Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-0419 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 19, 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 April 4, 2016 2. Executive Session of April 4, 2016 3. Business Meeting of April 5, 2016 Vi. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual presentation by the Historic Commission 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. Appointment of Cindy Bernard to the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee 3. Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for the rental of jail beds 4. Approval of a pay adjustment for non-represented employees - 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 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 two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing on the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award and CDBG Action Plan development 2. Public hearing and first reading by title only of two ordinances titled, "An ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, as a supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan," and "An ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations, Chapter 18.4.3.040 Parking Ratios, Chapter 18.5.1, Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure, Chapter 18.5.7.020.C, Exempt from Tree Removal Permit and Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions," and move both on to second reading. X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. 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 XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 2016 annual appointments to boards, commissions, and committees XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council establishing a fee for appeals of administrative decisions" 2. First reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance creating AMC Chapter 9.30 to prohibit smoking in places of employment, in enclosed areas open to the public, and in downtown Ashland" and move to second reading 3. Second 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" 4. Second 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" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS 1. Resolution urging the Oregon Legislature to refer to voters a measure creating a publicly funded health care system in Oregon 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 April 4, 2016 Page 1 of') MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 4, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order- at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor LCrnhouse, Morris, Voisin, Seffinger, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 5:32 p.m. 1. Public Input Louise Shawkat/870 Cambridge/Senate Bill 1547 pron-ioted community solar projects. Photovoltaics were becoming an increasingly viable source of mainstream power. A solar farm would put electricity in the grid decreasing the use of fossil fuels. It was time for a utility scale solar project. She urged Council to explore solar power and not wait for a recommendation by the Climate Energy Action Plan Committee who would have the community busy with many measures to reduce the greenhouse gas footprint. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Noted an interview with Elon Musk who equated issues with cot to running an experiment to see what the capacity levels of co2 in the oceans and atmosphere reach before earth was cooked. That experiment was 99% likely to show that co2 was not a problem while 1% would show it would cook the planet. There was no question that at a certain level it will destroy the earth or large portions of the planet. The question was the level and when people would stop pumping vast quantities of co2 into the atmosphere. Oil and coal were finite resources as was Ashland's capacity for environmental adaptation, mitigation, and safe parking places. 2. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Downtown Parking Management and Multi-modal Circulation Committee status update Public Works Director Mike Faught introduced Rick Williams from Parking & Transportation and Kimberly PardUCCi from Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering. Mr. Williams addressed the strategic parking management plan. The study area included Pine Street to 5r" Street, Hargadine and Main Street, and A Street. The process involved nine meetings and accessed information from the Southern Oregon University 2014 Community Planning Workshop. Consulting crews surveyed every parking lot in the downto,,vn area and quantified occupancy over a twelve-hour period. Key Findings showed on street parking heavily utilized during the peak season with 6-10 hour stretches where parking was over 85% occupied, an industry standard indicating a strain on parking. The study also revealed off, street parking options during peak hours. The Downtown Parking Management and Multi- modal Circulation Committee recognized the need for more data during non-peak periods. The Committee agreed current parking would not meet growth and developed an iterative system to manage parking over time. Parking was not just the City's responsibility and active participation from the private sector was essential. The Committee recommended a two-phase approach. The first phase was an 18-month process. The second phase would start at month 18 with a 36-month process. Phase 1 would formalize guiding principles and the 85% rule, centralize parking management, collect additional data, and assess downtown parking supply. It would also create a new parking brand and off-street signage, implement a four-tied strategy to improve bicycle parking, design a wayfinding system, and evaluate the feasibility of on street pricing at the end of City Council Study Session April 4, 2016 Page 2 of 3 the 18 months. Phase 2 strategies would set the stage for pricing parking, creating new access capacity, coordinated parking management in neighborhoods, and identify funding options for new capacity and growth. Phase 2 would also create a transition to on street pricing through permit programs, public engagement and implementing on street pricing January 2018. Other Phase 2 strategies would create capacity through parking supply and research transit and shuttle options by January 2019. Neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown could choose to have a residential permit program that restricted downtown users from using their neighborhoods for parking. Alternately, neighborhoods could have the City sell available parking to downtown users for specific times during the day. A residential permit program would require enforcement sustained through citations and the permits. Bed and Breakfasts could purchase overnight guest or temporary permits. Priced parking would allow for 2-hour and 4-10 hour parking areas. Prices could fluctuate during peak and off-peak seasons. Mr. Faught explained the Downtown Parking Management and Multi-modal Circulation Committee would make capital project recommendations for the Transportation Commission to consider. Ms. ParducCI explained there were four components to multi-modal downtown projects that consisted of pedestrian, bicycle, roadway projects, and transit. The Pedestrian Plan would provide a sidewalk on the Beaver Slide from Water Street to Lithia Way, sidewalks connecting A Street from Oak Street to 6"' Street, fill in sidewalk gaps on Water Street to Van Ness Avenue and B Street, and fill in gaps on C Street from 4°i to 5"' Streets. The Bicycle Plan in the downtown area had five bicycle projects to connect bike lanes on a variety of streets. The Plan established two trails that would expand the existing bicycle network from A Street to East Main Street and include a multi-use path from A Street to the Clear Creek Drive Extension. Mr. Faught addressed transit and explained the Transportation System Plan (TSP) included a future Route 8 that would connect the East Nevada Street project up to the hospital. The TSP identified a transit hub in the Railroad District that would provide a turnaround for Route 10, allow an express route or commuter rail and a trolley route from downtown to Exit 14. Ms. Parducci explained the Intersection and Roadway Plan would improve the intersections at Lithia Way and Fast Main Street, install traffic signals at Lithia Way and Oak Street, and add a pedestrian and bike railroad crossing at 4°i Street. Other potential projects would reduce vehicular traffic on the Beaver Slide and create a multi-use path for pedestrian and bicycle circulation, realign pedestrian crossings at Lithia Way and 3`1 Street, and implement a mini roundabout at Pioneer, Fork, and Hargadine Streets. Tour buses could also park in that area. The three lane to two-lane conversion incorporated several projects into one. The first section focused on Bush Street to Heiman Street and Church Street and was a transition from the Road Diet to the downtown core. It would continue as one lane into the downtown area and create a center turn lane onto Bush Street without backing up traffic. The second lane would come off Heiman Street and remove the traffic signal creating a natural transition. Retaining the signal would create back up and make it difficult to recover. Instead of crossing two lanes at a time, pedestrians would cross one lane to a wider island then cross a second single lane. This reduced crossing distance for pedestrians making it easier and more efficient to cross to the island. They would post signs on Lithia Way as it headed north to alert drivers which lane went downtown and which went to North Main Street. The conversion would allow continuous bike lanes from Siskiyou Boulevard through Lithia Way and from Bush Street through East Main connecting to Siskiyou City Council Study Session April 4, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Boulevard. To accommodate these changes they would remove parking in front of Brothers restaurant. Eliminating traffic on the Beaver Slide would improve Water Street. Part of the sidewalk at the busload transit stop would move to the other side of the existing trees by the Plaza parking lot. Installation of new traffic signals at Lithia Way and Oak Street and North Main and Oak Street would improve vehicular progression and pedestrian safety. Designated unloading zones for trucks would make 18 parking spaces unavailable daily until 4:00 p.m. They City would find 18 spaces to make up for that loss. The study showed in terms of the volumes three lanes was not necessary it was more how the traffic interacted in the downtown area. The project would also widen some sidewalks. Mr. Faught thought the Committee was close to making a linal recommendation to Council. Prior to going to Council for approval, they would work on an event with the Chamber of Commerce to engage the community and get public input. This would mostly likely occur in October or November. Meeting adjourned at 7:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page I of 8 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 5, 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 Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (None) APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of March 14, 2016, Executive Session of March 14, 2016. Business Meeting of March 15, 2016 and Joint Meeting of March 29, 2016 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS The Mayor's proclamation of April 17-23, 2016 as Independent Media Week was read aloud. PUBLIC FORUM Tawasi/572 Clover Lane/Explained Senate Bill 629 Right to Rest was the equivalent of a Homeless Bill of Rights. Other comments included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Joseph Kauth/I Corral Lane #3/Thought the lack of media presence contributed to the removal of founders' trees and construction of condominiums and other events. He explained how the techniques used for the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project did not use science and shared his suspicions regarding California developers overdeveloping the Rogue Valley. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Hwy 99/Continued his explanation on why City staff needed replacing and that Council should write code that provided full time salaries for future councilors. Jim Wells/321 Clay Street/Explained the techniques used by the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project increased the possibility of manageable and safer wildfires in the community. The methodology of creating safer spaces for wildfires would work with the current issues regarding the homeless and transients and shift belief systems. 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 Councilor Marsh pulled Consent Agenda items #2 and #4 for discussion. Engineering Services Manager Scott Fleury addressed the agreement for traffic signal maintenance and explained the average annual payment over the last four years for maintenance was approximately $4,000 and $11,000 for power to all the intersections. Based on that data they would not need the full $40,000-$60,000 in the agreement. Councilor Marsh spoke on Consent Agenda item #4 and noted the City was fortunate to have young people on the Commission passionate about these issues. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Councilor Rose nthal/Seffinger m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS (None) UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Report to Council on the 2016 winter shelter program City Administrator Dave Kanner- provided background on the 2016 winter shelter program offered Tuesday and Thursday nights. Representatives from Temple Emek Shalom, the Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (RVUUF), and Ashland Parks and Recreation Department staff were present for questions. He addressed and clarified a rumor that Council was going to discontinue the winter shelter. He had spoken with representatives from RVUUF and Temple Emek Shalom about concerns regarding shelter guests and the ice skating rink, and activities occurring outside Pioneer Hall. The concerns were serious and if not resolved, a discussion on whether Pioneer Hall was an appropriate location for a shelter would ensue. He emphasized he did not say the shelter was going to close. The representatives took these concerns seriously and met with the Parks and Recreation Department to resolve them. Shelter volunteers John Wieczorek and Sharon Harris spoke on the service the shelter provided. Shelter volunteers came from the RVUUF, Temple Emek Shalom, the Lyons Club, the Elks Lodge, district attorneys, and people from mental health agencies. Additionally, Jackson County Mental Health provided training for the volunteers. To date, the shelters provided 1,300 safe nights of sleep for people. There was an older population this year, many veterans, and economic refugees. The average number of people served increased every year. Homelessness was a growing problem nationwide. This winter three homeless people died. Ms. Harris read a statement from Rabbi Joshua Boettiger supporting a continuation of the three-way partnership between Temple Emek Shalom, RVUUF, and the City. Mr. Wieczorek thought the best way to more forward was forming a committee with members from the Temple Emek Shalom, RVUUF, and Council to work on an agreement. The committee could address the issues Mr. Kanner had noted. Council supported the idea of a committee. Ms. Harris suggested increasing the guest limit at Pioneer Hall or finding another location possibly The Grove. It would eliminate having to refuse guests. Mr. Wieczorek added a private home was going in by Pioneer Hall adding to the incompatibility. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund could provide housing as well. They had turned away 28 people due to occupancy load. Alternately, they had kicked out more people this winter than ever before due to behavior, intoxication, and occasionally mental health issues. This year, members from all the shelters in the community met monthly to coordinate rules and get updates on guests banned from a shelter or exhibiting bad behavior. This allowed a consistent unified front for the shelters. Director of Parks & Recreation Michael Black and Recreation Superintendent Rachel Dials explained the Parks and Recreation Department managed the facility the City owned. Shelter concerns were resolved and they supported the shelter. The issues encountered consisted of shelter guests and a volunteer informing ice rink employees they could skate free at the facility. The shelter- was not responsible for that incident. Other issues were small cooking fires in the planting bed but nothing major. Staff evaluated using The Grove but realized there was too much activity now that the Parks and Recreation Department had moved offices to the building. In addition, there were early morning and late evening classes during the week. Ms. Dials added Pioneer Hall was the least utilized and recommended continuing with that facility. Shelter volunteers left Pioneer Hall in good condition following shelter nights with only minor issues that were resolved. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Carolyn Moeglein/715 Clay Street/Was a member of the First Presbyterian Church and explained the Church hosted a shelter night once a week for ten years and often the cold night emergency shelter. Despite concerns, the congregation supported the shelter and the City's two shelter nights at Pioneer Hall. She submitted a list of people in support of the City having a facility that offered shelter seven nights a week for the homeless and community. Supplying staff for seven nights would be a challenge. Dave Hyde/616 Normal Avenue/Explained he volunteered at the shelter several times and was impressed with how everyone cooperated and adhered to the rules. Many would stand outside in the cold until 7:00 p.m. when shelter doors opened and had created issues between shelter guests waiting and street people not using the facility. He was a member of the Unitarian Church and participated in an interfaith group interested in helping the homeless community. Housing would alleviate some of stress at Pioneer Hall. He supported a committee. Reverend Kathy Keener/1516 Clark/First Presbyterian Church/This was the tenth year of hosting a shelter. She met with people weekly in the process of losing their housing or they had just become homeless. It was important to remember that a number of the homeless in the community were recently homed. The shelter was also receiving more men and women discharged from the hospital without their medication at times too late to fill their prescriptions that evening. This year, they averaged 45 guests a night where prior years the average was 19. Ms. Dials clarified Pioneer Hall was rented a few nights a week and most weekends. Reverend Keener explained the process at the First Presbyterian Church and turnover to the pre-school. The Church had more volunteers than before. They hosted Monday when guests had not had a shelter night for three days, and were often exhausted and hungry. A night crew spent the night and a feeding crew brought in warm food for the evening and morning. Councilor Marsh noted the need for good communication regarding the shelter and responsible management. Councilor Voisin thought management at Pioneer Hall was superb. However, there were communications sent out to the Council that spoke otherwise and she agreed to send them to Mayor Stromberg. She asked the Mayor to form the committee and address occupant load at Pioneer Hall as well as the temperature for emergency shelters. Mayor Stromberg explained in lieu of forming a committee lie would ask councilors to participate. Councilor Lemhouse also wanted copies of the emails Councilor Voisin had mentioned and commented how misinformation harmed the community. Councilor Voisin raised a point of order, questioned the direction of Councilor Lemhouse's comments. Mayor Stromberg resolved the point of order and would have Councilor Voisin forward the emails to him and he would then report to the Council. Councilor Lemhouse continued and explained Council supported the shelter for four years. Council questioning the process and voicing concerns was part of negotiating and determining the best path forward. 2. Adoption of water rate cost of services study recommendations Public Works Director Michael Faught along with Katherine Hansford presented the staff report on the adoption of the Water Rate Cost of Services Study recommendation. These recommendations came from the Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) Water Rate Cost of Service Study. In summary, the proposed water rate modifications include the following: • Adjustments to potable and non-potable water rates - Commercial, institutional and non-potable metered irrigation customers are currently paying more than their proportionate share of water system costs. Potable irrigation and non-potable unmetered irrigation customers are paying less than their proportionate share. The overall increase to rates was 8% and each user would see a different rate increase. Increases would come forward one year at a time. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 4of8 Commercial, institutional, and non-potable metered irrigation customers currently paid more than their proportionate share of water system costs. Potable irrigation and non-potable unmetered irrigation customers paid less than their proportionate share. The recommended rate structure modifications implemented two separate base fees reflected on the bill as one charge. The first base fee was a customer charge that covered the cost to maintain the system regardless of the amount of water sold. Customer charges included customer service and would remain the same every month. The second base fee was a service charge that covered meter and service costs and capacity costs. • Split base charges to account for administration costs and capacity costs - The recommended rate structure modifications implement two separate base fees that will be reflected on the bill as one charge. The first base fee is a customer charge that covers the cost to maintain the system regardless of the amount of water sold. Customer charges include customer service and would remain the same every month. The second base fee is a service charge that covers meter and service costs and capacity costs. • New commercial categories-New commercial customers are separated into commercial, institutional, and potable water irrigation customers. Institutional include current government/municipal customers. All commercial and residential customers will be billed the flat base fee year round. • A decrease in metered non-potable (Talent Irrigation District (TID)) rates - TID non-potable customer rates are reduced from $.0055 to $0022 per cubic foot on the metered accounts. Use of the term "reallocation" is referenced to those that are current users of TID. • Increase in charges for unmetered non-potable water - Fixed TID user costs increase to $250 over the next six years. • Reduction in residential rate increases proposed in the 2012 adopted water master plan - Reallocation of rates resulted in a reduction 1-inch meter services reset to equal 3/4 inch metered rates for households adding fire sprinkler systems. Mr. Faught explained although there were three sources of water it was important to continue to test the Talent/Ashland/Phoenix (TAP) water source annually to ensure the valve operated as expected. The study looked at the total picture of all users, including the Ashland School District and Southern Oregon University, when determining the rate structure. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor LemhoUSe noted the study was thorough and supported moving forward. Councilor Morris liked that the bases were established and broken out in the study and that it made a uniform set of rates. The big change was the commercial side. Councilor Marsh would support the motion and the process for TID. Councilor Voisin explained people left Ashland because of their utility expenses and this was another example. She had issues paying for TID and TAP. She would reluctantly support the motion. Councilor Marsh responded the projected increases to residential were less than originally thought. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal and Morris, YES. Motion passed. 3. Union Pacific Railroad Rail Yard Remediation - Next Steps City Attorney Dave Lohman presented staff report. He explained Council had previously approved staff seeking modification of a 1999 deed restriction on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) rail yard property in Ashland. After completion of a full-site remediation to the Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Residential Standards, the proposed revised deed restriction would allow subdivision and development of individual parcels upon further radiation ion conformance with the DEQ risk standards applicable to the proposed actual use of the parcels and the parcel-specific risks posed by the actual contaminants on them. In addition, staff negotiated with DEQ and UPRR for an agreement to clean up the full site as soon as possible City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 5 of 8 and to use rail cars for transporting contaminated soils from the site. Mr. Lohman provided a list of concerns expressed by Council to review, remove, or add items to the list. He explained that staff and DEQ had discussions with UPRR who committed to incorporating the actions of items listed 1 through 9 in the Remedial Action Work Plan and seek DEQ approval. If DEQ approved, their authority to enforce provided the City assurance they would address their concerns. If UPRR did not follow through as agreed, the City could take appropriate action to terminate revising the deed restriction. UPRR declined to enter- into a separate written agreement with the City on items 1 through 9 and thought they would be the subject of primary commitments to DEQ and responding to potentially conflicting interpretations by the City. Staff agreed that the City's advantage was supported and there was sufficient assurance that the City's concerns would be addressed. Mr. Lohman provided the next steps as the following that included: • 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. It was clarified that "fill-site" is the considered the parcel as one unit and using an averaging for the work plan. It was noted that this would be heard by the Planning Commission and could be "called up" by Council or appealed by a citizen. Mr. Lohman commented that it was very difficult to make any changes to railroad crossings. Continued discussion and clarification by Mr. Lohman on the different types of remedial actions that could take place by DEQ depending on the use of the property. It was clarified that soil would be removed by rail car and the City would be issuing permits for excavation. That DEQ would have full control over the action, including any issues regarding water contamination. Councilor Marsh/Rosenthal m/s to direct staff to prepare, file, and seek approval of an application for a Major Amendment to the 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought this was a major breakthrough and a move towards getting the site cleaned using railroad cars. She acknowledged the effort and work done on the matter by the Mayor, City Attorney and City Administrator, and Management Analyst Ann Seltzer. Councilor Rosenthal concurred with Councilor Marsh. He thought Mr. Lohman was the correct person to handle this matter and had done well. This was an opportunity for a cleanup on one of the largest undeveloped pieces of property within city limits. Councilor Morris agreed. This had gone on for decades. DEQ cleanups were thorough and this was a good deal for the City. Councilor Lemhouse thought it was important to acknowledge the team and specifically noted Mr. Lohman's negotiating experience and appreciated the Mayor's efforts. Councilor Seffinger was excited for the neighbors to have the removal done with rail cars. Councilor Voisin was skeptical regarding the negotiations and thought citizens would be concerned about the trucks bringing in replacement soil as well as trucks used for any additional cleanup and subsequent damage to the streets. Councilor Lemhouse raised a point of clarification for Mr. Lohman regarding repair and restoration of the pavement and confirmed they would pay the City to repair any damage their trucks might cause as well as the methodology used. Mr. Lohman further clarified additional cleanup and resulting street damage was the responsibility of the owner. Mayor Stromberg added it would be a condition of the excavation permit. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Marsh, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 6 of 8 ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution changing parking fees and fines" Administrative Services and Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the resolution would increase parking fines and parking rates at the Hargadine Parking structure. Parking fines had not changed for decades and would increase from $11 to $22 while other fines would remain the same. Councilor Rosenthal/Morris m/s to approve Resolution #2016-03. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal explained the $22 ticket met inflationary standards from 1983 but did not keep up with current inflationary pressures. The $11 fine was not a deterrent. Councilor Marsh added increasing the fine would help fund the parking management plan and required investment. Councilor Lemhouse thought this was one part of dealing with the parking downtown. Councilor Voisin was concerned that 55%-60% of parking tickets issued went to employees. Mr. Tuneberg clarified the Downtown Parking Management and Circulation Committee would address employee parking. He explained tines for multiple tickets and would research the number of employees receiving parking tickets. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. 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. City Attorney Dave Lohman addressed the intrusive solicitation ordinance and the obstructing sidewalks and passageways ordinance. Both ordinances were not a remedy and did not really address underlying issues but could make a limited contribution by helping keep discrete behavior problems from getting in the way of deeper solutions and make day-to-day encounters a little more civil for residents, tourists, and other visitors including homeless people, and travelers. The ordinances concerned people blocking passageways for other people and certain types of solicitation. He made four distinctions. The first distinction clarified this was not about storing objects on the sidewalks or camping. The Boise Idaho case was not relevant to either ordinance. The second distinction was there were alternatives for soliciting and using the sidewalks. The ordinances prohibited soliciting in certain places and blocking specific portions of the sidewalk. The third distinction was that it was easy to feel tangled up in assertions on whether- these ordinances unfairly targeted a particular demographic or societal group. An ordinance that applied to anyone in the same circumstance was not discriminatory. The fourth distinction made the unwanted behavior they addressed violations and not crimes. As long as the person receiving the citation paid the presumptive fine or went to court and abided whatever consequences the municipal judge determined to be appropriate, the incident remained a violation and did not become part of anyone's criminal record. The ordinance concerning intrusive solicitation banned soliciting contributions from people at outdoor or indoor dining areas, people within 20-feet of a bank or an ATM, and donations from occupants of vehicles on roadways except for parking areas. It also banned donations from cars on roadways. Council could remove this provision. He removed a provision prohibiting soliciting someone in a parked car and received several comments from people that this was when they felt most vulnerable. Enforcement was complaint driven or observation by a police officer and required notice prior to issuing a citation. Mr. Lohman noted an error in the second ordinance for obstructing sidewalks that 10.64.020 (D) should have been (E). This ordinance made the current prohibition of blocking a pedestrian passageway with objects and dogs apply to people and other animals. It established safe harbor for blockage up to five minutes, made the definition of pedestrian passageway slightly broader, and included the 5-feet inside the curb. It also applied to entries to public or private property from public sidewalks and required the blockage to be intentional. It retained exceptions permitted by the City and added exceptions for deliveries, medical emergencies, physical or mental incapacitation, public safety, maintenance and construction activities, and waiting in line. Enforcement was complaint driven or observation by a police officer and required notice prior to issuing a citation as well. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 7 of 8 Paul Grimsrud/1 Corral Lane/Expressed concern fining panhandlers since most did not have any money to pay. Mayor Stromberg explained the municipal court judge considered financial situations when ruling on violations. Caitlin Diefindorf/450 Wightman/Explained the difference between the local homeless, and transients. Transients were the ones obstructing the sidewalks and passageways and often were part of the marijuana harvest season and known as "trimagrents." If the ordinance passed, transients would need a safe place to store their belongings. Bob Hackett/Oregon Shakespeare Festival (OSF)/15 S Pioneer Street/Shared a letter that came to OSF from a long time customer who had stopped coming to Ashland due to aggressive panhandling, and obstructing the sidewalk. This individual worked at a food pantry and clothes closet. She would return to Ashland when visitors could enjoy their full vacation, not just the time spent in the theatres. He appreciated the steps Council was taking. Michael Marshak/2283 McCall Drive/Appreciated the effort and noted the little resources homeless people had available. He questioned at what point the City would find a permanent facility for the homeless to sleep, hang out, and store their gear. Derek Johnson/Platform 9 3/4 /Explained it had been 8 years since the ACLU condemned the City of Ashland's treatment of the homeless and read a statement. He accused the City of Ashland of criminalizing homelessness and colluding with the Chamber of Commerce pushing the agenda that served the 1% making life for the remaining 99% difficult. Debra Neisewander/1159 Tolman Creek Road/Thought enforcement driven by citizen complaints went away when the City hired a code compliance officer. This put the police in the middle and thought the Police Department was trying to change their public perception. Conroy Whitney/2001 Table Rock Rd, Medford/Explained he was a member of the Jackson County Homeless Task Force, a participant volunteer in the homeless shelters, and a member of the Medford Hope Village Tiny House Project. Many cities nationwide were trying to find solutions. He urged everyone to remember the world was watching and history would judge present actions. Councilor Marsh/Voisin m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance titled "An ordinance adding Chapter 10.130 Intrusive Solicitation to Title 10 Peace, Morals and Safety of the Ashland Municipal Code" deleting Findings #2 and #3, 10.130.020(B) and (D)(2) and place on agenda for second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained this was a broad continuum and inevitably, law enforcement, ordinances, and the cadet program was part of addressing the issues. The ordinances established the standard for civil behavior downtown. The overriding objective was not to write tickets but comm>.nicate the standards and try to entice individuals into supporting them. She removed Section B because it did not meet her interpretation of intrusive solicitation. Councilor Voisin would not support the motion. She purposely accepted the religious moral imperative that she must make the lives of the most vulnerable in the community better. Transients and homeless people would change their behavior when others showed them respect. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Marsh regarding passive solicitation along the highway. It was unfortunate listening to comments that the ordinances attacked individuals. This was a piece to the puzzle and part of the continuum. Nothing would be perfect. The Streets Team was another component. Councilor Seffinger explained there were several programs to help people in need. Part of the money came from the Food and Beverage Tax and the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). If Ashland had less tourists, there would be less money to help people in need. Ashland was a tourist town that needed everyone to feel safe. City Council Business Meeting April 5, 2016 Page 8 of 8 Mayor- Stromberg had two conflicting problems with the discussion. One was being careful not to create ordinances that targeted homeless people. Even though the ordinances stemmed from safety or a form of harassment, there was a belief in the community that any regulation the City created disadvantaged the homeless people and persecuted them. The other issue was enforcement. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Morris, Lemhouse, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 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. Item delayed to the neat meeting due to time constraints. Mayor Stromberg explained there would be no further public testimony taken on the topic. 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. Councilor Voisin/Seffinger m/s to approve first reading by title only "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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin noted Council was not interested in carrying out the ordinance and she would bow to the majority. Councilor Seffinger understood it would require one full time employee and thought the Planning Commission provided sufficient citizen involvemer t in a positive way. Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion and recognized the ordinance no longer had function and the Planning Commission was actually taking of these duties. He supported that level of tray sparency. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, and Rosenthal„ ES. Motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS ADJOURNMENT OF B SINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. C Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 2, 2016 Page 1 of') MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Committee rtiembers Claudia Alick, Roxanne Biegel-Coryell, Louise Shawkat, Greg Jones, Jim Hartman, James McGinnis, and Stuart Green were present. Committee members Bryan Sohl and Marni Koopman arrived late. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. 2. Approval of Minutes By group consensus, the minutes of January 20 and February 17, 2016 were approved as presented. 3. Public Forum Huelz Gutchen: stated that he wrote up a concept for an Ashland Renewable Energy Department. He liked most of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory numbers but didn't agree with them all. He thinks that not including forest-related data was incorrect. He stated the inventory showed that Ashland is reducing carbons but we're still adding more. Ken Crocker: stated that this is an important time to work together before the consultant starts. He thought that it might be good for the group to do an teambuilding meeting to understand where each person stands and what their understanding of the expectations of the outcome of this group might be. He also suggested that the group might want to reach out now for experts in various sectors to get them on board. Group briefly discussed whether- committee members needed to explain their expectations. Determined that they would include those where necessary in the process but not have a unique process/topic for that purpose. Commillee member Sohl arrived 3:37 p. m. 4. Discussion and Preparation for Working with Cascadia Consulting Rosenthal reviewed the process through which Cascadia was selected as the contractor for developing the action plan. Hanks stated the contract is in the final approval stages and that today he needs the group to focus on making sure they are comfortable with the work plan, public process, and important milestones. Group requested that Cascadia clarify what sectors they are planning on focusing on and how they plan to connect with the appropriate stakeholders in those sectors. Committee member Koopman arrived 3: 48 p. m. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 2, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Rosenthal paused the discussion to introduce committee member Koopman, who was appointed on March 1 St Group discussed targets and how those will be determined by Cascadia. What role will the committee have in guiding those targets? Hanks stated that part of what we hired Cascadia for is their expertize in determining base targets but that the committee can and should review those ensure that they are comfortable with Cascadia's work. Group discussed the possibility of having separate subcommittees to work on specific target sectors. Determined that these might not be the best use of committee time, and may be part of Cascadia's work plan. The important part is that the committee work to make sure Cascadia has a full understanding of our community and our values so the plan is more likely to be successful. Some questions the group would like Cascadia to consider: • What digital spaces will Cascadia employ'! Will they push or pull information (i.e. is this for community knowledge or for gaining input from the community?) • Where does the committee's own knowledge/input come into play, process-wise? • How will Cascadia engage all group - including those not normally included in processes? • How will Cascadia address social equity in the plan? • What is Jeff Golden's role in the process (the limited number of hours listed in the proposal seem to indicate he's not going to be involved in any committee meetings). Group discussed whether or not there were specific sectors/groups who are not represented on the committee. Wondered if they should request the Mayor appoint some one who is an economist? A youth (high school or college)? A latino? Have we emphasized diversity enough? Group did not come to a decision on these questions. 5. Schedule for Upcoming Meetings Koopman stated that Geos Institute received a small grant to do outreach on climate change in Southern Oregon. This would take the form of polling/information gathering but does not have to occur in Ashland. The polling would be done in conjuction with SOU, and would be similar- in format to the Road Diet polling which occurred recently. Additionally, the Ashland Climate Challenge organizers continue to meet and are willing to do small group meetings to enhance this process. If the group wishes to use either of these forms of outreach, Geos is happy to coordinate with Cascadia. She stated that Geos has already been in contact with Cascadia regarding this topic. Group generally agreed that if Cascadia can find a use for either form of outreach they are okay with using Geos as a resource. The one concern mentioned was ensuring the messaging is consistent throughout the process. Group discussed adding to each agenda a teambuilding time to answer one brief get-to-know-you question, generally to be provided by committee member Alick. Agreed to add this agenda item. The next meeting will be held on March 16t" at 5:30 pm, location TBD. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 2, 2016 Page 3 of 3 6. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 16, 2016 Page 1 of 5 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Gresham Room, Ashland Public Library, 410 Siskiyou Blvd. 1. Call to Order Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order- at 4:00 p.m. Committee members Claudia Alick, Roxanne Biegel-Coryell, Louise Shawkat, Greg Jones, Jim Hartman, Marni Koopman, and James McGinnis were present. Committee member Bryan Sohl arrived late. Committee member Stuart Green was absent. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Andrea Martin and Marc Daudon from Cascadia Consulting were in attendance. 2. Introductions Rosenthal welcomed the group and the members of the public in attendence. He stated that, unlike a normal committee meeting, public comments will be taken at the end of the meeting. He introduced Andrea Martin and Marc Daudon from Cascadia Consulting. The members of the committee introduced themselves. 3. Project Overview Rosenthal read aloud the scope of work for the committee. Daudon reviewed the agenda and informed the group that the goal of today's meeting is for Cascadia to get to know the group and get a better understanding regarding the group's intent and goals for the plan. He asked the group to answer three questions; what are the group's goals (aspirational), what milestones and actions does the group want in order to creation a good plan, and what does leadership mean to the group? Overall, the Group's responses included: • Glad to see Cascadia addressing adaptation and mitigation together • We tend to be biased towards actions - want to look on a broader scale • Want to make sure social equity isn't forgotten - how does what we propose effect community members of all ages, incomes, abilities, etc? • Want to coordinate efforts going on at other entities (SOU, AHS, OSF, etc.) with this plan Daudon asked the group, what does success look like to you? How do you see this plan being used? What is one top priority to be addressed? Group responses included: • Focus of the plan should not be solely on changing City of Ashland practices, but should be community inclusive • Ways to monitor and evaluate changes (how do we track successes/failures/needed changes to the plan/etc.) • Ensure accountability is built into the plan (budget solutions built into plan) • Understand co-benefits (how can we solve other community problems and challenges in tandem with this plan?) and avoid shifting impacts to other groups • Clear short-, mid-, and long-term actions with solid priorities • Want to end with a better aware community (more engaged & knowledgable) Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 16, 2016 Page 2 of 5 • A plan with an accessable/understandable narrative for use by public at large • Engage members of the public who aren't the ones typically involved (create new "champions") • Capitalize on our tourism sector - become a showcase for the state • Have greater participation of the business community • Understand/focus on fire-risks and forest management practices • Continue/strengthen/capitalize on the partnership with the Forest Service • Acknowledge our limitations - this plan is just the start and we may not be able to cover everything or please everyone (some will think we've gone to far while others will think we haven't gone far enough) Daudon asked the group if there were plans (or parts of plans) from other communities which they admired? • Eugene - particularly they way it was organized with internal and external plans • Cleveland - had good immediate and long-term actions, good at getting other groups involved, and had a podcast to inform community • Corvallis sustainability plan - good community engagement • Portland - good use of media such as video Group members acknowledged that it is difficult to match Ashland with other towns of similar size, as they rarely have as much "going on" as Ashland. They also mentioned a desire to include lots of on-line public engagement. 4. Work Plan Martin reviewed an outline of the plan process and timeline. Goals and timeline will likely need to be adjusted as actions are developed. Group discussed where the data will be sourced and whether the data will be usable for other communities (or will it be too Ashland specific?). Martin stated that, in general, the data will be Ashland focused, but in order- to gain context, sore will naturally need to be on a broader scale. It is important that the plan be clear with what assumptions are used as the basis of the plan so that data can be replicated or tracked successfully in the future. Martin gave an overview of what Cascadia Consulting staff will be working on the plan and what their specialties and roles will be throughout the process. 