HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0405 Council Agenda PACKET
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Important: Any citizen may orally address the Council on non-agenda items during the Public Forum. Any citizen may submit written
comments to the Council on any item on the Agenda, unless it is the subject of a public hearing and the record is closed. Time permitting, the
Presiding Officer may allow oral testimony. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located 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
April 5, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
Note: Items on the Agenda not considered due to time constraints are automatically continued to the next
regularly scheduled Council meeting [AMC 2.04.030.E.]
7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting
1. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
IV. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Study Session of March 14, 2016
2. Executive Session of March 14, 2016
3. Business Meeting of March 15, 2016
4. Joint Meeting of March 29, 2016
VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
1. Proclamation of April 17-23, 2016, as Independent Media Week
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. Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for traffic signal maintenance
3. Special procurement request for approval for AFR Project wildfire fuels
reduction
4. Appointment of Isaac Bevers and Sarah Lassoff to the Climate and Energy
Action Plan ad hoc Committee
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
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.)
None.
X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Report to Council on the 2016 winter shelter program
2. Adoption of water rate cost of services study recommendations
3. Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Step
XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution changing parking fees and fines"
2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding Chapter
10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to Title 10 Peace, Morals and Safety of the
Ashland Municipal Code" and move to second reading.
3. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC
Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" and move to
second reading.
4. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance repealing AMC
Chapter 2.27 in its entirety and amending Chapter 2.12 to designate the
Planning Commission as the committee for citizen involvement" and move to
second reading.
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72
hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the
meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I).
COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE
CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US
City Council Study Session
March 14, 2016
Page 1 of 2
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 14, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Councilor Morris, Seffinger, Voisin, LemhoUse, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at
6:15 p.m.
1. Public Input
Torii Uyehara/275 Palm Avenue/Explained she was the Southern Oregon University (SOU) Student Body
President. She had 350 petitions from students that had experienced housing discrimination in Ashland.
Her constituents were interested in integrating into the community and being accepted.
Kevin Stout/127 Cypress Circle/Explained he was an attorney and practiced landlord-tenant law. He was
the vice president of Southern Oregon Rental Owners Association and spoke on their behalf regarding the
proposed protected class. He was also on the board of directors for the Center for Non-profit Legal Services.
Ashland had low vacancy rates. It was difficult to find housing in the community especially for students
who lacked rental history and employment income. Oregon had robust antidiscrimination rules and
regulations and adding a protected class just for students would not improve their ability to get housing. It
would result in unnecessary litigation, drive up housing costs, increase application fees, and rent. Oregon
prohibited source of income discrimination. Parents cosigning rental agreements, scholarships, and
financial aid all contributed to income. He did not think students warranted the same level of protection
other protected classes did. It would not remedy the issues. Landlords would more subtly discriminate in
excluding students and create higher standards for all renters. Litigating discrimination cases were difficult
to prove, and expensive for both parties.
Council clarified the ordinance addressed age and not actual students and added language regarding source
of income. Mr. Stout thought it could cause other unnecessary litigations. A dialogue with landlords would
be more effective. He thought there was a small group of landlords who did not want to rent to students
because they perceived turnover, occupancy violations, and other issues. The Southern Oregon Rental
Owners Association provided training for landlords on inspections, renting to students, ensuring they were
good tenants so property owners did not miss out on the student rental market.
2. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
3. Report on potential amendments to Ashland's Fair Housing Ordinance
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained in April 2014, Council directed the Housing and Human
Services Commission (HHSC) to study and develop a recommendation on adding students as a protected
class to the fair housing ordinance. The proposed ordinance was a result of that effort.
Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid explained changes to the ordinance would add two protected
classes, one for age and other was domestic partnership since the City had a domestic partnership registry.
Another change would clarify language under Section 10.110.020 Definitions (L) Source of Income and
specifically state "grants, scholarships, loans, Federal Student Aid, Social Security benefits, Section 8
housing choice voucher assistance, pensions, retirement savings and add "...Source of income does
not include income derived from a specific occupation or income..." Type of income was under state
law and staff thought it was important to clarify it in the proposed ordinance. It was not easy for landlords
City Council Study Session
March 14, 2016
Page 2 of 2
to pursue income from grants and scholarships to recover excessive damage costs. The ordinance did not
address co-signers.
City Attorney Dave Lohman did not think the language added to the ordinance would provide an extra
leverage for students. It would help a student rejected by a landlord for insufficient income who excluded
scholarships or other forms stated in the ordinance. Adding age provided some advantage. A plaintiff
would have to prove a rejection was due to age.
Ms. Reid noted there were housekeeping changes throughout the ordinance. Under Section 10.110.040
Exemptions staff removed (B)(4) Any housing unit of less than four hundred (400) square feet gross
floor area for families. Familial status would include a pregnant single woman and a two-person
household. Under the same section (A)(I), staff added age, gender identity and domestic partner status,
and removed (D)(4) Refusal to contract with a governmental agency under 42 U.S.C.1437f(a) "Section
8." Staff re-added Section 10.110.080 Penalties to include additional protected classes.
The City had not encountered any enforcement issues. The Fair Housing Council received an average of
13 calls with the majority landlord-tenant issues. Enforcement would seek compliance prior- to fining a
landlord. Council wanted the ordinance to have a specific violation classification. Other Council comment
expressed concern on car requirements for units under- 500 square feet.
Ms. Reid clarified a legally emancipated minor- was protected. Language regarding hemp workers under
the Source of Income definition was from state law and a housekeeping consideration for Council.
I-IHSC SOU liaison Megan Mercier explained she was the director of SOU Public Relations for Student
Government. She shared three proposed solutions. The first would allow SOU to use dorm history as rental
history. University Housing currently performed reference checks on students' history in the residence
halls. The second solution would create an app that rated students as renters and property management
companies. Renters could use the app to store their rental history. The third solution would involve
establishing a Rental Housing Reference Fund Pool students could pay into that guaranteed money for
damages exceeding the deposit. Other recommendations included education, providing a cleaning supply
for tenants, and outreach regarding fair housing laws. Ms. Mercier clarified SOU provided cleaning tools
for students living in the residential halls. This could expand to include students living off campus and
possibly funded through student fees. She was working with university housing to implement a student
renter orientation twice a year. She submitted a document regarding the training into the record. Another
idea Ms. Mercier was researching entailed student cooperative housing. There were 6,200 students at SOU
with 4,402 fully enrolled. Housing and Residential Services had 1,100 dorm rooms, and 206 family housing
units.
Council directed staff to bring an ordinance back to a Council meeting for a public hearing. HHSC would
send a letter to the SOU Department of Housing supporting the continuity of student involvement in renter
issues in the future.
Meeting adjourned at 6:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 1 of 10
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
March 15, 2016
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 pan. in the Civic Center Council Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, LenlhoLIse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayo- Stromberg announced applications were due on March 18, 2016 for the annual appointments of
Commissions, Committees, and Boards.
The Mayor asked the Council to endorse the Rogue Valley Transportation District's serial levy.
Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to add the Council's endorsement of the Rogue Valley Transportation
District's serial levy. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of February 29, 2016, Executive Session of February 29, 2016 and
Business Meeting of March 1, 2016 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Mayor's proclamation of April 3-9, 2016 as Arbor Week in Ashland was read aloud.
Associate Planner Derek Severson and Tree Commission vice Chair Christopher John provided the annual
presentation on the Tree Commission. Vice Chair John explained in 2015, the Commission reviewed and
made recommendations on 51 land use applications including the Plaza planting in the downtown
beautification projects. They conducted Arbor Week events and presented the Tree of the Year award to
Southern Oregon University for a Silver Maple. The Commission had a table at the Earth Day event and
began updating the City's Street Tree Guide and analyzing the street tree removal process. They worked
with the Conservation Division staff to develop a tree watering guide during drought and participated in
ordinance updates for wildfire land and the airport. He went on to list Arbor Week 2016 events that would
include a presentation by James Urban, the leading authority in the country on urban tree planting and
preservation. Earth Day would occur April 23, 2016.
Public Works Director Mike Faught presented a plaque to Senior Water Treatment Plant Operator Dave
Onkka and Water Treatment Plant Supervisor Greg Hunter for their contributions in Ashland winning the
"Best Tasting Water" award from the Southern Oregon Subsection of the Pacific Northwest Section of
American Water Works Association. Mr. Hunter explained the award enabled Ashland to participate in the
regionals. If Ashland won at the regionals, they would progress to the nationals.
Police Chief Tighe O'Meara explained use of force by the Police Department in 2015 was down
approximately 55% compared to 2014. The use of force employed was low level. The decline was due to
one individual currently incarcerated who in 2014 accounted for 50% of the department's use of force cases.
Also contributing to the decrease was the use of body cameras. There were no Taser deployments in 2015.
Ashland crime rate was based on part one crimes defined by the FBI as homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 2 of 10
assault, burglary, auto theft, and larceny. The numbers of part one crimes in 2015 were similar to 2014 at
641 incidents. There were 20 violent crimes in 2015 that consisted of homicide, rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault. The national clearance rate for part one crimes was 21%. The Ashland Police
Department achieved a 36% clearance rate for part one crimes and 90% for violent crimes. In 2015 there
were 199 violations issued in the Enhanced Law Enforcement Area (ELEA) that resulted in expelling ten
people from the area. Chief O'Meara clarified expulsion periods were not permanent and described the
process. Ile confirmed there was a core of individuals subject to ELEA expulsion that overlapped yearly.
The Police Department experienced the highest number of calls for service in the downtown area regarding
disorderly type behavior not considered disorderly conduct totaling 322 compared to 2014 at 199. In 2013,
there were 264 calls, 310 in 2012, and 214 in 2011. He would include total arrests throughout the city in
the 2016 report as well as the number of calls regarding domestic violence.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
City Administrator Dave Kanner noted Airport Commission minutes indicated 2015 in the meeting date
and should be 2016.
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to approve Consent Agenda item as amended. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/ Syrians were having problems, gas wars, and severe drought for the past
three years acerbated by climate change and bad government policies. It forced over one million Syrian
farmers to move to overcrowded cities, Turkey, and Greece where hundreds have drowned. Syrian droughts
will become more frequent and severe. Then over here, Americans made up more than half of the carbons
in the atmosphere and in Ashland, we cannot figure out if we should burn wood or methane. We need to
have no burning and zero net energy homes. The code said we have to kill the planet and our own town.
Council could vote to request an exception to the code and staff would put the exception through fast. He
thought there should be a contest where everyone put in a date on when Ashland would have zero net energy
growth. Someone offered an electric car as a prize. He would be back with details.
Deric Johnson/11 Valley View Rd/Spoke of behalf of Human Rights Oregon and submitted a resolution
for housing first into the record that would make Ashland a Housing First City.
Tina Stevens/572 Clover Lane/Explained the Ashland Community Resource Center would take an active
interest in reducing the behavior issues in the downtown area during the year by contacting businesses in
Ashland who would be able to refer people to the Center. Ashland Community Resource Center would
distribute brochures to downtown businesses as well.
Vanessa Houk/137 5r" Street/Noted the deaths of two homeless men, one who died when a tree fell on the
tent he and his son were sleeping in by Mt. Ashland and another who froze to death under a bridge December
2015. Providing emergency winter shelter fit Ashland's shared values and was the right thing to do. As
the Council moved towards removing Pioneer flail from a shared public space, she urged them to ensure a
plan was in place for another emergency shelter before fall 2016.
Kate Wenzell/Ashland Motel/Explained she had been homeless for three years and gave insight into
homeless behavior issues with travelers. It was a misunderstood group. Most homeless people had suffered
significant abuse or trauma as well as harm from street culture. Three main reasons for behavioral issues
were mental illness, substance addiction, and street culture itself. Street culture was brasher than regular
culture due to people being in survival mode. Most of the issues she had heard about came from street kids
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 3 of 10
and street culture with the street kids had gotten worse. Anarchy was the new hippie and it was an angry
and violent movement. A lot of disruptive behavior came from a cry for help subconsciously whereas the
truly dangerous did not attract attention. Homeless people felt the ordinances cities across the nation were
putting into effect was an attack on their ability to survive and would ultimately backfire.
Jim Wells/321 Clay Street/ Spoke of the significance of the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project. He
was the outgoing chair of the Southern Oregon Prescribed Fire Network Steering Committee. The goal of
restoration forestry was to manage forests so their eco-system processes could freely operate in them.
Wildfire was one of the most essential of the eco-system processes and the only one humans had the ability
to facilitate. The highest goal of the AFR program was to manage forest eco-systems so wild fire could
freely operate in them to produce all the eco-system benefits. The land needed wildfire.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS (None)
Council agreed to move ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS before UNFINISHED
BUSINESS.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution modifying solid waste franchise rates and fees"
Management Analyst Adam Hanks explained this was the second annual consumer price index (CPI) rate
increase for the solid waste franchise. In 2013, the City developed a new franchise agreement with the
intention to control rates with manageable annual increases relating to an operating margin for the solid
waste franchisee between 8%-12%. The resolution would adopt a 1.2% CPI adjustment to maintain the
8%-12% operative margin for Recology. The resolution would also update second cart rates and bear proof
cart charges. It change the methodology for the sticker program, and a potentially create a cart re-delivery
fee.
Recology General Manager Gary Blake explained they would migrate the $33.53 rate for five stickers in
the sticker program to an on call service that averaged $8 per pick up. Recology charged the same rate for
recycling carts whether they were 32-gallon or 64-gallon for customer capacity. There was no charge to
upgrade from a 32-gallon to a 64-gallon cart. Mr. Blake would research why the rates varied for medical
waste. City Administrator Dave Kanner added the on call service was the incentive that rewarded people
who recycled more.
Mr. Blake estimated there were 120 bear resistant carts in use throughout the city. He was not sure how
many had been replaced due to damage from bears or the cart being overloaded causing the lid to skew and
latch to spring. Recology would grandfather the existing customers with bear resistant carts. He addressed
automation and explained that currently one third of Ashland was automated with an overall target to
automate 75%. Hills, narrow alleys, and streets prevented Ashland from being 100% automated.
Debra Neisewander /1159 Tolman Creek Road/Explained the majority of bear carts had a faulty latch.
Recology staff damaged the lids because they were top heavy and some bear carts were so old that bears
eventually get into them. Most of the customers she had talked to reported that Recology did nothing to
replace damaged or missing carts. The customers purchased the bear resistant carts and it was their
responsibility if something happened.
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to approve Resolution #2016-01. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin
thought the proposed changes were reasonable and fair. Councilor Marsh agreed. Mr. Kanner thanked
Recology and explained per the franchise agreement they could have requested a rate review and instead
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 4 of 10
accepted a CPI increase of 1.2%. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin,
Marsh, and Seffinger, YES. Motion passed.
2. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City of Ashland to submit to the voters at the
November 8, 2016, General Election an ordinance establishing a tax on the sale of recreational
marijuana and marijuana-infused products in the City of Ashland"
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the resolution referred to the voters an ordinance that would
assess a 3% sales tax on recreational marijuana at OLCC licensed retail outlets within the City. Under
Oregon law, the ordinance was not effective unless approved by the voters in a general election. He went
on to note changes to Exhibit A under Summary the last sentence in the second paragraph should read,
"The local tax is over and above the 17% state tax that will be applied to sales of recreational
marijuana effective January 1, 2017." Under the Explanatory Statement, third paragraph, first sentence
should read, "...17% on recreational marijuana sales effective January 1, 2017..." Same paragraph,
second to last sentence should read, "This tax revenue, if approved..." In the last paragraph under Result
of a "No" Vote the first sentence should read, "If this measure does not pass, Ashland will be unable to
impose a tax on the sale of recreational marijuana..." The last sentence under the same section should
read, "The 17% state tax would continue to be imposed after January 1, 2017."
Councilor Rosenthal provided the following changes. Under Exhibit A, Summary he suggested removing
the word "has" from the first sentence to read, "The Ashland City Council approved an ordinance..."
Under Explanatory Statement, striking "will" and "that" so the sentence would read, "Passage of this
ballot measure enacts an ordinance approved by the Ashland City Council imposing a 3% tax on the
sale of recreational marijuana..." Remove "which" from the next sentence, "The voters of the State
of Oregon in November 2014 approved ballot measure 91 legalizing the possession..." Remove the
word "which" fi•otn the third sentence to read, "The Oregon Legislature in 2015 approved House Bill
2014 imposing a state tax..." Paragraph four, first sentence would read, "It is unknown at this time how
much money would be raised by a local marijuana tax, as the tax is dependent on the number of
licensed retail outlets that are..."
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2016-02 as amended. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Marsh thought the resolution was appropriate. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Seffinger, Morris,
Rosenthal, Lemhouse, and Marsh, YES.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Continued discussion of financing options for tactics to address downtown behavior issues.
Mayor Stromberg explained why lie thought homelessness was an actual state of trauma that could lead to
other mental health problems. Structures and processes that work within a stable society may have an
opposite affect when applied to the homeless. Monetary punishment and sanctions were impossible for
homeless people to pay yet they were expected to go through the judicial process that did not provide
alternatives to make amends. Everyone shared the public space and misbehavior in that space was not
acceptable. The issues reached a tipping point last year characterized as addressing disruptive behavior
while caring for the community's local homeless people. He expanded the description of the problem to
include the volume of people coming to town and hanging in the streets that could be exceeding Ashland's
capacity.
Another issue was camping on public and private property that resulted in trash and human waste. This
tends to occur throughout the town, in the adjacent County area and in the watershed. Many west coast
cities and towns along the I-5 corridor were experiencing similar problems.
The Rogue Valley was a natural geographic area with problems from Grants Pass to Medford to Ashland
where something serious and permanent was happening. In addition to connecting with these other cities,
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 5 of 10
Ashland may want to connect with Santa Cruz CA and San Rafael CA. In establishing a cohesive
community effort to deal with these problems, Ashland could attract the support of various organizations
and agencies. He presented a slide showing all the local organizations involved with people on the street
and described each one.
He went on to explain the Downtown Streets program was a Silicon Valley startup that was ten years old
and focused on the area of social benefit. They were successful in the San Francisco Bay area. Downtown
Streets provided manageable paths for people to get out of homelessness. It gave anyone on the streets the
opportunity to do meaningful work for vouchers that helped meet basic needs. Individuals on the team
received recognition and appreciation from the public and began to rejoin society. While working on a
Downtown Streets Team they did not panhandle. The homeless people working on these teams start to
affect the culture of the other people on the street as well -is the perception of the homed.
The program would cost $330,000 for the first year. They would bring two of their forty experts in the San
Francisco Bay area to Ashland. This was a three-year budget plan where the City could get financial support
for the second and third years through other organizations and foundations. After that, the City could go
for local money and research the possibility of using Com►r►unity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained staff researched four tactics Council was interested in pursuing
regarding downtown behavioral issues. The first tactic involved hiring four additional police cadets during
the summer months for $25,000. Due to the lower cost of fuel, the Police Department had the money to
fiord four more cadets. It might be difficult to find four additional qualified cadets.
The second tactic would hire a social service agency to provide outreach workers on the street during the
summer. Community Works was the only agency that responded to the City's letter of interest and could
provide two social outreach workers for $38,189 from May through September. Fuel savings in the General
Fund from the Police and Fire Departments could potentially fund this option. There was some risk using
projected savings not budgeted.
The third tactic was establishing a downtown ambassador program for approximately $35,000 by hiring
temporary part time employees or contracting with another organization. Ambassadors were uniformed
customer service agents who patroled the downtown. Council had wanted to wait and see if a community
organization volunteered to provide the service. Ashland Connects might be interested.
The fourth tactic was renting jail beds from Jackson County for $73,000 per year. The cost assumed both
beds were in use daily for the entire year however, Jackson County would charge the City only for the days
someone was using the bed. Mr. Kanner recommended budgeting for $73,000 and rolling the remaining
amount into the next budget cycle. It would be complicated to allocate an amount for anything less.
Police Chief O'Meara further explained that a matrix is used, based on the severity of the crime, for
determining the use of the jail beds. He assured Council the beds would be used only for those sentenced
by Ashland Municipal Court and a Memorandum of Understanding would be signed by Jackson County
with the City of Ashland that outlined the cooperative agreement on the use of these beds.
Bob Riddle/125 E Main Street/Explained he was the general manager of Paddington Station store
downtown. He asked Council to prioritize the reallocation of $25,000 within the current budget to contract
with Jackson County for two jail beds. This was an essential deterrent to law violators in Ashland.
Currently the travelers knew the City would not impede their accelerating disrespect for the law with daily
misbehavior. The constant public use of drugs and marijuana as well as the vulgar use of language and
profanity would just continue. Many of tile travelers had chased out Ashland's local homeless. The Ashland
Police Department needed to provide more uniform coverage throughout Ashland. He wanted the behavior
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 6 of 10
issues addressed in the entire city. He agreed no one should profile an individual. Together the community
could encourage a welcoming and safe Ashland experience for all visitors and locals.
Vanessa Nowitzky/102 Garfield Street/Read an article on reducing the criminalization of homeless people
through municipal ordinances. She thought the City could use some of the marijuana tax to extend the
City's winter shelter at Pioneer Hall. She suggested ordinances that prevented property owners from
making clean, safe, apartments so expensive. She questioned what attracted people to Ashland, beauty or
a beautiful fayade.
Allen Drescher/21 so 2`► Street/Noted the accolades former Circuit Court Judge Pat Crane received for
operating the most effective drug court in the state, achieving a 55% success rate. The program was
successful because it gave people the option of jail or a program designed to help them. Renting jail beds
was an essential component of the program the Mayor described. The municipal court needed to have that
tool to make any of those programs work.
Jon Lange/1250 Siskiyou Blvd/Since he arrived in Ashland over 35 years ago he had never been afraid
for- the future of the town until now. He asked the elected leaders to provide the necessary resources to
address the current deterioration of Ashland as thoroughly as possible. Hundreds of people had experienced
harassment, been threatened, were subjected to offensive and hostile behavior or made victims of criminal
and immoral activity. He was only one of the many people imploring Council to take the community
through this situation with reasonable actions not intended to create divisiveness or ignore the problems of
homelessness, mental health, or drug addiction. When someone said these ordinances targets a specific
group of people, they were wrong. 'T'hese actions went toward deterring criminal behavior by anyone in
order to protect all Ashlanders. This was also an attempt to restore civility and return as best as possible
the kind of cordiality that was Ashland for many decades.
Police Chief O'Meara clarified the Police Department had four part time cadets year round employees and
were down to one. They successfully hired three and were now experiencing some difficulty hiring the
four additional cadets. The screening process could take 3-4 months. Per the City Charter, cadets were
community service officers. They enforced all City code but typically low-level violations in the downtown
area. Cadets training included minimal defensive tactics training, ordinances and procedures, radio, and
pepper- spray use. The Central Area Patrol (CAP) officer oversees the cadets who work 16-hour workweeks.
Chief O'Meara explained the Police Department volunteers were mostly retired. The Chief had encouraged
them to patrol the downtown area. One volunteer was a retired police officer and a crime prevention expert
who would not only do downtown patrol but would work with the Chamber of Commerce on crime
prevention tips. There was no interest from retired officers to serve in that capacity. Alternately, it could
cause issues with the Ashland Police Officers Association who had already expressed concern regarding
the additional cadets. There was burn out for current officers due to insufficient staffing, increased
caseload, and overtime.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to direct staff to hire four additional cadets in the Police Department
for the summer of 2016 allocating staff recommended $25,000. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse
noted tine Police Department had the funds to hire the cadets and it would assist workload. Councilor Marsh
added the cadets would provide an important presence downtown. Mayor Stromberg thought starting with
cadets instead of full time police officers was a moderate approach and less likely to provoke problems.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger, and Morris, YES; Councilor
Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Seffinger/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to rent two jail beds from the Jackson County for
$73,000. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger thought renting jail beds would provide some "teeth" for
enforcement and a better chance at addressing behavior issues. Councilor Lennlnouse supported renting jail
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 7of10
beds. The City may not spend the full amount but agreed with Chief O'Meara the beds be post-conviction.
Without some form of deterrent, it was hard to induce any type of adherence to the laws. Mayor Stromberg
clarified renting post-conviction beds meant no one would go to jail without having the opportunity to
exercise his or her full right to the criminal justice process.
Councilor Voisin alerted Council and the attorney that as part of President Obama's civil rights initiative,
the Justice Department was now calling out state and municipal court systems for operating unconstitutional
policies that unfairly targeted poor people in a cycle of fines, debt, and imprisonment. Based on that and
her conversations and research regarding homeless people, transients, and travelers, imprisonment was not
a deterrent. She would not support the motion. Councilor Marsh would support the motion. Law
enforcement and the City's ability to require a certain level of legal behavior downtown was one part. Other
pieces would help people who wanted assistance. There was a need to have people downtown enforcing
the laws. The ability to place someone in jail at the judge's discretion was inevitably part of the continuum.
Mayor Stromberg commented he was not comfortable with Councilor Voisin's assertions about violating
constitutional rights and thought she was using this as a measure that unfairly sent people to jail because
they did not have any money. Councilor Voisin responded this was from the Department Of Justice. Mayor
further explained she was making a connection to the City implementing existing jail sentences. If the jail
functioned as it should people would go to jail regardless of their economic status at the discretion of the
Judge. Councilor Lelnholtse called for the question noting the time. COUrlcilor Lemhouse then raised a
point of order and explained per Council rules everyone had the opportunity to speak on the matter. It was
also part of Council rules not to have a debate during deliberation. Mayor Stromberg agreed and ruled in
favor of Councilor Lemhouse.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to call for the question. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse,
Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger, and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger, and Morris, YES; Councilor
Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Seffinger/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to develop educational signs downtown and allocate
55,000 to help designate and list the ordinances and behaviors that are of concern.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger thought people needed to know what they are not supposed to do.
This was an educational tool. Councilor Lerhouse wanted to see a plan from staff after the ordinances
passed to educate the public. Councilor Marsh thought they should defer some decisions until Council
discussed the smoking ordinance. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Marsh, Seffinger,
and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Lemhouse requested staff bring the Community Works proposal to a future Council meeting.
Mr. Kanner clarified staff only solicited letters of interest. He would bring the Commwlity Works proposal
to a Council meeting once received.
Councilor Voisin raised a point of clarification and thought if the City requested a full proposal Community
Works should receive compensation. Mr. Kanner explained the intention for the letter of interest was to put
together a list of qualified bidders for the Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Typically, people were not
paid to respond to an RFP. Mayor Stromberg commented there was concern the scope of work was not
clearly defined. Mr. Kanner would send Council a copy of the solicitation staff sent.
Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to continue the discussion of an outreach workers and ambassador
program to a future meeting to be announced. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought there was a
good chance volunteers would come forward with a vital and positive ambassador program. Earlier
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 8 of 10
statements from the Ashland Resource Center indicated they would provide specific outreach in the
downtown area. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS-continued
3. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance adding Chapter 10.130 Intrusive
Solicitation to Title 10 Peace, Morals and Safety of the Ashland Municipal Code" and move on
to second reading
Dana Preston/110 E Main Street/"Thanked Mayor and Council for considering the ordinances that
addressed the behavior downtown. Over the past several years she was verbally accosted, and received
sexual remarks while being asked for money and had her right of way blocked many times. Recently on a
Friday morning in early March, a man asked her a question as she was getting into her car. When she
responded lie opened her passenger- car door, entered the vehicle, and refused to leave resulting in her filing
a police report. Ashland had a reputation of leniency when it came to this kind of behavior. Passing these
ordinances will help shift that reputation. It was a step in the right direction.
Komac Tupp/274 N Mountain Avenue/Read from the Bible, Proverbs Chapters 31 and 30, and Isiah 59.
He cooked stew for ten years every week for anyone hungry in Lithia Park. The people on the streets were
surviving. Since it was illegal to sleep inside city limits, they had to find other places to sleep. He saw
many on the verge of going insane because of this terrible law that criminalized them.
Tawasi/no address/Explained he was a homeless person in Ashland and took issue with the proposed
ordinances. The City Attorney and Council were doing their best to make them unassailable on legal
grounds. If they failed, the City could be liable for civil lawsuits. As much as the law had to do with being
just it should also be good in spirit. The City Charter touched on the moral obligation of the City Council.
He read from the Bible Psalms 82:3. Law was biblical but in a democracy, people had to follow the
constitution. There were parts of the constitution Council was specifically going against. Council held an
office at the good will of the people and that good will was represented by the oath of office they took at
the beginning of their tenure. How the City was treating homeless people in this town had nothing to do
with good will. He read from Article 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Peter Braveheart Lavoie/62 Westwood Drive/Volunteered at Pioneer Hall to support the homeless
shelter. He was encouraged to hear what Council was proposing, it sounded better than the ordinances.
The ordinances were dividing and criminalized poverty. It was unfair to make it illegal to block a sidewalk
before there was a solution for people to store their belongings. The task force who worked on solutions
was mainly people from the Chamber of Commerce or businesses and did not include any homeless people
or members of the community sympathetic to the homeless. Another approach would be to include the
homeless. He went to Eugene and saw how the City of Eugene was dealing with the homeless and it was
amazing. Ashland could create sanction places for car sleeping, areas for RV's to camp for 30 days, a tent
city and eventually tiny houses and a way for homeless people to transition into being housed. St Vincent
de Paul could help Ashland implement what was happening in Eugene.
JC Romero/no address/Explained he lived outside and was a member of this community. He had stated
previously that the implementation of these ordinances and the continued harassment of the homeless for
sleeping outside must stop before it destroyed the community. Starting tonight and every night when it did
not rain he planned to continue to sleep on the Plaza. If he received another ticket, he will sue the City for
violating his rights. He had Domatophobia and could not sleep in a building.
Erick Wallace/no address/Explained lie also lived outside and was a member of this community. It
seemed to him there was confusion regarding enforcement. Council had claimed it was not enforcing on
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 9 of 10
the homeless people but he questioned when was the last time they slept outside in a sleeping bag, or had
to ask someone for money. If these ordinances did not cease immediately Council should say goodbye to
the community because people will destroy each other from the inside out and told Council not to say they
were not warned when it happened. If Council targeted a specific group those people will target them.
There was nothing that could be done other than stopping what the City was doing. Have fun.
Paige Imbregno/691 Oak Street/It was ironic Ashland was an Arbor City when they cut down all the trees
and paved over the Plaza to make it less inviting for the homeless and was still logging the watershed in
order- to pay for the Ashland Forest Resiliency project. It was also inane to consider water quality and
waste. There were devices in the state that would restructure all of the water into medical grade water,
make waste into the elements and compounds sold back to companies that could also provide power. There
were major changes going on in the planet. She advised Council to do some research and get hip. The day
before the freezing death in December, she stood in the Plaza with camping gear and handed them out to
the homeless. That young man went to ER because lie had frostbite and several days later died. The federal
government will know the ordinances target homelessness. Mayor Stromberg offered a solution. The
federal government had done a humongous amount of research so Council did not have to figure out the
right approach. The federal govermnent would cut finding to the Ashland Resource Center, Rogue Retreat,
and groups that actually give support to the homeless because of the tactics Council was deciding to take
due to pressure from affluent citizenry. Ashland needed sanctioned housing, a camp, temporary and
permanent housing. She accused the City of targeting the most vulnerable people and pandering to the
affluent.
Helga Motley/124 Lani Way, Talent, OR/Lived in Ashland 35 years and was now in Talent as another
economic displaced person. She carefully read the ordinance suggestions in the proposals and gathered that
now soliciting money from ordinary people standing there or handing money out of a car would not be
allowed within city limits. She mocked the amount of money being spent on solutions and accused Council
of not understanding what their lives were like. She volunteered at the Ashland Resource Center and was
distressed she lived in a country where stray dogs were treated with more compassion than people that were
homeless. A few things happen in the downtown then a law is passed that affects everyone. Offensive
language was applauded during plays in Ashland. She thought Council should take all the allocated funds,
build tiny homes then work on the issues.
Cindy Bernard/570 Clover Lane/Thanked Council and the Mayor for continuing discussions on the
matter. She was in Portland weeks ago and noted Portland had a huge homeless problems. It was evident
everywhere she went. Yet she never felt unsafe. In Ashland, she does. The behavior was the issue, not the
homeless. Nor was it an "us" against "them" issue. It is behavior. She supported the ordinances. It was
more step in the puzzle.
Jason Robinson/216 Meade Street/Owned The Crown Jewel with his wife. It was not easy to run a
business in town and they had struggled with their store for ten years. They felt the impact of behavior on
the street that adversely affected potential customers. They tried to contribute to the Ashland community
and it was disheartening at times to have a lot of that put in jeopardy by simple things out in the street. It
was hard for him to imagine someone living in Ashland not seeing some element of this that was disturbing
and yet lie felt compassion for the situation. It was complex and difficult to help everyone involved. He
appreciated people coming at the matter from a standpoint of caring for the community.
Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s to continue items number 3 and 4 agenda item XII to the next
meeting. DISCUSSION: Mayor Stromberg clarified people who had not spoken on the matter tonight
would be able to speak at the next meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
4. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10.64
City Council Business Meeting
March 15, 2016
Page 10 of 10
Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" and move onto second reading
Item moved to the next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS
Mayor Stromberg explained Rogue Valley Transit District (RVTD) had a levy they needed to continue the
current level of service. He publicly supported the levy and asked if Council was interested in supporting
it as well.
Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s the Council support RVTD's efforts and place the City of Ashland
stamp of approval on the ballot statement as indicated. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained
RVTD was an essential element of the community. It was in the City's best interest. Councilor Voisin
added RVTD needed the City's support. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
Councilor Lemhouse announced the recent passing of Frank d'Entremont. Mr. d'Entremont joined the
Ashland Police Department in 1956 and retired in 2013. Councilor Lemhouse had worked with Mr.
d'Entremont and honored his legacy.
Councilor Rosenthal congratulated Southern Oregon University Women's Basketball team that advanced
to the national championship game. Although they lost, it was an achievement to make it to the national
championship game.
Councilor Marsh shared that Chris Richardson from the Downtown Streets Program would be in town later
that week.
City Administrator Dave Kanner announced the Chamber of Commerce had garnered enough sponsorships
for the hanging basket program to expand the program to include the Rail Road District, 0' Street, and
Pioneer Street. Secondly, the listening session regarding the smoking ordinance would occur the following
night in Council Chambers from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
MIA CoUncll/Park Meeting
March 29, 2016
Pate I or3
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL & PARKS COMMISSION
JOINT STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
March 29, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Park Commissioner Chair Mike Gardiner called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Civic Center Council
Chambers, 1 175 East Main Street.
City Council Present: Park Commissioners Present:
John Stromberg, Mayor Mike Gardiner Chair
Rich Rosenthal Rick Landt
Stefani Seffinger Matt Miller
Carol Voisin Vanston Shaw
Greg Lemhouse Jim Lewis
Pam Marsh - arrived at 5:43 p.m.
PUBLIC INPUT
Kathryn Thalden/550 Ashland Loop Road/Invited the Council and Park Commission to a special presentation by
James Urban, FASLA. The "free Commission was able, through the help of a special grant, to bring Mr. Urban here
to provide guidance and recommendations on the trees in Ashland. This is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6 fi-om
2:00 to 5:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Update on Swimming Pool
Park Director Michael Black presented the update on the research for a new swimming pool in our corn in Lill ity. He
provided the following points of options that were previously discussed:
• McNeal Pavilion - Issues with Timing and Funding
• Daniel Myer Pool Bubble - Issues with Funding and Partnership
• Daniel Myer Pool Winterization -This had been implemented and was used this past winter
• YMCA Partnership - Unable to meet on public amenity and permit process - until we can meet on major
items this is not a viable option
• Daniel Myer Pool Evaluation - Neat step - creating year-round pool to accommodate all programs -
look at Daniel Myer Pool - get direction on if it is going to remain a priority to move forward with
evaluation
Councilor Marsh arrived at 5:43 p.m.
• YMCA Park - areas suitable for building were reviewed
• Hunter Park - amenities - current size of pool is not deep enough for sports and not deep enough for
diving. May need to partner with school district for additional parking but this has not been discussed
with schools district.
• Hunter Park Pool Potential - A new pool would have to be installed that would include eight lanes and
required depth. An attached recreational pool could be built and a seasonal cover provided for the entire
pool area. There is potential with this option in that it could work in the Daniel Myer Pool area without
encroaching on other property. The cost for this option is still being determined but an initial budget of
$2.5million could start the project.
Jocelyn Sanford/Voiced her support for a larger swimming pool that would accommodate swim clubs and
swimmers. She shared her experience as physical therapist and swimming coach and encouraged an opportunity for
physical education in swimming.
Joint CounciUPark Meeting
March 29, 2016
Pa,-,e 2 ot'3
Todd Lanary/11158 Corp Ranch Rd/Voiced his appreciation to the Park Commission and Park staff for their
support in moving forward with a new pool. He identified himself as the Ashland High School Swim coach and
shared the importance of this to his students and the community.
Mr. Black recommended a rectangular pool shape and noted that because of the size of the pool, additional parking
spaces would be required. He estimated the cost of additional spaces as $200,000 based on $4,000 per space. He
stressed that this is all variable as this has not been discussed with the school district or city planning department.
City Administrator Dave Kanner spoke on potential funding mechanisms that include the Capital Improvement Plan
and partnerships formed with those that use the pool. Mr. Black stated that to move forward with this option, cost
and space requirements would need to be determined and partners identified. He did not think that this would be
sustainable without the support of the school districts. He stated that lie had some discussion with the school district
but not to the point of coming to an agreement.
Mr. Black confirmed that he was not aware of any other sites in the community that could accommodate this option.
I le stated that the operational costs during the winter months is estimated at $6,000 - $8,000 and that these costs were
contracted out as there was no monies budgeted to operate during the winter. He understands that there are issues to
be dealt with, including condensation issues, and that staff has been in contact with other cities that have the same
type of pool and cover which they are reviewing.
It was suggested and agreed upon that Southern Oregon University (SOU) should be approached as a potential
partner.
Additional suggestion that there be discussion on recreational upgrades for all facilities and what it would take to
renovate other facilities. That a package project should be considered if a bond measure is put to the voters that
includes the pool and other costs associated with recreational facilities.
Staff received general agreement and support to move forward on the potential of a larger pool at Hunter Park. Staff
will begin meeting with potential partners and bring an update back to both bodies and the public.
2. Update on Performance Audit
Director of Parks Michael Black provided an update on the Performance Audit that has been ongoing with the Parks
Department. He explained that this began with interviews in February which included general observations of
conditions. The profile was received on March 21 and was reviewed and returned on March 29. He expects the Best
Practices portion of this audit on March 30 with a draft report due May 2. The final report is due May 9 and will then
be forwarded on to the Park Commission. Mr. Black stated that he will then bring the report to the council for their
information.
Mr. Black explained that finding comparators was difficult and provided a list of the cities that were used. The cities
varied in size but all had similar parks and recreation characteristics for comparison.
3. Update on PERS
City Administrator Dave Kanner presented the overview of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) which
explained the different categories that determine the PERS rate that the city pays. He provided a list of the current
rates and the new rates along with PERS rate changes impact comparison information for budget years into 2019.
Mr. Kanner explained that there are two different retirement plans, PERS - for those employed prior to 2003 and
Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan (OPSRP).
Mr. Kanner explained the PERS funding equation as the following: Benefits = Contributions + Earnings and that
every two years the PERS Board adjusts contributions so that, over time, those contributions will be sufficient to fund
the benefits earned, if earnings follow assumptions. He also provided information on how the system is funded and
the problems with the equation that PERS uses in comparison to how the system is funded. A chart was provided
that indicated expected benefit payments by status as of 12/31/2014
4. Food & Beverage Tax Proposal
Joint Council/Park Mectin.-
March 29, 2016
Pa-e 3 of 3
City Administrator Dave Kanner presented proposal for an ordinance regarding the Food & Beverage Tax that would
increase the share that goes to the Parks & Recreation from 20% to 25%. He explained that this proposal would
redirect a portion of the increase to the Parks Equipment Fund and to the pavement management program and take
the burden off the operating budget. He provided charts that indicated the Food & Beverage revenue compared to
the annual debt payments into 2023. He agreed that the council that is seated when the Wastewater Treatment Plant
debt service is paid full will need to make a decision on what to do the Food & Beverage Tax after 2022. That this
was not a decision to make today but to be made in the future.
Councilor Voisin left at 6:45 p.m.
Park Director Michael Black explained examples of what the current equipment fund provides for and that previous
to the current budget, the equipment fund was not funded and all costs were out of the capital improvement plan. He
stated that it was important to have a vehicle fund and that Parks has had to borrow from the city vehicle fund. He
felt that this option is a solution for a funding source for equipment.
Mr. Kanner understands that Food & Beverage Tax funding provides for purchasing property but that it also provides
for maintaining the properties that are purchased. That there is a progression on the acquisition of properties and this
is a logical option.
Comment was made that it was important to be transparent and clear on what the voters are being asked to pay for.
5. Recreation Division Move to the Grove
Park Superintendent Rachel Dials presented the move of the Recreation Division the Grove and provided pictures of
the new space.
Mr. Black explained that there has been some reorganization and that the office at the Lithia Park is still being used.
The intent was to bring staff closer to their supervisors.
6. Other Business from the Council and Parks Commission
Councilor Rosenthal requested that the council be copied on the Park Commission agenda electronically. He felt that
this would make it easier to keep the council updated.
Councilor Seffinger commented that park cleanup in other cities due to transients have resulted in increased cost.
Mr. Black did agree that there has been so►ne impact due to use of facilities by transients but has not been tracked at
this time. He stated that staff will be keeping data that will enable tracking any future impacts.
Commissioner Shaw noted that the Parks Department has done a good job of educating citizens on use of Dog Park
in terms of dog waste. He suggested that this type of education be used in the further- in the city area during the tourist
season.
Councilor Marsh noted that the Park staff has been meeting with individuals from the Shelter and will report back to
the council.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 7:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
°7 J 1 i js 1 'CST t.n r l J ~~C1• J\r1 ( ~i J,L~~~' C~ 1.~`l ~)J ;~~'7\<t'^
-JA
71
7 5 A ,l/S~
PROCLAMATION s
A well-informed citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy.
~ ® An informed citizenry depends on an objective, responsible and
unrestrained press, which provides greater access to accurate
_ information, more points of view and greater diversity of thought and
fact. z
The trend toward the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in
fewer media voices which can cause a homogenized message and a lack
of variety in points of view.
Democratic principles support the case for more independent media in
this country, with many editorial points of view.
NOW, THEREFORE the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens
of Ashland, do hereby proclaim the week of April 17 - 23, 2016, as p
,Cry
INDEPENDENT MEDIA 'SEE
1 ` and encourage all Ashland citizens to seek out and explore the rich diversity `
• ' ~ I i
t of independent media available within, and to our community,
ated this 5th day of April, 2016
c < i
John Stromberg, Mayor
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
p y a E e S n C
no~)I' d o° ~r~' - ~ ~ ate, ti I 4 `w
rr1 C h Lvt~-`7 J ~Q ~l/ l _3z~" Jv~ U / ' .J~ c V `N
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 24, 2016
Page I of')
MINUTES FOR THE ASHLAND CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
1. Call to Order
Chair Roxanne Beigel-Coryell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room.
Commissioners Risa Buck, Mark Weir, Shel Silverberg, Cara Cruickshank, Bryan Sohl, and
Marni Koopman were present. Staff member Adam Hanks and Councilor Rich Rosenthal were
present. Commissioner James McGinnis was absent.
2. Consent Agenda
Cruickshank/Weir m/s to approve the minutes of January 27, 2016, as presented. Voice
Vote: All Ayes. Motion Passes.
3. Announcements
The next commission meeting will be March 23, 2016.
The Governor's Transportation Panel will be occurring on March 8 at the Jackson County Public
Works auditorium in White City.
The 2016 Master Recycler Class will be March 8 from 5:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Buck informed the group that there will be no spring Plastics Roundup this year, due to a lack of
market for purchasing those materials.
4. Public Forum
Huelz Gutchen - stated that the Greenhouse Gas Inventory was wonderful and the presenter did
well. We have lots of cars which make lots of problems. The report showed that Ashland
emissions have gone down, but his numbers don't match the Greenhouse Gas Inventory
numbers. He stated that the whole country reduced emissions over the past few years, not just
Ashland. The EPA has been talking about the current non-ability to recycle plastics. Climate
change is real but lots of people aren't dealing with it. He hopes that this group can figure out
how to do this.
Jeff Shame - his group is going ahead with the Imperatrice Property solar proposal. He gave
Beigel-Coryell a print out of their proposal. His group was originally planning on having this
proposal on the November ballot but decided not to. They are hoping to put together a package
useful for other areas. The ballot initiative they are now working on is focused more on
increasing renewable sources of power overall.
5. Reports/ Presentations/ Updates
Council Update - Councilor Rosenthal will be absent from the next meeting. He informed the
group that he has officially been re-appointed as liaison for the next year. He stated that Council
approved the contract with Cascadia Consulting for their work with the Climate & Energy
Action Plan Committee. That committee is now ready to move ahead with the bulk of their work.
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 24, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Storm Drain/ Water Updale from Public Works - Public Works Director Mike Faught, Senior
Engineer Pieter Smeenk, and Utility Technician Steve Burkhalter gave an overview of current
programs. Burkhalter gave examples of the public outreach. Most outreach is for contractors and
the public to understand best management practices related to construction. Faught gave
overview of how storm drain/water programs are funded and how the current master planning
process may create alternative options for resources. Smeek gave information on how the City is
working with other agencies in the valley to create education and information regarding pollution
prevention and best management practices. He showed examples of new education signage.
Group discussed ways in which they can advocate for/assist with programs once the master plan
process is completed. Group thanked Faught, Smeek, and Burkhalter for their attendance and
information.
Councilor Rosenthal departed meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Downiotivn Recycling - Hanks stated the group received confirmation from four businesses
willing to monitor the trial project. They are working on four other businesses. One of the
recycle baskets will be monitored by the City and/or Commission.
City Conservation and Operations - Hanks was recently in Portland working on a project related
to utility providers' role in providing resources for electric vehicles. Ashland has done more than
most utility providers due to the charging stations we have in parking lots/garages. Not many
utility providers have much control over public facilities the way Ashland does. Group discussed
current usage of the charging stations. Hanks stated that the public-charging model may be less
important in the future but that hotel-lot charging may be a useful model to pursue in Ashland.
6. Old Business
Earth Bowl - Silverberg stated the subcommittee has met with all the teachers and the middle
school principal to get feedback on last year's program. The information received was
constructive. The committee has agreed to postpone the program to 2017 in order to connect the
program with Earth Day and to redesign the materials to be more focused.
Sneak Preview Column Group discussed the need to alter the next two meeting topics. They
agreed that April will be an overview of the Climate Challenge, written by Koopman. May will
be information regarding recycling challenges (plastics market), written by Buck. Silverberg
suggested that a future topic might be a "meet your commissioners" article.
Climate & Energy Action Plan - The next C&EAP meeting will be March 2 at 3:30 p.m. to
prepare for the March 16"' meeting with the new consultant, Cascadia Consulting. Previous
Conservation Commissioner, Jim Hartman, has been appointed to the committee. The last
meeting was a review of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
Rogue Valley Earth Day Funding - Hanks stated that the Water Conservation Division will be
sponsoring the event in addition to the Energy Conservation Division. The total for City
sponsorship will be $2,000. Group discussed whether additional commission sponsorship was
necessary. Koopman/Silverberg m/s to request that an additional 5400 in funding be given
to Rogue Valley Earth Day in light of the cancellation of this year's Earth Bowl program.
Voice Vote: 2 nays, 5 ayes, Motion Passes.
Minutes for the Conservation Commission
February 24, 2016
Page 3 of
Bag Ban Review - Weir reviewed the presentation to Council. He felt it went fairly well. Council
decided to keep the status quo until or unless the Chamber of Commerce makes a
recommendation regarding the ban. Hanks outlined the enforcement process likely to be
implemented in the next few months. He stated that letters will soon be going out to all
businesses reminding them of the ban regulations and sending updated display cards.
Commissioner Sohl deparled mee/ing 8:30 p. in.
Conservation Classes - Buck stated that the subcommittee decided to change the title of this
program from Conservation Classes, as that's too specific and doesn't reflect the new class
variety, to the "Low-Impact Living Series." Weir/Koopman m/s to approve the title change to
the Low-Impact Living Series. Voice Vote: all ayes. Motion Passes.
7. New Business
Greenhonse Gas Inventory - Hanks stated that he wanted to make sure that the group had a copy
of the results and were able to get any questions answered. Group discussed where some of the
data was pulled from and how to help the numbers improve in future years.
8. Wrap Up
Commissioner Silverberg stated that he will not be re-upping his appointment to the commission
when his term is up on April 30t", but agreed to continue to help with the Earth Bowl. Group
expressed their appreciation for his work on the commission and for his offer of continued
assistance.
Group asked that Hanks request a presentation/discussion from Public Works regarding water
reclamation be on a future agenda.
Meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Diana Shiplet
Executive Assistant
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 9, 2016
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 Mark Schexnayder, Assistant Planner
Roger Pearce April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Lynn Thompson
Absent Members: Council Liaison:
Haywood Norton Greg Lemhouse, absent
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Community Development Bill Molnar distributed the Mayor's State of the City address and provided an update on upcoming
City Council and Planning Commission agenda items, including: a proposal to rezone the lot that abuts the Pioneer parking
lot, a discussion of citizen involvement and the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee, and a study session on a proposal to
revise the City's wildfire standards.
AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Commissioner Thompson provided an update on the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee and
provided a summary of the changes the group is discussing, including: removing the "beaver slide" as a car route,
infrastructure and streetscape improvements to A Street, additional stop signs on B Street, uniform markings on the streets,
and turning East Main St. into two lanes.
Commissioner Dawkins provided an update on the Downtown Beautification Commission and commented on the proposed
new entry signs.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Minutes
1. January 12, 2016 Regular Meeting.
2. January 26, 2016 Special Meeting.
Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve the minutes for January 12, 2016. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion
passed unanimously.
Commissioners Thompson/Dawkins m/s to approve the minutes for January 26, 2016. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Commissioners Brown and Miller abstained.
PUBLIC FORUM
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Stated he wants to become the Ashland Community Development Director and
commented on solar energy and changing policies.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9, 2016
Page 1 of 6
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02287, 123 Clear Creek.
No ex parte contact was reported.
Commissioners Miller/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-02287. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion passed
unanimously.
TYPE II PUBLIC HEARING
A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02203
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 868 A Street
OWNER: Harriet & Steve Saturen/Linda Millemann
APPLICANT: Mark Lackey
DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a second story
addition to an existing non-conforming cottage at the rear of the property located at 868 A Street.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 09AA; TAX LOT:
6800.
Commissioner Mindlin read aloud the public hearing procedures for land use hearings.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioners Thompson, Miller, Dawkins, Pearce, and Mindlin declared site visits. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Planning Manager Maria Harris and Assistant Planner Mark Schexnayder addressed the commission and Ms. Harris provided
an overview of the property. She stated the main residence was constructed in 1906 and is located in the Railroad Historic
District and E-1 zone. She explained all of the properties between Seventh and A Street north of the alley are zoned E-1 and
the properties to the south of the alley are zoned R-2 Multi-Family Residential. Ms. Harris stated the focus of this application is
the second residential unit at the rear of the property. The structure is nonconforming because it does not meet the current
setback requirements and this action is subject to a conditional use permit and site design review. Ms. Harris reviewed the
approval criteria and provided the definition for nonconforming uses, and stated in this case the house and second residential
unit are both legal, nonconforming. Mr. Harris explained residential uses are permitted in the E-1 zone, however under current
regulations the use cannot be solely residential.
Ms. Harris reviewed the applicant's proposal to add an addition to the first floor of the structure and add a second story. This
request requires four off street parking spaces and the applicant's propose to use the two parking spaces off the alley and two
on street credits. Ms. Harris reviewed the building elevations and site plan and clarified the Historic Commission has reviewed
this action twice. She noted a number of the neighbors have concerns regarding the height, setbacks, and parking impacts;
however the Historic Commission approved the request and felt the proposed modifications were more appropriate than
adding onto the main structure.
Ms. Harris stated staffs main concerns are the design of the addition in terms of scale, bulk, and coverage, as well as the off
street parking. She commented on the target use of the zone and stated a new structure would be required to be setback
farther off the alley, however a new structure would likely be much larger than what is proposed. Regarding the parking, she
stated there is question about whether one of the off street spaces crosses over the property line and stated staff is
recommending the applicant verify compliance and obtain an easement if necessary. Ms. Harris noted a decision needs to be
made tonight in order to comply with the 120-day rule and asked the commission to issue a decision and adopt findings
tonight.
Questions of Staff
Ms. Harris clarified the two on-street parking spaces are along the applicant's frontage and by code they can request parking
credits. She added the code says "may" and this is not outright granted. She also clarified Maximum Permitted Floor Area
requirements do not apply in the E-1 zone, and also clarified if you discontinue a CUP use for more than 6 months it is
considered abandoned.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9. 2016
Page 2 of 6
Applicant's Presentation
Amy Gunter and Mark Lackey addressed the commission. Ms. Gunter clarified this proposal is not a demolition and stated
only in one location will the wall be opened up to allow for the addition. She acknowledged the varied history of the property
but stated when the current owners purchased the site it was 100% residential. Ms. Gunter commented on the parking
concerns raised by the neighbors and staff and restated their request to have two off street spaces and receive two credits for
the on-street spaces. She stated the code also for this and also allows applicants to provide bicycle parking to offset the
parking requirements. Ms. Gunter stated while there is high demand for parking on A Street from Oak to Fifth, once you get
past Sixth St. the demand decreases dramatically and there is almost always an abundance of on-street parking in the vicinity.
She also explained the rear unit could not be relocated to comply with current setback requirements because they are utilizing
the existing foundation
Mr. Lackey commented on the height of the structure and stated reducing it further to a half-story would have rendered most
of the second floor unusable. He added they have already lowered the roof line and removed the windows to address the
neighbors concerns.
Ms. Gunter stated the property is employment zoned but it is more in line with the residential uses than the commercial
properties to the west. She commented on the similarity in massing and scale to the surrounding properties and noted the
structure across the street is significantly greater than the proposed addition. Ms. Gunter commented that they believe with the
reduced height and the other modifications they have made the proposed structure is similar to other properties in the impact
area and it will not have a negative impact on the livability of the zone. She added the tenants will work from home which
supports the intent of the zone.
Questions of the Applicant
The applicants were asked if the addition would impact solar panels. Ms. Lackey clarified the City's Conservation Analyst
visited the site and determined the proposed addition would not affect that at all.
When asked about the foundation, Mr. Lackey stated it will need to be retrofitted and they will be adding load bearing footings
for the second floor.
The applicants were asked if they needed 3 ft. of clear space in front of the entryway. Mr. Lackey stated this is only if there is a
step and stated this building is at grade,
Public Testimony
Harriet Saturen/868 A St/Stated her two friends are both artists and will work and live in the rear unit. Ms. Saturen stated the
cottage will become a beautiful structure and add beauty to the neighborhood. She commented that on-street parking is
almost always available and stated they have an e-car that takes up very little space. She explained they have wanted to live
next to their friends in their retirement years and hopes the commission will support their application.
Steve Saturen/868 A St/Displayed a sample of the art that will be produced in the structure and stated the business will have
no impact on parking. He shared their desire to build out the property as described in the application and stated their only
other option is to add onto the existing main house, but that does not make a lot of sense. Mr. Saturen stated they want to
contribute to the neighborhood and improve it, and hopes the commission will support their application.
