HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0317 Council Mtg PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
UO##~iJt Any cmzen' Y ora3ly address the Gmmcil,on=iron agenda Hems urmg the, abbc Drum: An c tezentmay subniitiwrittea u.
`tb'"tfie'Cnuneil ' any iterfi oa theAgenda ua essrt'is,the ub'ect of apubbc hearing .t e:Teeorditl Excepf"nrpub3hea`Yi'ngs there no
}^,#Imver ipUbGc
bsohge ri ,fp orahya` C5B!the° unctl an' gender em. 1"ime pe rtlitit the P.resi ing~5 a Wols JAM
meerin aw ees ar,~iycrattendanee nbt,pubhc aztioap~tlon If uurysb td ~I~en5e fill qu eSpeBktrRegt~Wm%I near
~sr1- m+.^.x^
-uaB*a-tea Ski
"~auvanee#o~o cii G , brc~ ~r~}v~ll T,gt~zme yr~ iou . n am,~t'~u_~fimlo~Me~~yo~u~ 1~f gory Tfie Ume gCanTedr.~
vn Ube d dent to-s a extentan the nat~`"6f~et~ t ~dd a~emunber ftpele~s~ to be hea~~ and~'ih"e]ength.of~he agenda:
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 17, 2009
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session for Real Property Transactions pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(e)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Study Session of March 2, 2009
2. Regular Council of March 3, 2009
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
None
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patricia Groth
dba Morningglory Restaurant at 1149 Siskiyou Blvd.?
3. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Sole Source
Procurement for the acquisition of Itron Electric Meters to be purchased from General
Pacific at a firm price of $61.35 each for a term of three (3) years?
4. Does the proposed budget meet the needs of the Mayor and Council for FY10?
5. Will Council approve a resolution in support of a grant application for the 2009-2011
Transportation and Growth Management Grants of $225,000, and authorize match
funds not to exceed $125,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement?
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT I'IIE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SI'I E A"I' WW'W.ASIILAND.OR:US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council (AMC §2.04.050))
1. Will Council approve the FYI 0 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the
overall FY10-15 CIP Program in concept, and the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan? [30
Minutes]
2. Will Council approve the proposed increases to the Water and Wastewater utility
rates effective April 20, 2009, to replace revenue shortfalls, fund operations and
capital expenditures? [45 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in
community policing activities and agree to maintain staffing levels? [10 Minutes]
2. Will Council Consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the
"Imperatrice Property"? [15 Minutes]
3. Is the Council interested in creating a Transferable Development Credits (TDC)
Program? [15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Will the Council perform Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the 'Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement' for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving Program, Providing for a Process for Participants to Implement the
Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan"? [5 Minutes]
2. Should the Council coduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19"?
[5 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERSIREPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
None.
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).
C OI NC`IL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
V[SIT THE CITY 01, ASHLAND'S WEB SITE A7' WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form"
prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00
p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds
vote of council {AMC §2.04.050))
1. Will Council approve the FY10 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the
overall FY10-15 CIP Program in concept, and the FY10 Capital Equipment Plan? [30
Minutes]
2. Will Council approve the proposed increases to the Water and Wastewater utility
rates effective April 20, 2009, to replace revenue shortfalls, fund operations and
capital expenditures? [45 Minutes]
IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time
allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all
people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of
Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in
community policing activities and agree to maintain staffing levels? [10 Minutes]
2. Will Council Consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the
"Imperatrice Property"? [15 Minutes]
3. Is the Council interested in creating a Transferable Development Credits (TDC)
Program? [15 Minutes]
XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Will the Council perform Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Authorizing Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the 'Greater Bear Creek
Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement' for the Bear Creek Valley Regional
Problem Solving Program, Providing for a Process for Participants to Implement the
Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan"? [5 Minutes]
2. Should the Council coduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An
Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19"?
[5 Minutes]
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
None.
XIV. ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification
72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CI'T'Y OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
~ ,d>g Ihe=Public Fonim. My citizen .,~y submitwritten cdmmentsc
(mpprt8nt: My cmzeny-orally address the Counctl on;non agenda I
tb the Council on=any item on the Agenda, unless?u +s the subject of a pullic heanng a~=the.record is closed Ezceptlfor public ti`earings, there is no
absolute right.m omllyaddress the Councdon anaagegda item. Time permitting the Presiding Officer ma allow oral testimony; however, public
meetings lew guarantees onlyftputilic a[tendancf, not publie=partiWation. ; l you wish to speak, please fill.. ut ilte;Speaker Request+farm I ated near
the entrance to the Co cilChambers T-he c rM recognizeryou =djnform you as>t the•amount ofitime•allotted t0'tyou, if any: Ttie dme granted -
zawtll be dependenjo some extent ontthe naNre of the rem under drscussmn, the,number of people whowish to~be heardand the<lengthot the agenda:
AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 17, 2009
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
6:00 p.m. Executive Session for Real Property Transactions pursuant to ORS
192.660(2)(e)
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
Il. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
[5 minutes]
1. Study Session of March 2, 2009
2. Regular Council of March 3, 2009
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
None
VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patricia Groth
dba Morningglory Restaurant at 1149 Siskiyou Blvd.?
3. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Sole Source
Procurement for the acquisition of Itron Electric Meters to be purchased from General
Pacific at a firm price of $61.35 each for a term of three (3) years?
4. Does the proposed budget meet the needs of the Mayor and Council for FY10?
5. Will Council approve a resolution in support of a grant application for the 2009-2011
Transportation and Growth Management Grants of $225,000, and authorize match
funds not to exceed $125,000, and authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement?
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9
VISIT THE CITY OP ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W WW.ASHLAND.OR.US
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 1, 2009
Page I of 2
` MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Monday, March 2, 2009
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Councilors Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman and Navickas were present. Councilor Voisin was absent.
1. Look Ahead Review
City Administrator Martha Bennett reviewed the items on the Council Look Ahead.
2. Does the Council have questions for staff about Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection
Zones and the related Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO) and Comprehensive Plan
amendments?
Community Development Director Bill Molnar shared the background on the ordinance. Planning Manager
Maria Hams provided a presentation that included:
• What is the Water Resource Ordinance?
• Update Package
• Chapter 18.63 Water Resource Protection Zones - Where the Regulations Apply
1. Stream
2. Wetlands
3. Associated buffer areas
• Water Resources Map: Encapsulates the inventory required for significant water resources under
Statewide Planning Goal 5 with significant water resources defined by local jurisdiction or the Safe
Harbor Approach in Statewide Planning Goal 5.
• Identifying the Regulated Area
• Stream Bank Protection Zones
1. Riparian Corridors - Protection zone 50 feet from top of bank
2. Local Streams - Protection zone 40 feet from top of bank
3. Intermittent & Ephemeral Streams -Protection zone 30 feet from center line of stream
Mr. Molnar explained the minimum buffer zone requirement for fish bearing streams is 50-feet and
follows the Safe Harbor Approach. Buffer areas for the other two categories are based on riparian buffer
widths established in other communities ranging from 35-200 feet and City goals. The current ordinance
under the Floodplain Corridor Lands identifies buffer areas at 10 and 20 feet for smaller streams. The City
used centerline measurement to be consistent and expanded regulations in place for the last two decades.
• Wetland Protection Zones
1. Locally Significant Wetland - Protection zone 50 feet from upland edge of wetland
2. Possible Wetland -Protection zone 20 feet from upland edge of wetland
• Approval Process
• Exempt Activities and Uses - No Permit Required
1. Landscaping
2. 50-50 Zone: Restoration Standards in the draft ordinance require compliance regarding
exempt activities and covers details on planting. The 50-50 provision applies to local and
intermittent streams as well.
3. Existing Structures & Infrastructure
• Limited Uses and Activities - Land Use Application Required
1. Landscaping
Ms. Harris explained that multi-year maintenance plans with the removal of noxious and invasive vegetation
possibly using herbicides was added in response to issues the Parks Department had regarding ongoing
maintenance of public and private open spaces.
CITY COUNCIL STUDYSESSION
March 2, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Mr. Molnar noted an omission in the current draft that will be changed making herbicide use consistent for
streams and wetlands.
2. Building, Paving & Grading
• Protection Zone Reductions and Hardship Variances: Constrained or Nonconforming
Situation - Property gets flexibility - in exchange for restoration of resource
Ms. Hams clarified a single-family residential zone, in a Water Resource Protection Zone or flood plain can
rebuild in the same footprint if the home is destroyed by flood. Mr. Molnar added Flood Plain Regulations
might require elevation or engineering provisions per the City's participation in the Flood Plain Management
Program.
• Project History
• Project Timeline
• Key Issues
• Regulating Herbicide Use
• Purpose of Update
• Why are streams and wetlands valuable natural resources?
• Why update wetland, stream and riparian corridor regulations?
A suggestion was made to increase the 30-inch maximum for trails to 36 inches to meet the handicap
accessible requirement.
Concern was raised how some non-native plants are beneficial and their removal using herbicides can result in
erosion or other problems. It was noted the ordinance is written in conjunction with the Restoration Project
and is subject to restoration provisions for cover and canopy.
Meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page I of 8
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 3, 2009
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, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOARD AND COMMISSION VACANCIES
Mayor Stromberg announced that applications are being accepted for the annual appointments to Commissions
& Committees and the deadline for submitting applications is March 13, 2009. It was also noted that the
Senior Board is looking for a volunteer.
SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS?
The minutes of the Executive Session of February 17, 2009 and Regular Council meeting of February 17, 2009
were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor Stromberg's Proclamations of March as National Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Awareness Month (NIDDA) and March 8 as International Women's Day were read aloud. Invites were
extended for March 9, sponsored by Southern Oregon University celebrating International Women's Day.
It was announced that Wednesday night from 6:00-7:00 p.m. was the monthly RVTV Town Hall meeting with
the following subjects: Proxy Education Project supporting "streams", review on the history of "Roots of
Sustainability" hosted by Jeff Golden. In addition, the Mayor was hosting a community conversation regarding
wildlife in the City of Ashland at the Ashland Library in the Gresham Room at 7:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees?
2. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Vin Mehta dba Taj Indian
Cuisine at 31 Water Street?
3. Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Marlene Webb dba Ashland
Bistro Cafe at 38 E Main Street?
4. Should the Council continue the public hearing on adoption of ordinances adding Chapter 18.36
Water Resources Protection Zones to and modifying Chapter 18.62 Physical and Environmental
Constraints of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), amending the Ashland Comprehensive
Plan to include a Water Resources Map and revising the Floodplains Map, and adopting the Local
Wetlands Inventory (LYM as a technical study from March 3, 2009 to April 21, 2009?
5. Should Council approve a resolution authorizing the Administrative Services/Finance Director to
refinance the remaining portion of the bank loan used to fund T-hangar construction in 2004?
6. Will Council endorse a letter in support of two federally earmarked ODOT projects on Interstate 5
in Southern Oregon?
7. Will the Council consider selecting street overlay projects as a top priority for the anticipated
transportation-related federal economic stimulus package funds?
8. Does the Council wish to authorize the City Administrator to send a letter to Ashland Community
Hospital (ACH) that waives the City's right to terminate the Facilities lease and resume
responsibility for operation of the Hospital?
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 2 of 8
Councilor Chapman requested that Consent Agenda item #6 be removed for discussion.
Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda items 1-5 and 7-8. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Chapman voiced his concern regarding safety issues associated with these projects and was opposed
to spending up to $100 million on another interchange. He preferred that the Council take no action by not
sending a letter of support for these Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects.
City Engineer Jim Olson clarified this was a $75 million project that involved two phases. These include
signalization on both sides of the freeway and relocation of the Fern Road. He stated that there are significant
traffic challenges and without safety improvements, conditions would degrade within 10 years. The second
phase of the project has been underway since 2004 and meetings with all the major stakeholders have
consistently occurred since that time. He expected the City of Ashland would experience similar situations in
regards to Exits 14 and 19. He confirmed that residents of the City of Phoenix have been deeply involved and
that a majority of funds had been received. He explained that the letter of endorsement from all entities is
being sought by ODOT and anyone with interest is invited to comment. He clarified that the City of Ashland
has not been involved in the planning aspect of this project.
Councilor Chapman/Voisin m/s that Council take no action on the matter. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Lemhouse understood the concerns, but because this project is in the second phase and monies have been
committed, it was important to move forward. He felt that this project would provide needed employment and
supported the efforts of those that have been involved. Councilor Silbiger noted the controversy regarding Exit
24 is more on the "where" rather than the "if"and that those involved understood the need. He did not see any
harm in sending a letter of support.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Voisin, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson and
Navickas, NO. Motion failed 24.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve consent agenda item #6. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson and Navickas, YES; Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed
4-2.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
PUBLIC FORUM
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Does the Council wish to adopt criteria for prioritizing City services and programs during the FY
2010 Budget Process?
City Administrator Martha Bennett commented that these criteria would be used internally by staff when
developing the budget. Comments by Council on the criteria were sought by staff. She shared the process in
which the criteria were determined in that these are the things that the City needs to protect as opposed to
things that may be cut. The intent was to speak positively rather than negatively.
Council voiced support for the category of priorities and the approach that staff had taken. Ms. Bennett
clarified that the "local control" under the category "Lower Priority" had to do with decisions made involving
other jurisdictions and provided some examples. She explained that there would be opportunity to make
changes on the proposed criteria during the budget process with the Citizen's Budget Committee. It was noted
that the critical point was in giving staff direction and consensus was voiced that this was a good starting point
on prioritization.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to adopt the criteria as proposed. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett clarified
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 3 of 8
that the Parks Department was involved in the prioritizing and believes that the Parks and Recreation
Commission will adopt similar priorities. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Chapman, Navickas,
Lemhouse, Voisin and Jackson, YES. Motion passed.
2. Should the Council approve an ordinance authorizing execution of the Regional Problem Solving
Participants' Agreement, which establishes a process for the participants to implement the Bear
Creek Valley Regional Plan?
Mayor Stromberg asked if the Council wanted to consider adding an email submitted by Richard Whitman to
the record. City Administrator Martha Bennett added that the email addressed questions asked by the Council
regarding a letter submitted into the record February 2, 2009.
Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to enter item into the record. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
City Attorney Richard Appicello explained the agreement contained a minor amendment process for 50 acres
or less to amend urban reserves. City Administrator Martha Bennett added anything larger than 50 acres would
follow the major amendment process in the agreement and would require approval by a super majority of the
stakeholders. It was further explained that in a case of a major amendment to the County's Comprehensive
Plan, the County would put together a technical and advisory committee to act as a super majority vote on how
to handle the amendment.
Staff explained the City would not be liable, incur damages claims or tort liability from the Participants
Agreement, it was an intergovernmental agreement. The City would be expected to participate and defend any
appeals to the process.
Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve Regional Problem Solving Participant's Agreement.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Silbiger did not see any restraints in the agreement greater than what the City had
itself. Having a plan to accommodate growth is better than not having one.
Councilor Navickas thought the plan was one-dimensional and should look at the many facets of growth not
just expanding the urban growth boundary. He noted the intent of Senate Bill 100 was to force high-density
urban cores versus urban sprawl. He felt the Participant's Agreement undermined Senate Bill 100 by going
outside of urban growth boundaries and establishing the new allocation of urban reserve and could not support
this type of planning. Collaborative long range planning should bring in economic development and create a
compact urban form. The heart of this issue was the concept of sustainability and the City should look at the
difference between "finite resources" and "renewable resources." Moving forward with this plan would incur
sprawl at significant service costs to the City. He encouraged Council to retain their strong position around
sustainability and enforce high-density urban development over sprawl.
Councilor Jackson did not agree the plan was one-dimensional and shared the groups and processes involved in
the agreement. She agreed with Ashland not moving the urban growth boundary noting there were 150 acres
within the UGB not yet urbanized. The region as a whole will grow and the project placed more constraints on
communities' ability to move urban growth boundaries. The Participant's Agreement addresses urban reserve
management agreements, conceptual transportation plans, mandating and adopting agricultural buffers, etc.
She acknowledged that no government would over extend themselves to creaWsuburbs in this economic
environment. She sited three goals identified years prior, these were collaborative land use problem solving in
the Valley, preservation of agricultural land and sustainable planning. Signing the Participants Agreement and
allowing it to move forward into a full public participation project at the County level was the correct action to
take.
Councilor Lemhouse thought that Ashland could not participate in solving some of the regions problems
without participating in the agreement. It would allow the City to be part of the problem solving and this was
an opportunity to do that. The agreement deserved a public airing and he supported it.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 4 of 8
Councilor Voisin learned after conducting research on comments provided by community members that the
RPS statute was the worst way to create urban resource and was being used as a basis for planning for the next
50 years. The agreement seemed messy and the legal language was difficult to understand. She had concerns
the 50 acres that would be added for land reserves was not subject to the LCDC review. She preferred to wait
until the hearings were over before considering signing the Participants Agreement. The current economic
climate with regard to long range and regional planning should be incorporated in the Council's decision-
making processes. She was not willing to take the risk of losing valuable farm and forestlands to urban
expansion. Alternately, she believed in participating with other cities in the region but could not support the
seriously flawed statute in the agreement or the plan that would come from it.
Councilor Chapman shared the views of Councilor Navickas and Voisin. He did not support the agreement or
plan and agreed it was seriously flawed. He liked the effort of communities working together but did not think
this was right route. He wanted the situation with the City of Jacksonville resolved before considering voting
in favor of the agreement.
Councilor Jackson noted that policy makers and staff contributed to the agreement and despite its lack of
clarity, the majority of the Cities in the valley see value in continuing to work on a collective way of assessing
long term planning needs in the valley. The agreement establishes a framework for the future of land use
planning in the region. She clarified how mandatory agricultural buffering standards will create setbacks
inside the urban reserves and protect farmland. The plan will establish a Resource Lands Review Committee
that will determine if land requested by a City for urban reserve is valuable agriculture land. Moving an UGB
would require a Comprehensive Plan process through the County with the LCDC, ratifying it was properly
done.
Mayor Stromberg commented that he would vote in favor of the agreement although he had concerns regarding
the possible land use implications. He could not see any practical value in voting no. It was important for the
community to build bridges within the region and find ways of working together.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Voisin, Chapman and
Navickas, NO; Mayor Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
Mr. Appicello read the title in full.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second
reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson, Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Navickas, Chapman
and Voisin, NO; Mayor Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 4-3.
Michael Cavallaro explained that each jurisdiction had a voting member and an alternate on the RPS
committee. Mayor Stromberg appointed Councilor Voisin as alternate to the Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving committee.
Councilor Chapman/Lemhouse m/s to approve Mayor's appointment of Councilor Voisin as alternate
liaison to the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving committee. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Will the Council approve the recommendation of the Public Art Commission to implement the
Peace Banner Public Art Project?
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer introduced Public Art Commission chair Melissa Markell. Ms. Markell
introduced the individuals who had spearheaded the project.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 5 of 8
Jean Bakewell/299 East Hersey/Explained that this had begun almost three years ago and has developed into
a strong statement by the people who live here and hundreds of people have participated. There are over two
hundred panels that have been created by a number a various artists, ranging from children to adult and from
different parts of the country. The request is to install a permanent Peace Wall that displays all the different
panels that they have been able to transfer to ceramic tiles.
Susan Springer/19 Gresham Street/She provided the background on the process involved and the intent to
make this community project permanent. A graphic picture of the proposed panel was displayed. It would be
a 54-foot banner with approximately 200 tiles. It would be permanent, stable, vandal resistant and designed to
be repaired onsite. The expectation is that it would be a volunteer community project.
Darrell Boldt/1950 Tamarack Place/He presented the concept for the project as an artwork that was
beautiful, made a statement and was durable. He explained the construction of the panels, that they would be
permanently colored and how the panels would be secured. The wall would be 42-inches high which is at a
viewable height. The panels are extremely durable; maintenance should be minimal and would blend into the
natural landscape.
Ms. Springer further explained the fundraising process for the proposed project, which includes use of
volunteers. She stated that they had looked at a number of different locations. Because the concept of peace is
important, the Ashland Library gateway location could be viewed by many in many different ways.
