Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-0617 Council Agenda PACKET
4 CITY OF ASHLAND trflp0l't8rlt: n„y citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written -w., commenis to the Council on any item on [he Agenda, unless it is the 3ubjecfof a p`ulilic hearing and the iecid is closed Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony., If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and informyou 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 June 17, 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 May 29, 2014 2. Study Session of June 2, 2014 3. Business Meeting of June 3, 2014 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Report on winter shelter program for 2013-2014 2. Semi-annual report from the Ashland Community Resource Center 3. Thank you presentation to Recology for their assistance with the FireWise Day activities VII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of commission, committee, and board minutes 2. Appointments to Band Board 3. Appointment to Conservation Commission 4. Appointment to Tree Commission 5. Appointment to Wildfire Mitigation Commission 6. Liquor license application for Mark Hedford dba Martolli's Hand Tossed Pizza 7. Liquor license application for Christian Canady dba Home State BBQ 8. Liquor license application for Hani Hajje dba Taj Indian Restaurant 9. Liquor license application for Christian Senf dba Gil's 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 10. Liquor license application for Edward "Web" Staunton dba North West Raw 11. Approval of two intergovernmental agreements with Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon for dispatch services 12.Approval of intergovernmental agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for commercial vehicle inspection services 13. Donation of 2006 Ford Lift Van to Parks and Recreation Department from RVTD 14. Declaration and authorization to dispose of 1993 Type 1 Fire Pumper 15. Approval of intergovernmental agreement with the City of Medford for acceptance and disposal of partially treated biosolids 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 first and second reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2014 to and including June 30, 2015, such taxes in the sum of $10, 083, 098 upon all real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and Adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution certifying that the City of Ashland provides the following four or more municipal services enumerated section 1, ORS 221.760" and Adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution declaring the City's election to receive state revenues" 2. Public Hearing and first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030, and 18.52.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code establishing medical marijuana dispensaries as a special permitted use in the Commercial (C-1), Employment (E-1) and Industrial (M-1) zoning districts" and First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulations to add Chapter 6.50 establishing time, place, and manner regulations and a permitting process for medical marijuana dispensaries" 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 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 XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Discussion of ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee draft recommendations 2. Appointment to Citizen Budget Committee XII. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance restricting openly carrying loaded firearms in public places" 2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalty, Sections 1.08.010, 1.08.020 and 1.08.030 compliant with current state statues" 3. Adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a supplemental budget establishing appropriations within the 2013-2015 biennium budget" 4. Adoption of a resolution titled, "A resolution transferring appropriations within the 2013-2015 biennium budget" 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 1). 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 May 29, 2014 Page I of 7 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 29, 2014 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Slattery, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. 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 Mayor Stromberg and Council clarified rules of procedure. ABSTENTIONS, CONFLICTS, EXPARTE CONTACT None reported. THOSE WISHING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY Public Hearing-continued: 7:42 p.m. Tom Winmill/200 Normal Avenue/Supported annexation but not the layout the Planning Commission proposed. It was not fair to the area. He urged Council to review the plan, make it fair and questioned the use of high density instead of medium density. Nancy Boyer/425 Normal Avenue/Expressed concern regarding the size of the development, noted the drought and higher utility rates, and thought a plan for 500 homes needed consideration. The infrastructure and improvements should happen first and questioned who would pay for them. The area did not need added density. She wanted to know how the plan changed to include three story buildings, why the plan was on a flood plain and thought the City should conduct their own studies instead of private studies funded by the developers. Belmira Borg/2214 Abbott Avenue/Explained she was the secretary for the East Village Home Owners Association and spoke on their behalf. They were concerned for infrastructure regarding any high-density construction on the Baptist Church property with a focus on traffic issues. The Home Owners Association was also concerned regarding the lack of notice provided for the Normal Plan. She encouraged Council not to approve a plan that would allow high density or commercial construction on the Baptist Church property. Rod Petrone/2324 Abbott Avenue/Thought city and state government should control all aspects of the development of private land because individuals were incapable of acting in the best interest of the new world order. People needed to lower carbon dioxide (C02) emissions in order to address the planetary crisis. The project would help by forcing all but those in control into tiny 600 square feet cubicle housing reducing energy and water usage. Smaller homes would discourage population growth, reduce C02 emissions, and possibly lower sea levels. Existing large homes could be modified into multifamily units. Keith Boyd/724 S Central #106, Medford OR/Represented the owners of the Calvary Baptist Church at Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 2 of 7 22 East Main Street. They were involved since the beginning, supported the plan, and saw it as a framework. Council retained total discretion over any annexation of any property or project and for that reason it should be approved. The Planning Department would not present something to Council that should not be approved. Additionally feasibility studies done could require changes to the plan. Jackie Agee/168 Crocker Street/Represented the Chautauqua Trace Home Association and expressed concern regarding infrastructure issues due to the high-density project. A medium density may or may not alleviate problems but a high-density residential and commercial project would increase problems. There were also traffic concerns and the impact to East Main Street since there was no indication the City would improve that street. The Home Owners Association was dismayed by the lack of concern from the planners and lack of notice from the City regarding the project. They urged Council not to approve any high-density development on the Baptist Church property. Betsy Strebe/342 Meadow Drive /Represented the Meadowbrook Park Estates Homeowners Association concerned with high-density development of the Baptist Church property, infrastructure, and lack of public transportation. The Home Owners Association was also concerned with mixed residential and commercial space where the commercial sections were mostly vacant They requested that Council send the plan back to the Planning Commission with recommendations to eliminate high density residential and commercial in the Baptist Church property or anywhere in the Normal Avenue area. Richard Blazer/342 Meadow Drive/The plan did not serve the community. Scientific studies and decisions should be made by scientists and elected officials and represent the will of the people. Many aspects of the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) were not in the best interest of present and future residents of the area. He had traffic concerns and thought an advanced finance district should be created and funded before any development began. The City should commit to a comprehensive detailed traffic plan. He urged Council not to approve high density N-03 and N-03C zones or the height proposal. John Bullock/777 Palmer Road/Wanted Council to refer the plan back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation to retain the NN-02 zone as the maximum density for the entire development. Alma Rosa Alvarez/491 Normal Avenue/Read from the Oregon State Goal 14 Urbanization Guidelines Sections B2, B4, and B5 local land use control and questioned whether the City had evidenced intent to provide urban services for the land by adopting a capital improvement plan reasonably designed to provide the urban services according to ORS 197.754 Section 1. She wanted to know where in the City's Capital Improvement Plan was the upgrading urbanization of East Main Street between Walker and Clay Streets and the private railroad crossing next to Hunter Park necessary for the urban expansion of the NNP. Had the City followed ORS 197.794 Section 3 regarding the railroad crossing? Where was the document from CORP Rail Road outlining the process and cost of upgrading the crossing from private to public use? Eve Smyth/459 Normal Avenue /Spoke on water demand and supply issues and questioned how a high- density development zoned in the NNP did not exceed the care and capacity of the City's water resources. The design of such density for the NNP contradicted Ashland Municipal Code 18.106.030. How could there be adequate capacity for such an increase in population. The NNP had the largest water resource identified in the Ashland Water Resources map. ORS 197.283 assured protection of groundwater resources consistent with state goals in ORS 46813.025. She urged Council to reconsider the plan. Kathleen Livni/240 Normal Avenue/Supported a medium density plan. The process used to determine the wetlands in the area originally was loose. There were many inconsistencies in the map and provided examples. The NNP was based on this map and never delineated. A wetland expert from Eugene OR performed testing and inspections on her land and concluded only 650 square feet as wetland. The area in Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 3 of 7 question was now considered conservation land. This eminent domain on her land came without compensations or legal merit. Carol Block/355 Normal Avenue/Represented twelve parcels in the Plan area and did not think the development would enrich or improve the community. It would become a mish mash of high-density housing of various types with no open spaces except around wetlands and riparian areas. Developers did not want to designate parkland and balked during meetings about complying with open space. Of the 94 acres, over 25 acres belonged to neighbors that would not annex into the city so the development was actually in 69 acres instead of 94. No one had yet to prove high-density inventory was needed over the next 20 years. She questioned the rush and suggested rezoning smaller acreages in the city with apartments closer to services and public transportation. Multifamily housing was typically the slower to sell and the least desirable. She asked Council to listen to the opinion and rights of the present homeowners instead of outside speculators. The project would have a devastating effect to the wetlands and open spaces. She questioned who would pay for the improvements, whether the capital improvement plan addressed the East Main Street improvements and the railroad crossing, and if the City had communicated with Jackson County Transportation Department to bring East Main Street up to code. Other issues included water and the actual need and placement of that many homes. Paula Fox/367 Normal Avenue/Wanted the Planning Commission to review and revise the high-density allotments in the plan. She addressed the livability issue and read from Oregon State Goal 14 Urbanization Guidelines Section A4. She thought high-density in the area would gravely affect traffic and water resources. Jonathan Seidler/367 Meadow Drive/Opposed the three-story development and supported medium or low density instead. Everyone could agree the impact of developing 94 acres was a little frightening and thought the developers or Councilors would feel the same way if they lived in the area. He thought the annexation was too large. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 8:25 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT- continued/STAFF REPORT Planning Commissioners Chair Rich Kaplan and Melanie Mindlin presented the report. Ms. Mindlin explained it was a unanimous decision by the Planning Commission to approve the plan. She noted there were many property owners that did not want the area developed and several that wanted to maximize development potential. There was underlining zoning in that area for decades with more housing than stated in the plan. The density designation for most of the area was similar to the kind of development seen from Siskiyou Boulevard to Ashland Street. Homeowners could annex into the City without the plan and there was nothing in the plan to promote or inhibit development. The plan attempted to keep ahead of applications with a coherent guide for streets, paths, open space, environmental protections, and transportation needs. The Normal Neighborhood Plan was the largest piece of land in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She agreed it was questionable whether the area was the ideal location for high-density housing. The City's commitment to non-expansion and regional problem solving process, growing inward instead of outward locked the City into using the land in this way. The number of units the Planning commission was working with was a basic parameter of the whole project. Consultants were brought in with this level of density as a goal. The Planning Commission listened carefully to concerns expressed and along with Planning Department staff worked with them and examined lots to ensure they were not lowering density on any parcel except homes in the green development. The Planning Commission felt strongly they had not decreased density even though some owners were not getting what they desired. Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 4 of 7 Specific issues in the Planning Commission's recommendation were transportation. The Normal Neighborhood was not well connected and transportation was challenging. There were limited ways to get in and out of the neighborhood, East Main Street was not up to City standards in its current condition, and it was one mile from high-density housing to public transit and commercial stores. It was unlikely the area would have transit service in the near future although experts assured public transit would support the density by total build out. The transportation challenges were significant. Community Development Director Bill Molnar clarified the traffic study conducted on East Main Street primarily noted that multi modal facilities for cyclists and pedestrians ranked poor because it was a county road. In order for the Normal Neighborhood project to develop it required improvements. Ms. Mindlin added the Planning Commission recommended improvements to East Main Street be done before development began and there should be a very coherent plan for the railroad crossing. The Transportation Commission wanted fewer access points onto East Main Street because of safety concerns that contradicted the recommendation by Public Works Director Mike Faught. She clarified the transportation network within the Normal neighborhood was good but beyond the neighborhood there were issues. Mr. Kaplan explained the Planning Commission added strong statements to their recommendation that the south side of East Main to Walker and Clay streets should be fully improved to City standards prior to or coinciding with any future annexation within the plan area. The Planning Commission could not go further on the improvements since they were not in control of who would fund them. Ms. Mindlin explained that the Planning Commission added important elements regarding conservation and open space to the plan, which received push back from owners looking to maximize development. By creating conservation areas, the recommendation gave them the right to transfer density to other parts of their property. Designating the size of these conservation areas protected the character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission wanted to ensure there was no value in altering the hydrologic characteristics of individual properties. Various participants may try to challenge or alter the designation but the Planning Commission's unanimous support depended on maintaining those specified lands for open space regardless of the hydrologic analogies that may occur. The open spaces were only minimally enlarged on city snaps. Ms. Mindlin concluded with the three-story density zones. The consultants originally specified three story buildings and the Planning Commission removed it due to public comment. There were no requests from the developers to reinstate the height requirement. The Planning Commission added it back because they believed with the required density of 15 units per acre in the NN-03 zone they needed to provide the flexibility of building to three stories. Moving from 2.5 stories to three was not drastic. To keep impact down they went from 35-feet to 40-feet. It was a small part of the plan and the Planning Commission would not be greatly concerned if Council did not support the height recommendation. Mr. Kaplan added if the added height did not come with a conditional use permit process, the Planning Commission would not have approved the change. The Commission would look at each design and determine impact to the neighbors. The Planning Commission was not aware of the Fire Chief s objections to 3-story buildings. Mr. Molnar explained wetlands were established through a local wetland inventory prescribed through the State. In 2007, the City hired Fishmen Environmental Services in compliance with Statewide Planning Goal #5. Part of the process was noticing property owners with a wetland or potential wetland requesting permission to access their property. The consultants had to rely on soil data, aerial photography, and width assumptions to determine wetland information on several properties where the owner denied access. The City added the protective 50-foot buffer to wetland areas. Streets on the maps parallel to a wetland Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 5 of 7 were likely in the buffer. This was still a concept plan so when property came up for annexation the developer or owner had to identify the actual wetland location and buffer and keep the improvements outside of those areas. It was subject to City and state regulations. Studies had to be submitted to the Oregon Department of State Lands to confirm the methodology was correct. The bigger issue was the Planning Commission's recommendation in the plan. The plan's conservation areas incorporated the City's local wetland inventory and buffer requirement but also made a finding that 25% of the Normal Neighborhood area or 20 acres of Normal area should be kept in a conservation area regardless of final delineation to respect the character of the neighborhood and make the transition to higher density smoother. He confirmed that Council had the ability to change zoning but staff would need to review long-term implications. The developer was responsible for all costs associated with any streets, pathways, curbs, sidewalk, and utilities built in the project when annexing to the City. The Planning Commission recommendation that provided clarity on times and responsibility of East Main and the railroad crossing that was currently in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission recommendation was prior to any development occurring, the south side of East Main Street, sidewalk, bike lane, storm drain systems had to be installed from Walker Street eastward, that the railroad crossing was public, and a finance plan addressed. If Council incorporated the Planning Commission's conditions those improvements would be a requirement. The extent of the improvements for East Main and the railroad crossing was not known until studies were conducted. The Water Master Plan addressed water needs though the year 2060. It was based on population projections of the Comprehensive Plan, conservation, system improvements for redundancy and emergency water supplies, and periods of severe drought. The Water Master Plan did not specifically include the Normal Neighborhood Plan but did include water for an additional 550 housing units. The Comprehensive Plan was consistent with the state goals and that included Goal 14 Urbanization. Mr. Molnar noted over the past 25 years only 350 homes were built. Property owners could group together to deal with development costs. Reimbursement districts allowed 10-20 year payback schedules and had conditions. If Council did not adopt the plan, the current zoning would remain Jackson County zoning and limited regarding use. Property owners could go through the permit process with Jackson County. Developers would go through annexation with the City to develop 5-9 units per acre. The property needed to be contiguous with the city limit boundary and would require a Public Hearing through the Planning Commission then go before Council. City requirements were 6-9 units per acre, the developer would install public facilities and infrastructure for the property as well as affordability. The City's contribution to Normal Neighborhood Plan would be through other developers who by System Development Charges increased the entire capacity of the system. If Council did not adopt the plan, the wetland designation could change and developers would still be subject to normal City requirements. Ms. Mindlin clarified the Transportation Commission wanted one access on East Main Street. However, Public Works Director Mike Faught concurred with the consultants on their initial recommendation of three access points because it allowed better traffic distribution. The Oregon Department of Transportation Rail recognized the private railroad crossing and would allow it to upgrade to public without moving it to another location. The concern was timing of the development. ODOT would not confirm in writing until an application for development was submitted. The Normal Neighborhood Plan was not a development plan but a plan to guide development. Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 6 of 7 Mr. Kaplan added the plan contained an amendment process depending on how the area developed. It was a living document and guide. Eliminating the NN-03 and NN-03C could limit the City significantly and there might be ways to redistribute the higher density instead. Housing density consisted of 93% NN-01 and NN-02, NN-03 made up 7% and NN-03C with 28% open space. Staff addressed routes to schools and with the exception of one multiuse path, noted street extensions that enabled more routes would not occur unless specific properties annexed and developed, or were surrounded by other properties annexing. COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND DECISION Councilor Marsh acknowledged the hard work and effort from staff, commissions, and the consultants, but did not think the plan was compatible. She thought the density was misplaced, wanted to ensure the wetlands were delineated, and well protected, and did not like the street pattern. She suggested establishing a work group comprised of three Councilors, two Planning Commissioners, and staff to make changes to the plan or look at citywide density and infill and how the Normal Neighborhood Plan fit in with that. Councilor Lemhouse would support the suggestion as long as there was structure and clarity for the group to ensure it moved forward. Councilor Slattery wanted a mechanism to identify and address issues the public brought forward. Councilor Marsh clarified the work group would make recommendations and not necessarily decisions. Councilor Voisin thought the Transportation Commission should participate in the process. Ms. Mindlin clarified the Planning Commission never debated whether they should reduce density. Transportation issues were a concern but not under the purview of the Planning Commission. Council generally supported a work group and discussed the need for clear direction on what the group would focus on. Councilor Marsh clarified the work group would report to Council with a plan to move forward. Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to refer Normal Neighborhood project and all elements to the establishment of a working group comprised of three Councilors, two Planning Commissioners, and staff who will make a recommendation for moving forward. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse supported the idea of remanding it a working group and thought Council should provide the issues they wanted the group to address. His biggest concern was the high density in the NN-03. Councilor Voisin supported the concept but thought Council needed to give specific direction to the group. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Rosenthal, Slattery, Marsh, Morris and Lemhouse, YES. Motion approved. Council wanted the group to review and address the following: • East-west transportation issues • Transportation to the schools with an in depth review of traffic to the schools and impact to the surrounding neighborhoods • General transportation and connectivity issues • How to eliminate some of the traffic • The need for NN zoning, • Density • Infrastructure • Public transportation • Improving both south and north East Main Special City Council Meeting May 29, 2014 Page 7 of 7 • The Railroad Crossing • Challenge the RPS assumptions on density • Protect the wetlands, retain state established wetlands, and protect the 25% open space • Ensure developers pay for water, sewer, and electric • Incorporate public input and respond accordingly • Building height requirements Mayor Stromberg would bring names of potential work group members to Council for approval. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Minutes for the City Council Study Session June 2, 2014 Page I of 1 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 2, 2014 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Voisin, Morris, and Marsh were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 5:37. Councilor Slattery arrived at 5:43 p.m. 1. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 2. Discussion of time, place, and manner restrictions for marijuana dispensaries City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the Planning Commission would bring an ordinance to the June 17, 2014 from a land use perspective. Mr. Lohman planned to bring another ordinance regarding Time Place and Manner as well. Items like hours of operation did not need be in a land use ordinance. He clarified the ordinance pertained to medical marijuana only. The draft ordinance would require annual permits for medical marijuana dispensaries, certification the dispensary had registered with the state, and a City business license. Other requirements included certification the dispensary met City land use requirements, current fees, and taxes paid. Section 7 of the ordinance would require background checks from the operator, any employees, or persons and entities providing debt financing. Permit conditions would prohibit permits to someone convicted of drug related activity more than once in the past five years or twice in the past ten years. Council was concerned regarding the prior criminal activity restrictions and thought permit conditions should align with liquor store requirements. Mr. Lohman would bring back a provision leaving out employees, and include people providing financing. Council suggested removing the accounting portion of the ordinance and moving forward with a taxing mechanism. Mr. Kanner had a taxation ordinance already drafted. Staff could add language to Section 6 Permit Conditions (H) to require dispensaries provide that information on demand by the police. Council wanted to know causes and effects and thought staff should base the ordinance on Colorado and Washington. Mr. Lohman noted the ordinance would also prohibit making oils with butane at the dispensary and the need to address potency. He would make improvements to the ordinance and send it to Council. 3. Continued discussion of draft Council goals Council discussed scheduling either July 11, 2014 or August 1, 2014 to continue draft Council goals. Meeting adjourned at 6:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Page I of 5 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 3, 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, Slattery, Rosenthal and Marsh were present. Councilor Lemhouse was absent. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor noted that the City of Ashland has several Commissions that are in need of volunteers. These vacancies are the on the Airport, Conservation, Firewise, Forest Lands, Historic, Public Arts and Tree Commissions. Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to remove item 2 under Ordinances, Resolutions and Contracts from tonight's agenda and place on the August 5 Council meeting agenda for continuation of First Readings by title only 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. At which time, the Normal Neighborhood Working Group will report to the Council. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. Mayor placed additional item under the Consent Agenda for approval of appointments to Normal Neighborhood Project Working Group. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of May 19, 2014, Executive Session of May 19, 2014 and Business Meeting of May 20, 2014 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Annual Presentation of the Band Board was presented by Band Board Director Don Bieghler. Mr. Bieghler shared history of the Band Board and his involvement in the Band over the many past years. He submitted for the record written history. Proclamation of June 14, 2014 as Flag Day in Ashland was read aloud. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of commission, committee, and board minutes 2. Liquor License Application for Kevin Broadie dba Saltworks, LLC 3. Ambulance operator's license renewal 4. Award of contract to apparent low bidder for the Lori Lane Alley Connection project 5. A resolution establishing rates for the Ashland Municipal Airport and repealing Resolution 2013 - 16 6. Ratification of five-year labor contract with the Laborers' International Union of North America Local No. 121 7. A resolution exercising the Power of Eminent Domain for the Walker Avenue Safe Routes to School project 8. Mayor's appointment of Normal Neighborhood Project Working Group. Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Council pulled items #5, #7 and #8 from the Consent Agenda for further discussion. City Engineer Scott Fleury clarified that Skinner Aviation is the base operator for the City Airport and the City has a joint operation contract with Skinner Aviation. Skinner Aviation provides the management and fixed/general base operation and the City provides maintenance. There is a Service Contract between Skinner Aviation and the City to provide these services. Mr. Fleury explained that the maintenance and service has been paid out of revenues and this last year a positive ending fund balance has been established. He stated that bigger projects would be paid by the Ending Fund Balance. In regards to the "Eminent Domain for the Walker Avenue Safe Routes to School Project," Mr. Fleury explained that this is a "pass through" grant. Which means that Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAC) are under contract with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the City pays ODOT directly for our part of the project is "matching funds." The City's portion of the cost is approximately $68,000 and could be higher, based on the negotiations of ODOT for costs associated with a permanent easement. In regards to the mayor's appointment of the Normal Neighborhood Project Working Group, comment was made that this is a positive approach and support was voiced for those that were appointed. The importance on notification to all parties that have been involved and the ability for those that attend these meetings the opportunity for public input was noted. It was understood that that there would be consistency in days and times for these meetings. Councilor Slattery/Voisin m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document and repealing prior fee resolution 2013-17" Finance Director Administrative Services Lee Tuneberg presented the staff report. He explained that the intent was to provide one document where all these fees could be found and that the fees have been adjusted accordingly and have been incorporated in to the appropriate department budgets. Request that old and new fees are differentiated and that staff provide rationale on fees, increase of cost and using CPI as basis for increasing fees. Mr. Tuneberg addressed concerns voiced and determination by departments on the necessity of increasing fees. He explained the cost of fees varies by department and that staff does their best job of identifying and explaining these increases on an annual basis. All increases are based on the originating ordinance, which set the various fees per department. He suggested that if council had any specific questions, then that department could provide the explanation on the increase of fees. In the future, it was suggested that staff provide additional information on the rationale used when increasing or adding fees. Current examples of how information was provided by some departments was pointed out and found helpful. Corrections under Business License Fees: Rental Property fees is incorrect and Vacation Rental Fees should be noted; on page 28 Special Events Permits should indicate"60% of city staff O/T" and replacement page for Electric-Line Extension Charges should be included in the new fee version. Concern was voiced that the Renewable Energy Systems fees were high and should be consistent with other communities. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the formula for these fees were developed by a former Building. Staff will review further. Electric Distribution System Manager Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Warren DiNapoli clarified that the Denergize Service Fee was new and that costs were estimates based on different types of services that were being provided. Public Hearing Open: 7:53 p.m. Public Hearing Closed: 7:53 p.m. Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2014-07. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh commended staff for keeping fees low when possible. Roll Call Vote: Morris, Marsh, Voisin, Slattery and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed. PUBLIC FORUM Lisa Rand/343 W Nevada Street/Shared with the council her serious allergy to bee. Her allergy gets worse as time goes by and she has to carry medication with her at all times. She stated that a neighbor had previously had beehives, but removed them. Recently, this same neighbor installed another beehive without her knowledge. She voiced her concern regarding the seriousness of her allergy and the fear she now has when accessing any area within her yard. She stated that she has lived in a state of panic since the beehive was installed and asked why the council had removed the section from the recently passed ordinance that required notification to neighbors when a beehive has been installed. She is seeking legal remedy to the situation. UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Adoption of the City's self-insurance health plan for the plan year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015 City Administrator Dave Kanner presented staff report and explained that the requested changes to the plan are all administrative changes and must adopt a plan document annually. There is no legal requirement but it is important that employees have ability to see their plan. There is periodic review by the Employee Health Benefits Advisory Committee (EHBAC) and the have reviewed the suggested administrative changes. These changes include a rewrite in the appeal process, which gives the City a role in the appeal process and an administrative change in order to comply with Affordable Care Act. There is no anticipated cost increase to the employees. Councilor Voisin stated that the City provides a very good policy and that the City is the trustee of the policy. She requested information on when any future discussions by the EHBAC and if it were possible if a councilor could be part of the committee. Councilor Voisin had submitted some questions by email to Mr. Kanner and he stated that some answers to questions had been provided which he sent out to all the council. He had not been able to spend much time on the questions as he was working on it at the end of the day prior to this council meeting. Mr. Kanner provided information on the amount of claims paid to-date of approximately $3million and there are transfer showing reserve funds in the health benefit fund. He explained that it is required to have a reserve fund to health benefits, which would provide for any insured claims at the end of a budget cycle. All departments are billed for their portion of the health insurance in the same manner as previously. He clarified that the council was being asked to approve a plan document and provided assurance that the plan was being managed in a responsible financial way. It was suggested that this discussion item be scheduled for a Study Session, as there are many portions of this plan, which the council may want to review/question. These include demographic age, cost of coverage, equivalency of coverage, ability of council member to sit on committee, cost of appeals, amount paid in claims, revenue received, etc. Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Kanner stated that it would not be appropriate for a councilor to be on the committee as it is an "Employee" Health Benefits Advisory Committee, which was established by Administrative Policy. Staff was requested to provide a definition for "employees" and how it relates to definition of councilors as "employees". Mr. Kanner clarified that the City Administrator would participate in the appeal process and, as the employer would be entitled to have knowledge of employee medical conditions as it affects their employment. He stated that the plan is consistent with other self-insured plans and that the committed has reviewed and recommended the proposed changes to the plan. Support was voiced to schedule a Study Session for further discussion and additional information... Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to approve 2014-2015 City of Ashland self-insured health benefit plan with the two modifications recommended by the Employee Health Benefits Advisory Committee. Roll Call Vote: Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, Slattery and Morris, YES. Motion passed. 2. Update from the Housing and Human Services Commission regarding the development of the Strategic Social Services Grant review Housing Specialist Linda Reid and Housing and Human Resources Commission Chair Regina Ayars presented an update from the Commission and request that the Council approve their drafting of a strategic plan for the use of social service grant funds. Ms. Ayars explained that at the request of the Council for their Commission to provide an analysis of the current social service grant programs, it was determined by the Commission that a Strategic Plan would help to address several criteria as well as recommended broad goals and outcomes for future grant funded projects. Ms. Reid explained that part of the process is to gather demographic data, "point and time" count along with general demographics. She explained that they do have a large amount of data at this point. It was noted the importance of identifying the needs in our communities along with feedback regarding what needs are not being met. The plan will provide the following: • What is the history and background of Ashland's social service program? • What is the application process? • How is the Ashland community benefitting from the grant awards? • Should the criteria for award target particular community needs? The Commission is requesting direction from Council and approval for taking the steps necessary to providing a Strategic Plan prior to the social service grant process begin. Council liaison Marsh stated that this is a good plan that will be very valuable and noted that the last plan was done in the year 2000. Councilors voiced their appreciation for the work done by the Commission and that a Strategic Plan is a good direction. It was suggested that the Commission might want to contact former Councilor Cate Hartzell who would be a good resource for this plan. Discussion was held on how to handle agencies that handle multiple funding and the difficulty in measuring the results on how the funds were spent. Ms. Reid stated that statistics could be provided by the various agencies as they all track funding. She used the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding as an example of how funds are tracked. It was requested that when data is being collected, that specific targets include individuals not usually identified. These targets could include high Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 2014 Page 5 of 5 schools, those that work with "at risk" individuals, and to be as broad as possible when gathering data outside the known agencies. Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to direct the Housing and Human Services Commission to undertake the development of a strategic plan for the use of social service grant funds to bring back to the council for consideration. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES. RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 2.26, Firewise Commission to Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission" Councilor Voisin/Slattery m/s to approve Ordinance #3095. Roll Call Vote: Slattery, Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. 2. 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 designations, and adopt the Normal Neighborhood Plan framework as a support document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan" . and 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" Item removed from agenda. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS Councilor Rosenthal extended an invitation from the Conservation Commission to meet the two winners of the All School sustainability Competition on June 7 5 p.m. at Mix's on the plaza. Councilor Marsh reminded all of the celebration of the Calle on June I I at 5:30 p.m. City Recorder Barbara Christensen announced the first day of filing for City of Ashland elected offices that begin on June 4. Mayor Stromberg reported that he had participated in a call-in regarding a proposed wildfire bill that would allow access to FEMA funds rather than the budget of the State Forest Service for total cost of wildfires. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor S E A M COMMUNITT N N U A L R E P O 570B Clover Lane Ashland, OR 97520 T Ashland Community Resource Center 572 Clover Lane Hours of Operation Tuesday through Friday 9 AM to 1 PM F~~ Ia}td:'r ~l . w „~IY Shower Trailer Ashland First United Methodist Church 175 N Main Street Tuesday 1 PM to 4 PM Ashland Emergency Food Bank 560 Clover Lane Thursday 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM BY THE NUMBERS ASHLAND COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER FEBRUARY 6th 2014 to June 6th 2014 1053 Number of adult visits at ACRC 133 Number of individual adults who have received services at ACRC beyond hospitality: clothing, camping gear, bus passes, rental assistance, housing, etc. Each has filled out our intake form, "snapshot". (Our data collection methods do not allow us to accurately count children within families we serve. We have not provided any services to teens.) 45 Number of these133 served who were not homeless 9 Number of families housed. Each family was literally homeless living in a place not intended for human habitation: tent, auto, broken RV, under the bushes, in a shelter. 9 Number of people previously unemployed who found employment with the support of ACRC. Our volunteers have assisted many more with resumes and job searches. 142 Showers provided 40 Loads of laundry 40 Bus passes given to guests for work, or medical needs. Passes are donated by RVTD, program ends July 1, 2014 39 Volunteers serving at ACRC 862 Volunteer hours served at ACRC $19,535 Donated to ACRC from community members These donations came from 9 individuals $1750 Dollars from charitable foundations $2500 Dollars contributed to the ACRC operating budget by OHRA, this is half of OHRA's expected contribution for year one. $11,561 Value of in-kind donations from community members $20,450 Dollars expended from the city grant. We are projecting to expend less than $60,000 of city funds in our first year of operation 30 Number of non-cash contributors (clothing, furniture, gear) 22 Number of agencies we have partnered with to provide services ■ St. Vincent DePaul of Ashland and Medford, and Grants Pass ■ Ashland Emergency Food Bank ■ Ashland First United Methodist Church ■ The Listening Post ■ Trinity Episcopal Church ■ Department of Disability Services ■ Senior Protective Services ■ VA ■ Rogue Valley Veterans and Community Services ■ Veterans Services Office ■ Easter Seals ■ Phoenix First Presbyterians Church ■ Rogue Valley Council of Governments ■ Jackson County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) ■ Jackson County Health Department ■ Holiday Inn Express ■ Temple Emek Shalom ■ Ashland UCC Church ■ Oregon Action ■ Peace House ■ The Permaculture Playground ■ Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship 10 Number of businesses who have contributed goods to support ACRC ■ Food Angels ■ Umpqua Bank ■ Martolli's ■ Caldera ■ Shop N Kart ■ Grilla Bites ■ Hemporium ■ Whistling Duck Farm ■ Habitat for Humanity Re-Store ACRC DATA COLLECTED USING SERVICE POINT 2. Persons Served during the Number of Singles Number of Number of Number of operating year. Not in Families Adults in Children in Families Families Families a. Number on the first day of the 0 0 0 0 operating year. b. Number entering program during 133 3 9 6 the operating year. c. Number who left the program 0 0 0 0 during the operating year. d. Number in the program on the last day of the operating year. (a+b- 133 3 9 6 c=d) 3. Project Capacity. Number of Number of Not in Number Families Singles Adults in Children Number of i n Families Families Families a. Number on last day (from 2d, 133 columns 1 and 4) 4. Non-homeless persons. (Sec. 8 SRO projects only) How many income-eligible non-homeless persons were housed by the SRO program during the 45 operating year? S. Age and Gender. Of those who entered during the operating year, how many people are in the following age and gender categories? Age Male Female Other/Not given Single Persons (from 2b, column 1) a. 62 and over 7 4 0 b. 51 - 61 9 15 0 c. 31 - 50 35 20 0 d. 18 - 30 25 14 0 e. 17 and under 0 2 0 Not given 2 0 0 Persons in Families (from 2b, columns 2 & 3) f. 62 and over 0 0 0 g.51-61 0 0 0 h. 31 - 50 0 2 0 i. 18 - 30 0 1 0 j. 13- 17 0 1 0 k.6-12 0 2 0 1-5 2 3 0 m. Under 1 1 0 0 Not given 0 0 0 6 - 10. Participants who entered during the operating year. 6a. Veterans Status. A veteran is anyone who has ever been on active military duty status. 