Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-0520 Council Agenda PACKET CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located new the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 20, 2014 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Special Meeting of April 22, 2014 2. Study Session of May 5, 2014 3. Executive Session of May 6, 2014 4. Business Meeting of May 6, 2014 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual Presentation by the Firewise Commission VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of commission, committee, and board minutes 2. Award of a professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for consultant engineering of the A Street Sewer Project 3. TGM Grant application approval for Siskiyou Blvd. Pedestrian Study 4. Award of contract to apparent low bidder for the 2014 Slurry Sea[ Project 5. Approval of an intergovernmental agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland for Sobering Unit Services 6. Award of professional services contract for the Water Rate Cost of Services Study 7. Third Quarter Financial Report for year one of the 2013-2015 Biennium 8. Declare the barn located at Ashland Creek Park, 27 E. Hersey Street, as COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014, CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT W WW.ASHLAND.OR.US surplus property VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. All hearings must conclude by 9:00 p.m., be continued to a subsequent meeting, or be extended to 9:30 p.m. by a two-thirds vote of council {AMC §2.04.050}) 1. Public Hearing and approval of five resolutions proposing utility rate increases and repealing prior resolutions 2. Public Hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document and repealing prior fee resolution 2013-17" 3. Continuation of the Public Hearing and first reading of two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan IX. PUBLIC FORUM Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. The Mayor will set time limits to enable all people wishing to speak to complete their testimony.) [15 minutes maximum] X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS . None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Planning Commission's report on considering a limited type of short-term traveler accommodation in residential zones XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2.26, Firewise Commission to Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9. STARTING APRIL 15, 2014, CHARTER CABLE WILL BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US Special City Council Meeting April 22, 2014 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 22, 2014 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Talent Ashland Phoenix Pipeline Intertie Project update City Administrator Dave Kanner introduced a video regarding Ashland's water supply. Mandatory conservation would not work at this time, the reservoir was full, and there was no place to store the water. The snowpack was the lowest the area had ever seen. In previous drought years, the City supplemented the water supply with Talent Irrigation District (TID) water. This year TID was planning to shut water off in September because they did not have enough to sustain customers until the rains returned in the fall. Ashland needed 1.5 million'gallons a day (mgd) to meet basic needs along with another l mgd in the streams for fish. It was possible there would not be enough water to meet basic needs and that was the impetus in expediting the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) lntertie Project. Public Works Director Mike Faught explained Council needed to approve the emergency construction of the TAP pipeline, using restricted fund monies associated with the Park Estates Pump station for the project, and grant the City Administrator contracting authority in excess of $100,000 for project construction and the ability to sign the State Revolving Loan for $2,970,000. Jeff Ballard, the consulting engineer from RI-12 explained his background and company's expertise. The project was aggressive and challenging and he was confident they would meet the August deadline. The permitting process with the Rail Road, Army Corp, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) were underway. RH2 had better defined the project since March and established multiple options to ensure they met the target date for completion. The permit process was the most complicated part and pipe installation the easiest to accomplish. The increase in cost was due to creating the engineering estimate in a short timeframe prior to having all the information. Costs also included a 30% contingency because RH2 at that time was not confident they could complete the project by August. Mr. Faught explained how the price went from $2,300,000 to $4,400,000. Increasing the flow from 1.5 mgd to 2.13 mgd was $400,000, the Pump Station was $150,000, upgrading pipe to ductile iron cost $250,000, the standard construction index for inflation was $210,000, and additional costs to move the project forward as an emergency project was $325,000. Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury added the contract contained a $600 fine per day for liquidated damages. Mr. Ballard explained the iegional booster pump station was designed to meet the capacity of Ashland at 1.5 mgd in 2000. Because Ashland did not tie on at that time, the controls were not set up to deliver that volume of water. They will modify the programming at the pump station to change the operation of the four pumps located at that facility. The communication and telemetry at the location was outdated and needed upgrading and was not included in the project due to the aggressive timeline. TAP would utilize the Talent pump station to pump water to Ashland and would require modifications to deliver 1.5 mgd or Special City Council Meeting April 22, 2014 Page 2 of 3 2.13 mgd. The current lines were sufficient to carry 2.13 mgd. Capacity was directly proportional to velocity. Two 12-inch pipes came off the Talent pump station, split, and eventually connected to 16-inch pipeline. Even at 3 mgd the velocity was tolerable but not recommended, 2.13 mgd was fine. The City would have to upgrade pipe on their end for 3 mgd capacity and it would be expensive. Staff wanted options for 3 mgd for possible upgrades in 2060. Mr. Ballard clarified RH2 had redundant management in place to serve in Mr. Ballard's place if needed. Kindler Stout/130 Orange Avenue/The public was not informed regarding project costs or present and future rate increases to pay for the project. He thought the public might get behind the project after a season of shortage. He had issue with the word "emergency." The use of the word was designed to frighten the public and he equated it to extra costs. He urged Council not to advocate control of the water system out of town. Cate Hartzell/881 East Main/Explained she opposed the project for years. Climate change predictions were being confirmed. TAP increased dependence on sources that would experience snow pack issues as well. The Water Master Plan talked about long-term solutions involving storage and conservation. She had issues with borrowing against capital projects and thought the $600 fine a day invited mistakes. Fear was motivating this response. B.G. Hicks/190 Vista Street/Provided his background in geology, water wells, and the forest service. The City should conduct small scale testing for wells and research trapping the water that ran over the dam. Ashland had excellent underground reservoirs. Additionally a major geological consulting firm should be employed to do a study on wells and ground water. He questioned whether the town could afford two full supply systems. Connecting to TAP could endanger Ashland's future use of ground water. Ashland had the potential for water and ground water currently not understood. Mr. Ballard explained RH2 had the experience to minimize risk for projects in expedited timeframes. Mr. Faught added a City project manager would be involved as well. If Council did not approve the project, they would stop the project, continue with the engineering, and move it to its scheduled time in 2015. Several projects were postponed to cover the expedited costs for the TAP pipeline and avoid raising rates. Staff was looking into permanent pumps and had diesel pumps secured as a back-up option.. In the unlikely event the project was not in place, staff was developing multi-department contingency plans that included public notification, not planting new plants, and encouraging the public to do the same. Mr. Faught clarified the City had a robust conservation plan in place but a severe drought was about curtailment and not conservation. Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to approve an emergency construction procurement of the TAP pipeline. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the project was about building redundancy. The City was not obligated to purchase water. This was a way to provide multiple options for assuring the City could provide water to the community. Councilor Slattery added this was moving a project in the Water Master Plan up one year for sound reasons. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Marsh and reiterated TAP was about redundancy. Had Council moved on this six years ago the City would not be in the position it is today. Rates might increase but to not do something that was in the best interest of City's public safety due to rates was a difficult call. Councilor Voisin clarified that $325,000 of project costs was actually to pay for the water. She questioned whether the City could afford two water systems in TAP and Reeder Reservoir. Councilor Morris responded there was only one water system with two sources of water for the system. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. Special City Council Meeting April 22, 2014 Page 3 of 3 Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s to approve re-obligating Park Estates Pump Station monies of 2.4 million to the TAP project. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Rosenthal, Voisin, Morris, Slattery, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to grant the City Administrator contracting authority in excess of $100,000 for construction of the TAP pipeline. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Lemhouse, Marsh, Voisin, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to grant the City Administrator authority to sign a State Revolving Fund loan agreement in the amount of $2.97 million. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal noted the assurances provided were based on signs the project would be completed and hoped Council would not operate this loosely going forward in other endeavors. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Minutes for the City Council Study Session May 5, 2014 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, May 5, 2014 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Slattery, Morris, Marsh, and Rosenthal were present. 1. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 2. Continued discussion of the draft Council goals Government Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in relevant Policy arenas Develop plan for coordination with Jackson County • Jackson County road improvements within City Limits • Weed abatement on County land within UGB and beyond • Ongoing relationship between Councilors and County Commissioners Establish living documents on strategies, goals, and tactics regarding specific topics for new councilors to review Create mechanism for developing stronger relationships between the Mayor, Council, and County Commissioners Explore LOC involvement proactive/ongoing (Board/Policy Committees) • Have a Studv Session to determine LOC opportunities • Create alliances with LOC members • Expand the City's involvement in local LOC activities Form relationships with other cities that have common interests and issues with Ashland and solidify relationships with cities in the Rogue Valley • Establish a formal connection with the Medford Water Commission • Communities interested in organic agriculture and establishing organic regions within Oregon. • Determine what policies are coming up in the next six years Improve coordination and regular communication with State Legislators • Determine regional and state relationships and associated entities Ashland should engage with • Work state and federal relationships to attain stable funding to complete and maintain AFR • Maintain a continual relationship and improve coordination with state representatives and legislators to support City issues and direct the City to other agencies as well • Have an Assistant City Administrator attend key meetings • Department Heads will continue to participate in their regional state and national organizations • Improve communication with County Commissioners • Commit a certain number of Study Sessions for strategic report sharing, timely, or schedule a specific amount of time each Study Session for reports on relevant items • Regular reports to Council regarding the Legislative hotline (during legislative session only) • Explore the utilization of other forms of legislative representation (lobbyist, dedicated staff, etc) Minutes for the City Council Study Session May 5, 2014 Page 2 of 3 • Develop a local legislative agenda prior to the session (possibly with Ashland Coalition partners) Identify issues that directly affect Ashland Make the city more accessible to do business in Ashland • Use state relationships to work on ecommerce and enterprise zones • Be accessible to and engage with Economic Develop partners Work to expand/offer County heath/social services in Ashland • Establish a mental health outreach presence in Ashland through Jackson County by 2020 Promote effective citizen communication and engagement Evaluate existing communication tools currently in use and promote the most effective ways to communicate with Council • Open City Hall • Listserve • RVTV • Newspapers • City website Find innovative ways for people to feel engaged with government • Develop mechanism to relay facts regarding issues to the public prior to meetings • Develop an efficient way to receive input from citizens prior to Council making a decision • Repackage the Council Communication • Have Councilors attend Town Hall meetings or informal gatherings • Have Councilors and Commissions auto connect to the City's website • Possibly establish a "City Walk" outreach program • Balance existing time commitment/constraints of Council with new outreach efforts • Identify key issues to develop advanced outreach, input opportunities and informational sessions "on their turf' • Develop a communication plan - policy level versus operational • Research using television, radio (KSKQ), publications (Locals Guide and Sneak Preview) for communicating to the public • Add the Look Ahead to the City Source monthly newsletter Use the Mayor's State of the City address to honor and recognize volunteer involvement • Have Council participate in the State of the City speech • Incorporate the Ragland Award and other volunteer related activities • Make the State of the City and Ragland Award a public celebration • Possibly create a five star restaurant atmosphere for appointed commissioners where Council and City management are the servers for the evening Support and empower our community partners; for example: SOU, Mt. Ashland, Parks Delayed due to time constraints Identify and support core City services Delayed due to time constraints Minutes for the City Council Study Session May 5, 2014 Page 3 of 3 Meeting adjourned at 7:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 1 of 9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 6, 2014 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Airport, Conservation, Firewise, Forest Lands, Historic, Public Arts, and Tree Commissions and two vacancies for the Citizen Budget Committee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of April 14, 2014, the Executive Session of April 15, 2014, and Business Meeting of April 15, 2014 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Presentation by the Airport Commission regarding Airport Day Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury and Airport Commissioner Richard Hendrickson invited everyone to attend Airport Day Saturday May 17, 2014 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Ashland Municipal Airport. 2. Report to the Council on crime in Ashland and use of force by the Ashland Police Department Police Chief Terry Holderness provided a report on use of force that occurred 27 times during 2013. Of the 27 instances, 57% required the lowest of use of force. Six incidents involved a Taser. In four of the six instances, the officer only displayed the Taser and used the Taser in the other two incidents. Of all 27 instances 68% of the people were under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Deputy Police Chief Tighe O'Meara addressed crime rates for 2013, crime clearance rates, and the enhanced law enforcement area (ELEA). Part one crime was divided into violent crimes and property crimes. Violent crimes consisted of Homicide, Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault. Property crimes involved Burglary, Auto Theft, and Larceny. In 2013, Ashland had 697 instances of part one crime, a 7.82% increase from 2012. There were 25 part one violent crimes in 2013 resulting in a 29% decrease from 2012 with a 40% clearance of all part one cases and an 80% clearance rate of violent crime. Chief Holderness explained the You Have Options campaign for sexual assault had made some impact. However, the FBI's definition of what constituted rape was significantly limited and the majority of sexual assaults that occurred in Ashland did not meet that definition. Another issue was late reporting of sexual assaults that changed the statistics to the year it happened instead of the year reported. Deputy Chief O'Meara further explained Council adopted the ELEA in August 2012. Between inception and March 2013, there was a 19% decrease in drug and disorderly type crimes and violations in the downtown area. In 2013, sixteen people qualified for expulsion from the downtown area. Of the 16, eleven left the area prior to being served expulsion papers. During 2013, there were 17 violations of the ELEA filed through the municipal court. Of the seventeen instances, three people committed 16 violations. The Mayor's proclamations of May 12-18, 2014 as Craft Brewers Week in Ashland and May as National Historic Preservation Month in Ashland was read aloud. Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 2 of 9 CONSENT AGENDA 1. Award of a professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Outfall Relocation Study 2. Liquor license application for Robert Harvey dba Harvey's Place 3. Intergovernmental agreement with Jackson County Community Justice 4. Declaration and authorization to dispose of surplus property in a sealed bid auction 5. Approval of a change order to a contract allowing structural repairs to be performed as part of the information booth reroofing project 6. Approval of a contract amendment with Cascade Research for testing of an archeological site at Ashland Creek Park 7. Special procurement for the purchase of two aerial lift bucket trucks 8. Approval of contract specific procurement for the construction phase inspections and project management of the Calle Guanajuato project 9. Request for approval of a special procurement for wildfire fuels reduction Councilor Slattery pulled Consent Agenda item #7 and 49 for further discussion. Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison confirmed the two lift bucket trucks being replaced would go out for sealed bid auction next year. Division Chief-Forest Resource Chris Chambers explained the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project had exhausted the $6,500,000 funding from the federal stimulus program. The National Forest Foundation (NFF) found money to match the City's $175,000 for the AFR project. The City would send $175,000 to the NFF who would send $350,000 to Lomakatsi Restoration Project to complete the work before the end of 2014. Councilor Marsh pulled Consent Agenda item #5 for further discussion. Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison confirmed replacing the existing roof of the information kiosk and rebuilding the structure would cost $4,000. Council decided to remove that part of the change order and have the Downtown Beautification Committee bring back alternatives for the information kiosk. Staff pulled Consent Agenda item #4 regarding the sealed bid auction. Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained that staff removed item #420 a Ranger Pick-up to donate it to the Southern Oregon University instead. Council agreed with the donation. Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve of the Consent Agenda items except item #5. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse clarified the Downtown Beautification Committee had added Refurbish the Plaza Poster Kiosk on a list of projects they wanted to consider. Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to approve the change order to a contract allowing structural repair to be performed as part of the information booth reroofing projects and suspend any repairs or replacement to the roof of the kiosk until further notice. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and first reading of two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Mayor Stromberg called the Public Hearing for two Ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan to order at 7:48 p.m. and explained the rules and guidelines associated with the Public Hearing. Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 3 of 9 ABSENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EX PARTE CONTACTS Councilor Voisin, Lemhouse, Slattery, and Rosenthal had no Ex Parte Contacts to declare and no observations from a recent visit to the site. Mayor Stromberg disclosed he had reactions to the plans, and had stated the issues publicly. He thought there were individual issues that had little to do with the organic nature of the land and what was going on in the City. Councilor Morris stated he was the liaison to the Planning Commission and attended several meetings regarding the Normal Avenue Neighborhood. Councilor Marsh disclosed that during a site visit earlier in the day, she had discussed the land with a neighbor. Mayor Stromberg, Councilor Morris, and Councilor Marsh expressed they had not prejudged the application and were not biased or prejudiced based on their prior contacts and involvement or by any personal considerations and would make decisions based on the public interest and relevant criteria in the record of the proceeding. CHALLENGES There were no challenges. STAFF REPORT Community Development Bill Molnar explained the Normal Plan consisted of 94 acres outside city limits within the urban growth boundary (UGB). The 94 acres already had plan designations that eventually would allow it to annex at residential densities consistent with the plan itself. The overall plan took a comprehensive look at the entire area through a process that allowed better coordination through property owners, transportation elements, wetlands, and natural areas. This was not a development application but a detailed guide implemented through a variety of zoning tools. The plan contained an amendment process for changes. Currently there were no applications to develop that area. Residents in and adjacent to the planning area raised a number of concerns regarding the loss of quality of life of a rural setting of the area. Staff and the Planning Commission had a series of meetings and changed the plans in response to the testimony from residents although some remained concerned with density. The area was within the current UGB with a current plan designation that would allow 450-500 housing units. The Normal Plan would ultimately envision the same number of housing units. Senior Planner and Project Manager Brandon Goldman provided a presentation and explained the Plan Components involved the Comprehensive Plan Map, Conservation Areas, Land &Use Zoning, Transportation Network, and Code Amendments. There were 33 individual properties owned by 26 property owners that were largely vacant with existing developments that consisted of single-family homes on large lots and religious institutions. The existing Comprehensive Plan Map was adopted in 1981 and identified 50% of the plan area as single family and 50% as suburban residential typically developed as town homes. It also identified conservation areas that correlated with flood mapping for Cemetery Creek and Clay Creek. The newly proposed Comprehensive Plan designated the 94 acres as Normal Neighborhood Plan and modified the conservation areas. Wetlands were identified in 2007 on the local wetland inventory. Mr. Goldman clarified adopting the master plan was not the City annexing the land for development. Any future annexation was developer driven. A property owner would have to request an annexation from the City. Mr. Molnar added annexation criteria for annexation of residential property required showing a lack of a 5-year supply of that type of land within the city limits. The area was zoned single family. To annex land showing single-family the applicant had to prove the city did not have a five-year supply. Currently Ashland had more than a five-year supply of single-family zoned property within city limits. Other requirements included extending public services, adjacency being contiguous to city limits, and the property was consistent with the plan designation or official maps that might guide that area. Multi family was the only category that met the five-year lack of supply. Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 4 of 9 Mr. Goldman explained the Water Resource Protection Ordinance defined wetland and riparian buffers that were included in the conservation areas for Normal Neighborhood. Additionally areas that precluded development was the Federal Emergency Management Agreement (FEMA) 100-year floodplain and the City's floodplain designation that was broader than FEMA's. Combined they became the conservation areas. Land uses proposed included: • NN-01 Single Family Residential (Single family homes, cottage housings, ARUs) • NN-02 Mixed housing types (pocket neighborhoods - clusters units, townhomes, duplexes) • NN-03 Multiple dwelling residential (Multifamily, condos, apartments) • NN-03C Multiple dwellings and Neighborhood Serving Commercial Existing Transportation System Plan • Normal Avenue (R 19) • Creek Drive Extension (R20) • Railroad Crossing (X3) • Planned Bike Paths • East Main Street Transportation System Plan Amendments included: • Normal Avenue location and reclassification • Eat Main Street added to Planned Roadway Projects • Adopt Normal Plan Street Network into Street dedication Map • Adopt Multi Use paths into Planned Bikeway Network Map • Adopt Standards for Shared Streets Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments • Implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan • Establishes allowable uses • Establishes general site development and design standards • Provides for preservation of water quality, site hydrology, and natural areas Mr. Molnar clarified the City could use a portion of the System Development Charges (SDC) from building permits to contribute to the cost of East Main or the Railroad Crossing if it was determined the benefit of having those facilities was not based on the impact of the development but contributed to the broader transportation network of the City. • Minor amendment process included relocation of street, alley or path by more than 50-feet and a change in boundaries or location of Conservation Areas to correspond with wetland buffer boundary • Major amendment process included a zone change, the elimination of a street alley or path and the reduction in area, or elimination of a designated Conservation Area • Land Uses • Dimensional standards • Site and Building Design Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to move the Public Hearings regarding Utility rates and Miscellaneous Fees to May 20, 2014. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting. Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 5 of 9 THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY Betsy Bishop/280 Normal Avenue/Lived on Normal Avenue for 15 years and supported a well-designed development of the property. Her family adjusted to the change and embraced the new neighbors. Now neighbors seemed to oppose the change. Ashland was losing young families, diversity, and schools closed. The community should fear becoming a city of wealthy retirees wanting to retain a homogeneous look to their neighborhood. Everyone who moved to Normal Avenue was aware it was an urban growth area destined for development. Bryce Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Explained he was the Chair of a committee representing three home owners associations directly affected by the Normal Avenue Plan. Their primary concern was the development of the Baptist Church property, configuration, and density. The suggested timeframe for various improvements to the 94 acres was 25 years indicating residents would have to deal with issues for years before mitigations and amenities took place. The problem was the addition of up to 130 residential units in 10 acres including commercial development all fronting on East Main. Major concerns were traffic, pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles, public transit, sewer, and water and storm drainage. The focus was the Planning Commission's proposal to incorporate high density, commercial development including three story buildings. The committee wanted that section eliminated. Dale Swire/233 Clay Street/Lived in a two-story townhouse in the proposed area and wanted to retain what little open space he had. A year ago, there was an agreement with the Planning Commission not to exceed the current 35-foot height requirement. At the last meeting, they reneged on that promise and put it in as a minor amendment to satisfy a contractor. He questioned who was making the decisions, the City, or the contractors. Lorraine Anderson/2092 Creek Drive/Addressed the Baptist Church development between Creek Drive and East Main Street. She noted a steady increase in traffic on East Main Street and the area between Walker and Clay Streets, the conditions were hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. It was also hazardous to make left turns onto East Main Street from Clay Street. The increased residential density without improvements to East Main Street would only make the problems worse. She urged Council not to approve any plan that included high-density housing or commercial development in the area. Jim Amberg/353 Meadow Drive/Expressed concern the high-density development on East Main Street would have on existing sewer lines. The City's sewage department frequently worked on issues along Creek Drive. The pump used for pumping sewage uphill often had problems. The sewer system was inadequate even for current uses. The residents of Meadowbrook Park Estates also experienced water pressure issues and repeatedly replaced pressure reduction valves. Drainage on Creek Drive was also a problem. Further development would compound these issues. The City must address these concerns and should not allow high-density or commercial units on the Baptist Church property. Amy Miller/244 Meadow Drive/Strongly urged Council to change the high density NN-03 zone to an NN-02 or lower density. She noted the area already had condominiums and apartments and felt like this was becoming a dumping ground for high density. Alissa Lukara/248 Meadow Drive/Agreed with the previous speakers on the Baptist Church property and limiting the area to the at least NN-02 and NN-01 structures. She questioned why the City was making the exception to this rural area to allow three story buildings while other residential areas were limited to 2.5 stories. She expressed concern for the displaced wildlife as well. Paula Skuratowicz/2124 Creek Drive/Explained she was the President of Ashland Meadows Home Owners Association and felt betrayed by the Planning Commission. The most contentious issue was allowing three- story housing on Clay Street, Creek Drive, and East Main Street. The Planning Commission made a concession to eliminate the three-story option and abide by 2.5 story limits but at the last meeting, the Planning Commission reinstated the three-story option. Notification cards for the meeting were delivered the same day of the meeting. She could not understand why the developer took precedence over the voters or how it would preserve the Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 6 of 9 distinctive character of the neighborhoods. Sugar Mejia/18 Crocker/Introduced herself as the assistant to the Board of Chautauqua Trace Home Owners Association and represented the board of directors and members. She agreed with the water and water pressure issues, Chautauqua Place residents had to replace water system valves several times. She was concerned with the high-density development on the Baptist Church property, primarily traffic issues. The streets were very narrow and increased traffic would create problems. Chautauqua Place had 89 units and she was surprised to learn they were medium density housing and the idea of adding 450-500 units close by was concerning based on current resources. Barry Vitcon/316 Meadow Drive/Agreed with the previous speakers. No one was against the development. He was concerned the planning process was incomplete and urged Council to send it back to the Planning Commission. The recent proposal made by the Planning Commission was surprising and he felt devalued. He wanted Council to refer it back to the Planning Commission for continued responsible development. Citizens were ready to play a more active role in the process. Randall Jones/815 Alder Creek Drive/Medford, OR/Represented 9 of the properties in the plan. He worked with staff and the Planning Commission and wanted to be part of the solution. He agreed with the neighbors on the points they made. The City did not conduct scientific studies to determine wetland delineations so his group paid to have a scientific study. Wetland 4 Cemetery Creek showed 3.86 acres with a 50' foot buffers. There was actually 1.2 acres of wetland predominantly caused from the City's storm drain systems. The entire Cemetery Creek drainage was within city limits, leaking water, and when the irrigation was not running, leaking chlorinated water. The center wetland was-1.2 acres with creek drainage. Wetland 12 showed 1.6 acres linear on the City's report. The scientific study revealed two wetlands less than a one third of an acre. He submitted the reports into the record. David Harloff/343 Meadow Drive/Addressed the unilateral change in building heights in the high-density area. One of Ashland's finest attributes was the visual quality of the town. He thought it was wrong to raise the height limits. He also questioned why the definition of affordable and low-income was always how many people they could stuff into a small area. Howard Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Explained dividing 500 living units by 94 acres resulted in 5.5 units per acre. It was a tenfold increase over what was already there. There was no bus transportation for that area and none forecast. Density generally fit the middle of the town and Normal Avenue was at the periphery. It affected living space, open space, and the wetlands. It was concerning the latest maps on open space and wetland showed them as an overlay. The current plan was too dense. He asked Council to consider the people who lived in the area. Deborah Miller/160 Normal Avenue/Declared she was a member of the Planning Commission but spoke on her behalf regarding the issue. Planning was a good tool but the housing component in the plan seemed to have won over all other values. She felt the project ignored long time residents and rewarded short-term residents with financial interests with 450 units to build and sell. She had concerns regarding water. Some contractors were filling in state protected wetlands. Building high density on the south side of the street could harm Exclusive Farm Use land (EFU), their wells, and access to ground water. Another concern was the impact 450 units would have on water curtailment. Connectivity was an issue. The Transportation Commission met three times and never agreed where to site streets. She noted the projected improvement costs for East Main Street was $8,000,000, improvements to the Railroad was $3,000,000 and questioned who was paying. Several homeowners had no intention of annexing. Julie Matthews/2090 Creek Drive/Referred to the Baptist Church and two adjacent properties towards Normal Avenue because they appeared to be in a collaborative development and questioned the density. She read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Birds, bees, flowers, and trees pursued happiness according to their nature. Humans encroached on their environment pursuing happiness more than life and liberty at the Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 7 of 9 expense and exploitation of others. She wanted Ashland to be a city of vision, uphold values, and be a model for future generations. There were a lot of animals and fowl, in the area and some that traveled through in their cycles. Brett Lutz/1700 East Main Street/Described where he lived and was not interested in annexing to the city primarily because of roads and wetlands.. They would lose TID (Talent Irrigation District) water and wetlands water. He referred to Wetland W-9 and explained developers wanted to put a road right through it. He was a scientist and worked on drought. Currently the area was in a severe drought and this was not the time to assess wetlands. He wanted someone not vested in the development to conduct the study. Additionally the middle school bus turnaround alleviated traffic problems on Walker Avenue. A through street would create safety issues for schoolchildren and buses. Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to continue the Public Hearing to the May 20, 2014 meeting. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. 2. Public Hearing and approval of five resolutions proposing utility rate increases and repealing prior resolutions Item moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting. 3. Public Hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document and repealing prior fee resolution 2013-17" Item moved to the May 20, 2014 meeting. PUBLIC FORUM None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Second reading of a ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2: Rules of City Council; Uniform Policies and Operating Procedures for Advisory Commissions and Boards; Recreation Commission; Conservation Commission; and Certain Administrative and Operating Departments" Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to place the second reading of the ordinance regarding plastic bags on the agenda before the Council and Commission Rules ordinance. Voice Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 5-1. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS None ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance adopting a prohibition on the distribution of single use plastic bags" Management Analyst Adam Hanks explained the ordinance would prohibit single use plastic bags, require single use paper bags have 40% minimal recycled content, contain exemptions, and a six month delayed implementation to exhaust current supplies of plastic bags. Staff had changed the paper bag fee from 25-cents to 10-cents per Council. Conservation Commissioner Mark Weir explained economic reports from Ireland, Australia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles that instituted plastic bag bans showed no adverse affects on low-income individuals as a result. He went on to address the Conservation Commission recommendation of the 25-cent paper bag fee. Statistics showed that 16% percent of plastic bag users shifted to paper bag use regardless of the 10-cent paper bag fee. Creating paper bags took more water and electricity and produced significant amounts of carbon dioxide. He encouraged Council to adopt the 25-cent fee. It would produce a larger change in behavior and the environment. He clarified the paper bag fee in San Francisco and Los Angeles was 10-cents per bag. Both cities found that low-income people moved quickly to reusable bags and adapted better than people who were not as affected by Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 8 of 9 the fee. Ireland started out with a 21-cent paper bag fee that resulted in an 81% reduction of plastic bag use. Over time, the plastic bag use grew and they increased the fee to 30-cents for a 40% drop in plastic bag use. Currently they had a 2% plastic bag use and did not use paper bags. They are looking at establishing a 44-cent levy 2015. Studies showed incentive programs did not work for ecological moves, specifically banning plastic bags. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s approval of Second Reading and adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the distribution of single use plastic bags as modified and direct staff to begin appropriate education and outreach efforts to both the business community and residents and reinstall the 25-cent fee. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery understood and supported the idea to move people from plastic bags first, paper bags next and eventually use with reusable bags. Councilor Voisin supported the 25-cent fee on paper bags. Earth Day started 25 years ago and a primary goal was moving away from plastic bags, it took years to institute a ban. The ban would lesson damage to the environment. Ashland was a leader in sustainability and the City needed to ensure the ban worked. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to split the motion as stated, passage of the plastic bag ban ordinance as one motion and the revision of the fee from 10-cents to 25-cents as a second motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor Rosenthal, Voisin, and Slattery, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3. DISCUSSION on the paper bag fees: Councilor Rosenthal suggested a time limit of a 25-cent paper bag fee for a year and determine its effectiveness then. Councilor Marsh had a similar suggestion, implement a 10-cent fee, and determine success a year later. Councilor Morris preferred not instituting a fee and using incentives and education instead. He would support a 10-cent fee. Councilor Lemhouse thought it was disturbing that Council was considering using disincentives to change behavior. It was preposterous to assume studies from other countries would work here. The studies showing disincentives worked were short-term. Long-term behavioral change occurred through strong leadership, incentives, inspiration, and encouragement. The City had not tried any educational outreach or incentives at this point and was opting for disincentives first. It the community really wanted a paper bag fee it should go on the ballot for the November 2014 elections. Councilor Voisin commented that many people supported the ban and the direction the ordinance was heading. She did not think low-income people would be the group not changing to cloth bags. The assumption they need protecting meant they would not change when they would most likely be the first group to change. Council purposely chose disincentives with the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA). The 25-cent fee went to the business and not the City. Councilor Slattery added the fee was more an avoidance tactic than it was a disincentive. He dealt with many people below the poverty line as students and the university student population supported the ban 100%. The paper bag fee would help people change behavior that was destructive to the environment. The 10-cent fee was not as strong as 25-cents. Councilor Lemhouse did not intend to make it a class issue. He felt the ban was moving too quickly, that it overlooked a section of the population, and would not achieve the desired lasting impact. Mayor Stromberg agreed with Councilor Marsh and suggested starting out with a 10-cent fee for a designated period with outreach and education. If the shift did not occur, increase the fee to 25-cents. Councilor Slattery noted the focus should be on what was not being paid and which amount would have the better chance on not being paid, 10-cents, or 25-cents. Roll Call Vote on the 25-cent paper bag fee: Councilor Rosenthal, Voisin, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke tie with a No vote. Motion failed 3-4. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to amend the main motion to re-evaluate the .10 cent fee January 2016. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought it was a reasonable place to start and use the fee as a motivation for the community. Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion for one-year review and did not support the fee. Councilor Rosenthal noted the six-month effective date and suggested the fee review occur January 2016 to Regular City Council Meeting May 6, 2014 Page 9 of 9 allow a year. Council agreed. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, and Slattery, YES. Motion passed. Mr. Hanks explained the education component encompassed working with the Conservation Commission, the Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) Subcommittee, and using portions of the Eugene Outreach Plan. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve Ordinance 43094 prohibiting the distribution of single use plastic bags as modified and direct staff to begin appropriate education and outreach efforts to both the business community and residents as amended and re-evaluate the 10-cent paper bag fee January 2016. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported the plastic bag ban and reiterated he opposed the paper bag fee. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Morris, Rosenthal, and Slattery, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 4 OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Lemhouse explained the Downtown Beautification Committee were meeting twice a month and recently did a walk through downtown and updated projects on the list. They will start the process of what to forward to Council for completion. Councilor Voisin and Marsh invited everyone to attend the Bowl Celebration at Peace House Friday, May 9, 2014 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The event benefited Uncle Foods Diner, Ashland Emergency Food Bank, ACCESS, and Food Angels. Councilor Marsh wanted to add a six-month report from the Resource Center to a future agenda with Council consent. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 19, 2014 Community Development Building, Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Meeting called to order by Chair Weir. In attendance were Commissioners Buck, Weir, Sliverberg, Gould, Hartman, McGinnis, Beigel-Coryell and Koopman. City Staff Hanks was also present. 2. Consent Agenda / Reports (5 min) The meeting minutes of the February 26 Id Commission meeting and the March 5, 2014 Sustainability Sub-committee were unanimously approved by the Commission 3. Announcements (5 min) Weir noted that the next Regular Meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2014 and sustainability sub-committee meetings are scheduled for April 2nd and 16th. Koopman noted that a Clean Energy Day is coming up sponsored by Rogue Climate. McGinnis requested via motion that the goals discussion on the current agenda be moved to another date, either a future regular meeting or a special, extra meeting date to be determined by the Commission at a future meeting. Koopman provided the second and was approved unanimously by the Commission. 4. Public Forum N/A 5. Reports / Presentations/Updates Chair Weir announced that a planned agenda item inadvertently didn't make it onto the meeting agenda and he then added a special presentation/discussion regarding the Commissions sponsorship of summer composting classes at the Recycle Center. Rhianna Simes, the instructor of the classes for the past three years introduced herself to the Commission, described her background with the OSU Extension Service and other entities and her educational background in soils science and horticulture related fields. Simes noted that her primary objective for attending the meeting was to discuss the status of the composting classes and to be connected with the Commission in their discussions on desired objectives in future years. The Commission discussed a general desire to match the class materials primarily to the urban composting setting rather than rural, as well as ways to increase participation in the classes and CITY OF ASHLAND expanding its reach in the community. Ideas included a compost tour, more focus on worm based composting, offering reduced cost or free compost bins to participants. The Commission thanked Simes for her input and great work in teaching the classes and would continue to work on ways to collaboratively improve the process each year. Council - Councilor Morris Weir noted that Councilor Morris had not yet attended a meeting and inquired with Hanks as to the reasons. Hanks noted that he would contact Morris and also encouraged Weir or other interested Commissioners to do the same to understand the situation. City Operations - Hanks Hanks noted that he had recently attended a BPA regional meeting discussing improvements and modifications to the BPA funded energy efficiency programs that the City of Ashland participates in. The issue of utility self funding and changes to the implementation manual were items of interest for the City in future efficiency efforts. Hanks also noted that the overall BPA budget for future year energy efficiency programs has been recently released for public comment and many regional efficiency groups/agencies have been critical of the funding allotted being far short of what had been previously funded to meet regional conservation targets. Quarterly Report - Recology - Buck See attached Recycling Center Ad-Hoc - Beigel-Coryell Beigel-Coryell noted that the group has had several meetings and that some data collection is currently happening at the Recycle Center with SOU student/interns, Recology and City Staff to get some basic information about the current users of the facility. This information will assist the ad-hoc committee in developing a recommendation for the Council scheduled for June. The next ad-hoc committee meeting is scheduled for April 18th Sustainability Sub-Committee McGinnis gave a brief update and referenced the minutes in the meeting packet and noted that the sub-committee will be asking for some discussion time at the next Commission meeting to present the STAR matrix and the next process steps in getting Council approval for the concept. Fourth of July Sub-Committee - Buck Buck noted that the event for the Commission's role has been simplified with a group walking and carrying a banner. Buck noted that the sub-committee has discussed and received preliminary approval from Recology to put a large sign on a Recology truck noting overall trash statistics for the Fourth of July event. Buck added that they are hoping for a large group, including kids. Conservation Awards Committee - Koopman Koopman updated the Commission on the status of the outreach to the schools, noting the process challenges that took a little longer to work through than anticipated. The sub-committee will be developing a judging panel that is scheduled for May 13114. Final recommendations for the panel will be presented at the April Commission meeting Koopman also noted that the Green Show date for the performance and award announcement will be Saturday June 7m and that she and others will be on a Jefferson Exchange program to publicize the event. Additionally, it was motioned by Buck, second by Weir to work with Hanks to have a presentation slot on a Council agenda to announce the award winners. Commission unanimously approved. School Zone Area Idlinq - Gould Gould updated the Commission on her work with the School District, noting that she presented to the School Board regarding their interest and willingness to institute a no-idling policy and related signage in parent/child drop-off/pick up locations on school grounds. The Board did not commit to the project but took it under advisement. Gould noted that while this was her last meeting as a Commissioner, she would still be following up and seeing this project through, as well as continuing to assist with the awards program. The Commission collectively thanked her for her participation on the Commission and dedication of time and energy to the projects she spearheaded. 6. Old Business Weir asked for nominations for Commission chair and vice-chair noting that his term has expired. Buck nominated (McGinnis second) Koopman for chair and Beigel- Coryell for vice chair. Both indicated their willingness to take on the task. The nominations were unanimously approved and take effect beginning with the April meeting. 7. New Business BYOB(Plastic Bag Ban) Ordinance Review/Recommendation Weir referenced the materials in the meeting packet and the Commission discussed the key issues, primarily focusing on the desire to recommend a fee for the paper bag use that was large enough to effectively change behavior and direct a transition to reusable bags. Beigel-Coryell recommended (Koopman second) that the Commission include a formal recommendation for the ordinance to state a 25 cent fee for reusable bags, with a minimum of 15 cents if the Council felt the 25 cent fee was too high. The motion unanimously passed. Commission Goal Setting Deferred to future meeting (see announcements) Adjournment - Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 by Chair Weir. ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION Meeting Minutes February 26, 2014 Community Development Building, Siskiyou Room 51 Winburn Way Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Weir. In attendance were Weir, Koopman, Beam, Hartman, McGinnis, Beigel-Coryell and Hanks (staff liaison) Weir announced a change in the order of the agenda for the Earth Day discussion to occur immediately following Public Forum. Consent Agenda / Reports The minutes of the December 18 and January 22 Commission meetings were motioned for approval by Beigel-Coryell with a second from Beam and were unanimously approved with a correction noted by Weir for the title of the January minutes. Announcements Chair Weir noted that the next regular Commission meeting is scheduled for March 26, 2014, which is spring break week and also would be too late for the Commission's review and recommendation for the BYOB (plastic bag ban) ordinance scheduled to be presented to the Council on April 15t and requested vote to move the meeting to March 19. Beam motioned for the move to March 19, second from Koopman and approved unanimously. Upcoming meetings for March were noted for the Sustainability sub-committee for the 5th and 19th of March and the BYOB sub-committee tentatively scheduled for March 10th depending on the status of the draft ordinance. Other Announcements from Commissioners included a reminder from Beigel-Coryell about the Master Recycler program openings. Beam updated the Commission on the Chamber Fourth of July decision to ban flyers/brochures and more strictly enforcing the no candy throwing rule. Public Forum Jerry and Betty Pashan presented the Commission with an overview of their business, Green Energy Wind Power and described their plans for a potential wind power generation system to be sited within Jackson County and encouraged the Commission to support the effort and is looking for a letter of intent from the City of Ashland to purchase the power from the project. Chair Weir thanked them for their presentation and reminded them that the Commission is not able to make those types of decisions. Old Business (moved) Russ Chapman, representing the Rogue Valley Earth day, presented the Commission with a flyer of the history, objectives and succeses of Earth Day activities in Ashland and requested the Commission and City's continuing financial and participatory support for the event, noting that the Commission has historically providing a $1,000 sponsorship amount and the City's Conservation Division $500. The Commission discussed the matter and noted that they had voted in the January meeting to devote $500 to the OSF Green Green Show as part of the updated Conservation Awards (now All School Sustainability Contest) presentation which took away funds that would have previously been allocated to Earth Day. Hanks suggested the Commission discuss and vote on what the Commission would recommend be allocated as overall City sponsorship support of the event, rather than discussing the Commission contribution separate from the Conservation Division. McGinnis motioned for a recommendation of $650 with a second from Beigel-Coryell. The motion was amended by Hartman and approved by McGinnis for the Commission to recommend $500 from the Commission's budget with a condition that it only be given if the City, through the Conservation Division was able to contribute the $1,000 to make up the historical total contribution. The motion was approved unanimously. Hanks then noted to Mr. Chapman the Conservation Division would be able to contribute the $1,000 making the total City contribution $1,500. Reports / Presentations Council Update Councilor Morris was not in attendance City Operations Hanks noted that he had recently attended a meeting in Salem as part of the City's participation in the Oregon Municipal Electric Utility association. The meeting was a legislative update on existing legislation in progress that may affect public utilities. Hanks noted that the Umatilla Co-op appeal of the definition of renewable energy had seemed to be worked out and would not impact the City. Additionally, discussion and comment was forwarded regarding the development of standards and rules for the standardization of the Energy Performance Score (EPS) statewide. Hanks also gave updates on the following • He is participating in workgroup sessions with BPA and other utility customers as part of the Post 2011 Review process and will update the Commission further on some of the key issues that may impact the City. • Recent purchase and installation of indoor source separated recycling containers at several public use areas of City and Parks buildings and thanked Commissioner Buck and Recology for their assistance. • City staff recently completed the annual survey report for Rogue Valley Clean Cities Coalition for fleet/transportation related air quality improvements. The City has five hybrid vehicles and two all electric vehicles and continue to look for opportunities to increase the efficiency and air quality of the City fleet. • The Wastewater Treatment Plant recently completed an energy efficiency measure with the replacement of variable frequency drives (VFD's) in many of the pump systems at the plant which has a substantial decrease in energy consumption and no loss of control or specifications for the plant operators. • The City and Parks Dept will be joining forces to conduct a City/Parks property indoor and outdoor water audit to identify both short term and long term water saving opportunities on City properties to take place in late summer, early fall of 2014 • The Community Development Dept will be presenting a proposal to City Council for the mandating of electric vehicle charging infrastructure for new residential construction as part of a pilot program request from the State Building Codes Division as outlined in the Governor's Ten Year Energy Plan. The item is a study session item and ordinance development would follow if approved by Council Quarterly Report - SOU Beigel-Coryell noted the following • The solar systems are currently being installed on the new dorms buildings, one is a 72 kW system and the other is an 81 kW system. • The science building renovation is starting and is anticipated and planned to be a minimum of a LEED Silver certified building. • The Sustainability Center and Farm project is underway on Walker Av and TID supply and irrigation is being installed and upgrades are being made to the house to be used for student offices and meetings. • SOU has partnered with Keep America Beautiful for waste and debris diversion associated with residence hall move outs at the end of each year. • The Recycling program has calculated a waste diversion rate of 54% for 2013 up from 46% in 2012 • The residence halls are in the process of measurement and verification for the anticipated LEED Gold certification • SOU is sending two staff members to the upcoming Master Recyclers classes • SOU sold the renewable energy credits (REC) from the residence hall project to Chevrolet • Tree Campus USA is sponsoring the installation of over 6,000 plants around the SOU campus this spring. Quarterly Report - Ashland School District (added after deferral from January meeting) Hartman noted the follow activities happening at the School District • The District is installing LED lights in parking lots over the coming months, saving energy and operational costs • The solar system at the Inspire House (Wilderness Charter School) has some shading issues that they are going to address. • Facilities has removed some "unofficial" compost areas and is working to consolidate to a site for efficiency and sanitary improvements • Hartman is working with Facilities to address the composting options for a batch of sugar cane cafeteria trays that is a challenging issue. • Hartman is working with a student to install an energy generating windmill at the High School. Recycling Center Ad-Hoc Committee Update Commissioners Beam and Beigel-Coryell updated the Commission on the status of the committee and noted that the primary task at this point is data collection/survey on site at the Recycle Center to get information on who uses the center, where they come from, what materials they recycle most, etc. The surrey will be conducted over the last two weeks in March and the first week in April. Beam noted that the committee also discussed different models of financing recycling overall including distribution of costs to all residents. Staff is working on developing pro's and con's for the different models. Beam also noted that the committee is discussion different services and objectives possible for the Center, including a bigger emphasis on re-use and re-purposing of materials. Weir suggested the committee be careful about the timing of surveys and public input to ensure that the input gathered is based on the most current and relevant data on the issues. Sustainability Sub-Committee Deferred to the March meeting Fourth of July Sub-Committee Deferred to the March meeting Old Business Conservationist of the Year Awards Committee Koopman gave an update noting that the flyers were approved by the School District and are now ready for distribution and she would work with staff and the sub-committee members to make that happen. The Commission again noted their support for the new focus of the competition aspect of the awards and Koopman stated that she feels this year is a great learning process for a bigger and better product in the coming years. Koopman added that she would be interested in suggestions from the Commission for people to be competition judges and asked Commissioners to email her their ideas. Ashland Garden Club-Sponsorship Recommendation Request Deferred New Business Commission Goals Review Weir informed the Commission of his planned structure for a goals discussion at the March Commission meeting. Weir instructed each Commissioner to come to the March meeting with one priority goal they would like to have accomplished by the Commission in the next year. Wrap Up Items to be added to next agenda include the Recology quarterly report, an update from the Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee, the Awards sub-committee and the Fourth of July Committee as well as a review and recommendation on the BYOB (plastic bag ban) ordinance. April agenda items include the School District quarterly update, the Sustainability sub-committee update The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes April 2, 2014 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way- Siskiyou Room REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER, 6:08p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way Historic Commissioners Present: Terry Skibby, Allison Renwick, Sam Whitford, Dale Shostrom, Tom Giordono, Ally Phelps, Keith Swink Commission Members Absent:_Kerry Kencairn, Victoria Law Council Liaison: Mike Morris, Absent Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Regan Trapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The meeting date was incorrect in the minutes from March 2014. Mrs. Trapp corrected the minutes. Ms. Phelps motioned that minutes be approved, Mr. Skibby seconded. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Counselor Morris was absent, so no report was given.. PUBLIC HEARING: Commissioner Skibby read the procedure for public hearings . PLANNING ACTION: PA-2014-00 251 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 30 South First Street APPLICANT: Oregon Shakespeare Festival DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to allow renovation of the existing OSF Scene Production Facility, a historic contributing building at 30 South First Street, into a Rehearsal Center. Also included is a request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of eight trees over six-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Downtown Commercial; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09BD; TAX LOTS: 5200 Mrs. Gunter gave the staff report for this and stated it is under significant interior renovation. Exterior aspects of the renovation are windows and fixing of some mechanical equipment mess out of the backside of the building. They will remove a couple of trees to accomplish this. Windows will be the same as proposed. They are putting a recessed storefront door at one of the comers where there is an opening and adding some signs. They will be changing the roof, gable and the elevator lift area. The elevator lift will be exposed out of the roof in order to get the clearances they need. It is located on elevation 2, 3, and 4. There is an exterior staircase being added as well. Commisioner Skibby opened the public hearing. Ogden, Romer, and Wilkerson Architecture David Wilkerson and Dave Stevens 2950 E. Barnett Rd, Medford, OR 97504 Paul Nicolson from OSF Mr. Wilkerson discussed their project with the commission and about what would be replaced and what materials would be used. It started as a window project, and grew from there. In addition to replacing the windows, maintenance work is being done on the existing roof. The roof that is there now is an older pre- engineered metal building structure from the late 80's. Because of the condition of the roof they will be covering it with a TPO (thermo plastic) membrane, not visible from the street, suitable for a lower slope roof. To increase energy efficiency, they are making the roof white. Seams will not be visible from the street. Making the roof a different color other than white, would be more of a cost. They will be replacing the existing metal panel gables with a board and batten facade and provide a new exterior paint scheme. The battens will run vertically and horizontally. They will replace the existing northwest corner CMU and storefront which faces the main street, with a new folding glass door and complimentary storefront. They will be replacing the windows to much of their original state. Valuation of this project is estimated at 3 million. Public hearing was closed at 6:50pm. There were several questions from the commission so the public hearing was re-opened at 6:55pm for further questions. . Public hearing was closed at 7:05 Commissioner Swink motioned to explore options of alternative roofing because of the visual impact on the SW corner of the building. Commissioner Skibby seconded the motion, no one opposed. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business to discuss. NEW ITEMS Historic Preservation Presentation at Ashland City Council - April 15, 2014, 7 Mrs Gunter stated that city council needs a representative from the group to speak at the next meeting. Council would like commission to speak on what they have been doing the last year or two. A 5 - 10 minute presentation is needed. After much discussion, Commissioner Swink agreed to do the presentation with Mrs. Gunter's help. Historic Preservation Week - Award Winner write-ups The Commissioners will do write-ups on the properties listed below. The write-ups are due the second week of April. It was decided that an online scrapbook would be made for each winner and commissioner Swink would take over this project with Mrs. Gunter's help. 112 Pine, Mr. Giordano Enders Shelter, Mrs. Gunter Atkinson Bridge, Mrs Gunter 134 Terrace, Ms. Phelps Certificates and photo albums will be given to winners with photo images, of the winners available on the city website. Commissioner Skibby will take photos of all the winners and also lead the walking tour. The mausoleum will be open all day on May 21St. The ceremony is scheduled for, Weds, May 21, 2014 at 1 pm, at the Community Center. Commission members are asked to be there by 12:30 for setup. It was discussed that the historic photo albums be updated and placed in scrapbooks with photo CD's placed in the back of each book. This discussion was tabled until the next meeting. Review Board Schedule April 3m Keith, Allison April 10th Tom, Sam, All April 17th Terry, Ally, Dale Aril 24th Terry, Allison, Kerry May 1st Keith, Dale, Kerry Project Assignments for Planning Actions - Review Update BD-2011-01029 400 Allison (Robin Biermann) New SFR under construction Whitford/Renwick BD-2011-00621 89 Oak St Amorotico New faFade on building under construction Shostrom BD-2013-00256 175 Lithia W First Place Partners 3-story mixed use building under constr Giordano BD-2013-00718 5 B Street (Spartan Properties) New Comm Bldg under construction Phel s PA-2014-00251 30 S. First St Whitford PA-2014-00491 566 Fairview St. New second unit over new garage no submittal et Shostrom BD-2013-00813 19 Gresham / 374 Har adine No Submittal et Swink PA-2013-01388 14 Calle Guanajuato Sandlers Restaurant Renwick PA-2013-01421 270 N First St Nisha Jackson New SFR Renwick PA-2013-01829 60 Alida St Micah & Greta Lieberman new garage & ARU Shostrom PA-2013-01828 310 Oak St (Brent Thompson) 2 new Res units in Comm Bldg Shostrom ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled for May 7, 2014, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:58 pm. Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 8, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Mike Morris, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Commissioner Kaplan provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee meeting. Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Planning Commission's annual retreat will be held on Saturday, May 10, 2014. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 25, 2014 Study Session. 2. March 11, 2014 Regular Meeting. 3. March 25, 2014 Study Session. Commissioner Mindlin requested the recusal statement be removed from page 2 of the March 11, 2014 minutes. Commissioners ThompsonlPeddicord mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion Passed. [Commissioners Brown and Kaplan abstained from approval of March 25, 2014 minutes] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION PL-2013.01858 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance and to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. [Continued from March 11, 2014 meeting; public hearing is closed] Commissioner Mindlin shared her comments and questions regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan: • Is the lack of curbs and gutters on the shared streets in order for water to run off into the natural areas? Mr. Goldman clarified this is one design option and stated the expectation is that shared streets adjacent to riparian areas will not have curbs. Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 1 of 5 • What does it mean in include East Main Street as a planned roadway project? Mr. Goldman stated this will include the project in the City's Transportation System Plan and allow systems development charges to be applied. Commissioner Mindlin recommended the Commission include an additional comment to the Council regarding the funding of the transportation improvements for this plan. • Why is cluster housing identified as a new housing type when this already exists elsewhere in the City, and why is the statement "...yet with a lower profile retaining the appearance of traditional single family homes" used in the staff report? Commissioner Mindlin commented that this statement might raise false expectations. Mr. Goldman clarified the proposed code amendment states "Pedestrian Oriented Cluster residential units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single fami/y homes. "Mindlin suggested staff prepare a statement that clarifies the Commission's intent. • Suggestion was made that the Commission's recommendation to the City Council should emphasize that the purpose of the greenway and open space is to retain the neighborhood character and to preserve this contiguous piece of land, regardless of the individual wetland delineations. • Concern was expressed regarding the statement "The use ofrearlane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paveda/leys. "Mr. Goldman clarified this statement has already been flagged for removal. • Recommendation was made for page 14 of the framework document to include language regarding open space and neighborhood character. • Recommendation was made to modify 18-3.13.040(2) to make it consistent with the framework document. • Recommendation was made to modify 18-3.13.060(A-3a) to include "where possible. 'Mr. Goldman stated this correction is already included on the proposed amendment list. • Suggestion was made to include parking requirements for neighborhood serving commercial. Mr. Molnar clarified in the NN-03 zone ground floor commercial is permitted, and when a plan comes forward it will be evaluated to ensure sufficient on-street parking is available. • Suggestion was made to add a placeholder for future public transit stops on East Main Street. • Suggestion was made for the Commission to allow three stories in the NN-03 zone. Commissioner Mindlin noted the high level of density being required and stated increasing the height limit from 2.5 to 3 stories would provide more latitude and creativity to designers. The Commission discussed this idea and consensus was reached to allow up to 40 ft. (three stories) in the NN-03 zone with a conditional use permit. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Dawkins strongly recommended this plan not move forward until East Main Street has been improved from Walker to Clay Street, and also requested a thorough clarification of how the railroad crossing improvements will be handled. He advocated that it would be irresponsible for the City to allow this level of density without first improving the transportation system. The Commission discussed Dawkins' recommendation and several members questioned if this meant the full financing burden would be placed on the City. Comment was made that an advanced financing district is only good for 10 years and it would not make sense to form this now, but rather should occur when the first annexation application is approved. Dawkins clarified his position and stated the improvements don't need to happen at this moment, but should be completed as soon as development begins. Commissioner Mindlin suggested a recommendation to the Council that financing plans for the East Main Street and railroad crossing improvements be in place prior to annexation or development. Dawkins restated his position for the transportation system improvements to occur when development begins. Commissioners Thompson/Kaplan mils to recommend Council's adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan with the modifications proposed by staff in the April 8 Memo, and to include the modifications discussed by the Planning Commission tonight. DISCUSSION: Mr. Goldman clarified the Commission's modifications that will be included in the Council recommendation are: 1) Recommend amending page 14 of the framework document to incorporate language defining the open space as an important character element of the plan, 2) Recommend amending 18-3.13.040 to provide consistency with the definition and description of pedestrian oriented cluster housing, 3) Recommend amendment to 18.3.13.060(A), which is already included as a staff recommendation, 4) Recommend adding a placeholder for transit stops on East Main Street, 5) Recommend a conditional use permit process to allow properties in the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones to go up to three stories and 40 ft. in height, 6) Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 2 or 5 Recommend that East Main Street (on the south side from Walker to Clay Street) be improved to arterial street standards in connection with annexation and development proposals, including an appropriate financing plan, and 7) Recommend that prior to annexation and development obtain a final determination that the railroad crossing can become a public crossing and for a financing plan for the improvements to be provided. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Peddicord, Kaplan, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. Mr. Molnar provided a brief re-cap from the March 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. He stated the Planning Commission held discussion on this issue and provided general direction that should the City Council approve an amendment to allow short term rentals in single family zoning districts, that it only apply to owner occupied units, to use the conditional use permit process for approval, and to allow one or two bedrooms within the footprint of the residence and accessed from the main entrance. Mr. Molnar stated the outstanding issues staff needs clarification on are: 1) would they allow bedrooms accessed from a private entrance to be used as short term rentals, 2) would they allow detached structures to be used as short term rentals, 3) does the Commission wish to set a maximum square footage or maximum occupancy that could be rented, and 4) should eligible properties be limited to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street? Public InRu Annie Dunn/150 N Main/Staled she is the co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and wants the community to maintain its charm and integrity. Ms. Dunn provided a description of the hostel accommodations and disagreed with the public input shared at the last meeting that short term rentals were filling a niche not otherwise offered in Ashland. She noted they receive many inquiries about long term housing and stated there is a clear trend of an abundance of long term rentals in the winter months that quickly evaporate come spring. Sidney Taylor/150 N Main/Stated she is the other co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and commented on the shortage of affordable long term housing in Ashland. Ms. Taylor stated their guests are thrilled with their rates and the accommodation types they offer, and stated the R-2 or R-3 zones would be a great place to start similar businesses. Ms. Taylor stated using the claim that there is a shortage of short term lodging in Ashland to justify a change in zoning laws makes no sense. She stated the R-1 districts are zoned residential and owners pay more for homes in these zones. She questioned why the City would sacrifice the integrity of Ashland's R-1 zones and further exacerbate the shortage of long term rentals in the interest of those who want to turn a quick profit. Ms. Taylor stated the City should encourage those who have been operating short term rentals in the R-1 zone to instead offer what is already needed and legal in Ashland, long term housing. Abby Hogge11700 Parker/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-01 attached). Tom DuBois/690 S Mountain/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-02 attached). Abi MaghamfarlSlated he represents the Ashland Lodging Association, which represents 60% of the licensed, legally operating lodging businesses in Ashland. Mr. Maghamfar stated they are not in favor of establishing travelers accommodations in the R-1 zone and commented that the City needs to stay true to the purpose of the R-1 zone as defined in the municipal code and consider the impacts to the rental housing supply and prices. Mr. Maghamfar stated there is no unmet lodging demand in Ashland and the Chamber of Commerce's latest statistics show an average occupancy of 50% year-round. He added the results of a three year study they conducted on home occupation businesses showed that while the ordinance allows up to eight visitors per day, the average was less than one visitor per day. Helen Orr/407 Clinton/Expressed concern that real estate values in the R-1 zone will be impacted and feels like she has been gypped. Ms. Orr stated single family residential neighborhoods will be impacted if the City allows this and Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 5 fully disagrees with short term rentals in this zone. She added there is enough property in Ashland to support this use and it does not belong in the R-1 zone. John Baxter/831 Liberty/Stated he has lived in Ashland for 34 years and owns a long term rental in town and until recently operated a HOST type unit. Mr. Baxter encouraged the Commission to allow short term rentals in the R-1 zone and shared his experience with long term renters. He stated long term renters have no stake in their neighborhoods, and commented that his short term renters generated no complaints and property owners have a built in incentive to ensure that the operation of their guest suite does not bother the neighbors. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Molnar noted the areas that staff needs clarification on and the commissioners took turns sharing their comments. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not in favor of allowing anything other than single bedrooms that do not have kitchen facilities, as noted these types of rooms are not likely to become long term rentals. He added the house needs to be owner occupied and is fine with either the main entrance or a separate entrance for the rental. He also stated he does not believe the City Council will allow accessory residential units (ARUs) to be short term rentals and commented on the history of accessory units and how they were intended for long term rentals. Commissioner Thompson stated she is not certain the impact of short term rentals is inconsistent with residential zoning, but is worried about protecting existing businesses in town. She stated under certain circumstances she is comfortable with allowing short term rentals as a permitted use. She stated she is not concerned about kitchen facilities or allowing more than one bedroom, but agrees that ARUs should not be allowed to operate as short term rentals. Thompson also voiced her support for utilizing the conditional use permit approval process. Commissioner Kaplan stated one bedroom in a hosted home is not much different than having a relative visit and the fact that these short term rentals will be hosted and are limited in size makes a difference for him. Commissioner Brown agreed with one bedrooms and supports setting a size limit. He stated he is not in favor of allowing short term rentals in the single family zone, but if the Council decides to pursue this he believes they have set appropriate parameters to control it. Brown also commented on the 200 ft. rule and stated he sees no reason to change this requirement. The Commission held discussion on the 200 ft rule. Comments were made that the R-1 zone is not the place to revisit this issue, and that this issue is controversial enough as it is and they should not entertain removing this requirement. Comments regarding encouraging guests to walk and not drive were also shared. General consensus was reached to limit these rentals to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street. Staff asked for clarification about whether the Commission would support the rental of accessory residential units that are within the buildings footprint (such as a basement within a home). Commissioner Thompson stated she would support this and cautioned them about getting overly complex. She added she does not feel compelled to set a limit on the number of bedroom or a size limit, or define the entrance type. Commissioner Brown disagreed and stated the amendment should be as clear and specific as possible so that it is workable and enforceable. Commissioner Peddicord suggested a maximum occupancy and stated establishing an allowable number of people and gets more to the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Molnar stated staff would pull together the Commission's input and bring back a final recommendation for their approval. CommissionerMindlin rejoined the meeting. B. Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Mr. Molnar explained on April 1, 2014 the City Council passed first reading of an ordinance that would place a limited moratorium until May 2015 on marijuana dispensaries. He stated the state legislature allowed this so that communities would have time to adjust their zoning codes and clarified the City's moratorium will prohibit Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 4 of 5 dispensaries on E-1 lots that are within 100 ft. of residential zoning districts and all lots in the C-1-D zone (downtown commercial overlay). Commissioner Thompson noted she researched how other cities have handled this issue and recommended Ashland limit the number of dispensaries in the City, not allow marijuana to be smoked or consumed on the premises, to curtail business hours, to not allow dispensaries in temporary or portable structures, and require trash dumpsters to be enclosed. Commissioner Mindlin recommended they treat dispensaries like a pharmacy, rather than a club, cafe, or liquor store. She added her opinion is that dispensaries should not be located within 100 ft. of a residence. Commissioner Dawkins staled he would prefer to see dispensaries located in high traffic areas, and disagreed with the city administrator that these should be prohibited downtown. Public Input Carol Kim/422 Rogue Place/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-03 attached). William Clary/460 Williamson/Stated buffer zones should be based on traffic flow and suggested a requirement for dispensaries to be placed on main arterial streets or in areas that can handle high levels of traffic. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Molnar clarified if the Commission wants to encouraged dispensaries in certain areas, they could make the approval process less rigorous in those locations. Suggestion was made to limit dispensaries to C-1 zones that front arterials, or at least make it easier to be located in these areas, and to not go against the city administrator's direction regarding the C-1-D zone. The Commission discussed whether dispensaries were an appropriate use in the downtown, including whether or not this poses traffic concerns, and whether this puts tourists' opinions before residents' needs. A straw poll vote was taken on whether dispensaries should be allowed in the downtown area and the majority felt this should not be permitted. Comment was made that if the City only allows these in the C-1 zone, and with the state's 1,000 ft. from a school law and 1,000 ft. from another dispensary, this would be self limiting. The Commission discussed buffer zones for parks, public libraries and residences and no support was expressed for establishing these. Comment was made that limiting hours of operation was preferable to setting buffers and suggestion was made for 7 am to 7 pm. Commissioner Dawkins suggested the City allow dispensaries in the railroad district along A Street. The group discussed this but there was not a majority to move this forward. Mr. Molnar clarified this issue will be reviewed again at the April Study Session. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 5 of 5 If your concern is neighborhood impact: then yes, my home and operating as a STR have greatly impacted my neighborhood: We bought a dilapidated foreclosed rental which has and ADU. We have poured money into our property, transforming the curb appeal and it was because of the income from our STR which allowed us to do so. We were motivated to make our home look as best as we could and our neighbors have praised us for it. We've had ZERO complaints regarding our home and visiting guests. The cabin was occupied just 2-3 days per week and our guests were rarely there as they were out exploring the very city they came to see. We had the power to choose who stays and for how long. We had the security of knowing that if there were ever a disruption, we have the right to make them leave. I would strongly argue that Operating as a STR has a lesser neighborhood Impact than operating as a long term rental. As hosts, we are committed to being good neighbors! Now, we have a long term renter. The tenant lives there 100% of the time- day in and day out We have no control of who comes and goes to. the cabin or if they are noisy or disruptive. We cannot ask them to vacate immediately and terminated their stay. We loose those rights as landlords.. If your concern is housing stock: According to the 2010,census: Almost 1/2 of the dwellings in Ashland are rentals. There are an astounding 5000 rental units in our rental stock. Just today on craiglist there were 63 rentals on the market all of various prices. If every single legal ADU were to convert, it would only diminish approximately 1% of the stock. That's 1%. According to the City, it was merely a small handful of ADUs operating, not enough to make a dent in the housing stock. Renting long term is an easy hands off approach to earn some extra money and I would argue that most choose this route. It takes commitment and time to operate a STR and it is not for everyone. I ask that ifADUs are a concern for recommendation, perhaps you consider a 1 year trial period to study this further or even limiting the number of AD Us allowed as STRs. This type of local host accommodation is the new "shared economy" and it is not going anywhere. We can be a city that produces more, without Exhibit 2014-01 more waste, We can support our local families without the need for corporate hotels. With proper permitting, proper regulation, and taxation, we can add value to our community while still protecting the integrity of our neighborhoods HOUSING TENURE Occupied housing units L4,953 2 100.0 I Owner-occupied housing units 9 56.1 Population in owner-occupied housing units 8 (X ) Average household size of owner-occupied units 6 (X ) Renter-occupied housing units 43.9 Population in renter-occupied housing units 0 (X ) Average household size of renter-occu ied units g (X ) United States Census Bureau 2010 http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productoew.xbtml?pid=DEC 10_DP_DPDPI Exhibit 2014-01 4/8/14 Planning Commission Testimony: Tom DuBois 690 S Mountain Ave. Let me tell you about a typical day in my home business: It's four in the afternoon, a nice car pulls into my driveway with a couple in their fifties. I greet them with a smile, show them into their room, and give them my warm 'Welcome to Ashland" speech. At around 5 or 6, they head into town for some shopping, some dinner, and a show. They return at around 10 and... go to sleep! At around 10 in the following morning they hit the road, or maybe repeat their day of Ashland fun. This is hardly neighborhood ruination! This is why Planning Director Molnar & his staff can verify: There has never been a single documented complaint to the City about host occupied rental activity. NOT ONE! This is why City Administrator Dave Kanner and staff went on record about HOSTS..... Our impact on long-term rentals? none. Our impact on parking? ...none. Our impact on neighborhood character?... even less than other home businesses. And what about our impact on Home values? Well, home values have risen 300% since 1994 when Ashland allowed its first home businesses. One thing Ashland doesn't have is a problem with dropping home values. Who are the other people who operate home based businesses in R1? They are your neighbors & friends! Your kids take language, music, and art lessons from them. You visit a counselor, massage therapist, accountant or lawyer. I imagine everyone in this room knows someone who operates a business out of their home, or has patronized one. As HOSTS, we want what YOU want! We want to be regulated like any other home business... mom & pops that have thrived in R-1 neighborhoods for over 20 years. We want to have healthy, happy relationships with our neighbors! We want to be inspected! We want to collect and remit lodging-taxes... We want to be just like any other home based business... but with one difference:. They can have 8 visitors a dayl We are asking for one! And my visitor's going to sleep, 10 hours! So I'm going to urge you tonight: we do not have to re-invent the wheel. Start with the home-business ordinance... it's simple! Let's fine tune it! Let's put an end to all this scary speculation. Let's take a year to test drive this idea. One year, use it as a trial period, do a fact based analysis, not opinion based, that will answer the pros and cons of allowing HOSTS in R-1. Let's give our visitors the wonderful option to stay with a friendly Ashland family in a welcoming Ashland home in a beautiful Ashland neighborhood. Exhibit 2014-02 Dear Planning Commission, My name is Carol Kim and I live at 422 Rogue Pl. I am wondering : How can we maintain Ashland's charm and unique neighborhoods, while still providing access to medical marijuana? At present, businesses such as dispensaries, nightclubs, bars, liquor stores, or even crematoriums can all be put in an E-1 zone. The traffic generated and the hours of operation as well as other factors would have negative effects on any neighborhood. Should such businesses be placed next to neighborhoods simply because existing codes allow it? I believe businesses like dispensaries should be established in areas that are can handle large volumes of traffic and people at all hours. Cities like San Diego have confined medical marijuana dispensaries to light industrial and commercial use, keeping them at least 600 feet from homes and other sensitive areas like parks and playgrounds. As you examine medical marijuana dispensaries and possible locations, please consider the following questions: 1. How many dispensaries are needed and will be allowed in Ashland? 2. What are the best locations for them? 3. Will legalization be on the ballot as early as November in Oregon? How will medical marijuana dispensaries be handled? Will they automatically be allowed to sell recreational marijuana? If so, please consider all the ramifications of this, especially on neighborhoods. 4. How can you protect neighborhoods from the negative impacts of dispensaries? Perhaps keep them on arterial streets or in shopping centers, buffer zones, out of E-1 areas with residences next to them, away from pars, etc. 5. Why does the city currently not want dispensaries downtown? What will be the impact there? Please take this time to examine what other cities are doing, visit affected neighborhoods and downtown, and make your usual good study of all the issues. Thank you. Exhibit 2014-03 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Michael Dawkins Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris, absent ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director announced the City Council will hold the public hearing on the Normal Neighborhood Plan on May 6, 2014. He also noted Commissioner Miller has been reappointed to a 4-year term, and announced that Michael Grubbs has resigned from his position as City Building Official. Commissioner Brown provided a brief update on the SDC Committee meeting, and Commissioner Dawkins commented on the Downtown Beautification Committee. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Review of Planning Commission's recommendation to Council on the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Senior Planner Brandon Goldman noted the Planning Commission held the public hearing on the Normal Neighborhood Plan on March 11, 2014 and made their formal recommendation to the City Council April 8, 2014. He stated what is presented tonight is the Commission's final report for their review. The following suggestions were issued regarding the draft final report: • Page 2 - Mobility Framework. Suggestion was made to include input from RVTD regarding the future transit stop on East Main Street. Mr. Goldman suggested the wording be changed to 'A future transit stop coordinated with RVTD, in the immediate vicinity of the NN-03 Land Use Zone, should be incorporated into the East Main Street roadway design and development. "The Commission voiced support for this change. • Page 2 - Mobility Framework. Suggestion was made for the railroad crossing language to clearly specify whether a crossing somewhere else in the City will need to be closed in order to make this a public crossing. The Commission shared their comments on this suggestion. Mr. Goldman explained that ODOT Rail has stated they will not prepare a final determination until a crossing application has been submitted. Comment was made expressing concern about putting this application and engineering process on the first annexation applicant. Recommendation was made to edit the language to read "A A94 & ^ m ^ That the proposed public railroad crossing can be installed without necessitating the closure of any existing public crossing within the City. "The Commission voiced support for this change. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 1 of 3 Mr. Goldman stated the report will be amended as requested and forwarded to the City Council for their public hearing on May 6, 2014. B. Review elements of a draft ordinance related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained staff has prepared a discussion draft based on previous meeting discussions and will take the input that comes out of tonight's discussion and prepare an ordinance for the public hearing on May 13, 2014. Ms. Harris stated during previous discussions the Planning Commission has determined that: 1) dispensaries will be a special permitted use in the C-1 and E-1 zones, 2) dispensaries must be located on streets classified as a boulevard, 3) hours of operation will be from 7 am to 7 pm, 4) dispensaries must be enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials is permitted, 5) any modification to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards and security bars are prohibited on windows and doors, 6) dispensaries must provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants, and 7) dispensaries must conform to the state requirements. Comment was made questioning if consumption on site will be prohibited. Ms. Harris stated consumption on the premises is already prohibited by state law and clarified staff will check with the state regarding the definition of "premise". The Commission agreed that their intent is to prohibit consumption both inside and outside the building. Suggestion was made to allow dispensaries on A Street, however Commissioner Mindlin noted that this was voted down by the group at the last meeting. Another suggestion was made to potentially allow dispensaries to be located within one block of a boulevard. The Commission discussed keeping these uses away from residential neighborhoods and that placing these on busier streets would provide natural surveillance and limit increased traffic. No support was voiced for allowing dispensaries further off the boulevard. Ms. Harris handed out code language from other cities and asked for the Commission's input. The group agreed to not allow drive-thru dispensaries, and also agreed to not place any additional buffer for parks, libraries, and other places where children congregate. Staff thanked the Commission for their input and noted they will have one more chance to discuss this issue when it comes back for the public hearing on May 13, 2014. C. Ideas for upcoming Planning Commission Retreat on May 10th. Staff and the Commission briefly discussed potential retreat topics. Suggestions were made to discuss infill strategies, look at where redevelopment can occur, and assess the qualities that exist downtown and in the railroad district that are lacking on Ashland Street and Siskiyou Blvd. Additional suggestions were made to visit previous controversial applications (such as the house at Gresham/Allison) and see how they turned out, and to review the updated Uniform Policies for Commissions and Committees. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting. D. Clarification of recommendation to Council on Short Term Rentals. Mr. Molnar stated staff does not know whether the City Council will want to make changes to allow short term rentals in the single family zone, but if they do decide to move forward with changes, the Planning Commission has recommended the following: 1) properties must be owner occupied and located within 200 ft. of a major city street, 2) rentals can be a one- bedroom or two-bedroom suite located within the residence footprint, 3) rentals may be accessed from either the main entrance or a separate private entrance, 4) a conditional use permit is required, and 5) there will be an annual or biennial review of the operation. Comment was made questioning the fee structure and whether using the same fee as an accessory residential unit ($649) was appropriate. It was noted that those who apply for travelers accommodation approval in the R-2 or R-3 zones are changed a higher rate of $998. Mr. Molnar commented on the staff time and noticing requirements for these types of applications and explained it is comparable to the ARU process. Comment was made that they should not be making it harder for those in the zones where they want to encourage this use, and suggesting the City charge the same fee for all the zoning districts. Additional recommendations were made to only permit a single reservation (although the accommodation could be two Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 2 of 3 bedrooms) and to not allow independent kitchen facilities, as allowing these units to be converted to short term rentals could reduce the City's long term rental housing stock. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission Study Session April 22, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Award of a Professional Services Contract in Excess of $75,000 for Consultant Engineering of the A St. Sewer Project FROM: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Council is asked to approve a professional services contract with OBEC Engineering Consultants for engineering of the A St. sewer project. The Wastewater Master Plan has identified upsizing the A St. sewer line as a high priority project. Engineering has gone through the consultant selection process and selected OBEC Engineering Consultants to perform the required scope of services. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The A St. sewer was identified in the 2005 and 2012 Master Plans as a priority improvement project. The project was identified through collection system modeling of the wastewater system. Modeling of the A St. sewer line showed potential overflows and capacity issues. The project itself will include design of an upsized pipeline, surveying, and geotechnical assessments. In addition, as part of the design process OBEC will perform public outreach with affected property owners along the A St. corridor between First St. and Seventh St. In 2008, under a City construction contract, the sewer was upsized from Oak St. to First St. This project will continue with the recommended upsizing from First St. to Seventh St. Request for Proposal On January 21, 2014 a Qualifications Based Selection Proposal for engineering services for the A St. sewer improvement project was advertised statewide, in the Mail Tribune, and on the City's website. Proposal documents were sent to prospective proposers, plan centers and builder's exchanges throughout the state. Proposals were due on February 11, 2014 at which time five qualified consultants submitted proposals. An evaluation team consisting of three Engineering staff members individually graded the proposals according to the given criteria: Paget U3 l`, CITY OF ASHLAND Criteria Maximum Score" Demonstrated Technical Competence 15 Specialized Experience & Capabilities 25 Resources Committed to Perform the Work 25 Ownership, Availability to, and familiars with Locale 25 Project Management Techniques 10 TOTAL 100 Points After scoring was completed in February the scores were combined to determine the top rankings. The final results were as follows: axk ~t TOTaAL O ' CON5ULT~ANT x~ ~ 5CORE,~ RANK° OBEC Engineering Consultants 275 1 Hardey Engineering & Associates 238 2 S14N Consulting Engineers 209 3 Marquess & Associates 136 4 RH2 Engineering Inc. N/A* N/A *RH2 proposal was disregarded due to changes made in the project team after submittal. After scoring the proposals, Engineering started scope and fee negotiations with OBEC Engineering per the requirements of the selection process. The scope and fee negotiations consisted of Engineering working with OBEC to develop an overall consultant scope that would meet the needs of the City and include, engineering design, environmental site evaluation, surveying and construction administration activities. After multiple discussions between staff and OBEC a final scope and fee was completed and approved by Engineering, reference attachment #1. The consultant team OBEC Engineering has put together for this project include: 1. OBEC-Preliminary and final design, surveying, bidding assistance and public outreach 2. Civil West Engineering-Analysis for trenchless technology design options 3. GeoMetrix Northwest - Ground Penetrating radar for location of existing utility and rock strata. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed fee for engineering is $79,953.00. Public Works budgeted $147,096 in the FY14/15 biennium for this project. The funds required for construction will be requested as part of the FYI 6/17 budget. In addition, Engineering has applied for low interest DEQ loans for this and other priority wastewater improvement projects and is currently completing all required documents in order to finalize the loan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council approve a professional services contract with OBEC for engineering of the A St. sewer line. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve a professional services contract with OBEC Engineering Consultants in the amount of $79,953.00 for the engineering of the A St. sewer line. ATTACHMENTS: 1. OBEC Engineering Consultants Scope of Services and Fee 2. Qualifications Based Selection Proposal-OBEC Engineering Consultants Page 3 of 3 ' f CONSIR RNG f ENGINEERS EUGENE,OR May 8, 2014 Corporate Office 541.683.6090 LAKE OSWEGO, OR Morgan Wayman 503.620.6103 City of Ashland Engineering Department SALEM,oR 51 Winburn Way 5035894100 Ashland, OR 97520 MEDFORD, OR 541.7 74 5590 RE: A Street 15-inch Sewer Main VANCOUVER,WA OBEC Job No. 649-13 360314,2391 www.obec.com Dear Morgan: Thank you for considering OBEC Consulting Engineers for your A Street Sewer Project. Based upon our understanding of the project, we have prepared the following scope of services along . with the attached breakdown of costs for this project. project Understanding We understand that approximately 2,200 feet of existing 1 2-inch sewer pipe in the southbound travel lane of A Street needs to be upsized to a 15-inch pipe between 1 st and 7th Streets. The existing sewer is approximately 10 feet deep, and there are eight existing manholes and more than 50 service laterals within the project limits. Several other underground utilities cross and/or parallel the existing sewer main, including domestic water and storm sewer. There is reportedly l stratified shallow bedrock in the area, and it has been noted that the existing pavement within the project limits is generally in very poor condition. The close proximity of several Ashland businesses and residences will be the most critical factor to overcome for this project. In order to avoid inconvenience for the public, our team must carefully coordinate and mitigate construction impacts to traffic flow, on-street parking, utility services, and business access. Our proposed detailed scope of services for the design phase is as follows: Task 1 Project Management and Quality Assurance The purpose of this task is to 1) provide overall task management and project coordination with the City of Ashland as well as to manage OBEC Engineering staff and subconsultants assigned to the project, and 2) provide Quality Assurance Reviews for each major deliverable. OBEC will be responsible for the following project management tasks: ° Schedule, coordinate, and supervise project work Maintain communications and coordination with City staff and subconsultants ° Produce monthly invoices and progress reports Morgan Wayman May 8, 2014 t EIFER5 Page 2 Attend up to three (3) meetings with City to review deliverables and/or coordinate ongoing design efforts and discuss results OBEC will be responsible for providing an independent sehior-level Quality Assurance Review of major deliverables, including: • Preliminary Design Memo and attachments • Advance (90%) Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate • Final (100%) Plans, Specifications, and Cost Estimate Task 2 Public Involvement OBEC will develop and lead a public involvement process to inform and seek feedback from businesses and residents on A Street within the project limits. In cooperation with the City, OBEC will perform the following public involvement services: • Develop presentation materials appropriate for public meetings • Attend and participate in conducting public meetings and workshops with local businesses and residents • Document feedback from businesses and residents to be incorporated into the design as agreed to by the City Schedule and attend one-on-one follow-up meetings with businesses most severely impacted by construction It is assumed that City staff will provide a suitable location for all public meetings and advertise them as appropriate. Task 3 Control Network Topographic Survey and Monument Recovery OBEC shall provide all surveying and mapping needs for the Project. OBEC will establish a control network and provide topographic surveying, Centerline Resolution, Horizontal Control, and Monument Recovery Survey. This is an English unit project. All Consultant deliverables must be reviewed and approved by OBEC's Professional Land Surveyor (PLS), registered in the state of Oregon. Consultant shall establish horizontal and vertical control network points according to City standards, and set survey control points to tie (survey) found monuments within the Project limits. The horizontal datum used by the Consultant must be the Oregon Coordinate Reference System - Grants Pass-Ashland Zone, based on the NAD83 (2011) Epoch 2010 datum. The vertical datum used by Consultant must be City of Ashland NGVD 29(56). Consultant shall establish primary geodetic control monuments, (such as 5/8-inch iron rod with plastic cap or other permanent markers) and maintain line of sight throughout the entire Project limits. These control monuments must be placed in locations by Consultant, such that they can be utilized during construction, Morgan Wayman CONSUMAG May 8, 2014 / r EWNU/6 Page 3 Consultant shall run digital level loops to control points that are utilized in preparing the Digital Terrain Model (DTM). Strategic points used to develop survey DTM in non-critical areas must be no more than one (1) "shot" out from a network control point. The Control network must be shown on the Horizontal Control and Recovery Survey filed with the County Surveyor. OBEC shall perform a topographic survey for proposed realigned sanitary sewer or other. areas where Consultant's design engineers request information. OBEC will provide survey and mapping for this Project as follows: Establish survey control for the project ° Call for utility locates within project boundaries ° Provide topographic survey as need to complete project base mapping ° Conduct Monument Recovery ° Prepare base mapping OBEC shall provide labor, equipment, and materials to perform a search of survey records on file with County and City to perpetuate the location of monuments that may be disturbed or destroyed during a future construction project. Consultant shall research deeds and surveys of record, Including but not necessarily limited to property surveys, county road surveys, original county road resolutions, section corner surveys, and DLC surveys. OBEC shall provide tax assessor maps, property deed search, and copies of all pertinent documents to the County. OBEC shall survey found property corners, Government Corners, other survey monuments property line fences and lines of occupation within the limits of the Project. OBEC shall provide at least one (1) PLSS comer tie. OBEC shall keep copies of the research data collected such as surveys, deeds, assessors' maps, county road maps, government corner surveys, etc., in the Project file. Task 4 Ground Penetrating Radar Subsurface Investigation (To be performed by Geometrix Northwest) Consultant shall perform approximately 2,200 linear feet of underground mapping along A Street using ground penetrating radar (GPR) technology for the purpose of determining the depth of bedrock and identifiable utilities within the street section. The vertical accuracy of GPR data shall be 0.5 feet. Data shall be provided as 3D poly lines within a CAD file produced in the project coordinate system. Task 5 Utilify Coordination OBEC shall identify and locate all utilities within the project limits, initiate contacts with utilities, and coordinate relocations needed for construction of the Project. This work includes, but is not limited to, coordinating and collecting utility-provided three-dimensional location of any Morgan Wayman i CONSUUWG May 8, 2014 I ENGINEERS Min" Page 4 underground utilities that may be in conflict with the Project work, and coordinating with the utility owners to resolve those potential conflicts. O.BEC shall schedule, attend and document on-site meetings with potentially affected utilities. The meetings shall be conducted an the Project site after impacts have been identified. For budgeting purposes, attendance at a maximum of two (2) site meetings is anticipated, each of which may last up to two (2) hours including travel time. For each private utility found in potential conflict with the proposed design, OBEC shall prepare o Utility Conflict Notification Letter informing the utility of the potential conflict and the need to relocate/adjust the utility facility and required timing of relocation. OBEC shall work with each private utility to verify a relocation plan that is not in conflict with the Project. Once OBEC has confirmed the relocation plan with each utility, a Timing Requirements Letter will be sent to the affected utility. When Consultant has made proper arrangements with each utility owner to either clear the right-of-way of their utility facilities prior to construction or for relocation to occur during construction so as to not delay the contractor, OBEC shall provide the City with a written summary. Task 6 Prepare Preliminary Design Plans and Memo OBEC and Civil West will evaluate existing conditions,.opportunities, and constraints to determine the most feasible and cost-effective design solution(s) for replacing and upsizing the existing 1 2-inch sewer main in A Street to a new 15-inch main. Consultant team shall consider the logistics of establishing manhole connections, service laterals, and construction staging when evaluating design options. Consultant shall produce preliminary plan drawings reflecting the proposed design to a 30% level of detail. Consultant shall also prepare a preliminary engineer's cost estimate for up to two (2) design alternatives to be considered for final design. Consultant shall prepare a preliminary design memo report to present existing conditions, present alternatives, and recommend the most feasible solution(s). This memo shall be accompanied by the preliminary drawings and engineer's cost estimate(s). The memo will be reviewed by the City, and the City will provide written review comments, as necessary. Task 7 Prepare Advance (90%) Plans, Specs $ Cost Estimate OBEC will prepare and submit Advance (909/6) contract plans for review by City Staff. City feedback from the preliminary design memo will be incorporated into the Advance Plans. OBEC will incorporate City of Ashland standards into the drawing set, as needed. Project elements will include the realignment of sanitary sewer mainline improvements, roadway restoration elements, and temporary traffic control plans. All plan sheets will be produced in 1 1" x 17" format and submitted on paper and electronically for review. Morgan Wayman CUNSU NG May 8, 2014 ' RONEERS Page 5 OBEC shall prepare draft specifications and special provisions for review and comment by City Staff. Specifications shall conform to the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction and City of Ashland Standards. OBEC shall calculate detailed construction quantities and generate a detailed Engineer's Cost Estimate to accompany the Advance Plans for review by City Staff. According to OBEC policy and procedures, OBEC shall conduct detailed QC checking of all design deliverobles and quantities prepared and submitted to the City. Documentation of this discipline- specif(c checking will be kept in OBEC's project files and will be available to the City of Ashland upon request. Task 8 Prepare Final Plans, Specs & Cost Estimate OBEC will prepare and submit final contract documents for the purposes of bidding. City feedback from the Advance Plans will be incorporated into the final plans, specifications, and cost estimate. All plan sheets will be produced in 1 1" x 17" format and submitted on mylar film. OBEC shall prepare final specifications and special provisions for the purposes of bidding. Specifications shall conform to the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction and City of Ashland Standards. OBEC shall also tabulate the final detailed construction quantities and generate a detailed Engineer's Cost Estimate to accompany the final plans. According to OBEC policy and procedures, OBEC shall conduct final QC checking of the final deliverables and quantities prepared and submitted to the City. Documentation of this internal review will be kept in OBEC's project files and will be available to the City of Ashland upon request. It is assumed that the City of Ashland will utilize the specification and bid item information provided by the Consultant to prepare the final advertisement and bidding booklets for the purpose of public bidding. The City will advertise the project, accept bids, and award the construction contract(s). Task 9 Bidding Assistance OBEC shall assist the City of Ashland during the bidding process by answering contractor questions and preparing addenda, as necessary. OBEC will also conduct one pre-bid meeting to ensure that contractor(s) understand all project requirements. The City of Ashland will be responsible for advertisement and receipt of all bids. OBEC will assist the City with evaluation of bids, if requested. . Morgan Wayman r CONSUU6% May 8, 201 4 t ENGINEERS Page 6 Estimated Fee OBEC proposes to perform this scope of services on a time-and-materials basis for a cost not to exceed $79,953, as shown in the attached spreadsheet of estimated labor costs and expenses. These costs are in accordance with and based upon OBEC's 2013 Standard Billing Rates, also attached. We hope that this proposal provides you with the information you require at this time. We look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, G4j - Jeff Bernardo, PE Senior Project Manager JRB/vks Enclosures >fstli wy w ww d Ir.s°n 22 Q~ V ~ n ~ b mi3 p b ~ IL C C s VI F m 3 wry j 1 O N C isstl ulwPtl , } ~ ~ ~ p u~ k 5 ~oiv~islulwPtl: iaeYUV~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ Fonaasul r:.EE ° ~.i _ N.S9' ueln6Jleuvp y 'e 3 w w ~I e ~ }i i Te ~;A} 6 W n Mad, ~ N m 5 S R uo6anpsuv~ ` ~ ~ w w 4a 1 OtlU d yi me F``Y'''° $$8a ~gj "8n ~yN~ Fa6eueW dtl~: ' ti; S w F ~ w L ~ sdt gC_ ~oleulp4 o Alllun ~e w S. a'C W M So 114aa1 m rte. AeunS . ~ n ~ ~ w ~ m o. JR.. N , laalwd 410 QQ p4 YU IOAVNiI$ ~ ~ ~ g w 9i ~ d ~ x nv~e+d mluaS ~ ~ w w w w a w ~ ~ N I~Va N~$N V u6W duw'J ' c'~ z~zee e El m AeiunS .~3 w' o. v~$$rvhn g29 N `i m d OR! 53~ Ouaau1Eu31aalvid ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ w ~ yyyyyy naul6u3 {{s~ & ."A t9 u u ll ads uS EPtF' w S t u F Sir tg€ 8~ ~ E n6vuvW IaNVid'+S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y8'~k `S i~E rz Y w n LL ~ in rc F«°p9 w E m m N w ~ Zo °~~Y~gudee c` ~ QQ yy yp ~ N d SO aa~67d v. a`ml d$ a ~f m N S~ ~j F ~ N w Y ~n m W a ~n Q N ' 8ridgelStructures Roadway/Civil • Heavy CivilllndustrialFacililies Environmental/Permitting Suivey/Geomatics • Construction Engineering/Inspection I-Y r EON SO IIIN G ~gr"a'' _11 vtl_ I r ENGINEERS Fa; it wSU ;.i I I February IIth,201A I Morgan Wayman City of Ashland Engineering Office I 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 I- RE: A Street; 15•Inch Interceptor Sanitary Sewer Improvements Dear Mr. Wayman and Selection Committee Members: I The improvement of the A Street 1 5-Inch Interceptor Improvement Project is an important project that will increase the City of Ashland's capacity to deliver reliable and safe sanitary service to the community. This project is one of the projects identified as a Priority 1 project for the City in your Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. OBEC Consulting Engineers understands the large, investment that the City has already made in the Master Plan and is prepared to provide full-service expertise to successfully deliver these important projects within your I specified budget and timeline. . In a time when funding for public infrastructure projects is limited, OBEC Consulting Engineers has been a I , trusted partner with public agencies to deliver their facility improvement projects. A fundamental part of OBEC's mission Is stewardship of client funds, and we are committed to providing accurate and efficient I . service to maximize the value of every project. To deliver the specified scope of services for the A Street Improvement project within the budget and timeline, OBEC will leverage our local full-service Medford staff, experienced sanitary sewer experts, and our existing working relationship with City staff. Our project team is ready to swiftly begin work on your priority project upon receiving NTP. Addtionally,OBEC Consulting Engineers is a C-Corp; under tax ID number 93.0552628. With my signature below, I certify that OBEC is a, resident proposer as defined in ORS 279A.120 and that we I received the City's addendum released on January 29th, 201A and accept the City's contract provisions as detailed in Appendix A of your RFP. Should our firm be selected, I am authorized to negotiate and execute the contract. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or need further information regarding I our proposal. Sincerely, I L wrence H. Fox, P resident LFox@obec.com Phone: 541.683.6090 Fax: 541.683.6576 I, + EUGENE- Corporele Office PORTLAND AREA SALEM MEDFORD 541.683.6090 503.620.6103 503.5B9.4100 541.774.5590 Fax 541.683.6576 Fai: 503.620.8416 Fax: 503.589.4141 Fax: 541.774.6591 920 Country Club Road, Suite 100B 5000 Meadows Road, Side 420 3990 FaBvim Industrial Drive SE, Suite 200 Mob Medford, Oregon 97604-4005 Eugene, Oregon 97401-6089 Lake Oswego, Oregon 970352224 Salem, Oregon 973021166 www.o0ec.com CITY OF ASHLAND i ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS BASED PROPOSALS FOR A STREET 15-INCH INTERCEPTOR; SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS This addendum issued this 29th day of January, 2014, provides a change to the Request For Qualifications Based Proposal: 1. CHANGE TO EXHIBIT MAP: Appendix B - Exhibit B Project Overview Map 1. The exhibit map is modified as shown in the attached PDF Existing sanitary sewer lines ff were mislabeled in the original drawing. New labels are shown based upon field 6 investigations conducted on 112712014. The above changes shall be incorporated into the applicable sections of the project bid documents and shall have the same standing as the originally distributed documents. Acknowledgement of receipt of this addendum is required as detailed beginning on Page 6, Section 1.2.1 of the RFP. END OF ADDENDUM NO. 1 t i 6 Engineering Tel: 5411488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5414468-6006 ~r Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735-2900 - www.ashland.or.us k( C:\Users\BHadley.OBECkAI)pData\LocellMicrosoll\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.OuOook\LAXOSRVX1Addendum No_ 1 - 1-29-14(1).doc t NMI ftk N F [[pp O ~ W m e F ( l fi r.. 4 OBEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS Local. Full-Service. Cost-Effecti,,. I 2.2,1 TECHNICAL COMPETENCY MITIGATION STRATEGY #1-PUBLIC OUTREACH Before our team commits to a design and begins, After speaking with City staff about this project, construction, we will spend the necessary time visiting the project site on numerous occasions, and communicating with the many property owners and C carefully reviewing the City's request for proposal, businesses along A Street who will be affected by this your local OBEC team has developed a thorough project. Using a combination,of neighborhood meetings understanding of your A Street Interceptor Project. and informational letters, Jeff Bernardo will partner We understand that approximately 2,200 feet of with City staff to ensure that all businesses are well I existing 12 Cinch sewer pipe In the southbound travel informed about all aspects of the project. Jeff will also lane of A Street needs to be upsized to a 15-inch seek detailed information about operational logistics pipe between 1 st and 7th Streets. The existing sewer from each business along the project corridor in order is approximately 10 feet deep, and there are eight, to customize solutions that will minimize impacts to the I existing manholes and more than 50 service laterals neighborhood during construction. within the project limits. Several other, underground OBEs Project Example: Jeff utilized two public utilities cross and/or parallel the existing sewer main, information meetings on the Plaza Avenue Paving including domestic water and storm sewer. There is Project. The team answered questions, reportedly stratified shallow bedrock in the area, and project it has been noted that the existing pavement within the lisstenoe over neigoborhoo d members of ultimately project limits is generally in very poor condition. neighborhood by developing design solutions that l OBEC knows that the City needs a consultant whom resulted in a successful-project. 1 they can trust to provide complete, proven solutions that will minimize the workload for City staff. We have MITIGATION STRATEGY #2- DETAILED DESIGN prepared a comprehensive scope of services that will OBEC will utilize our detailed survey along with ' meet all the City s needs in a cost-effective manner. Information received during the public outreach phase With the help ofeasible design Cl ptions Westto, this will After agreeing on a final scope and budget with City t determine staff, our local team will provide you the following Pursue. considering the use of trenchless technologies services for the A Street Project: such as pipe bursting. We will then prepare detailed • Project management, scheduling, & coordination construction documents that are readily constructable meetings yet will tightly control the contractors activities. Our ■ Survey and mapping of entire project limits approach will include producing detailed staging A comprehensive public involvement/outreach sequence(s), complete traffic control plans, and process during design comprehensive project specifications that will limit a investigate alternatives, prepare final design, and impacts to the surrounding businesses and public to the provide detailed cost estimate(s) greatest extent possible. ■ Prepare complete bid documents per City standards OBEs Project Example: Construction documents for a Provide bidding assistance and oversight Comprehensive construction management, including were clarefull staged and detailed topass through full on-site inspection, public outreach, progress the Jackson County Expo, crossing all five entrance meetings, and all documentation. gates to the complex. OBEC's traffic control plans As-built Information in Auto-CAD format and specifications provided a clear staging plan to I OBEC has determined that per Section .13.02.040 of maintain access to all expo events during construction. the Ashland Municipal Code, it will not be necessary to obtain any City permits for this project. We have also MITIGATION STRATEGY #3- COMPREHENSIVE determined that this project will not require acquisition FIELD SERVICES of this project will require of any additional right-of-way as all work will be p completed within the public right-of-way for A Street. diligent oversight to produce desired results. Therefore, A more detailed version of our preliminary scope of OBE will l1Ze our h comly a perien c d, louaton to services can be found in the attached Index A. staff field management provide Steve Sparkman and Tyler THE CRITICAL ELEMENT FOR SUCCESS Douglas will maintain quality and consistency with the contract documents, keep businesses and adjacent The close proximity of several Ashland businesses and residents informed throughout construction, and resolve residences will be the most critical factor to overcome unforeseen issues quickly to keep the project moving for this project. In order to avoid inconvenience for while minimizing City staff time. the public, our team must carefully coordinate and mitigate construction impacts to traffic flow, on-street OBEC Project Example: Steve Sparkman coordinated parking, utility services, and business access. closely Road, l full residents street rehabilitation OBEC will utilize three primary mitigation strategies that included relocation of five utilities. OBEC's on-site I for the A Street Sewer Project to mimmiie impacts, leadership minimized access delays for residents and foster community support and keep the project on- quickly resolved concerns that were raised near the ( time and under budget. end of construction. II February 11th, 2014 1 I~ OBEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS Local. Full-Service. Cost-Effective. I ' TECHNICALLY ADVANCED DESIGN 2.2.3 COMMITTED RESOURCES There are two options for replacing the existing & PAST PERFORMANCE 12-inch sewer with a 15-inch pipe for this project; traditional open trench construction or modern PRINCIPAL INVOLVEMENT trenchless technology such as pipe bursting: Guy Hakgnson, Vice President of Technical Services Open trench construction at OBEC, will be the Principal-in-Charge providing ( is very straightforward, senior-level input as required. Guy will provide but in some cases can constructability review of key elements of the projects be slower and more and provide senior input on critical project scoping expensive than trenchless issues. Guy has more than 24 years of experience in methods based on the the development and delivery of projects in Oregon. I amount of roadway His experience and expertise will ensure a high level resurfacing that will b Sewage and Water lines under of quality control and project management input for be necessary. Having AStreet this project - reducing risk for the City. successfully completed several pipe bursting SIMILAR PROJECT EXPERIENCE projects, Civil West Engineering Services, Inc. has OBEC and Civil West have a long history of providing joined the OBEC team to provide specific expertise exceptional full-service solutions on pipeline, collection and oversight in determining whether pipe bursting is system, and wastewater projects. We are experts In a feasible construction method for this project. Several providing project management and design services issues, including depth of the existing pipe, presence of on pipeline projects from surveying and feasibility bedrock, close proximity to an aging waterline, and a studies to rehabilitation projects. We have completed high number of service laterals within the project limits numerous comprehensive wastewater projects for many are all factors that must be taken into account when southern Oregon communities such as: Coos Bay, Myrtle considering pipe bursting. Point, Winston, Tri-City, Newport, and Toledo. We ( If it is determined that pipe bursting Is in fact a viable are experts in cured-in-place pipe, slip-lining, lateral l option for your A Street Project, OBEC will prepare restoration, manhole lining and restoration projects. an alternate bid schedule in the bidding documents The following projects highlight some of our team's that will allow bidders to utilize either open trench project management and wastewater projects that ( or trenchless methods, and let the market decide as contain elements similar to your A Street Interceptor 1 . to which is most cost-effective. Previously executed Improvement project. by OBEC on several projects, this bid-alternate CALLE GUANAJUATO UTILITY technique will increase competition between bidders I and ultimately result in the lowest cost for the project AND RESURFACING PROJECT, ASHLAND regardless of the construction method used. UNIQUE STRENGTHS OBEC provided survey, permitting and design for OBEG's full-service staff located lour Medford comprehensive improvements 1 office will provide the City of Ashland with Project to the Calle Guanajuato Management, Public Outreach, Field Survey, Project walkway in downtown I Design, Utility Coordination, and Construction Ashland. The project Management with professionals that work and live full included replacing and/ time in the Rogue Valley. Our team's proximity to City or relocating underground offices and the project site will significantly reduce power, natural gas, water, consultant fees throughout the entire project while fiber optic, phone, cable, and storm drains within this providing valuable face-to-face meetings and rapid tightly constrained project area within the floodway of response to unexpected issues. Ashland Creek. Other major project elements included Our involvement in several recent projects in the decorative concrete surfacing, unit pavers, stormwater City of Ashland, Including the Main Street Bridge treatment planter, and pedestrian' railings. OBEC Is Emergency Repair, Peachey Road CMAQ Paving, Calle currently providing ongoing construction engineering. Guanajuato Resurfacing Project, and Walker Avenue Relevance to your A Street project: Sidewalks, has continued to develop a high level of ■ Linear construction confined by existing communication and trust between the City and OBEC Improvements on both sides staff. This continued level of trusted partnership will Complex utility coordination that requires existing be critical in the successful completion of your A Street utilities to remain in service during construction Interceptor Project. ■ Multiple businesses must be communicated with and ` "OBEd is always available to answer questions and accommodated during construction working with Steve Sparkman and Jeff Bernardo Is not • Design focused on long-term solutions only enjoyable, but they are also's great resource.'They Engineering Fees: $157,662 are always open to look at alternatives. Their projects Engineer's Estimate: $541,818 consistently come in under budget." Construction Costs: $387,808 ( -Chuck DeJanvier, PE, Josephine County Change Orders: None. February 11 th; 2014 1 3 1 , i; Local. Full-Service. Cost-Effective. I OBEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS r KNOWLEDGE OF ASHLAND 2.2.5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT ` TECHNIQUES •,t 1 Jeff has been leading project teams in the Rogue Valley since 1998. He has been instrumental in the - delivery of more than 30 projects in Southern Oregon i A Street in Ashland, Oregon. _ in the past seven years. Jeff expertly manages multi- In preparation for this RFP, our team has developed disciplinary teams and will continually advocate for an in-depth understanding of the City's need for this you and your project to get it delivered on-budget and project and the challenges that it will be facing. Both on-time. I Jeff Bernardo and Garrett Pallo have walked the entire project site, studied the wastewater master Jeff's leadership and proactive communication style plan, and discussed the opportunities and constraints will ensure that all City concerns are understood, with several members of the City staff. Based on problems are avoided; and expectations are met. I our research about your project and experience His background in both design and construction with stmllar previous projects, we are confident that management will ensure that only the most economical our team can provide you with the most timely, cost and readily constructable solutions are pursued. Jeff's effective solutions while minimizing impacts to the integrated management approach for this project will surrounding community. Include: OBEC and Civil West are committed to serving the Detailed Scope - Holding a scope review meeting best Interests of Ashland, now and for years to come. with City staff immediately following a notice of Building on our reputation for professional integrity intent to award to finalize a detailed scope and and quality, we will only recommend low-maintenance, budget that fits the needs and expectations of the long-term solutions that make the best use of rate City and the project. payer fees. In fact, our team Is currently working with ■ Project Kick-off - Once under contract, clearly I City staff to provide a value engineering review of the presenting the scope, schedule and budget to recently completed wastewater master plan in order all team members, including subconsultants, to to optimize improvements to Ashland's aging sewage set goals and expectations while preventing collection system. misunderstandings. ■ Consistent Communications - Keeping the project FIRM OWNERSHIP STATUS & STRUCTURE team informed of any changes in the scope, OBEC Consulting Engineers is a privately owned schedule or budget in order to maintain efficiency I Oregon firm with stock ownership distributed among and consistency. professional and non-professional staff based on ■ Public Outreach - Ensuring stakeholders receive length of service and job classification. Of the 97 accurate, timely project information and have an employees at OBEC, more than half are shareholders opportunity to provide input on the best ways to in the firm. OBEC is managed by a board of directors mitigate project impacts. who are also stockholders. ■ Leveragin Our Local Presence - Meeting with City staff and7lor business owners on short notice and Jeff Bernardo is a board member and major provide timely response to issues and concerns. I , stockholder and will be the project manager for your ■ Action Item/Decision Log - Comprehensive Issue A Street Interceptor Improvement project. Our high tracking with required. action, who is responsible, percentage of employee ownership results in a strong and date due. commitment to quality service and deliverables. CONTRACT DOCUMENT QUALITY Civil West is an Oregon corporation currently owned OBEC's quality management procedures are designed by a single principal owner; Garrett Pallo. Garrett will to provide quality control and quality assurance at serve as the Trenchless Technology Advisor and will use every step of project development. OBEC understands his years of experience to ensure the utmost quality in the critical importance of establishing, monitoring, the construction method chosen for your job. and maintaining a high level of quality throughout The Galli Group is a Grants Pass-based geotechnical the project development process. Our philosophy of I. engineering firm with a testing lab in Ashland, Oregon ensuring high quality OBEC deliverables has always and a satellite office in Seattle, Washington. The Galli involved independent quality control (QC) checking Group was founded in 1992 and is a corporation by.experienced engineers and quality assurance (QA) I owned by William F. Galli and Caryn Galli. Today, the review of project deliverables by senior level staff. firm has a total full time staff of 13, which includes five engineers and one engineering geologist. February 11th, 2014 1 5 t a x W 1 ~ E w i Local. Full-Service. Cost-Effective. I CONSULTING ENGINEERS INDEX A: SCOPE OF SERVICES TASK LIST • Task 1: Project Management (Led by OBEC) - Establish and maintain lines of communication, monitor scope, schedule and budget, provide quality control, attend project meetings,.prepare monthly Invoices. (City involvement includes attendance at meetings and review of monthly invoices). Duration: 10 months. • Task 2: Survey and Data Gathering (Led by OBEC) - Obtain survey data for existing ground, existing manhole and pipe flow lines, property lines, existing utilities, and prepare basemap for project design (City involvement Includes providing existing GIS data for the project site). Duration: 1 month. • Task 3: Geotechnicai Investigation - (Led by Galli Group) - Conduct subsurface investigation to determine soil conditions and depth of bedrock along proposed sewer alignment. Prepare technical memorandum summarizing I drill locations and depths, investigation findings, and recommendations for construction. Duration: 1 month. • Task 4: Prepare Predesign Report-.(Led by OBEC) - Conduct preliminary design and alternative analysis for open trench and trenchless construction methods. Complete a predesign report to present existing conditions, present alternatives, recommend a solution, update construction cost estimates, and other important project factors. Consider this a 30% design milestone. (City involvement includes review and comment on Predesign Report). Duration: 2 months. 1 • Task 5: Public Outreach (Led by OBEC) - Conduct two public open house events to raise awareness for the J project, gather public concerns and feedback on the project staging, and establish priorities for business access during construction. (City involvement to include scheduling, providing location, and attending open house meetings). Duration: 3 months. • Task 6: Final Design (Led by OBEC) - Prepare and submit plans, details, specifications, engineer's construction cost estimate, and contract documents at the 90% design stage for City review and comment. Resolve and respond to all City comments on 96% submittal and provide 100% final plans, specifications, and contract documents for bidding purposes. (City involvement includes review and comment on each submittal). Duration: 2 months. • Task 7: Bid Assistance (Led by OBEC) -Assist the City in securing a responsive bidding contractor to complete the work. Assist with pre-bid meeting, answering bidder questions, preparing necessary addenda, attending bid opening, and bid reviews and award. (City involvement includes advertisement, distribution of bidding documents, and award of contract.). Duration: Less than 1 month. • Task 8: Construction Management/inspection (Led by OBEC) - Provide local on-site inspection, monitor construction contractor for compliance with contract documents and City standards, monitor contractor's quality control, testing and documentation, generate monthly pay estimate for contractor payment, process any necessary change orders, coordination with local residents, and provide final inspection. Provide ongoing coordination and communication with businesses and residents within the project corridor. Provide as-built drawings following the completion of construction. (City involvement to include review and approval of change orders and attendance at final inspection). Duration: Approximately 3 months. O February 11th, 2014 17 L Key Staff Resumes # NAME & TITLE: LIST ACTIVE CERTIFICATION(S), CERTIFICATION NUMBER(S) Certification Tyler Douglas • ODOT Certified QC Technician No. 40998 g- OBEC Consulting Engineers • Quality Control Technician • Bridge Construction Inspector LOCATION: Medford, Oregon . HMAC Inspector ROLE ON THIS PROJECT: • Erosion Control Inspector Construction Inspector • Drilled Shaft Inspector 3 _ • General Construction Inspector YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN PROPOSED ROLE: 10 PREVIOUS ROLE(S) ON RELEVANT PROJECTS: Basis for Team Selection: • Bear Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer Line - Phase V, City of Ashland, Oregon Construction Inspector for the Bear Creek Trunk Sewer line, which is a i ► 10 years of public infrastructure main collector for sewage flow from the eastern portion of the City to the j experience Wastewater Treatment Facility. Outcome: The sanitary sewer line was ► Extensive construction inspection replaced to increase the capacity of the pipes to keep up with growing City background demand. 1 Experience working for and with the • First and Main Street Streetscape Improvements, Jacksonville, Oregon Construction Inspector for the First Street & Main Street Sidewalk & City of Ashland Streetscape Project that is currently under construction in the City of Jacksonville. Tyler is providing comprehensive inspection services of all Tyler Douglas is responsible for project improvements, including installation of new storm sewer facilities, t providing a range of inspection and adjustment of sanitary sewer laterals, asphalt paving and new curbs and quality control services on sidewalks. Outcome: This federally funded improvement is projected to be I transportation and municipal finished on time and within budget prior to the start of the 2014 Britt [ Festival Season. infrastructure projects. He ensures that a Plaza Ave: Nezla to Verda Pavement Project CE, Ashland, Oregon each project complies with all applicable Construction Inspector for this CMAQ-funded roadway project, which standards and regulations, including included paving the existing gravel surface, installing curbs and gutters, stringent Federal-aid requirements, designing storm sewer improvements and stormwater management Tyler coordinates closely with engineers, water facilities, and constructing a sidewalk on one side of the road. contractors, and clients to ensure that OBEC modernized this neighborhood road while minimizing impact to existing mature trees and residential driveways. Outcome: OBEC all work is done in a safe and timely modernized this neighborhood road while minimizing impact to existing manner, that all inspection and quality mature trees and residential driveways. assurance documentation is properly . Granite Street Waterline Project, City of Ashland, Oregon prepared, and that each project is Construction Inspector for the construction of the raw waterline and completed within schedule and budget. penstock on Granite Street. This project was identified in the Capital In addition, Tyler can be relied upon to Improvement Plan as a high priority to ensure water supply and quality were maintained. Outcome: The project replaced approximately one- work with local business owners and mile of existing 24-inch waterline and supporting structures with 24-inch community members to ensure project ductile iron pipeline, as well as improved drainage related to support progress is communicated and any structures. concerns are listened to and addressed. • Elm & "M" St. Paving CE, Jacksonville, Oregon Construction Inspector for this CMAQ-funded road reconstruction and widening project, which included rebuilding two existing gravel streets with new curb, gutters, sidewalks, and asphalt pavement. Other improvements included new storm drainage facilities and a waterline replacement in both streets. Outcome: Provided field adjustments that avoided the need for additional right-of-way, minimized utility impacts, and matched existing driveways. 3 Key Staff Resumes NAME & TITLE: LIST ACTIVE CERTIFICATION(S), CERTIFICATION NUMBER(S) Jaime Jordan PE Registration Civil Engineer, Oregon PE No. 65498 OBEC Consulting Engineers ODOT Certified Technician No. 49267 (CGCI) LOCATION: Medford, Oregon PREVIOUS ROLE(S) ON RELEVANT PROJECTS: • Sunrise Corridor Utility Relocations, Clackamas County, Oregon ROLE ON THIS PROJECT: Sanitary Sewer Engineer for this underground utility relocation project. OBEC provided utility coordination and design for relocation of 3,500 feet Pipe Design Lead & Utility Coordinator of waterline and 1,900 feet of sanitary sewer for this 12,000-foot roadway YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN project in Clackamas County. Waterlines ranged from 8-inch diameter to 30-diameter and materials included ductile iron pipe and concrete cylinder PROPOSED ROLE: 14 pipe. Outcome: Successfully upgraded and relocated the sanitary sewer pipes that ranged in size up to 30-inches and a depth of 20 feet, which required development of flow diversion and dewatering special provisions. Basis for Team Selection: • Calle Guanajuato Waterline Design, Ashland, Oregon 1 Expertise with sustainable roadway, Project Engineer providing design, utility coordination, and contract plan stormwater, and wastewater design preparation for the Calle Guanajuato Resurfacing Project. Jaime also ► Successful delivery of pipeline and provided design of 12" waterline replacement along the Calle Guanajuato utility relocation on multi-discipline between Winburn Way and East Main Street. Outcome: This project will improve connectivity and utility services along this pedestrian walkway projects adjacent to several active businesses. ► Extensive knowledge and experience , First and Main Street Streetscape Improvements, Jacksonville, Oregon working in Southern Oregon, including Project Engineer for the First Street & Main Street Sidewalk & Streetscape Ashland Project in the City of Jacksonville, Jackson County. Jaime coordinated the utility relocation and the design for new valley gutters and improved storm flflS As a long-time resident of the Rogue drainage facilities. Outcome: The existing 8-inch sewer pipeline was Valley, Jaime has provided a full range of upgraded to collect and convey the 10-year storm without altering existing design and inspection services on dozens runoff patterns. of federal, state, and local infrastructure a Martin Control Station, Medford, Oregon projects in Southern Oregon. Her Project Engineer for the civil/ site design of anew 7000 GPM Martin extensive experience with local road Control Station Replacement to maintain a critical link in MWC's water distribution system, connecting the low-pressure zone of the Robert Duff design, hydraulics, traffic control planning, Water Treatment Plant (WTP) with the high-pressure Gravity Water Grid. and utility coordination combined with her Outcome: Jaime contributed to the design of an on-site asphalt parking knowledge of local standards provides lot, new storm drainage system, half-street improvements on Crater Lake context-specific solutions that agencies Avenue and partial improvements on Crate Lake Highway. have come to expect from OBEC. • OR 62: Corridor Solutions Unit 2, Medford, Oregon Senior Roadway Project Engineer and utility liaison for this $140 million project to build a 4.5-mile access-controlled expressway that parallels the old Medco Haul Road. Jaime led the design and preparation of the preliminary roadway portion of plans, and the development of the temporary drainage and erosion sheets. Outcome: Jaime's focused coordination within the team, various utilities and with other discipline leads was integral to maintaining a smooth project. E 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting TGM Grant Application Approval for Siskiyou Blvd. Pedestrian Study FROM: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Engineering requests Council approval to submit a Traffic Growth Management (TGM) grant application to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing and Feasibility Study. In addition, staff seeks a letter of support from the Council as a requirement of the application package. This study was ranked as the only high priority study in the newly adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP). The application is due by June 13, 2014. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Oregon's TGM program supports community efforts to expand transportation choices for people. Linking land use and transportation planning, TGM works in partnership with local governments to create vibrant, livable places in which people can walk, bike, take transit or drive where they want to go. TGM is a partnership between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The program receives support from the State of Oregon and the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Feasibility Study will evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand, and safety, along Siskiyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. Engineering recently submitted a letter of intent with ODOT to apply for the study. Between January of 1998 and January of 2014, there were a total of 202 accidents reported in this section of roadway. Two of the accidents resulted in fatalities; one involving a pedestrian and a skateboarder in the other. The total number of accidents were 164 vehicular, 19 bicycle, 18 pedestrian and one.skateboarder. One of the goals identified in the TSP is to reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. The study will identify potential solutions to the risks and issues throughout the corridor. The TGM grant is broken into two categories. Category one includes transportation system planning and category two includes integrated land use and transportation planning. The Siskiyou Blvd. study falls into category one. Engineering's intent is to apply for the TGM grant in order to move forward with a high priority TSP study. Typically ODOT receives approximately $250,000 in TGM funding a year to distribute among communities in Southwestern Oregon which include the counties of Douglas, Coos, Curry, Page 1 of 2 rill CITY OF ASHLAND Josephine and Jackson. The estimated study cost is $35,000. The grant requires a 12% match that can be in the form of cash, staff time or volunteer time. The proposed project must clearly demonstrate that local officials understand the purpose of the grant application and support the outcomes of the project. A letter of support from the Council is required to be submitted with the application in order to meet this requirement. Staff has also discussed this study with the Transportation Commission and they have motioned to provide a letter of support and recommend the City Council also provide the required letter of support. In addition, staff is working to obtain letters of support from the Chamber of Commerce, Southern Oregon University and Ashland School District to include in the application package. FISCAL ALTERNATIVES: The estimated cost per the TSP for the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing and Feasibility Study is $35,000. The TGM grant requires a 12% match and staff expects to use their time and possibly volunteer time in order to meet the match requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council allow Engineering to apply for grant funding as referenced above and provide a Council letter of support as required. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Engineering apply for the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing and Feasibility Study ODOT TGM grant. I move to approve the Mayor sign a Council letter of support for the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing and Feasibility Study ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pre-application submission 2. Council letter of support 3. Transportation Commission Letter of Support 4. Transportation Commission draft minutes April 2014 Page 2 of 2 rte, PRE-APPLICATION TGM Program Services 2014 Please submit a separate pre-application for each project idea. Pre-Applicant Information Contact: Betsy Harshman Jurisdiction: City of Ashland Mailing Address: 20 E. Main Street Phone/Fax: 541-488-5587 E-mail: betsy.harshman@ashland.or.us City/Zip: Ashland, 97520 Type of Request Grant Project Categories Direct Community Assistance Programs 0 Transportation System Planning ❑ Code Assistance ❑ Integrated Land Use and ❑ Quick Response Transportation Planning ❑ Education and Outreach ❑ TSP Assessment Project Title: Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Feasibility Study Description of Issue: This study was identified in Ashland's 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP) update process as a high priority project on the capital improvement list to improve safety. Southern Oregon University students cross four lanes of Siskiyou Boulevard to get between dorm rooms, athletic facilities and class rooms. Between January of 1998 and January of 2014, there were a total of 202 accidents reported in this section of roadway. Two of the accidents resulted in fatalities, involving a pedestrian in one and a skateboarder in another. The total number of accidents were 164 vehicular, 19 bicycle, 18 pedestrian and one skateboarder. One of the goals identified in the TSP is to reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. Project Objectives/Expected Outcomes: The study will evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand and safety along Siskiyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. The study should evaluate the adequacy of planned pedestrian improvements along Siskiyou Boulevard (the rectangular rapid-flash beacons at crosswalks and diagonal crossing at the Indiana-Wightman intersection.) Now that the new dormitory and dining hall are operational, the study should account for existing and future forecast pedestrian demand. The need, ideal location, feasibility and cost of a grade-separated crossing should be evaluated. This project is expected to make it safer for people to cross the street on foot and help meet transportation-related statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. It will also improve the safety and convenience of walking, biking and public transportation opportunities to support an active lifestyle. Estimated Budget $ 35,000 _ Submirl , CITY OF ASHLAND May 13, 2014 The Ashland City Council would like to express our support for the Traffic Growth Management (TGM) grant application staff is proposing to submit to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for funding the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Feasibility Study. Our commission specifically supports this study as it was identified in Ashland's 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP) update process as a high priority project to improve safety. Southern Oregon University students cross four lanes of Siskiyou Boulevard to go between dorms, athletic facilities and class rooms. Between January of 1998 and January of 2014, there were a total of 202 accidents reported in this section of roadway. Two of the accidents resulted in fatalities; one involving a pedestrian, a skateboarder in another. One of the goals identified in the TSP is to reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. We feel this study is a great step toward helping meet these goals and hope you will extend your support by directing staff to proceed with the grant process. Sincerely, John Stromberg, Mayor Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-/488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735-2900 w .ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND May 13, 2014 Dear City Council, The Transportation Commission would like to express our support for the Traffic Growth Management (TGM) grant application staff is proposing to submit to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for funding the Siskiyou Boulevard Pedestrian Crossing Evaluation and Feasibility Study. Our commission specifically supports this study as it was identified in Ashland's 2012 Transportation System Plan (TSP) update process as a high priority project to improve safety within this corridor. Southern Oregon University students cross four lanes of Siskiyou Boulevard to go between dorms, athletic facilities and class rooms. Between January of 1998 and January of 2014, there were a total of 202 accidents reported in this section of roadway. Two of the accidents resulted in fatalities; one involving a pedestrian, a skateboarder in another. One of the goals identified in the TSP is to reduce the number of fatal and serious crashes in the City of Ashland by 50% in the next 20 years. We feel this study is a great step toward helping meet these goals. Sincerely, Dave Young, Transportation Commission Chair Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 Main Street Fax: 5414488-6006 5-290 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY 80017 : 800/735-2900 www.ashland.orms G; pub-wrks\eng\dept-adm in\ENG I N EER I NG n ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 2014 . These minutes are pending approval by the Transportation Commrssron$ ~ CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Young called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: Joe Graf, Craig Anderson, Corinne Vi6ville, Alan Bender, and David Young Commissioners Absent: Shawn Kampmann, and David Chapman Staff Present: Scott Fleury, Mike Faught and Tami De Mille-Campos Council Liaison Present: Carol Voisin ANNOUNCEMENTS CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - February Page 5 correction: "Chairperson Young stated formal communication from members to other people and/or organizations and any other form of communication, should clearly state when they are expressing opinions from themselves. He was asked by Staff whether he thought the City Recorder and City Attorney should refresh the Commission with the rules and regulations." Approved as corrected. PUBLIC FORUM Honore Depew, 63 California Street On behalf of Ashland Parks and Recreation he updated the Commission on the Annual Bike Swap happening on April 26, 2014. He also asked for volunteers, as they are always needed. He offered to set up a table for any of the Commissioners that might want to be present at the event. Commissioner Young agreed to have a table with some Transportation System Plan maps, in place of volunteering at the event. Colin Swales, 95 Coolidge Now that he is living close to the road diet area he wanted to provide some input on it. He feels it is working well. He pointed out that there aren't many breaks in the traffic now which has been brought up since the beginning of the Road Diet. He also stated he used to be able to make a left turn onto Nursery Street heading north out of town rather than Coolidge Street like he used to. He pointed out the turn markings on the street are past Nursery, almost encouraging left turns onto Coolidge which isn't allowed. The main thing that hasn't been implemented yet is more pedestrian crosswalks/medians along North Main. He expressed interest in seeing the City further explore the idea (Dan Burden's) of roundabouts at Wimer/Hersey and Maple. If the road diet does become permanent, he would like to see changes made such as street tree plantings, permanent turn lanes etc. NEW BUSINESS Transportation System Capital Improvement Prioritization Fleury stated this would be the first look at prioritizing the roadway network/studies capital improvement projects that came out of the Transportation System Plan (TSP). Once the commission completes the prioritization of the road networks they will move on to the bicycle and pedestrian networks in preparation for looking at the revenue/funding sources by the end of the calendar year for the next budget cycle. The Committee looked at the studies first, the Siskiyou Boulevard pedestrian crossing evaluation and feasibility study. Staff is interested in applying for a Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant to complete the study, which would fund the study in full. This study is ranked as the only high priority in the TSP. Faught pointed out the study is timely as SOU looks at additional growth. Chairperson Young is the only remaining Commissioner that Transportation Commission April 24, 2014 Page 1014 worked on the TSP. He stated during the TSP process he pushed pretty hard to consider the feasibility of a viaduct at that intersection (Hwy 66/Siskiyou). He is very impressed with how well the diagonal crosswalk redesign is doing but he thinks it is important to study the whole corridor. He mentioned he thinks it would be a good idea to maybe invite someone from SOU to the discussion, given the enrollment numbers. Graf feels it is a good idea to have this study done now rather than waiting. Staff pointed out if the Commission doesn't feel it is a good time to pursue this grant we can hold off on applying. For more information on this study see attached table 10-2. Out of respect for the TSP process the Commission decided to go through the high priority projects (those that aren't already in motion) and prioritized them. The high priority projects that are not already in motion are: Lithia Way (OR99 NB)IE Main Street Intersection Improvements (R05), Siskiyou Boulevard (OR99)frolman Creek Road Intersection Improvements (R06), Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main Street Intersection Improvements (R08), Walker Avenue Festival Street (Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street) (R40). For more information on each project see attached table 10-3. Fleury/Officer MacLennan pointed out that the City receives a lot of complaints regarding this area on a weekly basis. Vieville/Bender mis to approve the prioritization as follows (excludes R17 & R25 which are already in motion): 1 - Siskiyou Boulevard (OR99)/Tolman Creek Road Intersection Improvements (R06) 2 - Lilhia Way (OR99 NB)/E Main Street Intersection Improvements (R05) 3 - Ashland Street (OR 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main Street Intersection Improvements (R08) 4 - Walker Avenue Festival Street (Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street) (R40) All in favor. Motion passes. Agenda Layout As per the discussion at the March Transportation Commission meeting the layout of the agenda has been changed. Staff also researched advertisement and public notice options with respect to the TC meeting agenda and critical discussion items. The Commission requested that staff publish a summarized agenda (2x5 display ad) at a cost of approximately $45.50 in the Ashland Daily Tidings the Monday before each months meeting. Transportation and Growth Management Grant Staff has submitted a letter of intent (LO1) to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for a Transportation Growth and Management grant (TGM) for the Siskiyou Blvd. pedestrian crossing evaluation. TGM Grants help local communities plan for streets and land use in a way that leads to more livable, economically vital, and sustainable communities and that increases opportunities for transit, walking and bicycling. Anderson/Vieville m/s to support staff drafting a letter of support on behalf of the Transportation Commission (Chair person Young will sign) and request that Council drafts a letter of support as well. All in favor. Motion passes. OLD BUSINESS Lithia Way and 3rd St. Fleury spoke to Mike Birch from ODOT again and he is not going to submit to the state because the existing speed zone warrant is within a couple hundred feet of where we want to put the 20mph signs so we do not need permission. He has already spoken to the Streets department and they have already chosen the spot & are going to install the 20mph signs. Orange Ave Bicycle Boulevard The Street department is almost done with sign and striping installation. They are looking to put up four more 20mph signs in between Willow and Drager directionally on both sides and in between Drager and Laurel. The sharrows have been installed. The feedback from the residents (Ellen Faulkner) has been positive so far. Fleury stated he had informed resident Ellen Faulkner, once the signs have been put up staff will ask the Police department to do some occasional patrolling of the area. Transportation Commission April 24, 2014 Page 2 of 4 N. Main Restriping Fleury stated they are still trying to finalize the project so the striping can be refreshed. Kim Parducci (Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering) is going to talk to ODOT (awaiting approval) about the changes so that the restriping can be finalized. *Changing the merge location heading northbound just past Oak Street *Realignment of the Maple Street driveway (Stone Medical) - staff is waiting to hear back from Asante *Glenn St - moving the dedicated left hand turn onto Glenn & making that the safety lane *Bush Street left hand turn lane Chair person Young brought up the concern regarding the need for further pedestrian crossings along North Main. Staff is having Kim explore that issue. Faught pointed out that they are looking to put down some more permanent striping rather than just paint. ODOT is recommending the City use thermoplastic because it wears a lot better. Fleury said he is trying to have ODOT bid the project out for us because they have contractors who specifically do this kind of work. Nevada St. Bridge/Chip Seal Applications Faught stated that the Chip seal was turned down. They thought it was a great idea but it was up against a few large projects (Table Rock, Foothills). He thinks it will have a good shot at funding next time. The East Nevada Street project was funded, at 1.5 million. Staff is requesting the infrastructure bank finance the difference at 1.8% interest. So far they are saying it is eligible and to check with ODOT. ODOT is also saying they are in support of the project because it is a viable project so staff will finish the application for the low interest funding. Downtown Parking Study Young stated the May meeting was cancelled in order to allow for more time for the University of Oregon to work on getting the second citizen survey out. The survey was "advertised" in the May City Source to help get the word out. Young mentioned that at the last meeting the downtown committee reviewed maps of some possible lane configurations. Faught pointed out he thinks it is important to provide the Transportation Commission with those same maps to gel an idea of what those possible lane configurations look like. Staff will provide the maps to the Commission at the May meeting. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Action Summary Oregon Impact April Newsletter Traffic Crash Summary COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION *Anderson mentioned he would still like the Legal department to provide clarification on the Transportation Commissions' powers (recommendations made to Council vs. to the Public Works Director) *Anderson reminded staff that the TC would like to be represented on System Development Committee which would require a change to the ordinance. Faught said he hasn't had a chance to talk to the Mayor about it but he will. He did point out in the meantime Graff can still attend the meetings even if he isn't appointed. *Chair Young recommended staff request Egon to report to the Commission regarding bicycle safety since we will likely be applying for that grant again soon. *Anderson expressed some concern regarding the chip sealing and he pointed out he would like to see the TC be a part of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)/Surface Transportation Program (STP) grant applications before they are submitted. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Transportation Com ssion April 24, 2014 Page 3 or4 Transportation Safety Public Outreach SOU Multi-Modal Future Siskiyou Blvd. Signal Timing ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:07 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant Transportation Commssion April 24, 2014 Page 4 of4 0- Ashland Transportation Sphon Plan October 2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Policy N26 (L26) Eagle Mill Road The City of Ashland supports the following route as an alternative route around the downtown area to areas south and east of downtown from the 1-5/Valley View Road interchange: Eagle Mill Road from Valley View Road to Oak Street, Oak Street from Valley View Road to Nevada Street, E Nevada Street from Oak Street to N Mountain Avenue, and North Mountain Avenue from E Nevada Street to E Main Street. The City of Ashland encourages Jackson County to make improvements to Eagle Mill Road on a similar timeframe to the City's Nevada Street Extension project. Intersection and Roadway Plan Studies Table 10-2 summarizes the preferred plan intersection and roadway related studies. Additional explanation regarding why the Study #7 (S7) was identified follows Table 10-2. Table 10-2 Refinement Plan Studies Priority y ame 1, Cline) Cost (53) N Main Street (OR 99) Conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Medium from Heiman Street to $75,000 Sheridan Street long-term recommendation for improvement. - (545 years) (55) Siskiyou Boulevard from conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Medium Ashland Street to Tolman long-term recommendations for improvement. $75,000 Creek Road 15-15 years) (S6) Ashland Street (OR 66) Conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Medium from Sisklyou Boulevard to $75,000 Tolman Creek Road long-term recommendations for improvement. (5-15 years) (S7) E Main Street from Conduct access management spacing study and provide near-and Low Wrightuman Street Boulevard to long-term recommendations for improvement. (15.25 years) $75'000 Wlgh Conduct a transportation safety assessment in five years along (59) Ashland Street (OR 66) Ashland Street (OR 66) between Clay Street and Washington Street to Medium Safety Study identify crash trends and/or pattems(if they exist) as well as (5-15 years) $20,000 mitigations to reduce crashes. Evaluate pedestrian flows, crossing demand, and safely along SBklyou Boulevard from Highway 66 to Beach Street. The study should evaluate the adequacy of the planned pedestrian Improvements (S10) Siskiyou Boulevard along Slsk'ryou Boulevard (the rectangular rapid-Flash beacons at Pedestrian Crossing crosswalks and diagonal crossing at the Indiana-Wightmon High $35000 Evaluation and Feasibility Intersection) once the new, dormitory and dining hall are operational (0.5 years) Study for existing and future forecast pedestrian demand. The need, Ideal location, feasibility and cost of a grade-separated crossing should be evaluated. This project Is a joint project with the city and SOU; not subject to development High (0-5 years) $35,000 Medium (5-15 years) $245,000 Low (15-25 years) $75,000 Development Driven 0 Total $355,000 134 Kittelson & Associates, Inc IMP KIP Ashland Transportation System Plan October2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Table 10-3 Preferred Plan Intersection and Roadway Projects Reasons for the Priority .:i,e) Cast (112) N Main Street JOB Install a trafficslgnal at the Intersection 99)/WlmerStreet-Hersey once MUTCD traffic volume or MUTCD a Improve Safety, Low $ ~ Im Street promproveementmems Intersection crash warrants are met Improve Operatlons (15-25 Years) (R5) Uthla Way (OR 99 NB)/E Improve vkibllity of signal heads.Identify High Main Street Intersection and Install treatments to slow vehicles on Improve Safety H (0.5igh $50,000 Improvements northbound approach Years) (R6) Siskiyou Boulevard (OR Conduct a speed study. Identify and Install High 99)/Tolman Creek Road speed reduction treatments on Improve Safety (45 Years) $61,000 Intersection Improvements northbound approach (RB) Ashland Street (OR Realign E Main Street approach to 66 Intersection KnoMain eliminate offset and install speed Improve Safety (0. High Street $706,000 ' Improvements ereduction treatments 5 Years) (119) Ashland Street (Oft 66)/Oak Knoll Drive-E Main r Improve Safety, Low Street Intersection Ins[allaroundabout Gate way to Urban $3,150,000 Area (15-25 Years) Improvements (1311) Uthla Way IOR 99 NB)/Oak Street Intersection Install a traffic signal Improve Operations Low $200,000 Improvements (15-25 Years) (1132) Sisklyou Boulevard (OR 99)/Sherman Street Realign Sherman Street approach to Improve Street Development eliminate offset Continuity Driven $391,000 Intersection Improvements (R33) Sisklyou Boulevard (OR Realign Park Street approach to eliminate Reduce Conflicts, Development 99)/Park Street Intersection Improve Street $296,000 Improvements offset Driven Continuity (R14) Sisklyou Boulevard (OR Reduce Conflicts, 99)/Terra Avenue-Faith Avenue Realign Terra Avenue approach to eliminate offset Improve Street Development $236,000 Intersection Improvements Continuity Driven . (1137) East Nevada Street Extend Nevada Street from Bear Creek to Balance Mobility High Extension Kestrel Parkway and Access (0-5 Years) $2,261,000 Extend Normal Avenue to E Main Street (R19) Normal Avenue Extension consistent with the LAMP Exit 14 Access Balance Mobility Medium $2,705,000 Management on Ashland Street (OR 66; and Access ) (5-15 Years) Coordinate with Project X3. Extend Creek Drive from Meadow Drive to Development (R20) Creek Drive Extension Normal Avenue consistent with the LAMP Balance Mobility &Access Developer Exit 14 Access Management on Ashland and Access Management Responsibility Street (OR 66) Driven Construct a New Roadway from Clay Street to Tolman Creek Road consistent with the LAMP Exit 14 Aaess Development Management on Ashland Street (OR 66) if Facilitate Economic. (R22) New Roadway (B) and when Tolman Creek Manufactured Growth Balance &Aaess Developer Park is redeveloped. The location of the Mobility and Access Management Responsibility connection shall be determined at the Driven time of redevelopment of the manufactured home park. Facilitate Economic Development (R23) New Roadway (C) Constructs New Roadway from McCall Growth Balance &Access Developer Driven Engle Street Mobility and Access Management Responsibility Driven Construct a New Roadway to connect the Facilitate Economic Development (R24) Clear Creek Drive two existing segments of( lear Creek Growth Balance &Access $2,50.5,000 Extension Drive providing a continuous east-west Mobility and Access Management r roadway between Oak Street and N Driven 'r ~ 137 lUttelson & Associates, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan October2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Reasons orthe Priority Mountain Avenue Extend Washington Street W. Tolman (R25) Washington Street Creek Road consistent with the LAMP Exit Facilitate Economic High Extension to Tolman Creek 14 Access Management on Ashland Street Growth Balance $1,055,000 Road (OR 66). This B a City funded project; not Mobility and Access (0-5 Years) developer driven. Construct a new roadway from E Main Fxllitato Economic Development D Street to Ashland Street (OR 66) & Access (1126) New Roadway (D) consistent with the LAMP Exit 14 Access Growth Balance management $2'422'000 Management on Ashland Street (OR 66). Mobility and Access Driven (R27) Grizzly Drive Extension Extend Grizzly Drive from Jacquelyn Street Balance Mobility Development Developer to Clay Street and Access Driven Responsibility (R28) Mountain View Drive Extend Mountain View Drive from Balance Mobility Development Developer Extension Parkside Drive to Heiman Street and Access Driven Responsibility. Facilitate Economic Development (R29) Washington Street Extend Washington Street to Benson Way Growth Balance Driven $1,301,000 Mobility and Access (1130) Kirk Lane Extension Extend Kirk Lane toNMOUntain Avenue Balance Mobility Development Developer and Access Driven Responsibility Extend Wlmer Street to Ashland Mine Balance Mobility Development (R31) Wimer Street Extension Road. The exact location of the street will and Access Driven $3,125,000 be refined at the time of annexation. (R32) Kestrel Parkway Extend Kestrel Parkway to N Mountain Balance Mobility' Development Developer Extension Avenue at Nepenthe Road and Access Driven Responsibility Railroad Property Extend Existing Adjacent Streets to Facilitate Economic (R34) Provide Connectivity within, to and from Growth Balance Development Developer Development the property Mobility and Access Driven Responsibility Implement a temporary road diet on N (1135) N Main Street Temporary Main Street. Temporary road it let includes Improve Safety, converting N Main Street to a two-lane Balance Mobility H $160,000 Road Diet roadway with a two-way center turn lane and Access (QS Years) and bicycle lanes in both directions Convert temporary road diet to (R36) N Main Street Implement permanent Installation, which Includes, at Improve Safety, Medium Permanent Road Diet aminimum, signal modifications to the N Balance Mobility (5-15 Years) $200,1700 Main Street/Maple Street and the N Main and Access Street/laurel Street Intersections Widen and reconstruct sldewalks wlIh (R38) Ashland Street street trees, stormwater planters and bus Improve Safety, Streetsape Enhancements shelters. Ashland Street/WalkerAvenue Balance Mobility Medium $I,100,ODO (Sisklyou Boulevard to Walker Intersection enhancements to include (S-SS Years) Avenue) concrete crosswalks, paving, and and Access ornamental lights. (1139) Ashland Street Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with Improve Safety' Streetscape Enhancements Development (Walker Avenue to Normal street trees, stormwater planters and bus Balance Mobility Driven $1,300,000 Avenue) shelters. and Access Street reconstruction with flush curbs and (R40) Walker Avenue Festival scored concrete roadway surface. Street(Siskiyou Boulevard to Sidewalk treatments to Include decorative Support Pedestrian High $780000 hollards to delineated pedestrian space, Places Planning (0-5 Years Ashland Street) street trees, LID stormwater facilities and ) ornamental Bghts. Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with (R41) Ashland Street/Tolman street trees, stormwater planters and bus Creek Road Streetscape shelters. Ashland Street/rulman Creek Support Pedestrian Development $1,500,000 Enhancements Road intersection enhancements to Places Planning - Driven Include concrete crosswalks, paving, and ornamental lights. Hd4r~ 138 Klttelson & Assadotes, Inc. Ashland Transportation System Plan Octolrer2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan 7777777777777-- Reasons for,the priority (project 4) Name De Project line) cost Widen d nruct sidevalks with (R42) E Main Street/N street trees, stormwater planters and bus Mountain Avenue Streetscape shelters. E Main Street/N Mountain Support Pedestrian Development $1500000 Enhancements `Avenue Intersection enhancement with Places Planning Driven concrete crosswalks and paving, and ornamental lights. Construct a new roadway from Mistletoe Facilitate Economic Road to Sisklyou Boulevard (OR 99) Development (R43) New Roadway (E) consistent with the Croman M0l District Growth Balance Driven $4,322,000 Plan Mobility and Access Tolman Creek-Mistletoe Widen and reconstruct sidewalks with Road Road Streetscape streetnw ters and bus Facilitate Economic Growth Balance Development $3,478,000 Enhancements shelters ers consistent with h the the Cr Croman Mill Mlll Driven District standards. Mobility and Access Construct a new roadway from Facilitate Economic (1145) New Roadway (F) Washington Street to New Roadway (E) Growth Balance Development $1,199,000 consistent with the Croman MITI District Driven Plan; coordinate with Project K2. Mobility and Access (R46) Ivy Lane Extension . Extend Ivy Lane west to Waterline Road Balance Mobility Development Developer and Access Driven Responsibility (R47) MaryJane Avenue Extend Mary Jane Avenue south to the Balance Mobility Development Developer Extension UGB then east to Clay Street and Access Driven Responsibility (1148) Forest Street Extension Construct a new roadway that connects Balance Mobility Development Developer the two existing segments of Forest Street and Access Driven Responsibility Croman Mill District Construct new streets to provide Facilitate Economic (R49) connectivtty within, to and from the Growth Balance Development Developer Streets Croman Mill District Mobility and Access Driven Responsibility High Pdorlty (0-5 Years) $5,073,000 Medium Priority (5-15 Years) $4,005,000 Low Priority (15-25 Years) $3,650,000 Development Driven $23,555,000 Total $38,047,000 Notes: 'Initial roundabout operations analysis and high-level feasibility assessment were performed to confirm a roundabout appears physically and operationally feasible. A more detailed prchminary roundabout design and study should be conducted before activities such as right-of-way acquisition and/or developing detailed design plans. It should also be noted that In November 2008, the State Traffic Engineer Issued a directive to ODOT staff to consider a roundabout as an alternative whenever a traffic signal was being considered on the state highway system. However, In March 2011, ODOT Issued updated guidance to staff that no roundabouts should be approved or designed by staff on the state highway system due to concerns raised by the trucking Industry. Subsequently, the requirement previously Issued to evaluate roundabouts as an alternative to traffic signals was temporarily lifted. Currently, ODOT is awaiting the results of a study being led by the Kansas Department of Transportation evaluating the effects of roundabouts on oversized loads. Upon completion of that study, the agency has indicated that the current prohibition of roundabouts on the state system will be reconsidered. 'Cost estimates are for engineering and construction costs. They do not include right-of-way. They are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. ' The projects in Table 10-3 and Figure 10-3 were identified based on input received from the PMT, TAC, PC, and The intersection projects were also developed based on the 2034 future conditions analysis results, safety analysis results, and planning-level feasibility assessments (e.g., is a roundabout physically possible, could the street actually be realigned given adjacent historic structures). The new roadway and roadway extension projects were identified from previous and/or related plans such as the 1998 TSP, the unadopted 2007 TSP update, and the Interchange Area Management Plan (LAMP) for Exit i 14. The projects identified to support pedestrian places were documented as part of the Pedestrian Places planning activities. The Pedestrian Places planning is discussed further in the following section. 139 KIt[elson & Assacfates, Inc. f Ashland Transportation System Plan October2012 Intersection and Roadway Plan Railroad Crossing Projects Table 10-4 summarizes the preferred plan railroad crossing projects. They include one existing crossing upgrade and two new railroad crossing locations. Figure 10-3 illustrates the location of these railroad crossings. Appendix A contains the prospectus sheets for all preferred plan projects; the prospectus sheets provide more detail regarding the project location, description, and images illustrating the vision for the completed project. Currently under Federal and ODOT rail policy, the City would need to close an existing at-grade crossing or go through a potentially timely and costly rail order process to obtain an additional new public crossing within Ashland. The City will pursue all possible alternatives to closing existing at-grade crossings including exceptions to the policies based on the low projected train volumes (currently none) and will consider grade separation of future crossings. Table 10-4 Railroad Crossing Projects Priority fill Name ost u Pursue a New At-Grade Ped/Bike Improve North-South (X1)4 Street At-Grade Railroad Crossing at 4'x Street . connectivity, Balance Development $275,000 Railroad Crossing Coordinate with Project TR4.' Mobility and A¢ess Driven Pursue a New At-Grade Railroad (X2) Washington street At- Crossing at Washington Street as part Facilitate Economic Growth, Development $1,000,000 Grade Railroad Crossing of the Croman mill Site Development. Balance Mobility and Access Driven Coordinate with project R45.' Upgrade the existing at-grade Railroad (%al Normal Avenue A[- Improve NartBalanch Grade Railroad Crossing crossing at Normal Avenue to public Connectivity, Balance Development $750,OD0 Upgrade crossing standards. Coordinate with Mobility and Access Driven Project R19. High Priority (0-5 Years) - Medium Priority (5-15 Years) - Low Priority (15- 25 Years) Development Driven or Driven by Need based on Rail Order Outcomes $2,025,000 Total $2,025,000 Notes: 'Currently under Federal and ODOT rail policy, the City would need to close an existing at-grade crossing or go through a potentially timely and costly rail order process to obtain an additional new public crossing within Ashland. The City will pursue all possible alternatives to closing existing at-grade crossings Including exceptions to the Policies based on the low projected train volumes (currently none) and will consider grade separation of future crossings. 'Planning level cost estimates are for construction and engineering of at-grade crossings and do not Include right-of-way costs. 1140 giftelson & Associates, Inc CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Award of Contract to Apparent Low Bidder for the 2014 Slurry Seal Project FROM: Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, fleurys n,ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Council is asked to approve award of a construction contract for the 2014 Slurry Seal Project. On May 8, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. bids submitted for the 2014 Slurry Seal Project were opened and publicly read. Bids were received from three contractors with Blackline Inc. providing the low bid. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The 2014 Slurry Seal Project was publicly bid on April 10, 2014. The project was publicly bid in the Mail Tribune and the Daily Journal of Commerce. In addition, project plans and specifications were sent to several plan centers and were also posted on the City's website. Bids were opened on May 8, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. with three contractors responding. All three bids were valid and contained the required bonds, documentation, and acknowledgements. Bidding information is shown on the attached proposal summary form. Proiect Description: The project includes application of slurry seal on various streets throughout the City. The street list is attached for reference. A slurry seal is a homogenous mixture of emulsified asphalt, water, well-graded fine aggregate and mineral filler. Slurry seals are used to fill existing pavement surface defects as either a preparatory treatment for other maintenance treatments or as a wearing course. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2014 Slurry Seal Project is funded directly by the City as a capital improvement project (CIP). The established budget in the CIP was $100,000 for the slurry seal project. An additional $23,883 is available due to the 2013 Slurry Seal Project coming in under the appropriated budget amount. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council accept the bid and authorize the award of contract with Blackline Inc. in the amount of $109,109 for the 2014 Slurry Seal Project. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve the bid and award of contract to Blackline Inc. in the amount of $109,109 for the 2014 Slurry Seal Project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Bid Summary 2. Slurry Seal Street List Page I of I PER 0 A ~ a W~ Wa L m U - F"'I E m ~ U bll U O ~ c rn m F Q r Y O m 3 0 \ 71 W O O U Q] G o Z u D7 _ o s ~ N O 0 U ~ O 5 C O ~ ctl m ~ [i] Vl cn F I~ ~ O O a N j rn E o Z m I+1 ~ o ~ 0 9 rr~~ a V1 O 2 o N a ,e Oli ' L ~ W c r m O O v O ~ N m M fl. U O <I L+O pp O O 0 Q ~ y M ~ 7 o Z m on 9 m A O N D ~ N C b O p] O o 0. E d c zm¢ m " o a m x O O O ~y O j cE0 O E O v Y a. CL Z Z cn Zm Qm QQ 7 CITY OF ASHLAND 2014 Slurry Seal Street List Liberty St - Ashland St to end of pavement Forest St - Morton St to Liberty St Forest St - end of pavement to Morton St Clarence Ln - Liberty St to end of cul de sac Beach St - Henry St to Ashland St Henry St - Liberty St to Beach St S. Mountain Av - Siskiyou Blvd to E. Main St Ivy Ln - Elkader St to S. Mountain Av Ivy Ln - S. Mountain Av to end of road Prospect St- Elkader St to S. Mountain Av Prospect St - S. Mountain Av to end of pavement Prospect St - Roca St to Elkader St Elkader St - Fern St to Prospect St Sec 6-85 Elkader St - Prospect St to end of pavement Fern St - Elkader St to Roca St Penny Dr - end of cul de sac to Woodland Dr Madrone St - Indiana St to Leonard St Monroe St- Madrone St to Oregon St Palmer Rd - Oregon St to Woodland Dr Sec 743 Elms St - Leonard St to Palmer Rd Pinecrest Tr - end of pavement to Starlite PI Canyon Park Dr - Clay St to end of cul de sac Public Works Engineering Tel: 541-488-5587 20 East Main Street Fax:541-088-600 -6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Approval of Intergovernmental Agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland for Sobering Unit Services FROM: Terry Holderness, Chief of Police, terry.holdemess@ashland.or.us 541-482-5211 SUMMARY Jackson County operates a sobering unit in the City of Medford for intoxicated persons. The Police Department has contracted annually since 2003 with Jackson County to use the sobering unit to lodge intoxicated persons. The amount paid annually by the City of Ashland for this sobering unit service in recent years has been $5,300 and is proposed to be the same for the upcoming period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This cooperative arrangement for the sharing of the facility and provision of services has worked smoothly over the years and has benefited both the County and the City of Ashland at a modest cost. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of this agreement is included in the Police Department's budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve funding the Intergovernmental Agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland for Sobering Unit services. SUGGESTED MOTION: move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between Jackson County and the City of Ashland for Sobering Unit Services. ATTACHMENTS: Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for sobering unit participation Page 1 of 1 ~r, Health & Human Services Penny Bergman Accountanll 1005 79 Street JACKSON COUNTY Medf d, East OR RMaIn 9 7504 Phone 541 77744--79 Phone: 74 Fez: 541 774-7990 t A~' Health & Human Services her9mapl@jacksoncounty.org TTY: (541)774-8138 w .jacksoncounly.or9 April 22, 2014 Mayor John Stromberg RECEIVED City of Ashland 20 East Main APR 2 4 2gg Ashland, OR 97520 RE: Intergovernmental Agreement Dear Mayor Stromberg: Enclosed please find 3 copies of an. Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for the annual support of the sobering unit located at 338 N. Front Street Medford. Please at your convenience sign and return all 3 original documents. Upon execution with the County Administrator's signature an original will be returned to you. If you have any questions or problems please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, P y Ber171&- Penny AccountantI Enclosure(s): 3 i INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT entered into by the City of Ashland (Ashland) and Jackson County (County). This agreement shall be effective July 1, 2014 and expire June 30, 2015. A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1. In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of ORS Chapter 190, entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, the County is authorized to enter into a written agreement with any other unit of local government for the performance of any or all functions or activities that a party to the agreement has authority to perform. By acceptance of this agreement Ashland certifies that it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with the County. 2. As a result of this Agreement and pursuant to ORS 190.030, any unit of local government, consolidated department, intergovernmental entity or administrative officers designated herein to perform specified functions or activities is vested with all powers, rights and duties relating to those functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party to the Agreement, its officers and agencies. B.BACKGROUND County funds a sobering unit at 338 N. Front Street, Medford, Oregon. Ashland has requested to use said sobering unit services. County is willing to offer use of the services on the terms set forth herein. COOPERATION AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED 1. County will continue to either operate or subcontract for the operations of the sobering unit at the site indicated twenty four hours a day, seven days a week for the period July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. i 2. Ashland shall pay County $5,300 total for the period July 1, 2014 - June 30, 2015 to use County's i sobering unit services. Payment is a lump sum amount; it is not a per capita rate. Payment in full shall be due no later than September 30, 2014. Upon Ashland's request, County shall submit an invoice to tender payment in the amount requested. 3. Ashland, through its' police department, shall transport individuals in its custody to the sobering unit site. County will hold such individuals and release them according to standard protocol. 4. Ashland shall comply with all applicable confidentiality laws, including but not limited to ORS ' 179.505, Health Insurance Portability and Accounting Act and 42 USC 290dd-2. 5. INDEMNIFICATION Ashland shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend County, and pay for, any claims relating to the negligent acts or omissions of its employees, agents, or officers related to taking into custody and i transporting individuals to the County sobering unit. 6. APPROPRIATIONS FOR FUNDING Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement to the contrary, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for performing this Agreement, and the County has no other lawfully available funds, County may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no i INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Pagel further liability or penalty to Ashland. County shall deliver written notice to Ashland of such termination pursuant to the terms set forth in section 7. 7. TERMINATION 7.1. Mutual Consent. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. 7.2. For Cause. County may terminate or modify this Agreement in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Ashland or at such later date as may be established by County if County funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained or continued at current levels of services. 7.3. For Default of Breach. Either County or Ashland may terminate this contract 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 party 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 contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. 8. CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION This Agreement may not be amended, changed or modified in any way, except by written agreement signed by all parties. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior oral or written express and/or implied statements, negotiations or agreements between parties, except as otherwise noted herein. This Agreement shall become effective only upon the signature of all parties. Each party, by signature below of its' authorized representative, hereby acknowledges that it has read this agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by it. Each person signing this agreement represents and warrants she or he has the authority to execute it. CITY OF ASHLAND JACKSON COUNTY BY: BY: Title: Title: Date: Date: I INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND Paget CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Award of Professional Services Contract for the Water Rate Cost of Services Study FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, faughtm@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Council is asked to approve a professional services contract for the water rate cost of service study. On March 4, 2014, proposals were received from two consulting firms for the study. After completing the selection process Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) was selected to complete the required scope of services. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The water rate cost of services study was identified as a need and subsequently funded during the FYI 4/15 budget biennium. This study will include an independent assessment and evaluation of the City's existing rates and charges in relation to the cost of service to provide water, as well as potential charges that might be added for specific services and/or discounts that might be offered for conservation measures undertaken by customers. On January 31, a Request for Proposal was issued for the project and advertised statewide in the Daily Journal of Commerce, the Medford Mail Tribune, and on the City's website. Proposal documents were also sent to several prospective proposers. Proposals were due on March 4, 2014, at which time two qualified consultants submitted proposals. An evaluation team consisting of two Public Works and one Utility Billing staff member individually graded the proposals according to the given criteria: I s Criteria:. Maximum Score` Project Understanding and Approach 25 Project Team and Resources 25 Related Project Experience 20 Responsiveness 15 Fee Proposal 15 TOTAL 100 Points`: Scoring was completed on April 7, 2014 and was combined to determine the top rankings. The final results are as follows: CONSULTANT} Yw' TOTALS RANK u.: SCORE HEC Financial Consulting 266 1 FCS Group 258 2 Page 1 of 2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Catherine Hansford, sole proprietor of HEC, has 16 years of experience in public finance with specialization in the water industry. An excerpt from her resume reads: "Catherine's passion for water resources coupled with her education and career in economics complement one another. In this era when the link between water and economic vitality becomes more evident and stressed, Catherine draws on her experience to assist with decision making on best use of scarce resources and appropriate financial planning." Staff verified references provided by HEC and some of the comments received include: • Very open and very clear in explaining the methodologies • She did a great job with the various options • Good at public engagement, Catherine has done numerous presentations to the board and in public workshops with rates; very well spoken, credible, and trustworthy • Familiar with conservation and presents good options • Creative, thoughtful and thorough • She made presentations with council that were clear and concise HEC will team with Marlene Olsen from GoodStanding who has over 30 years of experience in communications and public water and environmental issues. She will provide a supporting role in community outreach and education. Staff feels that their combined previous experience and expertise in this area of work will be a benefit with respect to the water rate cost of service study. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The total estimated cost is $60,000 and includes a contingency of $12,000. The contingency was added to account for additional public meetings and subsequent related work effort to complete the process. The original scope of services requested in the RFP provided for 6 on-site meetings. To allow for adequate public input, staff asked the consultant to include four additional meetings in the fee proposal. Each meeting will cost approximately $2,625. The consultant bills travel time, mileage and expenses based on federal per diem rates or actual cost, whichever is less. The original amount budgeted for the study was $50,000. The additional funds will come directly from the water fund if needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve a professional services contract with HEC. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve award of a professional services contract with HEC for the water rate cost of service study in an amount not to exceed $60,000. ATTACHMENTS: . 1. Final Scope of Work 2. Fee Schedule 3. Proposal Page 2 of 2 Scope of Services The Water Rate Cost of Services Study will be conducted in 8 tasks. Each task is detailed below. Task is Orientation and Management HEC will provide a written data request with information necessary to conduct the study. Using the City-provided data, HEC will thoroughly review the City's water enterprise fund including revenue and cost information for all operations, maintenance, administration, general expenses, short and long term liabilities, as well as capital and reserve expenditures. The water fund financial review will establish the historical and current financial health of the water enterprise fund, generally describing components of annual revenue, and characterization of expenses. Following this base analysis, key factors of the study will be discussed at an orientation meeting held with all appropriate City staff. Financial goals and policy objectives will be reviewed as they will shape key inputs to the water rate model and recommendations of the study. HEC will also provide project management under this task. Staff Support: Gather necessary data, meet with HEC and GoodStanding. HEC Deliverables: Written data request and brief memorandum summarizing orientation. Task 2: Cost Classification and Customer Profiling HEC will discuss with City staff the appropriate cost allocations between customer, capacity, and consumption for the ten-year Study period. Customer profiling is necessary for determining usage tier levels by customer class in Task 4. HEC will use the past 60 months of historical demand and billing data to provide customer usage profiles by customer type. This task is essential for understanding of historical consumption by customer class and recommending a well-designed rate structure. Staff Support: Provide asset inventory (for cost allocation) and metered water use data (for customer profiling). HEC Deliverables: Memorandum summarizing cost classifications and customer characteristics. Task 3: CIP Financing Strategy and Fees/Charges Calculations HEC will summarize the ten-year CIP and financing strategy presented in the 2012 Water Master Plan. The Excel model will be able to evaluate the impact of the funding options (such as low interest loans, bond sales and so forth) for capital improvements on customer rates. HEC will utilize the system development charges (SDCs) developed by the City's financial consultant for inclusion in estimated revenue generation by new development. Other charges for services, such as new hookups and disconnections, shall also be reviewed and updated under this task. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 Staff Support: Provide ten-year CIP, existing debt documentation, and cost data for service charges. HEC Deliverables: Memorandum with strategy for funding CIP, including system development charges calculations and other water services charges. Task 4: Cost of Service and Rates Analysis The cost of service and rates analysis is based on the projection of revenue requirement. Revenue requirement is the revenue necessary to fully cover all operating and non-operating expenditures net of revenues. Methodologies to project expenses will be discussed with staff and stakeholders. Non-operating cost considerations, such as an operating reserve, rate stabilization fund, or additional funds to meet debt service coverage requirements will be incorporated. Non-operating revenues, such as interest revenue, will be included as credits in the analysis so that the revenue requirement is not over-estimated. A projection of revenue deficiency will be conducted by comparing the existing level of revenues with projected annual expenditures. The revenue requirement is allocated to user groups based on cost classification (customer or capacity costs, which are recouped with flat monthly charges, and consumption costs which are recouped with usage charges) and customer usage characteristics (water demand patterns for average and peak monthly usage). The customer usage factors are determined based on the customer profiling exercise in Task 2. HEC incorporates the effect of price-elasticity into the future water demand projection. In addition, potential effects of water conservation programs will be factored into the analysis. Potential alternative rate structures will be evaluated carefully, with consideration to any developed policy objectives in terms of operations, the impact to large users, and affordability. Specific rate-design issues to be addressed include separate charges for pumping zones and recovery of energy costs, and incentivizing water conservation. In particular, the effectiveness of reaching water conservation targets through rates will be analyzed in detail (additional tiers and seasonal water pricing). Recommendations to improve fiscal stability will be provided; they may include creating a rate stabilization fund, shifting costs collected through base and use charges, and so forth. Provision of an emergency rate structure will be discussed and formulated based on operating scenarios under drought conditions or other interruptions in water supply. A projected cash flow for the water fund will be presented to ensure sufficiency of funding through the ten-year plan period, demonstrating adequate debt service coverage and reserve levels are met. Staff Support: Local or regional price-elasticity estimates (if available), cash balances of operating and capital funds. Input on rate design alternatives and billing software compatibility. HECDeliverables: Memorandum with projected revenue requirements, findings of the cost of service analysis, discussion of rate alternatives explored, water conservation City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 incentives, recommended rate design(s) for City and stakeholder consideration, and cash flow. Task 5: Survey of Rates and Fees, Affordability Analysis HEC will update the 2012 water user rate comparison with other southern Oregon cities. HEC will also compare current and proposed rates with an affordability index. Staff Support: Input on most relevant affordability measurements. HECDeliverables: Memorandum of discussion and findings regarding affordability and comparison with other southern Oregon cities. Task 6: Implementation Support HEC and GoodStanding will work closely with the City and stakeholders in planning public outreach strategies and recommendations. These will include strategy, messaging, media relations, public noticing, and other educational materials as appropriate. HEC will suggest modifications to City ordinances to implement recommended rate and fee schedule changes. StoffSupport: Review modified ordinances and resolutions. Produce any published materials (such as bill inserts). HECDeliverables: Modified ordinances and assistance with resolutions. Content and design of educational materials. Task 7: Prepare Report HEC will prepare a report with an executive summary that provides comprehensive documentation of the work conducted. Up to six (6) hard copies will be provided. All final electronic files (Word, Excel, PDF) will be provided. Staff Support: Review and comment on the draft report. HECDeliverables: Draft and final reports. Task 8: Presentations/ Meetings This scope of services provides for up to ten (10) trips to Ashland. HEC and GoodStanding may conduct more than one meeting on each trip. Presentations will be made at City Council and with community/stakeholder groups. HEC may also utilize teleconference and Skype meetings to discuss items of the scope of services as needed. Materials may include PowerPoint, handouts, and so forth. Staff Support: Review and comment on presentation materials. Coordinate dates and times of meetings with consultants and stakeholders. HECDeliverables: Prepare presentation/ meeting materials. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 Schedule An estimated schedule is shown in Figure 1. The schedule provides for a draft Cost of Service and Water Rate Study within 6 to 8 months of project start. Figure Estimated Schedule City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 Fee for Services The budget authorization for the Water Rate Cost of Services Study is $60,000. The itemized cost estimate is shown in Table 1 on the following page. Cost Assumptions: • The presentations cost estimate includes six (6) trips to Ashland for Catherine Hansford and four (4) trips for Marlene Olsen. Note that more than one presentation/meeting can occur each trip (for example, one meeting with City staff, and one or two meetings with community groups). • Direct costs include travel costs, lodging, meals (for trips to Ashland), additional insurance premium, printing of reports, and postage costs. HEC does not mark up any direct costs. Estimated direct costs are approximately $2,200 for travel reimbursement, $1,500 for insurance premium, $1,000 for lodging, $300 for printing and postage, and $300 for meals and other miscellaneous project-related costs. • A contingency of $10,500 is included in the budget authorization for up to four (4) additional trips to Ashland and/or other costs associated with tasks included in the Scope of Services. The contingency is not to address additional items to the authorized Scope of Services unless agreed to by both the City and HEC. The City will only be billed for the work completed up to the authorized budget amount. HEC reserves the right to move budget between tasks, should one task be completed under the estimated amount, and another task be completed over the estimated amount. Invoices are issued monthly and are due on receipt. Monthly progress reports describing completed work and any issues accompany invoices. If additional work or additional presentations/meetings are requested by the City beyond the original scope of services, HEC will request authorization for additional budget. HEC will not commence on any additional work outside of the original scope of services without the express direction of the City, with additional budget authorization. Fee Schedule Staff hourly rates are $150 per hour for Catherine Hansford and $135 per hour for Marlene Olsen. Travel time is billed at $75 per hour, as is time for project management and administrative/clerical support. Rates are subject to change January 1" each year. Mileage reimbursement is at the Federal rate ($0.56 per mile for 2014), flights at actual cost (economy fare) and meals at the Federal per diem rate or actual cost, whichever is less. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 Table 1 Authorized Budget Travel & Total Task/Item Description Hansford Olsen Clerical Estimated Hourly Billing Rates $150 $135 $75 Cost 1 Orientation and Management 6 6 4 $2,010 2 Cost Classification and Customer Profiling 30 0 10 $5,250 3 CIP Financing Strategy 6 4 0 $1,440 4 Cost of Service and Rates Analysis 60 14 10 $11,640 5 Affordability and Comparisons 6 6 6 $2,160 6 Code Modifications & Implementation Support 18 28 4 $6,780 7 Prepare Report 8 6 9 $2,690 Subtotal Staff Costs 134 64 43 $31,970 8 Presentations (6) 15 13 111 $12,230 Total Staff Costs 149 77 154 $44,200 Reimbursable Expenses Estimate $5,300 Total Estimated Cost $49,500 Contingency for Additional Meetings (4) / Other $10,500 Total Budget Authorization [11 $60,000 [1] HEC reserves the right to move budget between tasks as necessary to complete the scope of work up to the authorized budget amount. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Hansford Economic Consulting; #240136 OFoao ~QOao~oQ Qoa~~~~oac~ e gWater Rate Cost of Services Study (Project No. 2013-22) Proposal for the CITY OF ASHLAND Submitted: March 4, 2014 HEC Project #140136 Mo. V-11 011.1 • • PI *d • • PO Box 10384 Phone: 530-412-3676 • Truckee, CA 96162 Email catherine@hansfordecon.com March 4, 2014 Ms. Betsy Harshman, Public Works Administrative Supervisor City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 Subject: Water Rate Cost of Services Study; Project No. 2013-22 Dear Ms. Harshman: Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal to prepare a Water Rate Cost of Services Study (Study) for the City of Ashland (City). This study will serve as an essential cornerstone in planning for the City's water utility operations, supporting continuation and expansion of excellent services to its customers. Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) and its Principal, Catherine Hansford, brings more than sixteen years of experience in public finance with specialization in the water industry. HEC is teaming with GoodStanding to bring you this comprehensive proposal. GoodStanding, led by Marlene Olsen, is a public involvement and outreach firm that will provide an important supporting role in community outreach. With a proven track record of completed projects and references listed herein, HEC and GoodStanding together bring the skill sets for successful execution of the Study in a straightforward manner. As a result of work performed the City will receive: • A five-year financial plan to ensure systems cost recovery through rates and provide for timely completion of capital improvement plans, • Rate design analysis demonstrating the impacts to certain customers and/or customer classes under different rate structures, • A recommended five-year schedule of rates that meet Oregon's legal requirements, including modified rate structures if warranted, • Updated water connection fees, and other water service charges as studied, • A detailed report providing recommended rate schedules with methodology and rate and fee calculations, • Assistance communicating the need for rate adjustments with customers, • Assistance in modifying the City's water ordinances and resolutions adopting changes, • Professional presentations to City Council and stakeholders, and • Excel financial models and staff training in their use, if desired. As a sole proprietor carrying a project from start to finish, HEC is intimate with all project details. HEC's personal approach to projects is desirable when working with sensitive issues, a divergent customer base and/or multiple interests of stakeholders. HEC works with clients to find the best solutions for their own unique circumstances. This ability to listen and work with clients rather Page 2 of 2 March 4, 2014 than prescribing what we think is best for the client sets HEC apart from other utility rate consultants and is why we think HEC is best qualified to perform the services contained herein. HEC appreciates the challenge of balancing equity, feasibility, and customer acceptance goals when approaching utility rate and fee changes. HEC will strive to help the City to operate the utility system to meet all regulatory requirements with affordable, reasonable rates and charges that help sustain a vibrant economy. HEC is prepared to begin work on this proposed scope of services immediately and work to a schedule that meets the needs of the City. We look forward to having the opportunity to discuss our qualifications and proposal with the City in greater detail. You can reach Catherine at (530) 412-3676 or catherine@hansfordecon.com, and Marlene at (775) 829-2810 or marlene@goodstandingoutreach.com. Sincerely, el(Aa1 a Catherine R. Hansford HANSFORD ECONOMIC CONSULTING Prepared by HEC 140136 letter with signature Proposal Contents Section Page Letter of Introduction /Title Page Proposal 1. Project Understanding and Approach 1 z. Project Team and Resources 3 3. Work Breakdown and Schedule / Responsiveness 5 4. Proposed Budget (provided in separate, sealed envelope) ExhibitA Proposal Form City Proposal Form Resumes Related Project Experience / References Insurance and Financial Stability Exhibit B Certificate of Compliance City of Ashland_ Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page i Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 1. Project Understanding and Approach Background In 2012 The City of Ashland (City) adopted a Water Master Plan (WMP) which documents short- term water system facility needs for the next 10 years and long-term facility needs for the next 20 years. With a total short-term cost of at least $30 million, the City needs a financial plan that maintains revenue sufficiency (or neutrality) for the water fund through the plan period. In addition, the City has not performed a full cost of service study for water service in about 20 years. Water rates must be studied on a routine basis to ensure that the water enterprise fund is achieving revenue sufficiency in the most equitable fashion among different user groups. This study has 4 main objectives: 1. Review user classifications and cost allocations 2. Project the necessary rate increase(s) to reach revenue sufficiency 3. Determine the most suitable rate structure to meet City water operations goals 4. Ensure growth pays for its fair share of system extensions HEC primarily works in California where proportionality of rates is required to be demonstrated to meet California's legal requirements to change water rates. HEC has also performed extensive research on affordability of water rates in both California and Nevada is familiar with the current water rate structure of the City. This study will: ✓ Ensure rates and charges recover the revenue required to operate the utility in a safe manner and in compliance with existing and anticipated regulations including ongoing operations and maintenance, completion of major rehabilitation and new capital improvement projects, and debt service payments. ✓ Document the cost projections and cost allocation methodologies. ✓ Recommend any adjustments to rate structure as a result of the cost of service analysis, with input and direction from staff and stakeholders. ✓ Provide a financing plan for timely completion of planned capital improvements. ✓ Calculate ten years of rates that will ensure financial stability of the water fund during normal and drought conditions and promote efficient use of water. ✓ Calculate system development charges and other water service charges/ fees that ensure growth pays its fair share of system improvements. ✓ Deliver a financial model that can be maintained by City staff in the future if desired. Methodology The analysis will focus on revenue stability, equity, the responsible use of precious water resources, customer acceptance and affordability. HEC's approach is to maintain contact and solicit feedback from City staff and other stakeholders at important junctures in the analysis, such as confirmation of key assumptions to be used in the model, verification of capital costs, and allocation of costs between existing and future customers. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page i Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 HEC's methodology focuses on all parties paying their fair share of system costs so that one customer group is not subsidizing another. HEC will examine financial equity and how to minimize costs to current and future users of the water system. HEC anticipates that fairness of rates will be closely scrutinized; standard industry practices will be followed in the rate-setting process. GoodStanding knows that better decisions are made when the public is involved. We will bring all parties to the table to make informed decisions and to increase the understanding and knowledge of the water system so that financial decisions are understood, even if they are not favored. HEC customizes rate and fee models for each client's needs. HEC will craft a financial model in Microsoft Excel, giving the ability to test various key assumptions such as operating reserve levels, different capital financing scenarios, and rate structures. The Excel-based model includes an Index worksheet which provides instruction on how to use the model and how to update charts and figures. All assumptions used in the model are clearly defined, and tables are presented in an easily understandable format. The model may include several scenarios; all scenarios will be defined and a baseline scenario will be developed, which will serve to evaluate the impact of changes to any key model assumptions. HEC will provide staff training on use of the model if desired. Any recommended increases must be robust in determination and clearly understood by the public. HEC and GoodStanding will work closely with the City to communicate effectively with the customer base the reasons for rate and/or fee adjustments, including any proposed change in rate structure. As a former water utility employee, Catherine understands how critical this step is in the process of adopting revised rates and fees. City Responsibilities HEC will rely on the City to provide all the primary data to be used in the analysis, including customer billing data, water asset inventories and book values. All financial data including capital improvement costs will be furnished by the City and all related materials pertinent to the study, such as agreements to temporary water supplies and conservation measures shall also be provided. Other tasks that may be required of the City include coordination of land use projections and growth rate assumptions. Beyond this initial data and information gathering, City staff will need to review work products and assist in setting up meetings; however, this time is anticipated to be minimal and not interfere with typical work duties. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page 1 Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 i. Project Team and Resources HEC Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) is a contract professional services business established in 2005 in Truckee, CA. Owned by Catherine Hansford, this sole proprietorship provides planning, economic and financial services for small to regional-scale projects. HEC specializes in water utilities public finance and enjoys a reputation for timely delivery of high quality work products. HEC endorses forward planning and understands that plans are useful only if they are comprehensive, relevant to the specific local conditions, and lead to implementation. HEC's services include: ■ Infrastructure Networks Analysis ■ Economic and Business Impact Analysis ■ Public Facilities and Services Financing Plans ■ Special Financing District Formation ■ Development Impact Fees Nexus Studies ■ Fiscal Impact Studies ■ Real Estate Feasibility Analysis ■ Agency Governance and Mergers ■ Water and Wastewater Utilities: ■ Demand Analysis and Projections ■ Income Surveys ■ Rate and Fee Studies ■ State and Federal Low-Interest Loan and Grant Program Applications Catherine Hansford Catherine is a practitioner of financial, economic, and resource sciences offering a unique set of skills to this project. As a professional for more than 16 years, Catherine has built a reputation for creative problem solving, excellent speaking skills and written products. Catherine has a passion forthe water industry. She has worked in both the public and private sectors on water resource and finance issues. Catherine offers a fresh perspective, having training and experience in both economics and finance and continually looks for creative strategies to meet utility revenue needs. Relevant Experience: In the public sector Catherine worked on integrating water supply and demand management programs with appropriate pricing signals, and communicating plans and rate adjustments to stakeholder groups at Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA). Catherine was responsible for the water rate model, pricing of water rights, billing of wholesale contracts, and updates of the rules. In the private sector Catherine worked for Economic and Planning Systems (Sacramento office) helping clients with municipal bond sales, financing plans, fiscal studies, formation of special districts, fee nexus studies and utility studies. At ECO:LOGIC engineering (now Stantec) Catherine specialized in water and wastewater public financing. At City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study - Page 3 Hansford Economic Consulting; #240136 HEC, Catherine has assisted clients with financing strategies for water systems and helped secure SRF and USDA financing for capital projects. Customer Outreach/Communications Experience: During employment at TMWA, Catherine served as liaison / chair between TMWA and various customer groups. These included a Rates Customer Outreach Group, Rate Making Review Committee, and Landscape Subcommittee. Catherine served on the Advisory Committee on Conservation for the Washoe County Regional Water Planning Commission from 2001 through 2004 and as its Chair from 2003 through 2005. GoodStanding GoodStanding, established 1983, is a public involvement and outreach practice focused on water and land resources. GoodStanding is a certified DBE in Nevada and California, WBE and WOSB and is owned by Marlene Olsen. GoodStanding's home office is located in Reno, Nevada and staff work remotely based on project needs. As public involvement and outreach experts with thorough understanding of the Open Meeting Laws, GoodStanding has been communication counsel to TMWA, northern Nevada's largest water purveyor, since 2001. In addition, they advise the City of Reno on watershed protection; oversee communications for northern Nevada's watershed fund; and developed the statewide Integrated Source Water Protection Plan for the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection which will be implemented in all 17 Nevada counties. GoodStanding's other water resource clients have included: Water Management Commission of Washoe County, Department of Water Resources for Washoe County, Truckee River Fund, Western Regional Water Commission, South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District, City of Chino Hills, California and Truckee Meadows Community Forestry Coalition. Marlene Olsen Over time, by being transparent, truthful, responsive, consistent and committed to the public process, Marlene has helped build trust for clients with their customers. Marlene and Catherine have successfully collaborated on projects together for the past 12 years. Relevant Experience: Marlene has over 30 years of experience in communications and public water and environmental issues. From program development to messaging, Marlene's expertise has guided water communication decisions in northern Nevada and many larger water issues statewide. In 1985 the first Drought Management Plan was introduced to the community through the Regional Water Board of Washoe County. Marlene spearheaded a community public service campaign that introduced the concept of mandatory conservation. The campaign resulted in community acceptance and compliance of twice a week watering in the area. Since then, western water issues have been the main interest in her work. Marlene currently leads all of the projects for Truckee Meadows Water Authority (all communications) including rate adjustments and increases, Nevada Department of Wildlife (Aquatic Invasive Species Education) and Nevada Department of Transportation (Storm Water Management Plan Outreach). City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page 4 Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 3. Work Breakdown and Schedule Scope of Services The Water Rate Cost of Services Study will be conducted in 8 tasks. Each task is detailed below. Task is Orientation and Management HEC will provide a written data request with information necessary to conduct the study. Using the City-provided data, HEC will thoroughly review the City's water enterprise fund including revenue and cost information for all operations, maintenance, administration, general expenses, short and long term liabilities, as well as capital and reserve expenditures. The water fund financial review will establish the historical and current financial health of the water enterprise fund, generally describing components of annual revenue, and characterization of expenses. Following this base analysis, key factors of the study will be discussed at an orientation meeting held with all appropriate City staff. Financial goals and policy objectives will be reviewed as they will shape key inputs to the water rate model and recommendations of the study. HEC will also provide project management under this task. Staff Support: Gather necessary data, meet with HEC and Goodstanding. HECDeliverables: Written data request and brief memorandum summarizing orientation. Task 2: Cost Classification and Customer Profiling HEC will discuss with City staff the appropriate cost allocations between customer, capacity, and consumption for the ten-year Study period. Customer profiling is necessary for determining usage tier levels by customer class in Task 4. HEC will use the past 24 months of historical demand and billing data to provide customer usage profiles by customer type. This task is essential for understanding of historical consumption by customer class and recommending a well-designed rate structure. Staff Support: Provide asset inventory (for cost allocation) and metered water use data (for customer profiling). HEC Deliverables: Memorandum summarizing cost classifications and customer characteristics. Task 3: CIP Financing Strategy and Fees/Charges Calculations HEC will summarize the ten-year CIP and will present a financing strategy, including long-term debt financing, to ensure the facilities are completed in a timely fashion, while minimizing the impact to rates and fees. HEC will allocate CIP costs between existing and future customers based on City information. The Excel model will be able to evaluate the impact of several funding options (such as low interest loans, bond sales and so forth) for capital improvements. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page 5 Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 Water system development charges will be assessed for adequacy in light of projected costs to increase capacity for new development growth potential. New development should pay for both a buy-in for existing facilities they benefit from and their share of new facilities costs. Other charges for services, such as new hookups and disconnections, shall also be reviewed and updated under this task. Staff Support: Provide ten-year CIP, existing debt documentation, and cost data for service charges. HEC Deliverables: Memorandum with strategy for funding CIP, including system development charges calculations and other water services charges. Task 4: Cost of Service and Rates Analysis The cost of service and rates analysis is based on the projection of revenue requirement. Revenue requirement is the revenue necessary to fully cover all operating and non-operating expenditures net of revenues. Methodologies to project expenses will be discussed with staff and stakeholders. Non-operating cost considerations, such as an operating reserve, rate stabilization fund, or additional funds to meet debt service coverage requirements will be incorporated. Non-operating revenues, such as interest revenue, will be included as credits in the analysis so that the revenue requirement is not over-estimated. A projection of revenue deficiency will be conducted by comparing the existing level of revenues with projected annual expenditures. The revenue requirement is allocated to user groups based on cost classification (customer or capacity costs, which are recouped with flat monthly charges, and consumption costs which are recouped with usage charges) and customer usage characteristics (water demand patterns for average and peak monthly usage). The customer usage factors are determined based on the customer profiling exercise in Task 2. HEC incorporates the effect of price-elasticity into the future water demand projection. In addition, potential effects of water conservation programs will be factored into the analysis. Potential alternative rate structures will be evaluated carefully, with consideration to any developed policy objectives in terms of operations, the impact to large users, and affordability. Specific rate-design issues to be addressed include separate charges for pumping zones and recovery of energy costs, and incentivizing water conservation. Recommendations to improve fiscal stability will be provided; they may include creating a rate stabilization fund, shifting costs collected through base and use charges, and so forth. Provision of an emergency rate structure will be discussed and formulated based on operating scenarios under drought conditions or other interruptions in water supply. A projected cash flow for the water fund will be presented to ensure sufficiency of funding through the ten-year plan period, demonstrating adequate debt service coverage and reserve levels are met. Staff Support: Local or regional price-elasticity estimates (if available), cash balances of operating and capital funds. Input on rate design alternatives and billing software compatibility. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Pages Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 HEC Deliverables: Memorandum with projected revenue requirements, findings of the cost of service analysis, discussion of rate alternatives explored, water conservation incentives, recommended rate design(s) for City and stakeholder consideration, and cash flow. Task 5: Survey of Rates and Fees, Affordability Analysis HEC will prepare a user rate comparison for the City that will measure the current and proposed rates for the City with those charged in other southern Oregon cities, as selected or approved by the City. A comparison of system development charges will also be provided. HEC will compare current and proposed rates with an affordability index. Staff Support: Assistance with selection of comparison cities. Input on most relevant affordability measurements. HECDeliverables: Memorandum of discussion and findings regarding affordability and comparison with other southern Oregon cities. Task 6: Implementation Support HEC and GoodStanding will work closely with the City and stakeholders in planning public outreach strategies and recommendations. These will include strategy, messaging, media relations, public noticing, and other educational materials as appropriate. HEC will suggest modifications to City ordinances to implement recommended rate and fee schedule changes. StoffSupport: Review modified ordinances and resolutions. Produce any published materials (such as bill inserts). HEC Deliverables: Modified ordinances and assistance with resolutions. Content and design of educational materials. Task 7: Prepare Report HEC will prepare a report with an executive summary that provides comprehensive documentation of the work conducted. Reports are provided electronically unless otherwise requested. Staff Support: Review and comment on the draft report. HECDeliverables: Draft and final reports. Task 8: Presentations/ Meetings This scope of services provides for up to six (6) trips to Ashland. HEC and GoodStanding may conduct more than one meeting on each trip. Presentations will be made at City Council and with community/stake holder groups. HEC may also utilize teleconference and Skype meetings to discuss items of the scope of services as needed. Materials may include PowerPoint, handouts, and so forth. Staff Support: Review and comment on presentation materials. Coordinate dates and times of meetings with consultants and stakeholders. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page 7 Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 HEC Deliverables: Prepare presentation / meeting materials. Schedule and Responsiveness A preliminary schedule is shown in Figure 1. The schedule provides for a draft Cost of Service and Water Rate Study within 6 to 8 months of project start. Figure 1 Preliminary Schedule 2014 2.~S and Management - , I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ♦ s O t' o C tClaz f t 8P fl g ~T 3 CIP F ans g St tegY n't _ s y Cost of Semc &Ra[es Ahalys6 -l g gurv<y bfR t and Feez/ 6 Ord anc 8 plementa[ on hk P n _ k_t'd`* Report s it ~f Presentation Materials and/or Technical Memorandums Fae Ongoing Task(s) Presentations/ Meetings Task Period HEC has a reputation for delivering projects on schedule in a professional manner. HEC will provide monthly progress reports to the City with invoices. The monthly progress reports will show percentage completion of tasks which can be measured against an agreed upon schedule for completion of tasks. With HEC based in Truckee, CA and GoodStanding based in Reno, NV (30 miles apart), the majority of work will be conducted remotely. With the use of email, Skype, Go To Meetings, and other uses oftechnology communications will be effective and timely. HEC and Goodstanding frequently work on projects remotely. Both Catherine Hansford and Marlene Olsen are committed to meeting client schedules and can quickly respond to City requests/inquiries. City of Ashland Water Rate Cost of Services Study Page 8 Hansford Economic Consulting; #140136 EXHIBIT A PROPOSALFORM (INCLUDES RESUMES, REFERENCES, FINANCIAL/INSURANCE) r EXHIBIT A Proposal Form Request for Proposals PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WATER COST OF SERVICE AND RATE STUDY Proposals are due by 2:OOPM (PST), Tuesday, March 4, 2014 Proposal Form The undersigned proposer submits this proposal in response to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Water Cost of Service and Rate Study, released on January 31, 2014. The proposer warrants that proposer has carefully reviewed the RFP and that this proposal represents proposer's full response to the requirements described in the RFP. The proposer further warrants that if this proposal is accepted, the proposer will contract with the City, agrees to the terms and conditions found in the attached contract and RFP or has submitted terms and conditions acceptable to the City, and will provide all necessary labor, materials, equipment, and other means required to complete the work in accordance with the requirements of the RFP and contract documents. The proposer hereby acknowledges the requirement to carry or indicates the ~}I i to obtain the insurance required in the contract. Indicate in the affirmative by initialing here: ?Ai The proposer hereby acknowledges receipt of Addendum Nos., _ _,_to this RFP. Name of Proposer: HAN-SFokb CCo~C%Hic CONSUL ir,i Business Address: f a . box 101-594- I kL)CKCC , C A q 616- Telephone Number: l 5 J~` 4 i 2 3 6 a C Fax Number: Email Address: 06-Eher l •,le CC" haln o deco,-) . Corn Authorized Signature: Printed/Typed Name: C A i H F~ I n1 /c H A N S ro Al-[~ Title: rki NCI PA L Date: Z / Z b / Zv 1 4r C]Documents and Settingslcampostl mal Set6ngslTemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlookt6P3J1SE1\2013-22 Water Rate Study FINALA= Page 2l oQS Catherine R Hansford Resume Expertise Ms., Agricultural Economics Land Use and Infrastructure Financial Feasibility (University of Nevado, Reno) Catherine understands the process of land development. B.S., Rural and Environmental She has assessed the financial feasibility of real estate, Economics (University of determined potential revenue and expenditure impacts Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK) on local governments, and assisted crafting financing strategies that meet objectives and goals of both public Career and private parties. HEC, Principal Water Resources Planning and Utility Rates ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Senior Catherine's passion for water resources coupled with her Economist education and career in economics complement one another. In this era when the link between water and Truckee Meadows Water economic vitality becomes more evident and stressed, Authority, Senior Water Planner Catherine draws on her experience to assist with decision Economic and Planning systems, making on best use of scarce resources and appropriate Senior Associate financial planning. Presentations / Classes Economic Development and Impact Analyses The Cost of Rectifying Over- Catherine provides clients analyses of current and Appropriation of Groundwater in projected economic conditions using key social and Diamond valley, 2014 Nevada economic indicators. She is particularly sensitive to the Water Resources Assn Conference public process required for economic development and land reuse plans. Catherine assists public agencies to Financial Management: Understand match budgets with level of service needs for public your Cost Structure, Customer Cost- safety, transportation, and other major infrastructure Share Responsibilities and Funding anticipated to support economic development. Options, 3-Hour videoconference /class for the Nevada Rural Water Communications Assn, November 2013 It is not simply enough to be good at your work; you have Rate Setting Fundamentals: Moth to be able to communicate with those you work for. or art? 2013 Nevada Rural Water Catherine continually strives to be an excellent Assn communicator. She has completed media spokesperson training, as well as other courses with this goal in mind. In what is o Reasonable Water Rate? addition, Catherine has managed consumer outreach 2011 Nevada Water Resources Assn groups, inter-local working groups and task forces. Finding Funding for Energy Efficiency Projects, 2010 California Rural Water Assn Marlene Olsen Resume Marlene's role as principal strategist is firmly rooted in her early B.A., Journalism (University of days of research and outreach bringing northern Nevada's first Nevada) wide-spread water conservation program to life. Since then, she has become a trusted advisor on water issues in the west. Her Conference Presentations community outreach experience began at the Reno-Sparks "Focus on your customer" Chamber of Commerce where she was Public Relations Manager 2009 American Society of Civil and News Bureau Director. She learned from that experience Engineers how important water is to the development of a community. She also was involved in crisis communication with many "Crisis Communication issues" 2009 community-wide issues. Communication City-County Communication and Marketing Association In 1985 after her firm was established, the first Drought Management Plan was introduced to the community, working "Communication Strategies with her client, through the Regional Water Board of Washoe through a Recession" County. Her firm was brought on to guide the agency through 2008 America Marketing the public process and introduce, for the first time, the concept Association of mandatory conservation and limiting outdoor water use through twice a week watering schedule. The process included Certifications public meetings, public noticing, a public comment document, as well as a public service campaign. Over time, the campaign spokesperson trainer resulted in community acceptance and compliance of twice a Board Positions week watering in the area. The firm represented the agency until it was disbanded because of the campaign's success in the early University of Nevada alumni 90s. Council When the local governments agreed to purchase the water Reynolds school ofJournalism assets from Sierra Pacific Power Company in 2001, Marlene lead Dean's council the communications strategy to quickly turn around a customer communications plan and public education plan. The Truckee Committees Meadows Water Authority was formed within 90 days. From America Water Works program development to messaging to survey questionnaire Association Public Affairs design, Marlene's expertise has guided all conservation communication decisions in northern Nevada and many larger Member of the Public Relations water issues statewide. Counselor Academy Capabilities: Communications strategy, public involvement, media and community relations, messaging, crisis counsel and management. HEC Water Utilities Clients and References Catherine has worked with many local governments on water-related utility municipal finance projects (rates and charges studies, in-lieu and development impact fee studies, CIP financing strategies for large infrastructure projects, funding applications for SRF and USDA programs, formation of special districts to fund infrastructure projects, interlocal agreements and/or contracts for service, and assistance with bond sales). As listed below, while Catherine's clients range from very small to very large, the majority of HEC's clients serve a population less than 50,000. Municipality State Water Sewer/ Storm Water Reclaim / Flood Population Greater than 50,000 Truckee Meadows Water Authority NV X X Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency NV X X X City of Sacramento CA X X X Placer County CA X X X Fresno County CA X X X Washoe County NV X City of Turlock CA X X City of Yuba City CA X X City of Manteca CA X South Placer Municipal Utility District CA X Population Less than 50,000 City of West Sacramento CA X City of Riverbank CA X City of Livingston CA X X City of Newman CA X City of Dixon CA X X X City of Live Oak CA X X City of Williams CA X Rancho Murieta Community Services District CA X City of Colusa CA X Town of Floriston CA X Donner Summit Public Utility District CA X .X Heather Glen Community Services District CA X Midway Heights Community Water District CA X Squaw Valley Public Services District CA X Eureka County NV X June Lake Public Utility District CA X Sierra Lakes County Water District CA X City of Bishop CA X San Andreas Sanitary District CA X Following are references from three clients HEC has performed municipal water comprehensive cost allocation studies for. TRUCKEE MEADOWS WATER P U T X O R f T T Quality. Delivered. www.tmwa.com 1355 Capital Blvd . PO Box 30013 . Reno, NV 89520-3013 Q 775.834.8080. ® 775.834.8003 February 20, 2014 To Whom it May Concern, Catherine Hansford and Marlene Olsen have worked on water rates, fees, and communication strategies for the Truckee Meadows Water Authority since the agency was formed in 2001. Both Catherine and Marlene were integrally involved; Catherine in load research, revenue requirement and rate design, and Marlene in communications, in our most difficult rate adjustments of 2003 through 2005. These rate increases were heavily scrutinized in regard to methodology and equity and were successfully defended. Marlene has continued to lead our communication and public outreach efforts for rate adjustments, with four adjustments over the past ten years. With these efforts, customer opposition was nearly nonexistent and our favorable customer satisfaction statistics have risen to over 90% based on an independent research firm's customer satisfaction survey during this time. Not only has Marlene helped with rate adjustments, she has assisted with other communications projects ranging from meter conversion to capital improvements at one of our water treatment plants, invasive species prevention efforts, and community partnerships. In 2010 TMWA engaged Catherine to assist with due diligence efforts to consolidate other smaller water systems in Washoe County into the Truckee Meadows Water Authority. These efforts included detailed work on water facility charges, sufficiency and equity of rates between different water systems, as well as modifications to ordinances to support the merger. I would be pleased to talk to you more about Catherine and Marlene's abilities. You can reach me at (775) 834-8009 or mforee@tmwa.com. Truly yours, Mark Foree General Manager I i Truckee Meadows Water Authority is a non-profit, community-owned water utility, overseen by elected officials and citizen appointees from Reno, Sparks and Washoe County. i I i • I . City of Livingston j 1416 C Street Livingston, CA 95334 February 25, 2014 To whom it may concern, The City of Livingston provides water and wastewater services to a population just under 15,000. The City periodically hires consultants to assist with rate and fee studies to support these enterprises. Catherine Hansford has been working with the City since 2012. The water rate study in Livingston is a transparent process involving input from a stakeholder committee. The stakeholder committee and City selected Hansford Economic Consulting after a competitive RFP process. Water rates are a very sensitive topic in our City and Catherine has helped us navigate the intricacies of developing a rate structure that is as equitable as possible, while achieving City goals. After a lengthy process with stakeholder and City Council input, in particular examining various different cost allocation scenarios, we are very close to adopting new water rates. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (209) 394-5550. Sincerely, o~ io Jose Antonio Ramrrez City Manager CITY OF LIVINGSTON 1416 "C" Street LIVINGSTON, CALIFORNIA 95334 PHONE: (209)394-8041 FAX: (209) 394-4190 www.livingstoncitV.com Michael Cooke MUNICIPAL SERVICES O1Y 91 - MUNICIPAL SERVICES DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION TUIZIOCK, mcooke@turlock.ca.us 156 S. BROADWAY, SUITE 270 1 TURLOCK, CALIFORNIA 95380 1 PHONE 209-668-5590 1 FAx 209-668-5695 February 20, 2014 LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FOR CATHERINE HANSFORD, ECONOMIC CONSULTANT To Whom It May Concern: The City of Turlock provides potable water to approximately 70,000 customers. In 2009, the majority of the City of Turlock's water customers were paying flat rates. In response to California's AB2572 requirements to bill all customers volumetrically in 2010, the City of Turlock engaged ECOLOGIC Engineering to prepare a Water Rate Study which developed potential metered rate structures and projected monthly bills for all customer classes. The Study included detailed reviews of available meter reading data to get a firm understanding of customer usage profiles, cost efficiency indexes to compare the City of Turlock's to other nearby jurisdictions, a presentation of alternative rate structures, and debt financing assumptions for a major Capital Improvement Plan related to a regional surface water supply project. In November 2009, City staff recommended the City Council move to an inclining block rate structure with two pricing tiers as detailed in the Water Rate Study. Although the City Council approved of the rate structure, they did not move forward with adoption of new rates because a metered pricing structure was already in place (declining block structure), the surface water supply project was still in question, and the water enterprise fund had sufficient reserves to carry annual costs. These factors made increased rates unpalatable at that time given the state of the economy. Catherine Hansford completed 100% of this Water Cost of Service Study for the City of Turlock. She also completed a Recycled Water Pricing study for the City in 2010. If you would like to contact me regarding her professional capabilities, please call me' at (209) 668-5599 ext. 4418 or email me at mcooke(a),turlock.ca.us. Very Truly Yours, A Michael Cooke Director of Municipal Services Financial Stability and Professional Liability Insurance HEC conducts business in a fiscally responsible manner. Catherine Hansford uses QuickBooks to manage financial transactions. HEC employs a bookkeeper to provide periodic review of entries and to reconcile with banking institution records. Income and expenses are also provided to the Internal Revenue Service on an annual basis. Catherine Hansford has not been audited. HEC banks with the Bank of America. HEC has been fiscally solvent for the past 8 years and has no reason to believe that this would change for the duration of the contract period. HEC furnishes professional liability, general and auto insurance whenever required upon award of work. HEC has not made a claim on any insurance policy since the business was started with the filing of a Fictitious Business License in Nevada County, California in 2005. HEC's current professional liability insurance is with Markel American Insurance Company with a retroactive date of July 7, 2010. HEC's professional liability insurance has a limit of $1,000,000. If the City requires this to be increased then HEC will pay the premium to secure the additional insurance. EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE EXHIBIT B - Certificate of Compliance Compliance with Oregon Tax Laws: In compliance with OAR 137-047-0260(2)(e), I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury: That I am authorized to act on behalf of the proposer in this matter, that I have authority and knowledge regarding the payment of taxes, and that contractor is, to the best of my knowledge, not in violation of any Oregon Tax Laws, as defined in ORS 305.380. Compliance with Nondiscrimination Laws: In compliance with ORS 279A.110(4), OAR 137-046-0210(2) and OAR 137-047-0260(2)(a)(E), I hereby attest or affirm under penalty of perjury that I am authorized to act on behalf of proposer in this matter, and to the best of my knowledge the proposer has not discriminated and will not discriminate, in violation of ORS 279A.110(1), against a minority, women or emerging small business enterprise certified under ORS 200.055 or against a business enterprise that is owned or controlled by or that employs a disabled veteran as defined in ORS 408.225 in obtaining a required subcontract. Corporate Officer: By: i n Gie e iHCAFItVe R. HA of.SF6Q~ D Print Name Title: PKt NCI PO L Date: 2 / 2 6 ,-,7d) 4- C*Mocuments and Settings\aamposttLmaI Setdngs\Temporary Internet FileslContent.Outlook16P3J1SE112 01 3-2 2 Water Rate Study FINAL.doc Page 22 of 28 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Third Quarter Financial Report for Year One of the 2013-2015 Biennium FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, lee.tuneberv@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Administrative Services Department submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. This report covers July 2013 through March 2014 with emphasis on the third quarter (January - March, 2014) of year one in the 2013-2015 biennium and provides comparative information to the same time frame in the prior year. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is the "routine" report presented about this time each year but has been modified for changes necessary to address the first half of the first biennium budget prepared by the City. However, the general focus of the quarterly reports on a fiscal year remains the same. Most of the information in this report is on year one (July, 2013 through June 30, 2014), however there are also comparisons necessary for the 24 month budget. The reports are intended to present information in formats consistent with the department, fund and business activity presentations included in end of (fiscal) year report. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Administrative Service Department office should you require any additional information. This is trial and error period for the reports generated, timing and level of detail. If Council would like changes in what is presented, or how and when it is presented, please let staff know. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no fiscal impact from Council accepting this report. The report and accompanying narratives indicates a general improvement in the financial condition of the City similar to what was incorporated in the budget process. The presented amounts will change throughout the year, and the biennium. Different reports may be needed to assist the Council, staff and readers from the general public in understanding the information provided. This need for added reports and different formats should diminish as we all acclimate to fiscal reports within a biennium budget process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council accept the quarterly report. Page I of 2 IFFIAN, CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the third quarter financial report for FY 2013-2014. ATTACHMENTS: Quarterly Financial Report (Narrative) Financial Statements Page 2 of 2 CITY OF Quarterly Fiiriancial Report ,ASHLAND ' h~ird ~ uarter of FY 2013-20 4 This Quarterly Financial Report covers the period from July 2013 through March 2014. Summary of Cash and Investments (See page one of the attached financial statements) This summary is intended to give the reader an understanding of changes in the City's cash position across funds and investment types. • During the first nine months of this year, the City-wide cash balance has increased $4,885,567 (July to March). • Total cash is $35,661,732 at March 31, which is $2,144,199 more than the same time last year. • Only 36% or $12.8 million does not have some restriction on use. • There are no investments beyond the $34.7 million in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP or Pool), with the rest of cash in general bank accounts to fund immediate needs. Material changes in cash balances between fiscal years The $2.1 million increase represents many changes. A primary change is the unused bond proceeds from the issue in February, 2013, to finance capital projects such as $2.4 million in the Water Fund (Parks Estates and Ivy Lane projects) and $500,000 for Parks & Recreations' Perozzi Fountain. Other material changes in cash by fund were in the General, Street, Wastewater and Parks & Recreation funds. 1. The primary causes for the increase in the General Fund and decrease in Parks and Recreation was the budgeted change in cash flow between the two. All property tax proceeds were budgeted as revenue in the General and Debt Service funds. The General Fund pays Parks and Recreation for services as needed rather than providing cash prior to expenses being incurred. 2. The Street, Water and Wastewater Funds increased as a result of financing for projects and rate increases to cover the resulting increase in debt service. City of Ashland and Parks Third Quarter Cash Balances $33,517,533 $35,661,732 $40,000,000 $30,144,429 _ $25,153,679 $30,000,000 22 262 310 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 3/31/2010 3/31/2011 3/31/2012 3/31/2013 3/31/2014 Page 1 of 8 Ir, Material changes in cash balances during the first three quarters of this year More details of the changes in cash from July 1St to March 31s' of FY 2013-14 are found in the individual fund statements entitled "Statements of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance" (See pages 7-24 of the attached financial statements). Please note that the differences between cash changes and the "net income (loss)" are a result of changes between respective receivables and payables. 1. The majority of the receivable difference in the General Fund was the hotel/motel tax revenue recorded in June and deposited in July 2013. 2. The majority of the receivable difference in the Wastewater Fund was the state financing for treatment plant screens recorded in June but proceeds received in July 2013. Reconciliation of Cash Changes to net Sources over Uses (Net Income (Loss)) Net Changes in Cash Changes Net Inc. (Loss) Receivables in first 3 CItr1 in first 3 Oft's and oavables General Fund $2,660,751 $2,029,669 $631,082 CDBG Fund 13,202 (22,171) 35,373 Reserve Fund (410,325) (410,325) 0 Street Fund 431,183 355,087 76,096 Airport Fund (51,987) (41,990) (9,997) Capital Improvements Fund (16,523) 65,433 (81,956) Debt Service Fund 135,320 142,654 (7,334) Water Fund 691,041 444,750 246,291 Wastewater Fund 2,823,582 715,131 2,108,451 Electric Fund (346,563) (300,745) (45,818) Telecommunications Fund (50,173) (190,035) 139,862 Central Services Fund 100,614 13,623 86,991 Insurance Fund 454,243 475,869 (21,626) Health Benefits Fund 466,984 426,659 40,325 Equipment Fund (702,619) (514,507) (188,112) Cemetery Trust Fund 16,581 16,684 (103) Total City 6,215,311 3,205,786 3,009,525 Parks and Rec. Agency Fund (1,329,744) (1,369,555) 39,811 Total City-Wide $4,885,567 $1,836,231 $3,049,336 Cash and investment balances at the end of March: Total cash was $35.7 million with 97% held in LGIP and 3% in general banking accounts. No money was held in investments outside the Pool as of the end of the third quarter. The Pool provides liquidity and has paid approximately Y2% in interest earnings this fiscal year. Total interest earned for the year is $141,378 or 84.8% of budget. Page 2 of 8 Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - Citywide (Page 2 of the financial statements) This schedule is intended to provide an overall sense of the City's financial activity for the first three quarters of this fiscal year. Comparisons are to: • Year One of the biennial budget 2013-15 (the budget). • Year to Date actual (the first three quarters) of the prior fiscal year. • Final actual amounts for the prior fiscal year. Total Resources (Revenues and Budgetary Resources) were 72.8% of the budget with a growth rate of 4.8% over the prior year. Revenues were 75.4% of the budget growing 14.6% over the prior year. This increase was due to additional internal charges paid from one fund as an expense to another fund (treated as revenue) inflating the total. The internal charges referred to here were payments to the Health Benefits Fund and to Parks and Recreation. The reason "revenues and budgetary resources" growth rate is lower than the "revenue alone" growth rate is because this year the City has not had the same level of financing by March as it did in the prior year. Removing Health Benefits revenue ($3.1 million) and Parks revenue ($2.7 million) from citywide revenue, the growth rate reduces from 14.6% to a net increase of 3.2%. Elements of this net increase are described below: 1. Charges for services (net of Health Benefits and Parks payments) grew by $1.3 million (4.5%). The bulk of the growth was from the charges for service within the business activities primarily as a result of increased utility rates. 2. Intergovernmental revenue continued to be lower at the end of the third quarter. In addition to the decline reported at the end of the second quarter in the Street and Capital Improvements funds where there was more project grants revenue received in the prior year, there was also a significant decline in the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project revenue. 3. Miscellaneous revenue continued the trend from the first two quarters of a significant increase. Miscellaneous revenue was primarily in the Insurance Fund from PERS reserve payments. Other miscellaneous revenue was in the Health Benefits Fund from a Pacific Source refund, the Street Fund from business energy credits, the Electric Fund from the conservation loan program, and the Central Services Fund from Diamond Parking. Total Requirements (Operating Expenditures, Capital Outlay, and Budgetary Requirements) were 62.2% of the budget and grew at a rate of 9.8% over the prior year. Operating expenditures were 71.7% of budget and grew at a rate of 16.9%. As mentioned in the revenue section above, the total requirements were inflated due to additional payments. The payments were in materials and services from the General Fund to Parks, and material and services payments from the Health Benefits Fund to Pacific Source for health claims and to Willamette Dental for insurance premiums. 1. Personnel services are in line with budget at the third quarter mark at 74.5%. Fewer vacant positions, adjustments for labor contracts, and higher PERS rates contribute to the anticipated increase of $2 million over the prior year. 2. Materials and services (excluding payments the Parks and the Health Benefits Fund payments) increased 0.8% from last year. The total of materials and services was 72.2% of the budget. Page 3 of 8 3. Debt Service decreased $535,137 (17.8%n) between the third quarters of the years and was 51.3% of budget. This decrease is primarily due to the Hargadine note lump sum payoff of $715,000 in the prior year. 4. Capital outlay is higher than the prior year due to increased projects; however it continues to lag behind budget. This is due to changes in timing of projects even though an emphasis has been taken to budget for projects likely to be done. 3rd Qtr FY 2012-13 Operating F,xp & Capital 3rd Qtr FY 2013-14 Operating Exp & Capital Outlay Outlay M&S - Health Capital Capital Benefits Debt Service, Outlay, Outlay, Personnel Payments, $2,470,581 $4,664,045 Personnel Debt Service, $7,238,915 M&S - Parks $3,065,188 Services, 00Services, Payment, $20,391,564 $3,005,716 $18,317,611 $2,772,679 Materials & Materials & Services, Services, $23,410,374 $23,615,401 Total $51,972,618 Total $56,979,458 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance (Pages 3-6 of the financial statements) The Schedule of Budgetary Compliance presents expenditures on a budget basis by fund, consistent with the resolution #2013-19 adopting appropriation levels for the biennial budget. This report is a biennium presentation thus the three quarters ended March 31 are 3/8th of the total biennial budget. Thus 37.5%a is the average target for expenditures. 1. Total Citywide expenditures in aggregate were below the anticipated 37.5% level expended for the nine months of the first year of the biennial budget 2013-15. 2. There were no supplemental budgets or appropriation transfer resolutions during the first nine months of this year. 3. Items posting more than 37.5% represent expenditures that seldom follow an even distribution for activities such as grants, debt service, capital expenditures, etc. FINANCIAL ANALAYSIS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S FUNDS The analyses of the funds below highlight a few of the changes in revenue and expenditures between the first nine months of this year and last year and the budget. General Fund (Page 7 of the financial statements) This fund's net revenues-over-expenditures in the nine months of this year were $2.0 million compared to last year's amount of $214,502. As mentioned earlier, all operating property tax Page 4 of 8 rr, proceeds are now recorded in the General Fund (except those dedicated to debt service). Payments to Parks for services are recorded as contractual payments from the General Fund. 1. Property tax revenue in the General Fund was budgeted to be $9.3 million. As of the end of the third quarter, current property tax revenue in the General was $8.9 million. 2. New this year is the transfer of $100,000 from the Reserve Fund to the General Fund as approved in the budget for the Help Center. Also different from last year was the one-time payment of $263,000 from Parks last year, not scheduled this year. 3. Personnel Services was 75% of budget. The growth continues the trend as seen in the first two quarters with a 12.7% increase at the end of the third quarter. This increase was primarily from full staffing, contract adjustments and benefits. 4. The materials and services expenditures (with the Parks payments to taken out) is 67.4% of budget and less than one percent lower than the prior year. The Parks payment of $2.8 million as of the end of the third quarter is 74% of the budget amount of $3.8 million. 5. Capital outlay did not have any expenditure or any amount budgeted for this year. The prior year capital outlay was $227,163 for Police Station Remodeling. Street Fund (Page 10 of the financial statements) This fund's net revenues-over-expenditures at the end of the third quarter was significantly lower than the prior year, primarily due to the $1.2 million financing being recorded in the prior year. 1. There was a decrease in intergovernmental revenue this year due to fewer ODOT payments for jurisdictional project work. 2. Capital project spending is $1.0 million less than last year. Personnel Services increased 6.2%. Operating costs for Streets is lower than this time last year. Capital Improvements Fund (page 12 of the financial statements) The third quarter operations in this fund continued the trend of the first half of the year. The net revenues-over-expenditures was $65,433 for the first nine months of this year. A $2.8 million decrease in capital project spending (no longer constructing Fire station 2), and the prior year annual interfund loan repayment no longer required of $208,000 contributed to this improvement. Water Fund (Page 14 of the financial statements) This fund's net revenues-over-expenditures for at the end of the third quarter was $444,750. Both revenue and expenditures are down from last year due to a reduction of the AFR program and from the $2.5 million financing being recorded in the prior year. 1. Water sales revenue increased by $353,509 or 8.5% over the prior year during the first nine months. The City sold 2% less water than the same time in the previous year so the increased revenue is primarily rate driven. 2. The increase in operating expenses (without AFR) was 13%. This increase was primarily from an increase in personnel and debt service to cover the financing for projects. Page 5 of 8 FA, Water Sales Revenue Water Sales Cubic Feet $2,500,000 60,000,000 $2,000,000 45,000,000 $1,500000 $11000:000 all, 30,000 000 $5001,000 I' 15,000 000 lst Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qtr ® FY 2011-12 ■ FY 2012-13 ■ FY 2013-14 13 FY 2011-12 ■ FY 2012-13 ■ FY 2013-14 Wastewater Fund (Page 15 of the financial statements) This fund's net revenues-over-expenditures for the first nine months was higher than the prior year. Decreased capital project is primarily responsible for this improvement. 1. Charges for services - rate revenue increased $171,940 (6.5%) due to the rate increase of 10% in July of 2013. 2. The third quarter results of the food and beverage tax revenue are not available as of the preparation of this report, although the second quarter results show a less than 1 % increase over the prior second quarter. Electric Fund (page 16 of the financial statements) This fund's net expenditures-over-revenues for the first three quarters of this year was $300,745...a reduction in fund balance. Increased electric supply, transmission, and distribution costs outpaced the increase in sales revenue. The situation improved slightly in the third quarter (after the 5.3% rate increase in December) reducing the deficit by $87,109. 1. Demand for kilowatt hours of electricity in the first two quarters was 5.5% higher than the prior year, and the third quarter decreased 3.9% for a net increase over the prior year of 1.6%. Electric Sales Revenue Electric Sales kWh $4,500,000 $60,000,000 $3,750,000 $50,000,000 83,000,000 I $40,000,000 $2,250,000 $30,000,000 $1,500,000 $20,000,000 $750,000 I..! $10,000,000 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qrt 3rd Qrt 4th Qtr O FY 2011-12 ■ FY 2012-13 ■ FY 2013-14 M FY 2011-12 ■ FY 2012-13 ■ FY 2013-14 Telecommunications Fund (Page 17 of the financial statements) This fund's deficit at the end of the third quarter was $190,035 as compared to a $100,662 deficit this time last year and primarily due to an increase in capital projects costs. Page 6 of 8 ~L, 1. Charges for services-rate had a 3% increase this third quarter compared to last year's third quarter for an overall year to date increase of 4.9%. 2. The increase in personnel cost costs has slowed down from an increase of 45.7% in the first quarter comparison, to an increase of 8.3% in the second and a decrease of 1.3% in the third quarter for a nine month comparison of 14.5%. These changes were caused by the timing of filling the vacant director and installer positions. Central Service Fund (Page 18 of the financial statements) This fund's bottom line turned around from a deficit of <$157,529> last year to a positive amount of $13,623. 1. Internal charges increased across the board by 2%. Additional internal central service fees were charged to the Street, Water and Wastewater Funds to fund positions added to Public Works Support. Total increase in internal central service revenue was 3.6%. 2. A transfer from the Reserve Fund of $90,000 was received this year to fund computer upgrades approved in the budget. $78,000 (75% of budget) has been spent in the "computer" category of materials and services so far this year. 3. Personnel costs increased over this time last year as open positions were filled. Material & services increased in UB software licensing and computer upgrades. Insurance Fund (Page 19 of the financial statements) This fund's excess of revenues over expenditures has continued to improve this third quarter. As of the end of the third quarter, this has improved by $533,087 over the prior year. 1. New this year was PERS Reserve payments into the Insurance Fund. The second quarter received $232,088 and the in third quarter an additional $168,638 received. Premiums have increased by $71,118 and claims have decreased by $73,463 as of the third quarter compared to the prior year. Health Benefits Fund (Page 20 of the financial statements) This fund accounts for employee health benefits and premiums, self insurance direct claims, and administration. Revenues are from departmental personnel services payments per FTE. The fund was established July, 2013. 1. Revenue in the first nine months was from the budgeted internal charges of $3,053,903, a refund from Pacific Source in the amount $211,795, and an interfund loan from the Reserve Fund of $225.000. 2. The expenditures were for $3,065,188 spent on health claims, premiums and contract services. The expenditures were 73.7% of the first year, biennial budget. Equipment Fund (Page 21 of the financial statements) The budget for this fund projected expenditures over revenue for this year due to significant expenditures that occur infrequently. The first year budget anticipates a net expenditures-over- revenues of $1,597,181 with the actual deficit being $514,507 at the end of March. Page 7 of 8 ~r, I . No Intergovernmental revenue such as grants was budgeted this biennial and interfund loans from the Equipment Fund have been repaid in the prior year. This year interfund loan repayments are from the Water and Airport funds. 2. There were no materials and services cost in the acquisition department this year. Last year there was a purchase of Fire Department uniforms which were funded by intergovernmental revenue. 3. Additional equipment purchases of $380,642 were incurred this third quarter and brought the total purchase to be 54.7% of budget. Purchases in this third quarter included three police cars, one street sweeper, truck bodies for two F350's, and a mobile fire pump test system. Parks & Recreation Fund (Page 23 of the financial statements) The budget funds all Parks programs at current service levels and included maintenance projects with an emphasis on safety-related projects, replacement of demolished structures at the Daniel Meyer Pool and projects intended to extend the life cycle of existing structures elsewhere in the Parks system. 1. Parks received $2.8 million from the General Fund for services provided and to maintain adequate cash levels over the first three quarters of this year. At March 31, payments received are 73% of the budget. Other revenue items remain consistent with the prior year amount. 2. Total expenditures are also consistent with the prior year. New this year was a $602,000 transfer to the Parks Capital Fund which is 100% of budget. Parks Capital Fund (Page 24 of the financial statements) Parks Capital Fund has $2.1 million budgeted to be received from the City for deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects. A $368,383 payment of food & beverage taxes from the City's Capital Improvements Fund was made reimbursing eligible costs. The fund spent an additional $298,069 this quarter for a total of $1.1 million or 39.8% of budget expended on Parks' equipment and projects this year. 1. Capital spending in the third quarter was primarily on the Calle Guanajuto project. 2. A new roller for the golf course was also purchased in this third quarter. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenue and expenditure reports, and fund statements were available for your review in the Administrative Services Department office at City Hall should you require any additional information. Page 8 of 8 Ir, City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments March 31, 2014 Balance Balance Change From Fund March 31, 2014 March 31, 2013 FY 2013 General Fund $ 5,825,814 $ 4,191,316 $ 1,634,498 Community Block Grant Fund 16,632 15,283 1,349 Reserve Fund 609,254 1,018,253 (408,999) Street Fund 4,743,669 4,148,877 594,792 Airport Fund 61,156 97,377 (36,221) Capital Improvements Fund 2,247,341 2,458,576 (211,235) Debt Service Fund 1,276,201 1,332,746 (56,545) Water Fund 6,390,949 5,750,563 640,386 Wastewater Fund 4,807,861 2,963,075 1,844,786 Electric Fund 1,383,574 1,752,986 (369,412) Telecommunications Fund 267,918 235,227 32,691 Central Services Fund 1,179,629 1,147,565 32,064 Insurance Services Fund 1,536,760 974,462 562,298 Health Benefits Fund 466,984 - 466,984 Equipment Fund 2,873,893 3,288,590 (414,697) Cemetery Trust Fund 890,221 869,638 20,583 $ 34,577,857 $ 30,244,535 $ 4,333,322 Parks 8 Recreation Agency Fund 1,083,875 3,272,998 (2,189,123) 1,083,875 3,272,998 (2,189,123) Total Cash Distribution $ 35,661,732 $ 33,517,533 $ 2,144,199 Manner of Investment General Banking Accounts $ 953,891 $ 749,688 $ 204,203 Local Government Inv. Pool 34,707,841 32,767,845 1,939,996 City Investments - - Total Cash and Investments $ 35,661,732 $ 33,517,533 $ 2,144,199 Dollar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution Canna Gamma. Peaks rA navalm and g9pea pn FlnES Claim & Equipment Funds 3.b Judgments, 17% 6ml 2% Trus( $890]29, $6.545,863,18% 3% tmmi,i $¢,776204, oea Reamed. $6% $5,780090,16% Y Ansel Faeailed, $14.578,0% a1ffiress type Fvds At at ar (canard 36% (1assmant) OMer Reserved, TOT Tourism, 44% $8,865,803,25% $124602,0% 9. lu Mil Feavitl Repsi 1 WIM014 City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide A. of M ch 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of CollectedI Year-To-Date End-of-Year Resource Summary Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals Revenues Taxes $ 16,788,184 $ 20,474,421 82.0% $ (3,686,237) $ 16,032,181 $ 19,998,715 Licenses and Permits 527,311 847,275 62.2% (319,964) 406,048 583,679 Intergovernmental Revenues 2,170,723 5,677,107 38.2% (3,506,384) 3,197,603 4,743,846 Charges for Services - Rate B Internal 36,202,206 47,891,599 75.6% (11,689,393) 29,581,059 39,181,461 Charges for Services- Misc. Service fees 1,104,113 1,700,970 64.9% (596,857) 540,212 692,381 System Development Charges 410,071 305,000 134.4% 105,071 364,287 538,560 Fines and Forfeitures 121,672 166,000 73.3% (44,328) 118,685 196,535 Assessment Payments 51,028 146,000 35.0% (94,972) 30,410 41,048 Interest on Investments 141,378 166,700 84.8% (25,322) 129,880 174,495 Miscellaneous Revenues 1,299,002 644,902 201.4% 654,100 927,198 3,181,710 Total Revenues 58,815,688 78,019,974 75.4% (19,204,286) 51,327,763 69,332,430 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources - 2,456,000 0.0% (2,456,000) 4,907,401 4,907,401 Intedund Loans 395,000 1,039,000 38.0% (644,000) 591,795 791,795 Transfers In 798,896 955,362 83.6% (156,466) 381,357 411,786 Total Budgetary Resources 1,193,896 4,450,362 26.8% (3,256,466) 5,880,553 6,110,982 Total Resources 60,009,584 82,470,336 72.8% (22,460,752) 57,208,316 75,443,412 Requirements by ClassificalJon Personal Services 20,391,564 27,388,399 74.5% 6,996,835 18,317,611 24,488,516 Materials and Services 29,453,268 40,783,612 72.2% 11,330,344 23,410,374 31,718,463 Debt Service 2,470,581 4,811,707 51.3% 2,341,126 3,005,718 4,885,465 Total Operating Expenditures 52,315,413 72,983.718 71.7% 20,668,305 44,733,703 61,092,444 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 4,664,045 16,235,338 28.7% 11,571,293 7,238,915 8,590,776 Interfund Loans 395,000 1,039,000 38.0% 644,000 591,795 791,795 Transfers Out 798,896 955,362 83.6% 156,466 381,357 411,786 Contingencies 2,277,000 0.0% 2,277,000 Total Budgetary Requirements 1,191896 4,271,362 28.0% 3,077,466 973,152 1,203,581 Total Requirements 58,173,353 93,490,418 62.2% 35,317,064 52,945,770 70,886,801 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements 1,836,231 (11,020,082) 116.7% 12,856,313 4,262,546 4,556.611 Working Capital Carryover 33,966,631 29,998,454 113.2% 3,968,177 29,410,020 29,410,020 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance S 35,802,862 S 18,978,372 188.7% S 16,824,490 S 33,672,566 S 33,966,631 9 W fYl, Gwu~0.pltle YIYID1, 2 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19 As of March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Year-To-Date Biennial Budget Percent Actuals 2013-2015 Used Balance General Fund Administration $ 94,404 $ 553,465 17.1% $ 459,061 Administration - Library 291,047 812,000 35.8% 520,953 Administration - Tourism 3,881 128,483 3.0% 124,602 Administration - Parking - 287,725 0.0% 287,725 Administration - Municipal Court 372,690 994,970 37.5% 622,280 Administrative Services- Social Services Grants 127,213 257,688 49.4% 130,475 Administrative Services - Economic& Cultural Grants 538,160 1,433,226 37.5% 895,066 Administrative Services- Miscellaneous 48,996 194,000 25.3% 145,004 Administrative Services - Band 38,364 120,390 31.9% 82,026 Administrative Services - Parks 2,772,679 8,856,000 31.3% 6,083,321 Police Department 4,574,729 12,391,656 36.9% 7,816,927 Fire and Rescue Department 4,879,698 13,053,484 37.4% 8,173,786 Public Works - Cemetery Division 249,860 704,551 35.5% 454,691 Community Development- Planning Division 932,254 2,730,822 34.1% 1,798,568 Community Development- Building Division 510,332 1,390,632 36.7% 880,300 Transfers 500 192,824 0.3% 192,324 Contingency 1,041,000 0.0% 1,041,000 Total General Fund 15,434,807 45,142,916 34.2% 29,708,109 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 22,051 61,100 36.1% 39,049 Materials and Services 209,685 406,735 51.6% 197,050 Total Community Development Grant Fund 231,736 467,835 49.5% 236,099 Reserve Fund Intedund Loan 225,000 900,000 25.0% 675,000 Transfers 190,000 190,000 100.0% Total Reserve Fund 415,000 1,090,000 38.1% 675,000 Street Fund Public Works - Street Operations 1,865,206 7,628,710 24.4% 5,763,504 Public Works- Street Operations Debt 102,588 341,750 30.0% 239,162 Public Works- Storm Water Operations 423,554 1,247,230 34.0% 823,676 Public Works- Storm Water Operations Debt 11,842 26,317 45.0% 14,475 Public Works- Transportation SDC's 35,321 446,613 7.9% 411,292 Public Works- Storm Water SDC's 1,740 80,600 2.2% 78,860 Contingency 215,000 0.0% 215,000 Total Street Fund 2,440,251 9,986,220 24.4% 7,545,969 Airport Fund Materials and Services 55,935 143,310 39.0% 87,375 Capital Outlay 44,962 65,000 69.2% 20,038 Debt Service 19,268 77,072 25.0% 57,804 Intedund Loan 19,000 19,000 100.0% - Contingency 10,000 0.0% 10,000 Total Airport Fund 139,165 314,382 44.3% 175,217 swmsr.,mmaw~aa 3 snveo~~ Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19 As of March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Year-To-Dale Biennial Budget Percent Actuals 2013.2015 Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund Public Works - Facilities 632,748 2,406,460 26.3% 1,773,712 Administrative Services - SDC(Parks) - - NIA - Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 376,917 3,929,000 9.6% 3,552,083 Transfers 3,018 466,900 0.6% 463,882 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 1,000 - NIA (1,000) Contingency 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Total Capital Improvements Fund 1,013,683 7,002,360 14.5% 5,988,677 Debt Service Fund Materials and Services 6,294 - NIA (6,294) Debt Service 1,394,161 4,548,084 30.7% 3,153,923 Interfund Loan 370,000 0.0% 370,000 Total Debt Service Fund 1,400,455 4,918,084 28.5% 3,517,629 Water Fund Administration - Conservation 136,290 449,010 30.4% 312,720 Fire- Forest Lands Management Division 298,314 887,265 33.6% 588,951 Public Works - Water Supply 353,177 2,951,820 12.0% 2,598,643 Public Works- Water Supply Debt 21,640 44,985 48.1% 23,345 Public Works - Water Treatment 822,990 2,570,700 32.0% 1,747,710 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 194,232 467,427 41.6% 273,195 Public Works - Water Dimsion 1,983,253 8,570,680 23.1% 6,587,427 Public Works- Water Division Debt 303,139 662,995 45.7% 359,856 Public Works- Reimbursement SDC's - - NIA - PublicWorks - Improvement SDC's 93,080 282,750 32.9% 189,670 Public Works - Debt SDC's 116,855 241,845 48.3% 124,990 Other Financing Uses (Interfund Loan) 150,000 150,000 100.0% - Contingency 403,000 0.0% 403,090 Total Water Fund 4,472,970 17,682,477 25.3% 13,209,507 Wastewater Fund Public Works- Wastewater Collection 1,482,037 5,298,621 28.0% 3,816,584 Public Works- Wastewater Collection Debt 56,231 151,075 37.2% 94,844 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment 1,760,733 6,527,385 27.0% 4,766,652 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Debt 222,134 3,253,250 6.8% 3,031,116 Public Works- Reimbursemetns SDC's 593 117,500 0.5% 116,907 Public Works- Improvements SDC's 18,796 1,383,491 1.4% 1,364,695 Debt Service - 30,000 0.0% 30,000 Contingency 440,000 0.0% 440,000 Total Wastewater Fund 3,540,524 17,201,322 20.6% 13,660,798 Electric Fund Administration - Conservation 481,284 1,494,890 32.2% 1,013,606 Electric - Supply 5,033,523 13,628,373 36.9% 8,594,850 Elechic - Distribution 4,837,488 13,398,521 36.1% 8,561,033 Elechic - Transmission 740,667 2,177,635 34.0% 1,436,968 Debt Service 22,936 47,774 48.0% 24,838 Contingency 923,000 0.0% 923,000 Total Electric Fund 11,115,898 31,670,193 35.1% 20,554,295 9.Ma FYflfnsna'flgvtd¢ L132J11 4 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19 As of March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Year-To-Date Biennial Budget Percent Actuals 2013-2015 Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT- Personal Services 487,750 1,288,560 37.9% 800,810 IT - Materials&Services 650,013 2,258,283 28.8% 1,608,270 IT - Capital Dullay 90,532 308,000 29.4% 217,468 Debt - To Debt Service Fund ° 409,000 409,000 100.0% - Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000 Total- Telecommunications Fund 1,637,295 4,413,843 37.1% 2,776,548 Note. In M& S appropnatlon Central Services Fund Administration Department 1,012,794 3,015,362 33.6% 2,002,568 Information Technology- Info Services Division 869,211 2,537,128 34.3% 1,667,917 Administrative Services Department 1,418,810 4,084,194 34.7% 2,665,384 City Recorder 312,556 708,330 44.1% 395,774 Public Works- Administration and Engineering 1,202,470 3,362,420 35.8% 2,159,950 Contingency - 104,000 0.0% 104,000 Total Central Services Fund 4,815,841 13,811,434 34.9% 8,995,593 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 66,283 178,080 37.2% 111,797 Materials and Services 558,861 1,446,500 38.6% 887,639 Contingency 300,000 0.0% 300,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 625,144 1,924,580 32.5% 1,299,436 Health Benefits Fund Materials and Services 3,065,188 7,816,992 39.2% 4,751,804 Intedund Loan - 510,000 0.0% 510,000 Contingency 500,000 0.0% 500,000 Total Health Benefits Fund 3,065,188 8,826,992 34.7% 5,761,804 Equipment Fund Public Works - Maintenance 771,456 2,054,460 37.6% 1,283,004 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 1,311,421 3,113,000 42.1% 1,801,579 Contingency 156,000 0.0% 156,000 Total Equipment Fund 2,082,877 5,323,460 39.1% 3,240,583 Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 3,377 10,600 31.9% 7,223 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 3,377 10,600 31.9% 7,223 s. w FY14 PoU,®Ingm .14 5 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2013-19 As of March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Year-To-Date Biennial Budget Percent Actuals 20132015 Used Balance Parks and Recreation Fund Parks Division 2,709,991 7,469,390 36.3% 4,759,399 Recreation Division 909,983 2,547,830 35.7% 1,637,847 Golf Division 375,608 1,012,880 37.1% 637,272 Transfers 602,000 922,000 65.3% 320,000 Contingency 100,000 0.0% 100,000 Total Parks and Recreation Fund 4,597,581 12,052,100 38.1% 7,454,519 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Materials and Services 47,987 - NIA (47,987) Capital Outlay 1,093,574 4,851,000 22.5% 3,757,426 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 1,141,560 4,851,000 23.5% 3,709,440 Total Appropriations 58,173,353 186,689,798 31.2% $ 128,516,445 9. WM4F.,mww+.,~, 6 vmmw City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year. 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-TO-Dale 1st Year of Collectedl Year-TO-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 110 General Fund Taxes $ 14,952,037 $ 17,714,683 84.4% $ (2,762,646) $ 9,714,377 $ 12,278,716 Licenses and Permits 527,311 847,275 62.2% (319,964) 406,048 583,679 Intergovernmental 524,898 704,145 74.5% (179,247) 443,448 571,513 Charges for Services 1,149,777 1,473,225 78.0% (323,448) 1,396,901 1,896,943 Fines 121,672 166,000 73.3% (44,328) 118,685 196,535 Interest on Investments 20,953 21,000 99.8% (47) 17,152 22,045 Miscellaneous 64,450 62,000 104.0% 2,450 52,760 75,991 Transfer in (Reserve Fund) 100,000 100,000 100.0% - - - Transfer In (Cemetery Fund) 3,377 5,200 64.9% (1,823) 3,693 4,826 Total Revenues and Other Sources 17,464,476 21,093,528 82.8% (3,629,052) 12,153,064 15,630,249 Administration 94,404 218,552 43,2% 124,148 235,156 306,625 Administration - Library 291,047 400,000 72.8% 108,953 282,570 376,759 Administration - Tourism 3,881 61,232 6.3% 57,351 - - Administration - Parking - 287,725 0.0% 287,725 - - Administration - Municipal Court 372,690 491,840 75.8% 119,150 326,770 437,057 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 127,213 127,588 99.7% 375 123,385 123,394 Administrative Services - Economic& Cultural Grants 538,160 704,236 76.4% 166,076 521,424 623,419 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 48,996 147,000 33.3% 98,004 34,503 43,776 Administrative ServicesBand 38,364 59,670 64.3% 21,306 40,629 55,594 Administrative Services - Parks 2,772,679 3,798,000 73.0% 1,025,321 - - Police Department 4,574,729 6,141,365 74.5% 1,566,636 4,442,603 5,876,126 Fire and Rescue Department 4,879,698 6,434,541 75.8% 1,554,843 4,383,405 5,804,808 Public Works- Cemetery Division 249,860 341,183 73.2% 91,323 207,042 282,274 Community Development- Planning Division 932,254 1,344,863 69.3% 412,609 856,653 1,160,288 Community Development- Building Division 510,332 686,921 74,3% 176,589 483,922 649,768 Transfers (Cemetery) 500 1,262 39.6% 762 500 500 Contingency 513,000 0.0% 513.DD0 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 15,434,807 21,758,978 70.9% 6,324,171 11,938,562 15,740,388 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 2,029,669 (665,450) 405.0% 2,695,119 214,502 (110,139) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 3,385,680 3,259,706 103.9% 125,974 3,495,819 3,495,819 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 5,415,349 $ 2,594,256 208.7% $ 2,821,093 $ 3,710,320 $ 3,385,680 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Gommited Funds 680,411 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 4,734,938 f WFYI~FUS~Y P1vtW YIYl01~ 7 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Dale 1st Year of Collectedl Year-To-Date End-of-Year Acluals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovernmental $ 209,565 $ 253,262 82.7% $ (43,697) $ 38,721 $ 101,915 Total Revenues and Other Sources 209,565 253,262 82.7% (43,697) 38,721 101,915 Personal Services 22,051 30,550 72.2% 8,499 20,897 32,446 Materials and Services 209,685 243,901 86.0% 34,216 38,808 69,466 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 231,736 274,451 84.4% 42,715 59,705 101,912 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (22,171) (21,189) 104.6% (982) (20,984) 3 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 33,801 21,189 159.5% 12,612 33,798 33,798 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ I l 630 $ NIA $ 11,630 $ 12,814 $ 33.801 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 11,630 Unassigned Fund Balance 8 a wniar~nwm v,arz°u B i City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date lsl Year of Collected) Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Acluals 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments $ 4,675 $ 7,000 66.8% $ (2,325) $ 4,344 $ 5,670 Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,675 7,000 66.8% (2,325) 4,344 5,670 Intedund Loan (Health Benefits Fund) 225,000 500,000 45.0% 275,000 - - Operating Transfer out 190,000 190,000 100.0% Total Expenditures and Other Uses 415,000 690,000 60.1% 275,000 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (410,325) (683,000) 39.9% 272,675 4,344 5,670 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,019,580 1,019,910 100.0% (330) 1,013,910 1,013,910 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 609,255 $ 336.910 180.8% $ 272.345 $ 1,018,254 $ 1,019,580 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 609.255 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (O) ra.rrur..va>.rxr. mmmr 9 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 - Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of CollectedI Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 260 Street Fund Taxes $ 28,024 $ 23,000 121.8% $ 5,024 $ 21,409 $ 55,504 Intergovernmental 890,495 1,776,700 50.1% (886,205) 1,453,238 1,729,083 Charges for Services - Rates 1,477,121 1,981,100 74.6% (503,979) 1,425,536 1,897,438 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 24,305 20,000 121.5% 4,305 17,396 23,249 System Development Charges 76,991 65,000 118.4% 11,991 88,383 129,172 Assessments 51,028 20,000 255.1% 31,028 3D,410 41,048 Interest on Investments 17,084 10,000 170.8% 7,084 10,793 16,283 Miscellaneous 230,290 110,000 209.4% 120,290 111,662 160,740 Other Financing Sources NIA 1,189,603 1,189,603 Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,795,338 4,005,800 69.8% (1,210,462) 4,354,430 5,242,121 Public Works- Street Operations 1,865,206 4,426,254 42.1% 2,561,048 2,419,362 2,951,935 Public Works- Street Operations Debt 102,588 172,187 59.6% 69,599 - - PublicWorks - Storm Water Operations 423,554 651,890 65.0% 228,336 539,598 672,923 Public Works- Storm Water Operations Debt 11,842 13,367 88.6% 1,525 - - PublicWorks - Transportation SDC's 35,321 342,079 10.3% 306,758 64,003 83,061 Public Works- Storm Water SDC's 1,740 65,000 2.7% 63,260 156,124 160,372 Contingency 117,000 0.0% 117,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,440,251 5,787,777 42.2% 3,347,526 3,179,087 3,868,291 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 355,087 (1,781,977) 119.9% 2,137,064 1,175,343 1,373,830 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 4,417,122 3,185,314 1387% 1,231,808 3,043,292 3,043,292 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 4,772,209 $ 1,403,337 340.1% $ 3,368,872 $ 4,218,636 $ 4,417,122 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 4,772,209 - Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) e. u.rrirr..d PgvtII10 vrvmu City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Dale 1st Year of Collectedl Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 280 Airport Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 96.769 $ 131,100 73.8% $ (34,331) $ 89,123 $ 124,492 Interest on Investments 406 500 81.1% (94) 436 570 Interfere Loan N/A 19,000 19,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 97,175 131,600 73.8% (34,425) 108,559 144,062 Materials and Services 55,935 71,050 78.7% 15,115 61,898 72,540 Capital Outlay 44,962 65,000 69.2% 20,038 - - Debt Service 19,268 38,536 50.0% 19,268 19,268 38,536 Intedund Loan 19,000 19,000 100.0% - - - Contingency 5,000 0.0% 5,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 139,165 198,586 701% 59,421 81,166 111,076 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (41,990) (66,986) 37.3% 24,996 27,394 32,986 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 116,697 101,550 114.9% 15,147 83.711 83,711 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 8 74,707 $ 34,564 216,1% $ 40,143 $ 111,104 $ 116,697 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 74,707 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 10) r wrvur.,m women mmou 11 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Dale 1st Year of Collectedl Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 410 Capital Improvements Fund Taxes $ 257,444 $ 456,300 56.4% $ (198,856) $ 247,522 $ 459,918 Intergovernmental - 650,000 0.0% (650,000) 86,194 97,786 Charges for Services - Internal 696,470 928,627 75.0% (232,157) 696,470 928,627 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 42,144 50,000 84.3% (7,856) 38,522 30,752 System Development Charges 41,695 25,000 166.8% 16,695 31,911 48,059 Interest on Investments 8,470 12,000 70.6% (3,530) 15,062 18,181 Miscellaneous 32,893 10,600 310.3% 22,293 2,352 12,682 Other Financing Sources 1,643,000 0.0% (1,643,000) 506,005 506,005 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,079,116 3,775,527 28.6% (2,696,411) 1,624,038 2,102,009 Public Works - Facilities 632,748 1,206,255 52.5% 573,507 3,490,618 3,975,987 Administrative Services- Open Space (Parks) 376,917 2,143,000 17.6% 1,766,083 196,693 236,466 Transfers (Debt Service Fund) 3,018 156,900 1.9% 153,882 27,164 36,135 Intedund Loan (Equipment Fund) 1,000 - NIA (1,000) 208,000 208,000 Contingency 100,000 ON 100,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,013,683 3,608155 28.1% 2,493,472 3,922,475 4,456,587 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 65,433 169,372 38.6% (103,939) (2,298,437) (2,354,578) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 2,094,707 1,689,114 124.0% 405,593 4,449,285 4,449,285 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 2,1% 140 $ 1,858,486 116.2% $ 301,654 $ 2,150,848 $ 2,094,707 Reconciliation of Fund Balance- Restricted and Committed Funds 2,160,140 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 v m e, a.pmm sniamo", 12 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-TO-Date lsl Year of Collected) Year-TO-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 484,365 $ 477,938 101.3% $ 6,427 $ 817,112 $ 867,848 Charges for Services - Internal 967,975 1,154,300 83,9% (186,325) 967,975 1,154,300 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 84,551 74,520 113.5% 10,031 55,544 74,172 Assessments - 126,000 0.0% (126,000) - - Interest on Investments 3,200 10,000 32.0% (6,800) 3,127 4,737 Miscellaneous - 29,302 0.0% (29,302) 309,698 309,782 Interfund Loan - - N/A - 364,795 364,795 Transfer In (CIP) 3,018 157,662 1.9% (154,644) 27,164 36,135 Other Financing Sources N/A 71,851 71,851 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,543,109 2,029,722 76.0% (486,613) 2,617,266 2,883,619 Materials and Services 6,294 - N/A - 55,676 55,676 Debt Service 1,394,161 2,144,212 65.0% 750,051 2,257,767 2,659,975 Interfund Loan (Central Service Fund) 370,000 0.0% 370,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,400,455 2,514,212 55.7% 1,120,051 2,313,443 2,715,651 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 142,654 (484,490) 129.4% 627,144 303,823 167,968 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,150,618 1121,533 102.6% 29,085 982.650 982,650 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 1,293,272 $ 637,043 203.0% $ 656,229 $ 1,286,473 $ 1,150,618 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,293,272 Unassigned Fund Balance $ a wrri~r~.m x,q,nm m~~. 13 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of Collectedl Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Acluals Acluals 670 Water Fund Taxes $ 37 $ - N/A $ 37 $ 24 $ 38 Intergovernmental 89,747 - N/A 89,747 961,421 1,969,979 Charges for Services - Rates 4,509,153 5,848,100 77.1% (1,338,947) 4,155,644 5,490,712 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 50,720 50,000 101.4% 720 37,430 56,849 System Development Charges 227,047 150,000 151.4% 77,047 180,775 266,196 Interest on Investments 24,511 10,000 245.1% 14,511 12,311 19,542 Miscellaneous 16,505 5,000 330.1% 11,505 98,834 477,199 Other Financing Sources NIA 2,547,791 2,547,791 Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,917,720 6,063,100 81.1% (1,145,380) 7,994,232 10,828,306 Administration - Conservation 136,290 212,925 64.0% 76,635 103,678 140,014 Fire- Forest Lands Management Division 298,314 619,257 48.2% 320,943 1,095,407 2,460,085 Public Works - Water Supply 353,177 356,020 99.2% 2,843 180,812 270,552 Public Works- Water Supply Debt 21,640 22,712 95.3% 1,072 - - Public Works - Water Treatment 822,990 1,344,120 61.2% 521,130 767,865 1,097,662 Public Works- Water Treatment Debt 194,232 235,312 82.5% 41,080 - - Public Works- Water Operations 1,983,253 4,398,420 45.1% 2,415,167 1,785,825 2,404,199 Public Works- Water Operations Debt 303,139 333,555 90.9% 30,416 - - PublicWorks - Reimbursement SDC's - - NIA - - - PublicWorks - Impravement SDCS 93,080 235,250 39.6% 142,170 30,092 32,137 Public Works - Debt SDC's 116,855 122,107 95.7% 5,252 112,980 115,648 Debt Service - - . NIA - 338,796 379,343 Interfund Loan (Equipment) 150,000 150,000 100.0% - - 200,000 Contingency - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,472,970 8,229,678 54,4% 3,756,708 4,415,455 7,099,639 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 444,750 (2,166,578) 120.5% 2,611,328 3,578,777 3,726,667 Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2013 6,437,575 5,741,693 112.1% 695,882 2,708,907 2,708,907 Fund Balance , Mar 31, 2014 $ 6,882,324 $ 3,575,115 192.5% $ 3,307,209 $ 6,287,684 $ 6,437,575 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 5,442,470 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 1,439,854 v u.rruewm+nsxm. vivnu 14 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of Collected) Year-To-Dale End-o6Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Acluals 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 1,029,774 $ 1,734,600 59.4% $ (704,826) $ 990,089 $ 1,839,673 Charges for Services - Rates 3,128,454 4,299,100 72.8% (1,170,646) 2,956,514 3,915,092 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 13,250 10,000 132.5% 3,250 13,250 13,250 System Development Charges 64,339 65,000 99.0% (661) 63,218 95,132 Interest on Investments 15,333 18,000 85.2% (2,667) 11,386 14,328 Miscellaneous 4,505 2,500 180.2% 2,005 5,094 1,650,374 Other Financing Sources 813,000 0.0% (813,000) 592,151 592,151 Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,255,654 6,942,200 61.3% (2,686,546) 4,631,702 8,120,000 Public Works- Wastewater Collection 1,482,037 2,284,361 64.9% 802,324 1,611,961 2,041,610 Public Works- Wastewater Collection Debt 56,231 76,296 73.7% 20,065 - - PublicWorks - Wastewater Treatment 1,760,733 3,244,215 54.3% 1,483,482 2,285,863 2,827,871 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment Debt 222,134 1,629,400 13.6% 1,407,266 - - PublicWorks - Reimbursemetns SDC's 593 110,000 0.5% 109,407 - - PublicWorks - Improvements SDC's 18,796 528,891 3.6% 510,095 110,849 115,454 Debt Service - - NIA - 239,550 1,639,100 Contingency 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,540,524 8,073,163 43.9% 4,532,639 4,248,223 6,624,035 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 715,131 (1,130,963) 163.2% 1,846,094 383,479 1,495,965 Fund Balance , Jul 1, 2013 4,290,774 3,546,633 121.0% 744,141 2,794,809 2,794,809 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 5,005,905 $ 2,415,670 207.2% $ 2,590,235 $ 3,178,286 $ 4,290,774 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,617,050 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,388,855 1.114en,d wrnm. vmmu 5 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Dale 1st Year of CollectedI Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Acluals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Acluals Acluals 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental $ 87,636 $ 150,000 58.4% $ (62,364) $ 89,852 $ 148,642 Charges for Services - Rates 10,505,766 13,960,000 75.3% (3,454,234) 9,740,339 12,680,992 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 115,524 280,000 41.3% (164,476) 207,445 257,047 Interest on Investments 6,221 11,000 56.6% (4,779) 8,209 10,536 Miscellaneous 100,006 192,000 52.1% (91,994) 207,819 244,442 Total Revenues and Other Sources 10,815,153 14,593,000 74.1% (3,777,847) 10,253,663 13,341,659 Administration - Conservation 481,284 829,160 58.0% 347,876 338,678 469,545 Electric - Supply 5,033,523 6,762,610 74.4% 1,729,087 4,692,399 6,091,977 Electric - Distribution 4,837,488 6,754,394 71.6% 1,916,906 4,493,282 5,980,019 Electric - Transmission 740,667 1,080,712 68.5% 340,045 673,690 866,385 Debt Service 22,936 24,023 95.5% 1,087 23,071 24,293 Contingency 464,000 0.0% 464,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 11,115,898 15,914,899 69.8% 4,799,001 10,221,120 13,432,219 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (300,745) (1,321,899) 771% 1,021,154 32,543 (90,560) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 2,327,540 2,334,310 99.7% (6,770) 2,418,100 2,418,100 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 2,026,795 $ 1,012,411 200.2% $ 1,014,384 $ 2,450,643 $ 2,327,540 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,026,795 16 v,mou City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Yearof Collected/ Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Acluals 691 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 1,446,333 $ 1,935,843 74.7% $ (489,510) $ 1,378,321 $ 1,896,106 Interest on Investments 926 1,000 92.6% (74) 1,345 1,733 Miscellaneous 0 500 0.0% (500) 13,092 13,092 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,447,260 1,937,343 74.7% (490,083) 1,392,758 1,910,931 Personal Services 487,750 636.960 76.6% 149,210 425,960 575,775 Materials 8 Services 650,013 918,881 703% 268,868 630,688 851,943 Capital Outlay 90.532 193,000 46.9% 102,468 27,772 73,531 Debt- Transfer to Debt Service Fund 409,000 409,000 100.0% - 409,000 409,000 Contingency - 75,000 0.0% 75,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,637,295 2,232,841 73.3% 595,546 1,493,420 1,910,249 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (190,035) (295,498) 64.3% 105,463 (100,662) 682 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 587,625 506,092 116.1% 81,533 586,943 586,943 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 397,590 $ 210,594 188.6% $ 186,996 $ 486,281 $ 587,625 Reconciliation of Fund Balance- Restricted and Commifted Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 397,590 a.a FYRFw R.r mamas 17 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of CollectedI Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Aclaals 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 36,503 $ 67,900 53.8% $ (31,397) $ 36,402 $ 62,793 Intergovernmental - - NIA - - - ChargesforServices - Internal 4,467,938 5,965,250 74.9% (1,497,313) 4,311,600 5,748,800 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 145,441 298,000 48.8% (152,559) 114,436 163,828 Interest on Investments 9,915 5,000 198.3% 4,915 7,862 11,121 Miscellaneous 79,667 113,000 70.5% (33,333) 81,275 107,103 Intedund Loan (Debt Service) - 370,000 0.0% 370,000 - - Operating Transfer in 90,000 90,000 100.0% Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,829,464 6,909,150 69.9% (1,339,686) 4,551,575 6,093,646 Administration Department 1,012,794 1,488,066 68.1% 475,272 980,429 1,288,745 Information Technology- Info Services Division 869,211 1,309,819 66.4% 440,608 646,765 896,008 Administrative Services Department 1,418,810 2,020,472 70.2% 601,662 1,406,258 1,874,269 City Recorder Division 312,556 350,890 89.1% 38,334 227,820 360,310 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,202,470 1,657,040 72.6% 454,570 1,083,037 1,440,649 Intefund Loan - - NIA - 364,795 364,795 Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,815,841 6,876,287 70.0% 2,060,446 4,709,104 6,224,776 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 13,623 32,863 41.5% (19,240) (157,529) (131,130) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 853,281 721,405 118.3% 131,876 984,411 984,411 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 866,904 $ 754,268 114.9% $ 112,636 $ 826,882 $ 853,281 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 866,904 o wn14r ,dwrnm wimou 18 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of Collectedl Year-To-Date End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Acluals 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 560,388 $ 729,705 76.8% $ (169,317) $ 553,340 $ 742,548 Interest on Investments 4,304 5,000 86.1% (696) 3,805 5,116 Miscellaneous 536,320 30,000 17873% 506,320 53 35,759 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,101,013 764,705 144.0% 336,308 557,198 783,423 Personal Services 66,283 88,310 75.1% 22,027 58,024 77,722 Materials and Services 558,861 723,250 77.3% 164,389 556,392 618,396 Contingency 150,000 0.0% 150,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 625,144 961,560 65.0% 336,416 614,416 696,118 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 475,869 (196,855) 341.7% 672,724 (57,218) 87,305 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 848,657 819,457 103.6% 29,400 761,552 761,552 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 1,324,726 $ 622,602 212.8% $ 702,124 $ 704,334 $ 848,857 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 1,324,726 r u.m~r~awxm virmu 19 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of CollectedI Year-TO-Date End-of-Year Acluals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Acluals Acluals 725 Health Benefits Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 3,053,903 $ 3,996,855 76.4% $ (942,952) $ - $ - Interest on Investments 1,149 10,000 11.5% (8,851) - - Miscellaneous 211,795 - NIA 211,795 - - Intedund Loan (Reserve Fund) 225,000 500,000 45.0% (275,000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,491,847 4,506,855 77.5% (1,015,008) - Personal Services - - NIA - - - Materials and Services 3,065,188 3,908,496 78.4% 843,308 - - Inledund Loan - NIA - - - Contingency 250,000 0.0% 250,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,065,188 4,158,496 717% .1,093,308 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 426,659 348,359 122.5% 78,300 - - Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 0.0% Fund Balance , Mar 31, 2014 $ 426,659 $ 348,359 122.5% $ 78,300 $ - $ Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 426,659 Unassigned Fund Balance $ vimou 20 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date lsl Year of Collected) Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Acluals Actuals 730 Equipment Fund Intergovernmental $ - $ - NIA $ - $ 124,928 $ 124,928 Charges for Services - Internal 1,353,295 1,636,394 82.7% (283,099) 1,321,172 1,760.874 Charges for Services- Misc. Service Fees 23,021 35,000 65.8% (11,979) 56,189 73,235 Interest on Investments 14,249 26,000 54.8% (11,751) 18,046 23,675 Miscellaneous 7,805 56,000 13.9% (48,195) 265 26,856 Intedund Loan (Airpod 8 Water Fund) 170,000 169,000 100.6% 1,000 208,000 408,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,568,370 1,922,394 81.6% (354,024) 1,728,600 2,417,568 Public Works - Maintenance 771,456 1,018,575 75.7% 247,119 752,882 - 1,001,756 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 1,311,421 2,398,000 547% 1,086,579 185,876 519,054 Interfund Loan - - NIA - 19,000 19,000 Contingency 103,000 0.0% 103,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,082,877 3,519,575 59.2% 1,436,698 957,758 1,539,810 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (514,507) (1,597,181) 67.8% 1,082,674 770,842 877,758 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 3,357,663 2,831,016 118.6% 526,647 2,479,905 2,479,905 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 2,843,156 $ 1,233,835 230.4% $ 1,609,321 $ 3,250,747 $ 3,357,663 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2,843,156 ou.nire.b v.