5. Public Engagement Plan Martin stated they want to figure out how best to use our limited resources to get the most people and sectors involved in this process. Cascadia sees three main goals of the public input process; 1) promote an understanding of purpose for the project and process (educate) 2) otain support from a wide cross-section of the community and elected officials (include), and 3) ensure that the plan has clear direction, accountability and identifies commonalities (keep citizens involved). Cascadia recognizes there needs to be a sort of climate change 101 for most people in order to Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 16, 2016 Page 3 of 5 start with a common background. The next focus is to move into the more personal changes and impacts here in Ashland. Conan issioner Sohl ari-Ned 5.32 p. m. Group discussed ways to reach and excite people who are only focused on co-benefits of actions, not on climate change. Group discussed how to use the input from the November kick-off. Group discussed what they would like to see in the first public engagement open-house - an education process, deepening of the questions asked at the kick-off meeting, a focus on "next steps", and a presentation of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Group discussed ways to engage groups or stakeholders who are not normally engaged. Ideas included; effective social media, leveraging other active groups (churches, non-profits, social groups, etc.), holding events in an appropriate location (venue matters), talking with your neighbors/ engaging your neighborhood on a door-to-door level, and using stakeholders already established networks. Daudon asked the group to list some of the organizations, institutions, and businesses that should be targeted for engagement in this process: • Oregon Shakespeare Festival • Southern Oregon University • Ashland Chamber of Commerce • Ashland School District • Rogue Climate • GEOS Institute • SOREDI • Ashland Hospital (Asante) • ScienceWorks Hands-on Museum • City commissions, boards and committees • Local farmers (Rogue Valley Farm-to-School ) • Lonlakatsi • KS Wild • Recology Ashland • Rogue Climate • Ashland Daily Tidings/ Jefferson Public Radio (Media) • Homeowners Associations • Property management companies • Faith community • Mountain Meadows SOCAN group • CORP (railroad) • RVTD • Service Clubs (Elk's, Kiwani's, Rotary, Amigo Club, etc.) • Homeless Resource Center Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 16, 2016 Page 4 of 5 6. Next Steps Martin stated that Cascadia will now take all the input from the meeting and update the plan process and timeline accordingly. They will continue working on planning an open-house, hopefully to be held in late April. The next committee meeting will be on April 6 at 3:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way. 7. Public Forum Sara LashafT- is a student at Ashland High School. She is part of a group there called Rogue Climate Youth Action and they are looking into creating a climate ordinance for the City Council to approve. She appreciates the work that this committee is doing and wants to make sure the ordinance they create is connected with this plan and is something with accountability for both the City and the community. They want the ordinance grounded in science. The goal of the ordinance is to connect policy and priorities in the same way that Eugene's Our Children's Trust ordinance did. They know this is feasible, even if it is challenging. Isaac Beavers - is also a student at Ashland High School and is on the same committee as Sara. He is also on another committee that is creating a climate action plan for the high school. That plan will focus on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while saving the school money. They hope to implement the plan in conjuction with the next school bond cycle. Currently they are collecting information and recently did a survey of students with similar results to national results regarding the importance of climate change issues. He wonders how the students and this group can integrate their plans and how students can get more involved with this process. Also wanted to know if information could be shared between the groups. Huelz Gutchen - believes that we are in the right place and the right time to work on this process. The knowledge we have is getting better and better and Cascadia will be a good communication between government and the committee. We have lots of things we need to do to acclaimate to new changes in the climate. We need to have a good website to bring all the public engagement and information together. Public engagement is like herding cats. Solutions to climate change are done through policy and technology. It takes governments being willing to make difficult change a requirement to get those big changes to happen. This is often just a matter of money. He is very glad for this process. Ann Barton - she has experience in organizing neighborhoods and is willing to support GEOS Institute in that if they are taking on that role as part of this process. There is a group starting at the Unity Church which is looking into doing an inter-faith taskforce. She suggests motivating the community to make change by having the City (and city staff) lead by example. Also wants to make sure that this process is connected with the Climate Challenge from the kick-off event. She stated that we need a PR person to build excitement and to form a leadership program in order to use leaders already in the community to spread the word. We are talking about behavior Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee March 16, 2016 Page 5 of 5 change and how to motivate people to get out of their comfort zones. She thanked the group for their work. Moran Lindsey - is with Rogue Climate and wanted to offer a big thank you to the group for their long hours and hard work. Stated that Rogue Climate is available to offer support and help throughout this effort. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES March 2, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in Council Chambers, 1175 East Main St. Regular members present: Pam Hammond, Dave Young (chair), Cynthia Rider, Marie Donovan, Lynn Thompson, Michael Dawkins, John Williams, Joe Graf and Emile Amarotico (arrived at 3:51) Regular members absent: Lisa Beam, John Fields, and Joe Collonge Ex officio (non-voting) members present: Katharine Cato, Michael Faught, Sandra Slattery and Pam Marsh Ex officio (non-voting) members absent: Bill Molnar, Mike Gardiner, Lee Tuneberg and Rich Rosenthal City of Ashland Staff members present: Tami De Mille-Campos PUBLIC FORUM Gus Janeway, 2000 Ashland Mine Rd Co-owner of Picadilly Cycles. He and several others bike shop owners have been slightly herded by the SOCAN group into trying to synchronize their efforts. Mike Faught gave a great presentation at one of their recent meetings and from what they saw the 6 or 7 local bike shops are in support of the plan. He added, personally he is very much in support of the plan. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of February 3, 2016 Minutes are approved. ANNOUCEMENTS Dave Kanner, City Administrator Kanner would like clarification from the committee as to what they had intended during the November 2014 discussion/recommendation on increasing parking fines. They are currently working on a resolution for Council and the question came up regarding exactly what number they are supposed to use. Currently the parking fine is $11.00 with $4.00 of that being a surcharge. The remaining $7.00 basically covers the cost of the parking program and the surcharge goes into a restricted fund balance to pay for parking programs. The committee voiced frustration over this not being explained this way previously. They questioned how much money is available in the restricted fund. There wasn't a dollar figure available but Kanner said it was a pretty substantial amount of money. De Mille-Campos read from the November 5, 2014 minutes. "Kanner stated it wasn't his intent to discuss the Hargadine fees at this time. He added he and Tuneberg recently discovered that one of the gaps in the code is that it does not provide a method or assigned responsibility for establishing parking fines. They will be addressing that gap in the code as well as others at the first of the year. He was looking for a recommendation from this committee to be forwarded to Council to act upon & set the fine. Flanagan asked if there is any data that shoes what percentage of fines paid are from our local area. Due to the variables the answer is no, the data isn't available according to Tuneberg. Donovan said she thinks the City has the right to increase the fine but she doesn't feel this committee should be the ones making that recommendation. Williams reminded the committee that the current parking fines are kind of a breakeven point. Tuneberg answered that the parking fines and Hargadine fees pay for the debt service, enforcement and maintenance and there is a little leftover after that. He added the parking fines also include a $4 surcharge which helps fund studies, improvements, debt service etc. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Hammond asked what percentage of fines go unpaid. Tuneberg answered that we had a problem about 10 years ago but we've fixed that. He said would guess maybe 5% aren't paid. Hammond said she doesn't want a guess, she would like that answer at the next meeting. Young/Williams m/s to authorize the City Administrator to present a parking fine increase to Council. Roll call vote: All Ayes (Graf abstained) Motion passes Collonge said he worked in the bay area and getting a fine for $11.00 was the cheapest parking place he had to park. Coming into Ashland for years he would just pay the fine if he was running late to an appointment because it was only $11.00. There is a way of using that as part of the encouragement to park farther away and walk to the destination. He added he missed the last meeting but the committee put parking structures away a long time ago. The committee started out by looking at the low hanging fruit and parking structures were farther out so he isn't sure where this concept is coming from. Chair Young reminded the committee that according to the consultants our current parking fine is 50% of the average fine. The average is $22.00. He thinks it is entirely reasonable to at least increase the fine to the average. He stated members of this committee have previously mentioned how it would be nice to have money available for other initiatives downtown." End Donovan asked if there is any way to earmark the money towards anything specific. Kanner said Council does have the ability to earmark the funds. The intent is to payback the parking enforcement piece, payoff the debt which will be paid off fairly soon. Currently these funds are for parking related expenses, however the current Council cannot bind a future Council. Chair Young remarked he made the motion at the November 5, 2014 meeting. Given that they were just going to the average and not being excessive the spirit of his motion was to double the fine to $22.00. Thompson recalled a cost figure around 300 thousand dollars in the draft plan and she wonders if that assumed an increase in rates/fines. Faught said he didn't bring that but as he recalls, his assumption was an increase to $22.00 as well. Kanner said the entire amount would go towards parking related matters; covering enforcement/management costs first and then the rest would go into the restricted fund. Cato asked how this motion impacts the Hargadine garage and would Council just assume they are also recommending doubling that as well? Kanner said the committee is welcome to weigh in on that but he didn't come with the intention of discussing that. Williams' recollection of how this came up was because they wanted to help fund a Parking Manager and it was pointed out that parking fines were extremely low based on the average. There was some confusion over wording of the motion and what relevance the specificity has. Kanner said he felt confident that he understood the tone and their desire and that Councilor Marsh is also present and can vouch for this committee's intent. Williams/Dawkins m/s staff take to Council a recommendation to increase the parking fine to $22.00 with the funds going towards parking related uses. All in favor. Approved. FOLLOW UP TO FEBRUARY MEETING Parducci said the two things that were follow up's from the February meeting were the First Street alleys and the changes on Hargadine related to OSF patron drop off/pick up. Parducci showed pictures of the First Street alleys. She pointed out it is a small 10-12 foot alley that goes from ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 2 of 6 Hargadine to Vista. Right now the First Street alley is one way. Parducci asked Rider if her question was about making it a two way. Rider said at one point during the idea stage there was discussion about whether a roundabout would lessen traffic on Pioneer by having a better path up to Vista. It was sort of a conceptual idea that she thought was looked into at one point and she was just following up on that. Faught said as he recalled there wasn't sufficient right-of-way to be able to accommodate two lanes of traffic. Parducci said she isn't sure you'd want to add traffic to that alley because the sight distance on Hargadine is really poor. She displayed several pictures that she took of the alleys. The other follow up is the OSF drop off/pick up along Hargadine (near Hargadine/Pioneer). Parducci displayed pictures of the potential area. Faught said they think this is a good concept and they recommend moving that forward and discussing that further with OSF. Graf asked if this plan will also go to the Transportation Commission (TC) to look at these issues. He thinks the roundabout and OSF drop off/pick up might be more suited for the TC than they are for this committee. Faught said he thinks both bodies need to look at it because it is going to impact the downtown parking plan. He recommends the new committee work on it and then it go to the TC. He intends on taking the plan to the TC and the Planning Commission for their support. He assure the committee and stated he thinks it is very important to make sure and have that support before moving the plan forward. Fait pointed out there is currently a staging area on Pioneer, next to Wells Fargo. She asked if this proposed area would be in addition to that and was the current area not working well. Rider said for her personally it's more of an issue of individual pick up/drop off issue not the larger tour busses. However, even the Wells Fargo area presents problems for those with mobility issues trying to get up the hill. 3 LANE TO 2 LANE CONVERSION Parducci displayed the proposed concept maps and also displayed the current configuration. The proposal would extend the existing road diet all the way through to Helman Street. The traffic off of Helman Street would have a dedicated lane to turn into. Right now as people come around the loop road and stop they have 2 lanes they're looking back at to try to find a gap in order to turn left or go straight across to Church Street. What this does is put all of the traffic coming into the downtown into 1 lane and then people coming off of Helman Street and the loop road would be on the inside lane. It makes it easier for people on the loop road to make the turn which is going to be important because the other part of the proposal is to reduce the Lithia portion also. It would go from 2 lanes to basically 1 organized lane that is coming around the loop and 1 lane that is continuing straight through. They are also talking about closing off the beaver slide which will add additional traffic to the loop road. All of these things will work together to make it operate more efficiently. Faught pointed out the bike lane on Lithia would also be extended through instead of just sharrows. Williams asked if there would be any changes near Liquid Assets and Brother Restaurant because there are people frequently trying to cross there. Parducci said there is nothing proposed there. Hammond voiced concern with the loop road traffic coming down and trying to jet over into the through lane. Thompson voiced concern with those coming down the loop road and wanting to cross over to Church Street. She said currently the signal at Helman creates the break in the traffic. Parducci said right now with the signal at Helman it creates a platoon of cars that's been held up for a while coming through the green light. In theory, if there is adequate capacity there should be some gaps in traffic just based on the volumes. Slattery asked about lighting in that area. Parducci reiterated sight distance and lighting will be the two things they look at most. Thompson asked if there's been a determination that the current flow is failing. Parducci said with the projected growth in the TSP it doesn't appear 3 lanes are needed along East Main and because that isn't needed, in order to ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 3 of 6 meet the need of traffic this was the only way that the multi-modal aspect of the TSP could be incorporated and still be able to maintain capacity for the cars. Graf said one of the issues that this solves is turns onto Bush Street which has been a concern with the road diet. He also asked if there are plans to put flashers at any of the crosswalks. Parducci said they've gone back and forth on whether or not they should have a flasher at Helman and they aren't sure because of the disruption of traffic it would cause. There is one currently on Hwy 99 in Phoenix that they are going to go look at to see if it ever backs traffic up. Williams said this area is very congested in the mornings with delivery trucks and he is wondering if there are any proposed loading zones. Also he is wondering if the City plans to pay for all of these changes or if we would be getting funds from the Oregon Department of Transportation since its Hwy 99. Faught said the estimated cost of the whole plan is about 6 million dollars and we envision putting in for a grant for some portion of that. Parducci continued going over the maps. She pointed out there would be new signals at Oak/Main and Lithia/Main. Faught pointed out the original plan was to remove the trees and put a loading zone in but they decided to save the trees and allow loading zones on the opposite side of the street. He said the only way this