24 6b. Chronically Homeless. How many participants were chronically homeless individuals? 86 7. Ethnicity. a. Hispanic or Latino 4 b. Non-Hispanic or Non-Latino 132 8. Race. a. American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 b. Asian 0 c. Black or African American 8 d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 4 e. White 122 f. American Indian/Alaskan Native & White 1 g. Asian & White 0 h. Black/African American & White 0 i. American Indian/Alaskan Native & Black/African American 0 j. Other Multi-Racial 0 Ilk. Other/Unknown (all that do not match) 1 9a. Special Needs. All Chronic a. Mental illness 3 3 b. Alcohol abuse 1 0 c. Drug abuse 0 0 d. HIV/AIDS or related diseases 0 0 e. Developmental disability 0 0 f. Physical disability 4 2 g. Domestic violence 7 3 h. Other (please specify) 4 1 9b. Disabled. How many of the participants are disabled? 9 10. Prior Living Situation. Participants slept in the following places the week prior to entering. All Chronic a. Non-housing (street, park, car, bus station, etc.) 76 71 b. Emergency shelter 1 1 c. Transitional housing for homeless persons 1~ ad - d. Psychiatric facility 3 e. Substance abuse treatment facility 0 F. Hospital 0 f, g. Jail/prison 0 h. Domestic violence situation 0 i. Living with relatives/friends 14 j. Rental housing 27 k. Other (please specify) 14~~,,.. CLIENTS Old New Total SERVED A. Adults 0 129 129 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 74 74 Female 0 55 55 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 B. Children 0 8 8 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 3 3 Female 0 5 5 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 C. Total (A+B) 0 137 137 FAMILY MEMBERS SERVED Old New Total A. Adults 0 14 14 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 6 6 Female 0 8 8 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 B. Children 0 6 6 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 3 3 Female 0 3 3 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 C. Total (A+B) 0 20 20 D. Total Households Served 0 8 8 E. Average Household Members Served 0 2.50 2.50 SINGLES SERVED Old New Total A. Adults 0 115 115 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 68 68 Female 0 47 47 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 B. Children 0 2 2 Never Specified 0 0 0 Male 0 0 0 Female 0 2 2 Transgender 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 C. Total (A+B) 0 117 117 Children Adults FAMILY MEMBERS 0-5 6-12 13-17 18-30 31-50 51-61 62+ No DOB Total Never Specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Male 3 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 9 Female 1 1 1 3 5 0 0 0 11 Transgender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 1 1 5 8 1 0 0 20 Children Adults SINGLES 0-5 6-12 13-17 18-30 31-50 51-61 62+ No DOB Total Never Specified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Male 0 0 0 21 32 9 5 1 68 Female 0 0 2 10 18 15 4 0 49 Transgender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 2 31 50 24 9 1 117 CLIENTS SERVED BY RACE Secondary Total Total Black or African American (HUD) 7 Not Given 7 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (HUD) 4 Not Given 4 White (HUD) 126 American Indian or Alaska Native (HUD) I Not Given 124 Other (NON-HUD) I Not Given 0 Total 137 CLIENTS SERVED BY ETHNICITY Total Hispanic/Latino (HUD) 5 Non-Hi span ic/N on-Lati no (HUD) 73 Not Given 59 Total 137 SERVICE COUNT Service Type Funding Total Total Total Avg Source Referral Provided Cost Cost Basic Needs (B) N/A 0 32 $0.00 $0.00 Case/Care Management (PH- N/A 0 173 $0.00 $0.00 1000) Life Skills Education (PH- N/A 0 145 $0.00 $0.00 6200.4600) Total (Service Types: 3, Funding Sources: 0) 0 350 $0.00 $0.0 Service Point is the licensed database system used to track services provided through federal funding sources. It is in use at ACCESS and ACRC. ACRC DATA COLLECTED MANUALLY Total Walk Ins 1053 Total SNAP 128 Total Showers 142 Total Loads of Laundry 40 Total Number of Volunteers 39 Total Number of Volunteer Hours 862 Total Walk Ins Feb Total 132 March Total 227 April Total 296 May Total 330 June Total 68 SUM 1053 Total SNAP Feb Total 10 March Total 20 April Total 40 May Total 47 June Total 11 SUM 128 Total Showers May Shower Totals 119 June Shower Totals 23 SUM 142 Total Loads Laundry May Laundry Totals 33 June Laundry 7 SUM 40 Total Number of Volunteers 39 Total Number of Volunteer Hours March 282 April 254 May 326 June N/A sum 862 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes May 7, 2014 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER: 6:03 p.m. - SISKIYOU ROOM in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building, located at 51 Winburn Way Historic Commissioners Present: Allison Renwick, Terry Skibby, Sam Whitford, Victoria Law, Tom Giordono Commission Members Absent: Dale Shostrom, Keith Swink, Kerry Kencairn Council Liaison : Mike Morris Staff Present: Staff Liaison: Amy Gunter, Clerk: Regan Trapp APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ms. Law was left off the meeting minutes from April 2014. Ms. Trapp corrected the minutes. Mr. Skibby motioned that minutes be approved and Mr. Whitford seconded. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one in the audience COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Mr. Morris gave an update on the city council meeting regarding plastic bags, Normal Ave, guns, and water issues. The roof on the information kiosk also came up as a topic. The cost to re-roof is high and the City Council is asking the Downtown Plaza Beautification Commission to take part or get rid of it. The construction of the kiosk was discussed and different ways to make it look better. The commission discussed posting historical items on the kiosk or ways to post on the history of the Plaza. The kiosk was placed there because the City received a federal grant for historic preservation to redo the fountain. They used the kiosk as an educational component and it was a grant requirement that it stay. The Commission agreed to come up with suggestions and email them to the Plaza Beautification Committee. It was discussed whom to email the suggestions to. Ms. Gunter will talk to Ms. Seltzer, liason to the Plaza Beautification Commission, and find out who the Historic Commission should contact with their suggestions. PUBLIC HEARING: There were no planning actions scheduled to be discussed. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business to discuss. NEW ITEMS A. Historic Preservation Presentation month activities review: Staff will try to include past winners as a handout at the awards if time allows. Mr. Skibby is taking pictures of the winner's properties to include in the blurbs and will get them to Ms. Trapp and Ms. Gunter as soon as possible. Mr. Skibby will email the owners of 90 Fifth to see if they can clean up their property so he can get a better picture for the award. All activities are scheduled to run on time and everything is booked. Ms. Gunter reported that the city has a new cemetery sexton and he will make sure that everything runs smoothly for the mausoleum tours. Mr. Shostrom and the Mayor will run the ceremony and hand out the awards. Mr. Skibby will give the introduction and take pictures throughout the ceremony and get a big group photo at the end. Ms. Gunter has not ordered the digital photo frame but will make something presentable to have at the ceremony. Mr. Skibby suggested having a slide show and Ms Gunter stated she will look into this. B. Historic preservation week write-ups: Ms. Gunter still has to do a write up on Atkinson's Bridge and Ender's Shelter. Ms. Law will do write up for 134 Terrace and turn it in as soon as possible. Ms. Law suggested that Ms. Renwick accompany her to do the site visit. C. Review Board Schedule June 5th Keith, Dale May 8th Allison, Dale May 15th Terry, Tom May 22nd Sam, Victoria May 29th Terry, Allison D. Project Assignments for Planning Actions: There were no new project assignments DISCUSSION ITEMS: There were no discussions items on the agenda. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA Mr. Skibby asked Ms. Law about the railroad museum. Ms. Law said that they had to close due to funding. They are going through the artifacts and sending some to a historic preservation place (not yet determined) and all other artifacts will go back the Southern Oregon Historical Society. Ms. Gunter asked about viewing artifacts in the lobby during historic preservation week. Ms. Law agreed that it was a good idea. Ms. Gunter will talk to Mr. Molnar to see if the City can set up an exhibit in the Community Development lobby during historic preservation week. ANNOUNCEMENTS & INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Next meeting is scheduled for June 4, 2014, 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 6:49 pm. Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 13, 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris (Left meeting at 7:10 pm) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Normal Neighborhood Plan public hearing has been continued to the May 20th City Council Meeting. The Planning Commission's report on short term home rentals will also be presented to the Council on May 20. Commissioner Brown commented on the recent Building Appeals Board hearing and Commissioner Dawkins provided a short update on the Downtown Beautification Committee meeting. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. Commissioners BrownlPeddicord m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. [Commissioner Miller abstained from approval of the April 8, 2014 minutes] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted Floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 1 or4 includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP/TAX LOTS: 391 E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parle Contact Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, and Kaplan declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the applicant's proposal to construct a new 3,414 sq.ft. home within the Water Resource Protection Zone and Ashland Floodplain Corridor does not clearly meet the approval criteria, which is why this hearing has been scheduled. She reviewed the application, which also includes the removal of 13 trees and the construction of a 615 sq.ft. accessory residential unit, and stated the property is located on a flaglot and the majority of the site is within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and provided a description of the subject property, and called attention to the code provision that states to the greatest extent feasible structures should be placed outside the Floodplain Corridor. She explained the applicant's findings indicate the existing 720 sq.ft. residence will remain on the site and will be added onto with the new construction, however current building standards require the finished floor elevations to be two feet above flood elevations and staff questions whether the existing structure will be able to remain. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant's position is that the existing non-conforming structure is their reason for the choice of placement, but this would place the structure completely within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and also encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). Mr. Molnar clarified there are two different areas of land use code that apply to this proposal, floodplain development and water resource protection. The Floodplain protection language was adopted in 1989 and is primarily for protection of public, life and safety, and the protection of city infrastructure; and the water resource ordinance is primarily for the protection of the riparian area, including vegetation and topography. Ms. Gunter elaborated on why staff does not believe the existing house can be part of the new structure. She staled there would be a substantial amount of work to bring the structure up to current construction standards. She noted the applicants have proposed to change the roof line, and the existing slab on grade foundation is not permitted and will have to be raised to meet the requirement for the finished floor elevation to be two feet above the base flood elevation. Staff was asked if they have any objections to the proposed accessory residential unit and Ms. Gunter stated No. She added the structure is outside the Floodplain Corridor, is the correct size, and provides the required parking. Applicant's Presentation Carlos Delgado/Slated this proposal is for a single family replacement structure on a flaglot and provided a revised site plan that shifts the location of the structure 15 feet to the east. Steve Asher/Stated the property owner searched many properties before purchasing this one, and noted the owner's desire for a single family residence where she can age in place and walk to downtown. He stated they talked with staff before purchasing this property and asked if they could remove the structures and at no time were they informed this would affect their ability to build. He added it was not until they held the pre-application conference that they heard staff s concerns about the placement of the new house. Mr. Delgado stated the revised proposal places the residence outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain line and outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and he read aloud their revised findings statements (Exhibit #2014-04). Mr. Delgado was asked to clarify the differences between the site plan in the packet materials and the new plan presented tonight. Mr. Delgado stated the residence has been shifted 15 feet so it is now outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and the only issue that remains is that the structure is still within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Mindlin commented that by moving the structure it supports staffs claim that the applicants are not Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 o/4 really incorporating the old structure. Mr. Delgado stated building officials allow you to keep a single wall standing and stated this is a viable and legal means to do a renovation. Commissioner Brown stated this is a stretch, especially since the floor will need to be raised. The Commission posed additional questions, including why didn't the applicant change their plans after the pre-application conference, and how do they meet to the maximum extent feasible criteria. Public Input Gina Heckleyl135 MorninglighURead aloud the letters of support provided in advance from herself and Carolyn Allman. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the process and whether the applicants were given misleading information. Mr. Molnar stated any action on this property would require a land use decision with public notice and he has a hard time believing staff would have provided a definitive recommendation at the counter. He added the requirements were clearly addressed in the pre-application report the applicant received. Staff was asked about the applicants claim that it is legal to replace the building, when none of it will be staying. Mr. Molnar stated the building code language states the building official can determine what types of upgrades will be needed, however this body has full discretion to make a determination on whether this is an addition or whether it is a reconstruction. Applicant's Rebuttal Carlos Delgado/Stated that adding onto the structure and bringing it up to current standards is a safer situation for property owners downstream. He commented on the intent of the ordinance and stated because the site is flat, making changes to the building location to move it further from the floodplain corridor would not change the risk. Mr. Delgado stated the property owner has the right to utilize the area where the previous structures were located and they believe this is a very reasonable proposal. Martha Howard/Noted her investment in the community and stated she found this property after years of searching. Ms. Howard stated they received some assurances from staff that they could build on the existing footprint and noted they are well outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain. She stated it is unreasonable to ask someone with a one-acre lot to build next to the dirt easement and stated they were hoping to have some front yard space. Mr. Molnar suggested the Commission consider continuing this hearing, which would allow both the Commission and staff adequate time to review the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Delgado was asked if they would be willing to grant a 60-day time extension of the 120-day clock and he agreed. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Kaplan voiced support for continuing the hearing so that staff can provide an updated staff report on the applicant's new proposal. Commissioner Brown agreed and stated he would like a revised staff report that addresses the questions that have been raised this evening. Commissioner Peddicord questioned if there are other site constraints that impacted the chosen location of the residence and stated this information would be helpful. Commissioner Mindlin announced this action will be continued to the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2014-00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 [Definitions], Chapter 18.32 [C-1 Retail Commercial District], Chapter 18.40 [E-1 Employment District], and Chapter 18.52 [M-1 Industrial District] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris stated in March the State Legislature granted local jurisdictions the authority to establish local restrictions for medical marijuana dispensaries and the City Council directed staff to fast track an ordinance that establishes regulations for the City of Ashland. She noted the City Council passed a temporary moratorium in April that prohibited dispensaries in the C-1 -D and E-1 zones, however lots in the E-1 zone that front boulevards were not subject to the moratorium. Ms. Harris stated the ordinance before the Commission is based on several study sessions held by the Planning Commission and would allow dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones and must meet the following standards: • Property locations must be on a street classified as a boulevard. • Hours of operations are between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Dispensaries must be enclosed in a permanent building with no outside storage of materials. • Modifications to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards, and security bars are prohibited on the windows and doors. • Drive-up uses are not allowed. • Dispensaries must provide for the secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. • Dispensaries must conform to the state requirements and must be registered with the state. Ms. Harris clarified under the proposed ordinance dispensaries would not be permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. She also commented on outdoor use and clarified the Ashland Police Department confirmed that this would be considered public use and is illegal. Ms. Harris stated the Commission's recommendation will be forward to the City Council hearing on June 10, where they will make the final decision. Public Input William Clary/460 Williamson WaylThanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated the proposed ordinance offers a solid balance between those who need access to this medicine and residential concerns, and encouraged them to recommend approval. Linda Stickle/492 Rogue PlacelThanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated her neighborhood feels the proposed ordinance is just what is needed. Ms. Stickle stated it is a practical approach and keeps dispensaries on the main roads and away from neighborhoods, and strongly encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Carol Kin-022 Rogue Place/Agreed with the previous speakers and stated this is a great proposal. Ms. Kim stated this will put dispensaries in the best locations with easy access for patients and away from neighborhoods. She noted the petition included in the record of those that support this ordinance and encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Nola Katopothis1473 Williamson Way/Stated she is not against medical marijuana but there are certain locations that are more appropriate for dispensaries and voiced her support for keeping them away from neighborhoods and children. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners ThompsonlMiller mis to recommend the City Council's adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES May 27, 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 Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Richard Kaplan April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Debbie Miller Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Mike Morris, absent ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced a Special Meeting of the City Council on Thursday, May 29, 2014. The Council will be taking public input and discussing the Normal Neighborhood Plan. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Kaplan stated the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee will meet next on Wednesday, June 4. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1.5; ASSESSOR'S MAPITAX LOTS: 391 E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Pane Contact Commissioners Dawkins, Brown and Peddicord declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained this application was continued from the May 13, 2014 in order for the Commission and staff to have sufficient time to review the applicant's revised site plan. Ms. Gunter stated the new proposal shifts the residence to the east by 15 ft. and removes it from the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ); however, the home remains within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and the proposed patio is still located in the WRPZ. Ms. Gunter explained the primary issue remains the placement of the structure, and cited the two approval criteria which are: 1) 18.62.070.E - To the maximum extend feasible, structures shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the case where development is permitted in the Floodplain Corridor Area, then development shall be limited to that area which would have the shallowest flooding. 2) 78.62.0701- - Existing lots with buildable land outside the Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential structures outside the corridor land, unless 50% or more of the lot is within the Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for existing lots that have more than 50% of the lot in corridor land, structures may be located on that portion of the Floodplain Corridor that is two feet or less below the flood elevations on the official maps, but in no case closer than 20 feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to section 18.62.060. Construction shall be subject to the requirements in paragraph D above. Commissioner Brown noted the map that was provided does not show the 2 ft. flood elevation line or the 20 ft. channel marker. Mr. Molnar clarified the application complies with both these criteria. Mr. Molnar commented briefly on the history of the Ashland Floodplain Corridor, which was adopted in 1989, and explained the objective is to keep structures out of this area to the greatest extent feasible due to the pattern of deviating creeks during flooding events. He added the burden is placed on the applicants to show why their proposed location is better than another. Staff also commented on the building requirements for substantial improvements to structures within in the floodplain corridor and explained any new construction would have to be built to current standards, but the applicants must also address the land use criteria which regulates the placement of structures. Mr. Molnar clarified the applicants have asserted that by removing the older home and outbuildings, placing the new home further away from the creek, and building it to current standards, this is a better situation than what currently exists. Applicant's Presentation Laurie Sager/Stated this is a unique site and there were many elements they considered in determining the placement of the house, including: l) the 64" Black Poplar tree located in the southeast corner of the lot, which has an 80 ft. tree protection radius, 2) the 15 ft. setback required by code, 3) the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ) to the east, and 4) the required fire truck turnaround and residence parking in the northeast portion of the lot. Additionally, there were site design considerations to allow views of the creek, take advantage of the western shading, privacy for the applicant and her neighbors, have collective open spaces, and utilize the existing infrastructure and footprint of the three buildings that were there. Ms. Sager stated they have done a great job of evaluating the site. She noted the property is very level and noted their willingness to compromise by moving the home an additional 15 ft. back to take it out of the WRPZ. She stated when looking at the current proposal and taking into account the entire site, they have done a good job at siting the structure and believe this project should be approved. Carlos Delgado/Stated he understands that there is no guarantee for the placement they are proposing, but the code does allow the Planning Commission to be reasonable in interpreting the language and they believe this proposal is better than what exists now. He stated they have taken the advice of staff and moved the home further east, and stated the intent of the ordinance is to increase the level of safety and this proposal does that. Steve Asher/Also commented on the placement of the home and noted their desire for floodwater to flow around the structure should a flood occur. He stated moving the home further back could create a dam effect and does not believe this would make for a safer proposal. He stated they believe they meet the intent of the ordinance and have moved the structure as far away as they can while still preserving the natural features. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Questions of the Applicant Mr. Delgado commented on the flood protection measures that would be included in the build and stated there would be flow-through vents on the foundation and they would minimize the number of post coming up. Questions of Staff Staff was asked whether the information presented by the applicant tonight accurately represents the circumstances on the property in terms of required parking, fire truck turnaround, and tree protection. Ms. Gunter stated this is the first staff has seen this material; she stated the tree protection zone is similar to what she has seen for other Poplar trees, however she cannot speak to the other two items. Applicant's Rebuttal Steve Asher/Stated they have demonstrated that the replacement residence will be placed as far away from the creek and Ashland Floodplain Corridor as possible and requested the Commission take into account the overall safety of the building site, the legal allowances for building within this zone, the fact that this is not an empty lot with no structural history, their willingness to remove all hazardous previous structures, and their commitment to state of the art flood protection construction. He added this is the most appropriate placement of the home given the physical and environmental constraints of the site. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Mindlin recommended the Commission address the decision points outlined in the staff report. Placement of Structure Commissioner Kaplan stated the new site plan and overview presented by the applicants has made a difference in how he sees the site and does not believe they could have located the home outside the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Brown commented that a two-story home could have been placed further outside the floodplain, but in its current figuration he agrees with Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Mindlin expressed her discomfort in not seeing this material until tonight and asked staff to comment on its legitimacy. Mr. Molnar stated the applicant's design team is very reputable and staff has no reason to doubt that this is not an accurate measurement. He stated public safety should trump all other issues and noted the applicants took an overall approach and took into account many factors. Commissioner Dawkins agreed that they made a legitimate point about avoiding the creation of a choke point. Commissioner Peddicord stated at the last hearing she was looking for a more substantial reason for the house placement and feels the applicants have provided this. She added it is a large house, but they do not have the ability to dictate the size or whether it is single-story or two-story. Placement of Patio Ms. Gunter clarified the code language states "Outdoor patio areas consisting of porous sold surfaces up to 150 sq.ft. may be constructed in the upland half of the riparian buffer and furthest away from the stream"and stated this will be included in the conditions of approval. The Commission discussed whether approving this proposal would set precedence. Commissioner Mindlin noted the applicants do not have the ability to move the house to a higher elevation, and so have located the house so that water can go around it. Mr. Molnar stated if this proposal is approved staff will create findings that explain what is unique about this site and why the Commission approved the placement so that others can't point to this in the future as a justification for their placement. He added the findings will include the specific considerations addressed by the applicant and the Commission. Ms. Gunter read aloud the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval: 1) Condition 2a will be eliminated, 2) Condition 2e will be modified to include a requirement for the patio to comply with 18.63.060.B.4 and be constructed of porous surface, 3) Condition 2f will clarify that the accessory residential unit will be slab on grade construction to minimize disturbance to the Poplar tree, and 4) Condition 3a will be modified to include the 80 ft. tree protection zone for the Poplar tree. Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve Planning Action 2014-00307 with the modified conditions proposed by staff. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Dawkins stated because the site is so flat, moving the structure would not make it any safer; however he struggled with allowing construction in the floodplain. He stated for him, the applicant's presentation sufficiently addressed the placement issue and feels they answered staffs concerns well enough to approve. Commissioner Miller voiced her concern with setting precedence and stated the desire for a large single story home is a self imposed problem, and questioned whether the applicant could have placed a two-story home further out of the floodplain. Commissioner Kaplan stated this is a unique set of circumstances and does not believe it will set precedence. Commissioner Brown stated the site constraints does limit where the home can be placed, and noted it is not within their purview to set a limit on the home's square footage. Commissioner Miller stated it is an interesting idea to place a limit on the size of a home located in the floodplain and stated this may be a future change they will want to consider. She requested the findings for this action include the testimony about the passage of water, that the applicant could not locate on a higher elevation, and their desire to not trap debris against the bank. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Miller, Kaplan, Brown, Dawkins, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS A. Election of Officers. Commissioner Dawkins suggested they set a policy that commissioners cannot ask questions of persons providing testimony. He stated this allows certain people to get more time to express their personal views and does not think it is fair. Commissioner Miller stated it is important to be able to request clarification and does not want this ability taken away. Commissioner Mindlin stated it is not appropriate to say they will not ask questions under any circumstances but stated the commissioners should use good judgment in the types of questions they pose. Commissioners BrownlPeddicord nominated Richard Kaplan to serve as chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners PeddicordlBrown nominated Melanie Mindlin to serve as vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. Commissioners KaplanlPeddicord nominated Michael Dawkins to serve as second vice chair of the Planning Commission. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 27, 2014 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Appointment to Band Board FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirm Mayor's appointment of Don Bieghler, David Hoxie, Sylvia Schmeling, Doug MacDonell, Ling Helphand, Ed Wight and Tim McCartney to the Band Board with terms ending 4/30/2015. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's reappointment of Don Bieghler, David Hoxie, Sylvia Schmeling and Doug MacDonell; new appointments of Ling Helphand, Ed Wight and Tim McCartney. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointments of Don Bieghler, David Hoxie, Sylvia Schmeling, Doug MacDonell, Ling Helphand, Ed Wight and Tim McCartney to the Band Board with terms ending 4/30/2015. ATTACHMENTS: New Applications received Pape I of I CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email _clurstcb;; gsi\lanJ_( MIS. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name RVkt CQ n1S Requesting to serve on: L L alncl Ct`~ v k(Lyj NJ (Commission/Committee) Address K7 Oo4 Q t t h/~ huh r ~~AM~~ f~ Q 7S Z O OccupationT,U ~ M./S L C t 4vl Phone: Home S tf 9-R2 -11- 9 Work Email 2iirr0r A-,4 r.n~{ Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Sr ~i a< < l ec ale U~ - owl What degrees do you hold? R ga, of MuA l c r M 4 ,+t,a~ .444 'Ih T2OL Cl"L What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? ( Set~~Q y-K +ke boar c) t~ e r4u +6e l'~a~Jt~6a Crud '[Dy- 2 yeav-s , 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? t have ~%-kO ` t-,,M &A aj i~s~ruyr musts a4 tt-k- wit dQ~Q Cc (noCl ~roua~. Co (p op ~p v~ ~ ~ ~\a l1p ?2irYJre~,e 1l~ a ~PQd~rs(~ QA~(L0N witf, R.I(Lyj C(4 t a.-,d ~r (0 ~tyr Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? AofcPS~ a F~ I! 3. Interests I Why are you applying for this position? I'h I k(e,Q C4 t k-\ Su . itt Ae kckta-hd c(jy ~aK& aLA& SQMv~ln, c1\y c;~Y caL/eagke,s, 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly schedul d meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? 'e {2 h f " dz t/2n~1~ s 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? (n S/Qar S Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position lh tYtY prey-kaLu caYeer Qk ae Ae k,,;cq wr414-F WYFke~1 LO YAam Y d~FF2t~ t Eyre., a~ e (byees, Fem. 11D- tNOI A4i1 lgAP ylsay c `6 4j )teerc q,,AQ naay\a oorJ, I (2e( l aw\ 46(k 4-o ecmnQcf k)zd vvi+K Aeop(,P at,d Qyre .0. 4 ov 0. l t`.t4t cr ~ h M\/ ~ t-e i ux+ C- ct it R -P r d,k 0. ~ e a cA p t- 4 tvt 00 WW - ikt-94 (o/fLjcce44,C( bUlCdlme-f jchS I\aAe J-2avoQj lAk ya(UQ Jt ran i -2hCQ, SQ^ - A TWo i-ey's 0.S 4 IYtQWtb, - el 11n~ lkdrott- VCif(Zy SyN1t)40 y orc(`e,fk, ~Cdlnntrff2 Date Signature ~r, Barbara Christensen From: Ling Helphand [zipbink@charter.netl Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:00 AM To: christeb@ashland.or.us Subject: Ashland City Band Board Of Directors CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christebna ashland or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name-Ling Hc1phand Requesting to serve on: -Ashland City Band Board of Directors (Commission/Committee) Address-Ashland, Oregon Occupation retired Phone: Home 541-482-0615 Work Email zinbink(a)charter.net Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Sacramento City College, Sac State What degrees do you hold? What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Non-Profit Development Training April 2010, Oregon Non Profit Leaders Conference, May 2010 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? -Member SOCB Board of Directors, 2005-2010. President, Southern Oregon Concert Band, Board of Directors,2007- 2010. t Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? _Yes. There is always more to learn WAV I~► 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? _I am a member of City Band, and support it's existence, history and future in our community. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? _Yes. Day or evening is fine 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? _10 years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position -March 18, 2014-Ling Helphand Date Signature WAV z CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb(a ashland.or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary n -t4 Name I A,^L C co 5 yJ 1-j Requesting to serve on: C 1 I` / /~aL / (Commission/Committee) Address ~n~ 1 li )2 l~ l s V~ cL+~t G~ Occupation Phone: Home ,f Work Email , Al o Ne- L' r4 Fax C)R(er,r , 1. Education Background n \ I p What schools have you atte ed? / t S h C C (t CJ t What degrees do you hold? l~ ~a . What additi nal training or educatio hav(e~e~ you had that wo d apply this posi 'on? `i ~CeS x{ 2//5++. V~0.no2t✓eci~I- v 7 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? nJ U W, 3. Interests l - Why are you applying for this position? O _ F~~ et J~Z+~ ~~_c Qtn.` SL. J.~" ~ /.1 w,~,~, L.-t,vL Cs-^vti.-,..J~- ~ - 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? o n Q J ct~, E'er - rSi 5 kxj 4-4. c. S 5. Additional Information ~p How long have you lived in this community? Z~~/ QG~-•~ rili / Please use the space below to summarize any additions quAli Picoh ns you have for this position Q n a J e ccJ~ t p h GFit L] y~l oC A Date Signature IL, CITY OF -ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name n ,rr Requesting to serve on:(A- ti 09 -~6 4 (commission/Committee) Address a d 1t ~ 1 u 1p( Occupation cf-eelA(% Ca -P Phone: Home Ttt _6 7 CiQQV- (L Work `i %A ~ 71 Email Q w Q Z i(, (olyt Fax 1. on you and ((a 'it 1 I` ~1 What schools have you attended? f V~ U IV 1 What degrees do you hold? ~&tcl~e (mot V1VSt L (W/ t ((4 ro What additional train r or education have y had that would apply to this position? ff('tV4 ~~AU ¢tX {M <c~~ 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this positi n? t ~zc ~e~;, ~~~°aa ~R SOU ~t~xl'~1ed r~~c ~nca~1`C 1d "mom 0 ~ For S1~ r boa Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to hat4 O her training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? IN 3. Interests ~ Why are you applying for this position? l 4\~ kr\( a rue\ k v\ p ~a ta~+~ ktt~ huh bx~ he~~ <(o toed . 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you refer day or evening meetings? 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 1 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 41~ -k4 Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Appointment to Conservation Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb e ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirm Mayor's appointment of Bryan Sohl to the Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2017. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Conservation Commission. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of Bryan Sohl to the Conservation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Application received Page I of I Ii&, CITY OF -ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email dvistcb@ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name d` ~I a lJU(~c~ J, s ~o N L Requesting to serve on: vcttr 1 (Commission/Committee) Address 7, S c ;l_.' c 1> t ~i e A- s Occupation 5 e e c a Phone: Home 'Sul, `t BED, av 136 5565 Work 5~t 1 -7 L31 Email blot t v E 1~ .,':c ,co r Fax ~~ti $ it S 9 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? L'C - t S f3 S What degrees do you hold? What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? 3 I cx , d V~~ F . , (s e~ - l tip= I E, wn f L, FOX I vv~ C'-' t:~nEL=.trc--( Cyr' 1.14eCL C,.-6* Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? l v 0r ( (L ( O V F 4c~ 4-e-/\L4 cG t C~tv ~D C'- r~ p t-o l r (f c_e= Fir 4~"co - RE 1 t I 101 ~'c" prE COy--( (7 Ci i, r n ^S' L f Ac- t C, I ~ .n -fe C~'c' r`S P C r7 C-L ..v, cc~P - C. L-ici f ~ ~S C w'0 VN U C c-;,, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Appointment to Tree Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirm Mayor's appointment of Christopher John to the Tree Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2017. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Tree Commission. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of Christopher John to the Tree Commission with a term to expire _ April 30, 2017. ATTACHMENTS: Application received Page 1 of 1 ~r, Christopher John 157 Max Loop Talent, OR 97540 April 7, 2014 cs, ii APR Barbara Christensen City Recorder r/j City of Ashland 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Barbara: I am writing to express my interest in becoming a member of the Ashland Tree Commission. I see my involvement in the Commission to be a perfect marriage of my desire to be of service to our community (of which my family and I are so very grateful to be a part of), and my great personal interest and professional experience with trees. I had the pleasure of attending a recent Tree Commission meeting on 4/3/14. 1 so enjoyed engaging with others willing to give of themselves to enhance the health of our community and natural environment. I look forward to the possibility of more! Thank you for your consideration. Since lv, Christopher John RECEIVED APR 15 2014 CITY OF -ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the Citv Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb rnashland or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Christo her John Requesting to serve on: Tree (Commission/Committee) Address 157 Max Loom Talent OR 97540 Occupation Arborist Phone: Home_ Work (5411631-8000 Email:cj.chrisjohn0,gmail corn Fax 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? San Diego City College What degrees do you hold? N/A What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Forest management apprenticeship; ISA Certified Arborist self-education 2. kelated Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? Work experience has included farmer, landscaper, forester, restoration specialist environmental conservation nonprofit project manager, watershed council member, arbrrst. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Of course! There is always more for me to learn, and I enjoy doing so IWA %r 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? To be of service to our community. This position would allow me to do so in an area where I have much experience and great interest. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes. Prefer day but evenings are workable as well. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 3 Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position I have had a nearly life-long love of our natural environment which has led me on a 15 year professional joumev of caring for it. I have worked as a farmer, landscaper nonprofit project manager, restoration specialist forester, and arborist This career path has allowed me the opportunity to liaise with government agencies municipalities business and community leaders and nonprofit organizations I have been a member of a watershed council led tree planting workshops for hundreds of school children and been a contributor to the Talent Friends of Trees Committee I am a bona-fide tree dork! 0 Date Signature :AWN CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Appointment to Wildfire Mitigation Commission FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Confirm Mayor's appointment of Russ Silbiger to the Wildfire Mitigation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2015. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is confirmation by the City.Council on the Mayor's appointment to the Wildfire Mitigation Commission. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 2.17.020 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: Motion to approve appointment of Russ Silbiger to the Wildfire Mitigation Commission with a term to expire April 30, 2015. ATTACHMENTS: Application received Page I of I r, C I T Y OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name-Russ Silbiger Requesting to serve on: -Ashland Wildfire Mitigation Commission- (Commission/Committee) Address 986 Clear Creek Drive Occupation Investment Manager Phone: Home541-227-6606_ Work Email_dialogue@zintech.org Fax 1. Education Back round What schools have you attended? Sonoma State University What degrees do you hold? BA Management What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? -Former Volunteer Firefighter CERT trained 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? -Former City Councilor and have served on other City Commissions Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? _I'm good. IWAL&A 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? _1 live next to a major fire hazard, 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? _yes, either. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? 24 years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 6/01/2014 Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Mark Hedford dba Martolli's Hand Tossed Pizza FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Mark Hedford dba Martolli's Hand Tossed Pizza at 1469 Siskiyou Blvd BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for new outlet. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Mark Hedford dba Martolli's Hand Tossed Pizza ATTACHMENTS: None Page I of I 1174WAR CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Christian Canady dba Home State BBQ FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Christian Canady dba Home State BBQ at 376 E Main Street. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for change in ownership. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Christian Canady dba Home State BBQ. ATTACHMENTS: None i Page I of I ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Hani Hajje dba Taj Indian Restaurant FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Hani Hajje dba Taj Indian Restaurant at 31 Water Street BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for change in ownership. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Hani Hajje dba Taj Indian Restaurant. ATTACHMENTS: None Page I of I ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Christian Senf dba Gil's FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Christian Senf dba Gil's at 175 N Pioneer Street with conditional requirement that applicant obtain Land Use approval for Site Review and Parking Variance. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for new license. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Christian Senf dba Gil's with conditional requirement that applicant obtain Land Use approval for Site Review and Parking. ATTACHMENTS: None Page I of 1 1`, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Edward "Web" Staunton dba North West Raw FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Edward "Web" Staunton dba North West Raw at 370 East Main Street BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a new license. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under Consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Edward "Web" Staunton dba North West Raw ATTACHMENTS: None Page I of I ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Intergovernmental Agreements With Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon For Dispatch Services FROM: Tighe O'Meara, Deputy Chief of Police, 541-552-2142, tighe.omeara@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Staff requests approval of two intergovernmental agreements (IGA) with Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon (ECSO). One is for dispatch services with the Ashland Police Department (APD) and the other is for dispatch services with Ashland Fire and Rescue (AFR). BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: APD and AFR contract with ECSO for emergency dispatch services. All Jackson County emergency services communications are consolidated at ECSO. There is no viable option other than ECSO available to fulfill this role at this time. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of these two agreements was anticipated and budgeted for by the respective departments. The cost of these contracts are; $385,489.93 for the APD, and $170,680.93 for AFR. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REOUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve each of the above noted IGAs and empower the respective department heads to sign the IGAs. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that the Council accept the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Ashland Police Department and Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon as well as the Intergovernmental Agreement between Ashland Fire and Rescue and Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon and authorize the respective department heads to sign the agreements. ATTACHMENTS: APD Intergovernmental Agreement AFR Intergovernmental Agreement Page 1 of 1 III --j%-E C S 9"1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT This Contract is made and entered into in duplicate this _I day of u Li 201 by and between EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON, an unincorporated association of governmental entities organized under ORS Chapter 190, hereafter "ECSO," and ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT hereafter "USER." f WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ECSO is an association of governmental entities organized under an Intergovernmental Agreement under the authority of ORS Chapter 190 and as a "local jurisdiction" under authority of ORS Chapter 403 for the purpose of implementing a primary 911 Public Safety Answering Point, hereafter "PSAP," capable of providing wireline and wireless phase I and phase II telephone services, collectively known as "PSAP Services" received at ECSO for the greater Jackson County area and Crater Lake National Park, and also capable of providing emergent and non-emergent public safety radio communications and dispatch services, to its Users collectively known as "Dispatch Services"; and i WHEREAS, ECSO has a fully equipped and staffed telecommunications center, hereafter "CENTER" capable of delivering PSAP Services and Dispatch Services, and WHEREAS, USER desires that ECSO provide it with the aforementioned services, and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and obligations set forth herein, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Telecommunications Connectivity and Maintenance: a) ECSO shall have responsibility for maintenance and support of communication lines and equipment and to contract with Qwest Communications, its subsidiaries, successors or other approved Contractors for 911 lines and equipment, and to provide for maintenance of other equipment and software required for effective operation of the system. b) ECSO Information Technology (IT) staff or agents will provide and/or manage the installation, implementation, maintenance and support of ECSO lines and equipment necessary to transmit telephone, radio and wireless signals between the User and i ECSO. Except as provided in c) below, User remains responsible for maintenance of its side of the telecommunications link. The cost of accomplishing and maintaining this linkage for all participating agencies will be shared as part of the ECSO technical operating budget. c) Scope 1) Respond to the User agency to trouble-shoot and repair User's minor equipment malfunctions, such as printers, pc's, keyboards, etc. as it pertains to dispatch and 911 services provided by ECSO. 2) Respond to the User agency to trouble-shoot and provide the IT staff as necessary to repair Users' law and fire network servers and wireless networks specifically in support of police and fire services and mobile communication terminals as it pertains to dispatch and 911 services provided by ECSO. The cost of any equipment to make such repairs shall be borne by the User Agency. 3) Assist with the User Agency's strategic planning for related projects which they may wish to pursue. 4) Provide connectivity to the MDC interface with CAD. 5) Provide connectivity to the RMS interface. 6) Provide connectivity to the CMS interface. 7) Provide dispatch specific connectivity to the Mercy Flights Ambulance interface. 8) Provide connectivity to the MDS field reporting system. 2. Services: a) The User shall have local control over the manner in which its calls-for-service are processed and prioritized for dispatch by ECSO. b) The User may only designate a particular procedure change as critical where the change is required by court order or other severe mitigating circumstances. ECSO shall, to the extent possible, implement immediate procedures which accommodate the change. If any such procedure is incompatible with ECSO's operating policies, ECSO shall notify the User of the reasons therefor while still implementing the procedure. The procedure will be implemented, to the extent possible, until such time as both parties can mutually resolve their concerns or bring the matter before the CEO Board for review and recommended action. The CEO Board's decision shall be deemed final and binding. c) If ECSO and the User cannot informally resolve any non-critical dispute as to dispatch procedures, either party may request that the matter be brought before the ECSO CEO Board for resolution. If any such procedure is incompatible with ECSO's operating policies, ECSO shall notify the User of the reasons therefor while still implementing the procedure. The procedure will be implemented, to the extent possible, until such time as both parties can mutually resolve their concerns or bring the matter before the CEO Board for review and recommended action. The CEO Board's decision shall be deemed final and binding. d) ECSO shall train its personnel in those User procedures and regulations which may be deemed necessary to provide effective service. ECSO will provide orientation to User personnel as may be requested by the User. 2 e) Scope 1) Provide PSAP Services on a 24/7 basis. 2) Provide Dispatch Services 24/7, including status keeping and after-hours call- outs. 3) Perform pages and notifications per User agency procedure, or upon demand. 4) Perform radio and/or MDC broadcasts of administrative messages, attempts to i locate and all-points bulletins. 5) Provide law enforcement access to DMV, NCIC, LEDS and as reasonably feasible, other Jackson County regional information systems as requested by eligible agencies.. 6) Provide for the maintenance and update of the automated Geo-file and Master Street Address Guide. 7) Provide Phase 11 911 mapping within dispatch, and as available to MDC's. 8) Maintain back-up communications systems. j 3. Duration and Amendment: a. This Contract shall be for a period of 12 months. The Contract term will begin at midnight on July 1, 2014, and end at midnight on June 30, 2015. USER agrees to notify the ECSO CEO Board Chair, in writing, no later than June 30 of any year for withdrawal effective July 1st of the following calendar year. Failure of USER to so notify ECSO will result in damages not less than the withdrawing party's share of the Agency's annual operations costs for the next fiscal year, as and for liquidated damages. b. This Contract shall be subject to amendment only by written approval of both ECSO and USER. C. All previous contracts with USER for similar services are terminated as of the effective date hereof. 4. User Advisory Groups: a. The Law Enforcement User Advisory Group and the Fire/EMS User Advisory Group may meet monthly, or as may be needed to review dispatch procedures and develop common policies which will enhance mutual operations. b. The USER shall be entitled to one voting representative on the Law and/or Fire/EMS User groups for the purpose of representing the USER's special interests, service requirements and operational role within the Center. 3 5. ECSO Administrative Responsibility: a. ECSO shall have full authority and responsibility over hiring, training, discipline, scheduling and assignment of personnel assigned to perform and to supervise services provided under this Agreement. ECSO shall have full discretion and authority under emergent conditions to prioritize service among conflicting service demands. b. ECSO may contract to provide services to other agencies at its discretion provided ECSO shall undertake no such obligation which has the effect of diminishing or degrading the level of service provided to the current Users. C. The ECSO Director, or designee will communicate with the User agency on a regular basis to ensure continuity of service. d. Scope 1) Ensure appropriate staffing levels. 2) Provide scheduled system performance and activity reports. 3) Provide quarterly and annual performance reports. 4) Complete and maintain professional certifications. 5) Maintain State and Medical certifications. 6) Review and respond to in-service job performance inquiries. 7) Provide User community support. 6. Performance Standards: a. The CEO Board will review and approve a system for performance measurements. 7. Annual Budget Preparation: Draft budget figures will be developed by ECSO by the end of December of each year. On or about January 15th, the CEO Board will review and recommend modifications to the proposed budget. On or about February 15th the Intergovernmental Council will review and recommend modifications to the proposed budget. ECSO will make the recommended modifications and issue a preliminary budget in March. The budget will be adopted by the CEO Board no later than its June meeting, 8. Financial: a. USER shall pay ECSO the !total sum of $385,489.93 in consideration of the services outlined in Paragraph 1 above for the Contract term. This amount shall not increase during the Contract term. b. USER agrees to pay the charges as prescribed at a minimum in four (4) equal installments and due no later than July 10, October 10, January 10 and April 10 of each contract cycle. Payments shall be made to ECSO, 400 Pech Road, Central Point, OR 97502. C. If the installments are paid when due, no interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the Contract amount stated in a. above, but any overdue installment shall bear interest at one and three-quarters percent (1% per month from its due date. 4 i d. Law user rates are based on 70% of the total budget less revenue and minimum user fees, and fire user rates are based on 30% of the total budget less revenue and minimum user fees. All user rates are then calculated by use of a formula that incorporates the population base served by the user and the assessed valuation of each user's jurisdiction. e. State 911 tax revenue reimbursements to ECSO shall be maintained in a separate interest bearing fund independent of the ECSO general fund. 9. Property: During the term of this Contract, ECSO shall ensure the operation of all equipment and property in the CENTER as necessary to provide the services which are to be performed under this Contract, which services shall be in compliance with the operating standards, procedures, and rules adopted by ECSO. 10. Hold Harmless Clause: 1 The parties shall hold each other harmless and shall indemnify the other from any and all causes of action, judgments, claims, damages, or otherwise arising out of its sole and solitary acts. 11. Default: Upon default by USER of the payment terms of this Contract, said default existing for thirty (30) days, ECSO may terminate further provision of communication services to USER upon ten (10) day written notice to cure given to USER. ECSO may also terminate such services for default by USER of any other material term of the Contract upon thirty (30) day written notice to cure given to USER. 12. Arbitration: In the event a dispute arises under the terms of this Contract, the parties shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with ORS Chapter 36. Notice of intent to arbitrate shall be given in writing to the other party. Within ten (10) business days of the Notice of Intent to Arbitrate, ECSO shall request a list of seven (7) names from the Jackson County Court Annexed Arbitrator List. The parties shall alternately strike one name from the list until only one name from the list remains. The USER shall strike first. The remaining individual shall be the Arbitrator. The striking shall be conducted no longer than ten (10) business days after receipt of the list. The rules applicable to the arbitration shall be the same as if the matter were being heard in a court annexed arbitration proceeding in Jackson County, except to the extent such rules address appeal or other recourse to the Court as the intent of the parties is that such arbitration be final and binding and the parties agree to be so bound by such decision. Each party shall initially bear the cost of arbitration equally, provided, however, that the prevailing party as determined by the arbitrator shall be entitled to an award by the arbitrator of its reasonable attorney fees and costs of the arbitration. 5 13. Savings Clause: If, during the period of this Contract, it is determined by judicial or arbitration ruling or by mutual agreement of the parties that a specific clause of the Contract is illegal under federal or state law, the remainder of the Contract not affected thereby shall remain in force. 14. Notices: Any notice required or permitted under this Contract shall be given when actually delivered or forty-eight (48) hours after deposited in the United States Mail as certified mail addressed to the address set forth below or to such other address as may be specified from time to time by either of the.parties in writing. ECSO: USER: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON 400 Pech Road Central Point, OR 97502 15. Signators: Signators to the Contract shall be: a. For ECSO: An authorized representative of ECSO. b. For USER: An authorized representative of USER. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Contract. ECSO USER CEO Board, Chairman (Signature) Date (Print Name) Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Martial E. Henault, ECSO Legal Counsel Date 6 ,ok--E C IS 9-1-1 EMERGENCY COMMUNIrAmONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONTRACT This Contract is made and entered into in duplicate this day of , 20_, by and between EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON, an unincorporated association of governmental entities organized under ORS Chapter 190, hereafter "ECSO," and ASHLAND FIRE DEPARTMENT hereafter "USER." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, ECSO is an association of governmental entities organized under an Intergovernmental Agreement under the authority of ORS Chapter 190 and as a "local jurisdiction" under authority of ORS Chapter 403 for the purpose of implementing a primary 911 Public Safety Answering Point, hereafter "PSAP," capable of providing wireline and wireless phase I and phase II telephone services, collectively known as "PSAP Services" received at ECSO for the greater Jackson County area and Crater Lake National Park, and also capable of providing emergent and non-emergent public safety radio communications and dispatch services, to its Users collectively known as "Dispatch Services"; and WHEREAS, ECSO has a fully equipped and staffed telecommunications center, hereafter "CENTER" capable of delivering PSAP Services and Dispatch Services, and WHEREAS, USER desires that ECSO provide it with the aforementioned services, and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and obligations set forth herein, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Telecommunications Connectivity and Maintenance: a) ECSO shall have responsibility for maintenance and support of communication lines and equipment and to contract with Qwest Communications, its subsidiaries, successors or other approved Contractors for 911 lines and equipment, and to provide for maintenance of other equipment and software required for effective operation of the system. b) ECSO Information Technology (IT) staff or agents will provide and/or manage the installation, implementation, maintenance and support of ECSO lines and equipment necessary to transmit telephone, radio and wireless signals between the User and ECSO. Except as provided in c) below, User remains responsible for maintenance of its side of the telecommunications link. The cost of accomplishing and maintaining this linkage for all participating agencies will be shared as part of the ECSO technical operating budget. c) Scope 1) Respond to the User agency to trouble-shoot and repair User's minor equipment malfunctions, such as printers, pc's, keyboards, etc. as it pertains to dispatch and 911 services provided by ECSO. r 2) Respond to the User agency to trouble-shoot and provide the IT staff as necessary to repair Users' law and fire network servers and wireless networks specifically in support of police and fire services and mobile communication terminals as it pertains to dispatch and 911 services provided by ECSO. The cost of any equipment to make such repairs shall be borne by the User Agency. 3) Assist with the User Agency's strategic planning for related projects which they may wish to pursue. 4) Provide connectivity to the MDC interface with CAD. 5) Provide connectivity to the RMS interface. 6) Provide connectivity to the CMS interface. 7) Provide dispatch specific connectivity to the Mercy Flights Ambulance interface. 8) Provide connectivity to the MDS field reporting system. 2. Services: a) The User shall have local control over the manner in which its calls-for-service are processed and prioritized for dispatch by ECSO. b) The User may only designate a particular procedure change as critical where the change is required by court order or other severe mitigating circumstances. ECSO shall, to the extent possible, implement immediate procedures which accommodate the change. If any such procedure is incompatible with ECSO's operating policies, ECSO shall notify the User of the reasons therefor while still implementing the procedure. The procedure will be implemented, to the extent possible, until such time as both parties can mutually resolve their concerns or bring the matter before the CEO Board for review and recommended action. The CEO Board's decision shall be deemed final and binding. c) If ECSO and the User cannot informally resolve any non-critical dispute as to dispatch procedures, either party may request that the matter be brought before the ECSO CEO Board for resolution. If any such procedure is incompatible with ECSO's operating policies, ECSO shall notify the User of the reasons therefor while still implementing the procedure. The procedure will be implemented, to the extent possible, until such time as both parties can mutually resolve their concerns or bring the matter before the CEO Board for review and recommended action. The CEO Board's decision shall be deemed final and binding. d) ECSO shall train its personnel in those User procedures and regulations which may be deemed necessary to provide effective service. ECSO will provide orientation to User personnel as may be requested by the User. 2 e) Scope 1) Provide PSAP Services on a 2417 basis. 2) Provide Dispatch Services 24/7, including status keeping and after-hours call- outs. 3) Perform pages and notifications per User agency procedure, or upon demand. 4) Perform radio and/or MDC broadcasts of administrative messages, attempts to locate and all-points bulletins. 5) Provide law enforcement access to DMV, NCIC, LEDS and as reasonably feasible, other Jackson County regional information systems as requested by eligible agencies.. 6) Provide for the maintenance and update of the automated Geo-file and Master Street Address Guide. 7) Provide Phase 11 911 mapping within dispatch, and as available to MDC's. 8) Maintain back-up communications systems. 3. Duration and Amendment: a. This Contract shall be for a period of 12 months. The Contract term will begin at midnight on July 1, 2014, and end at midnight on June 30, 2015. USER agrees to notify the ECSO CEO Board Chair, in writing, no later than June 30 of any year for withdrawal effective July 1st of the following calendar year. Failure of USER to so notify ECSO will result in damages not less than the withdrawing party's share of the Agency's annual operations costs for the next fiscal year, as and for liquidated damages. b. This Contract shall be subject to amendment only by written approval of both ECSO and USER. C. All previous contracts with USER for similar services are terminated as of the effective date hereof. 4. User Advisory Groups: a. The Law Enforcement User Advisory Group and the Fire/EMS User Advisory Group may meet monthly, or as may be needed to review dispatch procedures and develop common policies which will enhance mutual operations. b. The USER shall be entitled to one voting representative on the Law and/or Fire/EMS User groups for the purpose of representing the USER's special interests, service requirements and operational role within the Center. 3 6. ECSO Administrative Responsibility: a. ECSO shall have full authority and responsibility over hiring, training, discipline, scheduling and assignment of personnel assigned to perform and to supervise services provided under this Agreement. ECSO shall have full discretion and authority under emergent conditions to prioritize service among conflicting service demands. b. ECSO may contract to provide services to other agencies at its discretion provided ECSO shall undertake no such obligation which has the effect of diminishing or degrading the level of service provided to the current Users. C. The ECSO Director, or designee will communicate with the User agency on a regular basis to ensure continuity of service. d. Scope 1) Ensure appropriate staffing levels. 2) Provide scheduled system performance and activity reports. 3) Provide quarterly and annual performance reports. 4) Complete and maintain professional certifications. 5) Maintain State and Medical certifications. 6) Review and respond to in-service job performance inquiries. 7) Provide User community support. 6. Performance Standards: a. The CEO Board will review and approve a system for performance measurements. 7. Annual Budget Preparation: Draft budget figures will be developed by ECSO by the end of December of each year. On or about January 15th, the CEO Board will review and recommend modifications to the proposed budget. On or about February 15th the Intergovernmental Council will review and recommend modifications to the proposed budget. ECSO will make the recommended modifications and issue a preliminary budget in March. The budget will be adopted by the CEO Board no later than its June meeting, 8. Financial: a. USER shall pay ECSO the total sum of $170,680.93 in consideration of the services outlined in Paragraph 1 above for the Contract term. This amount shall not increase during the Contract term. b. USER agrees to pay the charges as prescribed at a minimum in four (4) equal installments and due no later than July 10, October 10, January 10 and April 10 of each contract cycle. Payments shall be made to ECSO, 400 Pech Road, Central Point, OR 97502. C. If the installments are paid when due, no interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance of the Contract amount stated in a. above, but any overdue installment shall bear interest at one and three-quarters percent (1% per month from its due date. 4 d. Law user rates are based on 70% of the total budget less revenue and minimum user fees, and fire user rates are based on 30% of the total budget less revenue and minimum user fees. All user rates are then calculated by use of a formula that incorporates the population base served by the user and the assessed valuation of each user's jurisdiction. e. State 911 tax revenue reimbursements to ECSO shall be maintained in a separate interest bearing fund independent of the ECSO general fund. 9. Property: During the term of this Contract, ECSO shall ensure the operation of all equipment and property in the CENTER as necessary to provide the services which are to be performed under this Contract, which services shall be in compliance with the operating standards, procedures, and rules adopted by ECSO. 10. Hold Harmless Clause: The parties shall hold each other harmless and shall indemnify the other from any and all causes of action, judgments, claims, damages, or otherwise arising out of its sole and solitary acts. 11. Default: Upon default by USER of the payment terms of this Contract, said default existing for thirty (30) days, ECSO may terminate further provision of communication services to USER upon ten (10) day written notice to cure given to USER. ECSO may also terminate such services for default by USER of any other material term of the Contract upon thirty (30) day written notice to cure given to USER. 12. Arbitration: In the event a dispute arises under the terms of this Contract, the parties shall submit the dispute to binding arbitration in accordance with ORS Chapter 36. Notice of intent to arbitrate shall be given in writing to the other party. Within ten (10) business days of the Notice of Intent to Arbitrate, ECSO shall request a list of seven (7) names from the Jackson County Court Annexed Arbitrator List. The parties shall alternately strike one name from the list until only one name from the list remains. The USER shall strike first. The remaining individual shall be the Arbitrator. The striking shall be conducted no longer than ten (10) business days after receipt of the list. The rules applicable to the arbitration shall be the same as if the matter were being heard in a court annexed arbitration proceeding in Jackson County, except to the extent such rules address appeal or other recourse to the Court as the intent of the parties is that such arbitration be final and binding and the parties agree to be so bound by such decision. Each party shall initially bear the cost of arbitration equally, provided, however, that the prevailing party as determined by the arbitrator shall be entitled to an award by the arbitrator of its reasonable attorney fees and costs of the arbitration. 5 13. Savings Clause: If, during the period of this Contract, it is determined by judicial or arbitration ruling or by mutual agreement of the parties that a specific clause of the Contract is illegal under federal or state law, the remainder of the Contract not affected thereby shall remain in force. 14. Notices: Any notice required or permitted under this Contract shall be given when actually delivered or forty-eight (48) hours after deposited in the United States Mail as certified mail addressed to the address set forth below or to such other address as may be specified from time to time by either of the parties in writing. ECSO: USER: EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS OF SOUTHERN OREGON 400 Pech Road Central Point, OR 97502 15. Signators: Signators to the Contract shall be: a. For ECSO: An authorized representative of ECSO. b. For USER: An authorized representative of USER. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Contract. ECSO USER CEO Board, Chairman (Signature) Date (Print Name) Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: Martial E. Henault, ECSO Legal Counsel Date 6 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Intergovernmental Agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation for Commercial Vehicle Inspection Services FROM: Tighe O'Meara, Deputy Chief of Police, 541-552-2142, tighe.omeara@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Ashland Police Department for commercial vehicle inspection services. It continues, but formalizes, an existing arrangement between the two agencies. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The APD has a long-standing relationship with ODOT, assisting them in commercial motor vehicle inspections. This has been a mutually beneficial arrangement. Our officers' ability to conduct commercial motor vehicle inspections allows APD to work toward ensuring commercial vehicles in the city are operated and maintained in a safe manner. ODOT is requiring that participating cities now sign an IGA spelling out participating agencies' role as this relationship is continued. The IGA does not alter the nature of this relationship, but merely formalizes it. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no exchange of funds in this agreement. Each agency is responsible for covering the cost of its activities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REOUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council accept the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Ashland Police Department. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement between Oregon Department of Transportation and the Ashland Police Department. ATTACHMENTS: Intergovernmental Agreement between Oregon Department of Transportation and the Ashland Police Department Page 1 of 1 11TAW, Misc. Contracts and Agreements No. 29898 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT Commercial Vehicle, Driver and Cargo Inspection THIS Agreement is made and entered into by and between THE STATE OF OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "ODOT," and the CITY OF ASHLAND by and through its Police Department, hereinafter referred to as "APD," both herein referred to individually or collectively as "Party" or "Parties." RECITALS 1. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 283.110, and 825.250, state agencies may enter into Agreements with units of local government or other state agencies for the performance of any or all functions and activities that a party to the Agreement, its officers or agents have the authority to perform. 2. As defined in ORS 825.250 (2), an "authorized representative" means a city, county or state employee who has been trained and certified by ODOT as a commercial vehicle inspector and who is employed either by ODOT or by an agency that has an agreement with ODOT to provide inspections of commercial vehicles, drivers, general cargo or hazardous materials. 3. APD wishes to have a certain number of its employees become an "authorized representative" for purposes of ORS 825.250(2). 4. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectively administer the applicable terms and conditions contained in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21" Century Act (MAP-21), a federal-aid program of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: TERMS OF AGREEMENT 1. ODOT and APD wish to enter into this Agreement in order to maximize the utilization of commercial vehicle, driver, and cargo inspection resources; to avoid duplication of effort; to expand the number of inspections performed; to advance uniformity of inspection; and to minimize delays in schedules incurred by industry inherent to this type of enforcement activity, hereinafter referred to as "Project." 2. Each Party will be responsible for their own costs associated with Project. 3. ODOT and APD agree that their authorized inspection representatives, certified as commercial vehicle inspectors by ODOT, under ORS 810.560, will implement inspection procedures in accordance with minimum standards contained herein. 4. The work shall begin on the date all required signatures are obtained and shall be completed no later than ten (10) years from the date of execution, on which date this Agreement automatically terminates unless extended by a fully executed amendment. 5. In order to advance international uniformity in the inspection of commercial motor vehicles, their drivers, and cargo,.ODOT and.APD agree to enforce the North American Uniform Inspection Out- of-Service Criteria as authored and published by the: ODOT/ Agreement No. 29898 Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Part I - North American Uniform Inspection Driver Out-of-Service Criteria Part II - North American Uniform Inspection Vehicle Out-of-Service Criteria Part III - North American Uniform Inspection Hazardous Material Out-of-Service Criteria j 6. The above standards are adopted into Oregon law by ODOT under Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR): I OAR 740-100-0090, Part I - Driver. OAR 740-100-0070, Part II - Vehicle. i OAR 740-100-0080, Part III - Hazardous Materials. I ODOT OBLIGATIONS j ODOT agrees, at no cost to APD, to perform the following work: 1. Train and/or retrain inspection resources employed by APD when such training or retraining is mutually agreed to by the Parties to this Agreement; test and certify inspectors in accordance with agreements between ODOT, Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, i and, as applicable, CVSA. 2. Supply vehicle and driver out-of-service stickers. 3. Supply monitoring service relative to inspection write-up techniques and violations recorded; inspection procedures, application of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and Out-of-Service Criteria required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and ORS i 810.560. I i 4. Pursuant to the Governor's directive, function as the lead agency for purposes of administering Oregon's participation in MAP-21 and to the maximum extent possible coordinate commercial vehicle and driver enforcement activities between all certified and participatory agencies. 5. The Manager of Field Motor Carrier Safety Enforcement at the Motor Carrier Transportation Division, is ODOT's contact person for purposes of administering this Agreement, phone (503) 373.1979. i APD OBLIGATIONS i The APD agrees, at no cost to ODOT, to perform the following work: 1. Ensure that all personnel who engage in the inspection of commercial motor vehicles and their drivers are trained and certified by ODOT pursuant to ORS 810.560. i 2. As a matter of general policy, inspection levels shall be defined by ODOT. j i 2 Ii I ODOTI Agreement No. 29898 I. i 3. Inspections may be initiated only after a traffic stop, size and weight enforcement stop, or when an out-of-service defect is detected during the normal duty activities of a certified inspector. 4. Roadside inspections will be conducted at locations that are adequate to protect the safety of drivers and enforcement personnel. i 5. No inspection activity shall lake place at a motor carrier's terminal unless such inspection has been authorized by MOT. i 6. When performing inspections as described herein, said inspections shall be documented on forms provided by ODOT. Whenever possible, inspections shall be conducted electronically using ASPEN T'" software provided by ODOT. 7. Completed inspection documents shall be forwarded to ODOT within five (5) days of the date of inspection for processing and final compliance. i GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The Parties certify, at the time this Agreement is executed, that sufficient funds are available and authorized for expenditure to finance costs of this Agreement within their current appropriation or limitation of current biennial budget. 2. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon thirty (30) days' notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person. I- 3. The Parties may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to either Party, or at such later date as may be established by the Parties, under any of the following conditions: a. If either Party fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the time specified herein or any extension thereof. b. If either Party fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written notice from ODOT fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or such longer period as ODOT may authorize. c. If either Party fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow either Party, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for performance of this agreement. d. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is prohibited or if either Party is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding source. 4. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued to the Parties prior to termination. 5. Both Parties shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, executive orders and 4 ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement, including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279B.220, 279B.225, 2798.230, 2798.235 and 279B.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof; Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, API 3 I ! ODOT/ Agreement No. 29898 expressly agrees to comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of,1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations. 6. Both Parties shall perform the service under this Agreement as an independent contractor and shall be exclusively responsible for all cost and expenses related to its employment of individuals to perform the work under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, retirement contributions, workers' compensation, unemployment taxes, and state and federal income tax withholdings. 7. All employers, including APD that employ subject workers who work under this Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt under ORS 656.126. Employers Liability insurance with coverage limits of not less than $500,000 must be included. APD shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements. I 8. If any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against ODOT or APD with respect to which the other Party may have liability, the notified Party must promptly notify the other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the Third Party Claim. Each Party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by a Party of the notice and copies required in this paragraph and meaningful opportunity for the Party to participate in the investigation, defense and settlement of the Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to that Party's liability with respect to the Third Party Claim. 9. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which ODOT is jointly liable with APD (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), ODOT shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by APD in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of ODOT on the one hand and of APD on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of ODOT on the one hand and of APD on the other hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. ODOT's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if ODOT had sole liability in the proceeding. 10. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which APD is jointly liable with ODOT (or would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), APD shall contribute to the amount of expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by ODOT in such proportion as is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of APD on the one hand and of ODOT on the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations. The relative fault of APD on the one hand and of ODOT on the other hand shall be i determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts. APD's contribution amount in any instance is capped to i 4 ODOT/ Agreement No. 29898 the same extent it would have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300, if it had sole liability in the proceeding. 11. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this Agreement. In addition, the Parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or arbitrator (for non-binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation. 12. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties, notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original. 13. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision. THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that its signing representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its terms and conditions. CITY OF ASHLAND by and through its Police STATE OF OREGON, by and through its Department Department of Transportation By By Manager, Motor Carrier, Investigations/Safety/Federal Programs Section Date Date APD Contact: APPROVAL RECOMMENDED Steve MacLennan, Sergeant Ashland Police Dept. By 1155 E Main St Paul A Kroll, Fiscal Officer, Motor Carrier Ashland, OR 97520 Administration 541-482-5211 maclenns@ashland.or.us Date ODOT Contact: Paul Kroll, Fiscal Officer, Motor Carrier Administration ODOT 3930 Fairview Industrial Dr. SE Salem, OR. 97302 (503) 378-6204 Paul.A.KROLL@odot.state.or.us 5 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Donation of 2006 Ford Lift Van to Parks and Recreation Department from RVTD FROM Rachel Dials, Recreation Superintendent; rachel.dials@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Parks and Recreation Department applied to receive a donated van from Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD). RVTD donates their vehicles once a certain mileage has been reached. Plans for utilizing the van include field trips for our Senior and Adapted Recreation program participants as well as utilization in our Volunteer Program. The vehicle seats 8 people and has a lift option for wheelchair use. The Parks and Recreation Commission is aware of the donation and supports it. After a one year trial, it will be evaluated and a decision will be made on whether to keep the van, replace it, or eliminate it completely. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The van has 151,000 miles and will be accepted "as is". It will have the required insurance as well as scheduled maintenance that will be handled by a third party (Butler Ford), so as not to burden the City of Ashland's fleet maintenance staff. The Parks and Recreation Department did consult with Fleet Maintenance throughout this process. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS All costs of accepting, maintaining and painting the van will be the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation Department. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the donation of the 2006 Ford lift van. SUGGESTED MOTION I move that Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, approve the donation of the 2006 Ford Van from RVTD and allow Don Robertson, Parks and Recreation Director to sign the "Agreement to transfer property" from RVTD. ATTACHMENTS Agreement to Transfer Property Page 1 of I ~r, ROGUE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER PROPERTY Pursuant to ORS 279A.185(2) and ORS 279A.025(2)(a), Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) agrees to transfer the following property: Description of property: 2006 Ford Bus - VIN: 1 FTSS34L16DA05668 Organization to receive property: City of Ashland Parks and Recreation 340 S. Pioneer St. Ashland, OR 97520 Conditions of transfer of property: • RVTD conveys all of its right, title, and interest in and to the property described above free of charge to transferee. • RVTD represents that it is the sole owner of the property; that the property is free and clear of all liens, security interests, options, and encumbrances; and that RVTD has good right to convey the property. • The property has outlived its useful life to RVTD. • The property is in "used" condition, and is transferred "as-is" with no warranty or guarantee of any kind. • RVTD will provide to transferee all maintenance and other records available, and will make every effort to accurately represent the condition of the property. • RVTD is unable to provide any maintenance work, parts purchase, etc., due to its status as a grant- funded government agency. • All costs of accepting the property (i.e., transferring, registering, and titling of vehicles) will be the responsibility of the transferee. • Registering and titling of vehicles to remove them from RVTD ownership by the transferee shall be completed expeditiously. • The transferee will be responsible for removing all RVTD identifying decals and designs from the vehicle prior to putting it into service for the transferee's transportation programs. 9 Si re Signature Julie A. Brown Printed Name Printed Name General Manager Title Title Rogue Valley Transportation District Organization Organization 5- ~0-/,4~ Date Date CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Declaration and Authorization to Dispose of 1993 Type 1 Fire Pumper FROM: John Karns, Fire Chief, john.karns c7i ashland.or.us SUMMARY City staff facilitated an Invitation to Bid to request bids for the sale of a 1993 Type I Fire Pumper. A single bid was received for $27,500.00 from Company Two Fire Apparatus in South Carolina. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with AMC 2.54, an Invitation to Bid was facilitated for the sale of a 1993 Type I Fire Pumper. The Invitation to Bid was mailed to 12 potential bidders and a single bid was received for $27,500.00. Please refer to AMC Chapter 2.54 for more information regarding the disposal of surplus property. Company Two Fire Apparatus is a broker of used equipment that purchased the pumper on behalf of the Mi-Wuk Sugar Pine Fire Protection District in central California. Members of that fire department will come to Ashland to drive the truck back to its new home. