HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-0717 Council Mtg PACKET C1 T Y OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda,unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting,the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak,please 511 out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council
Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time alloned to you,if any. The time granted will be dependent to
some extent on the nature of the item under discussion.the number of people who wish to speak,and the length of the agenda.
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
July 17, 2012
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of June 18, 2012
2. Business Meeting of June 19, 2012
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Farewell to Jim Olson
2. Proclamation of August 6 as Hiroshima Day and August 9 as Nagasaki Day
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Commission, Committee, and Board Minutes
2. Endorsement of the Monster Dash for the purposes of hanging a banner
3. Agreement for RVTV services between City of Ashland and Southern Oregon University
4. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting product rates for the municipal
telecommunications utility"
5. Approval of a Liquor License Application from Mario Camacho dba Star Sushi #1
6. Award of contract to Benntag, Univar, and Cascade Columbia for Water and Wastewater
Treatment Plant Chemicals
7. Special Procurement for purchase of polymer for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
8. Approval of a contract amendment for Construction Engineering Consultants for additional
costs on the Hersey/Wimer intersection re-alignment
9. Approval of Special Procurement for Forestry Consulting Services
Vlll. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to
the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued
to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council (AMC
§2.04.050))
1. First reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding a new element 'Chapter XIV
Regional Plan' to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions
t111NC11 MIFF,I IN(mti ARIr, RRO ADC A5°I' I-1V1' ON Cl1;ANXI") 9
V'ISI I H It, CITY OF AS]ILAND'S W111.1 S11E AT \A'A1 \V'_A.SI11 AND.OR.U.S
of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan ('the RPS Plan') and to
acknowledge revised population allocations by Jackson County for the City of Ashland"
2. Approval and opportunity for public comment on the criteria to be used during the selection
process for the Director of IT and the Electric Utility.
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed
for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to
speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. November 2012 Local Option Levy for enhanced library services draft ballot measure and
approval of a resolution titled, "Resolution of the City of Ashland and Jackson County,
Oregon to submit to the voters at the November 6, 2012 General Election a funding initiative
to levy up to $.21 per $1000 assessed property value for the purpose of providing enhanced
library services at the Ashland Public Library for a period of four years beginning July 1,
2012"
2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution amending the pay schedule for management and
confidential employees for Fiscal Year 2012-2013"
and
Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City of Ashland clarifying certain conditions
of employment for management and confidential employees and repealing Resolution 2011-
21"
Xl. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
None.
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1 First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the general regulations chapter
(18.68) if the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish setback requirements for chicken
coops and chicken runs"
and
First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance establishing provisions within the health
and sanitation chapter (9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code for the keeping of chickens
within residential districts"
2. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the development standards
for wireless communication faciltiies in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land
Use Ordinance"
3. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC 14.08.030 connection
outside city, inside urban growth boundary and adding AMC 14.09.020 Sewer Lateral
Ownership"
4. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An-ordinance enabling City Council to refer to the voter
of Ashland in the November 6, 2012 general election a ballot question on instructing the US
Congress to approve a constitutional amendment granting Congress and the State authority
to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures and to determine the nature and extent
of the privileges of entities other than natural persons"
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at(541) 488-6002(TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
017 NCII A1FFI'IN(;SAR1113ROADCAS'l I.1V1-1 ON ('I IANtil51.. 1
VIS1 I' f 1-1E CITY OF A S I IL:ANITS \\:I-13 SFI L A I W\VW.ASI II \NI).OR_US
C:17 Y C.'UUNtJL JO UUY NESS/UN
June 18, 2012
Page 1 oft
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 18,2012
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Lemhouse, Voisin, and Slattery were present. Councilor Morris arrived at
5:40 p.m.
I. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
2. Discussion of Sewer Line Service Policy
Public Works Director Mike Faught corrected an error in the Council Communication that the City was
responsible for maintaining sewer lines for 51 Greensprings-Oak Knoll subdivision homes when further
review of the development agreement indicated it was actually 250 homes.
Staff recommended codifying the current policy requiring property owners to pay for replacement,
maintenance of their sewer laterals, and whether that extended to the mainline or just the property line. The
average cost was $2,500 per line Ad would cost the City $19,625,000 for all 250 homes in the Greensprings-
Oak Knoll subdivision. The other change was updating Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 14.08.030 to
change responsibility for determining sewer system failure to "appropriate regulatory authority" instead of
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Codifying the policy made it easier to enforce and similar
policies were common throughout Oregon. Property owners would need a permit to work on their sewer line
and hire a certified line inspector for any public right of way. They would not be responsible for damage
incurred by someone else.
The life cycle for a lateral was approximately 80 years. Staff would research whether homeowners insurance
covered failed sewer lines and bring a policy to Council for codification to a future meeting.
3. Discussion of updating the Economic Development Strategy
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the next steps for the economic development
strategy was following up with the Chamber of Commerce on key areas of the Business Retention &
Expansion (BR&E)survey.
Ron Fox, the Executive Director of Southern Oregon regional Economic Development Inc. (SOREDI)
explained an enterprise zone was a State program and a local option initiated by a jurisdiction. Ashland
could request to have property added to the Jackson County zone but they did not have ecommerce overlays.
There were only 10 ecommerce overlays in Oregon.
Basic enterprise zones were eligible businesses making eligible investments on property inside an enterprise
zone like a building expansion, a new building, or fixed equipment. Ecommerce created incentives for
businesses that operated via the intemet with a focus on personal property additions. It provided an
exemption on personal property and a tax credit up to 25% of the ecommerce investment against personal or
corporate tax liability up to $2,000,000 utilized over a five-year period. Ecommerce zones sunset with each
enterprise zone. However, very few communities give up their zones and apply for extensions.
The City could ask Jackson County to amend the boundary of their zone to include property within Ashland,
and then pursue an effort to permit more ecommerce zones. The standard benefit for the enterprise zone on
property taxes was three years. Extensions lasted five years with the tax liability for the new investment
going back to the taxing districts at the end.
Crr r CvunCit�);ruur NtnJUJV
June 18, 2012
Page 1 of 2
The downside to an enterprise zone was city, school or other tax districts relevant to a specific property
would not receive incremental additional property tax for the first 3-5 years. The upside was increased jobs
and potential property tax.
Staff would look at potential tax lot parcels in addition to Croman Mill and come back to Council with
information regarding enterprise zone designation.
Council majority did not support pursuing an urban renewal district but would consider it if a viable plan
came forward in the future.
Dennis Leidall, Executive Director of Sustainable Valley Technology Group explained how his
company coached and mentored new businesses for successful growth using an incubator method
and other techniques. They were interested in establishing a satellite office to start a business
incubator in Ashland.
Staff would bring back proposals to evolve the economic development strategy, and work with the Chamber
of Commerce on follow up.
4. Discussion of whether to televise Council study sessions
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained it would be possible to do a live stream from the Siskiyou room
with a non-directional microphone to hang from the ceiling at a low cost. The most expensive option was
broadcasting from the Siskiyou room.
Council discussed preferences for broadcasting from Council Chambers and streaming online in the Siskiyou
Room. Also discussed was the quality of service issues with Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV).
Opposing comments noted televising Study Sessions would decrease productivity and increase formality.
Supporting comments stressed the need for transparency and that Council could retain informality.
Staff would work with technical experts to research available technology and options.
5. Closing the loop follow up from the Mayor
Mayor Stromberg encouraged Council to ask questions of staff prior to meetings so they had time to research
and share answers. He went on to discuss recognizing high school students and acknowledging people who
contributed to the community posthumous. Council majority was comfortable notifying Council and the
Mayor when a Councilor wanted to recognize someone and Councilors not in agreement could contact the
City Administrator and the Mayor. Per code, the City Administrator set the agenda. City Administrator
Dave Kanner supported the Mayor deciding what items went under the Special Presentations & Awards
section on the agenda. Opposing comments thought Council meetings should focus on City business and
suggested recognition occur during the Mayor's Town Hall meetings.
City Attorney Dave Lohman distributed cheat sheets to Council that explained when to use an objection to
consideration of a question, point of information, point of order,and previous question.
Meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
ANHLANU C I]Y C.'UUNC/L MLLY INO
June 19, 2012
Page 1 of 9
MINUTES FOR THE BUSINESS MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
June 19, 2012
Council Chambers
1175 E.Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Silbiger, and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree Commission, Public Arts Commission, Conservation
Commission, Transportation Commission, and the Audit Committee.
He went on to move agenda item 3. Second Reading of an ordinance titled,"An ordinance levying taxes for
the period of July 1, 2012 to and including June 30, 2012, such taxes in the sum of$10,083,098 upon all
the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of
Ashland,Jackson County, Oregon"under ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS after the.
CONSENT AGENDA with Council consent.
Mayor Stromberg invited citizens to attend two public outreach meetings to review conceptual designs and
provide comments on Plaza improvements in the Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way, June 22, 2012, and July 9,
2012 at 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for both meetings. Covey Pardee would present the
final concept plan to Council during the July 16, 2012 Study Session.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of June 4, 2012 and Business Meeting of June 5, 2012 were approved as
presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS -None
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Commission,Committee,and Board Minutes
2. Approval of Airport Rate Resolution
3. Award of a contract to the apparent low bidder on the Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project.
4. Award of a contract to the apparent low bidder on the Ashland Creek bank restoration project
5. 2012-2013 Chamber of Commerce/Visitor & Convention Bureau and Oregon Shakespeare Festival
tourism promotion contracts
6. Approval of a special procurement from Neilson Research for water quality testing
7. Approval of a sole source procurement from Dry Creek Landfill
8. Approval of a contract with Pathway Enterprises for janitorial services
9. Appointment of Sylvia Schmelling to the Band Board
10. Re-appointment of Doug Diehl,M.D. to the Ashland Community Hospital Board of Directors
11. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution transferring appropriations within the FY 2011-12
budget"
12. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing
appropriations within the 2011-2012 budget"
13. Approval of a ground lease for the Civil Air Patrol hangar
14. Approval of an amendment to the contract with Urban Development Services, LLC for additional
costs on the Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project
AJ/iLA/VU(U7 Y CUU/VCIL ML L I MU
June 19, 1011
Page 2 of 9
Mayor Stromberg pulled Consent Agenda item#11 for further discussion.
Councilor Slattery noted Consent Agenda item 5. 2012-2013 Chamber of Commerce/Visitor &
Convention Bureau and Oregon Shakespeare Festival tourism promotion contracts, and agenda item 5.
Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General Penalties,
Section 1.08.005F., 1.08.0101A.(1), and 1.08.020 to Effectuate Proposed Ordinance Adding AMC 10.120
`Persistent Violation' and AMC 10.125 `Persistent Failure to Appear'," under ORDINANCES,
RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS, disclosed his wife was the Executive Director of the Ashland Chamber
of Commerce and declared there was neither an actual nor a potential conflict of interest regarding these items.
Councilor Silbiger pulled Consent Agenda items 43 and#14 for further discussion.
Councilor Chapman/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda with the exception of #3, #11, and #14.
Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed.
Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg explained the transfer of appropriations would ensure the
City did not incur a budget violation. Staff increased the total amounts in the transfer to accommodate two
departments that indentified expenses that could push them over the total, and submitted the updated resolution
into the record.
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda item#11.
Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Silbiger was not comfortable with exceeded costs for the Hersey-Wimer re-alignment, disagreed with
cost overruns in general, and would not support either agenda items. Councilor Chapman agreed the project had
escalated in costs but would support it at this time. Councilor Slattery shared Councilor Silbiger's concern.
Engineering Services Manager Jim Olson explained the project involved complicated land transfers and
adjustments to fix the intersection. During the process, they found a better option that resulted in the re-design
but the schedule remained the same.
Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items#3 and #14.
Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO.
Motion passed 5-1.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public Hearing to increase miscellaneous fees and charges and approve Resolution.
Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg described the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document.
He corrected the date on the draft resolution and noted a correction to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges
document under the Conditional Use Permit fee for Type 1 review for Accessory Residential Units changing the
fee to $638 instead of$982. Another change clarified Jackson County Commissioners set the mileage rate for
an ambulance run. Mr. Tuneberg suggested a new fee for Daily Parking permits of$5 for the first day then $1
for each additional day for parking.
Public Hearing Open: 7:27 p.m.
Public Hearing Closed: 7:27 p.m.
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Resolution #2012-21. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
Chapman, Silbiger,Morris, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Mark Dennett/328 Otis Street/Submitted a document into the record and requested Council reconsider their
AJ'HLANU 1:17 r t.'UUNCIL MP L771VO
June 19, 1011
Page 3 of 9
policy towards vacation home rentals and direct staff to review the 30-year old ordinance. He thought vacation
home rentals should be separate from the hotel-motel category.
Eliza Kauder/709 Glendale Avenue/Read from a document submitted into the record that described the odor
from her neighbor's medical marijuana garden was so strong it created a nuisance that violated the Ashland
Municipal Code 9.08.060 Nuisances Affecting the Public Health. She requested Council consider a preventative
ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana gardens within 75-feet of a neighbor's property line.
Council consensus directed staff to research and bring information regarding the vacation home ordinance and
medical marijuana growing to a future Study Session.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. A Resolution adopting an opt-out policy for the Automated Meter Reading Program and repealing
resolution No. 2012-14
City Administrator Dave Kanner provided background on the radio frequency meters that resulted in the Opt-out
Policy Council passed during the May 15, 2012 meeting. Since then, the City received 398 calls requesting to
opt-out. Councilors Moms and Chapman each requested a resolution creating an opt-out fee go before Council
for further discussion.
Councilor Silbiger/Chapman m/s to limit Public Testimony to two-minutes per person. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Silbiger thought an hour and a half was an excessive amount of time for public testimony on a topic
previously discussed. Councilor Voisin did not agree to limiting testimony to two-minutes. Councilor
Chapman clarified the discussion was whether the City should charge a fee for the Opt-out Policy not health
issues relating to the meters. Voice Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Silbiger, and Chapman, YES;
Councilor Voisin and Slattery, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
John Hacker/865 Wrights Creek Drive/Reviewed prior Budgets and determined citizens who planned to opt
out would actually save the City money. He asked Council to stop the smart meter conversion and not charge an
opt-out fee.
Allan Peterson/807 Beach Street/Agreed with Council's earlier decision not to charge an opt-out fee, and
thought bringing the fee back for discussion was unfair.
Alan Sasha Lithman/669 Park Street/Questioned the ethics and reason Council was re-considering an opt-out
fee after so many people had opted out. He hoped Council would stay with their original decision.
Selene Aitken/446 Heiman Street/Expressed concern for future situations where technologies created
unanticipated consequences. She wanted the process to be collaborative with City, Council, and citizens instead
of antagonistic.
Will Wilkenson/2940 Old Hwy 99 South/Commented citizens received automated meters without their
permission and should not have to pay an opt-out fee.
Curt Anderson/248 Fifth Street/Opposed having to shoulder the costs of others wanting to opt-out of the
program and thought Ashland was infested with a conspiracy of quackery regarding smart meters.
Dr. Bonnie Nedrow/730 Walnut Street/Explained she was a naturopathic physician specializing in
environmental medicine. She noted the hidden health costs with smart meters and expressed concern lower
income people might not be able to afford to opt-out.
Elissa Walsh/]409 Talent Avenue, Talent, OR/Read a letter from Paula Baker Laportte.
AJHLANL CH Y CUUNCIL Mtt771Vli
June 19, 2012
Page 4 of 9
Shady Sirotkin/164 Eastbrook Way/Explained the California Public Utility Commission received thousands
of health complaints relating to smart meters and subsequent lawsuits. She did not see how others would
shoulder opt-out costs that Mr. Anderson stated during his testimony, noted health related facts, and supported
Ms. Aitken's testimony regarding collaboration.
Eric Sirotkin/164 Eastbrook Way/Encouraged Council to reject the fee and conduct a financial study based on
facts not a company's profit.
Avram Sacks/1059 Park Street/Followed Marin County in California regarding the harmful health effects of
smart meters and just discovered he had a smart meter on his house. He disagreed with charging a fee on
something he was unaware he had in the first place.
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Agreed with several speakers. She had a smart meter unbeknownst to her,
did not know the health affects either way,but thought the pre-cautionary principle was prudent.
Joan Franklin/615 Talent #9, Talent, OR/Shared her experiences being hypersensitive to radio frequency
radiation, living in a condominium with extremely high radio frequencies and how those symptoms were
alleviated by moving. She supported the Opt-out Policy but not charging a fee.
David Winston/615 Talent #9, Talent, OR/Supported Ms. Franklin's testimony, and everyone opposing an
Opt-out Policy fee.
Dr. Casey Frieder/374 Cambridge Street/Thought the City should completely opt out of the conversion to
smart meters.
Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Spoke on behalf of Respect Ashland Coalition and explained their
premise. He stated the Coalition would elect councilors interested in finding solutions for the city, and
addressing healthcare concerns of the citizenry as well as other issues. The Coalition also wanted the City to
stop installing radio frequency meters and allow for analog meters.
Brooks Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Addressed the health consciousness of the community and
suggested adding smart meters to the ballot, stopping the conversion and mandating analog meters.
Greg Carey/268 Myers Creek Road/Wanted to know if there was a cost benefit analysis on smart meters and
what the opt-out fee actually covered.
Yasna Pecaric/1172 N Main Street/Read a letter from a Chief Executive Officer of the Marine Association of
Realtors to the President San Francisco Utilities Commission supporting analog meters and not charging opt-out
fees.
Anna Keppen/886 Palmer Road/Had financial and health risk concerns regarding the Opt-out Policy and read
quotes from other areas opposing opt-out fees.
Ali Wessel/333 Idaho Street/Was willing to pay a fee to opt out even though she had an analog meter but
wanted to know what the real costs were.
Dr. Doug Falkner/Ashland/Read from an Ashland Physicians Position Statement on smart meters he submitted
into the record.
Dominique Shelton/55 Brooks Lane/Suggested charging customers with smart meters the $120 it cost the City
to replace their meter then give them the $142 monthly discount it would cost to read their meters wirelessly
and commented that the conversion did not make sense overall.
ASHLAND U11 CUUNCIL MEL IINU
June 19, 2012
Page 5 of 9
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Submitted documents into the record, shared her experience with public
information requests, commented on the operating decision process and the need to listen to the constituency.
Orianna Spratt/212 Patterson/Commented on the cost residents had paid and would pay to replace analog
meters with smart meters when the only benefit for the conversion was eliminating one Meter Reader position.
She urged Council to uphold the earlier decision not to charge opt-out fees.
Jim Fong/759 Leonard Street/Summarized public input, and urged Council to not charge an opt-out fee, stop
the conversion until there was a cost benefit analysis, and mandate the option for analog replacement meters in
the interim.
Mr. Kanner explained the original fee staff proposed was $60 to remove a radio frequency meter with a $10
dollar monthly charge to cover reading analog meters. Council doubled both fees then during the May 15, 2012
meeting made the decision not to charge fees. Staff was now suggesting any resident with a smart meter could
opt out at no charge prior to July 31, 2012, after that date it would cost $60, slightly less than the actual cost to
disconnect-connect. When a route was ready for conversion, the City would provide a fee-free deadline to opt
out as well. Staff recommended a $5 monthly fee to read a meter manually that was half the actual cost.
Council could decide to start the monthly fee after a route was converted, or when the entire city converted.
Currently one Meter Reader with the help of temporary workers read all of the 11,000 meters monthly. Having
200 residents opt out would increase temporary workers slightly, having 1,000-2,000 residents opt out would
require hiring a half time employee. One option to retain one Meter Reader was converting the entire city to
radio frequency meters immediately and allow people to opt out free of charge. Mr. Kanner added the new
Utilities Director would explore other options. Acting Assistant City Administrator Lee Tuneberg clarified the
cost to change out radio frequency meters,parts and labor was approximately$92 without the overhead.
Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to continue with a no-fee Opt-out Policy and have additional discussion
with staff on the cost benefit analysis or if we do not have it, do it now.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery thought the City needed to do a cost benefit analysis and be cognizant of
health issues. It was unfair to make people pay extra because they had health concerns.
Councilor Voisin thought citizens had the right to opt out without any charge and was not convinced meter
reading cost $5 per residence. Councilor Lemhouse noted the economic factor involved taxpayers' and
therefore was important. He was not comfortable having the City install items on someone's property that could
cause injury without the property owners' full knowledge. He supported a no fee opt-out policy but had
reservations continuing to install radio frequency meters in the city.
Councilor Silbiger would not support the motion and clarified it was radio frequency meters, not smart meters.
Smart meters provided load management needed for the future. Radio frequency technology was already
prevalent in households through others means. Not installing them would prove costly and regressive.
Councilor Chapman thought the City should have instituted an Opt-in Policy initially and provided those who
did a $5 discount. He would support the motion but thought staffs proposed switch out fee was reasonable and
most likely the City would have delayed the$5 monthly charge anyway.
Councilor Moms agreed with Councilor Silbiger. Eventually Ashland would have to convert to some form of
smart meter or similar technology in order to meet all the demands placed on the grid. He shared his experience
reading meters with Environmental Biologist Jim Haim, the numbers were not there, and expressed
disappointment to see fear tactics happening in his home town. He wanted Ms. Hartzell to explain when she
was on Council and they initially approved radio frequency meters where the cost analysis was that supported
that decision. Mayor Stromberg observed the different views expressed and recognized persuasion would not
change them. He suggested a citizen measure to establish a policy about adopting certain technologies in the
city. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Chapman, Slattery, and Voisin, YES; Councilor Morris and
Silbiger,NO. Motion passed 4-2.
ANHLANU C11'r CUUNCIL MEL771VU
June 19, 2012
Page 6 of 9
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Discussion of elimination of Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) fare reduction program and
increase in funding for the bus pass program
Public Works Director Mike Faught explained in 2009 Council added a 15 minute service by reinstating Route
15 and reduced and subsidized fares within city limits to increase ridership that proved unsuccessful. When
Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) extended hours and provided Saturday service, there was a 22.5%
increase in ridership within city limits. In 2011, RVTD reduced frequency from 30 minutes to 20 minutes
service and Council was able to eliminate Route 15. If Council decided to discontinue the fare reduction
program, staff recommended increasing the amount of money for the bus pass program through the Senior
Center from $10,000 to $33,000. The Department of Health and Services would administer the fixed fare for
riders aged 18-61 years old. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) would provide a free bus
program to Ashland residents who received open benefits from the State of Oregon similar to the Oregon Trails
program.
When the City eliminated Route 15, the budget went from $270,000 to $80,000. Continuing the fare reduction
program would cost $96,000 and cover the 22.5%increase in ridership.
Mr. Faught confirmed the $33,000 was an appropriate amount for the bus pass program for the Senior Center.
Staff would review the process in two months to monitor success and ensure no one slipped through the cracks.
Removing the fare reduction subsidy would not affect bus service. RVTD would continue their extended
program. Ashland was the only city in the Rogue Valley with a fare reduction program. Currently RVTD had a
$1 fare reduction program for riders' 10-17, 62 and older, Medicare holders, and people with disabilities. Staff
was working with Southern Oregon University (SOU) and RVTD regarding programs for students.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to discontinue the current Transit Fare Subsidy program with RVTD
effective June 30, 2012 and to increase the bus program from $10,000 to $33,000 to be allocated as
described in the staff report. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman thought the $33,000 was a reasonable
amount and was interested in the City collaborating with businesses to share the cost of bus passes for
employees. Councilor Lemhouse thought cities should subsidize mass transit to increase ridership and help
people in need. Councilor Silbiger noted pluses and minuses for keeping the dollar subsidy and increasing bus
pass program. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Voisin, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Morris,
YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2012 to
and including June 30, 2012, such taxes in the sum of $10,083,098 upon all the real and personal
property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson
County, Oregon."
Councilor Chapman/Slattery m/s to approve Ordinance #3065. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery,
Chapman, Morris, Voisin, Silbiger,YES; Councilor Lemhouse,NO.Motion passed 5-1.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS -continued
2. Discussion of whether to refer to the November ballot an advisory resolution expressing City of
Ashland's support for a Constitutional amendment to eliminate "personhood" for corporations and
unions for purposes of campaign expenditure limitations and to stop treating money as speech for
political purposes.
John Tyler/812 Plum Ridge Drive/Explained they were not asking Council to vote on the merits of the
amendment but to use Council authority to get it on the ballot so the people of Ashland could have a say.
Elizabeth Hallett/938 Mt. Meadows Circle/Shared her experience voting in Oregon and why she supported
ANHLA/VU C17 Y CUUNCIL MLL'/7NC,'
June 19, 1012
Page 7 of 9
Move to Amend.
Frances Dunham/807 Beach Street/Compared personhood for corporations and unions as legalized bribery
and hoped Council would give them a chance to vote regarding it.
Jeff Golden/925 Oak Street/Spoke on jurisdiction and hoped Council would put it on the ballot.
John Wieczorek/165 Orange Avenue/Asked Council to place it on the ballot and join the largest bipartisan
grass roots movement in the country that consisted of 272 communities that had passed Move to Amend
resolutions and went on to share how personhood affected local businesses.
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Supported Move to Amend and thought it was an appropriate initiative to
forward to the constituency because it affected governance at the local level.
Evan Lasley/110 7" Street/Described the first meeting of Jackson County Move to Amend and noted Move to
Amend was growing nationally and Council should consider adding it to the ballot.
Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to instruct staff to prepare an enabling advisory ordinance for the
November ballot with an emergency clause to come to the Council's July 17, 2012 meeting.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin explained the citizenry did not have the option of placing an advisory
question on the ballot by direct petition according to Article 4 of the Oregon Constitution because it applied to
legislative issues only not advisory but Council could. Councilor Slattery supported the motion. Councilor
Lemhouse commented on his earlier objections regarding how the item came before Council, supported it going
on the ballot, and suggested the citizens have it apply to all organizations specified in the Supreme Court
decision. Councilor Chapman supported enabling legislation that allowed advisory questions by referral and
initiative but not by declaring an emergency to get it on ballot. Council needed time to discuss appropriate
process. Councilor Silbiger confirmed the motion would allow Council to refer a measure to the voters and not
have voters add it via initiative petition.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Voisin, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Morris, Silbiger, and
Chapman,NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
ORDINANCES,RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS -continued
2. November 2012 Local Option Levy for enhanced library services draft ballot measure and approval
of a resolution titled,"Resolution of the City of Ashland and Jackson County, Oregon to submit to the
voters at the November 6, 2012 General Election a funding initiative to levy up to $.21 per $1000
assessed property value for the purpose of providing enhanced library services at the Ashland Public
Library for a period of four years beginning July 1, 2012"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
3. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10 Public Peace,
Morals, and Safety by adding Sections 10.120 `Persistent Violations' and 10.125 `Persistent Failure to
Appear'."
Gretchen Vos/1673 Parker Street/Spoke on behalf of the citizens' group Ashland for Inclusion who supported
efforts to reduce crime in ways that were affective and constitutional. The group disagreed with the persistent
violations laws and thought the City had not sufficiently addressed the issues raised by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU).
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Read from an email she received from ACLU of Oregon Executive Director
David Fidanque in response to City Attorney Dave Lohman's correspondence describing alternatives to both
ordinances.
AJHLANU C11-Y CUUNCIL MLL11NO
June 19, 2012
Page 8 of 9
Eric Navickas/2060 Mill Creek Drive, Prospect/The ordinance would not address situations like the fire that
took place in the downtown area. He thought the City could have been prevented the fire if there was a day use
center with trained staff providing outreach. There was no reason that someone should not have addressed this
individual's problem, found his medication, and contacted the Veterans Administration Services. The exclusion
zone was not a solution to these types of situations and if applied in the extreme, could discriminate and exclude
specific groups of people.
Assistant City Attorney Doug McGeary explained the process for the Persistent Failure to Appear ordinance. If
someone failed to appear for court three times within a 12-month period, the City Attorney's office would file a
failure to appear, the Ashland Police Department would serve the citation requesting the individual come to
Court within three days to explain why they failed to appear. If they did not appear at that point, the Court
would decide whether to expel them from the area they committed the violation. This aspect of the ordinance
would apply throughout Ashland and not just the downtown area.
City Attorney Dave Lohman read the ordinance title aloud, and changes that removed Ashland Municipal
Code (AMC) 10.120.020 Section C. Changes to AMC 10.120.040(B) added: "...or more than one year
unless the court finds it necessary to:" In AMC 10.25.010, staff changed the reference to AMC Subsection 1
from 10.120.020 to ORS 133.060 or 133.070. AMC 10.125.010(1)(a) added: "...requiring a court
appearance," to the end of the paragraph. AMC 10.125.020 Subsection (2)(B) (i) added: "...requiring a
court appearance," to the end of the paragraph. In AMC 10.125.020(b) following AMC 120.020.01O13:
"...or other area of the city of Ashland the court deems materially related to the persons, crimes, or
violations, or the protection of the public..." AMC 10.125.020(3) added: "...but not to exceed one year..."
to the end of the sentence.
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3066 as amended. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Voisin did not think there was enough evidence to indicate an increase in crime in the downtown area harmful to
citizens or an increase of problems period and that the ordinances targeted the homeless.
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance to require regular reporting to the Council on
relevant issues related to this ordinance effects including but not limited to numbers and types of
violations, offenders, failures to appear, exclusions and arrests after exclusion. Motion died for lack of a
second.
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance so it will sunset after a specific period of time and not
be renewed unless at that time, a majority of Council vote that a preponderance of evidence shows that is
beneficial. Motion died for lack of a second.
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the ordinance AMC 10.120.020 Section A to remove point 4 which
lists the five city ordinances that could be used as a basis for an order of exclusion. Sections 1 23 naming
felonies and misdemeanors as grounds would remain as they stand in the proposed ordinance. Motion
died for lack of a second.
Councilor Slattery clarified this was an issue about abusive behavior, not homelessness, and citizens had the
right to establish behavior.
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s called for the question. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger,
Slattery,Lemhouse, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Slattery, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES;
Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
AJHLANU C11 Y CUUNC7L MLL71Nl/
June 19, 2012
Page 9 of 9
4. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 General
Penalties, Section 1.08.005F., 1.08.0101A.(1), and 1.08.020 to Effectuate Proposed Ordinance Adding
AMC 10.120 `Persistent Violation' and AMC 10.125 `Persistent Failure to Appear'."
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance#3067. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Silbiger called for the question. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Morris, Lemhouse,
Chapman, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Voisin,NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Roll Call Vote on the main motion: Councilor Silbiger, Morris, Lemhouse, Chapman, and Slattery, YES;
Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
5. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution amending the pay schedule for management and
confidential employees for Fiscal Year 2012-2013"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
6. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City of Ashland clarifying certain conditions of
employment for management and confidential employees and repealing Resolution 2011-21"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
7. Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the development standards for
wireless communication facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use
Ordinance"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
8. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the general regulations chapter(18.68)
if the Ashland Land Use Ordinance to establish setback requirements for chicken coops and chicken
runs"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting.
9. First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance establishing provisions within the health and
sanitation chapter(9.08)of the Ashland Municipal Code for the keeping of chickens within residential
districts"
Item delayed to the July 17, 2012 Council meeting. .
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m.
Barbara Christensen,City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
VPa ¢gr/aJ ¢q�'aJ 6gVasJ QqV� ¢qV�J �VOa QgVaa ([qVP}� {
b n b
PROCLAMATION
•
In August, 1945, atomic bombs instantly reduced the cities of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki to rubble, taking hundreds of thousands of precious lives. D�
In June, 1982, the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki called on Mayors from
y around the world to join them in working together to press for nuclear ? Q
1 abolition. y ��
�yq • The program created by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is called
1 Mayors for Peace and is currently composed of 5,298 cities in 153 countries
y°fC and regions around the world dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Q
The City of Ashland declared itself a Nuclear Free Zone by resolution in 1981 . � Q
• The City of Ashland joined the Mayors for Peace in 1998.
There are currently 6 Cities in Oregon who have also joined Mayors for Peace.
The current goal of the Mayors for Peace is for a total abolition of all nuclear C
weapons by the year 2020. D
• This year on August 6 through August 9, 2012 Ashland will join cities around
the world for a Hiroshima-Nagasaki Vigil in order to remember the events of
1945 and to promote the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. ➢
° .2
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of
Ashland, hereby proclaim August 6, 2012 as: ➢d
�9
"Hiroshima Day " S.
D and hereby proclaim August 9, 2012 as: y
Q✓ "Nagasaki Day" 6 °
in the City of Ashland and invite all citizens to participate in the Hiroshima-
Nagasaki vigil activities. 6
6Q
D6 Dated this 17th day of July, 2012. D 9 Q
"Q John Stromberg, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder v°
y . Gr
C I T Y Of
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
May 2, 2012
Community Development/Engineering Services Building-51 Winburn Way-Siskiyou Room
CALL TO ORDER—REGULAR MEETING, 6:00 am
Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom,Keith Swink,Tom Giordano,Ally Phelps(arrived late),S am
Whitford,A Ilison Renwick,Terry Skibby,Victoria Law
Commission Members Absent: Kerry Kencaim(u),Tom Giordano(e),
Council Liaison:Greg Lemhouse,absent
High School Liaison: None Appointed
SOU Liaison: None Appointed
Staff Present: Planner:Amy Gunter;Cl erk: Billie Boswell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Swink moved to approve the April 4, 2072 minutes. The motion was seconded by Chairman Shostrom and was
approved unanimously.
Chairman Shostrom welcomed new Historic Commissioner,Victoria Law.
PUBLIC FORUM: No one in the audience wished to speak.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Ms. Boswell read an email from Mr. Lemhouse regarding upkeep and landscaping of
Plaza and future plans for a re-design.
PUBLIC HEARING:
A. PLANNINGACTION: 2012-00434
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 843 B Street
OWNER/APPLICANT: Chris and Molly Holzshu
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review approval to construct a 492 square foot Accessory Residential Unit
above a two vehicle garage adjacent to the alley for the property located at 843 B Street. Residential units less
than 500 square feet in size are considered Accessory Residential Units according to Ashland Municipal Code
18.24.040
Ms. Gunter explained that residential units had been added without the proper permits. The applicants are
requesting to remove the back structure and to add an ARU and a garage. Staff has no concerns. Mark Knox
and Charlie Hamilton, representing the applicants, commented on their desire to convert the main house back to
a single family residence and replace the non-conforming structure with a garage with an ARU on top. There
being no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. The Commissioners liked the
design but felt the windows should be plain, non-divided light,double hung style to match the main house.
Mr. Whitford made a motion to recommend approval of the project with the recommendation that double-hung,
single pane windows be used Mr. Swink seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/10/2012
CITY OF
ASHLAND
B. PLANNING ACTION: 2012-00440
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 27 N Main
OWNERIAPPLICANT: Mark McKechnie
DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review approval to modify the stairwell damaged by a fire through a
relocation of the existing stair landing for the property located at 27 North Main. The Site Review is triggered by
the exterior modification to the building resulting from the stair landing relocation, not by the structural repairs of
the fire damage.
Ms. Gunter explained the trim will be required to match the original building and the handrails will end at the
bottom of the stairs without wrapping around to the outside of the building. The awning would also be shortened
so that it doesn't extend over the stairs. There was no owner or representative present and there was no one in
the audience wishing to speak. The public hearing was closed.
Mr.Skibby made a motion to recommend approval of the project as presented by staff. Mr. Swink seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously.
C. PLANNING ACTION:2012-0265
APPLICANT: Ashland Food Cooperative
LOCATION: C-1-&C-1-D-zoned portions of the Historic Interest Area
REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Ashland Municipal Code as it relates to drive-up uses in Commercial
districts. Drive-up uses are currently a special permitted use in the C-1 zoning district, but only in the area east
of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard.
Drive-up uses are currently explicitly prohibited in the Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposal is to provide exception language which would apply only to existing drive-up uses within the
Historic Interest Area and would allow them to relocate to a new site elsewhere within the Historic Interest Area
provided that they are located predominantly underground or otherwise screened from view from the public right-
of-way.
Chairman Shostrom asked if there were any conflicts of interest or exparte contacts. Ms. Law recused herself.
Ms. Gunter explained that the planner, Derek Severson, incorporated previous concerns and recommendations
of the Historic Commission such as a definition of underground, ventilation, ingress&egress to streets or alleys,
visibility and safety, and special permitted use. Planner, Mark Knox and Richard Katz, general manager of
Ashland Co-op discussed why they are asking for this Code Change which is to allow better use of the Bank
properties, such as Wells Fargo and Chase, in the historic downtown area. The original restrictions on drive ups
were based on air quality and vehicle centric use. But with the design of the buildings as done in the late 50's
through the 70's, they are incompatible with the historic downtown architecture and usage is limited. They are
asking that those buildings with existing drive-ups be able to re-locate or re-build creating a drive-up that is
underground and screened from view from the public right-of-way.
Mr. Knox pointed out an omission in the packet document on section 18.32.025 E.2.a. It should have"redevelop
onsite or relocate to another site in the verbiage. Mr. Knox pointed out there were only 4 drive-ups in the
Historic District. There was discussion regarding"predominately screened".
There being no further questions of the applicants and no one in the audience wishing to speak, the public
hearing was closed.
Ms. Renwick made a motion to recommend supporting the proposed amendment with the addition of more
detailed performance standards which would he considered as part of the Site Review process including the
proposed language which allowed for relocation and redevelopment when compliant with the new standards.
Mr. Whitford seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes -
711012012
CITY OF
ASHLAND
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Unified Land Use Code Kick-off Presentation - Maria Harris, Ashland Long Range Planner. The original
Land Use Code was adopted in 1964 and has been amended many times, plus additional documents have
been added such as the Site Design Standards, Street Standards, Trees, etc. City Council made it a goal
that the document be consistent, concise and user-friendly. Ms. Harris is seeking recommendations and
input from the advisory commissions of those things that need to be clarified and reorganized. She said the
rewrite would be done on a 12-month timeline using the State code as a framework. Public involvement
would include public meetings, a newsletter, Open City Hall (web), and a Project website. The Planning
Commission suggested targeted meeting instead of general open houses.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Review Board Schedule
May 3r1 Terry, Keith,A Ilison
May 1011 Terry,Ally, Sam
May 17�1 Terry,Tom,A II
May 241 Terry, Dale, Kerry
May 3111 Terry,Allison,Victoria
June 7U Terry, Keith,All
B. Project Assi nments for Planning Actions
BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bld s Recession Extension approved)) Shostrom/Giordano
PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia W y(formerly 165 Lithia Archerd&Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg—(Expired 712517o) Renwick
BD-2011-00855 165 W Fork—New SFR on hillside(new owner-Suncrest Hms)(under construction) Swink/Shostrom
BD-2011-00436 426 A St(Sidney Brown)Mixed Use Bldg (permit issued 5-18-11)) Giordano
PA-2009-00785 255 E Main(Ashland Elks)Balcony on rear(No permit yet-,expired 8127170.) Swink
PA-2010-00069 175 N Pioneer Deli Terrell (Previous owner taking back ownersho&hxin ) Shostrom
BD-2011-01029 400 Allison Robin Biermann New SFR (Ready to issue) Whitford/Renwick
BD-2011-00820 156 Seventh Annie McIntyre) (issued 7-12-11) Renwick
BD-2011-00368 928 C St 92 Eighth St Charter ARU (issued 7-11-11)) Swink
BD-2011-01059 260 First St S ken house to retail sales (aMeated-bidg permit issued 8-25-11) Phelps
PA-2011-00244 485 A St Hoxmeier enclosed porch&food truck (no permit) Giordano
BD-2011-01079 134 Terrace Allman New SFR(issued 2-77-72) Whitford
BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New fa ade on building under construction Shostrom
BD-2011-00802 66 Scenic(Forsyth)Solar Variance (issued 7-15-11) -Phelps
PL-2011-01781 191 Oak St(Cycle Sport)Site Design for enlarging garage issued 1-31-12 Kencairri
PL-2011-01656 181 Morse(Malms)CUP to exceed MPFA for ARU Fisher
PL-2012-00434 843 B St Holzshu ARU Renwick
PL-2012-00440 27 N Main McKechnie Comm Site Review Shostrom
C. Attendance Report-Ms.Gunter discussed the issues that were coming up in regards to absences and
Commissioners losing their positions. Management is still discussing.
D. Historic Preservation Week-begins May 12"'. All events are organized and ready.
ADJOURNMENT:
It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Ashland Historic Commission Minutes
7/1072012
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
May 23,2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Regina Ayars called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main St.
Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: Council Liaison
Regina Ayars Carol Voisin
Brett Ainsworth
Barb Barasa Staff Present:
Evan Lasley Linda Reid, Housing Specialist
Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Clerk
Commissioners Absent
Richard Billin, excused
Ben Scott, excused
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Lasley/Ainsworth m/s to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2012 regular Housing Commission meeting. Voice
Vote: All Ayes minutes were approved as presented.
PUBLIC FORUM
No public comments were made.
UNIFIED LAND USE CODE PROJECT KICK-OFF
Maria Harris Planning Manager with the City of Ashland Community Development Department introduced herself.
She has been a professional planner for eighteen years and has spent the last fifteen years at the City of Ashland.
Harris explained that the City of Ashland is undertaking a project to combine the Ashland Land Use Ordinance and
related development standards into a Unified Land Use Code with improved organization, wording, formatting and
graphics. The original document was adopted in 1964 and has been amended many times throughout the years.
Harris explained that the goal of the project is to present the information contained in the existing codes and
standards so the Land Use Ordinance is clear, consistent, concise, adaptable and user-friendly. This project
directly meets the City Council goal to "Increase the clarity, responsiveness and certainty of the development
process." The City is looking at a twelve month timeline with the goal to finish by March of 2013.
Recognizing that the Housing Commission might be interested in codes revolving around affordable housing the
staff will bring any changes that would affect Housing directly to their Commission. Brandon Goldman, Harris and
Reid will be available for any questions they might have. Updated information including project information,
meeting schedules and materials will be put on the city website at www.ashland.or.us/unifiedcode.
STUDENT PRESENTATIONS-HOUSING FIRST AND MANUFACTURED HOUSING
Pat Acklin, Associate Professor of Geography in the Social Sciences Policy and Culture Department at SOU gave
some background about her class and this project. Acklin is largely responsible for the land use planning
1
concentration in the SOU environmental studies degree. Acklin has a goal to provide students with an experience
that is authentic, to do work that is actually used by the public. Her class has worked on projects such as riparian
inventories, investigations into accessory units in various zones, fire zones, transportation counts, parking counts,
whatever needs to be done. She approached Reid and asked if she had ideas on what needed to be done and
Reid and Goldman suggestion looking into "Housing First."
Acklin said that all of these students have done posters as individual research projects that relate in some way to
Urban Planning with a housing focus. Acklin will send the pdf of these posters to Reid to provide her with additional
information.
The first presentation was given by Katy Higgins and Emily Carpenter. (James Johnstone was on their team but is
currently out of town at a track meet in Indiana)
Higgins explained that Housing First is part of Pathways to Housing Inc. They work with immensely disabled
individuals and individuals who have addictions to drug and alcohol with the intent of trying to find them stable
permanent housing in order to give them a better life. Higgins did her research for this project by reviewing various
cities website that have a Housing First Program. After reviewing various case studies it was determined that the
Housing First Program is a successful program. The next objective was to determine if it would be possible to
implement the program in Ashland.
Currently Ashland does not have a Housing First Program. With a population of twenty-two thousand people there
are approximately two-hundred twenty affordable housing units in Ashland. It has been estimated there are
approximately one thousand forty-nine homeless people in Jackson County. Various reasons for homelessness are
cited, some of which include; eroding employment opportunities, decline in public services and assistance, lack of
affordable housing and health care, mental illness, and addiction disorders.
The two questions to ask ourselves are: Are there people in our community who are experiencing homelessness as
well as psychiatric disabilities and co-occurring disorders who remain chronically homeless even after receiving the
available services?Are there people known to shelters, emergency rooms and employees who are frequently users
of their services and remain homeless? We believe the answer is yes to both questions and one way to improve -
the situation is to have a Housing First Program, stated Carpenter.
The students suggested implementing the program by initiating it through an existing agency that is already in
place. After checking various communities it was determined that the approximate budget would be one million five
hundred thousand dollars to run the program for a year. This includes salaries, nurses, and benefits for employees
etc.
The students determined that Housing First is possible in Ashland if we can fulfill the identified resources. They
acknowledged the City has homeless issues due to mental illness, drug or alcohol addictions and chronically
homelessness individuals. With proper funding re allocation of money and with community members willing to take
on the project we would be able to implement the program.
The next group of students, Kayla Carroll, Brian Cole, Andrew Hill, Kevin Moore, Shadassa Ourshalimian, Helim
Picado, Vincent Shelton, and Jolene Walker presented on the need for affordable housing in our Community. ,
The students believe one source to provide affordable housing is through manufactured homes and modular
homes. They believe however that the City of Ashland has ordinances in place that prohibit or at least make it
difficult to utilize manufactured homes within our community.
The students gave the many positive reasons why manufactured housing is a good choice for affordable housing.
They reviewed the codes in the local ordinance explaining the difficulties surrounding manufactured homes. They
compared like Cities throughout Oregon as well as Davis California explaining their land use codes and how they
made it a little more attainable.
2
The following are recommendations on ways to allow manufactured housing within our community a little easier to
attain.
• Match the minimum requirements for square footage that HUD requires. There is no minimum
square footage for single family homes so there should not be one for manufactured homes.
• Material consideration should not be more restrictive form manufactured homes than for stick built
homes.
• Garage or storage building requirements should be the same as for stick built
• Consider more opportunities for manufactured homes in higher density zones
• Set back requirements should be the same as for single family dwelling
• Consider allowing manufactured homes to not be placed on permanent foundations to take better
advantage of land lease opportunities and allow for"tiny homes'
• Allow exemptions for green technologies, such as metal roofs for rain catchments
• There should be no deck or patio requirement.
• One parking space requirement should allow exemptions for small lot configurations similar to
accessory residential units
• Allow small lot configurations similar to the Living smart program from Portland.
The Commissioners asked what would be the next step with these recommendations. Goldman said he and Harris
would review the recommendations and can propose chapter amendments when appropriate. Acklin will provide
the recommendations to both Reid and Goldman for their review.
NORMAL AVENUE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN UPDATE
Goldman explained that in May of 2012 the City Council authorized an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with
Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program to
undertake the development of the Normal Avenue neighborhood Plan. This is a ninety-four acre parcel south of
East Main Street and North of the Railroad Tracks between Walker Street and Clay Street.
This is the largest remaining parcel that currently has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of 66% suburban
residential, which is a similar plan type as Chautauqua Trace or Buds Dairy. The remainder of the parcel has a
Comprehensive Plan of Single Family Residential. This parcel was originally subdivided according to County
standards and includes approximately twenty-five property owners and vacant lots. The area is within the Urban
Growth Boundary but outside the city limits. Historically the City has not annexed property into the city limits without
the applicant first initiating it. This would still be the case with these properties even though a master plan
development would be in place.
The scope of work is intended to begin on June first. The City already has organized a neighborhood meeting
which was well attended. Those present shared their concerns such as an increase in traffic, the loss of residential
feel, confirmation that they would still be able to develop according to county standards. By putting together a
master plan the property owners would then have a-predictable outcome for their neighborhood as opposed to
applying for planning actions independently.
This is expected to be about a year long process and as it moves forward Goldman stated they would be coming
back to the advisory boards and commissions for their input. The public will be invited to open houses and the
Planning Commission will have a Study Session, ultimately going through the public adoption process. The reason
the City initiated this master plan for this neighborhood is because of the Regional Problem Solving efforts and
Ashland's decision to not expand its Urban Growth Boundary. It is the City's responsibility to identify and
accommodate for the future population.
LIAISON REPORTS DISCUSSION
Council—No report
Staff — Reid reported that Project Community Connect is moving forward and as always they need volunteers,
sponsors and donations. The event will be held at the Medford Armory on June 22. Ayars asked to put the
Preservation property update including a report on Sun Village on next month's agenda.
3
FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Reid received a call from Diane Hess at the Fair Housing Council. They applied for a HUD Grant in order to get a
presence in our area. This Regional Person would be available to coordinate the fair housing events, go to
meetings, be a resource guide and provide training. Hess let Reid know they received that grant for a part time
person though no time line has been established yet. The Commissioners are interested in putting together a
survey for new SOU Students to fill out upon orientation. Perhaps this new person can work on the Fair Housing
Ordinance as well as put together the survey for the students.
AinsworthyLasley m/s to remove option "0" including student status as a protected class" from the
current draft of the fair housing ordinance and move to forward the current draft to the Council for
approval. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed.
JUNE 27TH, 2012 MEETING AGENDA ITEMS -
Quorum check; everyone will be available for the meeting
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Project Community Connect Event—June 22, 2012, Medford Armory 9-4 PM
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
June 27, 2012 4:30-6:30 PM
ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
June 12,2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street,
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J.Brown,Jr. Bill Molnar,Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson,Associate Planner
Eric Heesacker April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Melanie Mindlin Dennis Slattery,absent
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Marsh welcomed Commissioner Miller back to the Commission.Community Development Director Bill Molnar
announced the public meeting schedule for the Downtown Plaza Improvement project. He also noted Council has approved first
reading of the Wireless Ordinance,which includes a provision for independent review if facilities are not co-located,and at their
next meeting the Council will review changes to the keeping of chickens ordinance.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes.
1. April 24,2012 Study Session.
2. May 8,2012 Regular Meeting.
3. May 22,2012 Study Session.
Commissioners KaplanlHeesacker m/s to approve the Consent Agenda.Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed 6-0.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak. .
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Approval of Findings for PA-2012.00018,2220 Ashland Street.
Ex Parte Contact: No ex parte contact was reported:
Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2012-00018.Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed
5-0.[Commissioner Miller abstained]
NEW BUSINESS
A. Election of Officers.
Commissioners DawkinslHeesacker m/s to nominate Melanie Mindlin as chair of the Planning Commission.Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed 6.0.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12, 2012
Page 1 of 7
Commissioners KaplanlHeesacker m1s to nominate Michael Dawkins as vice chair of the Planning Commission.Voice
Vote:all AYES.Motion passed 6-0.
