Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0615 Council Mtg PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND 1111pOrtant: Any citizen rriay orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum Any ciitien may submit written comments. to the Counci4on any item on the Agenda;. unless it is the subject. of a public hearing and the record is closed; Ekccpt,for public hearings, them is no . . absolute nghrto.orally address the Councto an agenda item. Time pennmmg, 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 Request form located near the entrance to the Council:Chambers The chair will recognize you and inform you as lathe amountof time allott ed to you, if any The none granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard,. and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 15, 2010 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 6:30 p.m. Executive Session for Labor Negotiations pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(d) and for consultation with Legal Council pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(f) and ORS 192.660(2)(h) 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER \I It. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? !5 minutes] 1. Special Meeting of May 26, 2010 Executive Session of June 1, 2010 Regular Meeting of June 1, 2010 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS None. VII. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] Council approve the minutes of B ssiera ommittees? / 2. Does the Council wish to enter into n Intergovernmental Agreement w the City of Medford to provide police records as / 3. ]Should the Council ad t a resolution to rovide a recommendation to Oregon Housing and ~ Community Services ( e more than 50% of Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funding to the hardest hit counties in the State of Oregon in accordance with the U.S. Treasury Hardest Hit Housing Markel? 4. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the award of a public contract to Answer Page for a term of one year, with the option of two one-year extensions, for a total of up to three years? 5. Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's re-appointment of Nick Frost to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011? 6. Does Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Melody Noraas as the Parks < 0 NCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADC'AS'l LIVE ON CI-IANNEI.. 9 VISITTHF. CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE A"I` W\VW.ASITLAND.OR.US Commission Liaison to the Forest Lands Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011? 7. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for the direct award of Aluminum Sulfate 48.5% from Rhodia for a term of five years? 8. Should Council approve the reappointment of Steve Minor, Anne Golden and Carol Christlieb as reco mended by the Board of Directors for the Ashland Community Hospital? `l- it e-= I6~9- VIII. PUBLIC H ARINGS (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 ~ E'dif {AMC §2.04.050]) 1- /~o- Qd~0,pt / 1. il Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Annual Budget as presented or with n OO l~ icati ons? [15 Minutes] KGSO . s~liAoc svbv, IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time Q-~+uv allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all peop eeaepgP wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum]. .nM J X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Will the Council approv First Readin n ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing and Implementing a Program to arge User Fees for the Deployment of Public Safety Services Rendered by the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire and Rescue? [5 Minutes] ] Should Council approve Second~Readin_of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Revie~ w Zor Consistency with the 2010 SOU Campus Master {G1IL Plan"? [10 Minutes] XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve awarding a contract for a period of three years beginning June 30, 2010 and allowing for two one-year extensions to Bank of America for City of Ashland Banking and Merchant Services? [10 Minutes] ` 2. Will the Council approve a proposal to adjust the angle of parking in the Plaza to increase traffic safety and available parking as recommended by the Transportation Commission? [10 Minutes] Does the City Council wish to adopt resolution m~ing a recommendation to Jackson County on issues to be addressed pri tttion of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan? [60 Minutes] 4. Will Council approve an engineering services contract with Keller Associates in an amount not e e 3,400 to provide a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan? [10 Minutes] XII. ORDINA CES. SOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Does the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments? Please Note: The Public Hearing and record for this itme are closed. No additional public comments will be accepted at this time. Additional materials for this item can also be found on the April 6. 2010, May 4, 2010, May 26. 2010, and June 1. 2010 Council meeting agendas. X111. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). cot NUL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST Ll\'E ON CHANNEL. 9 vlsl r mr. CrrY, OF AS'JI AND'S WE'13 S17 L. AT %VW.ASIII_AND.OR.US ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 26, 1010 Page I of 5 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 26, 2010 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Jackson, and Chapman were present. Councilor Silbiger was absent. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Does the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments? Planning Director Bill Molnar, Planning Manager Maria Hams and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman were present to answer questions. Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact The Council and Mayor had no conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare. Councilor Chapman referenced the 2007 Economic Opportunity Analysis that indicated the land should be industrial. He did not think a large office park was ever going to work at Croman and that it should be small industrial sites. He approved of the crossing for Washington Street, the plans for Central Boulevard and Hamilton Creek and retaining the path along the railroad tracks. He did not support using the area for residences and was not sure the zone should change from M-1. Councilor Jackson was fine with the circulation system and more at ease using the land for office and light industry. The code will provide more flexibility and streamline the approval process so the majority of the applications will be Type 1 instead of Type 2. Councilor Lemhouse did not support every aspect of the plan but recognized it as a vision going forward long- term. The overall goal was economic development. He preferred Type 1 applicants and ensuring flexibility for changes. Councilor Navickas explained housing along Hamilton Creek and the south side of the property accommodated a request from the Housing Commission. The project provided enough regulation to ensure good building patterns throughout the area and made rezoning property a minimal process. Green incentives would encourage green development without strict mandates. The green street standards that are mandated were a nominal cost increase and would increase investments overall. He was reluctant to support Type 1 allowances administratively and thought it was important to involve the Planning Commission and avoid unhealthy public perception. Councilor Voisin wanted more Type 2 approvals with the Planning Commission's involvement and public input as well as more sustainable efforts. She expressed concerns regarding the lack of response to public comments and that the recession could continue and postpone the project. She noted the Railroad District and North Mountain Street plans were underdeveloped and wondered if that would apply to Croman Mill Site. She favored M-1 zoning with some exclusion. She was not convinced the project would not cost the City a lot of money and not compete with the downtown area. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 26, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Mayor Stromberg acknowledged the criticism with the project as well as the level staff and the Planning Commission had brought the plan to. The result was a flexible framework with the many possibilities in the M-1 zone. There were serious complaints and concerns from citizens and he hoped the process would respond to those concerns. Originally, Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc. was interested in moving there and that started the possibility of moderate to high paying employment in the area. His first inclination was not to do housing but thought there was rationale for housing in specific areas and wanted additional clarification. Councilor Jackson stated it was important to adopt a plan to go with the framework and used the Rail Road District as an example of a plan that was never adopted. Street installation will occur gradually as the project develops and will not require a large amount of money initially. The expectation is public and private partnership will pay for the improvements. Staff explained there would be infrastructure costs with or without the plan; water and sewer were already there. Funding could come from grants, City Funds, developer finance; there were no decisions yet. This was a Council Goal on how the City will pay for the infrastructure on Economic Development related projects. Staff explained the Transportation Planning Rule broke down to specific pieces that have to do with the affect of a significant change to the transportation system like a zone change. It went back to what was incorporated in the adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP). Changing functional classifications of the street or intersection that decreases the performance standard from the State's performance standards was a significant affect. Staff reviewed items and felt the City was fine, most of the issues were addressed in the adopted TSP. The Transportation Planning Rule requires a vehicular-based transportation analysis and worse case scenarios if the town was not making headway. Mayor Stromberg discussed the following items with Council from the Croman Discussion Topics list: 1. Changing from M-1 to office and light industrial 2. Uses "compatible" w/office 3. High density employment Council discussed rezoning Croman from M-1 to office and light industrial. Comments in support of changing the zone noted the need to restrict some of the uses under M-1 zoning to achieve higher density employment for office and light industrial only. Opposing comments wanted to retain the M-1 zone with restrictions and were not in favor of mixed use. Staff explained M-1 zoning allows office; manufacturing, retail and restaurants, changing the zone would keep the focus on office and light industrial. Separating office and light industrial was an attempt to create a fundamental distinction between the two. Mayor Stromberg defined "compatible w/office" as buildings that co-exist, do not spoil the environment or impede the development of the portions that are office space. Staff explained that light industrial was in the only place near the railroad for a spur; grade changes prevented using other locations. The office park layout was created as a block for a potential park. Staff responded to comments that the design was driven by a potential owner's interest in a particular site by confirming that Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc. was still interested and a live prospect for the plan. A majority of the council approved items #1 through #3. 4. Signature street/design/separated bikeway Staff explained the current plan for the signature street was 90-feet wide with two lanes and a median. Council discussed whether to have a protected bike lane, reducing the street width and the need for a connector across Crowson Road and ultimately connection to Tolman Creek Road, Siskiyou Boulevard and Washington Street. Staff recommended removing street parking and retaining street width for future options. Council agreed and ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 26, 2010 Page 3 of 5 suggested a pedestrian-bike connection on Crowson Road whether cars were allowed or not with a bike path on either side of the tracks. A majority of the Council supported the 90-foot 3 lane road alignment for Phase 1, a crossing on Washington Street and a pedestrian-bike connection on Crowson. 5. Railroad spur Staff explained there was a placeholder to put the railroad spur in the compatible industrial area that would not cross the boulevard. Council reached consensus supporting the railroad spur. 6. Corrections to and impacts on City circulation system Staff explained the incremental differences did not bring up any significant issues. Council reached consensus to approve this item. 7. Impact of changes on existing development and property Incorporating properties outside the Croman property in the Croman zone Council discussed retaining Mistletoe Business Park property as M-1 zoning. Staff explained the property would show on the Comprehensive Plan Map as a Croman Mill Comprehensive Plan Designation but on the zoning map, the Croman Mill Zoning District would cover everything except that property. The criteria for a zone change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Designation and if Mistletoe Business Park rezoned the options for rezoning would fall under the Croman Mill Comprehensive Plan Designation that was C-I. Mr. DiRienzo, the owner of Mistletoe Business Park wanted to retain the property as M-1 under the basic site review process the property is currently under and not the Detailed Site Review Zone. Councilor Chapman suggested requiring the property owners of the lot next to the storage unit go back to grade and remove the fill; it would make using the railroad easier. Staff clarified the Detailed Site Review Zone would maintain continuity of design along the Central Boulevard. The Mistletoe Business Park property was close to the percentage of use, changing the zone would be a minor amendment showing the proposal was equal or better and consistent with the purpose of the plan instead of a variance. Mayor Stromberg read public testimony from Mr. DiRienzo on his concerns how the change on zoning overlay and the plan in general would have a detrimental affect on his property. In his testimony, Mr. DiRienzo posed the following questions: • How much will the proposed infrastructure cost? • Can businesses adhere to the plans Use Restrictions regulating an allowable percentage for office, . warehouse or production? • How will the plan address changes in use over time? • Why have lot and minimum building size restrictions that make it difficult for small businesses? • Why is his property included in the plan? Council voiced their support and concern on keeping the Mistletoe Business Park at M-1 zone. The zone change would harm the property owner's economic development. Other comments did not think the restrictions were that prohibitive and suggested rezoning the Mini Storage property to office space in case the owner wanted to redevelop in the future. Overall Council was not comfortable splitting the property or changing the zone with a 4-1 vote leaving Mistletoe Business Park at M-1. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 26, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Council went on to extend retaining the M-I Zone for the Kruesi-Hamlin property where the proposed Central Boulevard would bisect one building and the other alternative would go through a comer of their property. City Administrator Martha Bennett suggested moving the boulevard to Mistletoe and having Council direct staff to determine the appropriate alignment and retain a dotted line on the Master Plan on the Kruesi-Hamlin property as an alternative. She stressed that the Master Plan was a concept plan only. Council consensus was to move the boulevard line to Mistletoe, retain a dotted line going through the Kruesi- Hamlin property with a note it was Council's intention the route will only be used by means of a negotiation with the property owner. 8. Appropriateness of locating such a development near the edge of town Comments from Council included the need to stimulate business in the downtown and railroad areas, the Croman Mill Site was privately owned and the City was trying to direct development and higher densityjob growth. The project would create economic opportunities, was flexible and a different type of industry from the downtown area. Non-supportive concerns were the project would compete with the downtown area, should be light industrial only and the site was inappropriate for this type of project. A majority of the Council supported this issue. 9. Commercial & residential areas Staff explained the area between the existing Mistletoe Road and Hamilton Creek, the south end around the pound and trailer park currently show as E-1 zoning in the Comprehensive Plan Mixed Use (M-U) as 100% commercial office or light industrial with residential above. Hamilton Creek created a good transitional zoning from the single residence area and the greenway would allow a more coordinated design. The south section has grades up to 15%, creeks and wet lands and an M-U type building with ground floor office and upper floor residential would add to the transition. There were 15 acres that could house 450 residential units. Council was divided on having M-U residential in the plan. There was concern regarding the amendment process for changing zones and a suggestion that it be limited only to compatible industrial and office. A majority of the Council agreed on leaving the commercial and residential areas as proposed. 10. Parking & Open Space, Public Amenities and Private Use - Postponed for further discussion 11. Cost of Infrastructure Council stated a concern that options for raising money had not been discussed. Staff explained Council would determine funding once there was a specific developer. Mayor Stromberg removed the item from the issue list. 12. Green Requirements (vs. sustainability?) - Not addressed 13. Transitions at the Borders Staff described the transitions south of the Mixed Use (M-U). In addition to the grades, the transitional area to county-rural, the M-U zoning was a better transitional zoning than the C-I. Six acres in the southern area are Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and included in the plan. The property owner would have to apply for annexation and not be subject until that area was annexed. Another transitional area was a residential buffer zone that correlated to the Hamilton Creek area, included the neighborhood center on Tolman Creek Road and would have specific requirements to insulate the neighbors across the street. A majority of the Council agreed on the border transitions. 14. Design and Layout Issues - Not addressed ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 26, 2010 Page 5 of 5 15. Streamline Process - Postponed for further discussion 16. Flexibility A majority of the Council agreed the plan had flexibility. 17. Incremental Development 18. Off-site Impacts on Transition - Addressed - Mayor crossed off list 19. Brownfields Staff explained Brownfields was the voluntary contamination clean up level by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The DEQ will not allow anyone to sell any portion of property that is not cleaned up. This is a Federal law implemented at the State level and not a land use issue. Based on Field Meetings with DEQ, there is an idea where contamination already exists on the property. The property owner pays for the clean up and the City will have the opportunity to participate and comment on proposed clean ups as they occur. Council reached consensus that Brownfield's was not an issue to the plan. 21. Site Design and Use Standards Staff used similar design standards for the office area surrounding the central plaza for Ashland Street, Siskiyou Boulevard and along the signature street to create continuity to Ashland Street. In the compatible industrial, the basic level of site review was comparable to Applegate and Benson Way, buildings are oriented to face the street with parking in the back and required to meet the Cities landscaping standards. Office buildings will have pedestrian spaces in front of the buildings that generally light industrial does not. Council expressed disappointment that the same level of detailed standards in the downtown area were being applied to an industrial area. The proposed minor and major amendment process was flexible enough to allow property owners to make changes. Other comments noted Design Standards for minor and major amendments were not that difficult and fit in with the Council Goal to have a streamlined process. Concern was discussed regarding transparency through the process. Staff acknowledged the criteria for approval in Type 1 site designs could be difficult, the applicant must show demonstrable difficulty as to why they cannot meet the standard. The new process would make it easier by allowing the applicant to show an equal or better design that still met the purpose and objectives in the plan. Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to continue deliberation on the Croman Mill Master Plan to the June 1, 2010 City Council meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 20/0 Page I of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 1, 2010 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse, Silbiger and Chapman were present. It was noted that Councilor Jackson would be arriving late. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Historic, Planning and Tree Commissions. SHOULD THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THESE MEETINGS? The Regular Meeting minutes of May 18, 2010 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Mayor Stromberg's Proclamation of Flag Day in Ashland was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Will Council approve the minutes of Boards, Commissions, and Committees? 2. Will Council approve a laboratory services agreement with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality for required testing under Senate Bill 737 for potential contaminants that have been designated priority pollutants? 3. Does Council have any questions regarding the agreement between City and Parks approved for FY2010 budget at the February 8, 2010 Joint Meeting or the updated agreement for FY2011? 4. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a public contract to procure a new 2010 Altec 60' Bucket Truck ($195,495.00), and declare the intended trade-in, Vehicle # 301, 1997 Bucket Truck ($11,000.00) as surplus, for a total amount of $184,495.00? 5. Should Council approve continuance of First Reading of an ordinance setting the tax levy amount for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 from the June 1 to June 15 agenda? 6. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a contract-specific Special Procurement requesting approval to directly award a public contract for the specialized services of a graphic designer to create and provide interpretive materials for visitor services throughout the parks system? 7. Will Council approve an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation to complete the Transportation System Plan update? 8. Will Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, declare the items listed on the attachment as surplus property and will the City Council authorize a sealed bid auction be conducted to dispose of the vehicles and equipment being declared surplus property? 9. Does Council wish to approve the Ambulance Operator's License renewal for Ashland Fire & Rescue? Councilor Chapman requested that Consent Agenda item #7 be pulled for discussion. Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to approve Consent Agenda items #1 through #6 and items #8 and #9. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING Jute I, 2010 Page 2 of 8 Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained redevelopment projects at Croman Mill and possibly in the Bi-Mart and Shop-N-Kart site have renewed interest in looking at Tolman Creek Road and Ashland Street as a transit oriented hub and the intersection would be included as part of the Pedestrian Node Analysis. Councilor Voisin/Chapman m/s to approve Consent Agenda item #7. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse and Chapman, YES; Councilor Silbiger, NO. Motion passed 4-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) PUBLIC FORUM (None) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Should Council approve Second Reading of three ordinances relating to the adoption of the SOU Master Plan? Councilor Voisin declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse her from the discussion. Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to allow Councilor Voisin to be recused from this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse, Silbiger and Chapman, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 7:11 p.m. Abstentions, Conflicts, Exnarte Contact The Council and Mayor had no conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained a correction to the maps marked "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B." City Attorney Richard Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending the Comprehensive Plan to adopt and incorporate the SOU Master Plan. Councilor Navickas/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3014 amending Ashland Comprehensive Plan and incorporate the updated SOU Master Plan as a support document. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. Mr. Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending Chapter 18.64 to reference the SOU Master Plan. Councilor Silbiger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3015 amending AMC 18.64 and move for adoption. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. Mr. Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending the Ashland Zoning Map with corrections to two maps. Councilor Navickas/Chapman m/s to approve Ordinance #3016 amending the City of Ashland Zoning Map to be consistent with the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan designation for SOU properties in accordance with the 2010 Campus Master Plan. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Motion passed. 2. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone for Consistency with the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan"? Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained one of the recommendations of the Planning ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2010 Page 3 of 8 Commission was apply the Detailed Site Review Zone on SOU zoned property in the area between Walker and Wightman along Ashland Street on the north side of Highway 66. New development in the SOU zone in that area will be subject to the same design standards as the commercial development on all three sides of the property. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended this portion of the SOU property be exempt from the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirement of.5. City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Councilor Navickas/Chapman m/s to approve first reading of ordinance and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Navickas supported the Planning Commission's recommendation it would improve pedestrian zones, the commercial edge and require more site review. FAR would not apply due to the size of the site. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin returned to the meeting at 7:23 p.m. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Does the Council have questions about the status report on the Economic Development Strategy process and the upcoming proposed citizen involvement plan? Project Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation on the Economic Development Strategy Update that included: Project and Process Structure • 2009-2010 Council Goal - Develop and implement a comprehensive economic development strategy for the purpose of: o Diversifying the economic base of the community o Supporting creation and growth of businesses that use and provide local and regional products o Increasing the number of family-wage jobs in the community o Leveraging the strengths of Ashland's tourism and repeat visitors • November 2009 - Ad Hoc Economic Development Committee Appointed • December-April 2010 - Committee Meetings - Policy Group and Technical Advisory Groups each met six times • January 2010 - Economic Opportunities Analysis Review & Update Presentation - E.D. Hovee & Co. • Project and Process Flow Chart Committee Work & Accomplishments • National, Regional & Local Trends • Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities & Threats (SWOT Analysis) • Economic Development Definition • Economic Vision Statement • Draft Strategies • Draft 2030 Economic Vision Statement • Draft Strategies - Business & Economic Growth o Develop a set of target industry clusters/sectors to guide business cultivation, research and job training strategies o Ensure a wide range of income opportunities, with a focus on growing the total number of family wage jobs in the private sector o Provide a system or mechanism for private investment/capital in local businesses o Increase the viability of the existing tourist based economy by increasing tourism in the fall, winter and spring, as well as by diversifying the types of events and activities for our visitors o Develop a program for ongoing and coordinated efforts on local business retention and expansion ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June I, 2010 Page 4 of 8 • Draft Strategies - Civic Community/Collaboration o Increase partnership/involvement with local and regional partners.to leverage strengths where mutually beneficial o Leverage and connect/match up existing local business expertise with small business needs o Create and define quantifiable community of "Quality of Life" indicators to measure economic development strategy success • Draft Strategies - Diversity/Inclusion o Ensure that all needed housing types are available across all income levels o Embrace and celebrate diversity so all people can succeed in Ashland, regardless of age, income, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, physical ability or political beliefs • Draft Strategies- Education/WorkforceDevelopment o Provide local educational & technical skills development to match business workforce needs • Draft Strategies - Transportation/Utility Infrastructure/Public Services o Ensure efficient and quality infrastructure for public and private use with a variety of financing options and opportunities while assuring adequate land supplies are available for needed business growth/expansion o Manage physical development in such a way that provides public services at the lowest responsible cost, improves environmental quality, and enhances Ashland's quality of life o Ensure Downtown/Plaza is a community hub & vibrant economic center Upcoming Citizen Involvement • Background Education 7 Context • Explanation of Process • Input on Draft Proposed Strategies o Anything Missing? o Understandable? o Accurate Prioritization? • Targeted Focus Groups (9 planned categories) • Public Forum/Open Houses • Community Group Presentations • Online Questionnaire Next Steps • Review Input Received • Refine Draft Strategies • Develop Implementing Actions for Each of the Final Strategies • Compile all Components into Formal Strategy Document for Final Input, Review and Adoption City Administrator Martha Bennett clarified the SWOT exercise addressed resources and provided examples of strengths and weaknesses. Staff will hire a facilitator for the Citizen Involvement part of the project. Council and staff discussed the viability of including students from SOU Student Government, second homeowners, annual visitors, environmental groups and specialty food producers in the focus groups. Council suggested an additional strategy for import replacement. Councilor Chapman voiced his frustration regarding the proposed strategies and the process involved. He expected a sharp focus and general strategies, these strategies were repeats many times over and not ready for action. Councilor Chapman left the room at 8:16 p.m. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2010 Page S of 8 ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to Green Burials at City Cemeteries and Amending AMC 2.64.160"? City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Councilor Voisin/Navickas m/s to approve Ordinance #3017. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Silbiger, Voisin and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. 2. Should Council approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Relating to the Disposal of Surplus Property"? City Attorney Richard Appicello read the ordinance title aloud. Councilor Lemhouse/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance #3018. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse, Silbiger and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. 3. Should Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing and Implementing a Program to Charge User Fees for the Deployment of Public Safety Services Rendered by the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire and Rescue"? Fire Chief John Karns explained the fee schedule would reimburse the City for hazardous material spills and motor vehicle accidents by non-residents within Ashland city limits and accidents caused by any motorist driving under the influence (DUII). The fee schedule would cover costs of using a third party vendor experienced in these types of accidents and would apply to non-residents with the exception of motor vehicle crashes caused by DUIL Currently, the Fire Department charges a fee if they render medical care during a motor vehicle accident depending on the length of the call. Council noted other ordinances where the fee schedule charges initiate if the call is more than two person- hours. City Attorney Richard Appicello clarified the ordinance in the packet was not the current draft and first reading should be continued to the next meeting. Councilor Chapman returned to meeting at 8:24 p.m. Councilor Lemhouse/Voisin m/s to continue first reading and direct staff to include a clear definition of when charges are triggered. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Chapman, Silbiger, Navickas, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS, PART 2 1. Does the Council approve the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments? Abstentions, Conflicts, Exparte Contact Councilor Silbiger declared a conflict of interest and requested Council to recuse him from the discussion. The remaining Council and Mayor had no other conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare. Councilor Lemhouse/Chapman m/s to recuse Councilor Silbiger on this item. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Silbiger left the meeting at 8:35 p.m. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June I, 2010 Page 6 of 8 City Recorder Barbara Christensen announced that the filing period for City Offices began June 3, 2010 and ends August 20, 2010. Interested individuals can either contact the City Recorder's Office or go online to the City website for further information. Mayor Stromberg continued the discussion with Council from the Special Meeting May 26,20 10 regarding the following items from the Croman Discussion Topics list: 10. Parking & Open Space Plus Public Amenities and Private Use Mayor Stromberg asked the Council whether they wanted to confirm the park in the middle of O-E zone and the adjourning parking location but not specify an underground parking structure at this time. Councilor Jackson arrived at meeting at 8:54 p.m. Council discussed moving the park location and parking structure to increase the light industrial zoning. Staff explained the park location was deliberate by the property owners in an effort to have it surrounded by high intensity office space and transition back to light industrial. It would also create a certain distance for the Plexis Healthcare Systems Inc. proposed quadrant. Abstentions, Conflicts, Exaarte Contact Councilor Jackson had no conflicts of interest or Exparte contacts to declare. Staff further explained moving the park would require notifying the property owners and reopening part of the record for a Public Hearing. Council expressed concern on making changes at this point in the project with some inclined to preserve the current park plan and others interested in moving the location. Council did not come to consensus but decided to leave it as originally planned for the time being. When it came time to purchase the land for the park or have the owners donate the land, staff will inquire about relocation. 12. Green Requirements (vs. sustainability?) Mayor Stromberg described that Croman was located at the end of the infrastructure and the idea was to use as many green measures as possible to minimize its burden on the infrastructure and gave examples. For Energy, he talked to staff and came up with the suggestion instead of using incentives for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEED), require gold LEEDS, provide the additional height it requires, and have incentives for Platinum LEEDS only. Rezoning and redoing the uses increased the property value with improvements and this was a marketing opportunity in regards to offering sustainability. Council had concerns that increasing the cost could discourage business and some were not in favor of using incentives. Other comments supported the current ordinances and increasing the number of stories on a building to create more energy efficiency. Building taller buildings on a smaller footprint increased energy efficiency and would save money over the life of the building. There was a suggestion not to incentivize office industrial, have a 5-story Gold LEED requirement but retain the incentive-based increase for light industrial. Mayor Stromberg tabled the discussion and suggested leaving requirements the way they were originally stated. 14. Design & Layout Issues Mr. Molnar explained the Planning Commission's recommendation to have an east-west street alignment would take advantage of solar opportunities and reduce overheating in the summertime. The downside was lots would be smaller. Council thought it made the street layout awkward, the lots were big and there were plenty of options for ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 2010 Page 7 of 8 building orientation without changing the street grid. The alignment would also make the street grid more expensive to build. Some preferred using the original alignment noting there were no cost estimates for engineering the streets and no information on construction costs for odd shaped lots. Others liked that secondary streets were not defined and could be changed as needed. Staff explained the general grid was part of the plan approval. Shifting a street up to 25 feet would be minor amendment and the removal of street would be major amendment. Pedestrian and bike paths could substitute for a street to maintain connectivity to a building. Streets tend to have a general block spacing and parameter but allow for irregular shaped grids. A majority of the Council approved retaining the original street alignment. 15. Streamline process Mayor Stromberg explained building size determined Type 1 or Type 2 buildings with the dividing line set at 10,000 square feet. Building standards used in the downtown are would apply to the Croman Mill Site. Opposing comments from Council did not support applying building standards for the downtown area to the Croman Mill Site. It would extend the processing time and make development more expensive. Supporting comments thought the City needed to be consistent with planning throughout Ashland. Having developers come to the Planning Commission regarding buildings over 10,000 square feet was reasonable and there were appeals processes. The need for transparency was stressed. The Mayor suggested a compromise of changing Type 1 buildings to 15,000 square feet instead of 10,000 square feet. A Council majority approved the compromise of buildings up to 15,000 square feet as Type 1 and anything over Type 2. 17. Incremental Development - Mayor Stromberg thought this issue was already implied. City Administrator Martha Bennett addressed Councilor Chapman's request during the May 26,20 10 meeting requiring the lot next to the storage unit to remove fill that had accumulated over the years. It was unclear whether the City could request that action. Council commented it would require massive grading and there was no reason to mandate it at this point since the property owner will have to resolve the issue during design development. Council consensus was not to request the property owner to remove the fill. Council discussed zone restrictions and agreed to prohibit E-O and C-I zones from being amended to M-U and N-C zones, and allowing the Mistletoe Business Park property at M-1 to re-zone at E-O or C-I only. City Attorney Richard Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending the Comprehensive Plan to add a new Croman Mill District Designation. Councilor Jackson/Lemhousc m/s to approve first reading of the referenced ordinance and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Mr. Appicello clarified the only change to the Comprehensive Plan Map added Croman Mill Site to the Legend and did not change the designation of any property. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES. Councilor Voisin and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Mr. Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending AMC 18.72.080.C Site Design Review Standards for the Croman Mill District. Councilor Jackson/Navickas m/s to approve first reading and move to second reading the ordinance ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 1, 20/0 Page 8 of 8 containing Street Standards, Building Design Standards and Site Green Standards. DISCUSSION: Ms. Bennett explained the changes regarding the Washington Street Connection and the Mistletoe alignment noting two alternatives would reflect in the second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Jackson and Navickas, YES. Councilor Voisin and Chapman, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Mr. Appicello read aloud the ordinance title amending AMC Chapter 15 to create LEED, Certified Building Priority. Councilor Lemhouse/Jackson m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance amending AMC Chapter 15 to create LEED, Certified Building Priority and move to second reading. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Jackson, Lemhouse and Navickas, YES. Councilor Chapman and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Councilor Jackson/Lemhouse m/s to continue first reading on Croman Mill Site Plan ordinances #2, #4 and #5 to the June 15, 2010 meeting. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Navickas, Lemhouse and Jackson, YES. Councilor Chapman, NO. Motion passed 4-1. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor C I T Y OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES May 25, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Maria Harris, Planning Manager Pam Marsh Adam Hanks, Project Manager Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Dave Dotterrer Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the City Council will be holding a Special Meeting tomorrow evening to deliberate on the Croman Mill District Plan. PRESENTATIONS A. Economic Development Strategy Update. Project Manager Adam Hanks provided a presentation on the City's Economic Development Strategy. He provided some background information and noted this process began in January 2009 after the City Council adopted a goal to "Develop and implement a comprehensive economic development strategy." Mr. Hanks stated the Council agreed to use the EcoNorthwest Draft Implementation Plan as a starting point and following that decision the Mayor appointed 20 individuals to participate in an Ad Hoc strategy committee. This committee was separated into two groups, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy Group, and over a five month period each group met a total of 6 times and developed a draft vision statement and over 50 draft strategies. Mr. Hanks reviewed the next steps in the process. He stated the draft strategies have been sorted by the Ad Hoc committee and they are ready to begin the public comment stage. He clarified the citizen involvement plan will involve focus groups, public forums and open houses, and an online questionnaire available to citizens via the City's website. Mr. Hanks stated during this stage staff is hoping to get a lot of feedback from the public as well increased exposure. Mr. Hanks read aloud the draft vision statement drafted by the Ad Hoc Committee and the draft strategies list included in the packet materials. He answered the Commission's general questions and provided further information on how the Ad Hoc committee narrowed down their list of draft strategies. He clarified all of the draft strategies (including those not selected by the committee) will be included in the document that goes out for public comment. Recommendation was made for staff to not include the Ad Hoc Committee's rankings when this document moves forward for public comment. Mr. Hanks reviewed the next steps in the process. He stated following the citizen involvement and input stage, they will establish the specific actions with timelines, identify the responsible groups/entities and progress measurements, and lastly final review and approval of the document by the City Council. Mr. Hanks stated staff expects this process will be completed by the end of 2010. Ashland Planning Commission May 25, 2010 Page 1 of 2 The Planning Commission shared their thoughts and suggestions on the draft strategies. Some of the key comments and suggestions included: • Develop a strategy that more adequately addresses the Council goal of supporting the creation and growth of businesses that use and provide local and regional products. • Is there a way to identify the types of jobs needed in Ashland to help our under-employed population, and is there a way to tie this into this process? • Does the City keep track of lease space stock and occupancy rates, and is there a way to make sure this existing space is utilized? • Develop a strategy that speaks to the needs of young families, such as "Sustain the social and educational infrastructure that attracts young families to the community." • Sustainability is a three-legged stool, and currently the "social" component is missing from the equation. Mr. Hanks thanked the Commission for their input and clarified this will come back before the Commission for additional input as they move through the process. OTHER BUSINESS A. Status Update on 2010 Planning Commission Goals. Commissioner Pam Marsh listed the Commission goals that were selected at their annual retreat and noted the first item has been completed: 1. Adopt Croman Mill Redevelopment Plan 2. Transportation Planning - TSP • Transit and Pedestrian Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay 3. Sustainable Land Use Goals • Solar Orientation, Green Street Standards, and Stormwater Management 4. Railroad District Parking Management Plan 5. Arterial Setbacks • Evaluate existing standards for Ashland St, E. Main St, Siskiyou Blvd, and N. Main St Community Development Director Bill Molnar and Planning Manager Maria Harris provided a short presentation to the Commission. Staff reviewed the Community Development Department's long range work plan and the City Council goal projects that involve department staff. The ongoing Planning and Housing projects were also listed for the Commission. Staff answered the Commission's general questions. It was clarified the TSP has not started yet and kickoff is scheduled for this summer. Ms. Harris added a number of joint meetings between the Transportation Commission and Planning Commission have been identified in the scope of work for the TSP. Comment was made requesting the TSP meeting schedule be provided to the Commission. Additional suggestion was made for the Commission to have more discussion on the arterial nodes in relation to the TSP. Commission Marsh asked if staff could meld their work plan into a list that is specific to the Planning Commission. She stated she would like to form a plan that looks forward to the next 3 months and anticipates the actions the Commission will be taking. She added if the Commissioners have any additional thoughts on this to please forward their suggestions to staff, and stated she will meet with staff before their next Study Session to form a plan. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission May 25, 2010 Page 2 of 2 C I T Y OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 11, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Dave Dotterrer Richard Appicello, City Attorney Pam Marsh April Lucas, Administrative Assistant 'Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. 'Commissioner Miller did not participate in the first two agenda items. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Eric Navickas, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the City Council is scheduled to hold a Special Meeting on May 261, for the Croman Mill District Plan. Commissioner Marsh announced the vacancy on the Commission and encouraged interested citizens to submit an application to the Mayor's Office. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 13, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes 2. April 27, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes Commissioners Dawkins/Dotterrer mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 7-0. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PLANNING ACTION: #2009.00726 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 720 Grandview Drive APPLICANT: McDonald, Lynn & Bill DESCRIPTION: Appeal by Bonnie Brodersen of the Staff Advisor's decision to approve a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit for the property located at 720 Grandview Drive. Planning Action #2006.01784 previously granted approval for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The current application again requests a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review Permit for development in the Wrights Creek Floodplain and Riparian Preservation Lands for the improvement of a portion of an existing driveway, re-grading the transition of the driveway to Grandview Drive, the installation a private storm drain and the extension of utilities to serve a new single-family residence. The current request Ashland Planning Commission May 11. 2010 Page 1 of 8 differs from the previous approval in that it involves alterations to accommodate changes in vehicular access. A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two dead poplar trees is also included. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: RA-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 05 CD; TAX LOT: 500. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioner Marsh noted that Commissioner Miller has asked to be excused since she was absent from last month's hearing. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dotterrer/Blake m/s to approve Planning Action #2009-00726 and deny the appeal, finding it has no merit, and direct staff to bring back findings consistent with approval. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Morris, Blake, Dawkins, Dotterrer, Mindlin, Rinaldi and Marsh, YES. Motion passed 7.0. B. PLANNING ACTIONS: #2009.01244 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1644 Ashland Street APPLICANT: Goodman Networks, Inc. for AT&T Wireless, LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval and a Conditional Use Permit to install rooftop wireless communications facilities on the existing Ashland Street Cinema building located at 1644 Ashland Street, and associated ground mounted equipment. The installation consists of 12 architecturally-integrated panel antennas. The application includes a request for an Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards required landscape buffer. The subject property is located within the Detail Site Review Zone and the Ashland Boulevard Corridor, and the existing building is also subject to Additional Standards for Large Scale Projects. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 15 AB; TAX LOT: 6800. Commissioner Marsh read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Declaration of Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Moms, Rinaldi, Blake, Dotterrer, Dawkins and Marsh reported site visits. Commissioner Mindlin stated she had a drive by site visit and also received a phone call from Sarah Breckenridge. Mindlin stated the substance of this call is captured in Ms. Breckenridge's written comments which are included in the record. No ex parte contact was reported by any of the commissioners. Staff Presentation Associate Planner Derek Severson presented the staff report for this application. He reviewed the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 which regulates how cities can address wireless communication facilities, and stated some of the key points of this Act include: 1) cities cannot discriminate among providers, 2) cities cannot pass laws or take actions that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting wireless service, 3) there is no regulating of wireless facilities based on environmental concerns about radio frequency emissions if the facility will operate within FCC standards, 4) cities must act on requests to site wireless facilities within a reasonable amount of time, and 5) cities must issue zoning denials or approvals in writing, supported by substantial evidence and findings contained in the written record. As a result of this Act, Mr. Severson stated the City of Ashland adopted a fairly stringent ordinance that regulates the placement, appearance and visual impacts of wireless communication facilities. He stated the City's ordinance identifies preferred design alternatives, including collocation on an existing facility, the use of preexisting structures, or in some cases alternative structures or monopoles. It also prohibits lattice towers, requires a landscape buffer, requires visual impacts to be mitigated, limits exterior lighting and signage, and requires the setback from residential zones to be at least twice the height of the installation. Mr. Severson noted wireless facilities in Ashland are currently located at the Ashland Springs Hotel and the Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Severson reviewed the elements of the application. He stated the site is located at 1644 Ashland Street, which is the location of the Ashland Shopping Center, and the building involved is the Ashland Street Cinema. He stated the zoning in the vicinity is almost entirely commercial, except for some residential to the east. He stated the Pines Trailer Park is about 80 ft. Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Page 2 of 8 from this building and clarified while this is a residential use this area is commercially zoned. Mr. Severson stated the applicants are proposing to install wireless facilities in an integrated penthouse structure on the front of the building, and an equipment cabinet at the rear of the building. He stated the proposal is to add two-tiered parapet walls to shield the installation and conceal the antennas, which will increase the height of the building by approximately 10 ft. Mr. Severson explained as part of the application, the applicants are requesting an administrative variance in order to not install the required landscaping around the proposed accessory building. He stated the application states the 10 ft. landscape buffer around exterior would extend into the existing driveway and impair fire access. He added the application asserts that the accessory structure, by mimicking the existing structure, is architecturally integrated into the building and does not need screening. Mr. Severson clarified Federal Law prohibits denials based on radiation or radio frequency emissions. He stated in reviewing the application staff feels it does comply with the City's standards and are recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Applicant's Presentation Gary Spanovich/Applicant's Representative/Stated he has participated in over 40 land use approvals, buildings and design reviews for telecommunication facilities and stated the Telecommunications Act is key tonight. Mr. Spanovich explained the Act states that as long as the antennas and equipment meet the FCC regulations for radio emissions, there are no health effects. He stated in this application all of the FCC regulations are followed and all of the equipment meets those standards. He stated this Act empowered the use of cell phones in the United States, and noted today many people don't have land lines and rely solely on their cell phones for communication. Mr. Spanovich stated while elected bodies can receive testimony on health concerns, the Telecommunications Act prohibits denial of an application based on those concerns. He stated AT&T currently has holes in their coverage area in Ashland and this installation will correct that. Mr. Spanovich explained their Radio Frequency Engineer identified a specific location where the wireless antennas would need to be located in order to correct their coverage issues, and stated collocating their antennas on one of the other facilities would not fix their coverage problem. He stated he hopes the Commission will approve this application and noted the new antennas would be integrated into the architecture of the building. Mr. Spanovich noted they have held two public meetings prior to tonight's hearing to speak with concerned neighbors and stated they believe they have addressed the concerns of both citizens and the City's Planning staff, and have addressed all of the zoning issues. Mr. Spanovich clarified they initially looked at a number of locations, but needed to find a location in the heart of their problem area as well as a willing landlord. He stated the proposed site is their only option and stated collocating at the Ashland Springs Hotel or the Holiday Inn Express would not solve their coverage problems. Public Testimony Commissioner Marsh listed the written testimony that has been submitted into the record and whether the individuals were for or against this action. Preston Moser/1501 Siskiyou Blvd, Medford/Stated he is a broadcast radio and TV engineer and voiced his support for the application. Mr. Moser stated cell phones emit far more radiation than the cell tower would and stated the further away the cell tower is the more radiation the phones put out. He stated the cell phone itself is the major source of radiation and the tower is very minimal because of its distance from the persons being exposed. Rod Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Stated he and his wife own the Hidden Springs Wellness Center and requested the Commission deny this application based on the following three points: 1) approval of this conditional use permit would lower the livability of the area due to the economic impact, 2) the applicant's materials indicate there is an acceptable alternative location at the Holiday Inn Express, and 3) the location will impact the north and south views, and future towers could be collocated there which will further expand the visual impacts. Mr. Newton stated at Hidden Springs they rent space to 13 holistic healthcare practitioners and none of them have indicated they would be willing to work close to a microwave tower. He stated this not about health impacts, this is about the impacts this proposal will have on his business. Mr. Newton stated his is not opposed to cell towers but wants them sited at a location that will have the least impact on the community. Mr. Newton concluded his testimony and requested the record for this action be left open for seven days. Ashland Planning Commission May 11. 2010 Page 3 of 8 Aaron Brian/307 N. Main StlStated he has reviewed the application, the City's code, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and stated he is opposed to this proposal. Mr. Brian stated this application does not comply with the City's own standards for siting cellular facilities and stated the applicant's materials indicate there is another reasonable location at the Holiday Inn Express. He stated under the City's municipal code, if there is a feasible collocation site this is the end of the story. He stated in this situation there is an option for collocation and does not understand why the applicants have focused their efforts away from the Holiday Inn site which already has wireless facilities on it. Mr. Brian stated the proposed tower would have visual and aesthetics impacts, and noted the City's code states that if this is approved future collocation efforts would be allowed on top of the cinema. He stated there is also an issue of space for the ground equipment and commented on the need for good access for fire trucks. Mr. Brian voiced his opposition to this proposal and stated the Ashland Municipal Code supports the denial of this application. Alan Sasha Lithman1669 Park StIStated giving more weight to the rights of the electromagnetic fields than the citizens of this town is not appropriate. Mr. Lithman stated the precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action. He stated this principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is evidence of potential harm in the absence of complete scientific proof. He stated such potential harm is sufficient grounds for preventive measures, safeguards and protections, and these protections can only be relaxed if further scientific findings provide sound trustworthy evidence that no harm will result. Mr. Lithman stated a town such as Ashland should be a leading edge model for the practice of this principle. Naomi Marie/2305•C Ashland St #248/Stated two of the tenants of the building have made it clear they are either opposed or do not want to be associated with this proposal and believes this speaks to the potential economic impacts for the tenants and existing businesses. Ms. Marie stated the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was pushed through and there is so much information on both sides of the health impacts issue, we don't really know for sure what the real affects are. She recommended they have some foresight about what they are exposing themselves to and stated the Commission should pay attention when people are speaking out about their concerns. Ms. Marie stated she is very concerned about the proliferation on the cinema's rooftop and stated this proposal would definitely reduce the views. Skip Andrews/103 Manzanita St/Acknowledged that the federal statute prohibits them from using claims about radiation as the basis for their decision, but stated what they can take into consideration is the fact that there are so many practitioners that will go out of business if this proposal is approved. Mr. Andrews questioned when a conditional use permit has ever been allowed when it results in the closing of an established business in the area. He stated Hidden Springs is an internationally known wellness center and people from all over the word hold seminars there, and the construction of the proposed wireless facilities would have a real effect on that area. Suzanne Sky/1605 Siskiyou Blvd/Stated she is the owner of Ashland Acupuncture which is located just behind the cinema. Ms. Sky explained the back of her clinic overlooks the back of the cinema building and stated this proposal would severely impact the views from her location. She stated there are six other holistic practitioners in her office and the perceived health impacts associated with these antennas would have a serious negative impact on her business and the livability of the area. Ms. Sky stated the AT&T representative assured the concerned neighbors that there was an alternative site AT&T would be looking at and she was very disappointed to hear this proposal is going forward. She asked that the Commission deny the application and request they find an alternate site for their antennas. i Judi Johnston/1025 Pinecrest Terrace/Stated she is a health care practitioner and stated they are in a difficult position. She stated she personally supports the cell tower, regardless of where they put it, because she has no cell phone coverage at her house. She stated she is dependent on her cell phone for her business and also would be in a tough spot if she had an emergency. Ms. Johnston stated she hopes either the proposed site or an alternate site is approved so that the cell phone coverage can be improved. Stated she is in support of a tower because businesses need it to thrive, and our tourists and visitors also need coverage. Pau Pollard/308 Crowson Rd/Stated he is an AT&T client, has poor coverage, and would like this to change. Mr. Pollard stated these antennas are raised to send out signals in a way that reaches the coverage area; the signals do not just run off Ashland Planning Commission May 11. 2010 Page 4 of 8 the building and filter down into the parking lot. He stated there is a lack of understanding with how this system works and agreed with the first speaker that there is greater damage caused by holding a cell phone to your ear. He stated it is not as detrimental as some say and stated he would like to see a tower installed somewhere in Ashland. Kimberly Hallf745 Iowa St/Stated she is a massage therapist at Hidden Springs Wellness Center and is saddened that her time at this facility may be coming to an end because of their beliefs around this issue. Ms. Hall stated it will be a great loss to the community if Hidden Springs were to close. Robin Rose/625 Lit Way/Stated she is a family physician and provided some information on possible effects of cell towers. She stated between 10-25 out of 100 people will be affected if they are 300 meters from one of these towers. Ms. Rose listed some of the symptoms she has researched and questioned how this proposal would affect the more fragile individuals in our community. Ms. Rose stated even if they are not sure of the impacts, they do not know for sure yet whether these are dangerous and does not want to take that risk. Michael Maichezak1894 Blackberry/Stated the energy emitting hazards of cell towers has been widely documented and it would be in the best interest of the Planning Commission, the community, and the nearby tenants and residents to deny this application. Mr. Maichezak stated he uses Verizon and has great coverage and asked if AT&T could place their antennas at the Verizon site instead. He also questioned if other carriers would add antennas to the cinema building if this application was approved and questioned the loading potential for that roof. Will Wilkinson/2940 Old Highway 99/Stated he is a fitness director at Hidden Springs and noted the impressive number of citizens who have appeared tonight to show their opposition to this proposal. Mr. Wilkinson stated the applicant's representative stated the Telecommunications Act empowered the use of cell phones, but he has heard nothing from the representative about the welfare of the people. Mr. Wilkinson noted the International Association of Firefighters have expressed their opposition to towers located on fire stations until a study on exposure to low intensity RF/MW radiation is conducted and it is proven that such conditions are not hazardous. Mr. Wilkinson disputed the staff findings which indicate this action would not have a negative impact on the livability of the area and stated there would be aesthetic damages and severe business losses. He recommended the Commission deny this application or at the very least delay this action in order to have more time to study this issue. Lisa Long/1003 Oneida Circle/Stated she is very impressed with the consciousness of this town and disagreed that these towers pose no health effects. Ms. Long citied an article titled The Radiation Poisoning of America and stated she researched where cell towers were located in Ashland before she moved here and would not have allowed her daughter to move to Ashland to go to SOU if she had know a tower would be going in at this location. John Kalb/580 Elizabeth AveNoiced his opposition to the AT&T proposal because of the possibility of collocation and stated this should be given preference over building new towers. Mr. Kalb stated the Planning Commission is not obliged to give AT&T the exact site they want and urged the Commission to reject this proposal and require AT&T to provide more information on the other potential site. Joanne Lescher/347 High SUStated whether or not cell towers are harmful is not the primary issue, the issue is that they are perceived to be harmful by many citizens. Ms. Lescher stated she cannot continue to practice in this area if the tower is built. She noted there are 24 health practitioners in this area and asked the Commission to consider the economic impact and loss of services to Ashland citizens if this application is approved. She recommended the Commission deny this proposal and encourage AT&T to collocate at a different location. David Schieberf586 Glenwood Dr/Stated that health effects cannot be considered according to the federal government, but stated this proposal would add height to the cinema building and this added height would block mountain views from both north and south directions, particularly for those closest to the building. Mr. Schieber stated AT&T has indicated they would be willing to allow others to collocate at this location and questioned if the roof structure is adequate to accommodate this. He stated there is another location that AT&T could use and it seems logical to add their antennas where this is already accommodated for rather than adding a new facility. Mr. Schieber stated they simply do not know what the health effects of long term expose are, and stated the only reasonable course is to conduct a study at the highest possible merit. Ashland Planning Commission May 11. 2010 Page 5 of 8 Alissa Lukara/248 Meadow Dr/Shared her opinion as a consumer and stated due to the perceived impacts she would no longer visit this shopping center if this application is approved. Ms. Lukara stated she often books workshops in Ashland and Hidden Springs is her preferred location. She stated this is a wonderful location, but will no longer rent this space if the cell tower goes in. She added she would also stop visiting Susanne Sky at this location if the application is approved. Vitaly Geyman/1172 N. Main St/Stated he is a telecommunications engineer and has installed 600 towers across Australia. Mr. Geyman stated he is surprised by AT&T's choice to build a new tower on top of a family center and in such close proximity to health care practitioners. He stated this is not an appropriate location and believes the Commission and AT&T are creative enough to find a different location for the tower. Elissa Walsh/106 Fairview, Talent/Stated she works at Hidden Springs and noted this facility is an oasis and sanctuary for many individuals. Ms. Walsh stated she is certain this tower would result in a huge loss and stated not only does she not want to lose her job, she does not want the community, to lose this wonderful center. She stated she is strongly opposed to this application. Brooks Newton/1196 Timberline Terrace/Stated she is the owner of Hidden Springs along with her husband, which is located less than 100 yards from the proposed site. Ms. Newton stated she cannot believe corporate profits are being put above human values and shared her sadness at the thought of losing this complex. Ms. Newton invited the AT&T representative to come and visit their facility and talk about the effects this proposal would have on their community center and work this out together. Deborah Gordon/276 Orange Ave/Noted she and Susanne Sky are the health practitioners closest to the proposed tower location. Ms. Gordon stated half of the view from her office is of the cinema and the other half is of the mountains beyond it. She noted the law states the health effects are outside of the Commission's purview, but stated it is not outside the purview of her patients. Ms. Gordon stated she would have to move her business if the cell tower goes in and hopes AT&T can come up with a different solution. Bonnie Nedrow/635 Lit Way/Commented on the types of clients who come to visit her and stated she would not be able to continue her practice at this location if the cell tower goes in. She stated her clients perceive the cell tower to be a problem, regardless of whether it is proven or not. Ms. Nedrow stated approval of this action would create a huge burden for the medical practitioners in the area. Guy Nutter/1037 Pinecrest Terrace/Stated he owns the property at 1736 Joy Ave, which is closer to the proposed cell tower location than Hidden Springs. Mr. Nutter shared his concerns that sufficient notice to AT&T's public meeting was not given and stated at those meetings they were given different information than what the AT&T representative is now saying. He explained at the public meeting the representative indicated AT&T was considering alternate locations and the citizens who attended that meeting were left with the impression that these sites would be preferred due to the public opposition. Mr. Nutter requested the Commission deny this application based on architectural reasons. Dennis Cooper/1182 Timberline Terrace/Stated he owns the building immediately behind the Ashland cinema and noted his tenants have already given their testimony tonight that they will move out if this cell tower goes in. Mr. Cooper stated if a conditional use permit has a significant negative impact on the property owners than it should not be granted and stated the loss of his tenants is a significant issue. He stated adding an additional 10 ft to the top of the cinema building will block the views of the mountains for his tenants and does believe they should be allowed to build that much higher. Mr. Cooper stated the preferred alternative is to collocate and stated if this is feasible than the city code says it should be done. He also noted the applicant's request for an administrative variance to the landscaping requirement and stated their reasoning for this is because of his nice landscaping. He added from his building you will be able to see their equipment very clearly. Emily Folmar/1644 Ashland St/Stated she is speaking on behalf of Coming Attractions Theater. Ms. Folmar stated they have received numerous calls and emails from citizens and customers concerned about this proposal and clarified that they are not the building owners and this is not their application. Ms. Folmar shared her concerns regarding this proposal and stated if approved, they will lose a significant amount of business. In addition, she stated they have not seen the engineering Ashland Planning Commission May 11. 2010 Page 6 of 8 specifications and are concerned about load bearing issues and potential water damage. She added anything that might damage the roof could cause great damage to their equipment. Elise Thiel/321 Clay St #19Noiced her opposition to the cell tower and stated this would have significant impacts on the Ashland Shopping Center. Ms. Thiel stated she spends a considerable amount of money at that shopping center and will no longer take her business there if this application is approved. She stated she is a nurse and has seen what happened to people who smoke and noted companies claimed that was safe too. She stated she does not want to see this shopping center close down and asked that the Commission deny this application. Marvin Ratner/1125 Village Green Dr/Stated he is opposed to the cell tower and stated it would be detrimental to the community and the lifestyle here. Mr. Ratner stated this would cause the Hidden Springs Wellness Center to close down and noted he attends many lectures and events at that location and it adds to his qualify of life. He stated whether or not the danger posed by the cell tower is real is irrelevant, the perception of danger will cause the center to close. He stated there are alternate sites where this equipment could be located and does not believe these have been adequately researched. Steven Maryanoff/654 Oak StNoiced his opposition to the cell tower and suggested they consider making Ashland a cell tower free zone. Mr. Maryanoff noted his career in electronic engineering and stated there are many alternatives to accomplishing what you want. He stated the alternate options were not considered by AT&T because they are more cost prohibitive and stated alternatives do exist. Ari Frires/92 Dewey SWoiced his opposition to the cell tower. Mr. Frires stated he does not know the impacts of these microwaves, and until he does he does not want to be exposed to it. Cate Hartzell/892 Garden Way/Asked that the Commission deny this application based on the financial impacts on the surrounding businesses. Ms. Hartzell stated this location serves as her primary shopping center and stated the cell tower would have a negative impact on her consumer activities. She stated the Telecommunications Act did not take away a community's right to regulate as best they can their expose to microwave frequencies or other environmental hazards. Ms. Hartzell commented on consumer habits and stated they need to come together as a community and revisit the criteria for the placement of wireless facilities in a well publicized process where everyone can become better informed about these issues. Jeff Golden/925 Oak StlStated 1) the Ashland Municipal Code mandates that new wireless facilities be collocated with existing facilities if doing so would reasonably meet the need; and 2) in the applicant's correspondence, they state there is another wireless site that would reasonably meet their needs. Mr. Golden stated if both these statements are proven accurate this leads to a very clear decision. He stated regardless of the radiation perception, the only lawful decision would be to deny the application. Tej Steiner/610 Ashland St/Stated he is against this proposal and commented that there is something very special about the Hidden Springs Wellness Center. Mr. Steiner stated the impacts of these cell towers needs to be further investigated before they should be allowed. Rebuttal by the Applicant Gary Spanovich/Clarified this is not a cell tower, but rather 5 antennas that will be hidden in the fagade. He stated they are fairly small at 4-6 inches wide and 4-6 feet in height. Mr. Spanovich noted the engineering drawings are included in the packet materials and stated the structural studies that were completed show that everything is to code. He stated their engineer did look at the collocation possibility and determined that it would not be possible to collocate at the Holiday Inn Express. Mr. Spanovich cited the Telecommunications Act and stated they believe their submittal is complete. He also stated that they do not feel the need to keep the record open and do not need rebuttal time. Commissioner Marsh noted the request made by Rod Newton to leave the record open for 7 days and explained written testimony received during this period will become part of the written record and circulated to the Planning Commission. City Attorney Richard Appicello noted the Commission will need to make two motions: 1) to keep the record open until the end of business day on May 19, 2010, and 2) to continue their deliberations to the June 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Page 7 of 8 Mr. Appicello stated he heard the applicant state that he does not want to file final written argument and asked if this was accurate. Mr. Spanovich confirmed that they do not want an additional seven days to submit final written argument and stated they do not feel they need to submit anything else. Commissioner Marsh closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Questions for Staff Mr. Severson provided additional information on the collocation issue. He stated the City's ordinance requires applicants to look at collocation, but does not require it. He also clarified that according to the applicant's submittal, the antennas at the cinema location would be 25% higher than what would be possible at the Holiday Inn site, and the length of the coaxial cable to the Holiday Inn would be much greater than the run to the cinema and would result in a greater loss of signal. Request was made for staff to address conditional use permit criterion C(7) and the economic concerns related to this. Comment was made questioning if the Fire Department has approved the placement of the ground equipment in terms of emergency access issues. If was also questioned if information was going to be provided on how the Holiday Inn site and the proposed site compare. Mr. Severson clarified the applicant could choose to submit this information within the next 7 days while the record is open. Commissioners DotterrerlMiller m/s to leave the record open until 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 2010. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. Commissioners RinaldilDotterrer mis to continue this item to the June 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 8.0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission May 11, 2010 Page 8 of 8 CITY OF E ASHLAND I' I.i it TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION { Thursday, Apri1 15, 2010J 1 / S iskiybuJRoom, 51 Winburn_,Way r, Minutes _ 1 Attendees: Tom Bumham,;John Gaffey, Eric Heesacker, Steve Hauck Julia Sommer, Colin Swales, Brent Thompsgn,~Mdtt Wacshawsky, David Y ung Absent: None Ex Officio Members: David Chapman, Larry Blake, Kat Smith Staff Present: Mike Faught, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum 1. CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 PM by Chair Colin Swales. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of March 18, 2010 were approved as corrected. III. PUBLIC FORUM: Chris Rall, Oregon Field Organizer for T4America, informed the Commission on what the group "Transportation for America" does. More information could be found at www.t4america.or¢. Corrine Vieville, Executive Director of Disabled United in Direct Empowerment (DUDE), offered her services as a quasi-ADA consultant to the Commission. Egon Dubois reminded the Commission that the Bike Swap would be held April 171h from noon to 2:00 pm. He asked for volunteers to help hand out helmets and lights. Mike Faught, Public Works Director, reported that the agreement with Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) would be discussed at the May 4`h City Council meeting. The multi year agreement was an annual agreement that would expire June 30, 2010 unless it was administratively extended. Transit ridership dropped 13.82% since the new transit subsidy was implemented in September 2009; however, and staff wanted to report to Council before taking action. Staff was recommending extending the program with RVTD as there could be several reasons for the decline in ridership including insufficient data, higher than normal fuel prices in 2008, and the fact that Route 15 travels in the same direction as Route 10 which was not convenient as riders who use the service to shop then have to ride the entire route back to their original destination. A majority of the Commissioners agreed with Staffs recommendation. Burnham would have preferred this as an agenda item. IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Faught asked that the 15 Exit 14 and 19 update agenda item be moved to first on the agenda. Commission agreed. VI. NON ACTION ITEMS A. Interstate 5, Exit 14 and 19 Update Faught reported that Staff was recommending approval of the state's revised configuration of the Exit 14 stripping that included shared 12' pedestrian/bike path with bicycle crossing signals at the C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPGrpWise\4 1510 TC Minules.dec Page I of4 ramp terminals. This concept avoided the bike lane transition across a right-turn lane by moving the bicycle lane to the outside of the turn lanes and on to a shared 12-foot pedestrianibicycle pathway behind the curb with bicycle crossing signals at the ramp terminals. ODOT's Art Anderson is supportive of the change. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Thompson nominated Eric Heesacker as Chair keeping Steve Hauck as Vice Chair. Warshawsky seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. B. Commission Procedures on Decision Makine Commissioner Young asked that the decision regarding the addition of bicycle parking in the plaza at North Main Street be reconsidered. Young sent an email with comments to staff and they were not read into the record. Motion: Hauck moved to reconsider the March 2010 agenda item "Additional Bicycle Parking at North Main Street." Sommer seconded the motion. Discussion: Young read his email of March 12, 2010. "I feel that there is good justification for removing the one spot that forces drivers to back into a crosswalk and onto E. Main, however slightly, when exiting. Furthermore, the re-striping of spaces into legally-conforming compact spaces so that there would be no literal reduction of potential parking spaces while adding several bike spots in the vacated lane, will create a net-positive impact on the overall functioning of the area surrounding the land in question. Despite assertions to the contrary by Mr. Barchet, who in his February 18 letter recommends a comprehensive plan for the plaza as opposed to a perceived "band-aid solution", I feel that incremental progress is both necessary and, as often is the case in congested historic or commercial districts, the only realistic approach. What is essentially a "gateway" to the plaza district should be safe, and the added bonus of a visible and convenient haven for bicycles, the addition of planters and more outdoor seating for diners, and no net loss of automobile parking capacity (yes, I realize there will be reduced land area dedicated to autos) will be a welcoming feature to this area. I support Mr. Smeenk's recommendation." Young said he read letters received from business owners, spoke to them, walked the site and thought City should not allow vehicles to back into a crosswalk. Vote: Heesacker, Hauck, Sommer, Burnham and Young voted yes. Warshawsky, Thompson, Gaffey, Swales voted no. The motion passed five to four. Motion and Vote: Gaffey moved to place "Additional Bicycle Parking at North Main Street" on the agenda for May. Hauck seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. C. Request for a Crosswalk on East Main Street Olson reported that several months ago the Transportation Subcommittee heard a request to install a marked crosswalk across East Main Street at Campus Way in support of the Willow Wind School. East Main is busy arterial street with 6600 to 7500 vehicles per day with sidewalks and bike lanes on the east side of the street; but few marked crosswalks due to the heavy traffic C:\DOCUME-I\.chipletd\LOCALS-1\Tcmp\XPGrpWise\4 15 10 TC Minutes.doc Page 2 of4 volumes. Staff conducted a traffic study on the section of East Main Street from Wightman Street to Walker Avenue. Olson recommended a crosswalk along with five conditions including pedestrian-activated beacons. The cost was estimated at $24,000; if City donates time then $12,000. The School District would be contacted to help fund project. Burnham noted that students do not use the crosswalk at Walker. Public Testimony: Lincoln Zeve, 2710 Siskiyou Bv, had two children at Willow Wind. He parked on Campus Way and walked children across East Main to and from school. Parents discussed near misses at this intersection. If beacons were used, they should also face the school driveway and Campus Way and be positioned to allow bicyclists to access buttons. Kat Smith, RVTD, reported that she and Lea Light collected data on how children walk and bike to Willow Wind and Ashland Middle School. She noted that crosswalks by themselves may make the situation worse. The five "Es" should be used including Enforcement, Education and Encouragement. Eve Woods, SOU Student Liaison, supported the crosswalk and recommended the addition of rumble strips. Motion: Young moved to adopt Staff's recommendation to accommodate a marked crosswalk on East Main Street at Campus Way conditioned upon a shortened length of the existing school speed zone from 1,600 feet to 1,000 feet; relocate advance crosswalk signs; install one sidewalk access ramp on the north side of East Main in line with the east sidewalk on Campus Way; mark continental-style crosswalk; and install two dual-head pedestrian-activated beacons, one on each side of East Main Street. Hauck seconded the motion. Discussion: Young said, as a substitute teacher at the middle school, he witnessed a large number of students cut through ScienceWorks' property. He recommended crosswalks at both Campus Way and Walker as well as rumble strips. He said most parents encouraged their children to walk or bike to school. Gaffey thought with two schools in the area the issue was larger than just adding a crosswalk. He thought there was not enough information to make informed decision. Need feedback from School District. Olson said adding this crosswalk, with beacons, would become the primary route. Olson noted this section of East Main appeared more rural. ScienceWorks had not been notified of this meeting. Smith noted that Safe Routes to School grants may be available. Swales was concerned that young students would either not activate the beacon or activate it and begin to cross without looking. He thought the school had not done enough to make the area appear as a school zone. He thought all of staffs recommendation should be adopted or the Commission should not add the crosswalk. Zeve noted that young children are more fearful than college students. He did not want to see this issue tabled. Young agreed. C:\DOCUM E-1 \chipletd\LOCALS-I \Temp\XPGrp W ise\4 15 10 TC Minutes.doc Page 3 of 4 Vote: Motion, as presented, passed unanimously. Heesacker and Swales asked staff to look into adding rumble strips and audible signals respectively to the beacon. D. Advance Preparation for Goal Settin¢ There were no questions regarding the upcoming Goal Setting Retreat on April 17 VI. NON ACTION ITEMS B. Normal Av Neighborhood Refinement Plan Ashland Senior Planner, Brandon Goldman reported that Community Development recently applied for a Transportation Management Grant. If funded the proposal would help develop a master plan (land use and transportation) for the area outside City limits, but inside the Urban Growth Boundary where earlier 160 apartments had been proposed. Developing this area piecemeal may preclude the most ideal transportation system. Annexation could only occur if there were less than five years of Single Family Residential, the area's current Comprehensive Plan zoning. Multifamily land was needed, however. If funding was not granted then project would not be completed in the short term. Area is privately owned and contains no public railroad crossing. Hauck noted the importance of developing area master plans. He sighted the North Mountain master plan and resulting area as an example. Swales thanked Goldman for making Commission aware of the application. C. Planning Commission Update The SOU Master Plan was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission April 20th. D. Bike to Work Week Kat Smith reminded Commissions that "Bike to Work Week" was May 17-21. She invited Commissioners and the City to sponsor Ashland-specific activities next year. Examples included hanging a banner and publicizing the events on the City website. E. Ordinance No. 3003: Changes to Transportation Commission Ordinance Staff reminded Commission that the Council made changes to all ordinances relating to commissioners. The revised ordinance was provided in the packet. VII. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS & COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None. Woods reported that she had recruited additional SOU students to help with pedestrian safety tabling. Other safety education events included a parade to the plaza, Take Back the Night and the Pear Blossom Parade. VIII. ADJOURN: 8:08 PM Respectfully submitted, Nancy Slocum, Accounting Clerk I C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPGrpWise44 15 10 TC Minutes.dac Page 4 of 4 a CITY OF -ASHLAND TRANS~P®R~TATION C®1VI~MISSION G.® - I SETTING Saturday, Apr,i117, 2010 Si skiyo~u Room, 51 in ay 8:00 am to 11:30 am Summary Minutes Attendees: Tom Burnham, Eric Heesacker, Steve Hauck, Julia Sommer, Colin Swales (Chair), Brent Thompson, Matt Warshawsky, David Young Absent: John Gaffey (outgoing Commissioner) Ex Officio Members: David Chapman Staff Present: Michael Faught, Jim Olson, Nancy Slocum 1. Call to Order: 8:30 AM by Colin Swales. 2. Commission Roles and Responsibilities: Commissioners represent the City as well as the Community. Sometimes a commission meeting is a member of the public's first contact with city government. Sometimes being on a commission is a commissioner's first contact with government. Ashland's transportation issues are also region-wide issues. Jackson County Traffic Safety Commission and SOPAT (Southern Oregon Partnership for Active Transportation) would benefit from a Transportation Commission liaison. David Chapman volunteered to provide a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) report at the meeting. The MPO Public Advisory Council (PAC) generally meets bimonthly on the 3`d Tuesday at 5:30 pm at the Smullin Center. Julia Sommer and Steve Hauck volunteered to attend the meetings and represent the Commission. Faught and Chapman are driving to Salem once a month to the League of Oregon City meetings. Among other things, they are lobbying to get the speed limit decreased on "shared roads". Transportation Issues are closely tied with land use issues. Question as to when the Commission should be involved in Ashland land use issues. The ordinance says Type H (annexations, zone and comp plan changes) and the TSP update process. A handout on meeting norms was discussed. Commission agreed upon them and will adopt them at their next meeting. They requested that copies of the norms be available to the public at all meetings. The role of the Chair was discussed. Heesacker asked all Commissioners to help him in his role this year. C:\DOCUME-1\shipletdVACALS-1\Temp\XPGrpWise\2010 Retreat Goal Results 4 1710.doc Page 1 of4 Commissioners would like advanced notice on agenda items that require site visits. Commissioners asked staff to read absent Commissioner's comments into the record. To get comments into the packet, they must be to staff a week before the meeting on that Monday. Commissioners can ask to postpone an agenda item if it is agreed by staff and the Chair that the item is not time sensitive. Irregularly scheduled study sessions for the purpose of education was acceptable to the Commission. Video links and/or resource links sent by staff were encouraged. One of staff's primary goals was to educate the commissioners so they make the most informed decisions. C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPGrpWise\20I0 Retreat Goal Results 4 17 10.doc Page 2 of 4 3. Goal Settin : Brainstormed Goal Category Complete Safe Routes to School inventory Current Staff Goal Continue to work w/ODOT on Exit 14 and 19 Current Staff Goal Transportation-related public call/action taken record Staff assignment Respond to public's traffic and transportation-related concerns Staff assignment Work with Southern Oregon Partnership for Active Transportation SOPAT TC Role Define Commission role in relationship to the City Council TC Role and Planning Commission Accomplish more at meetings TC Role Update brochure on how City responds to neighborhood traffic issues 5 E's Develop an educational website with resource links 5 E's ID realistic traffic safety objectives/ ro'ects for the next 2 ears Goal Support RVTD (improve transit service in Ashland Goal Lobby for law thane re: whose at fault at bicycle accidents & 3' Rule Goal Lobby Police Dept to hire a full time traffic officer Goal Neighborhood speed control program; education on shared roads Goal Participate and improved local/re ional/state partnerships Goal More Engineering/Education/Encouragement/Enforcement/Evaluation Goal integrated solutions Cosponsoring of events (eg: Bike to Work, Bike Swap); how much Goal involvement; form a "Sponsorship Subcommittee"? Determine use of TC budget; do we want to raise separate funds?; provide TC regular budget reports Goal Make Commission actions available on city website Goal "Bike Friendly Community" Program - move from Bronze to Platinum Goal Improve Will Dodge Way for Bicyclists & Pedestrians TSP Improve cyclists ability to et through the downtown core TSP Add additional bicycle parking in central business district TSP Add additional bicycle links e : Clay/Tolman, E Main/66, 66/Siski ou) TSP Improve alleys for bicycle use TSP Improve North Main for bike safety TSP Decreasespeed limit on the bike path TSP Im rove alleys for bicycle use TSP Improve North Main for bike safety TSP Add shoulder on upper Tolman Creek above Siski ou Boulevard TSP Construct sidewalk on south side of Siski ou from Walker to Tolman Creek TSP Lowerspeed limit on Ashland Street (Highway 66 TSP Define/re uire shared roads into street design standards TSP Consider plans for trail easements along existing railroad tracks TSP Improve Clay Street (Siski ou to Ashland St TSP Update paving standards TSP Make A Street a "shared road" TSP & 2 Yr Complete Central Bike Path to Do Park TSP & 2 Experiment with "Box Stop" 2 year C:\DOCUME-1\shipletd\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPGrpWise\2010 Retreat Goal Results 4 17 10.doc Page 3 of 4 Forced Choice Scoring Settled on Goal No. of Points 1. TSP agreed upon as highest priority 2. TC Sponsorship 28 3.. T Budget very low priority 4. Bike Parking in Central Business District 31 5. Increase local and regional participation 44 6. 5 E's 49 7. Improve Regional Transit Service 43 8. Bike Friendly Community 46 9. More Police Enforcement 22 10. Neighborhood Speed Control Program 30 11. Lobby for Law Change (3' Rule) Bicyclist Accidents 21 12. Identify two year traffic safety projects 59 13. Post Commission Actions on Website 16 Transportation Commission Goals for 2010-2011 (24 months from April, 2010) 1. TSP Update agreed upon as highest priority 2. Identify two year traffic safety projects 59 3. 5 E's 49 4. Bike Friendly Community Status 46 5. Local/Regional Partnerships 44 6. Regional Transit 43 4. Adjourn at 11:45 am. C:\DOCUME-I\shipletd\I.OCALS-I\Temp\XPGtpW ise\2010 Retreat Goal Results 4 17 I0.doc Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION MINUTES May 6, 2010 CALL TO ORDER - Chairperson Bobby Townsend called the Ashland Tree Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. on May 6, 2010, in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development and Engineering Services Building located at 51 Winbum Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present Council Liaison Bobby Townsend Case Roland Russ Neff Staff Present Am Gunter, Assistant Planner Anne Rich, Ashland Parks Department APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 6, 2010 WELCOME GUESTS Michael Dawkins, Planning Commissioner PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Phil Townsend family owns a lot on Almond Street. A very large street tree was removed without a permit and Mr. Townsend would like to take responsibility. He asked the Commission what he should do. The Tree Commission suggested that Mr. Townsend mitigate the trees removal with a tree that will achieve similar size and stature at maturity as the tree removed. The Commission suggested Mr. Townsend pay close attention to spacing, overhead power lines and planting the tree at least five feet from the curb line. TYPE I REVIEW PLANNING ACTIONS: 2010-00401 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 160 Scenic Drive APPLICANT: Laurie Sager & Associates Landscape Architects Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical & Environmental Constraints Review for Development on Hillside Lands with Severe Constraints to construct a driveway turnaround, retaining wall and fencing with gate for the property located at 160 Scenic Drive and the adjacent Bush Street right-of-way. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 1 E 08 AA; TAX LOT: 6200 Recommendation: Applicant should consider collar excavation around the base of the Oak tree and Almond (mis-identified as Apple) since the ivy is being removed. Recommend wheel stop or other barrier at back of wheel stop. PLANNING ACTIONS: 20 1 0-0043 4 SUBJECT PROPERTIES: 355 Garfield St. APPLICANT: David Jones DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Review and Conditional Use Permit for a 4 unit traveler's accommodation (including 1 owners unit) located at 355 Garfield St. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential ZONING: R-2 ASSESSOR'S MAP 39 lE IOCC; TAX LOT: 52,00 Recommendation: Applicant shall protect maple trees from impacts of paving driveway and parking spaces. kTA ACTION ITEMS Earthday Follow-up: The pruning demo went great. Since the Commissioners were vying for people's interest with numerous other activities they only conducted one. Casey was thanked by the other commissioners for his dedication and follow through. The Tree Commission felt it was definitely worth their time and energy. Tree of the Year Plaque Installation: Bobby stated he would be attending. Anne is getting a locate and she will get the hole prepped- in coordination with the property owners. DISCUSSION ITEMS Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) table: William Olsen of William Olsen Designs asked to take the wood from the Tree of Heaven that was removed from the entrance Of Lithia Park which was going to be chopped into firewood and had it cured. Mr. Olsen stated that the curing process took about 3 years and then he was able to mill the wood and begin the construction of the table. The table's legs and frame are constructed of the Ailanthus wood and the center piece is from a reclaimed Walnut tree removed in Jacksonville. Mr. Olsen has donated the table as a gift to the City of Ashland. The Tree Commission proudly accepts the gift on behalf of the City. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS Liaison Reports: Council: None Parks: None Current Balance - $ 275.00 ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Townsend adjourned the meeting at 7:00 PM. Respectfully submitted by Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner 2 !r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford to Provide Police Records Assistance Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Terry Holderness Department: Police Department E-Mail: holdemet@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Legal Department Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: Martha Berme Estimated Time: Consent Question: Does the Council wish to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford to provide police records assistance? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Council authorize entering into an Intergovernmental agreement with the City of Medford to provide police records assistance Background: The Police Department presently contracts with the City of Medford for emergency dispatch services and records assistance. All Jackson County emergency communications services including those previously provided by the City of Medford will be consolidated into the new Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon (ECSO). This consolidation will take place on July 1, 2010. ECSO does not provide records assistance. Ashland records system is currently hosted by the Medford Police Department at a substantial savings to the City of Ashland. In addition Ashland does not have staffing required to run a 24 hour a day seven day a week records operation. This will require the department to find another agency to handle after hours warrant verifications and entries into the state emergency information system. The Jackson County Sheriffs Department presently handles those functions for all of the police agencies in the County except for Ashland Police Department and Medford Police Department. The Sheriffs office has advised that they do not presently have the staffing to handle those services for the Ashland Police Department. Medford has agreed to continue to provide those services at a cost of $20,000 a year. At this time Medford is the sole provider willing to provide these services to Ashland. The Police Department was aware of this issue when the budget was prepared and the funds are allocated in the 2010/2011 budget. Related City Policies: None. Council Options: Authorize entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford to provide police records assistance. Direct staff to provide the council with additional information about options for supplying police records assistance for the City of Ashland. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Potential Motions: Move approval of entering into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford to provide police records assistance. Attachments: Copy of the Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford to provide police records assistance. Page 2 of 2 ~r, Records Management System - Agreement Between THE CITY OF MEDFORD An Oregon Municipal Corporation, Provider And THE CITY OF ASHLAND An Oregon Municipal Corporation, Subscriber L PURPOSE By this Agreement, the Provider shall furnish RMS/ARS systems, warrant confirmation and clearance from LEDS/NCIC and after hour entries into LEDS/NCIC of Missing Persons, Runaway, Stolen Vehicles, and Stolen/Lost Guns as described in Schedule A. 2. DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement APD is an acronym for Ashland Police Department ARS is an acronym for Automated Reporting System DMV is an acronym for the Oregon State Department of Motor Vehicles LEDS is an acronym for the Law Enforcement Data System. MPD is an acronym for Medford Police Department Manager means the Medford Police Records Manager NCIC is an acronym for the National Crime Information Center RMS is an acronym for Records Management System System Delivery and Services means the shared RMS/ARS System intended to serve the parties as referenced in this agreement. 3. RECORDS PROCEDURES 3.1 Not later than 14 days prior to its effective date, Subscriber shall furnish Provider a complete copy of any proposed new or revised procedure, which would affect Provider's operations. Within 14 days after receipt, Provider shall notify Subscriber of any Records Management System Agreement Page 1 of 8 provision, which is incompatible with Provider's operating needs. Unless Provider gives such notice, any new or revised procedure shall be accepted and implemented by Provider no later than 15 days after its receipt. 3.2 Subscriber may designate a particular procedure change as critical, where that change is required by court order or other exigent circumstances. Provider shall, to the extent possible, implement immediate procedures, which accommodate the change. If any such procedure is incompatible with Provider's operating needs, Provider shall notify Subscriber of the reasons, therefore, while still implementing the change to the greatest extent possible. 3.3 If Subscriber and Provider cannot informally resolve any dispute under paragraph 4.1 or 4.2 as to records procedures, either party may-request that the differences be reviewed by the Medford Chief of Police as provide din paragraph 7.6. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY 4.1 Provider shall have full authority and responsibility over hiring, training, discipline, scheduling, and assignment of personnel assigned to perform and to supervise services provided under this Agreement. Providers shall have full discretion and authority to assign priority service among conflicting service demands at any given time. 4.2 Provider may contract to provide services to other subscribers at its discretion, however, Provider shall undertake no such obligation which has the effect of diminishing or degrading the level of service provided to Subscriber. 5. SERVICE The Medford Police Department Records Division shall provide services as listed in Schedule A in a manner consistent with LEDS/NCIC standards Monday - Thursday from 1700 hours until 0800 hours each day and from Friday 1700 hours until 0800 hours Monday each week. 5.1 Warrant Confirmation and clearance from LEDS/NCIC: It will be the responsibility of the Subscriber to enter their warrants according to LEDS/NCIC guidelines, complete a warrant worksheet for each warrant, list all of the pertinent warrant information and deliver the entered warrant to the Medford Police Department Records Division immediately after entry. The original warrant, complete. worksheet and pertinent teletypes, including a copy of the LEDS/NCIC entry, will be filed in an 8.5" x I I" manila envelope. A typed label will be affixed to the top right hand corner of the envelope listing the last name, first name and middle name of the wanted person. The label shall also contain either "APD" or "Ashland PD". Any warrant locate teletype information received by Subscriber will be relayed to the Medford Police Department Records Division as soon as possible. Upon receipt of the warrant envelope, the MPD Records Division shall enter the information into a database for tracking and file the warrant alphabetically in APD warrant files. Records Management System Agreement Page 2 of 8 MPD will confirm the warrants and clear the warrants from LEDS/NCIC. MPD Records Division shall send cleared Circuit Court warrants back to Circuit Court or to the Jackson County Sheriff's Office to be served upon receipt of the defendant. Ashland Municipal warrants will be returned to Subscriber. All completed warrant worksheets, teletypes, and empty Subscriber warrant envelopes will be returned to Subscriber via the Subscriber's courier. Subscriber will be responsible for any LEDS/NCIC monthly and yearly validations of the warrant records. Subscriber will be responsible for Circuit Court and Ashland Municipal Court's yearly purged warrant lists, to include pulling the warrants from file, clearing from LEDS/NCIC and return of the original warrant to the appropriate court. 5.2 Entry of missing/endangered persons, runaways, stolen vehicles and stolen guns: Provider will make the entry and clearance of missing/endangered persons, runaways, stolen vehicles and stolen gun records immediately upon notification from the Subscriber's officers during the hours described above. Entries will be made using the information verbally given by the Subscriber's officer and the information available in the RMS name files as well as DMV files. Subscriber's records division shall be responsible for the LEDS/NCIC required double check of the entry and modification if necessary when compared to the actual police report. Provider's records division shall date and initial the teletype entry and forward to the Subscriber via the next available Subscriber courier service on all entries. 5.3 Provider owns and administers shared RMS/ARS system, providing connectivity and security measures to Subscriber (see Schedule B for associated costs). Subscriber shall be directly responsible for the purchase of all specified equipment and installation services at their location (such as desk top computers, MDC equipment, fiber/TI connectivity to receiving points, etc) Subscriber shall be responsible for all maintenance, upgrades, and replacement of their own equipment. Provider manages RMS/ARS licensing. In the event licenses above the available number are required by Subscriber, Subscriber shall submit a request through Provider to obtain additional licenses at an additional cost to Subscriber. 6. MEETINGS Once per year, on or about November 1, Provider will conduct a meeting with Subscriber at a mutually agreed upon location to accommodate budget planning processes. A special meeting may be requested by Provider or Subscriber representatives at any time and will be scheduled by the Records Manager at the earliest convenience of all attendees. 6.1 MEETING RECORDS: MPD Records Manager shall keep the minutes of all meetings between Provider and Subscriber. A location shall be provided by MPD as a permanent and accessible depository for all meeting minutes. All Provider/Subscriber Records Management System Agreement Page 3 of 8 correspondence shall be in written form and copies maintained with the MPD Records Manager's records. Subscriber shall be provided a copy of all meeting records. 6.2 ADVISORY POWERS: The MPD Records Manager is advisory to the Chief of Police of the City of Medford. Consistent with laws, ordinances, and other agreements, the MPD Records Manager shall comply with recommendations regarding service delivery from the Provider and Subscriber upon approval by the Chief of Police of the City of Medford. 7. DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Subscriber, having a concern with regard to service provided, may go directly to the MPD Records Manager to resolve the situation. If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Subscriber, the Subscriber may then go to the Administrative and Technical Bureau Deputy Chief of the Medford Police Department. If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Subscriber by the Deputy Chief, the Subscriber may bring the matter before the Chief of Police of the City of Medford, who shall investigate and recommend a resolution. In the event the issue is not resolved by the Chief of Police to the satisfaction of the Subscriber, the Subscriber may appeal to the City Manager of the City of Medford. 7.1 Should Subscriber raise a concern that substantially affects other subscribers or the overall functioning of the MPD Records Division, the Manager shall refer the concern to the governing bodies of the Provider and Subscriber for resolution. Neither party shall initiate any action of law, nor resort to any other legally available remedy without first having followed the procedure required by this section. 8. ANNUAL BUDGET' RECOMMENDATIONS The Provider and Scriber shall abide by the budget adopted by the Medford City Council with respect to any and all fiscal matters affecting the financial responsibility of subscribers to•MPD. Any program or operational changes having expenditures requiring a supplemental budget under Oregon Local Budget Law must go through all budget preparation and review stages involving the Provider and Subscriber, as set forth herein. 9. FEES Subscriber shall pay an annual fee for services under this Agreement. That fee shall be computed as provided in Section B (Fee Schedule). Fees shall be due and payable in advance in equal quarterly installments as set forth in Schedule B. Should Subscriber be in arrears in payment of set fees hereunder, such default shall not be deemed a material breach unless Subscriber's entire account balance is still unpaid more than 45 days after written notice by Provider of intent to terminate. 10. RISK ALLOCATION Neither party nor its officers and employees shall be considered the agents of the other for any purpose. Each party agrees to indemnify the other from claims which the indemnitor would be legally liable to pay, excluding specifically claims arising from the indemnitee's own negligent and/or intentional acts if a claim asserting the same loss or injury were made directly against the indemnitor, whether or not such a direct claim is actually made. The loss or injury sustained by the complainant resulted from the acts, Records Management System Agreement Page 4 of 8 errors or omissions of the indemnitor or those for whose actions the indemnitor is responsible under the Oregon Tort Claims Act. This mutual right to indemnity is in addition to and not in lieu of any other right or contribution or indemnity which may exist in favor of either party under Oregon Law, and the right to indemnity extends to officers, employees, and agents of the indemnity party for claims made against them because of their actions or capacity as such. "Indemnify", as used herein, means to indemnify, depend and save harmless. 11. RENEWAL, TERM AND TERMINATION This Agreement shall be in effect commencing on the date of execution as set forth below and ending June 30, 2011. This Agreement shall be automatically renewed after the original term unless either party provides notice to the other as provided below. Either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of the 1-year term (June 30, 2011) without penalty or cause, by written notice of intent to terminate delivered to the other party no later than January 1, 2011. If no such notice is given, the Agreement is automatically extended and shall remain in effect between the parties unless terminated in the following manner. After the end of the original term, the Agreement may be terminated at the end of any fiscal year, without penalty or cause, by written notice of intent to terminate delivered to the other party no later than 6 months prior to the end of that fiscal year. Payment of fees shall be established pursuant to Schedule "B", attached. 11.1 NON-APPROPRIATION: Notwithstanding the termination provisions above, termination may occur for non-appropriation. Specifically, all Subscriber obligations to spend money under this Agreement are contingent upon future appropriations as part of the Subscriber budget process and local budget law, and the failure of the Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessarily result in termination of this Agreement. As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for the payments under this Agreement and the Subscriber has no other lawfully available funds, then the Subscriber may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to the Subscriber. The Subscriber shall deliver written notice to Provider of such termination no later that\n thirty (30) days from the determination by the Subscriber of the event of non-appropriation. 12. AMENDMENTS The parties may, from time to time, agree to amend the provisions of any schedules attached to this Agreement, provided, however, that the method used to compute Subscriber's annual fee as set forth in Schedule B shall not be amended unless all other subscribers agree to similar amendment. Costs associated with expansion of services, or new (not replacement) equipment shall not be included in the calculation of the basic service fee without the consent of all subscribers. All amendments shall be in writing, and signed by he parties duly authorized representatives. As used in this section, "replacement equipment" means equipment which replaces a function preciously performed by other equipment owned or leased by Provider, and which must be replaced because its repair or maintenance cost equals or exceeds its fair market value. Records Management System Agreement Page 5 of 8 13 COMPLETE AGREEMENT 13.1 Schedules A and B, referenced herein above, are hereby incorporated as part of this Agreement as though fully reproduced herein. 13.2 This agreement represents the complete and integrated understanding of the parties with respect to all particulars covered herein. All prior agreements, written and oral, are hereby canceled. No prior written or oral representation, negotiation, or statement which conflicts with the terms hereof shall be considered to in any way modify abridge, or invalidate any provision hereof, and no evidence of such shall be admitted in any proceeding in which the terms and application of this Agreement are at issue. 14. NOTICE Any notice required to be given to Provider under this Agreement shall be given to Provider's Chief of Police. Any notice required to be given to Subscriber under this Agreement shall be given to Subscriber's Chief of Police. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties heave caused this Agreement to be signed in their respective names by their duly authorized representatives as the dates set forth below. CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON THE CITY OF ASHLAND By By Gary Wheeler John Stromberg Mayor Mayor Date Date Approved Chief of Police Chief of Police City of Medford City of Ashland Records Management System Agreement Page 6 of 8 SCHEDULE A WARRANT CONFIRMATION AND CLEARANCE FROM LEDS/NCIC ENTRY OF DATA INTO LEDS/NCIC 1. House Subscriber's warrant files 2. Confirm Subscriber's warrants to inquiring agencies to include sending appropriate teletype confirmation 3. Clear warrants from LEDS/NCIC upon confirmation of service 4. Return Circuit Court warrants to either the Circuit Court or the Jackson County Sheriff's Office for transport of the defendant. 5. Return Ashland Municipal Court warrants to Subscriber 6 Return all warrant teletypes and worksheets to the Subscriber along with Subscriber's manila envelope. 7. Enter missing/endangered persons, runaway, stolen vehicle and stolen gun entries during the hours listed upon notification from Subscriber's officers into LEDS/NCIC.. 8. Date and initial LEDS/NCIC teletypes and forward to Subscriber via the next available Subscriber provided courier. Records Management System Agreement Page 7 of 8 SCHEDULE B FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND 1. Subscriber's fee for services provide under this Agreement shall be the Basic Service Fee plus negotiated fee for any extended services. The fees shall be reviewed on an annual basis. Subsequent contract annual base fees shall be calculated on a three year average number of Ashland warrants confirmed/cleared and the time that it takes the Provider's records specialist to confirm and clear the warrant from LEDS//NCIC and an average of the hourly rate of pay including benefits of the Provider's records specialists. Fees will also include the Subscriber's percentage of usage of the RMS system maintenance fees. Number of Ashland warrants confirmed/cleared; 2007 - 325 warrants 2008 - 313 warrants 2009 - 294 warrants For an average of 311 warrants per year It takes a Medford Police Records Specialist on average 15 minutes per warrant to confirm each Ashland warrant and clear from LEDS/NCIC. Current rate of $32.9349/hour x 311 warrants comes to $10,242.7539 a year. Agreed upon fee of $20,000 total for the budget year 2010 - 2011. Fees to cover RMS/ARS Maintenance/Licensing fees as well as the warrant confirmation/clearance and entry of Missing/Endangered Persons, Runaway, Stolen Vehicle and Stolen Guns into LEDS /NCIC during the hours mentioned in section 6. Quarterly Due Dates shall be as follows: July 15, 2010 October 15, 2010 January 15, 2011 April 15, 2011 Records Management System Agreement Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution re: Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program Funding Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Linda Reid Department: Community Development E-Mail: reidl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Ael Secondary Contact: Bill Molnar Approval: Martha BennEstimated Time: Consent Lo, I -Y Question: Should the Council adopt a resolution to provide a recommendation to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) to allocate more than 50% of Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funding to the hardest hit counties in the State of Oregon in accordance with the U.S. Treasury Hardest Hit Housing Market? Staff Recommendation: Staff is supportive of providing a recommendation to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) regarding allocation of Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Funding. Background: On March 29, 2010 the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced the second round of assistance for Hardest-Hit Housing Markets under the Toxic Asset Relief Program (TARP). Oregon was among the 5 five states targeted for funding due to "high shares of their populations living in local areas of concentrated economic distress." This determination was based on the population living in counties in which the unemployment rate exceeded 12%, on average, over the months of 2009. There are 14 counties within the State of Oregon which met this criterion, Jackson County among them. OHCS was tasked with the development and submission of a proposal for the use of these funds that allocate the funding "substantially" to the counties with the highest unemployment rates. The proposal submitted to the U. S. Treasury department on June 1, 2010, allocates 80% of the funds to 20 counties identified by Oregon Housing and Community Services which have a combination of factors that drive economic distress, which include; the 2009 unemployment rate, the change in unemployment between 2007 and 2009, the rate of foreclosure and delinquencies, and the decline in home values from their peak. Using these four measures, OHCS calculated a "housing distress index" for each Oregon County. By this definition 20 counties could be defined as "hardest- hit" or "housing distressed", the counties added include; Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah, and Yamhill. Concern from various communities has been raised that due to OHCS's proposal, to expand the definition of "hardest hit" beyond the Treasury Department's original unemployment basis, the application for funding may be disqualified for nonconformance with the federal guidelines. Further as six additional counties in are included under the new OHCS definition, and as those include the most populous counties in the state, they would receive a disproportionate share of the funding intended to benefit counties with the highest unemployment rates. Thus far, the City of Grants Pass, the City of Medford, and Jackson County, have all submitted letters and resolutions recommending that the funds be allocated "substantially" to the original 14 counties which qualified as "hardest-hit" under the U.S. Treasury program guidelines. Page 1 of 2 11TAW, CITY OF -ASH LAN D Related City Policies: None Council Options: Council can approve the resolution or not approve Potential Motions: I move to approve a resolution providing a recommendation to Oregon Housing and Community Services Department regarding allocation of the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funds Attachments: Resolution Letter from OHCS dated June 2, 2010 OHCS Letter from Mayor Stromberg dated May 28, 2010 Letter from the City of Grants Pass dated May 18, 2010 OHCS Letter from the City of Medford dated May 20, 2010 Page 2 of 2 061510 OSCS Resolution.CC.doc INFAW, RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT REGARDING ALLOCATION OF THE OREGON HOMEOWNERSHIP STABILIZATION PROGRAM FUNDS Recitals: A. WHEREAS, Oregon has been designated as a potential recipient of $88 million dollars from the U.S. treasury Department to be used to assist homeowners in avoiding foreclosure and to stabilize neighborhoods and housing markets; and B. WHEREAS, the criteria used by the U.S. Treasury Department to select the recipient states focused primarily on states having large percentages of their citizens living in counties where unemployment rates for the year 2009 were greater than 12%. Oregon was chosen because 14 counties, with nearly 35% of the State population, had unemployment rates in excess of 14%; and C. WHEREAS, the U.S. Treasury Department's Hardest Hit Housing Market program guidelines indicate that the available funding should be allocated "substantially" to the counties "experiencing high concentration of people living in economically distressed areas, these 14 counties with the highest unemployment rates (one of which is Jackson County); and D. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland supports the majority of the funding, with no less than 50%, be allocated to the 14 counties that are the hardest hit in the State of Oregon, the very counties that qualified Oregon to receive Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funds; now, therefore, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That this City Council supports the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program funding allocation with more than 50% going to the hardest hit counties in the State of Oregon in accordance with the U.S. Treasury Hardest Hit Housing Market guidelines. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 • y~~~Oy~ Housing and Community Services ~ 1 11 North Mall Office Building Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor 725 Summer St NE, Suite B RECEIVED salem, OR 97301-1266 (503) 986-2000 JUN 0 7 ^7119 FAX (503) 986-2020 cc. Coµ ~ TTY (503) 986-2100 ~ g ktv n www.ohcs.oregon.gov June 2, 2010 t ~I John Stromberg, Mayor City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor Stromberg: Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the distribution of the state's new resources for the Housing Finance Agency Hardest Hit Fund. As you can imagine, Oregon Housing and Community Services has received many calls and letters from individuals and organizations that would like to have access to the funds. Under the U.S. Department of Treasury's requirements, OHCS must allocate a substantial majority of the funds to those areas of the state that were economically distressed. During our many meetings around the state to gather feedback, many participants urged us to consider factors beyond the 2009 unemployment rate. They encouraged us to look at the magnitude of the increase in unemployment and changing housing values. Based on those recommendations, and in consultation with U.S. Treasury, we worked to modify the allocation to reflect the impact of the current economy across Oregon. OHCS identified four factors that drive economic distress in the state: the 2009 unemployment rate, the change in unemployment between 2007 and 2009, the rate of foreclosure and delinquencies, and the decline in home values from their peak. Using the most current and reliable information available on these four measures, OHCS calculated a "housing distress index" for each Oregon county. In total, 20 counties met the criteria of "hardest hit" or "housing distressed" (see enclosed table). OHCS proposes to allocate the substantial majority of the hardest hit funds to these 20 counties. They include the original 16 counties (Columbia, Coos, Crook, Curry, Deschutes, Douglas, Grant, Harney, Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine, Klamath, Lake, Lane, Linn, and Wallowa), and four additional counties: Clackamas, Marion, Multnomah and Yamhill. OHCS proposed that 80 percent of the hardest hit funds will go to these 20 counties and the balance to the remaining 16 counties. Throughout the updating and revising of this process, we have continued to stay in communication with the U.S. Treasury. John Stromberg, Mayor City of Ashland June 2, 2010 Page 2 In addition, we have included a pilot program to address deeply underwater mortgages in Deschutes and Jackson County. We propose to loan $10 million to a mission-driven organization that will buy homes at their current values and finance at the current value for the homeowner. The U.S. Treasury will have four to six weeks to review our proposed uses for the funds and our allocation methodology. We hope to make the first dollars available in the late summer or early fall. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Please feel free to visit the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Initiative website for the most current information: www.oregonliomeownerhelp.org. Sincerely,, Rick Crager 0 Deputy Director On behalf of Victor Merced, Director Enclosure N m m m X a\\ o 'o o o\ o 'o o\ 0 0 0 \ o ,-0 0 0\\ o o\\ o -a e o f0 , r (D'~ c N -.N r r N - a-'- - ~ w0 SO -.a C M.N O co V MM M(6 (n'.M M M'M N Co M M M N M M "M M M -,t' M M M M M M M V M 4 V C o , r E E m O. T t o ,o ..o \ o o -a \ \ o 0 0 ° o ° \ \ ° o \ e \ \ ° o o :o ° \ ° o \ aD - '«m0 I~ M O tD O O U r N r V- D- oo V7 O o' (O l0 o O V O) O N . )p t0 W O N C4 CO co O N d.. -N N O O.u) I~ O L<) "N O Ol N-0 M co O) ^.N N N_r n O' M O O) (O r M r C 'o, M ~.O r co O~ m C mV CO . p - , \ o o \ \ \ e \ o .o \ \ \ o \ \ 89 c \ \ e .a \ a J \ \ \ \ o \ o a o \ CO (D to N ~ t0 O N _O O (0 O )O Nm m OD M Of N r V O a M M M.O. V M O :w O -p 0 O) C D• N O U N .-.'LO M L6:- m O) ~f) OJ ~-0 N M N M.M V:'M LO ~ O V' O C6, vi N M M 4'.:O u) UI . C Of ..E m - ' O.O O 'O M M ~D M 10 )O M V7_ M.)O VV M N O V O O N E ~m - rn-rnrnrn rnrnrn o- N c o w " n o o o 0 0 O N V O O N'.N O O O N N o l0 M O o p) O ~p O O M' M 0 0 0 c 0 0 d. N O' N O m V r W V O 1~ M 07 N ~.O r~ 0 0 0 0 M n O p M M M r o M- M N V N 7 O) . 0~ W LL7'n r O:n O ~ V M- IT V E6 W N tO N M acp r O.NM. fp-I~: V V N'.N;N (O N u) r a N U7 N O m.M M V (O.N N-~.~ N.N N CO (D '.M V M-~ UJ N I~ N - N ~:O cc~ a C N d N M M O N O- O - tO :N,ONf aJ-:r N-0 h O W O N M N OJ I~ F N r M m J D N M.~ N O u)-M N N'M V N~ N N - N M N N ~ N ~ M~ 7 o O N O O N O M o.: M MO ~ V N O O. ~ O W O O O O N O M O) m' N W p N C 0 ci O O O 6.. * O+O 0-:~ O ci 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 2 ~ T T C T r T C T•J TC ~.Tr J.TC =T, T'-J. w r w T, O T:T T C U C p O J' C T C U J O p .J V'' J Jp a r a .T. U C .C. O U 'm U ,,M J'p 7 U- O J O m'U C. d`U C .L O C U 'p O I c U Y U J.U. 0 0. U O. U Eaa oU O. y:U oU :c cro OUJ VUEJCOm O'AUrn lU c_m U U J'.m U TD: :o c'o 3 O m p -U- c c o O. N E y 'ac L- E d w o. m U U- V y c o, 0'~ U E o u t v ._z J Y C+U J p .O N C E O:Y d m :E .'N m U'L m O:_ N N W' O m 4),:m A O O.A J m 0 i m O m m o 16 m m C C m m 0 J O L E c'm m m L''.R' U Co (m'U U U U U U ❑'0.0 O:2 2:~ Y J J J J ~L 2~ L a in H 7r~ 6ulsnoH 0 0 0 0 0:0 0' O O O`0 0 O S S 2'.S x 2 x Z -2 x 2=- 2 x x x O t7 3!H 3sapJaH - W 6inseajl Bn x 2',S x 2~-x x x x x x x x x O 0 O N CITY OF ASHLAND May 28, 2010 Victor Merced, Director Oregon Housing and Community Services 725 Summer Street, N.E., Suite B Salem, OR 97301 RE: Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program Dear Mr. Merced: The City of Ashland, the second largest jurisdiction in Jackson County, is among one of the areas for unemployment and underemployment in the State of Oregon. Jackson County is included in the 14 counties that qualified the State of Oregon to receive the "Hardest Hit" funds from the U.S. Treasury. The City of Ashland is pleased that the Treasury Department has allocated $88 million to Oregon as a result of the hardest hit counties. The foreclosure situation in our area was caused in large part by the.high unemployment rate in the Medford/Ashland MSA. In 2009, Jackson County's unemployment rate was 13%. Our unemployment rate as of March 2010 is 13.6%. Jackson County has seen the second largest decline in home values in the state and the number of foreclosures in Jackson County continues to rise.. The City of Ashland supports the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program and asks that the majority of funding, with no less than 50%, be allocated to the 14 counties that were hardest hit with unemployment and foreclosures, as per the U.S. Treasury Hardest Hit program guidelines. The Ashland City Council will be presented a resolution for adoption at their next meeting on June 15, 2010 and we will forward a copy of that resolution to you at that time. Sincerely, hn Stromberg OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Tex: 541-088-002 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 w .ashlandv.us - coos vee.<ooom.com..~ City of a S Grants Pass 'May :18; 20,1`a 0 a RECE'IVED' Mayor John Stromberg 20T Main Street MAYr1'i 7010, r 9' Ashland, OR 97520 0: "Hardest Hit" Funding Program i)ear `MayorSt romberg As Mayor ofthe_Cityof Grants•P4ss I am coriWeting you out ofconcern.rclated to the possible ! design for the implementation of a new,grant program aimed,at-helping homeowners suffering from unemployment and possible foreclosure qf their homes. I' am writing to you,now in the event that you w6 not'previously aware of this new grant program to'aid,homeowners ih your City who are'facing',foreclosure,:and!to:take this opportunity to-not only make you?aware of that program, but to seek your assistance,and, input.to'the.plan administrator, "Oregon Housing and "Community Services ("OHCS"),,as it creates the framework for the distribution,of the funding allocated to Oragowi tll8 million dollars). The program was first announced by the,U'.S. Treasury Department through a press'release dated March 29,'20 1 0.entitW "Administ"ration Announces Second Round Assistance for.HardestHit Housing Markets." Thrs'prggram aims primarily at providing monetary assistanceao homeowners who. are unable to pay their mortgages due to.unemploymeat,or underemployment; and Oregon was selectedas one of five second round ecipient states:because it has a high concentration:6fgeople living'in economically distressed areas;; which the Treasury'Department lin,defined as counties in which ;the unemployment rate'exceeded 12%o for'2009. In Oregon, that constitutes 14 counties, and theyare;Columbia, Coos, Crook, Cuny,'Deschutes;' ouglas, Grant, Harney, Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine; IGatnath, Lake and-Linn. OHCS has already held 2-;meetings.in Salem and has held meetings in Medford (May to); Eu ene' Ma . 1.1 Bend Ma 13 and will hold one.n Portland (May 19)`related to the program stru tune. G ants Pass'belie es that thedntcntof the.g' rant rog'ain is to help homeowners in the specific counties and the cities within them which have suffered;thernost economic distress and, highest unemployment during our current' economic recession- L.e. the 14,counties cited,above, and the cities in them. These:are; after all, the counties and cities that have "earned" Oregon-the . grant. In contri&OHCS as the administrator of the.plan, has indicated that it is considering,an approach that would open up,the'allocation of funds'statewide, and if that is done it could have. the result of diverting an appreciable amount,of that funding to, ounties and,cities that' ave not i. .101-Northwest 'A"'Street: , .Grarits't?ass, Oregon 97 526 ie (541)4 74-6360. • FAX (541) 479-0812 www.grantsppssoregon:gov experienced the same level of economic stress as your city has, including the Portland metropolitan area. The Grants Pass City Council is taking the initiative of passing a resolution authorizing its Mayor and Council President to send a letter to OHCS urging OHCS to confine the funding to the areas that earned Oregon the Federal grant (i.e., the 14 hardest hit counties listed above). A copy of that proposed resolution and letter are included for your information. We are sending you this letter in the hope that you agree that the available "Hardest Hit" funding should be confined to the 14 hardest hit counties with cities, such as yours, and that you, as an elected representative of your city, will join in Grants Pass' effort to urge OHCS to formulate its program structure to do so. Please note that if you choose to join Grants Pass in this effort - time is of the essence for your response, since OHCS must submit its proposed plan to the Treasury Department by June 1, 2010. As a result if you seek to have input on the issue you must do so quickly. I urge you to join Grants Pass in this effort to preserve these funds for the residents of these most distressed counties and cities. Should you have any questions regarding this program or this request please feel free to contact David Corsi from the City's staff at (541) 474-6360 ext. 6387. I thank you for your attention to this request and hope you will join us. Sincerely, 4,4 no Mike Murphy Mayor of the City of Grants Pass CF# 10-093 Attachments (2) May 19, 2010 Oregon Housing and Community Services Attn: Victor Merced, Director North Mail Office Building 725 Summer Street, N.E. Ste B Salem, OR 97301-1266 Re: Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program Dear Mr. Merced: The City of Grants Pass, as the largest municipality in, and the seat of county government for, Josephine County is quite anxious for the anticipated implementation of funding provided to Oregon as a result of the "Round 2" allocation of the U.S. Governments "Hardest Hit" funds. As you may know, Josephine County has experienced record breaking levels of foreclosures. In fact, recent statistics from the County's Assessor indicate that the lender owned inventory of homes in Josephine County in the last five months has increased approximately 24% and Notices of Default have virtually doubled over that period. These are indeed ominous signs for the future. This foreclosure situation was caused in no small part by Josephine County's seriously high unemployment rate, a foreclosure factor well recognized by the U.S. Treasury Department in designing the targeting criteria which led to the selection of Oregon as one of the "second round" states and a potential recipient of the "Hardest Hit" funding. Unfortunately our County's reported unemployment rate is actually seriously above the 12% threshold rate utilized by the Treasury Department and now measures approximately 13.3% and appears to be trending upward again. Beyond that we all recognize that the reported rate of unemployment seriously understates actual unemployment rates since the reported statistics do not account for structurally hidden unemployed. It is in this context that Grants Pass was pleased to see the Treasury Department's pronounced emphasis on having "second round" states, such as Oregon, develop fund allocation methodologies that focus specifically on the areas that have exceptionally high concentrations of unemployment, such as Josephine County. We are concerned, however, that recent pronouncements from your staff indicate that only "substantial" ( a term that your staff was unable to define) amounts of the program's funding will be directed at and available to the very counties suffering the most economic distress, and whose distress earned the funding for Oregon to begin with. Page 1 of2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANTS PASS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT TO SIGN AND SENDA LETTER TO OREGON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES RELATED TO THE HARDEST HIT FUNDING ALLOCATED TO OREGON B( THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY WHEREAS: 1. Oregon has been designated as a potential recipient of $88 million dollars from the U.S. Treasury Department to be used to assist homeownersin avoiding foreclosure and to stabilize neighborhoods and housing markets; and 2. The criteria used by the U.S. Treasury Department to select the recipient states focused primarily on states having large percentages of their citizens living in counties where unemployment rates for the year 2009 were greater than 12%. . Oregon was chosen because nearly 35% of its population lives in 14 counties with 2009 unemployment rates in excess of 14%; and 3. While the program's thrust and initial guidelines indicate that the available funding should be allocated exclusively to these 14 hbh unemployment counties (one of which is Josephine County), OHCS is entertaining the thought that funding should be available statewide, and include areas such as Portland, whose unemployment rates would not otherwise qualify the state as a recipient; and 4. The attached letter will convey Council's desire that the funds be used solely for the 14 counties in greatest economic distress and urge OHCS to design its program accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Grants Pfs that the Mayor and Council President are authorized to send the attached letter(Exhibit A). EFFECTIVE DATE of this Resolution shall be immediate upm its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in regularsession this 19v' day of May, 2010. SUBMITTED to and by the Mayor of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, this _ day of May, 2010 to be effective on the date indicated as adopted by the City Council. Michael Murphy, Mayor ATTEST: Date submitted to Mayor: Interim Finance Director Approved as to Form, Mark Bartholomew, City Attorney M ~ ~ E N~ OREGON OFFICE OF CITY OF MEDFORD TELEPHONE (541) 774-2000 THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 411 WEST 8TH STREET FAX: (541)618-1700 E-mail: council&i.medford.orms MEDFORD, OREGON 97501 w .ci.medford.or.us May 20, 2010 Victor Merced, Director Oregon Housing and Community Services 725 Summer Street, N.E. Suite B Salem, OR 97301 RE: Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program Dear Mr. Merced: The City of Medford, the regional center for Jackson County, is among one of the hardest hit areas for unemployment and underemployment in the State of Oregon. Jackson County is included in the 14 counties that qualified the State of Oregon to receive the "Hardest Hit" funds from the U.S. Treasury. The City of Medford is pleased that the Treasury Department has allocated $88 million to Oregon as a result of the hardest hit counties. The foreclosure situation in our area was caused in large part by the high unemployment rate in the Medford area. In 2009, Jackson County's unemployment rate was 13%. Our unemployment rate as of March 2010 is 13.6% and the number of foreclosures in Jackson County continues to rise. The City of Medford supports the Oregon Homeownership Stabilization Program and asks that the majority of funding, with no less than 50%, be allocated to the 14 counties that were hardest hit with unemployment and foreclosures. The Medford City Council passed a resolution in support of this letter and we urge the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department to allocate the majority of the funds to the 14 counties whose economic distress has enabled this funding to be directed to the State of Oregon. Sincerely, Gary H. Wheeler Al Densmore Dick Gordon Mayor Council President Council Vice President Continuous Improvement Customer Service i CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Public Contract for Answering Services (Term of contract exceeds 24 months requiring Council approval) Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Rob Lloyd Department: IT/Electric E-Mail: lloydr@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Finance Secondary Contact: Scott Johnson Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: Consent Question: Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the award of a public contract to Answer Page for a term of one year, with the option of two (2) one-year extensions, for a total of up to three (3) years? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public contract be awarded to Answer Page. Background: The Ashland Police and Fire Departments, as of July 1, 2010, will be changing their emergency call service to Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon (ECSO). ECSO does not handle non-911 calls. Four City departments will share the cost of an answering service to replace after-hours and weekend coverage- Water/Sewer; Electric; Information Technology; and Parks. Calls received by ESCO that are not for Police and Fire will be forwarded to the answering service. The service will then route the call to the appropriate City department if appropriate. The answering service will need to be set up and ready for operations by the City's July 1, 2010, switch to ECSO. The sourcing method for this public contract is an Intermediate Procurement, which requires three (3) written quotes or proposals. After extensive searching, five (5) potential companies that provide answering services were located and each received a copy of the RFP. However, only two (2) proposals were received in response to the RFP. After reviewing the proposals submitted by Answer Page (Medford) and Answer Live (Grants Pass), City staff is recommending the contract be awarded to Answer Page. The proposal submitted by Answer Page was deemed to be the most advantageous to the City because it offers the best cost for services and addresses the needs of the City departments. The term of the intended contract is one (1) year with the option of two (2) one-year extensions for a total of three years. The contract has the potential of exceeding 24 months which requires Council approval. Related City Policies: Section 2.50.0.20 Public Contracting Officer's Authority A. Authority to Execute Contracts Without Prior Council Approval. The Public Contracting Officer may execute without prior Council approval contracts that satisfy all of the following: ii. The contract does not exceed a twenty-four month contract period; Page 1 of 2 li:, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the contract recommendation. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the contract recommendation.. Attachments: Memo - Contract Recommendation V Page 2 of 2 Imo, CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 3, 2010 TO: Kariann Olson FROM: Scott Johnson, Interim Director of Electric Utilities Rob Lloyd, Director of Information Technology RE: Contract Award to Answer Page The Ashland Police and Fire Departments, as of July 1, 2010, will be changing its emergency call service to Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon (ECSO). Therefore, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to solicit an answering service required by four main departments within the City: Water/Sewer; Electric; Information Technology; and Parks Departments. The City received two proposals from Answer Page of Medford and Answer Live of Grants Pass. Upon careful review, the City determined that Answer Page of Medford was the most advantageous with the best cost services that would address all the different departments involved. The contract award is a 1- year contract with an option to review usage after three months to determine if we are in the best possible plan they offer based on our actual after hour calls. The City would have the option of reviewing and renewing the contract for two additional one-year periods at the end of each year. We now need to execute the contact with Answer Page, utilizing their Large User Plan, which includes a basic $1,890.00 amoral cost that includes 200 units per month plus $0.58 per additional unit of the overage. The definition of a "unit" is a transaction (per call). Each department would be responsible for %4 of the annual cost ($472.50) and, any overage charges they cause in excess of the allotted monthly units. Scott Johnson Rob Lloyd Interim Director of Electric Utilities Director of Information Technology Chief Information Officer Electric Dept Tel: 5474885357 90 N Mountain St Fax: 541552 2438 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY. 80735-2900 wwashland.atus CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Re-Appointment to Housing Commission Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb n ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent v' Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's re-appointment of Nick Frost to the Housing Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's re-appointment to the Housing Commission of Nick Frost. After reviewing attendance record for Commissioner Nick Frost who had two unexcused absences subsequent to the passage of new rules related to business needs of an advisory commission, the Housing Commission recommended that Commissioner Frost be re-appointed to his vacated seat. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.10.025 Meetings and Attendance Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's re-appointment of Nick Frost to the Housing Commission. Potential Motions: Motion to approve re-appointment of Nick Frost to the Housing Commission with a term to.expire April 30, 2011. Attachments: Housing Commission Report Page I of I CITY OF ASHLAND Housing Commission Report RE: Commissioner Attendance Report Date: June 2, 2010 Honorable Mayor and Council: At its regular Meeting held on May 22nd 2010, the City of Ashland Housing Commission reviewed Commissioner Nick Frost's recent attendance record with regard to the Ashland Municipal Code 2.10.25 (the rules that govern the City's commissions and advisory committees). Commissioner Frost had two unexcused absences subsequent to the passage of these new rules (Ord 3003). Section 2.10.025 Meetings and Attendance. Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of meetings related to business needs of an advisory commission, or boards may be set by the advisory body. All members are expected to attend all regularly scheduled meetings, study sessions and special meetings, when applicable. If a member will be absent from a meeting the member must notify the chair or the staff liaison at least two hours prior to the meeting. Any member who has two or more unexcused absences in a six month period fl. e. January 1- June 30 or July 1- December 31] shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Further any member not attending a minimum of two-thirds (213) of all scheduled meetings (inclusive of study sessions and special meetings) shall be considered inactive and the position vacant. Attendance shall be reviewed by the commission or board during the regularly scheduled meetings in January and July, with a report sent to the Mayor and City Council advising of the need for appointment or re-appointment, if necessary. (Ord 3003, added, 0211812010) Per Section 2.10.025 of the Ashland Municipal Code as shown above, any Commission member's seat would be considered vacant following two unexcused absences during the six month period beginning January 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2010. As stipulated in the ordinance, the Housing Commission is to forward a recommendation to the Mayor and Council regarding Commissioner Frost's removal as a Housing Commissioner due to his unexcused absences. Commissioner Frost's has expressed continued interest in serving on the Commission, and thus the Housing Commission unanimously recommends that Commissioner Frost be re-appointed to his vacated seat. Thank you, Steve Hauck Chairman, Ashland Housing Commission Department of Community Development Tel: 5410-88-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 5410-88-5311 As W_, Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us 2010 Housing Commission Meeting Attendance Report January All Present February Meeting canceled due to lack of quorum- Nick Frost-Absent/unexcused Steve Hauck-Absent/excused March Nick Frost-Absent/unexcused April Meeting canceled due to lack of quorum Nick Frost-Absent/unexcused Steve Hauck-Absent/unexcused Regina Ayers-Absent/excused May All Present CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Forest Lands Commission Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb(ruashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Mayor's Office Secondary Contact: Mayor Stromberg Approval: Martha Berne Estimated Time: Consent i Question: Does the City Council wish to confirm the Mayor's appointment of Melody Noraas as the Parks Commission liaison to the Forest Lands Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2011? Staff Recommendation: None Background: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Forest Lands Commission of Melody Noraas as Parks Commission liaison. Related City Policies: Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 Council Options: Approve or disapprove Mayor's appointment. Potential Motions: Motion to approve appointment of Melody Noraas to the Forest Lands Commission as Parks Commission liaison with a term to expire April 30, 2011. Attachments: None Page 1 of 1 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Special Procurement of Aluminum Sulfate for WTP Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Micheal Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: fauglitm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Water Treatme t t Secondary Contact: Greg Hunter Approval: Martha Be Estimated Time: Consent Statement: Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve a Special Procurement for the direct award (purchase) of Aluminum Sulfate 48.5% from Rhodia for a term of five (5) years? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Special Procurement for Rhodia Aluminum Sulfate 48.5% be approved for a term of three (5) years, beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2015. Background: A Special Procurement is a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures required for an Intermediate Procurement (3-written quotes), Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposal. The proposed procedure being recommended is direct award per the attached Request for a Special Procurement. Related City Policies: The related rules of procedures are included in the attached Request for a Special Procurement. Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the request for Special Procurement. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the request for a Special Procurement. Attachments: Request for a Special Procurement Rhodia's Formal Notification (Letter) Pagc I of I CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL Greater than $5,000 To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Greg Hunter,.WTP Supervisor Date: June 7, 2010 Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Water Treatment Plant (Public Works) 2. Department Contact Name: Greg Hunter, WTP Supervisor 3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement 4. Time Period Requested: From July 1.2010 To: June 30, 2015 5. Total Estimated Cost: FY 2011 Estimate - $47.790.00 Five (5) Year Estimate - $250.000.00 6. Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired This Special Procurement is for the direct award (purchase) of Aluminum Sulfate (48.5% Concentration) from Rhodia. This chemical is extremely important because it assists with the treatment process that makes water safe to drink by removing pathogens and other contaminants. The City has been using the alum manufactured by Rhodia for over 20 years. This product continues to be reliable and consistent in the treatment of potable water, and the use of aluminum sulfate fulfills the state mandated requirements for processing surface supplied drinking water. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Fotms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. An Invitation to Bid was processed for several WTP chemicals in 2008, and on file with the City's Purchasing Department, located at 90 North Mountain Avenue, Ashland, Oregon. One of the Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 4, 619/2010 chemicals specified was specifically Rhodia Aluminum Sulfate, and Rhodia Aluminum Sulfate can only be directly from Rhodia. We have used the Aluminum Sulfate, provided by Rhodia, for numerous years and found it to work very well. Since the city operates its treatment plant under strict State and Federal guidelines, it is critical that the city have products that we know will work efficiently in our water treatment process. WTP staff is now seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process to purchase Aluminum Sulfate directly from Rhodia. 8.. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. Aluminum Sulfate must also remain in a state of suspension and not come out of solution nor crystallize in the WTP storage tank. Rhodia's Aluminum Sulfate does not crystallize. In addition, the WTP requires chemicals that enable the water filtration system to meet and/or exceed all of the current Federal and State Drinking Water Regulations as promulgated under the authority of the environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oregon Department of Health Services (ODHS). 9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement: (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because: Not applicable (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.); and (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because: Not applicable (Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or (b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 2796.055, 279B.060, 279B.065, or 27913.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because: Most importantly, the use of Rhodia's Aluminum Sulfate is a consistent and reliable product that assists with the treatment process that makes the City's water safe to drink. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.) Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 4, 6/912010 Public Notice: Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting Agency shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract. Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us - [June 16.10101 * * PENDING COUNCIL APPRO VAL ON JUNE 15, 2020 PUBLIC NOTICE Approval of a Special Procurement First date of publication: June 16. 2010 A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on June 16, 2010. The Special Procurement is a "Contract- specific special procurement " and allows for the direct award (purchase) of Aluminum Sulfate from Rhodia. This chemical has been used by the WTP for over 20 years and continues to be a dependable and reliable product for the state mandated treatment of potable water. It assists with the treatment process to make water safe to drink by removing pathogens and other contaminants. The WTP requires chemicals that will enable the waterfrltration system to meet and/or exceed all of the current Federal and State Drinking Water Regulations as promulgated under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Oregon Department of Health Services (ODHS). It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 279B.055, 279B.060, 27913.065, or 27913.070. An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Kari Olson, Purchasing Representative, 90 N. Mountain, Ashland, OR 97520. The seven (7) protest period will expire at 5:00pm on [June 24. 20101. This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a Special Procurement. Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 4, 61912010 Authority to enter into a Special Procurement: AMC 2.50.070 Procedures for Competitive Bids All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Bidding pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Attorney General ,Llodel Rules, OAR Chapter 137 Divisions 46 - 49, except for the following: G. Special procurements as setforth ORS 279B.085 and herein. ORS 279B.085 Special procurements. (I) As used in this section and ORS 2798.400: (a) "Class special procurement" means a contracting procedure that differs from the procedures described in ORS 279B.055, 179B.060, 179B.065 and 279B.070 and is jar the purpose of entering into a series of contracts over time for the acquisition of a specified class ofgoods or services. (b) "Contract-specific special procurement" means a contracting procedure that di ers from the procedures described in ORS 279B. 055, 279B. 060, 279B. 065 and 279B. 070 and is jar the purpose of entering into a single contract or a number of related contracts for the acquisition of specified goods or services on a one-time basis or for a single project. (c) "Special procurement" means, unless the context requires otherwise, a class special procurement, a contract-specific special procurement or both. (2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, to seek approval of a special procurement, a contracting agency shall submit a written request to the Director of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services or the local contract review board, as applicable, that describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class ofgoods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this section. (3) When the contracting agency is the office of the Secretary of State or the office of the Sate Treasurer, to seek approval of a special procurement, the contracting agency shall submit a written request to the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer, as applicable, that describes the proposed contracting procedure, the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a Specia/procurement under the standards set forth in subsection (4) of this section. (4) The director, a local contract review board the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer may approve a special procurement if the director, board, Secretary of State or State Treasurer finds that a written request submitted under subsection (2) or (3) of this section demonstrates that the use of a special procurement as described in the request, or an alternative procedure prescribed by the director, board, Secretary of State or State Treasurer, will: (a) Be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding ofpublic contracts or to substantially diminish competition jar public contracts; and (b) (A) Result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public; or (B) Otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with requirements that are applicable under ORS 279B. 055, 2798.060, 179B. 065 or 279B. 070 or under any rules adopted thereunder. (5) Public notice of the approval of a proposed special procurement most be given in the same manner as provided in ORS 2798.055 (4). (6) I for contract is awarded through a special procurement, the contracting agency shall award the contract to the offeror whose offer the contracting agency determines in writing to be the most advantageous to the contracting agency. (7) When the director, a local contract review board, the Secretary of State or the State Treasurer approves a class specia/procurement under this section, the contracting agency may award contracts to acquire goods or services within the class ofgoods or services in accordance with the terms of the approval without making a subsequent request for a special procurement. [2003 c.794 §57; 2005 c. 103 §8d] OAR 137-047-0285 Special Procurements (1) Generally. A Contracting Agency may Award a Contract as a Special Procurement pursuant to the requirements of ORS 279B. 085. (2) Public Notice. A Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B. 055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement. The Contracting Agency shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract. (3) Protest. An Affected Person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 279B.400 and OAR 137-047-0700. Form #9 - Special Procurement -Request for Approval, Page 4 of 4, 61912010 dr.'Dhadia June 1, 2010 Kari Olson Purchasing Representative City of Ashland 90 N. Mountain Ave Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Kari Please consider this formal notification that Rhodia will maintain its current price of $442.50, per ton, for the Aluminum Sulfate (ALUM) currently supplied to City of Ashland. This price will be firm from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. Rhodia's Aluminum Sulfate (ALUM) can only be purchased though Rhodla Inc by contacting customer service at 800 642-4200 or by emailing ecocsfax@us.rhodia.com. If you have any questions concerning this notification, please feel free to contact me at (609) 860-3666. i Sincerely, Amy Schwartz Associate Market Manager I I I Rhodia, Inc., CN 7500, Cranbury, NJ 68512-7500 (609) 860-3666 Phone-(609)860-2223 Fax CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Appointment to Ashland Community Healthcare Services Board of Directors Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder's Office E-Mail: christeb@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Bennet Estimated Time: Consent Question: Should the City Council approve the reappointments of Steve Minor, Anne Golden and Carol Christlieb as recommended by the Board of Directors for the Ashland Community Hospital? Staff Recommendation: None Background: Ashland Community Healthcare Services Articles of Incorporation Article VIII (B) gives the authority and responsibility to the City of Ashland (Member) to appoint the Corporation's Directors based on the criteria set forth in Articles IX. The Bylaws of Ashland Community Healthcare Services Section 4.4 state that the Board shall consider potential candidates and forward such recommendations to the Member for its consideration when appointing persons to fill vacancies on the Board of Directors. The Council approved the request by Ashland Community Hospital to amend the Articles of Incorporation for the Ashland Community Healthcare Services to permit a full 12 directors plus retain the past Chair of the Board for an additional year on the Board of Directors. Related City Policies: City Charter Article 10, Ordinance adoption Council Options: Approve or disapprove Ashland Community Healthcare Services recommended appointments. Potential Motions: Motion to approve recommended 4-year reappointments with terms beginning July 1, 2010 and ending June 30, 2014 of Steve Minor, Anne Golden and Carol Christlieb. Attachments: Letter of Recommendation Ashland Community Hospital May 21, 2010 Ashland City Council eio Barbara Christensen 20 E. Main Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ms. Christensen, At the April 16th, 2010 meeting of the Board of Directors of Ashland Community Hospital, the Board approved and recommends to the City the appointment of the following individuals to a second four-year term on the Board. Steve Miner Anne Golden Carol Christlieb These appointments are for the term July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2014. Sincerely, Mark E. Marchetti Presideni/Chief Executive Officer 280 Maple Strcet, Ash'and, Oregon 97520 www.ash la ndhosp ital.org Tel: 541.201,4010 • Fan: 541.488.7.111 it r CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Title III Jackson County Funding Program for Ashland Fire and Rescue Meeting Date: 06/15/2010 Primary Staff Contact: John Kams Department: Fire Department E-Mail: karnsj@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: John Karns Approval: Martha Bennett Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Does the Council wish to approve a funding agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for the Ashland Firewise Communities Recognition Program (Title III)? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the Title III funding agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County. Background: Ashland Fire and Rescue has previously participated in Title III grant programs for wildland interface fuels management support and the implementation of Firewise public outreach projects. Ashland Fire and Rescue has recently applied and received approval for a Title III grant for implementing a Firewise Communities Program for Ashland. It is recognized that this funding agreement requires Council approval to move forward. The Firewise Communities Program involves homeowners, community leaders, planners, developers, and others in the effort to protect people, property, and natural resources from the risk of wildland fire before a fire starts. The Firewise Communities approach emphasizes community responsibility for planning in the design of a safe community as well as effective emergency response, and individual responsibility for safer home construction and design, landscaping, and maintenance. Information on this program was provided to the Citizen's Budget Committee during Ashland Fire and Rescue's budget presentation. Ashland Fire and Rescue wishes to expand the level of public awareness concerning the challenges of living safely in the wildland interface. An increased level of citizen involvement is critical to reduce loss of lives, property, and resources to wildland fire by building and maintaining communities in a way that is compatible with our natural surroundings The Firewise Communities Program is.a nationally recognized effort that is an integral part of this local process. The Firewise Communities Program will work in concert with the other efforts of local and regional organizations to produce a safer community. Fiscal Impact: This funding agreement would fund approximately $47,000 for staff costs for the Ashland Firewise Communities Program. There would also be approximately $5,000 for other program costs. Page 1 of2 Council Communication Firewise.doc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: Council can: • Approve the funding agreement • Deny the funding agreement • Table the proposal Potential Motions: ■ I move that the City Attachments: Exhibit A: Funding Agreement and Project Submission for Ashland Firewise Communities Recognition Program Page 2 of 2 Council Communication Firewise.doc Mr, FUNDING AGREEMENT Terms and Conditions for Jackson County Funding for: Ashland Firewise Communities Recognition Program Public Law 110-343, Title III Recipient Name: City of Ashland - Fire & Rescue OFFICE USE ONLY Dept. Contact Person: Chris Chambers Title III Category: Address: 455 Siskiyou Blvd., Ashland, OR 97520 Amount of Award: $52,000 Phone (54.1)552-2066 Fax (541) 488-5318 E-mail: chambercOashland.or.us Term of this Agreement:. 7/1/10 to.6/30/11 Business License # Business License # PROJECT 2608 State Business Registry # Tax Identification # Business type: _ 501 C3 LLC Partnership -Other A. Preamble: Financing for this project is subject to the availability of federal funding. The Parties understand that continued federal funding for this grant depends on demonstration that the project is successfully implemented and satisfies the applicable purposes set forth in PL 110-343. The following description of the project may be general in nature. The Parties may request to make adjustments to the Project in order to better accomplish the nature and purposes set forth in PI 110-343. Such requests will be subject to approval by Jackson County. B. Definitions: t) "BoC" means Jackson County Board of Commissioners. 2) "Department" means Department of Economic and Special Development. 3) "Parties" means Jackson County and Recipient. 4) "Project" means subject matter for which Recipient is receiving funds. 5) "Project Manager" means that person which is responsible for administering the County's Title III program. 6) . "Recipient" means person or entity receiving Title III funds pursuant to terms of this Agreement. C. Funding Objectives: 1) To establish and conduct programs that further the intent and purpose of Public Law 110- 343. 2). To achieve project as described in Exhibit A, herein attached and incorporated by reference. D. Funding Outcomes: FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page I I) See Exhibit A. E. Funding Conditions: 1) The Recipient may use the grant funds only to meet objectives established under PL 110- 343 and those elections made by Jackson County Board of Commissioners for Title III projects, Order 84-10. 2) Any change or adjustment to the Project (excluding changes that increase the budget total for the Project, which will always require BoC approval), or any change or adjustment to the budget of greater than 10% of a major budget category as described, in Appendix A, shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Project Manager. If the Project Manager determines the proposed change materially alters the project, a contract amendment shall be required for the change to become effective. 3) Any monies Recipient has expended between July I, 2010 and the date of execution of this Agreement and which would otherwise be authorized expenses that are reflected in preparation for and/or provided services applicable to this Agreement will be reimbursed under this Agreement. 4) Unless otherwise provided, all unexpended funds and/or property existing at the end of the term of this Agreement will be returned to the County. F. Payment of Funds: By accepting these funds, Recipient acknowledges and certifies that Recipient is aware it is receiving federal funds which are subject to Single Audit requirements if the dollar threshold is met as provided under: U.S. Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Circular A-133, Audits of Stare, Local Government, & Non Profit Organizations. (The circular can be obtained from www.whitehous<¢o~,ombk'eulars) I) The Project Account Number, stated on Page 1, shall be referenced on all correspondence including, but not limited to invoices and.progress reports. Correspondence or other documents without this identification will be returned and invoices unpaid. 2) The Recipient shall submit invoices, together with progress reports, to the project account number by delivery to the Department of Economic and Special Development (the "Department"). These invoices shall reflect services for the quarter ending September 30, December 31, March 31, and June 30, and shall be due for such services within thirty (30) days of each respective date. Applicant may submit invoices monthly, but those invoices coinciding with the end of the quarter shall be accompanied by progress reports. If no activity has occurred during the quarter, applicant shall notify the Project Manager in writing. 3) The invoices shall describe all services performed with particularity, by whom and on the date it was performed, the number of hours spent performing such work, and shall itemize and explain all expenses for which reimbursement is claimed. Invoices shall be sent to the Department with the progress report attached. 4) The Department shall.reimburse project expenses upon approval of invoices. 5) Notwithstanding any of the above, Recipient shall maintain all fiscal records relating to this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and federal circulars (as applicable). In addition, Recipient shall maintain any other records pertinent to this contract in such a manner as to clearly document Recipient's performance hereunder. G. Program Review and Record Inspection: Recipient shall permit authorized representatives of Jackson County to review the records of Recipient in order to evaluate Recipient's compliance FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page 2 with the use of grant funds for achieving program goals and objectives and shall permit authorized representatives of Jackson County to perform site reviews of all services covered by this grant. H. Property Acquisition: Recipient must obtain Department advice and consent to any purchase of real property, capital improvements, vehicle purchases and/or other expenditures for property in which such expenditure exceeds $5,000. 1. Modification: Any modifications to this grant shall be in writing and signed by both parties before they become effective. J. Conveyance, Assignment or Transfer: Recipient shall not enter into any subcontracts for any of the work required by this Agreement, or assign or transfer any of its interest in this Agreement, without the prior written consent of Department. The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns, if any. K. Termination: 1) This grant agreement may be terminated by: a. The mutual consent of the parties, or b. By either party upon thirty (30) days written notice unless a shorter period is agreed to by both parties. Notice of termination shall be accomplished in writing, and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. County may terminate or modify this Agreement, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Recipient, or at such later date as may be established by County, under any of the following conditions: i if County funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the grant of necessary funding; ii If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for funding under.this agreement or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this agreement; or iii If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Recipient to provide the services required by this Agreement is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach: i Either County or Recipient may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the patty committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the Agreement maybe terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii Time is of the essence for Recipient's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this Agreement. County, by written notice to Recipient of default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page 3 any part of this Agreement if Recipient fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii The rights and remedies of County provided in this subsection d are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 2) Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this Agreement pursuant to subsections a, b or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section K, Recipient shall immediately cease all activities under this Agreement, unless expressly directed otherwise by County in the notice of termination. Further; upon termination, Recipient shall deliver to County all Agreement documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the Agreement been completed. County shall pay Recipient for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Agreement. 3) Jackson County may, however, in its sole discretion, upon discovery of ally violations of any provision of this grant agreement, cause funds or services to be withheld, reduced, or terminated, pending correction of the violation(s). Upon correction of the violation(s), the terms, provision, and conditions of this grant agreement may be reinstated at the option of Jackson County. L. Reimbursement to Jackson County: In the event Recipient cannot or will not comply with the conditions of this agreement, Recipient shall repay to Jackson County the funding reasonably determined as not used in compliance with this Agreement. In the event Recipient cannot or will not repay such funding, Jackson County, in its sole discretion, shall be entitled to obtain a money judgment in the amount reasonably determined as not used in compliance with this Agreement. M. Independent Contractor: The Recipient represents and warrants that Recipient (i) is not an employee of Jackson County, Oregon, (ii) is not currently. employed by the Federal Government, and (iii) meets the specific independent contractor standards, of ORS 670.600. Recipient is not an "officer", "employee", or "agent" of Jackson County, as those terms are used in ORS 30.265. N. Compliance with Laws: Recipient agrees to be further bound by and shall comply with all federal, state statutes, rules, regulations, local laws and ordinances applicable to the grant agreement. Specific laws include but are not limited to those provided in Exhibit B, herein attached and incorporated. Recipient shall maintain all licenses, certificates, authorizations and other approvals required by applicable law to deliver the service(s) provided under this grant agreement. 0. Indemnification. Recipient shall indemnify, defend, and save harmless Jackson County, and its officers, employees, and agents, from and against all claims, suits, actions, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses of any nature whatsoever resulting from, arising out of or relating to the operations of the Recipient, including, but not limited to the activities of Recipient or its officers, employees, subcontractors or agents in relation to this grant agreement. FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page 4 P. Funds Available and Authorized: County has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure-to finance the costs of this Agreement within the County's fiscal year budget. Recipient understands and agrees that County's payment of amounts under this Agreement attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on County appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow County, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this Agreement. In the event the County has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, County may terminate this Agreement without penalty or liability to the County, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Recipient, with no further liability to Recipient. Q. Litigation or Settlement of Disputes. If suit or action is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shalt be entitled to recover from the losing party, in addition to all other sums and allowable costs, its reasonable attorney fees, both in preparation for and at trial and any appeal or review, such amount to be set by the court before which the matter is heard. For purposes of this section, attorney fees may include the reasonable value of the services of in-house or staff counsel. R. Merger Clause: This grant agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties. Such waiver,. consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement. Recipient, by signature of its authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that s/he has read this agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. If Recipient is a corporation, each individual executing this grant agreement on behalf of said corporation represents and warrants, that s/he is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Grant Agreement on behalf of said corporation, in accordance with the by-laws of said corporation, and that this grant agreement is binding upon said corporation. RECIPIENT JACKSON COUNTY By: (Date) Danny Jordan (Date) County Administrator FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page 5 EXHIBIT A ' PL 110-343 Title III Project Submission Form for Jackson Countv EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 2008, TITLE VI, SEC. 601 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self=Determination Act Name of Project: Ashland Firewise Communities Recognition Program Date Project Submission Form To Be Returned To Matt Michaelis: February 19, 2010 Date Project Submitted: February 191b, 2010 Project Sponsor: City of Ashland, Ashland Fire & Rescue Sponsor's Address: 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Contact Person: Chris Chambers, Forest Resource Specialist Phone: 541-552-2066 Fax: 541A88-5318 E-Mail: chamberc@ashland.or.us. Project Is Authorized Under The Following Category (see Sec. 302(a)): (choose only one) X Activities Under the Firewise Community Program ❑ Reimbursement for Search, Rescue, Firefighting or Other Emergency Services on Federal land ❑ Develop Community Wildfire Protection Plan Project Location: City of Ashland's Wildfire Hazard Zone (Wildland Urban Interface) Other Identifiers: (geographic location, road name or number, stream name) The project will be limited to residences within the City limits and inside the defined Wildfire Hazard Zone. Project Description (include work windows or other limitations/restrictions/public or private land): Title III funds will support one full time staff person who will create and implement a-Firewise Communities recognition program in Ashland. The goal of this program will be to get Ashland national recognition through the federally sponsored Firewise Communities organization within two to three years. The recent Siskiyou Fire emphasized the need for widespread community wildfire preparations. Firewise Communities is a nationally recognized program thathas demonstrated success creating safer communities throughout the country. The state of Oregon has relatively few sanctioned Firewise Communities and we look forward to creating a model for other Oregon cities to follow. This coincides with the implementation of State Senate Bill 360 in Jackson County. Project Goals and Objectives: 1. Establish a process by which the entire affected area within the City limits receives Firewise recognition within three years. 2. Hire a coordinator for this program by at least July 1, 2010. 3. Train the coordinator in Firewise home safety standards through an on-line class and field experience. 4. Coordinate with the Oregon Department of Forestry, the national Firewise Communities - 1 • program, and local organizations in order to develop a programmatic approach to the ultimate goal of Firewise recognition. 5. Establish and advertise Firewise standards for individual homes. 6. Create a tracking system to gauge progress toward the goal of Firewise Communities status. Is There An Opportunity To Tie To An Associated Title II Project? Explain: There are no current Title 11 projects in the Ashland area. The project will augment aprevious Title III project as well as the Ashland Forest Resiliency project on U.S. Forest Service land in the Ashland watershed. Proposed Method Of Accomplishment: I j Contract f j Volunteers [ ) Agency (FS/BLM) Employees I ] County I J County Corrections (adult/ juvenile) I l Non-Profit JXl Other: City Employee Current Status Of Project Preparation: Considerable work has been done over the past 10 years both raising awareness of wildfire issues and creating defensible space around homes in the wildfire zone. A 2009 Title III grant has been successful in getting homeowners to meet Firewise standards, increasing the likelihood of the largerarea receiving recognition. The City has contacted the State Firewise Communities coordinator to get further information about the process of becoming a recognized Firewise Community, as well as other already recognized communities to gain insight into the process. The current Ashland Fire Chief came to Ashland in 2009 hom-the city of Beverly Hills, a recognized Firewise Community and shares his experience and knowledge of the Firewise Communities program. Contact Person(s) For Project Specific Documentation: Chris Chambers, Forest Resource Specialist Telephone Number(s) For Contact(s): 541-552-2066 How Does The Project Benefit The Community? Ashland's wildfire hazard area has the highest hazard rating in Jackson County and potentially in the State of Oregon as well. The current estimate is that between 25% and 50% of homes meet Firewise standards for.safety and the minimum requirement for recognition is 85%. A large wildfire could lead to the loss of many homes and potentially lives as well. The project will allow the Citv to bring together residents of the wildfire zone toward a common goal of area-wide wildfire safety. The extent of this effort requires a full time staff member to guide the initial process. Duration Of The Project: This initial Title III request is for one year of funding. We anticipate a request in the next fiscal years of the Title III program if the first year is successful. The City will maintain the Firewise credential once it is established, anticipating that upkeep will take much less effort than the initial certification. 2 Anticipated Cost of Project (itemize): • Review And Consultation Costs: • Contract Preparation And Administration Costs: • Materials And Supplies: $7,000 dollars for media, brochures, website, and mailine related to the Firewise Communities program. • Monitoring: • Other Costs: $45,000 for Firewise Communities program coordinator salary and/o benefits. • Indirect Costs (overhead): City will pay the Indirect Costs. TOTAL COST' ESTIMATE: $ 52,000 Estimated Start Date OFProject: July 1, 2010 Estimated Completion Date of Project: June. 30, 2011 Is This A Multi-Year Funding Request? ( X I No Yes (if yes, display by fiscal year) Federal FY09 Request: FYIO Request: FYI I Request: FY 12 Request: Identify Source(s) Of Other Funding For Project: The City of Ashland will contribute approximately $31,920 dollars during this funding period toward the proposed Firewise Coordinator position. The represents 42% of the position cost with benefits. Project Accomplishments / Expected Outcomes: The Firewise Communities Coordinator will coordinate program guidance and planning that will result in a formalized plan leading to Firewise Communities recognition in 2-3 years. The Coordinator will create a public information campaign explaining the Firewise standards for homeowners and the overall program goals. The Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Fire Chief and referenced as a deliverable to the County doing the project. The Coordinator will establish a measure of progress toward Firewise status that will serve as a reporting tool back to the County, State, Firewise national program, and community leaders. The project will ultimately result in an increased number of homes meeting Firewise standards and ultimately a significantly decreased loss of homes during a wildfire. How Is Project In The Public Interest? The project increases the effectiveness of fire suppression efforts during a wildfire and could prevent loss of life and property values in the City's wildfire zone. The project also increases the effectiveness of- suppression resources that might otherwise be dedicated to homes on fire. The result is that more resources can be dedicated to protection of natural resources such as the upslope Ashland Municipal Watershed. Will Project Create a Product Or Benefit To Federal Resource? The majority of the Ashland Watershed area bordering the upper City limits is federal land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Increased compliance with Firewise home safety standards decreases the risk faced by federal land managers when using prescribed fire, which is planned as part of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, set to begin in Spring of 2010 and last for at least 10 years. 3 Monitoring And Reporting Plan To Measure Outcome (how will you determine how well the proposed project meets the desired objectives): In year one of this project the measurable outcomes will be a Firewise Communities program plan and guidance, a tracking system for attainment of Firewise Communities status including an analysis of progress to date, and the number of homes that have attained Firewise standards during the grant period. Official recognition is not a goal for the first year of the program. Other Comments: Submitted To: Jackson County By: Chris Chambers, Forest Resource Specialist, Ashland Fire & Rescue. Address: 455 Siskivou Blvd, Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541-552-2066 Date: February 19. 2010 Title 111 Project Certification Date notice of proposed project was.published: Date Project description was mailed to RACs with area jurisdiction: Date 45-day public comment period closed: Date project approved by county: Amount spent on project during the calendar year: 2009$ 2010S 2011 $ 20125 4 EXHIBIT B 1. Miscellaneous Federal Provisions. Recipients shall comply with all federal laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the Contract or to the conduct of Activities. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Recipients shall comply with the following laws, regulations and executive orders to the extent they are applicable to the Contract: (a) Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (b) Sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (c) Executive Order 11246, as amended, (d) the Age Discrimination in EmploymentAct of 1967, as amended, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (e) the Vietnam Era Veteran's Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, (f) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws, (g) all other applicable requirements of federal civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations, (h) all federal laws requiring reporting. ofclieint abuse. These laws, regulations and executive orders are incorporated by reference herein to the extent that they are applicable to the Contract and required by law to be so incorporated. No federal funds may be used to conduct Activities in violation of 42 USC 14402. 2. Cost. Principles. With respect to federal funds received by County under this Contract, Recipient is to comply with the cost principles determined in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-87, " Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments." Federal funds received by County under this Contract from the sources identified in this Agreement are subject to the audit requirements under the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations". Recipient shall comply with the applicable audit requirements and responsibilities set forth in OMB Circular A-133. 3. Equal Employment Opportunity. if this Contract, including amendments, is for more than $10,000, then Recipient shall comply with Executive Order 11375, and as supplemented in Agency of Labor regulations (41 CFR Part 60). OMB Circular A- 102, ¶ 14.c. 4. Clean Air, Clean Water, EPA Regulations. If this Contract, including amendments, exceeds $100,000 then Recipient shall comply with all applicable standards, orders, or requirements issued under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 (h), Section 508 of the Clean Water Act. (33 U.S. C. 1368), Executive Order 11738, and. Environmental Protection Agency regulations (40 CFR Part 15), which prohibit the use under non-exempt Federal contracts, grants or loans of facilities included on the EPA List of Violating Facilities. Violations shall be reported to the County. Recipients receiving more than $100,000 in Federal Funds must comply with the federal laws identified in this section. OMB Circular A-102,1 14.i. 5. -Energy Efficiency. Recipient shall comply with applicable mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency that are contained in the Oregon energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94-165). OMB Circular A-105,¶ 14.j. 6. Truth in Lobbying. The Recipient certifies, to the best of its' knowledge and belief that: a. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of Recipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employeeof any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any 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 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 any such officer, employee or member 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. This certification is a material representation of facts upon which reliance was placed when this Contract was made or entered into. Submission of the certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this Contract imposed FUNDING AGREEMENT - Page 6 by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. 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. 7. Resource Conservation and Recovery. Recipients shall comply with all mandatory standards and policies that relate to resource conservation and recovery pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (codified at 42 USC 6901 et. seq.). Section 6002 of that Act (codified at 42 USC 6962) requires that preference be given in procurement programs to the purchase of specific products containing recycled materials identified in guidelines developed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Current guidelines are set.forth in 40 CFR Parts 247-253. 8. Debarment and Suspension. Recipient shall not permit any person or entity to be used if the person of entity is listed on the non-procurement portion of the General Service Administration's "List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement Programs" in accordance with Executive Orders No. 12,549 and No. 12,689, "Debarment and Suspension". (See 45 CFR part 76). This list contains the names and parties debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded by agencies, and contractors declared ineligible under statutory authority other than Executive Order No. 12549. Recipients with awards that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold shalt provide the required certification regarding their exclusion status and that of their principals prior to award. 9. ADA. Recipient is to comply with Title 11 of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (codified at 42 USC 12131 et. seq.) in the construction , remodeling, maintenance and operation of any structures and facilities, and in the conduct of all programs, services and training associated with the conduct of Activities. 10. Pro-Children Act. Recipient shall comply with the Pro-Children Act of 1995 (codified at 20 USC section 6081 et. seq.). FUNDING AGREEMENT- Page 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Public Hearing to Consider Adopting the Annual Budget Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Lee Tuneberg Department: Administrative Services E-Mail: tuneberl@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: None Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will Council adopt the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Annual Budget as presented or with modifications? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the accompanying four Resolutions and the reading by title only of the Ordinance. Background: The Budget Committee and/or Budget Sub Committee met nine times this spring and thoroughly reviewed this budget. On May 13, 2010, the Budget Committee met and approved the budget and recommended it for adoption. The Council must take the actions listed below to establish the FY 2010-2011 budget. Oregon Budget law allows the elected body to increase expenditures by $5,000 or 10% (whichever the greater) of any fund without further review and approval by the Committee. Council cannot increase the tax rate without republishing the amended budget and a second hearing before July 1. Total changes to a fund beyond 10% also would require re-publishing the amended budget and holding another public hearing prior to July 1. A summary memo is provided that identifies changes made to the proposed budget to create the approved budget. Council certifies that the City qualifies for subventions by resolution each year. Additionally, Council annually adopts a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from taxes imposed as part of State Revenue Sharing. These are both necessary steps in the 2010-2011 budget process. A resolution is provided to establish the Reserve Fund and specify its resources and restrictions on use of the Ending Fund Balance in future years. The operating property tax rate is calculated to increase from $4.1973 to $4.2133 for a total of $8,664,360 from the permanent rate. The net increase of $0.0160 will be revenue for the General Fund to fund the Fire Department payment of $30,000 into a sinking fund for fire hoses and turn out gear. The new rate continues to include a $0.1750 rate to help pay for debt service requirements for the Ashland Fiber Network loan and $2.0928 for the Parks Fund. The local option levy that is included for the Library has Committee approval of $0.1921. This levy will generate $394,999 before discounts. Included as well is $410,805 to pay for bonded debt approved by the public. Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND The ordinance authorizing the tax levy rate is consistent with the Budget Committee's approved tax rates and amounts. Related City Policies: Financial Management Policies Council Options: a. Council approves the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of the Ordinance. b. Council does not approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of the Ordinance. Potential Motions: a. Council moves to approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of the Ordinance. b. Council moves to approve the four accompanying Resolutions and the reading by title only of the Ordinance as modified by discussion. c. Council takes no action pending further information or clarification. Attachments: Resolution adopting budget and making appropriations Resolution certifying City qualifies for State Subventions Resolution declaring City receive State revenue Resolution identifying Sources and Uses of a Reserve Fund Ordinance levying taxes for FY 2010-2011 Memo to Mayor and Council Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Summary of Changes Administration Department Memo on Changes - Fire Station #2 Police Department Memo on Changes - Grant Funds Public Works Memo on Capital Project Changes Information Technology Memo on Capital Project Change Page 2 of 2 ~r, RESOLUTION 2010- RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS The City of Ashland resolves that the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget, now on file in the office of the City Recorder is adopted. The amounts for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2010, and for the purposes shown below are hereby appropriated as follows: SECTION 1: GENERALFUND Administration Department $ 191,284 Administration Department- Library 365,740 Administration Department- Municipal Court 421,986 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 120,342 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 591,240 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 45,000 Administrative Services - Band 57,619 Police Department 5,492,235 Fire and Rescue Department 5,256,147 Public Works - Cemetery Division 312,525 Community Development- Planning Division 1,186,027 Community Development - Building Division 649,046 Transfers 500 Contingency 506,541 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 15,196,232 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND Personal Services 41,556 Materials and Services 371,560 TOTAL CDBG FUND 413,116 RESERVE FUND Transfers - TOTAL RESERVE FUND - t STREET FUND Public Works - Street Operations 4,626,259 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 655,528 Public Works - Transportation SDC's 521,810 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 95,555 Public Works - Local Improvement Districts 533,938 Transfers 74,000 Debt Service 394,000 Contingency 93,000 TOTAL STREET FUND 6,994,090 AIRPORT FUND Materials and Services 58,750 Debt Service 43,537 Contingency 5,000 TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 107,287 Pagel of3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Public Works - Facilities 2,802,752 Administrative Services - Parks Open Space 400,000 Transfers 632,003 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loans) 208,000 Contingency 50,000 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 4,092,755 DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service 2,707,798 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,707,798 WATER FUND Electric - Conservation Division 173,565 Public Works - Forest Lands Management Division 390,178 Public Works - Water Supply 826,056 Public Works- Water Treatment 1,073,597 Public Works - Water Distribution 2,439,533 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 231,000 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 227,500 Public Works - Debt SDC's 124,995 Debt Services 635,867 Contingency 150,000 TOTAL WATER FUND 6,272,291 WASTEWATER FUND Public Works - Wastewater Collection 1,847,808 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 2,018,245 Public Works - Reimbursement SDC's 21,250 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 553,500 Debt Service 1,826,554 Contingency 151,000 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 6,418,357 ELECTRIC FUND Electric - Conservation Division 504,421 Electric - Supply 5,585,204 Electric - Distribution 5,608,981 Electric - Transmission 900,000 Debt Service 24,837 Contingency 378,000 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 13,001,443 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - Internet 2,088,389 IT - High Speed 377,816 Contingency 50,000 TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 2,516,205 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND Administration Department 1,309,489 IT - Computer Services Division 1,149,409 Administrative Services Department 1,692,363 City Recorder Division 305,725 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,389,984 Page 2 of 3 Contingency 175,500 TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 6,022,470 INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Personal Services 77,290 Materials and Services 680,803 Contingency 150,000 TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 908,093 EQUIPMENT FUND Public Works - Maintenance 991,374 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 1,374,500 Contingency 54,000 TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 2,419,874 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Transfers 20,000 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 20,000 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Parks Division 3,417,482 Recreation Division 1,074,672 Golf Division 415,507 Contingency 50,000 TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 4,957,661 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND Personal Services - Materials and Services 42,356 TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 42,356 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay 70,000 TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 70,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS $ 72,160,028 SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2010. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION 2010- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING CITY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO QUALIFY FOR STATE SUBVENTIONS RECITALS: A. ORS 221.760 provides as follows: Section 1. The officer responsible for disbursing fund to cities under ORS 323.455, 366.785 to 366.820 and 471.805 shall, in the case of a city located within a county having more than 100,000 inhabitants according to the most recent federal decennial census, disburse such funds only if the city provides four or more of the following services: 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 4. Sanitary Sewer 5. Storm Sewer 6. Planning, zoning and subdivision control 7. One or more utility services B. City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state officer responsible for determining the eligibility of cities to receive such funds in accordance with 221.760. Be it resolved, the City of Ashland hereby certifies that it provides the following municipal services enumerated in ORS 221.760(1): 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Planning 4. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 5. Storm Sewer 6. Water 7. Sanitary Sewer 8. Electric Distribution This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2010. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES RECITALS: The City must annually adopt a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from tax imposed on the sale of liquor as part of State Revenue Sharing. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City hereby elects to receive state revenues for fiscal year 2010-2011. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2010. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held on May 13, 2010 and a public hearing before the City Council was held on June 15, 2010, giving citizens an opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue Sharing. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION REITERATING THE NEED OF A RESERVE FUND AND THE INTENDED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS ACCUMULATED THEREIN RECITALS: The City must annually adopt a budget that identifies resources, requirements and reserves for the coming year. As part of the budget process the Budget Committee reviews financial policies and provides input on changes in financial condition and the need to use or increase reserves held for general or specific purposes. In FY 2009-2010 a Reserve Fund was established to help prepare for financial constraints. Initial resources identified were a transfer from the Street Fund equal to the amount of Water and Wastewater franchises paid to that fund in that year. The City represented in the budget process that the funds would be held in reserve until a future, annual budget process in which the Budget Committee approved appropriating some or all of the reserve for use. Other specific resources (revenue streams) and requirements (operational, capital or emergency) were not identified. This resolution is intended to provide clarification on these issues. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: A. Resources to the Reserve Fund will be identified during the annual budget process and may include the following as approved by the Budget Committee: 1. Specific revenue streams such as taxes, franchises, charges for services, interest charges, etc. 2. During the year Council may elect to: a. Transfer surpluses from another fund when its projected ending fund balances reasonably exceeds the target amount for an acceptable period. b. Commit unanticipated resources ("windfalls") to be deposited to the Reserve Fund when doing so is preferential to other uses. B. Requirements of the Reserve Fund will be identified during the annual budget process and may include the following as approved by the Budget Committee: 1. Appropriations to fund a capital improvement identified in the coming fiscal year for which sufficient funding sources have not been accumulated. 2. Appropriations to meet a financial obligation in the coming year that an alternative revenue source has not been identified and accepted. Page 1 of 2 3. Appropriations to fund an important program or project in the coming year that will be repaid by a dedicated revenue stream in the subsequent year(s). C. The unappropriated ending fund balance of the Reserve Fund identified in the budget process is restricted from use. This amount cannot be transferred by resolution or used through a supplemental budget, unless necessitated by a qualifying emergency (ORS 294.371). SECTION 2: All references to an annual process for identifying resources and requirements will change to a two-year cycle if the City transitions to a biennial budget. SECTION 3: This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2010 Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2010 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 2011, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $9,470,164 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $4.2133 per thousand an amount estimated to be $8,664,360, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $.1921 per thousand an amount estimated to be $394,999 as well as $410,805 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2010, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Subject to General Excluded from General Government Limitation Government Limitation Rate Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per $ 1,000 General Fund - Operations $ 4,000,726 1.9455 General Fund - Technology Fee 360,000 0.1750 Parks and Recreation Fund 4,303,634 2.0928 Ashland Library Levy 394,999 0.1921 2005 GO Bonds 410,805 $ 8,664,360 $ 394,999 $ 410,805 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 12010 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 DATE: June 15, 2010 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Budget Officer RE: FY 2010-2011 Budget Process - Summary of Changes The Budget Committee finished the annual budget process in an efficient manner with a reduced number of hours for deliberation. Even though the process took less time the Committee heard all presentations and considered changes proposed by its members, staff and the public. Below is a summary of adjustments made at various stages of the process: 1. Preliminary revisions to the Proposed Budget from staff: a. Increase in departmental appropriations for health care costs and reductions in Contingency or Ending Fund Balance as an offset to the higher premiums. This adjustment did not increase the total budget. The Telecommunications Fund was not adjusted because management chose to absorb its $5,900 share of the $225,989. Thus, $143,630 was reduced in Ending Fund Balance (EFB) and $76,459 was reduced in Contingency. 2. Committee revisions finalized at the May 13, 2010, meeting: a. The Telecommunications (AFN) appropriations for debt service were reduced $30,000, moving that amount to the Street Fund to recognize a share of the AFN debt there. In conjunction with this, $40,000 in additional revenue in AFN was added to the budget, raising the Telecommunication Fund's ending balance $70,000 to $281,732. b. Increase of $30,000 in the General Fund, Fire Department, to pay into the Equipment sinking fund for hoses and turn out gear. Property tax revenues are increased the same amount reflecting a 1.6 cent increase in the tax rate above the amount originally proposed by staff. Since no expenditure for these items is anticipated in FY 2011, the inter-fund payment will increase the Equipment Fund's ending balance and will be restricted for this use in a future year. The changes accepted at the Committee's final meeting caused a net increase of $100,000 which resulted in a total budget of $89,315,328. The Committee approved property taxes at $4.40540 for operating and local option levies and $410,805 for debt service, leaving $0.07320 of the permanent rate unlevied. The Approved Budget includes $71,844,258 in Total Appropriations. 3. Additional revisions that staff recommends Council include in their adoption of the budget at the June 15, 2010, public hearing are: a. An increase in the General Fund of $4,000 in the Police Department appropriations to recognize additional investigation overtime to be funded by grant revenue. This change will have no impact on Ending Fund Balance due to offsetting revenue. b. Net increase in the Street Fund appropriations totaling $224,055 relating to changes in capital project activity during May and June, 2010. This results in an increase to the carry forward (resources) to FY 2011 and necessitates the adjustments for the delayed projects. c. An increase of $11,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund, Facilities Division appropriations to pay for the election costs for the Fire Station #2 levy approved by Council on May 18th. This increase will reduce the ending balance for the fund to $1,493,676. d. Net decrease in the Water Fund of $6,285 relating to changes in capital project activity during May and June, 2010. This results in a smaller carry forward to FY 2011 for the fund and adjustments to appropriations for the related projects. e. An increase in the Wastewater Fund of $44,000 to pay for a new pump station pump. This will decrease the Ending Fund Balance. This need was identified after the proposed budget was prepared but it did not get added until after the Committee approved the budget. f. An increase in the Telecommunications Fund appropriations of $39,000 to the Internet Division to reflect WiMax construction delayed to FY 2011. This results in a change to the carry forward from FY 2010 in this fund and requires an adjustment to appropriations for the project completion in FY 2011. The result of these final changes is a total budget for FY 2010-2011 of $89,576,098 and appropriations of $72,160,028. The property taxes to be levied are as approved by the Budget Committee. A resolution incorporating all changes has been submitted. Mayor and Council can: 1. Approve the resolution only for the amount approved by the Committee, 2. Approve the resolution as submitted with the changes described, 3. Make other adjustments to appropriations within the guidelines established by Oregon budget law that allows adjustments to any fund of up to $5,000 or 10%, whichever is larger. City of Ashland Fiscal Year 2010-2011 Summary of Changes Revisions 2011 Sun 2011 Committee 2011 Recommended 2011 Propowd Revlslon, Revived ReAuions Approved to Cw"H Adopted GENERALFUND Adm Watan Depa O 191,284 191.284 191.284 191,284 AMn'aestraSOn Depatrnmf-Liuary 305.140 365,740 365,740 30,140 Adrr*vStadon Depatnwt. MUrwp.M Court 420.386 1,600 421,956 421,985 421,%6 AdmustraM SW*rs-Soda'Savtces Cr L% 120,342 120.342 120,342 120.342 ArAsdn'aMM Services- Ermanc B CWernl Grans 591,240 591,240 591,240 591,240 AGmkistraBve Savl e - L" l 45,000 45.000 45,000 45,000 AdrrwMtr Sve Semfts Rand 57,619 57,619 57,619 51,619 Polls Depapnent 5,457,975 30,260 5,488,235 5,488,235 4,000 5,492,235 Fn W4 Rksa7e OWWURO 5,194.847 31,300 5,2261147 30,000 5.256,141 5.256,147 PuSc W06.5- Comolery Dig 6w 311,005 1.570 312.525 312,525 312,525 Cornnnty DeMWrern-K-"Dl-- 1,177,648 8,379 1,186,021 1,166,027 1,186,021 Camnunty De"IcWal-BvddxV DNlsd1 645,646 3.400 649.046 649,046 649.046 Trarslas 500 500 500 500 C "Cr"y 583.000 (76.459) 506.541 506.541 506.541 E" Fund 8aaxo 1,484,490 1,484,490 1.484,490 1,484,4W TOTALGENERALFUND 16,646,172 - 16,646.722 30,DOO 16,676,722 4,000 16,660.722 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUND pas=Il Savic4x 41,556 41.556 41,556 41,r,% MaW4* aid Savioa 371,560 371,560 371,560 371,560 Enft Fund Balance - TOTAL COBGFUND 413,116 413,116 - 413,116 - 413,116 RESERVE FUND Icyalm Enck V Fund Baance 151.500 151.500 151,500 151,500 TOTAL RESERVE FUND 151,500 - 151.500 - 151,500 - 151.500 STREET FUND PuW Wales- Streot Oper 4.520 739 6,020 4,526259 30,000 4,556,259 70,000 4,626,259 Pl#w Walks • Storm Warr Olnratxns 598,878 2.650 601.528 &31.529 5COW 655,528 Pu65c Waft Tr Monatim SDC's 506.810 506,810 506810 15,000 521,810 • pu6Gc Woks -Sian Water SOCs 10,500 10.500 10.500 85,055 95,555 PoW Woks - LOGY I nprwened Osaias 533,938 533,938 533,938 533938 Nmv Debt 394,000 394,000 394,000 394.000 TrarWw 74,000 74,000 74,000 74,000 Cor "arty 93.OOD 93.000 93,000 93.000 ErWN Furl Balance 2238,666 (8.670) 2229.938 (30,030) 2,194.998 2.199998 TOTAL STREET FUND .97 ,033 - 8.970033 - 8,970,033 224,055 ~.194.088 AIRPORT FUND Matai& and Sevias 58,750 58,750 59,750 58.750 Cap4al GAW - DiAA semen 43,537 43,537 43,537 43,537 4deraxd L&W - CodOoxY $.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 EnW49 Fund B"" 10,804 10.804 10,804 10,804 TOTAL AIRPORT FUND 118.091 - 118.091 - 118,091 - 118,091 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND PUWWorks-Fa&b% 2,789,522 2.230 2.791,752 2,791,752 1ICW 2.802,752 Adnwusoativo Services - Parks Open SP" 400,000 406000 400,000 400.000 fla fws 632,003 632,003 632,033 632,003 intafixd LOan 208,000 206000 203.000 MOOD Cwt-venq 50,000 50.000 50.000 50.000 Erdr0 fad 8"" 1,506.906 ('L230) 1,504,676 1,504,676 (11,000) 1493.676 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 5,586,431 - 5,560431 5,586,431 5,566431 Gltmance\AdministrailonlCouncil CommunicationUune 10iDraft\Changes to Budget during Process 061510 exp 61812010 9:20 AM 1 ' Revisions 2011 Staff 2011 Committee 2011 Recommandod 2011 Proposed Revisions Rmised Revisions APprovod to Courcil Adopted DEBT SERVICE FUND Dept Service 2,707,798 2.107.798 2.707,798 2.707.798 EldN Fad Balavs 790,646 790,646 790,646 790.646 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FU NO 3.498,444 - 3493.444 3.498,444 - 3,498,444 WATER FUND PubkWorks - Finad Lords Manadernent Disimi 389,018 1100 390178 390,178 390,178 Nbkc Works• Water Srptly 828.097 828.097 828,097 12.041) 826.056 Put*Warkt-Warm Tmabnmrt 1,064,207 3,390 1,067597 1,067,597 6,000 1,073,597 Pubic Works - Watt' Datrbjkn 2,431,343 8,190 2,439.533 2,439,533 2,439.533 Pubic Worts .R SDCs 258.744 258.744 258,744 (27,744) 231,ODD Public WMs - oliANarwnt SDCs 210,000 210,000 210,ODD 17,500 227,500 PuNk Works - Debt 6D s 124,995 124.995 124,995 124,995 Eloctn. Courrvabon Dwsiao 172.565 1,000 173.565 173,565 173565 0d4 Servius 635,867 635.861 635,867 635.867 CmGgmry 150.000 150,000 150.000 150,000 EadM FUd Balance 3,315,680 (13,680) 3,302,000 3,302,000 3.302,OOD TOTAL WATER FUND 9,590,576 - 9,580,576 - 9.580.576 (6,285) 9,574,291 WASTEWATER FUND PuD6t Works- Wastewater CdnBkn 1,843.348 4.460 1,847,808 1,847,808 .1,847.808 Publc Works- Wasiewaler Treamad 1,970,685 3,560 1.974,245 t,974,245 44.000 2,018.245 Pubk Woks- Rek4rausen"I SOCS 21250 21,250 21,250 21,250 PutAc Works- 4ryrm4a4kstt SDCs 553,500 553500 553,500 553.500 Dell S!.rAres 1,826,554 1,826,554 1,826,554 1,826,554 cor,wgaro 151.000 151,1100 151,000 151,000 ErkliM Fad Balance 2,380,978 (81020) 2,372,958 2,372,958 (44.000) 2,328.958 TOTAL WASTEWATER FUND 8.747.315 - 8,747.315 - 8,747,315 - 8,747.315 ELECTRIC FUND Electric- Ccns4rv:4ian DMsmt 502,421 2,000 504,421 504421 504421 Eiadrz - Suppty 5,585,204 5,585204 5,585,204 5,585,204 Elocpic - D¢triDution 5,592,581 16,400 508.981 5,608,981 5,608,981 E1ecaic-Tr~ 900.000 9DDoDo 900,000 WD.000 Debi Serviors 24,837 24,837 24,837 24,817 C011,19 wt' 378.000 376,000 378.000 378,ODO En6rg Furst Balance 1,405,436 (18400) 1,387,036 1,387,036 1,387,036 TOTAL ELECTRIC FUND 14,388,479 - 14,388.479 - 14,388,479 - 14,388,479 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND IT - lntmnU 2,079,389 2,079,389 (30,000) 2.049,389 39,000 2,088,359 IT-4a3h Speed 377.816 377,816 377,816 377,816 Ca urvaicY 50.000 50.000 50.000 50A00 ' Erdig Fund Balsrce 211.732 211,132 70,000 281,732 281,732 TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS FUND 2,718,937 - 2,718,937 40,000 2,158.937 39,000 2,797,937 CENTRAL SERVICES FUND AMrOkstr2ko Deputrnmt 1,291,729 11,760 1,309489 1.303.489 1,309,489 IT- Compnm SwA= Division 1,142,609 6,800 1149,409 1,149.409 1,149,409 Adniriatradm Saviors Dep.'ssnord 1,677.853 14,510 1,692,363 1,692,363 1.692,363 City Roxwder O*o;0 304.525 1,200 305,725 305,725 305.725 Public works- Aaimistra(fan and Enolnecrng 1.380.354 9.830 1.389,984 1,389,984 1.389.984 coirsou4cy 175,500 175,500 175,500 175,500 EdM Fu o 04ance 114,493 (43900) 70,593 70,593 70.593 TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES FUND 6.093.063 - 6.(793.063 - 6,093.063 - 6.093,063 G:VinanoesAdministrationlCounpl CommunicationUune 100raftkChanges to Budget during Process 061510 exp 61812010 9:20 AM Revisions 2011 SUN 2011 Committee 2011 Ra mendw 2011 Proposed F!"Islons RevIsed Reunions Approved to Council Adopted INSURANCE SERVICES FUND Pas" sf v 76,500 790 77,290 77,290 77.290 Matedals and Sovim 680,803 680,803 680,803 680,133 Cmtirvem 150,000 150,000 15D wo 150,000 EWvV Fund B*t 335,256 (790) 394.466 394,466 394.466 TOTAL INSURANCE SERVICES FUND 1,302,559 - 1,302,559 - 1,302,559 - 1,307,559 EQUIPMENT FUND Public Works- MantenatKC 987,524 3.850 991,374 991,374 991,374 Punk Works-Pwd~irv3 and Ac@ds18m 1,374,500 1,374,500 1,374,500 1,374,500 (7 t"owT 54,000 54,000 MAD 54,000 EdaV FOnd 8*y 1,062,052 (3,850} 1,058,202 30000 1,088,202 1,088,201 TOTAL EQUIPMENT FUND 3A78,076 - 3,478,076 30000 3,508,076 - 3.508,076 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Traiatws 20,009 20000 20'Wo 20.000 ErduV FUN 8*6 826,753 826,753 826,753 826.753 TOTAL CEMETERY TRUST FUND 846,753 - 846,753 - 846,753 846,753 PARKS AND RECREATION FUND Pteks Oivisim 3,386,682 30,800 3,417,482 3.417,,182 3,417,482 Reacatom Divi*n 1,061,082 10,590 1,074,672 1,014,672 1,074,672 bop DmW" 412,807 2,100 415,501 415,501 415,507 Contagwcv 50oDD 50.000 50,000 50,000 E" Fund Be'a 1,453,315 (44.090) 1,4D9,225 1609.225 1.409.225 TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION FUND 6,366,686 - 6,366.886 - 6,366,886 - 6,366,886 YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEW FUND Wert&and Servion 42356 42,3$6 42,356 42,355 Edn9 FuN 8XXU TOTAL YOUTH ACTIVITIES LEVY FUND 42,356 - 42,356 - 44356 - 42,356 PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND Capital Outlay 70,090 70,000 70000 70,000 End4q Fumt Bala 195.991 195,991 195,991 195,991 TOTAL PARKS CAPITAL IMP. FUND 265,991 - 26$,991 - 265,991 - 265,991 TOTAL BUDGET 89,215,328 - 89,215,328 100,000 89,315,328 260,770 89,576,093 Lau Ending Fund Behnce 17,544,700 (143,630) 17,401,079 70,000 17,471,070 (55,000) 17,416,070 Total Appropriations 71,670,628 143,630 71,814,258 30,000 71,844,258 315,770 12,160,028 G: Vmance3Administratlon\Council CommunicationUune 10\Draft\Changes to Budget during Process 061510 exp 61W010 920 AM CITY C )F ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 1, 2010 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Director Administrative Services FROM: Ann Seltzer, Management Analyst RE: Increase FY2011 CIP budget CC: Martha Bennett, City Administrator Mike Faught, Director Public Works John Karns, Fire Chief At the regular City Council meeting on May 18, 2010, the Public Safety Bond Committee recommended the Council seek voter approval for general obligation bonds to fund the reconstruction of Fire Station 42 and to place a measure on the May 2011 ballot. The City Council accepted the recommendation and tentatively approved placing a measure on the May 2011 ballot. Costs for non-November elections are borne by the cities and agencies that have measures on the ballot. Previous elections have cost the City of Ashland between $8,000 and $11,000. Actual costs are determined by the County after the election. This memo serves as a formal request to add $11,000 to the FYI I Capital Improvement Plan budget to cover costs associated with the May 2011 election. Pug I of i CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: May 26, 2010 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director FROM: Terry Holdemess, Police Chief -('14 RE: Budget Adjustment The Police has $4000.00 in ODOT grant funds for overtime in this years budget that we will expend in July and September. Ashland POOM Department FTet a 5414U-5211 1155 E Main in St St Fax: 541.188.5351 AshWd, 0mgon 91524 via w, Memo G I TY OF ASHLAND Date: May 28, 2010 From: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director To: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director Re: May FYI 1 Capital Project Adjustments As requested, the Public Works Department has re-evaluated the end of year capital project cost estimates and subsequent adjustments to the FYI 1 capital budget. Please adjust the FYI I capital projects as follows: There are four (4) capital project adjustments in the street operations budget with a net increase of $70,000, and one in the SDC transportation bud et with a net increase of $15,000. FYI1 March FY11 May Street Operations Projection Adjustment Difference 260.08.12.00.704200 Contracted Projects Pavement Plus, Plaza Ave CMA $ 80,000 $ 75,000 $ 5,000 Miscellaneous new sidewalk repairs $ 60,000 S 105,000 $ 45,000 Miscellaneous concrete safety repairs $ 100,000 $ 180,000 S 80,000 Railroad crossing imp Hersey & Laurel $ 450,000 $ 400,000 $ 50,000 TOTAL $ 690,000 S 760,000 S 70,000 SDC Transportation 260.08.35.00.704200 New concrete sidewalks $ 20,000 $ 35,000 $ 15,000 TOTAL $ 20,000 S 35,000 S 15,000 There are two (2) capital project adjustments in the street collections budget with a net increase of $54,000 and two in the street collection SDC budget with a net increase of $85,055. FYI] March FY11 May Street Collections Projection Adjustment Difference 260.08.17.00.704100 Internal Projects D Street Yard $ 13,500 $ 30,000 $ 16,500 TOTAL $ 13,500 $ 30,000 S 16,500 260.08.17.00.704200 Capital Projects Water Quality Improvements - basins/ri arian areas S $ 37,500 S 37,500 ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel:54116885347 20 E. Man Saee 0 Far: 54 V488-6066 AshLvM OR 97520 TTY- 866735-2960 wawashhnd.or.us TOTAL $ $ 37,500 $ 37,500 Total Street Collections $ 5-4,0-0-0- Storm Water SDC 260.08.34.00.704200 Storm drain master plan update $ $ 47,555 $ 47,555 Water Quality Improvements - basins/riparian areas $ - $ 37,500 $ 37,500 TOTAL $ 10,500 $ 95,555 $ 85 055 There are three (3) capital project adjustments in the water operations budget with a net increase of $3,959, one (1) project in the water reimbursement SDC budget with a net decrease of $27,744 and one (1) project in the water improvement SDC budget with a net increase of $17,500. FYI I May Water Su Iv March Projection Adjustment Difference 670.15.00.704200 Contracted Projects Water Supply Stud $ 111,256 $ 89,215 $ 22,041 Hosler Dam Security Camera $ - $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL $ 111,256 S 109,215 $ 2,041 Water Plant 670.08.19.00.704200 Water Plant Improvements $ - $ 6,000 $ 6,000 TOTAL S - $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Total Water Su $ 3,959 SDC Reimbursement 670.08.37.00.704200 Water Master Plan $ 258,744 $ 231,000 $ 27,744) TOTAL $ 258,744 $ 231,000 $ 27,744 SDC Improvement 670.08.38.00.704200 Water Plant Improvements S - $ 17,500 $ 17,500 TOTAL $ $ 17,500 $ 17 500 ENGINEERING DIVISION TO 54114 86 534 7 20 E. Mail Street far. 5411488-M Ashland OR 975201 TTY:80(V735-2900 www,aehland.or.VS There is one (1) internal project adjustment in the waste water operations budget with a net increase of $44,000. Wastewater Plant March Projection May Adjustment Difference 675.08.19.00.704100 (1) Misc capital repairs $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - (2) Pump Station Repair - new pump $ - $ 44,000 $ 44,000 TOTAL $ 15,000 $ 59,000 $ 44,000 CC: Martha Bennett, City Administrator ENGINEERING DIVISION Tel: 54114885%7 29 Main 5475( Fax: M35 900 mesas Ashland OR 97520 TTY: 80 W0r/35.2900 wWw.asAland.or.us CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 3, 2010 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director FROM: Robert Lloyd, Information Technology Department Director RE: Request for Capital Carryover to Fiscal Year 2011 In March 2010, the Information Technology Department's (IT) refocused its priorities to complete a comprehensive review and business plan for Ashland Fiber Network (AFN). New infrastructure investments were suspended until a plan was developed to ensure capital investments aligned with newly defined network perfonnance goals. The AFN System Plan is now in final draft form and IT is prepared to move forward with a revised project spanning from April to August, 2010. However, the revised 2010 WiMax Project will not be complete by the end of the 2010 fiscal year. This request seeks to carry $39,000 of the Information Technology Department's Capital Outlay dollars in Fund 691.02.47.704 across fiscal years to accommodate completion of the WiMax Project. With related purchases made in Fiscal Year 2010, the project's total cost will be $102,771. Please note that this is'approximately $57,000 less than originally budgeted for the project in the CIP process. In addition, the carryover will not affect IT's ending fund balance as funds are already appropriated. IT Department, 2010 Amended 2010 Estimate for 2011 Proposed Internet Division Budget the Year (NEW) (NEW) Internet- Personal Services $ 550,025 $ 470,995 $ 577,686 Internet- Materials and Services $ 639,203 $ 623,703 $ 592,203 Internet- Capital Outlay $ 175,000 $ 57,300 $ 218,500 $ 1,364,228 $ 1,151,998 $ 1,388,389 The carryover adjustment is consistent with budget updates made at the final Citizens' Budget Committee meeting, as well as with AFN's business plan. IT will work to implement the project quickly to capture income for as much of the coming fiscal year as possible. C: Martha Bennett, City Administrator Mike Faught, Public Works Director Pagc 1 of I CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Implementation of Emergency Response Cost Recovery Program Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: John Karns Department: Fire Department E-Mail: karnsj@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: John Karns Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 5 minutes Question: Will the Council approve First Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Establishing and Implementing a Program to Charge User Fees for the Deployment of Public Safety Services Rendered by the City of Ashland, Ashland Fire & Rescue"? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of First Reading of the proposed ordinance, which establishes charges and rates for cost recovery for emergency responses of Ashland Fire and Rescue. Background: Emergency services response activity to incidents continues to increase each year. Environmental protection requirements involve an increased level of equipment and training. Hazardous materials accidents can create substantial demands on all operational aspects of emergency services. Motor vehicle accidents (MVA) are requiring an increasingly complex array of extrication equipment due to modern vehicle construction and materials. Hydraulic extrication equipment that was adequate several years ago may not allow for a timely victim extraction in today's automobiles. Ashland Fire and Rescue has investigated numerous methods to maintain a high level of emergency service capability in times of increasing service demands and fiscal challenges. Many motor vehicle accidents and hazardous materials incidents involve individuals. Additionally, in jurisdictions where there is an effective response by fire and rescue services, insurance carriers realize a decreased cost through timely and effective management of emergency situations, saving lives and reducing property damage. The City of Ashland staff desires to implement a fair and equitable procedure by which to collect said emergency service fees involving hazardous materials spills and motor vehicle accidents and shall establish a billing system in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidelines. Related City Policies: • Chapter 10 of the AMC deals with public peace, Morals and safety • ORS 478.310 (2) (a) deals with the Oregon State Fire Marshal's standardized costs schedule, specifically Section III-B. • Rates for recovering costs shall be those established in accordance with the Oregon State Fire Marshal's standardized costs schedule as specified in ORS 478.310(2) (a), and as hereinafter amended. • Fees will be based on both direct (apparatus, personnel, and miscellaneous supplies and services) and indirect (billing and collection costs). No fees will be charged for the direct provision of emergency medical treatment and supplies. Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND • Billing for emergency services will be through a contracted third-party vendor with knowledge of applicable laws and regulations. Fiscal Impact: This program should generate approximately $15,000 to $18,000 annually depending upon response activity. Council Options: Council can direct staff to: • Approve First Reading of the Ordinance • Revise the Ordinance prior to First Reading • Decline First Reading of the Ordinance Potential Motions: ■ I move that the City Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Exhibit A: Ashland Fire and Rescue Hourly Reimbursement Rate B: Oregon State Fire Marshal's Standardized Cost Schedule C: Oregon Revised Statute 478.310 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING AND IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM TO CHARGE USER FEES FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES RENDERED BY THE CITY OF ASHLAND, ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE Annotated to show deletiens and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold ' and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession; and 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 number of emergency service responses continues to increase each year, environmental protection requirements involve an increased level of equipment and training, and hazardous materials incidents create substantial demands on all operational aspects of emergency services; and WHEREAS, motor vehicle collisions are requiring an increasingly complex array of extrication equipment due to modern vehicle construction and materials; and WHEREAS, Ashland Fire and Rescue has investigated numerous methods to maintain a high level of emergency service capability in times of increasing service demands and fiscal challenges; and WHEREAS, many motor vehicle collisions and hazardous materials incidents involve individuals not owning property or paying taxes in the City of Ashland. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 15.28.170 [Cost Recovery Fees] is hereby added to read as follows: Ordinance No. _ Page 1 of 3 15.28.170. Cost Recovery Fees A. Fees Established. The City of Ashland Fire and Rescue Services shall charge user fees for the delivery of Fire and Rescue Services, personnel, supplies and equipment to the scene of motor vehicle collisions and hazardous materials incidents as established by resolution. B. Responsible Party. The user fee shall be charged to the responsible party. The responsible party is the person or entity that was at fault in the incident. If fault cannot be determined, then all parties involved shall be held jointly and severally liable for the costs incurred by AFR when it responded to the incident. The cost shall be in addition to any other costs or claims such as damage to vehicles, damage to property, or injuries. C. Imposition of Fees. 1. Motor Vehicle Collisions & Hazardous Materials Incidents. The user fees for motor vehicle collisions (MVC) and hazardous materials incidents will only apply to persons not residing within the City of Ashland as the residents within the city boundaries currently subsidize emergency service costs through their property taxes. However, responses involving intoxicated drivers, hazardous materials clean-up, and negligent acts may be subject to all applicable fees regardless of residency. 2. Utilities. In the event that damage to utilities is causing a safety hazard on a public right of way that causes emergency responders to deem the area unsafe and remain on scene until the hazard is eliminated, user fees shall be assessed to the responsible party, including the utility if equipment related problems are causing emergency services to respond. D. Billing Procedures. Ashland Fire and Rescue shall serve the owner and the person responsible with a notice stating the total cost of all fees shall be paid within thirty (30) days, and stating that the bill can be disputed by filing an appeal pursuant to 2.30.020 [Administrative Appeals Process]. E. Appeal Procedures. The person responsible may appeal AFR's determination of the user fees pursuant to AMC 2.30.020 [Administrative Appeals Process]. In the event of a timely objection or appeal, the costs, if any, shall be due upon conclusion of the objection or appeal process. SECTION 2. 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 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter' or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 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 12010 and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A ASHLAND FIRE and RESCUE HOURLY REIMBURSMENT RATE APPARATUS TYPE I TYPE II TYPE III TYPE IV TYPE V TYPE VI STRUCTURAL ENGINE (May Have Off-Road BRUSH (With Off-Road BRUSH (With Off-Road Capability) (Meets 1901 Capability) Capability) Standards) Pump (GPM) 1000+ 500 - 999 120 70 50 50 Tank (Gallons) 400 400 > 300 < 750 500 200 $100/11r Sliomr $60/Hr $40/14r $30/11r $25/Hr TRUCK Aerial Elevated Master Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A $1504r ($100/Hr) EQUIPMENT/ PERSONNEL In Use TRANSPORT** Only N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $20/Hr COMMAND , VEHICLE" ($15/11r) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MOBILE COMMAND ($1004r) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A CENTER Personnel Reimbursement Costs a) Career Firefighters Whenever aid is supplied the reimbursement compensation paid to employees during the time such incidents will be at the current applicable overtime rate as scheduled in the current budget. Exhibit B ADMATSTRATI, ON DIVI510N Billi4 Schedt:les emd Forms 10x1 ?ro 2. STATE FIRE MARSHAL STANDARDIZED COST SCHEDULE OREGONFIRESERI'TCE.IIOBZUZ4HONPL ,V EMERGENCY CONFL-kGPLITION:ICT HOURLY'RELIIBLRSENEENf RATE APPARATUS TYPE I nrE II ME M ME IV TVW I' TST'E in STRUCTURII. MMVE 0dayHareO&Road BRUSH BRUSH Cepability) (W:ih OERwdCapability) (With OHRoad C'apabJ:iy) Meets 1901 Stmduds Aurp(GPM) 100D+ 500-999 120 70 50 50 Tank (GJoms) 300 > 300 < 750 500 20D 300 ($100,W) (S60'W) (T IFO (SxHr) (S25?W) SO'W1 WATER TENDER A=P (C-PK NO -500 200 Tack (Gallams) 5000 2507 1000 VA NIA NOA (570Hr) (S50-Hr) (smlk) TRUCK Aerial Eletmted Maste Stream NIA MA N!A NIA 5150,W 100F EQUHNEL\'rt PERSONNEL. In Use NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA TRANSPORT'' Oah• ~OW COVa"LWD ITHICLE•• ISLk NIA NA NIA VA NA RESCUE MCLE• 51W -VA NIA %VA N!A NIA Specialized egmpment or apparatus shall be at a rate negotiated with the Office of State Fire Marshal, e.g., mobile cm+t*•imicatioa mamtmancesrepau, fiml, city serciee, airaa8 fire, chemical m%msugation, Ha Nfat, heavy rescue, water aafi, tote truck, au srtem, power Plains- Note: 4pararw riot marching bpigg criteria (punip [GP,1ff or tank [gallons]) will be closslJied to the matt resa irdty qpe. ag., an engine with a pump of 100 GPM With a >300 gallon tank would be classed as a ripe IV engme..4 tender with a 250 GAVpump and 5000 gallon rank would be classed as a Ttpe 17 render. *Marv: Includes medic units and ambulanves. "Noce: )then a prhwre vehicle it wed the sate reimburse mileage onby IB-C-2 era,arr~emep Exhibit C 478.310 Response to fire or public safety incident outside its own territory by district or municipality; (1) When a fire or public safety incident occurs outside the limits of a district or of a city and help is asked of the district or city, the fire-fighting or public safety apparatus and force of the district or city may, with or without a contract to do so, be used for extinguishing the fire or responding to the public safety incident in the other unprotected or inadequately protected district or territory. However, the district or city so responding shall be paid the contract or reasonable value for use, including repairs and depreciation, of the apparatus and equipment so used and other expenses reasonably incurred in furnishing the fire-fighting or public safety service. (2) When a district or city responds to a call for assistance arising from an incident involving an airplane crash or an occurrence on a transportation route within the city or district, the district or city may recover from the person or property receiving the direct fire or safety services as a result of the incident any cost incurred for the following: (a) The contract or reasonable value of the use, including repairs and depreciation, of the apparatus and equipment used in accordance with a state standardized-costs schedule issued by the State Fire Marshal; and (b) Other expenses or costs reasonably incurred in furnishing the assistance, as adopted by the service provider. (3) As used in this section, "transportation route" means a roadway, waterway or railroad right of way against which no taxes or assessments for fire protection are levied by the district or city. (4) The provisions of this section do not apply to fire incidents involving only forest resources that occur on lands protected under ORS chapter 477. [Amended by 1969 c.667 §23; 1983 x572 §1; 1987 c.834 §2; 1997 c.274 §381 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication SOU Campus Master Plan - Detail Site Review (DSR) Zone Amendment Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: bill gcashland.or.u Secondary Dept.: Legal Secondary Contact: Richard Appicello Approval: Martha Berme lt~~ 1 Estimated Time: 10 minutes Question: / Does Council wish to approve Second Reading of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Extending the City of Ashland Detail Site Review Zone for Consistency with the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan"? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve Second Reading of an Ordinance establishing the Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay within the Southern Oregon University zoning district upon the area located adjacent to Ashland Street, between Wightman and Walker Ave. Background: On June 1, 2010, the Council adopted the 2010 to 2020 - SOU Campus Master Plan Update with the proposed modifications suggested by the Planning Commission, and approved Second Readings on three ordinances necessary to implement the plan as well as to SOU zoning district boundary so that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation. They also took First Reading on the attached ordinance. Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Public Services Element Goal: To make maximum effort toward utilization of present and future educational and recreational facilities and resources through public, private and city cooperation. Council Options: The Council may move to approve Second Reading of an ordinance that establishes the Detail Site Review zone along the north side of Ashland, between Wightman and Walker Avenue, and exempts the area from the Floor Area Ration standard, as recommended by the 2010 SOU Master Plan Potential Motions: . 1. Move approval of Second Reading of an ordinance establishing the Detail Site Review (DSR) overlay within the Southern Oregon University zoning district upon the area located adjacent to Ashland Street, between Wightman and Walker Ave., and exempting this area from the Floor Area Ratio standard as set forth in section II-C-2a(1) of the Site Design and Use Standards Attachments: Ordinance and Exhibit A Note: The latest version of the 2010 to 2020 - SOU Campus Master Plan Update can be viewed on the City of Ashland website at: http://www.ashland.or. us/SOU Page 1 of I ~r, ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND DETAIL SITE REVIEW ZONE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2010 SOU CAMPUS MASTER PLAN Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold flned4hfGugh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States' and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop, 20 Or. App. 293, 531 P 2d 730,734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland, acting by and through the City Council, is in the process of updating the SOU Plan incorporated into the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the updated SOU Plan map incorporated into the Ashland Comprehensive Plan shows the extension of the detailed site design review zone, and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Zoning Map must be amended to be consistent with the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan 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 Zoning Map in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to extend the Detail Site Review (DSR) zone designation to approximately acres of land located: (1) along Ashland Street between Walker Avenue and Wightman Street within 150 feet of Ashland Street right-of-way and (2) along Walker Avenue between Ashland Street and south of Webster Street within 150 feet of the Walker Avenue right-of-way in the SOU Zoning District within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. Notwithstanding their inclusion in the Detailed Site Review Zone, developments in these designated areas shall be exempt from the maximum floor area requirement in Section 11 -C a (1) of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "bode", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 3 and 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 12010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 OAS w S/S HOMESAV ~ O w B( yO ISO PARKER S7 Z 2 t J ASHLAND ST Q MADRQNFqT J ♦v Q N FRE T z O Staff Exhibit A - Approximate Area Included within Detail Site Review Zone CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Approval of a Public Contract for Banking & Merchant Services Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Barbara Christensen Department: City Recorder E-Mail: christeb n ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: n/a A Secondary Contact: n/a Approval: Martha BenEstimated Time: 15 minutes Question: Will the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve awarding a contract for a period of three (3) years beginning June 30, 2010 and allowing for two one-year extensions to Bank of America for City of Ashland Banking and Merchant Services? Staff Recommendation: Approve contract to Bank of America for three (3) years and allowing for two one-year extensions. Background: The current contract for Banking Services expires on June 30, 2010. Banking Services have been provided to the City by Bank of America for the past (5) five years. Prior to this US Bank provided Banking Services to the City for approximately (27) twenty-seven years. The sourcing method for a Personal Services contract of $50,000 or greater is a Competitive Sealed Proposal (Request for Proposal). A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on February 26, 2010 for City of Ashland Banking and Merchant Services. Proper legal noticing, mandatory pre-proposal conference and addendums providing additional information were provided. The RFP was mailed to 12 potential proposers (Banking Institutions/Credit Unions) and the City received six (6) proposals in response to the RFP. Proposals were received from Bank of America, Key Bank, Sterling Savings Bank, Umpqua Bank, US Bank and Wells Fargo. Following the evaluation process provided for in the RFP, the evaluation committee scored each proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria established within the RFP. The proposal submitted by Bank of America is the highest ranked proposal. Therefore, staff (the evaluation committee) is recommending the public contract be awarded to the highest ranking proposer, Bank of America. Please see the attached evaluation summary for a breakdown of the evaluation criteria and how each proposal was scored. Related City Policies: Section 2.52.070 Selection Process. The following rules shall be followed in selecting a contractor for personal services: C. For personal service contracts that will cost $50,000 or more, the Department Head shall award the contract based on AMC 2.50.090 (RFP). Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, can approve (or decline) the contract recommendation. Potential Motions: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve (or decline) the contract recommendation. Attachments: Evaluation Summary Scope of Work Page 2 of 2 00 00 N 00 O N Y # N vt vl O Lo L. R m # N M X 0 0 O Q O M = N Y 3 V N~ M O h m O N O O ~ N M h M~ ~ ~ M m W h m 0o O ~ ^ Y O m ~ ~ N h w O O O O y~ O O w # M h h O O O O O N O O ~ ao Y # M Vl M n O~ 00 r v1 V'1 00 h O C ro CC O N~ ~ h~ O O N O N O O N N r a j ~ y~ h M O O o0 ~ O N O O N h 00 ~ Q v1 O O O O M ~ M H m b h ~ W e - U ' n.i R Y OD R v1 vi N o0 O O O H O O = H N I, ~ L C LO _ _ Q ~ ~ E d ~ M O h~ O O N O O ~ h ~ a ~ ~ O Y # Q ~n o0 00 ~n vi o0 0o v~ ~n oo ~ oo 0 W~ et m ~ ~ h 0 0 0 0 0 o o ° ~ W Z ea o°10 0' ~ ° ~ h ~ o r ~o 0 0o vi o 00 0 ~ ~ o ~zo, ou _ _ o z ~ e - Fc1 ~ a mQ - - - } ~ ~ N h O O N O O X 0 0 ~ N ~ 1' N u `c ~ ~ y in o 0 0 0 o y o o o ~ O N N N N 0.a O F O y O O y F d 8 a° W w u u ° U Lei d K p C O C ~ L Q ,p z ~ o: g r a e o L0 ~ y C ~ E y00 W u O V d O L m ~ S C E d vi = O O ~ d u U F R ti c F cn tiFL~ n C40 cr ° u= E on R H t 'D ~ R O y R u~ y y ~ u y C u R y <ca O L° c== ° m u F u i E L W on 13 ° ca m a L r° ° ;Z z Faa` i= O~a`a` fiz i av,v U a N M Q N ~O l~ CO P O N SCOPE OF WORK - SUMMARY OVERVIEW It is the intent of the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks and Recreation Department to improve efficiency in banking and cash management services through alternative systems and procedures. In addition, the city will look to its bank for creativity and flexibility and to serve as an "advisor" in cash management. General Background Information - Average Volume of Transactions indicated below Services to be provided X Web access to balance and float analysis reporting. X Accept deposits, including bankcard drafts, electronic transfer of merchant bankcard deposits (fee based on City wide $ volume), Direct Debit ACH payment files, and Electronic utility payments. X Corporate bankcard services, VISA/Master and/or debit cards, indicate fees and terms. X Deposit information (exact $ amounts) on all electronic fund transfers and letters of credit. X Zero-balance account functions for subsidiary accounts. Payroll direct deposit. X Wire service. X Place stop payments on lost checks. X Positive Pay. X Investment Sweep Account. X ACH Blocking X Monthly account statements within five (5) business days after month end. X Monthly account analysis report within thirty (30) days after month end. X Electronic Statements and account balancing with records retention within two (2) business days after month-end. X Auto Batch processing for credit card payments X Night depository services including bags and keys. X Options on courier service will be considered. X Designated Account Representative in local branch to help with day-to-day transactions. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS OF PROPOSER X Must have an office in the City of Ashland. X Must comply with deposit requirements of ORS 295.015. X Must be a member of Oregon Automated Clearing House Association. X Must have access to the Fed/Wire system. X Must be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. X Must maintain an account with the Oregon State Treasurer to facilitate transfers to and from the Local Government Investment Pool. X Must provide annual audited financial statements and copies of quarterly "Reports of Condition" and "Reports of Income" provided bank regulators. All service will be based on a fee schedule, with the banking institution billing the City for services rendered. Bills will be presented within thirty (30) days of the close of each month and/or quarter, and will be payable within (45) thirty days of receipt by the City. Request for Proposal Banking Services 2001 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Plaza Parking Improvements Proposal Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael R. Faught Department: Public Works/Engineering E-Mail: fau hg tmu,ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Pieter Smeenk, PE Approval: Martha BenneJ.Y ~~IS Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Will the Council approve a proposal to adjust the angle of parking in the Plaza to increase traffic safety and available parking as recommended by the Transportation Commission? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve the proposal to adjust the angle of parking in the Plaza to increase traffic safety and available parking as recommended by the Transportation Commission. Background: Staff developed a new striping plan for the downtown plaza area that changes the angle of the parking spaces (on two sides) from 60 degrees to 75 degrees. The plan will remove the first two parking spaces on North Main in front of Mix Sweet Shoppe; however, by changing the angle of parking, the plan will add four additional parking spaces to the plaza area leaving a net gain of two spaces. The Transportation Commission then recommended removing another space (Parking Space #10) in front of City Hall reducing the net gain to one. As additional background, the Transportation Commission initially reviewed a proposal initiated by the Engineering Division to replace hazardous parking stalls in front of Mix Sweet Shoppe on the Plaza with a combination of additional bicycle parking and compact parking spaces in February, 2010. At that time, Plaza merchants voiced opposition to both the bicycle parking layout and the compact spaces at the meeting and through letters. Opposition contained a common theme: create additional parking spaces rather than just maintaining the same number of parking spaces. Public Works then held an open meeting in March to take further public input on the parking space modifications and received one letter in favor from Mix Sweet Shoppe, as well as several letters in opposition from other downtown merchants. In response to these concerns and after further consideration of the crosswalk safety, staff revised the proposal to change the angle of entry into the parking spaces from 60 degrees to 75 degrees, as well as to eliminate the first two parking spaces. A 75 degree layout was chosen to improve the geometric efficiency (see attached design tables) and was supported by both the City's traffic engineer consultant and traffic safety expert Dr. Mojie Takallou. The new proposal had the net effect of adding two additional parking spaces to the Plaza, as well as eliminating two hazardous backing out conditions while maintaining full sized 9 foot wide spaces. At the May, 2010 Transportation Commission meeting, the revised proposal was submitted, discussed, and approved with one revision. In order to address the lack of pedestrian visibility at the crosswalk in Page 1 of 2 CITY OF. ASHLAND front of City Hall, the Commission elected to modify one of the two new parking spaces to either bicycle or motorcycle parking. The attached map shows the revised parking layout as dashed lines over the top of the existing layout as solid grey lines. The open space created by removing the two parking spaces will be re-configured to improve pedestrian traffic flow and add functional items (i.e. publication racks, trash receptacles, and sidewalk dining). Sidewalk dining was proposed by the Transportation Commission in order to offset the cost of implementing the proposal since sidewalk dining yields a $4.00 per square foot annual revenue. The payback for the concrete work required is estimated at three to five years. The revised layout was reviewed by Rich and Ron Hansen from Gold & Gems, as well as Jaime North and Eric Brown from Mix Sweet Shoppe. They all indicated general support and Rich Hansen stressed the importance of increasing parking. The proposal as currently configured increases the number of parking spaces for one additional standard vehicle and either additional motorcycles or bicycling parking. Related Policies: ORS 811.550: Places where standing, stopping and parking prohibited (attached) Council Options: The City Council could approve, modify, or reject the proposed layout. Potential Motions: Council may move to reject, approve, or modify the attached parking plan layout, so long as the modifications do not violate ORS 811.550. Attachments: 1. Plan Layout of the proposed 75 degree parking striping and curb adjustments. 2. May 20 2010 Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes (Draft) 3. Accident report for the Plaza 4. Parking Layout Guidelines 5. ORS 811.550: Places where standing, stopping and parking prohibited Page 2 of 2 f - ~ 47 4 5 - V 41 / 37 / 32 / \wdter r\Ounta i n 31 2 9 ` 26 / '45.25 ~i on Vike ~ 0 1936 25 ~ m-- 1 15 - CIT H ~ eux/•mfo2rc/• ~ ~ wnup oxoe•.e er tM IfNµVf[I[lM ~ / CeMIIIIM C I T Y O F ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Thursday, May 20, 2010 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Minutes Attendees: EricrHeesacker Steve Ryan, Julia Sommer, Colin SWales, Matt Warshawsky, David Young Absent: Tom Bumham, Steve Hauck, Brent Thompson Ex Officio Members: Brandon Goldman, David Chapman, Lary Blake, Scott Hollingsworth, Kat Smith Staff Present: Mike Faught, Nancy Slocum, Pieter Smeenk I. CALL TO ORDER: 6:01 PM by Chair Eric Heesacker. Commission welcomed Steve Ryan. H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of April 15 and April 17, 2010 were approved as corrected. III. PUBLIC FORUM: No one spoke. IV. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AGENDA: Faught asked that the agenda item "Policy for Establishing Shared Roadways" be postponed until more time could be dedicated to the subject. Commission agreed and added several items for discussion to Olson's staff report memo. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. Adoption of Meeting Norms The meeting norms were discussed at April's goal setting retreat and presented here for adoption. Sommers suggested removing some wording from the fourth norm. Young moved to adopt the following norms as amended. Swales seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. We the members and liaisons of the Transportation Commission commit to: • Treat everyone with respect: We will express our opinions responsibly, focusing on the issues and not on personal differences, and speak both honestly and kindly. The rest of the norms are related to this one. • Prepare adequately for the meeting and participate fully. We will have read, reviewed or examined pertinent documents, gathered information or input, or simply assessed our own thoughts and ideas prior to the meeting. • Not interrupt each other. We recognize that we all interrupt at times by mistake or to build on others' statements. However, we will strive to allow each person the space to finish his or her thoughts. • Express ourselves concisely. This norm recognizes the value of each other's input and time. C:\DOCUME-l\smeenkp,LOCAIS-1\TmV\XPgrpwisel5 20 10 TC Minutes.dw Pagel o1`4 !I • Engage each other's thoughts, ideas and opinions. We recognize the value and richness of a meeting when everyone has a chance to participate. This norm also includes gracious acceptance of opinions different from our own. • Stay focused on the topic under discussion. We will stay focused on the agreed-upon topics unless the group makes a conscious decision to alter the agenda. • Start and end meetings on time and arrive at meetings punctually. We need to respect each other's time. The people who are present at the announced time should start without waiting for anyone not yet present. • The public is entitled to be treated with respect, courtesy and professionalism. We strive to provide an atmosphere that fosters respect, trust, inclusiveness for members of the public. B. Adopt Commission Two Year Goals for 2010 Staff presented a draft of the final six goals chosen at the recent goals setting session. The Commission revised them as stated: Transportation Commission Goals for 2010-2011 (24 month goals) 1. TSP Update; 2. Identify and work to implement specific transportation safety projects or objectives that could realistically be completed within the next two years while the TSP is in process; 3. Apply 5 E Principles (Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Evaluation) to all transportation projects; 4. Continue progression toward the League of American Bicyclists' "Bike Friendly Community" Platinum status; 5. Actively participate in local and regional partnerships to further multi-modal equity and enhance safety; 6. Assist RVTD in achieving expanded regional transit services. Motion: Warshawsky moved to adopt the goals as revised above. Young seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The goals would be forwarded to the Council via the meeting minutes. C. Additional Bicycle Parking at North Main Street (Plaza) Associate Engineer, Pieter Smeenk, presented the staff report. In March, 2010 he proposed converting the first space, which he considered dangerous to pedestrians as vehicles backed out,,to bike parking to make room for publication boxes. At that time.Smeenk proposed converting eights spaces to, nine compact spaces. There was opposition to the plan by business.owners concemed wlth , ; a reduced number of parking spaces and by Commissioners who did not think compact spaces;;: practical. In response, he spoke to Mcjie Takallou and the City's traffic engineer and proposed to change the angle of entry to 75 degrees thereby eliminating the first two hazardous' parking spaces - C:\DOCUME-l\smeenkodiOCALS-1\Temp\XPg,pwiw\5 20 10 TC Minutes.dm Page 2 of 4 while also creating two additional spaces. Young was in favor of the new plan and advocated removing bike racks from all downtown sidewalks. He noted that Standing Stone employees actively used their new bike racks. Warshawsky suggested that, since the parking would be restriped anyway, staff consider removing the parking space at the comer of city hall adjacent to the crosswalk and replacing it with a bump out to shorten the crossing distance. He thought overall the new plan encouraged congestion and wondered about reconsidering back-in parking. Swales agreed and wondered about funding a project with money that would benefit mostly those that used the newspaper racks. He noted that delivery trucks ignored parking rules. He thought this large amount of right of way was prime for creative solutions. Young thought that solving individual safety issues was a priority over waiting for a downtown master plan. He favored Warshawsky's suggestion. Ryan agreed that safety came first. He also thought citizens should decide what to do with the extra sidewalk space. Sommer favored new on- street parking configuration and suggested landscaping and sidewalk dining for extra space. Swales wondered if the island could be bumped out further into the right of way. Faught reminded the Commission that City Council would make final decision. Young suggested emphasizing the safety issues. Motion: Warshawsky moved to recommend accepting Staff's revised plan replacing the space adjacent to City Hall with bicycle or motorcycle parking while increasing the bumpout in front of Mix Sweet Shop to square comer. The motion includes making the area in front of Mix Sweet Shop into sidewalk dining to help compensate for the cost of project. Young seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Young, Swales and Chapman volunteered to assist Smeenk with the design. D. Policy for Establishing Shared Roadways This item was tabled until June's meeting. (See Section IV, Adjustments to the Agenda.) VI. NON ACTION ITEMS A. TSP Update Approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement with ODOT will come before the Council on June 1". The agreement includes a $175,000 grant. B. Croman Traffic Impact Analysis Review Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, reported that the Croman Traffic Impact Analysis was recently updated in regards to the phased street improvements in the Croman Mill District. The update was in response to concerns raised at the Planning Commission public hearing regarding the Phase II route through ODOT and private properties. Other revised mitigation options include: • Central By at Tolman Creek Rd would need traffic signal; • Tolman Creek at Mistletoe Rd would need a traffic light on Tolman and right hand turn lane on Mistletoe; • Ashland St and Tolman Creek Rd would need both a left and right hand turn lane on Ashland Street; C:\DOCUME-1\vneenkp\LOCAI S-1\TmV\XPgpwiw\5 20 10 TC Minutmdoc Page 3 of 4 LLE GU""UAT~ 6 ~ I 57 + E-5 / Z \F y „ 1 53 D Z S~ 49 N ' 47 PKV 1998 ♦ ; 45 PKV 1999 am. ♦PKV 1998 PKV 2010 .j T- 41 PKV 1999_.♦ ♦ CR 1998 ~-9 PKV 1998j T / t 37 35 33 / T CR 2005 1 211as 27106 27 v^e 31 2- X08 27 V23 27104 /j CR 1998 Ti 107 27181 27102 29 / T y CR 2004 ; i , n j Ashland Plaza Traffic Accidents * most accidents in this area are unreportable. June 1998 -March 2010 Functional Design 75 Table 3-7. Ir eking Ltyut£t Dimemdo s (Noah America) All Levels of Service 0 VP w0 0 So Design Vehicle= 6'-7" x IT-1" 45 I7'-5" 10'-8" 11-9" 16'-6" Stripe Projection 16-6" 50 I$-0" 9'-4" V-11" 13'-10- Pamllcl Stall Length= 21'-6" 55 I$`-5' 8'-3' 2'-1' 11-7" Of I8'-9" 7'-2« T-2" 9,-6« 65 18-1 t" 6'-t" 2'-3" T-8" 70 191-0 4'-0° 2'-4" 6'-W 75 I8'-)0' a'-10" 2'•5' 4'4" 9o I7-9 I'-0" 2`4" 01-W 0 WP M A 1 $ WP 1.1 A I Level of Service A Local of Service n 45 12'-9" 49 6" 14'4" 3'-2" 45 12'-4" 48'-6" IT-8" 3'-10" 50 11-9" 51'-3' IS'-3' 2'-11" 50 11'-5" 50'-3" 14'-3" TAW 55 11.0" 52'-6" 15'-8 2'-70 5$ 10'-8` 51'-6" I3`-8 T-6" 60 10'-5" 54'Ar 1 li'-6" 2'-3" 60 )0'-I" 331"0" IF-16" 21-2" 65 T-11" 55-3° 17.5' 1'-II« 65 9'-3' 54'-3" 16.5" V-10" 70 CT-7" 56'-6" 18'-6" 1'*" 70 9'-d" 55',6" 171-6" i'-6" 7$ 9'4" 57-6" 19-10" 1'-2" 75 9'-1' 56'-6" l8'-IW I'-.« 90 9'd1" 611 6' 26-0" (y4r 90 R'A' 11r0-6" 2t' 0" 04)" Level of Service C level of :Service D 45 12'-0" 47-6" 12'-8« 3'-0" 45 I46-6" II'-8" 2'-11' SO 11'-i" 49'.3" IT-3" 2'-9" SO Itl`-9' 48'--3V 12'_3" 2-8 « 55 10.5" 50'-6" t3'-8 2-5" 55 10'-I'" 491-6' 12'-8 2*4 60 9`-l0" 52'-0" IV-6« 60 9'-6' 51'-0" 13.6° 2'-1« 65 9'-5" S3`-3' 16.5' 1-I0" 65 9'-l" 521-3° 14-5" 1--o- 70 9'-I" 54'-6" 16'-+fi" 1'-$' 70 81-9" 531-6" 134-6" 1141' S 81-I0" 551-6" 17-10" 11-1" 8'-0" 53'.6` 1610" 11-1" 90 8'6' 59.6" 24'4)' 0'4)" 90 8'-3" 58-6" 23'-0" 0'-1}" Notts: I. All dimensions rrwadod to nearest inch. 2. Add I II, m module our strfate jzxrl mF, bays without curbs or other patiarg guides (Rryuem poles, columm: asv;316) in areas with frequent tanw corer. 3. Angles between 76 degrees and 89 degrees not recommended because these :orgies permit drivers of smaller cars to hark out an exit the w mg way, 4, To tnahrtain the sarac kvcl of service with wider stalls, reduce the module (M) by 3 in, lot each I in. additional stall width. 5. Columns and light potcs may pratrude into the p: kialp module a combined tnaximtmt of 2 ft as hmg as t3 ey do not affect more than 25% or the stalls in that tray. 6. Small ear oaly stalls T-6" wide by i T-t1' long should only be usod at comvafned locations or in remnants of space. The numdct of these t!tails shkwld not cicced 15% or the tot l capacity. i LAgerld # "y4 Y, t?' t~1 ,•`^ti c..s xt.~2C prix; m 3A'.. ^-;.-t # # iS'rf +li'C '1 s ~ ~t::c4,•, 3 ~'Pf.`~w f k INV .jt$f S 1Y14 fr- - U~ lb sif assn 'w Q1 "W J. M'uv 20'-4' ' k 1f", . v.~ g Ni+^jF: i Source: Parking Structures: Planning, Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Repair, Anthony P Crest et al., third edition, 2001 ISBN 0-7923-7213-1 http: //boo ks.goog le. com/books?id=fs68ZmTwtSMC& pa=PA82&I pa=PA82&da=75+deg ree+pa rki ng+la vo ut &source=bl&ots=yppcTgma5P&siq=8EReWzJC6uAvwZTvpdhLYgsCKUU&hl=en&ei=7X MS C1PJDusQ OdtavpAw&sa=X&oi=book result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=OCCcQ6AEwBw#v=onepaae&a=75%20dea ree%20 oarki na%201 avo ut&f=false 811.•a6U OREGON VEHICLE CODE RULES OF 9'm ROAD MR DRIVERS 811660 (16) Within 10 tent of a f1re hydrant. Ex. section (1X61 of this amI. that the use of ll- signal by hood, voice. amil'arey tight or et- highve 1uG(3) U" thek~ visaye eaide dge fir crab curt a ereptionn under ORS 811.660(2) and (4) to (7) the vehicle was at eu[h"rued by the owneq ran, a.A either. °E mplio S B11S60 (7) a Applicable A this subleve n.._ _ either axPrevlr or by Implication. audisc OEhacdien. (19) Wilhite V lest of a eraawalk at an (6) The offense described by that eeclum (p 1%, person, while still in the vehicle, are applicable to this knowinglyy. flees Or e[tOmpty to elude - pm- 141 on a sidewalk. Exemptions under '"tenectio"- Examplions under ORS 811.680' n,,A, lapping, standing or parking, is n suing pMca otim,r or ORS 811660 141 de al ate Applicable to this (2) and (b) to f71 arc applicable to this sub Class D [rage violation. It9W emu Wass new man gets out of the vehicle subecmion ~ee<tun. call al (R) The m and knuwingll net., er altenlpto to [ludo the o inlcreec[ion. Exemp[ionr (18) With 6o feat K. the pp ch to 811880: Eaecallona h,wA jorchlbiRaml Police officer 151 lYithin und(5 ORS 8115(11 I to l0 are app stole ffi I 0 1 6 signal, stop yield o popping, ft red g and parking. This (2) It is an alirmauve defense to a pars to this mbsel oa 88nn tell control d ce located at the e m provides es mPYom tram ORS' t mm of a penao under this section fiat, s de of tho r dwy if the standing or Verit- RD.560 attl 811625.- Thn following aver a Police onlcer operating a vehicle not (6) On c dawalk. Exemptions under ng of a vehiele will obstruct Rte new ^f any itm„en, applicable as provided under en official WLm vehicle eigmled ORS 611 S60 l4) on (U em applicable to this trafie antral device located at be vide of 00811 .5511 eked of - me ke As to bring We ram A vehicle an a aubsectim. Rea madwaY. Examplim ,,taker ORS 811 SAM - o - - - - ' heV. the Per the cerbri Proceeded lawfully to an p) Re[ween a mfetY vane and the odic UI read (4) no 191 are applicable to this sub. II) Wren AV licabla. there eubnnGOn x on t e em[ian, meta school or worker pa [ mss A mnnhly believed wan cent curb ur within 30 fee[ of points 1 ccesil." fa tench Lefure stOPP rg cub immediately PP.AIM the ends of a (19) Within 15 feet Of the Aimee banes stopped on hi a o uses ro Pro tr land or untraruload " A ddremal length is indi treat- In v fire elation and on the side of u here hbus n, providing that the school 131 The offense described in [his section, s"fc[ Ly i tone, ..In. Fleshing Ling. bus safety lights un We bus neeinR or a[temp[ine I. elude a Wlice ol& rated gns and maWagx. Fur VaiNOcea street aPOfine rho he on antence to a fire station, are operating. We nn this subsection the safety mile must be 11dn o45 feet of the entrmw. Exemptions to, is applicable Any premises open m of re or spare officially ..t 'Part thin a under ORS 811660 (2) and (4) to 191 cure eP (2) When applicable, this ..1heartim, - the Punic, rend. rod Way I., the exdmme use of pedmWnn- pliable to this eubxttion. emP tartly a mopped, weeding 0r Perked ml la a Class C (stony if lommirted as and horn Vym[ee[ed or is ao marked or (20) At any place where traffic control m0 ntrdlY pick up ordischarge o pa-- drwdbed in subsection ORhell) of this arc- indicated by adequale eigna es W be Phrum Y devices Prohibit standing, Exemptions under acad. Linn or viaibl. at 11 times -hit' Art Plead es A vfetY ORS 811860 (2) and (4) to (7) ere itPpbe.ble (P lV1 applicable, this' bn clion ex cal It 1 CIA A `I. epeor it t n Ex ie s Je ORS 811560 lal M to this subsection. a ne- pe h fit Aped on J' a Pwhile moun i f ad fig Or unloading cra t 1 d cribed' subsection III(b)(8) of the (71 Applicable t thes tt exc (21) Withal 50 fact of the sorest call of ni 11[ IY fOdIh n f ,.7 m. {a cts lan lsab teal ..1t 1561 rat" 91: valor i or Abstraction when tstopp strreg.eesmvda moral ioed Eorxemratptions fNedder ORS .de. .r t ay system map ,v 0r prMSengen obstruct traffic 1.560 (3) 8 or parking is (7) are applicable to this subsection. (4) When apnwicable, them subsection ex. PAItHiNC. SFOPI'WG AND STANDING IFl mpurve under ORSI h 811560 (4) to (7) an 1221 At I where traffic mate rmple vehicles nN operated by the ap,jembla m this subseauun. any Pat? ataie a county or city when atappaat,, re01 1f raDYl 1 liar elevated derems Prohibit parlung EarmOhAns under 1 am ge ORS 811560 (3) In 17) are applicable to this n fir Wrl rep a necessary a perform main 91 11Wv a bred Bll'66U MI h t pp 0.- w,d structure Pon v hlghwnyr EaemPtlom m sub altiaa tincome or rep work an the roadway fig all dt,p king P h bR d Th s ci n d ORS Bll 141 to 161 ere nPplicabl. (23) O" a bicycle lane Exemptions under (5) veh pPlieable [file ibLix ex I I'll pfd h" to P R [ d' 8 th1 subsection, ORS 811.580 are applicable w this subam a pis h l es I m the prohibitive. vna end I``L and parking a h l p rain t d f pur- (10) lV lh' hen t I Fill- ton, W IC h tl trials de regred of the wa, I' e f 4t- ce alt d UHS alts 2 options d. ORB 8U 560 (4) t 171 e 12O On a bicycle path Eeemp[iona under o hbt eaea0 In Avoid annict me:nal If` E pt'ex pmv d d I r an c e pis n viOlal apl nl In this euh act 'LLi other t raffle. 811 IU; a Peron n S ORS ORS 811560 . Applicable W this aubsern . masse amore (6) Wh pplable this micancian ex 8115 18 of Ptn larks, awp i haves 1111 O iiilio d o ' 1 fired Yea Item ram 1669 cam I L5 nwnh 1 in nnA Of the f 11 inR1 saideway sestet- trak o within and em V. tall eras Vie aoa esIIw51 a pan vehicles aenng in mmPphen~ with law half F ,;t of the a t l b 811866 Dleal atoyV at t the direction of a pa m.1 A ls We., at a staxandin PI s when the parking of vehicle. would i Rct - r p king, afRrmetlve defe(nngx{ el[e traffic control device pis with operations pair of the truck En it ptrwa commit. the offense ofPillegal emll 1 When applicable, this retention iv. _ d tllll, e d do d t n td whether t enplane der or 811 60 (4) O) _ ping standing or parking of empts the driver nl' n vehiele that to dienbled oni tended nett I I h it 1 a ApVlimbll, in this sun. t 1.1 The Pa at.,, such manner and to such extent that the t step, Park 1,mco the vehicle tr d t (121 On A the nalh yy, F- . pt n s m der x parka Icaeea river cannot avoid stepping the odw. Fxem [m^a d ORS ORS 811560 (41 to 171 o .,,h..bleb this standing make, le place hw ere h pP1ng fir temporenlY 811 60 (1), (7) and 199 ore Applicable to this 6 P rkmg creation ding is pmlubiKd Itevmg the disabled vehicle m n prohibited pub-aunn `uM11 OSIS 811 SSUpmitmet, subsection. I^ the area between random, of A 01 TTe pecan the owner of on met- (8) When eplable, this mbeectint es. (2) On a shoulder, whetter -trended divided highway, including cre sove Ex. .amded veliirie .had in a ❑ner where such Pia ehiclea eoperated 1, [be u" ttended,'nlue, A deer and couletralted captions der OR811.560 (4) to (7) fie .•,paiking in pro hpbted under ORS 811.551). State Deportment of Fuhrand 44'ildlife when width of that rdway opWnite the standing applicable to this subsection stepping, -trading or parking is necessary to n whore traffic mnaml 121 Exem liana from this -action Am ea - bit employees to tale... fish. v hale 1r, a fan th e Pna.aece of thin n vein- (141 At Y Pl« ea and the eC to hale is virhle from tabSiiAed order URS 811860. t g `e devices Prohibit a(uppinR. Exemption u der (9) When Applicable, diamnre of 200 fee[ a each direction upon OAR 811 560 (dl m 191 are nPPlicable to this 11 A lice olnar, order oulhorily momentarily this -ubseMion ex the m dwaY of the Wnan, -t least 200 feet xluwpn ion. b ed v8h1aleal31Aat is imlo scut regmrc fi a e ataR< foie mekitrn'ly nch direction upon the roadway, warms p a approaching manners A(the rending vehicle Ufil In Sent of a public or Prelude m.)eA ata.diog in vfeti of [Ri°1dse,i honked ^ ht-hnnd or left hand turn or u ggers, nags, sign. at other sig- drivrway. E acta ap undef ORS .31 L560 (21 by 43 It is su a$rmctive defense to A rca. .rced xi prom the rm Adfor . fir while n meg.ti a5- cuts.s orf namptimn and,., OAS Bt ISM (9) an and 141 w 1711 1 nPplicvble w that suhaec: eeuLUn of the Owner of . vehicle under pub- ~:.2 I yn emit fr mm[he road. 11961 rma lam uses applicable to this subsection. tiny (2A10.5 F:di[irnl ''RGG SY Page 2d9 'title fig ,'age 24tl (RttLi EditieN l CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Resolution regarding Council's recommendation on the Greater Bear Creek Regional Solving Plan (RPS) Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Development E-Mail: billpashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: N/A Secondary Contact: Derek Severson e Estimated Time: 60 minutes Approval: Martha Berm Question: Does the City Council wish to adopt a resolution making a recommendation to Jackson County on issues to be addressed prior to adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution making a formal recommendation to Jackson County on several specific issues in the RPS Plan. Staff has incorporated into the resolution specific recommendations for changes to the draft RPS Plan. In general, these recommendations are intended to provide reassurance that key issues highlighted by the Mayor, Council and citizens over the past three years are given appropriate consideration prior to county adoption. Background: The Oregon Revised Statutes allow for the establishment of regional problem solving programs in counties and regions throughout the state. This collaborative regional planning process is intended to provide a framework directed toward resolving land use problems in a region. The City of Ashland entered into a "Collaborative Regional Problem Solving" process in 2000 along with several other Bear Creek Valley municipalities and Jackson County. The RPS process brought together the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent, as well as Jackson County and a number of state agencies. The participants worked to identify lands suitable for long-term urban growth that are sufficient to accommodate the doubling of the region's population over the next forty to fifty years. Lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region have been designated as Urban Reserve Areas (URA's) in the plan. These URA's are those into which cities will eventually expand their urban growth boundaries and, ultimately, their city limits. Ashland is the only city participating in the RPS process that has not identified URA's, as the Council previously determined that with more efficient land use strategies, the lands already within Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary were sufficient to accommodate the city's anticipated growth. After considering an initial draft plan in 2007, a letter was sent from then-Mayor John Morrison to the RPS Policy Committee that described several areas where Ashland wanted to see the plan changed. The areas identified in that letter were: efficient use of existing lands, transportation planning and implementation, the loss of high value agricultural lands, and coordinated population allocations. These comments were based upon a Council discussion of the draft plan. Pagel of 4 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND In September of 2008, the Council acknowledged general agreement with the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) process and adopted a resolution supporting Regional Problem Solving (RPS) in the Greater Bear Creek Valley as well as the general sequencing of the RPS approval process as envisioned through the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. Ashland signed the formal Participants Agreement in December of 2009. After more than a decade, a draft RPS Plan is complete, and it is anticipated that over the coming months the plan will be reviewed and adopted. Jackson County, the land use authority with regional jurisdiction that will ultimately adopt the plan, is currently holding a series of public hearings to review the document before their Planning Commission, and the individual cities Planning Commissions and Councils are holding their own hearings as well. Jackson County's Planning Commission will make a recommendation to their Board of Commissioners, and the Board will ultimately adopt the plan. Each participating municipality will then need to adopt the relevant portions of the County-approved plan into their Comprehensive Plans and Land Use Ordinances. The acknowledgement process for the plan will not begin at the state level until the County has approved the RPS plan, and each participating municipality has adopted it as well. At an April 27, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission heard a presentation and took comments on the Draft Regional Plan and the efforts to date, and there was general agreement with reinforcing the issues which were previously raised in the 2007 letter. In addition, the Planning Commission was in agreement that minimum lot size restrictions within a mile of Ashland's city limits (i.e. the "urban fringe") which are currently in both state law and county land use regulations but are set to expire with completion of the RPS process should be maintained until urban reserve areas are identified for Ashland. Proposed Resolution - Recommended Plan Revisions Staff has drafted a resolution noting the City of Ashland's general support for the Regional Problem Solving Plan. Given that Ashland signed the participant's agreement, staff assumes that Council is still general supportive of this regional effort. While the draft resolution outlines the benefits to the region of a collaborative process through which participants can address issues of regional significance, the resolution also identifies four key areas the City believes need to be clearly addressed. Efficient Use of Existing Lands & Transportation Planning and Implementation - Ashland raised these issues in 2007, and since the draft RPS Plan was released 1,000 Friends of Oregon, Friends of Jackson County, and Rogue Advocates have raised similar issues. Most recently, John Renz the Southern Oregon Regional Representative of the Department of Land Conservation and Development provided a letter for the RPS Plan record indicating that DLCD believes that the participating cities committing only to lower density/high land needs scenario is a weakness of the plan which is out of tune with the real future needs of the cities. Renz's letter emphasized that Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) support for the plan would be dependent on efficient use of land and suggested that the region either incorporate a commitment to Transit Oriented Development in the plan or commit to a higher density/low land need planning scenario of at least 7.26 dwelling units per acre which would provide densities more conducive to supporting a successful transit system. Recommended language to this effect has been incorporated in the attached- resolution, along with a recommendation that implementation Page 2 of 4 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND measures to verify compliance with these measures at the time of urban growth boundary expansion. Coordinated Population Allocations - Staff believe it is crucial to make clear that while Ashland is not identifying urban reserves, we are a full participant in regional planning efforts and are choosing to accommodate our projected growth through more efficient land use within our existing city limits and urban growth boundary and as such, Ashland should receive full consideration in coordinated regional planning of transportation and infrastructure projects over the plan period. The current draft plan . understates Ashland's anticipated population growth, identifying a growth rate that is only about one- quarter of the annual growth rate we have experienced over the past two decades. In staff's view, it is important that our annual population growth rate be more accurately reflected in both the draft RPS Plan and in the County's Population Element which will be revised in 2012. Language to this effect is incorporated in the attached resolution. Urban Fringe - As noted at the April 27`h Planning Commission meeting, staff believes it is important to preserve the ten-acre minimum lot size limitations within the "urban fringe" which extends for one mile beyond Ashland's existing urban growth boundary. State law (OAR 660- 004-0040) has these limitations in place until completion of a regional plan, and they are also incorporated into the County's development code. Staff believes that there should be some formal assurance that these minimum lot sizes will remain in place within our urban fringe until urban reserves are added and an urban reserve management agreement between Ashland and Jackson County is signed. Language to this end is incorporated in the attached resolution. Jurisdictional Transfer - Jurisdictional transfer of County roads within existing city limits as suggested in John Vial's June 4, 2010 letter should not be tied to the adoption and acknowledgement process for the RPS Plan. This issue, only recently raised by the County, may have significant budgetary implications which need to be further considered by the Cities and the County. Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan policies related to the recognition of the need for regional collaboration with respect to land use planning issues. Council Options: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution making a recommendation to Jackson County regarding the adoption of the RPS Plan; 2. Adopt the proposed resolution, as amended by the Council, making a recommendation to Jackson County regarding adoption of the RPS Plan; 3. Make recommendations on adoption of the RPS Plan through another mechanism (i.e. letter from the Mayor) Potential Motions: 1. Move to adopt the proposed resolution making a recommendation to Jackson County on the adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan. Page 3 of 4 1r, CITY OF -ASHLAND 2. Move to adopt the proposed resolution, including the following amendments, making a recommendation to Jackson County on the adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan. Attachments: Note: In addition to the attachments below, the entire Draft Regional Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley and supporting appendices can be viewed at the website of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments at: htip:Hrveog.org/mn.asp'?pg=RPS Plan 2010 A calendar of public meetings to discuss the plan at the Jackson County Planning Commission and in each of the participating cities is available on-line at: http://rveo..orL/mn.asp?pL--RPS Public Meetings 2010 Exhibit A - Draft RPS Plan, Volumes I-III (distributed separately on May 28`h, 2010) Exhibit B - Proposed Resolution Exhibit C - Packet Material and Minutes from the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting Exhibit D - Mayor Morrison's 2007 Letter Exhibit E - Resolution #2003-037 Exhibit F - Participants Agreement Exhibit G - DLCD 2010 Letter Exhibit H - John Vial Letter Exhibit I - Public Comments Received to Date Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2010- A RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND RECOMMENDING RESOLUTION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS PART OF ADOPTION OF THE GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PLAN. Recitals: A. WHEREAS Pursuant to former ORS 197.654 (1) (2007), Jackson County and the cities of Medford, Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Phoenix and Talent, entered into a collaborative regional problem-solving (RPS) process; and B. WHEREAS the City of Ashland (City), as a participant in RPS, having signed a Participants' Agreement identifying a regional land use problem, establishing goals addressing the problem, creating mechanisms for achieving such goals, and a system for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of the those goals ; and C. WHEREAS the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (the "RPS Plan") contemplated by the Participants' Agreement has been proposed under the provisions of former ORS 197.654(1) and former 197.656(2), which remain applicable to this RPS process; and D. WHEREAS Jackson County is the local government charged with adopting the final RPS Plan; and E. WHEREAS the RPS process must include: (a) An opportunity for involvement by other stakeholders with an interest in the problem; and (b) Efforts among the collaborators to agree on goals, objectives and measures of success; and F. WHEREAS the City has been requested to make recommendation (s) to Jackson County concerning the contents and adoption of the final RPS Plan, including associated maps and findings; and G. WHEREAS the City's Planning Commission discussed and took comments on the RPS Plan on April 27, 2010 and the City Council conducted a public meeting on the RPS Plan on June 15, 2010, 2010; and H. WHEREAS, all requirements for legal notices and advertisements have been fulfilled and public testimony accepted and recorded; now, therefore, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 - RPS PLAN. The City Council of Ashland hereby recommends Jackson County's adoption of the "Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan", attached as Exhibit "A", and associated findings as amended with the following provisions: Page 1 of 3 I. Population -That the pop/Specifically, n allocation be reviewed and adjusted accordingly prior to adoption the Regional Problem Solving Plan should be amended to reflect a 2040 population projection consistent with an approximate 1.06 average annual growth rate (AAGR), and a 2060 population projection consistent with an approximate 0.91 average annual growth rate for Ashland over the respective planning horizons. While Jackson County's Population Element is expected to be revisited in 2012 (JC ord. 2007- 3), it &heel-be amended prior to final adoption of the RPS Plan. The Population Element should be revised based on the 1.06 percent annual growth rate through the 2020 planning horizon, and the 0.91 percent annual growth rate through the 2040 planning horizon. Population estimates slieuld be corrected to reflect these projected growth rates, or alternate growth rates based upon a accepted, empirically based population prrgecction methodology. ~/,IY)Sj- S 2. Efficient Land Use and Transportation Planning/Implementation - That the Regional Problem Solving Plan incorporate a commitment to Transit Oriented Development andea commitment by the participating cities to a higher density (lower land need) planning scenario of at least 7.26 dwelling s per acre (as suggested by DLCD) which would provide densities more conducive to supporting a successful regional transit system. The plan shall include measures to verify compliance with these commitments through any proposed urban growth boundary expansion, by preparation of a conceptual development plan specifying anticipated target residential and/or employment densities. 3. Urban Fringe - That the Regional Problem Solving Plan be amended to provide some formal assurance that the ten-acre minimum lot size requirement, as outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule 660-004-0040(8)(c), will remain in place within Ashland's urban fringe until Ashland identifies urban reserve areas and an urban reserve management agreement between Ashland and Jackson County is signed. 4. Jurisdictional Transfer - Jurisdictional transfer of County roads within existing city limits as suggested in John Vial's June 4, 2010 letter should not be tied to the adoption and acknowledgement process for the RPS Plan. This issue, only recently raised by the County, may have significant budgetary implications which need to be further considered by the Cities and the County. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Page 2 of 3 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A - Draft RPS Plan, Volumes I-III (distributed separately on May 28", 2010) .The entire Draft Regional. Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley and supporting appendices can be viewed at the website of the Rogue Valley Council of Governments at: http•//rvcog_org/mn asp?pg=RPS Plan 2010 A calendar of public meetings to discuss the plan at the Jackson County Planning Commission and in each of the participating cities is available on-line at: http://rvcog.org/mn.asp?pjz=RPS Public 1Vleetings 2010 Exhibit B - Proposed Resolution Exhibit C - Packet Material and Minutes from the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give Your name and comolele address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION APRIL 27, 2010 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center, 1175 E. Main Street It. ANNOUNCEMENTS Ill. PRESENTATIONS A. 2010-2014 CDBG Consolidated Plan Update. B. Regional Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley Update. C. FEMA Flood Map Rate Modernization Update. IV. ADJOURNMENT C I T Y OF ASHLAND In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate In this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541.488-5305 (TTY phone Is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 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). Realonal Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley After nearly a decade, the Regional Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley is almost complete. This planning effort brought together the cities of Ashland, Central Point, Eagle Point, Medford, Phoenix and Talent, as well as Jackson County and a number of state agencies to identify lands suitable for long-term urban growth needs sufficient to accommodate the doubling of the region's population over the next forty to fifty years. As part of the planning process, lands that have been selected to accommodate future urban growth within the region have been designated as Urban Reserve Areas. These Urban Reserve Areas are those Into which cities will eventually expand their urban growth boundaries and, ultimately, their city limits. Ashland is the only city participating in the regional planning process that has not Identified Urban Reserve Areas, as it was previously determined that lands already within Ashland's city limits and urban growth boundary were sufficient to accommodate the anticipated growth for Ashland. A draft of the Regional Plan has been completed and Jackson County, the land use authority with regional jurisdiction that will ultimately adopt the plan, is currently holding a series of public hearings to review the document. The draft plan includes the Identified Urban Reserve Areas and policies necessary to implement the plan. All of the jurisdictions Involved in the process have signed a participant's agreement which provides guidance for putting the plan Into action, and it is anticipated that over the coming year, the draft Regional Plan will be reviewed and adopted, after Jackson County and each of the cities holding public hearings to provide opportunities for plan review and comment. Ashland's meeting dates to discuss the draft Regional Plan are as follows: Planning Commission Study Session: April 27t', 2010 at 7:00 p.m. at the City of Ashland City Council Chambers City Council Hearing: June Is', 2010 at 7:00 pm, at the City of Ashland City Council Chambers Jackson County Planning Commission (discussion of plan as it relates to Ashland) : August 12" 2010 at 9:30 a.m. at the Jackson County Courthouse Auditorium While no Urban Reserve Areas have been Identified for Ashland in the draft plan, the Ashland City Council will hold a public hearing at Its regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. on June 1st to take public comment on the draft Regional Plan and craft their recommendation to the Jackson County Planning Commission. The draft Regional Plan can be reviewed on-line at: http:/Irvcoa orafmn asp?pa=RPS Plan 2010 A calendar of upcoming public meetings to discuss the plan at the Jackson County Planning Commission and in each of the participating titles is available on-line at: http:lirvcog oralmn asp?pa=RPS Public Meetings 2010 If you have any questions relating to the Regional Plan, please contact City of Ashland Associate Planner Derek Severson at 541.552.2040 or e-mail SeversoDftashland.or.us . CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 27, 2010 CALL TO ORDER Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Larry Blake Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Dave Dotterrer Derek Severson, Associate Planner Pam Marsh Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Mike Morris John Rinaldi, Jr. Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller, absent Eric Navickas ANNOUNCEMENTS " Community Development Director Bill Molnar noted the Economic Development Strategy update will come before the Commission at their May Study Session. He also commented on the Croman Mill Plan and stated the Council held their first public hearing on April 6th and this item will be continued at the Council's May 4t" meeting. Commissioner Marsh stated at the May Study Session she would like the Commission to revisit the goals they set at their annual retreat and determine what still needs to be accomplished before the end of the year. PRESENTATIONS A. 2010.2014 CDBG Consolidated Plan Update. Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid and Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided a presentation on the 2010-2014 CDBG Consolidated Plan. Mr. Goldman explained the Consolidated Plan contains an assessment of needs for specific eligible activities to benefit low income populations and populations with special needs. It also contains a housing market analysis, an evaluation of resources that are available to serve the specific populations, an assessment of barriers to affordable housing, an analysis of impediments to fair housing, an evaluation of economic and community development needs, and an outline of the public participation process for how the CDBG funds will be allocated. He noted most of the demographic information comes from the 2000 Census but in order to have it be more up to date, Ms. Reid and the Housing Commission supplemented the 2006-2008 American Survey data. Ms. Reid commented on the Consolidated Plan's public participation process, provided Information on the City s housing types and vacancy rates, and provided information on the City's demographics. The following are some of the key figures listed by Ms. Reid: • Ashland has 17 Census block groups and of those 8 are considered low to moderate income. • Between 1990 and 2008 the total population of people 55 or older doubled; and all other age groups with the exception of children under age 5 were reduced. • There is a higher percentage of individuals living below the poverty level in Ashland than in Jackson County, the State of Oregon, and the United States as a whole. • Ashland has a lower median income than Medford, Jackson County, the State of Oregon, and the United States. Ashland Planning Commission April 27, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Staff noted the City Council approved the 2010-2010 Consolidated Plan on April. 20, 2010 and asked if the Planning Commissioners had any questions. - Commissioner Dotterrer asked what impact Southern Oregon University students have on this data. Ms. Reid stated it is not possible to separate this Information out of the Census report; however the University is coming out with their own data which will be very helpful. Commissioner Mindlin asked if CDBG-funds could be used for transportation needs. Ms. Reid stated CDBG funds could be used for transportation improvements if those improvements primarily benefit low to moderate income families, and.she provided some examples. Mr. Molnar noted the current Obama administration is moving in the direction of forming relationships between transportation and housing needs and indicated there may be future funding possibilities in this regard. Mindlin noted recent reports are indicating money spent on public transportation benefits lower income families to a.greater extent per dollar than money spent on affordable housing projects. Ms. Reid briefly reviewed the grant recipients for this year's award and stated the leftover funds will be used to complete ADA and public facility, improvements in qualified low income areas. B, Regional Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley Update. Associate Planner Derek Severson and Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided an update on the Regional Plan for the Greater Bear Creek Valley. Mr. Severson explained this plan, which Is also called Regional Problem Solving or RPS, is a coordinated planning process that-addresses the doubling of the valley's population over the next 40-50 years. He stated the fullOraft Plan is now available on the City's website and stated the City is currently scheduled to present their final comments on the Plan at a public hearing before the Jackson County Planning Commission on August 12, 2010. Mr. Severson provided some history on this process. He stated in 2003 the City of Ashland agreed"to participate in the RPS process, but decided to not identify any urban reserves, and instead would accommodate growth through infill and increased density. Mr. Severson reviewed the issues that were in a 2007 letter from the Mayor, and commented on a recent discrepancy in regards to the. population allocation that is identified. He stated the City is in the process of working through this issue with the County and clarified Ashland never said our population would not grow, but rather that we would accommodate that growth within our current boundaries. Mr. Severson provided information on the adoption process and listed the next steps. He clarified the Jackson County Board of Commissioners is the deciding bodyin this action and once they have made their decision it will be forwarded to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (OLCD). He stated the cities will then have to incorporate the adopted plan into their: individual Comprehensive Plans, and noted this will be fairly simple.for Ashland since we are not proposing any changes. Once this step is complete and the DLCD adopts the plan, there will be an opportunity for cities to appeal the Plan. Mr. Molnar clarified the purpose of this meeting is to bring everyone up to date, and stated if the Commission would like to issue formal comments to the City Council in dine for their public hearing, staff could allocate tine at the Commission's May meeting. Commissioner Marsh questioned if this process has considered how the current economic recession will affect this Plan. Mr. Severson stated this has not really be discussed and stated it is not about the timeframe and deals more with how to accommodate the doubling when it occurs. Commissioner Mindlin commented that all of the issues outlinedin the 2007 letter are still very important and noted she has concerns with the transportation planning. She stated transportation development in the County will have an effect on Ashland even ff it is happening elsewhere. Comment was made questioning if there will be an affirmation by the participants of the end of this process. Mr. Molnar shared some the concerns that were raised about cities backing out of the process in the end. He stated in lieu of an affirmation process, all of the cities who participated will have the opportunity to appeal the Plan. Ashland Planning Commission Apri127, 2010 Page 2of3 Commissioner Rinaldi commented that all of the issues raised in the 2007 letter are just as relevant today as they were then, and questioned how this Plan will affect air quality, wastewater capacity, etc. Commissioner Marsh read into the record a statement emailed to the Commission from "sd96950@hotmail.com". Commissioner Marsh noted the Commission could revisit this at their May meeting if they need to, but stated there seems to be general agreement with reinforcing the comments that are already on the table. Several commissioners voiced their agreement with this statement. Marsh stated she also agrees with the comments that have already made by the City, but stated she hopes the Council will not hold back when this goes before the County and hopes they will make a strong statement about our land use values being incorporated over time into the RPS process. Commissioner,Dawkins commented that the City had the opportunity to stand with Jacksonville and not participate in this process which would have made a much stronger statement, but at this point there is not much room for disagreement. C. FEMA Flood Map Rate Modernization Update. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman provided an update on the FEMA Flood Map modernization. He explained this is a nationwide project that modifies the 100 yr. and 500 yr. flood zones in the City. Mr. Goldman stated these maps do not change the Ashland Modified Flood Plain, but they may impact citizens' flood insurance need and rates, developable land area, and building code requirements. He stated the City is working to alert the community about these changes and their opportunity to lock In insurance rates If they are affected. Mr. Molnar clarified the Ashland Modified Flood Zone was identified back in the 1980's based on discrepancies with the FEMA Flood Zone. He stated the Ashland zone was based on where water actually flowed during flooding events and stated staff does not anticipate moving that zone based on this newer information from FEMA. Mr. Goldman noted that both zones are regulated, so even if someone is in the FEMA Flood Zone but not the Ashland Modified Flood Zone, they will be regulated to the same extent. Mr. Goldman provided further information on the grandfathering clause to lock in Insurance rates and clarified citizens will need to purchase insurance before the map revisions go into effect. He noted all of the updated FEMA Flood maps are posted to the City's website and citizens are encouraged to contact the Planning Division with questions. He stated this item will come back to the Commission in June, where they will be asked to adopt the revised maps and approve ordinance amendments that are necessary for consistency. Mr. Goldman noted the outreach that is being performed and staff was thanked for all their efforts to assist the community through this process. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, April Lucas, Administrative Assistant Ashland Planning Commission April 27, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit D - Mayor Morrison's 2007 Letter CITY OF ASHLAND November 15, 2007 Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee C/o Rogue Valley Council of Governments Post Office Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Chair Jackson and Members of the RPS Policy Committee: On behalf of the entire City Council, I am writing to offer comments on the Regional Problem Solving Draft Plan. The Ashland City Council supports a Regional Plan that recognizes the participants' mutual dependence and our desire to see the valley grow in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. We are committed, as you all know, to accommodating our growing population and growing businesses within our existing boundaries, and we know that our fate as a community is dependent on the decisions of the County and other Cities in the Bear Creek Valley. I hope you will consider our comments as part of our strong commitment to regional coordination and to growth that supports a healthy, robust economy and also preserves our high quality of life and our commitment to environmental protection. First, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for the considerable effort and countless number of hours that members of the Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and RVCOG staff have dedicated to this valuable undertaking. The Regional Problem Solving process has been an opportunity to mutually evaluate scenarios,that provide for managed growth, efficient land use patterns, a transportation strategy, protections for the region's air and water, and sound management of the valley's agricultural and forest lands over the long haul. At a special meeting devoted to this topic on October 29, 2007, the City Council identified several areas where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a stakeholders agreement. Efficient Use of Existing Lands The draft Plan appears to emphasize the size and location of proposed urban reserves as a strategy for accommodating population growth. We perceive that this focus has meant other important regional issues, such as protection of resource lands, the connection between land use and transportation planning, and affordable housing have received less emphasis. Administration Tel: 5411488.8002 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5414488.5311 Ashland, Oregon eOOn 97520 TTY: 8001735-2800 v v.ashland.or.us PRMTED 0.Y P(CHHO PM A The City Council is concerned this emphasis may compromise the very thing that the Plan is trying to protect the region's remarkable quality of life. The Council believes development of vacant properties, redevelopment of existing land, and increased densities and infill within established urban growth boundaries should be a top priority of the Plan. By directing communities within the region to first enact land use incentives to achieve greater densities on existing lands within established urban growth boundaries, a reduction in the total land acreage committed for urban reserves could likely be achieved. It appears that the City of Medford, in particular, has done an excellent job in considering redevelopment and in accepting that infill has to be a key strategy, and we believe all participants need to similarly commit to greater densities. The City of Ashland recognizes that we still have work to do in this area ourselves. Although we plan to accommodate growth within our existing urban growth area, our current and planned densities need to be closely examined to make sure we are doing our part to reduce unneeded urban expansion, protect farm and forest land, and support transit in our community and region. Transportation Planning and Implementation Upon a cursory review of the draft Plan, the City Council believes the plan lacks an emphasis on the role of alternate forms of transportation and seems to accept as inevitable a need to increase the capacity of arterial street systems. Ashland believes the Regional Plan should prioritize alternative forms of transportation, including transit and other forms of higher occupancy travel. Where it is clear that, over time, certain road improvements will be necessary, the location, type and approximate time frame for implementation should be described. Lastly, the draft Plan should ekplicitly encourage and reward communities that actively plan for alternative forms of transportation. Regional funding measures must give equal weight to communities that implement strategies aimed at reducing automobile trips, rather than depending on building facilities for additional vehicle capacity. We believe the transportation modeling conducted by RV COG as part of RPS reinforces that concern. The modeling shows that mixed use development with density clustered around transit nodes is best way to reduce total vehicle miles, traffic congestion and investments in roads. As noted above, we hope the Regional Plan and Stakeholders Agreement will create incentives to ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service. Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands The concern over the loss of resource and forest lands caused by urban expansion is one of three stated problems being addressed through Regional Problem Solving. One of the stated "Project Goals" is to "Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits." Administration Tex: 5411448-0002 20 E. Main Street 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5414488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 80017352900 w ,ashland,or.us According to the draft Plan, however, of the 9,200 acres included within Urban Reserve Areas, 77 percent are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and 18 percent are considered critical to the region's commercial agricultural land base. The City of Ashland is very concerned about the long-term implications of expansion into production lands, especially the "critical" commercial agricultural lands. We would ask the Policy Committee to please consider amendments to the draft Plan to prolong the need for extending urban growth boundaries into the region's commercial agricultural base of land by encouraging all of the region's cities to actively achieve higher densities in appropriate areas in their existing urban growth boundaries. The Council hopes that through a concerted regional effort focused on obtaining reasonable increases in residential and employment density on lands already committed to urbanization, a proportional reduction in the need for future urban reserve areas is possible. A Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development The City Council believes the long term health of the regional economy relies on a range of housing styles and types at prices that serve a wide variety of households. The draft Plan should identify a time line for the creation of regional strategies that encourage a range of housing types throughout the region. The American Planning Association's extensive 2003 study, Regional Approach to Affordable Housing, noted that the most important element in ensuring the provision of affordable housing on a regional basis is political will and leadership. The Regional Problem Solving process provides the vehicle by which the region can demonstrate its clear commitment toward addressing the region's affordable housing needs. Other regional planning efforts across the United States have coordinated policy objectives in the areas of affordable housing, transportation, economic development and smart growth practices, which have helped business, increased jobs, supported schools and other public agencies, and reduced the environmental and social costs of growth. We think RPS could help all of the jurisdictions in the Valley work together on these issues, with lasting benefits for all our communities. Coordinated Population Allocations The draft stakeholder's agreement makes reference to the County process for proportional allocation of future population as identified and adopted in Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Ashland has reviewed the population allocation documents and believes the population allocation is not an accurate reflection of population trends in Ashland. Our projected growth rate is about of the rate we have experienced over the last two decades, and our projected population is therefore too low. The proposed stakeholder agreement should recognize the concern over the accuracy of future population projections for the City of Ashland, based upon the absence of data to support the County's identified 20-year and 50-year growth rates. The County's population allocation for Administration Tel: 541/488-8002 20 E. M 20 E. Main ln Street Fax: 5414488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800173&2900 yn,w.ashland onus Ashland should not be adopted as a conclusion within the Regional Problem Solving process, but rather these population allocations should be revisited and agreed upon by all jurisdictions before Periodic Review. The Ashland City Council and citizens of Ashland appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Plan. We are confident the issues raised can be further evaluated and integrated into the final document so the City of Ashland can readily support this important step toward regional coordination and action. Sincerer ohn M nison Mayor t o shland c: Ashland City Council Martha Bennett, City Administrator Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Administration Tel: 54 14 8 8 8 5002 20 E 20 E. Matti n Street Fax: 5644488.5317 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 80Dr735-2900 w .ashland.or.us } Exhibit E - Resolution #2003-037 RESOLUTION NO. eV ✓ A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION OF FUTURE GROWTH AREAS FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND AS PART OF "NOW x 2", THE BEAR CREEK VALLEY REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS. RECITALS: 1. The Greater Bear Creek Valley has been recognized by the State of Oregon as a Regional Problem Solving (RPS) area as defined and authorized by ORS 197.652, 197.654 and 197.656. 2. The jurisdictions of Jackson County, Medford, Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent and Ashland: local agencies RVSS (Rogue Valley Sewer Services) and MWC (Medford Water Commission); and state agencies such as DLCD (Department of Land Conservation and Development), COOT (Oregon Department of Transportation), OECDD (Oregon Economic and Community Development Department), DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality), HCS (Housing and Community Services), ODA (Oregon Department of Agriculture), and ODF (Oregon Department of Forestry) have entered into a regional land use planning process the main purpose of which is to collaboratively identify areas of Jackson County in which future growth at urban levels of density Is and is not desirable or appropriate. 3. The City of Ashland adopted the Goals and Policies for "Now x 2", the Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Process on September 3, 2003. 4. The Goals of "Now x 2" are as follows: Goal 1. Manage future regional growth for greater public good. Goal 2. Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits. Goal 3. Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique features, and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within the Region. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: In recognition of the goals adopted for "Now x 2," the City of Ashland recommends that no potential growth areas be adopted for Ashland. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code Sec. 2.04.090 duly PAS ED and ADOPTED this day of /'CC~k~lt2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of .2003. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor lewe as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney GfranUesotution\RPS policies NOW x 2 L/3 Exhibit F - Participants Agreement DEPT OF GREATER BEAR CREEK VALLEY SEP 3 O 2009 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT AND DEVEwrmcN4 3 T is REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into this day of RL DAIWL 20Q~ by and between Jackson County, the duly incorporated Oregon municipalities of Medford, Phoenix, Central Point, Jacksonville, Talent, 6 Eagle Point, and Ashland, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services 9 (ODHCS), the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD), the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (RVMPO), and Rogue Valley 22 Sewer Services (RVS). RECITALS WHEREAS Jackson County and the cities of Phoenix, Medford, Central Point, is Eagle Point, Jacksonville, Ashland, and Talent (each a "Local jurisdiction" and collectively, the "Region") are part of the Greater Bear Creek Valley, described more particularly in the draft Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated by this reference, that expects to 18 see a doubling of the population over the long-term future; and WHEREAS the increasing population in the Region will create an ongoing de- mand for additional lands available for urban levels of development; and 21 WHEREAS that demand for urbanizable land will have to be balanced with the Region's need to maintain its high-quality farm and forest lands, as well as to protect its natural environment; and 24 WHEREAS the Local jurisdictions recognize that long-term planning for which lands in the Region are most appropriate for inclusion in each municipality's urban reserve areas (URAs) in light of the Region's social, economic, and environmental needs is best de- 27 termined on a regional basis; and WHEREAS the draft Plan Is the RPS Policy Committee's recommended means of elaborating the regional solutions to the identified regional problems; and 30 WHEREAS the State's Regional Problem Solving (RPS) statute provides a special process for addressing regional land use issues that allows the Local jurisdictions, upon the satisfaction of certain conditions, to implement regional strategies through the adoption of 33 post-acknowledgement comprehensive plan amendments that do not fully comply with the otherwise applicable regulations (the "Regulations") of the Land Conservation and Devel- opment Commission (LCDC) to implement the Statewide Planning Goals (the "Goals"); and 36 WHEREAS one of the conditions the Local jurisdictions must satisfy to order to deviate from the Regulations is that all the participants in the RPS process enter into an agreement that identifies: the problem faced by the Region; the goals that will address the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement problem; the mechanisms for achieving those goals; and the system for monitoring the im- plementation and effectiveness of those goals; and 3 WHEREAS various entities were identified as potential stakeholders within the regional planning process, and invitations were extended to every incorporated jurisdiction (Jackson County, Eagle Point, Medford, Jacksonville, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, and Ash- 6 land), school district (Ashland School District No. S, Central Point School District No. 6, Jack- son County School District No. 9, Medford School District 549C, and Phoenix-Talent School District No. 4), and irrigation district (Eagle Point, Medford, Rogue River, and Talent Irriga- 9 tion Districts) in the Region, plus the Medford Water Commission, the Rogue Valley Metro- politan Planning Organization, Rogue Valley Sewer Services, Rogue Valley Transportation District, and the appropriate state agencies (DLCD, ODOT, ODA, ODHCS, OECDD, and DEQ); 12 and WHEREAS the stakeholders mentioned above chose to exercise different levels of participation and responsibility within the planning process, the "participants" (as the 15 term is employed in ORS 197.656(2)(b)), are those jurisdictions and agencies that elect, by signing this Agreement, to implement the regional solutions to the regional problems identi- fied hereinafter; and 18 WHEREAS signatory participants (Signatories) have chosen to exercise different levels of activity and responsibility within the implementation phase of the adopted Plan, Implementing Signatories are those participants which will amend their comprehensive 21 plans per Section VI (3) of this Agreement to implement the adopted Plan, and Supporting Signatories are those participants which will otherwise support the implementation of the adopted Plan; and 24 WHEREAS the Implementing Signatories are Jackson County and the cities of Eagle Point, Medford, Central Point, Phoenix, Talent, Jacksonville, and Ashland; and Sup- porting Signatories are the Rogue Valley Sewer Services (RVS), the Rogue Valley Metropoli- 27 tan Planning Organization (RVMPO), the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), and signatory state agencies; and WHEREAS this Agreement is intended to serve as the basis for amendments to 30 the comprehensive plans and land use regulations of the Implementing Signatories in com- pliance with ORS 197.656. AGREEMENT 33 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement agree to propose comprehen- sive plan and land use regulation amendment processes based on the attached draft Plan (Exhibit A). With this agreement, participants acknowledge that, notwithstanding the fact 36 that the draft Plan is the result of eight years of collaborative and jurisdiction-specific plan- ning, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan as a result of the com- prehensive plan amendment process. 39 2 Sec. I Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. III 1. Recitals The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by 3 this reference. II. General Agreement Signatories to this Agreement agree to abide by a Plan developed under Region- 6 al Problem Solving, as adopted by Implementing Signatories into their comprehensive plans, and acknowledged by the State of Oregon. Implementing Signatories agree to maintain in- ternal consistency with the adopted Plan on an ongoing basis, and when necessary and ap- t propriate, either to amend their comprehensive plans and related policies, codes, and regu- lations to be consistent with the adopted Plan, or to pursue amendments to the adopted Plan. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) agrees to review the 12 Implementing Signatories' comprehensive plan and land use regulation amendments under ORS 197.656(2), and agrees that this Agreement contains the elements required by ORS 197.656(2)(b). Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing provision and any other 1s provision of this Agreement, however, LCDC retains its full discretion and authority with respect to its review of the adopted Plan, or any amendments to the adopted Plan, and with respect to its review of the amendments to comprehensive plans and land use regulations 18 that the Implementing Signatory jurisdictions adopt to implement the adopted Plan. The adopted Plan shall be what is adopted as a result of Jackson County's comprehensive plan amendment process. 21 The process for amending the comprehensive plans of Jackson County and Implementing Signatories is described in the attached work program (Exhibit B), which details the tasks and timing necessary to coordinate the initial comprehensive plan amendments necessary 24 to adopt the Plan. Per ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review by LCDC in the manner of periodic review or as set forth in ORS 197.251. 27 III. Statement of Problems to be Addressed [ORS 197.656] The parties to the Greater Bear Creek Valley RPS process (the "Project") identi- fied three problems to be addressed by the Project: 30 Problem No. 1 Lack ofa Nechanism forCoordinated Regional Growth Planning The Region will continue to be subjected in the future to growth pres- 33 sures that will require the active collaboration of jurisdictions within the Great- er Bear Creek Valley. A mechanism is needed that accomplishes this without in- fringing on individual jurisdictional authority and/or autonomy. This Problem 36 No.1 shall be referred to hereinafter as "Coordinated Growth Management." 3 Sec. III Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. IV Problem No. 2 Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Expansion 3 As our communities have expanded incrementally, there has been a ten- dency to convert important farm and forest lands to urban uses while bypassing lands with significantly less value as resource lands. This has been exacerbated 6 by the Region's special characteristics and historic settlement patterns, which can cause some state regulations governing urban growth to have unintended consequences, some of them contrary to the intent of Oregon's Statewide Plan- 9 ning Goals. This Problem No. 2 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preserva- tion of Valuable Resource Lands." Problem No. 3 12 Loss of Community Identity Urban growth boundary expansions have contributed to a decreasing separation between some of the communities in the Region, which jeopardizes 15 important aspects of these jurisdictions' sense of community and identity. This Problem No. 3 shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Preservation of Communi- ty Identity." 18 IV, Project Goals (ORS 197.656(2)(A)] The parties to this Agreement have adopted the following Goals with respect to the Problems: 21 Goal No. I Manage future regional growth for the greater public good. Goal No. 2 24 Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cul- tural, and livability benefits. Goal No. 3 27 Recognize and emphasize the individual Identity, unique features, and rel- ative comparative advantages and disadvantages of each community with- in the Region. 30 4 Sec. V Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. V V. Optional Techniques for Implementation' (ORS 197.6s6(2)(8)J These optional techniques for implementation are those identified as appropri- 3 ate for implementation of the draft Plan. As stated in the Recitals, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these optional techniques for imple- mentation, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. 6 A. Problem No.1 Lack ofa Mechanism forCoordinated Regional Growth Plan- ning Goal No.1 Managefuture regionalgrowth for the greater public good. 9 Optional Implementation Techniques (1) Coordinated Periodic Review Implementing Signatories may engage in a coordinated schedule of regu- 12 lar Periodic Reviews following the adoption of the Plan. This regionally coordinated Periodic Review will begin in 2012, will take place every 10 years, and will coincide with the ten-year regular review of the adopted 15 Plan. This coordinated Periodic Review will provide an opportunity to take advantage of an economy of scale in generating technical informa- tion, and to incorporate a regional perspective in the Periodic Review 18 process, but it does not mandate a simultaneous or linked process among jurisdictions. (2) Ten-year RPS Review 21 Implementing Signatories will abide by the review process described in Section VI of this Agreement. The review process complies with the monitoring requirement in the RPS statute, and affords participating ju- 24 risdictions flexibility in responding to changing regional and local cir- cumstances by establishing a process and venue for amending the adopted Plan. 27 (3) Coordinated Population Allocation Jackson County's allocation of future population growth, a state- mandated responsibility of the County, will reflect the Implementing 30 Signatories' proportional allocation of future population within the adopted Plan and its future amendments consistentwith statute. (4) Greater Coordination with the RVMPO 33 As a proven mechanism of regional collaborative planning in the study area, the RVMPO, as the federally designated transportation planning entity, will plan and coordinate the regionally significant transportation 36 strategies critical to the success of the adopted Plan. Of special focus will 'Where "optional techniques for implementation" refers to strategies and mechanisms to implement regional solu- tions that are in compliance with the statewide goals and statutes, but which may not strictly adhere to Oregon Ad- ministrative Rules. 5 Sec. V Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. V be the development of mechanisms to preserve rights-of-way for major transportation infrastructure, and a means of creating supplemental 3 funding for regionally significant transportation projects. B. Problem No. 2 Loss of Valuable Farm and Forest Land Caused by Urban Ex- pansion 6 Goal No. 2 Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits. Optional Implementation Techniques 9 (1) Long-Range Urban Reserves The establishment of Urban Reserves sufficient to serve a doubling of the Regions urban population will allow long-term production decisions to 12 be made on agricultural land not included in urban reserves. (2) Regional Agricultural Buffering Standards Implementing Signatories will apply the adopted Plan's set of agricultur- 15 al buffering standards as a means of mitigating negative impacts arising from the rural/urban interface. (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation 18 The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are availa- ble as an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accentu- ating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between 21 communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not man- datory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. 24 C. Problem No.3 Loss of Community Identity Goal No. 3 Recognize and emphasize the individual identity, unique fea- tures, and relative comparative advantages and disadvantages 27 of each community within the Region. Optional Implementation Techniques (1) Community Buffers 30 The establishment of Urban Reserves outside of recommended areas of critical open space provides for a basic level of preservation for the Re- gion's important areas of community separation. 33 (2) Allocating to Comparative Advantages The Region agrees to a distribution of the calculated need of residential and employment lands among Implementing Signatories necessary to 36 support a regional doubling of the population. This distribution, which depends on a number of factors that relate to the comparative strengths 6 r Sec. V Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VI and weaknesses of Implementing Signatories, will allow each community to develop its own balance of viability and individuality within the larger 3 regional matrix. (3) Critical Open Space Area (COSA) Preservation The COSA strategies outlined in Appendix IX of the draft Plan are availa- 6 ble as an option to Signatory jurisdictions interested in further accentu- ating or more permanently preserving areas of separation between communities (community buffers). These COSA strategies are not man- 9 datory for any jurisdiction, and may be refined or expanded as individual jurisdictions see fit. V1. Measurable Performance Indicators [ORS 197.656(2)(C)] 12 These measurable performance indicators are those identified as appropriate for monitoring purposes of the adopted Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become ne- cessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these measurable perfor- 15 prance indicators, as a result of the comprehensive plan amendment process. The following are measurable performance indicators: 1) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, the Implementing 18 Signatories may participate in a process of coordinated Periodic Review. 