~an. vivnia 21 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date lsl Year of Collected) Year-TO-Dale End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Acluals Acluals 810 Cemetery Fund Charges for Services $ 16,184 $ 25,000 64.7% $ (8,816) $ 8,830 12,301 Interest on Investments 3,377 5,200 64.9% (1,823) 3,693 4,826 Transfer In (General Fund) 500 500 100.0% 500 500 Total Revenues and Other Sources 20,061 30,700 65.3% (10,639) 13,023 17,627 Transfers 3,377 5,200 64.9% 1,823 3,693 4,826 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,377 5,200 64.9% 1,823 3,693 4,826 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 16,684 25,500 65.4% (8,816) 9,330 12,801 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 874,045 886,744 98.6% (12,699) 861,244 861,244 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 890,729 $ 912,244 97.6% $ (21,515) $ 870,574 $ 874,045 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 894729 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 . 9. W fV1~F,sN ruplOyivm~r 22 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of Collected/ Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Actuals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Actuals 211 Parks and Recreation Fund Taxes $ - $ - NIA $ - $ 4,197,680 $ 4,434,223 Charges for Services - Internal 2,772,679 3,798,000 73.0% (1,025,321) - - ChargesforServices - Misc. Service Fees 605,156 883,450 68.5% (278,294) 579,293 839,835 Interest on Investments 4,941 13,000 38.0% (8,059) 10,787 14,178 Miscellaneous 14,765 34,000 43.4% (19,235) 44,294 42,501 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,397,542 4,728,450 71.9% (1,330,908) 4,832,054 5,330,737 Parks Division 2,709,991 3,704,790 73.1% 994,799 2,819,566 3,855,745 Recreation Division 909,983 1,262,610 72.1% 352,627 837,023 1,184,861 Golf Division 375,608 499,410 751% 123,802 312,304 419,248 Other Financing Uses - Transfers 602,000 602,000 100.0% - 350,000 350,000 Contingency 50,000 0.0% 50,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,597,581 6,118,810 75.1% 1,521,229 4,318,893 5,809,854 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (1,200,039) (1,390,360) 13.7% 190,321 513,161 (479,117) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 1,783,435 1,973,756 91 (190,321) 2,242,227 2,242,227 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 583,396 $ 583,396 100.0% $ - $ 2,755,388 $ 1,783,435 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds Unassigned Fund Balance $ 583,396 9 wrvi, nnitl/ewrtlu 23 emrzui, City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2014 Fiscal Year 2014 Percent Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2013 Year-To-Date 1st Year of CollectedI Year-To-Dale End-of-Year Acluals Biennial Budget Expended Balance Actuals Acluals 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ - $ 29,000 0.0% $ (29,000) $ - $ 96,635 Intergovernmental 368,383 2,143,000 171% (1,774,617) - - Interest an Investments 1,664 2,000 83.2% (336) 1,525 1,955 Miscellaneous - - N/A - - 20,954 Transfer In (Park Fund) 602,000 602,000 100.0% 350,000 350,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 972,047 2,776,000 35.0% (1,803,953) 351,525 469,544 Materials and Services 47,987 - N/A (47,987) 20,846 25,081 Capital Outlay 1,093,574 2,745,000 39.6% -1,651,426 448,407 505,963 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,141,560 2,745,000 41.6% 1,603,440 469,253 531,044 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (169,513) 31,000 -546.8% (200,513) (117,728) (61,500) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2013 387,632 239,032 162.2% 148,600 449,132 449,132 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2014 $ 218,119 $ 270,032 80.8% IS (51,913) $ 331,404 $ 387,632 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 100,000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 118,119 fYl4rry Rg W Vive r 24 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Declare the barn located at Ashland Creek Park, 27 E. Hersey Street, as Surplus Property FROM Don Robertson, Parks and Recreation Director, don.robertson@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission is proceeding with the construction of Ashland Creek Park. The park site includes a barn that needs to be removed before construction can proceed. Before removing the barn, the City must declare it surplus and attempt to sell it. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Commission conducted an extensive master planning process in developing plans for Ashland Creek Park. The plans called for the removal of the barn as a part of the construction. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Department worked with the Planning and Public Works Departments to secure the proper permits for construction. During the process, a citizen appealed the demolition permit for removal of the barn. On May 12, a hearing was held by the demolition committee of the Historic Commission. The action taken by the committee was to uphold the permit to demolish the barn; however, it would not occur until after the Parks Commission made an effort to find someone to purchase the barn and relocate it or salvage it. The Parks Commission was given a 30-day deadline to accomplish this task with a two-week window for its removal once a bidder was found, assuming a bidder could be found. A bidder would need to meet City criteria in terms of licensure, bonding and insurance. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS If a successful bidder is found, it will relieve the project of demolition costs and potentially provide a source of revenue. If a bidder is not found, the project's budget includes funding for barn removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends declaring the barn surplus property and allowing for a sealed bid to purchase and remove the barn. SUGGESTED MOTION I move that Council declare the barn located at 27 E. Hersey Street as surplus property and allow for sealed bids to be received for the barn's purchase and removal. ATTACHMENTS None Page I of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Public Hearing - Resolutions Proposing Utility Rate Increases and Repealing Prior Resolutions FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, lee.tuneberg(a ashland.or.us SUMMARY Recent practice has been to consider needed rate increases for city-owned and operated utilities together at one time in the spring. Attached are proposals from the Electric and Public Works Departments for increases in electric, water wastewater, transportation and storm drain fees that, if approved by Council at the May 20`h meeting, following a scheduled public hearing, would go into effect July 1, 2014. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Reviewing the need for increases at one time affords Council the ability to consider total impacts to the customers for the year. This approach was adopted a few years ago but it does compromise the Electric Department in that many of their significant cost increases (primarily Bonneville Power Administration's changes to wholesale power) won't be known until August. However, corrective action could be taken if there are significant changes between now and then. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The biennium budget was created in spring of 2013 with anticipated rate adjustments based upon forecasted need. In many cases the anticipated need for an increase is based upon master plans for the corresponding enterprise. Updated reviews of studies, revenues and expenses are utilized to confirm or modify proposed adjustments. A short history of rates and budgeted and proposed increases for the second year of the biennium are as follows: Rai Adiustrnents in FAY 2011 2012 FY 20i12,20~13 FY 2013-2014 FY 2014-2015 Actual, Budgeted & Proposed A tuaal Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted Actual Budgeted `Pfposed TransporlaUon Utility Fee 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.57% % 2.57% Storm Drain Utility Fee 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 3.00 1 0 3.0% 3.0 Water Fees 10.0% 10.0% 10,0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.010/10 10.08% Wastewater Fees 6.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 1.0.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.00% Electric Rate Increase 0.0% 4.0% ' S.0% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 5.010/0, 3.60% Page 1 of2 CITY OF ASHLAND The impact of the proposed increases on a residential utility account using 750 kwh and 1000 cubic feet of water (nearly 7500 gallons) per month would be: Monthly 2014 2015 Difference Street User Fee 8.17 8.38 0.21 Storm Drain Residential 4.29 4.40 0.11 Water Residential 1000cf 42.90 47.24 4.34 Sewer Residential 29.45 32.40 2.95 Electric Residential 750kwh 57.86 59.94 2.08 Electric Users Tax 14.47 14.99 0.52 Total $ 157.14 $ 167.35 $ 10.21 6.50% Rounding may occur. Draft resolutions are provided after each department's report. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council review the supporting documentation, ask questions as warranted and approve the resolutions as presented or amended through discussion. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the resolution(s) adjusting utility rates as identified and/or revised by Council discussion and repealing prior resolutions as appropriate. (This action can be done individually or en masse.) ATTACHMENTS: All attachments can be found in the May 6, 2014 packet: http://www.ashland.or.us/Pa2e.asp?NavlD=l 6240 Page 2 of 2 rill CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 6, 2014 Business Meeting Proposed 3.6% Electric Utility Rate Increase FROM: Mark Holden, Director of IT and Electric Utility, mark.holden@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Electric Utility proposes a 3.6% rate increase. The increase will be applied to all rate classes. The increase is anticipated to be effective July 1, 2014. The projected rate increase provides additional funding for operations (Personal Services and Materials/Services), BPA Costs (Power and Transmission), and the long term financial health of the Electric Utility (working capital). BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Rate Considerations The Council has recently reviewed results of the Electric Departments Cost of Service and Rate Design Study (COS). The results of the study provide a roadmap for rate design and align with the rate projections in the current biennium budget. The budget and the COS both recognize the Electric Utility's need to continue to reverse declining ending fund balances. The Council expressed the desire to set rates based on a combination of rate review and COS. In order to provide for a thorough review process, the Utility proposes to use established practice and apply a 3.6% rate increase uniformly across all rate classes. Results of the rate review and COS will be used for future rate changes. The following graph and table show the areas supporting the need for the rate increase. The rate increase is driven by the increases in Personal Services, Materials and Services, BPA costs and the need to continue to reverse a declining Ending Fund Balance (Beginning Working Capital). The rate increase is anticipated in the adopted FY 2013-2015 Biennium Electric Department budget. 5.0% ■ Personal 4.0% Services ■ Materials and Increase Increase 3.0% Services Cost Areas $(k) by5ource 2.0% ■ BPA Costs Personal Services 91,616 0.66% 1.0% 1.79go Materials and Services 39,297 0.2W.1 0.0% ■ Contribution to BPA Costs 120,914 0.87% Increase... Ending FB Contribution to Ending FB 250,173 1.79310 Total) 502,0001 3.60%~ The requested rate increase provides funding for the cost areas. Additional details of the cost areas are provided below: Page 1 of 4 pra , CITY OF -ASHLAND • Personal Services - standard compensation increases (compensation and benefits) • Materials and Services - anticipated increased materials costs (inflation) • BPA Costs o Power costs - Over Supply Management Protocol (OMP; reimbursement to wind generators when oversupply conditions exist) o Transmission costs - Segmentation (allocation of additional transmission costs based on cost to serve) • Contribution to Ending Fund Balance - continues the process of restoring a prudent and stable ending fund balance, which becomes beginning working capital in the next budget cycle. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Rates and fees for the Department are reviewed each year. Council has indicated to staff a preference for more frequent, measured increases over infrequent, large increases. The current budget, together with the recently reviewed COS, provide for rates intended to achieve long-term department financing needs while providing for the measured implementation of rates. A summary of actual and projected rate adjustments for the Electric Department are: Rate Adjustments b FY 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Increase % 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 5.3 5.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 Actual Projected Electric consumption is growing between 0.1 -0.5% per year. The increased costs identified (Personal Services, Materials and Services, BPA Costs and Ending Fund Balance) are met through electric rates. The Council has the option of not doing this rate increase and allowing the Electric Fund's unappropriated fund balance to decline. This approach is not recommended by staff. The effects of no rate increase on Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance (which provides the subsequent year's Working Capital Carryover) and the Ending Fund Balance plus Contingencies are shown for the FY2013-2015 Biennium. The effect will continue into subsequent years. Without Rate Adopted Budget Increase Difference Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance FY2014-2015 590,117 70,117 520,000 Ending Fund Balance Plus Contingencies FY2014-2015 1,049,117 529,117 520,000 Fund Balance Policy 1,840,000 1,840,000 The Fund could operate with the reduction; however, the balance continues below financially prudent levels (shown in the above table as Fund Balance Policy). In addition, the Department is taking more risk (potential lack of sufficient funds for emergencies). Alternative solutions: Cost Reductions Page 2 of 4 P`, CITY OF ASHLAND • Reduce BPA costs - BPA costs are tied to usage. However, reducing usage does not displace an equal share of other costs. Fixed costs such as maintenance, materials, and infrastructure are not reduced when usage is lowered. • Reduce conservation costs -Reduces the benefits of conservation initiatives. • Reduce capital investment further - Capital investment costs are an investment in the safety, reliability and operation of the electric system. Past economic conditions required a reduction in capital investment. The lack of funding for the electric system created a backlog of projects needed to safeguard the reliability and operation of the system. A further reduction in investment would further weaken the reliability of the system. • Reduce operation costs - Requires personnel reduction within a lean organization. Personnel reductions would hinder the operation and maintenance of the system leading to lower system reliability and lower system safety. Cuts to internal charges or technology debt payments will shift costs to other departments. The other departments will likely be unable to meet the additional costs. Recommended Solution: • Maintain adopted budget, keep the benefits and outcomes -Approve the projected 3.6% rate increase Electric Bill Comparisons Residential comparisons are not always apples to apples. Different utilities design their charges to satisfy the unique needs of the utility's environment. Pacific Power, the only other significant power provider in the Rogue Valley, is an investor owned utility, not a municipality. A comparison of current and projected charges follows. City of Ashland Residential- singlefamily dwelling___ Pacific Power 1 City of Ashland-current 3.6% increase Average monthly usage=750 kwh kwh cost/unit Total kwh cost unit Total kwh cost/unit Total Total Usage 750 750 750 Basic Charge $ 9.50 $ 9.50 $ 8.89 $ 6.89 $ 9.21 $ 9.21 DeliveryCharge 750 0.04277 32.08 5000.06063 30.32 500 0.062813, 31.41 250 0.07458 16.65 250 0.077265. 19.32 Generation Credit 750 Supply Energy Charge Block lfor 32 Days 750 0.05326 39.95 Public Purpose 750 0.03000 2.45 Energy Conservation Charge 750 0.00279 2.09 Low Income Assistance 750 0.85 JC Boyle Dam Removal 750 0.00036 0.27 Copoo & Iron Gate Dam Removal 750 O.OD111 0.83 BPA Columbia River Benefits for32 Days 750 (0.00570). (4_28) Talent City Franchise Fee 750 0.01500 1.22 Ashland Electric Users Tax 750 $ 14.46 $ 14.98 84.97 1 72.31 74.92 Estimated amount COA bill (less)/more than Pack Power bill for same kwh use: (12.65) (10.05) Please note: 1. The average Ashland residential customer uses about 750 kWh per month at a cost of $72.31 (including Electric User tax). The projected 3.6% rate change will increase the cost by $2.61. Page 3 of 4 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND 2. The average Ashland residential customer currently pays $12.65 less than a comparable Pacific Power customer. After the rate increase the average Ashland residential customer will still pay $10.05 less than a comparable Pacific Power customer. If qualified, programs may be available to City of Ashland utility customers in order to help pay utility bills. The bulk of the funding for these programs comes from fees and charges collected through utility rates. While budgeted at fixed amounts, the City's practice has been to never deny an applicant due to a budget constraint. The programs are: • Senior and Disabled Discount program - helps qualifying customers to pay monthly utility bills. The dollar amount of assistance usually rises with the size of the bill. • Low Income Energy Assistance Program • The City provides a HEAT donation program • The City's Conservation Department helps residents by providing services to lower energy use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve a 3.6% rate increase to be effective July 1, 2014, to cover the increased costs and continue to build a prudent and stable fund balance. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution revising rates for electric service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.16.030 and repealing Resolution 2013-34" ATTACHMENTS: None Page 4 of 4 Wr, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.16.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2013-34 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The electric rate schedules are increased 3.6% for rates for electric service provided by the City of Ashland, effective with usage on or after July 1, 2014, as per the attached rate tables. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section l lb of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2013-34 is repealed on the date new rates established by this Resolution are effective. SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014, and takes effect on July 1, 2014, upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page I of 1 City of Ashland, Oregon RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Applicable: To single-family residential customers when all service is supplied to one point of delivery. Monthly Billing: The Monthly Billing shall be the sum of the Basic and Energy Charges. asicC-a e ~ e e Per Month $ 8.89 $ 9.21 t o C aye a ee e First 500 kWh $ 0.06063 $ 0.06281 Over 500 kWh $ 0.07458 $ 0.07726 Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the Basic Charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Special Conditions: Residential Horsepower load requirements of greater than 3 HP crust comply with the City of Ashland's Electric Service Manual. Three-Phase Service: ror residential customers requiring three-phase service, whose single-phase requirements are, or will be supplied under any residential schedule, three-phase service will be supplied only when service is available from the City's presently existing facilities, or where such facilities can be reasonably installed, and in any event, only when deliveries can be made by using one service for customer's single phase and three-phase requirements. The demand charge applicable only to customers three-phase demand shall be $3.76 for each kilowatt of demand, but not less than $9.21 minimum basic charge. The energy charge shall be in accordance with the schedule set forth herein. tTihree P.tiase Se ce ece e 0 Per kW of Demand $ 3.63 $ 3.76 Minimum Charge $ 8.89 $ 9.21 Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. City of Ashland, Oregon SEASONAL RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Applicable: This rate is applicable to seasonal residential uses such as owner occupied single-family residential customers providing travelers accommodations, and when all service is supplied at one point of delivery. Monthly Billing: The Monthly Billing shall be the sum of the Basic and Energy Charges. asw C a e. ece0~ Per Month $ 8.89 $ 9.21 - Cha g e.. e h I ce e 2 First 600 kWh $ 0.06737 $ 0.06979 Over 600 kWh $ 0.07447 $ 0.07715 Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the Basic Charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Special Conditions: Residential Horsepower load requirements of greater than 3 HP must comply with the City of Ashland's Electric Service Manual. Three-Phase Service: For residential customers requiring three-phase service, whose single-phase requirements are, or will be supplied under any residential schedule, three-phase service will be supplied only when service is available from the City's presently existing facilities, or where such facilities can be reasonably installed, and in any event, only when deliveries can be made by using one service for customer's single phase and three-phase requirements. The demand charge applicable only to customer's three-phase demand shall be $3.76 for each kilowatt of demand, but not less than $9.21 minimum Basic charge. The energy charge shall be in accordance with the schedule set forth herein. lthree-Phase Se ce 1, e 0 Per kW of Demand $ 3.63 $ 3.76 Minimum Charge $ 8.89 $ 9.21 Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. City of Ashland, Oregon GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Page 1 of 3 Applicable: This schedule is applicable to governmental customers whose entire requirements are supplied hereunder, and whose loads have never registered 1,000 kilowatts or more, more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Monthly billing: The monthly billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand (if applicable), Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus applicable Metering and Delivery adjustments. Basic Charge: Sin le Phase ece er 0 30 kW or less $ 15.92 $ 16.49 Over 30 kW $ 59.74 $ 61.89 ree-P ase Serv ce ece e 0 I~Emffffui 30 kW or less $ 31.85 $ 32.99 Over 30 kW $ 103.56 $ 107.28 ' Note: Kilowatt load size, for determination of Basic Charge, shall be the average of the two greatest non-zero monthly demands established during the 12 month period which includes and ends with the current billing month. Demand Charge: No charge for the first 15 kW of demand For all kW in excess of 15 kW Oemand~a~ a Decem e b I 0 Per kW $ 3.88 $ 4.01 Energy Charge: Sm le Phase egerjbe 0 I 0 Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.08718 $ 0.09031 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.06538 $ 0.06773 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.06127 $ 0.06347 lThxe_e Pha e ecembe 0~1 Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.09313 $ 0.09648 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.07062 $ 0.07316 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.06620 $ 0.06858 City of Ashland, Oregon GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Page 2 of 3 Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Reactive Power Charges: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 25% of the measured kilowatt demand the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at rate shown below per War of such excess reactive demand. TQ ;v_e oWxe C ar, a DeeeXn ,e _ 0 Per kvar $ 0.71495 $ 0.74068 Demand: Demands shall be the kilowatts shown by, or computed from the readings of the City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customer's greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The above monthly charges are applicable without adjustment for voltage with delivery and metering are at the City's standard secondary voltage. Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by one and one-half percent (1 1/2 to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the total of the above charges will be reduced by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. A High Voltage Charge of $41.80 per month will be added where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage. When a new delivery is, at the request of the customer, made by means of City-owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classification thereof at any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. City of Ashland, Oregon GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE Page 3 of 3 Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursements for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of this schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge shall be equal to 1 1/2 % per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge shall be equal to 15 Cents per nameplate kva. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant may actually receive. Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. - City of Ashland, Oregon GENERAL SERVICE - GOVERNMENTAL LARGE SERVICE Page 1 of 2 Applicable: This schedule is applicable to electric service loads which have registered a peak demand of 1,000 to 3,000 kilowatts more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Service for intermittent, partial requirements, or highly fluctuating loads, or where service is seasonally disconnected during any one-year period will be provided only by special contract for such service. Monthly Billing: The Monthly Billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand (if applicable), Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus appropriate Metering and Delivery adjustments. ~ece ber 01 Basic Charge $ 2,437.95 $ 2,525.71 Demand Charge per kW $ 4.54232 $ 4.70584 Energy Charge per kWh $ 0.05327 $ 0.05518 Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum charge may be required by contract. On-Peak Period Billing Demand: The on peak period kilowatts shown by or computed from the readings of City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customer's greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Reactive Power Charge: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 25% of the measured kilowatt demand for the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at rate shown below per War of such excess reactive demand. ~e_c WUM'a 20 0 Per kvar $ 0.71488 $ 0.74061 Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by (1-1 1/2%) to compensate for losses. City of Ashland, Oregon GENERAL SERVICE - GOVERNMENTAL LARGE SERVICE Page 2 of 2 Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's current locally available primary or transmission voltage the total of the above charges will be reduced by the.following amount per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month; and where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage, the following high voltage charges shall be added. ~ece e 0 Standard a is o to a ductio e e Prima voltage of 11 kV or reater $ 0.15 $ 0.15 Transmission voltage of 60 kV or greater $ 0.30 $ 0.31 Hi gp_h' Vo to TUC a Pe Mo t Prima voltage of 11 kV or reater $ 40.35 $ 41.80 Transmission voltage of 60 kV or reater $ 392.07 $ 406.18 When a new delivery, or an increase in capacity for an existing delivery is, at the request of the customer, made by means of City-owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 cents per kilowatt of load size for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classifications thereof at any time and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. Installation and Maintenance: The City may contact for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customers premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursement for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of the Schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge shall be equal to 1 1/2% per month of the installed cost of the facilities as determined by the City for facilities installed at City's expense. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge shall be equal 15 (cents) per nameplate kva. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant may actually receive. City of Ashland, Oregon MUNICIPAL SERVICE Page 1 of 3 Applicable: This schedule is applicable to municipal customers whose entire requirements are supplied hereunder, and whose loads have never registered 1,000 kilowatts or more, more than once in any consecutive 18-month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Monthly billing: The monthly billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand (if applicable), Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus applicable Metering and Delivery adjustments. Basic Charge: ;Sin le Phase ece be 201 Ju 30 kW or less $ 15.92 $ 16.49 Over 30 kW $ 59.74 $ 61.89 th~e_e-Phase S_erviee Decer~t a 20 30 kW or less $ 31.85 $ 32.99 Over 30 kW $ 103.56 $ 107.28 * Note: Kilowatt load size, for determination of Basic Charge, shall be the average of the two greatest non-zero monthly demands established during the 12 month period which includes and ends with the current billing month. Demand Charge: No charge for the first 15 kW of demand For all kW in excess of 15 kW pem_and Char, a (De_ee :er 0 Per kW $ 3.88 $ -4.01 Energy Charge: Sin le Phase De_eem er Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.08718 $ 0.09031 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.06538 $ 0.06773 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.06127 $ 0.06347 Tihree Phase Deeebe 0 11 0 Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.09313 $ 0.09648 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.07062 $ 0.07316 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.06620 $ 0.06858 City of Ashland, Oregon MUNICIPAL SERVICE Page 2 of 3 Minimum Charge: The monthly minimum charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Reactive Power Charges: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 25% of the measured kilowatt demand the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at rate shown below per kvar of such excess reactive demand. Reactive ,ow.e ar, a ;e_eeme 20 I. 0 Per kvar $ 0.71495 $ 0.74068 Demand: Demands shall be the kilowatts shown by, or computed from the readings of the City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customer's greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The above monthly charges are applicable without adjustment for voltage with delivery and metering are at the City's standard secondary voltage. Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by one and one-half percent (1 1/2 to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the total of the above charges will be reduced by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. A High Voltage Charge of $41.80 per month will be added where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage. When a new delivery is, at the request of the customer, made by means of City-owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classification thereof at any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to take service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. City of Ashland, Oregon MUNICIPAL SERVICE Page 3 of 3 Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customer's premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursements for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of this schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge shall be equal to 1 1/2 % per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge shall be equal to 15 Cents per nameplate kva. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant may actually receive. Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charges. City of Ashland, Oregon COMMERCIAL SERVICE Page 1 of 3 Applicable: This schedule is applicable to non-residential and multiple-family residential customers whose entire requirements are supplied hereunder, and whose loads have never registered 1,000 kilowatts or more, more than once in any consecutive 18- month period. Deliveries at more than one point, or more than one voltage and phase classification, will be separately metered and billed. Service for intermittent, partial requirements or highly fluctuating loads, or where service is seasonally disconnected during any one year period will be provided only by special contract for such service. Monthly Billing: The monthly billing shall be the sum of the Basic, Demand (if applicable), Energy, and Reactive Power Charges, plus applicable Metering and Delivery adjustments. Basic Charge: S IIe Phase Deeem e 0 0 30 kW or less $ 15.92 $ 16.49 Over 30 kW $ 59.74 $ 61.89 Three- ase Serv ce ;ece e 0 30 kW or less $ 31.85 $ 32.99 Over 30 kW $ 103.56 $ 107.28 Note: Kilowatt load size, for determination of Basic Charge, shall be the average of the two greatest non-zero monthly demands established during the 12 month period which includes and ends with the current billing month. Demand Charge: No charge for the first 15 kW of demand. For all kW in excess of 15 kW Demand C^ha_r, a De_cem a 00 Per kW $ 3.80542 $ 3.94241 Energy Charge: Sin le Phase Dece ber 013 u 0 Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.07209 $ 0.07468 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.07232 $ 0.07492 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.07267 $ 0.07528 Thee Phase e_cem e 0 01 Per kWh up to 3,000 kWh $ 0.06601 $ l 0.06838 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.06645 $ 0.06884 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.06663 $ 0.06902 City of Ashland, Oregon COMMERCIAL SERVICE Page 2 of 3 Minimum Charge: The monthly charge shall be the basic charge. A higher minimum may be required under contract to cover special conditions. Reactive Power Charges: The maximum 30-minute reactive demand for the month in kilovolt-amperes in excess of 25% of the measured kilowatt demand the same month will be billed, in addition to the above charges, at rate shown below per kvar of such excess reactive demand. ;Rear iue .owe ChJ a ece be 2b1 r3. 01 Per kvar $ 0.71495 $ 0.74068 Demand: Demand shall be the kilowatts shown by, or computed from the readings of the City's demand meter for the 30-minute period of customers greatest use during the month, determined to the nearest kilowatt. Metering & Delivery Voltage Adjustments: The above monthly charges are applicable without adjustment for voltage with delivery and metering are at the City's standard secondary voltage. Metering: For as long as metering voltage is at the City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the above charges shall be reduced by one and one-half percent (1 1/2 to compensate for losses. Delivery: For as long as delivery voltage is at City's available primary distribution voltage of 11 kV or greater, the total of the above charges will be reduced by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. A High Voltage Charge of $41.80 per month will be added where such deliveries are metered at the delivery voltage. When a new delivery is, at the request of the customer, made by means of City-owned transformers at a voltage other than a locally standard distribution voltage, the above charges for any month will be increased by 15 Cents per kilowatt of load size used for the determination of the Basic Charge billed in the month. The City retains the right to change its line voltage or classification thereof at any time, and after reasonable advance notice to any customer affected by such change, such customer then has the option to lake service at the new line voltage or to accept service through transformers to be supplied by City subject to the voltage adjustments above. Contract: The City may require the customer to sign a written contract which shall have a term of not less than one (1) year. City of Ashland, Oregon COMMERCIAL SERVICE Page 3 of 3 Installation and Maintenance: The City may contract for the installation and maintenance of electric facilities on the customers premises. The terms of such service shall be set forth in a contract, the form and terms of which shall be approved by the City Council. Monthly charges made by the City as reimbursements for ownership, operation and maintenance costs applicable to facilities installed to furnish service under rules of this schedule shall be determined in accordance with the following: (1) Operating Charge shall be equal to 2/3 of 1% per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (2) Facilities Charge shall be equal to 1 112 % per month of the installed cost of facilities paid for by the customer. (3) Transformer Capacity Charge shall be equal to 15 Cents per nameplate kva. Special Conditions: Customers shall not resell electric service received from the City under provisions of this schedule to any person, except by written permission of the City, and where customer meters and bills any of his/her tenants at City's regular rates for the type of service which such tenant may actually receive. Continuing Service: This schedule is based on continuing service at each service location. Disconnect and reconnect transactions shall not operate to relieve a customer from monthly minimum charge. City of Ashland, Oregon OUTDOOR AREA LIGHTING SERVICE Monthly Billing: The following rate schedule is no longer available for new residential installations and is for outdoor area lighting service furnished from dusk to dawn by City-owned high pressure sodium luminaries which may be served by secondary voltage circuits from City's existing overhead distribution system, and mounted on City-owned wood poles and served in accordance with City's specifications as to equipment and facilities, shall be as follows: (1) Net Monthly Rate Per Luminaire: e o m nai a Nomina_I ume Rati De_cembe 01 _ High-Pressure Sodium 5,800 $ 20.04 $ 20.76 High-Pressure Sodium 22,000 $ 28.93 $ 29.97 High-Pressure Sodium 50,000 $ 46.27 $ 47.93 Existing Residential Monthly Billing: e o ai a Nomi a umen Rat n. Dece a 013 High-Pressure Sodium 5,800 $ 15.42 $ 15.97 High-Pressure Sodium 22,000 $ 22.26 $ 23.06 High-Pressure Sodium 50,000 $ 35.60 $ 36.88 (2) Pole Charge: A monthly charge of $1.81 per pole shall be made for each additional pole required in excess of the luminaries installed. o e C- ar DeeeMb_e 01 Per Month $ 1.75 $ 1.81 Maintenance: Maintenance will be performed during regular working hours as soon as practicable after customer has notified City of service failure. The City reserves the right to contract for the installation and/or maintenance of lighting service provided hereunder. Suspension of Service: The customer may request temporary suspension of power for lighting by written notice. During such periods the monthly rate will be reduced by the City's estimated average monthly re-lamping and energy costs for the luminaire. Contract: Due to the investment involved and cost of initial installation, the term of the contract shall be by written agreement with the Electric Department, the form of which shall have prior approval by the City Council, and the term of which shall be for not less than three (3) years. City of Ashland, Oregon TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHARGE Applicable: This schedule is applicable to unmetered service provided to Telecommunication companies for electric service for their node power supplies and other active devices requiring electric service attached to City of Ashland owned utility poles. Monthly Billing: The monthly billing will be the sum of the base amount multiplied by the number of power supplies the customer is requiring and the energy charge based on the average amount of kWh used in accordance with the Commercial Service schedule below. Basic Charge: Dec mber 0 3 0 Charge per Power Su I $ 15.92 $ 16.49 Energy Charge: Qece . be Q7, u 0 Per kWh u to 3,000 kWh $ 0.07209 $ 0.07468 Per kWh for the next 17,000 kWh $ 0.07232 $ 0.07492 Per kWh for all additional kWh $ 0.07267 $ 0.07528 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 6, 2014, Business Meeting Increases to Water, Wastewater, Transportation, and Storm Drain Utility Rates FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, Public Works Department, faughtm@ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The following across-the-board increases in utility rates are proposed to become effective July 1, 2014: Utility % Increase Water 10.08% Wastewater 10.00% Transportation 2.57% Storm Drain 2.57% Total (Average % Increase) 8.95%I 1 1 The water and wastewater rate increases are consistent with the respective water and wastewater master plans and are contained in the revenue projections in the FY2014 and FY2015 biennium budget. Also, the transportation and storm drain utility fee increases are based on the rate of inflation for construction projects (the Construction Cost Index) as reported by the ENR (formerly the Engineering News Record published by McGraw Hill). These increases, if adopted, would cost a typical residence an additional $7.41 per month. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Based on the water and wastewater master plans, and the need to keep up with inflation in both the transportation and the storm drain funds, the Public Works 2015 biennium budget anticipates across- the-board utility rate increases as shown in the Table above. This recommended rate increase is for the second year (FY2015) of the two-year budget only. If approved, the new rates will become effective July 1, 2014. Water Rate Increase The proposed 10.08% water rate increase is based on the recommended rate plan outlined in Chapter 9 of the April 17, 2012 Water Master Plan (http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Nav1D=15317). All recommendations outlined in the Water Master Plan were vetted and ultimately recommended by both the Water Master Plan Technical Advisory Committee and the Ashland Water Advisory Committee. The plan recommends $30.5 million in water capital projects in order to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements and to meet Ashland's current and future water system demands. Pape I of 7 kly W, CITY OF ASHLAND The 2012 Water Master Plan outlines a 10-year plan to ramp up water rates to generate adequate funds to pay for the proposed capital projects and to support day-to-day operations. The monthly bill for a residential customer that uses 1,000 cubic feet of water per month (usually only in the summer months), is shown below: $300.00 $90.00 $80.00 $90.00 - $65.53 $61.18 $63'.60 $60.00 558.ll $59.81` $56.01 $51.96 $50.00 $91.23 $g8.a1 $42.90 $40.00 - $38.91 ,$36.02 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 2012 2013 zola zals 2016 2017 2028 2019 2020 202 2022 l Average monthly rate at 10ccf- with the funding of a rate stabilization account ~i- Inflation reference line at 3% PROJECTED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WATER RATES (ASSUMING 10 CCF OF WATER USE PER MONTH) Council adopted the first two years of the 10-year rate adjustment plan as proposed and staff is now recommending that Council continue to follow the water master plan financial recommendations and adopt the proposed FY2015 10.08% water rate increase effective July 1, 2014. The monthly bill for a residential customer using 1,000 cubic feet (cf) will increase $4.34. Comparisons of the current and proposed rates are as follows: Single Family Residence Chan e Water Rates Current Proposed $ % Base Charge $19.44 $21.40 $1.96 10.08% ConsumptionNolume Charge Zero to 300 of $0.02 $0.02 $0.00 10.45% 301 to 1000 cf $0.02 $0.03 $0.00 10.04% 1001 to 2500 cf $0.03 $0.04 $0.00 10.27% Average Monthly Bill $42.90 $47.24 $4.34 10.12% Wastewater Rate Increase The proposed 10.0% wastewater rate increase is based on the recommended rate plan outlined in Chapter 14 of the April 17, 2012 Wastewater Master Plan Page 2 of 7 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND (http://www.ashland.or.us/Pape.asp?NavID-14696). All recommendations outlined in the master plan were vetted and ultimately recommended by the technical advisory committee. The plan outlines $10.8 million of high priority capital projects to ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements and to meet Ashland's current and future wastewater system demands. Since the 2012 Wastewater Master Plan was completed, only minor changes have occurred in the capital improvements schedule. The Wastewater Master Plan outlines an eight-year rate plan developed to generate adequate funds to pay for the proposed high-priority capital projects and day-to-day operations. The following chart outlines the proposed eight-year rate increases to fund the wastewater program: Table 3 Current & Forecast Sewer Rates Forecast Current 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Customer Class Rates^ 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 % Rate Immax(per year) 10.00% 10,00% 10.00% 10,00% 10.00% 10.00% 5.00% 5.00% Residential Ratest Base $18.70 $20.60 $22.70 $25.00 $27.50 $30.30 $33.30 535.00 $36.80 Commodity(Slecl) $2.80 $3.08 $3.39 $3.73 $4.10 $4.51 $4.96 $5.21 $5.47 Commercial Rates Base 519.54 $2150 $23.70 $26.10 $28.70 $31.60 534.80 536.50 $38.30 Commodity (Sleet) $3.11 $3.42 $3.76 54.14 $4.55 $5.01 $5.51 $5.79 $6.08 ^ Base Rates are rounded to the nearest $%10/month. Commodity Rates are rounded to the ncaasl 50.01. T Most residential customers pay only the base rate, which includes 400 cubic feet of water consumption. Council adopted the first two years of the eight-year rate adjustment plan as proposed and staff is now recommending that Council continue to follow the wastewater master plan financial recommendations and adopt the proposed FY2015 10.0% wastewater rate increase effective July 1, 2014. Some examples of the wastewater capital projects include; effluent outfall relocation and Bear Creek shading; a new oxidation ditch at the treatment plant; new sewer capacity pipes that parallel Bear Creek; and pipe replacement projects. A comparison of the current residential rates and the proposed rates are as follows: Single Family Residence Chan Le Wastewater Rates Current Proposed $ % Monthly Service Charge $22.66 $24.93 $2.27 10.02% uantity Charge per cf $0.03 $0.04 $0.00 10.06% As a result of these changes, the average household monthly sewer bill will increase from $29.45 to $32.40, a $2.95 increase. Page 3 of 7 Vr, CITY OF ASHLAND Transportation Utility Fee Staff is recommending the transportation utility fee be increased 2.57% to cover the increasing costs of future capital improvements. The cost of construction as measured by ENR (publisher McGraw Hill) has been increasing annually at a slower rate than the 100-year history of the index, 2.57% vs. 4.56%. This proposed increase would be effective July 1, 2014. Revenue for the street maintenance fund include; state gas taxes; transportation utility fees; state and federal grants; system development charges (SDCs); and franchise fees. The state-shared gas tax revenues and the utility fee revenues are the most stable sources of revenue for street operations, maintenance and capital improvements. The other sources vary substantially based on federal and state policies and the rate of real estate development. The state gas tax and transportation utility fees are primarily used to fund the day-to-day operations, debt service and a portion of the capital projects (sidewalk replacement, slurry seals, non-grant funded overlays, etc.). The average annual cost of street operations has been $2.91 million while the revenue from the utility fee has been $1.31 million. Fee revenues are covering less than one-half the cost of just street operations and maintenance. Annual % 2011 2012 2013 A Revenues & Other Sources Taxes $ 52,848 $ 53,314 $ 55,504 2.5% Intergovernmental 1,296,353 1,859,792 1,729 083 14.4% Charges for Services - Rates 1,301,964 11306-16-2-0 1,309,151 0.3% Charges for Services -Misc. Service Fees 17,789 17,719 23,249 13.4% System Development Charges 60,805 356,267 106 855 28.2% Assessments 17,867 43,542 41,048 41.6% Interest on Investments 3,571 14,636 11,398 58.0% Miscellaneous 5,101 3,000 160,740 172.5% Other Financing Sources - 1,032,601 NA Total Revenues and Other Sources $ 2,756,298 $ 3,654,890 $ 4,469,629 24.2% Expenditures Public Works - Street Operations 2,986,071 2,788,840 2,951,935 -0.6% Public Works - Transpor tation SDC's 196,484 119,92-3 83,061 L.I.D.'S &Transportation 175,326 107,317 Total Expenditures and Other Uses ( $ 3,357,881 $ 3,016,080 $ 3,034,996 -5.1% Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (601,583 638,810 1,434,633 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2010 1,769,275 1,167,692 1,806,502 Fund Balance, Jun 30, 2011 $ 1,167,692 $ 1,806,502 $ 3,241,135 Page 4 of 7 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Another way to measure the impact of declining revenues in this fund is to determine if 100% of our streets have a pavement condition index rating (PCI) of 40 or greater. Unfortunately in 2013 the percent of roads meeting this performance measure has declined from 96% in 2007 to 77% in 2013. Once a street's condition drops below 40 PCI, it falls into the reconstruction category. A street has a 20-year lifecycle and if overlaid within 15 years, at about $400,000 per mile, the street life can be extended for 20 years after each overlay. In contrast, if a street falls into the reconstruction category it costs about $2.5 million per mile to repair. To remedy the current funding trend, staff recommends that a transportation utility fee financial assessment be completed to determine adequate funding levels to maintain the street system at a 40 PCI or greater level. The comparison of the current to the proposed transportation utility rates is as follows: Sin e Family Residence Chan Transportation Utility Fee ( Current Proposed $ % Sin PJe Family, per month $8.17 $8.38 $0.21 2.57% This fee increase will cost the average household $0.21 per month. Storm Drain Fee Staff is recommending a 2.57% rate increase in the storm drain fund effective July, 2014. Similar to the transportation utility fund, the storm drain fee has not kept pace with inflation. Funding for this program comes primarily from the storm drain fee-accounting for about 97% of ongoing Storm Water Operating expenses. SDCs, Intergovernmental revenues from other funds, and Other Financing Sources are used primarily for capital improvements. Since revenues just cover operating costs, the storm drain system relies on outside funding for major repairs and capital improvements which averaged $73,100 over the past 3 years. Page 5 of 7 ~r, CITY OF -ASHLAND I Annual % 2011 2012 2013 4 Revenues Taxes $ - $ - $ Intergovernmental 22,891 106,914 - NA Charges for Services - Rates 588,703 589,690 588,287 -0.04% System Development Charges 19,256 25,471 _ 22,317 7.38% Interest on Investments 14,329 62272 4,885 -53.81% Miscellaneous - 10,376 NA Other Financing Sources - 157,002 NA Total Revenues and Other Sources $ 645,179 $ 738.723 $ 772,491 9.00% Total Without Other Sources $ 615,489 -2.36% Expenses Public Works - Storm Water Operations 586,524 552,940 672,923 6.87% Public Works - Storm Water SDC's 41,289 17,602 160,372 67.84% Total Expenditures and Other Uses $ 627,813 $ 570,542 $ 833,295 14.16% Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 17,366 168,181 (60,8 -62.66% Fund Balance, Jul 1, 1,051,243 1,068,609 1,236,790 Fund Balance, Jun 30, $ 1,068,609 $ 1,236,790 $ 1,175,986 The following provides a cost comparison between the existing storm drain fee and the proposed 2.57% rate increase. Single Family Residence Change Storm Drain Fee Current Proposed $ % (Single Family, per month $4.29 $4.40 ' $0.11 2.56% A single family house will pay $0.11 more per month. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The proposed rate increases are built into the FY2015 budget. The rate increases are consistent with the water and sewer master plan recommendation and ensure adequate funding for day-to-day operations and the capital projects outlined in the adopted plans. The proposed transportation utility and storm drain fees are recommended to minimize inflationary impacts. The accumulative increases in fees to an average residential customer are as follows: Page 6 of 7 Ir, CITY OF -ASH LAN D Average Single-Family Bill Change Utility Current I Proposed $ Increase) % Increase) Water $42.90 $47.24 $4.34 10.08% Wastewater $29.45 $32.40 $2.95 10.00% Transportation $8.17 $8.38 $0.21 2.57% Storm Drain $4.29 $4.40 $0.11 2.57% Total (Average % Increase) $84.81 $92.42 $7.611 8.95%I 1 1 1 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed utility rate increases. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution revising rates for water service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.04.030 and repealing Resolution 2013-I1" I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution revising rates for wastewater (sewer) service pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 14.08.035 and repealing Resolution 2013-12" I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Transportation Utility Fee Schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.26 and repealing Resolution 2013-14" I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Storm Drain Utility Fee Schedule pursuant to Ashland Municipal Code Section 4.27.050 and repealing Resolution 2013-13" ATTACHMENTS: 1. Adopted Water Master Plan documents may be viewed online at: http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/2012°/`20CWMP-Carollo(l ).pdf 2. The adopted Wastewater Master Plan may be viewed online at: hap://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=14696 Page 7 of 7 IrM RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WATER SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.04.030 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2013-11 THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The water rate charges and rates as shown on the water rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after July 1, 2014. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by previous resolutions remain in effect until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2013-11 is repealed. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014, and takes effect on July 1, 2014, upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 12014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page I of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON EXHIBIT "A" WATER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2014- EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014 METERED SERVICE All water service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. WATER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS A. MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE: The basic service charge applies to all metered water services and does not include any water consumption. OLD NEW 0.75 Inch Meter $19.42/month $21.371month 1 Inch Meter $38.81/month $42.72/month 1.5 Inch Meter $55.33/month $60.90/month 2 Inch Meter $72.88/month $80.22/month 3 Inch Meter $152.38/month $167.73/month 4 Inch Meter $232.95/month $256.43/month 6 Inch Meter $436.81/month $480.84/month 8 Inch Meter $727.98/month $801.36/month B. WATER QUANTITY CHARGE: All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic foot of water used. Single Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $0.0201/cf $0.0221/cf 301 to 1000 cf per month $0.0248/cf $0.0272/cf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $0.0331/cf $0.0364/cf Over 2500 cf per month $0.0427/cf $0.0470/cf Multi-Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month per unit $0.0201/cf $0.0221/cf 301 to 1000 cf per month per unit $0.0248/cf $0.0272/cf 1001 to 2500 cf per month per unit $0.0331/cf $0.0364/cf Over 2500 cf per month per unit $0.0427/cf $0.0470/cf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 1 - Effective July 1, 2014 Non-Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 - 50,000 cf per month $0.0284/cf $0.0312/cf Over 50,000 cf per month $0.0292/cf $0.0321/cf C. TID IRRIGATION WATER RATES: Unmetered Service $140.41/acre or portion of an acre-OLD $154.56/acre or portion of an acre-NEW Metered Service Base Service Charge Same as "A" above Water Consumption $0.0046/cf-OLD $0.0050/cf-NEW D. BULK WATER RATE: For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant, The following charges apply: OLD NEW Deposit* $1,535.49 $1,690.26 Basic Fee $193.89 $213.43 Cost of Water Same as Commercial *Deposit is refundable less basic fee, cost of water, and any damage to the city meter, valve, wrench, and/or hydrant. E. FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE WATER RATE: This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will be billed at commercial rates. 2. RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits. EXHIBIT A - PAGE 2 - Effective July 1, 2014 3. SEASONAL RATES - WATER QUANTITY CHARGE All customers will be charged the following rates per cubic foot of water used for the months of June through September. Single Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $0.0201/cf $0.0221/cf 301 to 1000 cf per month $0.0248/cf $0.0272/cf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $0.0331/cf $0.0364/cf 2501 to 3600 cf per month $0.0427/cf $0.0470/cf Over 3600 cf per month $0.0556/cf $0.0612/cf Multi-Family Residential Consumption OLD NEW 0 to 300 cf per month $0.0201/cf $0.0221/cf 301 to 1000 cf per month $0.0248/cf $0.0272/cf 1001 to 2500 cf per month $0.0331/cf $0.0364/cf 2501 to 3600 cf per month $0.04271cf $0.0470/cf Over 3600 cf per month per unit $0.0556/cf $0.0612/cf EXHIBIT A - PAGE 3 - Effective July 1, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION REVISING RATES FOR WASTEWATER (SEWER) SERVICE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 14.08.035 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2013-12. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The wastewater (sewer) rate charges and rates as shown on the wastewater (sewer) rate schedule attached as Exhibit "A" shall be effective for actual or estimated consumption on or after July 1, 2014. Prorated calculations are permitted for any bills prepared for a partial month or billing period that overlaps the effective date of this Resolution. Miscellaneous Charges and Connection Fees established by previous resolutions remain in effect until revised by separate Council Action. SECTION 2. Copies of this resolution shall be maintained in the Office of the City Recorder. SECTION 3. Classification of the fee. The fees specified in Section 1 and Section 2 of this resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 1 I b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure 5). SECTION 4. Resolution 2013-12 is repealed. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 2014, and the effective date is July 1, 2014 upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGEI EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SEWER RATE SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. 2014- EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2014 All sewer service provided by the City of Ashland will be in accordance with Chapter 14.08 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 1. SEWER RATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS Single Family Residential July 2013 July 2014 Monthly Service Charge $22.66 $24.92 Quantity Charge per cf $0.0338 $0.03718 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet (cf) per month. Winter consumption is defined as the average of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings taken during the previous three months. Single family residential water accounts with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based on 700 cubic feet. Multi-Family Residential July 2013 July 2014 Monthly Service Charge per Unit $22.66 $24.92 Quantity Charge per cf $0.0338 $0.03718 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption in excess of 400 cubic feet per month per unit. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Multi-family residential accounts are all accounts in which more than one residential dwelling is attached to the same water service. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water readings taken during the previous three months. Multi-family residential water account with no consumption during the months of January, February and March will be based at 500 cubic feet. Two dormitory rooms are equal to one multi-family residential unit. SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE2 Commercial, Industrial and July 2013 July 2014 Governmental Monthly Service Charge $23.65 $26.01 Quantity Charge per cf $0.0376 $0.0413 Quantity Charge is based on actual monthly water consumption. Mixed residential and commercial accounts will be billed as commercial. For commercial, industrial or governmental users where monthly water consumption is not measured through city water meters, the sewer rate will be established as follows: The annual water consumption will be determine by an estimate made by the Director of Finance who shall use water consumption records of similar users or water consumption record of past use, if available. The annual water consumption will be multiplied by the Quantity Charge set forth above and the product divided by twelve. The quotient will be added to the Monthly Service Charge set forth above. The sum shall be the monthly sewer rate for the user. This rate shall be effective beginning in the month after the rate is determined until the rate schedule is amended by resolution of the council. At such time the Director shall redetermine the annual water consumption and compute the monthly sewer rate using the formal asset forth above. Water consumption determined in this manner shall be lowered if the user can demonstrate through the use of a meter approved by the city that the user's actual consumption is less than the estimate. 2. ADJUSTMENTS AND EXEMPTIONS TO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SEWER RATES A. If a commercial, industrial or governmental user can demonstrate that the volume of sewage discharged by the user is less than 50% of the water consumed, the City Administrator may adjust the sewer user charge accordingly. Methodology for Special Cases for City Administrator 1. Greenhouses, Churches, and Schools (grades K-12) operating on a nine month school year. July 2013 July 2014 Monthly Service Charge $23.65 $26.01 Quantity Charge per cf $0.0376 $0.0413 SEWER RATES EXHIBIT "A" PAGE3 Quantity Charge is based on average winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the average of the meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. 1. Bed and Breakfasts and Ashland Parks Bathroom July 2013 July 2014 Monthly Service Charge $23.65 $26.01 Quantity Charge per cf $0.0376 $0.0413 Quantity Charge is based on winter water consumption. Winter consumption is defined as the total of water meter readings taken in the months of January, February and March. Annually on April 1 the bill will be adjusted based on the water meter readings during the previous three months. B. Water sold through an irrigation meter is exempt from sewer user charge. 3. SEWER RATES OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS A. The sewer user charge shall apply to those sewer users permitted under Section 14.08.030 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The sewer rates for outside the City limits shall be two times the sewer charges for inside the City limits. Unmetered residential accounts will be calculated on an average winter usage of 700 cubic feet of water for single family residences, and 500 cubic feet per unit for multi-family residences. RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.26 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2013-14. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Transportation Utility Rate Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the transportation utility fee incorporating a 2.57% rate increase effective July 1, 2014. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2014. SECTION 4. Resolution 2013-14 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014, and takes effect July 1, 2014, upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2014 Effective Date, July 1, 2014 3% rate increase 2.57% rate increase Transportation Fee effective 7/1/2013 effective 7/1/2014 Unit A. Single Family $ 8.17 $ 8.37 Per month B. Multiple Family $ 6.23 $ 6.39 Per month per unit C. Retail Store $ 1.11 $ 1.13 Per month per 100 sq ft. D. Wholesale Use $ 0.64 $ 0.65 Per month per 100 sq ft. E. Office Use $ 0.74 $ 0.75 Per month per 100 sq ft. F. Medical/Dental Use $ 0.99 $ 1.01 Per month per 100 sq ft. G. Service Use $ 0.99 $ 1.01 Per month per 100 sq ft. H. Restaurant/Bar Use $ 2.92 $ 2.99 Per month per 100 sq ft. 1. Manufacturing Use $ 0.64 $ 0.65 Per month per 100 sq ft. J. Warehousing Use $ 0.37 $ 0.37 Per month per 100 sq ft. K. Hotel/Motel Use $ 2.92 $ 2.99 Per month per guest room L. Institutional and all other accounts not $ 2.92 $ 2.99 Per month per required parking spaces classified above. Including nursing as specified in Chapter 18.92. homes and retirement homes M. Churches and places of Worship NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 8.17 $ 8.37 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A STORM DRAIN UTILITY FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 4.27.050 AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2013-13. THE CITY OF.ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The "Storm Drain Utility Fee Schedule," marked "Exhibit A" and attached to this Resolution, is adopted as the Storm Drain Utility fee incorporating a 2.57% rate increase effective July 1, 2014. SECTION 2. One copy of this Resolution and "Exhibit A" shall be maintained in the office of the City Recorder and shall be available for public inspection during regular business hours. SECTION 3. The Fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall be effective July 1, 2014. SECTION 4. Resolution 2013-13 is repealed on the effective date of this Resolution. SECTION 5. The fees imposed by this Resolution are classified as not subject to the limits of Section 11 b of Article XI of the Oregon Constitution (Ballot Measure No. 5). This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014, and takes effect July 1, 2014, upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 12014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Exhibit A City of Ashland STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY FEES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS RESOLUTION 2014- Effective Date, July 1, 2014 3% rate increase 2.57% rate increase Storm Drainage Fee effective 7/01113 effective 7/01/14 Unit A. Single Family $ 4.29 $ 4.40 Per month B. Condominium, 1-9 Units $ 1.85 $ 1.89 Per month per unit C. Multi-Family, 1-9 Units $ 1.85 $ 1.89 Per month per unit D. Mobile Home & Trailer, 1-9 Unites $ 1.85 $ 1.89 Per month per unit E. All other uses not classified above $ 1.43 $ 1.46 Per 1000 square feet impervious area F. Minimum charge per account $ 4.29 $ 4.40 Per month NOTE: Users with in the Downtown Overlay District shall be charged on the same basis as elsewhere within the city. The minimum fee per month for any commercial account is: $ 4.29 $ 4.40 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Public Hearing and adoption of Miscellaneous Fees & Charges for FY 2015 FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director, tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This public hearing is to consider changes to some of the various fees and charges used by the city. Many are remaining the same but some are recommended to increase by an inflationary factor. Others are to be adjusted to cover cost of service as recommended by staff. There are also a few new charges recommended. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In the past the City of Ashland adopted many separate resolutions and ordinances that set specific rates and fees for the multitude of services rendered to the public. That was greatly simplified during FY 2010-2011 when the current process of adopting a single fee resolution was approved. A staff goal had been to create an annual process that deals with most, if not all, miscellaneous fees and charges, and a booklet that is comprehensive yet easy to use. This is the third annual renewal of that process. Attached are the draft booklet and a resolution to establish or update the included fees effective July 1, 2014, unless another effective date is set by separate Council action. New fees and changes to old ones are identified in a "proposed" column and are bolded in red. If an entry is not bolded in red or identified as a new or changed fee it is the existing amount or methodology for calculation. Also attached are memos from departments explaining significant changes beyond inflationary adjustments. Please note that: 1. Items not approved may come back to Council separately or in this process next year. 2. Not all fees and charges are changing. 3. City and Park fees are included. 4. Utility rates and system development charges are examples of charges that are not incorporated within this process and resolution. 5. Some of the larger increases relate to "cost of providing the service," as substantiated by the departmental memo, and are intended to have the requester bear the cost. We should expect that there may be some "errors and omissions" so staff is requesting through the resolution that the new fee schedule take priority over any disconnects or conflicts with prior resolutions that were not repealed. When such incidents occur, staff will correct them as soon as possible and incorporate the revisions in updates to this new, annual process. Page I of 2 IrM CITY OF ASHLAND Those departments requesting changes are listed below. To assist you in your review, the following proposed changes are attached: • Finance • Community Development • Electric • Fire • Information Technology • Municipal Courts • Police • Public Works • Parks & Recreation FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: These adjustments will fund or help to fund operations, most representing payments for requested services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve these charges. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting a Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Document and Repealing Prior Fee Resolution 2013-17." ATTACHMENTS: All attachments for this item can be found in the May 6, 2014 packet: http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?Nav1D=16241 Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES DOCUMENT AND REPEALING PRIOR FEE RESOLUTION 2013-17 Recitals: A. The City currently has many resolutions and ordinances that establish fees for different departments and activities. B. The City desires to provide all of its miscellaneous fees and charges in one document so citizens can easily determine the costs of city services. C. The City desires to repeal all prior resolutions that establish fees and charges and adopt all fees and charges with one resolution for convenience of its citizenry. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and establishes the fees and charges for City services. New fees, those not charged before, are not affective until 30 days following date of approval unless otherwise established by Council action. SECTION 2. The following resolutions are specifically repealed: Resolutions 2013-17 and all other fees and charges inconsistent with the fees and charges set forth herein are repealed. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of April, 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES DOCUMENT ADOPTED: June 4, 2013 EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2013 2014 PROPOSED CHANGES ASHLADJE3 PARKS &i RECREATION PARKS AND RECREATION MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES ADOPTED: June 4, 2013 EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2013 2014 PROPOSED CHANGES OWL Miscellaneous Fees and Charges page 2 miscellaneous fees 8 charges Table of Contents CITY OF ASHLAND MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES ALPHABETICALLY BY DEPARTMENT SECTION 1 - Administrative Services/Finance Administrative Billing Charge ..............................................................................................................................Page 8 Initial Business License Application Fee ..............................................................................................................Page 8 Temporary Business License Application Fee ......................................................................................................Page 8 Renewal Application Fee ......................................................................................................................................Page 8 Rental Property Fees .............................................................................................................................................Page 8 Late Application Fee .............................................................................................................................................Page 8 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) ..............................................................................................Page 8 Utility Billing Administrative Fees .......................................................................................................................Page 9 Reconnection Charge ............................................................................................................................................Page 9 Service Connection ...............................................................................................................................................Page 9 Parking Structure Fees ..........................................................................................................................................Page 9 Downtown Parking Area Fees ...............................................................................................................................Page 9 SECTION 2 - City Recorder Copy Fees ............................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Audio Tapes ..........................................:.............................................................................................................Page 10 Liquor Licenses ...................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Taxicab Licenses .................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Lien Searches ......................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Elections ..............................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Street/Alley Vacations ........................................................................................................................................Page 10 Ambulance ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Annexation ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 10 SECTION 3 - Community Development Pre-Application Conference ................................................................................................................................Page I I Administration Actions .......................................................................................................................................Page 11 Type 1, 11 and III Reviews ..................................................................................................................................Page I I Legislative Amendments .....................................................................................................................................Page 12 Appeals ................................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Solar Access ........................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Community Development Fee ............................................................................................................................Page 12 Copy Fees ............................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Prepared Documents ...........................................................................................................................................Page 12 Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Building Permit Fees ...........................................................................................................................................Page 13 Plan Review Fee for Commercial and Residential ..............................................................................................Page 13 Miscellaneous Fees for Commercial ...................................................................................................................Page 13 Inspection Fees for Commercial and Residential ................................................................................................Page 14 Change of Occupancy Fees .................................................................................................................................Page 14 Residential Plumbing Permit Fees ......................................................................................................................Page 14 Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees .....................................................................................................................Page 15 Residential Mechanical Permit Fees ...................................................................................................................Page 15 Commercial Mechanical Permit Fees ..................................................................................................................Page 16 Electrical Permit Fees .........................................................................................................................................Page 16 Residential Restricted Energy Electrical Permit Fees .........................................................................................Page 17 Renewable Energy Systems ................................................................................................................................Page 17 State of Oregon Surcharge ................................................................................................:.................................Page 17 Building Permit Refund Policy .........................................:.................................................................................Page 18 Excavation/Grading Fees ....................................................................................................................................Page 18 miscellaneous fees 8 charges page 3 Table of Contents SECTION 4 - Electric Temporary Service Drop .....................................................................................................................................Page 19 Meter Charges .....................................................................................................................................................Page 19 _ Non Radio Frequency Meter Charges .................................................................................................................Page 19 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee ........................................................................................................................Page 19 Reconnection Charge ..........................................................................................................................................Page 19 Service Calls .......................................................................................................................................................Page 19 Service Connection .............................................................................................................................................Page 19 Scheduled Work After Hours ..............................................................................................................................Page 19 Unauthorized Connection ...................................................................................................................................Page 19 Line Extension Charges ......................................................................................................................................Page 20 ENR Calculations ...............................................................................................................................................Page 20 SECTION 5 - Fire Copy Fees ......................................................................................:.....................................................................Page 21 Report Fees .........................................................................................................................................................Page 21 Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 21 Fire Fees ..............................................................................................................................................................Page 21 Emergency Medical Services ..............................................................................................................................Page 21 Plan Checks .........................................................................................................................................................Page 22 Other ...................................................................................................................................................................Page 22 First Aid/CPR Classes .........................................................................................................................................Page 22 Inspection Fees ....................................................................................................................................................Page 22 Weed Abatement .................................................................................................................................................Page 22 SECTION 6 - Information Technology Installation Fees ..................................................................................................................................................Page 23 Disconnect Fees ..................................................................................................................................................Page 23 Truck Roll ...........................................................................................................................................................Page 23 Field Technician Hourly Rate .............................................................................................................................Page 23 Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate ..................................................................................................Page 23 Non-City Employee Staff Screening ...................................................................................................................Page 23 Fiber Service Installation ....................................................................................................................................Page 23 Transit Fees .........................................................................................................................................................Page 23 Static IP Address .................................................................................................................................................Page 24 Quality of Service Fee .........................................................................................................................................Page 24 Business Augmented Upload Package ................................................................................................................Page 24 Non-Return of Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) Devices ............................................................................Page 24 CATV Seasonal Reconnects & Disconnects .......................................................................................................Page 24 CATV House Amp Fee ........................................................................................................................................Page 24 Utility Billing Lobby Signage Fee ......................................................................................................................Page 24 page 4 miscellaneous fees 8 charges Table of Contents SECTION 7 - Municipal Court Appeal Transcript Fee .........................................................................................................................................Page 25 City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion .......................................................................................................Page 25 Civil Compromise Costs .....................................................................................................................................Page 25 Compliance Inspection Fee .................................................................................................................................Page 25 Court Appointed Counsel Fees and Charges .......................................................................................................Page 25 Default Judgment ................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Discovery Fees ....................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Diversion by Municipal Court .............................................................................................................................Page 25 Extend/Amend City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion ..............................................................................Page 25 Failure to Appear for Bench Trial/Show Cause Hearing ....................................................................................Page 25 Failure to Appear for Jury Trial ..........................................................................................................................Page 25 Forfeiture of Security ............................................................:.............................................................................Page 25 Mediation of Violation (Municipal Court Mediation) ........................................................................................Page 25 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee ........................................................................................................................Page 25 Court Costs .........................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Expunction ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Show Cause Admission of Allegation .................................................................................................................Page 25 Bench Probation Fee ...........................................................................................................................................Page 25 Warrant ................................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Withholding on County Assessment ...................................................................................................................Page 25 Domestic Partnership Registration .....................................................................................................................Page 25 SECTION 8 - Police Police Reports Page 26 Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 26 Visa Letters .........................................................................................................................................................Page 26 Finger Print Cards ...............................................................................................................................................Page 26 Photographs (CD) ................................................................................................................................................Page 26 Audio Tapes/ICOP Videos ..................................................................................................................................Page 26 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee .......................................................................................................................Page 26 Impound/Tow Fee ...............................................................................................................................................Page 26 Taxi Operator License .........................................................................................................................................Page 26 Bicycle License ....................................................................................................................................................Page 26 SECTION 9 - Public Works - Miscellaneous Fees 8r Charges Copy Fees, Black, White and Color ....................................................................................................................Page 27 Plat & Plan Checks ..............................................................................................................................................Page 27 Public Works/Engineering Inspections, Permit Etc ............................................................................................Page 28 GIS Data & Mapping Services ............................................................................................................................Page 29 Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees .........................................................................................................................Page 30 Water Connection Fees .......................................................................................................................................Page 30 Cemetery Fees .....................................................................................................................................................Page 31 Sexton Fees .........................................................................................................................................................Page 32 Miscellaneous Fees .............................................................................................................................................Page 32 Vases ..........................................................................:........................................................................................Page 32 CPI & ENR Calculations .....................................................................................................................................Page 32 miscellaneous fees 8 charges page 5 Table of Contents SECTION 10 - Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Wedding Packages ..............................................................................................................................................Page 34 Group Picnic Rentals ..........................................................................................................................................Page 34 Deposits ..............................................................................................................................................................Page 34 Special Event Fees ..............................................................................................................................................Page 34 Alcohol Fee .........................................................................................................................................................Page 34 General Building Reservations ...........................................................................................................................Page 34 Field Usage .........................................................................................................................................................Page 34 Calle Seating .......................................................................................................................................................Page 35 Daniel Meyer Pool ..............................................................................................................................................Page 35 Youth & Adult Recreation Programs Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink .......................................................Page 35 Oak Knoll Golf Course Fees ...............................................................................................................................Page 35 Community Garden Fees ...............................................................................................................................--Page 36 Nature Center School Programs ..........................................................................................................................Page 36 Nature Center Community Programs ........................................:.........................................................................Page 36 Oak Knoll Golf Course Wedding Fees ...............................................................................................................Page 36 Maps ....................................................................................................................................................................Page 36 SECTION 11 - List of Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions System Development Charges (SDCs) List of Resolutions Parks and Recreation Resolution 2000-29 ..........................................................................................................Page 37 Transportation Resolution 1999-42 .....................................................................................................................Page 37 Sewer Resolution 2006-27 ..................................................................................................................................Page 37 Storm Resolution 2002-15 ..................................................................................................................................Page 37 Water Resolution 2006-27 ..................................................................................................................................Page 37 Utilities Rates and Fees List of Resolutions AFN Resolution 2010-28 ....................................................................................................................................Page 37 Electric Resolution 2012-34 ................................................................................................................................Page 37 Sewer Resolution 2013-09 ..................................................................................................................................Page 37 Storm Drain Resolution 2013-28 ........................................................................................................................Page 37 Transportation Resolution 2013-27 .....................................................................................................................Page 37 Water Resolution 2013-08 ..................................................................................................................................Page 37 SECTION 12 - Research Fee Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 37 SECTION 13 - Building Valuation Data i' Building Safety Division-Building Valuation Data-February 2013 ...............................................................Page 38 SECTION 14 - Attachments Community Development - Excavation Grading Fees - Exhibit A - Resolution 2006-19 ..................................Page 39 page 6 miscellaneous fees & charges Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Miscellaneous fees & charges page 7 Section 1-Administration Administration Services/Finance Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Administrative Billing Charge (up to 10%) Per Billing Business License Fees Initial Business License Application Fee Licensee shall pay a prorated fee of $10 for each month, $120.00 for first 2 employees* or portion of a month, remaining in the fiscal year from +$5.00 for each additional the date of the application with a minimum fee of $25.00 employee Temporary Business License Application Fee $25.00 Renewal Application Fee $75.00 for first 2 employees* +$10.00 for each additional . employee Rental Property Fees Same as above for activity including six or more properties. Late Application Fee $25.00 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) 10% with a minimum of $25.00 *Pursuant to AMC 6.04.020.E an employee is an individual who performs service for another individual or organization. The number of employees reported shall be the number of employees as of the date the new ap- plication or renewal will become effective if approved. It does not matter whether an individual is a full, part- time, or temporary employee for business license purposes. page 8 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 1-Administration Utility Billing Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Administrative Fees: Current Proposed Notification of Pending Collection $10.00 Returned Check Charge $35.00 Reconnection Charge: During Business Hours $25.00 After Hours or Holidays $100.00 Service Connection: Normal working hours $10.00 Other Hours or Holidays $100.00 Parking Fees Parking Structure Fees: 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (or segment) $1.00 6:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. (per hour) $1.00 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. (maximum) $3.00 Parking permit (where applicable in City structure or lot) 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday (unless otherwise posted) $20.00 Parking Ticket Surcharge (citywide) $4.00 Downtown Parking Area Fees: Short Term (<30 minutes) unloading from "marked" No charge business vehicle with flashers Daily parking permit (Orange)- 1 st day or fraction of day $5.00/day $10.00/day Additional days (limited to 5 days; no charge on Sunday or $1.00/day $2.00/day federal holidays) • Limit of two per business address at a time • Applicable permits/licenses must be current • Each permit is good for one parking space • Not applicable to handicapped or short term spaces equal to or less than 15 minutes, green loading zones, fire or other restricted areas. miscellaneous fees and charges page 9 Section 2-City Recorder City Recorder Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Copt/ Fees: Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ .20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copies Letter Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Audio Tapes: CD/DVD/Cassette $5.00 each Liquor Licenses: Temporary Liquor License (processing fee) $10.00 Liquor License (new processing fee) $100.00 Liquor License (change of ownership processing fee) $75.00 Annual Renewal Liquor License $35.00 Taxicab Licenses: New Certification application (one-time processing fee) $250.00 Annual Renewal of Certificate $200.00 (per vehicle) Lien Searches: (fees set by Ordinance 2385 in 1986) Routine requests $20.00 Rush/Fax Requests $30.00 Elections: (amount set by Resolution #2009-05) Required deposit for Citizens Initiative $500.00 Street/Alley Vacations: (filing fee set by Resolution 1994-24) Required deposit of filing fee $500.00 Ambulance: Annual renewal fee $300.00 Annual ambulance fee (each vehicle) $100.00 Annexation: Processing fee for County Department of Assessment $300.00 Research Fee: Refer to Section 12 on page 37 page 10 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Planning/Community Development Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Current Proposed Pre-Application Conference: $130.00 5131.00 Administration Actions: Final Plat Review: Partitions* $130.00+$10/lot 5131.00+S101lot Subdivisions* $330.00+$28/lot 5335.00+S28/lot New Sign Permit $130.00+$2.50/sq ft 5131.00+S2.50/sq ft Replacement Sign Permit $28.00+$2.50/sq ft Home Occupation Permits $28.00 Zoning permit (fence, accessory structure, etc.) $28.00 Land Use Approval Extension Request $330.00 $335.00 Lot Line Adjustments $330.00 $335.00 Any other Administrative Action $330.00 $335.00 Type I Reviews: Tree Removal Permit (not associated with another action) $28.00 Solar Setback Variance $998.00 $1,012.00 Amendments to Conditions $998.00 51,012.00 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit $998.00 51,012.00 Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Residential Unit $649.00 S658.00 Conditional Use Permit (Type I only) $998.00 51,012.00 Variance (Type I only) $998.00 S1,012.00 Residential Site Review $998.00+$66/unit 51,012.00+S67/unit Final Plan Performance Standards $998.00+$66/unit SI,012.00+S67/unit Land Partitions $998.00+$66/unit 51,012.00+S67/unit Commercial Site Review $998.00+.5% of S1,012.00+.5% of project value** project value** Any other Type 1 Review $998.00 51,012.00 Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities***$5000.00 Type II Reviews: Conditional Use Permit (Type 11 only). $2,002.00 52,032.00 Variance (Type 11 only) $2,002.00 52,032.00 Outline Plan or Preliminary Plat for Subdivisions $2,002.00+$134/lot 52,032.00+$136/lot Final Plan with Outline $2,666.00+$134/lot S2,705.00+5136/lot Commercial Site Review $2,002.00+.5% (.005) 52,032.00+.5%(.005) of project value** of project value** Any other Type II Review $2,002.00 S2,032.00 Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities***$5000.00 *(Does not include Public Works review fee, See pg 27) **Project value includes the estimated valuation of all structures (per State of Oregon Building Code), as well as all related project site improvements, such as grading, paving, landscaping, bioswales, etc. ***The initial deposit required with an application for a new wireless communication facility that is not collocated is $5,000, and shall be used by the City for the costs of expert review of the application. If any time during the planning ap- plication process the account balance is less than $1,000, the Applicant shall upon notification by the City replenish the account so the balance is at least $5,000. The maximum total consultant fees to be charged to the Applicant shall be $10,000, and any unused portion of fee will be refunded. miscellaneous fees and charges page 11 Section 3-Community Development Type III Reviews: Current Proposed Zone/Comprehensive Plan Map Change $2,666.00 52,705.00 Comprehensive Plan Change $2,666.00 $2,705.00 Annexation $4,010.00 $4,070.00 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment $4,010.00 54,070.00 Any other Type III Review $3,339.00 53,389.00 Legislative Amendments: Comprehensive Plan Map/Large Zoning Map Amendment $4,680.00 54,750.00 Land Use Ordinance Amendment $4,680.00 54,750.