Linda Millemann/256'/2 Sixth St/Stated she hopes to live in the cottage with her partner but the current 500 sq.ft. footprint is
not enough space. Ms. Millemann stated there is nowhere to go but up and believes they are proposing a modest addition and
have adjusted their design to accommodate neighbor concerns. She added the renovation will be a positive addition to the
neighborhood.
Robert Munroe/864 A St/Stated he is the owner to the adjacent cabinet shop and provided some history on the property. He
stated Section 18.1.4 does not allow you to change the size of a nonconforming structure and commented that the cottage is
slab on grade and there is no foundation. Mr. Munroe expressed his concern that the property owners will tear down the
structure and start from scratch, but when you do this it is a brand new building and must meet current code requirements.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9. 2016
Page 3 of 6
He stated the code requires four off street spaces but the applicants only have two, and one of those does not meet the size
requirements. He also disagreed with the applicant's testimony and stated the on-street parking does fill up.
Alan Adlemanl886 A St/Stated parking has been an issue in the neighborhood and most of the garages are used for storage
with residents parking on the street. Mr. Adleman commented that the applicants have done a great job improving the main
house but stated the second story addition to the back unit is too much. He stated his solar access will be compromised and
the second story deck will look right into his backyard and intrude on his privacy.
Questions of Staff
Mr. Molnar provided an overview of how the code requirements have been applied historically and stated aside from being
nonconforming, the commission must determine whether the proposal complies with the rest of the criteria.
Ms. Harris clarified she spoke with the city's building official regarding the front door opening. She stated the door may be
grandfathered in by building code, but if not the applicant's would likely remove the door by the parking and just utilize the
other one since there are two.
Ms. Harris also clarified the parking requirements and stated the code allows one credit for each on street space, however this
is discretionary.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Ms. Gunter stated there is a survey pin on the site that is visible and requested the applicant not be burdened with having to
hire a surveyor. She stated when the main home was remodeled the closets were removed and technically this is a one
bedroom house that only requires three parking spaces. She added there is ample room on the property to locate additional
bicycle parking. Ms. Gunter stated the door is a preexisting situation and as long as they do not demolish the structure this
nonconformity can continue. She noted the Historic Commission unanimously approved their request and stated the additional
square footage allows for working space for the residents and furthers the intent of the E-1 zone. She added they do not
believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on the zone.
Mr. Lackey commented that the main house is a one bedroom and it cannot legally have any bedrooms downstairs due to the
grade and egress.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and the public hearing at 9.•00 p. m.
Questions of Staff
Comment was made that it seems like they are looking at a moving target and staff was asked whether this is considered a
one bedroom home. Mr. Molnar reminded the applicant of the purpose of rebuttal and stated this is not the time to introduce
new information. Staff stated there is no way to verify this information and stated in the current and past applications this has
never been portrayed as a one bedroom house.
Deliberations and Decision
The commissioners shared their questions and opinions regarding the proposal. Commissioner Pearce commented that if they
are retaining three walls this needs to be included in the conditions of approval, and if the cottage is torn down then the new
structure will have to meet the current setback requirements. He stated he is willing to support the Historic Commission's
recommendation on the design, but voiced concern with the parking and believes they should provide four off street spaces.
Commissioner Dawkins voiced his support for the project and stated he is not worried about parking. He stated the Railroad
District is densifying and will continue to do so, however he did express concern with how to adopt findings that will hold up at
LUBA. Commissioner Miller voiced support for residential units in the Railroad District and does not believe parking is an
issue, but called attention to the neighbor's concern about privacy. Commissioner Thompson stated she is not worried about
the mass, scale, or setbacks and stated the proposal is similar to the structures in the immediate vicinity, however she voiced
concern with the absence of an E-1 use. Commissioner Mindlin stated the property is across the street from a park and there
is plenty of parking on that block, She also noted the Historic Commission approved the design, but as a residential use she
questioned if the proposal should meet the residential standards. Commissioner Thompson commented that if they compare
the proposal to the target use of the zone, this will have much less parking demand. Commissioner Brown acknowledged the
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9, 2016
Page 4 of 6
neighbor's privacy concerns, but stated he does not believe parking will be a problem and stated a denial of the application
would not serve a real purpose. He added, however, that he does not believe they can approve the findings as presented.
Commissioner Mindlin asked the applicants to come forward and Mr. Lackey agreed to grant the City a 60-day extension so
that revised findings can be brought back for approval.
Ms. Harris commented on the recommended conditions of approval and suggested the following modifications: 1) delete
condition #2, 2) delete condition #3, and 3) include a condition that the building permit submittals shall demonstrate that the
construction does not include a demolition as defined in 15.04.210.A.1, if the proposal does include a demolition the
conditional use permit and site review approval is not valid. Commissioners Brown and Thompson recommended that the
findings include that aside from the setbacks, the applicant must comply with the requirements of 18.2.3.130. Ms. Harris
clarified the application meets all of the E-1 requirements except for the rear yard setback. Commissioner Mindlin asked that it
be made clear that they are confirming a residential use as a conditional use. Ms. Harris stated staff would make it clear in the
findings that these are legal, nonconforming structures and the conditional use permit is to adjust the nonconformity aspects of
the structure. Commissioner Pearce stated the conditional use permit also grants an increase in the volume of the use.
Commissioners Thompson/Brown m/s to approve PA-2015-02203 with conditions as set forth on pages 40-42
modified to delete condition #2, modify condition #3 to refer to the demolition permit to require the applicant to
demonstrate that the construction does not include demolition as defined in the applicable section of the code, and
further to clarify that they are approving a conditional use permit recognizing an enlargement of the residential use
as set forth in the applicable code sections. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Dawkins, Pearce, Miller, Brown,
Thompson, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to extend meeting to 70•00 p, m. Voice Vote: All A YES.
B. PLANNING ACTION: PA #2016-00041
SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1465 Webster Street (on the Southern Oregon University campus)
APPLICANT: Southern Oregon University
DESCRIPTION: A request to modify PA #2015-00418 which granted Site Design Review and Conditional Use
Permit approval for the renovation of McNeal Pavilion and construction of a new Student Recreation Center on
the Southern Oregon University Campus 1465 Webster Street. The previous approval included a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the buildings to exceed the 40-foot height allowed in the SO zoning district, and Tree Removal
Permits to remove nine trees 18-inches in diameter-at-breast-height (d.b.h.) or greater. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
DESIGNATION: Southern Oregon University; ZONING: SO; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 391E 10 CD; TAX LOT: 100.
Ex Parte Contact
Commissioner Pearce declared a site visit. No ex parte contact was reported.
Staff Report
Associate Planner Derek Severson reviewed the 11 changes to the original approval as described in the staff report. He
commented on the building entries and stated the commission will need to determine whether the modified entry and the
roundabout is still consistent with the building entry standard in the SOU Master Plan. He commented that the pedestrian
circulation changes are a significant improvement to what was originally approved, and noted staff is recommending a
condition of approval requiring the rooftop mechanical equipment to be screened. Mr. Severson commented on the alterations
to the Wightman parking lot and also reviewed the modifications to the tree protection plan. He explained the applicants are
proposing to preserve a number of trees that were originally going to be removed and stated the Tree Commission has
evaluated the request and were supportive of the application as submitted.
Commissioners Dawkins/Miller m/s to extend the meeting to 70:30 p. m, Voice Vote., all A YES.
Applicant's Presentation
Drew Gilliland with SOU and Beverly Thurston of CSA Planning addressed the commission. Ms. Thurston commented on
the entry and explained there is a slope that impacts the design and stated rather than relocating the doors it makes more
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9, 2016
Page 5 of 6
sense to have a beautiful plaza with a strongly articulated entrance. Mr. Gilliland commented on the mechanical screening
requirement and suggested that this may be unnecessary because of the building's location. He stated it is a very small
section of roof that will be visible to someone driving past and stated someone would really need to look for it. Ms. Thurston
noted their request to remove tree #7 and explained the tree has been evaluated by an arborist and is diseased. Rather than
letting it die on its own and impact the other trees they believe it is prudent to remove it as part of this process.
Questions of Staff
Staff was asked to address the screening condition and it was explained that the City received a number of complaints
regarding the lack of screening in another location on campus. Mr. Molnar added there is not enough information to determine
that screening is not needed, and noted unless you know all the different vantage points you cannot determine how others will
be impacted.
Public Testimony
No one came forward to speak.
Applicant's Rebuttal
Mr. Gilliland stated the screening is not something they feel strongly about but is an expense they would rather not have. He
stated they do not want a repeat of the other scenario but do not believe the mechanical equipment will be an issue for
people.
Commissioner Mindlin closed the record and public hearing at 10: 70 p. m.
Deliberations and Decision
Commissioner Pearce commented that he does not believe screening is optional and recommended they require this.
Commissioners Pearce/Thompson m/s to approve PA-2016-00041 with the conditions of approval recommended by
staff. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Thompson, Dawkins, Pearce, Brown, Miller, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed
unanimously. .
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:15p.m.
Submitted by,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
February 9, 2016
Page-6 of 6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 2016
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.
Planning Commissioners Present: Staff Present:
Troy J. Brown, Jr. Bill Molnar, Community Development Director
Michael Dawkins Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Melanie Mindlin
Haywood Norton
Roger Pearce
Lynn Thompson
Tree Commissioners Present: Council Liaison:
Maureen Batistella Greg Lemhouse, absent
Wildfire Mitigation Commissioners
Present:
Victoria Sturtevant
ANNOUNCEMENTSIAD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES
Community Development Director Bill Molnar stated the March 8 agenda will include two sets of findings for adoption and the
public hearing for the Airport Overlay modifications, and stated the April meeting will be a full one with two public hearings
already scheduled. He noted the upcoming May retreat and stated staff will send out a formal query to determine the date.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forward to speak.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Development Standards for Wildfire Lands Ordinance Amendments.
Senior Planner Brandon Goldman explained the draft ordinance: 1) moves the current wildfire lands boundary to incorporate
the entire city, 2) sets development thresholds for fire prevention and control plans and fuels reduction requirements, and 3)
adopts a fuel break prohibited plant list. Fire prevention and control plans would be required for planning actions involving
subdivisions, site design review, or partitions; and fuel break requirements would be required for all new structures (including
decks and accessory structures) that increase lot coverage by 200 sq.ft. or more; additions to existing buildings that increase
the gross floor area by 200 sq.ft. or more; and conversions of existing detached buildings into new habitable space. Mr.
Goldman reviewed the fuel break requirements outlined in the staff report and stated there are a few areas that are still under
discussion, including roofing materials, tree canopy separation requirements and distance from structures, and whether to
apply the fuel break prohibited plant list citywide.
Alison Lerch with Ashland Fire and Rescue distributed a list of other communities that have adopted similar requirements, and
Fire Chief John Karns and Forestry Division Chief Chris Chambers addressed the commission. Mr. Karns clarified they are
seeking a prohibition against all wood roofs, even those marketed as fire resistant, and commented on their request to have a
10 ft. separation requirement for highly flammable trees. Mr. Chambers stated the international wildland-urban interface model
Ashland Planning Commission
February 23, 2016
Page 1 of 3
code includes a 10 ft. separation standard and presented examples of landscaping in town that would comply with the
proposed requirements.
The commission and staff held general conversation about the proposed requirements. Questions and comments about the
draft ordinance included:
• Clarification from staff that the ordinance would include an appeals process.
• Staff was questioned whether the proposed triggers would get the city to where it wants quickly enough.
• Comment was made questioning how this ordinance fits in with the city's other goals and the city's distinction as a
Bee City USA and Tree City USA.
• Mr. Chambers clarified the ordinance was adjusted to allow mulch next to foundations and structures with non-
combustible siding.
• Tree Commissioner Maureen Batistella stated their commission did discuss the ordinance and Commissioner
Oxidine was tasked with reviewing the prohibited plant list and forwarding a recommendation. Mr. Goldman stated
staff had not received this recommendation and encouraged the full Tree Commission to conduct a review and
provide a formal recommendation.
• Staff was asked if one of the goals is to reduce conifer trees. Mr. Chambers stated this was not a goal, but agreed
the proposal would result in fewer conifer trees in town. He stated they would still be allowed as long as they are at
least 30 ft. from a structure or located in a park or open space area.
• Comment was made expressing concern regarding the proposed language in Section 18.3.10.100.A.
• Concern was expressed that on some lots the fuel break could encompass the entire property and would require
property owners to rethink and modify their entire landscaping.
• Concern was expressed that the proposed standards could have a significant impact on mature landscaping in
Ashland and could also pose a significant financial burden to bring the landscaping into compliance.
• Comment was made that the ordinance is "one size fits all" but there are different levels of risk within the city; and
mitigating at this highest level, even in areas where the risk is lower, would result in a significant cost to those
property owners.
• Fire Marshal Margueritte Hickman explained in their current procedures they are able to make judgement calls and
provide guidance in the field and they would like to include more flexibility in the ordinance, but that is not the way the
land use code works.
• Correction was noted to Section 18.3.10.100. It references section B5 but that does not exist.
• Comment was made voicing support for including the prohibited plant list in Chapter 9 and applying it citywide.
• Concern was expressed on whether this ordinance would be effective in reducing the city's fire danger. Comment
was made that there will not be enough people coming in for permits to create heard immunity for a neighborhood
and requiring these requirements on a minor project (such as a deck addition) would not only be costly and
potentially unfair, but potentially unconstitutional.
• Opposing comment was made that this is a long term plan and once citizens are informed some of these actions they
will do on their own. It was stated that the proposal is feasible and they should start now and overtime the city will
become more protected.
• Comment was made that the requirements are appropriate for new construction, but small additions should not be
included.
• Staff was questioned why this is tied to building permits when it is really more of a health and safety issue.
• Comment was made that additional time, money, and staffing will be required however they approach this.
• Mr. Karns stated that even if only 1 out of 20 homes complies, fire behavior changes and the rate of speed changes,
and stated there is still value in having sporadic compliance,
• Ms. Hickman clarified when the Fire Department approached the City Council a number of years ago for a citywide
vegetation ordinance they were not supportive. She added their mission is to make the community safer and they are
willing to move forward however the Council decides.
• Ms. Hickman clarified one of the Council goals is to complete this expansion and this proposal is directly in line with
one of their stated goals.
• Comment was made suggesting the Fire Department focus on re-roofing to reduce the risk of fire spreading rapidly
instead of landscaping and small additions.
Ashland Planning Commission
February 23. 2016
Page 2 of 3
• Suggestion was made for the next discussion of this topic to be a joint meeting with the City Council.
The commission and staff concluded their discussion and it was announced that there will be an Open House on hursday,
February 25 for interested citizens and local professionals to get information on the proposal and meet with staff.
Commissioner Mindlin commented that they are accustomed to having unanimity and believes more work is needed to get this
to something that is workable. She encouraged staff to continue working on the proposal and stated she does want to push
forward with the public hearings and have a split vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Submitted bT,
April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor
Ashland Planning Commission
February 23. 2016
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
Approval of an Intergovernmental Agreement for Traffic Signal Maintenance
FROM:
Scott A. Fleury, Engineering Services Manager, Public Works/Engineering, scott.fleury@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) for maintenance and power costs for both City and ODOT owned traffic signals. There are
twenty signalized intersections within City limits that require maintenance and power. The City relies
on ODOT expertise in properly maintaining the system.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The previous Traffic Signal Maintenance IGA #19017 was developed by ODOT and approved in
2002. The agreement expired on February 28, 2012. The City and ODOT have continued to operate
under the terms of the old agreement after its expiration, while ODOT drafted a new agreement.
The new IGA is substantially similar to the previous agreement. The main difference is revision of the
fee schedule and an agreement life of twenty years. Per the agreement the City will pay for 100% of
signal maintenance and electrical costs up to $2,000 per signalized intersection per year. Exhibit A of
the attached IGA 431052 details the cost breakdown for both power and maintenance.
The new agreement will allow ODOT to maintain the signals and the City to budget and pay for
maintenance and power needs appropriately.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
N/A
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
The cost associated with traffic signal maintenance and power is budgeted for in the Street Fund on a
biennium basis. There are 20 signalized intersections in the City, making the maximum cost $40,000
annually.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the IGA with ODOT for traffic signal maintenance.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve an intergovernmental agreement with ODOT for traffic signal maintenance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. IGA #31052
2. IGA #19017
Page 1 of I
9:1r
Misc. Contracts and Agreements
No. 31052
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
City of Ashland
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF OREGON,
acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "State;"
and the City of Ashland, acting by and through its elected officials, hereinafter referred to
as "Agency," both herein referred to individually or collectively as "Party" or "Parties".
RECITALS
1. The traffic signals listed in Exhibit A, Unit 2 are part of the state highway system
under the jurisdiction and control of the Oregon Transportation Commission. The
traffic signals and flashing beacon listed in Exhibit A, Unit 1, are parts of the City
street system under the jurisdiction and control of Agency.
2. By the authority granted in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 190.110, 366.572 and
366.576, State may enter into cooperative agreements with counties, cities and units
of local governments for the performance of work on certain types of improvement
projects with the allocation of costs on terms and conditions mutually agreeable to
the contracting parties.
3. By the authority granted in ORS 810.210, State is authorized to determine the
character or type of traffic control devices to be used, and to place or erect them
upon state highways at places where State deems necessary for the safe and
expeditious control of traffic. No traffic control devices shall be erected, maintained,
or operated upon any state highway by any authority other than State, except with
its written approval. Traffic signal work on this Project will conform to the current
State standards and specifications.
4. State and Agency have determined that it is both to their mutual benefit and to the
general public's benefit if they jointly utilize State and Agency maintenance resources.
NOW THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing Recitals,
it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1. This Agreement shall supersede Agreement No. 19017, approved August 8, 2002,
between Agency and State. Agreement 19017 shall terminate upon execution of
this Agreement.
2. Under such authority, State and Agency enter into this Agreement to identify the
maintenance, timing, and electrical energy responsibilities for the traffic signals
(Signals); maintenance and electrical energy responsibilities for the illumination
attached to the signal poles (Signal Illumination), the illumination for the interstate
ramps (Interchange Illumination), and illumination supporting the signal operation
08-20-12
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
video detection zones (Video Detection Illumination) along Agency Roads and state
highways as shown in the chart marked Exhibit A, attached hereto and by this
reference made a part of this Agreement.
3. The total cost of the maintenance and timing shall not exceed the aggregate of
$2,000 per signal, per calendar year. The total cost of the electrical energy costs
shall not exceed the aggregate of $2,000 per signal, per calendar year. Said cost is
subject to review for inflation, and any changes shall be by an amendment, signed
by both Parties. Maintenance does not include repairs performed on an emergency
basis or as a result of a construction project and are not included under this
Agreement.
4. This Agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are
obtained and shall remain in effect for the purpose of ongoing maintenance and
power responsibilities for the useful life of the facilities. The useful life is defined as
twenty (20) calendar years. Maintenance and electrical energy responsibilities shall
survive any termination of this Agreement.
AGENCY OBLIGATIONS
1. Agency grants State the right to enter onto Agency right of way for the performance
of duties as set forth in this Agreement.
2. Agency shall pay 100 percent of the electrical energy costs associated with the
Video Detection Illumination, Signals, and Signal Illumination listed in Exhibit A,
Units 1 and 2. Agency shall have the power company send bills directly to Agency.
3. Agency shall pay 100 percent of the maintenance costs associated with the Video
Detection Illumination, Signals, and Signal Illumination listed in Exhibit A, Unit 1.
4. Agency shall, upon receipt of invoice from State for maintenance costs associated
with the Video Detection Illumination, Signals, and Signal Illumination in Unit 1,
reimburse State for one hundred (100) percent of said costs. Agency shall remit
payment within forty-five (45) days to State's, Region Electrical Manager, ODOT
Region 3, 345 NE Agness Ave., Grants Pass, Oregon 97526. Agency total cost for
maintenance shall not exceed the total of $2,000 times the number of covered
signals per calendar year.
5. Agency shall maintain the asphaltic concrete pavement surrounding the vehicle
detector loops installed in the Agency streets in such a manner as to provide
adequate protection for said detector loops.
6. In cases where Agency modifies timing to add railroad or emergency vehicle
preemption, bus priority, or other changes that affect vehicle or pedestrian
clearances, or operation of the interstate ramps, such modifications shall be
reported to State's Region Traffic Engineer. State shall retain the right of review of
the traffic signal timing for signals on state highways and shall reserve the right to
2
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
request adjustments when needed. All modifications shall follow guidelines set forth
in the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and the current State
Traffic Signal Policy and Guidelines.
7. All employers, including Agency, that employ subject workers who work under this
Agreement in the State of Oregon shall comply with ORS 656.017 and provide the
required Workers' Compensation coverage unless such employers are exempt
under ORS 656.126. Employers Liability insurance with coverage limits of not less
than $500,000 must be included. Agency shall ensure that each of its contractors
complies with these requirements.
8. Agency acknowledges and agrees that State, the Secretary of State's Office of the
State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized representatives
shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of Agency which
are directly pertinent to the specific Agreement for the purpose of making audit,
examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of six (6) years after completion
of Project. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request.
Payment for costs of copies is reimbursable by State.
9. Agency's Project Manager for this Project is the Agency Public Works Director,
Public Works Department, Mike Faught, 20 East Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520,
541-552-2411, faughtm@ashland.or.us , or assigned designee upon individual's
absence. Agency shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information
changes during the term of this Agreement.
STATE OBLIGATIONS
1. State shall perform all necessary maintenance and timing of traffic signals and
beacons listed in Exhibit A, Units 1 and 2.
2. State shall be responsible for illumination, signing, inspection, turn-on and signal
timing for the signals described in this Agreement.
3. State shall submit billings to Agency for actual maintenance costs incurred for work
performed under this Agreement for signals and beacons listed on Exhibit A, Unit 1.
Payment shall be made within forty-five (45) days of the invoice date.
4. State's Project Manager for this Project is the Region 3 Electrical Manager, Chris
Hunter, 3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon, 541-957-3689,
chris.hunter@odot.state. or.us, or assigned designee upon individual's absence.
State shall notify the other Party in writing of any contact information changes during
the term of this Agreement.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. This Agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of both Parties.
2. State may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to
3
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
Agency, or at such later date as may be established by State, under any of the
following conditions:
a. If Agency fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the
time specified herein or any extension thereof.
b. If Agency fails to perform any of the other provisions of this Agreement,
or so fails to pursue the work as to endanger performance of this
Agreement in accordance with its terms, and after receipt of written
notice from State fails to correct such failures within ten (10) days or
such longer period as State may authorize.
c. If Agency fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the
Agreement.
d. If State fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority sufficient to allow State, in the exercise of its
reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for
performance of this Agreement.
e. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or
interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is
prohibited or State is prohibited from paying for such work from the
planned funding source.
3. Agency may terminate this Agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to
State, or at such later date as may be established by Agency, under any of the
following conditions:
a. If State fails to provide services called for by this Agreement within the
time specified herein or any extension thereof.
b. If State fails to provide payment of its share of the cost of the
Agreement.
c. If Agency fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority sufficient to allow Agency, in the exercise of its
reasonable administrative discretion, to continue to make payments for
performance of this Agreement.
d. If federal or state laws, regulations or guidelines are modified or
interpreted in such a way that either the work under this Agreement is
prohibited or Agency is prohibited from paying for such work from the
planned funding source.
4. Any termination of this Agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations accrued
to the parties prior to termination.
4
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
5. Both Parties shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this Agreement,
including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279B.220, 279B.225, 27913.230,
279B.235 and 27913.270 incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Both Parties expressly agrees to
comply with (i) Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Title V and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS
659A.142; (iv) all regulations and administrative rules established pursuant to the
foregoing laws; and (v) all other applicable requirements of federal and state civil
rights and rehabilitation statutes, rules and regulations.
6. If any third party makes any claim or brings any action, suit or proceeding alleging a
tort as now or hereafter defined in ORS 30.260 ("Third Party Claim") against State or
Agency with respect to which the other Party may have liability, the notified Party must
promptly notify the other Party in writing of the Third Party Claim and deliver to the
other Party a copy of the claim, process, and all legal pleadings with respect to the
Third Party Claim. Each Party is entitled to participate in the defense of a Third Party
Claim, and to defend a Third Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing. Receipt by
a Party of the notice and copies required in this paragraph and meaningful opportunity
for the Party to participate in the investigation, defense and settlement of the Third
Party Claim with counsel of its own choosing are conditions precedent to that Party's
liability with respect to the Third Party Claim.
7. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which the State is jointly liable with Agency (or
would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), State shall contribute to the amount of
expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement
actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by Agency in such proportion as
is appropriate to reflect the relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on
the other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses,
judgments, fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable
considerations. The relative fault of State on the one hand and of Agency on the other
hand shall be determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative
intent, knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the
circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts.
State's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would
have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
30.260 to 30.300, if State had sole liability in the proceeding.
8. With respect to a Third Party Claim for which Agency is jointly liable with State (or
would be if joined in the Third Party Claim), Agency shall contribute to the amount of
expenses (including attorneys' fees), judgments, fines and amounts paid in settlement
actually and reasonably incurred and paid or payable by State in such proportion as is
appropriate to reflect the relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the
other hand in connection with the events which resulted in such expenses, judgments,
fines or settlement amounts, as well as any other relevant equitable considerations.
The relative fault of Agency on the one hand and of State on the other hand shall be
determined by reference to, among other things, the Parties' relative intent,
5
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
knowledge, access to information and opportunity to correct or prevent the
circumstances resulting in such expenses, judgments, fines or settlement amounts.
Agency's contribution amount in any instance is capped to the same extent it would
have been capped under Oregon law, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
30.260 to 30.300, if it had sole liability in the proceeding.
9. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of this
Agreement. In addition, the Parties may agree to utilize a jointly selected mediator or
arbitrator (for non-binding arbitration) to resolve the dispute short of litigation.
10. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts (facsimile or otherwise) all
of which when taken together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties,
notwithstanding that all Parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. Each
copy of this Agreement so executed shall constitute an original.
11. This Agreement and attached exhibits constitute the entire agreement between the
Parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements, or
representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this Agreement. No
waiver, consent, modification, or change of terms of this Agreement shall bind either
Party unless in writing and signed by both Parties and all necessary approvals have
been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification, or change, if made, shall be
effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The failure of
State to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver by State
of that or any other provision.
6
Agency/State
Agreement No. 31052
THE PARTIES, by execution of this Agreement, hereby acknowledge that their signing
representatives have read this Agreement, understand it, and agree to be bound by its
terms and conditions.
CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its STATE OF OREGON, by and through
elected officials its Department of Transportation
By By
Mayor Highway Division Administrator
Date Date
By APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
City Recorder
By
Date State Traffic Engineer
Date
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By
By Region 3 Manager
City Attorney
Date
Date _
By
Region 3 Electrical Manager
Agency Contact
Mike Faught Date
Public works Director
20 East Main Street APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
Ashland, OR 97520 SUFFICIENCY
541-552-2411
fau htm .ashland.or.lus By
Assistant Attorney General
State Contact
Chris Hunter Date
3500 NW Stewart Parkway
Roseburg, Oregon
541-957-3689
chris.hunter@odot.state.or.us
7
c = w -se, O M 0 0 0 0 0 0
p O O O CD O O O CD O O
U N O p p p p p p p p p p O
U I I I I I I I I I I I
~ W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(n C C C C C C C C C C C
a) N O O O Q) Q) Q) O Q) Q)
a Q Q Q¢ Q Q Q a Q Q Q
a) a) o
N~
E aD m
' m N -
=
CO
.0 c
a) c 0
a) o 0 \0 o 0 0 0 \0 o 0 0 0 \ a0
V O \ \
cn V 0 U CD O p p p O p p p O p
> c U) W p p O p p O O p p p p
r r
~ U I I I I I I I I I I I
Q v v v v v v v v v v v
Z c c c c c c c c
H 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) CP cm 0)
a) c~ Z Q a Q Q Q Q a Q Q Q Q
a. L c Q
~a)o
-0 :3 r
a' Q E
U
m 0 Q) - DO
X -0 Q Z
W -0 0 C
CZ c -0 C/)
o c a~
L U O LL
.-1
Q)
~ a)
i C
Cl) } a) m
O Q) _ C Q m E CO Q
U + ~c Q (U O 0)
-0-0 10 L) a)
cm C: U)
_ m m °
c
> a UJ M 0 0 >
(D tit
CV ~ V (n m m m m CO 2:1 co
(n
p (6 = u V Lij cn L
0 0 O = L c~ cYn Q co V Co N N
Z O C~ Cn C U) > z C/) Q
0 U~ 07 M CD M M > m 07 p CD
>1 E
(6 O O x CY O CY !E Q)
a) L 0 0 0 0 2i 0 1D C/) O O O
Q Q Imo- m 2 U (V C-) Lc * co r` M, of °
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O
4- O O O O O O O O O O
0 C/) U I I I I I I I ~ I
O F 3 w U U U U U V U U U
c a) 0 W c c c c c c c c
0 0) 0) 0) z) cm 0) 0) m
>s _a a U a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
N
Ca .a+
N
O Cl)
U C
M ,O
L) N H
O N i Cn
CY) Cv
Q O
0 \o \ 0 0 o0 0 0 0 0 0
N O O O O O O O O O
-O 0 Z O O O O O O O O O
r c- r
7; -0
CU Q I I I I I I I I I
E Z N
a) N= W M M M
•O F- Cn Cn Cn C/) CI) Cn Cn
4-1
U) =3 Z
>1 -0
C6 & •E
L CU
t~ C
N moo=
F- - o T
U)
Z U c
N
CB N ~
C1 ~ ~
O (U
cu -0 m O
>
` L
= Z M a) U
_ ~ c
O CO Cn c c c Cn > E
Ln U c c Cti za c6
(D - Ca U
ca
E 171
u J rn rn rn rn -z3
- o c c rn rn rn rn rn o~ rn>
U ca _ m Cn
a) C:
c cn 0 0 0 0 0
_ O O Uz:3 Uzi a
co c 0 4 Cn Cn Cn W CO cn Q
O u) .a m c m (0
4 z U) c N N a) a)
M O O Q L E c O c O m CO
CO N ~ L Ca O O O N D CY
2 a. w a- w O O
N G
U
O
(ll a) (U O 4-' N M (D f~ M 07
L
CY) 0)
QQ ~O cn
July 11, 2002 Misc. _Contracts & Agreements
No. 19017
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
CITY OF ASHLAND
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the STATE OF
OREGON, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred
to as "ODOT"; and the CITY OF ASHLAND, acting by and through its Elected Officials,
hereinafter referred to as "City".
WITNESSETH
RECITALS
1. By the authority granted in ORS 190.110, 366.770 and 366.775, ODOT may enter
into cooperative agreements with the various counties and cities for the performance
of work on certain types of improvement projects with the allocation of costs on
terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the contracting parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, the premises being in general as stated in the foregoing
RECITALS, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows:
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
1. This agreement shall cover the electrical, maintenance and timing responsibilities of
the traffic signals and flashing beacons identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
by this reference made a part hereof.
2. The traffic signals listed and flashing beacons in Unit 1 of Exhibit A are part of the
City's system under the jurisdiction and control of the City.
3. The traffic signals listed in Unit 2 of Exhibit A are part of ODOT's highway system
under the jurisdiction and control of ODOT.
4. This agreement will cover the electrical and maintenance responsibilities of the
traffic signals identified in Exhibit A. The total cost of the maintenance of traffic
signals and flashing beacons listed in Unit 1 of Exhibit A shall not exceed $1500 per
traffic signal, per year. The total cost of the State's share of maintenance costs
FILE COPS'
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
obligated under this agreement shall not exceed $120,000 in State Funds during the
term of this Agreement. Said cost is subject to review for inflation, and any changes
shall be by a fully executed amendment, signed by both parties. Maintenance does
not include repairs performed on an emergency basis; emergency costs shall be the
liability of the party that has jurisdiction of the respective traffic signal or flashing
beacon. In addition, maintenance does not include repairs that are a result of a
construction project, said construction costs shall be addressed under separate
agreements.
5. This agreement shall become effective on the date all required signatures are
obtained and shall terminate on February 28, 2012.
6. This agreement shall supersede portions of any and all previous agreements
relating to electrical and maintenance responsibilities of the traffic signals and
flashing beacons identified in Exhibit A. Upon execution of this agreement, the
above-mentioned agreements shall be deemed terminated.
CITY OBLIGATIONS
1. City hereby grants ODOT the right to enter onto and occupy city right-of-way for the
performance of necessary maintenance for the traffic signal and flashing beacon
equipment, including detector loops and illumination affixed to or powered from the
traffic signals or flashing beacons.
2. City shall retain ownership of traffic signals and flashing beacons outlined in Unit I
of Exhibit A.
3. City shall maintain the asphaltic concrete pavement surrounding the vehicle detector
loops installed in the City street in such a manner as to provide -adequate protection
'for said detector loops. Damage, if any, caused from City road projects shall be the
responsibility of the City_
4. Electrical Payments: City shall pay for 100 percent of electrical energy consumed in
the daily operation of the traffic signals and flashing beacons in Units 1 & 2 of
Exhibit A.
5. Maintenance Payments: City shall, upon receipt of itemized monthly billing from
ODOT, reimburse ODOT for 100 percent of maintenance and timing costs of traffic
signals and flashing beacons listed in Unit 1 of Exhibit A. Said payments shall be
within 45 days of receipt of invoice.
6. City shall enter into and execute this agreement during a duly authorized session of
its City Council.
2
1
Agreement No, 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
ODOT OBLIGATIONS
1. ODOT shall perform all necessary maintenance and timing of traffic signals and
flashing beacons located at the intersections listed in Units 1, & 2 of Exhibit A.
2. ODOT shall retain ownership of traffic signals and flashing beacons outlined in Unit
2 of Exhibit A. ODOT shall be responsible for the timing of these traffic signals.
3. ODOT shall pay all maintenance costs of traffic signals and flashing beacons
outlined in Unit 2.
4. ODOT shall initially pay all maintenance costs of traffic signals and flashing beacons
outlined in Unit 1 in an amount not to exceed $1500 per signal per year. Said
maintenance costs do not cover emergencies or construction projects.
5: On a monthly basis, ODOT shall submit billings to City for actual costs incurred for
work performed under this agreement for traffic signals and flashing beacons listed
in Unit 1. Payments shall be made within forty-five (45) days of the invoice date.
Payments shall be submitted to Accounts Receivable, 355 Capitol St NE,
Transportation Building, Room 434, Salem, OR 97301.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. Both parties, their consultants or subcontractors, if any, and all employers working
under this agreement are subject employers under the Oregon Worker's
Compensation Law and shall comply with ORS 656.017, which requires them to
provide Workers' Compensation coverage for all their subject workers. Both parties
shall ensure that each of its contractors complies with these requirements.
2. Both parties shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations,
executive orders and ordinances applicable to the work under this agreement,
including, without limitation, the provisions of ORS 279.312, 279.314, 279.316,
279.320 and 279.555, which is incorporated herein, by reference. Wrthout limiting
the generality of the foregoing, City and ODOT expressly agree to comply with (i)
Title VI of Civil Rights Act of 1964; (ii) Section V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(iii) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ORS 659.425; (iv) all regulations
and administrative rules established pursuant to the foregoing laws; and (v) all other
applicable requirements of federal and state civil rights and rehabilitation statutes,
rules And regulations.
3. Each party shall, to the extent permitted by the Oregon Constitution and by the
Oregon Tort Claims Act, indemnify, defend, save, and hold harmless the other party,
that other party's governing body, their officers and employees, from any and all
3
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
claims and other liabilities which may arise in the performance of this agreement,
except claims and liabilities based on negligence or other tortious conduct by the
other party or its officers or employees acting within the scope of their employment
or duties as contemplated under the Oregon Tort Claims'Act.
4. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of both parties, upon 30 days'
notice, in writing and delivered by certified mail or in person.
5. ODOT may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to City,
or at such later date as may be established by ODOT, under any of the following
conditions:
a) If City fails to reimburse ODOT for the maintenance costs of the traffic signals
and flashing beacons or fails to pay for electrical energy.
b) If ODOT fails to receive funding, appropriations, limitations or other
expenditure authority at levels sufficient to perform the provisions of this
agreement.
C) If federal or state laws, regulations, or guidelines are modified or interpreted
in such a way that either the work under this agreement is prohibited or if
ODOT is prohibited from paying for such work from the planned funding
source.
Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice any rights or obligations
accrued to the parties prior to termination.
6. -City may terminate this agreement effective upon delivery of written notice to ODOT,
or at such later date as may be established by City, if.ODOT fails to perform the
work provided for under this agreement, within 30 days' written notice from City of
such failure to perform, if such failure is not remedied within that time.
7. Both parties acknowledge and agree that each party, the Secretary of State's Office
of the State of Oregon, the federal government, and their duly authorized
representatives shall have access to the books, documents, papers, and records of
both parties which are directly pertinent to the specific agreement for the purpose of
making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcripts for a period of three years after
final payment. Copies of applicable records shall be made available upon request.
Payment. for costs of copies is reimbursable by the requesting party. The City's
access to ODOT's records is subject to the Oregon public records laws.
8. This agreement and the attached exhibit constitute the entire agreement between
the parties on the subject matter hereof. There are no understandings, agreements,
or representations, oral or written, not specified herein regarding this agreement.
4
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
No waiver, consent, modification or change of terms of this agreement shall bind
either party unless in writing and signed by both parties and all necessary approvals
have been obtained. Such waiver, consent, modification or change, if made, shall
be effective only in the specific instance and for the specific purpose given. The
failure of ODOT to enforce any provision of this agreement shall not constitute a
waiver by ODOT of that or any other provision.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and affixed their seals
as of the day and year hereinafter written.
The Oregon Transportation Commission on January 16, 2002, approved Delegation
Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and execute agreements for day-
to-day operations when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by
the Commission.
s
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
The Oregon Transportation Commission on January 16, 2002, approved Delegation
Order No. 2, which authorizes the Director to approve and.' execute agreements for day-
to-day operations when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program or a line item in the biennial budget approved by
the Commission.
On January 31, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of transportation
approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, in which the Director grants authority to the
Region Managers for their respective Region, to approve and execute agreements up
to $75,000 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission
such as the Traffic Safety Performance Plan, or in a line item in the approved biennial
budget.
CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its City STATE OF OREGON, by and through its
Council Department of Transportation
By gy
Titlt Region 3 Manager
BY Date
TitlAPPROVAL RECOMMENDED
Date
By
District 8 Manager
APPRO 5ngft SUFFICIENCY
BY Date
City Attorney
Date
State Traffic Engineer
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Date
BY
Asst. Attorney General
Date
Agency Address:
CITY OF ASHLAND
ATTN PUBLIC WORKS Di RECTOR
.20 E MAIN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
6
=:..a;s; ::.,a:.r.~~,r. ,.,.dy,ma._>;:;~,--~~:ra -'s.su,...-_;.ti:s.......w.~:•`~~w:..~_~ aao -s,. a - - - _ f.~_.....
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
On January 31, 2002, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation
approved Subdelegation Order No. 2, in which the Director delegates authority to the
Executive Deputy Director for Highways to approve and execute agreements over
$75,00 when the work is related to a project included in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program, other system plans approved by the Commission such as the
Traffic Safety Performance Plan.
CITY OF ASHLAND, by and through its City STATE OF OREGON, by and through its
Council Department of Transportation
B By
Y
Title , Region 3 Manager
By Date
Title
APPROVAL RECOMMENDED
Date
By
District 8 Manager
APPRO A LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
By Date
City Attome
Date M .l By
State Traffic Engineer
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Date
By
Asst. Attorney General By
Tech. Svcs. Manager/Chief Engineer
Date
Date
By
Executive Deputy Director
Date
A92ncy Address;
CITY OF ASHLAND
ATTN PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
20 E MAIN STREET
ASHLAND OR 97520
6
r
Tr
Agreement No. 19017
Signal Maintenance - Ashland
EXHIBIT A
Unit 1: Under the jurisdiction and control of Unit 2: Under the Jurisdiction and
the City Control of ODOT
City pays 100% maintenance & 100% electrical City pays 100% electrical, no maintenance
ODOT pays 100% maintenance, no electrical
Traffic Signals Traffic Signals
OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ E. Main/4' Streets (Fire Signal) Maple St. @ OR 99 (Main St.)
OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ Beach St, Laurel St. @ OR 99 (Main St.)
OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ Mountain Ave. Helman St. @ OR 99 (Main St.)
OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ Wightman St. Pioneer St. @ OR 99 (Main St.)
Mountain Ave. @ E. Main St. Second St. @ OR 99 (Main St.)
OR 99 SB (Main. St.) @ Gresham Pioneer St. @ OR 99 (Lithia Way)
Lithia Way @ E. Main St. Second St. (a OR 99 cc,, St.)
Sherman @ Siskiyou Blvd. OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ OR 66 (Ashland St.)
OR 99 (Siskiyou Blvd.) @ Walker Ave.
OR 66 (Ashland St.) @ Walker Ave.
OR 66 (Ashland St.) @ Tolman Creek Rd.
Flashing.Beacons Flashing Beacons
OR 99 NB @ Fire Station None
7
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
Special Procurement for AFR Project Wildfire Fuels Reduction
FROM:
Chris Chambers, Forest Division Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue, chamberc@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is a special procurement to implement wildfire fuels reduction work as part of the Ashland Forest
Resiliency Stewardship Project (AFR). This contract obligates City Council approved funding for the
2016-2017 and 2018-2019 biennia in accord with Council Resolution 42015-14 (surcharge to water
meters for AFR project funding). The special procurement allows a contract directly to Lomakatsi
Restoration Project based on the attached justification. This implements the City's contribution toward
completion of the AFR footprint in the current biennium and ongoing maintenance of forests in the
City's watershed into the future.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The City Council has approved the City's participation in the AFR Master Stewardship Agreement
(2010) and subsequent Supplemental Project Agreements that allocated federal and City funding to the
project. All work is done toward the goal of protecting the community and restoring resiliency in the
Ashland Watershed, source of the City's drinking water supply. This meets the intent of City Council
goals past and present. To date, Lomakatsi has successfully implemented over 5,000 acres of this exact
type of treatment in the AFR project at lower than expected cost. Lomakatsi is the project lead on
workforce and contracting for fuels reduction and has been since 2010. For the activities proposed to
be implemented under this contract, Lomakatsi has the personnel capacity and contractual standing that
warrants a Special Procurement for this contract.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
8. Protect the integrity and safety of the watershed.
8.1 Implement and maintain the Ashland Forest Resiliency project
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
This contract with Lomakatsi will allocate up to $350,000 over each of the next two biennia for a total
of $700,000. Funding is dedicated in the current biennial budget and given the intent and support for
the Council's resolution to fund AFR completion and maintenance perpetually, a multi-year contract
would save staff time and facilitate implementation timelines.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Procurement to Lomakatsi Restoration Project for $700,000
dollars through June 30, 2019.
Page 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
-AS H LAN D
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move that the City Council, acting as local contract review board, approve this contract specific
special procurement with Lomakatsi Restoration Project for wildfire fuels reduction.
ATTACHMENTS:
Form for Special Procurement, Request for Approval
Lomakatsi Restoration Project Work Proposal
Determination of Feasibility Memo from Staff
Page 2 of 2
1r
CITY of
FORM #9 ASHLAND
SPECIAL PROCUREMENT
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL
To: City Council, Local Contract Review Board
From: Chris Chambers, Fire Department
Date: April 5th, 2016
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 Fire & Rescue
2. Department Contact Name: Chris Chambers Forest Division Chief
3. Type of Request: Class Special Procurement X Contract-specific Special Procurement
4. Time Period Requested: From 4/12/2016 To: 6/30/2019
5. Total Estimated Cost: Not to exceed $700,000_
6. Short title of the Procurement: Ashland Forest Resiliency Wildfire Fuels Reduction
Supplies and/or Services or class of Supplies and/or Services to be acquired:
The services will include desiynintr and implementing surface and ladder fuel thinning and piling
project layout and prescribed fire activities as part of the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project in and
around the Ashland Watershed on U.S. Forest Service land Lomakatsi will provide the workforce
necessary to design, lay out and implement vegetation thinning and creation of burn piles and
prescribed burn activities according to AFR project Master Stewardship Agreement specifications and
those specific to the identified unit of work.
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: As codified in the AFR Master Stewardship Agreement and subsequent Supplemental
Project Agreements Lomakatsi Restoration Project lead implementation of the surface and ladder fuel
thinning and prescribed burn workforce capacity in the AFR project on over 4000 acres since 2010.
Under this arrangement, Lomakatsi is the only entity that contracting dollars can pass through for
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 1 of 3, 312912016
work to be implemented in the AFR project to which the City of Ashland is an equal partner along
with The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Forest Service.
8. Justification for use of Special Procurement: Describe the circumstances that justify the use of a
Special Procurement. Attach relevant documentation.
As the lead AFR partner for the past 6 years on surface and ladder fuel thinning and prescribed
bum Lomakatsi has developed a unique ability to assess and implement ecologically appropriate
work in a sensitive operating environment Importantly, as a non-profit project partner, Lomakatsi will
implement this work largely at actual cost resulting in more acres completed for the dollars invested.
This has gained the AFR project many additional acres over the past six years versus the projected
accomplishments Additionally, under the AFR Master Stewardship Agreement, Lomakatsi has the
designated role within the group to coordinate workforce and contracting Going outside this
agreement would not be an appropriate course of action without first renegotiating the Master
Agreement The City lacks the internal capacity to field a workforce that would accomplish the project
outcomes desired by the AFR partner and as spelled out in the City Council's goals for watershed and
community safety.
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:
The situation of the AFR stewardship agreement partnership including Lomakatsi, is unique and has
served to accomplish work that would likely not have been possible in a standard operating
framework. There are no contractors who have this relationship to the AFR project or operate on a
cost-only basis.
(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:
As mentioned above Lomakatsi as a non-profit, will charge the City on actual operating costs per
acre for surface and ladder fuel treatments which have proven to be less than project cost estimates
over the past six years of AFR work This will result in a larger footprint of work completed.
(Please provide the total estimate cost savings to be gained and the rationale for determining the cost savings); or
X (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 there under because:
Lomakatsi's experience in the Ashland Watershed has allowed them to accumulate site-specific
knowledge of local ecology, expectations of the AFR partnership and public, and tested methods of
implementation that have yielded acceptable outcomes on over 4000 previous acres. The City's
Ashland Forest Resiliency Community Alternative envisioned this brand of ecologically informed
forestry in the Ashland Watershed as a reflection of the community's values.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 2 of 3, 3/29/2016
(Please provide specific information that demonstrates how the proposed Special Procurement meets this requirement)
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 Ajx-il 51h, 2016
PUBLIC NOTICE
Approval of a Special Procurement
First date of publication: April 51h, 2016
A request for approval of a Special Procurement was presented to and approved by the
City Council, acting as the Local Contract Review Board, on April 5th, 2016.
This special Procureineni is a "Contract- Shecijic Special Procurement The proposed
conlractin pi-ocedure is drreel ctivard to Loinakalsi Restoration Project f )r Site Specrfic
.forestry ivork on the Ashland Forest Resiliency steivarclship project. Lomakalsi has
uniyzre experience as a1wriner in this project, and has comlVeled over 4000 acres of
silnilar 11,01•k on this project, in like conditions, and at or below expected costs.
It has been determined based on written findings that the Special Procurement will be
unlikely to encourage favoritism in the awarding of public contracts or to substantially
diminish competition for public contracts, and result in substantial cost savings or
substantially promote the public interest in a manner that could not be realized by
complying with the requirements that are applicable in ORS 27913.055, 27913.060,
27913.065, or 27913.070.
An affected person may protest the request for approval of a Special Procurement in
accordance with ORS 27913.400 and OAR 137-047-0300. A written protest shall be
delivered to the following address: City of Ashland, Kari Olson, Purchasing
Representative, 90 N. Mountain, Ashland, OR 97520. The seven (7) day protest period
will expire at 5:00pm on April I I1h, 2016.
This public notice is being published on the City's Internet World Wide Web site at least
seven days prior to the award of a public contract resulting from this request for approval
of a Special Procurement.
Form #9 - Special Procurement - Request for Approval, Page 3 of 3, 3/29/2016
Lomakatsi Restoration Project
i8~1 k- Restoring Ecosystems, Sustaining Communities
P.O. Box 3084 Ashland, OR 97520
(541) 488-0208 FAX (541)488-4909
a www. /omakatsi org
LOMAKATSI
RESTORATION PROJECT
Special Funding Request to City of Ashland Friday, March 25, 2016
To:
Chris Chambers, Forest Division Chief, Ashland Fire & Rescue
From:
Lomakatsi Restoration Project
RE: Proposal for Additional Restoration on Ashland Forest Resiliency Stewardship Project (AFR)
Chris,
Please share this proposal prepared for City of Ashland (COA) by Lomakatsi staff for continuing our
ongoing restoration treatments at AFR with funding from the City of Ashland. Thank you for your time
and consideration.
Lomakatsi Restoration Project Role in AFR Stewardship Project Partnership
As a partner in the AFR project, Lomakatsi has been the lead implementation and contractual entity
accomplishing over 3,500 acres of forest health and fuel reduction treatments since 2010. Working
closely with the City of Ashland, The Nature Conservancy and the US Forest Service, Lomakatsi proposes
to use COA funds to continue a suite of restoration activities under the AFR Master Stewardship
agreement until June 30, 2019 by implementing additional forest restoration and fuels reduction
treatments in the Ashland Watershed.
Lomakatsi provides expertise and capacity in project development, planning, management, fine-scale
ecological treatment design, monitoring, and implementation for ecosystem restoration projects.
Lomakatsi employs a highly specialized local workforce trained and managed specifically to implement
complicated ecological prescriptions developed by the partners for the AFR project while keeping costs
below the industry standard.
Scope of work, strategic location, and cost
Lomakatsi is proposing to accomplish additional non-commercial restoration treatments by
implementing ecologically-based tree and brush thinning followed by hand piling fuels, use of prescribed
fire and follow-up maintenance treatments. It is expected that the schedule of payments for the
proposed scope of work will be split between the 2 project-type cost scenarios described below, with
flexibility to adjust the proportions the scenarios as dictated by the AFR partnership board. The AFR
partnership has agreed on the need for the additional COA funding to support the accomplishment of
these project type acres.
1. Prescribed Fire Treatments
Under the direction of USFS overhead, Lomakatsi will implement restorative understory burning on
approximately 1,000 acres, as designated and approved by USFS prescribed fire plan. Units selected
for prescribed fire have had understory thinning and hand pile burning treatments accomplished in
previous years, and are now ready for restorative fire application.
• On the AFR project, treatment costs for prescribed fire projects average $350 per acre,
totaling $350,000 for 1,000 acres. If prescribed burn windows are not available during the
next 2 biennia to expend the funds, the remaining funds can be re-allocated to surface and
ladder fuel and/or mechanical thinning maintenance treatments.
2. Surface and Ladder Fuel Treatments
The fundamental approach reduces surface and ladder fuels by utilizing restorative ecological
practices of radial thinning around legacy trees (old trees) and a variable density silvicultural
approach that includes hand piling and pile burning. The overall objectives are to reduce the threat
of catastrophic fire, improve forest health, protect legacy trees, and enhance recreational and
aesthetic values.
• On the AFR project, treatment costs for thinning and hand piling of activity fuels in this type
of moderate to high density setting have varied from $800 to $1200 per acre. Costs in
identified units are estimated to average $1000 per acre within remaining AFR footprint,
totaling approximately $350,000 to treat 350 acres.
About Lomakatsi Restoration Project
Lomakatsi Restoration Project is a non-profit, grassroots organization that develops and implements
forest and watershed restoration projects in Oregon and northern California (www.lomakatsi.org).
Having implemented restoration projects over 20 years across thousands of acres of forests and miles of
streams, Lomakatsi has a proven record of success. In cooperation with a broad range of partners
including federal and state land management agencies, The Nature Conservancy and other land trusts,
private landowners, watershed councils, city county government, and Native American tribes, our work
has set precedents on nationally recognized projects. Lomakatsi provides expertise and capacity in
project development, planning, management, fine-scale ecological treatment design, monitoring, and
implementation for ecosystem restoration projects. Lomakatsi coordinates closely with multiple funding
partners and manages a diverse workforce in complex social settings supported by critical community
outreach.
Aaron Nauth
Contracting and Workforce Division Supervisor
Lomakatsi Restoration Project
PO Box 3084, Ashland OR 97520
www.lomakatsi.org
Office (541) 488-0208
Pc: Marko Bey, Executive Director, Lomakatsi
Justin Cullumbine, Chief Financial Director, Lomakatsi
Darren Borgias, Southwest Oregon Program Manager, The Nature Conservancy
Donna Mickley, USFS Siskiyou Mountains District Ranger
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
Memo
DATE: March 22, 2016
TO: City Council
FROM: Chris Chambers, Forest Division Chief/Ashland Fire & Rescue
RE: Lomakatsi Restoration Project Contract Special Procurement Determination of
Feasibility
The Ashland Municipal Code requires additional justification for any Special Procurement over
$350,000. Per ORS 27913.036, Determination of feasibility of procurement, which in first part
states that "a contracting agency may proceed with a procurement if the contracting agency
reasonably determines in writing that using the contracting agency's own personnel or
resources to perform the services that the contracting agency intends to procure is not
feasible."
A cost analysis is unnecessary if the contracting agency finds it "lacks the specialized
capabilities, experience or technical or other expertise necessary to perform the services."
ORS 279B.036 (1)(a). AFR must still "compare [AFR's] capability, experience or expertise in
the field most closely involved in performing the services with a potential contractor's
capability, experience or expertise in the same or a similar field." Id.
Ashland Fire & Rescue Tel: 541-482-2770 !&L-6
455 Siskiyou Boulevard Fax: 541-488-5318
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
Appointment to Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee
FROM:
Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant, City Administration, diana.shiplet@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At the August 18, 2015, business meeting, Council approved the formation of the Climate and Energy
Action Plan ad hoc Committee and appointed its first live members. Since then, Mayor Stromberg has
appointed three additional members to the committee. Mayor Stromberg is now requesting Council
confirmation of the appointment of two Ashland High School students, Isaac Bevers and Sarah
Lassoff, as non-voting ex-officio members.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the March 16, 2015, Council study session, the Conservation Commission, through its
Climate/Energy sub-committee, presented a plan framework for a community climate action and
energy plan. Consistent with that framework, the Commission presented a request to Council at the
June 2, 2015. Council meeting to establish an ad-hoc committee to oversee the planning, development
and public process associated with the community Climate and Energy Action Plan.
The Committee has begun its work, with the understanding that additional members will likely be
added as the process begins to take shape and specific roles and responsibilities are identified.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
22. Prepare for the impact of climate change on the community.
22.1 Develop and implement a community climate change and energy plan
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to accept Mayor Stromberg's appointment of Isaac Bevers and Sarah Lassoff as non-voting ex-
officio members to the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Page 1 of I
1
CITY OF
-AS H LA N D
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
Report to the Council on the 2016 winter shelter program
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner!r,ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This is a report to the Council on the winter shelter program offered Tuesday and Thursday nights in
Pioneer Hall. Representatives of Temple Emek Shalom and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship will
be on hand to provide the report, along with representatives of the Ashland Parks and Recreation
Department, which manages Pioneer Hall.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Representatives from Temple Emek Shalom and the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship first
approached the Council in December 2012 about having the City provide space to serve as a temporary
weekly homeless shelter, for which the two faith groups would provide volunteers. At a special
meeting held on January 2, 2013, the Council agreed to provide Pioneer Hall for this purpose and has
done so in each subsequent winter. In December 2013, the Council agreed to allow Pioneer Hall to be
used two nights a week (Tuesday and Thursday).