Councilor Voisin/Lemhouse m/s to approve recommendation of the Public Arts Commission to
implement Peace Banner on the retaining wall of the Ashland Public Library. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Lemhouse, Navickas, Voisin, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed.
2. Will Council approve by motion the acceptance of the Ashland Fiber Network Business Plan update
as presented by staff?
Interim Telecommunication Director Mike Ainsworth presented a brief overview of the Ashland Fiber
Network (AFN) Business Plan. Despite the current economy, connections were up and staff was planning to
end the year on track through 2009. For 2010, AFN is looking at advanced wireless services, rolling out retail
business services, a phone-email solution, and retaining the customer base.
Industry experts expect bandwidth use to double by 2012. AFN is currently at 200mg a month and are
researching a cap at 250 gigabyte per month with a $15 add-on expense for every additional 10 gigabytes used.
The cap would affect 20% of the customer base. The ISP will provide metering information and customers can
check modem usage on the website now.
There was some discussion of AFN becoming an ISP. It was explained that there is an agreement where ISP
and AFN established a benchmark of 3% total ISP growth rate per year collectively. AFN connects
approximately 90 customers per month, 70 to internet and 20 to Ashland television.
Mr. Ainsworth explained Wi Max was a microwave based, wireless broadband intemet solution and is the
most efficient method for intemet users to access intemet that currently cannot get AFN service. Wi Max
requires two towers and could be built in 90 days. Staff is communicating with State Representatives regarding
Federal Telecom Stimulus Funds. The best way to receive funding was through the Rural Utility Service under
the US Agriculture Department. The City meets 4-5 major criteria and is in a good position to receive funding.
One tower for Wi Max would extend coverage to a five-mile radius. If the City did not receive the stimulus
money, staff placed $150,000 in the 2009-2010 budget with a three-year pay back period for the initial start-up.
Councilor Chapman suggested he and Councilor Voisin review the plan with staff, meet with the ISPs and
have Councilor Silbiger look at final numbers. City Administrator Martha Bennett noted that this would be a
committee of the Council and would have to meet the State Public Meetings Law requirement. The Council
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3. 2009
Page 6 of 8
discussed issues on forming a sub-committee, meeting Public Meeting Laws and the need for confidentiality in
regards to competition. The Council supported moving forward on Wi Max and approving the Business Plan
but requested more time for analysis.
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to adopt the AFN Business Plan as presented with the expectation
that staff will update and present to the Council for review and adoption on an annual basis.
Councilor Navickas/Chapman m/s to amend motion that Councilor Chapman and Voisin be allowed to
review the Business Plan and return to Council in four months with a report and recommendations and
possible amendments to the plan. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett will address the issues regarding competition
with the private sector without breaking Public Meetings Law. Councilor Chapman thought the business plan
was not aggressive enough for where the City wants to be. Councilor Lemhouse looked at the plan as a guide
to start with.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Voice Vote on amended original motion: Councilor Lemhouse, Navickas, Voisin, Jackson and
Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
3. Will the Council consider halting the adoption of the recent partial Transportation System Plan
(TSP) update in order to begin a comprehensive TSP update that incorporates the work that has
been completed to date?
Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the staff report explaining the.Council approved a partial TSP
update during the 2007/2008 budget that was primarily intended for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and
never considered a full update. The Transportation Planning Rule requires all TSP updates, full or partial, go
through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The TSP is a component of the Comprehensive Plan and
the CIP is included in the TSP as part of the Master Plan. An update requires 45-day notice to the Department
of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Planning Commission Hearings and a City Council Public
Hearing.
The partial TSP update consists of the CIP, Systems Development Charge (SDC) and the transit component
only, not the entire system. The Comprehensive Plan is a transportation vision for a 20-year period that will'
address access management issues, future roads, multi modal, infrastructure for traffic and buses, commuter
rail analysis, bicycle-pedestrian transit and green street standards. If the Council decided to halt the partial TSP
update, it would role into the Comprehensive Plan.
Currently, the City is applying for grant money through the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) to
fund the complete TSP update. The Transportation Commission will work on the update if the City is awarded
the grant. The partial TSP is paid for and the Comprehensive Plan is $350,000 with potential grant money
covering up to $220,000.
Councilor Jackson expressed concern that the Transportation Commissions work and the TSP update could
take longer and wanted to see work done on the CIP projects. She suggested focusing on the CIP projects and
leaving out the transit piece. Councilor Navickas agreed with Councilor Jackson but voiced concern that
separating transportation planning from the overall visioning process could have detrimental impacts to non-
transportation values. Procedurally the visioning process should be more incorporated into transportation
instead of isolating transportation. Mayor Stromberg commented this part of the Comprehensive TSP is a
transportation and land use plan and public transit will be a central part of the visioning process and was not
intended to be autonomous.
Mr. Faught explained initially staff thought the CIP update did not require a land use process when it actually
did and was more complex than originally thought. 'Be TSP needs to comply with the new Transportation
Planning Rule. The Comprehensive Plan Update has the TSP referencing the CIP so future updates to the CIP
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 7 of 8
will not involve the land use process.
Ms. Bennett summarized that the Council could request a list of projects on the CIP list, consider removing the
transit portion, examine the new streets and determine if they can be adopted, pull the CIP out of the
Comprehensive Plan so future updates would not require a land use process and update the SDC related issues.
Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to formulate a partial TSP adoption process along the
lines the City Administrator just summarized. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas thought deferring the
projects was not a move in the right direction. Mayor Stromberg wanted to see the list pared down and projects
started. Councilor Lemhouse commented it was time to move forward with the CIP. Councilor Chapman
noted the motion was contradictory to what staff recommended.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Voisin, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES; Councilor
Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS (None)
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
1. Does the Council want to establish a policy for wildlife management within the City limits?
Karen Salley/801 Pinecrest Terrace/Read from appendix B from the Oregon Cougar Management Plan,
Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) cougar incident response plan. This included when sightings
are reported by the public, intent to educate the public and safety precautions that the public can take. She
stated that her intent was not to criticize the Ashland Police department and that they did what they felt was
best. She does feel that the action violated the ethics of humanity that our community appreciates and that
other actions could have been taken. She requested that the Council consider a plan for wildlife management
that would include how to handle large wildlife.
Larry Laitner/801 Pinecrest Terrace/Questioned if the City had followed the State Cougar Management
Plan and if the City would follow it in the future. If not, what plan would the City follow? He felt that the
behavior of the cougar that was killed did not meet any of the four criteria. He questioned what the City would
do the next time.
Elise Thiel/321 Clay #19/Stated that she unofficially represented those affected by the killing of the cougar.
She felt that there was a lack of education to the public on large wildlife and would like to see a management
plan for the City.
City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that City of Ashland officers followed the State recommendation
and it was unfair to say the officers did not follow the State management plan. It was important to understand
that the officers were very concerned on acting with State policy and believe that they did act accordingly.
Mayor Stromberg stated that he was not critical on the action taken by staff. He felt that there is a difference
between a written policy and an implicit policy. That the criteria did not completely apply and that in the
future there should better understanding on action that should take place during a tense situation.
Ms. Bennett clarified that the State agencies gave specific direction to Ashland officers and any complaints
should be with the State agency. That it is not reasonable for law enforcement officers to argue with State
agencies and they should not be asked to make these kinds of decisions.
Council commented that this is a confusing policy in regards to procedure and that officers are required to
follow State guidelines. It was suggested that a letter be sent to ODFW regarding the incident, that an
educational seminar or just available education would be helpful. That unless the State was willing to change
the policy, this is not a high priority for the City.
ASHLAND CITY COUNCL MEETING
March 3, 2009
Page 8 of 8
r .
Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to encourage continued education to the public on how to interface
with wild animals. Voice Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Navickas, Jackson, Silbiger, Chapman, YES;
Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Pam Marsh Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Mike Morris Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Associate Planner
Melanie Mindlin Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Tom Dimitre April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Dave Dotterrer Eric Navickas
Michael Dawkins
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced Michael Church has resigned from his position on the Planning
Commission.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 13, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting
2. January 27, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session
Commissioners MorrislDimitre m/s to approve the January 13, 2009 and January 27, 2009 meeting minutes. Voice
Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS
Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2009.00043
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street
APPLICANT: Housing Authority of Jackson County
DESCRIPTION: A request for modification of the previously approved Planning Action #2004-00141 for the Willowbrook
Subdivision to allow a Land Partition creating three lots and Site Review to construct a 60-unit multi-family residential
affordable housing development for the property located at 380 Clay Street. A previously approved request for an
Exception to Street Standards to allow a portion of the sidewalk on Clay Street to be installed at curbside to
accommodate a cedar tree on the southwest comer of the site remains unchanged, and the application also includes a
request for a tree removal permit to remove 12 trees six-inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater where only
eight trees were previously approved for removal. (This property is owned jointly by the City of Ashland and the Housing
Authority of Jackson County. The 2004 Annexation and Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook
Subdivision was for 107 residential units. The required minimum density of the site can be met through future
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10. 2009
Page 1 of 7
development of the remainder of the property.)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP
39 1 E 11 C; TAX LOT 2500
Declaration of Ex Parte Contact
Mindlin stated she was contacted by phone by a gentleman named Huelz, who indicated his disappointment that the project
did not meet Zero Net Energy standards.
Moms stated Huelz left the same message on his answering machine.
Dimitre received the same phone call, however he did not listen to the message left by Huelz.
Marsh received the same phone call from Huelz. He indicated the same concerns outlined by Mindlin and shared his concerns
with the site's carbon footprint and urged the Commission to send the project back for modification. Marsh also performed a
site visit.
Miller received the same phone call from Huelz and she also performed a site visit. Miller declared that she had recently
contacted the Housing Authority to obtain updated subsidized housing figures, and clarified this application was not discussed
during that phone call.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the Staff Report and reviewed the size, location, and history of the property. He
explained this site was the subject of the Willowbrook Subdivision approval, which occurred in 2006, and he reviewed the
previously approved subdivision layout. Severson clarified the improvements associated with the Willowbrook approval, and
noted the requirement for 17 affordable units and for the property to be developed to 90% of its base density.
Severson explained the current application proposes a three-lot land partition. Lot 1 would be approximately 4.32 acres in size
and preserved in City ownership for development at a future date. Lot 2 (which is roughly 4 acres in size) would be owned by
the Housing Authority and developed into 60 residential units. And Lot 3, which is 1.32 acres, would be preserved in City
ownership to protect the wetlands. Additionally, a 20 ft. strip would be preserved to provide a potential future connection
between Clay Street and Tolman Creek Road.
Severson reviewed the Housing Authority's site plan and explained they are proposing to develop 60 units in 10 buildings. He
noted the Applicant's request to remove 12 trees, and clarified the removal of 8 trees was previously approved. Severson
reviewed the tree removal plan, planting plan, conceptual utility plan, and proposed street improvements. He clarified the
proposed turn lane would not be installed if the median is placed on Ashland Street. He also noted the Tree Commission's
recommendation to preserve a Black Oak tree on the property and their suggestion to transition the sidewalk in order to
preserve the Oak and the larger Cedar tree. Severson clarified the Tree Commission's recommendations have been
incorporated into the Findings that are before the Commission. He reviewed the proposed bioswale in the parkrow planting
strip and displayed samples of bioswales from a Portland development. Severson stated staff believes the application meets
all the criteria and they are recommending approval with the noted conditions.
Severson was asked to comment on the future development potential for the area where the house is located. Severson
stated there has been some discussion of the City's Parks Department purchasing this property for a future parks connection
to the YMCA fields. He noted at this point, this not certain and depends on whether the Parks Department can obtain the
necessary funding to purchase the property.
Council Liaison Navickas arrived at 7:35 p.m.
Miller expressed concern with the additional vehicle trips per day that would be created by the 60 new units and asked if staff
had considered the traffic impacts. Severson clarified the original subdivision approval included a traffic study and outlined
necessary street improvements to accommodate 135 units. He stated these same improvements will occur with the
development of this property, even though the number of units has been reduced.
Marsh requested additional clarification on the proposed trail system through the property. Severson stated the intention is for
the trail connection to the YMCA to go in during the development of Lot 1. Marsh asked about the possibility of an interim
connection. Staff noted this lot will be under the ownership of the City and staff could work with the YMCA on this possibility.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10, 2009
Page 2 of 7
Severson briefly commented on the street improvements and clarified the sidewalk would be required even if the right turn
lane goes away.
Applicant's Presentation
A revised planting plan was distributed to the Commission.
Mark Knox/485 W Nevada/Project's Representative/Mr. Knox introduced Landscape Architect Laurie Sager, Jason Elzy
and Betty McRoberts with the Housing Authority, Civil Engineer Mark Kamarath, Project Architect Dan Horton, and Wetlands
Specialist Lee Brennan.
Mr. Knox presented a site plan illustrating the street system, parking system, and context of the property in relation to the
surrounding neighborhood. He clarified the revised planting plan includes a community garden, which is a concept that came
out of the Tree Commission's review of this project. He also clarified they have no issues with adjusting the location of the
sidewalk, as requested by the Tree Commission, to protect the Oak tree.
Mr. Knox commented on the goals of this project, and stated this application meets all of the requirements that have been
imposed. He noted this project is 100% affordable housing and commented on the efforts of the Applicant to go above and
beyond the City's requirements in terms of wetland improvements, bioswales, and storm water quality. Mr. Knox noted the
common lawn area and playground on the site plan, and stated this is the where they would like to install the garden beds. He
commented that the buildings themselves are attractively designed, are oriented to the street, and respect the human scale.
He noted almost all of the units have porches, and all of the units have sidewalks that lead from the street to the buildings. Mr.
Knox commented on the improvements along Clay Street. He noted the possible future connections and felt the temporary
connection suggested by Commissioner Marsh was a great idea.
Lori Sager commented on the tree removals, and stated they believe they can reduce the number of removals to 11 and
preserve the Black Oak as suggested by the Tree Commission. She clarified 2 of the trees proposed for removal are dead,
and stated they have proposed the installation of 130 trees for this project, even though only 76 are required. Ms. Sager also
provided a brief overview of the proposed enhancements of wetland area.
Jason Elzy commented on the pedestrian connectivity throughout the project and the livability of the building design. He noted
the Housing Authority has been working on these types of projects for over 20 years and feels they have a good handle on
what works and what doesn't.
Public Testimony
Yehudit Platt/862 Michelle Ave/Commented on the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland and questioned
whether this project was appropriate at this time. Ms. Platt expressed her concern that the small pieces of natural area in
Ashland are being bought up, paved over, and developed. She stated the nature of Ashland is being transformed and feels it
is turning into a congested town. She felt that more public outreach should have been done and asked if there are other
options besides putting in 60 more units.
Marsh clarified this project satisfies the R2 zoning requirements for density, and this is not at issue tonight.
Greg Gargus/400 Clay Street/Commented on the petition to save the trees that was circulated during the previous
subdivision approval. He asked why these trees are not being taken into consideration now, and stated the proposed road
could be jogged around the trees without a lot of effort. Mr. Gargus stated he is not opposed to affordable housing but thinks
this project could use some modification.
Cate Hartzell/881 E Main St/Stated she is a Housing Authority board member and is very proud of this project. She
addressed the tree removal issue and noted the previous approval had proposed to remove 8 trees, and this proposal is to
remove 11. She stated if anyone has concerns with this they should query the age and condition of the tree, and noted the
additional landscaping that would be installed. Ms. Hartzell noted the previous traffic study that was completed and noted it
was based on a more rapid buildout of the property than is currently proposed. She voiced her support for the proposed
enhancement of the wetland. She also indicated the number of rental properties currently available in Ashland reflects what is
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10. 2009
Page 3 of 7
happening throughout the country and does not believe this will be sustained into the future. She stated this project goes a
long way towards sustainability efforts and encouraged the Commission to approve this project.
Albert Pepe/321 Clay Street/Stated he likes this proposal better than the previous project, but feels they have an opportunity
to create a more sustainable project. Aside from the housing development, he suggested using the remainder of the land for a
farm/garden project. Mr. Pepe suggested other concepts be included in the project, including orienting the buildings for a more
passive solar design and incorporating a water catchment system. He recommended the Commission rethink the overall
scope and design of this project.
Ruth Alexander/2645 Butler Creek Road/Indicated she was speaking on behalf of the Ashland School Board and
commented on the enrollment problem in Ashland. She stated then; is not enough affordable housing in Ashland and families
are not moving here. She stated the location of this project is perfect and noted its close proximity to the various surrounding
schools. Ms. Alexander noted the results of a demography study completed by the School District and stated there is a good
chance the School District could see an increase in enrollment if more affordable housing was available in Ashland. She
asked that the Commission approve this project and stated it will help the town and help the schools. (An except of the
demographer's report was submitted to the Commission]
Heidi Parker/344 Bridge Street/Read aloud a letter from the Ashland School Board. The letter voiced the School Board's
support for this project and noted their awareness of Ashland's shortage of housing for working families. It stated Ashland has
been experiencing declining enrollment for nearly a decade and the most recent demographic report cites the lack of
affordable housing in Ashland as a major contributor to this problem. The letter voiced support for the location of this project
and noted its close proximity to local schools. The School Board letter voiced support for the Housing Authority in its endeavor
to bring this project to fruition and encouraged Oregon Housing and Community Services to provide the essential funding to
make it a reality.
Ms. Parker clarified the demography report was completed last year, and the number of available rental properties in Ashland
was taken into consideration.
Jody Zonnenshein/75 Brooks Lane/Stated her main concern, aside from what has already been said, is about the wetlands.
She stated wetland area was destroyed when Abbott Street was put in, and stated protecting the wetlands for the future does
not include building right up next to them. Ms. Zonnenshein stated the wetlands will not last if you build all around them and
asked the people involved with this project to pay close attention to this issue.
Bernice Koch/60 Crocker StreetNoiced her concerns regarding increased traffic. She stated there is already a speeding
problem in this area and stated an increase of 100-120 vehicle trips per day will also affect Abbott Street. She added Abbott is
a very narrow street and should not be used as a major thoroughfare. Ms. Koch also voiced her concerns regarding the
protection of the trees and wetlands.
Stan Druben/125 Brooks Lane/Agreed that there needs to be a better demographic mix in Ashland, but stated there are
better ways to create affordability than this project. Mr. Druben noted the Applicant's request to cut down 3 additional trees
and questioned what this projects overall impact on the environment will be.
Joyce Woods/2308 Abbott Street/Stated Abbott Street has no posted speed limit, no crosswalks, no stop signs, and is
becoming more of a thoroughfare. She stated Abbott is just wide enough for two cars to pass and expressed her concerns
with how this project will impact this situation. Ms. Woods asked the Commission to not just consider the traffic impacts of the
development itself, but also the movability around the project. She also questioned how the water flow into the existing
wetlands would be impacted and voiced her concerns with the tree removals.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Stated the Planning Commission needs to reassure applicants that if they bring in a
project that includes structures up to the allowable height limit, it will be approved. He noted this projects two-story building
design and felt, in general, structures up to the height limits would allow for more open space and would be a more efficient
use of the land.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10, 2009
Page 4 of 7
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mark Knox/Commented on some of the issues raised in the public hearing. He stated this project should be well known
throughout the community and noted the numerous meetings that were held during the annexation hearings. In regards to
jogging the location of the street, he stated this option was evaluated and was determined to not be a viable option. He noted
they addressed this issue with the Tree Commission and received unanimous approval for the current layout. Mr. Knox
clarified a number of the comments made tonight have already been addressed and noted the difficulty in getting to all the
details in the time allotted. He encouraged the Commission to support this project and stated it meets all of the criteria.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Questions of Staff and Legal Counsel
Staff was asked to comment on whether there is a buffer around the wetlands. Mr. Severson explained the previous
subdivision approval had the development right up next to the wetlands, however in this proposal the wetland is on its own lot
protected by City ownership. In addition, there is a 30 ft buffer.
Mr. Severson clarified all 60 units would be deed restricted affordable rentals. He also commented on the potential traffic
impacts and noted this project has a lesser impact than what was originally approved. In addition, the City's Engineering
Department reviewed the current proposal and did not indicate any issues. He noted the proposed right turn lane would be
installed before occupancy of these units, unless the median on Ashland Street is installed which would negate the need for
the turn lane. Mr. Severson commented on the concern raised about increased traffic on Abbott Street, and noted the
reserved space on this property that has been set aside for a future east-west connection. He clarified this is not part of this
proposal, but is something the Council wanted to see happen.
