounds played at the course continue to decrease therefore revenues generated are down. `This last.year_fiscal.year; operational expenses exceeded income generated which meant that the carryover had decreased. Commissioner Sally Jones reported briefly on comments which the newly formed Golf Course Advisory Committee has made regarding fee structure. Although the committee has not had the time to formally addressed rate structure, she said that a couple of members indicated that until some of the planned capital improvements have been made that they did not believe that fees should be increased. Members did envision the driving range as an important feature which would increase revenues and make the course more attractive to golfers so encouraged the Commission to complete the driving range as soon as possible. Discussion among Commissioners indicated general agreement that finding solutions to reverse the trend of declining revenues was not going to be easy. Oak Knoll is essentially caught in bind because, considering the competition from newer courses, generating the revenues necessary to make needed capital improvements to make Oak Knoll more competitive, will be difficult. And, without the capital improvements, reversing the trend toward declining rounds played will also be very difficult. At some point in the not too distant future, significant decisions related to the long-term viability of Oak Knoll as a regulation, 9- hole course will have to be addressed. However, that time is not yet at hand. Current projects such as the driving range and new clubhouse could conceivably have a substantial impact on attracting golfers to the course. And, the Golf Course Advisory Committee needs time to do its work. With that understanding, general discussion among Commissioners related to rate structure indicated that, even though rates at Oak Knoll have not been increased for two years, under the current circumstances, rates should not be increased for the year 2000. If an increase in rate structure had the effect of moving more rounds played to other courses it would be working against the possibility of maintaining Oak Knoll as a viable, regulation course in future years. MOTION Commissioner Landt made a motion to retain the current fee structure for calendar year 2000 at Oak Knoll Golf Course. Commissioner MacGraw seconded. The vote was: 4 yes - 1 no (Coppedge) VIII. COMMUNICATIONS and STAFF REPORTS Director Mickelsen announced that Robert Haney, the PGA professional who holds the concessionaire agreement at Oak Knoll, has decided to resign his position for personal reasons effective December 15, 1999. The Commission will shortly need to address how they would like to proceed related to that aspect of operation at the course. A Study Session was scheduled for Monday, November 22, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. at the Department Office to address the topic. Minutes-Regular Meeting- November 15, 1999 Page 9 of 9 Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission IX. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS None X. UPCOMING MEETING DATE(S) and PROPOSED AGENDA ITEMS Following brief discussion, it was decided to hold December's Regular Meeting on Monday, December 13, 1999. If the Council Chambers are available, the meeting will be held there; if not, the meeting will be held at the Department Office. Commissioner Landt said that he was opposed to the Commission switching meeting dates on such short notice. He suggested that in January or February that the Commission review its meeting dates for the upcoming year so that shifts from the Council Chambers would not be needed and that all of the Regular monthly meetings would be available for broadcast. Xl. ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ann Benedict, Business Manager Ashland Parks and Recreation Department MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 9, 1999 Hillah Temple, Winburn Way CALL TO ORDER Mayor Shaw called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. in the Hillah Temple. IN ATTENDANCE Councilors Laws,Reid, Hanson, Wheeldon,and Fine were present. Staff present:City Administrator Mike Freeman, Director of Community Development John McLaughlin, Public Works Director Paula Brown.Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid.Fire Chief Keith W oodley,Senior Center Director Sharon Laws and Finance Director Jill Turner. DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Administrative Services Director Dick Wanderscheid presented the draft plan,noting that it was included as one of the goals in the strategic planning process. Explained that Councilors Laws, Fine and Wheeldon had helped work on the plan, and that the planning process began with a survey of commission members. Explained that after today's discussion, and any amendments suggested by council, a public hearing would be scheduled for the second council meeting in December with the hope that the council would adopt the plan at that times. Noted that copies of this plan would be mailed out to former Ad Hoc Communication Committee members and made available to the public. Wanderscheid suggested implementing the plan for one year,to see how it works,and stated that staff will develop a basic citizen involvement workbook as an aid in implementing the plan. Emphasized that the plan is designed to deal with new subjects,such as ad hoc and advisory committees being formed to address a specific task by a specific process. Council discussed the need for training which involves citizen participation,as continuity is needed in the committee and commissions. It was explained that in many cases, committees have gotten bogged down and there is some question as to what their responsibilities and role as a committee member is. There was discussion that,while it was important to outline responsibilities,that there was a need to leave room for flexibility in designing a process that is appropriate for each specific project. It was noted that the plan gives a philosophy and explains the public involvement process. Wanderscheid clarified that this plan serves as a tool for staff to use on items with city-wide significance. City Administrator Mike Freeman pointed out that results of the survey of commissioners indicated that there was a perceived need for more guidelines and structures in the boards and commissions. Explained that the plan will serve as a training tool to prepare staff members who serve on the boards and commissions. Fine stated that he was skeptical,and suggested that if the plan does not work,another tier is needed guaranteeing the rights for each citizen to participate and get information as part of the process. Discussion regarding setting performance standards measurements to determine, after one year, if the plan was working. Freeman clarified that some sort of review by the boards and commissions would be needed to determine their level of satisfaction with the process. Wanderscheid explained that they would be looking at an evaluation of the overall process to help determine the success of the plan. Discussion regarding the importance of clarifying the role of committee members so that the plan gives specific direction as to the responsibilities inherent in that role,and the parameters within which that specific commission will Council Study Session 12/09/99 Page l of 3 be working. It was noted that the roles and responsibilities of standing commission and committee members also need to be clarified. Recommended that this information be included as another tool in the plan. Reid commented that commissions need to work to present themselves to the public in a more open and forthright manner. Suggested that training may be necessary to this end. Fine recommended providing formal training to the chairperson for each commission or committee to help deal with parliamentary procedure and conducting meetings. Also recognized that it might be useful to implement the use of speaker request forms that communicate to interested members of the public the roles and responsibilities of the individual committee or commission. Council consensus to hold a public hearing at the regular city council meeting on December 21, 1999'.It was also noted that training and discussions could occur at the annual meeting of each commission. Laws emphasized that there is a need to clarify the roles of commission and committee members, and the rights of participants,and suggested that balancing these two items make up this plan. STRATEGIC PLANNING Freeman explained that the information which was provided for council was a rough estimate of the time and money involved in implementing each of the strategic planning goals. Emphasized that these are rough estimates. Asked that council review the information presented, asking for clarification where necessary,and then give staff direction as to priorities. Freeman also noted that the PowerPoint presentations used here are included on the city's web page. Laws noted that he does not like the use of the word "goal" and suggested that the title should be "2000-2001 Priorities." Freeman noted that he had made this change, and would see that it was corrected on future versions distributed. Also suggested that perhaps they be termed"fiscal year priorities" Mayor Shaw read through the list of priorities which resulted in the following comments and/or changes: 1)Explore intergovernmental delivery of services.Time investment. Project is in existingplan and will be dealt with as opportunity is presented. Time investment will be put aside. 2)The City Council and Parks Commission should analyze how to better coordinate work and to analyze possible areas to reduce operational redundancy and financial efficiency. Look for organizational effectiveness. 3)Form citizen,staff and Council committee to review City's Charter and make recommendations forrevision,updating and modernization.It was pointed out that there is a need to follow state law when setting city charter requirements. 4)Update Housing element of the Comprehensive Plan and develop a long-range fundable housing program.Staffnoted that there is no intent to hire additional stafffor this priority. 5) Coordinate the City-wide parking and transit analysis. It was agreed that to include the School District would be beneficial. 6)TAP final design. Continue to monitor the need for additional water resources in the community. It was agreed that this should be two separate items. 7)Develop a Green Power alternative for the community. Item was removedfrom priority list as there was consensus to not wait until next year to work on this. City Administrator Freeman stated to council that all objectives that were listed in the Strategic Planning were achievable as determined by departments. Discussion was held regarding the need to add staff to accomplish goals. Council Study Session 12/09/99 Page 2 of 3 Community Development Director John McLaughlin clarified for council that the list is comprehensive with what is going on currently and also out to 18 months. Stated that council and staff should be realistic in that some items may require additional time. DISCUSSION OF NORTH NORMAL ANNEXATION Community Development Director John McLaughlin presented map of area outside city limits that has been developed, and brought up for discussion the approval criteria on annexations in Chapter 18.106 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Pointed out that item 18.106.030(g)has been changed through the legislature by the Home Builders Association, and that city's can no longer do this. McLaughlin explained that because our standard was in place before the law existed, we do not have to change our standards. Discussion was made to look into existing infra-structure of land before considering annexation of property and to look at long term use for entire area. McLaughlin suggested using the urban growth boundary as a guideline. It was pointed out,that the city has the right to annex property, but doesn't allow many opportunities to do so. It was suggested that something be put into the ordinance that would allow exceptions to be made when considering annexations. McLaughlin stated that the plan has to be a vision of 50 years down the road, and that urbanization is the goal. McLaughlin explained to council that staff could look into drafting an exception for the annexation ordinance and see how many parcels would 6t into it. Stated that this project is not on the Strategic Planning list, but could be added to next years list. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m. Submitted by Barbara Christensen, City Recorder/Treasurer Council Study Session 12/09/99 Page 3 of 3 �A r ASHLAND FOREST LANDS COMMISSION 4" SEPTEMBER 29, '1999, 5:30-7:00 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Jo Anne Eggers, Fred Binnewies, Richard Brock, Bill Robertson (Chair), Eric Schehen, Pete Seda, John Morrison, Susan Reid (Council Laision) Staff: Keith Woodley, Pieter Smeenk, Nancy Slocum Members Absent: Paula Brown Guests: Jeff McFarlane, Parks Department, Bill Fleeger, REAL Corp, Richard Hart, Headwaters I. CALL TO ORDER AT 5:38 P.M. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 1999 minutes were approved with the comment from Brock and Schehen that the minutes were hard to follow, but content was appropriate. III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. Ashland Watershed Protection Project - Robertson stated the goal tonight is to come up with a written recommendation for Council. The Council will address to the Watershed Protection Project at its October 5th meeting. Reid noted that several commission members and others attended a field trip through the Watershed that day. She wondered if anything learned from the tour would help discussion tonight. Brock stated that his trip to the watershed confused his position. Robertson said he knew there was a definite fire hazard and something needs to be done, but he is not sure how or when. Some believe the fire hazard is severe and the survival of trees is also in jeopardy. He felt a sense of urgency. Egger asked main issues from the members who had attended the field trip. Brock said that the heavy fuel break as marked by the Forest Service wasn't appropriate because of soil erosion, the drying of surface layer and old growth characteristics. He felt more trees could be saved. Robertson commented that some of the untreated areas look good and some look terrible. Brock said that the field trip participants critiqued the tree markings: why some trees and not others. There was lots of mistletoe in the overstory leaving some trees in danger of dying and increasing risk of fire spreading to dense understories. Schehen added that mistletoe could be an important part of the health of an ecosystem, but that too much is harmful. Morrison reviewed from last meeting that the "no action" alternative is not an alternative. He asked if commission had gravitated towards Alternative 5 and away from Alternative 3 by the end of September 15' meeting. Robertson answered, no, some commissioners leaned towards other alternatives, but consensus was that Alternative 3 was better than nothing. G:Dawn\Forest\Minutes\Sept29 99.svpd Schehen felt it would be helpful if commissioners were up-to-date on community coalition efforts. He had a paragraph from them and asked to read it. Robertson thought it inappropriate since the information was in preliminary form and not approved for public desemination. Eggers stated that the group has an official name, the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance, with a stated vision, mission