Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-0407 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important; Any cmzen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum Any citizen may submit written comments .,to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed: Except for public: hearings, there is no. bsolute'right to orally address the Council'on an agenda item. Time pemiitting,.the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony; however, public meetings law guarantees only public attendance; not public participation. If you wish to speak; please fill out the Speaker Requesffonn located near the entrance to the Council Chambers, The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any.. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the neml uhder discussion, the number of people who wish to tie heard, and,the leng(hoflhe agenda AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 7, 2009 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street 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 16, 2009 2. Executive Session of March 17, 2009 3. Regular Council of March 17, 2009 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Proclamation of April as "Donate Life Month" 2. Proclamation of April 19-25 as "Independent Media Week" 3. Tree City USA Presentation 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 Helena Darling dba Palace Cafe at 542 A Street? 3. Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System for Use in Emergency Situations?" 4. Will Council authorize the City Administrator to sign a revised Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in the amount.of $111,256? 5. Will Council approve two intergovernmental agreements with the Oregon Department of Transportation to fund American Recovery and Reinvestment Act public works projects? 6. Will Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA/2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project? COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAS h LIVE; ON CHANNEL 9 VISIT THE CITY OF ASI'I LAND'S WEB SITE AT N\r\i W.A.SI I I_AND.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. Should Council award up to $165,367 in Community Development Block Grant funds to one or more of the respondents to the Request for Proposals in compliance with eligibility criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development? [30 Minutes] 2. Should the Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Sign Code Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.96)? Should the Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as contributing historic resources within a Historic District? [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. Does the Council want to place some or all of the City's Tier 2 electric load on the Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply (NIES), which is a corporation formed by Northwest Requirement Utilities to provide power to local governments? [20 Minutes] 2. Does the Council wish to continue the current contact with RVTD to reduce transit fares in Ashland by 75% or does the Council wish to change the contact to simultaneously restore Route 5 service and reduce the subsidy within Ashland to 50%? [30 Minutes] XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should the Council coduct and approve the Second 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 1). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARL BROADC \5 TLIVE ON CHANNE1, 9 VIS11'I'llI C11 Y Oh' ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT \V\VW.AShILAND.OR:US _ CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 16, 2009 Page I of 2 MINUTES FOR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Monday, March 16, 2009 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Councilor Voisin, Jackson, Silbiger and Chapman were present: Councilor Navickas arrived at 5:35 p.m. and Councilor Lemhouse at 5:39 p.m. 1. Discussion of Water and Wastewater utility rates effective April 20, 2009. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the rate increase consisted of water and sewer and the cost to the community would be an average of $6.66 per month through out the year based on a family of four living in a 1,500 square foot house on a comer lot during the winter months. Mr. Tuneberg provided a presentation that included the following: (presentation attached) • Review of the Need for Water & Wastewater Rate Increase • Review Fund Health for Water and Wastewater • Proposed changes this year • A look forward to next year • Why Now? • Comparison of Operational Ending Fund Balance - All table • Ending Fund Balance Chart • Water & Wastewater Total Ending Fund Balances • Ending Fund Balance Chart - Projected with Larger Adjustments • Water Fund Mr. Tuneberg stated it would be difficult to pay back the $700,000 loan from this year in bonds. The Cemetery Trust Fund has approximately $800,000 that qualifies as a Capital Interfund Loan with a five-year pay back period. If the Council decided to use the Cemetery Trust Fund as a Capital Interfund Loan, staff would identify a sequence of payments over the five years of the loan, restoring it with interest. • Revenue to Expense Issues Mr. Tuneberg explained what was required for Water Revenue Bonds, Full Faith and Credit Bonds and the implications of lending money to the City from other City funds. Reducing internal costs would require an alternate revenue stream. He used the Technology Debt as an example stating enterprises contributed heavily to the annual $1.4million the City pays towards this debt. The General Fund was recently increased to keep property taxes and charges low, not paying franchise fees to this fund would create a tremendous shortfall. • Water Fund Needs • Wastewater Fund • Revenue to Expense Issues • Wastewater Fund Needs • Challenges -A Reminder from February 19, 2009 • Will this work? City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested that if the Council went with tiered rates to have a 10% base charge on the low tier and increase the upper tiers accordingly. The problem with both funds is operating costs exceed revenue and due to the economic situation, the City has gone into money reserved for Systems Development Charges (SDC). Mr. Tuneberg commented in the event of a dry summer and high tourism season, staff would ask for a rates decrease next year as long as the summer did not incur conservation or penalty charges. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION March 16, 2009 Page 2 of 2 2. Discussion of the FYI 0 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project list, the overall FY10-15 CIP Program in concept, and the FY10 Capital Equipment Plan. Public Works Director Mike Faught responded to an earlier inquiry regarding $500,000 in the proposed budget, explaining $350,000 was for the Wastewater Master Plan and $150,000 he recommended as reimbursement for each of the Systems Development Charges (SDC) funds. Mr. Faught provided a presentation that included (presentation attached): • The CIP Document • Availability of Funds • Federal Stimulus Funded Projects • Master Plans Mr. Faught explained the City is in permit review with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding water temperature and will have five years to go through the study and determine a solution. • FY09 Current Year • FY09 Current Year Highlights • FY10 CIP - Proposed Program by Division • FYIO CIP - Proposed Transportation Project List • FY10 CIP - Proposed LID and Storm Drain Project List • FYI 0 CIP -Proposed Airport Project List • FY10 CIP - Proposed Water Fund Project List Mr. Faught noted that the Public Works Department would submit a Stimulus Package application for $4million April 15, 2009 for consideration pending the Council's approval. • FYIO CIP - Proposed Wastewater Fund Project List • FY10 CIP -Proposed Electric Fund Project List Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderscheid explained projects for the Electric Department depend on new construction that is currently down this year but costs are recovered through fees. • FYIO CIP -Proposed AFN /Telecom/ IT Project Lists Interim Information Technology Director Michael Ainsworth noted the department had deployed approximately six extensions using the mesh net systems obtained from Medford and added mesh net goes one tenth of a mile where Wi Max goes five miles. Telecommunication Engineer Richard Holbo discussed desktop and laptop replacement periods explaining that staff used a three-year replacement period because of warranties and the increased maintenance costs staff and hardware incurred when previous replacement periods were extended. • FY10 CH' - Proposed Facilities & Parks Project Lists • FY10 Capital Equipment Purchase Plan • FYIO-15 CIP Plan • FY10-15 Highlights, Transportation, LIDS and Airport • FY10-15 CIP Highlights Storm Drain, Water, Wastewater • FYIO-15 CIP Highlights Electric • FYIO-15 CIP Highlights AFN, Telecom, IT • FY10-15 CIP Highlights City Facilities and Parks Meeting was adjourned at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH l7, 2009 Page I of 6 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL March 17, 2009 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TQORDER 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 the City is reviewing applications for Annual Appointments and invited individuals to volunteer to the various Commissions & Committees. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The minutes of the Study Session of March 2, 2009 and Regular Council meeting of March 3, 2009 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Does the Council accept the Minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Does the Council wish to approve a 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? Councilor Chapman requested that Consent Agenda item #4 be removed for discussion. Councilor Silbiger/Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1-3 and #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. City Administrator Martha Bennett briefly reviewed Consent Agenda item #4, which was the approval of the proposed budget for the Mayor and Council. She explained that staff was recommending the budget be held to the same standards as all other department budgets. Further explanation on public television coverage, travel and expense amounts and costs associated with facilitators was provided. Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #4. DISCUSSION: Councilor Jackson voiced support for the basic budget. Councilor Lemhouse commented on the importance of limiting spending. Councilor Navickas stated the value of Council training and the benefit of interfacing with other Cities. Councilor Jackson also noted the importance of lobbying on behalf of the community. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson and Silbiger, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 Page 2 of6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 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? Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the proposed FY10 and FYI 5 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). His presentation included the CIP document containing a 6-year funding outlook for planned projects based on availability of funds and projects identified in the Master Plans. Further information was provided on the following: Availability of Funds, Federal Stimulus funded projects, Master Plans, FY09 current year projects and highlights, FYI 0 CIP proposed programs by Division. Proposed projects were identified in Transportation, Local Improvement Districts, Storm Drain, Airport, Water, Wastewater, Electric, Ashland Fiber Network (AFN)/Telecom/IT, Facilities & Parks and the Capital Equipment Purchase Plan. Included were FY10-15 CIP Plan and highlights for each of these divisions. Mr. Faught explained projects listed in the "unfunded" category were important to keep in the plan although funding was not identified at this time. Once funding was available, the projects on the CIP would be ready to move forward. Staff would continue to look -for funding sources for these projects. Public Hearing Open: 7:50 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:50 p.m. Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to accept staff report and approve the following three items in the Capital Improvement Program: proposed FY10 Projects for Budget purposes, FY10 Capital Equipment Plan and FY10-15 Overall CIP for planning purposes. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 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? Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report. The presentation included information on current external pressures, impacts resulting from decreased revenue streams, the forecast on operations and capital implications. Charts were provided showing the comparison of operational ending Fund balances for all divisions, with 3% revenue increases, Water and Wastewater total and ending Fund balances projected with larger adjustments. Revenue to expense issues was noted for the Water and Wastewater Funds. The Water Fund issues included volume sales being flat going into third year, revenues flat or down despite rate increases, increase in operating costs, debt service and internal costs. The needs of the Water Fund included restoring cash balances and ability to meet obligations through rates and cost containment, system maintenance and repair or improvement to the infrastructure when financing or funds are available. The Wastewater Fund issues included decreased Food & Beverage tax proceeds, increasing rates will help but are still insufficient to make up for tax reduction, increasing operating costs, and the cost of overhead and internal costs. The needs of the Wastewater Fund included restoration of cash balances, meeting obligations through Food & Beverage tax renewal, rates and cost containment, system maintenance and repair or improvement of the infrastructure as needed when financing or funds are available. The challenges identified included cash balances for restricted and non-restricted funds, funding for improvements and repairs, meeting requirements, covenants and the variation of estimates by the time the Budget is presented in April. Much is dependant upon tourism and weather, reduction in sales, meeting debt service requirements and the possibility that short-term issues may remain for a year or two. Mr. Tuneberg noted the Water fund pays $78,200 of the Technology Debt, $300,036 of the General Fund and $84,000 of the Street Fund annually. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 Page 3 of 6 The monthly impact of a water rate increase on an average family of four would be $3.15; the wastewater rate increase would be $3.50 for an average total impact of $6.65 per month depending on water consumption. Staff recommended a 10% rate increase for Water and 20% for Wastewater to replace the drop in Food & Beverage tax revenue and to help restore cash reserves used to fund projects. Mr. Tuneberg further explained base and commodity charges and noted a rate study would better determine these charges. Projections provided at the Study Session had been updated for this meeting. Mr. Tuneberg added rate increases were designed to meet operational costs and reviewed annually. Different types of bonding methods for funds were explained and the need to restore cash balances emphasized. Public Hearing Open: 8:46 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 8:46 p.m. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified that each Resolution should include an effective date of April 20, 2009. Councilor Navickas/Jackson m/s to approve Resolution #2009-07 revising rates for Water Service with an effective date of April 20, 2009. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas voiced concern with the increase adding that projects cut from the CIP will cost more in the long term. Putting debt service to enterprise funds causes the ratepayer to cover the debt through increased rates and he preferred the General Fund rely on property taxes instead of rates or fees. He supported the concept of Full Faith and Credit Bonds. City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City would use Full Faith and Credit Bonds. Councilor Navickas clarified the Technology Debt should be removed from the debt service utility funds. Councilor Lemhouse understood the need to pay the debt and meet obligations and wanted to assure the public that the Council and the City was doing everything possible to reduce costs. Councilor Jackson added this was a mandatory public health concern and noted past rate increases. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson, Navickas and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Chapman/Silbiger m/s to approve Resolution #2009-08 revising rates for Wastewater (Sewer) Service with an effective date of April 20, 2009. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Navickas, Jackson, Voisin, Lemhouse and Silbiger, YES. Motion passed. It was noted there are programs available for Low Income Energy Assistance, Senior Citizen Discount and Heat Donation Assistance for those struggling with monthly costs. Mr. Tuneberg explained how to apply for these programs and some of the qualifications required. Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderschied added that funds allocated for these programs are used. It was requested that the City advertise the programs on the City website. PUBLIC FORUM None UNFINISHED BUSINESS None 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? Police Chief Terry Holdemess presented the staff report and explained the grant would come from the office of Community Oriented Policing (COPS) and was part of the Federal Stimulus Package. The grant would pay 100% of the cosi of the officer up to $75,000 a year for three years but required a commitment for the term of the grant for the new position plus positions already established during the grant period and after the funding ended. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 Page 4 of 6 Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to direct the Police Department to apply for a COPS grant. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas could not support the grant considering the present and future economy. He noted how the current commitment to maintaining the Parks and Recreation Department budget cut into other areas and would rather maintain the Fire Department, emergency services and the Planning Department. Councilor Lemhouse commented that statistics show understaffing a Police Department increases the violent crime rate and this grant would help maintain the infrastructure. Chief Holdemess explained the current Central Area Patrol Officer (CAP) position would expand from four to seven days a week and serve as back up for the day shift and swing shift overlap, respond to emergencies and participate in programs in the community and schools. The position would extend beyond the four years due to officers retiring in the near future. Councilor Jackson sited a similar program that funded the School Resource Officer position and since the funding ended, the department has been short staffed. She thought the City should take advantage of this opportunity and supported community policing. Councilor Navickas reiterated current budget concerns and cautioned on committing to a level of funding during this time of unstable revenue sources. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Silbiger, Jackson, Voisin and Chapman, YES; Councilor Navickas, No. Motion passed 5-1. 2. Will Council Consider soliciting request for proposals for private uses for the "Imperatrice Property"? Public Works Director Mike Faught presented the staff report that included a brief history of the property. The property was purchased using Food & Beverage Tax proceeds with the intent to apply the City's wastewater services. Concern raised during the public process resulted in the City upgrading the Wastewater Plant and improving the effluent from a Class 3 to a Class 4 at $34million. The City entered into a lease agreement with Ron Anderson that generated $11,000 per year in revenue for the use of the property. The lease expired and never renewed although Mr. Anderson continues to use the property on the same terms. Staff was contacted by individuals interested in submitting proposals to use the property and wanted direction from the Council on a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to explore alternative uses for the land. It was recommended that any use of the property leave the City the option to apply wastewater effluent in order to address the effluent temperature issue. Further clarification on including the property in the Master Plan was sought. Mr. Faught explained the RFP would include protecting the effluent, any water quality issues and the existing oak groves on the property. Christopher Iverson/765 Siskiyou Boulevard/Explained he is the founder and Project Co-director of the Shambhala Eco-settlement on 466 acres of land near the Oregon border in Siskiyou County. He is interested in creating another eco-village on the Imperatrice property. The project would be sustainable and could potentially create revenues of $10-20 million with residual annual income streams of several million more. The project could be done with private money and the City would retain permanent ownership excluding the individual 2.5 acres plots purchased as homes. The Eco-Settlement Shambhala is the only one established in this bioregion. He asked the Council to extend the RFP process for the next 6-12 months and give his group the time to present their business plan. Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Thought this was the best time to bring forward ideas for the property and asked the Counci I to receive RFP's for short-term agriculture use of the land. He requested that the proposals for partial use of the property address shared use of roads and waters with Mr. Anderson for his herd and grazing patterns. The Council discussed the benefits of comparing the City's ideas with the private sector to determine the best ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 17, 2009 Page 5 of 6 use of the property. Councilor Chapman read potential uses for the property from an earlier motion that included preserving the area for recreation purposes, as farmland for agricultural purposes or future energy generation. Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to direct staff to draft an REP for private use of the Imperatrice property. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 3. Is the Council interested in creating a Transferable Development Credits.(TDC) Program? City Attorney Richard Appicello presented the staff report and recommendation by staff to initiate an amendment to AMC Chapter 18 and comprehensive plan, if necessary, to create the TDC program. He explained this would help achieve Council objectives, including infill and protection of desirable undeveloped lands, such as City parklands and open space properties. He provided several examples and clarified the land use process for disposing City owned property. City Administrator Martha Bennett stated the downside to TDC would be concerns about density and that the City might not use it not in a fair or consistent manner. Mr. Appicello was cautious about awarding density bonuses within the City boundaries and thought it was more applicable within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). He described ways to keep development consistent with the City that included establishing minimum standards in the development agreement statute, putting in a zoning district or creating a bank. Paul Kay/1234 Strawberry Lane/Noted he has followed TDC for over 30 years and was excited to see it come to the Council. He explained the valley was 50% forested land, 30% farmland and 20% urban land. An incremental model of TDC within or outside the City limits was an important step to reconcile planning for the population to double with the next generation. TDC was an exciting opportunity but the City should be cautious as they moved forward. Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve staff recommendation to create an amendment on the TDC Program. DISCUSSION: Councilor Chapman was more interested in using transferrable rights to protect farmland. Councilor Navickas did not think the TDC program was development neutral. He preferred a more comprehensive look at up zoning; TDC seemed piecemeal and he was not comfortable having City land use regulations that appeared up for grabs to less rigorous processes. Councilor Silbiger commented that parks should not be used as a bank, the City should use density already established, define what to do, when, and then codify it. The process seemed goal oriented with positive benefits if structured correctly. Mayor Stromberg thought the mechanism could be useful for the City but required real planning regarding its uses. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Jackson, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES; Councilor Navickas, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 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"? Mr. Appicello read the title in full. Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #2980. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin requested a report from Councilor Jackson regarding the City of Jacksonville's participation in the agreement. It was relevant to Ashland because the Cities that voted for the current agreement will have to reconsider another if the City of Jacksonville was not participating. Councilor Jackson questioned the relevancy to the City and clarified that the City of Jacksonville and the Policy Committee chose their positions. The Participants Agreement would go through the amendment process if it needed to be modified. Councilor Voisin reiterated it was relevant because the City of Jacksonville had asked for changes in the plan and the Participants Agreement. Mr. Appicello stated the record was closed, any changes to the Participants Agreement based on ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH I7, 2009 Page 6 of 6 the City of Jacksonville's participation or requesting changes would go through the land use process as an amendment. Councilor Jackson explained the City of Jacksonville's position had not changed and the Policy Committee tried to negotiate with the City of Jacksonville and did not receive a response. Mr. Appicello added if there were an amendment to the draft plan, there would be a Public Hearing. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Silbiger, Jackson and Lemhouse, VES; Councilor Navickas, Voisin and Chapman, NO; Mayor Stromberg, YES. Motion passed 4-3. 2. Should the Council conduct and approve the First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19"? Director of Electric Utilities Dick Wanderscheid explained the Council Liaison is both Chair and a voting member in the Conservation Commission. The Commission recommended by a split vote that the Council Liaison be a member only and not the Chair. Staff suggested amending the ordinance designating the Council Liaison an ex-officio member. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the Commission was originally created by resolution and staff was now proposing it be created by ordinance. City Attorney Richard Appicello read the title in full. Councilor Jackson noted the last sentence in Section 2.18.030: "At its first meeting, the commission shall elect a vice-chair...," should include "...chair and vice-chair...: ' and Section 2.18.010 needed language that designated a Council Liaison. Councilor Silbiger suggested having five of the members reside within City limits would guarantee a majority. Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19 with suggested amendments and place on agenda for second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Navickas, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Voisin, YES; Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 5-1. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS None City Administrator Martha Bennett gave a brief overview of the actions taken by the Council. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Q PROCLAMATION "DONATE LIFE MONTH" • Each year the number of organs, eyes and tissues donated for transplant falls increasingly short of the growing need. a • Public Education about organ, eye and tissue donation is crucial because the number of E men, women and children in the United States waiting for an organ transplant is more than 100,000. ° • 2,200 people in the Pacific Northwest await an organ transplant, and thousands more await a tissue or comea transplant One organ, eye and tissue donor can save or enhance the lives of more than 50 people. • Even Burke of Ashland, Oregon saved three lives through organ donation, restored sight to two people through cornea donation, and gave the gift of improved mobility to dozens of others through tissue donation in March 2005. • All Oregonians have the power to donate life by signing up as organ, eye and tissue donors. • All Oregonians at least 15 years old are encourage to sign up on the donor registry with a "D" on their driver's license/permit or ID card, or going to www.donatelifenw.org and to share their decision with their family. • Donate Life Northwest is a nonprofit agency whose mission is to save and enhance lives through the promotion of organ, eye and tissue donors. • Donate Life Northwest will promote National Donate Life Month during April to increase the number of Oregonians signed up as organ, eye and tissue donors. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim April, 2009 as: ° "Donate Life Month " and encourage all Ashland residents to join in this observance. Dated this 7'h day of April, 2009. John Stromberg, Mayor a t i Barbara Christensen, City Recorder ° PROCLAMATION • A well-informed citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy. k • An informed citizenry depends on an objective, responsible and unrestrained press, which provides greater access to accurate information, more points of view and greater diversity of thought and fact. k • The trend toward the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in journalistic practices that hinder public awareness by excluding or marginalizing minority and dissenting viewpoints. • Fewer media voices can result in homogenized messaging and the silencing of many points of view. k® • Democratic principles support the case for more independent media in this country, not less. ° NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens k of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of April 19 - 25, 2009 as INDEPENDENT MEDIA WEEK b and encourage all Ashland citizens to seek out and explore the rich diversity ` of independent media available within, and to our community. Dated this 7th day of April, 2009. ,y John Stromberg, Mayor i Barbara Christensen, City Recorder 'Raw PROCLAMATION • J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture in 1872 that a special day be set aside for the planting of trees. # • This holiday, called Arbor Day, was first observed with the planting of more than a million trees in Nebraska. • Arbor Day is now observed throughout the nation and the world. Trees can reduce the erosion of our precious topsoil by wind and water, reduce # heating and cooling costs, moderate the temperature, clean the air, produce oxygen, and provide a habitat for wildlife. a Trees are a renewable resource giving us paper, wood for our homes, fuel for our fires, and countless other wood products; and trees in our city increase property values, enhance the economic vitality of business areas, and beautify our community; and trees are a source of joy and spiritual renewal. • Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for nineteen years and desires to continue its tree-planting ways. Ir, NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim April 5 to April 11„2009 as ARBOR WEEK IN ASHLAND w and urge all citizens to support efforts to care for our trees and woodlands and to P support our City's community forestry program. I further urge all citizens to plant trees to gladden the hearts and promote the well-being of present and future # generations. Dated this 7th day of April, 2009 Q John W. Morrison, Mayor # Barbara Christensen, City Recorder r E eA nmmmpngi~ CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Tree City USA Presentation Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Amy Anderson Department: Community Develo ment E-Mail: andersona(@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Planning Depart e t Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: The National Arbor Day foundation and its sponsor, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) have announced that the City of Ashland has been recognized as a Tree City USA for the 24`h consecutive year. Staff Recommendation: N/A Background: For the past 24 years the City of Ashland has meet the four criteria set forth by the National Arbor Day Foundation. The four criteria include a tree care ordinance, establishment of a tree board or commission, spending at least $2 per capita on a community tree care program and conducting an Arbor Day or Arbor Week ceremony. Related City Policies: The Comprehensive Plan has a policy in the Parks, Open Space and Aesthetics Chapter 8.17which states: "The City shall take necessary steps to annually be a Tree City, USA." The City's ordinances related to this topic are the Street Tree Commission, Powers and Duties in Chapter 2.25 of the Ashland Municipal Code and the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance in Chapter 18.61 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Council Options: N/A Potential Motions: N/A Attachments: National Arbor Day Foundation - Award Letter National Arbor Day Foundation - Press Release Arbor Week Events - Press Release Page I of I eArbor Day Foundation- 211 N. 12th St. • Lincoln. NE 68508.888-448.7337 • arborday.org lfe inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate frees. March 9, 2009 Martha Bennett City Administrator 20 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Bennett, We congratulate Ashland on having achieved Tree City USA(& status for 2008-an accomplishment that assures all your citizens of greater opportunities than they may yet realize! As you already know, trees are a vital component of the infrastructure in cities and towns, providing environmental and economical benefits. Trees in urban areas reduce the heat island effect caused by pavement and buildings. Properly placed trees can increase property values. Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing dust and.other particles. We have prepared the enclosed press release for your convenience as you prepare to . contact local media outlets to share this commendable achievement with the public. We hope you are excited to share the significance of this accomplishment with the media. If you wish to receive this press release in electronic form, please email mderowitsch(a2arbordav.org. We will send it to you within one work day. The Tree City USA program is sponsored in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. State foresters are responsible for the presentation of the Tree City USA flag and other materials. We will forward your awards to Paul D. Ries in your state forester's office. They will be coordinating the presentation with you. It would be especially appropriate to make the Tree City USA award a part of your Arbor Day ceremony. Again, we celebrate your diligence in improving the quality of life for the citizens of Ashland and thank you for creating a healthier, more sustainable world for us all. Best regards, John Rosenow Chief Executive cc: Amy D. Anderson Enclosure so. For more information, News from contact Mark Derowitsch, Public Relations Manager, at ' mderowitsch(aarbordav.org OArborDayFoundation" or call 888-448-7337. 211 N. 121h St. -Lincoln, NE 68508.888-4487337 • arborday.org We inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Ashland Named Tree City USAO by the Arbor Day Foundation Ashland, OR has been named a Tree City USA community by the Arbor Day Foundation to honor its commitment to community forestry. It is the twenty-fourth year Ashland has received this national recognition. The Tree City USA program is sponsored by the Arbor Day Foundation in cooperation with the National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service. Ashland has met the four standards to become a Tree City USA community: having a tree board or department, a tree care ordinance, a comprehensive community forestry program, and an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. Communities that receive Tree City USA recognition not only have taken the time to meet these four standards, they recognize that: • Trees promote healthier communities. Leaves filter the air we breathe by removing dust and other particles. • Trees moderate climate, conserve water and provide habitat for wildlife. • Trees in urban areas reduce the heat island effect caused by pavement and buildings. • Properly placed trees can increase property values, and buildings in wooded areas rent more quickly and tenants stay longer. "A community, its elected officials and its citizens that provide needed care for its trees deserves recognition and thanks," said John Rosenow, chief executive of the Arbor Day Foundation. "Trees are a vital component of the infrastructure in our cities and towns, and they also provide environmental and economical benefits. Cities that are recognized with a Tree City USA designation go to great lengths to plant and care for the community forest." More information about Tree City USA can be found at www.arborday.orglrreeCitvUSA. About the Arbor Day Foundation The Arbor Day Foundation is a nonprofit, environmental, an education organization of nearly one million members, with a mission to inspire people to plant, nurture, and celebrate trees. More information on the Foundation and its programs can be found at www.arborday.org. CITY OF -ASH LAN D News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, PLEASE DATE: March,26, 2009 CONTACT: Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner City of Ashland 552-2044 National Arbor Day is April 24, 2009. The State of Oregon celebrates Arbor Week during the first full week in April, April 5'h through the 11'h. The City of Ashland Tree Commission has a number of events planned during April to celebrate Arbor Week and Ashland's designation as a Tree City USA for the 24 h consecutive year. Tuesday, April 7th 7:00 PM - 2008 Tree City USA Presentation by Oregon Department of Forestry / Arbor Day Proclamation at the Ashland City Council Meeting. Friday, April 10th at 2:00 PM - 2008 Tree of the Year plaque installation for the Spanish Fir located at 128 Wimer Street. r Saturday, April I I'h from 2 PM to 4 PM - Informative 'Free Walk at Southern Oregon University. Sign up through Ashland Parks and Recreation Dept. North Mountain Nature Center www.ashlandparksandrec.ore or by phone 541.488.5340. r Saturday, April 25th 11 AM to 4 PM - Tree Commission booth at the Earth Day Celebration, i Ceremonial Arbor Day tree and Great Oregon Tree Plant planting at the Science Works Museum during the Earth Day Festivities. Saturday, April 25th This year's tree planting is even more special because the Bald Cypress that is to be planted at Science Works is part of the statewide Great Oregon Tree Plant. In honor of Oregon's 1501h birthday, the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) is coordinating 150 tree plantings from February 14'h, the first day of Statehood to Ashland's tree planting on Earth Day. "Planting trees is part of Oregon's legacy," says ODF Urban Forester Paul Ries, "but this spring's tree planting events are extra special because so many events are planned to honor Oregon's anniversary of statehood." For more information about the Arbor Week activities planned during the month of April to celebrate Arbor Week please visit the City of Ashland web page, w-~vu.ashland.orus. Or contact Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner at andersona(Z@ashland.orus or 541.552 2044. (end) Community DwebpmeM Tel: 54148&5305 As East Main Street Faa: 54146&6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 60!}7357900 ww.ashland.or m CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES January 8, 2009 CALL TO ORDER -Chair John Rinaldi called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. on January 8, 2009 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Laurie Sager Kate Jackson John Rinaldi Jr. Zane Jones Staff Present Bobby Townsend Am Anderson, Assistant Planner Anne Rich, Parks Department, Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 6, 2008 Tree Commission Minutes - Jones/Sager m/s to approve the minutes of November 6, 2008- Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes of October 9, 2008 were approved as presented. November 21, 2008 Recommended Street Tree Guide special meeting minutes - Sager/Jones m/s to approve the minutes of November 21, 2008. Voice vote: all a yes, motion passed. The minutes of November 21, 2008 were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Commissioner Rinaldi welcomed the new City Council liaison Kate Jackson and newly appointed Commissioner Bobby Townsend. TYPE I REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01953 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 260 N Laurel APPLICANT: Nathan Sanford DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove one eight-inch in diameter at breast height fruitless mulberry tree. This site has a standing Site Review approval for the construction of two condominium units and the tree removal is necessary to facilitate that development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-3; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 04CC TAX LOT 502 Recommendations: 1) Approved as submitted, no recommendations. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01971 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 990 Siskiyou Blvd. (Southern Oregon University - Plunkett Center) APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit for to remove a 28-inch in diameter at breast height Blue Spruce located near the northwest comer of the Plunkett Center. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 LE 1000; TAX LOT 5700 Recommendations: 1) Approved as submitted, no recommendations. PLANNING ACTION: 2008-01853 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 West Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street APPLICANT: Wilma, LLC (Greg & Valri Williams) DESCRIPTION: A request for Final Plan approval for the development of Phase I of Verde Village which includes all public improvements and infrastructure, riparian improvements, and the construction of the 24-unit cottage community and Lot 25. The application includes requests for Site Review approval for the 24-unit cottage community, an Exception to Street Standards to allow the installation of 114 feet of curbside sidewalk on the west side of Almeda Drive just north of the intersection of Heiman and Nevada Streets, and an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to allow Units 17 and 18 to have their primary orientation toward open space rather than to Almeria Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential ZONING: R-I-3.5, R-I- 5 and R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP and TAX LOT#: 39 lE 04BB Lots 700, 800, & 900 and 39 lE 04B 800 & 1100 Site Visits: All; No ex parte Amy gave the staff report. Applicant Discussion: Kerry KenCairn spoke about the project street lay out and design, the development of the riparian buffer corridor, the bioswale parkrows and the requirements of the project developers the architects and the need to isolate the locations of the trees due to the constraint of the solar aspects of the green development. Tree Commission Discussion: Commissioner Jones asked about the methodology during create a development you create a diverse forest and thought the proposal would be very nice at implementation. He questioned the use of the river birch and Kerry responded that it is a tough tree and it is not a native tree and that they have been bred to not have the negative impacts that the native birches are know to have. The Commission discussed the use of the caging to protect the new vegetation. The landscape contractors have responsibility for the survivability for the plants along the streets but not for situations they cannot control (deer). Kerry discussed the cottages and how they limited the number of trees along the south side of their developments and that meant less trees but they tried to provide more trees to shade the parking and driving surfaces. Recommendations: Approved as submitted moved by Townsend / second by Sager Voice Vote: all A Yes DISCUSSION ITEMS Tree of the Year Ballots - begin the voting process in September Make a sign that gets staked into the ground Write an article about the Tree nomination form available. Tree inventory survey Donn Todt informed Anne Rich that there was an existing Street Tree Inventory. To update; maybe an SOU student intent would be interested in expanding the existing inventory. Amy will find whatever exists and try to determine when it was created. Recommended Street Tree Guide Commissioner Townsend did some research into trees that were thought to be difficult to obtain: Kentucky Coffee tree; available. Canyon Live Oak; make note - difficult to obtain. Raywood Ash; available, but not a good street tree - remove from guide. Quercus Kellogi; Not available - remove from guide. Add: Bioswale parkrow street tree list; Betchula `Nigra' There was some discussion about the content of the guide - should all trees that are difficult to obtain be remove? The Commission thought.- no, even though its difficult to obtain they are still good trees and people should be encouraged to keep asking for them. The more requests for a particular tree the more likely a nursery is to obtain them. - ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports Anne has copy of the Parks and Recreation report. Copies will be available in February. Amy will contact the Electric Department for their report - it does not need to be in writing it just needs to be done. Old Business Distinctive Tree List Current Balance - $243.32 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner kinaldi adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner 2 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES February 5, 2009 CALL TO ORDER -Chair John Rinaldi called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. on February 5, 2009 in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Laurie Sager Kate Jackson arrived at 7:15 PM) John Rinaldi Jr. Zane Jones Staff Present Bobby Townsend Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Anne Rich, Parks Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 9, 2009 Tree Commission Minutes - Rinaldi/Townsend m/s to approve the minutes of January 9, 2009. Voice vote: all AYES, Motion passed. The minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Nancy Appling - State of Oregon Heritage Tree Commission: Ms. Appling has been a local volunteer on Commission for past 6 years. They are looking for nominations of trees with `state' significance. Putting together an association of Heritage Tree Commissions - May 2 at Champoeg State Park - there will be a dedication of a Cottonwood that witnessed development of state history. The objective is to put together a group to assist with mentoring the new commissions and assist with the gathering of information for established groups. The Department of Tourism funds the State Heritage Tree Commission. Locally there are Heritage Trees on Beal Rd. in Central Point; it is the 2" oldest Black Walnut in country, at the Peter Britt Gardens, a sequoia, and the Hanley Farm tree. Ms. Appling asked for the Tree Commission to give her some feedback for things that work and things they would need help with so she can pass that information onto the State Commission. Electric Dept. Review: David Wood, Arborist for the Electric Department and Scott Johnson, Electric Operations Superintendent. They explained the abbreviations on plans and that E = cabinet H = hanhole (underground services) T = transformers. According to the Electric Dept. representatives they need to provide all of the vegetation pruning and removal information to the Public Utility Commission so its creating the report for the Tree Commission is not an additional burden. Commissioner Rinaldi asked about their awareness of Tree Line USA program through the National Arbor Day foundation. Dave Wood explained that he often has to educate the public about their plantings and that city has to top conifer or evergreen when under lines and that the Electric Department's hands are tied. Dave Wood prunes by taking the leaders, arborists remove the laterals leaving him nothing to prune back too. The Tree Commission suggested that the Electric Department host a Tree Pruning around Electrical Lines seminar or write something that goes out to the different tree people in the valley. By law Arborist and tree trimmers cannot prune within 10- feet of the line. Commissioners asked who has the authority to get arborist out of trees. The electric dept. can and OSHA will if they are around. TYPE II REVIEW: 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 corner 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 1004 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 fiuure development of the remainder of the property.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 lE 1 IC; TAX LOT 2500 Site Visits: Commissioner Sager recuesed herself. Site Visits by all. No exparte. Amy gave the staff report. Applicant Discussion: Mark Knox -UPS Kelly Gustafson - Laurie Sager and Associates Jason Elzie - Jackson County Housing Authority This project started out as a much larger project at one time has been reduced from 117 units to 60 units. A vast number of city policies that dictated the design of the project and physical amenities/ constraints that affected design. The proposed subdivision allows for future development of YMCA soccer fields. The existing house will also be on its own lot which will also be in the ownership of the City of Ashland. The project is proposed to have bio-swale parkrows which will storm water into filter wetlands then into natural wetlands. An overlook area near the wetland areas is being proposed. The housing authority requires a building layout and design that provides a common area that can be monitored by the tenants. Over 120 trees are proposed to mitigate the loss of the 12 trees proposed for removal. According to the applicant, it should be noted that the large poplar trees were originally slated for removal by project arborist. Second design came back with another arborist and the project was redesigned. Within the same year one of the trees proposed for preservation fell and nearly hit the neighbor's home. A lot of the buzz in Ashland is that we need affordable, family, rental housing. And this project accomplishes that. This project is designed to have kids on the site and having houses under the trees is very incompatible. The large poplar trees have been maintained and were last pruned by an arborist in 2006. Commissioner Jones asked who would maintain the area around the house and the area with the preserved trees. The applicant's responded that the Parks Department or another city department would be responsible, or another designee of the City since it is their property. Public Testimony: Greg Gargus - 400 Clay Street Spoke about the neighborhood petition to save the trees that was developed in 2004 and asked what could be done to bring that back. He finds that taking out the one poplar tree sets a precedent to remove the other tree. There is lots of conflicting information out there about poplars. Tree Commission Discussion: The Commissioners had some questions about the bioswale parkrow and who will maintain the wetlands. They wondered if tree #23 be saved. It would be in the parkrow the applicant's agreed to save it possible. Recommendations: I ) Tree Commission recommends preservation of the Black Oak (Quercus kelloggi) #23 and moving the sidewalk meander between the Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) # I and #23 to achieve critical root zone preservation of both trees. That a revised Tree Protection and Preservation plan shall be submitted showing the modification. 2) Prune Poplar (Populus trichocarpa) #15 and the Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca ) #11 to a safe manner prior to the street installation. 3) Include electric vault and transformers on the final landscaping plan and be assured of the clearance required by the Public Utility Commission and the City of Ashland Electric Department. 4) Provide a final irrigation plan prior to the submittal of the building permit to be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of the building permits. 5) Evaluate the use of the Washington Hawthorn in proximity to pedestrian gathering / traffic areas. Voice Vote: Motion to approve Townsend / Jones. DISCUSSION ITEMS Arbor Week Events Arbor Week is April 5 h - 11'h On April 7th the Mayor will read the proclamation and the Commission will receive the Tree City USA from Oregon Department of Forestry. The Tree of the Year winner plaque will be installed sometime during this week. Amy will contact the property owner. On April 11" Anne, Zane, Bobby and Casey from Upper Limb-it will be hosting a tree walk through Southern Oregon University. Earthday is April 25'h at ScienceWorks. The annual Tree Planting could take place4 during the Earthday Event. Laurie will call Mark DiRienzo, the Director of ScienceWorks and Amy will contact the 2 Earthday folks. Ashland Parks Department has a regular sized balled and burlaped Bald Cypress tree that needs to be planted. It would be a good tree choice for that location. Steve Siewert would be a good resource for a `planting seminar' at the Earthday event. Recommended Street Tree Guide Meeting on Thursday, February 19, 2009 in the Siskiyou Room at 51 Winbum Way. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports Anne Rich provided the Lithia Park and outer Parks report of removals. Councilor Jackson about mitigation and whether that information was included in the report, Anne said she could provide that list. Interstate I-5 Exit 14 & 19 Aesthetics Committee - John reported on the two meetings the group has had to date. Meeting on Feb. 4" had good discussion about soft-scape. John stated that his thought was that the landscaping addressing the four seasons of the Pacific Northwest would be a nice feature. Since it's the first official off-ramp there could be some great integration of the hard and soft-scape. Themes to the bridge... Mayor's monthly lunch meeting with Commission chairs. Mayor wants to capitalize on the GeoTourism and Ashland was #19 on the list. National Geographic is working on mapping it and Mayor wants find Distinctive Tree Guide ...If anyone wants to do the lunch - Bobby Townsend Feb. 27 at Student beginning to mapping - Distinctive trees / Tree of the Year winners. Bobby thinking about going to the May 2 meeting. Old Business Distinctive Tree List - Zane working on list and Bobby would like to work with him on the list. New Items: Goal Setting - Laurie explained what has been done in the past with the board and creating the long list than short listing it. At John's house on (Tuesday 24" 5:00 PM) - notice the paper. Current Balance - $ 46.32 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Rinaldi adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM. Respectfully submitted by Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Liquor License Application Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb@ashland.onus Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Berm Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to approve a Liquor License Application from Helena Darling dba Palace Cafe at 542 A Street? 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 of ownership. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). 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 I of I CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication A Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System for use in Emergency Situations Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Margueritte Hickman Department: Fire E-Mail: hickmamn(2cashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Larry Langston Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Does the City Council wish to adopt, a resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting the National Incident Management System for Use in Emergency Situations?" Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the adoption of this resolution. Background: The National Incident Management System (NIMS) is a comprehensive, nationwide, systematic approach to incident management and establishes principles that promote interoperability within communications and information management and standard procedures for resource management. NIMS can be applied to all emergency and non-emergency incidents regardless of size and number of resources. The City of Ashland applies NIMS daily in responses to routine emergency incidents and utilizes NIMS in large scale emergency operations as demonstrated in the City of Ashland Emergency Management Plan. NIMS is utilized in all disaster exercises in which the City of Ashland participates. In order to utilize NIMS, City personnel and volunteers have been trained to at least the minimum required levels. As a Department of Homeland Security requirement to continue to receive grants, the formal adoption of NIMS is required. This adoption will not change the practices currently implemented by the city. There is no fiscal impact created by this adoption; however, failure to adopt NIMS will result in the inability to continue to obtain grants through the Department of Homeland Security. Federal grants have been used in the past to obtain a wildland engine, firefighter protective gear and portable radios. Ashland CERT materials and services budget and a half-time position continues to be funded through these grant dollars. Related City Policies: City of Ashland Emergency Management Plan Council Options: Adopt this resolution. Page I of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: Motion to adopt resolution. Attachments: Resolution NIMS Fact Sheet NIMS Document is a 170 page document available on the FEMA website as follows and a hard copy is available at Ashland Fire & Rescue Station I for review. http://www.fema.¢ov/pdf/emergencv/nims/NIMS core.pdf Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2009- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NATIONAL INCIDENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR USE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Recitals: A. On March 1, 2004 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approved the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS) as the consistent nationwide approach to managing domestic incidents. B. In Fiscal Year 2008, the federal government began requiring state and local agencies to adopt NIMS to receive federal preparedness assistance funds, such as grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP), and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). C. NIMS adopted the ICS; therefore, by adopting NIMS the City will automatically adopt the ICS. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Adoption of NIMS. The City adopts the National Incident Management System, as referenced in the 156 page NIMS Document available on the FEMA website. The document is available at: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/ NIMS_core.pdf. SECTION 2. NIMS provides the following: A. Standardized procedures for managing personnel, communications, facilities and resources to improve the City's ability to coordinate responders from multiple disciplines and levels of government using common-doctrine, terminology, concepts and principles. B. A comprehensive approach applicable across a full spectrum of potential incidents and hazard scenarios, regardless of size or complexity. C. Standardized organizational structures for processes, procedures and systems designed to improve interoperability. D. Training standards for all personnel who could be involved in a response to minimum proficiency standards. E. A standard system for maintaining an appropriate span of control throughout the ICS organization. F. Facilitation of the steps required for compliance of the NIMS and ICS systems in order for the City of Ashland to continue to apply for and receive federal preparedness and assistance funds. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. 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 pA9TJ, Homeland 4P<, Security National Incident Management System (NIMS) Fact Sheet What is the National Incident Management System? • Comprehensive, nationwide systematic approach to incident management • Core set of doctrine, concepts, principles, terminology and organizational processes for all hazards • Essential principles for a common operating picture and interoperability of communications and information management • Standardized resource management procedures for coordination among different jurisdictions and organizations • Scalable and applicable for all incidents Key benefits of NIMS • Enhances organizational and technological interoperability and cooperation • Provides a scalable and flexible framework with universal applicability • Promotes all-hazards preparedness • Enables a wide variety of organizations to participate effectively in emergency management/incident response Institutionalizes professional emergency management/incident response practices NIMS Audience: NIMS is applicable to all incidents and all levels of stakeholders, including levels of government, private sector organizations, critical infrastructure owners and operators, nongovernmental organizations and all other organizations who assume a role in emergency management. Elected and appointed officials and policy makers, who are responsible for jurisdictional policy decisions, must also have a clear understanding of NIMS to better serve their constituency. NIMS Components: Built on existing structures, such as the Incident Command System (ICS), NIMS creates a proactive system to assist those responding to incidents or planned events. To unite the practice of emergency management and incident response throughout the country, NIMS focuses on five key areas, or components. These components link together and work in unison to form a larger and comprehensive incident management system. NIMS Components include: • Preparedness • Communications and Information Management • Resource Management • Command and Management • Ongoing Management and Maintenance -more- What NIMS is NOT . A response plan . Only used during large-scale incidents . Only applicable to certain emergency management/ incident response personnel . Only the Incident Command System (ICS) or an organizational chart For further information on the NIMS see the DHS/FEMA website at www.fema.gov/nims. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Authorization to Sign a Revised OWRD Grant Agreement Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught 488-5587 Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Nancy Slocum 552-2420 Approval: Martha Bens Estimated Time: Consent Agenda my Question: Will Council authorize the City Administrator to sign a revised Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in the amount of $111,256? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council authorize the City Administrator to sign a revised Oregon Water Resources Department Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant agreement in the amount of $111,256? Background: The "Right Water for Right Use Program" is listed in the current budget's Capital Improvement Project list and is a high priority for staff, the Council and the citizens of Ashland. The next step for this program is the development of a comprehensive planning study to identify all potential water sources including reuse or recycled water while also identifying where each water source has the highest and best use. The cost for the study is estimated at $450,000. In August of 2008 the Public Works Department submitted an application for an Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) sponsored grant in the amount of $225,000. (The grant program required a 1:1 match.) After OWRD's evaluation process and 5% state budget cuts, Ashland received a grant in the amount of $160,419. On January 20, 2009 Council accepted the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Water Conservation, Reuse and Storage Grant in the amount of $160,419 and authorized the City Administration to sign the grant agreement. While the grant agreement was being reviewed by the State Attorney General we received notice that, because of the state's budget shortfall for the 2007-09 biennium, the Legislature needed to reduce the OWRD's budget yet again. The City of Ashland's grant amount was reduced in March to $111,256. This action would allow the City Administrator to sign the revised contract. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: 1. The Council may authorize the City Administrator to sign the revised grant agreement from the Oregon Water Resources Department. 2. The Council may refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department. Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: 1. Council moves to authorize the City Administrator to sign the revised grant agreement from the Oregon Water Resources Department. 2. Council moves to refuse grant funding from the Oregon Water Resources Department. Attachments: None. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of Intergovernmental Agreements for ARRA Stimulus Transportation Projects Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson / 552-2412 Department: Public Works/Engi ering E-Mail: olsonj a ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Mike Faught / 552-2411 Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: Consent Agenda 14 ~ L/ I Question: Will Council approve two intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to fund two American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) public works projects? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the two AGA's to fund two separate public works projects. Background: In January of this year, the City joined with many other agencies in competing for federal money offered through various ARRA funding grants and loans. On January 20, 2009, Council received a list of city-wide projects that could possibly be constructed within the time frame specified by the ACT. The list totaled $20,464,000 and included $2,878,000 worth of transportation projects. All ARRA transportation projects are administered through ODOT, with funds allocation determined by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), of which the city is a member. On February 19, 2009, the RVMPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met to determine how best to allocate the $2,756,752 which was approved for distribution among the agencies comprising the RVMPO. The TAC ultimately recommended that 50 percent of the total funds be allocated equally to each agency and the remaining 50 percent be allocated based upon population. Based upon this distribution strategy, Ashland will receive $438,791 for transportation projects. Use of Federal funds requires that all reviews, stipulations and approvals normally attached to federal aid projects be strictly adhered to. As the environmental review process is often complicated and can take up to a year to complete, it was determined that only projects that do not require extensive environmental review could meet the timelines established by the ARRA. The projects that could best fit this condition are maintenance projects, or I-R projects as referred to in Federal standards. Through the RVMPO, it was further determined that.the agencies of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Medford, Phoenix, Talent and Jackson County would all receive funding to overlay existing streets within their respective jurisdictions. The following allocations were recommended: Ashland $438,791 Jacksonville $238,500 Phoenix $261,900 Central Point $392,787 Medford $1,027,699 Jackson County $1,172,795 Eagle Point $303,787 Talent $280,835 ODOT $2,000,000 Page I of4 CITY OF ASHLAND Under the original application, Ashland had submitted proposals to overlay 5 City street including: a. North Laurel Street - N. Main Street to Railroad b. Iowa Street - Wightman Street to S. Mountain Avenue c. Nevada Street - Vansant Street to Michelle Avenue d. Nutley Street - Scenic Drive to Granite Street e. Helman Street - N. Main Street to Ohio Street. The application for these five streets totaled $700,700 and it was necessary to reduce the project load to meet the funds available. Funding for the first three streets was approved as follows: a. North Laurel Street - $125,797 b. Iowa Street - $173,497 c. Nevada Street - $139,497 $438,791 The remaining two projects will be included as alternatives should construction bids be returned less than anticipated and/or if additional funds should become available. Project Next Steps Since all agencies elected to use similar street overlay projects, it was possible to "bundle" several required efforts including selection of an engineering consultant to handle the preliminary and construction engineering for the projects. To meet that requirement, Jackson County advertised a request for proposal (RFP) for engineering services for the design and implementation of the street overlay projects. The beneficiaries of the RFP included all of the cities within the MPO. On March 23, 2009, Jackson County received four proposals from qualified (ODOT certified) engineering consultants. On March 24`h, the City was provided copies of the proposal which staff promptly reviewed and evaluated. The three person evaluation team scored the proposals as follows: Firm Score Rank OBEC 231 1 WH Pacific 215 2 Otak 211 3 DEA 207 4 The results of the evaluation were transmitted to ODOT and the City, and ODOT will soon begin negotiations with OBEC to arrive at an agreeable price for their services. The RFP's were submitted to allow flexibility in the number and type of project to be included under the contract, as well as in the contracting agency so that projects could be developed individually or collectively. 120 Day Allocation At its February 27, 2009 special meeting, the Oregon Transportation Commission approved $122.6 million in transportation projects and deferred another $68 until March, and opened a process to allow other jurisdictions to compete for projects that can obligate federal funds within 120 days to provide jobs this summer. On March 9'h, the City made an application for $200,000 of the 120 day allocation of funds to re-construct the sidewalk on Hersey Street from Oak Street to Ann Street. Page 2 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland was the only city in the RVMPO to be awarded the 120 day allocation of funds. Acceptance of this grant, however, places a burden on the City to deliver not only the 120 day project, but the overlay project at an accelerated schedule. The terms of the 120 day allocation project require that the project be approved and ready to meet a June 18, 2009 bid opening date, and that the overlay project is fully obligated by June 29, 2009. Failure to meet these deadlines may cause the City to forfeit the $200,000 grant for the sidewalk re- construction. These timelines are difficult, but not impossible to meet. Staff has allocated the resources necessary to meet this schedule; however, much of the schedule is dependent upon ODOT actions, reviews, approvals and schedules. Using the consultant selection process already in place for the overlay project, staff has also selected OBEC to do the necessary re-formatting of the existing plans and specifications for the sidewalk re- construction project. As with all federally funded transportation projects, bidding and contract administration will be by ODOT and must be in their approved format and on their forms. The existing plans and specifications prepared for the City by Marquess and Associates (MAI) must be revised to address ODOT requirements and must reflect a contract with ODOT rather than with the City. Since MAI is not an ODOT certified consultant, it was necessary to select one of the five firms certified by ODOT to prepare these documents. OBEC is a certified consultant and has agreed to meet the fast track schedule required of the grant. The cost for this work is $23,000 which is not reimbursable from federal funds. The accelerated schedule for these two projects will not allow the City to "bundle" the overlay projects with those projects that will be developed and bid jointly with Jackson County. This situation does have some positive impacts in that the Ashland projects will be the first to bid and will take advantage of a full summer of construction availability. It will also mean that the bidding environment early in the summer will ensure a more competitive mix of bidders. Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) In connection with both grants, it will be necessary to enter into a separate IGA with ODOT for both projects. The IGA's which will be prepared by ODOT were not available at the time of this communication, but hopefully will be available before the council meeting. It is anticipated that the IGA's will be very similar to the attached draft and will detail exactly how monies are to be used and the timelines which apply, and will require the Mayor's signature. Related City Policies: The City, through its City council, is empowered to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies regarding acceptance of federal funds, other grants, or other offers. Council Options: • Council may approve IGA's for both the street overlay project and the sidewalk reconstruction project. • Council may approve the IGA for the overlay project, but reject the IGA for the sidewalk reconstruction project. Page 3 of4 1r, CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: • Move to approve IGA's for both the street overlay and the sidewalk reconstruction projects. • Move to approve the IGA for the street overlay project only. Attachments: 1. Vicinity maps 2. Draft IGA form Page 4 of 4 z ~ U H WZN a o 0,~oa o0 ti H ~U~ ~ d V~ ~w A w>o U NVKIQL W o ~ G A W [I] ~ r VWWWAA G'4~ s- 1 G 0 'atir wtr~wnow rd k~ u~ Q $ d ~g 8 n „ g ~ o ~O1 0 Q j oy 00 A oo a U ~ W Z eq O a o o l~ E' U H V V) U Q 0 av n~t~ rv~nm 0 w u 3 , p E '>wrrvrnw 0 ru -&AV RMAKnOM K t7u N Q Z Q = a C 1 Z ' e ~ v z 175 fr ° N w J yp W ` = p N ~ iii ~ ~~kf3 0 g z ~~1 0 Misc. Contract & Agreement No,(IGA» LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 «Proiect Name STIP format)) ((AGENCY Name for IGA)) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State," and the ((AGENCY Name for IGA», acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to as "Agency" and collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Parties." RECITALS 1. ((ROAD STREET Name;) is a part of the ((RoadStreet SYSTEM)) system under the jurisdiction and control of Agency. 2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and 366.576, state agencies may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties. 3. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "ARRA", provides funding for job preservation and creation, infrastructure investment, energy efficiency and science, assistance to the unemployed, and state and local fiscal stabilization, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 4. The ARRA provides each state an allocation of ARRA funds for cities, counties and metropolitan areas. NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. Under such authority, State and Agency agree to «Proiect DESCRIPTION for IGA», hereinafter referred to as "Project." The Project will consist of . The location of the Project is approximately as shown on the detailed map attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A," and by this reference made a part hereof. 2. The Project shall be conducted as a part of the ARRA Program under Title 23, United States Code. The total Project cost is estimated at ((Total COST)), which is Key No. (Key » J Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» subject to change. ARRA Program funds for this Project shall be limited to «ARRA for proiect». The Project will be financed with ARRA funds at 100 percent of the maximum allowable federal participating amount. Agency will not be required to provide a match for the ARRA funds but will be responsible for any non- participating costs, including all costs in excess of the available federal funds. No ARRA funded invoices will be accepted and no ARRA funded payments will be made after September 30, 2015. 3. The federal funding for this Project is contingent upon approval by the FHWA and receipt of federal funds by State. Any work performed prior to "authorization" (also called obligation of funds) by FHWA or outside the scope of work will be considered non-participating and paid for at Agency expense. 4. State considers Agency a subrecipient of the federal funds it receives as reimbursement under this Agreement. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number and title for this Project is 20.205, Highway Planning and Construction. 5. Agency shall place signs that identify Project as "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009" (State approved design). Agency may affix additional signage that identifies local funds used for the Project. 6. Agency shall report to State the required reporting data by federal and state mandates for delivery of the ARRA program. State shall inform the local agencies of the reporting requirements once they have been received from FHWA and the Department of Administrative Services and such requirements shall be made a part of this Agreement. 7. The term of this Agreement will begin upon execution and will terminate upon completion of the Project and final payment or September 30, 2015, whichever is sooner. No work can begin on this Project until Agency receives a Notice To Proceed from State's Local Agency Liaison. 8. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both Parties. 9. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the following conditions: a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specked herein or any extension thereof. 2 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement, or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as State may authorize. c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the Project. d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this Agreement. e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 10. Because of the ARRA funding requirements, Agency must advance the Project for obligation of funds prior to March 1, 2010; and State must make a determination no later than December 31, 2009 whether this date will be met. Therefore, if the Project has not advanced to the point of being in the State's "Plans, Specification and Estimates" (PS&E) process by December 31, 2009, the Project will be reviewed by State, in coordination with the Oregon Local Program Committee. If State determines that the ARRA funds will not be, or are unlikely to be, obligated for construction prior to March 1, 2010, State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to Agency, allowing the funds to be distributed to another project at State's discretion; and State shall have no obligation to replace the ARRA funds with other state or federal funds. 11.Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 12. The Special and Standard Provisions attached hereto, marked Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, are by this reference made a part hereof. The Standard Provisions apply to all federal-aid projects and may be modified only by the Special Provisions. The Parties hereto mutually agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Attachments 1 and 2. In the event of a conflict, this Agreement shall control over the attachments, and Attachment 1 shall control over Attachment 2. 13. Agency, as a recipient of federal funds, pursuant to this Agreement with State, shall assume sole liability for Agency's breach of any federal statutes, rules, program requirements and grant provisions applicable to the federal funds, and shall, upon 3 Agency/State Agreement No. OGA» Agency's breach of any such conditions that requires State to return funds to the Federal Highway Administration, hold harmless and indemnify State for an amount equal to the funds received under this Agreement; or if legal limitations apply to the indemnification ability of Agency, the indemnification amount shall be the maximum amount of funds available for expenditure, including any available contingency funds or other available non-appropriated funds, up to the amount received under this Agreement. 14.Agency certifies and represents that the individual(s) signing this Agreement has been authorized to enter into and execute this Agreement on behalf of Agency, under the direction or approval of its governing body, commission, board, officers, members or representatives, and to legally bind Agency. 15. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 16.This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either Party unless in writing and signed by, both Parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State of that or any other provision. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that each Party has read this Agreement, understands it, and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. This Project is amended into the 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, Key No. «Ke » that was approved by the Oregon Transportation Commission on November 14, 2007 or will subsequently be approved by amendment to the STIP. The Oregon Transportation Commission on December 29, 2008, approved Delegation Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day- to-day operations. Day-today operations include those activities required to implement the biennial budget approved by the Legislature, including activities to execute a project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. 4 Agency/State Agreement No. ((IGA)) On September 15, 2006, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, Paragraph 1, in which authority is delegated to the Deputy Director, Highways, to approve and sign agreements over $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. ((AGENCY Name for IGAn, by and STATE OF OREGON, by and through through its elected officials its Department of Transportation By By Deputy Director, Highways Date By Date Date APPROVAL RECOMMENDED APPROVED AS TO LEGAL By SUFFICIENCY Local Government Section Manager By Date Agency Counsel APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Date SUFFICIENCY Agency Contact: By ((Local Contact NAME, Assistant Attorney General ((Local Contact TITLE)) ((Local Contact ADDRESS» Date: ((Local Contact CITY)>, ((Local Contact STATE ZIP)) ((Local Contact EMAIL» ((Local Contact PHONE» State Contact: ((State Contact NAME TITLE)) ((State Contact ADDRESS)> State Contact CITY)), ((State Contact STATE ZIP» ((State Contact EMAIL)) ((State Contact PHONE)) 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 to Agreement No. ((IGA» SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. Agency or its consultant shall, as a federal-aid participating preliminary engineering function, conduct the necessary field surveys, environmental studies, traffic investigations, foundation explorations, and hydraulic studies, identify and obtain all required permits, assist State with acquisition of necessary right of way and/or easements, and perform all preliminary engineering and design work required to produce final plans, preliminary/final specifications and cost estimates. 2. Upon State's award of the construction contract, Agency, or its consultant, shall be responsible to perform all construction engineering, field testing of materials, technical inspection and project manager services for administration of the contract. 3. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services consultant to perform any work covered under this Agreement, Agency and Consultant shall enter into a Personal Services Contract approved by State's Chief Procurement Officer or designee (Salem). Said. contract must be reviewed and approved by State's Chief Procurement Officer or designee prior to beginning any work. This review includes, but is not limited to the Request for Proposal, Statement of Work, advertisement and all contract documents. This review and approval is required to ensure federal reimbursement. 4. State may make available Region ((Region»'s On-Call Preliminary Engineering (PE), Design and Construction Engineering Services consultant for Local Agency Projects upon written request. If Agency chooses to use said services, Agency agrees to manage the work performed by.the Consultant and reimburse State for payment of any Consultant costs that are not eligible as federal participating costs or that are not included as part of the total cost of the Project. 5. Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within two (2) years from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for preliminary engineering (PE) and 2) third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State within one (1) year from the date that costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after two (2) years shall not be eligible for reimbursement. No ARRA funding will be available for project reimbursement after September 30, 2015. State shall not be responsible to provide additional funding to Agencies that do not have final billings processed before this date. 6. If Agency overlays a bridge, Agency shall either (a) load rate a bridge when adding two (2) inches of pavement to an existing bridge deck to determine if the capacity of the bridge or (b) remove 2-inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) from the bridge deck and then place 2-inches back for a zero net gain of Asphalt Concrete (in-lay/over- 7 lay) on the bridge deck. Agency shall then sawcut the new AC pavement at the bridge ends and fill with poured joint filler to account for bridge movement. 7. Agency shall, at its own expense, maintain and operate the Project upon completion and throughout the useful life of the Project at a minimum level that is consistent with normal depreciation and/or service demand. State and Agency agree that the useful life of this Project is defined as <(Design LIFE)> calendar years. State may conduct periodic inspections during the life of the Project to verify that Project is properly maintained and continues to serve the purpose for which federal funds were provided. Maintenance and power responsibilities shall survive any termination of this Agreement. 8 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» ATTACHMENT NO. 2 STANDARD PROVISIONS JOINT OBLIGATIONS PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. State (ODOT) is acting to fulfill its responsibility to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by the administration of this Project, and Agency (i.e. county, city, unit of local government, or other state agency) hereby agrees that State shall have full authority to carry out this administration. If requested by Agency or if deemed necessary by State in order to meet its obligations to FHWA, State will further act for Agency in other matters pertaining to the Project. Agency shall, if necessary, appoint and direct the activities of a Citizen's Advisory Committee and/or Technical Advisory Committee, conduct a hearing and recommend the preferred attemative. State and Agency shall each assign a liaison person to coordinate activities and assure that the interests of both parties are considered during all phases of the Project. 2. Any project that uses federal funds in project development is subject to plans, specifications and estimates (PS&E) review and approval by FHWA or State acting on behalf of FHWA prior to advertisement for bid proposals, regardless of the source of funding for construction. PRELIMINARY & CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING 3. State, Agency, or others may perform preliminary and construction engineering. If Agency or others perform the engineering, State will monitor the work for conformance with FHWA rules and regulations. In the event that Agency elects to engage the services of a personal services consultant to perform any work covered by this Agreement, Agency and Consultant shall enter into a State reviewed and approved personal services contract process and resulting contract document. State must concur in the contract prior to beginning any work. State's personal services contracting process and resulting contract document will follow Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 172, Title 49 CFR 18, ORS 279A.055, the current State Administrative Rules and State Personal Services Contracting Procedures as approved by the FHWA. Such personal services contract(s) shall contain a description of the work to be performed, a project schedule, and the method of payment. Subcontracts shall contain all required provisions of Agency as outlined in the Agreement. No reimbursement shall be made using federal-aid funds for any costs incurred by Agency or its consultant prior to receiving authorization from State to proceed. Any amendments to such contract(s) also require State's approval. 4. On all construction projects where State is the signatory party to the contract, and where Agency is doing the construction engineering and project management, Agency, subject to STDPRO-2008.doc 9 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» any limitations imposed by state law and the Oregon Constitution, agrees to accept all responsibility, defend lawsuits, indemnify and hold State harmless, for all tort claims, contract claims, or any other lawsuit arising out of the contractor's work or Agency's supervision of the project. r REQUIRED STATEMENT FOR United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT 5. If as a condition of assistance, Agency has submitted and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Affirmative Action Program which Agency agrees to carry out, this affirmative action program is incorporated into the financial assistance agreement by reference. That program shall be treated as a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of the financial assistance agreement. Upon notification from USDOT to Agency of its failure to carry out the approved program, USDOT shall impose such sanctions as noted in Title 49. CFR, Part 26, which sanctions may include termination of the agreement or other measures that may affect the ability of Agency to obtain future USDOT financial assistance. 6. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) Obligations. State and its contractor agree to ensure that DBE as defined in Title 49, CFR. Part 26, have the opportunity to participate in the performance of contracts and subcontracts financed in whole or in part with federal funds. In this regard, Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps in accordance with Title 49. CFR, Part 26, to ensure that DBE have the opportunity to compete for and perform contracts. Neither State nor Agency and its contractors shall discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin or sex in the award and performance of federally-assisted contracts. Agency shall carry out applicable requirements of Title 49. CFR. Part 26, in the award and administration of such contracts. Failure by Agency to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this Agreement, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as State deems appropriate. 7. The DBE Policy Statement and Obligations shall be included in all subcontracts entered into under this Agreement. 8. Agency agrees to comply with all applicable civil rights laws, rules and regulations, including Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 9. The parties hereto agree and understand that they will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work including, but not limited to, the provisions of ORS 279C.505. 279C.515. 279C.520, 279C.530 and 2798.270, incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof: Title 23 CFR Parts 1.11. 140, 710, and 771; Title 49 CFR Parts 18. 24 and 26: OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-87 and NO. A-133 Title 23. USC, Federal-Aid Highway Act: Title 41 Chapter 1. USC 51-58, Anti-Kickback Act: Title 42 USC: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970, as amended and provisions of Federal-Aid Policy Guide F( APG). STDPRO-2008.doc 10 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» STATE OBLIGATIONS PROJECT FUNDING REQUEST 10. State shall submit a Project funding request to FHWA with a request for approval of federal- aid participation in all engineering, right-of-way acquisition, eligible utility relocations and/or construction work for the Project. No work shall proceed on any activity in which federal-aid participation is desired until such approval has been obtained. The program shall include services to be provided by State, Agency, or others. State shall notify Agency in writing when authorization to proceed has been received from FHWA. Major responsibility for the various phases of the Project will be as outlined in the Special Provisions. All work and records of such work shall be in conformance with FHWA rules and regulations. FINANCE 11. State shall, in the first instance, pay all reimbursable costs of the Project, submit all claims for federal-aid participation to FHWA in the normal manner and compile accurate cost accounting records. Agency may request a statement of costs to date at any time by submitting a written request. When the actual total cost of the Project has been computed, State shall furnish Agency with an itemized statement of final costs. Agency shall pay an amount which, when added to said advance deposit and federal reimbursement payment, will equal 100 percent of the final total actual cost. Any portion of deposits made in excess of the final total costs of Project, minus federal reimbursement, shall be released to Agency. The actual cost of services provided by State will be charged to the Project expenditure account(s) and will be included in the total cost of the Project. PROJECT ACTIVITIES 12. State shall, if the preliminary engineering work is performed by Agency or others, review and process or approve all environmental statements, preliminary and final plans, specifications and cost estimates. State shall, if they prepare these documents, offer Agency the opportunity to review and approve the documents prior to advertising for bids. 13. The party responsible for performing preliminary engineering for the Project shall, as part of its preliminary engineering costs, obtain all Project related permits necessary for the construction of said Project. Said permits shall include, but are not limited to, access, utility, environmental, construction, and approach permits. All pre-construction permits will be obtained prior to advertisement for construction. 14. State shall prepare contract and bidding documents, advertise for bid proposals, and award all contracts. 15. Upon State's award of a construction contract, State shall perform independent assurance testing in accordance with State and FHWA Standards, process and pay all contractor progress estimates, check final quantities and costs, and oversee and provide intermittent inspection services during the construction phase of the Project. STDPRO-2008.doc 11 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. aIGA» 16. State shall, as a Project expense, assign a liaison person to provide Project monitoring as needed throughout all phases of Project activities (preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction). The liaison shall process reimbursement for federal participation costs. RIGHT OF WAY 17. State is responsible for proper acquisition of the necessary right of way and easements for construction and maintenance of the Project. Agency may perform acquisition of the necessary right of way and easements for construction and maintenance of the Project, provided Agency (or Agency's consultant) are qualified to do such work as required by the State's Right of Way Manual and have obtained prior approval from State's Region Right of Way office to do such work. 18. Regardless of who acquires or performs any of the right of way activities, a right of way services agreement shall be created by State's Region Right of Way office setting forth the responsibilities and activities to be accomplished by each party. State shall always be responsible for requesting project funding, coordinating certification of the right of way, and providing oversight and monitoring. Funding authorization requests for federal right of way funds must be sent through the State's Region Right of Way offices on all projects. All projects must have right of way certification coordinated through State's Region Right of Way offices (even for projects where no federal funds were used for right of way, but federal funds were used elsewhere on the Project). Agency should contact the State's Region Right of Way office for additional information or clarification. 19. State shall review all right of way activities engaged in by Agency to assure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Agency agrees that right of way activities shall be in accord with the Uniform Relocation Assistance & Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, ORS Chapter 35, FHWA Federal-Aid Policy Guide, State's Right of Way Manual and the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 710 and Title 49, Part 24. 20. If any real property purchased with federal-aid participation is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the disposition of such property shall be subject to applicable rules and regulations, which are in effect at the time of disposition. Reimbursement to State and FHWA of the required proportionate shares of the fair market value may be required. 21. Agency insures that all Project right of way monumentation will be conducted in conformance with ORS 209.155. 22. State and Agency grants each other authority to enter onto the other's right of way for the performance of the Project. STDPRO-2008.doc 12. Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» AGENCY OBLIGATIONS FINANCE 23. Federal funds shall be applied toward Project costs at the current federal-aid matching ratio, unless otherwise agreed and allowable by law. Agency shall be responsible for the entire match amount, unless otherwise agreed to and specified in the intergovernmental agreement. If federal funds are used, Agency will specify the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number in the Agreement. Agency will also determine and clearly state in the Agreement if recipient is a subrecipient or vendor, using criteria in Circular A-133. 24. Agency's estimated share and advance deposit. A. Agency shall, prior to commencement of the preliminary engineering and/or right of way acquisition phases, deposit with State its estimated share of each phase. Exception may be made in the case of projects where Agency has written approval from State to use in-kind contributions rather than cash to satisfy all or part of the matching funds requirement. B. Agency's construction phase deposit shall be 110 percent of Agency's share of the engineer's estimate and shall be received prior to award of the construction contract. Any additional balance of the deposit, based on the actual bid must be received within forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notification by State of the final amount due, unless the contract is canceled. Any unnecessary balance of a cash deposit, based on' the actual bid, will be refunded within forty-five (45) days of receipt by State of the Project sponsor's written request. C. Pursuant to ORS 366.425, the advance deposit may be in the form of 1) money deposited in the State Treasury (an option where a deposit is made in the Local Government Investment Pool, and an Irrevocable Limited Power of Attorney is sent to the Highway Finance Office), or 2) an Irrevocable Letter of Credit issued by a local bank in the name of State, or 3) cash. D. Agency may satisfy all or part of any matching funds requirements by use of in-kind contributions rather than cash when prior written approval has been given by State. 25. If the estimated cost exceeds the total matched federal funds available, Agency shall deposit its share of the required matching funds, plus 100 percent of all costs in excess of the total matched federal funds. Agency shall also pay 100 percent of the cost of any item in which FHWA will not participate. If Agency has not repaid any non-participating cost, future allocations of federal funds, or allocations of State Highway Trust Funds, to that Agency may be withheld to pay the non-participating costs. If State approves processes, procedures, or contract administration outside the Local Agency Guidelines that result in items being declared non-participating, those items will not result in the withholding of Agency's future allocations. of federal funds or the future allocations of State Highway Trust Funds. STDPRO-2008.doc 13 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» 26. Costs incurred by State and Agency for services performed in connection with any phase of the Project shall be charged to the Project, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon. 27. If Agency makes a written request for the cancellation of a federal-aid project; Agency shall bear 100 percent of all costs as of the date of cancellation. If State was the sole cause of the cancellation, State shall bear 100 percent of all costs incurred. If it is determined that the cancellation was caused by third parties or circumstances beyond the control of State or Agency, Agency shall bear all development costs, whether incurred by State or Agency, either directly or through contract services, and State shall bear any State administrative costs incurred. After settlement of payments, State shall deliver surveys, maps, field notes, and all other data to Agency. 28. Agency shall follow requirements of the Single Audit Act. The requirements stated in the Single Audit Act must be followed by those local governments and non-profit organizations receiving $500,000 or more in federal funds. The Single Audit Act of 1984, PL 98-502 as amended by PL 104-156, described in "OMB CIRCULAR NO. A-133", requires local governments and non-profit organizations to obtain an audit that includes internal controls and compliance with federal laws and regulations of all federally-funded programs in which the local agency participates. The cost of this audit can be partially prorated to the federal program. 29. Agency shall make additional deposits, as needed, upon request from State. Requests for additional deposits shall be accompanied by an itemized statement of expenditures and an estimated cost to complete the Project. 30. Agency shall present invoices for 100 percent of actual costs incurred by Agency on behalf of the Project directly to State's Liaison Person for review and approval. Such invoices shall identify the Project and Agreement number, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Billings shall be presented for periods of not less than one-month duration, based on actual expenses to date. All billings received from Agency must be approved by State's Liaison Person prior to payment. Agency's actual costs eligible for federal-aid or State participation shall be those allowable under the provisions of Title 23 CFR Parts 1.11, 140 and 710, Final billings shall be submitted to State for processing within three months from the end of each funding phase as follows: 1) award date of a construction contract for preliminary engineering 2) last payment for right-of-way acquisition and 3) third notification for construction. Partial billing (progress payment) shall be submitted to State within three months from date that costs are incurred. Final billings submitted after the three months shall not be eligible for reimbursement. 31. The cost records and accounts pertaining to work covered by this Agreement are to be kept available for inspection by representatives of State and FHWA for a period of six (6) years following the date of final voucher to FHWA. Copies of such records and accounts shall be made available upon request. For real property and equipment, the retention period starts from the date of disposition (Title 49 CFR 18.42). STDPRO-2008.doc 14 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. aIGA» 32. State shall request reimbursement, and Agency agrees to reimburse State, for federal-aid funds distributed to Agency if any of the following events occur: a) Right of way acquisition or actual construction of the facility for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized; b) Right of way acquisition is undertaken utilizing federal-aid funds and actual construction is not started by the close of the twentieth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the federal-aid funds were authorized for right of way acquisition. c) Construction proceeds after the Project is determined to be ineligible for federal-aid funding (e.g., no environmental approval, lacking permits, or other reasons). 33. Agency shall maintain all Project documentation in keeping with State and FHWA standards and specifications. This shall include, but is not limited to, daily work records, quantity documentation, material invoices and quality documentation, certificates of origin, process control records, test results, and inspection records to ensure that projects are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. RAILROADS 34. Agency shall follow State established policy and procedures when impacts occur on railroad property. The policy and procedures are available through State's appropriate Region contact or State's Railroad Liaison. Only those costs allowable under Title 23 CFR Part 646, subpart B and Title 23 CFR Part 140, subpart I, shall be included in the total Project costs; all other costs associated with railroad work will be at the sole expense of Agency, or others. Agency may request State, in writing, to provide railroad coordination and negotiations. However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties. UTILITIES 35. Agency shall cause to be relocated or reconstructed, all privately or publicly-owned utility conduits, lines, poles, mains, pipes, and all other such facilities of every kind and nature where such relocation or reconstruction is made necessary by the plans of the Project in order to conform the utilities and other facilities with the plans and the ultimate requirements of the Project. Only those utility relocations, which are eligible for federal-aid participation under, Title 23 CFR 645A, shall be included in the total Project costs; all other utility relocations shall be at the sole expense of Agency, or others. State will arrange for utility relocations/adjustments in areas lying within jurisdiction of State, if State is performing the preliminary engineering. Agency may request State in writing to arrange for utility relocations/adjustments lying within Agency jurisdiction, acting on behalf of Agency. This request must be submitted no later than twenty-one (21) weeks prior to bid let date. However, State is under no obligation to agree to perform said duties. STDPRO-2008.doc 15 Rev. 09-23-2008 l Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» 36. Agency shall follow established State utility relocation policy and procedures. The policy and procedures are available through the appropriate State's Region Utility Specialist or State's Right of Way Section Railroad Liaison, and Utility Engineer. STANDARDS 37. Agency agrees that design standards for all projects on the National Highway System (NHS) and the Oregon State Highway System shall be in compliance to standards specified in the current "State Highway Design Manual" and related references. Construction plans shall be in conformance with standard practices of State for plans prepared by its own staff. All specifications for the Project shall be in substantial compliance with the most current "Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway Construction". 38. Agency agrees that minimum design standards for non-NHS projects shall be recommended AASHTO Standards and in accordance with the current "Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan", unless otherwise requested by Agency and approved by State. 39. Agency agrees and will verify that the installation of traffic control devices shall meet the warrants prescribed in the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Oregon Supplements". 40. All plans and specifications shall be developed in general conformance with the current "Contract Plans Development Guide" and the current "Oregon Standard Specifications for Highway Construction" and/or guidelines provided. 41. The standard unit of measurement for all aspects of the project shall be English Units. All project documents and products shall be in English. This includes, but is not limited to, right of way, environmental documents, plans and specifications, and utilities. GRADE CHANGE LIABILITY 42. Agency, if a County, acknowledges the effect and scope of ORS 105.755 and agrees that all acts necessary to complete construction of the Project which may alter or change the grade of existing county roads are being accomplished at the direct request of the County. 43. Agency, if a City, hereby accepts responsibility for all claims for damages from grade changes. Approval of plans by State shall not subject State to liability under ORS 105.760 for change of grade. 44. Agency, if a City, by execution of Agreement, gives its consent as required by ORS 373.030(2) to any and all changes of grade within the City limits, and gives its consent as required by ORS 373.050(1) to any and all closure of streets intersecting the highway, if any there be in connection with or arising out of the project covered by the Agreement. STDPRO-2008.doc 16 Rev. 09-23-2008 Agency/State Agreement No. «IGA» CONTRACTOR CLAIMS 45. Agency shall, to the extent permitted by state law, indemnify, hold harmless and provide legal defense for State against all claims brought by the contractor, or others resulting from Agency's failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement. 46. Notwithstanding the foregoing defense obligations under Paragraph 45, neither Agency nor any attorney engaged by Agency shall defend any claim in the name of the State of Oregon or any agency of the State of Oregon, nor purport to act as legal representative of the State of Oregon or any of its agencies, without the prior written consent of the Oregon Attorney General. The State of Oregon may, at anytime at its election assume its own defense and settlement in the event that it determines that Agency is prohibited from defending the State of Oregon, or that Agency is not adequately defending the State of Oregon's interests, or that an important governmental principle is at issue or that it is in the best interests of the State of Oregon to do so. The State of Oregon reserves all rights to pursue any claims it may have against Agency if the State of Oregon elects to assume its own defense. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES 47. Agency shall, upon completion of construction, thereafter maintain and operate the Project at its own cost and expense, and in a manner satisfactory to State and FHWA. WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE 48. All employers, including Agency that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Agency shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements. LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS 49. Agency certifies by signing the Agreement that: A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. B. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL. 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying.* in accordance with its instructions. STDPRO-2008.doc 17 Rev. 09-23-2008 r Agency/State Agreement No. « IGA» C. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000, and that all such subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. D. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Title 31, USC Section 1352. E. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. Paragraphs 35, 36, and 47 are not applicable to any local agency on state highway projects. STDPRO-2008.doc 18 Rev. 09-23-2008 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Application for Funding Under the ARRA Safe Drinking Water Loan Funding Program Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: James Olson 552-2412 Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: olsonj c@i ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Mike Faught 552-2411 Approval: Martha BenneA Estimated Time: Consent Agenda Question: Will Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project? Background: Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Oregon was allocated $28,515,000 for distribution through the state's Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund (SDWRLF) program. Under this program 50% of the ARRA funds will be awarded as grant or principle forgiveness and 50% will be through zero interest loans. Staff submitted five projects for a total cost of $8,250,000 of which $4,250,000 is SDC eligible. The following chart outlines the potential application submittals within the $4 million grant criteria: Option Additional Funds Project Description Estimate Cost Max Grant Amount No. Required. 1 TAP Waterline $6,800,000 $4,000,000 $2,800,000 Granite Waterline 2 `B' St Waterline $1,450,000 $4,000,000 ($2,550,000) Terrace St Waterline Pump St & Reservoir 3 All Projects $8,250,000 $4,000,000 $4,250,000 Of the three options, staff is recommending an application for Option 2 as these projects would be funded 100% by the loan/grant. The grant application is due April 15, 2009; therefore staff needs Council authorization at the April 7, 2009 Council meeting. Staff is not recommending the TAP waterline project be considered for a loan/grant at this time as the project would not meet the project readiness criteria. Pagel of 3 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Grant Application Requirements: ARRA funds are awarded on a competitive process and all applications must meet the following requirements and timetables: 1. The deadline for application for ARRA funding is April 15, 2009. 2. The application must include documentation that demonstrates that a public meeting has been held to discuss the intent to apply for ARRA funds. 3. Agencies must have submitted a prior letter of interest to be eligible to apply. 4. Agencies must certify that their project will be under construction by February 16, 2010. 5. Agencies must certify that their construction project will be complete by February 16, 2011. 6. Awards will be announced on May 15, 2009. 7. The funding cap per project is $6 million. 8. Funding application must include an Asset Management Planning Activity. 9. Projects funded in whole or in part with ARRA funding requires compliance with Davis Bacon Water Rates and BOLI Wage Rates. 10. Projects funded with ARRA funding require compliance with "Buy American" for iron, steel and manufactured goods provisions. 11. ARRA funds can not be used to purchase property or easements. Letter of Interest (LOI) In January 2009 staff submitted a Letter of Interest to the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) requesting possible funding of several water distribution projects. The funding package included $12,800,000 in water projects. The projects, taken from the approved Capital Improvement Plan, included the following individual water projects: 1. Granite Street. Waterline Replacement $300,000 2. `B' Street Waterline Replacement $300,000 3. Terrace Street Waterline Replacement $350,000 4. Pump Station Improvements and Storage Reservoir $500,000 5. TAP Waterline Construction $6,800,000 6. Crowson II Reservoir (alternative) $4,550,000 TOTAL $12,800,000 This LOI is a critical element of the process as it is used to create a ranked list of potential projects to be funded. On March 91h the City received notice that the City was eligible to apply for funding for upgrades to the water system in the amount of $4,000,000 (Application Number SD-09-66). The first five of the previously listed projects would be eligible for funding under the program. Project No. 6, Crowson II reservoir, would be an alternate and could only be funded if additional federal funds were available or if existing funds were under allocated. Project Readiness Project readiness is a requirement for the ARRA distribution of funds in order to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery as quickly as possible. The projects must be under construction by February 16, 2010. The Granite Street and `B' Street waterline replacement projects are designed and can be bid within a few months. The Terrace Street waterline and the pump station and reservoir projects have preliminary designs, but would require development of final plans and specifications which could also be. accomplished within a few months. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Related City Policies: The City, through its City Council is empowered to enter into agreements with other governmental agencies regarding acceptance of federal funds, grants or other offers. Council Options: 1. The Council could decide to approve staff's recommendation to authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project. 2. The Council may decide not to apply for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project. 3. The Council may decide to modify ( ) staff's recommendations Potential Motions: 1. Moves to authorize the Mayor to sign an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application to reconstruct the Granite Street, "B" Street, and Terrace Street water lines and the Ashland Loop Road Pump Station and Storage Reservoir Improvement Project. 2. Move to direct staff not to submit an application for an ARRA / 2009 Oregon Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan application. 3. Move to modify staff's recommendations. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Letter of Interest (LOI) 3. Application Form Page 3 of 3 Y ~ F 1 a CO) ~ r /I j 0 ~ •Lr .i f, t ,ryyi 3 i m G •yMll ~ h S MIX 1 I Z~ ~ { ~ ~ <WO I I xy 'i3w g w ~ ti' m m a o o Appendix I Letter of Interest and Instructions DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND Letter of Interest Oregon Economic and Community Development Pn-application for eidw 200 State Lands Building (503) 986-0123 SAFE DRINKING WATER REVOLVING LOAN FUND 775 Summer Street NE OR Salem OR 97301-1280 Fax (503) 581-5115 DRINKING WATER PROTECTION LOAN FUND Section 1: Water System I• irdirfaentl Full Name: City of Ashland Contact Person: Michael R. Faught Street Address: 20 E Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 Stmt Address:' Mailing Address: same Mailing Address: phone: (541) 488-5587 Phone: Fax: (541) 488-6006 Fix: E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us E-Mail:' Population: Project Type: A. Community Population: 21,600 D. Infrastructure Project (mark any/all as appropriate) - 8. Project Area Population: ❑ Planning, Preliminary Engineering 21,600 ® Final Design & Specifications C. Number of equivalent ® Construction dwelling units (EDU): 9,935 E. Source Water Protection Project - ❑ Readiness to Proceed: F. Is system presently able to prepare and submit final application for funding? ® Yes ❑ No G. Maximum time after funding approval before work commenced/costs incurred: 90 Days H. When is construction (if applicable) expected to begin: 2009 Section 2: Project Title: Water Distribution System Improvement Section 3: Brief Project Summary (Answer only in the space provided) A.Describe Drinking Water Quality Problem: Ashland's primary source for potable waters is from live flows from the Fast and West forks of Ashland Creek. During summer months water can be supplemented with irrigation water from Talent Irrigation District and Bureau of Reclamation. All water arc processed through the water treatment plant distribution system with 4 storage reservoirs, 4 pump stations and 8.5 miles of pipeline. With Ashland's single water treatment source there arc times when plant is online and or over capacity. All these facilities have finite life cycles and require continual replacements, upgrades and improvements for safe and economical functioning. In addition, Ashland's Water System Master Plan identified four deficient areas that need correcting: leaking pipes, undersized and restrictive pipes; water storage capacity; and replacing it continually running pump station to save energy and improve reliability. B.Describe the Proposed Solution to the Problem: Three separate, but rclated projects arc proposed to solve some of Ashland's water quality problems. I. Replacing and upsize three major waterlines made of steel or cast iron (Cost S 1,050,000). 2. Pump station replacement and installation of a 50,000 gallon water reservoir (Cost $500,000). 3. Extend the Talent, Ashland, Phoenix (TAP) pipeline from Talent to Ashland to provide additionaltalternative water to supplement Ashlud's water treatment plant during times of need. This proposed construction project consists of 4 miles of 16" ductile iron pipe (Cost 6,800,000). Taal of proposed projects is $8,250,000. G:Igrbwrks`tngWrpt-adminr ENGMEERIPROJECT2W9M-aI OECD L& of Interest"dua sys improve 1 14 09.doc Section 4: Loan Repayment and Finances A. Source(s) of Loan Repayment (check one or mote as applicable): ® Water user fees ❑ Voter-approved General Obligation ® Connection Fees ❑ Reserves ❑ Other: 6. Debt currently borne by the water system (as applicable): 1. Total debt paid by water fees $9,545.439 2. Total debt paid by property taxes/levy $7,713,509 3. Average annual residential property taxes for debt $101.52 C. Current average monthly (7,500 gallons) residential user fee: $ Section 5: Funds Requested and Project Costs A. $ 4,000,000 Total Moneys Sought through Drinking Water State Revolving Fund B. S Water System's Participation (retained earnings, reserves) C. t 4,250,000 Other Funds - source: SDC D. S Other Funds - source: E. S 8,250,000 Total Project Cost Section 6: Miscellaneous A. Are all water system connections metered? ® Yes ❑ No If no, what percentage is not metered? % B. Does your project involve the merger of two or more water systems? ❑ Yes ® No Section 7: Certification l certify that, to the bat of my knowledge, all InjommNon contained hr this Letter of Interest is valid and accurate. Authorized Signature , c Title Public Works Director Jurisdiction City of Ashland Name Michael R. Faught Date I (TYPE OR PRINT) Please Submit Original and Four (4) Copies Note: This Letter of Interest will be used to create a ranked list of potential projects to be funded by the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund and to qualify projects seeking assistance from the Drinking Water Protection Loan Fund. Completion and submission of this form does nor obligate anyone to accept a ban or grant Also see ale Drinking Water Program web page.. http://www.ohd.hr.state.or. us/dwp./about cfm For DepwUmpt Ule O' Rafpted Ia w/VWt j ❑ Rafined to CDBG 00d:: G1pub-wrkskngWcq-dmur\ENGMEERIPROJECT120090-01 OECD L& of Ink wtr diur sys impmrc 1 14 09.doc Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Economic Stimulus) General Application Form Oregon Economic and Community Development Department 775 Summer St. NE, Suite 200 Salem, Oregon 97301-1280 Attn: Community Development Division/SDWRLF Applications must be postmarked no Applicant: later than April 15, 2009. No electronic riling of applications will be Project Name: accepted. Applicant Information Applicant's Organization Type: ❑ City ❑ Special District, organized ❑ Tribe under ORS ❑ County ❑ Water Association, organized ❑ Other under organized under ORS ORS Contact Name: Phone: Fax: Title: Email: Street Address: Mailing Address: . Address City, State, Zip Count Project Census Block # Project Census Tract # of I e e a ~>I sen;I1fft Congressional District of Applicant) # Page t of 5 Congressional District of Project) # State House District # State Senate District # State Senator Name State Representative Name Applicant's Federal Tax ID No: Applicant's DUNS Number: Available at- http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/ Budget Line Item SDWRLF Other Non-Department (ARRA) Department Funds Total Funds Totals Status Source of Non-Department Funds Amount Committed, Application Submitted, Application Invited, or Potential Source - Total Problem/ Opportunity Response to-Problem/ Opportunity' Page 2 of 5 Detailed p.ojiic~t • e SpiJ ption~ If interim financing is needed *7 indicate tfie source(s) Project Work Plan Activity Estimated Start Date Estimated Completion Date Estimated First Draw Date dd/mm/ General Certification: I certify that this project meets the following "Ready to Proceed" Criteria (Indicate 'YES" in all that apply. If 'NO" please indicate percent completed): Compliance Indicate % Mandatory Ready to Proceed Criteria with Criteria - Complete at Deadline for YES or NO Time of Completion _ Application of Activi Engineering/Design is 100% Complete. 12/31/2009 All Required Permits and/or Water Rights have 11/30/2009 been Obtained. Environmental Review is Complete. 11/30/2009 Bid Documents and Specifications are Complete _ 12/31/2009 All Necessary Easements and /or Property are 09/30/2009 Acquired. All Funding Necessary to Complete Project is 12/31/2009 Secured. Board or Council Approval to Execute Grant/Loan 07/20/09 Agreement User Rates are Sufficient to Support Additional 04/15/2009 Page 3 of 5 Debt or Are Phased to Support Additional Debt by End of Project. Project is Consistent with Comprehensive Land 04/15/2009 Use Plans. Comment s Related to Item(s) Above: I further certify that to the best of my knowledge all information contained in this document and any attached supplements, is valid and accurate. I further certify that, to the best of my knowledge: 1) The application has been approved by the governing body or is otherwise being submitted using the governing body's lawful process, and 2) If signed by an official, other than the highest elected official, documentation is attached that verifies the official's authority to sign on behalf of the applicant. Such documentation can include a resolution, ordinance, order, governing body meeting minutes, or charter. Signature (must be highest elected or authorized official) Printed Name & Title Date FOR OEUS - l1SE ONLY o p b p t on p gate Protect ans o Page 4 of 5 Instructions for Application Form: o Applicant: Entity that will be the applicant for Department assistance and will manage the project. o Project Name: Name of the applicant and project (e.g., Stayton Water System Improvements). o Applicant's Organization Type: Check the applicable applicant organizational type, and if a special district or port, identify the applicable ORS organizing authority, or identify other type. o Information for Contact Person: Information for the person we should contact if we have questions about the project. o Detailed Project Budget: List individual project budget line items with requested budgeted amounts by OECDD funding sources and non-department sources. Change the respective budget column labels to identify the speck requested OECDD funding sources. o Source of Non-Department Funds: List all sources, amounts and status of funds other than those requested from OECDD. o Problem/Opportunity: Briefly describe the problem or opportunity facing the applicant. o Response to Problem/Opportunity: Briefly describe the major alternatives considered by the applicant to address the problem or opportunity facing the applicant. o Detailed Project Description: Clearly describe the proposed project work to be accomplished. o Interim Financing (if any): Identify any interim financing needed by the applicant and list any committed or potential sources of interim financing. o Project Work Plan: List project activity milestones with estimated start and completion dates. Identify estimated date of first cash draw. o Signature: Must be highest elected official or authorized official. (Such documentation may include a resolution, ordinance, order, governing body meeting minutes, or charter). Page 5 of 5 Application Supplement for Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Economic Stimulus) For General Program assistance with completing this Application Supplement please refer to the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund's Program Guidelines & Applicant's Handbook (September 2008). This document is available by contacting your Regional Coordinator or online at http://www.otegon.gov/ECDD/CD/08SDW TOC.shtml. Project Assistance definitions: Asset Management Activities- Includes required Asset Management Activities such as inventorying the water system physical assets, GIS mapping of system assets, integrating existing asset inventory data into financial accounting and budget planning, performing failure risk analysis exercises, consolidating various capital improvement and related documents into an integrated asset management plan, or other activities that implement asset management principles. Engineering / Legal - Includes any final design and construction engineering, legal, and related costs associated with the construction activities to be financed as part of the project. Construction - One or more of the following: Treatment - includes disinfection, filtration, waste" handling and treatment, aeration, iron/manganese removal and chemical storage tanks. Transmission & Distribution - includes raw and finish water transmission, service lines, valves, backflow, prevention, water meters and pumping stations. Source -wells, wellhead pumps and surface water intakes. Storage - elevated and ground level storage for finished/treated water and covers for existing storage. Purchase of Systems - all of the eligible costs funded by the loan fund to purchase a system as part of a consolidation or regionalization effort. Restructuring - costs associated with changes in organizational structure, management, accounting, rates, or other procedures conducted to meet the technical, financial, and managerial requirements. Other - any other assistance costs that cannot be classified into the categories above - please specify and describe the cost. Detailed Project Budget Is Project Assistance requested for Preliminary Planning and Y N Design Onl ? Budget Line Item SDWRLF Other Funds Total Asset Mgt Activities Construction: x= f ' Treatment Transmission & Distribution Source Storage Purchase of Systems Restructuring Engineering Page I of 9 Legal Construction Contingency Other: (specify) Other: (specify) Total Green Infrastructure - Up to 20% of ARRA funding may be used to assist applicants with costs associated with addressing green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities. If the project includes green infrastructure please complete the following table providing the estimated amount of green infrastructure cost associated with the project's project type categories. Green Infrastructure Costs Construction SDWRLF Other Funds Total Treatment Transmission & Distribution Source Storage Total Additional Yes No Is project for construction of a new system? Is project for consolidation of existing systems? H Y, # eliminated Indicate which one of the following applies for this project: Project Is to maintain compliance with existing regulation(s) Project is to achieve compliance with existing regulation(s) Project is to achieve compliance with future regulation(s) Project is not compliance related Property Acquisition/Ownership/Operatlon Who owns the system? Has a project site been selected or will easements/rights-of-way need to be obtained for the project? If acquisition of property and/or easements is still necessary, will acquisition be complete no later than September 30, 2009? (Please note: no ARRA funds may be used for acquisition of property or easements.) System Information Water System Identification Number Page 2of9 Does the system have a meter(s) at the water supply source(s)? If no, explain whether the required meter(s) will be provided as part of the project. Are meters installed on all service connections throughout the drinking water system? If no, explain whether the required meters will be provided as part of the project. Does the system have an operations program to read and maintain the required source meter(s) and service connection meters? Does the system have the resources to read and maintain the required source meter(s) and service connection meters? Does the System currently utilize asset management tools as part of its operations, management and replacement planning? If yes, what types of tools? Additional Is the engineer selected for the project a professional engineer registered in Oregon? What is the estimated useful life of the improvements included in the project? Financial Information What sources of revenue are being pledged to repay a loan? Is other debt serviced or secured by those revenues? If yes, is it described in the applicant's audit reports? If no, please describe: Has the applicant ever defaulted on a debt? If yes, provide a complete summary of the circumstances related to the default. Is there pending litigation that could impair the applicant's ability to repay debt? Describe any anticipated changes in the rates in the next five years. How will owners of property which specifically benefit from the project pay for the cost of the project? Page 3 of 9. Additional Budget Information Who prepared the cost estimates for the project? Name, title, company, phone, and date. Project Administration Describe the anticipated project administrator's experience in undertaking projects and ensuring their completion within defined timeframes. Information Required for Private Water Systems Only Indicate the level of regulation by the Public Utility Commission: Service or Service & Rate Regulated Date the business filed or formed Date present operation commenced If you are purchasing the property, are there any mortgages or liens on the property which will not be paid off before this loan closes? If yes, please list the following for each mortgage or lien on the property: 1) Lender's name and address 2) Original loan amount 3) Interest rate 4) Payment amount 5) Current balance 6) Account number If you are leasing the property, provide the following: 1) Landowner name and address 2) Term remaining on the lease 3) Payment amount 4) How often the payment is due List any pages and/or attachments in this application which the applicant requests be considered exempt from public disclosure under ORS 192.502(15). Provide the following for the principals In the business. Note: Principals of closely held or under- capitalized businesses are expected to personally guarantee loans. 1) Name 2) Title 3) Address 4) Percent owned 5) Social Security 9 Are any legal actions pending against the applicant or principals? Has the applicant or any principals formed a business which ceased to exist in less than two years, filed bankruptcy, or experienced foreclosure, repossession, debt judgment, or criminal penalty within the last seven years? Page 4 of 9 List of collateral/real property and its value that is available to secure repayment of the loan. Provide the following for buildings currently on the real property that is available to secure repayment of the loan: 1) name or other description of building 2) size 3) use Attachmonts X Attachment X ~ot label Attached? Applicable? (please do Description of Attachment not change) Documentation from the appropriate entity (city or county) which indicates that the project has received land use approval. (In some A cases, this may also involve documentation of land use approval from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development Department.) B Letter(s) of financial commitment regarding any other funds needed to undertake and complete the project. If applicant is a city, county, or special district, attach list of the ten C largest property tax payers in the applicant's jurisdiction, their type of business, total taxes, and current assessed value. If applicable, attach a copy of the Notice of Non-Compliance with D the Safe Drinking Water Act issued by the Division of Health Services Drinking Water Program. If the project overlaps municipal boundaries, attach an executed E copy of an intergovernmental cooperation agreement which sets out the duties and obligations of each entity. F Copy of current rate schedule, including rates for System Development Charges (SDCs). G If the system is a public system, attach a copy of the most recent resolution or ordinance which adti is the current rate schedule. H Information on the system's ten largest customers (see form below). I Summary of Users, Consumption, and Rates (see form below) J Map(s) showing the location of the project, including tax lots/parcels and road widths etc. K Map showing the boundaries of the system. A Schedule of Pro Forma Revenues and Expenditures for each of L the next five years and any underlying assumptions used (see form below). M Applicant's adopted budget. N The applicant's last three audit reports or if audit reports are not available, the applicant's last.three tax returns. O H available, plans & specifications for the project. P If available, Water System Master Plan. O Copies of any ordinances which establish debt that is supported b the source of re a ment for this loan. The study conducted to determine the feasibility of the facilityftmprovements or any preliminary R architectural/engineering/planning work that has been completed. The documents must be stamped and signed by a professional architect/en ineer registered or licensed in Oregon. Page 5 of 9 Attachments x x Attachment ~pott Label Attached? Applicable? (please do Description of Attachment not change) S If applicant is a Homeowners' association or a for-profit corporation, articles of incorporation are attached. T If the public water system is owned by a non-profit organization tax-exempt documentation is attached. J Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMENT H System's Ten Largest Customers Customer Name Annual % of total Annual % of total Consumption consumption revenue annual (in gallons or for system received by revenue cubic feet) the system received by the system Source and date of the above data. Page 7 of 9 a z m~ a w } g c 2 m a Q c } v m O v Q m`o m n e } o. c ° m r Ero c } m E ° 3 m w a C m r m 0 E m a c m w E U m Y Im c m o m m m ~ m ; m e 3 c C . m m m m w C j C o a v E E r « -ao c ° E p 7 omA ON q U w d w c a ° O m L O 00 -00 ryU u G . O , m o, d LEA ° _C O C C N E C M m U. O w acm R mD c E > c ° c E m 7 w J m u m E N U G O L m O F N m T ° c ~ w `O O m m v t m T w m _°C o ° Ea« o E o 'i o : v Z E D o c m m x 0 LO « w m m c u m 2 a c R Y m U m ~mw~ m'o~ W ymj o m y m m CL 0 0 m E E w 9 m w Y m m m m " w IX 0 4) 'D r c U v E w m 3 3 `m m m w E .0.O E m m o° p o LL LL LL 0 E E; U o N. 0 z'z'a ATTACHMENT L Schedule of Pro Forma Revenues and Expenditures Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Rate per EDU Connections Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) Total Revenue Operating Revenue' Operating Expenses" Net Operating Revenue Existing Debt Service (identify source)*** Existing Debt Service (identify source)` Total Existing Debt Service *do not Include interest, system development charges, etc. "do not include capital outlay, transfers, debt service, etc. -add additional rows as needed Describe an assumptions used in calculating the above figures. Page 9 of 9 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing on the 2009 Community Development Block Grant Award and CDBG Action Plan Development Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Linda Reid Department: Planning E-Mail: reidl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha Berne Estimated Time: 30 Minutes Question: Should the City Council award up to $165,367 in Community Development Block Grant funds to one or more of the respondents to the Request for Proposals in compliance with eligibility criteria of the Department of Housing and Urban Development? Recommendations: Staff recommends that The Housing Authority of Jackson County's (HAJC) proposal be funded in the amount of $165,367. Staff is supportive of funding HAJC with either the full grant amount of $165,367 or $135,367 should Pathway Enterprise, Inc. receive a public service award in the amount of $30,000. If awarded the full amount, staff would also recommend that HAJC provide full street improvements rather than half street improvements on the interior (south side) street. The City of Ashland Housing Commission reviewed the grant requests at a public hearing held on March 26`h, 2009. The Housing Commission made a motion to forward a recommendation to fund the Housing Authority of Jackson County $165,367 for public facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay streets and on interior streets. Background: The City of Ashland provides Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to eligible affordable housing providers and non-profit organizations for capital improvement and public service projects within the City of Ashland. Awarded projects must address the CDBG national objectives, and be consistent with the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for Use of CDBG Funds. The City Council is to evaluate three proposals received for use of $165,367 in available CDBG funds. Upon review of the proposals, and after taking any public testimony at a public hearing, the Council shall make an award to the selected applicant(s). The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2009 program year is expected to be $204,818. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated from the previous year's allocation and have had the administrative portion of 20% removed ($40,963 for administration of the CDBG program). Of the available 2009 funds a maximum of 15%, approximately $30,000, is available for Public Service projects. An unallocated balance of $1,512 in carryover funds is also available to be added to the Capital Improvement project funds. In total there is $165,367 currently available for award. The City of Ashland has received three applications for the 2009 Community Development Block Grant funds that are competitively available including the following: Page] of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND • Housing Authority of Jackson County - $164,000 for public facility improvements • Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley - $164,000 for land acquisition • Pathway Enterprises Inc. - $30,000 to hire 3 Community Living Specialists to assist 5 Special needs clients with independent living skills. The attached Staff Evaluation, dated March 26, 2009, contains a complete background of funding availability, the award process, Staff's assessment of each proposal, and the relevant CDBG program criteria relating to the award of CDBG funds and each of the applications received. Presentations by applicants during the March 26`h public hearing before the Housing Commission brought forward new information which was pertinent to the Housing Commission's award recommendation. Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley Stated that the period of affordability for their project could be increased to 60 years, which would raise that project's priority needs assessment rating from a B to an A. • Support acquisition and development of affordable ownership housing units through a sustainable program which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a land trust. (A) Pathways Enterprise, Inc. stated that they have identified 4 out of the 5 residents wishing to move out of a group home setting and into a supported independent living environment who currently work, recreate, and reside in the Ashland area and have expressed an interest in continuing to reside within the City of Ashland. Though PEI could not guarantee that these individuals will ultimately continue to reside within the city, they feel very confident that they will be able to meet the 51 % city service clause of the CDBG Public Service program (which requires programs that receive City of Ashland CDBG Public Service funds to primarily serve and benefit Ashland residents) and could foresee no problems with returning the grant funds if they could not. During the Housing Commission's discussions of the proposals the Commission expressed a strong desire to support the Housing Authority's project, though considerable credit was given to the proposal brought forth by Habitat for Humanity, and an interest in supporting that organization in the future should they come forward with a different project. Further the Housing Commission expressed great interest in and support for the Pathways Enterprise, Inc. proposal but felt that the Housing Authority of Jackson County showed compelling need for further funding on the Clay street project's public facilities improvements. The Commission did not feel that the Housing Authority should complete full street improvements on the South Side interior street to serve a future housing project as staff has recommended in their evaluation. Related City Policies: 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan: Community Development Block Grants are federal funds awarded through the City of Ashland to eligible projects that benefit low-moderate income households. Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan for use of CDBG funds establishes which of the nationally recognized eligible uses are prioritized locally. Staff evaluations are based on meeting the national objectives for the CDBG program, the basic federal requirements for eligibility, locally recognized priorities as established in the Consolidated Plan, and include evaluation criteria that was noted in the Request for Proposals to provide applicants with the selection criteria used in assessing the proposals strengths and weaknesses. Page 2 of 3 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Annual CDBG Action Plan: The City Council shall accept both general and specific public testimony regarding the development of the 2009 CDBG Action Plan at this public hearing. Upon completion of award selections by the City Council, an Annual CDBG Action Plan will be drafted to outline the proposed uses(s) of the 2009 CDBG funds. A public hearing for review and approval of this 2009 Annual CDBG Action Plan will be held before the Housing Commission on April 23`d, 2009, to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. Comprehensive Plan: Policy 6.1.1.4(b) of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to cooperate with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to provide affordable housing within the City. Council Options: Upon review of the proposals received, and after hearing and public comments, the Council shall determine whether the projects effectively address the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan (see goals under assessment criteria in the attached staff evaluation) and which of the projects is the most appropriate use of the limited CDBG funding available. The Council can select to award funds as requested or modify the award amounts. However, the application of CDBG funds to Public Service projects applications is strictly limited to no more than $30,000 (15% of the City's 2009 annual allocation). The Council can award funds to one or more applicants, and direct Staff to develop an Annual CDBG Action Plan amendment according to that selection. Potential Motions: Move to approve the award of $165,367 to the Housing Authority of Jackson County for public facilities improvements to Clay street and interior streets. Attachments: Staff Evaluation dated March 26, 2009 CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria CDBG Applications Received • Housing Authority of Jackson County • Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley • Pathway Enterprises Inc. Draft Housing Commission Meeting Minutes from March 26`h 2009 Page 3 of 3 In CITY OF ASHLAND Staff Evaluation TO: Ashland Housing Commission and City Council Title: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2009 RFP Date: March 26, 2009 Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist The City of Ashland has received three applications for 2009 Community Development Block Grant funds that are competitively available. The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2009 program year is expected to be $204,818. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated from the previous year's allocation and have had the administrative portion of 20% removed (or $40,963 for administration of the CDBG program). Of the available 2009 funds a set aside of 15% or approximately $30,000 is available for Public Service projects. An unallocated balance of $1,512 in carryover funds may be added to the Capital Improvement project funds. In total there is $165,367 available for award. The City of Ashland Housing Commission is to hold a public hearing and review the grant requests on March 26, 2009. The Housing Commission shall make a recommendation on a grant award to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing on April 7`h, 2009 to make a final decision on the grant award. Staff's recommendation regarding the allocation of the 2009 CDBG funds is provided on the following pages. Proposals Received Organization Proposed Project CDBG Goal Consolidated Funds Plan Goal # Requested and Rank* Habitat For Acquisition of .39 Acre site $164,000 Provide 6 Goal 2.1 Humanity/Rogue to build 6 homeownership homeownership Need Rank B Valley units for low income units for low- homeowners income homeowners Housing Authority Infrastructure to Benefit a 60 $164,000 Support the Goal 1.2 of Jackson County unit low income development of 60 Need Rank A development affordable rental units Pathway Hire 3 new staff members to $30,000 Provide supportive Goal 6.2 Enterprises support independent living living services to 5 Need Rank B for developmentally disabled special needs population adults ~r, Funding Requested/Available A total of $165,367 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2005- 2009 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is limited to approximately $30,000. These funds will be available upon approval of the 2009 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan amendment a public hearing for review and approval will be held before the Housing Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. The US department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with the local Consolidated Plan. Assessment Criterion Staff has assessed all proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and the proposals address the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. • Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant Program. • All CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" uses under the Community Development Block Grant Program. • If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded projects are; All projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Construction projects must use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to miiigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements. Areas of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing Commission, and the City Council can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as outlined in the City's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.. Priorities within the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking by letter. The rankings of A, B and C are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs. In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects(s) that are ranked the highest will be funded. ~r, A-The City of Ashland plans to use the CDBG finds for projects that meet these needs. B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs. C-The City of Ashland does not plan to use CDBG finds for projects meeting these needs but will consider certifications of consistency for other entities which are applying for federal assistance to meet these needs. Additionally such needs may also be addressed by the City through the allocation of Economic Development and or Social Service Grants from the City General Fund. Proposal Evaluations Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (Hf-IRV) Staff has reviewed the Habitat for Humanity proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated plan. HfHRV has requested $164,000 to acquire property for the development of 6 affordable homeownership units. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Acquisition of Land to benefit low-income populations is an eligible use of CDBG funds • Staff finds that the Habitat for Humanity's proposal is consistent with goal number 2.1 of the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Goal 2: To increase the homeownership opportunities for extremely low-, low- and moderate-income households. Where possible, give funding priority to those projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 2.1: Encourage the acquisition and construction of affordable housing by private developers (B) In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "B" as a priority indicates that though this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which could be funded provided that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available. B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that Habitat for Humanity's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity supports the acquisition and development of affordable housing for low income households earning between 30% and 60% of Area Median Income. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program offering a 5 to 1 match ($829,000/164,000, CDBG funds will contribute just fewer than 20% of the proposed project's funds) which will serve to promote economic development within the City of Ashland. This project as proposed will serve to meet the requirements of an annexation completed in 2004. This property know as Old Bud's dairy received planning approval for annexation and a density bonus conditioned upon providing 6 units affordable housing. The annexation ordinance specified that a portion of the development (15%) be affordable and available to qualifying buyers or renters making at or below 80% of AMI for a period of 20 years. This project will offer a period of affordability of 30 years which is 10 years longer than the annexation ordinance required for the original affordable housing development at that time. The current annexation ordinance which was revised in 2007 requires a 60 year period of affordability. Though the initial homeowner will ~r, be qualified at 30%-60% AMI, which is a lower income than was required under the original Planning approval, subsequently the property can be resold at any time during that 30 year period to a qualified low to moderate income household (80% or below) which still meets the requirements imposed by the original approval but does not offer added benefit to the city beyond that of the original approval with regard to level of affordability. Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC) Staff has reviewed the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated plan. HAJC has requested $164,000 for public facilities improvements (roads) to benefit a 60 unit low income housing development. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Public Facilities Improvement and Infrastructure are an eligible use of CDBG funds. • Staff finds that the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal is consistent with goal number 1.2 of the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Goal 1: To increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-, low and moderate income families. Where possible, give funding priority to those projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 1.2 to support the acquisition and construction of affordable rental housing units through a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a land trust (A). In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "A" as a priority indicates that this is the highest priority use for the CDBG funds. A-The City of Ashland plaits to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity supports the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing for low income households earning between 30% and 60% of Area Median Income. This project was awarded $345,000 in CDBG funds in the 2008 program year, and at that time notified the City of Ashland that the applicants intended to apply for the 2009 CDBG funds as well. This project leverages a substantial amount of federal, state and Housing Authority funds ($11,314,000/$509,000 which is a 22 to 1 match) as match which also serves to promote economic development within the City of Ashland. Similarly the Housing Authority offers programs to promote the self-sufficiency of residents, examples of services that may be provided are computer classes, budgeting classes, and second language classes, due to this development's proximity to the Ashland Family YMCA the project will offer memberships to the children living in the project and discounted memberships to adults. Staff feels that these types of support services serve to benefit the residents both socially and economically while also promoting long term self-sufficiency and goal attainment. The applicant also ascertains that the project will "meet or exceed" earth advantage standards, this will be the first multi-family rental project built in the City of Ashland to receive an Earth Advantage rating. This project also allows the City of Ashland to meet Policy 6.1.1.4(b) of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to cooperate with the Housing Authority of Jackson County to provide affordable housing within the City. Pathway Enterprise, Inc. (PEI) Staff has reviewed Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated plan. PEI has requested $30,000 for social service activities • . This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Public Service positions that provide direct services to special populations to promote self- sufficiency are eligible use of CDBG funds. Staff finds that Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal is consistent with goal number 6.2 of the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. Goal 6: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs. People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe mental illness, persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with HIV/AIDS or related illnesses. 6.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations that provide support services for extremely low and low income special needs populations (B). In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of "B" as a priority indicates that though this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which is could be funded provided that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available. B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs. Staff sees that the Pathway Enterprise, Inc's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the,City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity provides supportive living skills and promotes the self-sufficiency of special populations. PEI has experience administering funds from the Ashland CDBG program. In 2002 PEI was awarded $7,605 in CDBG funds to re-roof one of their group homes located at 655 Normal Ave. The proposed service exceeds the 10% match requirement, leveraging $108,327/30,000 or $3.61 in Jackson County DD54 funds and PEI organizational funds for every dollar of CDBG funds the city provides. One question that staff feels should be addressed before a recommendation of award for this project be made, is the question of service within the City of Ashland. Program funds must primarily serve clients who reside within the City of Ashland. Thought PEI cannot guarantee that 3 out of the 5 clients identified who are wanting to transition from a group home to independent living will choose to live in Ashland, program funds would have to taken back and reprogrammed if 51% (at least 3 of the 5) of those clients served did not reside in Ashland. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Due to a limited amount of CDBG funds staff recommends that The Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposal be funded. Staffs recommendation would be to fund the HAJC proposal since it meets the highest priority need ranking as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan and ranks highest under the CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria (attached). Staff is supportive of funding HAJC with either the full grant amount of $165,367 or $135,367 should PEI receive a public service award. Staff would also recommend that HAJC provide full street improvements rather than half street improvements on the interior (south side) street to improve the safety of its residents and to facilitate pedestrian traffic. Staff recognizes that full street improvements to this section of the interior streets is not provided for in Housing Authority's project budget, however, given the cumulative CDBG contributions requested staff believes a greater measure of public improvements may be warranted. Staff sees the value that Habitat for Humanity's project would provide to the community. Although low-income homeownership is a priority as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan, this application does not differ substantially from the approval requirements currently in place for this property. Habitat's project ranked lower than the Housing Authority's project on the CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria. Staff also sees that the period of affordability of 30 years is not in keeping with the long term affordability goal stated in the Five year Consolidated plan and reflected in the current Annexation Ordinance, which would have given the project a higher ranking under the CDBG.project proposal rating criteria. If Habitat did provide a term of affordability that was aligned with the current annexation ordinance (60 years) their application would have received a higher ranking and may have been more competitive. The proposed PEI project to provide life skills training and support for clients with developmental disabilities would be eligible under the current City of Ashland Social Service Grant program and therefore could be awarded up to $30,000 pending a guarantee of 51 % client benefit in the Ashland area, thereby reducing the Capital Improvement award amount accordingly. Staff is supportive of the project although has concerns regarding the area residency requirement as stated previously. Provided PEI can guarantee 3 of the 5 beneficiaries are ultimately Ashland Residents staff would be supportive of an award of $30,000 to PEI. Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson County $164,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements. Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson County $ 134,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements. And to also recommend funding Pathway Enterprises, Inc $30,000 in public service funds to provide life skills training and support for clients with developmental disabilities. ~r~ CDBG Protect Proposal Rating Criteria The final step in the process of evaluating the proposals typically is for the Housing Commission to apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best meet the City's spending priorities. Projects are given a rating of High, Medium, or Low on each of the criteria listed below. The categories proposed provide a valuable way for individual Commissioners to gauge the effectiveness of the proposal in meeting City objectives. A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net" services or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs. C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem. D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given. F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic K. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project L. The project is ready for implementation within a year of a CDBG award notification M. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity. Letter HfHRV HAJC PEI A. High High High B. Medium High High C. Medium Medium High D. Low High Low E. Low Low Low F. Medium Medium Medium G. Medium High Medium H. Medium Medium Medium 1. High High High J. High High High K. High High Medium L. High High High ~r, M. High High High 6-Hi h,5-Med,2-Low 9-Hi h,3-Med,l-Low 7-High.. 4-Med, 2-Low Potential questions: Staffs evaluation of the proposals is primarily based on the information provided in the applications. In drafting this evaluation, staff thought of a number of questions which might provide clarity in addressing some of the proposal rating criteria points, or which may serve to cast the application in a more favorable light. PEI: How would you guarantee that the majority of the clients that will be served with the grant funds will reside in Ashland? Habitat: Could you offer a longer period of affordability? How does this project help clients move toward and eventually obtain self-sufficiency? Will your project be incorporating any "green" building practices, such as Earth Advantage, could you describe some, if any environmentally friendly components of the proposed development? Housing Authority: Could you complete full street improvements on the south side interior street? All Applicants: Could you describe how your project maximizes partnerships in the community? Could you expound upon how your project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways, and describe how the service that you offer is unique to this area? ~r, CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES March 26, 2009 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Amarofico, absent Richard Billin Regina Ayers Council Liaison: Carol Voisin Steve Hauck Bill Smith Staff Present: Aaron Benjamin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Alice Hardesty Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk Graham Lewis arrived at 4:40 Brandon Goldman, Lon Range Planner Nick Frost arrived at 4:45 APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND AGENDA CHANGES Voisin/Hauck m/s to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2009 Housing Commission meeting. Voice Vote: Approved PUBLIC FORUM Reid spoke on behalf of the Homeless Task Force. The Homeless Task Force will be doing "Project Homeless Connect" and are looking for volunteers and sponsors. This is a one day event held on June 5, 2009 for homeless people living in the Rogue Valley to receive services such as vision screening, employment counseling, haircuts, clothing, meals etc. Smith made a change to the agenda exchanging item number four, Sub-Committee reports, with items five and six, CDBG application presentations and staff discussion and recommendation. CDBG PROGRAM OVERVIEW - 2009 RFP Reid acknowledged that the City of Ashland is an Entitlement Community and receives Community Development Block Grant Funds to help with low income housing and different activities that serve low income people as well as for economic development. This year the City received three applications for the CDBG funds; this year's allocation is estimated to be around $204,818.000 leaving a total of $165,367.00 available to be awarded. Reid commented that in the evaluation packet the staff proposed some potential motions. Please know that there are many potential motions that are available and the Housing Commission is certainly welcome to propose their own, stated Reid. Smith mentioned there has been a discussion regarding supplemental funds becoming available. Brandon Goldman recognized that there might be additional stimulus funds in the amount of $55,000. If that is the case then an RFP would be issued immediately as it would be a separate award process. The city has not received the guidelines for those funds at this point. CDBG APPLICATIONS PRESENTATION HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ROGUE VALLEY (requesting $164,000) - Denise James, Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley explained that Habitat builds houses for people that are low income who are living in sub-standard conditions and who are willing to partner with them. Habitat for Humanity looks for land to purchase or have donated to them. The houses are built from the ground up with volunteer labor using as many professional services that are donated to them or highly discounted. The families are required to commit to five hundred hours of sweat equity towards building the home. When the house is complete Habitat sells them for the cost of construction with a thirty year no interest mortgage. Habitat carries the note and uses the monthly income to reinvest into more houses for other families. Ms. James acknowledged that Habitat has currently built thirty-three houses with zero foreclosures in the twenty-one years they have been present in the Rogue Valley. Habitat does not go back and regulate the buyers' income or require them to stay at a low income level because they want to see families do better for themselves and look at this as a "Hand up Opportunity." Habitat's proposal is asking for $164,000 to acquire land off of Tolman Creek Road at the old Bud's Dairy subdivision. Habitat has made an agreement with Russ Dale, owner of the property, to purchase the land at a discounted rate. The project will consist of six houses and they anticipate beginning construction as early as March of 2010. Commissioners Questions The homes are targeted to 80% Area Medium Income (AMI) families. How much would you be selling the houses for? The target is between 30% and 60% AMI for the first owners and then 80% AMI for the second owner. The houses would sale for the cost of construction which is averaging a little over $100,000. Would you also be charging the owners' for the land? Its part of the purchase pros. The cost covers both the land and the house. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION ] MINUTES March 26, 2009 Would it be deed' restricted for affordability for 30 years? It was stated in the proposal that Habitat would have a thirty year affordability which is the life of the mortgage. Ms. James said however they do not have a problem extending that to sixty years. Why has it taken so long to get started on the Bridge Street houses? Ashland Community Land Trust purchased that property with CDBG funding. Habitat is working in partnership with them. They are currently working on this project and the original time frame was to begin work now. They did have a family in the Medford area that had severe needs consequently they made that family a priority pushing the other project back a bit. Mr. Dale is obligated to provide affordable housing as part of his annexation and density bonus agreement. Do you see a possibility of him offering it to you for less or even free? No, though they did try. They were told that he still owes $170,000 on the property. Do you have a specific source of financing for the construction? Thirty-eight percent of all their donations are from individuals. A Large percentage is from Foundation and Grant money as well as community partners who donate specific services and construction materials. Habitat has a re-store which is providing an income to them. Though they do not have specific dollars set aside they are confident they will get the money said Ms. James. _ Normally in condominiums the owner is required to maintain his own portion of land. Will this be the case in your project or will it be collectively maintained? This is an important consideration as it might add to the monthly cost. Ms. James said she did not know for sure. If there is an association in existence then they might be joining that. What the rules of the association are is not known at this time. Currently Habitat has three other small condominium arrangements where families do pay association fees and are responsible for small common areas they lake care of. Is this one big building? Originally it was going to be apartments but Habitat will be making them two bedroom condominiums. Do you have people in mind to build? Not at this time. Typically it takes about six months and they are just beginning the process. They would target Ashland though they would not be able to exclude others outside the community? How do you recruit? They have people that come to them constantly and have a list of interested clients. Other organizations and agencies send people to them ' also. When they get ready to go through the process they hold an orientation meeting and send out invitations to all the people, churches as well as newspaper ads. Try to get the word out to everybody. Do you have your perspective home buyers go through home buying budgeting classes? They do have budgeting classes as well as a home maintenance workshop. Ms. James said they will be bringing on an Americorps/Vsta person whose position will be tasked with developing stronger home owner education programs. Is the criterion for awarding funds that the services be rendered in Ashland or people living in Ashland how does that affect this? Reid stated that for land acquisition as an activity, would make it exempt. If it were a service that was being provided then it has to service predominately Ashland people. If you do not receive all of the funding will you still do the pro fect? No. Ms. James closed the discussion by saying that because Habitat doesn't have as strong a presence in Ashland as they would like when they begin building on Bridge Street they plan on having some community informational meetings to try and build some partnerships within just Ashland that they currently don't have. . HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY (requesting $164,000) - Betty Mc Roberts, Director of Development, has returned to ask for additional funds for the infrastructure to benefit a sixty unit low income development located on Clay Street. Prior to this application the City of Ashland awarded CDBG funds to the HAJC in the amount of $345,000. HAJC has submitted their application to the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) for the consolidated funding cycle on February 27, 2009. Mrs. Mc Roberts believes they have a good chance of being funded. Key Community Development Corporation (Key Banks) has been the investor for their last two projects and has agreed to do this project mainly because they like Ashland. The Housing Authority has a letter of commitment from both Key Bank as the equity investor and from US Bank for the financing. Mrs. Mc Roberts stated that in their last application a total of $600,000 in Home Dollars was shown in the pro-forma. Home Dollars are Federal Grants to the States to help build housing. Those Grants come with more regulations then even the CDBG funds, requiring environmental reviews etc. all of which take six to nine months to complete. The Housing Authority removed that money from the budget because readiness to proceed is one thing that will help them get funded through OHCS. That decision was made because the State will want to fund a project that will be on the ground in the fall and the Housing Authority is planning to break ground on October 1, 2009. Mrs. Mc Roberts believes that over the next couple of years the tax credit financing will be fairly slim. A certain block of Low Income Housing Tax Credits are awarded from the IRS to the State of Oregon and then they are given out to projects. In order to help these projects this year the State is awarding 130% to difficult to develop areas and Ashland is one of those. The Housing Authority will find out in May if the State awards them the project. There is a significant amount of infrastructure required on this project. The Housing Authority is getting ready to receive bids on the Clay Street improvement portion that will be done with the first portion of the CDBG funds that have already been awarded. That project should be completed by June 2009. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES March 26, 2009 Goldman addressed the issue of the related Planning Action across the street known as Coming Attractions in which ODOT conditioned that that project install a median down the center of the street. If the median is installed it would make a right hand turn lane redundant because you could only turn right. That projects timing and this one still is a condition of approval that one or the other be installed. If this project is finished first then that right hand turn lane is something that would have to be permitted through ODOT. Mrs. Mc Roberts said the HAJC will probably beat the other project as they anticipate having it completed within a year consequently making it necessary to install the right hand turn. Commissioners Questions If we don't fund this project what do you cut out? Nothing. It puts a strain on the Housing Authority. Are the letters from the banks letters of interest or actual letters of commitment? Banks don't give letters of commitment until they have underwritten the project. These letters from the Banks are actually more then Mrs. Mc Roberts expected. Internal Streets are not going to be finished until the end but CDBG funds need to be spent within a year? Reid said they didn't necessarily have to spend all of the money within a year but that the City could not carry more then one and a half times its allocation. A portion of the first funds that were granted to HAJC must be spent or HUD could take them back. Mrs. Mc Roberts said it is nice for the contractors to be able to do everything without cutting into the streets, its a lot less wear and tear on the streets. If the HAJC were awarded this money would they be able to do full street improvements on the South Side Street? It's not in their budget. Mrs. Mc Roberts' concern was that if it's not in the planning recommendation doesn't it taint the City's property on the other side. Goldman said that the staff recommendation was that in the event that the Housing Authority received full allocation of $164,000 it be conditioned upon those improvements to that section of the street be done at this point so that the future phase doesn't have to incur those costs. The change in timing to do it now as opposed to doing it at phase two is not a change in conditions. Mrs. Mc Roberts estimated that if they did indeed go ahead and do the street improvements it would be around another $50,000 or $60,000. If you only received $130,000 how would that affect the project? The Housing Authority does not have a lot of money itself. Every time they do a development and get developer fees they take it to the next project. That pot of money right now is being used to guarantee all the projects, making the Housing Authority a little nervous. How confident are you that you can complete this project within a year? We have had no problems completing other projects in this time frame. How many jobs will this project generate? This is an eleven million dollar project, seven million in construction. The State of Oregon says that for every dollar spent at least two dollars is generated in the community. Reid recently read an article regarding the ripple affect of construction employment into the community which says that each housing units employs at least four people. Define what an Equity Investor Is? A person who buys the tax credits. Maple Terrace in Medford was purchased for 97 cents on the dollar, Scenic Heights 92 cents on the dollar and this project will be 80 cents on the dollar. Due to the economy nobody has any profit so they don't need any tax credits creating a lower value. PATHWAY ENTERPRISES (requesting $30,000). - Becky Simpson, CEO of Pathway Enterprises was present to represent the citizens of Ashland that Pathway supports. Pathway Enterprises provides supported living and employment services to adults with developmental disabilities and or mental illnesses. They provide 24 hour care if needed and they are the seventh largest employer in Southern Oregon. They employ both people with disabilities and without disabilities. Pathways proposal is to use the money as seed money to hire three new staff members in order to get their supportive living project off the ground. They already have the certificate from the State which means they are ready to go. The County has verbally given their support for identified funds for individuals they already support for living in their group homes. Pathway has two group homes in Ashland, one they own and one they rent, one in Phoenix and two in Medford. Out of the ten individuals that live in Ashland four of them have indicated that this is their community of choice, this is where their friends are, where they recreate and where they shop, the Ashland community is the community that they are most familiar with. The Pathway staff does not make decisions for the individuals they serve. Their mission is to allow individuals choices and opportunities and help them attain their dreams and visualize what they can have in life. "We understand that human beings have rights and when they are institutionalized their choices are taken away. When given opportunities individuals will grow and thrive" said Ms. Simpson. Commissioners Questions With $28,400 for wages how many people does this cover and for how long? It says within the body of the grant that Pathway will match 10% of the funding, but actually they are ready to go over and above the matching to make this happen. A Director has already been hired and three individuals will be hired who will be the Community Living Specialists. They will receive intense training to insure that the people will be able to move from a group home to an apartment or duplex. The money goes to salaries and they will be done spending it by the end of the year. Once the project gets started the County's money will then help with the on going support. Reid commented that Marketing and Outreach are not eligible for the funds. (Pathway's requested $28,400 for wages and $1,600 for marketing and outreach). Are all clients in group homes and is this your first attempt to put people into their own apartments? How confident are you that the people will be able to make that transition? ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES March 26, 2009 Pathway has an entire assessment process to help them identify folks that could be successful in this process. Part of supportive living and insuring people are successful is that you offer the support needed to insure success. Pathway fully intends to provide the support needed. Review the funding again. Pathway has a separate janitorial employment service division that is growing. They service some City buildings, SOU; Jackson County buildings etc. and make money to put back into the program. Wages will meet the Ashland living wage requirements. Could you explain what the Brokerage agent is? The County gives us money to help support someone with a disability. The County can chose to pay the brokerage to find someone housing and employment. The brokerage would then call Pathway and inquire if they have housing available or employment and then pay them. You need the $30,000 this year and the projection Is that the program will generate the money next year. Why do you need the money now? They did not have the service contracts in place until recently. Tell us how the original group homes were established and financed. In the 1980's there was a deinstitutionalization across the nation at which time the State asked individuals to take people back into the communities. The State no longer wanted to house people in large institutions; it was a human rights issue as well as needing to become more cost effective. Ms. Simpson does not remember where the initial funding came from though now it comes from the State through the County. Does the County rent facilities or buy them? They just represent an individual. Pathway tells the County how much they need for the budget to support that person and the County continues to pay on a monthly basis. Typically the cost is about $3,600.00 a month to support an individual. Do you have a place identified yet? Not yet, but Ms. Simpson has been checking out what the community has to offer. When the time comes to find the appropriate places for their living you're hoping you can find something in Ashland and that is affordable. I'm very determined stated Ms. Simpson. Not sure how to assure you 100% that the homes will be in Ashland but as the staff developing this project it is my intent. I have no doubt there are places around Ashland that will be appropriate for the folks that we support. Reid acknowledged that the CDBG funds would be taken back if a majority of the homes were not in Ashland. What additional type of training would the Community Living Specialist receive? The State requires training from the OAR's, along with CPR, first aid, and Oregon intervention systems. It's important that all staff receive the same training to insure that each client receives the same support no matter who helps. CDBG Award Discussion and Recommendation The Commissioners agreed that these are three great projects and there is not enough money to fund them all. Hardesty believes that it's very important to support the HAJC at this point in time in their project development. This project will provide housing for sixty families as well as jobs which will stimulate the Ashland economy. Hardesty is a little concerned about the HAJC sources of funds and feels that the City needs to support them strongly. She would recommend that they receive the entire amount of CDBG funds. Hauck added that the HAJC proposal meets the highest priority need ranking as outlined in the CDBG project proposal rating criteria. Ayers agrees with funding the HAJC also for the same reasons. She really likes the idea of the additional employment that will be brought into the Community because of this project. All three projects are worthy stated Ayers. The Pathway project is wonderful and she would like to see them funded maybe with additional funds from the stimulus plan if they become available. She is supportive of the entire amount given to HAJC. Hardesty acknowledged that the Habitat project is a good one and would like to see them more active in our community. She would like to see Mr. Dale give away the Clay Street property because he has the obligation to create affordable housing there. It would benefit the community greatly if he did so, said Hardesty. Frost agrees with the support of HAJC but had two concems. He would like to see other people get a chance next cycle at funding and is concerned in making sure the money is spent in a timely manner. Lewis supports Habitat for Humanity as he would really like to see them in Ashland. It sounds like the Housing Authority will be doing the project regardless though he does support their project. Billin commented that it feels they are too far into the Clay Street project to not support them at this point. He was concemed about Goldman's proposal regarding the full street improvements as it seems like the HAJC are bumping up against enough problems as it is. Benjamin confirmed that all three proposals are worth considering positively and hopes in the future they all will be funded. He agrees with Lewis in that he would like to see Habitat take a more active role in Ashland. He is completely in support of the Clay Street project and feels there is no choice but to see the project completed in a timely manner. Benjamin looks forward to future funding for the Habitat proposals and acknowledged there is no doubt in his mind that pathways goal is a noble effort and will do everything in their power to implement these goals. Smith asked, "Worst case scenario, if Snowberry doesn't happen what happens to the money." Reid responded that the Clay Street improvements will be started soon and some of that money will go into it anyway so we will meet our timeliness for this year. If it didn't come about then we would take the rest back and quickly do another RFP. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 4 MINUTES March 26, 2009 Hardesty/Hauck m/s to recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson County $165,367 to fund public facilities improvements, public right of way improvements on Clay Street and on Interior streets. Voice vote: Motion passed 8.1. The Commissioners strongly encouraged Habitat for Humanity and Pathways to continue to submit proposals and apply for funds. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee Reports Finance - The subcommittee met and has started looking at potential funding mechanisms. Education - No report Land Use - No report Liaison Reports Council - Voisin suggested that the Commissioners begin some conversation regarding development transfer credits during the retreat. She also stated that the budget is really bad and services are going to have to be out. Parks Commission - No report School Board - No report Planning Commission - Benjamin said that the Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the Croman Site with a lot of confusion regarding its timeline. Some Planning Commissioners didn't seem aware that the project had been under consideration for over a year. Bill Molnar said that the final presentation will probably be ready in the fall. Commissioner Dimitre mentioned that not enough consideration had been given to workforce housing. SOU - No report APRIL 23. 2009 AGENDA ITEMS Homeless discussion It was suggested to invite Melanie Mindlin to talk about the possibility of co-housing. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting - Thursday, April 23, 2009 between 4:30-6:30p.m., Community Development Building ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION S MINUTES March 26, 2009 ECEIVE1 FEB 2 6 2009 City ity Iry OT Hsnia nland CITY OF ASHLANbField n Office ❑ Cour 2009 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Housing Authority of Jackson County Executive Director's Name(s): Scott Foster Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: 2251 Table Rock Road Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: 2251 Table Rock Road Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: Municipal Corporation Federal Tax ID#: 93-0578087 Mission Statement: HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY rlellkIr 2251 TABLE ROCK ROAD MEDFORD OR 97501 f~ PHrrDD (541) 779-5785 FAX (541) 857-1118 TO PROVIDE, DEVELOP AND PRESERVE DECENT, SAFE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHILE COORDINATING EFFORTS TOWARD SELF- SUFFICIENCY r Total Employees: 50 Total Volunteers: _ It. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Betty McRoberts Title: Project Developer Phone Number: 541-779-5785 Ext. 1023 Fax Number: 541-857-1118 E-mail Address: bettvo)haic.net s i III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Snowberry Brook - Sixty Units of Affordable Housing at 380 Clay Street Expected Completion Date: Fall of 2010 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 164,000.00 Funds from 2008 CDBG Award: $ 345,000.00 Funds from Other Sources: $ 294,740.97 Total Project Cost: $ 803,740.97 2 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives The Housing Authority of Jackson County is planning to build 60 units of Affordable Housing located at 380 Clay Street. This will be a joint effort with the City of Ashland and the Affordable Housing providers in the region to bring much needed affordable rental and homeowner housing to the populations with housing burdens. The first portion to be built will be 60 units of affordable workforce rental housing developed by the Housing Authority. This housing, named Snowberry Brook, will serve the workforce community earning incomes in the range of 30% to 60% of area median income. This component of the housing will be placed on 4 acres of the initial 10 acre site. The City and the Housing Authority jointly purchased the land in December of 2008. The land partition has been approved and at the completion of all requirements, the land will be partitioned into the 4 acre portion owned by the Housing Authority and two City of Ashland pieces totaling 6 acres. See the attached site plan. When the partitions are recorded, the two new interior streets on the South and East of Snowberry Brook will be dedicated to the public. The Housing Authority is requesting $164,000 in capital funding from the City of Ashland Community Development Block Grant allocation for 2009 in order to help complete infrastructure improvements to these two new streets. In late 2008, the Housing Authority applied for and received $345,000 in City of Ashland CDBG funds in order to complete infrastructure improvements to the Clay Street frontage and the two new interior streets. The first contract involving a portion of the $345,000 will go out May 1, 2009 and involve the frontage on Clay Street. This 10 acre site was previously approved in the year 2007 for a 107 unit subdivision called Willowbrook. The Housing Authority will be responsible for fulfilling the requirements of the previous approval for Willowbrook. These requirements were upheld in the Planning Commission approval of the partition and site plan on February 10, 2009; they are as follows: • Improvements to the Clay Street frontage in front of the subject property. The subject property has approximately 680' of frontage. • Improvements to the frontage of the 5 acre Cooper Property to the North of the subject site. This is for the requirement of pedestrian connectivity. This is approximately 320'. • An additional requirement involves the one acre wetland on City Property adjacent to the project. The wetland must be addressed before Snowberry Brook will be issued building permits. • Improvements to the intersection of Clay Street and Ashland Street. A right turn lane will be required to be constructed by the time'of Certificate of Occupancy of Snowberry Brook unless Oregon Department of Transportation installs a median on Ashland Street prior. 3 The Housing Authority was awarded $345,000 in CDBG funding in December 2008 to help defray off-site infrastructure costs. The Housing Authority is applying in this competitive round for the available $164,000 to apply to the street costs. The total cost of the housing project, including the majority of the above mentioned off-site improvements will be $11,390,240. The Authority is applying to the State of Oregon on February 27, 2009 for the funding needed to build the housing. The Housing Authority, at this time, is anticipating a contribution of $1,036,000 in Authority funds; assuming the $164,000 in CDBG is awarded. In addition, the project will defer a $300,000 Developer Fee into the project for the purpose of generating basis. This $300,000 will be repaid to the Authority over 12 years at 0% interest. The $1,036,000 will be set up as a loan to the Housing Authority with a 40 year amortization at 11% interest. These loans are cash flow loans and will be paid from the project cash flow after all other requirements of the budget are met. Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects are not flush with cash flow; hence the low interest rates attached to these loans. These funds are required to be loaned to the project by IRS regulations. This match from the Housing Authority represents 11.7% of the total project cost. The CDBG funding is crucial to the development of the affordable housing for the target population. The funding right now is precarious; lenders are not eager to lend without ample debt coverage and Low Income Housing Tax Credit equity investors have all but disappeared. The Housing Authority feels very fortunate to have the team assembled and ready to go for this project. One of the reasons they were agreeable to joining the project was the City's investment in helping to make the housing possible; participating in the purchase of the land, deferring the SDC charges and awarding CDBG funds. They realize the City of Ashland has a commitment to affordable housing not seen in many places. See attached letters of commitment from Key CDC and US Bank. For the purposes of this application the project is the construction of the public infrastructure for the benefit of the affordable housing. • $ 245,456.55 Improvements to Clay Street including the frontage in front of the Cooper Property. This is approximately 1000 linear feet. This includes street improvements to City standards, curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking strip, lighting, storm drainage, sewer and water lines. Bioswales will be installed in the parking strips to filter the runoff from the project before it reaches the public storm system. • $ 417,795.94 This is the cost of the installation of the two interior streets circling the Snowberry project running East and West and North and South; within the 10 acre site. These streets are for the benefit of the affordable housing project and will be developed to City standards for half street improvements. • $ 40,000.00 Wetland Development required of the Snowberry Brook approval; mitigation and development. • $ 100,488.48 Cost of the Right turn lane at the intersection of Clay Street and Ashland Street. This is a requirement of the City for the Certificate of 4 Completion of Snowberry Brook. This is a holdover requirement from the Willowbrook approval. . TOTAL $ 803,740.97 Normally the Housing Authority of Jackson County would not have the funds to leave in a project such as Snowberry Brook. Each project is a stand alone entity generating a Developer fee which the Authority either uses to help build the project by deferring it into the project for the 12 years or using it to pay the expenses of the Development. Ashland has been a particularly difficult area for the Authority to develop or acquire housing due to the high cost of land. The Housing Authority has 8 units of Public Housing in Ashland, four of them single family homes. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has given the Authority permission to sell these four homes and invest the proceeds in more cost efficient housing. The proceeds from the sale of the single family public housing units will be used to make up a major portion of the equity gap in this project attributable to high land costs and extensive off-sites. The Authority will be putting approximately $1,036,000 of equity into this project. These funds from the sale of the four public housing units will help leverage 60 units of new affordable workforce housing. The Authority needs the CDBG funding to complete the funding of the development because there are no other funds to make up this gap. To date the Authority has been able to sell one house but is hopeful the market will soon pick up. The Housing Authority was not the only entity aware of the problems involved with housing Ashland's population of lower income persons; whether they are renters or homeowners. The #1 Goal in the City is to Increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low, low, and moderate-income families. The City has documented this need in the 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. There are many examples in the document to illustrate cost burden for both renters and homeowners alike. The statistics used for the Consolidated Plan were primarily taken from the 2000 Census Data. By examining the problems that have developed since those statistics were gathered, it is easy to see the plight of low income persons in their quest for decent housing has become more difficult. The median household income increased 9% in Ashland between 2000 and 2007 according to Census data. The median value of owner occupied housing increased by 121%. Median gross rent increased 31% in that same time period from $597 per month to $783 per month. For renter families this represented a 13% increase in rent as a percentage of household income. The State of Oregon has identified Ashland as one of the communities in the State where renters have the highest rent burden; paying more than 30% of their income for rent and utilities. The information was recently published by Oregon Housing and Community Services Department as part of the Consolidated Funding Cycle process. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the renter households this housing will serve in the City of Ashland are rent burdened, according to the State. The State's definition of workforce. housing for the CFC is 30% to 60% of Area Median Income, published by HUD. By using the American Family Survey data for 2007 it is estimated there are 1821 renter households in Ashland earning less than 60% of AMI. Over nine hundred of these renter families fall into the 30% to 60% of AMI category. The Authority staff has attended many public meetings concerning this housing to be built in Ashland. The statistics in this application are to clarify the need for the housing. There are low income families living in Ashland; 10% of the families are living below the poverty line. Nineteen percent of families with children less than 18 years of age are living below the poverty line in Ashland. Thirty-four percent of Female headed households in Ashland with children under 18 years of age are living below the Poverty line; higher than Medford or Jackson County. This does not tell the whole story. There have been questions as to why we should build this housing because then it will encourage people to move to Ashland? The Housing Authority staff called local employers to ask them where their employees were living. Many of them responded with the refrain" my employees cannot afford to live here so they drive from Medford or White City". This contributes to air pollution for everyone in the Valley. It also could be a stressor for a low income person to make sure their automobile will make it to their job; especially in this economy. Attached are letters of support for the project; many from employers in Ashland. The Ashland School District has on their website a commissioned study on the state of Ashland schools. According to the study, one of the conclusions reached for the school closures is the lack of affordable housing. It is very difficult for young families with children to buy a home and there is a lack of decent affordable rental properties. The rents at Snowberry will be approximately $529 for a two bedroom and $604 for a three bedroom. Snowberry will also have (8) Project Based Housing Choice Vouchers to help families at lower incomes. In addition, it is important for Ashland to look at the subsidized housing it is losing; the older HUD and Rural Development properties that are expiring and being sold on the private market. Some of the residents may receive a Housing Choice Voucher but if there is no available housing for them to rent they will need to go elsewhere. The Authority maintains roughly 90+ HCV's at anytime in the Ashland community. Just one more comment to address; the solar and zero energy concerns. Why are we not building a more cost effective project for the residents; a more environmentally friendly project? We are building a very environmentally friendly project. The Housing Authority has been working toward these goals on each project we build, incorporating new materials and techniques as they become affordable for our budgets. Some of the products and techniques are a zero cost difference; it was just a matter of working with a group of architects and contractors educated in Green Building. The State of Oregon requires in funding, compliance with one of three standards; the Earth Advantage for Multifamily Buildings, the Enterprise Green Community or the LEED for New Construction. Snowberry Brook meets or exceeds the Earth Advantage for Multifamily Building Standards. 6 Apparently Ashland had been trying to purchase this property for a period of time before the Authority became involved. The location is perfect for affordable housing. There are other affordable housing groups working in Ashland hoping to utilize a portion of the remainder of the property for additional housing; either rental or homeownership. With this in mind the Authority designed the project leaving a strip of land to the South along the Southern interior street deep enough to place single family lots. Likewise, the street to the East will not only serve the Snowberry Brook units but also give access to the City's remaining acreage to the East. These two new streets will wrap around Snowberry Brook and someday continue on. The improvements required are full street pavement with sidewalk, curb, gutter, lighting and park strip on the Snowberry side. On the City's side there will be a temporary curb to keep people from driving into the field. The City will finish their improvements at a later date. If the housing component is funded in the Spring 2009 CFC, construction will begin on the project as soon as October, 2009. Construction of 60 units will take less than one year, based on past experience. The two interior streets will be constructed in conjunction with the housing project. The frontage improvements to Clay Street which will be paid with a portion of the CDBG funds already awarded are to be installed by June, 2009. The requirement for a portion of the City's past CDBG funding to be spent by this date necessities the two stage construction process. At this time the cost estimate for the total off-site project is $803,740.97. The first portion of the improvements, the improvement to Clay Street frontage in front of the ten acre site at 380 Clay St. will commence by May 1, 2009 and be complete and paid out by the end of June, 2009. This initial phase will cost approximately $170,000. The total estimate for the Clay Street Frontage is $245,456.55. The portion in front of the Cooper 5 acres will be completed at a late date; it must be completed prior to occupancy. The first priority is to finish Clay Street in front of 380 Clay Street with the CDBG funding and then apply what is left of the CDBG funding to the two interior streets. At that point the two allocations of CDBG funding will be exhausted and other project funds will be used to finish the off-sites. Objectives of the Affordable Housing Project: • Provide 60 units of housing affordable to families earning 30% - 60% of area median income. • Put restrictions on the timeframe to make this housing stay affordable for it's economic life. • Disperse the affordable housing throughout Jackson County to areas where it is needed the most. • Decrease the gasoline consumption as persons working in Ashland can afford to live where they work. • Help the communities diversify by bringing young families and children back to the area. 7 • Be good stewards of the land; help to create the wetland and maintain the natural state. • Build the most energy efficient housing possible within the budget allowable. • Continue to maintain the internal controls and systems within the Housing Authority that will make this housing good for residents and for the community. • Deliver the appropriate services to the residents of the housing to make their lives less stressful and to give them opportunities to reach their goals. The CDBG funding for the infrastructure improvements to the public streets is the "Project" for this application. To be eligible it must directly serve the affordable housing. One hundred percent of the units will be rented to residents earning less than 60% of AMI. This is the upper limit for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, one of the funding sources requested in the Consolidated Funding Cycle. The other funding sources for the housing will be Oregon grants which will be loaned to the project, Oregon Lender Tax Credits to lower the interest rate, Managing Member Equity (Housing Authority) and the permanent loan. The ownership will be a Limited Liability Corporation with the Housing Authority as the Managing Member. At the end of the 15 years the Limited Partner will step out of the project and the Housing Authority will continue on as sole owner for the period of affordability; 60 years. This will be the Authority's sixth project in this model. The rents will be affordable to families at 50% of area median income. The bedroom mix will be 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units containing both flats and townhomes. The project will have an onsite community room for the residents, including a computer lab. A playground for the children will be provided. CDBG funding cannot be used for the construction of the housing project onsite. 3) Property and Project Information relating to acquisition, rehabilitation, site clearance, and development ; Details regarding any property proposed for acquisition indicating the following: The CDBG funding will not be used for acquisition of the land. However, because the improvements are only eligible because of the housing it is necessary to answer the questions. a) Property location relative to jobs, schools, transportation, shopping and ° services There is an area map attached to the application as Attachment A. This is a good location for residents to walk or bike to work, shopping and services. The public transportation is available on a major arterial less than a half mile from the site. Schools are nearby. s b) Total floor area of buildings, and size of land site The approximate square footage of the buildings will be 56,500 sf. The land area is 163,350 sf. c) Types of residential units, number of each type unit, and total number of bedrooms At this time the project will consist of a mix of 12 - one bedroom flats, 12- two bedroom flats, 26 - two bedroom townhomes and 10 - three bedroom flats. d) Number of extremely-low, low-, and moderate-income units proposed The project will be available to families earning less than 60% of AMI. Rents will primarily be affordable to families at 50% of AMI. e) Number of units accessible to the disabled The Housing Authority always builds 5% of the units fully accessible to wheelchair residents. An additional 2% are accessible to the hearing impaired. The standard used is Section 504. In addition, all ground floor units meet Fair Housing. The project will also meet the State of Oregon's Visitability requirement. f) Square footage of units and description of amenities such as private balconies or storage areas The project square footages are based on the last project, Scenic Heights, which is under construction. One bedroom units: 665 sf Two bedroom flats: 888 sf Two bedroom townhomes: 948 sf Three bedroom flats: 1182 sf The State of Oregon has minimum requirements for indoor and outdoor storage in its projects. The Authority installs covered balconies and patios for the enjoyment of the residents. g) Square footage of common areas such as community or laundry rooms The community room will be approximately 1150 sf. The units come equipped with an Energy Star washer and dryer, negating the reason for having a common laundry room. h) Square footage of commercial space, if any NA i) Year property was built. NA j) Describe condition of any existing housing proposed for acquisition and any alterations planned. Briefly discuss the total cost of the proposal relative to new construction. NA 9 k) If the project involves rehabilitation attach a description of the work to be completed. NA 1) Describe the target population. Include the suitability of the property for the target population, the tenant selection process, brief description of any residential services and the resources identified to fund the services. The target population is the workforce population earning 30% to 60% of AMI. For a family of three this currently cannot exceed $28,540 at the time of occupancy. These incomes are adjusted by family size for the area and published each year by HUD. This situation might apply to a single parent with two children. There are approximately 900 renter households in Ashland earning between 30% and 60% of AMI. The project is suitable because of the location to services, transportation, schools and because of the park and YMCA next door. There are also service jobs within walking distance. The residents place their name on a waiting list for this housing. The Authority checks for criminal background and former landlord references. The Authority provides services to the residents, both onsite and off. There is a full time staff at the Authority whose job it is to identify the needs of a particular population and then deliver those services to the residents. Examples include computer classes, budgeting classes, second language classes and a complete long list of other options. For instance, many of the housing communities are now interested in starting a community garden. The resident services are paid with the operating budget of the project just like the maintenance and occupancy staff. This has been required by the State of Oregon for many years and the Authority is in total agreement with the policy. Each project has a unique characteristic because of its location to services; Snowberry Brook has funding in the operating budget to pay for a YMCA membership for the children living in the project. This will give them access to recreational facilities and give their parents reduced rates on services offered by the YMCA. m) Indicate how many years the property will remain affordable and the mechanism that will be used to ensure the affordability period. The LIHTC has an affordability restriction of 30 years by federal statute. The Housing Authority has as its mission to own these projects for their useful life; the Housing Authority is committing to 60 years for the Snowberry Brook housing. 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). 10 The CDBG funding from the City will not be used to pay for resident services. The services mentioned in 3 (1) above are provided as part of the ongoing operations of the housing development. 6) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached Form A - Project Schedule). The CDBG funding from this 2009 grant award will be used to pay for the improvements to the public infrastructure required by the City to serve the housing development. These funds will be used on the two interior streets. Clay Street frontage will be completed with the funding from the prior award of CDBG funding. The Schedule will include the entire off-site project; the Clay Street frontage, the two interior streets, the wetlands mitigation and the right turn lane on Clay Street. Please see Form A for the Schedule. 6) Financial Information A budget describing total cost, cost per task, existing (secured) project funds and unfunded costs. Identify any and all source(s) of funding. This would include other Federal and State grants and loans, monetary donations, in-kind contributions, volunteer labor, donation of materials and supplies, etc. In addition to addressing the questions below please complete attached Form B - Uses of Funding & Form C - Sources of Funding. Provide a detailed financial description of the proposed project, including Rent Schedule, Sources/Uses of Funding and Operating Budget Income/Expense, and utility allowances a) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating budget. Include projected rent increases, other sources of income for operation and maintenance expenses, and inflationary factors. For social service award requests please include financial assumptions relating to increases in wages, materials and overhead, or other costs associated with the proposed activity. The Authority starts building a project proforma with the knowledge of what it takes to operate the project on a day to day basis. This information is taken from the Housing Authority's database of 900+ units of different types and ages of its housing. The other assumptions are the rents; rents the Authority charges for a certain population or rents the funding sources require to be charged. This results in a Net Operating Income for the project. This is the amount left to pay for debt service and required cash flow. Items to be paid from cash flow could be deferred developer fee, other cash flow dependent loans or required fees to Lenders and regulatory agencies. The NOI will dictate at this point how much loan can be carried by the project. The gap between what it takes to build a project and what the loan will cover is where the grant and tax credit equity is needed to make projects happen. In the final proformas of this project the Authority is estimating the project can carry a loan of $2,700,000 with an additional deferred developer fee loan of $300,000. The project costs are $11,390,240. This gap must be filled with tax credit equity and grant funding or the project cannot happen. The majority of the $1,036,000 in cash from the Authority will come from the sale of the four Public Housing single family units in Ashland. Certain assumptions used in building proformas; 2% yearly increase in rents, 3% yearly increase in operating expenses, $350 per unit per year Replacement Reserve contribution, utility allowances follow the Housing Authority' utility allowance charts and are updated annually. The targeted rents for this project are $439 for a one bedroom, $529 for a two bedroom and $604 for a three bedroom. In the prior application for CDBG funding the Authority used Construction Engineering Consultants to estimate the costs for the street improvements. This Engineering firm had completed the preliminary work for the Willowbrook subdivision. For this application we obtained cost estimates from Adroit Construction. Adroit is building the Scenic Heights project in Central Point for the Housing Authority and has current information available. Scenic Heights is 70% complete. The projects will be competitively bid at the time of construction. The first phase will be the street improvements to Clay Street including all necessary utilities in the street for the construction of Snowberry Brook. The improvements on this phase of the project will be completed up to and including the curb. The reason to stop at this point is because it will be much more effective to add the bioswales and sidewalks after the actual housing is complete. The second phase of spending the CDBG funding will be either just prior to the construction of the housing or concurrent with the housing. Required utilities to be run in these two new streets will be needed; water lines, power, storm sewer and sewer. These two new streets on the interior of the 10 acres will wait until they are dedicated to the City of Ashland. b) Was consideration given to remaining economic life of the property and potential cost increases such as unanticipated repair or relocation costs? Maintenance Costs? Operating Costs? The Housing Authority's projects are designed with inflation factors. They are also designed with Replacement Reserve Funds; in this case $350 per unit per yr. The restructuring of debt at the refinancing periods is the most difficult. This 12 is why the debt placed on the project now must be analyzed for the promised term of affordability; in this case 60 years. This project will be refinanced three times by the age of 60 years. It is vital to keep these projects viable over the years and new debt is sometimes the only way to get the funds for major upgrades; especially in the later years. A project burdened with too much debt in the beginning is unable to refinance when the time comes. c) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating budget. This is covered in 6 a) above in some detail. The rental income is the income for the project. The "affordable housing subsidy" is all in upfront in the form of capital contributions to bring down the loan amount. At that point it is the responsibility of the sponsor to operate the housing for the next 60 years with no other infusion of grant capital. This is why it is important to have experienced owners. d) Discuss non-typical expenses or those outside industry standards. A private market landlord would not necessarily set aside a Replacement for Reserve. When it came time to do major repairs they would go to the bank and get a loan. These projects are not allowed to take on more debt and even if they could, the budgets could not support extra debt. The restricted rents for 60 years are what the banks look at when appraising a project for a new loan. These restricted rents bring down the value of the project, consequently the sponsor must plan carefully for refinancing at years 20 and 40. These projects pay fees to every regulatory agency and lending institution that has a need to monitor restrictions on the property. The State of Oregon requires the owners provide Resident Services to move the residents along their path to Self-Sufficiency. Just getting a project like this built is more costly due to the layers of review required by the many, many funding sources and their attorneys. e) Attach letters of funding commitment from other sources, if available. Attached is a letter of interest from US Bank. Attached is a signed LOI from Key CDC for purchasing the Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Q Will a property tax exemption be requested for the project? If so, what is the estimated dollar value of the tax exemption over the twenty-year period? The Housing Authority's properties are statutorily exempt from paying property taxes. This includes any properties the Authority is involved with such as a 13 LIHTC project or a project where the Authority is acting General Manager. The authorizing statute is ORS 307,092 (7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project? • Property Acquisition • New Construction (non-residential) • Removal of Architectural Barriers • Rehabilitation Costs • Development Costs • Client Services • Specification Preparation (Construction/Rehab) • Relocation Benefits (if required) • Appraisal (for acquisitions) Federal funding has certain regulatory requirements, The following information is required to determine eligibility for federal funding. No, the CDBG costs will be used for the benefit of the affordable housing project at 380 Clay Street and not for the new construction of the project. All of the funding will be spent for the construction of the infrastructure improvements in the public right of way, General Information a)ls the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not, explain. The property at 380 Clay Street was annexed into the City of Ashland in March of 2006. b)Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; state in terms of percentage below area median for the Medford-Ashland standard metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The current income guidelines are included on page 10 above. The residents of the affordable housing must be 60% of AMI or below to live in a LIHTC project at initial eligibility. They do not need to move as their income goes up but the next available tenant must meet the income guidelines. The use of Oregon Lender Tax Credits in a project demands the interest rate reduction be passed on to the residents in resulting lower rents. The rents are projected to be affordable to families at 50% of AMI. c)Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project. 14 The Housing Authority has purchased the 10 acre site in conjunction with the City of Ashland. The process for site partition and site review has been approved by the Planning Commission. Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information d)Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished? If so, how many? NO e)ls the proposed housing site located in a 100-year flood plain? NO f)Has a Level 1 environmental assessment been done for the site? If yes, attach the report. The Housing Authority will be completing a Phase I Review as a requirement for any funding source involved in the housing development. The Authority has not completed one at this time. The Authority procured Lee Brennen, P.E., Agate Engineering, to assess the site sufficient for our comfort; the Phase I will be a requirement for funding. g)ls the proposed housing site located adjacent to a major arterial road or near a railroad? NO h)Is the proposed site located adjacent to an aboveground flammable storage tank? NO i) Will the proposed project impact historic features? If yes, explain. NO, there is an old house on the 10 acres but it is not on the Authority's 4 acres. The old house is not salvageable. This was determined in earlier discussions with the former owner and the City. 8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. The Housing Authority was formed by the Jackson County Commissioners in 1969 to assist low income persons in obtaining affordable housing. At this time the Authority assists 1705 families in Jackson County with Housing Choice Vouchers in the private landlord community. Approximately 99 of these vouchers are being used in the Ashland area. In addition the Housing Authority owns and operates 946 units of housing rented at below market rates to the low income renter population in Jackson County. 15 The Authority has experienced and long term staff. Scott Foster, Executive Director, has been the Director since 1986. Prior to coming to Jackson County he was the Director of the Josephine County Housing Authority. He has forty years of experience in construction, development and management of housing. In addition, he is an expert in the myriad of regulations accompanying HUD and other Federal, State and local programs. The Authority has experienced staff to develop affordable projects. The five staff persons in the Development Department acquire land or projects and take them through the funding and land use processes, hiring consultants as needed. Betty McRoberts, Director of Development, has been with the Authority for 20 years. The Department is experienced in carrying out Davis Bacon and BOLT regulations in spending Federal and State funding on construction projects. The Department has one project under construction at this time; Scenic Heights, a 48 unit new construction project in the City of Central Point. Certificate of Completion should be achieved in August 2009. The Authority recently finished a $1.25 mill rehab to the acquisition project, Rogue River Estates, on Poplar Drive in Medford. This project is a preservation project of 94 Section 8 Elderly units purchased in May, 2008. The Authority manages all of its owned properties and also one tax credit property for ACCESS, Inc; Barnett Townhomes. Tenant selection and maintenance are done from a centralized computerized system. This system affords standardization of policies and regulations and affords the Authority a method for tracking success or failure. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low- moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs? The Agency is required to provide a resident services program at each site. This is discussed in 3 (1). The Resident Services Department at the Authority assesses each resident population to see what is required for a population to promote their self-sufficiency. The department then targets programs specifically to those needs. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals or individuals, with special needs. a) For proposed projects serving a low-income area (ie public facility improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: NA • Number of extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals served in the project area on an annual basis. • Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis. 16 b) For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families, battered women, people with AIDS, special needs populations, etc.) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. Specify the target population to be served. Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repeated visits or use by the same individuals.) Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. Percent low and moderate income. The target population is low income renters earning 60% of median area income and below. 11)Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. The housing is limited to the income level 60% of AMI and below at initial lease-up. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate-income housing to be demolished or converted to another use (see attachment "Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so, explain. NO 13)Project Feasibility Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. Describe the feasibility of the project: a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and or manage the project proposed? Briefly describe applicants capacity and experience in providing, maintaining and managing housing, particularly low-income housing similar to the proposed project. The Housing Authority has completed 6 Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects in recent years. There is a learning curve involved in this financing. The Housing Authority receives excellent reviews managing the properties for compliance with tax credit requirements and State regulations. The current staff has developed 26 properties; 16 new construction and 10 acquisitions and rehab. 17 Most of these developments required multiple funding sources resulting in overlapping compliance issues in future years. The Authority has a wealth of knowledgeable staff to complete the project for which the CDBG funding will be used; the completion of infrastructure. The Maple Terrace Project on Mace Road in Medford required an extension of the water and sewer line down Mace Road and these improvements were completed with CDBG funds from the City of Medford. The Authority spends an average of $400,000 a year in CDBG funding for homeowner housing rehabilitation throughout Jackson and Josephine Counties. Betty McRoberts has been applying for and administering these CDBG funds for 20 years and will be responsible for the Ashland CDBG infrastructure project. The Lilac Meadow Project, built in 2004, required 900+ feet of public street improvements constructed for the City of Medford. This construction involved public funds and public right of way. b) Are the ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve estimates reasonable? The project proformas for Snowberry Brook are designed to support the project for 60 years through two additional refinances; one required at year 20 when the Oregon Lender Tax Credits go away and one later on when the project needs a major refinance for repairs, most likely around year 40. The initial operating budget is ample and has a 3% increase for expenses and a 2% increase for rental income. These budgets are underwritten by the State of Oregon, the lender and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity Investor before funding. c) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property, letter of support from the property owner(s), or some other assurance that the property is available for acquisition? The Housing Authority and the City of Ashland purchased the property on December 18, 2008. Now that the partition plan is approved, the property will be surveyed and the plat will be recorded; including the two new interior streets. CDBG funding will not be used on private property, only on the public right of way. d) Does the project require temporary or permanent relocation and if so have comparable units been identified and costs of relocation been accurately determined? Provide a tenant relocation strategy, cost estimate and existing tenant survey to address federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements which may impact your project. NO e) Describe relocation strategy for the project if applicable. f) Does the project require land use approvals such as Site 18 Review, Annexation, Zone Change, Minor Land Partition, Demolition, or Conditional Use permits? A land partition was required to separate the Authority's portion from the City's portion before Snowberry Brook can proceed with construction. It does not require a partition in order to apply for the housing funding in February of 2009. The project is properly zoned and will not require any conditional use permits. The two new City streets will be dedicated at the time of the partition. g) Has a pre-application been completed with the Ashland Planning Department? The application for site partition and amended site review was submitted on January 9, 2009. The Planning Commission voted to approve the site partition and site review on February 10,2009. Since this was an amendment to the Willowbrook subdivision approval there was very little to consider. h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is the expected life of the property? There are some old buildings on the property, none of which are usable according to several assessments obtained by the former owner. There will be some expense in the future to dispose of them. These buildings are located on the future City portion of the 10 acres. i) Describe commitment of project funding from other sources The Authority is making application to the State of Oregon's Consolidated Funding Cycle on February 27t for the funding to complete the project. This includes the LIHTC's, the Oregon Lender Tax Credits and Oregon Trust Fund and Weatherization grant. US Bank has given a Letter of Interest in providing both the construction financing and the permanent financing using Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits to lower the interest rate by 4%. US Bank was the lender on the Housing Authority's recent tax credit/bond financed acquisition of 94 units of Section 8 elderly housing on Poplar Street in Medford. KeyBank Community Development Corporation has provided a Letter of Interest in purchasing the Federal Low. Income Housing Tax credits, if awarded. Key was the investor on the Authority's last two tax credit projects. Firm letters of commitment will follow after funding award from the State of Oregon. 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties or on the environment. All projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain 19 projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. There is a significant wetland near the project. It is less than an acre in size. The current owner submitted a wetland proposal that fit his needs involving moving of the wetlands to different areas of the site. The site plan now being considered has less impact on the wetland but will require a new mitigation plan. The mitigation plan is being completed by a consultant certified by the Department of State Lands. This is necessary for development of the site. The Authority is experienced in completing Environmental Assessments for Housing Rehab and Housing Development Projects. If the project requires a consultant the Authority uses Agate Engineering or another approved firm. 15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, and evidence of financial support from other funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. Other attachments include cost estimates from Adroit Construction for the off site work as well as a cost estimate for the complete construction of Snowberry Brook. This total estimate does not include the right turn lane on Clay and Ashland Street. I have demonstrated the cost to complete this improvement, $100,488.48, but the City of Ashland may not require this improvement as a result of the Oregon Department of Transportation's intent to place a median in Ashland Street. The estimate from Adroit for the construction and the estimate for the overall cost of the project; the $11,390,240, does not include this improvement. The Housing Authority has agreed to complete the improvement in front of the Cooper property to the north of Snowberry Brook. Attached is a list of the Board of Commissioners of the Authority. Attached are a Sources Page and an Income Page from the State of Oregon Consolidated Funding Cycle Application. 16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 23-24). Attach Forms A, B, & C 20 CITY OF ASHLAND 2066P6 ra r► Year CDBG.APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. /R; Applicants Background, Yes No, ? N/A, 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of government? X 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD Income Guidelines (see page IQ!qr 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written income documentation? X 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project previously? X 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? X B; ` Project Lck iq .rid Lind Use Issues Yes. No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? X 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and land use laws? X 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit re uired? X 5. Have these approvals been obtained? 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 22 G: Environmental is§ues; ; Yes No , iVlA - 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodpiain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, leasespecify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 ears or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. LaborRequirements.,' Yes.., No 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X re uirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E.. Displacementand'Relocation -Yes No 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F:::ProperEy Data, Yes No WA 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple title? X 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? $0 5. What is the current use of the property? R-2 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? yes If es, what is the assessed value of the prosy? 23 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housing Proposals - The Entire Housing Project A`ctiyity , , Strt,:Date, Completion bate Ste~Planrlmg & t F IJeVelo merit4 ~:r Option Site Acquisition 11-04-2008 12-18-2008 Plan Development 10-1-2008 2-25-2009 Pre-application 10-24-2008 1-9-2008 Land Use Approval 11-5-2008 2-10-2009 Construction Plans 3-1-2009 6-1-2009 Final Bids 9-1-2009 10-1-2009 Contractor Selection 6-1-2009 8-1-2009 Building Permits 6-1-2009 8-1-2009 :Grantap~fiGations local 1017-2008 2-27-2009 state 2-27-2009 federal Non-government other -Goan A"""" ;licatioris Construction loan 2-2009 9-2009 Permanent 2-2009 9-2009 :GonstruotiWPhase Construction 10-1-2009 10-31-2010 Certificate of Occupancy 10-31-2010 Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 24 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals CDBG GRANT PROJECT ONLY , ~,Actlutty~~kirs ;'s'^- ;.~xStart3batb Completibn$Date Site°Planrin~ , k~felb giant " Option Site Acquisition 11-04-2008 12-18-2008 Plan Development 10-1-2008 2-25-2009 Pre-application 10-24-2008 1-9-2009 Land Use Approval 11-5-2008 2-10-2009 Construction Plans - Clay 3-1-2009 3-15-2009 Street Improvements Final Bids - Clay Street 3-15-2009 4-10-2009 Improvements Contractor Selection - Clay 4-10-2009 4-20-2009 Street Improvements Building Permits - Clay Street 3-15-2009 4-20-2009 Improvements Construction Plans - 2 Interior 3-1-2009 6-1-2009 Streets Final Bids - 2 Interior Streets 9-1-2009 10-1-2009 Contractor Selection - 2 6-1-2009 8-1-2009 Interior Streets Building Permits-2 Interior 6-1-2009 8-1-2009 Streets Grant applications; Local - Ashland CDBG 10-17-2008 6-30-2009 $345,000 10-3 1-20 [0 Local - Ashland CDBG- 2-27-2009 10-31-2010 $164,000 state 2-27-2009 10-31-2010 federal _ Non-government other Loan A" tications>': Construction loan 1-15-2009 10-25-2009 Permanent _ 1-15-2009 10-25-2009 Construction'Phase` Construction - Clay Street 5-1-2009 6-30-2009 Construction-2 Interior 11-1-2009 10-31-2010 Streets _ Certificate of Occupancy _ 10-31-2010 Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 25 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Attached to this application are several estimated proformas for the housing project. The forms are the Proformas used for the application to the State of Oregon for funding: SOURCES PAGE INCOME PAGE WITH OAHTC SHOWING THE LOWERED RENTAL INCOME This application for CDBG funding is exclusively for infrastructure but it is difficult to look at just those items without looking at the overall budget of the housing project. 26 Housing Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source s Acyu~~itibri Costs r; , ,.A,;ri ' ,r ~x Land Improvements Liens and other Taxes Closing costs Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL beyeloptrientO,os~s , Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges SDCs Relocation Costs Environmental Report / Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report Survey Marketing Insurance Site Clearance and Grading Pre-Development Conceptual Planning Other ubhc lachttes , Improvements to Clay Street $245,456.55 $170,000 $ 75,456.55 Two new Public Streets $417,795.94 $340,000 $ 77,795.94 Turn Lane at Clay/Ashland $100,488.48 $100,488.48 Wetlands Mitigation $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 lees Architectural Engineering Wetland Consultant Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other - TOTAL $803,740.97 $510,000 $293,740.97 27 Form CSOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the o erations of the program(s). ;SOUYC~3 r' SecuredsYt Gondtttorial ,l;bntattve,r Coffmttment , • ~ ~ , } x Date Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant Contribution _ Program Income Loans Rental Income $371,516 4-25-2009 Other (specify) TOTAL , Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Ashland CDBG Grant Funds for Offsites $345,000 Awarded Ashland CDBG Grant Funds for Offsites 2-2009 $164,000 State of Oregon - CFC End of February, 2009: Low Income Housing Tax Credits allocation $825,000, Oregon Lender Tax Credits for the full amount of the Loan (approximately $2,700,000), Housing Trust Funds in the amount of $100,000, Low Income Weatherization $100,000 Business Energy Tax Credits; Summer of 2010, $45,900 The Oregon Lender Tax Credits are vital to the project because they reduce the interest rate by 4%. 29 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: _Housing Authority of Jackson County Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501C3 ( ) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( X) _Housing Authority under ORS 456 DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed 'official', of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Namerritle 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) See Attached 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 30 ATTACHMENT A AREA MAP i LETTERS OF COMMITMENT FROM LENDER AND INVESTOR (Mbank fnx Av &rvia Gnvanendql) Commercial Real Estate 111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97204 February 23, 2009 Scott Foster Executive Director HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY 2551 Table Rock Road Medford, OR 97501 Re: Snowberry Brook 60-unit Affordable Housing Project Ashland, Oregon Dear Mr. Foster: Thank you for providing U.S. Bank National Association ("the Bank") with the opportunity to provide this proposal to extend construction and permanent financing for the Snowberry Brook project. The terms and conditions outlined in this construction and permanent loan proposal are intended for discussion purposes only and do not constitute a commitment to lend on the part of the Bank. Any commitment to lend must be formally approved by the Bank. BORROWER: Snowberry Brook LLC will be the principal borrower on the loans: the loans shall be non-recourse as to payment of principal and interest, but recourse as to matters of fraud, environmental and ADA concerns. GUARANTOR: The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY will guarantee the project. The guarantor's guarantee will be released after the project has reached a 1.15: 1 stabilized Debt Service Cover for three consecutive months. PURPOSE OF Proceeds of the loans are to be used for the construction and LOAN: permanent financing for the Snowberry Brook Apartment housing project - a low/moderate-income rental project comprised of 60 new apartment units located in Ashland, Oregon (the "Property"). It is understood that 100% of the units will be available to residents at or below 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). CONSTRUCTION The combined Construction Loan Amount (the "Construction AND PERMANENT Loan") shall be the lesser of: LOAN AMOUNT: O $6,000,000 O 85% of FIRREA appraised value fO 85% of total project cost O The combined Permanent Loan Amount (the "Permanent Loan") shall be the lesser of: $2,700,000 O An amount that is supported by the , Snowberry Brook LLC Febmary 23. 2009 Page 2 property at an initial 1.20X Debt Service Coverage Ratio. O 80% of FIRREA appraised value LOAN AMOUNTS: Construction/Perm Loan: $2,700,000 The construction/perm loan is structured as an 18 month construction loan. From time to time, the borrower requests construction draws that are funded from the construction loan account. The interest rate is fixed at closing and is the same for each construction draw. Once fully advanced and all conditions of conversion are met, it converts to a 15-year term term loan repaid on a 30 year amortizing payment schedule Bridge Note: $5,300,000. The Bridge Note is structured as an 18 month interest only short term bridge note. It will be repaid from equity at conversion. TERM OF LOAN: Construction Loan Period: The construction loan maturity will be the earlier of a) 18 months from loan closing, plus applicable extension(s); or, b) construction loan conversion. Construction loan conversion (to the permanent loan) will occur once the following conditions have been met: 1. Receipt of the Certificate of Occupancy and evidence all bills are paid. 2. The property has achieved a 1.15 DSC ratio for three consecutive months (assuming stabilized expenses). 3. All required Equity funds have been properly invested in the project. 4. Lien free title endorsement is received. Permanent Loan' Period: The permanent loan period will commence upon satisfaction of the conditions stated above, but in no event later than Eighteen (18) months, plus applicable extensions, from the Construction Loan closing, and will mature in Twenty (20) years. EXTENSION: PROVIDED BORROWER IS NOT IN DEFAULT IN THE PAYMENT OF ANY AMOUNTS DUE ON THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN, OR IN DEFAULT OF ANY OTHER TERM OR PROVISION OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS, and borrower has the option of one, 6-month extensions of the Loan. The extension option may be exercised, if the loan is not in default and the project is completed and achieved a 1.0 debt service cover, and upon receipt of Lender of a fee in the amount of .25% of the loan amount not less than 30 days prior to loan maturity. A separate fee for the extension of the conversion date of the interest only payment on the construction loan to the principal IAPRODTION1I,oren 2`\.Housing Aulh or Jackson Coulmp Snmvb"uny Brook Apa; (hunts - Ashland`:Penn Sheet 02- 2 09.doc Snowberry Brook LLC February 23. 2009 Page 3 and interest payment on the permanent loan may also be required. This fee must be separately priced for each extension. The price for extending this date is considered on a case by case basis and is subject to changing market conditions. REPAYMENT Construction Loan: TERMS AND TIMETABLE: Monthly interest only payments on cumulative funds advanced. A construction/lease-up line item will be included in the construction loan budget to fund interest payments during the construction and lease- up period. Permanent Loan: At conversion to amortization, the Bank will require monthly principal and interest payments with the principal payments based on a thirty (30) year amortization period and a balloon principal payment at the end of the twentieth year. INTEREST RATE: Construction /Permanent Loan: Construction/Perm Loan: Unless previously agreed upon, the fixed interest rate for both the construction and permanent phase of the loans is locked at closing of the construction loan and remain the same until maturity. The fixed interest rate during the construction period shall not be less than 7.00% per annum and the fixed rate for the permanent phase shall not be less than 3.00% using the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits and a 30-year amortization schedule and a 3651360-day interest accrual factor. Bridge Note: The interest rate is 4.50% over the DAILY LIBOR RESET Rate, fully floating. This LIBOR Rate is currently.50%, plus the 4.50% spread, which creates a 5.00% current rate. This rate may be fixed by the use of an internal U.S. Bank SWAP. LOAN FEE: Construction Loans: of 1 % of the Construction Loan amount ($60,000) Permanent Loan: of 1% of the Permanent Loan amount ($20,250*) ".25% of the permanent loan fee is due at construction loan closing EQUITY FUNDS: The difference between the total project costs and the Construction and Permanent Loan is expected to fund from Equity Funds (the "Equity Funds"). Sufficient Equity Funds to complete the property must be committed to the project before closing on the construction loan at terms and conditions satisfactory to US Bank. U.S. Bank will require a minimum of 15% tax credit equity at the time of the closing of the construction loans and a total CIPROD'I IONNToren 2` lousing Auth of Jackson County'Snowberry Brook Ap:u tnrnts - Ashland\Term She:: 02- 23-09.doc Snowberry Brwk LLC February 23, 2009 Page 4 of 80% of the tax credit equity at the completion of - construction. The specific source, conditions for funding, and timing of when the Equity Funds will be spent relative to when loan advances will occur must be reviewed and approved by the Bank prior to construction loan closing. PREPAYMENT Construction and Permanent Loan: Should the Loan be PENALTY: partially or fully prepaid ahead of the scheduled amortization amount on the Loan, Borrower shall pay the Bank a "yield maintenance" prepayment premium, if any, which will be based upon the Note amount, date of prepayment, and market rates prevailing at the time of such prepayment. No partial prepayment will relieve the Borrower of the obligation to pay future installments of principal or interest when due. COLLATERAL: Collateral will consist primarily of the following items; however, this checklist is not intended to be an all inclusive list: O First lien on all real property and improvements existing or to be constructed on the Property; ❑ Assignment of tax credit commitment and Limited Partner's Capital contributions; El Assignment of Leases, Rents'and Other Income; O Financing Statement to be filed on all personal property and project reserves; O Assignment.of Construction Contract(s); O Assignment of Architect's Contract(s); and All collateral will be subject to the review and approval by the Bank. REPLACEMENT Upon conversion to the permanent loan monthly payments RESERVES: into a replacement reserve account will be required. Monthly cash deposits of $25.00/unit ($300 per unit/year) shall be deposited with U.S. Bank and will serve as additional collateral for the loan. DEBT SERVICE Upon conversion to the permanent loan the Borrower shall RESERVE: fund a Debt Service reserve equivalent to three months of debt service, Into an account at U.S. Bank. The funds shall be held for the duration of the permanent loan and serve as additional collateral for the loan. INSURANCE Course of Construction and Fire and extended coverage as well as liability insurance satisfactory to the Bank is required. Coverage for the permanent loan must include a provision for 12 months of rent loss. REQUIREMENTS Prior to closing, the following requirements must be met: PRIOR TO CLOSING: O Tax Credit Allocation: The Borrower shall have OPRODTION\.Loren 21J lousing Auth oI /acLson Count`\Snon'berry Brook, ApartnienU - AMilan&,1'erm Sleet 02- 21-09.doc Snowberry Brook LLC February 2.3. 2009 Page 5 received an allocation of LIHTC's from the appropriate government agency in the net amount of at least $6,599,340. O Limited Partner: Evidence of a) a tax credit investor's commitment to be the 99.99% limited partner in the Borrowing entity and commitment to invest the $6,599,340. Equity investment; b) the Bank and Borrower's acceptance of the limited partner; c) the Bank's review and approval of the partnership agreement. O Other Sources: Borrower shall provide evidence of the commitment from other sources to fund an additional $2,095,000 to the project. ff Deferred Developer Fees: Based on current estimated costs, developer would be entitled to a $900,000 fee, some portion of which may be deferred. The Borrower will be paid the deferred development fee under the terms of the agreement with the limited partnerltax credit purchaser upon completion and lease-up of the property. [Al Investor Qualifications: The Tax Credit Investor for this project shall be satisfactory to the Bank in all respects in its sole discretion. ADDITIONAL Loan Closing is subject to receipt, analysis and acceptance REQUIREMENTS of the following items: PRIOR TO LOAN CLOSING: O Appraisal commissioned and acceptable to Bank; ❑ Phase I environmental site assessment acceptable to Bank; O Commitment for Title Insurance; O ALTA survey certified to Bank, Borrower and title company; 17 Evidence of property insurance naming Bank as mortgagee: O Borrowing entity's organizational legal documents; O Copies of plans and specifications; O Final detailed budget of all construction costs; ❑ Final pro forma of the income and expenses for the Property; ® Building Permit; O Copy of the guaranteed maximum price construction contract; O Copies of contracts with major subcontractors; © List of all subcontractors; O Evidence of availability of water, sewer, gas, electric: and El The above listing is not all inclusive and additional information may be required by the Bank. IVRODTION1.oren 2`liousing Auth of Jackson County`.Snowberry Brook Apartments - Ashland'' form Slice, o2- 23-09.doc Snowberry Brook LLC February 23. 2000 Page 6 COST REVIEW/ Bank will engage an outside construction inspector (the REGULAR "Inspector") for: INSPECTIONS: 0 An up-front review of the plans, specs and budget to determine adequacy of the construction loan budget. Based on the Inspector's recommendation, the construction loan budget-may be adjusted. 0 Monthly inspections to review status of construction, compare construction draws to construction progress, review invoices, and make recommendation for payment. Any fees charged by the Inspector will be paid by the Borrower and will be in addition to the above Loan Fee. COVENANTS: Borrower is to Insure that the following requirements are complied with; 0 Debt Coverage Ratio (the "DCR") of 1.05 to 1 will be required and is to be monitored on an annual basis based on the prior twelve (12) months of operations. The DCR will be calculated by dividing the actual Net Operating Income (NOI) from each property by the Debt Service payment. NOI is determined by taking the actual income from the Property and subtracting the operating expenses and replacement reserves. Debt Service is defined as the interest and principal payments required under the Permanent Loan plus required bank reserves. The DCR may not be below the DCR requirement required by Limited Partner. 0 Secondary Financing: The Borrower shall not incur any additional debt beyond the Loan secured by the Property without prior written Bank approval. px Maintenance of Property: At all times, the Borrower is to maintain the Property in good working order. ONGOING Borrower will be required to supply the following information REPORTING to Bank. REQUIREMENTS: 0 Annual audited financial statements on the Borrower. 