Each year, after the temporary shelter season draws to a close, the Temple and the Fellowship have
provided a report to the Council on shelter activities. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Department
has been invited to participate in this year's presentation to discuss issues and concerns it has regarding
the use of Pioneer Hall as a shelter.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs.
5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity
programming.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A. This item is for information only.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 2015-26
Agreement with Temple Emek Shalom and Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Page 1 of 1
11FALAR
RESOLUTION NO. 2015- o (La
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ASHLAND TO
PROVIDE A CITY BUILDING FOR A WINTER SHELTER TWO NIGHTS
PER WEEK THROUGH APRIL, 2016
RECITALS:
A. Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUI,) and 't'emple Emek Shalom
(,Temple) wish to partner with the City of Ashland to provide shelter for homeless
community members at a City building two nights per week from November, 2015, through
April, 2016.
13. RVtJi1F and the Temple will provide volunteers to staff, manage and clean the shelter.
C. The City is willing to provide a building two nights a week to accommodate this proposal in
accordance with the provisions below.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L Provision of a Shelter.
Ashland will provide a City building for use as a shelter for homeless community members two
nights per week under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Terms and Conditions.
a. This building is offered for the period November, 2015, through April, 2016.
b. Prior to staffing a City-owned facility, volunteers must sign a waiver releasing the City
from liability for any personal injuries to them.
c. The shelter will be staffed by volunteers from RVt1t1F and Temple who are certified to
staff an overnight shelter. RVUUF and Temple must provide to the Parks and Recreation
Department written assurance that every volunteer who will staff the shelter is certified to
have completed appropriate training on the emergency plan, mental health plan and
emergency communications for the shelter and has passed criminal background checks..
d. Each night of operation of the shelter, at least one male volunteer and one female
volunteer will staff the shelter from 8:00 p.m, to 8:00 a.m. An additional male volunteer
will be required when more than 10 male guests are present. More volunteers may be
required by the City depending on the building to be used. If the minimum number or
qualified volunteers are not available for the entire time, the shelter will not be opened
that night.
e. Shelter occupancy will be limited to 30 guests on a first come, first serve basis.
f. Shelter will open at approximately 7:30 p.m. and close the following morning at 7:30
a.m. Doors will be locked at 10:00 p.m. with no re-entry for any that leave.
g. City insurance requires separate sleeping space be designated for single men, women and
families. Buildings must have separate restrooms for men and women.
h. Ashland Parks & Recreation will identify the building to be used and provide access.
The priority from an operational and safety perspective is Pioneer Hall, the Community
Center and the Grove, in that order.
Resolution No. 2015- Page I of 3
i. No showers or food service will be made available during the hours of operation.
SECTION 3. Shelter Policies.
Operation of the shelter shall, to the greatest extent feasible, comply with the following
guidelines:
a. Shelter services must be provided with dignity, care, and concern for the individuals
involved.
b. The buildings used as a shelter will comply with City, County and State Building, Fire
and Health Codes, unless exemptions have been obtained from the appropriate agencies,
and must be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition at all times.
c. Upon entering the shelter facility each night, each guest must sign in, and sign an
agreement committing to comply with shelter rules, absolving the City and volunteers of
any responsibility for the security of the guest's personal property, releasing the City and
volunteers from all claims of liability for property damage or personal injury arising from
operation of the shelter or use of the City's building and certifying that he or she is
eighteen years of age, or older.
d. No cooking. Kitchen facilities are to be secured and access is prohibited.
e. No drugs, alcohol, or weapons will be allowed in the shelter property at any time.
f. No pets will be allowed in the shelter, except as described in Section 4, below.
g. No disorderly conduct will be tolerated.
h. No threatening or abusive language will be tolerated.
i. No excessive noise will be tolerated, e.g. loud radios, telephone conversations, etc.
j. Smoking will be restricted to the outdoors in designated areas.
k. All guests should maintain their own areas and belongings in an orderly condition.
1. If a volunteer/staff member accepts any item from a guest for safe keeping at least one
other volunteer/staff member will witness the transaction.
m. Failure to comply with shelter policies may disqualify a guest(s) from future stays.
n. The check-in/check-out process shall be maintained by the volunteers sufficient to ensure
a control of the premises and exiting by guests at 7:30 a.m. to allow cleaning and room
set-up by 8:00 a.m.
SECTION 4. Dogs.
Dogs may be permitted in the shelter under the following circumstances:
a. Shelter volunteers must designate a specific area in the shelter for dogs. The floor of such
area must be covered with thick plastic.
b. Service dogs are not required to remain in crates but must be leashed while in the shelter.
c. If taken outside for biological needs, dogs must be leashed.
d. Shelter volunteers are to devise and follow procedures to keep dogs away from each other
and other guests as they are being housed for the night and as they exit in the morning.
e. Shelter volunteers must be responsible for cleaning and sanitizing any areas soiled by a
dog or dogs. Such cleaning is to be done to the satisfaction of City facilities maintenance
staff.
f. Dogs that become threatening to others or are otherwise unmanageable will be required
to leave the shelter.
g. Shelter volunteers must notify Jackson County Animal Control in the event a dog bite
breaks the skin of an emergency shelter guest or volunteer.
Resolution No. 2015- Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2015, and
takes of ct upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2015.
Pam Marsh, Council Chair
Reviewed as to form:
Da AXIohrnan, City Attorney
Resolution No. 2015- Page 3 of 3
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN ROGUE VALLEY UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP AND
TEMPLE EMEK SHALOM AND CITY OF ASHLAND
Agreement made this 10 day of 2015, between the Rogue Valley
Unitarian Universalists (RVUUF) and Temple Emek Shalom (Temple) and City of
Ashland (City).
RECITALS
A. RVUUF and Temple (the Service Providers) proposed a partnership to provide a
winter shelter two nights a week on City property.
B. City agreed to make the Pioneer Hall available as a shelter each Tuesday and
Thursday from November, 2015, through April, 2016.
C. RVUUF and Temple will provide volunteers to staff the shelter per the rules and
guidelines of Resolution #2015 - 26 ("Resolution").
D. Attached for reference is Resolution No. 2015-26.
Parties agree:
1. Services. The Service Providers will open, manage, and close the facilities per the
directions included in the Resolution. City will provide no services beyond making
Pioneer Hall available for the purpose described in Recitals A and B above and
periodically inspecting it for cleanliness and damage.
2. Volunteers. Service Providers will ensure the volunteers staffing the shelter conform
to the guidelines of the Resolution. Volunteers shall be deemed volunteers or
employees of RVUUF and Temple and will not be afforded any rights or privileges as
volunteers or employees of the City.
3. Facilities and Structures. City will inspect and make adjustments to Pioneer Hall as
required for this temporary use.
4. Insurance and Coverage. Each party is responsible for its own insurance and
coverage relating to claims arising from providing or staffing a shelter. No City coverage
is extended to the other parties or volunteers however the City will maintain existing
property coverage of the facility.
5. Length of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on November
1, 2015, and terminate on April 30, 2016.
6. Termination. Any party may terminate this Agreement with written notice 10 days or
more delivered to both of the other parties.
Page 1 of 2
ROGUE VALLEY UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWSHIP
By:
Title: REVEREND
F,
Date:
r
TEMPLE EMEK SHALOM
By: spa t, '1yc'
Title: RABBI
Date: a I i I S
CITY OF ASHLAND
By:
~Ij
Title: MAYOR
Date:
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
Adoption of Water Rate Cost of Services Study Recommendations
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Director, Public Works Department, mike.faught@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City Council will consider adopting the recommendations of Hansford Economic Consulting
(HEC) Water Rate Cost of Service Study. The Council previously discussed the draft HEC plan at the
November 16, 2015 Study Session and the February 16, 2016 City Council meeting. A summary of
the proposed water rate modifications include: adjustments to potable and non-potable water rates;
split base charges to account for administration costs and capacity costs; new commercial categories; a
decrease in metered non-potable (Talent Irrigation District (TID)) rates; an increase in charges for
unmetered non-potable water; a reduction in residential rate increases proposed in the 2012 adopted
water master plan; and 1-inch meter services reset to equal 3/4 inch metered rates for households adding
fire sprinkler systems.
The full IIEC report is attached to this Council communication and is also located on the City of
Ashland's website under Public Works.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the November 16, 2015, Council study session and the February 16, 2016, City Council meeting,
staff presented the HEC Draft Water Rate Cost of Services Study for review and discussion.
It is important to note that the final version of the report assumes interest rates of 2.14% and 3.57% on
loans for the new water treatment plant and the Crowson II reservoir project, respectively. An earlier
version of the study assumed a 1% interest rate for both projects. The additional debt service costs
related to increased interest rates would have resulted in a higher than forecasted customer rate
increase. In order to alleviate this additional rate increase, $1.5 million of planned capital projects will
be deferred beyond 2022.
The Cost of Service report's methodology is based on the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) "Principles of Water rates, Fees, and Charges: Manual of Water Supply Practices Ml,"
which establishes commonly accepted professional standards for cost of service studies.
A summary of the recommended water modifications are as follows:
Commercial, institutional and non-potable metered irrigation customers are currently paying more than
their proportionate share of water system costs. In contrast potable irrigation and non-potable
unmetered irrigation customers are paying less than their proportionate share. Figure 1 represents the
proposed redistribution of costs.
Page 1 of 4
1`,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The reallocation of rates result in a reduction of residential rate increases outlined in the adopted 2012
water master plan. Those reductions are reflected in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2
Typical Monthly Bill for Single Family Home
$68 Cost of Service Study Master Plan Projection
$66 $65.52
$ 64 $63.60
$61.78 $63.2$
$62 $61.4$ i
$60 $59.87 $59.79 € E
$58.17 $58.11 ~
$58 i
$56.48 !
$56.07 E
$56 ' i
$54.35 j i
$54
$51.96
i
$51.72 $52 € 1 i `S
$50 ! 1
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Talent Irrigation District (TID) non-potable customer rates are reduced from $.0055 to $.0022 per
cubic foot on the metered accounts and the fixed TID user costs increase to $250 over the next six
years. This was accomplished by re-allocating some of the city maintenance costs, the contract cost
for the TID water, and canal depreciation to potable water customers. These additional costs to the
potable water customers can be justified by the fact that the TID water system is in place to act as a
supplemental drinking water source for the entire community (as referenced in Table A10). In addition
the section of Lithia Park that uses TID water was incorrectly allocated in the draft study to the potable
water accounts and this update corrects that error.
Current 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021
Metered $0.0055 $0.0022 $0.0023 $0.0024 $0.0025 $0.0026 $0.0026
Rate per
Cu. Ft.
Unmetered $170.01 $183.11 $196.20 $209.30 $222.40 $235.50 $248.59
Rate per
Acre
A sample of the impacts to the recommended large water user's rate allocations is as follows:
• Ashland School District (Table C) 19%
• Parks and Recreation (Table C) 19%
• SOU (Table E) (4%)
• Unidentified large commercial user 16%
Paae 3 of 4
~r,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
• Complete a detailed water cost of service study at an estimated cost of $50,000.
• Monitor and adjust the 2012 water master plan management, planning and financial plan
assumptions.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications to report as this study recommends rate increases consistent with the
Master Plan and consistent with the ability to support the system and capital improvement projects.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Hansford Economic Consulting Water Rate Cost of
Service Study and direct staff to implement proposed rate re-allocations in May 2016.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to adopt the recommendations of the Hansford Economic Consulting Water Rate Cost of
Service Study and direct staff to implement proposed rate re-allocations as recommended in the plan in
May 2016.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Final HEC Water Rate Cost of Services Study
2. November 16, 2015 Council Communication
3. November 16, 2015 Study Session Minutes
4. February 16, 2016 Council Communication
5. February 16, 2016 Business Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 4
!AWMAk
Water Rate
Cost of Services Study
CITY of
^ASHLAND
March 15, 2o16
HEC Project #140136
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study 1
1.2 Methodology 2
1.3 Organization of the Report 2
i. Summary of Findings 4
2.1 Major Findings 4
2.2 Key Assumptions 6
2.3 Calculated Rates 7
2.4 Rate Impacts 10
3. Current Conditions 11
3.1 City Water System 11
3.2 Customer Base 14
3.3 The Water Fund 15
4. Financial Projections 21
4.1 Revenue Requirement 21
4.2 Talent Irrigation District Non-Potable Irrigation Service 25
4.3 Meter Replacement Program 27
5. Cost of Service Analysis 29
5.1 Functional Cost Allocation 29
5.2 Rate Design 30
5.3 Water Demand Projection 37
5.4 Calculated Rates 38
5.5 Projected Cash Flow and Fund Balance 42
6. Impacts of New Rate Structure 44
6.1 Bill Impacts 44
6.2 Affordability Test 44
6.3 Comparison of Water Rates 45
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Calculated Water Rates through 2022 8
2 Calculated Typical Home Bill for 1,ooo Cubic Feet 9
3 Historical Potable Water Production 11
4 Historical Water Consumption 13
5 City Population Growth 14
6 Current Water Rates 17
7 Water System Development Charges 18
8 Forest Resiliency Program Fee Schedule 19
9 Historical Water Fund Balance 20
10 Summary of 1o-Year CI P for Existing Customers 22
11 Estimated Water System Assets Depreciation 23
12 Projected Revenue Requirement 24
13 Calculated TID Use Rates for Fiscal Year 2015-2o16 26
14 TID Revenue Offset 27
15 Estimated Meter Replacement Fee Program Costs 28
16 Calculated Meter Replacement Fees 28
17 Allocation of Revenue Requirement to Cost Functions 30
18 Calculation of Customer Service Costs per Account 31-
:19 Calculation of Monthly Service Charge by Meter Size 32
20 Estimated Meter Equivalent Units 32
21 Customer Usage Characteristics 34
22 Projected Potable Water Demand 37
23 Calculated Use Charges per Cubic Foot 39
24 Summary of Calculated Water Rates 40
25 Cost Allocation by Customer Type 41
26 Projected Operating Fund Cash Flow 42
27 Projected Water Fund Balance 43
28 Affordability Test 45
29 Calculated Typical Home Bill for 1,ooo Cubic Feet 46
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2os6 Page ii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1 Cost of Service Redistribution of FY 2o15-16 Revenue Requirement 4
z Typical Monthly Bill for 3/4" Single Family Home g
3 Annual Water Consumption by Month 12
4 Water Use by Customer Type 15
5 Typical Annual Sources of Water Fund Revenue 16
6 Water Sales by Customer Type 16
7 Typical Annual Water Fund Expenses 19
8 Monthly Water Use by Customer Type 33
g Residential Water Use by Tier 35
10 Non-Residential Water Use by Tier (current rate structure) 36
11 Commercial Water Use by Tier (proposed rate structure) 36
12 Redistribution of Costs to Customer Types 41
13 Water Fund Balance 43
14 Comparison of Single Family Monthly Water Bill 46
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page iii
Section 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The City of Ashland (City) contracted with Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) to perform a
Water Rates Cost of Service Study (Study). The purpose of this Study is two-fold: (1) to ensure
that different customer types pay their fair share of water system costs by performing a cost of
service analysis and (2) to collect sufficient revenues to adequately fund the water system in a
safe manner; providing the residents and businesses of the City with a clean, safe and reliable
potable water system that meets State and Federal requirements, by projecting revenue needs
and determining a supporting rate schedule.
This report provides an explanation and justification of redistribution of water system costs to
customer types and calculated water rates through fiscal year ending 2022. This report has been
prepared with the following principles in mind:
(1) Revenues derived from water fees should not exceed the funds required to provide the
water service.
(2) Revenues derived from water fees should not be used for any purpose other than that
for which the fees were imposed.
(3) Customer water bills should reflect the customer's fair share (proportional) cost of
service to provide water to the customer.
(4) Water fees should only be charged to customers using the service or with the ability to
use the service at any time. Water fees should not be charged based on potential or
future use of water.
The City conducted a Water Master Plan that was completed in 2012. The Water Master Plan
called for several large capital improvement projects and the need to raise water rates to plan
for those project costs. The City raised water rates July 2013, 2014, and 2015 by 10% each year
as a result of the findings of the Water Master Plan.
Since the 2012 completion of the Water Master Plan the region has experienced a drought.
Projected water demands have not been realized, which have resulted in (a) less revenue than
anticipated, and (b) greater expenditure in earlier years to complete the Talent-Ashland-
Phoenix (TAP) project to augment water supplies. The recent water rate increases were based
on percentage increases needed from water sales and not based on cost of service. The City
wanted to assess whether customers are paying their proportional share of costs of the water
system (not subsidizing among customer types). The City also wanted to ensure that sufficient
revenues would be available to pay for projects identified in the Master Plan, as well as other
projects identified since completion of the 2012 Master Plan.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 1
Given decreased water demand in recent years the City also anticipated that water rates would
have to increase through fiscal year 2022 or necessary capital projects (most particularly a new
water treatment plant) would have to be postponed.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
This report was prepared using the principles established by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA). The AWWA "Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges: Manual of
Water Supply Practices M1" (the "M1 Manual") establishes commonly accepted professional
standards for cost of service studies. The M1 Manual general principles of rate structure design
and the objectives of the Study are described below.
According to the M1 Manual, the first step in the ratemaking analysis is to determine the
adequate and appropriate funding of a utility. This is referred to as the "revenue requirements"
analysis. This analysis considers the short-term and long-term service objectives of the utility
over a given planning horizon, including capital facilities and system operations and
maintenance, to determine the adequacy of a utility's existing rates to recover its costs. A
number of factors may affect these projections, including the number of customers served,
water-use trends, nonrecurring sales, weather, conservation, use restrictions, inflation, interest
rates, wholesale contracts, water rights agreements, and other changes in operating and
economic conditions.
After determining a utility's revenue requirements, a utility's next step is determining the cost
of service. Utilizing a public agency's approved budget, financial reports, operating data, and
capital improvement plans, a rate study categorizes (functionalizes) the costs, expenses, and
assets of the water system among major operating functions to determine the cost of service.
After the assets and the costs of operating those assets are properly categorized by function,
the rate study allocates those "functionalized costs" to the various customer classes (e.g.,
single-family residential, multi-family residential and commercial) by determining the
characteristics of those classes and the contribution of each to incurred costs such as peaking
factors, different delivery costs, service characteristics and demand patterns. Rate design is the
final part of the M1 Manual's ratemaking procedure. The revenue requirement and cost of
service analyses are used to determine appropriate rates for each customer class.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The Study is presented in six sections.
Following this introduction, Section 2 provides a summary of major assumptions and findings of
the study. Section 3 provides information on the City's water system including historical water
production and consumption, customer base, historical City growth, and health of the water
enterprise fund. Section 4 projects revenue needs, "the revenue requirement", through fiscal
year 2021-22, calculates costs associated with City Talent Irrigation District (TID) non-potable
water service, and determines a meter replacement program and its associated costs.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 2
Section 5 presents the cost of service analysis, water demand projections, and details of the
calculated water rates. The impacts of the new water rate structure are presented in Section 6,
including a comparison of bills with other Oregon water providers.
Appendix A includes support tables for the water rates analysis.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 3
Section 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2.1 MAJOR FINDINGS
Cost of Service. The cost of service analysis finds that commercial, institutional, and non-
potable metered irrigation customers are currently paying more than their proportional share
of water system costs. Potable irrigation and non-potable unmetered irrigation customers are
paying less than their proportional share of water system costs. This is illustrated in Figure 1
below. Customer types with negative revenue requirement in the illustration should be paying
less as a customer group than they are currently paying. Customer types with positive revenue
requirement should be paying more as a customer group than they are currently paying.
Although residential shows an underpayment of $42,111, this is a very minimal difference, as it
is only 1% of the current cost (see Table 25). As a result of the cost of service analysis (see
Section 5) the rates from fiscal year 2016-17 onwards shift costs between customer types.
Figure 1
Cost of Service Redistribution of Fiscal Year 2015-16 Revenue Requirement
Non-Potable
Unmetered, $5,735
Non-Potable Metered,
($34,988)
Potable Irrigation,
$99,755
Fire Guards, $6,274
Insitutional, ($5,352)
[fQ[ B
Commercial,
($113,535)
Imam Residential, $42,111
($150,000) ($100,000) ($50,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000
Costs are allocated to potable customers based on their potential to use system capacity and
their water usage characteristics. Costs are allocated to non-potable customers based on
typical annual water usage for metered customers and property acreage for unmetered
customers.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Pager,
Rate Structure Modifications. The current rate structure is proposed to be modified to better
reflect customer usage patterns and cost of service, ensure accuracy for account billing, and
encourage water use efficiency.
• Flat Charges (All Customers). Currently bills comprise one flat charge -the monthly service
charge. Under the new rate structure bills would continue to have one flat charge which
would include the service charge, but it would also include a customer charge for costs
associated with administration of the water system and provision of customer service. The
customer charge would be the same every month, and the same for every account
(accounts with more than one meter only charged once). The service charge would continue
to cover the costs of services and meters and a portion of system capacity costs; generally,
the costs to be able to provide water service regardless of the amount of water used during
a given period. The service charge would continue to apply to each meter at the property.
Service Charge Meter Ratios Change. The service charge meter ratios were adjusted to
AWWA meter ratios established using safe maximum operating capacities for meters in the
M1 Manual. These meter ratios more accurately capture the capacity of the water service to
each customer than the current meter ratios. As a result of this change the larger meter
sizes would pay more per month than under the current meter ratios. For 1" meter services
the meter ratio was set equal to a W meter to ensure that households required to upsize
for fire code requirements are not penalized (this methodology was also used to establish
the Forest Resiliency Program Fee in May, 2015 and is being used with greater frequency in
cities in other Western U.S. states)'.
• Commercial Customers. Commercial customers are separated into commercial,
institutional, and potable water irrigation customers. Institutional customers include the
current government/municipal customers. This change is made to better reflect the
different customer water demand patterns associated with non-residential activity. The
tiers for the new customer categories are also different from the current tiers. The rate
structure is intended to fit typical customer usage patterns and promote water use
efficiency as well as proportionately allocate the cost of service to those who place the
greatest demands on the system.
The table on the following page shows proposed modifications to the non-residential
customer tiers. Note that non-residential irrigation water would be charged at on peak and
off peak rates. The purpose of seasonal rates for irrigation is to reduce the cost of irrigation
water during the spring, fall, and winter months when water supply is not a concern and
increase the cost of irrigation water when supplies may be impacted by drought.
' Source: HEC experience working with cities in California.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 5
TIER 1 TIER 2
Cubic Feet
CURRENT for ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL < 50,000 >50,000
NEW
INSTITUTIONAL No tier- uniform rate
IRRIGATION Notier -seasonal rates
COMMERCIAL 2" or less < 2,500 >2,500
COMMERCIAL >2" < 15,000 >15,000
• Residential Customers. There is no change proposed for residential tiers. Residential
customers with separate potable irrigation meters (about 5% of all potable irrigation
customers) would pay a service charge each month for each meter but only one customer
charge for the account each month. Metered potable irrigation water would be added to
the domestic water for calculation of use charges. As the City is converting to new water
billing software in 2016 there may be a transition period during which time residential
potable irrigation water is billed starting at the Tier 2 rate for residential water. Billing would
begin at Tier 2 because average water use is 460 cubic feet per month for indoor use (see
Table 21) indicating that a typical home would be using some irrigation water in Tier 2. Once
the new billing software is in place the irrigation metered use would be added to domestic
metered use.
• Potable Water Irrigation Customers. All potable irrigation customers (commercial and
residential) would be billed the flat monthly charges (service charge and customer charge)
year-round rather than only in the months that water is taken as is current practice. Potable
irrigation customers would be treated the same as all other potable water customers in this
regard, reflecting the ability for the customer to take water at any time of year. This shift
from current billing practice may cause some potable irrigation customers to want to
discontinue having a separate irrigation meter. This is an option for residential potable
irrigation customers.2
2.2 KEY ASSUMPTIONS
Implementation. The new rate structure is assumed to be in effect beginning July 1, 2016 and
to be increased each July 1 thereafter. The rate increases would coincide with the fiscal year as
is current practice.
Water CIP Projects are funded through rates, connection fees, and City borrowing. Rates and
City borrowing will be used to finance capital improvements that benefit existing customers.
Connection fees will only be used for projects that are related to new growth in the City.
Developer contributions maybe required for certain facilities. It is assumed that the City will
obtain Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) money to finance construction of the
new water treatment plant and Crowson II reservoir. If DWSRF money is not obtained the
Z This is not an option for non-residential customers because of sewer billing methodology.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2o3_6 Page 6
revenue requirement would increase (assuming all other costs do not change) and water rates
would have to increase beyond those calculated in this report.
System rehabilitation costs are included in rates. Rates should include depreciation of existing
assets so that funds are accumulated and available for replacement of assets on a timely basis,
preferably paid for with cash. This Study uses estimated depreciation costs to collect for system
rehabilitation. Rate money collected for system rehabilitation is used to fund capital
improvement projects for existing customers. In some years system rehabilitation revenue may
exceed capital improvement costs. In these years the excess revenue is added to reserves for
future rehabilitation projects.
TAP Water Costs. The TAP emergency water pipeline was recently completed. This treated
water source will be utilized by the City in late summer or early fall, as needed, to augment
supplies. For purposes of the Study it is assumed that water is taken for 31 days each year. The
current contract rate is 68 cents per 1,000 gallons of water. In the model it is assumed the cost
increases to 75 cents per 1,000 gallons in 2016 and at 3.5% per year each year thereafter.
2.3 CALCULATED RATES
The Study provides a basis for adoption of new rates beginning July 1, 2016. By modifying the
rate structure the City will generate sufficient revenue to continue to meet its bond covenants,
build a healthy reserve, fund necessary capital improvements, and fully fund water operations.
The revenue requirement, which is the amount of money to be raised by rates, is calculated to
increase by the following percentages:
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
8% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
The revenue requirement percentage increases for the next 3 years match those calculated in
the 2012 Water Master Plan; however, with the shift in costs between customer categories not
all customer categories will experience the same percentage increases.
Table 1 on the following page shows calculated water rates through 2022 for all customer
categories and compares the calculated rates with the current rate structure.
Table 2 on page 9 shows the calculated bill for a single family home using 1,000 cubic feet of
water in a billing cycle. A typical residential bill would increase from $51.72 to $54.35 July 1,
2016.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 7
Table 1
Calculated Water Rates through 2022
Rate Component Rates Implementation
7/1/2015 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021
Monthly Customer Charge per Bill n. a. $11.74 $12.19 $12.54 $12.89 $13.25 $13.64
Monthly Service Charge per Meter [1]
3/4" and Fire Guards $23.50 $13.75 $14.27 $14.68 $15.10 $15.52 $15.98
1" $46.99 $14.34 $14.88 $15.31 $15.75 $16.19 $16.66
1.5" $66.99 $65.61 $68.13 $70.07 $72.08 $74.10 $76.24
2" $88.24 $104.27 $108.28 $111.36 $114.55 $117.76 $121.16
3" $184.50 $209.08 $217.12 $223.30 $229.69 $236.13 $242.95
4" $282.07 $331.60 $344.32 $354.13 $364.29 $374.52 $385.35
6" $528.92 $652.47 $677.56 $696.84 $716.81 $736.90 $758.18
8" $881.49 $1,034.38 $1,074.23 $1,104.77 $1,136.39 $1,168.21 $1,201.93
USE CHARGES FOR POTABLE WATER
Residential [2] per month, per unit
0 to 300 cf $0.0243 $0.0246 $0.0256 $0.0263 $0.0271 $0.0278 $0.0287
301 to 1,000 cf $0.0299 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
1001 to 2, 500 cf $0.0400 $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
> 2,500 cf (2,501- 3,600 cf June to Sept) $0.0517 $0.0537 $0.0559 $0.0575 $0.0592 $0.0609 $0.0627
> 3,600 cf (June to Sept only) $0.0673 $0.0691 $0.0719 $0.0739 $0.0761 $0.0783 $0.0806
Non-Residential per month, per meter
0-50,000 cf $0.0343 n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
>50,000cf $0.0353 n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
Commercial <2" meter
0-2,SOOcf n. a. $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
>2,500cf n. a. $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
Commercial 2"+ meter
0-15, 000cf n. a. $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
> 15,000 cf n. a. $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
Insitutional n. a. $0.0294 $0.0305 $0.0314 $0.0323 $0.0333 $0.0342
Commercial and Institutional Irrigation
October to May n. a. $0.0331 $0.0345 $0.0356 $0.0367 $0.0378 $0.0390
June to September n. a. $0.0449 $0.0469 $0.0483 $0.0498 $0.0513 $0.0530
Bulk Water [3] same as non-res. $0.0338 $0.0351 $0.0362 $0.0372 $0.0383 $0.0394
Fire Protection Service [4]
Meter Replacement Charge n. a. $1.18 $1.22 $1.26 $1.30 $1.34 $1.38
Service Charge $23.50 $13.75 $14.27 $14.68 $15.10 $15.52 $15.98
Usage Charges same as non-res. $0.0338 $0.0351 $0.0362 $0.0372 $0.0383 $0.0394
TID Non-Potable Water per irrigation season, per acre or portion of
Unmetered Service $170.01 $183.11 $196.20 $209.30 $222.40 $235.50 $248.59
Metered Service:
Service Charge per meter as above n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a. n. a.
Meter Replacement Fee [5] none per meter as above
Water Consumption perc.f. $0.0055 $0.0022 $0.0023 $0.0024 $0.0025 $0.0026 $0.0026
Outside City Limits
All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be 1.5 times the inside city rates and charges.
Source: City of Ashland.
[1] Irrigation customers currently only billed charges when the servicetakes; water. Effective July 1, 2016 these customers will be charged
theflat monthly fees every month regardless of whether water is taken.
[2] For residential customers with separate irrigation meters the metered irrigation water is added to the domestic water use.
[3] For temporary water provided through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant.
[4] This rateshall apply to all water taken through fire protection services or fireguards.
[5] Due once per year on firstTID non-potable water bill.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 8
Table 2
Calculated Typical Home Bill for 1,000 Cubic Feet
Fiscal Year Ending
Residential Charges 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
current 1 2 3 4 5 6
Flat Charges
Customer Charge $11.74 $12.19 $12.54 $12.89 $13.25 $13.64
Service Charge $23.50 $13.75 $14.27 $14.68 $15.10 $15.52 $15.98
Total Flat Charges $23.50 $25.48 $26.46 $27.21 $27.99 $28.78 $29.61
Use Charges
Tier 1 per cu. ft. $0.0243 $0.0246 $0.0256 $0.0263 $0.0271 $0.0278 $0.0287
Tier 2 per cu. ft. $0.0299 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
Tier 1 Charges (300 cu ft) $7.29 $7.37 $7.67 $7.89 $8.12 $8.35 $8.60
Tier 2 Charges (700 cu ft) $20.93 $21.50 $22.36 $23.01 $23.68 $24.35 $25.07
Total Use Charges $28.22 $28.87 $30.02 $30.89 $31.80 $32.70 $33.67
Bill for 3/4" using 1,000 cu. ft. $51.72 $54.35 $56.48 $58.11 $59.79 $61.48 $63.28
Percentage Increase 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Source: HEC.
Figure 2 shows the calculated bill for a single family home with a V meter using 1,000 cubic
feet in the cost of service study compared to the master plan projections through 2022. Bills
may be lower or higher than shown depending on actual quantity of water used.
Figure 2
Typical Monthly Bill for Single Family Home
Cost of Service Study u Master Plan Projection
$6s
$66 $65.52
$63.60
$64 $63.28
$61.78
$62 $61.4, l
$59.87 $59.79 I
$60 i
$58.17 $58.21
$ 58 $56.48
$56.07
$56 $54.35
$54
$51.96
$52 $51.72 3
I
$50
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 9
2.4 RATE I M PACTS
Residential. In 2016 residential water bills would experience increases of about 5% rather than
the full 8% increase in revenue requirement because of the cost redistribution between
customers. The bills for residential customers will remain affordable per the Oregon Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund program definition (see Section 6).
Commercial. Many commercial water bills would decrease under the new rate structure in
2016. The reduction in bills is also due to the reallocation of costs under the cost of service
analysis. Commercial customers with 2" and larger meters would pay a larger portion of their
bill as a flat monthly charge due to the change in service charge meter ratios to AWWA safe
maximum operating capacities for meters. Larger water meter commercial customers would
have higher bills in 2016.
Institutional. Institutional customers would experience a slight increase in bills in the winter
months and a decrease in bills in the summer months. Institutional customers have a relatively
flat demand throughout the year, with a slight peak in the spring months before the irrigation
season begins, so the change to a uniform use charge (the same rate per 1,000 gallons is
charged regardless of total water use) is appropriate.
Potable Irrigation. During the peak summer months potable irrigation bills would increase in
2016 due to cost redistribution. The new rate design is intended to curb irrigation water use
during the peak use months by having a higher "on peak" rate per 1,000 gallons June through
September. During off-peak months (October through April) water bills would increase if no
water was taken. This reflects billing the flat monthly charges regardless of whether water is
used or not. For accounts using water during the off-peak, irrigation bills would decrease. The
off-peak potable irrigation water rate encourages planting in spring and fall months when water
supply is not a concern.
TID Non-Potable Water Irrigation. The unmetered customers' rate would increase from
$170.01 per acre to $183.11 per acre July 1, 2016 as a result of cost redistribution. The TID
metered customer rate would decrease from $0.0055 per cubic foot to $0.0022 per cubic foot
July 1, 2016. In addition, TID metered customers would pay a meter replacement fee.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page io
Section 3: CURRENT CONDITIONS
3.1 CITY WATER SYSTEM
The City operates a surface water supply system. The main water supply is from Ashland Creek
and reservoir. This water is treated at a City owned and operated water treatment plant.
Treated water enters the distribution system from this point and either flows directly to
customers or to one of 4 reservoirs (water tanks) located in the City. In 2014 the TAP water
supply was completed to Ashland. The City can take up to 2.13 million gallons per day (mgd) in
emergency water supplies from the Medford Water Commission. This water source will be used
in late summer or early fall as needed to augment supplies. In addition to these two sources of
treated water the City also obtains water from the Ta lent Irrigation District (TID). Non-potable
TID water is supplied to irrigation customers located along the TID canal. Under terms of the
contracts with TID the City may also use the water for potable water demands. When used for
potable needs, water from the canal is diverted to the Ashland Creek water treatment plant
where it is treated and enters the City's potable water distribution system.
Potable water production averages 46 million gallons per month during the winter months
(December through March). Peak month production is July or August when production averages
152 million gallons per month. The highest month production in the past 6 years was 180
million gallons in July 2009. Table 3 shows historical potable water production.
Table 3
Historical Potable Water Production
Month Calendar Year Avg. Annual Percent
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Water Delivery of Delivery
(MG) by Month
Figures in Millions of Gallons
January 51.06 48.16 48.88 48.07 42.97 42.38 46.92 5%
February 44.48 41.77 44.11 44.96 36.98 37.36 41.61 4%
March 48.71 47.54 47.18 47.65 42.45 41.71 45.87 59/.
April 64.90 48.40 48.70 53.24 54.76 56.41 54.40 5%
May 105.77 59.31 60.78 90.64 90.46 97.70 84.11 8%
June 124.39 88.51 88.77 109.75 117.26 119.26 107.99 11%
July 180.38 157.48 135.27 133.40 170.48 137.17 152.36 15%
August 167.64 158.29 152.00 149.87 155.29 131.38 152.41 15%
September 116.02 114.52 131.36 124.35 114.30 104.15 117.45 12%
October 69.73 86.43 82.60 81.33 99.24 83.61 83.83 8%
November 48.97 51.89 54.13 45.01 81.63 55.40 56.17 6%
December 51.26 47.26 49.63 40.50 52.97 51.01 48.77 5%
Total 1,073.32 949.57 943.42 968.78 1,058.79 957.53 A 991.90 100%
Base Monthly Flow (Dec - Mar) 8 45.79
Average Annual Base Flow C = 8*12 549.53 55%
Average Annual Additional Flow D=A-C 442.37 45%
Source: City of Ashland.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2o3_6 Page al
Water production includes Ashland Creek and TAP water supplies. Annual base water
production is the winter monthly average production multiplied by 12. Base water production
comprises 55% of annual production. Additional flow to meet demands that pick up during the
spring, summer, and fall months comprises 45% of annual production.
Historical water consumption is shown in Table 4. Due to billing cycles, consumption by month
in the table reflects the amount of water billed each month which is not exactly the same as
total water used in each month; however, the pattern of use is very similar with peak month
usage typically in July or August. Figure 3 shows the seasonal pattern of water consumption.
Figure 3
Annual Water Consumption by Month
18,000,000
16, 000, 000
14, 000, 000
12,000,000
i
v
10, 000, 000
U
8,000,000
v
6,000,0x)
4,000,000
2,000,000 6
t
0
Table 4 compares potable water consumption and production. The figures show that about
4.5% of water produced is unbilled or unaccounted for. This figure is considered healthy for a
water system3.
The total annual water usage billed increased 13% between 2010 and 2013 then fell back to
almost the same level as 2010 in 2014. The decrease in water use between 2013 and 2014 is
probably largely due to the drought. Oftentimes a decrease such as this can be sustained for
many years, particularly if followed by another drought year, as has been the case in 2015.
Referred to as 'demand hardening,' customers become accustomed to using less water. During
the drought years they have retrofitted fixtures and reset irrigation clocks or changed out
landscaping to reduce their water use.
3 "Most states have regulatory policies that set acceptable losses from public water system distribution
systems at a maximum of between 10 and 15 percent of the water produced by the public water system.",
page vii of 'Control and Mitigation of Drinking Water Losses in Distribution Systems', EPA November 2010
publication.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 12
Table 4
Historical Water Consumption
Calendar Year
month 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Consumption Figures in Cubic Feet
January 5,688,024 6,377,053 5,822,654 6,398,479 5,698,647
February 5,099,644 5,088,576 5,264,148 5,106,362 5,903,155
March 5,997,480 5,766,127 6,218,217 6,620,823 5,395,848
April 6,277,962 5,688,600 5,835,945 6,921,512 6,737,313
May 6,175,787 6,517,554 9,374,536 11,570,159 9,004,008
June 10,178, 300 10,104, 520 13, 707, 604 15, 747, 969 13, 874,124
J u l y 15, 731, 277 14, 807, 946 17, 927, 282 20, 205, 591 16, 364,166
August 20,686,522 18,804,858 20,516,243 21,154,339 16,915,748
September 17, 851, 518 19, 930, 790 17, 585, 640 16, 960, 380 14, 895,165
October 11,796,560 13,546,376 16,327,008 9,331,983 12,225,379
November 7,824,931 7,349,883 7,001,274 7,667,451 7,481,362
December 5,685,693 6,519,096 6,151,560 6,465,232 7,819,658
Total Consumption (Cu. Ft.) 118,993,698 120,501,379 131,732,111 134,150,280 122,314,573
Total Consumption (Gallons) 890,072,861 901,350,315 985,356,190 1,003,444,094 914,913,006
Millions of Gallons Billed 890 901 985 1,003 915
Millions of Gallons Produced [1] 950 943 969 1,059 958
Production less Consumption 59 42 -17 55 43
Production as % of Billing 6.3% 4.5% -1.7% 5.2% 4.5%
Source: Cityof Ashland.
[1] Includes TAP water of 6.3 MG in 2014. Production figures for 2012 unreliable dueto calibration difficulties atthe plant.
In selecting a base year as a platform for water use from which to project water demand over
the Study time period it would be best to either use the average of the last five years or the
most recent year of water use. This Study projects water use based on the most recent year of
water use (2014). Unlike the Water Master Plan, in which the core objective is to ensure
sufficient capacity is available for a 'worst case' growth in demand scenario (maximum likely
use), this Study needs to ensure sufficient revenue is available in a 'best case' growth in demand
scenario under which there are minimum increases in water use. The average annual water use
of the last 5 years was 939 million gallons. The Study uses the 2014 use of 915 million gallons as
the base for projecting water demand.
Over the same five-year period (2010-2014) the population of Ashland increased very slightly
from an estimate of 20,100 to 20,300. Gallons of water produced per capita per day has
remained flat at 129. Ashland's population growth and gallons per capita per day is shown in
Table 5.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 13
Table 5
City Population Growth
Water
Certified Production
Population Annual Annual % Gallons per
Year Estimate Change Change Capita per Day
1-Jul
2000 19,610
2001 19,770 160 0.8%
2002 20,130 360 1.8%
2003 20,430 300 1.5%
2004 20,590 160 0.8%
2005 20,880 290 1.4% 160
2006 21,430 550 2.6% 161
2007 21,630 200 0.9% 154
2008 21,485 -145 -0.7% 153
2009 21,505 20 0.1% 137
2010 20,095 -1,410 -6.6% 129
2011 20,255 160 0.8% 128
2012 20,325 70 0.3% 131
2013 20,295 -30 -0.1% 143
2014 20,340 45 0.2% 129
Change 730 52
Average Annual Population Increas 0.26%
Source: Portland State University Population Research Center-
www.pdx.edu/prc and Carollo 2012CityofAshland Comprehensive Water Master Plan.
3.2 CUSTOMER BASE
As shown in Table 5, the City services a population of approximately 20,300 and it has sustained
an annual average population increase of 0.26% since 2000. City water customers include
residential (single family and multi-family), commercial, institutional (government/municipal),
potable irrigation and non-potable irrigation (TID) customers. Figure 4 shows water use by
customer type. The figure excludes water use by the non-potable irrigation customers.
As the pie chart shows, the majority of City water use (69%) is by residential customers.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 14
Figure 4
Water Use by Customer Type
t
5%
t
14%
i 53/D
i
~VJa
F
v Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential
Commercial Government & Municipal
■ Potable Irrigation
3.3 THE WATER FUND
The water enterprise fund accounts for the revenues and expenses associated with operating
the water system.4
Revenues. Historically, 61% of the water enterprise fund's operating revenue has been derived
from water sales. Other operating revenue includes bond proceeds, system development
charges (SDCs), new service installation fees, inter-government revenues, interest, and other
miscellaneous revenues. Table A-1 shows historical and budgeted water fund revenues. Figure
5 shows the typical annual share of revenues by source.
Water sales by customer type is shown in Figure 6.
4 An enterprise fund is a fund that is intended to recover its costs through user fees and charges. Enterprise
funds also provide the repayment capacity for, and make debt service payments on, any debt incurred for
capital projects associated with the utility; therefore, any water enterprise fund bond-funded projects do not
diminish the City's general fund debt capacity.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 1.5
Figure 5
Typical Annual Sources of Water Fund Revenue
* Water Sales
SDC Revenue
New Service Installation
Intergovernmental, Interest & Miscellaneous
n Bond Proceeds
I
61'8
i.
1%
1%
Figure 6
Water Sales by Customer Type
4%
12%
c" Commercial Fire Guard
Government & Municipal Multi-Family Residential
a Single Family Residential r Irrigation (incl. TID customers)
Rate revenue is generated according to the current water rate schedule shown in Table 6.
Customers are billed fixed service charges according to their water meter size plus use charges.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 16
Table 6
Current Water Rates
Rate Component Rate Schedule
7/1/2015
Monthly Service Charge Within City Limits
Meter Size
3/4" $23.50
11. $46.99
1.5" $66.99
211 $88.24
3" $184.50
4" $282.07
6" $528.92
8" $881.49
Usage Charges
Residential [1]
October- May
0 to 300 cf per month per unit $0.0243
301 to 1,000 cf per month per unit $0.0299
1,001 to 2,500 cf per month per unit $0.0400
> 2,500 cf per month per unit $0.0517
June - September
0 to 300 cf per month per unit $0.0243
301 to 1,000 cf per month per unit $0.0299
1,001 to 2,500 cf per month per unit $0.0400
2,501 to 3,600 cf per month per unit $0.0517
> 3,600 cf per month per unit $0.0673
Non-Residential [1]
0-50,000 cf per month $0.0343
> 50,000 cf per month $0.0353
TID Irrigation Rates
Unmetered Service per acre or portion of $170.01
Metered Service Base Service Charge per meter as above
Water Consumption per cf $0.0055
Bulk Water Rate
For water provided on a temporary basis through a bulk meter on a fire hydrant
Deposit $1,859.28
Basic Fee $234.77
Cost of Water same as non-residential
Fire Protection Service
This rate shall apply to all fire protection services or fire guards. The basic
service charge will be equal to the minimum basic service charge. Water will
be billed at non-residential rates.
Outside City Limits
All rates and charges for water service provided outside the city limits will be
1.5 times the rates for water service provided within the city limits.
Source: City of Ashland.
[1] Irrigation customers only billed when the service takes water.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page i7
New development pays System Development Charges (SDC) fees to pay for new facilities
necessary to accommodate the increased demand associated with new customers. The current
SDC fee schedule is shown in Table 7. SDC charges are not updated as part of this Study.
Table 7
Water System Development Charges
Applicant SDC Charges
Reimbursement Improvement Total
Residential
All, per Sq. Ft. Habitable Area $0.9318 $1.6751 $2.6069
Commercial & Industrial
Meter Size
3/4" $1,792.89 $3,084.22 $4,877.11
1" $2,988.75 $5,140.43 $8,129.18
1.5" $5,975.70 $10,280.87 $16,256.57
2" $9,561.48 $16,448.58 $26,010.06
3" $20,917.65 $35,983.04 $56,900.69
4" $35,857.80 $61,685.21 $97,543.01
6" $74,704.35 $128,508.83 $203,213.18
8" $107,573.40 $185,053.61 $292,627.01
Source: Economic&Financial AnaIysis,June 5, 2014.
Water customers are also charged a fixed monthly fee by water meter size for the Ashland
Forest Resiliency Program. This new fee was adopted by City Council in May 2015 and is also not
part of the Study. The Forest Resiliency Program was included in the Water Fund prior to fiscal
year 2015-16. It is now part of public safety. The Forest Resiliency Program fee schedule is
shown in Table 8 on the following page.
Expenses. The water fund incurs annual expenses for supply, distribution, treatment plant, and
conservation functions. Costs for these functions are further grouped into ten categories in the
Study:
Personnel (includes benefits) Supplies
Repair & Maintenance Communications
Contractual Services Central Service
Miscellaneous Charges Other Purchased Services
Conservation Programs Franchise Tax
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 18
Table 8
Forest Resiliency Program Fee Schedule
Meter Size Monthly Charge
3/411 $1.39
$1.39
$6.95
2" $11.12
311 $22.24
411 $34.75
6" $69.50
811 $111.20
Source: Resolution 2015-14 adding a surcharge to water meters forthe
purpose of generating and dedicating general fund resources for
additional work in the forest interface as part of the Ashland Forest
ResiIiencyProgram, May 2015.
Over the past six years personnel costs (including salaries and benefits), central service costs
(support from other departments allocated to water), and miscellaneous costs have been the
largest expenditure items. Personnel costs have comprised approximately 35 percent of annual
costs of the water utility. The percentage share of fiscal year 2015-16 budgeted expenses by
expense category is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Typical Annual Water Fund Expenses
2%
r
3 c e
s .
L~ ,3
s' FB
7% 8%
* Personnel Supplies & Communications s Repair & Maintenance
Contractual Services m Central Service Miscellaneous Charges
■ Other Purchased Services ■ Franchise Tax ■ Conservation Programs
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2o16 Page 1g
An addition to the fiscal year 2015-16 budget is the cost of TAP water. This new water source
first came online in the fall of 2014. The City anticipates using this water source one month
every year in typical water years.
Table A-2 shows historical and budgeted expenditures by water system function. Operations
expenditures are summarized in Table A-3.
Water Fund Balance. In 2010 and 2011 the water fund was unable to sustain itself. Inter-fund
loans from other City funds were used to pay for operations of the water system. Following an
increase in revenue in 2013 as a result of the completion of the Water Master Plan and
implementation of increased rates, the water fund was able to sustain itself. The water fund
balance increased from $2.7 million to $6.4 million. The inter-fund loans were repaid. The water
fund balance decreased in fiscal years ending 2014 and 2015 (the last 2 fiscal years) to $5.2
million as revenues decreased due to the drought (despite rate increases over the same time
period). Bond proceeds have been used increasingly since 2013 to fund major capital
improvements. The historical water fund balance is shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9
Historical Water Fund Balance
Fiscal Year Ending
Water Fund 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenues $4,455,768 $4,806,604 $5,745,624 $8,280,514 $6,322,141 $6,604,338
Expenses $5,007,651 $4,996,091 $5,049,115 $6,899,636 $7,315,933 $8,414,077
Excess (Deficiency) ($551,883) ($189,487) $696,509 $1,380,878 ($993,792) ($1,809,739)
Other Financing Sources $80,000 $550,000 ($200,000) $2,347,791 $829,630 $744,916
repayment of repayment of
repayment of interfund loan & interfund loan &
Interfund loan Interfund loan interfund loan bond proceeds bond proceeds bond proceeds
Net Change in Fund Balance ($471,883) $360,513 $496,509 $3,728,669 ($164,162) ($1,064,823)
Fund Balance July 1 $2,323,768 $1,851,885 $2,212,398 $2,708,907 $6,437,576 $6,273,414
Fund Balance June 30 $1,851,885 $2,212,398 $2,708,907 $6,437,576 $6,273,414 $5,208,591
Source: City of Ashland CAFRs.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2o16 Page 20
Section 4: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS
4.1 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
The revenue requirement refers to the amount of money that must be raised annually through
rates. The projection of revenue requirement is therefore the cornerstone for calculation of
rates. This section explains the derivation of revenue requirement for this Study. Components
of revenue requirement include:
• Capital Improvements
• Debt Service
• System Rehabilitation
• Operations Expenses and Reserves
City TID non-potable water sales revenue as well as other non-water sales revenue projections
are credited against projected operations costs. Non-water sales include intergovernmental
revenue, interest on investments, new service installation revenue, and other miscellaneous
revenues.
4.1.1. Capital Improvements
The City's water system capital improvements plan (CIP) is shown in Table A-4. The table shows
costs in inflated dollars to account for the increased cost of infrastructure over time. Project
costs are increased 3.12% per year for inflation per the historical 1995-2015 20-year
Engineering News-Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI) average annual increase.
The table only shows costs to be borne by existing customers. Improvements that benefit future
customers will be paid for with system development charges. Total CIP costs benefiting existing
customers is summarized in Table 10. Total costs (inflated) are estimated at $28.6 million. Of
this total, $20.3 million (70%) is for the new water treatment plant and reservoir identified in
the Master Plan.
Of the total identified $28.6 million (inflated costs) in improvements, $20.3 million is assumed
to be funded with SRF loans, $2.1 million is assumed to be funded with bond proceeds, $3.8
million with cash raised by rates specifically for system rehabilitation, $0.4 million with other
water fund cash, and $2.0 million with use of restricted reserves for capital improvements.
4.1.2. Debt Service
Existing debt service of the water fund is shown in Table A-5. Existing debt comprises City
general obligation bonds as well as Medford Water Commission debt and State of Oregon
revolving fund loan debt for the TAP project. State of Oregon revolving fund loan debt
payments are estimated to begin in fiscal year 2017-18.
New debt service estimates for projects bond-funded by the City are shown in Table A-6. Table
A-7 shows the assumptions and debt service for financing the new water treatment plant and
Crowson II reservoir with the Oregon DWSRF program.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March i5, 2o16 Page 22
Table 10
Summary of 10-Year CIP for Existing Customers
N O O tn- t1} th t1} -L ~ O
N O O O
rt-I LD Ln Ln Ln
N M M M
CD M M M
-VI- -La in
r-I O O tn- to t/>- - /n t/? O
N N N N
O Ln o, Ol C'.•1
N LD ~ ~
Ln Ln O O O O O Ln
O n r~ t/} t/} t!} t/} t/} N
0) Lo tD (.0
ri TT CT
O LA 111 Ln
N th tn- tn• C
v
E
O O O O O O O O
O 0 0 CD t>} V! -La i/} tr> 0 0 O
~ Q
M N N N E
00 00 00 _
N N N
N il} t/} th 6
Q
ra
u
O -1 O M O O O O p
00 -4 N to r- r, ~t
M t\ O 00 LD M o
Ln 't N r~ O Ln
N M Ln M 00 N o, U
O Ln ci -L F O M Ln
N p c-1 LD m O v
a--I tJ} i/} t/} ri L
ih t!~ 4
Ln 00 O r" O O O M
N N t/) It r- O ih N
kc lzz LA L r Ql 11
N
~-i r` O M -1 N r\ C
O O O a) M N O 0
N N i L n rn N
ri t!F t/} in V} ri of
t6 -n
U
O O O O O O O O s
a t!} IzT to r- N -i +
r It M M M N c
LA Lnn M N M CO rn cr`--I f0 N O r" Ql N +O CO M IZT O r~ O M
N ih c-i il} N +0
t~
O Q- O lD O O O O n
Ln N zt N r-I t ,-i Ln
N N N 1100 171 M N C
M N N Ln -1 N M 'Z
N rr O l0 't N M N v
0 LO r~ M O M O to q
~ 06, ry th I-i rn h rl 00' O 2
N t/'~ t/} -1 to. v} N u n
tr)- t/} th C
f0 N
U E
C ai
'+o >
w o
L
CL
u ~
u C
O 0 ~ C
~ L en -O ra -
LA ~ C: ~ Y
(a > Z5
U LL
f0 V) U- E U
0 N cc
4-
Y L
4~ - Q
4.1 M 4 ~ V1
H U - N t L
O ro 'L a Lv
U N + n n
41 cn - ` QJ
U C C) C C
OJ p U >
'O E Ll. O E Li- w h0 >
L L ro ~ = C L
d ~ M Ln 4,
V) Ll O O O n
E M Ln U D U CO U p
41 +J o
0 ;:T
V) N
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 22
4.1.3. System Rehabilitation
Depreciation is used as the basis for which to collect rates to cover system rehabilitation costs.
It is recommended that the City collect water rates to fund system rehabilitation costs. Table 11
shows the estimated cost of depreciation of the water system. The estimated cost includes
replacement of existing assets and assets that are estimated to be constructed during the Study
time period (see Table A-8).
Table 11
Estimated Water System Assets Depreciation
Assets Annual Depreciation
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Existing Assets
Water Rights $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Buildings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Equipment $11,832 $8,189 $1,390 $1,390 $1,390 $1,390 $1,390
Improvements $676,083 $673,081 $663,935 $663,935 $663,735 $661,981 $657,684
Total Existing $687,915 $681,270 $665,325 $665,325 $665,126 $663,371 $659,074
New Assets
Improvements $121,580 $323,159 $489,396 $494,288 $503,811 $511,829 $517,412
Total New $121,580 $323,159 $489,396 $494,288 $503,811 $511,829 $517,412
Combined Existing & New $809,495 $1,004,428 $1,154,721 $1,159,613 $1,168,937 $1,175,200 $1,176,486
% Included in Rates 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Amount In Rates $1,004,428 $1,154,721 $1,159,613 $1,168,937 $1,175,200 $1,176,486
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
4.1.4. Operations Expenses and Reserves
Table A-9 shows that operations costs of the water fund have increased at an average annual
rate of 3.4% since 2010. This average annual increase is compared with a 2.7% Engineering
News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) increase and 1.8%-2.2% Consumer Price Index
(CPI) indexes. It is typical for utilities costs to increase at a faster rate than the price indexes
shown.
This Study recommends using average annual increases of 4.0% for personnel costs, 3.5% for
TAP water costs, and 3.0% for all other operating costs.