2) On a regular basis, every 10 years starting in 2012, Implementing Signa- tories to this Agreement will be subject to the regular RPS review 21 process. Jackson County shall initiate the RPS review process by provid- ing notice of the RPS review to Signatories to this Agreement and requir- ing that each Implementing Signatory submit a self-evaluation monitor- 24 ing report addressing compliance with the performance indicators set out in this Section to the County within 60 days after the date of the no- tice. Jackson County will distribute these monitoring reports to all Signa- 27 tories. 3) Implementing Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS adopted Plan that are applicable to each individual Implementing Signa- 30 tory city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordin- ances, and will reference the larger regional Plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. To incorporate applicable por- 33 tions of the RPS adopted Plan into their comprehensive plans and im- plementing ordinances, Implementing Signatory cities will adopt at least the following: 36 a) RPS Plan policies adopted to comply with Section X(2) of this Agreement; b) 10-year mandated review period; 39 c) urban reserve areas (if appropriate); 7 Sec. VI Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VI d) target residential densities (for the urban reserve areas); e) agricultural buffering standards (for the urban reserve areas); 3 f] Implementing ordinances (for the urban reserve areas). 4) Implementing Signatories will comply with the general conditions as listed in Section X of this Agreement, and, as appropriate, the specific 6 conditions of approval for selected urban reserves, as described in the adopted Plan. 5) Implementing Signatory jurisdictions serving or projected to serve a 9 designated urban reserve will adopt an Urban Reserve Management Agreement (URMA) jointly with Jackson County. 6) Urban reserves identified in the adopted Plan are the first-priority lands 12 used for UGB expansions by Implementing Signatories. 7) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and zones to urban reserve land included in UGB expansions, will achieve, on 15 average over a 20-year planning horizon, at least the "higher land need" residential densities in the adopted RPS Plan for buildable land as de- fined by OAR 660-006-0005(2). The density offset strategy outlined in 18 the draft Plan is an acceptable mechanism to assist in meeting density targets. B) Implementing Signatory cities, when applying urban designations and 21 zones to urban reserve land included in a UGB expansion, will be guided by the general distribution of land uses proposed in the adopted RPS Plan, especially where a specific set of land uses were part of a compel- 24 ling urban-based rationale for designating RLRC land as part of a city's set of urban reserves. 9) Conceptual plans for urban reserves will be developed in sufficient detail 27 to allow the Region to determine the sizing and location of regionally significant transportation infrastructure. This information should be de- termined early enough in the planning and development cycle that the 30 identified regionally significant transportation corridors can be pro- tected as cost-effectively as possible by available strategies and funding. Conceptual plans for an urban reserve in the RPS Plan are not required 33 to be completed at the time of adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment incorporating urban reserves into a city or county compre- hensive plan. 36 10) The county's population element is updated per statute to be consistent with the gradual implementation of the adopted Plan. s Sec. VII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VII VII. Incentives and Disincentives to Achieving Goals [ORS 197.656(2)(0)] 3 These incentives and disincentives are those identified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these incentives and disincentives, as a result of the public com- b prehensive plan amendment process. Incentives 1) Continued regional cooperation through the 10-year review process and 9 coordinated Periodic Review may improve the Region's ability to re- spond to challenges and opportunities more effectively than it does pre- sently. 12 2) Adherence to the adopted Plan may provide the Region with a competi- tive advantage, increase the attractiveness of the Region to long-term in- vestment, and improve southern Oregon's profile in the state. 1s 3) Adherence to the adopted Plan may produce significant reductions in transportation infrastructure costs by minimizing future right-of-way acquisition costs and by improving the overall long-range coordination 1s of transportation and land use planning. 4) Adherence to the adopted Plan will provide Signatory jurisdictions with population allocations that are predictable, transparent, and based on 21 the relative strengths of the different participating jurisdictions. 5) The adopted Plan will offer compelling regional justifications and state agency support for Tolo and the South Valley Employment Center that 24 may not have been available to an individual city's proposal. 6) Adherence to the adopted Plan will permit Implementing Signatories to implement the flexibility provided by the concept of the "Regional Com- 27 munity", in which cities, in the role of "regional neighborhoods", enjoy a wide latitude in their particular mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses, as long as the sum of the regional parts contributes to a viable bal- 30 ance of land uses that is functional and attractive to residents and em- ployers and in compliance with statewide goals. Disincentives 33 1) Implementing Signatories that choose to expand their UGBs into land not designated as urban reserve will be required to go through the RPS Plan minor or major amendment process prior to or concurrent with any oth- 36 er process. 9 Sec. VII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VIII 2) The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan may damage its com- petitive advantage, the attractiveness of the Region to long-term invest- 3 ment, and southern Oregon's profile in the state. 3) Adherence to the RPS adopted Plan may be a rating factor for RVMPO Transportation Funding. Transportation projects of Implementing Signa- 6 tories not adhering to the adopted Plan may be assigned a lower priority by the RVMPO when considered for funding. 4) Jackson County may reconsider the population allocations of Impletpent- 9 ing Signatories that do not adhere to the adopted Plan. 5) Implementing Signatories not adhering to the adopted Plan may face is- sues over falling to observe their comprehensive plans, or may find it 12 difficult to make modifications to their comprehensive plans that deviate from the adopted Plan. 6) The Region's failure to adhere to the adopted Plan will compromise its 15 ability to implement the concept of the "Regional Community", and will not provide the Implementing Signatory cities with as wide a latitude in their desired individual mix, concentration, and intensity of land uses. 1s V111. Progress Monitoring System & Amendment Process [ORS 197.656(2)(6) and (F)] This progress monitoring system and amendment process is that which is iden- 21 tified as appropriate to the draft Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially this progress and monitoring system and amendment process, as a result of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. 24 Monitoring Monitoring to ensure compliance with the adopted Plan will be a shared respon- sibility. Each Implementing Signatory city will be responsible for monitoring its 27 adherence to the portion of the adopted Plan that is incorporated into its com- prehensive plan. Jackson County, which will have the full adopted Plan incorpo- rated into its comprehensive plan, will be responsible for overall monitoring. 30 Adherence to the RPS Plan The adopted RPS Plan is directly applicable to comprehensive plan amend- ments, land use regulation amendments, and the adoption of new land use regu- 33 lations that affect land in urban reserve areas and/or URA designation changes. The adopted RPS Plan shall not be directly applicable to other land use decisions by Implementing Signatories. Adherence to relevant RPS Plan provisions 36 adopted by Implementing Signatories as part of their comprehensive plan or implementing ordinances will be addressed by the existing state and local me- chanisms for ensuring jurisdictional compliance with acknowledged compre- 39 hensive plans and implementing ordinances. 10 Sec. VIII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VIII RPS Plan Amendments Processing amendments to the adopted Plan will be the responsibility of Jackson 3 County, and can only be proposed by the governing authority of an Implement- ing Signatory jurisdiction. In acknowledgement of the collaborative process by which the adopted Plan was created; Jackson County will have available the as- h sistance of the signatories to this Agreement through a Technical Advisory Committee and Policy Committee. Both committees serve on an as-needed basis, and both serve in an advisory capacity to Jackson County. 9 (a) Technical Advisory Committee The TAC will comprise planners and senior-level staff from signatory jurisdic- tions and agencies, and each signatory will have one vote, Irrespective of the 12 number of participating representatives. Recommendations to the Policy Com- mittee or directly to Jackson County will'be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending signatory jurisdictions and agencies. is (b) Policy Committee The Policy Committee will comprise elected officials or executive staff from sig- natory jurisdictions and agencies. Each Implementing Signatory jurisdiction will 18 designate a voting and alternate voting member, and each Implementing Signa- tory jurisdiction will have one vote. Recommendations to Jackson County will be made by at least a supermajority vote (simple majority plus one) of attending 21 Implementing Signatories. Attending jurisdictions must constitute a quorum of Implementing Signatories. Supporting Signatories (State agencies, the RVMPO, LCDC, and Rogue Valley Sewer Services), while Signatories, will not be voting 24 members of the Policy Committee. When an amendment to the adopted RPS Plan is proposed, Jackson County will make a preliminary determination regarding whether the proposed amendment 27 is a Minor Amendment or Major Amendment, as defined below, and will notify signatory jurisdictions of the County's preliminary determination. Based on its preliminary determination, Jackson County will review the proposed amend- 30 ment according to the procedures for Minor Amendments or Major Amend- ments set out below, Per ORS 197.656, all amendments to the adopted Plan will be subject to review 33 by LCDC in the manner of periodic review or as set forth in ORS 197.251. Proposed amendments to the adopted Plan will adhere to the following provi- sions: 36 1) Minor Amendment A minor amendment is defined as any request for an amendment to the adopted Plan that; 39 a) does not conflict with the general conditions listed in Section X of this Agreement or specific conditions of approval described in the adopted RPS Plan; and it Sec. VIII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. VIII b) does not propose an addition of more than 50 acres to a city s urban reserves established for a city in the adopted RPS Plan or more than 3 a 50-acre expansion of the UGB into non-urban reserve rural land. In the case of Ashland, which did not establish urban reserves during the development of the Plan process, a proposal to establish an urban re- d serve or expand its UGB of not more than 50 acres will be considered a minor amendment. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for adding to its urban reserves 9 during the term of the Agreement, it may not use the minor amendment process for further alterations to its urban reserves. Should a city exceed its limit of 50 acres for expanding its UGB into non-urban reserve rural 12 land during the planning horizon, it may not use the minor amendment process for further expansions of its UGB into non-urban reserve land. Any Implementing Signatory may initiate a minor amendment to the is adopted Plan. The Implementing Signatory must clearly identify the na- ture of the minor amendment, and specify whether the minor amend- ment would require any other Implementing Signatory to amend its 18 comprehensive plan. Should any Implementing Signatory other than the proposing jurisdiction and Jackson County be required to amend their comprehensive plans as a result of the proposed minor amendment, the 21 affected Implementing Signatory will be a party to the minor amend- ment proceeding. Jackson County's process for a minor amendment to the Plan will be 24 equivalent to the state and local required processes for a comprehensive plan amendment. Signatory jurisdictions and agencies shall be provided with notice of the 27 County's final decision on each minor amendment request within five working days of the adoption of the final decision. 2) MajorAmendment 30 A major amendment is defined as any requested amendment to the adopted Plan that does not meet the definition of a MinorAmendment a) If multiple signatory jurisdictions are involved in a single request for 33 a major amendment, a lead jurisdiction will be selected by the af- fected jurisdictions; b) notice containing a detailed description of the proposed change will 36 be forwarded by Jackson County to all signatory jurisdictions and agencies; c) staff from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and 39 will meet as a Technical Advisory Committee and generate a recom- mendation to the Policy Committee by vote of at least a supermajori- ty of those present (simple majority plus one); 12 Sec. VIII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. X dl decision-makers from signatory jurisdictions and agencies will be noticed, and will meet as a Policy Committee and consider the pro- 3 posal and the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation. At- tending jurisdictions will constitute a quorum; and e) the Policy Committee will generate a recommendation to Jackson 6 County by vote of at least a supermajority of those present (simple majority plus one). Jackson County's process for a major amendment to the Plan will be g equivalent to the state and local required process for a comprehensive plan amendment in addition to the above provisions. Noticing will be in compliance with State statutes. 12 All parties to this agreement and any additional affected agencies shall be provided with notice of the County's final decision on each major amendment request within five working days of the adoption of the final 1s decision. IX. Newly Incorporated City Should White City or some other area of Jackson County within the area of the 18 adopted Plan incorporate while the adopted Plan is in effect, and should the newly incorpo- rated city desire to become a signatory to the Agreement, increased population will be add- ed to the regional target population adequate to accommodate the projected population 21 growth of the newly incorporated city for the remainder of the adopted Plans planning ho- rizon. The addition of a newly incorporated city to the adopted Plan, the establishment of urban reserves, and other such actions shall be accomplished through the major amend- 24 ment process. X. Conditions to Agreement General Conditions 27 The Signatories agree that the adopted Plan shall comply with the general condi- tions listed below, which apply to all Implementing Signatories. These general conditions are those which have been identified as appropriate to the adopted 30 Plan. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially these general conditions, as a result of the pub- lic comprehensive plan amendment process. 33 1) Agricultural Buffering Where appropriate, Implementing Signatories shall apply the agricultur- al buffering guidelines developed through the Regional Problem Solving 36 process. 13 Sec. X Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. XI 2) Transportation The adopted Plan shall include policies to: 3 a) Identify a general network of locally owned regionally significant north-south and east-west arterials and associated projects to pro- vide mobility throughout the Region. 6 b) Designate and protect corridors for locally owned regionally signifi- cant arterials and associated projects within the RVMPO to ensure adequate transportation connectivity, multimodal use, and minimize 9 right of way costs. c) Establish a means of providing supplemental transportation funding to mitigate impacts arising from future growth. 12 These policies shall be implemented by ordinance upon the adoption of the latest update of the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organiza- tion's Regional Transportation Plan and the local adoption of the RPS 15 Plan through individual city and county Comprehensive Plan amend- ments. Implementing Signatory cities will incorporate the portions of the RPS Plan relative to transportation that are applicable to each individual 18 city into that city's comprehensive plan and implementing ordinances, and will reference the larger regional plan as an adopted element of Jackson County's comprehensive plan. 21 Conditions of Approval Specific conditions of approval apply to selected urban reserve areas, and are described in the adopted Plan. The Implementing Signatories agree to abide by 24 these conditions. As stated in prior sections, it may become necessary to make adjustments to the draft Plan, and potentially the conditions of approval, as a re- sult of the public comprehensive plan amendment process. 27 XI. Amendments to the Agreement For the purpose of maintaining consistency with the RPS Statue (ORS 197.656) amendments to the Agreement can be made at any time by consensus (all parties in agree- 30 ment) of the Signatories to the Agreement. Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). In addition, nothing in this section, or 33 this Agreement, Is intended to affect the authority of LCDC to review an amendment to this Agreement as required under ORS 197.656. 14 Sec. XII Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. XIV MI. Termination of Participation A signatory to the Agreement may petition Jackson County for termination of its 3 participation in the Agreement. Jackson County will convene a meeting of the Policy Com- mittee to consider such a petition. A signatory's petition may be granted by a supermajority (simple majority plus one) of the Signatories to the Agreement. A signatory that has termi- 6 nated its participation with the consent of a supermajority of the signatories to the Agree- ment shall not be considered to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan. Should an Implementing Signatory terminate its participation in the Agreement without 9 approval of the supermajority of signatories to the Agreement, it will be considered to have failed to adhere to the adopted Plan, and may be subject to the Disincentives in Section VII and applicable legal and legislative repercussions. For remaining signatories, the validity of 12 this Agreement will not be adversely impacted by an implementing Signatory's termination of participation, by supermajority decision or otherwise. Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land is Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). XIII. Termination of the Agreement This agreement may be terminated when one or more of the following occur(s): 18 1) A supermajority (simple majority plus one) of Signatories agree that the Agreement is terminated; 2) LCDC denies acknowledgment of the Plan; 21 3) The doubled regional population is reached; 4) 50 years have passed since the Agreement was signed. No signatory will be penalized under the conditions of this Agreement due to a supermajori- 24 ty decision to terminate. Under this section, "signatories" refers to all signatories to the Agreement except the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). 27 XIV. Applicability Implementing Signatories to this agreement agree that necessary amendments to their comprehensive plans will occur as required by the Plan, and that the Plan is in effect 30 for each jurisdiction at the time that its and Jackson County's implementing comprehensive plan amendments and land use regulations are adopted and acknowledged. Once the RPS plan is implemented by the appropriate comprehensive plan amendments and 33 land use regulations, an Implementing Signatory's failure to adhere to the Plan as adopted 15 Sec. XIV Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Sec. XV111 or subsequently amended will expose that jurisdiction to the usual legal and legislative re- percussions from non-compliance with acknowledged comprehensive plans. 3 Signatories to this agreement acknowledge that statutory authority over land use regulation ultimately resides with the Oregon legislature. Additionally, signatories to this agreement recognize that the provisions of the Plan may be determined in the future to be in conflict 6 with existing or yet to be adopted statutes or administrative rules. Signatories to this agreement expressly recognize that land use regulations and actions must otherwise comport with the statutes and other applicable regulations of the State of 9 Oregon other than those LCDC regulations for which the adopted RPS Plan authorizes less than full compliance. Therefore, Signatories agree that, when conflicts between statute and other applicable regu- 12 lations of the State of Oregon (other than those LCDC regulations for which the adopted Plan authorizes less than full compliance) and the Plan arise, Oregon statute shall prevail. XV. Severability 15 Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties. The Agreement shall be reformed to replace such 18 stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. XVI. Entire Agreement 21 This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and super- sedes all prior negotiations, discussions, obligations, and rights of the parties regarding the subject matter of this agreement. There is no other written or oral understanding between 24 the parties. No modification, amendment or alteration of this Agreement shall be valid un- less it is in writing and signed by the parties hereto. XVII. Counterparts 27 This Agreement may be signed in counterpart by the parties, each of which shall be deemed original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument, binding on all parties hereto. 30 XVIII. Authority to Execute Agreement Each person signing of behalf of a governmental entity hereby declares that he or she, or it has the authority to sign on behalf of his or her or its respective entity and 33 agrees to hold the other party or parties hereto harmless if he or she or it does not have such authority. 16 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Agreement Implementing Signatories Chairman, 1111 or, City of Ashland Jackson County Board of Commissioners Mayor, i of Talent Mayor, City of Phoenix Mayor, City of M dford Mayor, City of JacksonvHI Mayor, City of Central Point Mayor, City of Eagle Point Supporting Signatories ' r Director, Ore n Department of Land Dit' or, Oregon Department of Conserva ' n nd De pment Transportation Director, Oregon Department of netor, Economic and Environme~atal Quality ment Depart ment Director, regon Department of Director, Oregon ousing and Community Agriculture Development Department ~ Chair, Rogue Valley Metropoli n Chair, Rogue Valley Sewer Services Planning Organization Chair, Land Conservation an General Manager, Rogue Valley Sewer Development Commission Services 17 Exhibit G - DLCD 2010 Letter regon Department of Land Conservation and Development Southern Oregon Field on Theodore R. Kurongusid, Govemor 155 North First Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Phone: (541) 858-3189 Fax: (541) 858-3142 Web Address: http://wiNw.lcd.state.or-us ' nrJ~ili~V L''~ May 21, 2010 MAY 2 4 2010 Josh LeBombard JACKSON COON 1 Y 10 s. Oakdale, Room 100 PLANNING Medford, Oregon 97501 Subject: Reformatted Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, local file LRP2009-0010, DLCD File 006- 09 Dear Josh: The department is taking this opportunity to comment on the reformatted regional plan. In general the reformatting was done to better demonstrate the plan's compliance with OAR 660-021. We think the new draft accomplishes this. Generally the department supports the plan as written with a few modifications, as discussed in this letter. We also want to support and rebut comments made by others. Reliance on flexibility afforded by ORS 197.656 In its comments to the city Of Talent 1000,Ftfendsstates,that theregion;cannotrely on"the:RF$statute for flexibilityN addregsing the UrbanZtescrye.Rule, OA$,l60-021:.Flreif ppsition stems ~omslacksonville retgoying Itself from the process, _They feel the;crty rs~a participant eYet{ though they did not sign the.; - Participant's AgreementDILCDatrongly disagfeesiwrthahis posrhon While rt is.true that.ORS.LQ,7..G56:,: requiras'egreement between all partretpants, the statute doesnot defile parltFlpant; whereas the ,r s , ; Participant's Agreement does define a participant es ajurisdiction or agency which signs the agreement. By not signing the agreement Jacksonville self selected to not be a participant. It is our op nion that ORS 197.656 remains available to this project. Recommended Revisions to Plan While we realize the cities have only committed to the lower density high land need scenario, we believe this is a weakness in the plan which is out of tune with the real future needs of the cities. We would like to remind the region that LCDC Chair VanLandingbam commented that his support would be dependent on the plan demonstrating fliture efficient urban land use. Toward that end, to demonstrate an efficient use of land and avoid a potential issue with LCDC, we suggest the region either incorporate a commitment to Transit Oriented Development in the Plan -OR- commit to the high density (low land need) planning scenario of 7.26 and higher. Discrepancies in population data and acreages In urban reserves In their comments to the county 1000 Friends points out discrepancies in population data and acreages in urban reserves. These need to be fixed or thoroughly explained. Urban Buffers - From fhe testimony from farmers:in tlfe urban buffer area, between Medford end Jacksonville it is clear that de;ignathi these areas:on a"niap may, have a.detijmentalteffectop their ability to obtain loans; Bepapse,of this.w,e,suggest the designation be removed front the,plan maps, but beretained in the plan iext Evjth the suggestion that thaw and other: non-urban;reserye;farmlaod be. candidates-fopconservatiol:easement purchases. Cities should encourage their developers to purchase such easement and give some incentives.to Jackson County 006-09 Regional Plan 1 - ' e developers to do so. Retaining this concept is important to achieving the goal of maintaining individual city identity. A cautionary note The department has before advised the jurisdictions not to make large additions to the plan, but that trading Iiki: acreage and types of land might be alright. And we have advised the county planning commission not to try to make the plan into more than it was intended to be by the jurisdictions and participating agencies. While final city decisions have not been made we are concerned that the Phoenix Planning Commission added 70.75 acres of RLRC land to their urban reserves while only removing 41 acres of RLRC land; and the Medford Planning Commission has added 20 acres ofEFU land that was not considered by RLRC. As we currently understand them neither of these actions are supported by DLCD. We wish to remind the county that this plan is a growth management plan that will serve as the foundation for future more detailed land use and transportation planning. Before the region getsto that more detailed planning this foundation must be established. Please place these comments into the record for this matter. Sincerely, 99 I John Renzza Southern Oregon Regional Representative cc: digital copies to Darren Nichols, Rob Hellyburton, Richard Whitman, Greg Holmes I Jackson County 006.09 Regional Plan 2 Exhibit H - John Vial Letter Page I of 1 Derek Severson - Comments received from County Roads Department From. "Josh LeBombard" <LeBombJM@jacksoncounty.org> To: "Bill Molnar" <bill@ashland-or.us>, "Derek Severson" <seversod@ashland.or.us>, <tomarch@charter.net>, "Don Burt" <donb@ci.central-point.or.us>, 'Tom Humphrey" <tomh@cl.central- point.or.us>, "David Hussell" <davidhusseil@cityofeaglepoint.org>, "John K. Adam" <John.Adam@cityofinedford.org>, "Suzanne K. Myers" <Suzanne.Myers@cityofinedford.org>, "Mark Knox" < ma rk@cityofta lent. org "Kate Jackson" <kate@council.ashiand.or.us>, "Kelly Madding" <MaddlnKA@jacksoncounty.org>, "MICHAEL G QUILTY" <michaelquilty7907@msn.com>, "Kate Jackson" <kjackson@opendoor.com>, <laurel@phoenixoregon.gov>, "Michael Cavallaro" <mcavallaro@rvcog.org>, "John Rem" <John.renz@state.or.us> Date: 6/8/10 8:17 AM Subject: Comments received from County Roads Department CC: "Craig Anderson" <AndersCM@jacksoncounty.org>, "Mike Kuntz" <KuntzM@jacksoncounty.org>, "John Via[" <Vial]N@jacksoncounty,org> Attachments: County_Roads_Comments.pdf Hello All, I've attached comments recently received from our Roads Department. As Indicated, the Roads Dept. will need to meet with each City individually to determine any city-specific conditions for RPS. These conditions will eventually be contained in the Urban Reserve Management Agreement, which is required to be adopted as part of the RPS package; thus time is of the essence. Please coordinate these meetings through Cralg Anderson. Cheers, Josh Josh LeBombard Land Use Planner Jackson County Development Services 10 S. Oakdale Avenue Medford, OR 97501 P (541) 774-6944, F (541) 774-6791 jm@jacksoncou nty.org lebomb file:HCADocuments and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4CODFC8DAs... 6/8/2010 Roads & Parks Jahn of Vial JACKSON Olnclor MEMO WNMiek e Road 200 A City, R 975 97503 COUNTY I N T E 11 - O F F I C E Phooa:(541)774-6235 Fait (541) 774-6295 Roads vlel)n®lackwncounryo`9 Date: June 4, 2010 To: Josh LeBombard, Deveiop a es From: John Vial, Roads and.Park Subject: Regional,Problem Solving ( S) Comments Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Map and Text Amendment and a Land Development Ordinance Zoning 'Map'and Text Amendment to adopt the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan under Oregon Revised Statue (ORS) 197.652-197.658. The Jackson County Roads Department believes that planning at a regional scale has the potential to minimize impacts to the County Road system through proactive land use and transportation planning and the establishment of thorough jurisdictional exchange agreements.`At this time, the Roads Department is prepared to offer the following general comments which pertain to all cities participating in the RPS process. 1. At the time of property annexation, cities should be required to annex the.full road right-of-way fronting the area being annexed. 2. At the time of property annexation, jurisdiction over County Roads within said annexation should be transferred to the City and the City will accept jurisdiction of said road(s) regardless of condition. Such transfers shall occur without compensation and are not subject to limitations on a transfer as allowed under ORS 373.270(6). 3. To facilitate conditions #1 and #2 above, where the proposed Urban Reserve Areas run congruent with a County Road, the boundary of the Urban Reserve Area should beset at the edge of right-of-way furthest outside of the boundary. This will allow the city to annex the full road right-of-way and take jurisdiction of the road. 4. All cities should be required to take jurisdiction of all County Roads currently within existing city limits that meet either minimum city standards or minimum County Urban standards. This transfer shall occur prior to, of shortly after, acknowledgement of RPS. Such transfers shall occur without compensation and are not subject to limitations on a transfer as allowed under ORS 373.270(6). 5. All cities should agree to take jurisdiction of County Roads within.existing city limits that are subsequently improved to either minimum city standards or minimum County Urban standards. Such transfer shall occur without compensation and are not subject to limitations on a transfer as allowed under ORS 373:270(6). Memo on Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Continents May 10, 2010; Page 2 of 2 6. The growth of cities, provided for under RPS, will result in increased trips and capacity demands on the Comity Road system and corresponding capital improvement needs. Funding methodologies for these improvements need to be addressed at some point in the RPS process. This could be done individually with cities and/or perhaps within the MPO. As noted, the above general comments apply to all cities participating in the RPS process. As each of the individual participating cities take actions to implement the RPS process and establish Urban Reserve areas, the Roads Department may submit additional more detailed comments. These comments may include a requirement that a City be required to accept the jurisdictional transfer of specific County Roads already within city limits to cities: C: Mike Kuntz Kelly Madding Danny Jordan Exhibit I - Public Comments Received to Date Gmpil - Planning Commission, April 27„A910: RPS Page 1 of 3 RECEIVED APR 2 7 20 Parti'Marsh <pam.marsh@ lr all.c - - CiryotAsnlantl' - Planning Cotmmissift "APM27, 2010: RPS S D <sd96950(Qhotmall.com> Tue, Apr 27 2090 at 5:46 PM To: BlakeLaure re <blakel@sou.edu>, raibhaeltdawkins@~ahoo:com, DotterrerDave <the~otts6charter.net>, MarshPam <pam.marsh@gmail.com>, MillerDebolah <hmiller@jeffnet.org>, MIndIlnMeladie <sassetta@min . net>, molnarb@ashland.or.ug WrrisMichael <msquared@mind net>, Navio{ _Eric <eric@counciLaland.or.us>, Rinaldi_J9bnJr <john@rinaldinetcom> - Cc: Stromberg_John <john@council.ashl-a(id.or.us>, Jackson_K06 <katq@council.ashland.or.us>, Silpiger Russ <ru councjl.ashland.or.us>, Chapman David <david@counoiLashlan .or.us>, Lemhouse Greg <gfdg`49ouncil.ashland.or.us> Voisin-Carol <Qiol@counciLashland.ocus> Deax,;)Commissioners : Please include this e-mail as part of the official record. I have-several questions regarding Regional Problem Solving for the Bear Creek Valley. They include: To what extent Jr~s planning tarn account of climate change and its pZobable impacts on our region? To wh4t; agree has the lbrocess accgtnted for the increasing probability of "peak oil" abn the foreseeable future? To what extent have the water resources of this valley been. Surveyed ano factored into RPS? These issues have many implications and, of course, interact. For example: Warming will measurably affect water supplies. Peak oil wild increase the cost of importing foods from outside the region, necessitating more local agriculture. Agriculture will requd!re both good land and water. Y@t RPS slates much of the former for "development," and bigger population,6 more industry will be competing for less of the latter. https:// nTail.google.com/mait/?ui=2&ik=dlcc9a550d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1284... 4/27/2010 June 1, 2010 To: The Ashland City Council RECEIVE{ From: Jan Waitt 147 Manzanlta St. 201n Ashland, Oregon 97520 Subject: Regional Problem Solving Council Members, Although I cannot be present at tonight's meeting, I do have comments on the current Regional Problem Solving draft. The Ashland City Council's letter of Nov. 15, 2007 outlines issues that are still valid. For example :"The Council believes development of vacant properties, redevelopment of existing land, and increased densities and infill within the established urban growth boundaries should be a top priority of the Plan." I attended the recent review of the draft plan at the Medford Library, and it was clear that the Medford proposal did not put increased density as a top priority. Without higher densities, transportation nodes, the development of communities within communities, and road and utility construction and repairs are made more difficult if not impossible. The Medford plan also did little to protect valuable farm land. I recommend that the Ashland City Council strengthen the 2007 letter with more specifics and ask for meetings between the cities and county ( stakeholders) to come to a better plan. Is there a way that the Ashland planners and the Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Committee could offer assistance to Medford and the other cities. Sincerely, dan Waitt X541-482-8249 RECEIVED ~()N - 3 Friends of Jackson County P.O. Box 1443 Phoenix, OR.97535 Clty of Ashland 2,June 2010 Community novolopment Medford City Council Jackson County Planning Commission & Bd of Commissioners City Offices County'Offices Medford, OR 97501 Medford OR 97501 Ashland City Council 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Regional Problem Solving Draft Dear Councilors and Commissioners, In accomodating.the growth that we are forced to accept in Jackson County, municipalities must first establish a need foradditional lands. But in establising that need, wise municipal leaders will first assess the potential for infill so as to not spread expensive infrastructure all over the landscape. Low density sprawl is not only expensive. It also degrades the very livability all elected and appointed officials profess to want Because of the reality of energy cost increases, the retarding of sprawl is increasingly important. The draft you are considering does not adequately factor in our new energy realities, but it must. 6gfA4 0 Unfortunately, many local leaders still promote quantity over quality. They want a geographically bigger city while overlooking what they can promote to make a beffer city with resource conserving infill programs. But in Oregon, -thanks to Tom McCall, we have a tradition of wanting a better state not a bigger state. Local officials in assessing land needs serve their communities best 'd they keep "better not bigger" in mind. In inventorying available buildable lands in the various cities, not enough emphasis has been made to include lands that have additional development potential in the various land inventories. The result is an understating of the infill potential of all cities included in Regional Problem Solving. This understating of developable, redevelopable and underdeveloped land skews the land needs presented In calculating the amount of land supposedly need. and Included in RPS. With infill plans where land already developed is used more efficiently, each city could easily accommodate many thousands of additional residents with little or no modification of infrastructure. This necessary encouragement of infill programs has not had the role in the RPS process to the degree that it should have. A number of times In the various statewide Goals the phrase "efficient use of land" is stated but not adequately adhered to by cities in the RPS plan. The land additions requested are based on the premise of perpetuating existing densities when they clearly should be calculated as to prospective densites"K land is used increasingly,more efficiently as prescribed in the state land use goals. The draft presented to you must conform with State Law including the Land Use Planning Goals set by the legislature and the Land Conservation and Development Commission. The current RPS draft does not appear to be in compliance in the following areas: Goal 3: Agricultural Lands. Goal 3 states: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. In Jackson County we have already built over much of the best agricultural land due to extensive development near Bear Creek. Thus, to preserve what best agricultural land is left, all cities in.RPS should set'target densities before we needlessly sprawl into a almost two square miles of prime, high value agricultural land. All 1200 acres of prime or high value farmland included in the plan should be removed from the draft, and decision makers should set target densities of no less than 5000 people per square mile for Medford and 4,000 people per square mile for the smaller cities. The RIPS plan itself states that one of the goals is to preserve farmland. To conform with this goal all practicable means must be used to avoid expanding into farmland. The easiest way to compy with its own goal is for the RPS plan to simply require infill instead of allowing yet more sprawl The methodology used in the plan uses dwelling units per acre which is not easily translatable in density comparisons listed in any almanac. Thus, for density comparisons to be meaningful, current and prospective densities per square mile must be calculated for each city. The above suggested mentioned medium densities will not only serve to preserve the prime high value farmland included in the plan. Increased densities will promote alternative forms of transportation and energy conservation, and increased densities/ increased efficiency in land use are something the state already requires in the language included in the goals. Also, the legislature Is likley to more explicitly require infill resulting in increased densities and energy conservation after the next legislative session. This is because for public transportation to be viable without massive subsidies and for other alternative forms of transportation to the car to also be viable, densities must increase. This draft does not adequately require that from the respective cities. And for the state to meet the goal of energy conservation in 205ftcalled for by the last legislature, there is no choice but to have more compact cities. The current p Nn does not address that legislative development Goal 5: Natural Resources 460AL 1.3 Goal 5 states: To protect natural resources leg farmland and open space) and conserve scenic areas and historic areas and open space. B. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Development should be planned so as to conserve the needed amount of open space 2. The conservation of both renewable and non renewable natural resources and physical limitations of the land should be used as a basis of determining the quantity, quallity, location, rate and type of growth in the planning area. 3. The efficient consumption of energy should be considered when utilizing natural resources. To protect natural resources and conserve open space adequate energy saving infill programs must be called for, but they are not in the plan. Infill by the RPS member cities is seen as incidental in the plan, but it must be an Integral part of the plan with meaningful targets to conform with this goal. Goal 10: Housing BIMPLEMENTATION 4. Ordinances and incentives should be used to increase population densities in urban areas taking into consideration (1) key facilities (2) the economic, environmental, social, and energy consequences of the proposed densities and (3) the optimal use of existing urban land particularly in sections containing significant amounts of unsound substandard structures. The proposed draft does not significantly honor or conform with this section of Goal 10, but it must All cities must offer concrete infill standards and plans to conform with Goal 10- B.4. Without that densities will not increase as required. Goal 12: Transportation Goal 12 states: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient, and economic transportation system. Under 4 below the above it states avoid principal reliance on any one mode of tmsportation." Because the RPS plan does not call for densities to increase adequately to support all forms of transportation equally, the plan is not in conformance with Goal 12. The plan can only be in conformance if densities are prescribed that move us away from perpetuating the principal reliance on one form of transportation, i.e. the automobile. Expert witnesses no doubt would need to be called to set the exact density but one expert witness, Robert Liberty former head of 1000 Friends and currently a Portland metro official cited the density of 5000 people per square mile being needed before mass transit can operate without massive subsidies. I submit that as a minimum density standard for at least Medford before urban expansion can occur. I submit 4000 people per square mile as a reasonable density target for any city under 50,000 people. Goal 14: Urbanization Goal 14 States: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use to accommodaate urban population and urban development inside urban growth boundaries, to .21 ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. Further down under Urban Growth Boundaries in Goal 14 it says " Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be a cooporative process among cities counties and where applicable regional govenments." Under Land Need in the last paragraph it states: " Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth boundary" This is not established in the RPS plan due to there being no specificity regarding infill plans by member cities. The current densities of each city are so low that the pattern of development cannot be called anything else but sprawl. No regional plan that serves to perpetuate sprawl into farmland such as this plan can withstand appeal due to the conflict with state goals. GUIDELINES A. PLANNING 4. Comprehensive plans and inplementing measures for land inside urban growth boundaries should encourage the efficient use of land and the development of livable communities. To satisfy Goal 14 land must be used efficiently and counties must sign off on additions to the UGBs and possibly annexations. County governments should in no circumstances, when densities are as low as they are in Jackson County ( Inefftclent use of land), sign off on proposals where more prime or high value farm land is to be consumed. There is no proof offered in the RPS draft that land needs cannot be reasonbly accommodated within the existing urban growth boundaries. The RPS plan needs to include the densities that would be occurring if there were evolving infill programs in each city. But there is not adequate evidence in the RPS draft that the cities have factored that in calculating their proposed land needs. This is essential for the RPS plan to comply with the drive for increased densities and increased land use efficiencies in Oregon cities as required by the various goals. Regarding Regional Problem Solving, that lands may not be considered prime or high value farmland is not grounds for automatically including them in an urban growth boundary. Soil types are relevant In choosing one block of land over an other for inclusion in an Urban Growth Boundary only when a clear case for expansion Is established. That case for expansion has not been made. Thank you for including the above points in calling for a revision of the RPS draft to move us towards a more sustainable Rogue Valley. Connservationally yours, Brent Thompson President of Friends of Jackson County Table showing how many people could be added. to Jackson County Cities with no geographical expansion If target densities are achieved. City 2004 Pop. 2005 sq. 2005 Target: ml. density 3500 3750 400 per sq ml per acre Ashland 20590 7.42 2775 4.3 5360 7235 9090 Central Point 14950 4.49 3330 5.2 765 1888 3010 Eagle Point 6980 3.04 2296 3.58 3660 4450 5210 Jacksonville 2410 1.9 1268 1.98. 4240 4715 5190 Medford 69220 28.15 2459 3.9 29305 36343 43380 oo~~r Phoenix 4570 1.7 2688 4.2 1380 1805 2240 Talent 5890 1.75 3368 5.26 235 673 1110 Figures in last three columns are achieved by multiplying a given target density x current sq. mi. In each city and then subtracting the current population from that figure: e.g. for Medford 28.15 square miles x 3500 = 98525 - 69,220 = 29,305 people that could be added before Medford's density would exceed 3500 people per square mile. Source: Damian Mann, Medford Mail Tribune Sunday 13 November 2005. Last four rows were calculated by Brent Thompson, President of Friends of Jackson County in January 2007., All figures can be scrutinized for errors and updates, but the point to be Illustrated is that we have too much sprawl in Jackson County. That point is irrefutable. The Regional Problem Solving in its current draft perpetuates that sprawl and does not emphasize inf III. Friends of Jackson County P.O. Box 1443 Phoenix Oregon 97535 phone 488-0407 Draft 24 Nov 2008 . Peak•oil By Chris Honoib . tor'the .'15dings„ ; W a cannot drill our way By some estimates the U.S, ' dramatmallyj and without',timely to oil independence. We paakyd ins10.70;(Japan peaked in _ mitigataon,'the economic social know this. Offshore rigs dotting 19I3r)~ Baudia Arabia will, peak; and pblitieal~co U will be:nn the Atlantic, the Gulf, the. coast., in 2014 and Traq in 2018. Of-the precedeuted 'Viable mitigation of Alaska and California will Moil;producing countries in the options exist:on both the supply 11 never solve our energy problemerld~ 64 ate in decline, including and demand'sides but to'liava 'Drill baby drill," is a bankrapt, and ,Arabian Gb it, the larg sulistantial iihpact, they must be ` mindless Republican mantra the egt oil, fold in the world. Other initiated ,mor"e than`adecade m results of which are now being trolegm sources, su ch as oil advance of~eakm ' _ played out pe sandWimd.bil, shale, are so costly Fo~ far top 3iany mrgoVCrn For decades; environmental'- ! and damaging to extract and meat, oil igaep'ndeStce}s.takenr iste have lamented out national refine that they are only martin to mean freeing purselvdii, m ' myopia, our lack of political. lia will p allyfeaslble The end of easy Oil rence an'nt~lrS while ages regarding critical envtronine ntal is here. 1, eivelq ppraumg,drilhn oif`our decisions. Yet, our retreat into de zWli ins eak oil arripes, estimat own•sh rea Thi Peal t~ isithat alai continues to be unshakable ,ced by atltf}$e to be.202D, supply'will oil independence will'eveht8alt Well before BP'S massive rupture, I no louge~ mi e@ deman d. World' come 4or all ofUs not'Uyyliotce now spewing some 16,000 barrels wlde_tousG7RtlStion. of oil in 1980 but'by necb fsify;'as glbbal`~elds (or more) of.oil.pei, day into the rwas'0$-mrRro4, artF~s per day, dectiite and the7aat drop isaeither Gulf oFMexico, President,Obama in 2006 it was 85;mlllion barrels too; ns7ry br too`costlytoe5itrack lifted the ban on offshore drilling m 2015 it is prof Sated tb"be 98 9 Tfie challenge thit- ooms is It was a startling and regrettable' million barrels and by2030 it unpi'e edegtedyTt's`tAd g<ti ff Yofi decision•and entirely beside,the will be 118 milho>d fiettele C9hma dystopian at3e$cB ¢gtl¢n iVherem point.:The debate 'lies elsewhere and India aEe noy 'aggressively m the ivdr}d is fi'ailfcmie into 8 J. l As the environmental disaster t i ~ powt.teemnelogy `Qiiaai ` r unfolds,in Wrenching slow motion theuA9Y This trend, spurred b p4s o in the Gulf, as an appalled nation population growth to hePustain ahgrzl soe34ty' rlnot hppge Ar s to b const t a Ald r` 6a ¢st6iit 9 owev ¢s` Qvatches entrails of oil enalce thew bhincr~ae m worldwide pto'duc ; 5 rotten {i'i out ome `peaSt wayy across v9st.str9tches of the tion Af;cbeap oil; 9gmethmgltiat ,oil }theliityreilieiq~e~tion is 11 GulfaadmassiVe.aerosohzed , exceedsaIlp olect30ns`'S' 'W11TvgbaYea`dj~ P~ianwemake plumes, develop beneath the The mcreasnrg'ehafcitydEthis the t an31}iun CD%,.Ua,n agile and surface, we have an: opportunity finite tesoum ce wi hav world ' self su4t ing'fei'ms' 1 Mil 7' to refrains is the most profound wide econoic i phaatplons !r' Anil°whenr 11'the pJttiofih?dg way, our posture toward ell Foss`"il'fiiels hate been pivo~ai baEe,6egmIm earheat') a ze of< _ and sustain able and renewable' to the ihdueti'iaf'affd`post m us , tife a"sse$ce? t" e ` eIIergy, ' trial revolutlehs, The world ova » } t4 i 'But let s beginwith a.quea atructis Potrolauip bhsad,'from. fI ` Cons k}dno';(n1e{`tn As~ilahri'ir wntesopmldrt rb7umn.~ ` ; five ~t oiisYand fBet; at a cost of dwion: $1 transportation to.residential °f;om I , and la us n million.a day,: in a'zone clearly. , lar~trsecto being ErzlnAp i tho !!!i re helot pore o5 yahoo cc beyond their technological abili- ties should an accident dedurids t1on;.The U,S,.aletie consumes some 17:7 million barrels of oil it out of desperation because ,daily.;>j the reserves on land and infar' To'say that`we need to free, ' more accessible waters have been om elves from the gap of bilk 1, exhausted? or tolatknowledge:that oil `inayr t . Which begs a meta question: be soon dgplete8;'is to augges£ about oil, one that renders the,fa a chalige so profound that it;f'miliar oil independence" discus- ! . lion mute: are we soon approach unimaginable Tli'e implications ing what is known as "peak.oil"7 are':efaggbnng ' ` -Peak nil iq that, geint W ien - A.2005 report by the U S the-maximum rata of global bepartment-ot'-Energy titled Peaking o7World Oil Produc afterlwhiicch the•rat of prod ced) tiodf Impacts, Mitigations,,& I ".I lion worldwide enters terminal Risk Management, also known decline. Efforts to locate and as the Hirach'report stated; K7ie , extraefoil will,become evermore Peaking of world oil production ; risky and costly and the poton presents the U.S. and thisWorld, -tial-environmental-impact-more- wlth'an nilprecedeilted risk harrowing The Gulf is a poignant management problem As peaking . example. is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase J` e.gi°4g8 aw°~ 3 9 pmF°g8 Rdn bm~ o~pd~a°.u~E NPg< -1 pp~ Y7'fl`77f'7 $g~mne.n_.mnry• ..aa EE; 9 s„ € £cH B$~ E q § w ¥ E ~~'NOn.^,mXr 9R g= F ~ ~ ^wsg ggN S € P N gg ~ S @ ~Ea'" ~ ¢¢D~'m " R Rrv 'Y$ Y! R°.Ro°R `633 ae g~ n~~~ $ ~Ep$g-g~ E°~~ £Ee g'~ Q¢ma ~~nrvm.~<. grv°~~:: ~g eE <eE°g$${ S^ g _~wDi urva'~a~me~r~~, ~ `e• ~ r mP ~ 8 £ R e m $Smen^.rv egnNm~p~gn,no g_ K°~N ..E d's- 'egfr'z °i Em me gEEdnNwNn.rvnui pP'm.°,.o.?gee ON nv5 E'd< ~Sy ae >Prv P ~ x - - ~ s8x f a g 5= 'ti Ile I*n 0 qWn 4~e8 )Z YI S F~+y8 °'m"&~Rprym,~ g a° S< t ,-E'.. d go o~ mso~ 5~~ $ `n ~ gm n. u .%S Y~nmmvo«nmS ~u ~ `l 9FLL=a r. 3y E 8. q~ ~y ~ xSa°ppE G~i'g-g B a fZ=_}E cm zs Emo ~ :'y~ b - as 'E~.F3$ yy €E a'- Y e ao'~~`. pp ,X1 ~§~dY._~..5, 6D a ~:'::::3 Y• _ E ~ !!~~$rp ~$¢YY¢yy F.'qf E 'w § 8 ~ 3~y~`i<-S dm U~ 3~ yfr^ffi°@-- ~ :ig uxad g~g~~~'$ °e §z R.'€ frs F E` ~Z o'ooooaa m s~~..~ ~~5 € mma=5 "a~sg>~~'° gee - g, s 5 -0p ° ° Q m rY - g D°2°5 g e'-Z t•gE~ as°s afi„m U 2E 5Yt Epp pS~`s 4.. 3 S, Sp PEi HE11 _ U.. EC 9Y~ PmEmma Pia q V N i $y EE `p c2•~pp Ew 9~a m9 cF 'EEgmE E111 ! Eco ~ &~rvnv mamm$m' ~ G ^ ~~33~e ~D E~^L P@ ~ ~ $ 9 Rs ~~Pe`~mE; ~g~~g,Z SUnnyp~ dad ~ ~ 3mommmomnmm ~ ~t <..s n_58r g'a- sxr ne3E ¢ d '2 Qaoouia NaN ~N r _mg a°. CHax -az~ aSmc~ Eat •~>8 EuD 3n°SN S °E 33 w E a 91 1 REg 3 F'•s a e~lt~ g. s'n4S :wao fLS mne_mmem q€°ygNm..nmm~m~ y m E q<~azmmaaaNaeao n w n N e, uE € E lilt, at - - 1; 5 ° `~§n ~ 5 C8 Rmgg 'EE F$5N $ 3 zfin em 5rv .Eg Wver8. H a }xaH~wrv`$mn$9°~q V g DaE s € §m m 8& $E~ P.E^^rv~^«N~ m-< E eV gg OEm fr"x -S aEax N •J G o g<'~ ~ f gar i~ ip 2diem B° °kx c ° m ° 9 $n&w:o:3mm46~q, Y a8 VV -g~sE~' o-x~mn° & a 5 en gmn~ ~g-moo m + $ s' sa 'Qa~N~~„rv§ g z s A1XA¢ vz= $ ~5° d~`~'d$y_,~o $b&°e $a$io ~c33:9: p a cp -gl xg~xgEy~rv~ E s y[gly~u~' o30~ 3 ° o~ui -JI s~ °R@5 ~C S ~gsdf yQ+K-3u a (J.~' / u¢¢~$EUi~.. r SCSS~iLLf NY a frSf7qq ~ 2299ggKaq M. gffi w ~st° 2'$q=a€3 ~ CI C~ $S..SacF°P m F as>=o3$ PL 33s ac ~d °aAA ~ S _K $ g fnSHs u°€~ a €x~s~~a a ~ ~Ndiuidi:da6~- ~CEa~yy ~ ~ EEggs S o. 8zd~- y 3 g..3a L 8~ azi rd N~`e°O° $a~ k~ fag ~ a#~~ Ea5 8F ~rvnammn a,<E NIP x~a .a 8g~ s~g4 s 1.1111 v p 7. $ z a g~ E ~ g k ag W a e g. a ~ s R Ea °s //,JJ({({'7~7~' 'J S 3 Ei6 n^.. ~ to ~=p 8 s a .9~ €a€rv a ~ ~eC125i S..x~ Z bs "2a€~ ~ S g..~ a 7 EF a E I~gS°'s° s ~vE a~'# ua^`Es8°_n ' a5K ~E~-gs 5 `z 3 5 E.fS5 @~~ ~ sE ~a _ E< .y ~ P`y ~mpp S .4 'b V Rx ~ \ E..°u s s 2 i a x < aa~ m' 3g E" n w L`r° F€=D srve s $R€gm ag° ALMA J3 w x 8c En°b~ \ En"` 'ma x 3~ g@@ g P$ Em I Y~ c 'Owy~' <o~~° s P•^~ G~ ~v^ `~g ~9rv $~e W A arks E t$ a E$$,,33ggEgfra=25 iz:ga°$P_k $ Q S# E`~y ~3'„• 71,8w€ PSSg z ~ a m w$ s -rje¢ma0 A N sp_.,S 9gu° ~ZgZ€f e ig 3"~~k~•$K'. u#S°°rm6 g~3a 2gQ°~.E°g Spy°yy~ `'~j 9$€~€•?$E yz 2.2@2~ EEngiQE!`9u i'. Yi `,V, 8 8 5~z~gUP 71~s §3E ~.m'Z~ ac'" a3 if o.~ gE•ze a~F@C~ $ ~EB~a cZ t~ulF Srb~t 6'~~,5 ~S~oS ~8~8 6 tl 'V s SOa ZD° Eau §C bffl 7i s ~2a$ 3 o _ 9~ ¢0 m9 ~ E Ew P."p ~r§a$~" Ssdx M n 888~f m E°. d ~r W SE ~ o° ~ i ~ € D" ~ p ~3~ aE ~ E a`~o~~ E 5 Fy S}~P FE t•~r gels l..mngj ngR V, i u4 g E a~„Ep [lffi `P~Xg i.q Eg .9 g 'J 58 • C aSina 8S uax yy a ilm$ o m~5pES e' 8 ~d~~ ~`3E 0AA _ B~m az is ~y+8 $~xi f m_ a oeaC+ m ~H x ~dca 55 S :5 25 .~3~ c'5 JJ o g 2~+ Se°a 4 $ EHB @ Em Bg.. e pp @Da g° aaEZ S E 3 - g _ ~ S¢ f gFg$gEE m 5 B M. # p qs° gE..E ~i_ F ~ N" i "'^m@g ~..EEo^ V° E C~d~°~B T 8a~2 ~'Ee?a yS ,.x i'°•-b$ \ e $ g F w9 'a~~ o a§€sE 3 HIM V 'o~'fi C~" yyjjR `p% 3 ° e s ~•.aS,° f°, a yee$$°m Ew~3a _ wm ~y i{~" -4 I\ . 9 46 m Ba s z-bZ v °O°" ty Did" e-°°EEE.. D 5e 1'Eg a{{ o a^ Sfrmg v", ~qq Fa'g s°~'E c ~`u ~EQ ..€e G v". RSa-Se s..u 'y £t$g h} 8$J S~ >SE=uR wyBdsga~-m` C°"sz-o oy.. c ^E3K •G 8 m ~ ~<02 mO V LLm 9 Cv~ n €Si oyV~@zRH .1 `oE€ HIM" }pf v p S d K€ E ~e g F~9^°$ ~E € a°cE '~y a Eek Dz-s B y Efi EESszd _ I$s~J F= ~'Eo €'EY 5 E~&gsg~ vir a e 4 St $E: asEo ~9° s° n~ F`°° r a a y °g axFm4 nH58 0.. Ezp :a `x33 8 Ha °°'R2 i• m.-OffHIM) g ~S6fr ~e 0 BL Fi E8a _ 5ya_S E ~ 8 S .s SLL3 98a 4~StUE as age Ea°aivt H Derek Severson - RPS input From: Danny Gregg <go1demblyo777@yahoo.com> To: <SeversoD@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/8/10 1:07 AM Subject: RPS input Dear Regional Problem Solvers; - Thankyou for having the awareness and foresight to address these concerns. I have been a resident of SW Oregon since 1972 and, like many, came here for the pristine, rural environment and the ecologically minded community. I have sustained myself and my family by organic gardening and natural building over these years and I am very Interested In local self-reliance and sustalnability while at the same time maintaining a rich and creative culture that Is also respectful of the nature that surrounds us and that sustains us. 1 have also studied and practiced the concepts behind permaculture which works with the laws of nature and the natural lay of the land, yet I feel that 1 (we) have so much more to learn. The following are my concerns and Input on this process of foreseeing Into and preparing for a beautiful and sustainable future for the coming generations: 1) Growing plies of trash--requiring more Landfills....... I am very concerned about this. I honestly believe that the concept of trash and therefore the need for landfills should be phased out and made obsolete. All packaging should be bio-degradable and all manufactured Items should be made with complete recycling In mind. All organic matter that isn't Immediately reusable should find It's way Into compost piles, worm bins or power generating digesters or Incinerators. This means mandatory separation of all material now known as trash and of course elimination of some materials. Nature Is a closed system.... nothing is wasted and nothing is thrown away) 2) Preservation of farmland and the maintaining of our rural quality of.Iife....... We should not build anymore urban Infrastructure on any farm- land. Any structures built on farmland should be farm related and on the most marginal soils. I also encourage edible and medicinal landscaping around existing homes and schools and businesses where possible. This encourages self reliance and connection to where our food and medicine come from. If we continue to build on and pave over our most fertile lands we Increase our dependence on food Imports which degrades our food quality (fresher Is better) and Increases our vulnerability to such things as natural disasters which could cut us off from our food supply. 3) Composting Toilets As population Increases so does water use. Another concept In permaculture Is that there Is no such thing as away. One might think that they threw It away or flushed It away but somebody somewhere is affected. I certainly do not want to live downstream of a town, city, village that uses flush toilets Into a waste treatment facility that then overflows Into the creek. Then the solids are then often hauled off to a land- file://C:\Doeuments and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4COD97DFAs... 6/812010 fill. So, we are polluting the streams and wasting a valuable resource. I realize that given current realities of our situation, this is not a simple problem and I still think It Is something to give serious consideration and to work towards. 4) Education As time goes on we humans are less and less connected to our natural environment as well as our own health and well being and less connected to each other. I sincerely believe that our education should be a whole lot more well rounded by adding subjects such as: a) organic gardening, natural farming, wfldcrafting b) diet and nutrition c) use of medicinal herbs for health and healing d) massage, acu-pressure, healing touch e) wilderness survival f) sacred and practical art and Indigenous wisdom 5) Less use and dependence on the automobile If we continue unabated to design and Infiltrate our communities with the rampant , use of cars and all that this means, then we continue to dig ourselves deeper Into a hole that already we can't see our way out of. We have got our- selves working In a frenzy paying for all this Infrastructure that somehow we think we need. I would like to see all of us working less for money to buy stuff so we would have more time with family, friends, nature and the growing or otherwise procurement of our food and medicines. By sharing the resources (such as using buses would be) we reduce the financial demands on each of us to have our own everything. 6) Incorporate Indigenous Wisdom A few hundred years ago the European culture found in America a pristine "wilderness" yet quite Inhabited. In fact, to the native residents it was quite a permaculture paradise. Can we Imagine what life today would be like If the best attributes of both cultures were merged then? Maybe it is not too late to Incorporate something good that the Native Americans had, such as the management of fire In the forests and natural farming practices, etc. I hope to see you at the public meeting on June 15th. Please consider these things that I have shared and glean what good you can find in them and again....... Thank You and Bless You...... Sincerely, Daniel Gregg PO Box 1195 Ashland, OR 97520 file://C:\Documents and Settings\seversod\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4COD97DFAs... 6/8/2010 (6/9l2010) Derek Severson_-. testimony _ _Page 1 From: Howard Miller <hmiller@jeffnet.org> To: <SeversoD@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/8/2010 10:36 PM Subject: RPS testimony Dear Mayor Stromberg and Councillors: Since I will be out of town June 15, 1 ask that my written testimony be included in the record of your deliberations on the draft of the Regional Problem Solving proposal. This is the first real opportunity for the public to have input in this important process that has occupied the time of Councillor Jackson and many other dedicated public servants for nearly 10 years. Despite all the work of the committees, I do not believe the current proposal will be or should be accepted by the state Land Conservation and Development Commission, since it does not meet the statewide Land Use Goals. How disappointing and frustrating that rejection would be. If all governing bodies who are now reviewing the work, including the Ashland City Council, encouraged the Policy Committee to modify the problem areas now, before it is sent to Salem, the document will truly insure that the Rogue Valley will be a healthy, scenic and productive place to reside in future years. Most of the cities in the county, with the very positive exception of Ashland, have not considered creative ways to include more population within their present boundaries, but Instead have opted to 'grab' more land for urban reserves. This discourages investment for long-term farming activities, such as orchards, and promotes speculation, since urbanized land commands a higher price. This is contrary to Goal 3, which requires planning to protect and preserve agricultural land. The primary reasons for this choice, I believe, are, first, the old notion that growth is good, so more is better. The second is that few residents like the word 'density'. (Having just returned from Hong Kong, I can assure you that we have no cluel1) However, more compact construction does not necessarily mean everyone must live on postage stamp-size lots or in R-3 zoning. Allowing, for instance, 3 homes with 6-8,000 square foot lots, and a triplex on the same acre, would retain an R1-5 density, plus a bonus of one or more dwellings, allow those who wish to have an adequate yard and garden plot, and possibly share their bounty with neighbors who do not want to maintain a large outdoor space. This is but one possible way to accommodate an increased population without losing the means of producing our own food, while enjoying the amenities of a more rural atmosphere and the open space necessary for our well-being. This demand for thousands of acres to be removed from agricultural zoning will extract a hefty toll on the county's economy. Recent annual revenue reports prove that Jackson County's bounty accounted for $77 . million in income. Can that, and the taxes levied, be lost without severe consequences? How would that apply to the state economic goals? Yet another state goal promotes housing in already urbanized areas which Is not encouraged by this proposal. These 19 goals, as one can see, are all related and all seek to preserve the quality of life most residents seek and enjoy. The present form of RPS policies do not adhere to these goals. Again, I ask that your comments to the County emphasize the need to preserve resource land by planning creatively for efficient use of already urbanized land, thus increasing the possibility of reliance on alternative means of transportation, retention of farm land and open space. RPS can, with proper modification, be a good blueprint for the future. Thank you. Deborah Miller Hi, Derek, I could not submit this sooner; hope it makes the packet. Thanksl TO: Ashland City Mayor and Council Members FROM: Mary-Kay Michelsen, 2,.810 Di'ane si-, As61VV1d DATE: June IS, 2010 RECEIVED RE: Regional Problem Solving (RPS) JUN 07 7010 ee,'. cotiwVxk The City of Ashland has consistently shown its respect for the value of agricultural land by electing to accommodate its expected growth in the next SO years within the present Urban Growth Boundaries. I commend you for this decision. In addition, I, strongly, urge you to support the long term welfare of the region by going to the August 12 hearing at the County level and telling them that the next step to make this a really good plan for the future of Jackson County is for all jurisdictions to increase the capacity for infill and redevelopment planned within their present city limits. Then, subtract this number from the number of acres of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land now identified for expansion. This one reasonable change will eliminate the need for most of the prime or critical farmland which is now-inckided-ire- - the reserves. I know of no good reason to support the present plan until this important step has been taken. As you may remember, the first goal of RPS is to "manage future regional growth for the greater public good." (This means the citizenry at large.) The second goal is to "conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural, and livability benefits." Choosing to include viable agricultural land for urban expansion, when it is not required by geographic or geologic conditions, does not meet either of these two goals nor the legislative requirements. Two additional advantages to maximizing infil and redevelopment are that it will help create the density within the jurisdiction which will support a viable future public transportation system and, equally important, it will definitely save money by reducing the expenses of infrastructure expansion Again, please go to the County meeting and tell them that Ashland will only support the RPS document when it truly serves the future needs of the citizens of Jackson County as a whole. (619/2010) Derek Severson Comments of 1000 Friends of Oregon for Ashland's_ upcoming hearing on RPS Page 1, From: Greg Holmes <greg@friends.org> To: Derek Severson <seversod@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/9/2010 11:06 AM Subject: Comments of 1000 Friends of Oregon for Ashland's upcoming hearing on RPS Attachments: 100615 ashland cc final.pdf Hi Derek: Thanks for getting back to me regarding the deadline for these comments. Attached you will find a 16 page pdf file containing our comments for the Ashland City Council hearing on RPS, currently scheduled for June 15. Please enter these comments into the record and into the packets being sent to the Council in advance of that meeting. Thank you, Greg Greg Holmes I Southern Oregon Planning Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon I PO Box 2442 1 Grants Pass, OR 97528 greg@friends.org I P: 541.474.1155 1 F: 541.474.9389 1 www,friends.org Support 1000 Friends on line at www.friends.org 1000 534 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300 • Portland, OR 97204 • (503) 497-1000 • fox (503) 223.0073 • w .frlends.org friends Southern Oregon Office • PO Box 2442 • Grants Pass, OR 97528 • (541) 474-1155 • fax (541) 474.9389 al Oregon Willamette Valley Office • 220 East 1114 Avenue, Suite 5 • Eugene, OR 97401 • (541) 520-3763 • fax (503) 575-2416 Central Oregon Office • 115 NW Oregon Ave #21 • Bend, OR 97701 • (541) 719-8221 • fax (866) 394-3089 June 8, 2010 Mayor Stromberg Ashland City Councilors 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Subiect: Regional Problem Solvine Process Dear Mayor Stromberg and members of the Ashland City Council: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the city of Ashland's portion of the pear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Plan. 1000 Friends of Oregon is a nonprofit, charitable organization dedicated to working with Oregonians to enhance our quality of life by building livable urban and rural communities, protecting family farms and forests, and conserving natural and scenic areas. 1000 Friends of Oregon congratulates Ashland and the other local jurisdictions on the progress made to date in the effort to coordinate regionally on growth management and protection of our area's valuable agriculture industry. The Bear Creek Valley is an important region of Oregon for many reasons, and we believe that this planning process presents the region with a unique and valuable opportunity to direct its development in the future. Because we fully support the project's goals, 1000 Friends of Oregon has actively participated in nearly every phase of the plan's development since 2002. Our interest continues to be in the creation of a regional plan that will be approvable when delivered to the state for review, and that will serve the interests of all residents of Jackson County when implemented. Although it is not there yet, we continue to believe that it is possible to create such a plan. The comments that follow are based on our continued participation in the project and on the most recently available information-some of which has only become available since the release of the. draft of the plan dated November 2009 (issued in February of this year). The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that the Council include in its resolution, and instruct Staff to include in its presentation to the County Planning Commission on August 12, 2010, a request that the County make changes to the plan as it moves through their approval process. The purpose of these changes is to increase the legal defensibility of the plan and to make it into a document that will better serve current and future residents of the valley. Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 2 of 9 Introduction As noted on the City's website, Ashland is the only city participating in this process that has elected to accommodate the population growth expected during the planning horizon without expanding the current Urban Growth Boundary. We commend the City for taking this approach: it will be far less expensive to provide the infrastructure and finances to maintain and operate that infrastructure, and will result in a more livable community, helping to meet the RPS project goal of preserving agricultural lands for their contribution to the local economy, as compared to expanding the city's footprint further. We fully support Ashland's approach to defining your own part of this regional plan. If this plan were only about Ashland, the City's presentation at the County Planning Commission on August 12 would be quite simple. However, this plan is about a region that includes Ashland. As such, the decisions that the other jurisdictions in the region make will affect Ashland and the residents who live in and around the City. For this reason it is in your best interest to assure that the plan that is working its way through the County's planning process is one that, when completed, can be approved by the state and will serve the interests of all the residents of the valley. On November 15, 2007, the then-Mayor of Ashland sent a letter to the RPS Project on behalf of the City Council which raised a number of concerns that the Council had raised regarding the plan and how it would affect Ashland. A copy of that letter is attached for your convenience. In January of 2008, the RPS Project provided written responses to the concerns raised in that letter and at public input sessions held in the fall. An excerpt of those responses, containing the comments aimed at the Ashland letter, is attached for your convenience. As can be seen from the Project responses, although they responded to the City's concerns, they did not address those issues by making even the slightest substantive change to the plan. In fact, as discussed immediately below, the only change that was made that is related to the concerns the Council raised was in the case of the population allocation-and that change actually made things worse. Pomrlation Allocation In the version of the Draft Plan that existed when the City's November 2007 letter was written, Ashland was allocated a population increase of 4,425.1 The letter by the then-Mayor objected to this figure as being unrealistically low, representing only about 1/4 of the historic See 2007 Draft, p. 4-11. Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 3 of 9 rate of growth in the community,2 The city requested that their allocation be revised upwards based on factual data. As can be seen in the response, the Project declined to adjust this unrealistic population allocation at the time, noting that perhaps it would happen in 2009.3 It was shortly after this that the Policy Committee voted to increase the base population for the entire project from the 2005 PSU figures to the 2007 PSU figures, adding more than 8,000 people to the end target population. Inexplicably, although the population numbers went up for the region as a whole, Ashland's population allocation actually went down to 3,195 for the Draft issued later that year.4 Without explanation, the methodology utilized in the current Draft has resulted in further reducing that number. In the current draft of the plan, the population allocated to Ashland has been reduced to 2,801.5 Ashland's allocated population growth is now just 63 percent of what it was In 2007 when the city objected to a number it saw as being unrealistically low. These changes were made without review by the RPS Policy Committee, and without review of consent of you, the elected policy makers for the city of Ashland. Goal 2 of the Statewide Planning Program requires plans to be internally clear and consistent, and for approval of those plans to be based on factual information in the record. There is no factual, or reasonable, basis for this projection, which jeopardizes the approvability of the entire plan. Ashland City Council should require that this projection be changed prior to final adoption of the Plan. Efficient Use of Existing Lands In the November 2007 letter to the Project the Ashland City Council expressed concern over the lack of emphasis on infill and redevelopment in the Plan, compromising the quality of life that the Plan is supposed to protect. Setting low goals for infill and redevelopment causes an increase in the number of acres that are "needed" for urban reserves. As nearly 7,000 of the 8,500 acres of land in the proposed urban reserves is zoned for farming, that increase results in the loss of valuable farmland to the region. The Project response to the City's letter acknowledges that the plan is "not perfect" and agrees with this perception, but the goes on to explain why they feel they cannot do any better.6 . The draft Plan that existed in late 2007 included a factor for infill and redevelopment that was considerably lower than those for similar communities around the state. Although numerous parties have requested that this factor be increased, the Project has thus far remained deaf to that request. x At pages 3.4. See attached Project Response, p. 24. This is the draft that was attached to, and incorporated by reference in, the Participants' Agreement. ' At page 2-3. At page 23. Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 4 of 9 In fact, the current Draft of the Plan appears to have gone in the other direction. In the previous draft it was assumed that a portion of the new population coming to the urban areas in the next 50 years would be able to be accommodated within the existing built-areas of current cities as neighborhoods were re-developed and as infill opportunities were realized. Those people would then be subtracted from the number of people that would need to be accommodated on residential land in the new Urban Reserve Areas. In the previous Draft, 12 percent of the new population was subtracted right off the top to recognize the infill and redevelopment opportunities.7 This factor appears to have been completely eliminated from the Current Draft. This is a significant, and unrealistic, change in the assumptions underlying the project. It assumes that not one single residence will be added through any form of redevelopment or infill to the current built areas within the cities over the next 50 years. Taking this factor out of the previously adopted methodology results in an apparent increase in demand of over 1,000 acres of residential land in the Urban Reserve areas. We have requested that the County reinstate this factor into the plan, or explain why it was removed and how that can bejustified. Because this change jeopardizes the possible adoption of the Plan, we have urged all city councils in the region to make the same request. We ask that Ashland do the same. Transportation Planning and Implementation The Ashland City Council raised the issue that the transportation planning and implementation in the Plan was deficient. The Project response was essentially that this plan was not meant to be a transportation plan, but to make a general statement that the MPO was expected to play a larger role in coordinating transportation and land use planning in the future.8 The current draft of the regional plan assumes that the population of the region will double, and that when it has doubled the number of cars in the region will also have doubled.9 Currently over 25 percent of Oregonians cannot drive because they are too old, too young, or for other reasons cannot or choose not to obtain a drivers license. Projections done for the RPS process indicate that the fastest growing segment of the region's population in the future will be those over 55. The percentage of those under 18 will also grow. This suggests that the This figure was provided in Appendix V to the draft that was attached to, and incorporated by reference in, the Participants' Agreement, on line 13 of the table at p. 3. The 12 percent figure is for the "High Land Needs" scenario. The "Low Land Needs" scenario, which was not adopted by the project, assumed 18 percent of the new population could be so accommodated. This subtraction was partially offset by the addition of a vacancy rate factor. `At page 23. 'Draft plan, p. 1.9. Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 5 of 9 percentage of the overall population that will not have access to their own automobile will likely grow in the decades to come. The road network that will be necessary to serve the region with twice as many cars will be tremendously expensive to build. It is in the best interests of all of the communities in the region to minimize the amount of such construction necessary and to maximize the efficiency of the infrastructure we have or need to build. Neighborhoods designed so that people have the option to walk to get some of the things they need in life is one part of accomplishing that goal. It also reduces the amount that households spend on transportation, freeing that money up to be spent in other segments of the economy. The transportation study done as part of this plan is lacking in important respects, but it did reach the conclusion that nodal development a "is clearlly the most effective development pattern to mitigate transportation impacts from growth." 1 This type of development pattern would give some residents of the valley the option and ability to walk within their neighborhood to meet some of their daily needs, and would allow for the support of a viable transit system. Despite this finding, the plan has not been modified in any way to require, or even to encourage, this type of development pattern. These deficiencies in the plan violate Goal 12 (Transportation), the Transportation Planning Rule, and, because the higher densities that would facilitate compliance would reduce the amount of farmland needed for urban reserve areas, the requirements under OAR 660-021- 0020 for lessening or minimizing the impact of urban reserves on resource land. The Ashland City Council suggested that the Regional Plan and Agreement "create incentives to ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service." The City should request that policies and commitments be made in this plan to achieve that outcome. Loss of High Value Farmland The City Council raised a concern regarding the loss of valuable farmland to urbanization. The current Draft Plan includes a total of about 8,500 acres proposed for inclusion in Urban Reserves. 12 Of that, nearly 7,000 acres are zoned as agricultural land. Of that, 1,200 acres 10 "Nodal Development" includes mixed-use, relatively dense neighborhoods placed along transit corridors. This type of development supports a viable transit system, reducing the number of cars on the road, and gives residents the option of walking or bicycling within their neighborhood to meet some of their daily needs. " Draft Plan, p. 2-20. This total does not include over 1,800 acres of existing parkland that is proposed for inclusion, as parks, in the City of Medford. In discussing total acreages it has been the practice of most involved in this Project to subtract those acres from the totals being discussed, we hold to that convention in this discussion. Mayor Shromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 6 of 9 were determined by the Project's experts 13 to be a critical part of the region's agricultural economic base. In light of this reality, the Council made the following request: We would ask the Policy Committee to please consider amendments to the draft Plan to prolong the need for extending urban growth boundaries into the region's commercial agricultural base of land by encouraging all of the region's cities to actively achieve higher densities in appropriate areas in their existing urban growth boundaries. The Council hopes that through a concerted regional effort focused on obtaining reasonable increases in residential and employment density on lands already committed to urbanization, a proportional reduction in the need for future urban reserve areas is possible. 