0 Annual financial statements on guarantors. 0 Quarterly rent roll and operating statements on the Property. 0 Annual verification that property insurance coverage is in place. 0 Annual verification that all real estate taxes have been paid. O Annual tax returns on the Borrower and the general partner. 0 Annual evidence of compliance with LIHTC/IRC Section 42 regulations. H.PRODTION'.L.oren 2\Fiousing Awh of lackttm Cnunty~8now•herry Brook Apartments - AshlandYrenn Sheet O2- 23-09.dnt Snowberry Brook LLC February 23. 2009 Page 7 CLOSING. COSTS: All costs associated with closing the proposed transaction will be paid by the Borrower, including, but not limited to, the cost of the appraisal, Phase I environmental site assessment, the up-front and monthly construction Inspection fee charged by Agent, survey, title insurance, any outside Bank legal fees, recording fees, etc. Conditions (Construction and Permanent Financing) The loan is dependent upon the Applicant providing, and U.S. Bank's approval/acceptance of, the following: • At the Bank's request, an Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement regarding the environmental condition of the property or a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) that meets the Bank's environmental policy. Applicant will also be required to execute a Hazardous Waste Indemnity Agreement prior to funding any loan. U.S. Bank reserves the right to require a more extensive environmental audit. The Bank must order this work. • Legal description • An appraisal and market study ordered by the Bank in conformance with FIRREA. • Copy of organizational documents for the Applicant and Guarantor(s). • Current financial statements for the Applicant and Guarantor(s) signed and dated. • Three years of tax returns including all schedules and K-1's for the Applicant and Guarantor(s). • All construction documents, including, but not limited to; plans, specifications, soils reports, construction contracts, architect contracts, project budget including construction breakdown and soft costs, and schedule of completion for the complete development of the project. • Information (resumes and contracts if available) on the development team (architect, contractor, engineer, developer). • Any signed leases or letters of intent (if applicable). • Three year operating history (permanent loans only) • Applicant's Access Law Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement (permanent loans only) • Purchase and Sale Agreement (if applicable). • Preliminary title report prior to approval. Title insurance policy with acceptable endorsements at closing. • Insurance liability policy in the amount of $1,000,000 with U.S. Bank named as additional insured. A prepaid policy or policies of fire insurance with extended coverage, flood insurance (if required) and such other insurance as Bank requires, in I:\PROD 110\V.nren 2!.} lousing Auth of Jackson County\Snowbeiry 131 ook Apartments - Ashland\Ternt Shea 02- 2 09doc Snowberry Brook LLC February 23. 2009 Page 8 such amounts, in such form, and with such companies as are acceptable to Bank, each with mortgagee clause in favor of Bank. • Formal credit approval by U.S. Bank of the proposed financing. • If credit approval is obtained, execution and delivery of a Promissory Note, Deed of Trust, and such documents as U.S. Bank and its counsel may deem necessary or appropriate. • The above listing is not all-inclusive and the Bank may request additional information. Applicant's Agreements Upon execution and delivery of this document by applicant to Bank, it is agreed: • Good Faith Deposit and Out of Pocket Costs Applicant shall contemporaneously herewith deposit with U.S. Bank . This deposit shall become non-refundable upon issuance of a commitment by U.S. Bank on materially the same terms specified in this application. If a commitment Is not Issued, the deposit shall be returned to Applicant without interest and less U.S. Bank's out of pocket expenses. If a commitment is issued and accepted, the deposit shall be applied toward any commitment or loan fees. To be determined when the appraisal is ordered. Applicant agrees to pay all reasonable legal fees, recording fees, appraisal and review costs, title insurance, surveys, environmental assessments, escrow charges, taxes, inspection fees and other out of pocket costs incurred by the Bank in connection with this application and any resulting loan. • Assignments This letter is not assignable by Applicant by operation of law or otherwise without the Bank's prior written consent. Any brokerage commission or finders fee payable in connection with the loan and the transactions contemplated thereby will be payable by Applicant and not by the Bank. The Applicant agrees to indemnify Bank and hold the Bank harmless from and against any claims of any broker or finder arising out of transactions contemplated thereby. This obligation will survive the expiration or termination of this letter and any commitment. • Approval Any lending relationship with Applicant is conditioned upon receipt of credit approval from U.S. Bank and conclusion of negotiations of all terms and conditions relating thereto. This letter merely reflects U.S. Bank's present intent subject to the conditions contained herein and is not to be relied upon by any third party. • Credit Information Applicant authorizes U.S. Bank, its employees, agents, successors, assigns and affiliates to a) make whatever investigation Bank deems appropriate concerning Applicant, Applicant's request for credit, and in the collection and periodic review of the loan, and b) to share the information obtained with prospective purchasers of assignments and participations in the loan and as otherwise permitted by law. Without limiting the foregoing, Bank may obtain credit reports and other information regarding Applicant's deposit accounts, income and banking credit, business and employment relationships and may verify such information. If Applicant is married and lives in a community I:'.PRODTIOMI.oren 2\11ousing Auth of Jackson County`,Snowberry Brook Aparunents - Ashland',Term Sheet N 2 0r2.doc Snowberry Brook LLC February 23. 2009 Page 9 property state, this authorization is also made on behalf of Applicant's spouse, even if he or she is not a co-applicant. • Representations Applicant affirms that all financial information provided in conjunction with this request for credit is true, accurate, and complete. Applicant has read and understands this loan application and warrants to be true and correct all of the Information contained herein (including any supplemental pages attached to and made a part hereof) and all other documents submitted to Bank herewith. Applicant expressly warrants to have the authority to act on behalf of other principals, if any, connected with the subject property, and is in all respects qualified to accept such financing if offered. Disclosures Upon execution of this document, it is acknowledged: • Right to Receive a Copy of the Appraisal If one to four family residential property will serve as collateral for this loan, you have a right to a copy of the appraisal report used in connection with your application for credit. 'if you wish a copy, you must write to us at: U.S. Bank Commercial Real Estate. 111 SW 51" Avenue, Suite 1200, Portland, Oregon 97204. We must receive your request no later than 90 days after we notify you about the action taken on your credit application or you withdraw your application. In your letter, please provide the applicant's name, date of this application, and the loan amount. Your right to receive a copy of the appraisal requires that you reimburse us for the expense we incurred in obtaining and copying the report. We will advise you of the cost when we receive your request. Equal Credit Opportunity Disclosures The federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (provided the applicant has the capacity to enter into a binding contract); because all or part of the applicant's income derives from any public assistance program; or because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The federal agency that administers compliance with this law concerning this creditor is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance Unit, 1301 McKinney Avenue, Suite 3710, Houston, TX 77010. If the Applicant's application for credit is denied, Applicant has the right to a statement of the specific reasons for denial. To obtain the statement, the Applicant must write to: U.S. Bank Commercial Real Estate, 111 SW 5rh Avenue, Suite 1200, Portland, Oregon 97204 or call (503) 275 - 8601 within 60 days from the day that Applicant is notified of U.S. Bank's decision. U.S. Bank will provide the Applicant with the written statement of reasons within 30 days of receiving Applicant's request. Please retain a copy of this application and disclosures for your records. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES UNDER OREGON LAW, MOST AGREEMENTS, PROMISES AND COMMITMENTS MADE BY LENDERS AFTER OCTOBER 3, 1989 CONCERNING LOANS AND OTHER CREDIT EXTENSIONS WHICH ARE NOT FOR PERSONAL, FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES OR SECURED SOLELY BY THE BORROWER'S RESIDENCE MUST BE IN WRITING, EXPRESS CONSIDERATION AND BE SIGNED BY THE LENDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE. 1:`.PRODTIONN.oren 2\11ousing Audi of Jackson Coun1v'1Snmvhcn v 13took Apartments - Ashland\Tenn Sheet 02- Snowberry Brook LLC February 23, 2009 Page 10 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR OPENING A NEW ACCOUNT To help the government fight the funding of terrorism and money laundering activities, Federal law requires all financial institutions to obtain, verify, and record information that identifies each person who opens an account. When you open an account, we will ask for your name, address and other information that will allow us to Identify you. We may also ask to see other documents that substantiate your identity. If you find this proposal of loan terms acceptable, please sign the acknowledgment below and return it by June 30, 2009. Acceptance of these terms does not constitute a commitment to loan. Upon receipt of this letter we will begin to process your loan request. If the letter is not returned by June 30, 2009, the proposed terms and conditions for the proposed loans will automatically expire. We look forward to your response and the opportunity to work with you on this quality project. Please call with any questions or comments. Sincerely, r David A. Castricano Loren Clark Senior Vice President Assistant Vice President Community Lending Community Lending AGREED AND ACCEPTED: SNOWBERRY BROOK, LLC By: Housing Authority of Jackson County, Its Managing Mem"r V By: ~ - °)1 , Scott Foster, Executive Director Date: ° z z 3 ~o LTROD110M-oven 2~'Ilousmg Audi of Jackson County\Snowbeny Brook Apartments - Ashlan&,I'enn Sheet 02- 23 -09.dor OAHTC RENT REDUCTION CALCULATION Project Name: Snowberry Brook WITH OAHTC W/O OAHTC LOAN AMOUNT: $2,700,000 $2,700,000 INTEREST RATE: 3.000% 7.000% NUMBER OF YEARS TO AMORTIZE: 30 30 NUMBER OF YEARS TAX CREDITS TAKEN: 20 20 MONTHLY PAYMENT AMOUNT: $11,383 $17,963 INTEREST RATE REDUCTION: 4.00% TOTAL TAX CREDIT ALLOWED: $1,586,525 NUMBER OF UNITS: 52 RENT REDUCTION UNIT/MONTH: $128 ANNUAL RENT PASS THROUGH: $79,872 LOAN AMORTIZATION MAXIMUM ANNUAL TAX CREDIT ENDING- PRINCIPAL AVERAGE AVERAGE TAX YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAL BALANCE YEAR REDUCTION INTEREST BALANCE CREDIT 1 $79,452 $57,148 $2,642,852 1 $57,148 $79,452 $2,646,392 $105,936 2 $77.714 $58,886 $2,583,966 2 $58,886 $77,714 $2,590,451 $103,618 3 $75,922 $60.677 $2,523,289 3 $60,677 $75,922 $2,530,749 $101,230 4 $74,077 $62,523 $2,460,766 4 $62,523 $74,077 $2,469.230 $98,769 5 $72,175 $64,424 $2,396.341 5 $64,424 $72,175 $2,405,841 $96,234 6 $70,216 $66,384 $2,329,957 6 $66,384 $70,216 $2,340,523 $93,621 7 $68,197 $68,403 $2,261,554 7 $68,403 $66,197 $2,273,218 $90,929 8 $66,116 - $70,404 $2,191,070 8 $70,484 $66,116 $2,203,867 $88.155 9 $63,972 $72.628 $2.118,443 9 $72,628 $63,972 $2,132.406 $85.296 10 $61,763 574,837 $2,043.606 10 $74,837 $61,763 $2.058,771 $82,351 11 $59,487 $77,113 $1,966,494 11 $77,113 $59,487 $1,982.897 $79,316 12 $57,141 $79,458 $1,887,035 12 $79,456 $57,141 $1,904,715 $76,189 13 $54,725 $81,875 $1,805,160 13 $81,875 $54,725 $1.824,155 $72,966 14 $52,234 $84,365 $1,720,795 14 $84,365 $52,234 $1.741,145 $69,646 15 $49,668 $66.931 $1,633,863 15 $86,931 $49,668 $1,655,610 $66,224 16 $47,024 $89,576 $1,544,286 16 $89.576 $47,024 $1,567,473 $62,699 17 $44,300 $92,300 $1,451,988 17 $92,300 $44,300 $1.476,655 $59,066 18 $41,492 $95,107 $1,356,880 10 $95,107 $41,492 S1,383,076 $55,323 19 $38,599 $98,000 $1,258,880 19 $98,000 $38,599 $1,266.650 $51,466 20 $35,619 $100,981 $1,157,899 20 $100,981 $35,619 $1,187.291 $47,492 Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program Currently U.S. Bank Oregon is using the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Program. However, from time to time, changing market conditions may impact the ability to use these credits. We wish to confirm our experience with and willingness to participate in the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program offered by Oregon Housing & Community Services at the current time. If Oregon Lender Tax Credits are allocated to the Snowberry Brook Housing Project. U.S. Bank arllicpales receiving tax credits allowing U.S. Bank to offer an interest ratr, four hundred basis points below what otherwise would be our quoted interest rate. l ~ 01 3 Loren M. Clark Dated Assistant Vice President Community Lending U.S Bank OMN Key Community Development Cerpunllion ,Mailcodc: OR-20-21-I485 December 12, 2008 1211 SW Fifth Avcnue. Sldlo 400 Porlland.Orcgon 97204 Snowberry Brook LLC TO: (501) 790-7566 c/o Housing Authority of Jackson County Fat: (503) 790.1569 Mr. Jason Elzy Project Developer 2251 Table Rock Road Medford, Oregon 97501 Re: Snowberry Brook-Ashland, Oregon Dear Jason: Key Community DevelopmentfCorporation ("Key CDC") has recently reviewed your plans to newly construct low income housing in the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon ('the Project'). The proposed Snowberry Brook project is a new construction, sixty unit affordable housing complex located on 4 acres. The target population will be family households earning between 30% and 50% of area median income. The total cost of the Project, including soft costs, will be about $11,409,340. The purpose of this letter is to express an interest in providing equity financing based upon the receipt of Low Income Housing Tax Credits ("LIHTC"). The terns set forth below are intended for the purpose of outlining those terms pursuant to which a definitive agreement may be entered and do not at this Point in time constitute a binding contract. This is an evaluation of how the transaction may be structured alven the assumptions In the limited information Provided. An Investment by Key CDC is contingent upon, among other things, completion of due diligence the negotiation and execution of definitive agreements, and approval of Its Investment Committee Company Name: Snowberry Brook LLC Managing Member ("MM"): Housing Authority of Jackson County Developer: Housing Authority of Jackson County Guarantors: Housing Authority of Jackson County Investment/Tax Credits: LIHTC Allocation: $825,000 annually Key CDC's Interest: 99.99% GP Interest: 00.01% KeyCDC's Investment: $6,599.340 Price per Credit' $.60 per LIHTC ' Includes Kny CDC's expenses and fees Housing Aulhodly of Jackson County 2 December 11, 2008 Pay-In Schedule: Percent: Amount: Benchmarks: 15% $989.901 First Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay Key CDC's legal fees and Development Advisory Fee and closing costs and may pay a portion of the Developer Fee: a) To be determined, b) Admission to the Company. c) Receipt of all building permits and approvals, d) Construction Loan closing and e) Receipt of permanent financing commitment(s). 50% $3,299,670 Second installment to be paid the later of the following to pay down the Construction Loan: a) October 1, 2010, b) Receipt of all certificates of occupancy, c) Architect's completion certification, and d) Accountant's final cost certification of eligible basis. 30% $1,979.802 Third Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay down the Construction Loan and may pay a portion of the Developer Fee: a) July 1. 2011, b) 100% qualified occupancy, b) Occurrence of Breakeven Operations. and c) Permanent Loan closing. 5% $329,967 Fourth Installment to be paid the later of the following to pay a portion of the Developer Fee: a) January 1, 2012 b) Receipt of IRS Forms 8609, along with Schedule A, c) Receipt of first year tenant files and any unit transfers, d) 1.15 Debt Service Coverage, e) Receipt of tax return for year breakeven operations occurred, and f) Receipt of copy of recorded Restrictive Covenant. Allocations and Distributions: Tax credits, depreciation, and all operating profits and losses shall be distributed 99.99% to Key CDC and 0.01% to the Managing Member. Tax Credit Adjusters: 1. Key CDC will decrease its equity contribution by $.80 for each dollar of reduction of tax credits that the project generates. 2. Key CDC will decrease its equity contribution if tax credits are delivered later than the agreed. upon projections by an amount equal to the difference between the total amount of such deferred Tax Credits and the present value of the deferred Tax Credits which will not be claimable by Key CDC until a later year or years (such as the eleventh or later year of the Compliance Period). 3. The Company shall be required to pay Key CDC the amount of any recapture or reduction of tax credits throughout the life of the Company. Housing Authority of Jackson County 3 December 11, 2008 Cash Flow: After appropriate priorities, cash flow from operations, if any, shall be distributed, until the end of the Compliance Period. $10.000 to the Managing Member as an Incentive Management Fee, then 99.99% to Key CDC and 0.01% to the Managing Member. SolesiRefinancing: After required priority distributions, proceeds shall be distributed 99.99% to Key CDC and .01% to the Managing Member. Right of First Refusal: At the conclusion of the Compliance Period. subject to the Managing Member remaining as Managing Member, Housing Authority of Jackson County or another qualified nonprofit organization shall have the right to purchase the Project for a price equal to all outstanding debt plus any tax liability of Key CDC resulting from the sale. Repurchase Obligation: If the Company or Managing Member fails to satisfy certain material conditions agreed upon by the parties, the Managing Member and Guarantors shall be required, at Key CDC's election, to repurchase Key CDC's interest in the Company at a price equal to Key CDC's then current equity in the Project plus interest. Reserves: Operating: $169,000 From proceeds of the Fourth Installment Replacement Reserve: Annually: $3001unit Initially, then escalating at 3% annually Guarantee Obligations: Completion: Managing Member. Developer and Guarantors unlimited through Breakeven Operations until date certain (to be determined). Permanent Loan Managing Member, Developer, and Guarantors shall be obligated to Shortfall: provide funds to the Company in the event that the actual proceeds of the stated financing is less than the anticipated amount under the same terms and conditions. Operating: Managing Member and Guarantors the greater of 6 months operating expenses plus debt service or the amount of the Development Fee until the later of 5 years or achievement of 24 consecutive months of 1.20 debt service coverage. Tax Credit Adjuster: Managing Member. Developer and Guarantors shall be obligated to provide such funds as are necessary to fully pay when due any Tax Credit Adjuster payment due Key CDC. Construction Loan: Anticipated to be $2,700.000 with an interest rate of 2.4% from a lender acceptable to Key CDC. Housing Authority of Jackson County 4 December 11, 2008 Sources of Permanent Funds (Must be Non-Recourse Debt): Permanent Loan: $2.700,000 2.4%, 30 year term, 30 year amortization. HOME: $600,000 5.15%, 30 year term, 30 year amortization, cash flow contingent; principal deferred. Weatherization and Trust: $200.000 0%. 30 year term, 30 year amortization, cash flow contingent; principal deferred. CDBG Grant: $345,000 Housing Authority of Jackson: $600,000 Loan or capital contribution Development Fee Note: $335,000 0%, 12 year term & amortization. Managing Member Equity: $100 Key CDC Equity: $6,599,340 Development Fee: The Developer shall earn a Development Fee projected to be approximately $900,000 plus unidentified project cost savings, if any. It is anticipated that $565,000 shall be paid from proceeds of the Installments. It is estimated that approximately $335,000 of the total amount due on the Development Fee shall be in the form of a Development Note which will be paid from available cash flow within 12 years of the placed in service date. The Managing Member shall agree to contribute to the Company an amount sufficient to pay any outstanding amount due under the Development Note at the end of such 12-year period. Limited Partner Fees (borne by the Company): Legal Fees: To prepare Company documents, including lax opinion, payable at closing. Development Advisory Fee: $10,000 for advisory services in connection with the development and construction of the Project payable at closing. Asset Management Fee: Initially $3,000, escalated 3% annually, payable annually. Accounts: Maintenance of primary deposit accounts at KeyBank National Association. The accounts shall be opened by the undersigned's Relationship Assistant. Housing Authority of Jackson County 5. December 11, 2008 Environmental Report and Appraisal: The environmental reports shall be updated unless dated within 180 days of Company closing, shall comply with requirements as set forth in the attached Exhibit, and shall be addressed to Key CDC or accompanied by a "reliance" letter. The appraisal shall be reviewed and accepted by Key CDC, shall be performed by an independent third party engaged by the construction and/or permanent lender. and shall comply with file requirements as set forth in Title XI of FIRREA and Key CDC's appraisal policies. The appraisal shall be updated unless dated within 160 days of Company closing, unless otherwise accepted by Key CDC. This letter is not a contract, nor a firm commitment, and neither party intends for the preliminary understandings contained herein to represent an agreement as to this transaction. The purpose of this letter is to outline the basic terms under which Key CDC is willing to consider investing equity financing. Further review of [his proposal is subject to, but not limited to, receipt of the market study, environmental study, properly appraisal, finalized plans and specifications, zoning and other municipal approvals, operating pro formas, a detailed source and use of funds, and approval by Key CDC's Investment Committee. The terms as outlined herein are subject to change upon further due diligence review. This letter is being provided to be Included in the Company's tax credit application to be submitted to Oregon Housing and Community Services for the upcoming round of awards. It is anticipated that the awards will be announced by April 2009. Should the Company not be awarded the lax credits, or if the Company is awarded a lesser amount of tax credits, or If this letter is not submitted with the Companys tax credit application, this letter will immediately become null and void without further notice. Should the tax credits be awarded, this transaction must close within 90 days of receiving the tax credit award or this letter will become null and void without further notice. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS LETTER. Thank you for submitting your equity proposal to Key CDC and good luck in securing a tax credit allocation in the upcoming round. Please contact me at 503.790-7566 with any questions or concerns regarding this letter. Sincerely, •ti4.vt ZiCr.,e-~.C~~ Jan McKee Vice President 4 Acknowledged this ZZN day of N~> 2009: N A ra. C Managing Member 8y: Title: •teFn, o•y Oeveld- LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM COMMUNITY: EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS 0"10/zut)7 1L:4y D414b GL474 L1UHIbUX NEMUNK FAGE U2102 ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS JULI DI c111rRO BOARD OF DIRECTORS Superintmdrnt RUMALF..MANDER JML TURNER MAT MARK BUM" Mnnngor rf£ITH MASM MIMI PARKER SAMUF-L ROGDANOVE AMY PATTON Director of Student Scwica lxapiring J wining far LVe MICHELLE ZUNDEL OlmdorofEducatlon February 9, 2009 Scott Poster, Executive Director Housing Authority of Jackson county 2251 TabltkRock Rd. Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mr, Foster, The Ashland School Board is pleased to learn of the Housing Authority's proposed affordable housing project called Snowberry Brook Nearly 3,000 students combined attend Ashland .High School, Ashland Middle School, the John. Muir IC-S, Willow Wind Community Learning Center, and our three elementary schools, Bellview, Helman, and Walker. The District employs approximately 300 full-time and part-time teachers, support staff, and administrators who provide high quality instructional programs. We arc proud that Ashland Schools continue to excccd state and national averages on local, state, and national assessments. The School District is acutely aware of the shortage of housing for working families who wish to reside in the Ashland community. We have been experiencing declining enrollment for almost a decade in our public schools, and our most recent demogrraphic report ,cites the lack of affordable housing in Ashland as a major eonbnibutor to that problem. The location of the Snowberry Brook proposed housing, with its close proximity to Ashland Public Schools, is ideal for the development of sixty affordable housing units. This project would be welcomed as a valuable addition to our community in that it would potentially provide housing fox staff who cannot at present afford to live in our town, and it would create affordable housing for young families with children who are likely to attend Ashland public schools. Ashland School District 5 supports the Housing Authority in its endeavors to bring this project to fruition. and encourages Oregon Housing & Community Services to provide the essential funding to make it a reality. Sincerely, Mat Marx, Chair Heidi Parker, Vice Chair Ruth Alexander Affiy Panoii Keith Massie ADMINISTRATION BUDDING 885 S1SKr.YOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 541482.2811 FAX 541-482-2185 CAMM Ashland Community Hospital October 31, 2008 Scott Foster Executive Director Housing Authority of Jackson County 2251 Table Rock Rd. Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mr. Foster With lack of affordable housing in Ashland, Ashland Community Hospital is pleased to offer support to the Housing Authority of Jackson County's proposed Snowberry Brook housing project intended to serve the Ashland's workforce family population. Our mission is to provide compassionate, high quality care that improves the overall health of our patients, their families and the community by working in partnership with our physicians and other regional healthcare providers. Our vision is to be an independent, collaborative community hospital distinguished throughout the region for the highly skilled, patient-centered services we provide and the relationships we cultivate with patients, families and providers. For ACH to fulfill this mission we need a strong highly skilled workforce that can afford to live in the community where they work. There is a definite lack of this affordable workforce housing in Ashland. The Housing Authority of Jackson County has a strong tract record of developing and preserving decent, safe and affordable housing to families and individuals while coordinating efforts toward self-sufficiency. The HA has the experience, understanding, and dedication that could make the proposed project a reality in the near future and that would benefit our employees, the quality of heath care in which we provide and will result in a stronger community. Please consider carefully the Housing Authority's efforts and create this workforce housing that the Ashland Community desperately needs. If I may be of further assistance please contact my office. Mark Marchetti, CEO nc~ ` rv 280 Maps=: Svc Iasi,sand, Oregon 9ii7.G 5 i 4~if r S ra ~ b`a h r~q tom', i 1$', w,:vi isili <~±ospilal org }r r' Tel: :41.201.4000 Fax: 541 48B 7411 * r ~ 0 Oregon Shakespeare Festival P.O.B., 15 South Pioneer Street Ashland, OR 97526 October 31, 2008 541482 2m Belly McRoberts 541482 0446 fox 541482 4331 box office Development Director Housing Authority of Jackson County www.osfashland.org 2251 'T'able Rock Rd. Medford, OR 97501 Dear Ms. McRoberts, Inspired by Shakespeare's work and the cultural richness of the United States, the mission of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is to reveal our collective humanity through illuminating interpretations of new and classic plays, deepened by the kaleidoscope of rotating repertory. Founded in 1935, the Tony Award-winning Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) is among the oldest and largest professional non-profit theatres in the nation. We are a critical element in the health of the Ashland community, presenting more than 780 performances annually with attendance of approximately 400,000. Our mission could not be met if it were not for the employees of our organization. We employee 325 full time and 125 part time staff with a volunteer base of about 500 people. OSF is deeply aware of the shortage of affordable housing available to the workforce population within the region. Although we work very hard to provide living wage jobs, the development of 60 affordable rental units dedicated to households with an income at or below 60% of the area's median income would definitely help fill the gap of highly needed housing, creating opportunities for many of our company members. OSF offers its support to the Housing Authority of Jackson County for their Snowberry Brook housing community that will serve Ashland's workforce population. It is this type of housing that will create a stronger community in Ashland; in turn this will help our company members, our business, and the economic viability of the region. If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at 482-2111 ext. 222. Yours sincerely, Oregon Shakespeare Festival JJA, (i liL..~ Paul Nicholson Executive Director i 1- ,rm]:0.4 R Tti ~"a i[q~'v SOUTHERN OREGON December 23, 2008 UNIVERSITY City of Ashland c/o Mr. Brandon Goldman Senior Planner Community Development/Planning Division 20 E. Main Street Ashland OR 97520 RE: Affordable Housing in Ashland Dear Mr. Goldman: Southern Oregon University is very aware of the shortage of affordable housing available to the workforce population within this region. More and more, we find that our top finalists for faculty and administrative positions who would be moving to the area must consider properties outside of Ashland because of the high cost of housing. The Ashland community as a whole would benefit by the construction of more affordable housing. As one of the largest employers in the valley, Nye see that the need for affordable housing is essential for our employees. It will improve the quality of life and give the local economy a needed boost in these tough times. Sincerely, Mary Cullinan President cc: Steve Kraft, Jackson County Housing Office of the President 1250 Siskivou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520-5045 Tel 541-552-6111 Fax 541-552-6337 Betty McRoberts Development Director Housing Authority of Jackson County 2251 Table Rock Road Medford, OR 97501 Dear Ms. McRoberts, This letter is in support of the Housing Authority of Jackson County efforts in providing affordable housing in and around the City of Ashland. As General Manager of the Ashland Springs Hotel; I manage 85 employees that make a living wage but still struggle to afford living in Ashland. Some of my employees travel as far away as White City and with the rising cost of transportation and the lack of affordable housing the hotel may lose a few of them. With lack of affordable housing in Ashland it is with great support to a feasible proposal; like one from the Housing Authority, should be considered with seriously, because it would truly be a missed opportunity to pass this up especially during these hard times. From my understanding the HAJC has the experience, understanding, and dedication to the issue of providing affordable housing. It is this experience, understanding, and dedication that could make the proposed workforce housing a reality in the near future and that would benefit my employees, my business, and our community. The Housing Authority is a long standing community partner in the provision of affordable housing and the City of Ashland will benefit greatly by supporting their effort in-our city. Sincerely, Don Anway General Manager xiv Far; M"i, Sil,, Aohicad O' .;y_., I'll on.. 17ro Fn esimi1": s.1 1 yNS'-701 it 11 :r.a ~hlr.nd<1, ring.h of e Lcnm l/ . Community HEALTH CENTER November 2, 2008 Scott Foster Executive Director Housing Authority of Jackson County 2251 "fable Rock Road Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mr. Foster, Community Health Center is pleased to write in support of the Housing Authority of Jackson County's efforts to develop sixty [nits of Workforce Housing in the City of Ashland. We commend the Housing Authority and the City of Ashland on the partnership they have forged through which the property to build the housing complex will be purchased. Completion of this project will enable the City of Ashland to take a major step forward in implementing its strategic objective to provide housing to all income ranges, especially working families earning less than 60% of the Area Median Income. Community Health Center has provider primary and preventive health care services in Ashland since 1972. Over the course of our 36 year history, we have served in excess of 50,000 low income residence of Ashland who are in daily need of affordable housing. As we have watched the fabric of the community change and access to affordable housing diminish, we have become increasingly concerned with the negative health effects experienced by the low income families who call ouir Ashland clinic site their mcdicnl Join. At times, when our clients must decide to pay their rent or purchase needed medications or nutritious food, the lack of affordable housing options can be life threatening. Some Will say, let them move to a less expensive community, to which I reply, if they move, where Will we find the workers to run our businesses. The issues associated with the lack of an adequate supply of affordable housing is Well documented and most complex. Answers to the myriad complexities can only be found when new snit of affordable housing arc made available in all communities. The Housing Authoray of Jackson Comm, is a well known community provider of affordable housing with whom we encourage the City of Ashland to partner in bringing this project to fruition. In thanking the Housing Authority for their vision and the City of Ashland for their courage and support in moving this project forward, I remain, Very truly yours. I Y{? U Lv~L Pccivc R 0/f/ Ixc Direct t~ 99 Central Avenue 19 Myrtle Street 8365 D ,,Sion Road Ashland, OR 97520 Medford, OR 97504 Write City. OR 97503 Appointments. 482-9741 ■ Appointments: 773-3863 B Appointments 826-5853 Fax: 488-6141 Fax 776-2892 Fax 820-5843 www comrnunityhealthcenternry A UnifrA41 nyaQean/ Pathway Enterprises, Inc. November 3, 2008 Scott Foster, ED Housing Authority of Jackson County Medford, Oregon 97501 Dear Mr. Foster, This letter is in support of the HAJC's efforts in providing affordable housing in the City of Ashland. Pathway Enterprises, Inc., a not-for-profit that supports adults with developmental disabilities, realizes the struggles of its employees and clientele who strive to live in the Ashland community. We welcome the Housing Authority's efforts to provide 60 units of Workforce Housing in the City of Ashland. This project becomes more crucial as the commute to Ashland from other communities becomes less viable due to increased transportation costs. The City of Ashland will benefit greatly by this project. rF , m on, CEO a, d sident Pathway Enterprises, Inc, 655 Washington Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Community Integration • Supported Employment • Supported Living • Community Living Qualified Rehabilitation Facility Administrative Office 722 Jefferson Avenue Ashland, Oregon 97520 541.488.1536 541.488.5948 (fax) COST ESTIMATES FROM ADROIT CONSTRUCTION FOR THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SNOWBERRY BROOK i Adroit Development Co„ Inc. Snowberry Brook Construction Cost Summary General Conditions $ 446,875 On-Site Work $ 1,078,332 Landscaping $ 350,000 Concrete $ 503,450 Masonry $ 25,000 Structual Steel $ 122,000 Carpentry $ 1,383,506 Thermal & Moisture Protection $ 250,810 Doors & Windows $ 316,456 Finishes $ 692,000 Specialties $ 42,004 Equipment $ 12,000 Furnishings $ 13,000 Mechanical $ 400,000 Electrical $ 350,000 Subtotal OnSite Work $ 5,985,433 Bond $ 47,738 Overhead $ 209,940 Profit $ 209,940 Liablity Insurance $ 174,950 Contigency $ 370,000 Total On-Site Contract $ 6,998,001 Off-Site Contract 1 - Clay Street Improvements $ 245,457 Off-Site Contract 2 - New Perimeter Streets $ 417,796 Total Construction Costs $ 7,661,253 * Includes Off-site General Conditions, Liaiblily Insurance, and Contractor Overhead & Fee. i i Adroit Development Co., Inc. Y-0.Box93G • Ashiand,Oregon97520 • '341-482-0936, UI-482-42iS OREGON NO. 160566 SNOWBERRY BROOK - CLAY ST. (ASHLAND) 1128/2009 Rough Sitemark Budget y$ygpyp SF ~yQThickness QTY Unit. (gUnit Price ~.y Total ~ >y`~ r.«i.CaA<.G~~.')A1Y~ ~`1:T~~~N.M1.iY~Sl,Si iav~~l ?~..T l'k'WJiB , fi.'~j~/F~i?W~YLY'a~Y' 1 Mobilization / fuel escalations / supervision / misc. 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 2 Traffic Control / Flagging 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 3 Clearing / Demo 1 LS $ 51000.00 $ 51000.00 4 Earthwork 750 CY $ 20.00 $ 15 000.00 5 Overexcavation Beneath Parking Roadway of Unsuitable areas r; 1 Qp, s ~ 'off `a" 6 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavation $1 M 7 Non-Woven Geotextile Fabric 1,111 SY $ 1.25 $ 1,388.75 8 Aggregate Subbase (Parking Lots/AC Areas) 10,000 12" 700 TN $ 15.00 $ 10,500.00 9 Aggregate Base (Parking Lot/AC Areas) 10,000 6" 750 TN $ 24.00 $ 18,000.00 10 Asphalt Concrete 10,000 4" 225 TN $ 85.00 $ 19,125.00 11 Concrete Sidewalks (Intl excavation/prep/rock/pour) 6,000 4" 6,000 SF $ 5.00 $ 30,000.00 12 Handicap Ramps 2 FA $ 450.00 $ 900.00 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter - 1,000 LF $ 15.00 $ 15,000.00 14 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 15 Surveying i LS $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 16 Pavement Markings / Handicap Signs / Parking Bumpers 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 17 Fire Hydrant Installation (tap & tieln to existing line) 1 EA $ 5,000.000 $ 5,000.00 18 Water Service Installations 2 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 19 Sewer Lateral (connect to existing) on Clay Street 2 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 20 Street Lights 3 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 15,000.00 SUBTOTAL »»»»»»»»>>r»»» $ 188,281.25 Contingency 10% $ 18,828.13 GCs 8% $ 16,568.75 Bond I% $ 2,236.78 Insurance 2.5% $ 5,647.87 Management Overhead & Fee 6% $ 13,893.77 TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE $ 245,456.55 This is an allowance quantity for estimating purposes only. It is assumed that this work will not take place concurrently with construction of the residential units and will be a separate project with prevailing wage rates. Items not accounted for above: permits or fees; landscaping, irrigation or topsoil; temporary or permanent fencing; temporary or permanent hydroseeding; sand or vapor bangers; retaining walls, cmu walls; ~/I rcr~ O r S 7~ ee. y SNOWBERRY BROOK 1128/2009 Roug7r 51tework Budget SF Thickness QTY Unit Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization /fuel escalations /supervision / mist 1 LS $ 30 000.00 $ 30,000 00 2 Traffic Control & Flagging 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 3 Clearing / Demo 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 4 Earthwork 2,750 CY 5 Overexcavation Beneath Parking Lots of Unsuitable areas 15 00 $ } 41,25b~00 6 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavation F 7 Non-Woven Geoteodile Fabric 4,000 SY $ 1.25 $ 5,000.00 8 Aggregate Subbase (Parking Lots/AC Areas) 36,000 8" 1,700 TN $ 15.00 $ 25,500.00 9 Aggregate Base (Parking Lot/AC Areas) 36,000 4" 900 TN $ 24.00 $ 21,600.00 30 Asphalt Concrete 36,000 3" 700 TN $ 85.00 $ 59,500.00 11 Concrete Driveway Aprons/Valley Gutters (Ind prep/rock/pour) 2,100 6" 2,100 SF $ 7.00 $ 14,700.00 12 Concrete Sidewalks (Intl excavation/prep/rock/pour) - 4" - SF $ 5.00 $ 13 Concrete Curb & Gutter - 2,250 LF $ 15.00 $ 33,750.00 14 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 15 Surveying 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 16 Pavement Markings / Handicap Signs / Parking Bumpers 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 17 8" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 100 LF $ 25.00 $ 2,500.00 18 12" HDPE Storm Drain Pipe 480 LF $ 33.00 $ 15,840.00 19 Storm Drain Manhole 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 20 Storm Drain Catch Basins 2 EA $ 550.00 $ 1,100.00 21 Storm Drain Curb Inlets 3 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 22 Storm Drain Cleanouts 3 EA $ 125.00 $ 375.00 23 8" Ductile Iron Waterline & Fireline 1,200 LF $ 30.00 $ 36,000.00 24 Fire Hydrant Installation 2 EA $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 25 Waterline Hot Taps to Existing 2 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 21000.00 26 Street Lights 4 EA $ 5,000.000 $ 20,000.00 SUBTOTAL $ 346,115.00 Conmgency>>>r»»» SOo/n $ 34,611.50 Bond 1% $ 3,807.27 Insurance 2.5% $ 9,613.34 Overhead & Fee 6% $ 23,648.83 TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE $ 417,795.94 ar,- 9vi ,;~;Tbis is an allowance quantity for estimating purposes only. It is assumed that this work will take place concurrently with construction of the residential units, but will be a separate project with prevailing wage rates. If the projects occur concurrently, GCs will be a minimum. Items not accounted for above: permits or fees; landscaping, irrigation or topsoll; temporary or permanent fencing; temporary or permanent hydroseeding; sand or vapor barriers; retaining walls, cmu walls; %u r<LJ L&),jk- Ar C lAy , /~s~ l~,uv, SNOWBERRY BROOK 2/24/2009 Rough Site W&k Budget SF Thickness QTY Unit Unit Price Total S RO '8 1 Mobilization / fuel escalations / supervision / misc. 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 2 Traffic Control (temp construction signs, etc) 1 LS $ • 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 3 Flagging (earthwork - 2, rock - 1, pour curbs -1, pour sidewalks -1, paving-1, stripe 1/2) 125 HR $ 35.00 $ 4,375.00 4 Gearing / Demo 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 5 Earthwork (including wall excavation) 1,650 CY $ 22.00 $ 36,300.00 6 Overexcavabon Beneath Parking Lots of Unsuitable areas - CY $ < 15 00- 7 Aggregate Subbase Replacement of Overexcavaton 8 Non-Woven GeotexUle Fabric 525 SY $ 1.25 $ 656.25 9 Aggregate Subbase (Parking Lots/AC Areas) - TN $ 18.00 $ - 10 Aggregate Base (Parking Lot/AC Areas) 4,700 10" 300 TN $ 30.00 $ 9,000.00 11 Asphalt Concrete 4,700 4" 125 TN $ 110.00 $ 13,750.00 12 Concrete Driveway Aprons/Valley Gutters (Ind prep/rock/pour) - 0 - SF $ 7.00 $ - 13 Concrete Sidewalks (Ind excavation/prep/rock/pour) - 4" - 5F $ 5.00 $ - 14 Concrete Curb & Gutter - - LF $ 15.00 $ - 15 Erosion Control 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000-00 16 Surveying 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 17 Pavement Markings / Handicap Signs / Parking Bumpers 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 18 W HOPE Storm Drain Pipe - LF $ 25.00 $ - 19 12" HOPE Storm Drain Pipe - LF $ 33.00 $ - 20 Storm Drain Manhole EA $ 2,500.00 $ - 21 Storm Drain Catch Basins - EA $ 550.00 $ - 22 Storm Drain Curb Inlets - EA $ 1,000.00 $ - 23 Storm Drain Cleanouts - FA $ 125.00 $ - 24 8" Ductile Iron Waterline & Fireline - LF $ 30.00 $ - 25 Fire Hydrant Installation - EA $ 3,500.00 $ - 26 Waterline Hot Taps to Existing - EA $ 1,000.00 $ - SUBTOTAL $ 77,081.25 Contingency 10% $ 7,708.13 GCs $ 6,783.15 Bond $ 915.73 Insurance $ 2,312.21 Overhead & Fee $ 5,668.03 TOTAL BUDGET FIGURE $ 100,488.48 =This is an allowance quantity for estimatng purposes only. Items not accounted for above: permits or fees; landscaping, Irrigation or topsoil; electrical lights or bases; temporary or permanent fencing; temporary or permanent hydroseeding; sand or vapor barriers; retaining walls, cmu walls, site concrete Wetland Work FiIVRemoval Permit: $7,500 + 1,200 in permit fees = $8,700 Enhancement and Compensatory Mitigation Planting, dispersion trenc es, etc: $40,000 Clay Street Bio-Swales (includes planting, soils, and sprinkler system $ 000 On-Site bioswlaes (includes planting, soils, and springkler system $20,000 Wetland As-built and 4 years of post development montoring nad reporting $10,000 Soils Report: Backhoe $750 Laboratory $1,410 Field Work, Surveying and Report $3,800 Total: 5,960 Environmental Assessment: Non ASTM: $1,800 ASTM Format $2,500 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY OF JACKSON COUNTY rlrki r 2251 TABLE ROCK ROAD MEDFORD OR 97501 PHITDD (641) 779.5785 FAX (541) 857-1118 / FAX 779-4656 Name and Contact Info Title and Business Info Date Expiration Appointed Buntin, Terry 572 Parsons Dr., Ste. 100 President, Buntin Construction 07-29-99 2009 Medford, OR 97504 HAJC Commissioner Office: 776-0032 terrvna buntinconstruction com Jarvis, Darrel R. 823 Alder Creek Drive Attorney at Law 02-23-00 2010 Medford, OR 97504 HAJC Commissioner Bus: 541 772 1977 . d iarvis(o) med fordlaw. net Agreste, Norice Resident Board Member 2249 Table Rock Road #16 HAJC Commissioner 05-23-07 2013 Medford, OR 97501 Middendorff, Joan 1252 Valley View Rd Medford, OR 97504 Retired from Real Estate 07-03-02 2012 Home: 779-5699 HAJC Commissioner Cell: 890-7734 (use home number) I c d o r f f(d,) m i n d s p ri n g. co m Statler, John 1120 Niantic Street Medford City Council Member Medford, OR 97501 HAJC Chairman 05-11-05 2010 Home: 541 770 5524 John Ca,SVstemSolver. com Williams, Ken 241 S. Obenchain Road Eagle Point, 97524 HAJC Commissioner Home: 826-2649 06-18-03 2013 Cell: 261-2418 k-qwep@embargmaii.com Hartzell, Cate J. 881 East Main Street Dept. Human Services Ashland, OR 97520 Specialist 2012 Home: 541 482-4111 HAJC Vice-Chairperson 09-03-2008 Bus: 541 482 2041 Ext 234 HAJC Vice-Chairwoman (Bus. # Emergency only) cate mind. net F:\FAB4\Board of Commissioners-all board related files\BOARD CONTACT INFORMATION UPDATED JAN 2008\BOARD CONTACT INFO- Updated Dec 2008 with Kens changes.doc SOURCES OF FUNDING Project Name: Snowberry Brook I I Date: 01/30/09 i 1 If vrii>ted'use project see corr~i)TenE:rto S DENIAL n c pa HOME I or Firm Match Commitment in Fundg Source I (check), Committed I Conditional i Tentative Date _ OHCS GRANTS& EQUITY - - I I I _ II LIHTC Equity _ I J f 6.599340-, May-09 _ r i Trust Fund f .,_1000001- Me .09 HELP I. I Housmg Plus Development Amount I - LI Vtleathenzauo _ _ n Program J I 100000 May-09 Total OHC_ S Grants B Equity 0 1 O I 6,_799 340; OHCS LOANS - I - - I- - Tax Exempt Bonds j _ - HOME I-- Trull Fund ORR -1 - 1 Total OHC§ Loans O l O - - a _ Ashland CDBG Loan 1 i 345,000 January 09 Ashland CDBG Funds 2009 6;T, 000! Total NON OHCS Grants) 345,000 0 1 164,000 _ NON OHCS LOANS _ . - I Permanent Loan September 09 I , Total NON OHCS Loans 0 0 i 2,700 ,000 i I APPLICANT CONTRIBUTIONS I Cash Sponsor LOan 1036,000_ _ _Janua 09 Deferred Development Fee i- - 300000 May-09 Total Applicant Contnbubon_ _ --1.-0-36,000 j - 0 a 300 000 _ OTHER. i _ - Aug 09 _ _ i_.. I 45,900: BETC Cash OOw Dunng Rehab i I . Total Other Funds 0 0 45900- -._.._._-__f._._.__L...... _..l SUBTOTALS I $1381,000 $0 $10,009240 TOTAL FUND SOURCES ~ ~ .Sit 390 240 Surplus or Gapj _ .(Note: Total Fund Sources must match Total Project Cost' from Uses of Funding Other HCS non-equity sources: _ Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit,(OAHTC) $2,700000 (loan amount), Seed, Money Advance Loan (loan amount) Predevelopment Loan (loan amount) _ I L-" Other HOME Match e.., tax exemption) Source: amount Spring 2009 Funding Pro Forma 1 Ver.1 - 12117108 I 1 1 1. l i l, I I_, 1 Kim la , v ' III I E I ~ m ml ml ~ ~ ' y III ~ i1 I I ~ r, I ' ' ; I 1. 1 1 1 1 I I t! I I`';<I ` ' I I m w, pi imt m O' im cf 0;667 PojOb! 10 '00m~ 1yY :N 1- DI , m ^ ,8 n i c S m g o 10 o vl ,w l Im c IZI _ L~ I m m 3 of 01 Iml 1n m 21 w p 8 ,^I ~1 I I I-l lp n 1~ n113 nl 1 Iw I Ip Iml N W W N N N Inl I 1 _Cy m v 2 wl I~ yl 3~piN p-2 AI ry n y 1 lCf I , ' n ~ O i 1 I m m mlm 1 1 f'- - D 'n O'. NnO 9 11W AO O mmmmmmm ymmn mm 3 ~ ICI •.i) I I S;3 I ~ I LL i ¢'G6Q 6Ii]G ~$i 1 I -I r I ;Z 3 ID I~ wias ~Iwl i I<) m,-p nn C mIrvL_.rl 1 jTTJJplili N r I ~~~i v I ¢w~ I D^1 .~I' L.I'B . h! 1 .O n ~R;o - 1a 1 31 H ! c I E 1 ! f 1w i pl I Idyl tI O~ (D cm ~ry I >I I-) y .2' Q o~ 0' 0 9 N wI N! I mS j3 2 I~ OI Iy10 RI ( N NNN ro O f~ I~ i~fl j 5 n N 3, 'c I o w L..Ip~ I 1 -m e,N i...l -m o £ nl h I I I Iml ml ~ I I I 1 1 1, 1 1 21 j i y 10 a'g. 3 p~ I. I , I I I I~I I _inn he p :1 e , f w ( fmLIdl I I , '(D`~ i i o mm amm~i Im v ' ¢ IQ 1 i I Ian w N N d b w mW ! ry I3~ N t~ 1 12 ~ r -'I m n 1 I. yi W I oI2' J 1 - I $e i is S ¢ , iC r : 5.2i A I i l I ~ry 1 J~ m A a m a 1 w i O 1 orI i I~ I' I I' I i 1 I i l ( I I I i Iw ~ I~ g DI I I I I 1 I I i 1 1~ i I o~ a( , 1 g. PIS$.._I 1 1 I I I I l '..I I' 1 ( 1 1 1 °~~oo°~ I:Q o~p' I i I i I I..1 i._ I E .I I_i 1 I - i. i. , i I . __I _ ~ O einl I I I l l l l- I l i I 1 o Ce l i rn I t 1 I .1 I 1 f or v.W.m W Pay £Qnw. r -1 f"o ! I - ( 1 I I I L]1 __I_ , I 1 I~, 1 ~ In nll,l u~nlulu'nl nl n llu u1_oL_.1 I I➢ I I= w ~i ~ I I I I I ( ' r I I I~~ ~ I l I 1 i I~, i 1 I~ ~ o zl m I D 1 1 I j I I r I l ! i 1 1 mloiUalN O wl I> ml 1 i~ plw..... , ...1. E I. I i I ;_i_} ,o~o~o 61616 olm aol oIm 1 ~c :ulQ_ 1'81 I 1 ( I I I 1 -j I E I - xlxlx~x ~x lx ~xl..{x lx lx,x Ix .I hI °¢L , IINI 1 I I N x Idl of i l l ' 1, I I, 1.. I I r E I I .N.w _cc ~ '°1 , I idl t I I 1 1 1 11 1, I I I 1 1 I+ + v Igl 1- I I I I t I.. ~ Ct i 11 1 m m m N N I 1a; ul_~. 1 1 1 I~ I I I ! r i r I I I I 1 1 l i l I I Iuln,n~nl, In n'n'nnl( ulnl f I fool I~~ I' f 1 I ~ h I I I ~ I I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I ° Ibl NI Ib. Ibl Im~ N A m, I~ ' i INNmiT N0 1 I O m o 1 iz; n 1-, I (A IO„_ 10 O O O -p i01 IO OIOfO OIO O NIN'O N p~10 at; ~b Iw O! (M IN 11' UI r I 0 qW V V Iwn, IN ! J. W OI +1 N O'O m10 O10 O'O10 IOIOiO O I I IN 1 -P N O pO~ IPI N V' ~O m f m..l'-..1 I 'N !0!010101 f0 O. I+PO PUAI V' v . I I ( I O I W, I AI I ( i I~ I t _ 1 I ~ I.m1a N1 I~I.. 1_ I I..i im 41 N m: W 1 I I I I I at I -..f E I Im N ( I. ' I I 11 V NpwJ1 N Vm~ V W I IPE ml m. IN1 NIOIO.ro!000OOIOI 1 1 OIO10 O f ! iA O 010101010 OIb1 VwlN P m m' I' 1 I I L...I I I I I( ~ 1 t i t I i _ 1 I - 'I'i1,;1 I 1 11, IIIiII ~ i EIII ~ i ill, 1 1 A' I-- 1 1 ! NI E i 1 I'O 'W (,roi NI S 11 (4,. , 1 f I U.; V m, 1 I I Nr I m b iu IN I°'. `NI r 1 i + m O~ A 1 INI INI b O O m,0 O O N010 OOO O I b O O ~OO W I~pN ~Im a W 1 L.... I L...I 1 1 E_..1 L. I 1_ 1_.- 1 ._{.._I i 1 I E~ AI 11a, i t I ' 1 1 1 1 I i 1 I I I I I( I I. I I I I ....I I I , , I 1 1 1 pl I I I INI 0 N _W N I' NI ' N mIO1N(V N N I A 1 1 I 1 I I I i JI I I olo iP ml I I I I I 1~ °I o ~I I m. I 1 1 ~ I,-J i of PIJ" f I I I 1 Im I IU I (O10 ml0 O 6 :OIOi i OOO I OIOI I JImO 4 a W A b~ 1_ - - i I.I _ of 1 I I I 1 Iw V~ I I I , I, i I - I I ' I&' r J m I,1 1 I I, 1 I I& I I I I j ~Irmol> m m.~ Io I; r. ~ A A O; ' b. r i m~ I I~. b,01 WO N 1 I _m Im 01 mi O O ;010 O N-OrOI OIO:O~O IV O O O Or010 OIV W:° W V-N i ;OI 01 V N p~. m I - 4mllm 1W0 O m p1 IN Nr W m~ V NI - I I O m O 10 V G1. J- r 'm 1 ! N~OV'm:P W °~N I m. m OO V;000 '00: 00'00 :J 10000%0100 P'N O E V~ I 1~ yl ' I 1 I i I I t _r ~ I + IPI O m I Iw ~ V. I I 1 Im J. 1 m IN 11 . - N I Fbl J_ o J 1 I Io} I I J ,n m oho a o J : N: 10 O. N' m ~ b~ 0 V w'' bl0 O b;0I0 O m OIO. 1 { + ' VI 1 m I O10 O OI Vyl 10~0'010i0i0 OIN U:J Om V ~;ml I 1 1...~ , _ w I I I I I ml N 1 !b~ °m ~ A! W I N O m-4. w N N~ i0 Vi IP a ^N,' J 1 I' OI { 1 Vm rU''. N V m: 'NI Im A ~W: INOOO N'O OO 40 O~ ~OSOO IVI 0000!O!OOmO aN ~'m'm ~m01 RECE1 V EF FEB 2 7 2009 CITY OF ASHLAND uu~~~~ Giry OT ASnland 2009 Program Year Community Development BlocrAht jCe ❑ COUT Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley Executive Director's Name(s): Denise James Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: PO Box 688, Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: 160 N. Fir St. Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: 501 (c) 3 non-profit Federal TaxID#: 93-0971629 Mission Statement: (may be attached) Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity is a faith based, volunteer, non-profit housing ministry making homeownership possible by drawing together people of all faiths and backgrounds to build affordable homes in partnership with those in need. Total Employees: 4.5 FTE Total Volunteers: 200+ annually 16 v Ii. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Denise James Title: Executive Director Phone Number: (541) 779-1983 Fax Number: (541) 772-2808 E-mail Address: HfhrvOkharterinternet com III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Bud's Dairy Project- Habitat houses # 39-44 Expected Completion Date: December 2011 Requested CDBG Funds: 164,000.00 Organizational Match: $ 6.000 Funds from Other Sources: $ 659,000 Total Project Cost: $ _ 829,000 17 CITY OF ASHLAND 2005 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines see a e 10 for guidelines)'? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit ..required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 25 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the roject site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If ear built is known, leasespecify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? Empty site 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? c°°"ty If yes, what is the assessed value of the assessed 1 property? $434.00) 26 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housm Pro osals Activi Start Date Com letion Date Site Planning & Develo ment 0 tion Site Ac uisition 912009 Plan Develo ment Pre-a lication Land Use A roval 12/2009 Construction Plans 12/2009 Final Bids Contractor Selection Buildin Permits 03/2010 Grant ap lications local state federal Non-government other Loan A lications Construction loan n/a Permanent Construction Phase Construction 3/2010 1212011 Certificate of Occupanc Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 27 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Pro osals Activit VM!te social services provides should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 28 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals s) MuisitionCosts Total Cost CDBG Re uest Other Source 170,000. 164,000 540,000. -Site costs 25,000 Includes admin costs Other SUBTOTAL Development Costs Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees 12,000 (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges 42,000. SDCs Relocation Costs Environmental Report / Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report Survey 4000 Marketing Insurance Included w/ annual Other budget Fees Architectural/Engineering 30,000 Legal/Accounting 4000 Appraisals 2000 Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL 829,000 164,000 see attached schedule of financial su ort 29 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Pro osals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Sources Direct Client Services Wages (of personal providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies Marketing/Outreach Program Administration CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client. administration Total Project Cost 30 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) -Other (specify) TOTAL Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. The purchase of the property is contingent upon approval of CDBG funding. The purchase of the property will be complete upon receipt of grant funding. Tentative start date is March, 2010. No tentative funding sources are committed with timelines at this time. See attached schedule of community partnerships. 31 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME:. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (x ) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department n/a 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title n/a 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) l attached 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 32 - .....r..., vna ni.u VCrII, CI(J February 2009 Ron McKinley, President 05/31/2010 Real Estate Broker Daniel Davis 05/31/2012 . Volunteer Since 2003 Land Developer • ReStore Committee Development of Bio-Diesel Fuel Business • Resource Development Committee . Volunteer Since 2005 985 Highbury Dr. • Past Board Treasurer Medford, OR 97501 . Building Committee (H) 773-8612 (W) 941-0001 • Resource Development Committee ront<cbprowest com 4550 Little Applegate Jacksov, 9530 Bruce Van Zee, MD, Vice President 05/31/2010 (1 )8991911) I (Oc ) 947-8768 Retired Medical Doctor dandmanad@aol.com • Volunteer Since 2007 • Construction Volunteer Clint Driver 05/31/2011 • Resource Development Committee Retired Land Developer • Church Relations Committee • Volunteer Since 2008 2668 Oak View Circle . Building Committee Medford, OR 97504 .Construction Volunteer 857-1887 (H) • Resource Development Committee bvz~ucliart charter. net PO Box 1027 Jacksonville, OR 97530 Lois Nobles, Treasurer 05/31/2012 (1)899-9609 (c) 840-6786 Retired Finance Officer Clintdrivertamac.com Volunteer Since 2005 • Finance Committee Steve Sobhi 05/31/2010 • Resource Development Accountant 2810 Kerrisdale Ridge Rd. . Volunteer Since 2007 Medford, OR 97504 • Church Relations Committee (H) 779-4193 . Resource Development Committee lanobles0connpoint net 3126 Alameda St. #302 Ernie Chisholm 05/31/2009 Medford, OR 97504 Property Owner and (h) 210-5530 (c) 842-2700 (o) 857-8800 Manager Steve rei ashlandpariners.conn . Volunteer Since 2006 • Building Committee Jim Audibert 05/31/2012 • Resource Development Committee Retired Banker 3046 Wells Fargo Rd. • Volunteer since 2009 Central Point, OR • Finance Committee (H) 664-3861 (C) 890-3311 . Resource Development Committee emiechisholm rei yahoo.com 440 Tucker St Travis Cowan 05/31!2010 Ashland, OR 97520 (H) 488-1488 Thrivem Financial Officer jaudibert@thegrid.net. . Volunteer Since 2007 • Church Relations Committee . Resource Development Committee 267 % 8'" St. Ashland, OR 97520 (0) 646-4109 (C) 778-9892 Travis.cowan@thrivent.com Peter Rogers 05/31/2010 Television Station General Manager • Volunteer Since 2007 • Public Relations Committee • Resource Development Committee 601 W. Rapp Rd. Talent. OR 97540 (H) 535-1574 (0) 245-5244 (C) 941-7471 Pr-O-Pers.kfbi(@Qwestoff'ice.net I Approved Budget FY 0809 Income Projected FY10 4010 • S Contributions Individuals Toial 4010 • S Contributions Individuals 167 200 00 4020 • $ Contributions Businesses 50,000.00 Total 4030 • $ Contributions Churches 87 50000 4040 • S Contributions/EFT HFHI/HFHO 5,800.00 Total 4060 • S Grants - Other 275 00000 HFHI Capacity Building Funds 40 00000 FHLB funding 106,600.00 Total 4070 - $ Agencies/Service Clubs 1000000 Total 4100 • Donation - Materials 50,000.00 Total 4150 - Donations - Services & Rentals 25,000.00 Total 4300 • Special Event Income - NET 50,000.00 Total 4400 • Resale Store Income - NET 28 00000 Total 4600 - other Program Income 50000 Total 4600.Other Non-Program income 7,000.00 Mortgage Income 85 20000 Total Income 986.000.00 Expense Total 8100 • Construction Costs 730,300.00 Total 5200.Other Mission Specific Costs 4 500 00 5220 • International Tithe Expense 8,400.00 Total 5250.Officer & Director Compensation 1295000 Total 5260 • Salary & Wages - Other 42 35000 5287-1.1ablity-Workmans Cam 7,930.00 Total 5280 Other Employee Benefits 7,850.00 Total 5290 • Payroll Taxes 4,591.00 Total 6330 • Supplies 400.00 AmeriCorps VISTA 5 000 00 5340 • Telephone & Fax 750 00 5350 • Postage and Shipping 1,000.00 Total 5360.Occupancy Expense 1.097.00 Total 6370 • Equipment Costs 2,200.00 Total 5380 - Printing and Publications 850.00 Total 5390 • Travel 1,350.00 Total 5400 • Conferences/Conventions/Mtgs 150.00 6410 • Interest 8430 • Memberships 8 Dues Expense 3,500.00 465 00 Total 5490.Other Expenses 500.00 Total 7260 • Director/Officer Compensation 25,910.00 Total 7260 • Salary, Wages Other 24,384.00 7207-Liability-Workman Camp 1,800.00 Total 7280.Other Employee Benefits-M&G 4,450.00 Total 7290 - Payroll Taxes-M&G 3,354.00 72911 - Payroll Fees (ADP)-M&G 830.00 7310 • Accounting Fees-M&G 5 200 00 Total 7330 • Supplies-M&G 1,200.00 7340 • Telephone & Fax-M&G r 1,400.00 7350 • Postage & Shipping-M&G 1,300.00 Total 7360.Occupancy Expense-M&G 3,062.00 Total 7370 • Equipment Costs-M&(; 1,000.00 Total 7380 • Printing & Publications-M&G 1,000.00 Total 7390, Travel-M&G 3,775.00 Total 7400 • Conference, Conventions & Mtgs 1,300.00 7410 • Interest-M&0 1,500.00 MVP1 vvc uuuyoi r r uova 7430 • Memberships & Dues Expense M&G 300.00 Total 7490.Other Expenses-M&G 1,200,00 - Total 8250.Officer/Director Compensation 4,305.00 Total 8260 • Salary/Wages Other-Fundraising 23,242.00 8267 Liability-Workmen Comp 450.00 Total 8280.Other Employee Benefits-Fund 800.00 Total 8290 • Payroll Taxes-Fundraising 725.00 Total 8330 • Supplies-Fundraising 500.00 8360 • Postage d Shipping 4,000.00 Total 8370 • Equipment Costs-Fundraising 2,500.00 Total 8380 • Printing 8 Publications-Fundrai 13,000.00 _ Total 8390 • Travel - Fundraising 1,300.00 Total 8400 • Conferences, Conventions & Mtg 300.00 Total 8490.Other Expenses-Fundraising 1,800.00 Loans Expense ' 24,000.00 Total Expense 99600000 Net Income Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley Sources of Community Partnerships attachment Identifiable Sources of Income/Donations Foundations: Meyer Memorial Foundation West Family Foundation Cheney Family Foundaton Carpenter Foundation Anna May Foundation Juan Young Foundation Business Partnerships State Farm Insurance Home Depot Lowe's in-kind sponsors Boise floor joists CertainTeed house siding, roofing material Ferguson's plumbing fixtures West Coast Appli; kitchen appliances Hunter Douglas privacy room blinds Square D electrical breakers Whirlpool appliances faith organization partners Table Rock Christian Fellowship Trail Christian Fellowship tst Presbyterian Church /Jacksonville tst Presbyterian Church/Ashland Eastwood Baptist Church United Methodist Church Temple Emek ROG UE VALLEY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY - - CCB#154965 - 'Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV) is a non profit organization building houses for low- income people currently living in substandard conditions. HfHRV's goals are to provide affordable housing for those in need who qualify for the program. The proposed project is to purchase property included in the Bud's Dairy Subdivision accommodating six units which will be constructed by volunteers supervised by professional staff. The project addresses Goal # 2 in the City of Ashland's 2005-2009 Consolidated plan to increase the homeownership opportunity for extremely low and moderate-income households. 2.1 encourages the acquisition and construction of affordable housing by private developers. The National Objective met is to benefit low and moderate income persons. There is an increased need for affordable housing units in the city of Ashland. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley has the capacity, and experience to fulfill the expectations of the project. With continued economic distress, the need will be increased, the entire community will benefit in the able to offer affordable housing to the working class and lower-income population. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley's philosophy is that this is a hand up, not a handout. Each family contributes 500 hours of "sweat equity" by working on the construction of their home. HfHRV is the general contractor for each project, following all building codes and requirements. Providing most of the labor for construction, volunteers are the backbone of the organization. Professionals, contractors and trades people donate their skills while others perform most of the daily tasks. Most of the materials are donated or sold at a discount to Habitat/RV by local suppliers. Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley's overall project goals and objectives are: 1) to move families out of substandard housing and assist them in becoming new homeowners in the Rogue Valley; 2) to form relationships with individuals and groups who will be committed to providing labor to achieve the goals; and 3) to increase awareness of the housing needs of low-income people in the community and ways the community can support the mission. 2) Project Summary: HfHRV requests funding in the amount of $164,000 of CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a 0.39 acre site at the junction of Dollarhide and Abbott Streets within the Old Bud's Dairy Subdivision. The subdivision was annexed to the City in 2003, and the property was designated as the location of a six unit affordable housing development to comply with the City's annexation criteria. The site has received planning approvals for the development of a six unit apartment complex; Habitat will develop six condominiums using the same site plans previously approved by the City. 3) Property and Project Information a) The property is centrally. located relative to jobs, schools, transportation, shopping and services. The property is located within a subdivision relatively close to a main thoroughfare, Tolman Creek Rd, located near shopping centers, public transportation lines, and services. b) The total floor area of the entire building for the six units is 5,898 sq ft. There are no garages included for the project, and the total sq footage of the covered areas is 258. The lot size is 0.39 acre. c) The project consists of six condominiums, each with two bedrooms. I d) All of the units will be sold to families with low-income levels, between 30%-60% of the federal median, e) All six units will be accessible to the disabled. Each unit will be accommodating with door width size, and one bedroom downstairs. f) The average square footage for each of the six units is 5,791. Each unit will have covered front and back porches. There are no plans to include a garage with any unit. g) The common areas include a parking area, wetland areas with public access along the natural area north and south of the project. h,i,j,k)There is no commercial space associated with the project. 1) HfHRV carefully screens applicants through a rigorous selection process. The three main criteria to qualify for the HfHRV program are: 1) income levels must be between 30-60% of federal median, 2) individuals must show a need for housing, either through substandard housing conditions, overcrowding, or paying more than 50% of their income in rent, and 3) applicants must be willing to "partner" with HfHRV; committing to at least 500 hours of sweat equity on their home. Additionally, HfHRV looks for individuals that will take advantage of the hand up opportunity, will become good neighbors, and responsible tax payers. When HfHRV has land and resources identified for each project, an orientation meeting is held, and all interested individuals are invited. HtHRV will target applicants that are currently living in Ashland, its surrounding towns, or individuals that are employed in Ashland as potential future HfHRV families. In addition to a commitment of construction on their home, applicants must attend a series of homeowner training workshops including budgeting, homeowner maintenance, and good neighbor skills. Services are provided in partnership with community agencies, as well as HfHRV staff and volunteers. m) HfHRV will impose a 30-year period of affordability for each of the units. Upon any transfer of ownership within a 30-year period, potential buyers must qualify for Ashland's affordability housing standards with income levels under 80% of federal median. 4) Services Low-income families will receive direct benefit from the services of HfHRV. Each unit will be constructed using volunteer labor under the direct supervision of paid staff of HfHRV. HfHRV solicits discounts on material and required professional services. In addition, HfHRV provides a direct economic impact to the local business community with the purchase of construction materials and services. Each unit will be sold to individuals consisting of family units; children will attend local schools and shop locally. HfHRV continues to partner with each family after the house is sold to each Habitat family, offering support as needed. 5) Work Program Form A-Project Schedule attached. 6) Financial Information Form B-Uses of Funding & Form C-Sources of Funding attached. Operating Budget Income/Expense schedule attached. a) Assumptions to determine the total project cost are estimates based on prior construction projects the organization has recently completed. b) There will be no relocation costs associated with the project. Repair and maintenance 2 expenses are incorporated into the annual budget developed specifically for construction projects. c) HfHRV can assume financial support from community partners, a strong foundation of individual support, foundations and the business community based on a 21 year history of past support. HfHRV conducts annual fundraising events and capital campaigns to maintain the continuity of support. In conjunction with a strategic plan to increase the building capacity of the organization, additional staff will be recruited and hired to facilitate additional resource development. Additionally, HfHRV holds the mortgage note to each house sold, mortgage income received monthly is reinvested into new construction projects. Income from mortgage notes increases with each house sold. d) HfHRV can foresee no expenses non-typical, or outside industry standards. Additional fundraising activity would be conducted if unforeseen expenses occur. e) HfHRV has no funding commitments for this particular project at this time. Sponsorships for each unit will be solicited from the business community, collaborations with church organizations, as well as local and national foundations. f) HfHRV will apply for a property tax exemption that will apply only until the construction period is over. Each homeowner will be responsible for individual property taxes. Six units will provide an estimated $7,200 per year in property tax revenue to the county. 7) Funding for the proposed project is requested for the acquisition of the property. There will be no federal funding for other activities associated with the project such as any development costs, architect expenses, or construction. General Information a) The proposed project is inside the city limits of Ashland, OR b) HfHRV serves families and individuals with income levels between 30% and 60% of the federal median income using the standard MSA determined by HUD c) A proposed offer between HfHRV and Russ Dale (seller) is contingent upon the award of CDBG funding in the amount of $164,000. There is no other financial or legal commitment made to the project. Housing Development, Land Acquisition d) There are no structures on the current site. e) The proposed housing site is not located in a 100 year flood plain. f) the report is not available to HfHRV at this time. g) The proposed site is not located adjacent to a major arterial road or railroad. h) No above ground flammable storage tanks are located near the project site. i) The proposed site will not impact any historic features. 8) Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV) is a non-profit volunteer organization dedicated to building affordable homes in partnership with those in need. The service area is primarily Jackson County in Southern Oregon. The foundation of Habitat for Humanity was based on Christian values; however there is no discrimination on anyone because of religion. People of any or of no faith are encouraged to participate either as a volunteer or prospective homeowner. One third of all families accepted into our program are Hispanic, the remaining two thirds are Caucasian. People served are those living in substandard housing with income between 30% and 60% of the federal median income for Jackson County. Homes are sold to HfHRV families with a no profit, no-interest mortgage. The average monthly payment, including taxes and insurance, is $500 to $550. A monthly payment this low is affordable to those with a lower income and allows the family to own a 3 home while providing for their family's basic needs such as food and clothing. The Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley affiliate was organized in 1987 and built its first house in 1989-90. HfHRV recently completed construction of its 33rd house, accommodating 192 people, 113 of whom are children. 9, 10) HfHRV sells homes to low-income families with affordable monthly mortgage payments. The affordability allows families the ability to provide other basic necessities such as food, clothing, health care and day care. Homeownership lessens the burden to government and social service agencies, allowing for self-sufficiency. Houses are constructed to accommodate special needs as allowable. a) Within Jackson County, forty-seven percent of households have a low or moderate income and 22% have incomes that are considered very low income (0 - 50% of the median income). Most of the families earning an income this low would not be able to qualify for conventional mortgages. HfHRV has goals of constructing four houses per year, directly serving approximately 20 people every year. The life long effects however affect a much higher number of those that benefit. b) HfHRV targets those with income levels between 30% and 60% of federal median income. Monthly mortgage payments are never more than 30% of the family income at the time of the mortgage transfer. 11) HfHRV has a diligent and rigorous process to ensure selected applicants are within the target range. Imposing selling restrictions to 30 years will maintain the units remain in the affordable housing range. 12) There will not be any demolished structures due to the project. 13) HfHRV has an ongoing construction process. The organization has been building the foundation structure to build capacity with goals to build more homes each year, and serve more families in need. A full time construction manager has recently been hired, a resource development director will be placed with the organization in the near future to increase base funding. The organization is used as a training program with RCC and other local schools. In addition, a partnership with the Job Council allows YouthBuild to train students in construction. The organization is currently building two houses in Medford, with plans to begin building two houses in Ashland on Bridge St in June. Upon completion of the Medford project expected in December, 2009, the Bud's Dairy project can begin. This will allow the organization time to secure house sponsorships for each of the six units proposed. a) HfHRV has built and sold 33 houses, and has not foreclosed on any homes. The partnership HfHRV builds with each family allows the organization to offer guidance and support as necessary after each house is sold. The supervision during construction is that of paid staff, a professional general contractor as well, with many years of experience in the construction field. In addition, a strong support system for the organization is in place with dedicated board and committee members which provide professional advice as needed. b) The ongoing operating expenses and maintenance expectations are adequate and reasonable, computed in the annual budget. c) HfHRV has an accepted offer from the seller to purchase the property contingent on the approval of CDBG funding. The funds are available to pay the remaining balance of the property sales agreement. (attached) d, e) No relocation will be required. 4 f) There are no further approvals from the city to be approved, with exception to building permits. g) The pre-application has been approved by the Ashland planning department. h) The improvements to the property will be newly constructed townhouse style condominiums. i) The organization seeks house sponsorships for each project as well as strong commitments from individual donors, church partners, businesses and civic organizations. Businesses that continually support the organization with in-kind products used in construction are CertainTeed for siding, Ferguson's for plumbing fixtures, West Coast appliance, Whirlpool, Home Depot and Lowe's. 14) There will be no negative impact on any historic or architecturally significant properties from the proposed project. 15) letters of support attached. 16) Application checklist attached, Forms A,B& C attached. Operating budget, sources of community partnerships attached. 5 1QJ 0001/0001 Relocation and Acquisition Disclosure to the Seller With a Voluntary, Arms Length, Purchase Agreement Buyers:__ Rogue Valley Habitat for Humanity Sellers:Bud's Dairy LL.C Property Street Address:_ Dollarhide, act# 10978908 City/State/Zip-.-Ashland Or, 97520 To comply with Federal relocation and acquisition disclosure requirements pursuant to 49 CFR Section 24.101, you are hereby provided the following notification related to the acquisition of the above referenced property; 1. The Buyer is prepared to pay $_$170,000.00 for clear title to the property under the conditions described in the contract of sale. 2. The Buyer's unappraised esthnate of the fair market value of the Property is 170.000.00 3. The Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain relating to the purchase and acquisition of the Property. 4. The Buyer will be using federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to complete this purchase. HUD will not use its eminent domain authority to initiate condemnation of the Property. 5. The Seller agrees that no tenant will be permitted to occupy the Property before the We is completed. 6. This is a voluntary transaction by both parties. Since the purchase is a voluntary, arm's length transaction, relocation payments or other relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), or any other law or regulation are not appli 7. 1f negotiations between both parties fail, Bu will not further action to acquire the property. a , t t3j Eta m,0. ~d ht both es uyees Signature a er's Si e Buyer's S' ature Seller's Si ature r»a.; Date a' l U ~ a John Fields 843 oak Street OLDEN • FIELD Ashland, OR 97520 CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN LTD. (541).482-8442 To: City of Ashland 2/25/2009 Re: CDBG awards To Whom It May Concern: I would like to encourage you to grant Habitat for Humanity of the Rogue Valley the funds to proceed in 6 houses in the Bud's Dairy subdivision on Clay Street. I have worked with Habitat as a volunteer for over - fifteen years. We have steadily grown our,capacity to create home ownership for working families who earn below 60% of the Rogue Valley's median income. We have built and financed houses for over 30 families in the Rogue Valley. We provide the necessary community follow-up and support, and the ongoing education in home ownership that gives us a 100% success rate in keeping our owners in their homes. We started building our houses on single family lots and with the increase in land cost we have successfully turned to building attached Row House condominiums. We completed a 6 Unit group of Row Houses in Central Point in 2004. We did a two unit project in partnership with Ashland Community Land Trust last year. We will be starting two more units on Bridge Street with the Land Trust early this summer. I believe that Habitat for Humanity of the Rogue Valley has become a valuable team player in subsidizing ownership housing for working poor families. Our programs,give families a boost up to improve their lives and become responsible citizens and respected members of our community. I think with the reduced cost of the Tax Lots offered in the Bud's Dairy subdivision that this would be an excellent community investment. I believe that Habitat is the most qualified candidate for the C BG money that is going to v 'table in the 2009 =2010 fiscal year. Thank you for your consideration. John Fields SR it ~~tYCrl c Ed F 1,z n.„v ,Yd" y~ }+„y ryk r t) i ;l ti t3 + r e~ i ~ r , Yf z ,y~ez ~1 i a ""~11i ~ In ,~7~}~~,{~ 11 ~ A ~ R c; va3~x Mel City of Ashland 22 No. Main Ashland, OR 97520 RE: CDBG Awards and Habitat for Humanity To Whom It May Concern I have been practicing architecture in Ashland for over 20 years and served on the Ashland Planning Commission as well as designed numerous homes for Habitat for Humanity. NAHB reported this week that the Medford Metro Area is the 6fh least affordable region in the United States. Some regions of the United States such as San Francisco or NYC may be higher priced, but not against wages that are available in the same region. This designation is nothing to be proud of and it is to that end that I urge this Committee to grant the necessary CDBG funds to Habitat for Humanity Rogue Valley to proceed in developing 6 homes on the former Bud's Dairy land on Clay St. I believe that Habitat for Humanity provides mitigation to one of the most urgent needs in Ashland, that of affordable housing without any profit motive. They have an excellent record of building small scale, but similar quality homes to surrounding neighborhoods. Having local working class residents invested in their community through homeownership is key toward a truly integrated town. The Community Building that emanates from the 100's of hours of local volunteer labor is also invaluable for any town that experiences political dividedness. Lastly, true community Sustainability can not be accomplished by simply building with "green materials". If the community can not sustain and house the people that work there providing services, then commuting up and down the Rogue Valley keeps increasing along with fossil fuels, smog, & traffic. Six new homes for Habitat families does not completely solve Ashland's gentrification, but it certainly is working in the right direction. Thank you for your consideration, Raymond Kistler, AIA I EOGCbW MVMV'<E 3(Il~vm pp%pYlyp Ij SYVC'cvv t~At VES'<6 tlO 0Ntl1N6Y ii l3iil tppEEM'tll4l!'i JN pq3'%E (t0Y 1~ ~ _ _ ~I F may. W~ 99NIOIZAB l 133WSN061RJ S66 II HXSN4MS03x liY11t 1M1»OMyM36%~ -_1W V LLI~ w O !;NOisInxaensemrasane„Erorl S311N3dO8d31/OSSON ,y II s I ~ ~Y II i y~ljl 1 I ~ ~ b:e !51 a I3 l I1' ij I W I ! ~ .C1S: Jur 3 EI l Y!'Y 31 ~r~y'I ~ III 11 I I iii I SY''A I I! I~ L: r IIII k~i II I II I'll 5 ~ '."t. / I ! It~l 7 l41 ~I 11 I d lyti !i. j Ilr Illi 71171 i"Eu , r ' ! I b r IIII II ;I I! ffI ~i- it { ~I il> YI I I~! ~i~3~3 I i~a r III~Ii i~ " ny~l } 'I ' I i i ! l ~ i ! I I i II d Ac>r I I~~ 2 t 9.{C ~ III l II I j I i i 1 ~ 7r7 n ' Y s I 1 I d - L1.-uF .I-! I i i l y I n < i 1 I~ y l r 1 f ~r I ! I l11$© f(`'~ r l III u!r 1 11 ! W 1 l~1 , tf"r t7p~ 111; f I' <N ISC-.ate '"E~ I illi: 1 I ~II III i- Iff r'r' ! 43,ME l~1 fI 1~ 1 p2 t, r ! I 1 ,5g 1 I 'I i! a l]..1t~t a} 1M. - 21. m I~tt it {A Jl v~i1L ""1t yi II ~~!I ti III i~ ~ rr>'~IIII II T,lR~ LLlil ii, ! 'll I F~ --1 Iii _ !l II I 4 w Mk ! el ,III ! Iit 't( i HIP r-, II II, S~~i (yv/t~; ! I~ I; I I;II l~ F! III I ~,~3 III I II d I! oz, l I Ij- l IIII Ip yr Ilk 'll jar f il t II e>r r I t ~t,rn~ (~jy6 <4 ! ! ~3 1 I I M'• !.S-~.~.i ' ( l I 1~ I ~ fem. III yXl; r I ! I 1 '°E ~ !LI } I ( i I' tPr f i*L 3 ' I.-7 I7 Ij 7'e7q~$i4r' r r II_ (I I9 f l~.lf°1- ~~"i bl`,5t" ' ! i a L-J~~i' 2~.rvce" }I II I r i" I ~ ~hI ~4I I I -r ' I If jfr:L i ~,!td t ~ Illtll }li ~r I ~~I: vr' l i I _~i ! !4 ~1*W,=~ ~~Y I¢ II x f1 5 t I III ice- 1 r-Y v 1 i I I' ' 11 dR 1 ~ J l ~7."; T ~aS r~ lit III ~~ute I ~ I I l y~ fy Kr r I I l i~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t f I ! T.~,~ I^ III I I' d li. l 3! r ~ ! t fi{ ii !u I e k I. I F ts- !p:"fy, l 111 III It cs I I l US f F3 3~i A r'•'~ I',}{rfNe.#,1 ''I' I ' I~,~.. 3~ ® 9~' ~{r.9 p'' ail, -~w' a f fru III a C r 4 I l J! i I1,I I I`. f~~©~ a ~Iltt 411 I.II~ C !It h I t+!'w f ~ hI ds.if I I F~ I ~ I I y N L`» ~ -r. { i^`- ~ r >f5 I f~NSy ~I~ III ~Ffr ~v I ltl (Ll._i ~ ~ ~ I~ 'w Ir i I '~Iu{ ~8© H ~'r 1h rr ' ~ II Jp~~`Yr ; "~-y4kki w '~~.#rf I I I~I/~~} (8®~ Z IL ru!'d} i+sY.Ia II !I I t6 O t cy~/<IA I1 III;' < il,r y LL Nlt Urap Jtjs}'! I-01~.51IiL~ ~,r„, i~i lr ;Y *vfabll I Imll f i, ~'II !IlII t r„- 3iII:j ~ni of !