It was agreed Commissioner Marsh would lead this meeting since Mindlin is not present.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00265
APPLICANT: Ashland Food Cooperative
LOCATION(S): C-1-&C-1-D-zoned portions of Ashland's"Historic Interest Area"
REQUEST: A proposal to amend the Ashland Municipal Code(AMC 18.32.035.E)as it relates to drive-up.uses in
Commercial districts. Drive-up uses are currently a special permitted use in the C-1 zoning district,but only in the
area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou
Boulevard. Drive-up uses are currently explicitly prohibited in the Historic Interest Area as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed legislative amendment is to provide exception language which would apply
only to existing drive-up uses within the Historic Interest Area and would allow them to relocate to a new site
elsewhere within the Historic Interest Area provided that they are located predominantly underground or otherwise
screened from view from the public right-of-way.[Continued from May 8, 2012 meeting]
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson explained the proposal before the Commission would modify the regulations in the C-1 and
C-1-D districts relative to drive-up uses in the Historic Interest Area. Under the current regulations, new drive-up uses are
prohibited and any modification to the existing uses(Umpqua Bank,Wells Fargo,US Bank, Chase Bank)requires a conditional
use permit. Mr. Severson stated this proposal would modify the requirements to allow redevelopmentirelocation of drive-ups
elsewhere in the Historic Interest Area subject to site review approval as a special permitted use.
Mr. Severson stated the initial public hearing was continued to allow review by the Transportation Commission,and the draft
minutes from that meeting have been provided. He explained at the end of the Transportation Commission's discussion the
members were polled and two members were negative,one was neutral,one was slightly positive,and one abstained.There
were no specific concerns or recommendations issued by the Transportation Commission. Mr. Severson noted the matrix
included in the packet materials and stated the areas in blue identify the areas affected by this proposal. He clarified Umpqua
Bank is addressed separately in the matrix because they are in a split-zoned property and neither zone allows drive-up uses.
Mr.Severson briefly reviewed the staff recommendations and asked for the Commission's feedback on the issue of visibility and
screening.
Commission Comments
Comment was made questioning how you would eliminate visibility and that this provision seems impractical for buildings that
are surrounded by streets.Additional comment was made that there is some benefit to seeing how many cars are in the cue;
and as long as it is not intrusive on the neighborhood,visibility is not a major concern.
Applicant's Presentation
Mark KnoxlMr. Knox voiced their support for excluding food and beverage uses and requiring ministerial permits for tracking.
He stated they do not see any negative associations with this proposal and believe it will provide the ability for economic
development, historic preservation,and the redevelopment of surface parking lots into main street facades.He stated without
this proposal these sites will continue to exist in their current state and will not be redeveloped to Ashland's standards. Mr. Knox
stated he understands some people believe downtown should be pedestrian only, but this is not realistic. He stated drive-ups
(excluding fast food) provide a central service to the elderly population for banking and pharmacy needs. He added inclement
weather and night time/security concerns are other reasons people choose to use drive-ups. He stated this proposal will provide
an opportunity for this service to work, and will provide better screening and fewer lanes than exist now.
Richard Katz/Stated this is a strange situation for the Food Co-op and they are here to improve their facility for the good of their
patrons and owners.He stated this is the only option they have available. Mr. Katz st ated a lot of Ashland's population visits the
Co-op on a regular basis,with over 3,000 transactions per day, and they are following the lead of their owners who say time
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12, 2012
Page 2 of 7
after time that parking is a major issue for them. He added this proposal is not just for the Co-op to have more parking,but
addresses their desire to make their site safer,easier to get around,and less congested.
Comment was made that the Commission's decision is not predicated on the needs of the Co-op, and rather on the policy
change they have brought forward.
Mr.Katz stated aside from the needs of the Co-op,they believe this amendment has merit.
Public Testimony
Catherine Shaw/886 Oak Street/Stated the drive-up ordinance was a component of the overall redevelopment of downtown
and at that time they did a number of things to encourage people to walk.She stated the idea of making downtown completely
car free was abandoned, but what they had hoped back then was that drive-up windows would eventually be eliminated. She
stated these were hard fought battles that should remain. Ms. Shaw stated it's the bustle of the downtown that creates a vibrant
community and voiced her opposition to drive-up windows. She stated significant effort has been made to create a more
walkable downtown,which is better for Ashland's businesses and economy,and Ashland needs to walk the talk.
Colin Swales/1143 Eighth Street/Stated he is a member of the Transportation Commissionand.is-also their liaison to the
Planning Commission. Mr.Swales recommended the three service stations in this area be looked at as part of this amendment.
He staled just as some would like to see the drive-ups disappear from downtown, he would also like to see the gas stations
disappear. Mr. Swales cited two minor corrections in the draft minutes from the Transportation Commission.He also
commented on a sex shop drive thru in Alabama and cautioned the Commission about this possibility. He added he is one of
the Transportation Commissioners who voted against this proposal.
Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Stated she is an owner of the Co-op and opposes this change. She thanked Ms. Shaw for
speaking on the intent of the original ordinance and stated there should be a compelling reason for considering this change. Ms.
Hartzell questioned if this proposal would protect the integrity of the original ordinance or move the City further along in
achieving its Comprehensive Plan goals. She noted the City goals to reduce vehicle trips and reduce pollution and encouraged
the Commission to consider the risks of vehicles intersecting with pedestrians in areas where they are trying to intensify
pedestrians.She noted the City of Corvallis has two Co-ops and it has worked well. She added there is a lot of commercial
space available in Ashland right now and perhaps the Co-op could find other alternatives.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Noted his respect for Ms. Shaw and stated during her tenure as mayor a lot of efforts were made that have shaped
Ashland in a positive way.However he believes their proposal is misunderstood. He clarified they are not proposing to increase
the number of drive-up uses permitted, but rather to allow them to redevelop to meet the current standards.He stated this
proposal addresses eighteen different policies that are to the benefit of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated this is a minor tweak
that will have a very positive impact. He added if the Commission is concerned about the potential for drive up sex stores, they
should limit this change to financial institutions,which is what the applicant originally proposed.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 7'50 p.m.
Deliberations&Decision
Commissioner Dawkins motioned to deny Planning Action#2012-00265. Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Mr. Molnar reminded the Commission this is a recommendation to the City Council and requested they provide guidance in
addition to direction.
Commissioners Brown/Kaplan m/s to recommend Council's approval of Planning Action#2012-00265.DISCUSSION:
Brown stated the existing drive-ups are a hazard and there is no way for these to change under the current ordinance. He stated
this is an opportunity to change drive-thrus to alleys and side streets and get that traffic off the main.street.He stated he would
like to provide banks the opportunity to change their configuration or relocate in the downtown, and believes this modification
should be limited to financial institutions.He added he believes this will result in a better downtown. Marsh asked if the motion
includes staff's recommendations. Brown clarified his motion is to exclude food and beverage related uses and limit it to
Ashland Planning Cornrnisslon
June 12. 2012
Page 3 of 7
financial institutions;and also for uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer to be deemed expired after
unused for 6 months, instead of 12. Kaplan stated he is divorcing this proposal from the Co-op's needs and sees this as an
opportunity to give financial institutions the opportunity to do something that would be better for the City. Staff clarified this
proposal would provide more flexibility for the four bank locations to redevelopment and add the ability for them to relocate.
Dawkins spoke against the motion and voiced support for Ms. Shawls comments. He stated things worked just fine before there
were drive-ups in town and it is a convenience of our auto-centric society that we support things like this.He stated the City
should be trying to eliminate all drive-thrus and have people get out of their cars. Marsh staled she resonates with Ms.Shav/s
description for how the downtown was developed, however downtown should have been made retail only and there is no
likelihood of these banks leaving anytime soon. She voiced her support for the motion and stated it could motivate these
businesses to redevelop and would also reduce crossings, reduce the number of drive-up lanes,and improve the environment.
Commissioner Marsh noted her desire to address the screening and visibility issue, and motioned to amend the
recommendation at the top of page 4 of the staff report to read: "That with relocation or redevelopment, drive-up uses only be
placed in a basement or on a non-street facing(other than an alley)secondary building elevation, onty accessed from an alley
or driveway
^:i ay c^^^^ ^^""be be si,^r^M aope.ql Vlwefg^'4^•' ^^an °#e• "Brown seconded this and accepted it as a
friendly amendment.
Commissioner Kaplan recommended they remove the word"basement"from the above recommendation. Brown seconded
this as a friendly amendment.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Kaplan, Brown, Heesacker,Miller and Marsh,YES.
Commissioner Dawkins,NO.Motion passed 5-1.
Commissioner Miller asked if they could submit concerns to Council along with the recommendation.Staff noted the Findings
and Minutes will be provided. Commissioner Marsh stated it is inappropriate for commissioners to submit personal comments
and instead the Council should be encouraged to watch the taped recordings.
B. PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00575
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1155 East Main Street
APPLICANT: City of Ashland/Ashland Police Department
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to construct a 3,016 square foot addition and associated site
improvements for the Ashland Police Department located at 1155 East Main Street. This addition is the first phase
of a multi-phase project over the next five years;subsequent phases will include a 1,975 square foot addition,
additional parking, and site improvements to bring the site more in line with current standards.COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP#: 391 E 10;TAX LOT#:900.
The Commission took a short recess and performed a site visit. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
,Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
All commissioners attended the site visit; no ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report and noted the subject property is located behind the Police
Department and Council Chambers. He explained this application is for s ite review approval to construct a 3,016 sq. ft. addition
to the police station, and this would be the first phase of a multi-phased construction project. Mr.Severson provided an overview
of the site plan, building elevations, project phasing, tree protection plan,and landscape plan; and noted staffs recommendation
for the sense of entry to be improved to make it a more people friendly space through the use of landscaping and hardscaping.
Mr.Severson listed the recommendations from the Tree Commission to supplement the existing hedge buffer with two
additional trees and for tree#50 to be retained and protected. He noted the nearby neighbors spoke at the Tree Commission
meeting and requested measures be taken to soften the exposure to the existing ratio antenna, parking,and building roof to the
extent possible. He stated the other concerns that have been raised by the neighbors include: 1)the placement of the addition,
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12. 2012
Page 4 of 7
the placement of five new compact parking spaces along the driveway,and the removal of the existing berm pose a noise
concern which neighbors feel could be mitigated through relocating the parking and mechanical equipment to the interior of the
site and landscaping the adjacent driveway to soften the building wall,2)concern regarding the construction hours and
construction staging;the neighbors suggest that if the new parking on the northeast of the building were added and new gate
installed in Phase I,construction could be staged farther from their residences, and 3)that all site lighting should come into
conformance with current standards, have downward directed fixtures,and reduced pole heights.Mr.Severson concluded his
presentation and requested the Commission address the following iss ues during their discussion: t)the use of landscape and
hardscape to enhance the sense of entry and creating a space for people to congregate,2)the two recommendations raised by
the Tree Commission,and 3)the impacts raised by the neighbors.
Applicant's Presentation
Dave Strauss, Kerry Kencairn,and Police Chief Terry HoldernesslMr. Strauss commented on the staff recommendations.
He stated they are open to the City's and Commission's direction regarding how the public area out front should be developed,
and addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors. He stated the berm needs to be removed, however the new mechanical
equipment will produce significantly less noise and the compact parking spaces will be used by the office staff(one trip in,one
trip out per day)and the impact on neighbors in terms of car noise will be considerably reduced.Mr. Strauss commented on the
standards of the National Police Association, including the need for two ways out of secured parking areas and for staff
vehicles, police vehicles,and impounded vehicles to be kept secured.
Landscape Architect Kerry Kencaim noted the location of the new bike parking and also commented on tree#50.She clarified
the location of this tree and stated it is not possible to save it and still meet the parking requirement.She added the additional
trees they have proposed will outweigh the impacts of the trees being removed. Regarding the trees to supplement the hedge
buffer, Ms. Kencairn stated they can install these without damaging the hedge, however they are willing to do whatever the
neighbors want.
Chief Holderness added the radio antenna will be removed,so there is no need for mitigation measures.
Ms. Kencairn responded to the commissioners comments and clarified there is currently no landscaping proposed along the
west side of the building.When asked if the five compact spaces could be removed, Mr. Strauss clarified there is no set parking
requirement and instead it is established by need. He stated 40 spaces appears to be the right number for the police station and
this is the number they provided for on their plans. He added the police station currently has 34 spaces.Comment was made
questioning if the department foresees adding staff in the future. Mr. Holdemess stated the extra spaces serve an economic and
convenience need. He explained some days they have more staffing than others,and at times employees have to park in the
public lot. He added the department seizes cars and they would prefer to keep these in the secure lot rather than paying to have
them stored elsewhere.
Concern was expressed regarding the removal of the green lawn. It was noted this is a public space,and occasionally there are
protests, and it would be beneficial to retain space for this use. Comment was made suggesting a landscape maintenance
budget be established to maintain whatever landscape design they agree on. Regarding the trees in the hedge buffer,comment
was made suggesting these be removed from the plan.
The applicants were asked to comment on whether there are alternatives to removing the berm.Mr.Strauss answered it needs
to be removed and they believe the impact to maintain it is not appropriate.When asked if the mechanical equipment could be
relocated, Mr. Strauss slated they could look at this, but it would then need to be placed in the public area.Comment was made
that disturbance to the neighbors is more of an issue than disturbing the people who come to meetings in the council chambers.
Comment was made suggesting the applicant break up the materials along the west side of the building to break up the sound.
Additional comment was made questioning why the applicants are proposing stairs on the new entry and that a ramp wo uld be
better suited for ADA standards.
Commissioners Miller/Dawkins mils to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed 6.0.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12 2012
Page 5 of 7
Public Testimony
Arthur Schreiber/64 North Mountain/Slated he lives directly behind the hedge bush that separates the police station driveway
from the townhome complex, and they can hear everything. He stated he supports the expansion, but would like for the impacts
to the neighbors be mitigated. Mr. Schreiber stated he will be able to see the new building from his second Floor window and
would appreciate anything the Commission can do to improve the aesthetics of the building on this side.Regarding the noise
concerns,he explained sound is currently buffered by the berm,and the applicant's proposal is to remove it and install four new
machines. He slated the noise will be significant and requested the Commission do anything possible to have these moved to
the other side of the building. He also commented on the noise that will be caused by the constructive vehicles and stated this
will be very disruptive to the nearby residences. Mr.Schreiber asked if the construction could have a start time of no earlier than
8 a.m., and also requested the two trees proposed for the hedge not be installed.
Steve WolfU4 North Mountain/Thanked staff for addressing his concerns and clarified his home office looks out on this
building and the proposed addition. Mr.Wolf stated the placement of the mechanical equipment is his biggest concern, but the
staging of the parking lot and having the construction teams access the site from the east side instead would be very beneficial
to their livability. He comme nted on the number of parking spaces and believes the police station can meet their needs without
placing the compact parking near the residences. He stated the berm and trees currently buffer the sound from the police cars
and mechanical equipment, but if you remove this the noise will be an issue,even with the installation of quieter equipment.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Dave Strauss/Agreed that there are alternate options regarding the placement of the mechanical equipment, and he agreed to
remove the two trees in the hedge buffer from the plan. Regarding the construction noise, he stated they could specify start and
stop times with their contractors,and suggested 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He clarified this project would have a 5-6 month
construction period, but the biggest percentage of noise would be generated in the first 3 months, and in the later months most
of the work will be done inside.He also stated they could direct the construction traffic through the back lot if the City is
comfortable with keeping this a gravel access, and stated they cannot guarantee they will have the funding necessary to
complete the lot in phase one.
Commissioner Marsh closed the record and public hearing at 9:50 p.m.
Deliberations&Decision
Commissioner Dawkins stated if they eliminate the five parking spaces and relocate the mechanical equipment, that would
leave an area than could be landscaped along the building.He added if this building were located anywhere else, the
Commission would make the applicant soften the side of the building. Dawkins voiced his concern with the entry of the building
and stated the City Council should find the necessary funding to bring this up to city standards.At a minimum, he would like to
see the west wall broken up.Commissioner Miller agreed with Dawkins and voiced support for including a modification of the
west side wall in their motion.
Commissioners Brown/Dawkins mis to approve Planning Action#2012-00575 with amendments.
DISCUSSION:
1) Location of Mechanical Equipment: Recommendation was made for the equipment to be moved to a location other
than the side near the residences. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment.
2) Construction Times:Recommendation was made for construction work to be limited to 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m. Brown
accepted this as a friendly amendment.
3) Materials along West Wall: Recommendation was made for the use of different materials along the west wall or
articulation to address the noise issue. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment.
4) Front Walkway Entrance: Recommendation was made for no stairs on the walkway out front and for ramps to be used
instead. Brown accepted this as a friendly amendment.
Commissioners MilledDawkins m/s to continue meeting past 10:00 p.m.Voice Vote: all AYES.Motion passed 6.0.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12; 2012
Page 6 of 7
5) Compact Parking Spaces/Landscaping: Commissioner Miller voiced her preference for the five compact parking
spaces to be removed and to install landscaping along the west side. Commission Dawkins agreed and stated he
would rather remove those spaces and install landscaping.He stated he is comfortable with maintaining the same level
of parking and noted the public parking lot could still be used when needed. Commissioner Brown noted they will not
need to require articulation of the building if trees are planted along that wall. Commissioner Marsh stated she is not as
concerned with the five spaces and believes there will be minimal coming and going. She stated the major impact will
be moving the equipment to the other side of the building and believes they should do the best they can to cushion the
impact of this noise. Commissioner Brown stated he supports leaving in the parking the police department needs.
Commissioners Dawkins/Miller mis to amend motion to remove the five compact parking spaces and
substitute landscaping.Voice Vote: Commissioners Miller and Dawkins,YES.Commissioners Heesacker,
Brown, Kaplan and Marsh, NO.Motion failed 4-2.
6) Construction Traffic: Commissioner Marsh stated she feels strongly that they should use the east access.Miller agreed
and stated she does not want the construction vehicles using the narrow driveway near the residences. Brown
recommended that construction phasing be on the east side of the Phase I addition and for all construction
traffic to use a temporary access out to the existing public parking lot rather than the gated driveway on the
west side of the police station.The Commission agreed to incorporate this into the motion.
7) Trees in Hedge:The Commission agreed to strike the recommendations from the Tree Commission regarding the
planting of trees in the hedge buffer and the retaining of tree#50.
8) Front Landscaping: Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for leaving the lawn area as it is and stated fescues and
ground cover are not an inviting treatment. He added they should encourage the City Council to help enhance the entry
to this building and this should not be placed on the shoulders of the police department. Commissioner Miller voiced
her support for maintaining the green lawn and slated it softens the impacts of this building. Commissioner Brown
added the lawn mirrors the park across the street quite nicely.Commission Marsh stated she feels strongly that public
spaces should be used actively and anything they can do to draw people into this space and make it welcoming should
be encouraged.
Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Brown,Miller, Kaplan, Dawkins, Heesacker and Marsh, YES.
Motion passed 6-0.
C. PLANNING ACTION:#2012-00573
APPLICANT:City of Ashland
LOCATION: Not property-specific
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new"Chapter XV- Regional Plan"element to the City
of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving Plan("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland.
Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling
of the region's population,but before the RPS Plan can take effect,each of the six participating cities in the region
(Ashland,Talent, Phoenix,Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan
into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not
identified urban reserves as the city's existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to
accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan
applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.)
Due to lack to time, action was continued to June 26, 2012 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Respectful/y submitted,
April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
June 12. 2012
Page 7 of 7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 26,2012
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Conference Room,51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown,Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson,Associate Planner
Eric Heesacker April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin (Arrived a1 t 15 pm)
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Dennis Slattery
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Dawkins noted he attended the Plaza Design Public Outreach Meeting and the architects have requested feedback from
the Planning Commission. Dawkins shared his preference for more hardscape and trees in large containers, and requested the
Commission take a few minutes to discuss the conceptual designs at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
PRESENTATION
A. Ethics&Commission Guidelines(Dave Lohman,City Attorney)
City Attorney Dave Lohman provided a presentation on public records law,definition of public meetings, public meeting requirements,
rules and regulations,and ethics.(Copy of presentation is attached to minutes.)
General Questions
The commissioners posed several questions to Mr.Lohman,including:
• What is the statute of limitation for how long members need to keep meeting notes and recordings?
Answer:6 years.
• Can commissioners attend public events if there is a quorum of members present?
Answer:As long as the commissioners are not deliberating on a particular issue,this is not considered a public meeting and
members are free to attend.
• The Planning Commission is subject to Oregon statutes,Ashland's Code of Ethics,and state statutes specific to Planning
Commissions; which one takes precedence?
Answer:The Commission is subject to all three laws and need to make sure they are adhering to the most strict rules
(Ashland Code of Ethics)
• Does the Commission have to elect a new chair every year,or does"term"indicate a member can be chair for two
consecutive four year terms?
Answer: Mr. Lohman stated there are different practices on the different commissions and this needs to get cleared up. He
stated his opinion is that term means four years, but others have disagreed with him.Commissioner Dawkins commented that
he believes when the Commission discussed this,the intent was for a one-year term for officers.Comment was made that
this may be an issue With small commissions that have frequent turn-over;and perhaps this should be a recommendation
Ashland Planning Commission
June 26. 2012
Page 1 of 3
instead of a requirement.Additional suggestion was made for the vice chair to takeover as chair after their first year,which
could provide for a learning period.
• Are commissioners allowed to testify before the City Council?
Answer:Mr.Lohman cited the language in AMC 2.10.110 and stated it is his understanding that commissioners can speak
before the City Council as private citizens, however he will need to get back to the Commission on this question.
Commissioner Marsh commented that it is unfortunate when a member goes before another body and speaks out against the
position the Planning Commission has adopted.
• Does Commissioner Miller have a conflict of interest regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan?
Discussion/Answer: Commissioner Miller explained she owns property in the project area and asked if she could participate in
the deliberations.She added she could provide some background information which may be helpful. Mr. Lohman stated under
state law, it is an actual conflict of interest it the outcome could benefit or hurt her financially. He stated she likely has an
actual conflict of interest and advised that she not participate in the discussions or deliberations. He added she could testify
as a private citizen in front of the City Council, but should not testify before the Planning Commission.The Commission held
general discussion about the bias issue.Comment was mad a that when a member is on record of having a clear bias or a
predisposed position, it undermines the decision making process and that person should step aside.
• What is the definition of an excused absence?
Answer: Mr. Lohman stated this is an issue that needs to be addressed and asked for the Commissions input. Suggestion
was made to establish a yearly minimum attendance percentage, rather than a limit on unexcused absences in a row.
Comment was made that it is important for a member to notify staff if they cannot attend. Support was voiced for an annual
attendance rate and 80%was suggested.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION:#2012-00573
APPLICANT:City of Ashland
LOCATION: Not property-specific
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new"Chapter XV- Regional Plan"element to the City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Plan("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson
County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's
population,but before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region(Ashland,Talent,
Phoenix, Medford,Central Point and Eagle Point)must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive
plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the
city's existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of
the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with
no identified urban reserves.)
Associate Planner Derek Severson gave a brief overview of the Regional Plan and the Regional Problem Solving process(RPS). He
explained the proposed adoption of the new"Regional Element"to the City's Comprehensive Plan incorporates the portions of the
Regional Plan applicable to Ashland and clarified Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that we are the only jurisdiction
to not identify urban reserves and have chosen to accommodate growth through efficient land use planning instead. He stated this new
Element serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the City's participation in the plan and to provide a framework if the City
chooses to pursue the creation of urban reserves in the future.
Mr. Severson provided some background and noted the Planning Commission issued a recommendation in 2010 to ensure Ashland's
values are pushed forward through the RPS process,and the City Council adopted a resolution in 2011 that reiterated those
recommendations. Mr. Severson stated the primary issues identified in the 2011 resolution included: 1)retaining Urban Fringe
minimum lot sizes, 2)to not require jurisdictional exchange, 3)regional housing strategy timeline,4)population figures consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan,5)address high value farm lands,and 6)more efficient land use transportation. He stated through the City's
participation in this plan, there has been a 110-acre reduction of farm lands in the URA's;all jurisdictions must adhere to specific
density commitments;49%of new dwellings and 44%of new commercial must be mixed use,pedestrian friendly,or in a transit
oriented district by 2020;and conceptual land use and transportation plans will be required for urban reserves.
Ashland Planning Commission
June 26, 2012
Page 2 af 3
Mr. Severson stated staff believes the Plan addresses the issues raised by the City of Ashland and participation in this process has
created stronger and more positive working relationships between staff and the elected and appointed official across the region,and
has given Ashland a seat at the table for on-going discussions of regional growth.
Staff was asked to clarify how we got to the 6.6 d.u./acre density commitment. Mr. Severson clarified this is based on the density levels
set by the state's safe harbor provision,and staff is comfortable with this requirement since it is less than what we have been doing.
Comment was made questioning how this Plan might be affected by Governor Kitzhaber's decision to open up farm lands in Jackson
County. Mr. Severson stated he cannot answer this and this is something that will need to be discussed if that happens.
Comment was made thanking staff for their work on this Plan and having a positive influence on it.
Public Testimony
Colin Swalesl143 Eighth Street/Stated he does feel Ashland has influenced the Plan enough and his main concern is regarding the
population projections. He stated Ashland has not been given its true allocation and the population figures should be based on the
2010 census report which shows that the previous estimates have not materialized. Mr.Swales stated these figures affect our policies
on annexation,transportation planning,water usage,and infrastructure projects and wants it to be clear that our population figures are
way down.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners MillerlHeesacker m/s to adopt the recommendation for Planning Action 2012-00573 and forward this to the
City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh stated she will support this motion, but does not support the plan put forward by the
City of Medford and does not want her vote to be interpreted as supporting what they are doing. Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin
concurred with this statement. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Dawkins noted the architects desire to receive feedback from the Planning Commission on the conceptual designs for
the Plaza Improvement project.Commissioner Marsh noted she had prepared the following comments to provide to the architects:
First and foremost, the plaza design should support the basic function of the place--to serve as a lively, well-used community
gathering place for residents(of all kinds)and visitors. The plaza is not a passive park, nor should it be(as it is today)simp/y a
thoroughfare from one commercial point to another. Rather it is(or should be)the central meeting point in downtown--a place where
friends meet up for coffee,family members regroup after shopping, or individuals sit to read a newspaper or people watch. Sometimes
it will be the site of large gatherings or demonstrations.
With these functions in mind, the design should include the following elements:
• Minimal(ifany)turf. lt's a plaza, not a park. Use planters(walls and/or pots)to provide greenery and help define the space.
Potted trees can provide a wonderful, full canopy.
• A variety of seating options. Walls moveable cafe tables and chairs, etc. Furniture is key to function.
• Trash and recycling containers. Welt-designed and even beautiful containers don't have to be relegated to the outskirts of the
site. Instead, they can help define the space.
• Thoughtful site planning. A layout that provides a sense of protection for people at tables, but doesn't obstruct views into or out of
the plaza.
The Planning Commission is very excited by the opportunities posed by the plaza redesign. We look forward to helping in any way we
can as the project moves forward."
The Commission voiced support for the statement prepared by Marsh and staff was directed to place the statement on the
Commission's letterhead and submit it to the architects.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
✓une 26, 2012
Page 3 of 3
6/26/2012
Public Records
ORS 192.005(5) r "Public record'Includes,
defines public but Is not limited to,a
Public Records Law document,book,paper,
record: photograph,file.sound
Definition of Public Meeting recording or machine
readable electronic record,
Public Meeting Requirements '-� regardless of physical form
Rules&Regulations -" or characteristics,made,
{}_ recelved,filed or recorded
Ethics :-f- In pursuance of law or in
- connection with the
_ transaction of public
business.whether or not
conndendal or restricted In
use. (emphasis added)
Who has the Right to Inspect Definition of Meeting
Public Records? s A"meeting"is any quorum of a commission-
c r No quorum=No meeting
Correspondence
Notes t Exceptions-On-site inspections of any project
or program.
E-mails _ Pictures
e 'Quorum'-more than 14 of the total number of
authorized members
"Every Person"has a right to inspect
any nonexempt public record of a public
body in Oregon.
i
1
6/26/2012
Open to the Public Minutes
r Written minutes must be taken for all public meetings-
Including Sub-Committees
r All meetings of the city's commissions and r Minutes do not have to be a verbatim transcript
committees are required to be open to the public
and within the City limits. Minutes must Include:
r list of members present
r No Private meetings r Nature and disposition of all motions,proposals,resolutions,
orders,etc.
r 36 Hours Notice of meetings r Results of all voles by name
Substance of any discussion
r Reference to any public document discussed
1
Meetings and Attendance Duties of the Chair j
"asking for Input from Commissioners on this section°
r Attend all regularly scheduled meetings meeting At Its first meeting of the Year the advisory commission shall
r Two-Hour to chair or staff liaison if you will be elect a chair and a vice chair who shall hold office at the pleasure
absent from eeting of the advisory body.Neither the chair nor vice-chair shall serve
r Two or more suit in declaring absences In a six-month as an officer for more than two consecutive terms.-Requesting
period will result in declaring the position'Inactive"or
"vacant.' Commission Input on this section.
I
r Minimum 2(3 attendance or position will be declared suggestions for Chair
'inactive or'vacant.'.111.11 R heurs in advann of the meeting
Attendance shall be reviewed by the commission during the . Ensure that each member has the opportunlry to speak
regularly scheduled meetings In January and Jury,with a report r No member shall speak more than once until every member has
O to One Mayor and Clry Council advising of the need for been given the of speak fry to speak
appointment or re-appointment,If necessary.
2
6/26/2012
GENERAL RULE
r Do not use public position to obtain financial
benefit If the opportunity for the financial benefit
OREGON GOVERNMENT ETHICS would not otherwise be available but for your
LAW public position
• Includes using confidential information for
All Commissioners are"Public Officials"and are personal gain
required to follow the Public Ethics Rules. ° Includes benefit to a client
GIFTS (1) GIFTS (2)
OK if
•Available to any citizen r Red flag if the source of anything of value
legislative or (services,too)has a legislative or administrative
• Source is friends,relatives with no le
g interest in decisions
administrative interest in decisions
•Acting In an official capacity and representing • Notjust financial interest
City for a ceremonial purpose at entertainment
event
• Representing City at"organization'event(not a •If so,cannot exceed$501n value per year
private dinner)at which your admission or food
and beverage is compensated
3
6/26/2012
CONFLICTS RELATIVES .
. Financial benefit or detriment to you,relatives,or . Spouse,children(or legal support obligatlon)
associated businesses
. Actual(would") . Siblings and their spouses and spouses'siblings
•Disclosure;then no participation
. Potential("could")
• Disclosure;then participate . parents and parents of spouses
. Exemptions.
•Would Impact you to the same degree as other
members of an Identifiable group or class
Unpaid position In 501C(3)
"ASSOCIATED WITH BUSINESS"
. Director,officer,owner,employee or agent of
private business or closely held-corporation,with ASHLAND CODE OF ETHICS
stock,stock options,equity,or debt Instrument
over$1000 AMC 3.08.020
. Owner of stock,equity interest,stock options,or
debt Instruments of$700,000or more in publicly
held corporation
. Director or officer of a publicly held corporation
4
6/26/2012
DO's SPEAKING FOR THE CITY
. Be independent,impartial . Only represent the opinion or position of the
advisory body
. Have public interest as primary concern . No lobbying before other elected bodies or
• Discharge duties regardless of personal committees
considerations
. Foster respect for all government . Advisory body members are prohibited from
engaging in political activity in accordance with
ORS 260.432
GIFTS CONFLICTS
. Don't accept any valuable gift from a source . Don't engage in any business or transaction,or
directly or indirectly interested in business dealings have a financial or other personal interest,contrary
with the City to public Interest or tending to impair Independent
judgment
. Don't accept anything of value tending to impact •"Personal interest"-direct or indirect interest
discharge of duties or contingent on a specific tending to impair independent judgment,
action by the City including familial relationships and close
business or political association
. Before discussion of legislation with Council,
disclose on the record any financial or other rip vat
inter in the proposition
i
5
JOINT ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES
May 16,2012
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main
Street.
Transportation Commissioners Present: Pam Hammond, Shawn Kampmann, Steve Ryan, Colin Swales, Brent
Thompson, Corinne Vieville and David Young
Planning Commissioners Present: Tony J. Brown,Jr., Michael Dawkins, Eric Heesacker, Richard Kaplan, Pam
Marsh and Melanie Mindlin
Staff Present: Mike Faught and Jodi Vizzini
Ex Officio: Bill Molnar and Steve MacLennan
Council Liaison: David Chapman and Michael Morris
Consultant: Susan Wright, Kittelson&Associates
Transportation Commissioners Absent: Tom Burnham and Mike Gardiner
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND ADOPTION OF PREVIOUS MEETING MINUTES
Chair Marsh introduced newly appointed planning commissioner,Troy Brown Jr.,and recognized Debbie Miller who
was attending in the audience and will formally rejoin the Planning Commission following the reassignment at the
next City Council meeting.
Commissioners Young/Hammond m/s to approve the March 15,2012 minutes.Voice vote: all AYES. The
minutes were approved as presented.
(Brown/Swales abstained;HeesackedKampmann were not yet present)
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA
None
PUBLIC FORUM
Sherry Smilo/215 Tolman Creek Rd./Thanked Mike Faught and Jodi Vizzini for their recent presentation to the
concerned residents of the Tolman Creek Mobile Home Park. She reiterated the ongoing concern of transients, lack
of privacy, noise, litter,dust,etc.the proposed bike/pedestrian path behind the mobile home park will bring. She
presented a signed Declaration in Opposition from the residents and neighbors of the Tolman Creek Park.
Dan Linder 1300 Clay St./Spoke in opposition to the proposed bike/pedestrian path between Clay St.and Tolman
Creek Rd. His main concern was public safety.
ACTION ITEMS
Railroad Crossings:
(X3) Normal Avenue
Mr. Faught directed attention to the Railroad Crossing Projects map. He stated information from a previous meeting
indicated this particular railroadlcrossing would convert from a private crossing to a public crossing if Normal Avenue
is extended; and it would not be necessary to lose a crossing to gain one as it already exists.
No one spoke in opposition of this project. Project was approved by consensus.
(X1)4th Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing
Mr. Faught opened this project up for discussion as there were prior issues/concems from previous meetings.
Commissioner Vieville asked for clarification on whether or not the city would lose a crossing if this project were
Joint TC1PC
May 16,1011
Page I of 5
approved. Susan Wright stated it was not clear if this would be the result and she advised the commissions to place
their prioritized desires on the Transportation System Plan(TSP),acknowledging the desired future crossings,
recognizing the current Oregon Department of Transportation(ODOT) Rail policy is one-for-one and may change
over time resulting in required closures. Commissioner Marsh asked how this would affect an underground tunnel.
Ms. Wright stated it does not require a one-for-one on grade separation. She added where there is federal money to
help with grade separation;they still want to see closures in trade.
Mr. Faught reiterated the proposed language in the plan should indicate the preferred crossings,emphasizing the
desire to not have any closures,and include the list of priorities if closures were necessary.
Commissioner Dawkins added he is not compelled to have a vehicular crossing at this location and questioned how
this could be considered a crossing if it went underneath the railroad. Ms.Wright stated,it is important to identify
potential closures recognizing the current ODOT Rail Policy is one for one.
Commissioner Young advocated for bike/pedestrian on 4th Street and pursuing the grade separation to avoid
closure. Commissioners Thompson/Brown/Mindlin/Kaplan and Chair Marsh were in favor of pursuing
bike/pedestrian crossing at 4th Street.
No one spoke in opposition of this project. Project was approved by consensus.
(X2)Washington Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing
Mr. Faught explained the reason for pursuing a new crossing at this location was part of the Croman Mill site
development. He added that if approved,a crossing would need to close at either Wightman St.or Glenn St.
Commissioners Young/Dawkins stated they do not support closing either crossing and felt the Croman site should be
revisited separately in the future.
Chair Ryan asked for an update on the median at Ashland St./Washington St.and the status with ODOT. Mr. Faught
reported the current design places a median from the freeway,just short of Washington but ODOT has agreed to let
the city explore options as needed, based on growth.
Commissioners Thompson/Young mis to remove projects(X4)Glenn St.At-Grade Railroad Crossing and
(X5)Wightman St.At-Grade Railroad Crossing as potential closures from the TSP;designate project(X1)4th
St.At-Grade Railroad Crossing as a multi-modal bikelpedestrian crossing;and approve projects(X2)
Washington St.At-Grade Railroad Crossing and(X3)Normal Ave. Public Railroad Crossing. By show of
hands,motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Kampmann arrived at 6:39 p.m.
Bikeway Networks:
Mr. Faught commended the Bikeway Networks subcommittee for the work they completed at a previous meeting. Ms.
Wright and Mr. Faught clarified the bikeway typology,defining shared roads, bike lanes and bicycle boulevards,and
explained how the cost is calculated when adding sharrows and other treatments to the roads.
Commissioner Kampmann questioned the recommendation of project(B29)Walker Ave.which included a planned
bike lane between Siskiyou Blvd and Peachey Rd. Commissioners shared varying opinions of how this project
should be classified, i.e. planned bike lane or planned bicycle blvd.
Commissioners Thompson/Ryan m/s to approve the entire package of existing and planned bicycle projects
as illustrated on the Bikeway Networks map,amending(B29)Walker Ave.from a planned bike lane to a
planned bicycle blvd from Siskiyou Blvd to Peachey Rd. Voice vote: Commissioners Hammond,
Kampmann, Ryan,Swales,Thompson,Vibville,Young, Brown,Kaplan,Marsh and Mindlin,YES.
Joint TGPC
May 16.2012
Page 2 of 5
Commissioner Dawkins,NO. Motion passed 11.1.
Roadway Projects(R22/R23)/Proposed Multi-use Bike/Pedestrian Path:
Multi-use Path
Mr. Faught reported he met with staff members of the YMCA and discussed alternative locations of a bike/pedestrian
path on their property. Following that meeting, he met with residents of the Tolman Creek Mobile Home Park and
walked the property where the proposed path would be constructed. Based on each meeting, his recommendation to
the commissions was to 1)construct a road from Clay St.to Tolman Creek Rd.(R22)only if redevelopment of the
mobile home park occurred;and 2) add a multi-use bike/pedestrian path from Clay St.,to Tolman Creek Rd.through
the YMCA soccer field,as illustrated in Figure 11 B and include a one-way security gate with a coded access for
residents of the mobile home park.
Commissioners asked questions regarding potential redevelopment in neighboring properties and how it would affect
construction of project R22. Other questions included the priority level of the bike/pedestrian path,the location of the
existing connecting gate to the Clay Street development, and options for relocating the proposed path closer to the
YMCA building.
Commissioners Kampmannfrhompson m/s to approve the multi-use bike/pedestrian path as proposed on
Roadway Projects map/Figure 11 B.
Commissioners discussed the need for security along the Tolman Creek Park section of the proposed path and
shared various ideas.
Vir?ville/Dawkins m/s to amend the motion to include a secure one-way coded access gate and tall privacy
fencing along the Tolman Creek Park property.
Commissioner Mindlin appreciated the YMCA and residents of the Tolman Creek Park for giving access to their
property,but felt there is a huge population in the low-income housing and the Clay St.development that lacks the
convenience of direct access and felt this decision abandoned them. Commissioners Dawkins, Kampmann and
Young spoke on the need for designating a formal path giving people access.
Commissioner Marsh agreed the plan was not perfect, but it does satisfy some of the needs. She addressed the
residents of Tolman Creek Park and reassured them the commissions'desire was to make efforts to keep their park
secure and was hopeful this path would not be the burden they envision, but instead would find it useful.
Commissioner Marsh called for a vote of the amended motion. Voice vote: Commissioners Hammond,
Kampmann,Ryan,Swales,Thompson,Vibville,Young, Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan and Marsh,YES.
Commissioner Mindlin,NO. Motion passed 11-1.
Roadway Project(R23)
The revised Roadway Project(R23)was reviewed on a map and commissioners asked clarifying questions on the
location and street classification.
Commissioners Kampmann/Young m/s to approve the revised Roadway Project(R23).Voice vote: All
AYES. Motion passed.
Roadway Project(R22)
Chair Marsh requested that warrants to measure the overall objective of multi-modal be built-in to the TSP to track
the need for improvements. Mr. Faught stated that an impact analysis can be required with development. Ms.Wright
added that approving this connection would ensure the two developments are intended to align over time and will
give staff direction how to work with a developer on a layout of the local street system.
Joint TC/PC
May 16,2012
Page 3 of 5
Commissioner Heesacker arrived at 7:43.
Commissioners shared varying thoughts on adding this roadway to the TSP. Mr. Faught suggested adding language
that includes a roadway will only be constructed if the Tolman Creek Park property is redeveloped.
Commissioners Mindlin/Brown m/s to approve Roadway Project(R22)and include language in the TSP
indicating"only if property is redeveloped."Voice vote: Commissioners Hammond, Kampmann,Ryan,
Swales,Thompson,Vi�ville,Young, Brown,Heesacker,Kaplan,Marsh and Mindlin,YES. Commissioner
Dawkins, NO. Motion passed 12-1.
SOU Pedestrian Crossing:
Ms.Wright referred to the SOU Planning Commission public hearings and the discussion on a pedestrian bridge
crossing Siskiyou Blvd. She shared her concerns with the original design as it related to the SOU application since it
would eliminate existing crossings, but has since visited the site and currently supports a bridge following the existing
diagonal path along the proposed crossing at Indiana/Wightman. She added this type of bridge would come with a
higher price tag than a more traditional design; probably in the$2 million range. She feels this project is worth
adding to the TSP,but would require additional investigation to warrant the cost estimates.
Commissioners Dawkins and Young shared their approval for pursuing the pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Swales
requested traffic counts warranting 5 lanes(4 lanes with 1 turn lane). He felt the volume does not currently support
that many lanes.Commissioner Kampmann asked for a cost comparison of an undercrossing/tunnel. Ms.Wright
stated tunnels are generally less expensive.
At the conclusion of the discussion Chair Marsh asked for a show of hands of those interested in pursuing the
possibility of an overpass or underpass at this location. Commissioners Hammond, Kampmann, Ryan,Swales,
Vibville,Young, Dawkins,Heesacker, Kaplan,Marsh and Mindlin,YES. Commissioner Brown and
Thompson,NO. Majority vote: YES.
Chair Marsh requested this item be added to the June 14, 2012 TC/PC meeting agenda;include cost
information;and invite SOU to attend and provide input.
Fees in Lieu of Sidewalk:
Did not discuss.
Clay Street Alternative:
Mr. Faught reported that both he and Ms.Wright visited the area today and noted a well worn trail indicating heavy
pedestrian usage. He shared the pros and cons of constructing a path in this area including(pros)an opportunity to
connect to the shopping centers, utilizing the Trails along Rails program,and(cons)security issues.
Commissioners discussed the option of an underground pass from Clay Street and if the need is for bike/pedestrian
only,or to include vehicles. Mr. Faught recommended approving a line on the map for pedestrian crossing.
Commissioner Swales referred to a previous planning action for the Coming Attractions Theatres and if a discussion
took place with the property owners granting access to the path. He asked if there was a condition of approval for
that planning action. Community Development Director, Bill Molnar,replied there was a discussion in terms of the
owner installing a gate but that action had expired. He hoped to have a broader discussion within the next 30 days
with the Coming Attractions owners and other investors of the shopping center. He added the owners in this area are
aware of the interest in trying to get pedestrians into the shopping center but have been experiencing trespassing
problems resulting in building the current fence. He agreed it would be beneficial to have a designated path on the
map.
Commissioners Heesacker/Mindlin m/s to approve a line indicating a bike/pedestrian crossing to be
Joim TGPC
May 16,1011
Page 4 of 5
constructed underneath the Ashland Street overpass,at the turn of Clay Street,that will connect into the
shopping area and proceed to Tolman Crk Rd. Voice vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Commissioner Kampmann was concerned about the angles of the property and how they will affect the design and
private property. Mr. Faught replied the plan is to build the path where the existing worn path is being utilized and will
use the Trails along Rails program to assist with the design.
ODOT-Median/Roundabout:
Did not discuss.
Transit
Route 8
Mr. Faught summarized the efforts of the Transit subcommittee and explained the recommended modified Route 8
included the Ashland Community Hospital, Mountain Meadows and Nevada St. Commissioners were provided a
map to review.
Commissioners discussed alternative options that were not included in the final recommendations of the Transit
subcommittee which included the need to provide a southern hill based route when thinking long term(20 year plan).
Ms. Wright explained how the hill based route would require a different vehicle and would entail additional capital and
operation costs depending on the frequency and length of the route. She added costs could double or even triple.
Rubber Tire Trollev
Mr. Faught shared the Transit subcommittee's goal when designing this route was to provide a fun and interesting
shuttle service for tourists between hotels and the downtown area points of interest,and that the subcommittee
discussed the need to provide an enticing option to driving cars into the already congested downtown area. The
intended tourist shuttle would operate in the afternoon/late evening hours and only run seasonally. A map was
provided with three different routes the subcommittee considered; however Mr. Faught recommended the purple line
route based on further review and staff report after driving each route.
Commissioners discussed the possibility of needing to include 4th Street if a rail service is put into operation in the
future; using small vans instead of trolleys; the potential infrastructure offset of downtown parking; public safety;
American Disabilities Act(ADA)and paratransit; including a ski route; limiting the route to end near the SOU campus
instead of extending it to Exit 14;and a node stop for a park n' ride area.
Commissioners RyanlVi6ville m/s to approve the subcommittee's recommended Route 8,the recommended
Rubber Trolley purple line,the elimination of the Near Term Express Route, and agree to note a long term
goal to develop transit in the southern hills area when feasible. Voice vote: Commissioners Hammond,
Ryan,Swales,Thompson,Vibville,Young, Brown, Dawkins, Heesacker,Kaplan,Marsh and Mindtin,YES.
Commissioner Kampmann, NO. Motion passed 12-1.
(01)Create TravelSmart Educational Program:
Did not discuss.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted;
Jodi Vizzini, Office Assistant II
Joint TGPC
May 16,2012
Page 5 of
CO.�.�.�.
May 15,20123
a0
To the City of Ashland Oregon 97520
From the residents and neighbors of 215 Tolman Creek Road,Tolman Creek Park,Ashland�u�l
Oregon 0r`
This is our Declaration- 'd:5-=
We oppose road R22 or any walking/bike path on the other side of our fence.Any road or path
will interfere with our fife all day and all night.A road or path will bring transients,lack of
privacy,noise,litter,dust,light pollution,vibrations and fumes. it will reduce the value of our
property.The area is wetlands and soggy all year round.R22 or a path could cause the water to
come under our homes. We feel it will create an unsafe environment for us.We have 38 homes
with 56 full time residents.This is an affordable housing community. Many are seniors on
limited income. Many are single women living alone.We all get along pretty well.We rarely
have to call the ambulance,fire department or police department.
We request that this Declaration Is kept on file that we oppose R22 and any walking/bike path.
L.ISa Woe(d�r d ye *�a8 .
Thank You � ZeQ
t 614, P3
/ 1
_ A
ra
7(1 G'(be-y+
n
37
� r 31
1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Endorsement of the Monster Dash for the Purpose of Hanging a Banner
FROM:
Diana Shiplet, Executive Secretary, shipletd @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The 2012 Monster Dash event organizers would like to hang a banner across E. Main Street from
October 15 - 22, 2012. However, per ODOT and City of Ashland regulations, the only banners allowed
to be hung across E. Main Street are those for city events or city endorsed events. Council must decide
if they will endorse this event for the purpose of hanging the banner.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
City of Ashland and ODOT regulations require that all banners hung across E. Main Street be for city
events or city endorsed events. Any non-city event must request endorsement by a city commission
with final approval by the Council or must directly request endorsement from the Council in order to
qualify for banner hanging. The Monster Dash event is not a city event and therefore is requesting
endorsement from the Council.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Endorsement by the Council does not include waiver of any fees. Monster Dash event organizers will
be required to pay all fees associated with hanging the banner as well as any fees related to obtaining a
special event permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve/deny endorsement of the 2012 Monster Dash for the purposes of hanging a banner
across E. Main Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
Banner application
Page I of I
�r,
BANNER APPLICATION
PLEASE WRITE BELOW EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE PRINTED ON THE BANNER. ALL
BANNERS WILL BE REVIEWED FOR ANY OFFENSIVE OR INAPPROPRIATE
MESSAGE CONTENT BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND ODOT. NO ADVERTISING
OF ANY KIND IS PERMITTED ON THE BANNER.
I? R- tl a. rr.
PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW AND PRESENT THIS FORM
TO THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AT CITY HALL, 20 EAST MAIN STREET, ASHLAND.
UPON APPROVAL OF YOUR APPLICATION BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, THE
CITY WILL OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM ODOT,AND THE $125 FEE WILL THEN
BECOME DUE. A
Li
NAME OF ORGANIZATION/: /�$ �S fbZt hi a 11�Y� 111u3M�lS O� f6��
CONTACT PERSON: �Tea yl n D_ W 4\(. 01L, PHONE:I S�I
SI.&s, 13A (scti ) -36)
ADDRESS OF ORGANIZATION/CONTACT: V,g „
�v—��1tzaT'�v�-� -r
L
&-.,d dl
c� G 7sz�
WEEK REQUESTED FOR BANNER: be 12—
(FOR CITY USE ONLY)
THIS APPLICATION IS:
❑ APPROVED FOR A CITY OF ASHLAND CO-SPONSORED EVENT.
❑ NOT APPROVED.
DATE:
MARTHA BENNETT, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
DATE FEE PAID TO CITY OF ASHLAND:
----------------------------------------------------------
(FOR ODOT USE ONLY)
ODOT FAX 541 774-6349 AFTER SIGNATURE.RETURN TO CITY OF ASHLAND FAX 541-488-5311
THE ABOVE APPLICATION IS:
❑ APPROVED
❑ NOT APPROVED.
DATE:
ODOT
Revised 2/11/08
MONSFrE, uqk
DASH I
11
m pa
all,9wg/vn RY
BI cm OF mmm
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Agreement for RVTV Services
between City of Ashland and Southern Oregon University
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV) at Southern Oregon University provides government
and public access television for the City of Ashland and Ashland citizens. The Agreement for Services
identifies base services provided by RVTV to the City.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Base services identified in the Agreement include:
• Educational courses in video production for Ashland citizens 3.3 (page 2)
• Equipment maintenance 3.4 and 3.5 (page 2)
• Bi-monthly City Council meetings 3.6 (page 2)
• Monthly Planning Commission meetings 3.6 (page 2)
• Annual Budget Meetings 3.6 (page 2)
• Monthly in-studio show Town Hall 3.6 (page 2)
• Up to 12 additional meetings per year 3.6 (page 2)
• Up to seven City Band concerts in Lithia Park 3.6 (page 2)
• Archive of city meetings for on-line viewing 3.8 (page 3)
The City collects PEG (public, education and government) fees from Charter Communications and
Ashland TV subscribers to provide for public television. In addition, the City pays approximately
$10,000 in general fund monies for public television services. The Agreement for Services is valid
through June 2014 with the option to extend for two years.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Agreement for Services for FY13 is $54,090, FY14 is $55,712, FY15 is $57,383.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the Agreement for Services
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the Agreement for RVTV Services between the City of Ashland and Southern
Oregon University.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Agreement for RVTV Services
Page I of I
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
AGREEMENT FOR RVTV SERVICES BETWEEN
CITY OF ASHLAND AND SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY
This Agreement is entered into the day of June 2012, by and between THE CITY OF
ASHLAND, a municipal corporation (hereinafter"City"), and the State of Oregon acting by and
through the State Board of Higher Education on behalf of SOUTHERN OREGON
UNIVERSITY ("SOU").