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $4,680.00 54,750.00 City Sponsored Legislation (City Council Directive) $0.00 Appeals: Appeal for initial Public Hearing $150.00 (Building Appeals BoardlDemolition Review BoardlPlanning Commission) Appeal for Final Decision of City $325.00 (Planning Commission or City Council) Solar Access: Solar Access Permit (not a Solar Variance) $50.00+$10.00 per lot affected Community Development Fee: This fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit . 1.1% (.011) of Fees at the time of building permit application for all new construction building permits requiring a plan review. per building code definition of valuation Community Development Copy Fees Copy Fees: Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ .20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Prepared Documents: Site Design & Use Standards $5.00 Street Tree Guide $5.00 Transportation Element $5.00 Downtown Plans (2001, 1998) $5.00 Street Standards Guide $5.00 Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Code $40.00 Research Fee: Refer to Section 12 on page 37 page 12 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Building Division Permit Fees for Commercial and Residential In accordance with OAR 918-050-0030, the applicant for a building permit shall provide an estimate of con- struction costs at the time of application. Permit valuations shall include value of all work, including mate- rials and labor, for which the permit is issued. This estimate shall also include the cost of electrical, gas, me- chanical, plumbing, and permanent equipment and systems. The City will also prepare an estimate of the building valuation based on the current ICC Valuation table that is published and updated annually. The building permit will.be based on the highest of these two estimates. Building Permit Fees: Total Value of Work Performed: $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof Plan Review Fee for Commercial and Residential: Plan Review Fee A plan review fee equal to 65% of the structural permit fee shall be due at application Additional Plan Review Fee $65.00 per hour Deferred Submittal Fee 65% of structural permit fee of deferred submittal valuation with a $50.00 minimum fee Miscellaneous Fees for Commercial: Commercial Fire Sprinkler/Fire Suppression/ Total value of work performed (structural permit Fire Alarm fee) Commercial Fire Sprinkler/Fire Suppression/ 65% of structural permit fee Fire Alarm Plan Review Note: See appendix for methodology for calculation of valuation for all permit fees utilizing valuation/ value of work miscellaneous fees and charges page 13 Section 3-Community Development Inspection Fees for Commercial and Residential: Inspections for which no building permit applies $65.00 per hour; (minimum I hour) per inspector Re-inspection Fee $50.00 Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum 1 hr) $130.00 per hour; per inspector Change of Occupancy Fees: Special Inspection: Single Building S65.00 per hour; 1 hour minimum Multiple Buildings or Tenant Spaces in a building or on a single lot 565.00 per building, per inspector, per hour; I hour Minimum Special Inspection Report 565.00 per hour Re-issued Certificate of Occupancy No Charge Residential Plumbing Permit Fees New Residential: Cost Each 1 bathroom/kitchen (includes: first 100 feet of water/sewer lines; hose bibs; ice maker; under floor low-point drains; and rain-drain packages) $285.00 2 bathrooms/I kitchen $345.00 3 bathrooms/I kitchen. $405.00 Each additional bathroom (over 3) $45.00 Each additional kitchen (over 1) $45.00 Remodel / Alterations: Remodel / Alterations (minimum fee) $40.00 Each fixture, appurtenance, and first 100 ft of piping $15.00 Miscellaneous Residential: Minimum Fee $40.00 Piping or private storm drainage systems exceeding the first 100 feet $22.00 Backflow Assembly $15.00 Residential Fire Sprinkler (include plan review): $2.44 x total square footage of structure = Sprinkler Valuation (use Building Permit Fees Valuation Table on page 13 for fee calculation) Manufactured Dwelling or Pre-Fab: Connections to building sewer and water supply $50.00 RV and Manufactured Dwelling Parks: Base fee (including the first 10 or fewer spaces) $150.00 Each additional 10 spaces $100.00 page 14 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees Commercial, Industrial, and Dwellings other than one - or two-family: Minimum fee $40.00 Each fixture $15.00 Piping (based on number of feet) $0.75/ft Miscellaneous: Minimum fee $40.00 Specialty fixtures $15.00 Re-inspection (no. of hrs. x fee per hour) $65.00 Special requested inspections (no. of hrs x fee per hour) $65.00 Medical gas piping: Minimum fee $50.00 Valuation $500 to $2,000 $50.00 + $5 per $100 of valuation Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 $125.00 + $18 per $100 of valuation Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 $540.00 + $14 per $100 of valuation Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 $890.00+$9 per $100 of valuation Valuation greater than $100,000 $1,340.00 + $8 per $100 of valuation Residential Mechanical Permit Fees Mechanical Permit Minimum Fee: $50.00 Furnace/Burner including ducts & vents: Up to 100k BTU/hr. $12.00 Over l 00k BTU/hr. $15.00 Heaters/Stoves[Vents: Unit Heater $15.00 Wood/pellet/gas stove/flue $15.00 Repair/alter/add to heating appliance or refrigeration $12.00 unit or cooling system/absorption system Evaporated cooler . $15.00 Vent fan with one duct/appliance vent $7.50 Hood with exhaust and duct $10.00 Floor furnace including vent $15.00 Gas Piping: One to four outlets $6.00 Additional outlets (each) $0.75 Air-handling Units, including Ducts: Up to 10,000 CFM $10.00 Over 10,000 CFM $15.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 15 Section 3-Community Development Compressor/Absorption System/Heat Pump: Up to 3 hp/100K BTU $15.00 Up to 15 hp/500K BTU $25.00 Up to 30 hp/1,000 BTU $50.00 Up to 50 hp/1,750 BTU $60.00 Over 50 hp/1,750 BTU $75.00 Incinerator: Domestic incinerator $25.00 Commercial Mechanical Permit Fees Minimum Fee $50.00 Total valuation of mechanical system and installation costs 0.5% of valuation Miscellaneous Fees: Re-inspection $50.00 Specially requested inspection (per hour) $65.00 Regulated equipment (un-classed) $50.00 Electrical Permit Fees Residential per unit, service included: Cost Each 1,000 sq. ft. or less $106.00 Each additional 500 sq. ft. or portion thereof $19.00 Limited energy $25.00 Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder $50.00 Multi-family residential $45.00 Residential and Commercial-Services or Feeders: installation, alteration, relocation: 200 amps or less $63.00 201 to 400 amps $75.00 401 to 600 amps $125.00 601 to 1,000 amps $163.00 Over 1,000 amps or volts $375.00 Reconnect Only $50.00 Temporary Services or Feeders: 200 amps or less $50.00 201 to 400 amps $69.00 401 to 600 $100.00 Over 600 amps or 1,000 volts, see services or feeders section above Branch Circuits: new, alteration, extension per panel: Branch circuits with purchase of a service or feeder $3.00 Branch circuits without purchase of a service or feeder: First branch circuit $43.00 Each additional branch circuit $3.00 page 16 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Miscellaneous Fees: service or feeder not included: Each pump or irrigation circle $50.00 Each sign or outline lighting $50.00 Signal circuit or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension $50.00 Specially requested inspection (per hour) $65.00 Each additional inspection over the allowable $50.00 Residential Restricted Energy Electrical Permit Fees Fee for all systems*: $25.00 Audio and stereo systems Burglar alarm system Doorbell Garage-door opener Heating, ventilation, & air-conditioning systems Landscape lighting & Sprinkler controls Landscape irrigation controls Outdoor landscape lighting Vacuum Systems Each additional inspection $25.00 *For new construction, this permit fee covers all systems listed or can be sold separately. Renewable Energy Systems: 5 KVA or less $79.00 5.01 KVA to 15 KVA $94.00 15.01 KVA to 25 KVA $156.00 Wind generation systems in excess of 25 KVA: 25.01 KVA to 50 KVA $204.00 50.10 KVA to 100 KVA $469.00 For wind generations systems that exceed 100 KVA the permit fee shall be calculated in accordance with OAR 918-309-0040 Solar generation systems in excess of 25 KVA: $6.25/KVA The permit charge will not increase beyond the calculation for 100 KVA. Permits issued under this sub- section include three inspections. Additional inspections will be billed at an hourly rate. Building Permit Reinstatement Fee A building permit expires after a period of 180 days from the date of issue with no inspection activity. To reactivate an expired permit, a fecof $50.00 per construction discipline is required (Building, Plumb- ing, Mechanical, Electrical). State of Oregon Surcharge - ORS 455.210(4) State of Oregon permit surcharge is 12% of structural, plumbing, mechanical and electrical components of the overall building permit. miscellaneous fees and charges page 17 Section 3-Community Development Excavation/Grading Fees See attachment 1. Exhibit A, Resolution 2006-19 (page 40) Building Permit Refund Policy The City Ashland Community Development Department offers partial refunds for building permits that ,have been issued, have had no inspections performed and have not yet expired (six months from issue date). Refunds for permits that have expired are limited to any Systems Development Charges (SDC's) that were part of the permit fees. The following fees are not refundable: • Building Plan Check Fee • Fire Protection Review Fee • 50% of Community Development Fee (maximum equal to Building Plan Check Fee) • 50% of Engineering Development Fee (maximum equal to Building Plan Check Fee) The remainder of the permit fees are refundable. A $50 administrative fee will be subtracted from the eligible refund amount for costs associated with the refund process. Refund amounts can be placed on account for future use and no administrative fees are charged. How to request a refund Submit the following documents to the Community Development Department at 51 Winburn Way: • Approved set of plans (stamped) • Job Inspection card • Letter of refund request signed by applicant/owner with mailing address for refund check The refund will be processed within 30 days of the date of the request letter. page 16 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 4-Electric Electric Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Temporary Service Drop: , Current Proposed Single Phase Underground temp 300 amps or less $245.00 S247.00 Single Phase Overhead temp 300 amps or less $291.00 $295.00 Three Phase Actual Cost Meter Charges: Meter Tests for accuracy: Once in twelve months No Charge Two or more times in twelve months $172.00 S176.00, Meter repairs/replacement (Damaged by Customer) Actual Cost Non Radio Frequency Meter Charges: Conversion from Radio Frequency (RF) to Non RF meter No Charge Monthly Fee to manually read Non RF meter No Charge Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee: $35.00 Reconnection Charge: Normal working hours $25.00 Other hours or Holidays $100.00 Service Calls: Once in twelve months No Charge Two or more times in twelve months $199.00 $203.00 Other hours or Holidays $297.00 5303.00 Service Connection for Applicant: Normal working hours $10.00 Other hours or Holidays $100.00 Deenergize Service NA 5254.00 Scheduled work after hours: Actual Cost Unauthorized Connection: $215.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 19 Section 4- Electric Line Extension Charges New Single-Family Residential Service: Current Proposed Overhead service in existing developed areas from distribution line to and including meter $568.00 Overhead service upgrade or increased service for 300 amps or less $568.00 Replacement of service from overhead to underground, 300 amps or less. Customer provides all trenching, conduit, backfilling and. compaction as directed by the City. $1,161.00 Underground residential service of 300 amps or less. Customer provides conduit, trenching, back fill, compaction as directed by the City. $695.00 *Underground Distribution Installation Charges: Per Lot less house service and engineering fees. $1,158.00 51,186.00 *Subdivisions of 0 to 20 engineering fee per lot $167.00 S171.00 * Subdivisions of 21+ engineering fee per lot $253.00 S259.00 *Three Phase subdivision as required by city per lot $253.00 $259.00 Any overhead/underground service over 300 amps Actual Cost Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Service Actual Cost **Blower Door Leak Test (gas heat customers only) $75.00 **Duct Leak Test (gas heat customers only) $125.00 * Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate/Old ENR Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (9515.86-9289.65)/9289.65 = 2.44% Source: Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR) **Electric heat customers = no fee miscellaneous fees and charges page 20 Section 5-Fire Fire Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees: Current Proposed Black and White Copy Letter/Legal Single Sided $ .20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copy Letter/Legal Single Sided $ 1.50 each Color Copy Tabloid $ 3.00 each Report Fees: Non patient Pre-hospital Care Reports $12.00 for 10 pages or less $15.00 over 10 pages Fire Incident Reports $12.00 for 10 pages or less $15.00 over 10 pages Photographs $12.00 per case request CD/DVD $19.00 per case request i Mailing Cost Actual Cost Research Fee: Refer to Section 12 on page 37 Fire Fees: Cost Recovery Equipment *Per Current Oregon State Fire Marshal Standardized Cost Schedule Personnel *$50.00 per person per hour - 2 Hour minimum per person Hazardous Materials Cleanup Actual Cost Emergency Medical Services: FireMed Annual Household Fee-Annual Renewal $55.00 per year FireMed Plus Annual Household Fee-Annual Renewal $95.00 per year Emergency Medical Service Fee -Aid Call $302.40 per patient 5305.42 Ambulance Base Rate (per current rate schedule) $1,029.54 per patient S1,039.84 Ambulance Mileage Rate (per current rate schedule) $14.00 per mile Ambulance Base rate for sit-up patients $514.77 per patient 5519.92 Ambulance Waiting Time $25.00 per 1/2 hour Ambulance Stand By (2 hour minimum) $100.00 per hour On scene Coordinator $50.00 per hour Extra attendant $45.00 each Ambulance Sen•ice Area 1112013 rate schedule Base rates ivill be adjusted each calendar year by the most current rate schedule posted by the Center for Medicare/ Medicaid Semites (CMS) that sets the "Ambulance Inflation Factor" . Other rates and mileage charges will be updated as approved by the County Commissioners. miscellaneous fees and charges page 21 Section 5-Fire Fire and Life Safety: Plan Checks: Any Building Permit - 24% of the Building Division Structural Permit Fee and Plan Check Fee New Subdivision or Land Partition - 24% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee Other: Fire Hydrant Flow Tests required for new installations will be assessed at $100 per flow test. Any review required by the Oregon Fire Code, and which does not involve a building permit, will be charged at the rate of $50.00 per hour. A minimum charge of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Building Division assesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, any fire department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate. First Aid/CPR Classes: Current Proposed Basic Life Support (BLS) for Healthcare Providers CPR Class $55.00/person Heart Saver CPR & First Aid Class $55.00/person Heart Saver CPR Class $35.00/person Family and Friends CPR Class $5.00/person Inspection Fees: Initial Inspection (Re-inspection Included) Occupancy Type "B" 0-1,000 sf. $34.00 S35.00 1,001-3000 sf. $51.00 S52.00 Occupancy Type "A, E, F, H, I, M, S" 0-3,000 sf.+B 1,001-3,000 $51.00 S52.00 Occupancy Type "A, B, E, F, H, I, M, S" 3,001-10,000 sf. $100.00 $102.00 10,001-20,000 sf. $150.00 $152.00 Over 20,000 sf. $200.00 $203.00 Occupancy Type "R, SR" 3 to 10 Units $51.00 552.00 11 to 40 Units $100.00 5102.00 41 to 70 Units $150.00 5153.00 Over 70 Units $200.00 S203.00 Non-Compliance after 2"d Inspection Inspection Fee+ $53.00 554.00 Non-Compliance after 3rd Inspection Inspection Fee + $105.00 5107.00 Non-Compliance after 4d' Inspection / Subsequent Inspections Inspection Fee+ $156.00 5158.00 Weed Abatement: Staff time Refer to Section 12 on page 37 Mailing Cost Actual Cost Weed Abatement by Contractor Actual Cost page 22 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 6-Information Technology Information Technology Miscellaneous Fees and Charges* Installation Fees: Basic installation-Pre-wired CATV outlets only $ 20.00 (Additional charges for parts and supplies apply) Add Trap ("filter") $10.00 New customer cable modem activation $10.00 Cable Modem $50.00 Refurbished 90 -day replacement warranty Additional materials $10.00 Over-and-beyond regular installation including multi outlets, outlet plates, additional wiring, replacement of customer damaged outlets. Wi Max standard installation $200.00 Disconnect Fees: Disconnect $50.00 Remove Trap ("Filter") $10.00 Truck Roll: $35.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate: Non-standard work such as advancing troubleshooting, $55.00 non-standard outlets, fishing wire inside walls, etc. Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate: For support issues not related to AFN infrastructure, performance, $85.00 and reliability. Minimum charge on hour. Non-City Employee Staff Screening: Charge for each vendor employee submitted for authorization to Access AFN and City Service Center facilities. $150.00 Fiber Service Installation: 14nrininm one tame fee-foi overhead-sen,ed-conneet-ions. r_.~:_ idti Business apeement. (W) & quote 1000' fect of existing u%cj head AFN fibcj netivu, k nill be chniged ti~ quote. Overhead served connections. Individual Business Case (IBC) & quote Underground served connections IBC & quote EthernetT-°r,„&R-Fees= Transit @ 100 Mbps IBC & quote miscellaneous fees and charges page 23 Section 6-Information Technology Static IP Address: $5.00/mo each Maximum of 5 Static Internet Protocol (IP) addresses* • Minimum level of service for static IP and Quality of Service (QoS) is "CHOICE" or higher service tier. QoS Fee: $3.50/mo VOIP (phone) enhancement available with AFN Choice or higher service level through AFN certified Modems. Business Augmented Upload Package (additional 5 Mbps): $15.00/mo Available exclusively on AFN Directwith the following requirementst BusinessAugmented Upload b Snrrrll Office/Home Office (SOHO) or Small Business Must have current City of Ashland Business License *Additional fee added to base AFN Direct retail rates on specific packages. Maximum SOHO upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 9 Mbps Small Office/Home Office Business Augmented Upload Package @$80/month Maximum Small Business upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 10 Mbps Small Business Augmented Upload Package @ $100.00/month Non-return of customer premise equipment (CPE) devices: $300.00 CPE's must be returned on disconnect date of AFN z'nr n het u andfo, AFNA3ax services. Cable TV (CATV) Seasonal Reconnects & Disconnects: $10.00/visit Non-pay disconnects & reconnects Service change Install HBO filter CAN House Amp Fee: $35.00/each Utility Billing Lobby Signage Fee: $100.00hno. Cable Modem Rental $5.00/mo. Non Return of Rented Modem at Closing of Account $50.00each Cable Modem Purchase $50.00/each * Resolution 2010-28 (Section 2, page 38) grants Information Technology management ability to set promotional rates. page 24 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 7-Municipal Court Transit @ 1000 Mbps Municipal Court Miscellaneous Fees and Chlilflds quote Court Administration Fees: Crime Violation Appeal Transcript Fee $35.00 $10.00 City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion $60.00 $46:00 N/A Civil Compromise Costs $75.00 N/A Compliance Inspection Fee N/A $25.00 Court Appointed Counsel Fees and Charges Billed ranging from $250 - $600 Default Judgment N/A $15.00. Discovery Fees Imposed in Accordance with Miscellaneous Fee & police Department Resolutions See Police and City Recorder Fees Diversion by Municipal Court: Classes I-1V, A-D Unclassified and Specific Fine Violations N/A Presumptive Fine Extend/Amend City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion $45.00 S45.00 N/A Failure to appear for Bench Trial/Show Cause hearing $90.00 $70.00 Failure to Appear for Jury Trial $150.00 N/A Forfeiture of Security $25.00 $25.00 Mediation of Violation (Municipal Court Mediation) N/A $65.00 Non Sufficient Funds Check $25.00 $25.00 Court Costs $35.00 $45.00 Expunction $240.00 $240.00 Show cause Admission of Allegation $25.00 516.0 N/A Bench Probation Fee $100.00 N/A Bank Costs Warrant $25.00 10% at monthly Withholding Other Domestic Partnership Registration $25.00 All other fees and charges inconsistent with the fees and charges set forth herein are repealed. Nothing in the Resolution is intended to detract from the inherent power of the Court pursuant to general law to im- pose fees and charges established in state law of city ordinance in addition to the fees and charges speci- fied herein. master miscellaneous fees and charges page 25 Section 8-Police Police Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Current Proposed Police Reports: $12.00 for reports 10 pages or less $15.00 for reports over 10 pages Research Fee: Refer to Section 12 on page 37 Visa Letters: $19.00 Fingerprints Cards: $20.00 first card $35.00 first card $10.00 each additional card Photographs (CD): $19.00 Audio Tapes/ ICOP Videos: $19.00 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee: $35.00 Impound/Tow Fee: $105.00 Cash only Taxi Operator License: $20.00 renewal $42.00 new page 26 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Public Works Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees: Current Proposed Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $0.20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $0.80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Existing maps printed in color on HP1055CM plotter (241b bond Paper) Arch C 18 x 24 3.00 sq. ft. $18.00 Arch D 24 x 36 6.00 sq. ft. $36.00 Arch E 36 x 48 12.00 sq. ft. $72.00. Existing maps or copies of existing maps copied in B&W on Xerox 3030 large fonnat copier (201b bond paper) Arch C 18 x 24 $8.00 S2.00 Arch D 24 x 36 $12.00 $3.00 Arch E 36 x 48 $16.00 $4.00 Note: Maps printed on materials other than the specified bond are double the standard print fee Plat & Plan Checks: Current Proposed Subdivision Plats (does not include planning review fee See page 11) $730.00 plus $741.00 plus $110.00 per lot '$112.00 per lot Condominium Plats $730.00 plus 5741.00 plus $110.00 per lot $112.00 per lot Partition Plats (does not include 24% Fire Department Review Fee) $391.00 S397.00 Subdivision Improvement Plat Check 5% Engineer Fee (5% of the public improvement cost) Engineering Development Fee (this fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building permit applications. Applies To all new residential dwelling units and commercial 0.75% of valuation Developments. Remodels, additions and accessory Buildings are not assessed this fee.) miscellaneous fees and charges page 27 Section 9-Public Works Public Works/Engineering Inspections, Permits, etc: Current Proposed Subdivision Construction Inspection/ 5% Engineer Fee (5% of Public Works Improvement Inspection the public improvement cost) Street or Alley Excavation Permit $197.00 + per ft. cost S200.00+ based on pavement age Encroachment Permit $197.00 5200.00 Miscellaneous Construction Permit $64.00 565.00 (Construction of curb, sidewalk, driveway Apron, etc.) Dust Suppression Permit $64.00 565.00 Driveway Painting Permit $16.00 (includes a can of paint) Right-of Way Closure-Street $197.00 $200.00 Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(>72 hrs) $64.00 565.00 Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(<72 hrs) $16.00 Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(>72 hrs) $64.00 $65.00 Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(<72 hrs) $16.00 Block Party $16.00 Sidewalk Dining-Annual Renewal $4.00/sq. ft. 54.50/s q. ft. (minimum 50 sq. ft) 1st increase in 4 yrs Functional Item-Annual Renewal $64.00 565.00 Special Event Permits (per Resolution 2012-08): Base Special Event Permit Fee (plus applicable $130.00 $132.00 Fees below) Events that require city staff overtime 60% of city staff O/T 60% of city staff Rush Fee (less than 90 days advance notice) $250.00 page 28 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Public Works/Engineering Inspections, Permits, etc. (cont) Current Proposed Loaned Functional Item, Pennant Application Fee $133.00 5135.00 Publication Box Per Publication-Annual Renewal $27.00 Special vehicle Permit-Initial Fee $272.00 5276.00 Special vehicle Permit-Annual Renewal $109.00 5111.00 Penalty for No Permit 150% of permit cost Street or Alley Vacation $659.00 $669.00 An administrative fee of 25% will be assessed on all permit refunds. Refunds will not be issued if requested later than one-year following the application date. . GIS Data & Mapping Services: GIS Hourly Rate $80.00 S81.00 Information on Disk $40.00/utility per 541.00/utility per Quarter section Quarter section Planning Pre-Application Maps $22.00 Plotting Fee $6.00/square foot New Address Assignment $37.00/address # 538.00/address # Street Name Approval Fee $105.00 5107.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 29 Section 9-Public Works Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees: Current Proposed Sanitary sewer mainline video inspection $317.00 minimum $325.00 minimum (cost based on time and materials) Water Connection Fees: The installation of all new water services and large taps regardless of size will be charged on a time and materials basis. First Utility Locate at an address No Charge Additional Locates at same address $69.00 $71.00 Water meter re-read Once in 12 months No Charge Each additional re-read in 12 months $31.00 532.00 Water Meter Field Test $49.00 $56.00 Water Meter Bench Test 3/4" or 1" Water Meter $107.00 5110.00 1 1/2" or 2" Water Meter $201.00 $206.00 Larger Meters Actual Cost page 30 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Water Connection Fees Continued Current Proposed Water pressure check once in 12 month No Charge Each additional pressure check in 12 months $39.00 S40.00 Water Chlorination Test -Subdivision retest upon failure (cost based on time and materials) $636.00 $653.00 Water Pressure Test -Subdivision retest up failure (cost based on time and materials) $381.00 5391.00 Cemetery Fees: Sales of grave spaces or burial plots: (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) Grave Space -Lawn and Monument Sections $506.00 5514.00 Grave Space -Baby Land $160.00 $162.00 Grave Space -Niches (bronze) $428.00 5434.00 Grave Space -Urn garden $160.00 5162.00 Grave space -Crypt $1,071.00 51,087.00 Sales of liners and markers: (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) Concrete cemetery box, including setting $428.00 5434.00 Concrete liners Cost plus 10% Final inscriptions $125.00 min charge 5158.00 min charge Niche Vases* $160.00 $162.00 Grave markers Wholesale cost X 2.5 not to exceed $700.00 Grave marker setting, concrete base $160.00 $162.00 Monticello burial vault (sealed concrete) $1,178.00 S1,196.00 *Previously not in book. miscellaneous fees and charges page 31 Section 9-Public Works Sexton Fees: Current Proposed Opening and closing graves, ground $428.00 $434.00 Opening and closing graves, double-deep $481.00 $488.00 Opening and closing graves, infant $160.00 $162.00 Opening and closing crypts $428.00 $434.00 Opening closed crypts $428.00 $434.00 Opening and closing niches $108.00 5110.00 Opening closed niche NA 5110.00 Inter cremains in grave spaces $160.00 $162.00 Scattering of cremains $108.00 5110.00 Disinterment $1,050.00/in advance 51,081.00/in advance Saturday, Sunday or Holiday burial $428.00 $434.00 Miscellaneous Fees: Grave Setup Rental $106.00/occurrence 5108.00/occurrence Tent Rental $53.00/day S54.00 Perpetual care lots, sold before 1927 $108.00 5110.00 Vases: Galvanized $43.00 544.00 'cemetery fees will be subject to a 1.5% finance charge per month if not paid within 60 days of use. All above services will be sold pre-need in installments, interest free, with a minimum payment of one-twelfth of the total sale. 2013 CPI and ENR Calculations: Methodology: Current CPI Rate - Old CPI Rate/Old CPI Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (232.773-229.292)/229.292= 1.5% (236.293-232.773)/232.773=1.5% Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate/Old ENR Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (9455.98-9267.57)/9267.57= 2.00/, (9701.96-9455.98)/9455.98=2.6% CPI used for: ENR used for: Plat & Plan Checks Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees Public Works/engineering Inspections, Permits, etc. Water Connection Fees GIS Data & Mapping Services Cemetery Fees page 32 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 10 - Parks and Recreation IBM& ASH_ LAND. PARKS- RE4CREAYIC3M Section 10 Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous Fees and Charges miscellaneous fees and charges page 33 Section 10-Parks and Recreation Parks Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Current Proposed Wedding Packages: Lithia Park Sites $800.00/8 hrs. $400.00/4 hrs. Community Center $1,150.00 park site included Pioneer Hall $1,150.00 park site included Group Picnic Rentals: Cotton Memorial Area $75.00/4 hrs. Madrone Area $60.00/4 hrs. Top Southern Lawn $55.00/4 hrs. Hillside Picnic Area $55.00/4 hrs. Sycamore Grove $75.00/4 hrs. Brinkworth Area $60.00/4 hrs. Lawn below Upper Duck Pond $60.00/4 hrs. Butler Bandshell $220.00/8 hrs. Deposits: Picnic Areas $75.00 Lithia Park Weddings $75.00 Butler Bandshell $190.00 Buildings Security $300.00 for events (refundable) $150.00 for meetings (refundable) Special Event Fees: Special Event Application Fee (prerious/r ondned) N/A 525.00 Street Closure Fee $75.00 Park Booth fee $25.00/per booth (max. 10) Alcohol Fee: $150.00 (non-refundable) General Building Reservations: The Grove Full Facility $41.50/hr. on weekdays $50.00/hr. on weekends The Grove Otte/Petterson $22.50/hr. on weekdays $25.00/hr. on weekends Hunter Park Senior Center $21.00/hr. on weekdays $33.00/hr. on weekends Long Term User Fee $18.00/hr. (at least 6 days/yr) Oak Knoll Golf Course $21.00/hr. on weekdays $33.00/hr. on weekends Pioneer Hall/Community Center $21.00/hr. on weekdays $33.00/hr. on weekends Miscellaneous Equipment Fee $100.00 Field Usage: Tournaments $36.50/day each team Ball field Lights $31.00/hr S34.00/hr page 34 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 10-Parks and Recreation Calle Seating: Current Proposed Artisans $5.00/sq. foot S7.00/sq. foot Restaurant Seating $6.00/sq. foot Daniel Meyer Pool: Admission $2.00 Lap Swim $2.50 Water Aerobics $3.25 Swim Lessons S40542548 (adjusted in 2012) (age of child/length of lesson) Private Lessons $18.00 Open Swim punch card $30.00 Lap Swim punch card $40.00 Water Aerobics punch card $55.00 Season Pass $140.00 Youth Recreation Programs: 60/40 split with instructor and Parks Department Adult Recreation Programs: 60/40 split with instructor and Parks Department Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink: Youth Admission $3.50 Adult Admission $4.00 Skate Rental $2.50 Hockey Admission S9.50 Adult Hockey Admission (previous/, omined) NA 55.50 Youth Hockey Admission (preriouslr onulted) NA $5.00 Adult Hockey Punch Card (previoustr anined) NA 550.00 Youth Hockey Punch Card (previoustr o nined) NA $45.00 Open Skate/Kids Only Punch Card (previously olnirted) NA 530.00 Ice Skating Private Lesson (previous/, anirted) NA 510.00 per 30mins Helmets (previouslrondned) NA $8.00 Group Rental $5.00 Oak Knoll Golf Course Annual Passes: Annual Pass-Single $1,100.00 Annual Pass-Family $1,540.00 Daily Adult Fees (ages 18 to 54) 9 Holes: November-February $14.00 March-October $16.00 18 Holes: November-February $20.00 March-October $24.00 Daily Coupon Rate $10.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 35 Section 10-Parks and Recreation Daily Senior Fees (apes 55 & up) Monday-Friday Only 9 Holes: November-February $12.00 March-October $14.00 18 Holes: November-February $18.00 March-October $22.00 Daily Junior Fees (ages 8 to 17) 9 Holes: Year-Round $5.00 18 Holes: Year-Round $10.00 Driving Range One token (35) balls $3.00 Cart Fees (per person) 9 Holes: Year Round $10.00 Year Round Senior rate $8.00 18 Holes: Year Round $13.00 Community Garden Fees: 10x10 $29.00-$34.50 depending on location 10x20 $49.00-$57.50 depending on location 20x20 $75.00-$86.50 depending on location 4x12 $29.00 Refundable Deposit $20.00 Nature Center School Programs: $200.00/Class Nature Center Community Programs: 70/30 split with instructor and Parks Department Oak Knoll Golf Course Wedding Fees: November-February $1,500.00 - full day November-February $800.00 - half day March-October $750.00 - full day March-October $400.00 - half day Maps: City of Ashland Map $3.00 (or 2 maps for $5.00) Watershed Map $3.00 (or 2 maps for $5.00) page 36 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 11-Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions Listed Below* . System Development Charges (SDCs) Parks and Recreation SDCs -Resolution 2000-29 Transportation SDCs -Resolution 1999-42 Sewer SDCs -Resolution 2006-27 Storm SDCs -Resolution 2002-15 Water SDCs -Resolution 2006-27 Utility Rates and Fees AFN Utility Fees -Resolution 2010-28 Electric Rates - Resolution 2013-34 Sewer Rates -Resolution 2013-12 Storm Drain Fees -Resolution 2013-13 Transportation Fees -Resolution 2013-14 Water Rates -Resolution 2013-11 SECTION 12 - Research Fee A. The City shall charge a research fee based on the hourly wage of the staff person doing the re search, and the fee shall be billed in fifteen minute increments. The hourly wage used to calcu- late the research fee shall not include the cost of benefits. The City will establish a fee in its an- nual fee resolution that is reasonably calculated to reimburse the City for the actual cost of mak- ing public records available, including locating the requested records, reviewing the records to delete exempt material, supervising a person's inspection of original documents to protect the integrity of the records, summarizing, compiling, or tailoring a record, either in organization of media, to meet the person's request. The City may charge for search time even if it fails to locate any records responsive to the requester even if the records located are subsequently determined to be exempt from disclosure. Copies of documents provided by a routine file search of 15-30 minutes or less will be charged at a copy rate established in the annual fee resolution. B. The City may include a fee established to reimburse for the costs of time spent by the city attorney in reviewing the public records, redacting materials from the public records into exempt and nonexempt records. The City fee may also include the cost of time spent by an attorney for the City in determining the application of the provisions of ORS 192.505. C. The City may not establish a fee greater than $25 unless the requester is provided with written notification of the estimated amount of the fee and the requestor confirms in writing that he/she wants the City to proceed with making the records available. D. Prepayment shall be required if the amount of the request is greater than $25. If the actual charges are less than the prepayment, and overpayment shall be refunded. *All of the above resolutions can be found in full text on the City of Ashland's Websile: http:11ashlandoaus miscellaneous fees and charges page 37 Section 13 - Building Valuation Data Community Development Department -Building Safety Division Methodology for calculation of permit valuation Icc INTERNATIONAL II COUNCII People Helping People Build a Safer World~ Building Valuation Data - February 2014 The International Code Council is pleased to provide the does not take into account any regional cost differences. As following Building Valuation Data (BVD) for its members. The such, the use of Regional Cost Modifiers Is subject to the BVD will be updated at six-month intervals, with the next authority having jurisdiction. update in August 2014. ICC strongly recommends that all Permit Fee Multiplier jurisdictions and other Interested parties actively evaluate and assess the.Impact of this BVD table before utilizing it in their Determine the Permit Fee Multiplier: current code enforcement related activities. 1. Based on historical records, determine the total annual The BVD table provides the 'average' construction costs per construction value which has occurred within the square foot, which can be used in determining permit fees for jurisdiction for the past year. a jurisdiction. Permit fee schedules are addressed in Section 109.2 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) whereas 2. Determine the percentage of the building Section 109.3 addresses building permit valuations. The department budget expected to b be e provided by building permit fees can be established by using the BVD table and a permit revenue. Permit Fee Multiplier, which is based on the total construction Bldg. Dept. Budget x value within the jurisdiction for the past year. The Square Fool Permit Fee Multiplier = Construction Cost table presents factors that reflect relative Total Annual Construction Value value of one construction classification/occupancy group to Example another so that more expensive construction is assessed The building department operates on a $300,000 budget, and greater permit fees than less expensive construction. it expects to cover 75 percent of that from building permit fees. ICC has developed this data to aid.jurisdictions in determining The total annual construction value which occurred within the permit fees. It Is important to note that while this BVD table jurisdiction in the previous year is $30,000,000. does determine an. estimated value of a building (i.e., Gross $300,000 x 75% Area z Square Foot Construction Cost), this data is only permit Fee Multiplier= - =0.0075 intended to assist jurisdictions in determining their permit fees. c„30,000,000 This data table is not intended to be used as an estimating guide because the data only reflects average costs and Is not Permit Fee representative. of specific construction. The permit fee is determined using the building gross area, the This degree of precision is sufficient for the intended purpose, Square Foot Construction Cost and the Permit Fee Multiplier. which is to help establish permit fees so as to fund code permit Fee = Gross Area x Square Foot Construction Cost compliance activities. This BVD table provides jurisdictions x Permit 'Fee Multiplier with a simplified way to determine the estimated value of a .Example building that does not rely on the permit applicant to determine the cost of construction. Therefore, the bidding process for a Type of Construction: IIB particular job and other associated factors do not affect the Area: 1st story= 8,000 sq. ft. value of a building for determining the permit fee. Whether a 2nd story = 8,000 sq. ft. specific project is bid at a cost above or below the computed Height 2 .stories; value of construction does not affect the permit fee because Permit Fee Multiplier = 0.0075 the cost of related code enforcement activities is not directly Use Group: B affected by the bid process and results. 1. Gross area: Building Valuation Business = 2 stories z 8,000 sq. ft..= 16,000 sq. ft. The following building valuation data represents average 2. Square Foot Construction Cost: valuations for most buildings. In conjunction with IBC Section B/IIB = $158.70/sq. ft. 109.3, this data is offered as an aid for the building official to determine If the permit valuation is underestimated. Again it 3. Permit Fee: should be noted that when using this data, these are Business 16,000 sq. ft. x $158.70/sq. ft x 0.0075 'average' costs based on typical construction methods for = $19.044 each occupancy group and type of construction. The average costs include foundation work, structural and nonstructural building components, electrical, plumbing, mechanical and interior finish material. The data is a national average and page38 miscellaneous fees and charge Section 13 - Building Valuation Data Important Points For purposes of establishing the Permit Fee Multiplier, the • The BVD is not intended to apply to alterations or repairs estimated total annual construction value for a given time to existing buildings. Because the scope of alterations or period (1 year) is the sum of each building's value (Gross repairs to an existing building varies so greatly, the Square Area x Square Foot Construction Cost) for that time period Foot Construction Costs table does not reflect accurate (e.g., 1 year). - values for that purpose. However, the Square Foot Construction Costs table can be used to determine the The Square Foot Construction Cost does not include the . cost of an addition that is basically a stand-alone building price of the land on which the building is built. The Square which happens to be attached to an existing building. In Foot Construction Cost takes into account everything from the case of such additions, the only alterations to the foundation work to the roof structure and coverings but existing building would involve the attachment of the does not include the price of the land. The cost of the land addition to the existing building and the openings between does not affect the cost of related code enforcement the addition and the existing building. activities and is not included in the Square Foot Construction Cost. Square Foot Construction Costs "b',d Group 2012 International Building Code IA IB HA 118. IIIA IIIB IV ° VA VB - ` A-1 Assembly, theaters, vdth stage 224.49 217.12 211.82 20296 '190.83 185.33 196.14 174.43 167.83 A-1 Assembly, theaters, vithut stage 205.71 198.34 193.04 184.18 172.15 166.65 177.36 155.75 149.15 A-2 Assembly, ni htdubs 177.15 172.12 167.31 160.58 150.83 146.74 154.65 136.68 132.81 A-2 Assembly, restaurants, bars, banquet halls 176.15 171.12 165.31 159.58 148.83 145.74 153.65 134.68 131.81 A-3 Assembly, churches 207.73 200.36 195.06 180.20 174.41 168.91 178.38 158.02 151.41 A-3 Assembly, general. cornmicnity, hags IibFades museums 173.36 165.99 159.69 151.83 138.90 13440 145.01 122.50 116.89 A-4 Assembl - arenas 204.71 197.34 191.04 183.18 170.15 165.65 176.38 153.75 148.15 B Business 179.29 172.71 166.96 158.70 144.63 13920 152.43 126.93 121.32 EEducational 192.11 185.49 180.05 171.90 160.09 151.62 165.97 139.90 135.35 F4 Factory and industrial moderate hazard 108.42 103.32 97.18 93.38 83.24 79.62 8922 68.69 64.39 F-2 Factory and industrial, lov« hazard 107.42 102.32 97.18 92.38 8324 78.62 88.22 68.69 63.39 H-1 Hi Hazard. explosives 101.53 96.44 91.29 86.49 77.57 7295 82.34 63.02 N.P. H234 High Hazard 101153 98.44 91.29 86.49 77.57 72.95 82.34 63.02 57.71 H-5 HPM 179.29 172.71 16 ..96 158.70 144.63 139.20 152.43 126.93 121.32 1-1 Institutional, supervised environment 177.76 171.50 168.52 159.45 145.31 142.45 159.13 131.29 126.72 1-2 lnstibdional, hospitals 302.44 295.85 290.11 281.84 266.80 N.P. 275.58 249.09 N.P. 1.2 Institutional, nursing homes 209.38 202.79 197.05 188.78 175.72 N.P. 182.52 158.01 N.P. 1.3 institutional. restrained 204.27 197.68 191.94 183.67 171.10 164.68 177.41 153.40 145.80 Ii Institutional, day care facilities 177.76 171.50 166.52 159.45 146.31 142.45 159.13 131.29 128.72 M Mercantile 132.04 127.01 121.20 115.47 105.47 102.39 109.54 91.33 88.45 R-1 Residential, hotels 179.14 172.89 167.90 160.83 147.95 144.10 160.52 132.93 128.36 R-2 Residential, multiple family 150.25 143.99 139.01 131.94 11917 115.91 131.52 104.74 100.18 R3 Residential, one- and Nwo-famil 141.80 137.90 134.46 131.00 125.88 122.71 12829 117.71 110.29 R-4 Residential, care/assisted living facilities 177.78 171.50 186.52 159.45 146.31 142.45 159.13 131.29 126.72 S-1 Storage, moderate hazard 100.53 95.bd 89.28 85.49 75.57 71.95 81.34 61.02 56.71 S2 storage, bvi hazard 99.53 94.44 89.29 64.49 75.57 70.85 60.34 81.02 55.71 U Utility, miscellaneous 75.59 71.22 66.78 63.37 S6.B9 5322 60.41 44.60 42.48 a. Private Garages use Utility, miscellaneous b. Unfinished basements (all use group) = 515.00 per sq. fL c. For shell only buildings deduct 20 penxnt d. N.P. = not pernotted miscellaneous fees and charges page 39 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Attachment 1. CITY OF Exhibit A ASHLAND GRADING FEES General. Fees shall be assessed In accordance with the provisions of this section. Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be as set forth In Table A. Separate plan review fees shall apply to retaining walls or major drainage structures as required. For excavation and fill on the same site, the fee shall be based on the volume of excavation or fill, whichever is greater. Grading Permit Fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the City of Ashland, Building DepL as set forth In Table B. Separate permits and fees shag apply to retaining wails or major drainage structures as required. There shall be no separate charge for standard terrace drains and similar facilities. TABLE A-GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 ado yards $100.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $125.00 _ 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $150.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $100.00 for the first 100,000 cubic years, plus $25.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: AddWonal plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans..... $65.25 per . hour' minimum charge -omo-half hcu -Or the total hourly cost to the city, whichever Is the greatest This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees Involved. TABLE B - GRADING PERmfr FEES' 50 whit yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $75.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $75.00 forthe first 100 cubic yards plus $25.00 foreach additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: • Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge -two hmm)$65.25 per hour • Reanspeclion fees $6525 per hour • Inspections forwhich no fee Is specifically Indicated (minimum charge one half hour) $65.25 hcur` The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall lie difference between the fee paid for the original pemdt and the fee shorn for the entire project 20r the total hourly cost to the City, whichever Is the greatest This cost shall Include supervision, overhead equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. page 40 miscellaneous fees 6 charge Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Miscellaneous fees 8 charges page 41 i CITY OF ASHLAND j Memo DATE: April 29, 2014 TO: Dave Kanner, City Administrator CC: FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director DEPT: Administrative Services SUBJECT: Parking Fees i I am recommending that the daily charge for the orange placard to park for an extended period in a regular space in the Plaza be raised from $5 the first day and $1 per day thereafter with a weekly total of $10 to $10 the first day and $2 per day thereafter with a weekly total of $20. The current fee was established one year ago attempting to recover some of the cost of managing the permitting and to reduce the prior demand for free parking for construction projects (or other activities that can't be done in a 2 hour timeframe) that were not necessary or abused. Recent experience has shown that charging for the permits is beneficial in that it eliminated most of the frivolous requests but also that bona fide requests require management, especially during periods of high demand where contractors are trying to complete projects before a specific deadline or during the high season of tourism. Like our current parking ticket of $11, many visitors consider the low amounts we charge as a cost of doing business. Especially since other large cities or tourist destinations charge so much for regular parking. Been to downtown Portland lately? i This indicates we are priced to low for both permitted parking and ticketing for time violations. Staff is researching the basis for changing parking ticket fees but feels the increase for parking all day or all week should be adjusted to better recognize the economic value of the space. Current estimates indicate a parking space's economic value is many, times that of $10 per day and charging appropriately will still provide a benefit to the requesting party while minimizing the over-use of permits in the plaza. Staff plans to submit a request for changes in ticketing when research has been completed. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tunebarg, Director Tel: 541-0885300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735.2900 wweashland.or.uS CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 28, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Director of Administrative Services FROM: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Update The Community Development Department is requesting the following updates to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document: 1) Update the Planning Fees in accordance with the March 2014 CPI. 2) Add reference to Public Works plat review fees. A notation has been added that cross references Public Work's Plat and Plan Check fees identified later in the document. It is intended to inform the customer that a plat review fee is charged by both the Community Development and Public Works Departments. These are existing fees. 3) Add Building Appeals Board to the Appeals Fee structure. This is a new fee targeted at covering a percentage of the costs associated with conducting an appeal hearing before the Building Appeals Board. AMC 15.04.200 outlines the, appeal process and notes that "an appeal shall include the applicable appeal fee or deposit.as applicable. " This. fee will assist in recovering a percentage of the administrative costs associated with preparing public notice for the appeal hearing, convening the six member Building Appeals Board, compiling a packet of relevant information regarding the nature of the appeal, including the Building Official's staffreport, and preparation of the Appeals Board final decision. 4) Add Change of Occupancy Fees. Often times a new tenant will move into an existing commercial building and open a new business without knowing that the building they occupy has been constructed and intended for a diferent use. The Oregon' Structural Specialty Code has specific requirements that apply to specific occupancy types. If a building is constructed to a less restrictive construction method and amore hazardous or intensive occupancy type moves into the building, alterations are required to make the building safe for the new occupancy type. This change in use triggers the need for a special inspection and the reissuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Fax: 5414883305 51 WNbum Way Fax:541488E006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: WO-735-29W www.ashland.or.os 5) Insert Excavation/Grading Fees Chart (Exhibit-A). The Excavation/Grading Fees chart was originally adopted by Resolution 2006-19 and was accidentally omitted from the 2013-14 Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Book. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541488-5M5 51 Winbum Way Paz:5414886006 Ashland, Orw 97520 TTY: 8DO-735-29DO wwer.ishland.orm CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 18, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director FROM: Warren DiNapoli, Electric Distribution Systems Manager ) RE: 2014 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Attached 'are the Electric Department's proposed miscellaneous fees and charges for 2014. Payroll, with the exception of minor increases in materials, is the driver for the fee increases. The 2013 schedule incorporates a bargaining union's 2.5% pay increase. The remaining fees on the table were increased using the April 2014 Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR) of 9749.51 in relation to the previous ENR of 9515.86. An additional fee "denergize service" was developed for 2014. This is to reimburse the City for costs associated with a customer request to denergize their electric service for modification associated with their customer owned panel. Also included in the packet for your review are the itemized costs for each of the fees. The detail consists of material, vehicle and labor as estimated. for each line item. All fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. If you have any questions or need additional details, please let me know. SO -243 Electdc MDepartment Tel:541Z52-9307 SON. cunhaMAve. Fax: 54155252-2438 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: B90-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us City of Ashland 2014 Electric Department Misc Fees and Charges Proposed Current % Change Fees Fees Temporar Service Dro : Single Phase Underground temp 300 amps or less .$247.00 $ 245.00 0.8% Single Phase Overhead temp 300 am ps or less $295.00 $ 291.00 1.4% Three Phase Actual Cost Actual Cost Meter Char es: Test or accuracy Once in twelve months No charge No charge Two or more times in 12 months--test for accuracy $176.00 $ 172.00 Meter repairs/replacement (Damaged b - Customer Actual Cos[ Actual Cost Service Calls Once in twelve months No charge No charge Two or more times in 12 months $203.00 S 199.00 2.11 Other hours or on Holidays $303.00 $ 297.00 2.0% Deene ize service $254.00 NA Scheduled Work after hours Actual Cost Actual Cost Line Extension Charges: NEW Single-family Residential Service: Overhead service in existing developed area from distribution line to and including meter $580.00 $ 568.00 2.1% Overhead SERVICE UPGRADE or increased_ service ' for 300 am s or less $580.00 S 568.00 2.1% ep acement U service m overhead to underground, 300 amps or less. Customer provides all trenching, conduit, back filling and compaction as directed by the City. $1,217.00 $ 1,161.00 4.8% Underground rest enta service o 300 amps or less Customer provides conduit, trenching, back fill, compaction as directed by the City $697.00 $ 695.00 0.3% UG Distribuuon Installation Charges: Per Lot less house service and engineering fees S 1,186.00 $ 1,158.00 2.42% Subdivisions of 0-20 en innerin fee per lot $ 171.00 $ 167.00 2.40% Three Phase as required b city per lot $ 259.00 $ 253.00 2.37% Subdivisions of 2l+engineering fee per lot $ 259.00 S 253.00 2.37% City of Ashland 2014 Electric Department Misc Fees and Charges 'Proposed Current % Change Fees Fees Tempora Service Dro : Single Phase Underground temp 300 amps or less $247.00 $ 245.00 0.8% Single Phase Overhead temp 300 amps or less $295.00 $ 291.00 1.4% Three Phase Actual Cost Actual Cost Meter Charges: Test for accuracy Once in twelve months No char a No charge Two or more times in 12 months--test for accuracy $176.00 $ 172.00 23% Meter re airs/re lacement (Damaged b Customer Actual Cost Actual Cost Service Calls Once in twelve months No charge No charge Two or more times in 12 months - $203.00 $ 199.00 2.0% Other hours or on Holidays $303.00 $ 297.00 2.0% Deener ize service $254.00 NA Scheduled Work after hours Actual Cost Actual Cost Line Extension Charges: NEW Single-family Residential Service: Overhead service in existing developed area from distribution line tc and including meter $580.00 $ 568.00 2.1% Overhead SERVICE UPGRADE or increased service for 300 s or less $580.00 $ 568.00 2.1% ep acement o serv ice from overhead to underground, 300 amps or less. Customer provides all trenching, conduit, back filling and compaction as directed by the city. $1,217.00 $ 1,161.00 4.8% Underground rest ental service of 300 amps or less Customer provides conduit, trenching, back fill, compaction as directed by the City $691.00 $ 695.00 0.3% UG Distribution Installation Charges: Per Lot less house service and engineering fees $ 1,186.00 $ 1,158.00 2.42% Subdivisions of 0-20 en innerin fee per lot $ 171.00 $ 167.00 2.40% Three Phase as required by city per lot $ 259.00 $ 253.00 2.37% Subdivisionsof2l+engineering fee per lot $ 259.00 $ 253.00 2.37% 2of11 CITY OF -ASHLAND Electric Department Project Invoice Name' Temporary Service Drop 4/1512014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Description} Single Phase Underground temp 300 amps or V less - - Total Material $23.52 Description Price EA Extended • o 3 2-0801-00 CONNECTOR, PED 3-250 $5.29 $15.87 3 2-0783-01 CONNECTOR, COVER 4-HOLE $2.55 $7.65 Total Equipment $43.13 Qty Description Unit Cost ExtendeM 1.5 E-6 - Service Vehicle $28.75 $43.13 Total Labor $180A7 • Ofy-Staff Description Unit Cost Extended 1.5 1 Groundsperson $49.43 $74.15 1.5 1 Line Installer/Serviceperson $70.88 $106.32 Total Projecti $247.11 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name, .Temporary Service Drop 4/1512014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# DescriptionSingle Phase Overhead temp 300 amps or less Total Material $69.20 Qty J~,,T6cKfi~ bescription Price EA Extended 2 2-0950-00 DEADEND WEDGE CLAMP 2 -6, SM $1.00 $2.00 65 2-2905-00 WIRE #4 OH TRIPLEX ACC OYSTER $0.84 $54.60 6 2-0705-01 CONNECTOR ALUM PARALLEL #8-210 STIR $1.42 $8.52 2 2-2667-00 WIREHOLDER, NYLON ALLOY $2.04 $4.08 Total Equipment $43.13 1.5 E-6 - Service Vehicle. $28.76 $43.13 Total Labor $183.12 • • 1.6 1 Groundsperson, Meter Reader $49.43 $74.15 1.5 1 Line Installer/Serviceperson $72.65 $108.98 Total Project, $295.41 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name; ,Meter Test for Accuracy T_ 4M512014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Description, Two or more times in twelve months Total Material s Total Equipment $23.00 Qty Description Unit Cost Extended 2 E-3 - Meter Relay Van $11.50 $23.00 Total Labor $162.66 a Description 2 1 Meter Relay Technician $76.28 $152.66 Total Project $175.56 1 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF -ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name Service Calls ' 411512014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Description two or more times in twelve months - normal business hours Total Equipment $57.50 Description 'QtY 2 E-6 - Service Vehicle $28.75 $57.50 Total Labor $145.30 Qty-HRs OtVStaff Description Unit-Cost !Extended 2 1 Line installer/Serviceperson $72.65 $145.30 Total Projects $202.80 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name: service Calls _ 4115/2014 . c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Description Two or more times in twelvemonths -after hours or holidays _ Total E ui ment $57.50 Qty. Description UnitCost Extended 2 E-6 - Service Vehicle $28.75 $57.50 Total Labor $245.04 Qty-HR Description Unit CosL 2 1 Line Installer/Serviceperson (oT) $122.52 $245.04 Total Project; $302.54 _ J Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF -ASH LAN D Electric Department Project Estimate Name_ Denergize Service 4115/2014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Description' Request to denergize existing electric service for any modifications to customer owned electric panel Total E ut ment $71.88 p D • • t-, Unit Cost Extended 2.5 E-6 - Service Vehicle $26.75 $71.88 Total Labor $181.63 p CftyDescrip'tion Unit Cost Extended 2.5 1 Line installer/Serviceperson (OT) $72.65 $181.63 Total Projact' $253.50 _ Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name _Line Extension Charge 4/15/2014 clo Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# _ Description Overhead service in existing developed areas from distribution line to and including meter Total Material $202.48 • • 2 2-0945-00 DEADEND WEDGE CLAMP 1/0-4, LG $3.37 $6.74 1 0-0000-0 METER 1PH RES RADIO READ $65.84 $65.84 100 2-291500 WIRE.1/0 OH TRIPLEX MUREX $1.16 $116.00 6 2-0705-00 CONNECTOR ALUM PARALLEL 98 - 2/0 STR $1.42 $8.52 1 2-2667-00 WIREHOLDER, NYLON ALLOY $2.04 $2.04 1 2-2670-00 WIREHOLDER, SERVICE PIPE CLAMP $3.34 $3.34 Total Equipment $71.88 • Description 2.5 E G -Service Vehicle $28.75 $71.88 Total Labor $305.20 • s Des 'i n Unit Cost Extended 2.5 1 Groundsperson, Meter Reader $49.43 $123.58 2.5 1 Line Installer/Serviceperson $72.65 $181.63 Total Project' $57995,6 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OT ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name Line Extension Charge ) 4/15/2014 C/o Address Phone city, state Zip' Project# Account# Description' Overhead service upgrade or increased service, t. for 300-amps. or less- Total Material $202.48 • • • Price EA Eitended 2 2-0945-00 DEADEND WEDGE CLAMP 1/0 4, LG $3.37 $6.74 1 0-0000-0 METER 1PH RES RADIO READ $65.84 $65.84 100 2-2915-00 WIRE 1/0 OH TRIPLEX MUREX $1.16 $116.00 6 2-0705-00 CONNECTOR ALUM PARALLEL #8 - 210 STR $1.42 $8.52 1 2-2667-00 WIREHOLDER, NYLON ALLOY $2.04 $2.04 1 2-2670-00 WIREHOLDER, SERVICE PIPE CLAMP $3.34 $3.34 Total E ui ment $71.88 city Description 2.5 E-6 - Service Vehicle $28.75 $71.88 Total Labor $305.20. • • Descri Unit Cost Extended 2.5 1 Groundsperson, Meter Reader $49.43 $123.56 tioil 2.5 1 Line Installer/Serviceperson $72.65 $181.63 Total Project` $579.56 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF -ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name Line Extension Charges 411512014 c/o Address Phone city, state zip Project# Account# Description Replacement of service from overhead to underground, 300 amps or less. Customer provides all trenching, conduit, backFllling and compaction as directed by the City. Total Material $349.00 ! s Description Price EA . . 3 2-0197-00 BRACKET 3" KENDORF STRAP $2.42 $7.26 3 2-0194-00 BRACKET, STANDOFF, 12" $13.46 $40.38 10 2-0447-00 CONDUIT 3" PVC SCH 80 10' $2.57 $25.70 40 2-0446-00 CONDUIT, 3" PVC, SCH 40 $1.75 $70;00 125 2-3030-00 WIRE, UG, #410 TRIPLEX, URD ALUM 600V $1.55 $193.75 3 2-0801-00 CONNECTOR ALUM PARALLEL #8-210 STIR $1.42 $4.26 3 2-9998-00 CONNECTOR, COVER 4-HOLE $2.55 $7.65 Total Equipment $241.50 r Extended ! Unit Cost. 3 E-10- Bucket Truck $34.50 $103.60 3 E-12 - Line Truck $46.00 $138.00 Total Labor $626.07 ! ! Description UnitCost Extended - 3 1 Lead Working Line Installer $78.58 $235.74 3 1 Line Installer $72.65 $217.95 3 1 Line Truck Driver $57.46 $172.38 Total Project $1,216.57 Prepared By: Signature: CITY OF ASHLAND Electric Department Project Estimate Name; Line Extension Charges 1 4115/2014 c/o Address Phone City, State Zip Project# Account# Descriptions Underground residential service of 300 amps or less. Customer provides conduit, trenching, 11 backfill, and compaction as directed by the City Total Material $234.01 • e Descripti6n Price EA Extended 2-0784-00 CONNECTOR, PED 4-350 $4.39 $13.17 1 0-0000-0 METER 1PH RES RADIO READ $65.84 $65.84 100 2-3030-00 WIRE, UG, #410 TRIPLEX, URD ALUM 600V $1.55 $155.00 Total Equipment $158.13. a 2.5 E-6 - Service Vehicle $28.75 $71.88 2.5 E-9 - Bucket truck $34.50 $86.25 Total Labor $305.20 e a e 2.5 1 Groundsperson, Meter Reader $49.43 $123.58 2.5 1 Line installer/Serviceperson $72.65 $181.63 Total Project' $697.34 Prepared By: Signature: i i i LINE EXTENSION CHARGES Previous Proposed Underground Distribution Installation Charges: Per Lot less house service and engineerin fees. $ 1,158.00 $ 1,186.00 Subdivisions of 0 to 20 engineering fee per lot $ 167.00 $ 171.00 Subdivisions of 21+ engineering fee per lot $ 253.00 $ 259.00 Three phase subdivision as required by city per lot $ 253.00 $ 259.00 Previous ENR (Engineering News Record Construction Cost 9515.86 April 2014 ENR Construction Cost 9749.51 % Rate of Adjustment 2.46% i i I i i CITY OF -ASH LAN D Memo DATE: April 21, 2014 TO: Kristy Blackman FROM: Margueritte Hickman, Division Chief / Fire Marshal RE: Inspection Fee Increase Please adjust the fire inspection fees in accordance with the CPI of 1.5% effective March 1, 2014. with 1.7% increase 2014 rounded up. 10,001- Occupancy 0-1,000 1,001-3,000 0-3,000 3,001-10,000 20,000 >20,000 B $35.00 $52.00 $102.00 $152.00 $203.00 A, E, F, H, I, M, 5 - $52.00 $102.00 $152.00 $203.00 Number of Units 3-30 11-40 41-70 >70 R, SR $52.00 $102.00 $153.00 $203.00 Reinspection Fees 3rd $54.00 4th $107.00 5th or greater $158.00 ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE 455 Sisklyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 ~r (541) 482-2770 • Fax (541) 48875318 TTY: $00-735-2900 vwxrtuoeucrcrroeuta Vl P -010. ;N N H~ N p i w g e> U ~ 4 c ff[ ~ c $ V ~ p Jpi Oq ~ V E V L ~ p ~N > pp pp p N V V V)N S U C > . O E > T O. 1~ O O O O 0 0 N O O O O ..i m Y~ L' N 0 N V1 O On V~ Vl O O ~ N{ HHHHNH ~ ~ N 4 ~ Si Q HHHNHM fHV HNN {yam y 9 Y ~Y y OH .0 q yU O ~O U 'c w'O^ 0 0 Y ~o o O ~ R o di o N M C ,pW ,0pf iC~ 8 . o o ~ u i O V ~ >'L 3 a gg a`E pa no. N V U U g@ e o t o ° r~5c s,3~3 ~ ~avvo~~ LLE.~ q n U° u u~ gc Qca ~i'888E8u~~ea LL~E.E~uB o'a~ ° ~ > .s d d uvEpU >>>qy~qy e p'~``.,"oh t° D ~ d Ne `'E C~E9EEEE {~j O+Y`' V mmm co v dCg KZo. 4. a U ~ ~ V:U wwi..w ¢¢¢¢~.w ~~do ~s s ff 8g~ o 4 E Q 8 ~ H S E p N:M N v a Vf ~N N y a S3v g$g ;7 gg 8 8,g $8gog g 8 8 t y r g alY N N( N~v~ Mv~ 8 R8~8 N8 n C. U q N N N N rF H N M N N N N N N N N N N. L' O Q Q 6 w 3' 3° ~ o N rpCr ~ $ ~ Mp U ~ U ~ O C ~O w G~ ~ ~ n,~ + O n C C eg ~~a ~ ~ ~rv~~aaa mo g~a ~ ~ ~io~~o >LL g dg d ss6~Msed g m w F ~ g o }4~ F. ac R 10, • rY{ o N C LL d V N y 61 ~ Y ~ O y ~3 c3b vgoo:~~ R RE.X~ ~ 8+ +3~E 6 gg a S S. S. ~ E b e> c Y> UH VUW cF" F' F'~ F' °a ~LL q S{ ap- ~ m b vC o Zi T.L'i.: ri nc5c °rc 9 D y -j~ Q ~ 1~ q~ q C {L O~ O~ O a p M Q Wry C S 1 al~ .TeT . CG~Yd NY OQ y~HTO. =.~aIIS I_L 6QZ OY.Q9 LL TTLL C m ~Y a VVV .Z.-12 ..Z V] N ~3 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 29, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director FROM: Michael Ainsworth, Telecommunications Manager CC: Kristy Blackman, Administrative Services/Finance Administrative Assistant RE: Telecom's Proposed Changes/Revisions to Miscellaneous Fees and Charges The AFN Telecommunications Division is proposing changes solely to the text descriptions listed in the Information Technology section pages 23 and 24 and no changes to the actual fees or fees structure. Changes to the document (pages 23 and 24) are primarily revisions of the description of services and text formatting to improve the reading flow. Significant changes include: Page 23, under the category of Installation Fees: The line "Wi Max standard installation $200" has been moved to the bottom of the category listings. Page 23, formatting only changes, replacement of standard font with bold font for improved clarity. Page 24, under the category of Non-return of customer premise equipment (CPE) devices: $300 "Anywhere and/or AFN Max" are deleted so that the CPE's will not be associated solely to wireless services. Page 23 the header Transit Fee is being changed to Ethernet to better describe the connection circuit. Page 23 under the category of Fiber Service Installation: "Mandatory two-year agreement" is deleted and future service terms will be defined by Individual Business Case (IBC) Product descriptions have been trimmed down to "overhead served" and "underground served" to simplify the two primary service descriptions. Page 24 under the category of Business Augmented Upload Package (additional 5Mbps) The wording for the product descriptions have been tightened up. Dated descriptions have been revised and/or deleted. No changes proposed for actual fees or to the fee structures for Telecommunication services listed on pages 23 and 24. DEPARTMENT HERE Tex: 547-088-53i1 SUed Address Fax: 541-0685311 AsNand, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us 1 Section 6-information Technology Information Technology Miscellaneous Fees and Charges* Installation Fees: Basic installation-Pre-wired CATV outlets only $ 20.00 (Additional charges for parts and supplies apply) Add Trap ("filter") $10.00 New customer cable modem activation $10.00 Cable Modem $50.00 Refurbished 90 -day replacement warranty Additional materials $10.00 Over-and-beyond regular installation including multi outlets, outlet plates, additional wiring, replacement of customer damaged outlets. WI 'Max standard ns'tailation ;SZ0000 Disconnect Fees: Disconnect $50.00 Remove Trap ("Filter") $10.00 Truck Roll: $35.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate: Non-standard work such as advancing troubleshooting, $55.00 non-standard outlets, fishing wire inside walls, etc. Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate: For support issues not related to AFN infrastructure, performance, $85.00 and reliability. Minimum charge on hour. Non-City Employee Staff Screening: Charge for each vendor employee submitted for authorization to Access AFN and City Service Center facilities. $150.00 Fiber Service Installation: , Minimum one! time ~€ee3'a..dvemead.sereedseet►eeeFi`eris. COS Overhead served connections. Individual Business Case (IBC) & quote Underground served connections IBC & quote Etherrte«Tr7a c~. Transit @ 100 Mbps IBC & quote miscellaneous fees and charges page 23 Section 6-Information Technology Static IP Address: $5.00/mo each Maximum of 5 Static Internet Protocol (IP) addresses* • Minimum level of service for static IP and Quality of Service (QoS) is "CHOICE' or higher service tier. oS Fee: $3.50/mo VOIP (phone) enhancement available with AFN Choice or higher service level through AFN certified Modems. Business Augmented Upload Package (additional 5 Mbpsl: $15.00/mo Available' exclusively on_ AFN Direct --.....s5a4 :^a 71 1 :ADO ekege-uti atlakle enla~-avEth; . Small OfceW6me Office (WHO) or Small Business. jMust have current,Gity of `Ashland Buginess License *Additional fee added to base AFN Direct retail rates on specific packages. Maximum SOHO upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 9 Mbps Small Office/Home Office Business Augmented Upload Package @$80/month Maximum Small Business upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 10 Mbps Small Business Augmented Upload Package @ $100.00/month Non-return of customer premise equipment (CPE) devices: $300.00 CPE's must be returned on disconnect date of AFN Anywhcfc-Artdfor *014Max services. Cable TV (CATV) Seasonal Reconnects & Disconnects: $10.00/visit Non-pay disconnects & reconnects Service change Install HBO filter CAN House Amp Fee: $35.00/each Utility Billina Lobby Slanatte Fee: $100.00/mo. Cable Modem Rental $5.00/mo. Non Return of Rented Modem at Closing of Account $50.00each Cable Modem Purchase $50.00/each * Resolution 2010-28 (Section 2, page 38) grants Information Technology management ability to set promotional rates. page 24 miscellaneous fees and charges CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 30, 2014 TO: City of Ashland, Finance Department FROM: Ashland Municipal Court RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges (Updated) The Court has 4 changes to our Fees and Charges: City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion for Violations: Not charged on Violations -0-. Extend/Amend City Attorney Deferred Sentence or .Diversion: Not charged on Violations -0-. Show Cause Admission of Allegation: Not charged on Violations -0-. Withholding on County Assessment: N/A/New County Assessment all collected goes to the County. -558 , MUNICIPAL 1175 Ent Main Fax 54IA82-5214 1175 Easl Main Street Fax:541-0885586 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~r w ashland.arm CITY OF Memo, ASHLAND DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director FROM: Kelly Haptonstall, Lead Police Clerk RE: Fingerprint Pee Increase Attached is the Ashland Police Department's proposed fingerprint fee increase. General cost increase is the main driver for the fee increase. Also included in the packet for your review are the itemized costs for fingerprinting. The detail consists of the clerk's time, maintenance fees, use of machine, toner, and gloves. The proposed fee increase is $35.00 per initial card and $10.00 for additional cards. If you have any questions or need additional details, please let me know ASHLAND POLICE DEPT. Tel: 541482.5211 1155E. Main St Fax: 5414885351 AsNand, OR 97520 TTY: 000-735.2000 ww,v.asHand.or.ig APD Foes U2, Rev8112 City of Ashland Police Department Cost of Services for Finger printing Number of cards per year 540 Number of years use of machine 6 Number of toner cartridges per year 2 Cost per unit (finger print card): Time Clerk hr rate $ 22.76 Gross up for benefits $ 35.28 Half hour per unit 50% Cost of time $ 17.64 $ 17.64 Maintenance Fee Cost pet year $ 2,400 Number of cards per year 540 Cost of fee $ 4.44 $ 4.44 Use of Machine Cost of Machine $16,538 Useful life 6 yrs Replacement cost Q 3% inflation $20,507 Replacement cost per year $ 3,418 Number of cards per year 540 Cost of machine $ 6.33 $ 6.33 Toner Toner cost per year (2' $1,015) $ 2,030 Number of cards per year 540 Cost of machine $ 3.76 $ 3.76 Gloves Cost per box of 500 gloves $ 150 Cost per glove. $ 0.30 , $ 0.30 Total Cost Per Unit $ 32.47 Memo ASHLAND Date: 4/25/2014 From: Betsy Harshman To: Lee Tuneberg Re: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Please make the adjustments in the FY 2014/2015 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document as shown in the attached documents. To cover some of our refund processing costs, we'd also like to add a clause that states: An administrative fee of 25% will be assessed on all permit refunds. Refunds will not be issued if requested later than one-year following the application date. On page 27 of this year's book, following Subdivision plats and partition plats, please add: (does not include planning review fee, see page 11). Planning requested we add these statements so customers know there are will be additional fees upfront; they have added similar verbiage to their update. Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 541-1488-6008 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 8001735.2800 www.ashland.or.os Section 9-Public Works Public Works Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees: Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $0.20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid . Single-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $0.80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Existing maps printed in color on HP1055CM plotter (241b bond Paper) Arch C 18 x 24 3.00 sq. ft. $18.00 Arch D 24 x 36 6.00 sq. ft. $36.00 Arch E 36 x 48 12.00 sq. fL $72.00 Existing maps or copies of existing maps copied in B&W on Xerox 3030 large format copier (201b bond paper) Arch C 18 x 24 $8.00 Arch D 24 x 36 $12.00 Arch E 36 x 48 $16.00 Note: Maps printed on materials other than the specified bond are double the standard print fee Plat & Plan Checks:. LG{OLS12o'~ /ny~.u/C ~t~4hAf/~ Subdivision Plats $730.00 plus $110.00 per lot rpV l Gt0 Ae *e& P"f_ Condominium Plats $730.00 plus $110.00 per lot Partition Plats (does not include 24% Fire Department Review Fee) $391.00 Subdivision Improvement Plat Check 5% Engineer Fee (5% of the public improvement cost) Engineering Development Fee (this fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building permit applications. Applies To all new residential dwelling units and commercial 0.75% of valuation Developments. Remodels, additions and accessory Buildings are not assessed this fee.) miscellaneous fees and charges page 27 Section 9-Public Works Public Works Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees: Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $0.20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $0.40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $0.80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Existing snaps printed in color on HP 1055CM plotter (241b bond Paper) Arch C 18 x 24 3.00sq. ft. $18.00 Arch D 24 x 36 6.00 sq. ft. $36.00 Arch E 36 x 48 12.00 sq. ft. $72.00 i Existing maps or copies of existing snaps copied in B&W on Xerox 3030 large format copier (201b bond paper) Arch C 18 x 24 Arch D 24 x 36 .r$N2.0.O ei!rlri l Arch E 36 x 48 6100 ) Note: Maps printed on materials other than the specified bond are double the standard print fee Plat & Plan Checks: Subdivision Plats E$r7t3I!? Iphts ' $ 10!00 peelot + Oryifus Condominium Plats I739!0 $ I'0! 0 er lot ~ - ~ T Partition Plats (does not include 24% Fire Department Review Fee) r ? 0«it~f v+i~ 7 Subdivision Improvement Plat Check 5%o Engineer Fee (5% of the public improvement cost) Engineering Development Fee (this fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building permit applications. Applies To all new residential dwelling units and commercial 0.75% of valuation Developments. Remodels, additions and accessory Buildings are not assessed this fee.) miscellaneous fees and charges page 27 Section 9-Public Works Public Works/Engineerinq Inspections. Permits, etc: Subdivision Construction Inspection/ 5% Engineer Fee(5% of Public Works Improvement Inspection the public improvement cost) Street or Alley Excavation Permit $127 + per ft. cost 1005. . based on pavement age Encroachment Permit $19 !00 ~ WY~Ii' Miscellaneous Construction Permit $6~4 00e (Construction of curb, sidewalk, driveway Apron, etc.) Dust Suppression Permit $/['~f°0*00N , Driveway Painting Permit $16.00 (includes a can of paint) Right-of Way Closure-Street $19 0 Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(>72 his) t$64:0(f~ r. Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(<72 hrs) $16.00 Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(>72 hrs) $64~. ?t ` " Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(<72 hrs) $16.00 Block Party $16.00 Sidewalk Dining-Annual Renewal (minimum 50 sq. ft) Functional Item-Annual Renewal 6.4406. Special Event Permits (per Resolution 2012-08): Base Special Event Permit Fee (plus applicable fees 0 +4 00 f~}t j below) Events that require city staff overtime t60%ZoftcityjsCaffiO'~ r" Rush Fee (less than 90 days advance notice) $250.00 page 28 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Public Works/Engineering Inspections, Permits, etc. (cont) x - - - - Loaned Functional Item, Pennant Applica- tion $PI3A0 Publication Box Per Publication-Annual Renewal $27.00 Special vehicle Permit-Initial Fee $2721fl.0~ }1 Special vehicle Permit-Annual Renewal ~$0 tclulura r~ Penalty for No Permit 150% of permit cost Street or Alley Vacation $65910 GIS Data & Mapping Services: GIS Hourly Rate Oi1~Y6ilitiirt Information on Disk ut1lit* _ u ~rteinsecuou i . Planning Pre-Application Maps $22.00 Plotting Fee $6.00/square foot New Address Assignment Lt70/a dress #:f! Street Name Approval Fee UO 40` miscellaneous fees and charges page 29 Section 9-Public Works Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees: Sanitary sewer mainline video inspection $3 700 minimum ; (cost based on time and materials) Water Connection Fees: The installation of all new water services and large taps regardless of size will be charged on a time and materials basis. First Utility Locate at an address No C,haarge Additional Locates at same address t$o'~ Water. meter re-read Once in 12 months No Charge Each additional re-read in 12 months $300 lwdilf Water Meter Field Test }b9!C Water Meter Bench Test 3/4" or 1" Water Meter $0 1 1/2" or 2" Water Meter 20,x00 Larger Meters Actual Cost page 30 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Water Connection Fees Continued Water pressure check once in 12 month No Charge Each additional pressure check in 12 months t00 Water Chlorination Test -Subdivision retest upon failure (cost based on time and materials) ga$,63 ;.00 Water Pressure Test -Subdivision retest up failure (cost based on iime and materials) $3g'm AIN Cemetery Fees: Sales of grave spaces or burial plots: (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) Grave Space -Lawn and Monument Sections Grave Space -Baby Land 0*00 r Grave Space -Niches (bronze) ~$J~8 00 Grave Space -Urn garden $160'00 Grave space -Crypt $4;071 bQ Sales of liners and markers: (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) ' Concrete cemetery box, including setting 8!00 Concrete liners Cost plus 10% Final inscriptions $H~15a00 min Ela_"rge ~a+)tglh) 4' rc Grave markers Wholesale cost X 2.5 not to exceed $700.00 Grave marker setting, concrete base $46 . 0 Monticello burial vault (sealed concrete) lit 000 "maw' miscellaneous fees and charges page 31 Section 9-Public Works Sexton Fees: ; , Opening and closing graves, ground $428Ad . glop Opening and closing graves, double-deep $4/81.00'( Opening and closing graves, infant ~0000111~ Opening and closing crypts' $428A01 t, Opening closed crypts $428:00 t.. Opening and closing niches $108:00 1:~~~r1r?i-,_.~ i Qi k I<1111!'j lntereremains m grave spaces $16000 Scattering of cremains $108:00 Ile, Disinterment $1,050:00/in advance t 4~ 1- s' Saturday, Sunday or Holiday burial $ A.o0 + Miscellaneous Fees: Grave Setup Rental $104.(10/occurrence`' y t Tent Rental $53 001day MINOW" tl' Perpetual care lots, sold before 1927 $s00 - Vases: Galvanized $4 0 *cemetery fees will be subject to a 1.5% finance charge per mo ifnotpaid within 60 days of use. All above services will be sold pre-need in installments, interest free, with a minimum payment of one-twelfth of the total sale. 2013 CPI and ENR Calculations: Methodology: Current CPI Rate - Old CY1 Rate/Old CPI Rate % Rate of` Adjustment ($32773 229:292)/229:292= 1:5% Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate/Old ENR Rate - % Rate of Adjustment 9455C98;9267r57)/9267.57 2:11"/0` 3 4AQ CPI used for: ENR used for: Plat & Plan Checks Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees Public Works/engineering Inspections, Permits, etc. Water Connection Fees GIS Data & Mapping Services Cemetery Fees page 32 miscellaneous fees and charge CYlcutvliwi - (NEW-01MOLD _CPi wlhd i14]9)(NB1VJ _ - ~ Mwd 301]a:Pl wbv 311]]l,(OLn) - f236.391=3)T,771)/)1]97)~ASX f_, P ]A11HNi(wlm 970198(N91V) ~.1md~]OIf eNR why 9<5598 (OLD) fYlAl'%_9/55,98)1915593 26fi :yam ...7 , Sad rblx Aar i J 'i ,3DA Sllampb S111AD i111mpM' ~ "1 part - " f130.m p43110.mpb ..I. iMAfpW 1113pOpl6b PaNtlre pai- t 1' a- F SDIm 791A0 EwG AtlryOi 6m lamb t - 1 3191m pln pt]fW mbaN ye Npnmwr fi00.mplppwfedemkud gedpn®a}4'..: )'nle~6wmlPadl . X 1 t i SI9]m i t r i100.Q0 i al l .SEim v pmwitadiamexdxww!(cwiasa Nwrk Nl(r.Staa vY Vw6i5b1 fumi k~ " l:i:l B rlirlPslviee PamE w :.+F ey JNm I "t St1m l pdaiwYloleiky PaaR 3'• t Sitma - SISBO - ply0dwriwww 6ha1 - ;.,,p fD]m { } ?~fS0f~,00 ` a ~ R0.tIdlKyf.)xae EYwMQ)i)xw SHAD ~311NtYlY S]vNN SdaaA(.)ite.a) i ~SICm " y Sltm y 'i-.i . AW'1 fWn'f3wum PukiV 33mP)kkw I is„ SNm ;1 •iY lij S/SAO d i -r t" . Ris_4 T(Vq~f4^^: Pmll4 Epw(<])b.n) Utm 1 + 316.00 t llbckPap 4 3 Sitm 16LY yLv~¢n4a;3 AwmiBm elpa.mwn> - - -sS 1 ` umpw cared e^ r I.- i WUY4.LlSQ_ I lei ~,i~'[ 1'iawbWlaa-AmtlRrprBd - sum ~ cam i i ~iyukQfyeklbdllm Palau AppG[+dxF - f i 3Dlm T .~SDJ.m Fubliu0. Brig PoIEw0a AEaitlllme Y t n5 311m v Bl]m i11 Epode Blf^I_P,uwE Baohe U e itlA3E i. b SI];m i ) ¢¢¢pppoooiiiltle six Jm.t lww min~k OS adr xw 1, amtd brtiQ sNme ] 60KOfdryr4rtwallmv - $iwae vn him5 RIaM1AaIbINsfOdn N veJerl t fem9! 1 SISRm :d Vddob Pamll WIItl Oa G - t $Add VAIeNPevil Auwdpmnid ~l rJ ' i 1 ~~E~i ~ ~ 3111 Em0 1 IyrwNafamR ; i ~ t 1307tNpomhma DO)to(grxlem r Sw31 AILyYBeaim ~f wl• !brim +i 6.- i ila9m t ''--i unm s3FBO + x' C4NeNYM1Ni ] - iprenmbaxp4t -t. Nampa5l(p'ruMpaMisBw -'f11mp NEBpVminyrB'awmx YW WYrer1y01uam Mrpr - t slim Q ? 3 : l 'ifnAO 'yz. . ,NPPWPP v"I +f ~ } Rmpn WwfoW I,' #Z S4AOMIrVe^vGa 'x., f i } Neal Addioi Awtinmml f, Sl)mpa N4 6p l ~Uampr/Aw1 mHa., L ~ fiwj .q :vf ndmlmp6 OW bel IoeoedmNldrjr ~sil~rr4® bus - UISm ulm..d~r T~ J - y s~ T*is• Yde CYnaorlMUxlap w3adkrryNdt Wk.baieax uwe d ekarti WL Arbd Cpol'` , C+ ~~N mAb•ICi•_iaawld4wr t _ xo Cliipe - $ leiylowlwa - Naw. - fHm. _ -.111A0 T _ p~iwa lim' K+., W(Sye ~t, Ne Clwp F]EyNJ]Iw4 weeN411dxW i- t U1B0 y U]AO p-„ li % aa3lmFxTx Stlm r xfmm - auklCVnubTm 9 I ¢•iaNM i ✓'S t tS101m V tllAm IB Q3'1PUawifav - Slnlml , 310(m LuWOUpr Aw. ' AoedCan _ pnxNwdxbwg4llupAi i N Clkivwp l 4 N6 [lip N NdNanJ Pawn Aak 4li'monW ~ _i' 1i19m Y,Y +3_ N0.?i t i 41VperChb0ui0xTx 8daht aialmwa. rrsal aLiwlmek:.W VriNbl 3m13lm 1m p~1LN~grml~lifl SbB OPIwW1 uPh (ikwe(ml_tudb Wx0a_YVU1d _~=~IPi.~ sY-e.•- `1' i•t.' ilm gro~lmv NklmwrnlSuhxr T10t,W' i 'rT lim ~1' iF p_ T UweeWw 1l.k3lena - d {i1m00 b SIS1A0 ✓ { 't Owry lkdiw(6m) YM 3T' z r ~ S1JIm f tlNm ~ st r° A-1-4 l 6aawwa^Iimiudm E Slam r -Sltfmt _ ( t (knVq+o!-Ck]P ' WM w 1 .,SSUIm S s Y c Q~Pe Ilav+~la] w4aoamfy (MIIW 101K i l form ~vl F abaa]Oepe 4 < , ' slsimw. meeap slslmm4b bap. tYrMV i.2 t Sltt3ek MwaUmw isd1 .~.flEam ?m63iae >;eNraava3mOm.Y'.I Omomutgr 3 .f `131ym z F.SIt1B0 7 44 3 Gpaalxrmwt,xwbkur - T1mIglb Wild Rn(4'dN lfl]lm _ ^Sf1.191.a1 nwoWMdebd.-iI4.pemd'_" 4i- t Uai m. i.31H.fo 1/' fl' t bpwlN IabINN tLdeW'<aw9 i HOLM r I] 113fA0 Jt fir;'j ~pmlxp!de3mmpm4 caw 'N i i ~ f Slmmi - t ' : t iil SISSA6 t•( -n L '3 r ,pdro4iedeap p t- 1 -r`'ar 's s{ H1R00 ~ F HH.m ~ ~ _ + l i. OAdywl kKtBnkker 4 k ilO1~ED SIIOm Ti OsmWeMNri4k + ✓ Woo SuUNn3dY:yxmma z r e a •'"SIOfm 7 t f 4 t f SIIQ~0 ✓ 'i .:~i( t:i pslm p]id4ek - L d IMbuawml i £fl: `Slc vy SIfNm.paabN I y- Slilt ]selmdn A++!6Y xawy4da f rry _ roam . + - i :u31.m ✓ - I pr &wp Rmla 4; - SI06.mbixmN "SlRf m/wrvrmpt V Tal Rawl ~i 1 1 t s iJ]OOWtl - t t.' ESSNBedp-i~ -'i.- T f vk ~hrymdmbq pkrwe lPli-' x it r.*3 t xStmm J '"SIi0.a9 Oar3^Wi s r ..Y... Ya... z-. ...,-SU mom.?.. ..L ...i .,A... _...._..:311,Qp..~.✓ _ o:r.tavyM4+m•nainlmi r+~rr.u.ri:.~w IAIM VISM ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 SO. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 COMMISSIONERS: ,r•'"" Don Robertson Mike Gardiner _ Director Rick Landt Jim Lewis TEL: (541) 4WS340 Sielani Setlingor 1 FAX: (641) 48&5314 Vanston Shaw MEMORANDUM TO Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director FROM Rachel Dials, Recreation Superintendent DATE 4-18-14 SUBJECT Fees and Charges-Ashland Parks and Recreation In 2006 the Parks and Recreation Commission set a goal of reviewing fees and charges for the Ashland Parks and Recreation Department.each year in November. The annual review includes fees and charges associated with the Calle Guanajuato, North Mountain Park Nature Center, . Ashland Senior Center, adult and youth recreation programs, indoor and outdoor reserved facilities, the Oak Knoll Golf Course; the Daniel Meyer Pool, and the Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink. As of this date, the Parks Commission has not reviewed fees and charges and.moving forward will sync up the process with the biennium budgets. Staff did find a few corrections and omissions from previous reviews that are highlighted below and reflected in the proposed document. They are: Special Event Application Fee $25.00 (omitted from document) Ballfield Lights $34.00/hr (scheduled for increase in 2014) Calle,Guanajuato-Restaurant Seating $7.00/sq. foot(scheduled for increase in 2014) Swim Lessons $40/$42/$48 (adjusted in 2012) Adult Hockey Admission $5.50 (omitted from document) Youth Hockey Admission $5.00 (omitted from document) Ice Skating Private Lesson $10.00 for 30 min (omitted from document) Youth Hockey Punch Card $45.00 (omitted from document) Adult Hockey Punch Card $50.00 (omitted from document) Open Skate/Kids Only Punch Card $30.00 (omitted from document) Helmets $8.00 (omitted from document) Home of Famous Lithia Park CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Continuance of a Public Hearing and First Reading of two separate ordinances amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Maps, Transportation System Plan, and Street Standards to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan FROM: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, Brandon.Goldman@ashland.or.us SUMMARY These two ordinances amend the Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. A Normal Neighborhood District Land Use code amendment is presented for discussion only. It will be reviewed as part of a separate legislative action in the upcoming months and is intended to be included in the Unified Land Use Ordinance. Given the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements this Draft Land Use Ordinance, this language is presented for Council consideration, discussion, and direction at the May 6th hearing. The Normal Neighborhood Plan will guide future development associated with approximately 94 acres of unincorporated lands within Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary. It attempts to implement existing City land use policies that promote the construction of diverse housing types and a neighborhood network of connected streets, walkways and cycling facilities, while requiring integration of, and protection for, the neighborhood's natural areas, consisting of wetlands, creeks and associated floodplains and riparian areas. BACKGROUND In March of 2011 the City Council directed the Community Development Department to apply for a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a neighborhood master plan for the 94 acre Normal Neighborhood area. Having received the grant award in May 2012, an extensive public involvement process was undertaken to develop the plan. Public engagement included 32 public meetings where the viewpoints of a variety of participants including the general public, property owners and neighboring residents affected the plan's evolution. On December 2, 2013, the City Council received an update on draft plan which had been discussed by the Transportation Commission and Planning Commission at their September, October, and November meetings. The final Normal Neighborhood Plan and draft implementing ordinances were initially presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 25, 2014. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the final plan on March 110, and completed its deliberations on April 8, 2014. Page I of 3 pr, CITY OF ASHLAND The Normal Neighborhood Plan is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document, official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, and the proposed Normal Neighborhood District land use ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.13). Collectively these documents create the underlying physical form and regulatory structure for the area's future development. Development of this area is expected to occur in an incremental way, as individual parcels propose annexation for specific housing developments. The adoption of a Neighborhood Plan for the area will ultimately provide a general framework for evaluating future annexation requests to ensure that in addition to housing the coordination of streets, pedestrian connections, utilities, storm water management and open space is considered as part of development proposals. A detailed description of the proposed Normal Neighborhood plan's land use, transportation, and open space, frameworks is provided in the attached Planning Action Staff Report (PL-2013-01858) NEXT STEPS Upon approval of first reading of the Normal Neighborhood Plan's implementing ordinances, the final plan and ordinances, as amended, will be presented to the City Council for second reading. The Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be presented for legislative approval as part of the Unified Land Use Ordinance hearing process and will be forwarded to the City Council following the Planning Commission's public hearing and deliberation. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Transportation Commission The Transportation Commission took public testimony, reviewed the Existing Traffic Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 12, 2012) and the Future Traffic Analysis (dated November 19, 2013) over the course of three meetings on September 26, October 24, and November 14, 2013. Upon review of the materials provided and deliberation the Transportation Commission approved a motion (3-2) to recommend elimination of two of proposed new street connections to East Main Street, leaving only the new Normal Neighborhood Collector connection in its proposed location. Prior to this motion the Commission was split with a 3-3 motion to approve the transportation element of the plan as proposed. Housing and Human Services Commission The Housing and Human Services Commission did not hold a public hearing regarding the draft plan and as such provided no formal recommendation pertaining to plan adoption. Upon being updated on the plan and future development potential of the area, the Commission did express the importance of the area in meeting Ashland's affordable housing needs and the emphasized the value of integrating affordable housing throughout the plan area consistent with the requirements of the City's annexation ordinance. Planning Commission The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Normal Neighborhood Plan's land use framework, transportation framework, open space framework, and implementing ordinances with specific recommended amendments as outlined in detail in the attached Planning Commission Report dated April 22, 2014. Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff believes the revisions that have been made over the last 15 months have refined and improved the neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the on final goals and objectives for the planning project. Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, and adopting of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a technical supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance amending the Transportation System Plan maps and Street Standards handbook to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street Network as proposed. The Future Traffic Analysis conducted as part of this planning effort found that all existing intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within operational standards at full build out of the plan area. Further the report confirms that each of the planned street intersections with East Main Street are expected to function within applicable mobility standards upon the improvement of East Main Street to meet City standards to include sidewalks and bike lanes. The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance will be reviewed as part of the broader Unified Land Use Ordinance amendment process. However, given the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements, the City Council is asked to provide recommendations on this ordinance as part of tonight's hearing. SUGGESTED MOTION(S): Individual motions are required to address each of the proposed ordinances separately: I move to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to add a Normal Neighborhood Plan designation to Chapter II [Introduction and Definitions], Change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation for approximately 94 acres of land within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary from Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential to the Normal Neighborhood Plan Designation, and adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a support document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan," and move the ordinance on to second reading. I move to approve the first reading by title only of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance amending the Street Dedication Map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map, and Planned Bikeway Network Map of the Ashland Transportation System Plan for the Normal Neighborhood Plan area, and amending Street Design Standards within the Street Standards Handbook to add a new Shared Street classification," and move the ordinance on to second reading. I move to recommend the Draft Land Use Ordinance for the Normal Neighborhood District be incorporated into the Draft Unified Land Use Ordinance (as amended) to be reviewed under a separate legislative action. ATTACHMENTS: All attachments can be found in the May 6, 2014 agenda packet: http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavlD=16238 Page 3 of 3 ~4, Normal Neighborhood Plan Brief Summary The Normal Neighborhood Plan District is situated between East Main Street to the north and the railroad tracks to the south, Clay Street to the east and the Ashland Middle School to the west. Currently, the 94 acre area has a mix of Comprehensive Plan designations including about 50% single family residential (minimum 4.5 units per acre) and 50% suburban residential (minimum 7.2 units per acre), and is presently outside the City of Ashland (City) city limits but within the City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Land Uses The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN-01, NN-2, NN-03, and NN-03-C distributed throughout the plan area as follows: 37.25 acres of NN-01: The Land Use designation NN-01 is intended to provide single family SX 2% land use Distribution dwellings, accessory residential units, and cottage within 94 acre Neighborhoc housing with a base density of 5 units per acre. n~ 0 NN-01 y«Y`LliW 50.25 acres of NN-02: The NN-02 designation 0 NN-02 provides housing opportunities for individual households through development of a mix of single-40% ■ NN-03 dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes, accessory ga ys ■ NN-03C residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered III, housing with a base density of 10 units per acre. * 4.25 acres of NN-03: The NN-03 land use designation is intended to address Ashland's housing needs through development of multi-dwelling housing with a base density of 15 units per acre. Note, the Planning Commission has recommended the maximum height allowance be increased to three stories in both the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones. The current limit included in the proposed ordinance is only 2.5 stories and as such Council would have to direct staff to make such an amendment plan. 2.25 acres of NN-03: C the NN-03-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-03, however it would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such as a coffee shop on the ground floor. Open Space In addition to the designated residential Land Uses noted above the plan also calls for the establishment of approximately 26.5 acres designated as Conservation Areas, or 28% of the total project area. Although these areas do have an underling residential zone they would not be developable under the plan, however the allowable housing density could be transferred to areas outside of these natural areas under the plan. The Open Space Network Map shows the areas intended to be preserved as natural areas or open space within the district which absent of any environmental constraints would additionally provide recreational amenities to the districts residents. Page 1 of 2 Transportation The Normal Avenue neighborhood's internal street network has largely been designed to keep travel speeds in the range of 20 mph by introducing elements such as a planted median, small traffic circles, and subtle changes in direction at block intersections. The backbone of the street network is a re-routed neighborhood collector that extends from the southern intersection at a future improved Rail Road Crossing, to East Main Street between Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek. Including this new Neighborhood Collector, there are three proposed intersections with East Main Street, located to distribute traffic to and from the neighborhood onto East main. This distributed interconnected grid was reviewed in the Future Traffic Analysis report by SCJ Alliance found that all existing intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within operational standards in the year 2038 at full build out of the neighborhood plan area. The Report further noted that East Main Street Should be improved to meet City street standards as an "Avenue" including sidewalks, bike lanes, and potentially a center turning lanes at the proposed intersections. Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADD A NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGNATION TO CHAPTER II [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS], CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 94 ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF ASHLAND URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN DESIGNATION, AND ADOPT THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN FRAMEWORK AS A SUPPORT DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Annotated to show delefiens 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 at a duly advertised public hearing on March 11, 2014 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on April 8, 2014, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on May_ 2014, 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 Page 1 of 3 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 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 City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS] is hereby amended to add the following new Section [NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 2.04.17] and to adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework s amended, as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan; former Section 2.04.17 is renumbered [PLAN REVIEW 2.04.18], to read as follows: PLAN REVIEW (2.04.17) NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (2.04.17) This is a residential area that promotes a variety of housing types including single family, attached, and multi family residential, with densities ranging from 5 to 15 units per acre. This area implements the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2014) to accommodate future housing, neighborhood scaled business, create a system of greenways, protect and integrate existing stream corridors and natural wetlands, and enhance overall mobility by planning for a safe and connected network of streets and walking and bicycle routes. PLAN REVIEW (2.04.18) SECTION 3. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The document entitled "The City of Ashland Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2014)," attached hereto as Exhibit B, and made a part hereof by this reference is hereby added to the above-referenced Appendix to support Chapter II, [INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS] of the Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 5. The officially adopted City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map, adopted and referenced in Ashland Comprehensive Plan Chapter 11 [PLAN MAP 2.Q3.04] is hereby amended to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation of approximately 94 acres of land inside the urban growth boundary from Single Family Residential and Suburban Residential, to the Normal Neighborhood Plan designation including designated Conservation Areas as reflected on the revised adopted Comprehensive Plan Map, attached hereto as Exhibit C, and made a part hereof by this reference. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 6. 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 7. 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, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-6 need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of '12014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Il, Introduction and Definitions. - 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 2. Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2014) by Ordinance on , 2014! Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (2005/2007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009. Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 Chapter XII, Urbanization The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, ChapterXll, Urbanization. 1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 15, 2011. d' _ T I ' fJ Y } y' O lo, ,~Jl - O 3 nr' r r ralc f "I C1 m 3 , W i Y O 3 R E R LL c m FL c m D z o z 0 L m 3 O > n m L Z O1 Z - z m c m E 0 N z O U a c m m N J C _ W E m W c o+ 9 c W m 3 a 0 c c Y 3 y o 6 ~ W U N L U Q m E m O v `m m - E E `m m a c O u, UI m ° C Y Q o c `o = 0 0 c v 0 c n o a r c A m 3 2 L O D C N C C Z E m N > N Q a o L m m m o R r n c O m t d' J C m R C d C C m _ U L c ~ o f ° m a~ ~ o Y w m ~ ~ y n m U 0 m c o °c t~mn x N C > ~ N D C D m ~ « m T O C C ~ m ` p m o m ° v° O 0 m ' A ~ C A F- LL J d ~ m o d c m _ m w~ c E m o c c ~ - c m U L c O a°i a i m E m `m ~ m u F ~ m o a~ E=°~ o a o d n [a c c R L v to z t7 m c R m m LL o c V. N n L m R E T y C O~ R a UI Q m~ R m « R W C m D m O O h R c E 0 c J O N Wu E R d a- t c - c o n ° Q _ N m t y ` ui m ` C m Y U R m O m o O C > Q m Q V 2 O > O O Q jU pp w W O m N> w E N > C R O 0 C d« !n U T •p 2 W T .11 m a w W L O D R R U L d 0 d CO n a J z r F 6 R H U) W R F U ry N N N M ~ E d q C ~ i O C O .q O d C A F a 0 W a ~ W H V ~ ¢ J W F m ~ K Z IA ¢ ¢ C ~ Z O F z 3 N LA e v r N M V w V1 ~O T Q\ N N N V1 b n n OJ C r r d C O V w K O Q d O a vi f w w N x x z Q s o V O Z 2 3 ~ w d Z F- O O E 0 V z w ~ Q U Z o N N Z O ¢ ¢ p O Z ~ p o > O U Z Q O ~ O H Q o H m J p N p w w ~o p W < 3 2 asy w Q z >i z Z Z ¢ z 00 u r U m0 O Q w F m Y ¢ w ¢ D vwi 'v p U z w¢ z z 0 0 3¢ F z¢¢ z r Z O r N o i p Z = w> w w z z G O vt Z W Z > > LL W F m K z- Q d F x X O > > Q O w w w ¢ F U Q O Z d w U lL = J 2 w Q Z O Vl Q Vl O H z r N M a Y N N N N N N 3 E m LL C ~ 0 C d Y ~ N U N O1 O 2 Z O L C C E ~ O O ~ ~ O > ~ T y Ol W L ~ ~ m Z OI O L L z 3 3 ~ m m v v 3 ` E v v E Z O O L v o N p t L v v o_ v U c m ° L L -O J ~ O N T 3 J N Z Z V W ~ Q Q Q Q Q C iL FT FT ~T F>` rT ~ c v C W W d ~ d tO ` L q in in in in V a J C 3 O f N N M V N m n W O\ O O N d' ~O t~ ~ O N M ~ N N N N ~ 01 N C Y L N d ¢ m m m ut Y c c p -o M Y Y d _ L Z a d .3 v, " w a v z v ~ ~ 3 c a v v 3 v E v ~ in L a j t7 p Oc 3 c v v >L.. « m v v - Q a 0 m 3 3 p' in x c ,z c c 4 4 4 ° ¢ A = Z z z D u v v V o t E E o 3 z z z Y ¢ ¢ v o `o A w m o r r s a 3 m E s a ¢ v v v c o 3 3 3 c w g E`o v 'v 'a - T "O j C OJ v - "O 'O '6 O_ Z O Z Z Z Z a 'O C O N O N v J N d d W Q c N N O > G : O O O O N O m d m Q Q Q Q Q m VI u A = YO ~ v ¢ ¢ ¢ rLa v ~ ~T YT a~T ~T f M WO Ul .n E v~ C N N N d N N ~ C N ~n O xtx0 UI UI UI UI ip Ul !0 ` `1 v d v d d V J V W V W 7) O U O U V1 N N N Vf V1 LL u 2 I V v E o v ~ A 3 ° c c o c Q °c. 4 a ° ~C v 0up c m E L N u 6 E w .d O° " 4 C y A L L ~ OG9 'V v. ~ v .yA. .y 'O C N w ~ u a o v m c A c~ ° r v °o, c u o o. .c ` ~ V CC L° v A 3 o c u ~ u ~ N u O u L ~ E` ~ d U A G C ° ° 2 v c n en o a .5 -o ° .A ~ A G - v V p, u `n ~ V ~ H o.b u .G G t .ro M u- v L y` y ~ y C A F 6 w ~ O. ~ C G .yA. ~ L' ~ u u v ~ CO O r E v g A V m A E a ~r m° E -v" E v s A A T o o. E v= s ypy °c' °yAy' v c ,c° o f m E p z m~ D9 v C~ v = M a C ro~ G N C v 0 > .u. ~ d o E v L °S v 'G p, O m b ° C h o C v o V u v u~ y=" m d m o A o an m y ~ `v o v' E o y v S Q -moo c o b° O e v N A A u A° c o s` v L° o`n c :ti " T o 'o ' a O E E~ m v m u° Ea .E v 3 v .:E A v o r L h O v j u u Z Fc A E v°d 3 o d 'tr -o 3 LL C y m a } n 0 0 s 0 ~ i L m Z Y ~ m E 0 Y 1^ ' O x ~ Yj YY'il 11 A' m ~ LL gab m T,L y n "A m 1 O 0 C ~ wp Y c. J 16 0 Z = l1 ~ G 3 Yb IPPh'lOw14~11 ~ ; F C N b b 79 E o .S r -2 u 7R -5 2 N o m G° 2 a a, o v s o o " -O n :c E c ° u_ v E ,q d W h a a 7 ° Cu u v o °T v -v .n z u o "c u c o`o v u m - y ~ T v. v ~ v G S u ~a y O O v 4. GA m ~ Q C w v L' -tl b U b 'o v E C .d 6 c E m C o C O T 6 0 'C 7 u a U -M C - w E u 3 a.t -j O emu, u a O NN O u u v' ~2 > > w G c u R n G u d ~ `o O `tl a s v .G '0 ro -5 G v ~J o rt 2 ~ ~ N .U v C L T V7 ? 'b rJ- 4_, Q 3 v v u j A G E U v' u c E o v u ° v o v c v u c a. ¢ m A u c ,u., o c x r v o a -a V v q v u v4 -o E Q en m c o = G o ° 0 o Uo .G u o o E T c ~u o¢ s a~, E E~p u v 7 .x 'd 'G °o u a wt u G o v ~ ~ ~ v cc o u o O o v> c u y c C ❑ Gu`tl. r E rz x E s c v n c c y° ° c O L n u u G o ~°,n E 'S E v r d Z' v J> o o r .c V Z L V Iz- 'A c `o .v > o '>c~ Z s :T °o E v o a C v y -n O E o u Ka c v~ o r v o 2 0 `o u .c v w b u~ .S '5 E 3 In o U z u H o .S .E ° In Z N s 3 Fr N v ~ L .E ~ C b ~ L` OCO 4 u.. a o v o v v V i, C o E o m v v o ~ v c v v ~ ~ v v y o~ 'o u c ~ ~ c. 'Lr ~ `o y 3 r v u `u ~ a s o' ~ o ~ v Y n ~ LU _2 L V .C v O ~ iE O v ~ E d z ~ 3 4~ v v v' .Q 6 v a~ V ro v ° a ~c = v ~c E E o n ro o o: o, ~ v u~ c c c m 5 ro o C ~ -9u 3 o U E 'c y r m ~ Lv ,c o z cc ~ .o..~ °u 'N V u ro c 3 .r C v o. . -vo ~ o p, o -n .o m P 'c" c o ~ A A o c m m v n v 'b, ~ c v ~ y ° ~ n a ~ ~ v 'o ~ r .a c 00 ~ ~ $ e o c ~ c P: v b pp C G ~ .ai. O .D N rt~ c y 'D C v v 'V i^~ ~ m u B~ v ry y F ~ 'u_` a u E u w v 7 0. y r o. ut L .y a° _ o v~ c^ u ° E -b 3~~ ~ v ~ v 'c o u .5 vn• .y q o. v~ u ~ C ~ L; y u v v > c a -d v K > u E o d o, v Q_ v c o N .E ~ E vv. C u -uo E .9 U A° v -o E a 3 .°-1 C 'b 7 t.. u v om ~ .E ~ C z ~ v .n 5~~ V c v « a v~ ti o$~ b o o v u u c 4~ o. ~O `c ~ 01 0. o u c ~ u o r .a n y 'a -o ~ G :n o m ,L. p g o c o, -v a '{r o -v U Q 3 O -o o `u °u c .5 E ~n S c O yw~pp ~ j .V 6 ~ e Y F ~ S 3 3 O ` 3 A l OMD~W t i' AwlLawu) O 3 d E m _ LL ZtMpuepM C (0 a 'o r o = L ®c O 6M M a L y ~ t ~ i z t6 8 E 0 Z Y a O 3 ' jet. I ~ ~ M 1{~w 7p T ,,44: . I a I - m NIr/ ~ T+ c m _ v 4 ~ "O y r. C O u ~ ayv. ii -p u v O ~ _W 7 C tc O b v L C o ~ 3 .c c s' o f ~ v `m o v a c c w e r^ u E m a ;a y_~ G 'v ~ -G V v o on o c ~ ? ma c °o a 3 o ~ T E ~ ,r e~ c a Gq C ~ z L ~ ~ d a L G C ~ 6 T C L O is C y '=4 n z~ A 'E G ~ '3 x E c v 9 C~C m v N G .i v>~ ~ G O" U m n Z• a E b o y o. Y c 0 a 'a ° `v m n~ v ~ 'o c v O .a c v 4 ~ 3 .9 ❑ v t` a t; 7 0. .C _ C G ~ y m u E s -o v a v E$$° m °c° 3 2 c o .E u v v. u LL o v a W o u u j C tL C Icp v O ~ G 7~ t~ Q~ O v o 6 ~ y v 4 G. 1L V O sv o v~ GO CC9 O e0 O F" E L L c~c u 'v u W .m d U C w 4 O E v v c rt N u 0 R n cN 0 C F O ry v v 'r° y 'u ~ o c „so, v c m v? N o f -o E o r 3z ~ 6¢ .C b o n h l7 C C E O. W L~ u C v L ~ 3~ v u O 7 m s C E T A _ C W LA v 3 7 v° o° d A v v a y D .y 'Z c o G v E° c w c E° M Q o' ~ `a o v E° s ~ ,o 0 0 ~ a o 'o v o. Z` m "u ~ c J o c" o. 'c iO o `u" G -ti ~a u c. v u v -a c '~iv a+ 'q 3 ~ m Z L g v -n 3 °u E o, n y o E c -3 0 ° Q v z, a .rJ 0 7 u - 'E v s o E l7 sen u v E N 5 s a E E v E s _ w E c z G L 'O R 3 b N " v v O c v n' i~ s O u A O v E o 3 0 'O 'y 7 G a y o 0 o m u 3 c O yv!~ o c v a~ v 1u- ~ o' ~ ~ r ~ w _v ~ C ~ c E v A_ y L 1 ~ ~j N ~ v s ~ c A ' ~ i C ~ `G 2 O C~ / d o a t N z m R _ lC go Z z N E Do o ggt Z a M Z SIE 2 2 2 r Q Z Z S m ~w.. • AA ~ C x bJ xg F LL ~ e ~ Y S c U ~I _ CL c m a d of s m a m L C ~ Z UI ~ 2 rn o i c O h Z c j o 3 3 Vd) v 9 J I t I y c m c tQ 11T' ~Q{~ {y it C c~ 9 ; ~ q~yY O ~ `j . a3 S b d C U C P v "O ZJ w "O ~i .2 E U. Ei :c v O C .S L v v C O E H h v C q v y L O~ v~ L C y0 Q -fj h; o L 'v E Q o E a E v m V .E c v c ,b m c 3 ro iY 3 E "y o ~ 'z .n > ~ c co o -d o, c .A -n y v - m 4 0 o u o o b o .d u . 0 °c b u v. 0 Y 6 j J _rt L ~ z v v U W C v .y 3 O C Oq a a ~ o u 3 i v c en 2. A m y ~ - c v 3 .5 E v o v 7 s A~ v s _ a o A o y r~ ~ M v ~v E Ft ~ -c m o v o v v o on o c E .a o ° L ~ m o .v L 3 ~ o. u ~ n e u e A x e `o e o c ro ° - m e v? o a~ ~ 'O O w Z ~ Ly v ~ 2 u -C "b -a ;D u > CCn v_ 'L O u .E ~ ~ ° 'a u3 .E ° u L =a E E v v n. E v c c x c C ~ ~ N o M ~ c E °q v c .E v E o 3 a y _T v E s 'E ° c q '3 u y u 'd eo v b u o E 1-4 'o v c d 33 o.°C 13 v c u o? o d q t0 FE C O U L~ O h^ F c s v E EE E E n-;3O Z c, c E o o v c r E c o - ° r W ro Z o m E L°y° y o e il: i s m v a E o dO 2 c. 3 m .5 E n -d o v° q o c ro o -VO O E G v o a .o ; o W `N o. E'^n a t .E 3 C " E N L o c u .ro v n z E O~ O p ~ E U N v C N ~ p O y z .OV = b w ~ h L~ ~ v ~ O U 3 A s O q v° SF~ z q v F o. c .E ° .c° rv .E o 2 u C i 5 m m 0 C ~ m -v Len c = o Z E 'n .v. u n v o w E c A c L1 a L o L~~ E ~ 2" m y tv. On 'ly y L V N CC q '9 N v v°i L L L R i~ O y v C .'7 L a E a 3 .E 5 on Q vv V Q 3 5 c E 3 y E o. v c° v v° c 3 u _3 v v .c° c °c° c= u v P_' ❑ v L ~ 'y 3 s E v s 3 ~ 'c v c = c n s m u c 3 -b u y a L m :d Q v ~ 3 c ~ ° u p° ~ b yce 3 0 ~ 3 ~ o ~ O u m .,y c m L - a Ca r~ v~ o C ~ ~ m c -p 3 o_L c ro A en o v' S c m ° - 9? c m eo c ` 12 c~ o~ .c° < ~ v o. d u o Q 3 'c" L u c a. `n 'a ~ 3 s c c .C e v o 'L" -v u o y Z w o m o 'v Q b$ -d m Q b 3 ti c R Z a~i °u v c L o L r o c v O V 'b v W v 'L" z -O- 2 L v G e~i E 'E N v¢ m A L v O. O L K~ p p L O L .C ~ C M vv. E b ~ Z m° ~ c rn c v v u v c v~ ~ .E Y o E ~ 'S ~ L Z a 'E c y v a m c c v Z O v A c w v= m v~ E 3 L ro a v~ c °o v K°~~~ O C Cp O G _N s C E v s a v v u v A u U .b 3 N p v O, z 73 72 o in v d ~ ~ ',g. I ~r W ~ • V ~~Y~~ ~ c 41 1 ~ ° I N t A~V y1~ E J C I 1r ~ e C O r~X r{'~ 'f _ x I ` i o i 3 I m e m I a ~ 0 L n L 1 0 E_ mri m a i rn O > L ~ ~ 4t Z m e, u ' C _ 2 N E O a -U c d o O .D H Z Op y ` O C #i' 't ~'Ai J J 'O p~ L N u v c E s 'ti ~ r ~ ~ ' d C v ~ N u R ~ .E~ b~ G m 7. z v o v L 00 u- « C p o ro 'c 3 v.>_ o E v .E "O 5 Go .o v o. r u ° o. 0 2 o h E¢ Ate`- v u E `m E 'n o v E v M y '-0 3° u c- E ~ o L ~ E o ~ E ~ o m ~ v v o b pp a Ca a< .3 ~ c~ m u o o _ u o c o 3 "rT v u m u v r .c O c c E L, o° v v c °i N . o A c 'EE u E - c a3, y .c .y°. v° o 0 0 .u y y .v o v .E a a y L v v 3 -a y v c o v c ~ v v E m-' `o o~ h ,`v, u E E E u ~ 3 em=u o ° ~ 3~ E ~ ~u u v~ = .u a E o° 'c ~ y o 3 E u 3 x ¢ -d 3 ❑ 3 v v. b O. E ° E ` a ro E u y _v, C 4i m C U C 'V `o r y u 7 y a v v N N 4~ u E q "b ~ 'N-' C v b v O `n N C E 'E 4 ~ 3 u d m n o. ~ ~ E u .v. v v N y E ~ o y E ~ .c ~ 'V C O .a R y m u C a o y A -p ~ v m a v c '9 > vu m" m y o v c E c C v a p y 'o Q v v G 'u 3 0 ° aY~i v y 0 0 4[ p y ° E E o w a v .a a v ~O 'a .m v o o d o; t .c° ~ .E cv. o Q o y E v a ~ o y ~ nv' D 'ry v ~ ao m v o v d C L 'C v Q~ c O y ~ C f' " o ~ ,.0 3 U 4 6"n Ca n r C v C~ G u N W T ~ a ~f °T 3 -E Az Q ~ E L~ c L cn S m-~ i r, c N c Z. m b E~ 0 c~ u o v L O v m S ~ u ^i~ ~ E v OU E~ v u "s4 u c x n. .c q ~ ~ v ° v o ~ o m o~ a .d ~ . N -b + L ~ N j• L O r v c y c' 7i E~ ,c, > c :x n L ~ ~ O •O 4 E m ~a v ~ 06 N L L B m 0' C u J x .K m L rt ~ ° 0 .C C f0 Q v f ~ E_ v v v 4 eD v M D W (Up r a a E U ,cu m~ rn O v L w ~p C 'D v V C 0 .a m y V A E m v E t~ o u v u E.m. IRD C .v 0 E .v., 'a7 0 vo t o N N 7 N C C C ~ ~ C = v u L E Of m -LO -Fd ~ v~ o E v c E E m ~•~i. c. N v ~ u c v v v c o V . ~E GO ~ U E G L .•.q ~ • 'I l0 ro ~ 'E A ry O .L y 4 N N p [1 '.111- -'I. O g c ~ v c ~ x m ~ ; LL o v .o c ❑ L ~ ~ m 9 Y E ~ ~ c CL m 0 a) v m Q > 02 01 CO.~ N O O N rt v, LL G~ E m ti~. ~ r C Y S L G. C r t~ ~ m I: ~ m 16 ~ ~ n t u m U ~ v E o '0 c ° c c v E o u v u O .b L ~ C~ G .pp L G b G ~ L Z a x o s G ~ x~~ s o Y O 3 m m a o N E o LL "dJ S a a M z (D m °o Z I =rn ~ z t = ~ a Z N> > o 3 m > a ~ z O C a ~ _ a a z a d J r 1n - Z 3 3 ~ K ~ p o - c m - E a O z VI ? c d w m ° VI ~ U a m ~ m K a a - J ~ C C •0 =y m C C m N O 2~' c = Z N ~ ~ e m C i 02 3 J i a Q N av~ _ a F ( a . yU ~ N ~ n N r .t c n a ~ ~ V Z v va a V 3 ~ vp - Q ~ 0 H° M m ! ~s~ N z z z zz NUJ u 0 - ~ k~ _a F w d o „ fy I a o I :L~iftl• lS7 a c F - A _.O. G b p E y dj G~ L G v ? W r o f C k G~ C v:: O y v L > b O 'J .bC y 3 a E o 15 v L L C d E 43 u tG u 7 y O .d v G ° p C ° 6~ n C°p H C a'~ ~ G d C w "D 72 v ° v° v' c o ~ S o. W L A E c v w a c o. v E v -a o ~ o c c y v o c c. '3 v G q 'y v yy. tb v N 3 b 2 L T 7 'c v F~ c c v m o u u h u L'' tt m e y o x m i x u .c o c v v c o o. s o° L r c ~ c o pp v L o y u A O O O .b v ~n u b u = ie .E o v L C ~ C 'E ll C C ~ ~ A ro a c m B c o. o 3 a o o $ L`° ° u -S G o -4 cc r, 2 E lJ E N c.. ~ 2 E U o s _ w c of E v o v c n .d c .e'> E v v v m Z G 'cr c v a W y ti ,o E v a o„ yvy E o v o d u I 'm ? m DG C G v °1 o O- t° o ~ E °F~ :b g 3 3 0 Z Am L ° mL e A- E - m O G v J C u 'O G 3 O o w c= m ~ o ,v, b v c n L ,Z u G O ~ y rt 7 tVUi N 0. E 2O2 L N v O N _rv V A v G L Q= ° 0 3 3° d E v v U z ~ v E ro v 'o o c ~,a ° v Q o 3 o ro ~ v y N c C C E .v v ~ b E w 3 ~c c c v v E A -o pW[ V V U C Z l7 h o ro o w °u m n Z'? 3° N m s c v s Y m o 43 LL O L O C O R Q b O 4 -Q Co u v A O 3 o m S EL °O 4. L .2 e v C v v L C C u 7 v v O ao y 3 c 'o v .c. c° T 'O a d c v° 3 y o rn '2 S ~ o• o ~ v ~ u ~ v_ .oo 'a ° t 'u" ~ o E 2~ ~ ~ .tl u~ v I o v[~ ~ w v o, v z Z ~ O v 7 v L ~.U., i G u q G .F, O L C 5 ~ v ~n b V - v v c V 3 `u° L u° o v a s 4 3 0= 0 3 -o S c Z v 00 0, 72 v N G ° m E _ T H O 72 j p P a- C o V s sJ v s L ° y "v u u 7 N o v w° v °1 3 3 C a ro ~ v~ E o u m cu L o m .a E .x u y -0 s 3 a 7 'O v O C LT y v L o u L b u v d o o E E c ,2 'occo K y y N w ° 3 i u c c. v s c o `o E c c o `L " v c °O^ u E ,Ev ° u ti u c c v 'a 0 by c E v y a d a 'd v> o r c o m FL c °o u ~ s' ro v ~ 'o 3 a .3 b ~ .u ~n ~ ° c ° ¢ c v cc R v ~ a c c o v v v v E c L E ~cun m Ft 3 0 v" o 3 m o. o c° L U 4 m 3 m 0 ,emu °c o E uu A 5,,° E E E o o v v 7 v o c a I "c u- E y v 3 o L c N ° u ~ 2 ~ E o m° c "4 o A c L n u b c A .e o 'v c c L, ~ m a E 7? ro o m ' O ~ m y ~ v C v v y v ~ C O O m O E m 3 'C ~ O v CG9 0 ~ O 2 c E s .o V v E u C .v E o n. u c A; v E Q T u 3 c~ .c ~ v E E i -o v o a v ~ 3 y, L, O ~ N G C O 4y y y O. ° o E m 'O- aa o 3 c A c c^ a E C v u u 7 C 'D R `y v " C v O m v° q v v> v 5 0 o u u v a u 0 u o 3 m~ 3 -n 3 o. q G m 3 <n ''S s s' ° E J." E h v c. Y O - 3 a x a E m m a a c w s 0 T V U v o d 3~ .G ~ ~ ~ a~ = v o ~ 4 o u m L O~ ~ O G ~ o u C W~ x h V L v N L W V~ u 0 .k E m w u `o c a. i y -ti o ~ a en E x c 3 c v ~ c c 0 3° o o v V b v ~ O. O =d v v C A W ~ L v v v u LO y .y C Eq "O •q 00 ~a ~ O L 'O a`3 v v v v E U ro v o u pp u o u 3 e E c E h u 'v o o. u WO N O L D. yyQ1. d G 0. [ ~ °cy° cc o s o> r E z c° L O E "O C G G O y0 .L v W N ~ o E o m t o a v o 3~ v v m N r 6 i Is~l• N " C ' aa~ ~ x. O 11 v . v c r r _ N O A "S ~ t ~1 I _ V' 3 1 g d r d s , a 3 !-7 E i '7. •O E m ~'D n'J Y~' q z,. , _ C Y 0 02 2 z CT L - - ~ll' ~ , J Q d O i Z I - ~ gr ~ C y y J SIf SIN Z O Z Illo! W L [I s m _ v c 3 'G y a~ u y C C S u o° 7 'E av. v v o on'° E v y LL H u 5 W u v o e E m a v o o v a v ,v o c v z v v c u v o. °o v v m a c y v o c a s 'c '2 0 m w v o r> u a E 3 v; o v u~ .c E 3 3 ' m o rj ~ :7 ~ c ~ o ~ ~ ~ o o 'u L ~ o m o o v o E '3 A G o z c~ o ❑ c ?n v a E i L u o c -5c c v z `o L 5 E v E 4 v .c y v :ti v c O1 v~ c" c o 'S v C Z Z m ~c o n en .a y E W> .a c o r b o 3 y 2 v o u .3 v v z E 4 o z¢ c o. `o ? E o E ,c - v v v z_ v A Z 0 5 0 o c A V o vn..~ m° Z v xu E ro U vu v u v w e w u u ti r c u a o v 4 N `O u v O y v"i o' "fj G 'n 4 C ~n G. d G o 4 o m c Q `2~ u m .5 v 'S E o ~N J S V 'vi vE V L a v s L v c E m (j v . U ' n v o. . y o y . o c m o G v " v v' ° 01 v ~U 3 E a u V y I ow o a c °u v E R c c v 'O n t n .S 'O L 'm 4 E O "d o u 3 C a in iL v, b " a L T m ° 3 y .yam. 3 -o °c° ° 7 .d a o m v o .b oh c ~c' u v E 3 ^s o o c u v~ {ca L o o~ E~ ~ v~ ^n ~ ro~~ s ~ c~ o v 4 E u Y u v v E z u o r - {Ea 2` m .o v 'O 4 a`i .n b v ~ d A° c 7 v> -n 'c ° `0 c o y s E c v E u J 2 r ~c cn y o E s v .n ~ G y m ~ 'o y ~ « u s c E 4 0 -uo o v a c c u E c .a y 3 v m m d = v v ~ T y z ~ « A C u _a ~ ~ u E O Y v v G C v h v v v 0 •'L"' 7 4 v C .C u p ~ ~n 'Lr o 3 Fc ~ ro ro {n ~ o o ~ ~ E m 3 F~ H N Y O 3 N a ui 0a4 o ~ ~ W4 a A ~ a Q O T U - - - - 77 v4 ~ A N ` E r t u ~ ► ~ N m r s~ ~ 6 ~ „f- ' Y a ~ m 3 ,j 9 1 u L2 cu o 1 1 ^ ~ ~ v ~ , L O A L o"n ' CC Z' ~ 5 "0 Cc u y H v A O O a c `t C Lv v O '[J O C v U :b 4 E Y z v o o W c c-° o. rte- c c W .b W E v m Q c o a. ° t v m o ro m c ° c c n u .x 'E A p C CU ¢ In a E A c c " o .E c4 0 R v n « A E R° ro c" E E L o r v o L E 3 °a' _ o« v -M = a r= v U= v o 6 E s G E A E A _ Z E m b ° o a E .c v m~ U o. -n x r° u o e`n 'v m v .E « s° c c u z m n o, 7 i m 3 S -O E « c. v o u v c « R c E :c « U -a n u `U c u o cv E o 0-' .E ° o v evi ° -Fo i "d E a E u u 'a X M _ z c v 'E v v u CM m fO~ o v v C C O C G b L "O p a u l~ R L x m v 3 v m a E E S b u `c v -o E E u V 0 0 a o f a 'a <n `v a v 3 n o v c u z M a v s 72 a• `n u ,°G° E E U p yU. « m v .G ° 2 a s G U v .-Ca ~ O~ C C v C t^ .p. Ln pi ^L G G, A u° U N ai t7 E N U G L° C c > u 'd a u~u ❑ y ❑ o n. u v 'u o r a c U U o f A c E v o Do o c c T A E O ..E ° o a Z c ro W `°v, u o v o v U o u r = o .u y Q E t« cn In « E n "Za u v z d A L O m « y v C ~i 'b 3 L a Tvi 7 L rn m uu 64'd 2u o N. 7 c 3 v -n N U E u o N v m 0° v c E c ❑ y EU c u E E E 'o u E o v o cc v n W u u `3 c Lo v c- Q v° ° m[] o, w .E P o .E .E Q Q E u° 7 v In 3 ~ c co r s 3 ~ Y A L ~ 'd .E v u o 7 x n v 0 m O G O G u0 y 'C L v G V > tL 'S m ° c. m ~ 3 o N „ .3 .E u' a .c, r `.5 4:. e s v Le_n E o 0 E c c o _ m c o A o a w -o u C yV, A o L u ° b m C .c O Q`{ v s z o c 'a m v V mu ° 4 .v A .E m° .EO v .m v ou .m a z 'u 4 O m .v -l h V z M y L ~ v v h u ~ 1 4 'v- ~ ti ~ v 'y W d Z z N 3 E N y v ~ d rn s o 'Z d d .y s o °u so ' .z c : oa = o v .5°-~ cv eGn Q d 7 c Z E 4 o E 'm .vtiy' h G C o N v oz V N o o - z - o O n y o .o E v c v m ~ c n o u o u a E m s L„° o..E .m W ~ o o c a= V u g o m~ m E u c. V v K E v `n u h a `o i.7 3 0 a o voi O a "O C v v d v L c r u 7 C L .y V L v.tl C v m v 3 'O o Z ro Q w -n a v 3 m o n ' c y Z. o 'D L ~G O q G C W w d 'U c Oy R 2 C 12 u E v ro N v U v 4 goo o v U' o r E 'o v d E c m 'a z v~g x W n,~ Q v~ :E v v e~ u o v .o E a~ v u U u E~ c N v nx v a v 'N,~ s v m vy^' u s c t= wv "c" v - VI W= o o. o° E 3 s W F> o ° A cc ° -u ~2 a ~ c ~ c m a c 3 0 I I- ' caU ~ 2 i f' - ' ~ f,,. A o c t'~ R1 J1 Z f Q xf t $ OW. - •f' ~ t r T N N Er A 0 ao5 - o *0 CD f o w a b Z Z Z vi ZNI C d E d m A C A L 3 O C O .q O 6 C A O O N T A G 4 L`. b ~ G ~ v p C b O G 'j Q ~ C n OV 7 p n L v L -O ¢ y 'O ~ y0 ''n h v N ~ ~ U y q ~ ~ ~ O ~ L v G9 ~ ~ ~ L ~ N v c z v E 1~ v~ .E v~ m E Ca ~ n c. 6 v v O O m 0 o c E .o o c e o~ o pC O v v~ d V >N L ~p J z G G R~ V + O u y N u .Z u L L u V E ~ m `u m en ti ~ E 3 b v.~` ~ p'p L L .O ro ro o A d A~ o y E a E 'S o r 3 3~ a~ v A~ z ~ O v y i3 ~ L O vv. "u ~ V Lil v u O¢ ~f„ s rL O 'O ~ rt Cp ~L O -b ~ O a O V c.c C Cp F' G u t v O C Y 'b a A m ,G in C ~ o ~ v .y' ~ h o Y m -do E c o v ro E o y a o V r~ o~ .o u .v. L O V C LL c L VI v u L A 0 °6 d v v c - ~ v -C ~ 4 v M O u y m O n> u d u L A O u v y n. m .v. o v 4 b W 'O u ~ cn O .G O .G ~ N 4. . t O• ~ v v L O O F O W~ N vOVi s E~ a L v ~ Q V L b G[ C O > Z = of Z 5 o g o° c to u v a v N E E s o v a j ti m Z 10 ° c o 7 v 5 rl E E v~~ .c .3 ~ o .c r m .9 o h v O ,rJ " 0 c c m y ~C u u s c y 3 .cam. 3 o v y ep l7 0 o v v ITS U~ v v o o. v y ~ O ° c u=~ n n 3 ~ 3 c a o« o co y -n v 3 b a s o u .c 3 0. L y o o L Ot v s ro v c o FF c C c v 4 a L c c Z L c o v u o E = c Z, E o E p 0 Y s°~ A 'v en ~ v a~ y C E .c 3 c E v Z -a i a S ~ b u C ~ b > N v v `v~ O~ o~ GG G v ~ N L `m y o v on c c8 v L" v .5 -5 ~ v~ v E a E Z 'ai'oa m'y'' a v c~~ v E o o~ y '06 N a g . v Z y 'v o v v .c c a C .v ~ v 3 c. 'c6 0 0 - E d E c v v" ~a "J v y c: E m n = O C o v m FE s _ a: v a v v 3 v u v ° o Z O Z ~tlu yr' u c 3 .c- o 3 a 'S A c°. s t 2 Z o U 1 v c T a + a, o c c - a c ~ an. 3 ~+ifA ry'~ v d u r. J v ~q E x x v m m a a c N L Q O ~ T V C m4'~ m m m c _ m ♦ L - C o Z' I--.~ o ,y[x x -fit } x s ~ ~ o ~Y1 K C r o F ~ N A r ss rr~ J' R u~. tau Wit. -3~w n C Y 3 w'=. o G ~ u E y m a 7 v~° LL N 6~ '3 G ~ ~ ° C ~ m c E .3 c o v m y = v a u o O 3 u u o L L Ol h O~ v a.. L C ~ d 0 0-2 t L m` U v n v m d A O 3 - E o u O f0 Vf v L b ro v L L E E E s ~ u K s E 0 o m k v u m ,e o G i2 3 9: Z z ~ Ez ~ssz a N N Y C b G ^ o c ~ o '3 0 N Q ~ W ~ N V ~ V O vii s c h 3 v ~ O O v v 6 ~ w r v L s~ E b z m a v v o - Z E ro o y y ~ Z / ~ f c I ~ E' U a d ~ J r li f O ~ C m a f~ C ,d~n%zr ~R G ~ f V e _ r k C ~ ~'Nh Q ~v 1 5 ~ tP+ hks N ' E x m Of s C c O ~ x m m s., E Y ~ y a a Y V O N s a a G! Z u C N E A m A C A L 3 O t7 C O .q O ~J 1 6 Q F N .tip'(- +Yj"ly ~ r~T A t a 3 U 'J y a> s ~ 'S o t~ 7~1 o m u y b C r5 a rn _m ~ E ~ ~ n -o c ~ q y 'E o. 6 ~ o t 3 01 w 'b O 3 C W L ~ o ~ a.=_ v [ v a vY ~ 3 ~ ~ y. C L " b ~ N y m~ W ttl O, G q O V v G C E O IL 'O v v 0.l E 'n b Z G N L ~i O L GO O. 6 Gp O L ie m - V1 (A ° 0 3 a o u. E ° y o r ~ o c ~ o y s L v u~ v s v E g v O G! C 'v N p G ti v O L v Z z o z y N N v Y y GV N .G u G V E O ~ 1 v u ,v u L C -O z c m ~ o q~ '3 v 3 'S v m 3 S v c v c~ ro g c LL aL-i OGO ~ d O y O a'2 G n tvi 5 r -p ~ ~ 3 v 4 n L y O d W v u ~ G 4 c 'p i h N b C >a C~ a C O 7 m C O _ °o of v " ttl .V ~ ~ v c v L 'oC Z L ~ v G 6 N ~ OI O t ~i O u C q LC-G p L Z E rj u t~ ~ c m N m q cn u'% o \ul u E Z o_ L0 3 ~ o a m 2. ' Z o Sm^q~ C _ W ' J T a ~ m o ~ ~ c .,a! m ~ x a ' 7 c nl L a t " a r u~t~Yt ~ Y O N I i a e • i 0 ® W T V C Y E Y P A C A L 3 0 f 'll ~ Y ~ a A a 0 c ~ m o y, Y r v ~ L n. o d C O ~ C "v O ~ V ~ .a v 'O O -d w x L u v 'D LL R u L E T b 3 V p0 c O ~ o b L ~ 3 G ~ 'J .G v 3 m d E W O 1`C u ~ ~ b C Y 7 L a 3 v Z, E R 'a2 v -o ~v. -o .en O V Y t d U 3 g° 3 E~ c b .y 3~ v O VI vV~i C u L q C E L m L ro o~ v~ v ~ E v o. su- v z o A Y a~ EE ~ '3 0 u c c ~ E pf ~ 4 o v c~ y o ro ~ c v e N N V ~ u E E o u v y ~ ~ o W m Li. E~ L ~ b z S m ~ b C ~ v m q C C m v z v ~`d u y c IL v v v v~ ~ o °i ~ a m O {A [ > L a~ u u ~ G L t .D .J ro ~f y -d 'S L~ ~uc ~ ~ v O O 3 1 4 6. 3 ry G ~\0. N j 01 O y ~g ~ O 8 :E o J sf. c ~ U ~ J It = a mfr. k o U N ras. O At~ ~ + x E / V.. c ~ N a 0 T C A E 1 A C A L 3 p u r~ p 1~ A O 6 C ~ A F a 0 N T A 1 *"r r p s s o u r C C e g n_ ~ •5 p v 6 8 6 i.. ~i n 'J ~ S ~ L y o C y V1 ~ ~ r O ~ ~ 7 t z ~o o v~~ v °w~ v n b$ v ~ 5 n v~ h ro o r J." o s' v v t Y. Z' B _ v u v y a c 3 Ol v O : -v C. ~ h m ~ ~ v 0 N d 17 S j O 4 C " j O L L? iC Z VI ~ d ` u U >i O L N av. C~ 5 tG L ~ v v m y ~ `m ~ v m u b v E m y ~ pia y o 0 Z tLil ~ x m a ~ 5 0 't o z y vci ro ~n m° N r N 'Y L N 3 o u ° E ~ v .v. o m v 4 l` O L 09 jJ a '9 •Tj 'n o 3 > va ~L` ` ~ ~ A C d v a 'o" m ~ 5> o N c❑ -v o v ~ ~ 3 ~ o ~ 4 4 c z L V O N N 'J t o v v~ ~ 4b a g s " Z N c coo ~ 'c L R ~ .c ~ ° c a a~ ~ S ~ ~ z y Z = 0 U m d J T o = c m a c 3 0 F m ' U N dFI E 0 3 a 7 a E m m o. 9 C N L a 0 T V C A E b A C q L 3 O l C f \l/ O " t✓ r A p. ' O - F N - T q ss~J: T _ s 3 q a ~ N ~ y P m C Y3 c y7 01 g o ~ U v O ~ C O y 'd ~ ~ p z en 'o s g 'v n E o Z a a E -a -p m E A 49 `0 3 c E = A z° ~ ~ 3 r c -pp m N m N O C A ~ ~ L ~v 3 W G v W v " C ~ v L 'c 5~ b` C C v % C -~v3 ~ ie O 3 C c v v a E Q o v L o. E v v a. ro v E m E v -d tc u o u y v) N G uti rn ° ° .c Qo u E E L v a v o. E a L ro o " s' 3 x m u m m c v t v ro c a 0 .c c A E u .a E z ° v 3 m c u L`o o ° ° Y c v° p U E 3 c c ~2 3 Z w o v U Q m v o A m c ecn .E 'A E m " v 71 F ~ C v ~ ~i v z E rC C o O = C 4 C ~ Q CO u L ~ E E A v ~v U o _ m o t .v. E ~ .E ~ w'o v 0 3 m ~ v v x u ~ C ~ p m E 'G O y C ~ -E ~ v L E n~ J ~ .o ~ 0 2 c 'E m s ~ c~ v E m'S 3 L .E y _ ~ aci. v n v' E .c. ~ 1 o v A ~ m .c. v ~ m ~q n L 3 La o. E rn u ~t4 c m ° v c .ti cn v c v s A E[ '3 0 7 E E o `m ° y a c L u c m v¢ c .y o % ,c E v c CoC .G N u ~ c n u v u o ° E Y~ c n 'D ~ W W 3 ~ 2 E v °i a .E c ° >.'a 'co `c uv c v o 0 ~ 3 ~ L L L 5 'O' v" m u A G O E .d 3 a n~ p E c 12 H LE ro d ~iyy o L r 4 o= c ° v m c b 'mc v {A Z 'n ~ r y G Lc0 C W v 3 E x t0 .v. n m c u' n Jy Q s~ T v.. v A v p o A C n E U ~ W ~ c U v c~ ~ v C LM° v ~ a v o o y°o D o s c' o m p "v v ~ N O n u Y C~ C ~ .E X 0.1 n a v~ i:. 3 W w O a U' N i Y I o `L1 ~ X j . ,dam y N r 1/ ~ d { S~'C{ ; ~.s,~~ E Y ,n u v a 1 ~ a. V C d E d m A C A L L O l7 C O .q O 6 C U L v A Eq L .G G4 N ~ m 6 ~ d E v v ° E O a ° v c r7 c o Fx o O` L L 1] S' v l3 N ~ c u E o m ~ ~ A c m m vQ W o c v °1 72 00 ~ ~ v c c .5 .o ~ C -a c Z v o U °1 c ~ `u a ro~ ~ N b N o ° t ci C E C C u C 1 u o o ~ ~ u U v ~ .-1 A L b R ~ E Z` O E W v ~ I c z C.~ a. CC vcvi 'O c q v v o v~ E Q c u v v F. ° c °0 rv ~ o W F~ c u c U A m e n a. x o o. v v A v c o E o A° a> c .E E o Fr E m 'o y c v m A ~ ~ 2 B Lv L 3 o a v .v v c c a 12 c a v E o c~ u L E U Q a_ v G> v Q c o 2 v ~ ~ v s v w W u L E I E ~ O 4 p `v is L O h U 0 O 2 v L c O 0 CD u c W y E U .n 3 u 7 .n E m c L y -2 5. U 1 c v o m 3 c. v v t 3 Q ~ o y E L ou~ LL ? v n n E C E a. ~ X L v C ~ 3 L L V u o u ~ ca ¢y, a F c E o. ~ rdn ~ v U r J o~ u e4 a v n u ~ v ~ -c L ~ C N u E c U > m G c c ~ L' ~n L c m 1] L u E N i"i, F T G O 43 u k z 7 v" z on to c 3 G z n o v h 0 M CITY OF ASHLAND ai 3 r~ n t~eet Ashland i % % ,,MAIMS Middle School s Walker s Elementary School SAS 6 i f 1 pO m t m 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Normal Neighborhood Plan , , , I , , I -J Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment M Normal Neighborhood Plan ® Conservation Area 3/11/2014 I CITY OF ASHLAND } Io 1 p[ ~~J,(ff~~•~n PJ Y ~ iv ~ Ni~ ~ ❑ X11 n~58~ ~ V Y~ .r° ehlNafl~ f'. (U) re '1nE MAN.ST 'sj=~ka._ i~ w -s19UU Ii_. I~. six N a OT t ~ .'.dl I~1 Walker _ Elementary !~chooll' all r~ . - LlJ R~ Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 Feet Land Use Designation Overlay Zones NN-01 - NN-03-C NN-02 ® Conservation Areas NN-03 311112014 CITY OF ASHLAND > ~ a 'x sh_ n . i ■ ng-M ■ Schoo4 ■ F~ J "-a rg - r r 1 _ s Walker Ele enta - rSchoolry ~ III r ~ 6 ~ I- _ ar~r■■ r■ . I ~ I ' ' : r■■kr Normal Neighborhood Plan o zoo aoo aoo 1,200 Feet Open Space Network - natural area/open space green streets - pocket park multi-use path 3/11/2014 CITY OF ASHLAND r r W a ~ e e ~ti,. x J a t 1 14 w \r ~ a s , b ,,aT~' "~`a~,,.,,, i m NS7 h,., Aship §c ool z Shared Streets maybe to alternatively developed ';■irau as alleys or multi use paths C3 Vie, ` - ■ ~p i'~.# & Improved crossing will require t'• ^ S~ , , r s , an application for an at grade s ■ 1 - railroad crossing be appro .v EI .~y4 , 4 j. r L+:y t - Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Street Network Neighborhood Collector Alley Neighborhood Street - - - - Multi-Use Path ~O~O-1O Shared Street 3/1112014 CITY OF ASHLAND r m t r vs 1 1' X §~.f. •l. sh _ ~Sc ooh ,t I ~1 , K Walker Elem ntary . ~School1e O Normal Neighborhood Plan o zoo aoo soo 1,200 Feet Street Network - Green Streets green streets ® conservation areas 3/11!14 CITY OF ASHLAND Y r& R4 AA, ~ ~ y ~ ~ • fain ~ 4 Div i y P shlan inmi.~ t o . 14 SC oo _'.a i~ J V }rte. f S. IF Mi Y.,.p r r ' ~3 tl •.y R ~ ~ MI a _ 16. lWalker Element c -W •+t i Yy Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Pedestrian and Bicycle Network I I I I I I I I I I I I alley shared street streets with sidewalks multi-use path avenue with sidewalks & bikelanes • • central bike path 3/11/2014 CITY OF Exhibit C ASHLAND 7 ,•l ;III a eln Street Ashland / Elpgq School s/ Walker Elementary School i / .F . I i i£ 4 m 4 a 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Normal Neighborhood Plan I l . l Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Q Normal Neighborhood Plan ® Conservation Area 3/17/2014 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STREET DEDICATION MAP, PLANNED INTERSECTION AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT MAP, AND PLANNED BIKEWAY NETWORK MAP OF THE ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR THE NORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA, AND AMENDING STREET DESIGN STANDARDS WITHIN THE STREET STANDARDS HANDBOOK TO ADD A NEW SHARED STREET CLASSIFICATION. Annotated to show ae'a~as 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 amendments to the Transportation System Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on March 11, 2014 and subsequent public hearing continuance dates, and on April 8, 2014, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on May_ 2014, and on [subsequent public hearing cont nuance 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 Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies intended to work towards creating an integrated land use and transportation system to address the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0000 directive for coordinated land use and transportation plans should ensure that the planned transportation system supports a Page 1 of 3 pattern of travel and land use in urban areas that will avoid the air pollution, traffic and livability problems faced by other large urban areas of the country through measures designed to increase transportation choices and make more efficient use of the existing transportation system."; and WHEREAS, the Street Dedication Map, Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map and Planned Bikeway Network Map are adopted official maps for long range planning purposes, and are periodically amended to identify streets and pedestrian and bicycle pats that will be needed in the future to connect the street network and provide access to undeveloped areas within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB); and WHEREAS, the Ashland Comprehensive Plan includes the following policies addressing street dedications: 1) Development of a modified grid street pattern shall be encouraged for connecting new and existing neighborhoods during subdivisions, partitions, and through the use of the Street Dedication map. (10.09.02.32); and 2) Street dedications shall be required as a condition of land development. A future street dedication map shall be adopted and implemented as part of the Land Use Ordinance. (10.09.02.34).; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents, and to address changes in existing conditions and projected needs related to land use and transportation patterns, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The officially adopted City of Ashland Street Dedication Map, referenced in Ashland as Figure 10-1 in the Ashland Transportation System Plan is hereby amended to include the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 4. The City of Ashland Planned Bikeway Network Map, referenced in the Ashland Transportation System Plan as Figure 8-1. is hereby amended to include the Normal Neighborhood Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Network attached hereto as Exhibit B. SECTION 5. The City of Ashland Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map, referenced in the Ashland Transportation System Plan as Figure 10-3. is hereby amended to include East Main Street as a Planned Avenue from Walker Avenue to Ashland St. SECTION 6. The Ashland Street Standards Handbook, Street Design Standards is hereby amended to include a new classification of "Shared Street" as attached hereto as Exhibit C. Page 2 of 3 SECTION 7. 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 8. 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, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 3-6 need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X. Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 CITY OF Exhibit A ASHLAND • z ~ P - 'h t Ash t€ iAsr - ! S c 00 PIN- 001 1I / Shared Streets may be - G alternatively developed ■i~.!r ■ r1 JJ as alleys or multi-use paths. ~~'pQ, l' ■ j ~ }t F L ~ as r "G ■ T'~~■'• ~ 1 , 741- Improved crossing will require S~ an application for an at grade ■ 1 } ' railroad crossing be approved. <4 s° 4[ ° to " EI Nary ~ ~ o o - x n e a e e t 1 4 d.ti tt~. . . t "+r MLIAND S - ~ AS Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Street Network Neighborhood Collector Alley Neighborhood Street - - - - Multi-Use Path 0 ~O~0~01 Shared Street 3/11/2014 CITY of ExhibitB ASHLAND ^ r ' d~ a n v t. ~ E r s} re ( . ✓ ~~~G ~ r~ 7 L s r ♦ W Y ' ny, \\ct~2f'.{"•--~fD. rr t:`E ~C R T yy.. r'y • ~ 9 ~ ~t~ $ sh an 4 U a 1•t• ~ - LID, ,~mayy y • i~ ~'_~,k r y ru Walker •e~'a ~ ~ t tv~ ~ ~ rTi - !school - < • •}r O ~6 4j 490 • k ' • rn w Normal Neighborhood Plan 0 200 400 800 1,200 Feet Pedestrian and Bicycle Network ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' alley shared street streets with sidewalks multi-use path ~:£SL C' savenue with sidewalks & bikelanes • • • • central bike path 3/11/2014 Exhibit C Shared Street Provides access to residential in an area in which right-of-way is constrained by natural features, topography or historically significant structures. The constrained right-of-way prevents typical bicycle and pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Therefore, the entire width of the street is collectively shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and autos. The design of the street should emphasize a slower speed environment and provide clear physical and visual indications the space is shared across modes. Street Function: Provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle neighborhood circulation and access to individual residential and commercial properties designed to encourage socializing with neighbors, outdoor play for children, and creating comfortable spaces for walking and biking. Connectivity: Connects to all types of streets. Average Daily Traffic: 1,500 or less motor vehicle trips per day Managed Speed: Motor vehicle travel speeds should be below 15 mph Right-of-Way Width: 25' Pavement width: 18' minimum, maintaining full fire truck access and minimum turning paths at all changes in alignment and intersections. Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes: Minimum 12' clear width. Bike Lanes: Not applicable, bicyclists can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas Parking: Parking and loading areas may be provided within the right of way with careful consideration to ensure parked vehicles do not obstruct pedestrian, bicycles, or emergency vehicle access. Parkrow: Not applicable Sidewalks: Not applicable, pedestrians can share the travel lane and easily negotiate these low use areas. Refuge areas are to be provided within the right of way to allow pedestrians to step out of the travel lane when necessary. Shared Street Cross Section t'I ~ il ~~u~l fial 4=2~ w 18' 25' Normal Neighborhood District Draft May 6.2014 The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be reviewed as part of a separate legislative action, as it is to be incorporated into the Unified Land Use Ordinance (UL UO) process presently underway. However, given the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements this Draft Land Use Ordinance Language it is being presented for Council consideration, discussion, and direction at the May 61h hearing. This code and any recommended amendments will be incorporated into the ULUO for final adoption. Chapter 18 Code Amendments 18-3.13.010 Purpose 18-3.13.020 Applicability 18-3.13.030 General Requirements 18-3.13.040 Use Regulations 18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations 18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards 18-3.13.070 Conservation Area overlay 18-3.13.080 Review and Approval Procedure 18-3.13.010 Purpose The neighborhood is designed to provide an environment for traditional neighborhood living. The Normal Neighborhood Plan is a blueprint for promoting a variety of housing types while preserving open spaces, stream corridors, wetlands, and other significant natural features. The neighborhood commercial area is designated to promote neighborhood serving businesses with building designs that reflect the character of the neighborhood and where parking is managed through efficient on-street and off-street parking resources. The neighborhood will be characterized by a connected network of streets and alleys, paths and trails, with connection to the natural areas, wetlands, and streams. This network will also connect to the larger network of regional trails, paths, and streets beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood. The development of the neighborhood will apply principles of low impact development to minimize the extent and initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of storm water management. 18-3.13.020 Applicability This chapter applies to properties designated as Normal Neighborhood District on the Ashland Zoning Map, and pursuant to the Normal Neighborhood Plan adopted by Ordinance 1#number (date)]. Development located within the Normal Neighborhood District is required to meet all applicable sections of this ordinance, except as otherwise provided in this chapter; where the provisions of this Page 1 of 10 chapter conflict with comparable standards described in any other ordinance, resolution or regulation, the provisions of the Normal Neighborhood District shall govern. 18-3.13.030 General Regulations A. Conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan. Land uses and development, including construction of buildings, streets, multi-use paths, and conservation shall be located in accordance with those shown on the Normal Neighborhood Plan maps adopted by Ordinance [#number (date)]. B. Performance Standards Overlay. All applications involving the creation of three or more lots shall be processed under chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards Option. C. Amendments. Major and minor amendments to the Normal Neighborhood Plan shall comply with the following procedures: 1. Major and Minor Amendments a. Major amendments are those that result in any of the following: i. A change in the land use overlay designation. ii. A change in the maximum building height dimensional standards in section 18-3.13.050 iii. A change in the allowable base density, dwelling units per acre, in section 18-3.13.050. iv. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility. v. A change in the Plan layout that eliminates or reduces an area designated as a conservation or open space area. vi. A change not specifically listed under the major and minor amendment definitions. b. Minor amendments are those that result in any of the following: i. A change in the Plan layout that requires a street, access way, multi-use path or other transportation facility to be shifted fifty (50) feet or more in any direction as long as the change maintains the connectivity established by Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. ii. A change in a dimensional standard requirement in section 1 8-3.13.050, but not including height and residential density. H. A change in the Plan layout that changes the boundaries or location of a conservation or open space area to correspond with a delineated wetland and water resource protection zone provided there is no reduction in the contiguous area preserved. 2. Major Amendment - Type II Procedure. A major amendment to the Normal Neighborhood Plan is subject to a public hearing and decision under a Type 11 Procedure. A major amendment may be approved upon finding that the proposed modification will not adversely affect the purpose of the Normal Neighborhood Plan. A major amendment requires a determination by the City that that: a.The proposed amendment maintains the transportation connectivity established by the Normal Neighborhood Plan; Page 2 of 10 b.The proposed amendment furthers the street design and access management concepts of the Normal Neighborhood Plan. c. The proposed amendment furthers the protection and enhancement of the natural systems and features of the Normal Neighborhood Plan, including wetlands, stream beds, and water resource protection zones by improving the quality and function of existing natural resources. d.The proposed amendment will not reduce the concentration or variety of housing types permitted in the Normal Neighborhood Plan. e.The proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate physical constraints evident on the property, or to protect significant natural features such as trees, rock outcroppings, streams, wetlands, water resource protection zones, or similar natural features, or to adjust to existing property lines between project boundaries. 3. Minor Amendment - Type 1 Procedure. A minor amendment to the Normal Neighborhood Development Plan which is subject to an administrative decision under the Type I Procedure. Minor amendments are subject to the Exception to the Site Design and Use Development Standards of chapter 18-5.2.050(E). 18-3.13.040 Use Regulations A. Plan overlay zones. There are four Land Use Designation Overlays zones within the Normal Neighborhood Plan are intended to accommodate a variety of housing opportunities, preserve natural areas and provide open space. 1. Plan NN-01 zone The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed, in addition to the detached single dwelling. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained. 2. Plan NN-02 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be grouped around common open space promoting a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained. 3. Plan NN-03 zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to create and maintain a range of housing choices, including multi-family housing within the context of the residential character of the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Page 3 of 10 4. Plan NN-03C zone. The use regulations and development standards are intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households through development of multi-dwelling housing with the added allowance for neighborhood-serving commercial mixed- uses so that many of the activities of daily living can occur within the Normal Neighborhood. The public streets within the vicinity of the NN-03-C overlay are to provide sufficient on-street parking to accommodate ground floor neighborhood business uses. B. Normal Neighborhood Plan Residential Building Types. The development standards for the Normal Neighborhood Plan will preserve neighborhood character by incorporating four distinct land use overlay areas with different concentrations of varying housing types. 1. Single Dwelling Residential Unit. A Single Dwelling Residential Unit is a detached residential building that contains a single dwelling with self-contained living facilities on one lot. It is separated from adjacent dwellings by private open space in the form of side yards and backyards, and set back from the public street or common green by a front yard. Auto parking is generally on the same lot in a garage, carport, or uncovered area. The garage may be detached or attached to the dwelling structure. 2. Accessory Residential Unit. An Accessory Residential Unit is a secondary dwelling unit on a lot where the primary use is a single-family dwelling, either attached to the single-family dwelling or in a detached building located on the same lot with a single-family dwelling, and having an independent means of access. 3. Double Dwelling Residential Unit (Duplex). A Double Dwelling Residential Unit is a residential building that contains two dwellings located on a single lot, each with self-contained living facilities. Double Dwelling Residential Units must share a common wall or a common floor/ ceiling and are similar to a Single Dwelling Unit in appearance, height, massing and lot placement. 4. Attached Residential Unit. An Attached Residential Unit is single dwelling located on an individual lot which is attached along one or both sidewalls to an adjacent dwelling unit. Private open space may take the form of front yards, backyards, or upper level terraces. The dwelling unit may be set back from the public street or common green by a front yard. 5. Clustered Residential Units - Pedestrian-Oriented. Pedestrian-Oriented Clustered Residential Units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common green under communal ownership. Auto parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or areas. Page 4 of 10 6. Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit. Multiple Dwelling Residential Units are multiple dwellings that occupy a single building or multiple buildings on a single lot. Dwellings may take the form of condominiums or apartments. Auto parking is generally provided in a shared parking area or structured parking facility. 7. Cottage Housing. [Description to be added consistent with Unified Land Use Ordinance] C. General Use Regulations. Uses and their accessory uses are permitted, special permitted or conditional uses in the Normal Neighborhood Plan area as listed in the Land Use Table. Tattle 1$'-3".13$040 Lra-n'd Use NN'01 NN'O2 NN!03 NN`O3~6 Si- ngle family Multi-family Multi-family Multi-family Descriptions Residential low density High fJensity High Density Residential Residential Residential ith Commercial Residential Uses Single Dwelling Residential Unit P P N N (Single-Family Dwelling) Accessory Residential Unit P P P P Double Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P (Duplex Dwelling) Cottage Housing P N N N Clustered Residential Units N P P P Attached Residential Unit N P P P Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit N P P P (Multi family Dwelling) Manufactured Home on Individual Lot P P . P P Manufactured Housing Development N P P P I IN Neighborhood Business and Service Uses Home Occupation P P P P Retail Sales and Services, with each building limited to N N N P 3,500 square feet of gross floor area Professional and Medical Offices, with each building N N N P limited to 3,500 square feet of gross floor area Light manufacturing or assembly of items occupying six hundred (600) square feet or less, and contiguous N N N P to the permitted retail use. Restaurants N N N P Day Care Center N N N P Assisted Living Facilities N C C C 111110fili-cra-ndflij stitutional Uses Religious Institutions and Houses of Worship C C C C Page 5 of 10 Public Buildings P P P P Community Gardens P P P P Openspace and Recreational Facilities P P P P P = Permitted Use; CU = Conditional Use Permit Required; N = Not Allowed 1. Permitted Uses. Uses listed as "Permitted (P)" are allowed. All uses are subject to the development standards of zone in which they are located, any applicable overlay zone(s), and the review procedures of Part 18-5. See section 18-5.1.020 Determination of Review Procedure. 2.Conditional Uses. Uses listed as "Conditional Use Permit Required (C)" are allowed subject to the requirements of chapter 18-5.4 Conditional Use Permits. 3. Prohibited Uses. Uses not listed in the Land Use Table, and not found to be similar to an allowed use following the procedures of section 18-1.5.040 Similar Uses, are prohibited. 18-3.13.050 Dimensional Regulations A. The lot and building dimensions shall conform to the standards in Table 1 8-3.13.050 below. Tattle 18'3 13s050`Drme`nsiorial Sta'nd`ard"s NNr01 NN=02' NN '03 NN-03-C Base density, dwelling units per acre 5 10 15 Minimum Lot Area, square feet 5,000 3500 3000 (applies to lots created by partitions only) Minimum Lot Depth, feet 80 80 80 (applies to lots created by partitions only) Minimum Lot Width', feet 50 35 25 (applies to lots created by partitions only) Setbacks and yards (feet) Minimum Front Yard abutting a street 15 15 15 Minimum Front Yard to a garage facing a public street, 20 20 20 feet Xz Xz X2 Minimum Front Yard to unenclosed front porch, feet Currently under discussion as part of the ULUO update to be consistent Minimum Side Yard 6 6 10 6 3 3 Minimum Side Yard abutting a public street 10 10 10 Minimum Rear Yard 10 ft per Bldg Story, 5 feet per Half Story Solar Access Setback and yard requirements shall conform to the Solar Access standards of chapter 18-4.10. Maximum Building Height, feet / stories 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 35 / 2.5 Maximum Lot Coverage, percentage of lot 50% 65% 75% Page 6 of 10 Minimum Required Landscaping, percentage of lot 0% 35% 25% Parking See section 184.3.080 Vehicle Area Design Requirements Minimum Outdoor Recreation Space, percentage of lot na 8% 8% 1 Minimum Lot Area , Depth, and Width requirements do not apply in performance standards subdivisions. 2 Minimum Front Yard to an unenclosed front porch (Feet), or width of a public easement whichever is greater. 3 Minimum Side Yard for Attached Residential Units (Feet) B. Density Standards Development density in the Normal Neighborhood shall not exceed the densities established by Table 18-3.13.050, except where granted a density bonus under chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards Options and consistent with the following: 1 General Density Provisions. a. The density in NN-01, NN-02, NN-03 and NN-03-C zones is to be computed by dividing the total number of dwelling units by the acreage of the project, including land dedicated to the public. b. Conservation Areas including wetlands, floodplain corridor lands, and water resource protection zones may be excluded from the acreage of the project for the purposes of calculating minimum density for residential annexations as described in section'! 8-5.7.050F. c. Units less than 500 square feet of gross habitable area shall count as 0.75 units for the purposes of density calculations. d. Accessory residential units consistent with standards described in section 18-2.3.040 are not required to meet density or minimum lot area requirements. e. Accessory residential units shall be included for the purposes of meeting minimum density calculation requirements for residential annexations as described in 18-5.7.05OF 2. Residential Density Bonuses. a. The maximum bonus permitted shall be 40 percent. b. Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of section 18-2.3.090 Cottage Housing will receive a density bonus consistent with 18-x.xx.xxx [to reference the density bonus standards stipulated in the ULUO] 18-3.13.060 Site Development and Design Standards. The Normal Neighborhood District Design Standards provide specific requirements for the physical orientation, uses and arrangement of buildings; the management of parking, and access to development parcels. Development located in the Normal Neighborhood District must be designed and constructed consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards chapter 18-5.2 and the following: A. Street Design and Access Standards. Design and construct streets and public improvements in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. A change in the design of a street in a manner inconsistent with the Normal Neighborhood Plan requires a minor amendment in accordance with section 18-3.13.030.B. Page 7 of 10 1. Conformance with Street Network Plan: New developments must provide avenues, neighborhood collectors, streets, alleys, multi-use paths, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements consistent with the design concepts within the mobility chapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework and in conformance with the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map. a. Streets designated as Shared Streets on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map may be alternatively developed as alleys, or multiuse paths provided the following: i. Impacts to the water protection zones are minimized to the greatest extent feasible. ii. Pedestrian and bicyclist connectivity, as indicated on the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Map, is maintained or enhanced. 2 Storm water management. The Normal Neighborhood Plan uses street trees, green streets, and other green infrastructure to manage storm water, protect water quality and improve watershed health. Discharge of storm water runoff must be directed into a designated green street and neighborhood storm water treatment facilities. a.. Design Green Streets. Streets designated as Green Streets within the Street Network, and as approved by the Public Works Department, shall conform to the following standards: i. New streets must be developed so as to capture and treat storm water in conformance with the City of Ashland Storm Water Master Plan. 3. Access Management Standards: To manage access to land uses and on-site circulation, and maintain transportation safety and operations, vehicular access must conform to the standards set forth in section 18-4.3, and as follows: a. Automobile access to development is intended to be provided by alleys where possible consistent with the street connectivity approval standards. b. Curb cuts along a Neighborhood Collector or shared street are to be limited to one per block, or one per 200 feet where established block lengths exceed 400 feet. 4. Required On-Street Parking: On-street parking is a key strategy to traffic calming and is required along the Neighborhood Collector and Neighborhood Streets. B. Site and Building Design Standards. 1. Lot and Building Orientation: a. Lot Frontage Requirements: Lots in the Normal Neighborhood are required to have their Front Lot Line on a street or a Common Green. b. Common Green. The Common Green provides access for pedestrians and bicycles to abutting properties. Common greens are also intended to serve as a common open Page 8 of 10 space amenity for residents. The following approval criteria and standards apply to common greens: L Common Greens must include at least 400 square feet of grassy area, play area, or dedicated gardening space, which must be at least 15 feet wide at its narrowest dimension. 2. Cottage Housing.: Cottage housing developments are allowed within the Normal Neighborhood subject to the applicable standards of chapter 18-2.3.090 Cottage Housing and as follows: a. Cottage housing developments are allowed within the NN-01 zone subject to the applicable provisions of the underlying zone and review through Chapter 18-3.8 Performance Standards Option. i. In the NN-01 zones, twe-cottage house units developed consistent with the requirements of chapter 18-2.3.090 will be awarded a density bonus+s as approved under section 18- 3.8.050.13.5. 3. Conservation of Natural Areas. Development plans must preserve water quality, natural hydrology and habitat, and preserve biodiversity through protection of streams and wetlands. In addition to the requirements of 18-3.10 Water Resources, conserving natural water systems must be considered in the site design through the application of the following guidelines: a.Designated stream and wetland protection areas are to be considered positive design elements and incorporated in the overall design of a given project. b.Native riparian plant materials must be planted in and adjacent to the creek to enhance habitat. c.Create a long-term management plan for on-site wetlands, streams, associated habitats and their buffers. 4. Storm Water Management. Natural water systems regulate water supply, provide biological habitat, and provide recreational opportunities. To minimize infrastructure costs and the adverse environmental effects of storm water run-off, from building roofs, driveways, parking areas, sidewalks and other hard surfaces must be managed through implementation of the following storm water management practices: a. When required by the City Engineer, the applicant must submit hydrology and hydraulic calculations, and drainage area maps to the City, to determine the quantity of predevelopment, and estimated post-development, storm water runoff and evaluate the effectiveness of storm water management strategies. Computations mustbe site specific and must account for conditions such as soil type, vegetative cover, impervious areas, existing drainage patterns, flood plain areas and wetlands. b. Future Peak Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed the pre-development peak flow. The default value for pre-development peach flow is .25 CFS per acre. c. Detention volume must be sized for the 25 year, 24 hour peak flow and volume. d. Development must comply with one or more of following guidelines. Page 9 of 10 i. Implement storm water management techniques that endeavor to treat the water as close as possible to the spot where it hits the ground through infiltration, evapotranspiration or through capture and reuse techniques. ii. Use on-site landscape-based water treatment methods to treat rainwater runoff from all surfaces, including parking lots, roofs, and sidewalks. iii. Use pervious or semi-pervious surfaces that allow water to infiltrate soil. iv. Design grading and site plans that create a system that slows the stormwater, maximizing time for cleansing and infiltration. v. Maximizing the length of overland flow of storm water through bioswales and rain gardens, vi. Use structural soils in those environments that support pavements and trees yet are free draining. vii. Plant deep rooted native plants. viii, Replace metabolically active minerals, trace elements and microorganism rich compost in all soils disturbed through construction activities. 5. Off-Street Parking. Automobile parking, loading and circulation areas must comply with the requirements of chapter 18-4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation Standards, and as follows: a. Neighborhood serving commercial uses within the NN-03-C zone must have parking primarily accommodated by the provision of on-street parking spaces, and are not required to provide off-street parking or loading areas, except for residential uses where one space shall be provided per residential unit. 18-3.13.65 Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards An exception to the requirements Site Development and Design Standards must follow the procedures and approval criteria adopted under section 18-4-1.030, unless authorized under the procedures for a major amendment to plan. 1 8-3.13.070 Conservation Area Overlay All projects containing land identified as Conservation Areas on the Normal Neighborhood Plan Land Use Zone Map must dedicate those areas as: common areas, public open space, or private open space protected by restrictive covenant. It is recognized that the master planning of the properties as part of the Normal Neighborhood Plan imparted significant value to the land, and the reservation of lands for conservation purposes is proportional to the value bestowed upon the property through the change in zoning designation and future annexation. 18.3.13.080. Review and Approval Procedure. All land use applications are to be reviewed and processed in accordance with the applicable procedures of Part 18-5. Page 10 of 10 CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission Report DATE: April 22, 2014 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: PA#20130-1858 Normal Neighborhood Plan Planning Commission Recommendations Summary The Ashland Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 11, 2014 related to the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance amendments proposed to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan (Planning Action 2013- 01858). The Commission concluded their review on April 8`h and following discussion and deliberation unanimously recommended the City Council approve of the Normal Neighborhood Plan with a number of specific recommendations as outlined in this report. The Normal Neighborhood Plan area is one of the last sizeable tracts of largely undeveloped land designated for residential purposes in Ashland's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The future development of this area is expected to contribute toward accommodating long range population growth consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and Ashland's position in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving Plan (RPS). The Planning Commission recognizes in order to maintain a compact urban form and to ensure the orderly and sequential development of land (Comprehensive Plan Goal 12.09) that neighborhood planning is an appropriate tool for this area. The creation of a neighborhood plan in this area is particularly valuable as over three decades of development has occurred in the area, under county standards, since the original Comprehensive Plan land use designations were assigned to the area. Consideration of the area's existing pattern of development, presence of water resource protection areas, existing and projected traffic volumes, and public testimony has allowed the Planning Commission to better understand the development constraints within the plan area, and carefully address the coordinated provision of open space, transportation, infrastructure, and housing. Recommendations The Planning Commission identified two categories of recommended amendments, those changes that are minor editorial corrections, and those changes that have broader policy implications. Amendments that are editorial in nature and necessary to clarify terminology and provide inter-document consistency are to be included in the final documents presented to the City Council. A list of these editorial changes is attached to this report (Appendix A). The Commission's recommendations pertaining to allowable land use standards, the stated purpose of open space, and the extent and timing of transportation system improvements are addressed in this report as specific recommendations for Council's consideration. Comprehensive Plan Change and Land Use Designations The Planning Commission supports the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Land Use Designation Overlay Zones as proposed, and recommends the following: -2- • Approval of the proposed amendment to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to create a designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District, including revised boundaries for Conservation Areas within the plan area. o Adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Land Use Designations Overlay Zone Map. o Adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan, with recommended changes to the mobility and open space chapters as described below. Mobility (Transportation) Framework The Planning Commission supports the Street Network, Pedestrian and Bicycle Network, Green Street Network, Shared Street Standard, and Street Classifications as proposed, and recommends approval of amendments to the the City Transportation System Plan (TSP) and City Street Standards to incorporate these elements of the Normal Neighborhood Plan as follows: o Amend to the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate the plan area's proposed Street Network, and reclassification of Normal "Avenue" to be a Neighborhood Collector. o Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map (TSP Figure 10-3) to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway Project. o Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map (TSP Figure 8-1) to incorporate the planned multi-use trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. o Amend the Street Design Standards within the Street Standards Handbook to incorporate the Shared Street classification. The Planning Commission has specific recommendations relating to the timing of transportation improvements associated with the future development of the plan area. In order to address current and future transportation along to East Main Street, the Commission recommends the mobility chapter of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document be amended to reflect the following: • The south side of East Main Street, from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, should be fully improved to City Street Standards prior to, or coinciding with any future annexation and development within the plan area. • A future transit stop coordinated with the Rogue Valley Transportation District, in the immediate vicinity of the NN-03 Land Use Zone, should be incorporated into the East Main Street roadway design and development. • That prior to annexation and development within the plan area the following items relating to the future Railroad crossing at Normal Avenue be addressed: o That the proposed public Rail Road crossing can be installed without necessitating the closure of any existing public crossing within the City. o A financing plan be developed and approved by the City for the future improvement of the rail road crossing. Open Space Framework The Planning Commission supports the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to establish designated Conservation Ares as proposed, which include the Cemetery Creek and Clay Creek 100 year Floodplains, Wetlands identified in the 2007 Local Wetland Inventory, and wetland and riparian buffer Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ~.ashland.ocus -3- areas consistent with the Water Resource Protection Zones. The Planning Commission further supports the Open Space Network map as presented and recommends approval of these plan elements. The Planning Commission has determined that the provision of open space within the plan area has environmental, recreational, and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. The contiguous open space corridors are a neighborhood defining characteristic and as such the Planning Commission recommends the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document's Greenway and Open Space chapter be amended to further emphasize the community value of open space retention with a concluding statement on page 14 as follows: The Normal Neighborhood's distinctive character is shaped by the presence ofprominent open spaces and natural areas. The preservation of these neighborhood defining features is central to the success of the neighborhood plan as they ensure the protection offragile ecosystems, provide passive recreational opportunities where people can connect with nature, protect scenic views considered important to the community, protect fiaure development from flood hazards, and preserve community character and quality of life by buffering areas of development from one another. The permanent establishment of interconnected open spaces and contiguous conservation areas as proposed in the Open Space Framework is essential to promote and maintain high quality residential development which is appropriate to the distinct character of the neighborhood Land Use Ordinance The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance will be reviewed as part of a separate legislative process as it is to be incorporated into the Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) process presently underway. However, given the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements the Planning Commission took testimony regarding the draft Normal Neighborhood District Land Use Ordinance at March 11th public hearing in order to evaluate the draft ordinance and formulate recommendations for the Council's consideration. The Planning Commission supports the draft land use ordinance's mix of land uses, housing types and proposed densities, Site Development and Design Standards, and flexibility afforded by the proposed major and minor amendment provisions, with following recommended policy change: • The Commission recommends the dimensional regulations in the proposed land use ordinance (18-3.13.050) and the review procedures be amended to include a Conditional Use Permit to increase building height from the proposed 35ft and 2%: story maximum up to 4011 and 3- stories exclusively within the NN-03 and NN-03C zones. The Commission finds that such a change would provide applicants greater site and building design flexibility in achieving the stated densities (15 units per acre) within the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones, while retaining a publically noticed review process to evaluate the bulk and scale of proposed buildings to ensure neighborhood compatibility is preserved. Conclusion Through the two year public neighborhood planning process the Planning Commission has evaluated the impacts of future development in consideration the of goal to ensure a variety of dwelling types and provide housing opportunities for the total cross section of Ashland's population, consistent with preserving the character and appearance of the City (Comprehensive Plan goal 6.10). The resulting Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 07520 vmvi.ash .ash ~r, land.or.us -4- neighborhood plan strives to preserve the character of the neighborhood, accommodate a variety of housing types, connect a system of greenways, protect and integrate existing creek corridors and wetlands, and enhance mobility for area residents through establishing safe and direct walking and bicycle routes. The Planning Commission finds the Normal Neighborhood Plan, with the additional recommendations included in this report, achieves these objectives and will be a valuable guide for future annexation and development of properties within the 94 acre area. Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ~.ashland.or.us -5- Appendix A Editorial Changes incorporated into the final plan documents The editorial changes recommended by the Planning Commission and Staff were needed to clarify terminology and provide inter-document consistency. These changes have already been incorporated into the draft documents presented to the City Council for consideration. The following lists the specific changes that were made to the plan documents presented at the first public hearing on March 11, 2014: • Amend the framework document (page 7) under Double Dwellings to strike NN-01 as a zone where they are permitted. • Amend the Framework Document to alter references to Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing (e.g top of page 7) to be consistent with the description of the Housing Type as written on page 8. • Amend the Framework Document to eliminate statements that stipulate that rear alleys "help to eliminate pavement" as although true in some site configurations it is not universally true in all circumstances (pg 16). • Amend the Framework Document's "Use Table" on page 10 to include Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing as permitted in NN-02 and NN-03 consistent with the draft Land Use Ordinance. • Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.040 as follows: o A2: The use regulations and development standards are intended to create, maintain and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character. A variety of housing types are allowed including multiple compact attached and/or detached dwellings. Dwellings may be grouped around common open space promoting a scale and character compatible with - single family homes. Development standards that are largely the same as those for single dwellings ensure that the overall image and character of the single-dwelling neighborhood is maintained. o 135: Pedestrian Oriented Cluster residential Units are multiple dwellings grouped around common open space that promote a scale and character compatible with single family homes. Units are typically arranged around a central common green under communal ownership. Auto Parking is generally grouped in a shared surface area or areas. o 137: Add a.place holder for a Cottage Housing description consistent with the Unified Land Use Ordinance. • Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3.13.050 to read as follows: o B 1(e). Accessory residential units shall be included for the purposes of meeting minimum density calculation requirements for residential annexations as described in 18- 5.7.050F. .o 132(b): Cottage Housing. In the NN-01 zone, developments meeting the standards of section 18-2.3.090 Cottage housing shall receive a density bonus consistent with 18- x.xx.xxx .(to reference the density bonus put forth in the ULUO) • Amend the draft Land Use Code 18-3-13.060 to read as follows: A3(a): Automobile Access to development is intended to be provided by alleys where possible consistent with the street connectivity approval standards. Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main street Ashland, Oregon 97520 xvnv.ashland.ocus ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT March 11, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: PL-2013-01858 APPLICANT: City of Ashland LOCATION: Normal Neighborhood District Boundary ZONE DESIGNATION: Jackson County RR-5 (Rural Residential 5 acres) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: City of Ashland Single-Family and Suburban Residential Jackson County Rural Residential Lands ORDINANCE REFERENCE: Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Goal 2 Land Use Planning Goal 14 Urbanization OREGON REVISED STATUTES (ORS): Chapter 197 -Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination REQUEST: To amend the Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan Map, Transportation System Plan, and Ashland Land Use Ordinance to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background - History of Application Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 2, Land Use Planning, as well as Chapter 197 of the Oregon Revised Statues requires a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of land. Specifically, plans and implementation measures such as ordinances controlling the use and construction are permitted as measures for carrying out Comprehensive Plans. Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, directs communities to plan for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan area was Planning Action PL42013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 1 of 12 established in 1981. The area's development as low density residential, changes in the City's population demographics, land availability, housing supply and type, and water resource protection standards over the decades warrant a re-evaluation of the area's Comprehensive Plan designations in consideration of these changed conditions. In March of 2011 the City Council directed the Community Development Department to apply for a Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) grant to prepare a master plan for the 94 acre Normal Neighborhood area, and the City's project was selected for award in June 2011. The TGM program is a joint program of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). The City of Ashland received the TGM grant for consultant services in May 2012 to undertake the neighborhood planning process. A number of urban design, planning, engineering, environmental services and architecture firms were selected to prepare the draft plan. Consultants included Parametrix Inc, UrbsWorks Urban Design, Joseph Readdy Architect, Qamar Architecture and Town Planning, Leland Consulting Group housing market analysts, and Nevue Ngan Landscape Architects. The submission of preliminary draft plan materials and a revised final draft plan concluded the TGM funded portion of the project in September 2013. The neighborhood planning process has involved considerable public involvement including a resident survey, two neighborhood meetings, three public open houses, two Planning Commission site visits, individual stakeholder meetings with property owners and nearby residents, and numerous Planning Commission, Transportation Commission, Housing Commission and City Council study sessions. The design phase of the planning process was initiated in October 2012 with a three day public design charrette, or workshop. The charrette allowed for the identification of issues and concerns, development of goals and objectives for the master plan, and creation of a conceptual neighborhood design. Following the October 2012 charrette, plan options were developed and presented at study sessions and public open houses to obtain public input to assist the design team, city staff, and the Planning Commission to further refine the plan concept. The final Normal Neighborhood Plan, and draft implementing ordinances, were completed in February 2014 and initially presented to the Planning Commission at a study session on February 25`h, 2014. The issues and opportunities identified during the first public workshop and key participants meetings were used to create the project goals and objectives as listed below: • Maximize land use efficiency by concentrating housing in a strategically located area within the City Urban Growth Boundary. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division -Staff Report bg Applicant City of Ashland Page 2 of 12 • Create a development pattern of blocks and streets that supports a balanced, multi-modal transportation system that offers a full range of choices to its occupants and that supports active transportation opportunities like walking, bicycling or using transit in those areas planned for transit service; • Provide a range of housing choices and a variety of open space, public space, and green infrastructure improvements, in a way that preserves and enhances the area's creeks and wetlands; • Design a local street grid for the Project Area including connections to existing and planned street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities beyond the project area that overcome the challenges to connectivity and better integrate the area into the Ashland transportation system; • Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the plan area that will provide safe access to local schools, activities, neighborhoods, and destinations; • Apply those principles of low impact development to minimize the extent and initial cost of new infrastructure and to promote the benefits of stormwater management; • Provide developable alternatives at planned densities that will eliminate the need for expansion of the urban growth boundary; and • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by implementing transportation and land use plans that encourage reductions in vehicle miles traveled. Background Studies To inform the neighborhood planning process a number of studies were completed and previously presented to the Planning Commission in support of this project including: • A Buildable Lands Inventory (approved November 15, 2011- ordinance 43055) provided a basis for evaluation of the amount of available land within the City Limits and Urban Growth Boundary. • A Housing Needs Analysis (approved September 3, 2013 - ordinance #3085), summarized the types of housing that have been developed throughout the City in the recent decades, as well as the projected needed housing based on income and population demographics. • An Executive Summary of Existing Conditions to provide background information for the Normal plan area including the results of a resident survey conducted in June-July 2012. • An analysis of five components of the neighborhood design including infrastructure, mobility, sustainability, open space and greenways, and housing and land use. o Infrastructure Framework Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 12 o Sustainability Framework o Mobility Framework o Greenway and Open space Framework o Housine and Land Use Framework • The traffic engineering firm SO Alliance completed an Existing Traffic Conditions technical memorandum (dated September 12, 2012) , and a Future Traffic Analysis (dated November 19, 2013) to investigate current and future traffic conditions in the Normal Neighborhood Plan study area. B. Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal The Normal Neighborhood Plan District is situated between East Main Street to the north and the railroad tracks to the south, Clay Street to the east and the Ashland Middle School to the west. Currently, the 94 acre area has a mix of Comprehensive Plan designations including single family residential and suburban residential, and is presently outside the City of Ashland (City) city limits but within the City Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This area constitutes the largest remaining area of residentially designated land that is suitable for medium- to high-density development which remains largely vacant or redevelopable. The plan area contains 35 properties ranging in size between 0.38 acres up to 9.96 acres. There are 26 property owners within the plan area with a number owning multiple parcels. Residential development in the plan area has historically been low density large lot single family homes consistent with Jackson County's rural residential zoning standards. The Normal Neighborhood Plan District includes significant natural features including Cemetery Creek, Clay Creek, and three designated wetlands (W9, W 12, W4) that are included on the City of Ashland 2007 Local Wetland Inventory (LWI). The local wetland inventory was approved by the Department of State Lands (DSL) which means the LWI is part of the Statewide Wetland Inventory. The mapped wetland boundaries are estimated boundaries, they have not been surveyed, and there are inherent limitations in mapping accuracy as hydrology conditions change over time. The City of Ashland will require applicants for annexation with potential wetlands on their property to obtain a wetland delineation by a qualified consultant and submit it to DSL and the City prior to development. The Normal Neighborhood Plan is comprised of Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document, official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, and the proposed Normal Neighborhood District land use ordinance amendments (Ch. 18-3.13). Collectively these documents provide the underlying conceptual and regulatory structure for area's future development. Development of this area is expected to Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant City of Ashland Page 4 of 12 occur in an incremental way, as individual parcels propose annexation for specific housing developments. An adopted neighborhood plan allows individual development proposals to better coordinate the provision of streets, pedestrian connections, utilities, storm water management, and open space. Such an approach can ultimately help reduce development costs through appropriate sizing of needed facilities, provision of easements, and secured street access. Additionally a significant benefit of an adopted plan is a clear expectation and understanding regarding the level of development anticipated by both developers and neighboring residents. In this way the development and annexation process for all properties with the plan area is streamlined while ensuring the City can accommodate its future growth in a systematic and efficient manner. The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, Transportation System Plan amendments, as well as amendments to the proposed Ashland Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO). The proposed implementation plan includes: • Adopting the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document as a supporting document to the City's Comprehensive Plan. • Adoption of official Normal Neighborhood Plan maps: o Land Use Designations Map (NN-01, NN-02, NN-03, NN-03C) o Street Network o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network o Street network: Green Streets o Open Space Network • Amending the Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map to create a designation for the Normal Neighborhood Plan District, and revised boundaries for the Conservation Areas within the plan area. • Amending the Transportation System Plan (TSP) as follows: o Amend the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate the plan area's proposed Street Network, and reclassification of Normal "Avenue" to be a Neighborhood Collector. o Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map (TSP Figure 10-3) to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway Project. o Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map to incorporate the planned multiuse trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. • Amend the Street Standards to incorporate Shared Streets. • The draft Unified Land Use Ordinance will be revised through a separate legislative planning action to include a new Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District, to guide and direct both public and private improvements. Additionally, multiple section of Chapter 18 will be amended to provide reference to, and consistency with, the proposed Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 5 of 12 II. Project Impact A. Approval Process and Noticing The proposal involves Comprehensive Plan and Transportation System Plan amendments, as well as additions and revisions to the Ashland Unified Land Use Ordinance (ULUO) necessary to implement the Normal Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation on the package of amendments, and the City Council makes the final decision. Approximately 200 written notices (postcards) were mailed to property owners in and surrounding the Normal Neighborhood District boundary regarding the Planning Commission public hearing (March I I`h, 2014) and City Council public hearing (May 6`h, 2014). A notice was published in the newspaper and a meeting announcement was emailed to residents and workshop/open house participants that provided their email addresses to the City. Meeting announcements and plan materials are posted on the project web page www.ashland.or.us/normalplan B. Proposal Impact The Planned Housing Types and Land Use Designations The proposed Normal Neighborhood District will contain four residential zones, NN- 01, NN-2, NN-03, and NN-03-C. The use regulations and development standards set forth in the proposed land use ordinance (Ch. 18-3.13) for these zones are intended to provide a significant degree of flexibility as to the form and character of individual developments.. Affordable housing with the plan area would be provided by future development as a condition of annexation consistent with current requirements. The Normal Neighborhood Land Use Zones map establishes the proposed designations for the properties within the district. NN-01: The Land Use designation NN-01 is intended to provide single family dwellings, accessory residential units, and cottage housing with a base density of 5 units per acre. The "cottage" housing type is to be consistent with the standards proposed in the Unified Land Use Ordinance as proposed under a separate legislative planning action. NN-02 The NN-02 designation provides housing opportunities for individual households through development of a mix of single-dwelling housing, duplexes, townhomes, accessory residential units, and pedestrian oriented clustered housing with a base density of 10 units per acre. Clustered housing, commonly referred to as "pocket neighborhoods", are a new housing type envisioned for the plan area where multiple compact detached or attached dwellings are grouped around common Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 6 of 12 open space. Through the consolidation of common open space and or parking cluster housing developments can often achieve a housing density comparable to attached row houses or low-rise apartments, yet with a lower profile retaining the appearance of traditional single-family homes. NN-03 The NN-03 land use designation is intended to address Ashland's housing needs through development of multi-dwelling housing with a base density of 15 units per acre. NN-03-C The NN-03-C zone is a residential designation consistent with NN-03, however it would additionally allow for limited neighborhood serving commercial uses such as a coffee shop on the ground floor. Greenway and Open Space The Plan's approach to the greenway and open space framework is establish "Conservation Areas" through a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map. As proposed these areas are to include FEMA's 100 year floodplain, Ashland's designated floodplain boundaries, wetlands identified in the 2007 Local Wetland Inventory, and wetland and riparian buffer areas identified in the Water Resource Protection Zone ordinance. Precluding development in these areas will reduce or prevent the detrimental effects of flood waters, support native vegetation, provide habitat and a travel corridors for wildlife, and promote environmental quality by absorbing, storing, and releasing storm water. The Open Space Network Map shows the areas intended to be preserved as natural areas or open space within the district which absent of any environmental constraints would additionally provide recreational amenities to the districts residents. Streams and wetlands will be maintained as amenities with access to area residents due to the carefully considered transportation network that ensures that these areas are not hidden in back yards. Accommodation of the pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile circulation along the edges of the riparian zones and designated wetlands provides visual and physical access and increases the buffer zones between pockets of development enhancing the character of openness within the plan area. Transportation The Normal Neighborhood Plan includes a transportation framework that would be implemented by the proposed amendments to the Transportation System Plan (TSP) and Normal Neighborhood District Standards. The transportation framework includes a street network, a pedestrian and bicycle framework, and a green street framework. The general location of future roads and paths is addressed by the Normal Neighborhood Plan Street Network Map, although design and engineering at the time Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 7 of 12 of the actual development will determine their precise locations. The proposed Street Network additionally includes designations for streets within the plan area that are to be developed as "green streets" designed to capture and treat storm water in conformance with the City of Ashland Storm Water Master Plan. The proposed street network would amend to the TSP's Street Dedication Map in the Normal Neighborhood District area. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Network map includes facilities incorporated into the streets, as well as off-road multi-use paths including the establishment of two paths crossings Cemetery Creek, paths or shared streets along the west side of Cemetery Creek, a path connecting the terminus of the existing Normal Avenue to East main Street, and a connection from the plan area to the eastern boundary of the Ashland Middle School property. The proposed multi-use paths would amend to the TSP's Planned Bikeway Network Map in the Normal Neighborhood District area. The Normal Avenue neighborhood's internal street network has largely been designed to keep travel speeds in the range of 20 mph by introducing elements such as a planted median, small traffic circles, and subtle changes in direction at block intersections. The backbone of the street network is a re-routed neighborhood collector that extends from the southern intersection at a future improved Rail Road Crossing, to East Main Street between Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek. Given the anticipated traffic volumes on this new road being approximately 1000 average daily trips it is not necessary that it be classified as an "Avenue" but rather a "Neighborhood Collector" designation would suffice. Neighborhood Collectors are expected to accommodate 1500 to 5000 vehicle trips per day and as such this lesser classification would adequately accommodate expected use. The Normal Neighborhood plan also introduces a street type that was recently included in the Transportation System Plan: the "shared street". A shared street is a very low speed street where all of the functions of the transportation system coexist in the same space. There are no individual sidewalks separated from the street surface by curbs and planted medians. There are no bicycle lanes separated from the street by painted lines. The low volumes, low-speeds, narrow cross-section, and traffic calming design elements make it possible for all users safely occupy the street surface by yielding to the slowest and most vulnerable present at a given moment. The use of rear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of paved areas, and will support a complete grid of finely-grained urban blocks. These alleys will provide the primary access to garages and backyards. The specific alley locations within the designated blocks is left to future development site design considerations, subject to the maximum block length and parking access standards. As such those potential alley locations most subject to adjustment are not included in the Street Network map but it Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Repoli bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 8 of 12 is expected that future development will provide alleys to meet access management and connectivity standards. The Future Traffic Analysis report by SCJ Alliance found that all existing intersections in vicinity of the project are expected to continue to function within operational standards in the year 2038 at full build out of the neighborhood plan area. The report recommended that East Main Street should be improved to comply with existing City standards at which point that the improved Avenue could accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic, and that each of the proposed street intersections with East Main Street would function within applicable operational standards. Plan Amendments A minor and major amendment process is included in the proposed Chapter 18-3.13 Normal Neighborhood District, which will be the land use ordinance chapter governing the future development of properties within the plan area. The proposed amendment process provides flexibility to address unforeseen changes in conditions such as shifts in demand for types of uses, and physical or natural constraint challenges in individual developments. • Major amendments provide for a change in a land use overlay, modification of the street layout plan or other transportation facility, reduction or elimination of designated Conservation Areas, a change in the applicable standards, and any other changes not listed. • Minor amendments include shifting the location of streets, alleys or paths more than 50 feet, adjustments to the boundaries of designated Conservation Areas, and changes in dimensional standard requirements not including building height and residential density. C. Discussion Items The attached Normal Neighborhood Plan maps, Framework Document, and draft land use ordinance (18-3.13), have been revised to include items the Planning Commission has discussed over the past several months. A summary of the highlights of the latest revisions as follows. • Designation of open space lands as protected conservation areas. • Provisions allowing the transfer of housing density out of the water resource protection zones. • Establishment of a minor amendment process to allow final open space locations to be moved to correlate with natural features (future wetland locations and boundaries), and a major amendment process if a proposal would reduce the contiguous acreage of conservation area/open space as represented in the plan. Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page. 9 of 12 • Flexibility to allow shared streets to alternatively be developed as alleys or multiuse paths where appropriate adjacent to water protection zones. • Inclusion of mandatory standards relating to storm water management. • Alignment of streets and zoning to correlate with existing property lines. • A change in the street designation of the previously proposed alley in the North west portion of the plan area (Wetland 12) to be a shared Street, thereby allowing the potential to be alternatively developed as a multiuse path if necessary to preserve wetlands or open space. • Clarification to the description of Pedestrian Oriented Cluster Housing within the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework document. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof 18.108.060 Standards for Type III Planning Actions: 1. Zone changes, zoning map amendments and comprehensive plan map changes subject to the Type III procedure as described in subsection A of this section may be approved if in compliance with the comprehensive plan and the application demonstrates that one or more of the following: a. The change implements a public need, other than the provision of affordable housing, supported by the Comprehensive Plan; or b. A substantial change in circumstances has occurred since the existing zoning or Plan designation was proposed, necessitating the need to adjust to the changed circumstances; or c. Circumstances relating to the general public welfare exist that require such an action; or d. Proposed increases in residential zoning density resulting from a change from one zoning district to another zoning district, will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G);or e. Increases in residential zoning density of four units or greater on commercial, employment or industrial zoned lands (i.e. Residential Overlay), will not negatively impact the City of Ashland's commercial and industrial land supply as required in the Comprehensive Plan, and will provide 25% of the proposed base density as affordable housing consistent with the approval standards set forth in 18.106.030(G). The total number of affordable units described in sections D or E shall be determined by rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a period of not less than 60 years. Sections D and E do not apply to council initiated actions. 18.108.170 Legislative Amendments A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other Planning Action PL#2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant City of Ashland Page 10 of 12 changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the proposal is to be first considered. The application shall be accompanied by the required fee. D. Before taking final action on a proposed amendment, the Commission shall hold a public hearing. After receipt of the report on the amendment from the Commission, the Council shall hold a public hearing on the amendment. Notice of time and place of the public hearings and a brief description of the proposed amendment shall be given notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than ten days prior to the date of hearing. E. No application of a property owner or resident for a legislative amendment shall be considered by the Commission within the twelve month period immediately following a previous denial of such request, except the Commission may permit a new application if, in the opinion of the Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The planning process which resulted in the Normal neighborhood Plan involved a wide variety of participants including the general public, property owners and neighboring residents. Staff believes the revisions that have been made in the development of the implementation package over the last 15 months have refined and improved the neighborhood plan, and are largely consistent with the original plan goals and objectives. Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map amendments, adoption of the official Normal Neighborhood Plan Maps, and adoption of the Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework as a technical supporting document of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Transportation System Plan be amended to incorporate the Normal Neighborhood Street network as proposed. The Transportation Commission recommended that the proposed Neighborhood Collector be the sole vehicular connection to East Main Street, thereby recommending elimination of two of the three intersections as proposed in the draft plan. The proposed Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance will be reviewed as part of the broader Unified Land Use Ordinance amendment process. However, given Planning Action PLw2013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant: City of Ashland Page 11 of 12 the interrelated nature of the Normal Neighborhood Plan elements, the Planning Commission is asked to provide recommendations on this ordinance as part of tonight's hearing. Staff recommends approval of the Normal Neighborhood District Land Use ordinance. Attachments • Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework Document (March 2014) • Normal Neighborhood Plan maps: o Comprehensive Plan Map amendment o Land Use Zones o Street Network o Pedestrian and Bicycle Network o Street network: Green Streets o Open Space Network • Normal Neighborhood District Chapter 18 Code Amendments (draft dated 3/11/14) • Letters: o Open City Hall public comments as of 3/5/14 o Hunter letter dated 2/25/14 o Public letters submitted relating to prior iterations of the draft plan are not physically attached to this Staff Report, however they remain available online at www.ashland.or.us/normalolan including the following electronically linked letters: • DeMarinis letter and exhibit (10131/2013) • DeMarims letter and exhibits (1018/13) • Meadowbrook Home Owners (Anderson) letter and exhibits (10/8113) • Ashland Meadows (Skuratowicz) letter (1018/13) • Koopman letter and exhibits (10/8/13) Lutz letter (9/26/2013) • Vidmar letter (7/29/13) • Carse letter (6/27/13) • Gracepoint letter (6112/13) • Vidmar letter (4/26/13) • Shore letter (4/10113) • Marshall letter (4/10/13) • Horn letter (3/05/13) • Filson letter (2/25/13) • Vidmar letter (21251203) Planning Action PL42013-01858 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report bg Applicant City of Ashland Page 12 of 12 Normal Neighborhood Plan Project Guiding Principles and Objective Throughout the process of developing the Normal Neighborhood Plan the Planning Commission, design team, resident participants engaged in the process, and staff have referenced the following goals and objectives to help guide discussions about various plan elements: • Increase efficiency in the use of land through concentration of housing in a centrally located area within the City UGB planned for future urban development; • Achieve a development pattern that results in a balanced, multi-modal transportation system and that enhances opportunities for walking, bicycling or using transit in areas planned for transit service; • Delineate housing, neighborhood serving commercial, open space, public space, and green infrastructure improvements, in a manner that provides for preservation and enhancement of creeks and wetlands; • Develop new illustrative conceptual architectural and site plans for the project area consistent with Transportation and Growth Management objectives. Concepts will meet the City's and the property owners' development goals and standards. • Design a local street grid for the project area including connections to existing and planned street, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities outside the project area to more fully integrate the project area into the City transportation system; • Provide for pedestrian and bicycle routes and facility improvements within the project area that will provide safe access to local schools; • Provide alternatives to, or delay the need for, expansion of the City UGB; • Reduce emissions that contribute to climate change through changes to transportation or land use plans that reduce expected automobile vehicle miles traveled; • Provide an implementation strategy that includes supporting Comprehensive Plan and updated TSP amendments, form based codes, and design standards; and • Present the Plan and documentation necessary to support adoption to City's Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (Council). Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us regards 3 story height limit opposite Creek From :Jonathan Seidler <jonathan.seidler@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 30, 2014 08:23 AM Subject : regards 3 story height limit opposite Creek To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Brandon, As it seems likely compromise will continue with developers till last day on the plan, it would be comforting to see some items non-negotable. 3 story heights will have huge impact on our quality of life for all of us living next door to Creek. Please try to limit height to 2 stories. Sincerely yours, Jonathan Seidler, Hilary Jacobson 357 Meadow Dr. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 1 Public Comments Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Public Hearing May 6th From :Gil Livni - Heiman <helmansprings@gmail.com> Wed, Apr 30, 2014 12:06 PM Subject : RE: Normal Neighborhood Plan Public Hearing May 6th To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Cc :'Gil Livni - Helman' <Helmansprings@gmail.com> Hello Brandon, Please see my letter to the city council below. Thank you Gil Livni 510-913-5110 Apri130, 2014 Hello City Council Members The report from ODSL was completed in 2003 (11 years ago) adopted by Ashland in 2007. In any case, the report is not valid at this point because DSL Wetland Reports are valid for five years. These reports were general observations as well and not scientific reports according to the Wetlands Specialist that I hired. I am unclear why significant decisions are being based on such informal, invalid reports (2003). Basically, when this was brought to the Planning Commission, instead of calling it a Wetlands Area, it has been rephrased as a Conservation Area, taking the land for city purposes, in full disregard of my rights as a Property Owner. In Ashland, I have a right to delineate a Wetland, if it exists, and these rights have been taken away from me and the other Land Owners. I am with the belief that this action is illegal because I am being treated differently than other Ashland Land Owners. In my case, more than 50% is going to Conservation Area. A Wetland Expert from Eugene, who works with the DSL very closely, did his testing and inspections on my land about two weeks ago, and concluded that this area (my lot) is NOT Wetland. I keep on hearing that the area used to be a Wetland, yet it remains the case that the area is currently not Wetland area, nor over the past few years has the area been considered Wetlands. When checking for Wetland, the soil is tested down to 12 inches and examined for composition. The resu%%TafrtF isorWh Wsting does not alter in atshart span of years, even if the"am w6ht5 considered dry years. The soil tests show no signs of being a Wetland, to date. I want to remind everyone that the Co-Op in the past had been a Wetland Area. For the record, one of the reasons why my lot was thought to be Wetland is due to the standing water from the illegal (without any permission) of dumping storm drain water from 30+ homes and accompanying streets of the adjacent Home Development: Meadow Brook Park Estates. Due to this major oversight by the City of Ashland, my land is now in question for both Wetland and/or Conservation Allotment. As an owner, I am clearly perplexed. Thank You, Gil Livni 240 Normal Avenue Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 3 Public Comments Zimbra goldmanb@ashland.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : Eric Sharp <eric.andrew.sharp@gmail.com> Tue, Apr 29, 2014 01:55 PM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Hi Brandon, I am a former resident of Ashland having grown up there, and would like to move back one day. Having heard a bit about the Normal Neighborhood plan, I'd like to voice my support for incorporating the Normal neighborhood into the city limits. As someone who could see themselves moving back to Ashland one day, I'd like to see hope prices not be overly inflated due to our city limits being so small. While it wouldn't make a massive impact, I think the incorporation of the Normal neighborhood is a step in the right direction to help keep Ashland from becoming prohibitively expensive to those of us who would like to one day return to our wonderful home town. Thank you for your time and consideration. Eric Sharp 916-749-8069 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 4 Public Comments Zimbra goldmanb@ashiand.or.us Normal Neighborhood Plan From : T & P Jacobson <Jacobson5 10@comcast. net> Sun, Apr 27, 2014 07:40 AM Subject : Normal Neighborhood Plan To : brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Brandon- I own a condo in Ashland Meadows facing Creek Drive. I am worried about the increased congestion in the neighborhood if the City of Ashland goes forward with a high-density development plan in the Normal neighborhood. While I fully understand the need to provide appropriate housing for all residents, I also think there should be sufficient space for all residents. Putting high-density apartments into this small section of Ashland without proper green space, walking paths, appropriate access etc. will not enhance the beauty or livability of Ashland. Much more study needs to be done on this plan before implementation. Please consider my comments in future discussions about this plan. Thank you, Patti Jacobson Tom Jacobson 2110 Creek Drive Ashland 510-409-5033 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 5 Public Comments 1 Bryce C. Anderson 2092 Creek Drive Ashland, OR 97520 April 8, 2014 Troy Brown, Jr. Michael Dawkins Richard Kaplan Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan Dear Commissioners, The undersigned is chair of an ad hoc committee representing the homeowners' associations of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chautauqua Trace regarding the Normal Neighborhood Final Plan. This letter addresses the concerns we have regarding that portion of the plan area that lies between Clay Street on the east, Cemetery Creek on the west, Creek Drive on the south and East Main Street on the north, and known informally as the "Baptist Church property." At the March 11, 2014 meeting, we presented our concerns regarding density on this property and asked that the NN-03 and NN-03,C areas be changed to NN-02 until the problems regarding utilities and improvements on East Main are solved. At that same meeting, staff expressly stated that once a property is given a certain zoning, the most difficult change to make is to lower the density. It makes no sense to lock this property into a higher density zone when future circumstances may indicate a lower density is preferable, particularly when the density can be increased if the need arises. For all of the above reasons, the three homeowners' associations ask this commission to amend the plan to eliminate the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones from the plan. Very truly yours, Bryce C. Anderson Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 6 Public Comments Paula Skuratowicz 2124 Creek Drive Ashland, OR 97520 March 31, 2014 Troy Brown, Jr. Michael Eawkins Richard Kaplan Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan Dear Commissioners, I have. been following the development of the Normal Neighborhood Plan for the past two years and 1 am still asking the same question I originally asked of the Planning Commission. Who will benefit from putting concentrated high density (NN-03 and NN-02) in only one area of the Normal Neighborhood Plan instead of distributing it throughout the neighborhoods. It is no secret that there is a developer ready to build on the Baptist Church property and can't help but wonder if this circumstance has been a driving force behind the decisions on where to put the high density building. I was recently surprised to hear that high density building is not really necessary to meet future growth needs of the city. And even more distressing were the comments made at the last Planning Commission meeting that once this high density zoning is in place it will be very difficult to reduce it later. It also appears there are still very major issues regarding traffic on East Main that may not be resolved for years and still no current plans to provide reasonable public transportation through the area. As a resident of Ashland Meadows, I have seen the increase in traffic on East Main and am very concerned about the problems that will arise with even more traffic on this road. I understand that sewer and water infrastructure is another of the unresolved problems and have heard the existing sewer and water lines are already barely adequate. I do know the creek that runs through our common area requires constant maintenance for sewer backup. Stressing this system with even more density could be quite a long term problem. Because of the above reasons, I am urging the Planning Commission and the City Council to eliminate the NN-03 and NN-03-C zones on the Baptist Church property and make the entire parcel no more than NN-02 density. Thank you for your consideration of this. Sincerely, Paula Skuratowicz Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 7 Public Comments From Grace Point Church Submitted by email 3/11/2014 Planning Commission, We are concerned about the restriction the current Normal Avenue plan will place on future uses of the lot behind Grace Point Church. First, the plan designates the W-9 wetland, as adopted by local and state agencies, based on an estimate of this region rather than an actual delineation by species and groundwater survey of the property. The actual wetland area may be larger or, as we see it after 7 years of mowing and maintaining, is significantly smaller than current estimates. In the case of the wetland being larger than current estimates, the area available for development will be smaller and our use will be limited. However, in the event that the required delineation results in a smaller area of wetland, there seems no remedy in the current plan for a reduction of the Open Space designation to allow us to use the space available for development. In speaking with the Ashland Community Development Department it was confirmed the W-9 open space size would not change even if a wetland delineation survey showed it to be smaller. It seems that there is some attempted amelioration of this by density transfer from open space to the rest of our property, this allowing a maximum of 64 dwelling units on the entire property. This is a tradeoff but is only usable to us if we make unacceptable changes to the property by placing residential dwellings on our front field and in our parking lot. It does not allow us to make up for that loss to the South of the church in our field. From a 5 to 10 year timeline we have a property that really cannot be used. From a longer term planning viewpoint this may be a reasonable planning concept except I must remind this commission that this Nazarene Church was started in Ashland in 1905 (109 years ago) so we do plan with a longterm viewpoint. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 8 Public Comments A combination of 2 possible solutions exists..The first is allowing the decrease or increase in the conservation area based on an accurate delineation. Secondly, increasingthe density allocation from NN-02 (10 units per acre) to NN-03 (15 units per acre) on the only usable space to the South of the church. This would leave the current NN-02 designation for the rest of the church's property. We request you adopt both. Shifting the focus now to the matter of 2 transportation corridors traversing this area. I am told by staff that an alley or multi use path is required by code adjacent to open spaces. This means that in addition to a 50 foot swath through this property for the road another 25 feet will be taken by the proposed alley. This is in addition to the required 50 foot buffer zone around wetlands. That raises the public taking for transportation corridors to about 75 feet and 125 feet if you consider the buffer zone. This seems exorbitant from our viewpoint. Our request as a solution is to move the current road as far to the south as allowable, within 50 feet of the W-9 open space. This would eliminate the coded need for another transportation corridor. Where in this code and planning action is there a use for this property? There is a public straightjacket to most reasonable uses of this property. We might just have to lease to a farmer who wants fence for livestock to raise cows, sheep, goats and pigs and not ever annex. Finally, there have been comments made in the public forum pertaining to ditching we have done on the property. Some well meaning folks seem to think that this is their property to police. Prior to any ditch cleaning we contacted the Oregon Department of State Lands and were told that there were existing ditches on this parcel and that maintaining these ditches was allowable. We did as they recommended, cleaning these drainages to their previous depth and removing brush from these ditches. We were able to find the previous depth because there were existing culvert pipes in at least 3 locations to set our cleanout depth. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 9 Public Comments R ~1VE~ 11 toga Ashand Planning Commission Meeting April 11; 2014 MAR Subject • Normal Housing Project Thank you for your civic and professional time and services on this ambitious project. I realize it is an important plan in Ashland's housing future. While there have been some helpful zoning, location and other changes made as the planning process has moved on, even a good plan might be improved or provide more guidance for future. implementation by decision makers and contractors. Some concerns like about water and waste- water hook-ups, East Main Street modifications, and financing plans are still to come. It would seem that any initial development would almost require that those elements would be resolved before there could be any occupancy. 1.My earlier concerns about planning for accessability for seniors and ADA for disabled have been allayed by planning staff. 2.Accessory Resdential Units (p. 7 ) will be permitted in nearly all zones, no information was provided. Does this potentially authorize a doubling of living units to this plan? If so, does that voilate the zone density standards. I understand that not many in Ashland have used that infilling strategy as a long-term rental option. If this particular development might attract more people to live in small detached units, it would be a big consideration for the design plan. 3. Affordable housing and less-expensive housing (p. 9). Design for less lawns and maintenance which helps on home-owner association fees. Vest pocket parks (p.14). are labor intensive and not very functional, particularly for any recreational use. A larger central park with picnic facilities and informal play space would be easier to maintain. and allows for more recreation than just walking or biking. 5. Shared streets (p.15) by biker, walkers and autos can be hazardous, particularly if any parking is allowed on them. All on-street parking should be restricted to bays or parking pads. 6. Street mobility (p. 15) + walk-ability look okay within the plan, but anticipate a significant increase of traffic on the east-west corridors, particularly on East Main because that is where the high density housing will be. The improvement of East Main will need turn lanes and the retention of bike lanes at the minimum. Hopefully sidewalks on lower East Main, too. Walking and biking are healthly and encouraged but the long linear layout of Ashland at the base of the Siskiyous has its commercial locations, entertainment, and most dining' facilities at its north-west mid-section and south-east ending section located several miles appart. Realistically, not many residents of this plan will be walking or biking to shop for food and basic supplies, or for dining and entertainment. Hopefully this plan will be sure that there is adequate off-street parking to accomodate the influx of senior retirees and others who will rely on their vehicles. Thanks for your consideration of these points. Dale Swire 233 Clay St. Ashland Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 10 Public Comments Bryce C. Anderson 2092 Creek Drive Ashland, OR 97520 March 11, 2014 Troy Brown, Jr. Michael Dawkins Richard Kaplan Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan Dear Commissioners, The undersigned is chair of an ad hoc committee representing the homeowners' associations of Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chautauqua Trace regarding the Normal Neighborhood Final Plan. This letter addresses the concerns we have regarding that portion of the plan area that lies between Clay Street on the east, Cemetery Creek on the west, Creek Drive on the south and East Main Street on the north, and known informally as the "Baptist Church property." A reasonable development of this property would be welcome, as the portion of the site behind the existing community church is both an eyesore and a fire hazard. There are some problems with the current plan, however, which should have been addressed in more depth. Because this property is very likely to be the first to be developed, and because these concerns should have been addressed more fully in the existing plan, the above associations would ask that the current plan be modified to eliminate the NN-03 and NN-03-C areas from the plan until these problems are solved. 1. Traffic on East Main: Currently, this narrow two-lane road has no curbs or sidewalks cast of Walker Avenue other than the portion of East Main fronting the Mormon Church, no left turn lanes, and narrow shoulders which serve as both pedestrian and bicycle lanes adjacent to large drainage ditches that pose hazards to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover, only the southern side of East Main is in the plan boundaries because the northern side is not within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 11 Public Comments To: Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Re: Normal Neighborhood Final Plan Page 2 As is indicated on page 15 of the plan, entitled "Mobility," no improvement is planned for the northern side of East Main, and any improvement on the southern side must await development of all or nearly all of the properties along the entire frontage of East Main. In the meantime, the inclusion of high density residential and commercial uses on this property will immediately cause traffic hazards as drivers coming east and west on East Main in a 40-mph speed zone attempt to navigate around other drivers turning left or right on the streets leading into this proposed development. Although these hazards cannot be eliminated without improving East Main, they can be significantly lessened by eliminating the commercial and high density residential uses fi•om this property. As tacitly noted at page 6 of the plan introduction, the possibilities for commercial uses in this area are dubious at best, and need for such services highly questionable. High density residential uses are also questionable due to the absence of rapid transit facilities (see page 18), the limited parking which would he available in this zone, and the above traffic problems. 2. Sewer and Water Infrastructure: As indicated at page 29 of the plan, the existing sewer and water lines on East Main and Clay Street are barely adequate, and occasionally inadequate, to serve the existing neighborhoods. The plan, however, has no provision for expanding these lines even though the development of the 10-acre Baptist Church property alone under the current plan would add more than 100 dwelling units, more than exist in Meadowbrook Park Estates and Ashland Meadows combined, in addition to the allowable commercial development. Even a medium density residential development will severely strain existing infrastructure; any higher density will overload it with no planned solution for decades. For all of the above reasons, the three homeowners' associations ask this commission to amend the plan to eliminate the NA-03 and NA-03-C zones from the plan. Very truly yours, Bryce C. Anderson Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 12 Public Comments 2105 E. Main St. Ashland, OR 97520 February 25, 2014 Re: Normal Street Development Plan Please read this document atyour planning meeting so it will be entered into the records of the Ashland Planning Commission We have some serious concerns with the Normal Street Development Plan; we feel that, if implemented, a multi-story development on the Baptist Church property on East Main Street would adversely affect the quality of life for the property owners on the north side of the street. In prior testimony and letters, no mention has been made of the impact on those properties, since they are in the county and not in the urban growth boundary. We have lived here and farmed this land since 1986. Just because the properties on our side of the street are not under the jurisdiction of the City of Ashland doesn't mean that we should be ignored during the planning process. Our concerns are in three areas: water, traffic, and future expense. We depend on a combination of TID water and Clay Creek to irrigate our fields, which we are required to farm under an EFU (Exclusive Farm Use) designation. This past summer (2013) was one of the most difficult irrigation seasons we've experienced since 1986; the water just wasn't flowing enough to irrigate our fields. And this year's drought conditions may cause an even more difficult summer watering season. Twice in the past 15 years we have also experienced problems with the drinking water from our well. Both times our well dried up during the hot summer days, and we were forced to dig a deeper well, at great expense. This happened soon after new development on both sides of lower Clay Street and after the Mormon Church sunk a new well for irrigating their ball fields. Our property is at the end of the "water chain," adjacent to Bear Creek, so we are at the mercy of those using,the water above us - or buildings and concrete limiting the flow of water. We can only imagine what a new high-density development across the street from us would do to exacerbate the water flow issue. Looking at current traffic problems, we would definitely not support an increased number of cars speeding by our property if new feeder streets pour traffic into East Main. At some times of the day it's already a 5-minute wait to safely walls across the street or leave the driveway in a car. If the proposed plan for the area on the south side of East Main Street were to be implemented, there would be a significant increase in vehicle trips along our street. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 13 Public Comments From what 1 gathered at the October meeting, some think the traffic solution is to widen East Main Street, adding sidewalks and gutters. Since we have a long street frontage, I am concerned that we would be forced to incur a massive expense to "improve" East Main, which we would rather not see turned into a city street We all know that EFU and high density residential are incompatible uses near each other; property on the edge of town is usually kept at a very low density to make the transition to agricultural use logical and seamless. If the parcel of land in question were planned for mostly single family homes instead of higher density housing - with strong protective measures for dealing with water problems - then fewer houses would be built, the street would not need to be redone, there would not be additional concerns about water, and the retention of a rural atmosphere would prevail. Thank you for listening to our concerns and considering them in your planning process. Yours truly, Jim and Marcia Hunter i Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 14 Public Comments To: craig; 'David Chapman; Mike Faught; grafoasou.cdu; shown; Corinne; dyoung ajeffnet.org; carol; April Lucas; tbrownpc; rpkaplan46; Debbie Miller; Melanie Mindlin; Bill Molnar; mike; tmpeddicord October 31, 2013 Dear Commissioners, After speaking with Senior Planner Brandon Goldman, I have modified recommendations for your consideration in the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan. Following staff guidelines for the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, locating similar densities of development across from established neighborhoods has been a primary objective since the Charrette process. North of Creek Drive, and west of Clay Street, the zoning plan has been changed from NA-03 to NA-02 because the proximity and density of the higher multi-family housing type would put too much traffic out onto existing (NA-02) single-family neighborhood street frontage. I believe this should hold true for the existing (NA-01) neighborhood along the current Normal Avenue as well. The proposed new Normal Ave. (main collector road traversing north/south) should have the most density along this "spine" road, thereby retaining the single family dwelling (NA-01) neighborhood character where it already exists along the current Normal Ave. If the housing density is shifted towards the new Normal Ave., then the need for the problematic egress across the Wetlands #9 is eliminated. The better alternative egress for a centrally located density would be to direct residential traffic DUE NORTH to E. Main (see option #2 below). The closer you have the higher density zoning (NA-02, NA-03) to the new main neighborhood collector road, the less vehicle miles people will have to travel through neighborhoods to egress onto a major arterial like E. Main St. The City's goal to preserve its natural areas, especially its largest designated wetland, will then be possible. In considering alternatives necessary for the project area connectivity to E. Main St. from the west side, there are two options. 1. If connectivity is proposed by extending the current Normal Ave. through to E. Main St., the following problems are encountered: a. The connector road would be a pretty tight fit restricted between existing structures, and even necessitating the demolition of some. b. The potential intersection with E. Main St. from the existing Normal Ave. would suffer the consequences of its proximity to the blind curve hindering line of sight of oncoming E. Main traffic from the west, and making for a very dangerous left turn onto a main arterial. c. The City planners have made great efforts to create a road that doesn't produce a straight shot through the project (from the RR tracks to E. Main). Connecting traffic would see a straight line through the current Normal Ave to continue directly to E. Main, where speeds could increase to 30 mph (similar to the problem on Faith St.). Without that straight line connection, a more central "spine" route using the new Normal Ave., with its circuitous design, will require behavioral modification as it slows vehicular speeds, making it safer for cyclists, Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 15 Public Comments children, and even cars passing each other. The new sinuous Normal Ave. will be more obvious as the main collector going through to E. Main, and will be seen as access to the development, rather than a cut- through for non-residents. 2. If connectivity is proposed by extending the "spine" road (new Normal Ave.) through to E. Main, you solve a multitude of problems: a. There are no structures which would need to be demolished and, due to lack of nearby existing buildings, the road would not need to be a tight fit or restricted in its placement. b. The intersection onto E. Main would have twice the visual clearance distance since it is further away from the blind curve in the road (along Temple Emek property) than option 1's hazardous egress. c. With the zoning density more centrally shifted, this egress option is closer and more accessible for residents, with less vehicle miles required to reach the main arterial of E. Main. d. The visual straight shot North/South road is eliminated and through traffic will more likely be development/resident related and safer. The current Normal Ave. will retain its neighborhood feeling and safely encourage pedestrian/cyclist multi-modal use to open space and school zones. The City has housing types which it needs to provide for all types of residences, as well as simultaneously achieving density goals for the Normal Ave Neighborhood Project. Rezoning the land and its uses into the center of this Project will allow for economy of scale, with full block lengths accommodating multi-family dwellings and their required parking areas. Transitioning out from this core (NA-03) zone, cluster cottage-type housing (NA-02) around common greens can develop. The single family (NA-01) character can then be retained in the existing neighborhoods on the edges of the project area. The overall density of the project will remain with approximately the same number of dwelling units (450) as outlined in the most recent iteration of the Planning Land Use Zone Map. Please review the attached version of the alternative connections and zoning recommendations I have identified. I hope you will consider these as viable options in your final plan for the Normal Ave. Neighborhood Project. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and time. I would also like to thank Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner, for all his expertise and patience in explaining and working with me to find viable solutions that will retain the goodwill of the community involved in this project. Sincerely, Sue DeMarinis 145 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 suederntocharter. net cc: Brandon Goldman Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 16 Public Comments Submitted Illustration by Sue DeMarinis: It: r r' t d 4 z • z ° Sy e ♦ ICJ , t biz 1`,~; . t y - f , - r r F'iY ~r ~1~ P~~11~-1. i y ae, et; 11 tt N 94 ~ 1 III Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 17 Public Comments From: "Sue D." <suedem@charter.net> To: "Craig ashland" <craig.ashland@gmaiLcom>, davidchapman@ashlandhome.net, faughtm@ashland.or.us, graf@sou.edu, shawn@polarissurvey.com, Corinne@mind.net, dyoung@jeffnet.org, carol@council.ashland.or.us, "april lucas" <april.lucas@ashland.or.us>, tbrownpc@gmailcom, rpkaplan46@gmaiLcom, "Howard Miller" <hmiller@jeffnet.org>, sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us, tmpeddicord@gmail.com Cc: normalpeople@tenderelf.com Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:23:13 AM Subject: Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan Revisions October 24, 2013 Dear Transportation Commissioners, As a concerned citizen of the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, I have thought long and hard about the issues that keep plagueing this Master Plan. I finally realized that it was the distribution of the zoning densities that was creating the problems. These problems were hazardous traffic patterns/roads, diminished wetlands with asphalt roads through them. Iong,straight connectors inviting hazardous speeds (regardless of the posted speed limits), as well as too many road crossings over sensitive wetlands/creeks. So, I sat down with a bottle of white out and some markers and redrew the Land Use Zones and the subsequent road patterns that would be needed to accomodate these zoning densities and traffic flow. If you compare the attached latest iteration from Planning Staff (9/24/13) to my attached modified version, you will see some beneficial changes. I have included an attached map of the Wetlands Inventory for you reference as well. Even with all these changes, THE SAME NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS IS STILL WITHIN THE NORMAL AVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 1 1. The Wetlands #9 (5.38 acres) is now shown as intact with only a foot/bike path (indicated with an T") traversing it. This allows a connection and access to the Ashland Middle School that is not only safe, but encourages the new neighborhood's children to use it. This design also keeps safe the arrival and pickup of students using the school bus turn around by not having a major road connector dumping vehicular traffic into this area. This connector road is not necessary when the zoning is redistributed to the center of the development. The central density will more naturally use the closer outlet roads feeding onto E. Main St. (the horseshoe exits around the commercial zoning within NA-03) 2. The decreased density just north of the AMS school bus turn around (showing some more NA-01 yellow), as well as not having a major connector road bringing more vehicular traffic across from the center of the development, will limit the problems and hazards when connecting onto E. Main Street. from Ashland Middle School bus turn around. 3. In following the Staff guidelines for Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, I have tried to locate similar densities of development across from established neighborhoods. Mostly, the front of any existing house is now facing the same zoning density in which it itself is located. Even some of the proposed development areas are occasionally facing a lower density. This design gives the Neighborhood a "Bell Curve" shape with the edges having the lower densities adjacent to/facing existing neighborhoods, and concentrates the higher zoning density toward the center of the development where no neighborhoods currently exist. Letter and Exhibits submitted by Site DeMarinis Oct. 24, 2013 RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 18 Public Comments 3. 1 have shown a decrease in roads crossing the Wetlands #12, thereby preserving and enhancing the creek/wetland habitat and flow. The water protection zone buffer of 50' adjacent to Wetland #12 necessitated my moving the west side of the new Normal Ave to now go between the new NA-01,(yellow) & NA-02 (orange) land use zones just west of Wetlands #12. The east-west cut throughs between the new blocks off of the west side of the new Normal Avenue are staggered, rather than straight across, which will, by design, require vehicles to travel at a slower speed, rather than hoping they follow the speed limits. 4. Foot/bike paths are indicated with an "F" for their crossings of Cemetery Creek/Wetlands #4. 5. The most southeastern portion of the Plan had only NA-02 zoning. I increased it to NA-03 since it will only be facing open space and the RR tracks and no existing neighborhood. Where the pocket of NA- 02 adjacent to Wingspread Mobile Home Park backed up to an existing home, I changed a portion of that block to be NA-01 thereby matching a density with an existing homesite. Also, this most southeasterly portion of the development did not show any road around the NA-02 blocks, so I added them. 6. In the most northeastern portion of the development area, which faces single family homes on Clay Street, I changed the density zoning (to NA-01 yellow) to match across the road with the existing neighborhood. As the density changes on Clay Street after passing Abbott St., the development zoning changes (to NA-02 orange) to match the density of the neighborhood it faces. This is also why the portion of the development that faces the established neighborhood on Creek Drive has retained its NA- 02 character. I believe these changes in design to the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan will help solve many of the public's concerns which haven't been addressed by the current staff plan. My ideas are just another way of looking at potential development that truly has input from the people who will live with it. Thanks for taking your time to consider this alternative to making Ashland livable, affordable, safe and beautiful. Regards, Sue DeMarinis 145 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR suedeme.charter.net Letter and Exhibits Submitted by Sue DeMarinis Oct. 24, 2013 RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 19 Public Comments 7z,hpk Er+ek t a . =.r . !l t K-` f "p* -fq Are y t I s~o ~r K ~ ~4 rt g z ~NA-01 JJJU u Fo ~-a "a OpenSpea ice "ofth j° ' NeighboihoodCommvdal Allowed lrln P t i' A w ~ 6 w --i~3~ 'emu ~'°Ya4t~z Letter and Exhibits submitted by Sue DeMarinis Oct. 24. 2013 RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 20 Public Comments City of Ashland Local Wetlands Inventory c,r, or -ASHLAND T39S R7 E 10 ' ~ a •yxi~..~:{:-t. rnx>~ axa'c+~ec7r::.: ir.c=~.~f~i~ •..,c• a=K+:w~. ` -s..~:': H 1 I x I _4 i .I _ roncw,T.. doo i T39 it 10 wo J r P I ~ 1 s lC' frT a rY _ f _ _ R , L-u s r' J:~1 1• 1 .a-1 it L pgY•YOO~rrV4' - '~A ~w~ eruw.rrw Q~Wdv`.m W' Cur~avummr rma. rr.~•`wis++ OIVYV6a•9 r•a1~ '1• IIr - r~.~..r~. ~IVtl CJ l,Y•,IV•r WVfi :l »R{w1eGOYY i~u {MW. OMYLOWi a WIWe OIY• ~ ,MYII. V•OtlIM rr~~ ✓wfti • YM,b Mu0 .l. SS7=-= •.f4r•9n WI t y. ♦ rr•+~a.m .rv6(Ptly~.d~WY•M aY O.wm.,aa Letter and Exhibits submitted by Sue DeMarinis Oct. 24, 2013 RE: Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 21 Public Comments From: "Marni Koopman" <marnikoopman@yahoo.com> To: tbrownpc@gmaiLcom, rpkaplan46@gmaiLcom, hmiller@jeffnet.org, sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.onus, tmpeddicord@gmaiLcom Cc: john@council.ashland.or.us Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:49:57 PM Subject: Normal Avenue Development comments Dear Commissioners- I wanted to thank you for your time last Tuesday night and for listening carefully and respectfully to the comments of the public, including my comments about the increased risk of building in floodplains with accelerating climate change impacts. In May of 2012, the City Council approved, based on recommendation of the Conservation Commission, an amendment to develop a City Operational Sustainability Plan and use that experience as a pilot project in the subsequent development of a broad community Sustainability Plan. The complete amended Council goal is as follows: "Develop a concise sustainability plan for the community and for City operations, beginning with development of a plan framework, suggested plan format, timeline and resource requirements for City Operations that can be used as a model for a community plan to follow" The sustainability plan closely follows the guidelines set out by ICLEI, of which the City of Ashland is an affiliate community. I am currently helping to develop the community sustainability framework. An important component of this framework is to make sound decisions based on likely FUTURE conditions rather than historical conditions. Another component is to consider social equity issues in conjunction with climate change impacts in ongoing planning efforts. Unfortunately, the Normal Ave. development would not align with the Sustainability Plan for numerous reasons, including flood risk and the greater risk to lower-income individuals. An example of social inequity of risk is the fact that much of the trailer park on Clay Street is directly in the high risk flood zone as indicated by FEMA's flood maps. I'm sorry that the sustainability planning framework is not yet fully realized, as I think it would greatly inform the Normal Avenue Development process. I heard comments from the Planning Commissioners about how this development should not be treated any differently than other developments in Ashland. But I would like to remind the Commissioners that things are DIFFERENT than they used to be (last summer as the warmest ON RECORD for this area). Conditions are changing and they will continue to change even more quickly. We cannot afford to plan and build in the ways we have in the past. It will put people's safety at risk, low-income populations at even greater disadvantage, and it will cost more and more in damages and lives. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 22 Public Comments Its time to look forward rather than to the past to inform our decisions. The conditions that our grandfathers experienced, or those of the 1960's floods, will not resemble future conditions. Ignoring record floods in Colorado, New York, Vermont, and along the Mississippi, record rainfall in Washington, record drought in Texas, and record heat in California while making decisions based on historical averages is dangerous practice. We know better. Please see the attached research from Stanford University, showing a 25-30% increase in severe storms that produce destructive rainfall, hail, and tornadoes. "The severe thunderstorms we experience now can result in very high economic losses," Diffenbaugh [Stanford professor of Environmental Earth System Science] said. "Sadly, we have many examples of cases where a single storm has had disastrous impact. So a 25 or 30 percent increase in the annual occurrence represents a substantial increase in the overall risk." Building affordable housing in a floodplain is risky and inequitable - if you decide to move forward with the project, I hope you are willing to hold the responsibility for taking that risk. Thanks for your attention to this issue. Marni Koopman, Ph.D. Climate Change Scientist 971-221-9868; marnikoopman@yahoo.com Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 23 Public Comments Meadowbrook Park Estates Homeowners Association Bryce C. Anderson, Board Member October 8, 2013 Troy Brown, Jr. Michael Dawkins Richard Kaplan Deborah Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord City of Ashland Planning Commission 51 Winburn Way Ashland, Oregon Dear Commissioners, As we have stated before, the Meadowbrook Park Estates, Ashland Meadows and Chautauqua Trace Homeowners Associations are in favor of the development of the property in the Normal Avenue Neighborhood Plan that lies between the western half of Creek Drive and East Main Street, known informally as the "Baptist Church property." The portion of the site behind the existing community church is both an eyesore and a fire hazard, and development would be a welcome improvement. At the same time, as indicated on pages 15 and 16 of the September 24 report, there are serious traffic problems along East Main. This narrow two-lane street has no curbs or sidewalks east of Walker Avenue other than the portion of East Main fronting the Mormon Church, no left turn lanes, and very narrow pedestrian and bicycle lanes adjacent to large drainage ditches that pose hazards to both pedestrians and bicyclists. Moreover, only the southern side of East Main is in the plan boundaries because the northern side is not within the City of Ashland Urban Growth Boundary. As a result, any improvement of East Main in the development area will result in bicyclists, as well as pedestrians running or jogging in the bicycle lanes, using the southern side of East Main for travel in both directions. To make matters worse, if the current plan is followed, the development of the Baptist Church property will immediately result in at least two additional streets feeding into East Main, as well as an unknown amount of commercial traffic from the proposed development. The additional street traffic feeding into a two-lane road with a 40 mile per hour speed limit will present numerous additional hazards. (The attached map shows East Main, with the 40 mile per hour portion indicated in blue.) This problem will not be solved until the City of Ashland gets control of, and develops the north side of East Main, which will probably have to be done by expanding the Urban Growth Boundary, but the alternative is a crowded, unsafe street. These issues are only hinted at in the current development plan, and we submit that they should be set forth explicitly in considerably more detail. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 24 _ Public Comments To: City of Ashland Planning Commission October 8, 2013 From: Meadowbrook Park Estates HOA et al. Page 2 We would note again that the above comments are focused mainly on that portion of the plan covering the Baptist Church property, because this portion is likely to be the first developed, and to have the most immediate impact on the three homeowners associations affected by such development. There may well be other serious concerns regarding that portion of the plan covering the Normal Avenue extension, such as wetlands preservation, storm water dispersion and the like, but we will leave any comment on these aspects of the plan to the homeowners immediately affected by them. Thank you for your consideration of these items and your work on the plan. Very truly yours,(, I Bryce c. derso n Meadowbr ok Park Estates HOA i i I I i Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 25 Public Comments 12, 2 FF JAL t i" 11 71, '(W 7,1- IS r iC - J1 4 i ~ - r r~Y//ice ~ - - ~ f r l l l A TO; Noimal Neighborhood l~ans"j ~i'L`r'a~~~` letters 26_:'' i ;,`..J =7 ~ - PUblit Commenisy 26 Sep 2013 To: City of Ashland Transportation Commission Ashland City Council City of Ashland Planning Commission 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 From: Brett & Susan Lutz 1700 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 541-218-5203 Council and Commission' Members, My wife and I moved to Ashland 7 years ago; in the latter half of 2006. We moved here to become part of the vibrant community, for the good schools, the balance of open space with wise development, and plentiful outdoor recreation, among other reasons. Last summer we moved to 1700 East Main Street, into the proposed Normal Avenue Neighborhood Development area, with our 3 young children. Our property lies on 1.16 acres`adjacent to the Ashland Middle School and Grace Point Church. My family and I wish to continue to remain zoned in Jackson County, We do NOT want to be annexed into the city of Ashland. My comments to follow, specific to the transportation plan, will explain some of the reasons why. In the Phase 2 (long term) portion of the "Neighborhood Plan", the diagram found at http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/Phase2 Aerialx.pdf shows a neighborhood street for the project going through what are deemed "locally significant" wetlands. These should be preserved for water filtration and wildlife habitat. Additionally, the existing road is used by the Middle School as a bus turn- around area, parking during sporting events for both Ashlanders and family and friends of visiting schools, and by both Grace Point Church and Temple Emek Shalom. Current traffic volume is so high already during certain times of certain days that adding additional traffic Would certainly result In increased congestion likely resulting in the need for a traffic light. Adding a traffic.light would increase road noise, pollution to air and water (there is both a stream and a TID line on the north side of our property that ends up in Bear Creek), and slow traffic movement on East Main Street. Additionally, we fear that a traffic light would make it more difficult to get in and out of our driveway that exits to East Main Street and would almost certainly lower the value of our property. Instead, we would like to see the nearby wetlands expanded, not reduced in size. As our climate continues to change, the need for wetlands for filtering water and to buffer us from flash flooding due to increased rainfall rates will increase. During dry times, these wetlands can buffer us from drought by serving as water and moisture storage for us and wildlife. Therefore, we believe that there should be a wildlife corridor established and preserved from these wetlands to Bear Creek, and see ourselves as part of that. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters27 Public Comments Thus, we wish tt~pp be excluded from the expansion project and ask that no road beyond what already exists be establislRhrough the locally significant wetlands and along the east edge of our property. Rather than develop our land, we want to use it for local food production, green space, as a wildlife corridor, and for renewable energy production. Thanks for your time and understanding. Sincerely, Signed Brett & Susan Lutz and Family Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 28 Public Comments l F Y Fl, I- t In nw W ) ~t r , ~l EF" . ~ t4 r { z7 j 1 L ~ ~ C a ' A n'f. b )t I't^ ,Normal Net hbothood Plan'~\ t:'^ letters 29 '6 Public ommen r~.'^,`n9'~,. P"+'Rk"} '-~,F,'t ii ' r" ' _ $ fk^r_ .,.4^, 4a ,_''_..__1 8 October 2013 Dear Ashland Planning Commission I am providing written and verbal comments today about the proposed Normal Avenue development. I want to first mention that I fully support infill to prevent sprawl. I applaud the Planning Commission's diligence in meeting the city of Ashland's goals to provide affordable housing for residents while honoring the city boundaries. 1 am concerned about the proposed construction of so many units in such a delicate and vulnerable area, however, and feel that just because the property is within city limits does not automatically make it a desirable place to build. My job is to help cities prepare for the impacts of climate change. I have worked for the communities of San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Missoula and Fort Collins, Colorado. I am currently helping Fort Collins city planners, just like yourselves, identify where residents are most vulnerable to climate change impacts and develop strategies to reduce their vulnerability. Fort Collins has had 2 recent wake-up calls to the impacts of climate change - the first was when school was cancelled city-wide due to heat (rather than snow) and the second was the devastating 1000-year floods they experienced just a month ago. Climate change is expected to lead to more extreme events - more heat waves, droughts, catastrophic wildfires, and floods. I have looked closely at the models for southern Oregon and there is a clear signal of increasing potential for large winter storms for this area. With this new knowledge of increasing flood risk related to climate change, it is no longer responsible to build in areas where we once considered building. We need to reduce the risk to people in flood zones. Unfortunately, the people most at risk during floods are usually those with the lowest incomes and least ability to respond or bounce back. i I looked at the FEMA flood maps for the Normal Ave. planned development, which is immediately next to the Clay St. development. The Clay St. development is mostly in a Moderate Risk area for flooding, which FEMA defines as between the 100-year and 500- year flood risk zones. Parts of it (especially the trailer park) are in the High risk area as well, which is within the 100-year floodway. The Normal Ave. development area was not studied by FEMA, but is adjacent to it and has similar features, including streams and wetlands that are of similar size and volume of water. This shows that the area is currently at risk, but we need to remember that climate change presents us with even greater risk to consider. Climate change is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades, with greater and greater risk of floods, drought, and wildfire. Planning for resilient communities means thinking ahead and keeping people out of hazardous areas now, to reduce their vulnerabilities during future disasters. While I support infill, I cannot support this project. The area is perfect for a park with natural vegetation and trails that can be used by the schools nearby and local kids. Thank you, Marni Koopman, Climate Change Scientist Ashland Resident (1790 Homes Ave.) 3 attachments: (1) Excerpts from the Climate Resilient Communities Primer, (2) FEMA Maps of the proposed Normal Ave. development area, and (3) pictures of Colorado floods. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 30 Public Comments v °.rowsv++mwl (:rrY oF'..ASNI..A\N I E ,Zfi 411 1844 - e • IB83 O Qm1 ~ Rl ~l 10 O O 1 901 ° CH Y OF ASw.,k~n wv w~wikoenrov 41 y smm~ Q 410090 Ill ~ E ~19p E , itRFYt .t~ t1rt OF SNOT 1n111 51 ` ZONE I '1 Q 19Ug AE JI a ~1,t y !91\9 I ~ ~~9 \ . a i t I ,l /(el/11( 99 I y .J., 'frcd BASEL E C%OI C'Ka'kk C' £ [n[Fe. 1914 n tl afTl4ile l+ l 'x F 91 Bps eet 'RI O BI JACKSON RI'M d'\L\COIII4 ` n O O amJE v Y n 9 {15 IS 19)7 ~ •T?> A 6939 vwav a:.F I ~ 1 f ~ i + wn aeeo,•.cwna.l xn.. c^.c 'y.`~`•-~~+-..~ ~ ~ 1961 a I T'; 941 1962 1964 J r ~fJ . a+FV2 ~ II ! K ZONE ABC' 4'11'150' - uavear av 43300°0 FT 1960 JACKSON CONK'1'\' JOINS PANEL 22161tii UNINCORPORATED dN EAS y I 1 F B Stay Dry d aW •Nalercnm LaYen A HF14ttJNxittq QF19N FaMGAnJ+ry Ffro RLk Areas ~ 2 e+~tf1 Y1~nApeaiWLU'( 1 W ROMA'. ,r i ~ ~ f;~iv~hpea r 1 ;;:IOnlt NCdLYI Ffiap4 , UH3fdla]paYNea i u t a O Figures 1 and 2. These maps are from the FEMA Flood Hazard mapping website (msc.fema.gov). The top map shows the boundaries of the area where FEMA completed their detailed study. The bottom map shows thatthe areas that were studied all showed up as iiieh!and moderate risk for flooding. The areas that were outside the study boundary were not classified. These maps were accessed 10-7-2013. Of note is that fact that the Clay St. develo ment is at moderate to high risk, and is similar to the proposed Normal St. No al o plan letters 1 Putl1'~ Cor~mpnts development. c~e mes moderate risk as "between tVe limits of 1007year and 500-year IIoo s. 5 i P ~ t 9 I I Y i Figures 3 and 4. Areas of Lyons Colorado where homes built near local creeks were flooded in September, 2013. r Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 32 Public Comments j Y ~r I u~1"n Y ~ F a 1` vz yy~ 'in .k M4 i+'Y ipW 1 I~ ~T'ni ~ W .swYT'YL ~$sfi rti Litz.-~. Yt,b P"" 1'b RP ~ 4a lrw~P!rM~ r' 11,1 tow to "will ~ a +m. 4re,rsWr.+NP w' T"h iel)13rr rr 11 ti z 1 : 15}Pfrgrr 11 it 'il{R$ 11b'W M W WI iIi 111 x3 c' 1~;.:'.. -e g4sWrrn4 ~I"li b'r 114 sw 1~t~ ®y CC'7J1~~~';t CJ di si oll wl ~1 P iY)b{ c 4•iPrb ~:a r•~f tYrY•g4l silwji r )i Pq iB (1 - Mir rYY+. G7ii bail G YcG ikYrmF Y. We F ~N MM Wftmw® UAW !WWW '~a,~ NYyr er .®4P iWPy : 1+~ ,1-,W b c` ,.M °»1r ~b 7 fn ear ' waY., AY[I"~'}It'I~ P lti TIInP E.l bY. W wM ~ ~ . , ~ Y n., i Wl~ ,1..: y'arr a l! n' { 1{ }j ) ` Primer on Reducing Vulnerabilities to Disasters 3 Ne.er6j.Prasad - Federica Ranghier - Fatima Shah . ~Zoe'Trohanis - Earl,Kes"sler',) Ravi Sinha - -A. Oil THE WORLD BANK jai ~ 8 / CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES A PRIMER TABLE 1.1 / Possible impacts of extreme climate change relevant = _ to urban areas (mostly ,Warmer withrfewee:661a daysand 11❑ Heal island effect adverse in East Asia) nights, warmer and more frequent 16 Increased demand'for cooling hotdays and nights ' ❑ Declining air quality in cifies Sovrcr: lPCC, SJnrkiu R(Qad ❑ Effects on winlertourisin - -svnnn,nyforla igmkm (viduelly'cei)ain). 1I❑ Reduced energy demand I& heating (a short=term benefit but Anec anent of Waling Croups I~ not in East Asla) t, If, and Ill to thc'I'hird If❑ Reduced disruption to trans, oi-tdue to snow ice (a short term Assessment Report of the l! - ' I benefit, but not In East Asia brlcrgosrnnncrtlal i. Panel on Climate Change l Warm spells/heat waves. ❑ Increased water demand ([PCC! Cambridge Unhvrsiq rFrequency Increases over most I ❑ Water quality problems Pmm, 2007), landareas ❑ Increased risk of heat-relaied mortality, especially'torthe elderly, chronically sick very young and socially isolated (very. likely) ❑ Reduction in quality of Ide for people in warm areas without a ro date cousin itHeevy precipitation events i ❑ A e se onrquality of'surface and groundwater kFrequency increases over most, ontamination of water supply ' {areas. I❑ Increased risk. of deaths, injuries, and infectious, respiratory; It ( and skin diseases. ,likely) ~I❑ Disruption of setllements,,commerce, lransport,and,sodeties due''to.fiooding • , In Large displacementof-people r Pressures on urban and ruralinfrastruclures ❑ ss of properly ❑ Wate f b_e relieved (short-te _ i Intense'tropicalcycloneactivity " ❑ Power-outages Increases t~o Distre'ss migration'to urban areas I u Disruption of public water supply (likely) ❑ Increased risk of deaths injuries, water and,food"borne dlseases,,post-traumatic stress disorders i Disruption by flood and high winds I ❑ Withdrawal of risk coverage in vulnerable areas by private I j )I Insurers t,❑ 'Potential for population migrations ' ❑ Loss of property 'increased incidence of extreme ❑ Decreased freshwater availability due to saltwater Intrusion high'sea level (excludes tsunamis) 1111 Increased risk of deaths and InJuries by drowning m floods and + )j migration-related health effects' - (likely). Ili Less:Of property-and livelihood It ❑ Permanent erosion and submerslon of land i I ❑ Costs: of coastal protection versusrcosts of land-use relocation I,o Potential for. move ment of populations and infrastrutilure f A supportive institutional and policy environment at the state and national levels can enable loci) adaptation. \4ainstrearning these issues into policy and practice leads to holistic rather than sectors) engagement in climate change. Cities act cross-sectoralll; a critical approach for dealing with. climate . -change and disaster management. to this context, mainstreaming implies integrating: awareness of future climate change impacts into existing. and. future policies and plans of developing countries, as Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 34 Public Comments 24 / CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES: A PRIMER FIGURE 2.3 / Relationship] between the cost of adaptation and climate change So mm Stern, N., Stmt Raino on the Erunonda of Cfumle Ch lqi (Cambridge: Cambridgc Costs WIIl10ul Unimisity Press, 2006). adaptalion fuel benefit of adaptalion Costs rrith adaptalion E + residual climate change damage E5 1^rr/~ Gross benefit QA 1Y V \ S of adaptation Costs of residual r66 (A climate change damage C T Costs of climate change after adaptation . >n Global Mean Temperature Societies have a long record of'managing the impacts of weather- and climate-relatecl events. Never- theless, additional adaptation measures will be required to reduce the adverse impacts of projected climate change and variabilit); regardless.of the scale of mitigation undertaken over the nest tiro to three decades. Moreover, vulnerability to climate change cauibe exacerbated by other stresses. These arise from, for example, current climate hazards, poverty and unequal access to resources, food inse- curity, trends in economic globalization, conflict, and incielence of diseases. Some planned adaptation to climate change is already occurring on a limited basis. Adaptation can reduce vulnerability especially when it is embedded within broader sectoral initiatives. There is high confidence that there. are viable adaptation options that can be implemented in some sectors at low cost, and/or itdth high benefit-cost ratios. However, comprehensive estimates of costs and benefits of adaptation need to be evaluated for each ninon area. The urban poor are typically at the highest risk in the event of natural disasters due to the location of low-income settlements. These settlements are often on sites vulnerable to floods and landslides, infrastructure is weak or lacking, and housing is substandard. and prone to fire damage or collapse. The urban pooh thus face threats to their lives, assets, and future prosperity due to an increase in risks of storms, floods, landslides, and,exi mme temperatures: Urban poor are also likely to get un- equal distribution of scarce assets such as water, energy supply, and urban infrastructure, thereby increasing' their vulnerability. Recovering from disasters is also particularly difficult for the poor as j they do not have resources or adequate safety nets, and public policies often prioritize rebuilding in f I i Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 35 Public Comments I SECTION 02 EXPLAINING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT / 25 other parts of the city.2' luvironmental- and climate change-related problems affect the urban poor disproportionately because of poor quality and overcrowded housing and the inadequacies in provi- siorof water, sanitation, drainage, health care, and garbage collection. The adaptive capacity of a society is intimately connected. to its social and economic development. However, the adaptive capacity is unevenly distributed across and within societies. A range of barri- ers limit both the implementation and effectiveness of adaptive measures. The capacity to adapt is dynamic and influenced by a society's productive base, including natural and man-made capital as- sets, social networks and entitlements, human capital and institutions, governance, national income, health, and technology. Even societies with high adaptive capacity remain vulnerable to climate change, variability, and extreme events. Early mitigation of GHG emissions will decrease future adaptation costs. However; even if efforts The urban.. 0001' to stabilize GHG-concentrations tire relatively successful, some degree of warming and related im- pacts twill continue to occur in the, future. An effective response to city-level climate change must are )t~)1Clrll)r !(t tl1B therefore combine both mitigation (to avoid the unmanageable) and adaptation (to manage the, . highest risk in the unavoidable)." etlent of naturrrt There are synergies between successful climate change adaptation and successful local development. disastea because In urban areas, poverty reduction, including the provision of housing upgrading and basic civic infrastructure and services, is central to adaptation. Successful, well-governed cities greatly reduce of the location climate-related risks for.low-income populations. of lozr)-income All adaptation ncasrges can be categorized into five categories - id their combinations: (a) mobility, SC/t1C11(c11tS. (h)'storage, (c) divCa\tioit, (d) communal pooling, and (e) hange. The effectiveness of these strategies is a function of fh sociafanrl institutional coZesuch n! the city and needs to be designed to be region specific. i i m Mobility is the most commo adaptation respo as relocation of a.whnerablepopu- iaion away from flood plains an andslide-DFone slopes. Mobility may have. extremely ad- verse social consequericcs if it is not 1 [am d as a part of an adaptation strategy due to the attendant social and political instabiliryrJ((5~ n as when people arc forced to relocate anvay Gom e unwanted in their new neigh- 'their livelihoods and social supports Stem o \~-quab bohood). m Storage refers to {rooliing of ri s across time. egics are relevant to individual households and communilie f adequate. Nigan infrastructure is provided to a Community, the need. for storage call be subiced i Storage is most useful to aters raty nn th.c innmccliate aftermath of a saster. Several sound pnnc- address food aid w titesfor. storage exist, stfch as the 72-hour self-sustaining food snppl hat is recommended for 'each family by the disaster management plans in several cities. at Diversifrentiorr refers to pooling of risks across assets and resources .households and communities. Some good adaptation strategies include mixed land-use urba development plans so that the community has a mix of economic background, commercial a ivities, and employment opportunities. I Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 36 Public Comments ~ i 26/ CLIMATE RESILIENT CITIES: A PRIMER ® Conurrnnal pooli, refers to pooling of assets and resources, shar't~g of incomes from particular activities acr s households, or mobilizing the use of res Zs that are collectively held during times of seat- y. Communal pooling spreads risks cross households. It can take place through better inters ion between the various stak elders or communities that are likely to be affected by a disast . The most comm/or nit nil pooling programs are those that aim to develop community- vel support grouself-help groups. \4icro-finance pro- grams that pool community resour s and provtfl15 ort on the basis of need are another example of adaptation'through comet nal7poliug. III Exchange is the:most versatile adaptati response, and it is extremely important for urban areas. Exchange and market mechan" ms, both formal and informal, are critical for eco- nomic development of the cities. r arket-ba d or exchange adaptation includes provision or access to better . and newer mf>iy the cor mmit}: Programs that provide insurance to - cover buildings that may be arnaged due to carll uake or floods are examples of market- basecl adaptation practice locket-based approaches o allow a city to monetize their assets, which can then be use o noise resources for underfakin various developmental and disaster risk management pr grams. This adaptation response therefore enables the community and the city to share risks with the much wider globalconimunity. An illustrative list of national, regional, and local mitigation policies and instruments ,that have been suggested is shown in Table 2.4, which also Presents some examples. of applications in the water, en- ergy, transport, building, and industry sectors. It also presents key constraints and key opportunities that these measures, policies and instruments may cause when applied at city level. „ . MITI TABLE 2.4/ Selected examples of key secforal adaptation Water I Expanded rain`walei ;National v tiler pohcles i'(-) Financial, l an opportunities pertaining (e.g., King County/ i'harvesting; water and integrated ,resources, and physical to urban areas Seattle, .Singapore) . storage and conservation water resources barriers r+factoiques; water reuse; management; water- Integrated water , Smene: IPCC, Clinwie Chmrge_ r desalination; water use related hazards 'resources management; 2007, .)~ntkzisRrgw!-Sn,m,ny. and Irrigation efficiency mans a synergies with other sectors jut P figatakaj. Asscmuent of }votking croups I, II, and III Infrastructure Relocation; seawalls andards and Financial and to the Third AssessmeutReport and-settlements =and stormsurge barriers; r regulations that chnological barriers of the Imcrgos4mmcmal Einet (including coastal dune reinforcement; la' Integrate climate ( Availability of. relocation Oil Chn"u, Change (IPCC: zones) :.acquisition and Cfeatlo -change considerations • S ce; inte rated olicies Cambridge Unhersity Press, - p, 9 p 2007). (ag„Venice, .,of marshlands/wetIsr - Into'design;-land-use an management; - London,New York) • as:buffer against sea- - policies; building s ergies with sustainable level die, and flooding; codes; Insurance evelopmentgoals +'protection of.exisfing ~natitral barriers - /y S+0 PrU c Ititrfi S r~ly~ '1 (vUc~ ~3 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 37 Public Comments SECTION 02 EXPLAINING CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT / 27 ' TABLE 2.4/ (cont.) f Human':health~' ,Hea~'4 t"h` alth echomplans ~ '~iPubhc,healih policies r( )+~o Limds human ' (e g Singapore "Fame g ncy medical ti that r` ecognnae tolerance (vulnerable t 1, "I New York) 3t services Improved chmale nsk groups) cllmate',sensihve dis, ease (strengthened health I (z) Knowledge limitations t urn surveillance and_contol ls'ennces regional ?(-).Financial capacity ' safe water and improved and internations_I (+).Upgraded health ,sanitation, 'cooperation services t (+)`Improved quality of life I Tourism Diversification of tourism ' Integrated planning (il).Appeal/marketing of ;(eg Switzerland) y attractions & revenues (e:g ea~rying capacity new aliracbons; shifting ski slopes to linkages withbtfier Fllnancial and logistical higheraltitude'sand ~sectors);fmanc11 challenges` glaciers incentives e:g., (?otential "adverse impact itsubsidies andtaz on other sectors (e.b.i I`credits 'artificial snow`making'may increase energy use) t(+) Revenu_as from 'new' attractions . r (+):'Involvement of wider group of stakeholders Transport• Realignment/relocation; Integrating climate O Financial and {eg;King desig`nstandardsand `tchYange"eonsrde(ahonsTtechnological barriers Comity/Seattle, ` planning for roads, rail, into nallonal A4allabity of less Albuquerque, and 'other infrastructure transport policy; vulnerable routes Rockville, to cope with warming and lave_ stment m R&O 6provedi'technologies Singapore, Tokyo) Aral ag-e - 'i- special situations " integration with key (e`,g permaf(st_areas) - sector's (e.g, energy). Cnergy i§trengthening of overhead National energy; Access to viable ~ar,.:w.~,n• Q `King transmission and policies regulations, '-alternatives County/Seattle distrib6ton Infrastructure : and fiscal and Financial and Albuquerque, i underground cabling for financial Incentives technological barriers Rockville, I utilities energy efficiency Iilo encourage use of Acceptance of new Sm_gaporeTokyo) • use bUrenewable sources, alt6miative sources; technologies; reduced dependence on incorporatingctimate Stimulation of. new single sources of energy change in design 'technologies standards r'(+) Use of local resources The Primer now looks at the main consequences of climate change, with a focus on sea-level rise, temperature change, precipitation change, resilience, and extreme events. The relationship between consequences and the extent. of mean global temperature. rise is shotwr in figure 2.4. When glob- al annual temperature increases, several effects are likely to occur. The figure shows the. potential impacts of a 5°C change in temperature to the water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health sectors. 1 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 38 Public Comments i April Lucas From: Sue D. (suedem@charter.net] Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 5:40 PM To: april.lucas@ashland.or.us; tbrowhpc@gmail.com; rpkaplan46@gmail.com; Howard Miller; sassetta@mind.net; molnarb@ashland.or.us; mike@council.ashland.or.us; tmpeddlcord@gmail.com; carol@council.ashland.or.us; craig.ashland@gmail.com; davidchapman@ashlandhome.net; faughtm@ashland.or.us; graf@sou.edu; shawn@polarissurvey.com; corinne@mind.net; dyoung@jeffnet.org Subject: Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan Concerns Attachments: Scan0006.jpg; Scan0007.jpg; Scan0008.jpg; Scan0009.jpg Dear Commissioners, I am a concerned resident in the Normal Ave. neighborhood of Ashland. My concerns involve 3 categories: trafficlpedestrian safety, development density, and wetlands preservation. Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Concerns Vehicular circulation through the Normal Ave Plan area has shifted dramatically from the original design charrette In Oct. 2012 which showed a pedestrian/bike path connection for access to the Middle School. The current transportation Street Network shows a major Connector Road linking the original Normal Ave to the curve of the Ashland Middle School bus drop off. Attached scans #0008 (8:37am) and #0006 (6:33pm) show how busy this area is with school buses, children and families during the day. This is exactly where the Collector Road has been designed to empty all the new westward (heading to downtown) traffic from the neighborhood developments. Scan #0007 shows the limited visibility of the connection of the Collector Road onto E. Main St. (adjacent to an incoming curve/blindsight on E. Main). If most of the development density was to be concentrated in the middle of the 94 acre area (as was discussed at the Charrette Process), then the design for the two new egresses onto E. Main St. (around the Baptist Church property, west of Clay St.). would serve the new residential development population adequately and without traffic safety concerns for visibility and pedestrianlstudent congestion from a Major Connector Road going through to the Ashland Middle School. Development Density/ Land Use Zoning Concerns The housing types within the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan are supposed to be distributed in such a manner as to locate similar, densities of development across from established neighborhoods. The area along the existing Normal Ave. has single family detached dwellings, usually with at least one or more acreslhomesite. The current staff design does NOT follow development standards to preserve and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character around the existing neighborhood with a zone of NA-02 (as defined as multi-family low density) cutting a swath across the north end of Normal Ave.to the Ashland Middle School. Also, adjacent to the designated wetlands in the Normal Ave Plan area, the staff design has abutted an NA-02 zoning density, where a reduction in density, possibly NA-01, should be considered to accommodate the natural hydrologic features and ecosystem (see Wetlands Concerns below). If such non-compatible zoning density is allowed, it will adversely affect this established community's quality of life, increase noise level with traffic congestion/air pollution, and negatively affect the local natural habitattenvironment. The undeveloped land in the middle of the 94 acres, just west of Cemetary Creek & east of the proposed new Normal Ave., should be re-designated from NA-02 to NA-03 with multiple compact attached dwellings to easily accommodate the required 90% maximum density for the entire area to be annexed into the City. This area currently doesn't have an established neighborhood to be affected by such increased developmental impact. Wetlands Concerns There is a large section of the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan that has been identified and designated by the Oregon Dept. of State Lands on their City of Ashland 2001 Local Wetlands Inventory Map (scan #0009). This 1.68 acre Designated Wetland #12 is seasonally saturated with water with no designated outlet for runoff or drainage. It provides a role In local flood control, groundwater regulation/purification, and replenishment of local aquifers for neighborhood domestic well water. Additionally, a distinct ecosystem has developed around this Wetland to support the biodiversity of the specific plants and animals that depend on it. As a neighboring resident to this natural water feature, I have observed red tail hawks, quail, doves, owls, as well as families of deer & gray fox. I Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 39 Public Comments The original charrette map, as well as the original Normal Neighborhood Master Plan map/Phase 2, have shown this Wetland to extend from the Ashland Middle School bus turnaround/soccer fields and behind Grace Point Church, and across almost to the existing Normal Ave. The current zoning map shows a shrunken down version of the Wetland, and a MAJOR Connector Road going right through the north end of the Wetlandl As City Commissioners, I would hope that you have reviewed an Environmental Impact Report on this Ashland Wetland #12 prior to allowing its boundaries to be manipulated for development and transportation plans. Has anyone requested such a report or information regarding this sensitive significant water feature? Please consider the impact of changing this Wetland Ecosystem, as well as the potential educational opportunities it could provide (especially adjacent to the Ashland Middle School) if left intact and buffered by lower density development. I would appreciate your inclusion of my concerns in your discussions and decisions regarding the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan. Thank you for you time and service, Susan DeMarims 145 Normal Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 suedem(dfcharter.net _ I i i I 2 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 40 Public Comments City of Ashland 2011 Buildable Lands Inventory The primary indicator of future residential land needs is projected population growth. The BLI, compiled by the City of Ashland, stated that the buildable lands WITHIN the City Limits could accommodate approximately 1.,883 units. With an average household size of 2.03 people, s,6o4 units would be needed over the next 20 years That's 279 more units available than are needed, already WITHIN City Limits. Outside the City Limits, yet within the UGB, approximately 97o additional units could be accommodated. The net buildable lands within the UGB could accommodate up to 5,791 new residents, which according to the City Comprehensive Plan population projection, is not expected to be reached for approximately 32 more years! I Potential growth within the UGB, as shown on the zoning densities of the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, is EXCESSIVE to the 20-year supply of needed buildable lands required by the state. The housing types according to the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan (Ch.18 code Amendmts-18.3.x.oio) are supposed to be distributed in such a manner as to locate similar densities of development across from established neighborhoods The area along the existing Normal Ave. has single family detached dwellings, usually with at least one or more acres/homesite. The current staff design does NOT follow development standards to preserve and promote single-dwelling neighborhood character around the i existing neighborhood with a zone of NA-02 (as defined as multi-family low density) cutting a swath across the north end of Normal Ave. to the Ashland Middle School. i Buildable Land, as defined in City of Ashland's 2011 BLI, means residentially vacant, partially vacant, & re-developable land within the UGB that is NOT severely constrained by natural hazards or subject to natural resource protection measures. Residential { annexations ultimately have a required go% max. density UNLESS reduction in total # of units is necessary to accommodate significant natural features e.g. wetlands The designated wetland in the Normal Ave Plan area (Wetlands #9 on the City of Ashland/DSL Local Wetlands Inventory Map) has been cut down in size. A WETLAND DELINEATION Site Man, prepared by a natural resource professional, is required for activities/uses in a Wet.Protc.Zone(Code 18.63.110). Since the BLI doesn't require such a high density due to the available buildable lands within the City Limits, a reduction in density, adjacent to the wetlands (not thru them), possibly NA-o1 single family dwellings, should be considered to accommodate (see City of Ashland Wetlands Regulations Code 18.63.070) the natural hydrologic features and ecosystem, as well as maintaining the single-family dwelling neighborhood character. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 41 Public Comments Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Even if the Designated Wetland #g is allowed to be manipulated and minimized for development in the Normal Ave Neighborhood Plan, there is still a very real concern regarding traffic and pedestrian safety. If a major connector road is allowed to route the new development traffic toward the Ashland Middle School bus turnaround and subsequently feed out onto E. Main St., there will be hazardous conditions for the students and families with the increased usage. Photos were sent to commissioners showing morning and evening congestion of students, buses, &cars. There's limited visibility by an incoming blind curve with the egress to the south. To see to the west, a vehicle must pull almost into the traffic lane. Public health, safety, and quality of life should be considered when crafting a Master Plan for an area to be annexed into the City for future development. Among the costs of growth, infrastructure needs, environmental and social costs especially to the residents of the local neighborhood, can produce the following negative impacts: • Decreased Air Quality • Decreased Water Quality - possible aquifer depletion • Lost Open Space • Lost Resource Lands : Wetlands, Agricultural Land • Lost Visual & other amenity values • Lost Wildlife Habitat 4 • Traffic congestion/dangers j • Increased noise pollution • Increased light pollution • Lost sense of neighborhood community By Fodor & Assoc., 2002 "Assessntt of Stateivide Growth Subsidies in Oregon" The costs of such increased housing densities should be evaluated in a Quality of Life and Fiscal impact Analysis. There are hidden costs to the City's taxpayers created by such unnecessary dense growth. The adequacy f existing fire, ambulance, police, water, sewer and sewage treatment, street infrastructure, student/teacher ratios and school facilities will be tested and proportionately need to increase with such growth. A Fiscal Impact/Cost of Community Services Analysis should show annexation and development will pay for its own growth! These hidden costs are not covered by the Systems Development Charges that the developers will pay. Will Ashland taxpayers be required to "subsidize" these costs of increased housing densities with new bonds, or increased property taxes? (For example, when Strawberry Lane had an uphill development that required paving the whole road and downhill residents were each charged a massive $414o LID tax bill). **PLEA2E ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS WHEN MAKING YO~JR [RECISION! Normal Neigi mrni mo. tau eis oohc oniwei rts Y~~x~4 fiA 4ss ~*y-~'arfa., ~+V T~,I s H! "~~.:is•:c.V I'id ~1 it 't 1 Y• z h 'v •.+t NU =1- 11 Q-1 114 4 y is ~.~r~ '6Ye ?D7 i- i,.sC,~1n All 4 5i ! ~ , lY ~ e ~ r T' ~ T= it hrv~ja t E n ~ t v } ~ h H T j4 a @,'g5el L',aJ . q• K TJ a':,.x ? ~ J. 4^6 C t ~ a t 3 ~z c _ {3 4• ti: t~t' ~u I ~x ~i .y VFA 71 tl 'NA-01 1)IV C NA43: the 6 NA-02: NA-04: Open Space o ion 0 30~~500 north - f D Neighborhood Commercial Allowed i'i ay "'3' axe `a.~. r I.1 =i.y~4 C*6l 4°~.Wn¢Sfrd~ J""'br S,w~slau"~,fitx+'3fi^S G`7 3~ 3 r~~r r 448 1 C, ' ~ as;4 P w~"~Y18~aR,'~C~le~Be~s~kx rSa„ orma i hborhood Plan letters 43 Public Comments 7 Iv W 't,1 W ~ f f% ~ S f1S.A ti y / Y ~ / Be 1 u .-I i k l pJ a ~ O 3 ~ ~ J 1 I r... ~ `hEd IL J, V 0!I 11 rfp~ Z r lei' f,~a _ 1 i t l~'~1 B I(Ajig ¢J~'tr~'•r"ry/~rl,,r 13 11 { 1 1 8 ~I~~.i4i fir lii s~~ F / j . ( < ra 1 S~ I i J flj rftJ`1~ i rd 3( f 17~ v , 50 14 j5J ifr=t J s ryLa♦ ♦ ' IN ~rf,0 `~is::•K _f.+[va. i i., :,i ~ s ax-)i~rJt jj r ,nr t , ~ Avr hi f ~ ;r : I J [ [ 1.1:~ Y`'"il .-~tlcr rl )r }h~ a} c\~ ~ r _7 I ..fr 3 , r[<> /a f Otsue f ~~x~ IttI+Q,dt r ` } z ut~i L-.~ •g-1 I / rt z y yr5 q+ .r-. r L t`f r ) , # 14 r I r .t S MIM f r) - f f /rtf e I [ r /N'W S~--J. fi^f<r` art ~y t\ [ r t.a♦*pj~i /"v ` ll~ ; I _ 9,}x ,~d4 -'~"'c ,1~t-~at t ~~i'~ ai i ~f. f f ~ ti } 3 il~ r~ r~.,~.i~5~r-t,YK Sa' r'• A~ 3 r ! Y./. r I f ~r *1},`.•a~ ~7gsYrje§ni+~yY" N i''~R~~• }x~~3 e. l ~J0 l r r i 'tor 3t;~lr'~{Z~ 5 i~ .y} t~"~,w Y'~,€~ / rb f x [ v , -j ,`a~1d1Ji r Yr U, an sr L , t k.a ¢4 t .•5 k 4 . is 1 f r ~6~ +w ~y • Qrt [ , y~i.. .t+t e ~a.:~bq> ~,A, Normal Neighborhood Plan ±•y r~..,k ;ik;. CIA letters~49•. .ck vt, 16 Comments Clty of Ashland ® Local Wetlands Inventory CITY Or ASHLAND T39S R 9 E 10 MND T39 1E 10 W12 4 - xmsozm F I I; to k 11 wa 1Lr Lr8•n7 ~I,rmti dam` ®\uesa•,ew.enw '-2 T•actt am:.n..m~rxne.vn>. •~vm•`: mamme• SSA ~•m ~rma»xtavw v ratulrgaco+wvaavi Mw~ kWttW4.rAbr 1 OMra Seeamf wig r~~ Qb nsd (W`6,u - ~4~ Vn.\VI• \Y.I:NUrk ~w iw• 'impr.~rwtmrw Uoftm . Obar.'e\ Pdx Y _ e . e a •w~yah+i 4carnn Sh areah m+fain•EwVM Ne Beu Qeek naleMN tie^~~ - Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 45 Public Comments n iF J pp i~ 1 i u, i , ti- ra ~ k x I i~ Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 46 Public Comments r 3,3~ f F! 4 1~ 5 it L< m ve~~y ~`q y~y 1~f i j>A ! ~ .*l ff f{(/ =F [Its ~ ~ u~f 11 ~<f ~ t fI ~ \ S~~L~S t j y 4i'. ! 7 yy s r y ~ Y t n ~ ~ II } 't Fix ' }t '"it. j r Y t' lZ,. "o ! 1 Z ,7} h 1 1 `V i J~? I ~ w s > 'i~ Irv S 7r f%+2~ ,'F Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 47 Public Comments u z yr 'z n x t 1 rY ~r s ~r i 1 i l g rtj~ Y§ J Ag ;u a€'$ Yp ry; . Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 48 Public Comments Dear Planning Commissioners, In discussions about the Normal Avenue Plan, I don't recall if any proposal was made concerning the possibility of a retirement center on East Main property. That seems to be housing that will be in more demand in the future, and the advantage of attracting the retired and providing the opportunity to Ashland home owners to remain local, is wise. A couple of years ago I donated copies of a book, "13 Ways to Kill Your Community" to the City office library. To quote: "Seniors across North America have two important assets, and have them in a greater abundance than the average citizen within the general population: time and money. These are key factors in building a successful community." Seniors are the largest group of volunteers, and some communities even have a volunteer coordinator to identify and recruit volunteers and match them with the proper organization. Economically, most seniors have retired and freed themselves from the obligations of daily life. They are going to do what they want to do, and since many of them have the funds, they are able and willing to pay for what they want. One of the biggest factors that so many communities, and business people, forget about when it comes to seniors as consumers, is housing. Please consider approving more senior housing in Ashland, and perhaps the Normal Avenue Plan would be ideal. Respectfully, Jan Vidmar I I Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 49 Public Comments From: "Amy and Peter' <andinista1@aol.com> To: "Brandon Goldman" <brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 6:46:36 AM Subject: comments from June 25 meeting Dear Mr Goldman and Planning Commission members, I attended the Planning Commission meeting on June 25 and would like to submit my comments in writing as they pertain to the New Normal Neighborhood concept plan. My wife and I reside at 253 Normal Ave with our two young children, ages 4 months and 2 years. We are newcomers to Ashland, having moved here from Bozeman, MT on May 1 of this year. We chose Ashland for the whole package of what it offers: progressive politics, the university and thriving tourism sector, excellent schools, bike-friendly transportation, mellow climate, and accessible outdoor recreation opportunities including the local ski hill. Before we purchased our home we became familiar with the term "urban growth boundary" and studied up on the Normal Neighborhood concept plan. We were intrigued and pleased to discover that so much time and effort were being spent on the planning process, including community involvement, far in advance of any development. But, I guess that's one reason why we moved to Oregon instead of staying in Montana! Although the rural nature of the current neighborhood is attractive, it is "downtown" compared to what we are accustomed to. Already I have felt at risk while walking along the single-lane Normal Ave while my son rides his tricycle, as a steady flow of residents in large SUVs and service workers in large diesel pickups roar back and forth, causing us to retreat off the road every few minutes. I look forward optimistically to seeing the rewards of careful planning revealed as a state of the art modern community with pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly transportation connectivity. Certainly, in Ashland, we can expect to set a high bar for creating comfortable, usable, friendly, beautiful living spaces. Perhaps state and local regulations are already in place which will not only encourage, but require that the development of this neighborhood seeks to showcase all that we may have learned about building communities which support people. I would encourage the planners to be bold about strongly recommending progressive, alternative design requirements when presenting the concept plan to the city. Specifically, the items mentioned in the meeting on tuesday: 1) neighborhood commercial support in the form of a cluster of small shops within residences, supplying basic needs within the neighborhood; 2) public parks along the creeks with shade, benches, multi-use trails, and a playground; 3) a neighborhood shared garden where residents may lease space for growing food and ornamentals; 4) and most importantly, the priority to make the automobile the least attractive mode of transportation. The Woonerfs sound great, as do the design elements of the pocket communities outlined in the recent Daily Tidings article. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the work that you all are doing, and I look forward to supporting the process as this neighborhood moves into the future. Best regards, Peter Carse 253 Normal Ave Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 50 Public Comments 7r GraceP o int C M Church of Nazarene A Church for People Like You Planning Commission City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Re: Ashland Gracepoint Church submission for June 25, 2013 Planning Commission Hearing Session To Whom It May Concern: We have watched the planning process move forward for the Normal Street development project and are entering into this process somewhat late because we were out of the communication loop. Nevertheless, we do have several ideas for the future development of our property at 1760 East Main Street and would ask your consideration in these matters. One of our tentative ideas is a Senior Living Facility that would probably require a higher density than much of the envisioned space in your Normal Street development plans. Many senior living facilities include skilled nursing and possibly medical. Also staffing of a facility like this may require some form of daycare for their children. These two aspects of this project make this significantly different than a five unit per acre development. We have spoken with Brandon Goldman about the proposed connection across our land between Normal Street and East Main Street. Currently what is proposed in the Phase 2 plan is a straight-through street. We have the desire to make whatever development we do be as pleasing as possible. In this regard, moving the eastern entry onto our land to the most southern corner will allow the road to meander diagonally through the development. This will calm traffic and make it a nicer place to walk and live. This proposed road connection would exit onto East Main Street over the easement that we have granted to the Ashland School District. We assume that the costs of road building would be shared with the school district unless they make some plan for other bus and traffic access. Sincerely, John Colwell and Ray Eddington for Ashland Gracepoint Church Ashland GracePoint Church of the Nazarene 1760 East Main Street • Ashland, OR 97520 541-482-1784 www.ashlandgracepoint.com e-mail: office@ashlandgracepoint.com r Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 51 Public Comments From : Jan Vidmar <jan_vidmar@yahoo.com> Fri, Apr 26, 2013 08:16 AM Subject Animal Ordinance, and Normal Ave. Plan tbrownpc@gmaiLcom, rpkaplan46@gmailcom, To : sassetta@mind.net, molnarb@ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us, impeddicord@gmaiLcom, brandon goldman <brandon.goldman@ashland.or:us> Dear Planning Commissioners, I attended the interesting study session on Tuesday, April 23rd, which addressed the Keeping of Animals Ordinance Amendment. I was pleased by your openness to the proposals, which displayed your support for quality lifestyles and choices in Ashland. Since my house borders the Normal Avenue Plan area, I was struck by the unique opportunity we have to incorporate this support of animal husbandry and community gardens. We who own homes in the many developments bordering the proposed plan area are generally on very small lots, and don't have the opportunity to have animals or large gardens. There was virtually no thought given to community space for such activities. However, with the eminent development of adjoining, semi-rural land, the planning commissioners are in a position to decide and advocate for maintaining that rural feeling. Much of Ashland has already succumbed to higher density housing, with small lots and little open space around units. Please consider the approval of a lower density housing plan, perhaps incorporating cottage homes and townhouses with spaces for animal husbandry and community gardens. The areas to be developed incorporate the special wetlands of Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek, and are in a prime area to consider green development plans. This is a unique opportunity you have to approve plans for a livable, breathable, less congested part of Ashland. Lower density housing would also greatly alleviate the inevitable future traffic congestion in this area. We appreciate your dedication and hard work on the Planning Commission. Respectfully, Jan Vidmar 320 Meadow Drive 541-301-3271 Please copy for Michael Dawkins. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 52 Public Comments From: michael shore <shrgrp(cr~.mind.net> Subject: thank you Date: April 10, 2013 5:39:40 PM PDT To: Melanie Mindlin <sassetta(abmind.net> Melanie, want to thank you for the way you handled the meeting last night. I really appreciated that you used your prerogative to ask questions when various the public speakers ran themselves out of time. 1 would also like to sympathize and appreciate that your requests to your fellow board members for details was met with nostalgia, and patronizing admonishments to the public but no attention to the details of the plan. I am very much taken by your comments regarding the mindless convenience of putting housing (of any density) on the area simply because it appears vacant and by your comments regarding the hydrology of the area. The disregard of the public comments and the refusal by the rest of the board to address anything except a vague reference to the benefits of putting a plan in place before the developers start digging was very disheartening. Except that there are women both on the commission and in the audience, the new normal plan so far reminds me of our national creation myth.... grey haired property owners drawing up plans with regard only for profit, power and "practicality". If we are talking about providing dwelling spaces at 500 addresses and perhaps 1500 souls, with their 1200 automobiles and six hundred bicycles and 200 dogs, can't the commission, without using drinking water as a limiting factor, ponder the cost of providing schools, sanitation, road maintenance, water treatment and sanitation versus the benefits these new comers would yield? agree that exerting control is the purview of the city. If the city must show a certain amount of housing stock, it makes sense to me that other areas be explored. 1 would agree that being able to walk to town should be a preferred criteria. Or the New Normal plan needs to have a business section along with a meaningful shuttle system. From my perhaps radical point of view, in light of "the end of oil" and our state's predictions of a looming monster earthquake, it behooves city planning to seek a less conventional paradigm. When the 5 freeway goes missing and fuel is $10/gallon (if it can be found) hungry residents will greatly appreciate the City of Ashland Demonstration Organic Farm and Beef Lot. We could present the world with a world class demonstration of local food supply. Finally, 1 would like to include in these considerations a look at the first order of business at the meeting last night. What if the New Normal developers run into "funding problems" half way through their construction plans? Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 53 Public Comments The country is certainly hot out of the woods in terms of how money is being loaned. Will the wetlands in Normal be last on the to-do list? Will the trucks and dozers start ripping and exposing until they stop..... and then will developers ask for a 15 year extension? Will the downstream fish, the hovering birds have a voice at the planning meeting where warm hearted commissioners who do not live nearby extend permits? Okay that is my rant and my heartfelt appreciation for your work herding the commission and including the public. If you can point me to ways to help the commission understand the hydrology of the area and if you can point me towards understanding where else the housing reserves could be found, I will follow your clues. Thanks again michael shore Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 54 Public Comments From: "Stan Druben" <sd96950@hotmail.com> To: tbrownpc@gmail.com, rpkaplan46@gmail.com, "MillerDeborah" <hmiller@jeffnet.org>, "MindlinMelanie" <sassetta@mind.net> Cc: molnarb@ashland.or.us, carol@council.ashland.or.us, mike@council.ashland.or.us, dennis@council.ashland.or.us, john@council.ashland.or.us, greg@council.ashland.or.us Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:50:19 PM Subject: Thank you, Commissioners Dear Planning Commissioners: I wanted to thank you for last night's very useful discussion of the Normal Avenue Plan, your courtesy to the citizenry and your openness to our concerns. As I listened, several thoughts came to mind. The most important related to "the box" (or "framing conditions"(1]) within which decision-making now occurs. It became clear that for the Commission to serve Ashland best, the framing conditions must be changed to account for a changed context. When Oregon's approach to land was put into place, we were a less-populated country placing fewer demands on our environment (the foundation of all economic activity, not to mention human existence) and yet we "continue to do the same things over and over again and expect the same outcome despite the fact of a changed context." A "definition of insanity," as they say. There are elements of our land policy that are in obvious and serious conflict with our new context. Three are: #1: the ongoing requirement for a 20-year supply of "developable" land (often leading to slow sprawl) #2: the exclusion of insufficient water as a reason for not "developing" (I use quotation marks because "develop" is a biased framing; it implies, for example, that pavement is somehow superior to wetland.) #3: the consent to private takings of publicly created value #s 1 and 2'are clearly there to push the endless replacement of nature with housing, roads, and such--a boon to those who pressed for inclusion of these restraints in the framework, though not necessarily to the public. I doubt they need elaboration. #3 warps the marketplace with unearned profits to landowners, creating a conflict between their private benefit and their interest (and ours) as members of the public. The point may be made clear by these January 21 remarks by Guardian (U.K.) columnist George Monbiot: In 1909 [Winston Churchill] explained the issue thus: "Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains - and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 55 Public Comments his own enrichment is derived [T]he unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done." As Churchill, Adam Smith and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They "levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry". A land value tax[2] would recoup this toll. It would have a number of other benefits.... It ensures that the most valuable real estate - in city centres - is developed first, discouraging urban sprawl. It prevents speculative property bubbles, of the kind that have recently trashed the economies of Ireland, Spain and other nations, and that make rents and first homes so hard to afford. Because it does not affect the supply of land (they stopped making it some time ago), it cannot cause the rents that people must pay to the landlords to be raised. It is easy to calculate and hard to avoid: you can't hide your land in London in a secret account in the Cayman Islands.... My hope is that this e-mail exposes for your consideration the normally invisible "box" and that you are inspired to get Ashland involved in updating Oregon's outdated land policies. Again, thank you for last night. Sincerely, Stan Druben 125 Brooks Lane Ashland, OR P.S. Please provide a copy of this e-mail to Commissioner Dawkins. [1] What are framing conditions? "At first sight, it seems extraordinary that snowflakes and other crystalline structures are able to form almost perfect, symmetrical shapes in the complete absence of conscious control or design. The mechanism by which this occurs can be demonstrated by setting out a flat box-like framework on a table. By pouring a stream of tiny balls over this frame, we find that we eventually, and inevitably, end up with a more or less perfect pyramid shape.... No one is designing the pyramid, or forcing the balls into place; the pyramid is simply an inevitable product of the framing conditions of round objects falling onto a square wooden frame."--Free to Be Human, by David Edwards (For more related to framing conditions, see "Chapter 4 The Parable of the Red Beads," in The Deming Management Method, by Mary Walton.) [2] Monbiot notes that the "term is a misnomer. It's not really a tax. It's a return to the public of the benefits we have donated to the landlords. When land rises in value, the government and the people deliver a great unearned gift to those who happen to own it." Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 56 Public Comments From: Suzanne Marshall <suzanne.marshal l(ayahoo.com> Subject: thank you Date: April 10, 2013 6:38:24 PM PDT To: Melanie <sassettaQmind.net>, R Kaplan <rpkaplan46(a.gmail.com>, T Brown <tbrownpc(a)gmail. corn>, Carol Voisin <civoisin(c)yahoo.com> Dear Commissioners, I appreciated your time, expertise and courtesy last night at the Planning meeting. I am impressed that you took the time to listen to concerned citizens and even answer some questions for those who had never attended such a meeting. It is good to live in a town like Ashland with our interested, involved citizenry and city officials. lived most of my life in the South where little planning has been done in the past with some horrible results to be sure. Now that I'm fortunate enough to live here, I value good urban/ community planning for Ashland. hope that the Normal Avenue plan will be carefully reconsidered. Laws on planning made thirty years ago may need re- working. New issues, new population patterns, and new environmental concerns exist in 2013. I would like to see more balanced dense housing in the city. It seems like most is on the Southside now with more planned. Finally, please know that members of our HOA DID attend earlier meetings with the task of reporting back to others; hence the growing interest and concern. We were not LATE to the issue. It takes time to get information circulated and digested. thank you again for your dedicated voluntary work on the Planning commission. Suzanne Marshall 369 Meadow Drive Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 57 Public Comments KAREN HORN 140 CLAY STREET • ASHLAND, OR • 97520 PHONE: 547.646.7391 • FAY: 866.653.9706. EMAIL: KAREN HORN n MIND.N ET March 4, 2013 Mr. Brandon Goldman Senior Planner City of Ashland By email to brandon.ooldman(ashland.or.us Re: Normal Avenue Plan Dear Mr. Goldman: I attended the Planning Commission Study Group session on February 26, 2013, and would like to register my opinion of what is being developed for the Normal Avenue area. My concern stems from proximity - I live on Clay Street, across from the field behind the Mormon Church, so I would be directly impacted by increased traffic on Clay and by a dense development of that field, or even the one behind it, which apparently has a developer already attached who favors three-story apartment buildings on that site. I was disappointed not to be included at the beginning of this process - when questionnaires were distributed to people living in the proposed planning area. I not only live across the street from this area, I pay for a sewer connection with the City of Ashland. I found about the charrette by chance after the questionnaire process had ended by reading the flyer enclosed with the utility bill. My husband attended that meeting, but I was unable to make it. I am distressed that the north east corner of the planning area is where the densest development is slated to go in. During the study session, the reasons for this choice seemed very arbitrary to me. As I remember it, the presenters said the reasons for putting the densest development there were two fold: first, the residents of Normal Avenue, on the south west side of the area, turned out in force at the charrette and requested no dense development near them, and second, that there is an existing developer and landowner on part of the north east corner who are ready and willing to build. I am also concerned that traffic on Clay Street, which is already very busy, since there is dense development on both sides of the street up to Ashland Street, will become oppressive with hundreds more residents close by. And East Main - if there will not be public transportation added there for all these new residents, you are not following your own guidelines. Let's not create more sprawl at this time in history. Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 58 Public Comments I believe planning in general is a good thing, and I am glad the Planning Commission is attempting to do something new and get ahead of the curve in this process. However, the way the process is working out is very unsatisfying. If all it takes to change a plan is a vocal group of citizens, then I think you should be required to start over with proper notification of ALL neighbors of the area, whether or not they live inside the city limits. guarantee you that the neighbors to the east of the planning area do not want dense development near them any more than the Normal Avenue group does. If you want to turn this process into a shouting match, at least give us a chance to present our case. However, my main concerns have to do with the actual best use of the Normal Avenue area. In my opinion, we are headed into a time of drought, scarcity, and reduced economic activity. The most important thing Ashland can do to help residents prepare for the future is to teach and facilitate the process of making our lives here more sustainable. We grow about 2% of the food we eat here in the Rogue Valley. That must change if we are to survive what's coming at us. I propose that the Normal Avenue area be maintained as farm land. It is sunny, and the ground water that makes it so hard to develop it for housing will be a benefit for growing plants and pasturing animals. Ideally, it could be divided into allotments, as is done in London, where citizens who already live here in condos with tiny yards can grow their own food on a small plot of their own for a nominal rent. I can already hear the standard objections - I heard some of them the night of the Study Session. What about all those people who own land there and have been waiting for years, or decades, for the time when they can cash out big on their land? My answer is: just because you own land on the edge of town should not guarantee you a right to become wealthy from selling that land. I lost my savings in the stock market in 2008. 1 may lose some or all of my Social Security benefits due to the dysfunction in Washington DC. My house on Clay Street is worth less today than when I bought it. And the landowners in the Normal Avenue area may not get as rich as they thought they were going to get by building on their land. That is the world we live in today. Please try to look beyond business as usual when considering this plan. Sincerely, Karen Horn Cc: Troy Brown-Jr, Richard Kaplan, Melanie Mindlin, Michael Dawkins, Bill Molnar, Michael Morris Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 59 Public Comments From: "Daemon Filson" <daemonfilson@gmail.com> To: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 12:28:25 PM Subject: Normal Planning Comment Hi Brandon, Good meeting you last week. As you requested, here is our comment to share at the next planning meeting (tomorrow night), in case I can't attend. In terms of any and all interface with wet lands/open space/creeks we would prefer a multi-use path vs. a road. But if it must be a road, request that it be STRICTLY no parking and NO PARKING signage be subtle and in keeping with the natural beauty of the adjacent open space/creek/wetlands. Sincerely, Daemon & Heidi Filson 318 Meadow Drive Ashland, OR 97520 541.292.1450 daemonfilson(a gmail.com ~I Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 60 Public Comments From: "Jan Vidmar" <jan_vidmar@yahoo.com> To: goldmanb@ashland.or.us Cc: molnarb@ashland.or.us Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:20:56 PM Subject: Normal Ave. Plan Dear Brandon and Bill, I want to thank you both for the informative presentation on February 19th. The large Phase 1 &2 maps are particularly clarifying. I do have some thoughts on the Normal Plan, particularly in light of what is referred to as significant streams and wetlands in the Grcenway and Open Space Framework. As you pointed out, the stream orientation and flow is from south to north, draining a multitude of water from the highland areas. When planning any development, the contiguous flow and the potential for blockages and flooding needs to be taken into account. As I interpret the Phase 1&2 maps, I am concerned by the proposed crossings of wetland areas by roads. My first concern is the potential for flooding. Many have witnessed the height to which Cemetery Creek can rise, although for a short period of time. It never fails to amaze me how fast and dangerous a small wet area or creek can become. Bill informed some of us that live in Meadowbrook Park Estates that our houses would not have been built today until current guidelines. Our properties sit within the wetlands buffer zone, and I was not aware of that. In the past I consulted with the City of Ashland and the current FEMA guidelines, and was told that we on Meadow Drive do not need flood insurance. The Wingspread neighborhood is in a flood zone of Clay Creek, and it also borders on Cemetery Creek wetland. The flow of the lower section of Clay Creek needs to be watched, as high density housing and roads could impact flow, causing a backup. Portions are currently choked by blackberry bushes. What assurances would be made to neighborhood residents, current and proposed that we would be secure and insured if a flood occurs? These comments are not directed toward future neighborhood development, as 1 haven't heard any objections to the use of land and future construction. The concerns are directed for planning around the "wet" areas to assure the free flow and lack of impediment to water. I would ask that road development be restricted from directly crossing the wetlands. All road surfaces provide for faster run off of water, increasing the Flow into the wet areas at a faster pace than ground. Perhaps a buffer zone such as gravel or grass and then a path would slow run off. The viewing of creeks/wetlands is important to residents of Ashland, but few appreciate them from a car. The Bear Creek Greemvay and Lithia Park are gems, and no roads run directly next to the water for viewing. The paths have high use by walkers and bicyclists, and are considered as enhancements to the quality of life in this area. Any sections that are private and behind houses unfortunately are blocked to the public. Paths should have been established in the past to prevent that. The Phase 1&2 plans are poised to make a great connection between the current path that passes by Normal Street, through to East Main/Clay Street. It would be wonderful path following Cemetery Creek. Other concerns for the creeks/wetlands are as wildlife corridors. The south/north flow orientation is a natural migration route. An Ashland resident and ornithologist, who could be consulted during the development process, came to my house to document the uncommon species and variety of birds that migrate through the Cemetery Creek vegetation (particularly willow bushes). These corridors are also important for a rich variety of butterflies, frogs, reptiles and mammals that are present year round. My personal favorite is our native grey fox that I observe along Cemetery Creek. With minimal impact from development, this can be appreciated by all the neighborhood residents in the future. After years of horse pasture use in part of the Cemetery Creek area, perhaps a restoration project consisting of plant and tree enhancement would bejustified. I've seen the enthusiastic involvement of Ashland residents volunteering in other wetland enhancement projects. Maybe this could be incorporated into a developers plans, allowing for such enhancement. Respectfully, Jan Vidmar 320 Meadow Drive 541-301-3271 Normal Neighborhood Plan letters 61 Public Comments Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: ' . 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM ;a t 6y As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of Apd130, 2014, 10:00 AM htlp:l/p akdemocracymml1738 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? Introduction The City of Ashland is in the final stages of developing a plan for the future neighborhood at the north end of Normal Avenue and is seeking additional citizen input. The proposed Normal Neighborhood Plan reflects nearly two years of public participation and neighborhood involvement. Neighborhood planning is the opportunity to think ahead and determine a vision for the future of the neighborhood. Having an adopted plan in place will ultimately provide for the coordination of streets, pedestrian connections, utilities, storm water management and open space. The final plan is intended to provide a clear expectation and understanding for both developers and neighboring residents regarding future development. Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan http://www.ashland.or.us/SIB/files/NormalPlanDocument_20140225.pdf 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? City officials will read the statements made on Open City Hall and consider them in their decision making process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on March 11th, 2014 in the City Council Chambers at 1175 East Main Street. If you have questions please contact Brandon Goldman at (541)552-2076 or brandon.goldman@ashland.or.us. Written comments may also be submitted via email or mailed to: City of Ashland Community Development Department 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 III All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of AprI 30, 2014. 10:08 AM http://p akdemocrety.com/1]38 Page 2 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please review the draft Normal Neighborhood Plan: 1) Tell us which elements of the plan you disagree with and which elements of the plan you support and 2) What is your overall impression of the plan? As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 294 On Forum Statements: 26 All Statements: 39 Hours of Public Comment: 2.0 All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014. 10:08 AM hflp://p akdemocmcyrom/1138 Page 3 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan crease mie. me Bran normal geipnlwdwm Nan: i)renes.n'.ona.menudme plan Wu ainane min and.nim elemems of me plan y sworn and kelly Arsac outside Ashland April 29, 2014, 11:01 PM I grew up on lower Normal Ave and graduated from Ashland High School. At the time the Normal Avenue was rural and open. Gradually expensive homes were built in the area and it became more congested. A private paved road was put in. All of this "change" happened even if the original owners didn't want it. It seems to me the area will be better served by a thoughtful, well-designed plan. Ashland is a wonderful town. I would love to move back here some day and raise a family, but it seems it's getting more and more exclusive. People like me who grew up there can no longer afford to live there. We've had two elementary schools close and the numbers at the high school have been dropping over the years. I would hope this plan would enable more young families to live in our town and go to our great schools and experience the wonderful community like I did. I was blessed to have grown up in the area, and I only wish the same for my kids. Elizabeth Bishop outside Ashland April 29, 2014, 7:50 AM Generosity and inclusivity in Ashland was always the norm, and it can be again. Ashland wants to be "even more family-friendly" as stated on the city's website. It is an on-going goal to encourage diversity by allowing young families to raise their children here. It was more that way 25 years ago. We should fear becoming a city of wealthy retirees who have fled the cities and now want to keep a homogeneous look to their new neighborhood. It's not the Oregon way. Anyone who moved to the Normal area knew it was urban growth area destined to be developed. The few houses in the area 40 years ago knew it, too. Yes, we all appreciate the beautiful new homes built in Ashland, but can't we share the area with young families? Let us allow others to enjoy our city as well. We need to realize that younger people will move to Ashland and their children will graduate from our schools only if they can buy a home within their budget. So let it be! nancy boyer inside Ashland April 25, 2014, 11:15 AM Re; Normal Ave Plan. Recently the City of Ashland announced an increase to 4.3mil to be spent to join TAP, and to be completed by August. This urgency is related to low water levels, climate change, and drought. My understanding is that we will only use TAP for emergencies. Along with many concerns (wildlife,wetlands density and etc.) water has always been a main concern of mine. How much impact will the building of 300-400 or more houses have on our already taxed (no pun intended) water sources ? We, did turn down the chance to join TAP several years ago for much less money, but we didn"t need the water. However we continued to build more houses, increasing our needs.Who pays and how much more can this cost all of us? Ironically we have at the end of Normal, what some may call a" Garden of Eden" and the churches are cutting down huge trees, and draining wetlands,all to "Pave Paradise" I hope the city council will review these changing plans with a fine tooth comb!!! Regards,Nancy Boyer Normal Ave Victor Chang inside Ashland March 13, 2014, 11:55 PM Overall the planning looks solid and I appreciate the emphasis on these things: affordable housing, multi- All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2010, 10:08 AM hltp:11p.%demacracy.mM1738 Page 4 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan FlBBBB 2vleu Ne E,aM1 NameI Nei,hMM JNan'. 1)T.II uswhch demenu MIM"n p Eiseame'^'llh and which eiemenli M IM plan roB.,,, and density housing, green spaces, multi-use paths, minimizing drive-thru traffic, etc. Concerns: I'm curious as to the efficacy of shared streets. It may be cool for pedestrians but I'd had to live on one and have to drive around people every day. Also, I'm not sure what the plan for water and wastewater is- it cites wells and septic tanks, but surely that would not continue to be the plan. Would have liked to see planning and cost estimates for that. Lastly, though its very eco-chic to emphasize walkability but besides maybe walking to Walker ES, Ashland MS, Scienceworks, Hunter Park... people will be driving. I would like to see the traffic impact study of that many more residents and drivers on the traffic flows on Ashland St, Walker, E. Main, Tolman, etc. Thanks for considering these comments. Tanya Way inside Ashland March 12, 2014, 1:06 AM The increase in population for this area warrants an immediate plan and installation of a public park similar to the size of Garfield Park in Ashland. The affordable housing being proposed would undoubtedly increase the number of families with children who would benefit immensely from a large park at this end of town. If quality-of- life measures such as park size and placement cannot be maintained for residents along the eastern border of the development, the south end of Ashland will likely see a large drop in property value, recreational activity for families, and overall satisfaction of residents in this area: Beyond this, building homes on a 100-year flood plain will put these homes at high risk for irreparable or expensive damages over time, and the natural beauty of this area would be long gone. This is truly not going to add anything positive to Ashland. This plan needs to be tabled and re-visited after more research and public works planning is completed. Marni Koopman inside Ashland March 11, 2014, 5:06 PM I attended the Charrette and some of the planning meetings. During the Charrette, every group but one communicated that they did not want to see this new development have serious negative impacts to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. They asked that it be designed to avoid creating new stressors such as traffic and safety issues for neighborhoods along Normal Ave., Homes Ave., and Clay Street. These issues were ignored and the development plan in its current state creates a large volume of traffic, congestion, and safety issues along Normal Ave., Homes St., Clay St., and East Main St. These will be costly to rectify later, and the tax payers and home owners on those streets will be the ones to pay the price. Because the corner of Homes and Normal already has very high traffic from the proximity to ball fields, tennis courts, and schools, this area will quickly be overwhelmed by traffic if 450 units are built with 2 cars per unit and multiple trips to and from schools and downtown. I think that the planning for traffic has been inadequate and that the considerations of the surrounding neighborhoods, their quality of life, safety, and housing values have not been adequately addressed with this plan. I was also disappointed that the input from the Charrette participants was ignored. My other comment is completely unrelated to the first one. I have been working for the City of Fort Collins to help them plan for climate change, and they are currently working with private businesses and residences to move their infrastructure OUT of the 100-year and 500-year flood plain due to increasing severity of storms with climate change. This is expensive (the Woodward technology company, for instance, is moving its entire campus out of the 500-year flood zone), yet the city is taking an active role in protecting its residents and making businesses secure in their investments. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30. 2014, 10:08 AM http://peakdamocmc ..wWl738 Page 5 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan I NagaLUtlmtl Ran: Please revisor lae tlreX Norma 11 Tell us w~r~ elements tl IM [ien pu Elsepree vela and wTiU elements of Nary 1n Wu wOWN and Severe storms have already increased across the West and are expected to continue to increase. It is irresponsible to put new development in 50-year and 100-year flood plains (not to mention 500-year) at this time. Either those developments will need to be moved in the future, at great cost to the owners and tax payers, or they will be damaged and peoples' livelihoods impacted by severe storms. While I support infill and the avoidance of sprawl, there is no need to put peoples' investments and their safety at risk. Climate change is here, it is affecting communities now, and we know better than to continue to do things that put people in danger from natural disasters. There is very high agreement among climate models that precipitation is expected to increase in the Pacific Northwest, with more severe storms in the winter and dryer, hotter summers. This increases the likelihood of flooding and water shortage. FEMA flood maps do not yet reflect the increasing risk over time, but they are working to update their information using forward-looking projections rather than historical averages. I am attaching a short overview of climate trends for the PNW that was produced by the US Global Change Research Program. A link is provided in that summary for the full report, which provides in depth information on current and future climate trends for this area. One sentence to note says "An increase in annual mean precipitation is simulated for the majority of the Northwest U.S., for all future time periods and both emissions scenarios. The CMIP3 models are mostly in agreement that precipitation will increase." There is no excuse for excluding climate change considerations from any current planning efforts, as the science is clear and accessible. Doing so puts people and infrastructure at risk and creates costs for families, businesses, and local government decades from now. We are in a time of transition where our zoning ordinances and development standards reflect historical conditions, but we fully understand that future conditions will be quite different. At one of the planning meetings, it was obvious that wetlands are not a valued feature and that they are destroyed without much concern. I happen to value wetlands for their wildlife and aesthetic values, but can understand that not everyone shares these values. However, I do want to point out that wetlands do provide very important services to people, including water filtration, flood protection, and nature for kids to enjoy. Because these wetlands are so close to the schools, they could be an important outdoor classroom for school children. In fact, kids that spend time outdoors have been shown to do better in school and have fewer behavioral problems, such as ADHD. The wetlands also hold water during floods, releasing it slowly and protecting neighboring infrastructure. By lining streams and channeling flows, we reduce the capacity of this "sponge" to function properly and protect us during severe storms. This reduces community resilience. Finally, I want to note that many communities in California, Montana, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, Maryland, and many other states are taking proactive steps to protect their communities from climate change and increase their resilience in the face of natural disasters and other stressors such as water shortage, dam failure, heat waves, new diseases and disease vectors, etc. Ashland needs to become a leader in community resilience rather than continue to plari and develop in the same ways as we have in the past. Ashland is a progressive community, yet this development plan does not reflect our progressive roots and societal values. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me for more information. All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM htipalpeaktlemwracymm/l 738 Page 6 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Ruse reriex the Onll Normal NegnEOrowtl Plart 11 TeY us wh helements d the pen you aewpeewth aM xfi' lr elements of the plan ypr suport" Marni Koopman, Ashland Resident 1 Attachment https: //pd-oth. s3.a rnazonaws.com/prod u ction/uploads/attach ments/ 1255sg3yxl kw.3k4/N CA- NW_Regional_Scenario_Summary_20130517_banner.pdf (1.18 MB) Alma Alvarez inside Ashland March 10, 2014, 9:06 PM Like many others that have posted comments, I have also participated in some of the planning sessions. While I understand that the city of Ashland would like to keep its growth within the boundary of the city, I was surprised to see that the plan, after all of the residents' discussions still listed the possibility of up to 560 dwellings. Most of the residents at the planning sessions attempted to "bargain down" the number to 450 units. While the plan is made with an eye towards encouraging walking and biking as alternative modes of transportation, I am concerned about the amount of traffic we will experience in the neighborhood if we were to have up to 560 units. The reality of modern living is that most households have at least two vehicles. The amount of traffic in such a densely populated area would mean a lot of cars. Like other Normal neighbors, I am concerned with maintaining the natural character of the area. I hope that our city takes good care of preserving the wetlands and the natural life connected with it. While I am not in support of the plan in terms of the proposed number of units, I do hope that our city makes a commitment to having some of the units marked as affordable housing units. Peter Halt outside Ashland March 10, 2014, 12:43 PM I own one of the parcels on normal Avenue directly abuttiing the wetlands currently slated for development. I currently have non-develop able wetlands in my back yard. There are several things concerned about this plan. 1. When I went to the planning commission meeting last week, it was apparent that the developers have no real interest in preserving the rural feel of this neighborhood. While they are careful to talk about preserving the wetlands, it is fairly clear that they are skeptical that wetlands exist or should exist on their property. Currently the plan states that the adjoining property with designated wetlands on it will be zoned NN-02, allowing for 10 units per acre. There is a provision in this plan that allows them to increase the density of housing by 1.5 if any portion of that lot is designated wetlands. That means that what is currently open space and in my backyard will have housing at the density of 15 units per acre, where there is none right now. Is there a housing shortage so grave that we need to put high density row houses into what is now unspoiled open land and wetlands? Is this the only alternative, or are we bowing to pressure from monied developers? I haven't seen this density of housing anywhere in Ashland. It makes no sense to drop it into the middle of farmland. Where are the studies demonstrating a need for this type of housing? Even if all the property in question was zoned at NN-01, at 5 units per acre, this is an enormous number of small homes to add to the real estate market in Ashland. 2. 1 have heard concerns about the capacity of Ashland City water and sewer and that there have been problems with the Clay street development. Has the city thoroughly explored it's capacity to support this huge All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 1 098 AM http:Npeakdemocracy.mmll 738 Page 7 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Raesa reviver rye Enll Normal NageEOr . Ran: 11 Tell us whlcM1 tlammbdlaa pan tau lose mwah av x1vrAe menb of Ne phanyna suppod vH acreage filled with homes? 3. Currently the plan states that Normal Avenue will open to East Main. There was some talk at the planning commission meeting that this was a bad idea and will change to prevent Normal Ave from becoming a thoroughfare. I would agree with that and hope that this wisdom prevails. That straight road opened up to East main would be the most destructive feature of this plan if there is any true desire to preserve the "feel" of this neighborhood. 4. Do those of us that don't want to be annexed, that moved here for the rural feel, get to keep our TID irrigation, our horse and farm friendly zoning? Carol Block / Nicole Lee outside Ashland March 10, 2014, 6:56 AM I would like to draw the Planning Commission and citizens of Ashland's attention to a comment made by one of the other posters who noticed that several trenches have appeared in the southern section of designated Wetlands9 [Roxanne Jones post of March 7, 2014]. In walking that area the last two days, that person is absolutely correct in their observation! These trenches serve only one purpose: to draw rainwater away from the wetlands into a storm drain at the upper section of the Ashland Middle School turnaround. It's an obvious, blatant attempt to dry up the Wetlands of course. Some of these trenches are new (within the last year based on the lack of vegetation I suspect). You can even see the tractor marks! Why and who did this I wonder? There is no doubt that this work was done to minimize and reshape Wetlands9 in order to allow for higher density zoning allowance on the property. If the wetlands dried up, the property owners would have a larger footprint to build upon. If they have to mitigate wetlands, a smaller parcel would have to be identified (and not the 5.38 acres this wetland encompasses). I do believe that a permit is required to do any soil disruption on designated wetlands and includes a significant financial penalty. I wonder whether a permit was obtained? The Normal Neighborhood Plan is clearly the driver to having these trenches pull water away from the area and the citizens of Ashland should be up in arms over this. We should be nurturing these wetlands, not destroying them to make room for homes, retirement facilities, etc. This is the second time a pro-development speculative landowner has tried to minimize the designated wetlands on property they own. The first report was when someone cut down several All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM httpllpeakdemocracy.mmlt738 page 8 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Pa.. raw.-me Bran Normal xagn Wnvp Nan: 1) Ten us wnlch damenu a me pan p diaprea Min and wniW eamanu M Me plan y supWl and Poplars and leveled out a section of their property. Does the City/County care that this kind of behind the screen destruction of naturescape is happening? I am sure the Department of State Land does. And in the earlier case, the developer was red tagged by DSL. For those who live and love this area of Ashland, this is an egregious act and I hope the Planning Commission is as concerned with this deliberate act and understands the motivation behind it. I hope these land owners are held accountable and are required to restore that which they are trying to destroy. These people should be ashamed of themselves. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd. neVhphotos-ak- ash3/t1/p261x260/1488648_664526177532_654660052_n.jpg 5 Attachments https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/l252ykfd8Ofk.4ro/photo.JPG (247 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ykpnui74.3hn/photo2.JPG (337 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252y1381row.6gO/photo3.JPG (329 KB) https:Hpd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252y]dh6gds.4n7/photo4.JPG (347 KB) https://pd-oth.s3.amazonaws.com/production/uploads/attachments/1252ylt46zls.611/photo8.JPG (324 KB) Karen Horn outside Ashland March 9, 2014, 9:53 PM I live across Clay Street from the Norma{ Neighborhood area. We were not brought into the planning process when it started because, we were told by a city representative, we do not live within the area itself. Since then, we have gone to many meetings about this plan, made statements at Planning Commission meetings, and strategized with our neighbors on how to best make our opinions heard. First, I commend the Planning Commission for even attempting to create a written plan for development rather than allowing it to happen in the traditional way of waiting for developers to come forward with their own plans and then saying yea or nay. That said, I do not feel the finished plan reflects the opinions that I heard voiced in the meetings. Instead, a group of consultants from out of town seems to have been let loose to do what they thought best, even though they were missing some key pieces of information about public transportation on E. Main, the extent of the wetlands on the property, and the latest urban planning ideas about how to create housing without wasted space for front lawns. Unfortunately there is nothing innovative or interesting about this plan. It does not reflect the best of what Ashland has to offer. I am not even sure that the people who wrote this pretty plan walked the property even one time. We recently spent many thousands of dollars to mitigate water damage in the crawl space of our house. All All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of Apnl W. 2016, 10:08 AM http://peakdomo cy.cem/1738 Page 9 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan please realew me dan no,md Hdehhemund clap: t) Tell us which dement: dlhe dan wu disagree with end which ousters M IM plan rou supW and three of the housing developments along Clay Street south of us are plagued by water damage and the constant remediation that is required because they were built over ancient creeks. The Normal Neighborhood is not development-friendly; anyone who builds there would be wise to make a sale and get out before the next wet year. Are those the kind of developers we want to encourage? Another seemingly insurmountable problem with this Plan is that E. Main will never have a bus route. Public transportation is necessary for a development of the size described in the Plan, and everyone involved repeats that mantra. However, the county won't put a bus route on E. Main because right now there is not enough demand for it and because there is no room for a bus to stop without holding up all traffic behind it. Forces could be aligned to overcome these obstacles IF all parties agreed it was a vital goal to do so, but we are far from that today. The best use for the land in the Normal Neighborhood is agricultural. To grow plants, the overabundance of ground water suddenly becomes a positive thing. I have heard repeatedly through this planning process that using the land for community gardens is unrealistic because we need more development here in Ashland. There is no shortage I see of housing for the wealthy, but it is true that there is not enough low-income housing. The vision of protecting land outside the urban growth boundary depends on urban infill. But why not do infill on the vacant lots on Ashland Street, just a few blocks south? There is already a bus route there and lots of stores and restaurants to walk to. I think protecting farmland by keeping sprawl inside the urban growth boundary is a good idea. But for those who will live within the urban area, in condos on small lots without garden space, let's set aside parts within the urban growth area as a place where they can grow food on small allotments, similar to the British system. Let's face it: the challenge facing us in the future will not be to provide more and more newcomers with housing. It will be to make our town more self-sufficient for the people who are living here now, in growing our own food, reducing the miles that our food travels, and strengthening the community bonds that hold us together as we are drawn forward into an increasingly uncertain future. John Colwell outside Ashland March 7, 2014, 9:17 PM Our committee has had opportunity to review Ashland Planning Commission's final draft of the Normal Street project. This review has been disappointing and we feel that our requests and input were, if not ignored, minimized and substituted with the planners own ideas of what they would like to see on our property. We were continually advised to give input and we did. We asked to have a zoning that would allow for a retirement facility to be included, we asked for the open area to be based on a real wetland survey rather than an out of date best guess of the extent of the wetland size, we asked for the required road to be moved and not be a straight through thoroughfare. Of these requests only the last one was adopted and even with this there was another road, surreptitiously called an "alley", also placed on our land. If this wasn't adding insult to injury we don't know what is. Our current opinion is that we will not support this plan and will do anything we can to fight its adoption. We will be at the Ashland City Council meeting when this is up for a vote and plan to discuss the leading way we were drawn into this process only to have nothing we said be adopted despite the fact that we are a major land owner All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of Apnl 30,2014, 10:08 AM http:/Ipeakdem.c..mm/1738 Page 10 of 18 l Normal Neighborhood Plan FlaeN re+iew lee Ena NOTKI NeyhGnA0o1 Plan: 1~Tell us wM1hli Nemenualee Plan y Guayas Mle and xT'lI eMmenb of Me an y supWN aM within the boundaries of this project. At issue first, is planning staff indicating that the wetland designation and the open spaces were to be compensated by increased density zoning elsewhere in the plan. We were led to believe this meant on our land, giving us a 15 unit per acre NN-03 zoning which would allow for density close to retirement facility requirements. Secondly there was no indication of a second transportation corridor on any plans we saw until the final one. Now the planning staff think it is their prerogative to pull an alley out of our land also. We are disappointed in our planning process and the lack of consideration given to property owner's concerns and also with the promise to participate in a process that seems predetermined from its outset. Sincerely: John Colwell and Ray Eddington for Gracepoint Church Roxanne Jones outside Ashland March 7, 2014, 7:06 PM When a change is instituted within a city it is not always a bad thing, provided the change is being done for the right reasons. Many people have asked, who is it that is wanting the Normal Plan? The vast majority of the property owners who live on Normal Avenue, and the surrounding neighborhoods, do not want any drastic changes to the beautiful natural environment that currently exists. It was stated at a city council meeting that Ashland currently has a surplus of housing and will not be needing any additional housing in the next twenty years. So, once again I ask, who is the plan for if it is not for betterment of the neighborhood or the city Additionally, what's the rush? Let's do things once, and do it right. It seems that the only people who are intent on pushing this plan forward are speculators looking to make a fast return on their investment. To do this, they will attempt to convince us that high-density, high-impact housing that replaces the natural beauty of one of the last undeveloped parcels of county land adjacent to Ashland is required. Some of those individuals don't even live in Ashland, and they will very likely take their profit and leave without doing anything to enhance or contribute to our local economy. Instead, Ashland residents will be left paying for "improvements" to East Main Street and other areas within the project site for years to come. I am in favor of developing a plan that accommodates the city's future needs, but I ask you to stand with me against a plan that irreparably damages the pristine acreage of lower Normal Avenue, robbing our community of a great resource. A successful plan will blend seamlessly with the existing environment. Ashland is an exceptional town filled with a diverse cross-section of residents who have chosen to live, work, shop, donate their time and resources, and educate their children in this uniquely progressive and open-minded town. Those of us who have lived here for many years have a high benchmark for what constitutes an improvement. Standards exist All On Forum Statements soned chronologically As of Apnl 30, 2014,10:08 AM htlp://peakdemocra,.nn/1738 Page 11 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Pleese,eaicw the 4raX Normal Naghhcran Plan'. 1i Tell uawhch Nemenls Nthe pan yen a_'..Wnl aM wh ebmen6 al Xie Pala yan Pa"" and that make it seem straightforward for a city to pave roads, install utilities, and designate dwellings here and there. However, Ashland is not Anytown, U.S.A. We hold ourselves to high standards, and as such we expect more of ourselves and our neighbors. To that end, our city council does works tirelessly to protect our interests for our community today as well as for future generations. There has been a tremendous amount of work and dialogue invested into the Normal Plan, but we are still waiting for a version which we can stand behind. Before that can happen, we will need to address the following questions: 1. Why is the City of Ashland not more concerned about destroying the rural nature of the land? 2. Why have we not chosen to celebrate and preserve the excellent soil in the Normal Plan area and set aside an extensive amount of acreage to be used as a community garden by the neighborhood that could also be conveniently accessed by the middle school to provide learning opportunities? 3. Why must many of the streets be so massively wide, some in excess of 50 feet, that they will end up looking like Anywhere U.S.A.? 4. What would the cost savings to the project be if the streets had a smaller footprint? 5. What will happen to the thousands of birds and other wildlife who currently call this area home? We are already seeing a lack of respect for nature in the Normal Plan area. It has been stated by others at city council meetings that one developer indiscriminately cut down trees and made an attempt to diminish a creek bed, another developer has blocked the flow of runoff water so that it now poses a threat to an existing neighborhood, and it also appears that the largest wetland in Ashland, Wetland 9, has been extensively altered this past year. Someone used a tractor to dig a series of lengthy trenches to direct the wetland water away from the ecosystem it supports and into a storm drain, and then they cleared a massive area of the wetland of all vegetation. These acts of environmental destruction are deliberate, on-going, and being carried, out furtively on multiple properties with the end-goal of diminishing the wetland area. Smaller wetland, more room to build. This is only the first taste of the environmental degradation, motivated by financial gain, that will completely destroy the ecosystem of Wetland 9 and the area surrounding lower Normal Avenue if the current plan is All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As pf April W. 2016, 10:08 AM hflpalpeakdsmpcmpgwm/1738 Page 12 pf 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Rea renew lM Enfl NOmel Negh t 11 tev u. wnkn._b roue pan, daepee w1h aW w~au wmen¢adre qan you ww am approved. The Normal Plan represents the largest area that could possibly be incorporated into the city, so let's continue working on this plan until a vision that maintains the current beauty and rural feel can be effectively meshed with the potential for additional housing some twenty years down the line when the housing is actually needed. Sue DeMarinis outside Ashland March 6, 2014, 3:20 PM I have reviewed and participated in every public meeting regarding the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) since the first Charette in 2012. Every iteration and discussion of the Plan slightly changes the look of the potential zoning, roads and open spaces. I agree that there should be open spaces preserved/protected within this area. I commend the planners in their vision to do so. However, in the latest zoning map (Feb.25, 2014), there appeared an overlay of NN-02 zoning under the open space designations. Is the plan able to double zone lands within the NNP just in case a private land owner is able to mitigate their designated natural/wetland area off their land? What happens then to the overall "green space" as envisioned for the whole NNP? What compensation would be given, and by whom, to land owners if they must have their land zoned for public use as a green space/park or road? What if a land owner wanted to preserve their private farming rights where a public park or road is delineated? The transportation network is currently designed for connections between E. Main and Ashland Street, but the egresses onto E. Main should follow the density zoned for the eastern half of the NNP. To add another exit on the western half creates three real concerns regarding safety for the children at the AMS school bus turnaround, crossing through a State designated wetland, and exiting onto a blind curve of E. Main St. If that cut-through street doesn't exist, then the new meandering road network within the NNP will truly be for the new residents. Otherwise, I see this western egress becoming a problem as a regularly used alternative vehicle route between the major boulevards in order to avoid the congestion and school speed zones on Walker Ave. A pervious surface (not paved), multi-use path toward AMS would serve the NNP community better, preserve our wetland resource, and encourage a green lifestyle and safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. Also, the transportation map shows paved neighborhood streets, shared streets, and alleyways all going through planned conservation areas and current State Designated Wetlands. Shouldn't impact studies and delineations be mandatory with this plan before locating roads through sensitive areas and established wildlife corridors, as well as for the effect these roads would have on storm water drainage, aquifer recharge and soil compaction? My overall impression of the NNP is that it is being driven by consideration for development and not much concern given to the impact on the existing neighborhood/environment. System development charges are said will be included in developer's permits, but there will be hidden costs to all the citizens of Ashland for overall improvements to its sewer, water treatment, roads and RR crossings. And, no one has specifically stated what the mandatory "local improvements, or neighborhood LID" will cost the current residents already in the Normal Neighborhood who may not want these "improvements". Thank you for listening, Sue DeMarinis Ashland, OR 97520 Jean Taylor inside Ashland March 5, 2014, 2:41 PM All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 10:08 AM http://peakdamocrecy mmll738 Page 13 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Neme eviex lfle Erefl NOmaI NegflEaTaN PW tl ieu us whi elemmis a me 0-, d.,. xith eM w1iiM ekmenb M. pW1 p wpWN eM oppose this development. As with all recent housing developments, Ashland has been attempting to infill as much as possible, which leads to the most houses possible crammed into a little area. I think this policy causes unattractive homes with very little space between neighbors. The proposed "green space" is not enough. And, as others have mentioned, has anyone asked for this development or is it just a way to spend grant money? jonathan seidler inside Ashland March 5, 2014, 9:17 AM I have attended all the study groups and have come away with a couple of disturbing facts that none here have alluded to. First is the total size of the proposed annexation. 90+ acres creates a guaranteed scenario of piecemeal development. This has been addressed as fact during comment time from developers at the study groups. It is a fact not disputed and over how many years the plan becomes realized is anyones guess. Real estate being very cyclical and risky in itself provides the scenario of abandoned efforts and a checkerboard effect of muddy half developed blocks amongst finished efforts. It has been put forth at the meetings that it is likely development would migrate in a southern direction from E. Main as primary services would begin there as it is the most cost effective starting point and the lure of the most profitable sales. The next point that has been made numerous times is the whereabouts of, if any, of wetlands. The developers have made numerous assertions that there are NO wetlands and that the "creeks" are presently irrigation flows during season and that their flows can be manipulated as so to make their presence as minimum and as invisible as possible. I would hope the council will address the fact of how large this annexation is and how little experience it has with one this size. I hope the council will only annex proposals ready to proceed with a guarantee that incidentals are in place to incorporate and promote to connecting properties for their future development. I hope the council does NOT back down on promoting wet land creation and preservation. If a developer then feels that he/she is losing their economic viability then they can raise their prices accordingly and see if the risk pans out in the market they've entered. People here need to understand that annexation does not mean that Ashland owns the land. Creating market gardens, sporting ovals,stomping grounds,etc, are all at the expense of the developers so it is likely the proposals will attract minimum expense when costs are considered. Angelina McClean inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 10:07 PM I appreciate the effort that has been made so far to try to accommodate so many different interests in the community. Personally, I would like to see this area as undeveloped as possible. I don't know how realistic that is, but I am interested to know if considerations and studies have been or will be made concerning the environmental impacts that more development will have on this area. Specifically, I am concerned about the wetlands and if the proposed buffer zones are adequate. How did this area fare after the heavy rains we had recently, and how would that differ once it is developed? All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2014, 10:00 AM http:11peakdemooraoy.oo"1738 Page 14 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Please reviex Me enal Normal Negh~eh~ Plan: 1) Tall uswhioh elements of the Plan Wu disagree with end which elements of Me Plan y M surreal aM am also curious about wildlife impact studies. I have heard there are owls, foxes, and other sensitive wildlife in the area. Is their habitat and mobility being taken into consideration? Do any species, like birds or waterfowl rely on this area for migration or overwintering? However this project plays out, I would like to add my support to the few who have already suggested a community garden. Natural, open spaces, parks, and community gardens are all things that will increase the value of our community far into the future. Lately I have seen articles about food forest plans that are cropping up in places like Seattle and Austin. I tried to paste a photo of the plans for the Austin food forest, but am only able to link to the webpage. It's worth considering. The article is at: www.austinchronicle.com The plans for the food forest are at: http://festival beachfoodforest.weebly.com/food-forest-pla ns. htm l Margaret Garrington inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 4:16 PM Provide multi use path connectivity for bicyclists and pedestrians separate from streets. Link East Main bike path via a multi use path through the Normal neighborhood to the existing bike path to the south, and also create a western path link to the middle school. Shared streets are inconsistent with safety concerns when you have the opportunity to create separate transportation byways. Also designate place holders for public art and require developers to set aside a certain percent of development costs for multi use paths, parks, and public art. Jan Vidmar inside Ashland March 3, 2014, 10:31 AM Jan Vidmar inside Ashland I support the Normal Plan with two caveats. The proposed development of land adjacent to Cemetery Creek, just close to the railroad tracks, is currently designated NN-02. It makes more sense to have single family homes, similar to the homes currently built along Normal. In other words, like facing like and designated NN- 01. Ashland has very few "below the boulevard" neighborhoods with large yards. My second concern is the flow of Cemetery Creek. Although the creek is not always visible, walking through the wetland area is a soggy affair. A wetland does not always present itself with lakes, stream flow and ducks. Cemetery Creek should be considered a pathway for drainage. At times, after a hard rain, the creek flows and the water has a way to proceed from the hills to the valley floor. Any development that blocks that flow potentially puts home owners in flood peril. The current Normal Plan has homes and roads that would potentially impede this water flow. Michael Shore outside Ashland February 28, 2014, 2:19 PM All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of Apnl W. 2014,10:08 AM http:/Ipeakdemocracy mm/1]38 Page 15 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan 1) TO „nm~.n,.,,,naann Nomaa nneomom ~m aemmu >w eaoq,ooamom.wn aemooe etas Mn to :„peon are n TO m of ft pao The process that arrived at this plan was fueled in part by a grant of money from the state. Part of the motive for this plan was described as finding a way to comply with rules laid out by the state pertaining to sprawl. Any plan like this would bump into the freedom of use that property owners would like to assume as rights vs the ability of either the state or the town to exert some controls on that use. This is a perfect set up for a turf battle. In an effort to find a middle ground some interested parties were invited to the "table", some were not. Certain developers made it clear that they would move forward to get the most value out of the land. I presume that value would be measured in dollars extracted. Some factions thought that with the "right amount" of preservation and beautification , controlled density would be abided....... so long as the density was not in proximity to them. What ever you believe about the power of special interests in determining policy, in this plan you can find evidence of owners and developers and government entities striving to get what they want. I think it is good for citizens to work hard to arrive at compromise. However some citizens represented ideas without the so called authority of ownership. Are mere residents and neighbors people who have legitimate claims to voice in the outcome? Are land owners the only legitimate voices in this decision? During the discussions some important points were raised and important questions went unanswered. Streets, safety,sewage, water, cost of fire protection, actual connectivity to public transit, cost of maintaining the proposed "natural" areas, these were all costs and conditions left hanging. Meanwhile some suggestions regarding the loss of beauty, habitat and ground water recharging area were received as charming but crank notions un related to the pragmatic business of real estate investment or satisfaction of State mandates. The plan arises from a need to control a blight called sprawl. The proponents say that at least there needs to be a plan because without a plan chaotic growth will be worse. I believe Ashland should annex the land and create a demonstration farm providing organic food for the local institutions, training and employment for the local interested citizens and yes some low income housing for those who choose to work and learn full time in the created facility. believe over time we will look back on a plan that decreased Ashland's dependence on imported food, increased Ashland's influence on food quality with a civic pride in non GMO local seeds and maintained the beautiful view and free space of the Normal area acres with the pleasure that comes from seeing a secured and precious conservation plan in action. The Ashland Organic project would be one more reason for tourists, eco tourists, to visit and be enriched by our embrace of sustainable culture. Barry Vitcov inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 11:58 AM I'm happy to see how the latest version of the Normal Neighborhood Plan has changed the area immediately north of Creek Drive to NN-02. This makes sense as it better blends the Meadowbrook Park Estates community to whatever might be developed in that area. I'm also pleased with the amount of open space in the plan. However, the NN-02 designated areas to the land west of Meadowbrook Park Estates and the adjacent open All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of Apol 30. 2014, 10.08 AM htlpl/pe.kdemocrac ooM1738 Page 16 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan 1) 1 TeY e uamwIMOrefl Norm N M ERart 1) MileN 9ewenb dIM plan tan )cu O E¢apce Mlle aM xTM denronh Of Ne pl0n yvu wpprl aM space does not seem appropriate. I believe that entire area, with the possible exception of the NN-02 designation that abuts North Main Street, ought to be designated NN-01. It doesn't make sense to me to have a swathe of higher density housing cut through what is now larger single-family parcels. There are increasingly fewer opportunities for families to purchase homes with significant yard space in Ashland, and I think it would be a good idea to reserve some potential for that type of property. Barbara Comnes inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 10:13 AM The plan does not directly address possible changes in railroad crossings. I live north of the Railroad District across the tracks and am very interested in seeing the 4th Street rail crossing be developed at least for pedestrians, if not for cars. I am concerned that the Normal Neighborhood Plan could remove the possibility of developing the 4th Street crossing. The distance between safe rail crossings with sidewalks and access to people with mobility issues in this part of town is one mile, which seems unacceptable for this most central location that blends housing with commercial activity, promoting a green lifestyle. Priscilla Hunter inside Ashland February 28, 2014, 7:04 AM There are a couple of confusing items in your plan that I thought you'd like to know about. 1. In your list of housing types, your second category is a Double Dwelling Residence Unit, which I believe one would also call a duplex. You describe it as a pair of self-contained living facilities existing in either a side-by- side or a stacked configuration. I point out first that this housing type also exists in an "L" configuration. (This category appears to be a form of the Attached Residential Unit, your category 5, which seems to refer to the triplex or, as suggested by one of your photos, even the quatriplex structure, without reaching the housing capacity of the Multiple Dwelling Residential Unit, your category 6). 2. The third residential unit type listed in your plan is an Accessory Residential Unit (you describe it as a small living unit sharing a lot with a Single Dwelling Residential Unit). It is apparently a structure one would call a cottage, and, although you don't mention that word in your description of it, it does seem to be the same thing as what you call Cottage later in your report. It is clearly not the same thing as your second category in this list of housing forms, a Double Dwelling Residential Unit or your fifth category, an Attached Residential Unit. You have apparently listed the Accessory RU (cottage) as zoned for NN-01, NN-02, and NN-03. Later in your chart showing target housing density in each zoning district, the Cottage is the second category you have listed. However it does not appear to be included as a permitted structure in zones 02 and 03, which seems to contradict what you have said about the Accessory RU in the earlier part of your plan. I hope you find this helpful information. Brian Kolodzinski inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 9:44 PM I support the project overall but was surprised when I got to the end and read there was no city water or sewer All On Fomm Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30. 2014, 10:08 AM httpapeakdemocacy.oo"1738 Page 17 of 18 Normal Neighborhood Plan Pleeu maiax Ne dafl Normal Neghwiih dPlan. 11 TNI us aanch tlemmlatl Ne pan} dispreeWN and whicfl a'emenh d ana plan ynu aupPOtl a ad service. Is this true for all developments in that part of town? I also hope there would not be too many roadways over streambeds. The natural layout of the area should be incorporated into the design of the neighborhoods as much as permissible. In addition to the open spaces, it would be nice to see some community gardens for residents that are residing in the higher density dwellings. Steve Read inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 7:26 PM First a question: Who or what is driving this project, ie. what needs does it fulfill. Did the neighborhood request changes? Second: The story about the trains blocking emergency vehicles must be a really old one as there have been almost no trains for 10 years or so. Inserting that scare tactic into the discussion destroys the credibility of the entire project. If you will use scare tactics to sell your project then I will never support it. Your credibility has been damaged. Jim Curty outside Ashland February 27, 2014, 5:15 PM I stand in opposition to the plan. Roadways have been planned without listening to the owners. The size of wetland W9 is grossly overstated. As a representative of land that will be procured for roads... we feel that use of our land is being decided without our future plans being taken into consideration. (Two roads across the land!) We do not want to stand in the way of progress, but the plan means our land will no longer be able to be developed in any way that would enhance our mission. Donald Stone inside Ashland February 27, 2014, 4:00 PM I have no objection to the plan. However, my concern would be whether or not the residents of the Normal Neighborhood have been active in wanting and requesting these changes. If not, and they are simply "victims" of another City Administration pie in the sky "improvement plan" similar to the Plaza renovation, then I would favor the City just butting out and considering that it likely ain't broke so don't try to fix it. Don Stone 395 Kearney St All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically As of April 30, 2016, 10:08 AM hltp:11peakdemccracy oom/1738 Page 18 of 18 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20, 2014, Business Meeting Planning Commission's Report on Considering a Limited Type of Short Term Traveler Accommodation in Residential Zones FROM: Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, molnarb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY On November 4, 2013, the City Council discussed the idea of potentially permitting short term accommodations on owner-occupied properties in single-family zoning districts, and requested that the Planning Commission hold public meetings and forward suggestions for Council to consider. The Commission did not address the question of whether it is appropriate to allow short term accommodations in single family zoning districts, but rather discussed and suggested appropriate code standards and limitations on short term accommodations should the Council determine to move ahead with a code amendment. Highlights of the Commission's recommendation are attached and include limiting the allowance to owner-occupied properties, permitting not more than one accommodation per property, requiring that the accommodation be attached or within the footprint of the primary residence, prohibiting the installation or provision of kitchen facilities and approval of the accommodation through the conditional use permit procedure. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City has had an ongoing problem with illegal lodging facilities in all of its residential zones. These facilities, which operate without conditional use permits or business licenses and without paying transient occupancy tax, will often advertise on web sites such as VRBO.com or AirBnB.com, making them relatively easy to find for code enforcement purposes. Since May of 2012, when the City began more vigorous code enforcement efforts with regard to illegal lodging facilities, about 60% to 70% of the code enforcement actions have been targeted at facilities in R-I zones. At the direction of Council, the Planning Commission initiated a new discussion about potentially permitting short term accommodations in single family zoning districts. Public meetings on the subject were conducted in January, March and April, with the Commission focusing on prospective land use code language that would allow for limited operations comprised of a single accommodation on a "hosted" property. Additionally, the Commission reviewed and discussed the existing code standard that limits approval of traveler's accommodations to only properties located within 200-feet of a boulevard, avenue or neighborhood collector. In a prior Council communication, staff noted that there are currently 5,305 parcels in R-1 zones, with approximately 2,710 of these parcels within 200 feet of an arterial, avenue or neighborhood collector street. Rather than evaluating the merit of continuing the current prohibition on short term traveler's accommodations on single family, R-1 zones, the Commission focused their effort on identifying Page I of 2 ~W, CITY OF ASHLAND appropriate measures and codes standards that would minimize neighborhood impacts should the Council decide to allow the use. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Neither staff nor the Planning Commission has forwarded a recommendation on whether to pursue or not pursue changes to the Land Use Ordinance. Should Council wish to permit a single traveler accommodation on any residential property within the city subject to specific limitations, staff recommends that action be done in the form of a motion as listed below. This item is presented primarily for informational purposes. If additional Council discussion is needed, this item can be scheduled for a future study session. Otherwise, a proposed motion is provided below. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to direct the Planning Commission to prepare an amendment to the Land Use Ordinance allowing the operation of a single traveler's accommodation in conjunction with an owner-occupied residence on any residential zone, subject to specific limitations described in the attached Planning Commission report. ATTACHMENTS: • Planning Commission Report • January 14, 2014 Meeting Minutes • March 11, 2014 Meeting Minutes • April 8, 2014 Meeting Minutes • April 22, 2014 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission Report on Limited Short Term Accommodations in Residential Zones Potential Code Amendment: Amend the Land Use Ordinance to allow an owner-occupied residence to operate a single traveler's accommodation in a residential zone. The goal is to minimize impacts on neighborhood character and ensure the affects of the code amendments are not inconsistent with other currently permitted uses. The single traveler's accommodation use would be subject to the following types of standards and procedures: A. Use-Related Standards: 1. Management of the accommodation Property Owner Occupied - The individual operating and managing the traveler's accommodation must be the owner of the property and the residence on the property must serve as the property owner's "primary residence". The property cannot be sub-leased to another individual that operates the traveler's accommodation Commission Discussion: • The presence of the property owner living on site would greatly reduce the opportunity for adverse impacts to the neighborhood. 2. Location All Residential Zoning Districts - Under the proposed recommendations, this type of short term rental could be allowed in all Residential Zones Distance from a major street-The accommodation must be located on a property within 200 feet of a major city street. This would include a boulevard, avenue, or neighborhood collector. Commission Discussion: • Given the limited nature of the use, a single accommodation within an owner-occupied home, the code amendment could be applied to all residential zoning districts. • Maintaining the "200-foot rule" would be consistent with the existing standard applied to traveler's accommodations in R2 and R3 zoned neighborhoods and establishes a level playing field. Planning Commission Report- Limited Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones 1 • While uncertain, the original rationale for the "200-foot" standard seems to have been intended to minimize directing non-local traffic into the interior of existing neighborhoods by limiting traveler's accommodations to within a half block of city streets identified for carrying more traffic. • It is unclear that the rationale behind the standard is still valid and that the standard is still accomplishing what it was intended to achieve? • The adjacency between and connectivity of Ashland's neighborhoods makes it difficult at times to identify neighborhood areas that appear more interior than others. • Accommodations located in proximity to major city streets with a continuous public sidewalk system may provide an incentive for visitors to walk to their destination or public transit, especially when the accommodation is near the downtown or within a historic district. • In the end, it is difficult to surmise that the standard is in fact protecting a more quiet residential character the further you get away from a major street. • On the other hand, it is not obvious that the standard is broken and that there exists a logical reason to change it. 3. Number, Size and Type of Accommodations per Property Number of Accommodations - One traveler accommodation (i.e. reservation) permitted per property. Accommodation Type - The single traveler accommodation could reflect A or B of the following accommodation types: A. A one bedroom or two bedroom suite located within the residence that uses the main entrance(s) of the residence to access the accommodation; B. A one bedroom or two bedroom suite within the foot print of an existing residence but accessed through a private, exterior entrance separate from main entrance; or Planning Commission Report - Limited Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones 2 C. A separate structure located on the property and detached from the primary residence of the property (not recommended by the Planning Commission due to the potential impact on longer term accessory residential unit (ARU) rentals). Maximum Size - Accommodation can consist of one or two-bedrooms, potentially with restrictions limiting total size and/or maximum number of occupants. Commission Discussion: • An owner-occupied property with a single accommodation within the footprint of the residence would be consistent with impacts associated with residential zoning districts, specifically single family districts. • To reduce the potential for converting existing accessory residential units (i.e. ARU'5) from long term rentals to short term traveler's accommodations, it is recommended that detached buildings not be permitted for use as a traveler's accommodation. • The traveler's accommodation would need to be attached or located within the footprint of the primary residence, with visitors entering from the residence's main entrance(s) or from a private, exterior entrance. • Consensus was not reached on whether or not the single traveler's accommodation unit should be limited in size or square footage, or restrictions placed on the number of bedrooms, or total number of occupants. • Additional restrictions seem arbitrary and difficult to enforce, while most negative impacts seem related to the number of cars and number of occupants It might be best to target those impacts • An argument could be made that greater specificity in the ordinance, through limitations on size and number of occupants and requiring a floor plan, could lead to more successful compliance. B. Potential Site Design Regulations 1. Parking Planning Commission Report - Limited Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones 3 Off-street Parking - There would be no additional off-street parking requirement. However, the property must have two off-street parking spaces available. Commission Discussion: • 6iven the limited nature of the use, no additional parking other than that which is already requisite for a single family residence would be required. This would discourage physical changes to the property and landscaping that is potentially out of character with the neighborhood. 2. Signs Signs prohibited - Similar to Home Occupations, signs would not be permitted, however, except as allowed under the "Exempt" section of 18.96, which could limit the use to two, small incidental signs provided signs do not exceed two square feet in area per sign. Commission Discussion: • Additional signs would not be permitted, other than those already permitted under the "exempt" section of the sign code. C. Procedure for Approval 1. Land Use Application Type Conditional Use Permit (Type I Procedure) - The request to operate a single traveler's accommodation would require approval of a conditional use permit. Annual or Biennial Review - A process to periodically review the operations of a single traveler's accommodation could be established after the initial land use approval Commission Discussion: • The conditional use permit process would include public notice to the surrounding neighborhood, informing neighbors of the request and providing an opportunity to provide comments to the Planning Division prior to final approval. The Community Development Director's decision could be appealed to the Planning Commission. • The conditional use permit process establishes a level playing field with existing, multi-unit traveler's accommodations in multiple family zoning districts (i.e. R-Z,• R-3). Planning Commission Report - Limited Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones 4 • A biennial review after two years could be considered to allow city staff to confirm that the traveler's accommodation unit is being operated consistent with the land use approval. Planning Commission Report - Limited Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones 5 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES January 14, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris, absent DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts - An Introduction of Potential Issues. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting due to a potential public perception of conflict of interest. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the City Council has already made changes to the requirements for short-term rentals in the R-2 zone, and has asked staff and the Planning Commission to take public input on owner occupied short-term rentals in single family zones, and if necessary recommend amendments. Additionally, the Commission has been asked to evaluate the City requirement that limits traveler's accommodations to only those properties located within 200-ft. of a boulevard, avenue, or neighborhood collector. Public Testimony Barbara Hetland1985 East Main/Stated she is a realtor in Ashland and believes changing the R-1 zone to allow for traveler's accommodations is a huge change and would jeopardize the livability of Ashland and impact property values. Ms. Hetland stated there are very few people who are asking for this change, but doing so would impact everyone who lives and works here. She commented that most people living in R-1 zones are unaware this discussion is happening and because this is such a major change this should be placed before the entire town for a vote. James Orr/407 Clinton/Read aloud his written statement. (See Exhibit 2014-01, attached) Mr. Orr added his neighbor's house is only 12 ft. from his, and stated from June to October 2011 they observed 43 different cars parked in the driveway. Lois Van Aken1140 Central/Cited the City's goal to support stable neighborhoods and staled this is accomplished through zoning. Ms. Van Aken stated the R-1 zones were created for residential use and to foster a suburban and family atmosphere where neighborhoods would flourish; not to house business such as short term tourist lodging. She stated allowing this chahge would break the promises made to all the residents who purchased homes in the R-1 zone. She stated there is a small group of individuals who have been operating illegally and want to continue to do so, and they want all of Ashland to change for their financial benefit. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2014 Page 1 of 3 Ellen Campbell/120 Gresham/Questioned the thinking behind converting the remaining residential zones that have been solely for Ashland residents in order to grow more tourism businesses. Ms. Campbell stated allowing more and unneeded lodging businesses in the R-1 zone will undermine sustainability and livability in Ashland. She added the existing ordinances have been in effect for many decades and have.worked well, and recommended the Commission not allow short term rentals in single family zones. Tom DuBois/690 S Mountain/Stated he is representing the 70 members of Ashland HOSTS (Host Occupied Short Term Stays). Mr. DuBois stated he has stopped operating his bedroom rental unit since being informed this was illegal, and stated they want to change the City's requirements. He voiced support for the adoption of a reasonable, easy to understand ordinance that will allow HOSTS to operate short term rentals in residential zones. He stated the City's Comprehensive Plan supports economic activity if it is not incompatible to do so, and also speaks to the benefits of mixed use neighborhoods as long as they do not disturb the main intent of the neighborhood. He stated HOSTS are in complete agreement with this and identified three issues for the Commission's consideration: 1) maintaining neighborhood integrity, appearance, livability and quality of life; 2) possible impact on long term rental stock; and 3) ease of ordinance compliance. He slated if the City approves this change they would like the requirements to be as easy as possible for people to understand and would like the process for compliance to be easy and inexpensive, with hefty fines for non-compliance. Abby Hogge11700 ParkerlSupports HOSTS and stated it is unjustified to assume there will be a large number of people who will rush to convert their long term rentals to short term accommodations. Ms. Hogge stated the approval process for an accessory residential unit (ARU) is already lengthy and expensive, and asked the Commission to consider the benefits of allowing ARUs in R-1 zones as short term rentals. She requested the Commission treat the consideration of ARUs the same as an attached bedroom, and suggested the City consider conducting a trial period. Larry Chasel1271 Munson/Supports HOSTS and believes this falls into the same category as home occupations, which allows residents to run a home-based business and have up to eight visitors per day. Mr. Chase stated the existing laws regarding noise and signage provide sufficient protection from disruptive behavior, and noted short term rentals would have far fewer vehicles trips than other home based businesses. He stated the impact is very minimal and none of his neighbors were even aware he was operating a short term rental, and asked the Commission to permit this activity on all properties and not just those within 200 ft. of an arterial or collector street. Victoria Weiss/590 FernwoodlStated she is very concerned to hear there are 70 of these rentals operating in Ashland. Ms. Weiss stated they did a lot of research when selecting their home and are concerned with security, traffic, noise, and community impacts. Ms. Weiss asked the Commission to take into account what citizens expect when they purchase homes in the R-1 single family zone. Philip Neujahr1590 FernwoodlStated they moved to Ashland because it is a nice place to live and urged the Commission to not allow short term rentals in single family zones, which would give them alternating neighbors and lower property values. Commission Discussion Mr. Molnar clarified it would be helpful if the Commission could identify any questions or areas they would like staff to look into. The commissioners shared their comments and questions on this issue. Commissioner Brown stated this comes down to trying to fix a problem that does not exist, and stated R-1 districts are largely about quality of life. He staled there is only a very small percentage of the population that wants this to change, and noted the expectations people have when they buy into a R-1 neighborhood. Commissioner Kaplan stated it is premature for him to have a position on this and slated there is a big difference between owner occupied units versus no owners. He also noted the impacts long-term rentals can create. Commissioner Peddicord stated she does not have strong feelings one way or the other, but agreed that any rental needs to be owner occupied. Commissioner Miller questioned the actual need for these types of accommodations. Mr. Molnar noted the packet materials contain information on occupancy rates, but noted there are other considerations including the ability to offer different lodging types. Mr. Molnar also clarified the City has a Code Compliance Specialist and he has compiled a lengthy list of illegal accommodations and there are well over 100. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Mr. Molnar thanked the Commission for their initial comments and announced this item will come back for further at an upcoming meeting. Ashland Planning Commission January 14, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 11, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: None Mike Morris DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. Commissioner Mindlin left the meeting. Commissioner Dawkins recommended the Commission deliberate on this topic before they take public input and stated the key questions are: 1) Should vacation rentals be allowed in the R-1 zone? 2) Should there be strong language that CC&R's are honored and override City code? 3) Does the structure need to be a primary residence and do the owners need to live on site? 4) Are renters allowed to sublet the property? 5) What types of accommodations will they allow? 6) Do they want to set a limit of the maximum number of rooms or square footage could be rented? 7) Is a conditional use permit appropriate? 8) Should eligible properties be limited to those that are within 200 ft of an arterial or major street? Mr. Molnar clarified in November 2013 the City Council voted to allow short-term vacation rentals in the R-2 and R-3 zones with certain stipulations. Al that time they asked the Planning Commission to discuss the issue of rentals in the R-1 zone and if they determine this is reasonable, what types of restrictions would they place on this type of use. Commissioner Kaplan suggested they remove the 200 ft boundary requirement in the R-2 and R-3 zones and not allow this use in the R-1 zone until they have had some time to see how this is working out. Commissioner Miller agreed with removing the 200 ft. boundary and stated in reviewing the materials she is not inclined to allow this use in the R-1 zone at this point. She noted if people need additional income there is still the opportunity for long term rentals. Commissioner Thompson stated she is interested in hearing the debate and stated she is inclined to at least evaluate this and craft some rules that would minimize the adverse impacts in the R-1 zones. Commissioner Peddicord voiced support for leaving the integrity of the R-1 zone as it is, but noted they allow home based businesses in the single family zone and questioned if it is within their purview to say what types of businesses are appropriate. Mr. Molnar stated if the majority of the Commission thinks this should not be allowed in the R-1 zone, the Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 1 or3 I Council will want to know why the Commission feels this would have an increased adverse impact on the neighborhood when compared to the other uses that are already allowed. The Commission reviewed the discussion questions. Support was given to limiting this use to property owners and not allowing renters to do this, and for the homes to be owner occupied. The Commission discussed the accommodation types and support was voiced to consider one or two bedroom suites located within the residence that are accessed from the main entrance; however there was no clear direction on whether to include suites within the footprint of the residence that are accessed from a separate exterior entrance, or separate detached structures located on the property. In terms of the approval procedures, support was voiced for using the conditional use permit process. Public Input James Orr/207 ClintonNoiced his support for the letter included in the packet materials from the Riverwalk Homeowners Association. Mr. Orr stated their CC&Rs rely on the City zoning and if the City's zoning regulations change they will move to update their CC&Rs but does not feel this should be necessary. He voiced concern about including vacation rentals as a home occupation and stated the rules regarding parking would need to be changed. James Hawes/431 Courtney/Stated he operated a short term rental before he knew this was not permitted and stated all the concerns being discussed are contrary to his experiences. Mr. Hawes staled he is now renting for only 30 day periods but this has virtually eliminated his business. He noted most people want an independent living area including a bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen, and can't foresee owners renting just a single bedroom in their home. Savana Rose/497 Park Ridge/Stated times are changing and travelers have difference preferences now. Ms. Rose stated she lives in a three level home and has an extra bedroom that she rents out to typically a couple or single woman with one vehicle. She stated her guests are vetted very well and she feels comfortable with them in her home with her and her son. She stated the neighbors were completely unaware that this was happening and stated many other home based businesses have many more visitors and vehicle trips. She stated she is willing to pay for a business license and the lodging lax and slated allowing this use would benefit the City and serve a niche that is not being fulfilling by current accommodations. Corrine Lombardi/1685 Old Hwy 991Stated she owns travelers accommodations in the E-1 zone and stated there are unintended consequences to changing the uses in zones, and this should not be done without understanding what the long term effects will be. Ms. Lombardi stated accessory residential units were built for low income rentals and this change would impact the number of rentals available. She stated there is a trust the City has established with its citizens and business owners and requested they maintain the current zoning that has been carefully thought out. Tom Howard/2190 SiskiyoulStated he is the owner of Oak Hill Bed & Breakfast and they have annual inspections conducted, pay the lodging taxes, and have a business license. Mr. Howard stated those of them who have followed the rules and opened businesses in the appropriate zones are being placed at a disadvantage to the people who are operating illegally, and staled R-1 is not a zone where businesses should be operating. He noted this could impact the availability of long term rentals and stated there is no shortage of a variety of lodging types for our tourists and stated he is not in favor of travel accommodations in the R-1 zone. Val Bachmayer1172 Skidmore/Stated she did a lot of research and purchased her property because it was in an R-3 zone and did so because she wants to start a business. She noted the conditional use permit includes a $1,000 fee and requires the fire marshal's approval, and questioned allowing this in other zones where you can't walk to downtown. She voiced concern with changing the playing field and staled people rely on the zoning to protect them. Dolly Travers/426 Clinton/Stated the purpose of the R-1 zone is to stabilize, protect, promote, and encourage a suitable environmental for family life. Ms. Travers questioned the impact of unintended consequences and stated this proposal is not in line with Ashland's values, standards, or land use policies. She added changing the R-1 zone is not the right direction to keep Ashland sustainable in the future. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Jordan Parker/137 N Main/Stated the affordable housing plans in 1990 and 2002 emphasized the permitting of accessory residential units in single family zones as one of the main strategies to promote affordable housing. Mr. Parker stated over the last 20 years a large number of these units have been constructed and to allow these units to be short term rentals undermines the original intent of these dwellings. He stated more than 213 of the rentals listed on airbnb.com and vrbo.com are cottages, studios, homes and apartments and are exactly the types of dwellings that should stay in the long term housing stock. Mr. Parker staled if accessory residential units are allowed to become short term rentals in the R-1 zone there will be too many conversions of long term to short term rentals, some accessory residential units will be constructed solely for short term occupations, and reducing the availability of long term rentals will drive up the costs of rent for Ashland residents. Catherine Moore/473 Maple/Stated she has owned property in Ashland before, but currently rents and stated since the rise of VRBO and AirBnI3 the number of rentals has greatly diminished and she has found it difficult to find affordable housing. Ms. Moore commented on several occasions she has been told a rental is available for only a portion of the year and that she would need to move out either during the summer months or during the winter holiday. Barbara Hetland/985 E Main/Stated she is a realtor in Ashland and has heard Ms. Moore's story many times. Ms. Hetland stated when she sold houses in the R-1 zone people had certain expectations and to take that away for the benefit of a few individuals is wrong. She stated this should go to a public vote and stated to compare this to home occupations is ridiculous. Commissioner Dawkins announced the meeting has come to an end and those who did not get the opportunity to speak will have another opportunity to do so when this issue comes back before them. It was noted the several commissioners will be absent from the March Study Session and Dawkins announced this item will come back at either the regular meeting or study session in April, and speakers will be given two minutes to testify. Ashland Planning Commission March 11, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES April 0, 2014 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Debbie Miller Mike Morris, absent DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Short Term Rentals on Owner Occupied Properties in Single Family Zoning Districts. Mr. Molnar provided a brief recap from the March 11, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. He stated the Planning Commission held discussion on this issue and provided general direction that should the City Council approve an amendment to allow short term rentals in single family zoning districts, that it only apply to owner occupied units, to use the conditional use permit process for approval, and to allow one or two bedrooms within the footprint of the residence and accessed from the main entrance. Mr. Molnar stated the outstanding issues staff needs clarification on are: 1) would they allow bedrooms accessed from a private entrance to be used as short term rentals, 2) would they allow detached structures to be used as short term rentals, 3) does the Commission wish to set a maximum square footage or maximum occupancy that could be rented, and 4) should eligible properties be limited to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street? Public Input Annie Dunn/150 N Main/Stated she is the co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and wants the community to maintain its charm and integrity. Ms. Dunn provided a description of the hostel accommodations and disagreed with the public input shared at the last meeting that short term rentals were filling a niche not otherwise offered in Ashland. She noted they receive many inquiries about long term housing and stated there is a clear trend of an abundance of long term rentals in the winter months that quickly evaporate come spring. Sidney Taylor/150 N Main/Stated she is the other co-owner of the Ashland Hostel and commented on the shortage of affordable long term housing in Ashland. Ms. Taylor stated their guests are thrilled with their rates and the accommodation types they offer, and stated the R-2 or R-3 zones would be a great place to start similar businesses. Ms. Taylor stated using the claim that there is a shortage of short term lodging in Ashland to justify a change in zoning laws makes no sense. She stated the R-1 districts are zoned residential and owners pay more for homes in these zones. She questioned why the City would sacrifice the integrity of Ashland's R-1 zones and further exacerbate the shortage of long term rentals in the interest of those who want to turn a quick profit. Ms. Taylor stated the City should encourage those who have been operating short term rentals in the R-1 zone to instead offer what is already needed and legal in Ashland, long term housing. Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 1 of3 Abby Hogge11700 Parker/Read aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-01 attached). Tom DuBois/690 S MountairdRead aloud written statement (See Exhibit 2014-02 attached). Abi MaghamfarlStated he represents the Ashland Lodging Association, which represents 60% of the licensed, legally operating lodging businesses in Ashland. Mr. Maghamfar stated they are not in favor of establishing travelers accommodations in the R-1 zone and commented that the City needs to stay true to the purpose of the R-1 zone as defined in the municipal code and consider the impacts to the rental housing supply and prices. Mr. Maghamfar stated there is no unmet lodging demand in Ashland and the Chamber of Commerce's latest statistics show an average occupancy of 50% year-round. He added the results of a three year study they conducted on home occupation businesses showed that while the ordinance allows up to eight visitors per day, the average was less than one visitor per day. Helen Orr/407 Clinton/Expressed concern that real estate values in the R-1 zone will be impacted and feels like she has been gypped. Ms. Orr stated single family residential neighborhoods will be impacted if the City allows this and fully disagrees with short term rentals in this zone. She added there is enough property in Ashland to support this use and it does not belong in the R-1 zone. John Baxter/831 Liberty/Stated he has lived in Ashland for 34 years and owns a long term rental in town and until recently operated a HOST type unit. Mr. Baxter encouraged the Commission to allow short term rentals in the R-1 zone and shared his experience with long term renters. He stated long term renters have no stake in their neighborhoods, and commented that his short term renters generated no complaints and property owners have a built in incentive to ensure that the operation of their guest suite does not bother the neighbors. Deliberations & Decision Mr. Molnar noted the areas that staff needs clarification on and the commissioners took turns sharing their comments. Commissioner Dawkins stated he is not in favor of allowing anything other than single bedrooms that do not have kitchen facilities, as noted these types of rooms are not likely to become long term rentals. He added the house needs to be owner occupied and is fine with either the main entrance or a separate entrance for the rental. He also stated he does not believe the City Council will allow accessory residential units (ARUs) to be short term rentals and commented on the history of accessory units and how they were intended for long term rentals. Commissioner Thompson stated she is not certain the impact of short term rentals is inconsistent with residential zoning, but is worried about protecting existing businesses in town. She stated under certain circumstances she is comfortable with allowing short term rentals as a permitted use. She stated she is not concerned about kitchen facilities or allowing more than one bedroom, but agrees that ARUs should not be allowed to operate as short term rentals. Thompson also voiced her support for utilizing the conditional use permit approval process. Commissioner Kaplan stated one bedroom in a hosted home is not much different than having a relative visit and the fact that these short term rentals will be hosted and are limited in size makes a difference for him. Commissioner Brown agreed with one bedrooms and supports setting a size limit. He stated he is not in favor of allowing short term rentals in the single family zone, but if the Council decides to pursue this he believes they have set appropriate parameters to control it. Brown also commented on the 200 ft. rule and stated he sees no reason to change this requirement. The Commission held discussion on the 200 ft rule. Comments were made that the R-1 zone is not the place to revisit this issue, and that this issue is controversial enough as it is and they should not entertain removing this requirement. Comments regarding encouraging guests to walk and not drive were also shared. General consensus was reached to limit these rentals to those that are within 200 ft. of an arterial or major street. Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 2 of 3 Staff asked for clarification about whether the Commission would support the rental of accessory residential units that are within the buildings footprint (such as a basement within a home). Commissioner Thompson stated she would support this and cautioned them about getting overly complex. She added she does not feel compelled to set a limit on the number of bedroom or a size limit, or define the entrance type. Commissioner Brown disagreed and stated the amendment should be as clear and specific as possible so that it is workable and enforceable. Commissioner Peddicord suggested a maximum occupancy and stated establishing an allowable number of people and gets more to the impacts on the neighborhood. Mr. Molnar stated staff would pull together the Commission's input and bring back a final recommendation for their approval. Commissioner Mindlin rejoined the meeting. Ashland Planning Commission April 8, 2014 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES April 22, 2014 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Richard Kaplan Maria Harris, Planning Manager Debbie Miller Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner Melanie Mindlin Michael Dawkins Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris, absent A. Clarification of recommendation to Council on Short Term Rentals. Mr. Molnar stated staff does not know whether the City Council will want to make changes to allow short term rentals in the single family zone, but if they do decide to move forward with changes, the Planning Commission has recommended the following: 1) properties must be owner occupied and located within 200 ft. of a major city street, 2) rentals can be a one- bedroom or two-bedroom suite located within the residence footprint, 3) rentals may be accessed from either the main entrance or a separate private entrance, 4).a conditional use permit is required, and 5) there will be an annual or biennial review of the operation. Comment was made questioning the fee structure and whether using the same fee as an accessory residential unit ($649) was appropriate. It was noted that those who apply for travelers accommodation approval in the R-2 or R-3 zones are changed a higher rate of $998. Mr. Molnar commented on the staff time and noticing requirements for these types of applications and explained it is comparable to the ARU process. Comment was made that they should not be making it harder for those in the zones where they want to encourage this use, and suggesting the City charge the same fee for all the zoning districts. Additional recommendations were made to only permit a single reservation (although the accommodation could be two bedrooms) and to not allow independent kitchen facilities, as allowing these units to be converted to shod term rentals could reduce the City's long term rental housing stock. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session Apnl22, 2014 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 20th, 2014, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 2.26, Firewise Commission to Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission FROM: Chris Chambers, Forest Division Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue, chamberc@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an ordinance to create a Wildfire Mitigation Commission in place of the Firewise Commission. The initial vision for the Firewise Commission's role has not been as central as originally conceived; while at the same time a new federal program called Fire Adapted Communities has provided Ashland with an opportunity to engage in a comprehensive and long-term program of work to address a wider range of wildfire preparedness issues. By changing the charge and name of the Firewise Commission, the City will address a larger suite of issues related to wildfire protection in Ashland. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The proposed ordinance expands the scope of the current Firewise Commission and retains the current seated commissioners. The Firewise Commission was created in 2010 to assist in implementation of the Firewise Communities program. Work on the ground has been largely driven by staff, with 12 neighborhoods and nearly 900 individual homes now with a heightened state of wildfire safety. The Firewise Commission's role thus became less urgent over time, while the need for the Firewise Communities approach strengthened. The Fire Adapted Communities program requires significant investments of time for planning and engaging citizens and stakeholders during policy development. Where Firewise is a recognition based program that we will retain and expand, Fire Adapted Communities is a program of work over time that successively lowers a community's risk to wildfire on many fronts. The ordinance, while mentioning the Fire Adapted Communities program, does not limit the commission's purview to a particular federal program, realizing that programs come and go over time while the wildfire problem is relatively constant at the local level. The new commission will be guiding community input on issues related to wildfire protection and prevention, and making recommendations to Council as issues mature to the policy level. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no fiscal impact to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve first reading of this ordinance and move to second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled "An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 2.26, Firewise Commission to Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission" Page 1 of 2 I~, CITY OF ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Wildfire Mitigation Commission ordinance. Page 2 of 2 VIOLAS-11 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 2.26 FIREWISE COMMISSION TO ASHLAND WILDFIRE MITIGATION COMMISSION Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold fined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Ashland Fire & Rescue desires to create a commission to develop, implement, and maintain a community wildfire mitigation strategy. WHEREAS, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.26 of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: FFRFM1ISE ASHLAND WILDFIRE MITIGATION COMMISSION Section 2.26.010 Purpose The F ire se Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission shall provide advice and gaidanee support to the Council and eCity departments and education to the community on wildfire issues and plans for mitigation action within the . Specifically, the Commission will function as the entity to foster the efforts of the City of Ashland to adopt and achieve the goals set forth in the Fire Adapted Communities program support and maintain the City' S Section 2.26.020 Established Membership The rewise Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission is established and shall consist of no less than seven (7) voting members, and certain non-voting ex officio members consisting of a member of the City Council, a representative of Ashland Fire and Rescue, and additional staff as needed. The Fire Department staff designee shall serve as the primary staff liaison and as Secretary of the Commission. Voting members will be community members at large, and shall be designated by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. Community members Will be Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 eneouraged, but of 1:....ited toneighborhood representatives based Fird....:~d, Communities neighborhoods. Section 2.26.030 Powers and Duties Generally The powers, duties and responsibilities of the use Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission shall be as follows: A. To develop, coordinate and promote wildfire mitigation netivities based oil Firewis° eommunity assessments a comprehensive community wildfire strategy; B. To initiate, and enhance and promote full eitizen community participation and responsibility in reducing wildfire risk; C. To submit recommendations to Ci!j Council and eCity departments regarding the community's wildfire wee strategy, and D. , and F. To promote and support a relationship with surrounding areas and jurisdictions that pertain to or benefit wildfire safety in Ashland. publie knowledge and iteeeptanee of the Firewise Communities program and homeowner- per-tieipation in assuming responsibility for redueingwildfir-e As! SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i. e., Sections [No 3-4] need not be codified, and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3