{y!,"r !I® 1y ~i it 1.x 1~r tII III 11 51 r l 4lu. ` II Ilts'4bl~_ I it; p' J P!! i- l yyt 111 1U I,! ~tt f r III III j l a iATh ! ( II * + II I M1 t s b ~ I Il: t, i b Ir 11 4 I~ © ® T rv I Iil I I ~ I~ ;'F I !Y. II II ~ r>v I~I !"I < a 1 II' II II II Its' ~I 15 a I~? [ I -z II ~ '~.'I 6 r ~ I itt i IF-iJ ~'rli 1e ~~5.71. !i 1i11 IIII! it illqq ~ ilL! y~ °yl.. r>>'1li! I I'i '3)~ I~ It 115 I' ~-f }IIII Ilfl 14t -t3~t~li r IIII _ I~'_I~~I t( ; I' Ill i Ili y. F"~~lrf 6"~~ 'IIII III r s It.~.-5'~ l-~r . I I I I I: I! I{ r: 1 I Ili w " M I I I t }~~(Yr ltL! I ~I~ s~ fa a v b~©© ~w a 'I i 7 LL t 5r ! I 4~'y x 11 I ''I!!I I~I! I!t ]{b©~ I':1 I I IN I r~ ! ipy-~ 6~r. L III ~ ...ley j' 11 i 1111 ~ I ! ! I ~ i I Ili krx'JJ~..' ({!4-..--.Ill{.-l~.i! p ` I I ISI { y III Hj~ E jl~+.} ~ y 1 - III: ~ i f E% I I I ! #ed I ! I~ ~ £ Ilj,' S1 t4 Ii - I 'III I IE ~ t' I ! i! le~4x f ~~F i 1~1 l IIII I `~1' S~~'~ -`i IYtE;'~ I:I IIII ~1 7f, II1 III~y ill®~E °lr I I d!~ t F 11_ it ! I f t I i 'Ia. I' I 11 L>•_~ ...L_ llswsi--•-m-.-.4 ~..i.3~~+;; is 1 i E0G[<WT'v)6v [i10tnYM SO yI,MIGO I~~`'133tl1$NOSITMSSS •~^u' I' pYlli'OySN)1, y31~M 419yagJN )p{4 _ ~ I~IY `V OII ;NOXS3niaans AMVQ sons :u3rom ! S311113dONd 3wa ssna iYal illl m ' a i is I li:,,:r! } I ICI gg 3: k 3 'i+ P i ' ~ > a' ll I ' - I i i I ! i !E X=i I I -i I k i gI fT~~~= , f I ~ I ~,I I I. I I r II I 1 Ali' I ' I ~ I i a I~j i f II `4` ~ I I V' I j I I I I I ' I ( i m.~ ~ Ilp 2t-_-.III i III .1 ~ Y I I II f I 11 ~1 1 ly :I j I I' 11.f 1 ~ ~ , I t! I J'. aR ~ I_.eo ' III ~ iJ i. ~ ~._0 Lys I % I i Y.. .I LL ~ owe nf"¢erotnn:n II :.rl.asox9311e3aoaa37va2sna Mo ~ Ji RYA A4 e 8 I~ a~i s;3 q _ •3a • i _ i3{ ii r-~~I9, S 1 i ' ii C ttl ° :I if I 1 .1 - s i li- 1 All L R'ECc/VET FE9 j 0 1009 OrAsniand 7eld Office CQUr Proposal City of Ashland 2009 CDBG Submitted By: Pathway Enterprises, Inc. CITY OF ASHLAND 2009 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Pathway Enterprises, Inc. Executive Director's Name(s): -Rebecca L. Simpson Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: 655 Washington Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Applicant Street Address: Same IRS Classification: 501 (C) (3) Federal Tax ID#: 93-0891433 Mission Statement: (may be attached) Attached Total Employees: 120 Total Volunteers: -0- 16 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name:-Rebecca L. Simpson Title: CEO, President Phone Number: 541488-1536 Fax Number: 541-488-5948 E-mail Address: bsimpson@pathway-inc.org III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: _ Supported Living Project Expected Completion Date: -December 31, 2009 Requested CDBG Funds: $_30,000 Organizational Match: $_87,327 Funds from Other Sources: $_12,500 Total Project Cost: $_108,327 17 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives. Brief Description Pathway Enterprises, Inc. proposes to use this grant to encourage transitional and supportive housing services to adults with developmental disabilities (special needs population) who have extremely low - and low-income, who desire to live in Ashland, with whom Pathway currently supports in residential (group home) housing in Ashland and Medford. Project Background Pathway Enterprises, Inc. has a proud history of delivering support services to citizens of Ashland since 1985. Primarily, PEI provides services to adults with developmental disabilities by offering supported housing, community recreation, social/ cultural inclusion and employment opportunities that promote living, working and recreating as independently as possible. Many of the individuals who receive support services through PEI have expressed their desire to live more independently than their current group home living. Because our mission and values reflect our purpose to continually enhance, support and honor people with disabilities, we intend to design housing appropriate to their skills, abilities, and support needs by transitioning five (5) individuals into a supported living model of service delivery. Project Objectives 1) PEI will recruit, hire and train three (3) Community Living Specialists by June 1, 2009. 2) PEI staff, in conjunction with the individuals served, will identify, plan and transition two (2) supported individuals from their current group home to a supported living model of service delivery (apartment or other identified housing arrangement) by August I, 2009. The additional three (3) individuals will transition by November 1, 2009. 3) Follow-along monitoring will not require monies from this grant. 3) Property and Project Information Not Applicable to this request 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs).. Services To Be Provided Five (5) individuals receiving services will, in conjunction with their service planning team, identify their wants, needs and abilities for purposes of a thoughtful and planfull transition from their group home living to a supported apartment (or other identified housing) that will enhance their independence and self worth. Staff will assist the individuals served by this project through systems that ensure PEI is meeting their support needs as well as enhancing their independence and self worth. These systems include, but are not limited to the following services: • Functional Assessment (daily living skills) o Housekeeping o Laundry o Menu planning, shopping and meal prepar#tion • Risk and Safety Assessment • Benefits Review • Environmental Analysis • Budget / Money Skills Assessment and Review • Transportation Assessment • Medication Management • Medical Providers (appointments, follow up, etc) • Recreational and Cultural Desires PEI's individualized service delivery system ensures specific skills are identified (through the assessment process noted above), taught, tracked, quantified, reported and celebrated. Eligible Target Population Receiving Direct Benefit From These Services All individuals served by this project are identified as low-income/ special needs. 5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with estimated start and completion of task (please complete attached Form A - Project Schedule). Work Program and Time Line (See Attachment A) I) Upon grant notification, PEI's Human Resource Director will begin recruitment for three (3) Community Living Specialists. Time Line: Begin recruitment and hiring process on or before April 15, 2009. 2) New staff will receive PEI core competency and regulatory training in conjunction with the OAR's (Oregon Administrative Rules). Time Line: Upon hire and no later than May 1, 2009. 3) Staff will complete assessments and individualized planning will identify specific housing options. Time Line: After training is complete and no later than June 1, 2009. 4) Housing options are presented to the individual and their team and a decision is made. Time lines for moving are identified by the individual and their team. Time Line: No later than August I, 2009. . 6) Financial Information Detailed Financial Description of the Proposed Project (See Attachments, Form B and C) Wages for three (3) full time staff who will provide the services described in the project. Staff will receive benefits as described in the Employee Handbook and adhere to Ashland's Living Wage as determined by law. Wages and benefits will be administered by the Finance and Human Resource Staff. Materials and Supplies Supplied by PEI. Marketing/ Outreach Recruitment ads for staff: Approximately $100.00 per day for 16 days = $1600.00 Program Administration Costs (See Attachments B and C) Total Project Cost (See Attachments B and C) Other Sources of Income PEI will receive DD54 County Funds to pay for direct client services needed beyond the scope of this project. Clarification: The county funds do not provide funding to ensure staff training and planning or recruitment as identified in this project. They provide minimal monies to PEI for direct services: a) Financial Assumptions The wages for support staff will meet Ashland's Living Wage as applicable to this project. In addition, wages are determined by ORA's (Oregon Rehabilitation Association) state salary survey, Pathway's budgetary process and projected skills and abilities needed to ensure success. b) N/A c) Other costs associated with this project: Disaster Preparedness and Safety training; written, visual and audio materials, disaster packs for each home. d) No non-typical expenses will be incurred. e) See Attached f) N/A 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project? Property Acquisition No New Construction No Removal of Architectural Barriers No Rehabilitation Costs No Development Costs No Client Services Yes Specification Preparation No Relocation Benefits No Appraisal No General Information a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not, explain. Yes, the project is administered and executed within Ashland City limits. There are, however, individuals served by PEI who reside in Medford and may benefit from this project. b) Specify the proposed tenant of client income level. 100% of the individuals who will benefit from this project are well below the Extremely Low Income Level, 30% AMI, as noted on page 11 of this proposal. c) Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project. Pathway will match 10% of the CDBG award. d) Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information. Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished? No. e) Is the proposed housing site located in a 100 year flood plain? No. f) Has a level 1 environmental assessment been done for the site? N/A g) Is the proposed housing site located by a major arterial road or railroad? N/A h) Is the site located by and aboveground flammable storage tank? N/A 1) Will the project impact historic features? No. 8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. Agency's Mission In summary, Pathway's mission is to embrace the individuality of those served, enhance their opportunities for independence within their homes, work and recreation activities, and create a richer community in the process (see attached formal Mission Statement). In addition to Pathway's mission statement, support services are based on a solid foundation of Core Values. Pathway's staff and board of director's created and adopted these Core Values to ensure employees are providing support services designed specifically to the needs, abilities and desires of the individuals served. In addition, all employees, individuals served and community partners are treated with dignity and respect. Pathway values effective communication, teamwork and a positive attitude in all venues of service delivery. Service History Home Support Pathway Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1985 in order to provide homes and employment opportunities for residents of Fairview Training Center, Oregon State's Institution for individuals who are developmentally disabled. Pathway opened five residential (group) homes by 1989, providing services to twenty-five (25) individuals. Each home provides support services to five (5) individuals who require varying degrees of support. Many of these individuals are medically fragile, have augmented disabilities due to aging, and other disabilities including mental illness and/or a physical disability. Support services include all daily living skills, such as bathing, shaving, toileting, dressing, food preparation, general cleaning, as well as communication, appointments, and general relationship or social skill building. Pathway ensures all individuals have access to, and support for, recreation and healthy living. In January 2009, Pathway received a certificate from the Department of Human Services Seniors and people with Disabilities Office of Licensing and Quality of Care to provide Supported Living Program Services in Jackson County. These services will ensure that people who either desire, or for whom services may be enhanced by, receive the opportunities to choose their living environment and, ultimately, gain individuality. Employment Support Pathway is committed to ensuring supported employment opportunities are available for individuals served, regardless of the type or severity of their disability. Pathway's employment services started in 1987, and continue to grow, increasing work opportunities and earning power of the individuals served. Pathway currently provides employment services to eight (8) individuals who work in local businesses, seven (7) individuals in contracted services (SOU dish room and custodial), and recently added Jackson County Custodial, creating potentially fifteen (15) more jobs for people with severe disabilities. Pathway staff are committed to excellence and are excited about the future for those we serve. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low, low-moderate income families, or individuals with special needs? All individuals targeted in this proposal meet the federal guideline for extremely low income and are also developmentally disabled. The project will promote self-sufficiency by ensuring trained staff follow the individual plan for support and create an environment of learning and developing relationships outside of paid staff. In addition, the target population will be encouraged, and receive comprehensive training for self sufficiency regarding transportation, home maintenance, employment and recreational opportunities, as well as community connections such as banking, shopping and medical needs. 'Our trained staff have many years of experience providing in-home supports as well as helping the individual's served with developing and nurturing the multitudes of relationships that are critical to each day's success. Trained stall will follow the typical Supported Living Model of Support, teaching graduated inter/independence while ensuring clientele are safe, healthy and able to achieve varying levels of independence. In addition, staff will assist the individual's served with finding the most efficient and affordable housing available, while meeting their abilities, desires and proximately needs. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-income individuals / individuals with special needs. Benefits of the Program All the individuals identified by this project are extremely low income and are diagnosed with a developmental disability and/or a mental illness. The majority of these individuals were raised in an institutional setting that did not teach inter-or independence, but rather, dependence on those around them. The targeted individuals currently reside in congregate living (residential/ group home housing) with four (4) other individuals. This project will ensure the individuals who desire supported living services (apartment / other housing) receive support and guidance to enhance their abilities as well as creating increased self-esteem, positive self-worth, a desire to help others and a sense of giving vs taking. The identified individuals will be able to reap the benefits that a typical renter has, including, but certainly not limited to; keeping and decorating their home the way they would like, inviting friends and family for visits, having an animal to care for, developing neighborly relationships, watching t.v. shows they like and listening to music they love. They can dance around their living room and make spaghetti for dinner. In addition to the above benefits, individuals who move from congregate living to a more independent arrangement are more apt to feel better about themselves; taking pride in their homes, appearance, and attitude. People who have more power and control in their lives are generally happier and more productive. a) N/A b) For proposed projects serving a target population, provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. Target Population People who are extremely low income and diagnosed with a developmental disability and/or a mental illness. Number of low-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. N/A. All the individuals served are categorized as extremely low income. Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. Five per year, up to twenty-five. Percent low / moderate income. N/A Low or Moderate. 11) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely low-income individuals. The targeted individuals for this project are categorized as extremely low income. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and mod-income housing to be demolished or converted to another use. N/A 13) Project Feasibility Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the proposed project. N/A regarding procurement of property. Feasibility a. Pathway has the capacity to proceed with the project as written. PEI's administrative infrastructure, including Finance, Human Resource and Administrative staff have the capacity to complete the requirements set forth in this proposal as evidenced by historical information including: 1. Adherence to federal, state and county regulations and practices: Licensing, OAR's (Oregon Administrative Rules) 2. Service Contracts: AbilityOne, ORA (Oregon Rehab Assoc) 3. Successfid annual financial audits (Ister) 4. Documented professional training for staff In addition, the Director of Community Services (supported living), the Executive Director and many of the staff have vast amounts of experience working and teaching people with disabilities how to live more independently. Pathway staff can identify, procure and manage independent living arrangements that enhance the lives of those we serve. b. The minimal on-going operating expenses are supported by Pathway's diverse income sources, such as our Service Contracts and continued contracted work with Jackson County DD and Brokerage Agents. c. N/A d. N/A e. N/A f. N/A g. N/A h. N/A i. The commitment of project funding from other sources include Jackson County DD Services and Brokerage Agents; who represent their clientele who are interested in supported living services. I 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or significant properties on the environment. N/A 15) Attach any other statistical data, letter of support, applicable experience, evidence of financial support from funders, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. Attachments included. 16. CDBG Application Checklist (pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B, & C. CITY OF ASHLAND 2005 Proaram.Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No NIA 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD Income Guidelines see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? I 25 C. Environmental Issues Yes No NIA 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, leasespecify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 ears or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No NIA 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No NIA 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If es what is the assessed value of the property? 26 Mission Statement Serving people with disabilities; Sharing a vision of justice, respect, and community; Providing support and services that enhance the quality of life; Empowering people to experience dignity, purpose, and meaning; and Committing to professional standards of excellence. Pathway Enterprises, Inc. (PEI) Board of Directors/Board Officers/Corporate Officers 1/1/09 Board Chairperson and Director Mr. Jon Iverson 220 Laurel Street Medford, OR 97501 (Work Phone: 772-3477) (Home Phone: 772-1762) Board Vice Chairperson and Director Mr. Michael Hancock Director, Human Resources Asante Health System 2635 Siskiyou Blvd. Medford, OR 97504 (Work Phone: 789-4281) (Cell Phone: 301-9673) Director and Corporate Secretary Ms. Krista Bolf Principal Broker, Coldwell Banker/Pro West Realty 190 Oak Street Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 482-5590) (Cell Phone: 944-2172) Director and Corporate Treasurer Mr. Brad Webster VP/Manager, South Valley Bank & Trust 891 O'Hare Parkway Medford, OR 97504 (Work Phone: 774-1453) (Cell Phone: 601-2650) Director Ms. Sandra H. Crews Director, Special Education Services Southern Oregon Education Service District 5465 South Pacific Hwy. Phoenix, OR 97535 (Work Phone: 776-8555) (Home Phone: 779-9216) President & CEO Ms. Becky Simpson Pathway Enterprises, Inc. 655 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 488-1536) (Cell Phone: 601-2830) Vice President & Director of Finance Pathway Enterprises, Inc. Mr. Robert Penney 655 Washington Street Ashland, OR 97520 (Work Phone: 4881536) (Cell Phone: 944-0798) Form A-I To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housing Proposals Activi Start Date Completion Date Site Plannmg & . Develo "ment° Option NIA Site Acquisition N/A Plan Development N/A Pre-application N/A Land Use Approval N/A Construction Plans N/A Final Bids N/A Contractor Selection N/A Buildin Permits N/A Grant~a liaations. local N/A State N/A federal N/A -Non-government N/A other N/A 6M A"` "lications. Construction loan N/A Permanent N/A Construction. Phase Construction N/A Certificate of Occupancy N/A Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 27 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Star! Date . Completion Date HirwP,ersonnef 4/16109:: 6/.7%09 Train Personnel 5/1109 5131/09 Initiate Svs/ Assessments 6115109 6/1/09 Housing Options Identified 6/16109 11/1/09 5 Individuals Transitioned 8/1109 1111/09 social services providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 28 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Ac uisition Costs Land Improvements Liens and other Taxes Closing costs Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL N/A N/A N/A Develo ment Costs Land Use Approvals Building Permits/fees (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges SDCs Relocation Costs Environmental Report/ Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Report Survey Marketing Insurance Other Fees Architectural/Engineering Legal/Accounting Appraisals Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL NIA NIA N/A 29 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services Wages (of personal 105,727 28,400 77,327 providing direct client Pathway Enterprises services) Materials/Supplies 1,000 0 1,000 Marketing/Outreach 1,600 1,600 0 Program Administration 14% CDBG Funds includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client administration Total Project Cost 108,327+ 30,000 87,327 admin (max for Social Svs) 30 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awaMeu with Date conditions Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants CDBG- 30,000 Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant Pathway- Per Award Contribution 87,327 Program Income JCDD- Per Transition 12,500 Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL:. 87,327 42,500 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Pathway will ensure all five (5) individuals transitioning from a group home to supported living (alternative home) will have the support needed for success, matching CDBG Grant and augmenting Jackson County DD54 monies identified for service delivery. 31 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: _Pathway Enterprises, Inc. Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 ( x) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other() DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department N/A 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Nameiritle N/A 3. Provide the names of each "board member"of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 Attached 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 32 2s'. e 4 October 17, 2008 City of Ashland Community Development Block Grant Letter of Support To Whom It May Concern: Pathway Enterprises has the capacity to administer and complete the grant as written; providing three additional staff to ensure the individuals served have the opportunities to move from residential (supported housing) to supported apartments (or other housing options). This transition will create the opportunity for the individuals involved to exercise more choice and control over their lives and experience the freedom of living where and with whom they choose-something that most of us take for granted. Pathway's services are an integral part of Ashland's diverse community, assisting people with disabilities to engage in the same housing, employment and activity options tfiat enrich all of our lives. Thank you for considering this application. Please call me directly if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Roger Hassenpflug President and CEO Department of Health and Human Services Developmental Disabilities Tony Mendenhall, B.S. Program Manager 300 West Main Medford, Oregon Phone: 841 774-8208 Fax: 541774-7978 mendeotl@jackvoncounty.org January 27, 2009 To whom it may concern: It is my pleasure to write this letter in support of Pathway Enterprises Inc. (PEI) on behalf of Jackson County Health and Human Services, Developmental Disabilities Program. As you may know, PEI has been a long-time provider of residential services for people with developmental disabilities in the Ashland community. They are a community organization in every sense of the word in that they are managed locally with a Board of Directors further consisting of local, longtime residents of Ashland and the Rogue Valley. Currently, PEI is supporting 10 moderate to significantly impaired individuals within two five-bed group homes in Ashland. Many of those persons they serve had previously resided within the Fairview Training Center in Salem. In the process of closing Fairview in the 1990s, this organization answered the call and accepted the responsibility to return people to live in their own communities. Consistent with current thinking in the community of people with disabilities, the recently hired Executive Director and the Board of Directors of PEI have committed to support these individuals in the least restrictive and most respectful method as possible. Throughout Jackson County, we have seen other programs successfully "step down" individuals in this manner, moving them from "group Homes" to living in their own homes with supports and expect PEI's results to be much the same. In preparing this letter of support for PEI, I have done some research. The records that we maintain on those individuals served by our department indicate that we have only 66 individuals currently residing within Ashland. Of the 66 people we serve in Ashland, 57 are adults, while only 9 are children under 18. Of the 57 adults who currently live in Ashland, over 80% of these folks are also employed in the Ashland community, 28 live in residential group homes and 3 live in foster care. Just for information, we are currently supporting 800 people in Jackson County as a whole and expect this number to increase by nearly 10% over the next biennium. In discussion with the Executive Director at PEI, funding from the community Block grant is being requested for the purposes of recruiting, hiring and training the staff to support people living in the community. Once hired, these staff will not immediately be funded through Medicaid and State General Fund, however long-term funding is required to be individualized based on a person's support needs and as the residents convert t the new service the funding will catch up. I respectfully request that you closely review and consider this request for funding for PEI and help us strengthen the support system for people that want to live in their own community. Sincerely, Tony Mendenhall CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication First Reading of two separate Ordinances, one Amending the Sign Code Chapter (18.96), and one amending the Site Design Review Chapter (18.72.030) of the Ashland Land Use Code Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman Department: Community Develo ment E-Mail: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 45 min. Questions: Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Sign Code Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.96)? Should the City Council approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as contributing historic resources within a Historic District? Recommendations: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendments as proposed. The Planning Commission also recommends that the sign ordinance be reviewed again two years after any proposed changes are implemented. Background: In July 2008, the Mayor appointed an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations, downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial use. The Task Force included representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning, Historic and Public Arts Commission, Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large. The group was asked to make recommendations to address several concerns. The Task Force met throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and ordinance changes. Public testimony was taken at each meeting to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were specifically impacted by compliance activities then being conducted by the Community Development Department. The City Council has already passed an Ordinance that eliminated the downtown employee parking ban. The issues relating to the of use of public property; such as commercial use of sidewalks along a business frontage, will be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications to other chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way. The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached, have been largely based on the discussion by the Downtown Task Force and Planning Commission, in an effort to add clarification to the existing code and provide new opportunities for signage throughout the City. The development of the proposed Sign Code and Site Design Review ordinance amendments included numerous public meetings. • Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 24, 2009, continued from February 10'h, 2009. Page I of 5 we LAN CITY OF ASHLAND • Planning Commission Study Sessions: December 18, 2008, January 13, and January 27, 2009 • Historic Commission Review: February 4, 2009 • City Council Update: September 2008 • Downtown Task Force Review: five meetings between July and August 2008. Minutes from each of these meetings are attached as Exhibit I. Proposed changes to the sign code include: • Definition Changes • Multiple Frontage Provisions (new sign allowance) • Prohibition of Vehicle Sign in public right of ways • Construction and Real Estate Signs (new sign allowance) • String Lighting Provisions • Exempt Incidental Signs (new sign allowance) • Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs (new sign allowance) • Portable Wind Sign Allowances (new sign allowance) • 3-D signs in Historic Districts, 3cu.ft. (new sign allowance) • 3-D signs outside Historic Districts, 20 cu.ft. (new sign allowance) • Public Art exempted from Sign Code Proposed changes to the Site Design and Use Standards include: • Public Art installed on contributing historic structures to be subject to the Site Design Review process (18.72) under the Land Use Code. The Staff Report dated February 10, 2009 (Exhibit C), and the two associated addendums (Exhibits D & E), more fully describe each of the proposed ordinance amendments and their review history. The Staff Report outlines a number of options that were originally presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. The final draft of the proposed ordinances presented to the City Council at this time incorporates each of the preferred alternatives as recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff. The following items were major topics of discussion before the Planning Commission: Public Art The Planning Commission and Historic Commission recommended that Public Art should no longer be subject to the provisions of the Sign Code. When Public Art is proposed to be installed on historic buildings it was recommended that it undergo a Site Review process with review by the Historic and Planning Commission to ensure that the historic integrity of the building is retained. A separate ordinance amending the Site Design and Use Standards (Chapter 18.72.030) concerning Public Art on Historic Structures is also presented for the Council's consideration (Exhibit B). Three Dimensional Signs The new allowance for 3-D signs was an area of considerable discussion by the Downtown Task Force and the Planning Commission. The Public Arts Commission provided a letter (Exhibit H) recommending against the new allowances for 3-D signs, and representatives of the Public Arts Commission presented their recommendations before the Planning Commission. Ultimately the Planning Commission's recommendation is in favor of three cubic foot 3-D Page 2 of 5 "I CITY OF ASHLAND signs in Historic District, and 20 cubic foot signs in other commercial areas. The proposed ordinance amendments include limitations on placement, materials, and maximum dimensions. By limiting the materials allowable to durable materials, specifically excluding plastic, the Planning Commission decided that allowing such 3-D signs could provide new opportunities for unique signs that contribute to Ashland's character. Exempt `Incidental' Signs The Downtown Task Force recommended amending 18.96.030(H) to increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the downtown area. They also recommended that the allowable area for the additional proposed sign be increased by 3 square feet for increased flexibility, and specifically in consideration of restaurant needs for "menu" signs. If approved the total area of small incidental signs afforded to businesses will increase from 4 square feet to 7 square feet. Portable Signs The proposed amendments to the sign code would allow sandwich boards, pedestal signs, and small wind signs when located on private property. These are each prohibited by the current ordinance. The size, materials, and location of such signs would be limited by the proposed ordinance amendment. The area of such portable signs would also be deducted from the area permitted for exempt incidental signs. It is important to note than any portable sign would have to be located on private property, and as such these ordinance amendments are not intended to allow the location of sandwich boards on the public sidewalk. Construction Signs The Planning Commission discussed construction signs at length during the January 27`h, 2009 Study Session. Of concern was that the existing limitation on construction signs is currently one 6 square foot sign in residential zones, and one 12 square foot sign in commercial zones, whereas on active construction sites contractors often install larger signs, or a number of small signs, to advertise the various entities involved in the project. To make allowances for this common practice, the Planning Commission determined that a cumulative area of 16 square feet in residential zones, and 32 square feet in commercial zones should be allowed. Staff presented an option that such construction signs could be consolidated into a single sign on a property to limit visual clutter. The Planning Commission recommended that up to 4 signs, with an aggregate area not exceeding the area limitations, be permitted on a given property. Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before the City Council by Brent Thompson on September 2"d, 2008. Concerns raised related to properties with business frontages on more than two streets, or businesses whose sole frontage is on a third or fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be addressed in proposed amendments by forwarding implementing language for consideration. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow additional signs by calculating the allowable additional sign area for the third, and subsequent, business frontages to be one sq.ft. of sign area for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This allocation is % the area allowance permitted for the primary or secondary frontages under the current code. Further this provision also establishes that business frontages utilizing this new sign allowance shall comply with specific Page 3 of 5 CAI CITY OF ASHLAND criteria from the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing for an attractive and functional pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the street, and providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk. Temporary Window Signs Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of the window area, and are maintained for a period not exceeding seven days are exempt from the sign code. Signs which remain longer than seven days are considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the Ashland Sign Code (I 8.96.30(l)). The currently proposed ordinance maintains this 7 day period unchanged. Given the nature of holiday signs painted on windows, business signs advertising seasonal sales, real estate listings, and event posters advertising concerts or performances, which all fall into this category, Staff wanted to introduce the extension of this time period for consideration by Council. Extending the time period (from 7 days to 30 days or longer) may make allowances for such signs as noted above, but it may also introduce opportunities for abuse in that the potential would exist for revolving permanent signs that would essentially continuously obscure of 20% of the window area. Although this item was also introduced at the Planning Commission there was not much discussion on whether to extend the time period from 7 days to 30 days or more. Should the Council wish to extend the period it would be a relatively minor change that could be directed to occur between First Reading and Second Reading of the Ordinance. The sign code is comprehensive and covers a broad range of situations, zoning designations, and overlays. The Planning Department provides consultation to assist in the application of the sign code provisions to a particular site or business. Once the property is identified (zoning, amount of street frontage, and existing sign areas) it is a relatively simple formula based code that provides for the type, area, and location of signs without regard to content. The past difficulties have not typically involved the complexity of the Ordinance, but rather applicants propose signs that are prohibited or are larger than otherwise allowed. In these cases it is not the complexity of the code in question, but its underlying purpose. These changes aim to provide greater clarity, and offer new opportunities for signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character. The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The currently proposed amendments continue the evolution of the City's sign code to reflect community interests. Related City Policies: The criteria for legislative amendments to the land use ordinance are as follows: 18.108.170.A. It maybe necessaryfrom time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. Page 4 of 5 W•, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: The Council may conduct the Public Hearing and either approve the First Reading of the ordinances as proposed, or approve the First Reading of the ordinances with specific modifications, or direct Staff to make changes and bring the ordinances back for First Reading. Potential Motions: Move to approve first reading of an Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Sign Code Chapter (18.96), and schedule second reading of the Ordinance. Move to approve first reading of ordinance amendments to the Site Design Review Chapter of the Ashland Municipal Code (18.72.030) relating to the installation of Public Art on buildings listed as contributing historic resources within a Historic District and schedule second reading of the Ordinance. Attachments: Exhibits Item Date Pages Exhibit A An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.96 of the 4/7/2009 1-15 Ashland Municipal Code Exhibit B An Ordinance Amending the Chapter 18.72.030 of 4/7/2009 16-18 the Ashland Municipal Code Exhibit C Staff Report 2/10/2009 19-27 Exhibit D Planning Commission Communication addendum 2/24/2009 28-31 Exhibit E Planning Commission Communication addendum 2/10/2009 32-33 Exhibit F Planning Commission Study Session Communication 12/18/2008 34-35 Exhibit G Downtown Task Force Summary Report 8/21/2008 36-40 Exhibit H Public Arts Commission Memo 11/2008 41-43 Exhibit I Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 2/24/2009 44-46 Planning Commission Public Hearing Minutes 2/10/2009 47-53 Historic Commission Minutes 2/4/2009 54-56 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 1/27/2009 57-60 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 1/13/2009 61-67 City Council Meeting Minutes 9/2/2008 68-71 Downtown Task Force Meeting #5 Minutes 8/11/2008 72-75 Downtown Task Force Meeting #4 Minutes 8/4/2008 76-78 Downtown Task Force Meeting #3 Minutes 7/28/2008 79-82 Downtown Task Force Meeting #2 Minutes 7/21/2008 83-86 Downtown Task Force Meeting #1 Minutes 7/14/2008 87-90 Exhibit J: Submitted Letters Public Arts Commission Letter 91 Adam Stallsworth, Oregon Department of Transportation 92 Steve Cole, Sound Peace 93 Linda von Hanneken-Martin, WolfPacks.coin 94 Dave Alexander 95 Art Bullock 96--97 Matt Frey 98-100 Brent Thompson 101-102 Page 5 of 5 M•, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE SIGN REGULATIONS CHAPTER (AMC 18.96) CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE BY THE 2008 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE Annotated to show deletieas and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof, shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n 'of- Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to make recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland City Council concerning inter alia the appropriate amount of signage in the commercial downtown overlay district, and other areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland,Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to,the,Ashland Municipal Code at a duly advertised public hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations recommended approval of the amendments, with modifications, to the City Council on February 24, 2009: and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Sign Code Amendmenfs April 7, 2009 Page 1 of 15 1 Exhibit A SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.96.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN REGULATIONS: Definitions Related to Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.96.020 Definitions Relating to Signs. 1. Alteration Any change excluding content, and including but not limited to the size, shape, method of illumination, position, location, materials, construction, or supporting structure of a sign. 2. Area The entire area within circles, triangles or rectangles which enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark, or other graphic representation, together with any frame or structural trim forming an integral part of the display used to differentiate the sign from the background against which it is placed. In the case of a multi-faced sign, the area of each face shall be included in determining sign area, excepting double-faced signs placed no more than 24 inches back-to-back. 3. Awning A temporary or movable shelter supported entirely from the exterior wall of a building and composed of non-rigid materials except for the supporting framework. 4. Building Face of Wall All window and wall area of a building in one plane or elevation. 5. Bulletin Board or Reader Board A sign of a permanent nature, but which accommodates changeable copy. 6. Business A commercial or industrial enterprise. 7. Business Frontage A lineal front footage of a building or portion thereof devoted to a specific business or enterprise, and having an a pedestrian entrance/exit open to the general public during all business hours . 8. Business Premises A parcel of property or that portion thereof occupied by one tenant. 9. Canopy A non-movable roof-like structure attached to a building. 10.Construction sign A temporary sign erected on the premises where construction is taking place during the period of construction, indicating the names individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project. 40.11. Direct Illumination A source of illumination on the surface of a sign or from within ,a sign. 44-12.Election The time designated by law for voter to cast ballots for candidates and measures. Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 2 of 15 Exhibit A 2 42-13. Flashing Sign A sign incorporating intermittent electrical impulses to a source of illumination or revolving or moving in a manner which creates the illusion of flashing, or which changes color or intensity of illumination. This definition is to include electronic time, date and temperature signs. F~nta e 113. A single wall surf-an-e- of a build-ing faGing a given diFertien. 14. Ground Sign A sign erected on a free-standing frame, mast or pole and not attached to any building. Also known as a "free-standing sign". 15. Indirect Illumination A source of illumination directed toward a sign so that the beam of light falls upon the exterior surface of the sign. 16. Illegal Sign A sign which is erected in violation of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96). 17. Marquee Sign A sign which is painted on, attached to, or supported by a marquee, awning or canopy. 18. Marquee A non-movable roof-like structure which is self-draining. 19. Non-conforming Sign An existing sign, lawful at the time of enactment of this Ordinance, which does not conform to the requirements of this Code. 20. Proiecting Signs Signs other than wall signs, which are attached to and project from a structure or building face, usually perpendicular to the building face. 21. Portable Siqn A permitted sign not permanently attached to the ground or other permanent structure including sandwich boards, pedestal signs, 'A' Frame signs, flags, and wind signs (not including flags of national, state or city governments). 22. Public Art Public Art defined, approved, and installed in accordance with section 2.17 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall not be regulated as a sign per the provisions of this Chapter. 24- 23. Roof Sign Any sign erected upon, against, or directly above a roof or top of or above the parapet of a building. 224. Shopping Center or Business Complex Any business or group of businesses which are in a building or group of buildings, on one or more lots which are'contiguous or which are separated by a public right- of-way or a privately owned flag drive used for access and not greater than 35 feet in width, which are constructed and/or managed as a single entity, and share ownership and/or function. 23.25.Sign Any identification, description, illustration, symbol or device which is placed or Sign Code Amendmems April 7, 2009 Page 3 of 15 Exhibit A 3 affixed directly or indirectly upon a building, structure, or land, Interior illuminated panels, fascia strips, bands, columns, or other interior illuminated decorative features located on or off a structure, visible from the public right-of-way, and with or without lettering or graphics shall also be considered a sign and included in the overall sign area of the site. Public Art shall not be considered a sign. 24.26. Sign, Public A sign erected by a public officer or employee in the performance of a public duty which shall include, but not be limited to, motorist informational signs and warning lights. 26-.27. Street Frontage The lineal dimension in feet that the property upon which a structure is built abuts a public street or streets. 28. Real Estate Sign A sign pertaining to the sale or lease of the premises, or portion of the premises, on which the sign is located 29. Replacement Sign _A change in the size or materials of a sign in a location where a permitted sign had previously existed prior to the proposed installation 25.30. Temporary Sign A sign which is not permanently affixed. All devices such as banners, pennants, flags, (not including flags of national, state or city governments), searchlights; aandwonh boards, sidewalk sign curb signs, balloons or other air or gas-filled balloons. 31. Three-Dimensional Sign A sign which has a depth or relief on its surface greater than six inches exclusive of the supporting sign structure and not to include projecting wall signs. 32. Vehicle Sign _ A sign mounted on a vehicle, bicycle, trailer or boat, or fixed or attached to a device for the purpose of transporting from site-to-site. 27.33. Wall Graphics Including but not limited to any mosaic, mural or painting or graphic art technique or combination or grouping of mosaics, murals, or paintings or graphic art techniques applied, implanted or placed directly onto a wall or fence. 28:34. Wall Sign A sign attached to or erected against the wall of a building with the face in a parallel plane of the building wall. 235. Wind Sign or Device Any sign or device in the nature of banners, flags, balloons, or other objects fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subject to pressures by wind or breeze. SECTION 3. Chapter 18.96.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN REGULATIONS: Exempted Signs]- is hereby amended to read as follows: Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 4 of 15 Exhibit A 4 SECTION 18.96.030 Exempted Signs. The following signs and devices shall not be subject to the provisions of this chapter except for 18.96.040 and18.96.140 A. Informational signs placed by the City of Ashland, or by the State or Oregon in the publicly owned right-of-way. Collective identification or directory signs placed by the City of Ashland showing the types and locations of various civic, business, recreation, historic interest areas, or other similar uses, when such signs are located on publically owned right-of-way or on City of Ashland property. B. Memorial tablets, cornerstones, or similar plaques not exceeding six square feet in size. C. Flags of national, state or local governments. D. Signs within a building provided they are not visible to persons outside the building. E. Temporary signs not exceeding four square feet, provided the signs are erected no more than 45 days prior to and removed within seven days following an election. (Ord 2844; S1 1999) F. Temporary, non-illuminated real estate AF cegs#astieR signs not exceeding six square feet in residential areas or twelve square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within fifteen days from the sale, lease or rental of the property OF ^F within :en days Of GOMpletion of the pFejeG uch signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary real estate signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade. G. Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot with an aggregate area not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot. Freestanding temporary construction-signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade. H-Small incidental signs provided said signs do not exceed two square feet in area per sign, not more than two in number on any parcel or two per street business frontage, whichever is greater. Within the Downtown Design Standards Zone, three incidental signs with a total area of seven square feet, provided no single incidental sign exceeds three square feet in area, are allowable per business frontage. W. 1. Temporary signs painted or placed upon a window in a non-residential zone, when such signs do not obscure more than twenty percent of such window area, and are maintained for a period not exceeding seven days. Signs which remain longer than seven days will be considered permanent and must comply with the provisions of the Ashland Sign Code (18.96). J. Any sign which is not visible to motorists or pedestrians on any public highway, sidewalk, street or alley. J= K. Strings of Lights. Strings of insandessent lights in non-residential zones where the lights do not exceed 5 wafts per bulb, " apart and do not flash or blink in any way. Strings of lights in residential zones are Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 5 of 15 Exhibit A 5 not regulated. 9-. L_ Temporary non-illuminated signs not exceeding 16 square feet for charitable fundraising events placed by non-profit and charitable organizations. Such signs shall not be placed more than seven days prior to the event and must be removed within two days following the event. No more than two such events may be advertised in this manner per lot per year. All of the foregoing exempted signs shall be subject to the other regulations contained in this Chapter 18.96 relative to the size, lighting or spacing of such sign. SECTION 4. Chapter 18.96.040 of the Ashland Municipal. Code [SIGN REGULATIONS: Prohibited Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.96.040 Prohibited Signs. A. No sign, unless exempted or allowed pursuant to this Chapter, shall be permitted except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030. B. No movable sign, temporary sign or bench sign shall be permitted except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030. C. No wind sign, device, or captive balloon shall be permitted except as may be provided in Section 18.96.030 and 18.96.080(6)6 - - D. No flashing signs shall be permitted. E. No sign shall have or consist of any moving, rotating, or otherwise animated part. F. No three-dimensional statue, caricature or representation of persons, animals or merchandise shall be used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure except as may be provided in Sections 18.96.080(B)5, and 18.96.090(B)4 G. No public address system or sound `devices-shall be used in conjunction-with any sign or advertising device. H. No roof signs or signs which project above the roof shall be permitted. 1. No exposed sources of illumination shall be permitted on any sign, or--for the decoration of'any building, including, but not limited to, neon or fluorescent tubing and flashing incandescent bulbs, except when the source of illumination is within a building, and at least ten (10) feet from a window which allows visibility from the public right-of-way, or when a sign is internally illuminated or the source of light is fully shielded from the public view. J. No signs which use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects or are internally illuminated in the Historic District, as identified in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, or in any residential districts shall be permitted. K. No bulletin boards or signs with changeable copy shall be permitted, except as allowed in Section 18.96.060(D). L. No wall graphics shall be permitted. M. No unofficial sign which purports to be, is an imitation of, or resembles an official traffic sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of traffic, or which hides from view any official traffic sign or signal shall be permitted. N. Vehicle signs used as static displays such that the primary purpose of the vehicle is the display of the sign, placed or parked where frGRV-G#- Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 6 of 15 Exhibit A 6 pfemises-er on the public right-of-way for a continuous period of 2 days or more. Vehicles and equipment regularly used in the conduct of the business such as delivery vehicles, construction vehicles, fleet vehicles, or similar uses, shall not be subiected to this prohibition. SECTION 5. Chapter 18.96.080 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN REGULATIONS: Commercial Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D)] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D). Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following regulations: A. Special Provisions. 1. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage. and no buildiRg shall be r.Fedited 2. Aggregate number of signs. _ The aggregate number of signs for each business-shall be two signs for each business frontage (a ftGntage with an entrannelexit open to the g8ReFa' f ubtie). 3. Material. _ No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects of the sign. 4. Aggregate area of signs- The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and construction signs. B. Types of Signs Permitted. 1. Wall Signs. a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite. b. Area. Total Sign aFPA Whall RAt hP M_GFe th2R ene squaFe feet of sign aFea f8F nnp lineal feet of legal business ftGntage Thog 2FP2 qh2l] nnt pxcpp~ sixty-squafe feet. Buildings with two or fewer business frontages shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of business frontage. For the third and subsequent business frontages on a single building, the business shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for every two Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 7 of 15 Exhibit A 7 lineal feet of business frontage. The maximum sign area on any single business frontage shall not exceed sixty (60)square feet. Business frontages of three or more, on a single building, shall comply with the following criteria established within the City's Site Design and Use Standards: L A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and functional, and open to the public during all business hours ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to a public sidewalk. c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen IRGhes two feet from the face of the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only project four inches. d. Extension above roof line. Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building. 2. Ground Signs. a. -Number. One sign, in-lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count one street frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the foregoing standard. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of - street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign. . c. Placement. Signs shall beplaced so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section 18.96.060(F). d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade. 3. Marquee or Awning Signs. a. Number. A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a wall sign. c. Projection. Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee. d. Height. Sign Code Amendmenl5 April 7, 2009 Page 8 of 15 Exhibit A 8 Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if placed below the marquee. e. Clearance above grade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than seven feet, six inches above grade. f. Signs painted on a marquee. Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall signs provided the signs do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs. 4. Projection Signs. a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each business or group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite in lieu of a wall sign. b. Area. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two feet of lineal business frontage that is not already utilized by a wall sign. The maximum area of any projecting sign shall be 15 square feet. c. Projection. Signs may project from the face of the building to which they are attached a maximum of two feet if located eight feet above grade, or three feet if located nine feet above grade or more. d. Height and extension above roof line. Signs shall not extend above the roofline, eave or parapet wall of the building to-which they are attached, or be lower than eight feet above grade. e. Limitation on placement. No. projecting sign shall be-placed on any frontage on an arterial street. as designated in the Ashland Comprehensive Plan. 5. Three-Dimensional Signs. - a. Number. One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H. b. Surface Area. Flat surfaces in excess of two square feet shall count toward the total aggregate sign area per 18.96.080(A)4. c. Placement. The three-dimensional sign shall be located so that no sign or portion thereof is within a public pedestrian easement or extends beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located into the public right-of-way unless the sign is attached to the face of the building and located eight feet above grade, or the sign is attached to a marquee with the lowest portion of the sign not less than seven feet, six inches above grade not projecting beyond, or above, the face of the marquee. d. Dimensions. No three-dimensional sign shall have a height, width, or depth in Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 9 of 15 Exhibit A 9 excess of three feet. e. Volume. The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire volume within a rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed three (3) cubic feet. For the purposes of calculating volume the minimum dimension for height, width, or depth shall be considered one foot. f. Materials The three-dimensional signs shall be constructed of metal, wood, bronze, concrete, stone, glass, clay, fiberglass, or other durable material, all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective glare. Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic. Three dimensional signs shall not be internally illuminated or contain any electrical component. 6 Portable Business Signs a. Number One portable business sign, limited to sandwich boards, pedestal signs, 'A' frame signs, flags, and wind signs, shall be allowed on each lot excepting that buildings, businesses, shopping centers, and business complexes with permanent ground signs shall not be permitted to have portable signs. b. Area. Sign area shall be deducted from the aggregate sign allowed for exempt incidental signs established-in 18.96.030(H). Signs shall not exceed an - area of four (4) square feet per face including any border or trim, and there shall be no more than two (2) faces. . c. Height. Sandwich board signs and 'A' frame signs shall not extend more than three (3) feet above the ground on which it is placed. Pedestal signs shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the ground on which it is placed. A freestanding wind sign shall not extend more than five (5) feet above the ground on which it is placed. d. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Portable signs shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance and shall not be placed on public right-of-way. No portable business sign shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian ingress and egress as regulated within the Ashland Municipal Code. e. General Limitations Signs shall be anchored, supported, or designed as to prevent tipping over, which reasonably prevents the possibility of signs becoming hazards to public health and safety. Signs shall not be constructed of plastic, illuminated or contain any electrical component. No objects Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 10 of 15 Exhibit A 10 shall be attached to a portable sign such as but not limited to balloons, banners, merchandise, and electrical devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed. SECTION 6. Chapter 18.96.090 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN REGULATIONS: Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts. Signs in commercial, industrial and employment districts,, excepting the Downtown- Commercial Overlay District and the Freeway Overlay District, shall conform to the following regulations. A. Special Provisions. 1. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only-upon such business frontage. and no building shall be Gredited . 2. Aggregate-number-of-signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each . business frontage. 3. Aggregate area of signs. - The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street - - frontage, shall not-exceed an area equal to one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not-include nameplates, and temporary real estate and construction signs. B. Types of Signs Permitted. 1. Wall Signs. a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per frontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite. b. Area. Total sign aren tilhall not he more than one squaFe feet of sign aFea fe Anp Is RP21 feet of legal business ftGntage This area shall not exGeed sixty square feet Buildings with two or fewer business frontages shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for each lineal foot of business frontage. For the third and subsequent business frontages on a single building, the business shall be permitted one square foot of sign area for every two lineal feet of business frontage. The maximum sign area on any single business frontage shall not exceed sixty (60)sguare feet. Business frontages of three or more, on a single building, shall comply Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page I I of 15 Exhibit A 11 ~ with the following criteria established within the City's Site Design and Use Standards: L A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and functional, and open to the public during all business hours ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to a public sidewalk. c. Proiection. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a maximum of eighteen inGhes two feet from the face of the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet can only project four inches. d. Extension above roof line. Signs may not project above the roof or eave line of the building. 2. Ground Signs. a. Number. One sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Corner lots can count both street frontages in determining.. the lineal feet of the street frontage but only one ground sign is permitted. on corner lots. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting.the foregoing standard. b. Area. - Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign. c. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line. of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on corner properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section 18.96.060(F). d.- Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade. 3. Awning or Marquee Signs. a. Number. Two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by a wall sign. c. Proiection. Signs may not project beyond the face of the marquee if suspended, or above or below the face of the marquee if attached to and parallel to the face of the marquee. d. Height. Signs shall have a maximum face height of nine inches if attached to the marquee. e. Clearance above grade. The lowest portion of a sign attached to a marquee shall not be less than Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 12 of 15 Exhibit A 12 seven feet, six inches above grade. f. Signs painted on a marquee. Signs can be painted on the marquee in lieu of wall sign provided the signs do not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up by wall signs. 1 4. Three-Dimensional Signs. a. Number. One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of 50 lineal feet. This is in addition to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee signs. b. Surface Area. Flat surfaces in excess of two square feet shall count toward the total aggregate sign area per 18.96.080(A)4. c. Placement. The three-dimensional sign shall be located a minimum of ten feet from a property line and no sign or portion thereof shall be located within a public pedestrian easement. d. Dimensions. No three-dimensional sign shall have a height,.width, or depth in excess of six feet. e. Volume. The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be.calculated-as the: entire volume within a rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed 20 cubic feet. For the purposes of calculating volume the minimum dimension for height, width, or depth shall be considered one foot. f. Materials The three-dimensional signs shall be constructed of metal, wood, bronze, concrete, stone, glass, clay, fiberglass, or other durable material, all of which are treated to prevent corrosion or reflective glare. Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic. Three dimensional signs shall not be internally illuminated or contain any electrical component. g. Three dimensional signs located in a Historic District shall be limited to the requirements of 18.96.080(B)5. 5. Portable Business Signs a. Number One portable business sign, limited to sandwich boards, pedestal signs, 'A' frame signs, flags, and wind signs, shall be allowed on each lot excepting that buildings, businesses, shopping centers, and business complexes with permanent ground signs shall not be permitted to have portable signs. b. Area. Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 13 of 15 Exhibit A 13 Sign area shall be deducted from the appreciate sign allowed for exempt incidental signs established in 18.96.030(H). Signs shall not exceed an area of four (4) square feet per face including any border or trim, and there shall be no more than two (2) faces. c. Height. Sandwich board signs and 'A' frame signs shall not extend more than three (3) feet above the ground on which it is placed. Pedestal signs shall not extend more than four (4) feet above the ground on which it is placed. A freestanding wind sign shall not extend more than five (5) feet above the ground on which it is placed. d. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any property line of the premises on which such sign is located. Portable signs shall be located within ten feet of the business entrance and shall not be placed on public right-of-way. No portable business sign shall be constructed and placed so as to interfere with pedestrian ingress and egress as regulated within the Ashland Municipal Code. e. General Limitations Signs shall be anchored, supported, or designed as to prevent tipping over, which reasonably prevents the possibility -of signs becoming_._ hazards to public health and safety. Signs shall not be constructed of plastic, illuminated or contain any electrical component. No objects shall be attached to a portable sign such as but not-limited to balloons.--._.-. banners, merchandise, and electrical devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed. - SECTION 7. Chapter 18.96.110 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SIGN REGULATIONS.: Abatement of Nuisance Signs] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.96.110 Abatement of Nuisance Signs. The following signs are hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be removed or the nuisance abated: A. Flashing sign visible from a public street or highway. B. Temporary,-er movable signs or portable signs located on the publicly owned right-of-way. C. Illegal signs. D. Signs in obvious disrepair which are not maintained according to the standards set forth in 18.96.120(C). SECTION 8. 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. Sign Code Amendments April 7, 2009 Page 14 of 15 Exhibit A 14 SECTION 9. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or other actions as required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions or applications commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 8-10) 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 12009, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12009. - Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder - SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of. -,.2009. John Stromberg,.Mayor Reviewed as to form. Richard Appicello, City Attorney Sign Code Amendmems.4pril 7, 2009 Page 15 of 15 Exhibit A 15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE, SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS (SECTION 18.72.030) CONCERNING PUBLIC ART ON HISTORIC STRUCTURES Annotated to show deletie% and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Uned-thfGuo and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. - WHEREAS, the above referenced -grant of power has been interpreted: as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional-provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Assn of Firefighters Local - ' 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App 2937-531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975), and WHEREAS the Mayor of the City of Ashland formed a Downtown Task Force to make recommendations to the Ashland Planning Commission and Ashland-City Council concerning inter alia the relationship of public art to the City sign code and site-design review code; and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code at a duly advertised public hearing on February 10, 2009 and following deliberations recommended approval, with modifications, of the amendments to the City Council on February 24, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009 16 Exhibit B Page 1 of 3 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.72.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code [SITE DESIGN REVIEW Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.72.030 Applicability. Site design standards shall apply to all zones of the city as outlined below. A. Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: a. All new structures, additions or expansions in C-1, E-1, HC and M zones. b. All new non-residential structures or additions (e.g. public buildings, schools, churches, etc.). c. Expansion of impervious surface area in excess of 10% of the area of the site or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. - d. Expansion of parking lots, relocation of parking spaces on a site, or other changes which-affect circulation. e. Any change of occupancy from a less intensive to a more intensive occupancy,.as defined in the City building code, or any change in use which-requires a greater number of parking spaces. f. Any change in use of a lot from one general use category to another general use category, e.g., from residential to commercial, as defined b the zoning regulations of this Code. g. Any exterior change to a structure which requires a building permit and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing - property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. h. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). 2. Residential uses: a. Two or more residential units on a single lot. b. Construction of attached single-family housing (e.g. town homes, condominiums, row houses, etc.) in all zoning districts. c. Residential development when off-street parking or landscaping, in conjunction with an approved Performance Standards Subdivision required by ordinance and not located within the boundaries of the individual unit parcel (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure whiGh requires a building permit and is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009 17 Exhibit B Page 2 of 3 SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions or other actions as required by state law, were commenced shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions or applications commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-4) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the . day of 2009, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2009. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2009. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Site Design and Use Standards Amendments April 7, 2009 18 Exhibit B Page 3 of 3 \ ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 10, 2009 PLANNING ACTION: 2008-02013 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.96 Sign Regulations REQUEST: Adoption of an Ordinance Amendments to the Sign Regulation Chapter (18.96) Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO). 1. Relevant Facts A. Background In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement, downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial use. Members of the Downtown Task Force included representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning, Historic, and Public Arts Commission, - - Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large, to review. and make recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting downtown merchants. The Downtown Task Force met five times through July. and August, 2008. Upon hearing the Downtown Task Force Recommendations on September 2od 2008, the Ashland City Council initiated the Type III Planning Process directing Staff to amend the Land Use Ordinance to address the identified concerns. The Ashland Planning Commission has held two separate Study Sessions to examine conceptual changes to the Sign Code on December 18th, 2008 and January 27th, 2009. The Ashland Public Arts Commission reviewed the proposed changes and submitted a Memo including their recommendations dated November 2008, which is included in the record. Planning Commission and members of the City Council also conducted a walking tour of the downtown on February 5th, 2009, to become familiar with sign issues on the ground prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for February 10, 2009. The Ashland Historic Commission reviewed proposed changes to the Sign Code specifically as they relate to Historic Districts, at their regular meeting on February 4th, 2008. As of the date of writing this Staff Report the Historic Commission meeting has not yet occurred and thus their recommendations shall Exhibit C Plannlna Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report - 2-1009 19 Pace 1 of 9 be presented at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. B. Proposed Amendments to Chapter 18.98 A revised copy of Chapter 18.96 is attached. The substantive modifications to Chapter 18.96 are listed below and are explained more fully in Section C. Downtown Task Force suggested modifications • Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign. • Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cu.ft. • Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu.ft. • Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimensional signs. • Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when installed by the City under the exempt sign category. • Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, 'A' frame and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs. • Modifies the ordinance to exempt qualified Public Art (per Chapter 2.17 of the - Municipal Code) from the Sign code requirements. Planning Commission suggested modifications: • Modifies the ordinance.to eliminate the limitations upon "strings of lights" to allow for other bulb types than incandescent and to allow for closer spacing of bulbs - than the 6" currently required by ordinance. Staff suggested modifications • Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the applicability of the ordinance. • Modifies the ordinance to allow for area calculations to be considerate of the common geometric shapes of circles, triangles, and rectangles. • Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs. • Modifies the ordinance to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when parked for an extended duration. • Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow additional area on the third and fourth frontages of a building. C. Discussion of Proposed Amendments The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal, point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The existing sign code is a Exhibit C Plannma Aum PA 2008-02013 .Ashland Pianning Department - Staff Report - 2-10-09 20 Peale 208 classic product fashioned by a community well-known for its dedicated and farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide new opportunities for adequate signage for business identificatioh, non-commercial speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character. The preceding section of this report lists all the modifications proposed. This section elaborates on the more substantive changes currently being considered and the implications of various options being presented. Section 18.96.020 Changes. Definitions Relating to Signs Area Definition A commonly asked question at the counter in issuing sign permits is "How does the City calculate the area of a sign?". The current definition is: "The area included within the outer dimensions of a sign". (18.96.020). Although relatively simple on its face, this definition has left a lot of room for interpretation and thus Staff has suggested two options for the Commission to consider in the proposed ordinance changes that would eliminate ambiguity. Option 1 essentially formalizes the means by which staff has calculated the area of a sign as bounded within a rectangle. width Option 2 creates new-opportunities to:consider circles and triangles as additional geometric shapes in calculating area.. Additionally this definition would enablethe City to consider areas of multiple components of a sign to additively determine area as bounded by these common geometric shapes. A t J 1 area 1 f ' + area 2 L 1 bas Sign Area 1 r C p p G A r ' ; t ----SIGiVr d a. width Staff supports option 2 as a means of enabling a greater measure of creativity and provide additional opportunities for more distinctive signage, without the disincentive of decreased area allowance. Further the existing code language could be seen to support such a methodology although that has not been its standard application over the years. Exhibit C Planning Actlon PA 2008-G2013 AshlaM Planning Department- Sta" Report - 2-10Z 21 Page 3 of 9 Public Art definition Public Art would not be considered a sign per the proposed changes to 18.96, and as such would no longer be regulated per this section. The proposed change to 18.96 defines Public Art simply by referencing the definition already existing in Chapter 2.17 of the Municipal Code which is as follows: "All forms of original works of art in any media that has been planned and executed with the specified intention of being sited or staged on City Property or on property owned or controlled by the City of Ashland, usually outside and accessible to the public." The approval of Public Art would therefore not be proceeded as a Land Use Proceedings but rather through the application of the set criteria and juried selection process fully outlined in Chapter 2.17. Public Arts Commission Recommendation The Public Arts Commission is supportive of the proposed code changes to remove Public Art from review under the Sign Code. Three dimensional sign definition To distinguish three dimensional signs from the typical 2-D sign this definition establishes that any sign having a relief of greater than 6" shall-fall into the 3-D category and be regulated as such. The limits of this new 3-D sign type are addressed in this report under the section below on New Sign Types. Section 18.96.030 Changes. Exempt Signs City Installed Directory Signs (18.96.030(A)) The modifications to) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force recommendation to more explicitly enable the City to install various off-premises directory signs on City property (including public right of way as well as city property) to assist in directing people to interest areas that are otherwise not readily visible from the street. The recommendation also expresses an interest in developing separate policies to address issues of size, materials, color, font, materials, and location. The proposed code change will enable the City to create a such a program to install informational signs on City property. Construction and Real Estate Signs (18.96.030(F&G)) In evaluating compliance issues Staff determined that the common practice of installing multiple signs during construction was frequently in violation of the existing code. In recognition of the need for contractors, architects, financial institutions and other parners in new developments to post their company contact information in the form of small signs we have proposed two options for the Commission to consider. These options are intended to provide reasonable opportunities for Construction signs, while retaining some measure retaining control over visual clutter and the proliferation of numerous small unsecured yard signs on construction sites. Option t Temporary non-illuminated construction signs not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such Exhibit C Plannino Action P. 200E-02013 Asiiiend Planning Depa anent-Staff Repon-2-10-09 22 Pace 4 of g signs shall be limited to one sign per lot. Freestanding temporary construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade. Option 2 Temporary non-illuminated construction signs on a lot not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in residential areas or thirty-two (32) square feet in commercial and industrial areas, provided said signs are removed within seven days of completion of the project. Such signs shall be limited to no more than four signs per lot . Freestanding temporary construction signs shall be no greater than five feet above grade. The second option is being presented to address discussion among Planning Commissioners that occurred at the January 27'h, 2009 Study Session. Should the Commission choose to allow for more than one consolidated sign in which the multiple yard signs could all be affixed and instead allow multiple individual signs, Staff recommends limiting the total number to four. The existing limitation on Construction and real-estate signs combined is currently 6 square feet in residential zones, and 12 square feet in Commercial zones. In separating the sign types the proposed changes in Option 1 or Option 2 will allow a real estate sign to be independent of the construction signs and as such increasing the total area allowed as follows: Sign Type Existing Proposed Existing limit Proposed Proposed Allowable Area on number Limit on Limit on Area Number Number (Option 1 (Option 2 Real Estate - 6 sq.ff. 1 1- Residential - 6 sq.ft. 1 Construction - . 