statement and goals. She read, "We envision a sustainable Ashland Creek Watershed ecosystem that through a new understanding of the interrelationships between the community and the land, will ensure a quality of life for present and future generations of its people and their watershed." Its vision is "To build respectful, responsive and learning relationships between people, government, commerce and their environment." The goals are in a draft form and include environmental goals, economic goals and social/educational/organizational goals. Thirty one people attended their last meeting and she was excited to see people working together on such a complicated issue. Schehen had a written statement that he hoped the commission could use in their recommendation to Council: "We agree there is a need to intervene with hazard reduction work, not just within the `proposed project area,' but across the entire Watershed landscape. We are in support of the coalition's efforts to design a more holistic and environmentally sensitive alternative that more accurately expressed the relationships between the community and ecosystem in which we live and depend. Alternative #5 falls short in achieving this in several aspects: 1) continues policy of fire exclusion, 2) focuses on a small portion of watershed, 3) lacks long range vision of watershed management, 4) fails to be specific in unit prescriptions, and 5) relies on timber sales for funding." Robertson expressed the need to think about funding for the project. Woodley said he had spoken with Councilor Carole Wheeldon (City Administrator was out of town) regarding the council agenda and the Watershed Protection Project recommendations to be presented. Both agreed that Council hadn't heard Alliance and neither has the commission. They both felt it might be premature for the commission to make a recommendation prior to the Alliance presentation to Council. He had been asked to prepare a preliminary Council Communication for internal use but, it had not been released. Then the Alliance formed and Marty Main attends Alliance meetings and reported back to him. Woodley's Council Communication has since changed to say that if Alliance proposal is not scientifically viable, the staff would then recommend Alternative 5. Council will want to hear all the information and may not make a decision October 5. Agenda presently includes a presentation from Alliance group and he will read his staff recommendation into the record. Reid indicated,that the Council had charged the Forest Commission with looking at forest issues. Although she appreciated that Freeman and Wheeldon had attended the Alliance meetings, she felt that, as experts, the Forest Commission was charged with the task of a recommendation. Robertson added that when the commission hired Marty Main to do prescriptions, they set out to recruit professionals to sit on the commission and review the prescriptions. Reid stated that she had attended one Alliance meeting and felt there were real divisions within that group. She wondered if the Council would see a minority opinion from the Alliance group. Eggers replied that for the Council presentation, two people from the group were charged with speaking for the group. Robertson said there is a small concern that the group was not broadly based. Reid wondered how much power the Council had in the Forest Service decision on treatment of the Watershed. Eggers felt the Council's voice was that of the entire community and therefore very important. Since the Alliance had four commission members on it, Schehen felt that his written paragraph supporting the Alliance's efforts could reach be supported. Robertson's concern was the difficulty in being explicit in a recommendation. Time limits are at hand, but business plan and the basic data needed for a decision are not available. What will be the community's responsibility? Some people feel they can raise the needed money, some don't. The change of philosophy in watershed treatment where management is done locally will be slow and threatens the existing status quo. Eggers agreed. Brock suggested waiting for the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance to come up with an "Alternative 6." G:Dawnworest\xtinutes\Sept29 99.w pd " This group represents a collaborative effort and he is a member of this group's technical team. He is pessimistic that an alternative can be proposed soon because of the lack of needed data, however, portions of an alternative such as treatment alternatives and advocating for stewardship units with local responsibilty can be done now. The difficulty lies with trees, which ones to remove, where and why. He felt there would never be a consensus. He got the sense from the field trip that some people felt no big trees should be cut only underbrush. In looking at the health of the stand, there are some units that contain almost all larger size trees where many are dying, the downed trees are a fire hazard. Reid reiterated the problem of using a single prescription for an area because the units differ greatly. She said the watershed is not a natural habitat because it contains Hosler Dam and represents an urban impact. Brock thought that, although a specific prescription could not be written, a guiding principle could. Robertson added his concern for how the Forest Service might handle site specific sensitivity and how they might adjust a prescription. Woodley asked Brock about applying underburn modifications to different alternatives. In response Brock read: "In proposed underburn units on areas above the reservoir, it is in the city's interest to reduce soil erosion to a minimum. Therefore we advocate for a pretreatment consisting of manual cutting and burning to thin out conifer sapling patches and Manzanita patches." Schehen added that this prescription could be applied throughout the watershed. Brock stated that the Forest Service recommends underburns without pretreament creating hot spots and erosion. Woodley stated that there were additional issues such as funding. Seda felt the commission should try to recommend a workable solution and treat funding is a separate issue. He agreed with Brock's statement. Shehen agreed that funding is not up to the commission. Eggers said that if the $250,000 funding needed over the next 8-12 years was accurate, the community itself should be able to come up with funding. Schehen reminded commission that the Forest Service has not counted 5-9" diameter trees as a source of funding. Robertson noted that each alternative has differences in fire and erosion risks; whether an understory is removed or large trees removed or nothing is done, there is a risk of problems later on. Brock felt Alternative 4 was too limiting and said that it is important to remove larger trees. Robertson said commission needed to define an Alternative 4 th. Woodley asked Brock if he is in favor of adopting a set of principles and methodologies for modifying Alternative 5. Robertson was in favor and indicated that they could be worded to include handpiling, less spacing on the flanking, and commercial extraction of 5-9" class of trees. Morrison agreed that the commission should focus on coming up with general principles and finding all the alternatives inadequacies and view the funding issue as separate. Reid thought this line of discussion was important. As a councilperson, she welcomed a technical guideline from the commission - money issues aside. Egger asked the guests in the audience for their opinion. Richard Hart of Headwaters commented on the lack of needed data history on the watershed. He specifically identified the missing data on the effects of broadcast burning, soils condition and ground cover. Because of the loose description of prescriptions in the draft EIS, they must build another from scratch. For example, there are areas were one could apply seven different prescriptions. He felt the most important goal was to create data benchmarks. Forest Service wants to help support this with access, monitoring, past successful treatments, and past fire history. This is a long-term goal. His concern was the immediate and complex needs and priorities. He felt it important to honor the new relationships needed with people and the watershed. Brock felt the Forest Service was withholding significant stand information for fear of lawsuits. His group is operating on walk-through data. Reid knew of several sources of data, but Robertson felt it was not the right type of data. Reid said it was important for her to honor a citizens group's decisions. Schehen read his paragraph again and asked to make it part of the recommendation. Seda thought the statement was very general. Brock read from his notes: "Several of the alternatives have features which are important to consider. However, none of the alternatives are entirely adequate as proposed. The 17" diameter limit of Alternative 4 is too restrictive. Alternative 5 appears to remove too much of the overstory in some locations. We advise, therefore, that an alternative based on a combination of features Cis Dann\forest\iStinutcs\Scpt29 99.wpd ,i from 3 and 4 and 5 be designed." Morrison agreed with Brock's statement and recommended adding several guiding principles. He sited examples such as site specific flexibility, stage treatment and, if possible, the separation of funding from forestry. Robertson didn't feel funding could be separated from technical work. Morrison felt that funding shouldn't be a "guiding aspect" of the recommendation. Eggers added that production of clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation use were hard to translate into dollar values. Morrison stated that the community's overall goal was high-quality drinking water. It would be "pound foolish tolook at the cost of obtaining a different source of water versus extracting some trees to finance this treatment. Robertson's greatest fear was that the Forest Service could run out of money and time and select Alternative 1 where no treatment was done. Eggers didn't feel that was a concern. Robertson asked the commission to agree on a recommendation to combine Alternatives 3, 4 and 5. Schehen desired more holistic and environmentally sensitive language. Commission agreed to include Schehen's paragraph as the opening to the recommendation. Reid said that the recommendation need only be preliminary. Woodley noted that Linda Duffy and the Forest Service would have to deal with funding. Although, the commission could separate the issue of financing the project, he felt it would not be fruitful to do so in the recommendation. Brock thought it better to refer the details to the Alliance. Reid noted that funding could be left out of the commission recommendation. Brock recommended pretreatment on commercial units. Morrison offered three principles: site specific flexibility, the pre-treatment issue and the separation of funding. He noted that the commission is not responding to the Forest Service, but to the citizens of Ashland and the Council. Brock added the principle of maintaining ecological integrity, minimize soil erosion and enabling stewardship opportunities. Seda thought the statement about pre-treatment was important to add. Commission came to consensus and directed Schehen and Brock to give their notes to Slocum to type up as council recommendation. VII. REVIEW AND SET COMMISSION CALENDAR/NEXT MEETING A. Next Meeting: October 13, 1999 VIII. ADJOURN AT 6:52 PM G:Dmcn\ForeslUlinuies\Sept29 99.,vpd Jackson County ASA Extension Application ASA #3 Ashlarid Dire & Rescue Ost.i)�,Fax We 7071 Qi!►71 - •�� . V"U-ci oo IUL VU-J4 iu unvnouir vu nno rnA nU. 041 110 =e Y. UZ/l3 ' Ashland Fire & Rescue 4S5 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ;i . ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 (541) 482-2770 FAX (541) 488-5318. June 26, 1997 Mr. Gary Stevens Jackson County Health & Human Services 1005 E. Main Street Medford, Oregon 97504 Re : Request For ASA # 6 Contract Extension Dear Gary, Ashland Fire & Rescue completed its first year of operation as the primary pre-hospital care provider for the south Jackson County area on January 3, 1997 . As we look back on our first year of operation, we feel confident that we have been successful in maintaining the public's trust, and in providing a high level of patient care for our clients . Our first year of operation has been indicative of a prompt response to medical emergencies, quality patient care, the expansion of EMS educa 't'ional opportunities for the public and continued reinvestment in our EMS services. All of these activities have been undertaken with no major system complaints from the public . We continue to receive a consistent level of 'above satisfactory" comments on our patient opinion surveys. Our EMS program operates on a sound financial foundation, and we have increased staffing where necessary to address the increased demand for EMS services within our ASA. Our commitment to the program provides for the addition of new equipment and emergency vehicles on a scheduled basic, to maintain our responsibilities under the Jackson County ASA Plan. We wish to extend our appreciation to you personally, and the EMS office, for a high level of cooperation over the past year which has assisted us in our efforts to provide a model EMS service for our patients . We are at this time, in the form of this letter, requesting reassignment of the contract for ASA #f6 for a three year period to allow us to continue to meet the medical service needs of the patients in south Jackson County. Our plan for the future is to continue to expand within a broad range of EMS services, with a focus on exceeding the expectations of our patients . We look forward to the opportunity to continue to support the efforts of Jackson County Health & Fluman Services in the pre-hospital care field as an active component of the county ASA system. Sincerely,,/ Keith E. Woodley Fire chief N7L I IV IVVL F. VJ/ LJ Ashland Fire & Rescue ASA #3 Extension Application July 1, 1997 Report to County Commissioners regarding Ashland Fire& Rescue's Standard of Care and Standard Practices. The following items are submitted for review of the Jackson County Board of Commissioners regarding the extension of the ambulance service contract for ASA #3. (Formally ASA#6). Please contact Susan M. Shulters,EMS/Fire Training Program Director at Ashland Fire & Rescue for additional information. i wu �, uu ,w w•u� ''I vuunuvn uu Alms , nn nv 041 f lu luuc r. U4/l3 Ashland Fire& [fescue t. Clinical Sophistication: p Level of Care: Ashland I+ire&Rescue provides 24 hour Advanced Life Support Services on a continuous basis. AF&R currently provides two Oregon Licensed Ambulances which are staffed by Paramedics. in addition to the two primary units,two Oregon licensed ambulances are also available. AF&R employs fourteen Paramedics and eight EMT Basics. Sewn personnel are on duty each shift for a 24 hour period. In case of multiple calls,natural disaster or large event,dual paging systems are in place to reach off-duly personnel Three additional fimfighter/EMT-P positions have been approved in the budget for fiscal year 199711998. With the addition of the three new employees, Ashland Fire& Rescue will be capable of staffing four ALS ambulances in addition to two ALS engines. ALS vs.BLS Capabilitla-, Ashland Fire &Rescue believes in supporting its citizens with the most affordable ambulance transportation possible. Ashland Fire &Rescue has developed the FireMed program to allow affordable ambulance transportation. Although this growing program is an added bit to our community, it still does not provide enough alternatives. Currently AF&R is developing a new rate structuro for non-emergency transportation and transportation not normally covered by insurance. A formal proposal will be submitted to the Jackson County Board of Commissioners requesting a rate change to reflect a lower charge for Non-Emergency,non-skilled, BLS transports. 