Staff commented on the development potential for Lot 1. Mr. Severson explained this lot could be developed with 47 units,
which would bring the entire property to 107 units and be consistent with the previous approval. However, if the Parks
Department acquires the land, there would be approximately 1-acre left for housing. And since 47 units is too many for 1-acre,
this would likely need to come back for modification at that point.
Mr. Molnar noted the questions raised by the Commission in regards to the traffic study and wetlands, and encouraged them
in the future to ask these types of questions when the Applicant and their professionals are before them, since it is ultimately
the Applicant's burden to satisfy their concerns.
Deliberations and Decision
Marsh asked each of the commissioners to cite their major and minor issues.
Mindlin noted the basic concept of this project has already been approved by the City Council and their decision criteria is
fairly slim. She stated she is disappointed that a project of this size does not have solar orientation, and has concerns about
the traffic impacts and the overall need for this type of development, but stated this is not under their purview tonight.
Moms cited his concerns regarding the amount of asphalt and parking, but agreed that the proposed project satisfies the
required criteria.
Dimitre shared his concerns with the tree removal and transportation issues and felt this project could have been done
differently.
Miller stated she does not believe this project meets the criteria for adequate transportation. She indicated the farmland was
lost as soon as this property was annexed into the City, and said the only way to reclaim some of that land is to have
community gardens.
Marsh commented on the difference between macro and micro planning. She stated a number of the speakers talked to the
larger "macro" issues, however that is not what is being reviewed tonight. She stated it is clear this project meets the criteria,
but recommended an additional condition for the installation of an interim connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is
developed.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10, 2009
Page 5 of 7
Commissioners Morris/Marsh m/s to approve Planning Action #2009.00043 with the proposed conditions, and an
additional condition for the temporary connection to Tolman Creek before the final lot is developed. DISCUSSION:
Mr. Severson clarified the following language would be added as Condition #10: "Prior to the occupancy of Lot 2, a temporary
bicycle and pedestrian path and any necessary modifications to the gate and fencing be provided across Lot 1 to the YMCA
fields."Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Marsh, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion
passed 3.2.
Marsh asked staff to clarify the issue of community gardens and open space, since this issue has come up several times
recently. She also requested staff investigate the issue of height limits and what they are communicating to applicants.
Commissioners Morris/Mindlin m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009.00043. Roll Call Vote:
Commissioners Dimitre, Marsh, Mindlin, Morris and Miller, YES. Motion passed 5.0.
Commissioners Miller/Dimitre m/s to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5.0.
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008.02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones.
Staff Report
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman delivered a presentation on the,Sign Code ordinance amendments. He noted the two prior
meetings where the Commission has reviewed this item, and provided the following list of key changes and options for
consideration:
1) Area Definition: Option 1 calculates the area of a sign as bounded within a rectangle. This is how staff has
historically calculated the area. Option 2 creates new opportunities to consider circles, triangles and other
geometric shapes in calculating the area.
2) Public Art Definition: Mr. Goldman noted the recommendations from the Public Art and Historic Commissions,
and stated Staff s recommendation is to exempt public art from the Sign Code and revise the Site Design Review
standards to expand review of exterior changes to historic buildings to include public art.
3) Construction and Real Estate Signs: Option 1 limits the number to one 16 sq. ft. or 32 sq. ft sign
(residential/commercial), essentially requiring construction sites to aggregate their signs onto one sheet of
plywood. Option 2 permits multiple signs, up to 4, up to the allowable square footage.
4) Wall Graphics Definition: Mr. Goldman clarified currently wall graphics are prohibited, but the proposed
ordinance would allow wall graphics as long as they comply with the sign area limits.
5) Buildings with Multiple Frontages: Option 1 provides an additional 30 sq. ft for buildings with 3 or more
frontages with a maximum of 60 sq. ft. on any business frontage. Option 2 provides an additional square footage
allowance that is half that of the primary entrance for buildings with 3 or more frontages.
Mr. Goldman's presentation also addressed the maximum signage allowance, exempt incidental signs and three-dimensional
signs. He clarified a 3 cubic ft. three-dimensional (3D) sign would count as one incidental sign, and noted all 3D signs have to
be located on private property in the current draft. Mr. Goldman also indicated that after further review of the Downtown Task
Force recommendations, the 3 cubic ft. 3D sign limit is applicable to all of the City's historic districts, not just the downtown
area, and the current draft of the ordinance reflects this correction.
Mr. Goldman cited the Staff Report Addendum that was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting and
clarified in order to have public art on private property, an easement dedicated to the City would need to be provided. He
added public art has to be under the City's control, however it has been discussed that easements could be granted for a
limited amount of time.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10. 2009
Page 6 of 7
Commissioners Miller/Mindlin m/s to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5.0.
Public Testimony
George Kramer/366 North Laurel/Indicated he was a member of the Downtown Task Force. Mr. Kramer voiced concern with
the proposed change to allow wall graphics on historic buildings. He stated these graphics are virtually impossible to remove
from brick buildings, but applicants like to do them because they are inexpensive, and asked that the Commission leave the
prohibition in place. He commented on the 3D sign options and encouraged the Commission to consider Option 2. He
commented on the larger (20 cubic ft.) 3D sign provision and stated the parameters included in the ordinance will alleviate the
issues people are afraid of. He added large structures are expensive and he does not believe they will see many businesses
take advantage of this provision. Mr. Kramer commented on the public art provision and stated "Alfredo" (the statue outside
Wiley's Pasta) is not art and shared his concerns with blending the distinct lines between art and signs.
Steve Cole/1323 Mill Pond Rd/Owner of Sound Peace. Mr. Cole commented on the Tibetan prayer flags that were in front of
his business for over 10 years. He stated he does not know whether this is a sign or art, but stated these flags are seen all
over Ashland and add to the character of this town. He asked the Commission is there was anyway to allow him to keep his
flags.
Dana BussellNice Chair of the Public Arts Commission and also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell voiced
concern with the 3D object provision and recommended the Commission proceed with caution on this issue. She warned once
these types of objects are allowed, they cannot be removed, and recommended they make individuals go through the public
art approval process instead.
Brent Thompson/582 Allison/Proposed the following option to simplify the wording of the additional frontages provision:
"Buildings shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each linear foot of business frontage, the maximum sign area on
any single business frontage shall not exceed 60 sq. ft." Mr. Thompson added that he would differ to staff s expertise and as
the petitioner for this provision voiced his support for the proposed ordinance.
Marsh closed the record and the public hearing at 10:18 p.m.
Questions of Legal Counsel and Staff
Marsh requested each, commissioner outline their issues for staff and the following items were listed: 1) request of staff to
review possible options that would allow the prayer flags, 2) in regards to the additional frontages provision, request staff
consider making a differentiation between multiple businesses in one building and one business that has multiple frontages, 3)
request for staff to provide clarification on the 3D object material restrictions and sandwich boards in non-historic zones, and
4) address how this information in going to be presented to the public in a graphic way.
Commissioners Miller/Marsh m/s to continue this hearing to the February 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting.
Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 10. 2009
Page 7 of 7
C I T Y OF
ASHLAND.
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Michael Dawkins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street.
Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Mike Moms Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Melanie Mindlin
Dave Dotterrer
Larry Blake
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Tom Dimitre Eric Navickas
ANNOUNCEMENTS
New Planning Commissioner Larry Blake was introduced to the group.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the Council's approval of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan and
indicated staff and the Planning Commission would soon begin working on implementation.
PUBLIC FORUM
Julie Norman/596 Helman/Spoke regarding the herbicide issue in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance.
Ms. Norman encouraged the City to steadily reduce the use of herbicides. She stated she is a member of the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and explained this group has worked with cities, colleges, and agencies throughout the
Northwest to perform steady transitions away from chemicals. She submitted written material to the Commission for their
review, and stated her goal is to help make the ordinance precise, enforceable, and headed toward reducing herbicide use.
Angie Thusius/897 Beach/Also spoke regarding herbicide use. Ms. Thusius shared her concerns regarding herbicides and
explained many herbicides that were once deemed safe are not recommended for use anymore. She commented on the
glyphosate product, which is referenced in the proposed Water Resource Protection Zones ordinance, and encouraged the
City to do more research before this herbicide is allowed. Ms. Thusius noted that 17 cities throughout the Northwest have
parks that are either transitioning away from herbicide use or are already herbicide free, and noted the maintenance costs for
these parks have not increased.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PLANNING ACTION: 2008.02013
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing regarding Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) of the
Ashland Land Use Ordinance, relating to changes in the type, size, number and materials of signage allowed within
residential and commercial zones. (This is a continuation from the February 100 meeting. The Public Hearing is closed
and the Planning Commission is in deliberations. )
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman reviewed the recent changes to the ordinance that address the comments received at the
February 10 public hearing.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 24, 2009
Page 1 of 3
1) Wall Graphics. Staff had initially recommended the prohibition on wall graphics be removed, but following the
concerns raised at the public hearing, staff is now recommending the prohibition language be retained in the
ordinance.
2) Portable Signs. Staff is recommending new language that limits the placement of portable signs to within 10 ft.
of the business entrance.
3) Flags. Mr. Goldman stated if the Commission wants to allow Tibetan prayer flags, staff recommends inserting
language for wind signs with specific limitations on height, location and size.
4) 3D Signs. It was clarified "fiberglass" has been inserted as an allowable durable material.
5) Public Art. Mr. Goldman explained if the public art provision is removed from the Sign Code, there is a strong
rational to allow for review of public art when it is altering the fagade of a historic building. Staff is proposing
additional language to AMC 18.72.030 which would state "or includes the installation of public art." This would
require the addition of public art on a historical building to have a review process that includes review by the
Historic Commission before it comes to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Goldman commented on the signage allowance for buildings with multiple frontages, and clarified the draft ordinance
includes an allowance for the 3rd and 4th frontage to have half the signage amount that would be allowed for the 1 s, or 2nd
frontage. Mindlin expressed concern with this language and felt equal signage should be allowed for each side of the building
when there are different businesses housed inside. Marsh voiced her support for the proposed language. She noted they are
expanding the signage amount that is currently allowed and felt this was a good compromise. It was noted that Brent
Thompson, who is the citizen who originally raised this issue, has indicated his support for the provision provided by staff. Mr.
Molnar used the back wall in the Council Chamber to give a realistic example of how much signage the 31d or 4t^ side of a
building would get given the proposed language.
Mr. Goldman clarified the provision that would allow for Sound Peace's prayer flags. He noted the limit for free standing signs
and clarified wind signs are classified as portable signs and the flags would need to be taken down each night. He added staff
did not want to create a window of opportunity for various banner signs and the intent of the language is to create a narrow
window to accommodate a narrow circumstance. Comment was made expressing concern with the proposed language,
indicating it would not accommodate the Sound Peace prayer flags. Mr. Goldman suggested Sound Peace would likely need
to lower the flags on the pole in order to come into compliance with the proposed language.
Comment was made expressing concern with whether the proposed 3D provision would successfully accommodate the
Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. Mr. Goldman commented on statue's 4 in. base and indicated the business owner may
need to sink the base two inches in order to bring Alfredo into compliance.
Commissioner Dotterrer/Marsh m/s to recommend to the City Council the approval of the amendments as presented
to Chapter 18.96 and 18.72.030 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh,
Miller, Mindlin and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 5.0.
OTHER BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Goals
Commissioner Mindlin noted the City Council will be discussing their goals next month and encouraged the Planning
Commission to have a discussion on this so that they can provide input during that process. Dotterrer voiced his support for
this discussion and stated the Planning Commission should provide input on land use planning goals and have the Council
make a determination during their goal setting on which priorities they would like the Commission to work on.
Staff noted the following planning related City Council goals that have not yet been completed:
• Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance
• Develop Strategy for the Railroad Property
• Downtown Planning Process
• Affordable Housing Goal
Ashland Planning Commission
Febniary 24, 2009
Page 2 of 3
Mr. Molnar also noted the TSP update and explained the Planning Commission will have a substantial role in this project as
well. He voiced his support for the Commission providing input to the Council, but reminded the Commission of the economic
situation the City is in and noted the recent 20% reduction in Planning staff.
The Commission continued their discussion on possible goals they would like to bring forward to the City Council. Several
suggestions were made, including the following:
• Encourage Council to complete Visioning Process and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that
would be helpful.
• Revision of the land use areas of the Comprehensive Plan
• Transportation Planning
• Water Infiltration
• Changing Design Standards to incorporate Solar Orientation issues
• Complete second portion of Sustainability Work Groups task (determine what other government agencies are doing)
• Implement Croman Mills Redevelopment Plan
Mr. Molnar commented that staff envisions a number of these aspects (water infiltration, solar orientation, sustainability) being
addressed as part of the Croman Mills plan. He added the policies that are developed could be applied city wide, and not just
the Croman property.
Council Liaison Eric Navickas voiced his support for the Planning Commission providing input on the Council's goals and
stated he would share the Commission's desires with the Council.
Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to recommend the following goals to the City Council: 1) Strategic
Vision/Visioning, and offer the Planning Commission's involvement in anyway that is helpful, 2) Transportation
Planning if the TSP goes forward, and incorporating a planning vision and active participation in that process, 3)
Continue with the Croman planning process and incorporate potential issues such as solar orientation and water
infiltration design standards, and 4) Indicate the Planning Commission's desire to specifically look at sustainability in
terms of researching what other municipal entities have done. DISCUSSION: Mr. Molnar commented on the
implementation phase of the Croman Plan and recommended the Planning Commission and City Council come to an
agreement on the scope and timeline early in the process. Miller voiced concern with the number of jobs the consultants have
proposed for the Croman property and stated if they are going to address sustainability issues with this plan they need to have
an awareness of their limitations in terms of capacity. Comment was made that the Commission will be able to have a more
detailed discussion on these items at a later date, and the motion on the table is the recommendation of these items as goals.
Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Blake, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris and Dawkins, YES. Motion passed 7-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
April Lucas, Administrative Assistant
Ashland Planning Commission
February 24, 2009
Page 3 of 3
CALL FOR ENTRIES
Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project (Phase 1)
OVERVIEW/ VISION
The City of Ashland's Public Arts Commission, supported in part by a grant from the
Jackson County Cultural Coalition invites qualified artists to submit 2-dimensional
plans and drawings to be considered in Phase 1 of the Reflections of Ashland: Utility
Box Beautification Project.
Reflections of Ashland: Utility Box Beautification Project is one that the Ashland
Public Art Commission envisions happening in phases. The ultimate outcome would
be the beautification of various utility boxes throughout Ashland. While large utility
boxes area necessity in today's world, they do not have to mar the beautiful and
historical landscape of Ashland. The proposed project will take these "necessary"
utilitarian objects and transform them into works of art that enhance the visual
landscape. Phase I will focus on Ashland's Historic Downtown and Railroad District
where nine utility boxes have been slated for beautification.
This project celebrates community pride and elevates awareness of public art
amongst the citizens and visitors of Ashland. This project will also be an
opportunity for local artists to display their talents in the public sphere of Ashland.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Public Arts Commission in cooperation with the City of Ashland's Electric Utility
Department has identified seven utility boxes to be painted for Phase 1. (Please see
Appendix 1 for a map of box locations and photographs of each box.)
The theme for Phase 1 of this project is Reflections of Ashland. Artists are invited to
submit designs that are suitable to the theme of Reflections of Ashland. These may
include but are not limited to designs that reflect Ashland's natural beauty, cultural
offerings, history and distinctive charm. All designs must be submitted on the
Design Template (Appendix 2).
Designs will be selected based on their adherence to specific guidelines and criteria
as defined at the end of this document.
Chosen artists will be asked to paint the utility boxes between the dates of July 16
and 18, 2009. Paint supplies will be provided (free of charge) by Miller Paint. All
artists will be required to use paints provided by Miller Paint for this project.
The PAC will hire a professional to prep all boxes prior to July 16th. The PAC will
hire a professional to apply vandal proof coating on July 19th, 2009.
AWARD
Artists whose work is selected will receive an honorarium of $100 per box. A
reception honoring all artists will be held on July 18th, 2009.
Artist Benefits:
Artist recognition via your signature on the utility box (no larger than 3"x5").
Artist will be mentioned in the Ashland's City Source.
Artist will be mentioned in the press materials regarding this project.
PROJECT' TIMELINE
May 1, 2009 Deadline for response to Call to Artists
May 25, 2009 Notification of Winning Entries
July 16, 2009 Artists begin painting Utility Boxes
July 18, 2009 Reception Honoring Artists
ELIGIBILITY
The Call for Entries is open to all regional artists
SUBMISSIONS
All materials must be received in the City of Ashland Public Arts Commission office
by S:00pm, Friday, May 1, 2009. Send submissions to:
City of Ashland, Attn: Ann Seltzer - PAC Utility Boxes
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
Submissions should include the following material:
1. Contact information including Name, Address, Telephone and e-mail
2. Resume describing artistic experience
3. A small sample of past works: photographs, slides, or CD's acceptable
4. Your design(s)* in full color on the provided Design Template (see Appendix
2)
5. A brief description of how your concept will communicate the theme of
Reflections of Ashland. These may include but are not limited to designs that
reflect Ashland's natural beauty, cultural offerings, history and distinctive
charm.
6. Preferred box location - This request will be considered but not guaranteed.
7. Self-addressed stamped envelope if you wish return of your materials
n
*Each artist may submit up to three designs for review
Submissions should adhere to the following guidelines:
1. Quality: The artwork should be of exceptional quality and enduring value
2. Site: The artwork should enhance the existing character of the site by taking
into account scale, color, material, texture, content, and the social dynamics
of the location.
3. History and Context: The artwork should consider the historical geographical
and cultural features of the site, as well as the relationship to the existing
architecture and landscaping of the site.
4. Commercial Aspect: The artwork shall not promote goods or services of
adjacent or nearby businesses.
5. Compliance: Artworks shall not violate any federal, state or local laws,
including specifically ACM Chapter 18.96.
6. Additionally, the artwork shall not reflect partisan politics, negative imagery,
religion and sexual content.
SELECTION COMMITTEE
The winning entries will be selected by a Selection Committee consisting of five
people, including a representative from the Electric Utilities Department of Ashland,
an art professional (artist, art educator, gallery owner, etc.), business owner or
resident of Downtown Ashland and/or the Railroad District, and two members of
the community-at-large. A member of the Public Arts Commission will facilitate the
jury process but will not cast a vote.
The Selection Committee will select winning entries based upon the following
criteria:
1. Overall strength and visual appeal of design concept
2. Relevance to project theme "Reflections of Ashland"
3. Artistic excellence and innovation
4. Appropriateness for designated locations
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Liquor License Application
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen
Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb('vashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Bennet `IX'/ Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Patricia Groth dba Morningglory
Restaurant at 1149 Siskiyou Boulevard.
Staff Recommendation:
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.
Background:
Application is for a change in privileges.
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).
Related City Policies:
In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license
applications.
Council Options:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Potential Motions:
Approve or disapprove Liquor License application.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of 1
:'LI
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Approval of Sole Source Procurement greater than $75,000, Itron Electric Meters
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid
Department: Electric E-Mail: wandersd@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Purchasing Secondary Contact: Scott Johnson
Approval: Martha Benn^h Estimated Time: Consent
Statement:
Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Sole Source Procurement for
the acquisition of Itron electric meters to be purchased from General Pacific at a firm price of $61.35
each for a term of three (3) years?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to General Pacific because they are the
exclusive, single source, distributor for Itron products in the Pacific Northwest.
Background:
The City of Ashland currently utilizes Itron meter reading equipment and software which requires a
readable Itron electric meter.
The previous public contract with General Pacific for the purchase of Itron electric meters has expired.
Over the previous year 960 meters were purchased at $61.35/each for a total cost of $58,896.00.
The new public contract for Itron electric meters will likely be for 750 to 1,000 meters per year and is
estimated to be between $138,037.50 and $184,050.00 for the three year term.