14 No such policies have been proposed. Indeed, as discussed above, regarding infill and redevelopment of existing areas the Project appears to have moved in the opposite direction. The Council should reiterate this request in its Resolution and presentation to the County. A Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development The City Council raised the issue that affordable housing was not addressed in the Plan. The Project response was that they did "not consider the Plan to be the appropriate mechanism for doing so." s No further explanation was provided. The Project response did not mention or address the City's concerns regarding Economic Development. The Council should find this response to be inadequate. The Project's own analyses show that affordable housing is currently a problem and will be a problem for the region in the future. More recent studies have shown the extent of the problem.16 Failure to address these issues will have a negative impact on the region's economy, and livability, in the future. Statewide Planning Goal 10 requires communities to plan for affordable housing. Common sense and economic self-preservation suggest that this is a good idea. The Council should pursue this issue and request that, if the Plan does not address these issues, then at the very The Resource Lands Review Committee, or the "RLRC." la At page 3. s At page 24. le The Center for Neighborhood Technology conducted a study that was published earlier in 2010. For a graphic representation of the extent of the current affordable housing crisis in Jackson County, see http:/Artai ndex.cnt.org/mapping_tool.php#region=Med ford-- Ashland%2C%200R&theme_menu=o&layerl --23&layer2=24 Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 7 of 9 least commitments should be put in place to do so before expansions of urban growth boundaries are permitted. The flexibility offered under ORS 197.656 is no longer an option for this process Finally, there is a significant issue that, if not addressed, could derail the entire RPS effort. One of the attractions of the regional planning process as carried out in the Bear Creek Valley in the last 10 years, and the major "glue" that held the participants together until 2008, was the promise that by utilizing the RPS process the region could develop plans that did not fully comply with all of the state's Administrative Rules. RPS is made possible by a special statute (ORS 197.652 - 658), which specifically allows for this outcome. This allowance is a huge exception to the way laws in general, and land use laws specifically, work in this country: local regulations must comply with state regulations, which must in turn comply with federal regulations. The bar was thus appropriately set high, and conditions were imposed by the legislature, in order to assure that there was no abuse of this provision. The most significant of the conditions is that the state can only approve plans that do not fully comply with all administrative rules if "the amendments or new provisions are based upon agreements reached by all local participants, the commission and other participating state agencies, in the collaborative regional problem-solving process. s17 (emphasis added) The record of this process dating back to its inception in the year 2000 makes it clear that Jacksonville was, until its forced removal and subsequent voluntary withdrawal in 2009, a "participant in the collaborative regional problem-solving process." The fact that the city withdrew in disagreement with the process and the apparent outcomes of the project means that this project can no longer take advantage of the flexibility offered under the RPS statute. The revised version of history offered in the current version of the plan does not alter this conclusion. 18 The practical effect of this situation is that the state will not be able to acknowledge a plan that does not fully comply with all administrative rules. I 17 I ORS 197.656(2)(a). 18 DLCD and some local attorneys have exerted some effort to explain through this new version of the project's history somehow means that Jacksonville was never a participant "in the RPS process," and thus its participation and agreement in the final stages of the process is not required. In response we would simply point out that DLCD took a similar position in the Polk/Yamhill County RPS process when Yamhill County and one of the cities withdrew from the process. The Court of Appeals disagreed with DLCD, and the portions of the plan developed under that process that did not comply with all administrative rules were remanded and never approved by the state. See Polk County v. Department of Land Conserratlon and Development, Or. App. 501, 112 P.3d 409 (2005). Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June 8, 2010 Page 8 of 9 Portions of the proposals for many of the cities clearly do not comply with the provisions of OAR 660-021-0030 (the priority of lands for inclusion in Urban Reserves). DLCD and LCDC have indicated that no jurisdiction will receive approval to implement their portion of the plan until all jurisdictions have submitted their final amendments for consideration and approval in one package. The likelihood that the state will not be able to approve the plan at that time, or that an appeal to the Court of Appeals will successfully result in a remand of the plan, is significantly higher if the plan submitted to the state does not fully comply with all administrative rules. It would therefore be prudent if all jurisdictions insisted that all parts of the County plan and those of each of the cities comply with all administrative rules. Significant delays in the ability for any jurisdiction to implement its part of the plan are likely otherwise. Conclusion For the reasons cited above, we believe that the proposal currently before the Ashland City Council does not meet state regulations-whether under the RPS statute or not-and should be modified. On August 12, 2010, the city of Ashland is scheduled to make a presentation to the Jackson County Planning Commission with the city's recommendations for the RPS Plan. 1000 Friends of Oregon respectfully recommends that the Council include in its resolution and instruct Staff to include in its presentation to the County Planning Commission on August 12, 2010, the issues below and ask the County to remedy the following weaknesses in the overall plan: 1. The population projections for Ashland and the other jurisdictions should be fixed prior to final adoption of the Plan. 2. The County should revert to the previously adopted methodology and re-insert a factor for infill and redevelopment into the calculations for determining how much land is needed for urban reserves. This factor should be in-line with what similar sized communities are doing. Urban Reserve proposals should be scaled back accordingly. 3. Add provisions to the Plan that ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City must demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service. 4. Include specific policies to be consistent with the findings of the transportation study for assuring that nodal development is a required outcome for a high enough percentage of future development to have a positive impact on the region's transportation network, Mayor Stromberg and Ashland City Council June S, 2010 Page 9 of 9 5. Adjust regional density targets upwards at least high enough to support a viable transit system. Include policies and commitments to assure that these targets are met. 6. Request that the County ensure that all pails of the plan submitted to the state for approval fully comply with all administrative rules to minimize the potential for significant delays in the ability of the region to implement the plan. We recognize and commend Ashland and the rest of the region in your efforts to plan for the future. Additional work remains, and it is our hope that the final product is one we can support. We hope these comments are helpful in achieving that outcome. Please include these comments in the official record of these proceedings and notify us of any decisions and/or future hearings in this matter. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need any clarification regarding anything in this letter please do not hesitate to contact me. Ireg mes Southcm Oregon Planning Advocate 1000 Friends of Oregon CITY OF ASHLAND November 15, 2007 Greater Bear Creek Regional Problem Solving Policy Committee C/o Rogue Valley Council of Governments Post Office Box 3275 Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Chair Jackson and Members of the RPS Policy Committee: On behalf of the entire City Council, I am writing to offer comments on the Regional Problem Solving Drafl Plan. The Ashland City Council supports a Regional Plan that recognizes the participants' mutual dependence and our desire to see the valley grow in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. We are committed, as you all know, to accommodating our growing population and growing businesses within our existing boundaries, and we know that our fate as a community is dependent on the decisions of the County and other Cities in the Bear Creek Valley. I hope you will consider our comments as part of our strong commitment to regional coordination and to growth that supports a healthy, robust economy and also preserves our high quality of life and our commitment to environmental protection. First, we would like to express our sincere appreciation for the considerable effort and countless number of hours that members of the Policy Committee, Technical Advisory Committee, and RVCOG staff have dedicated to this valuable undertaking. The Regional Problem Solving process has been an opportunity to mutually evaluate scenarios that provide for managed growth, efficient land use patterns, a transportation strategy, protections for the region's air and water, and sound management of the valley's agricultural and forest lands over the long haul. At a special meeting devoted to this topic on October 29, 2007, the City Council identified several areas where Ashland would like to see the draft Plan change prior to final adoption or enactment of a stakeholders agreement. Efficient Use of Existing Lands The draft Plan appears to emphasize the size and location of proposed urban reserves as a strategy for accommodating population growth. We perceive that this focus has meant other important regional issues, such as protection of resource lands, the connection between land use and transportation planning, and affordable housing have received less emphasis. Administration Tel: 5411488-6002 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-1488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 80D/735-2900 wmy ashland.or.us ~r IRW It00N R(0R01(0 PAM The City Council is concerned this emphasis may compromise the very thing that the Plan is trying to protect the region's remarkable quality of life. The Council believes development of vacant properties, redevelopment of existing land, and increased densities and infill within established urban growth boundaries should be a top priority of the Plan. By directing communities within the region to first enact land use incentives to achieve greater densities on existing lands within established urban growth boundaries, a reduction in the total land acreage committed for urban reserves could likely be achieved. It appears that the City of Medford, in particular, has done an excellent job in considering redevelopment and in accepting that infill has to be a key strategy, and we believe all participants need to similarly commit to greater densities. The City of Ashland recognizes that we still have work to do in this area ourselves. Allhough we plan to accommodate growth within our existing urban growth area, our current and planned densities need to be closely examined to make sure we are doing our part to reduce unneeded urban expansion, protect farm and forest land, and support transit in our community and region, Transportation Planning and Implementation Upon a cursory review of the draft Plan, the City Council believes the plan lacks an emphasis on the role of alternate forms of transportation and seems to accept as inevitable a need to increase the capacity of arterial street systems. Ashland believes the Regional Plan should prioritize alternative forms of transportation, including transit and other forms of higher occupancy travel. Where it is clear that, over time, certain road improvements will be necessary, the location, type and approximate time frame for implementation should be described. Lastly, the draft Plan should explicitly encourage and reward communities that actively plan for alternative forms of transportation. Regional funding measures must give equal weight to communities that implement strategies aimed at reducing automobile trips, rather than depending on building facilities for additional vehicle capacity. We believe the transportation modeling conducted by RVCOG as part of RPS reinforces that concern. The modeling shows that mixed use development with density clustered around transit nodes is best way to reduce total vehicle miles, traffic congestion and investments in roads. As noted above, we hope the Regional Plan and Stakeholders Agreement will create incentives to ensure that, before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service. Loss of High Value Agricultural Lands The concern over the loss of resource and forest lands caused by urban expansion is one of three stated problems being addressed through Regional Problem Solving. One of the stated "Project Goals" is to "Conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits." 20 E. Administration Tex: 5411488-8002 20 E. aln Street Fax: 541-1488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735.2900 w 1ashland.or.us According to the draft Plan, however, of the 9,200 acres included within Urban Reserve Areas, 77 percent are currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and 18 percent are considered critical to the region's commercial agricultural land base. The City of Ashland is very concerned about the long-term implications of expansion into production lands, especially the "critical" commercial agricultural lands. We would ask the Policy Committee to please consider amendments to the draft Plan to prolong the need for extending urban growth boundaries into the region's commercial agricultural base of land by encouraging all of the region's cities to actively achieve higher densities in appropriate areas in their existing urban growth boundaries. The Council hopes that through a concerted regional effort focused on obtaining reasonable increases in residential and employment density on lands already committed to urbanization, a proportional reduction in the need for future urban reserve areas is possible. A Regional Approach to Housing and Economic Development The City Council believes the long term health of the regional economy relies on a range of housing styles and types at prices that serve a wide variety of households. The draft Plan should identify a time line for the creation of regional strategies that encourage a range of housing types throughout the region. The American Planning Association's extensive 2003 study, Regional Approach to Affordable Housing, noted that the most important element in ensuring the provision of affordable housing on a regional basis is political will and leadership. The Regional Problem Solving process provides the vehicle by which the region can demonstrate its clear commitment toward addressing the region's affordable housing needs. Other regional planning efforts across the United Stales have coordinated policy objectives in the areas of affordable housing, transportation, economic development and smart growth practices, which have helped business, increased jobs, supported schools and other public agencies, and reduced the environmental and social costs of growth. We think RPS could help all of the jurisdictions in the Valley work together on these issues, with lasting benefits for all our communities. Coordinated Population Allocations The draft stakeholder's agreement makes reference to the County process for proportional allocation of future population as identified and adopted in Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Ashland has reviewed the population allocation documents and believes the population allocation is not an accurate reflection of population trends in Ashland. Our projected growth rate is about''/. of the rate we have experienced over the last two decades, and our projected population is therefore too low. The proposed stakeholder agreement should recognize the concern over the accuracy of future population projections for the City of Ashland, based upon the absence of data to support the County's identified 20-year and 50-year growth rates. The County's population allocation for Administration Tex: 5411488-8002 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5414488.5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 w .ashland.or.u5 Ashland should not be adopted as a conclusion within the Regional Problem Solving process, but rather these population allocations should be revisited and agreed upon by all jurisdictions before Periodic Review. The Ashland City Council and citizens of Ashland appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Plan. We are confident the issues raised can be further evaluated and integrated into the final document so the City of Ashland can readily support this important step toward regional coordination and action. Sincerer O CSC ~L`" ohn M rrison Mayor t o shland c: Ashland City Council Martha Bennett, City Administrator Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Administfallon Tex: 541499-0002 20 E. Main Stf 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5474488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735-2900 - w ashland.or.us justification for their urban reserves, not individual landowners, as that had been done on the city- level. As for Mr. Mallam's request for more hearings, there will Indeed be further hearings before a regional plan is finally implemented through comprehensive plan amendments sometime in the spring of 2009. EXHIBIT 036 (Clara Wendt, P.O. Box 300. Jacksonville) October 10, 2007 REGIONAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY: Ms. Wendt expressed concerns about water usage in the valley over the planning horizon, and stated that she would prefer that this be addressed in further detail in the Plan. RESPONSE: The Medford Water Commission has been a very active member of the process, and has made the Policy Committee well aware of the issues regarding the region's finite supply of water. The kinds of specifics Ms. Wendt is discussing will be discussed as the planning horizon unfolds, especially as concerns adequate supply (each city will have to purchase additional water rights to be able to serve additional population, and/or institute conservation measures), and In the usefulness of the projected Increases in density In conserving water. EXHIBIT 037 (letter from Mayor John Morrison and Ashland City Council, City of Ashlandl November 15, 2007 REGIONAL TESTIMONY SUMMARY: The City of Ashland Identifies several areas in which it would like to see refinements in the final Regional Plan: Improved efficiency In the use of existing urbanized areas; greater focus on alternative means of transportation; less impact on commercially Important agricultural lands; and an early refinement of the present population element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The overall desire for the City of Ashland to be part of a progressive planning process in the valley is appreciated. It is acknowledged that the city is taking a stand on what It believes in by deciding not to expand Its municipal footprint through this process. The region also recognizes that circumstances having to do with the environment, the economy, and climate change have been changing quickly over the last several years, calling into question the sustainability of commonly accepted development patterns. While the Plan is progressive, it is not a response in itself to the growing concerns over business as usual. On the other hand, the Plan does not create circumstances that would prevent the region, or individual cities, from encouraging such things as greater future efficiencies in land use, encouraging better agricultural productivity, and providing for more alternative transportation and affordable housing. What this Plan does is outline where future growth, if and when it comes, will be located. How that growth is distributed and accommodated depends on a continued regional conversation. 22 • Improved efficiency in the use of existing urbanized areas: The City raises an Issue that was raised to varying degrees in public hearing testimony, and that is that the Plan is not perfect, and not as proactive or progressive as it could have been. That perception, depending on how far one takes it, is accepted by most who have worked on developing it. But there is also general acknowledgment that, with this process, we have gone as far as we could have in a region that is heavily supportive of jurisdictional autonomy and has limited experience with the type of regional cooperation that could result in mandates on detailed, internal policies of individual cities. This Plan, although in every way revolutionary for the region and for the state, is still an evolutionary step in regional collaboration. Because RPS requires consensus on all decisions, and because the communities are politically and culturally divergent on many of the issues needing consensus, compromise is inevitable. On the issue of agricultural lands, it was decided that, given the fact that almost no jurisdiction In the process was not constrained by the large percentage of EFU-zoned land around it, heightened attention would be given to the more commercially viable agricultural lands. The Plan has a complete explanation of the process whereby cities were given information about the location and relative productivity of agricultural lands surrounding them, and discusses the resulting efforts by cities to avoid the more Important of those EFU lands. The Plan also documents the fact that the percentage of EFU land in the proposed urban reserves is actually less than the percentage in the county overall, a result of the efforts by participating cities to avoid, when at all feasible, agricultural lands. In addition to this level of protection, the region has also agreed to much Improved agricultural buffering standards, which are designed to protect existing agricultural production from adjacent urbanization. Finally, the point is made in the Plan that long-term establishment of urban reserves is an overall positive for agricultural production in the valley due to the predictability if affords the agricultural lands not in urban reserves. The City also mentions that the connection between transportation planning and land use is deficient in the Plan. The majority of participants, including state agencies, would take issue with that perception. From the outset, this Plan did not intend to replace the Regional Transportation Plan (an MPO responsibility) or individual city Transportation System Plans, but for the first time to provide a matrix of long-term developable lands to assist in better transportation planning at all levels. The process also allowed a consideration of major transportation constraints when identifying potential urban reserves, which, in the case of Eagle Point, resulted in the removal of large proposed urban reserves on the west side of Highway 62 due to the probable impacts their development would have on the highway. The region has also created a direct relationship between the Plan and the MPO's planning process, and has gained the MPO's support for mechanisms to identify and protect significant transportation corridors in the urban reserves, and to raise additional revenue for that purpose. Finally, the RPS process was the direct impetus 23 behind ODOT developing the state's first LUSDR model, which for the first time permits the region to perform long-range Integrated land use and transportation modeling. The City also mentions the lack of attention to affordable housing in the Plan. The region agrees that the issue is not directly addressed, but does not consider the Plan to be the appropriate mechanism for doing so. • Greater focus on alternative means of transportation: While the region acknowledges the Importance of alternative means of transportation, especially of a viable, fixed-route public transportation system, the Plan was not designed or Intended to address that issue. The most appropriate place to do so is at the local jurisdictional and MPO level. What the Plan can and does do Is provide the means whereby better long-term land use and transportation planning can take place. As for increasing regional densities, the Plan does call for significantly increased densities, which will, in time, make public transportation more viable. The Plan also calls out the attractiveness of nodal development, but where and how much would be optimal needs to await the conceptual plans that will follow the designation of the urban reserves. • Less impact on commercially Important agricultural lands: This is addressed within the discussion above on more efficient land use. • An early refinement of the present population element of Jackson County's Comprehensive Plan: The County has agreed to a regular review of the population element in Its Comprehensive Plan. More to the point for the City of Ashland, it has been suggested that an amendment could occur as early as 2009 as part of the process of amending the County's Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Regional Plan. Although the County is not obliged to follow the proportional distribution of population within the Regional Plan, it has been in general agreement with the logic In doing so in the future. TESTIMONY ADDRESSING CITY-SPECIFIC ISSUES: City of Medford EXHIBIT 007-MD (Randy Varner, 6240 Table Rock Road, Central Point) September 24, 2007 TESTIMONY SUMMARY: Mr. Varner directed his comments toward the desire of property owners who are north of the MDA growth area to be Included in the proposed urban reserve. He said that the area has Class 4 soils and is not suitable to make an agricultural living of these lands. He asked about getting a signed petition from land owners to present to the City of Medford. Early In the RPS process these lands were 24 (6/9/2010) Derek Severson -Rogue Advocates RRS Comments for Ashland City Council Page,1 From: Sarah Valle <sarah@rogueadvocates.org> To: <SeversoD@ashland.or.us> Date: 6/9/2010 11:41 AM Subject: Rogue Advocates RPS Comments for Ashland City Council Attachments: Rogue Advocates RPS Comments for Ashland City Council.pdf Derek, Please find Rogue Advocates' comments on RPS for the Ashland City Council hearing next week. I hope that these can still be submitted into the packet prior to the hearing. Thanks very much, Sarah Valle Rogue Advocates' Project Coordinator P.O, Box 443 Williams, OR 9754A x' 541.846.1083 ww .rogoeodvocoles.org RSA-~ocai Working Towards a Livable & Sustainable Rogue River Valley Region June 9, 2010 Mayor Stromberg Ashland City Council 20 E. Main St Ashland, OR 97520 Rogue Advocates is a nonprofrt.orgainization that works in Jackson and Josephine Counties to preserve farmland, forestland and open space and.advocates for the sustainability and livability of communities in the Rogue Valley region. Because we and our members believe that the decisions and policies that will come outoFthe Regional Problem Solving process are critical to the future,livability of the Bear Creek Valley we welcome this opportunity to comment on Ashland's portion of this plan. Rogue Advocates enthusiastically supports the mission and goals of RPS. However, some areas of the current version of the plan fall, signi8cantly short of the project's.stated goals and do not comply with state law. As Ashland is choosing not to expand its Urban Growth Boundary, we commend this decision to prioritize infill and redevelopment over sprawl. We therefore offer these conments in the hope that Ashland will he a strong voice at the County level and encourage the County and other participating cities to likewise prioritize infill and redevelopment for the reasons stated below. infill & Redevelopment is Required to Achieve High Density for Viable Transit: The Regional Problem Solving process leas giventhe region what should have been a unique opportunity to develop creative solutions to transportation issues on a regional basis. Unfortunately, this has not-happened. For a public transportation system to be viable, at a rnininnum, aregion's housing density level must be at least? dwelling units per gross residential acre. 7'he region's current density of 5.48 DU/Gross Acre falls far short of that and the draft Regional Plan's projected density of 6:4 DU/Gross Acre that participants have committed to falls short of thatstill. Although there is some debate about these numbers, the basic fact:is that RPS never seriously planned for anything remotely approaching cutting edge density levels to absolutely ensure the possibility for a high level of affordable mass transit through its approximate SO.year planning horizon. For example, of the two options of high and low densities proposed for each jurisdiction in the plan, all jurisdictions only committed to the lowest density levels for their respective Urban Reserves (Draft Regional Plan v.1,ch. 2, 3.1). Rogue Advocates views the Draft Plans mediocre commitment to this critical density/transportation equation as a failure to grapple with the real problems that this region faces. The inevitable result of this type of policymaking will be a legacy of deferred problems to the next generation. June 9, 2010 Rogue Advocates' Comments on the BPS Draft Plan to Ashland City Council An April 17, 2010 Ashland Daily Tidings article stated, "The average Ashland household spends more than 28 percent of its income, about $10,000, on transportation annually." This is far above what the average American spends on transportation (17%) and twice what communities with more accessible public transit options spend (i.e. Portland's Pearl District's residents spend 14%). The lack of public transportation options available in this valley is the root cause behind Ashland residents spending a disproportionate amount of their available income on getting from home to work and back. Clearly, the lack of transit options not only is an environmental concern (i.e. the connection between increased vehicle miles/congestion and the region's reduced air quality), but an economic concern as well. Rogue Advocates urges the Ashland City Council to voice these serious transportation concerns at the County level. Specifically, we urge the Council to renew the request that then Mayor John Morrison wrote in a November 1S, 2007 letter to the RPS Policy Committee that "before any urban reserves are moved into any City's Urban Growth Boundary, each City should have to demonstrate it has developed its existing urban areas to densities that support fixed-route transit service." Affordable Housing Must be Prioritized and Infill & Redevelopment Creates that Opportunity: Affordable housing options are few and far between in the Rogue Valley, and the RPS process should not be a missed opportunity for the cities and the County to come together and develop a much needed regional strategy for increasing affordable housing in the Valley. By focusing on infill and redevelopment, communities can simultaneously focus on creating mixed-use development that includes affordable housing options (i.e. higher density options such as smaller homes, townhouses and apartments). It is vital that the region's long-term strategy for housing include all types and styles of residential units to accommodate an aging population and also an increase of families with more modest incomes. Rogue Advocates urges the City Council to renew its 2007 request to include in the Draft Plan a specific time line for development of regional strategies that encourage a range of housing types throughout the Valley. Choosing Infill & Redevelopment Preserves the Region's Critical Agricultural Land Base: Agricultural land is a limited resource in this region covered by forests, mountains and publicly owned lands. Yet, agriculture in Jackson County is an industry that is of great importance and growing value. Direct sales alone from agriculture in 2007 were over $79 million, an increase of 46% from 2002. As one of the BPS project's three stated goals is to "conserve resource and open space lands for their important economic, cultural and livability benefits," the fact that around 7,000 acres of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zoned lands are proposed to be re-designated as Urban Reserves is disturbing. The fact that of those lands, 1,200 acres that have been deemed by the plan's own panel of experts as "critical to the region's agricultural economy" are still designated as Urban Reserves in the draft plan is absolutely counter-intuitive to the plan's June 9, 2010 Rogue Advocates' Comments on the RPS Draft Plan to Ashland City Council stated goals. Additionally, state law does not permit these types of lands to be included for future development in the Regional Problem Solving process unless an exception is taken to Statewide Planning Goal 3: If, in order to resolve regional land use problems, the participants in a collaborative regional problem-solving process decide to devote agricultural land or forestland, as defined in the statewide planning goals, to uses not authorized by those goals, the participants shall choose land that is not part of h region's commercial agricultural or forestland base or take an exception to those goals pursuant to ORS 197.732. (emphasis added). Rogue Advocates again commends Ashland for choosing not to convert any agricultu ral lands outside of its UGB to Urban Reserves, but urges the City Council to reiterate to the County the importance of preserving agricultural lands in this Valley, and that if each participating city prioritized infill and redevelopment over sprawl, there would be no need to sacrifice a single acre of these critical agricultural lands. The Draft Plan itself inadvertently illustrates this important point in justifying its commitment to the lower density model: "Figure 2.11 above makes clear that even fairly significant changes in residential density have relatively small effect, in proportion to the total need, on ultimate residential land needs necessary to satisfy the Regional Plan's population allocations The difference of the two assumptions is approximately 878 acres." (Draft Regional Plan V. 1, p. 2-11, par. 4). What it does not say is that this "small effect" of using 878 less acres is equivalent to nearly 75% of the 1,200 acres of critical agricultural lands. Preserving Agricultural Lands through Infill & Redevelopment is Required by Law: Rogue Advocates also would like to reiterate that ordinarily, when a city chooses to create Urban Reserves, the city must follow a priority scheme that requires it to consider resource lands for inclusion only if non-resource lards are unavailable. (OAR 660-021-0330). Arguably, the RPS process allows a plan to stray from this administrative scheme if all participants agree. Where Jacksonville has pulled out of the process because it disagreed with the plan, not all participants agree, and the RPS plan does not have the liberty to designate Urban Reserves without following the priority scheme. Because of this tenuous legal situation the RPS plan is now in, it would be prudent to ensure that the Urban Reserve designations follow the administrative scheme, as parts of the plan that fail to follow the scheme may be eliminated if the plan is successfully appealed. The regional plan should ensure that it does not designate agricultural lands for URAs unnecessarily and we urge the City of Ashland to emphasize this at the County level. In conclusion, we believe that the City of Ashland is taking the right approach to RPS. It has chosen a development plan that meets its future development needs while protecting farmland and community livability. However, while Ashland's effort is in keeping with the June 9, 2010 Rogue Advocates' Comments on the RPS Draft Plan to Ashland City Council spirit and intent of the stated BPS goals, for the most part, Ashland stands in isolation and stark contrast to the majority of other jurisdictions' plans that do not adequately protect farmland or wean this region from virtual total dependence on single occupant auto transport. Because of this we believe that Ashland's representatives have an obligation both to Ashland residents and the region as a whole to request that the aforementioned adjustments be made in RPS by the other jurisdictions. These adjustments will appropriately bring the plan into compliance with current state land use laws and achieve the spirit and letter of the stated RPS goals. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, <original signed> Jimmy McLeod Rogue Advocates' Executive Director <original signed> Sarah Vaile Rogue Advocates' RPS Project Coordinator e CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Award of Contract for a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Meeting Date: June 15 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Michael A. Faught Department: Public Works E-Mail: faughtm@ashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: Administration Secondary Contact: Scott A. Fleury Approval: Martha Benne Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Question: Will Council approve an engineering services contract with Keller Associates in an amount not to exceed $303,400 to provide a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council approve a contract with Keller Associates to provide a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $303,400. Background: Request for Proposal On February 19, 2010 a Request for Proposal for engineering services for the development of a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan was advertised statewide, in both local newspapers, and on the City website. Proposal documents were sent to prospective proposers, plan centers and builder's exchanges throughout the state. A pre-proposal meeting was held on March 11, 2010 to provide proposers an opportunity to view the site and ask project-specific questions. Proposals were due on April 2, 2010 at which time two qualified consultant's submitted proposals. An evaluation team consisting of three Public Works staff members and Carl Tappert, the District Engineer for Rogue Valley Sewer Services, individually graded the proposals according to the given criteria: Criteria Maximum Score Unde'rstandin of Requested Services 10 Consultant's Capabilities 20 Consultant's Project Team 25 Resources 15 Response Time 15 Cost of Services 15 TOTAL 100 Points Initial Scoring was completed on April 22nd and the scores were combined to determine the top rankings. The final results were as follows: CONSULTANT TOTAL RANK SCORE Keller Associates 360.5 1 Carollo Engineers 306 2 Page I of 3 11FAWA CITY OF ASHLAND CCU'. SU l~ GAP Budget Keller Associates $303,400 Carollo Engineers $370,019 The top scoring proposal was submitted by the Keller Associates led by James Bledsoe P.E., who has completed many similar projects successfully in the past. Larry Rupp will be the Treatment Plant Project Engineer and Justin Walker will be the Collection System Engineer. The team will also include several sub-consultants including Ray Bartlett for rate/financing analyses, TerraSurvey for surveying needs and Rich Whitley for Public Involvement. Both, Rich Whitley and TerraSurvey are local consultants. Rich Whitely is also currently providing the same public support function for the Water Master Plan. Costs of Services / Funding The total cost for the Keller Associates' contract is not to exceed $303,400 and will be funded with wastewater fund's system development charges, which has a current balance that exceeds the amount required. Keller contract as submitted $303,400 Original budget $350,000 Amount under budget $46,600 If Council moves to approve this request, the next steps for the Project Team will be to work with City officials to appoint a Technical Review Committee (TRC). The TRC will review the Consultant's work on a scheduled basis and provide recommendations for improvements and focused areas of study. Executive Summary The Public Works Department requests approval of the attached contract with Keller Associates in an amount not to exceed $303,400 in order to initiate the required technical studies, public involvement program and the complete financial analysis to satisfy the scope of services outlined in the contract documents. The new master plan will guide the City in selecting a solution to the temperature issue. The City of Ashland was recently informed by the Department of Environmental Quality that we will need a 10% design solution to the temperature problem associated with releasing effluent into Ashland Creek at the treatment plant by 2011. In addition, the new master plan will develop the economic strategies needed to implement all the Capital Improvement Projects and system improvements along with development of the staffing levels required to maintain service levels that meet all regulatory guidelines. The master plan will also inform the City of effluent re-use options along with the best bio-solid management practices. Development of a Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan will act as the road map for City of Ashland during the 6, 20, 50 year planning periods, both with the public improvements required in the wastewater collection and facility system along the financial plan to perform said improvements. Related City Policies: Council is required to approve engineering services contracts that exceed $75,000 under both ORS 279 B and AMC Chapter 2.50. Page 2 of 3 11F r, ,CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: • Council may approve the attached contract with Keller Associates to conduct Comprehensive Master Planning of the sanitary sewer system and facilities in an amount not to exceed $303,400; • Council may revise the scope of services to be provided by Keller Associates; • Council may reject all proposals offered in response to the request for proposals. Potential Motions: • Move to approve the attached contract with Keller Associates in an amount not to exceed $303,400; • Move to modify the contract with Keller Associates; • Move to reject all proposals received. Attachments: 1. Proposal from Keller Associates 2. Original Request for Proposals (in on-line packet only) 3. Keller Associates Contract including the Scope of Services (in on-line packet only) Page 3 of 3 s- a h a( ~n 'i c i Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP) 'JI . z _ t J-- s ® CITY OF • ASHLAND ® ADDENDUM NO. 1 ® TO THE ® REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ® FOR THE ® Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP) This addendum issued this 24'h day of February 2010 affects the solicitation O document as distributed on February 19ih, 2010 and shall be deemed an integral • part of the above reference document ® Clarification of Terms and Conditions ® (1) Page ii change the non-mandatory pre-proposal conference from March 9'h, 2010 at 1:30pm to March 1ld, 2010 at 1:30pm at 51 Winbum Way. ® (2) Page ii change the proposal due date from 1:30pm March 19'h 2010 to 1:30pm March 26" 2010. ® (3) Reference Documents ® a) Page 7 wording is revised to read: The City has several studies that need to o be incorporated into the (CW WMP) update. These studies will be presented to the contracted consultant. The 2,005 Master Plan can be reviewed on-line at http://www.ashland.or.us/Sectionlndex.asp?SectionlD=453 Acknowledge receipt of this addendum by including it with the submitted proposal. This addendum will not be counted among the total number of 0 submitted pages in the proposal. ® END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1 ® Engineering Ter 541/488.5347 ® 20 E. Main Street Fac 54144a8-6006 Ashland, 290 Oregon egon 97520 TTY: 800/7352880 ® www.ashland.or.us ® G:buh-wrkebng109-23 Wastewater Master PIanWAdmhnCws Pre Contmcfflnal RFP12009-Z3 Addenduml.doe e 0 s CITY OF ® -ASH LAN D 0 0 ADDENDUM NO.2 TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS S FOR THE o Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP) This addendum issued this 12'h day of March 2010 affects the solicitation document as distributed on February 19`h, 2010 and shall be deemed an integral part of the above reference document. e e Questions and Answers from Non-Mandatory Pre-Bid meeting March 11, 2010. e (Q I) Page 24 change section 8, subsection 1 bullet #3 from High service pumping ® including VFD/soft start, does this include all pumps at the treatment plant? ® Yes, this includes all plant pumps. ® (Q2) Is GIS sanitary collection system data available currently for review? Yes, please contact the City of Ashland GIS department Coordinator Jason Wegner for any GIS information. (Q3) Is there monitoring data available from Treatment Plant? • Yes, DUR's can be providedfor 2008 and 2009. Please contact Scott Fleury in the • City of Ashland Engineering Department for data. . (Q4) Is the 2005 Plant Capacity Study available for review? • Yes, the capacity study will be uploaded online with the RFP and available for download and review. ® Acknowledge receipt of this addendum by including it with the submitted ® proposal. This addendum will not be counted among the total number of submitted pages in the proposal. ® END OF ADDENDUM NO.2 ® Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-1488.6006 ® Ashland. Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/7352900 www.ashland.or.us ® G:\pub-wrksteng\09-23 Wastewater Master PIan1A_Admin\Cons Pre Contract\Final RFM2009-23 ® Addendum2.doc 0 • 0 ® CITY OF 0 ASHLAND 0 s 0 ® ADDENDUM NO.3 TO THE 0 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FORTHE e 0 Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP) This addendum issued this 18`1' day of March 2010 affects the solicitation document as distributed on February 19rh, 2010 and shall be deemed an integral o part of the above reference documeni. • • Clarification of Terms and Conditions (1) Page ii change the proposal due date from 1:30pm March 2e 2010 to 1:30pm 0 April2ad, 2010. ® (2) A Temperature Management and Water Recycling Study is available for review and uploaded to the City website at: 0 http://www.ashland.or.us/Pagc.asi)?NavlD=12630. (3) Section 11. Financial Analysis: 0 A. Rate study clarification ® The financial analysis is expected to go much farther than providing a rate study. It is . expected to be a comprehensive financial analysis of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund • that includes an analysis of operations and maintenance alternatives including detailed staffing and life cycle cost factoring, financing options including connection fees, SDCs, • and rates, financial forecasting that adequately accounts for the cyclical nature of the economy and anticipates effects of downturns in the business on revenues.. ® B. The study shall provide sufficient detail to justify: Base charges? ® Miscellaneous services rates? ® Clarification from Addendum 2: ® (Q2) Is GIS sanitary collection system data available currently for review? 20 E. Mai ® Engineering Tex: 5411488-5347 ® 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541--11488-4006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735.2900 w .ashland.or.us ® G:\pub-wrWen9\09-23 Wastewater Master Planl4_Adm1MCons Pre Contract\Final RFP\2009-23 ® AddendurnIdm • • O DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN (CWWMP) ® Project No. 2009-2:3 - ® Submitted by, ® RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS NAME (type or print) Keller Associates, Inc. ® By: ~1 7 2 ® (signature i ink) ® Date: April 1, 2010 • Name: Rod J. Linja, P.E. Title: President ® RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS ADDRESS/PHONE/FAX/E-MAIL ® 131 SW 5th Avenue, Suite A ® Meridian, ID 83642 James Bledsoe, P.E. - Primary Contact f 208.288.1992 (PH) ® 208.288.1999 (FAX) jbledsoe@kellerassociates.com Note: If respondent is a corporation, give State of Incorporation; .H a partnership or joint venture, give full names of all partners or joint venturers. ® Incorporated in Oregon #481941-95, Federal Tax Number 45-0574227 ` KELLER i 131 SW 5-Avenue, Suite A • Meridian, 10 83642 B associates 208.288.1992 phone • 208.288.1999 fax • w .kellerassociates.com - March 30, 2010 Scott Fleury City of Ashland Public Works Engineering 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Re: City of Ashland Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan Dear Mr. Fleury: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal for the Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan. Keller Associates has been providing engineering services in Oregon for the last 12 years. With the • ; recent opening of our Salem office, Keller Associates is committed to provide the highest level of service to the City of Ashland. 1 Keller Associates has made every attempt to review previous work and visit with City staff and 0 regulatory agencies in an effort to understand the unique challenges facing the City of Ashland. We 0 intend to hit the ground running. Our team members have been carefully selected to meet your needs. ® We feel that our team provides the following unique benefits to the City: 0- • Fresh look. With Keller Associates you will get much more than an updated study. Our S commitment to you is a fresh look, with new and unique insights. Keller Associates' experience • with similar communities across the northwest will add value and insight to your project. • Low overhead and high efficiency. We pride ourselves on running a "tight ship" and recruiting ® only the brightest engineers. This results in more for your money. 0 • Experience. We have a track record of tackling issues that Ashland faces, including Class A biosolids, reuse, new NPDES permits, partnering with canal districts, wetlands, financing, and staffing evaluations. • Technical expertise. Complementing our team are a number of wastewater experts, proficient in the areas to be addressed in this study. Our team also includes an expert financial analyst. James Bledsoe has been involved in dozens of wastewater planning studies and will serve as project manager and be the primary contact person on this project (phone 208.288.1992, fax 208.288.1999, O ibledsoe(akellerassociates.com). We appreciate your consideration of this proposal and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, 0 KELLER ASSOCIATES, INC. e An S-Corporation [Federal ID # 45-05742271 S J- M~ , P.E. /aredsoe, P.E. L ® ice President Project Manager a ,r.. t'-..n.-.-.,. +,w.,_ .e..... •A _...~~~__~~.r-..-~-r....___ C......_..~_._.~_ar.~_ -.w.• ~ evaL e ASHLAND C I T Y O F PROPOSAL C..,-h n Wna• _M.,re Pw.[C. Mpj l e PROJECT The City of Ashland provides wastewater services to approximately 7,500 customers. The City's wastewater e collection system includes 8 pump stations and about 105 miles of pipelines comprised of a variety'of material types with installation dates reaching back to the early 1900's. The treatment system utilizes - oxidation ditches and secondary clarifiers to provide secondary treatment year round. Ashland Vloslewater Plan j During most of the year, membrane filtration also provides tertiary treatment necessary to meet the strict discharge permit requirements. solution for effluent disposatt .Y ® In 2005, a capacity study for the treatment plant and an evaluation of the collection system were completed for the City. The collection system planning document was Optimize ® primarily a hydraulic model evaluation of the system's largest pipelines. The capacity indurfing sol;ds disposal evaluation indicates that all processes, except the membranes, have capacity through 0 2025. Since the completion of these studies, the City has also completed a Temperature Facilitate build-ou: of the collection tne~lem ti Management and Water Recycling study. The City also maintains an extensive GIS system that includes pipe sizes, material, and maintenance management information Contain a financing plan • maintained through CarteGraph. that addresses both ceptlea improvements and i maintenance. e The purpose of this study is to review and update previous planning efforts, identify gaps in previous planning studies, validate the City's future wastewater collection needs to the year 2058, and prepare a financing plan that includes a capital improvement plan. The Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWWMP) will address important questions regarding how to best treat and dispose of wastewater ® effluent and solids, address the needs of aging infrastructure, phase projects, and develop financing to provide for needed improvements and ongoing maintenance. The study will further identify deficiencies, new and existing facility requirements, and staffing needs. It will provide alternative approaches with associated costs. The plan must paint a clear picture of where the City is going and provide an implementable roadmap of how to get there. Key to the implementation will be a financing plan with an equitable distribution of costs and accounts for needed upgrades, replacement budgets, staffing, and operational ® expenses. The services completed will be complementary to previous planning efforts and on-going planning efforts ® to the Comprehensive Water Master Plan. PROJECTAPPROACH; Keller Associates proposes to complete the CWWMP as outlined in the detailed scope of work provided in the RFP. This effort will involve incorporating an extensive amount of work previously completed by others as well as providing e a fresh, holistic look at long-term wastewater options. Where reasonable, the plan should be coordinated with other planning documents such as transportation and comprehensive plans. Rather than reiterate the elements outlined in B the scope of work, this section of the proposal will emphasize special areas of focus. A preliminary manhour ® estimate for the project team along with the associated costs and detailed schedule for each major task can be found in the sealed envelope submitted with this proposal. ® Coordination with City. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) will be implemented to review the plan at various stages. We recommend the TRC involve Scott Fleury, Mike Faught, Dave Gies, Terry Ellis, James Bledsoe, and ® others from the City and Consultant team as needed. Other stakeholders including the Talent Irrigation District (TID) ® (Jim Pendleton), Bear Creek Watershed Council (BCWC),.elected officials, and regulatory agencies (BOR, ODFW, DEQ) should be invited to participate during key phasesof the project. Keller Associates also recommends that a ® citizen's advisory committee (CAC) be formed to review potentially controversial elements of the study including ® wastewater reuse and disposal alternatives. CAC-meetirgs should occur after technical reviews/evaluations are completed and prior to final public meetings and the development of final recommendations. City staff involvement is anticipated _,to be high during the initial phases 5of the;prolect'wherr data is gathered, ® evaluation criteria are developed, ahdtattlternatnre concepts are, imdally,explored -'Following the initial effort, the City's ® involvement is expected to reduce substantially for'the duration', f tt a study with weekly progress phone calls and,bi- monthly meetings (anticipated to take 2-3 hours`each). The regular use of emails, conference "calls, and on=line ® KELLER ASSOCIATES.INC. ® A CITY OF PROPOSAL ASHLAND MAJ.C PrtM1emie Wnz ewn,er Mxsvr Vwn (CVVWMPI ® meeting tools will assist the City in W~ keeping informed and provide input throughout the planning process. Coordinate with City staff, arrange for meeting room ® Documents will be shared in the Project management accommodations, advertise for public meetings, distribute public current version of Microsoft office information, recommend stakeholders. and TRC involvement (Excel, Word, PowerPoint), as well Provide available wastewater data, SCADA Information, mapping, as PDF, GIS, and AutoCAD formats Data Collection existing computer model(s), water meter data, financial data, past ® where appropriate. Hydraulic reports, access to facilities: and assist in field collection of data computer model data will be ® completed using the current version Design Criteria Provide input and direction on design assumptions (demographic, ® of InfoSewer because of its GIS demand projections) and criteria for prioritization of improvements compatibility. Toward the end of the ® study effort, we anticipate another focused effort with City staff as the Review of Documents Review tech memos and draft reports (generally within two weeks alternatives are finalized, of receipt) deliverables are reviewed, the • implementation plan is developed, and presentation materials are prepared. Wastewater Treatment. The 2005 capacity evaluation (2005 CE) determined that the plant has capacity through 2025 in all processes except the membranes. Using the population growth and per capita discharge assumptions used in the 2005 CE, the influent pump station, bar screens, grit chamber, secondary clarifiers, and UV appear to have capacity through 2030. The oxidation ditch, RAS pumps, and solids handling appear to have capacity to only 2025. As part of the Master Planning, Keller Associates will update the population growth, per capita O discharge, and flow assumptions, to provide an updated capacity evaluation for all processes. The 2005 CE states that the capacity of the membranes, permeate pumps, and filter feed pumps will need to be ® increased. It is understood that the current membrane capacity is 2.5 mgd. In 2008 and 2009 the daily flows exceeded 2.5 mgd on occasion in the spring months, but never on an average monthly basis. Therefore, the membranes are nearing their rated capacity. Since the membranes operate during the dry weather months, we recommend providing considerations for the dry weather period peak day and peak hour data. This information does not appear in the CE report. Keller Associates would update the dry weather flow data to determine what capacities will be required for membrane system components. • The membranes were originally sized using a flux rate of 12 gfd. It is likely that future membranes can be designed to higher tertiary flux rates. The Zenolrac data can be downloaded and analyzed for trans-membrane pressure (TMP), • chemical cleaning, time between cleaning, and rate of change of TMP to determine past and current membrane performance. A thorough analysis would be conducted during the CWWMP. If new membranes are recommended, replacing the old membranes with a more compact and newer tertiary membrane is recommended. Much has - been learned since Ashland became the first tertiary membrane plant in North America. It is recommended that these lessons be incorporated ~9..• in the membrane upgrade project. Possible modifications include: ® longer on/off air cycles, higher flux rates, and carefully monitored cleaning cycles. The City should also consider delaying or performing a partial upgrade of the membranes since some disposal options may ® not require the continued use of membranes. ® Temperature is the single biggest concern facing Ashland's wastewater treatment plant in the next 10+ years. Based on a review of ® the treatment plant data for 2008 and 2009, the Ashland WWTP meets ® all permit limits expected in the draft NPDES permit, except for effluent temperature limits' The draft NPDES permit is expected in June, and according to Jonathan Gasik,oftDEQ, the Bear Creek Watershed TMDL dated 2007 for terriperature will be applied. w~ ® Analyzing the available options and selecting a best alternative will be one of the key"components of the CWWMP effort for the WWTP. According to the TMDL aeplant wtll;be.provlded a'waste lo, ad allocation for the period'of May 16 to October 14 with an applicable criterion of 18°C and a waste load allocation for the period of October 15 to._May ® 15 with an applicable criterion of 13°C. The TMDL provides a method of calculating the allowable thermal load and ® KELLER ASSUCIATES.INC. s • CITY OF 41 PROPOSAL I -ASHLAND lir C-,-h- .W... ,M.-P6.(l:WWMO(I 3 effluent temperature based on the applicable criterion, effluent flow, stream flow, and the human use allowance 0 (HUA). Based on plant data from 2008 and 2009, the plant effluent met the TMDL e temperature requirements in January, February, last half of May, and December of 2008, and January, February, March, April, and December of 2009. Thus the plant has the most difficulty in meeting the expected temperature limits during the summer, and the shoulder months of April, May, October and November. There are several options for addressing temperature that can be analyzed during the CWWMP which include: provide the treated effluent to TID and trade for additional water rights during the summer, and use the TID irrigation canal as an infiltration bed during the shoulder periods; use the 800 acres the City owns across 1-5 (800 acres) for a Land Application and I Reuse wetlands discharge; use the 800 acres for slow rate irrigation or find other property o suitable for land application; reuse the treated effluent for irrigation within the City; add a . discharge pipe to Bear Creek to utilize the higher allowable thermal loading there; I Bear Creek discharge to hyporheic water (geology and topography dependent); and cooling towers. 0 These options will be evaluated during the CWWMP. Keller Associates has negotiated reuse issues with several irrigation districts and can utilize this experience on behalf of . the City. Chillers ' One of the most cost-effective disposal options is agricultural reuse. Because of the O previous public opposition to reuse irrigation on the 800-acre site, either a new public outreach program must be ® enacted to win over the public or a new site found and purchased - this is an option that was not studied in the recent temperature management study, but we feel it warrants another look. Circumstances have changed significantly since the previous public opposition to land application. According Ted McFetridge of DEO, one of the principal reasons for the public's resistance in the past was concern regarding spread of bacteria and viruses from spray irrigation. This concern can be countered with education regarding disinfection or the use of drip irrigation and other non-spray options that will eliminate the potential for release of virus or bacteria to the atmosphere. A public education and outreach program can be tailored to develop informed consent on the appropriate solution for Ashland. Other key treatment issues that will be addressed as part of the planning effort include: phosphorus recycling, biosolids treatment and (disposal, equipment condition and replacement, and obtaining sufficient plant area for long term improvements. Phosphorus is being recycled at the plant in the RAS and in the centrate. The phosphorus loading from these recycle streams should be analyzed during the planning effort to determine if addition of alum to ® these recycle streams is necessary to maintain the biological phosphorus removal, and meet the effluent loading in the long term. Biosolids are currently dewatered and hauled to a landfill daily for disposal, at a cost of approximately $170,000 per year. Options for improving solids handling that will be evaluated include using the existing lime addition system to produce Class B solids and locating farmer(s) that will accept Class B solids, or improving 0 treatment to reach a Class A solids with aerobic digesters, anaerobic digesters, or sludge drying. Class A solids can be used on residential property and all farm lands and should find wider acceptance. Since there is limited space on ® the existing plant site, the planning effort must look at options to expand the plant site using the dog park or obtaining ® other property near the plant, or locating property downgradient of the existing site for a new plant or for diversion of part of the flow. ® Wastewater Collection System. Keller Associates proposes upgrading the existing Hydra computer model to a more current GIS-based wastewater collection system model. Keller Associates recently went through this process ® for the City of Moscow, Idaho utilizing the City's collection system mapping and the old Hydra database. Keller ® Associates will review sewer sheds and available ground topography to recommend potential additional pipeline sections that should be added to the model for evaluation. ® A review of the 2008 and 2009 plant records showed a peak day inflow of 5.9 MGD. This peak day event was about ® twice the flow normally experienced at the plant. Removal of sources of infiltration and inflow will continue to be a battle the City will face. Keller Associates,will, evaluate and develop a program that-:wilhinvolve TV monitoring, flow monitoring, and pipeline replacementslrehabilitabon to address this challenge. ® KELLER ASSOCIATES.INC. CITY OF PROPOSAL -AS H L A N D c,.„ yRhe„uue Wan-lllm Ma.trr Plan CK MG + ® II ii Having a clear picture of the condition of the City's assets will play a critical • role in evaluating the collection system. Fortunatelv, t;Aa, %has maintained to be Addressed: an extensive database of maintenance and nips r- i r; tea -.'rmation in their ® considerations GIS. This GIS also contains pipe rcr„r iat Wza ti be useful in ® evaluating the remaining life P: Via? y r'tr lies will review Forhatifitallion program N logs and the ey a.•Mo_ 4. ^r \ventory and ® evaluation of e ,Ptj . _lude pump ® performance, rcir ~g f rh operation F-upgfades improvements (E+ r, _•~r *u,, : for each ® facility. bottlenecks One of the shortcom",n *J: r. 1* -a•: r, = the 20- O - year projected flow", , ' a •attY arends ' considering 50+ ye l'g tem alternatives. Often ; 1y be accomplished at a fracl*T )uild- out considerations also g'4r"la a re development occurs. e Keller Associates has flo& T.,l r °m tr+; °rtu,.wi+ =r o,ed to use ® this equipment for gatheii' rtc.. smal cost savings 0 alternative, Keller Associate •J r sr one use of the equipment, and allow City staff to gal , r rhis approach has been used successfully in Slayton and Ontario, Oregon and Moscow, Idaho. t+ i?rii; rally, we would recommend that the City ® consider using study funds to acquire their own flow meters. This way the City could not only gather the data, but they would have the equipment available for future monitoring. CIP and Financial Plans. A detailed CIP and financial plan will be key to developing a master plan that can be implemented. The schedule of capital improvements will include identified projects and anticipated replacement costs for existing infrastructure necessary to meet NPDES permit and growth requirements. Expert economist, Ray Bartlett of Economic & Financial Analysis (EFA), will lead the financial analysis efforts. EFA will perform an analysis S of historical trends and financing policies, and will develop a 10- to 15-year forecast of annual revenue requirements for the cost of operations and maintenance, replacement and repair of fixed assets, debt service, and capital improvements for both the treatment plant and collection system. The forecast will also evaluate the sufficiency and stability of all revenue sources including rates, SDCs, and the prepared food and beverage tax that may end in • December 2010. Alternatives for extending or replacing the tax revenue will be evaluated. The forecast of operating costs will be based on historical trends, planned improvements, and potential staffing and operational changes. The forecast of capital costs will be based on life-cycle concepts and the schedule of capital improvements. EFA will evaluate the use of cash reserves, SDC revenues, grants, and financing through bonds or direct government loans. We will include bond and loan costs when financing is necessary, and forecast annual debt service. The City's wastewater rates will be evaluated and updated for Gaining Informed Consent. 0 equity and sufficiency to produce the annual revenue Tile public MUST tIndenlaod ® requirement. To perform this analysis, EFA will compile and and ~,cupt the follow,iing ® analyze the sewer usage (based on water usage records) and four critical otementli: rates charged to each user for the most current full year to NEED -There Is a Serious problent or opportunity that ® determine rate equity and to design more equitable. rates, if a must be addressed necessary. EFA will also evaluate the City's current wastewater ® SDC and modify it to both comply with current legislation and to + match the planned improvements developed by ourteam. The PA0C5$S - The approach you are using to address modified SDC will include a method for automatic annual' the pfoblem is reasonable. Sensible. and rigorous adjustments. FAIRNESS - You a; e firtening to the public end do care about how this prolecit nlay affect them Public Participation. Keller Assocates land t our.t sub a _ x ® consultant Richard Whitley of Real Life Training Group are available to assist' the City in the, public'outreach and ® education effort. This effort will likely involve a continuation of the Citizen's Advisory Group already formed for the ® KELLER ASSOCIATFS,INC. x PROPOSAL ®5 s: Co pmhenalraWaamaatarM.&U,P .(L MP) AS H SAN D`: Iru.1 water study. Given the political atmosphere in Ashland and the level of concern with potential effluent disposal options, Keller Associates recommends that the City plan for several additional putilic meetings and"involve a Citizen's Advisory Group to review alternatives. It has-been our experience that this same advisory group canrbe a Powerful influence in educating and rrioWating,the public. PROJECT CAPABILITI~4 •it . 5., ,k'u?kf' (~,z,.F x: ! p.; ~ ~,+;d.LZu°+.2 Y.a,.. Keller Associates is a full-service engineering firm with i • expertise in wastewater system planning: With over 60 4 . professionals, we are able to meet any challenge the City of Ashland faces. A team of senior engineers, computer modelers, environmental specialists, drafters, designer's, and in- 4_( financial experts with extensive wastewater planning= expertise will work closely with James Bledsoe who will serve e as the project manager for this project. This group of engineers will tackle the varying workload- required for this project, Additional information about our team's capabilities is presented in the Project Team Qualifications section of _ this proposal. Mr. Bledsoe will be the primary contact for the City and will O coordinate the workload to`ensure that necessary resources are allocated and schedules are maintained. The City can Osgi' expect immediate response-from Keller 'Associates. Our ~ responsiveness has been and will continue to be something ~ that sets us apart from other fines. Our staff can be reached s. ' t. nearly any time of day on our cell phones. When emails 40 requesting information are sent, the City can count on a response within hours. For tasks requiring additional time, Keller Associates will keep City staff informed on how much effort will be needed. For urgent tasks, a team of engineers Keller ASSacmtes wos iecogmzed'os the 266i 91 rEA9' e i -Firm , may be assembled,to expedite the process. of the mtermoum6in Region Keller Associates has successfully serviced, our western Oregon clients from our Meridian location for more than seven years. We utilize on-line meeting tools, websites, and other technologies'to facilitate communication, and we will be able to fly in and out of Medford as needed to reach Ashland. We invite you toreview our Oregon reference letters found in the Appendix. All of our western Oregon clients will attest to our responsiveness and quality of service. Our new Salem office will also be actively involved in the planning efforts. The office manager, Peter Olsen, will be . readily available to assist in ground level activities associated with the project. While it is unlikely that urgent items will come up during a study, Peter's experience will allow him to readily assist the City with any action requiring p r• ^ immediate attention. Our project manager; Mr. Bledsoe; is also overseeing the growth of our Salem office and will consequently be in the area on a regular basissw A }'t 4^~ Complemenbng our team are'Iecal sub consultants'who will'prowde surveying antl public relations supporti, y s.. _ vrt _:1rt t.2~•.t++:v s -.~..tk s x 'i.tni: m PROJECT a • QUALIFICATIONS'i Associates has assembled a highly qualed team unth,the1reGuired experience for your prolect These (ndiviiluals,offer`strength•in their core techriicalispecialties,,;and have-a p'r'oven track record of deliv`erl' similar' roecW,',on hme,and within lxrd~` t °sThe followin or anization chart shows1he s c tasks`that~_each`teart% 0'= member+Anll be assigned 'Following the organization chart is a dlscussiort of the qualiflcabons~and similar project expenence of vsome key team members ,Delatlediresumes for all key team members can be found m Appendix B: f'' ~ + 8 4~R 4 i ~Kt x :r ,+u.:,~,f r r sr 1 ~ M - ` KELLER ASSOCIATES- IN C. e e~ r• n r C-11 T Y OT PROPOSAL L' ,ASH LAND'ia PnwWefevacMes rM~ (LWWMP, U r C'I T V"O'r ASHLAND-, KELLER ASSOGtATEB i Jim Mullen. PE XAJames Bledsoe, PE a. _ 4'* ~S ColMCtbro Trsatmam r Justin Walkw.PEp ) LentR Pp. PE au) Cobtlbn TrewrrM Syirem Araryp SYnar^slana? RdIend RarJU: PE MAl Glen Hddren, PE m, WS/Cmpi1>MaMF9 Rome~EvWUaGal a oPeRow. Susan SunliNm. PE INAI Dania S Mcnan, PE AAI es.i Urt SILv,F Bryan Pininney. PE Y., • Local Field Support I Flow Monitoring Merrlbar,ee Paterdian.PE,s s..) Wm. Lee FWd ILFI $YrvaTlrlg OpaaOa v aee Tadaipa~AMa> Dr. DaNd JemJn9(w) TemSurv". Inc. (Ts) PrYyMYUV Ramova pubik Rektto is DaM lamer. PE,") Jim Mullen, PE Nnl Oaalh9 TOwMGIYkr Evelusbn if 1 Susan Bumtiam, PE arAl RGd lni PE INAI nawsn opti RN:NN A A. WMHey IR~TC) Fred Nellson,.c) ' Finance wos Ray BaiaY IEFAI Tonbmnr:lm. RSA W FW VrIIF} R Cm1.Mnlw (wl _ E mmnrtM fY V OM Arvlu IFf I.} wren wR,a wren ca,mu,ro IRYRC} Rrl Iw inYvq Cmy (RLTG} NNV AmYm INA) Personnel Highlights. Jim Mullen, P.E. - Principal (KA). Mr. Mullen serves as Vice President of Keller Associates and operates as a bvorking Principal'. With a foundation of over 14 years of experience, he enjoys working on projects and being engaged with clients. Mr. Mullen will ensure that resources are dedicated to this project and provide necessary oversight to gage progress and successful delivery. He pledges to be available anytime, should the City have any needs or inquiries. He will also assist with the public involvement component. In this capacity, Mr. Mullen has been successful in addressing highly controversial topics, including passage of multiple bonds that required substantial rate increases and projects that addressed sensitive environmental issues. Mr. Mullen's experience as a consultant W;: and a municipal agency engineer includes facility planning; design, finance, construction, and maintenance of water and wastewater systems. He has also designed wastewater treatment plants, reuse facilities, and been actively involved in the`development of reuse standards. His experience includes over 50 water and wastewater system projects throughout the Northwest. James Bledsoe, P.E. - Project Manager (KA). Mr. Bledsoe has managed more than two dozen water and wastewater planning studies. Prior to joining the Keller team, Mr. Bledsoe served as the technical support manager for three internationally-used hydraulic modeling software systems. For the Ashland project, Mr. Bledsoe will take the lead in coordination of the project team's efforts, working closely with team members and City staff. James S` Bledsoe managed wastewater system planning and computer modeling efforts for numerous cities similar to Ashland including Ontario, Wood Village Stayton, Sublimity (OR) Moscow Star, Kuna (ID),;and Asotin County (WA). Th'e'se projects have included interdisciplinary: teams, and planning elements similar' imilar to those requested by Ashland: S wastewater collection, pump stations treatment'` GIS extended pOiodl system simulations advanced control _ simulations„pre-treatment ptograms tdetailed~ ate studies, replaGe'mieiiYfunds ,capital Improvement plans` reuse, land application 'rill pressure irngabon systems, envvonmental,reports, and public'meebngs ?Protect outcomes have all been positive, and we invite you to contact our references`and review; the reference~letters located in Append& A Additional)Ya coFYof'.similar study PrePaced forthe G of StaYton accom P'Hies this ProPosa}I ty r r. Mr Bledsoe s project management experience extends from. plammng,`to, implementation financing 'design rand ' constriction management A samplekof. his project management experience :includes the`foliowing categories: of wastewaters 4em° ro acts.,-.sewer iflter ysr p j ceW^lift stations tank COnSinlCti0r1 and-rehab ptojects treatment plant expansion and upgrades SGADA systems and complex permitting Mr 8ledsoe'continues the 15-yeition of completing all 45+sewer protects"for the Cityof Boise (population 250 000) on bme and within budget 48, KELLER ASSOCIATES,INC. CITY OF PROPOSAL I ASHLAND ComprtAensxe Wnsnwnm, Mesmr PWn(CWWMP) ) " O 0 Larry Rupp, P.E. - Wastewater Treatment Team Leader (KA). Mr. Rupp will provide a thorough analysis of ® Ashland's wastewater treatment plant. His attention to detail and project schedules have resulted in fewer than 1% change orders on every project completed at Keller Associates. He recently completed a similar facility planning ® study for Clarkston, Washington and tackled similar issues in a facility preliminary design report for Kuna, Idaho. The facility in Clarkston was facing challenges with meeting an ammonia limit. One of the options looked at was improving the outfall to increase the mixing zone. The facility plan also looked at the existing condition of the plant ® components, provided a staffing evaluation, and identified projects and a capital improvement plan for necessary replacements and upgrades. ® The City of Kuna, Idaho was struggling with capacity issues at their existing treatment plant. The master plan called for a new treatment plant at the north of town. This created several challenges that Mr. Rupp addressed in the preliminary design report. These challenges included exploring disposal options such as rapid infiltration basins (RIB), discharge via a new NPDES permit, canal discharge, and Class A reuse. Each of these options was explored and public meetings were held with key players from local, state, and federal agencies. It was determined that a new o NPDES permit with discharge to a local creek would be the initial discharge option, with plans implemented to allow • for future reuse. Mr. Rupp's creativity and leadership were instrumental in solving these challenges. S Glen Holdren, P.E. - Treatment Design (KA). Glen Holdren has over 20 years experience in wastewater treatment projects including design and management of operations and maintenance. He has a master's degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Holdren has designed WWTP using ® advanced lagoons, oxidation ditches, membrane bioreactors, phosphorus removal using membranes, phosphorus removal using sand filters, activated sludge, and sequencing batch reactors. He has also designed Class A and B t] reclamation plants to reuse the treated effluent for irrigation and rapid infiltration beds for disposal of treated water. Lea Fisher, P.E. - Class IV California Operator (LF). Mr. Fisher has over 40 years of process design and evaluation experience. He has recently completed two studies with Keller Associates. Mr. Fisher's combination of process and operational knowledge make him a valuable asset in optimizing any treatment plant for both current and ® future operations. • Dr. David Jenkins, Ph.D. (DJ). Dr. Jenkins provides over 40 years of experience in wastewater treatment, and will serve as a technical advisor to the consultant team. Dr. Jenkins is one of the world's leading experts in phosphorous ® removal and has teamed with Keller Associates on several projects, including Slayton and Kuna wastewater . treatment plants. Senior Engineers David Kinzer & Dennis Suihkonen (KA). As senior engineers at Keller Associates David Kinzer and Dennis Suihkonen have over 40 years of experience each. Dennis has completed numerous solids handling o evaluations and biosolids management plants. He recently completed the design of a dryer in Staylon, Oregon that A produces Class A biosolids. ® Mr. Kinzer has a variety of experience with design in the wastewater field. He is familiar with cooling towers and ® techniques involve in cooling technology. He will lead the team's efforts in evaluating this option. ® Susan Burnham - Wastewater Lift Station (KA). Ms. Burnham has a master's degree in Sanitary Engineering and 35 years experience in wastewater engineering. She will oversee the lift station evaluation. Her lift station ® experience has involved a wide range of equipment selection for all types of pump station facilities. These facilities ® have included chopper pumps for prison/correctional facilities, screw pumps, submersible pumps, vertical wet well mounted pumps, odor control, standby power, controls, and SCADA. Ms. Burnham's projects include Ontario lift ® station wire-to-water efficiency evaluations, design of more than 8 lift stations for the North Lake sewer district ® (including multiple lift stations that pump into common forcemains), regional lift stations, and pumping facilities for multiple prison facilities. ® Justin Walker, P.E. and Roland Roche, PE -Collection Team (KA). Justin Walker and Roland Rocha are experienced computer modelers and wastewater planners. Roland brings GIS expertise and he recently upgraded ® the City of Moscow's Hydra collection system model to a GIS based computer model. Together, they have ® completed over 30 utility system master plans using a variety of computer models. Justin Walker's modeling ® KELLER ASSOCIATES.INC. °1 CITY: OF o ~d PROPOSAL. O ~45H~LAND'~~~.►~ com~nmw.o aa.M.a~ne~iamvnal Ott.s~: 04z". , expertise is further enhanced by his experience as a computer programmer for engineering hydraulic software. Their experience includes gravity collection studies for Ontario, Slayton, and Wood Village, Oregon as well as dozens of er,t„ other communities throughout the northwest 0 Richard Whitley (RLTG). Mr. Whitley will t._ provide J cr. ~.'ie... t k sv n`*f}Yx•,,.. ti ~t t .i`rrF 1A~. ,,''dt1`fi'S- ."4' +Y - - M y iYc. t public relations support as Dave wnney Katy ' or stayron¢oa° + 5035692919 ft dlunney@c stayton or us ; requested by the City. In this capacity, he is currently Randy Jones „ S. CIN of WOOd Yllage OR 503 667 6211,. ' ran"(tta VRwd village or us ' assisting In tale development John Tensen t, yyCrry of Boise IDa , 208 384 3900 rtensenaratyoPooise org of the comprehensive water x r f r, s f r i. master planning effort. r Wayne Sftepherd~ry, City of Mt Home 10 ~,}2085872108 wshepherdOtnountaln-fwmeus ~„i 'Tim Simpsonrr t"AsotlnzCountyPUD WA ' 509 581 0 tsimpson@awunpudorg~ t r _c x}ha' d _L e l ._L,~1 ♦ y Inc. TerraSurve (TS) 'Complementing our team is !Jim Nartn t ,Cily of Ciad ston WA 5097581662' l6n6r6n@cableonenet J ®ii•, TerraSurvey, with three local CfwGMickelson. CityofOnfan_orOR,x <51i48813231 Chutlfuckelson(ajonaioorogonagRi, ?r: surveyors who currently provide on-call surveying service s for the City of Ashland. TerraSurvey will assist in gathering field rim and invert r., elevation data and other critical topographic information as required. ey . Fred Neilson (NNRC). Fred Neilson brings over 30 years of environmental and wetlands experience to the project team, including the design of wetlands for effluent disposal' in Oregon. He will serve in a technical advisory capacity ` as we address the sensitive environmental issues and investigate wetlands as a potential disposal alternative. His experience includes design of wastewater effluent wetlands for the City of LaGrande, Oregon. Of;' Raymond J. Bartlett - Economic & Financial Analysis (EFA). Mr. Bartlett has a master's degree in economics e` and has provided a broad range of financial consulting services to public agencies and private corporations throughout the northwest. These services include developing financial plans, analyzing and updating user rates, SDCs and connection fees, and obtaining financing for capital improvement projects. EFA recently completed a management study, financial plan, and rate analysis for an Oregon PUD that resulted in significant changes to the e PUD's rate structure, personnel, and management. He is currently obtaining financing for projects in the Oregon 0'.;cities of Slayton ($11 million expansion to its sewer system), Hood River (water and sewer improvements totaling . $31 million), and Junction City ($50 million upgrade to its sewer and water systems), and special districts such as.the Netarts-Oceanside Sanitary District ($30 million rehab of a WWTP, pump stations, and ocean outfall). Our team has e; worked with Mr. Ray Bartlett on several financial studies in Oregon and Washington. References for EFA include Dave Kinney, Public Works Director for the City of Stayton (503.569.2919, dkinney0-chstavton.or.us), and Dave Bick, i former Public Works Director and current Project Manager for the water system capital improvement projects (503.872.4112, dave.bick(rDabain.com). ~4... ' a Resources Available. Our greatest resource is our people. We pride ourselves on the quality of the individuals we employ and seek only to partner with other firms'who complement our strengths•and add value to our clients. All of e:•~ r the individuals included in our organization.charrt,. ee'ready and available to ssistthe City of Ashland in completing your project. We,are committed,to meet the,scti4edule and have made,speciall`efforts to review staff availability tas a: we've organized our project teamxand prepared the'manhou~ a"stlmate found with,tFie cost proposal Addit`onally we e' commit all of ougresources company wide to provide the besfLjuality project for thdCity c Complementing' our technical staff are,manyt other rreesources availablee lo.complete the,'tasks efficiently aha effectively These Inch de software' (GIS wateramodehng,; CAD) : GPS surveying equipment statesof the'art computers plotters prmters;lprojectors, video, acid much more UnlquesStrengths't Keller Assaciateslwill"txing crew and Innovative inslgtlt.and special expertise. Unique sVen)gths for{some.of our team membersare hlghligltted in the;faflavving table k r, ~ ! t a. K Jam, ' a . ~ ` ~.