4.1.5. Calculated Revenue Requirement
Table 12 on the next page estimates the revenue requirement of the water fund for the next 10
years. In fiscal year 2015-16 the revenue requirement is calculated at $5.78 million. The City
projects revenues of $6.52 million. Any realized additional revenue will be reserved for capital
improvements identified in the Water Master Plan.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15,2o16 Page 23
Table 12
Projected Revenue Requirement
Revenuesand 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Expenses Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Operating Expenses
Personnel 4.0% $1,737,310 $1,806,802 $1,879,074 $1,954,237 $2,032,407 $2,113,703 $2,198,251
Supplies 3.0% $305,825 $315,00() $324,450 $334,183 $344,209 $354,535 $365,171
Repair & Maintenance [1] 3.0% $410,512 $359,827 $370,622 $381,741 $393,193 $404,989 $417,139
Communications 3.0% $22,380 $23,051 $23,743 $24,455 $25,189 $25,945 $26,723
Contractual Services 3.0% $353,600 $364,208 $375,134 $386,388 $397,980 $409,919 $422,217
Central Service 3.0% $887,650 $914,280 $941,708 $969,959 $999,058 $1,029,030 $1,059,901
Miscellaneous Charges 3.0% $517,020 $532,531 $548,507 $564,962 $581,911 $599,368 $617,349
Other Purchased Services 3.0% $207,320 $213,540 $219,946 $226,544 $233,340 $240,341 $247,551
Franchise Tax 3.0% $402,653 $414,733 $427,175 $439,990 $453,189 $466,785 $480,789
Conservation Programs 3.0% $114,500 $117,935 $121,473 $125,117 $128,871 $132,737 $136,719
TAP Water [2] 3.5% $44,000 $48,000 $50,000 $52,000 $54,000 $56,000 $58,000
Subtotal Operating Expenses $5,002,770 $5,109,906 $5,281,831 $5,459,577 $5,643,347 $5,833,351 $6,029,809
Debt Service
Existing Debt (City bonds) $453,291 $451,941 $450,491 $453,891 $457,091 $450,191 $448,241
Existing Debt Medford Water Commission $163,768 $163,768 $163,768 $163,768 $163,768 $163,768 $163,768
Existing Debt (IFA note) $0 $0 $157,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000 $103,000
New City Debt [3] Table A-6 $188,000 $188,000 $188,000 $188,000 $188,000 $188,000
New SRF Debt Table A-7 $53,736 $313,722 $581,505 $1,145,400 $1,145,400 $1,145,400
Subtotal Debt Service $617,059 $857,445 $1,272,981 $1,490,164 $2,057,259 $2,050,359 $2,048,409
Capital Outlay Cash Funded $402,240 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
System Rehabilitation $0 $1,004,428 $1,154,721 $1,159,613 $1,168,937 $1,175,200 $1,176,486
Operating Reserves $0 $310,000 ($105,000) ($245,000) ($735,000) ($650,000) ($555,000)
Subtotal Annual Cost $6,022,069 $7,281,780 $7,604,533 $7,864,353 $8,134,543 $8,408,910 $8,699,704
Credits
New Service Installation 2.0% $114,800 $117,096 $119,438 $121,827 $124,263 $126,748 $129,283
Intergovernmental Revenue constant $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000
Interest on Investments constant $20,400 $20,400 $20,400 $20,400 $20,400 $20,400 $20,400
Miscellaneous 2.0% $12,000 $12,243 $12,485 $12,734 $12,989 $13,249 $13,514
Non-Potable Water(TID) Charges Table 14 $80,742 $50,800 $53,727 $56,676 $59,632 $62,642 $65,663
Subtotal Credits $241,942 $214,536 $220,050 $225,637 $231,284 $237,040 $242,860
REVENUE REQUIREMENT $5,780,127 $7,067,244 $7,384,483 $7,638,716 $7,903,258 $8,171,870 $8,456,844
base
Change from Base Year Water Sales $6,515,358 $551,886 $869,124 $1,123,358 $1,387,900 $1,656,512 $1,941,485
Annual Change $551,886 $317,239 $254,234 $264,542 $268,612 $284,974
Percentage Change 8% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Source: HEC.
[1] Maintenance costs reduced in year 1 by $63,000 which is the average amountspenton meter replacement in the City each year currently.
Meter replacement costs will be recouped in the new meter replacement monthly charges.
[2] Assumes 2.13 mgd for 31 days/year. In 2015 the cost is 68 cents per 1,000 gallons. The cost is assumed to increase to 75 cents per 1,000 gallons.
in 2016 and thereafter 3.5% per year in the model.
[31 Assumes payments startthefollowingyear.
The revenue requirement is projected to increase to $7.07 million in fiscal year 2016-17, and
increase each year thereafter. The revenue requirement is projected to continue to increase
fiscal years ending 2018 through 2022 to account for inflation, fund capital expenditures, and
account for new debt. To keep rates at a 3% annual increase during this timeframe,
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 24
approximately $2.3 million of existing cash reserves will be depleted. Note that the revenue
requirement is the amount that must be collected from potable water customers; it excludes
revenues from water sales to City TID customers. The percentage increases in revenue
requirement match the 2012 Water Master Plan for the first three fiscal years.
4.2 TALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICT NON-POTABLE IRRIGATION SERVICE
Total annual costs of the water system to potable users is reduced by credits, including credit
for water sales to TID non-potable water customers. In fiscal year 2015-16 TID charges are
budgeted at $81,000. This Study calculates the costs of the TID system at $52,870 for fiscal year
2015-16. Table A-10 shows annual costs comprise city canal maintenance costs as well as
staffing and materials costs. Table A-11 provides a supporting cost estimate for annual
maintenance costs.
TID irrigation water is supplied under a 1924, 1926 and 1935 contract between the City and TID.
This contract allows for use of 769 acre-feet for both non-potable irrigation and treated
domestic water supplies. Use of TID deliveries by year since 2004 is shown in Table A-12. During
drought years the contract may be reduced as it was in 2013 and 2014. The City also has a
contract with TID for 600 acre-feet per year. The 600-acre feet contract is for potable water
customers only.
The City diverts TID water to the Ashland Creek water treatment plant where it is treated and
then enters the potable water distribution system. In drought years the City may also divert a
portion or all the 769 acre-feet contract water to the treatment plant. Under this circumstance
only the 'front side' canal users, located before the diversion to the treatment plant may
receive water. As shown in Table A-12, on average, TID customers use 73% of the 769 acre-feet
of water rights. This percentage is applied to the TID cost calculation for city canal maintenance
costs. Table 13 shows allocation of TID system costs between unmetered and metered non-
potable water customers for fiscal year 2015-16.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 25
Table 13
Calculated TID Use Rates for Fiscal Year 2015-16
Current Calculated
Item Calculation Rates 15/16 Rates
Total TID Annual Cost a $52,870
Metered Rate per Cu. Ft. b $0.0055 $0.0022
SOU Annual Costs [1] c = 7,101,690*b $15,348
Lithia Park (City) Annual Costs [1] d = 1,020,495*b $2,205
Unmetered Irrigators Costs e = a-c-d $35,316
Unmetered Irrigators Acres e 174
Unmetered Annual Rate per Acre f = We $170.01 $202.97
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
[1] Excludes service charge and meter replacement fee.
Cost share based on TID water use - see Table A-10:
Total Cubic Feet 24,463,405
SOU Cubic Feet 7,101,690
Lithia Park Cubic Feet 1,020,495
All Other Irrigators Cubic Feet 16,341,220
City of Ashland Ordinance 1288 provides for metered and unmetered TID irrigation water rates.
The ordinance requires that rates shall be self-supporting so far as is practicable, so that
domestic water users do not subsidize the cost of the TID irrigation water system; however, the
ordinance also states that the primary use of the City's TID water is for domestic purposes in
water-short years. In addition, TID non-potable water will be available for irrigation purposes at
rates less than those in effect for domestic water.
The calculated rate for metered customers is less than the current rate. The rate for
unmetered customers does not immediately increase to cost of service. It gradually
increases over the next six years to cost of service.
Current 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021
Metered $0.0055 $0.0022 $0.0023 $0.0024 $0.0025 $0.0026 $0.0026
Rate per
Cu. Ft.
Unmetered $170.01 $183.11 $196.20 $209.30 $222.40 $235.50 $248.59
Rate per
Acre
Table 14 shows the calculated offset to the revenue requirement over the Study period.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 26
Table 14
TID Revenue Offset
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Costs Assumption Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
TID Annual Cost Paid by Metered Customers
Base Meter Charge [1]
SOU $4,231 $432 $446 $460 $466 $487 $502
Lithia Park (City) $2,257 $351 $362 $373 $377 $395 $407
Metered Water Use [2]
SOU $39,059 $15,875 $16,420 $16,984 $17,568 $18,172 $18,798
Lithia Park (City) $5,613 $2,281 $2,359 $2,441 $2,524 $2,611 $2,701
Total SOU $44,672 $18,156 $18,779 $19,425 $20,092 $20,784 $21,499
Total Lithia Park (City) $7,869 $2,632 $2,722 $2,814 $2,901 $3,007 $3,108
Total TID Metered Customers $52,541 $20,788 $21,501 $22,238 $22,993 $23,790 $24,608
All Other TID Users Costs
Annual Flat Fees [3] $29,582 $31,861 $34,140 $36,418 $38,697 $40,976 $43,255
Total TID Unmetered Customers $29,582 $31,861 $34,140 $36,418 $38,697 $40,976 $43,255
Total Estimated TID Customer Payments
Meter Fees $6,488 $783 $809 $833 $842 $883 $909
Use Fees $74,254 $50,016 $52,919 $55,843 $58,790 $61,760 $64,754
Total Fees $80,742 $50,800 $53,727 $56,676 $59,632 $62,642 $65,663
Contracted Water 2.0% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
City Maintenance Costs 3.0% $30,070 $30,972 $31,901 $32,858 $33,844 $34,859 $35,905
Canal Depreciation constant $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TID Billing Costs (personnel) 4.0% $22,800 $23,712 $24,660 $25,647 $26,673 $27,740 $28,849
Total Annual Cost (rounded) $52,870 $54,684 $56,562 $58,505 $60,517 $62,599 $64,754
Annual Percentage Increase 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
[1] Customer charges and meter replacement fees for one 6" meter (SOU) and one 4" meter (Lithia Park).
[2], [3] Calculated Rates from Table 12.
Calculated Rate per Metered Connection $0.0055 $0.0022 $0.0023 $0.0024 $0.0025 $0.0026 $0.0026
Calculated Rate per Acre at Cost of Service $170.01 $209.93 $217.14 $224.60 $232.32 $240.32 $248.59
Calculated Rate per Acre at Gradual Increase $183.11 $196.20 $209.30 $222.40 $235.50 $248.59
4.3 METER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
City crews replace older water meters that are near the end of their useful life, or which are
inaccurately measuring water flow. The City has not been collecting funds to routinely replace
meters. The cost to replace meters, by size of meter, was used to determine the annual cost of
a meter replacement program (it is estimated that meters will have to be replaced every 20
years). Meter replacement program costs will increase as the number of City water meters
increases and as the cost of installation increases. It is estimated that the meter replacement
program will increase annually from approximately $138,000 in 2015 to $172,000 fiscal year
ending 2022, as shown in Table 15.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2o16 Page 27
Table 15
Estimated Meter Replacement Fee Program Costs
Fiscal Year Ending
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Item Assumption Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Projected Growth in Woter Meters 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59%
Projected City Water Meters 8,819 8,871 8,923 8,976 9,029 9,082 9,136
Estimated Replacement Cost per Meter [1] 3.12% $312 $322 $332 $342 $353 $364 $376
Percentage of Meters Replaced 20-yr cycle 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Estimated Meter Replacement Program Cost $137,719 $142,851 $148,169 $153,697 $159,426 $165,363 $171,533
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
[1] Weighted average cost of meters.
Assumptions for meter costs in 2015 are shown in Table A-13. Meter costs and fees are
increased 3.12% per year per the historical 20-year average annual ENR CO increase previously
described. Table 16 shows the calculated meter replacement fees. Since the revenues and costs
of the meter replacement program are assumed to be equal each year, the program is not
included in the revenue requirement calculation.
Table 16
Calculated Meter Replacement Fees
Effective July 1
Meter 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Size Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Annual escalator 3.12%
3/4" $1.15 $1.18 $1.22 $1.26 $1.30 $1.34 $1.38
1" $1.72 $1.77 $1.83 $1.88 $1.94 $2.00 $2.07
1-1/2" $2.71 $2.79 $2.88 $2.97 $3.06 $3.16 $3.26
2" $3.65 $3.76 $3.88 $4.00 $4.12 $4.25 $4.38
3" $7.81 $8.06 $8.31 $8.57 $8.83 $9.11 $9.39
4" $16.98 $17.51 $18.05 $18.62 $19.20 $19.80 $20.41
6" $23.54 $24.28 $25.03 $25.81 $26.62 $27.45 $28.30
8" $28.39 $29.27 $30.18 $31.12 $32.10 $33.10 $34.13
Source: HEC.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2o16 Page 28
Section 5: COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
5.1 FUNCTIONAL COST ALLOCATION
City water system costs were classified into different functions: customer costs, meter and
services costs, capacity costs, and commodity costs. Customer costs, meter and services costs,
and a portion of capacity costs are fixed costs. Fixed costs generally consist of costs that a util ity
incurs to serve customers irrespective of the amount or rate of water they use.I A portion of
capacity costs and all commodity costs are variable costs. Variable costs are those that change
in total as the volume of activity changes, as measured in a specific time period. These
commonly include the costs of chemicals used in the treatment process, energy related to
pumping for transmission and distribution, and purchased water.
Table A-14 shows how the expenses in the City's budget were allocated to the different
functions of water service. Expense functions were allocated based on one of five different
methodologies. These methodologies include:
1. Plant In Service. Plant in service allocation is shown in Table A-15. Plant in service costs
include the original cost of current water system assets. Total cost is allocated to
customers, meters and services, capacity, and commodity.
2. Ratio of Average to Peak Month. The calculation of peak to average month flows is
shown in Table 3. Expenses are allocated 55% to customers and 45% to use functions
using this methodology.
3. Utilities. All utilities costs (electricity) are allocated 100% to commodity because they
are directly affected by the amount of water delivered. TAP water is also allocated
100% to commodity.
4. Customers. Central service costs and costs such as office supplies, telephones,
computers, postage and insurance are allocated 100% to customer costs. These costs
are not affected by the amount of water delivered.
5. Average of Classified Costs. Many expenses are allocated to multiple functions of water
service because they do not directly relate to capacity of the water system, or quantity
of water deliveries. These expenses are allocated among the customer, meters and
services, capacity, and commodity functions based on the combined percentage
allocation of all other classified costs. Examples of expenses allocated using this
methodology include salaries and other personnel costs, professional services, and
training costs.
Customer, meters and services, and a portion of capacity costs are captured in flat monthly
fees. Commodity costs and a portion of capacity costs are captured through variable water
service fees (use fees). Capacity costs were split between flat monthly fees and use fees to
reflect that some capacity or infrastructure costs must be recovered regardless of the amount
of water used.'
5M1 Manual, pp. 137-138.
6M1 Manual page 139, fixed charges.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 29
The portion of capacity costs allocated to the flat monthly fees is referred to as a readiness to
serve charge. The allocation of revenue requirement using the functional allocation is shown in
Table 17.
Table 17
Allocation of Revenue Requirement to Cost Functions
Functional
Costs Allocation 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Total Revenue Requirement $6,543,230 $7,067,244 $7,384,483 $7,638,716 $7,903,258 $8,171,870 $8,456,844
Customer 18% $1,177,781 $1,272,104 $1,329,207 $1,374,969 $1,422,587 $1,470,937 $1,522,232
Meters & Services 5% $327,162 $353,362 $369,224 $381,936 $395,163 $408,594 $422,842
Capacity (in flat charge) [1] 19% $1,243,214 $1,342,776 $1,403,052 $1,451,356 $1,501,619 $1,552,655 $1,606,800
Capacity (in use charge) 31% $2,028,401 $2,190,846 $2,289,190 $2,368,002 $2,450,010 $2,533,280 $2,621,622
Commodity 27% $1,766,672 $1,908,156 $1,993,810 $2,062,453 $2,133,880 $2,206,405 $2,283,348
Total 100% $6,543,230 $7,067,244 $7,384,483 $7,638,716 $7,903,258 $8,171,870 $8,456,844
Source: HEC.
[1] The readiness to serve charge.
[2] In 2014 the City collected 45% of water charges in flat monthly charges; however, this was a drought year. During drought years the base
charges comprise a larger portion of total revenues.
5.2 RATE DESIGN
Allocation of costs to customer categories is based on the Commodity-Demand method
described in the M1 Manual Chapter 111.2. Once the revenue requirement has been projected
and the functional allocation analysis performed the City has to arrive at a rate design (how the
revenue requirement will be collected) with knowledge of how the City's water system costs are
structured. In determining an appropriate rate design for Ashland, this Study considered the
following key objectives:
• Rates must be capable of generating sufficient revenues to meet all annual financial
obligations of the water enterprise fund;
• The rate structure should encourage water efficiency;
• Change to the rate structure must be administratively feasible (compatible with the
existing billing system and straightforward to explain to customers);
• The rate structure should be as representative of local customer water use patterns as
possible; and
• Revised rates must be supportive of City goals, keeping within affordability guidelines.
With these objectives in mind, the differential in costs by pumping zone was analyzed. The
analysis did not show any significant differences in costs by pumping zone; this potential
change to the rate design was discarded.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 1-5, 2o16 Page 30
Flat Monthly Costs. The customer, meters and services, and readiness to serve costs should
all be collected in flat monthly fees. Options for collection include combining all costs into
one service charge based on meter size (as is currently done) or separating customer costs
from capacity costs and collecting customer costs based on the number of accounts, rather
than meter size. While both approaches are common, this Study recommends a customer
charge and a service charge because this methodology more accurately captures the costs
of service. Central services costs, which make up the majority of customer costs, are a direct
function of the number of water accounts served, not capacity of the system (meters).
This Study recommends implementation of monthly customer charges as shown in Table
18. If a water account has multiple meters associated with it, the account would only pay
the customer charge once. In contrast, capacity costs are collected for each meter with the
potential to use the capacity of the system.
Table 18
Calculation of Customer Service Costs per Account
Allocated To 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Projected Annual Growth Rate 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59% 0.59%
Revenue Requirement Allocated $1,177,781 $1,272,104 $1,329,207 $1,374,969 $1,422,587 $1,470,937 $1,522,232
Total City Water Accounts 8,980 9,033 9,087 9,140 9,194 9,249 9,303
Customer Cost per Bill per Year $131.16 $140.83 $146.28 $150.43 $154.72 $159.04 $163.62
Cost per Month $10.93 $11.74 $12.19 $12.54 $12.89 $13.25 $13.64
Source: Cityof Ashland and HEC.
Table 19 on the next page shows allocation of meters and services and the readiness to serve
costs. The calculation is based on total number of billable meter equivalents and the meter
ratios of meter sizes to a 3/4" meter. Meter ratios reflect the difference in water volume that
can be taken through the meter. Calculation of equivalent meter ratios is shown in Tables 20
and A-16.
In addition to the customer and service charges calculated from the revenue requirement
projection and allocation, the new rate structure adds the meter replacement fee (see Section
4) to the service charge. The revised flat monthly charge now includes three components: the
service charge, the customer charge, and the meter replacement fee.
Variable (Use) Costs. Remaining capacity costs and commodity costs are recovered from
customers through use charges applied to actual water consumption as measured through
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 31
water meters. In 2014 the City collected 55% of costs through use charges.' This Study
calculates rates with 58% of costs collected in use charges so that use charges continue to send
a water conservation signal to customers. There are many ways that the City could collect use
charges. This Study selected a rate structure based on City goals and customer water use
patterns.
Table 19
Calculation of Monthly Service Charge by Meter Size
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Allocated Costs [1] $1,570,375 $1,696,139 $1,772,276 $1,833,292 $1,896,782 $1,961,249 $2,029,642
Est. Billable Meter Equivalents 11,184 11,250 11,317 11,384 11,451 11,519 11,587
Meter
Meter Size Ratio Monthly Service Charge per Meter
3/4" 1.00 $11.70 $12.56 $13.05 $13.42 $13.80 $14.19 $14.60
1" 1.00 $11.70 $12.56 $13.05 $13.42 $13.80 $14.19 $14.60
1.5" 5.00 $58.51 $62.82 $65.25 $67.10 $69.02 $70.94 $72.99
2" 8.00 $93.61 $100.51 $104.41 $107.36 $110.43 $113.51 $116.78
3" 16.00 $187.22 $201.02 $208.81 $214.73 $220.86 $227.02 $233.56
4" 25.00 $292.53 $314.10 $326.27 $335.51 $345.09 $354.72 $364.94
6" 50.00 $585.05 $628.19 $652.53 $671.03 $690.19 $709.45 $729.87
8" 80.00 $936.08 $1,005.11 $1,044.05 $1,073.65 $1,104.30 $1,135.12 $1,167.80
Source: CityofAshland and HEC.
[1] Includes meter and services costs and portion of capacity costs that represent the readiness to serve.
Table 20
Estimated Meter Equivalent Units
Number of Ratio to Equivalent
Meter Size Meters 3/4" Service Meter Units
Ill
3/4" 7,814 1.0 7,814
1" 509 1.0 509
1.5" 167 5.0 835
2" 145 8.0 1,160
3" 21 16.0 336
4" 14 25.0 350
6" 2 50.0 100
8" 1 80.0 80
Total 8,673 11,184
Source: Table 13-1 of the AWWA M1 Manual,
CityofAshland, and HEC
[1] Uses safe maximum operating capacities of C-700-09
Displacement Type Meters (bronze main case) for meters smaller
than 2" and C-702-10 Compound Type, Class I for meters 2" and
I a rger.
7 Percentage will fluctuate from year to year. Since 2014 was a drought year it is expected that use charges
would normally comprise a larger share of total water rate revenues (between 55% and 60%).
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 32
This Study proposes to keep the City's current increasing block rate structure for most
customers for use charges. Properly designed increasing block rates recover class-specific costs
of service while sending a more conservation-oriented price signal to that class.' The M1
Manual page 116 also summarizes that "increasing block rate structure have found growing use
in areas experiencing growth in water demand that is reaching the safe yield or capacity of the
system, where there has been an impetus for improved efficiency in water use." Setting
appropriate increasing blocks is determined by examining customer characteristics.
5.2.1. Customer Characteristics
Table 21 on the following page shows the customer characteristics of residential, non-
residential, and irrigation customers. Average monthly use, monthly winter average and
monthly summer average use as well as average annual use by customer type are calculated
using 2014 meter reads. In the summer months all residential customers and commercial
customers with meters 2" or less use approximately twice the amount of water that they do
during the winter months. Larger commercial customers and institutional customers use about
1.5 times the amount of water during the summer months. The summer to average month ratio
is close to one for institutional customers and the maximum month usage is in May, before the
peak use for the water system as a whole. Institutional characteristics suggest one rate for all
water use would be appropriate. Irrigation customers display very different usage to the other
customer types. Only about 10% of irrigation customers take water throughout the yea r.
Figure 8 shows customer usage patterns by customer type throughout the year. The peaking
patterns of residential and irrigation customers is pronounced compared with the other
customer types. These customers also comprise 81% of total water use (see Figure 4) therefore
a rate structure that encourages efficient use of water during the summer months is very
important.
Figure 8
Monthly Water Use by Customer Type
,ate,, Q~4~, r"~ p r ~ P~~ ~~o c,r
-«ti-•-CommercialInstitutional ---Residential Irrigation
8M1 Manual page 111.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 33
Table 21
Customer Usage Characteristics
O
L ~
CQ Q r-I r-I r-I r-I r-i c--I
C
C C
G t:o
L L
E N N N 14 14 M
~ o E r,
n
L
t 41 N Ln -1 CD O l.0 -1 lD CD CO
O
N Ln N M a, M 00
C
O N > rl N t-,~ 00
N
N bA LO O O M lD r-
[L6 N ~t O O 00 (.0
4, 41 O 0) L r
a, rl- L -i QO an f6 00 lD lD a, ~D CD
L w ~ 1:7r N o co m M
_ D c rn o m ono r-I
Q Q v IH
o +n u +n Ln
:3 Z3 = D
W w ~
fu W
E Q Q Q Q Q 4.1
O O ° N
E o Ln
C o
M a o CO w ri o, M N
= V v d' M O 00 Ct Ln
CU = a n Ln N lD M Ln lD
r-i N u1 di O
> O v Qu
-a
bio Q ~ v o
U
O
r- N N rIA 00
i tOif I~ lD
M
> C c-i' lD l0
O
C
lD CD 00 O d' r-
CL) CT) is 4a (A N O 00 M -1 0) LI)
M ID
Q ui r i c
c
0
b0
C O CT) 0)
- ~ m rn N a,
m uj O Cu
O c c
o 0)
LO M r1 r Ln t a CI- c:) 0) CD E ° M Ln Ln r- M Ln
= cu ov w C: c o
z
U °
L =
U i
C
Ln C Q 7
c C~ O
C E U
cu
L C L
- O o m Q N
_
r,j Z:5 W M
V N N o cn a
Q +Gli O Q t v
C u p co
L L L O
(D 4- L- x
C Ln t1A E E v C CL
O i t6
vii O O O O `n CA - o Q
C: 4-j
3 N i~ O D U Q c
U OC Z L H
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 34
Use by customer type by month is further examined by water meter size in Table A-17. The
table shows that use is driven by customer category and by meter size. Based on use
characteristics by customer type the proposed rate structure includes five customer categories,
designed to capture customer use patterns. The customer categories include residential,
commercial 2" or smaller, commercial greater than 2", institutional, and irrigation.
Bill Tabulation. Bill tabulation is a tool used to analyze customer use data to determine
appropriate rate blocks. Bill tabulations and analysis for residential customers are shown in
Tables A-18 through A-20. On an annual basis, residential customers take 36% of water in
tier 1, 37% in tier 2, 19% in tier 3, 4% in tier 4 and 3% in tier 5 (summer months only).
Residential use by tier is illustrated in Figure 9.
This Study recommends keeping the current tiers for residential customers. As is desired,
the current rate structure is capturing the majority of water use in tiers 1, 2, and 3. Only
excessive water users (the top 7% of water) are billed in tiers 4 and 5. Tier 5 only applies
during the summer (June through September)9.
Figure 9
Residential Water Use by Tier
60% Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
50% 49% Tier 4 Tier 5
40°r° ? 8% 37% 36%37%
30% 28%
R 25% i
i
19%
20% k
E
10%
10% o i i
3% 6 /0 5% 4% 3%
0°i°
Residential - Winter Residential - Summer Residential - Annual
Non-residential bill tabulation under the current rate structure is shown in Table A-21. The
table shows large discrepancies in water billed under tiers 1 and 2 among the different non-
residential customer types (irrigation, commercial and institutional) as illustrated in Figure
10. This Study recommends only charging commercial customers two tiers. The proposed
9 Tier 1 is intended to capture typical customer monthly indoor water usage. Tier 2 is intended to capture
typical customer monthly indoor usage and some outdoor water usage. Tier 3 is intended to apply to
customers using more than the typical customer does in an average water use month.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 35
two tiers result in the bill tabulation shown in Table A-22. As a result of changing the
commercial tiers according to meter size (less than 2" and 2" and larger), 60-65% of water is
billed in tier 1, providing consistency among different commercial users. This is shown in
Figure 11. The current rate structure and proposed rate structure are compared in Tables A-
23 and A-24.
Figure 10
Non-Residential Water Use by Tier (current rate structure)
120>
1_ Tier 1
99%
10° ° Tier 2
88%
60%
coy
40%
4 0`3
2 iYX, 12%
1%
Commercial Institutional Irrigation
Figure 11
Commercial Water Use by Tier (proposed rate structure)
70% 65%
61%
Tier 1
60%
Tier 2
50%
39%
40% 35%
30%
20%
10% -
0%
Commercial <2" Commercial 2+"
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 36
5.3 POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTION
Historical potable water use by customer type is shown in Table A-25. Projected potable water
demand is shown in Table 22. Total number of water users by customer category is projected
using an average annual growth rate of 0.59%. The growth rate is based on the average of the
State certified population estimates historical growth rate and the City's Comprehensive Plan
estimated growth rate. Projected water demand is based on average annual use by customer
category for calendar year 2014.
Table 22
Projected Potable Water Demand
Potable Water Customer 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Residential Figures in Cubic Feet
Single Family 62,048,584 62,463,798 62,760,506 63,092,739 63,426,063 63,763,271 64,099,340
Multi-Family 20,299,186 20,443,836 20,544,128 20,654,585 20,765,447 20,877,506 20,989,338
Subtotal Residential 82,347,770 82,907,634 83,304,634 83,747,324 84,191,510 84,640,777 85,088,678
Non-Residential
Commercial <2" meter 10,276,017 10,477,157 10,522,645 10,576,058 10,629,590 10,683,875 10,737,773
Commercial 2"+ meter 7,446,478 7,592,234 7,625,196 7,663,901 7,702,694 7,742,031 7,781,088
Institutional 6,197,355 6,282,192 6,314,230 6,348,832 6,383,577 6,418,661 6,453,731
Irrigation 14, 792, 917 14,121, 921 14,133, 872 14,179, 296 14, 224, 212 14, 271, 344 14, 315, 774
Subtotal Non-Residential 38,712,767 38,473,504 38,595,943 38,768,087 38,940,073 39,115,911 39,288,367
Total Billable 121,060,537 121,381,138 121,900,577 122,515,411 123,131,582 123,756,688 124,377,045
Tracking Water 1,254,006 1,261,422 1,268,881 1,276,385 1,283,932 1,291,525 1,299,162
Unaccounted Water 5,504,154 5,518,915 5,542,626 5,570,631 5,598,698 5,627,170 5,655,429
Estimated Water Produced 127,818,697 128,161,475 128,712,083 129,362,426 130,014,213 130,675,383 131,331,636
Source: Cityof Ashland and HEC.
Tables A-26 and A-27 show the water demand calculations. Projected water demand accounts
for decreased use of water due to reaction to increased water prices. This effect is called 'price
elasticity.' Price elasticity measures the change in water use resulting from a price increase, all
other things held equal. Price elasticity factors vary by location, pricing structure of both water
and sewer rates, time of year, and customer type. Price elasticity is only applied to real price
increases; that is the price increase adjusted for inflation, to keep the effect of the price of
water independent of total cost increases. For example, if the price increase necessary to meet
the revenue requirement is 10.0% and inflation is 2.0%, any change in water demand as a result
of a price increase is calculated on an 8.0% increase. With a negative price elasticity of 0.1, a
single family residential customer is expected to decrease water use by 1.0% when price
increases 10.0%. Irrigation customers are anticipated to react the most to water price
increases.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2o3.6 Page 37
Table A-28 compares the water demand projection in the Study to water demand projections
in the 2012 Water Master Plan. It also shows derivation of the average annual growth rate used
in the Study. This cost of service water rate study projects lower demands than the 2012 Water
Master Plan; however, this is considered reasonable for purposes of the Study. As described in
Section 1 of the Study, the purpose of the Water Master Plan is to plan for maximum future use
whereas the purpose of the Study is to plan for minimum future use.
5.4 CALCULATED RATES
The flat monthly charges were calculated in Section 5.2. Use charges are calculated based on
the proposed new customer categories, rate structure (tiers), estimated water use by tier, and
total projected water demand (Section 5.3).
Total costs allocated to use charges equals capacity costs allocated to use charges and
commodity costs. The allocation of these costs by customer type is shown in Table A-29. A
support table to the allocation of commodity costs is shown in Table A-30.
Table 23 on the next page shows the calculation of usage charges. The cost ratios between
residential tier 1 and tier 2 is 0.80. Between tier 2 and tier 3 the ratio is 1.35, between tier 3 and
tier 4 it is 1.75 and between tier 4 and tier 5 it is 2.25. As an example, tier 3 water is 35% more
expensive than tier 2 water.
Commercial customers would be charged at the residential tier 2 and tier 3 rates.
On-peak and off-peak (seasonal) potable irrigation rates were calculated for commercial and
institutional irrigation customers based on historical usage as shown in Table A-31. On-peak
rates would be charged June through September.
Institutional customers would be charged one rate for all consumption.
Calculated water rates through the Study period are shown in Table 24 on page 40. Monthly
service charges include the meter replacement fee.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 38
Table 23
Calculated Use Charges per Cubic Foot
Item 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Allocated Cost $3,795,073 $4,099,001 $4,283,000 $4,430,455 $4,583,890 $4,739,685 $4,904,969
Total Consumption 121,060,537 121,381,138 121,900,577 122,515,411 123,131,582 123,756,688 124,377,045
Cost per Cubic Foot [1] $0.0313 $0.0338 $0.0351 $0.0362 $0.0372 $0.0383 $0.0394
Institutional Costs
Insitutional Cost $170,913 $184,600 $192,887 $199,528 $206,438 $213,454 $220,898
Insitutional Use 6,197,355 6,282,192 6,314,230 6,348,832 6,383,577 6,418,661 6,453,731
Institutional Cost per Cu. Ft. $0.0276 $0.0294 $0.0305 $0.0314 $0.0323 $0.0333 $0.0342
Residential & Commercial Costs
Residential Cost $2,613,129 $2,822,401 $2,949,094 $3,050,626 $3,156,275 $3,263,548 $3,377,356
Commercial Cost $466,606 $503,975 $526,597 $544,727 $563,592 $582,747 $603,069
Total Resid. & Comm'I Costs $3,079,735 $3,326,375 $3,475,692 $3,595,353 $3,719,866 $3,846,295 $3,980,425
Estimated Usage by Customer Group by Tier
Tier 1(Residential) 29,979,403 30,183,226 30,327,758 30,488,923 30,650,632 30,814,192 30,977,254
Tier 2 (Residential & Comm'I) 41,828,362 42,254,443 42,451,723 42,674,612 42,898,188 43,124,473 43,349,830
Tier 3(Residential &Comm'I) 22,486,770 22,724,357 22,830,151 22,949,856 23,069,927 23,191,461 23,312,483
Tier 4(Residential) 3,675,585 3,700,574 3,718,294 3,738,054 3,757,880 3,777,933 3,797,925
Tier 5(Residential June -Sept only) 2,100,145 2,114,423 2,124,548 2,135,838 2,147,167 2,158,624 2,170,047
Total Use Residential & Comm'I 100,070,265 100,977,025 101,452,474 101,987,283 102,523,794 103,066,683 103,607,539
Resid. & Comm'I Cost per Cu. Ft. Ratio
Tier 1(Residential) 0.80 $0.0230 $0.0246 $0.0256 $0.0263 $0.0271 $0.0278 $0.0287
Tier 2(Residential &Comm'I) 1.00 $0.0287 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
Tier 3 (Residential & Comm'I) 1.35 $0.0387 $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
Tier 4 (Residential) 1.75 $0.0502 $0.0537 $0.0559 $0.0575 $0.0592 $0.0609 $0.0627
Tier 5 (Residential June - Sept only 2.25 $0.0646 $0.0691 $0.0719 $0.0739 $0.0761 $0.0783 $0.0806
Irrigation Costs [2]
Irrigation Cost $544,426 $588,026 $614,422 $635,575 $657,586 $679,936 $703,647
Irrigation Off-Peak Use 27% 4,050,831 3,867,088 3,870,361 3,882,799 3,895,099 3,908,006 3,920,172
Irrigation Summer (Peak) Use 73% 10,742,086 10,254,833 10,263,511 10,296,496 10,329,113 10,363,339 10,395,602
Off-Peak Cost per Cu. Ft. $0.0292 $0.0331 $0.0345 $0.0356 $0.0367 $0.0378 $0.0390
On-Peak Cost per Cu. Ft. $0.0397 $0.0449 $0.0469 $0.0483 $0.0498 $0.0513 50.0530
Source: HEC.
[1] Bulk water rate is the average cost of water collected in use charge for all customer types.
[2] Commercial and Institutional Irrigation services.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 39
Table 24
Summary of Calculated Water Rates
Rates Effective on July 1 Bills
Charges Current 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Monthly Charges per Bill)
Customer Charge $0.00 $11.74 $12.19 $12.54 $12.89 $13.25 $13.64
Service Charge Monthly Charges per Meter Size)
3/4" and Fire Guards $23.50 $13.75 $14.27 $14.68 $15.10 $15.52 $15.98
1" $46.99 $14.34 $14.88 $15.31 $15.75 $16.19 $16.66
1.5" $66.99 $65.61 $68.13 $70.07 $72.08 $74.10 $76.24
2" $88.24 $104.27 $108.28 $111.36 $114.55 $117.76 $121.16
3" $184.50 $209.08 $217.12 $223.30 $229.69 $236.13 $242.95
4" $282.07 $331.60 $344.32 $354.13 $364.29 $374.52 $385.35
6" $528.92 $652.47 $677.56 $696.84 $716.81 $736.90 $758.18
8" $881.49 $1,034.38 $1,074.23 $1,104.77 $1,136.39 $1,168.21 $1,201.93
Potable Water Use Charges $ per cubic foot
Bulk Water [1] $0.0338 $0.0351 $0.0362 $0.0372 $0.0383 $0.0394
Institutional Water [1] $0.0294 $0.0305 $0.0314 $0.0323 $0.0333 $0.0342
Residential [2]
Tier 1 $0.0243 $0.0246 $0.0256 $0.0263 $0.0271 $0.0278 $0.0287
Tier 2 $0.0299 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
Tier 3 $0.0400 $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
Tier 4 $0.0517 $0.0537 $0.0559 $0.0575 $0.0592 $0.0609 $0.0627
Tier 5 (Jun-Sep only) $0.0673 $0.0691 $0.0719 $0.0739 $0.0761 $0.0783 $0.0806
Commercial [3]
Tier 1 $0.0343 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
Tier 2 $0.0353 $0.0415 $0.0431 $0.0444 $0.0457 $0.0470 $0.0484
Irrigation [4]
Off-Peak (Oct - May) [1] $0.0331 $0.0345 $0.0356 $0.0367 $0.0378 $0.0390
On-Peak (Jun - Sep) [1] $0.0449 $0.0469 $0.0483 $0.0498 $0.0513 $0.0530
Source: HEC.
[1] Currently charged the same as commercial customers.
[2] Tiers do not change under new rate structure. They are: Tier 1 - up to 300 cf, Tier 2 - 301-1,000 cf, Tier 3 - 1,001-2,500 cf,
Tier 4 - 2,501-3,600 cf, Tier 5 - greater than 3,600 cf. Residential irrigation services currently charged the same as
residential domestic services. Under the new rate structure irrigation use would be combined with domestic use.
[3] Commercial currenttiers are <50,000 cf and >50,000 cf. New tiers are <2,500 cf and >2,500 cf for commercial customers
with meters <2" and <15,000 and >15,000 for larger meters.
[4] Seasonal rates for commercial and institutional irrigation meters.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 40
5.4.1• Cost of Service Redistribution of Costs
The cost of service analysis shows that currently there is subsidization of rates among customer
classes. Table 25 shows the reallocation of costs as a result of the cost of service analysis. Cost
reallocation is also illustrated in Figure 12. Detailed calculations of revenues under the new rate
structure are provided in Table A-32.
Table 25
Cost Allocation by Customer Type
Customer _ Current (per Budget) New (see Table A-32) Cost Redistribution
Type Total Share of Total Share of As % of Total
Total Total Current Cost Difference
POTABLE
Residential $4,621,000 70% $4,663,111 71% 1% $42,111
Non-Residential
Commercial $938,800 14% $825,265 13% -12% ($113,535)
Institutional $278,900 4% $273,548 4% -2% ($5,352)
Fire Guards $25,500 0% $31,774 0% 25% $6,274
Irrigation $649,777 10% $749,532 11% 15% $99,755
Subtotal Potable $6,513,977 99% $6,543,230 99% 00/0 $29,253
NON-POTABLE (TID)
Metered $52,541 1% $17,554 0% -67% ($34,988)
Unmetered $29,582 0% $35,316 1% 19% $5,735
Subtotal Non-Potable $82,123 1% $52,870 1% -369/o ($29,253)
Total FY 2015-16 $6,596,100 100°% $6,596,100 100.0 0% $0
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
Figure 12
Redistribution of Costs to Customer Types
Fire Guards
TID Water
Institutional
Irrigation
I
Commercial i
Residential
- - - - -
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Residential Commercial Irrigation Institutional TID Water Fire Guards
New 70.7% 12.5% 11.4% 4.1% 0.8% 0.5%
IM Current 70.1% 14.2% 9.9% 4.2% 1.2% 0.4%
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3.5, 2o3_6 Page 41
5.5 PROJECTED CASH FLOW AND FUND BALANCE
Table 26 projects cash flow through fiscal year 2021-22 for the operating fund. With adoption
of the calculated rates it is anticipated that the City will be able to meet all water enterprise
fund obligations, including existing and potential debt service coverage requirements, and
achieve a targeted reserve of 20% of annual revenues in every year.
Table 26
Projected Operating Fund Cash Flow
Revenues and 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Expenses Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
New Rates Effective 71112016 71112017 71112018 71112019 71112020 71112021
Revenue
Municipal Water Sales $6,521,112 $7,067,244 $7,384,483 $7,638,716 $7,903,258 $8,171,870 $8,456,844
TID Water Sales $80,742 $50,800 $53,727 $56,676 $59,632 $62,642 $65,663
Other Revenue Sources $161,200 $163,736 $166,323 $168,961 $171,652 $174,397 $177,197
Total Revenues $6,763,054 $7,281,780 $7,604,533 $7,864,353 $8,134,543 $8,408,910 $8,699,704
Operating Expenses $5,002,770 $5,109,906 $5,281,831 $5,459,577 $5,643,347 $5,833,351 $6,029,809
Net Revenue before Debt Service
and System Rehabilitation $1,760,284 $2,171,874 $2,322,701 $2,404,776 $2,491,196 $2,575,559 $2,669,895
Debt Service $617,059 $857,445 $1,272,981 $1,490,164 $2,057,259 $2,050,359 $2,048,409
Debt Service Coverage [1] 2.85 2.53 1.82 1.61 1.21 1.26 1.30
Systern Rehabilitation $0 $1,004,428 $1,154,721 $1,159,613 $1,168,937 $1,175,200 $1,176,486
Additional Cash for CIP Projects $402,240 $1,933,647 $32,079 $0 $0 $0 $0
Net Revenue $740,985 ($1,623,647) ($137,079) ($245,000) ($735,000) ($650,000) ($555,000)
Beginning Balance [2] $3,264,915 $4,005,900 $2,382,253 $2,245,174 $2,877,387 $2,764,848 $2,820,848
Net Revenue $740,985 ($1,623,647) ($137,079) ($245,000) ($735,000) ($650,000) ($555,000)
Transfer In (Out) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Add Back Rehabilitation Net of CIP $0 $0 $0 $877,213 $622,462 $706,000 $841,486
Ending Balance $4,005,900 $2,382,253 $2,245,174 $2,877,387 $2,764,848 $2,820,848 $3,107,335
Target Balance [3] $1,352,611 $1,456,356 $1,520,907 $1,572,871 $1,626,909 $1,681,782 $1,739,941
Source: City of Ashland and HEC.
[1] Minimum requirement of 1.20 assumed.
[2] Beginning balance as of July 1, 2015.
[3120% of operating revenues.
Projected water fund balances are shown in Table 27. This table includes the capital fund which
is funded with SDC revenues.
Figure 13 illustrates the historical and projected water fund balance. The water fund balance is
projected to decrease from $5.00 million to $4.16 million in fiscal year 2021-22.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 42
Figure 13
Water Fund Balance
$7,000,000 4
Historical P, Water Fund Balance
$6,000,000 i
L:
Projected
$5,000,000 j
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
I
$1,000,000
f
$0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Table 27
Projected Water Fund Balance
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
Projected Cash Balances Base 1 2 3 4 5 6
Operating
Beginning Balance $775,215 $1,516,200 $1,826,200 $1,721,200 $1,476,200 $741,200 $591,200
Revenues $6,763,054 $7,281,780 $7;604,533 $7,864,353 $8,134,543 $8,408,910 $8,699,704
Expenses ($6,022,069) ($8,905,427) ($7,741,612) ($8,109,353) ($8,869,543) ($9,058,910) ($9,254,704)
TAP Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer In (Out) $0 $1,933,647 $32,079 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000
Ending Operating Balance $1,516,200 $1,826,200 $1,721,200 $1,476,200 $741,200 $591,200 $536,200
System Rehabilitation
Beginning Balance $2,489,700 $2,489,700 $556,053 $523,974 $1,401,187 $2,023,649 $2,229,649
System Rehabilitation Revenue $0 $1,004,428 $1,154,721 $1,159,613 $1,168,937 $1,175,200 $1,176,486
Revenue used for CIP Projects $0 ($1,004,428) ($1,154,721) ($282,400) ($546,475) ($469,200) ($335,000)
Transfer In (Out) $0 ($1,933,647) ($32,079) $0 $0 ($500,000) ($500,000)
Ending Rehabilitation Balance $2,489,700 $556,053 $523,974 $1,401,187 $2,023,649 $2,229,649 $2,571,135
Total Operating Balance $4,005,900 $2,382,253 $2,245,174 $2,877,387 $2,764,848 $2,820,848 $3,107,335
Capital
Beginning Balance $1,943,676 $991,716 $1,070,716 $1,061,716 $1,052,716 $1,048,716 $1,044,716
Add SDC Revenue [11 $100,000 $250,000 $260,000 $260,000 $270,000 $270,000 $280,000
Future Customers CIP PAYG ($1,051,960) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Debt Service $0 ($171,000) ($269,000) ($269,000) ($274,000) ($274,000) ($274,000)
Transfer In (Out) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Capita[ Balance $991,716 $1,070,716 $1,061,716 $1,052,716 $1,048,716 $1,044,716 $1,050,716
Water Fund Balance $4,997,616 $3,452,969 $3,306,890 $3,930,103 $3,813,564 $3,865,564 $4,158,051
Source: HEC.
[1] Assumes addition of 50 EDUs per year and annual increase of SDCs of 2%.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2016 Page 43
Section 6: IMPACTS OF NEW RATE STRUCTURE
6.1 BILL IMPACTS
Bill impact analysis is used to demonstrate the new rate structure and the redistribution of costs
among customer types in Tables A-33 through A-41 for the first year of rate increase, fiscal year
2016-17. The tables demonstrate that the new rate structure has the desired outcome on each
customer group.
Residential. Residential water bills would experience a small increase under the new rate
structure due to the increase in revenue requirements and the reallocation of costs under the
cost of service analysis (see Table A-33).
Commercial. Many commercial water bills would decrease under the new rate structure. The
reduction in bills is also due to the reallocation of costs under the cost of service analysis. Larger
meter sizes would be billed a greater portion of their total bill in flat monthly charges and would
experience a total bill increase. Bill impacts are shown in Tables A-34 through A-37.
Institutional. Institutional water bills would experience a slight increase in the winter months
and a decrease in the summer months. Since institutional customers have a relatively flat
demand throughout the year, with a slight peak in the spring months before the irrigation
season begins, this is appropriate. Institutional bills for 2" and 4" customers are shown in Tables
A-38 and A-39.
Potable Irrigation. During peak summer months potable irrigation bills would increase. The rate
design is intended to curb potable irrigation water use during the peak use months. During off-
peak months water bills would increase if no water was taken. This reflects billing the flat
monthly charges regardless of whether water is used or not. For accounts usi ng water, irrigation
bills would decrease. The off-peak potable irrigation water rate encourages planting in summer
and fall months when water supply is not a concern. Irrigation bill impacts are shown in Tables
A-40 and A-41.
6.2 AFFORDABILITY TEST
Under the calculated water rates for July 1, 2016, a 3/" meter single family home using 1,000
cubic feet in a month would pay $54.35, which is 1.5% of the estimated median household
income for Ashland. The proposed water rates are affordable under EPA guidelines. These
calculations are shown in Table 28.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March i5, 2o16 Page 44
Table 28
Affordability Test
Annual
Item Annual Increase Monthly
Ashland Median Household income [1] $43,500
2015-16 Water Rates 3/4" using 1,000 cu. ft./mo $621 $51.72
Current Water Rates as % of Ashland MHI 1.49/o
2016-17 Water Rates 3/4" using 1,000 cu. ft./mo $652 $54.35
Proposed Water Rates % of Ashland MHI 1.5%
Water Rates @ 2.0% of MHI [2] $870 $870 $72.50
Water Rates @ 2.5% of MHI [2] $1,088 $1,087 $90.63
Source: US Census.
[1] 2014 5-year American Community Survey estimate.
[2] Per EPAguidelines a water rate greater than 2% is high and a water rate higher than
2.5% is burdensome.
6.3 COMPARISON OF WATER RATES
Figure 14 illustrates what a household with a 3/" meter using 1,000 cubic feet in a month would
pay for water in Ashland and several comparison communities as of August 1, 2015. Ashland's
water rates are currently at the high end of the range and will remain at the high end of the
range with the proposed rate increases.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 15, 2oi6 Page 45
Figure 14
Comparison of Single Family Monthly Water Bill
Monthly Water Bill for 1,000 cubic feet
$80
Consumption Charge
$70
Service Charge
$60
i
$50
F
$40
i e
I: ~ ttt 1 i "
$20
$10 i I: t i r
$o s _
4' O`' Z, ca ~O c. 015 2c~ Otis ~r~0
ado .Qa Q~ r ~O e,~ a~ c~~ 2E o` N Oe. \2, ro¢, ~'1, `~.p a'1, ca
Table 29 compares fiscal year 2015-16 water bills for a typical single family home using 1,000
cubic feet under the current and new rate structures, and projects the calculated water bill
through fiscal year ending 2022. Per EPA guidelines10, water rates would be considered
affordable through fiscal year 2021-22.
Table 29
Calculated Typical Home Bill for 1,000 Cubic Feet
Fiscal Year Ending
Residential Charges 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
current 1 2 3 4 5 6
Flat Charges
Customer Charge $11.74 $12.19 $12.54 $12.89 $13.25 $13.64
Service Charge $23.50 $13.75 $14.27 $14.68 $15.10 $15.52 $15.98
Total Flat Charges $23.50 $25.48 $26.46 $27.21 $27.99 $28.78 $29.61
Use Charges
Tier 1 per cu. ft. $0.0243 $0.0246 $0.0256 $0.0263 $0.0271 $0.0278 $0.0287
Tier 2 per cu. ft. $0.0299 $0.0307 $0.0319 $0.0329 $0.0338 $0.0348 $0.0358
Tier 1 Charges (300 cu ft) $7.29 $7.37 $7.67 $7.89 $8.12 $8.35 $8.60
Tier 2 Charges (700 cu ft) $20.93 $21.50 $22.36 $23.01 $23.68 $24.35 $25.07
Total Use Charges $28.22 $28.87 $30.02 $30.89 $31.80 $32.70 $33.67
Bill for 3/4" using 1,000 cu. ft. $51.72 $54.35 $56.48 $58.11 $59.79 $61.48 $63.28
Percentage Increase 5% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Source: HEC.
io "Affordability Assessment Tool for Federal Water Mandates", prepared for the United States Conference of
Mayors, The American Water Works Association, and the water Environment Federation by Stratus
Consulting, Boulder, Colorado, 2013.