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds from the sale of the pumper will go to the Equipment Replacement Fund to help offset the purchase of future equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the 1993 Type 1, Fire Pumper be declared surplus and sold to Company Two Fire Apparatus for $27,500.00. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to declare the 1993 Type 1, Fire Pumper surplus property, and approves the sale of the vehicle to Company Two Fire Apparatus for $27,500.00. ATTACHMENTS: AMC 2.54 Bid received from Company Two Fire Apparatus Page 1 of I 11VA1, ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 2.54 Disposal of Surplus Property Sections: 2.54.010 Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property. 2.54.020 Definitions 2.54.030 Surplus Property Offered to Government & Non-Profits 2.54.040 Surplus Property Offered for Public Sale 2.54.050 Conduct of Auctions and Sealed Bid Sales 2.54.060 Eligibility 2.54.070 Payment 2.54.080 Promulgation of Disqualifying Criteria by Resolution 2.54.090 Claiming Items 2.54.100 Other Means of Disposal of Surplus Property 2.54.110 Proceeds from Surplus Property Section 2.54.010 Disposal of Surplus and Abandoned Property. The City of Ashland Finance Department may transfer, trade, auction or sell surplus or abandoned property to other city departments, political subdivisions, state agencies, or non-profit organizations. However, the disposal of surplus property having residual value of more than $10,000 shall be subject to authorization by the Local Contract Review Board. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.020 Definitions The following definitions apply to this chapter: A. "Bid" means a competitive Offer to purchase advertised Surplus Property at a price specified by the bidder. B. "Cash" means U.S. currency, cashier's checks, and money orders made payable to the City of Ashland. C. "Employee's Household" means all persons residing with employee. D. "Employee's Immediate Family" means the children, step-children, parents, stepparents, grandparents and spouse of employee. E. "Invitation to Bid" means a competitive Offer to bid on Surplus Property available for public sale and is also known as a bid advertisement. F. "Not-for-profit organization" means a nonprofit corporation as defined in ORS 307.130. G. "Political Subdivision" means divisions or units of Oregon local government having separate autonomy such as Oregon counties, cities, municipalities or other public corporate entities having local governing authority. H. "Purchasing Agent" means the City Administrator or his or her designee. 1. "State agency" means every state officer, board, commission, department, institution, branch or agency of state government whose costs are paid wholly or in part from funds held in the State Treasury, and includes the Legislative Assembly and the courts, including the officers and Page I of 4 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE committees of both, and the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer in the performance of the duties of their constitutional offices as defined in ORS 279A.250(4). J. "Surplus Property" means all personal property, vehicles and titled equipment property designated as surplus for sale to state agencies, political subdivisions of the State, and private not-for-profit organizations or the general public or any combination thereof. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.030 Surplus Property Offered to Government & Non-Profits A. Prior to offering surplus property for public sale, the Surplus Property may be made available by direct transfer or direct sale to the following: 1. Other City departments, 2. Political Subdivisions, 3. State Agencies, and 4. Any non-profit organization determined to be eligible by the Purchasing Agent. B. Surplus Property acquired by political subdivisions, state agencies, or qualified not-for-profit organizations through direct sales or transfers must be used only in the conduct of their official public programs. C. Surplus Property must not be acquired through warehouse floor sales or direct transfer for any use or purpose other than conduct of their official public programs, and not for resale or distribution unless otherwise pre-approved by the Purchasing Agent. D. Non-qualifying private entities and private citizens, separately or combined, must not be eligible to acquire surplus property except at public sales. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.040 Surplus Property Offered for Public Sale A. The Purchasing Agent must conduct public sales for the disposal of Surplus Property. B. Methods of disposal may include, but are not limited to: oral auctions, sealed bid sales and fixed price retail sales, separately or in any combination thereof. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.050 Conduct of Auctions and Sealed Bid Sales A. The Purchasing Agent must advertise the date, time and location of public auction or sealed bid sales. B. An invitation to Bid must be available at the auction site of an auction or sealed bid sale. C. The public may inspect property offered for sale at the time and place specified in the invitation to Bid; D. The Purchasing Agent reserves the right to reject any and all bids regarded as not in the best interests of the City of Ashland; Page 2 of 4 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE E. All items must be sold to the highest Bidder. All Surplus Property must be offered "As-Is, Where-Is" with no warranty or other guarantee as to its condition or fitness for use. A purchaser or disappointed Bidder does not have recourse against the City of Ashland or any of their respective officers, employees or agents. F. All sales must be final. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.060 Eligibility A. Members of the general public may participate as buyers at public sales. B. No employee or volunteer of the donating Department and/or Purchasing, whether full-time, part-time, temporary or unpaid volunteer, or any member of the employee's household, the employee's immediate family, or any person acting on the employee's behalf may participate in public sales if the employee has had any role in declaring the item surplus, processing the item or related paperwork, or offering it for sale. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.070 Payment Full payment must be made within five (5) business days, unless otherwise specified in the invitation to Bid. Payment trust by made by cash, cashier's check or money order. The methods of payment, time limit for making full payment, and the place where payment must be made will be specified in invitation to Bid. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.080 Promulgation of Disqualifying Criteria by Resolution The Purchasing Agent may establish criteria to disqualify participants from surplus sales pursuant to this Chapter by Resolution. Such criteria may be based on: A. Conviction of fraud; B. Inappropriate conduct; C. Failure to claim purchases; or D. Other documented activities determined by the Purchasing Agent to warrant disqualification. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.090 Claiming Items A. Items that are not paid for in full and claimed by the time specified in the Invitation to Bid will be offered to the next highest bidder. B. Property paid for, but not claimed within the time specified in the Invitation to Bid must be considered abandoned and ownership must default back to the City of Ashland, unless prior approval is obtained from the City of Ashland Purchasing Agent. C. Title to the property sold will be transferred to the purchaser when payment is made in full. D. An Oregon Motor Vehicles Division trip permits must be obtained to drive unlicensed motor vehicles that are purchased. The purchaser will be responsible for obtaining a trip permit and certifying that Page 3 of 4 ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE the driver of the vehicle has a valid driver's license and is insured as required by Oregon law before a trip permit can be issued. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.100 Other Means of Disposal of Surplus Property A. With the prior approval of the Purchasing Agent, an authorized designee may transfer computers and related hardware that are surplus, obsolete or unused to a common or union high school district or education service district. The authorized designee may not charge the school district a fee for the transfer. B. The Purchasing Agent may recycle or otherwise dispose of property when the Purchasing Agent determines the value and condition of the property does not warrant the cost of a sale. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Section 2.54.110 Proceeds from Surplus Property The Purchasing Agent shall determine what fund and/or funds will be credited with the proceeds received from the disposal of surplus property. (Ord 3018, amended, 06/01/2010) Page 4 of 4 mod,-.. _ tt S i ~4r 'IMP www.comoam4wofire corn Quincy Jones 283 Foster Road Varnville, South Carolina 29944 Office: 803-943-5232 Toll Free 1-866-289-6188 Fax: 803-943-5434 BID PROPOSAL Date: 3/24/2014 To: Kari Olson, Purchasing Representative City of Ashland, 90 N. Mountain Avenue, Ashland,,OR 97520 Biddins on: 1993 Type 1 Fire Pumper Requirements: Company Two Fire's bid is contingent upon the truck having a current pump certification. (2013 or 2014) Bid Amount: $27,500.00 "Method of Payment will be bank wire transfer or certified check. This bid is only good for 30 days from the date of bid proposal. Thanks for this opportunity. Quincy Jones Owner Company Two Fire 283 Foster'St. Vamville, SC 29944 Office: 866-289-6188 Cell: 770.598-3473 Fax: 803-943-5434 stationinc@aol.com CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford for Acceptance and Disposal of Partially Treated Biosolids FROM: Mike Morrison, Public Works Superintendent, Public Works, monism@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Council is asked to approve an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City of Medford to temporarily accept biosolids from the wastewater treatment plant on an as needed basis. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City of Ashland Wastewater Treatment Plant currently dewaters biosolids in two centrifuge units. After the biosolids are dewatered the sludge material is hauled to Dry Creek Landfill and disposed of. Three weeks ago one of the centrifuges had a mechanical breakdown that required specific repairs to be performed. The repairs are currently underway, but staff does not expect to have the centrifuge back for approximately 3-4 more weeks. As a precautionary measure staff investigated solutions if the second centrifuge were to fail creating biosolids that could not be dewatered onsite, but still needed to be managed. Staff contacted the City of Medford to discuss disposing of the biosolids at Medford Reclamation. The City of Medford developed an IGA that allows up to 30,000 gallons of disposal per day at the Medford facility. Disposal would only be needed on an emergency basis if the second centrifuge goes down before the one currently being repaired returns. In addition, staff contacted local septic pumping companies to determine their availability to temporarily haul biosolids to the Medford facility in case the second centrifuge went down. The City does not have the necessary equipment to transport the biosolids currently. Staff is also researching the potential to rent a portable centrifuge on an emergency basis. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The IGA with Medford currently sets the price of $19.10 per dry ton of biosolids with a handling fee of $160.42 per month. 30,000 gallons of dewatered sludge equates to approximately eight tons of dewatered biosolid, generating a fee of approximately $150 per day to dispose of sludge at Medford Reclamation. This does not account for the monies required to move the sludge from Ashland to Medford. The monies to support this if needed will come directly from the wastewater treatment plant fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approving the IGA with the City of Medford for acceptance and disposal of partially treated biosolids. Page I of 2 M`, CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve an IGA with the City of Medford for the acceptance and disposal of partially treated biosolids. ATTACHMENTS: Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Medford Page 2 of 2 ~r, INTERGOVERNMANTAL AGREEMENT (IGA) FOR ACCEPTANCE, AND DISPOSAL OF PARTIALLY TREATED BIOSOLIDS This Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement") is made between the City of Medford, Oregon ("Medford") and the City of Ashland, Oregon ("Ashland") for the purpose of setting forth terms and conditions for Medford's Regional Water Reclamation Facility ("RWRF") to accept partially treated biosolids from Asliland's Wastewater Treatment Plant for drying and landfill disposal. STATUTORY AUTHORITY In accordance with and pursuant to the provisions of ORS 190.110, 190.420 and 279.185 and Medford Code 2.619, Medford is authorized to enter into intergovernmental agreements with state agencies, local governments, and special government bodies for the acquisition, distribution, utilization, disposal, or sale of surplus property in accordance with state and federal laws. The cities of Medford and Ashland wish to enter into this Agreement allowing Ashland to place partially treated biosolids (up to 30,000 gallons per day) from Ashland's wastewater treatment plant, in the RWRF's sludge lagoons for final treatment, application to RWRF's drying beds and ultimate landfill disposal along with the RWRF's annual biosolids production. By acceptance of this Agreement, Ashland certifies that it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with Medford. RECITALS WHEREAS, the RWRF is capable of supplying Ashland sufficient storage/treatment space in their solids handling system for placement of up to 30,000 gallons per day of partially treated biosolids; and WHEREAS, Ashland desires to place up to 30,000 gallons per day of partially treated biosolids in the RWRF's solids handling system; and WHEREAS, Medford and Ashland will mutually benefit from the IGA; and WHEREAS, placement of the noted biosolids is clearly in the public and environmental interest; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration for the mutual covenants contained herein the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1. Medford will provide Ashland or their designated trucking contractor access to specified RWRF lagoon areas for placing partially treated biosolids from Ashland. 2. Medford will refuse to accept any loads from Ashland which offer indications they may contain substances which could adversely affect the treatment process. 3. Ashland will provide Medford with accurate volume and representative total suspended solids results on a weekly basis for the transferred partially treated biosolids. 4. Ashland will provide all necessary staff and equipment to complete the transfer and placement of partially treated biosolids from Ashland to Medford's designated lagoons. 5. Ashland will provide Medford with any necessary insurance documentation related to placement Ashland's partially treated bioisolids. 6. Ashland's staff will inform RWRF staff of any issues or problems occurring on Medford's property in relationship to Ashland's activities. 7. Ashland will fully repair any damage incurred to Medford's property as a result of their placement of partially treated biosolids. 8. The RWRF will account for Ashland's treated biosolids separately from those generated by the RWRF. 9. For and in consideration of Medford allowing Ashland to place 30,000 gallons per day of partially treated biosolids in their solids handling system, and for including said biosolids in the annual solids disposal program, Ashland will compensate Medford at a rate of $19.10 per dry ton of biosolids land-filled and a set handling charge of $1,925 on an annual basis (prorated on a monthly basis of $160.42) for the time and equipment utilized by RWRF staff in preparing Ashland's biosolids for disposal. The revenue amount of this IGA will not exceed $100,000. 10. Subject to the limitations of Article XI, section 7 of the Oregon Constitution and the restrictions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act (ORS 30.260 to 30.300), Ashland shall defend, save, hold harmless, and indemnify Medford, within the limits of liability set forth in ORS 30.271 and 30.273, against third party claims for personal injury or damage to life or property arising out of or resulting from Ashland's acts or omissions under this agreement, provided, however, Ashland shall not be required to indemnify Medford for liability arising out of or resulting from the acts or omissions of Medford or Medford's officers, employees, or agents. 11. The term of this agreement between Medford and Ashland will be for one year after the date of approving the IGA, without any extensions, since the duration of the agreement will only be for the period of time Ashland is correcting dewatering equipment concerns. 12. Either party may terminate this agreement by providing 30 days' notice of intent to terminate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereby entered into this Agreement. Each party by signature below of its authorized representative hereby acknowledges that it has read the Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. Each person signing the Agreement represents and warrants having authority to execute this Agreement. CITY OF MEDFORD CITY OF ASHLAND Date Date CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Public Hearing for First and Second Reading of an Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2014, to and including June 30, 2015 and Resolutions to Receive State Subventions FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, Administrative Services Department tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Oregon Budget Law requires the City Council to hold a public hearing to levy property taxes and certify that it provides sufficient services to qualify for, and elects to receive, state subventions (known as state revenue sharing). Even though the City moved to a biennial budget last year, adopting appropriations June 18, 2013, these others steps are necessary for FY 2014-2015. First and second readings are recommended to complete this action before June 30, 2014. After the public hearing, Council will take action to certify that it qualifies for and elects to receive state revenue sharing and to levy property taxes by ordinance. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Oregon law identifies the process by which public agencies develop, approve and adopt a budget. On May 22, 2013, the Budget Committee approved the biennial budget for 2013-2015. This first biennial budget for the City provides appropriations and expenditure authority for a two-year period. However, the Council must elect to levy taxes annually, although it cannot levy an amount greater than what has been approved by the Budget Committee in either year of the biennium without going through a prescribed public process. Oregon Budget Law allows the elected body to increase expenditures by $5,000 ($10,000 for a biennium) or 10% (whichever is greater) of any fund without further review and approval by the committee. Council cannot increase the tax rate without republishing the amended budget and holding a second hearing before July 1. No deviation from committee approval is proposed. Council certifies that the City qualifies for subventions (revenues shared by the state) by resolution each year. Additionally, Council annually adopts a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services general fund revenues derived from taxes imposed as part of state revenue sharing. These are both necessary steps for the second half of the 2013-2015 budget process. Page I of 2 r, CITY OF ASHLAND Included in the ordinance is the Library Local Option Levy for added services to Ashland, again at the reduced rate of $0.1921 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, as has been done in the past. The new library district cannot legally meet and decide business matters until July 1 or after, so no decision has been made as to what levy they will be seeking. The District's levy decision will determine whether Ashland must continue to levy this additional tax in order to receive the enhanced service levels we have been receiving for several years. Given that we have no information on the District's levy, City staff has obtained an extension of the deadline for certifying our tax rate to the County from July 15 to August 15. The City levy will not be certified to the County until being notified of the District's decision on its taxes, determining the need for local levy taxes for added hours of service in Ashland consistent with the public vote. City staff will re-visit this tax rate with the Council later this summer and, if needed, staff will bring a revised ordinance back to Council in late July or early August. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Since the Council adopted the biennium budget last year and this proposal is to levy taxes and ratify other revenues consistent with that approval, there are no additional implications of this action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the accompanying two resolutions and first and second readings by title only of the ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to approve a resolution titled, "Resolution Certifying City Provides Sufficient Municipal Services to Qualify for State Subventions," And I move to approve a resolution titled, "A Resolution Declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues," And I move to approve first reading and second reading by emergency by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2014 to and Including June 30, 2015, Such Taxes in the Sum of $10,083,098 Upon All the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon". ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution certifying City qualifies for state subventions 2) Resolution declaring City elects to receive state revenue 3) Certification of election to receive state revenue 4) Ordinance to levy property taxes Page 2 of 2 ~r, RESOLUTION 2014- A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY OF ASHLAND PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING FOUR OR MORE MUNICIPAL SERVICES ENUMERATED SECTION 1, ORS 221.760; RECITALS: A. ORS 221.760 provides as follows: Section 1. The officer responsible for disbursing fund to cities under ORS 323.455, 366.785 to 366.820 and 471.805 shall, in the case of a city located within a county having more than 100,000 inhabitants according to the most recent federal decennial census, disburse such funds only if the city provides four or more of the following services: 1. Police protection 2. Fire protection 3. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 4. Sanitary sewer 5. Storm sewer 6. Planning, zoning and subdivision control 7. One or more utility services B. City officials recognize the desirability of assisting the state officer responsible for determining the eligibility of cities to receive such funds in accordance with 221.760. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City of Ashland hereby certifies that it provides the following municipal services enumerated in ORS 221.760(1): 1. Police protection 2. Fire protection 3. Planning 4. Street construction, maintenance, lighting 5. Storm sewer 6. Water 7. Sanitary sewer 8. Electric distribution This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2014. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Page 1 of 2 SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION 2014- A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES RECITALS: The City must annually adopt a resolution electing to receive an apportionment of the Oregon Department of Administrative Services General Fund revenues derived from tax imposed on the sale of liquor as part of State Revenue Sharing. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to ORS 221.770, the City hereby elects to receive state revenues for fiscal year 2014-2015. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2014. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED AND APPROVED this day of June, 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page I of 2 A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S ELECTION TO RECEIVE STATE REVENUES I certify that a public hearing before the Budget Committee was held on May 22, 2013 and a public hearing before the City Council was held on June 17, 2014, giving citizens an opportunity to comment on use of State Revenue Sharing. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE LEVYING TAXES FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2014 TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 309 2015, SUCH TAXES IN THE SUM OF $1098669963 UPON ALL THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ASSESSMENT AND LEVY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Ashland hereby levies the taxes provided for in the adopted budget in the permanent rate of $4.1972 per thousand an amount estimated to be $9,905,830, voter authorized Local Option in the rate of $.1921 per thousand an amount estimated to be $444,960 as well as $516,173 authorized for the repayment of General Obligation Debt and that these taxes are hereby levied upon the assessed value for the fiscal year starting July 1, 2014, on all taxable property within the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby declares that the taxes so levied are applicable to the following funds: Permanent Rate Local Option Bonded Debt Per$ 1,000 General Fund - Operations $ 9,905,830 4.1972 Ashland Library Levy $ 444,960 0.1921 2005 GO Bonds $ 296,730 2011 GO Bonds - Fire Station #2 219,443 $ 9,905,830 $ 444,960 $ 516,173 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 12014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 1 of 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the Biennium 2013-15 Budget FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, Administrative Services Department tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY In reviewing recent financial reports for the 2013-14 fiscal year and reports from departments, staff has identified the need to transfer appropriations in several individual funds to recognize operational changes and to maintain compliance with Oregon Budget Law. The proposed resolution summarizes the transfers from each Fund's contingency or other operational area to the department or division requiring the appropriation and includes a short description of the need for the transfer. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a City Council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the paper prior to Council taking action. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking action. The proposed resolution identifies and authorizes transfers of appropriations (Item #1 above) in the following Funds: • General Fund - From Administrative Services, Material & Services to Administration, Tourism and to Parking, Materials & Services, to segregate and better track expenditures. $348,957 • Capital Improvement Fund - From Contingency to Interfund Loan to appropriate for an internal repayment on an amount missed during budgeting. $1,000 • Debt Service Fund - From Debt Service category to Materials and Services to address added fees for professional services arising from an early payoff of Notes. $15,000 • Water Fund - From Water Distribution Division to Water Supply Division to recognize Council approval or repurposing bond proceeds from Park Estates pump station project to help fund the Talent Ashland Phoenix water line project. $2,440,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS TRANSFERRED $2,804,957 This is the first transfer of appropriations request for 2013-15. Page I of 2 Ir, CITY OF ASHLAND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Transfers of appropriation do not increase or decrease the adopted budget. Transfers between appropriation categories only reflect a change in anticipated activities. A transfer of appropriations using contingency do cause a reduction in the potential ending fund balance of each fund having a transfer and impact the cant' forward balance for the following fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve the proposed resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt a resolution titled "A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2013-15 Budget" as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution Transfer Request Memo - Accounting Page 2 of 2 ~r, RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - A RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2013-2015 BIENNIUM BUDGET THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to transfer appropriations as follows: General Fund To: Administration -Tourism $ 61,232 Administration - Parking $287,725 From: Administrative Services $348,957 To transfer appropriations from Administrative Services to Administration Tourism and Parking to recognize restricted money where they will be spent for better tracking. The appropriations were originally budgeted in Administrative services. Capital Improvement Fund To: Interfund Loan $1,000 From: Contingency $1,000 To transfer appropriations from Contingency to cover the last payment to the Equipment Fund for the Clay St Land purchase from Open Space Revenue. Debt Service Fund To: Materials and Services $15,000 From: Debt Service $15,000 To transfer appropriations from Debt Services to Materials and Services for Professional Services for paying Notes off early. As well as Administration fees for bonded debt. Water Fund To: Water - Supply $2,440,000 From: Water - Distribution $2,440,000 To transfer appropriations from Water Distribution to Water Supply for the TAP project. This was originally for Park Estates pump station. Page 1 of 2 To transfer appropriations from Capital Outlay to Materials & Services to recognize the Project Manager that was originally budgeted in the Capital Outlay that belongs in Material and Services. TOTAL To: Department/Division Appropriations 2.804.957 From: Department/ Division Appropriations $ 2,803,957 Contingency $ 1,000 2 804 95 SECTION 2. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2014, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2014: John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 11, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director FROM: Cindy Hanks, Accounting Manager DEPT: Finance Department RE: Request for Transfers The following are budget transfers that are requested from the Accounting Division to ensure we are complying with GAAP and best practices. 1. The first request is to allocate appropriation that was budgeted in a miscellaneous category during the budget process. To better account for the costs, we would like to move the appropriations to two programs. One program for Tourism, this money is from Transient Occupancy Tax and must be used on Tourism. The second program is for Parking, this revenue source is from downtown parking tickets. 2. The second request is to appropriate the last payment of the interfund loan from the CIP Fund to the Equipment Fund. This interfund loan was for the purchase of Clay Street open space. The last payment of $1000 was missed during the budget process. We need to use contingency for this transfer. 3. The next request is to cover two items. A onetime cost that came from paying off a note sooner than the agreement allowed. This was necessary to allow Asante to take over Ashland Community Hospital. The second item is for Administration fees that are associated with bonded debt. 4. The last request is to move appropriation between budgeted divisions in the Water Fund recognizing council approval, redirecting bond money from Distribution Division to the Supply Division for the TAP project. FINANCE DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800735-2900 w .ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget Establishing Appropriations within the Biennium 2013-15 Budget FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, Administrative Services Department tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Staff has identified the need to request a supplemental budget due to the award of several Police Department and Fire Department grants and a reimbursement from a Federal Agency for mutual aid services provided. The approval of the supplemental budget request allows both the revenues and expenses to occur and be booked in the 2013-15 biennium. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are three ways in which to change appropriations after the budget is adopted. 1. A transfer of appropriations decreases an appropriation and increases another. This is the simplest budget change allowed under Oregon Budget Law. This does not increase the overall budget. This is approved by a city council resolution. 2. A supplemental budget of less than 10 percent of total appropriations within an individual fund follows a process similar to the transfer of appropriations. This process includes a notice in the paper prior to council taking action. 3. A supplemental budget in excess of 10 percent of total appropriations requires a longer process. This process includes a notice in the paper and a public hearing prior to the council taking action. The proposed resolution authorizing the supplemental budget is less than 10 percent of the total appropriations within the General Fund (Item 42 above) and totals $154,936 for grant revenues and reimbursement for services rendered in the General Fund as, as summarized below: • Police Department - grant from the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Violence Against Women program expenses $30,000 • Police Department - grant from the DOJ to cover overtime expenses for participation in the Southern Oregon Regional High Tech Crimes Task Force $42,000 • Fire Department - grant reimbursing City overtime expenses for CERT Training in Josephine County $ 3,500 • Fire Department - grant from the Chaney Foundation to purchase radios and repeater to improve communications in the field $8,000 • Fire Department - grant from Assistance for Firefighters to replace rescue rope and hardware and to fund physicals for line staff $58,700 Page I of 2 11FALI, CITY OF ASHLAND • Fire Department - revenue from sales reimbursing costs of 72 hour kits distributed at Ashland Is Ready (AIR) Citizen Emergency Preparedness workshop $1,600 • Fire Department - Asante Ashland Community Hospital reimbursing costs of training for AIR Citizen Emergency Preparedness workshop $3,000 • Fire Department - grant reimbursing City expenses for Pacifica Fire from Oregon Fire Marshall's Office $5,136 • Fire Department - grant reimbursing City expenses for Pacifica Fire from FEMA $1,000 TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS INCREASED $152,936 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplemental budgets recognize increased revenues as well as increase corresponding appropriations in the fund where they occur. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends council approve the proposed resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to adopt a resolution authorizing a supplemental budget in the General Fund in the amount of $154,691 as presented. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution Supplemental Budget Memo, Police Department Supplemental Budget Memo, Fire Department Page 2 of 2 ~r, RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS WITHIN THE 2013-2015 BIENNIUM BUDGET Recitals: ORS 294.480 permits the governing body of a municipal corporation to make a supplemental budget for the fiscal year for which the regular budget has been prepared under one or more of the following reasons: a. An occurrence or condition which had not been ascertained at the time of the preparation of a budget for the current year which requires a change in financial planning. b. A pressing necessity which was not foreseen at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year which requires prompt action. c. Funds were made available by another unit of federal, state or local government and the availability of such funds could not have been ascertained at the time of the preparation of the budget for the current year. d. Other reasons identified per the statutes. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Because of the circumstances stated below, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Ashland determine that it is necessary to adopt a supplemental budget, establishing the following additional appropriations: General Fund Appropriation: Police Department $72,000 Fire and Rescue Department $80,936 152 36 Resource: Intergovernmental Revenues $144,836 Charges for Services 8,100 152 93 To appropriate two grants for the Police Department, a $30,000 amount for the Violence Against Women program and $42,000 for City participation in Southern Oregon Regional High Tech Crimes Task Force. To appropriate three grants for the Fire and Rescue Department, they received $72,836 in grants, including conflagration reimbursement, new radios, training and replacement of out of service rescue rope and hardware. The Fire also received $8,100 for workshops and FEMA expenses. TOTAL ALL FUNDS 152 36 152 Page] of2 SECTION 2. All other provisions of the adopted 2013-2015 BIENNIUM BUDGET not specifically amended or revised in this Supplemental Budget remain in full force and effect as stated therein. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of June, 2014, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of June, 2014: John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 Memo DATE: June 2, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Serves Director FROM: Terry Holderness, Police Chief RE: Supplemental Budget 1 am requesting that the following adjustments be made to the Police Department's budget for the 2013-2015 biennium budget. An additional $30,000 be added to overtime budget to reflect a grant from the US Department of Justice for a Violence Against Woman grant. An additional $42,000 be added to the overtime budget to reflect a grant from the US Department of Justice for our participation in the Southern Oregon Regional High Tech Crimes Task force. 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: March 17, 2014 TO: Lee Tuneberg Cindy Hanks FROM: John Karns RE: Budget Supplement Request The following are budget supplement requests for AF&R's current budget. These are items that caused expenditures though had corresponding revenues. CERT Training in Josephine County Ashland Fire & Rescue was requested by Josephine County Emergency Management and Illinois Valley Fire Protection District to conduct CERT basic training. Through a grant Josephine County EM was able to reimburse AF&R for cost incurred for that training. Costs were primarily overtime for line personnel. $3,500 110.07.12.00.510310 CERT Radios/Repeater Ashland CERT received a grant from the Chaney Foundation to purchase new radios (old ones weren't able to be "narrow-banded") as well as a repeater to improve communications between CERT field crews and the EOC. $8,000 07.12.00.603500 FEMA AFG Ashland Fire & Rescue received a grant from the Assistance for Firefighters grant that allowed us to replace out of service rescue rope and hardware. Also in this grant was the cost for providing physicals for each line member. $58,700 07.12.00.601400 t AIR Citizen Emergency Preparedness Workshop Ashland Fire & Rescue conducted two citizen emergency preparedness workshops in September of 2013. Attendees were charged $5 each for the 72-hour kits that were given out at the conclusion of the workshop. Some of the other costs for the kits were underwritten by Shop N'Kart and Asante Ashland Community Hospital. $1,600 07.12.00.610600 AIR Citizen Emergency Preparedness Workshop Ashland Fire & Rescue conducted two citizen emergency preparedness workshops in September of 2013. Some of the costs were reimbursed by a payment through Asante Ashland Community Hospital. $3,000 07.12.00.610600 Oregon Fire Conflagration Reimbursement from OSFM Due to the Pacifica Fire being declared a conflagration Ashland Fire & Rescue was reimbursed from the Oregon Fire Marshall's Office. $5,136 07.12.00.510320 Oregon Fire Conflagration Reimbursement from FEMA Due to the Pacifica Fire being declared a conflagration Ashland Fire & Rescue was reimbursed from FEMA. $1,000 07.12.00.510320 Total $80,936 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries FROM: Maria Harris, Planning Manager, harrism@ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The Planning Commission recommended approval of proposed land use ordinance amendments which allow medical marijuana dispensaries ("dispensaries") in the commercial (C-1), employment (E-1), and industrial (M-1) zones as a special permitted use, and prohibit dispensaries in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. Adoption of the proposed amendments will allow dispensaries to locate on properties that meet the state spacing requirements and that are adjacent to a boulevard street in the C- 1, E-1, and M-1 zones (see attached map). As a special permitted use, dispensaries would be required to meet a set of objective standards including location on a boulevard, housed in a permanent building with no outside storage, site design review required for building and site modifications, security bars on exterior windows and doors prohibited, drive-up uses prohibited, operating hours from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., secure disposal, and registration under the state system. At the March 18, 2014 meeting, the Council directed staff to draft ordinance amendments to address the location and review process for dispensaries for Commission consideration and recommendation. The proposed amendments require Council approval, and are scheduled for a public hearing and first reading. If the Council approves first reading, the ordinance amendments are scheduled for second reading at the July 15, 2014 meeting. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission Report on the proposed land use ordinance amendments is attached and includes detail on its recommendation. In general, the Commission believes dispensaries should be allowed in Ashland and suggests initially using a measured approach because dispensaries are a relatively new permitted use with limited information available about the associated impacts. Specifically, the Commission recommends requiring dispensaries to locate on boulevard streets in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones where other high volume retail uses are located. The Commission feels boulevards as the highest order streets are best suited to accommodate potentially high amounts of traffic generated by dispensaries, and these busier streets provide natural surveillance to address security concerns raised at Commission meetings. Finally, the Commission agrees that dispensaries should not be located in the downtown and recommends extending the prohibition to the Downtown Design Standards Zone which includes the properties abutting the north side of Lithia Way (see maps on pages 21 and 22 of the attached record). Staff recommends adding dispensaries to the list of prohibited home occupations for second reading (see below). Since the Commission made its recommendation, it has come to staff s attention that applications for dispensaries to operate as a home occupation may become an issue. The proposed amendments were not intended to allow dispensaries as home occupations. Page 1 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND In Ashland, home occupations are governed by chapter 18.94 of the land use ordinance and approved through a ministerial permit. Home occupations are small commercial ventures that are appropriate in scale and impact to operate in a residence, and the requirements concentrate on maintaining the appearance and occupancy compatible with surrounding residences (e.g., limitations on number of employees, customer traffic, deliveries, and signage). Staff discussed this item with the Commission at the June 10, 2014 meeting, and the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that Council modify the home occupation ordinance to list dispensaries as a prohibited use. If the Council agrees that this amendment should be made, staff will add the following language to the ordinance for second reading. SECTION 18.94.120 Prohibited Uses. The following uses are prohibited as home occupations: A. Any activity that produces radio or TV interference, noise, glare, vibration, smoke or odor beyond allowable levels as determined by local, state or federal standards. B. Any activity involving on-site retail sales, except as allowed in the Historic Railroad District or items that are incidental to the occupational use, such as the sale of beauty products from salons, lesson books or sheet music for music teachers, or computer software for computer consultants. C. Any uses described in this section or uses with similar objectionable impacts because of automobile traffic, noise, glare, odor, dust, smoke or vibration: 1. Ambulance service; 2. Ammunition or firearm sales; 3. Ammunition reloading business; 4. Animal hospital, veterinary services, kennels or animal boarding; 5. Auto and other vehicle repair, including auto painting; 6. Repair, reconditioning or storage of motorized vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles or large equipment on-site; and 7. Medical marijuana dispensaries. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and deliberations on the proposed amendments on May 13, 2014, and approved the attached Planning Commission report on June 10, 2014. Prior to the public hearing, the Commission held study sessions on March 25, April 8, and April 22. The minutes from the meetings are included in the attached record. Oregon has allowed physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes since 1999. The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3460 which provides a system for registration and regulation of dispensaries. The new regulations make the siting and operation of registered dispensaries legal in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural land. Additional requirements include a 1,000 feet separation from another dispensary and from a public or private elementary, secondary, or career school attended primarily by minors. The law went into effect on March 1, 2014. Page 2 of 3 A, CITY OF ASHLAND In 2014, the Legislature approved Senate Bill 1531 affirming that local jurisdictions have the authority to establish local restrictions for dispensaries and granting cities and counties the ability to put into effect a temporary dispensary moratorium to allow additional time to enact local restrictions. Senate Bill 1531 allowed any moratorium enacted prior to May 1, 2014 to have a retroactive effective date of March 1, 2013. The additional regulations from Senate Bill 1531 went into effect March 19, 2014. At the January 21 meeting, the City Council discussed the possibility of restricting dispensaries in the downtown area, as well as requiring a more discretionary review process for dispensaries immediately adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. At the February 4 meeting, the Council passed an ordinance removing the "unlawful activity" provision of the business license code (AMC 6.04), thus avoiding the need for City staff to determine whether any particular business is conducted in compliance with state and federal law. Notably, the business license code change did not preclude the possibility of federal prosecution of dispensaries for violations of federal law. At the March 18 meeting, the Council directed staff to draft ordinance amendments as soon as possible to address the location and review process for dispensaries for the Planning Commission consideration and recommendation. Specifically, the Council outlined an ordinance amendment that would: 1) permit dispensaries in the C-1 and M-1 zones, 2) prohibit dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown), and 3) require a conditional use permit for dispensaries in the employment zone. Subsequently, the Council approved an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on dispensaries at the April 15 meeting. Specifically, the moratorium temporarily prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown) and E-I zones. However, lots that are located in E-1 zones and front boulevards are not subject to the moratorium. The moratorium is effective from March 1, 2014 until May 1, 2015, unless rescinded earlier. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of first reading of the ordinance amendments and adding language prohibiting dispensaries as home occupations for second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve first reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030 and 18.52.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code establishing medical marijuana dispensaries as a special permitted use in the commercial (C-1), employment (E-1), and industrial (M-1) zoning districts," to direct staff to add a prohibition of medical marijuana dispensaries as a home occupation, and to move the ordinance on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Report 2. Proposed Land Use Ordinance Amendments for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 3. Map - Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Eligible Areas 4. Record for Planning Action 2014-00539 Page 3 of 3 11FAWA CITY OF ASHLAND Planning Commission Report DATE: June 10, 2014 TO: Ashland City Council FROM: Ashland Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendation Ordinance Amendments for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries PA#2014-00539 Summary The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries (Planning Action 2014-00539). The Commission held a public hearing and deliberations on the proposed amendments on May 13, 2014. Prior to the public hearing, the Commission held study sessions on March 25, April 8, and April 22. Recommendation The Commission supports allowing medical marijuana dispensaries ("dispensaries") in the community and believes individuals purchasing medical marijuana need legal and safe retail establishments. The Commission's primary concern is the lack of experience with and information about the impacts associated with this relatively new permitted use. While the Commission believes dispensaries should be allowed in Ashland, the Commission recommends initially using a careful approach so local experience can be established regarding the operation and impacts of dispensaries. The Planning Commission recommends allowing dispensaries in the C-I, E-1, and M-1 zones, and prohibiting dispensaries in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. The Commission recommends making dispensaries a "special permitted use" that must meet an objective set of standards. The Commission recommends extending the prohibition to the Downtown Design Standards Zone which includes properties located on both sides of Lithia Way, as well as the remainder of the downtown. In contrast, the C-I-D zone does not include properties abutting the north side of Lithia Way. The Commission discussed concerns about the amount of potential vehicular traffic visiting a dispensary, and particularly the impact on parking in the downtown. The special permitted use process is intended to provide clear land use requirements and a predictable planning approval process for business owners and neighbors. The special permitted use standards are intended to limit impacts to neighboring residential zones. As a special -2 permitted use, a proposed dispensary would need to be in an eligible zone and meet the following standards. • Property location on a street classified as a boulevard. • Hours of operation between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials. • Modifications 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. • Cannot include a drive-up use. • Provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. • Conforms to state requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries and is registered with the State. The Commission believes dispensaries are most appropriately located on the busiest boulevard streets where other high volume retail uses are located to address potential security and traffic impacts. The Commission believes that locating dispensaries on streets with high volumes and continuous traffic provides additional security and natural surveillance. In addition, the Commission discussed the potential vehicle trips generated by dispensaries and the desire to direct the traffic to the higher order boulevard streets. The projected number of vehicle trips generated by dispensaries is not available because dispensaries are a relatively new use. The Commission believes several additional requirements are necessary to address potential security and traffic issues, as well as compatibility with surrounding businesses and nearby residences. As a result, the following items are included in the special use standards. • Limiting hours of operation, requiring secure disposal of marijuana remnants, and prohibiting outside storage with dispensaries to address security concerns about activities outside of the building, especially in early morning and late evening hours. • Prohibiting drive-up uses in conjunction with dispensaries to address traffic issues, especially the impact of potentially high volumes of traffic on drive-up queues and the vehicle stacking area. • Locating in permanent buildings to prevent dispensaries from operating in temporary or portable structures. • Consistency of building and site modifications with site design and use standards and prohibiting security bars on windows and doors so that dispensaries look like other retail uses in Ashland from the exterior. Ashland Planning Commission 20 E. Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 18.089 18.32.025, 18.40.030, AND 18.52.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL (C-1), EMPLOYMENT (E-1), AND INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold 1ined44reugb 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 Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 in 2013 (ORS 475.314) which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities; and WHEREAS, under Oregon law, local governments may regulate the operation and location of certain types of businesses within their jurisdiction limits except when such action has been specifically preempted by state statute; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations permitting medical marijuana dispensaries as a new land use within the City and minimizing the potential impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code on May 13, 2014, , and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on June 17, 2014 and, following the close of the public An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page I hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in the manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, that 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. Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to include the following new definition: SECTION 18.08.486 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Any facility registered by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.300 to 475.346 that dispenses marijuana pursuant to ORS 475.314. SECTION 3. Section 18.32.025 [C-1 Retail Commercial District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. If parking areas are located within 200' of a residential district, they shall be shielded from residences by a fence or solid vegetative screen a minimum of 4' in height. C. Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities. These uses may only be located in the Freeway Overlay District as shown on the official zoning map. D. Residential uses. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 2 I. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1-D District. For the purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying CA or C-1 -D District. 4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-I-D District. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses are defined as any establishment which by design, physical facilities, service or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods other than automobile fuel, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicles. The components of a drive-up use include kiosks, canopies or other structures; windows; stalls; queuing lanes and associated driveways. Drive- up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The four existing non-conforming financial institution drive- up use in operation in the Historic Interest Area as of August 7, 2012 may redevelop or relocate within the C-1 and C-1-D zoned portions of Ashland Historic Interest Area subject to the following requirements: a. Relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use within the C-I or C-1-D zoned portions of the Historic Interest Area shall be subject to a Type 11 Site Review procedure as a Special Permitted Use. b. Relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses may only be placed on a secondary building elevation, and only accessed from an alley or driveway. A secondary building elevation is defined as a building's side or rear elevation which does not face a street, other than an alley. c. Driveways serving relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses shall not enter from or exit to a higher order street frontage or through a primary elevation of the building, and driveways or queuing lanes shall be not placed between a building and the right-of-way other than an alley. d. No demolition of or exterior change to a building considered to be a historic resource shall be permitted to accommodate the relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use. e. Regardless of the number of drive-up windows/lanes in use in the current location, with a relocation or remodel the number of windows/lanes shall be reduced to one (1). An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 3 3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: a. The average waiting time in line for each vehicle shall not exceed five minutes. Failure to maintain this average waiting time may be grounds for revocation of the approval. b. All facilities providing drive-up service shall provide at least two designated parking spaces immediately beyond the service window or provide other satisfactory methods to allow customers requiring excessive waiting time to receive service while parked. c. A means of egress for vehicular customers who wish to leave the waiting line shall be provided. d. The grade of the stacking area to the drive-up shall either be flat or downhill to eliminate excessive fuel consumption and exhaust during the wait in line. e. The drive-up shall be designed to provide as much natural ventilation as possible to eliminate the buildup of exhaust gases. f. Sufficient stacking area shall be provided to ensure that public rights-of-way are not obstructed. g. The sound level of communications systems shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line and shall otherwise comply with the Ashland Municipal Code regarding sound levels. It. The number of drive-up uses shall not exceed the 12 in existence on July 1, 1984. Drive-up uses may be transferred to another location in accord with all requirements of this section. The number of drive-up window stalls shall not exceed 1 per location, even if the transferred use had greater than one stall. i. A separate ministerial "Drive-Up Transfer" permit shall be obtained for the transfer of any drive-up use when such transfer is not associated with a Site Review or Conditional Use permit application in order to formally document transfer of the use. j. Drive-up uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer shall be deemed to have expired after unused for six (6) months. Discontinuation of a drive-up use is considered to have occurred when the drive-up use is documented as having ceased on site through a ministerial, Site Review or Conditional Use permit review, or upon on-site verification by the Staff Advisor. k. All components of a drive-up use shall be removed within sixty (60) days of discontinuation of the use through abandonment, transfer, relocation or redevelopment. F. Kennel and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. G. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary must be located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, except that such use is not permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone. 2. Operating hours must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 4 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary must not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by- products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary's exterior refuse containers. 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon's medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 - ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Mariiuana Facilities. SECTION 4. Section 18.40.030 030 [E-1 Employment District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to lam where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food products with 200' of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 5 a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. 1. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located within 200' of a residential district. J. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary must be located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. 2. Operating hours must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary must be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary must be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary must not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by- products; such remnants or bv-products must not be placed within the dispensary's exterior refuse containers. 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon's medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 - ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 5. Section 18.52.020 [M-1 Industrial District -Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.52.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage use. B. Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and motor freight stations and facilities. C. Public and public utility service buildings, structures and uses. D. Permitted, special permitted and Econditional uses in the Employment District listed in Section 18.40.020. 18.40.030 and 18.40.040 of this Chapter, except residential uses. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 6 Medical marijuana dispensaries must meet the special use requirements of 18.40.030.J. E. Building materials sales yards. F. Permitted uses in the Employment Distriet listed in Seetion 18.40/020 of this C--hapter. 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 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 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 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 7 f L, l k O p' s CL CL co , Cl) 0 a 70 O o- a c o cz c v Q. p U) -0 cam= c to O to N CO O N 4-- , L o m 0 (1) cu C-) 0 O (6 O U aci L c cn a) - L) E CD O a) -0 p c6 c E 1 - c~ N o a o c2 o E-c i/ uJ c~ ° o o 0 - U r 65 -Z/ N - w ~ (1 i ,7 - r. any novq -N i R~ 1 ^ I LTS 1~ LO f ti ce) j f1 0 ~ o f ~ 1 11 _ J CITY OF ASHLAND RECORD FOR PLANNING ACTION #2014-00539 PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 [Definitions], Chapter 18.32 [C-1 Retail Commercial District], Chapter 18.40 [E-1 Employment District], and Chapter 18.52 IM-1 Industrial District] regarding the establishment of medical marguana dispensaries. DA1TE ITEM PAGE 5/13/14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 14 5/13/14 Speaker Request Forms 5-8 5/13/14 Planning Commission Packet Agenda 9 Staff Report 10-13 Proposed Ordinance 14-20 Maps of Potential Dispensary Locations 21-22 Public Input Received to Date 23-37 4/22/14 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 3840 4/08/14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 4145 3/25/14 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 4648 CITY Of ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES May 13, 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 Maria Harris, Planning Manager Richard Kaplan Amy Gunter, Assistant Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Mike Morris (Left meeting at 7:10 pm) ANNOUCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the Normal Neighborhood Plan public hearing has been continued to the May 20th City Council Meeting. The Planning Commission's report on short term home rentals will also be presented to the Council on May 20. Commissioner Brown commented on the recent Building Appeals Board hearing and Commissioner Dawkins provided a short update on the Downtown Beautification Committee meeting. CONSENTAGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. Commissioners BrownlPeddicord mis to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. [Commissioner Miller abstained from approval of the April 8, 2014 minutes] PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014.00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 1 of 4 1 includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R•1.5; ASSESSOR'S MAPITAX LOTS: 391E 04CA 2707. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Dawkins, and Kaplan declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Assistant Planner Amy Gunter explained the applicant's proposal to construct a new 3,414 sq.ft. home within the Water Resource Protection Zone and Ashland Floodplain Corridor does not clearly meet the approval criteria, which is why this hearing has been scheduled. She reviewed the application, which also includes the removal of 13 trees and the construction of a 615, sq.ft. accessory residential unit, and stated the property is located on a flaglot and the majority of the site is within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Ms. Gunter reviewed the site plan and provided a description of the subject property, and called attention to the code provision that states to the greatest extent feasible structures should be placed outside the Floodplain Corridor. She explained the applicant's findings indicate the existing 720 sq.ft. residence will remain on the site and will be added onto with the new construction, however current building standards require the finished floor elevations to be two feet above flood elevations and staff questions whether the existing structure will be able to remain. Ms. Gunter stated the applicant's position is that the existing non-conforming structure is their reason for the choice of placement, but this would place the structure completely within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor and also encroaches into the Water Resource Protection Zone (WRPZ). Mr. Molnar clarified there are two different areas of land use code that apply to this proposal, floodplain development and water resource protection. The floodplain protection language was adopted in 1989 and is primarily for protection of public, life and safety, and the protection of city infrastructure; and the water resource ordinance is primarily for the protection of the riparian area, including vegetation and topography. Ms. Gunter elaborated on why staff does not believe the existing house can be part of the new structure. She stated there would be a substantial amount of work to bring the structure up to current construction standards. She noted the applicants have proposed to change the roof line, and the existing slab on grade foundation is not permitted and will have to be raised to meet the requirement for the finished floor elevation to be two feet above the base flood elevation. Staff was asked if they have any objections to the proposed accessory residential unit and Ms. Gunter stated No. She added the structure is outside the Floodplain Corridor, is the correct size, and provides the required parking. Applicant's Presentation Carlos Delgado/Stated this proposal is for a single family replacement structure on a flaglot and provided a revised site plan that shifts the location of the structure 15 feet to the east. Steve Asher/Stated the property owner searched many properties before purchasing this one, and noted the owners desire for a single family residence where she can age in place and walk to downtown. He stated they talked with staff before purchasing this properly and asked if they could remove the structures and at no time were they informed this would affect their ability to build. He added it was not until they held the pre-application conference that they heard staffs concerns about the placement of the new house. i Mr. Delgado stated the revised proposal places the residence outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain line and outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and he read aloud their revised findings statements (Exhibit #2014-04). Mr. Delgado was asked to clarify the differences between the site plan in the packet materials and the new plan presented tonight. Mr. Delgado stated the residence has been shifted 15 feet so it is now outside the Water Resource Protection Zone and the only issue that remains is that the structure is still within the Ashland Floodplain Corridor. Commissioner Mindlin commented that by moving the structure it supports staffs claim that the applicants are not Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 2 of 4 2 C really incorporating the old structure. Mr. Delgado stated building officials allow you to keep a single wall standing and stated this is a viable and legal means to do a renovation. Commissioner Brown stated this is a stretch, especially since the floor will need to be raised. The Commission posed additional questions, including why didn't the applicant change their plans after the pre-application conference, and how do they meet to the maximum extent feasible criteria. i Public Input Gina Heckley/135 Morninglight/Read aloud the letters of support provided in advance from herself and Carolyn Allman. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on the process and whether the applicants were given misleading information. Mr. Molnar stated any action on this property would require a land use decision with public notice and he has a hard time believing staff would have provided a definitive recommendation at the counter. He added the requirements were clearly addressed in the pre-application report the applicant received. Staff was asked about the applicants claim that it is legal to replace the building, when none of it will be staying. Mr. Molnar stated the building code language states the building official can determine what types of upgrades will be needed, however this body has full discretion to make a determination on whether this is an addition or whether it is a reconstruction. Applicant's Rebuttal Carlos Delgado/Stated that adding onto the structure and bringing it up to current standards is a safer situation for property owners downstream. He commented on the intent of the ordinance and stated because the site is flat, making changes to the building location to move it further from the floodplain corridor would not change the risk. Mr. Delgado stated the property owner has the right to utilize the area where the previous structures were located and they believe this is a very reasonable proposal. Martha Howard/Noted her investment in the community and stated she found this property after years of searching. Ms. Howard stated they received some assurances from staff that they could build on the existing footprint and noted they are well outside the FEMA 100 year floodplain. She stated it is unreasonable to ask someone with a one-acre lot to build next to the dirt easement and stated they were hoping to have some front yard space. Mr. Molnar suggested the Commission consider continuing this hearing, which would allow both the Commission and staff adequate time to review the applicant's new proposal. Mr. Delgado was asked if they would be willing to grant a 60-day time extension of the 120-day clock and he agreed. Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the hearing at 8:30 pm. Deliberations & Decision Commissioner Kaplan voiced support for continuing the hearing so that staff can provide an updated staff report on the applicant's new proposal. Commissioner Brown agreed and stated he would like a revised staff report that addresses the questions that have been raised this evening. Commissioner Peddicord questioned if there are other site constraints that impacted the chosen location of the residence and stated this information would be helpful. Commissioner Mindlin announced this action will be continued to the May 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2014.00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 [Definitions], Chapter 18.32 [C-1 Retail Commercial District], Chapter 18.40 [E-1 Employment District], and Chapter 18.52 [M-1 Industrial District] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 3 of 4 3 Staff Report Planning Manager Maria Harris stated in March the State Legislature granted local jurisdictions the authority to establish local restrictions for medical marijuana dispensaries and the City Council directed staff to fast track an ordinance that establishes regulations for the City of Ashland. She noted the City Council passed a temporary moratorium in April that prohibited dispensaries in the C-1-D and E-1 zones, however lots in the E-1 zone that front boulevards were not subject to the moratorium. Ms. Harris stated the ordinance before the Commission is based on several study sessions held by the Planning Commission and would allow dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones and must meet the following standards: • Property locations must be on a street classified as a boulevard. • Hours of operations are between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Dispensaries must be enclosed in a permanent building with no outside storage of materials. • Modifications to the site or exterior of the building must be consistent with the Site Design and Use Standards, and security bars are prohibited on the windows and doors. • Drive-up uses are not allowed. • Dispensaries must provide for the secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. • Dispensaries must conform to the state requirements and must be registered with the state. Ms. Harris clarified under the proposed ordinance dispensaries would not be permitted in the Downtown Design Standards Zone. She also commented on outdoor use and clarified the Ashland Police Department confirmed that this would be considered public use and is illegal. Ms. Harris stated the Commission's recommendation will be forward to the City Council hearing on June 10, where they will make the final decision. Public Input William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated the proposed ordinance offers a solid balance between those who need access to this medicine and residential concerns, and encouraged them to recommend approval. Linda Stickle/492 Rogue Place/Thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their work and stated her neighborhood feels the proposed ordinance is just what is needed. Ms. Stickle stated it is a practical approach and keeps dispensaries on the main roads and away from neighborhoods, and strongly encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Carol Kim/422 Rogue Place/Agreed with the previous speakers and stated this is a great proposal. Ms. Kim stated this will put dispensaries in the best locations with easy access for patients and away from neighborhoods. She noted the petition included in the record of those that support this ordinance and encouraged the Commission to vote Yes. Nola Katopothisl473 Williamson Way/Stated she is not against medical marijuana but there are certain locations that are more appropriate for dispensaries and voiced her support for keeping them away from neighborhoods and children. Commissioner Mindlin closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Thompson/Miller m/s to recommend the City Council's adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Brown, Dawkins, Kaplan, Miller, Peddicord and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 7.0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission May 13, 2014 Page 4 of 4 4 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name lY)(IQ. ~tleKle (please prim)) p n r Address (noP.O.B~~ox) IT / aq Le r 1' n Phom6gj_gp ,Jq71 Email~)m:CY~Y1 t~ Ca '6 ~ 7 a Tonight's Meeting Date ~J Regular Meeting Agenda item numbere_6 OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) i Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be pernvined to speak. 77ne Ashland Planning Connmission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public fort nn on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the roost. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 5 Planning Commission l Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name Ca~.~. I iiy (please print) Address (no P.O. Box) t (JL Phone .9 tl j -Z/ 5 VEmail h r'it c c ~i M IG In LJ ~ r ~ . (L ~ Tonight's Meeting Date S I 1 Regular Meeting Agenda item number_]Q_k OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. 777e Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public fo ian on non-agenda items unless time constraints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are mrreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the roan. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 6 Planning Commission t Speaker Request Form I) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name I (please print) 9 46 I I 1` ~ Add P.O. Box) n G l1. ({Z1,t (~gi/► Phone !O o2 Email s 1/Ct? l~ e L < ~l Tonight's Meeting Date Z/y Regular Meeting Agenda item number OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) /o l Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: I ~I I The Public Meeting Lmv requires that all citymeetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and during public forum on non-agenda items unless time cotrstr•aints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order of proceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud or disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 7 Planning Commission Speaker Request Form 1) Complete this form and return it to the Secretary prior to the discussion.of the item you wish to speak about. 2) Speak to the Planning Commission from the table podium microphone. 3) State your name and address for the record. 4) Limit your comments to the amount of time given to you by the Chair, usually 5 minutes. 5) If you present written materials, please give a copy to the Secretary for the record. 6) You may give written comments to the Secretary for the record if you do not wish to speak. 7) Speakers are solely responsible for the content of their public statement. Name UV 1 VB "K ( )Ale-y (please print) 'I Address (no P.O. Box)' (p0 W; WA Uln '~-o hl Phone e~ Email W C t A/ R V Ds( d/CO C~~ W~ Tonight's Meeting Date t 3.I ~U 1 `7 Regular Meeting I I Agenda item number V( OR Topic for public forum (non agenda item) 0aPiN/INCL- UAI D'SV&ri1-pr2iES Land Use Public Hearing For: Against: Challenge for Conflict of Interest or Bias If you are challenging a member (planning commissioner) with a conflict of interest or bias, please write your allegation complete with supporting facts on this form and deliver it to the clerk immediately. The Chair will address the written challenge with the member. Please be respectful of the proceeding and do not interrupt. You may also provide testimony about the challenge when you testify during the normal order of proceedings. Written Comments/Challenge: The Public Meeting Law requires that all city meetings are open to the public. Oregon law does not always require that the public be permitted to speak. The Ashland Planning Commission generally invites the public to speak on agenda items and duringpublic forum on non-agenda items unless time cons6•aints limit public testimony. No person has an absolute right to speak or participate in every phase of a proceeding. Please respect the order ofproceedings for public hearings and strictly follow the directions of the presiding officer. Behavior or actions which are unreasonably loud ar disruptive are disrespectful, and may constitute disorderly conduct. Offenders will be requested to leave the room. Comments and statements by speakers do not represent the opinion of the City Council, City Officers or employees or the City of Ashland. 8 Note: Anyone wishing to speak at any Planning Commission meeting is encouraged to do so. If you wish to speak, please rise and, after you have been recognized by the Chair, give your name and complete address for the record. You will then be allowed to speak. Please note that the public testimony may be limited by the Chair and normally is not allowed after the Public Hearing is closed. ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 13, 2014 AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM, Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street It. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. CONSENTAGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. April 8, 2014 Regular Meeting. 2. April 22, 2014 Study Session. IV. PUBLIC FORUM V. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: 2014-00307 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street OWNERS: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request for a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review and Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction Permit approval to construct a new 3,414 square foot, single-story single family residence. The application also requests a Conditional Use Permit approval for a 615 square foot Accessory Residential Unit for the property located at 777 Oak Street. The property is subject to the Physical Constraints and Water Resource permits due to the location of the proposed development within the adopted floodplain for Ashland Creek. The existing approximately 720 square foot residence on the site is proposed to be retained and added onto with the new construction. The application includes a request to remove 13 trees on site. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAPITAX LOTS: 39 1E 04CA 2707. Vl. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION 2014-00539 DESCRIPTION: A proposal to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance Chapter 18.08 [Definitions], Chapter 18.32 [C-1 Retail Commercial District], Chapter 18.40 [E-1 Employment District], and Chapter 18.52 [M-1 Industrial District] regarding the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries. VII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ASHLAND OW& In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541A88-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1). 9 ASHLAND PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT May 13, 2014 PLANNING ACTION: #2014-00539 APPLICANT: City of Ashland ORDINANCE REFERENCES: AMC 18.08 Definitions AMC 18.32 C-1 Retail Commercial District AMC 18.40 E-1 Employment District AMC 18.52 M-1 Industrial District REQUEST: Amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code establishing medical marijuana dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. 1. Relevant Facts A. Background Oregon has allowed physicians to prescribe marijuana for medicinal purposes since 1999. The 2013 Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3460 that provides a system for registration and regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries ("dispensaries"). The new regulations make the siting and operation of registered dispensaries legal in areas zoned for commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural land. Additional requirements include a 1,000 feet separation from another dispensary and from a public or private elementary, secondary, or career school attended primarily by minors. The law went into effect on March 1, 2014. In 2014, the Legislature approved Senate Bill 1531 granting local jurisdictions the clear authority to establish local restrictions for dispensaries and the ability to put into effect a temporary dispensary moratorium to allow cities and counties additional time to enact restrictions. The additional regulations went into effect March 19, 2014. At the January 21 meeting, the City Council discussed the possibility of restricting dispensaries in the downtown area, as well as requiring a more discretionary review process for dispensaries immediately adjacent to or across the street from a residential zone. At the February 4 meeting, the Council passed an ordinance removing the "unlawful activity" provision of the business license code (AMC 6.04), thus relieving City staff of the responsibility of monitoring dispensaries that are explicitly legal and regulated under state law. Dispensaries are an unlawful activity under federal law, and the business license code change did not preclude the possibility of federal prosecution of such a business. At the March 18 meeting, the Council directed staff to draft ordinance amendments as soon as possible to address the location and review process for Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page i of 4 10 dispensaries for the Planning Commission consideration and recommendation. Specifically, the Council outlined an ordinance amendment that would: 1) permit dispensaries in the C-1 and M-1 zones, 2) prohibit dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown), and 3) require a conditional use permit for dispensaries in the employment zone. Subsequently, the Council approved an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on dispensaries at the April 15 meeting. Specifically, the moratorium temporarily prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries in the C-1-D zone (downtown) and E-1 zones. However, lots that are located in E-1 zones and front boulevards are not subject to the moratorium. The moratorium is effective from March 1, 2014 until May 1, 2015. B. Ordinance Amendments The proposed Land Use Code amendments address the requirements for establishing and operating a dispensary in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. The amendments are based on the direction from the Council and the Commission's discussions at the March 25, April 8, and April 22 meetings. The draft ordinance amendments add dispensaries as a special permitted use in the C-1, E-1, and M-1 zones. Under the draft ordinance amendments, a proposed dispensary is required to meet the following special permitted use standards: • Property location on a street classified as a boulevard. • Hours of operation between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. • Enclosed in a permanent building, and no outside storage of materials. • Modifications 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. • Cannot have a drive-up use. • Provide for secure disposal of any marijuana remnants. • Conforms to state requirements for medical marijuana dispensaries and is registered with the State. As staff understands the issues, the Commission supports allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in the community, and believes individuals purchasing medical marijuana need legal and safe retail establishments. The Commission's primary concern is the lack of experience with the impacts associated with dispensaries. Dispensaries are a relatively new permitted retail use in Oregon as well as several other states, and the states allow different types of use (e.g., medical vs. recreational) with varying levels of regulation and administration. As a result, information about the impacts of dispensaries is lacking. While the Commission believes medical marijuana dispensaries should be allowed in Ashland, the Commission recommends initially using a more cautious approach so local experience can be established regarding the operation and impacts of dispensaries. Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 2 of 4 11 I The Commission recommends making dispensaries a special permitted use that must meet a specific set of performance measures. The Commission feels that dispensaries are most appropriately located on the busiest boulevard streets where high volume retail uses are currently located. The location combined with several operational requirements will limit impacts to neighboring residential zones, and provide clear land use requirements and a predictable planning approval process for business owners and neighbors. The special permitted use is used for dispensaries because it utilizes an objective set of standards. If the operational requirements are satisfied, a dispensary as a special permitted use would be allowed in the green "eligible" areas shown on the attached map. In contrast, dispensaries as a conditional use would be evaluated individually on a case-by-case basis using the discretionary conditional use permit criteria and review process. In addition to the additional time and expense, a common concern is the perceived uncertainty of the conditional use permit review process. Many of the recommended special use standards, including location, hours of operation, drive-up use prohibition, and disposal, address potential security issues raised by the public and the Commission, and are covered in other cities' regulations (e.g., Boulder, Central Point, Tucson). The requirements that dispensaries be located in a permanent building and that the building meet the Site Design and Use Standards are to ensure dispensaries look like other retail uses in Ashland. In regards to the recommendation to limit dispensaries to properties located on boulevards, the concern is twofold - security and traffic impacts. The Commission discussed the additional security and natural surveillance provided by locating dispensaries on boulevard streets with continuous traffic. In addition, the Commission discussed the potential vehicle trips generated by dispensaries and the desire to direct the traffic to the busy boulevard streets. Information regarding the number of vehicle trips generated by dispensaries is not available because it is a relatively new legal use. For comparison, the following trip generation numbers are provided for a variety of uses. • a single-family home generates ten trips per day • a general office building generates 1.5 to 2 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area • a medical office generates 3.5 to 4.5 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area • a pharmacy without a drive-through window generates 8 to 11 trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area II. Procedural 18.108.170 Legislative amendments Planning Action PA 20U-00539 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 3 of 4 12 A. It may be necessary from time to time to amend the text of the Land Use Ordinance or make other legislative amendments in order to conform with the comprehensive plan or to meet other changes in circumstances and conditions. A legislative amendment is a legislative act solely within the authority of the Council. B. A legislative amendment may be initiated by the Council, by the Commission, or by application of a property owner or resident of the City. The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendment at its earliest practicable meeting after it is submitted, and within thirty days after the hearing, recommend to the Council, approval, disapproval, or modification of the proposed amendment. C. An application for amendment by a property owner or resident shall be filed with the Planning Department thirty days prior to the Commission meeting at which the 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. III. Conclusions and Recommendations If the Commission recommends approval of the attached ordinance, staff will prepare a formal recommendation to the Council for the Commission's review. The public hearing is scheduled at the Council on June 17, 2014. Attachments: • Draft Ordinance • Map - Eligible Locations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Downtown Design Standards zone prohibited) • Map - Eligible Locations for Medical Marijuana Dispensary (C-1-D zone prohibited) • Written Public Comments Received to Date Planning Action PA 2014-00539 Ashland Planning Division - Staff Report Applicant: City of Ashland Page 4 of 4 13 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 18.08, 18.32.025, 18.40.030, AND 18.52.020 OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE IN THE COMMERCIAL (C- 1), EMPLOYMENT (E-1), AND INDUSTRIAL (M-1) ZONING DISTRICTS Annotated to show as 'mss and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold Uned4hfGugh 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 Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 in 2013 (ORS 475.314) which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities; and WHEREAS, under Oregon law, local governments may regulate the operation and location of certain types of businesses with in their jurisdiction limits except when such action has specifically preempted by state statute; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined it is necessary to establish rules and regulations permitting medical marijuana dispensaries as a new land use within the City and minimizing the potential impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the amendments to Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code on May 13, 2014, , and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on June 17, 2014 and, 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 An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 1 14 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.08 [Definitions] is hereby amended to include the following new definition: SECTION 18.08.486 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. Any facility registered by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.300 to 475.346 that dispenses marijuana pursuant to ORS 475314. SECTION 3. Section 18.32.025 [C-1 Retail Commercial District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.32.025 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section and the requirements of Chapter 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Commercial laundry, cleaning and dyeing establishments. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Bowling alleys, auditoriums, skating rinks, and miniature golf courses. If parking areas are located within 200' of a residential district, they shall be shielded from residences by a fence or solid vegetative screen a minimum of 4' in height. C. Automobile fuel sales, and automobile and truck repair facilities. These uses may only be located in the Freeway Overlay District as shown on the official zoning map. D. Residential uses. 1. At least 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor, or at least 50% of the total lot area if there are multiple buildings shall be designated for permitted or special permitted uses, excluding residential. 2. Residential densities shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 District, and 60 dwelling units per acre in the C-1 -D District. For the i An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 2 15 purpose of density calculations, units of less than 500 square feet of gross habitable floor area shall count as 0.75 of a unit. 3. Residential uses shall be subject to the same setback, landscaping, and design standards as for permitted uses in the underlying C-1 or C-1-D District. 4. Off-street parking shall not be required for residential uses in the C-1-D District. 5. If the number of residential units exceeds 10, then at least 10% of the residential units shall be affordable for moderate income persons in accord with the standards established by resolution of the Ashland City Council through procedures contained in the resolution. The number of units required to be affordable shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit. E. Drive-up uses as defined and regulated as follows: 1. Drive-up uses are defined as any establishment which by design, physical facilities, service or by packaging procedures encourages or permits customers to receive services, obtain goods other than automobile fuel, or be entertained while remaining in their motor vehicles. The components of a drive-up use include kiosks, canopies or other structures; windows; stalls; queuing lanes and associated driveways. Drive-up uses may be approved in the C-1 District only, and only in the area east of a line drawn perpendicular to Ashland Street at the intersection of Ashland Street and Siskiyou Boulevard. 2. Drive-up uses are prohibited in Ashland's Historic Interest Area as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The four existing non-conforming financial institution drive-up use in operation in the Historic Interest Area as of August 7, 2012 may redevelop or relocate within the C-1 and C-1-D zoned portions of Ashland Historic Interest Area subject to the following requirements: a. Relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use within the C-1 or C-1-D zoned portions of the Historic Interest Area shall be subject to a Type II Site Review procedure as a Special Permitted Use. b. Relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses may only be placed on a secondary building elevation, and only accessed from an alley or driveway. A secondary building elevation is defined as a building's side or rear elevation which does not face a street, other than an alley. c. Driveways serving relocated or redeveloped drive-up uses shall not enter from or exit to a higher order street frontage or through a primary elevation of the building, and driveways or queuing lanes shall be not placed between a building and the right-of-way other than an alley. d. No demolition of or exterior change to a building considered to be a historic resource shall be permitted to accommodate the relocation or redevelopment of a drive-up use. e. Regardless of the number of drive-up windows/lanes in use in the current location, with a relocation or remodel the number of windows/lanes shall be reduced to one (1). 3. Drive-up uses are subject to the following criteria: a. The average waiting time in line for each vehicle shall not exceed five minutes. Failure to maintain this average waiting time may be grounds for revocation of the approval. b. All facilities providing drive-up service shall provide at least two designated parking spaces immediately beyond the service window or An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 3 16 provide other satisfactory methods to allow customers requiring excessive waiting time to receive service while parked. c. A means of egress for vehicular customers who wish to leave the waiting line shall be provided. d. The grade of the stacking area to the drive-up shall either be flat or downhill to eliminate excessive fuel consumption and exhaust during the wait in line. e. The drive-up shall be designed to provide as much natural ventilation as possible to eliminate the buildup of exhaust gases. f. Sufficient stacking area shall be provided to ensure that public rights-of- way are not obstructed. g. The sound level of communications systems shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line and shall otherwise comply with the Ashland Municipal Code regarding sound levels. h. The number of drive-up uses shall not exceed the 12 in existence on July 1, 1984. Drive-up uses may be transferred to another location in accord with all requirements of this section. The number of drive-up window stalls shall not exceed 1 per location, even if the transferred use had greater than one stall. i. A separate ministerial "Drive-Up Transfer" permit shall be obtained for the transfer of any drive-up use when such transfer is not associated with a Site Review or Conditional Use permit application in order to formally document transfer of the use. j. Drive-up uses which are discontinued without a properly permitted transfer shall be deemed to have expired after unused for six (6) months. Discontinuation of a drive-up use is considered to have occurred when the drive-up use is documented as having ceased on site through a ministerial, Site Review or Conditional Use permit review, or upon on-site verification by the Staff Advisor. k. All components of a drive-up use shall be removed within sixty (60) days of discontinuation of the use through abandonment, transfer, relocation or redevelopment. F. Kennel and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. G. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary is located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard, except that such use shall not be permitted in the Downtown Design Standards zone. 2. Operating hours shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same clay. 3. The dispensary shall be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary shall be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary shall not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary shall provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products: such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary's' exterior refuse containers. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 4 17 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon's medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 - ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 4. Section 18.40.030 030 [E-1 Employment District - Special Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.40.030 Special Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright subject to the requirements of this section, including all requirements of 18.72, Site Design and Use Standards. A. Bottling plants, cleaning and dyeing establishments, laundries and creameries. 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located to the greatest extend feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. 2. The use shall comply with all requirements of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. B. Wholesale storage and distribution establishments. Provided, however, that for the uses specified in subsection A and B above, no deliveries or shipments shall be made from 9pm to 7am where the property on which the use is located is within 200 feet of any residential district. C. Recycling depots, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. D. Kennels and veterinary clinics where animals are housed outside, provided the use is not located within 200' of a residential district. E. Residential uses. As indicated as R-Overlay on the official zoning map, and in conformance with the Overlay Zones chapter 18.56. F. Cabinet, carpentry, machine, and heating shops, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. G. Manufacture of food products, but not including the rendering of fats or oils. For any manufacture of food products with 200' of a residential district: 1. All objectionable odors associated with the use shall be confined to the lot upon which the use is located, to the greatest extent feasible. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. Odors which are in violation of this section include but are not limited to the following: a. Odors from solvents, chemicals or toxic substances. b. Odors from fermenting food products. c. Odors from decaying organic substances or human or animal waste. 2. Mechanical equipment shall be located on the roof or the side of a building with the least exposure to residential districts. Provided, however, that it may be located at any other location on or within the structure or lot where the noise emanating from the equipment is no louder, as measured from the nearest residential district, than if located on the side of the building with least exposure to residential districts. Mechanical equipment shall be fully screened and buffered. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 5 18 H. Cold Storage Plants, if such uses are located greater than 200' from the nearest residential district. 1. Automobile and truck repair facilities, excluding auto body repair and paint shops. All cars and trucks associated with the use must be screened from view from the public right-of-way by a total sight obscuring fence. Facilities of 3 bays or larger shall not be located within 200' of a residential district. J. Medical marijuana dispensaries meeting all of the following requirements: 1. The dispensary is located on a property with a boundary line adjacent to a boulevard. 2. Operating hours shall be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. of the same day. 3. The dispensary shall be located in a permanent building and may not locate in a trailer, cargo container, or motor vehicle. Outdoor storage of merchandise, raw materials, or other material associated with the dispensary is prohibited. 4. Any modifications to the subject site or exterior of a building housing the dispensary shall be consistent with the Site Design Use Standards, and obtain Site Review approval if required by section 18.72.030. Security bars or grates on windows and doors are prohibited. 5. The dispensary shall not have a drive-up use. 6. The dispensary shall provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products: such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary's' exterior refuse containers. 7. The dispensary is registered with the Oregon Health Authority under the state of Oregon's medical marijuana facility registration system under ORS 475.300 - ORS 475.346, and meets the requirements of OAR Chapter 333 Division 8 Medical Marijuana Facilities. SECTION 5. Section 18.52.020 [M-1 Industrial District-Permitted Uses] is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTION 18.52.020 Permitted Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: A. Any manufacturing, processing, assembling, research, wholesale or storage use. B. Railroad yards and freight stations, trucking and motor freight stations and facilities. C. Public and public utility service buildings, structures and uses. D. Permitted, special permitted and 6conditional uses in the Employment District listed in Section 18.40.020. 18.40.030 and 18.40.040 of this Chapter, except residential uses. Medical marijuana dispensaries shall meet the special use requirements of 18.40.030.J. E. Building materials sales yards. F. Pe ".itted uses On the Employment DiStFiGt lusted OR SeGtien 18.40/020 i r this Chaptert. 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. An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 6 19 SECTION 8. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-4) 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 12014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this _ day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney An Ordinance Amending AMC Title 18 for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 7 20 co N a U) -a 0 N cu o o. III 0 CL ~ cz C: cu L) a_ ; cn Ii Q IN Q m O O E O co Cu to N M O N c (6 O a O . C ` Co 2: o OU N cu O N = O~ N Q f0 = C U b E for N - O~j a O 3a Q) L) cc 0 0-0 0 0 L) M L) ~ * I ~l - U n - r 1 C X , y ~ Cl) ' k I t I ~I Imo- I' I I __JL_ P 1 W N Ili I { ~ r..~r~ Imo! - O ~j I I. L6 J$ i&6 ~r r O r r~ o L, 1 R E:C'EJ YM From: "Carol Kim" <horacekim 1hotmail.com> APR 22'2014 To: tbrownpcc@-Qmail.com, rpkaplan46(@gmail.com, hmillerCc_ieffnet.org, sassettata.mind.net, molnarb(&ashland.or.us, tmpeddicord cDgmail.com, Ikthompson@hotmail.com Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 7:30:52 PM Subject: April 22nd & medical marijuana dispensaries Dear Commissioners & Staff, My name is Carol Kim. I want to thank you for listening patiently to me at your last meeting as I spoke on behalf of the Williamson Way neighborhood. I am not gifted in public speaking. I would very much like to attend your April 22nd study session to hear more of your discussion but I will either be late or unable to attend due to one of my children's school activities. Instead, I am sending this short e-mail. I really appreciate how hard you are working on the medical marijuana dispensary issue. It is so new, with so many unknowns, that it isn't an easy situation to figure out. I looked over your packet and was very impressed with what you have already come up with, especially having to work under time constraints. Your current ideas really address our neighborhood's concerns, as well as leaving plenty of options for new businesses to develop, in much better and more accessible locations. Thank you very much for your continued hard work on this. Having now been to several city meetings, I am seeing firsthand how much hard work, including long hours!, goes into city planning and governance! I can say with sincerity that I appreciate your willingness to tackle the many different city planning issues, carefully examining all of the positions. Carol Kim, 422 Rogue PI., Ashland 23 r C April Lucas From: Bill Clary [BClary@dadco.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 1:11 PM To: lucasa@ashland.or.us R E CU V E D Subject: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries & E-1 Zoning APR 16 2014 Dear Ms. Lucas, Could you again please provide the following email to Commissioner Dawkins: Dear Commissioner Dawkins, As a resident of the Williamson Way neighborhood, I want to make it clear that our opposition to a dispensary at the 400 Williamson Way address is not due to the product and/or service they intend to provide as was implied during the recent City Council meeting's public testimony. Our neighborhood would be equally opposed to any business that would generate similar traffic. We would be opposed to a traditional pharmacy, a bar, a restaurant, a grocery store, a gas station, etc. Basically any business that would impact the quiet, pedestrian oriented nature of our neighborhood. The businesses that have operated on Williamson Way have been lower traffic, medical office or traditional office oriented, that typically hold M-F, 9am-Spm hours. These are ideal businesses for the mixed use E-1 zone that our neighborhood borders. The situation that has developed at 400 Williamson Way has been a wakeup call to the neighborhood regarding the need for well thought out zoning regulations, especially in E-1 zones. As the Planning Commission considers appropriate zoning regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries, I would ask you consider appropriate restrictions in E-1 zones on any business that generates a significant amount of traffic. An example would be any business generating an ITE anticipated trip generation in excess of 5 trips per hour for every 1000 square feet of gross floor area would have to front a boulevard and/or require a conditional use permit based on the traffic impact. Our goal is to maintain the quality and integrity of our neighborhood, and have thriving E-1 Zone businesses that work within the traffic constraints of Williamson Way. I know our neighborhood is rather unique in its configuration, so your guidance and leadership in developing a workable solution is very much appreciated. Sincerely, William Clary, 460 Williamson Way Thank you very much. William E. Clary, CFP• Vice President, Financial Consultant The Wright Financial Group Consultants with D. A. Davidson & Co. 541-608-4377 866-236-3156 3210 Hillcrest Park Drive, Suite 200 Medford, OR 97504 wclarv@dadco.com www.thewrightfinancialgroup.com Davidson Companies Disclaimer-- 2014-04-16 Davidson and Crowell Weedon do not accept orders from retail clients to buy or sell securities via e-mail. Information contained in this e-mail Is not considered an official record of your account and does not supersede trade confirmations and account statements. Any Information provided has been prepared from sources 1 24 C, April Lucas From: Bill Clary [BClary@dadco.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 20143:03 PM To: lucasa@ashland.or.us R EDE I V ED Subject: Zoning for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries APR 15 7014 Dear Ms. Lucas, Could you please provide this email to Commissioner Dawkins. Dear Commissioner Dawkins, As a follow on to my commentary at the April 8th meeting regarding Medical Marijuana Facilities, I would ask that you consider an ordinance prohibiting dispensaries on any lot located in an E-1 zone that does not front a boulevard. A 100 foot buffer from a residential zone would do little to reduce the potential traffic nightmare in neighborhoods like Williamson Way. If Medical Marijuana Dispensaries operate similar to a pharmacy, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual would imply 8 -11 vehicle trips per hour for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The building at 400 Williamson Way is 4,400 SF. So with 10-12 hours of operation, the potential traffic count would be 400-500 cars per day. That level of traffic would clearly overwhelm our neighborhood. Restricting dispensaries to areas of the city that are designed for heavy traffic flow would provide the necessary access to Medical Marijuana and greatly reduce the impact to residential neighborhoods. Please consider this proposal as the Planning Commission deliberations potential zoning regulations. Thank you for the time and effort that has been applied to this issue so far. Your leadership Is appreciated. William Clary, 460 Williamson Way Thank you very much. William E. Clary, CFP® Vice President, Financial Consultant The Wright Financial Group Consultants with D. A. Davidson & Co. 541-608-4377 866-236-3156 3210 Hillcrest Park Drive, Suite 200 Medford, OR 97504 wclarv EDdadco.com www.thewrightfinancialgroup.com Davidson Companies Disclaimer-- 2014-04-15 Davidson and Crowell Weedon do not accept orders from retail clients to buy or sell securities via e-mail. Information contained In this e-mail Is not considered an official record of your account and does not supersede trade confirmations and account statements. Any Information provided has been prepared from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed and Is for Informational purposes only. This e- mall may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related right or obligation. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information It contains by other than an Intended recipient Is unauthorized. If this e-mail was misdirected or you received It In error please disregard. Information received or sent from this system Is subject to review by supervisory personnel, is retained and maybe produced to regulatory authorities or others with a legal right to the Information. Additional Important disclosures can be found at davidsoncompanles.com or www.cmwellweedon.com . 1 25 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? I 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. 26 I RECEIVED Dear Commissioners, APR -4 2014 I am writing you in the hope of providing a reasonable solution for the location of Medical Marijuana dispensaries within the city of Ashland. I do want to make it clear that I am not opposed to Medical Marijuana dispensaries. I believe that there are many appropriate medicinal uses of marijuana, especially in cancer treatment and pain management. Due to the popularity and need for dispensaries, it is very important that they are located in areas of the city that can accommodate their current level of traffic, and the exponential increase in traffic that would occur if recreational marijuana use is legalized in the state of Oregon. The harmony and sustainability of a neighborhood like Williamson Way would be in jeopardy if a dispensary or other high volume business is allowed to operate in its vicinity. In conversations with the owner of Puffs Smoke Shop, he indicated that the traffic to his dispensary can be over 100 cars a day. Our neighborhood accommodates more pedestrians, dogs and bicyclists than cars. Neighborhoods like Williamson Way are designed to encourage walking and bicycling with paths and trails throughout the neighborhood. This design is in direct conflict with what is needed to accommodate a dispensary. At the April 1" City Council meeting, the seeds of a very practical solution were planted: Medical Marijuana dispensaries should be located off of main arterial streets. The Issue regarding the amount of traffic from a business within or bordering a residential zone, could be easily addressed by requiring direct access to a street that can accommodate the volume of traffic the business would generate. Streets such as Siskiyou Boulevard, North Main, Highway 66, and Lithia Way would be able to handle the traffic of a Medical Marijuana dispensary location (or future retail operation). Please consider the merits of this proposal as you debate this very complex issue. Your commitment to providing well thought.out solutions to these issues is very much appreciated. Sincerely, William Clary, 460 Williamson Way William E. Clary, CFP® Vice President, Financial Consultant The Wright Financial Group Consultants with D. A. Davidson & Co. 541-608-4377 866-236-3156 3210 Hillcrest Park Drive, Suite 200 Medford, OR 97504 wclarvAdadco.com www.thewrightfinancialgroup.com 27 RECE'1VED MAR 2 7 2014 From: Bill Clary<BCIarvCddadco.com> Date: March 27,2014,11:40:36 AM PDT To: "rpkaplan46@smail.com" <rpkaplan46(a)gmail.com> Subject: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Dear Commissioner Kaplan, Having attended the recent Planning Commission study session and an informational meeting with the City Administrator, a recurrent theme has emerged that compares a Medical Marijuana Dispensary to a state run liquor store. With this theme in mind, it would make sense to apply similar OLCC guidelines for the location of liquor stores to the location of Medical Marijuana dispensaries. The OLCC has determined at this time, that there is a need for only one liquor store in Ashland. I believe a topic for discussion should be how many Medical Marijuana dispensaries are necessary. If the OLCC is any guide; only one dispensary is needed at this time. Please take this into consideration along with the need for a proper residential buffer zone and special use permits for residential overlays in E-1 zones. Proper planning and forethought at this time could greatly reduce future controversies, especially if the use of marijuana is eventually fully legalized by the state. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. Sincerely, William Clary, 460 Williamson Way, Ashland William E. Clary, CFP® Vice President, Financial Consultant The Wright Financial Group Consultants with D. A. Davidson & Co. 541-608-4377 866-236-3156 3210 Hillcrest Park Drive, Suite 200 Medford, OR 97504 wclaryt@dadco.com www.thewrightfinancialgroup.com 28 We, the undersigned, a~ neighbors of a proposed dispen,, y at 400 Williamson Way. We urge the City of Ashland to implement a temporary moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries on April 1st, 2014. This will give our city Planning Commission needed time to carefully consider the following factors: buffer zones between residential areas and dispensaries (preferably of 500 feet or so) to adequately separate neighborhoods and these businesses, hours of operation, appropriate screening, and other issues in connection with this new presence in our community. RF-tov ED Name (Printed) Signature Address MOOR 2 41 14 1. 11ndu S~cKle lac 4qa Ro ue P1 3faq/~~ Ash Ed, 0 975aO 2. qNZ 1Zo6(4e p), 3/2 yl~ ~ J~ s m ),q IUD , Da- 97- 3. ~41Z 906,U` Pr 0.9 W!L1-IR1nS'0,AJ WAV 4. /ILEX LUkAGS m7 ASH I-APL) o1tt;OAj % 7Sa a u L77 Jrz jN1 ~r ^ o- X21 c~~i-Z ~ 4 !~3 3lz2 -PA z-tC > qo(o W~I(iavvK~ W g. MiUIteLS k4ijaAAAi DR- o17SZc7 ID&I 42- 29 i, R'ECEIVED MAR 2 4 2014 Name (Printed) Signature Address Date ` 10. JMdIp ~Aj roll, 11. C LLGt,Uq(11 h ' `~U~- 7 l 6"'' Gf~1 12. JroH~ 13. l~✓T Lc-firms Sant 14. ,4 f I~(~~ SFO~~ 4 7y CJ, (I<< , s 75/ z Z/ I y -714 3 &J l Ju,1 e- 16. IL/a 17. Card krti (i'i i 4~a Kn9cc ~1, l~~h~o-i 3/~a/(Y ~ It ~~'7 5 2 o r 19. ~ /aS~ I Wt'~ ~I ~ l l zo~~ 30 RECEIVED MAR 2 42014 Name (Printed) Signature Address Date zo. ~-EFU <j ke-. (a 21. Ih a `I l 22. 311 v 23. rvL S 0 ,/i Al 324. Ca`~~ 25. 3e,-~svy)-e-C r j ./Ul ar T ~2 N i t lv 1 l I 26. #tarn ~-zL~-t~ 27. tAk" 31 C . From: Surya Bolom <sbolomoccountry.net> To: tbrownpc@gmail.com, rpkaplan46CoDgmail.com, hmiller@ effnet.ora, sassetta@mind.net, molnarb(alashland onus. tmpeddicord@gmail.com. Ikthompson@hotmail.com Cc: mike(@council.ashland.or.us Sent: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:47:23 -0700 (PDT) )RE'CE1.VEIj Subject: Medical Marijana Disensaries MAR 2 47014 Dear Planning Commission: RE: Request for a moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries until a more through evaluation is done and new rules are put in place. I am in favor of full legalization of both medical and recreational marijuana. This is a very complicated issue and finally the health benefit and legitimacy of marijuana is coming to light. However: We are all walking on a new ground concerning this issue. Most of the surrounding towns are more cautious, which in this case I think is wise. With more forethought, we can make this change a positive and welcome one. I appreciate the more progressive ideals of Ashland yet hesitate to let ideals release too much freedom in an area that is still an unknown. My Concerns: 1) How many dispensaries are suitable for Ashland-shouldn't there be a limit? Do we want to become the only place around ...what will this do to our town, without going more slowly and observing the effects of this valuable change? 2) Where would these dispensaries best serve the customers and not cause a disruption for the surrounding area? I am near a proposed dispensary that seems to be already advertising itself on Williamson Way. Although it is E-1 usage really it is 40-50 feet from our homes. I am opposed to this location. I was informed that the Council didn't want one.downtown, so why is it okay in our very quiet low trafficked residential area? 3) 1 can see these businesses in well used sites where numerous businesses are open 6-7 days a week and operate am-pm, ie Albertsons, Market of Choice, Printfast. Here there are lots of folks, lots of parking. 4) Friends might meet here and hang out some, another whole change in a residential area, where in populated businesses area this wouldn't be a problem. 5) The place on Williamson Way has been quietly hiding this from us, the neighbors for sometime. So it is apparent that any of our concerns have not been considered. This causes even further suspicion that any of our concerns would not be heeded if this place gets the green light. 6) 1 favor taking time to evaluate where these places are best suited, how many, and what conditions would be positive for the customers and community rather than rushing into a potentially disruptive and antagonistic change. Please consider more throughly how to handle these dispensaries. Thankyou Surya Bolom 470 Williamson Way 32 RECEIVED From: "Alan Ives" <IoonmatesCalithiawater.com> MAR 21 1014 Date: March 21, 2014,10:26:18 AM PDT To: rpkaplan46C5)amail:com Subject: Hearing re: marijuana dispensaries Richard I am a resident at 465 Williamson Way and aware of the planned location of a marijuana dispensary at 400 Williamson Way. I realize this location is at the fringe of a commercial zone with adjacent medical practices located there. What I would like the Commission to be aware of is that there is no buffer between the 400 street building and a residential area. But more importantly to me is that although there is no school within 1000 feet of the building it is approximately 1300 feet to North Mountain Park where elementary and high school sports teams practice and play regularly scheduled games with schools in the area. In addition North Mountain Park conducts many children's programs and is intended for their use and education. I think this is just too close and convenient with all of the parking at the park to think that the handling of drugs obtained at 400 Williamson Way would not find their way to the park. I would appreciate you sharing this information with the other commissioners. Alan H. Ives 465 Williamson Way 541-482-7124 33 RE"I V E,D Dear Planning Commission, March20, 2014 MAR 2 02014 My name is Carol Kim. I live at 422 Rogue Place, approximately 40-50 feet from the proposed medical marijuana dispensary at 400 Williamson Way. I cannot be at the meeting on 3/25/14. I want to urge you to recommend that the council impose a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries in this city at its April 1" meeting. All of the other cities around us, as well as the county have done this. It is the only possible way to give you enough time to thoroughly investigate this new issue and make wise recommendations that the city can impose. I know that you are bound by a legal process of public hearings, notifications, etc. and that this is a study session only. If businesses are allowed to open before you can enact regulations or impose any conditional use standards, I do not know if they could be applied retroactively, unless the council does enact a moratorium April 15t. I am very encouraged to see that you are considering options, such as: - A 500 foot buffer zone between residential areas and dispensaries (similar to what Central Point has just enacted) - Limitations on hours of operation - Locations of dispensaries by other public areas In our case, 400 Williamson Way is at the very edge of an E-1 area and is quite literally, within the neighborhood, rather than out of it. It is separated from our home by a narrow street (not standard size) and a hedge. Though on paper, according to current state and city rules, it probably looks good, if you could see the site, you might question the appropriateness of the location. We have two children in our home, as do others in the neighborhood. You also may not be aware that 437 Williamson Way lodges students of middle and high school age. They come in school groups to attend the OSF. They can often be seen excitedly chatting away as they walk on Williamson Way. As a parent, I would not allow my child to go off on a school trip and stay in lodgings so close to a medical marijuana dispensary. Many of you are parents yourselves and you know how hard it is to let them go on those first trips away from home. I am also very concerned that this business is already misrepresenting itself. Living so close, I can assure you that it is not yet open. They are working on the building. Yet you can go on-line to www.weedmaps.com and type in Top Shelf Meds and they list operating hours of 10-6 Monday-Saturday, ask for reviews, and list a phone number. When you call, there is a message making it sound as if they are helping customers and will get back to you. Some of the city council actually believes this is an operating business and this is incorrect. They want to appear to be in business so they will not be limited by any city guidelines should they be enacted. Thank you so much for looking into this new issue. I anxiously wait to see to see what you will recommend! Sincerely, Carol Kim 34 R,ECEIVEO From: Char &Michale Hersh Imailto:hummin¢bird@ieffnet.or¢] MAR 17 7(114 Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 2:05 OM To: counciWashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Char & Michale Hersh - 3/17/2014 Name: Char & Michale Hersh Email: hummingbirclPieffnet.bre Subject: Medical Marijuana dispensary Message: WE are apposed to a medical marijuana dispensary on Williamson in Ashland. The area does currently have a few professional establishmenst but marijuana dispensing is not the same as having a dentist or doctor located adjacent to a large residential area. There are children of all ages very near this location and North Mount ain is on ly and short distance away. WE are not opposed to a dispensary in Ashland but strongly feel it should be in a non-residential area 35 kECEhVED From: Carol Kim Imailtoihoracekim@hotmail.comj MAR 17 1014 Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2014 5:28 PM To: council@ashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Carol Kim - 3/15/2014 Name: Carol Kim Email: horacekim@hotmall.com Subject: Medical marijuana dispensary 400 Williamson Way Message: Dear Mayor and Councilors, We have just learned, as of a newspaper article published 3/13/14, that a medical marijuana dispensary is going in at 400 Williamson Way. I live at 422 Rogue Pl. My daughter's bedroom looks right at this. It is about a driveway's length away. We are a dead end with a very narrow street. Yes, that bu ilding is commercial but really it is right next to family housing. I am protesting this and asking you to consider taking a look at that particular property and also at additional restrictions for location of these dispensaries. I worry for my childrens' safety (they will be fine at school but can come home to marijuana smoke in their bedrooms?) and for the reality that housing values will plummet. We have lived here for 13 years. The city says we can call the police if consumption occurs outside. Reassuring. They say no one can drive under the influence. Let's be realistic. There is also a hostel nearby - Ashland Commons- where students come from out of town to attend the CSF. I am sure they will lose business should this dispensary be established. A family practice doctor is right next door. She has many pregnant women and young children as patients. This is new territory for all. Please reexamine this issue of letting the state ok a business license and then not d enying it unless it is by a school or doesn't have enough parking. Someone needs to ensure the locations are appropriate and well-regulated. Who is doing this? Would you like your children living across the street? Would you like to buy my house because I will be glad to sell it to you if you don't mind a dispensary in your front yard? My oldest daughter is so distraught that she plans to write the paper. We would like to appear before you to address this issue, along with any others concerned in our neighborhood. Please give us this opportunity. Thank you very much. We were given no prior notification of this and apparently it isn't required unless major changes are being made to the building. That needs to be changed. People deserve warning of such big changes, especially as this issue is very controversial at this time. Medford is not allowing these dispensaries, nor is Grants Pass, or Jacksonville. Medford is happy to send everyone to Ashland, as mentioned in the Mail Tribun e. This m ay be good business for some but what does it say about our city and what about the safety issues that will undoubtedly occur? 36 RECEIVED From: Betty J. Drake fmailto:pellv7Pmsn.c6mj MAR 14 7014 Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 4:26 PM To: councilPashland.or.us Subject: Council Contact Form - Betty J. Drake - 3/14/2014 Name: Betty J. Drake Email: 12elly7(a)insn.com Subject: Medical Marijuana Dispensary, 400 Williamson Way, Ashlalnd Message: I have just learned that a medical marijuana dispensary is planned for property at 400 Williamson Way, Ashland. I am very concerned about this for this property is located right by a residential neighborhood and is a mere driveway's distance from my teenage granddaughters home. There is only a tree hedge separat ing the p roperties, plus a parking bay right by their house would likely be used by customers of the dispensary. In the other direction - perhaps 100 yards - is the location of a youth hostel which provides housing for high school students visiting Ashland to see OSF plays. I think this is a very bad move and I urgently ask you to bring it before your council for attention and action to stop it. Thank you very much!! 37 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 hansitstop 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 r^°r d egn0 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 38 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 staled 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 loth. 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 39 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 40 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 m/s 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 41 • 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 family homes. "M i ndl in 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 ofrear lane alleys helps to reduce the extent of pavedalleys. "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 staled 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 stones 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 staled 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 rots 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 42 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 Input 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 Hogge/1700 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 Maghamfar/Stated 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 43 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/8311 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 tens 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. i 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 slated 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. Commissioner Mindlin 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 44 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 stated 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 Kim1422 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 45 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES March 25, 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: Melanie Mindlin Maria Harris, Planning Manager Michael Dawkins April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Tracy Peddicord Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Mike Morris Richard Kaplan Debbie Miller ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Dawkins announced the Downtown Beautification Improvement Committee held its second meeting, and also noted he was in attendance for the Council discussion on medical marijuana dispensaries. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Issues for Medical Marguana Dispensaries. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained the commission ran out of time to discuss this item at their last meeting and since then the Council has provided further clarification and have directed staff to draft an ordinance amendment that prohibits marijuana dispensaries in the downtown overlay district, makes state licensed marijuana dispensaries a conditional use in the E-1 zone, and makes state licensed marijuana dispensaries a permitted use in the C-1 and M-1 zones. She stated the Council would like this moved forward in a timely manner and stated a public hearing for the proposed amendments is scheduled for the May 13, 2014 meeting. Ms. Harris noted the city's administration department is hosting an informational meeting at The Grove tomorrow evening to have an open conversation and hear neighborhood concerns regarding a specific proposed dispensary located on Williamson Way. Ms. Harris reviewed the state requirements for dispensaries. She clarified sites must be 1,000 ft. from primary or secondary schools, 1,000 ft. from any other licensed dispensary, and must be located in an area that is zoned commercial, industrial, mixed use, or agricultural. Additionally, they must be registered as a business with the Secretary of State's office and they must have a security system installed, including a video surveillance system, alarm system, and safe. Public Testimony William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Requested the Commission consider placing buffer zones, especially around residential neighborhoods. Mr. Clary requested a minimum of 100 ft, but preferably 400 ft, from residential neighborhoods, and 1,000 ft from locations where there are high concentrations of children, such as North Mountain Park. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 1 of 3 46 Commission Discussion Commissioner Dawkins recommended this type of use be placed in areas that have higher traffic, instead of tucked back in more hidden areas. Additionally, he stated parking in front of the business is preferred to parking in the rear. He also suggested these be operated similar to liquor stores, with set hours and security requirements. Ms. Harris clarified restrictions on days and hours of operation is something that could be included in the code language. Comment was made that the conditional use process seems out of place in the E-1 zone and it would be preferable to establish specific restrictions. Ms. Harris clarified the City could use the conditional use permit process for dispensaries located within a certain distant of a residential zone, and a special permit for the other locations. She stated special use permits are primarily used in commercial and employment zones and are in between a permitted use and a conditional use and have very specific requirements. Commissioner Mindlin asked if there is any interest in establishing buffers for residential neighborhoods and parksllibrades. Commission Dawkins stated he does not like singling out one type of business. He also commented that if this becomes too restrictive there will not be any places left for these to operate. Comment was made questioning why the Council did not want this use in the downtown overlay district. It was clarified that the City Administrator has expressed that this is a tourist town and dispensaries on main street could be considered offensive. Suggestion was made for staff to look at the licenses issued in California and determine what has worked and what types of problems they have encountered. Additional Public Testimony Julie Matthews/2090 Creek/Questioned if the City is obligated to allow this and expressed her concerns with people using marijuana. William Clary/460 Williamson Way/Spoke to liquor stores and clarified OLCC determines where these businesses can be located. Chris Luz/121 Samuel Lane, Phoenix/Stated medical marijuana patients need safe access to their medicine and feels it is appropriate for the City to identify where they want these to go and to restrict them from downtown. He supported allowing dispensaries in high volume commercial areas, such as shopping centers, and stated the people who need these stores will find them. Commission Discussion Commissioner Mindlin asked what direction staff needs in order to draft an ordinance for public hearing. Ms. Harris slated staff will prepare an ordinance as proposed by the Council and clarified the Planning Commission will have the ability to make further recommendations and those can be added as a memo or report for the Council's consideration. She added the Commission does not need to have their recommendations prepared in advance of the hearing, but if they require additional information that should be identified now. Commissioner Mindlin summarized the discussion and stated the commission is interested in establishing hours of operation, requiring surveillance, requiring a special use permit rather than a conditional use permit or potentially combining this with a conditional use permit in some parts of the E-1 zone, and a potential 100 ft. to 200 ft. buffer for residential, parks, and libraries. Mindlin also requested staff provide suggested language that would clarify, the criteria for conditional use permits. B. Unified Land Use Ordinance: Part 18-6 Definitions. Planning Manager Maria Harris explained this section combines all the definitions that were listed in the code into one section. She stated most of the edits were removing duplicates and editing the language for clarity, however the there is one substantive change. Ms. Harris went on to explain the proposed amendment to the definitions of hotel and motel would allow more flexibility for property owners to apply for a conditional use permit to use individual residential units for transient lodging in commercial and employment zones. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 2 of 3 47 Ms. Harris provided a short overview of the proposed amendments to Dwelling, Home Oriented Commercial Activity, Lot Line, Open Space, and Subdivision. The Commission issued the following comments and suggestions regarding the Definitions section: • Suggestion was made for staff to look into how row housing and cluster housing will be addressed. • Comment was made questioning the language "other than an alley" in the Front Lot Line definition. • A correction was noted to the Open Space definition; the text following "...left with a natural vegetation cover" should be removed. • Recommendation was made for staff to re-phrase the Person definition to make it easier to understand. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Ashland Planning Commission Study Session March 25, 2014 Page 3 of 3 48 RENEWAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT PLAN This Renewal Service Agreement should be attached to and made a part of the original service agreement. City of Ashland Effective: August 1, 2014 through July 31, 2015 Service Features: • Rapid claim processing, daily with next day reimbursement • Easy and secure online claim filing; or faxed or mailed claims • ASIFlex Mobile Application for account look-up and claim filing • Reimbursements deposited to a bank account of the participant's choice • $25 minimum check payment; no minimum for direct deposit payments • Email alerts and text messaging of account activity • Superior service with quick and easy access to customer service representatives • Extended service hours 7 am - 7 pm CT Monday-Friday; 9 am - 1 pm CT Saturday • Debit card services for health care FSA participants (optional service) • Full-service website for plan participants • Employer management reporting • Plan Documents/summary descriptions, non-discrimination testing, annual reporting as needed • Employee communication materials, assistance with meetings • Online enrollment service; or MS Excel spreadsheet processing • Enrollment ConfirmationlWelcome packets sent to enrollees Fee Structure: Renewal Set-Up Fee Waived Per Participant, Per Month $5.50; minimum $75 per month Debit Card (If Elected by Employer) Per Participant, Per Month Included Additional or Replacement Cards, Per Card $5.00 Employee Communications On-Site employee meeting/benefit fair $250 per day, "Based on scope of engagement and staff availability plus travel expenses Webinars Fee Waived Welcome Kit to Enrollees Fee Waived Enrollment and Eligibility Processing ASI Online Enrollment Service Fee Waived ASI Format MS Excel Spreadsheet Fee Waived Eligibility Changes via ASI MS Excel Spreadsheet Fee Waived Manual processing per form or per change $3.00 ASI - PO Box 6044 - Columbia, MO 65205-6044 1-800-659-3035 w .asiflex.com CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication June 17 2014, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Time, Place and Manner Regulations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries FROM: Dave Lohman, City Attorney, lohmand(2aashland.or.us SUMMARY This agenda item seeks Council approval of the first reading of an ordinance establishing time, place, and manner ("TPM") regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Under Oregon statutes, medical marijuana dispensaries must meet certain TPM requirements, such as distance from schools, security arrangements, and background checks for operators. Various other standards not addressed in Oregon statutes have been adopted by cities in Washington, Colorado and California, as well as some Oregon cities. At its June 2, 2014, study session, Council reviewed a number of possible City-imposed TPM regulations. There appeared to be broad agreement on eliminating from further consideration provisions requiring quarterly reporting and restrictions on dispensary employees previously convicted of drug-related crimes. Those provisions have been removed from the attached draft ordinance. All the other provisions discussed at the June 2 study session have been retained in the attached draft ordinance, even though individual Council members expressed reservations about some of them. The attached draft ordinance retains provisions on hours of operation and on disposal of marijuana byproducts and remnants. Similar provisions on hours and wastes are included in the draft land-use ordinance concerning medical marijuana dispensaries, also being presented to Council June 17 for first reading. If Council favors such provisions at all, it will have a choice as to which ordinance to include them in. Removing those provisions from the land-use ordinance and retaining them in the TPM ordinance would have the benefit of making them more readily subject to amendment in the event experience shows changes are needed. The attached draft ordinance also includes a not-previously-considered provision requiring unaccompanied minors to be barred from dispensary premises. Staff recommends that the formal public hearing required by state law for the land-use code amendments concerning medical marijuana dispensaries be broadened in scope to include the proposed TPM regulations on such dispensaries. This would allow members of the public to testify at one time on either or both draft ordinances and would allow Council members to more easily evaluate interrelationships between the two ordinances and cumulative impacts. Page I of 2 11MMAIN CITY OF ASHLAND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of first reading of the ordinance on time, place and manner regulations governing medical marijuana dispensaries. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve first reading of an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulations to Add a Chapter Establishing Time, Place and Manner Regulations and a Permitting Process for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries." ATTACHMENTS: Proposed TPM ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 6 BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS TO ADD CHAPTER 6.50 ESTABLISHING TIME, PLACE AND MANNER REGULATIONS AND A PERMITTING PROCESS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES 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). WHEREAS, the Oregon Legislature enacted House Bill 3460 in 2013 (ORS 475.314) which requires the Oregon Health Authority to develop and implement a process to register medical marijuana facilities. WHEREAS, under Oregon law, local governments may regulate the operation and location of certain types of businesses within their jurisdiction limits except when such action has been specifically preempted by state statute. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland desires to allow operation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City in ways that protect and benefit the public health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City. WHEREAS, the Council has determined the unique characteristics of medical marijuana dispensary operations and their potential impacts make it necessary to establish particular time, place, and manner requirements for such operations and a separate permitting process for medical marijuana dispensaries, in addition to establishing such facilities as a new regulated land use within the City. WHEREAS, the Council conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendment on June 17, 2014 and, 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; ORDINANCE No. _ Page 1 of 7 I THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Title 6 Business Licenses and Regulations of the Ashland Municipal Code is hereby amended to add as a new Chapter 6.50 with the following provisions concerning medical marijuana dispensaries: SECTION 6.50.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to minimize any adverse public safety and public health impacts that may result from allowing medical marijuana dispensaries in the City by adopting particular time, place and manner requirements and a separate permitting process for such dispensaries. SECTION 6.50.020 Definitions. A. "Administrator" means the City Administrator of the City of Ashland or his/her designee. B. "Cash Accounting" means a cash basis system of accounting in which the operator of an enterprise records revenue and expenses when they are paid, regardless of when goods are received or delivered. C. "CFR Schedule I or Schedule II" means the controlled substances designated in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, Chapter 11, Part 1308. D. "Convicted" means found guilty by verdict or finding entered in a criminal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction. E. "Dispensary" means a medical marijuana dispensary. F. "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant of the Cannabis Moraceae, whether growing or not, the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its resin, as may be defined by Oregon Revised Statutes or as they currently exist or may from time to time be amended. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or predation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination. G. "Medical Marijuana" means all parts of marijuana plants that may be used to treat or alleviate a qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the patient's debilitating medical condition. H. "Medical Marijuana Dispensary" means a medical marijuana facility that is registered by the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 475.300-475.346 and that sells, distributes, transmits, gives, dispenses or otherwise provides medical marijuana to qualifying patients. 1. "Medical Marijuana Qualifying Patient" means a registry identification cardholder (person who has been diagnosed by a physician as having a debilitating medical condition) as further defined by ORS 475.302(3) or the designated primary giver of the cardholder is defined by ORS 475.302(5). J. "Minor" means any person under 18 years of age. K. "Operator" means the person who is the proprietor of a dispensary, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee or any other ORDINANCE No. Page 2 of 7 capacity. If the operator is a corporation, the term operator also includes each and every member of the corporation's Board of Directors whose directorship occurs in a period during which the dispensary is in operation. If the operator is a partnership or limited liability company, the term operator also includes each and every member thereof whose membership occurs in a period during which the dispensary is in operation. L. "Person" means natural person, joint venture, joint stock company, partnership, association, club, company, corporation, business, trust, organization, or any group or combination acting as a unit, including the United States of America, the State of Oregon and any political subdivision thereof, or the manager, lessee, agent, servant, officer or employee of any of them. M. "Premises" means a location registered by the State of Oregon as a medical marijuana dispensary and includes all areas at the location that are used in the business operated at the location, including offices, kitchens, restrooms, storerooms, and including all public and private areas where individuals are permitted to be present. SECTION 6.50.030 Annual Permit Required The operator of any medical marijuana dispensary in the City must possess a valid annual medical marijuana dispensary permit issued under this chapter and must comply with the requirements of any other state or local law. SECTION 6.50.040 Initial Permit Application and Fee Requirements A. An initial medical marijuana dispensary permit application must be submitted on a form prescribed by the Administrator and must be signed under penalty of perjury. The application documents must include at least the following: 1) The location of the proposed facility. 2) A detailed description of the type, nature and extent of the enterprise to be conducted. 3) A detailed description of the proposed accounting and inventory systems for the dispensary. 4) Certification that the proposed dispensary is registered as an Oregon medical marijuana facility pursuant to ORS 475.300-475.346 and is licensed to conduct business in compliance with Chapter 6.04 of the Ashland Municipal Code. 5) Certification that the proposed dispensary has met all applicable requirements in Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code. 6) Certification that all current fees and taxes owed have been paid. 7) Such other information deemed necessary by the Administrator to conduct any investigation or background check (including fingerprints) of the operator(s) and persons or entities providing equity or debt financing for the dispensary. B. An initial medical marijuana dispensary permit and any subsequent renewal permit is valid for a period of one year. C. At the time of submission of an initial dispensary permit application, the applicant must pay a dispensary permit application and investigation fee. The fee amount shall be set by Council resolution. No portion of the dispensary permit fee is refundable in the event operation of the dispensary is discontinued for any reason. D. A separate permit application must be submitted for each proposed dispensary location. ORDINANCE No. Page 3 of 7 SECTION 6.50.050 Permit Termination - Renewal A. A dispensary permit terminates automatically one year following the date on which it was approved or most recently renewed. B. A permit renewal form prescribed by the City must be submitted to the City prior to expiration of the permit. C. At the time of submission of a dispensary permit renewal application, the permittee must pay a dispensary permit application and investigation fee. The fee amount shall be set by Council resolution. SECTION 6.50.060 Permit Conditions Any medical marijuana dispensary must comply with the following requirements, in addition to any other state or local requirements: A. The dispensary must meet applicable building and fire codes. B. The dispensary must not manufacture or produce any extracts, oils, resins or similar derivatives of marijuana on-site and must not use open flames in the preparation of any products. C. Marijuana and tobacco products must not be smoked, ingested or otherwise consumed on the premises of the dispensary. D. Operating hours must be no earlier than 7:00 a.m. or later than 7:00 p.m. on the same day. E. The dispensary must utilize an air filtration and ventilation system which, to the greatest extent feasible, confines all objectionable odors associated with the dispensary to the premises. For the purposes of this provision, the standard for judging "objectionable odors" shall be that of an average, reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities after taking into consideration the character of the neighborhood in which the odor is made and the odor is detected. F. The dispensary must provide for secure disposal of marijuana remnants or by-products; such remnants or by-products shall not be placed within the dispensary's exterior refuse containers. G. The dispensary must not be co-located with any marijuana social club or smoking club. H. No minor is allowed on the premises unless the minor is a cardholder and is accompanied by a parent or guardian whose purpose is to procure the minor's medicine. 1. A person who has been convicted once or more within the previous five years or convicted twice or more in the previous ten years for the manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance listed in CFR Schedule I or Schedule II may not (1) be an operator of a dispensary; (2) have an ownership interest of 5% or more in the facility or in any entity that has a 25% or more ownership interest in the facility; (3) provide equity or debt financing for the dispensary; or (4) have an ownership interest of 5% or more in any entity that provides or has provided equity or debt financing for the dispensary. J. The Administrator may conduct a criminal records check under ORS 181.534 on each operator of any dispensary proposed or operating in the City and on each person or entity providing equity or debt financing for any such dispensary. K. The Dispensary must have an accounting system specifically designed for enterprises reliant on transactions conducted primarily in cash and sufficient to maintain detailed, auditable financial records. If the Administrator finds the books and records of the operator or deficient in any way or if the operator's accounting system is not auditable, ORDINANCE No. Page 4 of 7 the operator must modify the dispensary's accounting system to meet the requirements of the Administrator. L. Every dispensary must keep and preserve in an accounting format established by the Director records of all sales made by the dispensary and such other books or accounts as may be required by the Director. Each dispensary operator must keep and preserve for a period of at least three (3) years records containing at least the following information: 1) Names and any aliases of any operator of the dispensary, as that term is defined in Section 2 of this chapter; 2) Names of and any aliases persons with an ownership interest of 5% or more in the dispensary or in any entity that has a 25% or more ownership interest in the dispensary; 3) Names and any aliases of persons who have provided equity or debt financing for the dispensary; 4) Names and any aliases of persons who have an ownership interest of 5% or more in any entity that provides or has provided equity or debt financing for the dispensary entities from whom owners of the dispensary have borrowed funds for establishing or operating the dispensary; and 5) The Administrator may require additional information as he or she deems necessary. M. Each dispensary must display its current permit inside the dispensary in a prominent place easily visible to persons conducting business in the dispensary. SECTION 6.50.070 Examination of Books, Records and Premises A. To determine compliance with the requirements of this chapter; Title 18 Land Use of the Ashland Municipal Code; and any local tax measures, the Administrator may examine or cause to be examined by an agent or representative designated by the Administrator, at any reasonable time, the premises of the dispensary, including wastewater from the dispensary, and any and all dispensary financial, operational and facility information, including books, papers, payroll reports and state and federal income tax returns. Every permittee is directed and required to furnish to the Administrator the means, facilities and opportunity for making such examinations and investigations. B. As part of investigation of a crime which law enforcement officials reasonably suspect has taken place on the premises, Ashland Police shall be allowed to view surveillance videotapes at any reasonable time. SECTION 6.50.080 Administrative and Other Remedies for Noncompliance, Administrative Appeals, and Penalties A. The Administrator may deny, suspend, or revoke a dispensary permit for failure to comply with this chapter or rules adopted under this chapter, for submitting falsified information to the City for the Oregon Health Authority, or for noncompliance with any other City ordinances. 1) Any suspension or revocation pursuant to this section shall be in writing, setting forth the reasons therefor, and giving the permittee written notice by first-class United States Mail at least five days prior to effective date of the revocation or suspension. ORDINANCE No. Page 5 of 7 2) A decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a dispensary permit may be appealed as provided in AMC 2.30. The findings of the hearings officer shall be final and conclusive, and shall be served upon the appellant in the manner prescribed for service of notice of hearing. B. In addition to the remedies of suspension and revocation, failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter may be prosecuted as a Class I violation, punishable as provided in AMC 1.08.020 - 1.08.030. C. In addition to the remedies of suspension and revocation, submitting false or fraudulent information to the City may be prosecuted as a Class C misdemeanor, subject to AMC 1.08. D. The remedies provided in this section are not exclusive and shall not prevent the City from exercising any other remedy available under the law, nor shall the provisions of this chapter prohibit or restrict the City or other appropriate prosecutor from pursuing criminal charges under state law or City ordinance. SECTION 6.50.090 Confidentiality Except as otherwise required by law, it shall be unlawful for the City, any officer, employee or agent to divulge, release or make known in any manner any financial or employee information submitted or disclosed to the City under the terms of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall prohibit: A. The disclosure of the names and addresses of any operator or provider of equity or debt financing for a dispensary; or B. The disclosure of general statistics in a form which would prevent identification of financial information regarding a dispensary operator; or C. The presentation of evidence to a court, or other tribunal having jurisdiction in the prosecution of any criminal or civil claim by the City under this chapter; or D. The disclosure of information when such disclosure of conditionally exempt information is ordered under public records law procedures. SECTION 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence or word in this ordinance is deemed to be invalid or beyond the authority of the City, either on its face or is applied, the invalidity of such provision shall not affect the other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this ordinance, and the application thereof; and to that end sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this chapter shall be deemed severable. SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1-3) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. ORDINANCE No. Page 6 of 7 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 ORDINANCE No. Page 7 of 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Discussion of Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee Draft Recommendations FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst, adam@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee was appointed by the Council to draft recommendations for regarding the future of the recycling center and waste reduction efforts. The Committee is requesting Council input on its draft recommendations and further request an extension of its deadline to complete its work and provide a final set of recommendations that incorporates input from the Council, Conservation Commission, Recology staff and public comment, in addition to additional analysis of impacts and potential consequences of each recommendation. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In conjunction with the approval of a new franchise agreement, rate adjustment and Recycle Center surcharge at its October 1, 2013 regular business meeting, Council approved a motion to formally create an ad-hoc committee to review the existing and future operations and opportunities for the Recycle Center. The six member Committee includes two Councilors, two Conservation Commission members and two members of the public and was charged with reporting back to the Council by June of 2014 with recommendations regarding the future of the Recycle Center and its relationship to overall waste prevention strategies in Ashland. The members are as follows: Council Members Conservation Commissioners Citizens at Large Dennis Slattery Tom Beam Bob Altaras Rich Rosenthal Roxane Seigel-Coryell Michael Meiring The scope of work for the Committee is as follows: The ad hoc Recycling and Waste Reduction Committee is charged with making recommendations to the City Council regarding the future of the recycling center; its effectiveness, what form it should j take, how it should be funded and whether it should continue to operate. The Committee will also examine City-wide waste reduction and recycling efforts; examine best practices and how they might be applied in Ashland to improve waste diversion and recycling; and examine how the recycling center fits or should fit into those efforts. The Committee shall, in the course of its work: Page I of 2 loorwFiNa, CITY OF ASHLAND • Provide ample opportunity for public input; • Consult with Recology and City staff to determine what impact, if any, its recommendations would have on garbage rates; and • Present its recommendations in writing so they can be easily shared with the public. The attached memo from the Committee provides a summary of the discussion, research, deliberation and common themes that the Committee worked through in its series of meetings. With approval from Council, the Committee anticipates spending several more meeting sessions examining the intended impacts against potential unintended consequences of each recommendation and providing the Council with a final set of recommendations. This additional analysis includes a more detailed implementation plan, structure for funding recommendations that including new expenditures, impacts on existing Ashland Recology ratepayers and a forecast of the degree each recommendation effects local waste prevention/reduction. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Other than continued staff participation and assistance, no expenditures are associated with this discussion and extension request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council provide initial input and direction on the draft recommendations developed by the Committee and extend the duration of the committee to provide adequate time for the additional analysis detailed above. Staff anticipates that a final set of recommendations could be developed and presented in September or October of 2014. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to extend the duration of the Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee to allow sufficient time to complete the analysis of the draft recommendations and request that the Committee present their final recommendations no later than November 4, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee Draft Recommendations Memo - June 5, 2014 Ad-hoc Recycle Center Committee - Staff Memo's February 6, 2014 February 20, 2014 March 6, 2014 April 17, 2014 Page 2 of 2 1r, CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: June 5, 2014 TO: City Council FROM: Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee RE: Recommendation Regarding the Recycle Center, waste reduction and recycling Summary In response to a Council request to make recommendations regarding the future of the Recycle Center, city wide waste reduction and recycling efforts, the appointed Ad-Hoc Committee recommends the following: The Committee recommends that the Council comment and provide direction to the Committee to complete a final review, analysis and recommendation on the following: • Research removal of comingle recycle collections from the Recycle Center • Create a sticker program for recycling, mirroring the existing program for trash services • Expand materials available to reuse/recycle at the Recycle Center (metals, etc) • Develop and implement a waste reduction and recycling education and outreach program for the community ( in coordination with existing efforts of Recology) • Explore a pilot program or system to offer pre and/or post consumer food waste diversion options • Study strategies to increase participation to achieve waste diversion through rate structures and other methods Background The Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee was created and appointed at the request of the Mayor and Council following the October 2013 approval of an updated solid waste and recycling franchise agreement and corresponding rate increase that included a new Recycle Center Surcharge that created a separate fee to offset the costs associated with the annual operation of the Recycle Center. The scope of work of this committee is as follows: The ad hoc Recycling and Waste Reduction Committee is charged with making recommendations to the City Council regarding the future of the recycling center; its effectiveness, what form it should take, how it should be funded and whether if should continue to operate at all. The Committee will also examine City-wide waste reduction and recycling efforts; examine best practices and how they might be applied in Ashland to improve waste diversion and recycling; and examine how the recycling center fits or should fit into those efforts. Pagel of `4 City of Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 v .ashland.ows adam@ashland.or.us The Committee shall, in the course of its work: • Provide ample opportunity for public input; • Consult with Recology and City staff to determine what impact, if any, its recommendations would have on garbage rates; and • Present its recommendations in writing so they can easily shared with the public In its assessment and response to its charge noted above, the committee broke down the recommendation into two primary categories, each with several sub-components: Assess the future of the recycle center o Assessment of its effectiveness o What form it should take (services offered, materials accepted, etc) o How it should be funded o Whether it should continue to operate/exist Examine community-wide waste reduction and recycling efforts o Examine current best practices for application in Ashland o Examine and recommend actions to be implemented to improve waste diversion and recycling o Examine and recommend role of Recycle Center in waste diversion and recycling for the future Recommendation Details 1) Potential removal of comingle recycle collections from the Recycle Center The committee recommendation to potentially discontinue the collection of comingle recycling at the Recycle Center has two primary objectives. The first is to maximize participation in the existing curbside comingle services already in place and available to all Recology subscription customers and transition the Center to be a recycling recourse primarily for materials that are not a part of the comingle collection service. The second is to reduce the operating costs of the Recycle Center. As noted in previous committee and Council meetings, the Recycle Center costs are primarily driven by hauling costs from the Center to the Valley View Transfer station. Cardboard has the highest hauling volume, with comingle second. While cardboard has a resale value in the market and provides revenues of between $20,000 and $30,000 annually, comingle recycling has no associated revenue. It is estimated that the removal of comingle recycling would save $25,000 to $30,000 in annual hauling costs, which could result in a reduction of the current $1.60 Recycle Center surcharge or the savings could be used to implement other committee recommendations. The removal of comingle recycling would also provide additional physical space at the Center to offer recycling services for additional materials that do not currently have a collection point available to the public. (see recommendation 43) Page 2 of4 City of Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 54IA88-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam@ashland.or.us 2) Curbside Recycling Sticker Program As noted, an objective of the removal of comingle recycling at the Center is to drive additional participation in curbside recycling services currently offered by Recology. The implementation of a sticker program for Recycling would provide another opportunity for residents and businesses to participate in curbside recycling and create a financial incentive/reward for those that minimize the volume of recycled materials by using the pre-paid stickers only when the bin is completely full which could significantly reduce costs for those that are able to reduce recycle materials volumes. This provides higher participation in Recology curbside services with only a small incremental additional cost as the sticker customers already reside within an existing collection route. Sticker program revenue would offset any incremental additional costs incurred. 3) Expand materials available to reuse/recycle at the Recycle Center Over time, the Recycle Center has expanded its menu of materials accepted for recycle or re-use, the most recent being the soft plastic collections. The Committee would like City staff to work with Recology to develop a list of items currently in the waste stream that could be collected at the Recycle Center. The list would provide information and analysis on the current and potential volume expected, the costs associated with their collection and distribution, regulatory issues associated with the materials and other pertinent information needed to determine likely new materials to be accepted. 4) Develop and implement a waste reduction and recycling education and outreach program for the community The Committee felt that a critical component to the future success in reaching higher levels of waste reduction and recycling is expanded and targeted education and outreach. While the ongoing efforts by Recology have paid dividends and have played a large role in achieving our current levels of waste prevention and recycling, a more formal and expanded education and outreach program in addition and in coordination to that of Recology is critical in future success and achievement in the community. The Committee recommends that options and recommendations for dedicated funding for the implementation and ongoing activities of the program be included in the development of the plan. 5) Explore a pilot program or system to offer pre and/or post consumer food waste diversion options The committee recommends that City staff work with Recology to develop options for the implementation of one or more pilot programs for pre and/or post consumer food waste handling, which makes up between 15 to 30 percent of the waste stream. This could include free or reduced cost compost bins to customers for their own separation and compost use, centralized location for drop off of approved food waste materials, food waste collections service for commercial and/or residential customers or other pilot programs that would assist Recology, the City and the community in a long term sustainable solution to remove food waste from the local waste stream. Committee Background Information Recycle Center Data Collection To better understand the current users of the Recycle Center, Recology staff, SOU Recycle Center student/staff and City staff conducted a short one page, six question data sheet. Data collection took place on a variety of days and time slots between March 21St and April 8th and resulted in 293 unique Page 3 of 4 City Ashland ADMININISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam@ashland.or.us responses to the questionnaire. The data has been aggregated in a way that allows sorting results on multiple queries and is attached to this document for reference Additionally, a traffic counter was installed in two different place inside of the fencing at the vehicle entry during the same timeframe to provide an overall count of customer visits to the Center. The results indicated trip counts of over 200 on several days within the timeframe. Summary The committee recommends that the Council review and comment on the draft recommendations of the committee and extend the duration of the Committee to complete a more detailed analysis of each of the six draft recommendations that will ultimately be brought back to Council for final deliberation and implementation upon approval. Page 4 of 4 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-5535-29 20 East Main St Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 804735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam©ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: February 6, 2014 TO: Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst RE: Recycle Center Background, Operations Overview and Policy Issues The Recycle Center has operated as a community facility since its dedication in 1990 and has provided Ashland and Rogue Valley residents with a centralized location to recycle a variety of materials. The center is located on City owned land and is operated by Recology staff both for on-site attendant and materials hauling services. Curbside comingled recycling collections began in 2007 providing additional recycling services and opportunities for Recology customers in Ashland. The continuation of both recycling resources was raised in the Bell Report as a potential redundancy in services that is being subsidized by the existing residential and commercial Recology customers. To separate the recycle center redundancy/subsidized policy question from the updating of the franchise agreement and to allow for potential solutions outside of the confines of the franchise agreement, the working group suggested that the draft ordinance exclude the costs associated with operation of the recycle center as an allowed expenditure for the franchisee. This removes the costs from the rate calculations, which removes the rate payer subsidy issue, but also would require the creation of an alternate funding source for the center to remain open and operational. Operating Costs The Recycle Center, as detailed in the Bell Report, has approximate annual costs of $155,000, with roughly $30,000 relating to on-site attendant labor, $15,000 for program operating margin, $10,000 for general administrative overhead and the remainder ($100,000) reflecting material hauling costs. The Center does have an approximate revenue stream of $20,000 which varies from year to year depending on the market rates for the various recycled materials. The Bell Report details the comingle recycle collection percentage attributed to the Recycle Center versus the curbside comingle collection. The percentage attributed to the Recycle Center was 6%, although that figure was later corrected in a subsequent meeting to be 9%. What was not identified in the report was the percentage of overall collection of cardboard at the Recycle Center, which is source separated from the comingle recycle stream. If cardboard collections are included in the calculations, the Recycle Center percentage of collections compared to curbside comingle increases to 16%. Page] of3 City of Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 54IA88-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam@asbIand.or.us Recology operates several truck routes for commercial cardboard collection that does not currently have a fee, primarily because cardboard is one of the few recyclable materials that has consistently had some level of monetary value in the market place. Should the Recycle Center close, Recology anticipates additional costs associated with commercial cardboard collections that would need to be reflected in rates in some fashion. Policy Issues The Bell Report raises several key policy issues for the Council to deliberate and resolve. One is the question of whether or not the Recycle Center is a redundant service to the curbside comingled collections service. While there are materials accepted at the Recycle Center that are not accepted at the curb, those materials represent a small percentage of the materials processed at the Recycle Center. Additionally, most of those materials are transported and processed by a third party and have no expense attributable to their acceptance at the Center. Related to the issue of redundancy is the lack of data as to the actual user base of the Center. While it is reasonable to conclude that the Recycle Center services overlap and nearly duplicate the curbside comingle collection services available, the issue of redundancy changes when considering who the primary users of the facility are. A reasonable assumption could be made that because the majority of Ashland residents have garbage and recycling collection services thereby not needing regular access to the Recycle Center, a significant number of non-Recology customers in Ashland and beyond utilize the facility yet pay no fees to offset the associated costs. Possible Discussion Points 1) Redundant Service - How much of the operation of the Recycle Center collection is an actual redundant service to Recology subscription customers, i.e. what additional benefits to subscription customers are provided at the Recycle Center? 2) Cost Equity of Recycle Center - Are the users of the Center paying for the services or are the Recology monthly subscription customers disproportionately subsidizing the Recycle Center to the benefit of non Recology customers? (Ashland citizens or users from outside the City) 3) Cost Allocation Model - What are the potential models that could be used to improve (reduce) the level of subsidy currently borne by Recology subscription customers? • Recycle Center costs allocated and charged monthly to all residential/commercial utility accounts (electric accounts equal all households/businesses (11,350), water accounts equal all properties (8,200) • Charges at the Recycle Center per visit/use • Hybrid system that only charges non residents for use of the Center 4) Alternate Uses of Funds currently allocated to Recycle Center - Are there better uses for funds currently paying for the operations of the Recycle Center ($130,000) that would better serve the community in waste prevention and recycling efforts? • Increased waste prevention education and on site audits Page 2 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adarnn ashland.or.us • Direct payments to businesses who provide recycling services (see distributed recycling under #5) • Development and participation in a regional facility (South Valley) that could include rural Jackson County, City of Talent, etc 5) Recycle Center Cost Reductions - What options are available to maintain the current general level of services provided by the Recycle Center at a lower cost? • Relocate Recycle Center to Valley View Transfer Station - reduces staffing overhead and hauling costs • Reduce scope of Recycle Center to collect only materials not currently collected as part of the curbside collections service • Distributed recycle materials collection partners (businesses that connect specific recycling services to their operational success/advantage such as Ashland Hardware and battery recycling, Goodwill as an E-waste recycling facility, etc) Page 3 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.oros adam@ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: February 20, 2014 TO: Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst RE: Committee Charge, Survey Options and Proposed Workplan/Timeline The following are staff comments to assist the committee in discussions and decisions relating to the action items for the February 20th committee meeting. Committee Charge The charge was provided in the initial meeting #1 packet and forms the scope of work for the Committee. Because the charge is much more broad than the name of the Committee implies, breaking it into its components may be helpful. Provide Council with a recommendation on: • The future of the recycle center o Assessment of its effectiveness o What form it should take (services offered, materials accepted, etc) o How it should be funded o Whether it should continue to operate/exist • Examine community-wide waste reduction and recycling efforts o Examine current best practices for application in Ashland o Examine and recommend actions to be implemented to improve waste diversion and recycling o Examine and recommend role of Recycle Center in waste diversion and recycling for the future Survey Options As discussed at the February 6th meeting, staff contacted and met with the School of Business at SOU to investigate the opportunity and availability of SOU student involvement in survey work for data collection relating to the existing customer base of the Recycle Center. SOU has a very good student organization fit for such work (their interdisciplinary Green House); however the timeline for the project and the class schedules did not align. Should the Committee incorporate a recommendation to Council that includes any sort of "deeper dig" into any aspect of the committee scope of work, the Green House could be utilized to conduct that work. Page 1 of3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~.ashland.or.us adameashland.or.us The attached survey is similar to the survey provided in the meeting #1 packet with an added question #4 to attempt to address Councilor Rosenthal's interest in capturing related additional economic development impact associated with non-resident use of the Recycle Center. Without the benefit of SOU student participation, the on-site survey work would be conducted by Recology staff over a one to two week period. City staff would be responsible for compiling the data into a summary report for the Committee. To meet the workplan timeline, the survey would need to be conducted within the first two weeks of March. In addition to the on-site survey, the City has the availability of an online survey/input tool called Open City Hall that provides structure and context for quality input from the general public. Staff suggests that the committee utilize this tool as part of its public input process. Much of the Open City Hall content will mirror that of the on-site survey, but will include additional context and background materials to illicit an as informed response as possible. Committee Work Plan and Timeline Attached is a proposed work plan and timeline with associated tasks and committee decision points that may be helpful in keeping meetings on track and ensuring that the right information is available to you to develop the final recommendations. Possible Discussion Points The committee began some initial discussions on these draft issues and further discussion could be helpful in beginning to put together the options matrix listed in the workplan. 1) Redundant Service - How much of the operation of the Recycle Center collection is an actual redundant service to Recology subscription customers, i.e. what additional benefits to subscription customers are provided at the Recycle Center? 2) Cost Equity of Recycle Center - Are the users of the Center paying for the services or are the Recology monthly subscription customers disproportionately subsidizing the Recycle Center to the benefit of non Recology customers? (Ashland citizens or users from outside the City) 3) Cost Allocation Model - What are the potential models that could be used to improve (reduce) the level of subsidy currently home by Recology subscription customers? • Recycle Center costs allocated and charged monthly to all residential/commercial utility accounts (electric accounts equal all households/businesses (11,350), water accounts equal all properties (8,200) • Charges at the Recycle Center per visit/use • Hybrid system that only charges non residents for use of the Center 4) Alternate Uses of Funds currently allocated to Recycle Center - Are there better uses for funds currently paying for the operations of the Recycle Center ($130,000) that would better serve the community in waste prevention and recycling efforts? • Increased waste prevention education and on site audits Page 2 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adamvashland.or.us • Direct payments to businesses who provide recycling services (see distributed recycling under #5) • Development and participation in a regional facility (South Valley) that could include rural Jackson County, City of Talent, etc 5) Recycle Center Cost Reductions- What options are available to maintain the current general level of services provided by the Recycle Center at a lower cost? • Relocate Recycle Center to Valley View Transfer Station - reduces staffing overhead and hauling costs • Reduce scope of Recycle Center to collect only materials not currently collected as part of the curbside collections service • Distributed recycle materials collection partners (businesses that connect specific recycling services to their operational success/advantage such as Ashland Hardware and battery recycling, Goodwill as an E-waste recycling facility, etc) Page 3 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam a ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: March 6, 2014 TO: Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst RE: On-Site Recycle Center Data Collection & Recommendation Formation Recycle Center Data Collection As discussed and directed at the February 20, 2014 committee meeting, staff revised the data collection questionnaire to provide for individual cross tabulation of question responses to increase the value of the response data. The resulting draft questionnaire also maintains the objective of being short, easy to administer and unlikely to overly burden the Recycle Center users which hopefully results in a high participation rate. The data collection is proposed to take place the weeks of March 17-22 and March 31-April 5 on each Monday, Thursday and Saturday with a minimum of a four hour block for each of the six dates. The questionnaire will be completed by a combination of SOU Recycling student interns, City Conservation staff and Recology staff. Additionally, staff proposes to install a traffic counter inside of the fencing at the vehicle entry between the dates of March 10 through April 7 to provide an overall count of customer visits to the Center. Recommendation Formation Staff recommends the Committee begin to prioritize the various issues outlined in the Committee scope of work. Provide Council with a recommendation on: • The future of the recycle center o Assessment of its effectiveness o What form it should take (services offered, materials accepted, etc) o How it should be funded o Whether it should continue to operate/exist • Examine community-wide waste reduction and recycling efforts o Examine current best practices for application in Ashland o Examine and recommend actions to be implemented to improve waste diversion and recycling o Examine and recommend role of Recycle Center in waste diversion and recycling for the future Page 1 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam@asbland.or.us Discussion Questions: • Is the $1,60 surcharge on Recology subscription customer bills an adequate method of allocating the costs associated with the operation of the Recycle Center? Should other methods be explored? • Should all users of the Recycle Center contribute financially to its operation? • Should the Recycle Center only be available to Ashland residents? • If the Recycle Center were to be closed, what impact would that have on recycling/diversion rates? • If the Recycle Center were to be closed, what impact would that have on the Valley View Transfer station? • Would the closure of the Recycle Center have a positive or negative impact on the recycling/diversion rates of the wasteshed? • Are there new services needed to improve the recycling/division rates beyond those service currently by the Recycle Center? (expansion of services) Possible Discussion Points (From Meeting #2) The committee began some initial discussions on these draft issues and further discussion could be helpful in beginning to put together the options matrix listed in the workplan. 