plan will work is if the loading zones are adhered to and there would have to be an ordinance that prohibits trucks from loading/unloading in the roadway. He has already shared that with the trucking agencies. Slattery asked how many parking spaces would be lost with this proposal. Faught said he thought he remembered it being 21 parking spaces. However the only way this plan works is if we make those 21 spaces whole again. The committee expressed the need to have that specifically outlined in the plan before approving it. Graf asked how many of those are permanent losses and how many are during the loading zone hours? Faught said only the spaces near Brothers Restaurant would be permanent and the others would open back up after 4:00 pm. Thompson asked if they would be able to still put meters in the loading zone areas if the City goes to metered parking down the road. More than likely it would just mean that the trucks wouldn't be ticketed in the loading zone areas. Slattery asked if this configuration and the plan to expand the sidewalks utilizes the existing curb to curb right of way. Faught answered in the first section there is about three feet extra on each side and then it begins to narrow as you move up the street. Graf asked how much it costs without the beautification piece. He is worried that people are going to see this as the City is going to spend 6 million dollars to put bike lanes through town. Faught said we have the unit costs available but in order to get grant money it really needs to be multi-modal. Parducci spent some time showing the committee the traffic modeling on her computer. After which Amarotico asked if the modeling could be recorded as a video. Parducci said she will give it another try. Faught thinks it would be a good idea to put it on the website as part of the proposal. Hammond wants to be sure we are sensitive to how the downtown is disrupted because it would be devastating to many of the businesses. Faught said he and Scott Fleury (Engineering services manager) have previously spoken about that and they've discussed doing the work at night, closing 1 late at a time etc. He added from a staff perspective they are sensitive to those things as well and they will be sure to work those things out with the impacted businesses. Hammond pointed out that while December may be off season for OSF and the restaurants it is very busy for retail. Faught said we have such a thriving economy that we don't want to do anything that is going to be detrimental to that. Williams asked who makes the decisions regarding prioritizing Public Works projects. For instance, water versus transportation or beautification. Faught said ultimately everyone in town pays for the whole product. The water and sewer are dedicated funds and are specific to the needs of those funds. The street fund was actually a discussion ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 4 of 6 point at a recent City Council study session regarding the need for pavement repair as well as the need to fund the East Nevada Street project and the new IPCO (Independent Printing Company) connection. That funding package totals about 16 million dollars. He added, those priorities are really specific to water, sewer, and transportation. The water and sewer funds are driven by regulatory needs and within each of those there are life cycles that have to be managed. Faught and Parducci concluded their presentations and Faught asked if the committee would like to spend more time on the 3 to 2 lane conversion. Chair Young said the goal as he sees it is that we want to arrive at consensus and not just a split decision that goes to Council. The committee would have trust in the details being that we have a transparent and comprehensive process in terms of prioritization and implementation of these things. Faught said he and Slattery have been working with each other on setting up a community meeting to share the proposed downtown plan so we can make sure we have community involvement and support. The plan is also to take this to the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission, as well as some of the local civic groups. Donovan asked if they would be discussing what was presented today at next month's meeting. Faught said he isn't trying to push this through quickly. He is just saying they are done with the planned presentation but we need to be sure the committee is comfortable with this. She added she wants to be sure this accommodates future traffic because this is a massive project to finish just to undo in the future. Rider said one of the things that would help her is if before the next meeting staff would send out what they are looking for recommendation on, along with the key stipulations that allow them to make the recommendations (i.e. not disrupting the downtown businesses, not eliminating overall parking spaces etc.). If that kind of summary can be put into place then that would help her when it comes time to vote on this. Marsh said she hopes the recommendation includes some emphasis on urban design opportunity. She said clearly we are about parking and transportation but this is the opportunity to build a downtown that will last for generations to come. This is going to require funding and a plan. Rider said she couldn't agree more and the design element is what is going to make it all work. Slattery said when we start talking to the community the overarching questions are going to be cost and what is it for. She feels it is important to have a general idea of how much it costs for the 3 to 2 lane conversion and how much for the improvements, in addition to where are the funds coming from. Faught said once this process is complete it would be wrapped into the TSP which would then allow him to be able to go after the money. A downtown multi-modal project that promotes economic development is one of those packages that legislatures like to see. Slattery thinks it would be nice to see a timeline for how long it is likely going to take to build that package. Thompson feels the piece that is missing in this is, what are we trying to achieve and what are the priority objectives in this redesign. Without stating what they are she feels the assumptions are that we are just trying to create a bike lane through downtown. She added, multi-modal may be a term full of rich significance to some people but it's not particularly a term full of rich significance to her. She hopes that a significant piece of this is creating a much more user friendly downtown and a large component of that is the pedestrian piece with walkable sidewalks. This needs to be stated in a forceful way because when she looks at something like this her concern is they're really just saying people are trading off cars for bikes. And her concern is because of growth and the fact that most of the people that access the downtown do so in cars and the tourists come here in cars. Our economy is sort of driven by people arriving in cars. Faught said it's actually a benefit to the cars and performs better as seen in the modeling. Thompson thinks you could articulate what the problems are with the current configuration. Chair Young pointed out they are already stated within the guiding principles for this committee, as well as the goals within the TSP. Thompson said the plan also needs to address future growth. Parducci said they used the 2034 model which is the TSP future year and that predicted an increase in traffic. ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Slattery said these are the types of questions people are going to ask. Chair Young said one of the problems in the City is that things get fragmented and that's a great point to bring up. Whatever the committee approves still needs to be vetted with the public and then passed by the Council, which is going to require a sell strategy. NEXT STEPS The next meeting will be held on April 6, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm Respectfully submitted, Tami De Mille-Campos, Administrative Assistant ASHLAND DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT & CIRCULATION AD HOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE March 2, 2016 Page 6 of 6 ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Meeting Minutes March 2, 2016 Community Development/Engineering Services Building - 51 Winburn Way - Siskiyou Room CALL TO ORDER: Commission Chair, Mr. Skibby called the meeting to order at 6:04 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison: Mr. Skibb Carol Voisin Mr. Shostrom Mr. Whitford Staff Present: Mr. Ladygo Mark Schexnayder; Staff Liaison Mr. Swink Regan Trapp; Secretary Mr. Emery Commissioners Absent: Mr. Giordano E) Ms. Kencairn (E) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Ladygo motioned to approve minutes with corrections from February 3, 2016. Mr. Whitford seconded. Mr. Shostrom abstained. PUBLIC FORUM: There was no one in the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Skibby closed the public forum. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT: Ms. Voisin gave the Council Liaison report. • The Council is looking into using the food and beverage tax towards the repair of streets and 2 CIP projects, since the funds are not being used. • The property details for the residence at 85 Winburn Way will be posted on the City of Ashland website so that the public may view the plan. • It was reported that the Parks Department is purchasing 4 new trucks for $108,000. • The Council updated the parking ordinance and the violation fees will be discussed at the Council meeting on March 15, 2016. • Ashland Fiber Network ad hoc committee is being extended for another year to deal with marketing and AFN products and will be working with a consultant. • A vote on hindering pedestrian passage and soliciting contributions will take place on March 15, 2016. • The Mayor is hosting a listening forum regarding the ban on smoking in the downtown area and how it will affect businesses. • Ms. Voisin conveyed that Council will be looking at the budget soon and she would like to recommend that the Historic Commission receive a stipend of $15,000 - $20,000 a year, to be taken out of the transient occupancy tax. It could go towards current projects such as the Historic Markers Project. Ms. Voisin stated that as soon as she gets the details, she will present them to the Commission formally. Mr. Skibby read aloud the procedure for public hearings. PLANNING ACTION REVIEW: PLANNING ACTION: PA-2016-00275 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 574 Allison Street APPLICANT/OWNER: Susan DeMarinis DESCRIPTION: A request for a Site Design Review to allow for the conversion of an existing single-car garage to an Accessory Residential Unit (ARU) on the subject property. The proposed Accessory Residential Unit is to remain in the existing location on the property and will have a small addition to the existing structure. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multiple Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 09DB; TAX LOTS: 5900. There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte contact. Mr. Schexnayder gave the staff report on PA-2016-00275. Mr. Skibby opened the public hearing to the applicant. • Ms. Susan DeMarinis of 145 Normal Ave, Ashland, Oregon, addressed the Commission. She gave a brief overview of the project. Ms. DeMarinis stated that she does not want to change the historic impact of the neighborhood and believes the project will be a great improvement to the building itself. • Ms. Kristen Beers, neighbor at 550 Allison Street, Ashland, OR addressed the Commission. Ms. Beers stated that she is sad about another lot going to multiple residences. She stressed that parking is an issue and doesn't want to see this property turned into to a rental. She went on to say, that maintenance and upkeep of properties is an issue within the neighborhood and that she is a homeowner and doesn't want more renters moving in. She would love to see the focus more on the residence, not the ARU. Ms. Beers is excited tc see what Ms. DeMarinis has planned for the project but is worried about the future of the neighborhood. • Mr. Ivar Anderson, neighbor at 560 Allison, Ash'iand, OR addressed the Commission. Mr. Anderson stated that parking is an issue for everyone in the neighborhood and that's just the way it is. • Ms. DeMarinis addressed the Commission as part of her rebuttal time. She pointed out that she has 2 approved parking spots at this time and went on to say that she has tenants whom she trusts and without her lower income rental her tenants would not normally be able to afford living in Ashland. She stated that she is supportive of neighbors coming to her if there are any issues with her tenants or property. Mr. Skibby closed the public hearing and opened to the Commission for comments/questions. Commissioners Shostrom/Whitford m/s to approve PA-2016-00275 with below recommendations. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed unanimously. • The proposed siding for the ARU should be six inch lap siding. • The proposed ARU addition should have a gabled roof. NEW ITEMS: • Review board schedule • Project assignments for planning actions • Historic Preservation Week Event schedule & Nomination list review • Presentation to City Council - The Commission discussed this and it was decided to postpone until next month's meeting. Historic Preservation Week: • Nominations were discussed and Commissioners broke into groups of 2 and will be conducting site visits of each property to see if the nominees qualify for an award. There was some discussion about individual and civic awards but no decisions were made. OLD BUSINESS: • Theater Corridor Project • Historic Markers Project Theater Corridor Project: • The letter that was sent to City Council was discussed and Mr. Skibby stated that no response from Council has been received. The Commission stressed that working cohesively with and communicating every step of the way (with the PAC) is their ultimate goal. Historic Markers Project: • Mr. Ladygo will be taking over this project but stated that he does not have any of the information that had been sent to him previously. He mentioned that he would like to meet with Ms. Renwick to discuss and get the materials for the project. DISCUSSION ITEMS: • The Commission briefly discussed the Nutley Street project. COMMISSION ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: There were no items to discuss. Review Board Schedule March 1V Terry, am, Kerry _ March 171r _ Terry, Bill, Dale March 24tr Terry, Tom, Andrew March 3111 Terry, Kerry, Andrew April 71h Terry, Keith, Bill Prgect Assignments for Planning Actions PA-2014-01956 Lithia & First - All PA-2014-00710/711 - - 143/135 Nutley Swink &Whitford PA-2014-01283 172 Skidmore Shostrom BD-2013-00813 - 3374 10 Oa gSdin(Thompson) ~ Shostrom - - - PA-2013-01828 PA-2014-02206 485 A Street Re-assign PA-2015-00178 156 Van Ness Ave Kencairn j PA -2015-00374. 