Related City Policies:
Section 2.50.020 Public Contracting Officer's Authority
A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer
may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following:
J. The contract has a total value of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) or less;
ii. The contract does not exceed a twenty-four month contract period;
iii. The contract provides that the contract may be terminated by the City for convenience
thirty (30) or fewer days following delivery of written notice to the contractor;
iv. Funds are budgeted for the purpose of the contract;
V. The contract has been approved as to form by Legal Counsel unless it meets one of the
exemptions set forth below; in Section 2.50.025, and,
vi. All other requirements for public contract code procurement have been satisfied.
Page I of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Section 2.50.075 Sole Source
The appropriate department head shall determine when there is only one seller or price of a product of
the quality required available within a reasonable purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical,
the appropriate department head shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms
advantageous to the contracting agency. The determination of a sole source must be based on written
findings that may include:
(1) That the efficient utilization- of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible
goods or services;
(2) That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other
public or private agencies are available from only one source;
(3) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or
(4) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from
only one source.
Council Options:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve the contract recommendation or
decline to approve the contract recommendation.
Potential Motions:
The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to award the public contract to
General Pacific.
Attachments:
• Written Findings
• Letter dated February 11, 2009 from General Pacific
• Letter dated February 25, 2009 from General Pacific
Page 2 42
CITY OF
FORM #6 ASHLAND
SOLE-SOURCE DETERMINATION AND WRITTEN FINDINGS
GOODS and SERVICES
GREATER THAN $75,000
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Dick Wanderscheid
Date: March 17, 2009
Re: Sole Source Determination and Written Findings for Goods and Services
In accordance with AMC 2.50.075, the appropriate department head shall determine when there
is only one seller or price of a product of the quality required available within a reasonable
purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical the appropriate department head shall negotiate
with the sole source to obtain contract terms advantageous to the contracting agency. The
determination of a sole source must be based on written findings
The sole source determination being made here will be based on the following written findings.
Background:
The On, ofAshland, Electric Department, utilizes Itron meter reading equipment and software,
which requires the City to purchase readable Itron electric meters.
General Pacific is the exclusive, sole source, distributor for [iron electric meters.
The previous contract with General Pacific for Itron electric meters has expired.
General Pacific is offering a firm price of $61.35/each for a term of three (3) vears - 2009, 2010,
and 2011 - which will require the Cih, to purchase a minimum of 250 meters per year.
Staffrecommends that the City enter into another Public contract tirith General Pacii for the
purchase ofltron electric meters.
Findings:
ORS 279B.075 provides examples of findings that should be addressed. The department head
should select at least one of the findings and prepare the determination as it specifically relates to
the good and/or services being procured. More than one finding can be addressed.
The findings are as follows:
Form #6 - Sole Source - Goods & Services - Greater than $75,000, Page 1 of 4, 3/6/2009
.Pursuant to ORS 27913.075 (2)(a): Provide findings supporting your determination that the
efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible goods or
services from only one source.
The City utilizes Ilron meter reading equipment and software which requires a readable Itron
electric meter.
Pursuant to ORS 27913.075 (2)(b): Provide findings supporting your determination that
the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other public or
private agencies are available from only one source.
N/A
Pursuant to ORS 27913.075 (2)(c): Provide findings supporting your determination that the
goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project.
MA
Pursuant to ORS 279B.075 (2)(d): Any other findings that support the conclusion that the
goods or services are available from only one source.
A letter was received from General Pacific, which states that General Pacific is the "exclusive.
single source, distributor and the first line ofsupport for Itron products in the PlIcific
Northwest. "
Form #6 - Sole Source - Goods & Services - Greater than $75,000. Page 2 of 4, 31612009
-PUBLIC NOTICE:
Pursuant to OAR 137-047-0275 (2), a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the
Contract Review Authoritv's determination that the Goods and Services or class of Goods and
Services are available from only one source in a manner similar to the 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 to be acquired by a sole source procurement. The Contracting
Agency shall give such public notice at least seven days before Award of the Contract.
Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us - March 18, 2009
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Sole Source Procurement
First date of publication: March 18, 2009
It has been determined based on written findings that the following Goods and/or Services
are available from only one source. A request for approval of a Sole Source procurement
was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review
Board, on March 17. 2009. '
The Citv utilizes Pron meter reading equipment and software, which requires the City
to purchase readable Itron electric meters. General Pacific is the exclusive, sole
source distributor for Itron electric meters. General Pacific is o('cring a firm price of
$61.35/each for a term of three (3) years - 2009, 2010, and 2011 - which will require
the Citv to Purchase a rninimrrm 6050 meters per year. The Citv of Ashland, Electric
Department intends to enter into a public contract with General Pacific for Itron
electric meters.
The contract terms, conditions and specifications may be reviewed upon request by
contacting the Purchasing Representative, Kari Olson, at 541-488-5354.
An affected person may protest the determination that the goods and services are available
from only one source in accordance with OAR 137-047-0710. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Kari Olson. Purchasing
Representative, 90 N. Mountain. Ashland, OR 97520. The seven (7) day protest period
will expire at 5:00pm on March 25, 2009:
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 Sole Source procurement.
Form #6 • Sole Source - Goods 8 Services - Greater than $75,000, Page 3 of 4, 3/612009
Authority to enter into a Sole-Source Contract:
ORS 279B.075 Sole-source procurements. (1) A contracting agency may award a contract for goods or services without
competition when the Director of the Oregon Department ofAdministrative Services, the local contract review board or a state
contracting agency, if it has procurement authority under ORS 279A.050, or a person designated in writing by the director,
board or state contracting agency with procurement authority under ORS 279A.050, determines in writing, in accordance with
rules adopted under ORS 179A.065, that the goods or services, or class ofgoods or services, are available from only one
source.
(2) The determination of a sole source must be based on written findings that may include:
(a) That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition ofcompatible goods or services;
(b) That the goods or services required for the exchange ofsoftware or data with other public or private agencies are
available from only one source;
(c) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or
(d) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one source.
(3) To the extent reasonably practical, the contracting agency shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms
advantageous to the contracting agency.
AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids
All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the
Attorney General Model Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49; except for the following:
E. Sole source procurements as set forth in ORS 279B.075 and herein.
AMC 2.50.0 75 Sole Source
The appropriate department head shall determine when there is only one seller or price of a product of the quality
required available within a reasonable purchase area. To the extent reasonably practical the appropriate department head
shall negotiate with the sole source to obtain contract terms advantageous to the contracting agency. The determination of a
sole source must be based on written BndimZs that may include:
(1) That the efficient utilization of existing goods requires the acquisition of compatible goods or services;
(2) That the goods or services required for the exchange of software or data with other public or private
agencies are available from only one source;
(3) That the goods or services are for use in a pilot or an experimental project; or
(4) Other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one
source.
OAR 137-047-0275 Sole-source Procurements
(1) Generally. A Contracting Agency may Award a Contract without competition as a sole-Source Procurement pursuant to the
requirements of ORS 279B.075.
(2) Public Notice. If but for the Contracting Agency's determination that it may enter into a Contract as a sole-source, a
Contracting Agency would be required to select a Contractor using source selection methods set forth in either ORS 2798.055
or 279B.060, a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's determination that the Goods or
Services or class of Goods or Services are available from only one source. The Contracting Agency shall publish such notice in
a manner similar to public notice of competitive sealed Bids under 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice
shall describe the Goods or Services to be acquired by a sole-source Procurement, identify the prospective Contractor and
include the date, time and place that protests are due. The Contracting Agency shall give Affected Persons at least seven (7)
days from the date of the notice of the determination that the Goods or Services are available from only one source to protest
the sole source determination.
(3) Protest. An Affected Person may protest the Contract Review Authority's determination that the Goods or Services or class
of Goods or Services are available from only one source in accordance with OAR 137-047-0710.
Form #6 - Sole Source - Goods & Services -Greater than $75,000, Page 4 of 4, 316/2009
General Paclfle. Inc.
5600 NE 122nd Blvd (Zip: 97230)
P.O. Box 20578 (Zip: 97294)
Portland, OR
Office: 800.547.9744
Fax: 503.257.0320
v .generaloacific,corn
February 11, 2009
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Residential electric meter supply.
Scott Johnson:
Thank you for the opportunity to allow General Pacific and Itron to provide for your electric meter needs. We
consider the City of Ashland a valuable customer and we are eager to continue our commitment of service to
you. We feel our meter supply agreement with Ashland for 2008 was successful and we are confident that we
can maintain this success in the years to come.
During 2008 General Pacific provided Ashland with an annual supply of the following:
• Itron Catalog# F620502 - Centron C1 SR, FM2S, CI-200, 240V meters equipped with a high powered
radio transmitter, to be ready by your Itron hand held radio meter reading hand held units, Lexan cover,
named and numbered for the City of Ashland. Price $61.35/E.
During this term General Pacific agreed to maintain a stock level of these meters that ensured Ashland would
not run in to delivery, problems caused by fluctuating manufacturing lead times. We maintained a stock of
(120) meters (standard pallet quantity) in our Sacramento, CA warehouse. When Ashland released meters,
we would simply send the stock units and re-order, based on forecasted usage provided at the time the
release was issued.
Understanding that in 2009, 2010 and 2011, your minimum annual usage will be (250) meters per year, we
would like to extend our stocking program and price, of $61.35/E, as a firm offer for a term of (3) years.
Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns and thank you again for your consideration.
Sincerely,
51n- R. Mi CGy
Sales Manager
General Pacific Inc.
General Pacific. Inc.
> 5600 NE 122nd Blvd (Zip: 97230)
o,,,rw P.O. Box 20578 (Zip: 97294)
Portland, OR
Office: 800.547.9744
Fax: 503.257.0320
vmv. ae nera loacific. corn
February 25, 2009
City of Ashland
20 East Main Street
Ashland, OR 97520
RE: Exclusive Itron meter supply channel.
Scott Johnson:
Over the years General Pacific has been very fortunate to provide our customers with access to some of the
best manufacturers in the utility business. We feel we have a unique combination of low prices, quality
products and excellent service in this industry.
Of all our manufacturers we feel Itron has reflected this excellence thru their great reputation of service and
product continuity. By supporting the software, the field collection units, the radio endpoints and,electric
meters, Itron can offer a tremendous value thru this continuity over the entire system.
We have been proud to maintain our distribution relationship with Itron (Schlumberger and Sangamo prior to
Itron) in the Northwest for over 20 years. We feel this strong relationship between Itron, General Pacific and
our mutual customers, including the City of Ashland has been especially valuable.
As a follow up to our letter of (2/11/2009) we thought it might be important to know that General Pacific is the
exclusive, single source, distributor and the first line of support for Itron products in the Northwest states,
including Oregon.
Thank you for the opportunity to serve and support the City of Ashland with Itron products. Feel free to
contact me for any reason.
Sincerely,
Sfp-try R. /t Ir Lly
Sales Manager
General Pacific Inc.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Mayor and Council FY10 Proposed Budget
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Ann Seltzer
Department: Administration E-Mail: seltzera ,ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benn~` Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Does the proposed budget meet the needs of the Mayor and Council for FYI 0?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council reviews the proposed budget and identifies areas of concern and/or
questions.
Background:
The proposed FY10 budget for Mayor and Council is $124,880. The proposed budget is based on
actual expenses from'FY08 and projected year end estimates for FY09.
Personal Services:
The FYI 0 budget provides for actual medical benefits for the Mayor and each Councilor. This
represents a reduction of approximately $13,475 from FY09. The FY09 budget provided for actual
medical benefits for those three councilors not up for re-election in November 2008 and provided for
full family medical benefits for the four positions open for election.
Materials and Services
The FYI 0 proposed budget is the same as the materials and services in the FY09 budget. Staff
anticipates ending the FY09 Mayor and Council budget at 100%. The Materials and Services portion
of the budget includes funds for advertising, travel, training, membership dues, sister city related
activities and other expenses associated with Mayor and Council activities.
The Mayor and Council FY10 budget is scheduled to be presented to the Budget Committee as a part
of the overall Administration Budget on Thursday, April 30.
RVTV
In FYI 0, resources for Rogue Valley Public Television total $51,000 from the general fund as PEG.
(public, education and government access fees) collected from cable television providers. These are
pass-through funds and must be used for public television. While not a part of the Mayor and Council
budget per se, some Councilors have expressed a desire for increased coverage by RVTV.
The current Agreement for Services, approved by the Council in May 2008, provides for the following
annual services:
• 2 monthly City Council meetings
• 1 monthly Planning Commission meeting
• Annual Budget Committee meetings
Page I of 2
Er,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• 1 monthly hour-long in studio show (Town Hall)
• Up to twelve additional televised meetings
• Up to seven City Band concerts
Additional services may be purchased by the City at rates agreed upon and detailed in the Agreement
for Services. For example, an additional three hour televised meeting would cost $345 ($145/first
hour, $100/each additional hour) and be charged to appropriate department budget e.g. Mayor and
Council for City Council meetings, the Community Development Department for the Planning
Commission meetings.
Related City Policies:
Annual Budget Process
Council Options:
Council should identify areas of concern and/or questions with the proposed FYI 0 budget.
Potential Motions:
I move to approve the proposed Mayor and Council proposed budget for FYI 0.
Attachments:
Proposed FYI 0 budget
Page 2 of 2
WAR
CENTRAL SERVICE FUND
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
MAYOR AND COUNCIL DIVISION
2009 Year 2010
Description 2007 Actual 2008 Actual Adopted End Est. Proposed
Fund# 710
Personal Services
510 Salaries and Wages $ 2,104 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600
520 Fringe Benefits 56,708 57,911 79,755 58,200 66,280
Total Personal Services 58,812 60,511 82,355 60,800 68,880
Materials and Services
601 Supplies 4,774 746 1,000 1,000 1,000
603 Communications 583 663 600 600 600
604 Contractual Services 7,159 39,513 7,500 7,500 7,500
605 Misc. Charges and Fees - - - - -
606 Other Purchased Services 45,088 39,909 44,000 44,000 44,000
608 Commissions 2,893 3,138 2,900 2,900 2,900
Total Materials and Services 60,496 83,969 56,000 56,000 56,000
$ 119,309 $ 144,480 $ 138,355 $ 116,800 $ 124,880
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
A Resolution Authorizing and Supporting the 2009-2011 Transportation and
Growth Management Program Grant Application
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552-2411
Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Nancy Slocum 552-2420
Approval: Martha BenTety~l~' Estimated Time: Consent
Question:
Will Council approve a resolution in support of a grant application for the 2009-2011 Transportation
and Growth Management Grants of $225,000, and authorize match funds not to exceed $125,000 and
authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council approve a resolution in support of a grant application that would pay
for a complete update of the City's Transportation System Plan.
Background:
Staff began a limited TSP update in July 2007 that focused on Chapters 4 (Existing Conditions and
Constraints) and Chapter 9 (Needed Transportation Improvements). The limited TSP update lead staff
to recognize the need for a full TSP update. The existing plan is over 10 years old and needs to
address access management, future roads, multi-modal options, commuter rail, transit, bicycle,
pedestrian systems, green street standard specifications options, and compliance with the new
Transportation Planning Rule.
Staff is in the process of completing the limited TSP update as directed by the City Council at their
March 3, 2009 Council meeting. Staff is also concurrently finalizing a TGM grant application for the
comprehensive TSP update.
The newly formed Transportation Commission will take the lead in the TSP update process. That
commission will engage local stakeholders to insure proposed transportation policies and conditions
are developed for a well-designed, integrated, safe and efficient multi-modal transportation network.
The Commission would also coordinate with the Planning Commission. The TSP will define the modal
system and prioritize specific improvements, update factual data, refine implementing standards,
provide an access management plan, develop transit corridors, work to resolve impediments of
economic development, update the CIP and associated street SDCs, and provide results of a
comprehensive public input process.
Highlights of the key transportation issues to be addressed during a comprehensive TSP update are as
follows:
• 12% increase in population, resulting in an increased demand on the current transportation
system;
Pagel of 3
0
CITY OF
ASHLAND
• The City has completed many of the bicycle and pedestrian projects outlined in the 1998 TSP
and seeks to explore new opportunities to become a statewide leader in green transportation
systems, focusing on multi-modal elements, not included in the 1998 TSP;
• Two key infill development areas are identified for growth, but lack integration into the
transportation system at large. The Croman area is an 80-acre industrially zoned site, and the
Railroad area is a 40-acre site zoned for employment. They will impact regional travel demand
patterns;
• The City lacks a comprehensive Safe Routes to School program, which is an important safety
aspect missing from the previous TSP, and has no formal program to inform the traveling
public of alternative modes of travel and commuting, to support community vision;
• The access management and transportation impact study guidelines need to be revised and
codified;
• The Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO) is planning a future
commuter rail connection between Central Point and Ashland, which would change transit and
auto patterns supporting associated stations in the region;
• Addressing transportation challenges to support City goals of minimizing urban sprawl and
reducing or delaying the need for new infrastructure through smarter system management and
operations.
Staff is now in the final stages of the TGM Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program
grant application process, and one of the requirements of the grant application is to include support
documents from related agencies and from the governing body. To that end, staff is recommending
that the Council approve the Resolution authorizing a TGM grant application in the amount of
$225,000 with $125,000 matching Transportation SDC funds.
Related City Policies:
Not applicable.
Council Options:
Council options include:
1) The City Council could decide to approve the resolution in support of a grant application
for the 2009-2011 Transportation and Growth Management Grants to Local Governments
in the amount of $225,000, authorize that match funds in the amount not to exceed
$125,000 are available, and authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
2) The Council could decide to direct staff to decline to apply for the TGM grant.
3) The Council could recommend modifications to staffs recommendation.
Page 2 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Potential Motions:
Council's options following the logic above include:
1) Move to approve the resolution in support of a grant application for the 2009-2011
Transportation and Growth Management Grants to Local Governments in the amount of
$225,000, authorize that match funds in the amount not to exceed $125,000 are available and
authorize the Mayor to sign the grant agreement.
2) Move to direct staff to decline the TGM grant opportunity.
3) Move to modify staff's recommendations.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND SUPPORTING THE 2009-2011 TRANSPORTATION
AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM GRANT APPLICATION
WHEREAS, The City of Ashland's Transportation System Plan was last updated in 1998; and
WHEREAS, the current Transportation System Plan does not adequately address multi-modal
system development, access management, land use code amendments and the Oregon Transportation
Plan; and
WHEREAS, in addition to complying with the Transportation Planning Rule, the City of Ashland
would also like to increase the emphasis on green transportation alternatives and increasing the
alternative mode split; and
WHEREAS, the City of Ashland began to actively promote these values by approving Transportation
Commission Ordinance No. 2975 in December, 2008 to more closely coordinate transportation related
issues specifically as they relate to safety, planning, funding, energy conservation and advocacy for all
modes of transportation; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best.interests of the City of Ashland to make application for a Transportation and
Growth Management (TGM) grant in the amount of $225,000 to be used to rewrite the City's
Transportation System Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of any successful grant award the City will commit a maximum of $125,000 in
matching funds to the Transportation Planning effort.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and
SECTION 2. The City of Ashland supports and will accept a grant offer from the State of Oregon in the
amount of $225,000 for the purpose of rewriting the Transportation System Plan estimated at a total cost of
$350,000; and
SECTION 2. The City of Ashland certifies that the matching share for this application (up to a maximum of
$125,000) is readily available at this time; and
SECTION 3. The Ashland Mayor is authorized to sign the grant application on behalf of the City of
Ashland.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of March, 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of March, 2009.
Reviewed as to form: John Stromberg, Mayor
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Capital Improvements Program
Approval of the FY10 CIP Project List and FY10-15 CIP in Concept
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552-2411
Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 30 Minutes
Question:
Will Council approve the FY10 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the overall FY10-15
CIP Program in concept, and the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council take three affirmative actions
➢ Approve the proposed FYI 0 Projects for Budget Purposes
➢ Approve the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan
➢ Approve the FYI 0-15 Overall CIP for Planning Purposes
Background:
The six-year CIP represents a rolling, six-year funding outlook for planned projects that have been
identified by each department. Projects are included based on the availability of funds and established
master plans. Master plans include extensive evaluation of current and future capacity needs,
including the condition of existing systems versus the expected life of the system, and on long term
growth-related needs.