2. I VCV-CI-AD iUC UU•oU ni onvnoviv vv nno ran nu. Uv f (U IUUC r UO/ 13 -�� Ashland Fire & Rescue .. 455 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND,OREGON 97520 (541)482-2770 FAX(541)488-5318 February 14, 1996 Mr. Gary Stevens Program Manager Jackson County Health & Human Services 1005 E. Main Street Medford, Oregon 97504 Dear Gary, We are providing the following information in response to your letter of February 9th regarding our application for ambulance service area #6 assignment. 1. The 1978 ambulance acquired from Ashland Life support has been initially denied a variance due to the age of the vehicle. Although the vehicle was state licensed up until the time of its sale to the City of Ashland, we have recently learned that it is the OSHD's policy to terminate these variances upon sale of the vehicles. Currently we have three licensed ambulances in service in our ASA, which have proven to be an adequate number based on historical and current peak demand records. Our new ambulance is scheduled for delivery in April, at which time we will maintain a float of four ambulances consistently, with a fully funded pre- programmed replacement schedule in place. Our intention in the interim period from the present to April 1996, is to maintain the 1978 ambulance in a fully outfitted condition that will allow operation of the vehicle under ORS 823.030 in the event of a major medical emergency. The ambulance will not be utilized as a principle resource in meeting the needs of ASP_ #G. 2. Ashland Fire '& Rescue has four Life Pack 10's in service at all times. Two are on primary response vehicles, with the remaining two located on reserve units. our contract with Physic Control provides for overnight replacement should a malfunction occur with any of the units. We also have a Life Pack 300 which we have loaned to the Mt. Ashland Ski Patrol for their use during the ski season. We have retained ownership of the unit and have a maintenance contract on the unit for routine calibration and system checks. 3 . We have prepared a response time report which has been patterned after the facsimile you provided us. We have already submitted the now format for January, and will submit for February following the end of the month. vLV Li VV IVL VV VV u V.IVIwVII VV IIIW Ina IIV4 U4 IIV IUVG 4 . The total daily staffing for Ashland Fire & Rescue is seven v firefightor/medics. This number reflects constant staffing, which means that we will automatically call back and fill-in vacancies when they occur due to illness, vacation, training, etc. All personnel have been issued both radio and telephone pagers and can be alerted from the fire stations and the Ashland 911 Center. Whenever our second-out ambulance is dispatched, personnel are called in to staff both reserve ambulances. Multiple fire & EMS calls are addressed through deployment of on-duty resources, call-back of off-duty staff and activation of our auto-aid agreement with Jackson County Fire District No.5. During the early morning hours of Monday, January 8th, 1996, our department effectively handled two "working" structure fires and two ambulance responses requiring hospital transport simultaneously utilizing the previously mentioned system. While we recognize the potential impact of a major Siskiyou Mountain MCI on the existing resources in South Jackson County, or a commercial airliner crash at the Rogue valley - Medford international airport and its corresponding impact on North Jackson County resources, we have participated in training and organizational planning on a county- wide basis to'prepare for those occurrences. S. The present in-house QA process provides for a review of David Hanctcin's cases by EMT-P Greg Case. Beginning March ist, this responsibility will be rotated to another Paramedic on a different work shift. 6. The current auto-aid agreement with Jackson county Fire District No. 5 is being utilized as an EMS agreement between both parties pending the review of the new EMS agreement by the JCFD 15 Board of Directors at their February 20th meeting. During 1995, under the existing agreement, Ashland Fire & Rescue responded to 11 EMS calls within the JCFD #'5 service area as an assisting agency. 7. We understand that you wish to be appraised of serious patient care complaints with regard to services provided by Ashland Fire & Rescue, and we will comply with your request. it would be helpful, however, if you could provide some guidelines which would identify the level of significance of complaints that you wish to review. 8. The budget subsidy shown in our ASA application represents the base salaries of all medically trained personnel that are committed to any extent to the ambulance service program. These salaries have not been completely "rolled over" into the ambulance fund because they also represent the staffing requirement for fire department functions and services, such as code enforcement and business inspection services, public edification, fire prevention, non-emergency public service requests and fire suppression responses. The costs for the EMS Director's salary, all EMS overtime, and EMT premium pay required in our labor contract, are fully born by the ambulance fund. Requiring our personnel to be "cross-trained" for service in both fire and ...... �. .... .w .... .... . .. vuv.wvn VV uuv , nn nv. Q4 i iu iuuc Ems programs has resulted in a financial savings, increased efficiency and higher service levels to residents of the City of Ashland, and ambulance service users within ASA 16. 9 . The City of Ashland maintains a self-insurance fund in excess of 1. 3 million dollars. The City has pledged $500, 000 within this fund to meat the surety bond requirements specified in ordinance 2771. It should be kept in mind that this provision is found in an Ashland city ordinance, and is designed to safeguard the interests of residents of the City of Ashland. It is not binding, nor does it serve to address ambulance service needs, within the CLty of 'Talent and the unincorporated area of ASA 06, should an ambulance provider default. The responsibility for ensuring continuity in these areas lies with the Jackson County Health & Human Services Department and is one of the purposes for tho Jackson County ASA Plan. Given the current level of scrutiny that Ashland Fire & Rescue is receiving, we feel confident that you will ensure that there will be continuity of ambulance service within the areas of ASA #6 that lie outside of the City of Ashland and are not regulated by the Ashland EMS ordinance. Ashland Fire & Rescue continues to maintain a strong commitment to all citizens within our ASA, regardless of where they are located geographically. The purpose of the surety bond within the Ashland EMS ordinance is intended to provide a measure of security for ambulance services should a private ambulance company operating within the city fail. Given the strong commitment to this program by the city of Ashland, we are do not foresee any occasion where the surety bond would become necessary as long as the ambulance system remains publicly operated. However, the provision remains in full force within the adopted ordinance. The forfeiture of funds under the Ashland ordinance would be committed to emergency provision of ambulances services within the city until such time as Jackson County could appoint an interim provider, should the private provider suddenly discontinue operations. Please contact us if additional information is necessary to facilitate the review of our ASA application. Sincerely, Keith E. Woodley Fire Chief E J T F m ° 6 G 6 N fC '°o O G P i o '< 4- w 'a z n > > w < d o w w �. m ro W j• N w C 6 O O G r 0 " m • °o ;c m CD n N N � W 3 m 3 n n 7 C9 U CD�\ \V l/1 OTC ° W N C O O cD fu w Q N N N n n N_ U - - - - - 7 - - • - - - n 2 - - - - - - - - - - ± @ 2fE \ fE § » � « p « ) \ ( e ( ® 9 / ( WO § } 72 r } # 2 _ ■ B § \ 00 r- ; U0 g / § ems , a ! / \/ /f z } 2 ) ° � ( , - Q § \ r \ ) \ \ 777 \ / } ar � E - \ \ _} \ / § ) E % \ \ ' EE ) ( E \ / / � g \ § ulgo 7 \ g a q : ( ) $ ) � I � � � = O { § \ 2 ( \ ƒ Ef / : o ■ ( 2 \ f % $ C) k � $ ) § UQ a ) \ & � . ■ & � � r 0 0 � D � CL City Council Communication Public Works Paving Ashland Schools Parking Lots December 21, 1999 Submitted by: Paula Brow I Approved by: Mike Freeman M Title: Proposal to Pave Ashland School District Parking Lots at the Ashland Middle School (main lot and the over flow area), Helman School and Lincoln Elementary School Synopsis: The Ashland School District requested the City's assistance to pave their graveled parking areas. Staff discussed the request and have a proposed cost spilt of the parking lot improvements as shown below. These parking lots are high use during the school year and the City would benefit by reducing the amount of sediment and track-out from the unpaved lots onto City streets and into our storm drain system. The parking lots would meet the City's standard for landscaping and would significantly improve drainage and improve water quality in our drainage facilities. Fiscal Impact: As proposed, the City street division would budget this into the nexttwo year's budgets and complete the labor and equipment costs for the projects. This would total: School City in-kind mandays ASD Cost Total FY . Lincoln School $15,000 36MD $20,000 $35,000 2001 Helman School $7,600 18MD $12,500 $20,100 2001 Middle School (main) $15,000 36MD $27,000 $42,000 2002 Middle School (OF) $6,000 14MD $7,500 $13,500 2002 Recommendation: It is recommended that staff be directed to continue discussions with the Ashland Schools District and put the parking lots into the budget for the next two years. Background Information: The Ashland School District approached the City for assistance and cooperation in meeting one of the Council goals for reducing unpaved parking areas. Administration, Public Works, Planning and Parks Departments discussed the request and how the facilities could meet the City's parking standards. The costs are shown as the City providing all of the direct labor and equipment costs as in-kind support. The school would pay for all leveling,paving,and landscaping materials and any rental vehicles. A proposed cost spilt of the parking lot improvements was shown above. These parking lots are high use during the school year and the City would benefit by reducing the amount of sediment and track-out from the unpaved lots onto City streets and into our storm drain system. The parking lots would meet the City's standard for landscaping and would significantly improve drainage and improve water quality in our drainage facilities. Staff will look into the possibility of adding drainage swales or catch basin filters to remove petroleum products for the drainage ways. These projects meet the Council desires to pave unpaved areas. I �� Q Comments on Communication Plan H. A. Cloer, 12/21/99 My general reaction is the the plan is extensive and thoughtful. But I would heartily endorse statements in the last step, that the plan is provisional and subject to evolution with experience. I have two comments that I hope will be considered. The first is to urge city leadership and staff to plan to make use of the "expertise" that characterize most citizens: expertise in their own situation, worries and concerns. While it's true that there are residents who have technical expertise in issues that arise in the community, the majority of citizens will not have that. And if "the city' is really interested in encouraging citizen involvement, perceived lack of expertise is a major barrier to participation. The solution is to "launch" citizen involvement in terms of seeking the worries and concerns of citizens in the full range of their situations. It may be counterintuitive, but too much emphasis on information and "knowledge" concerning a community issue, to neglect of worries, concerns and "feelings" can result in decisions and results that are seen by elements of the community as "unjust" and "not right." If the intent of citizen involvement is to arrive at solutions that are supported by the community, the goal must be to end with decisions that are seen to be "just", rather than intellectual compromises. And, given the difficulty of correctly perceiving diverse situations and values, whether a solution "feels right' is often a more valid test thaisome attempt at intellectual balancing of equities. Rather than guessing how to best engage "citizens" in steps 1-8, I'd predict you'd do better by asking them in step #1 what concerns them about the issue, in their particular situations--and define and name "the problem" in those terms. I would predict that doing so would avoid most of the perceptions listed in paragraph 4 of "Background," and save time, effort and resources in the process. The other comment I'd make is that the impact of this carefully thought-out plan on the community will be minimal without "public journalism." Under the best of circumstances, only 1/2% of the community will participate in "citizen involvement" efforts. The other 99 1/2% of the community, given the healthy skepticism citizens have about "politics", without local media reportage that assures them that "people like them" fullly considered their worries and concerns, they will be open to rumour and charges that confirm their worst fears about the performance of city leadership. It's true that the "City Source", the website, the discussions on cable, can be used to communicate with citizens. But to an extent these media, as creatures of "the city', do not have the objectivity of "outside observers," and lack that credability. It would be helpful if SOU's Communications Department (contact: Kathy Campbell, ph. 552-6669, campbeka @sou.edu) could help serve that role. Note experience of Kettering, Public Agenda, and Topside Foundations with this field. City Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Historic House Move — 44 N. Second Street December 21, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin,Director of Community Development Approved by: Mike Freeman,City Administrator Title: A motion to approve the move of a designated historic structure at 66 North Second Street to a vacant lot on Laurel Street Synopsis: The subject structure is owned and is adjacent to the Trinity Episcopal Church at 44 North Second Street. The structure was constructed in 1895 and has a primary ranking in the City's Downtown National Register resource list. The structure, locally referred to as the Morgan House or Beech-Good House, was recently sold to Mr. James Niebel for a $1 and is one of the last residential structures in the Downtown. The church contends that the retention of the house in its current location represents an undue hardship. For the past two years, the house could only be used as storage area due to fire hazard concerns. In addition, the small internal floor area of the residence makes it too difficult of a space to work for church uses. Lastly, although not yet approved by the Planning Commission, the church would like to expand their facilities in the area of the house and along Lithia Way. The new owner has requested that they be allowed to move the structure to a vacant lot on Laurel Street. The lot is residentially zoned and relatively flat. The neighborhood is within the Skidmore Academy Historic District and should provide an appropriate setting for the house. Fiscal Impact: none Recommendation: The Historic Commission and Staff recommend approval of the request. Background Information: The Historic Commission reviewed this request at their December 8`h, 1999 meeting and recommended approval of the move. Since obtaining ownership of the home, the church has been very diligent in their attempts to work out an arrangement with a willing buyer. A number of contractors and sites were evaluated, but for one reason or another nothing was ever resolved until now. J Evaluation Criteria For Moving/Demolition In the Ashland Historic District The following is a list of questions to be answered when applying for a permit to either move or demolish a structure In the Ashland Historic District 1) What is the address of the structure? 