RECITALS
A.ORS 190.110 and ORS 190.010 authorizes a unit of local government to enter into an
agreement with another unity of local government or state agency for the performance
of any or all functions and activities that a pail to the agreement has authority to
perform; and
B.The City and SOU have provided cable access television to the community for several e
Years as reflected in the prior agreements between the City and SOU and its
predecessors,including agreements dates June H, 1996 and September 9,2005; and
C.The 2008 agreement expires on June 30, 2012 and this Agreement is intended to replace
all prior written or verbal agreements between the parties; and
D.City and SSOU enter into this Agreement to identify their roles and responsibilities in
the provision of cable access services by SOU through the operation of Rogue Valley
Community Television (RVTV); and
NOW, THEREOFRE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein, the receipt
and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows-
].RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by
Ibis reference.
2.DURATION. (ORS 190.020(1)(e)] Except for termination as provided herein, the term of
this agreement shall commence upon approval and execution by both City and SOU and
shall terminate on June 30 2014, unless administratively extended in writing as provided
for herein. The City Administrator may extend this Agreement twice, by one year each
1
extension, by indicating in writing to SOU that an extension of the Agreement is sought
under the same terms and conditions of this Agreement. The extension shall be effective
upon receipt of a document from an authorized SOU representative consenting to the
extension under the same terms and conditions, allowing for increase in funding as noted
herein.
3.SOU SERVICES, FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. [ORS 190.020(])] SOU
shall use its best efforts to achieve the following objectives during the period of this
Agreement:
3.1 Operate Rogue Valley Community Television (RVTV).
3.2Engage in the cable cast of Public, Education and Government (PEG) access
programming and subject to this agreement, assume control of, all cable channels and
interconnect facilities made available to the City for its use.
33Provide to The citizens of Ashland educational courses in video production. Upon
completion, citizens become Certified Producers and are trained in the safe, proper and
effective use ofRVTV's equipment and facilities. Certified Producers are granted access
to RVTV facilities and equipment to produce local community programming that will be
cable cast free of charge on the designated Public Access channel.
3AProvide regular equipment maintenance services up to four hours per month to all video
equipment at City's council chambers. All such equipment is the property of CITY.
3.5Ensure proper repair,maintenance and security of equipment purchased for use at the
RVTV facility with City funds. All such equipment shall become property of SOU.
3.6Produce government access programming for the City, the regularly scheduled bi-monthly
City Council meetings, monthly Planning Commission meetings, annual Budget Hearing
per fiscal year, one hour-long monthly live studio show such as Town Hall and up to
twelve additional televised meetings in council chambers and up to seven City Band
concerts in Lithia Park (weather permitting). Additional services maybe purchased by or
under the direction of The City Administrator with unrestricted city funds or PEG fees
notwithstanding the not-to-exceed limit of this agreement; such additional services shall
be charged at the rates reflected on the attached Exhibit A, "price sheet addendum".
3.7RVTV will reserve playback capabilities for a channel provided by Ashland Fiber
Network (AFN) or its designated cable television-provider. If AFN, or its designated
2
cable television provider. If AFN, or its designated provider chooses to utilize the
playback capabilities reserved for its use, SOU agrees to make available all programming
listed in 1.7, all programming paid for in the price list for RVTV services and other
RVTV programming. If AFN, or its designated.provider, wishes RVTV to "package"
content for the channel, a contract for services shall be agreed to by the parties.
3.8Provide Video on Demand ("VOD") services to include archiving up to 100 program files
of City government access programming for a period of one year from the date of
capture. RVTV provides the City with links to the City website and the City determines
program selection for the VOD services.
3.9Determine, after consultation and approval by city,use of channels assigned to City.
3.10 SOU shall provide information to the City,upon request, that the City deems reasonable
appropriate regarding SOU's RVTV activities, including use of funds and
accomplishments under this Agreement.
3.11 SOU shall immediately reporl to the City upon becoming aware of any unexpected
development or problems regarding programming or.fiscal considerations which may
jeopardize the provisions of service under this Agreement.
3.12 SOU shall provide an unaudited annual report to the City prior to September 30 of each
year regarding RVTV workshops and (raining conducted; government and public access
programming; revenue and capital and operating expenses and a budget-to-
4.PAYMENT [ors 190.020(1)(A)] This agreement involves the payment of money from the
City of Ashland to SOU for RVTV services.
4.1 Subject to the condition set out in this Agreement, the City shall pay to SOU for RVTV
services included in the body of this agreement from legally available funds, in amounts
not to exceed:
FY 12 - 13 $54,090
FY 13 — 14 $55,712
FY 14— 15 $57,383
4.2When paying for RVTV services under this Agreement, City shall first utilize PEG fees,
if any, collected under franchise agreements. In the event City received PEG fees in
3
amounts greater than the amounts specified above, the overage shall be used to purchase
PEG equipment upgrades at Ashland City Council chambers or other city locations.
4.3City shall provide all necessary information to SOU to establish the City as a vendor of
SOU, such information shall include, but not be limited to City's contact information and
tax identification number.
4.4Equipment upgrades in City Council Chambers desired by the City, will be funded
separately by the City.
4.5SOU will credit the City$450 for each in studio show, such as Town .Hall when City
cancels the show up to twenty four-(24)hours in advance of the scheduled show and will
credit the City for cancelled meetings when the City cancels the show up to twenty four
hours in advance. The credit will-show as $145 for the first hour and $100 for each
subsequent hour.
4.6A11 payments made to SOU under this Agreement should be sent to the following address:
SOU Business Services
Accounts Receivable
1250 Siskiyou Blvd.
Ashland, OR 97520
4.7SOU is required to comply with the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as
defined in City Code, to all employees performing work under this Agreement and to any
subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this Agreement.
SOU is also required to post the living wage notice predominantly in areas where all
employees will see it.
5.BUDGET NON-APPROPRIATION The City's obligation to pay and SOU's obligation to
provide services and equipment under this Agreement are subject to non-appropriation of
funds in the budget process.
5.1 The amount of money payable to SOU under section 4.1 is subject to final appropriation
by the City in the budget process on an annual basis. Notwithstanding the termination
Provisions herein, termination may also occur for such non-appropriation.. Specifically,
all City obligations to expend money under this Agreement are contingent upon future
appropriation as part of the City budget process and local budget law, and the failure of
the Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in
termination of the Agreement. As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated
4
for the payments under this Agreement and the City elects not to utilize any other
lawfully available funds, then the City may terminate this Agreement at the end of its
current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to the City. The City shall deliver
written notice to SOU of such termination no later than thirty (30) days from the
determination by the City of the event of non-appropriation.
5.21f sufficient funds are not provided in future legislatively approved budgets of SOU to
permit SOU in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion to continue this
Agreement, or if the program for which this Agreement was executed is abolished,
notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, SOU may terminate this
Agreement without further liability by giving the City not less than 30 days prior notice.
In determining the availability of funds for this Agreement, SOU may use the budget
adopted for it by the Joint`Ways and Means Committee of the Oregon Legislative
Assembly. SOU will include in its budget request for-each fiscal year sufficient for-this
Agreement.
6.REVENUE [ORS 190.020(1)(b)] This agreement does not involve the receipt of revenue
which must be apportioned between The parties. Each party shall be solely responsible
for revenue, if any received.
7-PERSONNEL [ORS 190.020 (1)(c)] No employees will be transferred pursuant to this
Agreement. SOU shall be solely responsible for wages and benefits paid to employees
working for RVTV.
&REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY [ORS 190.020(l)(D)] There shall be no transfer of
title or possession to any real or personal property pursuant to this agreement.
9.TERMINATION [ORS 190.020(l)(f)]
9.1 All or part of this agreement may be terminated by mutual consent by both parties; or by
either party at any lime, upon ninety (90) days notice in writing and delivered by certified
mail. In the event of termination of the agreement, each party shall be responsible for its
own costs and expenses in complying with the agreement.
9.27his Agreement may be terminated by either party if the other party commits any material
breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement and fails or neglects to correct
the same within 30 days after written notice of such breach. If the breach is of such
nature That it cannot be completely remedied within the 30-day period, This provision
shall be complied with if correction of the breach begins within the 30-day period and
5
thereafter proceeds with reasonable diligence and in good faith to effect the remedy as
soon as is practicable.
9.3This Agreement may be terminated fornon-appropriation as specified in Section 5.
10 REMEDIES In the event of termination, SOU shall pay to the City any unexpended funds
received by SOU at any time from the City. City shall pay SOU for services rendered and
costs incurred by RVTV prior to the termination date.
11 ASSIGNMENT SOU shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without
prior written consent-of the City, provided,however, that SOU may subcontract the
performance of any provision or obligation required by this Agreement, so long as SOU
remains primarily responsible to the City for the performance of such provision or
obligation.
12 INSPECTION RECORDS
12.1 City shall maintain books,records, documents, and other evidence and accounting
procedures and practices sufficient to properly reflect all costs of whatever nature
claimed to have been incurred and anticipated in the performance of the Agreement.
The Oregon Department of Nigher Education, Oregon Secretary of State,Federal
Government and their duly authorized representatives shall have access to the books
documents, papers, and records of City which are directly pertinent to the
Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts.
Such books and records shall be maintained by City for three years from the date of
the completion of work unless a shorter period is authorized in writing. City is
responsible for any City audit discrepancies involving deviation from the terms of
the Agreement.
12.2Cily shall have access at all reasonable times, including during normal working
hours, to all books and records of RVTV. SOU shall maintain books, records,
documents, and other evidence and accounting procedures and practices sufficient to
reflect properly all costs of wba6tever nature claimed to have been incurred and
anticipated in the performance of the Agreement. CITY, and their duly authorized
representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers and records of
SOU which are directly pertinent to the Agreement for the purpose of making audit,
examination, excerpts, and transcripts. Such books and records shall be maintained
by SOU for three years from the date of the completion of work unless a shorter
6
period is authorized in writing. SOU is responsible for any SOU audit discrepancies
involving deviation from the terms of the Agreement.
13 HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
13.1 The City of Ashland is not providing services but purchasing services through SOU.
Accordingly, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and the Oregon Tort
Claims Act,the parties both shall hold each other harmless, defend and indemnify the
other from any and all claims, demands, damages or injuries, liability of damage,
including injury resulting in death or damage to property, that anyone may have or asserl
by reasons of any error, act or omission of the other,its officers, employees or agents.
Similarly, the City of Ashland shall not be held responsible for any claims, actions, costs,
judgments or other damages, directly and proximately caused by the criminal or wanton
acts of SOU, its officers, employees,-or-agents or the negligence of SOU, its officers,
employees, or agents. Similarly, the City of Ashland shall not be held responsible for any
claims, actions, costs,judgments or other damages, directly and proximately caused by
the criminal; or wanton acts of SOU,its officers, employees, or agents or the negligence
of SOU, its officers, employees or agents. If any aspect of Ibis indemnify shall be found
to be illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this indemnification.
13.2 Except as provided for in this Agreement, the City shall not be liable for any
obligations incurred by SOU. SOU shall not represent to any person that the City is
liable for SOU's obligations; except for such obligations the City may be liable as
provided for in this Agreement.
14. INSURANCE City and SOU, at their sole cost and expense shall maintain all risk property
and public liabi lily,insurance policies on the prospective properties and resources included in Ibis
agreement. The initial limits of liability required will be $2,000,000 for each occurrence and
$2,000,000 in aggregate for the liability coverage and all property upon completion of
construction shall be written on replacement costs basis.
15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION: City and SOU shall attempt to resolve all disputes through staff
discussions at the lowest possible level. Both parties to this Agreement agree to provide other
resources and personnel to negotiate and find resolution to disputes that cannot be resolved at the
staff level. As a next step, claims, disputes or other matters in questions between the parties to
this Agreement arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach thereof shall be determined
by mediation. Disputes shall be initially submitted to mediation by a mediator chosen by the
parties. The cost of mediation shall be home equally by the parties. If the parties are unable to
7
agree upon a mediator within 5 days or if mediation fails to resolve the dispute, either party may
mutually agree to any other form of dispute resolution or pursue litigation.
NOTICE AND REPRESENTATIVES All notices, certificates, or communications shall be
delivered or mailed postage prepaid to the parties at their respective places of business as set
forth below or at a place designated hereafter in writing by the parties.
City of Ashland:
Dave Kanner
City Administrator
20 East Main
Ashland, OR 97520
Southern Oregon University
Beth Sunitsch
Contracts Officer
1250 Siskiyou Boulevard
Ashland, OR 97520
And when so addressed, shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage
prepaid. In all other instances, notices, bills, and payments shall be deemed given at the time of
actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names and addresses of the person to whom
notices, bills, and payments are to be given by giving notice pursuant to this paragraph.
17..MERGER This Agreement constitutes the Entire Agreement between the parties. There are
no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding
this agreement. No amendment, consent, or waiver or terms of this agreement shall bind either
party unless in writing and signed by all parties. Any such amendment, consent or waiver shall
be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The parties, by the
signatures-below or their authorized representatives, acknowledge having read and understood
the Agreement and the parties agree to be bound by its terms and conditions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two
(2) duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers thereunto duly authorized.
DATED this_day of July, 2012.
CITY OF ASHLAND
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed in two
(2)duplicate originals, either as individuals, or by their officers thereunto duly authorized.
DATED this f6 .day of Sj�E 2012.
CITY OF ASH L D
By �'� L
Title ctry A%)11 is;ra.c(
Date 61oi �
STATE OF OREGON
By and through the State Board of Higher Education on behalf of Southern Oregon University
By
Title !1101—AL
Date
VED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
By
Doug as M. McGeary
Title Assis tCity Attome
Date May 21 2012
9
Addendum
City of Ashland Price List for RVTV Services
The following applies to all services not included in the
Agreement for Services
Service Description Unit Fee
Live Government meeting in Per Hour $745/first hour
Council chambers $100/each additional hour
Studio based live call-in TV Per Hour $450
production
City Band Per Show $350
Single camera shoot for a Per Show $250
meeting/presentation
RVTV Mobile Truck — Per Shoot Per Shoot
individually negotiated
Video Productions — average $2,500
cost per 15 min. Each
production shall be a
negotiated price, depending on
complexity
Studio Producer 6 classes $50/$35*
Field Producer 5 classes $50/$35*
*Reduced fee of$35 for residents who have completed either the Studio Producer classes or
Field Producer classes.
10
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Resolution Adopting Product Rates for Municipal Telecommunications Utility
FROM:
Lee Tuneberg, Interim Assistant City Administrator, tuneberl @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The proposed resolution repeals and replaces the existing telecommunications charges for services
approved by Council December 7, 2010-with Resolution 2010-28. While the rate structure remains
consistent with the previous rate structure, the renamed rate package tiers, have been updated to
provide generally higher levels of services with no rate increase in the rate packages.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff presented a mid-year report to Council on the Ashland Fiber Network (AFN)
Telecommunications Utility at the Study Session of March 19, 2012 and informed the Council of the
steps being taken to address the loss of 154 customers from its November 2011 peak.
AFN's certified internet service providers (ISP's) were notified of pending rate package changes in
February of 2012 and participated in the development of the revised rate packages contained in the
proposed resolution. AFN Staff notified the ISP's of the pending rate package changes on April 23,
2012 to ensure adequate advance notice for their business operations and marketing efforts.
Consistent with direction provided to Staff by Council at the Study Session, the proposed product rate
resolution provides generally improved services across the various rate packages without rate
increases.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No reduction in revenue is anticipated with the proposed revisions to the rate packages. Additional
revenue from increased customer counts to the November 2011 peak and beyond is not assured, but is
a desired outcome of the proposed resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the proposed resolution.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to adopt a resolution titled "A Resolution Adopting Product Rates for the Municipal
Telecommunications Utility" as presented.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Resolution 2012-
Resolution 2010-28—Dec 7, 2010 Adoption of AFN Telecommunication Product Rates
March 19, 2012 Council Study Session—Mid-year AFN Telecommunications Report
Page 1 of I
RESOLUTION NO 2012-
A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING PRODUCT RATES
FOR THE MUNICIPAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITY
RECITALS:
A. Ashland Fiber Network (AFN) charges its certified internet service providers (ISPs) and
direct customers for services as approved by resolution 2010-28.
B. AFN informed the ISPs of a pending rate increase on February 23, 2012, providing
sufficient notification of changes in services and charges.
C. Staff submitted the proposed changes to City Council at a Study Session held on March
19, 2012, and Council directed staff to make changes that generally improved services
but did not raise rates.
D. On April 23, 2012, AFN staff reported the revised service levels and no changes in rates
to the ISPs, providing adequate advance notice of the package realignment.
E. Staff desires to replace Resolution 2010-28 with a new resolution that reflects the
changes in services and service levels.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Attachment A, is incorporated herein by this reference, and adopted as the rates and
fees for the municipal telecommunications utility's wholesale and retail rates, as provided by the
City of Ashland Information Technology Department, Ashland Fiber Network Division. These
rates are effective July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. Nothing in Section 1 shall preclude Information Technology Department
management from decreasing or waiving fees, rates, and/or charges on a temporary basis to support
promotional campaigns.
SECTION 3. Information Technology Department management shall establish different fees, rates,
and/or charges for commercial customers as allowed or mandated by Federal law and regulations.
SECTION 4. Specified Information Technology Department rates only, as detailed under
Miscellaneous Fees, City of Ashland Resolution No 2010-28, are repealed as of the effective date of
this resolution.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2012, and takes effect
upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Pagel of 2
ATTACHMENT A
PRODUCT RATES FOR THE MUNICIPAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITY
(Effective July 1, 2012)
Fee title Method Charge
Community Access Wholesale $9/month
(GRANDFATHERED) Direct Retail $9/month
Basic Wholesale $25/month
(GRANDFATHERED) Direct Retail $30/month
Choice Wholesale $28/month
Direct Retail $35/month
Preferred Wholesale $38/month
Direct Retail $45/month
Preferred Plus Wholesale $45/month
Direct Retail $55/month
Media Wholesale $55/month
Direct Retail $65/month
Media Plus Wholesale $65/month
Direct Retail $75/month
Home Office Wholesale $53/month
Direct Retail $65/month
Small Business Wholesale $73/month
Direct Retail $85/month
Small Business Wholesale N.A.
Enhanced Direct Retail $100/month
Wholesale Rates are those AFN charges resellers. Resellers set their own retail rates for customers.
Direct Retail Rates are those AFN charges customers who choose to connect directly through AFN.
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO 2010-as
A RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTING PRODUCT RATES
FOR THE MUNICIPAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITY
Recitals:
A. Ashland Fiber Network has restructured its product offerings to better fit the changing
demands and perceptions of customers.
B. On December 7, 2010, the Ashland City Council provided an opportunity for public
comment on the proposed rates contained in the attached rate schedule in accordance
with ORS 294.160(1).
C. It is necessary to adopt the rates and fees proposed to provide a comprehensive list
that can be applied to all customers.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Attachment A, is incorporated herein by this reference, and adopted as the rates
and fees for the municipal telecommunications utility's wholesale and retail rates, as provided by
the City of Ashland Information Technology Department, Ashland Fiber Network Division.
SECTION 2. Nothing in Section I or Section 2 shall preclude Information Technology
Department management from decreasing or waiving fees, rates, and/or charges on a temporary
basis to support promotional campaigns.
c
SECTION 3. Information Technology Department management shall establish different fees,
rates,and/or charges for commercial customers as allowed or mandated by Federal law and
regulations.
SECTION 4. Specified Information Technology Department rates only, as detailed under
Miscellaneous
Fees, City of Ashland Resolution No 2008-38, are repealed as of the effective date of this
resolution.
This solution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this I day of �t?�'r, 2010, and takes
eff upon signing t e Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder �{
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of�°Cl�t6Gf 2010.
John omberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Megan Th nton, ntenm City Attorney
Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
PRODUCT RATES FOR THE MUNICIPAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITY
Fee Type and Title Rate Type Charge
Community Access Wholesale $9/month Access only;No technical support
Direct Retail $9/month
Basic Wholesale $25 /month
Direct Retail $30/month
Choice Wholesale $28/month
Direct Retail $35/month
Preferred Wholesale $38/month
Direct Retail $45/month
Family Entertainment Wholesale $45/month
Direct Retail $55/month
Gamer Wholesale $55/month
Direct Retail $65/ month
Ultimate Home Wholesale $65/month
Direct Retail $75/month
Small Office/Home Wholesale $53 /month
Office (SO/HO) Direct Retail $65/month
Small Business Wholesale $73 /month
Direct Retail $85 /month
Direct Fiber on Wholesale $250/month Point-to-point within AFN Wide
Area
Local Loop Direct Retail $300/month Network
Direct Fiber Wholesale $400/month Plus installation fees and per terms
of use
Direct Retail $500/month
AFNMax Installation $200 Installation charge includes use of
CPE
Direct Retail $48 /month device for life of service from AFN
Supplemental Add-on Mobile $ 5 /month For AFN customers wanting to add
Wireless Rental Equipment $25/ month AFNAnywherc or AFNMax
Page 2 of 3
J
Fiber Installation $1500 Minimum per install; Must be within
1000 feet of network splice
enclosure
Modem AFN Direct Connect $50/each Optional
Wholesale Rates are those AFN charges resellers. Resellers set their own retail rates for
customers
Direct Retail Rates are those AFN charges customers who choose to connect directly through
AFN.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Study Session —Ashland Fiber Network Update
Meeting Date: March 19, 2012 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl @ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Secondary Contact:
Approval: Dave Kanner Estimated Time: Consent Agenda
Question:
This is a mid-year report on Ashland's Telecommunications.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff has recommended the following steps to Council and is proceeding unless otherwise directed:
1. Do not raise the prices for the internet line up at this time.
2. Increase internet speeds to the maximum extent practical.
3. Market the upgrade and price freeze to our direct customers.
4. Get the ISP and cable contracts in place, including the modification to the cable television
contract.
5. Take the steps necessary to reduce expenditures internally in order to maintain the AFN
technology debt payment.
6. Add the ISPs to our web site as an alternative to direct service.
7. Continue to monitor customer migration to see if these actions stem the loss.
8. Assure the ISPs that we will revisit their promotional pricing idea this summer.
Background:
The last report was given by the Information Technology Director in June, 2011,just prior to his
departure. Many of the enhancements to products and services promoted by the prior
CIO could not progress after his leaving.
Since that departure the City has restructured the department head position several times and is now
beginning a new search for a "chief information officer" in conjunction with the leadership position for
the Electric Department. Staff expects the recruitment to be successful by summer.
During the last six months current staff has worked on several issues relating to the IT department and
AFN. Key issues during this interim period have been:
A. Impacts in the cable television industry affecting the incumbent (partner) service provider.
B. Marketing and competition changes in internet services.
C. Staffing/support changes beyond the department head level.
D. Budget implications and other interim strategies while recruitment proceeds.
The Acting City Administrator requested approval to renegotiate the Television Head-end System
Lease & Contract.. The key issue for departure from the bid contract awarded in January, 2011, is the
terms have become untenable for the City's partner. That re-negotiation and the proposed change in
I
Ir,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
terms are done and ready for approval. The key focus was to allow for continued services, sharing in
revenues and recognizing potential cost reductions where necessary, to better address recent trends as
well as provide time for review by the new CIO whenever that person has been hired.
The City has redrafted the Internet Service Provider contract, attempting to assist all parties to better
meet or compete with the local, non-AFN based provider. Staff has reviewed service packages, costs
and pricing established last year and is ready to propose enhancements and re-alignment that is
expected to be effective in retaining and possibly improving the number of direct and indirect
subscribers on AFN's network. Once accepted the, city-specific and cooperative marketing must be
developed in short order to take advantage of the changes and to have a beneficial impact on subscriber
counts.
AFN has been impacted by changes in personnel and indirectly impacted by other IT staffing changes.
Staff is working to stabilize both sides of IT (AFN and the Computer Services Division in the Central
Services Fund). In doing so, AFN will be able to respond better to the impact of decreased revenues
associated with items A. and B. above. Taking these steps now will make it easier for the new director
to focus on managing the various systems under their responsibility by providing an appropriate
staffing level with division supervisors to manage the daily operations.
Attachments:
None
2
061912 AFN Study Sesion CC 031912 Atch3.doc
11FAWA
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 — Business Meeting
Liquor License Application from Mario Camacho dba Star Sushi #1
FROM:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christebgashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Approval of a Liquor License Application from Mario Camacho dba Star Sushi 41 at 293 E Main
Street.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Application is for a new ownership.
The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter
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 Chapter 6.32).
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Endorse the application with the following:
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 proceed with the processing of this
application.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
1 move to approve the liquor license application for Mario Camacho dba Star Sushi 41 at 293 E. Main
Street.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page I of I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Award of Contracts to Brenntag, Univar and Cascade Columbia for Water and
Wastewater Treatment Plant Chemicals
FROM
Greg Hunter, water treatment plant supervisor, greg.hunter @ashland.or.us
David Gies, waste water treatment plant supervisor, david.gies @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Chemicals are required to maintain strict standards and consistent water quality at the Water Treatment
Plant and to maintain strict standards and the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) permit at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bids were requested for seven chemicals and the
resulting multiple contract awards will go to three suppliers. The term for each of the intended
contracts is one fiscal year beginning July 1, 2012, and ending on June 30, 2013.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The sourcing method for this multiple contract award is a competitive sealed bid. The City received
four bids and the resulting public contracts are being awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible
bidders as follows in the attached bid tab.
Section 2.50.080 Formal Processes - Competitive Sealed Bidding and Proposals
Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, addition to the requirements of the Model Rules and
the Oregon Public Contracting Code:
C. The Local Contract Review Board shall approve the award of all contracts for which the
Ashland Municipal Code or the Oregon Public Contracting Code require formal competitive
solicitations or formal competitive bids.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Water Treatment Plant: Brenntag $27,005.00; Univar$57,856.63; Total $84,861.63
Wastewater Treatment Plant: Brenntag $4,092.00; Cascade Columbia $82,995.00; Total $87,087.00
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends the public contracts for chemicals be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract awards
for water and waste water treatment plant chemicals.
ATTACHMENTS:
Invitation to Bid 2012-102, Bid Tab
Page 1 of I
�r,
INVITATION TO BID 2012-102, WTP& W WTP CHEMICAL July 6, 2012
CHEMICAL BRENNTAG CASCADE CHEM QUIP UNIVAR
COLUMBIA
Hasa
$1.58/Gal Hasa
WTP- Hasa 300 Gal/Tote $1,42/Gal
CHEMICAL#1: $1.35/Gal $474.00/Tote 330 Gal/Tote
SODIUM 330 Gal/Tote (6)Totes-$2,844.00 $468.60/Tote
HYPOCHLORIT (6)Totes$2,673.00 Tote deposit waived (6)Totes$2,811.60
E 12.5% Delivery charge unless damaged or not (Includes del chg) No Bid
(6)Totes per $27.50 per order returned by the City
order/(I0)orders No tote deposit ($200) Delivery charge
per fiscal year required *$25.00 Energy $27.50
Total cost per order surcharge Total cost per order
$2,700.50 Total cost per order $2839.10
$2,869.00
WTP- $1.26/Lb
CHEMICAL#2: $1.42/Lb $1.52/Lb 500Lb Drum
CYTEC 500 Lb Drum 500 Lb Drum $630.00
SUPERFLOC C- $710.00 $760.00 (4)Drums
573 (4)Drums (4) Drums $2,520.00
FLOCCULANT $,2840.00 $3,040.00 No Bid (Includes del chg)
—No Substitution Delivery charge *$25.00 Energy *Minimum order
(4) Drums per $27.50 per order ms
ru
order/Every 6 Total cost per order Total cost per order surcharge 4 Total cost per
weeks on average $2,867.50 $3,065.00 order$2,520.00
per year(9
orders
WTP-
CHEMICAL #3: $2.65/Lb
CYTEC $3.08/Lb $146.068 Bag
SUPERFLOC N- $169.1I/Bag $876.408
300 LMW (6)Bags$1,018.62 (Includes del chg)
FLOCCULANT- No Bid *$25.00 Energy No Bid *Minimum order
No Substitution surcharge 6 bags
(6) Bags per Total cost per order Total cost per
order/Every 12 $1,043.62 order$876.408
weeks on average
per year(4
orders)
WTP FMC/Univar
FMC $0.1955/Lb
CHEMICAL#4: Solvay FMC
$0.209/Lb 50 LbsBag
SODA ASH, $0.25/Lb $2.64/Lb
50 Lb Bag 54Bags/Pallet
DENSE, FREE 50 Lb/Bag 50 Lb Bag
54Bags/Pallet 49 Bags/Pallet Bags/Pallet $2,111.40
FLOWING gs/Pallet(not 54) 54 Bag
$2,257.20 (Includes del chg)
Or Equivalent $2,450.00 $2,851.20 *
(216)Bags per Delivery charge *$25.00 Energy Delivery charge Minimum order
order/Every 3-4 surcharge $0.00
$27.50 per order 4 pallets(216
weeks on average Total cost per order Total cost per order Total cost per order bags)
per year(15 $2,284.70 $2,475.00 $2,851.20 Total cost per
orders) order$2,111.40
ITB 2012-102 WTP&W WTP CHEMICALS,PAGE 1 OF 2,07/06/2012
INVITATION TO BID 2012-102, WTP& WWTP CHEMICAL July 6, 2012
CHEMICAL BRENNTAG CASCADE CHEM QUIP UNIVAR
COLUMBIA
Hasa
Hasa $1.58/Gal
WWTP $1.35/Gal 300 Gal/Tote Hasa
CHEMICAL#5: 330 Gal/Tote $474.00/Tote $1.42/Gal
$445.50/Tote (3)Totes$1,422.00 330 Gal/Tote
SODIUM
SODIUM LORIT (3)Totes$1,336.50 Tote deposit waived $468.60/Tote
12.5% Delivery charge unless damaged or not (3)Totes$1,405.80 No Bid
E
E 1 Totes per $27.50 per order returned by the City Delivery charge
order/(3)Times No tote deposit ($200) $27.50
required *$25.00 Energy Total cost per order
per year required
cost per order surcharge $1,433.30
$1,364.00 Total cost per order
$1,447.00
RZBC/GPD RZBC RZBC/Univar
WWTP- $1.065/1-b $1.04/LB Label
CHEMICAL#6: 43 Bags/Pallet 50 Lb/Bag 44 Bags/Pallet
/Lb
CITRIC ACID $2,289.75 40 Bags/Pallet $2 Bags/Pallet
Or Equivalent Delivery charge $2,080.00 No Bid (Includes
(43)Bags per $27.50 per order *$25.00 Energy (Includes del chg)
Minimum order-
order/(2)times Total cost per order surcharge
per year $2,317.25 Total cost per order 1 pallet bags)
$2,105.00 Total cosst t per
order$2,475.00
WWTP-
CHEMICAL 47:
ALUMINUM $0.1245/Lb
SULFATE 11.25 Lbs/Gal
Cascade 4,000 Gal(45,000 Lbs)
Columbia No $5,602.50
Substitution No Bid *$25.00 Energy No Bid No Bid
(4,000)Gal per surcharge
order/Every 2 Total cost per order
weeks during $5,627.50
months May-
November
Declined to bid:
JCI Jones Chemical
Nalco
Olin Corporation
Sierra chemical
ITB 2012-102 WTP&WWTP CHEMICALS,PAGE 2 OF 2,07/06/2012
CITY OF
-ASH LAN D
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 — Business Meeting
Special Procurement for the purchase of Polymer for the WWTP
FROM
David Gies, waste water treatment plant supervisor, david.gies @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This "Contract-specific Special Procurement' will allow the Wastewater Treatment Plant to directly
award a contract to Polydyne for the purchase of clarifloc C-6286 (Polymer). This chemical is used at
the WWTP to assist with the "thickening" of biosolids which removes excess water from the solids.
The excess solids that are generated are in the 1-2% range and after being treated with this polymer,
the solids are thickened to approximately 20%. Therefore, fewer loads of biosolids are hauled to Dry
Creek Landfill as a result of using this polymer. The need for polymer may fluctuate from year to year
or season to season based on sludge characteristics. This polymer continues to perform well and is the
best product for the application.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A Special Procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid
process, custom designing a contracting approach, or the direct selection or award of a public contract
or for a series of contracts. The attached and completed special procurement, approval request forth is
attached for your review and consideration.
AMC 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or
Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A — 279C and the Model
Rules except for the following:
G. Special Procurements — a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific
procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures
described in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060, 27913.065, 279B.070. The contracting approach may be
custom designed to meet the procurement needs.
1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 27913.085 and all other
applicable provisions of law.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The wastewater treatment plant has budgeted $50,000 for polymer for FY 2013.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the "contract-specific special procurement' be approved.
Page I of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
SUGGESTED MOTION:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract award
to Polydyne for clarifloc C-6286 (polymer).
ATTACHMENTS:
Form #9, Special Procurement, Request for Approval
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
FORM #9 ASHLAND
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: David Gies, Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor
Date: July 17, 2012
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Wastewater Treatment Plant
2. Department Contact Name: David Gies
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From July 1,2012 To: June 30,2016
5. Total Estimated Cost: $50.000 is budgeted for Polymer for FY 2012-2013
Note:The need for Polymer may fluctuate from year to year or season to season based on sludge characteristics.
6. Short title of the Procurement: POLYMER CHEMICAL
Supplies and/or Services.or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
The chemical being acquired is Polvdyne Clarifloc C-6286(Polymer). This chemical is used at the
W WTP to assist with the"thickening"of biosohds which removes excess water from the solids.The
excess solids that are generated are in the 1-2%range and after being treated with this polymer,the
solids are thickened to approximately 20%.Therefore, fewer loads of biosolids are hauled to Dry
Creek Landfill as a result of using this polymer.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done
in the past and the proposed procedure.The Agency may,but is not required to,also include the
following types of documents:Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s),Bid/Proposal Forms(s),Contract
Form(s),and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach
additional sheets as needed.
Background: Not all polymer works the same. Finding the right polymer product is done by testing
the solids and doing"jar tests"to see what works best for a specific application. When the W WTP
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 3,7/11/2012
reconstruction was complete numerous manufacturers of polymer products were contacted and"jar
tests"were performed using the different polymers It was determined at that time that the Polvdvne
Chuifloc C-6286 was the best product for this application and it has been continually effective in
thickening the biosolids The Special Procurement that was approved July 21 2009 by the Council is
due to expire July 20 2012
Proposed procedure: The proposed contracting procedure is"direct award" for a term of three
fiscal years
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
"Jar tests"were performed using various polymers provided by numerous manufacturers And-at that
time it was determined that the Polydyne Clarifloc C-6286 was the best product for this application.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X_(a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
It is unlikely to diminish competition because numerous manufacturers were contacted when the"iar
tests"were performed using the different polymers and it was determined at that time after testing_
various polymers that the polymer manufactured by Polydyne was the best fit for the application
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);and
(b)(i)will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because:
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings);or
X_(b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 279B.055,279B.060,279B.065,
or 279B.070,or any rules adopted thereunder because:
At this time there is no need to conduct"jar tests"in search of another polymer that will perform in
the same manner.The polymer being used has continued to perform well and is meeting the needs of
the WWTP.
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.)
Form rig-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 2 of 3,7/11/2012
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5)and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a
public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4)and OAR 137-047-0300.The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the
Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at
least seven(7)Days before Award of the Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council,the following public notice will
be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven(7)day protest period.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us-/Ifopproved. du/Y 13. 2012]
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: flfnpprovcd. July IS. 0121
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on(1f'approv ed,, JulY 17. 20121.
This"Contract-specific Special Procurement"was processed to seek an exemption from
the competitive bid process to directly award a contract to Polydyne Inc. for the
acquisition of Polydyne Clarifloc C-6286(Polymer) for a term of 3 years. This chemical
is used at the WWTP to assist with the"thickening"ofbiosolids which removes excess
water from the solids.The excess solids that are generated are in the 1-2%range and after
being treated with this polymer, the solids are thickened to approximately 20%.Therefore,
fewer loads of biosolids are hauled to Dry Creek Landfill as a result of using this polymer.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055,279B.060,
27913.065,or 279B.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 279B.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland,Kari Olson,Purchasing,90 N.
Mountain Avenue,Ashland,Oregon,97520. The seven(7)protest period will expire at
5:00pm on l fl)iihlislied July 1(', the daie mill he.1idr 2.i, 2012).
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of.3,7111/2012
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Approval of a contract amendment for Construction Engineering Consultants for
additional costs on the Hersey/Wimer intersection Re-alignment
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, engineering services manager, Public Works Department, fleurys @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
In July of 2011 the City of Ashland contracted with Construction Engineering Consultant (CEC) to
perform all required engineering work with regards to the Hersey/Wimer intersection re-alignment.
Unplanned design changes have caused the contract to overrun the original "not to exceed" contract
amount. The consultant is requesting an additional $4,450 or 28% increase from the original contract
amount.
The Council acting as the local contract review board is required to approve all amendments to
personal service contracts in excess of 25% over the original contract amount.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The approved design of the Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project provides for an approximate 25 foot
shift in the alignment of Hersey Street. This shift eliminates both of the existing driveways and four of
the thirteen parking spaces on the Colwell Chiropractic Clinic property, located at the northwest corner
of the intersection. Access to the clinic and four parking spaces are being provided by on the City
owned lot located adjacent to the Colwell property.
Construction Engineering Consultants were contracted to provide all engineering related design work
for the re-alignment and coordinate other consultants, city staff, and the Oregon Department of
Transportation. The original contract with CEC was $29,170. Previously the scope of the original
contract was expanded by$7,005 to encompass additional tasks that included:
1. Additional survey work
2. Storm drain bio Swale design
3. Engineered retaining wall
4. Schematic layouts for parking lot
5. Electrical design for parking lot lighting
In order to complete the final engineering CEC was required to make revisions to the final drawings,
the bid schedule and project specifications based on the recommendation to remove of the lower
section of the planned parking lot. The consultant associated costs for the final revisions was $4,450.
The City's professional services contracts are intended to be flexible and adaptable to the changing
conditions found in our public works projects. Staff strives to anticipate changes that might arise,
Pagel of2
11FALA&A
CITY OF
ASHLAND
however it is impossible to foresee each and every condition that will change the amount of time and
effort expended by the engineers. These contracts must adapt to the influence of regulatory agencies,
input from political bodies, environmental regulations and changing physical conditions. The only
possible means by which contract amendments can be avoided is to create a lump sum contract.
Unfortunately; to account for unknowns the consultant is required to inflate the contract accordingly,
sometimes as much as 100 percent higher than a standard time and materials contract.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The original contract with CEC for $29,170 was previously increased by $7005, a 24% increase. An
additional $4,450 increase to the contract represents a 28% overall budget increase and requires City
Council approval. The final contract total is $40,625. All costs by CEC are reimbursable under the
fund exchange agreement in place to fund a majority of the construction of the Hersey/Wimer project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached contract amendment to the CEC contract. The extra work is
the result of changing conditions and requirements beyond the control of staff or the consultant.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve a $4,450 amendment to the contract with CEC for additional work required on the
Hersey/Wimer re-alignment project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Contract Amendment #2
Page 2 of 2
�r,
ADDENDUM TO CITY OF ASHLAND
CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES LESS THAN $35,000
Addendum made this 91h day of July , 2012, between the City of Ashland ("City")
and Construction Engineering Consultants. Inc. ("Consultant').
Recitals:
A. On July 18, 2011 City and Consultant entered into a "City of Ashland Contract for
Personal Services Less than $35,000" (further referred to in this addendum as "the
agreement').
B. The parties desire to amend the agreement to increase the compensation to be
paid Consultant.
City and Consultant agree to amend the agreement in the following manner:
1. The maximum price as specified in Paragraph 4 of the agreement is increased
to:
$ 40.625.00
2. Except as modified above the terms of the agreement shall remain in full force
and effect.
CONSULTANT: CITY OF ASHLAND:
BY BY
Department Head
Its Date
DATE
Purchase Order#
Acct. No.:
(For City purposes only)
1-CITY OF ASHLAND,ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
G:\pub-wrWeng102-05 N.Main Hersey Wimer Intersection RealignXA Admin\Eng Vendorl (CEC Inc)\Payments%02-05
Addendum for Contract for Personal Services less than$35K-#02.doc:
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Approval of Special Procurement for Forestry Consulting Services
FROM:
Chris Chambers, forest resource specialist, Ashland Fire & Rescue, chamberc @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This action is to request approval from the City Council, as the local contract review board, to enter
into a public contract deemed to be a special procurement. It has been determined based on written
findings that Small Woodland Services is the only company in the Rogue Valley capable of providing
the specialized skills and knowledge of an experienced Consulting Forester and the complex Forest
Land Management Services required by the City of Ashland on its municipal forestlands and in the
master stewardship agreement and Supplemental project agreements of the Ashland Forest Resiliency
Stewardship Project.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City has engaged in sustainable, ecosystem based forestry on municipal forestlands for many
years. During this time, a significant amount of site specific knowledge and experience has been
gained and used extensively in subsequent work to further the City's goals on its own land and also
across adjacent private and federal property to the City's benefit. Through this accumulation of
knowledge and experience in Ashland's unique setting, Small Woodlands Services, Inc. is uniquely
qualified to provide forestry consulting services that help the City address issues of forest health, fire
management, and social integration in and around the source of the City's municipal water supply.
The City (and through contract, Small Woodland Services) has committed to deliverables in the
Promoting Ecosystem Resiliency through Collaboration grant program that require the ongoing
participation of Small Woodland Services, Inc. to fulfill the City's obligations in this program. The
City is similarly obligated in a master stewardship agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to provide
forestry consulting and certain deliverables that are unique to the knowledge and skills of Small
Woodland Services, Inc.
In 1996, the City of Ashland requested proposals from qualified persons to provide commercial and
non-commercial silvicultural activities on city-owned lands in, and adjacent to, the City of Ashland
Watershed. At that time only one response was received from Small Woodland Services, Inc. A
contract for work was entered into with Small Woodlands Services, Inc. to conduct silvicultural
projects across the 1,075 acres of City-owned forest lands. In 2002, a second request for proposal was
issued for continuation of project work and Small Woodland Services, Inc. was the only response
received.
Pagc 1 of 2
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Staff has determined that Small Woodland Services is the only contractor that is capable of
implementing the City's land management goals utilizing past experience and site specific knowledge
to implement projects beneficial to the City and its citizens.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Water fund dollars are budgeted on an ongoing basis and routinely enhanced by federal funding or
grants from year to year using the City's contribution as matching funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the City enter into a public contract with Small Woodland Services, Inc. based
on the special procurement written findings.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Motion to authorize entering into a contract with Small Woodland Services, Inc for forestry consulting
services.
ATTACHMENTS:
Form 49, Request for Special Procurement
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
FORM #9 ASHLAND
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Chris Chambers, Fire Department
Date: July 11, 2012
Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented
to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting
procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special
procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set
forth ORS 279B.085(4).
1. Requesting Department Name: Ashland Fire and Rescue
2. Department Contact Name: Chris Chambers
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From 7/17/12 To: 6/30/15
5. Total Estimated Cost: Not to exceed$74.000 per year
6. Short title of the Procurement: City Forestry Consultant
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
The services will include technical consulting on a variety of forestry issues and implementation of
work on City forestlands as needed to accomplish goals set forth by the Forest Lands Commission and
City Council.
7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: In 1996, the City of Ashland requested
proposals from qualified persons to provide technical consulting and silviculture activities on City-owned
forestlands in, and adjacent to, the City of Ashland and our municipal watershed. At that time,only one
response was received, and it was from Small Woodland Services, Inc. A contract for work was entered
into with Small Woodlands Services, Inc. and the contract period was not specified because it was not
known how many years it would take, given funding cycles, to conduct silviculture projects across the
1,075 acres of City-owned forest lands. In 2002, a second RFP was released for continuation of project
work and Small Woodland Services, Inc. was the only company to submit a proposal. Small Woodlands,
Inc created a systematic approach to ecosystem management on City forestlands during this time,gaining
site specific knowledge of ecological and social functioning that are equally imperative for successful
achievement of the goals set forth by the City Council and Forest Lands Commission.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 1 of 4;7/11/2012
Background: In 1996, the City of Ashland requested proposals from qualified persons to provide
technical consulting and silviculture activities on City-owned forestlands in, and adjacent to, the
City of Ashland and our municipal watershed. At that time, only one response was received, and
it was from Small Woodland Services, Inc. A contract for work was entered into with Small
Woodlands Services, Inc. and the contract period was not specified because it was not known
how many years it would take, given funding cycles, to conduct silviculture projects across the
1,075 acres of City-owned forest lands. In 2002, a second RFP was released for continuation of
project work and Small Woodland Services, Inc. was the only company to submit a proposal.
Small Woodlands, Inc created a systematic approach to ecosystem management on City
forestlands during this time, gaining site specific knowledge of ecological and social functioning
that are equally imperative for successful outcomes on City owned forestlands in and
surrounding the Ashland Watershed.
Proposed procedure: The Fire Department is seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process to
directly award a contract for three(3) years, with option of two, one year extensions for a period not to
exceed 5 years in total.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement:
The City of Ashland has previously engaged Small Woodland Services as its technical
silviculture consultant on City forestlands and as technical consultant on the U.S. Forest Service
Ashland Forest Resiliency(AFR) Stewardship Project. Because of Small Woodland's
fundamental role in the development of various land management plans, monitoring data
protocols, work on the ground, and knowledge of the Ashland community, it is essential that
Small Woodland Services Inc. be retained to perpetuate the City's work toward ecosystem based
forest stewardship.
In the two previous RFPs released for Forest Work, Small Woodland Services, Inc. was the only
proposer to submit a proposal. This contract requires a service provider who is capable of
providing silvicultural and community education/relations work consultation services in support
of the City and in conjunction with the Forest Lands Commission. Small Woodlands Services,
Inc. is uniquely qualified to provide this broad range of services to the City of Ashland.
The City of Ashland has demonstrated a desire to use silvicultural work on its forest land
ownership as a learning laboratory, as well as carrying forth forest management actions designed
to improve forest ecosystem health. A variety of permanent study plots, and other experimental
wildfire fuels treatment strategies have been undertaken by Small Woodlands Services, Inc. on
City-owned forest lands. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate or continue these
existing strategies and transfer the knowledge to future work and the AFR project with a change
in service providers. These strategies are an integral part of the implementation process of City
forestlands management and the Ashland Forest Resiliency project, linking past strategies and
goals with quantitative outcomes that form the basis for ongoing adaptive management and
policy making.
9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement:
X (a)will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to
substantially diminish competition for public contracts because:
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 2 of 4,7/11/2012
There are no likely contractors with the depth and breadth of knowledge and history specific to the
City of Ashland's forestlands and this has been proven in two prior bid periods where Small
Woodlands was the only bidder on these services.
(please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.);and
X_(b)(i)will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public
because:
Small Woodlands possesses knowledge and experience that would take another contractor a
significant amount of time to simply"get up to speed". This would be at a loss to the City since current
needs and ongoingproiects are based on this foundation of knowledge and experience.
(please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings);or
X_(b)(ii)will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not
practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 27913.055,279B.060,27913.065,
or 279B.070,or any rules adopted there under because:
Small Woodlands Services brines a unique set of skills and knowledge that specifically benefits the
City of Ashland by combining ecosystem knowledge,an understanding of Ashland's social fabric,and
the ability to work with the public and partner agencies that uniquely benefits the City's well being
through protection of natural resources and our only water supply.
Form 1{9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 3 of 4,7/11/2012
Public Notice:
Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5)and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public
notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a
public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4)and OAR 137-047-0300.The public
notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the
Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at
least seven(7)Days before Award of the Contract.
After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council,the following public notice will
be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven(7)day protest period.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us-91r, tray 1-, 2011
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: Jule 18`°. 2012
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council,acting as the Local Contract Review Board,on du;nesl 16, 2011.
his Speciol Procurenram is iA Vwrfrac7-specific.Special Procurement The proposed
conlracling procedure is a dire(/It ire er Snurll bl ixxTlundv.Serricas, hu:_ to fzdfill the
necessivyrequiremenis. duliesund%unclionsrrfucon_ndtingJirreslcer. Small11"oo4flanils
Semces hers it lligh level oferperlise, extensive experience: working orr Cii,v�efAshland
n-estknds and in Ashland s l f'alershed, nhich is exb-emelb imporlant lo 1/a,Cin-and the
arrgoir{L.'as/nand Frrresl Resitirnar 59eirtrnh'lri/r Pruje<:1.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts,and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055,27913.060,
279B.065,or 279B.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland,Kan Olson,Purchasing
Representative,90 N. Mountain,Ashland,OR 97520. The seven(7)day protest period
will expire at 5:00pm on.luly 25"'. 2012.
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form#9-Special Procurement-Request for Approval,Page 4 of 4,7/11/2012
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
First reading of an ordinance adding a new Regional Plan Element to the
Comprehensive Plan and acknowledging revised population allocations.
FROM:
Derek Severson, Associate Planner, derek.severson @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The ordinance being presented to the City Council for first reading includes the addition of a new
Comprehensive Plan element "Chapter XIV —Regional Plan" incorporating applicable portions of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (the RPS Plan) and acknowledging revised
population allocations by Jackson County for the City of Ashland.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The request before Council is a legislative amendment to adopt a new element (Chapter XIV -
Regional Plan) into the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan in order to incorporate applicable
portions of the Jackson County-adopted RPS Plan into city policy documents as well as to
acknowledge corrected population allocations for the City of Ashland by Jackson County. The
attached draft "Regional Plan Element" was created in collaboration with staff members from Jackson
County, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and the six participating cities in an effort to have
as much consistency as possible in implementing the RPS plan across the six cities and Jackson
County jurisdictions.
Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in the region in that it is the only jurisdiction not
to identify urban reserves, and the proposed new Comprehensive Plan element is similarly unique in
that where the other cities are adopting new regulations and maps, Ashland is in effect acknowledging
its participation through the adoption of policies that in large part will not come into play unless urban
reserves are identified for the city. The new element thus serves primarily as a placeholder to
acknowledge the city's signatory participation in the plan and to provide a framework should the city
ultimately choose to pursue the creation of urban reserves.