The first criteria for inclusion in the CIP is availability of funds. To that end, the proposed 2010 CIP
reflects the current economic situation facing the City. Past CIP's included projects that depended on
grants, loans, and rates. Historic revenue streams are limited and questionable, both now and in the
future. Consequently, the proposed CIP only lists projects likely to be constructed over the next six
years. Due to funding shortfalls and economic uncertainty, an "Unfunded" CIP category has been
created and any project without certain funding is listed in this section. These unfunded projects total
in excess of $50.5 Million.
Further complicating the 2010 CIP process is the federal stimulus package. The 2010 CEP includes
projects paid for with federal stimulus funds for transportation projects. Sewer projects (membrane
replacement) will likely be funded with a combination of 50% Grants and 50% no interest loans
administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Water project applications
have yet to be awarded. In addition, staff is preparing grant applications for public facilities, diesel
retrofits, and other projects that qualify for federal stimulus funds. These projects are currently listed
as unfunded.
The second criteria listed in the CIP planning process is master planning. The existing enterprise fund
master plans (water, sewer, transportation, and storm water) are due to be updated. The proposed 2010
Page 1 of 3
~r,
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
CIP includes updates for each of these master plans. Because funds are limited for capital
improvement projects, staff has time to focus on updating these master plans. The master plan
revisions are anticipated to take a couple of years.
Historic CIP Execution Rates
This year's FY09 CIP has-an expected execution rate of 32% as compared to 2008's execution rate of
31%. Projects were delayed in October in anticipation of water and sewer bond sales. Then as the
struggling economy began to affect revenues and the City's ability to borrow, all but a few Water and
in-house projects were delayed.
Current Year Highlights
The Public Works section of the FY09 CIP program resulted in the reconstruction of C & Eureka, East
Main Railroad Crossing, miscellaneous concrete repair projects, Water Plant processing
improvements, Lithia Water fountains refurbishment, and the I-5 overpass Bear Creek sewer trunk
realignment. The Police Department is in the process of completing its new parking lot. The Electric
Department completed distribution and cable replacement installation projects, began the Mountain
Avenue Substation Improvements and ongoing new installation and new service projects. AFN
completed distribution and cable installation equipment and Mesh Net build-out projects. And finally,
the Parks and Recreation program completed the first phase of the Ice Skating Rink Rehabilitation
project, and completed the North Main/Scenic Park project.
FY 10 Program
The FY 10 CIP is proposed at $6,170,100, a 44% reduction from the FY09 program $11,067,000. The
proposed FYI 0 CIP shifts the focus from project construction to updating Master Plans. The updated
master plans will include long-term funding strategies (proposed rates, SDC's, etc.), life cycle
replacement, growth related improvements, climate change, and new and pending regulations. Once
the master plans have been completed with funding strategies, CIP project execution rates and
expectations should become more stable. The proposed FY 2010 CIP is attached to this council
communication for Council review.
FYI 0 Capital Equipment Purchase Plan
The FY 10 Capital Equipment Replacement Programs proposed to purchase three new vehicles, one
trailer mounted air compressor, and a bucket truck scheduled for replacement; totaling a cost of
$334,000. The specific equipment replacement list is attached to this council communication.
Related City Policies:
Council Goals
FY09 Budget including the CIP
Master Plan Documents for each enterprise
Council Options:
1. Council may accept the staff report and approve:
a) the proposed FYI 0 Projects for Budget Purposes
b) the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan
c) the FYI 0-15 Overall CIP for Planning Purposes
Page 2 of 3
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
2. Council may make changes to:
a) the proposed FY10 Projects
b) the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan or recommend that the plan proceed without
purchasing the hybrid vehicles
c) the FY10-15 Overall CIP
3. Council may reject staff's recommendations and direct staff to provide revisions to the
proposed project list for review at the next Council meeting.
Potential Motions:
1. Council moves to accept the staff report and approve the following three items:
a) the`proposed FYI 0 Projects for Budget Purposes
b) the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan
c) the FYI 0-15 Overall CIP for Planning Purposes
2. Council moves to accept the staff report, and
a) Approve the proposed FY10 Projects with the following changes...
b) Approve the FYI 0 Capital Equipment Plan without purchasing the hybrid vehicles
c) Approve the FYI 0-15 Overall CIP for Planning Purposes with or without recommended
changes
3. Council moves to reject the staff report as recommended, re-prioritize and change the CIP, and
direct staff to provide the final project list for review at the next Council meeting.
Attachments:
• Proposed FY10-15 CIP Project List (11x14)
• Proposed FYIO Project CIP FY10
• Proposed FY10 Capital Equipment Plan
Page 3 of 3
YIIIa[W TO am
Capital Improvements Plan
2010-2015 Construction Years
.Ppns°xa. y,y.agg~LF5a esltpend
k... e200&B9AfW~ 2W64K
Thoriri,noon 211119-10 20 11)- 1] 2011-12 2012-13 1013-14 21114-15 Unfundcd 1*1 ITAL CaQ Sonata;...
Tens natln FY5 FY09 em "Is "If FY12 FY13 FY14 FYI, ~Pn -CTOm Stnet SDC Gnnts LIDS other _ feeAt
Mtn
. f B It T It
R
T Sew
E d S $ 6
TSPUpdate
S - S 178,820 $ 350000 6`600 w. airawr., ca too way sap aw-+e law SW. sure. S 350.000 3 - S - S - 5
hnerson $trtt. Extension Pm'ttl rmnmv - OECDD5 60.000 S 8500) tT 000 "Kne .56:.eaev s593 M. La a546N 0rDitim-" 1, S - S 30,08 3 - 3 44800
5
Pavamcnt Ns "Playa AVanua(C A $ . 72,000 S 13,16 $ 80.000 P.y alom4o:cMAV wmwtmn.iuzml.rai.et tranne.m.caraut. S - 3 - S - S 80.000
Hcrse $uccl Pedeuian/Safcl Ito mvcmcnu s MOM S 25,150 S 150,000 (50`65 rgr!mrlr:a 1)a Ivan; ..r..W e:.maw. na.sea w,.ya.wm,m; S 22.SW 3
- 3 - t - S 127.50
Railroad Cr45sin Im;Oak 11) S 35,00 1 1f;OW Rgtxml.SC:Wa.in..aaAaadgaa- a.m, air avael. aaS o S 5.250 $ 3 - S - S 29.750
RRaailrrdooW eA Cori sin ImIna: Waa:awer URNS (0") O8N9) S MOM, S 311.00 S 720,000 E$ (~DXI~1 ane,daaml Noo,aaa: artd tool S50 FYIn, nom s INK b6a
aal nano, l 3 108,00 S 5000 t - S I0)." 5 12.57
S 53,5.130 a,kwe w4aen.Wpa SSnnX Mr, IS4 soc. Cara 4.51)(71 $35.0110 5 5wwo t - S - S
Misccllanmus C...Ie Safel Re airs $ 10.05 5 15,1XX1 3 I0)." 5 MOM S 15.(1011 S 10.75 3 100.000 S IM."
(5600:600 S - t - S - t - S 60,00
Min Ne. Sidewalk lm mvcmcnu hued on rrititW UM in TSP S 80.00 5 80.000 t BOAS S WON S 80.05 S 80.50 3 SO." S 80.115 80'0001 ua stx
S 120.50 $ -Is
- 3 - 5 35,00
ary Eh Scat Stre<u PcrPMS $ 100,000 S 15,00 $ 15.000 5 15000 $ 100000 ;plj0l Fa,A a.,a S - S - S - 5 - $ 50000
Overly -NnM Laurcl$Iren - North Main Street to Railroad track., 3 13295 13Z?95 Fna.a sn..w. Fw.uraw ~OOr S - S 132,910 S - 5 - $
Overly -Iowa Street - Wihman Street To South Mountain Man. $ 180,600 IS~iB0a09 r.a.M n~.a. FaW. nn olwr s - S 180,600 S - S S
-
Overly-Wro Nevada Sues- Var,n. Street m Micbelk Avenue s 146,65 Sslaaw. Foa. rew OVOr 5 - $ 16,65 $ - 3 - $
Overly - Allison Srrtco- eshamm$ Gran S 45,00 '000, o„v, noe e.p inno-o or K. nana.. FT S - S 3]6.000 S - S - S 24.00
Overly - AudeNu%e Street- Scenic Dnve to w Granite Street S 56.10
(S~Sfi.O) r...s aa. S - - 3 - 5 - 5 56.0011
Overly -HClmm Streat-NorthMainStraeoloOhniSocar S 1324.65 [S♦~t84r600 FinaBm 5 $
- - - 5 - 5 184,65
Overlay- Tafor So., - Hell mA PMS S $ $
1511.00 7 Ht6 F.a,e ano - S - S - S - S 150.(011
Streellmce, Eat alid er r PM (goal Is l ear S 110,17100 3 3511.00) 3 3,50.(X01 3 350,000 S 150.(00 $
~t$10:0001 Ea;..asluoXM Mrorrvs 5 - 3 55,00(1 S - S - S 1.10.000
Downtown aownwo Plan n Mato,H - & B ODOT OT Mt, Bev Creack Crtek To to Mau MOUnain M, 5 2.45.IM101$1 245,051 AMp n.....11 Snr e. wmo. 04 sOC
S 1560.0X1 3 840.011 S - S - S
s 225,0110
N PemaP c S 1,55.1)00 12$9ti A)ybr.m10T@M14 - $ - S 1,275,M VK
.
NNorth ain Stre Ash land et B& Winner Bi
m Ph IP Street Ca awa e vmenu 5 1.485,05 `i9f0001 AMi.4 1ioIT 5 - S 1,131 000 S 354.00
Bike a.h lm ve erne.mcm on roni Aval ASblmd Safe Bik 5 IONOW .(aT rrXaaa,xo4 son S 250.000 $ 75a05 S
N Main anion E 65050 TS~W5 000 A.1. . rn 2Mn nae, a MM.;O MoD m.S 162.50) 348]5$
Si al Installation al Tatman Creek Read&SisM Ikokvard S 350,18X1 awW....a.aa:.. i. 1. srD-.;,,-n SS T - t S 350,070
Si nat luatolation n Oak Soon&Herac Street 3 3W,1X0 S o aa...a Arad am soc our S $ S I80.Wo
ReaveBeWild B Street -Oak to 5th Stren rIRMS S7T/MPU 3 40].W S 45,00 5 8W.5zoosm: a e.iP, sva-_ I.In S S 2]3.6]] S 526.323
ReaveRebuild Grmia Street-Nude mPi(acal Slaet IPM, 3 402,110 S 25,01% $ 75.00 - Pair!dazz:a•4.i. .a.... A i n S $ 7W.W)
Re acoMebuild Iowa Street-LiM1cn to Idaho PMS S 657,0X3 wooao, WT S 650.0% Re ave/Rebuild Hmrison 5l-Siski um Fncpq PSIS/5TP/FIYO
3 S.UL`U S 600000 iss 6woooS S IISWO S 482,000
ReaveJReWild N Mounuin. EMain to Herae , PhIS/STIR/MPO- S 5%.00 S SWW S $ 5 SW.UW
Rc ave/Rcbuild E.Main - N Mountain to RR track, PM$ S 360,0011 Jf 0{"- 5 - f - $ - 3 - $ 380,0011
Re.-M.build Oak S.ra. - Lirhia Way it, RR Track STP/MPO".7 S 300,000 " OOW, s - S - S - S - S 30.000
Re av iletoild HV aline SUttt PMS S 80,50 1 12561161 5 - S JA 000 3 - S -is 212.000
Re ave/ItabulM Normal Ave- Ashla..d$uo SiSki,mr Blvd PMS 5 ?0.000 E - $ - 3 - S -is ]W,OOB
Beaver Slide PeJcanim lm m°0menu
$ 704000 70 r r w;a,ie. a.d.ame"e s• S - S - 3 -Is -is 70,000
PI and Ride Creation S 30.00 5 10.000 (SS~3UOWl re.esa..r oo.n.u: mama DA Clooto ax •+wna.w.wa:rca S 3 - 3 - 5 - 5 ]0.50
SotilolaLTm '~ta4edl R vI~YU W01 S 721 1)6 ISM r 4'15715 8156001 (f~]80:0if01 IT ,5,50'000) ( 630'0001 X6311001 q ]3 '0061 ( ]FT1757 -
;f ?•7JJ=flSO ] `d]] [ 1 000 aI
Loral lm rovemenl Districts
FY09 FY(K9en FYIO "II FY12 FY13 F•Y14 "IS Unfunded MPo RMOIS7$ Strte1 SDC Grants Prep Owner other fees & nles
Sidewa0-lauml Snen-Hcrse mRmtl R $ 22050 S 280,00) " 381-1001 ti.y a xrab IT; aw.awsawn To, i,.4eta;, sve $ 50.400 3 - 3
112'" No
Pev<mem lus;$heridan $IrtCI&Sehafi[Id $.mo Laal lm m mcm Diurin S 367,000 S 845 S 367,001) I$1 367 o0o1 CID.puma;a AJJ AiIip.. T..a]): FYOE 4a1µ
Lm.W+ma,.f 5 66.060 3 - t 3W.940 Pavement hs: U1,cn Shen Taal lm ro menl Dinrivt vet 5 230.05 S 3),01X) S 230,000 IS~2365o1 r,.y.zm.zlam ya.al
l,.wlta,'4a tvda; a.. Frm: u4 sex' S 41.40 S - $ 115,500 Pavament hs; Fielder Street Loral lm toy men. Dismc111ndian. To Fnd S 130,000 ' 0
r,.way0aa. a.nv..od S 23.45 S - $ 106.600 Pavement 1.1; Alk town Harrison and Monon 5 51,1X10 51,000 S 3 9.180 S 5 41,820
Pavement n,b u rBeach sore. S 150.0 rwi I. SW:.wte smmrmAVw tro: rLiw.ro lot 5 - t $ - Pavement Ins; Waterline Read local lmro,rement Disn.et
IE drtnn.m mat w;uiro pm,Kr sxad l-m S 72.Wo S $ 328,000 Pavement Iur, CITY Succl Local lm m.cmcm Dinda S I,",WU 0N31fu)ws!r,w.al
wm,i" 15a wrauts ro".„wm 5 323.750 $
- 16%1.250 S 7,5.00 S
Mimcllancou Loral lm mvcmcm Dinrias - 3 20.030 I 2d'i.000 .aLn oba aaav:alr 4aipaasamrsaa.d:cMA0: u45vcm S 36,001 S - S 164,000 S -
S -
Sutii'oiutixall Pemenl^'• . iix%sm Fa2B000', S 55,40 If ii6;6WI I$MW647:00611SUMi11O:0001 f
SM-MiNO
(S - f - f5~464t;oi0 It~z,6 'S6 fly 196 17iiiiiiii
- (f 770 ii0 ff~75501 f1 T51
*S.' 7`1390001 S 778516
Storm Drente FY09 FY79 1 MO FYI, FY12 FY13 M4 FYIS Unfunded Pro aPein47 Storm SDC Grant. mire other fen&ratn
Sone, Water Mortar Plana me 1 - S 23,00 5 75,001 15~7$'tXO ton-.lo.a4al.s,smK a.rynla rwun:low soenirnkadana: S 75.0 S- -
wou aliwlm mvcmcnu-Boins i Brian Area S - S ]].0110 S 50.000 tt~t4]"ODO w7 nan.daimna alt, soC-a. MVam Plv. 5 6330 S 63.500
Iowa Street- Sherman to Gresham Strom Drain line lnIolliamn S 75,000 $ 35,00 S 35.000 S 221000 ( 7001 za ua.p.elua sne:wn,.m n.aanimsbema.a
Rlw Doa: . 3 27.60 S 61,40)
Heise Wetland, I R' hih flow b a< S IW,000 5 19,660 S 186.56 I3~186 rnn SoC S 74,400 5 111.600
Mountain Creek Wan efi Ito vtaner.-B St Yard nufall S 35,00 S 35.W013~3tT501 w1) Oaa.da;F.:.n s.M SUe-Meta net. S 17,55 S 17,50
2M Street Storm Drain souN of E. Main S 5(1 5 50.(00 '00(17 ialaea:rvasoC 5 IS." S 35.000
Oaan Drainage lm rovcmems; 0&M Pi=; Cemetery (A, Clay Ck, RR Park S 75,00 S 945,000 Y001 w SCC:IMme s 189.05 S 756,00)
Beach/Mountain Creek; N. Maunain Ave ft. C to RR Tr acka s 65.(00 S 27,000 S 215.00 IS 150101 ton Fv.na..yl.arvw.a loony m ce F.ma.a.tr.-a la..
S 86,00 S 129.000
Beach / Mountain Centel, Idaho from lowuo Hall s 175,001 S 175,50 - 9'6001 NR 4CC: n 0).p. ambwnun. dram. S ]0,000 5 105.00
Beach/Moumain Creek; Horse Rtartbwer S' 50,50 S SO,WO S 50,000 - ao4soe:,i,mas.ae,a.7a..mw. S 20.000 5 30.000
Beach/ Mountain Creek C Strain /Alley, - S IW,WO 1$1~15'(!I)pl-.ev.ano, Hoot IT ea rm.n.Pw.t rant-tau,¢.o4 sx s 61,0/ 5 96.5
Beach/Mountain Crack; Encry IVelocity Disi Me - S 150,000 It tt6 of nay l•m.s wet b.l4 a•a;.a_n•a4 soc s 60.000 S 90,000
Iibe Sven - fawn to Pncht Street Storm Drain Line lnnalliawn 5 85.05 3'fW6 xo4sce:,w,.em Fym S 17.000 S 68.000
Hersey Stra.Bridge Bortom re laament S 375.001 "5 I swI do4 sort 6a m raa.as. S 18755 5 187I500
Storm Drain Line Relaaerneenl IUsim. etc rSWMP - 5 2W.W0 IS 20'11107 SwMP For->ra<wet soy 3 5.000 3 140.000
ITCI Leek Culxnf&&ALtin. laCOj. S 157.00 7XIQ d.amu,a amswAn.aoa slat 4 60.000 a'[~,le`{n+Y# S 90.07
KCeme .Er`aek-Qul m076"Mveeatla`C'u) S 150.00 ~7T(U7) ...ate ..eawnp.oasm 3 O.WU 31a'Go5 90.000
1' i1w;; 1ven (ODOT)1•IIiiG S SSO.WU {5~556;tiW7 swAtr 5 275.00 i ODOTM S 2],5.0,5
IfN.a'rlB625000] S 119,680
I e "0 FYS nI FY10 FYII FV13 FYIJ FY14 FYIS Unaulaed M e. Grants tot o1M1e fen&raaa
Eminemenl Drmu; FAA/ODA: Rdenl Aid to M.Ma ahties(FAM) $ 25,W0 5 25,00 S 15.51) t 250.00 $ 25,000 S 250.00 E~575r Fvm aa,e®.a na~.m 5
- S 51]55 S 5750 S
Atipear, Ito roremenLL(A1P) FM Grain $ I25,wQ S I,Q'XI,tX10 1125:05 fYI1 Rue.•y IYHInM.Y. P54 FM4mIy 51 Ci,y Ma.n 3 - 3 1,08,757 S
56,250 $ -
'f s'giS,!S'.2 w $
.",.ha ,aaooaWpinp Ia BWp rm..w.imc@ryW-IS FrllAT In I na .......Y)_x
St}/A0 wb/N
Capital Improvements Plan
2010-2015 Construction Years
MENOMINEE
lis`,,. PPan d''',¢rsy~ ut Spend
21109-111 11.11.41 F1 ID-1;
2008-09 i13 2Wtl-09
W21111-12 21.12-13 2013-14 21114-15 Urf..d'd TOTALC I Si an."
