Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-0721 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF ASHLAND Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Form. Any citizen may submit written continents to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please 511 out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you, if any. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the 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 July 21, 2015 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.] 6:30 p.m. Executive Session in the Jury Room for real property transaction pursuant to ORS 190.660(2)(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. Study Session of June 15, 2015 2. Business Meeting of June 16, 2015 3. Special Meeting of June 30, 2015 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Proclamation of July 26 - August 1, 2015 as Pacific Rim Bowl Week 2. Proclamation of August 6, 2015 as Hiroshima Day and August 9, 2015 as Nagasaki Day VII. 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] VIII. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Sole source procurement with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce for a Business Retention and Expansion survey 3. Public contracts for Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant chemicals 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 4. Intergovernmental agreement with Rogue Valley Council of Governments and the Cities of Ashland, Talent, and Phoenix 5. Ratification of a collective bargaining agreement with the local union No. 659 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Clerical/ Technical) 6. Authority to continue a contract between the Ashland Police Department and the Medford Police Department for after-hours records services 7. Approval of a contract-specific procurement with William Olsen Designs for the creation of a Japanese Garden Torii gateway in Lithia Park 8. Liquor license application for Rachelle Canaday dba Home State BBQ 9. Liquor license application for Morgan George dba Northwest Pizza 10. Approval of recommendation from the Public Art Commission to accept the sculpture Pacific Fischer 11. Special procurement for the purchase of Itron electric meters and Itron meter reading equipment 12. TGM grant application letter of support for the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Transportation study IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance modifying the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement to allow partitioning of the property consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for lots #3 - #9 and #15 - #17; modifying the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation and open space improvements in Phase I; and modifying Exhiit E of the approved Development Agreement with amended language to condition #30 relating to the construction and timing of street improvements for Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, and the addition of two new conditions" X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. City of Ashland Risk Management Update for FY 2013-15 2. Report on City of Ashland's Sweatfree Purchasing policy, program, and participation in the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium 3. Discussion and direction to staff regarding retail sales of marijuana XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS None 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). VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City Council Study Session June 15, 2015 Page I of 3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, June 15, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, Voisin, Marsh, and Seffinger were present. 1. Public Input Jeff Sharpe/Submitted a map into the record depicting possible compatible uses for the Imperatrice property that included critical wildlife habitats, trails, agriculture, pasture to sustain 150 goats for cheese and dairy, a solar power plant, a Southern Oregon University biomass facility and over one hundred acres set aside for retention ponds. Bruce Fiero/Worked with a group of professionals on a plan to use a portion of the Imperatrice property as a renewable energy park and submitted a document into the record. The project would generate 16-megawatt hours of power annually with a net retail value of approximately $3,000,000 a year. The City would inherit the site at the end of a 15 or 20-year lease. Jana Toney/80 Ashland Lane/Was familiar with the Imperatrice properties and supported creating a conservation easement on the property. She was concerned with 381E 27100 and the need to protect the multiple resources within that area. Another issue was establishing a trail on the property. The area was at high risk for fire. Eric Hansen/330 East Hersey Street/Introduced himself as the cofounder of True South Solar and described the solar site assessment services they provided. He supported a solar park on the Imperatrice property. If the City was serious about solar they needed to invest in a feasibility study and site assessment. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Explained the Ashland Renewable Energy Acquisition Department he presented at prior meetings included a structural wattage construction code that would provide the number of solar panels needed on homes. Using the land across the highway could provide another 5 megawatts for a total of 10 megawatts to balance existing structures and future growth. Ten megawatts would only provide two years of energy. The City needed 500 megawatts to cover homes, cars, trucks and more. The land across from the highway was 4,000 acres, larger than Imperatrice but the City needed to act soon. 1-le questioned what would happen if they installed solar panels on the Imperatrice property and the City improvised on the effluent. If he were the Community Development Director, he would have pulled $30,000 from the Electric Department and set up the solar panels. The City should take the risk. 2. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead and noted a correction that the October 6, 2015 Study Session was actually October 19, 2015. 3. Discussion of the long-term future of the Imperatrice Property City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the City originally purchased the Imperatrice property for effluent. The Public Works department would know within two years whether they needed the land for spreading effluent or not. They hired consultant CH2MHill who drafted a document discussing why the City may need the property for effluent treatment. Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury explained the City was halfway through the mixing zone outfall relocation study that CH2MHill was performing. They were looking at future permit requirements in regards to metals and temperature. The project would relocate the current outfall in Ashland Creek to Bear Creek in order to obtain a new mixing zone to help the City meet future permit requirements. Managing temperatures City Council Study Session June 15, 2015 Page 2 of 3 involved the near field and far field. Near field temperature requirements were point of impact where the effluent water reached the new mixing zone in Bear Creek. The far field was the overall thermal impact put into the watershed where shading and riparian restoration could meet the temperature requirements. During spring and fall months, specifically April, May, October, and November, the City could not meet temperature requirements through wetlands treatment due to lack of foliage at those times. Near field water temperatures during those periods were 2 degrees Celsius above the requirement. They could store the effluent on the Imperatrice property then put it back into the creek or apply treated effluent to the land. They would know actual storage requirements at the end of the study. Staff was also looking into water removal and replacement from Ashland Creek into Bear Creek. The City had a Talent Irrigation District (TID) water right on the Imperatrice Property. Staff was discussing using that water right to offset water removed from Ashland Creek. Alternately, the City could spray effluent onto the property and transfer the water right to another location within the City. Currently they did not know the size of the storage unit needed to store effluent or the location on the Imperatrice property. The project would require several thousand feet of pipe starting at Oak Street, irrigation and spray systems. The property consisted of two types of clay. According to a prior study in 1998, the amount of spraying and pattern would meet the agronomic rate of what the City would plant. Staff would address spray, pattern, and what crops to plant during the design process. The mixing zone study would determine what the City needed to meet permit requirements. The permit and design portion would follow in phases. If the Imperatrice property were not available to store effluent the City would look into a cooling tower and chiller at the current Wastewater Treatment site. They would still need storage for effluent. Staff did a general evaluation on purple pipe systems that could reuse effluent for irrigation on City park property. The effluent was treated to Class A and could be directly applied. They did not pursue feasibility or cost study because the infrastructure needed was expensive. Building water tanks to truck to farms was an alternative staff could look into during the next master plan update. The Wastewater Master Plan was a planning level document that usually involved refinements when the engineering processes began. Shading would meet the far field temperature requirements. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provided temperature requirements that assumed a certain level of temperature that would need to be reduced in the near field. Since then, CH2MHill determined a temperature difference more than the initial estimate by DEQ for peak periods in April-May and October-November. The City could not use existing wetlands for treatment. The Parks and Recreation Department had an area adjacent to the current Wastewater Treatment Plant forecasted as a third oxidation ditch. Mr. Fleury confirmed the average daily effluent outfall was 2 million gallons per day 2 degrees warmer than required. Kristi Mergenthaler, a representative from the Southern Oregon Land Conservancy explained the Conservancy was very interested in conserving areas on the Imperatrice property. Recently they discovered the largest known breeding colony of grasshopper sparrows in Oregon on the property. Endemic buttercup was also found on the Imperatrice property known only in Jackson County. The grassland above the ditch was incredibly intact when grasslands on pacific coast states were endanger with less than 10% left. Supporting all or some of the property through a conservation easement to protect the natural heritage for future generations was a great gift to the community. The Conservancy was interested in purchasing the property or creating conservation easements on the property and managing it themselves. Conservation easements were flexible legal tools that protected conservation values and agricultural lands. The Conservancy addressed the plan for solar and did not want the possibility of sustainable energy destroying bio-diversity. Parks and Recreation Director Michael Black explained they were looking into obtaining trail easements to connect the Imperatrice property to Grizzly Peak. A single trail would have a minor effect, if any on storing City Council Study Session June 15, 2015 Page 3 of 3 effluent. Other conservation and recreational opportunities on the property could include a mountain bike skills park as well. Mr. Fleury clarified part of the treatment for wastewater added heat but he suspected the warm water from showers, dishwashers, and laundry was the reason for the higher temperature in the near field. Mayor Stromberg read a Questions and Answers document regarding a solar farm on the Imperatrice property that he submitted into the record. The document indicated reasons why the Imperatrice property was not conducive for solar that would benefit Ashland. The solar installation would not decrease Ashland's greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint. The power- generated would not go to the City of Ashland's electric system. Pacific Power would most likely purchase the power and sell it elsewhere. It would also cost 8-cents per kilowatt-hour instead of the 3.75-cents currently charged through the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Wholesale electricity served by BPA was the lowest in the nation. At the end of the 15-20 year lease the City could inherit a system in the latter half of its life expectancy requiring expensive upkeep and replacement. The document also discussed requests for proposals (RFP), the solar tax credit that would sunset 2016 and compared solar on rooftops in Ashland to solar farms. Councilor Voisin had issues with the questions and answers document and disagreed with how the Mayor introduced the document into the meeting. Council agreed to encourage further development of trails and recreational options in concert with Public Works that would not conflict with the effluent study. Council wanted to delay all other decisions regarding uses until the study was complete in 1.5 years. Council comments were concerned using the wetlands for solar or effluent, wanted the Parks and Recreation Department involved for open space and trail systems, and wanted to look at ways to enhance the City's solar program. Opposing comments wanted to designate 40- acres for a solar park. Council was interested in a Study Session regarding the electric utility to review energy sources and having the Conservation Commission review new products and systems for waste management. 4. Discussion of planning for City Hall replacement City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the 2008 Facilities Master Plan concluded the City's top priority was Fire Station 2 then City Hall. The document identified a number of different options that included adding floors to the current City Hall or new construction. Alternately the Community Development building could have two additional stories added. He suggested taking the next two years to discuss what the community valued most in terns of providing better and safer office space then analyze different ways to accomplish space needs. He referenced the master planning process from the City of Eugene and incorporated five steps they used that would help a hired consultant team facilitate the process for the City. The Heiman family deeded City Hall to the City in the 1890s with the stipulation if the City no longer used it for city purposes it went back to Heiman heirs. If the City chose to stay in the present City Hall building, they could gut the interior, do the seismic retrofit then rebuild the interior and increase it to four floors. Both the Community Development Building and City Hall were out of space. Council directed staff to have a new seismic study done on City Hall and the Parks and Recreation building. Mr. Kanner would use the results to update the space needs analysis document. Councilor Marsh was interested in cost estimates to add floors to City Hall. Mr. Kanner would bring a ballpark estimate on the seismic study to the June 16, 2015 Council meeting. Meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 1 of 10 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 16, 2015 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced the City completed the annual appointment process for the various Commissions, Committees, and Boards but there were still vacancies on the following Commissions: Airport, Forest Lands, Housing & Human Services, Public Arts, Transportation, Tree, and Wildfire Mitigation. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of June 1, 2015 and Business Meeting of June 2, 2015 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Conservation Commissioner Mark Weir presented the Earth Bowl award to John Muir Middle School students for winning a competition put on by the Conservation Commission regarding climate change and water conservation. PUBLIC FORUM Dr. Aaron Corbet/423 North Main Street/Explained he was a research bio-physicist who also evaluated green energy projects. There was a huge spectrum of green energy products and people locally knowledgeable in this field. He wanted the Council to provide start up money for locals with green business ideas. Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Announced that Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) would hold a summit October 13-14, 2015 titled Our Critical Climate at the Inn at the Commons in Medford. SOCAN invited everyone to contribute their concerns, expertise and participate in developing solutions that would benefit the region. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of minutes of boards, commissions, and committees 2. Liquor license application for Brian Denner dba Simple Machine 3. Liquor license application for Will Volpert dba Rogue Creations, LLC 4. Application for Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board grant 5. Special procurement - Neilson Research, water quality testing 6. Special procurement - polydyne (polymer) for Wastewater Treatment Plant 7. Special procurement - aluminum sulfate for Water Treatment Plant 8. Sole source procurement - Dry Creek Landfill Councilor Voisin pulled Consent Agenda 98 for discussion. Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison clarified if Dry Creek Landfill raised their fee the City would incur a rate increase. Dry Creek Landfill could refuse to take City sludge but there was no reason to think they would. Engineering Services Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 2 of 10 Manager Scott Henry further explained last year when one of the centrifuges had an issue, the City signed an intergovernmental agreement to deposit City sludge in Medford as part of their drying bed operation. If Dry Creek Landfill chose not to accept City sludge, Medford would serve as a back up on an interim basis for a fee. The master plan assessed two options where the City could sell sludge to a co-compost facility or a thermal drier and recommended looking at that in the future. Both options would involve capital expenditures. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing and approval of a resolutions titled, "A resolution adopting the 2015-17 Biennial Budget and making appropriations," and, "A resolution certifying city provides sufficient municipal services to qualify for State subventions, " and, "A resolution declaring the City's election to receive State revenues," and approval of first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2015 to and including June 30, 2016, such taxes in the sum of 510,728,511 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon." Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the third phase of the budget required a public hearing. The Citizen's Budget Committee set the property tax rate at 4.1972 cents per $1,000. This was consistent with prior years. A special meeting would occur June 30, 2015 for Council to approve the second reading of the ordinance. City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed the seismic study for City Hall and the Parks and Recreation building discussed the night before during the Study Session. The cost to update the seismic study for both buildings was $9,800 leaving $90,000 to research options to replace or remodel City Hall. He provided options for transferring the $9,800 from contingency funds, the Public Works Facilities budget or out of insurance and into the Central Services Fund. The simplest route involved adopting the budget as proposed with a $10,000 adjustment later. He went on to explain the 17.4% increase in the current year's biennium was due to an increase in capital project spending in the Public Works Department primarily in water and wastewater. Projects included the new water treatment plant, piping the Talent Irrigation District (TID) canal, building a new oxidation ditch, and the effluent outfall relocation and shading project. This resulted in a $3,000,000 increase to the General Fund. Even with this increase, the budget remained balanced. The budget would absorb the costs if Council chose Option 2 or Option 3 regarding the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie where the City would use TAP before TID to supplement water over the surnmer. Mr. Tuneberg addressed the Total of all Funds Financial Summary explaining the City advertised the document in the local newspapers every budget process and presented it to Council. The Requirements and Full-Time Equivalent Employees (FTE) by Organizational Unit or Program portion increased for the Administration Department from $7,367,471 in 2013-2015 to $16,427,265 for 2015-2017 due to the Health Benefits Fund moving from the Administrative Services Department fund. He further explained increases under the Public Works Department included the capital expenditures Mr. Kanner relayed earlier. The Non-departmental portion was included in the Finance Department budget but separated on the table. It represented the movement of money between funds. Public Hearing Open: 7:37 p.m. Public Hearing Closed 7:37 p.m. Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 3 of 10 Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve Resolution 92015-19 adopting the 2015-2017 Biennial Budget. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal thanked staff and the Budget Committee members for their hard work. Councilor Seffinger was impressed with the transparency of the process. She appreciated how the Budget Committee worked together and the preparation by staff. Councilor Voisin noted the Budget Committee's concern the discussion regarding the Public Works Department budget was only an hour and hoped the City would adopt the process suggestions the Committee had made. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Resolution 2015-18 certifying the City provides sufficient municipal services to qualify for State subventions. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to approve Resolution #2015-17 declaring the City's Election to Receive State Revenues. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Morris/Voisin m/s to approve First Reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Levying Taxes for the Period of July 1, 2015 to and including June 30, 2016, Such Taxes in the Sum of $10,728,511 Upon All the Real and Personal Property Subject to Assessment and Levy Within the Corporate Limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" and move the ordinance to Second Reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse noted Ashland property taxes were lower than other cities and had not reached the ceiling. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 2016-2017 Social Service Grant Allocation recommendations review and decision Housing Specialist Linda Reid explained in 2014 Council adopted the Strategic Plan regarding social service grant funds. The application review and recommendation process moved to the Housing and Human Services Commission (HHSC). The HHSC used the Strategic Plan as a framework for the allocation recommendations. Vice Chair of the Housing and Hunan Services Commission Coriann Matthews explained the process the Commission used to review and score the applications. Councilor Seffinger expressed concern agencies that typically received funding did not this year including preventative agencies. Organizations to assist homelessness received larger allocations than agencies that focused on children, sexual abuse, or senior issues. Vice Chair Matthews explained that the HHSC used implementation strategies to make their choices and allocated bigger grants to agencies that had a greater impact on the community. The HHSC considered how many Ashland residents benefited from the services provided and focused on Ashland based agencies. Ms. Reid added the Strategic Plan used a preference established by the HHSC and Council to award larger grants to fewer organizations rather than trying to give everyone a smaller amount. Since the inception of the social services grant program, the majority of grant awards had gone to healthcare organizations. The new grant period lasted four years. At the end, the HHSC, Council, and community would evaluate what agencies met community needs on a regular basis. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the overall program amount took the current year's amount and increased it 2% each year of the biennium. Councilor Voisin wanted a Study Session to discuss and possibly revise the process to determine the overall allocation. Mayor Stromberg noted the overall Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 4 of 10 amount was a policy decision by Council on what level of resources they wanted to provide in the program. The HHSC did not think financial audits needed to be on the application and suggested having the express funding request as a percent of the applicant's total budget instead. They were interested in profit and loss, where agencies used the money, and if the agency spent the funds in the grant period. The HHSC saw benefit meeting and developing targeted questions prior to agency presentations. Other areas of possible improvement were application review, the requests for proposals (RFP) process and incorporating more evaluation that tied back to the RFP and application. Councilor Seffinger wanted to allocate funds to The Rose Circle Mentoring Network and the Foster Grandparents Program. Vice Chair Matthews commented the selection process was difficult. Smaller amounts would not produce a big impact. The HHSC also considered the affect on agencies who did not receive grant allocations. Councilor Marsh served as the Council Liaison for the HHSC and had observed the process and noted the Commission did diligent work on the grant allocations. They developed a strategic plan, questioned the impact levels, and focused allocations on community needs. The process was difficult and some applicants did not receive funds. She thought the HHSC did what Council had asked of them. Grant awards reflected the strategic goals chosen by the Commission. In four years, there would be another opportunity to review priorities. These allocations reflected this year's strategic planning priorities. Vice Chair Matthews addressed the 75% reduction in the Community Health Center's grant allocation and explained the Community Health Center was a difficult decision for the Commission. They allocated the amount because it was not a strategic priority at this time. Ms. Reid added some people could now receive services because of the Affordable Care Act, through the mobile health clinic, and clinic services offered by Community Health Center itself. Receiving less grant money did not create a major impact on the Community Health Center. However, it did affect the Rose Circle Mentoring Network. Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to approve the 2016-2017 social service grant funding allocations recommended by the Housing and Human Services Commission at its regular meeting on May 28, 2015. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thought it was a good decision by Council to have the HHSC review the grant applications and make recommendations. Councilor Marsh thought the process would be much better in future years. It was difficult to make changes and adhere to a strategic plan. The HHSC made the process as effective as possible. Councilor Seffinger/Lemhouse m/s to amend the motion by lowering the allocation for Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland by $3,000 and award $3,000 to the The Rose Circle Mentoring Network, Inc. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger thought the organization was important to the health of young women. The Rose Circle Mentoring Network had a significant impact on youth. Councilor Lemhouse added Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland had received hundreds of thousands from the City. There were organizations that could use funding as well. Councilor Voisin would not support the amendment. She needed more information on the application, how it related to the criteria in the request for proposal. Councilor Marsh agreed with Councilor Voisin. The HHSC discussed The Rose Circle Mentoring Network in detail. Making changes to the work of a Commission would invalidate what Council was asking from them. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Marsh regarding honoring the decisions City Commissions made. Alternately, Council should be able to make adjustments. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, and Seffinger, YES; Marsh and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to amend the motion and reduce the allocation to Options for Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 5 of 10 Homeless Residents of Ashland by $7,000 and the allocation to St. Vincent de Paul by $5,000 and award the total of $12,000 to the Community Health Center for a total of $20,000. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse commented the working poor relied on the Community Health Center. The Affordable Healthcare Act took care of many issues but there were still a large number of people unemployed and unable to afford basic healthcare. Cutting the allocation from $31,000 to $8,000 was steep. Granting them a $20,000 allocation was a significant reduction but more reasonable. Councilor Seffinger thought decreasing the amount they received would hurt the working poor of Ashland. Councilor Voisin would not support the amendment. The Affordable Care Act was working and La Clinica had a van in Ashland once a week. Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) did not just work for the homeless and often assisted the working poor. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Morris, and Seffinger, YES. Councilor Marsh, Voisin, and Rosenthal, NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a NO vote. Motion failed 4-3. Continued Discussion on amended main motion: Councilor Lemhouse supported the process and the Commission. It was important the Council had oversight over the commissions. He addressed the assumption his proposal would take money away from OHRA and reiterated the City had given OHRA hundreds of thousands of dollars. He would support the motion. Councilor Morris supported the motion and the work the Commission did. HHSC had only moved 2% of the funds. Councilor Voisin thought Council needed to look at the possibility of increasing the amount of money designated for social services grants. She clarified that OHRA had not received hundreds of thousands of dollars and in fact had only received a $100,000 grant and a Community Development Block Grant. Councilor Marsh noted Ashland was the only city in the area with social service grants. Roll Call Vote on main motion as amended: Councilor Marsh, Voisin, Lemhouse, Morris, Rosenthal, and Seffinger, YES. Motion approved. 2. Discussion and Council direction regarding use of TID water for potable water purposes Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury provided a reservoir update and explained Reeder Reservoir was 98.4% full. Inflow from the east and west forks was 6.37 million gallons per day (mgd) and production at the treatment plant was 4.2 million gallons. Last year on the same date, the inflow was 4.1 mgd and production was 3.77 million gallons. The overall drought strategy was keeping the reservoir as full as possible. When the east and west forks stop producing enough water to meet daily domestic needs, the City would use Talent Irrigation District (TID) water. In order to pump the maximum TID amount of 2 mgd, the City would shut off the backside of the system affecting approximately 86 users. The front side consisted of all users between Starlight Place and Terrace Street. The backside users consisted of everything past Terrace Street to the end where the TID water left the system into Wrights Creek. The TID water right for Ashland was 759-acre feet or approximately 250 million gallons for domestic use. The City offered a seasonal irrigation service to canal customers that ordinance 2188 defined as an interruptible service for domestic need if the City chose. This year the City had the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie line installed. This prompted a citizen suggestion of keeping the backside of the TID open for that customer base and use TAP instead. Public Works developed three options for Council to consider. Option 1 would continue to use TID to supplement the water supply first. Option 2 would use TAP first. Option 3 would split the difference, pumping 1 mgd of TID and 1 mgd of TAP possibly increasing TAP if needed. Providing the 86 residents' access to TID would involve pushing 3.75 to 1 mgd though the backside. The remaining 1 mgd would go to the treatment plant. Steve Walker, the water distribution services supervisor further explained that half of the water for backend users' would flow into Wrights Creek. Shutting down the backside consisted of turning off a valve. It would take 6-12 hours for water to flow to the back of the ditch. City Administrator Dave Kanner noted on September 30, 2014 the reservoir was almost 100% full. Once the rains came, staff had to draw the water down to create additional storage space. Ashland City COnncil Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Fleury confirmed the least expensive costs for water per gallon was using TID. It was also the most cost efficient way to supplement the water supply. Staff met with some of the citizens affected by the shut off and they expressed concerns for the health of the trees and vegetation. Mr. Walker added shutting the valve off was not hard on the system. Major fluctuations in the ditch stirred up debris resulting in readjustments every few days. Additionally, reducing the flow to I mad would overrun the wet well. Mr. Fleury explained the costs associated with each option. The $14,190 in Option 1 was the $175 TID water service for the 86 residents. Council recommended waiving the fees. This created a $14,190 loss in revenue. The City would pump TAP for one month to ensure it was solid and functioning correctly. In Option 2, using TID later in the season was not viable due to the potential for algae blooms as water levels diminished in the reservoirs. Algae blooms were toxic to humans. Option 3 would use 1 mgd of TID and 1 mgd of TAP and would cost approximately $21,380 more than using TID first. Mayor Stromberg read from Ordinance 2188 Section 1.6.5 Priority of Use that the primary uses of TID water was for domestic purposes in water short years and Section 1.6.7 regarding interruptible service and the City's right to restrict water. Sabra Hoffman/345 Scenic Drive/Explained the investment they made to acquire access to TID and subsequent irrigation system. Last year when the water was shut off, they lost their vineyard but were able to save their trees. She wanted Council to see the face of one the property owners. David Hoffman/345 Scenic Drive/Thought the addition of TAP changed things and provided another combination. He supported Option 3 and thought it was the most appropriate and fair to the 86 property owners and was an equitable distribution of costs. Cindy Barnard/128 Wimer Street/Described her home and the investment of trees and shrubs that cost several hundred thousand dollars to enhance the property. Last year she had to decide what would live. Currently she was hauling buckets of water from her shower and bath to her garden. It would be ideal to use the TAP water for drinking water and TID for irrigation. She supported Option 3. Donna Rhee/338 Scenic Drive/Sat on the Ashland Water Advisory ad-hoc Committee that discussed using water for appropriate uses and not using potable water to irrigate plants. It was disappointing to see the discussion on money and allocation on what the City would save. It did not make sense. They were starting to lose plant life at her end of town. It was not fair that the other end of town got TID. Daniel Maymar/115 Scenic Drive/Not having access to TID put a burden on the 86 properties that used the service. It was inequitable. He urged Council to support Option 3. Val Dutson/725 Prim Street/Supported Option 3 and wanted everyone to stop watering their lawns. His property lost many trees last summer and would lose more this year if they experienced the same conditions. Mayor Stromberg noted he had talked to Council and staff on protecting legacy trees during severe water shortages and providing water for people growing food. Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to direct staff to use TID water to supplement the water supply before using TAP water by following Option 1. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh commented these were difficult times regarding drought and trying to keep important trees and plants alive. She appreciated the comments from the people who came forward. In order to allow 86 residents out of 11,000 water users in the city access to the TID would potentially dump 10% or 400,000 gallons of the daily water supply into Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 7 of 10 Wrights Creek. It would also require water users to pay for the opportunity for 86 users to access TID at an additional subsidy of $21,000 a year. Councilor Voisin opposed the motion. She questioned using TID when the reservoir was full and thought the City should use the reservoir, TID, and then TAP for emergency purposes only. TAP was not intended for irrigation. She wanted to look at more ways to conserve. Councilor Rosenthal raised a point of clarification regarding the priority and confirmed use would consist of the reservoir water first, TID then TAP. Councilor Voisin further clarified the City could use the reservoir exclusively until it reached a certain level before introducing TID. When TID shut off for the season, the City would use TAP only in an emergency. Councilor Seffinger would not support the ►notion explaining the City needed to look at the needs of the entire environment, the trees, and pollinators. It was unfair for the people on the backside that had a lot of money invested in their landscapes that were important for insects, animals and other creatures that relied on the trees. Councilor Lemhouse opposed the motion as well. Allowing irrigation would lessen the fire danger. There was a fairness issue involved and there was a way to keep that from happening. This was a worthwhile balance. He would endorse Option 3. Councilor Rosenthal noted the issues and burdens the 86 property owners experienced and would encounter. This was a community wide water shortage during a drought year. The cost of using TAP was the most expensive the City could obtain. There was also a citywide cost efficiency consideration and a resource maximization question. Allowing large amounts of drinking water to flow into Wrights Creek would be wasteful and incongruent to the message on conservation. In the absence of an alternative or variant of Option 3, it would be nice to have something that would work for everyone. Option 1 was the best decision for the community. It pained him because he understood the needs of the property owners. Councilor Morris would support the motion. The City was limited to their water rights from TID and to put half of it into Wrights Creek did not make sense. The City kept the reservoir full for a reason. The biggest reason was avoiding algae bloom if the water lever was low. No one knew when the rains would start. To drain the reservoir down did not make sense. Councilor Voisin explained Wrights Creek was a major creek that supported an eco system that needed water. If the City continued not to provide the water for that creek, it would have a negative impact. Councilor Lemhouse noted Option 1 would force 86 homes to use city water for irrigation. It was a complex issue. No one was completely wrong or right. He thought it was safer allowing people to keep their vegetation alive. TAP was for an emergency but could be used to prevent one. Mayor Stromberg explained the ordinance he read from earlier put every use of TID on notice that the primary purpose was to contribute to the domestic potable water supply in times of water shortage. As painful as it was, this was the legal basis of the water rights. The reservoirs at Hyatt Lake were 1 /3 full at this time of year. This was where the water for TID came from. There was a possibility if the drought continued TID would shut off earlier in the year. Many properties had large trees that were suffering and no TID access. There was also a possibility of algae bloom occurring in the lakes the TID drew down. The City had professionals running the water system and it was set up for the good of the community as a whole. Reluctantly he would support the motion to break a possible tie vote. Councilor Voisin raised a point of clarification and asked why the Mayor was hesitant not to include the reservoir as a source of water early in the summer. Mayor Stromberg responded there were professionals who decided that was the best way to maintain water security for 45 days as a backup in case something went wrong with TAP or the Medford water supply. Councilor Seffinger wanted to know the actual potential that algae blooms could form. Mr. Fleury Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 8 of 10 explained the City had an environmental scientist who worked with the Water Treatment Plant staff in the analysis of algae. Currently the reservoir was not at 100% because staff had to lower the reservoir in order to treat a current algae bloom based on the recommendation of the consultant. All water sources had algae blooms. It was a matter of determining whether they were toxic or not. Mayor Stromberg clarified his concern was algae blooms occurring in the lakes that supplied TID water. Mr. Fleury confirmed they could occur in Hyatt Lake or Howard Prairie Lake as easily as they could in the City reservoir. The lower the reservoir level, the more prone it was to a potential toxic algae bloom. None of the three options was dangerous in terms of algae blooms. The City tested TID water coming into the water systems on a regular basis. However, there was a risk of toxic algae water from TID if the City introduced it into the water system later in the summer. Councilor Voisin wanted to know how often a toxic algae bloom occurred in the reservoir and TID over the past ten years. City Administrator Dave Kanner responded in the last ten years for the reservoir there were zero. He was not sure how many occurred in the Hyatt and Howard Prairie Lakes. Algae occurred yearly, toxic algae blooms were rare. As a rule, the City tried to keep reservoirs over 40% full. Having the level at 40% heated the water making it more conducive for an algae bloom. Public Works Superintendent Mike Morrison explained the City started testing Howard Prairie Lake and Hyatt Lake last year. Prior to that, the City was not using TID water enough to require testing. They had not found toxic algae blooms in either lake when tested but Lost Creek Lake had experienced toxic algae. A toxic algae bloom was a real possibility in the area. Mr. Fleury confirmed the City would not lower the reservoir below the 35% mark. Councilor Marsh noted the area had experienced emergency drought conditions for a second year. Next year would provide additional data that would help determine how the City maintained water supplies and how to adjust long-terin community expectations. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the motion that staff schedules a meeting with the 86 TID water users to explain the reasons and offer water conservation and irrigation audits and tips to conserve water during the drought. Mayor Stromberg explained Councilor Voisin' motion was not a legitimate amendment to the main motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Seffinger, YES. Councilor Voisin and Lemhouse, NO. Motion passed 4-2. Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s that staff schedule a meeting with the 86 TID water users to explain the reasons for the non-use of TID and to offer water conservation and irrigation audits and tips on how to conserve water during the drought. Mr. Fleury explained when staff sent the initial letter advising the 86 users of the three options Council would discuss at this meeting they also offered to hold another public meeting with them at a future time based on the outcome of Council's decision. Water Conservation Specialist Julie Smitherman would attend to discuss special programs and potential audits of properties to assist them. Councilor Voisin withdrew the motion with consent from Councilor Seffinger. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution endorsing Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument expansion" City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the resolution was the outcome from the June 1, 2015 Study Session that discussed expanding the monument range. Staff slightly edited the original resolution with Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 9 of 10 the author's approval. Councilor Rosenthal/Seffinger m/s to approve Resolution 42015-22. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal noted the resolution made sense for the community. Councilor Seffinger added the biological diversity in the area was very important to sustain. Councilor Voisin thought it was essential Council endorse the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument expansion. Councilor Morris agreed. Most of the area's water came from the monument. If Measure 37 had passed, it would have allowed residential development in a lot of the area within the monument. A similar measure could come back in the ftiture. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion approved. 2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a supplemental budget increasing appropriations within the 2013-2015 biennium budget" Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution was the fourth phase of Budget 2013-2015 and would increase the appropriations in the General Fund and Water Fund for the Fire Department and Forest Lands Management Division. Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to approve Resolution #2015-20. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal was impressed there were so few items for the biennium. Councilor Marsh noted it was nice to adopt a supplemental budget when it was bringing good things to the community. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion approved. 3. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution transferring appropriations within the 2013-2015 biennium budget" Administrative Services Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution showed where the appropriations were transferring from and what funds they were going into. The transfers assured the City did not encounter budget violations. Moving money from contingency would result in higher Ending Fund Balances but that was not an absolute. They were transferring funds from a contingency to areas where there was a potential for a budgetary violation. There were other areas with under expenditures so the net may show no difference on the Ending Fund Balance. Councilor Voisin asked about the $300,000 for the interest and expense of the Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) waterline. Mr. Tuneberg explained the City shifted $300,000 from other projects in order to do the TAP project over a 24-month period. The money came through appropriations. Public Works produced a report several months back that indicated the total cost for TAP was approximately $7,000,000 excluding the pump station. Councilor Marsh raised a point of order regarding the TAP inquiry. It was not relevant to the question at hand and a different discussion. Mayor Stromberg ruled the inquiry was not germane. Councilor Voisin appealed the ruling. Roll Call Vote on Ruling the Inquiry was not Germane: Councilor Marsh, Rosenthal, Seffinger, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Ruling Stood 5-1. Councilor Rosenthal/Lemhouse m/s to approved Resolution 42015-21. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal clarified his previous comments on increasing appropriations were actually intended for this topic. It was a small amount of transfers for the first biennium. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Rosenthal, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion approved 5-1. Ashland City Council Meeting June 16, 2015 Page 10 of 10 OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Discussion of compensation for non-represented employees City Administrator Dave Kanner reversed a statement made during the budget process on no cost of living adjustments (COLA) for non-represented employees in the next fiscal year. He recommended a small pay adjustment of 1% for supervisory managers including department heads and 1.5% for non-supervisory and confidential non-represented employees. The original Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicated a negative number January to January. A tentative agreement with the IBEW Clerical Technical group called for a 2.5% COLA the first year of the biennium and 1.5% in the second year. Many of these positions were similar to non-represented positions. It did not seem fair that people doing the same job would not get some form of pay adjustment. For the supervisory manager group there were two issues. One, the majority of neighboring jurisdictions would provide pay increases for most of their managers. Two, the City had a compression problem throughout the organization that needed to be mitigated over time. He proposed 40 hours of additional administrative leave to department heads and 8 hours of paid leave to exempt non-representative employees. The paid time off did not accrue from year to year. Currently all exempt managers received 40 hours of administrative leave. Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve the salary adjustments as proposed in the Council Communication. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought these were reasonable COLA increases. She did not include the additional 40 hours of administrative leave and wanted to see more data regarding leave. Councilor Rosenthal supported the motion. The compensation of public employees may seem incomprehensible to many in the private sector. The year before he analyzed the compensation and benefits of the City of Ashland department heads, Ashland was not above average. If the City was serious about attracting the most competent people and best governance and management this is what needed to happen. Councilor Voisin would vote against the motion. The department heads had received a sizeable increase in their salary already and should not be included in the COLA. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Rosenthal. Ashland was small but complex. He cautioned on adding to compaction, and eroding succession planning. Councilor Seffinger agreed with everything said with the exception of Councilor Voisin comments. Equitability and hiring the best possible employees was important. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Lemhouse, Voisin, Morris, Rosenthal, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Voisin announced the US Women defeated Nigeria in the World Cup play. She reported that Southern Oregon University attended the Tree Commission meeting regarding the McNeal Pavilion renovation and requested the removal of several trees. One of the arborists on the Commission inspected the area and they were able to save three trees. The Tree Commission also unanimously voted not to recommend removing the Fremont Cottonwood tree located on Clay Street. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Ashland City Special Council Meeting June 30, 2015 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL June 30, 2015 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. Councilor Voisin was absent. PUBLIC FORUM None CONSENT AGENDA 1. Liquor license application for Julia Gurwell, d.b.a. Hearsay 2. Intergovernmental agreements between Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon and the City of Ashland for emergency call and dispatch services. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: ALL AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second reading of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance levying taxes for the period of July 1, 2015 to and including June 30, 2016, such taxes in the sum of 510,728,511 upon all the real and personal property subject to assessment and levy within the corporate limits of the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon" Administrative Director Lee Tuneberg confirmed property taxes were levied for one year then levied again in the second year of the biennium. Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to approve Ordinance #3109. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Seffinger, Rosenthal, Morris, and Lemhouse, YES. Motion passed. 2. A Resolution Adopting a Supplemental Budget and Increasing Appropriations within the FY 2013-15 Biennium Budget Administrative Director Lee Tuneberg read a statement into the record correcting an error that occurred with the legal notice regarding meeting start time and explained other measures taken to notice the correction publicly. Councilor Seffinger/Morris m/s to approve Resolution 92015-23. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Seffinger, Lemhouse, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. 3. A Resolution Transferring Appropriations within the 2013-15 Biennium Budget Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve Resolution #2015-24. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris, Marsh, Rosenthal, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. Dana Smith, Assistant to the City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor 101 4 e PROCLAMATION z p~~ ➢ • In 1988, Ashland High sent its Varsity football team to Osaka, Japan _ for the first Pacific Rim Bowl. • The mission of the Pacific Rim Bowl is to develop character, f leadership and enhance cultural awareness between student athletes from Ashland and the Kansai Region of Japan. rs~ • On July 28, 2015, Ashland will host Pacific Rim Bowl XIV, a one-of- a-kind cultural exchange and football game. • The City of Ashland is pleased. to welcome the players, coaches, and rj. l°°° officials representing Japan. ~ ~D e n NOW THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the - citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim July 26 - August 1, 2015, as: ; "Pacific Rim Bowl Week" i~ \ Jas in the City of Ashland and invite all citizens to attend the game on Friday, July 31, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. and to welcome our Japanese visitors in the spirit of peace, friendship, and good sportsmanship. Dated this 21 st day of July, 2015 ) v ~y John Stromberg, Mayor =j Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CJ) ~,e e e_ e g d e ~ e_ e 'e g, z~~ l l~ N C~ ~J5 t~ C vw V PROCLAMATION ➢ • In August, 1945, atomic bombs instantly reduced the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to rubble, taking hundreds of thousands of precious lives. • In June, 1982, the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki called on Mayors from f around the world to join them in working together to press for nuclear a ➢ abolition. ,Q • The program created by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is called r Mayors for Peace and is currently composed of 6,733 cities in 160 countries Q and regions around the world dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons. The City of Ashland declared itself a Nuclear Free Zone by resolution in 1981. w°°~ • The City of Ashland joined the Mayors for Peace in 1998. ; There are currently seven Cities in Oregon who have also joined Mayors for ➢ ° Peace. ~~b • The current goal of the Mayors for Peace is for a total abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. ➢ This year on August 6 through 9, 2015, Ashland will join cities around the I world for a Hiroshima - Nagasaki Vigil in order to remember the events of t 1945 and promote the world wide movement for total nuclear disarmament. ID NOW THEREFORE the City Council and MaYor, on behalf of the citizens of ➢ Ashland, hereby proclaim August 6, 2015, as:, ° "Hiroshima Day" ➢ and hereby proclaim August 9, 2015, as: p "Nagasaki Day in the City of Ashland and invite all citizens to participate in the Hiroshima- Nagasaki vigil activities. YLJ ~ lilt _ P., S ~ r,~ d Dated this 21 st day of July, 2015 T" S c John Stromberg, Mayor r ~C~✓L l1 `l Barbara Christensen, City Recorder .9., a JL S Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee May 14, 2015 Page ( of 3 MINUTES FOR THE ad hoc AFN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE Thursday, May 14, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Committee members Jim Teece, Pam Marsh, Dennis Slattery, Rich Rosenthal, Mathew Beers, Susan Alderson were present. Staff members Dave Kanner and Mark Holden were present. Committee member Vicki Griesinger listened in via phone, but did not participate. Committee member Bryan Almquist was absent. Mayor Stromberg introduced the goal of the group, stated he hopes the group will work to have the future of AFN be a healthy enterprise. He encouraged the group to feel empowered to go beyond the original focus in order to achieve a healthy AFN. He stated that Councilor Marsh would be the chair of the commission and asked her to take over running the meeting. Marsh welcomed the group members, had them introduce themselves, and give some information regarding why they were interested in participating in this committee. 2. Public Input Paul Collins: Stated he is a strong supporter of AFN and a local business owner. He is very interested in the outcome of this process. 3. Review of Committee Charge Marsh reviewed the scope of work, stated that the aim is for a short-term timeline in order to move forward, thus the November 3rd deadline listed in the scope of work. Kanner gave an overview of the current governance structure. AFN is a division of the IT Department, and is budgeted through the normal city budget process. A good percentage of the employees are in unions, which can cause constraints on budget issues. He described some of the challenges related to city budget requirements, in that departments can't spend more than is budgeted. This naturally leads to the question, `is this the best structure?' In other words, does this (being a city division, with city budget constraints) allow the necessary flexibility or ability to achieve the greatest profit? 4. Discussion of Work Plan Holden gave some history regarding the current AFN work plan. With the current work plan, Council approved an expansion of the broadband system. That expansion process started in January and will continue through the next fiscal year. AFN is also bringing in a new backend provider through a bid-process. This should help get better pricing which, in turn, will reduce overall base costs. Marsh informed the group there was an effort in 2005-2008 to boost AFN, through the AFN Network Programming Committee (aka AFN Options Committee). She handed out information regarding those efforts and described the options the committee came up with including the sale of AFN, spinning it off into a non-profit, or becoming an open/common carrier. Group discussed Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee May 14, 2015 Page 2 of 3 the definition of and FCC rules regarding being a common carrier and how AFN currently fits into that role. Marsh stated that in 2006 there was a discussion of turning AFN into a utility but there were too many legal questions so it was never approved. It was at this point the decision was made to transfer the cable TV side of the business and to continue AFN as the open carrier provider it is today. Marsh proposed using the list of evaluation criteria from 2006 as a starting point for discussion. They include: 1. Competitive environment 2. Financial impact to community 3. Financial impact to city organization 4. Citizen access to system 5. Public ownership of infrastructure 6. Responsiveness to community needs/concerns 7. Future financial risk/gain 8. Ability to meet current and future needs of the community 9. Ability to meet current and future needs of the city organization 10. Ability to maintain an open system for access to the internet (Multiple ISPs) The group agreed this was a good starting point. Marsh also wanted to add the importance of a system with a depth of leadership. In other words, limiting decisions to Council approvals might limit the ability to provide the best guidance and/or leadership. Group agreed this was an important discussion and criteria to have in order to stabilize the ebb and flow of knowledge or support from the Council. Slattery noted there is sometimes an awkward knowledge gap from both the Council and Budget Committee, which leaves AFN oversight lacking. Group also discussed how other states are focusing on the importance of municipal broadband, and how they could be examples for this process. Marsh mentioned that some are run by the municipality day- to-day but have a separate governing board approved and or selected by the council. Group discussed the current debt service of AFN, in terms of where it is currently budgeted, and Marsh agreed to send budget information electronically to the committee. Rosenthal asked if there were any updates since the Strategic Plan was presented in November. Holden stated there are no changes, that the market share continues to trend downward. There may have been an opportunity to improve market share with the Charter/Comcast merger and there might still be opportunity with the possible Charter/Time Warner merger but no overall change has occurred in the direction of AFN or focus in the Strategic Plan. Group discussed the importance of being competitive, particularly as TV viewing is moving so rapidly to the internet. AFN quality, capacity, and performance have not been competitive with Charter in the past but current and recent past improvements will help AFN to be more competitive. Group discussed marketing challenges, particularly with our limited budget. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee May 14, 2015 Page 3 of 3 Group discussed the role of other ISPs. They all face the same challenge of being competitive. Group agreed it is important to continue to be an open provider. Kanner asked the group how this ties into the governance structure. Group felt they need a better grasp of the overall system and where they want to go before they can fully understand or work on the question of governance. They discussed whether understanding the weaknesses of the system (from staff's perspective) might help. Group also wondered if requiring approval of any strategic plan by the Council was the best (most competitive) approach. Is that the best way to stay nimble in a changing market? Holden stated that the requirements of our procurement process certainly slow down any process, but they are not lethal. The more difficult part is having to expose any plan to the competition. Group wondered if Charter might become more aggressive in their marketing if they didn't easily know our strategies. Most agreed that their marketing is not unique or specific to Ashland. 5. Future Meetings Schedule/Next Steps The group would like to talk about the following at future meetings: 1. Governance - what other format options are available? Group agreed to bring back information on the following options: a. Utility - Kanner and Holden b. Spin-off (assets owned by City, run by outside entity) and/or hybrid between spin- off and current city model - Slattery, Teece, (and possibly) Almquist c. Sell outright - no assignment d. Separate oversight board - Marsh 2. Information on how the system is currently working. Group agreed they do not need a presentation from Holden, as they are all familiar with the November presentation. 3. Cost on investment over time. 4. Is a 20-year vision/strategy even possible? Group agreed that there would need to be lots of flexibility within the rules/roles of that vision. This is why a steering committee may be helpful rather than either a singular IT Director or fluctuating Council. Holden agreed that good strategic plans should be "living" documents which are revisited often. The next meetings will be on June 18 and July 2, from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet Executive Secretary Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee June 18, 2015 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES FOR THE ad hoc AFN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE Thursday, June 18, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Call to Order Chairperson Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:00pm. Attendees: Matthew Beers, Vicki Griesinger, Pam Marsh, Rich Rosenthal, Dennis Slattery and Jim Teece. Not present: Susan Alderson, Bryan Almquist, Dave Kanner Staff present: Mark Holden, Director of Electric Utility, Telecom and IT Mary McClary, Administrative Assistant Chairperson Marsh welcomed the committee, presented a basic outline for the meeting, and asked each person present to introduce themselves to the group. Public Input David Hand, 739 Welch Drive, Medford asked about the mission statement and the goal of the group, wondering if they were looking for alternatives and if there was a better suited organizational structure. Chairperson March explained the committee's charge, scope of work and the AFN Business Plan had all been sent out prior to the first meeting, and could be located on the City of Ashland's web site. Approval of Minutes Dennis Slattery moved to approve the minutes and the motion was seconded by Rich Rosenthal. Voice Vote: All Ayes. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. New Business AFN SWAT Analysis Before the committee reviewed the SWAT analysis, they entered into a discussion regarding the budget and debt service for AFN. For the next biennium budget, AFN would repay approximately $409,000/yr and if kept on that schedule the debt would be paid back by 2024. Mark Holden explained to the committee about the City's central service fund, what areas it covered and how each city department pays into the fund. Dennis Slattery reminded the committee the actual amount was 1-2 million, because of all the other departments that contribute to the debt. Mark Holden remarked there would still be around 10 million left to be paid regardless of what this committee recommends for the future of AFN. The members discussed how the City of Ashland (COA), administers a balanced budget. They spoke about revenues, how important it was for AFN to maintain their forecast and what happens when the targets are not met. Pam pointed out increasing the city increased the contingency fund from $100,000 to $250,000 because of a fluctuating market. There were some questions from David Hand (public attendee) about trending, the network, pricing, demand and keeping customers. Chairperson Marsh spoke about looking at the evaluation of the criteria in terms of the first model, from 2006 and realizing possible changes that would be less or more essential for today. She felt the committee needed solid criteria to evaluate and see if they were meeting their standards and objectives. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee June 18, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Rich Rosenthal felt the SWAT analysis was important to ensure the committee was united in their perception and goals. Chairperson Marsh scheduled out the time left to address each subject on the agenda for the rest of the meeting. STRENGTHS • Cost of information to citizens less because of AFN • Know product build outs, staff good at their job, been doing it for 20 years, would not need to be reinvented • Marketing cache for the city as high tech and potential for economic development • Positive economic development • Local stays in the community • Infrastructure • Ability to control level I support • Open ISP network allowing ISP's to use service to operate competitive fields • External giant competitor opportunities to explore (could also be a threat) WEAKNESS • Lean budget; ability to sell; attraction and retention of customers; change to an outsourcing or process • Level of subsidy, civic investment related to the debt, could have possible money for development without making payments to AFN • Budget too small to market effectively • Charter was able to do Chapter 11 and wipe out debt, AFN can not • Customer focus/satisfaction • Businesses wants and demands to be "on" all the time; node issues an weakness • Age of the outside plant • Price of product, cost of structure • Limited ability to be competitive because public agency, and not be transparent • Need for agility, struggle to move forward in municipality • Lack of leadership in terms of oversight, not staff, but council and competency • Thin management staff • City owned entity and a decision to service own services • Geographical weight to care • Lack of investment income OPPORTUNITIES • New broadband product, potential cost reduction for the end user(AFN) • A year of distraction (competitor preoccupied) • Acquire new customers, learn reasons for leaving • Opportunity to capture early when they sign up services • Low market share is actually an opportunity • Business side, bundle services, marketing • Business underdeveloped, invisible of corporate employees who live here and work elsewhere • % of AFN businesses live here and not using • Buy local • Cable cutting, driving bandwidth and need for bandwidth • Incentives for cable cutting THREATS • System obsolete • Inability because of government for additional funding, lack on investing funding • Wealthy competitor to sell services at a loss • Tech changes (FCC changes) • Consumer perception (debt) • Consumer wants system always on, high reliability, communication if down • Consumer expectations, no loyalty, only care about service Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee June 18, 2015 Page 3 of 5 The committee discussed how AFN used to be offered by staff when signing up for services and now there was just a brochure in the utility billing office. There are a decreasing number of people signing up for services in person, therefore also a loss of opportunity to promote AFN services. The ISP's marketing dollars were primarily used for advertisement of their existence and products. AFN's transparency allows anyone to have an advantage regarding their systems and practices. How would the committee address these issues? ISPS: Function and Benefit Mark Holden explained the history involving the beginning of the relationships between the ISP's and AFN. As time went on some ISP's did not bring any value, or benefit to AFN, so the 1SP's were consolidated to roughly 4-5. He explained they were now strategic partners. AFN maintains the system; does maintenance calls without charge; installations for $10 and the ISP's have access to the entire network fiber, cable. AFN sells to them below wholesale rates and they are responsible for billing the customer, and managing the customer base. Out of approximately 3,900 services, 525 go directly to AFN. The ISP's are handling approximately 3,500. Jim Teece explained as an ISP, they start with the customer, check to see if they are serviceable, may schedule using software shared between AFN and themselves, and then follow up with customer after installed. Their mark-up was very little above AFN, and they were available 24/7 for customer service. He mentioned AFN decides the tier structures offered, and ultimately the employee resources available to the program. In addition, if his service people were unable handle a problem, they turn in a service ticket to AFN and AFN troubleshoots and/or performs maintenance needed. The city schedules, assesses, maintain nodes and resolve issues. They have received good communication when the service is off line and good notification when the problems are fixed. The committee discussed the AFN customer base of approx. 4,000 out of a possible 10,000, no access if the node goes down until fixed and 10% of customer base in Ashland could not be serviced. David Hand from Data Center West (public input) spoke about his business selling to all competing companies depending on the need of their customer. He recommended if his customer is a business, purchasing two plans from two different companies, thereby if one were to not function their business would still be able to work. Jim Teece explained residential mainly chooses either AFN or Charter. Municipal broadband; What can we learn? Chairperson Marsh explained there were many, many models for municipal broadband communities with all kinds of formats. She gave a brief rundown on different models from different areas and believed once the committee decided on evaluation criteria, they will be able to construct and find example models. The members asked if there were benchmark models as old as AFN. She provided copies and links for background reading during and after the meeting adjourned: www bbpmaa coin/2014mags/Aua Sep/BBC Aug,14 CommunityNetworks.pdf www.bbpmag.com/MuniPot-tal/FTTHLand.php Vick Griesinger provided a resource list: http•//www newyorker com/business/currency/fcc-municipal-broadband-ruling-matters-net-neutrality http://www.bbcmag.com/2015maQs/Mar Apr/BBC Mar15 DeploymentStrate r_pdf http://www.bbcma:z.com/20]5ma,p,s/Mar Apr/BBC March BanwidthHawk.pdf com/2014maas/Au- Sep/BBC Au-,14 CreativeFinancing.pdf http://www.bbcmay http://www bbcmaQ com/20]4ma-,s/AuQ Sep/BBX Aug14 Lesson sFromFiber.pd http://www.bbpmag.com/MuniPortal/snapshots.php http://www.bbpmac.com/snapshot/snap 1113.php Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee June 18, 2015 Page 4 of 5 http://www.bbpmaa.com/snapshot/snap06l2." htW.//arstechnica.com/business/2015/02/fcc-overturns-state-laws-that-protect-isps-from-local-competition/ http://www.scientificanierican.com/article/how-will-the-fight-over-public-isps-and-net-neutrality-play-out/?prrint=true http://www.musfiber.net http://www.cfu.net/about/contact.aspx Members brought up points about AFN being a "starter company" putting out initial outlay and other municipalities would join in after all the trials and tribulations. Rich Rosenthal remarked originally the department and council thought AFN would be used for Smart meter usage. In addition Falcon (now Charter) in Medford was going to launch and Ashland wanted to have it in place before that happened. Initial Reports Dennis Slattery and Jim Teece reported they met with Bryan Almquist and decided it would be necessary for a second meeting. They discussed a wide range of topics and focused on different models. l) A model which the city owned something, established a not for profit organization leaving the city as a single stock holder and ran the organization based on that.( Ashland Community Hospital) 2) Bryan suggested the city should retain the assets, keep ownership, concessioner. 3) Dave Kanner suggested a third model based on the airport model of a fixed based operator that still reported to the city council. They talked about legalities, full concession model or conservation committee model and the difference of a very active committee reporting to the council or having a board of directors. They decided to meet again at the end of the month. Dennis believed the real question for the committee was: Can we deliver the product for a lot less money, more efficient to more people with better quality than the competition? The members decided the best course of action would be to pick a few ideas and drill them down to decide if they were viable. Chairperson Marsh stated there were two main objectives: I ) What are the options, alternatives and variances 2) What was the criteria applied to any ideas assessed Matthew Beers believed as soon as you have the questions ranked in the correct order, one or two viable options would be made clear. He also stated most municipal broad bands were business only and wondered if there was a full model as AFN, older models that were business only. Dennis Slattery agreed with Mark Holden the best option would have been to `build to revenue', establishing a guaranteed need and build to that location, not the whole city. The discussion continued regarding wireless connections, cell phones increased technology, increasing demand for bandwidth and start-ups exploring mesh systems. (ex NYC) Future Meetings Schedule/Next Steps Chairperson Marsh would like to: • Put the goals at the beginning of the next meeting • Include economic stability to the goal list • Review the overall statement and define the criteria for evaluation. • AFN restructured with a separate utility board • AFN budget documents • AFN restructured with some of all serviced contracted to an outside entity/board Current Goal List 1. Competitive environment 2. Financial impact to community 3. Financial impact to city organization 4. Citizen access to system 5. Public ownership of infrastructure Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee June 18, 2015 Page 5 of 5 6. Responsiveness to community needs/concerns 7. Future financial risk/gain 8. Ability to meet current and future needs of the community 9. Ability to meet current and future needs of the city organization 10. Ability to maintain an open system for access to the internet (Multiple ISPs) The next meeting would be held on July 2, from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mai y McClary Administrative Assistant Electric, AFN, and IT Departments Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 2, 2015 Page 1 of 4 MINUTES FOR THE ad hoc AFN GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE COMMITTEE Thursday, July 2, 2015 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Chair Pam Marsh called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Committee members Jim Teece, Dennis Slattery, Rich Rosenthal, Mathew Beers, and Vicki Griesinger were present. Staff member Dave Kanner was present. Committee members Bryan Almduist and Susan Alderson were absent. 2. Public Input None. 3. Review of Minutes Rosenthal/Slattery m/s to approve the minutes of June 18. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passes. 4. AFN restructured as a utility Kanner gave an overview of what restructuring AFN as utility would entail. The downside is that this would continue to have political decision making. Additionally, the legality of this model is not certain at this time. He stated IT Director Holden believes that the style of AFN means it is legal. Kanner suggested that if the committee wants to pursue this option they hire legal counsel to do a strong review in order to avoid lawsuits. Kanner stated the real challenge is that if AFN is turned into a utility, the Council wound need to be willing to shut off service (not just for AFN but for all utilities) for non-payment. Group discussed how the City currently handles non-payment shut-offs and how this could be different as it's not a necessity like electricity or water. Group discussed the problems associated with the utility option - there are big challenges with this model with this including legal and political concerns and financial costs associated with scaling up to provide service to every residence. Group discussed a modified utility model, similar to the Medford Water Commission, wherein there would be a separate board to manage the utility (established by ordinance). The board would be given independent authority and would need to support itself by revenues from the utility. Kanner stated that there are many similar models to this around the state. This is challenging due to current debt of the system. Group discussed another option of utility model more like the City's Airport Commission, wherein they would have some independence but would still need to get final approval on budget or large projects from the Council. This model may not make AFN any more nimble or responsive, as they still have to abide by public meetings laws. The bonus is that the board or commission would be made up of people with knowledge and direct interest in AFN unlike the Council who may not have the same level of knowledge or interest. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 2, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Group discussed the possibility of being more nimble by getting away from public meetings laws. This would require AFN to be spun off AFN into a separate entity like the Hospital Board. Group asked if the Water Commission model would be free to do business with anyone (i.e. not just be restricted by Ashland City limits). Teece stated yes, residents of Talent do request service and nothing technically prevents AFN from providing that service, but keeping to a specific, Ashland only location was previous Council's decision. Additionally, in 2010 it is was determined that going outside of Ashland could cost about a $.5 million in infrastructure, without enough profit to cover that cost. This cost estimate might no longer be accurate, with new technologies. David Hand stated that the option for growth outside of Ashland is an interesting topic but the options for growth within Ashland is actually more important. Currently of the roughly 10,000 homes in Ashland, only 3,000 are served by AFN. We have huge growth potential to be gained in the homes not using the service. Group discussed the challenges of providing a high enough level service at a low enough cost to appeal to those homes. Teece explained the prohibitive group are the younger, wireless customers because they use every bit of bandwidth given them thanks to streaming. Modem customers, on the other hand, don't use anywhere near what is available to them. 5. Evaluation Criteria Marsh stated she wants the group to brainstorm potential criteria for evaluating any option. She hopes the SWAT analysis from last meeting will give the group focus. Additionally, using the evaluation criteria from March 7, 2006, Council Communication may help start the process. Criteria Any option eonsidered must 1. Have high reliability (i.e. always be on) and be customer focused 2. Enable AFN to be nimble in a competitive environment 3. Be governed by stable, dedicated, and knowledgeable leadership 4. Have positive financial impact (be as well run financially as possible) (investments justified as short- or long-term benefit) 5. Allow AFN long-term viability (maintaining choice in community) to provide competitive environment and support economic development (goal is to sustain the system over time to serve the community) 6. Be resistant to political change or whims Group discussed whether public ownership of the assets was important. They acknowledged that the City owns the debt so owning the assets helps to guarantee no defaulting on the debt. Group wondered if it would ever be possible to sell enough to cover enough of the debt would owning it still be a priority. They decided that public ownership wasn't a high enough priority right now to be on the criteria list but that it could be a secondary criteria for consideration. Group discussed whether having an open ISP structure should be a requirement. They determined that at this stage this would pigeon-hole the options. Additionally, the group has already acknowledged the importance of providing long-term options for community in some of Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 2. 2015 Page 3 o1 A the other criteria. Group reviewed the criteria to see if changes or additions to each should be made. Group discussed what they considered timeframes for short- and long-term goals. They discussed whether nine years, which is the time left on the debt payment, is a short-term, mid- term, or long-term target. Group decided that nine years is too long to be short-term, particularly considering how rapidly things change in the tech world. Short-term should be closer to one or two years. Nine years should be the long-term goal, with the hope that the principles established in this process and during those nine years will carry beyond for future success. 6. Identification/ initial analysis of alternative organizational models Group brainstormed the types of models they want to study further or consider. Models 1. As-is (status quo) model - could actually go several ways a) leave in Council control entirely, b) appoint a separate quasi-governmental commission (like the Airport Commission) c) rework the ISP control to change where the city/ISP divide sits. 2. Utility model- in its raw form this is just a way to distribute costs (debt) equally. Group has concerns about the legality. This has the highest possibility of having a transformational impact on how the City does business. 3. Public model - concessionaire (golf-course model). The City maintains the infrastructure but it is managed separately. In other words the City is the wholesaler and the concessionaire is the retailer. This could theoretically lower the operating costs to the City by reducing employee costs. This model could also include multiple concessionaires and the dividing line between where the City operates and where concessionaires operate is flexible (for example: concessionaires could take over running the head end or they could have control later in the pipeline) 4. Spiry-off model - similar to the former hospital board model. The board would lease the assets from the City and have a full operating, self-perpetuating board. 5. Sold entirely (divestment) model Group discussed that models I and 3 (as-is and public) have lots of overlap, and can be picked and parsed or combined in lots of different ways. Group discussed the desire to add to the Criteria list "minimize impacts on City operations, both to staff roles or operation and to central service fee charges." 7. Next steps/ meeting schedule Marsh stated that at the next meeting she would like to work on creating a grid of how the model options lay out with the criteria on a fundamental level. Rosenthal requested the group also work on a statement of purpose/mission statement. This would be helpful for future groups to analyze how decisions were made and also would help to explain why AFN is important overall. Group agreed this should be added to the next agenda. Minutes for the ad hoc AFN Governance Structure Committee July 2, 2015 Page 4 of 4 The next meetings will be July 15 and July 27, from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. in the Sikiyou Room. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet Executive Assistant ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES June 3, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1175 East Main St. Regular members present: Pam Hammond, Michael Dawkins, Rich Kaplan, John Williams (arrived at 3:41), Emile Amarotico, Lisa Beam, Dave Young, Cynthia Rider, Marie Donovan, Joe Collonge, and Joe Graf Regular members absent: John Fields Ex officio (non-voting) members present: Sandra Slattery, Bill Molnar, Katharine Flanagan, Michael Faught, and Pam Marsh Ex officio (non-voting) members absent: Mike Gardiner, Rich Rosenthal, and Lee Tuneberg City of Ashland Staff members present: Tami De Mille-Campos, and Maria Harris ANNOUCEMENTS Chair Young announced that there was an error on the agenda and the second item will be public comment. Chair Young reminded those in attendance that this is the first meeting since February and we have a new consultant. With that said, the agenda is pretty packed with his presentation. He asked the public to keep that in mind going into public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 4, 2015 Approved by unanimous consent. Chair Young introduced Lynn Thompson to the committee. Lynn has replaced Rich Kaplan who is no longer on the Planning Commission. PUBLIC FORUM Andrew Kubik, 1251 Munson Dr. He stated he is here to reiterate a few things from the last meeting. He noticed on the national citizen survey that Ashland was in the college town category instead of a tourist town but he believes that may have something to do with the population more than the structure of the downtown. He stated there aren't too many people from SOU on the committee and he feels that might be something to address at some point. The survey itself shows that most of the college towns similar to Ashland in the survey have a trolley or transit system and because of that he thinks the committee should be looking at that a little closer. He added that at the end of the last meeting Mike Faught stated that 26% of the respondents thought that the parking was acceptable but if you actually look at the results 44% thought it was fair. There was another 7% in the excellent category and 19% felt it was good, so in total about 70% felt the parking was fair or better. He said he wouldn't swing all the way to thinking there is a big parking problem in Ashland and would recommend backing off a little especially since there is a new consultant. Donna Swanson, 863 Plum Ridge Dr. Read letter submitted into record (see attached) Elizabeth Hallett, 938 Mountain Meadows Cir. Read letter submitted into record (see attached) Louise Shawkat, 870 Cambridge St. Read letter submitted into record (see attached) Tamsin Taylor, 594 Great Oaks Dr. Read letter submitted into record (see attached) ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMEN L & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 3, 2015 Page 1 of5 Paul Stang, 2235 N. Hwy 99 He spoke to the traffic flow through the city. He said he has had some dialogue via email with Scott Fleury from Public Works. He is aware that there may have been a presentation about new traffic proposals for the downtown area and he is concerned about this. His initial interest was regarding the bike lane on the north end of town. He is a bicycle enthusiast and he finds that having reduced the lanes from four to two greatly constricts the traffic through that area and he finds it unnecessary. During a discussion with Scott one of his comments was "if you build it they will come" but that hasn't happened. There is a beautiful greenway bikeway that is serving the same North/South flow so he doesn't find that the bike lane justifies having reduced the lanes in that area. Through this discussion with Scott he is finding out that there is a lot of talk of a loading/unloading zone through the downtown. As a cyclist he appreciates the concern for having a bike lane but this has him concerned because of how the turn lanes intersect with the bike lane. He also stated that currently going through the downtown area as a cyclist is pleasant and he doesn't feel there needs to be another bike lane there. He also drives a vehicle through downtown and traffic can bind up through the downtown. He doesn't see how taking the traffic lanes down to two would make it any easier to get through town for occasional loading/unloading. Another area of concern is the pedestrian zone at Water Street; he would really like to see a timed crosswalk signal there. He also found out that the light at Helman is planning to be removed and he doesn't feel that is a safe move with the curve and the hill. However the light at Laurel doesn't seem to be served very well. SUMMARY OF RWC SCOPE Faught introduced a few people in the audience; Kim Parducci, Al Densmore. Faught read through some of the scope of work and what Rick Williams will be taking over. Rick will take what has already been done and use that as a baseline. He is going to review our existing policies, operating strategies, on/off street management, look into land use. The committee will have him for 6 meetings and then probably 2 city council meetings. Faught said there are more details to the scope of work but that is a broad overview. Rick Williams thanked the committee for having him here. He shared with the committee that somewhere around 1999 or 2000 he helped write the plan that is currently in place. He comes from a background of downtown management. In the 80's and early 90's he was Vice President of what was called The Association for Portland Progress (downtown Portland's business association) and what has now developed into the Portland Business Alliance (their Chamber of Commerce). He was responsible for all phases of downtown promotions and activities. They formed the first business improvement district in Oregon, which at that time was the second in the United States, called Clean and Safe and they also later created what is now called Smart Park. His approach is the fundamentals of vital downtowns and supporting vital communities. Secondarily, he had another job for over twenty years while he was doing parking consulting. He was contract Executive Director of The Lloyd District Transportation Management Association, which is now called Go Lloyd. Their focus there was parking management through alternative modes and that really transformed the Lloyd district. He added that as much as he loves parking, we really need to look at things globally and look at it as a multi-modal phase. REFRESH: U OF 0 STUDY FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS Rick shared with the group that the Community Planning Workshop did a great job and there is a lot of good data which provides for a good foundation. Rick stepped through his PowerPoint presentation (see attached). PARKING 101 - BEST PRACTICES IN DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT Rick said sometimes our problem with parking is that we think it to death and it needs to be simplified. Continued slide presentation. RWC: SUMMARY OF DOWNTOWN PARKING OBSERVATIONS Continued slide presentation. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 3, 2015 Page 2 of 5 COMMITTEE INPUT AND DISCUSSION Continued slide presentation. He informed the committee that these were his observations and he would like them to push back too on everything they have heard and bring their ideas and solutions, while reacquainting themselves with some of the recommendations from the U of 0 study. Some of his observations are that the City of Ashland has a problem to die for! The downtown is robust and vibrant, with constant activity. The activity begins at 9:00 am and ends at 10:00 pm as was the case for him on a Friday, Saturday and so far on a Wednesday. He added that we don't want to exacerbate the problem but we also don't want to do anything that would cause the city to go in the wrong direction. There are areas of high parking activity throughout the entire study area. He was looking at the data and doing his own observations and he feels that Ashland has some unique districts that are starting to happen. There is a potential to simplify the system, through signage and parking zones, which he likes the idea of. One of the recommendations in the report, which he thinks they need to do is, going to permits. He just completed an on street permit program on the eastside in Portland and they are working on a new permit program for all thirty three neighborhoods in Seattle. The committee needs to discuss the intent for the permits and then develop the permit program around that. He added that permits are an option but they should make sure they are approaching it properly as it can be rather contentious and it needs to make sure that the residents' needs are continually met. One of the other things he noticed is that there is an extremely high opportunity for bikes in this community. During his time spent walking and driving around in the central downtown he ran into four bicycle shops and all of the bike racks in the two bike corrals he found were highly maximized. The bike shelter on the plaza was also full and there were even people chaining their bikes up to parking signs. He feels that the idea of pursuing bike lanes strategically would be very effective. He also pointed out they need to start thinking beyond bike lanes. He is seeing people chained up all over downtown to parking signs which says the city needs more racks. With the bike corals being highly utilized, he thinks the city should explore a pilot program with the nearby businesses. He thinks the city also may want to look at more bike hubs, like the bike shelter we have near the Plaza. Lastly, he feels they should work with businesses to bring bikes inside. They did a program through Go Lloyd where they bought wall racks for businesses so their employees could hang their bikes on the wall. That is sort of a four phased approach to bikes that he would recommend. The communication system (wayfinding), which was already in the plan, definitely needs improvement. One thing he found interesting was as a third party outsider there is more than just the downtown core. There are some unique districts starting to happen, such as the Railroad district, the area around 3,d/41h and A/B has the potential to not only create parking zones but also to create districts which become your parking districts. He mentioned the desire to balance short term retail parking, theater/patron parking and employee parking all on street he doesn't feel is practical and he thinks that is something they need to look at. They need to decide who the priority is in a specific area. He also thinks there is an opportunity for shared use if it is done strategically but he thinks it should be done for employee parking because in working with private sectors sometimes if you say "I want to use your lot" they'll likely say no because they don't think you can control who is going on to their lot but with employees you have an easier time controlling that than controlling visitors. He shared with the committee that he had a discussion with Mike Faught. He told Mike if they had a goal of how many employees they wanted to me removed from the downtown parking system then they would know how many spaces they need to create with remote lots, shuttling, private lots etc. He stated businesses can control their employees. Customer first programs exist and that is something we could explore. In Corvallis, Gresham, and Oregon City parking is a condition of employment. Chair Young recommended the committee members go around and briefly introduce themselves, which they did. Faught asked the group to spend the next thirty minutes sharing their thoughts or feelings on what they heard. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5 Amarotico said Williams previously stated free parking doesn't build a downtown and he wondered if paid parking can kill a downtown. Williams said yes and that is why the eighty five percent rule is so important because the only thing parking management can do is minimize your risk. When your parking is over eighty five percent the customer is beginning to feel tension and angst and if the parking supply is under eighty five percent then you aren't doing a good enough job convincing people to be with you. The product can always be improved. The purpose of parking is to support the product and there comes a point when the product is so good that you have more people coming to it than you have the capacity to serve it with an option to park or get there. This is why he says don't take pricing off the table. He wants to challenge the committee with the idea of pricing, he's not necessarily recommending it but when the committee gets to the point of solutions they need to come back and ask how they are going to do this. Otherwise, his fear is this plan will end up back on a shelf. Thompson stated there has been a lot of work done studying data but it's not clear to her where they are going to start. The document that was presented at the February meeting was essentially a redesign of the downtown streets. Her question is what is the order in which they are going to address some of the ideas that are on the table? Faught answered Rick is working from the U of 0 point, which is what the committee spent a little over a year on before the three to two lane configuration was introduced. He said the three to two lane configuration was presented at the last meeting so that way the committee can consider that as they move forward but the real focus now is on the parking side of the equation. He added we are also going to be working on some other transportation improvements in the downtown and that is why Kim Parducci is here. Ultimately when the plan is finished Al Densmore will help with the funding side of the equation. Lynn added she feels these issues are interrelated and she is curious how we are going to address those issues, such as the fact that our data shows the loading zones are underutilized but we are proposing new loading zones and we are proposing eliminating parking spaces yet we show we have a supply problem. Faught spoke to the loading zones and stated he actually agrees with the loading zone analysis and he would like to see the committee take all of the existing loading zones, with a couple of exceptions (in front of 51 Winburn Way and the Post Office) and start over. He's asked the trucking industry to provide feedback regarding their needs so that way it is focused on delivery needs. With the elimination of unnecessary loading zones we can add more parking spaces. Williams said his approach would be at the next meeting the committee would work on the policy options matrix document. The document has some good elements but there are some things that could be refined. Also, a re-look at the guiding principles would also be helpful. He thinks it would be good to have a conversation at the next meeting discussing who the priority is for on street parking because that is unclear in the document. Marsh asked where the land-use element folds into here? Williams said that is what we want to work together on. It could be that an ITE model is used or you could look at it a different way and look at what can be done with bikes, what can be done with walking and what can be done with transit and then those ITE estimates could be factored downward to reflect a new mode split. He added we will be cognizant and aware of it and with his background he will push at it and pull at it and decide if it is a normal transportation forecasting model or is it something that has more options in it. Rider asked if staff could resend the policy option document to the committee if it is going to be on a future agenda. She also added she has been here in Ashland for a little over two and a half years and during the past fall to spring she has received more complaint letters than she has before so she isn't sure if that just means there are more vocal people or if there is more of a parking issue. She also stated the difference between when they have one performance a day versus five performances is quite significant so she would note that the three days that Rick has spent here is very different than the height when they have five in a day. The employee issue is also very important to her. Her employees work at all different times of the day so she is curious to see what the committee comes up with as far as a solution to getting her employees off of the desirable streets. She shared that visitor's for them need two to six hours based on the length of the play. She also wants to make sure the committee looks at people with mobility issues (employees, visitors etc). Young asked Rick if he has a sense of how long this process will take. Faught answered 5 more months (5 meetings). He also added he thinks if Rick's five core questions can be answered then the solutions start happening fairly quickly but the committee needs to come to an agreement in terms of the principals and how the committee ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 3, 2015 Page 4 of 5 would like to solve them. This will likely be the challenge during the next meeting, as the committee begins to roll up their sleeves and hopefully have a really healthy debate about some of these proposals. Young asked for clarification on whether the committee is just going to focus on parking for the next five months. Faught said he thinks some of the others will fall into that as well but the principal part of that is the beginning of the conversation. Collonge shared what he is generally hearing is that Williams thinks all of the issues can be solved by parking management and that multi-million dollar parking garages and trolleys are a farther out option. He asked if his assumption was correct. Williams answered the committee needs to start as simply as possible and the first thing they need to do is agree on what the problem is which it seems like there is still a lack of clarity about. Then if everyone agrees on what the problem is then they need to begin with the existing supply and convince themselves there are no options other than capacity (looking at data, talking to the private sector, looking at remote lots etc). His mentor in parking said "nothing else works if the parking you have is not full". It will be more expensive, it will be harder to do and the market won't be there so the committee must expend all opportunities to solve the problem. Then you would look at district by district, area by area and figure out how you get to new capacity. It's easy to say a garage or a shuttle system would provide more capacity. His question would be if it would be used if it's not properly managed, centrally located or coordinated into the system itself. He said it does take longer to get there and his is sort of an arduous check system but it also helps the community stay on point. He added somewhere in that check list the communication system has to be added (wayfinding, signing, branding etc.) but it all begins with a process to try to keep people focused which is the hard part of parking management because everyone wants to get to the ultimate solution. He thinks new supply and new capacity (parking and alternative modes) are both relevant options. Marsh asked if we go through this process and the committee figures out in today's world parking can be managed at eighty five percent and new modes are not needed, is the committee going to take the next step in this process to include steps to take if the eighty five percent is exceeded. Williams answered yes; it would include the long term plan. The plan will include immediate, near term (0-2 years), mid-term (2-5 years) and long term (5 + years). Graf asked if there is any reason to redefine the study area. Williams answered yes but not necessarily as a first order of business. Study areas can morph as you get trigger areas in place. NEXT STEPS Williams asked the committee if there were any issues with the scheduling of the next meeting which falls during the week of 4th of July. He just wanted to be sure everyone was okay with that date. The consensus was everyone will be available for the meeting as scheduled. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:29 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 3, 2015 Page 5 of 5 Tami DeMille-Campos From: Scott Fleury [fleurys@ashland. or.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 8:42 AM To: 'Jeven Showers' Cc: 'Mike Faught;'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: RE: Bike parking on pioneer st. Jeven, have forwarded your request to the Public Works Director. The City is currently conducting a downtown parking and multi-modal circulation study that is dealing with parking, loading zones and multimodal circulation through the downtown corridor. This request would be best served being sent to them as part of the discussion for additional bike parking facilities in the downtown corridor. Part of the discussion involves changing the lane configuration downtown from 3 lanes to 2 with the addition of bike lanes that would connect N. Main to Siskiyou Blvd. and that would allow for the potential widening of sidewalks and thus additional bike parking with racks on the sidewalks. The next downtown committee meeting is scheduled for June 3 at 3:30 in the Council Chambers if you are interested in becoming involved. On a side note, there might be room to accommodate a couple single inverted U bike racks along the frontage of 76 N. Pioneer by following the adopted encroachment guidelines, reference attachment. Typically these requests would work their way in front of the Transportation Commission for discussion, but since there is a specific downtown study going on right now the Transportation Commission will not be dealing with anything associated with the downtown until after the study is over and the Council adopts any recommendations. Please let me know if you have any questions. thanks, Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager City of Ashland, Public Works 20 East Main Street, Ashland OR 97520 (541) 552-2412, TTY 800-735-2900 Fax: (541) 488-6006 This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon Public Records Law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at (541) 552-2412. Thank you. From: Jeven Showers [mailto:jeven72@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 7:09 AM To: scott.fleury@ashland.or.us Subject: Bike parking on pioneer st. I iello Scott, My name is Jeven Showers and I own Taqueria Picaro at 76 N. Pioneer st. Our focus at the Taqueria is all about local living and being green for Ashland.. We have about 25 employees and cater to locals. I have seen a couple of spots downtown where there is multiple 1 bike parking spaces that are on the street (standing stone and outdoor store) I would like to see that in front of Picaros. I feel that by creating that space it would cut down on extra car parking for my employees but also my customers. I also feel that adding another space would be beneficial to that location as Shakespeare is a half a block away. With parking in downtown being such an issue I feel that this would be a win wain for our community. I look forward to speaking with you and hopefully moving forward on making Ashland a "greener"community. 'T'hank you for your time Jeven Showers Taqueria Picaro 541-778-3743 2 SupplemenfNo 15-489 ORIG ASHLAND POLICE. DEPARTMENT Narrative On 022715 at 1153 hours at 1153 hours, I was dispatched to the plaza on'a motor vehicle accident involving 3 vehicles. When I arrived on scene, I met with the three involved drivers Pyl was operating a black 2093 Subaru XVC (Oregon plate t)V3 !was operating a black 2014 Ford Explorer (Oregon plate, andl IN21was operating a gray 2002 Toyota Solara (Oregon plate. Val , ~ was in the right hand Jape of North Main Street approaching Water Street. Her intent was to make a right hand turn onto North Main at the plaza (near Greenleaf Deli). As she approached the turn, she noticed a delivery truck double parked in front of the Greenleaf Deli. The trucks rear end was extending into the intersection making Vvt, widen her-turn, As she came around the truck, she spotted a pedestrian who had entered the crosswalk (travelling from west to east) Dv i j stopped for the pedestrian. . Dv2• i was following', V l ?when she Dv I stopped for the pedestrian, flv2'.stopped his vehicle behin( :V T LW3 )was following v2 When .,,V~-!came to an abrupt stop,' DV3. ±.attempted to stop but couldn't and'ran into the back of vt vehicle. -'sf 2., vehicle (in turn) ran into the back of V vehicle. The pedestrian (who saw the accident) did not remain on scene. No citations were issued. This case is considered closed. 1\1 ck C, j 0_*A Pin 3 ' i Repod a cer Pnnled At 4O40148 CG YY,PHZL _ 02/28/2015 05:37 Page 3 of 3 Tami DeMille-Cam os From: Mike Faught tfaughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:59 PM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Taking down trees for trucks Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faup-htm a ashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fat 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Carole Julyan [mailto:carole iulyan@msn.com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 12:07 PM To: faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: Taking down trees for trucks Dear Sir: I moved to Ashland four years ago and so enjoyed downtown and especially the plaza. I am appalled at the renovation. It is drab and ugly. I don't have any desire to sit there. To add insult to injury, the information booth has been painted such a dreadful color combination. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I could not attend the meeting about removing the trees across from Nimbus to make room for delivery trucks, I simply cannot believe that the city would do this. Delivery trucks should not be allowed in town. Street trees provide shade and beauty. Do I or the tourists want to look at delivery trucks by the plaza? I urge you to reconsider this dreadful plan. Ashland is unique in its small town beauty. Please stop trying to make it like a big city. Sincerely, Carole Julyan Ashland resident i Z7 cf~ Al' 61/ i i Y ~~lcr yS '1 Rua 's,:' Asliland, Ott 97520 c \ ` s. P ,y % i7 1 i f i i i~1iIfI1~i~~~,~iJ,~ui.l~lll►i~~~~~ti~i„i~l,il~l~ili~~~11i~~.~~i i I Brent Thompson D P.O. Box 201 F EB 1 7 2015 Ashland, OR 97520 15 February 2015 Ashland. City Council and related downtown traffic committee 20 East Main j Ashland, OR 97520 j Re: Downtown traffic lanes To the Council and Committee, In the slow lane through the downtown I would favor clear "SHARE THE t ROAD" markings but not the full dedication of one lane for bicycle traffic. Frustration will be too great if one vehicle lane is removed entirely. In the North Main area the situation is barely tolerable with the removal of lanes. On busy days or at busy times anyone trying to enter the traffic flow or cross North Main has to learn be more aggressive than they might like. That is because with the loss one lane on each side there is not enough of a break in traffic. j I think the prospective change is too big of a risk in the downtown. Best regards, f Brent aom--os n 541 488-0407 i i r i t I t Tami DeMille-Cam os From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 9:33 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Traffic changes Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtmRashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: TODD ELLIS [mailto•telliswork(d)gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:15 AM To: faughtm ashland.or.us Subject: Traffic changes Dear Mr. Faught, As a long time residents of Ashland I want to commend you on the proposed changes that you are brining up for discussion. I am a father of 3 children and the only 2 safety issues that I have with downtown area) the trucks that create a dangerous blind spot for BOTH crosswalks when they park in front of Mix (Oddly enough, a byproduct of the removal of those end parking spaces and creation of the small island there several years ago in an attempt to actually make that a safer crossing/driving area) and the fact that we tout ourselves as being "bike friendly" but that friendliness ends at church and doesn't begin again until the library. I hope that these changes actually take place and for once I will applaud the constant modifications that have been taking place downtown. Well done and thank you. i Todd Ellis Props. Grimm Season 4 2127 NW 26th Avenue Portland, OR 97210 503.221.6499 office 626.234.6664 cell i Tami DeMille-Cam os From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or. us] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 9:15 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: delivery trucks vs trees Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtm@ashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY "Phis entail is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Cici Brown [maiIto: cicibrown Ccbcha net] Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2015 8:58 AM To: dyoung ieffnet.org Cc: faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: delivery trucks vs trees Hello Dave, Transportation Commission: "Ashland has a vision - to retain our small-town character even while we grow. To achieve this vision, we must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the community and enhances Ashland's livability, character and natural environment." The option for removing Liquidambar trees for 67 foot delivery truck parking is not in keeping with their mission statement. We need an ordinance to prohibit LARGE delivery trucks in the Plaza area. Please research: Many cities including Portland, don't allow large delivery trucks, why should Ashland? Thank you Cici Brown 1 Tami DeMiile-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 5:53 PM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: The Plaza!! Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtmoashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Andrew [mailto:almiller816pgmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:46 AM To: Faughtmoashland.or.us Subject: The Plaza!! Do not take any more trees from the plaza!! Signed, Your constituent Andrew Miller i Tami DeMille-Cam os From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:49 PM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: The Plaza Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 fau htm c ashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Joshua Young [mailto:josh uaalanyoung@amail.coml Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 1:42 PM To: faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: The Plaza Hello, Writing to ask that no more trees be removed from the Ashland plaza. I understand that parking is an important issue, however so are the trees. Our trees are apart of what makes this town so beautiful and is one of the reasons it is so desirable to live here. Already the plaza has lost so much of its natural beauty; please do not remove any more. "Thank you for your time, Joshua Alan Young f' E I! 1 Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 12:45 PM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Liquidambar Trees and delivery trucks Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtm2cashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Cici Brown [mailto•cicibrown(&charter.net] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 7:01 AM To: faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: Liquidambar Trees and delivery trucks February 6, 2015 Dear Mike Faught: 1 attended the ad hoc meeting Wednesday afternoon. Thank you for your presentation. With your comments on the liquidambar trees, it's clear to me we need to establish an ordinance that will prohibit large trucks (67 feet including cab) from entering the Plaza area. The City needs to research other cities who have dealt with this problem. I am a contributor for the Preserve Ashland Historic Plaza site and in a period of 24 hours they received over 2550 hits and comments about the liquidambar trees and the delivery truck issue. Here are a few short comments: "Parks and Rec have a way of protecting the roots of trees and fixing the sidewalk." Trucks that large would never be allowed in a place like downtown Portland and the stores there seem to be fine. Why would they need to be allowed in Ashland? Mark Richard 8:42pm Feb 4 My buddy delivers 80,000 lbs. of meat per day in and around NYC. Not one truck over 20 feet. How can anyone justify 67 foot trucks delivering in and around a little tiny town in Oregon. t i People are passionate about trees especially with climate change, please start the process for a delivery truck size ordinance. We need to SAVE all mature trees! "Trees are the lungs of our planet." Sincerely, Cynthia Brown Ashland (for 41 years) 2 Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:57 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Trees Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtmpashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. ---Original Message----- From: Jane Sterling [mailto:ianesterling421(@mac.com] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 5:32 PM To: faughtm(@ashland.or.us Subject: Trees Please do not remove trees in the Ashland Plaza. Please. Please. Dr. Jane i 1 Tami DeMille-Cam os From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2015 9:56 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Trees on Plaza Michael R. (aught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtm(p,ashland.onus 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Claudia Michelli [mailto:michelliart@-gmail.COMI Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:26 PM To: faughtm@ashiand.or.us Subject: Trees on Plaza Dear Mr. Fraught, You can add me to the growing list of citizens who are protesting the outrageous proposal of cutting down trees on the plaza to make room for delivery trucks. Please stop this from happening. Thank you Claudia Michelli I t Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland. or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 10:48 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: trees Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Wlnburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtm washland.onus 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Rebecca Brunet [mailto:rebeccab(a>mind.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 3:14 PM To: Faughtm(&ashland.or.us Subject: trees Please do not take out any more trees from the plaza. I feel very strongly about this for several reasons (the remodel of the plaza which feels much less beautiful to me, the fountain in front of the Black Swan being too expensive to fix, and Iron Mike for starters.) Let's keep a little charm and character, and shade. Thank you. Your constituent Rebecca Brunot 1338 Apple Way Ashland 19 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast,com r Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:55 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW. trees across from Nimbus Michael R. Taught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 fau htmL&ashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. From: Zuna Johnson [mailto:zunaCa~mind.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:14 PM To: Faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: trees across from Nimbus Hello, Please do not remove those trees too! Enough! Getting rid of those trees is like denuding the tiny natural cover we still have left on the Plaza. I say No. Delivery trucks are fine just as they are. We have managed thru these years with them there. Rather keep the trees than make a parking spot for them right downtown. thanks, Zuna Johnson 276 Bridge St. Ashland, OR Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us) Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:56 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FW: Please! Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtm@ashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Vivian [mailto:vivver(@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:19 PM To: faughtm@ashland.or.us Subject: Please! Please do not take out any more trees in the plaza or anywhere else, unless they have died. If anything, please plant more trees. i Thank you. 1 Tami DeMille-Campos From: Mike Faught [faughtm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 8:54 AM To: 'Tami DeMille-Campos' Subject: FK Trees in plaza Michael R. Faught Public Works Director City of Ashland 51 Winburn Way Ashland, OR 97520 faughtmpashland.or.us 541/552-2411 541/488-6006 Fax 800/735-2900 TTY This email is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Moi [mailto:ani.moriarty@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 4:02 PM To: faughtm(@ashland.or.us_ Subject: Trees in plaza i Please know I am totally opposed to taking out trees for trucks as is one of the proposals in front of Nimbus. There has to be a solution that does not take away from the serene and wonderful walkability of the heart of this town. Sincerely, Ani Moriarty Sent from my iPhone 1 CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Minutes May 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Coriann Matthews called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Joshua Boettiger, arrived at 5:15 Pam Marsh Coriann Matthews Heidi Parker SOU Liaison Gina DuQuenne Vacant Sue Crader Rich Rohde Staff Present: Connie Saldana Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Commissioners Absent: Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Assistant Regina Ayars Approval of Minutes Rohde/Crader m/s approval of minutes of the April 23, 2015 Housing and Human Services Commission meeting. Voice Vote: motion passed unanimously; minutes were approved as presented. Public Forum No one present spoke. Social Service Award Discussion and Recommendation The HHS Commission was given the task of recommending to City Council the allocation of the funds for the social service grant monies. On May 27, 2015 each applicant who requested grant money gave a presentation before the HHS Commission. The Commissioners briefly discussed the process they individually took in order to come up with their recommendations for these monies. Most of the Commissioners had previously given Reid their numerical values for each of the organizations they wished to allocate funds to. Reid took a few minutes to input the remainder of the Commissioners numbers into a spreadsheet. After a group discussion the following is the names of the organizations along with the allocation of funds that was agreed upon by the Commissioners as a group. The total Social Service Grant money to be awarded is $130,660. 1. Community Health Center $8,000 2. Planned Parenthood of SW Oregon $1,500 3. Children's Advocacy Center of JC $3,750 4. Center for Nonprofit Legal Services Inc. $5,000 5. RVCOG (Meals on Wheels) $3,700 6. Community works Inc (Helpline) $4,700 7. CASA of Jackson County $3,000 8. Maslow Project $8,000 9. On Track, Inc. $6,000 10. Community Works (Sexual Assault Victim Serv) $1,800 11. St. Vincent de Paul $20,000 12. Community Works Inc (Dunn House) $11,760 13. Access $4,600 14. Children's Dental Clinic of JC $2,850 15. Community Works Inc (Homeless & Runaway) $6,000 16. Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland $40,000 Councilor Marsh expressed her appreciation to the Commissioners for doing such a fine job. Marsh asked the Commissioners if they could take a little time to evaluate this process. The Commissioners determined there were a few changes that could be made in the next grant cycle. Here is a list of some of the suggestions. • The application form itself could include more specific questions. • Specify what financial forms need to be filled out. • Presentations could be more direct. Some presentations seemed more like storytelling and need to be more focused • Ask the applicant more questions either on the application or at the presentations. Example "What if you didn't receive this funding? How would that affect your project? ""What are you going to do with the money? " Give us a brief overview of your program. • Would like to receive feedback from the applicant. • Would like a little more time between the applications and the presentations. Discuss the applications as a group and then hear their presentations. Marsh asked the Commissioners if they felt they had enough membership with this group to make this kind of decision. Would it be helpful to have someone from the Budget Committee or a Council member included in the decision making process, inquired Marsh? The Commissioners recognized that depending on the applicants and the employment of some of the Commissioners it would be possible to not have a quorum. However the consensus was that they will make that determination after they evaluate how well they express their decisions to the Council. Boettiger pointed out that the goal is fluid communication with the Council. They are open to the possibility of additional assistance with the process if necessary. The recommendations go to the City Council on June 16, 2015. Matthews, Crader and Rohde will attend that Council meeting with Reid. Quorum Check: Next Housing Commission Meeting - 4:30-6:30 PM; June 25, 2015 Possibility that Matthews might be absent Saldana will not be able to attend July 20, 2015 City Council Study Session-Housing Trust Fund Discussion. Crader invited the Commissioners to attend the Economic and Culture tourism grants deliberation. They follow the same format as the Social Service Award. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES June 23, 2015 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 Debbie Miller Derek Severson, Associate Planner Melanie Mindlin April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Haywood Norton Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Greg Lemhouse, absent Roger Pearce ANNOUNCEMENTS Community Development Director Bill Molnar announced the upcoming meeting schedule and stated there are several new bills being drafted at the state legislature of interest to the commission, including bee keeping regulations and an agriculture zoning bill. AD-HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES No updates were given. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00928 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 72-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Fremont Cottonwood tree from the property located at 380 Clay Street. (This tree was previously identified to be preserved and protected as part of Planning Action #2009-00043.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 11C; TAX LOT: 2500. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Miller, Brown, and Norton declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson stated the application before them is a request to remove a 72-inch diameter Freemont Cottonwood tree from the property the city owns at 380 Clay Street. He noted there is an existing 1890's farmhouse on the property and the Snowberry Brook affordable housing development is immediately to the north. He explained in 2008 the city purchased the parcel in cooperation with the Housing Authority of Jackson County and the Ashland Parks Department. A portion of the lot was reserved as wetland area, a portion was acquired by the Parks Department, three acres went to the Ashland Planning Commission June 23. 2015 Page 1 of 6 9 Housing Authority for the development of 60-units which are now complete, and the remaining section being discussed tonight is under consideration for sale to the Housing Authority to develop more affordable housing. Mr. Severson stated the request to remove the cottonwood would allow the maximum development potential for the lot for the creation of affordable housing. He noted this property originally had three cottonwood trees on the property, one fell in 2006 and the other was removed in 2009 as part of the Snowberry Brook project. Mr. Severson stated staff believes this decision comes down to two criteria. Approval criteria #3 states: "Removal of the tree will not have a significant negative impact on the tree densities, sizes, canopies, and species diversity within 200 ft. of the subject property. The city shall grant an exception to this criterion when alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. "Mr. Severson stated while the Fremont Cottonwood species is unusual for the area, the Poplar Cottonwood genus is not and there is ample diversity of species within 200 ft. During the Tree Commission's review of this application they suggested the Freemont species is unusual and the specimen is likely the largest tree in the city and potentially one of the largest trees of this species in the state, and as such they stated its removal would have a significant negative impact on species diversity. He stated the Planning Commission must make a determination on this criteria and also consider if the tree is required to be preserved, does a reasonable alternative exists that would allow the property to be used as permitted within the zone. Mr. Severson stated the second criteria the commission needs to consider is #4, which states: 'Nothing in this section shall require that the residential density to be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. In making this determination, the city may consider alternative site plans or placement of structures of alternate landscaping designs that would lessen the impact on trees, so long as the alternatives continue to comply with the other provisions of this ordinance. " Mr. Severson explained the minimum density for this property is 10 units, base density is 12 units, and maximum density is 20 units. He stated the applicants assert that keeping the tree would limit develop to its minimum density, while removal of the tree allows for maximum development of the site with affordable housing. Mr. Severson displayed the two conceptual illustrations submitted by the applicant showing possible development of the lot. One provides for 19 units and the necessary 33 parking spaces to serve those units, and the other preserves the tree and would allow for 10 units and associated parking to be built. Mr. Severson stated the Tree Commission recommended denial of the request and indicated they did not believe the applicants had adequately demonstrated that keeping the tree would require residential density below the permitted density of the zone. He explained the Planning Commission must determine if this criteria refers to the minimum, base, or maximum density; and analyze whether the applicant has met the burden of proof in demonstrating the permitted density cannot be obtained by retaining the tree. Questions of Staff Staff was asked to comment on whether this tree was discussed during the approval process for Snowberry Brook. Mr. Severson stated when Snowberry Brook was approved conditions were placed to maintain the tree until something happened with this lot and to make the tree non-exempt from the tree removal permitting process. He added it was clear that this property was intended to be sold and developed at a later date for the creation of affordable housing. Staff was asked about the purpose of the fence surrounding the tree. Mr. Severson remarked that in the past some limbs came down and the fence was erected to prevent any liability issues. Applicant's Presentation Dave Kanner, City Administrator/Mr. Kanner stated this 10-acre parcel was purchased in 2008 for the specific purpose of providing affordable housing. He stated it was a joint purchase by the city and explained the Parks & Recreation Dept. acquired a little over 3-acres and the Housing Authority purchased 4-acres for the Snowberry Brook affordable housing development. Mr. Kanner stated the Housing Authority developed the 4-acres with 60-units, 2-acres were preserved as a wetland, and the remaining acreage was agreed to be transferred to the Housing Authority, at the city's cost, for additional affordable housing. Mr. Kanner stated that while the tree was identified to be preserved and protected as part of planning action #2009-00043, the preservation and protection was not in perpetuity, it was to protect the tree during the construction of Snowberry Brook. He explained the city would like to remove the tree to make way for its original purchase intent which is to allow for the full development density for affordable housing. He stated the main question is whether the community finds greater value in affordable housing or in a tree that has already reached its prime lifespan and is not appropriate to the location. Mr. Kanner explained Ashland has voted to not increase its urban growth boundary and the ultimate best use of Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 2 of 6 10 this property is to develop the maximum density allowable in the zone for an affordable housing project. He stated if the tree remains, 10 units can be built; if it is removed, 20 units can be built. Additionally, he stated the Housing Authority has indicated that in order for this project to be feasible they need to develop close to 20 units. Mr. Kanner noted the suggestion to designate this area as a park land and submitted a letter into the record from Parks Director Michael Black. The letter states the Parks Department is not interested in a trade or purchasing this parcel for park land (See Exhibit P-01, attached.) Mr. Kanner commented on the community's problem with affordable housing and submitted two charts into the record detailing the shortage of affordable rental housing in Ashland (See Exhibits P-02 & P-03, attached.) He also commented on the Tree Commission's decision and stated a number of the members based their decision on emotion rather than the criteria. Questions of the Applicant Mr. Kanner was asked to comment on the proposal submitted by a neighbor that maintains the tree and provides for 15 units. Mr. Kanner stated this drawing has not been submitted to him and therefore he cannot comment on its feasibility. Mr. Kanner confirmed that all of the units built by the Housing Authority would be rentals. Mr. Kanner was asked if the city would feel safe removing the fence if the tree was properly maintained. He responded that this would be a question for the city council, however the fact that the lower limbs need to be supported with steel posts reinforces his concerns about this tree. Mr. Kanner agreed that the exact age of the tree is not know; but stated the age of the tree is not a criteria. Public Testimony Norma Bowen/361 Engle/Stated this tree was Tree of the Year and has been named "Hope". Ms. Bowen stated the residents have been meeting to create a plan that allows for the tree to remain and the creation of affordable units. She noted the Tree Commission voted unanimously to deny the permit and stated this land should be made enjoyable for everyone. Karen Smith/165 Jessica/Called attention to Ashland being a Tree City USA and recommended they find an alternative that would both save the tree and provide housing. Kelly McNamara/659 Clay/Stated the trailer park is very simple, but there are lots of trees, a pond, and ducks; and stated she views this tree as a living sculpture and asked that they keep living things of beauty in place. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty/Stated he is a former Tree Commissioner and this tree was mentioned by a number of neighbors during the Snowberry Brook application, and the developer listened to the concerns and saved the tree. Mr. Holley stated the city is only concerned about money and stated it is untrue the Housing Authority would be content building 20 units. He stated they would need to build 50 units to make the project feasible and would need to find space for the remaining units elsewhere. Mr. Holley stated the neighbors have been meeting on their own to develop a plan and have met with the Housing Authority and their plan was acceptable to them. He asked that the Planning Commission deny the request. David Winn/2233 Villard #204/Stated the proposal with 15 units is a win-win situation. He stated many old growth trees are being cut down and stated this tree provides lots of shade and cools the air. Mr. Winn stated he likes to go out in the morning and say his prayers around this tree, but has not been able to since the fence has gone up. Helene DeMartinez/231 Clay #6A/Stated she is the homeowners association president for Wingspread mobile home park. Ms. DeMartinez commented that this tree is right behind her backyard and the beauty of the area is the reason she moved there over 11 years ago. She stated she is tired of seeing so many things considered old and out of the norm being disregarded and stated this tree is enjoyed by the whole community. Ms. DeMartinez asked the commission to look at all the options and make an intelligent decision. Carol Voisin/908 Fox/Stated she is speaking as a citizen and not a city councilor. Ms. Voisin stated she served on the Housing Commission for five years and has always been committed to affordable housing. She reminded the commission Ashland Planning Commission June 23r 2015 Page 3 of 6 11 that the Normal Master Plan area with 500 new planned units is just a few blocks away, and 25% (or 100-125 units) will be required to be affordable. She added perhaps the five units that would be lost to save the tree may be inconsequential. Ms. Voisin stated according to the buildable housing inventory, studios and one bedroom units are the types of housing most needed, however it seems the types that are being planned by the Housing Authority would be larger units and do not meet Ashland's particular need. She asked the commission to look for a win-win situation, where they can save the tree and also build affordable housing. Gregg Trunell/400 Clay/Stated he is chair of the Tree Commission but recused himself from this particular issue and is speaking tonight as a public citizen. Mr. Trunell stated the Tree Commission based their decision on the criteria, not emotion, and stated the application meets the minimum density requirement and therefore it was an easy decision. Mr. Trunell stated the application states the maximum age for this type of tree is 130 years, however his fact checking showed the correct verbiage is more than 130 years. He stated the 2013 arborist report says this is a healthy tree and questioned why the fence was put up. He added the arborist report identified in the application was an estimate from Beaver Tree Service and this is not the same as an arborist report. Mr. Trunell stated the land use code for tree preservation is intended to reduce development impacts by preserving healthy trees for soil stability, noise buffering, wind protection, temperature mitigation, and wildlife habitat as well as for the contribution to the character and beauty of Ashland. Cynthia Moscaritolo/175 Wightman/Stated the quantity of affordable housing was never discussed during the 2008 application and does not believe the intent was to blanket the area with back to back housing. Ms. Moscaritolo stated the city does not have to sell this property to the Housing Authority and recommended the Housing Authority purchase existing units and renovate them in order to increase affordable housing in Ashland. She asked that other properties in Ashland be considered for affordable housing and that all options be looked at for this property. Ms. Moscaritolo submitted a conceptual plan into the record (See Exhibits 0-01 & 0-02, attached.) Ron Roth/6950 Old 99 S/Raised issue with the city's application not addressing the other trees on the property and claimed the city wants to cut down the largest diameter tree in the city so that they can sell the property for more money than they otherwise would be able to. Mr. Roth stated this is a non-native tree and its removal would extricate this species from the City of Ashland. He stated there are reasonable alternatives that could be considered that could save the tree, including three-story buildings for the affordable housing or a land swap with the Parks Department. Albert Pepe/321 Clay/Asked that the tree be preserved and stated that in order to develop the property an old historic barn would also have to be removed. Mr. Pepe suggested this property be put to good use for the entire community and recommended a community garden. He stated lower Clay street is already crowded and asked that the city look outside the box regarding this parcel and consider other options for affordable housing in Ashland. Dominique Shelton/55 Brooks/Stated the city wants income from the sale of this property in order to build a parking lot. Ms. Shelton asked the commission to look beyond the given set of variables and asked them to come together to find a solution for this. She stated this tree is not something that can be replaced and asked them to leave something for future generations. Casey Roland/659 Clay/Clarified a statement he made at the Tree Commission hearing and stated if the only way to provide housing for people in need was to cut down this tree he would probably do it. Mr. Roland stated this tree is likely between 100-135 years old and believes the city council's decision to proceed with the tree removal application was based on misinformation. He stated all trees drop limbs and branches and stated it is a slippery slope to say this tree is past its prime. Mr. Roland stated he has killed more trees than any person in the room, however this tree is probably one of the first plantings in Ashland and is a tree that needs to be preserved. He stated this tree benefits the whole community and over 100 years of experience by professional arborists have said this tree should be maintained and preserved. He added this tree does not belong to the City of Ashland but rather belongs to the community, and believes with the right approach preserving the tree and building affordable housing is doable. Christine Menefee/321 Clay St. #8/Ms. Menefee's written comment in opposition to the removal of the tree was read aloud by Commissioner Mindlin. Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2095 Page 4 of 6 12 Questions of Staff Staff was asked to clarify which area will be a community park. Mr. Molnar identified the area acquired by the Parks Department but noted the Parks Commission has not made a determination on how the park land will be used. It is their land to plan and it could be a dog park, active fields, etc. Staff was asked if the affordable housing element is a criteria in this application. Mr. Molnar stated supporting affordable housing is a broader policy decision of the city. He added a key consideration is criteria #4 that states 'nothing in this section shall require that the residential density be reduced below the permitted density allowed by the zone. "He stated the commission needs to determine how to apply this, and whether permitted density means the minimum, base, or maximum density permitted. He added this is a difficult decision and stated "permitted density" is not defined in the code. Applicant's Rebuttal Dave Kanner/Emphasized that the Parks Department has already stated that they are not interested in this property as park land or a community garden. Additionally, they are not interested in swapping their parcel with the city. Mr. Kanner stated this property was acquired in 2008 and there have been six and a half years to find an alternative. He stated the degree to what level people love the tree is not a criteria and stated this application meets the criteria in the code. He stated its removal would not have a negative impact on erosion, soil stability, etc.; the removal would not significantly impact tree densities within 200 ft.; and though this tree is unique to our area it is not a unique tree. The issue is whether or not they can meet the minimum, base, or maximum density of the zone and this is what the commission needs to determine. Mr. Kanner stated the city is not trying to make money off this land and stated the city would make far more money if it sold the parcel at market value. He stated the amount of affordable housing would have to be reduced in order save the tree, and stated he does not agree with this approach when all of the criteria have been met. Deliberations & Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to deny PA-2015-00934. DISCUSSION: Dawkins stated while he supports restricting the urban growth boundary he has repeatedly questioned the city's infill policy and believes they should be growing from the center out. He added he does not support any more development on Clay Street until there is a safe way to cross Ashland Street. Miller agreed with Dawkins on the issue of traffic on Clay Street. She added she does not believe criteria #3 and #4 have been met and would like to see other alternatives explored. Brown disagreed and stated the application meets the criteria in the code. He stated any potential traffic concerns would be addressed when a development proposal comes forward, and this application is about the tree and affordable housing. Brown stated personal preferences are not part of this decision and stated the application clearly meets the requirements in the code. Norton stated he does not support the motion to deny. He stated if the tree stays it will need room to continue to grow, and if you shoehorn in the development it will impact the health of the residents. He added he cannot support keeping the tree if it means the housing will not be adequately designed. Miller cited criteria #3 and stated a reasonable alternative does exist and if they define permitted density as minimum or base density this development could move forward with the tree staying. Brown noted the tree will continue to be preserved until an adequate plan is presented and at that time they can discuss traffic, number of units, etc. Mindlin stated affordable housing and its value it not an approval criteria and stated she does not believe the application satisfies the criteria in the code. Mindlin stated criteria #3 has not been met and regarding criteria #4 she does not believe this means they have to allow someone to build the maximum density without considering the other factors. She added she does not support pre-approving the tree removal before seeing alternate plans. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Miller and Mindlin, YES. Commissioners Brown and Norton, NO. Motion passed 3-2. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Discussion of Ordinance Amendments for Homegrown Recreational Marijuana. Planning Manager Maria Harris presented language that could be used as a starting point for regulations on recreational marijuana. She explained starting July 1, 2015 people are allowed to have up to four marijuana plants and explained the city has had some code compliance issues with marijuana grows, mostly on odor, lights and fans. Ms. Harris reviewed the draft language that would place limitations on outdoor grows and stated the intent it to minimize adverse impacts to neighbors. She requested the commission provide input on the number of plants that should be allowed, whether this should be per lot or per household, and whether requiring setbacks is the right direction to go. She noted the state will begin accepting licenses for commercial sale sites in January 2016, and clarified tonight's discussion is only about residences. Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 5 of 6 13 Commission Discussion Commissioner Brown asked if state law allows the city to restrict the number of plants and Ms. Harris replied that staff believes so, however they are not allowed to increase the number. It was asked how tall the plants can grow and Ms. Harris explained they can get up to 8-10 ft. tall. Brown suggested they consider limiting the height of the plants, since at this height they would be clearly visible over a fence. Ms. Harris stated there are two moving parts and explained medicinal marijuana is loosely regulated by the state and allows six plants per card holder, however people have started growing for other card holders. She explained this ordinance would limit outdoor growing regardless of whether it is for medicinal or recreational use. Commissioner Dawkins expressed concern with rental units being taken out of the housing stock and used as grow houses, and questioned if they should use electric bills to detect where indoor grows are happening. Commissioner Mindlin asked if greenhouses would meet the screening requirements and staff indicated they could address this in the ordinance as a possible screening alternative. City Administrator Dave Kanner addressed the commission and stated his recommendation is to place a limitation on the number of plants grown outdoors, and stated they may run into problems with legislation if they try to limit the number grown indoors. Regarding the height concern, he stated as long as it is not visible from any public place he is not concerned if the plants are visible over the top of a backyard fence. Mr. Kanner stated his main concern is regarding large grow sites consisting of 20 or more plants and explained the odor of a grow this size impacts entire neighborhoods. He explained he has spoken with the city's code compliance officer and his opinion was that four plants would create an odor, but it would not be so obnoxious that neighbors can't enjoy their outdoor spaces. He stated he is not concerned with whether they are growing for recreational of medicinal uses, but if they want to grow more than four plants they need to do it inside. He stated the electrical use component is interesting and stated while they cannot single out one type of business for higher rates, the city can establish excess of peak use charges and apply it to all commercial businesses. Regarding Dawkins concern, Mr. Kanner stated it is very expensive to rent a house in Ashland and there is a shortage of available rental properties, and he does not believe it will be worth someone's while to establish a grow operation in Ashland when there are far less expensive options elsewhere. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to direct staff to initiate the amendments and prepare an ordinance. Roll Call Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 23, 2015 Page 6 of 6 14 From: Michael Black [mailto:blackm@ashland.or.us] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:28 PM To: 'Dave Kanner` Subject: The Tree I think you know the tree I am talking about. I met with Carol today and (later) with the owner of the property adjacent to the tree. I was out there with our arborist admiring the tree when the neighbor walked up. Here is mytake. If the tree is worth saving, then the City Council can make that decision. I am not interested in a trade or purchase of that property. I don't feel like I need to take this to the Commission because it is not a priority property and if we were to acquire it, it would be a limited use property at best as long as the tree remained. If somehow the Council decided that they wanted to save this tree then I think we could commit to maintaining it. I think it could be a nice feature that was ancillary to the park, but not part of it. I do not wish to champion this tree as an APRC project, but again if it somehow ended up a priority for the Council, we could maintain the tree to ensure it lives as long as it possible can in its current state. We would have to limit the use underneath the tree, and perhaps even exclude activity under it. As you can see, it is no use to APRC as a dog park or community garden. Anyway, you will hear from the neighbor. My official stance is that the tree is "cool" but 1 will not promote the use of APRC funds or land trades to acquire it. Best, Michael A. Black, Director Ashland Parks and Recreation 340 S Pioneer st, Ashland, OR 97520 Direct 541-552-2251 541-488-5314 fax This email transmission is official business of the City of Ashland, and it is subject to Oregon public records law for disclosure and retention. If you have received this message in error, please contact me at 541-552-2251. Thank You. City of Ashland Planning Exhibit ExiiioiT P - d 1 PA # 15- DATE PA# 15 ~ 9LOZ KM ZLOZ LLOZ MOO 600E 900E g ZOM ~ U 9002 O 9002 (L tm u' -b00Z £OOZ O ZOOE N N LOOZ U to U) N 000Z o cv 666 L 966 L Q Z66 L 966L M 966L N r J766 L LO £66 L Z66 L O co C E O N O CEO N 00 N N r si!un 6uisnOH city of Ashland Planning Exhibit Gxiiinir P - t".3 PA I -L419 DAW AFF 16 Figure 6.2 Owner Occupied units by affordability 4500 4000 3500 3000 ZSttt~ 70C7C1 1500 1000 _ _ I ~?;:1 u Soo 1 i 72,3KIIOAK 110,W z147,6 10%6-,185-„3k 165_3k-7,10-3k 7~~. k+ Ownership Units Existing 12 Ownership Units Needed Figure 6.3 Rental Units needed by affordability 1640 r 12017 1000 - _ ~ ~ i ~ - - _ - - - 0 g Soo - } - - 600 - - ~.'i - - - - - 400 - ? - 200 - p 0-194 195-422 423.655 656-897 898-1132 1133+ entalAmountin Dollars „ity ®f Ashland 12 Existing RentaMnits Needed Renial Units Planning Exhibit F:N111k117 PA DA{ Q lTAfF .17 t ~ F dl 31 t ~ _ d t77 -:y CitS' oT Ashland planning Exhibit 6~war C3- f7l 18 n Al CPO Cd- 41* -s - c k 1 v K~~ Ya f ~ V ~ err „ J- ti ~ p t r V1 U City of Ashland Planning 8xhibit L.-I. 19 CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES June 9, 2015 CALL TO ORDER Chair Melanie Mindlin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street. Commissioners Present: Staff Present: Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director Michael Dawkins Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Lynn Thompson Absent Members: Council Liaison: Roger Pearce Greg Lemhouse ANNOUNCEMENTS & AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Community Development Director Bill Molnar reviewed upcoming agenda items. He stated the June special meeting will include the tree removal request for 380 Clay and a discussion on marijuana grows in residential areas. Additional items to come forward in the next few months include changes to the airport zone and the revised Normal Neighborhood Plan. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse provided an update on current council items, including the approval of Tighe O'Meara as police chief, an update on drought conditions, and the new ad hoc committee for climate action and energy plan. Councilor L emhouse left the meeting at 7,75 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes 1. May 12, 2015 Regular Meeting. Commissioners Miller/Dawkins m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forward to speak. TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00418 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1465 Webster Avenue APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion on the Southern Oregon University Campus. The application also includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a new Student Recreation Center which was not identified in the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan and which will exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and for Tree Removal Permits to remove nine (9) trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. (106,722 square feet of Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 1 of 6 3 the existing 113,000 square foot building area will be demolished. With the proposed renovation and new construction the combined building area will consist of 104,891 gross square feet on three levels, a 7.17 percent reduction in the total building square footage.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100. Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Brown, Dawkins, Miller, Mindlin, Norton, and Thompson declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the applicant's proposal to demolish the majority of the existing McNeal structure, retain the existing footprint, and construct an approximately 100,000 sq.ft. stadium with office space and a student recreation center. The plan includes the removal of eight trees that are over 18-inches in diameter with the reason for removals stated as excavation, utility installation, demolition, and construction; and that all of the trees are in close proximity to the building area. Mr. Severson noted the applicant's are mitigating the tree removals beyond what is required by code, and reviewed the two building layout options submitted by the applicant. Mr. Severson commented on the issues raised in the staff report. He stated the SOU master plan talked about a clear circulation to the pavilion and staff feels the Wightman corridor should be improved to provide additional refuge for pedestrians; additionally, staff is recommending the parking lot landscaping be improved and offered the following condition for the commission's consideration: 'That prior to the submittal of building permits, a revised site plan reflecting parking lot upgrades for the lot between McNeal Pavilion and Wightman Street shall be provided to address., at least six parking lot trees on the interior of the parking lot, additional parking lot trees on the parking lot perimeter and sight-obscuring landscaping and at least two areas of pavedpedestrian refuge in the buffer strip along Wightman Street. "Mr. Severson cited the Tree Commission's recommendations and clarified these are included in the recommended conditions of approval. He stated staff is recommending approval with the conditions as presented. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson was asked to elaborate on tree #7. He responded that this is a Modesto Ash located on the corner and stated the existing underground utility tunnel will need to be extended and will cut through the root zone of this tree and a number of others. Staff was asked whether it is within the commission's purview to require the rerouting of the utilities in order to save the trees. Mr. Molnar clarified they would want to consult with the Fire Department on this as this structure also needs to meet the emergency vehicle access requirements. Fire Marshall Margueritte Hickman was asked to come forward and she provided an overview of the Fire Department's requirements. She stated because of the height of the building a 26-foot wide fire access for an aerial apparatus is needed, and access is needed on more than just one side of the building. She added clearance is needed above the access way as well in order for the apparatus to work. Ms. Hickman clarified when the Fire Department reviewed this application it was under the assumption that the trees would be removed and they would need to reevaluate the plan before she could say yes or no to certain trees. Applicant's Presentation Drew Gilliland, Jay Harland, Dave Strauss, and Mira Theisen addressed the commission. Mr. Gilliland spoke to the tree removals and noted he has consulted with Casey Roland from the Tree Commission and the Mulberry tree can be saved but likely won't survive for more than a few more years. He stated they did look into moving the utility tunnel however it would affect the fire lane access and shifting the tunnel would still impact the root zone of these trees. Regarding the trees on the east side, he stated they are diseased and does not believe there is value in saving them. Mr. Harland stated there are six trees that could be saved and could help provide shade for some of the new plantings even if they ultimately don't survive; however 18 trees will likely not make it due to the amount of excavation required. He stated the only issue they have with staffs recommendations is the condition about improving the parking lot and stated this would significantly impact their project boundary area. He clarified the master plan does call for future improvements to the parking Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 6 4 lot, however this lot still has some useful life left. Mr. Harland stated they are willing to install some plantings to make this project work, but they do not want to redo the lot entirely. He requested flexibility on the six planting areas and asked that they be allowed to work with staff to develop a plan that accomplishes staff's objectives. Ms. Theisen commented on the layout of the proposed structure. She called attention to the plaza area for the multiuse facility and clarified the west entry will be used for events in the McNeal gym and the southern entry will be the main entry to the student recreation center. She noted the two layout options and stated they are looking at two plans due to the costs involved. Ms. Theisen stated first plan is their preferred option but if they need a less expensive option the alternate plan relocates some of the second floor offices down to the shell space on the lower level. She clarified this affects only the building's interior and does not change the footprint. Ms. Theisen stated the design of the structure was influenced by the Hannon Library and this building will help tie north campus to south campus. Questions of the Applicant Comment was made that the small trees installed in front of the new dining hall are not doing well and the applicant was asked how they will ensure the new trees flourish. Mr. Gilliland stated they have an arborist on campus and would be happy to also work with someone from the City on this issue. Mr. Molnar noted there is already a provision in the code that requires dead trees to be replaced. Commissioner Miller voiced her disappointment with the number of trees proposed for removal and asked whether this plan addresses the parking need. Mr. Gilliland stated there are enough spots campus wide to meet the need and they have areas to handle overflow parking for men's basketball and football which get the most attendees. He added the university recently built a new parking lot but students tend to park where it is free, and stated they will continue to work with the city on this issue. Commissioner Thompson stated the parking area is run down and the landscaping is not very nice, and stated she is struggling with the applicant's statement that this is not part of the site. Mr. Gilliland stated the parking lots are funded separately and need to have a separate plan, but agreed that this area will need to be addressed in the future. Mr. Harland added the university is willing to do some maintenance and specific improvements, but they believe this is outside the scope of this project. He added if the building size were increasing that would be different, but the square footage is going down and added this is not required under the master plan. Public Input Rick Vezie/446 Walker Ave/Voiced his concerns with the lack of communication between the university and the surrounding residents, the increase in traffic, and the condition of the university's rental houses. He recommended a traffic study be completed, the three rental units be maintained and kept, and a maximum of 24-hour parking be implemented on the west side of Walker. Questions of Staff Mr. Molnar clarified parking management has been looked at over the years and stated the overall number of spaces campus wide is consistent with the code. He added the locations might not be optimum and stated the City has met with the university to explore opportunities for a residential parking permit system to mitigate impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. Regarding the parking lot not being included in the application, he agreed that the university has performed isolated capital improvement projects but stated staff took the position early on that some effort needs to be made to bring the parking lot more into conformance with city standards. He added it would be a significant undertaking to bring it all the way up to city standards, but staff is looking for some middle ground. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Harland stated the building size is being reduced and they are not expecting traffic to increase. Regarding the testimony on parking along Walker, he stated this is a City right-of-way and the university does not have the authority to limit parking durations as suggested. Mr. Gilliland commented on the family rental units and clarified they are in the process of renovating units, it's just a matter of priority, time, and money. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 8:45 p. m. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 6 5 Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Dawkins/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-00418 with the conditions presented by staff. DISCUSSION: Dawkins voiced his support for minor upgrades to the parking lot and supports using container trees temporarily. Staff clarified the recommendations from the Tree Commission are included in the conditions of approval. Brown stated he supports the motion and is fine with negotiating the mitigation to the parking lot. Miller stated she would have liked a stronger statement about saving the trees. Norton stated he is comfortable with the motion and working on mitigating the parking lot. Mindlin stated her preference is for trees instead of smaller shrubs in order to create shade for the parking area, and encouraged the applicant to save the trees recommended by the Tree Commission. She added there is value in saving them even if they only last a few more years. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Norton, Miller, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. B. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00825 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W. Nevada St., 811 Helman St. and 127 Almeda Dr. OWNER: Wilma, LLC APPLICANT: Urban Development Services DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the previously approved Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The proposed modifications include partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15417, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential & Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-3.5, R-1-5 and R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 0413; TAX LOTS: 800, 1100, 1400 and 1418. Ex Parte Contact Commissioners Dawkins and Norton declared site visits; no ex parte contact was reported. Staff Report Associate Planner Derek Severson provided the background information on this residential subdivision and clarified the affordable housing units have already been built. He explained the applicant's propose to partition the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines of the units around the perimeter, and to modify the construction and timing of the street improvements for Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. Mr. Severson clarified the property owners around the perimeter would be responsible for maintaining the landscaping adjacent to their unit, and stated staff has recommended a condition that makes it clear that as housing clusters fill in the open space needs to be completed. He added the last element of the request is to install a temporary drive instead of Perozzi St. Questions of Staff Mr. Severson clarified the applicants would maintain responsibility for the installation of the plantings, and clarified they still meet the open space requirements. When asked when Perozzi Street would be completed, Mr. Severson responded that a temporary drive would be installed to provide access to the dog park, and Perozzi St. would happen in Phase 2. Staff was asked whether the temporary street would be one-way because of its width. Mr. Severson responded that the width would be 29 ft. (more than the standard street improvements require) and would be wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Commissioner Norton voiced his concern with the landscaping maintenance being shifted to the homeowners and recommended the CC&R's be strongly worded to prevent owners from removing or altering the landscaping. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 6 6 Applicant's Presentation Mark Knox, Val Williams, and Greg Williams addressed the commission. Mr. Knox stated this is a very straight forward request and explained they would like to fence the backyards and make the landscaping maintenance a responsibility of the property owners. He stated the project side of the street will have a sidewalk, street trees, curbs and gutters, and they are asking to no install a curb on the opposite side in order to allow drainage to run off naturally into the Phase 2 area. Mr. Knox added the street will be 34 ft. in width when it is completed. He stated the interim street will connect to the dog park and stated the Fire Departments concern about address numbers will be remedied with the installation of a permanent sign. Questions of the Applicant Commissioner Mindlin stated she does not understand the objection to installing curbs on both sides. Mr. Knox explained Phase 2 does not have storm drains yet and stated installing curbs could cause erosion issues. He added they will put down an extra edge of rock base to prevent the asphalt edge from deteriorating. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Knox clarified there is a guaranteed financial mechanism to make sure the landscaping is installed and added this is a requirement of the final certificate of occupancy. Charlie Hamilton addressed the commission. He stated there is a huge amount of infrastructure for these small homes and stated they are asking for some flexibility. He explained there will be separate timeframes and interest payments on their bank loans and places extra pressure on them to move forward and sell these lots. He stated if the City places too much additional burden on this project they won't be able to make it work. Commissioner Norton restated his concerns about the fences and maintaining the landscaping. He stated this would no longer be common area and is concerned about an enforcement problem down the road. Ms. Williams explained that she worked closely with the attorney on drafting the CC&Rs. She stated because this is a passive solar community the plants and plantings are very defined and stringent, and there is a special committee of the homeowners association to oversee this element. She stated anyone buying into this community is going to know the requirements from the onset and stated the homeowners association will deal with any renegade homeowners who don't follow the rules. Mr. Knox added one of the benefits of the fencing is to reduce the fees and make it more affordable for people. Public Input No one came forward to speak. Questions of Staff Staff was asked if they are concerned with the curbing. Mr. Severson stated he has spoken with the city's engineer and he was concerned with not having a final edge because the Public Works department will take over responsibility for this street after one year, Mr. Molnar stated having a curb would affect the way water is transferred and stated he would prefer for this decision to lie with the Public Works Director. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Williams emphasized this is an extremely unique project and the CC&Rs speak in detail about the landscaping, as this can impact solar and water retention. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing and the record at 70:00 p. m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the application with the recommended conditions of approval with a modification to Condition #5 to insert an 18-month timeframe, and for the Public Works Director to evaluate and approve of a plan for the curb. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Brown, Norton, Miller, Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously. Ashland Planning Commission June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 6 7 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission June 9. 20?5 Page 6 of 6 8 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 23, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Young called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: David Young, Joe Graf, Corinne Vieville, Danielle Amarotico, Alan Bender and Shawn Kampmann Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Mike Faught, Scott Fleury, Brandon Goldman, Bill Mollnar, Tami De Mille-Campos, and Whitney Dennis Council Liaison Present: Michael Morris (absent) ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair Dave Young welcomed and introduced new commissioner Danielle Amarotico. Amarotico explained her background as working at Standing Stone, a restaurant and brewery in Ashland, for the last 18 years and an Ashland community member for the last 20 years. Chair Young also welcomed and introduced new administrative support City staff member, Whitney Dennis. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - February 26, 2015 No objections noted; minutes were unanimously approved PUBLIC FORUM Jan Vidmar of 320 Meadow Drive - Handout was distributed to discuss the Normal Avenue project area (attached Exhibit A). Vidmar spoke to the crowding on East Main and the difficulty of getting onto Ashland Street from Clay Street without stop signs. The photographs within the attachment represent the troubles. She advocated for changes to Normal Avenue and East Main. Vidmar highlighted prior flooding on Clay Street as a concern. She mentioned that she is also speaking on behalf of Brice Anderson, who was not in attendance. NEW BUSINESS Normal Ave. Neighborhood Discussion Brandon Goldman, City of Ashland Planning & Bill Mollnar, Community Development Director- Goldman began his presentation with a brief summary of the review process that has taken place with the Normal Neighborhood Plan (NNP) explaining the following: 1. The Transportation Commission reviewed the NNP close to a year ago. 2. The NNP was then given to the Working Group, comprised of two (2) Planning Commissioners and three (3) City Councilors. The Working Group made revisions to the transportation system within the plan. 3. Upon City Council's review of the revised NNP on December 2, 2014, the Council recommended that all revisions of the Working Group be reviewed by both the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission before being considered for the final approval process with the City Council. Goldman displayed a diagram of the existing major connections within the current Transportation System Plan (TSP) before revisions (presentation attached Exhibit B). Goldman described the first modification to the existing TSP, as Transportation Commission April 23, 2075 Page 1 o(5 a request to modify the plan by adding East Main Street back into the planning. Goldman reviewed the history of the existing TSP, showing the original land use and street framework. Goldman outlined the recommendation of the Transportation Commission in November 2013, explaining that the Transportation Commission requested that the East and West connections of the development be eliminated, with only one connection remaining to East Main. Mike Faught, Public Works Director explained that in 2013 he did not agree with only having one connection to East Main and followed through with that recommendation to the Planning Commission in 2013. Goldman explained that in April 2014, there were recommendations by the Planning Commission to include improvements along East Main from Walker to Clay Street to include bike lanes and sidewalk on the south side prior to any annexation or development. Additional example recommendations were presented including a future transit stop being located adjacent to the higher density zone on East Main and a railroad crossing at Normal Avenue with the following conditions: 1. Additional crossing can be created without closing original crossing in town 2. A finance plan must be developed and approved by City Goldman reviewed the recommendations of the Working Group as the following: 1. East Main Street should be maintained with bike lanes, sidewalks, gutters, concurring with the recommendation of the Planning Commission 2. Multiple connections be made to East Main 3. Standardized grid with more alignment with East and West connections 4. Bicycle and pedestrian pathways developed 5. Railroad crossing be improved to be in concert with development Goldman continued with a before and after slide and described traffic flow and the framework. He also warned that the location of the streets could shift as development begins. There was continued explanation of how the street and land use framework can change and how the two can influence one another. He explained that more new east/west connections that run through the property have been recommended. Goldman described the changes to the land use density areas. He described that the changes in densities were chosen to mirror other areas Single Family and Multi residential use zones around the City. Young asked for clarification on what the expectation of the Transportation Commission is in regards to the amended plan. Goldman explained that comments and recommendations from the Transportation Commission are needed in regards to the presented revisions. Faught spoke about the information provided in the packet and explained financing options with the proposed revisions. Additional examples of the Working Group's recommendations were given, including description of the phased approach to development, railroad crossing information and the recommendation of full improvements upon connecting to East Main. Kampmann asked for clarification to describe when East Main would need to be fully developed based on developing progress on Normal Avenue. Faught answered that full development would need to occur when any other road is connected into East Main. Faught continued with the financing options and Goldman described additional grading and connections for the first phase. Discussion continued around the financing options and the phasing of development. Transportation Commission April 23, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Young stressed that there should have been a Transportation Commissioner as part of the original Working Group to give input on the revised plan earlier on in the process. Young recognized the rights of the property owner to develop but voiced concerns about the high density housing location affecting the revised plan. Kampmann advocates for the project to be done as one project and not in phases based on System Development Charges (SDC) due to the unknown timeline and disjointed patchwork that can accompany multi phased construction affecting the aesthetic quality of East Main. Graf questioned the process going forward. Faught clarified the process, explaining that in order for the revised plan to be approved, there needs to be an amendment to the TSP. A full recognition from the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, and the Working Group to accept the revised Normal Neighborhood Plan as an amendment to the TSP would go forward to City Council for approval. The Commission discussed proposing a formal motion to include areas from Walker to Clay Street on East Main. Discussion continued about approving the plan as it exists or adding input to changes. The group continued to discuss the effects of parking options, shared streets and local streets. MOTION: Accept the presented revised plan as an amendment of the TSP with the following conditions: 1 Should the development occur along East Main, at a minimum, a sidewalk is to be developed between Walker and Clay Street. 2 Should the development occur along the railroad tracks, at a minimum, the railroad crossing needs to be completed. DISCUSSION: Graf discussed amending the motion to read multi-use path instead of sidewalk. De Mille-Campos asked for additional clarification of motion. Graf described the intention of the motion was to provide safe access for pedestrians, especially school children if development was approved. Amarotico questioned if the improvements were to go beyond Walker to Clay and expand to Tolman Creek. After clarification, the group agreed to at a minimum of Walker to Clay Street. Graf motioned / Vieville seconded. The motion was passed unanimously. MOTION: Full street improvements are to be completed for East Main prior to any development creating access along East Main. Kampmann motioned 1 No second. The motion died for lack of second. Downtown Plan Discussion Faught presented the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Plan explaining the multi-modal connection system and spoke about the traffic systems, extension of the existing road diet, additional loading zones and the medians that would be present. Faught presented a draft of the plan and highlighted that there are currently no bicycle lanes through the core of downtown. Faught continued with the proposal, explaining that the new plan would make the final connection of the bike lanes through the downtown core. The proposal outlined extending the road diet, from North Main to Siskiyou Blvd removing the Helman Street traffic signal and placing a rapid flash pedestrian beacon in its place Faught highlighted the additional details in the plan: 1. Clear bike lane to be created on North Main going south into town. 2. Clear bike lane to be created on Lithia Way going towards Medford 3. Advanced signage to prompt a divide of the traffic and bike lanes into left and right lanes allowing the dedication of the right lane for all northbound through traffic and the left lane for downtown oriented traffic. Faught discussed truck parking in the plaza. He described a traffic accident that occurred due to the current street loading practices. Faught described creating an ordinance that would prevent trucks from parking Transportation Commission April 23, 2015 Page 3 of 5 anywhere to unload. Temporary loading zones were discussed. Faught explained that he has met with several trucking companies to discuss loading needs. Faught continued to describe the plaza area. He detailed sidewalk restructuring that would save the trees within the plaza; include a new bike lane, and the relocation of the current bus stop. He outlined that at the crossing of East Main from Oak there would be a multi-use path that would provide transit into the plaza. Faught briefly outlined newly proposed traffic signals to be placed at Oak Street, East Main and Lithia Way. The design would include one truck loading zone on each side of the street for every block. This plan would displace twenty-one (21) parking spots to accommodate the loading zones and bike path. Graf questioned what the restricted parking enforcement would look like. Faught explained that the City would work with Diamond Parking to also monitor the proposed parking restrictions. Vieville questioned if parking spaces would be removed within the plaza to accommodate the bike path. Faught outlined that the parking spaces would remain, and the current right-of-way allows enough space for a modified sidewalk. Amarotico asked for clarification about time limits on loading zone designation. Faught explained that the designation currently is set to end at 4pm, maximizing parking spaces. Faught explained that the designation may change to an earlier time. Faught is also recommending an ordinance to the City Council to address the no loading or double parking on East Main. Faught recommended applying with the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) to assist with funding of the project. He explained that the letter of interest is due in the next month or so, and that applications are due in August. Faught acknowledged that he is going to move forward with the application process noting that at anytime if the plan is not approved that the application can be withdrawn. Fleury added that the new proposed lights at Oak/Lithia/East Main will be synced with the downtown core of lights with audible pedestrian signals. Concern of the liquor store driveway by Lithia Way was discussed, with the following details: 1. ODOT is redesigning a new location and is working with the property owner 2. Property owner has requested to have designated 30 minute parking spaces for his business Amarotico commented about how exciting the project is and that it is major for Ashland. Downtown Beautification Project Discussion Fleury highlighted a new safety improvement at the corner of Winburn to replace the pedestrian bench and add a bump out for visibility. Graf cautioned that it may be premature to focus on beautification prior to the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Committee making a final recommendation on the Pioneer Parking Lot. OLD BUSINESS None FOLLOW UP ITEMS Council Presentation Graf discussed presenting talking points provided by Fleury with no additional questions from City Council. Audible Pedestrian Signals Fleury outlined an update on the installation of the following signals: 1. Walker Street signal has not been installed Transportation Commission April 23, 2075 Page 4 of 5 2. Main Street / Lithia has been installed 3. 2nd Street/ Pioneer has been installed Fleury explained that he will be ordering materials to finish the project. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Traffic Crash Mapping Fleury announced that the GIS department has developed a web application which will display traffic crash heat map and definitions. According to Fleury, the application is still in the development stage, but a tutorial will follow at a later date. COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION None FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Kampmann spoke of taking out future agenda items due to lack of interest from the Transportation Commission. Kampmann stated he has added many future agenda topics which still remain on the list, such as: multi-modal public outreach & education, traffic on Siskiyou Blvd & 66, and a review of metering (traffic study). Young explained that many of these items have been discussed and are going to be addressed at a later date. Fleury explained that a corridor study is slated for later depending on grant funding. He explained that the original corridor study was to include Sherman to Ashland, and Ashland to Walker but that funding prevented the pursuit of the study last year. Bender spoke of some public outreach options. Young explained that a direction for public outreach or education is needed. Amarotico discussed the opportunity for outreach and education with the Downtown Parking and Multi- Modal Circulation Plan. Kampmann announced his resignation, noting that he has lived in Ashland his whole life and would like to see a commission that is little more diverse. Young acknowledged his resignation and appreciated his service. Bender also appreciated his service and his knowledge of the City. Young stated he would be out of town for the Mayor's brown bag lunch on Friday, April 24th at noon. Graf said he would try to make it in Young's absence. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:20 pm Respectfully submitted, Whitney Dennis, Administrative Assistant Attachments: Exhibit A - Clay / East Main / Normal Exhibit B - Normal Neighborhood Plan Presentation Transportation Commission April 23, 2075 Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT A Clay/East Main/Normal Dear Transportation Commissioners, The proposed developments in this area may lead to several transportation challenges. 1. Please refer to the letter and photos from the heavy rains of February 6, 2015. This day was not an anomaly for our Meadowbrook Park neighborhood, as other heavy rains have resulted in similar rising wetlands. Hopefully streets will be placed so that natural flows will not be impeded. 2. Also of concern is grid streets in the Normal development, as this encourages higher speeds, and more danger to pedestrians. Our MPE neighborhood, with a curved street, has children playing in the street, and is safer for walkers. 3. 1 think that anyone from Normal going into Ashland or Tolman or Highway 5, will chose to exit onto East Main rather than Ashland Street, for speed and less congestion. The traffic will increase exponentially, necessitating signals. We often wait a long time to turn from lower Clay onto East Main. 4. More housing is planned next to Snowberry development on Clay. Currently cars are allowed to park on that section of Clay, which forces traffic into the opposite lane and hampers visibility. All houses in Snowberry have available parking behind the development, which should allow Clay to be designated as no parking for the entire length. 5. Although lower Clay has designated car parking by the church, the vehicles parked there are used for construction, and are oversized. This hampers visibility, which forces drivers to veer to the other side of Clay, which is deeply ditched. When trying to make a left turn onto East Main, sometimes it is impossible to see beyond the parked trucks. On Sundays, church members park on East Main, close to the intersection, making it extremely difficult to exit Clay safely. Please consider eliminating all parking on East Main, and providing a turning lane. 6. Turning right from Clay onto East Main is a nightmare, as it is necessary to pull out into traffic to see past the pole on the right side of Clay. Hopefully these traffic problems will be ameliorated by designating both Clay and East Main as no parking zones. This should cause no hardship, as all residents on these streets have private parking. The addition of turning lanes and traffic signals will help. Thank you, Jan Vidmar 320 Meadow Dr. Ashland, OR Dear Mayor, Counselors, and Commissioners, Feb. 8, 2015 I realize that not all of you have been involved in the Normal Avenue Plan, but I would appreciate you taking the time to read my comments and view my photos taken on Feb. 6, 2015. One of the main concerns of neighbors in the Normal Ave. Plan area is the hydrology of Cemetery Creek and Clay Creek. We've been fairly dry in recent years, which hasn't reflected the creek flows and potential for flooding. Development needs to take this issue seriously, as the recent rains have not been biblical, but the potential for problems was seen. have attached 16 photos which demonstrate our concerns. Photos 1-4 are of Cemetery Creek, and they were taken from my property, 320 Meadow Dr. That is part of the Meadowbrook Park Estates (MPE). Unfortunately our homes were built before the setbacks were in place, and the actual Cemetery Creek jurisdictional wetland floodplain bisects my living room. Fortunately there are cottonwood trees and willows to soak up and hold back water. Photos 5 & 6 show the very end of Creek Drive. You'll notice that 2086 Creek Drive has water rising into the driveway and down the road. The gravel berm is clearly visible, and that is causing problems for the neighbors. The berm was placed at the end of Creek by Mr. Livni, who owns tax lot 3600. 1 read the Keystone Consulting report, and the Livnis were told that they did not have much wetland, and the drainage from Creek Drive was the cause of their wet property. True, the runoff from Creek Drive drained into the Livni property, but now Creek Drive is flooding, and a flow through is necessary. Photos 7-10 clearly demonstrates that Cemetery Creek flows from south to north, and through the Winmill and Livni properties. I walked around the water on Creek Drive for better view and more photos. Mr. Livni did indeed hold back the drainage, but not the natural hydrology of Cemetery Creek. You can also see the flow to East Main, looking in the direction of the Baptist tax property 3601. 1 have consulted the Schott and Associates Jurisdictional Wetland Determination and Delineation survey prepared for Mahar Homes, and the hydrology is consistent with my observations on 2/6/15. Photos 11 & 12 are of Clay Creek, coming south through Wing Spread Park and into MPE, (Wing Spread installed the chain link fencing between our properties). Last year our MPE HOA, with the consent of the City of Ashland, we had to remove huge cottonwoods that fell and threatened homes. We complied with the City requirements and at considerable cost, restored the area in riparian vegetation. As you can see from the photos, some of the plants are now imperiled. Photos 13-15 follow Clay Creek as it poured down the middle of MPE to the Creek Drive bridge. Photo 16 is of the Creek Drive bridge, south end. The water was near the top when I photographed. Part of the apparent blockage at the bridge was caused by the blackberries on the north side, constricting the water flow. Please carefully consider where developments are placed, and hold the developers accountable for designing with hydrology in mind. Clay Creek and Cemetery Creek are not ditches or flooded Irrigation areas. Retently, Mayor Stromberg pointed out that Ashland's water courses are special attractions for the neighborhoods. Please, let's commit to restoring riparian habitats, clearing any impediments to flow, and considering long term flooding potential. Thank you for your time and all you do for the citizens of Ashland. Respectfully, Jan Vidmar v T Yti 9 e A y ` e - l r~ } .z~ r° (Y. h ~ 41 r w y Yr ~ ~ Lea j '4 I ; I 14 1 t - I' ~ ~ .,-may T^ - - - - - - ' ~ tE N. 'L VA R~w ~r r~ J. J3Ej ~ { ~ I ~ i .z., fz~ Y~ r 7 ' fi• CV -a now f L_ a ~ tit s 1 a;~.. / 1 V7 ogy7yamr. T IT, rJ S i d ' . 5i~o w b { Tvcd o K ( V' t to,. rol S+. tit k, C- P.S pica bc1,~ ~•ol 1 dugs . e... U+ 11~rot, ~c ccc~s+ cos~~:c on c loL4 . C loc cL5 ptc~o,Ce~ C c t~ -c_t' : re-S me r dos~r. ~ ~`S c Ct- r- ~o C ~dsS J C~o o~ 3J V ~tyJ o v-~ r~~ s r~ c-essar~ -~o C~o b,~d,rat +V---- to '~'O S-tee.. t-daclr~~`^S cw c s o ~o~S~F ~1'~ ~ r~`~ To lr~cL,r.~oL~ Y~mPR~ cs ~ 1,-~d o Yi EXHIBIT B 5,21,2015 Transpoilation f 03/26/2015 - ContillUed to 4/23/15 -Normal Avenue (R19) t" -Creek Drive Extension (R20)STn, -Railroad Crossing (X3) -Planned Bike Paths -East Main Street' r CREEK DRIVE I I AAL"Wfi oi; i 1 5/21/2015 Original Land Use FianieNrork Original Street Framework 'i7 s S. ..may ir- P ZAM 77 !I ! may.; { Normal Neighborhood Plan o zco ac rca ran Normal Neighborhood Plan o zoo +w ew 120) F~ Land Use Desig nation overlay Zones ~l Street Network e Neighborhood Collector - Mley N1+7 ~,„„1{rerru+_ NhII? .r~vooaxz. - Nelghborhood SUeel ----Multi-Use Path Shared street Transportation Commission (11/14/13): -Recommended approval of the the transportation plan as presented with the two vehicular proposed street connections on the West and East side of the new Normal Avenue eliminated, leaving only one vehicular connection to East Main Street. -Prior to this approved motion the Commission was split with a 3-3 motion to approve the transportation element of the plan as originally presented. 2 5/21/2015 Planning Commission (4122/2014): -The south side of East Main Street, from Walker Avenue to Clay Street, should be fully improved to City Street Standards prior to, or coinciding with any future annexation and development within the plan area. •A future transit stop coordinated with the Rogue Valley Transportation District, in the immediate vicinity of the NN-03 Land Use Zone, should be incorporated into the East Main Street roadway design and development. -That prior to annexation and development within the plan area the following items relating to the future Railroad crossing at Normal Avenue be addressed: o That the proposed public Rail Road crossing can be installed without necessitating the closure of any existing public crossing within the City. o A financing plan be developed and approved by the City for the future improvement of the rail road crossing. Normal Neighborhood Working Group (12/212014): -The internal transportation system's local street network should incorporate multiple connections with East Main Street, and maintain the Normal Collector as designated in the draft plan. Additional connections to East Main Street or Clay Street, which are not shown in the proposed Street Framework, should require a major amendment to the Plan. -Internal local streets should be aligned to provide a more standardized grid pattern, including clear east-west connections. -Pedestrian and bicycle pathways are critical, especially as a means to connect residents with the middle school and the existing bike path. -External transportation improvements, including the railroad crossing and improvements to East Main Street are integral and should proceed in concert with development. 3 5/21/2015 k ~sr-..... awr...., : . c: Road ClassVlcsHons '~jly; - _ ~ s,ct•T 1. i I( 1 6~bfttl ih Mt ~ ~ VSa Ca1h ~Original Proposal Revised Proposal F J° Original Proposal Revised Proposal 4 5/21/2015 ii 7 a i f~~r~ti3`C ~ { : ~ Cgen SPace RQ 4~6ss.Myms d . + p1 • Amend to the Street Dedication Map (TSP Figure 10-1) to incorporate the plan area's planned Street Network, and reclassification of Normal "Avenue" to be a Neighborhood Collector. • Amend the Planned Intersection and Roadway Improvement Map (TSP Figure 10-3) to include East Main Street as a Planned Roadway Project. • Amend the Planned Bikeway Network Map (TSP Figure 8-1) to incorporate the planned multi-use trails within the Normal Neighborhood Plan. • Amend the Street Design Standards within the Street Standards section of the Land Use Ordinance ( Ch 18.4.6.040 to incorporate the Shared Street classification 5 5/21/2015 • Normal Neighborhood Plan Working Group Update • 4/15/2015 • 5/07/2015 • Planning Commission Public Hearing - TBD • City Council Public Hearings - TBD r.7 6 5/21/2015 Plan Alternatives, housing unit comparisons The gross estimates of potential housing units in the table below are intended to provide an "apples to apples" comparison to help the Working Group evaluate differences between the alternatives. These estimates are calculated using the "base density" of the underlying zone only, and do not factor in reductions due to pre-existing developments, or added density potential through application of eligible density bonuses. Existing Comprehensive Proposed Normal Plan Working Group Plan 3/11/2014 Alternative 1989 9104/2014 Z.