16 sq.ff. 1 4 - Residential Total 6 sq.ft. 22-sq.fl. 1 2 5 Real Estate - 12 sq.ft. 1 1 Commercial 12 sq ff 1 Construction - 32 sq.ft. 1 4 Commercial Tatat 12 sq. ff. 44 sq.ft. 1 2 5 Exempt `Incidental' Signs The modifications to 18.96.030(H) are proposed to address the Downtown Task Force recommendation to increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the downtown area. It was recommended that the allowable area for the additional proposed sign be increased to 3 square feet for increased flexibility, and specifically in consideration of restaurant needs for "menu" signs. Strings of Lights The proposed draft ordinance eliminates 'incandescent' and the spacing requirements for Strings of Lights (18.96.030K). Commissioners had raised the question whether such lights should be considered temporary, whereas under the current ordinance there Exhibit C Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Department- Staff Report-2-10-09' 23 Pace 50f9 is no such time limit established. The proposed changes throughout this code are not intended to limit existing uses, rather to refine definitions for clarity or expand available opportunities for new signage. As such Staff is not recommending that a new time limit be established to make "strings of lights" temporary. Section 18.96.040 Changes. Prohibited Signs Wall Graphics Wall graphics (such as mosaics, murals, or signs painted directly on a wall) have previously been prohibited under 18.96.040L. As such signs are similar in nature to wall signs painted on a board and affixed to a wall, and would be subject to General Sign Regulations and the limitations for wall signs, Staff recommends this prohibition be eliminated. Vehicle Signs Section 18.96.040(M) is proposed by Staff independent of the Downtown Task Force recommended changes to the Ordinance. The subject of Vehicle signs was not discussed by the Task Force but has been an enforcement concern regarding vehicles parked for extended periods on public streets solely for advertising purposes of adjacent businesses. This section would not prohibit vehicle signs affixed to vehicles that are used in the daily operation of a business such as delivery vehicles. Sections 18.96.080 and 18.96.090 - New Sign Types and increased allowances Multiple Frontages and additional Sign Area Section 18.96.080(B)1b). The subject of additional frontages and existing signage limitations was raised before the City Council by Brett Thompson on September 2nd, 2008. _ Concerns raised related to properties with business frontages on more than two streets or businesses whose sole frontage is on a third or fourth side of a building. Council directed that this issue be addressed in proposed amendments by forwarding implementing language for consideration. Two options are presented for the Commission s consideration in 18.080B1 b. Option l would allow additional sign area (30sq.ft.) for the additional street frontage(s) when defined as a 'business frontage (see definition 18.96.020(7)) while preserving existing protections limiting what would be viewable from any single business frontage (maximum of 60sq.ft.). Option 2 Correlates the allowable additional sign area on three or more frontages to be one sq.ft. for every two lineal feet of business frontage. This is 1/2 the area allowance permitted for the primary or secondary frontages. Further Option 2 establishes that business frontages of three or more on a single building shall comply with criteria from the City's Site Design and Use Standards providing an attractive and functional pedestrian entrance open to the public during all business hours, oriented toward the street, and providing direct pedestrian access from a public sidewalk. Staff recommends Option 2 as a preferred alternative to help ensure the third or fourth frontage of a business are truly utilized by patrons and not merely presented to allow for additional signage which would have the result of drawing customers toward a non functional entrance. Further this method better relates the size of a sign to the size of Exhibit C Planning mien P.4 2008-02013 'anland Planning Department - Staff Report - 2-10-09 24 Page 60f9 the business frontage. Projection Distance Section 18.96.080(B)1c ) addresses a recommendation by the Downtown Task Force to increase the maximum distance a sign can project from the face of a building from 18" to 2' to foster improved visibility as well as increased opportunities for such projection signs to function as architectural elements. Specifically this modification was proposed to assist businesses on smaller side streets and alleys with limited visibility from the main streets within the downtown. Three dimensional signs- Section 18.96.080(B)5a-g and 18.96.090134a The proposed ordinance amendments would establish a new sign type called dimensional signs (defined as those signs having greater than a 6" relief). As proposed the volume limits for these signs would be 3 cu.ft. in the downtown, and 20 cu.ft. outside the downtown on commercially zoned property. This new provision was intended by the Downtown Task Force to provide opportunities for unique and creative options for businesses to connect to customers and the community. In addition to limitations on height, width and depth, material restrictions have also been proposed prohibiting the use of plastic and electrical components (see 18.96.080(B)5f and 18.96.090(B)40. - The Downtown Task Force had recommended that such small 3-D signs in the downtown (up to 3 cu.ft.) be considered as part of the exempt sign category, however due to issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas, ingress egress requirements of the fire and building codes, and building code compliance relating to the method of permanently affixing such signs to the wall or ground, Staff has proposed such signs as a permitted sign type to enable such review. There has been_dscussion regarding whether the small 3-D sign in the downtown should be counted against the area allocation for exempt incidental signs, or whether it should be an additional sign allowance. Two options are presented-in the draft code language that distinguishes between these alternatives. As comparing square foot area to cubic foot volume is not feasible, Staff now presents an option that resolves this concern in limiting the total number of such small signs, both incidental and 3D, within the downtown. Option i One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot. This is in addition to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee signs. Option 2 One three-dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot in lieu of one three square foot incidental sign otherwise allowed per 18.96.030H. Downtown Task Force recommendations The Downtown Task Force recommended allowing 3cu.ft. three-dimensional signs within the downtown. The Downtown Task Force also recommended the City consider allowing larger 3-D signs outside the downtown. In large part their discussion related to an existing 3-D statue ("Alfredo" at Wiiley's Restaurant) which is approximately 20 cubic feet in size. Members of the Downtown Task force addressed concerns over the proliferation of prefabricated 3-D signs at chain franchises, such as a Bob's Big Boy statue, in that Exhibit C Planning Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Depa-,moat- Staff ReNOrt-2-i0-09 25 Pace 7 of 9 the size and material limitations would limit such 3-D signs. Public Arts Commission Recommendations The Public Arts Commission reviewed the draft ordinance and provided a memo for the Planning Commission's consideration (attached). Further members of the Public Arts Commission presented at the study session held January 27, 2009 which are reflected in the minutes (attached). In relation to 3-D signs the Public Arts Commission stated they are opposed to 3D signs outside the downtown area. Historic Commission Recommendations The Historic Commission is scheduled to review the Sign Code amendments at their meeting on February 4`h, 2009. As this report has been prepared in advance of their meeting, their recommendations will be presented to the Planning Commission during the public hearing on February 10th 2009. Portable Signs - Sandwich Boards and Pedestal Signs(18.96.080(B)6 The Downtown Task Force explored the option of allowing sandwich boards and pedestal signs when discussing the desire to increase exposure for businesses not on a major street. The issue was largely resolved through the concept of enabling the City to install collective directional signs (as proposed inl8.96.030A). However the use of pedestal signs or sandwich boards on the businesses private property still may have merit provided such sign areas are calculated in consideration of the exempt sign allowance. Although typical exempt signs are not required to obtain sign permits, Staff has proposed this section under the permitted sign section to allow. assessment of issues of potential encroachment into pedestrian circulation areas, ingress egress requirements of the fire and building code, and compliance with maximum height requirement through the sign permit process. The size, materials, and- location -of such signs would also be limited by-the proposed ordinance amendment..-.- II. Procedural The procedure for a legislative amendmenfis described in 18.108.170 as follows: A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the Exhibit C Planning Action PA 2008-02013 'sniand Planning Depanrnent - Staff Report - 2-10-09 26 Page 8 of 9 ' proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place J of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. Pursuant to ORS 197.610, a pre-notice, including draft language that is to be considered through the public hearing process, was sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on December 22, 2008, which by statute is more than 45 days prior to the Planning Commission Public Hearing scheduled for February 10th. Pursuant to ORS 197.615, the City of Ashland.will provide notice to DLCD within 5 days of the final decision by the City of Ashland. III. Conclusions and Recommendations _ The Planning Commission shall consider public testimony received, the Public Arts Commission recommendation, the Historic Commission recommendations, the - Downtown Task Force Recommendations, and Staff recommendations regarding the various options presented for sign code amendments. -In consideration of testimony received, and selection of specific options for inclusion in a final ordinance, Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to update and revise Ashland's land use requirements regarding such factors as the size, number, type, materials, and location of signs. Exhibit C Mannino Action PA 2008-02013 Ashland Planning Depanroent- Staff Report - 2-10-09 27 Paae 9 0 9 CITY OF -ASHLAND Planning Commission Communication Date: February 24, 2009 Re: Sign Code Amendments Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Sign Code Materials A revised copy of the draft sign code is attached for your consideration and recommendation. Please refer to the Planning Commission February 10", 2009, packet, for the full Staff Report and addendum (dated 2/10/2009), Downtown Task Force Summary Report (dated 8/21/2008), Public Arts Commission Memo (dated 11/2008), Council and Commission minutes, and letters which were previously submitted into the public record for Planning Action 2008-02013. Staff received a new letter from the Public Arts Commission following the hearing on _ February 101, which is included as an attachment. All information previously considered submitted into the public record will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration of the sign ordinance amendments. This Planning Commission Communication aims to respond to items raised during the Planning Commission's February 10th meeting to assist the Commission in its final deliberations= Wall Graphics Wall graphics (signs painted directly upon the wall) are currently prohibited by ordinance. - If this prohibition were removed such wall graphics would still be considered a sign they would remain subject to the area and other limitations within the ordinance. Staff had initially suggested that such a prohibition be removed, however in consideration of testimony provided at the Public Hearing on February 10, 2009 before the Commission, Staff recognizes that wall graphics could potentially have adverse impacts on historic resources when located on contributing historic buildings. Of particular concern is the somewhat permanent nature of painted signs of raw materials such as brick or stone, and the difficulty of removal at the change of a building's occupant business. In light of these concerns Staff now recommends retaining the current prohibition against wall graphics Given the scope of the proposed changes to the ordinance are largely supportive of specific changes recommended by the Downtown Task Force, and they did not review the issue of removing the prohibition of wall graphics, it may be appropriate to at this time retain the prohibition. The Downtown Task Force had recommended review of the sign ordinance within 2 years of the adoption of any amendments. Should the Planning Commission and Council wish to evaluate the issue of wall graphics and potential impacts and opportunities more comprehensively before allowing them such a review could be completed at that time. Exhibit D PA 2008-02013 Sian Code Amendments. PC Special 10cehng 2-24-2009 28 1 Three Dimensional Signs The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic foot signs within the downtown and other Historic Districts. Concern was raised by staff regarding the location of 3-D signs to be explicitly on private property as initially proposed would preclude their installation as hanging marquee signs or attached to the face of a building. To address this Staff is now presenting modified language that would allow 3-D signs in these circumstances provided they retain sufficient vertical clearance (8' when attached to a building - as currently required in 18.96.080(4)c, and 7'6" when attached to a marquee as currently required per 18.96.080(3)d. A question regarding the establishment of a maximum height for the proposed 20cu.ft. signs was raised at the public hearing on February 10'",2009. The maximum height was derived in part in consideration that permanent ground signs can only be 5' above grade and as such 3-D signs should be comparable. It was recognized that a specific 3-D sign that was the impetus behind the proposed change ('Alfredo' at Wiiley's World Pasta) was taller than five feet and thus the five foot maximum height would need to be increased to accommodate such 3-D signs. As the Building Code requires that a structural building permit be obtained for construction of any structure, or fence, greater than six feet in height to ensure that footings are of adequate design to resist wind loads, Staff has presented-six. feet as an appropriate to limit the maximum height for freestanding 3-D.signs. A question was also raised as to whether fiberglass would be an allowable material for - 3-D signs. Although Staff stated that it would not be seen as prohibited as is plastic, to clarify this issue staff has now inserted "fiberglass" as an allowable durable material for, consideration in the proposed amendments as attached (18.96.080.B5(f) and 18.98.090.134(f)). Portable Signs _ At the Planning Commission meeting on February 10'h, 2009 the location of portable signs was briefly discussed. Concern was raised that allowing such signs on private property, even when far removed from a business entrance, could allow for the proliferation of sandwich boards adjacent to major arterial streets used extensively to attract motorist attention. The ordinance amendments as originally proposed address this concern in part by limiting the placement of portable signs to only be on those lots that do not contain a permanent ground sign. This is further clarified in the current revision by expanding this limitation to include shopping centers and business complexes (18.96.080.136(a) and 18.98.090.B5(a)). Permanently installed ground signs should function to advertise a business location to passing motorists. As the intention of portable signs was to enable businesses to better communicate to pedestrians passing a business frontage staff has also inserted new language on placement to limit the location of portable signs to within ten feet of the business entrance (18.96.080.66(d) and 18.98.0WIE15(d)). Flags During the public hearing the issue of flags was raised by a business owner that has been precluded from locating Tibetan prayer flags in front of his business, SoundPeace, due to the prohibition currently in the sign ordinance. Wind Signs by definition include banners, flags, balloons, and other objects fastened in such a manner as to move upon Exhibit D PA 2008-02013 Sian Code Amendments: PC Speaml Meelina 2-24-2009 29 2 being subject to pressure by wind or devise. This movement by wind is essential to the symbolic function of Tibetan Prayer flags. Such movement is also a means of attracting attention beyond that provided by static sign display. Elimination of visual clutter to promote a more pleasing environment was precisely the purpose of the prohibitions enacted in 1982 and 1989 (Ord 2440) which precluded wind signs, movable copy, flashing signs, and animated signs. Should the Commission and Council ultimately wish to allow for wind signs Staff recommends specific limitations that would regulate height, location and size of such signs be included in the ordinance. To this end, by allowing wind signs as "portable signs" within the ordinance amendments as attached ((18.96.080.136(a) and 18 98.090.135(a)), such flags would be held to the maximum area allowed for portable signs (4 sq.ft.). The allowable area used by such wind signs or flags would also be deducted from the allowable exempt incidental sign allowance currently proposed. Placement limitations for portable signs would also apply (on private property and within 10' or the business entrance) and they would have to be removed at the daily close of business. A new provision limiting the height of a freestanding wind signs (such as flags on a pole) to be no more than five feet above the ground on which it is placed is intended to ensure that such portable signs do not exceed the height allowance otherwise permitted for permanent ground signs. In the event the Commission and Council do not include such provisions in a final ordinance, given SoundPeace sells such flags, the display of the specific flags that - raised the issue could be considered the outdoor display of merchandise and allowable only if approved through a Conditional Use Permit Process. Public Art As discussed in the February 10'", 2009 Staff Report, Staff believes that addressing the impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic properties, including Public Art permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed through the site review process rather than the sign code. The preservation of Historic Resources and the promotion of Public Art are both valued contributions to the sense of place Ashland has fostered over many years. Both Public Art and historic resources are cultural resources that provide attractions that can draw people to and enhance public perception of an area. Each priority can be accommodated provided there is a considered review which is sensitive to the integrity of historic resources while recognizing the social and cultural significance of proposed public art. Should the Planning Commission recommend in favor of removing Public Art from regulation per the provisions of the sign code, staff recommends the Site Design Review applicability criteria be simultaneously changed as follows: Exhibit D PA 2 0 08-02 01 3 Sign Code Amendments: PC Special Nlee6ng 2-24-2009 30 3 Potential Code Amendments: 18.72.030 Site Design Review Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: g. Any exterior change to a structure which r°^ ^ b Id peFFR t, ^^d- is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. 2. Residential uses: d) Any exterior change to a structure whiGh requires a building permit and individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, o or includes the installation of Public Art. Exhibit D PA 2008.02013 Sign Code Arnendmenls: PC Special [dieeiino 2-24-2009 31 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission Communication Addendum Date: February 10, 2009 Re: Sign Code Amendments Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Historic Commission Review The Planning Commission received a staff report regarding Planning Action 2008- 02013, potential sign code amendments, for review at the February 10th , 2009. At the time the Staff report was drafted the Historic Commission had not yet reviewed the proposed changes. On February 4`h, the Historic Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance changes and had the flowing general comments to forward to the Planning Commission for Consideration: Wall Graphics The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allow 'wall graphics' (signs painted directly upon the wall. As such wall graphics would still be considered a sign they would remain subject to Historic Commission review when applied to buildings within a designated Historic District. Three Dimensional Signs The Historic Commission was generally favorable to allowing small three cubic foot signs within the downtown and other Historic Districts. Public Art Upon review of potential sign Changes the Historic Commission reached consensus at their regular meeting on February 4'n, that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land use code, however they expressed that the selection of art, or locations, within Historic Districts should consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. Currently the CUP process through the sign ordinance for the installation of government signs allows for such an opportunity as public art is currently considered a sign. The primary concerns articulated at the February 51h meeting of the Historic Commission involved the need to ensure the historic integrity of contributing historic buildings in relation to public art installations is not compromised. Exhibit E Planning COMMI5510n Communication Addendum 2-10-2009 32 1 Staff Comment Opportunities for Public Art would be severely limited on private properties if they were considered "signs" as the size, material, location, height, relief, and number would all be prescriptive. Further, "Public Art" defined as a sign would reduce the allowable area for commercial signs on the business granting an easement for the installation of Public Art. This reduction in allowable sign area would be a significant disincentive to those private property owners otherwise willing to grant an easement for Public Art. For this reason Staff remains supportive of exempting public art from the Sign Code. Within Historic Districts however there remains a number of compelling reasons to have Public Art subject to a more formalized review process. To this end requiring the installation of Public Art that includes an alteration to a contributing historic building within a Historic District to be subject to Site Review Approval could address the concerns of the Historic Commission and assist in protecting historic resources. This process would afford opportunities for both creativity and variety not otherwise achievable through its inclusion in the sign code. This Site Review Approval Process would also ensure Public Art installations: • Comply with Land Use requirements such as the requirements of the Basic and/or Detailed Site Review Zones. • Provide for on-site circulation systems and provide for vision clearance.. • Ensure pedestrian walkways in the public right of way are not obstructed or impeded. • Retain an attractive and functional entrance directly accessible from the street • Comply with the prohibition to use.bright or neon colors used extensively to attract attention to the building • Subject to Historic Commission review and recommendation for those installations within the historic district. Potential Code Amendments: 18.72.030 Site Design Review Applicability. The following development is subject to Site Design Review: 1. Commercial, Industrial, Non-Residential and Mixed uses: g. Any exterior change to a structure which Feq a build P9 ^^Flr^" and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places or to a contributing property within an Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. A similar amendment could be included for Residential Properties individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Staff believes that addressing the impacts upon exterior changes to contributing historic properties, including Public Art permanently affixed to a building, is appropriately addressed through the site review process. Exhibit E Planning Commission Commumcalion Addendum 2-10-2009 33 2 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Planning Commission Communication Date: December 18", 2008 Re: Sign Code Amendments Study Session Submitted By: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Summary The city sign code is an extremely successful tool that has had a tremendous influence upon the transformation of Ashland's downtown into a community focal point, revered throughout the State and beyond. The existing sign code is a classic product fashioned by a community well- known for its dedicated and farsighted citizenry. The changes currently proposed aim to provide new opportunities for adequate signage for business identification, non-commercial speech, and dissemination of public information while preventing visual clutter, protecting scenic views, and preserving Ashland's unique character. The Planning Commission is being presented with draft ordinance amendments to the Sign Code at-this study session for discussion and comment. A public hearing to address final- amendments proposed will subsequently be scheduled, at which time the Planning Commission will make formal recommendations to the City Council for consideration. -Background In July of 2008 the Mayor appointed members to an ad-hoc Downtown Task Force to evaluate concerns relating to signage limitations and enforcement, downtown employee parking, and the use of public right-of-way for commercial use. Members of the Task Force included representative downtown merchants, members of the Planning and Public Arts Commission, Chamber of Commerce representatives, as well as citizens at large to review and make recommendations directed to address several concerns affecting downtown merchants. The Task force met throughout July and August to evaluate options for various remedies and ordinance changes to address the items identified. Public testimony was taken at each meeting to provide the Task Force with input from merchants who were specifically impacted by current compliance activities being conducted by the Community Development Department. Issues relating to downtown employee parking have already been addressed by the City Council through elimination of the downtown employee parking ban. The issues relating to the of use of public property, such as commercial use of sidewalks along a business frontage, will be addressed outside of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance through modifications to other chapters of the Ashland Municipal code including Chapter 6, Business Licenses and Regulations, and Chapter 13, regulating the use of the Public Rights of Way. The potential changes to the Sign Code, as attached have been largely based on the discussion by the Task Force, consideration of enforcement, and an effort to add clarification to the existing code. Exhibit F Pfannin{,t Commission Study SQSSIOn CnmWL!111 a"On 72-98-2006 34 The following issues outline the areas of modification to the Sign Code currently presented: • Modifies the ordinance to refine or add various definitions to add clarity to the applicability of the ordinance • Modifies the existing limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) in the downtown from 2 signs of two square feet, to up to 3 signs with an aggregate area of not more than 7 sq.ft. Essentially this modification provides for an additional 3 sq.ft. exempt sign. • Modifies the ordinance to allow a downtown business to install one three dimensional sign not to exceed 3 cu.ft. • Modifies the ordinance to allow a business outside of the downtown to install one three dimensional sign not to exceed 20 cu.ft. • Modifies the ordinance to include material limitations for three-dimentional signs. • Modifies the ordinance to define and increase the size allowable for temporary construction signs to better correlate to standardized sizes for such signs. • Modifies the ordinance to enable the installation of collective identification and informational signs on public right-o-ways, or City owned property, to better direct pedestrians to civic, business, recreation, and historic interest areas when installed by the City under the exempt sign category. Modifies the ordinance-to prohibit vehicle signs used as static displays when parked for an extended duration. • Modifies the ordinance to allow additional business frontages to be counted when fronting on more than two separate streets. This provision would then allow additional area of signage to increase from 60sq.ft maximum for one or two - frontages, to a 90sq.ft. maximum for properties with three or four frontages when the businesses have a prominent entry open to pedestrians on those additional frontages. • Modifies the ordinance to establish allowances for sandwich boards, 'A' frame and pedestal signs when located on private property and when within the square footage limit permissible for incidental exempt signs. Exhibit F Planning Cominission Study Session Communiua6on 12-18-2008 35 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Downtown Task Force Summary Report August 20, 2008 At the initiation of Mayor John Morrison and in conjunction with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Task Force was created to address concerns raised by merchants regarding aspects of the sign code, downtown parking and private/commercial use of the public right of way and the level of enforcement by the City. In the opening of the first of what turned into five consecutive Monday afternoon meetings in July and August, Mayor Morrison explained his view on the charge of the Task Force encouraging the members to focus on immediate concerns that can be addressed within the "fast track" timeline. At the request of the members, City Staff presented the Task Force with a list of issues and potential options to discuss that may resolve or at least alleviate the impact of the particular issue. Over the course of the five meetings; the Task- Force took public input on each issue, received input from City Staff, discussed. and ultimately voted on a recommendation for each issue. The following summary is divided into two elements. The first element includes immediate fixes to some of the most visible and controversial issues in the format of issue statement, recommendation of the Task Force and reasoning of recommendation. The second element includes more fundamental recommendations that require a broader scope of review and direction from City Council. Issue #1 Particularly in the Downtown area, the limitation on exempt signs (no permit required) of 2 signs of two square feet do not meet the needs of the businesses Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three in the Downtown Area with the third sign having a maximum area of three square feet rather than the two square feet allowed for the other two signs Reasoning: The additional exempt sign will provide businesses with increased flexibility in how they allocate signage and also assists in addressing a specific concern of restaurant menu Exhibit G Downtown Tesk Force Summary Report 36 signs that came up multiple times in public testimony and task force discussions. Issue #2 The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional signs/representations of merchandise of any type Recommendation: Allow one of the three exempt signs to be three dimensional if the property is within the Downtown area or within one of the four Historic Districts with its volume measurement being equivalent to the square footage limitations on exempt signs, which would result in the 3-D sign having a maximum size of 3 square feet. Recommendation: Allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the Historic Districts with a volume of approximately 20 cubic feet. Specific size, surface detailing, location on property, materials and illumination standards will be determined through - - Planning Commission and City Council review and approval. Reasoning: The removal of the prohibition of three dimensional objects for signage provides unique and creative options for. businesses to connect-with their customers and the community. The__ limitations- placed upon the 3-D signs provide adequate protection for the community in preventing objects that are out - of scale with the building or that create too large of a visual distraction. Issue #3 Some businesses, by virtue of their business access, have limited signage opportunity along the main streets within the downtown area. Recommendation: Increase the allowed maximum projection of a sign from the current 18 inches from the building face to 24 inches from the building face. Existing State Building Code addresses the minimum height above grade (sidewalk level) needed for any structure or sign to project over the public right of way. Reasoning: Increasing the amount of projection may provide better angles of visibility for businesses on smaller side streets or alley's and could also function as an architectural element of a building while still having a scale that cannot overtake a business frontage. Issue #4 Exhibit G Downtown Task Force Summary Report 37 The use of the public right of way for private commercial use is limited by the Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafe's (AMC 6.44), which is not an equitable method 'for allocation of our limited public resource„downtown public sidewalks. Recommendation: Expand the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance to allow an abutting property owner similar availability to obtain a permit for the use of a portion of the sidewalk right of way if public safety and access conditions/standards have been met. The charge for such a permit would be based on the square footage of the sidewalk right of way being privately utilized Reasoning: Issue #5 Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition of placing signage in the public right of way (sidewalk area primarily). Some businesses have exposure issues with their business location and feel that off- site signage is necessary for adequate exposure for their business. Recommendation: Create a set of guidelines and policies for the placement of informational/directional signs by the City in the right of way. The guidelines would determine the standards for the signage and=could include maximum size, color, font, content (name, arrow, type of business, etc), materials, location. An example could be a small sign at the entrance to an alley with the words "more shops" or "restaurants" or "galleries". In certain situations with physical site constraints,-the use of the specific business name incorporated into other City signage could also be integrated into the guidelines. Reasoning: Issue #6 The proliferation of newspaper/misc publication racks within the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to newspaper racks that would set standards for the placement of newsracks, such as maximum dimensions for grouping of racks, distance between rack groupings. The ordinance would also address aesthetic standards, maintenance and use standards to ensure public safety and to eliminate existing problems of litter, abandoned racks and the removal of publication materials that may not qualify for placement on the right of way. Reasoning: It was unanimously agreed that the proliferation of newsracks in the downtown area has reached a point where regulation on Exhibit G Downtown Task, Force Surnmary Report 38 3 their use and placement is critical. The current lack of regulation has created somewhat of an "anything goes" situation and City Staff has little to no ability to address the issue Issue #7 The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what types of objects are encouraged, allowed or legal in the public right of way Recommendation: Create ordinance language that would allow for the placement of functional items (planter boxes, benches, trash cans, safety items, etc) if they meet a set of minimum safety and placement standards. The Task Force also recommends that there not be individual permits for each object placed if it meets the minimum safety and placement standards. Items that do not meet the standards could have some sort of permit or review process. Reasoning: -The Task Force was very intent on solving this issue in away - that encouraged the "right stuff' to be able to be placed in the right of way to help beautify the streetscape and also allow some- individual expression-within-the constraints of public safety and access considerations. Creating a list of what types of "functional objects" that are allowed and what - minimum standards they must meet will hopefully avoid the need for individual permit requirements that may result in discouraging businesses from enhancing the streetscape. Issue #8 Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and employee access to the downtown area while not at work. Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the Downtown Area. Reasoning: The conclusion of the group was that the ordinance was put in place primarily at the request and benefit of the business community so if they now feel that it is not working, or no longer needed in actual ordinance form, it would be reasonable to remove it and leave the matter to the merchants to self regulate. Exhibit G Downtoem Task Force Summary Report 39 Issue #9 The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to more efficiently administer the downtown parking program. Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid parking ticket balance of $250. Additionally, the City should implement a final, very visible, warning placard be placed on a vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the inclusion of booting/immobilization of vehicles in addition to the towing option. Reasoning: The Task Force felt very strongly that the City does need adequate tools to collection from flagrant parking violators; however, the use of a boot or other immobilization technique has a very visual aspect that may not send the type of message to our community. Additionally, the boot/immobilization renders the parking space unusable until the operator contacts the. City and pays or until it gets towed, which most likely equates to 12 to 24 hours. Exhibit G Downtown Task Force Surnmary Fepori _ 40 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission City of Ashland November 2008 Dear Planning Commission: The mission of the Public Art Commission reads in part "...to enhance the cultural and aesthetic quality of life in Ashland... " We are passionate about preserving and enhancing the aesthetic beauty of Ashland and we believe the attractiveness of Ashland and lack of visual clutter is due in large part to the current sign code. We support the recommendation of the Downtown Task Foice to exclude public art from the sign code (specifically definition #27) but we are opposed to the recommendation to allow 3 dimensional signs - which we believe could have a negative impact on Ashland aesthetics. The powers and duties of the Public Art Commission include the following: D. The commission shall advise the planning commission, the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission, other city commissions and committees and city departments regarding artistic components of all municipal government projects under consideration by the city. The commission may also serve as a resource for artistic components of land use developments. As such, we respectfully submit the attached memo for your consideration and look forward to discussing this with you at an upcoming study session. Sincerely, Melissa Markell, Chair Public Art Commission C: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission 41 Exhibit H CITY OF ASHLAND MEMO Date: November 2008 To: City of Ashland Planning Commission From: City of Ashland Public Art Commission Re: 3 dimensional signs C: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst and staff liaison to the Public Art Commission The Public Arts Commission respectfully proposes an alternative recommendation to the recommendation of the Downtown Task Force to modify the current sign code and allow 3 dimensional signs outside the downtown core of up to twenty cubic feet. The Downtown Task Force's recommendation #2 provides for two scenarios: allowing 3 dimensional signs in the downtown and historic districts limited to three cubic feet and _ allowing 3 dimensional signs located outside the downtown area and historic districts up to twenty cubic feet. In both scenarios, the object must be placed on private property. We feel the allowance of 3 dimensional signs significantly increases the risk of visual - - clutter and the unintended consequences are greater than the potential benefit to Ashland businesses. The Task Force admirably strove to accommodate the existing non-compliant 3 dimensional objects (lion, teddy bear, and waiter). The lion would be accommodated under recommendation 46 allowing "functional objects", the bear would be accommodated under recommendation #5 allowing the display of merchandise on public property for a rental fee and the chef/waiter accommodated under recommendation #2 allowing 3 dimensional objects up to twenty cubic feet outside the downtown core and historic districts. All three of these existing items are objects with no blatant commercial message (words or logos). These generic objects are not associated solely with the business. However, since regulation of sign content is prohibited there could be a preponderance of 3 dimensional objects with blatant commercial messages that clutter Ashland's visual landscape as businesses seek greater exposure and visibility. If 3 dimensional signs are allowed, they likely would have strong and obvious references to the business, graphically (doughnuts, tires, pizzas, and cameras) with or without words. Or the 3 dimensional objects might only contain words ("TIRES" spelled-out of large letters that appear to be made of tires). Either way, the potential for eye clutter is great. This effect would likely be exacerbated where businesses are clustered together (shopping centers). Given that the recommendation is an opportunity for an additional sign of significant 42 Exhibit H size, the opportunity for businesses to take advantage of this for advertising purposes is great. It is understandable that business owners want to draw attention to their business as a means of attracting customers. In lieu of the Task Force recommendation ##2, we believe an appropriate, artistic and aesthetic way to accomplish this desire is through the placement of public art. After adoption of the Public Art Master Plan, the City Council requested the public art selection process be codified. The revised and expanded public art ordinance will go to the Council for first reading in early December 2008. The ordinance allows for the placement of public art on private property (through an easement) and includes guidelines for selection including: "The artwork shall not promote goods or services of adjacent or nearby business." Through the public art process, content of the piece is managed via criteria set forth in the request for proposal and via the guidelines established in the ordinance. A selection panel, separate from the public art commission and comprised of a variety of persons selects the winning design and makes the recommendation to the PAC who brings it forward to the City Council-for final approval. This method of soliciting and selecting 3 dimensional objects helps to protect the visual aesthetics of the community and provides an opportunity for businesses to call attention to their business in an attractive and noncommercial way and enables the city to retain some level of control over the appearance, message and content. While the objects would not be advertising for a specific business, it could serve the same purpose of drawing customers: people making a point to go to view the art and then visiting existing businesses; or serving as a point of reference when providing directions to a business or location. The art might be a mural, a mosaic, a kinetic piece, a three dimensional interactive piece etc. It would serve to draw the customers rather than a collection of advertising signs. Should the Planning Commission decide to move forward with the Task Force recommendation of 3 dimensional signs, the Public Art Commission encourages the Planning Commission to impose a one year review of the amendments versus the two year review as proposed by the Task Force. A two year review allows time for a significant number of 3 dimensional signs to be installed - and regardless of the review outcome those signs will no doubt be in place for years. Further, the Public Art Commission urges the Planning Commission to carefully evaluate the proposed dimensions, (the difference between a 3D `object' and a "fat" 2D sign), and consider the possible unanticipated consequences (giant 3D hamburgers). Thank you for your consideration of our position and suggestions. 43 Exhibit H CITY 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 Morris 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.noled;lhe 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 Heiman/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 Thusius1897 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 10m 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. Exhibit 1-1 Ashland Panning Commission Febf nary 24, 2009 44 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 4t^ frontage to have half the signage amount that would be allowed for the 151 or 2n" 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 3rd or 41^ 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 Exhibit 1-1 Ashland Plaiming Commission February 24, 2009 45 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 MarshlDotterrer m/s to recommend the following goals to the City Council: 1) Strategic VisionNisioning, 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 Exhibit 1-1 Ashland Planning Comraission Febmary 24, 2009 46 Page 3 of 3 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. CONSENTAGENDA -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 corner 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 ownedjointly by the City of Ashland and the Housing Authority of Jackson County. The 2004 Annexation and Performance Standards Subdivision approval for Willowbrook Exhibit 1-2 Ashland Planning Commission February 10. 2009 47 Page 1 of 7 Subdivision was for 107 residential units. The required minimum density of the site can be met through future 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. Morris 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. Exhibit 1-2 Ashland Planning Commission February 10. 2009 48 Page 2 of 7 Marsh requested additional clarification on the proposed trail system through the property. Severson slated 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. 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 NevadalProject'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 Platt1862 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 HartzellI881 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 Exhibit 1-2 AshianU Planning Commission February 10. 2009 49 Page 3 of 7 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 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 StreeUStated 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 there 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 StreetfVoiced 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 Druben1125 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. Exhibit 1-2 Ashland Planning Commission Febmary 10. 2009 50 Page 4 of 7 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. 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. Morris 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. Exhibit 1-2 Ashland Planning Commission February '10, 2009 51 Page 5 of 7 J 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. 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 Moms, 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 MorristMindlin mts to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2009.00043. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dimitre, Marsh, Mindlin, Morris and Miller, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners Miller/DimRre mis to extend the meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. TYPE III PUBLICHEARINGS _ 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 Staffs 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. H. 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 Exhibit 1-2 Ashland Planning Commission Febmary 10. 2009 52 Page 6 of 7 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. Commissioners MilledMindlin mIs to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 5-0. Public Testimony George Kramed366 North Lauretflndicated 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 CoIPJ1323 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 BusselWice 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/682 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 staffs 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 Leoal 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 MillerfMarsh mis 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 Exhibit 1-2 AsPdancl Plaotung Cornmrssion February 10. 2009 53 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF -ASH LAN D ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 4, 2009 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR MEETING, 7:00 am Historic Commissioners Present: Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Allison Renwick, James Watkins, Sam Whitford, Henry Baker, Tom Giordano, Keith Swink, Alex Krach Absent Commission Members: Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent High School Liaison: None Appointed SOU Liaison: None Appointed Staff Present: Planner: Angela Barry; Clerk: Billie Boswell; Planning Manager: Maria Harris; Senior Planner: Brandon Goldman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Whitford moved to approve the minutes of the December 3, 2008 meeting. Mr. Giordano seconded the motion. Mr. Swink and Mr. Krach abstained since they were absent from the meeting. The minutes were approved unanimously by the remaining commissioners. PUBLIC FORUM: There being no one wishing to speak, Chairman Shostrom closed the Public Forum. NEW BUSINESS: A. Lithia Park Historic Drinking Fountain = Don Robertson, Parks Department Director, explained that the drinking fountain near the lower Duck Pond, dating from the 1920's, had deteriorated and was not working: - The stone monument, that supports the drinking fountain and the E. K. Anderson memorial plaque, was also crumbling apart. A donor has offered to pay to replace it with a new frost-free and ADA compliant fountain and add their own memorial plaque. Mr. Skibby said that E. K. Anderson was an important historical figure in Ashland and was involved in the original Ashland Mill. The Commissioners suggested capping the top and leaving the stone memorial and plaque in place and installing the new fountain nearby. Mr. Robertson said "stand alone" memorials that are not functional are prohibited in Lithia Park but this one could be considered "grandfathered". He said he would review and take the comments back to the Parks Commission. B. Peace Wall Art on City Hall - Melissa Markel[, Public Arts Commission Chair, introduced the Arts Commission members present. Chairman Shostrom asked about the new Public Arts Commission master plan and asked Commissioner David Wilkerson to clarify their policies and procedures. Chairman Shostrom also reviewed with the Historic Commissioners the new Public Arts Commission ordinance and the Type 1, Conditional Use Permit process they would apply for to get approval on the Peace Tile wall project being developed. Contractor, Darrel Boldt, artist, Jean Bakewell, and tile artist, Sue Springer described the project to create tiles from the peace flags that had been designed for the Railroad fence prior to being removed due to vandalism. The proposal was to attach the 200+ tiles to backer boards designed to be mounted to the wall in a band at eye level between the windows, doors and signs on the plaza side of City Hall,creating a permanent public art display. The Historic Commissioners unanimously supported the tile display but the majority did not feel bolting them to City Hall was appropriate or represented good stewardship of the historically significant building. A couple of the Commissioners did feel the display could enhance the building if mounted in a less jumbled manner incorporating a more linear geometric pattern. Several alternative locations were discussed such as in the plaza or on the side of another, less significant building facade. Exhibit f-3 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 1 51/04/2009 CITY OF ASHLAND C. Sign Code Revisions - Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, reviewed proposed changes to the Ashland Sign Code, highlighting the changes that could affect the businesses in the historic districts most significantly. He asked the Commissioners to evaluation the impact of the changes and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Upon review of potential sign changes the Historic Commission reached consensus that Public Art should not be regulated as signs under the land use code, however they expressed that the selection of art or locations within Historic Districts should consider Historic Commission recommendations in the process. The Historic Commissioners recommended that there be a formalized process by which public art installed on contributing historic buildings within the historic districts is reviewed by the Historic Commission for historic compatibility and appropriateness. The majority of the Commissioners were OK with signs painted directly on buildings; however, Mr. Skibby had some concerns with signs painted on unpainted brick or stone walls. The majority were agreeable to the provision allowing small 3-D signs to be installed downtown when reducing the allowable exempt sign area as proposed. D. Waterworks Landmark Plaque - Ms. Barry showed the new Waterworks Landmark marker that George Kramer received to replace the original one that disappeared off the Lithia Fountain in the plaza. It was suggested that it be reinstalled in a ceremony during Historic Preservation week in May. There was discussion on possibly engraving it to give credit to those instrumental in the restoration of the fountain. Ms. Barry said she would talk to Mr. Kramer about a ceremony. E. 2009 Historic Preservation Week - Ms. Boswell reviewed the nomination spreadsheet and nomination forms with the Commissioners. The Commissioners also agreed to send out invitations to all Ashland property owners registered on the Oregon National Register list and invite them to hold an open house tour during Historic Preservation week. OLD BUSINESS: - A. Review Board Schedule February 5' Terry, Keith, Sam February 12 Terry, Henry, Alex February 19 Terry, Jim, Sam Februa 26' Terry, Allison, Tom March 4' Terry, Keith, Dale B. Project Assignments For Planning Actions - No new projects. BD-2005- 00092,93 234 Vista St Deboer Upper & Lower Poolhouse (under contruction) Swink . BD-2007-00545 11 First St Ron Yamaoka (under construction Skibb BD-2008-00275 125 Sherman Street Russ Dale Underconstruction Shostrom BD-2007-01764 160 Helman Batzer-Comm Bld s Permit read to issue Shostrom/Giordano BD-2007-00792 237 Almond Street Don Sever - ARU Under Construction Whitford PA-2007-01939 175 Lithia (formerly 165 Lithia) Archerd & Dresner-Mixed Use Bldg -(No Permit yet) Renwick BD-2008-00627 542 A St Gremmels/Del ado -Rebuild Shed {Under construction) Skibb BD-2008-01083 872 B St. - 2" story Addition Under construction Shostrom Swink/Shostro PA#2008-00596 165 W Fork - New SFR on hillside (Ashley Jensen (project on hold perappl) m PA#2008-01005 637/649 E Main - 2 Additional motel units (Runkel) Anne Hathaway Cottages Renwick PA#2008-01526 281 Fourth St - Noble Coffee Roaster Whitford Exhibit 1-3 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2 55/04/2009 CITY OF -ASHLAND PA#2008-01700 21 Winburn Way-Conversion to Restaurant Beam Skibb C. Single Family Residential Design Standards - No report COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA - Mr. Giordano updated the Commissioners on the Aesthetics Advisory Committee's meeting with ODOT regarding some preliminary goals for the Exit 14 and Exit 19 overpasses. He shared that there is a strong feeling that these exits are the gateways into Oregon from California and need to be highlighted. The plan is to combine vegetation and artistic elements with the structural design. There was also a need to address good separation between vehicle, pedestrian and bike traffic. Mr. Giordano said there would be a site visit conducted on Wednesday, February 11'h. ANNOUNCEMENTS The next Historic Commission meeting.will be on March 4, 2009 at 7:00 pm in the Siskiyou Room., ADJOURNMENT It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Exhibit 1-3 Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3 5@/04/2009 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES JANUARY 27, 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. Planning Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Michael Dawkins Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Tom Dimitre Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Deborah Miller Maria Harris, Planning Manager Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris David Dotterrer Michael Church Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Eric Navickas _ -POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE (Based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations) Dawkins noted the public hearing for this item is scheduled for the February Planning Commission meeting. He stated this is the time for the Commissioners to-get their questions answers and to raise any issues so that staff knows what needs to be addressed before this ordinance comes back for approval. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the packet includes a letter from the Public Arts Commission outlining their issues with the 3D sign provision. He added members from that Commission are here tonight to provide testimony. Mr. Molnar provided a brief explanation of the Sign Code and stated it is based on where the property is zoned, and then there is a formula for the overall amount of signage allowed. Then there is a breakdown for wall signs and ground signs, and an allotment for incidental signs. Mr. Molnar stated the public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for the February 10th Planning Commission meeting and noted Staff is in the process of scheduling a combined walking tour with the City Council that will likely be held on February 5' at 4:30 p.m. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation to the Commission. The presentation included several depictions of what permitted signage with the current Sign Code looks like, and what it would look like with the proposed changes. He also displayed several photos of what the downtown area and Siskiyou Boulevard used to look like before the Sign Code was adopted. He stated the purpose of tonight's meeting is to gather input from the Commission and asked if they had any questions or comments on the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman provided a brief explanation of internal illuminated signs and indirect illuminated signs. He stated internal illuminated signs can be used outside the downtown area and the sign can have lighting within it, but the lighting mechanism itself cannot be visible. He added indirect illumination is when light is directed onto the face of the sign, but is not part of the sign itself. Mr. Molnar commented on neon signs and noted the Sign Code was amended to recognize neon represents the Exhibit 1-4 Planning Commission Study Session January 27, 2009 57 Page 7 of 4 character of a certain period in time, and locations such as the Varsity theater and Palm Motel could maintain or bring back their neon signage. Staff was asked to clarify in what ways the proposed ordinance differs from the Downtown Task Force recommendations. Mr. Goldman stated the provision to limit the use of vehicle signs was added by staff (vehicles parked exclusively for the purpose of displaying business signage). Another change not recommended by the Task Force but requested by the City Council was the opportunity for additional business frontages. Lastly, staff is recommending the ordinance include a distinction between real estate signs and construction signs. Mr. Goldman stated one last item that staff needs clarification on is whether the 3D sign (3-cubic feet) inside the downtown area is a separate allocation or whether it should be subtracted from the 7-sq. ft. allotment. He slated the current draft of the ordinance has this as a separate allocation. Commissioner Morris asked for claffication on the public art provision. Mr. Goldman explained the ordinance removes public art from consideration as a sign, and it would no longer be regulated under the Land Use Code. He added public art would fall under a difference process and different chapter in the Code. Morris questioned which section of the Code would apply if the Planning Commission required public art as part of a large scale development. Mr. Molnar did not have an answer, but stated he would consult with the City Attorney. Morris questioned the 35-ft width provision on page 3 of the ordinance, under "Shopping Center or Business Complex." He also questioned the language regarding temporary construction signs on page 4, item G, and asked if there was a limit on the number of signs or just the maximum square footage. Mr. Goldman stated the intent was to limit this to one larger sign per lot. Comment was made suggesting this language be revised to allow multiple signs so long as they do not exceed the total allowable square footage. Morris suggested the language on page 5, "Strings of Lights" also be clarified. Comment was made that they may want to remove the word "incandescent." Mr. Goldman presented some sign area calculation examples and noted the different options and formulas that could be - utilized. He requested the Commission provide input on which option they prefer. He noted what they are currently doing is looking at the rectangular shape that bounds the sign, and while a circle or triangle shape could be used as well, staff is hesitant to expand much beyond this. Dana Bussell/Public Arts Commission/Noted she was also a member of the Downtown Task Force. Ms. Bussell stated the ' Public Arts Commission supports the exemption of public art from the Sign Code, but they are opposed to 3D signs outside the downtown area. She expressed their concerns for 3D signs of significant size and stated it is likely that many businesses would take advantage of this change. Ms. Bussell stated the object that the Task Force hoped to bring into compliance was the Alfredo statue outside Wiley's Pasta. She questioned how the size of these objects would be configured and questioned if the Alfredo statue was too big to ft within the proposed size limit. She noted the desire of businesses located near Exit 14 to be noticed and urged the Commission to be cautious. She stated once these items are in place it will be difficult to have them removed. Ms. Bussell suggested an alternative is to recognize the item that prompted this amendment (Alfredo) is not a sign and should not be treated as such. David Wilkerson/Public Arts Commission/Noted he is also a local architect and is familiar with the City's Sign Code. Mr. Wilkerson voiced his concerns with the unintended consequences that the Task Force recommendations would allow. He stated the City is not allowed to limit the sign content and stated the current ordinance is what has prevented the visual clutter that you see in Medford. He stated the Sign Code has helped to maintain Ashland's charming environment and encouraged them to take another path. Mr. Wilkerson suggested if these items are considered public art, they could be subjected to a separate process and thinks this is a much safer approach. He concluded by urging the Commission to consider the alternative presented by the Public Arts Commission. Council Liaison Navickas indicated that the City Council was reluctant to the 3D allowance outside the downtown area, but wanted the Planning Commission's opinion before they moved forward. PLANNING COMMISSION SUSTAINABILITY WORK GROUP Commissioner Mindlin presented an update of the Sustainability Work Group. She commented on the Planning Commission's decision to make sustainability a priority this year and stated the two paths the Group wanted to look into were: 1) what is Exhibit 1-4 Ptaiming Commission Sludy Session January 27, 2009 58 Paoe 2 of 4 going on in the community, and 2) what are the other local governments doing. Mindlin commented on how they went about gathering this information and their decision to not take the public hearing approach. She noted the ongoing meetings that were held at the Ashland Library and noted some of the regulars who attended those meetings are also here tonight. Mindlin reviewed the questionnaire that was used by the Work Group during their telephone interviews and clarified most of the interviews took 30-45 minutes and the individuals were anxious to share their input. Mindlin commented on the different sustainability frameworks that are utilized and commented on how her contacts were formed. She noted they ended up with 300 contacts and were able to inventory 150 of them. Mindlin stated that Ashland has been considered a leader in sustainability for a long time, and a lot of this has to do with the City's Comprehensive Plan. She noted some of the cities who are working on sustainability plans, and clarified a lot of this reference material has come from California. Mindlin commented on Portland, Oregon and noted the recent merging of Portland's Bureau of Planning with the Office of Sustainable Development. She shared some information from the City of Portland's website and what they are doing to support sustainability. Mindlin provided an overview of the information gathered by the Work Group, which was submitted to the Commission at the beginning of the meeting. The sustainability inventory submitted by Mindlin was separated into the following categories: 1) Nature Stewardship, 2) Built Environment, 3) Transportation, 4), Recycling & Reusing, 5) Energy, 6) Education and Culture, 7) Health & Spirituality, 8) Economics and Business, 9) Local Government, 10) Community Connections, 11) Food Resources, and 12) Youth. Mindlin noted the work of Triple Bottom Line for the 21s' Century and THRIVE. She stated Ashland has a program for certifying Green Businesses which is administered through the Conservation Department. She also commented on the efforts of the Ashland Chamber of Commerce. Mindlin noted the Work Group prioritized contacting Ashland based businesses and stated 80% of those inventoried are Ashland based. Mindlin provided a brief overview of the work being conducted by Lomatski. She also commented on Willow Winds, the Wilderness Charter School, and stated Southern Oregon University is listed as one of the Top 20 Green Colleges by the EPA. She noted the Sentient Times, Plan-It You, Heart Circles, and Transition Town. Mindlin commented on the need for intergeneralional dialogue. She stated there are a lot of young people in the community that want to make a difference in the world and stated Ashland needs to think about what it can do to keep our young people here. Mindlin commented on how this inventory might be accessed, including a possible database housed on the Chamber of Commerce website. She commented on how the information is organized and noted a lot of things did not fit within the City's Comprehensive Plan, including food security and sustainable food resources. Mindlin commented on the huge upwelling of sustainability projects that were started in the past year and stated people are really concerned and want to find out what they can do. She stated when individuals were asked what three issues were of most concern, she received a variety of responses. However the most common responses were: 1) solar orientation, 2) rainwater catchment and infiltration, 3) food security, 4) city land for community gardens, and 5) clustering housing on farms. Comment was made questioning what the next undertaking is for this Work Group. Mindlin stated that her sense is that the Planning Commission as a whole needs to take this issue up at a future meeting and discuss where they would like to go from here. She noted the City Council usually sets their annual goals in the spring and this might be something that comes up in that context. CROMAN MILL SITE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a brief overview of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Draft Plan. The presentation outlined the elements in the Plan, including the following: • Locations of the Office & Employment District, Compatible Industrial District, Neighborhood Center, and Open Space • Traffic Circulation • Street Framework Exhibit 1-4 Planning Commission Study Session January 27, 2009 59 Page 3 or 4 • Pedestrian 8 Bicycle Framework • Transit Framework • Parking Harris indicated the next steps for this project includes an update to the City Council on February 17, 2009, and then the City will take the Plan through the local land use process for adoption. She noted this project is similar to the North Mountain Plan and the City will need to draft a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance. She noted if any of the Commissioners wish to look at the full Draft Plan, it is available on the City's websile. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-4 Planning Commission study session January 27, 2009 60 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 13, 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, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Mike Morris Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Debbie Miller Amy Anderson, Assistant Planner Pam Marsh Richard Appicello, City Attorney Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Michael Church Tom Dimitre Dave Dotterrer Absent Members:,.,_ : - Council Liaison: _ None Eric Navickas - ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the public hearing on the Water Resource Protection Zones Ordinance has been rescheduled to the March 3, 2009 City Council meeting. He also noted staff would be presenting a brief update of the Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan at the February 3, 2009 Council meeting. - C.Pnrhission Chair Dawkins requested the Commission save a few minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss absenteeism on the Planning Commission. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes - 1. December 9, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting B. Approval of Findings for 232 Vista Street, PA #2008-01517 Commissioners Church/Mindlin mis to approve the December 9, 2009 Planning Commission minutes. Voice Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Moms, Miller, Marsh, Mindlin and Church, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6.0. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners in regards to 232 Vista Street. Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for 232 Vista Street. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin, Morris, and Dawkins, YES. Commissioners Dimitre and Dotterrer, ABSTAINED. Motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM Exhibit 1-5 Ashland Plawdria Cornmissio;3 January 13, 2009 61 Page 1 of7 Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Commented on the increased amount of cigarette butts discarded on City streets now that smoking is banned in restaurants and bars. Mr. Roth recommended the City provide and maintain outdoor cigarette receptacles in the downtown area and stated these could be emptied each week along with the regular trash pickup. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement PLANNING ACTION: 2008-M984 DESCRIPTION: Consideration of the City of Ashland entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement, the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement", (the "Agreement"), for the Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Program, which provides for the participants to implement the Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan. Mr. Molnar explained the task before the Planning Commission tonight is to determine whether the Participant's Agreement is consistent with the RPS statute, and issue a recommendation to the City Council on whether or not they should sign the Agreement. He provided a brief overview of the Regional Problem Solving process and noted five of the other communities involved have already signed the Agreement. He clarified that by signing, the City is not adopting the Regional Plan, but rather is agreeing to send the Plan through Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Molnar noted a recommendation from.the Planning Commission is required because this is a land use decision and therefore needs to go through the City's normal process, which includes a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Molnar provided a brief overview of the elements in the Agreement and stated it is Staffs opinion that the Agreement is consistent with the RPS statute. He noted the City did not identify any urban reserve areas and instead plans to accommodate increased population by utilizing existing lands within the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Molnar commented on his experience with the Ashland Planning Department over the last 20 years and noted the importance of Ashland being a participant in regional planning. He commented that Ashland's approach to planning has often been viewed as different from the rest of the valley, and noted at times there has been frustration within the community when the City's accomplishments are diluted by other actions occurring in the region. He stated this is Ashland's opportunity to not just influence change within our community, but also among the other jurisdictions in the valley. Mr. Molnar stated the Agreement represents the City's solidarity with the other participants in letting the Plan go through the County's process. He added there would bean opportunity for the City and the other participants to present comments and concerns during the County's land use process. Mr. Molnar introduced City Councilor Kate Jackson, who is also the Chair of the RPS Policy Committee. Councilor. Jackson elaborated on her involvement with regional planning and expressed her hope for the City to continue its current level of involvement. Jackson explained tonight's decision is whether the City should sign the Agreement and remain a participant with the project. She noted the Regional Plan will need to go through the County's land use adoption process, and individual cities that have identified urban reserves will need to take those changes through their own Comprehensive Plan amendment processes. Jackson clarified this Agreement would coordinate these land use changes into a standard timeframe. The Commission opened the discussion and shared their preferences and concerns regarding the signing of the Agreement. Miller applauded Councilor Jackson for her efforts, but expressed concern with the wording "agree to abide by a Plan" which is contained on page 3 of the Agreement. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the Planning Commission is charged with reviewing the Agreement for consistency with the RPS statute. He stated the Agreement does not adopt the Draft Plan, but it does agree to submit it through the County's land use process and agrees that Ashland will abide by and make consistent Comprehensive Plan amendments to what is adopted by the County. Jackson added that any group or City can testify for or against the elements of the Plan at the County's public hearings. If the adopted Regional Plan is found to be unsatisfactory to a particular City or group, they can appeal the County's decision under the standard land use law. Council Liaison Navickas noted the comments that were submitted by the City Council in November 2007 and expressed his disappointment that they have not received a response. Councilor Jackson indicated the Council's comments were addressed and are available for review on the Rogue Valley Council of Government's website. Dawkins questioned what would happen if Council signs the Agreement and the City ends up disagreeing with the outcome. Mr. Appicello clarified the City has not designated any urban reserves, and signing the Agreement empowers the City to have Exhibit i-5 Ashland Planning Commission January 13, 2009 62 Page 2 of 7 J a place at the table and a say in the process. He stated if the City signs the Agreement, we will need to participate in the public hearings in order to protect our point of view. He added participation in this process is the only way the City will be able to influence what is going on in the other jurisdictions. Dimitre noted "Section XII: Termination of Participation" on page 15 of the Agreement. He stated the City of Jacksonville decided not to sign the Agreement and asked for clarification of that decision. Councilor Jackson indicated the City of Jacksonville look the position that the Agreement did not need to be signed until after the Regional Plan is adopted. She provided a brief overview of how the Agreement was developed and stated a signed Agreement is necessary at this point to identify which groups are participating. She added it is her belief that this is the best way to submit the Plan to a public process and to make further adjustments. Comment was made that because Ashland did not identify any reserves, they have nothing to lose. Navickas disagreed and stated if the City ever wanted to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, they could not do so without going through an amendment process. Miller noted the Council has already expressed their support and asked if there was any legal reason why this Agreement had to be signed prior to the Plan being developed. Trish Bowcock1705 East C Street, Jacksonville/She stated she does not oppose Regional Problem Solving or the draft version of the Plan, but opposes the process. Ms. Bowcock said the City is being asked to sign a legally-binding contract and at this point nobody knows what the Final Plan will be. She stated if they do sign the Agreement and are unsatisfied with the Final Plan, the only way to avoid implementing it is to abide by Section XII, which subjects the City to strong disincentives. Ms. Bowcock claimed the statue does not suggest that this Agreement needs to be reached before the Plan is finalized, but rather is only needed prior to the adoption of the Plan by the Land Conservation and Development Commission: She added if a Participants Agreement is needed at this stage in the process, a much simpler agreement should be drafted. Ron Roth/6950 Old Highway 99S/Expressed concern with the City signing the Agreement and questioned what they were : - agreeing to. He disagreed with the inevitable doubling of population and stated the Agreement before the City is too vague. Mr. Roth voiced his appreciation for Staffs optimism that Ashland's values would rub off on the rest of the County, but does not think this will happen. He stated regional planning is conceptually a good idea, but does not believe it is a good idea for Ashland to sign the Agreement. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Allocated his time to Greg Holmes. Greg Holmes/235 NW r Street, Grants Pass/1,000 Friends of Oregon/Expressed concern with the process and the Agreement itself. Mr. Holmes voiced his objections to agreeing to the outcome of a process that has not been completed yet, and noted once the Agreement is signed, they would not be able to remove themselves from the process without sanctions being imposed. He noted two other RPS processes in Oregon that made it further along in the process than they are now, and neither one had an agreement in place before they started their hearings. He indicated there is nothing in the statute that states the Agreement needs to be signed at this point in the process, and stated they can go forward with the regional planning process without this Agreement in place. Mr. Holmes stated there are significant flaws in the Agreement and feels that it incorporates the Regional Plan. He stated the goal is not to try and stop RPS, but rather for the public hearings to be held before the participants agree to abide by what is ultimately decided. Mr. Holmes clarified his belief that the statue indicates agreement needs to be reached by the participants prior to the Plan being adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. He also claimed some of the cities who have already signed the Agreement did so because they would be getting things out of this Plan that they would not get from the normal process. Councilor Jackson disagreed with Mr. Holmes assessment that the Agreement does not need to be signed until the Plan is ready for adoption by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. She clarified this Agreement sets forth the "how" Exhibit 1-5 Ashland Planning Commission January 13, 2009 63 - Page 3 or7 and the structure for implementation, and the details of the Plan will be decided through the County's land use process. She added any City can and likely will appeal the County's decision if they do not find it satisfactory. Commission Chair Dawkins closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Comment was made questioning when the Policy Committee anticipated individual cities would hold their public hearings. Mr. Appicello clarified the official process is the County's land use process, and the City could hold hearings at any time to decide what they would like to present at the County hearings. Commissioners Dotterrer/Morris m/s to recommend the City Council approve the RIPS Participants Agreement. DISCUSSION: Dotterrer clarified the Regional Plan will only address the three problems that have been identified. Miller expressed her concern that the Agreement is too binding on the individual jurisdictions and feels the Plan should be finalized before they agree to it. Dotterrer commented that this is a two-way street, and voiced his support for the City being involved in this process. He stated he agrees with the intent of the Agreement, and noted the need to have general consensus before you enter a planning process. Marsh voiced her support for regional planning and although there is some risk, she stated Councilor Jackson's involvement with this process provides her a level of comfort. She recommended if the Council approves the Agreement, that they schedule a public hearing in order to gather input on the Plan, and that they insert into the regional process an affirmation by the participants at the end. Dawkins noted his opposition to the draft Plan in regards to the City of Central Point. Church noted that each city is giving up some level of autonomy and stated it makes sense to have this type of Agreement in place at this point in the process. He added the process needs to have some momentum going forward and thinks this process would self destruct at the end if they all waited until the Final Plan was completed before they agreed to participate. If the Agreement is signed, Morris encouraged the City to push their concepts, otherwise Ashland will be stuck with what everyone else decides. Dimilre stated he has a problem agreeing to this because it is not clear what they are agreeing to. He stated he is not against the idea and the process, but feels this Agreement is premature. - Commissioners Marsh/Dotterrer m/s to amend motion to include recommendation that the City Council hold a public hearing on the substance of Plan in order to prepare input for County's planning process,-and that the Council - recommend to the Regional Planning Process that they incorporate a process for explicit affirmation by the participants at the end of the process. DISCUSSION: Marsh clarified the public hearing would be for citizens to provide input on the substance of the Plan itself. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dotterrer, Dawkins, Morris, Church and Marsh, YES. Commissioners Mindlin, Dimitre and Miller, NO. Motion passed 5.3. Roll Call Vote on Motion as Amended: Commissioners Dotterrer, Marsh, Morris and Church, YES. Commissioners Miller, Dimitre, Mindlin, and Dawkins, NO. Motion failed 4-4. Commissioners Dimitre/Mindlin We to recommend the City-Council not sign the RIPS Participants Agreement. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Dimitre, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Church, Dotterrer, Marsh and Morris, NO. Motion failed 4.4. B. PLANNING ACTION: 2008.01986 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2915 Highway 66 APPLICANT: Myles Comstock DESCRIPTION: A request for a Modification of a previously approved Site Review (PA#2008-01315) for a Variance to exceed the maximum 20-foot height limitation in the Airport Overlay Zone. The proposed structure is 26.5 feet in height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1E 138; TAX LOT: 2005 Dawkins read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Declaration of Ex Parts Contact No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Staff Report . Exhibit 1-5 Ashland Planning Commission January '(3, 2009 64 Page 4 of 7 Assistant Planner Amy Anderson presented the Staff Report. She explained in September 2008, Staff administratively approved a request to construct a 3,000 sq. ft. single-story building, which was proposed to be 20-feet in height. This is a modification of that approval to allow the building to have an average height of 26.5 ft. Ms. Anderson noted all other aspects of the previous approval will stand, however there would be a few small changes to the storefront entry in regards to the doors and windows. She explained the height limitation imposed by the Airport Overlay Zone is 20 ff., however the City's Airport Master Plan and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would allow for a much taller structure in this location. She noted the City's Airport Commission has reviewed this modification and their letter of approval is included in the record. Ms. Anderson slated Staff feels the height modification would result in a positive change to the buildings design and they are recommending approval of the request. Ms. Anderson provided a brief overview of the FAA's calculation for building heights, and clarified this is determined case by case based on the structures height, elevation and proximity to the runway. Community Development Director Bill Molnar commented briefly on the Airport Overlay Zone and explained this provision has not been revisited since the Municipal Code was codified in 1982. He noted the original intent may have been for the 20 ft. height restriction to only apply in an approach zone, but this clarification no longer exists in the Code. He added it may be beneficial to modify this section of the Code to make it more site specific and calculated closer to the way the FAA does it. Applicant's Presentation Steve Shapiro and Myles Comstock addressed the Commission. Mr. Shapiro explained this site is the location of Valley Equipment Rental and the modification to the buildings height would allow them to store their taller equipment in a safer environment. He noted the Staff Liaison to the Airport Commission indicated that based on the FAA calculations, they could have a 40 ft. building at this location. He stated this property is 2,000 ft. from the runway and they are nowhere near where the planes circle. Mr. Shapiro clarified the nearby towing company could have a building height of 35 feet and the building adjacent to this property has a building height of 28.5 feet. - Dawkins closed the record and the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m. Public Testimony None Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dotterrer/Mindiin m/s to approve Planning Action #2008-01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Morris, Church, Mindlin, Dimitre, Miller, Dofterrer and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioners Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the Findings for Planning Action #2008.01986. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Church, Dawkins, Dimil re, Dotterrer, Marsh, Miller, Mindlin and Morris, YES. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioners Dotterrer/Church mis to continue to meeting to 10:00 p.m. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS A. Discussion of possible changes to the City's Sign Code based on the Downtown Task Force Recommendations. Commissioner Dawkins noted there are two components to the Downtown Task Force's Recommendations: 1) possible Sign Code revisions, and 2) issues with public right-of-way encroachments. He clarified the Planning Commission will not be discussing the right-of-way issues and this will be handled by the City Council. Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted tonight's discussion will include an overview of the proposed Sign Code revisions, and the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make a formal recommendation to the City Council at a subsequent meeting. Mr. Molnar provided a brief summary of the charge given to the Downtown Task Force, which included addressing concerns raised by local business owners. He stated a number of recommendations came out of the Task Force meetings, however there was general consensus that the Sign Code has been a benefit to the City. He noted Ashland's downtown area is a nationally registered historic district and it is common to have regulations for signs in these districts. Mr. Molnar clarified the Planning Commission is being asked to focus on the Sign Code recommendations, and the second phase to this process Exhibit 1-5 Ashland Panning Commission Janlr{ry 13, 2009 65 Page 5 of 7 which includes review of encroachments on public property will be handled by the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He noted the goal is for the Commission to have a recommendation ready for the Council by March so the Council can hear these two issues jointly. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the recommendations that came from the Downtown Task Force. These recommendations included amending the Sign Code to permit the following: • An additional exempt incidental sign allowance (3 sq. ft) • Small three-dimensional (3D) signs in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft.) • Larger 3D signs outside the Downtown area (20 cubic ft.) • Portable sandwich boards and pedestal signs • City installed identification signs • Increased projection distance for signs The Task Force also recommended the Sign Code include a definition for "public art", and allow additional business frontages. Mr. Goldman's presentation provided examples of different sign types, as well as further clarification of exempt incidental signs, the 3D sign provision, and the portable sign provision. He also clarified how the proposed ordinance would treat signs consisting of block letters or irregular shapes and stated the square footage would be determined by measuring the entire area within the perimeter of the sign. Dimitre requested Staff provide examples of what the maximum signage amount looks like now, and what it would look like with the proposed revisions. Mindlin questioned if there was any deviation from the Task Force recommendations to what is proposed in the draft ordinance. Mr. Goldman noted George Kramer, who was a member of the Task Force, had spoken to him earlier this evening and indicated it was his recollection that if a business wanted a'3D sign in the Downtown area (3 cubic ft.), this would be subtracted from their incidental sign allowance. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Written statement was read into the record by Commissioner Dawkins. Mr. Thompson's concerns related to additional frontages and he asked the Commission to cease the discrimination to businesses that have their main entrance on the 31d or 41h side of a building. John Stromberg/252 Ridge Road/Provided input from his service on the Downtown Task Force and commented on how the Commission should link the work of the Task Force to the Council, so that the City Council does not have to start over when this issue comes before them. Mr. Stromberg suggested they ask George Kramer to provide input during their discussions and also recommended they conduct a walking tour so that they can get a good picture of the issues they are dealing with. He listed some specific businesses that have signage issues and stated he has come to the conclusion that different areas of town deserve different treatment. He shared his hope that the Commission will look into these issues in detail so that they can feel confident with their recommendation to the Council. Mr. Molnar clarified staff is attempting to keep a fairly expedited timeline and the goal is to have these amendments in place before next summer's season. Comment was made that the Sign Code can be very difficult to understand and requesting Staff provide ideas of how they would illustrate the requirements. It was stated that the City should have a user's guide, or something that makes these provisions easy for people to understand. B. 2009 Hearings Board Assignments Mr. Molnar clarified the Hearings Board no longer meets every month and only convenes when needed. Commissioners Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin and Miller all volunteered to serve on the Hearings Board when needed. C. Planning Commission Attendance Commissioner Dawkins not the attendance provision in the "Planning Commission Rules" and requested the Commission's input on how strictly they would like these requirements enforced. He noted Commissioner Church is planning a four month Exhibit 1-5 Ashhincl Penning Commission .lanuary 13, 2009 66 Page 6 of 7 vacation and asked how the group would like to handle this situation. Dimitre commented on his absences in 2008 and indicated this will change. Marsh stated that she is not bothered by the occasional absence, and because there are nine Planning Commissioners, even if some are absent they still have enough members to carry on. She stated that Commissioner Church's situation is a legal issue and should be left to the Mayor to decide. City Attorney Richard Appicello suggested the Planning Commission consider amending the Ordinance to allow the Commission to excuse absences that exceed the 2/3 attendance provision. Comment was made that they may also want to further define "excused" and "unexcused" absences. Dawkins requested the commissioners submit any further thoughts on this topic to staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted. April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-5 Ashland Planning Commission Janoary 13, 2009 67 - Page 7 of 7 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 2. 2008 Council Chambers 1175 1:. Main Street Excerpted Section pertaining to the Downtown Task Force Recommendations NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Should the Council accept the recommendations of the Downtown Task Force relating to employee parking restrictions in the downtown area, proposed changes to the City's sign code and 'permissible use of public sidewalk area, and direct City staff to prepare ordinance language for review and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council, as necessary? Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented the staff report that included background information on the issues reviewed by the Downtown Task Force. These issues were related to employee parking restrictions in the downtown, sign code and permissible use of the public sidewalk area. Pam Hammond, Chair of the Downtown Task Force, Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager and John Stromberg, Chair of the Planning Commission presented the-summary report that included the following 9 issues along with recommendations: Issue # 1: Particularly in the Downtown area, the current limitation of two exempt signs per business, with each sign not exceeding a size of two square feet, does not seem to meet the needs of many local merchants. Recommendation: Increase the number of exempt signs from two to three; increase the third sign from two to three square feet. Issue #2: The Sign Code currently prohibits three dimensional statues, caricatures or representations of persons, animals or merchandise from being used as a sign or incorporated into a sign structure. Recommendation: For properties within the Downtown or one of Ashland's four Historic Districts, allow one of the three exempt signs to be three-dimensional; allow an additional exempt 3-D sign for properties outside the Historic Districts with a volumetric maximum. Issue #3: Some businesses, by virtue of their physical location and entrances, such as smaller side streets and alleys, have limited signage opportunities along the main streets within the downtown area. Recommendation Increase the maximum distance that a sign can project from the building face from the 18 inches to 24 inches. Discussion on these issues: Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks responded to an inquiry regarding issue #3 and explained the 24-inch sign could display on the front side of buildings for shops located down alleyways, etc. Exhibit 1-6 City Council Regular Netting Minutes 09/0212008 68 1 City Administrator Martha Bennett explained that Council could only regulate time, place and manner of signs, not content. Issue #4: Sign Code compliance efforts have included enforcing the current prohibition on off-premise signs, generally consisting of the placement of temporary, movable signs (i.e. sandwich boards) upon the public sidewalk or other public property. Some merchants feel that due to specific characteristics associated with location of their business frontage they lack adequate exposure. Off-premise signage is one means of drawing attention to the business location. Recommendation: Create a set of policies and implement guidelines for the placement of information/directional signs by the City in the right of way or other publicly controlled property. Issue 45: The use of the public right of way, for private commercial use is limited by the Municipal Code to Sidewalk Cafes (AMC 6.44), which may not be the most equitable method for allocation of our limited public resource, downtown public sidewalks. Recommendation: Amend the ordinance to allow any abutting properties (within a commercial or employment district) the opportunity to obtain a permit for private use of a portion of the public sidewalk, as long as merchants meet specific public safety and access standards. Issue 96: The business community has noted that there is inconsistency within the encroachment permit process, which does not have clear standards for what types of functional objects are encouraged, allowed or legal for placement upon a city sidewalk or within the public right of way. Recommendation: Create an ordinance or an-appropriate approval process by which specific functional items may be established upon the City sidewalk. It would be contingent upon the items meeting City specifications, as well as retaining minimum clearance, public safety and placement standards. Additionally, Council would direct staff to explore an exemption to have free use of the shy zone, the area along the sidewalk within the 12 to 18 inches of the building face, for placement of such amenities as flower boxes, doorstops, etc. Issue #7: The proliferation of newspaper and other miscellaneous publication racks within the downtown is creating a variety of problems, both functional and aesthetic. Recommendation: Create an ordinance specific to installation of newspaper and other publication racks. Discussion on these issues: Ms. Hammond provided examples for Issue 5 explaining merchants could display fresh flowers, t-shirts, etc. Concerns regarding regulations for the Sidewalk'Sale and cafe tables were noted. City Attorney Richard Appicello explained they would address permits for the sidewalk sale when they expire. Ms. Bennett explained that cafe tables would come to Council as a right of way issue later. Exhibit 1-6 City CnlmUl Reguler Meeting Mmutes 09/0212008 69 z Issue #8: Downtown business owner and employees are frustrated with the seemingly inconsistent enforcement of the downtown employee parking ban and also have expressed concern over its potential overreaching effect of limiting owner and employee access to the downtown area while not at work. Recommendation: Remove the existing seasonal ban on employee parking in the downtown area. Issue #9 The City has several parking management items that need to be resolved to more efficiently administer the downtown-parking program. Recommendation: Create ordinance language that allows the City to tow vehicles that have either five unpaid parking tickets or a total unpaid parking ticket balance of $250. Develop a final, visible, warning placard to be placed upon a vehicle at least 24 hours prior to the vehicle being towed. The Task Force does not recommend the use of a booting/immobilization device over the option of towing the vehicle. Discussion on these issues: Mr. Appicello explained that the ordinance would allow noticing for individuals who had five violations prior to towing or booting the vehicle. The Task Force identified additional issues for consideration that allocate staff resources to review sign code amendments every two years and exempt Public Art from the sign code, sign code review and education. Brent Thompson/582 Allison St/Submitted a letter from Garrett Furuichi that requested a modification to the sign code. He asked Council to add an exception that would "allow signage on the side of the building that is the primary entrance or only entrance to the business." Currently signs are precluded on the third or fourth sides of a building. Jeff Compton/770 Acorn Circle/Owner of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory. Stated that the Task Force was too restrictive. The City can dictate what goes outside of his business but not inside. George Kramer/386 N Laurel/Encouraged Council to add language to the code that would allow signs where the entrance to a business was on the side ofa building. He commented that the sign code was complicated but necessary and that the Task Force had attempted to make it a little better. Councilor Hartzell asked that Staff reconcile the word "prohibited" versus "exempt" in Issue 2. Councilor Hartzell/Chapman m/s to accept recommendations of the Downtown Task Force and direct staff to develop a work plan and timeline for developing implementing ordinance language that addresses Task Force recommendations with the addition of what was noted by the City Administrator as well as the question raised about signs on non-dominate sides. Exhibit {-6 City Council Rec7ular Fdeeling Minutes 09t02/200a 70 3 DISCUSSION: Councilor Hardesty commented that the Task Force had accomplished a lot and it was worthwhile. Councilor Navickas was not sympathetic to the proposed changes, stating they seemed more a reaction to staff enforcement and Council should be very careful about creating legislation around these recommendations. Councilor Hartzell emphasized that the intention was to send the recommendations to the Planning Commission for another committee review. Councilor Silbiger appreciated the businesses that complied when informed of their sign code violation. Mayor Morrison said the purpose for forming the Task Force was to find a middle ground between the need for regulation and the need to re-examine. The Task Force did a tremendous job even though not everyone was happy. He complimented Pam Hammond and the committee on completion of this task. Roll Call Vote: Hartzell, Chapman, Navickas, Silbiger, Hardesty and Jackson, YES. Motion passed. Exhibit 1-6 City CmuKll Reguiar tdeeung minutes 09/022008 71 4 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 11, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. She announced this is the sixth and final meeting of the Downtown Task Force. Members Present: City Staff Present: Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Bill Molnar, Community Development Director John Morrison, Mayor Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Richard Appicello, City Attorney Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce John Stromberg, Planning Commission Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission George Kramer, Citizen at Large Don Laws, Citizen at Large Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large Absent Members: Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission PUBLIC COMMENT Art Bullock/Submitted written comments to the group and draft sign code language he prepared. He commented on the public interests which he feels are not represented in the sign code and explained the two primary interests are: 1) overwhelming visual clutter, and 2) business window transparency. Melissa Markell/Public Arts Commission/Questioned if the Task Force would be addressing public art on private property. Hammond noted the staff memo distributed on July 17 by City Administrator Martha Bennett and stated the memo outlined the process for how this issue would be handled. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted they were going to recognize that art accepted by the City is not subject to the code, and the sign code would be amended to make this clear. Bussell expressed concern with the lack of discussion on this issue and felt this recommendation should be further debated by the Task Force. Kevin Christman/Expressed concern with the prohibitions against displaying art and stated the current sign code does not permit the display of art to any capacity. Mr. Appicello explained this issue would be included with the public art policies and procedures that will go before the City Council in September. Stromberg stated this issue would be debated by the Planning Commission and the Council, but not this Task Force. Lloyd Haines/Commented on public art and recommended any language that comes from this group include an expansive statement so that it does not get construed when it gets to the Planning Commission and City Council. J. Ellen Austin/Asked if she was in violation for having art displayed outside her gallery, which is located in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Appicello stated residential zones need to be addressed in the sign code; however he does not feel it is appropriate for the Task Force to handle this issue. Exhibit 1-7 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING #5 AUGUST 11, 2008 72 PAGE 1 of 4 Busse] l/Stromberg m/s for the recommendations to the City Council to include a recommendation to exempt public art from the sign code and to have its own process developed at a future date. DISCUSSION: It was noted these two actions will need to be concurrently. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION Mr. Appicello addressed the proposed ordinance amending regulations concerning use of City sidewalks. He explained the ordinance does not distinguish between residential and commercial use and would allow individuals to pay the designated rate for use of the sidewalk. He clarified he did not include a list of what items would be acceptable and stated he only addressed "who" can lease the space, not "what" can be placed there. Stromberg summarized the Task Force's previous discussions on this issue and stated there were three main points: 1) The City would have to broaden the sidewalk cafe restrictions in order to allow for other uses, and the City would apply a market rate charge for use of the sidewalk. 2) Some of the objects placed by merchants in front of their stores were in the public interest (planter boxes, etc.), and these objects would have to be donated to the City. The City would establish criteria for this, and there would be no charge. 3) They would allow certain 3D objects that fit within certain size parameters that had some functional use. Mr. Appicello stated the public arts ordinance would address the process on how to accept art and stated he did not see the need to write a regulation on-how the City would regulate the placement of items. He stated there is no obligation on the part of the City to have to accept an item and stated the City can accept donations and place items where ever they feel is appropriate. - Kramer commented that the intent of this was to allow merchants to beautify their areas. He expressed concern with the proposed ordinance and stated he does not know why they are creating more rigmarole. Hammond agreed and stated the ordinance does not accurately reflect the Task Force's desires. Mr. Appicello shared his concerns with designating "what" in the ordinance and noted a case that will be argued in front of the Supreme Court on this issue. Stromberg questioned if there was a way to apply market rates for part of the sidewalk, by low rates for the "shy zone." Mr. Appicello stated he understands the group wants free use of the shy zone for amenities and will try to incorporate this, however he is not certain this is permissible. Stromberg suggested they make a formal motion in include this piece as part of their recommendation and ask the Council to direct staff to keep working on this. Laws/Stromberg m/s to recommend that the City Council direct staff to explore an exemption to have free use of the shy zone for amenities (such as flower boxes, door stops, spittoons, etc.) Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ISSUES RECAP Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks asked the group to clarify their preferences on a few of their previous recommendations. The group issued the following clarifications: 1) The additional exempt sign would be applicable to the Downtown area or within one of the four Historic Districts. 2) The larger 3D sign would be in addition to the existing sign numbers for wall or ground signs. 3) The additional 3D sign would be allowed only in commercial zones outside Historic Districts. 4) The 3D sign will have a specific separate size in addition to the current total square footage. Exhibit 1-7 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETIN(' ~(S AUGUST 11, 2008 PAGE 2 of 4 73 Kramer summarized within the "historic core," merchants are allowed 3 exempts signs, one of which can be a small 3D sign. Outside the historic core, merchants are allowed 3 exempt signs, plus one larger 3D sign that meets criteria yet to be developed. Mr. Hanks commented on a possible provision regulating the amount of flat surface permitted on 3D objects before it starts to count against the permitted signage amount. Kramer suggested a possible limit of 2 sq. fr. Stromberg recommended they forward this provision back to staff for refining. Hammond noted the proposed ordinance still includes the booting provision and stated this is not what the Task Force wanted. Mr. Appicello clarified no changes were made to the ordinance since the group's last meeting and affirmed that he understands what their recommendations were. Kramer/Stromberg m/s that despite the language of the proposed ordinance, the Downtown Task Force recommends eliminating booting in favor of towing with adequate notice before hand. DISCUSSION: Laws suggested including language that notifies the vehicle owner that additional costs will be incurred by towing and storage. Municipal Judge Pam Turner expressed concern with the provision that requires vehicles to be moved to a different block in order to avoid a citation. Mr. Hanks agreed that the City needs better signage on this. Mr. Appicello clarified his staff has met with the Judge and are working to flush out some of these practical problems. Slattery noted the importance of placing a large orange sign on the vehicles 24 hours in advance of the towing. Mr. Appicello clarified this was included in the ordinance. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 3.15 p.m. Kramer asked if they could discuss Issue 7, Encroachment Permit Process, and stated sandwich boards on public right of ways have not been addressed. Hammond stated sandwich boards should not be permitted on public right of way, only in alcoves which are private property. Mr. Hanks clarified sandwich boards are not addressed in the sign code and therefore are not currently permitted. Community Development Director Bill Molnar asked if the group had concerns about opening up the sidewalks for other uses besides sidewalk cafes. Mr. Appicello added he and Mr. Molnar have been working on trying to make a distinction to see if limiting the use of sidewalks to sidewalk dining was possible. Stromberg stated staff previously informed them they could not limit the use of sidewalks tojust cafes and this is the premise they have been working under. He expressed concern that this option was not presented to the committee sooner. Kramer agreed and stated he did not know this was a possibility. He added he does not have concerns about rampant selling of merchandise on the sidewalk and stated the City could deal with that problem when and if it ever arises. Stromberg agreed and felt they should go with what they have for now. Laws disagreed and stated if they have a choice, they should only allow restaurant tables. He stated he does not think Ashland would have a desirable appearance if they start allowing these other uses. Mr. Appicello clarified the Council would likely ask about this option, and staff was merely doing their best to be prepared for the Council discussion. Laws noted the email submitted by Brent Thompson and asked why a building can't have signs on more than two sides. Mr. Molnar stated there are very few businesses in town that have four public streets bounding it and noted the elements that need to be considered when establishing a business frontage. He commented on the concerns behind this provision and gave the example of someone calling a loading doc a public entrance. Compton expressed her concerns with whether this group has really solved the problems. Bussell noted they cannot solve every merchant's problems and stated these businesses are out of compliance for different Exhibit 1-7 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETING #5 AUGUST 11, 20D8 PAGE a of 4 74 reasons. She added this group has been successful in providing additional options to these businesses. Laws stated the purpose of this committee was not to bring everyone into compliance. Slattery suggested the Task Force include a detailed statement to the Council that describes the "whys" behind their recommendations. Hammond proposed forming a small subgroup of the Task Force to form this narrative. Greenblatt stated this statement needs to be understandable to lay people and stated the community has a misunderstanding about what these meeting are about. Stromberg noted they have not found a solution to the Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory bear, and stated the bear is symbolic of this whole process. Compton acknowledged that there is no way to allow the bear and not allow worse things elsewhere. She noted the bench and the bear are located in the shy zone and the only way to keep it would be to purchase an encroachment permit, which would cost $50-$I00 a month: Mr. Appicello noted staff is attempting to create an exemption in the shy zone for public elements, which would include the bench, but not the bear. Laws stated he hopes staff will continue to look at a way to grandfather in objects that were placed after the law went into effect. Comment was made from the audience suggesting the Task Force remove the minimum square footage provision and allow merchants free use of the shy space. Greenblatt questioned if the sign code could be revisited at a later date. Stromberg noted this would eventually come to the Planning Commission and perhaps they could build in some kind of review process. Stromberg voiced his support reducing the minimum square footage and stated they should include this as part of the package that goes to the Council. He noted if the.Council has misgivings, they can request - - additional information from staff and make a final determination. Kramer/Laws m/s to revise the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance to have no minimum rental provision, but rather a processing fee and a per square foot charge. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Bussell/Stromberg m/s for the alterations in the sign code to be reviewed after it has been in effect for 2 years. Voice Vote: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Bussell, Stromberg, Kramer, and - Shostrom, YES. Laws, NO. Motion passed. - WRAP UP DISCUSSION Slattery commented that there is a huge education element that goes along with this and they need to find a way to let people know their options: Hammond suggested a statement in the City Source newsletter that identifies someone in the City that could assist businesses with their signage questions. Greenblatt questioned if the Task Force would be given the opportunity to tweak the final report before it goes to Council. Mr. Appicello clarified staff would send out the report to the Task Force members and they will be given the opportunity to submit comments to staff. He cited Oregon's Public Meeting Law and stated the members must avoid back and forth dialogue through email and should not be submitting their comments to each other. Stromberg asked about forming a small subcommittee to prepare a statement to the Council that captures the reasoning behind their recommendations. It was agreed that Hammond would be able to form a subcommittee if she feels it is necessary and staff would ensure this was properly noticed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-7 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETING #5 AUGUST 11. 2008 PAGE 4 of 4 75 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 4, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. - Members Present: City Staff Present: Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Richard Appicello, City Attorney Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager John Slromberg, Planning Commission Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission George Kramer, Citizen at Large Don Laws, Citizen at Large Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large Absent Members: Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission John Morrison, Mayor Hammond clarified the group would be discussing Issues #1 and #2 today, which deal primarily with sign square footage and how it relates to 3D items on private property. She noted they would be addressing the right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS- Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation to group which reviewed current sign code allocation examples, exempt sign options, examples of 3D signs, and options for 3D objects and representations of merchandise. - City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified there are three types of signs: permanent, exempt, and temporary. Mr. Hank's clarified businesses are required to go through a permitting process for permanent signage and commented on how the allocation of signage is determined for business located on second and third stories. Comment was made questioning if the 20% temporary signage allocation was "on the table" for possible revision. Staff indicated yes, and clarified businesses have to change their signs once a week in order for them to qualify as temporary signage. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the purpose of the exempt category is to provide businesses with additional flexibility. He noted they are unable to separate the display of menus from other signage and stated this starts to get into the content issue. Mr. Hanks noted most businesses can achieve their signage goals and still work within the City's sign code. He added a lot of this depends on how the business decides to divvy up their signage allotment. He clarified "dead space" does count towards the total sign square footage, and noted they would normally draw a rectangle around the wording/image and determine the square footage based on that. Mr. Hanks asked how the group would like to proceed with exempt signs. Compton questioned if they could remove the limitations from displaying signage in windows. Laws commented that this would drastically Exhibit 1-8 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING z4 AUGUST 4. 2008 t~ncr t of s 76 change the sign code. Mr. Molnar clarified this is an option; however, it would create conflicts with other sections of the Ashland Municipal Code and could cause a domino effect. Stromberg commented that it seems they are drifting away from their original assignment, which was to recommend some common sense, minor adjustments to relieve some of the businesses current issues. Shostrom stated that it is difficult to picture what is legal and what it not, and stated a before and after picture would help determine which is preferred. Hammond suggested they come up with a blanket, square footage signage allotment, based on the size of the building, and allow businesses to use if for whatever they want. She stated removing the exempt and temporary categories would make things much simpler and easier to understand. Bussell suggested cutting the sign categories down to two: temporary and permanent. Stromberg commented that simplifying is an attractive option, but it presumes that the existing code was not created through a thoughtful process with lots of expertise. Hammond commented that what they have now is not very enforceable and causes confusion for the merchants. Stromberg recommended they make modest changes to the existing code and then recommend that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look into more extensive changes. Hammond reviewed Issue # I and listed the four options for the group. She noted the Task Force tentatively selected Option 4 at their last meeting, which is to allow one of the exempt signs to be three dimensional, and asked if they would like to proceed with this recommendation. Kramer clarified Option 4 would create the opportunity for one, small 3D sign to be placed on private property. Laws questioned.how businesses could create a meaningful 3D sign that fits into the I x 1 x2 sign limitation and voiced concern with business owners trying to protect what they have instead of thinking of the streetscape as a whole. Comment was made questioning if this option would apply to just the downtown area or the entire City. Stromberg suggested staff refine the permitted size and scale of 3D objects to allow for more flexibility.-He recommended a cubic dimension with minimums and maximums. Shostrom voiced his support for Option 4 with three exempt signs. Greenblatt noted this option would leave some of the cited merchants out of compliance and questioned if this would really solve the problem. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan, Black Sheep/Noted the issues she has faced with signage and stated she has needed each sign that has been put up. She asked for examples of signage that is permitted and samples of what compliance looks like. Art Bullock, Ashland Resident/Stated there are two primary public interests that the group has not addressed: 1) the public does not want so much signage that windows look cluttered, and 2) the public does not want so much signage that you cannot see into the business. He stated he does not think the Task Force can make small tweaks and be able to address these public interests and stated a more fundamental rewrite is necessary. Garrett, Duex Chats/Asked for examples of approved signage and questioned the placement of signs on multiple entrances. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS (Continued) Hammond clarified this exempt sign discussion is in relation to the downtown area only. She acknowledged that Option 4 is not much more than a band-aid and agreed that they should recommend to the Council that these issues be looked at in depth. Slattery commented that she did not realize the temporary signage allocation was as flexible as it is. Hammond commented on the possible formation of a group (either through the Chamber of Commerce or the City) that helps merchants deal with their signage. Stromberg/Kramer m/s to approve Option 4 with 3 exempt signs. DISCUSSION: Stromberg clarified this motion includes the understanding that they will recommend this be further evaluated by the Planning Exhibit 1-8 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETING #4 AUGUST 4, 2008 PAGE 2 of 3 77 Commission. Laws commented on the point of this group coming together, and stated it was not to change the whole spirit of the sign code. Compton questioned if this option would provide enough relief to the merchants. Ms. Bennett commented on the complexity of the entire issue and commented on who this specific option would address. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. Kramer commented that the recommendation to the Planning Commission should be a global recommendation that comes at the end of their work. Hammond introduced Issue 42 and the related options. Bussell provided some background on Option 3 and stated Ashland is unique in that it considers art to be a sign. She noted any type of representational structure is not allowed and wall graphics are also not permitted. Bussell explained the Public Art Master Plan recommended modifying the sign code to allow for certain types of public art. Ms. Bennett commented on the rules that govern Oregon and stated Ashland is not the first community to experience problems in this area. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified if art is owned (donated) to the City and properly place, it is exempt from the sign code. Ms. Bennett noted this issues still needs to go through the Public Arts Commission. Kramer clarified Issue #2 deals with issues like Wiley's Alfredo statue. Bussell questioned if they are talking .about the entire City. She stated this won't be too much a concern for downtown, since there is not much space, but noted the areas outside downtown are most likely to have national chains. Kramer felt size and material limitations would address these concerns. Staff clarified they do not consider sandwich boards 3D signs. Ms. Bennettclarified Option 4 would not work for Wiley's Pasta because Alfredo comes in every night. Stromberg suggested they deal with sandwich boards and items like the Alfredo statue separately. Staff clarified the problems-with sandwich boards is more of a right of way issue, which will be addressed next week. Kramer suggested creating an additional-exempt sign opportunity outside the Downtown Design- Overlay Zone that includes allowable material types and size limitations. The group briefly discussed possible objects this suggestion may open the door to. Bussell recommended they add a public art exemption for city owned facilities/city property. City Attorney Richard Appicello_was asked to bring back options at the next meeting to address Bussell's concerns regarding public art. Stromberg/Compton m/s to create a category for movable 3D signs, that 1) are not measured as part of the total sign allotment, 2) meet certain material and construction standards (to be determined by staff), 3) tit within a volumetric maximum, and 4) this category would apply to areas outside the Downtown Design Zone and the Historic Districts. Strom berg/Com pton m/s to amend motion to add a setback from the public right-of-way (for staff to determine). DISCUSSION: It was clarified this amendment would be added to the original motion. Voice Vote on motion as amended: Hammond, Compton, Greenblatt, Slattery, Kramer, Shostrom and Laws, YES. Shostrom and Bussell, NO. Motion passed 7-2. Staff clarified the Task Force would be dealing with Issue #4 and the remaining right-of-way issues at their final meeting next week. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-8 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - NIEETING #4 AUGUST 4. 2005 PAGE 3 of 3 78 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES JULY 28, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winbum Way. Hammond noted several of the members attended a tour of downtown sign issues, which was conducted prior to the meeting. Members Present: City Staff Present: Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission John Stromberg, Planning Commission Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission George Kramer, Citizen at Large Don Laws, Citizen at Large Absent Members: Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large PUBLIC COMMENT Judy/Shakespeare and Co. Bookstore/Stated she is in a difficult situation because her business is located down an alley. She explained sales have dropped 60% since the City has prohibited her from placing the wagon at the alley's entrance and explained that she is doing her best to keep the bookstore open. Jeff/ Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory/Commented that the proposed changes are insufficient and felt more change was needed. He stated businesses can't stay in business if they cannot have something that lets customers know they are there. He stated customers will not visit a store if that business does anything "too tacky" and he does not understand what the task force is afraid of. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS Issue #3 - Downtown Businesses with Limited Signage Opportunity. Hammond read and the issue and the options aloud. She voiced her support for Option I, which would change the sign limitation to 24" from the wall and would provide greater visibility for businesses on side streets/alleys/pedestrian access ways. Mr. Hanks used Shakespeare and Co. as an example and explained how Option 1 would allow them to place a sign at the entrance to the alley that would project out from the corner. Greenblatt/Compton m/s to accept Option I for Issue #3. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Issue #5 - Placing Signage in the Public Right-of-Way. Exhibit 1-9 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETING k3 JULY 28, 2008 PAGE 1 of 4 79 Hammond read the issue and options aloud. City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified if Option 2 were selected, the City would have to establish a program and identify the parameters for a temporary sign permit process. Slattery suggested they consider City owned signs that don't include business names, but rather indicate "lodging" or "dining" and directional arrows. She stated these could be artistically done and may encourage people to walk. Ms. Bennett commented that another option would be for the City to install signs and allow businesses to purchase a spot on that sign. She stated this option would help with the Blue Giraffe's signage situation and noted a City sign could be placed in the Water Street parking lot. Comment was made voicing support for a combination that would allow for generic directional information signs as well as City signs that list specific business information. Compton/Dotterrer m/s to accept Option 1 for Issue #5. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Laws/Kramer m/s to reject Option 2 for Issue #5. DISCUSSION: Kramer stated he is interested in looking at encroachment opportunities that pertain to all businesses and voiced opposition to creating a separate authority in this area. Laws felt it would be a mistake to allow temporary signs in addition to directional signs. Compton commented that if the City decided not to place a directional sign, Option 2 would provide the business owner an opportunity to apply for a permit. It was questioned if the City could stipulate that this option would only be available if the City does not do Option 1. Ms. Bennett voiced her hesitations with Option 2. Suggestion was made for the group to table the motion and come back to this after they have dealt with the encroachment issue. Motion was tabled. Issue #7- Encroachment Permit Process. Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Kramer voiced support for a list of approved items that could be placed in the City right of way. He stated this list of allowable items should be separate from the items the City would require a permit for. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented on the legality of this issue and recommended a process where items would be donated and accepted by the City; and the City would then decide where the item is placed. He stated the City would only accept items that met generic durability standards and the individual would need to sign a maintenance and hold harmless agreement. Ms. Bennett questioned if the City already owned these items and she stated it was her understanding that if someone places an item in the City right of way, they are essentially donating it to the City. Laws commented that it would be difficult to come up with a list of approved items and stated the list would have to be regularly amended. He added that he does not feel a list of approved items would solve the problem and voiced his support for Option I. Kramer voiced concern that requiring a permit and the donation process would stop these types of objects from being placed. Hammond noted that there are also safety measures to be considered, such as the Black Sheep's lion. Suggestion was made for a two part process that includes a list of general items that the City endorses and requiring the placement of all other items to go through a permit process. Ms. Bennett summarized the group's deliberation and stated they would like to allow for the placement of functional items and recognize that these will be owned by the City; they are willing to let staff evaluate whether to establish a donation process or include a general acceptance provision in the code. Ms. Bennett stated staff could also look into a 31) allowance for functional objects designed to address safety issues and noted there will need to be criteria established for how to decide on the placement of these objects. Stromberg/Laws m/s to approve the staff direction as outlined by Ms. Bennett. DISCUSSION: It was clarified this is not a final decision and this issue would be returning to the group at their next meeting. Stromberg commented that he views this as enabling certain uses, not prohibiting everything else. Bussell noted that if someone wanted to donate art there is already an approval process for that. Mr. Appicello clarified the two processes would work together. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Exhibit 1-9 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE- MEF[ING 'N3 JULY 28. 2008 PAGE 2 of,/ 80 Issue 46 - NewspapedMisc. Publication Racks. Hammond read the issue and the options aloud. Comment was made questioning if the City could completely remove the racks. Mr. Appicello clarified he does not believe completely banning them is appropriate. Kramer/Greenblatt m/s to combine Options 1 and 2 and direct staff to inventory all downtown newspaper/publication racks and prepare a recommendation. DISCUSSION: Recommendation was made for the inventory study to indicate their preferences and for it to be referred directly to the City Council. Kramer and Greenblatt agreed to include this amendment in the motion. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Issue #9-Administering the Downtown Parking Program Ms. Bennett noted the draft ordinance that was submitted to the group and indicated staff needs clarity on the towing vs. booting then towing options. She clarified the City is not proposing to boot the vehicle and leave it there until the owner pays, but rather boot the vehicle and have it towed after 24 hours if payment is not received. Support was voiced for towing and not booting vehicles. Hammond questioned the dollar amount owed before the City would take action and suggested raising it from $250 to $500. Ms. Bennett commented on why the $250 amount was chosen and cautioned them about raising this too high. Greenblatt noted the provision in the ordinance that states the individual will be noticed 10 days in advance before any action. . is taken. Stromberg supported the towing option and stated booted vehicles could take away from the _ City's ambiance. - Mayor Morrison left the meeting at 4:00 p.m. Ashland Municipal Judge Pam Turner commented on the 10 day notice period and shared a few situations-- where individuals might not receive the notification. Comment was made suggesting the City affix a colored placard to the vehicle prior to it being towed. Dotterrer/Greenblatt m/s to recommend the Ordinance as drafted with the exception of removing the booting provision. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello suggested the notification period be changed to 14 days. Consensus was voiced for including this modification. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. DISCUSS POSSIBLE AUGUST 4 MEETING Hammond stated it will be necessary for the group to meet again and asked for the members' preference on meeting dates. She noted the group could meet next Monday, or meet two weeks from today. Mr. Appicello indicated he would likely need more than one week to prepare the draft right-of-way ordinance. The Task Force reached consensus to meet on August 0 and August 11" Ms. Bennett clarified the Task Force's final report is scheduled to go before the City Council on September 2, 2008. She noted recommended changes to the Sign Code will have to go to the Planning Commission; however, the Council could enact the rest of their recommendations. She added the group will need to complete their work by August 19" in order to make the September packet deadline. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m. Exhibit 1-9 DOWNTOWN TASK PORCF- MEfENNG 43 JULY 28. 2008 PAGE 3 of 4 81 Respectfully submitted April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-9 DOYdNTOWN !ASK FCkGE- MEETING #3 JULY 28, 2008 PAGE S of .1 82 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES JULY 21, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winbum Way. Members Present: City Staff Present: Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission John Stromberg, Planning Commission George Kramer, Citizen at Large Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large Don Laws, Citizen at Large Absent Members:. Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission STAFF PRESENTATION OF OPTIONS Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks briefly reviewed the nine key issues and options listed in the staff report. PUBLIC COMMENT Ron Roth, Geppetto's/Shared his concerns over what he felt was an overzealous Code Enforcement Officer and recommended more direct supervision of this City employee. Graham Lewis, United Methodist Church/Noted the church is located on the corner of Laurel and N. Main, but they are only allowed signage on one of the streets. He stated signage on both frontages would be helpful. Steve, Sound peace/Questioned if he would be permitted to place a prayer flag in the garden in the morning and take it in at night. Regarding the parking situation, he thought this was always voluntary and not necessarily enforced. Julie, W iley's World/Stated she does not view her Alfredo statute as a sign, but rather a piece of art; and stated the statue needs to be able to come in at night to avoid potential theft or vandalism. She voiced her support for removing the 31) object prohibition from the Sign Code. Melissa Markel], Chair of the Public Arts Commission/Voiced her support for Option #4 regarding the three dimensional sign issue, which would create an exemption for 21) or 313 public art. Exhibit 1-10 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE - MEETING 42 JULY 21, 2008 PAGE': G`4 83 Susan, Black Sheep/Submitted signature petitions supporting the placement of the lion statue in front of the Black Sheep's entrance. She stated if they remove the lion it would result in an unsafe doorway and stated this is a historical building and the entrance cannot be changed. Lee, Downtown Employee/Stated she received a ticket a few years ago, without warning, after parking in the same block twice. She stated this is a silly rule and the City should at least put up a sign warning employees. Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted all parking appeals come to her and voiced her support for repealing or revising the downtown employee parking ban. She stated the ban is very difficult to enforce and felt the language was over broad. Lance Pugh, Ashland Resident/Voiced concern with what he fell was staff running the meeting and directing the focus. Brent Thompson, Ashland Resident/Voiced his support for the option permitting one additional exempt sign. Regarding the parking issue, he suggested diagonal parking could be used to create more spaces in certain downtown areas. Donna, Webster's/Stated if they change the sign code, they need to make sure it can be universally applied. She commented briefly on the sidewalk issue and noted they are heavily congested in the middle of the season. Mike Morris, Ashland Planning Commissioner/Asked how they would feel if every building had something out in front of it, and questioned where the limits are. Ramona, B Ella/Stated if they are going to enforce the parking ban, it needs to be applied to everyone. COMMITTEE DISCUSSION & DIRECTION TO STAFF Downtown Employee Parking Ban Hammond voiced support for Option # I, which would eliminate the employee parking ban from the Ashland Municipal Code. She stated the City could still send out a letter each year asking the downtown businesses to voluntarily comply with the seasonal parking limitations. The Task Force voiced unanimous consent for this option. Unpaid Parking Tickets City Administrator Martha Bennett explained how the City currently handles unpaid parking citations and stated the City's current enforcement tools are very weak. She stated booting or towing vehicles that have an excessive amount of unpaid parking violations is one option the group should consider. The group discussed the option presented by staff. Stromberg voiced his concerns with booting vehicles and felt towing was a better alternative. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified due process would occur before anyone was booted and the individual would receive proper notice before this action occurred. Ms. Bennett listed the outstanding parking citation figures for the group. Laws voiced his support for booting, and stated this type of action is needed if they have people who simply do not care. Greenblatt agreed that this needs to have some "teeth." Kramer voiced his support for the towing option. Compton agreed, but questioned what the outstanding ticket amount would have to before this action was taken. Exhibit 1-10 DOWN OVl?J TASK FORCE- MEETING #2 JULY 21. 2008 PAGE 2 o' 84 Hammond recommended they move onto the next issue and look at this option further at their next meeting. Amount ofSignage Permitted Hammond listed the two options for Issue # 1. She stated they could modify the Sign Code to allow for one additional exempt sign or they could choose to modify the Code to allow the existing exempt signs to be a maximum of 3 sq. ft. The group discussed the two options. Shostrom suggested modifying the requirement to allow for two. signs at 2 sq. ft. or less, and one additional sign at 3 sq. ft or less. Kramer recommended they not limit this to the C- I -D zone, but permit the additional signage in the entire commercial district. Compton noted that being able to display menus is not only a benefit for the restaurants, but also the pedestrians. Kramer suggested they increase the total amount of signage permitted (based on the linear footage of the building's frontage) and allow businesses to allocate the space as they choose. Compton suggested they establish two different parameters; one for inside the downtown area and one for outside this area. Mr. Hanks clarified the current provision which allows businesses to use up to 20% of their window space for changeable copy. He also provided a brief explanation of how businesses with no windows or those located on second and third stories are accommodated. Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with information on the new options presented by - Shostrom and Kramer. 3-Dimensional Signs/Representations of Merchandise Hammond listed the options for Issue #2 outlined in the staff report. Kramer and Compton voiced their supportTor Option 2, which would allow 3D representations as a sign type. Laws expressed concern with permitting 3D objects, though supported the ones we currently have. He questioned if there was a way to exempt those that exist today. Slattery voiced her confidence that businesses would do everything possible to make their business attractive and is not concerned that Option 2 would result in a surge of undesirable objects. Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group supported Option 2. The Task Force agreed to continue with the meeting until 4:30 p.m. Limited Signage Access due to Location Hammond listed the options for Issue #3 outlined in the staff report. Kramer suggested businesses, such as the Blue Giraffe, with no frontage on a public street be allowed one offsite sign as part of their sign allocation; however include a provision that this sign could not be placed on public right of way. The group briefly discussed these options and agreed to come back to this issue at their next meeting. Use of Right-of-Wqy for Commercial Use Hammond listed the options in the staff report. Laws noted when the Sidewalk Cafe ordinance was passed, its intent was not to benefit the restaurant specifically, but to enhance the ambiance in town. He felt opening up the use of sidewalks for merchandise was unacceptable and would destroy the Ashland's appearance. City Attorney Richard Appicello briefly commented on the legal issues surrounding this Exhibit 1-10 L70Y1INTCNIV TASK FORCE - AIEETING #2 JULY 21, 200& PAGE 3 o,"4 85 matter. Slattery commented that sidewalk dining is something the public loves, and suggested they look at other communities and how they deal with this issue. Kramer noted that selling flowers, fruit or vegetables on the sidewalk could also add character. City Administrator Martha Bennett commented on Option 2, which would allow the City to lease sidewalk space to businesses, and questioned how much merchandise that business would need to sell to make this worthwhile to them. Comment was made that this would be for the individual business to decide. Greenblatt noted Greenleaf was the first restaurant to have outdoor seating on the Calle and voiced support for allowing the City to rent the public right of way, so long as the parameters are followed. Ms. Bennett clarified the sidewalk space would be only leased to the adjacent business. Hammond conducted a straw vote and the majority of the group were interested in a combination of Options 2 and 3. Ms. Bennett indicated staff would do more flushing out of the details on the input provided by the group. She noted they would pick up where they left off at the next meeting and encouraged interested citizens and business owners to submit their comments and concems to staff. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit I-10 DOV✓N-,OiNN TASK FCRCE - MEETING #2 JULY2t, 2005 PAGE 4 of 4 86 DOWNTOWN TASK FORCE MEETING MINUTES JULY 14,2008 CALL TO ORDER Task Force Chair Pam Hammond called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Members Present: City Staff Present: Pam Hammond, Paddington Station, Chair Martha Bennett, City Administrator John Morrison, Mayor Richard Appicello, City Attorney Renee Compton, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Daniel Greenblatt, Greenleaf Restaurant Adam Hanks, Permit Center Manager Sandra Slattery, Chamber of Commerce Dana Bussell, Public Arts Commission Dave Dotterrer, Planning Commission John Stromberg, Planning Commission George Kramer, Citizen at Large Dale Shostrom, Citizen at Large . Don Laws, Citizen at Large WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS Pam Hammond and Mayor Morrison welcomed the group and each member introduced themselves. PURPOSE & GOALS OF TASK FORCE Mayor Morrison commented briefly on what prompted the creation of this task force and noted issues have been raised regarding the City's sign code, use of the public right of way, and the downtown employee parking ban. He stated the Downtown Task Force would be meeting for three weeks and encouraged them to focus on addressing the immediate concerns. OVERVIEW OF TASK FORCE SCHEDULE Hammond briefly reviewed the meeting agenda. She indicated their second meeting would include a staff presentation of options and committee discussion; and hopes they can have deliberations and come to a recommendation by their third meeting. OVERVIEW OF THREE ISSUES Community Development Director Bill Molnar presented an overview of the City's sign code, use of public right-of-way, and downtown employee parking restrictions. Sign Code Mr. Molnar stated the 1966 Central Area Plan called for the development of a sign program and the City's sign ordinance was officially adopted in 1968. He stated there have been several updates to this section of the code over the years and noted the 1988 Downtown Plan acknowledged the success of the sign code. Mr. Molnar provided the definitions of "signs", "exempted signs", and "prohibited signs" and listed the main compliance issues the City deals with. Use of the Public Right of Way Mr. Molnar noted there are many competing interests within the sidewalks and stated the City has regulations regarding the outdoor display of merchandise. He explained the Ashland Municipal Code Exhibit 1-11 D01I NTOPWTASK 179206- a11:1:77.AG ./1:1,Y 14. 2008 87 PAGE 1 of 4 prohibits using the street or public sidewalk for selling, storing or displaying merchandise or equipment; and businesses within the City's commercial zones are required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP) for the outdoor storage of merchandise on private property. Mr. Molnar noted the City has a sidewalk cafd ordinance and it is administered by the Public Works Department. Downtown Employee Parking Ban Mr. Molnar explained the ban was first adopted in 1985 at the request of the Chamber of Commerce and the seasonal restrictions were made permanent in 1986. He explained the ban restricts downtown employee parking in the downtown parking district between 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., May through September; and listed some of the issues that have been raised by the affected businesses and their employees. PUBLIC COMMENT Tom, Pasta Piatti & Tabu/Shared his concerns regarding the newspaper racks. Nola, Renaissance Rose/Noted she had been cited by the City and requested clarification on the ordinance governing the outdoor display of merchandise. She noted the sale of merchandise on Guanajuato Way and asked about the City's CUP process. Steve, Sound peace/Asked if there was a way for current businesses to be "grandfathered in" and require anyone new to receive approval for the display of items. He agreed with the concerns expressed by the previous speaker regarding newspaper boxes and suggested there be a maintenance requirement for.these. Steve noted the signage in Boulder, Colorado and suggested the Task Force review the Boulder sign code for comparison. He also commented on the employee parking ban and noted employees are being issued tickets when visiting downtown businesses on their days off. Julie, Wiley's Pasta/Noted her business is not located downtown and stated they use'their "Alfredo" statue to show customers that they are open for business. Lenny, CD or not CD/Stated there is a small space in front of his store that he would be interested in obtaining a CUP for. He commented on the height of his sign and suggested they allow businesses to sell merchandise outdoors on weekends only. He stated it is possible to have attractive sandwich signs, newspaper boxes, and neon signs; and suggested the City form a review board to determine what is aesthetically pleasing. Dave, Endless Massage/Noted that his is a newer business and commented on the use of sandwich boards to attract business. He stated his board did obstruct people walking and stated it made a big difference in bringing people into his business. Susan, Pilaf/Questioned why people dressed as the Statue of Liberty or dressed in sandwich boards does not go against the sign code. She stated that parking is one of her major stressors and explained that she often has to come and go several times a day from her business. Kate, Earth Friendly Kids/Stated being unable to put merchandise out in front of her store has made them struggle financially and believes the City is hurting the vitality of the town by making such strict rules. Ramona, B Ella/Noted her store has no back entrance and all of their supplies have to come through the front door. She questioned the fairness of the parking situation and asked if downtown employees who work at night are being ticketing as well. Exhibit 1-11 DOIP:A-`7011;A= 7_41K FORt'F- 111.07M; l .11:7,Y la. _08 88 PAGE 2 of 4 Jimmy, Blue Giraffe Spa/Noted their building is set back from Water Street, behind the parking lot and customers cannot see his sign from the street. He stated he receives a lot of complaints-from clients because they cannot find his store. He suggested the City have some sort of hearings process to deal with unique situations like his own. He also questioned putting up a small sign similar to Pilaf's or Iris Inn's signs. Don, Ashland Springs Hotel & Larks/Stated he was cited for placing the building's original sandwich board in front of the hotel and noted the challenge of educating guests on what they offer. He stated that inadequate parking in Ashland is a big issue and noted the parking garage is consistently full. Mike Morris, Planning Commissioner/Recommended the sign ordinance be removed from the Land Use section of the Municipal Code and recommended they set criteria for a variance. He suggested different requirements be set for areas outside of downtown (at least until these areas become more populated be pedestrians) and recommended they establish maintenance requirements for newspaper boxes. Pam Turner, Ashland Municipal Judge/Noted that she handles the City's parking violations and stated the intention of the employee downtown parking ban is not to prohibit employees from visiting businesses on their time off. She encouraged everyone to read this section of the code (AMC 1 1-30.020). City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified.95% of the businesses have complied with the City's requirements and stated she would like to continue to work cooperatively with the businesses while this process is going on. City Attorney Richard Appicello commented briefly on the concept of grandfathering. He clarified the City is required to treat everyone equally and does not believe grandfathering is an option. Mayor Morrison clarified that public testimony will be included in this process and encouraged the businesses and members of the public to submit their information to the Task Force. - COMMITTEE DISCUSSION City Administrator Martha Bennett indicated staff would be preparing white papers and submitting them to the group within the next few days. She recommended they inform staff if they are in need to additional information or if there are options they are leaning toward. She agreed that parking in Ashland was a valid concern, but recommended they limit their discussion to the employee parking issue. Clarification was requested on the process of obtaining a conditional use permit to display merchandise on private property. Permit Center Manager Adam Hanks stated this is a Type I land use action and the fee is currently $882. He stated the City has seen this type of CUP for larger scale uses, such as the hardware store, but noted the approval criteria are fairly general. Mr. Hanks clarified the Iris Inn's sign was obtained through ODOT, not the City. Sandra Slattery commented that these requirements were put in place for good reasons; however they need to ensure that Ashland businesses can be successful and stated it is time to look at these regulations with the current view of the community in mind. City Attomey Richard Appicello commented on the issue of placing 3-D objects in front of businesses and clarified they can only limit the time, place, manner and size of these objects, not the content. George Exhibit 1-11 D011 ;V7'o1V. 744 FOkiT -:111_11,AY; '-I .11 1,) ' 14200S 89 PAGE 3 of 4 Kramer added they could also control the materials they are made of and can require the object to be maintained. Ms. Bennett noted the City would be bringing forward options regarding sidewalk cafes, including options for permitting, regulating, and leasing public right of ways. She clarified the vendors along Calle Guanajuato lease this space from the City and stated the Task Force could consider creating a similar provision for individual business to display merchandise in front of their stores. Don Laws requested the City Attorney prepare a memo that cites the court cases and laws that deal with grandfathering and the equality of treatment. He stated he would like to know what is legal and whether the City could make changes. Mr. Laws provided some history of the sign code and stated its intent was to make Ashland businesses more appealing. He commented on how the sign code has contributed to the overall success of businesses in Ashland and recommended they be careful about making changes. Dave Dotterrer suggested the sign code differentiate between private property and public right of way. Ms. Bennett voiced her support for this suggestion. Mr. Appicello clarified the City could permit larger 3- D objects on private property than on public right of way. Dana Bussell commented on the Public Arts Commission's master plan and noted the plan did speak to some of these issues. She clarified one of the goals of the plan was to change the sign ordinance to allow for murals. She also commented briefly on the public art jury process the commission utilizes, and clarified people affected by the object are represented on the jury. Sandra Slattery noted that there are other communities, such as Carmel, California, that have very pleasing signage and suggested the group take a look at how other communities deal with this issue. Ms. Bennett requested the group clarify which cities' sign codes they are interested in. Staff was directed to look into the sign codes for Carmel, California and Boulder, Colorado, particularly for small, directional signs. Ms. Slattery noted she would also try to gather information and obtain samples from other communities that are attractive, high visitor destinations. Mayor Morrison requested information on newspaper boxes, including what governs their installation, maintenance, and removal. Additional request was made for how many spaces a publication can have and whether the boxes interfere with pedestrian and vehicle safety. It was also questioned if the City could designate certain areas where the boxes would be permitted. Ms. Bennett indicated staff would gather the information requested by the group and stated materials for the next meeting would be sent out later this week. She noted the next Downtown Task Force meeting is scheduled for next Monday, July 21 at 2 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 4:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Exhibit 1-11 !.k)II';A7 t7)7":V T:aSR' FORr''E-;IIEF.'f1-4Y1 ~`I .l,' LY 14. 3008 90 PAGE 4 of 4 After speaking to the Planning Commission at their meeting in February, Public Art Commissioner Dana Bussell was asked to email her list of concerns to the full planning commission. The following is the content of the email she sent on February 14. In response to the Planning Commission's desire for more information on the position of the Public Art Commission regarding 3-13 signs, 1 am providing the following: 1. As stated in the Draft Amendments presented by City Staff on February 10, 2009, "One three- dimensional sign shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of 50 lineal feet. This is in addition to the limitations established in this section on number of wall, ground, awning or marquee signs." Our biggest concern is the opportunity for additional signs of significant size (20 cubic feet) which could have blatant commercial messages even though that was not the case with the 3-D object that was the source of the proposed change (the waiter in front of Wiley's World on Ashland Street). 2. The Draft Amendments of February 10, 2009, state, "No three-dimensional sign shall have a height, width, or depth in excess of 6 feet. The volume of the three-dimensional sign shall be calculated as the entire volume within a -rectangular cube enclosing the extreme limits of all parts of the sign and shall not exceed 20 cubic feet. Three dimensional signs shall not be constructed of plastic." The Downtown Task Force, of which I was a member, intended to have this change in the sign code bring the waiter at Wiley's World into compliance. It was the only object outside the Downtown and Historic Districts to be so effected. Ironically, with these sign code changes, the waiter will still be out of compliance. It is 6 feet two inches tall and will not fit into a 20 cubic foot rectangle. It is made of plastic embedded with glass fibers. 3. With the proposed changes, the following could be allowed: Mass produced objects • Objects intended for the mass audience (Bugs Bunny has been cast in bronze) • Objects that are purely informational in nature with no esthetic content • Signs that arejust fat letters • Signs that have the sole purpose of attracting attention as opposed to fitting the character of Ashland. 4. The waiter at W iley's presents a unique situation that is difficult to address with a blanket ordinance. The Public Art Process however is designed to deal with unique situations. Public Arts Commission Letter 2/14109 91 Exhibit J - - - - - - - - - - - - ( /27/2009-) Brandon Goldman - Ashlan -Si.gn-Code- Am-endment - ODOT-Comments- - Page 1 From: "STALLSWORTH Adam O" <Adam.O.STALLSWORTH@odot.state.or.us> To: • <goldmanb@ashland.or.us> CC: "STEPHENS Shawn A" <Shawn.A.STEPHENS@odot.state.or.us>, "PYLES David" <D... Date: 1/27/2009 10:48 AM Subject: Ashland Sign Code Amendment - ODOT Comments At this time ODOT has no concerns with the Ashland City Sign Code Amendment proposal. The Only point of interest for ODOT would to be notified of any and all Signs and Banners that would be installed over or in the State Right of Way. ODOT has no other comments at this time. Adam O. Stallsworth Oregon Department of Transportation Region 3 District 8 White City, Oregon. 92 4 9-16-08 Soundpeace 199 East Main St Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ashland Planning Commissioner, I write this letter as the downtown business owner of Soundpeace and as someone who works and shops downtown. _ There is before you a proposal for a revised sign ordinance. One issue that has not been addressed that relates to Soundpeace is the Tibetan Prayer Flag that we have flown in front of our store in the garden on private property for years. We have never had a single comment from a customer or passer by that this flag was in any way offensive. In fact when we were told to take the flag down we posted a petition in our store asking that the flag be allowed. Hundreds of people signed the petition in just a few days. Locals and tourists alike were shocked that Ashland had banned.the prayer flag from flying. We have since submitted that petition to the committee that was formed this summer to review the sign code. My understanding after talking with the very helpful Adam Hanks is that the flag would continue to be banned under the proposed ordinance. I am requesting that you write into the ordinance a specific exemption for Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flags. Currently the city permits the American Flag and flags of the City and State. If you can exempt those flags then why not the Tibetan Buddhist Prayer Flag? I am assuming the city has already exempted the Tree City USA flag that flies at the Police Station and that therefore it is lawful to specify certain types of flags that are not governmental. I am hoping that somehow the City of Ashland can find a way to permit a colorful flag in a garden whose simple prayer is that all beings may be blessed with peace, compassion, strength and wisdom. Thanks for your consideration, Steve Cole 93 - - - (8/5/2008) Adam Hanks -Chapter 18 I--vt - - _ _ Page 1 From: "Wolf Packs, Inc." <traildog@wolfpacks.com> To: <hanksa@ashland.or.us> Date: 8/5/08 2:55 PM Subject: Chapter 18 Input Dear Mr. Hanks, I have been a resident of Ashland for nearly 20 years, as well as the president of a successful mail-order business. I can not attend meetings, as I live outside of town and am the mother of a young child. Still, I would like to have my opinion heard and considered in connection with Chapter 18 regarding the removal of displays outside of businesses in town. I have traveled extensively in my lifetime and Ashland has a special feel, unlike any other place I have seen. Part of this has to do with the fun and unusual displays, both inside and outside various local businesses. Wiley s World's standing plaster mascot Alfredo has greeted countless children and parents for just about as long as that establishment has been serving their customers. My four year old daughter always stopped to have a conversation with the lion in front of Black Sheep, even before she could talk. I have seen the bear at the Chocolate Factory and the giraffe at Bug A Boo bring smiles to old and young alike. The toys displayed in front of Earth Friendly Kids always drew my eye, and I would occasionally stop to buy something because I saw it while driving by. This new enforcement requiring the removal of so many creative displays does nothing but put Ashland into an all,too common, mundane class of cities. By clipping the wings or our small business owners, the artistic feel of the town is diminished. Supporting ouriocal businesses is certainly in the interest of the City of Ashland, as without the little guy, our town could easily become unremarkable and common. Please count this message as three requests (from me, from my husband, and from our daughter) to allow our iconic friends to once again grace the city of Ashland. Respectfully - Linda von Hanneken-Martin WolfPacks.com - Gear for Working Dogs Phone/FAX: 541-482-7669 web: httpJMrolfpacks.com email: traildog@wolfpacks.com 94 Request for change to Sign Ordinance of the City of Ashland. Background I moved my family to Ashland (wife and two daughters - 6yr and 2yr) about 1 yr ago. I opened Endless Massage to bring an inexpensive and effective option for improved health to,the community and our visitors. We have 4 employees who value and enjoy their jobs, customers who have greatly benefited from our services, advertising vendors whom we support, an office space lease, and actively contribute to groups in the community. 1 respect the ambiance of the town and believe new business owners can be trusted to promote themselves so these types of signs can be permitted with newly defined parameters. Problem statement Startjng a business is difficult; a poor economy makes this morwdifficult. We are trying to gain - awareness in the community. In addition to all our other advert ising,,-we put up a sandwich board (see picture on back) and it has dramatically helped our business. The sign is within the footprint of the building, does not obstruct pedestrian traffic, and is simple and tasteful in design. When removing the sign at the direction of city officials, we saw a huge drop in revenue such that if we are not able to keep the sign outside while we develop a customer base we will not able to remain in business. I-would be happy to provide corresponding sales reports to support this.