66 N. Second St. Ashland, Oregon 2) What is the age of the structure? 1895 3) If the structure has been included on the Heritage landmark List, What is the ranking? Secondary 4) What is the overall point rating? 60 5) What are the ratings in the Architectural, Environmental, and Historical Categories? A-21, E-1 1,H-28 6) If this is a primary or secondary structure, what are the reasons behind the request for moving /demolition permit? If building is not moved, Trinity Church plans to request permit to clear the site. The church contends that the retention of the structure in its current location represents an undue hardship. 7) What is/ are the specific sections of the Ashland City code which are being cited for the move/demolition? Specific Sections-of ACC, 15.04.210, Paragraph E, Section 3, Subsection C 8) What is the current zoning of the structure? C-1 Retail, Commercial 9) If it is to be moved, what is the zoning into which it will be moved? R3 The following is a list of the criteria used to evaluate the merits of granting a moving/demolition permit In the Ashland Historical District 1) Does the structure meet the minimum criteria adopted for inclusion on the final Heritage landmarks list? Yes, it is a secondary structure, point 60 score 2) Is the building structurally sound? Has it been condemned? Can the structure be restored for costs comparable to constructing a new building of the same size and value? Building has been evaluated by both moving and general contractors and deemed structurally sound to be moved. It has not been condemned. Renovating costs of the existing structure are estimated to be definitely higher than the new construction costs. 3) Do the existing configuration of the house and the uses permitted in the zone make the retention of the structure unfeasible and an unreasonable hardship on the property owner? Since the structure is situated in the commercial zone.the expense of the restoration would greatly exceed the commercial potential.The building prevents the Trinity church from proceeding with the already approved plan for a new building.Consequently, retention of the structure represents an unreasonable hardship on the Church. 4) Why is it necessary to move or dernolish the structure? To allow the church to complete its approved project. Also, the building will be renovated and moved to a new location where it is very compatible with the neighborhood. 5) How will moving or demolishing this structure contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood? It will allow the new approved building to be constructed at the site of the Trinity Church. This will complete and augment the plans for the Church and further impact positively, the historical character of the neighborhood. 6) What will replace the structure if it is moved or demolished? See above- # 3,4, 5 7) What impact will this new use of the property have on the historic character of the neighborhood? The new use will have a positive impact on character of the neighborhood. See #5. v a 8) If the structure is to be moved, what impact will the building have in its new locale? The structure will continue to be used as a residence and will fill a vacant lot on Laurel Street. Many of the surrounding buildings are homes of similar size. This will enhance the character of the neighborhood. 9) If left in place, what use could the structure be put to in its current zone? Considered uses have been a tea house or a used furniture store. the high cost of renovation does not economically justify such action.Similarly, the use of the building for small office rentals would not be economically justified. 10) If the structure is to be moved, will it be restored? Briefly, how will the restoration be accomplished? The historical front of the building, consisting of a living room, 2 bedrooms,and dressing room bath will be moved and renovated. The additional portions of the house, which are of poor quality and non-historic will be replaced with construction compatible with the historic front core of the house. For example, there would be compatible ceiling height, hip roof design, window appearance, trim, fir floors, exterior siding and doors. Retention of claw foot tub and the locally rare scored wood foundation skirting. There would be no increase in square footage of the house. 11) If the structure is to be demolished, will the materials be recycled? N/A 12) What effect will the move have on the structures chances of being included on the National Historic Register? The building is currently on the National Historic Register ID# 72.0, survey #252 13) If this is a proposed move, what will become of the structure if the application is denied? Demolition of the building would be requested by the Trinity Church. 14) Based on the numerical ratings, are there compelling arguments with regard to Architecture, Environment, or History which would be grounds for denying a moving or demolition permit? Analysis of the numerical ratings in regard to the proposed renovation after the move would greatly support a decision for approval of moving this historic registered house in order to restore it as a family dwelling in a more compatible neighborhood. Submitted By : James Niebel 160 Scenic Dr. Ashland, Oregon 97520 482-3053 11-30-99 3nNanW let r I � v ' 67 F-j lu � n r N u x I. W = r- �� � m ir, ..!s ! $ T : 1-7 J � r S y J°i Li C un a �, I ,. ••I ,Q it p, v r,• y� _ d � ZO'd 10:ZT 66. Si AOd 9Sbb-88b-Tvs:xed dnoag fi}ieay XUWi3?1 NPS Form 10-900-A OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section Number: 7 Page: 65 Ashland Downtown Historic District,Ashland, OR been entirely finished by it is very nearly so...W. J. Schmidt...was highly complimented by the Bishop for his skilled work." (Tidings, 30-Aug-1894) Continuing its church use, Trinity Episcopal remains one of Ashland's earliest religious structures and is the only one still used by the denomination which had it built. Additions included the construction of the narthex in 1948 and conversion of the chapel to office space. A sacristy was added and the chapel enlarged in 1958. A new office building was designed by Gary Afseth and added to the site in 1998-1999. The Trinity Episcopal Church was individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983. ID# 7 Survey BEACH-GOOD HOUSE 1895 66 SECOND ST N 391E09BD 3700 Builder: Beach,Baldwin(attributed) Eclectic Styles:Queen Anne Primary Contributing This fine one-story wood frame house was constructed circa 1895 following Baldwin Beach's purchase of the property from George Engle. Beach, a prominent Ashland contractor likely built the house as an investment or rental property shortly thereafter.41 Beach sold the house to David and Nettie Good on June 17, 1905. Good, who served as Ashland's police and fire chief while residing here, sold the house in 1911. By 1948 the property was owned by Wilbur and Doris Morgan, who operated the Ashland Refrigeration Service from here, with a shop in the related building to the rear (See ID #72.100)42 Architecturally, the Beach-Good House is an L-shaped volume with a shallow pitched hipped roof in the general Victorian Cottage style. Specific features of note include the modest projecting bay at the SW comer, hooded window trim, eave decorations and the locally rare scored wood foundation skirting. Until recently the house remained one of the last single-family dwellings still in residential use in Ashland's downtown. Upon Mrs. Morgan's death the house was transferred to the adjacent Trinity Episcopal Church and at this writing it is vacant with an uncertain future. Slightly modified by a corner bathroom addition and various rear additions of minimal quality, the Beach-Good House nevertheless retains high integrity and effectively relates its development history during the period of significance. 41 Beach's home on Hargadine Street is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 42 The Morgan's business had been located in Ashland at least since 1942,when City Directories list the business and the couple as residing on North Heiman. ' ASHLAND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SURVEY FORM COUNTY: JACKSON IDENTIFICATION : 11ist . Name Beach-Good House Date of Construction : 1895 (est . ) Common Name : Original Use: Residence Address : 66 Second Street Present Use : Residence Ashland , Oregon Architect : Owner: cnd Builder: 66 eo Street Style: Queen Anne Ashland , Oregon x Bldg. _Struc.- Dist . Obj . T/R/S : 39S R1E 9:_:. Ranking: Secon3ary Map No: 9 B Tax Lot : 3700 Addition : Railroad (1834) Block: 0 Lot : 5, 6 Quad : Ashland THEME: Statewide Inventory of Historic Properties Theme : 6d _Archaeology _Industry _Mining _Agriculture _Military _Social/Education X Commerce Politics/Government Transportation Exploration and Settlement _Religion _Other DESCRIPTION: Plan Type/Shape : Rectangular No. of Stories : One Foundation Material: Bric-2 Basement ( Y/N ) : Roof Form and Material: Hip: composition shingle Wall Construction: Frame Structural Frame : Wood Primary Window Type : One-over-one double hung Exterior Surfacing Materials : Horizontal shiplap Decorative Features : Bay window on south elevation: porch trim Other: Condition : Excellent x Good Fair Poor Moved(Date ) Exterior Alterations/Additions ( Dated ) Noteworthy Landscape Features : Associated Structures : Known Archaeological Features : Negative No: Roll 28 72 Recorded By: Clay/Atwood Slide No: Date: 1 May 1984/13 September 1988 SHPO Inventory No: 252 / ASHLAND CULTURAL RESOURCE INVENTORY SURVEY FORM Name : Beach-Good House T/Pjq- 39S RLE 9 Address : 66 Second Street Map. No: 9 BD Tax Lot : 3700 Ashland, Oregon Quadrangle: Ashland (1953) A _ i - - Negative No. : Roll 28-2 Slide No. : Sr C TOO JS `a1Rq0 �L C3 ` C� co z O - :o \ Graphic and Photo Sources : City of Astttana iov grj>nic ./�� ; Jackson County Assessor ap SHPO Inventory No. : 252 . ... , SETTING: The Beach-Good House stands immediately north of the Trinity Episcopal Church. SIGNIFICANCE: Baldwin Beach, prominent Ashland contractor , purchased Lots 5 and 6 from George Engle on May 11, 1894. Beach probably began construction on the house at 66 Second Street immediately adjacent to the Trinity Episcopal Church soon after . Beach' s former home on Hargadine Street is a National Register property. On June 17 , 1905 Beach sold the house to David D. Good and his wife, Nettie . Beach died January 29, 1916 at the age of 69 years . Good, a liveryman from Canada, was born in 1861. His. wife, a native Oregonian, was born in January 1868 . In 1904 Good became Chief of Police for Ashland, and in 1906 , while living in this house served as chief of the fire department . The `Goods sold 'the property to A. B. Rieves in March 1911 , and Mr. Good kb-entered the trucking business on A Street . SOURCES CONSULTED: Ashland Tidings , January 4, 1904; May 20 , 1909 , January 31 , 1916 Jackson County Deed Records , Volume 28 , page 59 Ja'ckson County Deed Records , Volume 52 , page 53 Jackson County Deed Records , Volume 87 , page 194 R. L. Polk and Co . ' s Ashland City Directory , 1906 Polk' s Jackson, Josephine and Douglas County Directory , 1910 U. S . Federal Census .(Jackson County) 1900 9 Page 2-The Ashland Daily Tidings - Wednesday, October 27, 1999 Local News House goes on the block for $1 By Vickie Aldous Ashland Dally 71dings It may be the cheapest house ever put up for sale in Ashland,but that may not be enough to save the - historic Morgan House from the a wrecking ball. The Trinity Episcopal Church is ; offering the late Victorian house for a mere dollar.But anybody who buys the house must move it from its site next to the church at 44 N. 2nd St. Built around 1895, the ap- proximately - 1,200-square-foot . house also needs major structural repairs to be livable. { It needs a lot of tender loving r care," said church member Sally Cole,who is in charge of efforts to sell the house."The city would like its to fund someone to move it or re- - store it instead of demolish it.But it may come to that" The church is planning an ex- pansion onto its property now oc- cupied by the house.Cole said she , also is concerned that the house, which abuts the church building, could pose a threat to the church in case of a fire. Anybody who tackles the project would need deep pockets. The house needs a new roof, Ashland Daily TidingsMcnise Bum electrical fuo an porch Give Sally Cole$1, and she'll sell you this house owned by Trinity Episcopal Church tacked onto the rear of*the house . would have to be removed.In addi- well as system development torical district where it tits in,like who served as chief of police an tion,the interior walls are in a state charges assessed by the City of Ash- the railroad district,"Kramer said. chief of the foe department.later of disrepair and other improve- land. The cheapest available lot is He said the house is one of the the house was sold to the Morga . ments are needed. $43,000, and a buyer would face only residential buildings left in family. At a bare minimum,moving and about$12,000 in SDCs,according to downtown Ashland and is part of "Architecturally, it's a swee repairing the house would cost Bad Welles,owner of Lithia Realty. the downtown historic district, building," Kramer said. "It ha� $53,000,according to Mike Neely of Local historic preservation ad- which is eligible for listing on the screening on the front porch am Ken Krumdieck,Inc.,a contracting vocate George Kramer said he National Registry of Historic the foundation is wood carved b company. wishes the church would have Places. look like brick. Second Street wa• "That number is off the top of come up with more creative solu- The house was built by Baldwin all residential before World War D my head and it's low," Neely said. tions to save the house, but he Beach, a prominent Ashland con. It's too bad it's going to go,but it': "It could skyrocket from there." would rather see the house moved tractor, before the turn of the cen- understandable. It's another littk A buyer also would have to fac- than demolished. tury. It was then sold to David part of our town we're going it . for in the cost of an Ashland lot,as "I hope it can be moved to a his- Good, a liveryman from Canada, lose." Q^ m � 6sp�ki � o � ['yb :Fo' rn 3 `< o^Ewm o c;o � Om � ytocv M`q ^�r a' v 3, wm ^8s In FL 000 � �'w � y wBoaaz � t m m m ° m °° H E 00 R �°.�4~Z �A' '.SF'' G ¢ N+ O :. , °-• C ° °'sn o E..ET.O•S b Op.t�D ° K aryl m m i bita, ' fib'"mg�• '°Sp� ...� My1^��i`�� 1.�� '' c° m ' o'.y'S <ada M, mnmom oURT o CD�o' I."' m S i�• ,�y` PP 4� :J r"i o•a� m a m 3 a .� � 7^a� ^ °.mom N Sg f7. F ry� „„I'll or'2f omE a� o•� nrn° a yyc ° ppgq �Sp ID o pb: o � a p, Pa t� ,$. „n�`�• " N w is 00, 0 o•m F.m 7�£ n. �'° O S ° d°o ww mS' m ? w aw m'm ° ° m ¢ 4 m � a ° ov_ B � ° wm �a ° 3.yw O 'Coll;I a� y °• r.