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) allow for the establishment of regional problem solving programs
in counties and regions throughout the state to provide a framework directed toward resolving land use
problems in a region. The City of Ashland entered into a"Collaborative Regional Problem.Solving"
process in 2000 with Jackson County and several other municipalities in the greater Bear Creek Valley.
This Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process is now into its twelfth year, and has brought together
the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent, as well as Jackson
County and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create a plan identifying lands suitable for
long-term urban growth sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the region's population. Lands that
have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region are designated in the RPS
Plan as urban reserve areas (URA's).
Page 1 of S
CITY OF
ASHLAND
In September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the RPS process and
adopted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the RPS planning process and the general sequencing
envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment process. Ashland signed the
formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
After considering a draft of the Plan in mid-2010, the City Council crafted Resolution #2010-021
which identified six primary issues with the RPS plan which the Council wished to see further
addressed during the adoption process. This resolution was provided to the Jackson County Planning
Commission during its review of the draft RPS plan, and these issues were reiterated to the Board of
Commissioners as they began their review with Council Resolution 42011-028. These six issues are
detailed below, along with a brief explanation of how each has been addressed in the adopted plan.
• Population: Subsequent to the last resolution, Jackson County reopened its Population
Element in conjunction with the RPS Plan's adoption and made adjustments to the
population allocations for Ashland. This re-allocation provides population allocations
consistent with Comprehensive Plan projections as the Council had requested. (The County
chose to re-allocate population from unincorporated areas of the County itself, rather than
taking population from other cities in the region, thereby avoiding making changes in other
cities'population allocations or land needs which might have posed substantial risk to the
RPS Plan at this stage.)
• Efficient Land Use and Transportation: Chapter 2. Figure 2.10 and Chapter 5, Section
2.5 of the County-adopted plan include increased density commitments from all
participating cities which were arrived at to address density concerns and comply with the
state's current "safe harbor"requirements. For the first 25 years of the planning horizon,
these density commitments involve densities of 6.5 to 6.9 dwelling units per acre both in
existing Urban Growth Boundaries and in proposed Urban Reserve Areas, including a
commitment by Ashland to a 6.6 units per acre density within its existing Urban Growth
Boundary. Density commitments for the Urban Reserves would be increased by the
participating cities for the remainder of the planning period to from 7.5 to 7.9 dwelling
units per acre. In LCDC's comments on the plan, it also recommended that the City of
Medford increase its first-half density commitments from 6.5 to 6.6 units/acre and over the
second period that it increase its density from 7.5 to 7.6 units per acre, and that it "strive to
increase its efficiency of development to the extent possible."
Chapter 5, Section 2.6 of the adopted plan also includes commitments by all participating cities
including Ashland to meet the benchmarks in the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for
the percentage of new dwelling units and new employment created in mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly areas or transit-oriented developments (TODs). This would require that 49 percent of
new dwelling units and 44 percent of new employment be located in mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly areas or TODs by 2020 in order to demonstrate progress towards creating mixed use,
pedestrian friendly developments in the region, and also provides that these requirements can
be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units and/or employment within a city's city
limits to allow the transfer of some increased density into a city's core rather than forcing a
concentration of increased density at the perimeter of a city.
Page 2 of 5
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Chapter 5, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 call for the development of conceptual transportation plans for
urban reserve areas in order to identify and protect regionally significant transportation
corridors to provide for a multi-modal regional transportation network with connections both
within and between cities, and for conceptual land use plans which consider targeted densities,
land use distribution, necessary transportation infrastructure and efforts to concentrate
development in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas.
• Urban Fringe: The County-adopted RPS Plan retains the minimum 10-acre lot size
limitation for development within a mile of Ashland urban growth boundary in Chapter 5,
Section 2.15, as requested by the City.
• Jurisdiction Transfers: The County will address jurisdictional transfers for County roads
inside city limits and urban growth boundaries through the joint management agreements
for urban growth boundaries and urban reserves rather than making these transfers a
requirement of RPS Plan adoption, as requested by the City.
• High Value Farmland: Since the last resolution, urban reserves PH-2 and TA-2 have been
removed from the plan, resulting in a net reduction of approximately 110 acres of high
value farm land. In lieu of adopting a "Farmland Conservation Program" as had been..
suggested by the city without complete information, the County included the creation of an
Agricultural Task Force in Chapter 5, Section 2.20 in order to develop a program for
assessing and mitigating the impacts of development on the agricultural economy of
Jackson County arising from the loss of agricultural lands and/or the ability to irrigate
agricultural land which may result from Urban Growth Boundary amendments.
• Regional Housing Strategy: Chapter 5, Section 2.12 in the adopted RPS Plan requires that the
participating cities create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing
types throughout the region within five years of adoption of the RPS Plan, as requested by the
City.
0
After more than a year and a half of intensive review of the draft RPS plan through public hearings -
before the Jackson County Planning Commission, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners
adopted the RPS Plan in November of 2011. Subsequent to the RPS plan's adoption by the County,
the plan was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the state
agency which supports the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in its review of
local planning efforts for consistency with Oregon's land use laws. While the RPS plan will not
formally take effect until each of the six participating cities adopts the plan as well and it has been
reviewed and acknowledged by the state in the manner of periodic review, LCDC nonetheless met in
March to take public comment on the plan and provide initial, informal feedback to the County and
participant cities. LCDC's informal comments on the plan, none of which had a direct or immediate
bearing on Ashland, were as follows:
1. Eliminate Phoenix's "PH-2" as an urban reserve area.
2. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.20 relative to the timing of the County's creation of
an Agricultural Task Force.
3. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.5 to increase the committed residential density for
Medford.
4. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.9.8 to limit the portion of Phoenix's "PH-5" urban
reserve designated as employment land to industrial zoning.
Page 3 of 5
r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
5. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.9 to require that prior to Phoenix's expansion into
urban reserves to accommodate employment land needs, the region agree on a
mechanism to assist Phoenix in justifying the regional need for its urban reserve
"PH-5„
6. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to the amount, type and methodology for
needed park lands in urban growth boundary amendments.
7. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to defining buildable lands in urban growth
boundary amendments.
8. Re-evaluate agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix III to
determine if there are conflicts with state law, and address any conflicts without
reducing the effectiveness of the buffers.
The County initiated a limited re-opening of the adopted RPS Plan to consider these recommendations,
and on June 27, 2012 voted to adopt all of the changes recommended by LCDC. At this point, the
final step in this now-more-than-a-decade-long regional planning process is for each of the six
participating cities to consider incorporating relevant portions of the County-adopted plan into their
respective comprehensive plans and land use ordinances. The final County-adopted plan and the six
cities' adopted comprehensive plan and land use code amendments will then be forwarded to LCDC
for acknowledgement as a single action.
Ashland's proposed new Comprehensive Plan element was reviewed by the Ashland Planning
Commission at its June 26, 2012 meeting, and the Commission unanimously recommended approval
and adoption by the Council, noting that regional cooperation in dealing with issues of growth was
important and that Ashland's participation in the process to date had clearly affected the direction of
the RPS plan for the better. The approved findings, minutes, staff report and hearing submittals from
that meeting are included as attachments below.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that Council approve first reading by title only of the ordinance and move it to
second reading.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding a new
element "Chapter XIV - REGIONAL PLAN" to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (`the
R.P.S. Plan') and to acknowledge revised population allocations by Jackson County for the City of
Ashland." and move it on to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Proposed Ordinance adding new Comprehensive Plan element
• Exhibit A — Proposed New"Regional Plan Element" Comprehensive Plan element
• Exhibit B— Planning Commission record including the approved findings, minutes, staff report
and hearing submittals from the June 26, 2012 Planning Commission hearing.
Page 4 of 5
I
CITY OF
ASHLAND
NOTES:
The Jackson County-adopted RPS Plan with supporting appendices and the complete record of the
County adoption process to date may be viewed on-line at: http://www.iacksoncounty.or /gpr s
The adopted RPS Plan document is at: http://www.co.iackson.or.us/files/ordinance%20201 I-
14%20final%20exhibit%20a.ndf
Proposed Urban Reserve Areas for the other cities in the region are best reviewed on-line as part of the
adopted Regional Plan Atlas at: httn://www.co.mackson.or.us/Pake.asi)?NavID=3824
Page 5 of 5
�r,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW ELEMENT "CHAPTER XIV -
REGIONAL PLAN" TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO INCORPORATE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING
PLAN ("THE R.P.S. PLAN") AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE REVISED
POPULATION ALLOCATIONS BY JACKSON COUNTY FOR THE CITY
OF ASHLAND.
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section l of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the Oregon Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) provide for the establishment of regional
problem solving programs in counties and regions throughout the state to provide a framework
directed toward resolving land use problems in a region.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving"
process in 2000 with Jackson County and the cities of Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford,
Phoenix and Talent, and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create a Regional
Problem Solving Plan (the R.P.S. Plan) identifying lands suitable for long-term urban growth
sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the region's population.
WHEREAS, lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the
region are designated in the R.P.S. Plan as urban reserve areas (URA's). The City of Ashland is
the only city participating in the R.P.S. process that has not identified URA's, as the City
Council has determined that with more efficient land use strategies, the lands already within
Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary can accommodate anticipated growth during
the plan period without expansion.
WHEREAS, in September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the
R.P.S. process, adopted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the R.P.S. planning process and the
Page I of
general sequencing envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment
process, and signed the formal R.P.S. Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan recognizes the need for Ashland to be
involved in advocating regional land use patterns that support a multi-modal transportation
system (Transportation Element, 10.09.02.11).
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolutions #2010-021 and #2011-028 identifying six
key areas of concern (accurate population allocation, efficient land use and transportation,
restricting urban levels of development in the urban fringe, addressing jurisdictional transfers,
high value farm lands, and a timeline to develop a regional housing strategy) which the Council
wished to see addressed prior to adoption of the R.P.S. Plan, and which they now determine to
have been satisfactorily addressed.
WHEREAS, the Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted the R.P.S. Plan which
identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population on
November 23, 2011 and which will not take effect until each of the six participating cities in the
region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix, Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) adopt the applicable
portions of the plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and Ordinance Amendments for Jackson County and the six cities
are acknowledged in the manner of periodic review by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission.
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the adoption of the R.P.S. Plan, the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners adopted revised population allocations for the City of Ashland in the County's
Population Element to reflect growth rates consistent with Ashland's historic growth patterns as
reflected in Ashland's existing Comprehensive Plan and providing Ashland with a population of
31,633 in 2060.
WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commission conducted an initial public
hearing on March 15, 2012 and provided informal comments after reviewing the County-adopted
R.P.S. Plan.
WHEREAS, Jackson County re-opened public hearings in June and July of 2012 to consider
modifying the County-adopted R.P.S. Plan to address the issues raised in the Land Conservation
and Development Commission comments.
WHEREAS, adoption of the new Regional Plan Element of the City of Ashland's
Comprehensive Plan will incorporate those portions of the R.P.S. Plan applicable to the City of
Ashland, which has chosen not to identify urban reserves, in order to acknowledge the city's
signatory participation in the plan and to provide the policy framework if the city should choose
to pursue the creation of urban reserves at some point in the future.
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the proposed new "Regional
Plan" Element of the Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on June 26, 2012,
and following deliberations recommended approval of the new element;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the proposed new Regional Plan Element to the Comprehensive Plan on July 17, 2012;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate
factual base exists for the adoption of the proposed new Regional Plan Element, and that the
proposed new element is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and its adoption is fully
supported by the record of this proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The new Regional Plan Element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan as
detailed in the attached Exhibit A is hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1,
3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and
any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
Page 3 of 4
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A City of Ashland
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ChapterXIV—Regional Plan Element
City of Ashland, Oregon
REGIONAL PLAN
ELEMENT
July 17, 2012 DRAFT-FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The hills outside of Ashland in the Greater Bear Creek Valley
INTRODUCTION
The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan is the product of a comprehensive regional
land-use planning effort undertaken by the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point,
Medford, Phoenix, Talent, and Jackson County to address long-term urbanization needs
of the region,including the establishment of goals and policies.
The most significant product of the Regional Plan is the establishment of requirements
which affect the form and function of future urban-level development and the creation
of an Urban Reserve(UR) for each of the cities, the purpose of which is to set aside a 50-
year supply of land for future urban-level development to accommodate the anticipated
doubling of the region's population.The method of establishing an urban reserve is de-
fined in state law(see ORS 195.137-145).
Adoption milestones:
• On March 18th, 2009 by Ordinance No. 2980, the City of Ashland signed the Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Participants'Agreement, acknowledging
and supporting the continued efforts in completing and adopting a long-term re-
gional plan for the continued urbanization of the Greater Bear Creek Valley.
• On November 230, 2011 the Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted Or-
dinance No. 2011-14 approving the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan (Re-
gional Plan).
• The Regional Plan was considered by the Oregon Land Conservation and Develop-
ment Commission (LCDC) on March 15th, 2012 at which time it identified a number
of issues that needed to be further addressed prior to acknowledgement of the Re-
gional Plan.
• On May 24, 2012 Jackson County initiated a limited re-opening of the adopted Re-
gional Plan to address the issues initially identified by LCDC. Following hearings be-
fore the Jackson County Planning Commission and the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners in May, June, July and August of 2012, the Board adopted a revised
Regional Plan on August##.2012.
• Concurrently with Jackson County's adoption of the revised Regional Plan, each of
the six participating cities conducted hearings to adopt new Regional Plan Elements
into their respective Comprehensive Plans to incorporate the applicable portions of
the County-adopted Regional Plan. The City of Ashland conducted hearings before
its Planning Commission and City Council in June and July of 2012, and ultimately
adopted this new Regional Plan Element as Ordinance#####on August##.2012.
Regional Plan Element Page 2 of 20
The City of Ashland is the only participating city to not identify urban reserves as it was
determined that existing lands within the city limits and urban growth boundary were
sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth over the planning period. Ashland how-
ever remains a full signatory participant in the Regional Plan and any future identifica-
tion of urban reserves for Ashland will be subject to the Regional Plan's requirements.
The purpose of this Comprehensive Plan element is to acknowledge by reference the en-
tire Greater Bear Greek Valley Regional Plan (Regional Plan) 1, and to incorporate those
sections of the Regional Plan that are applicable to the City of Ashland or that will be-
come applicable when the City identifies urban reserves,and in so doing commence im-
plementation of the Regional Plan.
1. REGIONAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES
The Regional Plan contains three goals and guiding policieS2 that form the basis of the
Regional Plan: 1) Manage future regional growth for the greater public good; 2)Con-
serve resource and open space lands for their important economic,cultural and livabili-
ty benefits;and 3) Recognize and emphasize the individual identity,unique features,
and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within the
Region. These goals and the associated policies are made a part of this Regional Plan
Element.
2. URBAN RESERVE
The following describes the context in.which the City made the decision not to identify
urban reserve areas. Appendix A of this Element has been reserved for maps to be
adopted when Urban Reserve Areas are identified for Ashland. Appendix B has been re-
served for a detailed description of the selection process for future Urban Reserve
Areas, and Appendix C has been reserved for a future Urban Reserve Management
Agreement to be mutually agreed upon by Jackson County and the City of Ashland when
Urban Reserves are identified for Ashland.
2.1. CITY DESCRIPTION
Ashland is a unique community in Oregon,well known for its downtown, its network of
parks and trails including Lithia Park, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, and Southern
Oregon University. Ashland functions as a regional specialty area for shopping and
entertainment,with many fine restaurants and boutiques. The community has garnered
accolades over the years as one of the top communities in the nation for the arts,
outdoor recreation,and as a place to retire. It also serves as a regional center for higher
education.
1 The entirety of the Regional Plan can be found in the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan.
z Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan,Chapter 1,Section 5.3.2
Regional Plan Element Page 3 of 20
The geographical realities of the City's location limit the ultimate growth of the
community, as Ashland has chosen not to jump over the 1-S freeway to accommodate
additional growth on the foothills of the Cascades, nor keep lengthening an already
linear community. The community has taken strong steps to preserve its livable
character, from adopting an Open Space Program funded by a local meals tax, to
restricting "big box" retail development, to enacting strong design standards for all
developments. Ashland also has taken the direction of strong controlled growth,
carefully annexing new properties into the community based on need and public good,
and encouraging affordable housing whenever possible in new residential
developments. I t
2.2. CITY GROWTH GUIDELINES AND POLICIES
The City of Ashland's decision in 2003 not to request any urban reserve areas was the
culmination of a process of studies by the City Council and Planning Commission, and
with the cooperation and involvement of interested parties and the general public. The
Ashland Planning Commission held a series of open public meetings to explore options
for growth areas and to develop a vision of the City's future identity. These events drew
in partner districts and agencies to share their needs and the needs of their
constituencies for such things as housing,economic opportunities, recreation,and other
quality of life issues. Extensive public input on potential growth areas was gathered at
Planning Commission meetings on April 22nd, August 26th and October 28th, 2003. This
input culminated in a series of Planning Commission meetings in late 2003, with final
adoption of Resolution #2003-037 by the City Council on December 2^d, 2003 to
formalize the decision to request no urban reserve areas for the City as part of the
regional planning process.
2.3. URBAN RESERVE AREAS AND LAND USES
The City of Ashland has not identified any Urban Reserve Areas (URAs)through the regional
planning process. Any future proposal to establish a URA or expand Ashland's existing
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by not more than 50 acres will require a minor amendment
of the Regional Plan as detailed more fully in Section 4.4 below.
3. REGIONAL OBLIGATIONS
The City agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Regional Plan, Chapter
5,which follow below.The City may not unilaterally amend these requirements.
3.1. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ORS 197.656(2)(B)(C)
To effectuate the Regional Plan,Jackson County shall adopt the Regional Plan in its enti-
rety into the County Comprehensive Plan.The Participating cities then shall incorporate
the portions of the Regional Plan that are applicable to each individual city into that
Regional Plan Element Page 4 of 20
city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances,and shall reference the Plan as
an adopted element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. After the County and all
participating cities have completed the adoptions, the amendments must be submitted
to the State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development for acknowl-
edgement by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Only after this ac-
knowledgement does the Regional Plan become effective.
Progress following the acknowledgement of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan
by the State of Oregon will be measured against a number of performance indicators to
determine the level of compliance by participating jurisdictions with the Plan or the
need to refine or amend it. The measurable performance indicators listed below are
those identified as necessary for the acknowledgement of the Plan and as appropriate
for monitoring compliance with the Plan.
County Adoption.Jackson County shall adopt the Regional Plan in its entire-
ty into the County Comprehensive Plan and implementing ordinance.
City Adoption. All participating jurisdictions shall incorporate the portions
of the Regional Plan that are applicable to each individual city into that city's
comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will reference the
Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan.
Urban Reserve Management Agreement. Participating jurisdictions de-
signating an Urban Reserve Area (URA) shall adopt an Urban Reserve Man-
agement Agreement(URMA) between the individual city and Jackson County
per Oregon Administrative Rule 660-021-0050. Adoption shall occur prior
to or simultaneously with adoption of the URAs.
Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement. If there is an inconsis-
tency between the Regional Plan and an adopted Urban Growth Boundary
Management Agreement(UGBMA),the city and Jackson County shall adopt a
revised UGBMA. When an inconsistency arises, provisions in the Regional
Plan and associated URMA shall override the provisions in the UGBMA, until
the UGBMA is updated.
Committed Residential Density. Land within a URA and land currently
within an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) but outside of the existing City
Limit shall be built,at a minimum,to the following residential densities.This
requirement can be offset by increasing the residential density in the City
Limit.
Regional Plan Element Page 5 of 20
Dwelling units per gross acre
city
2010-2035 2036-2060
Ashland (UGB only) 6.6 n/o
Central Point 6.9 7.9
Eagle Point 6.5 7.5
Medford 6.6 7.6
Phoenix 6.6 7.6
Talent 6.6 7.6
Prior to annexation, each city shall establish (or, if they exist already, shall
adjust) minimum densities in each of its residential zones such that if all
areas build out to the minimum allowed the committed densities shall be
met. This shall be made a condition of approval of a UGB amendment.
Mixed-Use/Pedestrian-Friendly Areas.For land within a URA and for land
currently within a UGB but outside of the existing City Limit, each city shall
achieve the 2020 benchmark targets for the number of dwelling units (Al-
ternative Measure no. 5) and employment (Alternative Measure no. 6) in
mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly areas as established in the 2009 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) or most recently adopted RTP. Beyond the year
2020, cities shall continue to achieve the 2020 benchmark targets,or if addi-
tional benchmark years are established, cities shall achieve the targets cor-
responding with the applicable benchmarks. Measurement and definition of
qualified development shall be in accordance with adopted RTP methodolo-
gy. The requirement is considered met if the city or the region overall is
achieving the targets or minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. This
requirement can be offset by increasing the percentage of dwelling units
and/or employment in the City Limit. This requirement is applicable to all
participating cities.
Conceptual Transportation Plans. Conceptual Transportation Plans shall
be prepared early enough in the planning and development cycle that the
identified regionally significant transportation corridors within each of the
URAs can be protected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies
and funding. A Conceptual Transportation Plan for a URA or appropriate
portion of a URA shall be prepared by the City in collaboration with the Ro-
gue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization, applicable irrigation dis-
tricts, Jackson County, and other affected agencies, and shall be adopted by
Jackson County and the respective city prior to or in conjunction with a UGB
amendment within that URA.
Regional Plan Element Page 6 of 20
Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Transportation Plan shall
identify a general network of regionally significant arterials under local ju-
risdiction, transit corridors, bike and pedestrian paths, and associated
projects to provide mobility throughout the Region (including intracity and
intercity,if applicable).
Conceptual Land Use Plans. A proposal for a UGB Amendment into a des-
ignated URA shall include a Conceptual Land Use Plan prepared by the City
in collaboration with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization,
applicable irrigation districts, Jackson County, and other affected agencies
for the area proposed to be added to the UGB as follows:
Target Residential Density. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall provide
sufficient information to demonstrate how the residential densities of Chap-
ter 5, Section 2.5 will be met at full build-out of the area added through the
UGB amendment.
Land Use Distribution. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall indicate how
the proposal is consistent with the general distribution of land uses in the
Regional Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of the
rationale for designating land which was determined by the Resource Lands
Review Committee to be commercial agricultural land as part of a URA,
which applies to the following URAs: CP-113, CP-1C, CP-4D, CP-6A, CP-2B,
MD-4,MD-6,MD-7mid,MD-7n, PH-2,TA-2,TA-4.
Transportation Infrastructure. The Conceptual Land Use Plan shall in-
clude the transportation infrastructure required in Chapter 5,Section 2.7.1.
Mixed Use/Pedestrian Friendly Areas. The Conceptual Land Use Plan
shall provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the commitments of
Chapter 5, Section 2.6 will be met at full build-out of the area added through
the UGB amendment.
Agricultural Buffering. Participating jurisdictions designating Urban Re-
serve Areas shall adopt the Regional Agricultural Buffering program in Vo-
lume 2,Appendix 111 into their Comprehensive Plans as part of the adoption
of the Regional Plan. The agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Ap-
pendix 111 shall be adopted into their land development codes prior to a UGB
amendment.
Regional Plan Element Page 7 of 20
Regional Land Preservation Strategies. Participating jurisdictions have
the option of implementing the Community Buffer preservation strategies
listed in Volume 2, Appendix V of the Regional Plan or other land preserva-
tion strategies as they develop.
Housing Strategies. Participating jurisdictions shall create regional housing
strategies that strongly encourage a range of housing types throughout the
region within five years of acknowledgement of the Regional Plan.
Urban Growth Boundary Amendment. Pursuant to ORS 197.298 and Ore-
gon Administrative Rule 660-021-0060, URAs designated in the Regional
Plan are the first priority lands used for a UGB amendment by participating
cities.
Land outside of a city's URA shall not be added to a UGB unless the general
use intended for that land cannot be accommodated on any of the city's URA
land or UGB land.
Land Division Restrictions. In addition to the provisions of Oregon Admin-
istrative Rule 660-021-0040,the following apply to lots or parcels which are
located within a URA until they are annexed into a city:
The minimum lot size shall be ten acres;
Development on newly created residentially zoned lots or parcels shall be
clustered to ensure efficient future urban development and public facilities,
and this shall be a condition of any land division;
Land divisions shall be required to include the pre-platting of future lots or
parcels based on recommendations made by the city government to which
the urban reserve belongs;
Land divisions within a URA shall not be in conflict with the transportation
infrastructure identified in an adopted Conceptual Transportation Plan;and
As a condition of land division approval, a deed declaration shall be signed
and recorded that recognizes public facilities and services will be limited as
appropriate to a rural area and transitioned to urban providers in accor-
dance with the adopted URMA.
Rural Residential Rule. Until the City of Ashland adopts an Urban Reserve
Area, the minimum lot size for properties within one mile of the Urban
Growth Boundary of Ashland shall continue to be ten acres, as outlined in
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004-0040(8)(c).
Regional Plan Element Page 8 of 20
Population Allocation. The County's Population Element, as recently
amended to be more consistent with Ashland's actual population growth
and projections in Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, shall be updated per sta-
tute to be consistent with the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan. If
changes occur during an update of the County's Population Element that re-
sult in substantially different population allocations for the participating ju-
risdictions of this Regional Plan,then the Plan shall be amended according to
Chapter 5,Section 5.2 of the Plan.
Greater Coordination with the RVMPO. The participating jurisdictions
shall collaborate with the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Organization (RVMPO)
to:
Prepare the Conceptual Transportation Plans identified in Chapter 5,Section
2.7.
Designate and protect the transportation infrastructure required in the Con-
ceptual Transportation Plans identified in Chapter 5, Section 2.7.1 to ensure
adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use,and minimize right of
way costs.
Plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation strategies criti-
cal to the success of the adopted Regional Plan including the development of
mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for the transportation infrastructure
identified in the Conceptual Transportation Plans;and
Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to miti-
gate impacts arising from future growth.
Future Coordination with the RVCOG. The participating jurisdictions shall
collaborate with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments on future regional
planning that assists the participating jurisdictions in complying with the
Regional Plan performance indicators.This includes cooperation in a region-
wide conceptual planning process if funding is secured.
Expo. During the first Coordinated Periodic Review process for the Regional
Plan, Jackson County shall consider including the land occupied by the Jack-
son County Expo to the City of Central Point's Urban Reserve Area.
Agricultural Task Force.Within six months of acknowledgement of the Re-
gional Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC),
Jackson County shall appoint an Agricultural Task Force made up of persons
with expertise in appropriate fields, including but not limited to farmers,
Regional Plan Element Page 9 of 20
ranchers, foresters and soils scientists, representatives of the State Depart-
ment of Agriculture,the State Forestry Department,the State Department of
Land Conservation and Development, Jackson County, and the cities partici-
pating in the regional planning process.
The Agricultural Task Force shall develop a program to assess the impacts
on the agricultural economy of Jackson County arising from the loss of agri-
cultural land and/or the ability to irrigate agricultural land, which may re-
sult from Urban Growth Boundary Amendments. The Agricultural Task
Force shall also identify, develop and recommend potential mitigation
measures to offset those impacts.Appropriate mitigation measures shall be
applied to Urban Growth Boundary Amendment proposals.
3.2. INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES ORS 197.656(2)(B)(D)
The state requires that participants in an RPS process delineate the factors,mechan-
isms,or outcomes that constitute the most compelling reasons for participants to comp-
ly with the Regional Plan over the identified planning horizon.Accordingly,the Partici-
pants have agreed to the following:
INCENTIVES
Continued regional cooperation through the five-year review process and
ten-year coordinated periodic review may improve the region's ability to re-
spond to challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does present-
ly.
Adherence to the adopted Regional Plan may provide the region with a com-
petitive advantage,increase the attractiveness of the region to long-term in-
vestment,and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state.
Adherence to the adopted Regional Plan may produce significant reductions
in transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of-way ac-
quisition costs, encouraging mixed-use/pedestrian-friendly development,
and improving the overall long-range coordination of transportation and
land use planning.
Adherence to the adopted Regional Plan will provide participating jurisdic-
tions with population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and
based on the relative strengths of the different participating jurisdictions.
The adopted Regional Plan offers compelling regional justifications and state
Regional Plan Element Page 10 of 20
agency support for the Tolo Area of Central Point and the South Valley Em-
ployment Center of Medford and Phoenix that may not have been available
to an individual city proposal.
Adherence to the adopted Regional Plan will permit jurisdictions to imple-
ment the flexibility provided by the concept of the"Regional Community", in
which cities, in the role of"regional neighborhoods', enjoy wide latitude in
their particular mix, concentration,and intensity of land uses,as long as the
sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable balance of land uses that is
functional and attractive to residents and employers and in compliance with
statewide goals.
DISINCENTIVES
Regional Plan Element Page 11 of 20
The region's failure to adhere to the adopted Regional Plan may damage its
competitive advantage, the attractiveness of the region to long-term invest-
ment,and southern Oregon's profile in the state.
Adherence to the Regional plan may be a rating factor for MPO Transporta-
tion Funding. Transportation projects of jurisdictions not adhering to the
adopted Regional Plan may be assigned a lower priority by the MPO when
considered for funding.
Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of jurisdictions
signatory to the Agreement not adhering to the adopted Regional Plan.
Participating jurisdictions not adhering to the adopted Regional Plan will
need to provide corrective measures in order to have a UGB amendment ap-
proved by the County.
The failure of a participating jurisdiction to adhere to the adopted Regional
Plan will compromise its ability to implement the concept of the "Regional
Community",and will not provide the participating cities with as wide a lati-
tude in their desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of land
uses.
3.3. MONITORING OR5197.656(2)(B)(E)
Monitoring. Participating jurisdictions shall maintain a monitoring system
to ensure compliance with the Regional Plan and future amendments. Spe-
cific indicators against which performance will be judged are listed in Chap-
ter 5, Section 2. Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Regional
Plan will be a shared responsibility.
Regional Plan Progress Report. On a regular basis, beginning in 2017 and
every five years thereafter, all participating jurisdictions shall participate in
a regular Regional Plan review process.Jackson County shall initiate the Re-
gional Plan review process by providing notice of the Regional Plan review
to each participant and requiring that each participant submit a self-
evaluation monitoring report addressing compliance with the performance
indicators,set out in Chapter 5,Section 2,to the County within 60 days after
the date of the notice.
A standardized format for the review and report shall be developed by Jack-
son County and agreed upon by the jurisdictions. The reports shall include
descriptions of their jurisdiction's activities pertinent to the Regional Plan
for the preceding five-year period, analysis as to whether and how well
Regional Plan Element Page 12 of 20
those activities meet each of the performance indicators, and a projection of
activities for the next five-year period. Jackson County will distribute these
monitoring reports to all participants and make them available to the public.
Coordinated Periodic Review. On a regular basis, beginning in 2022 and
every ten years thereafter the participating jurisdictions in the Regional Plan
may, at their discretion, participate in a process of coordinated Periodic Re-
view. This process may be initiated by any of the participating jurisdictions
but requires agreement between all participants to proceed.
3.4. CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND PLAN ADJUSTMENTS ORS197.656(2)(B)(f)
Corrective Measures.
If a Regional Plan Progress Report (see Chapter S, Section 4.1.1.) indicates
that a particular city is not meeting the performance measures,the city shall
propose corrective measures as an addendum to the Regional Plan Progress
Report.The corrective measures shall be approved by the Policy Committee.
Cities that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as a URA
will be required to go through the Regional Plan minor or major amendment
process prior to or concurrent with any other process.
If land outside of a URA is included in a UGB while URA land remains availa-
ble to that city, an equivalent amount of land shall be removed from the re-
maining URA land. Land removed shall be of equal or higher priority in rela-
tion to the land included.Additionally,if land determined part of the region's
commercial agricultural base by the RLRC is included, the land removed
shall also be land with that designation (if available).
A proposal for an UGB amendment will be required to demonstrate how the
Regional Plan performance indicators have been met. A UGB amendment
will not be approved by the County unless the Regional Plan performance
indicators have been met or corrective measures are proposed which dem-
onstrate how the performance indicators will be met.
Approval of a UGB amendment shall be subject to the condition that it be
zoned and developed in a manner consistent with the Conceptual Land Use
Plan submitted in the UGB amendment proposal.After the UGB Amendment
has been approved, all subsequent Comprehensive Plan Amendments by a
city to amend land uses which will result in an inconsistency with the Con-
ceptual Land Use Plan shall be reviewed by the county prior to development.
Regional Plan Element Page 13 of 20
The amendment shall be processed as a Type 4 permit.
A UGB amendment to add land not designated as a URA shall only be consi-
dered through a quasi-judicial application when the land to be added is in-
dustrial.
Regional Plan Amendments.
Regional Plan Amendment Responsibility. Processing amendments to the
adopted Regional Plan shall be the responsibility of Jackson County, and
shall only be proposed by the governing authority of a participating jurisdic-
tion. In acknowledgement of the collaborative process by which the adopted
Regional Plan was created, Jackson County shall have available the assis-
tance of the participating jurisdictions through a Technical Advisory Com-
mittee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis,
and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County as follows:
Technical Advisory Committee.The TAC shall be comprised of planners and
senior-level staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies, and each signa-
tory shall have one vote, irrespective of the number of participating repre-
sentatives. Recommendations to the Policy Committee or directly to Jackson
County shall be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus
one) of a quorum of signatory jurisdictions and agencies.
Policy Committee. The Policy Committee shall be comprised of elected offi-
cials or executive staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies. Each sig-
natory jurisdiction shall designate a voting and alternate voting member,
and each signatory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to
Jackson County shall be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple ma-
jority plus one) of a quorum of jurisdictions. State agencies, the MPO, and
Rogue Valley Sewer Services,while Signatories,shall not be voting members
of the Policy Committee.
Regional Plan Amendment Type.When an amendment to the adopted Re-
gional Plan is proposed,Jackson County shall make a preliminary determina-
tion regarding whether the proposed amendment is a Minor Amendment or
Major Amendment,as defined below,shall notify signatory jurisdictions and
affected agencies of the County's preliminary determination,and shall solicit
input. Based on its preliminary determination and input received, Jackson
County shall review the proposed amendment according to the procedures
for Minor Amendments or Major Amendments set out below. Proposed
Regional Plan Element Page 14 of 20
amendments to the adopted Regional Plan shall adhere to the following pro-
visions:
Minor Amendment. A minor amendment is defined as any request for an
amendment to the adopted Regional Plan that does not conflict with the per-
formance indicators and does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres
to a city's URA established in the adopted Regional Plan or more than a 50-
acre expansion of the UGB into non-URA land.
In the case of Ashland, which did not establish a URA during the develop-
ment of the Regional Plan process, a proposal to establish a URA or expand
its UGB of not more than 50 acres shall be considered a minor amendment.
Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its URAs during the
Planning Horizon for the Regional Plan, it may not use the minor amend-
ment process for further additions to its URA. Should a city exceed its limit
of 50 acres for expanding its UGB into non-URA land during the planning ho-
rizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further expansions
of its UGB into non-URA land.
Any participant jurisdiction may initiate a minor amendment to the adopted
Regional Plan.The proposing jurisdiction must clearly identify the nature of
the minor amendment, and specify whether the minor amendment would
require any other signatory jurisdiction to amend its comprehensive plan.
Should any signatory jurisdiction other than the proposing jurisdiction and
Jackson County be required to amend their comprehensive plans as a result
of the proposed minor amendment, the affected signatory jurisdiction shall
be a party to the minor amendment proceeding.
Jackson County's process and the proposing jurisdiction's process for a mi-
nor amendment to the Regional Plan shall be equivalent to the state and lo-
cal processes required for a comprehensive plan amendment.
Signatories and agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's and
proposing jurisdiction's final decision on each minor amendment within five
working days of the adoption of the final decision.
Major Amendment. A major amendment is defined as any requested
amendment to the adopted Regional Plan that does not meet the definition
of a Minor Amendment.
If multiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for
a major amendment,a lead jurisdiction shall be selected by the af-
Regional Plan Element Page 15 of 20
fected jurisdictions.
Notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change shall
be.forwarded by Jackson County to all signatories and affected agen-
cies.
Staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall meet as a Tech-
nical Advisory Committee and generate a recommendation to the
Policy Committee by vote of at least a supermajority of a quorum
(simple majority plus one).
Decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall
meet as a Policy Committee and consider the proposal and the Tech-
nical Advisory Committee recommendation.The Policy Committee
shall generate a recommendation to Jackson County by vote of at
least a supermajority of a quorum (simple majority plus one).
Should an existing city or a newly incorporated city desire to become
a participating jurisdiction,increased population shall be added to
the regional projected population adequate to accommodate the pro-
jected population growth of the newly incorporated city for the re-
mainder of the Planning Horizon for the Regional Plan.The addition
of a newly incorporated city to the Regional Plan,the establishment
of Urban Reserve Areas and other such actions shall be accomplished
through the major amendment process.
Jackson County's process,and the proposing jurisdiction's process,for a mi-
nor or major amendment to the Regional Plan shall be equivalent to the
state and local required process for a comprehensive plan amendment,in
addition to the Regional Plan-specific provisions. Signatories and affected
agencies shall be provided with notice of the final decision on each major or
minor amendment within five working days of the adoption of the final deci-
sion. Jurisdictions or agencies shall be noticed according to Figure 5.1 of
Chapter 5.
Figure 5.1 Jurisdictions and Agencies to Receive Notification of Proposed Amendments to
the Adopted Regional Plan
Jurisdiction or Agency Routine As Needed
City of Eagle Point X
City of Central Point X
City of Medford X
City of Phoenix X
City of Talent X
Regional Plan Element Page 16 of 20
City of Ashland X
Oregon Department of Transportation X
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development X
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality X
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department X
Oregon Department of Agriculture X
Oregon Housing and Community Development.Department X
Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization X
Rogue Valley Sewer Services X
Medford Water Commission X
Rogue Valley Council of Governments X
Rogue Valley Transit District X
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife X
Division of State Lands X
Ashland School District#5 X
Central Point School District#6 X
Jackson County School District#9 X
Medford School District 549C X
Phoenix-Talent School District#4 X
Eagle Point Irrigation District X
Medford Irrigation District X
Rogue Valley Irrigation District X
Talent Irrigation District X
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District X
4. URBAN RESERVE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
Should the City of Ashland at some point in the future opt to identify urban reserves
through a minor amendment process, the adoption of an Urban Reserve Management
Agreement (URMA) between the City and Jackson County will be required. All develop-
ment within any future Urban Reserve Areas identified for the City of Ashland would be
regulated in accordance with the URMA, and Appendix C of this element is reserved for
the approved URMA for Ashland's future Urban Reserve Areas when they are identified.
Regional Plan Element Page 17 of 20
APPENDIX A
[Reserved for future Urban Reserve map to be in-
cluded when Urban Reserves are identified for Ash-
land.]
Regional Plan Element Page 18 of 20
APPENDIX B
[Reserved for future details of Urban Reserve selec-
tion process to be included when Urban Reserves are
identified for Ashland.]
Regional Plan Element Page 19 of 20
APPENDIX C
[Reserved for future Urban Reserve Management
Agreement (URMA) to be agreed to jointly by Jack-
son County and the City of Ashland at the time Urban
Reserves are identified for Ashland.]
Regional Plan Element Page 20 of 20
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Ashland,Jackson County,Oregon
July 10,2012
IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION#2012-00573,A REQUEST FOR )
A LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT TO ADOPT A NEW"CHAPTER XIV— )
REGIONAL PLAN"ELEMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE ) RECOMMENDATION
GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING )
PLAN AND TO ACKNOWLEDGE REVISED POPULATION )
ALLOCATIONS FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND. )
APPLICANT: City of Ashland )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECITALS:
1) The application is a proposed Legislative Amendment o adopt a new "Chapter XIV - Regional
Plan" element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan ("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge
revised population allocations for the.City of Ashland. Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan
which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population, but before
the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland, Talent, Phoenix,
Medford, Central Point and Eagle Point) must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their
comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances and the entire package must be acknowledged in the
matter of periodic review by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). Adoption
of the new Comprehensive Plan element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to
Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves.
2) A Legislative Amendment is defined in AMC 18.08.345 and is subject to the requirements for a
Legislative Amendment described in AMC 18.108.170 as follows:
SECTION 18.08.345 Legislative amendment.
An amendment to the text of the land use ordinance or the comprehensive plan or an amendment of the zoning
map, comprehensive plan maps or other official maps including the street dedication map described in section
18.82.050, for land involving numerous parcels under diverse ownerships.
SECTION 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments.
A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other
legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in
circumstances and conditions.A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the
Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property
owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
July 10,2012
Page
at its earliest practicable meeting alter it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend
to the Council, approval, disapproval,or modification of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department
thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application
shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After
receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the
amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed
amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days
prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the
Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request,except
the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a
change of circumstances warrant it.
3) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice as required in AMC 18.108.170.D.,
scheduled a public hearing on June 12, 2012 at which time the matter was continued to a time and date
certain. At the continuation of the hearing on June 26, 2012 testimony was received and exhibits were
presented. Following the closing of the public hearing, the Planning Commission held their deliberations
and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed new Comprehensive Plan
element"XIV—Regional Plan."
Now,therefore,the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland recommends as follows:
SECTION 1.EXHIBITS
For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony
will be used.
Staff Exhibits lettered with an"S"
Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a
Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O"
Hearing Minutes,Notices, and Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M"
SECTION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS
2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a
recommendation based on the Staff Report,public hearing testimony and the exhibits received.
PA 112012-00573 RPS Element
July 10,2012
Page 2
2.2 The Planning Commission finds that the proposal for a Legislative Amendment to adopt a
new "Chapter XIV - Regional Plan" element to the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan
(RPS Plan) and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland meets all
applicable criteria for the approval of Legislative Amendment as described in Chapter 18.108.170.
The Planning Commission accordingly recommends approval of the Legislative Amendment and
adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan element as proposed.
2.3 The Planning Commission finds that the Comprehensive Plan includes Policy 10.09.02.11
which directs that the City "[a]dvocate regional land-use patterns that support malti-modal
transportation." The Planning Commission further finds that Policy 10.09.02.030 calls for the
City to "[c]oordinale City transportation planning with county, regional, slate and federal
plans." The Commission also finds that Policy 10.19.02.13 directs that the City "[pjarticipate
and shot, leadership in interacting ivith counties, cities and other special governments in
Southern Oregon to develop regional public transportation services to reduce the fi-equency and
length ofvehicle trips."
2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)provided for the
establishment of regional problem solving programs in counties and regions throughout the state
to provide a framework directed toward resolving land use problems,in a region. The City of
Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving" process in 2000 with Jackson
County; the Rogue Valley Council of Governments; the cities of Central Point, Eagle Point,
Medford, Phoenix and Talent; and a number of local, state and regional agencies to create a plan
identifying lands suitable for long-term urban growth sufficient to accommodate a doubling of
the region's population.
i
Lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region are
designated in the RPS Plan as urban reserve areas (URA's). In December of 2003, the City
Council determined in Resolution 42003-037 that with more efficient land use strategies, the
lands already within Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary could accommodate the
city's anticipated growth during the plan period without expansion. As such, Ashland is the only
city participating in the RPS process that has not identified urban reserves.
In September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the RPS process
and adopted Resolution ll2008-032 supporting the RPS planning process and the general
sequencing envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment process.
Ashland signed the formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
2.5 The Planning Commission funds that in review of the draft RPS Plan in 2010, the
Planning Commission and Council had identified six key areas of concern which they wished to
see better addressed prior to adoption of the Plan. These included: 1) Accurate population
allocations; 2) Efficient land use and transportation planning; 3) Limiting urban levels of
development within Ashland's "urban fringe'; 4) Not requiring jurisdictional transfer of county
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
July 10,2012
Page 3
roads from Jackson County to individual cities as a requirement of RPS Plan adoption; 5)
Protecting high value farmland; and 6) Setting a timeline to develop regional housing strategies.
The Commission finds that with regard to accurate population allocations, concurrent with .
adoption of the RPS Plan, Jackson County reopened its Population Element and adjusted the
population allocations for the City of Ashland as had been requested. The County chose to re-
allocate population from unincorporated areas of the County itself, rather than taking population
from other cities in the region, thereby avoiding making changes in other cities' population
allocations or land needs which might have posed substantial risk to the RPS Plan at this stage.
With this re-allocation, Ashland is allocated a year 2060 population of 31,633 which is consistent
with historical growth patterns and current Comprehensive Plan projections.
The Commission finds that with regard to efficient land use and transportation planning, Chapter
2, Figure 2.10 and Chapter 5, Section 2.5 of the County-adopted RPS-Plan-include increased
density commitments from all participating cities which were arrived at address density concerns,
provide densities more likely to support a successful regional transit system, and comply with the
state's current "safe harbor" density requirements. For the first 25 years of the planning horizon,
these density commitments involve densities of 6.5 to 6.9 dwelling units per acre both in existing
Urban Growth Boundaries and in proposed Urban Reserve Areas, including a commitment by
Ashland to a 6.6 units per acre density within its existing Urban Growth Boundary. Density
commitments for the Urban Reserves would be increased by the participating cities for the
remainder of the planning period to from 7.5 to 7.9 dwelling units per acre. The Commission
notes that in review of land use actions in Ashland for the past five years, new developments
have been approved at an average density of approximately 7.46 dwelling units per acre.
The Commission further finds that Chapter 5, Section 2.6 of the County-adopted RPS Plan
includes commitments by all participating cities including Ashland to meet the benchmarks in
the 2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is administered through the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO), for the percentage of new dwelling units and new employment
created in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas or transit-oriented developments (TODs). These
percentages are listed under Alternative Measures #5 and 46 in the RTP, and require that 49
percent of new dwelling units and 44 percent of new employment be located in mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly areas or TODs by 2020 with the objective of demonstrating progress towards
creating mixed use,pedestrian friendly developments in the region.
The Commission finds that Chapter 5, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 of the County-adopted RPS Plan call
for the development of conceptual transportation plans for urban reserve areas to identify and
protect regionally significant transportation corridors and provide for a multi-modal regional
transportation network with connections within and between cities, and for conceptual land use
plans which consider targeted densities, land use distribution, necessary transportation
infrastructure and efforts to concentrate development in mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas.
PA#2012-00573 RPS Element
July 10,2012
Page 4
The Commission finds that the commitments to increased densities, mixed-use, pedestrian
friendly development, and coordinated conceptual land use and transportation planning have
moved the plan in a direction consistent with that requested in previous Council resolutions.
The Commission finds that with regard to concerns over development impacts within a mile
of Ashland's urban growth boundary, the County-adopted RPS Plan retains the requested
minimum lot size limitations on development in Ashland's urban fringe in Chapter 5, Section
2.15.
The Commission finds that with regard to concerns over Jackson County potentially requiring
that cities assume jurisdiction over current county roads as a condition of participation in the
regional planning process, Jackson County has opted to address jurisdiction of these facilities
with the individual cities as part of the negotiating process for joint management agreements
rather requiring transfers as a condition of RPS Plan adoption.
The Commission finds that with regard to protecting high value farm lands through their removal
from urban reserves or through the development of a Farmland Conservation Program as
recommended by Rogue Advocates, the County-adopted RPS Plan instead includes in Chapter 5,
Section 2.20 the creation of an Agricultural Task Force to develop a program for assessing the
impacts of development on the agricultural economy of Jackson County arising from the loss of
agricultural lands and/or the ability to irrigate agricultural land which may result from Urban
Growth Boundary amendments. The Agricultural Task Force is to identify potential mitigation
measures to offset those impacts. The plan notes that appropriate mitigation measures shall be
applied to Urban Growth Boundary amendment proposals. The Commission further finds that
with the proposed removal of urban reserve area's PH-2 and TA-2, approximately 110 acres of
high value farmland identified for development in the draft RPS Plan have now been removed
from urban reserves.
The Commission finds that with regard to the Council's request that the RPS Plan identify a
timeline for the creation of regional housing strategies which would encourage a range of
housing types across the region in recognition of the fact that diverse and affordable housing
options close to work, school and shopping are essential to managing growth, supporting
economic development, providing schools and public services, and reducing the environmental
and social impacts of growth, Chapter 5, Section 2.12 of the County-adopted RPS Plan requires
that the participating jurisdictions create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a
range of housing types throughout the region within five years of the Plan's adoption.
2.6 The Planning Commission finds that Ashland is unique among the six participating cities
as the only jurisdiction not to identify urban reserves, and that the proposed new Comprehensive
Plan element is similarly unique in that where other cities are adopting new regulations and
maps, Ashland is in effect acknowledging its participation through adoption of policies that in
large part will not come into play unless urban reserves are identified.for the city. The new
element thus serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the city's signatory participation
PA 112012-00573 RPS Element
July 10,2012
Page 5
in the plan and to provide a framework if the city should choose to pursue the creation of urban
reserves in the future.
2.7 The Planning Commission finds that while some concern remains with the RPS Plan's
focus on the identification of future growth areas, including sane identified as high value
farmlands, Ashland's participation in the regional problem solving process has proven beneficial
in allowing Ashland to both participate and show leadership in on-going discussion of
coordinated regional planning for growth, and that participation has helped move the County-
adopted RPS Plan to more deeply consider integrated land use and transportation planning,
densities necessary to support a thriving regional transit system, regional housing strategies, and
further consideration of farm land conservation. The Commission further finds that the County-
adopted RPS Plan provides an initial framework for continued regional planning efforts over the
next five decades, with Ashland as a fill participant. The Commission also notes that
participation in the regional planning process to date has helped develop on-going positive
working relationships between the staff members and policy makers of the various participating
jurisdictions which we hope can continue long into the future in the spirit of on-going regional
cooperation.
SECTION 3. DECISION
3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission reconuuernds
approval of Planning Action #2012-00573 and adoption of the proposed new "Chapter XIV — Regional
Plan"element into the Comprehensive Plan.
July 10.2012
Planning Commission Approval Date
PA 42012-00573 RPS Elcmem
hdy 10,2012
Page 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
June 26, 2012
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Conference Room,51 Winburn Way.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J.Brown,Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Derek Severson,Associate Planner
Eric Heesacker April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Richard Kaplan
Pam Marsh
Debbie Miller
Melanie Mindlin (anivedat7.15pm)
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
None Dennis Slattery
ANNOUCEMENTS
Commissioner Dawkins noted he attended the Plaza Design Public Outreach Meeting and the architects have requested feedback from
the Planning Commission. Dawkins shared his preference for more hardscape and trees in large containers,and requested the
Commission take a few minutes to discuss the conceptual designs at the end of the meeting.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
PRESENTATION
A. Ethics&Commission Guidelines(Dave Lohman,City Attorney)
City Attorney Dave Lohman provided a presentation on public records law,definition of public meetings, pu blic meeting requirements,
rules and regulations,and ethics.(Copy of presentation is attached to minutes.)