ATER
FY" YWrt 10 1"Y11 Y12 pY14 "is fneda
WaterSupplY PY p'Yll Un~Ym" ore
Hosln Dam Transmission Line Replacement Reeder to Water Plant $ - S I1) WO Wmer SDC Granite Mae .,her feu&rates
Hasler Dam - Stabih,Anal ix-Geoteeh $ - 5 501NN) $ - FlnJ tie in in FYLW;)645Melif w,Bkl,-i'ndb'¢n6359k in FYae S - 3 - 3 - $
- 4 -
Waaear S RrwoPmu.. Supply (Right Water for t M: MRC Rmm: mmmp via, Me RR H .ts20)M• E - S - § - 3 - S
FERC Pan Heater Dam Safi et, s t U,, Pro sm S S W." 5 30 tN0 § 440,000 S 150,000 1t{~440'0"1 FY S 36x,000 $ 96 000 S - 3
- S
Rec fer m - I3 13000 rtaC,eaa:m.a..wr)n.-sw mm.;o F7mvt.rmm4nx44Paerp S - f - S - ,000
Ruda Rea / re emeno SalarBw &Silt Removal FlW Forks $ 250,000 S 60180 S 250,000 S 120000 3 S 75.000 75
65.050 § 25000 S 55000 (;~5j$! k,P,y,w FVm: iw).. en.;. kemx.e. d., m:~ e.yaarer.., 5 - S - § - E - S I 515.000
Additional C lSt rarek Water erid Ri u Conswuion in 00;(X50 R,vmra, FYO); Smile , ll mini m.mun minim. mm mum, ra
S 100.1X10 § 100.000 =rgem S - $ - $ - 5 - S 100.000
Tekna ..d, Creek
Pi PioM A P$; Taknt to Ashland
250.000 § 15'" S 500,000 Y 11.080 000 1 " 80';0006x1 mw Gwx want. - )an .enw-irtw.rn: 1. soC E 500.000 S - $
Additional nel Water Phoe Ri hw (TID/BOR S mm e¢ - S - §
S LHit^FYOtlm9 Cwlnv pm a„F 1.111.-2nla m4: W
am.paml §8310.000 5 - S - S - S 2.]70.000
Wme f W,WO 5 50,000 S N.Dco $ 1.20O.DoO 11 ,2x0:6707 vmmreeie,vws uxnu r„weoc n.,,t .la [s,.+m.-wo „vam S 1.260.1100 $ - S - S
- $
Subtotal h 75 fE 2 f - (H7~400' ; r TMM 650001 I$ 250007 tf 53'0501 [ '.0w1 rfl~la OdS;olw rs SA' Ear.... 96'0 1 t 70007
1 4 ;®00!
Wafer loans
Hosier Dam Securi &Tekr 3 - S 20.0(10 - 7E Rrwrem.arnu m.m axawm;lW src-m,...P.u> Water SDC S GranB S miu 41 fees&rates
Sludge Laoan and WUte line lm mvemrnts S S
S - S ]5.(100
(E u vYU;twa, ma umm..r. namwinwn - $
Pro+pn a.mwa xwi
- S - S - 5
CTIMinrM hlnritcR uirtrtwnt Review S S 75.1)00 tE a,v,.vm,w FVUx; tlu;y Jraau hnn F.aswa lam S - § - 3 -
S
Plant P.,,, lm rnv them fated, SM. h, in.Orutnentvtier. flee m S 2",(N0 S 100.000 S 75, E
000 uvnn+ea^ar+mar/.M.'ar nee FCRC,ync an,. k.,:a.25xsoc
s Sfi:L50 S - S - $ -
Winer Plant Fxilixics Pl. andC acit U me 5nC I;J 3 - $ - $ §
- $ § 18.]50
-
bluer Trea)mem Plant - Cnnxwct New Flrcu 7 & B w S I.2".000 [5Y'~0260:UBB urma. i..a li,x xsssOC
S 950.000 S - S - s - $ 7".000
OmM /UV anal ieaM maulla0nn uva S - 1.75400( rS1MSY750:0001 naensoC n.-nan.J.nc.ta.
R.•nn~ S - $ - It _ S - S 1,]50,000
BuNt'alilYlaetl (f "Ul i51~BFY/d0007 ff 960007 S - ;S . %S 5 PE ( 2"95D`000t if 3b150001 IS 5 ` 1 ( r... _750
Wafer Distribmion $ - iE
Water SDC Grants Mx other fm&mtrs
S 30000
$ S e
Net l RC lxemrnt D[CM1BD SVawbe PS to Gra b
ndview Dr § 75.000 50.000 S ]5,000 75,000 S 75,000 tS 25,000}„u eallim. vvxr-,luu imoge+n ma maml..m.s45vC S 11.250 3 - I - S -IS
213,750
New -C YmWare,r wr LineRceaira I Pm l2 5 600,000 5 25.010 S $ 24 35."
00,000 S 1300.01)0 OOOl luuywlan>nrkn FYM: aamdw I.,. Cnwm k S]]H:Ln SM 4 S 1.1]0.000 S - $ - S - $ 2,)30,000
Waterline ne USLillinen - Re AHS HS low u S
laamrnts S 35.000 S 35,000 I5~~~105'0"1 vlmsa sas4aa MSer. n..,a FroR t. k..:. rap:. 5 - $ - S - S -is 105000
WeLfflime U ivn - Hositat Iona Zri"I Cltc. Mtsmm Sto Wiven t & boman ' 2B S 644000 fE 070'000 p_..mrnm~e m.h lRnemnn,uhP 3511W S 224.000 f
- I - 5
W n<r - § 416,000
(Pro" IIA S 681).000 '3) 680- lx.p,.l a..r m.,..1.o.a.w/.:.m.,m r.u.r,yl ml..usm ut S 170.000 S
$ 200,000 - S - S - S 510.000
liMUsizin-Hos ital(nne:M le$txet main One (Pm'BI $ 60,000 E2fiTi0Wl x.vim mor-uwr.ml.i. ln,r 1. up;n,v lr-zss sor S 65.000 S - S - S -
S 195.000
Wime,hre, RClecemenu S61i u Boukvard -Teva to Mietk[M m S BW 0017 I manor nm.ssro'.s43IX1 $ 40.000 I - S - S -
§ 760.000
S. Mountain&Iv lane- Rd COnnem it N. 6
Park
~ia Estates tes RPSexrvOlm rir n Pvcrom" c S 320,000 i 20;0007 pexMn nFYI]-,tun.N bmxmmN maw: av,imtotz--2x4 SM S BOOR) $ - I - S -
$ 240.000
12 (Pro" )/tll 5 S 130.300.0000 00 $ 10001x1 1f itA10T1U mmom tFYUq-nrcmnalasnmiun.nt~ S S - S - 4
$ "."1)
130.0001 13H; gaaml.q RnJ; Dareawip S 32500 f - S - S - 5 97,50)
WnerliM Rc lacemem: Granite Street-Norte to SVawbe mPionMr. S 3M." § 151"1 s Is 100,010 (51~3505N101mman •+m sere Fmq P%se ))45Df: nli4mru N-w1a
S 11)5,000 S - S - S - $ 195,"11
Warhne Re9eemem:BlMe1- Oakm Sth S 250.D00 $ 10.51" S 754000 (S 75dUppl aaum retuaR lw SM $ 25,000 $ - S - § - § 225.000
Weeuerline Relacerri Terrace Street - anDiwM1 § 35000() f§ -,0001 mom Itm tau, Ice SM S 35,000 5 - S - S - $ 315.001)
Wa¢rline Rc 1>xmcm EudlJ Avenue, HJ11IIm S, St & Mnmm Pni 745 $ 400.000 I "'Otio7 vp.In, 21450.' $ 100.000 f - S - S - S 3",01)0
SubidahDk d6&o a.$ 2360001 ` 13$`- M AE tU 600° .'475'000' 90" 4 S 800.0001 I 3.KOOb t$ ^130' 1 Z§ r.. ;0007 f1i 05175x1 i ,
60....0
620,Wo
WASTEWATER FYM FY" eat
FVIO FYII
Wastewater Treatment Plaint FYIE FYI) FVId "IS UvOtMed Ps`w° Torok
Se)rtr SDC Grants Mst other fw&rato
Treatmrnt Plate Pcrmi)Evdunion mJ Reawal S - S I".IX10 If .,wvmsnC UU S - 3 - 3 - - §
Weatewater Treament Plant Membrane Smtions RC laeenwnt Plannin 5 750.100 § 500.(100 5 Soo," S fiW.ox, $ 3W.o10 S 300000 S 150.(00 i4 5300~Q"lsmwgstn-
um.sua tam) $ 50.(110 S 250,0011 $ - 15 1W.D" S 2.0",Otto
Wasewarcr Treatri Plant Prwcns lm mvenwnta f ws45taC
Treatment Plant Ca art Evatimer S 250.000 { W.wo1.eu m src Lim § S - I S - $ § - S S
$ - S 250.000
Trzalmcm Plvn - Thermal lm mvcmcros (D -TMDL3 S 1,050.100 S 2,004(00 S 2'0"0007 cs4 soC S 250.000 $ - 3 - S - 5 1,]50.000
VMS doh1o3LPlavil CS @ M FSIMV,66'. i$ -x"`000?'S .600 OWi i 3000001 $ 7000"1 .S 300-0001 ! '50'0007 151 4'450'0001 (57 300' f (S I 0007
f 1@ " 000
Wauewater CoOectlon9 uem
Sewer SDC Gnn" Mae other fees j, S.
S f e S
Master Plw)Update S 350,000 7300105 uw4 sOC lmmmm,nt Fn) S 350,0110 $ - I - 5 - §
Watewater Line RC lacemenq Mixellaneous In-Roux S 125.0W 5 35,000 5 IWIDD) S ]"OD) S Moral $ 11N),010 S 11)(C,11W { 154 Sm s
75.(150 S - $ - S -
Abandon Nevada St P8 trod malign hire 5 425.000
$ 100,000 (S 7 0001 uw.n ls4 a 5 - 3 - S - 5 15.000 S 85,000
Wastewater Line RelxcmenC h1a nCea Lk Ma ain Wa line m BStme[ § 125,000 S 125,0011 fSaiiiiaial 125'"01 wn.,.mme.a s, noon pre,r n.m item s 42.000 S
- S - S - $8].000
Gr.ndvicw mds ew PULim Stnc slation RC dR.pl: MAahaccmclant nd Crak 5 100,000 S 20,000 5 275,000 IIENNNIFIF27
5 350,000 S 1 5000 54.mw.mre+:me nv.: avm-m;t. wa:,y.mnr avun 5 13750 § - S - S - $ 201,250
8200
line Rcali omens N. MOYnlsin AVe - Huseto Be. Creek Trunk S 25,0" S § 225,tN10 {$~225!00p1 a:a,pm Gasyswxar.m mmL ®ee 304 s0[' E 112.500 S §
§ S 1123"
Bear Cxck lntcme mrTmnk l3neU sizin Wi tman to Tatman Crock Rate] S 450.000 [D 4.500"1 S 450.000 $ I S §
Wrxmwaer Linc Rceli nment-Herz T1rcee Pml[)sUO to Wamr St s 2251)00 ( 50"1uP.iumlrlxWtlh MCU11w u1xmm/mWn.2U45C[1 S 45 OW S I S S
IBO.OW
Collecuon 5 stem u adca! rovemen)s ( er mums lan7 q zmsm 5 - § -
Ff 1d b'b Uie'"3I51~~35&008}!f 700;0001 l~lUO 31";00073 ";11001 If ]"5001 If -I$ -is - 5
;156'0881 /f 600;000 IS~I;aBS - -ISV15;500113!♦1;99G)7W
3Eszf cFC 202.5 q(0 f 285,200
G WI~"aMrWMnVMMi+~Itl nuxtn F,mr.utiui4]P FYVI-If PoII wqlniYlUn.4M-U)-w.N3 "
Irlumo0 l9eAR
Capital Improvements Plan
2010-2015 Construction Years 1
appnved "1171
2W84K 20"414 21109-10 211 In- 11 20 11. 12 2-112-13 2013-14 2014- 15 Untioultd TO rA I. CoO Suin
F,I.F.CFRIC FYW F\'Wnt FYIO FYII FYI2 M325"$ FYIS Un(atnded Pro ~TaFab-dam Gnnls nusc a1M1er far&ntn
i 300 OBO.. 'i i i 6 6
ri
' i i3i190
U rude Mountain Avenue Substation Low Side Distnbution S 10,000 5 135 No $ 60.01M W-Oq7 S - $ - $ - $ 6U.WU
U rode Business Disraicl Feeder Line - Heiman Shmel 5 20.000 $ 20000 t 20i0Rl7 S - $ - 8 - S 20.000
Undt,,..d Uni Lines- Quit, Villa. Subdivision > IUUW $ 30000 ?S. 30 8101 $ - $ - 5 - 8 3O.OW
1st Street Upgoide $ 25,000 !S ]5;0001 $ - $ - 5 - 5 2.0000
Business Feedc,U alt, Church St - Granire St. $ 25.000 :Sf~25r1I001 S - $ - 5 - S 25.1X10
Insult New Services&New lnRssr.num S 325.000 S 26U.UW S 225.0" $ 325.0X0 S 325.000 S 325.000 S 5 S 1.850.000
Ehnric Utilia line Installation; In-house Vanws lncaeons 5 IN," S 60.0000 $ 85.000 S IW," 5 100.0X00 S 100,000 1$01 95'.OW coo-wanes.'
5 - $ - S - 5 585.000
SCADASystem $ 25,000 S 25,00 S 35,1100 S 45,000 {f 11601IAT. S -is -IS - 5 So."
Hi hwa 661-5 Frtewa Crossing Upgrade s 200.000 !S 200".0007 - $ - S - S . 5 2W.SW
Ashland Substation U adc S 50.000 S 5D. Nu 100: $ - S - 8 - 5 IN."
U rade Feeder Lint-Stolen Street S 35,000 $ 30.000 $ 30.000 f 9 S - $ - S - 5 95.WU
Underround Oak Street Lines S 30.000 $ 311.000 s$ 00.010} $ - S - $ - S 60.000
Oak Knoll Substation Upgraic $ SU.oix) $ SU 1XX) IS IUU081'a S - $ - S - 5 IW.wU
Crnwrn Raul Frsean Cnnsin U ,,adc S IUO.ON) C1. IO0.0X1~ $ - S - S - S I0D.000
f 765.000 S 765,000
A '/TF.I.F,COMMIINI ATI NS FY" FYW eta FY10 FY11 FY12 M3 FY14 "IS Unfunded R>;Pm °t Tamh" Grunts Ms. ether fees&nen
' i +~1N4WU !i +a,.aa4.4xau f 6 S
Underground Machine $ 23.000 $ • 23,I1M - 1S. 23' .1PmPaa4l,.PVU1 - 5 - S - S 23,M)
802.11 to Wireless Buildout - S 5,000 S 5.000 S 5,000 $ 5,000 S 5 )U i$ 25:DQP7 $ - S - S - S 25.000
Di..hution and Cable EUimentlvullatinn S 120,00 S 7.DUtt $ I2o.0OD 5 1201000 $ 120,000 $ 120.000 $ 120,001 S 120,000 kY. 720'0KA
$ - S - S - S 720.000
Ncrw.Ok Reft-h S 10.010 S 101001) S 101000 S to," S 10.000 $ MOM, $ IUOW S 10,00 fS._ 600107 $ - S - 5 - 5
W.UW
Fibenn the Pmmisc FTTP S 25.000 S 15,000 5 to," S I0,000 $ 10.0100 S to," S 10.00 ?S 65:0007 $ - 5 - S - S
65300
Underground Teleeommunication Lines Installation - Vadnusl anions s 25.000 5 25.000 S 14000 S 10.000 1 10.000 3 to." 5 25,000 ;5 90.WOi
S - S - S - S WAOU
WiMaaR In mcm S 150.000 S 150.000 S 10.000 S 10.(101 S 10,000 S 10.000 S 101000 iS 2000007 $ - $ - S - S 2W.0W
O.ical Ti. Domvn ReOttlnme,c,(OTDR) S II,WU ?S 17?W0i S - S - $ - S ILOW
Rnumrs 5 SOW S 15.010 S 15.000 =S. 'IMMYl $ - $ - S - S 30.000
Scrver Replacement S IS." S 5 - S 15,0X1
Relueam Rhcr with DOVeln rem } 25.0011 S 20.0X) S sbo 1 211.01X) t .5;000! 1 - $ - S -Is 45,0X1
Cable Modem Te.minalinnSystem (CMTS) S 100.0X81 f$ IW;IXOi $ - $ - 5 - S MISS)
$ 375,0110 S 57,04a)
INFORNIATIONTECHNOLOGY FYW FVW ut FV10 FYII FY12 MY11,338 FY I4 FY15 III football ;~P2oibT0-mis Gams suite M fees& t.
Ueskm and m Planamd Re lacemem (25F Annual) $ 75.000 S 15,000 $ BD,000 $ BU.O)U S &0.000 S BO,000 5 80000 S S 480,000
Server Planned RC Iacement 5 13.000 S 13,000 S 15.000 5 15,000 S 15.000 ESS22W,NX) 5 15,010 S S 90.000
Prim, Planned RC laeemem S 25,0X0 S 25(0 5 20,000 $ S 40.000
Ma'nr SOOwarc PUrchazes > 60.000 5 WWU S W.WO $ $ ISl1.IXN1
S :mm Re lazcmcn. S 5 20LOM1
11.0000 1]10fm3 zi7f UW f~`a§t??55 r7e7Ta ° ti' :]900001 Ex"0m"'k[+°L":S'_^ 7%
GIS • FYW F'YW t MO FY11 FY12 FY 13 FY 14 FY15 Unmndnd ?n-po tTbtai Gents rise other fees&svtn
GIST vial DUahaw En tine it I S 5,0X1 S 32.00 3. .32001 S - S - S - 5 320W
.`:I.w-.s,":_.'. ^-F_ •.0,.r f.: ::,sr.:::$ s...5000:=5 "d'+?c.gb=~S*'auz. S+3 -µE •_;x."3
e~
FINAN E FVW FYIN v't FY10 FYII FYI2 FYIJ FYI4 FYIS UnBandnd Pio-FTothli 'i Cants MsC other fen&nln
54550
F IS ( U ad, S - c S SUSSU 'S -5507 S - $ - 5 -Is
5113000b 179 .000
ADMINISTRATION- ft Fallities FYW FVW CSI FYIO FYII FYI2 FY13 FY14 FYIS Unfunded t!m °STe16la Gouts robs other fees&ntn
City Faaili. Upgrades & Mainasomee $ MOW S 145.1000 5 IW,O01 S IN" S 12541000 8 125.0100 5 125,000 S 130.010 ii 705:010iuAeaasrolaean
S - $ e S - S 705AW
FxiBlies Plantain,$ace Needs Anal and FLndin Otions 50,000 ii a..W.,ou. of S - 1 - S - S -
Police Panting Lot Expansion S 85.000 S W.WO E 85.000 tS 0.5.0001 ma.m:i.+v 0wan.avMNM P•avxw*6n1 wFVOlt. $ $ - 5 - S 85.000
' ui merit/She- DieselRebotia S I( A O S 101.000 !S IW:aDO! ,P...ImFran. retpw uw..Pw.=I tuarcn16sAVl ams... n.0, S 91.010 S - 5 - 5
Y.UW
Police De semen, Boodle Im Vemen.s S 200,000 S 75.10 $ 100.000 i3 W.0W7. A..0, talon uvaa '1,4'v:)_wuelle FYUxw;r.t.an rumil a.rt... S -
$ - 5 - S 100.1X01
Rre SOtion No. 2 Reeonstruninn 5 1W,11W S 5300,(n00 iE 5"SW;WS1Owi loww:u.wnu,.a,wma.✓F=aak,wma DmJe A4miaY'R "Jan S - 3 - S 5301.00
S
Council Chambers im m nls $ WON ;UDU7. xFrofla maiw rc.iw.. P,vl„isa maumnwsraalve0 $ 4 5 S 300.0X1
Archive Building COnsvuetion S 1.500.000 $ 1?SwUUOOI 0,,t. Finaula.mw.. Plxn enmu S - $ - S - S I15U0.0W
Lon Tenn Faeiluies Re lacement - S 1]50,(0X1 (S 1$SO:OIM17 a.mm•,a Fd.ne. steal P6n rcw,u, $ - $ - S - S 1]501001
Cit FaziliticsU racks- bawd on a Faciluiw Plan 5 L200.0W iS I?2W:OOD1 a<P•.e. m F-1-vta.. Pm ..am, S - $ - S - 5 1,200.001
S 585 000 $ 330.1 W
PARKS&RECREATION FYW FYW nt FYIO FYII FYI2 FFYIS Uriftmdest wpm °iTo6B~ SDC Ganes foaeloa' other fen&rates
Ice Rink Cover RClacement% and lonrvren.a S 300,000 S 2W.N0 $ Moos) 13 (IO.pRR w..<. P.vg:..:aetvml^ra• f - 5 150.0100 $ - S IW.00
S (50.00
nSpace A uisimn/Park Development S 200.00 S - S 400,000 $ 2W.ODO $ 2W.000 $ $ MOO S 5 S
M Main and Scenic Park Doclo men. $ 1 W,ow S 200,000 $ uo 111x v N sx 5 $ 5
Calla GUwauam S 15.000 S $ $ IW,OW $ $ S 25.1101 S 50.0X)
Ve cl Park Detlo eoent S 75.000 S $ 75,000 5 5 Y5.OW 1511.000
Oaklllni unt Re laument/lenrov.menb $ SWOW S iS~i/5G01X)7 $ 187.500 f - f - $ 181.500 S ?75.000
f 750000 $ 400,01X1
TOTALCIFOSTIRTI.MF S 1106]000 S JSJNYO 5 6.1741.101 S 7.W.NX1 S 6o$2J1W $ 4.07,OW E 32e5.WN) S 2.105.001. 8 511,557,550 $
84500,250 S 19.930,6911 S 9"075271$ 3.170.1101,S 6.831.251115 411,820.67?