+t .j Y > v; t } x ti4w E''. ,,r~Y~:. ).~*7'A ° 't~tdt~.~- .rU ~ 'xsr.~ •AV.A• ~ f KELLER ASSOCIATES,INC. e'e: CITY OF M', PROPOSAL 9 17 ',ASH LAND Irma ~,~h.~.. W .,,~.M,, ,P . (cwwMP) s New and Innovative individual Unique Strengths Equipment and Techniques. James Bledsoe Project management and wastewater punning Keller Associates is committed Ray Bartlett Financing, SDC law, rate analysis d to be an industry leader in Richard A. Whitley Public relations equipment and techniques. Dr. David Jenkins Phosphorous removal We have our own flow ® monitoring equipment that can Lea Fisher Class 4 Operator, professional engineer, over 40 years exile ante be used for this project. We Fred Neilson Constructed wetlands ® also invest heavily in training Dennis Suihkonen Biosolids ® employees and using the Glen Holdren Wastewater processes latest modeling, drafting, and GIS software. This helps us Roland Roche GIS provide current solutions in an efficient manner. Our team will be able to take your GIS files and old Hydra wastewater files and bring them into a state-of-the-art GIS based wastewater collection computer model. We will also employ a computer model such as BioWin for modeling the wastewater treatment process. Keller Associates is also committed to technology, utilizing .ftp sites, online meeting tools, websites, and other media for sharing of information. Our financial subconsultant, EFA, also utilizes complex rate models developed in-house to simulate existing and future expenses and revenues for financial analysis. Additionally, EFA pioneered the effort to establish ® SDC's with administrative charges, and use Urban Renewal Agencies and LID's to cover capital expenses. EFA has also aided municipalities in using non-utility sources of revenues from unrelated budgets such as the Road Funds ® and Economic Development Funds to pay for portions of some capital improvements. RESPONSE ® We recognize that our responsiveness is essential for client satisfaction and retention. Approximately 90 percent of all of our clients are repeat clients. An example of our responsiveness is the computer modeling support performed for more than five years for the City of Nampa. During one year, over 200 water modeling requests were made by • the fire department. Evaluations required the implementation of fire flow tests and a review of on-line historical data from the Citys SCADA system. These independent evaluations were each completed remotely from our office within 48 hours of the email request. ® When the City of Nampa needed three miles of waterline designed prior to a pavement project, Keller Associates was there to complete the design in three weeks. Similarly, when Slayton urgently needed to install a baffle curtain in their clearwell to meet regulatory requirements, Keller Associates completed the design in a matter of days, and assisted the City in pre-purchasing the materials to get a contractor • 'it has been working immediately. " " Associates is responsive, completing I Keller Associates understands that the types of services required by the projects on-time and within budget- I have City of Ashland will need to be completed quickly and may require vorl much approdal-od their ' special expertise. For this purpose, it is important that the engineering have equally been salisfied Mill the quafity firm selected can be flexible and responsive. We know this and we of their work ard took tonvard to lvolking commit our resources and personnel to be there for you. You will have Voth them in the future. access to our mobile phone numbers to call upon us at any time. Randy Jones. Public Works Director for tvie Oly As mentioned previously, there are many flights available that allow us to of Wood Village OR get to and from Ashland with little difficulty. Additionally, our Salem ® office manager, Peter Olsen will be available to assist the City at a moment's notice. Finally, both our surveying and ® public affairs sub-consultants are based out of the Ashland area. ® Many of our clients are remotely located. We recognize that communication is key to project success. In addition to the typical communication avenues,,, Keller Associates employs on-line meeting tools; which allows us to share ® modeling, mapping and other data without cllentszin *,real-time." 4 This service iv easy to use and is provided at no additional cost. On larger projects, Keller Associates bas also created'websites to track project status on-line. ® KELLER ASSOCIATES.INC. • CITY OF PROPOSAL ASHLAND CompreMna WeiMw rMxserOWn(CNNIMVI 110 ® At Keller Associates, we focus on client satisfaction. Our team of professionals listen to you and are dedicated to • creating long-term solutions and positive client relationships. To provide you with the best possible service, we will become an integral part of your team. We will serve you with honesty, integrity, enthusiasm, and fairness. • Project Schedule. Keller Associates is committed to meet an aggressive project schedule. This will require careful coordination with the City as discussed in the Project Approach section. Protect iaanagnrw„t MtR.rapa maingsl baessxben q Cdkdm System COndiwna s r r I I i _ 'WJV ColecGan ModN DavMOPtrient ~ .~M"+~'".".""' .i- iEvakateExMngCtlkdmSyxem Evaluate FYMe Cdkdoe SY!t?rn owekP Cdeakn YngovemenAgemtWd--t • Rec "d Cried S)stmi and . Plan 'Mn Exc gNNtP oevf tlop NNVfP Nyew. Ntemmwaa tom- ttt-------- z e.- Y- • Rem .o dNNJfP anprovemmt Pkn ' - ' , G t - i • FawMbl MemalNea Marysi~, ~,~~~~t-^^~~4~ _ . Capaal M,pwement Program (CIFh hT- • Tinal Pubic No! anE AdopUan ~ • 'For a more comprehensive schedule refer to the cost schedule. ® The schedule presented above shows the bulk of study efforts within the first 12 months. This will provide ample • time to discuss alternatives, evaluate financing scenarios, and receive input from the community. To meet this schedule, data must be gathered early in the study phase. Keller Associates will maintain a project schedule that will ® show time allocated for progress of the work effort, time allocated for the City's review, submittal milestones, meeting dates, and overall completion of the project. It should be noted that there are some benefits to the City in elongating ® the schedule for the collection system. Ideally, flow monitoring would be gathered during the winter months. O Completing flow in the winter period would delay completion of the study until late fall of 2011. • Our Commitment to Your Project Needs... Our first goal is to develop an understanding of your project needs through listening. As we look toward the future, water issues are becoming increasingly complex and are paramount to our quality of life and overall economy. © Opportunities to enhance and improve municipal infrastructure must be taken. Our professionals will apply progressive and forward-thinking concepts on your projects - solutions will be cost-effective and workable. The Keller Associates team is committed to the timely delivery of quality products. Keller Associates will listen, • innovate, motivate, and deliver. • • • • • ® KELLER A S S O C I A T E S. I N C. Q • • • p • • O • • • e • • • • • s • • • • 0 • e • • • a • 0 • e 0 e • • City of Stayton Administration • Finance • Planning • Public Works ® 362 North Third Avenue • Stayton. OR 97383 • (503) 769.34225 (Office) • (503) 769-1456 (fax) ® December 18, 2006 ® Keller Associates, Inc. ® 131 SW 5'h Avenue, Suite A ® Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Reference Letter for Work Performed by Keller Associates To Whom It May Concern: 0 It has been my privilege to work with Keller Associates for more than four years on a variety of water, wastewater, and storm water projects. As Public Works Director for the City of Stayton, ® Oregon, I have worked closely with James Bledsoe who has served as project manager for the City's water, wastewater, and storm water master plans. Mr. Bledsoe and the Keller team have ® also successfully supported the City in design and construction management support necessary to implement several million dollars worth of priority capital improvement projects. Their services are always professional, their recommendations are practical, and their engineering designs and construction support are thorough. ® Mr. Bledsoe and the Keller staff are sensitive to our project schedule needs, successfully completing projects on time and within budget. Even though the Keller Associates' office is located several hundred miles away, I can always count on immediate responses to my urgent • needs, often with several members of the Keller team pooling together to immediately complete the requested task. 0 I trust that you will find Keller Associates to be an innovative engineering firm that lives up to their mission statement of providing quality work to satisfied clients. ® Very truly yours, CITY OF STAYTON, OREGON ® Michael R. Faught ® Public Works Director ® MF/e3tpolice Department Wastewater Facilities Public Library ® 386 North Third Avenue 930 letters Way 515 North First Avenue ® its%ton. OR. 97383 St:tyton.OR 117393 Sovion-OR 97383 W', 7693421(Officc) 00317h9-2816(Office) (5031 769 33 Q (Office) ® ($03) 769 7497 (Pay) (503) 769-7413 (Fax) 1503) 761) 32(K fl-,u) • • Mayor Council President Councilors c.'. David M. Fuller Patricia Smith Mark Clark Stanley Dirks Timothy Clark ' ICI'I * OF Wood Village ® RFCE/ VED February 20, 2009 ® AR ~ 6 P0Q9 ® Keller Associates, Inc. B 131 SW 5" Avenue, Suite A • Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Work Completed by Keller Associates 0 To Whom it May Concern: Keller Associates has been providing engineering planning and design services to Wood Village since 0 2000. In this capacity, they have completed water and storm water master plans and have helped ® implement needed well and tank improvements. ® As part of our recent concrete water tank improvement project, Keller Associates looked at numerous 0 replacement and rehabilitation options in an effort to develop the most cost-effective solution for the ® City. It has been our experience that Keller Associates is responsive, completing projects on-time and ® within budget. I have very much appreciated their work ethic. We have equally been satisfied with the • quality of their work and look forward to working with them in the future. S Sincere and s Public Works Director • City of Wood Village 40 2055 NE 238" Drive • Wood Village, OR 97060-1095 • (503) 667-6211 • FAX (503) 669-8723 • E-mail: city&i.wood-village.or.us 19 O Commissioners: General Manager: GARY HICKS TIM SIMPSON ® JUDY RIDGE Treasurer: DON NUXOLLBOB SISCHO ® PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ® PO Box 605 • Clarkston, Washington 99403-0605 • 509-758-1010 • FAX 509-758-1958 • www.asotinpud.org ® June 10, 2009 Rod Linja, P.E. President Keller Associates, Inc. 131 S. W. 5 ° Avenue ® Meridian, Idaho 83642 ® Re:. Letter of Recommendation Dear Mr. Linja: I am writing to express our appreciation for a job well done and the outstanding work performed on the Asotin County Wastewater System Condition. Assessment and Feasibility Study that our utility authorized. ® We have found Keller Associates staff to be knowledgeable, experienced and responsive. The assessment and study and the resulting report was thorough and comprehensive and the work was performed in a timely manner. The assessment and study required communication with multiple agencies. Keller communicated well with all parties involved and provided regular updates on their progress through the project. We would recommend Keller Associates for future projects with our utility and for projects that other entities may be considering: We would welcome the opportunity to speak about our experience to anyone who is considering using Keller Associates for professional consulting and/or engineering services. ® Sincerely, Cary Hicks, President Board of Commissioners • 0 CITY OF KUNA P.O. BOX 13 • KUNA, IDAHO 83634 PHONE (208) 922-5546 Rod Linja, P.E. President e Keller Associates, Inc e 131 S. W. 5 ° Avenue . Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 288-1992 ® RE: Letter of Recommendation ® Dear Mr. Linja: This letter is written to acknowledge Keller Associates' outstanding effort and continued support with respect to not only the recently completed Local Improvement District 0. (LID) wastewater treatment project but also several other projects considering all aspects of planning and civil engineering design of our Municipal infrastructure systems including transportation, water, wastewater, and irrigation system assets. ® We have found that Keller Associates is responsive and timely in meeting our needs. In ® addition, we find that Keller Associates has a high level of commitment to complete our project and has maintained an open communication channel throughout each project experience. • We would certainly recommend Keller Associates for future projects within our City. We would also welcome the chance to visit further to discuss the aforementioned with anyone who is considering using Keller Associates professional services. ® Sincerely, City of Kuna, Idaho ® r ® J. Scott wdy 0 Mayo Public Works T Neol S. Oldemryer, P.I. November 13, 2008 ii Direclor I ® Sol" Cllr Nall Keller Associates - ® ISO N. Copilol Bo„ lemma 131 SW 5" Avenue, Suite A MefllnB Addnu Meridian, ID 83642 P. O. Box 500 Bobo, Idaho 83701.0500 Phone RE: Reference Letter for Work Performed by Keller Associates 2081384-3900 re3 208/433.5650 To Whom It May Concern: TDD/TrY 8001377-3529 Keller Associates are currently and have been under contract with City of Boise for the past 5+ Web years to provide professional services related to Civil and Structural Engineering. Many of their qd"°id..«e projects have been completed on time or prior to established dead lines and within or under budget. Their projects are complete and thorough which has resulted in minimal change orders Mayor during the construction phase. They have been adaptive, responsive and sensitive to the City's ® Do+id N. Bigler needs. Cry Council 1 PraeidenI I have no hesitation of recommending Keller Associates for Civil or Structural Engineering Doxid Ebeda projects. cp., lPro Tern M•rv•^^• Jordan Sincerely, Vernon L. BbbdeWt ® Eleina CleBB / \ - Nan W SheoIT "J J`mt`bb' esJ.•Pazdy, . Assistant City Engineer M EyVN Oppor,vnly fwpbrx ~ IrinrM sn r~ryebd pear CITY City of Burley OF &A 14.01 Overland Ave ® BURLEY BurfeT ID 83313 (_,on) 8-1 2214 To: Keller Associates, Inc. ® 131 S.W. 5°i Avenue, Suite A RE Meridian, Idaho 83642 ® Attn: Rod Linja, P.E., President 44 'S<Igg O S Date: April 10, 2009 0 Subject: Letter of Recommendation Dear Mr. Linja, 0 This letter is written to acknowledge the skills and efforts of the Keller Associates team with respect to our recently completed and on going projects. The $2,400,000 Well #7 ® Booster Station and Storage Reservoir Project, which was completed in 2008, was a great ® success. Keller Associates delivered a solid design and offered excellent construction ® support as well. We appreciated the "team" approach to the completion of the design as Keller considered the Cities input throughout the process. We also appreciated the depth of abilities available within the Keller Associates staff. We felt that this depth of abilities ® was key to obtaining timely answers for a wide range of questions throughout design and construction. We have also appreciated the responsiveness of Keller Associates in providing water modeling and water system planning on an ongoing basis. Keller Associates has always provided a prompt response to the Cities inquires. This enables the City to respond to the questions of potential businesses quickly and accurately. Our City Council has recently prequalified Keller Associates to assist the City on a project specific or an on-going basis. We look forward to working with you in both of these capacities and would be happy to discuss our experience with Keller Associates with anyone who is considering utilizing your professional services. ® Sincerely, ® Bryan Reiter 41 City Engineer O O O t b h ® ~ ~Btl~vcy°.-llounladsr-.~Coonr+~ ~is6lia 6J!'oa~fro-~e/ur~lsnrieG ~ 1150 South Main. Mountain Home. ID 83647 (208)587-2108 Fax (208)587-6433 ® December 4, 2006 Keller Associates, Inc. 131 SW 5w Avenue, Suite A ® Meridian, ID 83642 O Re: Reference Letter for Work Performed by Keller Associates O To Whom It May Concern: s The City of Mountain Home has experienced significant growth over the past few years. In my capacity as Public Works Director, I have worked closely with Keller Associates on a number of ® projects including new wells, water rights, generator facilities, pump stations, wastewater treatment improvements, and several miles of water and wastewater pipelines. O. My primary contact at Keller Associates has been James Bledsoe. We have coordinated all of ® our projects through Mr. Bledsoe who has arranged for the appropriate expertise and experience from Keller engineers and support staff to work with the City on its water and wastewater planning and design support. Personally, I have worked closely with Mr. Bledsoe O and Keller Associates in completing over $8,000,000 in water and wastewater improvements. Through this interaction, I have found Keller Associates to be professional and responsive to ® our needs. 1 am happy to recommend Keller Associates as consulting engineers for water and wastewater planning, design and construction support services. In particular, I have enjoyed working with James Bledsoe. O Sincerely, CITY OF MOUNTAIN HOME, IDAHO L. Wayne Shepherd, P.E. ® Public Works Director O ® ?tyro: '+tlr',.: :u~raea i-.l•:;a;trC.U4 ® hitp://www.mh-publicworks.com "Y Cit o _ tawlcf IDAHO .~oa ws ~asoo• . i. April 15, 2009 Vul RE: Letter of Recommendation I To Whom It May Concern: ~ r uaI The City of Blackfoot has worked with Keller Associates for the past 12 years and have found them to be a professional and competent engineering firm. Over this time, Keller Associates has designed and managed several infrastructure projects for the City of Blackfoot' including a major upgrade to the City's wastewater treatment plant as well as the design of a road widening project and bridge rehabilitation project. Keller Associates also completed a water facilities planning study and was recently selected by the City to complete the design of a 2.2-million gallon water tank and booster station. With Keller Associates' leadership, cost-effective design, and funding expertise, the upgrade to the City of Blackfoot's Wastewater Treatment Plant was completed with more capacity than originally thought possible and at a significantly lower cost to the residents than originally estimated. We have also appreciated Keller Associates ability to develop an accurate water model of our water system. This tool allows the City, with Keller Associates' assistance, to respond to questions regarding available water flows in specific areas throughout the City. Keller Associates has consistently shown responsiveness and I have appreciated their ability to communicate effectively with the City Council and work effectively with City personnel. They truly implement a team concept in their project approach. As Mayor, I would certainly recommend Keller Associates for upcoming projects and would welcome the opportunity to discuss my experience in working with them. I Sincerely, City of Blackfoot Mayor Mike Virtue s 0 e 0 • • e 0 • • • • • 0 e 0 0 • • 0 s • • • • • • • 0 • e • O- O O O K E L L E R JAMES P. MULLEN, P.E. O associates PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE O EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY O B.S., Environmental Engineering, 1995, ® Utah State University Mr. Mullen is a civil and environmental engineer with M.S., Civil/ Engineering, 1996, experience in planning and design of wastewater t' Colorado State University collection, treatment and disposal systems, water intake, • treatment, and distribution facilities, as well as water reuse REGISTRATION treatment and distribution systems. He has been O Registered Professional Engineer, responsible for treatment process evaluation, facilities e States of Idaho, Colorado, and Utah design, equipment selection, and on-site inspection, as well as business development and project management AFFILIATIONS activities. - . American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation Mr. Mullen is currently oversees all Water / Wastewater American Society of Civil Engineers work for Keller Associates, Inc. In this role, he has been WORK HISTORY responsible for project development, project management, schedule coordination and overall successful completion Keller Associates, Inc. of many wastewater treatment plant projects. O 2000 - Present Richard P. Arber Associates, Inc. Mr. Mullen has a thorough understanding and experience Rich Ri r 2000 working with the public participation process. It is in this 1996 O realm that his abilities have been proven. Mr. Mullen has SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE learned that for successful public buyoff of a project, the public must come to understand and accept the following: ® • City ofStayton, OR Wastewater Plant Improvements 1. There is a serious problem or need, one that needs to ® City of Blackfoot, Idaho - UV System be addressed. Design and Installation 2. The government entity or business interest has the • City of Aurora, Colorado - Water right and responsibility to be addressing this need. ® Reuse Plant Expansion 3. The approach to studying and resolving the problem is • City of Bellevue, Idaho - Wastewater reasonable and appropriate. Treatment Plant Improvements (MBR) 4. The decision-makers arc listening to the public and • Denver Water, Colorado - Water care about their concerns. Recycling Plant Expansion O City of Rigby, Idaho - Wastewater Mr. Mullen has worked as the Project Manager or . Plant Improvements & FPS Principal-in-Charge for studies and projects that range City of Blackfoot, Idaho - Wastewater from $10,000 to over $30-million. Treatment Plant Improvements ® • City of Roberts, Idaho - Wastewater Mr. Mullen has served as Project Manager for several Treatment Plant wastewater treatment plant improvements projects with ® • City ofAmerican Falls, Idaho - WW varying technologies including Sequencing Batch Reactor, ® Disinfection & Headworks Project Oxidation Ditch/Filtration, Membrane Bioreactor, ultra- City of Salmon, Idaho - Wastewater low biological and chemical phosphorus removal, and ® Facilities Planning Study bioselection process. ® • City of Westminster, Colorado - Reuse Distribution System Modeling & Master Mr. Mullen continuously strives to maintain constant and ® Plan consistent communication with our clients. He is ® developed the ability to communicate complex concepts in a method that is technically accurate and easily ® understood. It is by doing this that our clients' projects are ® completed successfully. 0 e ® JAMES BLEDSOE, P.E. ® KELLER associates PROJECT MANAGER O EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering, ® 1999, Brigham Young University Mr. Bledsoe graduated first in his class from Brigham ® Graduated Summa Cum Laude Young University with a master's degree in civil and environmental engineering. At Keller Associates, Mr. ® REGISTRATION Bledsoe manages the water and wastewater planning ® Registered Professional Engineer efforts for the corporate office of Keller Associates. Oregon (73454) ® Washington (43984) Mr. Bledsoe is a skilled communicator. He presents ® Idaho (10803) himself well in public meetings. Clients appreciate his responsiveness, organizational skills, and his ability to 0 WORK HISTORY present things in a logical, easy to follow manner. Mr. Keller Associates, Inc. Bledsoe also has a good understanding of funding and 1999 - Present regulatory requirements in the northwest. S Environmental Modeling Systems, Inc. Mr. Bledsoe's water planning and modeling expertise has 0 1998-1999 led to technical papers published in Current Methods, a ® PLANNING EXPERIENCE magazine directed to water modelers. His expertise in • PLANNING ® OR Water, Wastewater, and computer modeling is further illustrated in having worked Stayton, er Master Plans as the technical support manager for three internationally used civil engineering software packages. • Kuna Water, Wastewater, and Pressure ® Irrigation Master Plans • Burley Water Master Plan Examples of the type of work completed under the ® • Ontario, OR Water, Wastewater, and direction of Mr. Bledsoe include: Slormwaler Master Plans ® • Mountain Home Water and Wastewater User rate studies, financing plans Master Plans Water conservation and reuse • Nampa Water Modeling & Planning Water, wastewater, and stormwater computer modeling • Wood Village, OR Water & Stormwaler and planning studies ® Master Plans Water pipelines, pressure reducing valves, pressure • Sublimity, OR Wastewater Collection sustaining valves • Master Plan Wastewater interceptors and control structures ® • Payette Water Master Plan SCADAs rehabilitation, trenchless technology • • Star Sewer and Water Master Plans Water and wastewater treatment plants • Rexburg Water Modeling Wells, booster stations • Blackfoot Water Master Plan Wastewater lift stations • Moscow Wastewater Collection Water tanks ® Master Plan Standby power facilities ® • Greenleaf Water & Wastewater Master Plans Mr. Bledsoe's success at project management is ® • Soda Springs Water Master Plan demonstrated by the satisfaction of repeat clients ® • Rigby Water Master Plan including Boise, Nampa, Mountain Home, Burley and • Asotin County, WA Feasibility Study Rexburg, Idaho and Wood Village, Stayton, and Ontario, 0 • Tamarack Resort Water Master Plan Oregon. Project management experience has included ® • North Lake Recreational District Water dozens of water and wastewater projects. These have Planning included 20+ miles of water and wastewater pipeline ® • Aumsville, OR Water System Upgrades ® • Jamestown, WY Water Modeling projects, regional wastewater pump -stations, wells, and PI Analysis booster stations, and water tanks. • Washington County Feasibility Study • Gooding Water & Pressure Irrigation 0 Studies GLEN HOLDREN, P.E. K E L L E R _ PROJECT ENGINEER I WASTEWATER .8880018186 . EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY M.S., Civil Engineering, 1988 Univ. of California, Berkeley Mr. Glen Holdren brings over 21 years experience as a B.S., Geology, 1978 Project Engineer for domestic projects in California, ® University of Oregon Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. A description of his O work on specific projects follows: REGISTRATION PROJECT ENGINEER: Registered Professional Engineer ® Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington City of Stayton, OR - Served as the Lead Design ® Engineer for the improvements to the City's WWTP. AFFILIATIONS The improvements included a new 10.2 mgd step ® American Society of Civil Engineers screen for the headworks; selector cell prior to the . American Water Works Association SBR system, improvements to the SBR system Water Environment Federation including new WAS pumps, automatic backflushing system, and a new PLC and control program; ' WORK HISTORY improvements to the equalization system; cloth filters; Keller Associates, Inc. six new low pressure high intensity UV banks; drum ® 2006-Present thickener, two new dewatering feed pumps; new ® aerated sludge storage tank; sludge dryer; new utility Bracewell Engineering water system; and a maintenance and storage building. ® 1996- 2005 Mr. Holdren completed the pre-design report and managed the design team through completion of the Levine-Fricke plans and specifications. The Project is currently out 1 ® for bids. ® Morrison - Knudson Cit y of Roberts - Served as the Lead Design Engineer 1987 for the design of a new WWTP for the City. The WWTP has headworks, including flow measurement WASTEWATER PROJECT EXPERIENCE and fine screening, two sequencing batch reactors, a effluent flow equalization tank, UV disinfection; and • Stayton, OR - New Screen and solids handling, including an anaerobic digester. The Dewatering Feed Pumps plant is in construction and completion is estimated • Roberts, Idaho - SBR Treatment for spring 2010. o Plant • Soda Springs, Idaho - Activated City of Rigby - Served as the Lead Design Engineer • Rigby, Idaho -Oxidation Ditches for the design of a new WWTP for the City. The ® Donnelly, Idaho - Membrane WWTP has headworks, including flow measurement, Donne Donnelly, WWTP fine screening, and grit removal; two oxidation • Auburn, California-Advanced ditches; two secondary clarifiers, clothe filters; UV ® Pond System disinfection; and solids handling, including aerated ® • Monte Rio, California-Sequencing sludge tanks and belt press dewatering. The plant Batch Reactor (SBR) WWTP construction was completed in November 2009. • Oakwood, California - SBR ® WWTP Stateline Shopping Center, WA - Served as the Lead • Rancho Larios, California - Design Engineer for the predesign of a new Class A ® Tertiary Filters reclamation WWTP for a developer. The WWTP ® • San Juan Bautista, California - included fine screening, two sequencing batch SBR WWTP reactors, cloth filters, chlorine disinfection, and used ponds for emergency storage of influent and effluent. s LARRY S. RUPP, P.E. ® K E L L E R eOaoclecee PROJECT ENGINEER V ® EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY ® M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering Mr. Rupp has a variety of experience working in water ® Brigham Young University, 2000 and wastewater fields. He has experience with projects B.S., Civil Engineering involving conventional and advance treatment ® Brigham Young University, 1999 technologies, including membranes, UV disinfection, REGISTRATION ozone, and taste and odor treatment. Recent experience Registered Professional Engineer includes: Idaho, Oregon, Washington, . Mr. Rupp designed a new membrane bioreactor ® Nevada wastewater treatment plant for the City of Kuna, ® Idaho. The design includes headworks, membrane AFFILIATIONS American Water Works Association process building, UV disinfection, chemical facilities, ® . solids handling, operations building, and a WORK HISTORY maintenance building. "Mr. Rupp's role included Keller Associates, Inc., 2006 to Present oversight of the headworks, membrane building, and • biological process design. He managed the $30 Carollo Engineers, 2000 to 2006 million construction project. The project included a new NPDES permit with a 0.07 mg/L phosphorus ® Montgomery Watson Hatza, 1999 to 2000 limit and future reuse. ® WASTEWATER TREATMENT EXPERIENCE Project Manager for the City of Lewiston's Southwest Booster Pump Station. The pump station included ® • City ofKuna, ID WWTP Design seven pumps equipped with variable frequency drives ® • City of Clarkston WWTP Facilities and has a capacity of 5000 gpm. The project design Planning Study was completed in two months to accommodate the ® • City of Aberdeen WWTP Facilities City's schedule to supply fire flow to businesses. • Planning Study • City ofAmerican Falls WWTP Project Manager for City of Emmett water system ® Predesign improvements project which includes a 1.5 million • Star, ID WWTP Improvements gallon storage reservoir, a 3,000 gpm booster pump ® North Davis County Sewer District, station, 3,000 gpm pressurized filtration system for UT WWTP Evaluation manganese removal, and miscellaneous improvements • Weber Basin Water Conservancy for backup power to the distribution system. District, UT, WW Pump Station Design Project Engineer for Garden City Groundwater South Valley Water Reclamation Filtration Project in Garden City, Idaho. Mr. Rupp Facility, West Jordan, UT, Facility designed the iron and manganese removal system, ® Planning Study which includes packaged filtration units, at two of ® PUBLICATIONS/PRESENTATIONS Garden City's well sites. The combined system has a " capacity of 7.2 mgd and included chemical feed ® Complying with the Arsenic Rule - systems at both well sites. Design Decisions Affecting Full-Scale ® Infrastructure Costs."AWWA 2006 Project manager for the Clarkston, Washington Inorganics Conference Austin, TX WWTP facilities planning study. The study included January 31, 2006 and the AWWA Annual evaluation of ammonia removal and an optimization ® Conference, San Antonio, TX, June 2006 of the activated sludge process to meet future limits. ® "Disposal Considerations for Filtered Recommendations to improve hydraulic short ® Groundwater Backwash Waste" circuiting were provided. A capacity analysis for both at the PNCWA 70th Annual Conference, the biological process and hydraulic flow capability ® Boise, ID, September 14-17, 2003 was performed to establish updated plan design 0 criteria to meet future flows, e e e KELLER DENNIS M. SUIHKONEN, P.E. e ~ aeeoe;at•e SENIOR ENGINEER EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY e B.S., Civil Engineering, 1973 California State University Mc Suihkonen has over 35 years of experience in ® , Chico Graduate Studies, Water Resources, 1975 planning, design, and construction administration of civil e San Jose State University and environmental projects. He has been responsible for ® the planning and design of numerous water and REGISTRATION wastewater treatment facilities. He has provided design of e Registered Professional Engineer most wastewater treatment plant process units including ® Idaho (4079) headworks, pumping, screening and grit removal facilities, primary clarifiers, aeration basins, secondary clarifiers, e AFFILIATIONS chlorination and UV disinfection facilities, aerobic and e American Society of Civil Engineers anaerobic digesters, sludge pumping facilities, and belt Pacific Northwest Pollution Control Assoc. press and centrifuge thickening/dewatering facilities. e American Water Works Association • Stayton, Oregon -Evaluation of existing SBR plant e WORK HISTORY and recommendation and predesign of facility e Keller Associates, Inc. upgrades including new cloth media filters, drum type 1993 - Present thickener, solids handing upgrades, SBR upgrades, e EQ basin improvements, UV system upgrades, new • Montgomery, Watson, Harza maintenance and storage building, addition of a 1973- 1993 selector basin, and miscellaneous other improvements. • • Milton-Freewater, Oregon - Design of headworks . WASTEWATER PROJECT EXPERIENCE facilities, rehabilitation of trickling filter, basin conversion to primary clarifier from chlorine contact, ® • City ofStaytonWWTPEvaluation addition of a new secondary clarifier, and • City of Meridian Wastewater Facilities rehabilitation and upgrade of an anaerobic digester. Planning and Design Hailey, Idaho - Design of a new 1.7 MGD SBR plant • City of Star Facilities Planning Study incorporating a separate selector cell for filamentous • NLRSWD /Tamarack Resort Wastewater and bulking control at the front of the plant similar to Facilities Planning Study • Milton Freewater W{irTP Plant Upgrade that needed by Stayton. The plant also included two • City of Sandpoint WWTP Upgrade reactor basins, equalization basin, cloth media filters, e • City of Blackfoot WWTP Upgrade and low pressure high intensity UV disinfection. An . • City of Hailey WWTP Design existing contact stabilization process was also • City of Caldwell WWTP Improvements converted to an aerobic digester. • NLRSWD Planning and Design of ® Sewer Collection System Meridian, Idaho - Design of headworks facilities, • Cairo, Egypt Sludge Disposal Feasibility primary clarifiers, aeration basins, blower facilities, ® Study secondary clarifiers, UV disinfection, and upgrade of ® • City of Coeur d'Alene Static Pile WAS/RAS pumping facilities. Implementation of the Sludge Composting Design temperature phased thermophilic-mcsophilic • Valley County Septage Treatment and anaerobic digestion process. Disposal Studies • City of Gooding Wastewater Facilities Blackfoot, Idaho - Design of a selector cell, new ® • City of Kuna Pump Station & Force Main aeration basin, headworks upgrade, UV disinfection, ® • City of Hagerman Wastewater Lagoon sludge centrifuge facilities, thermophilic anaerobic • City ofBel/evue Wastewater FPS digester, covered sludge storage and loading facilities, ® • Bellevue AMR WWTP Design and a new maintenance building. • City of Boise Septage Treatment and ® Disposal Study • • • SUSAN BURNHAM, P.E. 0 a e eE s PROJECT ENGINEER • EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY • B.S., Civil Engineering, 1970 University of Idaho Ms. Burnham brings over 30 years of wastewater • M.S., Sanitary Engineering, 1973 engineering experience to the project team. She has been • University of Idaho responsible for all phases of wastewater project development, including wastewater facilities planning • REGISTRATION studies, design, construction administration, preparation of • Registered Professional Engineer operation and maintenance manuals, and completion of Idaho(2991) detailed environmental assessments. She has also been • Montana (5434E) involved in the design of wastewater collection systems • Washington (44517) for various communities and sewer districts. • AFFILIATIONS Ms. Burnham has designed wastewater collection systems • Pacific NW Clean Water Association including lift stations for various communities and sewer districts. For the North Lake Recreational Sewer and • WORK HISTORY Water District (NLRSWD) in Donnelly, Idaho, she • Keller Associates, Inc. designed 3 lift stations to serve Tamarack Resort. The 2000 -Present main lift station was located adjacent to golf course, and • was designed with particular attention to aesthetic • Earth Tech concerns (appearance and odor control). The lift station 1996 -2000 design incorporated a phased approach to accommodate • the expected rate of development and available funding • Bell-Walker Engineers, Inc. for lift station and connecting force mains. A smaller lift 1974 - 1996 station located in a neighborhood was also fitted with odor • control facilities. She has also been involved in the design • of 5 lift stations for the W estside project for the District. RELATED PROJECT EXPERIENCE • Some of her other projects include a regional wastewater • • Tamarack Resort Wastewater System, lift station in Star, Idaho with intermittent mixing to Phase I and 2 prevent solids build-up; and the Five County Juvenile • • Poison Creek Lift Station & Pressure Detention'Center, St. Anthony, Idaho lift station with 190 • Sewer gpm submersible chopper pumps, I mile of 6-inch • North Lake Recreational Sewer & pressure sewer and site sewage collection. For Rigby, • Water District Westside LID (S Idaho Ms. Burnham evaluated options for upgrading the • Lift Stations) existing influent lift station to increase the head and Star North Interceptor Regional reduce clogging problems. Her lift station experience has • Lift Station involved a wide range of equipment selection for all types ® • Moreland Sewer System of pump station facilities. These facilities have included • Flow Diversion Options Nampa Lift chopper pumps (for prison/correctional facilities), screw • Station No. 4 • Five County Juvenile Detention Center pumps, submersible pumps, vertical wet well mounted • • Ontario, OR Li Station Evaluation, pumps, odor control, standby power, controls, and • including Wire-to-Water Efficiencies SCADA. ® Ms. Burnham has been an active participant in many ® collection system planning efforts including those for North Lake, Stayton, Ontario, and Greenleaf. She • provides technical expertise for evaluating wire-to-water • pump efficiencies and in completing all kinds of environmental documents. • • • • • • • ® KELLER DAVID R. KINZER, P.E. I S.E. I P.L.S. • associates CHIEF ENGINEER • EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY ® B.S., Civil Engineering, 1969 • University of Idaho David Kinzer has had over forty years of experience REGISTRATION working in the field of Civil Engineering on all types of ® Registered Professional Engineer: projects including urban streets, rural highways, railways, airports, drainage projects, flood control projects, water, • State of Idaho, No. 2659, Civil, sewer, pump stations, treatment facilities, bridges, and Structural, and Survey earthfill dams. He specializes in all aspects of public State of Colorado, No. 11764, Civil works projects from the study phase to final construction. • State of Washington, No. 33989, Civil Throughout his career he has acquired extensive ® State of Oregon, No. 83080, Civil experience in all phases of project development including • AFFILIATIONS computer modeling, feasibility studies, master planning, • Idaho Society of Professional Land Surveyors cost analysis, surveying, project design, specification writing, bid proposals, contract administration and • POSITIONS construction supervision. • Canyon County Idaho Engineer & Surveyor 2002-Present His many years of experience in engineering and public • Gem County Idaho Engineer & Surveyor works construction have provided exposure to many types ® 2006-Present of clients, contractors and individual project challenges. ® WORK HISTORY Water: well development & permitting, water treatment, water filtration, water storage reservoirs, booster pumping Keller Associates, Inc. facilities and distribution systems design & analysis. • 1998-Present Wastewater: treatment facilities (nutrient removal & • Earth Tech disinfection), SCADA, collection system design & • 1996- 1997 analysis, regional & minor lift stations, force mains and • odor control. Storm water: master plans, flood control, Bell-Walker Engineers, Inc. treatment and disposal systems, drainage studies and • 1974-1996 infiltration analysis. Site design: planning, traffic, ® PROJECT EXPERIENCE paving, utility design, storm drainage collection, excavation and parking. Structural: analysis & design, • • Dozens of Lift Stations & Booster Stations roof & flooring systems, lateral systems & walls, concrete • • County SurveyorforCanyon Count), basins, steel tanks, masonry, wood & prefabricated steel • • County Surveyor for Gem County structures, multi-span & single-span bridges, retaining • Right-of-Way plans for highway and walls and minor structures. Transportation: interstates, • bridgeprojects rural highways, urban roadways, utility design, right-of- - Easement documents for utility and way acquisitions, environmental issues, major earthwork, roadway projects signalized multi-lane intersections, interchanges, • • ALTAsurveysforproperties downtown revitalizations, roadway rehabilitation and • Pedestrian bridges in Gooding and retrofitting of concrete or asphalt pavement. Survey: plat • Madison County, Idaho & document reviews, right-of-way acquisition, parcel • Canal bridges for roadway crossings ® Rexburg, Rigby, and many descriptions, easement documents, record of surveys and in Rexb ® locations in Ada County, Idaho ALTA surveys. • Wastewater treatment plants in Meridian, ® Star, Rigby, Kuna, Donnelly, Hayden Lake As Chief Engineer at Keller Associates, David provides • Halley, Rigby, Roberts, and Blackfoot guidance to the design staff of the firm and maintains ® • Industrial buildings jar pump and overall project control of the product quality. Because of treatmentfacilities throughout David's extensive experience in the field of civil ® Southern Idaho engineering and extensive knowledge of the project • Highway bridge in Butte County development process, he mentors the younger members of ® • Water storage tank in Donnelly, Idaho the Keller design team. O ' O O i ® BRYAN R. PHINNEY, P.E., D. WRE i KELLER associates PROJECT ENGINEER O i EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY B.S., Civil Engineering, 1996 O University of Wyoming Mr. Phinney is a civil and environmental engineer with i M.S., Civil Engineering, 2000 experience in planning, design, and the operation of ® University of Wyoming municipal wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems and water intake, treatment, and distribution ® REGISTRATION facilities. In addition he has experience in the planning and i Registered Professional Engineer, design of water reuse systems. He has been responsible for State of Idaho, No. 10394 treatment process evaluation, facilities design, equipment i State of Wyoming, No. 9515 selection, and on-site inspection as well as performing i State of Oregon, No. 73236PE construction field engineering duties for quality control and quality assurance. i AFFILIATIONS . Water Environment Federation Mr. Phinney has been responsible for project American Water Works Association development, project management, schedule coordination Tau Beta Pi and overall successful completion of many projects. i WORK HISTORY Mr. Phinney has a thorough understanding and experience i Keller Associates, Inc. working with clients to assess their water and wastewater O 2001 - Present needs. It is in this realm that his experience and can-do attitude have been proven. Mr. Phinney has learned that a O Richard P. Arber Associates, Inc. successful project meets the financial, operational, and O 1998 - 2001 regulatory needs of the client. This is accomplished through constant and consistent communication between i PROJECT EXPERIENCE the client and the consultant. • Stayton, OR Water Treatment Plant i Evaluation Mr. Phinney has had great success using a Technical ® • Town ofBridger Valley, WY- Waste- Review Committee approach, which facilitates interaction water Treatment Plant Upgrade within the project team. This approach has led to the i_ • City ofMcCammon-Wastewater successful completion of numerous multi-discipline i Facilities Planning Stud} national projects that have ranged from Brooklyn, New • Ontario, OR 6 MCD Water Treatment Plant Expansion York to Yosemite National Park in California. i • City of Menan - Wastewater Treatment i Plant Expansion He has recently worked on various water and wastewater • City ofRighy- Wastewater related projects for clients such as Roberts, Menan, Facilities Planning Study Clifton, Riverton, WY, Ontario, OR, Rigby, McCarnmon, i • Moreland Water and Sewer District - and the Wyoming Water Development Commission. i Water and Wastewater Facilities Planning Study, Design, and Const. ® • Agrium CPO - Wastewater Mr. Phinney continuously strives to maintain a knowledge ® Facilities Planning Study base of technical innovations in the water and wastewater • City ofAmerican Falls - Wastewater industry. It is by doing this that we are able to offer our ® Facilities Planning Study clients the latest technologies to effectively meet their ® Citv of Riverton, Wyoming-Wastewater needs. Master Plan ® • Yosemite National Park, California - ® Pressure Sewer Analysis • Bridger Valley JP8, Wyoming - ® Advanced Water Treatment Plant Design • • • KELLER JUSTIN WALKER, P.E. • associates PROJECT ENGINEER EDUCATION • EDUCATION Mr. Walker graduated at the top of his class from Brigham • M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering, Young University with a master's degree in civil and 2002, Brigham Young University, 3.98 GPA environmental engineering. • REGISTRATION PLANNING Registered Professional Engineer - Justin has completed more than 20 master, plans and/or • Idaho, Nevada, Oregon facility planning studies for municipal sewer, water, • pressure irrigation, storm, or transportation systems. A These include seven planning studies specific to • American erican Society of Civil Engineers wastewater collection and treatment facilities which have • American Water Works Association involved both evaluation and expansion of an existing • WORK HISTORY system, as well as creation of a new collection and/or Keller Associates, Inc. treatment system. Justin Walker has worked with • 2003 - Present computer modeling software for many years for planning and evaluation of wastewater and water systems. His • Brigham Young University - EMRL Master's Thesis involved developing a statistical • 2000-2003 algorithm for a water modeling software package. After graduating from college, he worked as a software manager • PLANNING EXPERIENCE developing a water modeling software package used all • • Stayton, Oregon Wastewater and Water over the world. Mr. Walker has used that background at • Master Plans and CIP Keller Associates and has developed or updated water • Sublimity, Oregon Wastewater Master models for more than 10 communities. • Plan and CIP Justin uses creativity and ingenuity to solve many • • Ontario, Oregon Wastewater, Water, and wastewater problems and simplify and reduce costs for Transportation Master Planning wastewater collection systems. He developed a plan to • • Kuna, Idaho Wastewater, Water, and eliminate four problematic lift stations for the City of • Pressure Irrigation Master Planning Kuna and three of the five lift stations for Star, Idaho. He and Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) has conducted flow testing and monitoring, dye testing, • • Star, Idaho Wastewater Collection System lift station pump tests, force main pressure monitoring, • Master Plan and CIP and inflow and infiltration studies. • Weiser, Idaho Project Manager for WWTP • Pretreatment Feasibility Study One of the wastewater collection system master plans was • • Mill Creek Sanitary Sewer Basin Study completed for the Star Sewer and Water District in Star, • NLRSWD, Idaho Wastewater and Water Idaho. The master plan included approximately 3,450 • Master Plan and CIP acres of partially developed lands. The master plan effort • included using topographic data, aerial photography, and DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION spot survey data to identify the most cost effective way to • • Weiser, Idaho Project Managerfor 2, 000 extend sewer service to this area from the existing • 12-inch Gravity Sewer Line (Pipe Bursting) collection system. • Kuna, Idaho Project Manager for 16,000 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION • Feet of Parallel 12-inch Sewer Force Main Justin has a long history of completing projects ahead of ® • Kuna, Idaho Project Managerfor 5,900 schedule and on budget. Justin's pipeline experience Feet of 16-inch Sewer Force Main include projects with complex environmental challenges, • • Kuna, Idaho Project Manager for 16,000 extensive public outreach, very short schedules, all types Feet of Parallel 12-inch Sewer Force Mains of • regulatory permit needs, and tight construction • Kuna, Idaho Project Manager for 19,000 parameters. Among other projects, Justin designed and • Feet of 24-inch Pressure & Gravity Mains managed the completion of approximately 12 miles of ® • Star, ID Project Managerfor 6,000 sewer and water line improvements. Most recently, these • Feet of 12-inch Water Main improvements specifically include 12-inch, 16-inch, and • Kuna, Idaho City Inspector for Danskin 24-inch sewer force mains and a 24-inch gravity sewer • Li Station Construction interceptor line. Justin also has experience with lift ® • College Place, WA Project Manager for stations and pumping facilities. He has provided Lift Station #6 Rehabilitation engineering support in the form of design, construction, • and/or inspection services for seven lift stations in Weiser, • Star, and Kona, Idaho and College Place, Washington. • • • • ROLAND ROCHA, P.E. KELLER • 0 associates PROJECT ENGINEER- COMPUTER MODELING ® EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY • M.S., Civil & Environmental Engineering, 2005, ® Brigham Young University Mr. Rocha graduated from Brigham Young University with a master's degree • REGISTRATION in civil and environmental engineering ® Registered Professional Engineer, Idaho No. 14045 and a minor in business management. • Oregon (pending) Since joining the Keller team, Roland has AFFILIATIONS Engineers Without Borders worked extensively with hydraulic American Water Works Association modeling software systems as well as ® Geographic Information Systems for WORK HISTORY municipal system planning and design. • Keller Associates, Inc. Mr. Rocha has developed water, • 2005 - Present wastewater, and Stormwater computer • BYU Environmental Laboratory models for cities, utility districts, and 2004- 2005 private development in the states of • Idaho, Wyoming, Oregon, and ® PROJECT EXPERIENCE Washington. ® • Ontario Wastewater Master Plan Roland has worked closely with ® • Moscow Sanitary Sewer System Master Plan R • Slayton Stormwater Master Plan municipalities and their Potasel systems • • Slayton Stormwater Model and Impact Analysis to satisfy state regulations, certify fire • Slayton TMDL Implementation Plan flow capacities, optimize operations, plan • Slayton Water Model and System Planning for future needs, and design various • • Aumsville TMDL Implementation Plan components to meet existing needs. • • Ontario TMDL Implementation Plan • Ontario Water Master Plan Roland has also assisted communities in • • Star Sewer & Water District Water FPS • Star Sewer & Water District WW FPS meeting increasingly complex Stormwater • • Star Sewer & Water District Biosolids Facilities management issues through the • Bellevue Wastewater FPS development of Storm Water Master • Stateline Retail Development Stormwater Plans and TMDL Implementation Plans in • • Kuna Water Master Plan accordance with state and federal • • Kuna Wastewater Lift Station requirements. • Nampa 3 MG Reservoir & Transmission Lines • • Nampa Water Model ® • Nampa Water System Master Planning Roland has worked with numerous • Tamarack Water Master Plan wastewater managers from cities and • • Burley Well, Booster Station & Reservoir utility districts to establish master plans ® • Burley Water Model and System Planning and develop interim solutions to resolve • Chubbuck Water Model permitting, collection, capacity, and • Mountain Home Water Facilities Planning Study • • Mountain Home WW Facilities Planning Study disposal issues. • • Soda Springs Water Facilities Planning Studv ® • Rigby Water Facilities Planning Study • American Falls Water Model • Rexburg Water Model and System Planning ® • Blackfoot Water Model and Water Master Plan • Jamestown Water Facilities Planning Study ® • Moscow Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan ® • Fish Haven Wastewater Mode • Silverion Water FPS & GIS Support • • s 0 PETER OLSEN, P.E. KELLER ® associates PROJECT ENGINEER ® EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE SUMMARY B.S. & M.S., Civil & Environmental Peter is a brilliant engineer having graduated with an Engineering, Brigham Young University M.S. in civil engineering with an emphasis in water REGISTRATION and wastewater. At Keller Associates Peter has Oregon No. 83510, Civil assisted in many water / wastewater projects and Washington No. 46680, Civil taken an active role in the construction administration Idaho No. 13824, Civil of several projects that include water and wastewater site improvements for municipal, residential and WORK HISTORY commercial sites. His work also includes projects . Keller Associates,. Inc. such as water and pressure irrigation transmission • 2006 - Present pipeline improvements, steel reservoir construction, well drilling, site improvements, sewer collection • 2005 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers system and lift station design, computer modeling A 2004 - Suburban Water Systems planning, and environmental. WATER/WASTEWATER PROJECT EXPERIENCE Peter has assisted in the quality control and project cost estimating for several wastewater pipeline and ® • City of Ontario, Oregon Water and facility projects. Wastewater Facilities Planning Study Update Currently, Peter is providing construction ® • City of Bellevue Membrane Bioreactor management and inspection of the City of Bellevue Wastewater Treatment Plant, Membrane Bioreactor Wastewater Treatment. His Construction Administration and ® On-site Observation responsibilities include on-site inspection, submittal • Stayton, Oregon WWTP Environmental reviews, holding weekly construction progress ® Information DocumentsforWater and meetings with the contractor and city, processing Wastewater improvements change orders, RFI's, payment requests, quarterly • Stateline (Pullman, WA) Commercial Site reports to the funding agency, monthly reports to the and Utility Design, Planning and city, and day-to-day coordination with the contractor. • Cost Estimating North Lake Recreational Sewer and Water District West Side Collection Peter's attention to detail makes him an invaluable System and Lift Stations asset. His professional experience is tailored towards ® • City of Greenleaf Wastewater Facilities working with the individual while satisfying the ® Planning Study Addendum client's needs and requirements in a manner that • City of Kuna Tomorrow Irrigation Pond, shows both efficiency and quality of work. ® Pump Station, Main Lines, and ® System interties • City of Nampa Water Reservoir and Peter is the office manager for our Salem, Oregon ® Transmission Pipeline Environmental. branch. In this capacity he is intimately involved in Information Document & Design all work completed in Western Oregon. ® • Silverion, Oregon Water Master Plan e • ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIE ® RAYMOND J. BARTLETT, Principal ® Raymond Bartlett formed Economic & Financial Analysis in 1991 for the purpose of providing financial consulting services to public agencies and private corporations throughout Oregon and ® Washington. For municipalities, EFA specializes in financial planning, utility rate analysis, and analysis of income, property, and excise taxes. We identify and recommend funding sources for capital improvements, and assist in obtaining financing for major capital improvements. Education e 1985 M.S., Economics, Portland State University 1970 B.A., Economics, minor Mathematics, Eastern Washington State University S Professional Experience ® 1991-present Owner, Economic & Financial Analysis ® 1993 Project Manager, ASCG, Inc. 1987 Adjunct Professor of Economics, International Affairs, Lewis & Clark College ® 1985 Adjunct Professor of Economics, Economics Department, Lewis & Clark College ® 1984 Adjunct Professor of Economics, Evergreen State College • 1981-91 Economist and Project Manager, ECO Northwest 1978-81 Urban Economist, Metropolitan Service District (Metro), Portland, OR 1974-78 Project Director, Pacific Northwest Regional Commission, Vancouver, WA s e Relevant Experience ® Ray has prepared financial plans, performed utility rates analyses and updates, and developed SDCs for municipalities in Oregon, Idaho and Washington, including the Oregon cities of Stayton, Hood River, ® Lebanon, Fairview, Lincoln City and Canby. These analyses are often part of a larger master planning ® and/or capital improvements project for which Ray obtains interim and permanent financing. Ray has ® developed a solid relationship with many clients who continue to retain him for a broad range of financial consulting services. ® 1409 Franklin Street, Suite 201 ® Vancouver, WA 98660 ® T/360.823.1700 • F/360.695.1804 • • • •a~ • TERRASURVEY, INC. Firm Overview • • TerraSurvey, Inc. is a full-service Professional Land Surveying firm located in the City of Ashland, Oregon engaged • in land surveying projects both large and small throughout Southern Oregon and Northern California. It was established in 1999 by two licensed Professional Land Surveyors, Richard F. Alspach and Stuart M. Osmus; who • together possessed more than 40 years of land surveying and mapping experience in both the public and private ® sectors. In 2007 Richard and Stuart were joined by Fred A. Frantz another licensed professional land surveyor with over 25 years experience in the land surveying profession. ® Our projects generally consist of boundary surveys, land divisions, topographic surveys and construction staking for local property owners, architectural firms and engineering firms. Our general work load can be expressed as • follows: 40% boundary and topographic surveys, 30% construction staking, and 30% land planning and land . divisions. TerraSurvey, Inc. regularly provides surveying services for local school districts, cities and other government agencies. Among our larger completed projects are: topography and construction staking for the expansion of the Ashland Community Hospital; boundary, topography, and construction surveying for fiber optic regeneration sites in Southern Oregon and Northern California; and mapping for the design and construction of the Main Feeder & Raw Waterline Upgrade Project for the City Of Ashland. • TerraSurvey, Inc. maintains comprehensive general liability insurance, professional liability insurance and are members of the Professional Land Surveyors of Oregon. Brief Resume of Company Principals: ® Stuart M. Osmus, PLS Stuart has more than 32 years experience in surveying and engineering and is a licensed surveyor in Oregon and • Colorado. His work experience includes seven years working for the State of Arizona as a construction inspector and as a survey crew chief and eight years working for La Plata County, Colorado, as the Assistant Engineering supervisor where he was responsible for topographic surveys, right of way surveys, construction surveying for ® county roads and bridges, and contract administration. Stuart also worked for Marquess & Associates, Inc., a consulting engineering firm in Medford, Oregon for ten years. He was in charge of all surveying for the company during that time. Stuart has been licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in Colorado since 1987 and in Oregon since 1990. Richard F. Alspach, PLS 0 Richard has more than 30 years of experience in surveying and is a licensed surveyor in both California and Oregon. Prior to moving to Ashland, he owned and operated a surveying business in Marin County, California for 10 years. His work experience includes 4 years as an engineering technician with the City of Emeryville, ® California. While in private practice he performed work for the cities of Sausalito, Belvedere, and Fairfax in ® Marin County, California. ® Richard received a Bachelor of Science degree from Ohio University in 1974. He became licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in California in 1989 and in Oregon in 1994. ® Fred A. Frantz, PLS Fred has more that 26 years experience in surveying and has been a licensed surveyor in Oregon since 2005. His ® work experience includes ten years of cadastral and boundary surveys in California, as crew chief and senior ® survey technician for private firms in the Rogue Valley he has had direct responsibility for directing and completing large scale projects for Bear Creek Corporation (Call Center), Southern Oregon Shakespeare ® Company (New Theater) and Southern Oregon University (Library Expansion), including multi-phase subdivision, ® topographic, construction, boundary and map preparation work. Fred has been a company principle since ® January of 2007. WM. LEA FISHER • CONSULTING ENGINEER S 4420 GLEN CANNON DR. FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 707-8642721 -FAX 7078647187 ® Education ® M. S., Sanitary Engineering ® San Jose State University ® Metallurgical Engineer ® Colorado School of Mines Professional Registration • Civil Engineer in California California State Water Resources Control Board, Certified Grade IV Wastewater t♦ Treatment Plant Operator ® Experience ® 1987- Private Consultant - Wastewater facilities evaluation, planning, ® design, and operation. • 1972-1987 Vice-President and Discipline Director - Provided technical ® direction for all wastewater treatment projects and served as project manager for numerous wastewater projects, James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc., Walnut Creek, e California. ® 1968-1972 Project Engineer - Planning and design of industrial and domestic wastewater treatment systems. Pilot plant and full-scale field operation and evaluation of unit processes, John Carollo • Engineers, Lafayette, California. 1967-1968 Engineer - Conceptual design of treatment plants for wastewater ® reuse and treatment facilities for limestone scrubbing blowdown, Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California. ® 1965-1967 Senior Assistant Sanitary Engineer - Air quality studies, field ® sampling, emissions inventory preparation, interpretation and correlation of field data, preparation of abatement report, United ® States Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio. ® Representative Projects ® Worked with Super Store industries on a pilot plant followed by a full scale ® system using a biologically aerated filter to treat waste from their dairy ® Page 1 WM. LEA FISHER CONSULTING ENGINEER 4420 GLEN CANNON DR. FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 ® 707-5642721 • FAX 707-8647297 0 process master plan to expand the ADWF capacity to 240 mgd and PWWF S capacity to 700 mgd. Also conducted assessment of seasonal plant loadings to ® determine the need to immediately upgrade plant capacity. ® Process and final design of expansion of Roseville treatment plant to provide 18 ® mgd nitrification using fine bubble aeration and Title 22 treatment. Anoxic denitrification process was provided to maintain effluent alkalinity and reduce energy use, Roseville, California. Sludge handling includes belt thickeners, 0 anaerobic digestion, filter press dewatering and cogeneration. e Conducted capacity and operational analysis of the Reno-Sparks Joint Water Pollution Control Plant which includes Phostrip phosphorus removal, nitrifying biofilters, and fluidized bed denitrification, Sparks, Nevada. O Planned and designed a brewery waste treatment and solids handling facility S expansion for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., Baldwinsville, New York. Conducted a ® capacity evaluation of existing treatment facilities prior to purchase of existing brewery by Anheuser-Busch. Conducted analysis of pretreatment alternatives for residuals recovery flows at the Fairfield, CA brewery. ® Evaluated physical-chemical treatment plant for Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, California. Conducted pilot plant study of trickling filter-solids ® contact process and subsequently designed new biological treatment facilities incorporating this process. Performed full-scale evaluations of treatment processes and plant operations for: ® odor problems resulting from food processing waste treatment; sludge bulking in a corn products waste treatment plant; treatment of potato waste; nutrient ® addition for brewery waste treatment. Evaluated impact of brewery waste on the operation of the activated sludge 0 system for Ft. Collins, CO. Analyzed alternatives and developed process design for expansion of the Drake WWTP to provide increased capacity for nitrification ® and brewery waste treatment using biofilters and conversion of the mechanical o aeration system to fine bubble aeration. ® Conducted capacity and operational analysis of existing facilities which included ® ABF biological treatment and Porteous sludge processing. Subsequently ® developed the process design for new biological treatment and solids handling facilities to treat combined potato and domestic waste, Twin Falls, Idaho. ® Evaluated biofilter process operation to determine effective capacity for treating ® seasonal food processing wastes for Watsonville, California. Subsequently conducted trickling filter-solids contact process pilot plant study and developed ® process design for secondary treatment process expansion. Evaluated TFSC ® process operation and performance following completion of expansion project to ® Page 3 of 6 Pages ® WM. LEA FISHER CONSULTING ENGINEER ® 4420 GLEN CANNON DR. FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 ® 707-8642721 -FAX 70748642287 ® Developed the biological process design for a new MBR treatment process for Ironhouse Sanitary District and assisted with the design for the 4.3 mgd plant. ® Served as process consultant for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant Phosphorus Removal Study which evaluated various alternatives for reducing phosphorus. As part of the study, a full-scale testing program was conducted to assess the effectiveness of e chemical and biological phosphorus removal processes. 0 Evaluated alternative discharge options for treating candy waste, including anaerobic pretreatment, which resulted in a unique project for treating the candy waste by direct injection into an anaerobic sludge digester to save cost for Herman Goelitz Candy Co., Fairfield, CA. Also involved in numerous other industrial waste treatment projects including meat packing, herb processing, e tomato processing, dairy products, chocolate manufacturing, commercial baking, sausage making, latex manufacturing, brewing, sugar production, and onion ® processing. ® Performed capacity evaluation of over 60 wastewater treatment plants including ® Auckland, New Zealand, Merrimack, New Hampshire, Niagara Falls, New York, ® Scotts Valley, California, Southeast Regional Reclamation Authority, California, ® Kenner Louisiana, Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Colorado Springs, Colorado. These evaluations have involved a wide range of treatment processes including aerated and unaerated pond systems, RBC, trickling filter, ABF and TFSC fixed film 0 processes, and all types of activated sludge systems including nitrification and ® biological nutrient removal processes. 0 Member of Expert Review Panel for the $550 million regional secondary • treatment additions at the Annacis Island (130 mgd) and Lulu Island (18 mgd) WWTP, Vancouver, Canada. . Member of 15 Value Engineering (VE) Studies and served as VE Team Coordinator on the studies for the City of San Francisco Southwest WWTP and the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission WWTP (Eugene- Springfield, OR). Served as Task Force Member for the preparation of the Water Environment ® Federation's MOP 20, Sludge Dewatering. ® Served as author for the preparation of the Water Environment Federation's ® Manual of Practice on the Operation and Maintenance of Fixed Film Processes, ® MOP OM-10. 0 Evaluated treatment plants in connection with the preparation of the U.S. ® Environmental Protection Agency's Process Control Manual for Aerobic ® Biological Wastewater Treatment Facilities. ® Page 5 of 6 Pages • ® DAVID JENKINS Professor Emeritus e - Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering • University of California at Berkeley O Education ® B.Sc. Applied Biochemistry, Birmingham University, England 1957 • Ph.D. Public Health (Sanitary) Engineering, Kings College, University of Durham, England, 1960 O Honors and Awards ® Foyle Prize, Birmingham University, 1957 ® Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Harvard University, 1969-70 Harrison Prescott Eddy Medal, Water Environment Federation (WEF), 1974, 1985 and 1988 Engineering-Science Award, Assoc. of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors (AEESP), 1978, 1982 ® Distinguished Service Award, WEF, 1981 Fellow, Chartered Institution of Water Engineering and Management, England, 1982 e Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship, 1982 Thomas Camp Medal, WEF, 1988 Honorary Life Member, WEF, 1988 • Simon Freeze Award and Lectureship, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1988 Distinguished Lecturer in Environmental Engineering, AEESP, 1988 S George Bradley Gasgoine Medal, WEF, 1989 and 2001 ® National Research Council Fellow, Chinese Taiwan, 1992 Samuel H. Jenkins Medal, International Water Association (IWA), 1992 O Honorary Life Member, I WA, 1994 Gordon Maskew Fair Medal, WEF, 1995 ® Outstanding Publication Award, AEESP, 1995 ` Berkeley Citation, 1999 W AEESP, CH2M Hill Award, 1999 ® National Academy of Engineering, 2001-.present Presidential Award, California Water Environment Association (CWEA), 2001 Arden-Lockett Award, IWA, 2001 ® AEESPIWEF Distinguished Lecturer, 2007 • Professional Service • Member, Joint Editorial Board, I Sth and 16th editions of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 1974 - 1981 Member, California Water Resources Control Board, Operator Certification and Advisory Board, • 1980-1997 Director, AEESP, 1972-1975 and 1983-1986 ® Member, Governing Board, IWA, 1990-1992 Member, Program Committee, IWA, 1987-1992 ®Chair, Specialist Group on Nutrient Removal, IWA, 1980 -1990 ® Member, Research Council, Water Environment Research Foundation, 1989 -1991, 2009- present Director, Board of Control, WEF, 1989-1992 ® Chair, USA National Committee to IWA, 1990-1992 Member, Editorial Board, Water Environment Research, 1992-1997 ® Member, Editorial Board, Water Quality 21, 1997- present ® Research and Professional Practice ® Wastewater and Solids Treatment Processes and Operation Wastewater Treatment Microbiology ® Mechanism and Control of Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming Chemical and Biological Removal of Nitrogen and Phosphorus from Wastewater ® Water and Wastewater Chemistry by Foam Separation Report 65-5, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, CA. 17. Jenkins, D, Selleck, R.E. and Pearson, E.A. (1965) "A Comprehensive Study of San Francisco Bay, P ® Physical, Chemical and Microbiological Sampling and Analytical Methods Report 65-7, Sanit. Eng. Res. ® Lab., Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, CA. ® 18. Jenkins, D. (1965) "A Study of the Sources of Phosphorus in the Sewage oJ' a Small Residential ® Community". Report 65-6, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. CA. ® 19. Eckhoff, D.W. and Jenkins, D. (1966) "Transient Loading Effects in the Activated Sludge Process". Adv. ® Water PoOn Res, 2, 309. ® 20. Jenkins, D., (1967) "Analysis of Estuarine Waters". J. Water Polln Control Fedn, 39, 159. ® 21. Medsker, L.L., Jenkins, D. and Thomas, J.F. (1967) "Odorous Compounds in Natural Waters: Some Sulfur Compounds Associated with Blue-Green Algae". Environ. SO. Techool., 1, 731. . 22. Jenkins, D and Menar, A.B. (1967) "The Fate of Phosphorus in Sewage Treatment Processes P Primary Sedimentation and Activated Sludge Report 67-6, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, CA. 23. Jenkins, D. (1967) "Sanitary Engineering Education in the Graduate Program Engineering at the Central University of Venezuela with Special Reference to Sanitary Chemistry and Research" Pan Amer. Hlth Org., ® Washington, DC. 24. Eckhoff, D.W. and Jenkins, D. (1967) "Activated Sludge Systems - Kinetics of the Steady and Transient ® States Report 67-12, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, CA. ® 25. Jenkins, D. (1968) "The Differentiation, Analysis and Preservation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Forms in ® Natural Waters". Adv. Chem., 73, 265. ® 26. Menar, A.B. and Jenkins, D. (1968) "The Fate of Phosphorus in Sewage Treatment Processes, 11: Mechanism of Enhanced Phosphate Removal by Activated Sludge". Report 68-6, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, CA. 27. Medsker, L. L., Jenkins, D. and Thomas, J.F. (1968) "Odorous Compounds in Natural Waters: An Earthy- Smelling Compound Associated with Blue-Green Algae and Actinomycetes'". Environ. Sci. Technol., 2, 461. • 28. Menar, A.B. and Jenkins, D. (1968) "The Pathways of Phosphorus in Biological Treatment Processes". Proc. Fourth Intl ConE on Water Po0n Res., Pergamon Press, 677. • 29. Jenkins, D. and Garrison, W.E. (1968) "Control of Activated Sludge by Mean Cell Residence Time". J. Water Polln Control Fedn, 40, 1905. ® 30. Middlebrooks, E.J., Neal, R.C., Phillips, J.L. and Jenkins, D. (1969) Kinetics and Effluent Quality in ® Extended Aeration". Intl Assoc.Water Polln Res, 3, 39. ® 31. Medsker, L.L., Thomas, J.F., Jenkins, D. and Koch, C. (1969) "Odorous Compounds in Natural Waters: 2- • exo-hydroxy-2-methylbomane, the Major Odorous Compound Produced by Several Actinomycetes". Environ. SeL Technol, 3,476. .32. Parker, D.S., Jenkins, D. and Kaufman, W.J. (1970) "Characteristics of Biological Flocs in Turbulent Regimes". Rept No. 70-5, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ, of Calif., Berkeley, CA. 33. Ferguson, J.F., Jenkins, D. and Stumm, W. (1970) "Calcium Phosphate Precipitation in Wastewaters". ® Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng., Water 1970, 279. 0 0 ' 52. Spear, R.C., Popendorf, W.J., Lefingwell, J.T. and Jenkins, D, (1975) "Parathion Residues on Citrus 0 Foliage Related.to the Re-entry Concept of Worker Protection". J. Agric. Food Chem., 23, 808. ' 53. Gujer, W. and Jenkins, D. (1975) "The Contact Stabilization Activated Sludge Process Oxygen Utilization, Sludge Production and Efficiency". Water Res., 9,553. 0 54. Lefingwell, J.T., Spear, R.C. and Jenkins, D, (1975) "The Persistence of Ethion and Zolone Residues on 0 Grape Foliage in the Central Valley of California". Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol., 3, 40. ® 55. Klein, S.A., Jenkins, D. and Cooper, R.C. (1975) "The Toxicity to Fish of the Jet Fuel JP-9, its Components RJ4, RJ-5 and Methylcyclohexane". Proc. 6'"Ann. ConL Environ. Toxicol., USAF, Wright- Patterson AFB, Dayton, OH, 143. 0 56. Gujer, W. and Jenkins, D. (1975) "A Nitrification Model for the Contact Stabilization Activated Sludge 0 Process". Water Res., 9, 561. 0 57. Case, C.W., Wilde, P. and Jenkins, D. (1975) "Trace Metal Analyses, by Anodic Stripping Voltammetry in 0 Marine Environments, Part ll : Adaptations for Field Measurements". Committee on Ocean Eng. Rept COE 1-11, Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, CA. • 58. Lee, F-M. and Jenkins, D. (1975) "The Optimization of Chemical Precipitation - Flocculation of Municipal Wastewater". Rept 75-10, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, CA. • 59. Spear, R.C., Milby, T.H. and Jenkins, D. (1975) "Pesticide Residues and Field Workers". Environ. Sci. 0 Technol., 9,308. 0 60. Cooper, R.C., Jenkins, D. and Young, L.Y. (1976) "Aquatic Microbiology Manual". Assoc. Environ. Eng. Professors.,Urbana, IL. ® 61. Orhon, D., Weddle, C.E. and Jenkins, D. (1976) "A New look at the Activated Sludge Process". Prog. 0 Water Technol., 7. 143. 0 62. Jenkins, D. (1976) "A Tribute to P.H. McGauhey". Bull. Calif. Water Pollut. Control Assoc.,13. 0 63. Jenkins, D. (1976) "Bioassay Methods and Tests for Biodegradability". Proc. Intl Seminar on ® Considerations for a Detergent Policy, Sao Paulo, Brasil. • 64. Klein, S.A., Jenkins, D. and Cooper, R.C. (1976) "Environmental Quality Research:Fish and Aufirvchs 0 Bioassay". Second Ann. Rept to U.S. Air Force Medical Res. and Dev. Command Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. • 65. Jenkins, D. (1977) "The Analysis of Nitrogen Forms in Waters and Wastewaters". Prog. Water Technol., • 8, 31. 0 66. Lee,. F-M. and Jenkins, D. (1977) "Investigations into the Lime Precipitation of Raw Municipal 0 Wastewater". Prog. Water Technol., 9, 495. 67. Klein, S.A., Jenkins, D. and Cooper, R.C. (1977) "Fish Toxicity of Jet Fuels - I. The Toxicity of the ® Synthetic Fuel JP-9 and its Components". Water Res., 11, 1059. 0 68. Klein, S.A., Jenkins. D, and Cooper, R.C. (1977) "Environmental Quality Research Fish And Aufxuchs 0 Bioassay". Third Ann. Rept to U.S. Air Force Medical Res. and Dev. Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. 0 69. Orhon, D. and Jenkins, D. (1977) "Upgrading Overloaded Activated Sludge Plants into Contact ® Stabilization". Prog. Water Technol., 8, 239. w 41 m ® 86. Koopman, B.L., Lau, A.D., Strom, P.F. and Jenkins, D. (1980) "Simple Device for Level Control with Subsurface Drawoff in Chemostats". Biotechnol. Bioeng., 2, 2433. ® 87. Klein, S.A. and Jenkins, D. (1981) "The Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of the Water Soluble ® Fraction of Jet Fuels". Water Res., 15, 7. ® 89. Richard, M.G., Jenkins, D., Hao, O.J. and Shimizu, G. (1981) "The Isolation and Characterization of Filamentous Microorganisms from Activated Sludge Bulking". Rept 81-2, Sanit. Eng. Res. Lab., Univ, of Calif., Berkeley, CA. ® 90. Bracewell, L., Cameron, W. and Jenkins, D. (1981) "Treatment of Phenol-Formaldehyde Resin Wastewater using Rotating Biological Contactors" Proc. First Natl Conf on Rotating Biological Contactors. • 91. Lee, S-E., Koopman, B.L. and Jenkins, D. (1981) "The Interrelated Effects of Organic Loading and . Reactor Configuration on Activated Sludge Bulking". USEPA Rept 600/S 2-081. 92. Jenkins, D. and Selleck, R.E. (1981) "Graduate Curriculum Development Emphasizing • Wastewater Treatment Plant Management and Operation". Rept to NTOTC, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. ® 93. Jenkins, D., Young, J.C. and McDermott, G.N. (1981) "Alterations in the BOD Procedure for the 15th Edition of Standard Methods". J. Water Pollut. Control Fedn, 53, 1253. ® 94. Bode, H., Koopman, B.L. and Jenkins, D. (1982) "Der Einsatz von Chlor zur Bekampfung von Blahschlamm". Abwasser, 29, 9. ® 95. Richard, M.G., Williams. T., Jenkins, D. and Unz, R.F. (1982) "Filamentous Bacteria in Bulking Activated Sludge". Abstract Q25, Amer. Soc. Microbial. Ann. Mtg, 214. ® 96. Lee, S-E., Koopman, B.L., Jenkins. D. and Lewis, R.F. (1982) "The Effect of Aeration Basin Configuration on Activated Sludge Bulking at Low Organic Loading". Water Sci. Technol., 14, 40. e 97. Jenkins, D., Neethling, 1.B., Bode, H. and Richard, M.G. (1982) "The Use of Chlorination for Control of ® Activated Sludge Bulking". Chapter I l in: Bulking of Activated Sludge: Preventative and Remedial • Methods, Edited by Chambers, B. and Tomlinson, E.l., Ellis Horwood, Ltd, Chichester, UK. • 98. van Niekerk, A.M., Jenkins, D., Shao, Y-J., Parker, D.S. and Lee, S-E. (1983) "Relationship between Bench Scale and Prototype Activated Sludge Systems". In: Scale-up of Water and Wastewater Treatment • Process, Edited by Schmidtke, N.W. and Smith, D.W., Butterworths, London, UK. A 99. Jenkins, D., Snoeyink, V.L., Ferguson, J.F. and Leckie, J.O. (1983) "Quimica del Agua: Manual de Laboratorio Editorial Limusa, Mexico City, Mexico, DF. ® 100. Richard, M.G., Shimizu, G., Williams, T., Unz, R.F. and Jenkins, D. (1983) "Isolation and Characterization of Thiothrix and Thiothrix-like Filamentous Organisms from Activated Sludge Bulking". Abstract Q60, Amer. Soc. Microbial. Ann. Mtg, 270. 101. Koopman, B.L., Lau, A.D., Strom, P.F. and Jenkins, D. (1983) "Liquid Level Control by ® Subsurface Draw Off'. U.S. Patent 4370418, January 15, 1983. ® 102. Jenkins, D., Wheeler, M.L. and Richard, M.G. (1983) "The Use of a Selector for Bulking ® Control at the Hamilton, OH, U.S.A. Water Pollution Control Facility". Proc. Int Workshop ® on Res. In Full-Scale Treatment Plants". Int. Assoc. Water Pollut. Res., Vienna, Austria. 