General Questions
The commissioners posed several questions to Mr.Lohman, including:
• What is the statute of limitation for how long members need to keep meeting notes and recordings?
Answer:6 years.
• Can commissioners attend public events if there is a quorum of members present?
Answer:As long as the commissioners are not.deliberating on a particular issue,this is not considered a public meeting and
members are free to attend.
• The Planning Commission is subject to Oregon statutes,Ashland's Code of Ethics, and slate statutes specific to Planning
Commissions;which one takes precedence?
Answer:The Commission is subject to all three laws and need to make sure they are adhering to the most strict rules
(Ashland Code of Ethics)
• Does the Commission have to elect a new chair every year,or does"term"indicate a member can be chair for two
consecutive four year terms?
Answer: Mr. Lohman stated there are different practices on the different commissions and this needs to get cleared up.He
stated his opinion is that term means four years, but others have disagreed with him.Commissioner Dawkins commented that
he believes when the Commission discussed this, the intent was for a one-year term for officers. Comment was made that
this may be an issue with small commissions that have frequent turn-over;and perhaps this should be a recommendation
Ashland Planning Commission
June 26, 2012
Page 1 of 3
instead of a requirement.Additional suggestion was made for the vice chair to take over as chair after their first year,which
could provide for a learning period.
• Are commissioners allowed to testify before the City Council?
Answer:Mr.Lohman cited the language in AMC 2.10.110 and stated it is his understanding that commissioners can speak
before the City Council as private citizens, however he will need to get back to the Commission on this question.
Commissioner Marsh commented that it is unfortunate when a member goes before another body and speaks out against the
position the Planning Commission has adopted.
• Does Commissioner Miller have a conflict of interest regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan?
Discussion/Answer:Commissioner Miller explained she owns property in the project area and asked if she could participate in
the deliberations. She added she could provide some background information which may be helpful. Mr. Lohman stated under
state law, it is an actual conflict of interest if the outcome could benefit or hurt her financially. He stated she likely has an
actual conflict of interest and advised that she not participate in the d iscussions or deliberations. He added she could testify
as a private citizen in front of the City Council, but should not testify before the Planning Commission.The Commission held
general discussion about the bias issue.Comment was mad a that when a member is on record of having a clear bias or a
predisposed position,it undermines the decision making process and that person should step aside.
• What is the definition of an excused absence?
Answer:Mr.Lohman stated this is an issue that needs to be addressed and asked for the Commissions input. Suggestion
was made to establish a yearly minimum attendance percentage, rather than a limit on unexcused absences in a row.
Comment was made that it is important for a member to notify staff if they cannot attend. Support was voiced for an annual
attendance rate and 80%was suggested.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: #2012-00573
APPLICANT:City of Ashland
LOCATION: Not property-specific
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
REQUEST:A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new"Chapter XV-Regional Plan"element to the City of
Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Plan("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge revised population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson
County recently adopted the RPS Plan which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's
population, but before the RPS Plan can take effect,each of the six participating cities in the region(Ashland,Talent,
Phoenix,Medford,Central Point and Eagle Point)must adopt the applicable portions of the plan into their comprehensive
plans and implementing ordinances. (Ashland is the only participating city which has not identified urban reserves as the
city's existing urban growth boundary was determined to be sufficient to accommodate anticipated growth. Adoption of
the new element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with
no identified urban reserves.)
Associate Planner Derek Severson gave a brief overview of the Regional Plan and the Regional Problem Solving process(RPS).He
explained the proposed adoption of the new"Regional Element"to the City's Comprehensive Plan incorporates the portions of the
Regional Plan applicable to Ashland and clarified Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that we are the only jurisdiction
to not identify urban reserves and have chosen to accommodate growth through efficient land use planning instead. He stated this new
Element serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the City's participation in the plan and to provide a framework if the City
chooses to pursue the creation of urban reserves in the future.
Mr.Severson provided some background and noted the Planning Commission issued a recommendation in 2010 to ensure Ashland's
values are pushed forward through the RPS process, and the City Council adopted a resolution in 2011 that reiterated those
recommendations. Mr. Severson stated the primary issues identified in the 2011 resolution included: 1) retaining Urban Fringe
minimum lot sizes, 2)to not require jurisdictional exchange,3)regional housing strategy timeline,4) population figures consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan,5)address high value farm lands, and 6)more efficient land use transportation.He stated through the City's
participation in this plan,there has been a 110-acre reduction of farm lands in the URA's; all jurisdictions must adhere to specific
density commitments;49%of new dwellings and 44%of new commercial must be mixed use, pedestrian friendly,or in a transit
oriented district by 2020; and conceptual land use and transportation plans will be required for urban reserves.
Ashland°tanning Commission
June 26. 2012
Page 2 of 3
Mr.Severson stated staff believes the Plan addresses the issues raised by the City of Ashland and participation in this process has
created stronger and more positive working relationships between staff and the elected and appointed official across the region,and
has given Ashland a seat at the table for on-going discussions of regional growth.
Staff was asked to clarify how we got to the 6.6 d.u./acre density commitment. Mr. Severson clarified this is based on the density levels
set by the state's safe harbor provision, and staff is comfortable with this requirement since it is less than what we have been doing.
Comment was made questioning how this Plan might be affected by Governor Kitzhaber's decision to open up farm lands in Jackson
County. Mr. Severson stated he cannot answer this and this is something that will need to be discussed if that happens.
Comment was made thanking staff for their work on this Plan and having a positive influence on it.
Public Testimony
Colin Swales/143 Eighth StreedStated he does feel Ashland has influenced the Plan enough and his main concern is regarding the
population projections. He stated Ashland has not been given its true allocation and the population figures should be based on the
2010 census report which shows that the previous estimates have not materialized. Mr. Swales stated these figures affect our policies
on annexation,transportation planning,water usage, and infrastructure projects and wants it to be clear that our population figures are
way down.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioners Miller/Heesacker m/s to adapt the recommendation for Planning Action 2012-00573 and forward this to the
City Council. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Marsh stated she will support this motion, but does not support the plan put forward by the
City of Medford and does not want her vote to be interpreted as supporting what they are doing.Commissioners Dawkins and Mindlin
concurred with this statement. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Commissioner Dawkins noted the architects desire to receive feedback from the Planning Commission on the conceptual designs for
the Plaza Improvement project.Commissioner Marsh noted she had prepared the following comments to provide to the architects:
"First and foremost, the plaza design should support the basic function of the place--to serve as a lively, well-used community
gathering place for residents(of all kinds)and visitors. The plaza is not a passive park, nor should it be(as it is today)simply a
thoroughfare from one commercial point to another. Rather it is(or should be)the central meeting point in downtown--a place where
friends meet up for coffee, family members regroup after shopping, or individuals sit to read a newspaper or people watch. Sometimes
It will be the site of large gatherings or demonstrations.
With these functions in mind, the design should include the following elements:
• Minimal(if any)turf lt's a plaza, not a park. Use planters(walls and/or pots)to provide greenery and help define the space.
Patted trees can provide a wonderful, full canopy.
• A variety of seating options. Walls, moveable cafe tables and chairs, etc. Furniture is key to function.
• Trash and recycling containers. Well-designed and even beautiful containers don't have to be relegated to the outskirts of the
site. Instead, they can help define the space.
• Thoughtful site planning. A layout that provides a sense of protection for people at tables, but doesn't obstruct views into or out of
the plaza.
The Planning Commission is very excited by the opportunities posed by the plaza redesign. We look forward to helping in any way we
can as the project moves forward."
The Commission voiced support for the statement prepared by Marsh and staff was directed to place the statement on the
Commission's letterhead and submit it to the architects.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respecdu/ly submitted,April Lucas,Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planing Commission
June 26, 2012
Page 3 of 3
ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
JUNE 12u', 2012
PLANNING ACTION: PL #2012-00573
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
LOCATION: Not property-specific
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
(See also the Jackson County-adopted RRPS
Plan with supporting appendices and the
complete record of the County adoption
process to date on-line at:
wwNv.jacksoncountv.orlt/rpS.)
REQUEST: A Legislative Amendment is proposed to adopt a new"Chapter XIV-Regional Plan"
element to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to incorporate applicable portions of the Greater
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan("the RPS Plan") and to acknowledge revised
population allocations for the City of Ashland. Jackson County recently adopted the RPS Plan
which identifies urban reserve areas to accommodate a doubling of the region's population, but
before the RPS Plan can take effect, each of the six participating cities in the region (Ashland,
Talent,Phoenix, Medford,Central Point and Eagle Point)must adopt the applicable portions of the
plan into their comprehensive plans and implementing ordinances.
Adoption of the new comprehensive plan element incorporates those portions of the Regional Plan
applicable to Ashland as a signatory participant with no identified urban reserves. Ashland is unique
among the six participating cities as the only jurisdiction not to identify urban reserves, and the
proposed new element is similarly unique in that where other cities are adopting new regulations and
maps,Ashland is in effect acknowledging its participation through adoption of policies that in large
part will not come into play until urban reserves are identified for the city. The new element thus
serves primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the city's signatory participation in the plan and to
provide a framework should the city choose to pursue the creation of urban reserves in the future.
I. Relevant Facts
A. Background-History of Ashland's Involvement in Regional Problem Solving
The Oregon Revised Statutes(ORS)allow for the establishment of regional problem solving
programs in counties and regions throughout the state to provide a framework directed
toward resolving land use problems in a region. The City of Ashland entered into a
"Collaborative Regional Problem Solving"process in 2000 with JacksonCounty and several
other municipalities in the greater Bear Creek Valley. This Regional Problem Solving(RPS)
process is now into its twelfth year,and has brought together the cities of Ashland,Central
Point,Eagle Point,Medford,Phoenix and Talent,as well as Jackson County and a number of
local, state and regional agencies to create a plan identifying lands suitable for long-term
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 1 of 10
urban growth sufficient to accommodate a doubling of the region's population.
Lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region are
designated in the RPS Plan as urban reserve areas (URA's). Ashland is the only city
participating in the RPS process that has not identified URA's, as the City Council
previously determined that with more efficient land use strategies,the lands already within
Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary could accommodate the city's anticipated
growth during the plan period without expansion.
In September of 2008, the City Council acknowledged general agreement with the RPS
process and adopted Resolution #2008-032 supporting the RPS planning process and the
general sequencing envisioned through the Jackson County comprehensive plan amendment
process. Ashland signed the formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009.
The Planning Commission last considered RPS in April of 2010 and made a
recommendation to Council that there be a strong statement that Ashland's land use values
be incorporated into the RPS process. After considering a draft of the Plan in light of this
recommendation, the City Council crafted Resolution #2010-021 which identified six
primary issues with the RPS Plan which the Council wished to see further addressed during
the adoption process. These six issues are detailed and addressed in Section 11.13 below.
This resolution was provided to the Jackson County Planning Commission during its review
of the draft RPS Plan, and these issues were reiterated to the Board of Commissioners as
they began their review with Council Resolution #2011-028.
After more than a year and a half of intensive review of the draft RPS Plan through public
hearings before the Jackson County Planning Commission, the Jackson County Board of
Commissioners adopted the RPS Plan in November 2011. The adopted RRPS Plan,
appendices and the complete record of the County hearings process to date can be viewed
online at www.*acksoncountv.org/rp .
Subsequent to the RPS Plan's adoption by the County, the plan was submitted to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the state agency which
supports the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in its review of
local planning efforts for consistency with Oregon's land use laws. While the RPS Plan will
not formally take effect until each of the participating cities adopts the plan as well and it has
been reviewed and acknowledged by the state,LCDC nonetheless met in Newport in March
to take public comment on the plan and provide initial, informal feedback to the County and
participant cities. LCDC's informal comments on the Plan, none of which had a direct or
immediate bearing on Ashland, are detailed and discussed in Section II.0 below: The
County has initiated a limited re-opening of the adopted RPS Plan to address the issues
raised, and at this point, the final step in this now-more-than-a-decade-long regional
planning process is for each of the participating cities to consider incorporating relevant
portions of the County-adopted plan into their respective comprehensive plans and land use
ordinances. The final County-adopted plan and the six cities' adopted comprehensive plan
and code amendments will then be forwarded to LCDC for acknowledgement as a single
action.
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 2of10
B. Background- Proposed New Regional Plan Element
The current proposal involves a Legislative Amendment to adopt a new element (Chapter
XI V Regional Plan)into the City of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan in order to incorporate
applicable portions of the RPS Plan as well as to acknowledge corrected population
allocations for the City of Ashland. The attached draft Regional Plan Element was created in
collaboration with staff members from Jackson County, the Rogue Valley Council of
Governments, and the six participating cities in an effort to have as much consistency in
implementing the plan across the six jurisdictions as possible.
Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that it is the only jurisdiction not to
identify urban reserves, and the proposed new comprehensive plan element is similarly
unique in that where other cities are adopting new regulations and maps,Ashland is in effect
acknowledging its participation through adoption of policies that in large part will not come
into play until urban reserves are identified for the city. The new element thus serves
primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the city's signatory participation in the plan and
to provide a framework should the city ultimately choose to pursue the creation of urban
reserves.
II. Project Impact
A. Commission Review of Legistlative Amendments
Procedurally speaking,for city-proposed legislative amendments AMC 18.108.170 calls for
the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and,following public testimony,to make
a report of its recommendations to the City Council. After receipt of the Planning
Commission recommendations, the Council holds a public hearing in conjunction with the
first reading of the ordinance associated with the proposed amendment. A Council hearing
date is tentatively set for July 17, 2012.
B. Issues Previously Raised in Resolutions#2010-021 & #2011-028
In its most recent review of the draft RPS Plan, the Council identified six issues with the
plan which they wished to see addressed during the adoption process, including:
1) Population: Through the RPS process, some population which should have been
allocated to Ashland was shifted to other cities based on the assumption that since
Ashland was not identifying growth areas there was no need to plan for its growth. In
fact,Ashland was proposing to accommodate anticipated growth but to do so on existing
lands through more careful planning, and the Council thus asked that the population
allocations in the RPS Plan be corrected to reflect projected growth rates consistent with
Ashland's historic development patterns to enable accurate planning on issues such as
utility and transportation infrastructure.
• Subsequent to the Resolution, Jackson County reopened its
Population Element in conjunction with the RPS Plan's adoption and
made the requested adjustments to the population allocations. The
Planning Action PL 42012-00573 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan.Comp Plan Element
Page 3 of 10
County chose to re-allocate population from unincorporated areas of
the County itself, rather than taking population from other cities in
the region, thereby avoiding making changes in other cities'
population allocations or land needs which might have posed
substantial risk to the RPS Plan. This re-allocation provides a 1.06
percent annual growth rate through 2026 and a 0.91 percent annual
growth rate through 2040,providing Ashland with a 2060 population
of 31,633 which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan projections.
In staff's view, Ashland's population allocation concerns have been
satisfactorily addressed with the County's amendment of its
Population Element.
2) Efficient Land Use & Transportation: The Planning Commission and City Council
emphasized the importance of planning development in the region to support a
successful regional transit system with implementation of the RPS Plan, and
recommended that the plan incorporate commitments by participating cities to Transit
Oriented Developments(TODs)and/or higher densities. The Council also asked that the
plan include measures to verify compliance with these commitments through any
proposed urban growth boundary expansion by requiring preparation of a conceptual
development plan specifying anticipated target residential and/or employment densities.
• Chapter 2,Figure 2.10 and Chapter 5,Section 2.5 of the County-adopted
plan include increased density commitments from all participating cities
which were arrived at address density concerns and comply with the
state's current safe harbor requirements. For the first 25 years of the
planning horizon,these density commitments involve densities of 6.5 to
6.9 dwelling units per acre both in existing Urban Growth Boundaries
and in proposed Urban Reserve Areas, including a commitment by
Ashland to a 6.6 units per acre density within its existing Urban Growth
Boundary. Density commitments for the Urban Reserves would be
increased by the participating cities for the remainder of the planning
period to from 7.5 to 7.9 dwelling units per acre. In LCDC's comments
on the plan, it was recommended that the City of Medford increase its
first half density commitments from 6.5 to 6.6 units/acre and over the
second period that it increase its density from 7.5 to 7.6 units per acre,
and that it "strive to increase its efficiency of development to the extent
possible." (Forpurposesofcomparison, staffwould note that review ofland
use actions in Ashland for the pas?five years suggests that new developments
have been approved at an average density of approximately 7.46 dwelling
units per acre.)
Chapter 5,Section 2.6 of the adopted plan also includes commitments by
all participating cities including Ashland to meet the benchmarks in the
2009 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is administered
through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for the
percentage of new dwelling units and new employment created in mixed-
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 4 of 10
use,pedestrian friendly areas or transit-oriented developments(TODs).
These percentages are listed under Alternative Measures #5 and #6 in
the RTP,and would require that 49 percent of new dwelling units and 44
percent of new employment be located in mixed-use,pedestrian friendly
areas or TODs by 2020. The objective of these measures is to
demonstrate progress towards creating mixed use, pedestrian friendly
developments in the region,and as such the requirement is considered to
be met if the city or the region overall is achieving the targets or
minimum qualifications, whichever is greater. The plan revisions also
provide that the requirements can be offset by increasing the percentage
of dwelling units and/or employment within the city limits which would
allow the transfer of some increased density into a city's core rather than
concentrating increased density in urban reserves at the perimeter of a
city. Ashland has already committed to the Regional Transportation
Plan standards through our participation in the MPO.
Chapter 5, Sections 2.7 and 2.8 call for the development of conceptual
transportation plans for urban reserve areas in order to identify and
protect regionally significant transportation corridors to provide for a
multi-modal regional transportation network with connections both
within and between cities, and for conceptual land use plans which
consider targeted densities, land use distribution, necessary
transportation infrastructure and efforts to concentrate development in
mixed-use, pedestrian friendly areas.
Staff believes that the commitments to increased density and mixed-use,
pedestrian friendly development over the long-term are consistent with
the Council's previous resolution.
3) Urban Fringe: Existing State and County regulations impose a minimum ten-acre lot
size on those areas located in the County but within a mile of Ashland's existing Urban
Growth Boundary (i.e. Ashland's "urban fringe") to prevent more urban levels of
development from occurring without the associated consideration of its impacts to the
city and its infrastructure. The Council asked that these limitations remain in place until
Ashland identifies urban reserve areas and an urban reserve management agreement
(URIv1A) is signed between Ashland and Jackson County.
• The adopted RPS Plan retains the requested limitations on
development with Ashland's urban fringe in Chapter 5,Section 2.15.
4) Jurisdictional Transfer: In conjunction with the County Planning Commission
hearings,the County initially proposed requiring jurisdictional transfer of County roads
within existing city limits through the adoption of the plan,which would have placed the
financial burden of upgrading these streets to current standards and maintaining them
entirely on the cities. The Council and the other participating cities asked jurisdictional
transfers not be tied directly to the adoption and acknowledgement process for the RPS
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 5 of 10
Plan,but rather negotiated between the County and individual cities in conjunction with
Urban Growth Boundary and Urban Reserve Area management agreements.
• The County ultimately opted to address these through the joint
management agreements rather than as a requirement of plan
adoption.
5) High Value Farm Land:The Council requested that identified high value farm lands be
removed from proposed Urban Reserve Areas. Absent meaningful reductions in the
farm land included in the URA's, the Council indicated they would be supportive of
addressing this issue with a Farmland Conservation Program as proposed by local land
use advocacy group Rogue Advocates and a coalition of local farmers, farming
advocates and citizens concerned with the loss of farmland and the on-going viability of
agriculture in the region. This program would have required that when high value farm
lands were developed,a commensurate area of high value farm land within the region be
protected through easements providing permanent protection-from development.
• Chapter 5, Section 2.20 of the County-adopted plan includes the
creation of an Agricultural Task Force to develop a program for
assessing the impacts of development on the agricultural economy of
Jackson County arising from the loss of agricultural lands and/or the
ability to irrigate agricultural land which may result from Urban
Growth Boundary amendments. The Agricultural Task Force is to
identify potential mitigation measures to offset those impacts. The
plan notes that appropriate mitigation measures shall be applied to
Urban Growth Boundary amendment proposals. Land use advocacy
group Rogue Advocates expressed concern during LCDC's review of
the Plan, asking that appointment of the Task Force be tied to
approval of the RPS Plan, that the Task Force should develop
mitigation measures as part of its duty rather than simply identifying
them, and that objective criteria should be used to determine
mitigation measures. LCDC's recommendations, now under
consideration by the County, included that the Agricultural Task
Force be appointed within six-months of acknowledgement of the
plan and that the Task Force be empowered to develop and
recommend mitigation measures.
6) Regional Housing Strategy—Recognizing that diverse and affordable housing options
close to work, school and shopping are essential to managing growth, supporting
economic development, providing schools and public services, and reducing the
environmental and social impacts of growth, the Council asked that the Plan identify a
timeline for the creation of regional housing strategies which would encourage a range of
housing types across the region.
• Chapter 5, Section 2.12 requires that the participating jurisdictions
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 6 of 10
create regional housing strategies that strongly encourage a range of
housing types throughout the region within five years of adoption of
the RPS Plan.
C. Impacts- DLCD Recommendations
The Land Conservation and Development Commission reviewed the County-adopted
Regional Plan in March, commending the regional partners for their perseverance and
expressing overall support for the plan. They made eight specific recommendations for
revisions to the County's adopted plan, including:
1. Eliminate Phoenix's PH-2 as an urban reserve. .
2. Amend Chapter 5,Section 2.20 relative to the timing of the County's creation
of an Agricultural Task Force.
3. Amend Chapter 5,Section 2.5 to increase the committed residential density
for Medford.
4. Amend Chapter 5,Section 2.9.8 to limit the portion of Phoenix's PH-5 urban
reserve designated as employment land to industrial zoning.
5. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2.9 to require that prior to Phoenix's expansion
into urban reserves to accommodate employment land needs, the region
agree on a mechanism to assist Phoenix in justifying the regional need for its
urban reserve PH-5.
6. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to the amount, type and methodology
for needed park lands in urban growth boundary amendments.
7. Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to defining buildable lands in urban
growth boundary amendments.
8. Re-evaluate agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix III to
determine if there are conflicts with state law, and address any conflicts
without reducing the effectiveness of the buffers.
Jackson County has initiated a new round of hearings to consider and address these items.
None of these eight items has a direct or immediate bearing on Ashland,and as such all eight
are not discussed in detail within this report. However, a brief explanation for each of the
five items(#2, #5, #6, #7 and#8)which could potentially affect Ashland are detailed below.
#2-Amend Chapter 5,Section 2.20 relative to the timing of the County's creation
of an Agricultural Task Force. In Resolution #2011-028, Ashland urged the
County to minimize the amount of high value farm land included in Urban Reserve
Areas through more efficient use of lands within existing boundaries,and asked that
high value farm land be the last option considered for accommodating development.
However, recognizing that this approach might not be palatable to the participating
jurisdictions, it was suggested that in the absence of meaningful reductions in the
amount of high value farm land included in the urban reserves, Ashland would
support a Farmland Conservation Program such as the one recommended through the
County's RPS hearings by local land use advocacy group Rogue Advocates and a
coalition of farmers,farm advocates and citizens concerned with the loss of farmland
and the on-going viability of agriculture within our region. Such a program would
have created a system to require easements to preserve high value farm land in
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 _ Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 7 of 10
conjunction with development. The County's response to this request was to appoint
an Agriculture Task Force to look further at the issues "prior to approval of any
Urban Growth Boundary Amendment." LCDC has recommended that this timing be
adjusted so that the Task Force is formed within six months of acknowledgement of
the plan rather than allowing the creation to potentially be delayed until after
applications are already in process, and has suggested that the Task Force be
empowered not only to identify potential mitigation measures but to develop them
and make recommendations toward their adoption and implementation. The
mitigation measures ultimately developed could include the Farmland Conservation
Program previously supported by Council, and whatever measures are ultimately
adopted could come into play for Ashland if the identification of urban reserves is
pursued.
#5—Amend Chapter 5,Section 2.9 to require that prior to Phoenix's expansion into
urban reserves to accommodate employment land needs,the region agree on a
mechanism to assist Phoenix in justifying the regional need for its urban reserve
PH-5, the "South Valley Employment Center." Through the regional planning
process, Phoenix was allocated additional employment lands as part of the South
Valley Employment Center which includes growth areas for both Medford and
Phoenix and would serve as a regional employment generator that could
accommodate larger campus type light industrial development. Because more,
employment land was allocated to Phoenix than would be necessary to accommodate
anticipated employment growth based solely on Phoenix's population,DLCD asked
that the Plan recognize that regional agreement on a mechanism to justify this
employment land for Phoenix would be needed before Phoenix could expand into
this area. As a participating city, Ashland would be involved in reaching whatever
agreement was required to enable the eventual development of this regional
employment generator, which might for example entail developing a regional
economic opportunities analysis.
#6—Amend Chapter 5,Section 2 relative to the amount,type and methodology for
needed park lands in urban growth boundary amendments. Land use advocates
1,000 Friends and Rogue Advocates both expressed concern with the treatment and
amount of park land designated in urban reserves in the adopted plan in comments to
LCDC,suggesting that the amount of park lands proposed exceeded that provided for
in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 660-024-0040(10)). LCDC noted that
these OAR's do not come into play for the identification of urban reserves through
the RPS process, but recommended that the plan make clear that at the time of an
Urban Growth Boundary amendment, the amount of parkland included would be
reviewed in accordance with applicable state law and the park land needs identified
in already acknowledged plans. This would not apply to Ashland until urban
reserves were identified and an Urban Growth Boundary expansion proposed.
#7 — Amend Chapter 5, Section 2 relative to defining building lands in urban
growth boundary amendments. Land use advocates 1,000 Friends expressed
concern with the definition of buildable lands within the RPS Plan in comments to
Planning Action PL 112012-00573 Ashland Planning Division-Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 8 of 10
LCDC, noting that the plan sets a threshold level for land with slopes of 23 percent
or greater as being unbuildable while Oregon Administrative Rules(OAR 660-008-
0005(2) requires a 25 percent slope threshold for buildability. 1,000 Friends asked
for clarification that Urban Growth Boundary expansions would not be approved if
they were not consistent with the applicable OAR's and other local and state
requirements in identifying buildable lands. LCDC concurred and made such a
recommendation to the County. This would not apply to Ashland until urban
reserves were identified and an Urban Growth Boundary expansion proposed.
#8 - Re-evaluate agricultural buffering standards in Volume 2, Appendix 111 to
determine if there are conflicts with state law,and address any conflicts without
reducing the effectiveness of the buffers. The agricultural buffering standards
proposed within the plan are intended to head-off potential conflicts between new
residential development at city edges and adjacent, productive agricultural lands
through spatial and vegetative buffering requirements and generally place the burden
on developers to provide required buffers up front in the development process. The
issue raised was that the standards imposed could not impose more restrictive
requirements on buffering noise than already contained in state law. The county will
consider this issue to address any conflicts with state law while maintaining the
effectiveness of the buffers to protect productive agricultural lands,however because
the adoption of agricultural buffering standards into city land use regulations is only
required for those cities that are,identifying urban reserves this item would not yet
apply to Ashland.
D. Proposed Element& Plan Participation
As noted above,Ashland is unique among the six participating cities in that it is the
only jurisdiction not identifying urban reserves, and the proposed new
comprehensive plan element is similarly unique in that where other cities are
adopting new regulations and maps,Ashland is in effect acknowledging its continued
participation through adoption of policies that in large part will not come into play
until urban reserves are identified for the city. The new element thus serves
primarily as a placeholder to acknowledge the city's signatory participation in the
plan and to provide a framework should the city ultimately choose to pursue the
creation of urban reserves.
III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof
18.108.170 Legislative Amendments
A. ft maybe necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make
other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet
other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act
solely within the authority of the Council.
B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council,by the Commission,or by application
ofa property owner orresident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on
the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within
thirty days after the hearing,recommend to the Council,approval, disapproval,or modification
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 9010
of the proposed amendment.
C. An application for amendment by property owner or resident shalt be bled with the Planning
Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first
considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee.
D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public
hearing.ARerreceipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission,the Council shall
hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time andplace of the public hearings and a
brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper ofgeneral
circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing.
E. No application of property owner or resident fora legislative amendment shall be considered
by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of _
such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the
Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
While staff recognizes that there may still be some concern with the Plan's focus which is largely on
the identification of growth areas, including some identified high value farm lands, in staff's view
there are a number of benefits which arise from Ashland's participation in the Plan. These include
first and foremost the ability to look at growth from a regional perspective which enables Ashland to
take less population growth than might otherwise have been required were growth not being
considered through a coordinated regional process, and thus preserve the existing compact.urban
form over the planning horizon. Perhaps equally important, the city's participation insures a
continued seat at the table for on-going discussions of coordinated regional planning for growth,and
that participation has already helped steer discussions to more deeply consider integrated land use
and transportation planning, densities necessary to support a thriving regional transit system,
regional housing strategies,and further consideration of farm land conservation. Finally, in staff s
view,another significant benefit of the regional planning process to date has been the development
of on-going working relationships between the staff members and policy makers of the various
participating jurisdictions. The importance of these working relationships was recently recognized
by the Governor's office in creating a regional working group made up largely of the participants in
the regional planning process and representatives of the Governor's Regional Solutions Team to
meet monthly and look at ways to improve state and local planning efforts through better regional
coordination.
As is frequently the case with long term planning, adoption of the Regional Plan is for staff less
about the completion of a process that has lasted more than a decade than about the creation of an
initial framework for continued regional planning efforts over the next five decades,with Ashland as
a full participant. With this in mind,staff would recommend that the Planning Commission forward
a favorable recommendation to Council in support of adoption of the proposed new Regional Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Action PL#2012-00573 Ashland Planning Division—Staff Report
Applicant: City of Ashland RPS Plan:Comp Plan Element
Page 10 of 10
' 534 SW Third Avenue,Suite 300• Portland,OR 97204 •(503) 497-1000•fox (503) 223-0073•www.friends.org
1000 Southern Oregon Office•PO Box 2442 •Grants Pass,OR 97528•(541)474-1155 •fax (541)474-9389
trleneiS Willamette Valley Office• 220 East 11 ro Avenue,Suite 5•Eugene,OR 97401 •(541)653-8703 •fox (503)575-2416
,,f Chhegon i
. —' Central Oregon Office• 115 NW Oregon Ave tl21 •Bend,OR 97701 •(541)719-8221 •fax (866)394-3089
June 8, 2012
Derek Severson
Members of the Ashland Planning Commission
and Ashland City Council
51 Winbum Way
Ashland, Oregon 97520
Subject: -Adoption of Amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan
For Consistency with Jackson County Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan
File No. 2012-00573
Dear Mr. Severson and Members of the Planning Commission and Council:
Thank you for the opportunity to once again comment on the city of Ashland's portion of the
Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit,
charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by
building livable urban and rural communities,protecting family farms and forests, and
conserving natural and scenic areas. In addition to members throughout the state, we have
several hundred members and supporters in Jackson County.
The purpose of this letter is to communicate our support for local adoption and state
acknowledgement of the RPS Plan.' The following comments are based on extensive
participation in the creation of the RPS Plan, as well as a detailed review of the Staff Report
prepared for this proceeding and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is proposed for
adoption.
Introduction: 1000 Friends Participated Extensively in the Local Process
Because we fully support the project's stated goals, 1000 Friends of Oregon has taken an active
interest in the creation of this regional plan. To that end, I attended nearly every public meeting
held by the RPS committees held since November 2002. 1 submitted several rounds of written
comments and was a frequent participant in discussions at both the TAC and the Policy
Committee meetings.
The Jackson County Board of Commissioners adopted the RPS Plan on November 23,2011. After reviewing the
plan in March of 2012,the Land Conservation and Development Commission(LCDC)recommended eight
changes be made to the plan. After a public hearing held on May 24,2012,the Jackson County Planning
Commission recommended to the Board that all eight of those changes be made to the plan.The Jackson County
Board is scheduled to have a public hearing to adopt those changes on June 27,2012. It is the version of the plan
as amended with those eight changes that 1000 Friends of Oregon supports.
z Including: Letter from Greg Holmes to Michael Cavallero, RVCOG, May 5,2003; Memo from Greg Holmes to
the RPS TAC, August 18,2004; Written Comments submitted by Greg Holmes to the RPS Policy Committee,
Derek Severson et al,
June 8, 2012
Page 2 of 3
Over the years I have also testified in every participating jurisdiction on matters involving this
plan (including Ashland), and 1 attended nearly every one of the more than 30 public hearings
and meetings held by the Jackson County Planning Commission and the Jackson County Board
of Commissioners during 2010 and 2011, as well as the amendment hearings held in 2012. In
addition to testifying on numerous occasions during those proceedings, I submitted a
considerable amount of written material into the record.3
On behalf of our members and supporters, we have made a substantial commitment to the
creation of this plan, and will continue to work with the remaining participating jurisdictions
toward adopting and implementing the plan in the best interests of the residents of Jackson
County.
Ashland's Leadership has Positively Influenced the Final Plan
1000 Friends of Oregon congratulates Ashland on the measured and consistent approach the city
has taken in evaluating both its own needs and the impacts this plan will have on the region.
Ashland's decision to not request urban reserve expansion areas, and to instead focus
accommodating future population growth within the existing urban growth boundary, is
commendable. This approach not only allows Ashland residents more choices when it comes to
housing types and transportation modes, but it helps keep expenditures of tax dollars in check by
investing in existing infrastructure rather than paying for expansions which will later require
additional operations and maintenance expenditures.
Further, the Council's leadership in identifying regional problems that would be caused or
exacerbated by elements of the plan,particularly in Resolutions#2010-021 and #2011-028, was
critical in instigating positive changes in the plan. The Ashland resolutions helped give
legitimacy to a chorus of voices, which in turn caused changes to be made to the plan which will
• prevent the urbanization of some high value agricultural land in the valley,
• reduce the impacts of the urbanization that will occur on remaining agricultural land,
• prompt the creation of regional strategies for providing affordable housing,
• help to create a more efficient development pattern, and
• result in a more sustainable transportation network.
Without the city's voice on these important issues, it is likely that some or all of these changes
would not have been made.
The Proposed RPS Plan Element of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Should be Adopted
Although we have been critical of the RPS plan in the past, changes that were made during the
County's adoption process, as well as amendments that were prompted by the March 2012
September 15,2006; Written Comments submitted by Greg Holmes to the RPS Policy Committee,October 10,
2007.
s See the Record filed by Jackson County for the LCDC review, Exhibits 55,85, 89, 110, 128, 129, 140,210,225,
248,281,290,316 and 317.
Derek Severson et al,
June S, 2012
Page 3 of 3
review by LCDC, have improved the plan significantly. Included in these changes are the
responses to the Ashland resolutions as outlined in the Staff report, as well as additional
safeguards that will help to ensure that the Plan is implemented in the future. While the plan is
far from perfect, we feel that on balance it is an improvement over what might be without it. For
that reason we support local adoption of Comprehensive Plan Elements and Zoning Code
amendments4 in support of the Plan.
In preparation for these proceedings, we conducted a detailed review of the proposed Regional
Plan Element to be added to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan presented by staff. Based on that
review we recommend only the following very minor changes be made to the text:
• There are a number of instances in the proposed amendment that say"...when Urban
Reserve Areas are identified for Ashland"or"...when the City identifies urban reserves."
Although only a minor point, we recommend that the language in these instances be
modified to say"if and when," to allow for the likelihood that Ashland may in fact not
identify urban reserves in the future.
With these minor changes, we respectfully recommend that the city adopt the Regional Plan
Element and add it to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion
With the addition of the relatively minor changes noted above, 1000 Friends of Oregon
recommends adoption of the Regional Plan Element and Zoning Code Amendments proposed by
staff. I apologize for not being able to be present at the Planning Commission hearing on this
matter, but it is my intent to be present at the City Council hearing and I will be happy to answer
any questions at that time.
Please include these comments in the official record of these proceedings and notify us at the
Grants Pass address above of any decisions and/or future hearings in this matter.
Re e ull
reg Holmes
Southern Oregon Planning Advocate
1000 Friends of Oregon
cc: Josh LeBombard, DLCD
Kelly Madding, Jackson County
" Because Ashland has not adopted urban reserves,it appears that Ashland does not need to make any code
amendments at this time.
April Lucas
From: Melanie Mindlin Isasselta @mind.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:14 AM
To: Dennis Slattery RECEIVED
Cc: Derek Severson;April Lucas; Bill Molnar
Subject: Re; Population
JUN 2 7.20 12
HI Dennis and Bill,
If this is going to be looked at by staff, I would strongly encourage you to also look at the projections used in the Economic
Opportunites Analysis as well. I examined this document very carefully when we were working on the Croman Mill issue and
believe that the projections used are way off base. As this report advises the City on our land needs for economic
development, it would be good to notate or amend this document based on more sound projections.
Thank you,
Melanie Mlndlin
i
i
i
i
i
April Lucas
From: Dennis Slattery[dennis @council.ashland.or.usj
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:58 AM
To: Colin Swales RECEIVED
Cc: Derek Severson; Melanie Mindlin; April Lucas; Bill Molnar
Subject: Re: Population JUN 2 7 ,2011
Thank you Colin for stimulating an interesting discussion. 1 have been "uncomfortable"with population projections I've seen
simply because I think we are using different metrics.
Bill,
I'd like to help move a discussion forward to see If we can find agreement on what mechanism/metrics we should be using
across the board when we look to decide policies/projects that are long term. I think it Is important to review across
departments if we are using consistent numbers-we may be already and If so that would be great, I'm just not sure that
comes out when we are looking long term. Let me know how 1 can help.
D
April Lucas
From: Colin Swales [colinswales @gmail.com)
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 12:44 AM
To: Bill Molnar
Cc: Derek Severson; Dennis Slattery; Melanie Mindlin; April Lucas RECEIVED
Subject: Population
JUN 27 1012
Bill,
(cc Derek, Dennis - Council liaison, Melanie- PC chair,April)
Further to my testimony on the RPS Population figures tonight, I have tonight assembled the data into a
spreadsheet for more clarity.
The decicentennial census returns for Ashland's Total Population for 2000, and 2010 are shown in red ( 19,522
and 20,078 respectively)
see online
httos://docs.google.conVspreadsheet/ccc?key=OAHUI GpSBlmvdDJJeFprbkJuRXZzMHctM2U4a] R5U3c
i
I have compounded the actual 2010 figure by the original average annual growh rate (AAGR)allocation
0.28%)and extraploated out to 2060 - approx 50 yrs)
Then 1 have used other multipliers that I have seen used in various city estimates -e.g. 0.74% (TSP) up to 1.06%
(RPS)
I assume these are based on the County Comp Plan and/or Portland University estimates)
(I'm not sure what figure was used for the Water Plant upgrade projections.)
But you can.get the point...
The difference between the actual figure for the last decade projected forward an(] the estimated one used in the
RPS forecast shows a staggering 47% difference in expected population over the 50 yrs.
No projections show the "doubling of population" in 50 yrs. that was meant to be planned for.(Now x2)
But the difference between the 50-yr growth based on the actual last decade (13%) and the one currently used !
for planting (41%) is very striking.- the power of compounding...
Please check my math and tell me if I am wrong.
(I also have not looked at the Jackson County figures or other local cities)
Please could you share this with the other planning commissioners and also my earlier letter submitted as it also
bears on our joint TSP decisions.
thanks
Colin
t
April Lucas
From: Colin Swales [colinswales @gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:00 PM
To: Derek Severson; Bill Molnar RECEIVED
Cc: April Lucas
Subject: Fwd: Data Requests- [Census 8 Diets] ]UN 2 7 2012
Derek,Bill
(cc April)
Herewith electronic version dealing with the matter that I will be talking to the PC about tonight regarding RPS
Legislative Change and population estimates.
Colin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Colin Swales <colinswales @Pmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:01 AM
Subject: re: Data Requests - [Census& Diets]
To: Susan Wright <swright @kittelsot.com>
Cc: Troy Brown <tbrownuc tt7i gmail.com>, David Chapman <david a co ncil.ashtand.or.us>
Susan,
(cc Troy, TC liaison- David Chapman)
Thanks so much for sending links to this traffic data that Troy and I asked about at out last joint TC/PC
meeting.
I see that you base your population "estimates" on our Comprehensive Plan figures.
These numbers of course are somewhat politically boosted and gerrymandered to allow the City to receive
maximum available State and Federal grants ctc.as has been fully explained in the recent past by Planning Staff
to our Council during the RPS debacle.
(The downside of this approach is that it commits the City to quite unreasonable infrastructure spending budgets
for the future.)
A big pats of the RPS wrangle was over the population aspect of the Regional Problem Solving [RPS] allocation
of"growth" for the 50-yr time horizon.
The estimated population growth number that seems to have been settled on is, as you report, 0.73% - 0.74% -
or now even as high as 0.91-1.06%, !
I would like to comment on this...
The only factual data 1 can find is from the 1990, 2000 and 2010 census returns.
e.g.They show an Ashland City population of 19,522 in 2000 and 20,078 in 2010
(where your figure of 21,505 conics from 1 have no idea...)
These census figures represent a 10 yr. compounded annual increase in population of only 0.28% and ]7n sure
these figures are more reliable than "estimates".
( see also recent Council discussion on the RPS
at http://uiNwv.ashland.mr.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=4185 )
t
Current Plan Treatment of Ashland Population:
0 2,176 (0.28%AAGR) by 2040 (reduction o,0001 over our previous 2026 estimates)
[emphasis added]
0 4.038 (0.32%.AAGR) by 2060 (reduction of8,222 over oar previous 2056 estimates)
<snip>
That the population allocation be reviewed and adjusted prior to adoption
• Specifically, amend RPS Plan to reflect a 2040 Ashland population projection consistent
with an approximate 1.06 average annual growth rate (AAGR), and a 2060 population projection
consistent with an approximate 0.91 average annual growth rate
<snip>
Mr. Molnar explained the population allocation figures in the plan were significantly less than what staff
would have estimated...
...For unknown reasons in 2006, the City of Ashland event from a reasonable population allocation to one that
was not....
This paltry population increase was during the prolific housing bubble when subdivisions spread across the N/
Mountain hillsides like mushrooms and also on the valley floor(Buds Dairy @ Clay, RiverWalk @
Hersey/Mountain)
Also to be noted is the increasing aging of the baby boom generation and in-migration of retirees while the
"soccer mum" age demographic has decreased e.g. 55-64 20 yr an increase of 85%; 65 - 74 +23%; 35-55 down
18% see actual data (not "estimate"s [here]
With "retirement complexes for seniors" having boomed during that period (only 1 off-street parking space
needed under our ALUO rather that the usual 2 ) and the closing of 2 elementary schools during the same period
due to district-wide falling student numbers, one can see why there is perhaps less traffic on the roads
(especially at a.m./p.m. school delivery hours) , yet points to a dire future need for wider sidewalks to allow for
electric handicapped trikes, wheelchairs and walking frames etc...
Perhaps Staff's over-estimation of population growth is why the official, factual ODOT traffic figures are
showing such an unexpected decline when this factual low population increase is combined with current
high fuel costs etc.?
I also looked at your Peak Hour traffic figures for Siskiyou Boulevard.
1 also read the FHWA's Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures and Their Effects on
Crashes and Injuries
http://www.f iwa.dot.eov/publications/research/safety/hunianfac/04082/index.cfm
"... road diets have minimal effects on vehicle capacity, because left-turning vehicles are moved into a
common two-way left-turn lane.t1,21 However, for road diets with ADTs above approximately 20,000
vehicles, there is a greater likelihood that traffic congestion will increase to the point of diverting traffic
to alternate routes...."
<snip>
"...Pedestrians may benefit because they have fewer lanes of traffic to cross, and because motor
vehicles are likely to be moving more slowly. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
report Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations found that
pedestrian crash risk was reduced when pedestrians crossed two- and three-lane roads, compared to
roads with four or more lanes.t3l
2
The ODOT figure s show only 15,500 ADT at: ..ey NlMain at Holman Street entering and leaving Dm_ .iWn and a Road Dist was deemed to be
possible.Before the City took over Jurisdiction of Siskiyou and Ashland the ADTS at Indiana/Siskiyou were 19,300.Current traffic has actually dropped
16-25%since then.
I'm surprised that a road diet at SOU has never been proposed either during the TSP discussion nor the recent SOU dorms Planning App for which
Kiltleson did the Traffic Analysis.
As Kiltleson's Siskiyou Blvd.Peak Hour traffic figures(2,484 Indlana,2,235 Mountain)are so similar to Winner/Hersey(2,065),and if a Road Diet works
at the latter,then why not the former?
It seems to me that the very worst case scenario would perhaps be a slight slowing of traf6c(oniy at peak hours).at SOU.
Would this be so bad from a muhl-modal and safety approach in the very heart of our university campus?
In the meantime,If you get the time I would be Interested to know your thoughts about:
How Shared Space Challenges
Conventional Thinking about
Transportation Design
[extract] "...This is why detailed studies of intersections in the Netherlands and the United
Kingdom that have been converted from,signal control to shared space intersections
show a remarkable improvement in traffic flow. But this is not the only improvement;
these same studies have also shown a significant reduction in the number of injury
accidents, partly due to the fact that speeds in 'context time' are much slower. And this
may be the biggest paradox that confounds conventional thinking - the fact that lower
speeds in mixed-use environments often improve rather than degrade traffic flow...."
I am really disappointed that Kittleson has not even suggested such creative ideas -
elther for our Downtown or for the crucial crossing points at SOU or AHS for our young
students.
thanks
Colin
On Wed,Jun 6, 2012 at 2:11 PM,Jodi Vizzini <vizziniJ@ashland.or.us> wrote:
Hello,
I thought I forwarded this information to you both, but am unable to find that e-mail so am doubting my
memory. If not, I apologize for the delay. If you already received this, please disregard.
Jodi
3
--- -- --- -- ---- -_._.- - - .- -- -
From: Susan Wright [mailto swright@kittelson.com]
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:28 PM
To: Jodi Vlzzlnl
Subject: RE: Data Requests
The future volumes and operations data Colin is looking for is in our Tech Memo 45 on future conditions. It is
on the project website and linked below. The volumes are on page 9. The Siskiyou/Ashland intersection is#9.
#7 is Siskiyor✓Mountain. We did not look at Indiana/Wightman for the TSP but this provides upstream and
downstream volumes at that location.
http•//ashlandisp.com/system/datas/87/original/AshiandTSP DraftTM5 11311.pdf
Information for the Siskiyou/Indiana-Wightman intersection is included in the SOU Traffic Impact Study
attached. Pedestrian volumes are on page 78 of the report (page 88 of the pdo in the Pedestrian Safety Study
section. Vehicle volumes are in the Traffic Impact Analysis section on page 22 of the report (page 30 of the
pdo.
Thanks,
Susie
Susan Wright, P.E.
Associate Engineer
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
503.535.7432 (direct)
503.228.5230 (Portland)
4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Approval and opportunity for public comment on the criteria to be used during the
selection process for the Director of IT and the Electric Utility.
FROM:
Tina Gray, Human Resource Manager, grayt @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Interviews for the director of IT and the electric utility will take place in a closed executive session
with a quorum of the City Council.present. When meeting to consider the employment of a public
officer in a closed session, the Council must first adopt hiring standards,criteria and policy directives
in a meeting open to the public and allow for public comment on the standards, criteria and policy
directives.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City contracted with the Waters Consulting Group to conduct a nationwide search for a new
director of information technology and the electric utility. Senior Consultant Andrea Simms developed
a candidate profile pulling from her recent work on the city administrator search and through input
from elected officials and city staff. She used the candidate profile as a recruitment tool in a national
search process. The city has identified the top five candidates who will be invited to Ashland for an
interview and selection process later this month.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
The five finalists the Council is scheduled to interview on July 24, 2012, have demonstrated they meet
or exceed the minimum job requirements in terms of education and experience compared to the
candidate profile. The Council should further establish criteria to help determine which candidate is
the best match for the community and the organization, and allow input from the public regarding the
selection criteria.
Staff recommends Council formally adopt and take public comment on the following criteria to be
used in the selection process:
• Experience in leading an IT department and/or broadband service provider and/or an electric
utility
• Analytical ability/strategic thinking
• Ability to communicate effectively both orally and in writing
• Experience in preparing and managing a budget; especially a public budget
Page I of 2
IA,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• Experience in managing capital projects
• Ability to manage staff and hold them accountable for performance
• Ability to work with outside partners with competing interests
• Customer service orientation
• Creativity, innovation and out-of-the-box thinking
• "Fit" with the existing city organization
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move approval of the selection criteria for the information technology and electric utility director as
presented by staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 2 of 2
�`,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
November 2012 Local Option Levy for Enhanced Library Services
Draft Ballot Measure and Resolution
FROM:
Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst, seltzera @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The current local option levy, passed by voters in 2008 for enhanced library services, expires in June
2013. The attached ballot measure extends the local option levy for four years, through June 2017 and
provides up to S.21 per $1000 assessed property value for enhanced library services. The deadline to
file a ballot measure for the November election is September 4 and it must be submitted to the City
Recorder no later than August 27.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In November 2008, Ashland voters approved the levy to provide enhanced library services for four
years through June 30, 2012. The enhanced library services include sixteen additional open hours per
week at the Ashland library, three additional full time employees or the equivalent and enhanced
outreach library programs for teens, seniors and children. These services are contracted through an
intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County.
The 2008 levy allowed for up to $.21 per $1000 assessed.
The recommendation for the 2008 levy came from the Citizens Library Advisory Committee appointed
by the City Council in the fall of 2007. The committee met numerous times and researched library
governance and funding. After hosting several open houses in the community they determined there
was voter support for a local option levy to fund enhanced library services.
Attached is a report from the Ashland Branch Library on results of the enhanced services and
outcomes paid for by Ashland residents.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The Intergovernmental Agreement for FYI is $388,022.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution and approve the ballot measure language.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the ballot measure as written and adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City
of Ashland and Jackson County, Oregon, to submit to the voters at the November 6, 2012 General
Election a funding initiative to levy up to S.21 per $1000 assessed property value for the purpose of
Page ] of 2
11FAL111
CITY OF
ASHLAND
providing enhanced library services at the Ashland Public Library for a period of four years beginning
July 1, 2013" and place a measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot.
ATTACHMENTS:
• DRAFT Ballot Measure
• Resolution 2012-xx
• Time Frame
• Report from Ashland Public Library
Page 2 of 2
�r,
City of Ashland, Ballot Measure,November 6 2012 General Election
Renewal Tax Levy for Enhanced Services Funding Ashland Public Library
Caption:
Renewal of Local Option Tax Levy Funding for Ashland Library
Total 10 words(10 words permitted per ORS 250.035)
uestion:
Shall Ashland levy up to$.21 per$1,000 assessed value for four years beginning July 1;2013 for
library operations? This measure renews current local option taxes.