1) Redundant Service - How much of the operation of the Recycle Center collection is an actual redundant service to Recology subscription customers, i.e. what additional benefits to subscription customers are provided at the Recycle Center? 2) Cost Equity of Recycle Center - Are the users of the Center paying for the services or are the Recology monthly subscription customers disproportionately subsidizing the Recycle Center to the benefit of non Recology customers? (Ashland citizens or users from outside the City) 3) Cost Allocation Model - What are the potential models that could be used to improve (reduce) the level of subsidy currently borne by Recology subscription customers? • Recycle Center costs allocated and charged monthly to all residential/commercial utility accounts (electric accounts equal all households/businesses (11,350), water accounts equal all properties (8,200) • Charges at the Recycle Center per visit/use • Hybrid system that only charges non residents for use of the Center 4) Alternate Uses of Funds currently allocated to Recycle Center - Are there better uses for funds currently paying for the operations of the Recycle Center ($130,000) that would better serve the community in waste prevention and recycling efforts? • Increased waste prevention education and on site audits Page 2 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 x .ashland.orus adarn@asbland.or.us • Direct payments to businesses who provide recycling services (see distributed recycling under #5) • Development and participation in a regional facility (South Valley) that could include rural Jackson County, City of Talent, etc 5) Recycle Center Cost Reductions - What options are available to maintain the current general level of services provided by the Recycle Center at a lower cost? • Relocate Recycle Center to Valley View Transfer Station - reduces staffing overhead and hauling costs • Reduce scope of Recycle Center to collect only materials not currently collected as part of the curbside collections service • Distributed recycle materials collection partners (businesses that connect specific recycling services to their operational success/advantage such as Ashland Hardware and battery recycling, Goodwill as an E-waste recycling facility, etc) Page 3 of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800735-2900 ~.ashland.or.us adam@ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 17, 2014 TO: Ad-Hoc Recycle Center Committee FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst RE: On-Site Recycle Center Data Collection & Recommendation Formation Recycle Center Data Collection Data collection took place on a variety of days and time slots between March 2 and April 8th and resulted in approximately 275 unique responses to the questionnaire. The data is currently being aggregated in a way that allows sorting results on multiple queries and a summary document will be prepared with key findings for the following meeting. Additionally, a traffic counter was installed in two different place inside of the fencing at the vehicle entry during the same timeframe to provide an overall count of customer visits to the Center. The results indicated trip counts of over 200 on several days within the timeframe. Complete spreadsheet data with hourly and daily breakdowns will also be available at the next meeting date. Recommendation Formation Staff recommends the Committee begin to prioritize the various issues outlined in the Committee scope of work. As discussed in the previous committee meeting, staff began to investigate potential "best practices" from other communities. While a variety of responses were obtained, much were customized to the particular situations and operations of each community that direct translation to the City of Ashland was difficult. Several common themes that seem fairly universally applicable in most communities are as follows: Expanded education to the community This took many forms, from franchisee developed and implemented, to a sharing of development/implementation between City and franchisee to related but separate educational and outreach services provided directly by the City. Targeted groups for education/outreach also varied heavily by community, mostly falling into the categories of customer classification (residential/commercial with some having separate offerings for multi-family. Other targets included broad community outreach that included service groups, homeowners associations and other social groups and many had some sort of program aimed at schools, most selecting the middle school segment. Pagel of 3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adam n ashland.or.us Waste Stream Audit Several communities conducted municipal/community level waste audits to identify potential areas for targeted reductions/solutions. The most common program resulting from those types of audits related to the separation of food waste from the general waste stream, most commonly commercial programs, but also some pilot residential programs. Within the residential programs, some offered composting classes, some recommended compost bins (often incentivized or provided for free with the classes) Alternate Price Structures The recently completed franchise agreement process that was completed by ordinance and resolution approvals in October contained a provision requesting that Recology research pricing structures that would incentivize waste prevention/reduction and increased recycling. The attached letter from Recology summarizes the work they completed. New Short Terms Ideas for Consideration 1) Sticker program for recycling - incentivizes waste preventers who can go several cycles before their recycle cart is full. Would operate identical to existing trash sticker program as an alternative to the new $5/mo curbside recycling. 2) Inclusion of a 24 gallon cart with a reduced fee. - This could be a viable option to incentivize smaller trash producers. Possible Discussion Points (From Meeting #2) The committee began some initial discussions on these draft issues and further discussion could be helpful in beginning to put together the options matrix listed in the workplan. 1) Redundant Service - How much of the operation of the Recycle Center collection is an actual redundant service to Recology subscription customers, i.e. what additional benefits to subscription customers are provided at the Recycle Center? 2) Cost Equity of Recycle Center - Are the users of the Center paying for the services or are the Recology monthly subscription customers disproportionately subsidizing the Recycle Center to the benefit of non Recology customers? (Ashland citizens or users from outside the City) 3) Cost Allocation Model - What are the potential models that could be used to improve (reduce) the level of subsidy currently borne by Recology subscription customers? • Recycle Center costs allocated and charged monthly to all residential/commercial utility accounts (electric accounts equal all householdsibusinesses (1 1,350), water accounts equal all properties (8,200) • Charges at the Recycle Center per visit/use • Hybrid system that only charges non residents for use of the Center Page 2 ol'3 City Ashland ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 54IA88-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800.735-2900 ww eshland.or.us adam@ashland.or.us 4) Alternate Uses of Funds currently allocated to Recycle Center - Are there better uses for funds currently paying for the operations of the Recycle Center ($130,000) that would better serve the community in waste prevention and recycling efforts? • Increased waste prevention education and on site audits • Direct payments to businesses who provide recycling services (see distributed recycling under #5) • Development and participation in a regional facility (South Valley) that could include rural Jackson County, City of Talent, etc 5) Recycle Center Cost Reductions- What options are available to maintain the current general level of services provided by the Recycle Center at a lower cost? • Relocate Recycle Center to Valley View Transfer Station - reduces staffing overhead and hauling costs • Reduce scope of Recycle Center to collect only materials not currently collected as part of the curbside collections service • Distributed recycle materials collection partners (businesses that connect specific recycling services to their operational success/advantage such as Ashland Hardware and battery recycling, Goodwill as an E-waste recycling facility, etc) Page 3 of 3 Airy Ashland MANN ADMINISTRATION DEPT Tel: 541-552-2046 20 East Main St Fax: 541-088-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 w .ashland.or.us adarn@ashIand.or.us Ydp ZX 8 V E§ qiE EE ~ ~.XA Y€ z.~ ^.X: E Z ~ S Fp - 8 8 v °4 -e r FE L 36 c X ~ a~ _X ~Q 9 - rr =1€ ~ E E s I~ V ~ a 8 [BI E ~ r X (a our ~:X 3 3 yy,u Y _ ~ ~Z~rX E OiS5~ ~ `6 <a `i Y_ e E P y ~ £ SE m'0. £ ~F a~ g rX 5 E y , P =nk ~r~ ~"v y e~Ee ny-~ - ~ c E 9 ~ - _ @ rx ' ~ 3~~X 9 A 9 3 L 9 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting Appointment to Citizen Budget Committee FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Three applications were received for the two vacant positions on the Citizen Budget Committee with one term ending December 31, 2014 and one term ending December 31, 2017. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: A position on the Citizen Budget Committee was created when Joan Williamson resigned due to her living outside the City limits and when Lynn Thompson was appointed to the Planning Commission. Since the noticing of this vacant position in February and March of 2014, and announcements at Regular Council Meetings, three applications have been received. These applications are from Kenneth Wilson, Traci Darrow and Garrett Furuichi. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Select two from the three applications to fill the vacant Citizen Budget Committee positions. SUGGESTED MOTION: I Councilor motion to appoint to the vacant Citizen Budget Committee position with a term ending December 31, 2014. 1 Councilor motion to appoint to the vacant Citizen Budget Committee position with a term ending December 31, 2017. ATTACHMENTS Applications received Page I of I Mr, May 22, 2014 Ashland City Council 20 E. Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Mayor Stromberg and Councilors Slattery, Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, Marsh and Voisin: My name is Traci Darrow, RN and I am applying for a position on the Citizens' Budget Committee. Attached are my application and my resume. I hope that you will review them and I would be happy to meet with each of you to answer any additional questions you may have regarding my application. I have been an Ashland resident for nearly 30 years. I have attended SOU and OHSU School of Nursing, Ashland, and my children attend our top-notch Ashland Schools. I consider myself very lucky to have lived in Ashland for so many years and have been able to raise my children is such a vibrant and diverse community. I feel it is time for me to also give back to my community and volunteer my time and talents to best serve my fellow Ashland residents. My background has been in the public and non-profit sectors for nearly all of my adult life. I worked as the Southern Oregon Field Representative for U.S. Senator Ron Wyden for 12 years. This position allowed me to work as the liaison between the Federal government and our local communities and I have advocated for key investments In our public infrastructure from roads to rail and electric vehicle charging stations to investments In education, health care, telecommunications as well as direct funding for so many of our local non-profit entities that serve the needs of our community. I understand project budgets, matching funds, restricted funds, multi-year budgets as well as annual, programmatic budgets and the management of cash flow. I also worked three Oregon State Legislative sessions (1989, 1991, 1993). One of those sessions for a House member who was on the Ways and Means Committee and also the State Representative from Ashland. Knowing the needs of our community has been something I have been attuned to for many years. As public and private resources become more scarce, knowing how to best allocate those funds becomes even more important as we need to maximize every dollar and leverage public Investments for our future. I have taken coursework in Public Budgeting, Public Administration and non-profit budgeting and management. In my current employment as an RN at Community Health Center I serve on the Leadership Team that Is currently working on organizational budgeting as well as restructuring and creating workflows that best utilize our funding to serve those most vulnerable in our community. We are applying Lean Process theory as well as Hoshin Kanri principles to our management structure to create a sustainable system that has the capacity to incorporate quality and performance Improvement on an on-going basis. Looking at our Board-driven Strategic Plan as well as our Mission and then developing business objectives and goals that match those objectives through our budget and processes is a daily objective for me. I am also currently working on an internal matrix that we can apply to external funding opportunities that will help prioritize the projects and grants we pursue, i.e.; does the funding opportunity fit our mission, do we have the capacity to deliver on the objectives, do we have systems in place to capture the data required and also do we have the ability to liberate the data from our systems when we are required to submit reports on the funds? This way we do not waste time or money on projects that ultimately do not best serve the organization. In my years of working with both public and private budgets it ultimately comes down to the question of: how do we best allocate our dollars to meet the needs of our community. What are our priorities? What are our values? Those are the things we invest In. I hope that you will give consideration to my application and I would like to thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Traci R. Darrow, RN BSN 253 Cambridge Street Ashland, OR 97520 530.595.2460 tracidow@aol.com CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb n,asldand.or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. n r A / Name t t o,L't sl~(~VVt?L(~, tGV ~71U Requesting to serve on; -(Commission/Committee) Address `j3 Occupation Pal Wo Phone: Home ~ 7~ 5Q Zgtoc) rLVYIii1((f U1~Lj 1 ~"G' Work ~3tc 3 J Email I 11 ~L/~)t1'1 Fax 5zlf.:~39 ✓~Ctq'f ; ~~tGj 1. Education Background J What schools have you attended? Soul, What degrees do you hold? /.R) 1 , (JTI~(~ ~)T} PAS 15U, M q What additional training or education hav you had that would ap y t this po ition? ~J) yt Se +l ~ > ~~i2 2. Related Experience ~a What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? p l~ UPU,t~ Ct)r7Yl~l'11a.~ ~,So fr<i~~Dry_ ' ~ . ( 4t° f le. 4 dah ~e -acre CA; N( ~e Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? dpanjip Pizi aPey ~r, 3. Interests h Why are you applying for this position? (CL~~IND (Am1blod tolk 1 Vl~f ISM Q,~r~r Q8 Cu1 l~uji~ Y ? ~~rn~r~P 4. Availability t c~l7elrg Cr,Gr ?~t7 Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Wekfuq, P~ nrvk&AU as u?~I' ill E~ine G9~ocr~lrha 1l~r~y5. 5. Additional Information r) How long have y u lived in this community? r ~~6 Shave Pavila# O/ MY a&# 4W u1. ar , 01,110ell Please use the space belo. to summed a any additional qualifications you have for this Sly position L (~rr1~ I a a ~ L( ~~Y ~~jj Gtt ~ ge dxlyte alld am - ,5ul e yr~ 1Y1~S LL) oh (GG'1JZlId #V (IMW rY 6~k Fz1Jj,& re,~ouxeig In aw kW MnGtZr~eB. ~WA I -U 41 71 MGGG l M[~~i/it y Yb ~['/fC~ omw, ~AV}7IZP P Pie~flP~ G(~il~ri- PLO a kf vPrl~ YJ~ G~ dlP~{1 r,~~ c Date Signature ~r, CITY OF ~~d~~ -AS H LAN D APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO AP CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb(&ashland.or.us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name Garrett Fwvichi Requesting to serve on: -Citizen's Budget Committee (Commission/Committee) Address 359 13 Street Occupation-Small Business Owner Phone: Home: (541)646-0575 Work: Same Email: gf(adcuxchals.com Fax None 1. Education Background What schools have you attended? Golden Gate University, San Francisco California State Unversity, Sacramento What degrees do you hold? MBA -Corporate Finance and Real Estate/Land Use. Bachelor's Business Administration - Finance and Real Estate What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Completed Revenue School for Recreation and Park Department. Complete Budget Training using FAMIS (Oracle) software. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? I have prepared financial budgets for various entities. including non-prolits. tribal corporations and government departments. As the budget officer for the City of San Francisco Recreation and Park Department I was responsibel for the compliation of the annual budget of S65 million. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? Not at this time 1r, 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I. want to contribute my skills and promote the fiscal health of our communtity. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Yes, prefer evenings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? Seven Years Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position Managed annual budget and monitoring for Departments divers operations including parks, recreation programs, facilities, golf courses, professional sports teams. and Campground. Supervised revenue accounting section, held monthly fiscal management meetings on budget reviews and discussions of tactics to deal with specific situations, e.g., re-routing funds for a new program, salary cost savings, and generating new revenue. Prepared Revenue forecasts and participated in planning and developing new revenue sources, led effort to develop logo merchandise for Department. Aggressively sought (and found) opportunities to cut expenses, Presented cost savings and revenue forecasts to Commission. Audited gate receipts from major events attended by up to 20,000 people. Contract administration. Wrote RFPS for projects, established selection criteria and evaluated proposals. Made recommendations to contract with particular concessionaires: developed practices and audit programs for monitoring concessionaire activity and their revenue streams. Designed and led in-house training on cash collection process and improved revenue accounting and reconciliation. o Managed annual budget preparation of S65 Million Operating and Capital budget, including negotiations with Mayor's office and presentations to Commission and Board of Supervisors, a Developed a revenue reporting system That improved collection of data, specifically visitation statistics for tourist sites and facilities, providing a variety of other information we previously did not have: a Successfully advocated to reduce energy use by over 75% for three of our city pools, conducted pilot project in cooperation with Bureau of Energy Conservation utilizing new technology in compact fluorescent fixtures, o Established new policies and procedures for cash handling. thereby improving accounting and reporting for facility use and attendance; and stream lined deposit preparation reducing data entry by 90 percent, o Supervised revenue accounting section. including billing, collection and event reservations, conducted organization and financial audits, and implemented collection policy procedures for rental facilities such as the Yacht Harbor that improved collections and reduce delinquent payment by 40 percent, o Prepared monthly Board presentation of financial condition, analysis of fees, and forecast of S43 Million revenue budget that included diverse revenues from golf course green fees, stadium operations, athletic and aquatic activities, leases; food and beverage contracts, parking receipts, and special events, 4/ 3%2014 Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO CITY COMMISSION/COMMITTEE Please type or print answers to the following questions and submit to the City Recorder at City Hall, 20 E Main Street, or email christeb dmhiand.or us. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the City Recorder at 488-5307. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Name: Kenneth Wilson Requesting to serve on: Citizens Budget Committee MAY 1 9 y~~ 6 Y 10jy ~S/U/// Address: 190 Logan Drive Occupation: Vocational Counselor/Consultant Home: 5414821305 Mobile: 5413011911 Work: 541 482 8888 Email: kwilson@marcopoloassociates.com Fax: 541 482 1046 1. Education Backeroand What schools have you attended? Purdue University, University of Minnesota, Eastern Michigan University What degrees do you hold? BSEE, MBA - Finance What additional training or education have you had that would apply to this position? Past training on several accounting systems (no longer proficient), CUFFS financial modeling software, QuickBooks and extensive Excel training and use. I have also been trained in Robert Bradford's Simplified Strategic Planning process and offer this through my consulting practice. 2. Related Experience What prior work experience have you had that would help you if you were appointed to this position? (see attached resume) Worked as Controller, Director of Financial Planning and in various management positions requiring development and management of budgets. I was also a member of the Advisory Board of Directors for Park Industries (St. Cloud, MN) for 5 years and for 3 years on the Board and as Treasurer for Havurah Shir Hadash. Do you feel it would be advantageous for you to have further training in this field, such as attending conferences or seminars? Why? - I don't see any training requirements at this time. 3. Interests Why are you applying for this position? I feel this is a meaningful way I can use my experience and capability to help Ashland be on sound financial footing so it can continue to be a great community to live in. 4. Availability Are you available to attend special meetings, in addition to the regularly scheduled meetings? Do you prefer day or evening meetings? Because of my semi-retirement status my time is quite flexible and with sufficient notice I can be available for both day and evening meetings. 5. Additional Information How long have you lived in this community? My wife Susan and I have been living in Ashland for almost 10 years and prior to that have visited Ashland attending OSF since 1984. Please use the space below to summarize any additional qualifications you have for this position 5/19/2014 Date Signature CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance Prohibiting the Unlawful Carrying of Loaded Firearms in Public Places FROM: Dave Lohman, city attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This agenda item is for the Council to decide whether to proceed with first reading of an ordinance that would prohibit persons who do not have a concealed weapons permit from openly carrying loaded firearms in public places in Ashland. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Early in 2014, a group called Citizens for a Safe Ashland drafted two gun-related ordinances for Council consideration. One draft ordinance was to make it a class A misdemeanor to endanger a child by failing to prevent access to a loaded or unloaded firearm by a minor without the permission a parent or guardian. The other ordinance was to make it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly possess or carry a loaded firearm without a concealed weapons permit in a public place, including while in a vehicle in a public place. The Council reviewed the pros and cons of these ordinances at its February 4 and February 18 study sessions. The Council conducted a public hearing on these two ordinances at its March 18, 2014 business meeting. At the conclusion of the March 18 public hearing, a motion to adopt the draft ordinance against allowing minors to get access to firearms failed to pass. Council directed staff to revise the draft prohibition on the open carry of loaded firearms so as to exempt firearms carried in vehicles and to bring a revised ordinance back to Council for first reading. The attached draft ordinance does exempt persons transporting firearms in a lockable enclosed vehicle, but is otherwise contains the exactly the same prohibition on "open carry" that was presented for public hearing at the March 18 meeting. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff has no recommendation on this matter. Page I of2 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION I move approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance restricting openly carrying loaded firearms in public places." or I move to postpone indefinitely the ordinance titled "An ordinance restricting openly carrying loaded firearms in public places." ATTACHMENTS: Draft ordinance Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING OPENLY CARRYING LOADED FIREARMS IN PUBLIC PLACES Annotated to show ae'ns--and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, ORS 166.173 expressly authorizes Oregon local jurisdictions to enact ordinances to regulate, restrict or prohibit persons from possessing loaded firearms in public places, except for persons expressly exempted by statute; WHEREAS, the City has determined, on the basis of past and recent instances of firearms- related violence in the City, the State, and the Nation, that public safety is compromised by persons without firearms permits carrying loaded firearms in public places; WHEREAS, the Oregon Supreme Court recently has held that Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution does not preclude enactment of a provision regulating "the manner, possession, and the use of constitutionally protected arms," and permits "wide legislative latitude" to enact specific regulations restricting the possession and use of weapons to the extent such regulation of arms is necessary to promoting the public safety and does not unduly frustrate the individual right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense; WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court recently opined that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not preclude laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive public places; WHEREAS, the Oregon Supreme Court recently has upheld a City of Portland ordinance provision restricting possession of loaded firearms in public places against the claim that the provision violated Article 1, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 I WHEREAS, in order to promote public safety the City wishes to enact a municipal code provision which restricts the carrying of loaded firearms in public places under certain conditions and which is identical to the City of Portland restriction already upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Definitions. The following definitions govern the construction this Chapter: A. "Firearm" means a weapon, by whatever name known, which is designed to expel a proiectile by the action of powder. B. "Public place" means a place to which the general public has access and includes, but is not limited to, hallways, lobbies and other parts of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence, and highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, and premises used in connection with public passenger transportation. SECTION 2. Possession of a Loaded Firearm in a Public Place. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess or carry a firearm, in or upon a public place, recklessly having failed to remove all ammunition from the firearm. SECTION 3. Exceptions. Section 2 does not apply to or affect the following persons: A. A law enforcement officer in the performance of official duty. B. A member of the military in performance of official duty. C. A person licensed to carry a concealed handgun. D. A person authorized to possess a loaded firearm while in or upon a public building or court facility under ORS 166.370. E. An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, who possesses a loaded firearm in the course of a lawful taking wildlife. F. A government employee authorized or required by his or her employment or office to carry firearms. G. A person conducting an athletic contest to fires blank ammunition in a plug firearm toward the sky. H. A person authorized by permit of the chief of police to discharge blank ammunition or a weapon for a lawful purpose. L _A person traveling to and from and discharging a firearm or weapon on a licensed public or private shooting range, shooting gallery or other approved area designed or built for the purpose of target shooting, when such person is a member or guest of said range or area. J. A person transporting firearms in a lockable, enclosed vehicle. SECTION 4. Penalties. Violation of this Chapter is a Class A misdemeanor. Ordinance No. _ Page 2 of 3 SECTION 5. 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 6. 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 Nos. 5-6) need not be codified, and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2014, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 12014. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder 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 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication June 17, 2014, Business meeting An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Sections 1.08.010, 1.08.020 and 1.08.030 FROM: David H. Lohman, Ashland City Attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This agenda item seeks Council's consideration and first reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, which would clarify the Municipal Court's jurisdiction, revise the penalties associated with criminal and violation offenses and clarify that the fine and incarceration limits established in City Charter apply only to penalties for violations and crimes established by City ordinances and resolutions. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Oregon State Legislature revised ORS 153, Violations and Fines, published by the Office of the State Administrator, Oregon Department of Justice, making it necessary to modify AMC Chapter 1.08. The proposed revisions to AMC 1.08 are necessary and useful to law enforcement, code compliance officers, and the general public's understanding of the minimum and maximum amounts of general penalties. Additional informational tables have been added to clarify classifications of violations between State and AMC designation. The proposed revisions also make clear that the Municipal Court has jurisdiction over specified crimes under Oregon revised statutes, as well as the authority to impose appropriate penalties for commission of those crimes. Finally, the proposed revisions clear up a possible misunderstanding about limits on fines and incarcerations contained in the Article 9, Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter. That section prevents the Council from imposing fines in excess of $500 and imprisonment at hard labor in excess of 60 days for violation of any City ordinances, resolutions or charter provisions. The revised ordinance makes explicit the fact that this limitation does not apply to fines or sentences imposed as a result of the violations of state law. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve first reading of the ordinance and move it to second reading. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalties, Sections 1.08.010, 1.08.020 and 1.08.030." ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 1.08 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 1.08 GENERAL PENALTY, SECTIONS 1.08.010, 1.08.020 AND 1.08.030 COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT STATE STATUTES Annotated to show dele iens-and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the Oregon State Legislature has amended ORS 153 Violations and Fines, effectuating changes to the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 1.08 General Penalties. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 1.08, GENERAL PENALTY, Section 1.08.010 Misdemeanor Penalties and Procedures, Section 1.08.020 Violation Penalties and Procedures, and Section 1.08.030 Base Fines, Schedule of Violation Penalties, are hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 1.08 GENERAL PENALT--VIES Section 1.08.010 Municipal Court Jurisdiction. Misdemeanor Penalties and Procedures A. The municipal court shall have jurisdiction over all offenses made punishable under the ordinances of the City of Ashland; all misdemeanor crimes made punishable under ORS Chapters 161 through 167 and 471 through 480: all violations, as defined by ORS 153.005(3); and all traffic offenses, as defined by ORS 801.555, that are made punishable under Title 59 of the Oregon Revised Statutes, other than felony traffic crimes. 1) When jurisdiction on a matter is conferred on the municipal court, all the means to carry such jurisdiction into effect is also given to the municipal fudge; and in the exercise of such jurisdiction, if the rules of procedure are not specifically identified or made applicable to the municipal court under this Chapter, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted by the municipal judge which may appear most conformable to the exercise of such jurisdiction. 2) Rules of Procedure. The municipal judge may adopt and publish rules necessary for the prompt and orderly conduct of the business of the municipal court. Rules adopted by the municipal judge pursuant to this section shall be consistent with the provisions of Ordinance No. _ Page I of 6 ORS Chapter 153, ORS Chapter 156, and any rules adopted by the Oregon Supreme Court pursuant to ORS 153.033. AB. Unless otherwise specifically provided, when the Ashland Municipal Code identifies violation of its provisions as a misdemeanor or as subject to this section, any person violating any provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this code is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor- offense [maximum $2500 fine and one hundred eighty (180) days =°i°, provided ho ever, whike criminal offense having a maximum fine and incarceration not exceeding the limitations of Article 9, Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter days, are oper-stive, any per-son eonvieted of a misdemeanor- under this eode shall be punished-by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00), or- by imprisonment not to exeeed sixty (60) or- by both sueh fine and impriseamen4. 1) Notwithstanding the above, according to ORS 221.339, municipal courts have concurrent jurisdiction with circuit courts and justice courts over misdemeanors committed or triable in the city. The Ashland municipal court is subject to the state laws it enforces and is not subject to the fine and incarceration limitations of the Ashland City Charter. 42) In addition to a fine and incarceration, the municipal court may impose any additional punishment, probation, remedial measure (e.g. restitution), or expulsion as provided under AMC 10.120 et sec., that is appropriate for the offense. Q Adoption of State Criminal Lim,s and Preeedures 1) All eriminal proeedures, previsions and requirements applieuble to viellitions and misdemeanors, ineluding but not fintited to Oregon Evidenee Code, (ORS Chapters 40 and 41), ORS Chapter 153 violations, defenses, bur-den of proof, general liability, prineiples of criminal pm4ies, and general pr-ifleiples of justifleatioll f eentained in Oregon Revised Statutes Chapters 131 through and ineluding well as Chapten 471 through 480 are hereby adopted in full nad mnde tipplieftble to Chapters- 161, 162, f 16 4, 165, 166 and 167, as well as offenses deser-ibed in the Oregon Vehiele Code and ORS Chapters f 137, 153, 471, 4 75, 476, and 480, are hereby seetion fidopted by refer-enee is an offense against this eity and shall be punishable to the same extent as pr-ovided in the Code. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein prohibits or restriets the City poliee or- City Attorney from eleeting to pursue a eharge and proseente defendants with state law offenses in the finme of the State of Oreg.n pursuant to ORS 221 339 1 J du er-ent meaning, definitions appearing in the general definitional and other partieular- seetions of ehapters adopted by subseetions (1) and (2) of this seetion are appheable throughout this ehapter. Where appropriate, s to "state" nad "state statute" shall bedeemed 4 1 1 d Ordinance No. Page 2 of 6 The city police, city attorney, assistant city attorney, and municipal court, including the municipal court judge, judges pro tem, court supervisor and deputy court clerks, shall have all the powers, duties, and responsibilities provided under Oregon Revised Statutes, applicable to investigation, prosecution, administration, and adjudication of criminal offenses and violations within the city of Ashland and on city-owned property as applicable. 15)D. The statutes, codes and procedures adopted herein are expressly made applicable within the city limits of the city of Ashland as well as outside the city limits When eeneer-Hing for offenses occurring on city-owned or controlled property located outside the city limits of the city of Ashland, Oregon. BE. Each such person is guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this code is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and shall be punished accordingly. The costs of prosecution, including but not limited to court costs, assessments, fees, surcharges, restitution, and the like, shall not be included within the $500 fine limitation. The prosecution in Ashland municipal court of state law misdemeanors and violations pursuant to ORS 221.339 is not limited by the fine and incarceration limitations of the city charter. Section 1.08.020 Violation Penalties and Procedures. A. Violation efienses in the Ashland Munieipal Code shall be elassified as a Class 1, Class 14-, Class TTT ' a Class W violations Dieept e,.« the minimum fine .....,.viii,.. s e f ORS 153.021, ....ate„ .....aa Munieipal Cede as Class T, TT, M D. Al shall be applied a.w ......a.aa in the Ashland D . iol..tions as set f '•th in ORS C apte aA ffem Glassifieation and Base Fine r fits When ..b r.V.uawa.o we a,nw uv ats.l nn.l as tl.a ...,a vuav.r.my or........w ..t the Ashland as «,.1 Code er in ethef , V.uuw. Va. v.mv ouwa be u C.µoo as raVaµu .ue. violation e ff nse shall be as spe a,l e^r the ....a.. a...a.a.. The penalty iV...Vl.la.a..au.g u wwoou.vu..VU Vi .uv Vua.amv in the vvua.uwV of Penalties, Violation Seetien , [Table fl, or- as otherwise speeifieally designated in the Ashland Municipal Cede. Pfavided L.,...., yef, while the $500 dollar liniita4ien ,.F A.aale n, Seetien 1 of thAshland City Chai4e aw rv a. raa a Gity Of:dittanre offense, shall not exeeed $500. hi addition, eEteh and every-day-dii~ perseii er entity shall constitute a sepafate vielation subjeet to a separate fine and sueh perseffi shall be punished b J of proseetttiene ..hiding but not 1:.. ited to eau within the $500 li pu.ouum to ORS to ORS 221 339: not limited by the fine and ineareeration 1:"':tatiE F 7. w Ashland City Chai4ef. 2) See AMC «t Violation for additional 1uo and i veeauies is e ~ 1n. 1__,,20, _ et . see., Pe..,..,~.. a . penalties uuvr viol lass 1 Al "-.tens: R C'ubjeet to Chafler limitations, and netwithst.....ding a other previsian of the Ashland establishes a speeial s rata fine of t• iee the a .fit of fine speeified for- an individual per eless of offense in AMC 108.039 Table 1. "Cefpafate" Ordinance No. Page 3 of 6 Limited r xT~&ixi.~ bilit. Company of other entity, tir.t7~ ixvart i T.. d.dldl:tien t fine, 1. ...da °a1 x- pcf3vi . Municipal ^e••"t may impase additional punishment o medial measure (e.g. festitutien.) appropfiate f «the elation offense. A. The violations referenced in Ashland Municipal Code as Class I, II, III and IVeoincide respectively with provisions identified as Class A, B, C, and D violations in ORS chapter 153, as follows: (1) Class I - Class A; (2) Class II - Class B; (3) Class III - Class C; (4) Class IV - Class D; (5) Unclassified - An offense that is designated as a violation but does not specify the classification of the violation is an unclassified violation and is treated as a Class II (Class B) violation. B. Parking violations are excluded from Classification and Presumptive Fine requirements. C. A separate violation shall be deemed committed each day during or on which a violation or noncompliance occurs or continues. D. Persistent Violation has additional penalties and procedures for Class I - IV violations, as set forth in AMC 10.120, et sec. Section 1.08.030 BaseMaximum and Presumptive Fines, Schedules of Violation Penalties. A. Base Fine. Pur-suant to ORS 153.142, base fine ealeuWiens shall be eonsistent with state law for all u.. eit.) « ordl:...d.nee violations mid ethef violations subjeet to the jtifisdietion of 1. .u...u. "fall be adde J to the f.....dl.. ___.".apu. .al n ,d.d» o•• i4, vo.. v that ~ "«tr. that Ciut., n u if o". ar., m a...vc.. in ooooaae a,. , i «n t in the saffle manner as state and o «t., u assessments o added to the foundafien uw o fine. State nt.d and la al n ..td. and »:bes, . anY, $i-c°-added -cvfines, fiat acvciccca-zrvlmrxcrar~"rcacicnvxr-vra .....d»......,»...,. lfffien retains o the the »yp::fr.a..d :.,...nt.~ o any adxrT mi -1 f t oo » ..e...».....n te stat..e d as well o u misdenieanaf assessments. .d inanees of enses d.«A otheF Git....:d.lot:d.«" ..4hin tl.d.:efisd ie fien or f the Td xvxf..nieipal Cauit "fall have !he cr to"":Cp.o.rxrlcutcxm:ors and ..............~»...,»..d n n~anxcxpax coact ~uaanxava~xx~-rxv b vaoc fines, noted oft Table 1 bolo::.. Table 1 Sehed ulo of Viel..tien Ud...d.lties±# ~V.': _o-l^n i ds Maximut}3 Base fine &720-.WI $427,00 $472.00 $360.00 $2887..00 Unelassified $360.00 X42.00 $2&'7.00 Class M 5180.00 $143:99 190 09 Class Al &090:90 $142v0 t Subj:eett to !'`hai4er limitation on fifte ..otedl in AMC 1 08 020 the maximum fine must b lewefed to $500.00 C«n' plus «l: able "tots' n nt.d and assessments eity and surehaf ges, if a!J #4 These px.,.xxano siens d e not apply generally to Parking Offenses ti.1ess " 'F dJ 1, ..,.d.,., AMC. Ordinance No. Page 4 of 6 A. Fines: The penalty for committing a violation is a fine. The law creating a violation may impose other penalties in addition to a fine. 1. The maximum fine for a violation committed by an individual is set forth in Section B, Table 1 below. 2. The presumptive fine for a violation committed by an individual is set forth in Section B, Table 1 below. a. The presumptive fine is defined as a set fine imposed against the defendant who mails or delivers to the court a plea of no contest and the dollar amount in lieu of a court appearance. 3. City surcharge assessment, if any, shall be added to any fine imposed by the court upon the defendant's entry of plea or finding of guilt. 4. A reduction of a misdemeanor to a violation retains the respective state, county, and/or city misdemeanor assessments. B. Schedules of Violation Penalties. Table 1 Schedule of Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Violation Penalties* Ashland Violation Class Maximum Presum tive** Class I $500.00*** $435.00 Class II $325.00 $260.00 Unclassified $325.00 260.00 Class 111 $200.00 $160.00 Class IV $138.00 $110.00 Table 2 Schedule of Adopted State Violation Penalties, adopted from state law:**** State Violation Class Ashland Violation Class Maximum Presum tive** Class A Class I $2000.00 $435.00 Class B Class 11 $1000.00 $260.00 Class B Unclassified $1000.00 $260.00 Class C Class 111 $ 500.00 $160.00 Class D Class IV $ 250.00 $110.00 * These provisions do not apply generally to Parking Offenses unless specified in the AMC. r The presumptive fine imposed against the defendant who pleads no contest and delivers the amount of the presumptive fine to the court. Subject to Charter limitation the maximum fine may not exceed $500.00, plus applicable state county fees. ****The Ashland municipal court is subject to the state laws it enforces and is not subject to the fine and incarceration limitations of the Ashland City Charter. C. Business Fine: A sentence to pay a fine for a violation committed by a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other type business entity shall be in an amount Ordinance No. Page 5 of 6 not to exceed twice the fine established under this section, subiect to limits of the City Charter. D. In addition to a fine, the municipal court may impose additional punishment or remedial measure (e.g. restitution, expulsion, treatment) appropriate for the violation offense. SECTION 2. Savings. Nothing in this ordinance shall affect the validity of or the procedures and penalties applicable to criminal or civil enforcement actions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the charges were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severabilitv. 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.2-4) 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 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2014. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 6 of 6 I