FYW nun, FYII FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Unfunded IQFY1OZ15iTOTAL note-th4 shows tolab butart sp0l funds!!
G'ryMwb^m(aGiri W Yptin['FY.e B W 0,w Preweri,nx'P FY W I S FLO Pq. tm iY I U htlM - U} I NMI
3/122009 10:46 AM -
Project FYW
Description TOTA L Cost
Trans ortation PPr°o eM$ro"tals'1 Street SDC Grants LIDS other fees & rates
TSP Update f$ 350;0(101 $ 350,000 $ - $ - $ - $
Jefferson Street Extension Project (Brammo - OECDD) $ 800;0001 $ - $ 360,000 $ - $ 440,000 $
Pavement plus; Plaza Avenue CMA ) F$ 80;0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 80,000
Miscellaneous Concrete Safety Repairs 1$ 17;701 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Misc New Sidewalk Improvements (based on prioritized list in TSP 1$ 80;701 $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000
Overlay - North Laurel Street - North Main Street to Railroad tracks 1$2001,3219001 $ - $ 132,900 $ - $ - $
Overlay - Iowa Street - Wi htman Street to South Mountain Avenue E$ 180;6001 $ - $ 180,600 $ - $ - $
Overlay - West Nevada Street - Versant Street to Michelle Avenue F$ 1:46?6001 $ $ 146,600 $ $ $
Overla - Allison Street - Gresham to Sherman 1$, 400;0001 $ - $ 376,000 $ - $ - $ 24,000
S56tot`allTrans ortation~ l$ 2;27.011001 1$ 37.0`000.1 1$ I®196±1001 1$ 1$1 440;0001 264;0001
Local Improvement Districts
1Pi75j6c6T6t5S'4 Street SDC Grants Property Owner other fees & rates
Pavement plus; Liben Street Local Improvement District F$ 23010004 $ 41,400 $ $ 115,500 $ $ 73,100
Snlifo-CWILo a`llliirovetaent3Distric'tal i$ 230;0001 1$ 41r400$ bk$°.-SII$ b15r5001 1$ - I$ 73-100
Storm Drains PPro"ectifrotalsP Storm SDC Grants mist other fees &.rates.
Storm Water Master Plan Update 75!0003 $ 75,000 $ - - $ - $
Water Quality Improvements - Basins/Riparian Areas F$ 7M0001 $ 38,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 38,500
Iowa Street - Sherman to Gresham Storm Drain Line Installation 35?071 $ 10,500 $ - $ - $ - $ 24,500
Air ort Pero"ecl Too°tel°sP Grants mist other fees & rates
Entitlement Grants; FAAIODA; Federal Aid to Municipalities (FAM) 1$VW* 25;0001 $ - $ 22,500 $ - $ 2,500 $
Ai on Ira rovements (ATP) FAA Grunt 1$ 125?0001 $ $ 118,750 $ $ 6,250 $
WATER
Water Su I PPro'eetlTotalsl Water SDC Grants mist other fees & rates
Water Supply Stud (Right Water for the Right Use Pro ram) [$111111111141:700011 $ 344,000 $ 96,000 $ - $ - $
Additional Water Rights (TID/BOR system, etc) 1$' 60?0001 $ 60,000 $ - $ - $ - $
Sa6totallSu "1 500;0001 1$ AOQ'00011$. 9,6;0003,1$ - - F$
Water Plant Water SDC Grants mist other fees & rates
Plant Process Ira rov (them feed, soda ash, instrumentation, fiocculator) 1$ 75!0001 $ 56,250 $ - $ - $ - $ 18,750
S56fOt5llPlantti l$ 75;0001 1$ 56 25011$ 1$ I$ 18K501
WASTEWATER
Wastewater Treatment PlantP,ro'ecl$TdfalsHI Sewer SDC Grants mist other fees & rates
Wastewater Treatment Plant Membrane Sections Re lacement Planning 1$ 500[701 $ 50,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 200,000 $
911111111011111111 S56C01allP,lantl 1$ ..500'0001 i$ 50;00011$. 250;0001 1$ B - - 1$1*200;0001 I$ - - 1
Wastewater Collection S stem Sewer SDC Grants mist other fees & rates
Master Plan U date 1$ 350$000; $ 350,70 $ - $ - $ - $ '
1$ 350'00011$ 350°0001 1$ 1$ 1$~1 1$ -
. ELECTRIC PP.ro'ect4Tot°alsll Grants mist other fees & rates
Upgrade Mountain Avenue Substation Low Side Distribution 60;0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 60,000
Upgrade Business District Feeder Line - Heiman Street 1$ 20;071 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,000
Underground Utility Lines - Quiet Village Subdivision I$ 30;073 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000
1st Street Overhead Upgrade 3141111111111,25(000P $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000
Business Feeder Upgrade, Church St - Granite St. F$. 25;0007 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000
Install New Services & New Infrastructure ,$2231,0001 $ $ $ $ 225,07
Electric Utility Line Installation; In-house Various Locations I$ 85;0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000
SCADA System RMINI 351071 $ - $ - $ - $ 35,000
AFN / TELECOMMUNICATIONS PPr°0'eWRTofals'1 Grants mist other fees & rates
Underground Machine 1$. 23!701 $ - $ - $ - $ 23,000
802.1Ib Wireless Buildout F$ M0001 $ - $ . $ - $ 5,000
Distribution and Cable Equipment Installation T$1111111111111111,20',0001 $ - $ - $ $ 120,07
Network Refresh 1$11"1010001 $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000
Fiber to the Premise FTTP) I'SWO01 $ - $ - $ - $ 15,000
Underground Telecommunication Lines Installation - Various Locations F$ 25;0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,000
WiMax De to mart 1$ 1'50;0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 150,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PPro ecthTotals$ Grants mist other fees & rates
Desktop and Laptop Planned Replacement (25% Annually) 1$ ;80"07: $ $ $ $ 80,07
Server Planned Re lacement 1'3;071 $ $ $ $ 15,000
ADMINISTRATION - Cit Facilities YPr`o°ean alsl Grants mdse other fees & rates
Cit Facili[ U codes & Maintenance I$ 100;0003 $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000
Police Parkin Lot Expansion t$ 8%0001 $ - $ - $ - $ 85,000
E ui mart / Sho -Diesel Retrofit F$ I'OOA001 $ 91 A00 $ - $ - $ 9,07
ADMINISTRATION - FACILITIES $ 285000 $ 194,060
PARKS & RECREA'T'ION SPr`o"ect$To[alsl SDC Grants food/bev other fees& rates
Ice Rink Cover Replacements and Improvements F$ 2001000$ $ - $ 150,70 $ $ - 50,000 $ -
O En Space Acquisition / Park Development l$ 400;701 $ - $ - $ 400,000 $ - $
Vo el Park Develo mart 1$ 751000$ $ 37,500 $ - $ $ $ 37,500
TOTAL C[P FY10 $ 6.170,100 $ 1,433,150 $ 1,924,350 $ 515,500 $ 698,750 $ 1.598,350
G:\pub-wrks\eng\admin\budgeting\FY10 Budget PresentationZIP FY09-15 Full prep for FY10 budget - 03-12-09_2
FY 10 Fleet Acquisition
Public Works:
Water Department: Budget Amount Replacement Unit
#106ATrailer Mounted Air Compressor: $20,000.00 175 cfm trailer mounted cc
#347 1999 Ford Ranger: $24,000.00 Compact Pickup 4x4
#431 2000 Ford F-150 $26,000.00 Full size half ton pickup 4x
$70,000.00
Police Department:
Operations:
#541 2006 Ford Crown Victoria $24,000.00 Patrol rated full size car.
Equipment needed for outfitting a patrol car. $10,000.00
$34,000.00
Electric Department:
#301 Bucket Truck $230,000.00 Bucket truck with 55 foot re
$230,000.00
FY'10Budget Total: $334,000.00
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Public Hearing and Resolutions to Raise Water and Wastewater Utility Rates
Meeting Date: March 17, 2008 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg
Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: None ~ J Secondary Contact: None
Approval: Martha Benne~~t Estimated Time: 45 minutes
Question:
Will Council approve the proposed increases to the Water and Wastewater utility rates effective April
20, 2009, to replace revenue shortfalls, fund operations and capital expenditures?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council seek public input, consider the need for rate increases in these two
funds, and approve increases with a net impact of 10% within the Water and 20% within the
Wastewater utility. This report should be considered in tandem with the Public Works communication
on Capital Improvements.
Impact:
The proposed adjustments will generate nearly $400,000 in annual revenue to the Water Fund and
approximately $555,000 for the Wastewater Fund. Staff has not performed a sensitivity analysis so we
do not know whether customers will reduce consumption as a result of this amount of increase. We
expect that summer-time water use has the most elastic demand and is most likely to decline due to
price increase.
The estimated impact on an "average" residential account is $6.60 per month with, an average low
during winter of $5.50 per month and an average high in the summer of $8.75 per month. The
household used for average calculation is a family of four living in a 1500 square foot, landscaped
comer lot. The average increase on the total utility bill from Ashland for this account (all charges and
dependant upon water and electricity use) is 3.75%.
Background:
In November 2008 staff requested and Council approved issuing bonds to finance proposed capital
projects and to reimburse capital expenditures made from reserves for both the Water Fund and the
Wastewater Fund. Current financing market conditions, the elimination of the municipal financing
insurance industry, and fluctuations of revenue streams and expenses have raised considerable doubt
that we would be successful in issuing revenue bonds at an acceptable interest rate. This course of
action could still be taken but it may require pledging the City's Full Faith and Credit backing to both
funds.. Failure to achieve acceptable rates in any financing would result in staff declining offers and
result in the loss of several hundred thousand dollars in process costs.
In addition to addressing the cash reserves, each fund has experienced significant increases in fixed
expenses that are not covered by existing rates. Further, Water Fund revenue is susceptible to
variations related to weather while Water Fund expenses are largely constant. Low water sales in 2008
worsen the condition of this fund. Likewise, the wastewater Fund depends on Food & Beverage Tax
Page 1 of 6
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
collections, which declined in 2008 and are likely to remain reduced in 2009. Neither fund can meet
all of its obligations in 2009.
Revenue trends indicate an inability to rely on the status quo stream of either tax or sales revenue.
Operating costs including debt service exceed recent rate increases resulting in cash flows that cannot
provide or maintain the required ending fund balances. This condition compromises each fund's
ability to meet obligatory targets, both internally and externally required, while continuing to pay for
operations and provide resources to the General, Street and Debt Service funds.
Since the last discussion of rates (June 17, 2008; information is available on line or upon request) there
have been additional discussions of rates, borrowing and system needs. The following table provides
the most up-to-date information available.
This table presumes infusion of cash from various sources including rate increases in both funds and
either internal or external borrowing.
2008-2009 Comparison Water Water Wastewater Wastewater
Budget Projected Budget Projected
Carty Forward from FY 2008 $ 4,381,265 $ 1,865,418 $ 3,502,341 $ 3,764,972
Revenue:
Charges for Service $ 4,300,000 $ 3,995,000 $ 2,715,000 $ 12,773,000
Additional Revenue from increase (May & June) 72,000 92,000
Taxes & Intergovernmental 50,000 1,691,000 1,556,000
Miscellaneous 75,000 282,300 5,000
Interest 70,000 25,800 100,000 56,520
System Development Charges 450,000 75,335 215,000 63,870
Interfund loan 700,000
Financing & other 1,750,000 3,000,000
Total Revenue 6,695,000 5150 435 7,726,000 4,541,390
Total Resources (Carry Forward & Revenue) $ 11,076,265 $ 7,015,853 $ 11,228,341 $ 8,306,362
Expense:
Personal Services $ 1,649,021 $ 1,480,569 $ 909,633 $ 938,381
Materials & Services 2,515,854 2,679,805 2,321,171 2,368,148
Existing Debt Service 539,019 539,019 1,782,949 1,782,949
New Debt Service 240,000 - -
Other - Projects/Equipment 2,958,028 620,250 2,010,000 164,000
Interfund loan
Contingency 133,000 135,000
Total Expenditures 8,034,922 5,319,643 7158 753 5,253,478
Projected Ending Fund Balance $ 3,041,343 $ 1696 210 $ 4,069,588 $ 3 052 884
Less:
Projected Restricted $ 2,509,919 $ 1,505,000 $ 2,308,948 1,886,000
Target (Water-city policy; Wastewater-DEQ) 889,000 1,777,457 1,788,160
Difference E (357,576) $ 191,210 E (16,817) E 621276
Proposed increase 10.0% 20.0%
Revenue Impact $ 400,000 $ 555,000
Page 2 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Even though both funds had significant beginning balances from FY 2008, operating costs and
completing projects have consumed most of the Water Fund's cash. The Wastewater fund is slightly
better. However, a larger cash reserve is required for the annual debt service on the wastewater
treatment plant. Revenue from the Food & Beverage Tax declined in 2008 for the first time.in many
years and the rate increase in 2008 was not sufficient to offset this reduction. A larger amount of rate
revenue than budgeted has gone to pay debt service.
Below is a table showing recent adjustments for the two funds.
Actual & Proposed 8/112005 8/1/2007 8/1/2008 Proposed 412009
Water Rates 3.5% 6.0% 2%-8% 10.0%
Wastewater Rates 3.0% 10.0% 3.0% 20.0%
The proposed rate increases do not fully resolve either fund's weaknesses. These utilities ares still
vulnerable to declines in F&B tax receipts and water consumption.
Staff has reduced costs and stopped discretionary capital projects. Staff is also looking at reductions in
operating expenses.
Water Fund
The adopted Water Fund budget for FY 2009 included $8.0 million in expenditures with $2.9 million
in capital expenditures but revenue totaling only $6.7 million. Bonds proceeds totaling $4.75 million
were budgeted, intending to pay for capital costs over several years. They were not sold last summer
and were authorized in late fall but not issued. Many capital projects were delayed or scaled back in
FY 2009 awaiting better information on funding. However, operating cash reserves were used to
complete the projects that were started in the prior year.
Water Volumetric Sales FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
.(thousand Projected
Water Sales 161,977 151,661 166,915 169,885 151,541 153,740
For the past two years, moderate summers have resulted in reduced water sales compared to
projections. Water sales dropped in 2008 as compared to FY2006-2007's sales when the TID
irrigation season was expanded and resulted in a peak sales mark. FY 2009 water sales are predicted
to fall short of budget by $300,000. The fund has had some impact from the slow down in
development services but the reduction will not have an immediate effect on operations.
Page 3 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Water Sales in Thousand Cubic Feet
175,000 T
170,000
165,000
160,000
155,000
150,000
145,000 T
140,000 2004 v 0ctual 05T FO 006 FY0 007TFY 2008 FY 2009d
Operational expenditures (people, materials and supplies including water treatment costs) have been
covered by rate increases but higher franchise fees to the General Fund and payments for technology
debt have not been adequately addressed through these rates. The Water Fund also has annual debt
service of approximately $539,000 which will decrease to $204,000 (62%) in FY 2016.
Both funds must also reserve Systems Development Charges for approved future uses and additional
funds are needed to replace reserved SDCs that were borrowed to complete projects. As presented to
Council last fall, if the City were to issue bonds for improvements the current market conditions would
require borrowing excess money to meet cash reserve requirements on exiting debt since the insurance
industry for municipal bond issues has failed.
Due to the above, staff recommends a rate increase of 10% to meet the identified needs. Staff is
proposing a 10% increase across the board but a "range" approach for increases similar to the one used
last year could be employed. The approach of varying the rate increase percentage on base charges and
on the different blocks helps to ease the impact on culinary and health needs but sends a conservation
message to large water users. If Council is interested in using the range approach,the attached
resolution could be modified to generate the same level of revenue through varying percentages.
These adjustments will need to begin immediately to generate an improved cash flow for the fund to
meet existing obligations, begin to restore cash reserves and eventually provide funds to support
projects or financing.
However, some financing is appropriate and an interfund loan is being considered for the Water Fund
to restore its ending fund balance for cash-funded capital projects. The likely source of the loan is the
Cemetery Trust Fund with repayment occurring over the next two years with interest. Staff would
bring any such action to Council for approval in April.
Page 4 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Wastewater Fund
The adopted Wastewater Fund budget for FY 2009 included $7.1 million in expenditures with $1.9
million in capital expenditures. Budgeted revenue totaled $7.7 million but included $3 million in bond
proceeds. Because of the limited rate revenue capacity of this fund, Full Faith and Credit bonds were
thought to be more acceptable to the municipal financing community. As with the Water Fund, bonds
were authorized but not issued and many projects were scaled back in FY 2009.
,Food & Beverage Tax Revenue FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
(in thousands of dollars) Actual Actual Actual Projected Projected Projected Projected
80% of tax proceeds' $ 1,481 $ 1,594 $ 1,567 $ 1,556 $ 11500 $ 800
Annual Debt Service to 2023 $ 1,798 $ 1,793 $ 1,763 $ 1,777 $ 1,772 $ 1,776 $ 1,760
sunsets December 2010
Unlike the Water Fund, wastewater rate revenue has increased consistent with rate adjustments but the
other primary revenue stream, Food & Beverage Tax proceeds, has declined creating problems with
the DEQ loan covenants. F&B tax revenue does not cover $275,000 of the annual $1.8 million debt
service on the loan.
Food & Beverage Receipts in Wastewater Compared to Annual DEQ Debt Service
$2,000
$1,800
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200 -
$1,000
$800
$600
$400 -
$200
Actual FY
$ 006 T Actual Actual
FY 2008T Projected FY 209T Projected T PFY 201111d Projected
2d
The historical reliability and magnitude of the Food & Beverage Tax revenues have kept Ashland's
sewer rates low. Staff cannot tell when this tourism-based revenue will rebound. Rate increases are
needed to meet the DEQ loan requirements for sufficient cash reserves and revenue to provide
coverage on the annual debt service. If the tax is not renewed prior to December 31, 2020, sewer rates
would need an additional significant rate increase to meet its financial obligations.
The Wastewater Fund also has many of the same issues for operational costs as the Water Fund
including franchise payments and technology debt. All of these put pressure on the ending fund
balance because the Wastewater Fund must reserve over $1.7 million in cash for the DEQ loan and a
like amount in Systems Development Charges. That results in a restricted ending fund balance of
Page 5 of 6
Mr,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
approximately $3.5 million. Meeting these requirements precludes its ability to also have $450,000
(15% of annual revenues) set aside for operational purposes as proposed in the City's policies.