Total 20 words(20 words permitted per ORS 250.035 20), not including ending statement
required and not counted pursuant to ORS 280.070.
Summary:
Renewal of this tax will continue funding for enhanced services at the Ashland branch public .
library through June 30,2017.
Up to$.21 cents per$1,000 of assessed property value may be levied if this measure passes. The
average 2012 assessed value for a single family home in Ashland is approximately$241,000.
Such an average household could payr$45!7rper year if this measure passes. [The estimated tax
cost for this measure is an ESTIMATE ONLY based on the best information available from the
county assessor at the time of the estimate.] 50 -W
Over the past four years the City has levied just$.19 per$1000 of assessed property value and
that amount has generated the funds needed for enhanced services. If the full$.21 cents is levied
it is estimated [this tax will generate up to$439,110,in 2014, $452,271 in 2015,$465,851 in
2016 and $479,821 in 2017]. Pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement(IGA)between the
City of Ashland and Jackson County,these funds will be used to pay the county for enhanced
library services beyond its base services..
Subject to the IGA,enhanced library services in Ashland include the following,at a minimum:
• 16 additional open hours per week
• Three additional full time employees or the equivalent
• Enhanced outreach library programs for teens, seniors and children
Total 175 words(175 words permitted per ORS 250.035)plus 46 words required and not counted
pursuant to ORS 280.075. Required statements are shown in brackets.
Explanatory Statement:
Renewal of this levy will continue funding for enhanced library services for four years beginning
July 1, 2013 through June 30,2017. It provides for enhanced library services beyond the base
services provided by the county.
In November 2008,Ashland voters passed a local option levy of up to$.21 per$1000 assessed
value to provide for enhanced library services. That measure expires June 30, 2013. Over the
past four years the City has levied just$.19 per$1000 of assessed property value and that amount
has generated the funds needed for enhanced library services. Over the next four years,the City
will again levy only the amount required to pay for the library services,with a maximum of$.21.
Passage of this measure mirrors the 2008 levy and authorizes the City of Ashland to levy up to
$.21 per$1000 assessed value each year for four years for the purpose of providing enhanced
library services from July 1,2013 through June 30,2017.
Subject to the intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County enhanced library services in
Ashland include the following,at a minimum:
• 16 additional open hours per week for a total of 40 hours per week
• Three additional full time employees or the equivalent
• Enhanced outreach library programs for teens,seniors and children
How much will it cost me?
To determine how much your household will pay in additional taxes,refer to your property tax
statement issued by the county and find your tax assessed property value. (Your tax assessed
value will be significantly lower than your market assessed value.) The average 2012 tax
assessed value for a single family residence in Ashland is approximately$241,000. The
additional property tax paid by the average household would be 14&.—4"per year(241 multiplied
by 21 cents). b '
Results of a`No"Vote
If this local option levy does not pass,the Ashland public library,after June 30,2013,will
operate under the base services currently provided by the county: 24 open hours per week,
reduced outreach services and reduced staffing levels.
Total 343 words(500 words permitted per ORS 246.150, 251.305&251.325 500)
2
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND AND JACKSON COUNTY,
OREGON, TO SUBMIT TO THE VOTERS AT THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012
GENERAL ELECTION A FUNDING INITITATIVE TO LEVY UP TO $.21
PER $1000 ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING ENHANCED LIBRARY SERVICES AT THE ASHLAND
PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BEGINNING JULY
1, 2013.
RECITALS:
A. The City Council of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon (the"City") has
determined that there is a need to provide enhanced library services at the Ashland Public
Library for a period of four years beginning July 1, 2013 ending June 30, 2017.
B. Costs are estimated to be $399,662 for the first year and increasing three percent each
year for enhanced library services including: 16 hours of additional operating hours per
week, with professional staff, three additional full time employees or equivalent and
enhanced outreach services teens, senior and children.
C. The enhanced library services are in addition to the base services provided by Jackson
County at the Ashland Public Library.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Submit to the qualified voters of the City the Question of levying up to $.21 per
$1000 assessed property value for the purpose of providing enhanced library services at the
Ashland Public Library for a period of four years beginning July 1, 2013.
SECTION 2. The City Recorder shall cause to be delivered to the Elections Officer of Jackson
County, Oregon, the attached Ballot Measure Notice, not later than 61 days prior to the elections.
The Election Officer is requested to give the electorate of the City notice that the election shall
be conducted by mail pursuant to Oregon law; and
SECTION 3. The City Recorder shall give notice of the election as provided in the laws of the
State of Oregon and the charter and ordinances of the City of Ashland.
SECTION 4. The City Attorney is authorized to alter the text of the ballot to comply with any
rules, procedures or practices of the Elections Officer of Jackson County to implement the
requirement of Oregon law.
The resolution is effective upon signing by the Mayor.
Page 1 of 2
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of July, 2012:
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED THIS _day of July, 2012:
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
Timeline
November 2012 Ballot Measure
November 6 General Election
September 6 Deadline to file ballot measure for November election
September 10 Deadline to submit voter pamphlet information for November election
August 27 Deadline to submit ballot measure language to Ashland City Recorder
August 7 If needed, two possible council meetings to
August 21 continue to discuss placing a local option
levy on the November 2008 ballot.
Ashland Branch Library Benefits from
City of Ashland and its Residents' Support
The Ashland Branch Library is open 40 hours per week. Jackson County pays for 24
hours of basic service. The City of Ashland pays for 16 additional hours of full service.
Two FTE, or the equivalent, are paid to cover the additional hours of operation as well
as an additional FTE or the equivalent, for a Library Outreach Activities staff member.
Ashland residents benefit from this significant support by:
16 hours of full service. Professional staff members are on duty all 40 hours in
Children's and Reference departments. This staff is specially trained to help readers,
business owners,tourists, children and educators, use library resources. The extra hours
allow the library to be open for those who work. Sundays are particularly popular.
For the Children-The extra hours enable Ashland to offer more Storytimes, 4 x a week,
and to also offer.the Babies and Wobblers program. Once a month, an extra bilingual
story time is given. A typical month, in March of this year, 350 children attended 16
storytimes. 350 children and parents attended the 8 babies and wobblers program.
Three class tours and 5 classroom visits took place in the children's department. These
programs are able to take place because the library is open 40 hours a week and
because our Children's Librarian has 10 hours a week to devote to outreach.
Internet Service—the public Internet computers are well used. The public is very
pleased to have 16 extra hours where the computers are available to be used. There
are 13 public Internet stations for adults, 2 for database and word processing use, 4
teen computers, and two Internet stations in the children's area. Printing is available
from all.
Tourists—Tourists use the public library to read newspapers, get information on local
issues, use the Internet and print their boarding passes. They are very grateful to the
library being open, particularly on Sundays.
Outreach—The library has 40 hours of outreach staff hours. This is divided between
children's, teen and adult services.
The Children's outreach librarian is able to go to daycares, schools,give class tours and
storytimes for individual groups and a special connection with Ashland Hospital
delivering Baby's First Bag—a literacy program for all babies born at our local hospital.
Nearly 400 bags filled with books and literacy information were delivered to newborns
in 2011. In March alone, the children's outreach librarian welcomed 8 class visits from
local preschools, including the YMCA. The library would not be able to host so many in
24 hours a week.
The Teen Librarian spends 5 hours a week doing outreach to teens. She hosts booktalks,
class visits and prepares materials for school age. She also hosts programs, such as Teen
Gaming Day, Art projects and more specifically for the teens.
The Adult Outreach Librarian serves around 44 active patrons each month.There are 10
or so who may drop off for a month or two, or who move. The numbers do vary a bit
from month to month. The librarian supervises 6 volunteers who deliver materials to
individuals. The other libraries in the system mail materials back and forth to the
outreach patrons. In Ashland the materials are hand delivered and a relationship
develops between the homebound reader and the library volunteer and librarian.
Materials are delivered to Mountain View, Skylark, Linda Vista, Ashley Senior Center,
Star Thistle, Don Laws Center, and to 7 individual homes. The librarian also visits the
Senior Center, posting announcements and keeping in touch with that community. A
recent comment that was sent to us by an Outreach patron's son follows:
"Thanks so much. These books are really helping her to feel in contact with ongoing life.
Much, much appreciated."
Adult Outreach -5 hours is also spent by another Librarian doing Outreach to patrons
through programming and working with community organizations. Monthly library
programs bring in to the library 100-300 individuals a month. That is besides the public
meetings that take place in the library but are not library sponsored. Programs on job
hunting, local history, author visits, writing skills all take place in the library, which lets
all Ashland know what a community center it is. Relationships with other agencies and
organizations in town foster the goal of community.
Circulation - It is hard to determine what the circulation of materials would be with the
library only open 24 hours a week. We know how the 40 hours makes it more
convenient for the public to use the library and circulation continues to grow each
month.Ashland with a population around 21,000 circulated 413,196 items in the last 12
months. Medford in comparison - population of 73,500 or 3 %:times that of Ashland -
circulated 492,922 which is a lot in only 24 hours a week.
Circulation was up 6.71%this past month, and the annual increase is around 5-6%.
The Ashland population seems pleased that the library is open 6 days a week, 40 hours.
We are often asked if it will be open on Fridays anytime soon. The extra hours provide
better service to the patrons, since their visits can be spread out over the week.
e
m r N N
f Nf N
y
m
C
7
N
Q
N
O�
N
N r m m J
M M J L N L L
y N y
(n C W OI c y c O)
m M W C W W e
m A N m t y W t A t W
O y N N C C
C Q (n � LL N tp fn LL
O
m W m T C
m N
m r e e
� n n
O
O Q Q J
u m
a r
� Q
O
to n
om N m O
a � < W 0z° o
m N m O
m M N
l
N N n N
m N
� h M N
m r ,
"f t7 f'l J
L y�
U
C
lb m of h m N Q �O N
y LL LL LL LL L N
^ 7 .- f N N
K m = m 2 o > U C L T C
? Q �nOZO A
N Z C LL
z 10 w v
m O c m a ry
Q O `O tu y u
2 J A Z d x
_ m
U a 6 K a
Q LL U U Z Z y
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Resolution amending the Management and Confidential Salary Schedule and a
Resolution Clarifying Conditions of Employment for the management and
confidential employees for fiscal year 2012-2013.
FROM:
Tina Gray, Human Resource Manager, grayt @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with five bargaining groups. Management
and Confidential employees of the City are not an organized group for the purpose of negotiating terms
and conditions of their employment. Each year, City Administration makes a recommendation to the
City Council for a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all non-represented employees. Adjustments
for the elected City Recorder and Municipal Judge are set forth in the City Charter based on the
average increase afforded other managers of the city.
Staff is recommending the following actions:
• 2% salary increase for all non-represented management and confidential job classifications.
• An additional employer contribution of I% to Health Reimbursement Arrangement Voluntary
Employees' Benefits Association (HRA-V EBA) for all non-represented management and
confidential employees. (2% total contribution is consistent with all other City employee
groups).
• Partial implementation of classification and compensation study recommendations for
executive staff. The salary schedule for executive managers includes a 3.5% COLA equivalent
to what was given to the other management and confidential staff. (2% COLA recommended
this year, and 1.5% COLA which was included when the plan was implemented last year to
reflect market change since the study was completed in 2009-2010).
• Minor language changes to help clarify conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City is currently negotiating new labor agreements with three of the five represented employee
groups. Staff will bring new labor contracts to Council for approval once tentative agreements have
been reached. The remaining collective bargaining groups are in the second year of their contracts
which call for wage increases of 2.5% for the IBEW Electrical Workers, and 2% for the Laborers
Union Local 121.
To ensure competitive wages for non-represented management and confidential employees, and to
reinforce the Council's goal of employee retention and continuity, staff is proposing a 2% COLA and
an additional I% employer contribution to HRA-VEBA for all non-represented management and
confidential employees.
Page 1 of 2
11FALIN
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Last fiscal year, the Council approved a partial implementation strategy that moved the non-
represented management and confidential employees into the recommended salary ranges from the
classification and Compensation Study conducted in 2009/10. The city could not afford to implement
all class/comp recommendations, so executive management salaries remained unchanged for a third
year. To help address compression and comparability issues, staff recommends Council implement
class/comp recommendations for the executive managers of the city in a manner consistent with how
the study was implemented with the other non-represented management and confidential employees
last FY.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The budget that was approved for fiscal year 2012-2013 included a 2% COLA and an additional I%
employer contribution to HRA-VEBA for all non-represented management and confidential employees
of the City, and implementation of class/comp study recommendations for executive managers of the
City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council adopt a Resolution amending the pay schedule and a resolution clarifying
Conditions of employment for the non-represented management and confidential Employees of the
City.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
I move approval of a resolution amending the salary schedule for non-represented Management &
Confidential Employees of the City for fiscal year 2012-2013;
and
I move approval of a resolution clarifying conditions of employment for management and confidential
employees of the City for fiscal year 2012-2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution revising the Salary Schedule to reflect implementation of the compensation
recommendations for executive managers; 2% COLA for all other management and confidential
positions; and a 3.4095% increase for the Elected Judge and City Recorder per City Charter.
• Revised Management Resolution clarifying conditions of employment for management and
confidential employees of the City.
Page 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR
MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2012-2013.
RECITALS:
1. The City has an interest in maintaining salary differentials to avoid compression between
represented employees and the supervisory/management staff.
2. It is the desire of the City to maintain its management and confidential pay plan at a level
commensurate with other jurisdictions to enhance recruitment and retention in these key
positions.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The pay schedule for Mid-Management/Supervisory and Confidential employees
shall be increased by 2%, effective retro to July 1, 2012.
SECTION 2. The pay schedule for Executive Managers shall be adjusted to reflect the
recommendations of the 2009-2010 Classification and Compensation study, effective retro to
July 1, 2012.
SECTION 3. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be increased by
3.4095% retro to July 1, 2012, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for
Department Heads and Supervisors as set forth in the City Charter.
This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor or City Council Chair.
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2012.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of July, 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL-2012 Salary Schedule
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT-All Job Classes are Exempt
7/1/2011-PARTIAL IMPLMENTATION OF NEW
COMPENSATION PUN-No changelor Executive CPS Compensatlon Recommendation(Never/mplamentedjar ]/1/2012-EXECUTIVE MGMT BROUGHT INTO NEW -
Monapement Executive Mofsagear, COMPENSATION PLAN Includes market catch-aP O13.5X1
JOB CLASS IFIR IMO ANNUAL JOB CUSS /HR JOB CUAS /HR _1MO ANNUAL
15011 any Adminiztrator 111 15011 City Administrator Ill ISOq Ci[y Admiltistramr Ip
Step A-First 6Month, $56.1]03 59,]36.1] $116,831 Step A-First 6Month, $563200 $9,)62.12 $117,145 Step A-First 6 Months $583913 $10,103.79 $121,20
51ep8-Nevt l2 Months $5].8203 $10,022.1] $120,266 Step B-finsLUMonlhz $59.]360 $1035032 $123,093 Step B-NeatIIMOn1M1S $61.3058 $10,608.98 $12],308
Step C-Neat l2 Months 561.2300 $10.6]3.18 $11]358 SIepC-NUtIIMOnlhs $62.09281 $10.)62.]3 $129.153 Step C-Next 12 Months SEA $11,139.43 $133.6)3
Step D-Nea112MOnb 5633916 $11.057.19 5132.686 Step D-Next 12 MOn15 $65.]9)5 $11,300.87 $135,610 Step D-Next 12 Monts $67.0]90 $13696.40 $14035)
Sle FIDerealter $66.3359 $11,498.20 $137,9]8 51 E-lhaealler $08.4574 $11.865.92 $14,391 Step E-Thereafter $]0.8531 $12381.23 $10,375
15011 Clio Attorney(1);Assistant City Administrator(1) 15021 City Attorney 111;Assistant City Administrator(1) 15021City Abomeylll:ASSUUnt City Adminlstntor111
Step A-First b Months $4].0836 $8.]6].]4 $97.934 Step A-First 6Months $16.3316 $8.031.32 $96,3]fi Step A-First 6Months $47.9563 $8312,42 $99.709
Step B-Next 12 MpnUls $48.9529 $8.485.]5 $101.822 Step B'Nextl2MwNs $48.6513 $8.43288 5101,195 Step B-Next 12 MmMs S50.35411 $9,728.031 $101736
51eyL Next l2 Months $50.92501 $8,027.16 $105,926 Step C-Next 12 Months 551.0039 $8,854,531 5106354 Steol11MOmhs $52.8719 S9,16,1.441 $109.973
Step D-Thereafter 1 552.96831 $9,18115 $110.1]4 Slep E-Nev112Months $53.6381 $939]35 $111,567 Slep D-Next 12 Monk $55.5150 $9,622.65 $115,472
Step D-Thereafter $56.3200 $9,762.12 $117,145 Step E-Thereafter $583912 $10.303.M $121,246
ISOal PoI4e Chief(Ile 15051 Director of Electric Utilities Ill;IS061 150al Police Chief(1);15051 Director of EMctria Utilities(1);15061 15041 Polite Chief 111;[5051 Director
of Electric Utilities 11);15061
Director Administrative Services(1);(50]1 Fire Chief(1);15071 Director of Admimsmuve Service.pl;I507I Fire Chief 1p:15071 Director Director of AdmirvzvaUw Services p);15071
Fire Chief(1);15071
IN...Of pulaic Works(11;(S09I Director of lnbrmallon of POmb Works(1);15091 Director ofInformation TechmlM 11);15101 Director or Public Works 11);15091 Director of Information
Technology
Technology(1);(5101 Director Of Community Development(1); Dlrectorof Community Developmenl(I); UI:Is101 Diretter el commuNW Dewbpment 111:
Step A-Fell 6 Months $13.5528 $],99 $90.590 Step A-Firsl6MOntM1Z 573.@69 $]384.64 $87.416 Step A-First 6Months $43,49]8 $7,539.0 $90,05
Step B-Netl l2 Months $!5.2836 $],849 $94,]90 Step B-tie#II MOn[M1S 544.]282 $].6488) 591,]86 Step B
-N¢xtIIMOnths 515.6]2] $],916.58 $91.999
StepC-NUt 12 Months $0.0836 $8,161 $9).934 SIyC-Heil]2 ManNZ $16.3346 58,031.32 $96.3)6 Step( Next l2 hx_IJo $Q.9563 $g33EA2 $99.)49
Step D-Thereafter $48.9529 $8,85 $101.g22 Step D-Neal l2 Months $48.6513 $843288 $101,195 Step D-Neat l2Mwths $50.3511 $8.728.03 $104,7M
Step E-Thereafter S51.06391 $8.854.53 $109851 Step E-Thereafter $52.8719 S9,164.441 $109.973
Last Change"Offied;
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL-2012 Salary Schedule
NOD-MGMT SUPERVISORY-All Job Classes Are Exempt Distress SpeFS1ed
T/1/2011-mnlil.IMPLNIEMATION OF NE W
CAMPENSAl10N PLAN )/1/2012-296[OlA, ANNUAL, JOB CLASS /MR .__/MG ANNUAL
511 Electric0 rationsbu rintendent 1• I Isill Electric c rations slaymmendent 1:
Leo R-Firzl6 MOntM1S 5 38.6914 56,]06.50 580.08 Aep A-First 6 MO,IM1S 539.1652 56.410.63 $82,084
Step B-Nex122 MOnthi 5 60626) $].011.82 SK.X2 SlepB-Next l2 Months $61.4393 $).l@.l9 $x.193
Step Next 12 Months 5 42B5731 $88,]2) Step C-Next 12 Months $43.51W $7,547.84 $90.502
Step D-Next 12 Months $ 4417901 $7,76361 $93,163 Step O-Next 12 Months $45.6859 $7918.87 $95,026
SIep E'-Theraller $ 47.0296 $8,151.79 $97,811 Ste E-Therafler $47.9)02 1 $4314.83 599.778
Fthle (3)puty Poice Chief/lieutenant(1);[5131 Division (5031 Deputy Police Chief/lieutenant(1]; [5131 Divsion Chief
(EMS,Fire&Life Safety antl Operations];[514]HR (3))EMS,Fire&Life Safety and Operations);15141 HR Manager
r(1);irst 6 Monlhs $ 36.8490 56,387.14 $76,616 Step A-First 6Month, $3].5860 $6314.89 $]8,1)9
ext l2 Manlhs $ 30.6914 $6,706.50 $80.08 SIep O-Next]2 Months $39.8452 XM063 $83,084 ext l2 Monlhs 5 10.636] $],01L82 $68.502 SIep C-Next
l2 Mths 541.4393 $].181.79 $86,193
eat 32 Monlhs 5 42.6573 $].39391 SMJ2) SIep D-Nest l2 Months $43.51% $7,443.10 5%302
ention $ 44.7901 I S7.763.611 $93,163 Step E-TheraNer IS 45.6859 1 $7,918.87 $95,026
15251 Building Official(1);(5561 Planning Manager(1); [525]Building Official(11;[5561 Planning Manager(1);
Assistant City Attorney; Assistant City Attorney(1);
Step A-First 6Months $ 35.0942 $6.082.99 5]3,9% Step A-First 6 Months $35]961 $6,3 04.64 $JI.456
Step B-Next 12 Months $ 36A4891 $6.387.14 $76,646 Step 8-Next 12 Months $37.X59 X.516.8] $78.178
SIepC-Ncxt12MOnths $ 386914 S6,706.50 $80,08 Step C-Next 12 Month, 539.%52 $6868.63 X2,084
Siep ONexlIIMonths 1$ 40.6167 $7,041.821 $84,502 Step D-Next 12 Months 1541.43921 $7,168.68 X4193
Step E Unreaft, 15 42.6573 1 57,393.911 $38.727 Step E-Therealter 543.5168 $,,541.80 $90,502
15211 Accounting Manager 11);(5151 Public Works [521]Accounting Manager(1);[5151 Public Works
Superintendent(1);[5161 Engineering Services Mgr.(1); Superintendent(1);(516]Engineering Services Mgr.(1):[5301
530 IT Mana er IAFN Operations Mgr. 1I' Computer Services Manager(AFN Operations Met (1):
Sea,-First 6 Months $ 33.4236 $5,793.32 $69.520 Slop A-First 6Months $34.131 $5909.28 $]0911
Step 8-Next 12 Months $ 350941 $6,082.99 $72.996 Step B-Next 12 Months $35.]961 $6,368.68 $)4.6X
SIep C-Next 12 Months- $ 3fi 8489 $6,368.14 $76,646 Step C-Next 12 Months 53).X59 X$14.8) $)8178
Step D-Next 12 Months IS 39.69141 $6,706.50 $80,478 Step D-Next 12 Months $39.8452 56,680.63 .$82.068
Srep E-Therealter $ 406267 57041.82 $68502 Shop E-Thereafter IS41.43921 S7,182.79 $86193
15ZOI Management Analyst(1); (5431 Senior Engineer 11); [520]Management Analyst 13); (5431 Senior Engineer(l);
5331 Police Sergeant hl te:Ser geants are NOn-EeemOt 15231 Police Sergeant Note:Sergeants are Non-Exempt
51,A-First 6Months $ 30.3163 55.254.72 $63,057 Step A-First 6Months 530.9226 $5359.91 $M}19
Step B-Next 12 Monlhs 9- 31.8311 $5,51].45 $66.209 SIep B-Next l2 Monlhs $32.4687 $5,62L% $67,535
Step C-Next 13 Months $.33.4136 $5,;93.32 $69.510 SIep C-Next 32 Months $34.131 is 2091 $711.911
Siep Or Nei(1Z Months $ 35.0941 $6,082.99 $72,996 SIep O-Next 12 Months $35.)%1 Six M.M $74,456
Step E-Theeatter $ 36.6889 56,38].44 $)6.646 GRANDFATHERED SALARY RANGE: Pre-Comp Study Salary was Sep 1 53,.X59 I Slisitagol 578,178
higher.Incumbents hired Into this range are frozen once they
reach top step until market catches up.(WIN&Water Reuse
15361 Water Treatment Plant Supervisor(1);15521 Su rvisw,WTP SU ro 1525]Water Treatment Plant SUpervisor(1);(5521
Wastewater and Water Reuse Supervisor(1);[510]Network Wastewater and Water Reuse Supervisor(1);(5181 Network
Administrator(2);[S 19]Senior Information Systems Analyst Administrator(2);[519]Senior Information Systems Analyst
(2);IS221 Senior PNnnerl1);(1231 CIS Manager(1) Step A-Fast 6 Months $ 214977 $5.553.1 $66.63 12);[SZ215enior PlannMS"35.7%; S Manager(1)
Step 6 Months $ 288)26 55,064.49 $60,054 Step B-Next 12 Months $ 28.8726 $584600 $]0,151 SIep A-Firsl6 Months $5,168.67 $63.256
SIep B-Next 12 Months $ 30.3163 $5,3X72 $63,05, Step C-Next 12 Months 5 30.3163 $6.153W 5]3.836 SlepO-Next l2 Mmthy $5,359.91 $64,319
Step Next l2 Months $ 31.8321 55,5]].45 $66,21 Sep O-Next 12 Momhs $ 31.8311 56,478.00 $77.736 Step C-Next 12 Months $5.62).% X7335
Sinop D-Next 12 Monlhs $ 33.4236 $5.793.32 $69.520 Step 0-Next 12 Months $5,91.28 $701911
Ste E-Therealter 5 35.0941 $6.002.99 572.996 GRANDFATHERED SALARY RANGE: Pre-Comp Study Salary was St E-Theealter S6.204.641 $74.656
higher.Incumbents hired In to this range are frozen Once Ihey
15271 Water Quality and Distribution Supervisor(1);Permit reach top step until market catches up.(Water Quality and 1 527]Water Quality and Distribution Supervisor(1);Permit
Center Manager(position not Included M budget) Distribution Supervisor) Center Manager(position not included in budget)
Step A-First 6 Months $ 27.4977 $4,766.38 $57,194 Step A-First 6Months $ 2)49)7 $4,818,00 $57,816 51,A-Fir.6 Months $28.0477 X,K1.X $X.339
Step B-Neat l2 Mors As 5 28.886 $5.004.49 $60.054 SleyO-Neal l2 Monlhs $ 26.8726 55,054.00 $60.68 SIep B�Next]2 Month $39.4X3 $5,104.X XI 55
Step C-Neat l2 Monlhs $ 30.3363 $5,254.8 $63.05] Step C-Next 12 Months $ As1163 $5,30]00 $63,684 SIep C-Next 13 Month s $30.9336 $5}59.81 $64718
Step D-Next 12 Months I$ 318321 S5.517AS1 $6621 S1ry 0-Neal 12 Months S 31.83211 55.571.00 566.852 SIep D-Neel 12 Monlhs IS 32.461]1 $5,627.80 567534
Step E-Thereafter $ 33.42361 $5,793.32 $69.520 Step E-Therealter $ 31.83211 55,850,Ml S70.200 Step E-Therealter $31.131 1 $5,90119 S]0,910
Iasi Change Applied:
MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL-2012 Salary Schedule
MID-MGMT SUPERVISORY-All.lob[lasses Are Exempt UNess Specified
7/1/2011-PARTIAL IMPLMENIJAP ON OF NEW
COMPENSATION PLAN 7/1/2012-2%COLA
Strategic Plan Project Manager(11 Temporary Position Strategic Nan Project Manager(1)Temporary Position
Step A-First 6 Months 5 307502 $5,330.02 $63.960 ehminafed 711111
Slop 8-Next 12 Months $ 32.0314 $5.552.10 $66,625
Step C-Next 12 Manlha $ 33.312) $5,))4.19 $69.290
Step 0-Thorpiller $ 34.6406 1 $6.00436 ST;052
(1291 Forest Resource Specialist(1);(5281 Maintenance and [1291 Forest Resource Specalist(1);[528]Maintenance and
Safety Supervine,(1);(529]Street Supervisor(1);(5211 Safety Supervisor 11);(5291 Street SUpervisor(1);[5311
Customer Serdce SuperNSor(1))Note:All lob Classes are Customer Service Superinsor(1);Note:All lob Classes are Non-
Non-Exempt Exempt
Step A-Firsl6 MOnIM1S $ 26.1883 $053952 $54.4]] SIep A-Firzl6 Months $36.)]13 $4,630.08 $55,561
9ep8-Neal 12 Manlhs $ ZJA9)) 54.]66.18 $57.194 SIep B-ilx. IIManlM1a $38.04'] S. IS6 558"339
Step C-Next 12 Me"lh $ 28.0726 $5,074.49 $6'054 SIep C-Nwt l2 Months 529.4501 $5,104.6) $61,256
SIep D-Ner It on he, 5 303163 1 55,254.721 $63,057 Step D-Next 12 Months $30.9336 $5,359.921 $64,319
Stay E-Therealler $ 318331 $5.51].45 $66509 Slap E-Therealler $32..687 I SS.627.Wl $67.535
Accounting Analyst(Established as non-represented 511112,
LRA Anal t Eseobilshedosnomrepresenrcd5/1/12) andfatharediefor,ran e
Mrun $ 23]536 $4.11).21 $49,40] SIep A-Firzl6MOntM1S 5 23.]536 $4.117,21 $49.407
lZ Manlhs 5 24.9413 $4.3230) $518]] SIep B-Next l3 ManlM1S $24.9413 $4.32307 $51.8]7
l2 MOnlhz 5 26.143 $1.539.ZZ $A.4]1 Slep C-Next l2 Months $26.1883 $L539.22 $54.4)1 lZ Months 5 3].497] $4,)66.18 55].194 Slep D-Next
12 Month, SI).4W) $4766]8 $5].194 after 5 38.8]26 $5,004.49 $600X Ae E-Thereaher $28.8736 $5.074 49 56005.
15491 Telecommunications Technician(1);IS [5491 Telecommunicatkins Technician(1);IS
Analyn/Programmer(1)(5511 Municipal Court Supervise(1); Analyst/Programmer(1)15511 Municipal Court Supervisr(1);
1558]Financial Analyst(3);[5421 User Support Coordinator IM]Financial Analyst(3);15421 User Support Coordinator(1);
(1);Note: Financial ArlaysO and User Support Coordinator Note: Financial Anlayst and User Support Coordinator are Non
are Non-Exempt.All other job classes in Range 7 are Exempt Exempt All other job lasses in Range J are Exempt
SIep A-First 6Month, $ 23.]536 $4,11].2] $49.407 SIep A-First 6Month, $24.3387 $4,199.63 $50,396
Step B-Next 12 Ninth, $ 24.9413 $4,323.4) $51.8)] Step B-Next 12 Months 525.4401 $6,109.61 $53,915
Step C-Next 12 Months $ 26.1883 54,539.22 $54.471 SIepC Neetl2Months $26.7121 $4.630.00 $55,561
Step D.Nexll2Mbnlhs $ 27,49]) $4,766.18 $57.194 Step D-Next 12 Months $28.0477 Sa,861.58 $58.339
Seep E-Th,exQxr S 28.8726 $5.03449 $60AS4 Step E-Plerealler $39.4501 $5.10..6] $61,356
1546]Risk Management Specalst(1);154]1 Paralegal(1); (5461 Risk Management Specialist(1);(5471 Paralegal(1);
Adminlstratlye Supervisor(2);Note: All positions are Non- Adminlstratiye Supervisor j2);Note: AllpositionsareNOO-
Exempt Exempt
Step A-First 6 Months $ 20.5192 $3,55660 542.679 SIep A'Fhst 6 Manlhs $30.91% $3.62),79 $13,533
Step B-Noul2 Month, S 21.54II 53.73443 $".813 50.p8-Next It
Manlhs $31.9761 $3,809.18 $4s 710
Step C-Next IIMonths $ 22.62261 $3.921.151 547.054 Step C-Next 12 Months 513.0751 $3.1399.671 $47,996
Seep D-Next 12 Months 5 23.]536 1 $4,11711 549.407 Step D-Next 12 Months $242287 $4,199,631 $50,396
Ste E-Next 12 Months S 24.9413 1 $4.32307 $51,87] Step E-Next 12 Months $25.4401 51,409.61 $53.915
CONFIDENTIAL-All JOW classes are rlmrexempt
rStW MWe Secretary(1);Non-Exempt 5361 Executive Secretary(1);Non-Exempt
t6MOnlhs $ 19.5421 $3,38754 $40,64] StepA-firsl6 Manlhs $19.9319 $3,155.04 $43.460 t l2 Momhs $ 20.5192 $3,556.07 $42.679 Step B-Next
l2 MOnlha $30.9296 $3,63).79 $.3.533
112 Months 544.813 Step C-Next l2 Manlhs $21.Wfi1 $3.809.18 $45,]1r J1 Manlhs $ 22.fi2I6 53921.15 $4).054 Mep O Next 12 Months 523.0]51
53,999.67 $47,996
ealter $ Z3753fi $4,1ll.21 $49,407 See E-Thereafter $24218)1 $4,1119.631 $50,396
15311 CENT Program Coordinator(1);[5451 Human Resource (5311 CERT Program Coordinator(1);1545]Human Resource
Assistant(21;15341 AdmininratNe Assistant(6);NOW All Assistant(1);(5341 AdarmiStraUVe Assistant(6);Note: All
positions are Non-Exempt positions are Non-Exempt
SIep A-First 6Monthz $ 186112 $3,22594 $38.113 SIep A-First 6 Months $18.9834 $3,29045 $39,485
Step 8-Next 12 Months $ 19.5421 $3.38ZZa 500,647 Step B-Next 12 MOnlla 519.934 $3,OSS.Df $41.460
SIep C-Next 12 Month, 5 20.5192 $3,556.60 $42.6]9 Step C-Next 12 Marsha $30.91% 53,63]29 $43533
Step 0-Next 12 Months $ I1.50R $3,]b 03 500,813 Step D-Next 12 Months $11.9)61 1 $3,809.18 $45.710
Step E-Thereafter 1$ 22.6226 1 $3.9ZLIS1 $47,054 Step E-Thereaher $23.0753 1 $3,999.67 Sali.996
IReceptionhtll); Note: Non-Exempt Receptionist(1); Note: Non-Exempt
Step A-First 6 Months $ 44986 $2,339.76 $28.0]] SIep A-First 6 Month, $13.]686 $3.386.56 $28,639
Step B-Next 12 Months $ 14.1738 $2,45675 $29481 - Step B-Next 12 Months $1445)3 $3.505.93 $30.071
Step C-Next 12 Months $ 150742 $2.304.14 $31,250 Step C-Next 12 Months $IS3b7 $2.656.2) $31.475
Step 0-Next 12 Months $ 15.9256 52,]60.39 $33.125 Step D-Next 12 Months $16.2441 $3,815.64 $33,788
slet,E-Thereafter $ M.18 $2.926.02 $35.113 Seep E-Thereafter $17.21x8 $2.94.59 $35815
City Recorder $36.6924 $6,36U $76,320 City Record., $37.9434 56,5]7 $78,922
Munkt,xi Judg. $24.9404 $4,323 $51,876 Municjpoludg. $2$.]907 $4,470 $53,615
1.7829%Increase alculated per City Charter 1,1095%increase 4Rvlated per City Charter
last Change Applied:
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CLARIFYING
CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES AND REPEALING
RESOLUTION 2011-21.
RECITALSs:
A. The City of Ashland has negotiated collective bargaining agreements with all
employees who are members of labor unions;
B. The management and confidential employees of the city are not an organized group
for the purpose of collectively negotiating the terms and conditions of their
employment; and
C. It is in the best interest of the city and efficient and effective government to clearly set
forth the city's expectations for the performance of its management and confidential
employees;
THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Scope of Resolution. This 2012 resolution shall apply to all management and
confidential employees of the City of Ashland as set forth in Appendix "A", dated July
2012. Where the term "employee" is used, it shall mean regular full-time employees,
regular part-time employees, and probationary employees as defined in section 2.7. This
resolution does not apply to any employee who is a member of any collective bargaining
unit.
2. Definitions.
2.1. Confidential employee. As defined in ORS 243.650(6), a confidential employee is
one who assists and acts in a confidential capacity to a person who formulates,
determines, and effectuates management policies in the area of collective
bargaining. Confidential employees are paid hourly for work performed and they
are subject to payment for overtime according to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Confidential employee includes those classifications in Appendix "A" under
"Confidential."
2.2. Department head. A person directly responsible to the city administrator, mayor
or city council for the administration of a department. Department heads are
exempt from overtime payment. Department heads include those Management
classifications in Appendix "A" under "Department heads."
2.3 Division Supervisor. A person directly responsible to a department head or the
Page 1 of 19
City Administrator for the operational functions of a city department or division.
Division supervisors are exempt from overtime payment. Division supervisors
include those Management classifications in Appendix "A" under "division
supervisors."
2.4 Mid-Level Supervisor. A person reporting to a division supervisor or department
head who may receive overtime payment for work outside their normal scope and
duties. Mid-level supervisory positions require autonomy, independent decision
making, planning, and may provide supervision to other personnel.
2.5 Employee. A person in any of the classifications listed in Appendix "A" who has
completed the probationary period.
2.6 Management or Manager. Those classifications included in Appendix "A" under
the title "Management" including Department Heads, Division Managers and
Mid-Level Managers.
2.7 Probationary Employee. A person appointed to a regular position but who has not
completed a probationary period during which the employee is required to
demonstrate fitness for the position by actual performance of the duties of the
position.
2.8 Supervisor. Any person responsible to a higher divisional or departmental level
authority who directs the work of others and who is not in a collective bargaining
unit.
3. Purpose. The purpose of this resolution is set forth generally in the preamble. More
specifically, the resolution has three fundamental purposes:
3.1. To clearly establish which classifications in the city service are
management or confidential.
3.2. To clearly set forth the functions of management and to establish criteria
for the evaluation of managerial performance.
3.3. To establish the personnel policies governing the conditions of
employment of management and confidential employees.
4. Managerial Performance.
4.1. Goal Setting. Basic goals for the City of Ashland are set by the mayor and city
council. Resources for achieving those goals are provided via the annual budget.
Operational goals and short- range objectives are set by the city administrator
working with department heads. The single most important factor in achieving the
goals of the City of Ashland is the performance of the city's managers.
Page 2 of 19
4.2. Managerial Responsibilities. Each of the city's managers at a minimum have the
following responsibilities:
4.2.1. Getting the job done properly and on time,
4.2.2. Keeping the workplace safe and healthy,
4.2.3. Encouraging team work and cooperation among employees and
departments,
4.2.4. Developing employee skills,
4.2.5. Keeping records and making reports, and
4.2.6. Actively promoting affirmative action at all levels.
4.3. General Expectations Regarding Management Employees. In addition to the
specific performance standards mentioned above, there are also general city
expectations of its managers.
4.3.1. Job Commitment. All management employees are expected to
have a high degree of commitment to the City of Ashland and to their
jobs. When a new manager is hired, the city expects a commitment of
continued service of at least three years unless unforeseen circumstances
warrant earlier resignation or termination.
Management employees are expected to devote whatever hours are
necessary for the accomplishment of their duties as part of their normal
work week. Overtime will only be paid as set forth in section 14.3.
Consistent with administrative policy, Exempt management employees
may flex their schedules at their discretion as long as they exercise
judgment so their absence does not unreasonably interfere with the city's
operations.
In the event of voluntary termination, management employees are
expected to give a minimum of 30 calendar days notice in order to give the
city adequate time to recruit a qualified replacement.
4.3.2. Professionalism. Management employees are expected to maintain the
standards of their individual profession. This includes remaining current
with new developments, maintaining memberships in professional
societies, and attending meetings with professionals in their field. Where
professionals have codes of ethics or standards of performance, these
should also be followed in the manager's work for the City of Ashland.
4.3.3. Termination. If at any time a manager's performance is deemed
unacceptable, the city administrator or appropriate department head may
ask for the employee's resignation. In most cases, reasonable time will be
given to the employee to find other suitable employment. The city may
provide severance pay in the event of resignation or involuntary
termination.
Page 3 of 19
4.3.4. Residency. Residency within the Urban Growth Boundary is strongly
encouraged for the city administrator and for department heads. Existing
City employees promoted into the position of Department Head will not
be required to move as a result of a promotion, but are strongly
encouraged to move within the Urban Growth Boundary once appointed
as a Department Head.
The following job classifications shall establish their residence to enable
them to report for emergency duty within 40 minutes of notification
including "get ready" and travel time:
Public Works Superintendent
Street Supervisor
Wastewater and Reuse Supervisor
Water Quality and Distribution Supervisor
Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
Electric Operations Superintendent
Fire Division Chief(EMS, Fire and Life Safety and Operations Divisions)
Deputy Police Chief/Lieutenant
Police Sergeant
Computer Services Manager
AFN Operations Manager
Network Administrator
Senior Information Systems Analyst
Information Systems Analyst/Programmer
User Support Coordinator
Maintenance and Safety Supervisor
Telecommunications Technician
Residence shall be established by new employees in these classifications
within these boundaries or limitations within a period of twelve months of
hire or promotion. Department Heads may identify other positions which
require emergency response within 40 minutes to meet operational
requirements.
4.4. Essential Management Functions. The following are the essential
functions of all city management positions and the expected standards for their
performance:
4.4.1. Planning. Anticipates future needs and makes plans for meeting them;
recognizes potential problems and develops strategies for averting them;
makes long and short range plans to accomplish city and/or departmental
goals.
4.4.2. Organizing. Efficiently and economically organizes and carves out
Page 4 of 19
assigned operations; carries out responsibilities in a sound and logical
manner; operates the unit smoothly and in a well organized manner;
effectively delegates authority and establishes appropriate work rules.
4.4.3. Coordinating. Coordinates all activities related to work objectives;
maintains coordination and cooperation with other departments and
divisions; maintains good communication with employees, and allows
employees to make significant contributions to the accomplishment of
objectives.
4.4.4. Leadership Motivation. Creates a climate providing challenge and
motivation to employees.
4.4.5. Decision MakinWProblem Solving. Analyzes situations and problems,
weighs the pros and cons of alternative solutions, exercises logical
thinking and good judgment, is creative, and is able to make decisions.
4.4.6. Employee Relations. Equitably adjusts grievances among subordinate
employees, properly administers union agreements, and administers
discipline in a fair and progressive manner; trains and develops
subordinate employees.
4.4.7. Public Relations. Maintains a high level of contact with the public,
maintains a sensitivity to the public's needs, and meets the needs of the
public within available resources.
4.4.8. Budgeting. Prepares operational and capital budgets to meet the public's
needs, and expends funds within adopted budgeted limits.
4.4.9. Safety. Maintains a safe, clean, pleasant work environment, and supports
the city's overall safety program.
4.4.10. Self Development. Stays current with new ideas and procedures in
the manager's field of responsibility.
4.4.11. Affirmative Action. Actively supports and implements Affirmative Action
within the manager's area of responsibility, including the hiring and
promotion of women, minorities, and the disabled. Is sensitive to sexual
harassment in the workplace and enforces the City's Harassment and
Non-discrimination policy in their area of responsibility.
4.4.12.Adherence to City Policies. Ensures that work activities are performed in
conformance with requirements of the Ashland Municipal Code and
adopted administrative policies.
5. Holidays. Recognized holidays are set forth in AMC §3.08.080. For convenience they
Page 5 of 19
are listed here:
New Years Day (January 1)
Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in January)
Washington's Birthday (3rd Monday in February)
Memorial Day(last Monday in May)
Independence Day(July 4)
Labor Day (1st Monday in September)
Veteran's Day (November 11)
Thanksgiving Day (4th Thursday in November)
Day after Thanksgiving (in lieu of Lincoln's birthday)
Christmas Day (December 25)
5.1. Police Sergeants shall receive paid compensation in addition to regular salary for
each of the holidays listed above, in lieu of time off consistent with what is
afforded other law enforcement officers of the City of Ashland. This shall be paid
on the first payday in December of each year. Newly-hired Police Sergeants shall
receive this paid compensation pro-rated from the date of hire. In the event that a
Sergeant terminates employment for any reason, they will receive pay only for the
holidays which have elapsed that calendar year. If more holidays have been taken
as time off than have actually occurred at the time of termination, those hours
overpaid will be deducted from the employee's final paycheck unless other
arrangements are made to repay the City.
5.2. If an employee is on authorized vacation, or other leave with pay when a holiday
occurs, such holiday shall not be charged against such leave.
5.3 Employees working an alternate work schedule will receive compensation for 8
hours. Employees working four 10-hour days will receive (8) hours compensation
for any holiday that falls in their regular work day. Employees may use accrued
vacation or compensatory time (if applicable) to make up the extra two hours,or
they may be permitted to flex their schedule during a week which contains a
holiday to ensure they receive full pay. In no event shall an exempt employee
receive pay for more than 40 hours/week due to a holiday or alternate work
schedule arrangement.
6. Vacations for Management and Confidential Employees.
6.1. Eli ie bility. Management employees shall be eligible for vacation with pay in
accordance with the following sections:
6.1.1. Employees with less than four full years of continuous service shall accrue
8.67 hours of vacation for each calendar month of service worked.
6.1.2. Employees with more than four but less than nine full years of continuous
service shall accrue 10.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month
Page 6 of 19
of service.
6.1.3. Employees with more than nine but less than 14 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 12.67 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month
of service.
6.1.4. Employees with more than 14 but less than 19 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 14 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of
service.
6.1.5. Employees with more than 19 but less than 24 full years of continuous
service shall accrue 15.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month
of service
6.1.6. Employees with more than 24 full years of continuous service shall accrue
17.34 hours of vacation credit for each calendar month of service
(NOTE: The above schedule includes one day of leave which was previously designated
as "birthday holiday".)
6.2. Utilization. Vacation leave shall not be taken in excess of that actually accrued.
However, the city administrator has the discretion to authorize all management
employees to take vacation in advance of accrual when warranted by special
circumstances.
6.3. Continuous Service. Continuous service, for the purpose of accumulating vacation
leave credit, shall be based on the regular paid hours worked by the employee.
Time spent by the employee on city-authorized, city-paid absences shall be
included as continuous service. Time spent on unpaid absences shall not be
counted as service, provided that employees returning from such absences shall be
entitled to credit for service prior to the leave.
6.4. Accrual Limitation. Management and Confidential employees are required to take
at least 75%of their annual vacation accrual as time off each year. All
Management and Confidential employees may elect to receive up to 40 hours as
cash on the first paycheck in April each year. The balance not elected for cash
payment will be added to their cumulative vacation accrual. In no event shall the
employee's total vacation accrual exceed twice the amount of the employee's
annual accrual without written approval from their Department Head.
6.5. Scheduline. Vacation times shall be scheduled based on the city administrator's or
department head's judgement as to the needs of efficient operations.
6.6. Payment on Termination. An employee terminated after six-months employment
shall be entitled to prorated payment for accrued vacation leave at the rate as of
the date of termination. In the event of death, earned but unused vacation leave
Page 7 of 19
shall be paid in the same manner as salary due the deceased employee is paid.
6.7. Administrative Leave. Exempt management employees may be granted up to one
week of Administrative Leave each July at the discretion of their department head
or the City Administrator. The purpose of Administrative Leave is to recognize
the extra hours required of exempt managers for which no overtime compensation
is afforded. No cash payment will be made for Administrative Leave, and it can
only be taken as time off during the year in which it is granted. Administrative
Leave must be used by June 30'h each year or it will be deemed forfeited. In the
event of termination or retirement, no cash payment will be made for
Administrative Leave. In the event of a termination, the City may require pro-
rated repayment of Administrative leave at the rate of 3.3333 hours for each
calendar month remaining in the year after the date of termination.
7. Hours of Work for Confidential Employees.
7.1. Workweek. The workweek, to the extent consistent with operating requirements,
shall normally consist of five consecutive days as scheduled by the department
heads or other responsible authority.
7.2. Hours. The regular hours of an employee shall be 8 1/2 consecutive hours,
including 1/2 hour for a meal period, which shall not be paid.
7.3. Work Schedules. All employees, to the extent consistent with operating
requirements, shall.be scheduled to work on a regular work shift, and each shift
shall have regular starting and quitting times. It shall be the responsibility of the
department head to notify employees of their scheduled shifts,workdays, and
hours.
7.4. Rest Periods. A rest period of 15 minutes shall be permitted for all employees
during each half shift, which shall be scheduled by the city in accordance with its
determination as to the operating requirements and each employee's duties.
7.5. Meal Periods. To the extent consistent with operating requirements of the
respective department, meal periods shall be scheduled in the middle of the work
shift.
8. Sick Leave.
8.1. Purpose. Sick leave is provided for the sole purpose of providing financial
security to employees and their families. Under no circumstances shall the city
grant an employee sick leave with pay for time off from city employment caused
by sickness or injury resulting from employment other than with the City of
Ashland.
8.2. Accumulation. Sick leave shall be earned for the purpose stated by each employee
Page 8 of 19
at the rate of eight hours for each full calendar month of service. Sick leave must
be taken for the purposes specified in section 8.3 as condition precedent to any
sick leave payment. The maximum accrual cannot exceed 960 hours. Sick leave
shall continue to accrue only during leaves of absence with pay.
8.3. Utilization. Employees may utilize their allowance for sick leave when unable to
perform their work duties by reason of illness or injury. In such event, the
employee shall notify the department head or city administrator of absence due to
illness or injury, the nature and expected length of the absence, as soon as
possible prior to the beginning of the next scheduled regular work shift, unless
unable to do so because of the serious nature of injury or illness. For absences
longer than 24 hours, employees shall notify their department head on a daily
basis. At the option of the department head or city administrator, a doctor's
certificate of illness may be required as a pre-requisite for the payment of sick
leave.
Non-exempt employees may be granted sick leave for doctor or dental
appointments at the discretion of the department head. Such time off shall be
charged against sick leave time on an hourly basis. All employees covered by this
resolution may be granted the use of sick leave for the illness or injury of a family
member in accordance with Oregon Family & Medical Leave Act (OFMLA),
and/or the Federal Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and/or anyone residing
at their place of residence. Use of sick leave to care for ill and injured family
members is subject to department head review and applicable City policy. The
City may request medical documentation before granting paid sick leave for this
purpose.
8.4. Integration with Worker's compensation. When injury occurs in the course of
employment, the city's obligation to pay is limited to the difference between any
payment received under workers' compensation laws and the employee's regular
pay. In such instances, prorata charges will be made against accrued sick leave
until sick leave is exhausted. Thereafter, the only compensation will be workers'
compensation benefits, if any.
8.5. Sick Leave - Without Pay. Sick leave is provided by the city in the nature of
insurance against loss of income due to the illness or injury. No compensation for
accrued sick leave shall be provided for any employee upon death or termination
of employment, except that upon retirement accumulated sick leave will be
applied as provided in ORS 238.350. Sick leave shall not accrue during any leave
of absence without pay.