`�--m, m �, tr'm w a `- b 5 a mom- 0 0 0 2: ° o w }L �_=1 'oc3m�CaS � ° Hm� SaR < � 0° mwa" aY to sc 'y c m o.y w°.'"_'l7 c• o. 'm' o 0 O at c <m m m °OCmE � ° -.C.� 'i 7y 0 rsL ': ' 3s C A .. a SE°'a o 'D`< m ° _o Y>•; ` "a a• y � g�oh�y.�oy'� "��o� o°W �'.�me��ymy°�� �,•`��r'�o fb L � r !�''' 9Sa `w w< 0S:m" `° `w�mm=5e cc•"O 'm d ma a' yo'" ��•"c Nw^w cno m c o c "{, o ocm M °.:3- °0 gll .O. � m � F P: E � m em Ito S _yam oa Sy w ra Co 3n c�w 0 o a' yo � y? wtde -� so o n 3 .0 o ° W Q + m crca a N� ''AA az E v o�E m o c m •� tl [gym HE m `6 9 �. ���ry�yyypaQ� �.a+0� ww v cwm m �°�u, ac= » B a P.�.� waat°"m0 4/ � � a w2 '°� .m�at9f,m$ LS; S w rn a9 ° m�• , �. at�yz+ :� o aa a o O m o°m om o m P7 o om m o fZ n m �e m a m 0 0 m x - (C) nyso v y '� .7 �y 0m � O Cn c. m m � c °Q° ELSmff�° n �nwSm ::§ ',°n.. � oo � aaa ^aom � � 0 m2 i gn m IM M 7' m m c m 1""F• ° �. °n A C 0 0 d °' -c "� aA�.wS. u;w .. mm �_ �m c5y '>•ppSn 0- n o i o pro w //�■. CA N�. m ^miO � 50 aH m . o,B �° w, ❑ ; < c �m a s m �a y o w w E 3 y 3 a •o a•oa w o ti m °wy`�" Eo-•°0� C �� mn a'7• -�3�°.'•9 o< ,�°�' m'w-�T�+ m<a c O� D o.m y B � w E �oa w mi� .% � 'y o o c w m . EwOQbboggG.... m S�7C sr, aomCE 7 �'o.m n p. . CEvi��y .ice °" m 0< tiD m wv, � m ti S co S S VJ � ME; o m � 0 , 2 � �a E `m CL CL CL Council Communication Public Works and Finance Departments Amendment to the State Revolving Fund Loan Amount December 21, 1999 �(A&N pt; S� Submitted by: Jill Turner d Paula Brown Approved by: Paul Nolte I Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A Resolution Authorizing�o g—an-Amendment to the Clean Water State Revolving F y Increasing the Amount of the Loan for the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Project. ynopsis: This resolution authorizes the Director of Finance to increase the loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by an amount not to exceed $3,000,000, which increases the total loan to approximately $18,000,000. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council adopt the attached resolution. Fiscal Impact: This financing is the lowest rate received by the City in more than twenty years, which is even more impressive whe%funds the largest infrastructure project this community has ever undertaken. The long-term effect of this incredible deal means stable wastewater rates. The Finance staff has prepared a detailed wastewater rate model through the year 2020. Financing this $3 million loan through a revenue bond would cost the ratepayers an additional $1 million over the next 20 years. Background The State of Oregon, through the Department of Environmental Quality, offers Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loans. In January 1997, the City entered into a loan agreement for $15,000,000 for the WWTP improvements with very favorable loan terms. Project costs have increased from $22.8 million to $29.8 million since this period necessitating the-need for additional financing. This amendment allows the City to increase the loan amount by $3,000,000 and retain the favorable loan terms. The favorable loan terms include: Interest Rate. The interest rate is 3.42 percent. In addition, the City pays a 0.5 percent loan-servicing fee. Because this interest subsidy is a federal program, the combination of fees and interest rates is over 2.6 percent below the current revenue bond market. F:\USER\PAULA\WWTP\cc srf amend.doc 1 Loan Processing Fee. A one-time 15 percent loan processing fee was offered, which is similar to the costs associated with a revenue loan. Term. Twenty years from the time the final funds are distributed. Therefore, the final loan payment should be made in 2020. Prepayment Options. The City has the right to pay any or all portions of the loan amount at any time. This call provision is usually not possible until the 10th year for other bonds. Loan Reserve Requirement. The loan reserve equals approximately one year's debt service. This is normal for a revenue bond. Coverage Requirements. The coverage requirement is 105 percent of net wastewater revenues including Food and Beverage Tax. A revenue bond would require 125 percent. Rate Stabilization. This loan permits the City to establish a rate stabilization account. The purpose of this account is to mitigate rate shock when the Food and Beverage Tax ends in 2010. Terms of Repayment. Semi-annual payments starting after the final funds are distributed. Some other bonds require more frequent payments, and payment is due six months after the money is borrowed. Representations. The City is required to meet covenants related to the construction project that would not otherwise be required. The increases in the project costs are as a result of delays in the off-site project and due to the addition of the replacement of the Ashland Creek Pump Station. Current costs for the entire project, including the pump station, wetlands demonstration efforts and the land purchase are as follows: Current- On-Site $13,200,000 (pump station separate) On-Site Contingency 600,000 Pump Station 1,000,000 Off-Site 9,000,000 Design 2,200,000 Const Admin 1,800,000 Additional coast mgt 500,000 (due to delays in starting the off site and no overlap in the construction administration) prior land acquisition 900,000 wetlands project to date 440,000 additional wetlands time 100,000 TOTAL $2997409000 F:\USER\PAULA\WWTP\cc srf amend.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN40 A i 04T THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND � AAc�^t,. �G-T- �11�96WT-GF-TH'E L-@A-14 FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT. RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland (the "City") has entered into negotiations with the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (the "DEQ") for a loan to the City from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in the amount of$16,891,422.00, which increases the original loan by $1,891,422. B. The DEQ has provided to the City a form of the amended Clean Water State Revolving Fund Agreement. C. The City Attorney and Director of Finance are finalizing this agreement. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: Section 1. City authorizes and approves the form of the CWSRF Loan Agreement for the increased amount to finance the Wastewater Treatment Facility Project. Section 2. City authorizes and approves the establishment and funding of a designated reserve account to meet the "Loan Reserve" requirement of the CWSRF Loan Agreement, and directs the Director of Finance to establish this Loan Reserve. Section 3. City authorizes and approves the establishment and funding of a Wastewater Rate Stabilization Account. The purpose of this account is to mitigate rate shock when the Food and Beverage Tax sunsets. City directs the Director of Finance to establish this account. Section 4. City authorizes and directs the Director of Finance and the City Administrator, acting for and on behalf of the City, to execute the final CWSRF Loan Agreement and such other and additional documents as may reasonably be required for the consummation and closing of the Loan, and any amendments required thereafter. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney F:\USER\PAULA\W WTP\cc srf=end.doc 3 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND BY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE LOAN FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES PROJECT. RECITALS: A. The City of Ashland (the "City") has entered into negotiations with the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (the "DEQ") for a loan to the City from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund in the amount of$16,891,422.00, which increases the original loan by $1,891,422. B. The DEQ has provided to the City a form of the amended Clean Water State Revolving Fund Agreement. C. The City Attorney and Director of Finance are finalizing this agreement. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES: Section 1. City authorizes and approves the form of the CWSRF Loan Agreement for the increased amount to finance the Wastewater Treatment Facility Project. Section 2. City authorizes and approves the establishment and funding of a designated reserve account to meet the "Loan Reserve" requirement of the CWSRF Loan Agreement, and directs the Director of Finance to establish this Loan Reserve. Section 3. City authorizes and approves the establishment and funding of a Wastewater Rate Stabilization Account. The purpose of this account is to mitigate rate shock when the Food and Beverage Tax sunsets. City directs the Director of Finance to establish this account. Section 4. City authorizes and directs the Director of Finance and the City Administrator, acting for and on behalf of the City, to execute the final CWSRF Loan Agreement and such other and additional documents as may reasonably be required for the consummation and closing of the Loan, and any amendments required thereafter. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney FAUSER\PAULA\W WTP\cc srf amend.doc 3 City Council Commu cation Legal Depart ent Ordinance Modifying Requir ents for the Demolition and Moving f Structures Decem r 21, 1999 Submitted by:'Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman W,`N Title: An Ordinance Amending Section 15.04.210 of, and Adding Other Sections to, the Ashland Municipal Code for the Purpose of Modifying the Requirements for the Demolition and Moving of Structures. Synopsis: This ordinance amends the requirements for demolition and relocation of historic structures within the city. The ordinance no longer bases the requirements on properties which have a historic designation. The purpose of the new requirements is to promote the reduction in volume of solid waste. The amendments clarify the meaning of demolition, which was previously undefined, and establishes new standards, requirements for notice and approval by the newly created Demolition Review Committee before any structure may be demolished or relocated. The property owner must have an approved development plan prior to demolition or relocation and must demonstrate, for structures erected prior to 1955, that demolition/redevelopment is more compatible with the neighborhood than rehabilitation would be. Violation of the ordinance carries enhanced penalties including fines up to the market value of the structure for flagrant violations. Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendation: Ordinance was approved and moved to second reading at the council's December 7, 1999, meeting. The recommendation now is to pass and adopt this ordinance. Background Information: This ordinance is proposed for the purpose of curing a problem with the city's requirements for the demolition of structures. Currently the city's requirements are unenforceable due to statutory enactments made in 1995 which restricted the city's ability to control the demolition of historic structures. That statute(ORS 197.772) allows a property owner to remove property from any historic designation list compiled by the city. The current demolition ordinance applies only to structures on the Ashland Heritage Landmarks List. F:\USER\sharlene\COUNCIL\Comm.icationsldemolition ord<c 1299.wpd ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.04.210 OF, AND ADDING OTHER SECTIONS TO, THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEMOLITION AND MOVING OF STRUCTURES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.04.210 of the Ashland Municipal Code is amended to read: 15.04.210 Demolition or relocation of structures. A. The purpose of sections 15.04.210 to 15.04.218 is to promote a reduction in volume of solid waste by encouraging all reasonable opportunities to rehabilitate or adaptively reuse existing structures. By volume, building materials form a large percentage of the solid waste stream and continued use of the building materials in existing structures will reduce the amount of waste produced. B. For purposes of sections 15.04.210 through 15.04.218, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations mean: 1. Demolition: To raze, destroy, dismantle, or any act or process that may cause partial or total destruction of a structure where less than 60% of the structure's external walls will be retained in place; or where less than 90% of the street facade will remain. 2. Facade: The front or principal face(s) of a building, sometimes distinguished from the other faces by elaboration of architectural or ornamental details and often serving as the primary entrance." C. Except as provided in section 15.04.210.D, a permit is required before any structure can be demolished or relocated. The permit fees for demolition or relocation of a structure will be set by resolution of the council. D. No demolition or relocation permit is required: 1. For structures of less than 500 square feet in size. 2. For relocation of a structure upon the same lot. 3. To demolish a building declared to be dangerous under the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings pursuant to section 15.04.010.B. Page 1 - ORDINANCE F:\USERXPAUL%ORDNdemolltlon ord 1299.wpd E. In addition to the enforcement provisions of this Title, the City Attorney may, or upon order of the City Council shall, immediately commence action or proceedings for the prevention of the demolition or relocation of a structure in the manner provided by law, and may take such other steps and apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will prevent the demolition, moving, removal, or damage to a building or structure, or using property contrary to the provisions of this Title. The remedies provided for in this section shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 1. For any demolition or relocation in violation of sections 15.04.210 to 15.04.218, the court shall also have the authority to order the person convicted of the violation to restore the structure to its condition prior to the demolition or to move and restore the building to its original site. . 2. For any flagrant violation, the court may impose a fine up to and including the assessed market value of the structure demolished or relocated. A flagrant violation is an act by a person who, after being notified of a violation, intentionally continues it. SECTION 2. The following sections 15.04.212 through 15.04.218 are added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 15.04.212 Demolition Review Committee. The Demolition Review Committee is established and will consist of three members: a city councilor appointed by the mayor, a planning commissioner appointed by the chair of the planning commission and the city building official. The term for the appointed members is one year or until their successors are appointed. The term for appointed members shall expiring on April 30 of each year, except that the term for the initial appointees shall expire April 30, 2001. A member is eligible for reappointment. 