- Gross Oase Zone Gross Rase Zone Grosz Base acreage units acreage units acreage units Singleramily R-1-5 51.5 231 NN-01 31,2 156 NN-1-5 26 117 Residential (4.5du/acre) (5du/acre) (4.Sdu/acre) Suburban R-1-3.5 42.4 305 NN-02 31 310 NN-1-3.5 36 259 Residential (7.2du/acre) (Iodu/acre) (7.2du/acre) Multi-family NN-03 NN -2 Residential NA NA NA 5,3 80 (13.5 5.5 74 (15 du/acre) du/acre) Open space NA NA NA various 26.4 0 various 26.4 0 /lreas Gross housing 536 546 450 unitpotential 7 ASHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chair David Young called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street. Commissioners Present: David Young, Joe Graf, Corinne Vieville, Danielle Amarotico, Dominic Barth Commissioners Absent: Alan Bender Staff Present: Mike Faught, Scott Fleury, Tami De Mille-Campos, Whitney Dennis, and Officer Steve MacLennan Council Liaison Present: Michael Morris ANNOUNCEMENTS Chair David Young welcomed new commissioner, Dominic Barth. All Commissioners introduced themselves around the table. Barth explained his background as recently from New York where he studied Historic Preservation, Urban Design and Architecture. CONSENT AGENDA Approval of Minutes - April 23, 2015 The minutes were discussed and approved as amended. PUBLIC FORUM Huelz Gutcheon, 2253 Hwy 99, addressed the Commission discussing the future of solar energy and electric transportation. Gutcheon stressed that the solution to climate change is technological. Gutcheon gave examples of current technology including electric buses. Gutcheon explained that the future of transportation is going to be quick. Lee Nowman, 320'/2 Bridge Street, addressed the Commission as a volunteer representing the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Bike Program. Nowman explained that he helped set-up and implement the SOU Bike Program as part of his capstone project while he was in attendance there. Nowman described the success of his program including receiving $33,000 from student funds to assist with purchasing bikes and the installation of two bike fix-it stations; 35 bikes are available for rent. Nowman added that his group is generating biker culture on campus and is interested in continued dialogue with the Transportation Commission. NEW BUSINESS A. CIP & Biennium Budget Update Fleury presented an overview of the budget process describing the Public Works and Transportation Commission budgets and what to expect in the next biennium. Fleury discussed the budget timeline explaining that the original Budget Presentation took place on May 141h with the final budget to be adopted on June 16th by City Council. Discussion continued about the process noting that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget was previously reviewed and approved by Council. The approved CIP included some of the Transportation Commission recommendations of priority Public Works projects. Fleury explained that the Transportation Commission budget would have the same allotment as previous years with $3,000 for traffic safety and $2000 for the bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Fleury stated Transportation Commission May 28, 2015 Page 1 of 5 that Rachel Dials and Egon Dubois will be on the schedule for next month to discuss the bicycle education program and supplemental funding. Fleury highlighted the following Capital Improvement Projects: 1. Oak Street / Railroad Pedestrian Crossing - The railroad will be doing their portion of safety improvements through the summer. City staff and the Railroad Project Manager are coordinating efforts based on the rail order which outlines responsibility of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Rail, Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP), and the City of Ashland. The City's portion consists of a sidewalk connection between Ashland Lumber Company and the Plexus Building to create a pedestrian connection. Once the railroad and crossing arm improvements are complete, the pedestrian improvements will follow. 2. Walker Avenue Sidewalk / Safe Route to School Project - The project went out to bid with Knife River being awarded the contract. Sidewalk connection to be fully completed before the beginning of the new school year. 3. Hersey Avenue Sidewalk Connection - OBEC Engineering has been awarded the engineering portion of the project. Staff expects construction of the sidewalk infill project to start within the next two years. 4. Nevada Street Bridge - Looking to seek additional grant funding to supplement original grant and begin engineering, carry over project from last year. 5. Washington Street Connection - A roadway connection between Tolman Creek Rd. and Washington St. over Hamilton Creek. Fleury briefly outlined the Transportation System Plan (TSP) priority study at Tolman Creek / Siskiyou Blvd/ Hwy 99 Intersection. The Northbound Speed Reduction Treatment Study will be performed by Kim Parducci of Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering to check for signal warrants and analyze the ability of speed reduction treatments as outlined in the TSP. Fleury stated that if the budget is approved, there will be thirty eight (38) million dollars in infrastructure improvements over the next two years. B. Street User Fee Study Update and Roadway Testing Fleury informed the Commission that Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) is continuing the Street User Fee Study. HEC is evaluating the current street user fee methodology and will be recommending changes. In addition, HEC will use street system evaluation report to determine the appropriate user fee in order to meet pavement maintenance strategy goals. It was explained that the current street user fee will be updated based on trip generation which determines who generates the most trips and the most impact to the network. Fleury stated previous assessments include deflection and core testing on the collector and arterial roadways to determine the level of improvement needed to maintain the roadway. Core pavement services were outlined as a priority this budget cycle. Four temporary employees and a new paver were requested during the budget process in order to increase preventative maintenance core services. Fleury stated that additional funds for slurry sealing were also requested to meet the maintenance strategy. The Street User Fee Study is to be finalized by October and presented to City Council. Transportation Commission May 28, 2015 Page 2 of 5 Young spoke of the benefits of doing preventative maintenance as opposed to full reconstruction road repairs. The costs of both methods were outlined with preventative maintenance costing $285,000 compared to 1.4 million for full road reconstruction, per mile. Young questioned the condition of Hersey Street. Faught explained that Hersey Street is a good example of the level of deterioration that can occur during the last five years of a road lifecycle. Barth questioned if the maintenance plan was currently in place. Faught explained that the first step would be to identify the street user fee charges in relation to the costs of improvement. Graf questioned if the Transportation Commission would review the findings of this study before it is presented to Council in October. Faught explained, the Transportation Commission will have the opportunity to review if the plan is finished prior to the October Council date, if not, then a review would be provided after. Graf stated it is important for Council to understand how the Street User Fee is calculated. C. Election of Officers Faught briefly outlined that a commission Chair can hold their position for three consecutive years explaining that Young had just finished his third year in the position. Vieville motioned to nominate Joe Graf as Chair of the Transportation Commission; Amarotico seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Young opened up the discussion for the Co-Chair position asking for any volunteers. Vieville motioned to nominate Dave Young as Co-Chair; Amarotico seconded. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS FOLLOW UP ITEMS A. Geneva Park Site Distance Fleury outlined the previous discussion regarding the site distance issue for the Geneva Park driveway on B St. The Transportation Commission was interested in relative street widths and crash data on similar roadways in Ashland. The Commission also asked for an assessement of street widening and taking full advantage of the current right of way. Fleury is checking in with the Planning Department to see if there is any potential development of the lot across the street from Geneva Park. Fleury will collect additional data and bring back to the Commission for review at the next meeting. B. United Way Bike Rack Fleury updated the Commissioners explaining that Connie Wilkerson, of United Way, was unsuccessful at obtaining grant funding for the bike lockers she previously presented to the Transportation Commission. She was, however, successful at receiving funding for the Zagster bike racks. Amarotico asked for a history of how the discussion came about. Fleury explained that United Way was seeking to find more bike lock-up locations to assist individuals who travel with public transportation and are unable to bring their bikes with them on the bus. Amarotico questioned what the City standard is for bike rack installation. Fleury explained that there is a standard for location of installation and specifications, however there is flexibility. Morris questioned who sets the standard. Faught explained that the City Council sets the standards. Young was concerned that the current design would not be identified as a bike rack and reminded the Transportation Commission that Transportation Commission May 28, 2015 Page 3 of 5 the program is well-intentioned but there have been no commitments to this program. Graf wondered if this should also go to the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee. Young agreed that it would fall into the downtown area. Vieville questioned if the proposed placement of the bike racks on Water Street were a little far from the bus stop area. Barth wondered if there is anything that specifically encourages commuters to park their bikes, explaining that some larger cities have a program similar to a valet system, and wonders if this program included anything more than bike racks. Fleury explained that it is a grant funded option for additional bike parking and different options for bike rack locations and can be explored and reviewed as part of the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Circulation Plan. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS A. Action Summary No Updates B. Traffic Crash Summary Officer MacLennan was present and provided an update of crash summaries highlighting the more involved accidents. C. Oregon Impact May Newsletter No Updates COMMISSION OPEN DISCUSSION Fleury highlighted future agenda topics: Shared Road Status, specifically regarding Grandview and a loading zone request in front of Liquid Assets. Graf questioned the loading zone request. Faught gave a brief history and spoke about meeting with local business owners regarding the loading zone. It was further explained that during the meeting, the owners had requested a loading zone be designated in front of Liquid Assets Faught discussed the history of using that area for a loading zone, though it is not currently designated as one. Faught is having Parducci look at the potential loading zone and make a recommendation. Young acknowledged that the City is in a position where businesses and trucking companies are coming together to make decisions. Vieville asked for an update on the Walker Street crossing and wondered if a countdown timer is planned to be installed with the APS buttons. Fleury explained that he is still waiting on ODOT for an update and confirmed that a countdown timer is planned for the crossing. Vieville also questioned if there was a conversation with ODOT about installation of APS buttons at the Valley View crossing. Fleury explained that he was going to reach out to ODOT again for a response. Young spoke about a local activist who addressed the intersection of Iowa Street and Walker Street on social media described an instance of children running across the street on the sidewalk shared path on the north side of Iowa and the site line dangers of the area. Young explained there were many comments regarding this incident. Young had also commented on the social forum encouraging individuals use the City process. An email was sent to Fleury describing this incident. Fleury forwarded information to Parducci for analysis of potential intersection improvements. Morris referenced a prior question he was asked regarding the installation of street lights by the City on Crowson Rd. Fleury stated that Crowson Rd. is under County jurisdiction and knows of no plans for street light installation. Vieville asked for clarification on the length of time before and changes recommended by the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee would be constructed, questioning if it was to be three years. Faught explained that the earliest would be three years dependent on the outcome of the grant application Transportation Commission May 28, 2015 Page 4 of 5 process. Young wondered if we are not successful on the grant application what would happen. Faught explained that the Department would need to seek alternate funding for the projects. FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS Vieville spoke about Public Service Announcements for completed projects. Young would like to have an agenda item to discuss the education outreach options. Amarotico asked about advertising in the City Source. The process for advertising in the City Source was explained by Fleury. Discussion to see more frequent contribution to the City Source publication continued. Young explained that a future agenda item could allow for discussion of material. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm Respectfully submitted, Whitney Dennis, Administrative Assistant Transportation Commission May 28, 2015 Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ASHLAND TREE COMMISSION Minutes June 4, 2015 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Gregg Trunnell called the meeting of the Ashland Tree Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. on June 4, 2015 at Council Chambers located at 1175 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon. Commissioners Council Liaison Ken Schmidt Carol Voisin Gregg Trunnell Staff Russ Neff Derek Severson, Associate Planner Casey Roland Carolyn Schwendener, Admin Christopher John Pete Baughman, Parks Liaison Maureen Battistella Zechariah Heck, Assistant Planner Bill Molnar, Community Development Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Neff/Roland m/s to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2015 Tree Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM No one present spoke. INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS The Commissioners welcomed new member Maureen Battistella. Ms. Battistella lives at 395 Hemlock in Ashland and moved to the Community in 2000. CITY COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Council Voisin reported that at Tuesday's meeting the Council officially appointed Tighe O'Meara as the new Police Chief. On June 24, 2015 there will be a Community Policing Forum. This will be a good opportunity for the Community to meet Chief O'Meara and he will be explaining what Community Policing is. Voisin said that Council received the drought report and things are not looking good. The City is putting together a plan to determine what to do with the water that is available in the reservoir, TAP (Talent, Ashland & Phoenix) and TID (Talent Irrigation District). There is now a Community Climate and Energy Action Plan Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee will begin sometime in either September or October. TYPE 1 REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00680 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 237 N. First St. OWNER: Ashland Food Cooperative APPLICANT: KenCairn Landscape Architecture (agent for owner) DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to reconfigure the landscape and patio areas along A Street to provide more water-efficient landscaping, improve the employee break area, and provide secure employee bicycle parking for the Ashland Community Food Store located at 237 N First Street. The application includes requests for a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees. (The property is located within the Ashland Railroad Addition Historic District and the Detail Site Review Zone, and because of the building size is also subject to additional standards for large scale projects.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09BA; TAX LOT: 13401 All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit. Associate City Planner Derek Severson gave a staff report. Mr. Severson explained that the applicants are trying to improve the employee break area and offer secure employee bicycle parking as well as providing more water efficient landscaping. The landscaping plan does include the request for the removal of two trees located at the rear of the property. Applicant Kerry KenCairn, 545 A Street, Suite 3 gave an overview of the application. Ms KenCairn explained that the two Raywood Ash trees being removed were planted back in the mid 1980's when the Co-Op acquired the property. The applicant is suggesting replacing them with one large shade tree and one ornamental tree. The project in general is a complete remade of the ornamental landscaping in the back of the Co-Op. After a brief discussion which included the use of bubblers for irrigation, the Commissioners made the following motion. Roland/Neff m/s to approve the plan. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00794 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 199 East Hersey Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: Vision Homes Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request for a minor Land Partition to create three tax lots for the property located at 199 Hersey Street. The application includes a request to remove six trees on the property that range in size from ten inches to thirty inches in diameter at breast height. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 04CD TAX LOT: 306; All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit. Severson explained this application is for a land partition to create three lots. One house is being demolished and then the lots will be developed. At this time there is not a mitigation plan provided but it would be appropriate to mitigate one for one as recommended by code. The plan does state they intend to plant new tree on the property with irrigation following the completion of construction. The Commissioners expressed concern over the Incense Cedar (tree number 5) It appears the tree is being removed due to the proposed utility lines going through the root zone. The Commissioners would like to see the tree preserved, and a protection zone created around the tree as it appears the applicants have begun site work. They felt the tree definitely is an asset to the property and worth saving and suggested that the applicants consider directional boring for the utility installation. Trunnell/Neff m/s to allow the removal of five of the six trees with the preservation and protection of the 30 inch DBH Cedar Tree (Tree #5). In addition, the Commission asked that a mitigation plan for the approved removals be provided prior to the signature of the final survey plat. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00878 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 35 S. Pioneer St. OWNER: City of Ashland APPLICANT: Oregon Shakespeare Festival DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Review approval to allow exterior modifications to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Bowmer Theater for the property located at 35 S. Pioneer St. These modifications are associated with adding an elevator to the Bowmer Theater building as part of broader accessibility improvements and will involve an approximately 202 square foot addition to the theater building. The application also includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 16-inch diameter maple tree. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial Downtown; ZONING: C-1-D; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391 E 09; TAX LOT: 100 All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit. Severson pointed out that over the past few months the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF) has been going through a process to redesign the bricks in order to deal with accessibility issues. At the same time OSF recognized that the Bowmer Theater also has some accessibility challenges. The plans will involve some minor changes to the building and one tree will 2 need to be removed in order to do the remodel. Alan Harper, 130 A Street represented the applicants. Mr. Harper explained if you are a patron and have accessibility issues in order to get from the lobby to the second story bathrooms you have to go outside of the building and down a slope. The impact area where they are installing the elevator will be directly through the existing Maple Tree. The applicant will bring another tree plan before the Commission once the brick projects gets further along. Mr. Harper said the applicants would like to mitigate somewhere else on the tax lot which does include all of Lithia Park. John/Schmidt m/s to approve the plan as submitted. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: 2015-00928 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 438 N. Main OWNER/APPLICANT: Francesca Amery DESCRIPTION: A request for a Hazard Tree Removal Permit to remove one approximately 15-inch diameter at breast height Spruce tree for the property located at 438 North Main Street. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP 391 E 05DA; TAX LOT: 2800. Trunnell did not do a site visit but all the other Commissioners did. The Commissioners expressed their concern that the tree is in a strange condition and is leaning quite a bit with the possibility of falling onto the commercial property next door (Big AI's restaurant). Trunnell/Sneff m/s to approve the removal of the tree. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. TYPE II REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: 2015-00418 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 390 Stadium Street & 351 Walker Avenue (On the Southern Oregon University campus) APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University AGENTS: CSA Planning, Ltd. DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion on the Southern Oregon University Campus at 390 Stadium Street and 351 Walker Avenue. The application also includes requests for Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the construction of a new Student Recreation Center which was not identified in the 2010 SOU Campus Master Plan and which will exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and for Tree Removal Permits to remove nine (9) trees that are 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. (106,722 square feet of the existing 113,000 square foot building area will be demolished. With the proposed renovation and new construction the combined building area will consist of 104,891 gross square feet on three levels, a 7.17 percent reduction in the total building square footage.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100. Severson summarized this project. The University is taking the existing 113,000 square foot McNeal Hall and demolishing it with the exception of the racquetball building. The rebuilding of McNeal Hall and the Student Recreation Center will be somewhere between ten and fifteen percent smaller. The creation of a new enhanced plaza area is proposed in front of McNeal and the new Student Recreation Center. Because of the utility installation and construction associated with the project the applicants are requesting to remove the bulk of the trees around the perimeter of the site. Severson acknowledged that while doing a site visit he noticed the trees weren't tagged making it difficult to determine which trees were being removed. The applicants presented Severson with photos of the trees numbering them individually. Severson distributed those pictures to the Commissioners to help with their review. Jay Harland, CSA Planning 4497 Brownridge, Medford and Alan Pardee from Covey Pardee Landscape architects were present to answer questions regarding this project. During the Tree Commission hearing, the applicants asked that Tree #15, a Raywood Ash, identified for preservation and an 3 additional tree, a Deodar Cedar, not shown on the plan but located near the northeast corner retention swale, also be removed. Public Comments: Helene DeMartinez, 321 Clay St., Space 6A encouraged the Commissioners to go to the Medford City Park located on East Main Street to look at a group of Linden trees in full bloom. The trees are gorgeous and sturdy. (Linden trees were suggested during the discussion as a choice for mitigation). Rick Vezie who lives in the neighborhood at 446 Walker Avenue spoke. Mr. Vezie walks by these trees regularly and does not want to see them removed. He proposed a question to the Commissioners. "It's your job to be an advisory Commission to the Planning Commission. What is it that you will advise that Commission to do?" Cynthia Moscaritolo, 175 Wightman St. explained that she too lives by this site and is disappointed that the pool is not being replaced. She acknowledged that the Sycamore Trees on the site are gorgeous and help shade the parking lot area. She is concerned there has not been enough study done to see if the utilities can be moved allowing the trees to remain. During discussion, the Commission made the following recommendations: 1) Consult an arborist on-site to determine whether trees can be retained with alternative measures such as directional boring for utility installation and provide a revised plan. The Tree Commission recommends that the applicants at least temporarily retain trees #447 and #19 so that the established tree canopy can provide shade to allow proposed new trees to establish themselves, and that those trees not shaded by existing canopy have their trunks protected with sun guards or other measures to protect them while they establish themselves. 2) That at least 50 percent of the mitigation trees proposed shall be of three-inch caliper or greater and planted near the south/west edge of the project site, as proposed by the applicants. 3) That the applicants consider incorporating additional locally-appropriate species in their planting plan including California Black Oak, Swamp White Oak and Green Mountain Linden. Trunnell/Neff m/s to approve the project with the recommendations above, including that the University team walk the project area of the campus and review the trees under discussion with an arborist (Roland volunteered to do this for free) to discuss each particular tree and the options that may available to preserve that tree. In any event any trees that are planted were recommended to have shielding or protection of some nature to prevent sunburn, and half of the proposed mitigation trees are to be at least three-inch caliper as proposed by the applicants and placed on the south and west side. Voice Vote: All Ayes, motion passed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-00934 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 380 Clay Street OWNERIAPPLICANT: City of Ashland DESCRIPTION: A request for a Tree Removal Permit to remove a 72-inch diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) Fremont Cottonwood tree from the property located at 380 Clay Street. (This tree was previously identified to be preserved and protected as part of Planning Action #2009-00043.) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 11 C; TAX LOT: 2500 All Commissioners confirmed they did a site visit. Trunnell recused himself as a neighbor of 380 Clay Street and has a vested personal interest in the removal of this tree. Vice Chair Schmidt chaired the remainder of the meeting. Community Development Director Bill Molnar took a minute to explain procedural issues surrounding this Planning Action. Mr. Molnar recognized that this planning action has had quite a bit of publicity including newspaper articles. Today's focus is to keep a fair and objective process. Mr. Molnar stressed that unless a Commissioner has a financial interest like Trunnell declared, they are not required to step down but must state any bias and any statements made in the past regarding the tree. Molnar encouraged the Commissioners to weigh the criteria and look at this Planning Action objectively in order to provide advice to the Planning Commission. 4 The Commissioners acknowledged any exparte contact and or bias. Schmidt noted that he had not spoken regarding this tree outside of our Commission meetings. Neff noted that this was the first day he had seen the tree and he had only spoke of it at Tree Commission meetings. Roland explained that he had climbed the tree approximately eight or nine years ago and put supports under it last year. He acknowledged that he goes out of his way in order to drive by the tree because of his passion for it but said he would put his professional Tree Commission hat on. He would fight to try and save this tree. Roland asked Mr. Molnar if he should recuse himself. Mr. Molnar stated because he did not have a financial interest though he may have a bias if he felt he could formulate advice to the Commission as a whole based on the criteria, it would not be necessary to recuse himself. Roland asked if anybody felt he shouldn't be sitting there let him know now. No one responded. John noted that he had provided minor assistance in assessing the tree a couple of years ago and does have a passion for large trees but confirmed he had the ability to view this action based on the ordinances. Battistella noted that she had no bias or financial interest. Severson gave a brief staff report. The request is to remove a 72-inch Freemont Cottonwood from the City owned property located at 380 Clay Street. This property came into the City a few years ago through a partnership between the Housing Authority and the City of Ashland. Sixty affordable units were developed on a portion of the property. The remaining portion of the property was retained with the intent to develop more affordable housing. In order for the development to move forward the removal of the tree has been proposed. The applicants are requesting removal of the tree under the non hazard provisions of the ordinance because the tree won't allow development of the property to its full density. Dave Kanner, City Administrator for the City of Ashland and Kerry KenCairn Landscape Architect gave a brief overview of the history of the property. This property was acquired in 2008 as a joint venture between the City of Ashland, the Housing Authority and the City Parks and Recreation Commission. It was always acquired for the purpose of an affordable housing development. It was understood with the Housing Authority that at the time of purchase of this portion of the land they would do so at the City's cost which was $325,000. Recognizing the controversy that was brewing over this tree the Housing Authority insisted on the contingency in the sale agreement that they would not close the sale until such time as the City had received a tree removal permit. Mr. Kanner called attention to the fact he had received emails inquiring why the City couldn't hang on to the property and turn it into a park. Mr. Kanner explained the Parks Commission has examined this property and is not interested in it. If paid they have agreed to maintain the tree but will restrict access underneath it. Mr. Kanner submitted an email from Parks Director Michael Black stating it is not suitable for a park and that the Parks Department is not interested in the property. The City Council has made affordable housing one of its strategic goals because Ashland suffers from a shortage of affordable housing. The need for affordable housing has been well documented. KenCairn acknowledged this is a beautiful, statuesque, gorgeous tree. The nature of poplar trees is that they don't normally live past around 140 years at their very longest. Freemont's are not native to Oregon but California and the Southwest. In general poplars are not unique trees; they need lots of room around them where they aren't interacting with people or developments. This tree was likely planted when the homestead was developed. Poplars are often planted as wind breaks, future fuels, fence posts etc. They weren't planted to be specimen trees as they don't co-exist well with human activity. She concluded that the question is "Do we want affordable housing or do we want to save the tree?" Public Testimony Helene DeMartinez, 321 Clay St., Space 6A. This tree is across the street from her back yard and is one of the reasons she moved here from Washington state and chose that particular spot. DeMartinez is the Homeowner Association President of the Wingspread Trailer Park and is speaking for a lot of the home owners who could not be here tonight. Ms. DeMartinez said the neighborhood has already lost two trees and they are trying to save this last one. This tree is not a hazard and it's important to have a section of community that is beautiful, a spot kids can look at and see something unique and beautiful. Ms. DeMartinez does not want to see more homes in that area but suggested utilizing other vacant areas in the community for affordable housing maybe even downtown. Let's keep the beautiful pasture and tree and preserve it. The area is already impacted by traffic from existing developments. Christine Meneffee, 321 Clay St, Space #8 - Ms. Meneffee stated this is a valuable tree, it's beautiful, it's part of the history 5 of the neighborhood, its part of the local ecosystem and its drought tolerant. This controversy is not about affordable housing. She suggested that her instincts tell her it's a political problem with Parks and the Housing Commission. Low income people live in that neighborhood now and they value the tree. Why would they want to take it down? Ms Meneffee said Ashland is a special city and we need to find a solution to this where we can keep the tree and have affordable housing. Ron Roth, 6950 Old Hwy 99 South - Mr. Roth said that based on zoning and density there is already more than three times the affordable housing that needs to be there as far as the housing program outlines. We can save that tree and have affordable housing, stated Mr. Roth. Removing the tree would have a significant impact in a lot of areas. One reasonable alternative that is being discussed would be a simple property swap between the Parks Department and the City. Are there other people who might want the property? Roth urged the Tree Commission to protect the tree and maybe the City and Parks Dept can go back and work together to have more housing and save the tree. Cynthia Moscaritolo,175 Wightman stated hat some citizens have put a great deal of work looking into options of where the housing units could be placed on the property. It is Ms. Moscaritolo's understanding that the applicant can easily meet the required density for housing on that lot. She would like to see some kind of swap with the Parks Department so the tree can be preserved. The tree provides shade and wildlife habitat. She suggested that over 1,000 citizens have petitioned to keep the tree. Ms. Moscaritolo said there is a shallow well on the property which is part of the wetlands. If the tree is removed and units built there it's going to be a wet area, and it would be smarter to build in another area on the parcel. Ms. Moscaritolo recommended to deny the tree removal and listen to alternatives over the next few months. Gregg Trunnell, 400 Clay Street was speaking as a public citizen and petitioner to save the tree. Trunnell acknowledged that affordable housing is a very strong need in our Community. He made known that the Housing Authority does not currently have designs or plans for this area. He remarked that the Housing Authority has made it clear to him that this area does not make sense to them because they need fifty units in order to make anything economically viable. Mr. Trunnell read and presented to the Commissioners a written document included as Exhibit A at the end of the minutes. Michael McGlone, 2025 Tolman Creek Rd - Mr. McGlone shared he was in agreement with prior speakers that went before him. He works at 631 Clay Street and like Commissioner Roland, goes out of his way to go by this tree. This tree is a source of inspiration to him; there is nothing as majestic as the Oak. Mr. McGlone stated that the discussion of low income housing verses a tree is not a fair conversation. What better than to have that tree as a center piece for low income housing. Dominiquire Shelton, 55 Brooks Lane expressed her gratitude to the Commissioners for spending time and energy caring about the trees and heritage in the Community. This tree is emotional for me it's been a beautiful inspiration and gift in my life, stated Ms. Shelton. It's part of the heritage in this Community. She walks down Clay Street regularly and it still pains her to see the carcass of the sibling trees to that tree lying in the meadow. Ms. Shelton hopes the Commission will support tree protection and take the necessary action to preserve it. Tom Myers 2040 Ashland Mine - Mr. Myers served on the Tree Commission until he got discouraged because he could not save all the trees he wanted to save. This tree is at the top of list of those trees I want to save, remarked Mr. Myers. He first climbed the tree about twenty years ago and when doing so he realized he was in the midst of a being that had every bit of consciousness that he had. Affordable housing is important and it's disingenuous to put this as a fight between affordable housing and tree preservation. Tree Commissioners discussed this action. Commissioner Roland expressed his frustration with Kanner and the City with the desire to remove this tree. During the course of that meeting, members of the public provided testimony and an immediate neighbor provided a conceptual drawing that he suggested could accommodate the development of the property with 15 units similar to those in place at Snowberry Brook, constructed at or near the drip line of the tree, and 22 off-street parking spaces. One of the Commissioners also noted that there is a well on site and that the subsurface water level appeared to be well below the ground; he believes that the tree's roots may have gone deep toward this water rather than spreading as broadly as they otherwise might, which would result in a smaller than normal tree protection zone. He suggested that this was supported by the tree's having done well in tolerating the construction of Villard Street within the applicant's identified protection zone. John made a motion that alternatives be explored and recommends that the tree removal permit not go through at this time. 6 Roland seconded Johns motion and Roland made an amendment; do not issue a permit for a tree removal until a formal plan is in place and all measures have been exhausted to preserve the tree. During discussion, Tree Commissioners recommended denial of the request, noting that they did not believe the applicant had adequately demonstrated either that the tree posed a hazard or that the lot could not be developed to its permitted densities with retention of the tree. Commissioners suggested that to make a finding that the lot could not be developed with the tree, they would need to see a specific development proposal (rather than a number of conceptual options) and that the application would need to be developed through consultation with a licensed arborist. Commissioners also indicated that they did not believe the request had adequately addressed the issue of impacts to species diversity of the removal given the fact that this species is unusual for the area and this is such a magnificent example of the species. Vote on Amendment; all ayes motion passed. Vote on the first motion All Ayes, motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS Margaret Young, 345 Hemlock Lane introduced herself. Ms. Young was present at the meeting to discuss the list of recommended trees in the Street Tree Guide. Ms. Young is recommending that the Commission review that list and make appropriate changes. In front of Ms. Young's house is a four-foot planting area and she questioned whether this is enough space to grow healthy trees. She is recommending that a six- to eight-foot space would be better. An entire block of trees have died in her neighborhood. She encouraged the Commissioners to make the list trustworthy and appropriate. The Commissioners acknowledged the problem with the Street Tree Guide and indicated that this was a project they will be working on. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Next meeting: July 9, 2015 Respectively submitted by Carolyn Schwendener 7 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Sole Source Procurement with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce for a Business Retention and Expansion Survey FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst, Administration adam@ashland.or.us SUMMARY City staff is requesting the City Council grant an exception to the formal competitive selection process to award a contract to the Ashland Chamber of Commerce to conduct a Business Retention and Expansion (B,R&E) survey and for management of all project elements associated with the survey process. Ashland Municipal Code 2.50.090.17 allows such an exemption through a sole source procurement when it can be determined that there is only one provider of a product or service of the quality and type required available. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Consistent with Ashland Municipal Code, the City Council, in its role as the Local Contract Review Board, must approve proposed exemptions from the formal competitive selection process. As described in the attached sole source determination and written findings, the Ashland Chamber of Commerce is uniquely positioned to manage and conduct the project due to its previous history and original partner level involvement in the creation of the project concept (2005-06) and its continuity over time. The survey process requires a level of comfort and confidentiality between the businesses and the survey interview team. The Chamber has the experience and ability to train and deploy interview teams that have previous experience in the process, have trusted peer-to-peer relationships with the businesses, and can deliver a final published report that maintains confidentiality while also capturing the aggregate data collected in the survey/interview process. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Economy -15. Seek opportunities to diversify the economy in coordination with the Economic Development Strategy. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The preliminary budget estimate and corresponding appropriation in the Economic Development Program within the General Fund was $50,000. However, the project team has had several preparatory meetings and has identified a nationally acclaimed research survey consultant who is able to provide the necessary sub-contracted survey and economic analysis expertise well below the initial estimate. The attached draft sole source contract proposes a contract project cost of $25,000 for all elements of Page 1 of 2 P CITY OF -ASHLAND the project, including final presentation to City Council, which would be expended in the first year of the 2015-17 biennium. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the sole source procurement exemption and requests Council direct the City Administrator to execute the attached contract upon completion of all remaining public contracting requirements. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the sole source contract with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce to conduct a Business Retention and Expansion survey and direct the City Administrator to execute said contract. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Sole Source determination and written findings 2) Draft contract for services - Ashland Chamber of Commerce Page 2 of 2 Imo, FORM #7 CITY OF ASHLAND SOLE-SOURCE DETERMINATION AND WRITTEN FINDINGS PERSONAL SERVICES Less than $75,000 To: Dave Kanner, City Administrator From: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst Date: June 8, 2015 Re: Sole Source Determination and Written Findings for Personal Services In accordance with AMC 2.50.090(F), the Department Head shall determine in writing that there is only one provider of a product or service of the quality and type required available. Estimated total value of contract: 25,000 Project name: Business Retention and Expansion Survey and Analysis Description of project: Design, manage, conduct, analyze, compile and present results of a Business Retention and Expansion survey of between 35 and 50 Ashland based businesses. Results will identify existing local economic conditions, challenges, needs, expansion potential and "red flags" of the traded sector businesses being surveyed. Background: The City of Ashland has contracted with the Ashland Chamber of Commerce in 2006 and 2012 to conduct local business retention and expansion surveys. The process involves the development of questions to obtain feedback from the selected businesses in the desired business sectors on the current state of the local economy, strengths and weaknesses of the local business climate, resource needs for business success and growth and problem areas or "red flags" that may exist and be causing businesses to close or relocate out of Ashland. As was the case with the 2006 and 2012 survey processes, the Chamber of Commerce is uniquely positioned to manage and conduct the project due to its previous history and original partner level involvement in the creation of the concept and its continuity over time. Additionally, the survey process requires a level of comfort and confidentiality between the business and the survey interview team. The Chamber of Commerce has the ability to train and deploy interview teams that have previous experience in the process, have a trusted, peer to peer Form #7 - Sole Source -Personal Services - Less than $75,000, Page 1 of 2, 6/10/2015 relationship with the businesses and can deliver a final published report that maintains confidentiality while also capturing the aggregate data collected in the survey/interview process. Findings: Pursuant to ORS 279B.075 (2)(d): Any other findings that support the conclusion that the goods or services are available from only one source. 1) The Ashland Chamber of Commerce has specific prior, local history and experience in managing, training, conducting, analyzing and presenting results using the Business Retention and Expansion survey program model. 2) The Ashland Chamber of Commerce can convene a project management team with relevant local experience and standing within the business community across a wide array of business fields. 3) The Ashland Chamber of Commerce has experience and expertise in training interview teams to confidentially conduct interviews, maintain required business level relationships, interpret and clarify responses if/when needed 4) The Ashland Chamber of Connnerce has an experienced and deep volunteer resource pool from which to select interview teams to meet the projected timeline of the interview portion of the project. Market Research Overall finding: No other entity has the local business relationships, the history with conducting local business interviews or the team of volunteers with the needed skills ready and available to conduct the interviews to meet the required project timeline. Form #7 - Sole Source -Personal Services - Less than $75,000, Page 2 of 2, 6/10/2015 Contract for GOODS AND SERVICES Less than $25,000 C I T Y OF CONTRACTOR: Ashland Chamber of Commerce ASHLAND CONTACT: Sandra Slattery, Executive Director 20 East Main Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 ADDRESS: PO Box 1360, Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone: 541/488-6002 Fax: 541/488-5311 TELEPHONE: 541-482-3486 DATE AGREEMENT PREPARED: June 9, 2015 FAX: BEGINNING DATE: July 1, 2015 COMPLETION DATE:June 30, 2016 COMPENSATION: $25,000 GOODS AND SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED: Design, manage, conduct, analyze, compile and present results of a Business Retention and Expansion survey of between 35 and 50 Ashland based businesses. Results will identify existing local economic conditions, challenges, needs, expansion potential and "red flags" of the traded sector businesses being surveyed. See project scope of work attached as Exhibit B ADDITIONAL TERMS: In the event of conflicts or discrepancies among the contract documents, the City of Ashland Contract for Goods and Services will be primary and take precedence, and any exhibits or ancillary contracts or agreements having redundant or contrary provisions will be subordinate to and interpreted in a manner that will not conflict with the said primary City of Ashland Contract. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to AMC 2.50.090 and after consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the CITY AND CONTRACTOR AGREE as follows: 1. All Costs by Contractor: Contractor shall, provide all goods as specified above and shall at its own risk and expense, perform any work described above and, unless otherwise specified, furnish all labor, equipment and materials required for the proper performance of such work. 2. Qualified Work: Contractor has represented, and by entering into this contract now represents, that any personnel assigned to the work required under this contract are fully qualified to perform the work to which they will be assigned in a skilled and worker-like manner and, if required to be registered, licensed or bonded by the State of Oregon, are so registered, licensed and bonded. Contractor must also maintain a current City business license. 3. Completion Date: Contractor shall provide all goods in accordance with the standards and specifications, no later than the date indicated above and start performing the work under this contract by the beginning date indicated above and complete the work by the completion date indicated above. 4. Compensation: City shall pay Contractor for the specified goods and for any work performed, including costs and expenses, the sum specified above. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the date of the invoice. Should the contract be prematurely terminated, payments will be made for work completed and accepted to date of termination. Compensation under this contract, including all costs and expenses of Contractor, is limited to $25,000.00, unless a separate written contract is entered into by the City. 5. Ownership of Documents: All documents prepared by Contractor pursuant to this contract shall be the property of City. 6. Statutory Requirements: ORS 27913.220, 27913.225, 27913.230, 27913.235, ORS Chapter 244 and ORS 670.600 are made part of this contract. 7. Living Wage Requirements: If contractor is providing services under this contract and the amount of this contract is $20,142.20 or more, Contractor is required to comply with chapter 3.12 of the Ashland Municipal Code by paying a living wage, as defined in this chapter, to all employees performing work under this contract and to any subcontractor who performs 50% or more of the work under this contract. Contractor is also required to post the notice attached hereto as Exhibit B predominantly in areas where it will be seen by all employees. 8. Indemnification: Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and save City, its officers, employees and agents harmless from any and all losses, claims, actions, costs, expenses, judgments, subrogations, or other damages resulting from injury to any person (including injury resulting in death), or damage (including loss or destruction) to property, of whatsoever nature arising out of or incident to the performance of this contract by Contractor (including but not limited to, Contractor's employees, agents, and others designated by Contractor to perform work or services attendant to this contract). Contractor shall not be held responsible for any losses, expenses, claims, subrogations, actions, costs, judgments, or other damages, directly, solely, and proximately caused by the negligence of City. 9. Termination: a. Mutual Consent. This contract may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both parties. b. City's Convenience. This contract may be terminated at an time b City upon 30 days' notice in writing Contract for Goods and Services Less than $25,000, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 1 of 5 and delivered by certified mail or in person. C. For Cause. City may terminate or modify this contract, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Contractor, or at such later date as may be established by City under any of the following conditions: i. If City funding from federal, state, county or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow for the purchase of the indicated quantity of services; ii. If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the services are no longer allowable or appropriate for purchase under this contract or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed for payments authorized by this contract; or iii. If any license or certificate required by law or regulation to be held by Contractor to provide the services required by this contract is for any reason denied, revoked, suspended, or not renewed. d. For Default or Breach. i. Either City or Contractor may terminate this contract in the event of a breach of the contract by the other. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within 15 days of the date of the notice, or within such other period as the party giving the notice may authorize or require, then the contract may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. ii. Time is of the essence for Contractor's performance of each and every obligation and duty under this contract. City by written notice to Contractor of default or breach, may at any time terminate the whole or any part of this contract if Contractor fails to provide services called for by this contract within the time specified herein or in any extension thereof. iii. The rights and remedies of City provided in this subsection (d) are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties. Termination or modification of this contract pursuant to subsections a, b, or c above shall be without prejudice to any obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. However, upon receiving a notice of termination (regardless whether such notice is given pursuant to subsections a, b, c or d of this section, Contractor shall immediately cease all activities under this contract, unless expressly directed otherwise by City in the notice of termination. Further, upon termination, Contractor shall deliver to City all contract documents, information, works-in-progress and other property that are or would be deliverables had the contract been completed. City shall pay Contractor for work performed prior to the termination date if such work was performed in accordance with the Contract. 10. Independent Contractor Status: Contractor is an independent Contractor and not an employee of the City. Contractor shall have the complete responsibility for the performance of this contract. 11. Non-discrimination Certification: The undersigned certifies that the undersigned Contractor has not discriminated against minority, women or emerging small businesses enterprises in obtaining any required subcontracts. Contractor further certifies that it shall not discriminate in the award of such subcontracts, if any. The Contractor understands and acknowledges that it may be disqualified from bidding on this contract, including but not limited to City discovery of a misrepresentation or sham regarding a subcontract or that the Bidder has violated any requirement of ORS 279A.110 or the administrative rules implementing the Statute. 12. Asbestos Abatement License: If required under ORS 468A.710, Contractor or Subcontractor shall possess an asbestos abatement license. 13. Assignment and Subcontracts: Contractor shall not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the written consent of City. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without written consent of City shall be void. Contractor shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions of any assigns or subcontractors and of all persons employed by them, and the approval by City of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and City. 14. Use of Recyclable Products: Contractor shall use recyclable products to the maximum extent economically feasible in the performance of the contract work set forth in this document. 15. Default. The Contractor shall be in default of this agreement if Contractor: commits any material breach or default of any covenant, warranty, certification, or obligation it owes under the Contract; if it loses its QRF status pursuant to the QRF Rules or loses any license, certificate or certification that is required to perform the work or to qualify as a QRF if Contractor has qualified as a QRF for this agreement; institutes an action for relief in bankruptcy or has instituted against it an action for insolvency; makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; or ceases doing business on a regular basis of the type identified in its obligations under the Contract; or attempts to assign rights in, or delegate duties under, the Contract. 16. Insurance. Contractor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers b. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $200,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, $2,000,000 or Not Applicable for each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage. Contract for Goods and Services Less than $25,000, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 2 of 5 C. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than Enter one: $200,000, $500,000, $1,000,000, or Not Applicable for each accident for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. d. Notice of cancellation or change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the Contractor or its insurer(s) to the City. e. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as Additional Insureds on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to Contractor's services to be provided under this Contract. As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, the Contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The contractor's insurance is primary and non-contributory. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are Additional Insureds. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies, trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The Contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self- insurance. 17. Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Venue: This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon without resort to any jurisdiction's conflict of laws, rules or doctrines. Any claim, action, suit or proceeding (collectively, "the claim") between the City (and/or any other or department of the State of Oregon) and the Contractor that arises from or relates to this contract shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the Circuit Court of Jackson County for the State of Oregon. If, however, the claim must be brought in a federal forum, then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon filed in Jackson County, Oregon. Contractor, by the signature herein of its authorized representative, hereby consents to the in personam jurisdiction of said courts. In no event shall this section be construed as a waiver by City of any form of defense or immunity, based on the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, or otherwise, from any claim or from the jurisdiction. 18. THIS CONTRACT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE OF TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL BIND EITHER PARTY UNLESS IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. SUCH WAIVER, CONSENT, MODIFICATION OR CHANGE, IF MADE, SHALL BE EFFECTIVE ONLY IN THE SPECIFIC INSTANCE AND FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE GIVEN. THERE ARE NO UNDERSTANDINGS, AGREEMENTS, OR REPRESENTATIONS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, NOT SPECIFIED HEREIN REGARDING THIS CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR, BY SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE/SHE HAS READ THIS CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 19. Nonappropriations Clause. Funds Available and Authorized: City has sufficient funds currently available and authorized for expenditure to finance the costs of this contract within the City's fiscal year budget. Contractor understands and agrees that City's payment of amounts under this contract attributable to work performed after the last day of the current fiscal year is contingent on City appropriations, or other expenditure authority sufficient to allow City in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments under this contract. In the event City has insufficient appropriations, limitations or other expenditure authority, City may terminate this contract without penalty or liability to City, effective upon the delivery of written notice to Contractor, with no further liability to Contractor. 20. Prior Approval Required Provision. Approval by the City of Ashland Council or the Public Contracting Officer is required before any work may begin under this contract. 21. Certification. Contractor shall sign the certification attached hereto as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference-) . Contract City of Ashland By By Signa ( Department Head l Print Name Print Name Title Date W-9 One copy of a W-9 is to be submitted with the signed contract. Purchase Order No. Contract for Goods and Services Less than $25,000, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 3 of 5 EXHIBIT A CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS: Contractor, under penalty of perjury, certifies that (a) the number shown on the attached W-9 form is its correct taxpayer ID (or is waiting for the number to be issued to it and (b) Contractor is not subject to backup withholding because (i) it is exempt from backup withholding or (ii) it has not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that it is subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends, or (iii) the IRS has notified it that it is no longer subject to backup withholding. Contractor further represents and warrants to City that (a) it has the power and authority to enter into and perform the work, (b) the Contract, when executed and delivered, shall be a valid and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable in accordance with its terms, (c) the work under the Contract shall be performed in accordance with the highest professional standards, and (d) Contractor is qualified, professionally competent and duly licensed to perform the work. Contractor also certifies under penalty of perjury that its business is not in violation of any Oregon tax laws, and it is a corporation authorized to act on behalf of the entity designated above and authorized to do business in Oregon or is an independent Contractor as defined in the contract documents, and has checked four or more of the following criteria: 1 1 carry out the labor or services at a location separate from my residence or is in a. specific portion of my residence, set aside as the location of the business. V (2) Commercial advertising or business cards or a trade association membership are / purchased for the business. (3) Telephone listing is used for the business separate from the personal residence listing. (4) Labor or services are performed only pursuant to written contracts. (5) Labor or services are performed for two or more different persons within a period of one a r. (6) 1 assume financial responsibility for defective workmanship or for service not provided as evidenced by the ownership of performance bonds, warranties, errors and omission insurance or liability insurance relating to the labor or services to be provided. ~ (Ozw-15 ctor (Date) Contract for Goods and Services Less than $25,000, Revised 06/02/2015, Page 4 of 5 ~xh-6~ t B ' Scope of Work Business Retention and Expansion Study, 2015 Ashland Chamber of Commerce May 2015 1. Design of the Business Retention and Expansion Survey Instrument (May - July 2015) a. Meet with Business Retention and Expansion Committee to establish survey objectives and priorities for kinds of business information needed. b. Develop BR&E survey. Integrate questions from previous BR&E surveys c. Review survey with primary contact and Committee. d. Pre-test survey instrument with three businesses and refine where necessary. e. Time estimate: 40 hours f. Cost estimate: $5,500 - $6,000 2. Computerize Survey Data (September 2015) a. Input survey data into spreadsheet, exportable to various database or statistical analysis software (assume 60 surveys). b. Time hours: 20 hours c. Cost estimate: $2,500 - $3,000 3. Analysis of Data (October 2015) a. Tabulate scaled responses and summarize qualitative data. Correct for non-response and missing data. b. Meet with the Committee interviewers to discuss survey process and their perceptions. c. Time Estimate: 30 hours d. Cost Estimate: $4,000 - $4,500 4. Final Report (October - December 2015) a. Summarize survey results b. Create graphs and tables. c. Be available for additional technical assistance. d. Time Estimate: 70 hours c. Cost estimate: $9,500 - $10,000 5. Presentations (January 2015 - February 2016) a. Develop a 1/2-hour PowerPoint presentation targeted at community and business- related groups. b. Time Estimate: 20 hours c. Deliver three presentations d. Cost estimate: $2,500 - $3,000 Total Project Cost: $25,000 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Public Contracts for Water & Wastewater Treatment Plant Chemicals FROM Greg Hunter, Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, greg.hunter(a~ashland.or.us David Gies, Waste Water Treatment Plant Supervisor, david.gieskashland.or.us SUMMARY Chemicals are required to maintain consistent water quality at the Water Treatment Plant and for compliance with NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit requirements at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Bids were requested for eight chemicals, which have resulted in multiple contract awards to five bidders (AquaTechnex, Brenntag, Cascade Columbia, Chem Quip, and Eco Services). The term for each of the intended contracts is July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The sourcing method for this multiple contract award is a competitive sealed bid (Invitation to Bid or ITB). The City received nine bids in response to the ITB and the resulting public contracts are being awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidders per the attached bid tab. Section 2.50.080 Formal Processes - Competitive Sealed Bidding and Proposals Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, in addition to the requirements of the Model Rules and the Oregon Public Contracting Code: C. The Local Contract Review Board shall approve the award of all contracts for which the Ashland Municipal Code or the Oregon Public Contracting Code require formal competitive solicitations or formal competitive bids. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: None FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds are budgeted for these chemicals. Water Treatment Plant chemicals are estimated to cost approximately $165,000.00 per fiscal year and $330,000.00 for the biennium. Wastewater Treatment Plant chemicals are estimated to cost $97,000.00 per fiscal year and $194,000.00 for the biennium. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the public contracts for chemicals be approved. SUGGESTED MOTION: The Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, moves to approve the public contract awards for chemicals. Pagc 1 of 2 1r, CITY OF -ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Invitation to Bid 2015-101, Bid Tab Page 2 of 2 3 ~Q 0a H ~ a ~ ~ a z 3 y w H ~ 3 xu U +r F. a~ C r 3 ~ ~~'7,wa,~, pa N 3 a W°° W z 3 ~ x H z U o ou A k W C O U .fl Ci. 0. R. Q z U U F). U Q U a o oEs~a 3 a~x Ur~aUO o~ ~ as~wl ~ W I a w O 3 L cue y' U a Z w a~i a 3~~~ O w w z; ~ a 3I~" v~Q ow E~ w c ~ z z o 3a~ p eo.QUO d ~ -o .U. Z U 0. e o F`., U ~ Gs, z ea~UO a ~ -o 0 3 ~,Uw.a~n~ ~ p rl H W U W O V1 0 3 c~ ~ v ~ w z F~ C Q R 0. U 7 c ~ ~ ~ ~ a s = as a,I~w~? oN Z o Hex 3 vU~x w U A ~ H Q 3 ~ ~ Q z F 3 U d 00 A U v c o a' °J c o~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C_ O c~J N U r, ~ C N U ILI w o o 3 3 U CA F 3 R e a c ~n o°ri ° a u by d _W G~ a w a ° , FUz UOxrs,z'o c 3I wcr Www z F v V~~C~O a a. w i i G , iC Q r O C vim. r, U N L N '"y C C aI ct N O N In "73 y Cr i 0. W Lr, 3= Y n cy t ry N o t o rr a c-, cc G wl ° N o I a u -2 ~ '0 s tri a' c U oo N cv " o a~ °O N c~ o B U o y x c~ o oil w MO F U la.. Z sv se Geq U c cv o oo c Cz CL M 7 ri " aCi Fy Gz. U ~ sa v ~ ~ o N o ~ o o F E W U W U Gc Y ¢ o ° C M w, O 3 a~i x j O o N [ n N o p - N U v Gz Z a ..0 a u ~ Fn sv Fr ~ k F U F+ti Q cn NO.. x j N G a ll o ~,I bfl c 6 N 3 ~ o ~ ~ o w o p .o n o o, U ~ cC c0 'Q vl 'cY O ~ 3 ~ x x bb th Q~ D a. A A ~ cu o U a~ C, pp O O c~ U U i s. s. y c3 CL F.. cC ,--i ~ ~ ~ ' 69 s.- b4 s. c3 'C cG tri CL cl) y 17, N C r~i~ p U yU_, h.U O y 4 ,n o~Ll U "II O N ° E ~r c o°°' o g ss c 3 d a 'f °n ^ U G~~ U Z ° o U u 17, 7D c7; z kr, QjwO~~~ww z 3~ v~~'Ca7o` Q,, aWvi I, . , " C, ' .fl v, v-, bA in bA ti' Q A Z argi U N ° N 3 U W w CJ` p U O ~ U Ia. 3 a OBI A W Z r~ o `A -o n N 01 0 U 7t (11 t 0 U d .a o a 6°s a s°~ ZA° o i s z Z o a a or a Q by ~O Or Q W O W x c o-2 G~z ° c o a ^rn, 3 a~~~++, c~c F' w .a U W o `°n ~N° o a u' a c a .o 0 a G F W U w M cn ~r N p M r v N 3 x ° U 6F N N' cR p -o U 6R O o -a 3 a M o o N n o i d In~ U sv Q c`i U Fri C 0. Q bfl v, y~ CJJ in U ° C C CJ 'a ° o, o a o n. ~ Cr Or d W ~ O N O Gr. N O ~ U' N O ~J ~ ~ ~ -UC y `O O ELI 2 t i yr a % a o ~i n E s C ~4 W C U A J c A v A ~ J H U Ca C4 R G cy ky C o u T v~ U 3 u U U 6~° Y 6R C bU U z r i i V W C ~ 3 ~ a ~ U ~ z 3 ~ fn -0 Or p U " ry U vN a f~ O ° 3 L CSr O p c ° o cry o t) o W p W o o C m N N v 3 c+l w 169 U f{ bg z ce p., ~ ~ z O U ~ 3~'U^•Oxwz•~ oa °"IE~O~x'www 2 H 3L~~~a~~o F, U W a„ G" W vl L 3 e ~ ~ UpZWO ~ -o 3 3 ~c~°~aw~; ~a X23 H Lww~xk'3 ~ z a 3IF U~~ Ow d' w 3 ~ ~G L c ~ z z s~ ~ ~ U d o Ra~U03.a~ ~ ~ Hls~Uwgv~ z 3 aMo 0 i U v U z o ~ H~ W U W O~ ~ w 3 ~ o ~ o O E-I ~ _ N z ~ F. C H U 1 ~ ~ U L~ Gaia O' L~ A ~ r A ~ ti c W a~ p c ° p a ° ai = ° ° L an oIZI n c00 u_~ a_ _o a q " Q + ~t a o co x v a s W CO ono o CO W 0~ CC CS ..~.i .-i GT O > vi p C C U s-. s-, p. G T O O G bl) n z z z 6. c p. r o, o -o o, c p z z > in. C. 6b ~ ad Q ti :o :o ~ -o -o ~ U U °a c%a r~ co w m m 3 ~a~a~ z z z z z z v r ~ a c 3 ~~ax~. oa m m Aa ~ a~ G N 3 ~°'WoOw z z z z zc z 3 ~ x 3 ~ x c It F a w ,4 A ' : w U Ox~•~ cc rn co m ca m O z ~xWww z z z z z z 3F~ ~W~UO H L .a w O F_ z~ A x~ G ^ G G G G a ~I~aU~~wow z z z z z z y o ~ Z ~ o z p ti a Q U Q 3~~ -a -a ~ o -a -o ~ a~ U E- w o U~ c c c o u F•, ~ U W o z z z z z ; W 3 Lz ~ wz U z ,o ~ ~ C, ems( W O a ~ -o ~ -a -o ~ -o tn z z z a z z z H~ W U w o~ 0 3 ~ x ~ ~ z 4t ~U h+"'i d C: tj Cam' R L0. U o o '2 "2 o 72 -o ~ 3 ~~~aso ~ ~ c~ w m m 0 z z z z z z i Uj O cs ti cz W O ti c v .G~ c e~i A ' c U 7D J A cr U z O a ~ w z d O~ s. fV O s. a> Z F c O C r~ Q O G1 64 01 -r3 'a 3 F~ x 4 cc U ~s No 3 J u bf) Sv~.QQ 33 ti E o o tri 3 m N F"" L a~ p O z 3 ~ x rw A3w': ca,~~Zy,pU -o c~ FIWO~a'Www 2 3 it ~ p :n A 'O O s~. d C d Q V pj q c a° a.~ On--. c~ O ~ ~ v ~ u •J vvi w E. tfj ~ 3~~ U ~ ~ ~ W o ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ro ~ a U ev Ey Gz o Ra~UO3,.a~. a ~ ~ 3 GUFw.~~ ~ ca o° 3 e z ~ h c~ ~ W z O o. d ~ yF, ~ vril U ~ o .~-i F- ~wUw Upzi z O 3 d ~ ~ ~ ° N~k ~ U v~ z O c c .a a, 3 a 1~ ~ al ~ W ~ ° <•; 2 3~x 0.0 W o Coo: Q A u~ A u U C A cS ~°"'U Q m a R C. R i.'y GLi U R~ W U R c o o o > 3 aoi „ Q Q Cq Q a v a> a L C U_ U o -o -a c o -'o -a c .n N , 3 0. a' c .r- N cu W F" Cl c~ bs c , c", c Q OW C73 0 °J ~s o`r j o 21 R v, w v Gz a`i a ~ W ~ A.r cn cn O r0 ~ ~ M ai 10" 7U:3 -0 3 3 x Gn x ' z N Cl, ~-Q=2 OU > ','b o o a~ c °J2 v W U x .a O x a c o u C O z 7 n N U N C O F~ O Y W W W Gz v o~ own o a 0.a W I a c. cil = "I " , "17) E . t ~p 44 s. o. w GL 3 C on n o on GL U C y C a 3~" ~Q ow~~ 0N~w ¢,N2 r s. c e z o z 40 F' G=, .a U c FI~W~aMo~ z 3 Lx a ~z U r- U z RaQUO .a ~ -a 3 U in a F E W U w U U z 0 3I O d x ~ .a F U cc z A F+I ~ R Q E ~ c~c A, U o + -6 o w a o 0 L: 0, w c v N o 3 ~U~x x ~ w A C73 A a ~Q CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Intergovernmental Agreement with Rogue Valley Council of Governments and the Cities of Ashland, Talent and Phoenix FROM Michael R. Faught, public works director, faughtm@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) under which the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) will provide professional accounting and financial management services as required by the cities of Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix for expenses related to the pipeline that delivers drinking water from Medford Water Commission to Talent, Ashland and Phoenix (TAP). City Council approval is required to authorize any IGA. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The adopted 2012 Water Master Plan recommended connectivity into the TAP pipeline to provide a backup emergency water supplement for Ashland. This project was completed in August of 2014. Since then, the City of Talent has billed Ashland for its share of related expenses for the TAP pipeline. Staff recommends that the City enter into an agreement by and between the RVCOG and the partnering cities of Talent and Phoenix. RVCOG will provide the cities with professional accounting and financial management services including, but not limited to; invoicing, accounts receivable, accounts payable, financial statements and reporting, audit preparation, financial reporting required by other governmental entities, and other services as required and agreed upon. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: RVCOG will bill the cities monthly on a time and materials basis at the following rates: • Finance Manager - $62.34/hr • Accounting Assistant - $55.13/hr • Accounting Technician - $54.17/hr Rates are subject to semi-annual adjustments on or about July 1 and January 1 of each year. The estimated cost is under $1,500 per year and is budgeted in the water supply fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the City enter into an agreement by and between the RVCOG, and the partnering cities of Talent and Phoenix. It is additionally recommended that the city administrator be granted Page I of 2 raiill CITY OF ASHLAND authorization to sign this agreement and future annual agreements, as long as the costs remain within approved budget constraints. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the intergovernmental agreement between the City and Rogue Valley Council of Governments, and the partnering cities of Talent and Phoenix. and I move to authorize the City Administrator to sign this agreement and future annual agreements, as long as the costs remain within approved budget constraints. ATTACHMENTS: IGA with RVCOG Page 2 of 2 :';1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, hereinafter referred to as "RVCOG", and the Cities of Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix, hereinafter referred to as "CITIES", all of which are hereinafter referred to collectively as the PARTIES; WITNESSETH WHEREAS, RVCOG is a voluntary association of local governments serving Jackson and Josephine Counties, Oregon; and WHEREAS, the CITIES are member agencies of RVCOG; and WHEREAS, RVCOG has been asked by the CITIES to assist with providing professional financial services for the CITIES; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this agreement is to make provisions for RVCOG to perform professional financial services for the CITIES and to provide for cost reimbursement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, conditions, stipulations and covenants herein contained, the PARTIES do hereby agree to the following: A. EMPLOYMENT OF RVCOG The CITIES hereby agree to engage RVCOG and RVCOG hereby agrees to perform the services hereinafter set forth. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES RVCOG shall do, perform, and carry out in a legal and proper manner, as reasonably determined by the CITIES, the services requested by the CITIES, as described in Attachment A - Scope of Services / Fee Schedule, which is attached hereto, and by this reference incorporated herein. Following an analysis of costs upon completion of one full year of performance, the PARTIES may mutually agree to establish, through an amendment to this agreement, an alternative reimbursement model of a not-to-exceed fixed fee for services. If established, this fee will be reviewed annually to reflect actual costs incurred by RVCOG. C. TIME OF PERFORMANCE This agreement is effective July 1, 2015, and shall remain in effect until terminated by either party, in writing, per section D of this Agreement. D. AMENDMENTS AND TERMINATION I. This document constitutes the entire agreement between the PARTIES and no other agreement exists between them, either stated or implied. The provisions of this agreement may be changed only by written amendment signed by all the PARTIES. 2. Any of the PARTIES may cancel this agreement at any time with or without cause by giving thirty (30) days notice in writing and delivered in person or by certified mail to the signatory entities to this agreement. Such termination shall be without prejudice to any claims, obligations, or liabilities any of the PARTIES may have incurred prior to such termination. 3. If any contemplated funding is not obtained or continued at levels sufficient to allow for full performance herein, this agreement may be modified or terminated to accommodate such reduction in funds. E. PAYMENTS 1. RVCOG will invoice the CITIES on a monthly basis. The CITIES will reimburse RVCOG within 30 days of receipt of invoice. 2. Reimbursement will be made at the rates specified in Attachment A, subject to semi-annual adjustments on or about July 1 and January I of each year the agreement is in force. These rates apply to travel time to and from the CITIES; actual work time on site; any preparatory or phone consultation work at RVCOG, which has been mutually agreed upon by both parties. The CITIES will also pay for any supplies and materials and travel costs incurred in performing the services. F. RESPONSIBILITIES The CITIES shall administratively assist RVCOG in accomplishing the tasks identified under Scope of Services by making the payments identified in Section E. above; maintaining regular communication with RVCOG; helping to resolve differences that may arise between the PARTIES; and providing background information and technical support as necessary to accomplish any task assigned. G. INDEMNIFICATION 1. Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260- 30.300, the Oregon Constitution, Article XI, Section 7 and the terms of any applicable policies of insurance, the parties agree to save, hold harmless and indemnify each other, including their officers, agents and employees, from any loss, damage, injury, claim, or demand by a third party against either party to this agreement arising from the activities of the other party in connection with this Agreement. None of the PARTIES shall be liable for any loss, damage, injury, claim, or demand against each other arising from their respective activities in connection with this agreement, except as otherwise expressly set forth herein. 2. RVCOG shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of the federal, state and local governments in its performance under this Agreement. 3. RVCOG, its subcontractors, if any, and all employees providing work, labor or materials under this agreement are subject employees under the Oregon Workers' Compensation law and shall comply with ORS 656.017 which requires them to provide Workers' Compensation coverage for all their employees. H. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RVCOG is an independent contractor under this Agreement, and neither its employees nor its subcontractors are employees of the CITIES. RVCOG is responsible for all federal, state and local taxes and fees applicable to payments for services of its employees under this agreement. 1. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTS RVCOG may not assign this contract or subcontract any portion of the work without the prior written consent of the CITIES, whose consent will not be unreasonably withheld. Any attempted assignment or subcontract without the CITIES' written consent shall be void. RVCOG shall be fully responsible for the acts or omissions or any of the assigns or subcontractors and of all persons employed by them. The approval by the CITIES of any assignment or subcontract shall not create any contractual relation between the assignee or subcontractor and the CITIES. J. LIMITATIONS This agreement in no way restricts RVCOG or the CITIES from participating in similar agreements with other public or private agencies, organizations, or individuals with regard to any aspect of this agreement, so long as the same do not unreasonably interfere with any of the PARTIES' performance herein. K. CONFIDENTIALITY - NON-DISCLOSURE Subject to the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410-192.505, no report, information, or other data given to or prepared or assembled by the RVCOG pursuant to this Agreement which the CITIES have requested be kept confidential, shall be made available to any individual or organization by RVCOG without the prior written approval of the CITIES. L. REPORTS AND RECORDS All work produced by RVCOG while working for the the CITIES shall be the exclusive property of the CITIES provided that RVCOG may obtain a copy of any public record information by paying for the reproduction costs thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, RVCOG and the CITIES have caused this agreement to be executed by their authorized representatives as of the date of the last signature affixed below: PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT City of Talent Authorized Signature Title Date City of Ashland Authorized Signature Title Date City of Phoenix Authorized Signature Title Date Rogue Valley Council of Governments Authorized Signature Title Date ATTACHMENT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES / FEE SCHEDULE Scope of Services: RVCOG will provide the CITIES with professional accounting and financial management services including, but not limited to, invoicing, accounts receivable; accounts payable; financial statements and reporting; audit preparation; financial reporting required by other governmental entities; and other services as required by the CITIES and agreed upon by the PARTIES. 2015 Fee Schedule Hourly Rates* Finance Manager $62.34/hr Accounting Assistant $55.13/hr Accounting Technician $54.17/hr *Subject to semi-annual adjustments on or about July 1 and January I of each year this agreement is in force. Hourly rates include travel time. CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Ratification of a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Local Union NO. 659 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Clerical / Technical) FROM: Tina Gray, Human Resources Manager, Administration/HR, tinaAashland.or.us SUMMARY This is ratification of a five-year collective bargaining agreement between the Local Union No. 659 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (referred to as IBEW Clerical/Technical). The contract largely mirrors the previous contract. It calls for a 2.5% cost of living adjustment in the first year retroactive to July 1" 2015, and additional wage adjustments each July I" of 1.5%, 1.5%, 1.5%, and 2%. The contract also includes a change to vacation accruals to match the accrual rates for non- represented employees; inclusion of language formalizing "Flex-time;" and it incorporates the City's proposed language regarding the Employee Health Benefits Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The current labor contract with IBEW Clerical/Technical expired on June 30, 2015. Negotiations on a successor contract with IBEW Clerical/Technical began on April 30th. The City reached tentative agreements in two formal negotiation sessions and via exchanging final proposals electronically. Concessions were made by both parties that are in the best interest of the City, and we were able to agree on a five--year contract instead of the traditional three-year agreement. The contract calls for a 2.5% cost of living adjustment in the first year retroactive to July 15` 2015, and additional wage adjustments each July I" of 1.5%, 1.5%, 1.5%, and 2%. The contract also includes a change to vacation accruals to match the accrual rates for non-represented employees; inclusion of language formalizing "flex-time;" and it incorporates the City's proposed language regarding the self- insured health benefits plan and then Employee Health Benefits Advisory Committee. The bargaining team feels the 2.5% first-year increase is warranted because there are several positions in this bargaining unit that have been frozen for the entire term of the last contract. Additionally, the Clerical/Technical union did forego a wage increase in 2009-10 when the City was struggling through the recession. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The adopted budget included a 2% COLA for this bargaining unit for FY 2015-16. The bargaining team ultimately agreed to 2.5% in the first year, which equates to a difference of $13,108. This is spread across multiple departments and funds. The additional cost will be able to be absorbed by the Page I of 2 Vr, CITY OF ASHLAND departments through staff vacancies and offsetting reductions to manage to the adopted budget. In addition, the 1.5% increase in the second year of the contract is slightly less than what was budgeted. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Administrator and Mayor to sign the labor contract, ratifying the tentative agreements reached in negotiations. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Ashland and the Local Union NO. 659 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Clerical/Technical) and I authorize the City Administrator and Mayor to sign the labor contract, ratifying the tentative agreements reached in negotiations. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Authority to Continue a Contract Between the Ashland Police Department and the Medford Police Department for After-Hours Records Services FROM: Tighe O'Meara, Chief of Police, Ashland Police Department, tighe.omeara@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ashland Police Department (APD) is seeking Council approval to continue its contract with the Medford Police Department (MPD) for after-hours records services. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: For several years the APD has contracted with the MPD for after-hours records services. Such services are a requisite function of a police department. As a police department operates 24 hours a day, there is a need for officers to be able to enter stolen property, missing and wanted person, as well as for warrants and other information to be verified and acted upon. It would be cost prohibitive for the APD to maintain its own in-house 24/7 records services. This contracted service allows this functionality at a relatively low cost. Section I 1 of the in-place contract states that the contract will remain in effect unless one party states an intention to discontinue the relationship. No such statements have been made and both APD and MPD desire to continue this relationship. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Provide Police, Fire, and other first responders with facilities and equipment that ensures their and the publics safety. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of the contract remains at $20,000 per budget year, billed quarterly. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the continuation of this contract and this expense. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Council authorize the continuation of this contract and authorize the APD to continue making payments to the MPD in accordance with this contract. ATTACHMENTS: Contract between APD and MPD Page I of 1 PIA CITY OF MEDFORD AGREEMENT PROCESSING CONTROL RECORD I INITIATING DEPARTMENT COMPLETE SECTIONS I & II INITIATING DEPARTMENT Police Department DATE 06/21 1 APCR PREPARED BY Randy Sparacmo Deputy Chief DEPT HEA NAME TITLE SIGNATURE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT TITLE After Hour Records Services with the City of Ashland (Police Department) AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT PURPOSE The purpose of this agreement is to establish guidelines for the Cft of Medford Police Department Records Division) to provide records services to the Ashland Police for after hours records actions CONTRACT PARTIES City of Ashland (Police Department) OPTIONS TO RENEW CONTRACT TERM BEGIN 07/01/10 END 06130/11 1 YEAR r] 2 YEAR ❑ MORE THAN 2 YEARS (PRjjOJECTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE) DATE OF COUNCIL ACTION -1111,0 OTHER GOVERNMENT(S) AFFECTED WHO PREPARED THE AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT FINANCIAL IMPACT $20.000 revenue BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER BUDGET PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable) SOLI YES- NQ 11 CHECK YES TO ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS BEFORE ROUTING TO RECORDER'S OFFICE FOR FURTHER PROCESSING (NO ACCEPTABLE FOR AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES) I YES NO NIA FUNDING IS AVAILABLE (DEPARTMENTS MUSTCERTIFY UNENCUMBERED RESOURCES ARE AVAILABLE TO FULLY FUND THE CONTRACT) X COMPETITVELY SOLICITED x OTHER PARTY HAS EXECUTED`-' PERFORMANCE BOND OR OTHER SECURITY IS ATTACHED x INSURANCE CERTIFICATE(S) ATTACHED x LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS BEEN RECEIVED AND CHECKED x OTHER COMMENTS PROVIDE TWO (2) COPIES OF COMPLETED APCR AND ATTACH TWO (2) COPIES OF AGREEMENT TO BE SIGNED 111 CITY RECORDER ^ c7, Lam- I O DATE ROUTED 012d IO DATE RECEIVED d~ 0 APCR No _Q IV / J LAW DEPT i(A DATE lQ ETURN TO CITY RECORDER V CITY MANAGER DATE ~ 1411, ETURN TO CITY RECORDER VI ACTION RECORD ` r CITY COUNCIL ACTION DATE o ORDINANCE NO MAYOR/CITY MANAGER/DEPT HEAD EXECUTION DATE ~j 0 CITY RECORDER COMPLETION DATE t 1. (D DISTRIBUTION ORIGINAL City Recorder's Office DEPT RETURNED TO M \CtyForms\APCR doc Records Management System - Agreement Between THE CITY OF MEDFORD An Oregon Municipal Corporation, Provider And _ THE CITY OF ASHLAND An Oregon Municipal Corporation, Subscriber 1 PURPOSE By this Agreement, the Provider shall furnish RMS/ARS systems, warrant confirmation and clearance from LEDS/NCIC and after hour entries into LEDS/NCIC of Missing Persons, Runaway, Stolen Vehicles, and Stolen/Lost Guns as described in Schedule A 2 DEFINITIONS As used in this Agreement APD is an acronym for Ashland Police Department ARS is an acronym for Automated Reporting System DMV is an acronym for the Oregon State Departmentof Motor Vehicles LEDS is an acronym for the Law Enforcement Data System MPD is an acronym for Medford Police Department Manager means the Medford Police Records Manager NCIC is an acronym for the National Crime Information Center , RMS is an acronym for Records Management System System Delivery and Services means the shared RMS/ARS System intended to serve the parties as referenced in this agreement 3 RECORDS PROCEDURES 3 1 Not later than 14 days prior to its effective date, Subscriber shall furnish Provider a complete copy of any proposed new or revised procedure, which would affect Provider's operations Within 14 days after receipt, Provider shall notify Subscriber of any Records Management System Agreement Page 1 of 8 provision, which is incompatible with Provider's operating needs Unless Provider gives such notice, any new or revised procedure shall be accepted and implemented by Provider no later than 15 days after its receipt 3 2 Subscriber may designate a particular procedure change as critical, where that change is required by court order or other exigent circumstances Provider shall, to the extent possible, implement immediate procedures, which accommodate the change If any such procedure is incompatible with Provider's operating needs, Provider shall notify Subscriber of the reasons, therefore, while still implementing the change to the greatest extent possible 3 3 If Subscriber and Provider cannot informally resolve any dispute under paragraph 4 1 or 4 2 as to records procedures, either party may request that the differences be reviewed by the Medford Chief of Police as provide din paragraph 7 6 4 ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY 4 1 Provider shall have full authority and responsibility over hiring, training, discipline, scheduling, and assignment of personnel assigned to perform and to supervise services provided under this Agreement Providers shall have full discretion and authority to ` assign priority service among conflicting service demands at any given time 4 2 Provider may contract to provide services to other subscribers at its discretion, however, Provider shall undertake no such obligation which has the effect of diminishing or degrading the level of service provided to Subscriber 5 SERVICE The Medford Police Department Records Division shall provide services as listed in Schedule A in a manner consistent with LEDS/NCIC standards Monday -Thursday from 1700 hours until 0800 hours each day and from Friday 1700 hours until 0800 hours Monday each week 5 1 Warrant Confirmation and clearance from LEDS/NCIC It will be the responsibility of the Subscriber to enter their warrants according to LEDS/NCIC guidelines, complete a warrant worksheet for each warrant, list all of the pertinent warrant information and deliver the entered warrant to the Medford Police Department Records Division immediately after entry The original warrant, complete worksheet and pertinent teletypes, including a copy of the LEDS/NCIC entry, will be filed in an 8 5" x 11" manila envelope A typed label will be affixed to the top right hand corner of the envelope listing the last name, first name and middle name of the wanted person The label shall also contam either "APD" or "Ashland PD" Any warrant locate teletype information received by Subscriber will be relayed to the Medford Police Department Records Division as soon as possible Upon receipt of the warrant envelope, the MPD Records Division shall enter the information into a database for tracking and file the warrant alphabetically in APD warrant files Records Management System Agreement Page 2 of 8 MPD will confirm the warrants and clear the warrants from LEDS/NCIC MPD Records Division shall send cleared Circuit Court warrants back to Circuit Court or to the Jackson County Shenff's Office to be served upon receipt of the defendant Ashland Municipal warrants will be returned to Subscriber All completed warrant worksheets, teletypes, and empty Subscriber warrant envelopes will be returned to Subscriber via the Subscriber's couner Subscriber will be responsible for any LEDS/NCIC monthly and yearly validations of the warrant records Subscriber will be responsible for Circuit Court and Ashland Municipal Court's yearly purged warrant lists, to include pulling the warrants from file, clearing from LEDS/NCIC and return of the original warrant to the appropriate court 5 2 Entry of missing/endangered persons, runaways, stolen vehicles and stolen guns Provider will make the entry and clearance of missing/endangered persons, runaways, stolen vehicles and stolen gun records immediately upon notification from the Subscriber's officers dunng the hours described above Entries will be made using the information verbally given by the Subscnber's officer and the information available in the RMS name files as well as DMV files Subscriber's records division shall be responsible for the LEDS/NCIC required double check of the entry and modification if necessary when compared to the actual police report Provider's records division shall date and initial the teletype entry and forward to the Subscriber via the next available Subscriber couner service on all entrees 5 3 Provider owns and administers shared RMS/ARS system, providing connectivity and secunty measures to Subscriber (see Schedule B for associated costs) Subscriber shall be directly responsible for the purchase of all specified equipment and installation services at their location (such as desk top computers, MDC equipment, fiber/TI connectivity to receiving points, etc) Subscriber shall be responsible for all maintenance, upgrades, and replacement of their own equipment Provider manages RMS/ARS licensing In the event licenses above the available number are required by Subscriber, Subscriber shall submit a request through Provider to obtain additional licenses at an additional cost to Subscriber 6 MEETINGS Once per year, on or about November 1, Provider will conduct a meeting with Subscriber at a mutually agreed upon location to accommodate budget planning processes A special meeting may be requested by Provider or Subscriber representatives at any time and will be scheduled by the Records Manager at the earliest convenience of all attendees 6 1 MEETING RECORDS MPD Records Manager shall keep the minutes of all meetings between Provider and Subscriber A location shall be provided by MPD as a permanent and accessible depository for all meeting minutes All Provider/Subscnber Records Management System Agreement Page 3 of 8 correspondence shall be in written form and copies maintained with the MPD Records Manager's records Subscriber shall be provided a copy of all meeting records 6 2 ADVISORY POWERS The MPD Records Manager is advisory to the Chief of Police of the City of Medford Consistent with laws, ordinances, and other agreements, the MPD Records Manager shall comply with recommendations regarding service delivery from the Provider and Subscriber upon approval by the Chief of Police of the City of Medford 7 DISPUTE RESOLUTION The Subscriber, having a concern with regard to service provided, may go directly to the MPD Records Manager to resolve the situation If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Subscriber, the Subscriber may then go to the Administrative and Technical Bureau Deputy Chief of the Medford Police Department If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the Subscriber by the Deputy Chief, the Subscriber may bring the matter before the Chief of Police of the City of Medford, who shall investigate and recommend a resolution In the event the issue is not resolved by the Chief of Police to the satisfaction of the Subscriber, the Subscriber may appeal to the City Manager of the City of Medford 7 1 Should Subscriber raise a concern that substantially affects other subscribers or the overall functioning of the MPD Records Division, the Manager shall refer the concern to the governing bodies of the Provider and Subscriber for resolution Neither party shall initiate any action of law, nor resort to any other legally available remedy without first having followed the procedure required by this section 8 ANNUAL BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS The Provider and Scriber shall abide by the budget adopted by the Medford City Council with respect to any and all fiscal matters affecting the financial responsibility of subscribers to MPD Any program or operational changes having expenditures requiring a supplemental budget under Oregon Local Budget Law must go through all budget preparation and review stages involving the Provider and Subscriber, as set forth herein 9 FEES Subscriber shall pay an annual fee for services under this Agreement That fee shall be computed as provided in Section B (Fee Schedule) Fees shall be due and payable in advance in equal quarterly installments as set forth in Schedule B Should Subscriber be in arrears in payment of set fees hereunder, such default shall not be deemed a material breach unless Subscriber's entire account balance is still unpaid more than 45 days after written notice by Provider of intent to terminate 10 RISK ALLOCATION Neither party nor its officers and employees shall be considered the agents of the other for any purpose Each party agrees to indemnify the other from claims which the indemnitor would be legally liable to pay, excluding specifically claims ansing from the indemnitee's own negligent and/or intentional acts if a claim asserting the same loss or injury were made directly against the indemnitor, whether or not such a direct claim is actually made The loss or injury sustained by the complainant resulted from the acts, Records Management System Agreement Page 4 of 8 errors or omissions of the indemnitor or those for whose actions the indemnitor is responsible under the Oregon Tort Claims Act This mutual right to indemnity is in addition to and not in lieu of any other right or contribution or indemnity which may exist in favor of either party under Oregon Law, and the right to indemnity extends to officers, employees, and agents of the indemnity party for claims made against them because of their actions or capacity as such "Indemnify", as used herein, means to indemnify, depend and save harmless 11 RENEWAL, TERM AND TERMINATION This Agreement shall be in effect commencing on the date of execution as set forth below and ending June 30, 2011 This Agreement shall be automatically renewed after the original tern unless either party provides notice to the other as provided below Either party may terminate this Agreement at the end of the 1-year term (June 30, 2011) without penalty or cause, by written notice of intent to tenninate delivered to the other party no later than January 1, 2011 If no such notice is given, the Agreement is automatically extended and shall remain in effect between the parties unless terminated in the following manner After the end of the original term, the Agreement may be terminated at the end of any fiscal year, without penalty or cause, by written notice of intent to terminate delivered to the other party no later than 6 months prior to the end of that fiscal year Payment of fees shall be established pursuant to Schedule "B", attached 11 1 NON-APPROPRIATION Notwithstanding the termination provisions above, termination may occur for non-appropriation Specifically, all Subscriber obligations to spend money under this Agreement are contingent upon future appropriations as part of the Subscriber budget process and local budget law, and the failure of the Council and Budget Committee to make the appropriation shall necessanly result in termination of this Agreement As such, in the event insufficient funds are appropriated for the payments under this Agreement and the Subscriber has no other lawfully available funds, then the Subscriber may terminate this Agreement at the end of its current fiscal year, with no further liability or penalty to the Subscriber The Subscriber shall deliver written notice to Provider of such termination no later that\n thirty (30) days from the determination by the Subscriber of the event of non-appropriation 12 AMENDMENTS The parties may, from time to time, agree to amend the provisions of any schedules attached to this Agreement, provided, however, that the method used to compute Subscriber's annual fee as set forth in Schedule B shall not be amended unless all other subscribers agree to similar amendment Costs associated with expansion of services, or new (not replacement) equipment shall not be included in the calculation of the•basic service fee without the consent of all subscribers All amendments shall be in writing, and signed by he parties duly authorized representatives As used in this section, "replacement equipment" means equipment which replaces a function preciously performed by other equipment owned or leased by Provider, and which must be replaced because its repair or maintenance cost equals or exceeds its fair market value Records Management System Agreement Page 5 of 8 13 COMPLETE AGREEMENT 13 1 Schedules A and B, referenced herein above, are hereby incorporated as part of this Agreement as though fully reproduced herein 13 2 This agreement represents the complete and integrated understanding of the parties ' with respect to all particulars covered herein All prior agreements, written and oral, are hereby canceled No prior written or oral representation, negotiation, or statement which conflicts with the terms hereof shall be considered to in any way modify abridge, or invalidate any provision hereof, and no evidence of such shall be admitted in any proceeding in which the terms and application of this Agreement are at issue 14 NOTICE Any notice required to be given to Provider under this Agreement shall be given to Provider's Chief of Police Any notice required to be given to Subscriber under this Agreement shall be given to Subscriber's Chief of Police IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties heave caused this Agreement to be signed in their respective names by their duly authorized representatives as the dates set forth below CITY O EDFORD, OREG THE CITY OF ASHLAND By ary eeler John Stromberg Ma or MPor Date Date Approved G? Chief of Police C f of Police City of Medford City of Ashland Records Management System Agreement Page 6 of 8 SCHEDULE A WARRANT CONFIRMATION AND CLEARANCE FROM LEDS/NCIC ENTRY OF DATA INTO LEDS/NCIC 1 House Subscriber's warrant files Z Confirm Subscriber's warrants to inquiring agencies to include sending appropriate teletype confirmation 3 Clear warrants from LEDS/NCIC upon confirmation of service 4 Return Circuit Court warrants to either the Circuit Court or the Jackson County Sheriff's Office for transport of the defendant 5 Return Ashland Municipal Court warrants to Subscriber 6 Return all warrant teletypes and worksheets to the Subscriber along with Subscriber's manila envelope 7 Enter missing/endangered persons, runaway, stolen vehicle and stolen gun entries during the hours listed upon notification from Subscriber's officers into LEDS/NCIC 8 Date and initial LEDS/NCIC teletypes and forward to Subscriber via the next available Subscriber provided couner Records Management System Agreement Page 7 of 8 SCHEDULE B FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF ASHLAND 1 Subscriber's fee for services provide under this Agreement shall be the Basic Service Fee plus negotiated fee for any extended services The fees shall be reviewed on an annual basis Subsequent contract annual base fees shall be calculated on a three year average number of Ashland warrants confirmed/cleared and the time that it takes the Provider's records specialist to confirm and clear the warrant from LEDS//NCIC and an average of the hourly rate of pay including benefits of the Provider's records specialists Fees will also include the Subscriber's percentage of usage of the RMS system maintenance fees Number of Ashland warrants confirmed/cleared, 2007 - 325 warrants 2008 - 313 warrants 2009 - 294 warrants For an average of 311 warrants per year It takes a Medford Police Records Specialist on average 15 minutes per warrant to confirm each Ashland warrant and clear from LEDS/NCIC Current rate of $32 93491hour x 311 warrants comes to $10,242 7539 a year Agreed upon fee of $20,000 total for the budget year 2010 - 2011 Fees to cover RMS/ARS Maintenance/Licensing fees as well as the warrant confirmation/clearance and entry of Missing/Endangered Persons, Runaway, Stolen Vehicle and Stolen Guns into LEDS /NCIC during the hours mentioned in section 6 Quarterly Due Dates shall be as follows July 15, 2010 October 15, 2010 January 15, 2011 April 15, 2011 Records Management System Agreement Page 8 of 8 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Approval of a contract-specific special procurement with William Olsen Designs for the creation of a Japanese Garden Torii gateway in Lithia Park FROM Michael A. Black, Director, Ashland Parks and Recreation, michael.black@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC) wishes to enter into a contract-specific special procurement with William Olsen of William Olsen Designs. APRC is in need of specialized workmanship for a Japanese gateway feature and William has specialized knowledge in Japanese woodworking, joinery and curing of exotic woods. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission approved the general design for a Japanese Garden Torii gateway design for Lithia Park that was provided by landscape architect Ian Wessler. The approved design will now be transferred to William Olsen of William Olsen Designs who will use his artistic license to create a Torii with the general size dimension of the specifications from APRC. The Commission would like to enter into a contract-specific special procurement with William Olsen of William Olsen Designs to accomplish the construction and placement of the Torii. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS Funds for the gateway project were donated by a local citizen, Ann Auble. Ann contributed $10,000 for this project, allowing the APRC to move forward. The quote presented by William Olsen was $9,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION Staff recommends entering into a contract-specific special procurement with William Olsen of William Olsen Designs. Staff requests Council approval for this contract. SUGGESTED MOTION I move that approval of the contract-specific special procurement with William Olsen of William Olsen Designs as presented by staff. ATTACHMENTS • Form #9 • Quote from William Olsen Designs • Torn Gateway Drawings Page I of 1 PX CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Michael A. Black, Director of Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission Date: July 2, 2015 Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS279B.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission 2. Department Contact Name: Bruce Dickens Parks Superintendent 3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement 4. Time Period Requested: From July 22, 2015 To: August 31, 2015 5. Total Estimated Cost: $9.000 6. Short title of the Procurement: New Japanese Garden Entrance- woodworking & Japanese joinery Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired: Services will include woodworking using unique skills in Japanese woodworking and joinery. Wood is from the Monkey Puzzle tree formerly located in Lithia Park. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. Background: This project is proposed as a direct award to a woodworker with unique expertise in creating Japanese garden entryways. Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 3, 7/7/2015 Proposed procedure: Landscape Architect Ian Wessler created the original design for a new Japanese Garden entry gate in Lithia Park. William Olsen of William Olsen Designs then modified the original design based on his specialized knowledge about Japanese woodworking and joinery. 8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation. William Olsen's specialized knowledge of Japanese woodworking is the primary rationale for this proposed Special Procurement. In addition, William is a local artisan who operates at 280 E. Hersey Street. Providing opportunities to local businesspersons is in line with City and APRC policies and procedures. 9. Findings to Satisfy the Required Standards: This proposed special procurement: X (a) will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts because: This is a unique project using a specialized artisan / contractor. No other contractors were identified as having the unique skillset needed for this project. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.); and X (b)(i) will result in substantial cost savings to the contracting agency or to the public because: This project is being funded by a local citizen, Ann Auble. This project will not impact the City's budget, as the donation was $10,000 and this contract is for $9.0000. This represents a $1,000 cost savings to the public. (Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or (b)(ii) will otherwise substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not practicably be realized by complying with the requirements of ORS 27913.055, 27913.060, 27913.065, or 27913.070, or any rules adopted thereunder because: (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.) Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 3, 7[7/2015 Public Notice: Pursuant to ORS 279B.085(5) and OAR 137-047-0285(2), a Contracting Agency shall give public notice of the Contract Review Authority's approval of a Special Procurement in the same manner as a public notice of competitive sealed Bids under ORS 279B.055(4) and OAR 137-047-0300. The public notice shall describe the Goods or Services or class of Goods or Services to be acquired through the Special Procurement and shall give such public notice of the approval of a Special Procurement at least seven (7) Days before Award of the Contract. After the Special Procurement has been approved by the City Council, the following public notice will be posted on the City's website to allow for the seven (7)-day protest period. Date Public Notice first appeared on www.ashland.or.us - July 22, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE Approval of a Special Procurement First date of publication: July 22, 2015 A request for approval of a contract-specific Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on July 21, 2015. The Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission is requesting a contract-specific "Special Procurement" with William Olsen of William Olsen Designs for a new Japanese Garden entryway in Lithia Park. The proposed timeframe for this project will span July 29, 2015, through August 31, 2015. It has been determined based on written findings that the contract-specific Special Procurement will be unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060, 27913.065, or 27913.070. An affected person may protest the request for approval of a contract-specific Special Procurement in accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be delivered to the following address: City of Ashland Parks and Recreation, Attn: Bruce Dickens, Parks Superintendent, 340 S. Pioneer Street in Ashland, OR 97520. The seven (7)-day protest period will expire at 5:00pm on July 29, 2015. This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval of a contract-specific Special Procurement. Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 3, 7n12015 0 0 0 0 o ~ o 0 of o w m E ~ c 0 0 O t N o ¢ N ~ n T y ¢ U O v F L > ' I-. •C x U! G! s 0 y S O y. L z O ~ ' 1 > o v v w o - o f I u o 'o ~ a o ~ O v a n m ¢ a rv S ~ o c o 'V ~ c L o v c u m a _ 4of C6 t m o E o a ~ a _ m B x ~ x L ~ l - m m a E c m T Eo m C O a Y v 2 Y v v v /1 ` p V G u ~ v co o O N C Y Z; zi 1 ~ o o Y u o o O a Y a u v C m a o. o. l7 `y c a t l7 y_ p v a 3 N D u u u CZ FF 1 f ~r. S~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ - l t ~ f+ _ _ 1. i~~ { t. E ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ i 't i E ~~`~2`Y tlt ~ Y'~ .i 40[ ~itt 5 " ` 1 f a ~ ~ g `h 5~ i ~ ` { ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ t~ ~ , M ~q t ~ 1 -tea _ - ~ i E ~ s~ a; ~ ~ { i E ~ Ir l ~ w§ y f 'O Y c r 75 g 6 6 O O 3 ~ ~ x y i 4 0 tC _ QV: Y C ~ I ~3 s F 3o s es ® e l g t i ° i c I A l c ' .~l-dQL E 0 d m ~ _ rfl c is rl fd'i o-,6L ,D-.6 tit S ~-T ro ~ r 7lS .9-A d1L L I r i ti3 ~ r v TFS a s mP C C O_ ~ X ru ~ 3 tl O C Q O O %vC Q V~~ (3~gi h o w G C Q ~ a']~ ~ CIJ Y ~ 2 ~ J zoo in °a_ ~C~c a c m x ~¢i~s av° 33 x `z ~~ir 3c E L? a-c®c° ~b acs a%=a oezo~ Xc`s -v c eei a- oaf ~°~rc CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Rachelle Canaday dba Home State BBQ FROM: Barbara Christensen City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a liquor license application from Rachelle Canaday dba Home State BBQ at 376 E Main Street. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a "Greater Privilege." 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) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. 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 and has been reviewed by the Police Department. 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 Rachelle Canaday dba Home State BBQ ATTACHMENTS: Liquor License Application Page 1 of 1 ~A, OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION AwAication is beina made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: *Caterer On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) ❑ Change Ownership ommercial Establishment Q ew Outlet The City Council or County Commission: (Greater Privilege Passenger Carrier Q Additional Privilege (name of city or county) ® Other Public Location 0 Other recommends that this license be: ( Private Club 0 Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied EjOff-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: Owith Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) Q Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: 0 Winery ($250/yr) 0 Other. Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY OLCC US NLY Q Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application Recd by: Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority APPLYING AS: Date: []Limited Corporation E14mited Liability [3Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: ❑ Yes f No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] t0 ~-6 m C yr "7E LL.4:~~ D 2. Trade Name (dba): 1'Y1 C.. 5-7"11 -rr 3. Business Location: r ' { 0- ( y1 /~Sk to-(,c( ,Ja&k~.5brl C4 9 75 (number, street, rural route) (City) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: Jl~ (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: ` ~P~ b ' o - I QWY1 _v Ce ~Z) . 2 t 6,t (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? es 0No ~rnat`FPcI 7. If yes to whom: h F f'( - ,~-T ~1 T L k C Type of License: 8. Former Business Name: 'q / 9. Will you have a manager? Mes []No Name: ~ f t~ t(✓ r1 de (manager must fill out an I ividual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? n 'stc Cc ~ (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: h f!: *h cc~ eA'1'10 5-0 3. 7a` (name) (phone number(s)) y,") `n'si-t Ct r a-" HA-4,~ i i C? 7 7`1 £ (address) (fax number) (e-mail address) 1 understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. Appli ant( s) Signature(s) and Date: 0D _ Date O Date p Date ® Date 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olrc (rev. oarzo>>) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Morgan George dba Northwest Pizza FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Morgan George dba Northwest Pizza at 1585 Siskiyou Blvd. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a "greater privilege." 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) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. 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 and has been reviewed by the Police Department. 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 Morgan George dba Northwest Pizza. ATTACHMENTS: Liquor License Application Page 1 of 1 ~r, OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Full On-Premises Sales $402.60! r Date application received: ( y) ~ Change Ownership Commercial Establishment New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: 13 Caterer RGreater Privilege ® Passenger Carrier Additional Privilege (name of city or county) ® Other Public Location Other ® Private Club recommends that this license be: ® Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr)❑ Granted ❑ Denied ® Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: ® with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) ® Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: ® Winery ($250/yr) ® Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY ® Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business OLCC U Y that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Applicatio Wec'd Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority APPLYING AS: Date:`' Xv// ®Limited ®Corporation .]Limited Liability ®Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: ❑ Yes XNO 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] D 2. Trade Name (dba): Nv -+"i 3. Business Location: f`J~3S `~SS~,~\~ Y151n~rrtA _jk1~'t ca_ ~-75ao (number, street, rural route (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: hs-~35- 5i-`k'(ptA B14 Ask& c~ oe- rl`7s~o (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? $]Yes ®No 7. If yes to whom: SO rr> C j rtwV~, ype of License: x-11 v-tW Qh r~wt(S~S i1~ 8. Former Business Name: '5c.v-y-W . Q5 aoye 9. Will you have a manager? )lYes E3No Name: M2 _6--' (manager must fill out-arf Individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? A5~,ikO4,,A 7-. 1 Sna~~17me of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: 1 "1 mV, t'°11 -S_1O3;;1 r M (phone numbers ) (address) (fax number) -mail i;Wss) understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny my license application. r Applicant(s) Signature(s) and Date: ~O DatO tff, © Date 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olee (rev. 0812011) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Approval of Recommendation from the Public Art Commission to accept the sculpture Pacific Fisher FROM: Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Public Art Commission (PAC) recommends the City Council accept the sculpture Pacific Fisher to the City's public art collection. If approved, the sculpture will be installed near the beginning of the Bandersnatch Trail in upper Lithia Park. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Watershed Art Group, a community collaborative, aims to inspire, educate and engage community members in the stewardship of the watershed through art. The Pacific Fisher sculpture was commissioned by the Watershed Art Group with a grant from the Haines Philanthropic Foundation. The Pacific Fisher is a medium-sized mammal native to North America. The population of the fisher has been very low in the Ashland watershed and efforts are being made to protect this species. The sculpture was created by Jeremy Criswell, a local ceramic mosaic artist. It is constructed of a steel rebar core covered with a blend of concrete for maximum durability in all weather conditions. The group has consulted with the City Engineer and the Public Works Director on installation and structural integrity and has had numerous conversations with the City, Forest Service, Parks Commission and AFR on an appropriate location for the sculpture. The beginning of the Bandersnatch Trail was identified as the best location. AMC 2.29 addresses the process for the acquisition and placement of public art. Art that is donated to and accepted by the City becomes part of the City's public art collection and the City is responsible for the maintenance of the art. The PAC has met with the Watershed Art Group several times over the past year and believes the Pacific Fisher enhances the visual landscape of the selected site, will be relatively maintenance free, and meets the guidelines for recommendation as stated in AMC 2.29.130. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the Public Art Commission's recommendation to accept the Pacific Fisher sculpture as part of the City's public art collection. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Overview sculpture maintenance, construction and installation site with maps 2) Photograph of sculpture Page 2 of 2 June 19, 2015 City of Ashland; Public Art Commission Watershed Art Group; Pacific Fisher Sculpture 1. Maintenance information, how to clean and what to do if damaged The Pacific Fisher sculpture, created by artist Jeremy Criswell, is constructed of a steel rebar core covered with a special blend of concrete which allows for maximum durability in all types of weather conditions. It will be bolted to a metal concrete filled base on a concrete pad, for permanent, durable and maintenance free use. In the case of dirt and mud splattering on the sculpture, a bucket with water and a stiff brush is all that should be required. In the case of damage to the sculpture by vandals or some unforeseen forces, the sculpture has been designed to be unbolted from the base, and could be taken to the artist's studio for repair. Because the components are ceramic tiles, made by the artist and glass mosaic pieces, set in a cement base, repair should be straightforward. The artist will need to be compensated for the repair, and an agreement between the City and the artist will need to be made. 2. Construction details including involving the City Engineer The steel rebar armature runs through the core of the entire Fisher and through the base. Worked into this armature is specially designed mounting hardware that would allow for simple, permanent installation at the site. Public Works Director Mike Faught and the City Engineer met at the Public library to inspect the sculpture. The City engineer will supply a drawing of the installation requirements in conjunction with the artist. This will indicate how it to be installed and how that satisfies city engineering requirements, taking into consideration structural integrity and liability concerns, 3. Location; Including maps and input from the City After lengthy consideration with the City, Forest Service, Parks Commission and AFR, we have designated a site at the beginning of Bandersnatch trail. Issues to be considered in determining location: accessibility stability possibility of moving the sculpture, trail accessibility Protection of the watershed 1 The actual site for this sculpture was chosen by Public Works and will be marked and available for commissioners to view the location. Property ownership of this location is City of Ashland. See attached maps 4. Plan for selecting future projects, involving the PAC in selection Additional requests for proposals for the Art Trail will be written and selected in conjunction with the Public Arts Commission. The Watershed Arts Group will write guidelines for outside projects which may result from the interest in the Art Trail. At this time, Watershed Arts group has adequate funding to install this piece. 5. Signage plan The sculpture installation will include a permanent sign, with information on the Pacific Fisher as well as the support of the Public Arts Commission and the City of Ashland. A standardized signage system will be developed for this project and additional projects to tie the Art Trail together, providing information on the work and recognizing the support by the Funding sources and the City. The specifics of signage have not yet been determined. 6. A more comprehensive plan for the art trail is being developed, with cooperation from the City. 7. In the future, the watershed art group would like to bring the project to the PAC to develop a call to artists and to allow the PAC to make the selection. For additional questions, or for further information, please contact Pam Marsh 541282-4516, Stef Seffinger, or Sue Springer 541 601-6406 2 r s a" , T "ii) 11 I =`ii 't - t ENJ F J ia~ ti,'Jna, PAFRM tr3 LL: k= ALASIK, f 1,1 Y S't LARKIN C it = z 14OLLY Ho sRANfTE ST Ir ' 4 F LITNJ$ I Et ? t L ` T 'p ua t'ROPE:4tY v ~ PARK ,NNSYt.L'ANIA r y s +-#f_R7?-?E-S<;ft ere G < >iL. }y_~•,~ A -1 ~ Y r $RiJ?f RN 1 ALTAFKNI ~ w NtLL OR - G' l r 'RO RTY P, USER ASrL D ST € WINTER DR w -y GLEN WOOD CU7TLf FOREST ST PAF?3ti g s, PROPERTY i' t CL ARENCE ~i~ ~ is mt S' J' ti {~'~.l t.e Ftla'~ u~ r: Alf 4{ c P ARM ISPECT 14K PH(, L ` f ca No bf:310ir PARK 46 N 1 = a f ~ t 14 4TH LL J L7 0 # 1 t tam tt I ' # ~ an . E cs., E3 -6 0 (D arcs Q cc y= i u, sn fA rts L L U (T C L Q L .may. B' A^at " rs! " x f 0 z LLJ W Z ::2E f , ~ ~ s s C1 vt `.C Ln W t~ a CLZ~ r t ~ ' ~z~ $ = Z ~J Q 0- ~f t A Elm, z z r z z - - LIU E3 - L*~3 S z ~e °*b t y C 3` X-L r ♦ 1 1. Y - v \ - i lYy ` t -cam - . 1,4 ( Y r b c { j{ y t~f" ii M1x. ya `4 ~ s ^r qtr i. ~ - FYI ' ~ 'M i . • 1t " v ,r r -r d •Y A , t-- .r , ^tfif }13j w _ 7 r _ f r't 3- ~ JJr~ s ~ 1 3 t t ~ f CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Special Procurement for the purchase of Itron Electric Meters And Itron Meter Reading Equipment FROM Mark Holden, director information technology and electric utility, holdenm@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This "contract-specific special procurement" requiring the Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, to approve the procurement. The procurement continues to allow the Electric Department to purchase Itron electric meters and Itron meter reading software and equipment directly from General Pacific for a term of five years, expiring on July 31, 2020. The Electric Department purchases, installs and replaces electric meters on an as needed basis. Itron electric meters are the City's standard electric meter. The continued use of Itron meters provides compatibility with the department's existing meters/metering equipment and software. The standardization on Itron meters has and will continue to provide a durable metering system resulting in low maintenance overhead and reliable electric system operation. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: There are two components to this procurement. The first is the purchase of electric meters. The Electric Department is seeking to continue using the Itron electric meters, the standard meter in the City of Ashland for over twenty years. This component request is seeking an exemption from competitive bidding for the direct purchase of Itron electric meters. The second component of this procurement is the purchase of Itron meter reading equipment and software. Any required meter reading equipment and software must be compatible with the existing Itron meters, meter reading equipment and software. This component request is approval for the purchase of meter reading equipment and software from a sole source. The Itron electric meters, Itron meter reading equipment and software are only available from General Pacific, the authorized and sole distributor for Itron products in the Pacific Northwest. A special procurement is used for the purpose of seeking an exemption from the competitive bid process, custom designing a contracting approach, or the direct selection or award of a public contract or for a series of contracts. The completed Special Procurement, Approval Request Form is attached for your review and consideration. Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND AMC 2.50.090 Exemptions from Formal Competitive Selection Procedures All Public Contracts shall be based upon Competitive Sealed Bidding (Invitation to Bid) or Competitive Sealed Proposals (Request for Proposal) pursuant to ORS 279A - 279C and the Model Rules except for the following: G. Special Procurements - a public contract for a class special procurement, a contract specific procurement or both, based upon a contracting procedure that differs from procedures described in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060, 27913.065, 27913.070. The contracting approach may be custom designed to meet the procurement needs. 1. Special procurements shall be awarded in accordance with ORS 279B.085 and all other applicable provisions of law. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The average annual costs for Itron electric meters, meter reading equipment and meter reading software is anticipated to be $30,000 dollars. This amount has been included in the approved biennial budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the contract-specific special procurement for Itron electric meters, Itron meter reading equipment and software be approved. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the contract-specific special procurement for the purchase of Itron electric meters, Itron meter reading equipment and software. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Form #9, Special Procurement, Request for Approval and Written Findings 2. Itron letter provided by General Pacific 3. Quote provided by General Pacific Page 2 of 2 Ir, CITY OF FORM #9 ASHLAND SPECIAL PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board From: Mark Holden, director information technology and electric utility Date: July 21, 2015 Subject: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL PROCUREMENT In accordance with ORS27913.085, this request for approval of a Special Procurement is being presented to the City Council for approval. This written request for approval describes the proposed contracting procedure and the goods or services or the class of goods or services to be acquired through the special procurement and the circumstances that justify the use of a special procurement under the standards set forth ORS 279B.085(4). 1. Requesting Department Name: Electric Department 2. Department Contact Name: _ Mark Holden 3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement 4. Time Period Requested: From Upon Council approval To: July 31, 2020 5. Total Estimated Cost: Average annual Itron electric meter, meter reading equipment, and meter reading software costs of $30,000 6. Short title of the Procurement: Itron Electric Meters and Itron Meter Reading Equipment Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired: This Contract-specific Special Procurement is being requested to purchase Itron electric meters (currently, City standard electric meter) with Itron meter reading equipment and software directly from General Pacific for term of five years. 7. Background and Proposed Contracting Procedure: Provide a description of what has been done in the past and the proposed procedure. The Agency may, but is not required to, also include the following types of documents: Notice/Advertising, Solicitation(s), Bid/Proposal Forms(s), Contract Form(s), and any other documents or forms to be used in the proposed contracting procedure. Attach additional sheets as needed. Background: Council approved the purchase of Itron electric meters with Itron radio reads on December 20, 2011 for a term of three years, which expired December 31, 2014. The Electric Department currently purchases Itron meters, meter reading equipment and software. The reading equipment and software are required to be compatible with current and future meters. Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 4, 7/15/2015 It is in the City's best interest to continue using Itron electric meters because the meters have been consistently reliable and durable in all applications resulting in low maintenance costs and fewer change-outs. (Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement.) Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 4, 7/15/2015 February 6, 2015 Matt O'Connor City of Ashland, OR To Whom It May Concern: This letter is intended to clarify Itron sales representation for electricity metering products and data collection hardware and software in the Pacific Northwest. General Pacific, Inc. (GenPac) has a long history with Itron in serving the northwest public power market. GenPac is our authorized and sole electricity meter stocking distributor for the following areas: southeast Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, northern California, northern Nevada, western Wyoming and western Montana. In addition to metering products, GenPac sells and supports Itron's Choice ConnectTm data collection and data analysis solution suite that includes software, handhelds, mobile collectors and fixed network data collection devices. For over 30 years, Itron, the industry leader in advanced meter reading (AMR) and advanced metering infrastructure (AM]) solutions, has been developing and producing technologies In the United States. Our electricity metering products have an even longer history of U.S. manufacturing, dating back to 1899, with the Sangamo Electric Company. Itron is proud of our commitment to continue building our products in the United States. Although Itron is a global metering supplier, we understand the importance of keeping manufacturing of our products for the U.S. market domestic. This ensures that our products have the highest quality and are available on-time. Itron's investment in automation and highly trained workers helps to maintain this quality at competitive costs. .In past years Itron manufactured ERT radio boards for other vendor meters; this manufacturing process has been mutually terminated. Consequently the R300 radio is only available on Itron meters, i.e. CENTRONO single phase and polyphase meter, and SENTINEL@ meter. We continually work to bring new features & functions to our metering products while maintaining our high level of quality, as evidenced by our standard 3-year warranty, an industry precedent. Itron and General Pacific believe we offer the best value for your present and future metering requirements, and we sincerely thank you for the opportunity to be of continuing service to City of Ashland. Sincerely, Rob Rickard Area Manager 2111 North Molter Road tel 509-924-9900 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 fax 509-891-3355 www.itron.com toll-free 800-635-5461 10 r ._.i General Pacific Date: 07/01/15 ELECTRIC UTILITY SALES Expiration Date: 3/31/2017 To: City of Ashland Attn: Dave Tygerson 90 N Mountain Ave Ashland, Or 97520-2014 541.488.5354 120.00 ITR F620502 C1SR, FM2S, CL200 $ 56.00 ea 12.00 ITR G980682 C1SR, FM2S, CL320 $ 105.00 ea 4.00 ITR G980678 CISR, FM1S, CL100 $ 105.00 ea 12.00 ITR F620503 CN1SR, FM12S, CL200 $ 126.36 ea 12.00 ITR F620507 CiSDR3, FM4S, CL20 $ 243.64 ea 4.00 ITR TBD CISDR3, FM3S, CL20 $ 243.64 ea 12.00 ITR F620508 C1SDR3, FM2S, CL320 $ 243.64 ea 120.00 ITR F620501 CISDR3, FM2S, CL200 $ 208.36 ea 8.00 ITR G980786 CNISDR2, FM12S, CL200 $ 292.86 ea 12.00 ITR F620505 CPISDR3, FM14/16S, MI-1, CL200 $ 351.85 ea 12.00 ITR F620509 CPISDR3, FM9/36S, MLI, CL20 $ 351.85 ea 4.00 ITR F620511 CN1S, FM12S, CL200 $ 107.14 ea 8.00 ITR TBD CIS, FM2S, CL320 $ 67.93 ea 50.00 ITR F620510 CIS, FM2S, CL200 $ 33.57 ea 4.00 ITR F620512 C1SD, FM2S, CL200 $ 131.43 ea 50.00 ITR 0980854 CISD, FM2S, CL320 $ 153.57 ea 33.00 ITR 92352-137 CT, R6M, 400:5, LB, RF 4.0 $ 153.57 ea 33.00 ITR 92352-163 CT, R6M, 200:5, LB, RF 4.0 $ 153.57 ea 33.00 ITR 92352-164 CT, R6M, 300:5, L.B. W/BAR $ 153.57 ea Thank you for your business! 12,114 NE Townsend Wa% Fairriew, OR 97024 503.907?900 metes.c+rders ?genec ilpacific.co~n CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Traffic Growth Management Grant Application Letter of Support for the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Transportation Study FROM: Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director, faughtmAashland.or.us SUMMARY This item is asking for approval of a letter of support for a Traffic Growth Management (TGM) grant. The grant is for the architectural renderings of the downtown corridor associated with potential downtown improvements being discussed by the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Transportation ad-hoc Committee. A letter of support from Council is required to complete the grant application process. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the November 5, 2013, meeting, Council approved 13 regular committee member appointments to the Downtown Parking Management and Multi-modal Circulation Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee has been working with City staff, the University of Oregon and consultant, Rick Williams, to evaluate findings and recommendations regarding downtown parking management, truck loading zones, travel demand management and other transportation alternatives identified in the 2012 Transportation System Master Plan. In order to assist the Committee and in the alternative analysis process, staff is looking for Council support to submit a TGM grant application to fund the cost of architectural renderings of way finding options developed by the committee. The architectural renderings will be used to communicate recommendations to the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation ad hoc Advisory Committee, the community at large, and the City Council. While staff apprised the Council of its intent to apply for this grant at the April 20, 2015, study session, it was not taken back to Council for formal approval. In order to meet the TGM grant application timeline, the grant application was submitted on June 6, 2015. The TGM grant application process requires a formal letter of support for the project from the governing body. If the letter of support is approved, staff will forward the letter on to the granting agency to complete the application process. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated cost for the proposed scope of professional services is approximately $28,000. The TGM grant requires a 12% match and staff expects to use their time and possibly volunteer time in order to meet the match requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Page 1 of 2 11VALAR CITY OF -AS H LA N D Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter of support for the TGM grant application. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign a Council letter of support for the Downtown Parking and Multi- Modal Study to satisfy the TGM grant requirements. ATTACHMENTS: Council Letter of Support Page 2 of 2 Fr, CITY OF -AS H LA N D June It, 2015 The Ashland City Council would like to express our support for the Traffic Growth Management (TGM) grant application staff is proposing to submit to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for funding the Downtown Parking and Multi-Modal Transportation Study. Our commission specifically supports this study as it was identified in Ashland's 2012 Transportation Systetn Plan (TSP) update process as a high priority project and specifically addresses the improvement of multi-modal continuity and examines the effectiveness of existing downtown corridor parking and truck loading zones. One of the goals identified in the TSP is to create a system-wide balance for serving and facilitating pedestrian, bicycle, rail, air, transit and vehicular traffic in terms of mobility and access within and through the City of Ashland. We feel this study is a great step toward helping meet these goals and hope you will extend your support by directing staff to proceed with the grant process. Sincerely, John Stromberg, Mayor Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Ashland, Main Street Fax: 5414488-6006 Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us G;pub-wrks\eng\dept-admin\ENGINEERING CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting First reading of an ordinance modifying The Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement FROM: Derek Severson, Associate Planner, Community Development, derek.severson a,ashland.or.us SUMMARY The ordinance being presented to the City Council for first reading would modify the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to: 1) Partition the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; 2) Adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15-417; 3) Modify the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation, and open space improvements in Phase I with the addition of two new conditions; and 4) Modify Exhibit E, Condition 930 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. These proposed changes have been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Verde Village Subdivision was approved by the City Council in 2007, and included a land exchange between the applicants and the city, an Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Changes, and a number of land use approvals which were included in a development agreement between the City and the applicants and adopted by ordinance. The applicants are requesting to modify the subdivision's Development Agreement to 1) Partition the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; 2) Adjust the property Iines for Lots #3-#9 and #15-#17; 3) Modify the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation, and open space improvements in Phase I with the addition of two new conditions; and 4) Modify Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, with the hope that these modifications will enable the phases of the development to be sold, financing to be obtained and construction to move forward. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED The project is in line with the Council's Goal 13 "Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development. " The development is well situated relative to the existing transportation system; schools, recreation and shopping are within walking and cycling distance; there is a good mix of unit types and sizes, including the already-built affordable units in Rice Park at Verde Village; and all homes in both phases are required to be built to Earth Advantage/Photovoltaic Ready standards. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the requested modifications, with the two added conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and first reading of the ordinance and move it to second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Modifying the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement," with the two additional conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and move it on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance. 2. Ordinance Exhibit A - Fifth Amendment to Verde Village Development Agreement 3. Ordinance Exhibit B - Revised Exhibit E. Verde Village Special Conditions 4. Ordinance Exhibit C - Revised Exhibit F. Timetable of Development 5. Planning Commission Recommendations Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE VERDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION'S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW PARTITIONING OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PHASING PLAN; ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINES FOR LOTS #349 AND #15417; MODIFYING THE APPROVAL WITH REGARD TO THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING, IRRIGATION AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE I; AND MODIFYING EXHIBIT E OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH AMENDED LANGUAGE TO CONDITION #30 RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND TIMING OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR PEROZZI STREET AND ALMEDA DRIVE, AND THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW CONDITIONS. Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined thr-oug-h 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 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 Verde Village Subdivision proposed in 2006 involved the development of 11.64 acres on the site of the old Ashland Greenhouses and included: an Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) to City of Ashland Single-Family Residential (R-1) and Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5); Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development; Site Review approval for a multi-family development; a Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area; a Tree Removal Permit; Exceptions to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not locate a street adjacent to natural features and to not connect two of the proposed streets; Variances to reduce the on-street parking requirement from 78 to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for six of the townhomes in the northwestern corner of Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4 the site from 20 feet to 12, 14 and 16 feet, and to reduce the required distance between buildings for the 27 cottages in the southwestern corner of the site; an Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to have the primary orientation of the buildings to the south, rather than to the street, in order to maximize the use of solar energy; a land exchange with the City of Ashland dedicating 2.57 acres adjacent to Ashland Creek to the city for parks purposes in exchange for approximately 1.30 acres of the Dog Park in the area of the access and to the south of the existing parking area; and a Development Agreement with the City of Ashland which governed the development of the subdivision, and included unique, project-specific net-zero energy performance standards applicable to each home to be built, requirements for construction of a multi-use path within the riparian preservation corridor and for restoration, enhancement and maintenance of the riparian corridor, and a detailed timetable for completion of the project. WHEREAS, on December 18, 2007 the Ashland City Council approved and adopted Ordinance No. 2945 after consideration of the staff report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the comments and evidence presented during the public hearings on the Verde Village Development Agreement between the City of Ashland, Oregon and Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc., and found and determined that the Verde Village Development Agreement was in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland; met a public need and provided a public benefit; and was consistent with all applicable City of Ashland laws and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on January 5, 2009 the subject properties were sold by Ashland Flower Shop and Greenhouses, Inc. to WILMA LLC, the company owned by the original applicants, Greg and Valri Williams, to carry out the development of the properties. WHEREAS, on July 17, 2009 the Planning Director approved and executed the First Amendment to the Verde Village Development Agreement, approving a 12 month administrative timetable extension as contemplated in Exhibit F of the original Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on March 2, 2010, the Ashland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3007, the Recession Extension Ordinance, which ordinance created a ministerial process for the Planning Director to grant current planning actions a 12 month timetable extension in recognition of the difficult financial market; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2010 WILMA LLC requested an extension for the entire project in accordance with the Recession Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2010 the requested Amendment to the Development Agreement to extend the timetable was approved administratively by the Director in accordance with the Recession Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on June 4, 2013 the Ashland City Council approved and adopted Ordinance No. 3082 to grant a seven-year extension of all dates contained within the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement timetable to provide the maximum 15 year duration for the Development Agreement allowed under the Oregon Revised Statutes. After consideration of the staff report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the comments and Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 evidence presented during the public hearings, the Council found and determined that the extension of the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement timeline was in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland; met a public need and provided a public benefit; and was consistent with all applicable City of Ashland laws and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2014 the Ashland City Council approved and adopted Ordinance No. 3092 to modify the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement to clarify project phasing and make clear which improvements are required with each phase and to allow either phase to occur first; to change the energy efficiency requirements for the development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold Standards and will be Photovoltaic Ready; and to change the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi-use path. After consideration of the staff report, the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the comments and evidence presented during the public hearings, the Council found and determined that the extension of the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement timeline was in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland; met a public need and provided a public benefit; and was consistent with all applicable City of Ashland laws and ordinances; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2015 Urban Development Services on behalf of WILMA LLC requested modifications of the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 W. Nevada Street and 811 Helman Street. The requested modifications include: partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for Lots 43-99 and #15417; modifying the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation, and open space improvements in Phase I; and modifying Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015 the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above- referenced request for modifications to the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement and recommended that the City Council approve modifications to the development agreement, including modified language for Exhibit E, Condition #30 and the addition of two new conditions, 432 and 433, to the Development Agreement's Exhibit E "Verde Village Special Conditions"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced request for modifications to the Development Agreement on July 21, 2015; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has found and determined that the requested modifications of the Verde Village Subdivision's Development Agreement are in the Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Ashland; meet a public need and provide a public benefit; and are consistent with all applicable City of Ashland laws and ordinances. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland declares the approval and adoption of the requested modifications to the original Verde Village Development Agreement, said modifications being attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit A, Fifth Amendment to the Verde Village Development Agreement to Reflect Council-Approved Modifications to the Agreement and Timetable; Exhibit B, Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions; and Exhibit C, Revised Exhibit F, Timetable of Development - Outline Plan Physical Commencement and Completion. These exhibits are made a part hereof by this reference. SECTION 3. The adoption of this Ordinance declaring approval of the proposed modifications to the Verde Village Subdivision Development Agreement and associated amendments to the timetable are fully supported by evidence contained in the whole record, which is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4. The Ordinance shall be effective after execution of the Fifth Amendment to Verde Village Development Agreement to Reflect Council-Approved Modifications to the Agreement in Attachment 1 by both the City and WILMA LLC, but not earlier than thirty (30) days after the second reading of this Ordinance and signature by the Mayor. 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. 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 2015, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2015. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A FIFTH AMENDMENT TO VERDE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO REFLECT COUNCIL-APPROVED MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENT AND TIMETABLE THIS FIFTH AMENDMENT is made and entered into this day of 2015, by and between the City of Ashland, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and WILMA, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter referred to as "WILMA"). Whereas, on December 18, 2007, the City of Ashland approved Ordinance 2945 granting approval to the Verde Village Development Agreement, a land use decision; and Whereas, on July 17, 2009 Planning Director Bill Molnar approved and executed the First Amendment to the Verde Village Development Agreement, approving a 12 month administrative timetable extension as contemplated in Exhibit F of the original Development Agreement; and Whereas, on March 2, 2010, the Ashland City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3007, the Recession Extension Ordinance, which ordinance created a ministerial process for the Planning Director to grant current planning actions a 12 month timetable extension in recognition of the difficult financial market. Whereas, on April 9, 2010, WILMA LLC requested an extension for the entire project in accordance with the Recession Extension ordinance. Whereas, on June 6, 2010, the requested Amendment to the Development Agreement to extend the timetable was approved administratively by the Director in accordance with the Recession Extension Ordinance; Whereas, on April 2, 2013, WILMA LLC requested an extension for the entire project in accordance with the allowances of the original development agreement and the Oregon Revised Statutes. Whereas, on June 4, 2013, the Ashland City Council adopted Ordinance No. #3082 which amended the timetable for the entire project. Whereas, on January 10, 2014, WILMA LLC requested modifications of the development agreement and timetable to clarify project phasing, alter the energy efficiency requirements for the development and make changes to the landscaping and maintenance requirements associated with the construction of a multi-use path in the riparian corridor. Whereas, on April 1, 2014, the Ashland City Council adopted Ordinance No. #3092 which amended the development agreement and timetable for the entire project. Whereas, on May 1, 2015, Urban Development Services LLC on behalf of WILMA LLC requested modifications of the development agreement and timetable to allow partitioning the Ordinance No. Exhibit A Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for Lots 4349 and #15417; modifying the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation, and open space improvements in Phase I; and modifying Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. Whereas, on August 4, 2015 the Ashland City Council adopted Ordinance No. # which amended the development agreement and timetable for the entire project. NOW THEREFORE, the Verde Village Development Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference; and 2. The Development Agreement is hereby amended to reflect modifications of the development agreement and timetable to allow partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for Lots #3-49 and 915417; modifying the approval with regard to the timing of the installation of landscaping, irrigation, and open space improvements in Phase I; modifying Exhibit E, Condition 430 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive; and the addition of two new conditions, #32 and #33, related to the timing of landscaping, irrigation and open space improvements, as follows: a. Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions, is hereby replaced in its entirety by a Revised Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. b. Exhibit F, Timetable of Development, is hereby replaced in its entirety by a Revised Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. 3. All other provisions of the Verde Village Development Agreement, not inconsistent with the above changes remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed these presents on the dates indicated below. The date of this Amendment shall be the date on which this Agreement was executed by all parties. WILMA LLC CITY OF ASHLAND By: By: Gregory D. Williams, Managing Member John Stromberg, Mayor Date: Date: Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Ordinance No. Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 Exhibit A John Blackhurst, David Lohman, Attorney for OWNER/DEVELOPER City Attorney STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by Gregory D. Williams, as Managing Member and authorized agent of Wilma, LLC. Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: STATE OF OREGON ) County of Jackson ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by John Stromberg, as Mayor and authorized agent for the City of Ashland pursuant to Ordinance # Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: Ordinance No. Exhibit A Page 3 of 3 Exhibit B REVISED EXHIBIT E VERDE VILLAGE Special Conditions 1) Affordable Housing Requirements. A deed restriction shall be recorded for the town home portion of the development specifying the land is required to be developed as affordable units in accordance with AMC 18.06.030.G(5) and in conformance with the approval of PA 2006-01663. The deed restriction shall require the affordable units to remain affordable per Resolution 2006-13 for a 60 year period from initial occupancy. The town home area shall be serviced with all needed public facilities. The deed restricted land shall be dedicated to a non-profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation with proof of the dedication and deed restriction being presented to the City of Ashland Housing Program Specialist prior to issuance of a building permit for the development of the first market rate residential unit. The deed for the land conveyed for affordable housing purposes shall include a reverter to the Owner or deed restriction requiring conveyance of the property to the City of Ashland if the affordable housing development is not fully developed in accordance with the approval of PA 2006-01663 within five years of this approval, unless administratively extended pursuant to Exhibit F. In the event the property reverts to the Owner the Owner shall thereafter convey the property, without encumbrances, to the City of Ashland, for affordable housing purposes. City may accept or reject the offer, but the owner shall not be relieved of the obligation to convey the property to another approved provider of affordable housing. All the affordable housing units shall be Net Zero Energy Ready as provided in Condition 12 below. 2) Annexation Sequence. The sequence is set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement. Property comprising Phase I shall be annexed first. The land dedicated to the City for parks purposes adjacent to Ashland Creek shall be annexed second. Following such Park annexation, Phase II of the project (single-family development) may be annexed. 3) Applicant's Proposals: The applicant agrees that Project shall be constructed to the standards as proposed in the application, and as finally approved by the Council, including supporting documentation as entered into the record. All proposals of the applicant are conditions of approval for purposes of enforcement. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 1 of 10 Exhibit B 4) Archaeological Artifacts: In the event of discovery of archaeological artifacts during project construction, the Owner shall stop construction in that area and notify the City and the State of Oregon. Proper protection and/or relocation of artifacts, to the satisfaction of State and Local approval authorities shall be provided by the Owner, prior to recommencement of construction. 5) Ashland Creek Riparian Corridor Enhancement and Mitigation. The Owner shall be solely responsible for the restoration and enhancement of the area of the Riparian Corridor that is disturbed in the construction of the multi-use path and four (4) feet on either side of the multi-use path, to be conveyed to the City as part of the land exchange. A mitigation plan prepared by a riparian biologist or a natural resource professional with training and experience in biology, ecology or related fields for the impact of the construction of the multi-use path in the riparian corridor and to address the 10-foot wide riparian corridor buffer. The riparian corridor buffer is the setback between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25 -39, and is delineated as common area in the application materials. Disturbed areas from the multi-use path construction shall be re-vegetated and an additional area restored and enhanced with local source native plant material including ground cover, shrubs and trees at a 1:1.5 ratio, erosion control material shall be applied (e.g. mulch, hay, jute-netting, or comparable) and temporary irrigation facilities installed. The mitigation plan shall include but not be limited to a statement of objectives, measurable standards of mitigation, an assessment of riparian corridor functions and values, a statement and detail plan of the location, elevation and hydrology of the mitigation area, a planting plan and schedule, a monitoring and maintenance plan, a contingency plan and performance guarantees. The applicants shall install the mitigation measures in the approved mitigation plan in conjunction with the multi-use path installation. The Final Plan application shall include a mitigation plan (see contract required plant materials). The Contract for Installation of Plant Materials with Security acceptable to the City Attorney and Planning Director shall be submitted for restoration and enhancement consistent on or before the commencement of construction as specified in the Timetable of Development. 6) Boundary Description. A final boundary description and map shall be prepared in accordance with ORS 308.225. A registered land surveyor shall prepare the description and map. The boundaries shall be surveyed and monuments established as required by statute subsequent to Council approval of the proposed annexation. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 2 of 10 Exhibit B 7) Covenants Conditions and Restrictions. A draft copy of the CC&R's for the homeowners association(s) shall be provided at the time of Final Plan application. Lots 65 - 68 shall be included in a homeowners association and subject to all subdivision requirements. CC&R's shall describe responsibility for the maintenance of all common area and open space improvements, parkrows and street trees. CC&R's shall provide reciprocal easements for residents of the various homeowners associations (i.e. cottages, town homes and single-family residential) to access and use all of the project open spaces. CC&R's shall note that any deviation from the Tree Protection Plan must receive written approval from the City of Ashland Planning Department. Tithe CC&R's shall identify the units afe which are subject to the City's Affordable Housing requirements and terms of affordability. The CCRs shall include reference to the administrative enforcement provisions of this agreement and the ability of the City to enforce and assess the association for the maintenance of common areas, including the association's responsibilities for maintenance of the storm water areas offsite. The Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including Verde Village community access, of the private open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 8) Curb-Cut Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected driveway curb-cuts for units 45 and 46 - spaced at least 24- feet apart as measured between the outside edges of the apron wings of the driveway approaches in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. 9) Easements: Buildings or permanent structures shall not be located over easements, including but not limited to the sanitary sewer pressure line easement. 10) Endangered Species: In the event that it is determined that any representative of a protected plant or animal species pursuant to the federal, state, regional or local law, is resident on or otherwise is significantly dependent upon the Verde Village property, the Owner shall cease all activities which might negatively affect that individual or population and immediately notify the City of Ashland, State of Oregon and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Construction may resume when proper protection, to the satisfaction of all agencies, including the City, is provided by the Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 3 of 10 Exhibit B Owner. 11) Energy Conservation: Earth Advantage Program. A minimum of 53 of the residential units shall qualify in the City of Ashland Earth Advantage program with at least a Gold rating. That a minimum of 53 of the residential units be constructed as Photovoltaic Ready. 12) That the 15 affordable residential units in the subdivision (i.e. town homes) shall meet the application "Net Zero Energy" Performance Standard as outlined in Exhibit K-3 of the Revised Outline Plan, Book III - Narrative revised October 24, 2007, except that the photovoltaic (PV) system is not required to be installed in the affordable units. The affordable unit shall be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure (e.g. wiring, conduit, roof structure) so that a photovoltaic (PV) system can be installed at a later date. 13) Intersection Design: Applicant shall design the pedestrian crossing at the new intersection of Heiman St., Almeda Dr. and Nevada St. Pedestrian safety and refugee shall be addressed in the intersection design. Design must be submitted with the Final Plan application. 14) LID Non-remonstrance: Prior to Final Plan Approval, the applicant shall execute a document as consistent with ALUO 18.68.150 agreeing to participate in their fair share costs associated with a future Local Improvement District for improvements to Heiman Street and to not remonstrate against such District prior to signature of the final subdivision survey plat. Executed documents shall be submitted with the application for Final Plan. Nothing in this condition is intended to prohibit an owner/developer, their successors or assigns from exercising their rights to freedom of speech and expression by orally objecting or participating in the LID hearing or to take advantage of any protection afforded any party by city ordinances and resolutions in effect at the time 15) Lot Coverage Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected lot coverage calculations in square footage and percentage for each development area (i.e. cottages, town homes and single- family/duplex areas). Any area other than landscaping such as structures, driveways, patios and pervious paving that does not allow normal water infiltration shall be included as lot coverage. 16) Measure 49 Waiver. The applicant expressly agrees to construct the project in accordance with the approved plan and City ordinances and Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 4 of 10 Exhibit B waives the right to file a claim under Oregon Statewide Measure 49. The signed waiver shall be submitted to the City of Ashland Legal Department for review and approval prior to signature of the survey plat or adoption of a resolution or ordinance formally annexing the property, whichever is first. 17) Multi-Use Path Improvements. As specified in the approved Timetable of Development, all the multi-use paths shall be constructed according to City Code standards, specifically, paths shall be paved with concrete, asphalt or a comparable all-weather surfacing. Two to four foot wide gravel or planted strips are required on both sides of the multi-use paths in accordance with the Ashland Street Standards. Fencing or retaining walls shall be located two to four feet from the improved edges of the path to provide clear distance on both sides of the path for safe operation. The clear distance areas shall be graded to the same slope as the improved path to allow recovery room for pedestrians and bicyclists. The clear distance areas shall be limited to gravel or landscape materials, and vegetation in excess of six inches in height shall not be placed in the clear distance areas. The transition from Almeda Dr. to the multi-use path, from Canine Way to the multi-use path and from Nevada St. to the multi- use path shall be addressed. Specifically, the preliminary engineering shall address bicycle access from the street grade and provide sufficient turning radius for bicycle navigation. The preliminary engineering plans submitted with the Final Plan application shall include details for the multi- use path improvements and this design. All multi-use path public easements shall be clearly identified on the final survey plat, conveyed, and identified in the project, (with appropriate markings or compliant signage). Easements are required for paths between units 64-65 and adjacent to 39. The project CC&R's shall expressly note that the pathways are for public use and shall not be obstructed or through access restricted unless authorized by the City of Ashland and Ashland Parks Department. 18) Multi-Use Path Revisions: The adjustments to the width and location of the multi-use path in and adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor shall not affect the width or location of the 10-foot wide setback to buildings and structures or riparian corridor buffer between the new eastern property line adjacent to the Ashland Creek riparian corridor and the single family homes and yards for units 68, and 25-39 that is delineated as common area in the application materials. The 10-foot wide setback to buildings or structures or riparian corridor shall be located and sized as shown on plans S-1 dated June 8, 2007, S-4 dated June 8, 2007 and P-2 dated July 17 from the application. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 5 of 10 Exhibit B 19) Open Space Usability. [Planning Commission Condition]. The Final Plan submittal shall address the usability, including community access, of the open spaces. Usability shall be specifically addressed for the two small open spaces in the town home area (550 sf and 700 sf), one small open space in the cottage area (1,300 sf) and the one small open space adjacent to the alley 1,310 sf). Layout and landscaping of the open spaces as well as any improvements such as play equipment shall be detailed in the Final Plan submittals. 20) Parking Compliance: The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected on-street parking placement so that parking spaces are not counted that are within 20 feet measured along the curb of any corner or intersection of an alley or street in accordance with 18.92.025.D. 21) Sidewalk Construction. A sidewalk meeting the requirements of the Ashland Street Standards shall be installed on the north side of Nevada St. from the eastern project boundary to the intersection of Nevada S. to Oak St. Sidewalk design shall be at the discretion of the Staff Advisor in order to address site constraints such as grade and right-of-way width. These sidewalk improvements shall be included in the preliminary street improvement plan included with the Final Plan application. 22) Solar Ordinance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall demonstrate all new structures comply with the Solar Setback A, or that each home shall receive an equivalent certification by the project architects and mechanical engineers that the shadow height on southern facing exposures will not exceed that allowed under Solar Setback A in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Ashland Land Use Ordinance. Alternatively, the Final Plan application may seek a Variance to solar setback requirements, if applicants can submit architectural and engineering analysis supporting a variance. 23) Storm water Continuing Maintenance Obligation: The Owner, and thereafter, the Association, (or the owners of units in the project in the event the Association is dissolved), shall be responsible for permanent maintenance of both on-site and off site storm water bio-engineered swales and wetland systems. Specifically, the created wetland area and storm water swale system to be constructed with the project and to be located on property exchanged with the City shall remain the maintenance obligation of the Owner, Association, its successors and assigns. Maintenance shall be coordinated and approved by the City Public Works Department and Building Division and shall be performed in accordance with approved plans by licensed contractors, hired by the Association and authorized by City Public Works to enter property for maintenance Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 6 of 10 Exhibit B purposes. 24) Sworn Statement. Prior to any land clearing, alteration, or physical construction (other than survey work or environmental testing) on a site the property owner and developer, if any, shall execute a sworn statement under penalty of perjury and false swearing, that owner/developer has obtained all required Federal, State, and local authorizations, permits and approvals for the proposed development, including any proposed use, or alteration of the site, including also any off-site improvements. 25) Tree Protection Compliance. The Final Plan application shall address mitigation for the removal of the 25-inch dbh Oak tree (tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007). Mitigation shall meet the requirements of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.61.084. A Verification Permit in accordance with 18.61.042.B shall be applied for and approved by the Ashland Planning Division prior to removal of the approved Oak tree(tree 39 on Tree Survey and Protection Plan, T-1, June 8, 2007) and prior to site work, storage of materials and/or the issuance of an excavation or building permit. The Verification Permit is to inspect the tree to be removed and the installation of the tree protection fencing. The tree protection for the trees to be preserved shall be installed according to the approved Tree Protection Plan prior to site work or storage of materials. Tree protection fencing shall be chain link fencing a minimum of six feet tall and installed in accordance with 18.61.200.B. 26) Vision Clearance Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include revised and corrected delineation of vision clearance areas at the intersections of streets and alleys throughout the project in accordance with 18.92.070.D. Structures, signs and vegetation in excess of two and one-half feet in height shall not be placed in the vision clearance areas. Building envelopes shall be modified accordingly on the Final Plan submittals. 27) No Waiver. The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, term or restriction shall not relieve the Owner of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. Any matter or thing required to be done pursuant to the requirements of the ordinances of the City of Ashland shall not be amended, modified or waived unless such modification, amendment or waiver is expressly provided for in this Agreement with specific reference to the provisions so modified waived or amended. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 7 of 10 Exhibit B 28) Wetland Setbacks. A minimum of five feet shall be maintained between the northern pavement edge of the multi-use path and the wetland. The Final Plan application shall address the full width of the path improvement including the base materials and methods to protect the wetland during construction (i.e. sediment fencing). 29) Zoning Compliance. The Final Plan application shall include demonstration that the buildings in the R-1-3.5 zoning district (cottages and town homes) meet the required front yard for the R-1-3.5 zoning district. 30) Riasiw, TIhat Phase 1 and Phase 11 refer to specifie portions of the develeprnent, and the applicants shall havethe al.,;,,';,4LY, to CoRStRiet Phase pFejeet is built in a single phase, 2,11 lets (501 peFeel9t Of the total numbe,r of lets in Phase 1 and Phase 11) weuld need to meet the timetable Phase 1. if the pFejeet is built On phases, whichever phase is censtrueted terminus eut to HeIngan Street, and the Eenstruetien erezzi Street shall be completed aeEording to IE 11 -1 e Ua Ir o -A -I--- ( ;--1, "4;-- and aPPF&V'.-_.d the eenstruction of an Phasing That Phase I and Phase II refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase I or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Nevada Street.,, and the censt ue men of glans (iindmAin:ZU gb ap reed oFie~- --e~ - If completed in phases, Almeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to 'A street i 12' street a da ...hoeh `"dudes- include full- width paving, curbs and gutters on both sides (unless an alternative curb and gutter treatment on the Phase II side is approved by the Public Works Director), sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 8 of 10 Exhibit B street's remaining , sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining hp ase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase II according to the approved plans (including street signs, paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet 2 These temporary connections shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width to accommodate two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access. 31) Multi-Use Path & Nevada Street Sidewalk Timing. That the multi-use path and the sidewalk on Nevada Street, from Helman Street to Oak Street, shall be tied to the construction of Sander Way as part of Phase II, rather than as a part of Phase I. A revised plan (rep/acing Sheet R-I from December 1, 2006) shall be provided prior to pathway installation illustrating the proposed pathway installation and the redefined limits of the slope stabilization and associated re-vegetation and shall include the planting of additional trees both inside and outside the pathway corridor to be selected based on recommendations of Parks Department staff as to the number, type and placement. The multi-use pathway improvements shall be installed with Phase II of the development, but no later than five years following completion of the first phase. 32) That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan as identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (not to exceed 18 months) if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit from a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 9 of 10 Exhibit B 33) That the open space areas and associated common improvements between units #1-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the final unit in each cluster, and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase I, including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. Ordinance No. Exhibit B Page 10 of 10 Exhibit C REVISED EXHIBIT F TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT - OUTLINE PLAN PHYSICAL COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION [ORS 94.504(4)] This development will be constructed in phases as shown on Exhibit D to this Agreement. Phase I includes the R-1-3.5 portion of the project, twenty four cottage units, along with one single family lot. Phase II includes all other lots, the multi-use path, the sidewalk on the north side of Nevada, the Riparian Corridor and Wetland area. Phase I and Phase 11 may be constructed in any order or at the same time. If the project is constructed in two phases the completion of Almeda will be included in the first phase. Each phase to be constructed, and the date which Final Plan and Site Review and final plat approval of each phase must be obtained, are as follows: Physical commencement of construction of any phase of development shall occur on or before January 17, 2010. ''i 'i [Physical Commencement of Rice Park affordable housing project, a portion of Phase I, commenced on June 1, 2009. Completion of all infrastructure and vertical construction, except for single family units on individual platted lots, [4 total exempt from vertical construction deadline] shall occur no later than January 17, 2023. Phase Final Plan and Site Infrastructure Final Plat and Completion Review Approval Completion of Vertical Construction I July 17, 2009* July 17, 2020 January 17, 2022 *[Final Plan Approval was obtained on 01-06-09,for Rice Park, a portion of Phase 1] *[Final Plan Approval was obtained on 01-25-09 for the remainder of Phase 1] July 25, 2018: Final Civil Plan Approval (construction authorization) and any associated construction permits must be obtained and Contract for Installation and Maintenance of Plant Materials with Security submitted and executed, and construction commenced with respect to the first phase elements no later than specified. ,[Final Civil Plan Approval (construction authorization] for Rice Park, a portion of Phase 1, was obtained on May 5, 2009.] July 17, 2020. Complete extension of Almeda to Nevada Street as provided in Exhibit E. Condition 430, aeees,rte Doggy afk, including installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage power, gas, telephone Ordinance No. Exhibit C Page 1 of 3 Exhibit C and all utilities. July 17, 2020. Complete construction of subdivision infrastructure to the affordable housing site and complete extension of all needed public facilities to the affordable housing site. (to service 15 townhome units). July 17, 2020. Complete construction of "subdivision" Infrastructure for the first phase. July 17, 2020. Deadline for final survey to be signed after completion of subdivision infrastructure and before start of vertical construction for the first phase. July 17, 2011. i i Deadline to transfer property title to Affordable Housing Tract to Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) or other approved non-profit affordable housing developer. Transfer shall occur prior to vertical construction on any Phase of the project. f f The Affordable Housing Tract was transferred to RVCDC on December 09, 2008, upon approval of the early conveyance by the City Council on October 07, 2009. January 17, 2022. Vertical construction deadline for all of the first phase or 24 units (50 percent of the units in this project). Phase Final Plan and Site Infrastructure Final Plat and Completion Review Approval Completion of Vertical Construction II July 17, 2020 July 17, 2022 January 17, 2023 January 17, 2022.1$ Final Civil Plan Approval (construction authorization) and any associated construction permits must be obtained and Contract for Installation and Maintenance of Plant Materials with Security submitted and executed, and construction commenced with respect to the second phase elements within 18 months of Final Plan Approval, no later than specified. July 17, 2022. Complete construction of Ordinance No. Exhibit C Page 2 of 3 Exhibit C "subdivision" Infrastructure for the second phase including construction of Perozzi Street (formerly "Canine Wav") from Almeda to the Doa Park as provided in Exhibit E. Condition #30. July 17, 2022. Deadline for final survey to be signed after completion of subdivision infrastructure and before start of vertical construction for the second phase. January 17, 2023. Vertical construction deadline for the remainder of the units. Failure to strictly comply with this timetable of development requires an amendment to this Agreement and subjects the Owner to then current laws, including but not limited to engineering construction standards, contrary to the ordinary protection of ORS 92.040. The title transfer, physical commencement and the 2023 completion deadline shall not be administratively extended. After the construction termination date, no further development as authorized herein (except for building permits for single family units on individual platted lots) shall be allowed on the subject property unless such development is in compliance with applicable development regulations in effect at the time. Any amendment to the extent of the Amendment shall comply with the laws in effect at the time the amendment is sought. Failure of the timetable of development to list an element of the Project does not relieve or excuse the Owner from the requirement to complete that element. Ordinance No. Exhibit C Page') of') BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION July 14, 2015 IN THE MATTER OF PLANNING ACTION #2015-00825, A REQUEST TO ) MODIFY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE VERDE VILLAGE ) SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 87 WEST NEVADA ST., ) 811 HELMAN ST., AND 127 ALMEDA DR. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ) INCLUDE PARTITIONING THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE } APPROVED PHASING PLAN; ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINES FOR LOTS ) 4349 AND #15-#17; MODIFYING EXHIBIT E, CONDITION #30 OF THE ) APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE ) RECOMMENDATION CONSTRUCTION AND TIMING OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOTH } PEROZZI STREET AND ALMEDA DRIVE; AND ADDING TWO CONDITIONS ) (#32 and #33) TO EXHIBI`1'I E RELATING TO THE TIMING OF LANDSCAPING, ) IRRIGATION, AND OPEN SPACE IMPROVEMENT INSTALLATION. ) APPLICANT: URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR WILMA, L.L.C. ) RECITALS: 1 Tax lots 800, 1100 and 1400-1418 of Map 39 IF 04B are located at the intersection of Helman and Nevada Streets and are zoned Single Family Residential (R-1-3.5, R-1-5 and R-1-7.5). 2) The proposal involves a request for a modification of the previously approved Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Ahneda Dr. The proposed modifications include partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #3- 49 and 915417, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. The site plan and detailed application materials are on file at the Department of Connnunity Development. 3) The criteria for Final Plan subdivision approval or modification from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.3.9.040.13 as follows: Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 1 4 } b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. C, The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan. d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent, e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards, h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. is 4) The criteria for Site Design Review are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18,2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards, B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C, Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18,4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties, and approval of the exception is consistent with the 5 stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 2 minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. 5) The Planning Commission, following proper public notice, held a public hearing on June 9, 2015 at which time testimony was received and exhibits were presented. Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the requested modifications including partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for Lots #349 and 415417; modifying Exhibit E, Condition 430 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, and adding two additional conditions to Exhibit E dealing with the phasing of the installation of landscaping and irrigation (932) and open space improvements (433). Now, therefore, the Planning Commission of the City of Ashland finds, concludes and recommends as follows: i SECTION 1. EXHIBITS For the purposes of reference to these Findings, the attached index of exhibits, data, and testimony will be used. Staff Exhibits lettered with an "S" is Proponent's Exhibits, lettered with a "P" Opponent's Exhibits, lettered with an "O" Hearing Minutes, Notices, Miscellaneous Exhibits lettered with an "M" SEC'T'ION 2. CONCLUSORY FINDINGS 2.1 The Planning Commission finds that it has received all information necessary to make a decision based on the staff report, public hearing testimony and the exhibits received. 2.2 The Planning Cormmission finds that the proposal for modifications of the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision including: partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for Lots #3-99 and 915- #17; modifying Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, and adding two additional conditions to Exhibit E dealing with the phasing of the installation of PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA modifications Page 3 i landscaping and irrigation (#32) and open space improvements (#33); meets all applicable criteria for a modification of Final Plan approval described in Chapter 18.3.9.040.13 and for the approval of Site Design Review described in Chapter 18.5.2.050. The Planning Commission further finds that the originally adopted findings for the Verde Village Subdivision and the associated Development Agreement and its subsequent modifications shall remain in effect except as specifically modified herein. 2.3 The Planning Commission finds that that the Development Agreement requires it) 21.2 that, "Aniendntent... of this agreement shall he made by adoption of an Ordinance.... The procedures and requirements for amendinent... are the same as for approval of a Development Agreement, currently notice and hearing before the Planning Commission tis'ith a recommendation from the Planning Commission." 2.4 The Planning Commission finds that the first proposed modification involves partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan. The application materials provided explain that the proposed modification would legally separate the subdivision's two already- approved phases in order to obtain project financing for Phase 1, as illustrated on the application j Sheet #1 Minor Modification Plan. Phase i could then be sold to a third party whereas Phase II would remain under the original applicants' ownership. Once the initial partition plat is recorded, construction financing to complete the necessary utility infrastructure, including both public and private streets within Phase I would be installed. Once the public street's infrastructure is complete and prior to any vertical construction, the subdivision's Phase I plat would be recorded and house construction within Phase I could occur. The application emphasizes that the ultimate number of lots in the development does not increase or decrease with the proposal, and that the modification proposed simply allows the already approved phases to be separated so that they can be sold to obtain financing and develop each according to the approved Development Agreement. The application further notes that the proposed modification would correct an omission that occurred during the original platting of the Rice Park Townhomes from the larger subdivision. The application explains that Lot #25 is technically part of the Phase I area but when the northern portion of Almeda Drive was dedicated to the city, this parcel appears was separated. In reviewing the original treatment of Lot #25 in Planning Action #2008-01853, the Commission finds that Lot #25 was included in the Final Plan approval for Phase I of the subdivision which also included Site Review approval for the 24 cottages, and it appears that with dedication of the right-of-way for Almeda Drive and Perozzi Street to the city, Lot #25 inadvertently became a separate tax lot. However, condition #9j of the Phase I final plan approval made clear, The single family lot (Lot #25) in Phase I and all single family units in Phase II shall be included in the homeo- tmers' association and subject to all subdivision requirements." PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 4 The Planning Commission finds that there are no significant issues with the partitioning of the property to reflect the two approved phases and allow them to be sold to obtain financing and move the originally approved development forward. With regard to Lot 425, the Planning Commission finds that it is important to make clear that it is to remain part of Phase f, and to be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements as originally required in the final plan approval. 2.5 The Planning Commission finds that the application also requests to modify the property lines located at the side and rear of Lots #3-9 and #15-17, adjacent to the existing residences within the Quiet Village Subdivision. The application emphasizes that the landscaping plan and house footprints are to remain as is, however the yard areas around the cottages are proposed to become private landscaped yard areas. The application explains that the adjustment as proposed will not reduce the available land originally set aside as open space, which will remain unchanged. In addition, the application notes that due to the style of the subdivision with multiple integrated and shared amenities such as shared private sidewalks, open parking spaces, open common areas, shared garden beds, etc., the applicants are also requesting some flexibility with regard to the timing of each home's landscaping and irrigation installation in order to avoid damage and unnecessary expense. The applicants explain that in a typical subdivision where each unit abuts on a public street, construction can be staged from the street or the private lot and the home's landscaping, irrigation and sidewalks are installed prior to occupancy. However, as proposed here, staging and construction may need to occur from a shared conunon area that could damage landscaping and irrigation if the units were built at different times. The applicants are therefore asking that a new condition (#32) be added to the Development Agreement stating, "That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan cis identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor rnciy allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter° of credit fi-om a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled." The applicants also explain that they intend to complete the majority of the private street's infrastructure within the initial phase of construction, including the adjoining curbing, lighting and parking lot striping. However, some areas likely to be damaged by heavy equipment including private paths and some curbs are proposed to remain temporarily unfinished to allow for equipment access. The application indicates that prior to occupancy of 50 percent of the PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 5 units, 50 percent of the open space area shall be complete as approved and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase 1, including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. The application concludes that this proposed modification will not increase or decrease the number of parcels, alter the subdivision boundaries or change building locations, sizes or envelopes, and only involves adjustmetits to the lot lines for a portion of the lots to improve the homes' livability for future occupants. The Planning Commission finds no significant issues with allowing the requested adjustment of property lines for these units or the allowance for some flexibility in the timing of completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements to allow for the construction of adjacent units. However, the Commission finds that there needs to be a clearer correlation between the completion of the individual open space areas and the units surrounding them, and the Commission accordingly recommends that the applicants' proposal be modified somewhat to require that the open space areas and associated common improvements between units 41-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 be completed with the completion of each cluster of units. Language to this effect is reflected in recommended Condition #33 below. I 2.6 The Planning Commission finds that the existing Condition #30 reads as follows: 30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase 11 refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase 1, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase 11) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I. If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Heiman Street, and the construction of Perozzi Street (formerly `Canine Way') from Almeda Drive to the Dog Park. Both streets shall be completed according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any homes for C either phase. The Planning Commission further finds that the applicants propose that this condition be modified to read as follows: 30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase 11 refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase 11 prior to Phase 1, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase 11) would need to meet the timetable for Phase 1. If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Heiman Street., and the Gen tr cti of D Street (fo rly 'Ca ne Way') 4ern Almeda PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 6 Drive + th n Park. R +h 4 + shall h completed aGcer ding the appr e.l gutters, sidewalks and parkrew planting rstii:ips with curbs, plans (inrdudling paying, homes foreither phases If completed in phases, Almeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to a %2 street + 12' street j standard which includes paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the street's remaining paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase II according I' to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton ~I Engineering, Sheet 2. The application emphasizes that this modification would not alter the approval, but would instead clarify or address elements of real estate planning that are necessary to obtain real estate financing and provide a more logical infrastructure timeframe. If both streets were required to be completed with Phase I as currently conditioned, it would necessitate the installation of all necessary utility infrastructure for Phase II in the street corridor before completing the street improvements, and would burden the first phase financially to a degree that obtaining project financing could be difficult or impossible to obtain, compromising the ability to complete the subdivision. The Commission finds that the basis for the current Condition #30 was to insure both that city standard street improvements would be installed as approved and that paved access to the Rice Park affordable housing and Dog Park would be provided so that neither was in the position or relying on limited, temporary access measures should a second phase be delayed. The Commission further finds that a phased installation of street improvements is consistent with standards and in keeping with the original approval, however the description of a `half--street plus 12 feet' is somewhat confusing as a halt-street improvement has typically meant sidewalks, park rows, curbs, and gutters on one side, with at least 20 feet of paving. An additional 12 feet of paving would approach the originally approved full paved width of the street. Given the potential length of time provided in the Development Agreement for completion of the project, drainage and maintenance issues, and the need to accommodate required on-street parking and circulation for the subdivision, park and surrounding neighborhood, the Commission recommends that the improvement be the full paved width of the street, with curbs on both sides of Almeda Drive for its full extent (unless the Public Works Director will accept an alternative curb treatment on the Phase Il side) with sidewalks, parkrows and street trees to be completed on the other side with the second phase. Language to this effect has been added in the conditions PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 7 below, modifying the applicants' proposed language for Condition 430. The Commission similarly finds that the proposed paved driveway connection from the new installation of Almeda Drive to the current Dog Park access drive and the connection between this access and the Rice Park driveway to provide ingress, egress and emergency vehicle access address the underlying intent of the original condition. However, the Commission finds that the Municipal Code requires a width of at least 20 feet for driveways serving seven or more parking spaces to acconmmodate the potential for two-way traffic as well as emergency vehicle access, and the Commission has accordingly recommend that the paved width be increased to a minimum of 20 feet in the condition language below. i The Commission further finds that it is worth noting that the original land use approval included the original applicants being responsible for utilities which were connected through both phases and served adjacent properties as well, including the undergrouriding of an existing overhead three-phase electrical line which also feeds the city s wastewater treatment plant, and there is the potential that the infrastructure installation associated with Phase I may trigger some utility improvements which go beyond its boundaries. The applicants have been made aware of this issue and advised to coordinate with the utility providers. Final engineered utility plans were under review some time ago detailing the required infrastructure improvements, however these plans never received final approval before the development stalled, and the Commission accordingly recommends that revised engineered drawings clearly detailing the subdivision G improvements necessary and proposed phasing of their installation be resubmitted for final review. SECTION 3. RECOMMENDATION 3.1 Based on the record of the Public Hearing on this matter, the Planning Commission concludes that the application for modification of the Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision including partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan; adjusting the property lines for hots #349 and 415417; modifying Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, and adding two additional conditions to Exhibit E dealing with the phasing of the installation of landscaping and irrigation (932) and open space improvements (#33); has satisfied all relative substantive standards and criteria and is supported by evidence in the record. The Verde Village project envisioned a unique mix of housing types and energy conserving housing that Ashland has not seen before in a subdivision, and included connectivity improvements to better serve the now constructed affordable housing in Rice Park, the Dog Park, the Bear Creek Greenway and the surrounding community. The merits of the project remain years following its approval and it is unfortunate that the economic downturn of the "Great Recession" has jeopardized realization of the applicants' original vision for the development. The Commission has previously expressed support for modifications of the approved timetable of development to give the applicants as much opportunity as PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 8 allowed under city and state regulations to make the project happen, and are pleased that there is renewed interest in the project. The Commission is supportive of the modifications proposed, and would recommend that the Council approve the request with the following conditions: 1) All conditions of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) All conditions of the previous land use approvals and the approved Development Agreement and subsequently approved modifications shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that safe and free public access, and associated temporary public access easements, to the Dog Park and Bear Creels Greenway be maintained during development; and that the final engineered drawings detailing the installation and phasing of public utility and street, sidewalk and private drive improvements shall be approved prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or commencement of any construction. 