City of Ashland Water Rates Cost of Service Study March 3-5, 2oi6 Page 46
APPENDIX A
RATE STUDY SUPPORT TABLES
HANSFORD ECONOMIC, CONSOLTING Regional ♦ ♦ Resource Economics
Table A-1
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Water Fund Revenues
REVENUES Fiscal Year
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
actual actual actual actual actual actual budget
Charges for Service
Water Sales
Commercial $580,812 $603,874 $679,370 $762,567 $816,152 $892,585 $938,800
Fire Guard $14,880 $17,342 $18,434 $24,025 $29,845 $31,423 $25,500
Government & Municipal $174,795 $185,897 $201,809 $242,995 $266,409 $272,797 $278,900
Multi-Family Residential $479,996 $500,079 $552,916 $643,854 $671,343 $715,405 $777,900
Single Family Residential $2,439,336 $2,504,647 $2,731,220 $3,208,071 $3,473,458 $3,537,845 $3,843,100
Irrigation (incl. TID customers) $444,284 $419,039 $528,824 $609,199 $581,370 $624,453 $731,900
Subtotal Water Sales $4,134,103 $4,230,879 $4,772,573 $5,490,711 $5,838,578 $6,074,507 $6,596,100
System Development Charges $151,864 $180,604 $491,612 $266,196 $269,029 $328,414 $100,000
Connection Fees $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Temporary Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
New Service Installation $12,627 $18,086 $83,058 $29,262 $35,746 $50,837 $114,800
Miscellaneous $0 $1,290 $35,601 $27,587 $39,308 $38,580 $12,000
Subtotal Charges for Service $164,491 $199,980 $610,272 $323,046 $344,084 $417,831 $226,800
Other Revenues
1982 Water Bonds $46 $21 $24 $18 $24 $14 $0
1992 Water Bonds $54 $24 $28 $21 $28 $15 $0
Intergovernmental Revenue $99,928 $344,396 $336,811 $1,969,979 $89,747 $70,473 $14,000
Interest on Investments $22,991 $10,006 $16,598 $19,542 $32,527 $24,080 $20,400
Miscellaneous Income $34,154 $21,297 $9,318 $477,199 $17,154 $17,420 $0
Bond Proceeds $80,000 $550,000 $0 $2,547,791 $979,630 $744,916 $3,921,000
Subtotal Other Revenues $237,174 $925,744 $362,780 $5,014,551 $1,119,110 $856,917 $3,955,400
Total Revenues $4,535,767 $5,356,603 $5,745,625 $10,828,307 $7,301,772 $7,349,255 $10,778,300
Fund Balance $6,273,414 $5,208,591
Total Revenues $13,575,186 $12,557,846
Source: City of Ashland. revs
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-2
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Expenditures by Water System Function
EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
SUPPLY Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Adopted
Salaries & Wages $2,932 $11,664 $0
Benefits $235 $2,150 $0
Subtotal Personal Services $3,168 $13,815 $0
Infrastructure $0 $0 $800 $0 $135 $28,011 $0
Professional Services $7,442 $19,997 $23,211 $34,853 $54,508 $54,303 $229,600
Miscellaneous $109,916 $109,457 5113,392 $112,533 $140,783 $145,109 $151,050
Other $58,791 $61,459 $60,408 $63,664 $143,393 $104,638 $149,900
Subtotal Materials & Services $176,148 $190,913 $197,810 $211,050 $338,820 $332,061 $530,550
Capital Outlay $75,469 $108,186 $193,531 $59,501 $1,640,806 $2,491,193 $1,209,150
Debt Service $22,860 $23,147 $23,122 $21,416 $22,613 $22,174 $9,568
TOTAL SUPPLY $274,477 $322,246 $414,463 $291,968 $2,005,408 $2,859,242 $1,749,268
DISTRIBUTION
Salaries & Wages $580,171 $562,250 $494,924 $537,596 $583,438 $654,405 $635,000
Benefits $278,819 $275,600 5265,372 $301,271 $365,844 $378,422 $394,750
Subtotal Personal Services $858,990 $837,850 $760,296 $838,867 $949,282 $1,032,827 $1,029,750
Office $2,195 $1,480 $1,605 $4,120 $1,322 $1,252 $2,650
Small Tools $1,873 $2,961 $5,473 $3,503 $3,081 $5,545 $4,000
Uniforms - Clothing $1,928 $828 $810 $1,676 $3,961 $1,589 $1500
Uniforms - Other $175 $1,769 $2,678 $404 $0 $1,339 $3,000
Technical $3,075 $2,788 $6,113 $859 $5,174 $5,433 $15,000
Chemicals $706 $307 $1,253 $2,516 $3,563 $111 $5,500
County Services $3,200 $4,000 $3,600 $2,800 $0 $3,200 $4,950
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000
Books & Periodicals $48 $82 $51 $89 $252 $111 $200
Subtotal Supplies $13,200 $14,215 $21,582 $15,967 $17,352 $18,582 $51,800
Fleet Maintenance $73,500 $73,500 $66,340 $66,340 $66,340 $66,340 $66,340
Fuel $24,692 $29,117 $27,218 $25,849 $19,338 $14,342 $28,000
Replacement $51,300 $51,300 $51,300 $51,300 $51,300 $51,300 $61,560
Electricity $28,771 $21,488 $22,101 $22,931 $31,322 $51,618 $60,000
Water $881 $460 $385 $0 $0 $0 $0
Wastewater & Other $0 $130 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300
Custodial $0 $9 $16 $0 $0 $0 $0
Disposal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $214 $500
Infrastructure $42,570 $43,741 $67,480 $91,824 $91,296 $73,007 $115,000
Subtotal Rental, Repair, Maintenance $221,714 $219,745 $234,838 $258,243 $259,596 $256,820 $331,700
Local $1,207 $1,178 $1,167 $1,222 $1,347 $1,353 $1,200
Long Distance $12 $15 $17 $16 $16 $18 $20
Cellular $1,577 $1,523 $1,961 $2,036 $2,428 $2,667 $3,700
Computers $0 $0 $0 $2,749 $3,085 $1,144 $2,500
Postage $188 $264 $628 $432 $1,459 $1,539 $2,000
Radios $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000
Subtotal Communications $2,985 $2,981 $3,773 $6,456 $8,334 $6,721 $10,420
Professional Services $5,626 $1,113 $4,159 $20,679 $22,745 $33,767 $60,000
Physician/Health $0 $183 $0 $187 $0 $0 $0
Other $0 $0 $184 $244 $90 $39 $50,000
Subtotal Contractual Services $5,626 $1,296 $4,343 $21,110 $22,835 $33,806 $110,000
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-2
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Expenditures by Water System Function
EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Central Service $549,753 $549,753 $570,000 $632,000 $646,640 $659,530 $692,510
Insurance Service $35,760 $35,760 $34,900 $34,900 $34,900 $34,900 $35,600
Technology Debt $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Use of Facilities $125,883 $125,883 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
Bad Debt Expense $6,204 $10,089 $7,894 $3,620 $22,504 $13,224 $12,000
Other $0 $0 $3,000 $2,111 $583 $0 $0
Licensing $5,546 $8,623 $8,423 $6,321 $10,965 $5,104 $37,700
Subtotal Miscellaneous Charges & Fees $773,147 $780,109 $754,217 $808,951 $845,592 $842,758 $907,810
Advertising $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,875 $0
Air $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,533 $3,000
Personal Vehicle Mileage $0 $0 $0 $284 $0 $0 $350
Lodging $0 $517 $0 $510 $0 $939 $2,000
Meals $0 $1,006 $0 $113 $0 $334 $350
Training $2,602 $423 $2,470 $1,655 $0 $89 $4,000
Dues $268 $1,082 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Medical & Laboratory $9,595 $10,710 $10,545 $11,563 $11,526 $12,567 $15,000
Subtotal Other Purchased Services $12,466 $13,737 $13,015 $14,125 $11,526 $17,338 $24,700
Franchise Tax $419,978 $342,525 $294,695 $356,283 $357,799 $372,200 $402,653
Capital Outlay $53,865 $72,088 $109,315 $84,197 $206,990 $104,317 $1,105,200
Debt Service $325,990 $330,336 $327,051 $137,064 $333,461 $329,340 $250,649
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION $2,687,960 $2,614,882 $2,523,125 $2,541,263 $3,012,767 $3,014,709 $4,224,682
TREATMENT PLANT
Salaries & Wages $275,564 $298,719 $294,268 $312,259 $308,548 $332,754 $340,050
Benefits $112,364 $140,315 $134,534 $154,592 $158,437 $177,449 $197,320
Subtotal Personal Services $387,929 $439,034 $428,801 $466,851 $466,985 $510,203 $537,370
Office $2,330 $5,154 $5,196 $2,214 $1,544 $1,180 $2,000
Small Tools $798 $324 $463 $739 $559 $1,142 $800
Uniforms - Clothing $1,197 $4S4 $1,131 $805 $686 $2,084 $2,500
Uniforms - Other $245 $443 $774 $567 $60 $383 $500
Technical $12,154 $10,438 $9,766 $15,213 $20,128 $10,446 $22,000
Chemicals $147,418 $131,893 $111,049 $128,767 $157,280 $171,617 $220,000
Emergency Work ($12) $0 $0 $30 $0 $0 $0
Books & Periodicals $0 $140 $126 $186 $0 $170 $150
Subtotal Supplies $164,131 $148,846 $128,505 $148,521 $180,257 $187,021 $247,950
Fleet Maintenance $10,200 $10,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 $9,397
Fuel $3,211 $4,568 $6,255 $5,618 $9,846 $7,334 $6,500
Replacement $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900 $1,080
Maintenance ($750) $0 $622 $0 $0 $0 $0
Electricity $37,102 $38,965 $46,948 $33,378 $34,855 $38,552 $38,000
Custodial $170 $476 $26 $98 $86 $116 $1,000
Grounds Care $2,873 $988 $1,064 $79 $308 $266 $1,500
Infrastructure $9,023 $7,077 $11,042 $10,176 $4,871 $21,531 $15,000
Subtotal Rental, Repair, Maintenance $62,729 $63,174 $76,057 $59,450 $60,067 $77,898 $72,477
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-2
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Expenditures by Water System Function
EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Local $5,566 $5,485 $5,532 $5,651 $5,665 $5,661 $5,600
Long Distance $1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10
Cellular $477 $444 $262 $263 $252 $493 $500
Computers $0 $0 $0 $2,037 $960 $9,611 $2,500
Postage $5,408 $1,933 $221 $40 $217 $22 $3,000
Radios $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300 $100
Subtotal Communications $11,452 $7,862 $6,015 $7,990 $7,094 $16,087 $11,710
Professional Services $11,880 $580 $24,389 $7,701 $5,579 $1,080 $12,000
Other $72 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1,600) $0
Subtotal Contractual Services $11,952 $580 $24,389 $7,701 $5,579 ($520) $12,000
Central Service $143,119 $143,119 $155,000 $155,000 $158,100 $161,200 $169,260
Insurance Service $8,030 $8,030 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,080
Technology Debt $28,200 $28,200 $28,200 $28,200 $28,200 $28,200 $28,200
Use of Facilities $137,235 $137,235 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Other $0 $0 $3,000 $2,111 $583 $0 $0
Licensing $1,155 $1,709 $7,850 $3,222 $1,194 $3,714 $4,700
Subtotal Miscellaneous Charges & Fees $317,739 $318,293 $298,050 $292,533 $292,077 $297,114 $306,240
Personal Vehicle Mileage $180 $0 $198 $261 $0 $142 $200
Advertising $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $78 $0
Lodging $773 $813 $1,000 $1,117 $1,357 $2,064 $2,000
Meals $289 $180 $389 $380 $362 $188 $600
Training $4,253 $1,581 $1,280 $1,044 $1,015 $2,749 $2,000
Dues $70 $268 $81 $81 $166 $255 $270
Medical & Laboratory $17,425 $11,200 $11,886 $13,700 $11,261 $10,918 $19,400
Subtotal Other Purchased Services $22,990 $14,042 $14,834 $16,583 $14,161 $16,394 $24,470
Capital Outlay $79,183 $1,872 $4,145 $98,033 $50,388 $108,397 $2,226,690
Debt Service $231,260 $233,322 $233,146 $220,863 $235,320 $232,114 $436,211
TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT $1,289,365 $1,227,024 $1,213,943 $1,318,525 $1,311,928 $1,444,707 $3,875,118
FOREST INTERFACE
Salaries & Wages $66,540 $130,770 $151,035 $146,031 $97,935 $92,753 $0
Benefits $32,822 $54,554 $65,010 $68,379 $52,657 $48,424 $0
Subtotal Personal Services $99,361 $185,324 $216,045 $214,410 $150,592 $141,177 $0
Other $120,486 $181,646 $268,098 $2,243,767 $423,446 $165,908 $0
Advertising $0 $465 $302 $900 $1,670 $1,280 $0
Personal Vehicle Mileage $0 $165 $94 $286 $48 $339 $0
Meals $0 $0 $0 $0 $48 $0 $0
Training $594 $658 $930 $463 $2,146 $2,605 $0
Forest Commissions $575 $858 $258 $258 $87 $130 $0
TOTAL FOREST INTERFACE $221,016 $369,116 $485,728 $2,460,085 $578,038 $311,440 $0
SDC REIMBURSEMENT
Capital Outlay $38,321 $113,549 $96,007 $0 $0 $0 $0
Debt Service $82,297 $83,328 $83,240 $77,098 $81,408 $79,825 $34,443
Unappropriated - Other Financing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL SDC REIMBURSEMENT $120,618 $196,877 $179,246 $77,098 $81,408 $79,825 $34,443
SDC IMPROVEMENTS
Contractual $0 $413 $0 $1,600 $947 $27,093 $0
Capital Outlay $198,014 $48,370 $45,273 $30,537 $101,554 $34,419 $1,298,360
Debt Service $41,147 $41,664 $41,620 $38,549 $40,704 $383,799 $180,977
Unappropriated - Other Financing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL SDC REIMBURSEMENT $239,162 $90,447 $86,893 $70,686 $143,205 $445,311 $1,479,337
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-2
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Expenditures by Water System Function
EXPENDITURES Fiscal Year
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
CONSERVATION
Salaries & Wages $73,475 $69,630 $49,841 $51,505 $77,643 $87,799 $105,240
Benefits $34,263 $34,852 $23,111 $22,385 $42,088 $44,734 $64,950
Subtotal Personal Services $107,737 $104,482 $72,952 $73,889 $119,731 $132,532 $170,190
Office $651 $511 $1,914 $231 $581 $536 $4,550
Small Tools $24 $27 $918 $13 $35 $78 $200
Uniforms - Clothing $47 $0 $148 $118 $0 $0 $200
Uniforms - Other $0 $0 $0 $29 $0 $0 $125
Technical $0 $0 $0 $40 $0 $740 $800
Meetings $0 $50 $0 $29 $0 $156 $100
Books & Periodicals $16 $0 $224 $41 $0 $0 $100
Subtotal Supplies $739 $588 $3,204 $500 $616 $1,510 $6,075
Fleet Maintenance $300 $300 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270
Fuel $0 $126 $0 $57 $227 $58 $150
Replacement $5,790 $5,790 $5,790 $5,790 $5,790 $5,790 $5,790
Rental Charges $0 $42 $124 $122 $121 $121 $125
Subtotal Rental, Repair, Maintenance $6,090 $6,258 $6,184 $6,240 $6,408 $6,239 $6,335
Local $82 $0 $0 $38 $159 $160 $100
Long Distance $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $50
Cellular $112 $95 $94 $95 $214 $525 $0
Computers $0 $0 $756 $317 $0 $0 $0
Postage $0 $0 $36 $0 $0 $28 $100
Subtotal Communications $193 $95 $886 $450 $372 $713 $250
Professional Services $0 $0 $56 $0 $0 $8,271 $2,000
Central Service $23,625 $23,625 $23,700 $23,700 $24,170 $24,650 $25,880
Insurance Service $2,245 $2,245 $3,370 $3,370 $3,370 $3,370 $3,440
Use of Facilities $15,085 $15,085 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $8,250
Subtotal Miscellaneous Charges & Fees $40,955 $40,955 $34,626 $34,570 $35,040 $43,791 $39,570
Advertising $333 $0 $2,113 $1,068 $290 $132 $1,600
Printing & Binding $36 $0 $0 $10 $16 $0 $200
Air $407 $241 $337 $610 $302 $1,538 $1,500
Personal Vehicle Mileage $22 $215 $0 $0 $106 $407 $500
Lodging $66 $1,050 $73 $715 $686 $1,363 $2,000
Meals $175 $488 $142 $222 $166 $295 $750
Training $811 $0 $1,220 $169 $779 $730 $1,000
Dues $508 $125 $440 $381 $783 $785 $700
Subtotal Other Purchased Services $2,358 $2,118 $4,324 $3,175 $3,128 $5,250 $8,250
Conservation Programs $16,982 $20,999 $23,539 $21,191 $17,884 $68,805 $114,500
TOTAL CONSERVATION $175,054 $175,495 $145,716 $140,014 $183,179 $258,842 $345,170
MISCELLANEOUS
Interfund Loans $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $150,000 $0 $250,000
Contingency $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $170,000
Unappropriated $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL WATER FUND $5,007,651 $4,996,087 $5,249,115 $7,099,639 $7,465,934 $8,414,076 $12,128,018
Source: City of Ashland. exps
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-3
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Historical and Budgeted Water Fund Operation Expenditures
Fiscal Year Adopted
Expenses 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Water Fund Operating Expenses
Personnel $1,454,017 $1,566,691 $1,478,094 $1,594,018 $1,689,757 $1,830,555 $1,737,310
Supplies $178,069 $163,649 $153,291 $164,988 $198,225 $207,113 $305,825
Repair & Maintenance $290,532 $289,177 $317,079 $323,933 $326,070 $340,958 $410,512
Communications $14,630 $10,938 $10,675 $14,896 $15,801 $23,521 $22,380
Contractual Services $25,020 $21,873 $51,999 $63,664 $82,921 $95,860 $353,600
Central Service $716,497 $716,497 $748,700 $810,700 $828,910 $845,380 $887,650
Miscellaneous Charges $525,259 $532,316 $451,585 $437,887 $484,583 $483,392 $517,020
Other Purchased Services $96,604 $91,357 $92,581 $97,546 $172,208 $143,619 $207,320
Franchise Tax $419,978 $342,525 $294,695 $356,283 $357,799 $372,200 $402,653
Conservation Programs $16,982 $20,999 $23,539 $21,191 $17,884 $68,805 $114,500
Other Forest Interface $221,016 $369,116 $485,728 $2,460,085 $578,038 $311,440 $0
Other Supply Costs $0 $0 $800 $0 $13S $28,011 $0
Subtotal Operating Expenses $3,958,605 $4,125,137 $4,108,767 $6,345,190 $4,752,332 $4,750,855 $4,958,770
Capital Outlay $208,517 $182,146 $306,991 $241,732 $1,898,185 $2,703,906 $4,541,040
Total $4,167,122 $4,307,283 $4,415,758 $6,586,922 $6,650,517 $7,454,761 $9,499,810
Source: City of Ashland. op exp
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
C)
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N to in i/T to t/? to to t./} vT to to in in in to v? t/} in tf} in O 0 CD
O
N Lr t!1 m
N M M i
O J).
N v
C)
0
2
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M
-La in to t./ V)- _(F to tf} to ~ to in {n in to t/} O to N O N
N
O
N Cn a) O a)
p Ln Lf, Ln w
N th to t
p th ~
N
O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O Ln
O t/} V). rl to V)_ O t!} try vi r~ t/> to trT ul- to V) _UF O V) O O r~
N W f\ Ln V R:J Ln Cf
01 w r4 M Ln Ln -1 Rzr
r•i L
t/} i-i a--I {n 4-fl- M V1
to to
C)
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
tf} tf} La tf} to to tl} ih {h to in if1 in to to if} (n C) Cl a O a
aI
00 M Ln N N
Ln Ln l!1 N 00
to to N N
O ~ -ul-
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to to t/} to {n to V_) 'L} in V} _L} It r, rl in tf} {n O O O -1
00 U) 00 to O O 00 M
O n 00 M M M Ln
N N 00 O N N LD m
m O a -1 1-1 O Ln
Ljc~ m tr~ `n -Z o
o m
N to to V? t/L
to
0 0 Lr) 0 0 0 0 0 Cl Ln O O O O O O O O O O O Ln
Ln O N th O to to t/? in N t/? O 00 r- Ln O to to {h O O N
n an m rn O .•i O rn Ln Ln LD W m kD
Lr O a; Lf) m o a; D; a; v N
M r-i O Ln N N -1 Ln O O V N
a•-I tr? trF V} m M to N cl .--L Ql cn W O
O to to M Ln a1 c--I a--I -cn N
N in tL - V). V)_ Vl_
th
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to th to m {h t n O to O m O th N N m O in t/} tf? O O V
lD r-i O O~ q N M M 00 O O N N
.0
a) 00 Ln O M r_ 00 M ao C-6 Oo M M p
V1 N Ln N O O r` N
e-1 to N Cn N m r- O 11 m w M M m
O m to to .z to to r-i nj to to to
to to in to
a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
Ln O O Ln O O O to O O O O H r-+ Ln O to O O O O to
(a m m oo 1-1 O r\ O O a^ N O M 00 M lD M O a1 In N
O rl c-~ N 06 O lD Ln O Ln r_ Lrn N rl tri r_ N M N m V
Q y, i+ c-I m m N C N Ln N O O N Nlzt a1 N N N N a) N
O tn. to to to M -i N rn n M tf} m O tD Ln ~H c-t 00 M tD
H LU to to {n to to M O nj t/? -Lr~ N M 00
,N V} to -1 N to in VY N
0 to to to
w U
C
C
a) r-1
E
O
a+ Q) ~
7 m al
U >
Y
C
O CD C
~ Ln O
LU U C Q i
0 Y i_ (0
U O -
a) C Y O L 0
Y w - v
4- Y U t~ Y ^1 VI
a) . U C I C a) C QJ a)
C O ` M I- a) a) Q' O K
ci V)
U p U" O a) O U o2$ Y O ,1 ~O
a) U J C IL -6 C U Y Q V1
U a > J Y L O N C
3° a v o L/) E v a m c N
N o c a v
CO F Y o o ar Y 3 c o o0 o d O
v c > Y w a c u o tin m
41 E a) 0
C 0A a J
C N O W O C Q N * C > LO (6 N Q) E
a) `ro tL W D! M O fl- ' ~ D_ t•+ LL. U
C F0 L a) Q
L > to in t- Y Q L t•+ 0~ a) D_ a v+'i a) F-
a) o
06
O' 7 Q1 I O O_ L
'n C to to
to Q y j J L d V1 LL c0 'O a) FL
O S~ a! O
N y u
y 0 Q LOi > N •Q Q a) Y m - (Y6 M (z
c > > r"i a~ > Y > _ fa ar a oc
fa O i--I i. fC... vi to Q1 O_ C L a) -6 a) o
L O. a) a) a) U U (6 aJ Q) Y ~0 aJ L
CL o i U C Y is c y tw Y Q ca a) o d Q w
.r- CL c}' LA La 3 M -p aJ L C W L C L7 U' in C v tr a) _
Q u cn D_ c v 0'3 a) v c0 tin O H ra ~(Dc c O Q w O a p Z
Q 4- L L L U E_ o F- U i+ L G G FI L-, C J
a) O a) a a) cr _C- -0 a V p p m W L 3 Lo Ln -0 C; L 'a -0 c6 -0 C Q 41 .m t (0 f6 m LL Q to cr W F- LL E 41 C)
CC CA m n. = N N N In ~ O
F- u 3 3 3
v
a
U
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a CD 0 N to vn to to V} V) to to V? V) V) to to to V) V) V) V) V) v)- V) V) th O
O O O O
N c m
Lr Ln O Lr Lr
LD 00 Ln LD M m c
r.4 to V) V) -I m LL
O
N Lv
0
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
0 p m
L} to V) V) V) V} V) V) V) t/} V) V) V) V) V) V) V) t!} V) V} V) V)- OV) to V'} V). O
O
O ~ O O ~
N
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
O to V) V) V) V) t/} to V) to V) V) to to V) if) V) to V) V) OO O 00 to to to V) to i0
N Lr; L.(1 Ln Ln
Q1 Lf) V) DO -zr
-i m
O to V) i/?
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
V? V) to V) to to V) in to o to V) V) 0o V) V1 V) o O V) V) N if)- V) to to V) O
N Ln r, r-i lD
0.-10 m O~ i tn to N
O V) V}
N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V) V) V) to o 0 0 0 0 0 o in to 0 o V) V) to V) to V) V) V) v* V) t/E V) 0
00 o LD w m m m w N
r~ Lf ~ ~ O O N 00 N lD m
n N L.D rl w m w-A LD m 00 LD
a-I m r1 th V) V) r-1 V) V) p
p V) V) V) ri
N ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 o 0 o O o o 0 o o o o o o 0
V) to o 0 0 0 0 0 o to to v} to V) V) V) to to to V) to V) V) V) V) V) V) C)
f\ N M O a) LT O O m
W r-I Cl O O N ri to V)
c r m -1 H V) to tD
o V) V) V) ~
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 N
O 0 V) to th V) V) to V) to to V) to try V) V) V) V) V) V) (n t/r to V)- to V). to N
a) r14 o
M O
L r- O M w
14 CIA H O co V) V) V)- a
N
i C1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D to V). O O V) t/) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
_ c N O N M O Ln Ln rn m m 00 N c-i LD Ln O Lr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln
O C m O & O Ln 00 ai N & 00 t- LD r H Ln Ln Ln O Ln Ln O Lrl o0
p r- O 't O t--i rn rl zh LD rl w 0O 00 V) N Lr) V) 00 -i oO Ln LD M m
,a o W N r-1 m H Ln r1 V) to to c-1 IH -1 to t/). r-, -1 V V) V) V) r-, m
F- Ui t./) th V) V) V). V) to V) V) to V) V) to lY1
O v
L) - Y°
c ~
Ocl
C -a
Ql
O a
m
O O x
V Q t aJ
9 W Q n
C
N Ln ~ ~ rvr
L'i C
w O Ln M > > aJ Yo
fu LL c aJ U
00 Y E O CJ 0 U m M Z5
aJ W QJ 0 M
41 J i aJ E L
0- Ln u CD
> M
O 4J T O m m v - c -O bD L^ Q
O
C bA w- ra QJ Z5 QJ -0 m -O ' T Q1 f- v C - U O- c L1 U
O O 0 OO O > m > N O ?
vOi QUi eM-I
Y m O w -0 O O c aJ W c c Ln T C=~ aJ a
u ~c d Q J M ra t Y ra O - O Ln r0
O O >>a1 o LL L6
> u ra Y > O
'a O aJ LL- -i Y 4J C (2) C - > N O YO YO C
y a` aci 3 a ° 5 -J > o o} u ° a Q o Ln L Q Y-; N N Li
Ln ra E o a m c>a Q c- Ln ° c 2 o- ° O L OL a Q O w o
0) m U+ r (10 0J 3
c >1 c m= ca = o c Y-0 m U c =
GJ
c v) 1. U (1)
o ~ c Q ? ° U LLnn L
f6 a o v
L aJ U Q L c Y Y QJ O C I t r6 aJ J :5 w w aJ d a r>>a d O
O C O N cO O N E T i Ln T O > > Y L ' O J> OJ Q
L L 3 > Q Q aJ aJ aJ o LL.
(a Q L > , O G Y I w m (a LL m 0 Y U U I ' C m O
al z J N Q Y Ln J (a (6 LO c ra r6 L UC -ii Q
C > C I O Ln QJ ra J w 7 i O I L N O c C QJ O (J 0 0) `
m r O , v Ln c i v J O aJ O v n O v aJ F- > o° + 0 0
I O O aJ aJ Y Y C r0 Ln y U
L .C QJ I I aL-I co a. Y ra ra LO
.a CL Ln
m O 'Fa (D Y Ln c n z, o O> L + a v a, 0 a ,L c c =
Q Y > c c O M M O v a c L/) N L ra O U o
I u O
~ C p 3 i 0 N .fl
Q L L L J J Y E > J U J Y Y co
al O m aJ aJ --"e !E m Y N a1 u t Y c 7 v
m m i c c c O ra O i O
> Lea + : < ca m + ra aJ ^ - 2 + > n a 2 Ln
O J - Q d = J D" m N Q Lon U, > > a C 0 J W 0
CL
'u 3 3 3
E
CL
O
N
Lfl
m
M
+ L
LD Ln O w m O 01 ii
N LD O Ln I- O O O ° 0
ri 1.0 1. Lr M N M 111 0
N In m 00 lD r-I O ri
O tJ1 c-i c--I ri l0 ri i~ m
N -L4 1/ in- I~
ti C)
O
N
w Lf1 O 00 O O cn
H
T-1 O ~ ~ n w LM C) Ln
01 O Ql U
Op LA lD Ql M M M O Q
N lD m 00 lD r-I O r-I Qi
ri r-I r I LD ri I~
O -L}
N t1~ tJ t/1 th in i/} ~
LD Ln O 00 m O O z
to rj a'
O
N lD r%_ ° r- 00 O 00
lD I\ fV M 0 M M a
r-I w m m w N O N QL
iJ} r i r i r1 W ri ^ +
N th th th i/1- to
O LI1 O 00 Cn O N O
m LD ~ Ln w Ln O Ln r-i
w (n N I- W O LO v O Ln
' lD L(1 r-+ M N M O 4-1I r-I tt
000 M lD rn rn w H O N O w 111
O t c 1 r-I c I LD ri 1~ Ln f- Ln ih
N th t/? t/')- i~ in t1, Q N
ti
t.0 L(1 O 00 cn O Cl) ON I- O
00 LO N O W Ln O Ln N ri
N t3 lD
lO r-I I~ N O O
N w Q; M 1~ r•i lD ~ N
w rn 00 w r•i Ln r- ri Ln to
r1 r-i r-I LO r-I ^ ON th
r4 to 4J1• 4/1• -Z3
v
v
w Ln O oo 01 Cl
w r-4 L(1 w O O 00 O
ri LD N O I~ ^ ^ O -4
Lp 1 w r- oo M Ln Ln 4- Ln O O Ln r-4
LD rn 00 w ri ri U r-1 -Ln
t r} ri r-i r-i La W w O r-I
N try tf~ t/} t/1• qjl- N O t!4
L
CL
Q0 Lr) CD 00 Cl) a) t\ Ql o O O
LO lD I\ ° LD Ln ^ Ln N N O Ln O O
lD N M I~ O O O -4 -1 O I~
I-i I C) 00
t~
0 m t Ql Ql lO O 00
N th t /1 vi in
fC
E
-W LL
cc
T Ln
t
3
Ln 0A a) LL W
cu C cn 4l w _
fD U L .V ~ G.1 ~ ~
r 6 i i - L-
c
L C Z5 CU O cu
a N N _
Q Q L
N
cn N C U
C 41 C C p tw UA 1 O
O m O C cu C 0 a 0! -0 co 4-1 -Z, L C aj 4-1
Ln o b a1 , O O N
Q Q X 4- X U J L C)
Q C N Ur Ur ( W O W a j LL C v E
a O rn re) M U ra io N cli w~ 4-1 :3 m
73 > :t . X O 0 0 0 O O O u w
H U W 00 N N N F- N H c/1 _
a
a1
ro
d
v
L
d
Q
N
N O O O O O O O O u m
ifs V} tJ} t/1 t/} i/~ i/}
13
rl 3 c
N °
O LL
N aJ
O
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
t/)- t/I t/~ th
O m
N `D
O
IzT
N
L
ra
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O G
N Vl- t/)- tP} t/~ th -Ln Qj- i/)-
Q~ U
V)
O
N
O O O O O O O O O O
4/i- to t./- t/? th t/)- ih Vh O
4-
aJ
O +N aJ
41
O O O O O O O O C
00 t+~ t/~ th t!S th t1~ iJ~ tJF aJ
TV E
r
~--I ru
O 4
U-
N U-
L
4-
0 0 0 0 0 0 O v aJ
i~ ih t!} t!} t/} t/1 -Ln th -cn E E
0
l,0 N
i-1 Q
O u
r4 n
L C
4 L
i 5 aJ
O 000000 O 4
M N Q1 m O Ln O O
LA ai o 00 w u1 00 4- 3
r Q1 C7 lD N 00 r+ M 00 O
O t/} th t/1 ri e-1 QJ
-Ln N N N N v
vi- tn -ul- aJ
4- 4~
Q1 c -C
U -Z:5 a, t
i a c
O OJ >
O cn -Z3 O
4- 4- 4- z
0- 0
Q QO -Q O N
M H - CD
L U c~ :3
o
Q QJ r i n >
O aJ .
~-i o
~I U L ~t N
LO 4-
CJ O N
~ M i aJ
C
u w c Lr) N >
N > O
L
0 -E 4-
O ~
ro
4- ro
0 L-
G1
ar m aJ
+ ra
Q~ + N
V
4-A ii (n L
i5 -0 Ln
ti v
U N E N
3 U > c N L~ o - 0 (L)
(1)
0 :3
U N U L
Z C y
u (1)
.O cC Q- C N aJ aJ - N 0) U tin aJ
Q N o' v, ro = r- L/I
w
G1 O N n x =
.v U `n m w 000 w w O T
m En tII O O u u
F- U w LL m cn v
tm
a
Q)
a
Table A-7
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Estimated Debt for SRF Funded Facilities
Item 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Total
Treatment Plant
2.5 MGD Water Treatment Plant $1,043,370 $5,910,570 $6,087,870 $13,041,810
Contingency 10% $104,337 $591,057 $608,787 $1,304,181
Total Estimated Treatment Plant Cost $1,147,707 $6,501,627 $6,696,657 $14,345,991
Estimated Interest $24,561 $163,696 $307,004 $495,261
Annual Debt Service [1] $652,900
Total Payments $19,587,000
Principal $14,345,991
Interest $5,241,009
Crowson II Reservoir
Tank $778,320 $3,223,980 $3,320,640 $7,322,940
Contingency (5%) $38,916 $161,199 $166,032 $732,294
Total Estimated Reservoir Cost $817,236 $3,385,179 $3,486,672 $8,055,234
Estimated Interest $29,175 $150,026 $274,500 $453,702
Annual Debt Service [1] $492,500
Total Payments $12,312,500
Principal $8,055,234
Interest $4,257,266
TOTAL SRF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE $1,145,400
Source: City of Ashland. SO
[1] Terms assumed: Plant Tank
Interest 2.14% 3.57%
Years 30 25
Assumes projects completed by October 2017 and first debt payment is due Dec 1, 2018.
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
0
N
O Ln ct Ln 0 r\ 0 0 0 rt O Ln O lD L4 N O LD O 00 N N Q
N m lO N -1 O lD O O O W w N I-i m Ln Ln Vl- t lD Ln
m Ln lD o0 O N rl O Ln N to lD w ~-1 O In Cf' V W d' rrl
c
N N .--I W N N Ln ri Ln 1` .--1 G) r- i./} Ln r-I Ln O m N LD W n 3 m
N V} V} V)• V} V} V} V} lz:j- n V} m 00 N u1 V} V} l!1 j) Ln
0 = LL.
c
V) Vf• c-i I M V} Vf• V1•
V}
V} V} LL
V1 VF
N o
O Lr) I:zl- Ln O 1-, O O O .--1 O Ln O lD rl N O w O 00 00 Q) LD
r{ m lD N C O lD O O O W 00 N c-i m Ln Lr) V). I~t w Ln Ln N m
N m Ln lD DD O N rl O Ln N lD LD l.O .--I O L!'f d• I~t [t O lb cD
0 Ln r, ri N N Ln ri Ln r\ ri Ol ~ ~ Ln i Ln O m N W rl e i 'T
N V)- V} V} V1 to V1 th lzt 1-1 I~ V) m oo N Ln V} V>- Ln Ln rl
O V} V)- Q/ i rl M V} vi- An Ln
N V} tr~ V)• V)-
C) Ln Ln O r\ O O O ri O lf) O In rl N O (N O V Ln 11
O Q) (.D N r-I O W O O O W W N -1 m L) Lr) V? to lD N N t"1
N M Ln lD 00 O N ri O Lr) N lD to lD c-1 O Lr) N 'cT N N 00
L7) zr N N N Ln Ln r- I Q) ~Vl- Ln I Ln O N N Ln -:Z M
11 V} V> V} V} vi t/')- V} 'T 1-1 ^ V} m o0 N Ln V> V} Ln I O
N V)_ Vl• i/1 qjl-
O Ln z3- Lo 0 0 0 0 0 O Ln O lD rl N C) 'T O W N 00
Cr) In r- r-1 O V} O O O -:Zr oo N --I m Ln Ln V- ~-I to N W 00
Ol m Ln N 00 O O Lf) W lD lD l0 O Ln Ct -4 N
e-i
ct
00 M N .--I N Lr) Ln r` ri W r\ tr, Ln Ln O ri N 06
,,.i V} V? V> V-~ V} V>. d' rl Vl• m 00 M 0)
tLn v,} V? to m
V}
O V} VT
N V} V> ih qA-
O Lr) Ln 0 0 0 0 0 ICT O Ln O lD rl N O O O N 00 W
00 Q) lD 1` .-1 O V-- O O O v oo N .-I m Ln Lr) V)- V} w 1-1 00 O)
ri m Ln N 00 O r-i O Ln W to 1,D In -1 O Ln O W M
N N r-I -i r-4 Lr) L!) 1\ r-i to Ln ri Ln O N M Q)
14 V>_ V>_ V)- V>• -L} th It '--1 N V} m 00 N Ln V>• Ln M 00
N V} V} V)- V)• i
N
O Ln ;4- Ln O O O O C) -:T O Lo r, m N O O O N 00 (3)
P, Cl) (,D r` -A O V} O O O W N c-I 00 O Lr) V)- V1 tr~ Ln Ln Ln
e-I m Ln N o0 O r-I O Lr) W In (D a--I LO O Ln Ln a) r1 u
Lp r-4 L--I -i r,,4 Ln Ln r r-i W i~ tr, lD O) O O W M
V)- tf} V'~ V> V} V} 'T L--I N V} r` Q) r\ LO Ln rl N
O V} VF V)• V} -4 th in iA M -
N V1 Vl-
'x
v
a
O O O Ln O O O O O Ln CD O m .-I Ln O O o 0 0 O O
Lp V} V} V> rl V} V} O O O rl oo V)- .-I Q) 00 to Vl V)- V} W N 00
r-I a) oo -1 O Lf) Ct lD IZT 't Ln m M N Ln O
Ll Ln N Ln r- .--I W n W N N W L-I -p
el ra V~ V> 't LH W V} -1 r1 M L--I rl t/} N vi
m t/T V)- -L• V? V} V1•
N
O O
0
U ✓i
u
N ~ U
0) CD
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O Ln O O O a) bD
J a) N oo Ln 't w CD Ln lD 00 cr KT lD W Ln L--I M Ln W E
u Ln
? y
m x
Q
v
vi
a Q
E
L Q
0
a) U
rz u +
v
LB E
F- 55 Q1
T
Ln O a)
L O Q
u u O
(U aD L
w o v- a E
u c v o
O T Q C) E E o Of o
cl~ a) 3 ra u 3
E
a 0 u 0 a) W 0 o u o >
y U U c T y r j o c
u a) J J ra Q f2 C Q Q
L
E ro
7 3 Q -a7 v O 0 c to E DO O
Q -
A y Ln ~ 2 'N L C d T 0) J
LA c 'ro
\
Z m y Q o cz 3 c 0 o E Q
41 -0 E `0 Y a aJ a a) co u n ra a) N tic°
m
lY j O W 0 L" N N C y0 m ``ru E ra 0 ) o
>r r r~0 w W M a1 Q Q) Q' LA LL G U N ` c + °
Y v LA a4.1 V) ) c h- `=I n 3 v n cl S a) c :z v> E v
Cl. N cl) ra E w D o 0
u J Lin >r o O O L
a o ,c o Q°> E Cl ar a L M 41 Z5 v ro a~
v n. a) ro E
'a a a, cn ? H co Lo CO
p = a v v v Cl = L v v v v 3 LA
o m u 41 Of c:
a0 3 aci ` c aci +ra+ c c 3 l7 l7 +o a) m w o ru w
' Q Ln u aJ O aJ v rn ao 0 H 0 0 w O ro O =
3 =
Q ,0 E o L U ~ E o 2 41 Y - ~ 41 L a; -
B CL 4' an Q) r0 a) E 3 41 a) r6 3 r0 r0 7 a Z
~ a
m t En 10 10 Lwi Q(ncr! w cf H w Ln Q N N Ln m o- K S l7 LA m m 41 :3
N a
U W O
Q
LL
a
Q
t3wo o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1.01 o 0 4
c r-I r1 M O 00 "1 l0 m IZT m 4:T n r-i 00 N Ln
rzzr m m O) O m r I 00 N m M N N 1- N m
U ~
LL
DO -zt Q0 r-i a, m ~ Ln om m q:zr
M N M M W l0 ~i r\ N e-i O l0 O r
b6o ~ O It 00 00 00 00 O r\ o0 w O 01 Ln ~
lD a) O Oo O 00 r-i n n r1 M m N O
N
r N m i l r\ N ~ d' Ct m N N N N rQ m
U +i} in ih ir> ifs t/} to o
ri
m m 00 ri O Q N m o Ln 9T LIr) Q
Ln r-I Ln N l0 w m r-I O O O QGl 00
Ln Ln r1 13i Ln 00 m m w N m ~ O Cj)
O r\ O m L r) L n m m N oo r-I N m r-, r1i
O M O lzt N Ol ICT 00 lzt r\ to ri v O M m ~
N 00 N M to -Ln 00 It r i m in 4* C O N N N
ri -Z~ Z3 r i
-Ln i/Z-
n Ln O r-i r-i O M 00 rnI;zT 0) Ct O rn rnLr)
Ln N r\ O N r-i 00 O rn 00 LA O M lD I-
t~ N O 00 Ql m Ln N r- O0 r-I O
r-I rn oo l0 Ln N 00 zT N r- r- N O m r\ rn
O 00 Ql N r1 00 N 00 r- Ln r-I N O m m m
Q) 00
N Q0 r1 M -tn tl} 00 IZT r1 M -L} ri N N N
t/ 1 ih t/ 1 t/} try tf} a Ql
th ~ ~
00 00 M L.0 IZZJI o r- ~o m r-I Ln rn O
rA w m m W O W::J- W M O H
GA M O a Ql w LO N w m N c-I ri O O l0 0o I~
C r-I Ct ~t M F M O ~ ~ lO r-i Ln N N 00 N m
O Ql tjo N r-I L.0 ~l M rn Ln N 00 I:t N m m
N Ln r-I m -Ln V)- w Ct to m -Ln 00 O Ln N N N
W r 1 th in- tn- t/? AA- M ai
L
m
a) ~t r-i Q1 Ln rn O L r) r1 Ln rn O
rn a, I\ r- rn o 00 OO rn m 9t N O m m Ln
Fa r4 O N O L.0 m r` Ln Ln Co Ln N C) O o0 0o r-
-Fa M n O r1 06 14 N M N N rH m 00 00
H O F, Ln ri r-I Ln :t Ln rn a, N N D1 m N N N
N N N N
LL N r i M tr} tr)- n qt to N -(n LO
Ql t/} t/} {n- t/} M Ql
r-I rn rl 00 M r- O r- Ln o, r-I
i
rn~ r- m r- 0) r-I Ln r-4 (n N ti O 0 (3) ~ r r--i
r-I LO l0 r1 a) 00 qt m m Lrn m O O O 0o
V-1 lD m ai O r1 L.0 N r.-I N O tD N m 00 4 m
Ln O t,O LO 00 r i N r-I M rnI;t N Ln Ln r1 N N N
u N Ln r1 N -(n try r- Ln tf} M t!} N O (14 N N r1
to th to ih tf} M Ql -0 rn
u 7
sr ~ LL
t r\ rn N O O n rn Ct 00 N O ` L r I
r-1 lO M m r,4 M L.f1 O I` 00 (3) O Ql Ql ri ro 4- O
3 O O O Ln lO O N l0 M a) LA O O O N Ln N m N
O ~ Oo O Lfi LA L f & G & n N Ln c I Ln
Ln Ol r I N r i r,4 Ql r-I c-i M Q1 000 N N N -0 O CY)
CY)
N -i N trr -Ln r- Ln ifs t Qi N m
fl- t!~ V1 O O C
E _ Z5 a
O O m `
V O 0C Q L
LA Q O m m
v
LA o
O N `n W C o
U V CL6 v 00 O
M N
4- Q) Q.) m a) O
~ U Q -'O Lq Q
Ln O > c v
N N t
O al LA x 0 z v C
CL u 4-1 4-
N Q a) a ^L Ln O 3 O
= Q Qom) C V) d v
LLI Q) 5; O LA +r x X X m u L,
m
ho u Ln bn L LII U O N Q) Q) L N
Q) C C L Q) L QJ U +j m -a _0 W N L
fC s m - N 0 p ~ C C C -0 c c
cn > O Ln O -
U ~ c L U v v (3) 4,
Q O Vl . V (6 x a) U O -L L L L Q~ :3
75 c
O 3 O cCa M_ > O-c cB O Z L -Q a m a Q O
C C u L Q) U 4--b 0 4- J L L L 4-- LL m u
(a Q) E 4- v L Q) (6 Q) Q) Q) L/) (U
W C: D 01 vL Q H 3 p N L1 N i L O O E E E p tzo =
Q Q a) a LL c- L a) L u v O U
Ln CA O U c
y-. to L Q tII U a) Ln CL) Ln Ln Ln v
a) O C a) O L i? Q c C Ln C C C C v X >
a) O U Q) Q) O O Q) + O O Z i O O O W Q
coo t > X ca a Ln 0C U U U O Li U t` = L U O D U U 0 ~ N Q
Ln v
F- U Q W = 3 W co
o_
Table A-10
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Cost of TID Non-Potable Water Deliveries
TID Total Annual Cost Estimated Cost
Costs
Contracted Water $0
City Maintenance Costs [1] $30,070
Canal Depreciation $0
TID Staffing and Materials Costs [2] $22,800
Total Annual Cost $52,870
Typical Delivery [3]
Cubic Feet Acre Feet
Total Use a 24,463,405 562
SOU Use [4] b 7,101,690 163
Lithia Park Use [4] c 1,020,495 23
Remaining TO Irrigators d = a-b-c 16,341,220 375
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. tid calc
[1] See Table A-11. Costs shown are 73% of the total costs in 2013 - see Table A-12.
[2] Estimated finance and public works departments time and materials costs to manage
T.I.D. agreements, billing and customer service.
[3] Under the 1924, 1926, and 1935 contract the City can take up to 769 acre feet in a typical
year for any purpose. The City also has an agreement with TID for an additional 600 acre
feet for municipal purposes. On average, City TID customers use 73% of the 769 acre feet
contract and the City municipal customers use the 600 acre feet contract. See Table A-12.
[4] Uses water consumption from the last non-drought year (2012).
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-11
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
TO Canal Maintenance Costs
Cost 2013 2014
Man Hours 1205 1411
Labor Cost $33,076 $30,753
Equipment Cost $8,098 $33,671
Total Cost $41,174 $64,425
Source: City of Ashland. tid maint
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-12
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Actual TID Non-Potable Water Deliveries (Past 10 Years)
Total Municipal Spill to Irrigation 1924, 1926 & Irrigation Use as
Year Acre-Feet Use Creek Use 1935 Contract % of Contract
[1] [2] [3]
'All Figures in Acre Feet
2004 751.71 0.00 123.75 627.96 769.00 82%
2005 478.57 0.00 123.75 354.82 769.00 46%
2006 659.93 0.00 123.75 536.18 769.00 70%
2007 560.14 0.00 123.75 436.39 769.00 57%
2008 726.56 0.00 123.75 602.81 769.00 78%
2009 742.90 224.24 123.75 394.91 769.00 51%
2010 818.73 0.00 123.75 694.98 769.00 90%
2011 755.37 0.00 123.75 631.62 769.00 82%
2012 731.81 0.00 123.75 608.06 769.00 79%
2013 981.49 205.15 123.75 652.59 654.00 100%
2014 1,173.94 565.44 123.75 484.75 654.00 74%
Average Excluding Drought Years [4] 561.60 769.00 73%
Source: Talent Irrigation District. tid deliv
[1] TO measurements.
[2] City measurements.
[3] In 2013 and 2014 TO curtailed the amount allowed to 654 acre feet.
[4] Excludes drought years 2009, 2013, and 2014.
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
CD
N
L!l
rl
Ln m r- T-4 O E M 00 m
.:Zj O N 00 N M
o6 o6 QL C
00 Ln r-i t~ N N n LL
tJ} t/} 4n in• tn• v -
0
ON O N Ln O oo Ln cn m
I-i
Ln m N w N N M M o
tD Z to th Lf1 .U} N N
-Ln tn• to to
O N M Ln It 00 tD
LD L.n (1D rl% O O a) N
N lD r l O N N LD r\
ct M tn- tn- : t~ r1 rl
to tn- in V)-
0 O Ln Ln ~t .-'l Ct
0 0 1- r% o rn 00 (n
Lr) M tf1 00 N -Ln n f\
m -L~ r•i tn th
tn- tn.
N_
Ln
L
O O O Ln Ln 111 r1
OK:T m N O lD N
O r- r1 tn. 00 N th M M
f V -La t/} t/1• tn. to
O It to O M rt Ln
N O N Ln O n'1 P~ N
LO r-i tn- LO N N N
tn- tn- tn• 4J'I 4j)-
i
O lD r- M r-I N Ln
M lD c-1 rl O N N N -
_ M V)- -Ln r-4 -(n rl r4 O
{n t/1 t/} i/1 u
E
O tt r-I r O c-1 r1 ri O
N r-I f
N t!} to N N t/} 4 rl
M s=
QJ E
u
a) a)
O o\° \ N 0N T
Fa O Ln a1
O N t/1• ~ N
N
H \ F L a1
cn >
Q O a) m
o z E -
u O -
3 L -0 i C
Ln v
QJ ~ u ~ co in
O f0 L LL > > `
s? ? U o E
O LL to L (0 ccO O _0 C O
fC N V) 4O+ i L C 4J r o
cn r-j
Q O C a
~ U C L C
In c L O. 00 `n N m O
O `
C V U O O1 4- y c 4- L N
f0 m L 'Z Q QJ O o s
C (3)
t Q -
M Ln
cn 4l U a~L+ N U m +1
Q p~ a) cn O L T L U u u
Q L 2 U u Q t a ai L u u w
4-J Ln 0 -0
ra O 01 aI -0 O (U O O o ri N m -0
cl~ U U V) v
F- U z Q F-
n.
a~
L
a
Table A-14
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Calculation of Functional Allocation Revenue Requirement
BUDGET Meters &
Operating Expenditures 2015-16 Allocation Basis Customer Services Capacity Commodity Unclassified
with addition of [1]
SUPPLY TAP water
Salaries & Wages $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Benefits $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/ 0% 0% 100%
Infrastructure $0 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74/ 15/ 0%
Professional Services $229,600 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/ 0% 0% 100%
Miscellaneous $1S1,050 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Other $149,900 Avg. of Classified 0% 0/ 0% 0% 100/
Capital Outlay $1,209,150 Plant In Service 9% 2,0 74% 15/ 01/
Debt Service $9,568 Peaking Month Use 0% 0% 551, 45% 01/
TAP Water $44,000 Utilities 0% 01/1 01/1 100% 01/
TOTAL SUPPLY $1,793,268
DISTRIBUTION
Salaries & Wages $635,000 Avg. of Classified O/ 0% 095 0% 100/
Benefits $394,750 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/ O/ 011/, 100%
Office $2,650 Customers 100% 0% 011/ 0% 0/
Small Tools $4,000 Peaking Month Use 01/ 55% 096 45/ 01/
Uniforms - Clothing $1,500 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74/ 15% 0%
Uniforms - Other $3,000 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 0%
Technical $15,000 Peaking Month Use 0/ 55% 0% 45/ 0%
Chemicals $5,500 Peaking Month Use 0% 55/ 0/ 45% 01/
County Services $4,950 Customers 1001/ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other $15,000 Avg of Classified 01// 01/1 0% 0% 100%
Books & Periodicals $200 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fleet Maintenance $66,340 Peaking Month Use 0°0 55/ 0% 45% 0%
Fuel $28,000 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 0/
Replacement $61,560 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 459/ 0%
Electricity $60,000 Utilities 0% 0% 01/1 1001/ 0%
Water $0 Utilities 0% 0% 0% 1001/ 0%
Wastewater & Other $300 Utilities 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%
Custodial $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Disposal $500 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 01/
Infrastructure $115,000 Plant In Service 9% 2% 7496 15% 0%
Local $1,200 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Long Distance $20 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 01/
Cellular $3,700 Customers 100% 0% 0% O/ 01/1,
Computers $2,500 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Postage $2,000 Customers 100/ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Radios $1,000 Customers 100% 0% 0 % 096 0%
Professional Services $60,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 1001/
Physician/Health $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 1001/
Other $50,000 Avg. of Classified 01/ 0/ 01/. 0% 100%
Central Service $692,510 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Insurance Service $35,600 Customers 100% 0% 0°1o 0% 0%
Technology Debt $50,000 Peaking Month Use 0% 55/ 0% 45/ 095
Use of Facilities $80,000 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% O/ 45% 0%
Bad Debt Expense $12,000 Plant In Service 91// 2% 74/ 15% 0%
Other $0 Customers 1001/ 01/ 005 01/o 0%
Licensing $37,700 Plant In Service 91/ 2% 74/ 15% 01/
Air $3,000 Customers 100% 0% 0115 0% 0%
Personal Vehicle Mileage $350 Avg. of Classified 01/ 01/ O/ 00/ 1001/
Lodging $2,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/. 01'6 0/ 100/
Meals $350 Avg. of Classified 0% 0; 0% 0% 1001/5
Training $4,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 1001/
Dues $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% O/ 1001/
Medical & Laboratory $15,000 Avg. of Classified O/ 0% 0% 0% 100%
Franchise Tax $402,653 Utilities 0% 0/ 0% 100% 0%
Capital Outlay $1,105,200 Plant In Service 9/ 2% 74% 15% 0%
Debt Service $250,649 Peaking Month Use 0% 0% 55% 451/ 01/.
TOTAL DISTRIBUTION $4,224,682
TREATMENT PLANT
Salaries & Wages $340,050 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/ 01/ 01/ 100%
Benefits $197,320 Avg. of Classified 01/ 0% 01/ 0% 100%
Office $2,000 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0/ 0%
Small Tools $800 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% l
Uniforms -Clothing $2,500 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 151/ 0%
Uniforms - Other $500 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 0%
Technical $22,000 Peaking Month Use 0% S5/ 01/ 4S/ 01/
Chemicals $220,000 Utilities 0% 00/ 0% 100% 0%
Prepared by HEC Page 1 of 2 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-14
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Calculation of Functional Allocation Revenue Requirement
BUDGET Meters &
Operating Expenditures 2015-16 Allocation Basis Customer Services Capacity Commodity Unclassified
with addition of [1]
Emergency Work $0 Peaking Month Use 01/ 5596 01/ 45% 0%
Books & Periodicals $150 Customers 1001/ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fleet Maintenance $9,397 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 0%
Fuel $6,500 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 01/1
Replacement $1,080 Peaking Month Use 0% 559, 0% 45% 0%
Maintenance $0 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 01/ 45% 0%
Electricity $38,000 Utilities 01/ 0% 0% 100% 01/.
Custodial $1,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 01/ 100%
Grounds Care $1,500 Avg. of Classified 01/ 09P. 0% 01/ 100%
Infrastructure $15,000 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 0%
Local $5,600 Customers 1001/ 01/1 011/ 01/1 01/1
Long Distance $10 Customers 1001/ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cellular $500 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Computers $2,500 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Postage $3,000 Customers 100% 011, 0% 01/ 0%
Radios $100 Customers 1001// 0% 0% 0% 01,
Professional Services $12,000 Avg. of Classified 01/ 01// 0% 0% 100%
Other $0 Avg. of Classified 0% 011/ 0% 0% 100%
Central Service $169,260 Customers 100% 011/ 0% 0% 0%
Insurance Service $4,080 Customers 100% 0 0"/ 01/ 0%
Technology Debt $28,200 Peaking Month Use 096 55% 090 45% 0%
Use of Facilities $100,000 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 0%
Other $0 Customers 100% 01/ 0% 0% 0%
Licensing $4,700 Utilities 0% 096 0% 100% 0%
Personal Vehicle Mileage $200 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 01/ 100%
Lodging $2,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 1001/.'
Meals $600 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Training $2,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0 % 100%
Dues $270 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Medical & Laboratory $19,400 Avg. of Classified 01/. 0% 0% 0% 1001/
Capital Outlay $2,226,690 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 0%
Debt Service $436,211 Peaking Month Use 0% 0% 55% 45% 0%
TOTAL TREATMENT PLANT $3,875,118
CONSERVATION
Salaries & Wages $105,240 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 01/ 1001/
Benefits $64,950 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Office $4,550 Customers 100% 01/ 0% 0% 01/
Small Tools $200 Peaking Month Use 0% SS% 0% 45% 01-
Uniforms - Clothing $200 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 151/ 0%
Uniforms -Other $125 Plant In Service 9% 2% 74% 15% 0%
Technical $800 Peaking Month Use 01/ 55°i6 01/ 451/ 0116
Meetings $100 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Books & Periodicals $100 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fleet Maintenance $270 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 011/
Fuel $150 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 0%
Replacement $5,790 Peaking Month Use 0% 55% 0% 45% 0%
Rental Charges $125 Peaking Month Use 01/ 55% 0% 45% 0%
Local $100 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Long Distance $50 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 09o
Cellular $0 Customers 100% 0% 00/. 01/ 0o,
Computers $0 Customers 100% 0% 00// 0% 0%
Postage $100 Customers 100% 01/ 0% 0% 01%
Professional Services $2,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 016 01/ 0% 100%
Central Service $25,880 Customers 1001/ 0% 0% 0% 0%
Insurance Service $3,440 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Use of Facilities $8,250 Peaking Month Use 01/ 55% 01/ 45% 0%
Advertising $1,600 Customers 1001/ 0% 0% 01/ 01/
Printing & Binding $200 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 01/
Air $1,500 Customers 100% 0% 0% 0% 01/
Personal Vehicle Mileage $500 Avg. of Classified 0% 01/ 01/ 01/. 100%
Lodging $2,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 096 0% 0% 1001/
Meals $750 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Training $1,000 Avg. of Classified 0% 0% 0% 0% 100%
Dues $700 Avg. of Classified 01/ 0% 0% 0% 100%
Conservation Programs $114,500 Utilities 0% 011, 0% 100% 096
TOTAL CONSERVATION $345,170
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $10,238,238 $1,382,804 $391,007 $3,901,763 $2,102,184 $2,460,480
Unclassified Expenditures Reallocation $437,448 $123,694 $1,234,316 $665,022
Total with Reallocation $10,238,238 $1,820,252 $514,702 $5,136,079 $2,767,206
Revenue Requirement Allocation Percentages 18% 5% 50% 27%
Source: HEC. func
[1] For allocation of plant in service see Table A-14. For allocation of peaking month use see Table 4.