15.04.214 Approval Process. Applications for demolition or relocation permits will be decided by the Demolition Review Committee who will conduct a public hearing on each application and apply the standards set forth in sections 15.04.216 or 15.04.218 for granting or denying the permit. A. A complete application must be submitted to the building official and must include all of the required information for the specific action requested. The application must be signed by one or more property owners of the property where the structure is located. The application must be accompanied by the appropriate application fee. B. Notice for hearings before the Demolition Review Committee will be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation within the city at least 14 days prior to the hearing and mailed to the applicant or authorized agent at least 14 days prior to the hearing. In addition a notice must be posted on the property by the applicant in such a manner as to be clearly visible from a public right-of-way at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing. The applicant must certify, for the record of the hearing, that the Page 2 - ORDINANCE F:\USER\PAUL\ORD\demolition ord 1299.wpd posting was accomplished. The posted notice must contain a brief description of the proposal, the time, date and place of the hearing, and the phone number and address for contact with the building official. C. Within 15 days of the hearing, or within 15 days of the receipt of the report described in section 18.04.216.1.a is received, whichever date is later, the Demolition Review Committee shall issue its decision in writing and mail it to the applicant and all persons who appeared and spoke at the hearing. D. The decision of the Demolition Review Committee may be appealed to the council by the applicant or someone who spoke at the hearing. In addition, the council may review the decision on its own motion. The decision is appealed by filing a notice of appeal with the city administrator. The appeal fee, as set by resolution of the council, must accompany the notice of appeal. The appeal must be filed within 15 days of the date the decision of the committee is mailed. The appeal notice must contain the appellant's name, address, a reference to the decision sought to be reviewed, a statement that the appellant is the applicant or someone who appeared and testified at the hearing, the date of the decision being appealed, and the specific grounds for which the decision should be reversed or modified, based on the applicable standards. E. The notice of appeal, together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing on the appeal by the Council will be mailed to the parties at least 20 days prior to the hearing. The appeal before the council shall be a de novo hearing based solely on the evidence in the record made before the Demolition Review Board. The applicant shall have the burden to prove the standards have been met. The council may affirm, reverse or modify the decision and may approve or deny the request, or grant approval with conditions. The Council shall make findings and conclusions, and make a decision based on the record before it as justification for its action. The Council shall cause copies of a final order to be sent to all persons participating in the appeal. 15.04.216. Demolition standards. A. For demolition of structures erected prior to 1955, the applicant must demonstrate, that either subparagraphs 1 or 2 apply: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site as part of any economically beneficial use of the property. In determining whether an economically beneficial use can be made of the property, the Demolition Review Committee may require the applicant to: a. Furnish an economic feasibility report prepared by an architect, developer, or appraiser, or other person who is experienced in rehabilitation of buildings that addresses the estimated market value of the property on which the building lies, both before and after demolition or removal, or Page 3 - ORDINANCE F:\USERXPAUUORDWemonuon ord 1299.wpd b. Market the property utilizing a marketing plan approved by the Demolition Review Committee or by advertising the property in the Ashland Daily Tidings and Medford Mail Tribune at least eight times and at regular intervals for at least 90 days and by posting a for sale sign on the property, four to six square feet in size and clearly visible from the street, for the same 90 day period. 2. The structure proposed for demolition is structurally unsound despite efforts by the owner to properly maintain the structure. B. In addition to subparagraphs 1 or 2 above, the applicant must also demonstrate: 1. The structure cannot be practicably relocated to another site; 2. The demolition proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact to the character of the neighborhood within which the demolition is proposed to occur; 3. The integrity and architectural character of the neighborhood where the proposed demolition is to take place will not be substantiality diminished or compromised. For the purposes of this provision, the term "architectural character" includes, but is not limited to, height, coverage, setbacks, massing, siting, fenestration, streetscape, alleyscape, materials, and scale of materials; 4. Subsequent development on the property will add to the architectural character of the neighborhood more than the structure to be demolished; 5. The demolition proposal mitigates to the greatest extent practical any impact to the importance of other structures located on the property and on adjacent parcels; 6. The applicant has received final approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant to section 18.72.040 for the redevelopment plan of the originating site. The redevelopment plan must provide for a replacement structure of a minimum of 1,000 square feet and must be compatible with or enhance the integrity and architectural character of the neighborhood. This standard may be waived if the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would; and 7. The applicant will post with the city a bond, or other suitable collateral as determined by the city administrator, ensuring the safe demolition of the structure and the completed performance of the redevelopment plan. Page 4 - ORDINANCE F:wsERPA000RD\demofufon om 1299.wpd C. For demolition of structures erected in 1955 or after, the applicant: 1. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected in 1955 or after. Any structure erected in 1955 or after, which replaced a pre-1955 structure demolished or relocated under sections 15.04.210 to 15.04.218, shall be considered a pre-1955 structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216.A and B. 2. Must demonstrate that final approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant to section 18.72.040 for the redevelopment plan of the originating site has been received. The redevelopment plan must provide for a replacement structure and must be compatible with or enhance the integrity and architectural character of the neighborhood. This standard may be waived if the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would D. For any demolition approved under this section, the applicant is required to salvage or recycle construction and demolition debris, if feasible and cost-effective as determined by the Demolition Review Committee. The Committee may consult with the Conservation Commission or others in making such determination. Section 15.04.218. Relocation Standards. A. For relocation of structures erected prior to 1955, the applicant must demonstrate: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its originating site as part of any reasonable and beneficial use of the property. 2. Relocation is the best method for preservation of the character and integrity of the structure. 3. The structure will retain sufficient features, integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, so as to continue to convey its architectural significance. 4. The architectural integrity of the neighborhood of the origination site and of the structure itself, will not be substantiality compromised or diminished and the proposal for subsequent development on the origination site will add to the character of the neighborhood more than the structure to be moved. 5. The structure is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re-siting based on a structural report by a licensed engineer attesting to the soundness of the structure. Page 5 - ORDINANCE F1usER\PAULNORO\demolitionord 129e.wPd 6. , The applicant has agreed to post with the city a bond or other suitable collateral as determined by the city administrator, ensuring the safe relocation, preservation, rehabilitation and repair of the structure, receiving site preparation and infrastructure connections. 7. The applicant has received final approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant to section 18.72.040 for the redevelopment plan of the originating site. The redevelopment plan must provide for a replacement structure of a minimum of 1,000 square feet and must be compatible with or enhance the integrity and architectural character of the neighborhood. This standard may be waived if the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would. B. For relocation of structures erected in 1955 or after the applicant: 1. Has the burden of proving the structure was erected in 1955 or after. Any structure erected in 1955 or after, which replaced a pre-1955 structure demolished or relocated under 15.04.210 to 15.04.218, shall be considered a pre-1955 structure subject to the standards in subsections 15.04.216.A and B. 2. Must demonstrate that final approval for a Site Review Permit pursuant to section 18.72.040 for the redevelopment plan of the originating site has been received. The redevelopment plan must provide for a replacement structure for the originating site and must be compatible with or enhance the integrity and architectural character of the neighborhood. This standard may be waived if the applicant agrees to restrict the property to open space uses and a finding is made that such restriction constitutes a greater benefit to the neighborhood than redevelopment would. C. For any relocation under this section, the applicant must comply with the provisions of Chapter 15.08. SECTION 3. The following section 18.72.040.A.7 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: 18.72.040 Approval Process. A. Staff Permit. The following types of developments shall be subject to approval under the Staff Permit Procedure. Any Staff Permit may be processed as a Type I permit at the discretion of the Staff Advisor. Page 6 - ORDINANCE F:\USER\PAUL\ORD\demolition ord 1299.wpd 7. Redevelopment plans for property subject to the demolition or relocation requirements in sections 15.04.216 and 15.04.218. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the 7" day of December , 1999, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Re ' wed as to form: VvO�J � Paul Nolte, City Attorney Page 7 - ORDINANCE F:R1sER\PA000RD�demolleonOrd izss.wpd Council Communication Penny/Palmer LID Formation Public Works Department //x,,11 ///��� December 21, 1999 - Submitted by: Paula Brow Reviewed by: Paul Nolte Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: A resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, deferred sidewalk and associated improvements within the local improvement district and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited 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. Synopsis: The attached resolution establishes the level of improvements and estimated costs for the Penny/ Palmer Local Improvement District (LID) for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Improvements consist of paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, deferred sidewalk, and associated improvements, for Penny Drive and Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision. Petitions in favor of the improvements have been received from all of the property owners within the proposed Penny/Palmer Improvement District. At the December 7, 1999 Council meting, Council directed staff to add language in the resolution so that the actual sidewalk improvements in the LID area could be deferred to the future. The attached resolution includes that deferment in Section 7. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing and ordering the local improvements for Penny Drive/Palmer Road within the Casa Madrona Subdivision for the paving, curbs, gutters, storm drains, deferred sidewalk and associated improvements within the local improvement district and authorizing the assessment of the cost of the improvements against property to be benefited 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. Background: Casa Madrona Subdivision was platted in 1965 at which time Penny Drive and Palmer Road were created and opened for travel. As was common during that period of the City's development,the streets were not improved. Attempts to create a local improvement district to improve the streets were made in 1967, 1971, 1986 and 1991. With Council's adoption of Resolution No. 99-09, which included financial participation by the City, sufficient interest in this LID was possible. I':,USI3R�.P-114.t�`.1.1D .Palruer-1'cnnv 1,11)Form 2 1 lcc.iloc Pugh I Two neighborhood meetings were held where city staff members from Engineering and Planning meet with property owners to discuss the necessary improvements, estimated costs and methodology for cost allocations. At the final neighborhood meeting, members within the proposed assessment district agreed upon the number of lots to be included and the number of potential units to be assessed. It was agreed that the three lots accessing from Weissenback Way (a private drive) should be assessed at a %:unit rate while those that had actual lot frontage on the streets to be improved should receive an assessment based upon a full unit. Further compensation was made to two lots, which had physically been combined (existing house built on both lots), and one lot that was large enough to divide into two lots. Petitions were signed by ALL of the owners within the proposed district. A public hearing was held during the City Council's regular meeting on December 7, 1999 so that the issue of sidewalk requirements could be discussed with Council members. At that time, Council directed staff to remove the sidewalk from the improvements and defer sidewalk improvements until a future time. The resolution language reads as follows: SECTION 7.Sidewalk requirement deferred The assessments on benefited properties include the amount of $7,980 for a sidewalk less a credit of$4,788 which is to be paid by the city in accordance with resolution 99-09. The benefited property owners have requested a deferment on the installation of the sidewalk. The owners, however, do not desire, and have not requested, a deferment of the assessments for the sidewalk. By adopting this resolution, the council accepts the request for the deferment of the installation of the sidewalks, which shall be deferred indefinitely. No sidewalk is to be installed at the time the improvements listed in the title are made. That portion of the assessments for the sidewalk as listed in the attached exhibits is still to be included and collected in the assessments made for this Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District, No. 81, however. .When a sidewalk is installed in the future, the then owners of the lots subject to this LID will not be further assessed or charged for such improvement. It is the intent of this resolution to reflect that the lots subject to this LID have met their commitment for the payment for a sidewalk. P:11!$LRtPAUL_P:LIDs.Pnlmery Fcrmy III)Pone 21Dcc doc Page RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR PENNY DRIVE /PALMER ROAD WITHIN THE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION FOR THE PAVING, CURBS, GUTTERS, STORM DRAINS, DEFERRED SIDEWALK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND AUTHORIZING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY TO BE BENEFITED 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 Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District, No. 81. 