0 0 o 0 1 18. Jenkins, D. (1986) "The Use of Microbial Physiology in the Resolution of Activated Sludge Bulking Problems". Proc. 2nd Joint Tech. Seminar, Japan Sew. Wks Assoc./Water Pollut. Control Fedn, Hiroshima City, Japan. ® 119. James, B.B., James, 1.Z., van Niekerk, A.M. and Jenkins, D. (1986) "Donnees sur un Procede d'Epuration ® des Eaux sur un Reseau de Microcomputer". Proc. Intl Colloq. Water and Data Processing, Paris, France. 0 120. Selleck, R.E., Jenkins, D., Bontoux, L. and Soong, D. (1986) "Permeation of Plastic Pipes:. Literature Review and Research Needy". Calif. State Dept 111th Services., Sacramento, CA. e 121. Thompson, C. and Jenkins, D. (1986) "Review of Water Industry Plastic Pipe Practices". Amer. Water Wks Res. Foundn, Denver, CO. 122. Park, J-K., Holsen, T.M., Warnock, T. and Jenkins, D. (1986) "Fate of Alkali Metal . Polycarboxylate in Waste Treatment". Rept 86-6, Sanit. Eng. Environ. Hlth Res. Lab., Univ. w of Calif., Berkeley, CA. 123. Richard, M.G., Hao, O.J. and Jenkins, D. (1985) "Growth Kinetics of Sphaerotilus Species and their Significance in Activated Sludge Bulking". J. Water Pollut. Control Fedn, 57, 68. 124. Jenkins, D., Richard, M.G. and Neethling, J.B. (1984) "Causes and Control of Activated Sludge Bulking". o Water Pollut. Control, 83,455. ® 125. Jenkins, D. and Richard, M.G. (1985) "The Causes and Control of Activated Sludge Bulking". TAPPI J., 68, 73. ® 126. Shimizu, G., Richard, M.G. and Jenkins, D. (1985) "The Growth Physiology of the Filamentous Organism ® Type 021N and Its Significance to Activated Sludge Bulking". J. Water Pollut. Control Fedn, 57, 1152. 127. Neethling, J.B., Johnson, K.M. and Jenkins, D. (1985) "Chemistry, Microbiology and Modeling of Chlorination for Activated Sludge Bulking Control". J. Water Pollut, Control Fedn, 57, 882. 128. Needling, 1.B., Johnson, K.M. and Jenkins, D. (1985) "Using ATP to Determine the Chlorine Resistance of Filamentous Bacteria Associated with Activated Sludge Bulking". J. Water Pollut. Control Fedn, 57, 0 890. • 129. van Niekerk, A.M., Jenkins, D. and Richard, M.G. (1987) "Application of Batch Kinetic Data to the Sizing 0 of Continuous Flow Activated Sludge Reactors". Water Sci. Technol., 19, 505. ® 130. van Niekerk, A.M., Richard, M.G. and Jenkins, D. (19870 "The Competitive Growth of Zooglea ramigera ® and Type 021N in Activated Sludge and Pure Culture - A Model for Low F/M Bulking". J. Water Pollut., ® Control Fedn, 59, 262. ® 131. van Niekerk, A.M., Kawahigashi, J., Reichlin, D., Malea, A. and Jenkins, D. (1987) "Foaming in Anaerobic Digesters: A Survey and Laboratory Investigation". J. Water Pollut. Control Fedn, 59, 249. 132. Neethling, J.B., Chung, Y-C, and Jenkins, D. (1987) "Activated Sludge Chlorine Reactions during Bulking ® Control". J. Environ. Eng. Div. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., 113, 136. ® 133. Selleck, R.E., Park, J-K., Holsen, T.M., Bontoux, L. and Jenkins, D. (1987) "Pipe Permeation Study:Phase ® ll Report Rept 87-1, Sanit. Eng. Environ. 111th Res. Lab., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, CA. ® 134. Ilo, C-F, and Jenkins, D. (1988) "The Effect of Surfactants on Nocardia Foaming in Activated Sludge". ® Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority, Victorville, CA. 0 6 s 0 152. Jenkins,D. (1990) "Winning the Gascoigne Medal". CallE Water Polln Control Assoc. Bun., 26, 52. ® 153. Blackall, L.L., Tandoi, V. and Jenkins, D. (1991) "Continuous Culture Studies with Nocardia amarae from Activated Sludge and Their Implications for Nocardia Foaming Control". Res. J J. Water Polln . Control Fedn, 63,44. ® 154. Gates, D.D., Luedecke, C.A., Hermanowicz, S.W. and Jenkins, D. (1990) "Mechanisms of Chemical Phosphorus Removal in Activated Sludge with Aluminum and Iron". Prot. 1990 Specialty ConE Amer. S Soc. Civil Eng. Environ. Eng. Div., Arlington, VA, 322. 155. Jenkins, D. (1990) "A Study of the Microbiology of the Activated Sludge in the Wastewater Treatment Plants ofRome". Rept to ACEA, Rome, Italy. 156. Jenkins, D. and Pagina, K.R. (1990) "Selenium Removal from Exxon Benicia Refinery S Wastewater Final Rept to Exxon Corp., Benicia, CA. . 157. Holsen, T.M., Park, 1-K., Selleck, R.E. and Jenkins, D. (1991) "Contamination of Potable Water by • Permeation of Plastic Pipes". J. Amer. Water Wks Assoc., 83, 53. • 158. Jenkins, D. and Tandoi, V. (1991) "The Applied Microbiology of Enhanced Biological Phosphate Removal-Accomplishments and Needs". Water Res„ 25, 1471. 159. Park, 1-K, Bontoux, L, Holsen, T.M., Jenkins, D. and Selleck, R.E. (1991) "Permeation of ® Polybutylene Pipe and Gasket Material by Organic Chemicals". J. Amer. Water Wks Assoc., 83, 71. O 160. Holsen, T.M., Park, J-K, Bontoux, L., Jenkins, D. and Selleck, R.E. (1991) "The Effect of Soils on the Permeation of Plastic Pipes by Organic Chemicals". J. Amer. Water Wks Assoc., 83, 85. 161. Commins, M.L., Roth, J.C. and Jenkins, D. (1991) "The Causes and Control of Hydrogen Sulfide e Emissions in the Leslie Salt Company Alviso Evaporation Ponds". Second Year Report to Leslie Salt Co 162. Shan, Y-J., Crosse, J., Keller, E. and Jenkins, D. (1992) "High Rate Air Activated Sludge Operation at the . City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant". Water Sci. Technol., 25, 75. 163. Dunstan, B. and Jenkins, D. (1992) "Selector Pilot Plant Study". Rept to A.E. Stayley Manufacturing Co., A Lafayette, IN. . 164. Jenkins, D., van Niekerk, A.M. and Pitt, P.A. (1992) "Process Design Reportfor the Common Treatment Plant of Jerusalem Rept to TAHAL Engineers, Tel Aviv, Israel. • 165. Jenkins, D. (1992) "Towards a Comprehensive Model of Activated Sludge Bulking and Foaming". Water Sci. Technol., 25,215. 166. Loiacono, J., Pitt, P.A., Jenkins, D. and Cockburn, T.S. (1992) "The Influence of Operating ® Experience on Wastewater Treatment Plant Design in San Francisco, California, USA". Water Set. S Technol., 25, 257. 167 Mamais, D. and Jenkins, D. (1992) "The Effects of MCRT and Temperature on Enhanced Biological ® Phosphorus Removal". Water Sci. Technol., 25, 955. ® 168. Cha, D.K., Jenkins, D., Lewis, W.P. and Kido, W.H. (1992) "Process Control Factors Influencing Nocardia Populations in Activated Sludge". Water Environ. Res., 64, 37. A 169. Shao, Y-J., Wada, F., Abkian, V., Crosse, J., Horenstein, B. and Jenkins, D. (1992) "Effects of MCRT on Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal". Water Sci. Technol., 26, 967. • 0 0 • 0 • 187. Jenkins, D, (1995) "From Art to Science and Back Again". Water Environ. Res., 67, 259. 188. Pagilla, K.R. and Jenkins, D. (1996) "Control of Activated Sludge Foaming by Classifying Selectors". Water Enlron. Res., 68,235. • 189. Friedlander, P. and Jenkins, D. (1996) "Investigation of Low Effluent pH at Selma-Kingsburg-Fowler Wastewater Treatment Facility". Rept to Whitley Borchert Associates, Walnut Creek, CA. • 190. Shao,Y-J., Lin, A., Crosse, J. and Jenkins, D. (1996) "Advanced Primary Treatment: an Alternative to • Biological Secondary Treatment: the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant Experience". Water • Set. Technol., 34, 223. • 191. Boe, R., Givens, S., Daigger, G.T. and Jenkins, D. (1996) "Use of Selectors for Bulking Control in an Industrial Wastewater Activated Sludge Treatment Plant". Prot. WEFTEC, Water Environ. Fedn, Washington, DC. • 192. Gabb, D.M.D., Ekama, G.A., Wentzel, M.C., Casey, T.G., Jenkins, D. and Marais, GvR. (1997) • "Filamentous Organisms in Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Systems. 3. System Configuration and • Operating Conditions to Develop Low F/M Filamentous Bulking Sludges at Laboratory Scale". Water SA, 22,127. 193 Gabb, D.M.D., Ekama, G.A., Wentzel, M.C., Casey, T.G., Jenkins, D. and Marais, GvR. (1997) "Filamentous Organism Bulking in Nutrient Removal Activated Sludge Systems. 5. Experimental S Examination of Aerobic Selectors in Anoxic-Aerobic Systems". Water SA, 22, 139. • 194. Shan, Y-1., Starr, M., Kaporis, K., Kim, H-S. and Jenkins, D. (1997) " Polymer Addition as a Solution to Nocardia Foaming Problems". Water Environ. Res., 69, 25. • 195. Ekster, A. and Jenkins, D. (1997) "Nickel and Copper Removal at the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant". Water Environ. Res., 68, 1172. ® 196. Jenkins, D. (1997) "Fact or Fable. Water Environ. Res., 69. 259. 197. Barran, N.J. and Jenkins, D. (1997) "Literature Review and Analysis of Health Related Issues for Marine ` • Mammals". Rept to East Bay Dischargers Authority/Bay Area Dischargers Assoc., San Leandro, CA. . 198. Jenkins, D. (1998) "The Effect of Reformulation of Household Powder Laundry Detergents on their Contribution to Heavy Metals Levels in Wastewater". Water Envhron. Res., 70, 980 • 199. Pagilla, K.R., Kido, W. and Jenkins, D. (1998) "Nocardia Effects in Waste Activated Sludge".Water Sci. Technol., 38, 49. 200. Jenkins, D. (1998) "From TSS to FISH - The Past, Present and Future of Activated Population Dynamics". ® Proc. Intern] Symp. on Microbial Methods in Environ. Engng, University of Tokyo, Japan. • 201. Jenkins, D. and Pitt, P.A. (1998) "The Effects of Stormwater on Wastewater Treatment". Prot. Seminar S on Wet Weather Problems, Virginia Water Environ. Assoc., Richmond, VA. 202. Sedlak, D.L. and Jenkins, D. (1998) "The Role of Speciation in the Removal of Cationic metals by Wastewater Treatment Systems". Proc. Water Environ. Res. Foundn Workshop on Metals in POTWs, Orlando, FL. e 203. Sedlak, D.L., Bedsworth, W.W. and Jenkins, D. (1998) "The Role of Speciation in the Removal of Nickel and Copper hythe San Jose/Sama Clara Water Pollution Control Plant and its Fate in San Francisco ® Bay". Report 98-0 1, Environ. Eng. Health Sci. Lab., Univ. of Calif, Berkeley, CA. 0 A 0 S 220. Gabb, D.M.D., Jenkins, D., Ghosh, S., Hake, J.M., DeLeon, C. and Williams, D.R. (2001) Pathogen Destmction Process for Biosolids". US Patent, 6,447,683, Bl. Sep. 10, 2002. ® 221. McMahon, K.D., Dcjka, M.A., Pace, N.R., Jenkins, D. and Keasling, J. (2002) "Polyphosphate - Kinase from Activated Sludge Performing Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal" Appl.Environ ® Microbial, 68, 4971. 222. De Leon, C. and Jenkins, D. (2002) "Removal of Fecal Coliforms by Thermophilic Anaerobic ® Digestion Processes". Water Set. Technol., 46,147. S 223. Menberry, C., Bhimani, S., McDonald, S, Jenkins, D., Dennis, G. and Gray, R. (2002) "Bioavailability of Dissolved Organic Nitrogen in WWTP Effluent: A Truckee River Case Study". Caroilo Engineers Report to Reno/ Sparks Wastewater Treatment Plant, Reno, NV. • 224. Gray, D.M.D., Hake, 1.M., DeLeon, C, Jenkins, D. and Ghosh, S. "Influence of Staging, Mean Cell • Residence Time, and Thermophilic Temperature on the Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion Process". 225. Schuler, A.J. and Jenkins, D. (2003) "Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater by • Biomass with Different Phosphorus Contents, Part L Experimental Results and Comparison with Metabolic Models". Water Environ. Res., 75,485. 226. Schuler, A.J. and Jenkins, D. (2003) "Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater by Biomass with Different Phosphorus Contents, Part H: Anaerobic Adenosine Triphosphate Utilization and ® Acetate Uptake Rates". Water Environ. Res., 75, 499. 227. Schuler, A.J. and Jenkins, D. (2003) "Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater by Biomass with Different Phosphorus Contents, Part III: Anaerobic Sources of Reducing Equivalents". Water Environ. Res, 75, 512. ® 228. Narayanan, B., DeLeon, C., Radice, C.J. and Jenkins. D.'(2003) "The Role of Dispersed Nocardioform Filaments in Activated Sludge Foaming". Proc. WEFFEC 2003. 229. Gu, A., Stensel, H.D., Neethling, J., Benisch, M., Stephens, H. and Jenkins, D. (2004) "Evaluation of Metal Cation Stoichiometry with Biological Phosphorus Removal in Full-scale EBPR Processes". Proc. • W EFFEC 2004. 230. Trussell, R.S., Merlo, R.P., Hennanowicz, S.W. and Jenkins, D. (2004) "The Effects of Food to Microorganism (F/M) Ratio on Membrane Fouling in a Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Treating . Municipal Wastewater". Proc. WEFFEC 2004. • 231. Merlo, R.P.,Trussell, R.S., Hermanowicz, S.W. and Jenkins, D. (2004) "Gravity Thickening of Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Sludge". Proc. WEFFEC 2004. e 232. Rabinowitz, B, Daigger, G.T., Jenkins, D. and Neethling, J. B. (2004) "The Effect of High e Temperatures on BNR Process Performance". Proc. WEFI'EC 2004. • 233. Yilmaz, S., Jenkins, D. and Keasling, J.D. (2005) "PHA Synthases from a Mixed Culture Performing Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal"..IWA 4th ASPD Conf, Brisbane, Australia ® 234. Harper, W. F. Jr. and Jenkins, D. (2005) "Application of Anaerobic and Aerobic Activated Sludge to i Phosphorus-Deficient Wastewater Treatment". Water Env. Res., 77, 234. • 235. Jenkins, D and Tchobanoglous, G. T. (2005) "The Effect of Eliminating Phosphates from Automatic Dishwashing Detergents on Wastewater Treatment in Minnesota". Rept to Soap and Detergent Assoc., Washington, DC. s • • d • FRED Nf ILSON NATzURAL- RESOURCES'SP•ECIALIST 34 YEARS EXPERIENCE Range Management t'. W • Watershed Assessments • Watershed R'e'storation • Integiaied Watershed } • Biological Assessments Environmental Assessments t • Conservation Planner . . s". • Wetland Determinations/Delineations P' Riparian Appraisals _wk Riparian Restoration .4*,' Stream Restoration • Plant Matenals Cultural Resources • Threatened and Endangered Species - EducaBon: B.S., Range Ecology, Bngham Young Unn: 1979 ~I','•- NEPA. B S Botany Bngham Young Urnversity 1979 Removal/Fill Permitting . M S , Range Ecology, Texas Christian University, 1985 ~u: • CREP/CRRP Experience Fred Neilson does'Bio-Engineenng and Natural h Resources,Planrnng: He designsprgects related to soil and water Skills, Qualifications, conservation waters hed assessments biological assessments, and Special Training environmental assessments, wetland detenninaporis/delineations, and stream restoration:' Fred worked for 25 yearsfor the 11 Cultural Resources USDA,'Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in the field o6Range Management Plant Materials ;and Bioengineering. Training, Modules 1-7, SHPO •1; He has•since worked'in private industryfor 16 years doing NEPA 2. Certified Conservation, Reports; RemoyaUfill Permitting, Ranch'Plannmg, Wetland 'Planner, through NRCS Detemiinations/ Delineations Biolo9 icai Assessments, Mitigation i'~'-• 3. Threatened'and r Plans, Stream Restoration, and Watershed As'ses'sments. Endangered Species Tratntng USFW_ ! Current Work :Experience (The :following is an 4. Riparian Appraisal and Aquatic ` Habitat Tratnin ' -NRCS 'exempla some of the work that t 6Neilson completed in the 9, lasttnree*years. If more le is required d can 6e'provided) " - 5. Solt, Water, Anirrials, Plants, and Air y ~ ~ • Interrelations, SWAPA UddI:Marsh Wetland-Secondary Treatment of Wastewater - 6. Estimating erosion rates from Sheet Provided bioengineering' foP La' Grande, Oregon's wastewater and Rill, Wind,lEphemeral treatment?plant expansion. Fifty acres of 'wetlands were Gully/Concentrated Flow; Classic constricted using Jegetation'as the final treatment of &.0ty's Gully, Str earn Bank, Irrigation wastewater. This plan included seeding amounts, seed bed Induced (Surface), Irrigation ' preparation, transplant methods, bank erosion control methods, • Induced "(Sprinkler),-Soil Mass and, wildlife habitat. Movement, Road ' Banks/Construction Sites, and Secondary, Treatment of Wastewater - for Burley, Idaho by Overland Flow/Scoured Areas, using wastewater for the ir`riga[ion of the city golf course and NRCS wetland construction. The design included bio-erigineering and erosion control techniques Richard A. Whitley p 330 Wrights Creek Drive, Ashland, Oregon 97520 ® T: (541) 488-0890 0 Richard_Whitley3@msn.com ® Summary of Qualifications ® Professional Profile: Over 30 years of Government Resource Management, Executive Leadership and Public Policy in natural resources and energy. Expertise includes emphasis in building consensus within local communities resulting in improved relationships between government and communities. Developed and implemented first Bureau of Land Management Strategic Plan and Work Force Plan. Principal in strategic planning, and organizational development training and natural resources and energy consultation for the Real Life Training and Consulting Group S Areas of Effectiveness • ➢ Public Policy ➢ Resource Management Leadership ➢ Organizational Development r ➢ Systems Thinking ➢ Intergovernmental Relations Tribal/Community ➢ Strategic Planning & Relationships Management ➢ Facilitation ➢ Networking ➢ Coaching/Mentoring ➢ Problem Solving ➢ Conflict Assessment ➢ Building Coalitions/Communications Selected Career Accomplishments r Leadership • Created partnerships between formerly adversarial interest groups resulting in win-win solutions and sustainable decisions. Developed strategies for BLM and the Department of Interior for implementing collaborative processes and S adaptive management. • • Mapped new strategic direction for BLM in working with stakeholders to improve public policy implementation. . Mapped new direction in Strategic Planning, Work Force Planning, and Succession Planning. • Led Ashland Community Dialogue efforts. • Co-Founder of local forest collaborative. • Co-Founder of local effort to raise investment capital for sustainable businesses. 4 . President of the Board of Santa Fe Mountain Center. One of the Mountain Centers primary programs was working with tribal youth. Resource Management . Extensive experience in all aspects of natural resource and energy management from policy to operations. ® • Wide range of contacts in government and private sector to facilitate and sustain strong networks for support of community and agency joint problem solving. • Identify and access resources, such as funding and human resources for increasing community capacities ® in achieving joint ventures. • Maintain collaborative approach in sustaining and improving ecological, economic, and social systems. Richard A. Whitley T: (541) 488 - 7921 Resume Government Organizations to facilitate implementation of community stewardship and adaptive management. Member of Department of Interior policy development teams, Human Capital 0 Management Team, Adaptive Management Working Group and Intergovernmental Collaboration Working Group. Bureau of Land Management 1997-2003 ® Acting State Director Associate State Director BLM New Mexico Served as Chief Operating Officer for a 700-employee organization with a budget of $80 million, with r revenues to the federal and state treasuries of $150m to $200m. Assured program goals were 0 accomplished. Evaluated program accomplishments to ensure strategic and budget goals were • achieved. Analyzed work requirements and established organization and staffing priorities. Made final state level resource and land use-planning decisions. Worked closely with New Mexico congressional delegation, New Mexico state leadership, Tribal leadership and county government in making resource management decisions. Accomplishments: Consistently met and exceeded Strategic plan and budget goals every year over five years. Lead for BLM state level workload analyses and workforce planning efforts. Led efforts to form three community groups in New Mexico to address planning, endangered species, • transportation, and other issues. These groups are now models for BLM Collaboration with communities. Led efforts to form an improved regional intra-governmental group resulting in enhanced relationships and public service. Lead first Bureau of Land Management Strategic Planning and Work Force Planning efforts. ® Lead BLM negotiator for two historic Indian land claim settlements Bureau of Land Management 1995-1997 Deputy State Director Resources Planning and Minerals Primary responsibility for integrating policy and planning for mineral and resource operations for 13 million acres and a 26 million acres mineral estate for public lands in New Mexico consistent with sustainable development principles. Provided leadership and direction for an interdisciplinary team of . 52 technical and resource specialists to realize BLM New Mexico strategic objectives in ecosystem management and client services Assisted in the development of tribal consultation procedures for BLM and provided related training 0 for agency leadership. a Formulated and negotiated an unprecedented settlement of an environmental lawsuit. Significantly reduced staff size and improved work processes by reengineering many procedures and moving to self directed teams. s OTHER CAREER HISTORY S Chief of International Affairs, Bureau of Land Management ® Congressional Fellow, US House of Representatives. • e s • O e O e e e • • • r • e • e 0 • • e e • e • • • • e e • s e • WINTER 2004 tt F VA ~ { ♦ ~l f 1. d , l ~f C r , Sering quARTERLV ~ i R µyt caytgrn4~F+ltGraw•Mi$1 CamPm,ies , ~~~+~F^~ st: r -"e• t$t7 yr 1 T Y All "~k '4;_ I. _ w {11,.x\'-.R r "+d~yy r. t: , -am 9 S { ~ i # t a r; 2-0 - 4 k i CONSTRUCT0N +ti~ u ® `Engineering Firm of the Year Keller Associates Success followed focus on people O and projects. Keller Associates' emphasis on and didn't want. `S d collaborative teamwork , over "I wanted to create a company S interoffice competition, and focus atmosphere and an organization on clients and projects over profits with the philosophy that empha- has proved itself for eleven years sized teamwork and harmony running. This philosophy is rather than one of interoffice and expressed in Keller's mission state- employee competition and the 0 ment "Quality Engineering Services drive for money and recognition" to Satisfied Clients." said Keller, president and CEO of In 1993 Jim Keller walked away Keller Associates. "We strive to live from his position as vice president by that philosophy in our associa- of a large multi-state engineering tion with clients and internally with firm and moved to Meridian, Idaho our employees. This philosophy, Jim Keller with plans to start his own engi- which is expressed in our mission pany has grown of a staff of 35 neering firm. With years of experi- statement, has resulted in the employees (22 engineers) working ence managing projects for clients expansion of our client base and in water, wastewater, transporta- throughout Idaho, Wyoming and type of projects. Our success at tion, and sitework with offices in Montana, Keller knew what he did Keller Associates depends heavily Meridian and Pocatello, Idaho. The on the strength of company currently provides plan- our relationship ning, design, and construction man- with our excellent agement services for infrastructure clients." and public works projects in Idaho, • Keller Associates Oregon, and Wyoming. In addition places emphasis to growing the company, Keller on not only their himself has served in a number of relationship with positions in the professional com- their clients, but munity including Vice President and T~~ I U also with employ- President of the Consulting ees, sub consul- Engineers of Idaho, a member of PROFESSIONAL tants, suppliers, the Meridian School District Board, and construction and a member of the Meridian UNDERWRITERS contractors. Parks and Recreation Commission. Building a strong Keller said he looks for people PUI Agency of Colorado, Inc. business relation- who love challenges, assume ship required responsibility quickly, seek con- ® Specializing in the placement doing business stant improvement, and look for or professional liability insurance, honestly and ways to work smarter and satisfy ® property and general liability packages, directly. their clients. Getting the right peo- and workers' compensation for Beginning as a pie who are interested in this type Architects and Engineers. firm of 4 employ- of atmosphere fostered at the firm ® ees, providing ser- has been very important to the i Call Carol Reynolds for more information. vices on primarily company's success. Offering these (303) 843-0229 • (877) 215-2098 small municipal types of challenging opportunities, ® 8480 E. Orchard Rd., Swe 4250 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 projects, the com- Keller has been able to attract u Architecture 8 Engineering Quarterly + Winter 2m4 Y N S+ -:'t tie' 4N at I~Yf En ineenng Frrm of the Year ,•.:ff~t-i..-~.F-IFE, :I' " t t 4 - c ~Csome mid and-senior- level engi- ~r,neers away from competitive engi neeringfirms.'' so~ Rod Linja, P.E. joined Keller r- ~ - ' - ~ Associates nine years ago and has t ' now tleveloped'into one of the key j ti- ;company principals vice president, # } and is the team- disciphne'leader for i i ~4r}; Kelley's transportation group: j t - In addition to engineering design iservices, 'the firm has expended s -'~•f x. .,v tx hr: rig s.=~ v ' It 11 lx-~ ~r, into the areas-of planning and cttyo`E'ackfootwastchvaier' Lsupervision °of,major upgrades,to I Treat r e7t Piar !the wastewater treatment plant to ' - 9assisting clients in obtaining project financing including all types of ( `o`at:00: City of 8}hckfeot handle the enlarged cheese plant, a Pe r_c Cosy Ss million; regional large dry cleaning fact ity, a rant andloan .funds This plammmg t beef processing plant and pr`ocessI~-h_' and fnanang-expertise has been a ; This project involved the evalua- , waterifrom two major potato pro-''I key factor iriassisting municipali ; tion of eexisting wastewater cessors'which''were found to 'tier ties in being able to meet the treatment pjant to determine why it responsible for e' discharge viola-' tremendous challenges they face was not meeung its discharge per- tions z ( mit r uirements Keller then coin- I Keller was instrumental in devel- las rapidly growing communities. As , pleted design and•.c6nstrudbori oping four major u.S Congressional j.` . part of this planning antl financing - `expertise, Keller Associates has ; _ k l developed a. unique public partici- i. Jpabon program to help communk ; hies outreach to their citizens, !develop informed consent and sup- ' k, port for their bond elections, and !user rate increases where neces- sary. 3683 West 2270 South SuRe. A, SLC,,,UT 84120 0i~ ; - Keller says that another gauge of it Phoney800-AG2 3370' 0Q4W,1424 the firm's success is the amount of , Fexe 801 886-1464 their repeat client work: "If at least 85 ercent of our l i p Generators=!.Engine`s 10~iE8r5tErvtS workload does not come from Transfer -switches PGntER d repeat clients, we don't feel that ;we have been living up to our mis- Sales l±arts j jsion statement." Service • Rentals i In the year 2004 approximately , i9o percent of Keller's company _ workload will have come from I ` !repeat clients. At. the same time, y !Keller recognizes the importance of i 208-3424541 •800c3546767 ~2 (adding new, clients every, year in g 4499 Market Street t. _ ;order for the company to continue ' Boise, ID 93765 Ito grow and provide leadership i 4e also have facilities InVregon, Washington and Colorado opportunities for their people.. • Architecture & Engineering Quarterly + Witter 20104 ; 13 o _ l } Engineering Firm of thei5Year , l i - t t ' U r .z L lb Appr'oprtatlon grants totaljng s3 7 million a $1 million CIS 9S 6 S pnrte Higrrsay Design EFroject iEconomtc Development grant and a $341 000 Idaho Location 25 ;miles north 0f [vt0sc0w Idaho Community,Development81ock Grant. The upgraded i 56ost:Sl2millf, it reatment plant now'utilizes bio-selector and aeration t lrF ; r , i If 1 ;processes that remove; phosphorus, ammonia, initrates, and 95 percent.of'BOD'and TSS. Prior to dis- l~ charge of effluent tnto'ihe Snake River the processed i 1 ;wast'ewater is disinfected by a self-cleaning ultraviolet ilight facdlty. This project was awarded the Outstanding Civil r ~o'~ ~EngineenngAChlevementAwardfrom'theldahoASCE. , r Ls~ 3 F my As part of the Idaho Transportation Department'si plan to upgrade segments of US 95, Keller Associates i provided transportation desigrise ic-es to the Idaho I Transportatiori,Depaitment on this 6.5 mile rural high • ' € way `design'. located about 25 miles north of Moscow„ k' s Idaho. Keller Associates led, all design efforts, includingg roadway, guirdrail,_drainage, permitting, erosion con-I trol, and construction traffic control. " Climbing lanes were incorporated into the project; over the Marsh Hill Summit in this difficult rnountatn-i Ivortf Ca1e6 Recrea+ianal wer-arid'hater Dtsrr et f ous terrain.- Challengingdesign tasks were associated; Tamarack ResortLLC.ndTam' araek Rsart~Alater with over 1.3 million cubic yards of excavation, with! system cuts and fills as high"as 150 feet and 106 feet,:respec-! [,r}cs hair: TatTtarcCk ' tively. Other interesting project components included; 0 Resort/Payette National Forest g the protection of adjacent creeks, relocation of a his'i a `cosh a 16.4,€n lJlar. - toric structure, enhancement of six acre wetland miti- . e gation areasand extensive right U~l I ofw_ ay. wastewater Collection, Conveyance and Treatment ' l ur "I^a;r " + ;Facilities{tlrli In 2003 Keller Associates was commissioned by the t !North Lake Recreational- Sewer and water' District to i k s, €develop collection systems and wastewater treatment ifacilities for Phases 1 and 2 of the Tamarack'Resort = f Rotated on the west shore of Lake Cascade. ;Combining our available company resources, Keller ;Associates completed the planning, design, contractor t ;selections, funding arrangements, and construction ; Ntiddieton Road Bridges ;supervision of this $7.4 million-project. i 3:QCattan. idoleton rdahb Keller Associates also planned, designed and super- cost, S3 rniit;on vised the construction of a $9.0 million dollar water g 1 ;system for the Tamarack Resort, Phases 1 and 2. This The Middleton $3 million Road Bridges project includ-I % =major water system was designed to,deliver.water to ; ed a new 5-span 430-foot bridge over the Boise, Riveri ' ithree separate residential and commercial pressure { and a.92-foot single span bridge over 15 Mile Creek on ;zones and included four well pumping facilities to Middleton Road in Canyon County, Idaho. Keller, `3r deliver, not only potable water, but also waier'for lrri- Associates provide all design tasks including bridge igatmg an 18-hole golf course and snow making. A 1.25 and roadway approach design, surveys, traffic studies,} ?million gallon buried concrete water storage reservoir ?reports, hydraulics, environmental permitting, and( )was designed and built under the main ski run in order i right-of-way plan development. Construction services!. `to preserve the scenic beauty of the resort. ! including shop drawing review were provided to The Idaho Transportation Department. TD. ■ T. '.~___.,:.d,..:_.~,w.~,...... ,r.»;.......,.... ..,.mw_.~___..._..:_,~m..w_..,,~,.C.._...,w,....._.m...mm.~m:,:...~.w,..,.......~...~m,~.:.,m.......mm...__..__m._s 14 Architecture & Engineering Quarterly + Wlnter 2oo4 I CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Completion of First Reading of Ordinances Adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and Related Ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, and Scheduling Second Reading of Ordinances to a Future Date Meeting Date: June 15, 2010 Primary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar Department: Community Develo ment E-Mail: molnarb(cDashland.or.us Secondary Dept.: None Secondary Contact: Maria Harris Approval: Martha Benn Estimated Time: 1 hour Question: Does the City Council approve the first reading of the remaining ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning map amendments, and request the complete set of six ordinances be scheduled for second reading? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the first reading of the remaining ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive and Zoning Map Amendments, and scheduling second reading of the complete set of six ordinances to a future date. • Ordinance #2: An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill • Ordinance #4: An Ordinance amending AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.0174 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill • Ordinance #5: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres of land within the City Limits from M-1, E-1, and R-1-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Croman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Center, CM-NC Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Exhibit "B: Proposed Croman Mill District Zone (CM) Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Changes Page] of4 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND In the event this agenda item is not addressed at the June 15, 2010 Council meeting, Staff recommends continuing the deliberation on first reading of Ordinances #2,4 and 5 as well as the second reading of Ordinances #1, 3 and 6 to a future meeting to avoid having to re-notice the item. Background: At the June 1, 2010 meeting, the Council approved first reading of three of the six ordinances (Ordinances #1, 3, and 6) implementing the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008), and continued deliberations on first reading of the remaining three ordinances (Ordinances #2, 4 and 5) to the June 15, 2010 meeting. The Council has resolved a series of issues in the deliberations to date as described below. Revision addressing the issues will be incorporated in the ordinances for second reading. • remove properties at 695 and 697 Mistletoe (Kruise/Hamlin) from Croman Mill District Compatible Industrial (CI) zoning overlay - retain existing M-1 Industrial zoning • do not apply the Detail Site Review Zone to the properties at 650, 700 and 750 Mistletoe Road (DiRienzo/Knox) - retain existing M-1 Industrial zoning • identify street connection from plan area to Washington Street, bike/pedestrian connection as secondary option' • modify Phase II of the Central Boulevard to using the exiting Mistletoe Road location with original concept shown as dotted line with notation that property owner consent would be required • Site Review approvals for buildings up to 15,000 square feet in size in the Croman Mill District will be a Type I planning approval • limit changes in land use overlays to Compatible Industrial (CI) or Office Employment (OE) Staff recommends completing the second reading of the complete set of six ordinances on the same date because of state noticing requirements. The City is required to send a notice of adoption of plan and land use regulations amendments along with the amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) no later than five working days after the final decision. If the ordinance, plan and map amendments implementing the Croman Mill District are divided into two groupings, Staff believes the package of amendments may become disjointed and difficult to understand in the review at the state level. Additionally, the notice to DLCD begins the appeal process at the state level. As a result, two separate decisions for the two groupings of ordinances would result in the City's amendments being subject to two rather than one appeal process. Please bring the previous packet materials from the April 6, May 4, May 26 and June 1 meetings to the June 15, 2010 meeting. The record for the planning action is located on the project web site www.ashland.or.us/croman at htip://ashland.or.us/files/2010-05-04 CromanMill PARecord web.pdf. Related City Policies: Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Chapter II: Introductions and Definitions, Chapter III: Citizen Participation, Chapter fV: Environmental Resources, Chapter VII: The Economy, Chapter VIII: Parks, Open Spaces and Aesthetics, Chapter X: Transportation, Chapter XI: Energy, Air and Water Conservation, Chapter XII: Urbanization Chapter 18.108 Procedures Page 2 of 4 Ell CITY OF ASHLAND Council Options: The Council may approve, approve with modifications, or deny the first reading of ordinances adopting Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill and related ordinance, Ashland Comprehensive Plan, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Potential Motions: 1. Move to approve first reading of the following ordinances. Additionally, move to request that the complete set of six ordinances be brought back for second reading on June 29, 2010. • Ordinance #2: An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Exhibit A: Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill • Ordinance #4: An ordinance amending AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, 18.106.030, 18.108.0174 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill • Ordinance #5: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres of land within the City Limits from M-1, E-1, and R-1-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Croman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Center, CM-NC Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Exhibit B: Proposed Croman Mill District Zone (CM) Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Changes 2. Move to approve first reading with proposed amendments as noted after each ordinance. Additionally, move to request that the complete set of six ordinances be brought back for second reading on June 29, 2010. (see list of ordinances above) Attachments: The following ordinances are unchanged, and were included in the April 6, 2010 packet. 1. Ordinance #2: An Ordinance amending the Ashland Land Use Ordinance creating a new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill Exhibit A: Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill 2. Ordinance #4: An ordinance amending AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090, 18.104.020, Page 3 of 4 Pr, CITY OF ASHLAND 18.106.030, 18.108.0174 of the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance for consistency with new Chapter 18.53 Croman Mill 3. Ordinance 45: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to change the land use map designation of approximately 99 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single-Family Residential and Rural Residential (Jackson County) to the newly created Croman Mill Plan Designation; amending the City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps to rezone approximately 78 acres of land within the City Limits from M-1, E-1, and R-1-5 Districts to the newly created Croman Mill Zone; and imposing five Croman Mill Overlay Districts on the Croman mill zoned properties, including Compatible Industrial, CM-CI, Office Employment, CM-OE, Mixed Use, CM-MU, Open Space, CM-OS, Neighborhood Center, CM-NC Exhibit A: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Exhibit B: Proposed Croman Mill District Zone (CM) Exhibit C: Proposed Zoning Map Changes Page 4 of 4 Iff ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.53 CROMAN MILL WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23, 2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. Page 1 of 2 SECTION 2. A new Chapter 18.53 of the Ashland Municipal Code creating a new zoning district [CROMAN MILL] set forth in full codified form on the attached Exhibit A and made a part hereof by this reference, is hereby added to the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "bode", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) 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 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this - day of 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 CHAPTER 18.53 CM CROMAN MILL SECTIONS: 18.53.010 Purpose 18.53.020 General Requirements 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards 18.53.040 Use Regulations 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay 18.53.070 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance SECTION 18.53.010 Purpose The purpose of this section is to implement the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan. The district is designed to provide an environment suitable for employment, recreation and living. The CM zoning district is a blueprint for promoting family-wage jobs, professional office and manufacturing commerce, neighborhood-oriented businesses, mixed-use projects and community services in a manner that enhances property values by providing transportation options and preserving significant open spaces while minimizing the impact on natural resources through site and building design. SECTION 18.53.020 General Requirements A. Conformance with the Croman Mill District Plan Land uses and development, including buildings, parking areas, streets, bicycle and pedestrian access ways, multi-use paths and open spaces shall be located in accordance with those shown on the Croman Mill District Plan maps adopted by ordinance dumber (Month Year . B. Major and minor amendments to the Croman Mill District Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Major and Minor Amendments. a. Major amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the land use overlay. (2) A modification to the street layout plan that necessitates a street or other transportation facility to be eliminated. (3) A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions. b. Minor amendments are those which result in any of the following: (1) A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted more than 25 feet in any direction, as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by the Croman Mill District Plan. (2) Changes related to street trees, street furniture, fencing or signage. Ch. 19.53 Draft 4.6. 10 Pagel (3) A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (4) A modification of a driveway access location in a manner inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (5) A site layout, landscaping or building design which is inconsistent with the Croman Mill District Standards. (6) A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 18.53.060, but not including height and residential density. 2. Major Amendment Type II - Approval Procedure A major amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type II Procedure. A major amendment may be approved upon the hearing authority finding that: a. The proposed modification maintains the connectivity established by the district plan, or the proposed modification is necessary to adjust to physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, wetlands, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries; b. The proposed modification furthers the design, circulation and access concepts advocated by the district plan; and c. The proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose and objectives of the district plan. 3. Minor Amendment Type I Procedure A minor amendment to the Croman Mill District Plan is subject to an administrative decision under the Type I Procedure. Minor amendments shall not be subject to the Administrative Variance from Site Design and Use Standards of Chapter 18.72. A minor amendment may be approved upon finding that granting the approval will result in a development design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose and objectives of the district plan. SECTION 18.53.030 Croman Mill District Plan Development Standards A. Ashland Local Street Standards The design and construction of streets and public improvements shall be in accordance with Ashland's Local Street Standards, except as otherwise permitted for the following facilities within the Croman Mill District: a. Central Boulevard b. Tolman Creek Road Realignment c. Local Streets d. Protected Bikeway and Pedestrian Path e. Central Bike Path f. Multi-use Path g.Accessways Ch. M53 Draf14.6.10 Paget B. Site Design and Use Standards - Croman Mill District New development shall be designed and constructed consistent with Chapter 18.72 Site Design Review, and Section VIII - Croman Mill District Standards of the Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 18.53.040 Use Regulations A. Generally Uses are permitted, special permitted or conditional uses in the Croman Mill District as listed in the Land Use Table. -Cronnan Mill District Land Use NC MU OE Cl OS Residential residential uses e e temporary employee housing - Gommercial stores, restaurants, and shops less than 3,000 sci t., excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair limited stores, restaurants and shops e e e professional, financial, business and medical offices e administrative or research and development establishments child or day care centers e e e fitness, recreational sports, gym or athletic club ancillary employee services (e.g. cafeteria, fitness area) 9 e, e kennels (indoor) and veterinary clinics P 111 motion picture, television or radio broadcasting studios ( _ temporary uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Industrial manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging including manufacturing of food products limited manufacturing affiliated with a retail use e rail freight loading dock facilities rail or rapid transit passenger facilities warehouse and similar storage facilities ( e e limited outdoor storage e e e wireless communication facilities attached to an existing ❑ 13 structure pursuant to 18.72.180 freestanding wireless communication support structures ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ pursuant to 18.72.180 Ch. 18.53 Draft 4.6.10 Page 3 u I e d oval • • public service or community buildings with office or space used ❑ ❑ ❑ directly by public public service or community buildings without office or space ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ used directly by public public and quasi-public utility facilities enclosed in a building C G P. 0 e Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance facility and yard O private school, college, trade school, technical school or similar ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ school electrical substations ❑ ❑ Permitted Use Special Permitted Use ❑ Conditional Use NC = Neighborhood Center Cl = Compatible Industrial MU = Mixed Use • OS = Open space OE = Office/Employment B. Special Permitted Uses The following uses and their accessory uses are special permitted uses as listed in the Land Use Table and are subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. 1. Residential Uses. a. The ground floor area shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. b. Residential densities shall not exceed the densities in section 18.53.060. For the purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. c. Residential uses shall execute a hold harmless covenant and agreement stating they shall not protest impacts from commercial and industrial uses within the district. 2. Temporary Employee Housing. Residential units for use by persons employed within the facility and their families when the following standards are met. a. Employee Housing densities shall not exceed two units per acre. For the purposes of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. b. The employee housing shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special permitted use on the property. c. Units shall be restricted by covenant to be occupied by persons employed by a business operating on the property. 3. Limited Stores, Restaurants and Shops. Stores, restaurants and shops, excluding fuel sales, automobile sales and repair, when the following standards are met. a. The maximum floor area dedicated for use as stores, restaurants and shops in a building or a group of associated buildings located on the Ch. 18.53 Draft 4,6.10 Page4 same parcel is a cumulative 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. b. In the MU Mixed Use overlay, the floor area shall be limited to retail uses in conjunction with a permitted use. 4. Professional, Financial, Business and Medical Offices in Cl Overlay. Developments in the Cl Compatible Industrial overlay may include ancillary office uses to support the operations of a permitted use on-site provided the maximum floor area dedicated for office uses shall not exceed 50 percent of the ground floor area. 5. Child or Day Care Facilities. Child or day care facilities when the following standards are met. a. Primary program activities are integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to use as a day care facility shall be 1,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. 6. Ancillary Employee Services. Developments may include ancillary employee services such as cafeterias, fitness areas, or other supportive services generally intended to support the needs of employees when the following standards are met. a. The use is integrated into the interior of the building. b. The maximum floor area dedicated to an ancillary employee service use is a cumulative 2,500 square feet, or ten percent (10%) of the ground floor area, whichever is less. c. The ancillary employee services shall be in conjunction with a permitted or special permitted use on the property. 7. Kennels. a. Kennels shall be located at least 200 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. b All animals shall be boarded within a building at all times. c. No noise or odor shall emanate outside the walls of the building used as a kennel. Cl. A disposal management plan shall be provided demonstrating all animal waste will be disposed of in a sanitary manner. 8. Manufacture, Assembly, Fabrication and Packaging in OE Overlay. Developments in the OE Office Employment overlay may include ancillary manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging uses to support the operations of a permitted or special permitted use on-site when the following standards are met. a. The maximum floor area dedicated to manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging shall be 50 percent of the ground floor area. b. No outside space shall be used for the manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and packaging processes. c. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication packaging operations requiring an air contaminant discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) shall be prohibited. Ch. 18.53 Draft 4.6.10 Pages 9. Limited Manufacturing Affiliated with a Retail Use. Manufacturing, assembly, fabrication or packaging contiguous to and associated with a retail space, provided the maximum floor area dedicated to manufacturing occupies 1,000 sq.ft., or ten percent (10%) of ground floor area, whichever is less. 0 10. Warehouse and Similar Storage Facilities. a. The maximum floor area dedicated for use as warehouse or similar storage uses in the OE and MU overlays shall be 50 percent of the ground floor area. b. Warehouse and storage facilities shall be provided only in conjunction with, and for the exclusive use by, a permitted or special permitted use on the property. c. Self-service mini-warehouses are prohibited. d. No outside space shall be used for storage, unless approved as a limited outdoor storage area. 11. Limited Outdoor Storage. Limited outdoor storage associated with a permitted or special permitted use when the following standards are met. a. The maximum area dedicated to outdoor storage shall be 1,000 sq. ft. in the OE and MU overlay; and 2,500 sq. ft. in the Cl overlay, or 50 percent of the ground floor area of the building housing the associated permitted or special permitted use, whichever is less. b. The outdoor storage shall be located behind or on the side of buildings, and shall be located so the outdoor storage is the least visible from the street that is reasonable given the layout of the site. c. The outdoor storage shall be screened from view by placement of a solid wood or metal fence, or a masonry wall from five to eight feet in height. All outdoor storage materials shall be contained within the refuse area. d. The associated permitted use shall obtain a minimum of 50% of the employment density targets for the Croman Mill District. 12. Public and Quasi-Public Utility Service Buildings. a. Facilities and structures that are accessory to a public park in the OS overlay, including but not limited to maintenance equipment storage, enclosed picnic facilities, and restrooms. b. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building relating to receiving and transmitting antennas and communication towers are subject to the applicable provisions of 18.72.180. c. Public and Quasi-Public utility service building shall demonstrate: i. The need for the facility, present or future; and how the facility fits into the utility's Master Plan. ii. The facility utilizes the minimum area required for the present and anticipated expansion. iii. Compatibility of the facility with existing surrounding uses and uses allowed by the plan designation. Ch. 18.53 Draft 4,6. 10 Page 6 13. Oregon Department of Transportation Maintenance Facility and Storage Yard For the Oregon Department of Transportation Ashland maintenance facility and storage yard located on property within the NC overlay the following shall apply. a. Buildings may be enlarged or replaced subject to Basic Site Review Standards. b. Are exempt from the Dimensional Regulations per 18.53.050 with the exception of minimum side and rear yard setbacks abutting a residential district and maximum height. c. Are exempt from the requirements of Section VIII Croman Mill District Standards of the Ashland Site Design and Use Standards. SECTION 18.53.050 Dimensional Regulations The lot and building design requirements are established in each zoning district regulation in the Dimensional Standards Table. Standards OE C1 • ~Lgtj$ize magammonamn minimum, square feet fF,r'o'nta a ~Tdl minimum, feet 50 100 100 livot}Widtb minimum, feet 50 100 100 ®Y, dfAtiuttin [aJStieet AXWWWAMN minimum yard, feet 2 2 2 2/10 maximum yard abutting a street, fee 10 10 10 10 fSiile$Y,a~df¢buttiii'(a~Re5identialtDisfdct minimum, feet 10 10 tReadtY,a~d fAbuttin°°f`a't Resl AentIal3Distrieff feet 10 10 minimum per story, ~trandsca in'gGovera e minimum percentage coverage 15 15 15 10 Weal&t minimum number of stories 2 2 2 2 maximum height without bonus, stories/feet 2.5/35 3/40 3/40 3/40 1/20 maximum height with bonus, stories/feet 4/50 4/50 5/75 5/75 ONINIM11111IM- Sola°ffAcces"s. 1 The solar access setback in Chapter 18.70 Solar Access does not apply in the Croman Mill District. Minimum yard in Cl Overlay abutting an Active Edge Street is two feet, minimum yard in Cl Overlay not abutting an Active Edge Street is ten feet 2 Maximum yard requirements shall not apply to entry features such as alcoves, and to hardscape areas for pedestrian activities such as plazas or outside eating areas. Second story shall be a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area. ° Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limited specified by the district. a Solar energy systems and parapets may be erected up to five feet above the calculated building height, and no greater than five feet above the height limited specified by the district. Ch. 18.53. Draft 4,6.18 Page 7 tFronta`.'apBuild,Outtori9'ActiveEd e1StFeet MOAK t. fil minimum, percent 65 65 65 65 fFloor AteRatio: (FAR)?_WW~ r.', . ° minimum 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.50 Ra`sicleptial~Derisi eda ~ad9 a 8~ maximum units per acre without bonus 30 15 maximum units per acre with bonus 60 30 SECTION 18.53.060 Croman Mill District Open Space Overlay All projects containing land identified on the Croman Mill District Land Use Overlays Map as open space shall dedicate those areas as commonly-owned or public open space. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the required dedication of those lands within the Croman Mill district for open space and conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning designation. SECTION 18.53.070 Applicability of Other Sections of the Land Use Ordinance Development located within the Croman Mill (CM) zoning district shall be required to meet all other applicable sections of the Land Use Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter. 6 Plazas and pedestrian areas shall count as floor area for the purposes of meeting the minimum Floor Area Ration (FAR). ' Density of the development shall not exceed the density established by this standard. Density shall be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. Fractional portions shall not apply toward the total density. Ch. 18.53 Draft 4.6.10 Paye8 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC 18.08.190, 18.08.341, 18.08.342, 18.08.343, 18.08.845, 18.12.020, 18.61.042, 18.68.020, 18.68.050, 18.72.030, 18.72.110, 18.72.120, 18.72.140, 18.72.180, 18.84.100, 18.88.070, 18.88.080, 18.92.020, 18.96.090,18.104.020,18-106.030,18.108.0174 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE AND LAND USE ORDINANCE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH NEW CHAPTER 18.53 CROMAN MILL WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23, 2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Page 1 of 17 SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. AMC Chapter 18.08.190 [Definitions - District] is hereby amended to add the a new subsection to read as follows: 18.08.190 District. A zoning district. A. "R" district indicates any residential zoning district. B. "C" district indicates any commercial zoning district. C. "M" district indicates any industrial zoning district. D. "A" district indicates any airport overlay district. E. "CM" District indicates any Croman Mill Plan zoning district SECTION 3. AMC Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to add the following new definitions in alphabetical order, with subsequent sections renumbered and re- lettered to read as follows: 18.08.341 LEED@ Accredited Professional. A person who has earned a credential as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED@) Accredited Professional from the U.S. Green Building Council, or Green Building Certification Institute, in accordance with their standards and requirements. 18.08.342 LEED® certification. A building registered with the U.S. Green Building Council which has satisfied all prerequisites and has earned a minimum number of points outlined in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED@) Rating System under which it is registered. Levels of certification include Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum. 18.08.343 LEED® Green Building Rating System" or "LEED® Rating System. The most recently published version of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED@) Green Building Rating Systems by the U.S. Green Building Council, or the version to be superseded for one year after the publication of a new applicable LEED@ Rating System version. 18.08.845 Water Budget The amount of water a landscape needs taking into account the inputs and outputs of water to and from the root zone. Inputs, such as precipitation, are subtracted from outputs, such as evapotranspiration, to calculate the water needs of the landscape. Page 2 of 17 SECTION 4. AMC Chapter 18.12.020 [Classification of Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.12.020 Classification of Districts. For the purpose of this Title, the City is divided into zoning districts designated as follows: Zoning Districts and Overlays Map Symbol and Abbreviated Designation Airport Overlay A Residential - Rural RR Residential - Single Family R-1 Residential - Low Density Multiple Family R-2 Residential - High Density Multiple Family R-3 Commercial C-1 Commercial - Downtown C-1-D Employment E-1 Industrial M-1 Woodland Residential WR SOU - Southern Oregon University- sou Performance Standards P - Overlay P Detail Site Review Zone DSR Health Care Services Zone HC North Mountain Neighborhood NM Croman Mill District Zone CM Residential Overlay R Freeway Sign Overlay F SECTION 5. AMC Section 18.61.042. D. [Tree Preservation and Protection -Approval and Permit Required - Tree Removal Permit] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.61 Tree Preservation and Protection 18.61.042 Approval and Permit Required D. Tree Removal Permit: 1. Tree Removal- Permits are required for the following activities: a. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on any private lands zoned C-I, E-I, M-I, CM,or HC. b. Removal of trees greater than 6" DBH on multi-family residentially zoned lots (R-2, R-3, and R-1-3.5) not occupied solely by a single family detached dwelling. c. Removal of significant trees on vacant property zoned for residential purposes including but not limited to R-1, RR, WR, and NM zones. Page 3 of 17 d. Removal of significant trees on lands zoned SOU, on lands under the control of the Ashland School District, or on lands under the control of the City of Ashland. 2. Applications for Tree Removal -Permits shall be reviewed and approved by the Staff Advisor pursuant to AMC 18.61.080 (Approval Criteria) and 18.108.040 (Type Procedure). If the tree removal is part of another planning action involving development activities, the tree removal application, if timely filed, shall be processed concurrently with the other planning action. SECTION 6. AMC Section 18.68.020 [General Regulations - Vision Clearance Areas] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68 General Regulations 18.68.020 Vision Clearance Area. Vision clearance areas shall be provided with the following distances establishing the size of the vision clearance area: A. In any R district, the minimum distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet or, at intersections including an alley, ten (10) feet. B. In all other districts except the C-land-E-1, and CM, the minimum distance shall be fifteen (15) feet or, at intersections, including an alley, ten (10) feet. When the angle of intersection between streets, other than an alley, is less than thirty (30) degrees, the distance shall be twenty-five (25) feet. C. The vision clearance area shall contain no plantings, fences, walls, structures, or temporary or permanent obstructions exceeding two and one-half (2 '/2) feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, except that street trees exceeding this height may be located in this area, provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight (8) feet above the grade. D. The vision clearance standards established by this section are not subject to the Variance section of this title. (Ord. 2605, S1, 1990) SECTION 7. AMC Section 18.68.050 [General Regulations - Arterial Street Setback Requirements] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.68 General Regulations 18.68.050 Arterial Street Setback Requirements. To permit or afford better light, air and vision on more heavily traveled streets and on streets of substandard width, to protect arterial streets, and to permit the eventual widening of hereinafter named streets, every yard abutting a street, or portion thereof, shall be measured from the special base line setbacks listed below instead of the lot line separating the lot from the street. Page 4 of 17 Street Setback East Main Street, between City Limits and Lithia Way 35 feet Ashland . Street (Highway 66) between 65 feet City limits and Siskiyou Boulevard Also, front yards for properties abutting all arterial streets shall be no less than twenty (20) feet, with the exception of the CM and C-1-D districts, and properties abutting Lithia Way in the C-1 district. SECTION 8. AMC Section 18.72.030 [Site Design and Use Standards - Applicability] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 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, CIVI, and M-1 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 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(8). 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 Page 5 of 17 (e.g. shared parking). d. Any exterior change to a structure individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places that requires a building permit, or includes the installation of Public Art. e. Mechanical equipment not otherwise exempt from site design review per Section 18.72.030(B). SECTION 9. AMC Section 18.72.110 [Site Design and Use Standards -Landscaping Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72 Site Design and Use Standards 18.72.110 Landscaping Standards. A. Area Required. The following areas shall be required to be landscaped in the following zones: R-1 45% of total developed lot area R-2 356X6 of total developed lot area R 3 25% of total developed lot area C-1 - 15% of total developed lot area C-1-D - None, except parking areas and service stations shall meet the landscaping and screening standards in Section II.D. of the Site Design and Use Standards. E-1 15% of total developed lot area M-1 10% of total developed lot area i CM-NC - 15% of total developed lot area CM-OE 15% of total developed lot area j CM-CI 15% of total developed lot area cm-mu 10% of total developed lot area SECTION 10. AMC Section 18.72.120 [Site Design and Use Standards -Controlled Access] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.120 Controlled access. A. Any partitioning or subdivision of property located in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1 CM, or M- 1 zone shall meet the controlled access standards set forth in section (8) below. If applicable, cross access easements shall be required so that access to all properties created by the land division can be made from one or more points. B. Street and driveway access points in an R-2, R-3, C-1, E-1, or M-1 zone shall be limited to the following: Page 6 of 17 1% Distance between driveways. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 75 feet; on residential streets - 50 feet. 2. Distance from intersections. On arterial streets - 100 feet; on collector streets - 50 feet; on residential streets - 35 feet. C. Street and driveway access points in the CM zone are subject to the requirements of the of Croman Mill District Standards. C D. Access Requirements for Multi-family Developments. 1. All multi-family developments which will have automobile trip generation in excess of 250 vehicle trips per day shall provide at least two driveway access points to the development. Trip generation shall be determined by the methods established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2. Creating an obstructed street, as defined in 18.88.020.G, is prohibited. SECTION 11. AMC Section 18.72.140 [Site Design and Use Standards - Light and Glare Performance Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.140 Light and Glare Performance Standards. There shall be no direct illumination of any residential zone from a lighting standard in any other residential lot, C-1, E-1 or M-1, SO, CM or HC lot. SECTION 12. AMC Section 18.72.180 D.[Site Design and Use Standards- Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.72.180 Development Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities D. All installation of wireless communication systems shall be subject to the requirements of this section in addition to all applicable Site Design and Use Standards and are subject to the following approval process: Zoning Designations Attached to Alternative Freestanding Existing Structures Support Structures Structures Residential Zones CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 CUP CUP Prohibited C-1-D (Downtown) CUP Prohibited Prohibited C-1 - Freeway overlay Site Review Site Review CUP E-1 Site Review Site Review CUP Page 7 of 17 M-1 Site Review Site Review CUP SOU Site Review CUP CUP NM (North Mountain) Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Historic District CUP Prohibited Prohibited A-1 (Airport Overlay) CUP CUP CUP HC (Health Care) CUP Prohibited Prohibited CM-NC CUP CUP CUP CM-OE Site Review Site Review CUP CM-CI Site Review Site Review CUP CM-MU CUP CUP CUP CM-OS Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited SECTION 13. AMC Section 18.84.100 [Manufactured Housing Developments - Special Conditions] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.84 Manufactured Housing Developments 18.84.100 Special Conditions. A. For the mitigation of adverse impacts, the City may impose conditions. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Require view-obscuring shrubbery, walls or fences. 2. Require retention of specified trees, rocks, water ponds or courses, or other natural features. B. No manufactured housing developments may be located within the Ashland Historic District. C. No manufactured housing developments may be located, relocated, or increased in size or number of units, within any zones designated for commercial use C-1, C- 1-D, E-1, CM or M-1. SECTION 14. AMC Section 18.88.070 [Performance Standards Options - Setbacks] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.070 Setbacks. A. Front yard setbacks shall follow the requirements of the underlying district. B. Setbacks along the perimeter of the development shall have the same setbacks as required in the parent zone. C. Maximum heights shall be the same as required in the parent zone. D. One-half of the building height at the wall closest to the adjacent building shall be required as the minimum width between buildings, except within non-residential zoning districts including C-1, C-1-13, E-1, CM, and M-1. Page 8 of 17 E. Solar Access Setback. Solar access shall. be provided as required in Section X68 18.70 except within the C-1-D and CM zoning districts. F. Any single-family structure not shown on the plan must meet the setback requirements established in the building envelope on the outline plan. SECTION 15. AMC Section 18.88.080 [Performance Standards Options - P-Overlay Zone] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.88 Performance Standards Options 18.88.080 P-Overlay Zone. A. The purpose of the P-overlay zone is to distinguish between those areas which have been largely developed under the subdivision code, and those areas which, due to the undeveloped nature of the property, topography, vegetation, or natural hazards, are more suitable for development under Performance Standards. B. All developments, other than partitionings, which involve the division of land, or development of individual living units, in the P-overlay areas, shall be processed under this Chapter of the Land Use Ordinance. The minimum number of dwelling units for a Performance Standards Subdivision within residential zoning districts shall be three. C. In a P-overlay area, the granting of the application shall be considered an outright permitted use, subject to review by the Commission for compliance with the standards set forth in this Ordinance and the guidelines adopted by the Council. D. If a parcel is not in a P-overlay area, then development under this Chapter may only be approved if one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The parcel is larger than two acres and is greater than 200 feet in average width; or 2. That development under this Chapter is necessary to protect the environment and the neighborhood from degradation which would occur from development to the maximum density allowed under subdivision standards, or would be equal in its aesthetic and environmental impact; or 3. The property is zoned R-2, or R-3, or CM. SECTION 16. AMC Section 18.92.020.13. [Off-Street Parking - Automobile Parking Spaces Required- Commercial Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required B. Commercial Uses. For commercial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. Auto, boat or trailer sales, retail nurseries and other open-space uses. Page 9 of 17 One space per 1,000 square feet of the first 10,000 square feet of gross land area; plus one space per 5,000 square feet for the excess over 10,000 square feet of gross land area; and one per two employees. 2. Bowling Alleys. Three spaces per alley, plus additional spaces for auxiliary activities set forth in this section. 3. Business, general retail, person services. General - one space for 350 square feet of gross floor area. Furniture and appliances - one space per 750 square feet of gross floor area. 4. Chapels and mortuaries. One space per four fixed seats in the main chapel. 5. Offices. Medical and dental - one space per 350 square feet of gross floor area. General - one space per-450 500 square feet of gross floor area. 6. Restaurants, bars, ice cream parlors and similar uses. One space per four seats or one space per 100 sq. ft. of gross leasable floor area, whichever is less. 7. Skating rinks. One space per 350 sq. ft. of gross building area. 8. Theaters, auditoriums, stadiums, -gymnasiums and similar uses. One space per four seats. SECTION 17. AMC Section 18.92.020.C. [Off-Street Parking - Automobile Parking Spaces Required- Industrial Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.92 Off-Street Parking 18.92.020 Automobile Parking Spaces Required C. Industrial Uses. For industrial uses the following automobile parking spaces are required. 1. One employees on the IaFges• shift or for each 700 urea, ..r.~..° two two employees shift or for square feet Of gFOSS flOOF area, whiGheVeF is f Plus one spaGe per Gempany vehicle. Industrial and Warehousing uses. One space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or for each two employees, whichever is greater less, plus one space per company vehicle. 3:2. Public utilities (gas, water, telephone, etc.), not including business offices. One space per two employees on the largest shift, plus one space per company vehicle; a minimum of two spaces is required. SECTION 18. AMC Section 18.96.090. [Sign Regulations - Commercial , Industrial and Employment Districts] is hereby amended to read as follows:. 18.96 Sign Regulations Page 10 of 17 18.96.090 Commercial, Industrial and Employment Districts. Signs in commercial, industrial.-and-employment, and Croman Mill 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. 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. 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) 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: i. A pedestrian entrance designed to be attractive and functional, and open to the public during all business hours Page 11 of 17 ii. The pedestrian entrance shall be accessed from a walkway connected to a public sidewalk. c. Protection. Except for marquee or awning signs, a projecting sign may project a maximum of 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. Hei ht. 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. Projection. 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. Page 12 of 17 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 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. 4. 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 shall be attached to a portable sign such as but not limited to balloons, banners, merchandise, and Page 13 of 17 electrical devices. Portable business signs shall be removed at the daily close of business. These signs are prohibited while the business is closed. 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 18.96.090(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 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. SECTION 19. AMC Section 18.104.020. [Conditional Use Permits- Definitions] is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.104 Conditional Use Permits 18.104.20 Definitions. Page 14 of 17 The following are definitions for use in this chapter. A. "Impact Area" - That area which is immediately surrounding a use, and which may be impacted by it. All land which is within the applicable notice area for a use is included in the impact area. In addition, any lot beyond the notice area, if the hearing authority finds that it may be materially affected by the proposed use, is also included in the impact area. B. "Target Use" - The basic permitted use in the zone, as defined below. 1. W (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural ResideRtial) zones; 1. WR (Woodland Residential) and RR (Rural Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 2. R-1 (Single Family Residential) zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by Section 18.88.040. 3. R-2 and R-3 Zones: Residential use complying with all ordinance requirements, developed at the density permitted by the zone. 4. C-1. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 5. C-1 D. The general retail commercial uses listed in 18.32.020 B., developed at an intensity of 1.00 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 6. E-1. The general office uses listed in 18.40.020 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 7. M-1. The general light industrial uses listed in 18.40.020 E., complying with all ordinance requirements. 8. SO. Educational uses at the college level, complying with all ordinance requirements. 9. CM-CI. The general light industrial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .35 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. 10. CM-OE. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. 11.CM-MU. The general office uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area, complying with all ordinance requirements. 12. CM-NC. The retail commercial uses listed in 18.53.050 A., developed at an intensity of .50 gross floor to area ratio, complying with all ordinance requirements. SECTION 20. AMC Section 18.106.030.H. [Annexations - Approval Standards] is hereby amended to read as follows: Page 15 of 17 18.106 Annexations 18.106.030 Approval Standards H. One or more of the following standards are met: 1. The proposed area for annexation is to be residentially zoned, and there is less than a five-year supply of vacant and redevelopable land in the proposed land use classification within the current city limits. "Redevelopable land" means land zoned for residential use on which development has already occurred but on which, due to present or expected market forces, there exists the likelihood that existing development will be converted to more intensive residential uses during the planning period. The five-year supply shall be determined from vacant and redevelopable land inventories and by the methodology for land need projections from the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan; or 2. The proposed lot or lots will be zoned CIVI, E-1 or C-1 under the Comprehensive Plan, and that the applicant will obtain Site Review approval for an outright permitted use, or special permitted use concurrent with the annexation request; or 3. A current or probable public health hazard exists due to lack of full City sanitary sewer or water services; or 4. Existing development in the proposed annexation has inadequate water or sanitary sewer service; or the service will become inadequate within one year; or 5. The area proposed for annexation has existing City of Ashland water or sanitary sewer service extended, connected, and in use, and a signed "consent to annexation" agreement has been filed and accepted by the City of Ashland; or 6. The lot or lots proposed for annexation are an "island" completely surrounded by lands within the city limits. SECTION 21. AMC Section 18.108.017.C. [Procedures - Applications] is hereby added to read as follows: 18.108 Procedures 18.108.017 Applications C. Priority planning action processing for LEED® certified buildings. 1. New buildings and existing buildings whose repair, alteration or rehabilitation costs exceed fifty percent of their replacement costs, that will be pursuing certification under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System (LEED®) of the United States Green Building Council shall received top priority in the processing of planning actions. Page 16 of 17 2. Applicants wishing to receive priority planning action processing shall provide the following documentation with the application demonstrating the completion of the following steps in the working towards LEED® certification. a. Hiring and retaining a LEED®Accredited Professional as part of the protect team throughout design and construction of the rp olect. b. The LEEDO checklist indicating the credits that will be pursued. SECTION 22.* 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 23. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 22-23) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 17 of 17 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 99 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FROM INDUSTRIAL, EMPLOYMENT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL RESIDENTIAL (JACKSON COUNTY) TO THE NEWLY CREATED CROMAN MILL PLAN DESIGNATION; AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND ZONING AND LAND USE CONTROL MAPS, TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 78 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS FROM M-1, E-1, AND R-1-5 DISTRICTS TO THE NEWLY CREATED CROMAN MILL ZONE; AND IMPOSING FIVE CROMAN MILL OVERLAY DISTRICTS ON THE CROMAN MILL ZONED PROPERTIES, INCLUDING COMPATABLE INDUSTRIAL, CM-Cl, OFFICE EMPLOYMENT, CM-OE, MIXED USE, CM-MU, OPEN SPACE, CM-OS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, CM-NC. Annotated to show delete. s 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 City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map and Ashland Zoning Map at a duly advertised public hearing on January 12, 2010 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on February 23, 2010, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-2; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 6, 2010 and on subsequent public hearing continuance dates; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving Page 1 of 4 adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and a 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 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted and referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter II [PLAN MAP 2.03.04] is hereby amended to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of approximately 93.5 acres of land inside the urban growth boundary from Industrial, Employment, Single Family Residential, and Rural Residential (Jackson County), to the Croman Mill Plan designation, said amendment is reflected on the revised adopted Comprehensive Plan Map, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to change the zoning designation of approximately 78 acres of land within the City limits of the City of Ashland, from M-1, E-1 and R-1-5, to the Croman Mill Zone designation, said amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 4. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Compatible Industrial [CM-CI] overlay zoning designation on approximately 28.29 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 5. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Office Employment [CM-OE] overlay zoning designation on approximately 29.44 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 6. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Mixed Use [CM-MU] overlay zoning designation on approximately 4.39 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 7. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Neighborhood Center [CM-NC] overlay zoning designation on approximately 5.91 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 8. The officially adopted City of Ashland Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, adopted and incorporated by Ashland Municipal Code Section 18.12.030, are hereby amended to impose the Croman Mill Open Space [CM-OSI] overlay zoning designation on approximately 6.19 acres of land in the Croman Mill Zone within the City limits of the City of Ashland, said overlay amendment is reflected on the revised Zoning and Land Use Control Maps, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 9. 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 10. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan 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, and amendments - including map amendments, combined, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions and text descriptions of the map amendments (i.e. Sections 1, 2-8, 9-10) 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 12010, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2010. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Page 3 of 4 SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of 2010. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Richard Appicello, City Attorney Page 4 of 4 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation Croman Mill District Vicinity _Ullli jai -LLLLii 1. F~ Ci Limits C 00 V 00 00, ] - Sim yo J~ . Feet 0 171 340 680 1,021 1,360 Proposed Comprehensive Plan CITY OF Designation ASHLAND ® Croman Mill Plan 4-6-10 Proposed Croman Mill District Zone (CM), Croman Mill District Vicinity L Ci Limits i h i i_ II Feet 0 130 260 520 780 1,040 Proposed Zone CITY OF ® Croman Mill Zone (CM) ASHLAND C~\ 4610 Proposed Zoning Map Changes Croman Mill District Vicinity L, C~ Ci Limits , i I- j m R v~ C l_ - O 2 E L ` G~ity Limits ~ 11-04, e~LO. ss~s Feet Proposed Zoning Overlay Designations 0 150 300 600 900 1,200 - compatible industrial (CM-CI) - office employment (CM-OE) mixed-use (CM-MU) openspace (CM-OS) CITY Of 0 neighborhood center (CM-NC) ® Detail Site Review (DSR) ASHLAND Note: Areas outside the City Limits would retain their M,, current County zoning designations until annexation. 4-6-2010