Prepared by HEC Page 2 of 2 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
0
N
LI1
C
ii
0
rn O O M Ln M M O lD O Ln m O r\ Ln 00 M r- m m O z
L0l O 00 ri M 00 m LT ch Kt O r- Ct -Q- -1 ri r-i 00 m M n
• V, N 00 M Ql Q) m 00 00 ~ -zt k D CC r` N Ln 00 lD ~ m t t CD a O
O Ln Ln ri oo Ln O M 00 (.n Lr) Lr) oo r,4 (.D m t- O N LD
1D
m m N i--I to m ~--i m m o0 LD m N oo m O O Ln x-ZZJ- 00 C)
41 M in to to t/} in in N N Ln 00 N ~-•i .i n LT to 00 r-I
O C O N N in Ln H M
U to iif)- V)- vi M M
> O O O m 0 r\ O Ln Ln M O O O t` Ln 00 rn O O M N
in O 00 H to rn to lzzr 00 r-I -Ln V} in -ZZJ- H 00 c-i to to Lo 00 Lr)
a '31 M rn r\ KzT O LD N 'T 00 00 M M H
O N Ln Ln M Lr rl I. 00 N CT cr O O
E ~-i H to t!} N lD r-I M O r` Lr) 00 r-I
to in {n ri N c-I Ln r\ LD 00
-Ln N ih i--I i./} C7 Ct
C 0 i!} in iR -Ln
O_
O O O O Ln LD O O O r-I O N O O O O O r- M N M
to O - n to m oo to to {h N to 00 d' Q-1- to to to 00 m ct Lo
u0 Lj ' am r-i r-I m r` LD 't N n
U N ri Lr t- O L r ~ O :F M
Q f6 ri Ln c-i Lo N 00 00 d' M r4
c. Ln to La AA, LD 00 LT to Ln LD
LA co f~ O Ln Ct Ct
O U to N N
U to V~ •Lh
0 o O o 0 o M CD N a m o 0 0 o M CD C) 0-zt cn
N
v} in -(n v). vi rn ij-i w In o V-~ in ih in N in tf~ -cr~ m CO
L u o0 m N LD lD N
CU > Ln N 00 lD lD M r I
L m N Ln M N LO N
aJ to to tn• N Ln r` 00
VI t.!} {n to i/F
L am O O O O O CD Ln CD Ln O LD CD O O O O O O LO O
C1 M in to in in in -L} lz~r to V to m -tn in to to to in in m CT Ql
E N ~r o O co
o Lri Ln Lri Lri o
m N N O O LD
Ln m t/} in LT Cl) co
3 to ,-i ri N
U v} y} -Ln
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0
41 O O O O O o 0 o O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r-I c--I c-I ri c-I ~-I c-I c-I ri ci L-1 c-I c--1 c-I rl i--I c--i c-I
0 0 0 \ \ o \ \ o
O O O O O Ln O o Ln O
OC Ln O O N Ln r- O O r\ O
G
C E
O O
u
41
m
u
O 4 o 0 0 0 0 °o
U O O O O O O O
Q m Ln O o0 00 O O O
41 CL H r-i
C m
d u
U
L
C! 0y
d Qt ~ p o 0
i u O Ln O Ln
O N O N
Ca CJ
G Ln
L
E O O O
O O Ln N
41 ri
Ln
? O
-a u
3
V) C! C w
0) .u c 0 Ln =
41 >
(O L Ql D C c _0
C:
L m cu
Q i.+ C
C J L Q) Q~
41 Ln
CC aj 'n
L Qf
CT u
0 a--N w W Q C) tN lv O .0) i Lei,
m - > m v ro Ln C)
C E
a a a L^ a)
o 1 Q
c o 0 0 c Ln
o o2S a w a, ozS o m L +aj v v ra C o
ca "o Q o
>
Ln E- 41 C 2S m c C L _ 41
m C
C C o _ C~ V, n ro m n 'Ln 'p +ra !6 _0
Z3 C:
cr- qD C
u G (1) o > m C)- v Lv m= o a
Q Q
41 E -0 a) (U E
m L C Q L m ..C Ln 40' 0 i a--+ Ln LLn u
Cl O u = p p 41 n CJ 3 O G1 m C1 m L 3
CO Zopm _ ° >m a U Lz o Ln > vi E Ln U) cr 0- iL Ln o ° o
U Q LL > CO W H \ Ln w
.n
a
v
a
v
a
Table A-16
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Number of Billing Meters
Customer Category
% of Residential Commercial Irrigation Government Fire
Meter Size Total TOTAL SF MF
3/4" 90.1% 7,814 6,723 444 332 179 19 117
1" 5.9% 509 256 68 108 61 16 0
1.5" 1.9% 167 11 51 64 35 6 0
2" 1.7% 145 3 35 45 40 22 0
3" 0.2% 21 0 4 4 7 6 0
4" 0.2% 14 0 4 2 2 6 0
6" 0.0% 2 0 0 0 1 1 0
8" 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0 1. 0
Total 100.0% 8,673 6,993 606 555 325 77 117
% of Total 100% 81% 7% 6% 4% 1% 1%
Source: City of Ashland. meters
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-17
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Typical Water Consumption by Meter Size by Customer Type
Meter Size/ Consumption (2014 Data)
Customer Type Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
3/4" Figures in Cubic Feet
Residential SF 486 460 428 448 550 795 1,073 1,178 1,136 955 678 483 8,187
Residential MF 839 826 813 896 1,057 1,572 1,715 1,733 1,548 1,260 943 851 14,054
Commercial 892 850 767 940 1,077 1,472 1,703 1,773 1,518 1,309 993 856 14,148
Institutional 300 318 352 400 480 791 1,326 1,086 896 1,143 711 378 8,180
Irrigation 297 347 163 533 1,467 2,913 3,503 3,581 3,010 2,099 914 238 19,064
V
Residential SF 478 469 474 774 877 1,479 1,948 1,779 1,553 1,318 638 506 12,293
Residential MF 1,242 1,326 1,073 1,223 1,316 1,923 2,171 2,004 1,754 1,534 1,208 1,033 17,809
Commercial 1,258 1,213 1,006 1,322 1,638 2,420 2,513 3,081 2,828 2,141 1,449 1,258 22,127
Institutional 1,010 805 591 856 961 1,176 1,029 983 1,017 1,118 977 634 11,157
Irrigation 234 704 970 718 2,547 3,314 4,647 5,037 3,775 3,014 858 500 26,317
1.5"
Residential SF 636 594 522 848 1,142 1,699 2,308 2,314 2,265 1,525 1,145 1,156 16,154
Residential MF 2,697 3,479 2,856 3,052 3,511 4,579 4,859 5,116 4,968 4,307 3,773 3,142 46,339
Commercial 2,401 2,227 2,316 3,080 3,757 5,231 6,141 6,234 5,329 4,922 3,518 2,646 47,804
Institutional 1,976 1,818 2,222 1,338 7,820 2,048 1,665 847 797 692 2,650 870 24,743
Irrigation 414 322 308 1,922 4,713 8,614 12,982 13,984 11,558 8,031 1,719 840 65,407
2"
Residential SF 963 260 680 550 613 1,210 1,703 2,533 3,210 2,450 1,687 630 16,490
Residential MF 10,187 10,694 9,899 11,196 12,200 20,561 22,593 20,322 19,732 15,615 12,704 12,281 177,984
Commercial 5,734 7,046 6,603 7,748 8,205 10,157 12,221 12,657 11,344 9,747 8,280 6,964 106,707
Institutional 6,145 10,434 9,260 8,995 19,053 15,680 16,262 14,952 9,444 10,082 10,929 8,452 139,689
Irrigation 640 377 506 8,343 11,538 20,023 22,624 23,745 19,845 15,143 7,106 2,996 132,884
3"
Residential MF 14,005 15,605 13,263 11,863 15,288 23,425 21,040 19,945 21,543 22,723 21,983 19,908 220,588
Commercial 17,618 15,500 16,216 17,592 22,458 36,710 35,242 34,500 31,320 28,940 23,784 20,630 300,510
Institutional 3,518 8,547 7,499 7,241 8,906 12,434 10,264 9,852 9,912 8,154 6,711 5,177 98,214
Irrigation 6,910 1,200 1,400 2,735 41,146 36,502 62,480 85,750 49,291 62,530 7,330 580 357,854
4" and greater
Residential MF 30,753 38,173 36,985 42,868 48,143 66,950 60,238 56,803 53,973 46,845 56,272 38,135 576,134
Commercial 13,250 10,500 9,750 19,000 38,000 35,250 57,750 53,000 55,500 41,500 30,250 23,250 387,000
Institutional 19,699 25,883 22,005 16,579 20,048 24,384 16,585 13,043 16,731 23,835 23,206 17,993 239,989
Irrigation 0 467 667 14,000 55,500 70,327 66,111 123,030 122,227 86,404 1,576 0 540,309
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. use by size
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-18
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Bill Tabulation for Rate Design - Residential - Winter
Total Use to
Total Use of Cumulative This Block of
Potable Cumulative Bills Use of Bills Bills Passing Percent
Water Block Billing Bills through Stopping in Stopping in Through Cumulative Cumulative
Customer Limit Units Block Block Block Block Billed Usage Billed Usage
Master Metered
Zero Use 164 4,920 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 300 2,072 4,756 407,866 407,866 805,200 1,213,066 65%
Tier 2 1,000 2,525 2,684 1,221,745 1,629,611 159,000 1,788,611 97%
Tier 3 2,500 152 159 200,941 1,830,552 17,500 1,848,052 100%
Tier 4 > 2,500 7 7 22,156 1,852,708 0 1,852,708 100%
Total 4,920 1,852,708
Single Family
Zero Use 1,660 56,630 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 300 18,399 54,970 3,204,856 3,204,856 10,971,300 14,176,156 47%
Tier 2 1,000 30,748 36,571 16,592,584 19,797,440 5,823,000 25,620,440 86%
Tier 3 2,500 5,148 5,823 7,328,780 27,126,220 1,687,500 28,813,720 96%
Tier 4 > 2,500 675 675 2,740,988 29,867,208 0 29,867,208 100%
Total 56,630 29,867,208
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. smaller bill tab
Table A-19
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Bill Tabulation for Rate Design - Residential - Summer
Total Use to
Total Use of Cumulative This Block of
Potable Cumulative Bills Use of Bills Bills Passing Percent
Water Block Billing Bills through Stopping in Stopping in Through Cumulative Cumulative
Customer Limit Units Block Block Block Block Billed Usage Billed Usage
Master Metered
Zero Use 65 2,460 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 300 481 2,395 97,968 97,968 574,200 672,168 41%
Tier 2 1,000 1,454 1,914 832,998 930,966 460,000 1,390,966 85%
Tier 3 2,500 428 460 584,380 1,515,346 80,000 1,595,346 98%
Tier 4 3,600 23 32 67,452 1,582,798 32,400 1,615,198 99%
Tier S > 3,600 9 9 47,668 1,630,466 0 1,630,466 100%
Total 2,460 1,630,466
Single Family
Zero Use 543 28,31S 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 300 4,704 27,772 794,S82 794,582 6,920,400 7,714,982 24%
Tier 2 1,000 11,461 23,068 6,951,500 7,746,082 11,607,000 19,353,082 61%
Tier 3 2,500 8,941 11,607 14,060,337 21,806,419 6,665,000 28,471,419 89%
Tier 4 3,600 1,684 2,666 4,966,874 26,773,293 3,535,200 30,308,493 95%
Tier 5 > 3,600 982 982 5,185,537 31,958,830 0 31,958,830 100%
Total 28,315 31,958,830
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. res tab
Prepared by HEC Bill Tab Analysis Final 3/15/2016
0
N
o \ O o \ O
Ln Ln o M M
.LU
c
a
o 0 0\° o 0 0 0 0
O 't M c-i 0 W ci Ln -ci >
4!
F- F-
T n
a1 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\ ~
m o m m 00 00 o m -
N N ai m
H
C
0)
i
0L N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- o
o 00 00 `D M r- m rn
z
m m m ~ m M m m M
H
Ln r, m a Ln Ln `n m
~ ~ :T ~ N N Ln m m
k.D
F-
Ln \ 0 \ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
F o 0 0 0 0 0
00
m
a o 0\ 0 0\ 0 0 0
a a`r o 0 o a' Ln `n o r~ 1-1
v o 0 o a, C) m o a, m
m
m
> r^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m .01 o rn cn m 00 om m rn m
°
E
U N
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C a, 00 0 00 LD lD a, r, r.
U ~
O)
D_
0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0
r4
v m `r m
LD ~ ~ ~ N N Ln M M
F-
lD O LO IZT 00 N
1,D m m r, m I-+
In "i 0a N ci' O N
O 00 m m W a)
21 M Ln 00 00 N O
F- LD O Ln lzl 00 M
m M D LD
o0 00 w 00 m .1 ~o r--
0 a ai `3~ Ili 0 CD rl ~
N r-, m Ln 00 M n Ln M
Ln LD ri O N LD r, d'
0) H 00 00 r, lD M cn N LD
to 1-L ri m q O a--I M O M
A (U N M m m lD LO
~ 0)
D LL
a u N O N LO M Ln 00 a) rl
cu Ln N r, C LD m m m
M O O n r\ M~f\ m- Lr1
m u 00 m e q Ln c-i LD m Uf 00
a`r
> i- c ~ 00 o` c Lc to m Lr ~ o' ~ ~ n
W r 00 0 1- 00 0 m r, o'
O N m r4 M Ln LD
E LL c-I O1-4 lD N 00 rl N m
O V N-ZT Ln Lo 00 1- N m
N LO lzl O B O O Ln Ln O
06' CD M CD m :T a) M
d co
N O m Ln r, h Ln
r- LD C m m n G N
c-i Lri ri c-i a; o' m 'T 00
N N N 'T C
LD LD N 00 N O 00 N
LO Ln N lD 00 Ln m m r\
r-I O ti N N al - N ci M
.-1 r, 00 r N 00 00 O n
I--• N c-1 M 10 r"M W W n
.--i 'T Ln rl 00 .--i ~ M
,1 N N
d
CD C)
H O O
> u LD LD'
O m m
f6 co
m O O O O
w Y O O O O
a u Ln Ln Ln Ln
N _O N N N N
OJ m ~
N v 0 0 O O
v u a o C 0 0
o
Ln m
m 00 00 OO p0
w u m m m m
3:0
m
t0
3 a a
v v v
a u L a
O a.+ T v +v +v t+ u
F E W
o L a 3 u
N ~
Q .0, y O
E 7a UJ CO y N U y 01 2 7a M
m
two }T O 7 C in F Ln H C in FO- o w
F- v LL o v 3 Ln a
a
Table A-21
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Bill Tabulation for Rate Design - Non-Residential Current
Cumulative Total Use of Cumulative Total Use to
Potable Bills Bills Use of Bills This Block of Percent
Water Block Billing through Stopping in Stopping in Bills Passing Cumulative Cumulative
Customer Limit Units Block Block Block Through Block Billed Usage Billed Usage
Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%
Zero Use 0 1,700 4,080 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 50,000 2,327 2,380 10,314,213 10,314,213 2,650,000 12,964,213 88%
Tier 2 > 50,000 53 53 4,422,250 14,736,463 0 14,736,463 100%
Total 4,080 14,736,463
Commercial
Zero Use 0 519 7,306 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 50,000 6,774 6,787 16,932,837 16,932,837 650,000 17,582,837 99%
Tier 2 > 50,000 13 13 781,010 17,713,847 0 17,713,847 100%
Total 7,306 17,713,847
Institutional
Zero Use 0 121 1,032 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 50,000 887 911 13,388 13,388 1,200,000 1,213,388 40%
Tier 2 > 50,000 24 24 3,012,632 3,026,020 0 3,026,020 100%
Total 1,032 3,026,020
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. nonres bin tab
Prepared by HEC Bill Tab Analysis Final 3/15/2016
Table A-22
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Bill Tabulation for Rate Design - Commercial Proposed
Cumulative Total Use of Cumulative Total Use to
Potable Bills Bills Use of Bills This Block of Percent
Water Block Billing through Stopping in Stopping in Bills Passing Cumulative Cumulative
Customer Limit Units Block Block Block Through Block Billed Usage Billed Usage
Commercial <2"
Zero Use 460 6,586 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 2,500 4,851 6,126 3,074,096 3,074,096 3,187,500 6,261,596 61%
Tier 2 > 2,500 1,275 1,275 7,209,273 10,283,369 0 10,283,369 100%
6,586 10,283,369
Commercial 2+"
Zero Use 59 720 0 0 0 0 0%
Tier 1 15,000 472 661 1,989,468 1,989,468 2,835,000 4,824,468 65%
Tier 2 > 15,000 189 189 5,441,010 7,430,478 0 7,430,478 100%
720 7,430,478
Source: City of Ashland and HEC. comm tab
Prepared by HEC Bill Tab Analysis Final 3/15/2016
0
N
.-i
m
c
LL
Y N
U N
L O O L O O\ -0 f6
O N O N d1 Ln c
L L m m o Q
u
a a ~ _
o 0 0 c o 0
L
V L rn lzt 00 U CO
L a L a
CL a
a
0 0 0 0 0
N O O O N O O
L r-I
L
a a a a
m p m
a a
O O O \ O
E rn O 00 E H Ln
a, ~ 00 =
U L U L
+r a +J a
C O
a a
u U
a a
M a
L
a
a r- O m H a cn co
~ N lD
N 00 O ~t Q m N m
L a M O
a LL H N m _ li co m
-O url O~ L F- u N Ct
a a O f-
a ro :f
m H H E m
U E a
r_ > n co m U > 110 co
- a m o0 +p a M
ro L oo m N m r i L Ln
y :3 L N m N ri
T' 00 rt L-0 O £ lD N
i q j- LL Ln N am Q O H LL N 00
00 U O U ~o
z a-
'O .a i
3 r-I 0 0 0 a r"I X 0 0
cn = Y 0 0 0 0 to = ,G w O O
O O O a m v Ln O
a m O O N Lri
L CO ~ L
a a
u
N +
a a
u L a u L a v N
L c a
c a a~ LL> M a U +j m co
c: u CL
C W L L •L •L W
M L d r •L O
N of L a O S N in a a a S a) cu
Q a a E= v Q a- a E E
Q ~ O O c o A P ~ ~ O O 0
N U U U v1 .41 CA 0 :3 I- U LLI m u H U W a U v
w
S
T
a
L
tm
Q.
W
L
a
C)
N
Lr)
m
M
c
LL
a~
(U
4J
~ ll0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
O r0 N lD 00 00 I'D Ln rn N lD
L Ln l0 m
o j m O
a 4-
0
lD rl I~ lD lD Ln r- Ln Q1 ~t N
C7 r- M O m Ln oo m N LO M O
b.0 O Ln zt' O Ln O rl DD Ln 00 ~
rC N I~ ch 1 lz: lD ri ri lD a1 o0 o0
L , lD Ql LO ri O ~ LO r- O1 M M
Q IZT 0 Ln M lD N i-i M O Ch Ln
a O Ln O L r O I~ lD Ln Ln Ln
N lD N 00 N r-i N r4
I:zT O O Io oo Ln O I~ I~ lD M
00 00 rl% rl r\ Ln Ln M O
Ln n O ~ M 00 01 Ln O Ln
Cf 00 a) r~ lD lD r- Q1 N O IZT
t Ql ch I-_ 01 r-I Ql lO Ln r-I
O O N M N r1 Q1 I~ O N M
N N O N O I~ lD M d 1 rl N
lD N 00 rl N rl N N
Q1
Ql r, oo Ln a1 00 r1 00 0, N 00 O
LL Ql O O N M Ln ri Ql N Ln oO
U Ql rl ri 00 O M N O 00 N
M O cF Ln r-I M n 00 to O1 O O
r-I :3 L11 ~i lO N ;4- oo Ln lD 00 lD Ln
O U M rn N lD lD O Ln 00 N r-I
N O O O V-1 O r\ lD Ln r- M ct
r- N Ql N cn cn
QJ
L I~ H 00 O ~:T 00 N Lf1 Ln lD r-I
0A r~ N Q1 N TH N LO N 00 N r-I
} LZ r y! r-I lD N N O Cf lD Ti
L N O Lrn LO N O lD Cl) M 00 M N
rC r-I oo r- Ln lzt lD 00 00 M N Ln M
O r-i (M r-I Ln F, m LO lD R* N N
O N oo O a1 O I~ lD v I~ ri r-i
a) lD N 00 rl N r1 rn rn
Fu r-i
u
N N 4* Ln re) N O 00 N r- O
a, Ln w m r- 0 r-I oo [t m N
M N LO Ql a1 M N N ri N M
ri N 00 O O Ln c-I oo r- lO Ln ri
O ri Ln oo :zr 00 O O 00 lD M O O
N m O q* N w ri C1 00 N N LM
~ M Ql N O I~ lfl M M O O
V lD rl 00 rl N rl N N r-i r-4
W 00 O 00 m N m Ln r- r-i 00
E N rn ri N r- 00 v Ql Ln 4 m
O Ln r- M L.n Ln :zt LO N N ~t LO
N O L r D1 Ln Ln M M ct' M O M r-I O co Q1 I\ M LM N rl~ N m
U N r1 Ln r- LO co r-I O N N m
-a m U N Lrl M' M 06 o0
lD ri 00 N rl ri ri
Ln ~
d Ln
ra L r13
+1
Q~ N
E E Ln
"O L rC N ± CC :E
LI)
C V N 41 c Q
_ O 73 O fQ
FJ -U
N L-L O c _ }
Q a V 2 O LPL Li cu N O u O m 0C:O Q U
G1 O .L -0 O 4l v! O E E a0, O ai
rC U r0
O f3 -a m
O O 41 O O O O O O O L O O
F- U 2 a U W ~n Ln z U U - LA - F- F- F-
U
u
Lu
S
T
v
L
Q
L
CD
N
Ln
i-1
m
76
> c
N o \ c \ \ 0 0 0 0 ~
N Ol Ln N N "H M _0 r%j
r-I M N 1.4 O O O O O O v
N
O 1O
N
0
T
p O O O O O O O O i- L
N O V) Ln i -I "A N N -A M L a)
Ch N rl
N M N O O O O O O Q o
O Lnn
N u :3
O U
> U
O
O ~0-01 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ E
N lD Ln N N c-I M D O.~
N N O O O O O O a +1 X
M N ~-1 i
O O Q
N tin
O ~ ca
L -
O L
D
~ Q
O O O O O O O O O D
0) N N r+ M L o
' N r-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 bn
O L
00
M M N 14
N O ra E
O
L U
a)
U U
O O O o O o o O o Ln .L
u 00 O O O O O O O m Q-0
Ql Ln r-4 N M M (V QD N
Ct N N L
C
m e~i N N N O O O O O O c C)
LU O u ra
01 N D ro _C
a) u
U c L
L } U
d ~ L r6
~i 4-1
O O O O O O O O O dA Q) r
V) N lD 110 m a, lD l0 rLo +v
(C N N L
N O O 0 0 0 > cc
0 e-i
N - u o
L O
p
v , a)
f0 - cn -0 m
o 0 0 0 0 0 -U r
m O O O o o Ln 4L D
Ln 4- (D
u
I:T 00 00 0 r- p v LI)
ri ri ri m ° = 4-1
O O v
Ln
L U O
u 41
•L• O O OD Q) 0 0 0
d a) ON 3 n p N O Ln
L c--I r-I c-i
d
E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a)
4- U c0 S n U
L W Lu a) +O -1 W O
U m X 4-
L U
L
L ~ a) U Q
O ~ v u
L U L m
a U +J ul p U Q C a)
(Q (U Q) 4F' L L 'L 4- Q O
L W O p +(1) CU 41
+ + 'a
cu cc
a) Ln 4-1 "
0 c a) O
N C + L
= LA 16
p d L : Q V N c: U a) E ra
C) Lu Ln _0
0 tW
LA C t0 co r6 U Z n 0 L
p of A a 4-
c c m 4) c~ 'c~ c c O vLj~ u L
L i O co u
4A L i y uE LL- N a) O w fl O O
N
4~ a)
N O O ca E (U an oc E E E5
p Q
c c u m o F-
U In o o O L U
N p a Ln i p cn o U U~ w
F- u Q U O Q d Z V) - N m =
a
-a
v
Q-
(31
L
0_
CD
CD
N
Ln
ri
C
LL
v
0
O
m
ti
0
a
ti
Ln Ln .-i Ct m 00 0o m Ln r- M r-I Ln lD CT lD 0) °
rco
m lD O Ln r1 c-i M N N Ql N N 00 N 00 LD Ln rl
N 0) m m M O 00 lD r` N Ln Dl LD LD N ~ 00 0) 00 z E
N Ln O O ri 1~ r-~ LD Lr pl~ 00 O IN cr LD N a, 000 -a
ri Lp O 't O 00 Ln Ln 00 V
N r1 O r-I I~ ll 17t m M
O -Zt r-a Ln O ~ lD Zt m ai
N lD N 00 M N
r-I
m lD ct lD r Ln N I- 0) M M Ln N M
M ct r" d' Gt N N N lD m m r` r1 lD 00 M M
H 0) r IL lz: N r 1i f~ W h Ln Vi N LD LT ~t O
N U') -i O0 0) N 00 00 O 0) I- O 00 00 L,D N 1.0 ~t M
O Ln O O co 00 Ql IZI- N O n Ln m c-i ['t ' M Ln O
N 00 00 lD lD r, ~J- m H 00 ai
O (YO O I- LD 0) M
N O N 00 r1 M N
14
o CO LD - Ql N L.D Ill N LD Ln of m co m M m ct
M N LD Dl N r- d' r O r- r- Ln O N M M LD N
O O1 y 00 r` Ln Ln N rn r-1 M 0) I~ N O O Ln r- m N M
N Lr) W Ln to N 00 al lD M rl 0) Dl LD N CO h 00
0) O Li lD h -tt M O oo lD 0) M rn r Ln m Ln O
ei It I- N L.D r- M N 0) N
O m 0 Z O I~ LD ct 00 M
N LD N 00 r1 M N
u
o O O LD LD O r- m m O lD O N M lD n r` M Ln
I:T 1-1 Ln w LD m 00 M O M m r1 00 m m m N
0) Ql LA lD lD N 00 N Ln 4- H ct m O 0) 00 M I- r-I O O
H N r, Ln r d O 1-1 r- -;zr r -I C-r-i 0) c lD N C-6 LD LD
oo m O j m LD 0) 00 r- Ln r1 N N M -i m Ln O
ri pq I LD rl Lr LD m N 00 ll
O ii M O M O I, L.D ~t 00 N
N lD N 00 r1 r-i M N
r-i
o ~ r1 00 O N r1 P. LD H M O Ln r,4 Dl Ln m
r- M O .-I m m H N r- O n r, m r1 Ln r~
00 4l r1 r- 0) r1 r1 m O 0) LD L.D N zt M ri Ln O M
ri Ln Lrj 1 ^ Ql I~ Ol Lr) ~4 00 N O M lD c-I Ln r-I Ln 00
Ln r~ N O M LD M M m r1 O O m N Q) r1 r1 I~ O cn
c ri co Ln M Ln lD M N N O
~.D r4 CO r-i O O LD ~t M 06 r~
c N
N
~ N N
u o O N M LD N m O N Ct m LD 0) m 00 r-i M N lD Q
v n O N ~ V' ~ co H co I- L.D M 00 O Ln Ln O a
•L 0) -1 M O co M m m 0) M m O [t LD H r1 lzt Rt 00
Lrj O k r4 Lr 1,6 N lG N r-i I~ 00 Lf rr ~Y O M r'I
O_
lD r1 O (.D O lD N N m N lD M O Ln Ln M r1 O 0) Ln
O H I'D Ln ri Ln LO N m N 0) N N N N Ln v
41 O N O M O t~ lD 00 e--1
0) N D N 00 r1 r1 M N 0
3 r-I -
00 m H Ln Ln Dl m H N c
C rl- CO lD 00 11 N 00 rl r" - o
f6 lD r- M r-I D) Lr M r-I O e-~ c
E Q1 QD O I-, O O LT 00 0) LD 0
to cn 0) 00 r~ lD 00 m m M -
co N rrL,D ct Ln N N Ln N 0 E
p L--I
L O N O N O r- LD T 00 H u D
0) N tD N 00 M N N u c
5; 0
O 0) v
a d Ln
O O O
_ 0 f0 O o E
cc yam,, 41 a+ -W u
O 0 y t Q c v
G) LL -a p L a v "a L E
-Fo a~ c
41
'A r_ cu 41 :3 of _ - + f6 0J _ - + OF f6 O
(v 41 DQ N fa V N ' 'a
T T 'LA 'N V N O T C
41
C f6 l0 fB 01 01 c m f0 f6 O C D_
o o c z a p ra i O c Z
t E
N LM "O LL LL QJ Q1 'Z, O Y a-~ LL LL 4, -Fa vt 4J 0J O w N CD
Q a a C) o 41 OL
a, E E o co v v .-L o w E E o m =
a~ o a QUJ cu ru
°C E E do C C o o
o o rd co
u
T y a c c a ra 'vt 3 c 7
L L In Ln O u u LA p ..c cu N N O U U Ln p
p = N
H u 0. a oc Z H u oc z H °
u
w
2
v
m
n
v
a
CD
N
Ln
r-I
C
a jy
E c-
O 0
0 41 00 N Q o
N m m E
C p m M QD
ry)
O U
o
_ u
V O O 00 r-A
O
a
o ni m
m U a
c
L
i Z3
d
Q~ (A 0 00 O
`n o p m m
U u
(6 L
Z3 0
Y
y mM > ^0 L
/ -0 Qj Ln
Q~
cLo Q L m ,n w
> O o c
Q Z U O
C5
~ o
O p M M N M lD in lD M lD o
u M M m m N N N N N N m
Q ~ c
u v
00 W m O --i N v
Z3
N -~J- Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
0 iy N N N N N N N N
U i
a,
..p
c ^ N ON
U L O
N a0+ O M cy)
(06 O of + a
n a p_
V) C
N
L
Q
~ o m r- rn 't 00
3 ~ u ~ d' tD t` d' E
L v= N N N N N o
+0+ Q m u
m ~
N
ri Q
O
N m lD O r- ri Ln Ql 0 0
a a, ch O Ln O lD ri lD
E N Ql m -4 Ln Ln lD w r- r-- cn
O O O O O O O O O V
(A O O N N N N N N N N O a;
c
O m v
E U
u L
i
U m O r, ~ r+ W ~n N rn o m O r- ~-i W u) N M W M O r~ cr 00 N
w m 00 r~ to Kt m a--I O m 00 w Ln d' N ri O 00 r- lD Ln m N a
C T r-I N ct lD W O N lD r~ Ql r-I m Ql c-i N ch lD 00 O N
O_ p O_ O
Q1 Ql Ql Ql Q1 O O O O O O rr-i 1i r N l c- N " N 1 r14 N N N N N M M
o
~ E ~ r-i c-I c-r r-I r•i N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M O
? +a+ 3 u ra
"a u a ~
3 Q O a
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0Lf) Ln Ln Ln LI) +n O \ a s
c ri r- m M m 00 m m 00 o rnLr) N Ql ~:t O LO T y
4,, m CD r- ri Kt to DO Ch LO Zt Ln O N M N m m N _
a L a a O O O O ri r i c i ri O O O O O ^ p f y
CJ a) ri ri N N N N N N N N N N N N N ai
L U o
_
L) CL)
L
O O C°
N c N v
C O O - a
m C O m m i
00 C O O N
(A VI p
N Q L y 0 o
4- 0- Q m tiO Q
G! O O. O r-I N M -:zr Ln lD r- oo a) O ri N M -:T to w r, 00 Ql O r-i N ~ pp u a) I
U
A E m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --1 r-r ri -i ri ri ri ci r-r ri N N N
rp a_'' O O L O O CD O O O O O O O O O CDC O O O O O O O O O U Q o u
H l1 V } U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
a
a
m
a
v
a
0
N
L11
N lD r1 lD N r N 00 O M 00 tD O 00 lD LIl m 00 l71 m
N n m N o0 00 N ~zt oo lD N ri Q0 a' m r1 M M IZT LD -
N tD w 00 ri m m W m w N w m w m M tT 00 W M E c
N r Ln Ln O LD N r-i M ri 00 00 M O M Z:T 00 O M-::I- E i~
ri r- O O N N 00 (.D 00 M ri 00 00 lD M N O O o
N w 00 c 1 r-i ~-i r LD N Ln ri r1 -i N N M M N N r- M
p N r-i vl i/} to V-~ nj N r-i t/} to -L- Vl N iyj t/} in t/} t/} o
LD
m
0
C) M Ln N r- M O Ln w o cn r- N Ln 00 LD r-i zt w Ln
00 rn N Ln r- m o0 o U-) N ~r r- o O zT I:T o Ln m 00
ri N zj- rn r, m r- N O Ql ri O N 4* m oo rn 1* rn W
N M GI am lD rr DO M L6 cr O LD M c I O M rn LT
p Ln M Ln lO rn O O M O O 00 M ri r~ O l0 Ln M~l r- M
N Ln r, ~ t/} ri d' Ln N Ln -i --i r-i N N N M N N w N
p N c-I th th V-? N N c i/} -La -La to N Crl to th in V-~- F
N -Ln t/} th t/} ih th to th
O N O-i rn co O O M r-i O m 00 O Ln O c-1 CO W O
r-i N ~T r- r- rn e-i 00 m ~t Ln 00 00 rl 00 c-i M Oo cn
O O co m Ln LT N O 00 ~t m r\ ~t N 00 N N mI;t Ln 00
N O l9 Ch m rn LI1 O m rn Ln a LD N M l0 O M lD r M
dl Ln t7l w m rn rn Ln M Ln r- N O CD M Ln E N O Ln 00
c-I CT' r-I r-I c-i N e-i -i M N N w m
ri lD L i/} t./? M
t~ -(n nj N rj tn- t/~ t/} t/} N M t/} ih to t./} d:
N VI -Ln th try to th to th
N m m Ql N r N M 1--1 N Ln 00 M lD O r~ Do Ln m
O N M M m lO O Ln O m LT m O Ln N m M N r- Ln
rn o 0 00 zT QD CD O w o m co Ln ct w 00 00 Ln Ln lzr
`i DD O 00 O w N co N O O M N M N O co Ln LT Ln O
L w ~ Ln M M 00 W w r I r~ N O Ln w Ln N ri Dl M M
00
e-i M M lD c-I t/} t/} M M O zt r-I r-I r-I N O O M N c-i lD R:J'
Q N r-I -Ln V-~ N N rj -Ln tn -Ln -Ln nl M -,-a t/} th ~
I.j
to N t/} -Ln -Ln th -Ln iA
O
u
T
O ri N rn w ri O O M N r~ r1 O M r~ N O
m Ln N r-I Ln Cn c-i Ln m N r-I r\ ei m ~t Ln 00 N O
O co ri d' Ln :Z:r It M e-1 00 lD M N 't O co O (n w 00 It O
E a Ln M r~ M a LT M M r-i Q1 Ln M c r- Oo N~t M
00 co Ln oO 0) W 00 m w LD N Ql :I- m -i O m ri 00
E ~ N N Ln r-I -U~ in• M N cn m ri r i -L} N M Ql m N r-I W N
O O N ri t n- t~ N ri r-i tn- to th N t/} try t/} t a :
u N t r} V)- to t/} t!F th t/1 th
.a
C
i>3
T lD O w M m m W w O O w r, m (D r1 Lr) Ql O tD e-I
~t m Ln r- O 00 ct Ln r- M ri LT T Ln O 00 00 O N O
U ^ 00 m a) L.D 00 ri O M O ri Ln e-I N lO w O O
M O r lD M rn m O 00 Ln r- lD Ln :zT 00 N Ql 1;* 00 (n
M lD Ql ri t 00 00 Ln l71 O O Ln -1 Q) M O N O Ql 00 0o c)
u r.1 ri Ln r-i t/} t!} m e-i rn M r1 r1 t!1 N rn 00 M ri r-i Ln O
y-- nj ri to tn- nj c-I ri th to to ri t~l t./1 t/i- t/ th
O
O N tl~ t/} i/t t/} t!} to t!} V
c
O
i r~ m m m d' q--I N M Ql N N m m m m w m
O O N m W r- r- O r- O W rH M M r% N N 00 r-i N
d ~ 00 O ~ r- N Ct w M W ~ ri r I LO 1--i r~ 00 m Ql lzt O
H 06, lD r- N f~ 00 & 0: Ln ~ 00 ~ & M ri O ~ Ln
N O m r\ 00 N (14 lD O 1* O 00 ri LD %--1 00 00 r Ct tT
ri m Q ~ c-i t/-)- t n m O r~ N -1 -1 t a r,4 ~ Ln lD N ri =i Ln r*.
O t!} to tr? N to tn- -Ln to LYi
N N rI N
s th th th th th th ~ try to
u
a o u
CA L'!1 0 0 0 0 0 o Q 0 0 0 0 0 Cu o o 0 o o
Q rn r~ ~ It w o o0 00 w Ln oo ~ re Ln Ln o0
L v ri O
LL ~ ~ -o e--I t
E
T ° o
U a
Ln L CL
4! w a U
41 LU
m m L (U QJ cu a =
fL w N O O °
cu w ro O Ln A i0 ct3 u U
O1 Ln
t9 Lin U N - p +_T+ _ p O1 a
m O tts N 41 N_ a N_ L- m
O U N L1 V N +T+ NO V N O V N-m :E
a - -
u
n Q
O +a+ Li - ca ca u - E M m ca u
ra C C C
O t13 O (n + i i T to O C i3 4+ 4, i O C 4, 4 ~ i i O ~ a O
N O U C QJ (1) O M -a in c a, N , O U Ln r- a a, O y
Q O T O N E E O O a E E u0 a)
OJ
a~_ U w
-0
41 . u u E u L1A ; L/) E E +1 tin _
Q rQ
41 O U fII ca Q1 O O V, i O m- w O O O O O O u' O n
+T' O O oC U U L H 0 or U U U U i 1- L°
v
t- U Q d u H u n
. a
v
a
Table A-30
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Calculation of Share of Maximum Day Water Use by Customer Category
Non-
Coincident
Average Maximum MM/AM MD Peak Max Daily % of Avg. % of Peak % of Max.
Customer Type Month Use Month Use Ratio Ratio Use Month Month Day
(AM) (MM)
a b c= b/a d (below) e= d *(b/31) f= a/total a g= b/total b h= e/total e
Residential cu. ft. cu. ft. cu. ft.
Master Metered 1,233,889 1,807,603 1.46 2.22 129,200 12% 10% 10%
Single Unit 5,399,033 9,066,113 1.68 2.54 742,780 51% 53% 59%
Non-Residential
Commercial < 2" 842,679 1,311,138 1.56 2.00 84,453 8% 8% 7%
Commercial 2" or larger 572,439 815,422 1.42 1.83 48,085 5% 5% 4%
Institutional 522,097 734,827 1.41 2.17 51,378 5% 4% 4%
Irrigation 2,093,565 3,461,986 1.65 1.82 203,140 20% 20% 16%
Total 10,689,965 17,248,262 1.61 1,259,036 100% 100% 101%
Master Comm'I. Comm'I.
Calculation of MD Peak Factor Metered Single Unit < 2" 2"+ Institutional Irrigation
MM/AD Factor 1.46 1.68 1.56 1.42 1.41 1.65
System MD/MM Production Ratio [1] 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Weekly Usage Adjustment 1.38 1.38 1.17 1.17 1.40 1.00
Calculated MD Peak Factor 2.22 2.54 2.00 1.83 2.17 1.82
Source: City of Ashland, AWWA M1 Manual, and HEC. peaks
[1] Calculation: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
Maximum Day (MG) 5.88 5.36 5.14 5.95 4.80
Maximum Month (MG) 158.29 152.00 149.87 170.48 137.17
Average MGD in the Max. Month (max. day / 31) 5.11 4.90 4.83 5.50 4.42
Ratio of Max. Day to Avg. in Max. Month 1 15 1.09 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.10
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Table A-31
City of Ashland Water Rate Study
Potable Water Irrigation Peak Cost Allocation Calculation
Potable Water Only
Month All Water Irrigation
cubic feet
January 5,698,647 25,023
February 5,903,155 19,250
March 5,395,848 34,123
April 6,737,313 352,456
May 9,004,008 1,158,194
June 13,874,124 2,148,917
July 16,364,166 2,862,767
August 16,915,748 3,451,333
September 14,895,165 2,740,545
October 12,225,379 2,146,283
November 7,481,362 458,953
December 7,819,658 43,004
Total 122,314,573 15,440,848
On Peak 62,049,203 11,203,562
Peak as % of Total 51% 73%
Source: City of Ashland. irr peak
Prepared by HEC 140136 Model Final 3/15/2016
Its
3
3 N N ~
5
E
E
a n m m -
5
a ~o E oz °Y - o~~~ r
r ~ r c z - v. 2 -
O
N
p 00 M CT O ~ M N V-4 -4 O m w ~ N M v
L _ tT O ri M ct tD rn N Ln 00 O M LD O qzr 00 a Ln
_ a
a~ CJ I N N N N N N M M M 4-i Ln LA ill ~
C E m
p m U -tn V) V) 4.n in- in V) in 'L/} in in in in V) ih i/) -
LL
0) 1
d _0
- 00 am N lD -i Ln -:zr m M N ci a rn ej lD ri 0
M Ol q N M lD Q1 N lf1 00 r-1 M O1 w ICT ~E
LA O Ln N 00 g N O m N Ln q* N v-i N M 1o
i6 N M M-* m w N N w m Or-I N M R* M
V) in V) V) i/3• in V► in V) V► 40- e--1 ri t-i r4 r-I ~
M 0 V} i/1• in i/1• j^. O
~ N
M -i OO
O) Ln Ln lD lD
-p v O V) c-4 N
0 V) V)
O1 V)
cc
Ln c) LT 00 00 r- lD Lr) ~T CT, m cr,
rn O N Ln 00 r1 lzt r\ O -1 r1 ri
i Ul 00 LO d' M r-i Ql 00 N N N
v O N V) c-4 N M Itt lzt Ln LO Ln LO
O V) -L- V) V) V) V) V) V) V)
V)
v
L
7 n 0 r- c i LO O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0
41
U
U N O O O N M Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln m Ln Ln
L CL) MO O m Ci Ln t-+ -1 1-4 1-4 -1 r-i 14 ri r4 ri rL
4+ <-j V) V) ri N N N N N N N N N N N
N CD V) V) tn- tn• V) to tn• V) t/} V) V) tn-
3 `fl
v
z LO o r- r` r, r\ r- r- r\ r- r- r` r` ~ r`
zzt o L71 m M rn M M m M M M M M m M m
N n1 n n n t\ t\ t` n t\ n t` t\
Q1 in- V) V) tn- V) i./) tn- V) V)- i./) t/) tn- V) V). V)
~ O
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
i--I > t)D M m M M m M m m m m M m m M M m
l6 c-i c-I rl c-i i--I c-~ r-I ~-I c-I r-I r-I ri c-I e--I i--I r-I
L tn- V} V) iJ} V) V) tn- V) V) ta to V) to V) V) to
O N U
N
p cc v t\ t\ ~ t\ n ~ ~ I~ ~ t\ n ~ t\ n t` ~
C c-I r-I c-i c-I r-i c-i ci r-I c--I c-I a--I r-I r-I ~--I c•i r-I
r6 c-I rl ci rl c-i a--I r-I c-i r-I c--I c-4 i-1 c-I r-I ci c-i
Ln V) V) V) V) V) V) V) to V) V) to V) tr) tn V) V)
V) Z5 U
ii U
O W w w T N N N N N N N N m m N
m Ln M I~ n n n n n n n n n 00 N L/1
M 00 M m Ln e-i m N Ln m ei m N w N N
~p N N M M cf m m w N 00 m m O V-1 N M
in in AA i/y iA. V} in V} V)- if)- in -4 e•-1 -4 a l
p to in iA -Lf -
H
r r` -i Ln
r I Ln 00
Ln Ln Ln Ln
ZJl i/}
Q V) V)
p
V) a Q)
L ~
v
C )C) a L_ O O O o O o o O O CD
M o) ~ v o 0 0 0 0 00 o 0 0
v oo L.6 r~ o 06 w o 0 0
tf1 O r, +..tn- r•i N m 't "I _n LD LD LD
r-4 0 V) -Ln V) V) V) V) V) t/? V)
N ~ V) U)
C cn o m r, Ln m m m M M m m m m M M
i N N O Ql Ql Q) Ql Ql LT Ol LT LT m Ol LT Ol D,
p v o N 00 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~-I V) tn- 'A N N N N N N N N N N N
O V) to V) V) V) to V) V) tn- V) to V)
(0 V}
C
v M o L.O Q1 Q1 Ql Q1 Q1 Ql L71 Q1 m a) m m Ql Ql
~t O 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Ln N M t\ n r\ t` r\ r r-~ n r\ n n r\ r~ r~
ai O V) V) -(a V) V) V) V) V) V) to V) V) to V)
Lj ~ O
l0
. o o O O O O o O O O O o O o O o
G1 LL 41 v Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
i+ U M m M M r o, M M M M M M M M M m
fC UO > rn r-4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rV
3 C N t V) C/) V) V) t/) V) V) t./) V) to V) V) to V) tn- -La
in Ln U
p L u
w_
t
M L
U 2 >Ln ~ U m
M L O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU Q a M ~ L LL -E L O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
O E C 04 N :zr lD 00 O N ch LD 00 O N LD 00 O v
R N r•I' c-I ri' i-i c-I (V N CV N fV M t6
? = C U O
G V n
F- u m p V)
CD
N
Ln
r-I
m
_ _ _ _
- - - M ro
GO 00 W Ln r~- m r1 M IC* w oo O r-I M oo q* i--1
01 N 111 00 lD M O~ R* N m w N 00 d o
ri r-I O O O ri N M M R* m Ln lD w Ct M
h i/} i/1- i/h 411. i/} -61- ~ i/1- i/1• i/} i/} a
i o
O Qo
M
00 N n ri m m m oo N w O Ln m q O m
U Lo fl~ c1 O r-I MR:T Lo r.% rn O r-I Cr r- m 111 ri r-~ M O 6 N 00 4 O L6 M Q1 6 CY N
E -Fu N M M tr Ln Ln lD W r", 00 00 rn o1 O ri N
O ire t 4.n t/} o n An in to V/ i/~ i/1. i/1• V/ - -c I r-I
~ 4J*I-
O F-
U
Ln Ln m
~ ~ N O
~ O th r-I N
O
a
L
r- O zt oo m r~ r-I m O t oo N O r-I 00 co co
u O O c I N Ct Ln r w O r-i r-4 Ln r- r- r- r-
i m 111 l0 N oo 4 O LD m rn Ln ri r-~ m lD ~D lD
C) O N -Ln r-I r-I N m m~* Ln lD lD r- r- r- r-
n F- Q th tn- -Ln -Ln tn- to th t/} t~ to to th t/} V/ -
-V~
a1
Z
Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln m m m Ln Ln m Ln Ln m m m
QJ dJ r~ r- r- r~ r r t\ r r~ r
r\ " an m m cri m m m m m m cr; m m m m m cri
i f0 r I r I r i r1 r-I ri rl r I r1 r I r-I r-I r-I r-i 1-1 -1
LD Q1 t!~ t1} th th trf tn- in th tf} -L} to t1} -Ln t/)- tnn ih
r~ U
O
N
E w r-i -1 r•i r-i r-i r-i r1 r-i r-I r-i r-i r1 r1 r-i r-i rH
O r i c I r 1 r~ r~ r~ r-I e I r i r i r~ r1 r-i r I c t r I
f6 Ln t/} th try i!~ to to to to to t/1- tn- th i/~ V)-
:3 U
U
O W N 00 4::T O lD N 00 tzr O lD N 00 CT O
111 M N O c1 00 lD Ln M N A rn oo tD 111 K*
m M O P. .4 O r. t7 ri 06 LA N 06 Ln N rn lD
N M M q* Ln Ln W r*% P. 00 01 rn O r-1 i-1 N
-tn 4n ih to i/} t/1• i/} -tn in to -Ln in I
O
H
a1
ry)
Ln
N m ~ ~
L r-1 ~ 0 ~1
O N ~ O
o 4,
c
Ln a m O lD N CO S O W N 00 lz* O lD N 00 ~t O
i O 00 rl Lr1 ::3- m r-I O 00 r- lD IZI- m r i O rn
U L O LD m O r- IZT 00 1I oo Ln N rn 6 N
3 U Q th r-I N N m Ct Cr Ln to LD r- 00 00 Cr) O
Q Ln V. r V)- t/} -Ln to tn- -L/ -L1} -Ln -L} -L/ -L} 41} ~
LA L
W aJ
i-+ E
OC E O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L O Ln m Ln Ln Ln Ln m m Ln Ln m m Ln m Ln m
U L- m m m m rn m m m m m LYi m m m m m
c0 O N N N N N N N N N (14 N N N N N N
j \ G) -C -L t/~ t!} t1} ih t!} t/} ilk t/} ih ih ih t!~ t/} t/} t/}
M v1 U
LO O
M 4
qzr T Ln
u v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
Q s L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O =
M W N-:t L D oo O N Ct W 0o O N E lD oo O
u u
_O O E O yi N c-I ri r-I r l r-I N N N N N m u
LLJ
u M:
m _ O 00 T
H u co m L/) -0
v
r6
L1
L
O
N
Lr)
r-I
m
ti -
m 41 N m m m w O M R* 00 N m m N w O M O c
u -
rn Ol M 1~ N w e--1 m r*~ 00 O ri N 4* LA N w u
? O N M u, tD 00 Q1 ~ 4 N c1 l0 M O ~ 4 a a
N N N N N N N N N T-1 ri r-I r -I V t/} sl _0
O U u to tn• Arh tn- t/?- tn- in in in in in- -kn in -kn ~ O
O 01 _ - -
O ~
M
ri ~ O
d
1~ ~D ~ N ri Ql 00 Q1 1~ In d' N ri Q1 1~ l0
v - O M l0 Q1 N ~i I~ N 00 O l~ N 1~ M Q1
QJ 120 L6 00 O N 111 r-~ Gl ui .4 00 In ri 00 4 -4 I.
E - N M t!1 w~ 00 m r-I M C' w 00 m e-1 M~
O t/ F t/) t!1 to th th r-1 r-I r-1 r-i r -I r-I N N N
tn- to vi- in to th tom. t/} -tn
O
U
Ln lz~r N r-i M r` lD Ct M ri
N r-I 'Ct O w r-i 1- m m L() r-I
N a, III N oo M* r-i 00 M*
r-I N Cr lD I- M r1 N -:zt
-Ln
0)
L
1 n O o0 I\ Ln 't N rI o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
O O N Ln oo r-i i r- r- r- r- r- ~ r- r- 1` ~
M L') rNi ai r I rri L-6 (-o (~6 to ~ ~6 L.6 (Lo l0
l% N O N r1 N mlzt w r- r- r- r- 1\ I\ ~ rl ~ r~
3 O -U' th t!)- t1} th -Ln if)- ill)- 'V} -L} -L ~ -L? -Ln tJ? th
-Ln
Q1 0J m M M M M m M m m M M m M M M m
to
4 4 4 4 4 4 d ~ ~ ~ ~ cr Ci ~ ~ cr
r-I > fD r-I ri r 1 r1 c -I c- I r-I c1 c t r-I r-I c I r1 c -I c I
l0 v to -Ln V)- to t/} to t/} t/- t/} t/} -L ~ th -L} t1} th -L'
r•I In U
O
N
c0
O t\ t\ t\ n
} r-I r•i r-I c1 c--I r-i a--I r-I c--I r-I a--I r-•I r-i r-I c--I c-~
O r-I r-I r I r-I c I c 1 r-I r-I r I r-I r-I r-I r I r-I r-I
t/} to tl} t/} t r/ t/} t/} to th t/}
N :3 U
LL U
a1 ri M In N c1 ri m Ln r%% m r-i M 1n r% m
Ql I~ Ct ri 00 tff M O I~ Cf' ri Q1 lD M O 1~
m lD O Cf 00 r-I Ln a; M lD O Cf P~ ri L6 Ql N
l0 I~ 00 O ri N In N 00 m r-i N M m
4- t./1• t/~ to in r-I r-I r-1 r•1 r-i r-I r♦ r-I N N N N
O in to th to tn- th th tn• to tn• -tn to
Ln al
_ N M
L O
O
C) tll
N
LO
C
O M O N ct l0 00 O N Ch w 00 O N Ct 110 m O
L O 1- IZT rl 00 w m O 1\ I:zj- N m w m O 00
a L MO m t\ ri 00 N l0 Ql M I- O I:t 00 N L(1
V U p c-1 N L-n w 00 m O N M 111 W 1- M O
C fQ - iO-(n tn t} th i} tn
! t/} ih il} -Ln th th il} V'1
W L
GC ~ rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn
CL) l~
L E V tjo U- al a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ al a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ a~ al a~
O i i lD lD l0 lD (,D 6 l0 l0 6 lD l0 6 6 lD lD l0
U tt qt ti
- ~ ~ t~} t~} t~} t~} t~ t~} t~} t~ tf~ t~~ t/~ th th t~} th t~~
Ln U a
c o 0
c>s V)
In t v) N U
M ; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w
m :E :3 45 L LL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =
Q. C N t 00 N Q0 O -zt 00 N W O cr 00 N w O U
Q a
N O E O r-i r-i N N N m m d T Ln Ln w u w
? cC U L =
two' -
F- U C~ m cn
L
M
Q
Q~
L
d
rH
0
N
Ln
c-I
m
N
m O O n W Ln LM I:zr M N oo m O O r-I N r\ 00 m o
to n r-I o0 LPL N m m w O M w m r- r-I Ln " 11
a) a r. M LT 4 O lD ri N 6 ri Lr rn M ri M -4 Q ~
L- L N N r-I r-I r-I th ih i/1 in r-i ri ci N N r-I V)- Q o
1O
m
N O
f6 ri lD ri N N ^ N 00 M 00 ~ Ql CT Ln O tf) ~
U - O 00 i~ m N v i m w w m m N L n M O
a m l0 N a1 Ln M O r-~ M O r. 4 ri 06 ri 14 r'I
E ~ ri Ln 0o N lD O M r- r-I 4* 00 N 111 O m a
C e-i ri ri r-4 N M M M R* 4 Cr Ln Ln LD w N
G O ih In -tn -Ln 41 i/1• i/} in i/1• ih in Ln i/1• ih tn•
O H
U
Ln 00 M co
ri co ~o m
N ~t
O N t\ N
O th tn- r-i
N
L
r- O L!') ri l.0 rl r- N t\ M 00 M 00 Ct lD lD l0
U O O 0o r- Ln ~ N ~ -i m co l.0 Ln M N LD LD (-D
:3 i M O QD M O r\ 4 ri r~ 4 r~ Do Ln N O O O
N Q) O Lr M r r1 co N Ln M m W O W W W
3 O ri c-i c-i N N N m m lzt Ct ~t
t/} -L F -Ln t/} t./} t/} -Ln tJ} t/} t/} i/} th in- t/}
N
Z
41 4J N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
lD ~l ri -1 rl r-q r-I e--I rl r-I ri r i r-1 r-I r-I ri ri
Ln U t/-j- t./} -Ln -La t/)- to t/} -Ln Q)- -La V'} •tn to t/)-
O
N
L- d d d
O t\ n t` t\ t\ t\ t\ t\ t\
m CU (3)
ELO
r-I rl ri r-I r-I c--I ri r1 r-I rl rl r-I ri ri r-I ci
O ~p ri c i c-I r-I ri c-I c I ri ri ri r i ri c I c i r I rl
t/} t/} th -LL t/}
V LLr) V)- -Ln to t./} t/} t/} t/1 ih -L ~ -L} 4,n
N =3 U
U
LL
- ~ O ~D N 00 Ct O lD N 00 ~ O lD N 00 ~
N CC Ln r\ oo O N M m LD oo O r-I M w
m oo 6 O ri N-4 Ln lD r-~ oo rn r4 N M d' 111
00 N N ri Ln rn M N ri Ln 01 ~ 00 N W O
4~ 41L r-I r-I N N N M M d' o:* d' Ln Ln La LD F,
O in -tn i/} ih i/1• V/ - to i/1• in •V} i/,- V'J- ih V/ V/ -
H
L(1 a1
N M a
Lin i W
0J
O
O
F
ai
E O
O M O lD N o0 t O lD N oo I~t O LO N oo -:4- O
L Ct O r i m zt lO 00 m ri N Ct LD t\ m O N 't
O O O c I N m Ct Ln l0 00 rn O 1-4 N m Ln lD ~
U U O co N lD O Kt 00 N ~ r-I Ln M M E ri
O Lr1 t/} th ri ri N N N M m ;I- Ct I:zj m L(1 LO
CA co t/} th t/} th -L ~ -Ln t/)- t/} •Ln -Ln t~ -Ln to -Ln
•L
L E V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
O G L- O0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 b.0 LL
M U i ro :3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
-I-- to to tn- to to to V} t/} t/} th t/ th to to t/} t/1
N Lr1 U 't3
'a
C 0 O
fC y... 0) ~
~D t ? vL O
M Ln v L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U
w
'O LL t L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =
Q L = 0 I~ N N K:J• I'D 00 O N :t w 00 O N W 00 O
u u
w
O C G O U U r I N M ~t lD t\ 00 lT O r-I r-I c I r1 0000
O c
.Q _ c O 0
I-- U co m Ln -o
v
sz
v
a
CD
N
Ln
1-1
M
~m
m aJ O I~ Ql e-1 ct w 00 O N m r♦ M L n ^ m r-I M o c
H N N O Ql 1~ M N O Lf) 07 N 111 00 r-I L11 00 LL
a ri 6 G1 N LA 06 ri 4 06 M P~ ri LD O 4 a a~
L lD m R:T M M N ri e-1 ri N C7 Ln r- 00 O ri 4
C v i/1 cn to in in to in th if)- to •cn to in in tin 4-4 E 0
O p
M
CD
_ IZT
c* w 0o ri M Ln r~ G) lD oo O N tzr tD oo o ri
U M 1l% r -1 lD Olqr w N-zl* M M N e-I O m m
a, m M 4 LD r% (3i O ri M 111 06 ri 4 r-~ O N Ln
[t O lD N 00 111 ri 1~ N ri m N lD C7 N
41 M t11 to lD 1~ I~ 00 G1 O O ri N M
E O ih in ih th (/1 t/1• in to -tn •cn r1 ri r-i ri r-I r-I
O F- Vl- in to ih i/1 in
U
Ln LD co O N w w O
N r-1 IZ3- m m N r i 0 m m
I~t 1-4 Ch r~ O M (.fl 00 r-i
QJ O E N O Ol I~ Lf1 m N
f- t./)- th ~ ih ih vv tn~ t/}
V)-
a1
L
r- O N Ct r m c i m Ln LD LD l0 LD LD W LO LD
U O O zzf 00 N LD ri Ln M LD LD LD W LD Q0 LD LD
L L m o r i N.4 LI; r; 06 Q; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a) O Lr to N w ~zt O LO N L0 (-D w w LD LO w w
N
n ri ri N m m ~ Izj- It I:t Ct IZZJ- IZT Ct
to {h try t>} tnn -Ln in to ih to tl> -L ~ th to tJ~
a~
Z
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 Q1 LO LO LO Q0 LD LD LD W LD LD LD LD LD LD LO Q0
r-i r-i c I r1 r-i ri r1 r1 c- I r1 r-i c I r1 r-i ri c1
L m m m m m rn m m M m m m m m M m
aJ m M m rrn M m M rn m M M M M M m m
ri Ln U th tJ) to th th t/~ t/~ to t/)- -L ~ V/ tn- -Ln to
0
N
f0 C)
aJ n t\ n
E r-I c i c I r-I c-I r I r-I c -I c-~ r I r i r-I c1 r•I r-I
O r-I ri ri c-I ri c- I r I c i c~ c I r-I r I c-i r-I r I
7i t/~ t/ in tJ~ to tr> th to -(n to -(n th i/)- -Ln 4_f), -Ln
N Z3 U
U
LL
n^ n n n n n n N N P% N N n
O l0 N 00 R' O w N 00 Ct O w N 00 R• O
m N O G, r,: 6 ui M N O rn oo lD 111 M N ri
00 Ln ri w Ln N m w m m LD M O r. q* ri
N M R• Ln LO w f- 00 00 G1 O r-I r-I N M
O in in in in to in in in in to in ri ri r-I ri ri
F- ih •cn to in to
Lmn a, o
O O
C
N D th
~
L ~C
O m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L C? O LO N CO :I- O LD N 00 lzl- O LO N 00 Cr• O
a O L 00 oo r- Ln -4 M r-i O oo r-~ LO 4 M ri O rn
O U U O O LO m Or- r-1 00 IZZJ- ri w m N m LD N
Q Ln t1~ ri N N M d Lr) lD lfl r- 00 00 rn O
N f0 i/} -Ln -L t1} t/} -Ln -(n -kn to t/)- th to V/ - th
L u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
to UL . .