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 $66,931.00 all of which will be paid by special assessments on benefited properties. Costs will be allocated based on $3,953.35 per unit or potential unit assessment. 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 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 PAGE 1-RESOLUTION palmer-penny 21 Dec Reso.d0Cc:WyriesXpa1mer-pen.wpd 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 $73,624.10. SECTION 5. The assessment imposed upon benefited properties is characterized as an assessment for local improvement pursuant to ORS 305.583(4). SECTION 6. The city recorder is directed to prepare the estimated assessment of the respective lots within the local improvement district and file it in the lien records of the city. SECTION 7. Sidewalk requirement deferred. The assessments on benefited properties include the amount of $7,980 for a sidewalk less a credit of$4,788 which is to be paid by the city in accordance with resolution 99-09. The benefited property owners have requested a deferment on the installation of the sidewalk. The owners, however, do not desire, and have not requested, a deferment of the assessments for the sidewalk. By adopting this resolution, the council accepts the request for the deferment of the installation of the sidewalks, which shall be deferred indefinitely. No sidewalk is to be installed at the time the improvements listed in the title are made. That portion of the assessments for the sidewalk as listed in the attached exhibits is still to be included and collected in the assessments made for this Penny/Palmer Local Improvement District, No. 81, however. When a sidewalk is installed in the future, the then owners of the lots subject to this LID will not be further assessed or charged for such improvement. It is the intent of this resolution to reflect that the lots subject to this LID have met their commitment for the payment for a sidewalk. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code '2.04.090 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ' 1999. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ' 1999. Catherine M. Shaw, Mayor Approved as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 2-RESOLUTION palmer-penny 21 Dec Reso.d0CC:WyFi1es\pa1mer-pen.wpd r LU a �-- CL LU lit ' r p �Ll •, VU • � w pi ! � j3 10i� it � -■ - - I .�► . • • � ��� . '� _ _ _ : - . � �� _ ,.,., .� '; �. — II� n , 3 '� �( _ • gr' _ �'' J V d � ; 9 �::: ' - � ..� :3 ' � .. 4 � . s 1 v Vie$'- ':„:�,4n.. Y ►�v ♦���♦ ss • r° �- Wig= � _ ....x _ • }t � � ►.♦ _ �- �• i ��'� . _- ` gin __ City of Ashland Department of Public Works - Engineering Division Estimate for Palmer Road & Penny Drive L.I.D. Street:Palmer Road & Penny Drive Estimate By: R. Pallady Limits:South of Woodland to end Date: 05/14/98 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 05/17/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 07/26/99 Revised By: J. Olson Date: 09/01/99 GENERAL INFORMATION Length of Project: 564 Width of Street: 22' W/4' sidewalk 1 side (on Palmer Road and Penny Drive) Pavement Design: 4" AC A. ESTIMATED COSTS Total Estimate $53,120.00 B. OTHER (List) Contingency (5%) $2,656.00 C. TOTAL $55,776.00 D. ENGINEERING (a7 20% $11,155.00 E. PROJECT TOTAL $66,931.00 F. CREDITS Sidewalks - 60% of$7,980 $4,788.00 Storm Drain - 75% of$4,600 $3,450.00 Paving —20% of$38,260.00 $7,652.00 Engineering - 50% of$11,155 $5,577.50 Subtotal $21,467.50 G. TOTAL ASSESSABLE COST $45,463.50 H. TOTAL ACCESSIBLE UNITS 11.5 '1. ESTIMATED COST PER UNIT $3,953.35 G:Dawn\Engineer\LID\Palmer—Penny Revision Ltr to Nbn 9-1.99.doc , ESTIMATED COST PER LOT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PALMER ROAD AND PENNY DRIVE CASA MADRONA SUBDIVISION MAP NO. TAX LOT DESCRIPTION POTENTIAL COST PER TOTAL UNITS UNIT 1 39-1E-15BC 3000 Lot 12 CamMadrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 2 39-1E-156C 3005 Lot 3 Caw Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 3 39-1E-1513C 3007 Lot CasaMadrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 4 39-1E-1513C 3008 Lot Casa Madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 5 39-1E-15BC 3009 Lot cam madrona 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 6 39-1E-1513C 3010 Lot CasaMadrona 2 $3,953.35 $7,906.70 7 39-1E-15BC 3011 Lot 10 Caw Madrona .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 a 15BC 3012 Lot 11 caw madrona .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 15BD 6100 Lot 1 Blk 4 Bieber 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 7200 --------------- 1 $3,953.35 $3,953.35 156D 7100 --------------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 15BD 7101 --------------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 15BD 6900 ------------- .5 $3,953.35 $1,976.67 11.5 TOTALS $45,463.50 Note: The costs shown are estimates only. The final assessment will be derived from the actual costs incurred on the project. G:Dawn\Engineer\LID\Palmer—Penny Revision Ltr to Nbts 9-1-99.doc Brent Thompson ° P.O. Box 201 Ashland, Or 97520 16 December 1999 Ashland City Council 20 East Main Ashland, Or 97520 To the Council, The writing or rewriting of a lease with the Oregon Shakespeare Festival for the use of City owned property needn't be a City versus the Festival issue. It is first and foremost an opportunity to agree on a common vision for the Festival's scale and the Festival's impact on the community. It is an opportunity for the Festival to ensure that it will remain well integrated into the community not isolated from it. It is an opportunity to evaluate the scale of tourism in Ashland versus the rest of the local economy. It is an opportunity to ensure the diversity of businesses in the downtown area. It is an opportunity to alleviate parking problems not exacerbate them. The economic activity derived from the Festival and the unmeasurable character the community derives from the creative energy of the personnel of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival are important to Ashland. But as residents of Ashland, Jackson County, and Oregon experience a pace of growth consistent with that of post WW II California, the assumption cannot be made that we can maintain a small town feel in Ashland and a strong sense of community without effort and without safeguards. Ashland's December "City Source" publication lists concerns of citizens which the City Council will use in its strategic planning sessions. Growth, traffic, parking, and transportation are all major concerns of Ashland residents. Thus, the Council, to be responsive to the will of its constituency, must keep these concerns in mind in decision making. The council, therefore, must look at the contribution Festival and tourism make to parking problems, traffic problems, growth problems, and transportation problems, and the Council must move to mitigate current and future problems where it can. A well thought out lease with the Festival can help do that. Since the plan to eliminate Carpenter Hall by demolition or by physical removal was brought forth, the Festival has indicated various things as to what its future plans are regarding play scheduling, number of theaters in operation, and total ticket sales. Since I believe these positions and self imposed limitations to be sincere, it follows that a lease could incorporate these things. One result could be, for example, that any parking gained from the joint project could indeed ultimately be a net parking gain in the downtown area not a net parking loss. Again, this would not be a move to decrease tourism or the Festival's scale of operations, but.a move to balance tourism with other aspects of our local economy. It would be a move to balance the wants of the average resident with the desires of those whose livelihood is directly dependent on visitors Please schedule a public study session on this important matter for community input. Thank you. Respectfully, City Council Communication City Recorder's Office December 21, 1999 Submitted by: Barbara Christensen Approved by: Mike Freeman AAA Title: Liquor License Application from Robert C. Harvey dba Beasy's on the Creek Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following recommendation: "The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter." Background Information: Application reflects change in ownership of business. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use,business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. i City Council Communication Department of Community Development Planning Division Hillside Development Ordinance Remand Findings December 21, 1999 Submitted by: John McLaughlin,Director of Community Development Approved by: Paul Nolte,City Attorney� r Approved by: Mike Freeman,City Administrator Title: Adoption of findings supporting the decision of the City Council in the remand by LUBA in the case of Rogue Valley Association of Realtors v. the City of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-260—Hillside Development Ordinance. Synopsis: On December 7, 1999,the Ashland City Council held a public hearing regarding the LUBA remand of the Hillside Development Ordinance. The council found that the adopted Buildable Lands Inventory indicated a greater than 20-year supply of lands for future development, and that the adoption of the Hillside Development Ordinance did not reduce those inventories below required levels. Further, the Council found that section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. Attached are findings supporting those decisions. Fiscal Impact: none Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached findings. BEFORE THE ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL December 21, 1999 Determination of issues remanded ) By the Land Use Board of Appeals ) Findings in support in the case of the Rogue Valley ) of Legislative adoption Association of Realtors v. the City ) of Hillside Development Of Ashland, LUBA No. 97-260. ) Ordinance —Ordinance 2808. regarding the Hillside Development ) Ordinance. ) RECITALS: A. In December, 1997, the City of Ashland adopted the Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO), Ordinance 2808. B. In January, 1998, the Rogue Valley Association of Realtors (RVAR)appealed the adoption to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). C. In September, 1998, LUBA remanded the decision, requesting the City to clarify and determine that the loss of five potential building lots due to the revised slope restrictions could be accommodated on other lands within the urban growth boundary (UGB) and still be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Further, as part of the remand, the City was requested to clarify that Ashland Land Use Ordinance section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. D. In September, 1999, the City of Ashland adopted a new Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) as a supporting document of the comprehensive plan. This inventory was adopted by Resolution 99-58. The BLI indicated that there was a greater than 20-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits and UGB to accommodate future residential development. The BLI was conducted utilizing the limitations on development due to slope imposed by the.HDO. E. This council held a public hearing on December 7, 1999, after first publishing notice in the newspaper and meeting the requirements of AMC 18.108.170. F. We find that, based on the adopted BLI, that there is in excess of a 20-year supply of buildable lands in the single family residential zoning district, indicating that the imposition of development restrictions based on slope in the HDO will not adversely affect the buildable lands inventory of the city. No evidence was presented refuting this finding. G. We interpret the ordinance language in section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g): "It is recommended that color selection for new structures be coordinated with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape to minimize contrast between the structure and the natural environment." (underline added) to be a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. The use of the word "recommended" in the ordinance clearly indicates that this is not a mandatory approval standard. DECISION We find that based upon the Buildable Lands Inventory that there is a greater than 20-year supply of single family zoned lands within the city limits and urban growth boundary for future development, and that the imposition of the HDO will not reduce the inventory below amounts required by the comprehensive plan. We further find that the language in section 18.62.080(E)(2)(g) is a suggestion and not a mandatory approval standard. APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 21, 1999. Mayor Catherine Shaw City of Ashland 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Carole Wheeldon Date: December 15, 1999 Re: Ashland Watershed Protection Project Please find a copy of the Ashland Watershed Stewardship Alliance Draft comment and proposal in response to the Ashland Watershed protection project. I am interested in having a discussion regarding the possibility of creating a representative advisory board to work in tandem with the Forest Service on decision- making in the Ashland watershed. This is preliminary given we are expecting a decision from Linda Duffy in mid-January on the Ashland Watershed Protection Project, and at that time the specifics of how an advisory board might interface with the Forest Service. Our current Forest Commission may be able to play a part in this by assigning a representative from their group to be a member of such a board. The details will bear more discussion once we get a sense of Linda's decision. This board could be an addition to our Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service which was updated last in 1996. 