8.6. Pay for Unused Sick Leave. All Management and Confidential employees may
elect to receive i/3 of their unused annual sick leave accrual (maximum of 32
hours) as cash on their first paycheck in December. If cash payment is not
elected, the unused portion of sick leave will be added to cumulative sick leave
balance or converted to accrued vacation at the option of the employee.
Page 9 of 19
9. Funeral Leave. An employee may be granted five calendar days funeral leave with
regular pay in the event of death in the immediate family of the employee. An employee's
immediate family shall include spouse, parent, children, brother, sister, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law or other
relatives living in the same household. Leave with pay, for up to four hours may be
granted when an employee serves as a pallbearer.
10. Other Leaves of Absence
10.1. Criteria and Procedure. Leaves of absence without pay not to exceed 90 calendar
days may be granted upon establishment of reasonable justification in instances
where the work of the department will not be seriously handicapped by temporary
absence of-the employee. Requests for such leaves must be in writing. Normally,
such leave will not be approved for an employee for the purpose of accepting
employment outside the service of the city.
10.2. Jury Duty. Employees shall be granted leave with pay for service upon a jury.
Employees may keep any payment for mileage, but all other stipends for service
must be paid to the City. Upon being excused from jury service for any day an
employee shall immediately contact the supervisor for assignment for the
remainder of their regular workday.
10.3. Appearances. Leave with pay shall be granted for an appearance before a court,
legislative committee,judicial or quasi-judicial body as a witness in response to a
subpoena or other direction by proper authority; provided, however, that the
regular pay of such employee shall be reduced by an amount equal to any
compensation received as witness fees.
10.4. Required Court Appearances. Leaves of absence with pay shall be granted for
attendance in court in connection with an employee's officially assigned duties,
including the time required for travel to the court and return to the employee's
headquarters.
10.5. Family Medical Leave. Leave in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical
Leave Act and the Oregon Family Medical Leave Act shall be granted to
employees eligible under those acts and for the purposes described in those acts.
Leave may be unpaid or paid as provided in these acts.
10.6. Military Leave. Military leave shall be granted in accordance with ORS 408.290.
10.7. Failure to Return from Leave. Any employee who is granted a leave of absence
and who, for any reason, fails to return to work at the expiration of said leave of
absence, shall be considered as having resigned their position with the city, and
the position shall be declared vacated; except and unless the employee, prior to
the expiration of the leave of absence, has furnished evidence of not being able to
Page 10 of 19
work by reason of sickness, physical disability or other legitimate reason beyond
the employee's control.
11. Discipline and Discharge. The following section applies only to those employees subject
to this resolution who do not have a written individual employment agreement with the
city.
11.1. Discipline. The city shall abide by the legal requirements of due process prior to
taking disciplinary action. Disciplinary action may include the following:
(a) Oral reprimand
(b) Written reprimand
(c) Demotion
(d) Suspension
(e) Discharge
Disciplinary action may be imposed upon any employee for failing to fulfill
responsibilities as an employee. Conduct reflecting discredit upon the city or department,
or which is a direct hindrance to the effective performance of city functions, shall be
considered good cause for disciplinary action. Such cause may also include misconduct,
inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination, misfeasance, the willful giving of false or
confidential information, the withholding of information with intent to deceive when
making application for employment, willful violation of departmental rules or this
management resolution, commission of any matter listed in AMC §3.08.030.B or for
political activities forbidden by state law.
11.2. Discharge. An employee having less than twelve months of continuous service
shall serve at the pleasure of the city. An employee having continuous service in
excess of twelve months shall be discharged only for cause.
11.3. Due Process. Due process procedures shall be followed before a suspension
without pay, demotion or discharge is imposed upon an employee.
Employees, other than those appointed by mayor and city council, may appeal a
suspension without pay, demotion or discharge to the city administrator. The city
administrator's decision shall be final.
12. Probationary Period.
12.1. New Employee Probationary Period. The probationary period is an integral part of
the employee selection process and provides the city with the opportunity to
upgrade and improve the departments by observing a new employee's work,
training, aiding new employees in adjustment to their positions, and by providing
an opportunity to reject any employee whose work performance fails to meet
required work standards. Every new employee shall serve a minimum
probationary period of 12 months after which, upon recommendation of the
Page 11 of 19
department head, the employee shall be considered a regular employee. The
probationary period may be extended upon request of the department head if an
adequate determination cannot be made at the end of the probationary period.
12.2. Promotional Probationary Period. An employee promoted into a management or
confidential position will be required to serve a six-month promotional
probationary period. The city may at any time demote an employee on
promotional probationary status to their previous position with or without cause.
13. General Provisions.
13.1. Non Discrimination, The provisions of this resolution shall be applied equally to
all employees without discrimination as to race, color, religion, marital status,
age, national origin, sex, sexual orientation or disability.
13.2. Other/Outside Employment. Outside employment shall be permitted only with
the express prior written approval of the department head or City Administrator.
Such written approval shall be documented in the employee's Personnel File. The
general principles to be followed by the City in permitting or restricting such
outside employment shall be:
1. The need for mentally and physically alert City employees;
2. Insulating employees from potential conflict of interest situations;
3. Maintaining efficiency unimpaired by other employment, particularly for
those city positions requiring employees to be available for duty 24 hours
a day. In the event that the above principles are violated, the department
head or City Administrator may revoke previously granted permission to
hold outside employment.
13.3. Worker's compensation. All employees will be insured under the provisions of the
Oregon State Workers' Compensation Act for injuries received while at work for
the city. Compensation paid by the city for a period of sick leave also covered by
workers' compensation shall be equal to the difference between the Workers'
compensation pay for lost time and the employee's regular pay rate.
13.4. Liability Insurance. The city shall purchase liability insurance in the maximum
amounts set forth in ORS 30.271 for the protection of employees against claims
against them incurred in or arising out of the performance of their official duties.
14. Compensation
14.1. Pay Periods. Employees shall be paid on a bi-weekly basis, on every other Friday.
In the event a regularly scheduled pay date falls on a holiday, the preceding
workday shall be the pay date.
Page 12 of 19
14.2. Compensation - Pay Schedule. Employees shall be compensated in accordance
with the pay schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. When any
position not listed on the pay schedule is established, the City Administrator shall
designate a job classification and pay rate for the position in accordance with
sections 3.08.050 and 3.08.070 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
14.3. Overtime. Exempt management employees are expected to devote whatever time
is necessary to accomplish their job. For all non-exempt employees, the city has
the right to assign overtime work as required in a manner most advantageous to
the city and consistent with the requirements of municipal service and the public
interest.
14.4. Form of Compensation. The City Administrator, City Attorney, department heads
and division supervisors are not eligible for paid overtime but are allowed
compensatory time off at their own discretion depending on the operating
requirements of the city. Mid-Level supervisors and confidential personnel shall
be compensated in the form of pay at the rate of time and one-half the regular rate
for overtime work or given equivalent time off at the option of the city. No
employee shall have more than 40 hours of compensatory time on the records at
any time.
14.5. Administration of Pay Plan. Employees shall be entitled to pay in accordance with
the current salary resolution. In the event of a vacancy, the City Administrator
may appoint a new employee at any appropriate step within the pay range.
15. Health, Welfare and Retirement.
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance
with Appendix "B" for employees subject to this resolution.
16. Compliance with FLSA.
This resolution shall be interpreted in a manner to preserve the exempt status of
the city's bona fide administrative, executive, and professional employees, as
those terms are used in the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Such
exempt employees shall not have their pay docked or reduced in any manner that
would be inconsistent with the salary test set forth in the FLSA and they are not
subject to disciplinary suspensions of less than a week except for major safety
violations.
17. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective as of July 01, 2012.
Page 13 of 19
This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090
duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2012.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 14 of 19
APPENDIX "A" Classifications in the Management and Confidential Employee Groups
MANAGEMENT
EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT
City Administrator- Exempt
Assistant City Administrator Exempt
City Attorney Exempt
Police Chief Exempt
IT/Electric Utility Director Exempt
Administrative Services/Finance Director Exempt
Fire Chief Exempt
Public Works Director Exempt
Community Development Director Exempt
DIVISION SUPERVISORS
Electric Operations Superintendent Exempt
Deputy Police Chief Exempt
Fire Division Chief(EMS, Fire & Life Safety and Operations Divisions) Exempt
Human Resource Manager Exempt
Planning Manager Exempt
Building Official Exempt
Public Works Superintendent Exempt
Engineering Services Manager Exempt
Computer Services Manager Exempt
AFN Operations Manager Exempt
Accounting Manager Exempt
Municipal Court Supervisor Exempt
MID-LEVEL SUPERVISORS
Assistant City Attorney Exempt
Senior Information Systems Analyst Exempt
Information Systems Analyst/Programmer Exempt
Page 15 of 19
Network Administrator Exempt
Senior Planner Exempt
Senior Engineer Exempt
Management Analyst Exempt
Police Sergeant Non-Exempt
Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Non-Exempt
Water Quality and Distribution Supervisor Non-Exempt
Wastewater & Water Reuse Supervisor Non-Exempt
Street Supervisor Non-Exempt
G1S Manager Non-Exempt
Forest Resource Specialist Non-Exempt
Maintenance Safety Supervisor Non-Exempt
Customer Service Supervisor Non-Exempt
Financial Analyst Non-Exempt
Accounting Analyst Non-Exempt
Risk Management Specialist Non-Exempt
User Support Coordinator Non-Exempt
Telecommunications Technician Non-Exempt
Administrative Supervisor Non-Exempt
CERT Program Coordinator Non-Exempt
CONFIDENTIAL
Paralegal Non-Exempt
Executive Secretary Non-Exempt
Human Resource Assistant Non-Exempt
Legal Secretary Non-Exempt
Administrative Assistant Non-Exempt
Receptionist Non-Exempt
Page 16 of 19
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare, and Retirement Benefits
The city agrees to provide health, welfare and retirement benefits in accordance with this
appendix for employees subject to this resolution.
1. Health Insurance.
A. Effective August 1, 2008, the City implemented a Preferred Provider option of the
existing health plan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical Plan V-A.
Effective January 1, 2009, the City implemented a change to Blue Cross/Blue
Shield medical Plan V-B Preferred Provider Option with a $200 Deductible. The
City established an HRA VEBA for each employee covered by this resolution and
began contributing I% of salary for the employee to coincide with the January 1,
2009 medical plan change.
Effective April 1, 2011, the City implemented a change in health benefit providers
to Pacific Source Health Care. The Plan was underwritten to provide the same
benefit levels as our previous health plan (Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical Plan
V-B Preferred Provider Option with a $200 Deductible).
The City implemented a change to Pacific Source Vision coverage and employees
will be offered the choice of two dental plans—Pacific Source incentive dental
which matches the previous ODS Dental Plan, and Willamette Dental Plan.
Effective July 1, 2012, the City increased the contribution to HRA VEBA to an
amount equal to 2% of salary for each employee covered by this resolution.
The City provides medical, dental and vision coverage for employees and their
eligible dependents. New employees will begin coverage on the first day of the
month after they are hired.
The City will pay 95% of the total monthly health premium (Medical, dental and
vision), with the employee paying the remaining 5% on a pre-tax basis.
The City reserves the right to make funding decisions regarding our health benefit
program which may include self-insurance. We will strive to retain equivalent
benefit offerings wherever feasible. If the decision is made to self-insure health
benefits, management & confidential employees will have a voice regarding
changes made to the program through designated representatives on the Benefits
Advisory Committee.
B. Reimbursement for preventative/wellness medical costs as provided in the city's
Wellness Program.
Page 17 of 19
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare & Retirement Benefits
Page: Two
2. Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities life insurance policy for each
employee at one times annual salary.
3. Dependent's Life Insurance. Premiums for the League of Oregon Cities $1,000 life insurance
policy for each qualified dependent of an employee.
4. Retirement. As required by law, the city will contribute to the Oregon State Public
Employees Retirement System for each employee. Enrollment will commence six months
from the date of employment for new employees, unless that person was in PERS
immediately before coming to work for the city. Upon retirement, one-half of unused sick
leave earned will be applied to retirement as provided in statute. The city will also assume or
pay the employees' contributions required by ORS 237.071 for employees at a uniform rate
of six percent.
5. Social Security. Contributions to Social Security as required by law.
6. Medical Insurance for Retirees. All employees retiring from city employment and their
eligible dependents will have the option of continued participation in the city's medical
insurance program at the same monthly group premium as active employees. The retiree
must be actively covered under the city's group plan at the time of retirement to be eligible
for continued retiree coverage. Retirees must make their health insurance payment to the city
on or before the 15`h of the month prior to the covered month to continue health coverage.
The right to participate and medical coverage ceases when the retiree or their eligible
dependent(s) become Medicare-eligible at age 65.
Any employee retiring in a position covered by this resolution who has 15 or more years of
service and who is Medicare-eligible at the time of retirement, shall be provided with Blue
Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the city. The city will pay
the premium for the retiree. The retiree must have been participating in the city's group plan
at the time of retirement to be eligible for this benefit.
Early retirees who retire in a position covered by this resolution, and have 15 or more years
of service, and are at least age 60 at retirement shall receive a monthly check equal to the
amount paid for Blue Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C, or equivalent plan selected by the
city, until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65. The retiree must elected continued
retiree coverage under the city's group plan to be eligible for this benefit. Once the retiree
turns 65 and establishes Medicare eligibility, the city will pay the premium directly to Blue
Cross Preferred Choice 65/Plan C or the equivalent plan selected by the city, on the retiree's
behalf.
Page 18 of 19
APPENDIX "B"
Health, Welfare & Retirement Benefits
Pape: Three
Any employee hired on or after July 1, 2008, or hired into management on or after July 1,
2008 will not be eligible to receive retiree benefits under this provision. Employees hired on
or before June 30, 2008 will continue to be eligible as long as the criteria for benefit
eligibility are met.
7. Deferred Compensation. Deferred compensation in the amount of$40.00 per month in
matching funds per employee enrolled in a city deferred compensation program. This
program is at the option of the employee and contingent upon a minimum $15.00 per month
contribution paid by the employee.
Page 19 of 19
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012, Business Meeting
First Reading of two ordinances amending the setback
requirements for the keeping of chickens.
FROM:
Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Brandon.Goldman @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Presently chickens must be kept a minimum of 75 feet from adjoining dwellings within the City of
Ashland. The ordinance amendments propose to reduce the distance between chickens and adjacent
dwellings from the existing 75 foot requirement, to twenty feet (20'), and establish a new requirement
that chickens, and the structures that house them, can be no closer than ten feet (10') from an adjoining
property line.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City Council held a public hearing on April 17, 2012, and approved three ordinances adopting
several new "Green Code" amendments, including new provisions for the Keeping of Chickens.
During deliberations the Council amended the final ordinances to maintain a pre-existing requirement
that chickens be kept a minimum of 75 feet from adjoining dwellings. In consideration of this specific
change the Mayor exercised his veto for the ordinances. This veto was ultimately not upheld by the
City Council on May I" and as such the prior ordinance amendments went into effect on May 17`h of
this year. In their discussions the Council directed Staff to return with new ordinance language
specifically addressing the setback requirements for chickens and the structures that house them.
To address the setback requirement two separate sections of the Ashland Municipal Code need to be
amended.
The AMC Health and Sanitation Chapter subsection on the Keeping ofAnimals (9.08.040) currently
precludes any poultry from being located within 75 feet of another dwelling. Given the relatively
small lot sizes of the typical single family property in Ashland this provision alone limits the ability of
the majority of residents from raising chickens for food production.
The second code provision to be amended is found within the Land Use Code concerning Accessory
Structures and Buildings (Ch. 18.68.140). Amending the Accessory Buildings and Structures
subsection is necessary to provide clear standards for the minimum distance between chicken
enclosures (coops and runs) and property lines as well as the distance from adjacent dwellings.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
Page I of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
In evaluating the 10 foot setback from an adjoining property line, in combination with a reduced
setback from adjacent dwellings, it is evident that such amendments would provide increased
opportunities for the keeping of chickens upon Ashland's single family properties.
Staff recommends Council approve First Reading of the ordinances as amended.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
To independently address each of the two ordinances presented for consideration, the City Council
must make two separate motions.
1. 1 move to approve the first reading of an ordinances titled, An Ordinance Amending the General
Regulations Chapter (18.68) of The Ashland Land Use Ordinance To Establish Setback
Requirements for Chicken Coops and Chicken Runs, and schedule the second reading for August
21, 2012.
2. ] move to approve the first reading of an ordinance titled, An Ordinance Establishing Provisions
within the Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) Of The Ashland Municipal Code for the Keeping
of Chickens within Residential Districts and schedule second reading for August 21, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Ordinance amending the General Regulations Chapter(18.68) of the ALUO
• Ordinance amending the Health and Sanitation Chapter(9.08) of the Ashland Municipal Code
Page 2 of 2
IA,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL REGULATIONS
CHAPTER (18.68) OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE TO
ESTABLISH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR CHICKEN COOPS AND
CHICKEN RUNS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the Citv The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances
to provide standards for the keeping of chickens and requirements for chicken coops and chicken
runs on April 17`h, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that special attention to how chickens can be
successfully integrated into residential neighborhoods is required to avoid negative impacts to
neighbors or a nuisance to the community; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a minimum setback from an adjoining
property line, in combination with a reduced setback from adjacent dwellings, will provide
increased opportunities for the keeping of chickens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City to promote local food production and increased self sufficiency;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on July 17, 2012;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an
Page 1 of 4
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2 AMC Chapter 18.68.140 [Accessory Buildings and Structures] is hereby
amended to read as follows:
18.68.140 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory buildings and structures shall comply with all requirements for the principal use
except where specifically modified by this Title and shall comply with the following
limitations:
A. A greenhouse or hothouse may be maintained accessory to a dwelling in an R district.
B. A guest house may be maintained accessory to a single-family dwelling provided there
are no kitchen cooking facilities in the guest house.
C. A chicken coop and a chicken run may be maintained accessory to a single family
dwelling in a residential district provided the following conditions are met:
1) No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of
less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area;
2) No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot
area, up to a maximum of twenty(20) chickens, shall be kept or maintained on
properties greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area,
3) No roosters shall be kept on the property at any time.
4) Chicken coops and chicken runs shall be constructed as follows:
a) they shall not be located in a required front yard.
side or- Year yard only, and shall be at least seven", five (75) feet fro
dwellings on adjoining properties.
b) they shall be setback a minimum of ten (10) feet from abutting
properties.
c) they shall be at least twenty (20) feet from dwellings on adjoining
properties.
b 4) structures shall not exceed six (6) feet in height.
.e- e) chicken coops shall not exceed forty(40) square feet in area, or four (4)
square feet per chicken, whichever is greater.
d 1, chicken runs, as enclosed outdoor structures, shall not exceed one
hundred (100) square feet in area, or ten (10) square feet per chicken,
whichever is greater.
Page 2 of 4
Delete Graphic,
CQ
i �
3t
mum Q coop
setback Ghiaen
mac—'^�'�'. , � _ _ -'----,•- _,�
I
l 4 °
4,
10
4�) The keeping of chickens, and the maintenance of their environment, shall be in
accordance with Keeping of Animals chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (Ch.
9.08.040).
D. Mechanical equipment shall not be located between the main structure on the site and
any street adjacent to a front or side yard, and every attempt shall be made to place such
equipment so that it is not visible from adjacent public streets. Mechanical equipment and
associated enclosures, no taller than allowed fence heights, may be located within
required side or rear yards, provided such installation and operation is consistent with
other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal Code, including but not limited to
noise attenuation. Any installation of mechanical equipment shall require a building
permit.
E. Rain barrels may be located within required side or rear yards provided such installation
and operation is consistent with other provisions of this Title or the Ashland Municipal
Code, and as follows:
1) Rain barrels shall not exceed six (6) feet in height; and
2) Rain barrels shall be located so that a minimum clear width of three (3) feet is
provided and maintained between the barrel and property line; and
3) Rain barrels shall be secured and installed on a sturdy and level foundation, or
platform, designed to support the rain barrel's full weight; and
Page 3 of 4
4) Every attempt shall be made to place rain barrels so that they are screened from
view of adjacent properties and public streets.
F. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential district, a
side or rear yard may be reduced to three (3) feet for an accessory structure erected more
than fifty (50) feet from any street, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached
and separated from other buildings and structures by ten (10) feet or more, and is no more
than fifteen (15) feet in height. Any conversion of such accessory structure to an
accessory residential unit shall conform to other requirements of this Title for accessory
residential units, including any required planning action and/or site review.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs-and-clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1,
5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and
any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 12012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of '12012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS WITHIN THE HEALTH
AND SANITATION CHAPTER (9.08) OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold
lined through and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United-States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, Section 9.08.040 of the Municipal Code regulates the keeping of animals within
the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that special attention to how chickens can be
successfully integrated into residential neighborhoods is required to avoid negative impacts to
neighbors or a nuisance to the community; and
WHEREAS, The current Municipal Code makes it unlawful to keep chickens and other poultry
within 75 feet of another dwelling;
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Ashland Municipal Code Health and Sanitation
Chapter 9.08 establishing new standards for the keeping of chickens on April 17, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a minimum setback from an adjoining
property line, in combination with a reduced setback from adjacent dwellings, will provide
increased opportunities for the keeping of chickens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing
on the amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances on July 17, 2012;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
Pagel of 4
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. The purpose of these ordinance amendments is to provide standards for the
keeping of domesticated chickens. It is intended to enable residents to keep chickens in
residential zones while amending the standards and requirements to ensure that domesticated
chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the
chickens are kept.
SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 9.08.040 [Health and Sanitation: Keeping of Animals] is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.08.040 Keeping of Animals
A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance, no person shall keep or maintain more
than three (3) dogs over the age of three (3) months on any one (1)parcel or tract of land.
B. No person shall keep or maintain swine. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence or
the provisions of section 18.20.020, keeping or maintaining swine commonly referred to
as Miniature Vietnamese, Chinese, or Oriental pot-bellied pigs (sus scrofa vittatus) is
allowed, subject to the following:
1. Such pigs shall not exceed a maximum height of 18 inches at the shoulder or
weigh more than 95 pounds.
2. No more than one such pig shall be kept at any one parcel or tract of land.
3. Such pigs shall:
a. Be confined by fence, leash or obedience training to the property of the
person keeping or maintaining them or to the property of another if such
other person has given express permission;
b. Be confined to a car or truck when off property where otherwise
confined; or
c. Be on leash not longer than six feet in length.
4. Such pigs shall be kept in accordance with the standards of minimum care for
domestic animals as set forth in ORS 167.310.
5. Notwithstanding any of the above, no such pig shall be allowed in any park.
C. No person shall keep or maintain poultry within seventy-five (75) feet of another
dwelling, except that chickens may be kept or maintained even within said seventy-five
(75) foot buffer zone provided each of the following requirements is continuously met
inside the buffer zone:
1. No more than five (5) chickens shall be kept or maintained on properties of
less than five thousand (5000) square feet in area;
Page 2 of 4
2. No more than one (1) chicken for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot
area, up to a maximum of twenty (20) chickens, shall be kept or maintained on
properties greater than five thousand (5000) square feet in area,
3. No chickens shall be allowed on properties containing multi-family complexes,
including duplexes;
4. In residential zones chickens shall be kept for personal use only, and not for the
commercial exchange of goods or commodities with the exception of the sale
of surplus eggs directly to the end consumer.
5. No roosters shall be allowed;
6. Chickens must be secured at all times and located at least seventy WL—tnLLn
u feet (W) from dwellings on adjoining properties:
a. During non-daylight hours a secure chicken coop shall be provided to
protect chickens from predators;
b. During daylight hours, Chickens shall be located in a chicken run
that meets the requirements of AMC 18.68.140(C)4 or in a securely
fenced baekyard area at least ten (10) feet from neiahborina
properties;
7. To protect public health, the areas in which chickens are kept must be
maintained in compliance with AMC 9.08.060 and the following requirements:
a. Chicken feed must be kept in rodent- and raccoon-proof containers;
b. Chicken manure must be collected, stored, and removed from the
property on a regular basis in accordance with the following
requirements:
i. All stored manure shall be within a non-combustible, air-tight,
container and located in accordance with the Oregon Fire Code
relating to the outdoor storage of combustibles;
ii. No more than one 20-gallon container of manure shall be stored on
any one property housing chickens; and
iii. All manure not used for composting or fertilizing shall be
removed;
8. Chicken coops and runs shall be built in compliance with AMC
18.68.140(C)(2) and with all applicable building and zoning codes;
9. The requirements of AMC 18.20.020(D) regarding of the keeping of livestock
shall not apply to the keeping of chickens or the buildings and structures that
house chickens.
10. Noise resulting from the keeping or maintaining of chickens must not exceed
the limitations set forth in AMC 9.08.170.
D. No person shall keep or maintain rabbits within one hundred (100) feet of another
dwelling or within seventy-five (75) feet of a street or sidewalk.
E. No person shall keep or maintain a bee hive, bees, apiary, comb, or container of any
kind or character wherein bees are hived, within one hundred fifty (150) feet of another
dwelling or within one hundred fifty(150) feet of a street or sidewalk.
F. No person shall keep or maintain a stable within one hundred (100) feet of another
dwelling.
Page 3 of 4
G. Where the conditions imposed by subsections (B) to (F) of this section differ from
those imposed by another ordinance, the provision which is more restrictive shall control.
H. The applicable minimum care requirements of ORS 167.310 shall apply to all animals
identified in this section.
1. Keeping of animals is a Class III violation.
SECTION 4. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections I-
2, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references
and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of '12012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to fonn:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 4 of 4
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
Second Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Development Standards for
Wireless Communication Facilities in 18.72.180
FROM:
Maria Harris, Planning Manager, harrism @ash]and.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council approved first reading of an ordinance amending the Development Standards for Wireless
Communication Facilities in 18.72.180 at the June 5, 2012 meeting. The amendments include a third
party review of applications for new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a
structure with existing wireless communication facilities in place. In addition to the standard planning
application fee, a fee will be required to reimburse the City for the cost of having the application
materials reviewed by an independent contractor with expertise in the technical aspects of wireless
communications. The new fee is included in the update of the City's Miscellaneous Fees and Charges,
which is another item on the June 19, 2012 agenda. Staff is recommending the fee be structured as a
deposit which will be replenished by the applicant should the third party review costs exceed the initial
$5,000 required. Any unused portion of the fee will be refunded to the applicant.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 11, 2011, on the amendments to the
Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities, and recommended approval of the
ordinance. After a series of meetings in November and December 2011, the Council approved first
reading of the ordinance amendments on June 5, 2012. The links to the previous Council packets and
written comments submitted are listed below.
• June 5, 2012 City Council Meeting
hitp://www.asliland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=l 4872
• May 14, 2012 City Council Study Session
http://w%vw.ashiand.or.us/page.asp?NavlD=14819
• December 6, 2011 City Council Meeting
http://Nvww.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Nav]D=14498
• November 15, 2011 City Council Meeting
htip://www.ashlajid.or.us/Page.asp?NavID-14460
• November 1, 2011 City Council Meeting (includes Record of Planning Action 42011-001175)
h"p://www.ashland.or.tis/Page.asp?Nav]D=14433
Page I of 2
r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Fee for Third Party Review In addition to the standard planning application fee, a fee will be required
with applications for new wireless communication facilities that are not collocated on a structure with
existing wireless communication facilities in place. The fee will be used by the City to hire an
independent contractor with expertise in the technical aspects of wireless communications to review
and prepare a written report regarding the application submittals, as well as for consultation time with
the expert. Other potential costs can include review of applications that are amended during the public
process and expert testimony at public hearings.
At the June 5, 2012 meeting, staff suggested that a resolution would be prepared to establish the new
fee for third party review for Council review along with the second reading of the ordinance.
Subsequent to the June 5 meeting, there was an opportunity to integrate the fee into the update to the
Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document, which is another item on the June 19, 2012 agenda. The
fee is.referred to as the "Deposit for Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities
Application" in the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document.
Staff recommends setting the initial deposit required with an application at $5,000, with a requirement
that if the balance goes below $1,000 upon notification by the City, the applicant is required to
replenish the account so the balances is at least $5,000. The maximum total consultant fee to be
charged to the applicant is $10,000, and any unused portion of fee would be refunded to the applicant.
The requirement to replenish the deposit fee is typically used by municipalities to provide for the
possible scenarios in which an applicant may amend the application by submitting new materials
which require further review by the technical expert, or the consultant is required to attend meetings to
provide testimony. According to Staff,s research, the standard review of an application along with the
typical amount of consultation is approximately $3,500 to $5,000 in cost. However, if application
amendments are numerous or substantial and require additional technical review, or the technical
expert is required to attend public hearings, the cost may exceed the initial deposit fee by several
thousand dollars. Travel costs associated with attending meetings can be particularly expensive.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendments to the Wireless Development Standards, and
establishing the new fee for the "Deposit for Independent Review of Wireless Communication
Facilities Application" in the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document. The ordinance amendments
address the Council's interpretation of the collocation requirements in the November 2010 decision, as
well as the third party verification requirement.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve the second reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the development
standards for wireless communication facilities in 18.72.180 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use
Ordinance".
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Page 2 of 2
A,
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN 18.72.180 OF THE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
and additions are in bold underline.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all
legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of
Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293;
531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland City Council found AMC 18.72.180.C.2 to be ambiguous on
its face, and interpreted this standard in the final decision on November 2, 2010 for the appeal of
a Planning Action 2009-01244, a request to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on
the existing building located at 1644 Ashland Street; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced
recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances based on
the final decision of the City Council on Planning Action 2009-01244 at a duly advertised public
hearing on October 11, 2011, following deliberations, recommended approval of the
amendments unanimously; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearings
and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the
Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and
benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary
to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an
adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this
proceeding.
Page ] of 8
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this
reference.
SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.72.180[Development Standards for Wireless Communication
Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities.
A. Purpose and Intent - The purpose of this section is to establish standards that regulate the
placement, appearance and impact of wireless communication facilities, while providing
residents with the ability to access and adequately utilize the services that these facilities
support.
Because of the physical characteristics of wireless communication facilities, the impact
imposed by these facilities affect not only the neighboring residents, but also the community
as a whole.
The standards are intended to ensure that the visual and aesthetic impacts of wireless
communication facilities are mitigated to the greatest extent possible, especially in or near
residential areas.
B. Applicability.
1. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the
requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use
Standards and are subject to the following approval process:
Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding
Existing Structures Support
Structures Structures
Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited
C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP
E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP
SOU Site Review CUP CUP
NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited
A-1 (Airport Overlayl CUP CUP CUP
Page 2 of 8
HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited
CM-NC CUP CUP CUP
CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP
CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP
CM-MU CUP CUP CUP
CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
2. Additional Provisions.
a. In residential zoning districts, wireless communication facilities are permitted on
existing structures greater than 45 feet in height. For the purposes of this
section, existing structures shall include the replacement of existing pole, mast or
tower structures (such as stadium light towers) for the combined purposes of
their previous use and wireless communication facilities.
b. In the Downtown Commercial zoning district (C-1-D), wireless communication
facilities are permitted on existing structures with a height greater than 50 feet.
c. With the exception of the C-I-D zoning district as described above, wireless
communication facilities are prohibited in the Historic Districts, as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Exemptions. Replacement of previously approved antennas and accessory
equipment are permitted outright with an approved building permit, and are
allowed without a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit as specified in the
preceding subsection, provided that these actions:
a. Do not create an increase in the height of the facility; and
b. Conforms with the conditions of the previously approved planning action; and
c. Do not cause the facility to go out of conformance with the standards of Section
18.72.180.D.
H C. Submittals - In addition to the submittals required in sSection 18.72.060, the following
items shall be provided as part of the application for a wireless communication facility.
1. A photo of each of the major components of a similar installation, including a photo
montage of the overall facility as proposed.
2. Exterior elevations of the proposed wireless communication facility (min I"=10').
3. A set of manufacturers specifications of the support structure, antennas, and accessory
buildings with a listing of materials being proposed including colors of the exterior
materials.
4. A site plan indicating all structures, land uses and zoning designation within 150 feet of
the site boundaries, or 300 feet if the height of the structure is greater than 80 feet.
5. A map that includes the following information:
a. the coverage area of the proposed wireless communication facility; and
b_A map showing the existing and approved wireless communication facility sites
operated by the applicant, and all other wireless communication facilities within a
5 mile radius of the proposed site.
6. Details and specifications for exterior lighting.
Page 3 of 8
6 7.A collocation feasibility study
and states the ireasens ^^"^^^tion ^ °addressing, the Collocation
Standards in Section 18.72.180.D.3.
8. For applications requesting approval of installation of new wireless communication
facilities that are not collocated on a structure used by one or more wireless
communications providers, an applicant shall submit, along with the standard
application fee, an additional fee to reimburse the City for the cost of having the
application materials reviewed by an independent contractor. The contractor must
provide objective advice based on professional qualifications and experience in
telecommunication/radio frequency engineering, structural engineering, assessment
of electromagnetic fields, telecommunications law, and other related fields of
expertise. The fee for this independent analysis of application materials shall be in
an amount established by resolution of the City Council.
7 9.A copy of the lease agreement for the proposed site showing that the agreement does not
preclude collocation.
8 I.O.Documentation detailing the general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and
type of antennas it is designed to accommodate.
9 11.Any other documentation the applicant feels is relevant to comply with the applicable
design standards.
4-0 12.Documentation that the applicant has held a local community meeting to inform
members of the surrounding area of the proposed wireless communication facility.
Documentation to include:
a. a copy of the mailing list to properties within 300' of the proposed facility.
b. a copy of the notice of community meeting, mailed one week prior to the meeting.
c. a copy of the newspaper ad placed in a local paper one week prior to the meeting.
d. a summary of issues raised during the meeting.
E D. Design Standards - All wireless communication facilities shall be located, designed,
constructed, treated and maintained in accordance with the following standards:
1. General Provisions
a. All facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of
the Building Code. At the time of building permit application, written statements
from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Aeronautics Section of the
Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communication Commission
that the proposed wireless communication facility complies with regulations
administered by that agency, or that the facility is exempt from regulation.
b. All associated transmittal equipment must be housed in a building, above or below
ground level, which must be designed and landscaped to achieve minimal visual
impact with the surrounding environment.
c. Wireless communication facilities shall be exempted from height limitations imposed
in each zoning district.
d. MIG Wireless communication facilities shall be installed at the minimum height
and mass necessary for its intended use. A submittal verifying the proposed height
and mass shall be prepared by a licensed engineer.
e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless communication support
structures.
Page 4 of 8
e f. Signage for wireless communication facilities shall consist of a maximum of two non-
illuminated signs, with a maximum of two square feet each stating the name of the
facility operator and a contact phone number.
€g.Applicant is required to remove all equipment and structures from the site and return
the site to its original condition, or condition as approved by the Staff Advisor, if the
facility is abandoned for a period greater than six months. Removal and restoration
must occur within 90 days of the end of the six month period.
h. All new wireless communication support structures shall be constructed so as to
allow other users to collocate on the facility.
2. Preferred Designs. The following preferred designs are a stepped hierarchy, and the
standards shall be applied in succession from subsection a to e, with the previous
standard exhausted before moving to the following design alterative.
For the purpose of Section 18.72.180, feasible is defined as capable of being done,
executed or effected; possible of realization. A demonstration of feasibility requires
a substantial showing that a preferred design can or cannot be accomplished.
a. Collocation. Where possible, the use of existing MICIP sites for new installations
shall be eneournged Collocation of new facilities on existing facilities shall be the
preferred option. Where technically feasible, collocate new facilities on pre-
existing structures with wireless communication facilities in place, or on pre-
existing towers.
b. Attached to Existing Structure. If (a) above is not feasible, MIC F wireless
communication facilities shall be attached to pre-existing structures, when feasible.
c. Alternative Structure. If(a) or(b) above are not feasible, alternative structures shall
be used with design features that conceal, camouflage or mitigate the visual impacts
created by the proposed WIF wireless communication facilities.
d. Freestanding Support Structure. If(a), (b), or (c) listed above are not feasible, a
monopole design shall be used with the attached antennas positioned in a vertical
manner to lessens the visual impact compared to the antennas in a platform design.
Platform designs shall be used only if it is shown that the use of an alternate attached
antenna design is not feasible.
e. Lattice towers are prohibited as freestanding wireless eommuniention suppor
structures.
3. Collocation Standards.
a. The collocation feasibility study shall: 1) document that alternative sites have
been considered and are technologically unfeasible or unavailable; 2)
demonstrate that a reasonable effort was made to locate collocation sites that
meet the applicant's service coverage area needs; and 3) document the reasons
collocation can or cannot occur.
b. Relief from collocation under this section may be granted at the discretion of the
approving authority, if the application and independent third party analysis
demonstrate collocation is not feasible because one or more of the following
conditions exist at prospective collocation sites:
i. a significant service gap in coverage area.
Page 5 of 8
ii. sufficient height cannot be achieved by modifying existing structure or
towers.
iii. structural support requirements cannot be met.
iv. collocation would result in electronic, electromagnetic, obstruction or other
radio frequency interference.
3 4.Landscaping. The following standards apply to all MIC R wireless communication
facilities with any primary or accessory equipment located on the ground and visible
from a residential use or the public right-of-way.
a. Vegetation and materials shall be selected and sited to produce a drought resistant
landscaped area.
b. The perimeter of the WC F wireless communication facilities shall be enclosed with
a security fence or wall. Such barriers shall be landscaped in a manner that provides a
natural sight obscuring screen around the barrier to a minimum height of six feet.
c. The outer perimeter of the MIC wireless communication facilities shall have a 10
foot landscaped buffer zone.
d. The landscaped area shall be irrigated and maintained to provide for proper growth
and health of the vegetation.
e. One tree shall be required per 20 feet of the landscape buffer zone to provide a
continuous canopy around the perimeter of the MICF wireless communication
facilities. Each tree shall have a caliper of 2 inches, measured at breast height, at the
time of planting.
4 S.Visual Impacts
a. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall be integrated into
the existing building architecturally and, to the greatest extent possible, shall not
exceed the height of the pre-existing or alternative structure.
b. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the area of minimal visual
impact within the site which will allow the facility to function consistent with its
purpose.
c. Antennas, if attached to a pre-existing or alternative structure shall have a non-
reflective finish and color that blends with the color and design of the structure to
which it is attached.
d. MIC Wireless communication facilities, in any zone, must be set back from any
residential zone a distance equal to twice its overall height. The setback requirement
may be reduced if, as determined by the Hearing Authority, it can be demonstrated
through findings of fact that increased mitigation of visual impact can be achieved
within of the setback area. Underground accessory equipment is not subject to the
setback requirement.
e. Exterior lighting for a WC— wireless communication facility is permitted only when
required by a federal or state authority.
f. All wireless communication support structures must have a non-reflective finish and
color that will mitigate visual impact, unless otherwise required by other government
agencies.
g. Should it be deemed necessary by the Hearing Authority for the mitigation of visual
impact of the WEF wireless communication facility, additional design measures
may be required. These may include, but are not limited to: additional camouflage
Page 6 of 8
materials and designs, facades, specific colors and materials, masking, shielding
techniques.
a. Gaeh addition of an antenna to an existing MIDI` requires building permit,
,
unless the additional antenna : :l:
s the height of the faety more than ten
iCrrY
L, Addition of antennas to an :sting MICF that : s the over-all height of__the
.crust-��casna va uaa
faeffiyy more than ten feet is ubjeet to a site ..
D. AM installation of wir-eless eommuniestion systems shall be subjeet to the requiremetm
of thos seetion in addition to oil applienble Site Design and Use Standards and are
Zoning DeSigHHfi0H Attnehed to Altermitiye F`�in
TCCCOCtRVCV 7-f racr'iruaTC -_C
EAStill CSiiuetores C......or
CStruetu�res Prohibited,,,1 i1`'ttrue�tur,B�S°°r��°��sl
/-�m C-11 t Prohibited Prohibited
C-4 CUP CUP Prohibited
CU Prohibited Prohibited
C 1 Freeway over-lay Site Review Site Review CUF
M4 Siite-Revlew Site Review cVr
Sou Site RevWA CUP CUP
NAI (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
Misteroe Dist-,-0*elm CU-P Prohibited Prohibited
A l (A irpert Oyerhl y) CAF C-UP CAl-F
HC (Health Caro GUF Prohibited Prohibited
CA! NC- CUP CU-P CUP
CM OE Site Review Site Review CU
CM CI Site Revie-: Site Review CUP
r'^moo CA-F CU CUP
CM OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
Page 7 of 8
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1,
22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references
and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 8 of 8
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
14.08.030 Connection Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary and Adding
AMC 14.09.020 Sewer Lateral Ownership
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, Public Works Department, faughtm @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Staff is recommending Council amend AMC 14.09, codifying an existing sewer lateral policy that
requires property owners to pay for the maintenance and replacement of their sewer laterals. In
addition, staff is recommending Council amend AMC 14.08.030 changing responsibility for
determination of sewer system failure from the Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) to
"appropriate regulatory authority" for connection outside the City limits but within the Urban Growth
Boundary(UGB).
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Based on an internal sewer service policy, city staff has historically required Ashland residents to pay
for maintenance and replacement of their sewer lateral from the house to the main which includes that
section located within the public right-of-way. This policy requires home owners to obtain a right-of-
way permit and pay for the cost of replacing the sewer lateral in the public right-of way at an estimated
cost of$2,500. The one exception to this policy is a 1962 Greensprings Subdivision developer's
agreement requiring the City to maintain the sewer lateral from the house to the main line for 250
homes in the subdivision.
Issue
Property owners have challenged the City's authority to require residents to maintain sewer lateral
lines. Staff was unable to find previous Council action to support the internal sewer lateral policy and
the AMC is silent on responsibility for maintenance and/or replacement.
Staff is proposing, for Council consideration, new AMC amendments that will codify the City's long-
standing sewer lateral maintenance and replacement policy which places this responsibility on the
property owner who exclusively benefits from the use of their own sewer lateral.
The requirement to maintain the sewer lateral from the property line to the sewer main (in the public
right-of-way) is not universal in Oregon. Staff has reviewed the sewer lateral ordinances for several
Oregon cities and Ashland's internal policy is consistent with most Oregon municipalities.
Page 1 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Medford has similar ordinance language placing responsibility for maintenance and replacement of
sewer laterals with the property owner. This is also the case with most other cities in Oregon including
Milwaukie, Grants Pass, Fairview, Ontario, McMinnville, Forest Grove, Pacific City and Bend for
example. In contrast, Oregon City, North Bend, Rogue River, Netarts-Oceanside Sanitary District,
Cottage Grove and Albany maintain the sewer lateral located in the public right-of-way.
Staff previously reported to Council that Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVSS) (Jacksonville, Talent
and Phoenix) required property owners to maintain and replace their sewer lateral; however when staff
took a second look at their ordinance it became clear that RVSS requires maintenance but replaces the
section of the sewer lateral located in the public right-of-way as funding allows.
In addition to the proposed sewer lateral amendments, staff is recommending a housekeeping update to
AMC 14.08.030. Under current code, one of the conditions of approval for connecting property
outside the City but inside the UGB to the City sewer system is a determination that the property
owner's sewer system has failed. Under current code, "Jackson County" is specifically named as the
entity to make that determination. Jackson County no longer makes such determinations; DEQ does.
Thus, the proposed new language directs an applicant to seek approval from an "appropriate regulatory
authority." Similarly, the proposed amendments ensure the applicant's project does not conflict with
"state or local laws, rules and regulations," rather than limiting compliance only to Jackson County's
comprehensive plan.
Council Study Session
At the June 18, 2012 Council Study Session, staff updated the Council on the current policy of
requiring property owners to pay for the maintenance and replacement of their sewer laterals within the
public-right-of-way. During that meeting, Council requested that staff research the following four
questions:
1. Will the City or the property owner be required to replace a sewer lateral when the City has a
project (overlay, reconstruct, sewer lateral rehabilitation, etc.)?
The proposed ordinance would require the property owner to pay for the replacement of sewer
lateral regardless if it is a City project or a faulty sewer lateral. If the Council would prefer the
City pay for the replacement of sewer laterals as part of a capital project then staff recommends
limiting that to sewer rehabilitation projects. The following RVSS code language could be
added to the proposed AMC amendments. "In conjunction with a main line rehabilitation
project, the City may choose to reconstruct sewer laterals within the public right-of-way. This
will be done at no cost to the property owner. The property owner will be responsible for the
work if it is extended onto private property, or the City will perform the work and bill the
owner."
2. Should the City create a policy requiring any person or agency damaging a sewer lateral to be
responsible for repair?
Staff does not believe the City needs to develop a policy requiring a person or agency to repair
damage to a sewer lateral as AMC Chapter 13.02 "Public Rights of Way Section 110 Liability
states that "The permittee and owner of the benefitted property if different than the permittee
shall be liable to any person who is injured or otherwise surfers damage by reason of any
encroachment allowed in ordinance with the provisions of this section." In addition, anyone
working in the public right of way is required to get an encroachment permit. The
Page 2 of 3
�r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
encroachment permit requires the permittee to purchase comprehensive or commercial general
liability insurance to cover all claims, actions, costs,judgments, and damages that may occur
for work performed under the permit.
3. Is replacing a sewer lateral covered under homeowners insurance?
Staff checked with a local insurance agent and found the standard homeowners insurance does
not cover replacement of a sewer lateral once it leaves the house. The only exception is if the
property owner purchases specific insurance to cover those utilities outside of the home.
4. What is the replacement policy for other City utilities?
The City is responsible for the water service line from the main line up to and including the
water meter; the electric service line up to and including the meter; and the AFN (according to
a previous legal opinion from former City Attorney Paul Nolte) service line up to the property
line. Staff would like to point out the difference between most utilities and a sewer lateral is
the City has control of the product (water, electricity, or cable) going to the home. This is not
the case with a sewer lateral as the homeowner can damage or plug a sewer lateral by dumping
grease, foreign objects, and/or chemicals (concentrated bleach, drain cleaners, etc.).
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
If the Council were to determine the City should maintain and replace the sewer lateral from the
property line to the sewer main, the estimated cost of such maintenance or replacement for 7,850 sewer
.laterals (excluding part of the Greensprings Development) is $19,625,000 ($2,500 each).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance and move the ordinance for second
reading.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
Move to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code (AMC)
14.08.030 Connection Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary and adding AMC 14.09.020
Sewer Lateral Ownership.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance
2. AMC 14.09; AMC 18.72.070 (D); AMC 18.80.060 (B)
3. Greensprings Subdivision Map
4. Greensprings Subdivision Water and Sewer Agreement, Oak Knoll
5. PW Excavation Permit Application
Page 3 of 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 14.08.030 CONNECTION —
OUTSIDE CITY, INSIDE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
AND ADDING AMC 14.09.020 SEWER LATERAL OWNERSHIP
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, State requirements for allowing properties outside the City to be connected to the
City's sewer main have changed, and the City of Ashland desires to amend the code to reflect
current regulatory requirements for such connections.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland has historically conditioned permission to connect to the City's
sewer main on commitments by property owners to maintain, repair or replace building sewer
laterals from the building to the public Sewer Main.
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland desires to codify historic practices to establish workable and
uniform decision making.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 14.08.030 is hereby amended to read as follows:
14.08.030 Connection - Outside City, Inside Urban Growth Boundary
An occupied dwelling or building located outside the City of Ashland and inside the urban
growth boundary may be connected to the sewer system when such connection is determined by
the Ashland City Council to be in the best interest of the City of Ashland and to not be
detrimental to the City's sewerage facilities. Such connection shall be made only upon the
following conditions:
A. The applicant for sewer service pays the sewer connection fee and the systems development
charges established by the City Council.
Ordinance No. _ Page 1 of 4
R in the ,.vent .. dwelling of building ,.onneeted to the se...ef system :.. subsequently replaced
, �,c°jnuc.....
the City as long as !he use of the sewer- system will net be inereased as deteffnined by th
CB. The applicant shnil be responsible for pays the full cost of extending the City of Ashland
sewer main or line to the property for which sewer service is being requested.
DC. The applicant shall seeure secures, in writing, statements from the daekson Cou"
appropriate regulatory authority that the existing sewage system has failed and that the
provision of sewer by the City of Ashland does not conflict with the daekson County
Gempy-ehensive Plan, support doeuments, rules, or- state and local laws, rules
and regulations.
ED. The applicant furnishes to the City a consent to the annexation of the land, signed by the
owners of record and notarized so that it may be recorded by the City and binding on future
owners of the land.
FE. The applicant shah provides for the payment to the City by the owners, at the time of
annexation, an amount equal to the current assessment for liabilities and indebtedness previously
contracted by a public service district, such as Jackson County Fire District No. 5, multiplied by
the number of years remaining on such indebtedness, so that the land may be withdrawn from
such public service districts in accord with ORS 222.520 and at no present or future expense to
the City.
GF. The owner shall executes a deed restriction preventing the partitioning or subdivision of the
land prior to annexation to the City.
HG. That The land is within the Urban Growth Boundary.
H. In the event of connecting a replacement dwelling or building to the sewer system, the
connection does not increase use of the sewer system as determined by the Director of
Public Works.
(Ord 2704, 1993; Ord 2861, 2000)
SECTION 2. Chapter 14.09.020 is hereby added to read as follows:
14.09.020 Sewer Lateral Ownership
A. Definitions
1. "Building Sewer Lateral' refers to the extension of the sewer pipeline from
the building drain to the public sewer main line.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4
2. "Sewer Main" is the public sewer system,typically comprised of 6-inch and
larger pipelines located within public right-of-ways or easements.
3. "Sewer Connection" is the location where the sewer lateral connects to the
Sewer Main, including any pipe fittings or materials used to make the
connection.
4. "Property Owner" means any person, firm, partnership or corporation.
5. "Deficiency of a Service Lateral" means a defect (broken pipe, leaky Joints,
protruding service, etc.) in the service line or connection to the main line that
results in infiltration, obstructs flow, creates a subsurface void, allows
wastewater to exfiltrate, or creates a risk of sanitary sewer overflows.
B. Ownership and Responsibility
1. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to repair or replace any
building sewer lateral showing any defect including, but not limited to, leaks,
breaks, settlement, or stoppages. Any loss or damage to any public facility
caused either by improper installation or maintenance procedures will also
be the property owner's responsibility.
2. The City reserves the right to cease water and/or sewer service to the
Property owner in the event that a significant deficiency is not corrected in a
timely manner by the property owner after being notified by the City.