4) i
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U i fL5 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
J-- U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
t11 t!} th t/1 t1} to th t1) th
a Ln U i!F th in to -Ln t/} t/)-
C LO O
In t T v► v
M en u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u
w
C t L O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =
C
Q a LL
L o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 U
O c O N CF w 00 O N r• LO 00 O N d w O v w
U
C r-I r-I c-i r-I r-I N N N N N N M L =
fC ~ - 0
U m m Ln
Q1
L
m
CL
v
L
CL
CD
N
Ln
,--I
m
76
c
7
Q1
_ _ _ _ N N O
m 01 N P G1 N to M O I~ V N d1 lD ~ r-I 00 lD M Ln o
f>3 M O lD r%% ri q* oo N Ln m m r- O 9* w
m n
A ~ l0
N P% O M Ln ri Q1 lD M ri 00 LA M O 00 Ll1 N °
i L N N r-I -Ln i/} ih r-I N M M qczr Ln tD (m r• 00 mi
pO y to in i1} i!} V~- in iJ} -kn Vv i/} ih Vv -Ln - CD
0 -
N
r-I 00 lD c' r-I O n 111 N O 00 m m r1 00 lD
C _
p ~ O O r-I N M M d' Ln tD N 1l% 00 Ql O O r-I
lD O -4 00 N L6 O -4 06 N lD O -4 01 M N"
-Fu T-1 lD O Cf 01 M 00 N lD r-I 11'1 O cP 00 M r-
4-1 r1 r-I N N N M M CF qzr 111 Ln W lD lD I- r-
0 V1 - i1} _Ln i/} i/1• in n 4/1• i/1• i./) l/1_ 4/1• ih 4/1• i/1• 411-
0 ~
Izzr oo Ln M ri Cr) LD ~t N rn n Lr1 N O 00 l0
CY) a O r-A N M Mq~t Lf1 l0 W f- 00 Ql O O r-i
4J N O 4 00 N l0 Ozf 00 N l0 O-4 00 M r r1
L O 00 M A N l0 O 111 m-zl- w N r- r1 w
O i/} -Ln r1 r-i N N M m m t Ln Ln l0 l0
inn t/1n V)- tn- vv -Ln
O
N N N N N N N N N (N N N N N N N
lD i m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
r1 QJ = c-i r-i ri c--I r-i r-I r-I r-I r-I r A r-I r-I r i r-I r l r-I
O cn U t/n i/)- t/n i/)- 4/n -Ln -Ln t/h -(n t/)- in t/} to t/)- -(n -L ~
N
L ~t ct ~t d It It
t\ t\ t\ r- I` r- t\ t\ t\ t\
} E w .
O r-I r-i r-I c-1 c--I r-I r-I r1 r-I r-I c-I rl r-I rl r-I r-I
+ M r1 r-I c-i r1 r i r-I rl r1 r-I r-i -1 r-i a i r1 r I c-I
U 4,7 to -L7 i/)- tn- inn -Ln to 4j-j- t/)- 4_r)- -L- 4.n i/)- t/1- ih
ii U
m Ct m Ct a1 R' m Ct a1 d' (n ICT rn 'cl, 0)
N lD ei 111 O qt 01 M oo r,4 ~ rt lD O 111 Cl
m Oo Q1 ri N d' LA lD Oo 01 r4 N 4 111 I. Oo Ql
Oo M Q1 Q1 R* 01 R* Q1 Ln O Ln O 111 O Ln
4~ 4^ r1 .-I N N M M4:* [t M W W 1% N 00 00
O -Ln to in in -tn In in n to t/h ih to if)- to ih
H
m
Lr1 a' a
N M
L L O a
r-I QJ O 01
O 4.
i N O
E C
L- m o M O M O Ln O Ln CD Ln O L(1 O M 0 M
c~i~ L -;t O -zt m m W N n ri l0 O Ln M CY 00 m I\
M O r-I N 14 LIl ~ 00 O r-i m 4 M* r-, 00 O rl
V U QJ O O Ln O L(1 O 111 O l0 r1 l0 r1 l0 r1 l0 N r
N O~ tn- r-I c-I N N m M~ m Ln l0 l0 I- r-
p tn- in- -Ln tn- i/)- tn- in t/~ tn- 4.n vv i!} tn- tnn vi
O O
M
U a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
+j of L Oo 00 Oo 00 00 Oo 00 00 00 Oo 00 06 Oo 00 Oo Oo
m C L 00 00 00 00 00 co co 00 co co 00 00 co co co 00
- U t/1 in to t/~ in th in- -(n in in -Ln -Ln tn- t/> tn- i~
U
N
C ~ O
m 0)
M N u + O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Lu
Q `0- cEc = O LL ~ N r~-I OM Ct l00 I- Q01 O ON M Ln w 00 Ql ~ N
O) O G COO m u r-I ri r-I r1 r1 rl r1 N N u
O
H U co m V v
w
2
..O
v
ro
Q
v
a
lD
I-i
0
N
Lf)
c-I
m
c
m 0J a) n 00 C) r-i c,4 r%% LO m CF N a--I O m 00 r,% Ln S o
N Cl LO r-I ri 1~ O M LO Q) ri d' ^ O :5
U
T aJ r-4 00 l,0 A N O N ~ C) r4 M lD oo O M C3 1D
0) V LO 4:T M N H in r-I N M Ct W n 00 cn ri N ~
O U in in in i/} to " '(n in ~ AA In V/- in tn H ~ CD
~ - ~ O LD M Q1 LA e--I 1~ M O l0 N 00 ~ O I~
0 m M w N N e-I w rl Ln o Ln m cr w m w N
4-1 M lO O M r\ O 4 r-~ ri cr r~ ri 4 06 .4 Ln
O -:i ri C) lO m r-I oo Ln m O r,% Ln r4 in P~ q
M Ct C7 Ln LO N r\ oo Q1 O O ri r4 N M Ct
t/~ in- in in ih to An in in ri ri I 1 r-I ri rl
an
O in in 4/1- i/} t/} i./} in-
lD N a, Ln rj r- M m lD N 00 d' O lD M
rn a t o, M oo M r-~ N lD rI l0 O Ln O rn
aj --I N O M (.D O r o, O 4 r, ~ d 00 4 Ln 06 ri
O I` d' N m w:zj- r-i w w m O 00 Ln N O
:3 LU
40 O t/)- r-i N N Mlz:J- M M ~D r- o0 W M O-1
U try -Ul c -I r1
in-
i
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
a) v bn to lD LD w (D w lD lD lD lD lD w lD w lD lD
r-I
tD Z i (Z M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
r-1 (L) -I-- M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
O Ln U 4_f)- t/} 4,n -Ln 4.n t/)- t/? -Ln t!} tn- -Ln t/} ih t/j- -Ln
N
i Ct CI ct Cf ~t
E on
_ O i- r-I r-i c-I c--I c-I c--I r-I e--I r-I r-I r-I ri r-I r-1 r-I r-I
0 r-I c I r I r1 r I r1 r I c I r I c I r 1 c I r I c I r i ri
vVi Ln U -L ~ t/} -Ln -L ~ ih t/} to tn- t/} t/)- tln t/? to tn-
ji u
1~ N ^ N n N N N ^ N N N N N N N
O oo Ln M O oo Ln M O oo Ln M O oo Ln M
co N A M C, Ln O LO N 06 M C) LA 1.4 lO N 00
00 W Ln M N ri rn 00 W Ln M N e-1 m w w
N M 1* LM (0 N N 00 C) O ri N M MR:Zr Ln
0 in in in i/} in in in in -Ln e-I r-I a-I ri r-I ri r-1
L n M 01
Ln O
N O Q Q)
r1 L ~ L vi
i. N s;
E
° M Q) Ln CD Ln O Ln O Ln CD Ln CD Ln O Ln CD Ln
Leif L ~t O r- m N O r- Ln r,4 O N Ln N O S Ln N
j 0 0 Ln r4 I~ M 00 l' O l0 r-I tl M Ol li O lD
3 O o0 n Ln d N r-I O o0 r\ Ln I;T N r-i O o0
L O Ln i./} r l N M I Ln W lD N w m O r1 N N
-Ln t/} -Ln V-)- -Ln -Lt to t!} to
OJ -Ln tn- try th
f0
i u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w LL
of > L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
m 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
- t U N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Ln U i./} t/} th tn- tr to t/} t/} t/~ th t/l th t!} i./} t/)- t/}
C LO O
cc a)
rn s u N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U
Lp) M 0 L- L LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w
Q `0" CEC 0 ~ N N Ln I, O N Ln I, O N Ln I, O N Ln I,
O O C O U u r I r{ r i N N N N m m m m L~j
0
F°- U co m L" v
w
S
.Q
v
ro
0-
v
o_
O
N
iri
c-1
m
76
c
LL
0
C
- O
m d1 wl:zr c) r, m m Lm ri w 4* O w N m Ln r-i lD
cn Ct1 Q1 M 00 N n N lD ri tD O Lf) G1 Cif + rn
M GJ ri O 00 i~ Ln 4 N ri Q1 06 tD Ln M ri O 00 a oD
ri r4 M q Ln l0 w n 00 m O ri N N °
-Y = V V ih ih in in ih i--1 e-1 ri r-I ~
0 p Q t/} in in in
a C
c
- 00 00 00 Ql C31 01 C) 0) 0 o O C) O r-I ri r-I
p m M N ri O m w^ n LD m%*M N r-1 O
m ri i- M m RZT O 6 N 00 4 O lD N 06 4
rC N lD in M LD O lit N ri Cf 00 N Ln rn N lD
dA 0 vi i/} i/i- ri r-1 N N N M M M -ci 1* d" in Ln
L F- in i/1• in in in ih in i~ in in in i/} An
rn O O 1"1 C~ ri r-I r-i N N N N N m M M
d a rn 00 I- LD Lrn ct' m N ri O a, oo r` lfl Lf )
L- i Ln c-I 1-~ r y,)* Ln c I r-~ r o' O lD N 00
a, O M I- O 't r- r-i Ln 00 N Ln M M lD O M
F- O t/} i/} ri ri r~ N N N M M M~Zj- Cr M M
U t1'} i./} t/} t!} th t/~ ih vi Q-J- V)- ih i!} -L ~
p
L
~ Lf1 Lfl Lll L!1 Lrl Lf1 Lf1 LI1 L11 Lf1 Lf1 Lll Ll1 Lll L11 L!1
m m m m m m ro rvi m m m m m m m m
Z ri ri ri r-1 ri r-+ ri ri r-i ri r-1 ri ri ri ri ri
N cOJi U to tl} try to t1} to try t/} try tf~ th t/} V)- VII t/)- to
L
U ° ri r-+ ri t-i ri ri ri r1 r-I ri ri ri ri ri ri
n r-1
Ln tn- i.~ t~ to i/~ to tr~ t~ try ih th th t/-)- ir,, th
Lj- m U
U
Y = O 00 N LD O 00 N lD O 00 N lD O
G) Li CSC M 00 N^ ri Li O~ C l M 1* N lD ri
c m
Q_ M O 00 LA M O 00 t1'1 M O N LA N O N LA
C i N Ln N O M w co ri t* F, in N Ln co O M
i/} i/} i/} ri ri r-I r-I N N N N M M M d
Q in i!F ih in th in t!1 i/} in in ih ih in
L
ai
E M
p m O
44 r"J Ln O v
U .i (D O
c N ~ ~ ~
p
4
c
M O Ct 00 N lD O Tt 00 N lD Olzt 00 N W O
i L 'ZT O 'Ct' 00 M 1- N LD O Ln m -;:j- 00 N r\ -1 lD
L i M O r--~ 4 N m ~ 4 N Ql LD 4 r-i al t.6 4 r4
L U N O O N Lr1 00 O M lD M r l l" I\ O N Ln 0o ri
N Q Lr) -Ln -Ln ih r-i r-i ri r-1 N N N m m m m Cr
a~~ (C 4n 4r1 V)- t/)- to tf~ t/} -Ln t/)- ilh tl} tf} th
f0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
L' Ll1 Ln Lfl Lf 1 Ln M Ln M M m m m m m Ln m
U b) .A LL
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
~ i m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
p cn - t/} -Ln ilk ih VI -Ln i.r} to to -Ln -tn -Ln to -Ln t/"F th
CL m o
m p
~
o t Li
L' +3 v0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O w
=
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C S LL L
Q Q Q1
y- C N 00 to zt N O 00 lfl -:zr N O CO lD ZT N O
G1 p E p p ~ ri N M Ct' B M W t\ W 00 M O r-i N a)
ri c-I ci
> - j V U
u D
o
F- U CO m cn
U
w
2
T
.fl
v
L
Q
N
L
d
CD
N
Ln
-i
M
C
LL
4I
O
m O1 41 00 M 00 M 00 M 00 M N n ri LO r♦ lO .-1 w _ m
'a' N N Ct ~ ~ N Q1 f~ d' N O N Ll1 f~ O N ll'1 I~ ~
M N 111 ri ri ri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r1 ri 114 ri a o
r L U - - -
O O
m
4-
c = 00 m O ri N M Ch m lO 1l% m O r-I N M C1'
O m CF O n M (31 111 ri r` M m Ln N w R* O lO
111 N 00 m e-1 00 111 rl 00 Cr ri 06 Ct ri 00 ct
6 N M M Cr 111 m w rl~ P~ 00 m m m ri ri N
in V)- IA in i/1• ih ~ -Ln in tn qjl- t/1• ri r-I r-I ri
O i/} i/1-
•L F-
ri r-4 m CF Ln lD 1- oO rn O r-i N ~t Lf1 lD
r-I m O O N 00 I;zi O w N 00 It I-i n M rn Ln r-i
L- L M l.0 M Ql lD m m lD N o1 lD N o1 ur N c7
O Q) O t/} r--l r1 N m m Ct Ln m lD 1- 1\ 00 m m
u j= O t/} in t/)- t/)- tn- t/)- to t/} to th t/)- -Ln t/)- to
u in
L
r'1 v Q1 Ln m m m Ln Ln Ln m m Ln Ln m m Ln Ln m
M m m m m M m M M m m m m m m M
r-I c I c-i r1 r-I i c- I i -I l t ri l~
i tU c -I r-i r-I r-i
N Z to U -La -Ln in -(n t/? to t/)- t/} to t/)- to t/} to t/> to t/)-
L
~ ~ ~ r-I ri c--I c-{ r-I r-I ri r-I r-I r-I ~ r-I r-I r-i r-1 r-I
(6 r i c-I r1 r i c-i r-i r-I r I r-I r-I r1 r-I r-I r1
Ln tr} to t/~ t/} t/ t/~ 4-a t/k to to -La -Ln t/} t/~- to tn
LL : U
U
~ - O lO N 00 Ch O lO N 00 ~ O ~O N 00 Ct O
m O M N O m 00 lO 111 M N ri m 00 lO m CC
d O O 1~ O I~ Ct r-i 00 u1 N 00 11'1 N al L6
m i/1 M M Cf t11 111 w f~ r%% 00 m m O r-I V-1 N
O ~ i!1• i/'1• i!1- n -Ln i/1- 4^ i/1- i/1• 4.n 411- T-4 7-4 tI in r-I
L
G1
E
~ ~ N M a
O ri ~
U O N
C N
O
m o lD N 00 lzt O W rv 00 ~r O W N oO "t o
oo r- Ln ~t M r-i O o0 r- w ct m -I O m
m o (~6 m o 4 14 00 ° ri oo Lri r~ 0; t.6 ri
N L U O tn r1 N N M Ct Cr m lD lD 1l 00 00 m O
O O Ln t11 to to t/} V'~ to t/} in -Ln t/} to t/} th r1
01 4-0 t/1 t/}
m
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(1) cu O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
i'
GJ U LL
O M m m M M m m M m m m M m m M
i t/} N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
U t~ in -L ~ to t/} to _Ln in irk to tn- i)~ tn~ V)- t/?
a cn U
= 0 0
- 4-
r- 4a a V)
U ()J 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C L LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L Q w
Q y. O 4J W N W 00 O N Cr W 00 O N Cr lD o0 O
O E O 3 N r-I r-I r i r-i r1 N N N N N M u
m u Y u
O p o
H U Co m cn
U
w
2
T
N
r6
S1
tll
d
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
November 16, 2015, Study Session
Water Rate Cost of Services Study
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Director. Public Works Department, faughtm@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Staff is seeking Council direction on the proposed modifications as outlined in the Hanfford Economic
Consulting (HEC) draft water cost of service study. While the study recommends rate increases
consistent with the adopted 2012 Water Master Plan, the study also proposes rate structure
modifications to customer classes, based on the American Water Works Association M1 rate setting
manual, that will increase costs for Talent Irrigation District (TID) and municipal irrigation users while
reducing costs for commercial, residential and industrial customers.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The purpose of a cost of service study is to ensure that the water utility is accurately allocating the
functionalized costs, expenses, assets and discounts offered for conservation measures of the water
system to various customer classes (single-family residential, multi-family residential, commercial and
irrigation) equitably. To that end, the City contracted with Hanford Economic Consulting to conduct a
cost of service study (http•//w,,vw ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=16271).
The study found that commercial, residential and institutional customers are currently paying more
than their proportional share while the TID, municipal irrigation and to a small degree fire guards are
paying less than their share of the water system costs (see figure 1 below).
Page 1 of 4
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
City of Ashland. Oregon / City Council
City Council - Minutes View Agenda
Monday, November 16, 2015
MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
Monday, November 16, 2015
Council Chambers
1175 E Main Street
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. in the Civic Center
Council Chambers.
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Seffinger, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal
arrived at 5:33 p.m. Councilor Lemhouse was absent.
1. Public Input
David Wick/2560 Eagle Creek Lane/Spoke as the director of the Culture of
Peace Commission and explained the Commission was interested in the
downtown behavior issue and wanted to get involved. The Commission also
wanted to identify existing culture of peace contributors in the community,
develop non-violent communication and other practices for Ashland schools, and
establish an Ashland World Peace Frame monument.
Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Submitted a report into the record on the
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) Climate Summit held in October
and highlighted actions on each of the eight breakout sessions.
2. Look Ahead review
City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead.
3. Water rate cost of services study
Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Catherine Hansford from Hansford
Economic Consulting who provided a presentation highlighting points from the
Water Cost of Service and Rates study she conducted:
Purpose of study
• Make sure there was sufficient money to operate the water system
• Mare sure allocated costs were equitable for all customer classes
• Establish an appropriate rate schedule through 2022
• The study was Not a water master plan update
Study Methodology - using principles established by the American Water Works
Association (AWWA)
M1 Manual "Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges"
• Step 1: Revenue Requirement Analysis
• Step 2: Cost of Service
• Step 3: Allocation of Costs and Revenue Requirement to Customer
Classes
http:/&vww.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6168&Display=Minutes&Print=True 1/6
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
• Step 4: Rate design
Cost of Service Finding Table
Some customer classes paid more than they would under the cost of service
while other customers paid less. Ms. Hansford noted numbers in the slide were
different from the report. Commercial paid more this year than they would under
allocated cost of service. Municipal irrigation customers paid approximately
$96,000 less.
Why change the rate structure?
• Ensure all customers are paying their fair share of system costs
• Provide better incentive for water conservation
• Reflect current fire code, sprinkles for structures no 1" meters
Note: Differential costs by pumping zone was evaluated and is not
recommended
Use Charges - Usage Patterns Table
• Should be based on customer use patterns and be structured to encourage
water use efficiency
Residential and Irrigation customers peaked in the summer months. The
proposed rate design would encourage water conservation. Institutional
customers had a steady water usage.
Revenue by Tier for Non-Residential
Current Tier 1 Tier 2
Commercial 99% 1%
Institutional 40% 60%
Irrigation 85% 15%
Proposed Tier 1 - < 2" Tier 2 - < 2" Tier 1 - 2+"
Tier 2-2+"
Commercial 61% 39% 65%
35%
The proposal in the report would make cost rates equitable and split Commercial
into two groups, one with less than 2-inch meters and 2-inch meters or greater.
Why continue the rate increases identified in the Water Master Plan and
through 2022?
• Complete projects identified in the 2012 Water Master Plan. Revenues are
down as the City has been in drought; water demands did not increase as
projected by the 2012 Water Master Plan. Consequences: Less revenue
than anticipated and greater expenditure earlier than expected to complete
the TAP project to augment supplies
• Continue to provide for timely maintenance of existing facilities and
continue a serve for emergencies, lower revenues from drought, and
hffp-.//www.as hl and.or. us/Agendas.asp?AMID= 6168&D i spl ay=Minutes&Pr i nt=True 2/6
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
possible future environmental standards
Note: New Water Plant and Crowson II Reservoir SRF Funding at 2% interest in
Model
Proposed Changes Flat Charges - split into Customer Charge per account and
Service Charge per meter
2015 2016
Use Charges: $28.22 $28.71
Service Charge: $23.50 $25.44 ($13.72 Service Charge and
$11.71 Customer Charge)
Note: AWWA ratios 1" meters set equal to a 3/4" meter so that households
upsized for fire code requirement are not penalized
Council could decide to base everything on the size of the meter. Currently
residential, commercial, or institutional irrigation services received a flat charge.
This deviated from the AWWA's methodology where all services incurred a
service charge paid monthly because the customer could use that water any time
during the year. This did not include Talent Irrigation District (TID) water.
Proposed Changes - Use Charges
• Residential Irrigation Use Added to Domestic Use
• Commercial <2" Meters - 2 Tiers all year <2,500 Cu. ft. and >2,500 Cu. ft.
• Commercial 2" + Meters - 2 Tiers all year, <15,000 Cu. ft. and >15,000 Cu.
ft.
• Institutional - 1 Tier all year
• Commercial and Institutional Irrigation - Off peak (Oct-May) and On-Peak
Rates (June-Sept) charged every month
Only 5% of all irrigation meters were residential. Currently the irrigation side was
a flat fee and a customer could use water out of both accounts. The study
proposed running the total amount of water through one account using tiers.
Water Quality Supervisor Steve Walker explained a Fire Guard was a fire line that
fed a fire suppression system with a meter in a bypass that served more for leak
detection. In the event of a fire, the device swung open and supplied the water
system. The City did not meter fire events. He went on to explain 1-5 in the
report indicated sewer meters from the port of entry.
Cost of Service FY 2015-16
• Current Rates (2015)
o Unmetered $170.01 per acre
o Metered $0.0055 per cu. ft.
• Calculated Rates (2015)
o Unmetered $504.26 per acre
hftp:/AAtww.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM I D= 6168&D is pl ay= M i nutes&Pr i nt=True 3/6
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
o Metered $0.0051 per cu. ft.
• Proposed Rates (2016)
o Unmetered $208.34 per acre
Metered $0.0052 per cu. ft.
TID Cost Detail FY 2015-16:
Contracted Water Total Cost TID Share TID
Cost
• Acre Feet of Water $37,412
73% $27,320
• City Properties (Imperatrice) $9,042 73%
$6,600
• Wheeling Charge/Admin $12,500
73% $9,130
City Maintenance Costs $52,799
73% $38,560
Canal Depreciation
• Cost to Pipe the Ditch $1,410,000 (Starlite to Terrace)
• Est. Cost to Pipe All Ditch $2,820,000
• Useful Life of Pipe (years) 60
• Est. Annual Depreciation $47,000
• TID Customer Share 56%
• TID Canal Depreciation $26,320 73%
$19,220 (769/1369 ac ft)
TID Staffing/Materials Costs $22,800 100%
$22,800
471 hours of staff time at an average rate of $48.41 (including benefits)
TOTAL: $1237630
Mr. Faught clarified they updated the chart to base the billing on drought years
and took off the million gallons per day required for Ashland Creek. Staff was not
comfortable increasing TID rates from $170 to $504. It could result in customers
dropping out of the TID service and the City would have to pay the difference.
They recommended gradually increasing to $400 instead.
Mr. Walker addressed Tables 8-11 in the report and explained the significant
increase that year was due to several expensive repairs the City had to make to
the system.
Summary of Impacts
• Residential - graph
• Commercial - mostly decrease in bills in 2016; larger portion of bills in flat
charges for customers with larger meter sizes
• Institutional - decrease in bills in 2016
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM ID=6168&Display=Minutes&Print=True 4/6
3/30/2016 city of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
• Irrigation - increase during summer and winter if no usage
• TID Irrigation gradual increase from $170.01 to $400 by 2021-2022
Council recognized the need to increase TID but was not comfortable raising TID
rates to $504 or $400.
They requested a comparison of City water prices per cubic foot and TID water
rates. Some were interested in raising the rate to $250, increasing rates 5%
annually for three years and monitoring results or starting at $250 and possibly
moving up to $400. Staff would bring back information on the affect of raising TID
rates from current costs to $250 then up to $400. They would all provide
information on how those increases changed the subsidies.
City Attorney Dave Lohman noted recent incidents with City boards,
commissions, and committees involving commission members and council
liaisons that came close to harassment of City employees and could create a
hostile work environment. These incidents had potential legal consequences for
the City and the individuals involved. If an employee decided to sue an individual
for harassment and the individual lost, the City would not cover their costs due to
them acting outside their authority. Additionally, commissioners could not speak
on behalf of a client at commission meetings where they were a member.
Council liaisons represented the full City Council and should not attempt to direct,
debate, lobby, or influence the decisions of any advisory body to which they were
assigned. However, a councilor could attend a commission meeting and speak
as a citizen after stating they were speaking for themselves. Mr. Lohman went on
to address conflicts of interest and explained state law defines a conflict when
there was a financial benefit or detriment to the commissioner or councilor
involved or their relative or a close business relationship. The City had a
requirement over and above state law that if there was potential a councilor or
commissioner's independent judgment could be impaired, they needed to
disclose that or recuse themselves if they were unable to make a fair decision.
Councilor Voisin left the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
4. Continued discussion of downtown behavior issues and additional
approaches
City Administrator Dave Kanner suggested Council prioritize or narrow down the
list they directed staff to review at the November 2, 2015 regarding downtown
behavior issues.
Councilor Seffinger agreed and suggested three priority items that included legal
staff looking at an aggressive panhandling ordinance, coordinating with
community groups to develop educational programs to help individuals in need
and have Council look at options to increase funding law enforcement with
downtown safety as a priority and the possible use of cadets.
Council preferred addressing the entire list over a period of time, identifying other
organizations that could take on some of the items listed and involving the
League of Oregon Cities to determine what the City could or could not enforce.
Council suggested involving Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA)
http://www. ashl and.or. us/Agendas. asp?AM I D= 6168&D is pl ay=Minutes&Pri nt=True 5/6
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
and the Culture of Peace Commission. One suggestion would have two
uniformed officers downtown six days a week during the tourist season. Another
comment added maintenance and damage done to public restrooms in City parks
and cleaning up campsites to the list.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Dana Smith
Assistant to the City Recorder
PRINT CLOSE
http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM ID=6168&D isplay=Minutes&Pri nt=True 6/6
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
February 16, 2016, Business Meeting
Continued discussion of water rate options
FROM:
Michael R. Faught, Director, Public Works Department, faughtm@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The Council received a Water Rate Cost of Services Study at its November 16, 2015, study session and
raised numerous questions that will be addressed at this business meeting. Questions included:
impacts on city-wide rates if charges to Talent Irrigation District irrigation customers are capped;
definition of municipal customers; comparisons of potable and non-potable (TID) residential irrigation
costs; large water user impacts; further explanation of what's included in base rates; and the rationale
for proposing two base rates.
Additional modifications and adjustments were made based on recent news that the city would not be
eligible to receive loans at I% terms for the new water treatment plant and the Crowson 11
reservoir. In order to meet the projected increase in annual debt service, $1.5 million in distribution
system capital projects were moved out beyond 2022.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At the November 16, 2015, Council study session, staff presented the Hansford Economic Consulting
(HEC) Draft Water Rate Cost of Services Study. Council requested the consultant provide additional
information in the following six areas:
1 Non-potable water customer rates; determine impacts if TID rates did not exceed $250
2 Clarification of municipal customers and potable versus non-potable customers
3 Comparison of residential potable and non-potable irrigation bills
4 Impacts of new rates on large water users
5 Definition of what is included in base rates
6 Structure of base rates
In addition to the modifications resulting from Council feedback, staff learned the City would not
receive 1 % loan rates on the new water treatment plant (called for the 2012 Water Master Plan) and the
Crowson II reservoir project. The water plant will be eligible for a 2.14% loan but the Crowson 11
reservoir project will likely be around 3.57%. The additional debt service costs related to increased
interest rates would have resulted in a higher rate increase, so staff directed the consultant to move an
additional $1.5 million of capital projects beyond 2022.
The consultant has completed work requested by the City Council (see attached HEC Technical
Memorandum) and will present those findings for additional feedback. A summary of the findings is
as follows:
Page 1 of 3
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
I In order to achieve the goal of capping monthly TID user rates to $250, proposed non-potable
('TID) water customer rates are reduced from $.0055 to $.0022 per cubic foot on the metered
accounts and the fixed TID user costs increase to $250 over the next six years. This was
accomplished by re-allocating some of the city maintenance costs, the contract cost for the TID
water, and canal depreciation to potable water customers. These additional costs to the potable
water customers could be justified due to the fact that the TID water system is in place as an
alternate drinking water source for the entire community (as referenced in Table A 10). In
addition that section of Lithia Park that uses TID water was incorrectly allocated in the draft
study to the potable water accounts and this update corrects that error.
Current 7/1/2016 7/1/2017 7/1/2018 7/1/2019 7/1/2020 7/1/2021
Metered $0.0055 $0.0022 $0.0023 $0.0024 $0.0025 $0.0026 $0.0026
Rate per
Cu. Ft.
Unmetered $170.01 $183.11 $196.20 $209.30 $222.40 $235.50 $248.59
Rate per
Acre
Impacts to this adjustment are as follows:
Figure 1
Comparison of Cost of Service Results
- - Non-Potable
Non-Potable Metered, ` Non Potable Unmetered, $80,474
($12,102) Unmetered, $5,735
Non-Potable Metered,
($34,988)
Potable Irrigation,
$93,837
10-Nov-15
Potable Irrigation,
■ 21-Jan-16 Fire Guards, $5,834 $99,755
Fire Guards, $6,274
Insitutional, ($9,793)
Commercial, Insitutional, ($5,352)
($126,988)
Commercial, r
($113,535) Residential, ($31,262)
- Residential, $42,111
($150,000) ($100,000) ($50,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000
2 As suggested by the Council, the term municipal water accounts has been adjusted to reflect
governmental accounts only.
Page 2 of 3
LITAL111
CITY OF
ASHLAND
3 As requested by the Council, the consultant provided a table comparing potable irrigation costs
to TID irrigation costs. Based on the updated TID user fees, potable water users will pay $352
per year more than TID users. (See table A in the technical memo.)
4 Council also requested additional data on impacts to proposed water rates to the large water
users. Table B demonstrates a 16% increase to one large user as an example. Other impacts to
governmental agencies are as follows:
• Ashland School District (Table C) 19%
• Parks and Recreations ('table C) 19%
• SOU (Table E) (40/Q)
5 The consultant provided a definition of what is included in the base rates (see Table A-14 in the
updated cost of service study). "The base fee covers the cost to maintain the system regardless of
the amount of water sold. Base rate costs includes customer service (the costs associated with
utility billing and other central services) meter and service costs (fleet maintenance, fuel,
equipment replacement, tools, etc.) and capacity costs (portion of infrastructure costs, capital
outlay and debt service).
6 The consultant provided additional information on the reasoning for recommending the city
incorporate two base charges. For a true cost of service it is more equitable to charge a single
customer charge per account regardless of the number of meters because as stated in the answer
to number 5 above, the customer charge and the base charge serve different functions.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
• Complete a detailed water cost of service study at an estimated cost of $50,000.
• Monitor and adjust the 2012 water master plan planning, management and financial plan
assumptions.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications to report as this study recommends rate increases consistent with the
adopted water master plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Updated HEC Draft Water Rate Cost of Services Study
2. HEC Technical Memorandum
3. November 16, 2015 Council Communication
4. November 16, 2015 Study Session Minutes
Pa e3of3
~r,
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
City of Ashland, Oregon / City Council
City Council - Minutes View Agenda
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
February 16, 2016
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 was accepting applications for annual
appointments to the various Commissions and Committees. The deadline for
applications was March 18, 2016.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of February 1, 2016, and the Executive
Session of February 1, 2016 were approved as presented. The Business
Meeting of February 2, 2016 was approved with the following amendments: page
3 should note that Mark Weir is not the Chair of the Conservation Commission
and page 5, the last paragraph under DISCUSSION: should read "would" instead
of "could."
Councilor Rosenthal also commented in the discussion from the last meeting
regarding the Plastic Bag Ban, Paddington Station chose not to enforce the paper
bag fee in the City ordinance.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS
Commission Chair Dr. Joe Graff and staff liaison Scott Fleury provided the annual
presentation of the Transportation Commission. The Commission was looking
into improving pedestrian crossings on North Main Street between Maple Street
and Laurel Street, a four way stop on Siskiyou Boulevard and Tolman Creek
Road, various transit options, converting Grandview to a shared road and general
parking and speeding issues. Mr. Fleury clarified Rogue Valley Transit District
(RVTV) participated on the Transportation Commission as an ex-officio member.
PUBLIC FORUM
Corin Elmore/288 Morton Street/Spoke regarding his home that was flooded
with sewage October 28, 2015 and shared the displacement and emotional strife
it had caused his family. He hoped his house would be restored.
http-.//www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM I D = 6246&D i splay= M i nutes&Print=True 1/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Darrel Jarvis/125 2nd Street/Spoke as the attorney representing Corin Elmore
and his family regarding the sewage overflow at their house October 28, 2015.
They did a formal claim with the City and clarified that his clients wanted the City
to pay out of pocket expenses associated with the sewer overflow in the total
amount of $457,000. Damage cap limits the City had on tort claims did not
pertain to this issue.
Caroline Shaffer/288 Morton Street/Read from a document submitted into the
record describing the emotional toll the sewage overflow had on their family and
commented on the City's response.
Federico Behncke/288 Morton Street/ Explained his house was flooded with
thousands of gallons of raw sewage and that it took City personnel three and a
half hours to respond. He questioned this lapse in response and protocol. The
event crushed the family financially and destroyed priceless family heirlooms.
Bill Skillman/635 Oak Knoll Drive/Stated his support for the Shaffer family
regarding the sewage overflow. He did not understand why the incident was in
litigation. The City was responsible and this incident should not need litigation.
He asked the City to do what was right.
Ethan Elmore/288 Morton Street/Read a letter his sister wrote that described
the pain of having to leave the home she grew up in due to the sewage overflow.
It caused her to live apart from her family and now financially affected which
college she would attend.
Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Twenty years before infill was cutting edge and
good. Now it caused problems with carbons, higher water rates, more danger in
the streets, and possibly ruining the planet. Twenty years in the future, infill
would cause starvation, and misery. The science was out there, he was not
making this up.
Kasson Joseph Kauth/1 Corral #13/Explained this was the second year of
invasive noxious weeds. Everyone in the Rogue Valley needed to take care of
these noxious weed species. They were dangerous. Noxious weeds included
poison hemlock and puncture vine. He described how they hurt people and
animals. There were also bands of aggressive developers in the Rogue Valley
from California that would spread drought and needed to be addressed.
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the legal framework the City Council had
to operate under concerning the sewage backup at 288 Morton Street. The state
of Oregon had a statute that placed a ceiling on the liability a local government
could pay for damage to property called the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA).
The OTCA limited a City's liability for a tort to $112,000 per claimant. The
Legislature established a cap to keep taxpayers from having to bear the expense
of guaranteeing fail-safe city systems and services.
Due to the cap, no insurer would provide coverage for claims beyond what the
statute set. Because of the OTCA and other laws, the City Council could not
http://www.ash]and.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM ID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 2/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
reimburse someone for tort damages in excess of the statutory ceiling. The
Ashland City Charter set limits on those powers in Article 16, Section 2, "The
City's immunity of liability for torts shall be as determined by State law."
Insurers acted independently from the insured party and told those they insured
not to become involved in the claims process. Insurance contracts contained
clauses that required client cooperation, staying out of the way of the claims
process to keep it objective and free of political pressures or interpersonal
partiality.
Attorneys always tell their clients threatened with litigation to avoid
communications with prospective plaintiffs. This is to avoid inaccurate
statements or something said with an unintended meaning that could be
overdramatized at trial. It also prevented people who had no personal knowledge
of the incident or the factors involved from being called as witness for the other
side at depositions or trial.
The sewer backup at the Shaffer's home, their distress, and anger were
obviously heartfelt and wholly understandable. Mr. Lohman could share very little
about the incident. As far as the City could tell, it resulted from a brick that got
into the sewer line, probably from an old brick-lined manhole. Whether the brick
inadvertently dislodged during the replacement of an old manhole upstream of
the Shaffer's house two weeks prior or just fell at some time from another aging
brick-lined manhole without having been disturbed has not and probably could
not be determined. Calls for assistance were not clear. According to the attorney
for Ms. Shaffer, she discovered the problem at approximately 4:30 p.m. on
October 28, 2015. The City employee on call for dealing with wastewater
collection problems first learned of the problem at 6:18 p.m. picked up a JetNac
truck and stopped the flow of sewage into the home by 7:40 p.m.
On the day after the incident, City Public Works staff contacted Ms. Shaffer and
advised her of the cause of the backup. The morning after the incident, City Risk
Management staff also talked to Ms. Shaffer about the claims process. The City
also submitted a claim to its insurer CIS that day and requested immediate
expedition. CIS contacted Ms. Shaffer the day after the incident and met with her
and her attorney at the house to inspect damages. Within seven days, Ms.
Shaffer received an advance payment of $25,000 from CIS. Within sixty days of
the incident, CIS made the maximum offer allowed under the OTCA for property
damage to the co-owners of 288 Morton Street.
There would be more to say about the incident in the future. In the meantime, Mr.
Lohman strongly advised Council to refrain from making any comments about the
matter.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Minutes of boards, commissions, and committees
2. Appointment of Sharon Harris to the Housing & Human Services
Commission
3. Biennium 2016-2017 Second Quarterly Financial Report
4. Ratification of labor contract with the Ashland Firefighters Association,
http://www. as hl and.or. us/Agendas. asp?AM I D=6246&D i spl ay=Minutes&Pr i nt=True 3/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
IAFF Local #1269
5. Climate and Energy Action Plan - consultant services contract
6. Liquor license application for Charles Shalda dba Ashland Hills Inn
Councilor Rosenthal pulled Consent Agenda item #3 and Councilor Voisin pulled
item #5 for discussion.
Administrative Services/Finance Director Lee Tuneberg addressed the Biennium
Second Quarterly Report and explained the telecommunications fund had not
paid towards the debt service due to timing of construction on projects or work on
projects approved in the budget document. As of this time, no monies were
transferred. City Administrator Dave Kanner added they budgeted on the
telecommunications fund on the assumption they would change the AFN rate
structure effective January 1, 2016 and anticipated lower revenues in the first
quarter than in the subsequent three quarters reflected in the financial report.
The new rate structure should increase cash flow in AFN. Mr. Tuneberg
addressed accessing the contingency funds and explained normally there was
not a need to transfer from a contingency fund until later in the budget period.
Management Analyst Adam Hanks addressed the Climate and Energy Action
Plan consultant services contract and explained the budget for the project with
Cascadia was $120,000. The bid came in at $129,000. The plan was pay the
$9,000 out of energy conservation funds.
Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all
AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (None)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Continued discussion of water rate options
Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Catherine Hansford of Hansford
Economic Consulting (HEC) who provided a presentation on water cost of service
and rates that included:
Purpose of the Study
• Make sure sufficient there was money to operate the water system
• Make sure that allocated costs were allocated equitably for all customer
classes
• Establish an appropriate rate schedule through 2022
• Provide incentive for water conservation
• Not a Water Master Plan Update
Ms. Hansford provided follow-up from the council discussion at the November 16,
2015 Study Session on the draft study. The following are points made from the
power point presentation that is included with the agenda packet.
Proposed Changes
http://www. ashl and.or. us/Agendas. asp?AM I D= 6246&D i spl ay=Minutes&Pri nt=True 4/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
• Flat Charges - Costs allocated to a Customer Charge (per account) &
Service Charge (per meter) - Goal is only one charge on bill:
2015 2016
Use Charges: $28.22 $28.87
Service Charge: $23.50 $25.44 ($13.75 Service & $11.74 Customer)
Potable Water System - First Year (2016) impacts:
• Residential - 5% increase in bills
• Institutional - most bills decrease
• Commercial - bills for smaller meters decrease; larger bills for large meters
• Irrigation - increase during summer and winter if no usage
Changes to the Nov. 10, 2015 Draft Study - Per Council direction (Nov 16
study session)
• Re-allocation of costs from the non-potable (TID) system to the potable
system and having a $250 per acre cap for unmetered TO customers
• Clarify who Municipal customers are
• Compare Residential potable water and non-potable water (TID) typical
annual bills
• Demonstrate impact of rate changes on large water users
• Define what is included in the base rates and examine the impact of not
adopting the proposed new customer charge
City staff changes
• Revision of SRF loan terms and removal of $1.375 million of CIP from the
2022 timeframe
TID Cost of Service
Current Rates (2015)
• Unmetered $170.01 per acre
• Metered $0.0055 per cu. Ft.
Calculated Rates (2015)
• Unmetered $202.97 per acre
• Metered $0.0022 per cu. ft.
Proposed Rates (2016)
• Unmetered $183.11 per acre
• Metered $0.0022 per cu. ft.
http:/twww.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 5/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Rates would gradually increase from $170.01 to $248.59 Fiscal Year 2-021-22.
Non-Potable Water Cost Share - FY 2015/16 Cost
Since Nov. Draft Study - Shifted $90,490 to the potable water system
City Maintenance Costs - Total Cost: $41,174 TID Share: 73% TID Cost:
$30,070
Clarification of Municipal Customer
• Governmental users of the potable water system (included in the
Institutional customer category).
• Previously the term was used to describe both the governmental users and
all city potable water users leading the reader to erroneously conclude that
Municipal referred only to City water accounts.
Impacts to Large Water Users - Annual Bill
Current Rates New Rates Difference % Change
• City Parks $190,200 $225,800 $35,600 19%
• SOU $289,500 $261,700 -$12,900 4%
• School Dist. $124,500 $147,600 $23,100 19%
• Large Commercial $54,200 $62,700 $8,500 16%
Base Rate Structure
• More equitable (true to cost-of-service) to allocate customer costs to each
account regardless of number of meters. These costs are a function of
number of customers, not potential to use the water system.
• More equitable to allocate the meters and services & capacity costs per
meter (by meter size) because the water system is sized to meet potential
demand from the meters/services.
• Goal would be to combine the two charges into one base charge on
customer bills
• If all base costs were allocated by meter size (as current), larger customers
with several meters would see an even larger increase in water bills.
The base rate paid for a portion of the operational costs. The capacity piece was
split between base and usage. Water rates covered usage. They allocated
every line item into a customer charge, capacity charge and a usage charge.
Proposed rates would come to Council in May or early June.
The City received a 1 % loan for the emergency Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP)
Intertie instead of other projects. IFA staff was able to secure 2.14% on a larger
loan for the water plant that would include $750,000 in loan forgiveness.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Recommendation from the Public Art Commission for Ashland entry
http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 6/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
signs
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained entry signs were one of the projects
recommended by the Downtown Beautification Committee and approved by
Council. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had tentatively
approved the design concept and was waiting for final approval and construction
drawings. Power was available for the sign at the north entrance to town by the
railroad trestle. The Electric Department estimated it would cost approximately
$2,000 to pull conduit, purchase, and install light fixtures at that location. There
was power near the southern sign location of Tolman Creek Road and at the Exit
14 location but would require some work and more resources. The approved
budget for the project was $24,000 and did not include the lighting.
Margaret Garrington, chair of the Public Art Commission (PAC) explained the
Commission worked with the designer and two members of the Downtown
Beautification Committee to develop a sign concept. She described the process
the Commission used that resulted in selecting Eric Warren, the creative director
with Rogue Design Group. Chair Garrington went on to explain the process
involved designing the signs that were displayed for public comment during the
February 5, 2016 First Friday Artwalk at the Ashland Art Center. They also had
design images posted on the City website. There was not enough money in the
budget for lighting.
Mr. Warren added that the PAC requested the signs be creative, unique, quirky,
playful, artful, contemporary, sculptural, well crafted, and communicate a sense of
place. The Commission unanimously chose the graphic designs before Council.
He described the signs and specified the criteria the designs met. They would
bolt the letters on the sign through steel with reinforced gaskets. Removing the
letters would be difficult. The mixed use of font met the criteria for fun, quirky and
contemporary. Some people would see the font as inaccurate, crazy, and
unbalanced. One of the options he presented was in all capital letters but the
group rejected it as too corporate.
Ms. Seltzer addressed whether the signage should match the City of Ashland's
logo. That was the logo for Ashland city government and inappropriate to use it
to represent the community.
Chair Garrington further explained why the group decided against adding the
word "Welcome" to the signs. They wanted the signs to announce to the viewer
they had arrived. Alternately, the word "Welcome" was outdated in terms of
current signage. Ms. Seltzer added the group thought it was important the
signage designated Ashland for the people who lived here and visitors. The
signs would range from 5-feet to 7-feet tall.
George Kramer/386 Laurel Street/Sent a letter to Council regarding the design.
He hoped Council had read the 70 plus comments from people that attended the
one general public meeting on the signs. All of whom talked about the serial killer
font and their concern from teachers how it made the community seem illiterate.
Entry or Welcome signs were geared for tourists because tourism was paying for
the signs. He referred to issues he had with the Gateway art project process
and noted he had the same issues with the entry signs. He thought the public
arts program excluded the public. The public did not provide feedback on the
http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 7/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
final designs and thought the public should have had ten or twenty variations to
consider. Council needed to fix this. Public input should have occurred before it
reached Council.
Councilor Rosenthal asked Mr. Kramer if he had the opportunity to attend any of
the public meetings associated with the entry signs. Mr. Kramer explained he
was unable to attend a meeting at 8:30 a.m. on a Friday. He first heard about the
entry signs when it was announced in the paper. He missed the First Friday
Artwalk viewing. If he were in charge of fixing the situation, he would direct the
Public Arts Commission to do a better job of public engagement before they
made a decision between a few choices. He would also have an evening
meeting.
Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to approve recommendation of the
Public Arts Commission for the entry signs to Ashland. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Lemhouse thanked the Public Arts Commission for their efforts on the
project and Mr. Warren for his design concept. He understood the comments
made by Mr. Kramer but thought every meeting was public and publicized.
Councilor Seffinger commended the PAC and Mr. Warren. The signs combined a
sense of place and history with the materials used as well as a contemporary
look. She would like to see lighting on all three signs.
Councilor Marsh/Seffinger m/s to amend motion to allocate $5,000 from
unallocated TOT money to provide lighting to two of the approved signs.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh liked the signs and thought they would make a
great impression on people coming into Ashland. Councilor Rosenthal agreed
with Councilor Marsh. Councilor Morris noted lighting added another layer of
maintenance and wanted a lighting system that lit the signs well and was
durable. He was not sure if $5,000 was enough. Ms. Seltzer clarified she was
working with the Electric Department on lighting fixtures that would work, and
required low maintenance. Councilor Voisin thought lighting should have been
included in the original costs and would not approve additional funds for the
signs. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, and
Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Continued discussion on amended motion: Councilor Rosenthal thanked the
Public Arts Commission on the execution of the public art acquisition policy. He
knew it was not popular with everyone but they had followed the instruction
manual, had five public meetings, and people could have provided the
Commission with input about the project on many occasions. Councilor Voisin
commented there was more than one person concerned about the public arts
process and she would not support the proposal until there were changes to that
process. She had received many emails regarding the font on the signs from
people upset with the lettering. She did not like the lettering and thought it sent
the wrong message. She did not understand what arrival meant versus
welcome. She would not support the motion. Councilor Rosenthal raised a point
of clarification and asked how many emails Councilor Voisin had received from
people complaining about the lettering. Councilor Voisin thought 20-25 emails
and four phone calls. Councilor Rosenthal had not received any emails regarding
the lettering. Councilor Lemhouse asked Councilor Voisin to forward the emails
http:Nwww.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM ID=6246&D ispl ay=Minutes&Pri nt=True 8/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
to Council.
Councilor Seffinger spoke to several people from various areas in Ashland who
enjoyed the quirkiness and how it reflected parts of Ashland. Councilor Morris
thought the signs fit well. His concern with the lettering was that he hoped it was
stainless steel and not aluminum. The other concern was the size and placement
for the sign by Belleview School. He liked the design of the signs and the
materials used. He would support the motion. Mr. Warren clarified the models
were not to scale. Councilor Lemhouse explained the PAC had met at the times
they were allocated to meet, 8:30 a.m. on Fridays once a month. These
meetings were noticed and open to the public. The PAC went out of their way to
engage the public during the First Friday Artwalk and used their own time for that
event. He did not care for the typography but there were 20,000 people in town
and he was trying to honor and respect the people on the Commission and their
expertise. He felt that the entire package was best for Ashland. Mayor
Stromberg thought the PAC did a great job and liked the result. Roll Call Vote
on amended motion: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, and
Rosenthal, YES, Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Ms. Seltzer added they were hoping to have the signs built and installed by May.
2. Council initiation of a zone change from R-2 (low-density multi-family) to
C-1 (commercial) for the property located at 150 Pioneer Street
Mayor Stromberg had talked with Mr. Potocki who had a City parking lot built next
to his R-2 zone property. The Planning Director at that time said the City would
rezone his property as C-1. Twenty years had passed and nothing had
happened. If Council approved this change, it would go to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained there was always a
chance of issues rezoning a property but did not think there were any negative
ramifications regarding 150 Pioneer Street. He recommended C-1 zoning
because that was the adjacent commercial zoning and thought the property
would be conforming. Councilor Rosenthal asked if this was an appropriate time
to consider changing the zoning for Pioneer Hall and the Community Center. Mr.
Molnar responded staff could evaluate the properties.
Councilor Voisin raised a point of order and questioned why Council was
discussing two properties not on the agenda. Mayor Stromberg explained
Councilor Rosenthal was considering making an amendment to add the Winburn
Way properties to the proposal since they all pertained to zone changes to C-1.
Councilor Voisin/Morris m/s to approve the initiation of a Type III planning
action, zone change, for the property located at 150 Pioneer Street and
direct Community Development staff to complete, file and process the land
use application. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin thanked the Mayor for
bringing the issue forward. The request was a win-win for the City and Mr.
Potocki. Councilor Morris also thought it was a good idea that should have
occurred years before. Staff should evaluate the Winburn properties separately.
Councilor Marsh supported the motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Morris,
http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 9/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
Rosenthal, Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed.