Staff recommends a 20% rate increase on all amounts immediately to replace the drop in F&B Tax
revenue and to help restore cash reserves used to fund projects. This adjustment will consistently
generate an improved cash flow of approximately $500,000 per year that will help to meet existing
obligations and eventually restore cash reserves.
Summary
The Water and Wastewater systems are vital components of the community's vitality and health. Each
fund has considerable fixed costs. Reduced operations can also harm the reliability of the system over
time.
Staff is concerned about proposing significant rate adjustments. We are sensitive to the impact of the
recession on our residents and we have delayed discussion of needs in other enterprises because
addressing the health of the water and wastewater funds has become pressing. We reluctantly make
this recommendation as we believe both of these utilities provide basic needs to our residents.
Please note: The City provides relief to many senior citizens, disabled customers and low income
households. Currently, over $100,000 is paid for qualifying families and this number rises as do utility
charges. These programs will provide some relief to those who are struggling with monthly costs.
Related City Policies:
Financial Management Policy
Council Options:
Council can:
1. Accept staff s proposal including rate increases and internal financing.
2. Amend staff s proposed rates and/or internal financing.
3. Direct staff to take other steps in funding operations and financing capital needs for either or
both funds.
4. Take no action and direct staff on what additional information is needed.
Potential Motions:
Council moves to accept option above.
Attachments:
Resolutions for Water and Wastewater rates.
Page 6 of 6
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE
PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030
AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2008-17.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule
attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after
April 20, 2009.
Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing
period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution.
Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution
remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action.
SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City
Recorder.
SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of
this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of
the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5).
SECTION 4. Resolution 2008-17 is repealed.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of March, 2009, and
takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of March, 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
EXHIBIT "A"
WATER RATE SCHEDULE
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
PROPOSED MARCH 17, 2009
EFFECTIVE
METERED SERVICE
All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the
Ashland Municipal Code.
1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE:
The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and does not
include any water consumption.
OLD NEW
0.75 Inch Meter $ 11.35/month $12.49/month
1 Inch Meter $ 22.68/month $24.95/month
1.5 Inch Meter $ 32.34/month $35.57/month
2 Inch Meter $ 42.60/month $46.86/month
3 Inch Meter $ 89.06/month $97.97/month
4 Inch Meter $136.16/month $149.78/month
6 Inch Meter $255.31/month $280.84/month
8 Inch Meter $425.50/month $468.05/month
B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE:
All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic feet of water used.
Single Family Residential Consumption
OLD NEW
0 to 300 cf per month $1.30/ccf $1.43/ccf
301 to 1000 cf per month $1.60/ccf $1.76/ccf
1001 to 2500 cf per month $2.13/ccf $2.34/ccf
Over 2500 cf per month $2.75/ccf $3.03/ccf
Multi-Family Residential Consumption
OLD NEW
0 to 300 cf per month per unit $1.30/ccf $1.43/ccf
301 to 1000 cf per month per unit $1.60/ccf $1.76/ccf
1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit $2.13/ccf $2.34/ccf
Over 2500 cf per month per unit $2.75/ccf $3.03/ccf
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective August 1, 2008
Non-Residential Consumption
OLD NEW
0 to 50,000 cf per month $1.83/ccf $2.01/ccf
Over 50,000 cf per month $1.88/ccf $2.07/ccf
C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES:
Unmetered Service $90.28/acre or portion of an acre - OLD
$99.31 /acre or portion of an acre -NEW
Metered Service
Base Service Charge Same as "A" above
Water Consumption $0.29/ccf - OLD
$0.32/ccf - NEW
D. BULK WATER RATE:
For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant,
the following charges apply: OLD NEW
Deposit* $987.23 $1085.95
Basic Fee $124.66 $137.13
Cost of Water Same as Commercial.
*Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city
meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant.
E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE:
This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic
service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be
billed at commercial rates.
2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5
times the rates for water service provided within the city limits.
EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective August 1, 2008
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER)
SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2008-16.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The wastewater (sewer) rate charges and rates as shown on the
wastewater (sewer) rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or
estimated consumption on or after April 20, 2009.
Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing
period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution.
Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by the previous resolution
remain in effect as per the attached until revised by separate Council Action.
SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City
Recorder.
SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of
this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of
the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5).
SECTION 4. Resolution 2008-16 is repealed.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of March, 2009, and
takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of March, 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
SEWER RATES
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 1
EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON
SEWER RATE SCHEDULE
RESOLUTION NO. 2009-
PROPOSED MARCH 17, 2009
EFFECTIVE
All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland
Municipal Code.
1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS
Single Family Residential August 2008 May 2009
Monthly Service Charge $13.48 $16.18
Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.02 $2.42
Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cf) per
month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of
January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter
readings taken during the previous three months.
Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February
and March will be based on 700 cubic feet.
Multi-Family Residential August 2008 May 2009
Monthly Service Charge per Unit $13.48 $16.18
Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.02 $2.42
Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month
per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months
of January, February and March.
Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential dwelling is
attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water
readings taken during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water account with no
consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two
dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit.
SEWER RATES
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 2
Commercial, Industrial and August 2008 May 2009
Governmental
Monthly Service Charge $14.09 $16.91
Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.24 $2.69
Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial
accounts will be billed as commercial.
For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured
through city water meters, the sewer rate will be establishes as follows: The annual water consumption
will be determine by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption
records of similar users or water consumption record of past use, if available. The annual water
consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by
twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the
monthly sewer rate for the user. This rate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is
determined until the following July or until the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At
such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer
rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this manner shall be lowered
if the user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approved by the city that the user's actual
consumption is less than the estimate.
2. ADDJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWER
RATES
A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage
discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust
the sewer user charge accordingly.
Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator
1. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year.
August 2008 May 2009
Monthly Service Charge $14.09 $16.91
Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.24 $2.69
SEWER RATES
EXHIBIT "A"
PAGE 3
Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the
average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1
the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months.
1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom
August 2008 May 2009
Monthly Service Charge $14.09 $16.91
Quantity Charge per 100 cf $2.24 $2.69
Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of
water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April I the bill
will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months.
B. Water sold through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge.
3. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS
A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the
Ashland Municipal Code.
B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the
City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700
cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family
residences.
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Police Grant Application Approval
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Terry Holderness
Department: Police E-Mail: Holdemet@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Tuneberl@ashland.or.us
Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 10 minutes
Question:
Should the Police Department apply for a grant from the United States Department of Justice Office of
Community Oriented Policing for one additional officer to engage in community policing activities and
agree to maintain staffing levels?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that Council vote to direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant to fund one
additional officer to engage in community policing activities.
Background:
As part of the Federal stimulus package the Office of Community Oriented Policing will be awarding
approximately one billion dollars in competitive grant funding under the COPS Hiring Recovery Program
(CHRP) program. The grants will pay 100% of the cost of the officer up to $75,000 a year for three years.
The money may be used to hire officers to fill unfunded positions. The officer hired under this program
will have to engage in community policing activities. Until the actual competitive criteria are released later
this month we will not know exactly how we will have to structure the grant application. If the criteria are
similar to COPS grant programs in the past our most competitive option would most likely be to add an
additional Central Area Patrol officer. The additional CAP officer would be able to engage in community
policing activities in the downtown, parks and schools and still be available to respond to emergencies
throughout the City.
The grant program requires a commitment to maintain officer staffing levels for the term of the grant and
then to maintain the additional position when the grant funding ends. The Police Department is submitting
a budget proposal that includes 26 full time officer positions for the 2010 budget. If we were to accept a
COPS grant for an additional officer we would need.to maintain 27 or more full time officers through the
2013 budget year.
Related City Policies:
None
Council Options:
The Council may either approve that the Police Department apply for the COPS grant or direct that the
department not apply for the grant.
Potential Motions:
I move to direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant.
I move to direct the Police Department not to apply for a COPS grant.
Attachments:
None
Page 1 of I
W1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Request for Proposals for Beneficial Use of the City Owned
"Imperatrice Property"
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 552-2411
Department: Public Works E-Mail: fau hgtm n ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: James Olson 552-2412
Approval: Martha Benue Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Will Council consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the "Imperatrice Property"?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the
"Imperatrice Property".
Background:
Property Acquisition
On April 9, 1996, the City purchased 846 acres of land known as the "Imperatrice Ranch" property
from Kimberly White, Karen White, and Marion Imperatrice for $946,000. The property was
purchased using food and beverage tax proceeds with the intent to land apply the City's wastewater
treatment plant effluent and biosolids. The effluent and biosolids land application plan was suspended
after surrounding neighbors and members of the community expressed concerns about effluent land
application proposals. The City then made the decision to upgrade the wastewater plant effluent from
a class III to a class IV by adding membrane filters.
Even with the new membrane upgrades, the City faces challenges due to regulatory temperature
requirements. The City's effluent temperature exceeds these new standards. The City will be studying
all potential solutions, and staff recommends the City keep the potential land application of effluent as
one option that will be studied.
In an effort to generate revenues that would cover the costs of the annual property taxes and TID water
rights, the City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson, a cattle rancher from Eagle Point.
This lease generated $11,000 per year in revenue for the property. The original lease agreement with
Mr. Anderson was a one-year lease that expired April 14, 1999. The lease was never renewed; Mr.
Anderson has continued to use the property on the same terms on a month-to-month agreement. This
month-to-month arrangement has offset the annual costs of the property for the last ten years.
Staff has recently been contacted by people who have indicated an interest in submitting proposals to
use the property. In May 2007 and again during July 2007 goal setting sessions, Council discussed the
need to draft a master plan that would include evaluating other potential uses of the property. .
Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to solicit request for proposals (RFP) for the Imperatrice
property to explore other alternative uses of the property. Staff further recommends that any use of the
Page I of 2
C I T Y OF
ASHLAND
property leave the City the option to land apply wastewater effluent, in the event that land application
becomes the preferred solution to address the effluent temperature issue.
Council Options:
• Council could decide to direct staff to request proposals for private use of the Imperatrice
property.
• Council could decide to continue the existing month-to-month lease for the Imperatrice
property.
• Council could choose to specify a specific use or application for the Imperatrice property.
Potential Motions:
1. Move to direct staff to request proposals for private use of the Imperatrice property through
a lease.
2. Move to amend continue the existing month to month lease agreement.
3. Move to modify staffs recommendations.
Attachments:
Map of the area.
Page 2 of 2
~r,
.s ~
1
v c
RKe , , '`h, a Lt
_ Cl)
04 0
0)
C> 0 IT
CC) m
e 1 r _ '~C co1 t0
6 . } /r ~ -s 1 aM ,Y 3fir` 1
i • .~l- ~n ~.:,k.. ~ --LY -~1 i. ~ ~ r ~ ) `t'#j ~~V! fr ~ ~ # "
. ~ v
~rt ~4 i ~(z CV f0 ( /
44 ~01
• Qv ,,,F-f~ t" ~ ~i~ c(f~`~`~`~N' ~ .r0. ~ i. ~L i t+~, a ~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Transferable Development Credit Program
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: City Attorney E-Mail: Appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Community D/ev pment Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar
Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Question:
Is the City Council interested in creating a Transferable Development Credits (TDC) Program?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Council initiate an amendment to AMC Chapter 18 and comprehensive plan, if
necessary, to create the TDC program. This program could facilitate the voluntary transfer of
development rights from property that the city doesn't want to develop into a TDC Bank, for later sale
or use as incentives to meet other city goals
Background:
ORS 94.531 specifically authorizes Oregon cities to establish a system or program for transferable
development credits. A TDC program, (sometimes referred to as TDR -transferable development
rights) essentially allows the City to sever the development rights from real property and permit such
rights to be transferred and used on other properties. TDC's can be used for both residential and non-
residential development rights. This tool can be used to achieve Council objectives, including infill
and protection of desirable undeveloped lands, such as natural open space areas and farmland.
One identified objective is the protection of city park and open space properties. At times, the City
acquires real property and holds it for future city use. Citizens of Ashland, rightly or wrongly, may
come to expect that the property will be used for open space or park purposes. If the City later sells or
trades the property, the community is often disappointed or even angered that the property will be
developed. The City of Ashland and the Ashland Parks Commission can provide citizens with greater
certainty as to planned and continued park use by voluntarily transferring residential density off of city
park properties and into a TDC Bank. With the added protection of a conservation easement,
continued or future park use of such properties can be assured. This kind of certainty would only
benefit the City in the eyes of its citizens. For example, the City could avoid allegations, such as those
made during the Charter revision, that the City intends to sell Lithia Park to developers. Based on the
density formula in AMC 18.88.040, Lithia Park, with its R-1-7.5 Zoning, has a base density of 3.60
dwelling units per acre. Applying base density and various bonuses the number of units possible on
the park property is approximately 216. If removed from the park and placed in a TDC Bank, these
residential units can be sold for use in receptor zones (designated areas in the City where increased
density is acceptable) or awarded as bonuses by the City as part of negotiated statutory development
agreements. [The Council is also specifically authorized in ORS 94.508 to establish by ordinance
procedures and minimum requirements for statutory development agreements] The City can use these
tools and mechanisms to provide incentives for desirable development, (i.e. sustainability green
development or affordable housing). Finally, last year the Council authorized pursuit of an IGA with
Jackson County to allow density to be transferred from approved Measure 49 claims. [Measure 49,
Page I of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Section 11, Par 8] While this effort stalled for a time, the City Attorney's office and County Counsel's
office are again discussing the possibility of an Agreement.
Related City Policies:
ORS 94.531. ORS 94.504.
Council Options:
(1) Staff recommends the Council initiate amendments to the City's land development regulations,
and if necessary, comprehensive plan to create a TDC Program. Staff further recommends that,
if necessary, proposed changes be divided to advance the TDC Bank creation ahead of more
controversial aspects of the program.
(2) Take no action.
Potential Motions:
Motion to approve staff recommendation.
Attachments:
None.
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Second Reading of the RPS Agreement Ordinance
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar
Department: Community Development E-Mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello
Approval: Martha Ben a Estimated Time: 5 minutes
Question:
Will the City Council perform Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Authorizing
Execution of an Intergovernmental Agreement, the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem
Solving Agreement for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Program, providing a Process
for Participants to Implement the Adopted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan."?
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve Second . Reading and adopt the ordinance
Background:
The ordinance was read in full on March 3, 2009 and need only be read by title for second reading.
Council Options:
(1) Approve second reading and adopt the ordinance.
(2) Continue the matter to a date certain
Potential Motions:
[Staff Conducts Second Reading -by title only]
I move to approve second reading and adoption of the ordinance.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL
AGREEMENT, THE "GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING AGREEMENT" FOR THE BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM
SOLVING PROGRAM, PROVIDING FOR A PROCESS FOR PARTICIPANTS TO
IMPLEMENT THE ADOPTED GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PLAN.
WHEREAS, following duly advertised legislative land use hearings, and after due
consideration of the staff report, the testimony and evidence submitted, together with
the findings created by staff and all other competent evidence in the entire record, the
Ashland City Council finds and determines that the proposed Greater Bear Creek Valley
Regional Problem Solving Agreement is consistent with applicable state and local land
use laws concerning regional problem solving; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement,
which intergovernmental agreement is incorporated herein by this reference (without
attachment) and is on file in the City Recorder's office, is hereby approved by the
governing body of the City of Ashland and execution by the mayor is hereby authorized.
The foregoing ordinance was first read in full and then by title only in accordance with
Article X, Section 2(A) of the City Charter on the day of 2009,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
Conservation Commission Ordinance
Meeting Date: March 17, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello
Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us
Secondary Dept.: City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen
Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: 5 minutes
L
Question:
Should the City Council conduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance
Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19?"
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Council approve the First Reading of this ordinance.
Background:
The Conservation Commission requested removal of the provision requiring the Council Liaison to
serve as Chair of the Commission. Because the Commission was created by resolution, and not an
ordinance, the City Recorder requested that the enabling legislation be incorporated into the Ashland
Municipal Code.
Staff recommends that the Mayor or Council Liaison not be made voting members but rather an ex
officio non-voting member. This is contrary to the Conservation Commission's request but consistent
with all other commissions. As a consequence of removing the Mayor or Council Liaison from the
voting member block, six other voting members are appointed by the Mayor and Council. Staff has
also added a continuation clause so that the Commission need not be re-formed due to the repeal and
codification. If the Council accepts staff's recommendation, one new voting member will need to be
appointed to compensate for the loss of the Mayor or Council Liaison as voting member.' With the
exception of the changes noted, the proposed ordinance is essentially the same as the Resolution.
Related City Policies:
Ashland City Charter Article X
Council Options:
(1) Move to approve First Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and
Repealing Resolution 95-19?"and set second reading for April 7, 2009"
(2) Postpone consideration.
Potential Motions:
Staff: [Conduct First Reading)
Council: Motion to approve First Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission
and Repealing Resolution 95-19 and set second reading for April 7, 2009
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 95-19
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified.
Deletions are bold h*ed4hfo 0 and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to codify the creation of the Conservation
Commission in the Ashland Municipal Code; and
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. A new Chapter 2.18, Conservation Commission, is hereby established
to read as follows:
2.18.010 Established-Membership. The Conservation Commission is
established and shall consist of nine voting members including one
representative of the solid waste franchisee for the city; and one
representative from Southern Oregon University; and one representative
from the Ashland School District and six other voting members. At least
four of the other members shall reside within the city. The commission
shall also consist of certain non-voting ex officio members, including the
mayor or one council member serving as council liaison, the Department
of Communi!y Development Director and the Electric Utility Director, the
Director of Public Works, the Building Official and City Administrator.
Voting members shall be appointed by the Mayor with confirmation by
the City Council.
2.18.020 Terms-Vacancies. The term of voting members shall be for
three years, expiring on A12ri130 of each year. Any vacangy shall be filled
by appointment by the Mayor with confirmation by the City Council for
the unexpired portion of the term. The terms of the initial nine members
shall be three members for one year, three for two years, and three for
three years, which shall be drawn by lot at the first meeting of the
commission after the adoption of this resolution. Their successors shall be
appointed for three-year terms. Any commissioner who has four or more
unexcused absences in a one-year period shall be considered no longer
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
active and the position vacant and a new person shall be appointed to fill
the vacancy.
2.18.030 Ouorum-Rules and Meetings. Five voting members of the
commission shall constitute a quorum. If a quorum is present, the
affirmative vote of a majority of commissioners present at the meeting and
entitled to vote shall be sufficient to conduct business. The commission
may make rules and regulations for its meetings and procedures consistent
with city ordinances and this resolution, and shall meet at least once eves
month. At its first meeting, the commission shall elect a vice-chair who
shall serve for a period of one year or until replaced by the commission.
2.18.040 Powers and Duties - Generally. The powers, duties and
responsibilities of the commission shall be to educate and advocate for the
wise and efficient use of resources by the City of Ashland and all Ashland
citizens. In doing so the commission shall recommend to the council the
adoption of policies, implementation strategies and funding related to:
A. Recycling source reduction and solid waste/landfill
issues;
B. Electric conservation issues;
C. Water conservation issues;
D. Resource conservation issues;
E. New power resource decisions, but not including
decisions involving wholesale power contracts;
F. Renewable resource decisions;
G. Air quality issues;
H. Education of citizens about efficiency issues; and
2.18.050 Reports. The commission shall submit copies of its minutes
to the City Council and shall prepare and submit such reports as from time
to time may be requested by the council.
2.18.060 Compensation. Voting members of the Commission shall
receive no compensation for services rendered.
SECTION 2. Continuation of existing appointments. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Ordinance, currently seated Conservation Commission voting
members, appointed under authority of Resolution 95-19, (exclusive of the Mayor
and Council Liaison)shall be considered appointed for purposes of this ordinance
with term expirations as they currently exist. Vacancies shall be filled as provided
Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 3
in this ordinance. Members who have violated the four or more unexcused
absences in a one-year provision of Resolution 95-19 shall not be excused by this
Section.
SECTION 3. Repeal. Resolution 95-19 is hereby repealed as of the effective date
of this ordinance.
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", "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 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 , 20o9, and duly
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of -,2009.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2009.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
Richard Appicello, City Attorney
Ordinance No. _ Page 3 of 3