-Our location is such that this is a vital component to our advertising and exposure. - -Suggestion The city could allow the use of sandwich board or similar signs &i hm _defined parameters: - Limit size to 3'x3' • " - " • Must not impede pedestrian flow • Colors and verbiage to be approved by city • Permits for 6 months Thank you, Dave Alexander 541-488-9600 dave@endlessmassage.com 95 Charter Amendment F-t,, Limited Government Ali. Protecting Freedom This Amendment Limits Government And Prevents Any Ordinance From Becoming An Unneeded And Unwanted Bureaucratic Restriction On Individual Freedom And Business Success We The People hereby establish that every human being has inalienable rights to fife, liberty; and the pursuit of happiness. These inalienable rights are individual freedoms. We The People hereby establish: That government is best that governs the least. The corporation known as.City of Ashland shall pass no.law restricting the inalienable rights of the people or individual freedom without a dear showing of a compelling and overriding public interest. To ensure transparency, every law restricting individual freedom shall state in the law the specific public interest that would be compelling enough to override individual freedom. The public interest shall be stated narrowly and unambiguously. To ensure limited government, a government restriction on individual freedom shall be specifically and narrowly limited to that compelling and overriding public interest. The public interest and corresponding restriction shall be interpreted in their narrowest meaning. To ensure that the government restriction is based on a compelling and overriding public interest and not an unnecessary and unwanted government intrusion into the lives of a free people, every law that restricts individual freedom shall be approved by a majority of the electorate at a regularly scheduled election. To ensure the people have adequate time to understand, question, and discuss the proposal, any law submitted by the government to the people that restricts freedom shall be submitted in its final form, including and not limited to ballot title, summary description, and all supporting documents, at least 120 days prior to the date of the election, and shall be`posted the same day to the city's internal web site with an easy-to-find link-on the home page to the full text of the. law and all supporting documents. Between the date of filing and the date of election, the city recorder shall provide without restriction, without forms, without questions, and without charge a: paper copy of the law to any individual who.requests it in person. Sign Ordinance We The People hereby establish 2 public interests compelling enough to warrant sign restrictions. Public Interests : Overwhelming visual clutter. We The People hereby establish-thaf tfie quality of life and economic interests of our community are best served when Ashland's special charm and historic character are not - overwhelmed?by the visual clutter of business signs. We The People recognize that each business has the right to advertise their-uniqueness, location, hours, products, and services. - _ . - To allow businesses to promote their financial interests while maintaining a community without overwhelming visual dutter-of business signs, We The People establish the following sign limitation. Restriction For Public Interest 1. Ashland businesses with frontage shall be limited to signs covering no more than _ square feet (2/1.5/etc.) per linear foot of frontage. "Frontage" shall be defined as "any building side where the public enters and exits". To protect Ashland's historic character, businesses in an historic district shall be limited to _ square feet (1.5/1.0/etc.) of signs for each linear foot of business frontage. Every business shall be allowed a 3-dimensional symbol that is no larger than _x x , so long as that sign is made of safe and durable materials [defined below], is on private property, and does not damage the public safety of pedestrians or others. Public Interest 2: Business window transparency. We The People establish a public interest in the window transparency of businesses with a public entrance. When a business with windows is open to the public, We The People have 2 public interests in being able to see through that window to the interior. (2a) to increase human interactions with pedestrian friendliness and thus build community, and (2b) to allow the public to see in advance the situation into which they are entering, thus increasing public safety. To allow businesses to post window signs while protecting the public interest for business window transparency, We The People establish the following sign limitation. Restriction For Public Interest 2. Windows of ground-floor businesses with a public entrance shall not be visually blocked by more than (30%, 25%, 35%, etc.) of the window area at eye-height, defined to be between T and 7' [or some other eye-height measurements that includes children and adults, including those in wheel chairs]. This blockage includes signs, shades, curtains, merchandise, or any other visual blockage. [Add special condition for second floor businesses, alley businesses, etc.] [Add definition of materials for 3D signs. Exclude lighted plastic, etc..] Draft To Show Approach, 2008Augf 1 96 Support Staff, And Solve The Pr~_ m I continue to read and hear attacks on Adams Hanks and Dean Walker, who are responsible for code enforcement. Adam and Dean are city employees paid to do the job they've been directed to do. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk "The Buck Stops Here". In Ashland, the buck stops with the mayor, who by charter is the Chief Executive Officer of the corporation known as City of Ashland, and who directs code enforcement employees. We need to stop scapegoating staff who are not responsible for this situation, and focus our energy on solving the core problem. We need to stop dancing around the edges to make a few minor sign changes so we can "Feel" involved. The law as amended by this task force would not pass a majority vote of the people because it doesn't solve the core problems. Adam and Dean are doing their jobs. It's time for us as Citizens of Ashland to do ours, which is to hold the mayor accountable, and work together to rewrite the entire sign code as a simple, understandable law in the public interest that would pass a majority vote of the people, as it should in a democracy. Problems Of The Sign Code As Amended By The Task Force, And Task Force Decisions It's still not understandable, even by those who've been to 5 meetings and spent 20 hours on it. It doesn't solve the core problems. It doesn't identify the public interests that would warrant restricting individual freedom and increasing business costs. - It doesn't resolve issues behind most of the 55 or. so noncompliance letters. - It doesn't answer the questions of businesses or taxpayers for why so much tax money is being spent on this item rather than higher priority_items. - It perpetuates the overkill restrictions that go far beyond the public interests re clutter and transparency. It perpetuates ambiguity in the current law that prevent staff and businesses from determining with apedcity whether their signs do or don't satisfy the sign code. This ambiguity and resulting discretion reates 'negotiations' between businesses and staff, and results in charges of favoritism and unequal application of the law (Wiley's We gets dinged, barber poles do not; some businesses are allowed neon signs, others are not; etc.). It perpetuates multiple sign categories and expensive bureaucracy without a guiding public interest. It continues restrictions on "exempt signs". How strange to write restrictions on signs that are exempt 'rom the law. - - - - It transfers liability for government property to businesses through "hold harmless" legal agreements that equire Ashland businesses to bear attorney costs for acts of government, whether proper or improper. It transfers maintenance costs for government property to businesses by requiring maintenance agreements forcing Ashland businesses to bear maintenance costs for property that the government owns. It transfers control to resolve core issues to the Planning Commission, where the 2 mayoral candidates m the task force have more influence. My message to the task force is the same as my message to the Charter Review Committee: You can't let there from here. The process you're using won't solve the problem because you're not building the law used on the majority will of the people. The amended law wouldn't pass a ballot. We need to go a different direction. Let's rewrite the law as Citizens in the public interest, by identifying he public interests that warrant sign restrictions, and limit the restrictions accordingly. We Citizens can write a simple, understandable law that finds the balance between business freedom and limited public interests re visual clutter and window transparency without creating the current Bureaucratic nightmare for code enforcement and 'negotiations'. vt Bullock fthepeop f eed itor@gma i i. com 488-3366 hat's GLIV-DEMOcracy 97 i~ I~ V~ !ly II~1~ . JUL 1 7 2001 To Whom It May Concern My name is Matt and I owned and operated Rare Earth on the Plaza for over 39 years until controlling interest was sold to Marcy several years ago. I am for the time being still the landlord of the Perrine's Building and Old Simpson's Hardware Building. We lease to some of the oldest/best merchants and tenants on the Plaza, regarded as friends and associates for over 25 years. I have always been more of a merchant than a landlord and it is reflective in the terms I offer my tenants considering the every rising costs in fees, taxes, insurance, utilities, employees and benefits being imposed by the City, County, State and Feds. These rising costs coupled with the dramatic loss of sales (over 60% in the last 5 years) are severely impacting many businesses ability to survive in Ashland. We did not downsize Rare Earth out of personal wishes or for fun!! We, thankfully, downsized in time to survive the lack of leadership and the obvious lack of concern for the downtown business community's needs! It is not the price of gas or the tourist's attitudes; it is not the economy or a lack of knowledge in the business community. It is the lack of leadership to provide healthy direction, convenience and accessibility to the downtown for its citizens, guests and especially our neighboring communities. We have demonstrated an intolerable arrogance and lack of cooperation towards our neighbors on many levels. It is no wonder an attitude has emerged'from one of pride and almost envy to becoming laughing stock within a few short years. Ashland is a tourist town with nobody waiting in the wings to save us from the very amenities that attracted many of you to relocate to Ashland in the first place. Why are we now condemning those amenities and gains that tourism has facilitated in our community? The result is that Ashland no longer has "value" and is not competing well in the tourist market, not because of the lack of a desire to visit by others but because of the limitations being imposed by ignoring those needs of a community based on tourism. Ashland is no longer envied or admired as an example of a balanced and thriving community. = How many of you say, "Oh, I don't-go downtown because of the congestion and incivility" or "I'm sick of paying the only sales tax in Oregon to bailout more city waste" or "They do not have anything I want downtown," when you haven't even looked in years? We hear this from many people throughout the valley. Oh yes, people come to town for a play, parade or other special event butbecause of the negative attitude of locals spurred by their leaders, no parking, excessive taxes and ticketing they do not "stay, play and shop" any longer. Why would leaders of any community tolerate this untenable and destructive situation to its business community? We are suffocating from a City that won't grasp the fact that accessible adequate parking is essential in Ashland and we are paying dearly for that neglect because of a few who have wasted the community's resources, integrity, and time on social engineering projects that have not yielded meaningful and realistic results or positively impacting our community after spending millions while forgoing the security of a solid infrastructure. As a thought to contemplate, South Shore Lake Tahoe accommodates 12 million diversified tourists every year with their population of 32 thousand living in a pristine area successfully and environmentally. The problems of water, recreation, environment, growth, community, housing, a vision and business needs were positively impacted years ago with a little cooperation from all concerned. The acknowledgement was that no one is always right and compromise is the road to success and a benefit for all by simply stimulating the engines of a community. Meaningless arguments over conditions that can not be impacted or resolved are a waste of time and money. If individuals wish to follow a lifestyle, that is their free choice, but to condemn an entire community to the same limitations are nonsense and counterproductive. Tahoe asked each group to defend the others positions and compromised a settlement based on that position. The result produced a level of sustainability with their neighboring communities as 98 a reality not just lip service or political dialogs in meetings and propaganda sessions. They established that using private entrepreneurship to resolve problems does work best while acknowledging the responsibility and duty of any viable city is to provide the community with practical functioning infrastructures, educational opportunities, maintenance of public property/open spaces and public safety at a "reasonable and affordable cost." The social amenities that Ashland claims to desire, but can not afford, are being financed there by the successful enterprises and cooperation within the business community. Certainly a city should contribute alternative ideas but in Ashland's case any attempt at success without adding convenient accessible workforce and visitor parking will remain fleeting and unattainable. No debate has or will change that reality! I have heard every cliche and excuse the City can muster over the last 25 years and the end product is always the same: More failures, more excuses, more meetings, more wasted time, and more money to avoiding the obvious! If the purpose or intent of redundant dialog over the obvious is to destroy and obstruct what once was a world-class community congratulation, they are winning! But if Ashland is to once again be "Gem of Southern Oregon," one real need of the downtown would be parking! Get a grip folks; there is no significant economic diversity on the horizon that has or can survive this leaderships meddling and anti everything referendum. That leaves what is left of tourism and like it or not the car is the only viable way for any guests, workers and citizens to enter Ashland. The car is not going away any time soon but it will be improved. There are autos that get upwards of a hundred miles to the gallon and others that do not use gas at all. It is only a matter of time as this Country sets the definitive goal with real cooperation from the very business community they condemn. Tata Motor from India has already developed a compressed air- car that goes 70+ miles per hour, a range of 200 miles without gas, and a 600+ mile range at 78.miles per gallon with a hybrid gas compressed air combo. It cost about $7500 for the basic model and set to sell overseas next spring. If realistic solution including adequate accessible parking were forthcoming, the downtown businesses and property owners would be very willing to cooperate on any level required. It must be made very clear and understood that attempts to add non-related agendas will sever any cooperation. Stop confusing affordable housing or other social problems with downtown parking needs. These are separate issues with very different solutions. The infill myth that the City Planning Department runs is as flawed as their growth myth in the recent past. Concentrate time and money on those things that actually can be affected and cause meaningful change, like parking, will guarantee success. There is a lot of work to be accomplished if Ashland is to do more than just survive. It needs to regain its credibility, competitive edge and desirability. To procrastinate will only hasten the continued collapse of a once thriving and desirable community that has succumbed to the fantasy of obstructionism and lying by omission as a path to success. You can be sure that it is not going to be pleasant to anyone living or owning anything in Ashland if what is occurring continues. Personally, I do not think the City has the will or desire to work with or support their business community. They certainly will not listen to those of us' who are on Main Street and are trying to survive their mandates, taxes, tickets, user fees, rising costs, codes, ordinances, lack of parking and general incivility. We need to get back on tract, get realistic about the damage that has been done to our community's economy and the need for adequate accessibility workforce and visitor parking before we become just another wasteland of bad ideas and dreams of what could have been. 99 Following is a simple fist of possibilities that might help to get Ashland back on the tracks if enacted sooner rather than later. The list is by no means meant as complete, but could help set a new tone for cooperation and consideration of our guests and citizens that wish to enjoy the amenities of Ashland. 1) Change the Nutley Street parking lot (ice skating lot) and Windburn Way's head in parking at Lithia Park to 2 hour near the Plaza and 4 hours.from the playground to the band shell. Place both in the downtown-parking zone with limited parking between 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day. 2) Change the Water Street parking lots to 2 and 4 hour. Place them in the downtown parking zone with limited parking 9:00 to 5:00 from Memorial Day to Labor Day. 3) Encourage and promote Park and Ride areas at the North and South Interchange when the overpasses are rebuilt by ODOT. Get a grant of finance with ODOT and the county's help. Strongly consider the feasibility of a free City shuttle and/or better bus services throughout Ashland from Memorial Day to Labor Day. It would be advisable and courteous to have added bus service during major special events and parades like Halloween, 4th of July and Festival of Lights. 4) Immediately consider where to put additional parking downtown and implement on a fast track. From the 1988 downtown plan Ashland is a 1000 space shy of satisfying the minimal needs in the downtown. We may never reach this goal but it is essential we try and have an official short and long term plan to add needed parking in the core downtown areas. If two people per car rotate through a parking spot downtown for the two hour limit just 8 hours of a 24 - `-how day and spend an average of $100 per person on shopping, dinning and-entertainment the potential revenues gained from a single parking place from June thru October is $144,000 per year. When you consider that we-are I000:parking spaces short we are depriving our community of an enormous amount of money and higher paying job opportunities by not giving our citizens, guest and workforce what they -want and need---more adequate accessible downtown parking! = - - 5) Stop ticketing employees, city staff, merchants and owners when they are off work playing, shopping or-dining downtown. It is just wrong to ticket them when they are not working and within the parking _ guidelines others must follow. Parking agents can keep tract with warning tickets that state if they are working they are not to park in the downtown zone and if an individual is obviously violating that rule with excessive warnings, ticket them. During business hours for needed stops allow employees and owners to place a note or form letter from the city on their vehicles for a 15 minute temporarily picking up or delivering courtesy, if violated ticket them. 6) A complaint I have heard: the City excludes themselves from the impact of the problems they help create. They should share in the demands placed on others, yet they manipulate and ignore codes, ordinances and laws they've place for their benefit and a chosen few. Everything from parking permits for themselves, to blackberry abatement, riparian codes, and business license requirements, banner/sign ordinances, encroachment permits, allowing retail sales and concerts in an R2 residential family zoning without parking requirements or review standards are approved by the City while businesses on the Plaza are threatened into submission for the smallest infractions that, more often than not, are literally meaningless and the hobgoblin of little bureaucratic minds rationalizing their jobs and flexing their power. 7) Another point of interest ---many Plaza businesses do not allow their employees to park downtown even in the area and times allowed. They park only on Granite Street or above when working. They are well aware of the problem for customers and are in the forefront when trying to provide for their needs. Thank you for your time and consideration, r/Matt la„~ oh a~ 310 Oak Street do P.O. Box 201 Ashland, OR 97520 2 May 2006 Ashland City Council 20 East Main St, Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Sign code revision for buildings with more than two business frontages Dear Council Members, Please see the following pages regarding the sign code revision forwarded to you in the summer by the Planning Commission. We believe we- understand the principal concern of the Council, and we added language to ensure business frontages In excess of two will riot be as prominently .signed' as the two primary frontages. An allowable sign area of 50% for the third business frontage and 25% for the fourth business frontage business frontages of what might be permitted for the two designated primary business frontages should enable a taisiness to identify-itself, lessen the visual impact, and deal with unintended consequences. it seems that'll -is likely that trying to restrict the number of signs any given business may have to two sides of a building may be a restriction of content Thus, since it is apparent that there are buildings that have business frontages on more than two sides, the best way to deal with undesirable impact is to reduce the size perrnilted. ` Our tenants at 130 W Street do ward, need and deserve signs. We hope this modification will ensure they may have them soon. - We do notbelleve sign applications should trigger site reviews. Other - applications already do that- Thank you. Sincerely., ~~'C' ~~►~r.7~9't AIL 1 4 Brent.Tbompsoon ' 4813-0407 Barbara Thompson. SECTION 18.96.080 Commercial-Downtown Overlay District (C-1-D). Signs in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall conform to the following regulations: A. Special Provisions. 1. Frontage. The number and use of signs allowed by virtue of a given business frontage shall be placed only upon such business frontage, and no building shall be wm~ 9FOdi'led -or-@ 049" !we husiftew forbuMnp with nxA* busbress frontages the sign area for business frontages exceeding ttrv shall be 50% for fire drlyd side and 25% for file fourth side of Ike normal area pemritted. 2. Aggregate number of signs. The aggregate number of signs for each business shall be two signs for each business frontage (a frontage with an entrance/exit open to the general public). 3. Material. No sign in the Commercial-Downtown Overlay District shall use plastic as part of the exterior visual effects of the sign. 4. Aggregate area of signs. The aggregate area of all signs established by and located on a given street frontage shall not exceed an area equal to one square foot for each lineal foot of street frontage. Aggregate area shall not include nameplates, and real estate and construction signs. D. Types of Signs Permitted. 1. Wall Signs. a. Number. Two signs per building frontage shall be permitted for each business, or one sign per-.fiontage for a group of businesses occupying a single common space or suite. b. Area. Total sign area shall not be more than one square foot of sign area for one lineal foot of legal business frontage. This area shall not exceed silty - square feet. c. Projection. Signs may project a maximum of eighteen inches from the face" of the building to which they are attached, provided the lowest portion of the - sign is at least eight feet above grade. Any portion lower than eight feet may only project four inches. d. Extension above. roof line. Sings may not project above the roof or cave line of the building. 2. Ground Signs. a. Number. One sign, in lieu of a wall sign, shall be permitted for each lot with a street frontage in excess of fifty lineal feet. Comer lots can count one street frontage. Two or more parcels of less than fifty feet may be combined for purposes of meeting the foregoing standard. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed an area of one square foot for each two lineal feet of street frontage, with a maximum area of sixty square feet per sign. c. Placement. Signs shall be placed so that no sign or portion thereof shall extend beyond any properly line of the premises on which such sign is located. Signs on comer properties shall also comply with the vision clearance provisions of Section 18.96.060(F). d. Height. No ground sign shall be in excess of five feet above grade. 3. Marquee or Awning Signs. a. Number. A maximum of two signs shall be permitted for each business frontage in lieu of wall signs. b. Area. Signs shall not exceed the permitted aggregate sign area not taken up 102 by a wall sign. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Does the City want to place some or all of the City's Tier 2 Electric Load on Northwest Requirements Utilities, LLC? Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Dick Wanderscheid Department: Electric E-Mail: wandersd@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Megan Thornton Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: Does the City want to place some or all, of the City's Tier 2 electric load on Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply (NIES), a corporation formed by Northwest Requirement Utilities to provide power to local governments? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City should utilize Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to serve our Tier 2 load and not contract with NIES. Advantages/ Disadvantages of the choices: Advantages of NIES- Potentially lower Tier 2 power costs Could eventually own part of an actual generating resource Management of power cost risks by diversifying our Tier 2 supply Working in partnership with like utilities Economies of scale in acquiring non federal power Disadvantages ofNIES- Complexity of wholesale power transactions Creditworthiness requirements beyond BPA's requirements No guarantee that non federal power will cost less than BPA power The risk of working with a new organization that has no experience in power supply The ongoing costs and fees associated with membership Since power supply decisions are made by proportional vote, little say in resource decisions Advantages of BPA- No additional complexity in wholesale power transactions BPA may continue to be the lowest cost Tier 2 provider A number of Tier 2 power choices are available from BPA No additional fees or dues BPA will continue to be a reliable business partner that the City has worked with for over 25 years Disadvantages of BPA- Could have higher Tier 2 costs from BPA No chance to own a portion of generating resources Little opportunity to influence the cost of power provided by BPA Page I of 4 C I T Y OF ASHLAND Conclusion Staff has concluded that the added complexity and costs associated with diversifying from BPA compared to the potential financial benefits, if any do not justify the City pursuing the NRU option for supplying Tier 2 power. Therefore, using BPA as our Tier 2 power supplier appears to be the most prudent course of action for the City to pursue. Background & Discussion: On November 4, 2008 the City Council authorized the City Administrator to execute a 20-year power sales contract with the Bonneville Power Administration. This contract runs from Federal fiscal years 2008 - 2028, but purchases under this agreement will not occur until October 1, 2011. Until then the City will continue to purchase power under our existing 10-year contract with BPA that expires on September 30, 2011.. BPA's new 20-year contract differs from past contracts because it will apply Tiered Rates. Under the City's current contract, all power is priced at the same rate. BPA melds all the costs of power from all of its available power sources. Under the new Tiered Rate Methodology, the existing output of the Federal system will be charged out at the "Tier 1" rate which will likely be the lowest power rate. Tier 1 rates will be at the cost to BPA of providing predominantly hydroelectric power from the existing system which is relatively inexpensive. Additional power will be purchased from BPA at the Tier 2 rate or from another provider. Tier 2 will be at a higher rate because Tier 2 prices will require new power sources. The City could choose to purchase Tier 2 power from BPA or from a non-Federal resource, such as NIES. BPA is moving to tiered rates to limit the amount of new power generation resources they will need to acquire to fulfill the growing electric needs of their utility customers. Also, BPA wants to give utilities price signals and conservation incentives to encourage private resource development and investments in energy efficiency. The City will not have to make a decision concerning how it wants to serve its additional load until November, 2009. To determine the amount of power that the City will get at the Tier I rate, BPA will apply a "Contract High Water Mark" (CHWM), which is a set number of megawatts (MW'S) used by the City in 2010, historical data, and adjustments for anomalies and conservation. The actual MW amount of the CHWM will not be known until FY 2011. In addition, there will be a Rate Period High Water Mark (RHWM) which will be determined during each 2 year or 3 year rate period. While the City will not know its CHWM until FY 2011, BPA has released their preliminary projection of CHWM's. They prefaced these projections as being "solely for informal, preliminary planning by customers". This projection estimates that Ashland's CHWM will be 21.59 at MW's and that the City's load in 2012 will be 21.98 a MWs, meaning the City would be subject to Tier 2 pricing for.39 a MW's in 2012. However, BPA will be adjusting our CHWM upward based on the amount of conservation the City achieved between 2006-2010. These things all means that the City should not see much exposure to Tier 2 pricing in the initial years of the contract. Page 2 of 4 . r CITY OF ASHLAND The RHWM will be determined during each rate period and can be different than the CHWM. The RHWM is a number of MW's the City gets during the rate period based on its CHWM and the amount of power the Federal system creates. Because BPA's power is largely from hydroelectric dams, the amount of available power can vary based on the weather and other factors. In the unlikely event that the output of the Federal system increases, the RHWM could be higher than the CHWM. Under these circumstances, less Tier 2 power would be needed. However, it is more likely that the Federal system's output will decrease, which would require the City to purchase more Tier 2 power. In November, 2009 the City will need to notify BPA of how the City will purchase Tier 2 power. If the City decides to purchase from BPA, Council will also decide what kind of Tier 2 .resource the City wants BPA to supply. In November 2008 when the City Council made the decision to sign the new 20-year contract, staff mentioned that we were exploring using non-federal power sources to meet some or part of our Tier 2 load. The City is a member of Northwest Requirement Utilities (NRU) and NRU created a number of separate entities to provide an alternative to purchasing Tier 2 power from BPA. One of the entities created by NRU is NIES, Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply, a group that municipalities can join to pool their resources to purchase power. This is an ORS 190 organization that will include Municipal Utilities, Public Utility Districts, and Special Districts. The City would need to sign a Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement to join this organization and purchase power from the LLC. NRU has also created Northwest Energy Supply Cooperative (NESC); this organization will be made up of all the cooperative utilities that want to purchase power from the LLC. Each one of these entities would then sign a "Joint Development, Agency and Power Pooling Agreement" with a third entity, the Administrative Services Cooperative (ASC). ASC is a corporation that was formed to conduct joint investigation, planning, acquisition, management and operation of power resources for NESC and NIES. NIES and NESC would be the only members of the ACS. In order to purchase power through NRU, LLC, the City would need to execute a Membership Agreement and a Load Commitment Agreement, and as a member of NIES the City would be subject to the Power Pooling Agreement. The deadline to make the decision is April 30, 2009. All members of either NIES or NESC would need to execute a Load Commitment Agreement committing to place at least 50% for their Tier 2 load on the NRU LLC. Diversifying 50% of our Tier 2 load to NRU LLC would increase the complexity of our wholesale power supply. Instead of one bill from BPA there would be additional billings and payments which would require staff time to administer. The LLC has worked very hard with BPA to make this transaction as simple as possible. There are creditworthiness and credit support requirements associated with buying from the LLC above and beyond the parameters needed for BPA Tier 2 purchase. CONTRACT STRUCTURE & TERMS There is a separate memo from the City's legal Department that analyzes the legal issues involved in purchasing Tier 2 power from NRU. That memo is attached to this communication. Page 3 of 4 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND FINANCIAL IMPACTS The City might want to diversify some of our Tier 2 purchase if there are financial benefits from pursuing this path. While it is virtually impossible to know what NRU LLC'S or BPA's prices will be in the future, it is possible to give a range of potential savings by making some assumptions about load growth and the potential cost of future energy supply. Using BPA's Load forecast of 25 a MW in 2028 and their Projected High Water Mark of 21.59 a MW, the City would be purchasing 3.41 MW of Tier 2 power in 2028. Assuming that half of this load was placed on the LLC and that they were able to price their power at $10/MWh lower than BPA's, Tier 2 power the savings in 2028 would be $160,000. Of course there is no assurance that NRU LLC would be less expensive than BPA but $10/MWh would probably be a reasonable upper estimate of the cost savings. Offsetting these potential savings would be the annual cost of being in this organization (dues & administration) and the increased complexity of diversifying away from BPA. Also there is no assurance that the LLC could be successful in being able to supply power at costs lower than BPA. BPA Tier 2 Choices The decision about what kind of Tier 2 choice the City wants to utilize needs to be made by November, 2009. Until the City's Tier 2 load exceeds laMW, BPA will be billing the City for our Tier 2 load as a part of our Load Shaping Charge. Until the load exceeds IaMW, the type of Tier 2 service will not effect the BPA adjustment of this Load Shaping Charge. Based on current projections, in 2014 the City's load would exceed our CHWM by more than la MW and Tier 2 service would then be served by an actual Tier 2 product. BPA has announced that they will offer 3 Tier 2 rate alternatives. A Load Growth Rate, a Short Term Rate and a Vintage Rate or a set of Vintage Rates. Load Following or full requirement customers like Ashland can select any on of theses three offerings. Staff plans on providing the Mayor & Council with an extensive analysis of these options in September or October 2009, in order for this decision to be made by November 2009 deadline. Related City Policies: N/A Council Options: • Rely on BPA to supply all of the City's Tier 2 power needs. • Place 50% of our Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC. • Place our entire Tier 2 power needs on the NRU LLC. Potential Motions: 1) No action -All Tier 2 Load would be served by BPA. 2) Move to authorize the city Administrator to execute the Membership Agreement, Load Commitment Agreement and Power Pooling Agreement with NRU LLC in order to place 50% or 100% of the City's Tier 2 Load on the LLC. Attachments: Legal Department Memo Page 4 of 4 City of Ashland Legal Department Memorandum To: Dick Wanderscheid, Director of Electric Utilities From: Megan Thornton, Assistant City Attorney Date: April 2, 2009 Re: Membership and Load Commitment Agreements for NRU, LLC Background The City currently gets its power from Bonneville Power Administration, and it has recently signed an agreement to continue receiving power from BPA. However, the City could also choose to have an alternative power source. The City is considering joining the Northwest Intergovernmental Energy Supply Corporation as a secondary source for some of the City's Tier 2 power supply. The legal department has evaluated the structure of the agreements and some of the terms for your consideration. Contract Structure and Terms There are three separate agreements with exhibits that will govern the City's involvement with the LLC. Some of the key terms of the Membership Agreement and Load Commitment Agreement are discussed below. These are the two documents that the City will have to execute to become a member of NIES. However, the legal issues regarding the Power Pooling Agreement are not discussed in this memo because that agreement would only apply if the City became a member NIES. If the Council is considering joining NIES, the City Attorney's office will provide additional advice regarding NIES' obligations under the Pooling Agreement because all members of NIES will be subject to the pooling agreement. Terms of the Membership Agreement Section 1: The City cannot become a member of the NIES unless it commits to purchasing power from NIES. Section 2: The City must provide credit support and may be required to assume obligations and liabilities of NIES under the Load Commitment Agreement. Section 4: There is a $2,500 membership fee, plus annual dues in an amount that will be determined by the Board of Directors for NIES, and the Board may impose additional assessments. Section 5: Membership can be transferred in accordance with the law. Page 1 of 3 Terms of the Load Commitment Agreement Article 2 §2: The City must agree to have NIES supply at least 50% of its above RHWM load; however, this requirement only applies after the City's above RHWM is 1.OaMW or greater. Therefore, it will likely be a number of years before the City would be required to place any load on NIES. Article 2 §2.6: The City must declare what percentage of its load will be served by NIES every two to four years, which coordinates with the declarations necessary under the City's BPA contract. This allows the City to change its dependency on NIES to better meet its needs. Article 3: NIES is obligated to acquire, own, and operate sufficient resources to supply the City with power; however, if NIES fails to supply all of the power required under the agreement, and the NIES' deficiency lasts less than 180 days, the City cannot terminate the agreement. In that situation the City would be allowed to obtain power on the open market and submit a bill to NIES for the cost of the replacement power. Article 4 § 4.1: The City would be obligated to pay NIES for a portion of NIES' costs of acquiring, maintaining, and operating resources for any resource pool that the City would be utilizing. The City's cost responsibility would be in proportion to its use of the resource. Article 4 § 4.2: The City would have voting rights for decisions that involve financial commitment for each resource pool it belonged to, but the weight of its vote would be based on the City's load as determined by the City's cost responsibility for the resource. Therefore, the weight of the City's vote would likely be small because the City would not likely be placing a lot of load on NIES in the near future. Article 4 § 4.5: The City's purchase of power under the agreement does not mean that the City would have any ownership interest in any of the power resources. There is a possibility the City could own resources if it advanced funds solely for the purpose of resource acquisition, but that ownership interest would terminate if the City terminated its membership, at which time NIES would compensate the City for the value of the resource at termination. However, nothing in the agreement would prohibit the City from acquiring resources on its own outside of this agreement. Article 5: The City would be responsible for a portion of NIES' administrative costs, costs associated with investigating resources, and its share of costs associated with any resource pool it would be acquiring power from. All of the costs are determined in part by the amount of load placed on NIES; however, the administrative and resource investigation costs also have a flat fee that would be paid regardless of the City's power obligations. Article 6: The City would be required to establish its creditworthiness after credit support policies are established by the Risk Management Committee. The proof of creditworthiness can only be used for the financial obligations of the City to NIES. This agreement would not require the City to pledge its credit to another NIES member without the express approval of the City Council. At this point NIES has not formed the committee; therefore, it is unclear what will be required to establish creditworthiness, but the ongoing requirement to prove creditworthiness will likely require staff time and additional costs. 0 Page 2 Article 7 § 7.1: The City would be required to continue to meet all of its financial obligations for all resource pools it belongs to regardless of any event. Therefore, even if NIES failed to provide power the City would still be required to pay for the resources. Article 8: The right to purchase power under this agreement does not include transmission of the power. Therefore, the City would be required to obtain transmission service rights for NIES to deliver the power to BPA, which would then transmit the power to the City. Article 9 § 9.2.2.5: If NIES defaults, NIES must cure the default or pay for the cost of replacement power. However, the City will only be allowed to terminate this agreement due to a default if NIES fails to deliver power for 180 consecutive days. In general, this contract is difficult to terminate. See Article 11 below. Article 11: The agreement continues until it is terminated. The City could opt out and choose to discontinue future load commitments in 2019, but that would not excuse the City from meeting its existing financial obligations under the agreement. This would include payment of any administrative costs that are not based on use of a resource. The City could terminate the agreement with Board approval by entering into a termination agreement in accordance with this section. However, the first opportunity to terminate this agreement without Board approval occurs in 2026, and it would allow the City to terminate the agreement in 2028 if the City provided written notice of its intent to terminate the agreement. The City could terminate earlier if NIES fails to acquire adequate resources to supply power to the City. Article 14 § 14.9: The agreement requires the City to resolve disputes through mediation and binding arbitration. Conclusion The structure of the corporations is complicated due to the various entities that are involved. The types of entities and the distribution of voting rights makes it likely that the City will have little power to actually determine the direction that NIES will take because the City will not be placing a lot of load on NIES in the near future. In addition, this agreement is generally difficult to temninate; therefore, if the City wishes to join NIES it will likely not be able to terminate prior to 2028 without costs and extensive staff time. 0 Page 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Transit and RVTD Update Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught /552-2411 Department: PW Engineering E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Ann Seltzer / 552-2106 Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 30 minutes Question: V. Does the Council wish to continue the current contact with RVTD to reduce transit fares in Ashland by 75% or does the Council wish to change the contact to simultaneously restore Route 5 service and reduce the subsidy within Ashland to 50%? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council select proposal #2 presented by RVTD which reinstates Route 5 (as Route 15) reducing the subsidy within Ashland to 50% and allocate $250,000 to transportation services in the FY2010 budget. Background: The City of Ashland in the past, supported transit service by providing an extra Ashland only route and by providing free bus fare within Ashland. In 2006 RVTD determined that the cost of providing route 5 combined with a free fare was more than the City had been paying. The City Council had to choose between providing Route 5 with a $1 fare within Ashland and providing a subsidy to reduce fares to $.50 with in Ashland. The Council opted for the second choice; to eliminate the Ashland only route and reduce fares within Ashland on existing Route 10. Currently the City pays $1.50 of the fixed route $2.00 fare (riders pay $0.50), and $3.00 of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $1.00). The contract also stipulates that the City will pay net operating costs of the Valley Lift services for ridership above 9,800 rides. This agreement for Ashland residents was reached during a series of regular and special City Council meetings from June 2006 through September 2006, following RVTD's report on their financial difficulties. The current "fare buy down" program was memorialized in a one-year contract between RVTD and the City in September 2006. In June 2007 the Council approved a one-year renewal of that contract and directed staff to hire a transit consultant to evaluate the City of Ashland's transit needs. The consultant completed the preliminary transit evaluation for Ashland which was presented to the Council at the October 6, 2008 Study Session. Those transit findings lead staff to propose to incorporate the transit data into the comprehensive multi-modal transportation system plan update to ensure that future transit routes tie into all modes of transportation. However, one of the suggested changes to the existing "fare buy-down" program was to retain Route 10 with the current operation and to reinstate Route 5 for 8 hours of service. To achieve this new plan, the consultant suggested redeploying the current subsidy toward service rather than subsidy. In addition, the consultant suggested that the reinstatement of Route 5 include a fare box return (City Revenue) component. Page I of5 CITY OF ASHLAND The following chart demonstrates the ridership trends which staff believes supports the transit consultant's recommendation to focus on service rather than subsidizing rides. Ashland Ridership 1997-2008 160,000-xi laoooo 9' 120,000 ( i t 100,000- - 80,000- u a 60,000- "1 ( I 40000 ( I 2000 P~~ I~ . i~ I~ I~ I I i !III C 1 0 9 O e ti p 9 d h 0 '1 0 Jce'Lp J~'L~ Lo /rp °o/ rr° PCe'L lllT J IT )ac )'°c )ac )'DC )a° )a° )ac' 1'f' lac )f' 0 )a° . Months and Year Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - $0.25 Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - Free Ashland Ridership on Rt 10, No Rt 5 Total Ashland trips Rt 10 - $0.50 Since the October 2008 study, RVTD has provided a recommendation to reinstate Route 5 with a fare box return component. RVTD's proposal includes a "fare buy-down" component; however, the proposed "fare buy-down" reduces the City's subsidy to the inter-city transit program. RVTD's proposal recommends the City pay $1.00 of the standard $2.00 fare (riders pay $1.00), and $2.00 of the standard $4.00 fee for Valley Lift para-transit services (the rider pays $2.00). The new proposal and subsequent contract will continue to stipulate that the City will pay net operating costs ($18.31) of the Valley Lift services for ridership above 9,800 rides. Staff recommends that Council accept RVTD's proposal for this change in our support for transit. The addition of Route 5 is consistent with the City's transit consultant's suggestions to increase frequency and reduce the transit subsidy as the addition of Route 5 increases the bus frequency from 30 minute intervals to 15 minute intervals and decreases the transit subsidy as described above. The proposed Ashland Transit Routes are as follows: Page 2 of 5 ~r, C I T Y OF ASHLAND F S "F nFVEq 9T o_ eRl°E LM p~_"yl~ m lyti _ i PH, P~ ~d 1 \ K yya y- & Ashland Routes' ~ ° > ~ ` m _+Y h 0 3, K _ E m Z 6 O Ashland loop (proposed) p C z z a ..°R RVTD provided three service proposals for the reinstatement of Route 5 or the "Loop." Those proposals are detailed in the attached RVTD proposal and a summary of the options and associated costs are as follow: Pro osal #1 Net Cost Estimate Route 5 (6.5 hours) $103,067 Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658 TOTAL $205,725 * includes a $24,000 Route 5 fare box return estimate. Pro osal #2 Net Cost Estimate Route 5 (9 hours) $129,817 Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658 TOTAL $232,475 * includes a $33,600 Route 5 fare box return estimate. Page 3 of 5 ~r, CITY OF -ASHLAND Pro osal #3 Net Cost Estimate Route 5 (13 hours) $183,217 Route 10 ($1.00 Subsidy) $102,658 TOTAL $285,875 * includes a $43,200 Route 5 fare box return estimate Note: The totals reflected in the proposals listed above reflect all costs for services including fixed route and valley lift users based on a percentage of 04-05 actual users. Should actual users in FY2010 exceed the estimate; the City will see an increase in fare box receipts. On the other hand, if the actual FY2010 users fall short, then the cost for service will increase. Financial Impacts The FY 2008-09 adopted Street Operation Budget approved $290,000 for the transit line item. Of that $290,000, $217,500 was allocated for the RVTD contract. The remaining funds were allocated to pay for a transit consultant to review Ashland transit needs. Of the three Route 5 options included in the RVTD proposal, Option 2 at a cost of $232,000 reflects the transit consultant's recommendation. It is also important to point out that the RVTD's proposal includes a Route 5 "fare box return" element that allows the City of Ashland to retain 100% of the fares generated by Route 5. If the Council were to agree with the transit consultant and choose Option 2 then the annual cost to provide inter-city bus service for Ashland would increase by $14,500. There are however, potential revenue sources through the State of Oregon Business Energy Tax Credits (BETC) program that can offset the cost of providing inter-city transit services. The BETC program provides a 25.5% tax credit to communities that invest in transportation projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled. The good news is that the City of Ashland's inter-city projects meets the BETC Requirements. To that end, staff is submitting a BETC application that if approved will cover the remainder of this fiscal year through June 2010. Upon approval, the BETC application will reduce the annual financial impact of the RVTD proposal to $172,840. In addition to the RVTD proposal, staff recommends that Ashland increase the current allocation for bus passes distributed to the high school and the Senior Center from $4,000 to $10,000 as an additional assistance to those riders that cannot afford the proposed increase in fare box charges. Related City Policies: • Ashland Municipal Code • Ashland's FY 2008-09 Budget • Ashland's Transportation System Plan • Ashland's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan Council Options: 1. The City Council could decide to implement one of the three options listed in RVTD's proposal to reinstate Route 5 and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10. 2. The City Council could decide to continue the current Route 10 Transit Subsidy and allocate $290,000 for transportation and RVTD services for 2009-10. Page 4 of 5 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND 3. The City Council could decide to eliminate the transit subsidy and not allocated funds for transportation and RVTD services for 2009-10. 4. The City Council could decide to modify ( ) staff's recommendations Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve RVTD's reinstatement of Route 5 Proposal #1 (6.5 hours) for $205,725; a bus pass allocation of $10,000 (for High School and Senior Center); and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10, or Proposal #2 (9 hours) for $232,500; a bus pass allocation of $10,000 (for High School and Senior Center); and allocate $250,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10, or Proposal #3 (13 hours) for $285,875; a bus pass allocation of $4,000 (for High School and Senior Center); and allocate $300,000 for transportation and RVTD Services for 2009-10. 2. Move to continue the current Route 10 Transit Subsidy and allocate $290,000 for transportation and RVTD services for 2009-10 3. Move to eliminate the transit subsidy 4. Move to modify ( ) staff recommendations Attachments: 1. FY 2008-09 Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD 2. Cover Letter dated for service proposal from Julie Brown 3. 2009-2011 Service Proposal for the City of Ashland, Oregon 4. Estimated Operating Cost Spreadsheet 5. FY 2009-2011 Draft Agreement between the City of Ashland and RVTD Page 5 of 5 ~r, 1 R / CITY OF ASHLAND - AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES JUN 74 July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009 Agreement made effective July 1, 2008 between Rogue Valley Transportation District (BM) and the City of Ashland (City). Rfl and City agree: 1. REDUCED FARE PROGRAM. In order to encourage and increase RMM ridership within the City, the City will reduce the cost of fixed route fares within the City from $2.00 to $.50, and will reduce the Valley Lift paratransit fares within the City from 54.00 to 51.00. 1.1 Contract will begin on July 1, 2008, and will end on June 30, 2009. 1.2 RWW will provide $.50 fare service on fixed route buses and $ 1.00 fare service on Valley Lift paratransit buses to passengers picked up and delivered within the City. 1.3 RUM will bill City for the reduced faros described above based on the actual number of rides provided within the City. Rides will be detailed in a monthly ridership report completed by 1, and bills will be submitted on a quarterly basis. 1.4 Ili will also bill City for the operating costs of providing Valley Lift service if ridership exceeds 9,800 passengers per year. The billed amount shall equal $18.31 per ride over the 9,800 passenger threshold and shall apply to the period of July 1, 2W through through June 30, 200$. , 9 r," 1.5 City will remit to Rte, on a quarterly basis when billed by R3, $1.50 for each fixed route ride and $3.00 for each Valley Lift paratraacit ride provided by 11 within the City. 2. CONSIDERATION- Total payments to RWD. will not exceed $217,500 per fiscal year. In the event that the $217,500 annual allotment from the City will be/bocomes exhausted prior to the end of the fiscal year, the program for that fiscal year will end and fixed route and Valley Lift paratransit fares will revert to standard 1 fares for the balance of the fiscal year. 2.2 If either R or City wishes to modify this agreement, both parties shall meet to negotiate modifications to the agreement. Glow doiCiy cans PsdwWP&dvA Fies120pr40osMUo6M"W Win Awa N ox Pape 1 d3 3. TERMINATION: 3.1 Termination for Convenience. This agreement may be terminated by either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days notice in writing to the other party. RVTD shall be compensated for all services performed under this agreement up to the effective termination date. 3.2. For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement for cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party or such later date as may be established by mutual agreement, under any of the following conditions; 3.2.2 If federal or state laws, rules or regulations are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a manner that the services arc not longer allowable or appropriate under this agreement; 3.23 If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the provision of the services under this agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed 4. Pub Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall first be reviewed by RVTD for accuracy and must acknowledge the support of RVTD. RVTD will provide City with appropriate logo for this purpose. 5. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to the records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. 6. Workers Cog>Irensntion. RVTD, its subcontractors, if any, and all employees working under this Agreement arc subject employers under the Oregon Worker's Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 7. General LiabiRVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this Agreement shall comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or others. 8. Laving Wage RVTD shall comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor who performs 5001* or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD shall post the attached notice predominantly in areas where all employees can easily see it. et~eoora~ay cam Padoeeswadae ~es>zoorao.aso3wro3oe avtn ~eernaa em~t.eor Papa 2 d 3 9. Miscellaneous provisions 9.1 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be responsible for delay or default caused by fire, flood riot acts of trod, and/or war which are beyond the Party's reasonable control. RVTD may terminate this Agreement by written notice after determining such delay or default will reasooab Prevent successful Performance of this Agreement. 9.2 Amendment- The terms of this Agreement shall not be waived, altered, modified. supplemented or amended in any manner whatsoever without prior written approval of RVTD and the City. 9.3 Waiver. Either party's failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shaIl not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of its right to such Performance, not of its right to enforce any other provision of the Agreement 9.4 Federal Government Not A Party. The Federal Government is not a party to this Agreement and shall have no obligation to any third party absent the Federal Government's express written consent. 9.5 Attorney's Fees. In case of suit, action, proceeding, or arbitration to enforce any rights or conditions of this Agreement, it is mutually agreed that the losing party in such suit, action, Proceeding, arbitration or appeal shall pay the prevailing party therein a reasonable attorney's fee in such amount as set by the court or arbitrator bearing such suit, action, Priming, arbitration or appeal. 9.6 Entire Agreement This instrument constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No representations, warranties, promises, or agreements, oral or written, express or implied, have been made guarantees either Party hcrdo with respect to this Agreement or the vehicles, equipment or drivers to be provided hereunder. ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DIST Y OF dBrown General Manager City Administrator Review to form: Revi ed as form: By Dav, c_ By Legal Counsel for RVTD Ric kPP1 Date: Acting City Attorney Date: G4eomda" Court Padaftpa lcet Fie3l2opr.20Wa* RM AWewaRatchl.doe Pape 3 a 3 Rogue Valley Transportation District From the Desk of Julie Brown. General Manaaer 3200 Crater Lake Avenue • Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 nlrvw§;MR~ Phone (541) 779-5821 • Fax (541) 773-2877 ' Visit our website at: wwuw.rvtd.org TO: Martha Bennett, City Administrator CC: Mike Faught and Ann Seltzer DATE: March 17, 2009 RE: Upcoming Agreement for Services Thank you for your continued support and partnership. RVTD has supplied your staff with service proposals to review and we are available to discuss these with you, The proposals include a fare buy down and the addition of a circulator route that will allow for 15 min. frequencies between the Plaza, SOU and Tolman Creek Rd. RVTD has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of both a fare buy down and a Loop route since 2006 as reflected in the narrative to the proposals. We recommend increasing fares to $1.00 and adding a circulator to make more efficient use of the City's subsidy. Additionally, RVTD is seeking a 22-month contract beginning 9/7/2009. The City of Ashland has obligated $290,000 in prior years' budgets dating back to 2003 to be used toward Public Transportation. The City has used a portion of this allocation each year since 2006 toward planning activities. RVTD believes that at this time, there is a higher value to implementing increased transit service to existing and new users than in documenting its value. The proposed Loop route is cost-efficient and, based on actual data, has already proven to be successful in boosting ridership. There will be opportunities to plan future route concepts with RVTD in the 2009-10 and the 2010-11 MPO Unified Planning Work Program. Sincerely, eW4~- A Rogue Valley Transportation District 3200 Crater Lake Avenue ■ Medford, Oregon 97504-9075 Phone (541) 608-2429 ■ Fax (541) 773-2877 Visit our website at. www.rvtd.org 2009-2011 Service Proposal for the City of Ashland, Oregon March 9, 2009 Honorable Council Members and City of Ashland Staff, With your demonstrated support for providing access to all modes of transportation, RVTD is pleased to forward a proposal for transit service enhancements during the 2009-2011 Fiscal Years. Also included is a presentation of the surveying and marketing efforts completed recently in the City of Ashland. Transit Service History ■ 1997 - Exclusive Loop Service Started w/ $0.25 fare ■ 1999 - Loop Discontinued ■ 2001 - Loop Resumed w/ $0.25 fare ■ 2002 - Both Loop and Route 10 Free Fare • 2006 to Present Day- Loop Discontinued, Route 10 fare at $0.50 Based on discussions with City Staff members Mike Faught and Ann Seltzer, it was determined that a cafeteria of options should be presented. Ultimately, there are two variables between the options. Those are: the cost of the fare and the hours of operation. RVTD is seeking a 22-month contract starting September 7, 2009 and ending June 30, 2011. The contract is based on the District's direct cost per mile of operations (fuel and maintenance only) and the cost of the driver(s) wages and benefits. This contract amount would be billed to the City on a quarterly basis and reduced by the total fare box collected from the Loop route. This proposal would only affect the Route #10 agreement in that the fare charged on the Loop must be the same fare charged on the Route #10 within the City. The Valley Lift paratransit service area would not be extended because the Loop route follows the same path as Route #10. The Valley Lift service clauses are still in effect and tied to the fare. I l Ashland Ridership and Service Levels Premium transit service, such as a lower fare and frequent bus arrivals, will generate the most citizens, visitors and students choosing to use transit. This effect is demonstrated well in the City's history of fluctuating levels of transit service. When the Free Fare and Loop were both in place, ridership was at its highest ever seen; between January and June 2006 RVTD and the City provided 152,606 transit trips. When the Loop was discontinued and fare raised to 50 cents, ridership plummeted to 46,021 between July and December 2006. Ashland Ridership 1997-2008 160,000- 140,000- 120,000- _a 100,000- I r 80,000- I I I I v_ I 60,000- I I 40,000- I ( I 20,000- ~ I ~ I I II o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 O~ 1 'CO 00 00 O~ O~ O~ Oa 00 O° 61 ,49 NO ry0 rL0 ry0 ry6 ry0 ~O ~O y0 c~ ce ce o~ oe ca ce c~ c~ c~ cs o° )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )J )a° )a° )a° )a° )a° )a° )ac )a° )a° )aJ )a° )a° Months and Year Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10: $0.25 Total Ashland trips Rt 5 & Rt 10 - Free 's t l} j f Ashland Ridership on Rt 10, No Rt 5 Total Ashland trips Rt 10 - $0.50 Because the Loop and Free Fare were in place at the same time during the ridership 'boom' years, it has been difficult to state which was more important for the rider: frequency or cost. The City's ridership since 2006 has not grown as would be expected after the residual effects of a 'fare shock' would have occurred, usually in the first year. This has lend RVTD to determine frequency as a more important factor than fare cost for someone deciding whether to use transit in the Cihj of Ashland. 2 Route description- The Ashland Loop is a five-mile route that begins and ends at the Ashland Plaza. The route would serve the Plaza, E. Main St., the University, Ashland St., Tolman Creek Rd. and Siskiyou Blvd. The route can travel in either direction while in south Ashland however 15-minute service would only be possible with both Route #10 and the Loop traveling in the same direction. HT E 8, w NEV E _gT R ~ RIO ENEV.t°q gT ay g1OE LN > ° 39i PLE N t Y 4"yy. EN EN s 1 to < z ' S Z; ~ rt-y, Q'ryrO 5 ? N? aM RST Y m n u U $ 2 m 8°N 0. ~ `".~Y ' mow. Y ElNIH3} ORMO lilt t ~ E*.. ` 3 \ JJ1 N a G n ~g o a w snv \\m 4, r AS 1. 9 RR4 ~ W = ~ o. ~ ~jnn r~ I of uo ~z ~6~ ; Fa Ashland Routes _ °~-N^Y~" 3 t Ex \ N Route 10 c l• u r x m j. 1^;lv E~ ...5 _ ,4L a } .Ashland Loop (proposed) JI a f m = . \ A passenger activity survey completed in 2008 generated useful information about the highest and best use of a Loop route. The previous Loop, Route #5, ran from the Plaza to Ashland St. and around E. Main and back. It did not travel along Tolman Creek Rd. or Siskiyou Blvd. The survey showed that Tolman Creek and Siskiyou Blvd generate considerably more ridership than the E. main loop. Since the proposed loop cannot serve both areas within the time span available, RVTD used the passenger activity data to determine where the loop could run to be efficient and cost-effective. 3 Service Hours- As one of the components to minimize costs, RVTD has analyzed a route that would run: ■ 6.5 hours per day (requiring 1 FT Driver) ■ 9.0 hours per day (requiring 1 FT Driver and 1 PT Driver) ■ 13.0 hours per day (requiring 2 FT Drivers) A 6.5-hour operating day at the cost quoted is only possible with continuous service, meaning the driver cannot have a split shift with this scenario. This is the most economical, however it will not cover both an AM and a PM peak. The day could for example begin at 11:00AM and end at 5:30 PM capturing the majority of afternoon and work commute home travel. Or, the day could begin at 7:30AM and end at 2:OOPM to capture early morning commute to work and school (SOU especially) trips. A 9.0-hour operating day at the cost quoted is only possible with continuous service, one driver works 4X10.5's and a part-time driver picks up the Friday shift. This is the second most economical however will barely cover both an AM and a PM peak. The day could, for example, begin at 7:30AM and end at 5:30 PM. A 13.0-hour operating day at the cost quoted is a full-day service day requiring two full- time drivers and a relief trip midday. This is the most costly option however will cover both an AM and a PM peak. The day would begin at 6:OOAM and end at 7:00 PM. Fare Considerations 'Fare Shock' often causes ridership to decrease within the first six-months (if in a small increment -$0.25 is standard) but eventually ridership recovers. This recovery can take longer if the increase is more drastic. RVTD increased fares from $1.00 to 52.00 in 2006 and ridership decreased 14% system-wide within the first six months but since has recovered and is near the 2005-2006 ridership levels again. The City of Ashland also increased fares in 2006, but from free to $0.50. Ridership plummeted and has not regained 2005-2006 levels. Evidence from each of the service types and fares the City has supported within the past decade suggests that ridership should have regained just as RVTD's did. RVTD is confident that frequency is a stronger determinant for generating higher levels of ridership than we see today. If the City moves forward with a fare increase, RVTD strongly suggests a move to $1.00 with increases of $0.25 during years when the budget is constrained to ensure a Loop service is maintained. 4 RVTD's current fare strata would also apply. For example: $1.00 - Full Fare (18-61 years of age) $0.50 - Reduced Fare (62 years and older, 10-17 years of age and disabled) Free - For transfers made within the City and for children 0-9 with paying adult Hardship Programs The City of Ashland has a program that was implemented in 2007 to provide monthly bus fare cards for eligible citizens who meet certain income criteria. RVTD also offers a bus pass program for employers, schools and other congruent populations. The RVTD bus pass cost for each person is heavily reduced due to passes being purchased in bulk for every person in the population. The current cost is $3.85 per person per month. These programs are alternatives for citizens who may experience hardship from a fare increase within the City. Partnership with SOU Each year, RVTD encourages SOU to adopt a bus pass program for its students. The students and the Administration have thus far declined a bus pass program to their students even after a campus-wide survey demonstrated the majority of students wanted the program and were willing to pay for it in increased parking fees. SOU could be a financial contributor and is a major benefactor of special transit services. 2008 Passenger Survey RVTD completed its system-wide triennial passenger survey in May 2008. A total of 288 surveys were collected on the Route #10. The surveys collected on this route demonstrated slightly higher incomes but on the whole there were no major demographic differences between Route #10 and the rest of the system. The following are selected highlights that likely include passengers traveling within Ashland: • 77% of the passenger survey pool was between the ages of 19 and 64 • 63% did not have a valid driver's license • 36% reported annual income of less than $15,000 • 72% walked to catch the bus; 66% boarded at a bus stop • 57% reached the bus in less than five minutes, and 55% reached their final destination within five minutes after departing from the bus • 29% used the bus to get to work 79% used the bus three to five days per week • 50% used the bus five days per week • 34% would not have made the trip if bus service were not available 5 Surveying of Ashland Passengers and Stop Activity RVTD completed a year-long passenger activity survey in accordance with Federal Transit Administration guidelines and practices. The stop activity will assist RVTD staff with planning and stop improvements. The following are the most frequently used bus stops in the City of Ashland: • Ashland Plaza • Albertson 's • Lithia Way and Oak • Bi-Mart • Lithia Way north of Oak • Ashland Library • Beanery (at the 'Y') > a qa>I xT s ` 5 Rip ° F fiT F N£VAM 6T e`R ..IpE LN f 85T ~ ~ ~ Q}{ pEE ER EN # NS Y 1 g 4~el y/y q~ f r cT ~W R1T V • N' ~ y.. eJ. 1 N ~ 3 < w BT~ CT TTE QIhY`B9 $ e1~g~ £ O 3b.. E R Y6s8~T1 MYN60N OR 9 a _ EµUNST j= i, O w C A Iy a ~Q ° q ~T CPEENp gERO q INK~ J W Hp BT 5 3 G 1- 9 ~ r R~l Ashland Routes _ R FpN 6zY . RouteIU - AshiarM Stop Activity ,s f \ _ ,1-, 5 m v 00x- O 11-23 AA~ W`$- s e w srrr j 0 24-42 d z i _ o+ 3~' $ ~ y t i u op 5 Q 43. 6D t~L $2.,,. tjY~N5 , gg° jTT x m z O 61 - 100 W J ~l~ _ `0 3 ; y. Cl s E$ '\E -Route 10 a caeexr 5 0 ; l JS a y \ r~ .a 8 I pR t& ~ ~ ~ .1 6 Marketing Outreach of transit scheduling and availability to the public is an important component of any successful transit line. As part of the 2005 service agreement, RVTD proposed marketing activities that would be completed that service year. These included: ■ RVTD's Interactive Education offered to primary education schools ■ Bus Advertising sign advertising the Free Fare (now obsolete) ■ Hosting transportation exhibits at local events ■ Placing placards in each shelter with a map and schedule-12 were posted in 2006 since then 6 have been vandalized or stolen and not yet replaced. • Distributing transit schedules to be available at local venues ■ Partnering with SOU Capstone students to increase support for transit Lastly, an effort to create a TV and Radio commercial was under way to promote the Free Fare when the message became obsolete due to the fare increase. 2009-2011 Marketing Proposal: RVTD would like to establish a marketing plan for a Loop system or any fare changes with through local resources. The City of Ashland, the Chamber of Commerce, the Student Affairs office of SOU and others could actively promote using transit. RVTD will commit to doing the following: ■ Replacing the removed placards in the shelters • Updating the information on all placards with new route/schedule information ■ Provide free bus advertising space on one vehicle ■ Continue to promote Ashland's system at local events In partnership with the City of Ashland, RVTD would like to see the following: ■ Create a tri-fold specific to the Ashland system for distribution ■ Distribute promotional information through utility bill stuffers ■ Coordinate a public relations event to launch the new service ■ Approach SOU Administration to request ongoing support of a fare buy-down ■ Approach the Chamber of Commerce and local employers to encourage employees to use transit, especially in downtown ■ Creation of a bus ad to utilize free ad space offer from RVTD 7 2009-2011 Service Cost Estimate for Route 10 only The City of Ashland buys down the fare on Route 10 for each passenger riding in Ashland, therefore service cost estimates are based on recent ridership figures. City of Ashland Ridership 2008-09 $.50 Fixed Route Fare $1. Valley Lift Fare July 6,846 1,030 Aug 6,537 926 Sep 6,306 960 Oct 8,139 1,064 Nov 5,971 832 Dec 6,277 884 Jan 5,758 908 Feb 5,924 874 Mar 6,470 935 Apr 6,470 935 May 6,470 935 Jun 6,470 935 TOTAL 77,638 11,218 Ridership figures for March through June are estimated based on the average of prior month's ridership. 2009-2011 Service Costs for Route 10 only Annual Estimated cost of Route 10 subsidy @ Fixed Route $1.50 (50 cent fare) $116,457 $1.00 ($1.00 fare) $77,638 Valley Lift $3.00 ($1.00 fare) $55,364 $2.00 ($2.00 fare) assume -10% $25,020 Per ADA, Valley Lift fare is no more than twice that of regular fare TOTAL w/ subsidy @ $1.50 $171,820 TOTAL w/ subsidy @ $1.00 $102,658 Please note: Route 10 fare will be consistently priced with fare charged on a Loop Route Rogue Valley Transportation District Estimated Operating Costs Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15) Revenue Service Hours = 6.5 Trips Total Route Per # Service Annual Length Day Days Miles Cost per Total Costs Bus Operating Cost: Route 15 5.0 13 255 16,575 $ 1.96 $ 32,487.00 Out of Service 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00 Driver Relief Car Costs 36.5 255 0 $ 0.52 $ - Total Direct Costs $ 50,730.00 Hours Total Per # Service Annual Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs Bus Operator Costs: Wages & Benefits 8 255 2,040 $ 37.42 $ 76,337.00 Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 127,067.00 Estimated Annual Ridership Fare per Total Return Fare Box Return to City (25% of 04-05 ridership) 24,000 $ 1.00 $ 24,000.00 Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 103,067.00 Rogue Valley Transportation District Estimated Operating Costs Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15) Revenue Service Hours = 9.0 Trips Total Route Per # Service Annual Length Day Days Miles Cost per Total Costs Bus Operating Cost: Route 15 5.0 18 255 22,950 $ 1.96 $ 44,982.00 Out of Service 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00 Driver Relief Car Costs 36.5 255 0 $ 0.52 $ - Total Direct Costs $ 63,225.00 Hours Total Per # Service Annual Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs Bus Operator Costs: Wages & Benefits 10.5 255 2,678 $ 37.42 $ 100,192.00 Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 163,417.00 Estimated Annual Ridership Fare per Total Return Fare Box Return to City (35% of 04-05 ridership) 33,600 $ 1.00 $ 33,600.00 Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 129,817.00 Rogue Valley Transportation District Estimated Operating Costs Proposed Ashland Circulator Route (15) Revenue Service Hours = 13 Trips Total Route Per # Service Annual Length Day Days Miles Cost per Total Costs Bus Operating Cost: Route 15 5.0 26 255 33,150 $ 1.96 $ 64,974.00 Out of Service 36.5 1 . 255 9,308 $ 1.96 $ 18,243.00 Driver Relief Car Costs 36.5 1 255 9,308 $ 0.52 $ 4,840.00 Total Direct Costs $ 88,057.00 Hours Total Per #Service Annual Day Days Hours Cost per Total Costs Bus Operator Costs: Wages & Benefits 14.5 255 3,698 $ 37.42 $ 138,360.00 Total Proposed Operating Costs $ 226,417.00 Estimated Annual Ridership Fare per Total Return Fare Box Return to City (45% of 04-05 ridership) 43,200 $ 1.00 $ 43,200.00 Net Proposed Operating Costs $ 183,217.00 NSPO r ~J f Summary of 09-11 Ashland Service Proposals All proposals are annual estimates All proposals are based on establishing $1.00 regular fare Proposal #1 Net Cost Estimate Loo service for 6.5 hours $103,067 Route 10 $102,658 TOTAL $205,725 Proposal #2 Net Cost Estimate Loo service for 9 hours $129,817 Route 10 $102,658 TOTAL $232,475 Proposal #3 Net Cost Estimate Loo service for 13 hours $183,217 Route 10 $102,658 TOTAL $285,875 RVTD/CITY OF ASHLAND Reduced Fare Program Agreement 2009 - 20011 Agreement made effective September 7, 2009 between Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) and the City of Ashland (City). RVTD and City agree: 1. ENHANCED SERVICES PROGRAM: In order to encourage and increase RVTD ridership within the City of Ashland, the City will offset the cost of fixed-route fares within the City and support more frequent service. The intent of the program is to make more efficient use of Ashland's transportation infrastructure, to reduce greenhouse gases and to promote energy efficiency. 1.1 The program will begin on September 7, 2009 and will be completed effective September 5, 2011 to correspond with the Labor Day Holiday. 1.2 Route 10 service is Ashland's base service, and its operation (with the exception of fare reduction outlined in this agreement) is not affected by this agreement. 1.3 RVTD will provide 15 -minute service between the downtown, Ashland St, Tolman Creek Rd and Highway 66/Siskiyou Boulevard with the addition of Route 15. 1.4 RVTD will reduce the cost of the fixed route fare from 2. t 1. and the Valley Lift fare from .00 0 2. to passengers picked up and delivered within the City of Ashland. 1.5 RVTD will provide the City with a quarterly ridership memo outlining the total Route 10 ridership, the ridership on the Route 10 within the City of Ashland, the ridership on Route 15 and the Valley Lift ridership within the City of Ashland. 1.6 RVTD will bill City for the reduced fares on Route 10 as described 1.4, based on actual number of rides provided within the City. The City to be invoiced as outlined in 1.9 below. 1.7 RVTD will bill City for the reduced fares on Valley Lift described above based on actual number of rides provided within the City. RVTD will also bill the City for the operating costs of providing Valley Lift for rides that exceed 9,800 passengers per year. The billed amount shall equal $18.31 per ride over the 9,800 threshold. The City to be invoiced as outlined in 1.9 below. 1.8 The City of Ashland shall retain the fare generated from Route 15 (farebox return) to offset the costs of providing this service. 2. CONSIDERATIONS: 2.1 RVTD will invoice the City on a quarterly basis for the operating costs of providing Route 15 not to exceed $163,500 per annum. The amount billed each quarter shall be $40,875 minus the Route 15 farebox return generated during the billable time period. 1 2.2 The City will remit to RVTD the costs of reducing fare within the City of Ashland on the fixed-route and Valley Lift systems and the operating costs of Route 15 minus the farebox return to be billed as follows: 2.2.1 December 15, 2009 (services provided 9/7/2009 to 11/30/2009) 2.2.2 March 15, 2010 (services provided 12/1/2009 to 2/28/2010) 2.2.3 June 15, 2010 (services provided 3/1/2010 to 5/30/2010) 2.2.4 October 15, 2010 (services provided 6/1/2010 to 9/6/2010) 2.2.5 December 15, 2010 (services provided 9/7/2010 to 11/30/2010) 2.2.6 March 15, 2011 (services provided 12/1/2010 to 2/2812011) 2.2.7 June 15, 2011 (services provided 3/1/2011 to 5/30/2011) 2.2.8 October 15, 2011 (services provided 6/112010 to 9/5/2011) 2.3 Payment is due to RVTD within 14 calendar days of receipt of invoice. 2.4 In the event that operating costs of Route 15 exceed 2.5% (increase of $0.05 per operating mile or $1.00 per hour in Bus Operator costs) prior to this agreement's completion, RVTD reserves the right to seek fair compensation from the City to continue operation of Route 15. 2.5 Should either the City or RVTD wish to modify the enhanced services described in 1.1 through 1.10 both parties shall meet and negotiate modifications to this Agreement. 3. TERMINATION: , 3.1 Termination for convenience. This agreement may be terminated by either party for that party's convenience upon thirty days written notice to the other party. RVTD shall be compensated for all services performed under this agreement up to effective termination date. 3.2 For Cause. Either party may immediately terminate this agreement for cause upon delivery of written notice to the other party or such later date as may be established by mutual agreement, under any of the following conditions; 3.2.1 If Federal or state laws, rules or regulation are modified, changed or interpreted in such a manner that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate under this agreement; 3.2.2 If any license or certification required by law or regulation required for the provision of the services under this agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. 4. PUBLICITY: 4.1 Any publicity or advertising regarding the program by the City shall first be reviewed by RVTD for accuracy and must acknowledge the support of RVTD. RVTD will provide City with appropriate logo for this purpose. 4.2 RVTD will post a map and schedule at each designated bus shelter in Ashland detailing the Route 10 and Route 15 bus stops. 2 4.3 City will create and print brochure size maps and schedules for distribution. 4.4 RVTD will promote the Ashland service at events, at,map/schedule distribution points and at www.rvtd.org._......... _ c. dU11 R7-'! to retlucetl fare, not hee fare iA n 5. Access to Records. The City and its duly authorized representatives shall have access to the records of RVTD and any subcontractors which are directly pertinent to this Agreement for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts. 6. Workers Compensation RVTD, its subcontractors, if any, an all employees working under this Agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. 7. General Liability RVTD, its subcontractors, and all employers working under this Agreement must comply with Oregon State Laws related to workers compensation, employment, payroll taxes and general liability for loss of property, injury to riders or others. 8. Living Wage RVTD is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this Agreement and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the service work under this Agreement. RVTD is also required to post the attached notice predominantly in areas where all employees will see it. ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DIST CITY OF ASHLAND By By Julie Brown Martha Bennett General Manager City Administrator Reviewed as to form: Reviewed as to form: By By David Lohman Legal Counsel for RVTD City Attorney Date: Date: 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Conservation Commission Ordinance Meeting Date: April 7, 2009 Primary Staff Contact: Richard Appicello Department: Legal E-Mail: appicelr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: City Recorder Secondary Contact: Barbara Christensen Approval: Martha Be~etY~Vl Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Should the City Council conduct and approve the Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-197 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends Council approve the Second Reading and adopt 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. On March 17`h, 2009 the City Council requested three changes: (1.) Change number of "other" members required to be residents from 4 to 5; and (2.) designate staff liaison; and (3.) add "Chair" to AMC 2.18. These changes are reflected in the revised ordinance and must be read at second reading. Related City Policies: Ashland City Charter Article X Council Options: (1) Move to approve Second Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-199". (2) Postpone Second Reading. Potential Motions: Staff: [Conduct Second Reading) [Read Changes from First Reading). Council: Motion to approve Second Reading of "An Ordinance Creating the Conservation Commission and Repealing Resolution 95-19 and adopt Ordinance Attachments: Ordinance Page] of l i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 95-19 Annotated to show deletieas and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' 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 (6) other voting members. At least five (5) 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 Community Development Director and the Electric Utility Director, the Director of Public Works, the Building Official and City Administrator. The Electric Utility Director shall serve as the primary staff Liaison and Secretary of the Commission. 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 April 30 of each Year. Any vacancy 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 active and the position vacant and a new person shall be appointed to fill the vacancy. 2.18.030 Quorum-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 Page 1 of 3 consistent with city ordinances and this resolution, and shall meet at least once every month. At its first meeting, the commission shall elect a chair and 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 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 Page 2 of 3 re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-5) 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 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 3 of 3