ORDINANCES RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance
establishing a tax on the sale of marijuana and marijuana-infused products
in the City of Ashland and referring said tax to the voters of Ashland in the
November 8, 2016 general election"
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to approve Ordinance #3121.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the state was allowing a 3% tax and it
should go before the voters. Councilor Voisin raised a point of clarification on
when the state tax began, how it was reduced and when the City's tax would
begin. City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the state had a current tax of
25% on the sales of recreational marijuana. The tax did not apply to medical
marijuana. The tax would reduce to 17% January 1, 2017. If the voters enacted
a 3% tax, it would be applied to the 17% state tax, not on top of the 25% tax.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris, Seffinger, and
Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance
amending Chapter 10/68.400 and 11.08 and replacing Chapters 11.24, 11.28,
11.327 11.34 and 11.36 with new Chapter 11.26 to update and unify parking
regulations and to authorize City Council to establish presumptive parking
violation fines by resolution" and move to second reading.
City Attorney Dave Lohman explained the ordinance was a "housekeeping"
measure that would consolidate separate ordinances on parking regulations,
restricted parking areas, abandoned, stored, or impounded vehicles into one
ordinance easier to understand and enforce. Changes included clarifying the
Council had the authority to set presumptive fines for parking violations by
resolution. He noted a correction to page 2 of the Council Communication, first
paragraph. The Council would also set penalties along with the presumptive
fines set by resolution. Another change concerned vehicles with their engines left
running. The old ordinance allowed trucks under 12,000 gross vehicle weight
and buses with the carrying capacity of 15 passengers or less to have an
exemption that was currently no longer necessary. Page 18 of 21 discussed the
penalties for parking violations would read that a presumptive fine for a parking
violation under this section would be imposed unless the court found reasonable
grounds for increasing or reducing the fine. Also on page 18, the point of multiple
penalties unpaid could result in booting or towing. In the past, the limit was $250
and was now $150.
Mr. Lohman would research the language in 11.26.050 Abandoned Vehicles
regarding abandoned vehicles on public or private property and the definition of
abandoned vehicles.
He clarified 11.26.090 Buses or Taxis provided taxies an exemption from the
general rule. If the City had a taxi stand, they could park there for an indefinite
period. The City no longer had taxi stands and this was an empty exemption. A
taxi could not park in a commercial area unless they were picking up or dropping
off passengers. The language implied a taxi could park in a residential area while
http://www.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM ID=6246&Display=Minutes&Print=True 10/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
waiting for calls.
In 11.26.120 Penalties, Immobilizers Installation, Towing, Warning Letter,
Show cause, and Warrants (2)(c) mailing a notice by certified mail was an
alternative for notification. In the event the address was a post office box or no
one was present to sign, the City could post notice directly on the vehicle.
Deputy Chief Warren Hensman explained the Police Department did experience
some obstruction issues described in 11.26.040 Obstructing Enforcement but
not an abundance. Administrative Services/Finance Director Lee Tuneberg
added it was not an issue with the Diamond Parking attendants either. People
who threw out their tickets or did not respond received a letter and the fine
increased.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to approve first reading by title only of an
ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending Chapters 10.68.400 and 11.08
and Replacing Chapters 11.24, 11.28, 11.32, 11.34 and 11.36 with New
Chapter 11.26 to Update and Unify Parking Regulations and to Authorize
City Council to Establish Presumptive Parking Violation Fines by
Resolution with the changes proposed tonight prior to second reading and
move the ordinance on to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Lemhouse appreciated the effort that went into streamlining the ordinances into
one. Councilor Marsh agreed.
Councilor Voisin/Rosenthal m/s to amend 11.26.040 Obstructing
Enforcement and add "(3) No one persons shall intentionally act in a
manner that prevents or attempts to prevent a person from officially
performing lawful duties to enforce provisions under AMC Chapter 11.26 or
refuse to obey a lawful order of such official person enforcing provisions
under AMC Chapter 11.26." DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin heard that
students issuing tickets had experienced rough treatment in terms of language
and threatening behavior. Enforcement would consist of the individual
encountering the behavior to call the police or their Diamond Parking supervisor
who would issue a verbal warning. Councilor Lemhouse thought the amendment
was problematic. People had the right to say whatever they wanted for the most
part and used previous discussions regarding behavior downtown. He
questioned legality and enforcement. Mr. Lohman clarified the language in the
amendment referred to acting in a manner that prevented or attempted to prevent
the official from performing their lawful duties. Councilor Lemhouse noted
Councilor Voisin spoke to language as the issue. Mr. Lohman explained that
aggressive language did not fall within the terms of the proposed amendment.
Councilor Voisin further clarified the students were encountering aggressive
behavior that prevented them from doing their job. Councilor Lemhouse thought
the amendment required further discussion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor
Seffinger, Voisin, Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, and Morris,
NO. Mayor Stromberg broke the tie with a YES vote. Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of clarification. He had a concern that the
amendment gave someone who was not a sworn officer the ability to give a lawful
order to another and that a citizen could be charged with disobeying the lawful
http:/Mww. ashl and.or. us/Agendas.asp?AM I D=6246&D is pl ay=Minutes&Pr i nt=True 11/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And M inutes
order of a non-sworn person.
Continued discussion on amended motion: Councilor Morris would not
support the motion as amended. Councilor Lemhouse would not support the
motion as amended either. The amendment treated a civilian as a law
enforcement officer and stated another civilian with ambiguous language could be
guilty of obstructing them. The justification for the amendment seemed based on
hearsay and invalidated the entire ordinance.
Mr. Lohman clarified that he had provided the proposed language to Councilor
Voisin. The language came from a statute concerning police officers and this was
an error on staff's part not Councilor Voisin. Councilor Lemhouse raised a point
of clarification and wanted to know why Council was not informed of the
amendment prior to the meeting so they had time to consider the language and
intent. Mr. Lohman responded he had worked on the proposed language earlier
in the afternoon and had only shared it with Councilor Voisin moments before the
meeting began. He agreed with Councilor Lemhouse that the last clause that
referred to obeying a lawful order of such official person did not belong in the
amendment. Councilor Marsh commented Council could make changes at
second reading. She would support the motion. When it came back, Council
would discuss this particular language in the amendment. Roll Call Vote
amended motion: Councilor Seffinger, Voisin, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES;
Councilor Lemhouse and Morris, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
3. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council
establishing a fee for appeals of administrative decisions."
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the resolution came from a Council
discussion in January 2015 about potential code updates. The code had a $150
fee for anyone wanting to appeal an administrative decision. The fee created an
unreasonable barrier to someone wanting to pursue a redress of grievances. The
code did contain language regarding appeal fees that suggested the fee may be
adjusted by resolution of Council. Staff would look into updating the code later
and wanted to address the appeal fee via resolution. The resolution would drop
the appeal fee to zero if the appeal was made directly to the City Administrator
and the appellant waived their right to a written or mechanical record of the
appeal hearing. If they appealed to the City Administrator and wanted the
mechanical or written record, the fee would be $50. The code would also provide
for hearings to be heard by a hearings officer other than the City Administrator by
an outside party not affiliated with the City and hired by the City attorney. In that
case, the fee would be $150 or actual costs. Appeals were rare. Most of them
were resolved informally without moving to a formal process.
Mr. Kanner thought a person could record a hearing themselves and create their
own mechanical record. He addressed the first bullet under Section 1 regarding
the $50 fee for an appeal heard by the City Administrator or an outside party not
affiliated by the City. The circumstances where the City would request an outside
party were limited. One would be a situation where the City Administrator had a
personal conflict of interest. The City would want a written or mechanical record
if an outside party heard the appeal. It also limited the potential of frivolous
appeals that cost the City money to process.
hftp:/&vww.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM 1 D= 6246&D is pl ay= M i nutes&Pri nt=True 12/13
3/30/2016 City of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes
If an appellant lost an appeal, they paid the full cost. Mr. Kanner would find out if
the City waived the appeal fee if an appellant prevailed. City Recorder Barbara
Christensen explained appeals initially came through her office and she arranged
the appeal process with the City Administrator. The most recent appeals were
difficult for the appellant to pay the fee. Currently, the code specified the $150
fee was non-refundable.
Council was not comfortable charging an appellant in a situation where the City
requested an outside hearings officer due to a conflict of interest with the City
Administrator. Staff would work on the language and bring the resolution back to
a future Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
Councilor Lemhouse thanked the volunteers that helped search for community
member Todd Ragsdale who unfortunately lost his life in the Ashland Watershed.
It was a tragic and untimely loss. The outpouring of support from the community
to assist the search was impressive and moving. It was inspiring to see the
community come together in such a way. Councilor Lemhouse expressed
condolences to the family and wished his best for them.
Councilor Voisin announced February 23, 2016 the sixth free vet clinic would
occur in the Methodist Church parking lot from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
City Administrator Dave Kanner distributed the Look Ahead, discussed items with
Council, and noted a Budget Committee meeting would occur that week.
Councilor Seffinger added the search for Mr. Ragsdale prompted the Forestlands
Commission to develop cohesive names for all of the trails.
Councilor Lemhouse requested a Study Session agenda item of a report on how
the winter shelter worked this year and wanted to include the Parks Department
in the discussion. Councilor Rosenthal requested the Study Session item for the
April 4, 2016 meeting move to the Council meeting the following night. Councilor
Voisin would send a concern she had to Mr. Kanner that she did not want to
discuss in public.
ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING
Meeting adjourned at 10:22 p.m.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
PRINT CLOSE
http:/AAiww.ashiand.or.us/Agendas.asp?AM I D= 6246&D i spl ay= M i nutes&Pri nt=True 13/13
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016. Business Meeting
Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Step
FROM:
Dave Lohman, city attorney, lohmand@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
At the January 5, 2016, Council business meeting, Council approved a two-part motion directing staff
to seek modification of a 1999 deed restriction on the Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail yard
property in Ashland. After completion of full-site remediation to DEQ's Residential standards, the
proposed revised deed restriction would allow subdivision and development of individual parcels upon
further remediation in conformance with the DEQ risk standards applicable to the proposed actual uses
of the parcels and the parcel-specific risks posed by the actual contaminants on them. The motion also
directed staff to negotiate with UPRR to develop an agreement concerning full-site remediation of the
rail yard property as soon as possible using rail cars for transporting contaminated soils. The purpose
of this agenda item is to advise Council on negotiations with UPRR and seek Council confirmation that
the second part of the January 5 motion has been satisfactorily addressed and therefore staff should
now proceed to apply for modification of the deed restriction.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In November 1999, the City placed a deed restriction on the Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") rail
yard property in Ashland requiring that entire property be remediated to DEQ's Residential standards
prior to further development or subdivision - even if subsequent subdivided parcels might be used for
asphalt-capped streets or parking areas or for light industrial or commercial purposes. Whether or not
it was intended have such broad application, the particular legal language of the restriction resulted in
years of no progress towards putting the rail yard to beneficial use. The cost of making every possible
future subdivided parcel meet Residential remediation standards regardless of potential uses made the
property unmarketable and diminished UPRR's incentive to undertake voluntary full-site cleanup.
In April 2015, UPRR proposed remediation of a limited portion of the site containing most of the high
concentrations of contaminants and using trucks for transporting outgoing contaminated soil and
incoming clean fill. City Council members countered with a request that UPRR conduct a full-site
remediation using rail cars for taking contaminated soils away. UPRR asked the City to consider
relaxing the deed restriction.
At the January 5, 2016 Council business meeting, Council approved a motion directing staff to initiate
the planning process to modify the 1999 deed restriction. Another part of the motion directed staff to
try to get agreement from UPRR to clean up the full site as soon as possible and to use rail cars for
transporting contaminated soils from the site. Unstated but implicit in the approved motion was the
necessity of reaching agreement among the City, UPRR, and DEQ on the wording of the modified
deed restriction.
Page 1 of 4
O.
1FA
CITY OF
,ASHLAND
The three parties have now agreed that the following revised deed restriction is appropriate, assuming
DEQ's standards are met and the City's concerns are adequately addressed:
Parcel 7 is restricted f-om further development or land division until Grantor obtains
a determination fi°om the Department of Environmental Quality that the property
meets cleanup standards applicable to a single residential property. Thereafter,
development on any subdivided parcel cannot occur until Grantor obtains a
determination from the Department of Environmental Quality that the property meets
cleam.tp standards applicable to the use proposed for the subdivided parcel. Grantor
mill provide written docuinentation. from the Deparlinent of Environmental Quality
demonstrating compliance with these standards to the City.
The list presented below is City staff's surnmary of concerns expressed by City Council about UPRR's
remediation of the rail yard property. Councilm embers may decide the list is incomplete and choose to
add items or may decide that some of the concerns have been satisfactorily resolved already. The
discussion following the list outlines the reasons staff has concluded from its negotiations with UPRR
and DEQ that Councilmernbers can be reasonably assured each of the listed concerns will be
adequately addressed in the course of the remediation project.
1. The full site should be remediated to applicable DEQ standards (meaning that after remediation
of the full site as an aggregated unit to Residential standards, development on any subdivided
parcels could occur only after remediation to DEQ standards applicable to the proposed actual
use of the parcel);
2. Contaminated soil should be removed by rail, as proposed in the 2013 work plan;
3. Contaminated water and any debris should be contained and removed from the site;
4. Railcars containing contaminated soil should be covered to prevent releases;
5. The bulk of the work should take place in the latter part of 2016 and the early part of 2017,
subject to unforeseen complications;
6. Union Pacific should make batch deliveries of clean fill in distinct phases and stockpile it, so as
to avoid unpredictable, intermittent deliveries spread throughout the duration of the project;
7. DEQ-approved dust suppression measures should be observed;
8. Wheel-washing of all trucks and other rubber-tired equipment leaving the site should be used to
prevent spread of contaminants beyond the worksite;
9. Heavy trucks traveling to and from the site should exclusively use routes designated by the City
in advance; and
10. Union Pacific should pay for repair and restoration of any pavement on public streets damaged
by heavy trucks or other equipment used in the project.
In discussions with the City and DEQ, UPRR has committed to incorporate the actions described in
items 1 through 9 in the above list in the Remedial Action Work Plan for which it will be seeking DEQ
approval. Upon DEQ approval, DEQ's authority to enforce those promised actions provides the City
reasonable assurance that its concern will be adequately addressed. If UPRR were to not follow
through as agreed, the City can take appropriate action to terminate the effort to revise the deed
restriction.
Page 2 of 4
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
In discussions with the City, UPRR has agreed to pay for street repairs and restoration as described in
item 10 above. The City and UPRR have reached agreement already on how such damage to streets
will be measured and monetized. The City will require a contract detailing this commitment before
issuing the excavation permit UPRR needs in order to remove any soil from the site.
UPRR has declined to enter into a separate written agreement with the City on items 1 through 9
above, saying those will be the subject of primary commitments to DEQ, and UPRR cannot prudently
put itself in the position of possibly having to also respond to potentially conflicting interpretations of
those obligations by the City. See attached March 28, 2016 letter froth Gary Honeyman, UPRR's
Manager of Environmental Site Remediation. UPRR's reluctance to enter into a separate agreement
concerning its work plan commitments to DEQ is understandable, and Staff believes the City's
leverage described in the two paragraphs above already provide sufficient assurance that the City's
concerns will be satisfactorily addressed.
Next Steps
If the Council authorizes staff to seek planning approval to modify the deed restriction, the anticipated
next steps towards realization of full-site remediation of the rail yard site using rail for removal of
contaminated soil are:
• Administration prepares and submits to the Planning Commission an application for Major
Amendment to modify the deed restriction, that is, the existing condition of approval of the
1999 land use approval concerning the rail yard.
• Meanwhile, UPRR finalizes and submits to DEQ its Remedial Action Work Plan for full-site
remediation using rail for removal of contaminated soil.
• DEQ hosts a public meeting in Ashland about the project to hear and address citizen concerns.
• DEQ approves Remedial Action Work Plan.
• Planning Commission conducts public hearing on modification of the deed restriction and
makes a decision.
• If deed restriction is modified and Work Plan is approved, UPRR submits application for City
excavation permit.
• City and UPRR enter into agreement on payment for project-related damage to streets.
• City issues excavation permit.
• Early September, 2016 (approximately): UPRR constructs rail spur.
• Fall 2016: Start of excavation and removal of contaminated soil by rail car and phased delivery
of clean fill.
• Before summer, 2017: Completion of project.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Environment
13. Develop and support land use and transportation policies to achieve sustainable development.
13.2 Develop infill and compact urban form policies.
Economy
19. Ensure that commercial and industrial areas are available for development.
19.2 Evaluate the prospects for the redevelopment of the railroad property.
Page 3 of 4
Ir
CITY OF
^ASHLAND
People
5.2. Support and promote, through policy, programs that make the City affordable to live in.
5.2.a Pursue affordable housing opportunities, especially workforce housing.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no noteworthy near-term fiscal impacts. Future development of the railyard site could yield
significant economic activity and City tax revenues.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Direct staff to apply for modification of the deed restriction.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to
replace the condition of approval in PA99-048 with the modified condition of approval presented in
the April 5, 2016, Council Communication and to continue working with Union Pacific Railroad and
DEQ to achieve remediation of the rail yard site to applicable DEQ standards using rail cars for
removal of contaminated soil.
ATTACHMENTS:
March 28, 2016, letter from UPRR's Gary Honeyman
Page 4 of 4
W 1rA&
Gary I.. Honeymen
\f n r[ P[rvirotuttcntal site Rellicdi.uiitn
March 28, 2016
Mr. David Lohman
City Attorney
City of Ashland
20 E. Main Street
Ashland, Oregon 97520
SUBJECT: Ashland Railyard Cleanup
Dear David,
The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) is looking forward to completing remediation
activities at the Ashland railyard. Your email sent on January 6, 2016 titled: "RE: proposed changes
to UPRR City deed language" outlines four key items to be addressed in order for the project to
proceed. The first three items in the email, relating to the process and wording change to the deed
restriction, have been addressed to UPRR's satisfaction. The fourth item is quoted from the email as
follows:
" 4, We also need to develop an agreement between the City and UP documenting the
contmit►nent by UP to petform full-site remediation cis soon as possible, using railcars to
remove contaminated soil, and the committnew by the City to modify the deed restriction.
The City Cotmcil will need to approve this agreement. The sonnet-ive can get it in place, the
better, "
UPRR is already committed to an agreement,.vith the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). As part of the VCP, a work plan for the
complete full-site remediation, including the removal of all contaminated soil by rail, was already
completed and approved by ODEQ in 2013. UPRR cannot enter into a separate agreement with the
City of Ashland regarding the full-site remediation.
The work plan is divided into a series of five phases, which are necessary because removal of the
contaminated soil by rail is a logistically complex process which is largely controlled by the ability to
deliver and remove rail cars to the site on the short-line track that is not controlled by UPRR.
Additionally, the rail spur into the center of the railyard needs to be constructed in order to allow for
the rail cars to be loaded. 'hhe phased clean-up approach outlined in the work plan serves as UPRR's
agreement with the State. UPRR is currently workin- with the ODEQ to complete any outstanding
regulatory requirements on the project and ensure that UPRR has a clear understanding of ODEQ's
roles and responsibilities during the cleanup process.
'File only. impediment to completing the work in 2013, as originally intended, was the conflicting
wording of the deed restriction compared to ODEQ cleanup standards, which we now believe to be
resolved with the proposed language changes. The approach outlined in the existing work plan fully
meets the cleanup expectations of the City of Ashland, while complying with the ODEQ
u tt~i 1,,, t307, 745 .jF;~k3 "{!ICI ;60~`(I: I;iitufn•t•tlrt~'l:{>.a!n
UNipN PACIFIC RAILROAD 221 Hwl~;on'-1n I,ar:utt r, \t-1' N2V"' t i
requirements. A separate agreement with the City of Ashland has the potential of proposing
requirements that would delay the implementation of the remedy and that are unacceptable and
unnecessary given UPRR's current agreement with the ODEQ. UPRR would like to begin the
remediation this year with the placement of the spur line and the completion of a couple of the phases
defined in the work plan. Please let me know how we can get the wording change completed as
outlined in your email.
Sincerely,
l.7 Q,VlHoneyman Gary /
Manager Environmental Site Remediation
Cc: Mark Ochsner/CH2M HILL
i
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
A Resolution Changing Parking Fines and Fees
FROM:
Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director, lee.tunebera ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
The City Council affirmed its authority to set fees and fines relating to parking in Ashland through
Ordinance no. 3122, approved at the March 1, 2016, business meeting. This resolution will increase
the fine for parking violations to $22 and increase the fees for parking at Hargadine garage.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Fines and fees for parking have not changed for many years. The current fine for parking in a space
beyond a posted time is $11, of which $4 is set aside to support parking improvements, studies and
related debt service. Fines vary for other infractions with most being either $11 or $15. The current
fine schedule was established by former Municipal Court Judge Allen Drescher in 1983 and has not
changed since then.
Fines
Staff often hears from visitors that current parking fines are low and not a significant factor influencing
their adherence to timed limitations. This means the amount of a fine does not outweigh the effort
needed to re-park outside of the immediate area (i.e., the fine is perceived as an acceptable fee for
parking). The failure or refusal of visitors to move their vehicles adds to the parking difficulties for
others seeking an opportunity to park and shop. Parking consultants have recommended that a higher
amount should be charged and the Downtown Parking and Traffic Circulation Committee unanimously
supported an increase of the base fine to $22. An informal survey indicated that $25 is a common
parking ticket fine in neighboring cities.
Staff recommends increasing overtime parking fines from $11 to $22 effective June 1, 2016, and that
all proceeds go to support parking enforcement, parking improvements, studies and related debt
service.
In addition to overtime tickets at $11, there are many other infractions related to parking that carry a
$15 fine. These include parking on the wrong side of the street, parking in a yellow zone, parking too
close to a hydrant, parking on a bridge and non-payment at the Hargadine parking structure. Staff
proposes that all violations for parking be set to the same $22 amount with three exceptions:
1. The fine for parking in a handicap zone with no permit is set by state law and currently is $190.
2. Additional charges for multiple overtime tickets has been set by the ordinance at $25 and $50.
3. Employee parking in the downtown core is currently $25 and that is to be eliminated as part of
implementing the recommendations from the Downtown Parking Management and Multi-
Modal Traffic Circulation Committee.
Page I of 3
I r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Hart!adine Parkins Structure Fees
Fees for parking at the Hargadine structure have not changed since inception (2001). These prices
were set low to encourage use and to provide viable alternatives to Plaza parking and the practice of
circling in the hope that a space will become available closer to the driver's destination.
Current fees are:
• $1 per day 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• $1 per hour 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
• Maximum of $3 per day 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
• $25 per monthly permit*
Staff is recommending the current parking lot prices be raised effective May 1, 2016, to:
• $2 per day 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
• $2 per hour 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
• Maximum of $10 per day 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
• $30 per monthly permit*
*A monthly permil is limited to 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
If approved all fines these fees will be incorporated into the annual Miscellaneous Fees & Charges
process in the spring of 2017 to provide a review on an annual basis. Subsequent proposed changes
could then be addressed routinely.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Organization
4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals.
4.1 Identify and evaluate underperforming assets.
Energy and Infrastructure
21. Be proactive in using hest practices in infrastructure management and modernization.
21.1 Complete downtown parking management and traffic circulation plan.
Administration and Governance Goal
40. Ensure on-going fiscal ability to provide desired and required services at an acceptahle level.
51. Develop a fee/rate structure that is consistent with adopted master plans and studies.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
Parking tickets generated approximately $140,000 in FY 2015. Those funds went toward enforcement
and reserves set aside to fund future downtown parking improvements. Ticket revenue does not fully
fund enforcement and the required set aside. The proposed increase is likely to correct that depending
on sensitivity to the higher ticket amounts, expanded enforcement generating more tickets and
increased costs for expanded enforcement. There are also other costs related to committee
recommendations such as signage, way-finding, education, etc. that increased revenues will help fund.
The benefits derived by issuing tickets goes beyond funding enforcement. The parking studies indicate
a single space is valued at over $30,000 in retail impact. There are 2,200 spaces in the downtown area
Page 2 of 3
11FAL40
CITY OF
ASHLAND
being studied. The goal is to foster parking compliance and space turnover to provide safety and
opportunities to park, shop and impact downtown economics. Increased ticket amounts will help.
Hargadine receipts generated approximately $107,000 in FY 2015. Those funds went toward restoring
balances used to prepay the debt on the structure, maintenance and I'acilities costs. Funds should also
be set aside for significant repairs and upgrades to equipment that happen from time to time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends Council approve the resolution increasing fees for use of the Hargadine structure
and fines for parking violations.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve the resolution titled, "A resolution changing parking fees and fines."
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Page 3 of 3
1.,
Irr
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-
A RESOLUTION CHANGING PARKING FEES AND FINES
WHEREAS, the City Council established its authority to set parking fines, fees and charges by
adopting Ordinance No. 3122; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance provides for setting and revising parking fines, fees and charges by
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the fines, fees and charges identified below are proposed to be put in effect on June
1, 2016, and will be subject to review and revision each year as part of the regular process to
update Miscellaneous Fees & Charges by the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
In accordance with Ordinance No. 3122 the following fines, charges and fees are in effect:
Parking Fees, Charges and Fines
Paid Parking Fees (where applicable):
City structure or lot:
6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (or segment) $2.00
6:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. (per hour) $2.00
6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. (maximum) $10.00
Parking permit (where applicable in City structure or lot)
6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday (unless otherwise posted) $30.00
Other Downtown Parking Area Fees:
Short Term (<30 minutes) unloading from "marked"
business vehicle with flashers No charge
Daily parking permit (Orange): I st day or fraction of day $10.00/day
Additional days (limited to 5 days; no charge on Sunday or
federal holidays) $2.00/day
• Applicable permits/licenses must be current
• Limit of two permits per business address at a time
• Each permit is good for one parking space
• Not applicable to handicapped or short term spaces equal
to or less than 15 minutes, green loading zones, fire or
other restricted areas.
Parking Fines and Fees (citywide)
Basic fine for overtime, improperly parked, non-payment, etc. $22.00
Additional fine for receiving 3 or 4 tickets in a calendar year $25.00
Additional fine for receiving 5 or more tickets in a calendar year $50.00
Page 1 of 2
Parking fine for Handicap Space violation $190.00 (or as set by state law)
Disabling/Boot removal fee available (as negotiated by city with
tow company for 24 hour availability) $85.00
SECTION 5. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of April,
2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor.
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of April, 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David Lohman, City Attorney
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
First Reading of An Ordinance Adding Chapter 10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to
Title 10 Peace, Morals and Safety of the Ashland Municipal Code
FROM
David Lohman, city attorney, david.lohman a ashlaud.or.us
SUMMARY
The attached proposed ordinance prohibits solicitation where the solicited person could feel pressure to
make a contribution because the specific circumstances make it difficult to avoid unwanted
solicitation.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The attached ordinance on intrusive solicitation is one of the outcomes of a series of Council
discussions on steps that could be taken to reduce the incidence of offensive conduct on public
property in Ashland. The version of this ordinance presented for First Reading has been modified to try
to take into account the comments of Council members in their March 1 discussion of an earlier draft
and includes the following substantive differences from that March 1 draft:
• A Findings and Purpose section has been added to make clear that the proposed Council
enactment is a targeted, reasonable response to a significant City problem.
• Proposed Section 10.130.020A more clearly defines the locales where solicitation would be
prohibited.
• The earlier-proposed prohibition on solicitation of occupants of parked cars has been deleted
and such solicitation has been specifically exempted in Section 10.130.020D.
• Proposed Section 10. 13 0.02013 bans contributions to pedestrians by occupants of vehicles on
roadways as well as pedestrians' solicitation of contributions from such occupants.
• Proposed Section 10.130.020D has been added to clearly exempt solicitation of persons in
parked cars and solicitation on property under private control with approval of the person in
charge. An illustrative example of the latter exemption is that a tip jar for servers at a sidewalk
caf6 clearly would be permissible.
• The penalty for violation (Section 10.130.030) is reduced to Class IV. This means a person
found by the Municipal Court to have violated this ordinance would have to pay $106 in court
fees in addition to a penalty of up to a maximum of $138.00, depending on the Municipal
Judge's conclusion as to the gravity of the violation.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Public Safety
23. Support innovative programs that protect the community.
Page 1 oft
LITALA-611
CITY OF
-ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
This item was introduced at the March 1, 2016 City Council meeting, further discussed at the
March 15, 2016 meeting, and moved to the April 5, 2016.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Adding Chapter
10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to Title 10 Peace, Morals and Safety of the Ashland Municipal Code"
[wirh the folloiring changes...I and move the ordinance on to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Page 2 oC2
IWLWA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 10.130 INTRUSIVE
SOLICITATION TO TITLE 10 PEACE, MORALS AND SAFETY
OF THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold'' ' thro and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section I of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
cominoil 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 City has received numerous complaints from residents, tourists, other visitors,
and business owners about persons soliciting for contributions in circumstances in which the
person asked to make a contribution felt a heightened sense of alarm or was not readily able to
walk away.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 10.130 Intrusive Solicitation is added to Title 10 of the Ashland
Municipal Code as follows:
SECTION 10.130.010 Findings and Purpose
A. Findings.
1. Solicitations for immediate donations of money or any other item of value in certain
areas of Ashland have caused solicited persons to feel their freedom to move away to
avoid solicitation was restricted.
Solicitations for immediate donations of money or any other item of value from
occu ants of vehicles have interfered with safe vehicle assa a sometimes causin
motorists to take evasive action to avoid physical contact.
The City has a significant governmental interest in limiting distracting roadside
activity to minimize threats to traffic safety.
4. The City has a significant governmental interest in maintaining a safe and inviting
environment in public spaces for all residents and visitors, but especially for
tourists, because Ashland's economic vitality depends in large part on its status as a
singular destination for tourists.
5. To retain the unique character of Ashland, preserve its status as a tourist attraction,
foster commercial and cultural activity, and ensure the safet-, of residents and
visitors, the City has a significant governmental interest in reasonable, specific
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
locational limitations on requests for money or any other item of value from another
person, regardless of the solicitor's purpose or intended use of the money or other
item of value.
B. Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to protect residents and visitors from
intimidating discomfiture arising from solicitation at specified locations and from
distractions while driving caused by such solicitation.
SECTION 10.130.020 Prohibited Intrusive Solicitation
A. No person shall orally or in any other manner request a donation of money or other
gratuity from another person if the person to whom the request is made is:
1. Seated at an outdoor or indoor dining area of a restaurant or other establishment
serving food for immediate consumption.
2. Within 20 feet of an automatic teller machine or the entrance to a bank, credit union
or similar financial institution.
. No pedestrian shall orally or in any other manner request a donation of money or other
gratuity from an occupant of a vehicle on a highway, road or street within the
boundaries of the City of Ashland, and no occupant of a vehicle on a highway, road or
street within the boundaries of the City of Ashland shall transfer possession or control
of any item of property, to a pedestrian.
C. No person shall be cited under this section unless the person engages in intrusive
solicitation as defined in Section 10 130 020A or B after having been notified by a law
enforcement official that such conduct violates this Chapter.
D. Exceptions.
1. Section 10 130 020A does not apply to solicitations related to business on the subiect
premises which is being conducted by or with approval from the owner or the lawful
t ants of the premises.
Section 10 130 020B does not apply if the vehicle is legally parked.
SECTION 10 130.030 Penalty for Violation
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as set forth in
Section 1 08 020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Intrusive Solicitation is a Class IV
violation.
SECTION 2. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 3. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word -ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, i.e., Sections Nos. 2-3, need not be codified, and the
City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _day of , 2016,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of _ 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of .2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
-AS H LAN D
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
First Reading of An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 10.64
Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways
FROM
David Lohman, city attorney, david.lohman@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
Obstructing pedestrian passageways with objects or dogs is already prohibited by City ordinances.
The attached proposed ordinance amendment would make intentional obstruction of pedestrian
passageways by people a violation as well.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The attached amendment to the City's current ordinance on obstruction of pedestrian passageways is
one of the outcomes of a series of Council discussions on steps that could be taken to reduce the
incidence of offensive conduct on public property in Ashland. The version of this ordinance
amendment presented for first reading has been modified to try to take into account the comments of
Council members' in their March 1 discussion of an earlier draft and includes the following
substantive differences from that March I draft:
• A Findings and Purpose section has been added to make clear that the proposed Council
enactment is a targeted, reasonable response to a significant City problem.
• Proposed Section 10.64.020D has been added to identify specific exceptions from application
of the ordinance.
• The penalty for violation of Section 10.64 is reduced to Class IV. (Obstructing pedestrian
passageways under the current ordinance is a Class I violation.) This means a person found by
the Municipal Court to have violated this amended ordinance would have to pay $106 in court
fees in addition to a penalty of up to a maximum of $138.00, depending on the Municipal
Judge's conclusion as to the gravity of the violation.
A person could not be cited for violation of this proposed amended ordinance unless the person
continues obstructing a pedestrian passageway after having been notified by a police officer that
continued obstruction after such notification is prohibited.
The definition of "pedestrian passageway" in the current ordinance on obstruction of sidewalks and
passageways is reworded in proposed Section 10.64.020C - in an effort to make a necessarily
complicated term a bit clearer for purposes of compliance and enforcement.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
Public Safety
23. Support innovative programs that protect the community.
Pm4e 1 of 2
~r
CITY OF
ASHLAND
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
This item was introduced at the March 1, 2016 City Council meeting, further discussed at the March
15, 2016 meeting, and moved to the April 5, 2016.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move to approve first reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending AMC
Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" [nwh the follorl,ing changes...] and move the
ordinance on to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Page 2 of -2
I r
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AMC CHAPTER 10.64
OBSTRUCTING SIDEWALKS AND PASSAGEWAYS
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined thro ug and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and
common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow
municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those
powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto,
shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.64.010A, first enacted in 1968, currently
prohibits using public streets and sidewalks for selling, storing, or displaying merchandise or
equipment, with exceptions for specific permitted uses.
WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.64.010C, first enacted in 1994, prohibits
placing any object on a public sidewalk which restricts clear passageway for pedestrians, sets the
minimum dimensions for clear passageway, and distinguishes exceptions permitted by
ordinance.
WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 9.16.070A.9, enacted in 2015, declares
obstruction of a City sidewalk by a dog to be a public nuisance.
WHEREAS, The City has received numerous complaints from residents, tourists, other visitors
and business owners about persons obstructing pedestrian passageways on public sidewalks and
entryways to private and public buildings, particularly in the downtown area.
WHEREAS, Current City ordinances restrict blockage of pedestrian passageways by
merchandise, equipment, other objects and dogs, but do not specifically address obstructing
pedestrian passageway by persons.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways is amended as follows:
SECTION 10.64.010 Findings and Purpose
A. Findings.
Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3
1. _Ashland's economic vitality depends significantly on attracting tourists and other
visitors who want to recreate in a pedestrian-friendly environment.
2. Ashland is a singular destination for tourists and other visitors in part because
many of its public spaces and cultural and commercial attractions are readily
accessible on foot via public sidewalks and other walkways.
3. The space available for pedestrians upon Ashland's public sidewalks and certain
other walkways typically rany_es from 8 to 12 feet in width. Pedestrian entryways
to private and public buildings from public sidewalks are typically even narrower.
4. To retain the unique character of Ashland, preserve its status as a tourist
attraction, foster commercial and cultural activity, preserve some sidewalk space
for street performers, and ensure the safety, of residents and visitors, the City has a
significant governmental interest in establishing limits on the obstruction of
sidewalks and certain other walkways.
B. Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that public pedestrian passageways
are accessible and safe for persons walking and in wheelchairs by regulating the
aggregation of obiects, animals, and people on City sidewalks, walkways and
entryways to private and public buildings from City sidewalks.
SECTION 10.64-010 10.64.020 Obstructing passageways
A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance or by a conditional use permit or by a special
event permit, no person shall use a street or public sidewalk for selling, storing, or displaying
merchandise or equipment.
B-. The provisions of this seetion shall not apply delivery of merehandise o
"I IL]tjt%, All
the woperty abutting on the street or sidewalk upon whieh the merehandi pmen
merchandise or or _7!_!1_x___ eq pmn_
is loeated removes the t4f th n rensonable time.
F an-eight feet,
et in width, then th
return.
B Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance or by a conditional use permit or by a
special event permit, no person shall physically preclude other persons' use of a pedestrian
passageway by exclusively occupying or placing an obiect or animal thereon for longer
than 5 minutes with the intent to interfere with free passay_e thereon.
C As used in this Chapter 10.64, a pedestrian passageway is:
1 a The portion of a public sidewalk that is at least 6 feet in width on a sidewalk less
than 11 feet wide; or
b The portion of a public sidewalk that is at least 8 feet in width on a sidewalk
greater than 11 feet wide.
2 The portion of a public sidewalk that is within 5 feet of any public street, including at
a corner where public streets intersect.
3 The point of entry to public or private property from an abutting public sidewalk.
D Without excluding other possible forms of evidence, a person is deemed to act with
intent to interfere with free passage on a pedestrian passageway as defined in Section
10 64 02013 and C if the person continues obstructing a pedestrian passageway after having
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
once been informed or warned by a law enforcement official of the conduct proscribed in
this Chapter.
E Exceptions The provisions of this Chapter 10.64 shall not apply to a person:
1. Delivering merchandise or equipment, provided the owner or person in charge of the
merchandise or equipment or the property abutting on the street or sidewalk upon
which the merchandise or equipment is located removes the merchandise or
equipment within a reasonable time.
2. Unable to comply, due to suffering a medical emergency;
3. Unable to comply due to physical or mental incapacitation;
4. Performing a City-approved public safety, maintenance or construction function;
5. Waiting in line for goods or services or for a performance, unless the person refuses to
comply with a lawful order of a law enforcement official to form the line in a way that
moderates impact on the pedestrian passageway.
SECTION 10.64.030 Penalty for Violation
Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter shall be punished as set forth in Section
1.08.020 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Sidewalk and Passageway obstruction is a Class 1 IV
violation.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code,
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", or another word, and
the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered, provided however, that any
Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, i.e., Sections Nos. 3-4, need not be codified, and the
City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the _day of 2016,
and duty PASSED and ADOPTED this day of _ 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David H. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Council Communication
April 5, 2016, Business Meeting
First reading of an ordinance repealing AMC Chapter 2.27 in its entirety and
amending Chapter 2.12 to designate the Planning Commission as the Committee
for Citizen Involvement
FROM:
Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us
SUMMARY
This ordinance repeals Chapter 2.27 of the Ashland Municipal Code, which establishes a Committee
for Citizen Involvement and a Citizen's Planning Advisory Committee, and amends Chapter 2.12 of
the Ashland Municipal Code for the purpose of designating the Planning Commission as the City's
Committee for Citizen Involvement.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
At its February 29, 2016, study session, the Council reviewed the question of whether to revive the
Council reviewed the question of whether to revive the Citizens Planning Advisory Committee
(CPAC) which has been inactive since 1992. The Council decided at that time not to do so and directed
staff to draft an ordinance repealing the code section that establishes the CPAC and designating the
Planning Commission as Ashland's Committee for Citizen Involvement.
State law (Senate Bill 100, adopted in 1973 and now codified in ORS 197) requires every city in
Oregon to have a citizen involvement program for preparing, adopting and amending comprehensive
plans and land use regulations. The law requires that the program include a citizen advisory committee
or committees "broadly representative of geographic areas and interests."
In response to this legal requirement, Ashland created four ad hoc committees to help draft its first
comprehensive plan. After the first draft was finished, the City created a 16-member Citizen Planning
Advisory Committee to foster city-wide involvement in the development of the plan (adopted in 1982)
and later to foster involvement in an update of the plan, which was completed in 1992. In 1991,
recognizing that its main function in helping to update the comprehensive plan was completed, and
further recognizing that its secondary function of providing input to the Planning Commission on land-
use and planning issues had been supplanted by the many standing and ad hoc committees the City had
created for that purpose, the CPAC approached the City Council with a recommendation to reconfigure
and redirect the committee. The Council took up this recommendation in 1992 and adopted Resolution
92-25 (attached). However, former Planning Director John Fregonese left the City's employ at about
that time and according to former City Administrator Brian Almquist, the matter simply fell through
the cracks.
Page I ol'2
!VAL40
CITY OF
ASHLAND
The City's records with regard to CPAC end at this point. The CPAC stopped meeting and the Mayor
stopped appointing new members. Basically, the City let the CPAC die. However, the City never
repealed AMC 2.27; the code provision that provides for the powers and duties of the CPAC. In 2003,
the City Council adopted a Council goal to "Adopt a process to meet LCDC Goal 1 participation goal
requirement." The Planning Commission discussed the goal in a September, 2003 study session and
recommended that the duties of the CPAC be assigned to the Planning Commission. Former
Community Development Director John McLaughlin drafted a memo (attached) that laid out a plan for
addressing this Council goal. However, as with his predecessor, McLaughlin left the City's employ
before anything was done with this and again, the matter simply fell through the cracks.
Oregon Land Use Planning Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, requires that local governments have a
Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) that is charged with enhancing citizen involvement in land
use planning and evaluating the process being used for citizen involvement. A local governing body
may assume that responsibility itself. Many communities designate the local planning commission as
the CCI, an action specifically permitted by Goal 1. This ordinance formally does away with the
CPAC by repealing AMC 2.27 and designating the Planning Commission as the Committee for Citizen
Involvement. In addition to this ordinance, the City will need to notify the Land Conservation and
Development Commission of this change and amend the comprehensive plan to reflect the Planning
Commission's new duties.
COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED:
2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement
STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION:
Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance as proposed
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I move approval on first reading by title only of an ordinance repealing AMC Chapter 2.27 in its
entirety and amending Chapter 2.12 to designate the Planning Commission as the Committee for
Citizen Involvement and moving the ordinance to second reading.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance
Resolution 92-25
Memorandum from former Mayor Cathy Golden to the City Council, May 13, 1992
Memorandum from CPAC to City Council, undated (probably August 1991)
Memorandum from John McLaughlin to the Planning Commission, June 22, 2004
Page 2 of 2
r..
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AMC CHAPTER 2.27 IN ITS ENTIRETY
AND AMENDING CHAPTER 2.12 TO DESIGNATE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AS THE COMMITTEE FOR CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are
bold lined through and additions are bold underlined.
WHEREAS, Article 2, Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides:
Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes and
common law of the United States and 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 tine authority thereof shall
have perpetual succession.
WHEREAS, the Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.27, creates and assigns certain citizen
involvement duties to the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC); and
WHEREAS, the CPAC has been inactive since 1992; and
WHEREAS, Oregon land use law requires each city to have a Committee for Citizen Involvement
that is responsible for evaluating and assessing citizen engagement in land use planning processes
and making recommendations to the governing body regarding citizen engagement.
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2.27, Citizen Involvement in Planning, is repeated in its entirety.
SECTION 2. Chapter 2.12, City Planning Commission, is hereby amended as follows:
2.12.010 Established Membership
There is established a City Planning commission consisting of seven (7}-members, to be appointed
by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, to serve without compensation, not more than
one {-1-} of whom may reside within three {-3} miles outside the City limits. Appointments shall
conform to the legal constraints of ORS 227.030.
2.12.060 Powers and Duties - Generally
A. The Planning Commission is the appointed citizen body with the primary responsibility of
providing recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the overall direction of
land use planning. The Commission reviews and makes recommendations regarding
comprehensive land use planning and fosters mutual communication on land use issues. The
Ordinance No. Page I of 3
Commission is responsible to the City Council for making recommendations on land use plans
and policies that are coordinated with other City plans, policies, and functions.
B. The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties to:
1. Periodically review the Comprehensive Plan and make recommendations to the City
Council on public processes, studies, and potential revisions to the Plan. Work in
conjunction with other City citizen advisory commissions, boards, and committees to
ensure coordination of various elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Render quasi-judicial decisions on land use applications and appeals of administrative land
use decisions as prescribed by the Ashland Code and Oregon state law.
3. Conduct public hearings and make recommendations to the City Council on planning issues
and legislative changes to land use regulations and ordinances.
4. When needed to implement City goals and policies, meet with other planning bodies in the
region on issues that affect City land use planning. Make recommendations to the City
Council on regional land use issues in general .
5. Foster public awareness and involvement in all aspects of land use planning in the
community.
C. Except as otherwise set forth by the City Council, the Planning Commission may exercise any
or all of the powers and duties enumerated in ORS 227.090 et. seq., as well as such additional
powers and duties as are set forth herein.
2 12 070 Planning Commission as Committee on Citizen Involvement
A The Planning Commission is designated as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI).
The CCI shall monitor and evaluate City responsibility regarding Goal 1 of Oregon's
Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines: Citizen Involvement. The CCI shall be directly
responsible to the City Council and shall have the following powers and duties:
Responsibility for assisting the City Council with the development of a program that
promotes and enhances citizen involvement in land use planning, assisting in the
implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluating the process being used
for citizen involvement.
SECTION 3. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance
are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the
validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses.
SECTION 4. Savings. Notwithstanding any amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence
at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in
full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinance(s)
or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing
in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in
effect at the time the matters were originally filed.
SECTION 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code
and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another
word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that
any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 3-5) need not be codified and the
City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors.
Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3
Tlie foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X,
Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 2016,
and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2016.
Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this day of _ , 2016.
John Stromberg, Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
David x. Lohman, City Attorney
Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 92--$-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND CALLING FOR LAND USE HEARINGS
ON A REVISION TO THE CITIZENS PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S
ORGANIZATION.
RECITALS:
A. The State of Oregon requires a Citizen Involvement Program
for effective citizen input into all phases of the planning
process.
B. The City Council has determined that the CPAC program would
function more effectively if reorganized.
C. Reorganization of the CPAC process will require amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Director is directed to prepare the
necessary changes to the Comprehensive h necessaryalanddusephearingsgto
ordinances, and to schedule
adopt the changes reflected in the recitals.
The foregoing resolution was READ and DULY ADOPTED at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Ashland on the
day of 1992.
Nan E. /raklin
City Recorder
SIGNED and APPROVED this G~ day of 1992.
Catherine M.-Golden
Mayor
Reviewed as to form:
ft4- ~~L
Paul Nolte
City Attorney
(d:\coun6t\resos92\cpac)
co.
off AS,,y~ti i•~
- May 13, 1992
'I. OREGaa '
,City council
0if Mayor
~aI11:
#Uwct Reorganization of CPAC
The Committee for Citizen Involvement met several
months ago and discussed the options for
reorganizing CPAC. It was the general consensus
that what was needed was better communication with
citizens, and that CPAC should form one of the major
ways that we receive information and opinions from
the average citizen. A second component, better
information flowing out from the City to the
citizen, would be addressed separately. It was,
agreed that when CPAC duplicated functions already
provided by other committees and commissions,
conflict often resulted, and this should be avoided.'
Also, CPAC's role as a "brain trust" to develop
innovative solutions to specific problems has been
supplanted in recent years by the use of special ad-
hoc committees. It was also agreed that the use of
ad-hoc committees was superior to the use of CPAC,
as it involved a broader variety of people.
However, continued participation in these committees
by members of CPAC was deemed important.
The Committee agreed that CPAC should be reorganized
as follows:
1) The CPAC neighborhoods should be cut from
eight to 5, and coincide with the elementary
school neighborhoods.
2) There would be two representatives from each
neighborhood, and they would serve a two year
term.
3) The CPAC representative would be well known
to the neighborhood, possibly.by sending the
name, address, background, and photograph of
each representative to'.the residents of the
neighborhood, and inviting them to call or stop
by to discuss city issues.
4) Each CPAC representative would receive
training on who to call to resolve problems,
and how to assist citizens in addressing issues
that they bring up.
5) Each neighborhood would have an annual
meeting, where city staff would be there to
discuss what was planned in their neighborhood.
item covered would be planning and zoning, as
well as public works activities in their area.
The input from these neighborhoods would•be
used to evaluate, and in some cases, :Set
priorities (e.g. resurfacing).
6) Significant planning actions would be
introduced to the neighborhood at neighborhood
meetings. These would be informal affairs, not
hearings, where people could discuss freely all
their concerns and ask any question they
wanted. The developer would be invited to
attend, and could interact with the
neighborhood residents in an informal, non-
threatening basis.
7) Quarterly meetings would be scheduled for
the ten CPAC representatives. Among the agenda
items would be "what are the issues on the
minds of your neighborhoods". The group would
try to identify the major issues as questions
to be asked in opinion polls or focus groups.
The City would use this information (along with
input from staff, council members, and other
sources in developing quarterly or semi-annual
opinion polls of the'citizenry at large. This
would give the council regular information on
the "average" citizen's point of view.
Because of staff commitments to the CDSC study, this
was deferred for several months, while that study
was underway. Now that the CDSC ordinances are in
the hearing process, we should move quickly to
reorganize and revitalize Ashland's CPAC.
I think that the system outlined above would be the
best way to develop a new and better citizen
involvement process. This would take ordinance and
Comprehensive Plan changes, and also we should
recruit new-CPAC members. I would.request that the
council pass the attached resolution beginning the
CPAC changes, and.also authorize a call\for
volunteers through the media and the newsletter.
` -(V
MEMORANDUM
O ~7
TO: Ashland City Council and Planning Commission
FROM Tom. Giordano, CPAC Chairperson
5Ui37EGf: Future. Role of -CPAC~
Attached please find the. proposed changes in CPAC?s future role, structure, and
functioning.
After much thought and discussion at the. regularly scheduled CPAC meetings, the
committee has developed these recommendations to forward. to the Planning Commission
and City Council.
We feel that CPAC's role :is an important one in the planning process; especially in the
ability to provide long-range planning for the -Ashland community. We are excited about
these changes and feel that this is -a positive direction for CPAC.
We appreciate any opinions and/or suggestions from both the City Council and -Planning
Commission..
Tank you.
C/. C,
PROPOSED tMpNGES
Va 'v
r CPAC°S ROLEo STRIICTURE AND FUNCTIONING
Q
ll~" off"
reed..that CPAC potentially has
a v
First, it is ag ood consensus th
in planning. Second, there is a-g atiuCPAC needsttopbey
revamped in order to meet that potential. mandate
Comp 'Plan' Chapter III for
Both LCDC.Goal I and the Goal of
that u rinsures the opportunity
"a citizen involvement program phases of the planning process."
citizens to be involved in all p with this
Currently, CPAC is the mechanism for insuring compliance
Goal-- 1; ft is-clear-.that CPAC cannot "be' the .
Goal. From the rest of
in fChapterobtaining"
lll of the
inv nt., but rather it is the"means
•zen involveme
City out Ordinances. (See .
nvolvement. CPAC's role 7s o~utheeAshand spelled
Comp -Plan and Chapter..:2.2
attached)
e-mandate given.CPAC in all three of tnese rdocument evisions
It felt that th
is still valid and needs very little vthese~mandatesy.The following
is'the manner in which CPAC carries out re-organize CPAC.
is. a series of suggestions about how to e, it usually
1:-ROLE:. it is felt that CPAC has been
Vactions brought to it.
Simply responds to the issues and planning
to meet the mandates above, it is felt tha~nC AC musts
order o
order
come proactive, i •e" emsmu~t must ithatnput citizen inPtermo .
be
identify potential probe
t the City to develop plans-to guide both short.and long
asses
growth. More spe,cif ical ly, CPAC would:
a. assist in the development and implementation of City Council
- oafs, (suggest goals to CC and assist-with~implementation.a
g
CC's direction),
b. continue to have a major role in periodic review of the Comp
Plan,
mid-point between periodic reviews, CPAC would review the
C. p
progress of the City in reaching the Goal-8 and Policies of the
. .
Comp plan and report the findings to the City and its residents,
roblem areas in
d. through citizen input, assist an ropriateipolicies and
land rise planning and suggest pP
ordiqanees to meet 'the ide-nti.f xed need(s) , and
t e City to gather citizen.`input on other issues which
e. assist h
may impinge on land use planning or livability tand eesac as on
liaison between the City and ad hoc Y commit, e.g.,
issues like the siting of the electric utility-substation or
wood burning regulations.-
2. OBJECTIVES:
a. finish the current Comp Plan periodic review
b. review existing CPAC neighborhood boundaries and suggest
revisions as necessary in order-to make these area divisions
more meaningful,
c. define areas where growth is likely to occur and develop-"area
plans
d. as part of the.mid-course review of the Comp Plan, hold a Future
Plan Festival at-least once every five years,
e. develop a viable mechanism for gathering citizen input and
giving-feedback to the community, and
f. by Novem'b®r :of each year begin the process of 'foimulat-ing goals.
for the City to be given as input to the City Council as .it sets
its own goals for the following year.
3.. FUNCTIONING: It is agreed that CPAC should no -longer duplicate the
work of. the Planning Commniss.ion in regards_ to individual planning
actions (Type III's) involving specific developments. Instead we
will:
a., have a rotating sub-committee to review Type III's which might
serve as examples of problem.areas.for the entire City, i.e.,
the review will focus on conceptual or philosophic i.stues for
the.City, not on the issues for the particular site or project;
if 'the sub-committee identifies conceptual problems, these will
be reviewed by"the entire CPAC
b. continue to meet monthly or as.needed to-accomplish the work
outlined above
c: sponsor and publicize meetings to. gather citizen input on
particular issues and facilitate discussion between
neighborhoods and developers on selected application't.~
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: June 22, 2004
TO: Ashland Planning Commission
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Ashland Municipal
RE: Changes in the Chapter 2.27 of the
Citizen Involvement in Planning
The Ashland City Council has adopted a goal to update the CPAC/Citizen Involvement chapter
of the Ashland Municipal Code to bring our ordinance in line with the City's current involvement
processes.
On September 23, 2003, the Planning Commission met during a study session to discuss this
issue. At that time, staff received guidance that the existing ordinance be modified to create
clearer responsibilities for the Committee for Citizen Involvement ( Commission. to assign the
duties that previously were handled by CPAC to the Planning Further, while not necessarily a part of the ordinance, our citizen involvement program for land
use should explicitly state the City's use of ad hoc committees for specific projects as an
appropriate tool for involvement, and that we should create greater opportunities for joint study
sessions between the City's Boards and Commissions as they relate to relevant land use
issues. Also, that the City continue to expand its education efforts regarding land use planning
in the community.
Attached is the modified version of the Chapter 2.27 of the Municipal Code. It clarifies the role
of the CCI, and assigns the implementation responsibilities of the plan developed by the CCI
and adopted by the City Council to the Planning Commission. The ordinance does not
describe the citizen involvement plan, but rather assigns the responsibilities regarding that
plan.
Should the Commission believe that the changes are appropriate, we will also need to modify
and update Chapter III of the Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the direction of the
modified ordinance. The current Chapter III is included in your packet.
A concern was also raised at the meeting regarding the opportunity for citizens to have a less
formal opportunity to comment on issues and concerns, perhaps not limited to land use. While
the Planning Commission currently offers a "Drop In Session" on the afternoon of the fourth
Tuesday of each month for casual land use discussions, the Mayor is proposing to create a
committee whose sole purpose would be to facilitate the informal discussion of issues of city-
wide concern. This committee would be made up of the following members:
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT Tel: 541-488-5305
Planning Division
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us
1. Mayor
2. Planning Commission Chair
3. Bike and Pedestrian Commission Chair
4. Traffic Safety Chair
5. Historic Commission Chair
6. Arts Commission Chair
7. Parks Commission Chair
8. Tree Commission Chair
9. Two members from each CERT Neighborhood, recommended by Mayor
Total members: 16
Staff/Ex-Officio:
City Administrator
Director of Community Development
Parks Director
Public Works Director
The format proposed by the Mayor would be to have this committee meet either monthly or
bimonthly, perhaps at a lunch meeting for approximately two hours. The issues could be
generated by the Committee, or through input from citizens. The Committee could then
discuss the issues, and perhaps forward them on to the appropriate board, committee, or
commission for further review or action.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tel: 541-488-5305
20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311
Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us