3) The single-family zoned Lot #25 in Phase I shall be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements as required in the original Final Plan approval. 4) That the wording of the existing Condition 430 of the Development Agreement's "Revised Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" shall be modified to read as follows: Phasing. That Phase ! and Phase 11 refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase /I prior to Phase 1, or to construct both phases at the same time. if the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase i and Phase !1) would need to meet the timetable for Phase L If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Heiman J: Street. i~ approved P-ark. -a-nth Str-eets shall he completed Gwwrdiny to the appr-oved plans (includ* 4467 to "struction of „ homes { r either- ^'h^°^ if completed in phases, Almeda p4er to Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to a 9 s tree T _22' Street standord W.hi^ti r.,Oude-5 include full-width paving, curbs and gutters on both sides (unless i` an alternative curb and gutter treatment on the Phase 11 side is approved by the Public Works Director sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the street's remaining paving cur" ,...tt^r sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase 11 according to the approved plans (including street signs, paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet 2. These PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 9 3 i- temporary connections shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width to accommodate two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access. 5) That a new Condition #32 be added to the Development Agreement's "Revised Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" to read as follows: That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan as identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy (not to exceed 18 months) if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit from a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled. 6) That a new Condition #33 be added to the Development Agreement's "Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" to read as follows: i That the open space areas and associated common improvements between units #1-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the final unit in each cluster, and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase I, including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. Planning Commission Chair Date i PA 2015-00825 87 W. Nevada Street/Verde Village DA Modifications Page 10 CITY OF Planning Department, 51 Winbuttl Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520 IL-1 541-488-5305 Fax: 541-552-2050 www.ash[and.or.us TTY: 1-800-735-2900 ASHLAND PLANNING ACTION: 2015-00825 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 87 W Nevada, 811 Heiman & 127 Almeda Drive APPLICANT: Urban Development Services OWNER: Wilma LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for a modification of the previously approved Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Heiman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The proposed modifications include partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15-#17, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential & Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-3,5, R-1-5 and R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 04B; TAX LOTS: 800, 1100, 1400 and 1418 ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: June 9, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Ashland Civic Center 2015-00825 on J CE PAR PA VERDE VILLAGE SUBJECT PROPERTIES + /,1(87W. NEVADA ST., 811 HELMAN ST., 127ALMEDA DR.) ALMEDA DR Qtc4'% rl L F- 1 VERDE VILLAGE Y ~ r-- SUBDIVISION Q - I( _r - C_1 J { e. 3 L F _ [ ~ !7 h _W NEVADA ST E NEVADA ST 02040 80 Feet Notice is hereby given that a PUBLIC HEARING on the following request with respect to the ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE will be held before the ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION on meeting date shown above. The meeting will be at the ASHLAND CIVIC CENTER, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The ordinance criteria applicable to this application are attached to this notice. Oregon law states that failure to raise an objection concerning this application, either in person or by letter, or failure to provide sufficient specificity to afford the decision maker an opportunity to respond to the issue, precludes your right of appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) on that issue. Failure to specify which ordinance criterion the objection is based on also precludes your right of appeal to LUBA on that criterion. Failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow this Commission to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence relied upon by the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. A copy of the Staff Report will be available for inspection seven days prior to the hearing and will be provided at reasonable cost, if requested. All materials are available at the Ashland Planning Department, Community Development and Engineering Services, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, Oregon 97520. During the Public Hearing, the Chair shall allow testimony from the applicant and those in attendance concerning this request. The Chair shall have the right to limit the length of testimony and require that comments be restricted to the applicable criteria. Unless there is a continuance, if a participant so requests before the conclusion of the hearing, the record shall remain open for at least seven days after the hearing. In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at 541-488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. (28 CFR 35.102.-35.104 ADA Title I). If you have questions or comments concerning this request, please feel free to contact the Ashland Planning Division, 541-488-5305. G:leomm-de0planningTIanning Actians\Noticing FolderWailed Notices & Signs\2015TA-2015-00825.doc SITE DESIGN AND USE STANDARDS 18.5.2,050 Approval Criteria The following criteria shall be used to approve or deny an application: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards, B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18.4.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards. The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. OUTLINE PLAN APPROVAL 18.3.9.040.A.3 Approval Criteria for Outline Plan, The Planning Commission shall approve the outline plan when it finds all of the following criteria have been met. a. The development meets all applicable ordinance requirements of the City. b. Adequate key City facilities can be provided including water, sewer, paved access to and through the development, electricity, urban storm drainage, police and fire protection, and adequate transportation; and that the development will not cause a City facility to operate beyond capacity, c. The existing and natural features of the land; such as wetlands, floodplain corridors, ponds, large trees, rock outcroppings, etc., have been identified in the plan of the development and significant features have been included in the open space, common areas, and unbuildable areas. d. The development of the land will not prevent adjacent land from being developed for the uses shown in the Comprehensive Plan. e. There are adequate provisions for the maintenance of open space and common areas, if required or provided, and that if developments are done in phases that the early phases have the same or higher ratio of amenities as proposed in the entire project. f. The proposed density meets the base and bonus density standards established under this chapter, g. The development complies with the Street Standards. G \comm-dev\planningT1anning .Actions\Noticing FoWTVAailed Notices & Signs-\301 SPA-M 5-008?5. doc ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT June 9, 2015 PLANNING ACTION: 2015-00825 OWNERS Wilma, LLC APPLICANTS: Urban Development Services LOCATION: 87 West Nevada Street 811 Helman Street 127 Almeda Street (Mal) 39 1 E 04B, Tax Lots: 800, 1100, 1400 and 1418) ZONE DESIGNATION: R-1-3.5, R-1-5, R-1-7.5 COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential and Single-Family Residential ORDINANCE REFERENCE (see http://www.ashland.or.us/comdevdocs to view land use code on-line): 18.2 Zoning Regulations 18.3.9 Performance Standards Option 18.4.3 Parking, Access, and Circulation 18.4.5 Tree Preservation & Protection 18.4.6 Public Facilities 18.5.2 Site Design Review 18.5.3 Land Divisions & Property Line Adjustments 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Applications APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE ON: May 31, 2015 REQUEST: A request for a modification of the previously approved Verde Village Subdivision for the properties located at 87 West Nevada Street, 811 Helman Street and 127 Almeda Dr. The proposed modifications include partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to adjust the property lines for Lots #349 and #15417, and to modify Exhibit E, Condition 930 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and tinning of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant; WILMA/Urban Development Services Page 1 of 12 1. Relevant Facts n Background - History of Application Approved in December of 2007, the Verde Village Subdivision consisted of an 11.64 acre site comprising five parcels on the site of the old Ashland Greenhouses at 87 West Nevada and 811 Helman Streets and involved a number of approvals by the City of Ashland: o An Annexation, Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map changes from Jackson County Rural Residential (RR-5) to City of Ashland Single Family Residential (R-1) and Suburban Residential (R-1-3.5) o Outline Plan approval to develop the property as a 68-unit residential development o Site Review approval for multi family development o Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit to locate a multi-use path in the Ashland Creek Riparian Preservation Area. o Tree Removal Permit o Exceptions to the Street Standards to install a curbside sidewalk on one side of a proposed street, to not locate a street adjacent to natural features and to not connect two of the proposed streets. o Variances to reduce the on-street parking requirement from 78 to 38 spaces, to reduce the rear yard setback requirement for six of the townhomes in the northwestern corner of the site from 20 feet to 12, 14 and 16 feet, and to reduce the required distance between buildings for the 27 cottages in the southwestern corner of the site. o An Administrative Variance to the Site Design and Use Standards to have the primary orientation of the buildings to the south, rather than to the street, in order to maximize the use of solar energy. o A land exchange with the City of Ashland dedicating 2.78 acres adjacent to Ashland Creek to the city for parks purposes in exchange for approximately 1.54 acres of the Dog Park in the area of the access and to the south of the existing parking area. o A Development Agreement with the City of Ashland which governed the requirements for development of the subdivision to completion, including a detailed timeline. This development agreement was adopted by Ordinance #2945 on December 19, 2007. Subsequent to the 2007 approval, the original applicants dedicated property to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation to develop 15 affordable units as pail of the first phase of Verde Village to satisfy the affordability requirements of the annexation. Utilities and infrastructure, including a partial extension of Almeda Street, were completed to serve these units, which are now built and occupied as "Rice Park at Verde Village." The applicants obtained Final Plan and Site Review approval for the remainder of the Phase I, the multi-family cottage housing portion of the subdivision proposed for modifications here, in 2009. Prior to the installation of infrastructure or commencement of the remainder of the first phase of the development, the national economy suffered a major downturn which made it difficult for projects with approvals in place to obtain financing. Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 2 of 12 To date, the city has approved three timetable extensions in response to diffrieulties associated with the economy and availability of financing, and in 2014 approved requested modifications of the Development Agreement including: clarifications of the project phasing to make clear which improvements would be required with each phase and to allowing either phase to occur first; changing the energy efficiency requirements of the development so that all units will be constructed to at least Earth Advantage Gold standards and will be "Photovoltaic Ready"; and changing the landscaping requirements associated with construction of the multi-use path. Conditional Use Permit approval was granted in 2011 and renewed/extended in 2014 (PA 42011-01415 & PA 92014-00527) allowing a landscaping business to operate on the former Ashland Flower Shop & Greenhouses properties as a temporary/short-term use until construction of the approved Verde Village Subdivision occurs. There are no other planning actions of record for the subject properties. 2) Detailed Description of the Site and Proposal Site Description The parent pacels to the original subdivision are located on the north side of Nevada Street, west of the Ashland Creek corridor, near the terminus of Helman Street at Nevada Street. A driveway and rnulti-use path accessway serving the Dog Park and the Bear Creek Greenway north of the property bisects the subdivision. To the west, Almeda Drive abuts the western boundary of the site, with a short extension into the property providing access to the Rice Park affordable housing units. Ashland Creels, which runs along the eastern and northeaster boundary of the site, is identified as a Riparian Corridor in the adopted Water Resources map, and is considered a Riparian Preservation Creek in the Physical and Environmental Constraints Chapter (AMC 18.62) Flood Plain Corridor hands map. The site also contains two wetlands which were identified in the original subdivision application. The site includes a variety of slopes including relatively flat portions and steeper slopes adjacent to Ashland Creek. Generally, the site slopes downhill to the north and northeast. The adjacent properties to the south, west and north arc in the Ashland city limits. The properties to the south of the site, between the site boundary and Nevada St., are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-5). The properties to the west and north of the site are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1-7.5). Most of the property to the east of Ashland Creek is outside the Ashland city limits and Ashland UGB, and is zoned Jackson County EFU (Exclusive Farm Use). Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA/Urban Development Services Page 3 of 12 Current Proposal The current proposal requests to modify the original land use approval and the associated Development Agreement for the Verde Village Subdivision as follows: 1) Partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan. 2) Adjusting the property lines for Lots #349 and #15-417 3) Modifying Exhibit E, Condition #30 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. R Project Impact Procedurally speaking, the Development Agreement requires in 21.2 that, "Amendment... of this agreement shall be made by adoption of an Ordinance.... The procedures and requirements for amendment... are the same as for approval of a Development Agreement, currently notice and hearing before the Council tivith a recommendation from the Planning Commission." The current request is before the Planning Commission for a recommendation to Council. The Council will conduct a hearing to consider the first reading of the Ordinance at their regular meeting on July 21, 2015. Proposed Modifications - Partitioning the Property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan. The application materials provided explain that the proposed modification would legally separate the subdivision's two already-approved phases in order to obtain project financing for Phase I, as illustrated on the application Sheet #I Minor Modification Plan. Phase I could then be sold to a third party whereas Phase 11 would remain under the original applicants' ownership. Once the plot plan is recorded, construction financing to complete the necessary utility infrastructure, including both public and private streets within Phase I would be installed. Once the public street's infrastructure is complete and prior to any vertical construction, the subdivision's Phase I plat would be recorded and house construction within Phase I could occur. The application emphasizes that the ultimate number of lots in the development does not increase or decrease with the proposal, and that the modification proposed simply allows the already approved phases to be separated so that they can be sold to obtain financing and develop each according to the approved Development Agreement. The application further notes that the proposed modification would correct an omission that occurred during the original platting of the Rice Park Townhomes from the larger subdivision. The application explains that Lot #25 is technically part of the Phase I area but when the northern portion of Almeda Drive was dedicated to the city, this parcel appears was separated. In reviewing the original treatment of Lot #25 in Planning Action #2008-01853, it is clear that Lot 925 was included under the final plan approval for Phase I of the subdivision which also included Site Review approval for the 24 cottages, and it appears that with dedication of the right-of-way for Almeda Drive and Perozzi Street to the city, Lot 425 became a separate tax lot. Condition 119j of the Phase I final plan approval made Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 4 of 12 clear, The single family lot (Lot #25) in Phase I and all single family units in Phase II shall be included in the homeowners' association and subject to all subdivision requirements." A condition reiterating this requirement is recommended below. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Partitioning the Property - Staff sees no significant issues with allowing the partitioning to separate the two phases to allow them to be sold and to obtain financing to move the originally approved development forward. With regard to Lot #25, a condition has been recommended below to make clear that it is to remain part of Phase I, and to be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements as originally required in the final plan approval. - - Proposed Modifications - Adjusting Property Lines. The application requests to modify the property lines located at the side and rear of Lots #3-9 and #15-17, adjacent to the existing residences within the Quiet Village Subdivision. The application emphasizes that the landscaping plan and house footprints are to remain as is, however the yard areas around the cottages are proposed to become private landscaped yard areas. The application explains that the adjustment as proposed will not reduce the available land originally set aside as open space, which will remain unchanged. In addition, the application notes that due to the style of the subdivision with multiple integrated and shared amenities such as shared private sidewalks, open parking spaces, open common areas, shared garden beds, etc., the applicants are also requesting some flexibility with regard to the timing of each home's landscaping and irrigation installation in order to avoid damage and unnecessary expense. The applicants explain that in a typical subdivision where each unit abuts on a public street, construction can be staged from the street or the private lot and the home's landscaping, irrigation and sidewalks are installed prior to occupancy. However, as proposed here, staging and construction may need to occur from a shared common area that could damage landscaping and irrigation if the units were built at different times. The applicants are therefore asking that a new condition (#32) be added to the Development Agreement stating, "Thal prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan cis identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CI,-2 shall be installed for• that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit from a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor- At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled." The applicants also explain that they intend to complete the majority of the private street's infrastructure within the initial phase of construction, including the adjoining curbing, lighting and parking lot striping. However, some areas likely to be damaged by Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA/Urban Development Services Page 5 of 12 heavy equipment including private paths and some curbs are proposed to remain temporarily unfinished to allow for equipment access. The application indicates that prior to occupancy of 50 percent of the units, 50 percent of the open space area shall be complete as approved and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase 1, including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. The application concludes that this proposed modification will not increase or decrease the number of parcels, alter the subdivision boundaries or change building locations, sizes or envelopes, and only involves adjustments to the lot lines for a portion of the lots to improve the homes' livability for fixture occupants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adjusting Property Lines Staff sees no significant issues with allowing the requested adjustment of property lines for these units or the allowance for some flexibility in the timing of completion of landscaping and irrigation improvements to allow for the construction of adjacent units. However, staff does believe that there needs to be a clearer correlation between the completion of the individual open space areas and the units surrounding them, and would recommend that the applicants' request be somewhat modified to instead require that the open space areas and associated conunon improvements between units #1-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 be completed with the completion of each cluster of units. Language to this effect is included in a recommended Condition #33 below. Proposed Modifications - Modifying Exhibit E, Condition 00 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. The existing Condition #30 reads as follows: 30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase II refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase I, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I. If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Helman Street, and the construction of Perozzi Street (formerly 'Canine Way') from Almeda Drive to the Dog Park. Both streets shall be completed according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any homes for either phase. The applicants propose that it be modified to read: 30) Phasing. That Phase I and Phase II refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Reportldds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 6 of 12 II prior to Phase I, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I. If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Helman Street., and the constr-uc ii^n of Pero Street (fer-mer-ly 'Canine Way') from Allmeda Drive to the De-g Par(. Both streets shall be °_m lleted "^^"rd-ing to the appr,..,..1 plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parl(r-ew planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspeeted approved prior to the censtFuctien of any homes for either- phasL- If completed in phases, Almeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to a 1/2 street + 12' street standard which includes paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the street's remaining paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase II according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet 2. The application emphasizes that this modification would not alter the approval, but would instead clarify or address elements of real estate planning that are necessary to obtain real estate financing and provide a more logical infrastructure timeframe. The applicants have emphasized in conversations with staff that if both streets were required to be completed with the approved Phase I as currently conditioned, it would necessitate the installation of all necessary utility infrastructure for Phase II in the street corridor before completing the street improvements, and would burden the first phase financially to a degree that obtaining project financing would be difficult or impossible and would compromise the ability to complete the subdivision. STAFF IZECOMMENDATION: Exhibit E, Condition #30 - In staff's view, the basis for the current Condition #30 was to insure both that city standard street improvements would be installed as approved and that paved access to the Rice Park affordable housing and Dog Park would be provided so that neither was in the position or relying on limited, temporary access measures should a second phase be delayed. In staffs view, a phased installation of street improvements could be found to be consistent with standards and in keeping with the original approval, however the description of a `half-street plus 12 feet' is somewhat confusing as a half-street improvement has typically meant sidewalks, park rows, curbs, and gutters on one side, Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA/Urban Development Services Page 7 of 12 with at least 20 feet of paving. An additional 12 feet of paving would approach the originally approved frill paved width of the street. Given the potential length of time provided in the Development Agreement for completion of the project, drainage and maintenance issues, and the need to accommodate required on-street parking and circulation for the subdivision, park and surrounding neighborhood, staff believes that the improvement should be the full paved width of the street, with curbs on both sides of Almeda Drive for its full extent, with sidewalks, parkrows and street trees completed on the other side with the second phase. Language to this effect has been added in the conditions below, modifying the applicants' proposed language for Condition 430. Similarly, staff believes that the proposed paved driveway connection from the new installation of Almeda Drive to the current Dog Park access drive and the connection between this access and the Rice Park driveway to provide ingress, egress and emergency vehicle access addresses the underlying intent of the original condition. However, in staff's assessment the Municipal Code requires a width of at least 20 feet for driveways serving seven or more spaces to accommodate the potential for two-way traffic as well as emergency vehicle access, and staff have accordingly recommend that the paved width be increased to a minimum of 20 feet in the condition language below. Staff also believes it is worth noting that the original land use approval included the original applicants being responsible for utilities which were connected through both phases and served adjacent properties as well, including the undergrounding of an existing overhead three-phase electrical line which also feeds the city's wastewater treatment plant, and there is the potential that the infrastructure installation associated with Phase 1 may trigger some utility improvements which go beyond its boundaries. The applicants have been made aware of this issue and advised to coordinate with the utility providers. Final engineered utility plans were under review some time ago detailing the required infrastructure improvements, however these plans never received final approval before the development stalled, and staff have recommended a condition below to require that engineered drawings for final review be resubmitted which clearly detail the subdivision improvements necessary and proposed phasing of their installation. III. Procedural - Required Burden of Proof The criteria for Final Plan subdivision approval or modification from the Performance Standards Options Chapter are detailed in AMC 18.3.9.040.6 as follows: 5. Approval Criteria for Final Plan. Final Plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance with the Outline Plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan meets all of the following criteria. a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 8 of 12 b. The yard depths and distances between main buildings vary no more than ten percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established within this Ordinance. C. The open spaces vary no more than ten percent of that provided on the outline plan, d. The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten percent. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and the approved outline plan. f. That the additional standards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. h. Nothing in this section shall limit reduction in the number of dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. 6. Any substantial amendment to an approved Final Plan shall follow a Type I procedure in section 18.5.1.050 and be reviewed in accordance with the above criteria. The criteria for Site Design Review are detailed in AMC 18.5.2.050 as follows: A. Underlying Zone: The proposal complies with all of the applicable provisions of the underlying zone (part 18.2), including but not limited to: building and yard setbacks, lot area and dimensions, density and floor area, lot coverage, building height, building orientation, architecture, and other applicable standards, B. Overlay Zones: The proposal complies with applicable overlay zone requirements (part 18.3). C. Site Development and Design Standards: The proposal complies with the applicable Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4, except as provided by subsection E, below. D. City Facilities: The proposal complies with the applicable standards in section 18A.6 Public Facilities and that adequate capacity of City facilities for water, sewer, electricity, urban storm drainage, paved access to and throughout the property and adequate transportation can and will be provided to the subject property. E. Exception to the Site Development and Design Standards: The approval authority may approve exceptions to the Site Development and Design Standards of part 18.4 if the circumstances in either subsection 1 or 2, below, are found to exist. 1. There is a demonstrable difficulty meeting the specific requirements of the Site Development and Design Standards due to a unique or unusual aspect of an existing structure or the proposed use of a site; and approval of the exception will Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report 1 dds Applicant: wILMAIUrban Development Services Page 9 of 12 not substantially negatively impact adjacent properties; and approval of the exception is consistent with the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design; and the exception requested is the minimum which would alleviate the difficulty.; or 2. There is no demonstrable difficulty in meeting the specific requirements, but granting the exception will result in a design that equally or better achieves the stated purpose of the Site Development and Design Standards. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The Verde Village project envisioned a unique mix of housing types and energy conserving housing that Ashland has not seen before in a subdivision, and included connectivity improvements to better serve the now constructed affordable housing in Rice Park, the Dog Park, the Bear Creek Greenway and the surrounding community. In staff's view, the merits of the project remain years following its approval and it is unfortuncate that the economic downturn of the "Great Recession" has jeopardized realization of the applicants' original vision for the development. Staff has previously expressed support for modifications of the approved timetable of development to give the applicants as much opportunity as allowed under city and state regulations to make the project happen. Staff are pleased that there is renewed interest in the project, and supportive of the modifications requested here, including: 1) Partitioning the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan. 2) Adjusting the property lines for Lots #349 and #15417 3) Modifying Exhibit E, Condition 430 of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction and timing of street improvements for both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. Should the Planning Commission concur with staff and choose to forward favorable recommendations to Council for the requested modifications, staff would recommend that the following conditions be included with that recommendation: 1) All conditions of the applicant shall be conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein. 2) All conditions of the previous land use approvals and the approved Development Agreement and subsequently approved modifications shall remain conditions of approval unless otherwise specifically modified herein, including but not limited to the requirement that safe and free public access, and associated temporary public access casements, to the Dog Park and Bear Creek Greenway be maintained during development; and that the final engineered drawings detailing the installation and phasing of public utility and street, sidewalk and private drive improvements shall be approved prior to the issuance of an excavation permit or commencement of any construction. Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 10 of 12 3) The single-family zoned Lot #25 in Phase I shall be included in the homeowners' association and subject to the CC&R's and all subdivision requirements as required in the original Final Plan approval 4) That the wording of the existing Condition #30 of the Development Agreement's "Revised Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" shall be modified to read as follows: Phasing. That Phase I and Phase I1 refer to specific portions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase 1, or to construct both phases at the some time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase l and Phase 11) would need to meet the timetable for Phase L If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Helman Street., and the t t• f Per-ozzi Street 0 r r e Way; s.em nkne A Plans oncludi rbs, gutters, si-d-P14 Ii-71kS rind parkrow planting strips vWth hemes f fieeither ^hGse If completed in phases, Almeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to a ,4 street 1 rtrppt rtanda..d Which ;nr-111 +e~ include full-width paving, curbs and gutters on both sides, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side, with the street's remaining pwrW eurb ytte, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street from Almeda to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase Il according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any home. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and Rice Park Townhomes shall be completed in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet 2. These temporary connections shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width to accommodate two-way traffic and emergency vehicle access. 5) That a new Condition 932 be added to the Development Agreement's "Revised Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" to read as follows: That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan us identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. If a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit from a survey or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent units Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall be completed and Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled. Planning Action 2015-00825 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dos Applicant: WILMAiUrban Development Services Page 11 of 12 6) That a new Condition #33 be added to the Development Agreement's "Revised Exhibit E, Verde Village Special Conditions" to read as follows: That the open space areas and associated common improvements between units #1-3, units #4-13, and #14-20 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a final occupancy permit for the final unit in each cluster, and prior to completion of 100 percent of the units, 100 percent of the open spaces within Phase 1, including any remaining private walkways and curbs adjacent to the private street or elsewhere within the first phase of the development and any remaining land landscaping or irrigation will be completed. Planning Action 2014-00052 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report / dds Applicant: WILMA LLC Page 12 of 12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR WILMA, LLC (VERDE VILLAGE) FOR A PROPOSAL TO MODIFY THE VERDE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO PARTITION THE PROPERTY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED PHASING PLAN, TO MODIFY THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR LOTS 43 - 9 AND #15 -17, AND TO MODIFY CONDITION #30, EXHIBIT E, OF THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS AND TIMING OF BOTH PEROZZI STREET AND ALMEDA DRIVE. ~ j 7 47 Vol [lam t yL L 1 1 1 I }TV 44 ~L` Q`f I J ~ r ..1 + ~ i~ etc 9 .,f.,. }ti + S U MVI I II I ED TO CITY OF ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASHLAND, OREGON SUBMITTED BY URBAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC. 604 FAIR OAKS COURT ASHLAND, OR 97520 MAY 1"', 2015 1. PROJECT INFORMATION: PLANNING ACTION: The applicants are proposing a modification OF THE Verde Village Subdivision in order to partition the property to be consistent with the approved phasing plan, to modify the property boundaries for Lots #3 - 9 and #15 - 17, and to modify Condition #30, Exhibit E, of the approved Development Agreement as it relates to the construction improvements and timing of both Perozzi Street and Almeda Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 391E 04B Tax Lots 800, 1100, and 1400-1418 OWNERS: WILMA, LLC 744 Helman Street Ashland, OR 97520 APPLICANT/LAND USE PLANNING: Urban Development Services, LLC 604 Fair Oaks Court Ashland, OR 97520 Tel: 541.821.3752 SURVEYORS: LJ Friar & Associates 1585 Siskiyou Boulevard Medford, OR 97504 Tel: 541.772.2782 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Suburban Residential and Single Family Residential ZONING DESIGNATION: R-1-3.5 and R-1 ADJACENT ZONING/USE: WEST: R-1-5; Single Family - Residences EAST: R-1-5; Single Family Residential / Vacant SOUTH: R-1-5; Single Family - Residences NORTH: R-1-3.5; Suburban Residential - Rice Park Townhomes SUBJECT SITE: R-1-3.5; Suburban Residential / Vacant LOT AREA: Total Area: 8 acres APPLICABLE ORDINANCES: Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments 18.5.3 Modifications to Approved Planning Applications 18.5.6 2 II. FINDINGS OF FACT - GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The following information has been provided by the applicants to help the Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council and neighbors better understand the proposal. In addition, the required Findings of Fact have been provided to ensure the proposed project meets the applicable Criteria for Land Divisions, Adjustments and Modifications, specifically as it relates to the previously approved Planning Action 2014-00052. Proposal, Description & Findings: As noted, the applicants are proposing to the following entitlements: 1) Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments - Minor Amendment, (Partition to Match 00Y Council Approved Phasing Plan - AMC 18.5.3.020 F.): The proposed partition is intended to legally separate the subdivision's two already "approved" phases in order to obtain project financing for Phase I (refer to Minor Modification Plan, Sheet #1). Phase I will be sold to a third party whereas Phase II will remain in the ownership of the applicants. Once the plot plan is recorded, construction financing to complete the necessary utility infrastructure, including both "public" and "private" streets, within Phase I will be installed. Once the public street's infrastructure is complete and prior to any vertical house construction, the subdivision's Phase I plat will then be recorded and house construction within Phase I can then occur. It should also be noted the proposed Minor Modification Plan, Sheet #1, also corrects an omission that occurred during the original platting dividing the Rice Park Townhomes from the subject property. According to the project's Surveyor, Lot 425 is still technically part of the Phase I area although when the northern portion of Almeda Drive was dedicated to the City, it "appears" to have separated the parcel, but it was technically never separated. This is not too unusual, but the proposed modification plan will correct the omission. FINDINGS: AMC 18.5.3.020 F Minor Amendments. The follor-ving minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions are subject to Ministerial review in Chapter 18.5.1.040. Changes to an approved plan or condition of approval that do not meet the thresholds for a minor amendment, below, are subject to Chapter 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions. 1. A change that does increase the number oj'lots or parcels created by the subdivision. Applicants Response: The number of lots does not increase or decrease with the proposed modification. The modification simply allows the already approved phases, in accordance with the Development Agreement, adopted by Ordinance #3092, to be partitioned in order to legally separate ownership which in turn provides the opportunity to sell and develop Phase I and obtain financing for its improvements. 2. A change that does not enlarge the boundaries ofsubdivided or partitioned area. 3 Applicants Response: The modification does not enlarge the boundaries of the subdivision. 3. A change that does not alter the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land use. Applicants Response: The modification does not alter the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific use. As stated, the proposal simply allows the already approved phases to be partitioned in order to legally separate ownership which in turn provides the opportunity to sell and develop Phase I and obtain financing for its improvements. 4. A changes that makes only minor shifting of the established lines, location, or size of buildings or building envelopes, proposed public or private streets, pedestrian ways, utility casement, or parks and other public open spaces. Applicants Response: No changes are proposed that would alter a building's location, size or building envelope. Further, no adjustments are proposed that would alter the location of a public or private street, pedestrian way, utility easement, park or other public open space area. The request is intended to legally separate the phased areas. Note: According to the project's surveyor, Lot #25 is still technically part of the Phase I area although the northern portion of Almeda Drive appears to have separated the parcel when this section of Almeda Drive was dedicated to the City. As such, the proposed modification is also intended to correct this omission. 2) Land Divisions and Property Line Adjustments - Minor Amendment, Lot Line Adjustments & Clarification of Landscape Improvements (18.5.3.020 F.): The proposal includes a request to modify the property lines located at the side and rear of Lots #3 - 9 and #15 - 17 (adjacent to the existing residences within the Quiet Village Subdivision). In general, the landscaping plan and housing footprints will remain "as is", but private yard areas around the cottages will become private landscaped yard areas. The adjustment does not reduce the available land originally set aside as "open space" as that remains unchanged. Further, due to the style of the subdivision, with multiple integrated and shared amenities such as shared private sidewalks, open parking spaces, open common areas, shared garden beds, etc., the applicants are also requesting some flexibility as to the timing of each home's landscaping and irrigation installation in order to avoid damage and unnecessary expense. In typical subdivisions where each unit abuts the public street, a home's landscaping, irrigation and sidewalks are installed prior to issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy Permit, but because Verde Village was designed with various shared elements, and the possibility exists for Unit #8 to be constructed and sold prior to Unit #9, for example, the applicants are requesting a condition of approval be added to the amended Development Agreement that states: 32) That prior to issuance of 'a Certificate of Occupancy Permit for any particular unit, the landscaping and irrigation plan as identified in Exhibits CL-1 and CL-2 shall be installed for that particular unit. However, at the written request of the applicants, 4 the Staff Advisor may allow for a temporary Certificate of Occupancy if it is determined that particular unit's landscaping is likely to be damaged during construction of the adjacent unit. ff a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted by the Staff Advisor, the applicants shall post a Performance Guarantee bond issued by a surety authorized to do business in the State of Oregon, irrevocable letter of credit./rom a surety or financial institution acceptable to the City, cash, or other form of security acceptable by the Staff Advisor. At the time of the adjacent unit's Certificate of Occupancy, the landscaping and irrigation for the original unit shall he completed and the Performance Guarantee returned or cancelled. It should be clarified the applicants intend to install the majority of the private street's infrastructure within the initial phase of construction, including the adjoining curbing, lighting and parking lot striping. The only areas that will remain temporarily unfinished are those areas likely to be damaged by heavy equipment such as certain sidewalk paths and curbs to allow for heavy equipment access. Further, prior to occupancy of 50% of the 24 units within Phase I, 50% of the open space areas will be completed as designed prior to the last Certificate of Occupancy permit. 100% of the open spaces areas within Phase I, including all remaining private sidewalks and curbs adjacent to the private street or within the development and all remaining landscaping and irrigation details, will be completed at that time. FINDINGS: AMC 18.5.3.020 F. Minor Amendments. The following minor amendments to subdivisions and partitions are subject to Ministerial review in Chapter 18.5.1.040. Changes to an approved plan or condition of approval that do not meet the thresholds for a minor amendment, below, are subject to Chapter 18.5.6 Modifications to Approved Planning Actions. 1. A change that does increase the number of lots or parcels created by the subdivision. Applicants Response: The number of lots does not increase or decrease with the proposed modification. The changes proposed are only minor lot line adjustments to the approved property lines at the side and or rear of Lots #3 - 9 and #15 - 17 in order to improve the livability of the home's future occupants. 2. A change that does not enlarge the boundaries ofsubdivided or partitioned area. Applicants Response: The modification does not enlarge the boundaries of the subdivision. 3. A change that does not alter the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific land use. Applicants Response: The modification does not alter the general location or amount of land devoted to a specific use. The land reallocated via the lot line adjustments proposed herein remains the same as originally approved as the use of these areas was intended to 5 be landscaped yard area. Further, the land allocated to the residential open space areas remain the same as originally approved. 4. A changes that makes only minor shifting of the established lines, location, or size of buildings or building envelopes, proposed public or private streets, pedestrian ways, utility easement, or parks and other public open spaces. Applicants Response: No changes are proposed that would alter a building's location, size or building envelope. Further, no lot line adjustments are proposed that would alter the location of a public or private street, pedestrian way, utility easement, park or other public open space area. The request herein simply allows the future occupants of Lots 113 - 9 and #15 - 17 to have some private yards. 3) DevelopmentAgi•eementAmendnient (Exhibit & Condition #30: In accordance with AMC 18.5.6.030 C., the applicants are also requesting approval to modify Condition 430 of the approved Development Agreement, PA-2014-00052, as it relates to the construction and timing of certain street improvements within the subdivision in order for the application to proceed in an equitable manner. The proposed condition also includes language allowing for the temporary access to both the Dog Park and the Rice Park Townhomes until Phase 11 is completed. The existing and proposed condition is as follows: 30) Phasing: That Phase 1 and Phase II refer to specific potions of the development, and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase I, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I If the project is built in phases, whichever phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of Almeda Drive from its current terminus out to Helman Street, and the construction of Perozzi Street (formally Canine Yhay) from Almeda Drive to the Dog Park. Both Streets shall be completed according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parln•ow planting strips with street trees on both sides),, inspected and approved prior to the construction of any homes for either phase. The applicants propose modified wording that reads: 30) Phasing.- That Phase I and Phase II refer to specific potions of the development and the applicants shall have the ability to construct Phase II prior to Phase I, or to construct both phases at the same time. If the project is built in a single phase, 24 lots (50 percent of the total number of lots in Phase I and Phase II) would need to meet the timetable for Phase I. If the project is built in phases, whichever° phase is constructed first shall include: the construction of'Almeda Drive fr•on? its current terminus out to Helman Street. Ganhie "9 -ono 4'---da Drive to the Dog Park-. Both Streets shall be eoniplete > > itl t. t trees l.oth ides), inipeeted and appi completed in phases, 6 Alnzeda Drive shall be completed according to the approved plans, but allowed to be constructed to a % street + 12' street standard which includes paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on the phased side with the street's remaining paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips and street trees to be built with the remaining phase. Perozzi Street, from Alnreda Drive to the Dog Park, shall be constructed with Phase II according to the approved plans (including paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parkrow planting strips with street trees on both sides), inspected and approved prior to the construction of any homes. If Phase I is completed first, temporary street connections to both the Dog Park and the Rice Park Tonwhomes shall be completed as described in the Preliminary Layout, Thornton Engineering, Sheet "2" FINDINGS: In compliance with AMC 18.5.6.030 A.7., authorization of a request to modify a condition of approval for an approved Planning Action shall be approved based on the criteria found in AMC 18.5.6.030 C. #1 - 3, as follows: C. Major Modification Approval Criteria. 1. Major Modification applications are subject to the same approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that the scope of revietiv is limited to the modification request. For example, a request to modify a commercial development's parking lot shall require Site Design Reviela, only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access, circulation, etc. Applicant's Response: The Findings of Fact herein include responses to the original approval criteria when the subdivision was applied for (previously Land Use Ordinance, Ordinance #2097, included below, 18.88.030 B.S, Final Plan Criteria). 2. A modification adding or altering a conditional use, or requiring a variance, adininistrative variance, or exception may be subject to other ordinance requirements. Applicant's Response: The modifications proposed herein do not include a Conditional Use, Variance or Exception. 3. The approval authority shall approve, deny, or approve ivith conditions the application, based on written findings. Applicant's Response: The applicants believe the modifications herein do not alter the approval, but instead either clarifies or address elements of real estate planning that are necessary to obtain bank financing, provide a more logical infrastructure timeframe and a more livable living environment for a number of the subdivision's future residents. 18.88.030 B.5 Final Plan Criteria (original approval criteria): Final plan approval shall be granted upon finding of substantial conformance ivith the outline plan. Nothing in this provision shall limit reduction in the number of 7 dwelling units or increased open space provided that, if this is done for one phase, the number of dwelling units shall not be transferred to another phase, nor the open space reduced below that permitted in the outline plan. This substantial conformance provision is intended solely to facilitate the minor modifications from one planning step to another. Substantial conformance shall exist when comparison of the outline plan with the final plan shows that: a. The number of dwelling units vary no more than ten (10%) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall the number of units exceed those permitted in the outline plan. Applicant's Response: The number of units and lots remain the same as approved with the adopted Development Agreement, Planning Action 2014-00052, Ordinance #3092. b. The yard depths and distances bettiveen main buildings vary no more than ten (10016) percent of those shown on the approved outline plan, but in no case shall these distances be reduced below the minimum established 1,14thin this Title. Applicant's Response: The proposal herein does not modify the buildings' placements, but instead is modifying certain property lines to provide 10 of the 24 units' additional private yard areas for improved livability and increasing the opportunity for a fenced yard for children, pets, gardening and private outdoor recreational uses such as sunbathing or bar-b-queuing. Simply put the applicant's desire a small portion of the project's homes to be more traditional, similar to most homes found in Ashland in order to appeal to more consumers and better address market demands. The home's design, placement and their construction as an Earth Advantage, Gold Standard residence, will continue as planned and approved. c. The open spaces vary no more than ten (10%) percent of that provided on the outline plan. Applicant's Response: The subdivision's original open spaces are not proposed to be altered. The yard areas to be enclosed as illustrated on Exhibit CS-1 are not open spaces, but instead common yard area. The "open space" areas labeled on the site and landscaping plans are not proposed to be altered with this application. a' The building size does not exceed the building size shown on the outline plan by more than ten (10%) percent. Applicant's Response: No amendments are proposed to any of the subject buildings in Phase I by more than 10%. The applicants "may" desire to make minor adjustments in order to address a buyer's personal preference, but in no case will the square footage of a building exceed 10% nor will distances between buildings very more than 10% as required by Criterion 18. B.5(b) above. e. The building elevations and exterior materials are in conformance with the purpose and intent of this Title and the approved outline plan. 8 Applicant's Response: No proposed amendments to the building elevations are proposed at this time, but as noted, slight modifications may occur due to buyer preference. The applicants contend any modifications will remain consistent with the purpose and intent of the AMC 18.88.010 which reads: The panpose of this chapter is to alloit, an option for more flexible design than is permissible under the conventional zoning codes. The design should stress energy efficiency, architectural creativity, and innovation; use the natural features of the landscape to their greatest advanlage; provide a quality of life equal to or greater than that provided in developments built under the standard zoning codes; he aesthelically pleasing; provide for more efficient land use; and reduce the inapacl of development on the nala ral environment and aaeighborhood. f. That the additional slandards which resulted in the awarding of bonus points in the outline plan approval have been included in the final plan with substantial detail to ensure that the performance level committed to in the outline plan will be achieved. Applicant's Response: The proposed modifications do not alter any provisions related to density bonuses as approved under the Development Agreement, adopted by Ordinance #3092. g. The development complies with the Street Standards. Applicant's Response: The development complies with the adopted Street Standards. Partial street improvements are fairly common (Aleph Springs, Clear Creels Drive for example) where '/2 of the street (sidewalks, street trees, curbs, gutters and paving) plus an additional 12' of pavement allowing for two-way traffic to occur. As required, all improvements will be reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering and Public Works Department. Attachments: Site Photos - Minor Modification Plan, Survey, Sheet "1" LJ Friar & Associates Preliminary Layout, Almeda Drive & Temporary Access, Sheet "2" Thornton Engineering Cottage Site Plan, CS-1, KenCairn Landscape Architecture Planting Plan, CL-1, KenCairn Landscape Architecture Irrigation Plan, CL-2, KenCairn Landscape Architecture 9 Verde Village Subdivision May 1 st, 2015 Site Photos h t _ - rl L N Looking North from Nevada Street 1. ems-. r- # 'lei I s~ may' LU(1{,Iw_, !'IUI I{I ~ o \ 11 Tk4 f wl f f~ L 1 r rl z . ~,J " I a 1~, ' • ,t' ~ F Looking West (Rice Park Townhomes) sv .a. I S~ _ x'H` 3 x-~ ~ ifs %t jtl r ' n 44 ~I Looking West 16. q . ~ i f~ ~ • r ~.r=r d~ ; r x .r ry _ AL& iw 4 i Looking Southeast (from Almeda Street) 41 , f r, 41. ;J., - s n x- j ' ib III. I, ~n t ~ ! j } 'J Looking East (end of Almeda Street) iy r - s ai ice` y tY rc t L iR,. tiF~ - ~ - ~ c ~s ~ 3:= i f I tO, I~'._ X11. fQ2-••4{-'} k ~}5~ 0 ' I 8 O R 9 4 o yy y$ p} O kA d~ 6'~ ~ YC ~ ~ n II $ M~Orz@ 9 ~ a ss_ 33 ~ 5 (-S S2S5 q, g cd T di itqq F xahq tt5 M 5 _ ~ .~~0 Jtl iES r X ~ ~ yR~ ~C 1M Y M.csewxC ¢D 3~ ~ z ag ~s,° rc-oo~ M.zo.s~oos i s ~ o° n i zs.]o tl o~j+` s . - xis O ~ 6Bgll M Sl6Lf°5 n ~3 tY 7 ~ 6f £f mfS'O6 ~i O u~ o,m 81 , 1 mil ~89 ox~G°,nm93~~$e 2 88888°°°°8 Y8 d~' "~~Sm3m RT,m IIITm- g{~r~m~n3Y hJSJm R ~2•i"3~8 °~4UG~sc~GG~ ! 13 a; O } :E . v Q ^ zZ ~oz a'ZIJ >G~' w ZI.ry 4+ d ~sa3 J~s~p ~ ~o3a I I ~J c r / I\X / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a. - / I Lj ~I tt i ~nmvoser eater; y~ a NOD3N0'ONVIHSV r.asrm xuvwus i-- ~o o SWVMlAA 1?nVA ONH 0J 1210 QSIE 37d1-1 I 99 V771A .9GH-9A to ~'NDINNONl 36113A igro` e € N3_ SDOVilOO NV-id NOUVEM:0 V Z Q J FI 0 Ui z: < < oFS z z L ~ _ E', O -6 -6 4 - - 6 5 w< 2 2 w', o to c~ v G' Q a Q N o > > s ~I . 4.o 0o m o _ m m _ 0 mL M o m b° h 0 0 v° i N 2 a ALNIEDASTREET m Q ~j d 0 a a `o OU o, 0. v w N u a o p v. O = _ U ,c a ~ vp = c, `pN > N m m - 75 L2 U ~ U m ig p° ~j E Q / 1 :f l ` ti Y o -1; "Liv 1 I J I ~ _ ^sz i i rr i l , r O - - - 'f LL1 N rm,-j W - cO e } NO03HO'ONVIHSV rmvsn nirnrus . ~tt _ w ~o Y e SINVIIIIM IMVA ONV J32iJ I 1 = a 5 30V-771n 3083n une~nag! j` ~9Hia~i5N3a 30213 n= v NO1N8~N1 tios S3OVilOO NV'Id NOUVOI'MI 33C_~3A Q J 0 to H Q s~ Ft - e~ z J O Egaab s~ez~°~~o =`cVa~~sQ~~~c9 n. U O ~Q~ J p u E I mE 5 E€ J Oea>tncY ¢ u~~nceUtnJ _<nnw=U_~viVU m c RLNiCD,'1SII2F_LP 2 L C Z ~ ~ ~ r 2 1y= r E 5 ,i- . uaoh <ia~aMw.x~9~~~aaawv,tir i €8" c ` V rr ~ 1 .ng r 7-7 t ati % T ~ ~ I.r LLJ 2-1 - -k c 7 7 ,a aV, o u I e I~ a'N %2 Caa'. s` g~ ' a„& acs Ewa -7 7 ~sza r - I ~ u I If 1 l x:99 I i ! I I I I i I I I i I I I i I I ` I I I I I I I I I r I 3JV~1rn 3083n / OMI 3SVHdf i 3 r n oM13SVHd ~ oNrsnoH H-19voaoddv Navd 30*; \ 30Vllln 30a3n - I OMI 3sVHd`"~ ~ f N0032i0 'ONb'IHSV reesrm xxwus 'c:x x ,i..xo~ - ~e y~ F n~ SWVIIIIMRJIVA(INV03?JO - C'V pTjy 11 37111 ` w € 39VIII 1308-9A J "INI833NI9N3.a 3018 ' ' < v J NOINUGH1 'a nrvsC S30tl1100 - Ntlld NOI1tlORi2Jl odd - H - _ Q 2u }GE ~mE _ gcE Z o svF _ 2 w oz - - ❑ N - z - S~gx ~frv E $ Ye Q. Q ~0 ~O n x Ir \ m j Y~ \ - A~V~~ ALMEDA STREET 0113 ° a e e.o v - v J \ /f4 y~ II • olo ■ ► o o sal 1 x LLJ v Y ~ ~ Igo I _ • ~ ~ . ` i F / ^ I - I Ili m J s:- !i x - f 1 a I CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting City of Ashland Risk Management Update for FY 2013-15 FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director/Risk Manager, tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an update on the Risk Management Program of the City for FY 2013-15. The last report was presented to Council in March 2014. An internal report for the first half of the biennium is attached. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: City of Ashland's risk management efforts are collaborative and effective. The Administration, Administrative Services and Parks & Recreation departments staff the Risk Management Team and all city departments staff the Safety Committee with a like number of managers and non-managers. These committees are supported by a third party consultant who assists through training and research whenever and wherever necessary however, the responsibility for a safe work environment, levels and types of coverage rests with staff and the city. City of Ashland is a long term member of the CityCounty Insurance Services (CIS) program. A vast majority of government agencies in the state are also members of this association. Due to Ashland's length of participation in this program the City is one of three or four agencies that receives a discount for duration and the fact that it is not represented by an insurance agent of record. The discount allowed ($50,000 against premiums) continues to provide enough incentive to not hire an agent. This approach is taken into consideration each year at renewal time and the status quo remains advantageous. Thus, any year where claims cost less than $50,000 the city reaps the benefit. Costs over $50,000 are covered by the appropriate insurance package. However, should significant changes in coverage, rates or staffing occur, the city will need to re-evaluate the overall program. Recent trends have resulted in significant increases in premiums despite Ashland's successful risk management and safety programs. Factors contributing to increased premiums include: $$00,000 $500,000 Annual Premiums 1. Industry trends toward litigation $aoo,ooo 2. CIS Association's total claims $350,000 - - 3. The rising Oregon Tort Limit $300,000 4. Increased coverage as recommended szso,ooo - - $200,000 - - 5. Ashland's own asset value growth $1$0,000 - - - - 6. A greater exposure to risk as new or riskier $100,000 FY2013 Fr2014 fY2015 FY2016 activities are adopted by Ashland. Premium Premium Premium i-mium -.4-Total Premium Page 1 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND These six factors put pressure on the city to reevaluate the allocation of insurance costs to the various funds, departments and activities for fairness. Funding for the Insurance Fund comes primarily from two sources: 1. payments calculated on payroll for past, present and future injured workers claims, excess insurance premiums, management, services and other related costs, and 2. internal charges for all other (non-workers compensation) costs. The allocated costs in #2 are the ones that could shift based upon changes in operations and related risk. The table below shows the amounts budgeted in BN 2015-2017 that are consistent with prior years. Note that over half of the internal charges are paid by Public Works, primarily for enterprise activities. The largest amount relates to the Wastewater Fund and the related exposure when there are sewer line breaks or backups. The city experienced severe claims costs in the last ten years when dealing with hazardous waste cleanups ...a costly process that goes with the industry. 2013-15 Internal Charges by Department Fir Rescue, Two Years' Liability & Property Coverage $57,440 $ Equipment, $40,000 Police, $60,000 Electric, 70,000 Admin, HR, Legal, r $7,400 Parks & Rec, $95,00 Com Dev, $13,030 Other, $44,830 - Street, $106,000 Water, $84,540 Wastewater, $186,000 Public Works Admin, UAW " $40,000 Public Works - Other, $20,600 Liability & property coverage only, excludes WIC charges. Below is a comparison of recent coverage and costs by major product lines including liability, property and excess workers' compensation. As previous reports explained, CIS refunded to many agencies when member payments well surpassed claims experiences but that is not the case in the last four Page 2 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND years. Total costs drove significant premium increases in the last biennium as shown by the percentage increases at the bottom of the table. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SCHEDULE OF MAJOR INSURANCE IN FORCE Coverage Annual Aggregate/Each FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 Occurrence Premium Premium Premium Premium General Liability $ 15,000,000/ $ 5,000,000 $ 112,883 $ 144,253 $ 195,469 $ 211,293 Public Officials Liability $15,000,000/$5,000,000 Employment Practices $ 15,000,000/ $ 5,000,000 Automobile Liability 29,512 31,333 37,930 38,050 Scheduled Autos None / $ 5,000,000 Hired Autos/Non Owned None / $ 5,000,000 Uninsured Motorist None / $ 5,000,000 Auto Physical Damage 8,544 10,911 14,243 17,453 Scheduled Autos Per Filed Value Rented or Leased Per Filed Value Newly Acquired Autos Per Filed Value Property 67,666 79,649 82,367 93,562 Buildings Per Filed Value Mobile Equipment Per Filed Value Replacement Cost of Included Included Included Included Boiler and Machinery Machinery & Equipment above above above above not covered elsewhere Excess Crime Per Loss/ $250,000 1,166 1,195 1,195 1,195 Airport Liability $4,000,000/$4,000,000 2,325 2,441 2,441 2,441 Flood Contents 2015 is $62,700 1,073 1,217 1,276 1,276 Polution Liability $1,000,000/ $1,000,000 506 563 630 730 Workers' Compensation 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Self-Insured Bond Excess Workers' Compensation $1,000,000/ $1,000,000 31,005 55,906 66,743 66,743 Volunteer Accident Ins Per Filed Value 1,788 1,788 1,788 1,788 Total Premium $ 262,468 $ 335,256 $ 410,082 $ 440,531 Increase over prior year total premium 1.5% 27.7% 22.3% 7.4% Page 3 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Recent Claims It must be remembered that even with successful safety and risk management programs, claims happen on an irregular basis. The goal is to minimize occurrences and overall costs. The Workers' Compensation chart to the right Workers Compensation Funding indicates the City has been successful with this Total Payments by Departments in the recent past. The City's ERM (a measure $360,000 - - 1.20 j - - j of safe employees and operations where less s350,000 $340,000 1.10 than 1.00 is favorable) flattened in FY 2011 $330,000 1.00 and is now trending back to a .84 experience $320,000 - - 0.90 rating. This is enviable and indicative of the $310,000 F 0.80 $300,000 - ---j City's safety awareness program. $290,000 _ f- 0.70 $280,000 - --I 0.60 410.000 ,10'000 ~-10'009 F10.0,0 F100~1 F1001~ F~v0~3 F10.Q, --6-Total Paid - Per Payroll & ERM Experience Rating Modification (ERM) Departmental costs are based upon payroll amounts multiplied by the ERM. The chart shows that payroll costs lagged behind the ERM, peaked in FY 2014 at approximately $350,000 and are now trending down, following the ERM decrease. These two downward trends will provide relief (savings) to the personnel budgets of all departments. The prior report included information for comparing Ashland to other agencies in regards to liability and property loss claims. Those statistics are generated every five years so no new data is available. The prior table is still representative of departmental claims. CIS provided the following information in March 2015: Claims Information The following table contains 5 years of claims history and Loss Ratios by line of coverage from 2009- 2010 through 2013-2014. The overall loss ratio of 21% is lower than the target loss ratio of 30%. Line of Coverage (Years w/ Number of Losses Average Cost Percentage Loss Coverage) Claims per Claim of Losses Ratio Auto Liability (5 years) 29 $51,699.13 $1,782.73 15% 31% Auto Physical Damage (5 years) 5 $10,191.14 $2,038.23 3% 18% General Liability (5 years) 90 $280,599.79 $3,117.78 82% 29% Property (5 years) 1 $0.00 $0.00 0% 0% Overall Loss Ratio 125 $34,490.06 $2,739.92 100% 21% Page 4 of 6 ~r, CITY OF ASHLAND Percentage of Losses General Liability _ 81.93% Property 0.00% i'Auto Liability 15.10% Auto Physical Damage 2.98% Finally, reserves for the city-wide insurance program have been consistent with the amount suggested in the 1992 study that provided the foundation for the current approach. The ending fund balance has climbed and decreased over the last twelve years as money was temporarily set aside for other needs but the base amount has kept pace with inflation. Staff suggests that a significant amount be set aside for claims management purposes but operational budgets have been limited since 2008. The budget for 2015-2017 is consistent with prior years. The following chart presents these perspectives and activities in the Insurance Fund in the recent past. Insurance Fund Ending Fund Balance by Fiscal Year Actual to 1993 Recommended/Calculated Minimum & Staff Recommended Minimum $2,500,000 Increase/decrease represents PERS set aside budgeted for $2,000,000 -"-use_inBN2015-17- Increase due to revised $1,500,000 Decrease due to PERS & PERS savings. MAAlawsuit payout. $1,000,000 $500,000 ,yo°ti,yo°~,yo°~' ti(s) ,y(is ,y(V tiotiti ti(sti (S" ,y4V ,y611 4Sti Actual EFB -0-Calculated EFB Minimum Staff Recommended EFB Minmum Page 5 of 6 Ir, CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Accepting this report has no fiscal impact on the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff requests acceptance of the report. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: I move to accept the Risk Management report. ATTACHMENTS: FY 2013-14 Risk Management Report Update on Premium Trends memo - September 24, 2014 Page 6 of 6 r, City of Ashland Fisk Management Report FY 2012-2013 March 18, 2014 Risk Management Team Tina Gray, Human Resources Manager Don Robertson, Ashland Parks & Recreation Director Sharlene P. Stephens, Risk Management Specialist Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director/Risk Manager Safety Committee at June 30, 2013 Michael Ainsworth, IT Manager, Chair Rick Hackstock, Building Inspector Lori Ainsworth, Volunteer/Event Coord. Karl Johnson, Assistant Engineer Greg Case, EMS Division Chief Mike Morrison, Public Works Superintendent Linda Cowen, Police Clerk II Sharlene Stephens, Risk Mgmt Specialist Warren DiNapoli, Electric Dist. System Mgr Stu Wilkie, Maintenance/Safety Supervisor Tina Gray, Human Resources Manager 1 Index Brief Overview for FY 2012-2013 .........................................3 Introduction, Purpose, Mission & Vision ................................5 Values & History ............................................................6 The Program, Program Operations ....................................7 Program Budget & Recent Impacts ....................................8 Components of Coverage ................................................9 Program StrengthsM/eaknesses/Opportunities/Threats......... 10 Trends .........................................................................11 Goals, Steps& Action Steps ............................................12 Schedule of Major Insurance in Force ...............................14 Information on Claims, Funding & Costs 15-19 2 Brief Overview of 2012-2013 Risk Management efforts were successful in FY 2012-2013. Claims and costs were held to a minimum even though premiums have increased over the last few years. The recent total has just exceeded what was paid in FY 2008-2009 when purchased coverage was less. The City County Insurance Services (CIS), which covers 98% of all public entities in Oregon, recognized City of Ashland as a safety-progressive organization and this translates into lower premiums or reduced increases. Renewal of coverage was straight forward and staff did not encounter any significant problems with acquiring coverage through CIS, or from those who provide specific insurance programs not handled by CIS. In part, this is in recognition that Ashland's risk and safety programs are often used. as a model for other agencies and staff's good efforts are recognized both internally and externally. Despite Ashland's progressive work, future costs for coverage are on the rise. In February CIS forecast an average increase for FY 2014-2015 of 26% for most liability, and 10% for property and casualty coverage. Ashland's increases may be less due to our positive program but the increase for Ashland will not be known until this spring. CIS's justification for the increases relate to the rise in the tort limit on liability and property for government agencies and the rising trend in number and cost of employment claims. Again, Ashland has been able to minimize such claims and costs. Not ten years ago the liability limit was $300,000 for a single claim (larger for multiple complainants) and ORS 30.272 has steadily raised the limit over time. The limit was $600,000 in FY 2012-2013, is $633,300 in FY 2013-2014 and will be $666,700 for FY 2014- 2015. The trend in claims and other information reported by CIS for all of the pool are as follows: Comparison of Expected Claims in Rates to Fiscal Year Claims Expense 25,000,000 20,000,000 - - - 15,000,000 - - - - 10,000,000 ®Initial Estimate used for Funding -Audited Claims Expense at Fiscal Year-end 5,000,000 0 °A 6°' 61 o~ oti o'' o° o° o^ ti°oh tie ti°o~ ti°oo ti°o~ do°° 4 ti,,p ti,e e ti°°o tioyo tio1y tioy~ tioy~ 3 All Claim Types Police, 25% Stormand Sanitary Sewers, 12% Streets and Roads, 6% l Premises, 5% i Jails, 5% Employment, Water, 4% 41% All Other Losses, 2% Top 10 Employment Claim Types $5,019,037 $3,495,46` $1,578,585 $1,716,459 $1,728,831 $1,882,756 5795,628 $823,492 $946,344 $1 165,653 1 Q' P F~ ec sF P `o~ ~a ~o'~ \~e Cz`' Q i ~e'o E~ Se Fast Facts 41% General Liability claims that are Employment $37,000 Average cost of Non-Police Employment Claim $57,000 Average cost of Police Employment Claim $150,000 Average cost of Legal fees for a litigated employment claim Increases in premiums and claims costs will have a direct impact on internal charges to departments and funds to ensure the Insurance Services Fund has the resources to maintain this internal service program. 4 Introduction The City of Ashland, Oregon (COA) and the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC) are responsible for managing all risk and safety actions of the City to protect life and property from injury or loss, minimizing any impact through prevention, containment and insurance. This report is intended to provide information that will allow us to develop a better understanding of the risks faced by the City and help to identify measures that can be taken to mitigate those risks. Information in this report will help guide decision making and the future of the risk management program and insurance services fund. Purpose The City (COA and APRC) serves its community by providing a variety of services to its taxpayers, citizens and visitors through the management and staff. Through an established Risk Management Team that utilizes a strategic plan, we desire to focus our time, efforts and resources to positively impact liability exposures and to reduce injury, accident and property loss through effective policies, training and an adopted safety culture that is embraced by all City employees. The City's Risk Management Team is charged with planning, implementing and reviewing safety and insurance programs that are: Specific to the City's needs • Timely to meet the City's needs • Measurable for success Through this approach the Team can assist elected officials, appointed officials and departments to make informed decisions about what programs are offered and how they are managed, with the specific intent to minimize or avoid adverse impacts from risks within a given program provided or under consideration. Mission To promote a safe and productive work environment for staff that focuses on early identification of all risk exposures, prevention, training, and mitigation through progressive risk management. Vision Ashland is: o A productive, safe place to work. o A work environment that promotes positive morale, creative problem solving, and policy compliance. o A work environment that promotes pride in the team. o A work environment that promotes good communications, respects each team member and authority of position. 5 We Value o Our community, elected officials, staff and volunteers. o The delivery of quality services to our community through a well trained staff with adequate resources. o Responsible actions by employees to promote a safe and risk-free work environment. o An ongoing process to challenge and update policies and practices. o Regular quality communication across all levels of the City. Histo Ashland has provided municipal services since before its formal incorporation in 1874. As the population grew so did the services offered until the City provided more services than most communities with a similar population. Providing multiple and advanced services requires internal activities such as policy making, managing, financing, staffing and supporting the frontline service providers like public safety, utilities, parks, planning, etc. The City had an actuarial study done in 1992 that identified the benefits of being self-insured for some parts of operations and coverage to support the services provided. At that time it was determined the Hospital and Parks could also benefit greatly from a City-run program that adequately identified risk and provided means to insure or mitigate costs, benefitting all participants. The study identified the means of accomplishing these goals and the requirement for enough cash to meet foreseeable needs while generating savings over the conventional approach of indemnifying against loss. The Hospital saw benefit in pursuing services and coverage specific to them from other sources and eventually moved away from the program in 2003. The City (including Parks) has done well over the recent past by generating enough "good" years of savings to more than offset the "bad" years of more claims costs than average. However, claims have not always been small nor have they always been covered by the fund surplus. In 1993 a reserve of $250,000 was targeted by the Risk Financing Study (Janzen Associates) for contingent liabilities and that need has grown beyond $750,000. Staff believes a better minimum target is $1,000,000 to protect against the potential of several large losses occurring simultaneously such as the amount paid to settle the Mt. Ashland claim a few years ago that reduced the reserve by $300,000. That, combined with any other large claim, could reduce the balance below what was set for 1993. The fund reserve at the end of June 30, 2013, was $848,858 or $87,306 (11.5%) better than the prior year. Even though some potential claims have moved away from the City as the city-owned hospital became a separate entity and some volunteer programs have been eliminated or reduced, the City remains active in many more industries than the average municipality. A positive point is the City has been successful at minimizing related costs through a very active and aggressive risk management program and that has helped to maintain what reserves we have. In 1996 the City retained the retired Finance Director to work as Risk Manager on a part time basis. That position was eliminated in 1998. At that time the Legal 6 Department formally oversaw and managed claims, coordinating with Finance and other departments who did personnel related issues and annual renewals. Currently, workers compensation claims are managed by the Human Resources Manager and property, liability and subrogation claims are handled or coordinated by the Risk Management Specialist in Administrative Services. The Specialist also takes the lead role in the annual renewal of all policies, working closely with the incumbent risk management advisor, under the guidance of the Administrative Services/Finance Director (Risk Manager). The Finance Director/Risk Manager is responsible for the overall program, represents the City in negotiations on claims and settlements, manages coverage and levels of coverage, and budgets for the program. The Finance and Parks directors also assist with operational perspectives and management oversight of the various programs and services covered. The Program Risk management and safety happens throughout the organization. The majority of the benefit accrues to all funds with operations, staff and fixed assets but the primary place to look for long-term performance is the Insurance Services Fund. The Insurance Services Fund is where premiums, claim costs, direct staffing costs and support activities are budgeted and where long-term trends can be garnered from an overview perspective. The exceptions to the costing are the contributed efforts from all departments to staff both the RM Team and the Safety Committee and some minor costs that are best absorbed within a frontline department or fund budget. A key element of Ashland's success is the Safety Committee and work done by delegated members who take the time from their daily tasks to work on ensuring a safe and healthy environment for all employees. Even though the State of Oregon has requirements for all entities to have a safety committee, it takes the interest and dedication of appointed members to make ours so successful. Other communities and professionals in the municipal risk and insurance industry point to Ashland's program as a best practices program. Program Operations The study that was done in 1992 identified the need for a fund reserve large enough to protect against potential losses or costs above what can be predicted in any budget year. That need has grown due to legislative changes, increased activities and related costs in City operations. The Insurance Fund maintains a target amount intended to guard against such risks existing today and into the future. Out of the ordinary use of the reserve requires replenishment in the subsequent budget period or as soon after as possible to protect the City. Due to a long history of certain activities being self-insured (no insurance or high deductible insurance) the Team may use a Risk Management Advisor (RMA) to work on programs. No Agent of Record is used at this time. Third-Party Administrators (TPAs) are used for processing workers compensation claims but the Team maintains oversight responsibility. Claims are managed in several ways through TPAs, the CIS trust and staff. HR has direct oversight of the TPA managing WC claims and manages wellness programs in conjunction with the health care benefit provided by the City. The most recent RMA was obtained through an RFP process in 2008 and these services were extended by Council vote in 7 Property, casualty and liability claims are managed through internal staff (primarily the Risk Management Specialist with input from the Finance Director) and the trust/pool coverage purchased from City County Insurance Services (CIS). The RMA assists with evaluation and renewal of coverage from the trust with limited coverage being obtained from other sources. Without an insurance agent of record, aggressively bidding or pursuing coverage outside the trust is not an option. Workers compensation coverage, self insurance and catastrophic reinsurance are paid for through payroll rates similar to the experience modification approach used for traditional programs like SAIF and Liberty Northwest. The state rates our experience, assigning a value (Experience Modification Rating or EMR). The City's rating for FY 2012 was .96, considered a good rating. We have been notified it changed to .95 for FY 2012-2013 and FY 2013-2014. A value less than 1.00 indicates a beneficial program that saved the insured (the City) money by being better than the average entity. A rating above 1.00 indicates an above average risk experience and results in the insured paying a premium on coverage. The City participates in the state-wide City County Insurance Services (CIS) pool for most coverage other than Workers Compensation. The City obtains general liability, property and casualty and other coverage via the pool with a limited amount of coverage being purchased directly from other sources. Examples of these exceptions are municipal airport coverage, flood and earthquake coverage for certain infrastructure, etc. The City is a long-term CIS member and is grandfathered under a credit system for not using an Agent of Record. Only four agencies in the state receive that credit and there is pressure from CIS for the City to go to retroactive coverage. That change has a chance to save the City money if there are catastrophic losses over several years but the City's historical approach has already garnered average annual savings sufficient enough to remain unchanged. Even though a large part of the good experience may be by chance, the City's positive approach to safety contributes to the savings. This makes it hard to move away from the current plan of a high deductible and managing our own claims costs to an indemnity plan with retroactive coverage. The City will need to monitor this trend and consider changes in the future. Program Budget & Recent Impacts The Insurance Service Fund is an internal service fund whose primary revenue source is the allocated costs charged to the benefitting operational departments and appropriates to pay for primary expenses that include insurance premiums, direct claims costs, consultant charges and staff or overhead charges. The City maintains a set of schedules that identifies what costs can and should be charged to other funds and departments. This allocation plan should be reviewed on an annual basis with formal updates as frequently as can be accomplished. The FY 2012-2013 budget included $769,705 in revenue and $759,630 in expenditures (excluding $150,000 in Contingency) for an operational increase of $10,075. Actual results were $87,306 increase in reserves to $848,858. Not having to use any Contingency for large claims helped the fund but reserves are still low given the potential risks carried by the City 8 for all of the services provided. The 2013-2015 biennium budget anticipates a "slight reduction in reserves even if Contingency is not tapped either year for claims. Management of the risk program, claims and cost of coverage are intended to increase reserves over time, protecting the City from financial impacts of a loss or losses. In prior years the City was rewarded with significant discounts by CIS for managing its own program (not using an insurance agent of record) and for performance. Performance included developing the City program to meet best management practices, exceeding the average benchmark of pool members. In the last two years the discounts have dwindled but the City's cost of risk has been reduced by its own staff and their good efforts. The reduction in discounts on premiums has made it more difficult to balance the fund. Components of Coverage Ashland's risk management and insurance program addresses all activities and exposures of the City. Included in ongoing operations and coverage are workers compensation, general liability, automobile liability, auto physical damage, property coverage, boiler & machinery, excess crime, airport liability, flood coverage, volunteers accident and Underground Storage Tanks (UST) insurances. General information and disclosures on claims, coverage, policy limits and premiums can be found in the notes to the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) and the statistical section. An overview of coverage is as follows: 1. Workers compensation - Consistent with the 1992 Council directive the City is self- insured, paying actual cost of claims up to $450,000 for most employees. (The cap is $650,000 for Electric Department employees and $750,000 for Police and Fire). 2. Excess Workers compensation coverage - the City purchases reinsurance above the $450,000 standard coverage to protect against catastrophic loss for most employees and $650,000 for Electric Department employees and $750,000 for Police and Fire. 3. General liability - coverage protecting against general claims, commercial liability, public official acts, employment practices and other claims arising from normal municipal operations. 4. Automobile liability - coverage protecting the city from claims relating to the operation of various vehicles and pieces equipment by the city's departments. 5. Auto physical damage - coverage against significant loss on city vehicles. 6. Property coverage - coverage protecting the city against loss on other properties owned or held by the city. 7. Boiler & machinery - coverage against loss on equipment not specifically identified in one of the other areas. 8. Excess crime - protection against losses rising out of normal business operations. 9. Airport liability - coverage protecting the city against claims made toward the existence of the city's municipal airport. 10. Flood coverage - coverage providing protection against losses from the city's ownership and operation of a reservoir, treatment plant and other buildings in or near the watershed. 11. Volunteer accident coverage - secondary coverage for registered volunteers participating in scheduled, supervised & sponsored volunteer activity of the City. 12. Underground storage tank - coverage for pollution liability. 13. Others ad hoc coverage as needed such as Builder Risk insurance relating to construction of Fire Station #2. 9 Risk Management Program SWOT Ashland has done well when balancing resources and requirements thus it is not just luck that our premium and claims costs have remained in the acceptable range. Comparisons with other agencies affirm this when comparisons are viewed knowing the difference in services provided and the fact that Ashland is a college town and tourism destination. Strengths: These remain in effect. • Dedicated employees with a safety focus • Progressive ideas, planning, vision for safety • Cooperative, sharing, exchanging, collaboration • Effective use of limited resources Weaknesses: • Budgetary constraints (limited staffing, training, and programs) - the City is unique in that it dedicates staff to this program (some full time, many part time) and uses an advisor. The total amount that is thought to be less than that for an insurance agent of record. The City's activities are often used by CIS as a good example. • Policy development and enforcement (i.e. drug testing, inspections, standards for personal protection equipment, etc) - the City has made progress on policies however work constraints on those who participate in the program on a part time basis slows progress. Opportunities: • Best Practices may generate savings or grants to fund safety efforts - Ashland's premium costs (excluding discounts) have remained relatively flat in the past but are increasing as grant and discount funds become scarce. • Advances in technical equipment have and will support better communication during emergencies - reverse 911 and automated alerts are in place. • Policy development provides training opportunities - gathering staff for consistent, across-the-board training remains a challenge. • Enhance positive reinforcement system through incentives - this is done on a limited basis. There is the expectation that employees will always work safely, incentives help to spot-light those that are exceptional and to generally remind all employees. 10 Threats: • Increasing regulations and standards through mandates - a remaining potential • Inadequate staff time and budgets to expand training and participation - improved but a continuing balancing act. Trends The information in this report leads staff to believe the following: Workers compensation 1. Safety works. The RM program appears to be having a positive influence. 2. Fewer claims but claims are more expensive due to higher medical costs. Property/Casualty 1. High level of claim incidents for a small town due to many services provided. 2. Tourism adds to the number of claims for things like trips and falls. These perceived trends provide a positive perspective on City of Ashland's Risk Management program however, due to the many services provided and the cost of claims, an adequate reserve is necessary to guard against multiple claims occurring simultaneously. Insurance Fund Ending Fund Balance by Fiscal Year Actual to 1993 Recommended/Calculated Minimum & Staff Recommended Minimum $1,200,000 $1,000,000 A few good Increase due years...Iow $800,000 to revise Decrease claims internal charge due to PERS & PERS savings MAA law suit $600,000 - - payout.- - $ 400,000 $200,000 - ---r---r--,---r----,---i-°i 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 4-Actual EFB -*-Calculated EFB Minimum Staff Recommended EFB Minmum Providing sufficient coverage and managing such claims will force higher budgets in all departments as the related costs are allocated to all departments. The corresponding need for a larger reserve to help the City weather high cost years is even more important with these changes. 11 Goals & Steps 1. Maintain safe work environment. • Continue using trained, proactive Safety Committee & Risk Management Team. • Continue using consultants and advisors where effective. 2. Manage risk/insurance program effectively. • Continue using trained, proactive Safety Committee & Risk Management Team. • Continue using consultants and advisors where. effective. 3. Allocate premium and claims costs fairly. • Periodically review claims and premium costs and necessary coverage. • Update methodology for allocating internal charges. • Revise methodology as needed but no less than every third year. 4. Restore reserves to target level. • Annually allocate sufficient costs to funds & departments to cover projected cost. • Assess funds and departments responsible for reducing EFB in subsequent year. • Aggressively pursue restoration and subrogation to replace funds. 5. Develop/Document policies on risk management, claims accounting and budget. • Personnel policies manual as it relates to risk management. • General and specific policies that can be used for employee training. • Account for insurance and claims costs and allocate fairly to funds/departments. Action Steps Monitor and report risk management activities on a monthly basis to ensure continuous improvement and best practices by performing the following: • Analyze perceived exposures/risk areas, legislative changes relating to risk as identified and claims, accidents and near misses as they occur for cause and effect and potential corrective action(s). • Select and implement the appropriate risk management and safety processes that will support and enhance City operations and the safe delivery of services. • Identify city-wide and departmental scenarios which provide opportunities of growth in safe work practices that encourage the desired environment. • Document changes in coverage, costs, claims activity and industry standards that measure safe environments such as Experience Modification Ratings, premiums and reporting statistics from insurance providers. At the same time, the City is "grandfathered" in the current plan with CIS in the current property & liability plan. It credits the City 100% of the $50,000 dollar deductible. Ashland is one of the few left in this program. CIS has indicated a desire to end this program but, at this point, it will not make us change programs (such as to another funding approach) that may, or may not, be better for Ashland given our good history. The City does not employ an Insurance Agent of Record. Entities that do are charged a 10% commission. Ashland receives a 10% credit against premiums through CIS' underwriting. 12 Some of this credit is used to pay for risk management advisors that provide much the same service that an agent would. The team will continue to evaluate what is in the best interest of the City over the long haul. The table on the following page shows an increasing trend in overall premiums. Total premiums are 27.7% more in FY 2013 than in FY 2012 but only 9.7% more than FY 2009. During that time City/County Insurance Services refunded significant amounts in FY 2011 and FY 2012 to recognize the distribution on monies held in reserves for old claims closed at that point. These reductions help restore Ashland reserves during those years. Without such refunds the Insurance Fund will not be able to "grove" the reserve readily despite reduced premium costs from good experience. 13 CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SCHEDULE OF MAJOR INSURANCE IN FORCE Annual Aggregate/Each FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Coverage Occurrence Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium General Liability $15,000,000/ $ 5,000,000 $ 141,544 $ 125,858 $ 126,076 $ 113,727 $ 112,883 $ 144,253 Public Officials Liability $15,000,000/$5,000,000 Employment Practices $15,000,000/ $ 5,000,000 Automobile Liability 37,522 31,090 29,376 27,937 29,512 31,333 Scheduled Autos None / $ 5,000,000 Hired Autos/Non Owned None / $ 5,000,000 Uninsured Motorist None / $ 5,000,000 Auto Physical Damage 9,989 8,920 8,643 8,381 8,544 10,911 Scheduled Autos Per Filed Value Rented or Leased Per Filed Value Newly Acquired Autos Per Filed Value Property 77,615 78,928 69,745 70,257 67,666 79,649 Buildings Per Filed Value Mobile Equipment Per Filed Value Replacement Cost of Included Included Included Included Included Included Boiler and Machinery Machinery&Equipment above above above above above above not covered elsewhere Excess Crime Per Loss/ $250,000 930 934 1,166 1,166 1,166 1,195 Airport Liability $4,000,000/$4,000,000 5,189 4,650 4,650 4,650 2,325 2,441 Flood Contents 2014 is $59,700 848 848 931 977 1,073 1,217 Polution Liability $ 1,000,000/ $1,000,000 None None 461 498 506 563 Workers' Compensation 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Self-Insured Bond Ex cess W orke rs' Compensation $ 1,000,000/ $ 1,000,000 25,960 25,483 20,813 23,221 31,005 55,906 Volunteer Accident Ins Per Filed Value None 1,389 1,788 1,788 1,788 1,788 Total Premium $ 305,597 $ 284,100 $ 269,649 $ 258,602 $ 262,468 $ 335,256 Distribution Credits - CIS Refund $ - $ - $ (74,832) $ (84,006) $ - $ - Net cost $ 305,597 $ 284,100 $ 194,817 $ 174,596 $ 262,468 $ 335,256 As of March, 2014, City County Insurance Services indicates a potential 26% increase in premiums for all liability and 15% for Auto Physical Damage coverage in FY 2014-2015. 14 Information on Funding, Claims and Costs $400,000 Annual Premiums $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 - , $150,000 $100,000 - $50,000 - FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium -:~-Total Premium Net After Discounts Total claims activity over the last 10 years is shown below. It demonstrates improvement in number of claims filed and related cost for liability and property claims. Workers compensation claims are omitted. There were only four claims open from the last three fiscal years at June 30, 2013, and all other claims from 2010 and prior are considered closed. Number of Claims Filed Against the City and Cost by Year $180,000 - - -7 45 $160,000 I 40 $140,000 35 $120,000 30 $100,000 25 $80,000 20 $60,000 - 15 $40,000 10 $20,000 5 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 "-Cost Number Filed Note the trend of a good year, followed by a bad year, etc. in costs while number of claims is on a downward trend An outstanding (open) claim normally requires a reserve to be recognized as potential cost of settling. When settled, actual costs are recognized and related reserves are released. 15 Projected cost of a claim and the required reserve varies greatly based upon type, severity and potential expenses. This explains the deviations in the peaks and valleys of the line and columns on the chart. Even so, the chart demonstrates a consistent improvement over the last three years of claims and required reserves. Number of Claims by Quarter Compared to Designated Reserves N $250,000 20 E 1s 1s U 17 $200,000 1s 15 U) .iN.. 14 p 13 U L o $150,000 12 c N 11 C 7 10 w N d 9 3 N $100,000 a o 7 L s ~ 5 = $50,000 4 Z d f6 3 C 2 N d 1 $ 0 Qee 4 bvp Oat bad 5e~ fee 4 sl' gel IQee 40, YP 1~eQ 1 e° 1 a0 YP~ SFR =Reserve Balances # of Claims The elevated reserves in March 2012 include the claim filed against the City for allowing gun club operations (approximately 50% of the reserved amount) and a tourist claim filed when they tripped and fell on the sidewalk (about 25% of the reserved amount). The continued "high level of reserves" includes the $122,283 reserve from the gun club claim. Claims happen in the course of providing services. The City's goal is to reduce frequency and severity to protect life and property and to minimize the cost of coverage and operations. Since negative trends in frequency and severity drive up the cost of coverage and can reduce funds available for other goals, maintaining a safe community and work environment is good stewardship. The following chart shows summary information on major claims by category for the last 10 years (excluding 2013).. Employee injuries (workers compensation claims) are excluded. The reader can see that the largest category in claims with 26 costing $243,503 is Sewer 16 Backups but averaging less than $10,000 per claim. The smallest category depicted is a single claim for $25,000 relating to administrative action. MOST EXPENSIVE CLAIMS BY TYPE OVER LAST 10 YEARS Police Actions (3 Claims), $40,222 Vehicle Accidents Ice-Rink Related (2 I x(51 Claims), $90,535 Claims), $83,994 Tortuous Interference w/Person's Economic Relations " (1 Claim) $25,000 Sidewalk/Trip & Falls \-Sewer Backups (26 (8 Claims), $120,407 Claims), $243,503 The City tracks claims, frequency, cost and potential for loss for departments in an attempt to fairly allocate the cost of risk management to the various operations. It makes sense to recognize this cost in the various departments and programs to better budget and report the cost of doing business. Allocations are not simple due to the complexities of operations, risk and exposure to claims and costs. 2013 Internal Charges by Department Fire &Rescue, for Liability& Property Coverage-$404,705 $28,720 Equipment, $20,000 'Police, $30,000 t: dmin,HR, Legal, Electric, 35,000 . D $3,200 :mar Parks & Rec, $50,00 Com Dev, $6,515 Ile Other, $22,415 - - Street, $53,000 I~TbN k`lG;$j2A00'-? roc~ly'~5!;a~Y r Water, $42,270 zix'4.i;y Wastewater, $93,000 r Public Works Admin, ~45,Ofh $20,000 I Public Works - Other, $10,300 Liability& property coverage only, excludes W/Ccharges. The Insurance Fund also accounts for injured worker claims and costs. Departments pay into the fund based upon the amount of payroll for its employees and the type of work they do using established industry experience ratings for occupational exposure. For example, .the 17 rate for an administrative office worker is a fraction of the rating for an electric department lineman. Below is the annual total paid by departments into the Insurance Fund. The amount paid by a department is the sum of the respective total pay for each employee multiplied by class of employee (police officer, firefighter, clerk etc.) by the Experience Modification Rating for the City. An example of the math is: $2,000 in wages TIMES $.75/$1000 hazard rating for type of work TIMES .95 (EMR) _ $1.425 per month for an employee: Workers Compensation Funding Total Payments by Departments $350,000 1.20 $340,000 1.10 $330,000 - - 1.00 $320,000 - 0.90 00, $310,000 ' $300,000 0.80 $290,000 0.70 $280,000 0.60 ~b ~o y0 y1 ~L '3 F,~o~~ Fk~oo$ Fy~oo9 Fy~oyo F,~oyy Fy -C-Total Paid - Per Payroll & EMR Experience Modification Rating (EMR) Recent claims and costs are: Number of Workers Compensation Claims by Fiscal Year Compared to Net Costs Incurred $400,000 ID0 N 95 r y $350,000 B0 85 O 80 v $300,000 75 0 70 N U fi5 U $250,000 60 O O 5 N U $200,000 50 E Z 45 Z $150,000 40 35 30 $100,000 25 zo u $50,000 10 5 o 00' A' Aa 05 A6 A~ 0$ A9 ~0' O~~' O~ry O~,y ~~A O~~ 0~6 ~~9 01p 0~1• a~ry• y'L y1 y1 y1 1'1' yry y1 yry try yti yti y1 F F F F F F F F F F F F ®NetCosts -#ofClaims 1S Number of Workers Compensation Claims by Year & Type 90 80 70 J 60 so - V\4 40 30 17 _ 14 11 10 17 20 - 10 0 Off, O3 OA 0h 06 O'r 04 00 SO by titi 13 00'Y 00'L 003 00A 006 006 00'l 006 009 O10 03'1 O~v FJ1 F,ti FJ1 Fyti F~ti F,ti FJti F,ti F~ti Fy'L F.,'L Fyti !TimeLosslnvolved El Medical Only Payments on claims may occur in subsequent years so a table showing incurred verses current expenses is helpful. Workers Compensation Claims Costs $400,000 - $350,000 - t $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 tl - $100,000 - $50,000 O0' 03 OA A`' 00 ,0~ Oa .09 ,10 .1~' '1'1' .'Sg OOy 001 003 00A 00S Fyti Fyn Fyn Fyti Fyti Fyti 006 Fyn 001 004 009 010 0~~, 0~~ F~ti Fyti Fyn F~~ Fyti El Netincurred ®Paid The Risk Management team will continue to evaluate payments by departments and related claims, whether they are employee injuries or liability/property claims. The City will address changes needed in each budget process. Additional information is available upon request. 19 CITY OF -ASH LAN D Memo DATE: September 24, 2014 TO: Dave Kanner, City Administrator CC: Sharlene Stephens, Tina Gray, Michael Black FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director-Risk Manager DEPT: Administrative Services SUBJECT: Update on premium trends We have received all of the premiums for FY 2015 coverage. The increase is quite large despite the great effort staff makes and the good reputation we have in the industry. Representatives of CityCounty Insurance Services (CIS) and our risk management advisor are not happy with these costs either but tell us this is the trend in the industry and part of being in a pool. Such industry trends will eventually force the city to consider alternatives to remaining in the pool that covers approximately 95% of the government agencies in the state of Oregon. The table below is a summary of the amounts paid for four years. The total for this year (FY 15) has increased about 23% more than in the previous year. CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON SUMMARY OF MAJOR INSURANCE IN FORCE General Liability $ 113,727 $ 112,883 $ 144,253 $ 195,469 Auto Liability 27,937 29,512 31,333 37,930 Auto Physical Damage 8,381 8,544 10,911 14,243 Property 70,257 67,666 79,649 82,367 Excess WC 23,221 31,005 55,906 66,743 Airport Liability 4,650 2,325 2,441 2,441 Flood 977 1,073 1,217 1,276 Polution Liability 498 506 563 630 WC Self-Insured Bond 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Excess Crime 1,166 1,166 1,195 1,195 Volunteer Accident Ins 1,788 1,788 1,788 1,788 Total Premium $ 258,602 $ 262,468 $ 335,256 $ 410,082, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541-488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo The first chart shows graphically that the largest increases over the last few years are general liability and excess workers compensation coverage. Again, this is not representative of Ashland's performance but that of the pool. Our staff has worked hard to minimize both categories of coverage. We are in a trend of not using all of the $50,000 deductible for liability and our current Workers Compensation (WC) experience rating modification (ERM) is .84. Anything less than 1.00 means the organization has a good history for injury claims and deserves a discount. We are receiving a discount for being 16 points below even risk/claims experience. 1 $250,000 TRENDOF MA1 R IN AN E PREMIU FY 2012 through FY 2015 $200,000 . I $150,000 I $100,000 $50,000 J FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 General Liability ■Auto Liability [Auto Physical Damage Property ri Excess WC trAir portLi abiIi ty Flood Polution Liability WC Self-Insu red Bond Excess Crime Volunteer Accident Ins Both automobile liability and damage, property and most of the minor areas of coverage are increasing but not as quickly or with the level of impact as major liability packages. The following chart helps you appreciate where our premium dollars go for FY 2015. About half is for general liability things inherent to operations including management practices, personnel actions, utility services and disruptions, trips and falls, etc. Coverage for property losses accounts for 20%. Liability for claims arising from vehicle use and physical damage are 14% combined. Excess WC coverage is ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541-488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Memo 16%. It covers the city costs that go beyond our annual. The remaining premium costs account for only 3% of the total. Property FY 15 Auto Physical 20% Damage Airport Liability 4% ~ 1% Flood 0% 1XCMWC Polution Auto Liabili Liability 9% - Other WC Self- 00/ 3% Insured Bond 2% Excess Crime 0% Volunteer Accident Ins 0% Please remember that, if it were not for the good work of the City's Safety Committee and Risk Management Team, these costs would surely be greater. These increases are sizeable but still within the amounts budgeted. The final table shows a history of total premiums and the benefit the City received from the pool just a few years ago when the pool was doing better and discounts were given to the city. $400,000 Annual Premiums $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 - FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium Premium -2-Total Premium -M-Net After Discounts ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L. Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541-488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Report on City of Ashland's Sweatfree Purchasing Policy, Program and Participation in the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Department, tuneberl(,asland.or.us SUMMARY This is an update on purchasing activities and practices relating to uniforms and apparel and the City's cooperative efforts with other agencies as part of the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium (SPQ that fall within the guidelines and directions provided by Resolution 2008-45 and Administrative Policy 09- 2623. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City adopted Resolution No. 2008-45 for a Sweatshop Free Procurement Policy on December 16, 2008, and an administrative policy supporting the resolution on June 16, 2009. Both documents are intended to provide support to state and local governments in their fight against poor working conditions and hostile work environments around the world through collaboration and leveraged purchasing power to make changes, especially in the garment industry. City of Ashland continues to spend, comparatively speaking, very little on uniforms. Annually, less than $110,000 is budgeted for uniforms, shoes and protective clothing. Most of the purchases are through established suppliers offering written statements attesting that they meet specifications for uniformity or requirements for safety. Many city purchases are done to meet industry standards and sometimes labor contract requirements. Routinely, the purchases are made by the individual who will wear them so the city may not actively participate in the actual selection and purchase, only reimburse the employee when the purchase falls within the departmental guidelines. Such small purchases are exempted from the city policy but the department is encouraged to follow the resolution and policy when providing guidance to the employee. Purchasing staff adheres to the policy when coordinating any larger purchase. Operational efforts: The policy includes five points to show compliance in the program. Generally speaking, they are to: A. require documentation from the vendor identifying production location; B. require a statement from the supplier of adherence to sweat free standards; C. require correction of violations when they are identified; D. give preference to those suppliers who readily provide proof that their product meets requirements; E. document information to support purchasing decisions within guidelines of the policy. Page I of 3 1L, CITY OF -AS H LAN D Ashland is a very small municipality buying a relatively small amount of garments and has limited funds to ensure compliance. Staff does work at reasonably meeting all items, especially B, D and E on purchases that fit within the program. City participation in the SPC is an attempt to accomplish other elements of the policy indirectly by supporting other small agencies and even larger ones. Ensuring compliance is not easy or automatic regardless of the size of agency. Sand Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland and Madison Wisconsin have common problems with their suppliers and often have insufficient resources to fully comply from the bid through monitoring the factory where items are made or assembled. SPC's coordination of efforts and sharing of information provides support to all, but larger agencies must take the lead. City of Madison took the lead in 2014 and 2015. It established an open process that included obtaining documentation from the manufacturer during the bid process to facilitate monitoring of work conditions where uniforms are made. Other large agencies will be able to benefit from such information. City of Ashland may see indirect benefit from the efforts of Madison as we can now review individual item pricing for common purchases on a small scale yet have some better assurance that uniforms staff wears comply with the high standards set by resolution 2008-35. During the year SPC coordinated seminars, meetings, conference calls and webinars helping government agencies to connect with labor protection groups and to coordinate efforts to ensure Sweatfree purchasing. SPC also reached out to other industries such as the European association Electronic Watch. The consortium maintained its focus on the garment industry for the short term but recognizes that there are other industries that experience the same problems with work environments. Finally, this effort is one of awareness of working conditions and employee rights violations over the short term and improvement of conditions over the long term. The increased interest and number of participating jurisdictions is growing and beginning to generate positive influence on manufacturers through cooperative efforts, buying power and onsite inspections. The end result will be better working conditions for employees brought about by the leveraged purchasing power and awareness nationally. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Administration and Governance Goal Objective 47. Keep the council informed of organizational activity and provide timely information for Council decision-making. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Hard costs of participation in the consortium have been limited to $1000 annually. Staff supportis limited to time (no travel costs have been realized to date) and effort to raise awareness in other departments and work toward sufficient documentation to adhere to the policy guidelines. Information garnered from the consortium is likely to help contain such costs in the future. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends continued participation in the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept this report and approve continued participation in the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium Program through staff participation and authorize dues and fees not to exceed $1000 per year. Page 2 of 3 11FAIR CITY OF -ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 2008-45 Sweatshop Free Procurement Policy Administrative Policy 09-06.01 Sweatshop Free Procurement per Resolution 2008-45 Page 3 of 3 11FAX&, RESOLUTION NO. 2008-4-S- A RESOLUTION FOR A SWEATSHOP FREE PROCUREMENT POLICY Recitals: A. The City spends approximately, $85,000 annually in public funds on uniforms and clothing. B. Some vendors of uniforms and clothing obtain clothing through their supply chain from contractors that utilize sweatshop labor. C. "Sweatshop Labor" means serious and repeated violations of laws of the jurisdiction where the work is performed or violations of core labor rights as defined by the International Labor Organization pertaining to non-poverty wages; employee benefits; health and safety, including exposure to hazardous toxic substances; labor, including collective bargaining rights; environmental conditions; nondiscrimination, harassment or retaliation, including laws prohibiting workplace and employment discrimination; freedom of association, and building and fire codes. In addition, it includes work performed by any person under a contract or subcontract that constitutes foreign convict or forced labor or abusive forms of child labor or slave labor. D. Contractors who engage in such serious and repeated violations are not "responsible" contractors as defined by ORS 279C.375(3) because such contractors do not have a satisfactory record of performance or a satisfactory record of integrity. E. The City does not wish to purchase goods and services that depend on sweatshop conditions that deprive people of their legal rights and dignity. F. The City Council wishes to ensure that the firms it contracts with to provide uniforms and clothing act with integrity and follow applicable local laws of the country of production and International Labor Organization standards, and that other subcontractors in the uniform and clothing supply chain also act with integrity and follow the local labor laws and International Labor Organization standards (hereafter referenced as "Sweat Free Procurement"). G. The City Council wishes to ensure the integrity of its procurement process by not using contractors or subcontractors who engage in Sweatshop Labor practices. Such practices place responsible contractors at a competitive disadvantage and dissuade them from doing business with the City. H. By adopting this resolution, the City Council does not preclude the City or its contractors or subcontractors from doing business with any foreign country. 1. Sweat Free procurement is a form of ethical purchasing. J. There is a proposed State and Local Government Sweatfree Consortium that would investigate and address working conditions of uniform and clothing suppliers' factories through worker outreach and education, independent monitoring of working conditions, and Page 1 of 2 by leveraging buying power on behalf of government entities affiliated with the Consortium. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council wishes to create and implement a detailed Sweat Free Uniform and Clothing Procurement Policy. SECTION 2. City staff will develop a policy for City Council approval within six months. SECTION 3. The City supports the creation of the State and local Government Sweat Free Consortium to collaborate with other public agencies to share information and cost of independent monitoring of working conditions in supplier factories. The City Council intends on becoming a member of this Consortium after it is created. SECTION 6. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 2008, nd takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this ~ day of 2008. Jo n W. Morri on, Mayor Reviewed asorm: Rich rd Appicell i y Attorney Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -ASHLAND ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY LAST MODIFICATION. June 22, 2009 a Policy # 09-26-23 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services Department SUBJECT: Sweatshop Free Procurement per Resolution 2008-45 PURPOSE: To ensure the integrity of the City's purchasing program in regards to purchases of uniforms and clothing by not acquiring such items that are proved to be the product Of sweatshop labor and to support joint efforts for Sweat Free Procurement with peer agencies where financially feasible. STATEMENT OF POLICY: The City will use its purchasing procedures and spending authority to promote the improvement of working conditions in the world by avoiding the acquisition of uniform and clothing items that cannot be certified as being the product of a sweat free" environment (not the product of sweatshop labor as defined in Resolution 2008- 45). In order to do this, the City, through the Purchasing Agent, department heads and others authorized to directly purchase or approve the purchase of clothing and uniforms will; 1 . Require a signed statement from all potential bidders or suppliers of subject items with j the names, complete physical addresses, phone numbers, and contact persons of each k production facility to be involved in the production of the proposed products. 2. Require a statement by any potential supplier that It understands Its obligation to ensure that all applicable production facilities adhere to the sweat free environment standards as defined in Resolution 2008-45. 3. Require any vendor, contractor or subcontractor remedy noncompliance if evidence is found that the product (or material portions of the product) was manufactured in a sweat shop environment. Upon determination of a violation of the sweat free standard at a production facility of a contractor or its supplier, the intention is for the situation to be corrected in order to comply with the sweat free requirement. If The Consortium or its authorized agent finds that a violation has occurred and that the contractor refuses or fails to ensure that the violation is expeditiously remedied, the City may terminate the contract without notice. 4. Give preference to any vendor and product that meets the required minimum standards of the purchase if certification is readily provided that proves location of manufacture and there is a belief that it is a product of a sweat free environment. 1 ADMINSTILATIVE IIIJI,IC:Y-- Sweatshop Free Procurement 2 5. Document Information provided to support the selection of the vendor and product purchased. City agents may take advantage of procurement processes or research by other government agencies in Oregon and Washington that confirm the product is from a sweat free environment and, where feasible and allowable, purchase such products that meet the City's need directly from that supplier. Government Services Administration (GSA) contracts may also followed if the contract bid documents certify the product Is from a sweat free environment supplier. City will allow other government agencies to take advantage of its research and purchasing decisions to support their efforts to implement sweat free procurement. i The City will join the Sweat Free Purchasing Consortium and pay annual dues as required. If those dues for any year exceed 1% of the total amount of uniform purchases covered by this i policy, Staff will notify the City Council for further direction. This policy pertains to uniforms and articles of clothing purchased directly by the City for its employee use or distribution to the public. Reimbursement by the City to individuals for purchases under $500 is exempt. I Approved: Date: gaz d rtha seen , ' Admtntslrator i R1rLPA- Reviewed as to form: Richard App(t Homey 1 i E i j ADMINISTRATION Tel: 541-488-6002 As East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 MM ashland.or.us CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication July 21, 2015, Business Meeting Discussion and direction to staff regarding retail sales of marijuana FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a bill that will allow medical marijuana dispensaries to sell recreational marijuana as of October L 2015. Under the bill, a local government has the option of prohibiting such sales within its boundaries but must act quickly to do so. Staff seeks Council direction on whether to pursue such a course and seeks input on several other marijuana-related questions. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Pursuant to passage of Ballot Measure 91 in 2014, possession and cultivation of small amounts of marijuana by persons age 21 and older became legal in Oregon as of July 1, 2015. However, while it is now legal to possess marijuana, there is no legal means by which to sell marijuana for recreational purposes. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is working on a licensing regimen for the cultivation, processing, production and retail sale of recreational marijuana, but that structure is not expected to be in place until the latter half of 2016. Given that delay in licensing implementation, the Legislature this year passed Senate Bill 460, which allows recreational marijuana to be sold by licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. There are three such dispensaries in Ashland. It is unknown as to whether any of those dispensaries plan to offer recreational marijuana beginning October 1. However, SB 460 allows a city or county to prohibit the sale of recreational marijuana at medical marijuana dispensaries by adopting an ordinance to that effect and submitting it to the state prior to October 1. Note that recreational marijuana sold by medical marijuana dispensaries will be subject to a 25% sales tax beginning January 1, 2016. A portion of that tax will be shared with local governments, however local governments that prohibit recreational marijuana sales will receive no state shared revenue. Staff has received no public or Council input suggesting that these retail sales should be prohibited in Ashland, but given the short time line, seeks Council input on whether to prepare such an ordinance. There are several other issues to address relating to recreational marijuana. These do not carry with them the same deadline pressure, so Council can provide direction on some or all of these at this meeting, or defer discussion to a future meeting. Those issues are as follows: 1. Under House Bill 3400, Ashland can, by ordinance, prohibit licensed recreational marijuana cultivation, processing, production or retail sales within the City limits. An ordinance prohibiting any of these things would mean Ashland would not be eligible to receive state shared tax revenue from marijuana sales. To be effective, such an ordinance must be adopted and submitted to the state by December 28, 2015. Because Jackson County voters approved Measure 91, a local ordinance would Page 1 of 2 P CITY OF -ASHLAND have to be submitted to the voters in the November 2016 election. It would remain in effect until the election, but would be moot if the voters do not approve it. 2. HB 3400 explicitly allows local governments to adopt reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on cultivation, processing, production and retail sale of marijuana. Given that Ashland already has TPM restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries, staff has been proceeding on the assumption that there will be TPM restrictions on recreational marijuana. An ordinance dealing specifically with cultivation is already being discussed by the Planning Commission. Other TPM restrictions should probably wait for the outcome of the OLCC rulemaking process. Note that TPM restrictions that effectively prohibit one of the four aspects of recreational marijuana are considered a prohibition as described above. 3. HB 3400 effectively (and arguably explicitly) pre-empts local taxes on recreational marijuana that existed prior to the bill becoming law. (It does not pre-empt local taxes on medical marijuana.) When OLCC-licensed facilities begin selling recreational marijuana in 2016, there will be a state sales tax imposed of 17% and local governments can impose a sales tax of up to 3%, however such a tax must be approved by voters of the jurisdiction in the November 2016 election. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Ashland not prohibit the sale of recreational marijuana in medical marijuana dispensaries as of October 1, as this will deprive the City of state shared tax revenue derived from such sales. Council may provide direction on the other items described above as it deems appropriate. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A. This item is for discussion and direction to staff only. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 2 of 2 1r,