3. In the event that the City installs or relocates a building sewer lateral within
a public right-of-way for purposes other than to correct deficiencies in the
property owner's building sewer lateral, the city shall maintain the sewer
lateral for one year from the date of final inspection. Maintenance after this
date becomes the responsibility of the property owner.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance"may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter"or another
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however
that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and
the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this_day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 14.09
SEWER SYSTEM--REGULATIONS
SECTIONs:
14.09.010 Phosphate Ban
SECTION 14.09.010 Phosphate Ban
The Council recognizes its authority and responsibility to plan and provide for control of sewerage,
surface water, and water supply. The Council hereby finds that phosphorus loading of surface waters
is currently a serious pollution problem affecting water quality in the Bear Creek Sub-basin and
threatens future water quality in other surface waters of the region. Phosphate detergents contribute
significant phosphorus loading to the treated wastewater released to surface water into Bear Creek.
Phosphorous loading has become a pollution problem, and state standards will require additional
wastewater treatment facilities at public expense beyond primary and secondary treatment facilities.
This Ordinance is enacted to reduce phosphorus pollution at its source to maintain existing water
quality and to enhance cost-effective wastewater treatment where phosphorus pollution has been
identified as a serious pollution problem by the State of Oregon Environmental Quality Commission.
A. Definitions.
1. "Cleaning agent" means any product, including but not limited to soaps and detergents,
containing a surfactant as a wetting or dirt emulsifying agent and used primarily for
domestic or commercial cleaning purposes, including, but not limited to the cleansing of
fabrics, dishes, food utensils, and household and commercial premises. Cleaning agent
shall not mean foods, drugs, cosmetics, insecticides, fungicides and rodenticides, or
cleaning agents exempt from this Ordinance.
2. "Phosphorus"means elemental phosphorus.
3. "Person"means any person, firm,partnership or corporation.
B. Prohibition. No person may sell or distribute for sale within the City of Ashland City Limits,
any cleaning agents containing more than 0.5 percent phosphorus by weight except cleaning
agents used in automatic dishwashing machines shall not exceed 8.7 percent phosphorus by
weight.
C. Exemptions. This Ordinance shall not apply to any cleaning agent:
1. Used in dairy, beverage,or food processing equipment.
2. Used as an industrial sanitizer, brightener, acid cleaner or metal conditioner, including
phosphoric acid products or trisodium phosphate.
3. Used in hospitals,veterinary hospitals or clinics,or health care facilities.
4. Used in agricultural production and the production of electronic components.
5. Used in a commercial laundry for laundry services provided to hospital or health care
facility or for a veterinary hospital or clinic.
6. Used by industry for metal cleaning or conditioning.
7. Used in any laboratory, including a biological laboratory, research facility, chemical,
electronics or engineering laboratory.
8. Used for cleaning hard surfaces, including household cleansers for windows, sinks,
counters, stoves,tubs or other food preparation surfaces,and plumbing fixtures.
9. Used as a water softening chemical, antiscale chemical or corrosion inhibitor intended
for use in closed systems, such as boilers, air conditioners, cooling towers or hot water
systems.
Page I of 2
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
10. For which the Council determines that imposition of this Ordinance will either:
a. create a significant hardship on the user;or
b. be unreasonable because of the lack of an adequate substitute cleaning agent.
D. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are severable. if any provision of this
Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the invalidity shall
not affect other provisions or application of this Ordinance which can be given without the
invalid provision or application.
E. Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter is, upon conviction, guilty
of a Class III Violation and shall be subject to the penalties as set forth in Section 1.08.020.
(Ord.2623, 1991)
(Ord 3029,amended,081032010)
Page 2 of 2
SECTION 18.72.070 Criteria for Approval.
The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application:
A. All applicable City ordinances have been met or will be met by the proposed development.
B. All requirements of the Site Review Chapter have been met or will be met.
C. The development complies with the Site Design Standards adopted by the City Council for
implementation of this Chapter.
D. That adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, paved access to and through the
development, electricity, urban storm drainage, and adequate transportation can and will be
provided to and through the subject property. All improvements in the street right-of-way shall
comply with the Street Standards in Chapter 18.88, Performance Standards Options. (Ord. 2655,
1991;Ord 2836 S6, 1999)
Page I of I
SECTION 18.80.060 Improvements.
A. Improvement procedure. In addition to other requirements, improvements installed by the
subdivider either as a requirement of these regulations or at subdividers own option shall conform to
the requirements of this Title and improvement standards and specifications followed by the City.
The improvements shall be installed in accordance with the following procedure:
1. Work shall not begin until plans have been checked for adequacy and approved by the City. To
the extent necessary for evaluation of the subdivision proposal,the plans may be required before
approval of the final map.
2. Work shall not begin until the City has been notified in advance, and if work has been
discontinued for any reason, it shall not be resumed until the City has been notified.
3. Improvements shall be constructed under the inspection and to the satisfaction of the City. The
City may require changes in typical sections and details if unusual conditions arise during
construction to warrant the change in the public interest.
4. All underground utilities, sanitary sewers, and storm drains installed in streets shall be
constructed prior to the surfacing of such streets. Stubs for service connections for all
underground utilities and sanitary sewers shall be placed to such lengths as will obviate the
necessity for disturbing the street improvements when service connections are made.
5. A reproducible map showing all public improvements as built shall be filed with the City
Engineer upon completion of such improvements.
B. Improvement requirements. Improvements to be installed at the expense of the land divider are as
follows:
I. Interior streets. All interior streets shall be graded for the entire right-of-way width, and
roadways shall be improved with paving, curbs, gutters, and drainage. The subdivider shall
improve the extension of all subdivision streets to the center line of existing streets with which
subdivision streets intersect.
2. Exterior unimproved streets. When part of a proposed subdivision or major land partition
abuts an existing unimproved street, the property owner, or a representative, shall satisfy the
minor land partition improvement requirements and sign an agreement in favor of improving said
street in the future to full City standards as outlined in this Section.
3. Structures. Structures specified as necessary by the City, for drainage,access, and public safety
shall be installed.
4. Sidewalks. Sidewalks may be required on one(1) or both sides of the street at the discretion of
the Planning Commission. Such requirement shall be related to the general level and type of
development in the area, the anticipated level of pedestrian traffic, and the safety and
convenience of children and other pedestrians.
5. Improvements to be installed or provided by subdividers include all items required by the
Director of Public Works at the time of the subdivider's plat and construction plan and
specification approval.
6. Sewers. Sanitary sewer facilities including laterals connecting with the existing City sewer
system shall be installed to serve each lot. No septic tanks or cesspools will be permitted within
the City. Storm water sewers shall be installed as required by the City.
7. Water. Water mains and services, fire hydrants of design, layout,and locations approved by the
Director of Public Works as conforming to City standards shall be installed.
8. Street trees. Street trees may be required by the Planning Commission and shall conform with a
City street tree plan or specific requirements of the Commission relating to tree type, size and
spacing.
9. Landscaping on lots where the allowable percentage of lot disturbance has been exceeded.
10. Monuments. Upon completion of street improvements, monuments shall be re-established and
protected in monument boxes at every street intersection and at all points of intersection, or at all
points or curvature and points of tangency of street center lines.
C. Underground utilities - required. All on site utility lines, including but not limited to electric,
Page I of 2
communications, street lighting, and cable television, shall be installed underground, except as
provided in "D" below. For the purpose of this section, appurtenances and associated equipment
such as, but not limited to, surface-mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and
meter cabinets, terminations for concealed ducts in an underground system, and street lighting
structures and fixtures may be placed above ground. This section does not apply to utility lines
which do not provide service to the area being subdivided.
D. Underground Utilities - Exceptions. Minor land partitions shall not be required to provide
underground utilities, provided that all new service for residential uses shall have installed a service
panel and stubbed conduit to convert to underground utilities at a future date.
E. Underground Utilities - Cost. The developer shall deposit with the City the total fee required in
Section 14.16.030 of this Code, and shall be responsible for all trenching and backfilling. (Ord. 2148
S2, 1981)]
F. Underground Utilities- Rules and Regulations. The City Council may, by resolution, adopt rules
and regulations governing the installation and allocation of costs for underground utility extensions.
(Ord.2148 S3, 1981)
G. Safety Street Lighting. Safety street lighting shall be provided by the developer in new
subdivisions and in private developments of five (5) acres or snore. Developer shall bear all costs
except wiring, maintenance and energy. All street lighting improvements shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Electric Superintendent in accordance with the specifications on file in the office
of the Electric Superintendent. The amount and intensity of illumination provided for street lighting
shall be in accordance with the standards established by the illuminating Engineering Society,
American Standard Association,as approved by the Electric Department.
Page 2 of 2
�oR
G Q
O Pp. oQ
s
y
YQ
�� YSdy
00 y} 6
V � Yin
"JOO cy ;.
y \
M�
L
l �
Gt
FPS
L--j Q
LL
AIL
CD LO
�p
N
m
CO
LO
� U
o
J �r
UW
o
047 L-
tku
yQe m to
0 0
r`
N
N N
N y
pCT�t, L t
Y O O
Ytyy Opp' ld NO 3 7
S�
� � y
ado
�L �L
N N
N N
;M1 • .it r
75-09838 35
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF ASHLAND - B & G PROPERTIES, INC.
WATER AND SEWER
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 'day of
1975, between B & G PROPERTIES, INC. , an Oregon
corporation, hereinafter referred to as r'B & G" , and CITY
OF ASHLAND, an Oregon municipal corporation, he
referred to as "Ashland" ,
WITNESSETH:
RECITALS :
1 . Oak Knoll-1 (described in Exhibit "A" attached) has
i
been furnished water and sewer services by Ashland for a
number of years pursuant to the terms of. agreement dated
May 1, 1962, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "B" .
2 . B & G is the successor to the second party in the
i
agreement dated May 1 , 1962 . It is the purpose of this
i
agreement to replace the agreement of May 1 , 1962 , by this agreement .
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals
and of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is agreed
b the
Y parties hereto as follows :
I
The agreement dated May 1, 1962 is hereby rescinded and
1 - Agreement
ff4 r✓r'ti ��, 1 j�( /I�LCG��'�E� C /7Y4L c� r��s.<l guy �/ r�?rc
75-09838
shall no longer be operative from the date hereof.
II
For the purpose of this agreement the following terms
have the following definitions :.
1 . Water service connection: A pipe conveying water
from a water main. to a parcel . o£ land . It consists of
pipe , fittings, valves, meter and meter box .
2 . Water main: A pipe conveying water from a water
transmission line to any number of water services . It
consists of pipe, fittings and valves .
3• Water main appurtenances : Those items which are
necessary for the proper operation of a water main
under the particular circumstances and which include,
but are not limited to, valve vaults, thrust rods or .
blocks , fire hydrants, flushing outlets , pressure
regulators, and regulatory vaults .
4 . Sewer lateral : A pipe conveying sewage from a parcel
Of land to a sewer trunk . It consists of pipe , fittings
and ,jointing material .
5 • Sewer trunk: A pipe conveying sewage from a number
of sewer laterals to an interceptor . It consists of
pipe, fittings and ,jointing material.
I
6 . Sewer 'trunk appurtenances : Those items which are
necessary for the proper operation of a sewer trunk in
the particular circumstances and which include , but
are not limited to, manholes , cleanouts , thrust rods or
blocks and pipe encasements .
i
III
i Oak Knoll-1 shall be' only for single-family dwelling units
and shall consist of not more than 118 lots . There are
approximately 55 lots which have been developed and are
presently connected to the water and sewer services of Ashland.
I
2 - Agreement .
i
- '�5-09838
There are 44 vacant lots with water and sewer services
installed and 19 lots without services installed all of
which lots ,shall be entitled to Ashland water and sewer services
upon compliance with the following terms and conditions :
1 . All extensions of water and sewer facilities shall
be done in accord with Ashland's regulations and subject
to the inspection of the personnel of Ashland and approval in
accordance with all applicable city, county and state standards
before service shall be furnished to the particular lot
in question.
2 . There is a differential in the connection charges
which is determined by whether. the connection is to a . water
main or sewer trunk existing at the date of this agreement
or whether the water main or sewer trunk are hereafter
installed . The connection charges are as follows :
A . In the case of water mains and sewer trunks
in existence on the date of this agreement the
connection charges shall be as follows :
With respect to water,
3/4 inch 4375. 00
1 inch 515 . 0.0
1 1/2 inch
2 inches 7.$5.:00
4 inches and over 100 . 0.0
Cost +
3 - Agreement
75-09838
With respect to sewer,
4 inch lateral connection from
trunk line to normal curb line $370.00
6 inch lateral connection from
trunk line to normal curb line 430 .00
8 inch lateral connection from
trunk line to normal curb line 625 .00
10 inch or over lateral connection
from trunk line to normal curb
line Cost + 100.00 '
B. In the case of water mains and sewer trunks
constructed after the date of this agreement, they shall
be constructed by B & G at its expense . The connection
charges shall be as follows :
With respect to water (the service connection shall be made.
by Ashland) as follows :
Service size Rate
3/4. inch $275.00
i
1 inch 415 .00
1 1/2 inch 575 .00
2 inches &85 .00
4 inches and over COST
i
j With respect to sewer, the trunks and laterals shall be
installed by B & G at its expense .
i
3 . B & . G agrees that in all conveyances of lots and property
the conveyance shall contain a provision that the grantee covenants
for himself, his heirs and assigns, to consent to the annexation
i to Ashland at any time Ashland may desire to annex such property .
4 - Agreement
75-09838
A covenant in substantially the following language shall be in
compliance with the terms of this agreement :
The grantee for himself, his heirs , successors and
assigns covenants and 'agrees that the property conveyed
by this deed shall be subject to annexation by the
city of Ashland.
Grantee 's acceptance and recording of this deed shall
be considered his application and consent to such annexation.
Grantee further convenants that in the event of such
annexation grantee shall satisfy the bonded indebtedness
to any special service districts outstanding against grantee' s
property at the time of such annexation if withdrawal of said
property from the special service district is required.
The foregoing covenants shall be appurtenant to and run
with the land until the 31st day of December, 1960 .
4 . In the event of annexation of Oak Knoll-I, no annexation
fee shall be payable to Ashland. B & G does consent to the
annexation of all land owned by it in Oak Knoll-I . In the event
of annexation B & G shall satisfy the bonded indebtedness to any
special service_ district outstanding against B & G' s property at
the time of such annexation if Ashland chooses to withdraw the
property from the special service district .
IV.
Oak Knoll-II is situated in the county of Jackson, state
of Oregon and is more particularly described on Exhibit "C"
i
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof . Oak Knoll-II
shall be developed so that there will not be more than 132
dwelling units on said property . The land embraced in
Oak Knoll-II shall be used for no other purpose than dwelling
I
units , unless permitted by Ashland. The units shall be
developed in accordance with all city rules and regulations ,
I
i
i
5 - Agreement
75-09838
the same as though the property were situated within the City
of .Ashland. If the property is developed as a planned unit
development, such development shall be in accordance with
. Ashland's regulations for planned unit developments . Ashland
may consider the use of the entire parcel and the maximum
density of 132 dwelling units in approving the planned unit
development.
The following rules , regulations and terms shall apply to
the use of Oak Knoll-II and with being furnished water and
sewer services by Ashland:
1 . Water facilities :
A. Mains and reasonably necessary appurtenances shall be
installed by B F, G in accord with plans and specifications
which have been submitted to Ashland for its review and
approval in accord with all then existing city , county
and state regulations , After .-they are installed, they
shall become the''p.roperty of Ashland,
The 'service connection, The cost thereof shall be
in accord with the current charges of Ashland at the
time connection is requested, The cost shall be paid
to Ashland at the time installation is requested,
2 , Sewer faci,litiess
A. The entire sewer facility, which. shall include trunks
and laterals , shall be installed by $ $ G aub:j.e.ct.-to= review
and approval'-a€ pSans_-and, k0ecifica lofts 5y;Asfilandl in j
Accord with all tixeiq*xis,$inpae t)cj� eounty:add..state ,tules .
and regulations . During construction, Ashland shall have the
right to inspect construction-work if it so desires , After
approval, the trunks and laterals shall become the property
of Ashland and shall be 'maintained and replaced by Ashland
as it deems necessary,
i
i
i
o j
6 .- Agreement,
I
i
75-09838
B. If 'a sewage pumping station is required, in
the opinion of Ashland, to serve any portion of
Oak Knoll-II, A shall be installed by B & G
-and at its expense . It shall become the property
of Ashland in accord with the foregoing provisions .
i
4 . To serve Oak Knoll-II with water it will be necessary
for Ashland to extend its 12 inch water main from its existing
point of. termination at Siskiyou Boulevard and Crowson Road
to the water system to be built on Oak Knoll-II . B. & G shall
pay to Ashland all installation costs and material costs
of an 8 inch main and Ashland shall pay the excess of the
material and installation costs over the costs thereof of
an 8 inch main. It is estimated at this time the cost to
B & G would be approximately $ 32 ,900 .00 This project
shall be either put out to bid by private contractors by
Ashland or the work done by Ashland at its election. In
either event B & 'G shall deposit with Ashland the amount
of the bid or Ashland' s estimate of the project cost before
the work is commenced by Ashland or the contract entered into
between Ashland and the private contractor .
Any properties connecting to this water main within 110 years
of its completion, which fronts on Crowson Road between Siskiyou
Boulevard and the point at which the water main leaves Crowson
Road and turns toward, Oak Knoll-II , shall be required to
pay to Ashland the sum of $400. 00 for each water connection .
.Ashland shall pay such sum over to B & G to compensate it
in part for the cost of .the extension of said water main.
It should be noted, however, that at present the policies
of Ashland do not permit extension of water services to users
outside the City of Ashland . B & G acknowledges this fact
7 - Agreement
'75-09838
i
and that there is not any present plan to change this policy . At
completion of the construction of this water main, it shall become
the property of Ashland.
5 . $ & G agrees that the deeds to all lots or property sold
by it after the date of this agreement shall contain a covenant
substantially in the language of the covenant set forth in paragraph
3, page 5 . The grantee shall further covenant that the owner at the
time of annexation will pay to the city l cent for each square foot I
of land annexed to the city as an annexation fee . This covenant shall
be substantially as follows : i
Grantee , for himself, .his heirs , successors and assigns,
covenants and agrees that at the time the property is
annexed to the city of Ashland the owner will pay to the
city 1 cent for each square foot of land annexed to the
city as .an annexation fee .
The consent to annexation and agreement to pay the annexation fee
and cost of withdrawing the property from special service districts
I
applies also to B & G, and land owned by it in Oak Knoll-II at the
time of annexation .
V.
Ashland has a sulphur water spring east of Crowson Road. The
line from this spring crosses the land described herein which is owned
by B & G. Ashland shall have the right to maintain this line and to
go upon the land to accomplish this maintenance . If B & G finds it
necessary to, move this line, it shall do so at its sole expense .
VI .
The following requirements .apply to both Oak Knoll-I and
Oak Knoll-II as described in Exhibits "A" and "C" and the continuance
of water and sewer service to these properties is conditioned upon
full compliance with the following terms and conditions :
8 - Agreement
I
'75-09838
1 . Before installation of any new facilities , the plans
and specifications therefor shall be presented to Ashland
for its review and approval in accordance with all city,
I
county and state regulations .
2 . All water and sewer facilities shall be , upon com-
pletion and acceptance by Ashland and upon receipt of
"as-built" drawings, the property of Ashland and from that
time on Ashland shall maintain and replace such lines as
j
may be necessary. No sewer and water service will be fur-
1
nished until the water and sewer facilities have been completed
and become the property of Ashland in accordance with this
agreement .
3 . All regulations , connection charges and rates are based
upon the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall be as the ordin-
ances presently read or as they may be changed in the future. In
no case , however, shall a greater burden be placed on the property
which is the subject of this agreement than upon other users out-
side of Ashland who are similarly situated.
i
4 . Ashland shall have the right to enforce the payment of water
and sewer charges by users as . the. p
y have with --respect-to �
such services within Ashland. All city ordinances pertaining to
the use of these services shall apply except as may be herein
stated to the contrary.
S . Ashland agrees to provide adequate water service for
the users in Oak Knoll-I and Oak Knoll-II subject to limitations
of water supply and subject to the condition that said water
9 - Agreement.
i
I
75--09838
users are required to use water for domestic purposes only except
when sufficient supply is available to permit lawn and household
garden irrigation, and Ashland . is to be the sole judge of such
available supply, and further subject to . the provisions of 224 .010
et seq. ' Oregon Revised Statutes .
6. Streets and storm sewers shall be constructed after first
submitting plans and specifications to Ashland for its review and
approval in accord with all existing city, county, and state regu-
lations and standard engineering practices . . Such streets and storm
sewers shall be maintained by B $ G unless the property upon which
they are situated is annexed by Ashland.
7. All utilities including sewer, water, telephone ; electricity
and cable TV shall be underground.
I
I
VII .
It is the intention of the parties that the burdens imposed
upon the land described in Exhibits "A" and "C" which are now
owned by B $ G are intended to be burdens on the land and to run
With the land and be fully binding upon the successors and assigns
of B & G.
VIII .
This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of B F, G, its successors and assigns .
I
I
i
10 - Agreement
i
I
75-09838
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hand the day and year first hereinabove written.
B & 'G .PROPERTIES , INC. CITY O ASHLAND
By BY
resident
MayqIr
BY ��x-�.� By 3 vt !17-
Sec etary /C1 Recorder
STATE OF OREGON )
ss . -
County•-of, Jackson ) T
On this' �5V day of 'd UA , 1975, before me appeared
GARY L. PRICKETT and JOSEPH BUTLER, both to me personally
known, who, being duly sworn did say that he the said
GARY L. PRICKETT is the Mayor and he the said JOSEPH M. BUTLER
is .the City Recorder of the City of Ashland, the within
,,..n.amgd municipal corporation, and the said GARY L. PRICKETT
� Wd �YOSEPH M. BUTLER each acknowledged to me that the said
k3gregne�t was the free act of the city .
N �1G r Notary Public for Oregon
l
My commission expires:
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUbE A,IW%
STATE OF OREGON )
ss .
County of Jackson )
On this day ofuL '_ , 1975, before me appeared
W. A. GRAFF and OTTO J/ RO MAYER, both to me personally
known, who, being duly swor did say that he the said
W. A. GRAFF is the president and he the said OTTO J.
FROHNMAYE; .,1s ..Qie secretary of B .& G Properties, INc . and
each actin w g fi,.to me that the said agreement was the free
act of:' r d' 'cor ¢ ion.
Notary Public for Ore on
My commission expires : g A 5)_- '
11 - Agreement .
EXHIBIT "A" .
75-09838 OAK KNOLL - I
CbMMENCING at th'e corner common to Sections 11, 12 , 13 ,
and 14 , Township 39 South, Range 1 East, Willamette Meridian ,
Jackson County; Oregon; thence along the .East boundary of
said Section. 14, South 0 001 ' 10" West, 283 . 68 feet to an 8"
diameter by 24" concrete monument with a bronze disk for the
initial point of beginning; thence along the East boundary
of said Section 14, South 0 002 ' 10" West, 1420 . 03 feet; thence
South 32'32120"West, 150 . 30 feet; thence South 63 021 ' West,
154 . 25 feet; thence South 26 039 ' East, .120 . 00 .feet;. thence South
63121 ' ;Test, 104 . 5.7. -feet; thence on the arc of a 160 .00 foot '
radius curve right (the chord bears South 13 010110" West, .140. 68
feet) a distance. of _145. 66 feet; thence South 39015' West, 7: 33 feet;
thence on the arc of a 20 foot radius curve. left, (the chord
bears South 1'29 ' 20" West, . 24 . 50 feet) a distance of 26 . 36 feet;
thence on the arc OF a 130 foot radius curve right, (the chord
bears South 28'20140" East, 49. 65 feet) a distance of 49 .81 feet;
thence South 69035.' West 60. 00 feet; thence South 76 008 ' 21" West
255. 24 feet to the Northeasterly boundary of Interstate Highway
s5; thence North 2039 ' West along said Highway boundary 599 .62
feet to an intersection with the West boundary of Donation
Land Claim No. 52 of said Township and Range; thence along
.said Claim boundary North 0'00' 50" West, 265 . 29 'feet; thence
North 37°54 ' East, 263 . 47 feet; thence South 52 006' East
100 . 00 feet; thence North 37.054 ' East,, 20. 00 feet; thence
North 52 006 ' West 100. 00 feet; thence North 32°51 ' 48" E, 57 . 96 feet;
thence North 14022 ' 43" East, 60 . 50 feet; thence North 11 040 ' 39"
East 65 . 75 feet; thence North 16 011' 56" East, 91.15 feet; thence
North 31327106" East, 79 . 52 feet; thence North 38°47108
East, 49 .57 feet; thence North 57 006 ' West, 159. 20 feet;
thence South 32 054 ' West, 250 . 87 feet; thence 7 . 47 feet along
the arc OF a curve left, (which arc has a radius of 13.00
feet and a long chord of South 16°26 ' 35" West, 7 . 37 feet) ;
thence South 89 059 ' 10" West, 60 . 00 feet to the .West
boundary of Donation Land. Claim No.. 52 of said Township
and Range; thence along said Claim boundary, North 0 000 ' 50"
West, 215 . 82 feet; thence North 89 059 ' 10" East, 60 .00 feet;
thence 77. 01 feet along the arc a curve left (which arc
has a radius of 30 . 00 feet and a long chord of South 73°33 ' 25"
East, 57 . 54-. feet) ; thence North 32 054 ' East, 151. 22 feet;
thence 39 . 86 feet along the arc of a curve left (which arc
has a radius of 170 . 00 feet and a long .chord of North 26011' East,
39 . 77 feet) ; thence North 1902.8 ' East, 110. 49 feet; thence
101. 01 feet along the arc of a curve right (which has a
radius of 530. 00 feet and a long chord of North 24 055135"
East, 100. 85 feet) ; thence North 54°54 ' West, 131. 77 feet; '
thence North 35 006 ' East, 558 . 05 feet; thence South 54 154 '
East, 108.12 feet; thence North 31 035 ' East, 208 . 50 feet to
the Southwesterly boundary of the GREENSPRINGS HIGHWAY; thence
along said Highway boundary, South 58 025 ' East, 282. 06 feet;
thence along said Highway boundary 111. 88 feet along the arc
of a curve right, (which arc has a radius of 686 . 20 feet and
a long chord of South 53°44 ' 45" East, 111. 76 feet) ; thence
South 45008 ' 55" West, 266. 78 feet to the initial point of
beginning.
�� . Exhibit. "A"
'75-09838
EXHIBIT "C"
OAK KNOLL-II
Beginning at the most Northerly corner of that tract of land described '
' ' in SYarranty Deed to Oak knoll Land Corporation reel orded February 7, 1965.
in the Book 540 page' 362, Deed Records of Jackson County, Oregon, which
corner is on the West line of Section 13, Township 39 South, Range 1
East of the Willamette Meridian in Jackson County., Oregon, 1220. 0 feet
North .0°02 '10" East of the :vorthwest corner. of Donation Land Clain
No. 54, .said TOprship and Range and. from said point of beginning run
thence South 44'4_6 'East along the Easterly'. line of said Oak Knoll Land
Corporation tract 1718.0 feet', 'more or less, to the North line of said ,
Donation Land Claim No. 54; thence West, along the North line of . said
Donation Land Claim No. 54, 316.36 feet, more or less, to the Northwest
corner. of that tract of land conveyed to James B. Smith, et ux, by deed
recorded March 9, 19662 as No. 66-02770, Official Records of Jackson
County, Oregon; thence South, along the West line of said Smith tract,
437.03 feet, more or less to the Northwesterly right- of-way line of
Crowson Road; thence. Southwesterly, along the Northwesterly right-of-way
line of Cro-rson Road to its intersection with the Northeasterly right
of-way line of interstate Highway No. 5; thence Northwesterly, along
the Northeasterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway No. 5 to
its intersection with the West line of Donation Lard Claim No. 52, .said
Township and Range ; thence North, along the 1Fest . li'ne of said Donation
Land Claim No. 52 to its intersection with the South right-of-way line
of Oregon State Highway Yo. . 66 ; thence Easterly, along the South right=
of-way line of' said Oregon State Highway No. 66 to its intersection
with the West line of Section 12, said Township and Range; thence South
along the West lines of said Sections 12 and 131 1920 feet, ' more or
less to the point of beginning, in Jackson County, Oregon.
COMMENCING at the west-northwest corner of Donation Land
Claim No. 53 in Township 39 South, Range 1 East of the Willamette
Meridian in Jackson county, Oregon, thence South 89 0,47 ' East, along the
north line of said claim, 117 . 52 feet to the southwesterly
right. of way line of Highway #66; thence North 38!;56 ' West, along
said line 282 . 90 feet to the true point of beginning; thence
South 163 - 80 feet; thence North 38 000 ' West 350 . 00 feet;
thence North 43°42 ' West 200 . 0 feet; thence North 64 012 ' West 60. 00
feet; thence South 87 013' West 221. 0. feet to the west line
of Section 13 , said township and range; thence North 0006'. east, along
said line, 371. 4 feet to the northwest corner theree.f; .
thence east along the north line of. said section 50 . 0 feet
to the southwesterly right of way line of said Highway -66;
thence South 49056 ' East 236. 52 feet; thence South 38 056 ' East
631. 37 feet to the true point of beginning'. EXCEPTI N G from the
above parcels that part lying within the boundaries of GREENSPP.INGS
SUBDIVISIO14 and GREENSP-r,INGS SUBDIVISION EXTENSION NO. 1, according
to the official plats thereof now of record in Jackson county,
Oregon. (Oak Knoll-I . ) (Exhibit "A")
State ct Oregon, County cf Jackson--SS.
The thin instrument received and filed a "� o'clogk
=m, the day of 1. 7
Recorded m Records for Jackson County
Oregon. County Clerk.
�3 By Cenuty
Exhibit- "C"
- q:
EXHIBIT .,B..
rte•j�''".. �.
-ya _
�� a A'r-N k•,: .:.NKS`d -G:IA'itk'"C - ..
�� s' iHlg ACia1L£ :iaT � "dO an'1 r.nte 1 r ttis let dap of F6ay.
Z
&fie by and Detween the CITY OF ASHLAFW# a municipal oory+aratioca
� s ay
ffi fled state or Oregon, herolnafter known &a the First pattp@ 404
:titp'{ l 4-pACIF1C. pgLTiLopwii• COSPOitAT.IONq an Ort9+4 aarporat€oKrs:
^ s ter imawn as the. fissoad Fartys
r
WITI>C8UTH
'L pe 'ths second Party and its aseigne are eeatamaplatine
°'3196 fsta6lisbeent' of a retirement development adjacent to bade Oaft.
�,. '... .
-:'all Gott Gonaso which is o;;aide of :the: city of Yahla#j mad It
k` it�plated that approximately 250 homes are to be cGftStr%RWd
property, principally for the purpose of 'eels to retired
.)1"sOMS and'
k- UNWAS� .it is necessary that the developers have as Omd
-' ter for said homes, and
4PERX".. it is the opinion of the members of the COMMOM Coa$¢il,
=^st:'tbm City of Ashland that such a development would be of great
Sago tt to the First Party and the cl'tisehe of Qshland'l
T&12XFMI in consideration of the covenants need eo"Itiens
at:assrelaafter stated, this partite do bersby agree ail follV" Vic a
The -First Party does hereby covenant and a=rse to eaaastrtcto
2 as:saes me rMNmsbls possible after the exercising by Btsomd Forty
s .the options to perehase the land for the above mentions d 'develop-
m�t1 water mains of a site sufficient to take care of the proposed .
Fit '- •isasldpmsnt rrom' `the present and of the city water lines to the
�':, pawpsrtp' lines of the proposed development and a sower line from tho
. ,eamp disposal plant of the First Party to the property line of tho
proposed development legated on Highway 66 at the approximate loca: t
yy}. P - {y
Y �4'S 11S b is'
scat of the foregoing iaatallatfoaa
bereto QSe
t ac lo1love Q
P A4
iaB gls$ 'rfiret Party shall pay Cer the east �_} , �, •
, 'sg t9 sewer mein from the ptesa4t emits 40
Tolman Cron Road sm4, b j
Sr .fig 'jaeksoa Camtye Oregan, for the rsLaam
la
- Seftt of the health .avAl welfare Of the oltts�=lad
yn
''iAM%`%Mft be "squats aevege facilities for tbe�
t} Crr't. its s
s
tutu" larolepaelet of the Bellriev'eroe•
.Ab) ..TM teat of further extension of said
Y =. ..takal 'ooat !it the sltenatlm CC the Wtto! OUS144 � , F
`< �bsrmm-bV the Savand Party sold its aisig"
qry
It in contemplated that Chi aeat'JtQ
5 5
VC %bW lastallatiaa Of 6414 water main shall a <tb*l
y`Y
ML
` 'Wamand and n*AOO ($80000.00) nollerPa di, � �
yT '_'..r:. ga �vpQStiilmata- obs" of th oe
e and UW100 ( .000 04) li�{s�
;?
t
tsD Zc is agreed mmA understand that .
-
' I >•r
� 4 etfPa tkm Suet Patty the total`sU�. � T
�t 4
($%jWO.00) Dollars e the estinetat
•'.tm. be In th♦ '"ON A
lout to loss tbm the anoint loposit4dt Upon mmot'
, osaetrmettas say anoint ever and above t'ho ietaal,�
^- to immaoatoly a Uvft-" to the "too tarty. �a1�•aM�
tM seat of ecnottaotiam Is greater than o t
Sae a"* am atoove that Bopoalted with tlN Sfrat shail
tYi•+'DY>,ar'+liarz �s ;4 w+_-zr� S'i9°N c ,
Y•t1 i, 'rh 4.42 "-'lt "'�Ti
MOM
Y 2r k.-1 cnx +f.-hf`3y �q h
yt ?6iy
-J�73yw,. ymr �Ci 5.� .s3 ^5� *.ssY._4 a~�X 7e• t =�+ue �cakq,'.i'r,"',$`'�" P S'�J1 fk .:,b'�.
S� a. .ti-M = 'F .. ,i.... 3'�t.'F s-L? '•v.lr .rt ,a�.a;� :1� ?
-ti
y t
s � �sas8.� eae-.r eaten eo s.se_�.s lt, 19;23. H�`5 � .'�"�•f„ @ ?4 •��zc#: :.
' ..:yk f'k'1`•1'S�''S / ir�`Ft���u { �. d
;tst• Qit1t .to R
46br4 ' .fh4 &eeand fltrl'fo
Yea Cost of the foregoing inatcllatioas atsall
h ea falloss9
L. .
„ .> (s) Yha First Pareq shad ;4y, for tea cost ffi
Ulm of the eoveer Baia from thin prasant emu or rrat $':ba �
Yn.i y!
g � Y
eat ( Tolman, Crook Reed m Cs fit,
as a f _
r� ; • Coaaatgs Oregong for the raAaos;t�t N.1 x
. � e§
of th s health and VVlthe Bit
IAMB cc;'.
ara of L
—�"z ' =�t't be 93setmte sevo2,56 faeilitisa ff'W'" 7 IS _ a
,.. "Velepbeftt of the Belle€eV green. Y
>!b) its coat of further extension
.tatal Oust r4f the eStensles of the eater,ffiia B �.Efx
A
t the Geefmt Party wd its a €gW i r
t�w � 1
�' fJ(•F •by ss ' �.��' � £�t'S.,/2�h t
t< _ i(e) Yt Is ecatempinted tlsst fi'� seat to t� r't:y `
"4m 91 BM.W V.0 said water min shall.bo tY MY
" tatsm6gaw aw no/100 (660000-00). Dallwa-'t-Rd
ms's proportionate Share of th
p�
MAL i'� and i0000
Kt Is and =Weratomd t1rat WOV te `"O, .. !
tea Cy't ,4 � ::k� s
(�
t �lt� ti's 2'$r6(6 Party tU t0W 'Ot�..a�.��s+� ' ,
'yi + (&%,000.00) Dollar@, the 00tiMt4d
t
be bq F+st tql %r3 `s9 .ems u
- '**at 8s leas tbm the amount depositede upm
�; t:t
Ce"trantleo my amt over a" above t§a actin- t
-be fetsly doLjvwr4 to the l"OW Purtya I.4ib -win
5 o"t a° e=%t—mtiem is poster thin 9Qti=tgdO,-=7`Qmr1=t
d= ever eM above that deposited with the First P=2V abal
be doIIrerea within ten (10) days arts^ rrittan dewand la
4
delivered frost tbi i't-rst Perry to th, boeond Party. x
II1 .
It is agreed and understoo4 that all water and sewer aeins
contracted by .rsason of the provisions. of the. foregoing paragraphs
shall be' oianad 'by the First Party, and the Second Party sh*.11 have
no irlghts` title or interest therein.
IV.
It is agreed and understood that the First Party thall have
the right to approve all specifications of the water aml Awwar line
within the development which are to be constructed by the Second
Party.'
V
At ter the .construction of said water end sewer trunk lines by
the First Party and the construction and installation of the sewer .
eo9 Mater lines within the development by the Second Party or its
assleAst it is agreed and understood that the First Party shall
F "
operat*.WA seaihtain. the entire water and sewer system irub'eet to
the .teras and conditions of this sereement, the Ashland City Charter,
and fstrther subject to the pravlslons of 22j.020 at seq. Oregon .
Revised Statutes and 224.010 et seq . Oregon Revised Statutes. The
City of. Ashland shall operate and maintain said water and sewer
grateus the sass as if such Property were within the City of AthlarA,
swept that the First Party shall have the right to sake a
reasonable
ftMthly Charge. to users over and above the charge made to users with-
$4 the City of Ashland.
VI.
It it agreed that the mnnthly sever service char-!e shall be
Two and 50/100 (92.57)) Dollars per m-,ntth t'nr userF anf such. charge
shalt contlnu9 tr, ;
Tit.
The First Party. shall have the same rights to enforea "W `
Fays4mt of ehargcs ty users of the sewer and water facllttiea as
the Rust Party has or shall have against the tsars within the City
of Ashland, knd any city ordinance appertaining thereto sb&ll be
sipplisable. to naers ortside of the city liaits ao we11 60 Within
ifs►.city:
VIII.
The First. Party agrees to provide adequate water serriee. fOr
the vaera in the. propos-d der-lopoent subject. to liaitatiasie of :
"wa:ter,scpply and subject to the c"di'tion that said water m"re a"
rogaired to use .,cater for domesti'o purposes_ only ezoept cairn eaffl�
stmt supply is available to per mit lawn and housebold garde@
Irrigation, acd the. First Party is to be the sole judge of such
available supply, and further subject to the provisions of 224.010.
et eeq. .Oregon Aovilad Statutes.
Ix.
It Is further agreed and understood that the First Party at
s • *my time shall have the right to demand that the Second Party otr. a
Its assigns organise water or sever dlstriots or private oorpora
tioas for the purpose of operating and staintaining said water aaa. ?
rte` ? eeteer systems. . In soap sweet the First Party shall have the option
to bo m�der no further obligation to operate or aainWln sold water
W
.6r ,scab systems, and further shall have the option to famish 't
-VRtsr at a 'reasmable charge in btak at the property lino of secoad ;
Part y'a property.
It is agreed that the First. Party will oierci so .reasonable
a
efforts to ohtatn a -i w- I .; !' :r a•:, r an., sewer lines . ?Re First
Party sub i : <Iq."its , but ::
F`
3
4.. :.'•i:e�i t i `:•t ry )..nj Party, Cotes- I
r 4!sY
�o.:•t1. n OR elect to dRelaro
a agreement nult anJ Vold. As a 'urthwr considsretlae Of tldts
nt4 the Second Party vil.l . pay the coet of obtaining saty
to obtained by the City of Ashland, for sorer or rato Oftina.i'
" lgrsveri that the Second -Party shall have tsa
w
X1.
.is agreed and understood that in the event the plopert;
•t!r• proposed development is annexed by the City of Lt : s
sssnt will be trunk
sever veins or tr+mit;t
made for tru tog� s;
aatgs uathoriced by Ordinance No. 120: and. Ordinansa 'is:
`3lie-'City of Ashland because of the contributions to be ease my
r ' Party as heretofore stated. `
s `
=4 a Wtsnt of .aanezAtion of the property in the $roFoamd
Ysp�ats no assessment. shalt be made to any property :obmmr f at;
a"r.wafs in the .event such mains' have been Sastallm0 '
plopsrty; provided, hotnver, .thmt`ths First YbTLy L i33
to ebarge the regular connect charge for aqy sswasee
..,b7praporty owners alter aFUhexatian. .If
. ..Party eoastraets serer or water mains, the a4loiai9kg.,r:i«
bYaers shall pay such charges and Rssessswents as 'are.'tbmn
lor,by ordimanaem of .the City or Ashland.
T ,,tm sags asst or action is .brought to enforce any r:igHte or
M1 ` 'Liosu of this agreement, it is mutually agreed that -the prevail-
penny to aach suit or action shall be entitled to a reasonahlo
aL`.OrMt's fees, as detarained by the Court ss against the. losing
party tbarsin.
,.,��K"�rfa. ASP �:e.:t' t k k r . r.' .. .-{- �ru Fartgy "eaarieu-•
a j r
u ?' 8lekra vrtloe®di't. t �r r�' • . .11?•kt.4" nr say elect to dea2ero 5
;l h mgreeawnt .rtu1L sand v.,iG.
As a Curther considaratioa' @: tb$W }
era
Mato the SeCOMI Party wi" .pay, the, tort or obtciatag e$8 y
xi s ; oaaffio to obtainted bq the City if Ashland for ease. er WSL�
I-vviver that the Second Party shall have the right W
e ..
Blk CmLta
W Y �
4s mid and understood that in the. event IN-02 s
J
7--tbe yr_aposat developarant is annexed by the G.tg of
- } {
rsrill be made for. trurus never mains or trunk GtWM
t° A3aiaa "thorized by Drainance 'Ho. 12D'_' and, Ordirance 9b i
City vX Achlm:ui Decease .of the contributions to
{t.
Z lwPm SE ►lP Ye tOt'OF0 stated. -:
.CrvWMt of -annexation of the property in tla, a a
- alOat'' ns;'aesoagraant, shell be evade to any property Fc�
y°So9
AW-iwmr amino In the event such mains have boos instsll� . '
{
., 'favpvrtyb provided, howiver,' that the plrat IROSt�: X 23
tt9 9 r $t
to ohmrr�- the regular connect charge for any
di8 •.VPQpsrtg avttora after artnaxat4on. If af`tar an r-At1oa'
NR ,FiM'Forty ecastrtmte wever or water nainst the adyoiniexg : ;
shall pay such charges and nesesseente as.arro 4wa
:ror b7 ardinazaea of the City of Asbund.
MI.
es emit or action is brought to enforce any rights or ;
9f:4e�a_of this mgre¢aoant, It in mut*fe11y agreed that thin prevail
- 3 fXLiay In rrt exit or action s!!taall be entitlot to zlwalwnwlalo
g+6 feeer as detareained by the Court as against the lo£ing
psrtq' thai"ltt.
ftle av ►a t to$ trod shAll bay: birwL" spas and Itm Od
the.b.*"rit 'ot the partleo beret*, their evaeaaaore awd aASites.
Itt 'AnT A 1A =CV0 the partles hereto have hereente set 164@4
1WSA e411 smala le quadr"lleats on the tatty in this a
t8eet vsEttay.
Cr" W ABWAW
ftyw
VET? PAM
OKLOPOW
t�QT>mty8�l.MC EP'R
C�1"titAgFO�.
j a `
r
President
[ _ =COW MM
4 .
tl1E®-
Of Ire bnzal,, 1%3, Wive Mae ties
Rlua is am fe r said Cgmty aW 8tatee peroosaSy e
4fe >�tbtis eetAei R4aiar0 6. mill "Arw of the city s4 46bl60e aM
b"011119 City Rooms w aQ the city of ashia ad. vm eve kw"M
M eie to be the Uvatlsal isaividaale doeeelbsQ! Soy s� .oeeeateeg
Us %df&bft InItatsrste a» seAn6vlo C" to ue that tdoy sseeftl" tka
L� t tDE098 tt�f�e E deco hmT*Mt0 eat e3' Ma4'OVA: am% the
lmy e" VWAW Lott elesa vritt�.
CITY OF
Perupt Fee.,
Trench Year CoSf:
ASHLAND
Paved.
Application For: Bas e e.Fe $194;. .
: ..Total
Public Works Excavation Permit Eden Pennit-#
This permit covers the cutting and excavation of streets or alleys within the City of Ashland.The applicant must provide a
description of the purpose for the excavation and also a site map showing the location of the excavation.Permission to cut the
surface of streets must be in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code 13.12,the General Provisions Regulating the Cutting or
Excavation of Streets or Alleys and the City of Ashland Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.Applicant shall
call to request inspection of trench 24 hours prior to excavating the trench. Paving contractor shall call 12 hours prior to
patching to request the feral inspection. For inspections call 541-488-5342
Owner Information Contractor Information
Owner's Name Contractor's Name
Mailing Address Mailing Address
Phone Number Office Y Cell Phone Number
CCB;Number
Paving Contractor CCB#
Applicant Name Applicant Signature Date
Site Information
Site Address Block(between X&Y Streets)
Estimated Start Date Estimated Project Duration
Proiect Information
Excavation to be within:
❑Paved Street ❑Non-paved Street 1-1 Sidewalk
❑Alley ❑Non-paved Alley ❑0ther
Purpose:
❑ Sewer Line ❑Water Line ❑Storm Dram ❑Electrical ❑Gas 13 Phone ❑Cable ❑Other
Trench#I Size: L—,xW—I xD—I
Trench#2 Size: L xW—1xD—I
Trench 43 Sim: L 1xW I x D I
Use Only
-'APO d Id lan'rlit&§ ii&"dltij- ei
rove
C ,
ti 2
,
11, W, Eli Ci
.Backfill &
dditionaliC
conditions of Approval
J
ICOU
us Joe M
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS
www.asbland.onus Wpub-wrkskergWIA Blank FoanslCunnt Pent FormsQuly 2017%Excavaton Permit O712.doc VA
20EastMainSt Far 54148MOD6
Ashland.Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
July 17, 2012 Business Meeting
First Reading of an Ordinance Enabling Referral to Voters of an Advisory
Question on a Constitutional Amendment on Regulation of Campaign
Contributions and Expenditures and on Making Constitutional Rights Applicable
only to Natural Persons
FROM:
David Lohman, City Attorney, david.lohman @ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At its business meeting on June 19, 2012, the City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance
enabling Council to refer to Ashland voters a question on urging Congress to approve a constitutional
amendment that would overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court decision by allowing legislative
regulation of campaign contributions and expenditures and making constitutional rights applicable
only to natural persons. The ordinance presented to the City Council for first reading would enable
Council to refer such an advisory question to the voters in the November 2012 general election only.
A proposed advisory question for the Council to consider referring is presented in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. The resolution making the referral and the proposed advisory measure is proposed to be
presented for Council consideration at its August 6, 2012 business meeting following Council action, if
any, on the second reading of this enabling ordinance. In order to make Council enactment of the
referral resolution possible on August 6, an emergency clause is included in the proposed ordinance
allowing it to take effect immediately upon passage.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held
that legislatively-authorized entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and unions,
have the right to make unlimited indirect political contributions because the Court determined
legislatively-authorized entities have the same constitutional rights as natural persons and political
contributions constitute expression highly protected from governmental restrictions by the First
Amendment.
Several proposed Constitutional amendments designed to invalidate the Citizens United decision have
been introduced in Congress. If each house of Congress approves one of these proposed amendments
by a two-thirds vote and 38 states then ratify it by legislative approvals or state conventions, it could
become the 28'h Amendment to the Constitution.
At its March 6, 2012 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution supporting one of the six proposed
constitutional amendments, Senate Joint Resolution 29. Co-sponsored by Oregon Senator Jeff
Merkley, this amendment would affirm the power of Congress to regulate campaign contributions.
Page I of 2
11FAW,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Proponents of a different potential constitutional amendment have urged the Council to refer their
preferred version to the voters in the November 6 general election for an advisory vote.
While the Council currently can refer to voters measures, questions, or propositions on matters within
the scope of the Council's legislative authority, referring a question on a matter beyond the scope of the
Council's legislative authority requires passage of an enabling ordinance or charter amendment.
This proposed ordinance is limited to referral of such an advisory question only in the November 2012
general election and sunsets the day after the November 20, 2012 Council business meeting. The
ordinance could be structured instead to apply to any future advisory measures on matters outside the
scope of the Council's legislative authority. The agendas for Council business meetings would then
presumably include more such advisory measures.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move that Council approve first reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance enabling City Council
to refer to the voters of Ashland in the November 6, 2012 general election a ballot question on
instructing the U.S. Congress to approve a constitutional amendment granting to Congress and the
States authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures and to determine the nature and
extent of the privileges of entities other than natural persons" and move the ordinance for second
reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed ordinance
Exhibit A: potential ballot measure
Page 2 of 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ENABLING CITY COUNCIL TO REFER TO THE
VOTERS OF ASHLAND IN THE NOVEMBER 6, 2012 GENERAL
ELECTION A BALLOT QUESTION ON INSTRUCTING THE U.S.
CONGRESS TO APPROVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
GRANTING TO CONGRESS AND THE STATES AUTHORITY TO
REGULATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES AND
TO DETERMINE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE PRIVILEGES
OF ENTITIES OTHER THAN NATURAL PERSONS
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, City Council currently can refer to Ashland voters measures, questions, or
propositions on matters within the scope of the Council's legislative authority but not on matters
beyond the scope of the Council's legislative authority;
WHEREAS, a City ordinance could give City Council the power to refer to voters an advisory
measure on a matter beyond the scope of the Council's legislative authority; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to afford the voters of Ashland the opportunity to decide
whether to urge the U.S. Congress to seek to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) through a constitutional
amendment making constitutional rights available only to natural persons granting to Congress
and the States authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. City Council may, by resolution, refer to the voters in the November 6, 2012
election an advisory measure urging the U.S. Congress to approve a constitutional amendment to
make rights established by the U.S. Constitution applicable only to natural persons and to grant
Congress and the States authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
SECTION 2. This ordinance is repealed on November 21, 2012.
SECTION 3. The immediate effectiveness of this ordinance is necessary to enable inclusion on
the November 6, 2012 election ballot of an advisory question on efforts to re-establish public
confidence in the integrity of local, state and federal elections and therefore to preserve public
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 2
health, peace, and safety. An emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Ordinance shall be
in full force and effect after its passage and approval by the Mayor.
SECTION 4. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable.
The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2012,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12012.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2012.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT "A"
POSSIBLE ADVISORY QUESTION FOR BALLOT
CAPTION: Question on constitutional definition of"persons" and campaign spending limits
ADVISORY QUESTION: Shall Ashland voters instruct Congress to amend U.S. Constitution
to grant only natural persons constitutional rights and limit campaign spending?