1 look forward to a brief discussion with you. Carole. Copies of the draft have been previously provided to council members. A copy of the draft is also •Page 1 available for review in Administration. f Council Communication Administrative Services Department Draft Citizen Participation Plan December 21, 1999 Submitted by: Dick Wa_ nde � Approved by: Mike Freeman Title: Draft Citizen Participation Plan Synopsis: One of the City's Strategic Plan goals for FY 98-99 was to develop a Citizen Involvement Process Plan. This draft plan implements that goal. Fiscal Impact: Some additional staff time will be required for workbook development and training. This process may also require some additional staff time during citizen involvement projects up front, but may actually save time overall. Recommendation: Staff recommends Council move to adopt the Draft Plan. Background Information: Staff has worked with Councilors Laws, Wheeldon and Fine on development of the draft plan. It was discussed by the City Council at its December 9, 1999 study session. It was also mailed to the Ad Hoc Communication Committee and posted on the City's web site. Upon adoption of this plan, a workbook will be developed to be used for training and implementation of this policy. The process would then be utilized for one year and evaluated in January of 2001. City of Ashland D-R-A-F-T Citizen Participation Plan October 1999 BACKGROUND The City of Ashland is fortunate to have a wide variety of knowledgeable citizens who care deeply about the City's welfare. A large number of citizens have been and continue to be involved with City government on both standing and ad hoc committees. Some past initiatives have been successful while others have been less successful. With this in mind, one of the City Council Strategic Plan goals for this fiscal year is to develop a citizen participation process that will help to ensure successful citizen involvement in future citizen initiatives. Council discussed this goal with staff on May 20, a process and timeline was agreed upon and a Council subcommittee of Laws, Fine and Wheeldon was appointed to work on this goal. This subcommittee worked with staff on a questionnaire that was mailed to all 117 regular commission members and 57 members of nine recent ad hoc committees. A total of 63 questionnaires were returned to the City and include some interesting information. While most questionnaires were positive, there were a number that expressed doubt that the City truly values citizen participation. There seems to be three general themes to which these surveys revealed: 1) that the Council generally does not follow the advice of citizen committees, 2) that the decision is already made before citizens are invited to become involved, or 3) that Council and staff tolerate citizen participation but do not value it. The draft program hopefully will address these issues in future public process initiatives. Many of the ideas contained in this draft come from a training session attended by staff that was conducted by Kezziah Watkins entitled "Designing Citizen Participation That's Civil". Councilors Laws, Fine and Wheeldon have worked with staff on developing this draft and endorse its adoption. NExT STEPS Adoption of Process — This process needs to be formally adopted by the Council, and elected officials and staff must become supportive not only the process but of the spirit of embracing citizen partnership as a better way of doing business. Public Involvement Guide — Staff is prepared to develop a guide that will provide templates, appendices and background information, along with a step-by-step guide as to how to implement this plan. Training — Using the above-mentioned guide, staff would provide training to prepare individuals to implement the process as outlined in the plan. Evaluation — This new process needs to be evaluated for its effectiveness so it should be reviewed after one year in January 2001 to measure its success and revise it as needed. DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN CORE ELEMENTS October 1999 INTRODUCTION Ashland, like other American cities, feels a changing environment that requires new ways of doing business. A new more collaborative style of decision making is not only required but results in better decisions. Problems are more complex and solutions are oftentimes multifaceted and are more expensive than in the past. Getting people of different backgrounds together to talk about problems and potential solutions is essential. Collaboration is here to stay and will continue to be demanded by citizens more and more in the future. While it can be frustrating and messy, it is indispensable, and the city needs a process that will maximize its benefits. Better government decisions depend on good government, and a collaborative government can serve as the leader and partner to developing long term solutions to problems. This change will not be easy. It includes a serious commitment from everyone involved to embrace the change and commitment to make it happen. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The overall goal of citizen participation is to share in decision making. It ensures a means of allowing participation by the people affected or interested in the outcome of the issue. It needs to be based on total honesty and openness, particularly in regard to the negative impacts that could be caused by the decision. Citizen participation is not a substitute for decision-making by the City, but a very important influence on it. Shared decision-making is not a cure for conflict because it does not mean the final decision will make everyone happy. It lets everyone know the reasons for a decision in the hope that all or most participants will accept that decision, even if they do not agree with it. Maior Principles O Citizen participation is a valuable asset and should be encouraged on all decisions that affect the public and can benefit from public participation. • Citizen participation should be open, honest and fair. • Citizen participation should: D Build trust between government and citizens. D Allow people to make informed judgements about City activities. Citizen Participation Plan 1 D Encourage face-to-face deliberation to give citizens the opportunity to hear other people's perspective on City issues. n Create a community direction for responsible decisions. O Using public participation is not an abdication of responsibility or authority. It is a process which allows City government to tap the knowledge of the public to: Determine possible options. D Generate new ideas, D Increase understanding of issues, n Discover and explore possible compromises, and v Gauge the public's support for various solutions. O Successful citizen participation requires: Genuine intent and attitude by the City to encourage and utilize the public to help make better decisions. )1> A clear understanding of the process and the limits of citizen participation at the beginning of the process. D Many ways for people to participate and influence the decision. D It to occur early enough in the process to influence the outcome. D A consistent approach that is used to foster participation and very good two-way communication throughout the process. n An open process which goes to the people and makes it easy for people to participate. D Attempts to involve a wide cross section of individuals. D Encouragement of dialogue and deliberation by the public in trying to solve the problem. D That all participants be informed of the final decision and its rationale. v That all participants work hard, listen to all sides, attempt to understand opposing viewpoints, and try to reach compromise on difficult issues. Citizen Participation Plan 2 CITIZEN EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES EXPECTATIONS: OO Citizens expect a fair and open process, which allows all who are. affected or interested to have an equal opportunity to participate. © They expect clear, complete and straightforward information. OO They wanted to be involved early enough in the process to influence the outcome. ® They expect follow-up to their involvement by receiving information about the final decision and why it was made. RESPONSIBILITIES: Public participation is a two-way street that requires citizens to do their part also. Citizens' responsibilities include: OO Involvement means helping the City make the decision. By not becoming involved, a citizen, in effect, consents to the final decision. © Becoming involved means active participation in the process. OO Working hard at learning about the issue, listening to all perspectives, attempting to understand opposing viewpoints, and trying to reach compromise on difficult issues. a0 Considering the "public good" perspective on all issues, even if it is opposed to their own personal interests in the particular issue. ELECTED OFFICIALS EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES EXPECTATIONS: OO To be the final decision-makers. Public participation is not an abdication of authority or responsibility but an opportunity to involve more minds and talent in researching better decisions. © That staff will believe in the benefits of public involvement and therefore facilitate the most effective public participation as possible. OO That citizens will work hard to understand the issues, respect opposing viewpoints, work for good compromises and consider the "public good" involved in the decision. RESPONSIBILITIES: OO To clearly identify the problem to be solved. Citizen Participation Plan 3 © To try to make sure that everyone who could be affected by the issue has the opportunity to become involved. OO To decide the role of citizen participation will play and also define which elements of the decision are non-negotiable. np To give clear direction to citizens as to their role in the decision-making process. Os To consider the ideas, wants and desires of citizens when making the final decision. © To decide on the process that will be used for citizen involvement before the process is initiated and honor that process during deliberation on the issue. CITY STAFF EXPECTATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES EXPECTATIONS: OO To get policy support from the Council for the value of citizen involvement and the resultant better decision making that comes from involved citizens. OO To get clear direction from elected officials concerning the kind of process to be used, the parameters of decisions that can be affected by citizens, the givens, and non-negotiable items of the problem, and a designation of who will be making the final decision in the matter. OO To get total support for staff to utilize the necessary resources to ensure that citizen involvement will be as effective as possible. RESPONSIBILITIES: OO To believe in and embrace the value of citizen input in making better decisions. © To serve as both information sources and also as facilitators. OO Using elected officials' direction, to design and carry out the public involvement process in a way that most effectively ensures success, and also is appropriate to the scale and the public's interest in the problem. ® To view the public as partners with equal rights and equal say. Oe To be held responsible for the success of the public involvement phase of an issue. © To try and identify and involve as many affected or interested citizens in the process as possible. OO To design a process that is open and honest, that goes out to the people and is easy to become involved in. Citizen Participation Plan 4 OB To communicate to citizens, as a follow-up to their involvement, the ultimate decision and reason for this decision. THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS The following eleven steps should be followed in conducting a public involvement process: Step 1 — Identifying the Problem — If the City has an issue to resolve and wants to know if there is significant public interest, the problem must first be defined. First, determine the consequences of no action. If it is not in the City's best interest to do nothing, then the City must set out to solve the problem. It is important to identify why it is a problem and for whom is it a problem as part of the identification process. Once the problem has been defined, it must be clearly articulated in simple concise language that members of the public will understand. Step 2 — Establish the Givens — If an issue is totally non-negotiable (that is, there is no way to alter what must be done), it is not suitable for public participation. With City issues, this is rarely the case, and usually the flexibility of decisions is suitable for public decision-making. There are instances where some elements are non-negotiable. These elements usually are moral, ethical, legal, safety or financial issues. The non-negotiable should be clearly stated at the outset of designing the public involvement process. It is important to note that these givens must not be merely preferences. Citizens may challenge these items, and the City must have defensible reasons for making them off-limits. Step 3 — Establish the Ultimate Decision-Makers — There needs to be a statement of whom has final authority to determine how and who will make the decision. This is basically a policy call by the City, and it is vitally important that everyone know at the outset who has final decision- making authority. Step 4 — Decide on the Type of Citizen Participation to be Used — Depending on the type of issue that is, being considered there are many different ways to engage citizens. If this issue requires individual judgement or opinions, focus group interviews, random sample surveys, response forms, newspaper inserts, or direct mail can be used. If the issue requires community problem solving, workshops, charrettes, open houses and discussion forums can be used. Complicated and technical issues might best use advisory or ad hoc committees, a series of workshops or open houses, or working with existing organizations. Step 5— Identify the Informational Needs— Once the problem has been identified, the given and decision-makers established and the citizen participation method has been determined, the kind of information that needs to convey to citizens must be determined. Information must be kept clear and non-technical and communication must be simple. It should try to relate to citizens' lives and how the decision on this issue can impact them personally and the City collectively. The need for new information may arise during the process and staff should continue to be aware of any changing needs and be prepared to change, update or add new information throughout the process. Step 6 — Prepare a Proiect Timeline — It is important to establish a preliminary schedule of how and when the project will be accomplished. This must be done to provide citizens with an idea of what kind of time commitment will be required to become involved. Also, it gives the City the Citizen Participation Plan 5 l opportunity to allocate adequate resources to accomplish the task and track successful completion of the project. Step 7 — Double Check the Process — Has the problem been identified adequately? Has the City allocated enough time and staff resources for success? Are the information and communication methods adequate? Is the process open and fair? Is the schedule reasonable? All of these questions should be answered one final time before the process is taken out for citizen involvement. Step 8 — Launch the Project— It is important to begin the project on a positive note and cast the net as widely as possible so as many people as possible are aware of the opportunities to become involved. Initial outreach should always communicate the problem, the givens, the process, the preliminary timelines of the project, and the various ways to become involved. These themes must be stressed in all subsequent communications and information materials. Step 9 — Evaluate the Launch and Change the Process if Warranted — Evaluation of initial citizen response for involvement is necessary at this point. It is not too late to change approaches at this time so it is important to look at whether there is adequate interest to continue the approach or whether it needs to be changed to seek out more interested citizens before proceeding. Step 10 — Complete the Proiect and Communicate Often — Throughout the remainder of the project, it is important to communicate often and clearly with citizen participants, elected officials, other City staff members, general citizens, the news media and other affected agencies. Always error on the side of "too much" communication rather than too little. The project will usually end up with a recommendation, decision, report or some other end product. Make sure this is widely distributed to all of the above mentioned parties also. Step 11 — Evaluate the Project and the Process — No process will be perfect and something can be learned from both successes and failures. It is important to not only evaluate the overall .projects and participants' opinions about the longer process upon completion and also during the process at every event. These event/meeting evaluations can then be used to evaluate the overall project to ensure that future processes build upon what was learned previously. Citizen Participation Plan 6