160 Lithia Way - - - - - t Emery- PA-2015-00878 35 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-00980 - 637 B' Street Shostrom PA-2015-01115 34 S. Pioneer Ladygo PA-2015-01496 35 S. Second-Winchester Inn Shostrom PA-2015-01512- - - 198 Hillcrest win - PA-2015-01695 399 Beach S y PA-2015-01769 860 C Ladygo PA-2015-01517 209 Oak- --,-Shostrom- - - - - PA-2015-02203 868 A Street Whitford PA-2016-00073 151 Pioneer Swink PA-2016-00275 574 Allison Emery - Next meeting is scheduled April 6, 2016 at 6:00 pm. There being no other items to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 7:40 pm Respectfully submitted by Regan Trapp; Secretary CITY OF -AS H LA N D Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Minutes February 25, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Josh Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Joshua Boetti er Pam Marsh, left at 6:00pm Rich Rohde Heidi Parker SOU Liaison Sue Crader Megan Mercier, absent Tom Gunderson Gina DuQuenne Staff Present: Tom Buechele Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Commissioners Absent: Carolyn Schwendener, Administrative Assistant Coriann Matthews APPROVAL OF MINUTES Parker/Rohde m/s to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2016 Housing and Human Services Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All ayes, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Lindsay Gerkin introduced herself. Ms. Gerkin is a local insurance agent at Reinholdt & O'Harra Insurance in Ashland and is a 2003 SOU graduate. Ms. Gerkin was also a member of the City of Ashland Conservation Commission. Ms. Gerkin addressed the issue of increased rent rates in the City of Ashland. She is particularly concerned about the management company, Pacific Properties and the way in which they are treating their clients. Once her property was sold to Pacific Properties her rent as well as the others in her building increased by $200.00. Everyday working people are becoming homeless, stated Ms. Gerkin. DRAFT FAIR HOUSING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Reid reported that she attended a monthly meeting of the Southern Oregon Rental Association. Her purpose was to explain the Commission's desire to get feedback from both landlords and students about changes that the City could make to the Fair Housing Ordinance to further protect students as well as ideas on how to help students become more desirable renters. Reid acknowledged she did not get a great deal of positive feedback and there appeared to be some confusion regarding the language in the ordinance. Reid emphasized at the meeting that the City is not requesting that students be a protected class and nothing in this ordinance would preclude them from going through the regular application process such as checking rental history, credit, and criminal background checks. The Commissioners discussed the ordinance changes and agreed it was ready to move forward to the Council. The changes in the ordinance language addressed income and age. The Commissioners agreed the University needs to take more of a responsibility at developing resources for their students insuring that they can be housed. One of our recommendations is that we continue future outreach with the college to see if they can mitigate some of these issues or create programs to help to eliminate some of the concerns of the property owners, stated Reid. Reid said that this ordinance change goes to the City Council Study Session on March 14, 2016. Buechele/Rhode m/s as a Commission we propose the ordinance of the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.110 Fair Housing as amended. Motion was discussed Motion was amended as follows; 1) that Council consider the alternate language of State and Local laws. 2) Further recommend working with the college to look at Housing options and look at programs addressing those barriers. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed unanimously. It was suggested that in the memo that goes to Council to mention that the value of amending the Fair Housing Ordinance is the educational component. The Commissioners will try and attend the City Council meeting and Rhode volunteered to co present with Reid. STRATEGIC PLAN PRIORITY UPDATE Boettiger gave a brief update from his meeting with Daniel Murphy and Ben Morgan regarding Mr. Murphy's proposal "Ashland Connects." This program is about training volunteers who would engage with anyone on the streets who might need assistance (directions, mental health needs, etc.) connecting them with the appropriate resources. Boettiger went onto say that the Peace Commission is working on a similar project and the two streams are coming together to work on this. Councilor Marsh conveyed she is very supportive of this program and it fits right in with other programs currently being discussed. This Commission is happy to help with this program in any way they can. Reid spoke with Reverend Norma Nakai Burton from the Ashland Unity Church. Ms. Burton explained she is working with a group of people who are interested in doing a co-housing project. They are discussing having some kind of affordable housing component with the project. Currently the group does not have enough people to make this goal happen. The Ashland property that seems to meet their needs is the Verde Village property located on Nevada by the dog park. Reid gave Ms. Burton some suggestions of agencies to contact who might be interested in a partnership. • ACCESS • Neighborworks Umpqua in Roseburg • School District (work force housing) • Senior Co-Housing - Melanie Mindlin HOUSING TRUST FUND UPDATE Rohde and Parker met to discuss the next steps in revenue options for the Housing Trust Fund (HTF). Some of the potential sources of revenue are; food and beverage tax, hotel/motel tax and property tax. After Rohde and Parker reviewed the budget they acknowledged there are some opportunities in the budget for money for the HTF. One suggestion was the potential to put a cap on the food and beverage tax revenue then use the tax growth monies above that cap each year which may be a large enough contribution for the HTF. Currently that tax money is dedicated to purchasing open space for parks and the waste water treatment plant utilizing the funds received above the capped amount would ensure that HTF contributions would not be taking funding away from identified uses but rather capturing funding above that which was expected. Other suggested sources were; the newly proposed marijuana tax, a construction excise tax, a surcharge on building permit fees. It was mentioned if a number of multiple sources were used for smaller amounts of money it would be less of an impact. Michael Anderson, the National staff person for the HTF is willing to discuss his ideas and thoughts with the Commission. Perhaps the Commission could do a conference call or skype with Mr. Anderson rather than have him drive down from Portland. Our role is to present several options to the council for their decision. SOCIAL SERVICE GRANT PROCESS EVALATION LETTER REVIEW Reid composed a letter to Social Service Grantees informing them that like the United Way, the City of Ashland will also be requesting a mid-cycle report from all grantees. Reid included the mid cycle report from the United Way with one modification. Reid removed the tally on the backside of the form for all the different areas. The Commission liked the letter and Reid will mail it out to the Grantees in the next week. DISCUSSION ABOUT RENTAL HOUSING FORUM Reid and the Commissioners agreed it would be appropriate for this Commission to endorse a Rental Housing Forum. The Commissioners discussed the different venues that might be available and decided the Unitarian Church would be the most appropriate as it has plenty of parking. Rohde/DuQuenne m/s that the Housing Commission sponsor and reach out to other housing groups to sponsor a Rental Housing Forum in April and that we set up a committee to do the planning. Voice Vote: All ayes, motion passed. LIAISON REPORTS Council - No report, Marsh left the meeting at 6:00 Staff - Reid reported that the Community Development Block Grant applications were due last Friday. The City received four applications 1. Maslow Project $10,000 2. St. Vincent DePaul Home Visitation Program $25,000 3. Options For Homeless Residence of Ashland $12,700 4. Capital Improvement project - Ashland Supportive Housing $70,000 Reid confirmed that the allocation was reduced this year to $158,700. We do have some carry over funds in the amount of $101,000, stated Reid. She emphasized the importance of awarding the capital improvement money this year. GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Parker announced that the Jackson County Homeless Taskforce has proposed Hope Village. A tiny house is on display at the Rogue Valley Mall. QUORUM CHECK: Next Housing Commission Meeting - 4:30-6:30 PM; March 24, 2016 4:30-6:30 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development & Engineering Department located at 51 Winburn Way. - Both Buechele and DuQuenn will not be able to attend next month's meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 8, 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Greg Lemhouse NEW BUSINESS A. Update on Council's discussion of the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided the background information on the CPAC. He explained this 16 member committee was formed in 1981 to address Statewide Goal #1 for citizen involvement. One of the committee's primary responsibilities was updating the city's comprehensive plan, but after that work was completed the mayor and council shifted to more specialized committees to maintain compliance with Goal #1. Mr. Molnar stated while the CPAC has not been active for over 20 years, it is still referenced in the comprehensive plan. The city council recently evaluated this and directed staff to officially remove CPAC from the books and have the Planning Commission take over those duties for citizen involvement. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse explained this issue was brought forward by a single councilor but the majority of the council does not support reactivating the CPAC. Instead they felt the Planning Commission is the proper body to take on any issues the CPAC would have handled. Commissioner Mindlin stated this may be motivated by people's perception that there is insufficient public involvement in Ashland. She added the CPAC was responsible for certain actions the Planning Commission does not do, such as public outreach and publicizing issues. Commissioner Dawkins stated part of the problem is that a decade ago the Daily Tidings had a reporter on staff who attended all city meetings and got the word out on public issues and actions. He stated the local newspaper is now owned by a foreign entity and it is very difficult to get them to run articles ahead of hearings, and if there is any coverage at all it is often after a decision has been made. Mr. Molnar recommended they discuss this issue further at the Planning Commission's annual retreat in May. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Molnar announced the March study session has been cancelled and the Planning Commission's annual retreat has been scheduled for May 14. He added staff has been in discussion with the mayor regarding a joint meeting with the city council to discuss the wildfire lands ordinance and the public hearing for the ordinance will be pushed back so that this joint meeting can occur. AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins stated the Downtown Parking Management & Circulation committee is nearing the end of their work. They are currently reviewing reducing East Main Street to two lanes from Helman to Gresham through the downtown; Ashland Planning Commission March 8. 2096 Page 9 of 3 eliminating the "Beaver Slide"; and adding new lights at Pioneer and Oak. Dawkins stated when their work is done their recommendations will go to the city council for review and approval and a new city commission will be formed to oversee the ongoing work. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Minutes. 1. February 9, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2. February 23, 2016 Study Session. Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained from voting on the minutes of February 9, 2016. PUBLIC FORUM Joseph Kauth/1 Corral Lane, #13/Stated public involvement is essential and is pleased to hear the commission is discussing this. Mr. Kauth recommended the city form a committee to tackle invasive noxious weeds, including tall poison hemlock and puncture vine, and stated land that used to provide shelter and food for wildlife is being destroyed. Huelz Gutcheon/2253 Highway 99/Recommended the city form a safety commission made up of members who do not drive cars. He stated there are hundreds of bicycling hazards in town and the people responsible for designing the city's corridors and not taking bicyclists into enough consideration. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02203, 868 A Street. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-02203. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained. Motion passed 5-0. B. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00041, 1465 Webster. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-00041. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained. Motion passed 5-0. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-01487 DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, as a supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan; and an Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations, Chapter 14.4.3.040 Parking Ratios, Chapter 18.5.1, Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by type of review procedure, Chapter 18.5.7.020.C, Exempt from tree removal permit, and Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions. Assistant Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the proposed changes to the airport overlay zone. He explained the proposed ordinance would: • Adopt the most recent Master Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan; • Provide a ministerial review process for permitting conventional hangars; • Add a parking ratio for conventional hangars; • Change the height limitations from the current 20 ft. maximum; and • Allow tree trimming or removal for safety reasons as mandated by the FAA without requiring permits. City Engineer Scott Fleury commented on the Airport Commission's long term plans, including drainage way enhancements and riparian restoration. He stated they are especially interested in the Neil Creek border and would like to remove some of Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 the taller trees and bring in new, low growth materials. He added they are also in the process of creating a landscape plan and removing the junipers and replacing them with something more appropriate. Staff was asked to clarify the language on page 2 that requires property owners to sign an agreement and waive their rights to complain. Mr. Fleury explained this is an existing provision and applies to the whole overlay. He stated Jackson County has similar requirements and the intent is to make property owners aware they are purchasing in an airport zone and there will be associated noise. Commissioner Mindlln closed the hearing at 8.,00 p. m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Pearce/Brown m/s to recommended council's approval of PA-2015-01487. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Miller, Brown, Dawkins, Norton, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2016 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF -A5 H LA N D Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Appointment to Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee FROM: Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant, City Administration, diana.shipletnashland.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 five members. Since then, Mayor Stromberg has appointed three additional members to the committee. Mayor Stromberg is now requesting Council confirmation of the appointment of Cindy Bernard. 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 Cindy Bernard to the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee. ATTACHMENTS: None Page ] of 1 : CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for the Rental of Jail Beds FROM: Tighe O'Meara, Chief of Police, ti~-,he.omeara a ashland.or.us SUMMARY At the March 14, 2016 Council meeting the Council directed staff to pursue renting two jail beds at the Jackson County Jail for the incarceration of individuals convicted of misdemeanors in Ashland Municipal Court. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) establishes that relationship with the County. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: During its recent discussions of downtown behavior issues, the Council agreed that the City should rent two jail beds in order to ensure that those individuals convicted of crimes in Ashland Municipal Court could face more serious sanctions. The Council heard testimony supporting this tactic on the grounds that currently, individuals who are chronic offenders or who are convicted of quality of life crimes know that they will not serve any jail time. It is hoped that the threat of jail time will serve as a deterrent to such individuals. Due to staffing constraints, the Jackson County Sheriff's Office was compelled to reduce its jail space by approximately 60 beds. This reduction filrther strained the County's ability to incarcerate people who have been charged with or convicted of a crime. It is common for a person who has been arrested or sentenced to a term in jail for certain lesser crimes to be immediately released due to a lack of available space. The lack of available jail space is not unique to Jackson County. Several agencies around the state have taken the step of paying for jail space in order to ensure that those arrested and/or convicted of crimes see some meaningful sanction. While pre-conviction housing is possible through such a program it is much more complicated than post-conviction housing. The attached MOU establishes an agreement with Jackson County that allows for up to two beds to be rented by the City of Ashland to incarcerate defendants convicted of crimes (not violations) in Ashland Municipal Court. The jail beds will cost the city $100 per day, and the city will not be charged unless the bed is in use. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications are unknown at this time. It is estimated that this program could cost anywhere between $20,000 and $75,000 annually. This money is currently not allocated in the police Page I of 2 Vr CITY OF ASHLAND department's biennial budget. However, the department will absorb the cost in its budget as much as possible, and will return with a supplemental budget request if needed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council accept the MOU as written and authorize the city administrator to sign it. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of a memorandum of understanding between the City of Ashland and Jackson County for the rental of up to two jail beds and authorize the city administrator to sign said MOU. ATTACHMENTS: MOU Page 2 of 2 11TAWA INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN JACKSON COUNTY AND THE CITY OF ASHLAND FOR HOUSING ADULT PRISONERS IN THE JACKSON COUNTY JAIL This agreement is made by and between The City of Ashland, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, ("Ashland") and Jackson County a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, ("Jackson County"), each acting through its authorized officials. STATUTORY AUTHORITY 1. 1 n accordance with and pursuant to the provision of ORS Chapter 190 entitled INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION, the County is authorized to jointly provide for the performance of a function or activity in cooperation with a unit of local government that includes a city or other governmental authority in Oregon. By acceptance of this Agreement, Ashland certifies it meets the above criteria for eligibility for such cooperation with the County. 2. As a result of this agreement and pursuant to ORS 190.030, any unit of local government, consolidated department, intergovernmental entity or administrative officers designed herein to perform specified functions or activities is vested with all powers, rights, and duties relating to those functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party to the Agreement, its officers and agencies. RECITALS WHEREAS, Jackson County operates the Jackson County Jail ("facility"') with limited housing space available for housing adult prisoners from other cities. WHEREAS, Ashland desires to detain in a humane and secure environment, both male and female adult prisoners, but lacks the ability to do so. WHEREAS, Ashland desires to reserve (2) beds per day in the facility on an as-needed basis. WHEREAS, Jackson County is willing to make the desired bed space available to Ashland in accordance with this agreement in order to partially offset its cost for operation of the facility while still maintaining adequate space for its own needs. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS STATED BELOW, ASHLAND AND JACKSON COUNTY AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Jackson County shall. a. Admission Services. (1) Any pre-trial or sentenced adult inmate of either sex held in the legal custody of Ashland on charges arising in Jackson County shall be admitted to the facility upon written request of Ashland or the agency's authorized representative, subject to the terms of this agreement. Ashland Housing Agreement (2) There shall be reserved to the exclusive use of Ashland, upon request from an authorized representative, at least 2 bed spaces within the facility for Ashland adult inmates. (3) Jackson County, acting through its correctional facility staff, shall have discretion to refuse acceptance of any inmate placed under this agreement where it is reasonably believed that such placement does not comply with lawful requirements of facility regulations, State statutes, or court orders, or when it appears that the physical condition of the placed inmate requires immediate medical attention. b. Supervision Services. Inmates admitted under this agreement shall receive the quality, level and manner of care and supervision by Jackson County as any other inmate housed in the facility. c. Release Services. Jackson County shall release inmates placed under this agreement only upon notification by persons authorized by Ashland or pursuant to court order, provided, however. that Jackson County, upon written notice to Ashland may act to require the release of any inmate it reasonably believes has been detained in excess of any statutory period prescribed for custody. No provision contained in this agreement is intended to relieve Ashland from the duty to monitor the period that an inmate is detained. Ashland agrees to defend and hold Jackson County harmless from any claim of detention in excess of lawful limits brought or on behalf of any inmate placed as provided above. Section 2. Medical Services. a. Jackson County shall provide Ashland inmates with the routine medical care inside the facility. The level of care inside the facility will be the same as that provided to any other inmate in the facility. This level of care includes the cost of all medical, dental, and mental health care as well as the cost of medical supplies. over the counter medications and, any prescript ion medications routinely stocked by the facility which are provided to other inmates. The cost of all routine medical care inside the facility is covered by the per diem rate. b. Ashland is financially responsible for all costs for medical care provided Ashland inmates outside the facility. c. If Jackson County determines that a need for emergency services of any kind exists, that determination shall control, and Jackson County is hereby authorized to take appropriate action, to secure such services. Jackson County shall provide Ashland with immediate notice of such emergency services and Ashland shall reimburse Jackson County for any expenses connected therewith over and above the base cost established in Section 4 of this agreement. d. In no event shall Jackson County invoice Ashland for more than Jackson County's out of pocket expenses in securing emergency services for an Ashland inmate. For purposes of this agreement, "emergency" shall mean any occurrence or situation involving illness, injury or disability requiring immediate medical, dental or psychological services wherein delay in the provision of such services arises out of Jackson County's negligent operation of the facility. 2 Ashland Housing Agreement Section 3. Ashland Shall. a. Written Statement. Ashland shall provide a written statement to Jackson County for each adult inmate detailing the basis for custody and length of sentence applicable. Any applicable court order or detainer shall be attached to the written statement. All pertinent medical information shall accompany the inmate and be provided to the medical staff for follow up evaluations. b. Authorization to Act. Ashland shall provide Jackson County current identities of persons authorized to act under this agreement on behalf of Ashland. c. Transportation. Ashland's authorized representative shall provide all transportation of Ashland inmates to and fi-om the facility at no expense to Jackson County. Transportation to Ashland Municipal CoLll-t will be the responsibility of Ashland (unless the appearance can be done via video). d. Bed Management. Ashland will be solely responsible for the management of the rented beds. Ashland inmates designated in writing will be removed from the Jackson County Jail Release Matrix and will be kept in custody until completion of their sentence or when Jackson County is notified that Ashland no longer wishes that an inmate be assigned to one of the rented beds. The inmate will then either be released or placed back orto the Jackson County Jail Release Matrix. e. Release Information. Ashland shall provide Jackson Count y any required written evidence of authorization or other court orders or reports necessary to release any inmate placed under this agreement. Rou tine releases of Ashland inmates will take place in Jackson Count y. Ashland will be responsible for calculation of statutory good time, work time and release date of all Ashland inmates. Jackson Count y will provide Ashland with the necessary data to make these calculations. f Extraordinary Care. Upon prior approval by Jackson County, Ashland shall reimburse Jackson County for any expenses reasonably incurred in the care and supervision of a placed inmate which would exceed the level of care and supervision customarily furnished to detained inmates, including but not limited to specially tailored clothing, footwear, prosthesis, remedial tutoring, eye glasses, dentures, hearing aids and similar devices. g. Removal of Inmates. Ashland shal l remove any placed inmate that Jackson County determines in its sole discretion, to be a substantial risk to the security or safety of the facility on 48 hours' notice from Jackson County. h. Court Orders. Ashland shall furnish promptly to Jackson County in writing judicial orders of placement, social history, visitation restrictions, and specialized programming which would affect detention care and supervision of the placed inmate. 1. Habeas Corpus. In the event a Ashland inmate in the physical custody of Jackson County is the subject of a habeas corpus or other proceeding seeking 3 Ashland Housing Agreement release from custody, Jackson County shall have no duty to defend or appear in the proceeding. At its option, Ashland may defend or appear in the proceeding. Jackson County will promptly notify Ashland of any proceeding of which it is aware that seeks release of an Ashland inmate from Jackson County. J. Payment. All sums due Jackson County under this agreement shall be remitted to: Jackson County Sheriff s Office, Attn: Sue Watkins 5179 Crater Lake Hwy, Central Point, OR 97502 Section 4. Cost. a. Base Cost. While this agreement is in effect, the base cost to Ashland shall be $100.00 per day per bed for up to two (2) beds. This charge will only apply when an authorized representative from Ashland has designated in writing that Ashland wishes to use one or more of the two contracted beds. b. Other costs. In addition to the base cost, Ashland shall pay to Jackson County the costs of emergency services and extraordinary care for Ashland inmates. c. Ashland shall make payment to Jackson County not later than the 20th day of the month following Ashland's receipt of Jackson County's monthly billing in payment for services rendered in accordance with the agreement. Section 5.Liability. a. No provision contained in this agreement is intended to relieve Ashland from any claim brought by or on behalf of a n injured part y as a result of Jackson County releasing an inmate or for any claim brought by or on behalf of an inmate for failure by Jackson Count y to release an inmate pursuant to the conditions as set forth in Sections Lc and 3.e above. Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., and Article X1 , Section I 0 of the Oregon Constitution, Ashland agrees to defend and hold harmless Jackson County from any claim brought by or on behalf of an injured party as a result of Jackson County releasing an inmate or from any claim by or on behalf of an innate as a result of failure by Jackson County to release that inmate pursuant to the conditions as set forth in Sections Lc and 3.e above. b. Subject to the limitations and conditions of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 et seq., and Article X1, Section 10 of the Oregon Constitution, Jackson County agrees to defend and hold Ashland, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents harmless from any claim brought under federal civil rights law including 42 U.S.C. 1983, and pursuant to the Oregon Tort Claims Act and shall indemnify Ashland, its elected officials, officers, agents and employees for any loss proximately and legally caused by the conduct of Jackson County's elected officials, officers or employees in the performance of the obligations required by the terms of this agreement except for claims brought related to the release or failure to release an inmate pursuant to the conditions set forth in Sections Lc and 3.e as set forth in Section 5.a. 4 Ashland Housing Agreement Section 6 Amendments No Assignments, Construction. a. This agreement may be amended only by written Amendment and included as part of the agreement when properly signed by both parties. b. Neither party shall assign or otherwise transfer its interest in this agreement. c. This agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State or Oregon. Section 7. Term. a. Term. Unless terminated in accordance with subsection (b), the term of this agreement is from the effective date through June 30, 2019. The effective date is May 1, 2016, or the last date signed by the parties below, whichever is later. The charges established by Section 4 ("Cost") shall not accrue until the date inmate(s) are delivered to Jackson County Jail or 30 days after the effective (late, whichever occurs first. b. Without Cause. This agreement may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties or by either party upon thirty (30) days' notice, in writing or delivered by certified mail or in person. c. For Cause by Jackson County. Jackson County may terminate or modify this Agreement, in whole or in part, effective upon delivery of written notice to Ashland or at such later date as my be established by Jackson County under any of the following conditions: (1) If Ashland's funding from federal, state, or other sources is not obtained and continued at levels sufficient to allow the performance of the Agreement or insufficient funds are appropriated by the Ashland City Council to meet's A s h I a n d' s obligations under this agreement; (2) If federal or state regulations or guidelines are modified, changed, or interpreted in such a way that the performance is no longer allowable or appropriate or are no longer eligible for the funding proposed payments authorized by this Agreement. d. For Default or Breach. Either Jackson County or Ashland may terminate this Agreement in the event of a breach of the Agreement by any party. Prior to such termination the party seeking termination shall give to the other party written notice of the breach and intent to terminate. If the party committing the breach has not entirely cured the breach within fifteen (15) days of the date of notice, or within such period as the party giving notice may authorize or require, then the Agreement may be terminated at any time thereafter by a written notice of termination by the party giving notice. The rights and remedies of the parties provided in this subsection are not exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this agreement. e. Obligation/Liability of Parties: Tennination or modification of this Agreement pursuant to subsections a, b, c, or d above shall be without prejudice to any 5 Ashland Housing Agreement obligations or liabilities of either party already accrued prior to such termination or modification. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto caused this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the dates and year entered hereinafter. Each party, by signature below of its authorized representatives, hereby acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants to have the authority to execute this agreement. CITY OF ASHLAND Dave Kanner, City Administrator JACKSON COUNTY Danny Jordan, County Administrator County Counsel Corey Falls, Jackson County Sheriff 6 CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of a pay adjustment for non-represented employees FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY I am seeking Council concurrence with my proposal to give non-represented employees a 2% cost-of- living pay adjustment as budgeted in FY 2017. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The current budget includes 2% cost-of-living adjustments for non-represented employees in each year of the current budget cycle. In the current year, because inflation was essentially 0%, these employees did not receive a 2% increase. Most non-represented employees received a token 1% increase and about a half-dozen non-supervisory confidential employees received a 1.5% adjustment, in recognition of the fact that their jobs are substantially similar to represented counterparts who received a 2.5% increase, per their collective bargaining agreement. Since 2012, COLAs for non-represented employees have totaled 7%, while COLAS for represented employees in the Fire, Police, Clerical/Technical and Electric bargaining units have been 11 % (plus increased incentives), 8% (plus an adjustment for FY 2016 that is still in bargaining), 8.5% and 9.25%, respectively. This has created ``compression" between salary ranges for represented positions and management/supervisory positions. That is, as the pay scale for represented positions rises and the pay scale for non-represented positions does not rise proportionately, we find ourselves with many represented employees who, with overtime and incentives, earn more than their supervisors. Aside from the fairness issue, this diminishes the incentive for our best and brightest employees to seek opportunities to move into management. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Funds for a 2% pay adjustment in FY 2017 for non-represented employees are included in the BN 2015-17 budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this pay adjustment. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the City Administrator's proposal to provide a 2% pay adjustment to non- represented employees in fiscal year 2017. ATTACHMENTS: None Page 1 of 1 ~A& CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Public Hearing on the 2016 Community Development Block Grant Award and CDBG Action Plan Development FROM: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist, Community Development Department, reidl a ashland.onus SUMMARY The City of Ashland has received four applications for $228,691 in competitively available Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The total CDBG allocation to the City of Ashland for the 2016 Program Year is $158,726. Of this amount 20% is reserved for program administration ($31,745). The remaining $126,981 plus $101,710 in reprogrammed funds from Program year 2015 ma_y be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The total amount of CDBG funds available to award to capital improvement projects in Program year 2016 is $228,691. $23,808, is available for award to Public Service activities (15% of the 2016 Program Year allocation). At this hearing, the City Council will take public input on the use of federal funds and will make a determination regarding the final allocation of the CDBG awards. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The City of Ashland is an entitlement jurisdiction and receives a direct allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City of Ashland provides Community Development Block Grant funds to eligible affordable housing providers and non-profit organizations for capital improvement and public service projects within the City of Ashland. The City Council is to evaluate the four proposals requesting CDBG funds. Upon review of the proposals, and after taking any public testimony at a public hearing, the Council shall award funding to the selected applicant(s). The 2016-17 City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds is $158,726. Twenty percent of this allocation ($31,745) is set aside for administration of the CDBG program. The remaining $126,981 plus $101,710 in unallocated grant funds from program year 2015 may be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The CDBG regulations only permit 15% of the City's annual allocation to be directed toward public service projects. As such only $23,808 in CDBG funding is available for award to support eligible public service projects during the 2016 program year. All CDBG awards granted must be to eligible projects meeting the CDBG national objectives and which are consistent with the goals identified in the City's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for the Use of CDBG funds. The attached Staff Evaluation, dated March 14, 2016, contains a complete background of funding availability, the award process, staff's assessment of each proposal, and the relevant CDBG program criteria relating to the award of CDBG funds and each of the applications received. Page I of-I r`, CITY OF ASHLAND Proposals Received: The City of Ashland has received five applications for competitive 2016 CDBG funds. The applications received are attached and include the following: • St. Vincent De Paul (SVDP)-525,500 requested to field emergency rent and deposit assistance for qualified low income households in an effort to prevent homelessness. • Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA)-512,664 requested funding to support .50 FTE of a Lead Resource Navigator position to assist low income families maintain or obtain housing, and secure employment for unemployed individuals. • Maslow Project-510,000 requested for outreach and case management for homeless youth enrolled in the Ashland school district. • Ashland Supportive Housing-$70,000 requested to improve energy efficiency of a housing unit serving five adults with disabilities. A total of $228,691 in CDBG funds is available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public service activities is limited to $23,808. CDBG funds will be available upon HUD's approval of the 2016 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held by the Housing and Human Services Commission to ensure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. HUD must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with Ashland's Consolidated Plan. The Housing and Human Services Commission reviewed the CDBG applications at its regular meeting on March 24"'. The Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council which differs from staff's recommendations. Both recommendations are provided in the recommendations section below. Staffs evaluation criteria are detailed more fully in the attached evaluation. HUD Timeliness Rule The CDBG program has a stipulation that grant administrators plan for the timely expenditure of funds. This is called timeliness. Timeliness refers to how quickly the grantee is able to commit and expend CDBG funding. The program rule for timeliness is that the grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual allocation sitting in their line of credit at the U.S. Treasury. The analysis for timeliness is calculated 60 days prior to the end of the grantee's program year (which is July I" for the City of Ashland). If a grantee has more than 1.5 times their allocation in their line of credit they will be required to submit a "work out plan" to HUD to explain how the money will be utilized to avoid chronic timeliness issues. A grantee that shows chronic timeliness issues is at risk of having HUD withhold future grants until the grantee can expend existing resources. Due to the City's small allocation, the City reaches the 1.5 timeliness threshold more quickly than most grantees. Given the current formula allocation the City can have up to $238,089 in funding in the line of credit without triggering the timeliness rule. Previously allocated but yet unexpended grant funds count toward this total, and the amount of unallocated carry over funds, allocated but unexpended funds and new grant funds the City will receive have the potential to put Ashland over the 1.5 ratio. It is imperative that the City demonstrate that with current awards the City will expend sufficient grant funds to meet the 1.5 standard in the coming fiscal year. Page 2 of 4 IVr CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement. 2.1 Engage community in conversation about core services, desired service levels and funding mechanisms. 5. Seek opportunities to enable all citizens to meet basic needs. 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. Identify specific incentives for developers to build more affordable housing. 5.3 Leverage partnerships with non-profit and private entities to build social equity programming. 6. Develop supports to enable citizens to age in Ashland 6.1 Support and augment existing programs. 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. 7.1 Support educational and enrichment programs in the community. 7.3 Support land-use plans and policies that encourage family-friendly neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The CDBG program is funded by Federal grants through HUD and no City of Ashland funds will be used for CDBG activities. In addition, 20% of the annual grant award will be made available to cover administrative costs associated with carrying out grant administration and CDBG program requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUESTED ACTIONS: Staff s recommendation: Staff recommends award of the 2016-2017 CDBG funds as follows: • $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation • $16,665 to St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • $7,143 to Maslow Project School Based Services Staffs recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, agency experience and capacity, and readiness to proceed. The Housing and Human Services Commission Recommendation: The HHSC reviewed proposals at its regular meeting held on April 2, 2015 and recommended award of the CDBG funds as follows: • $12,508 to the St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation to fund emergency rent and deposit assistance for qualified low income households in an effort to prevent homelessness. • $5,000 to the Maslow Project for case management services. • $6,300 to Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland to support the lead resource navigator position. • $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to direct staff to draft the 2016 Annual Action Plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds reflecting the award of CDBG funding for the 2016 Program year as follows: Page 3 of 4 I CITY OF ,ASHLAND • Award $ to St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program. • Award $ to Maslow Project. • Award $ to Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland • Award $ to Ashland Supportive Housing ATTACHMENTS: Staff evaluation March 14, 2016 Maslow Project Proposal St Vincent De Paul Proposal Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland Proposal Ashland Supportive Housing Proposal Housing and Human Services Commission Meeting Minutes. March 24, 2016 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND toff Evaluation To: Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Title: Community Development Block Gant (CDBG) 2015 RFP Date: March 14, 2016 Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist The City of Ashland has received four applications for $228,691 in competitively available Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The total CDBG allocation to the City of Ashland for the 2016 Program Year is $158,726. Of this amount 20% is reserved for program administration ($31,745). The remaining $126,981 plus $101,710 in reprogrammed fiends from Program year 2015 may be awarded to eligible projects benefiting Ashland's low-income population. The total amount of CDBG funds available to award to capital improvement projects in Program year 2016 is $228,691. $23,808, is available for award to Public Service activities (15% of the 2016 Program Year allocation). The City of Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission will hold a public hearing on March 24, 2016 to review the grant requests and make a recommendation to forward to the City Council for consideration. The Council will make the final award selections at a public hearing scheduled for April 19, 2016. Staff s eligibility assessment of each of the proposals received, and recommendations regarding the allocation of the 2016 CDBG funds are provided on the following pages. Proposals Received Organization Proposed Project CDBG Goal Consolidated Plan Funds Goal # and Rank* Ree nested St. Vincent De Assist low income and at risk $25,500 With CDBG funds Support Services Paul Households with emergency provide 32 low for Homelessness funding to prevent homelessness. income individuals outreach, Public Service with emergency rent prevention and and security deposit transition.-High assistance to avoid homelessness (320 HH with CDBG and matching funding) Maslow Project Encourage stability, self-sufficiency $10,000 Provide access to Support Services and school achievement for basic needs, for Homelessness homeless youth. information and outreach, *Public Service referral. Provide case prevention and management to transition.-High improve stability to approximately 100 identified homeless youth ages 0-21. IWALA&A Ashland Installation solar panels as part of a $70,000 Improve energy Support housing Supportive larger rehabilitation and upgrade of efficiency of a housing and services for Housing a housing unit serving adults with unit serving 5 adults peoples with intellectual and developmental with disabilities Special Needs- disabilities. High *Capital Project Options for Funding to support .50 FTE of a 12,664 Provide housing and Support Services Homeless Lead Resource Navigator position employment resources for Homelessness Residents of to assist low income families for approximately 74 outreach, Ashland maintain or obtain housing, and homeless and at risk prevention and secure employment for unemployed low income clients transition.-High individuals. Support Economic *Public Service Development activities that assist in reducing poverty among low-, moderate-, and special needs populations- Medium Funding Requested/Available A total of approximately $228,691 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is limited to approximately $23,808. These funds will be available upon approval of the 2016 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance. Upon completion of the Action Plan a public hearing for review and approval will be held before the Housing and Human Services Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council. The US department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with the local Consolidated Plan. Assessment Criterion Staff has assessed the proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and address the priorities identified within the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. • Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant Program. • All CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the Community Development Block Grant Program. IWALWA • If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded projects are; all projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Certain construction projects must use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to mitigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project are entitled to assistance under the uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements for the CDBG program. Areas of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing and Human Services Commission and the City Council can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as outlined in the City's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking of High, Medium, or Low. The rankings are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs. In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects(s) that are ranked the highest will be funded. Public Service Proposal Evaluation St. Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program Staff has reviewed the St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) program proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2015- 2019 Consolidated plan. St. Vincent's has requested $25,500 to assist homeless and at-risk populations in obtaining and maintaining housing. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Generally Income payments (payments to an individual or family, which are used to provide basic services such as food, shelter (including payment for rent, mortgage, and/or utilities) or clothing) are ineligible public service activities when such payments are provided as a grant. fIowever, such expenditures are eligible if, the income payments do not exceed three consecutive months; and the payments are made directly to the provider of services on behalf of an individual or family, This project meets those criteria. • St. Vincent has a proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funding, this would be SVDP's fifth year of undertaking this activity in Ashland. • In the past year (2015) St. Vincent assisted approximately 1,400 individuals with the granted funds and organizational matching funds. • Staff finds that SVDP's proposal would merit a priority of high on the priority ranking identified within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Staff sees that St. Vincent's proposal is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income and special needs households. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program providing more than double the requested grant funds and leveraging further funds from other sources. The St. Vincent De Paul Home !TALIA Visitation Program has successfully administered Community Development Block grant funds for the past five years. Maslow Project-School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Staff has reviewed the Maslow Project, School Based Services for Ashland Homeless Youth Proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Maslow Project requested $10,000 in Public Service Grant funds to continue to support a case manager in the elementary, middle and high schools, providing outreach to high risk homeless youth and providing them with immediate needs, case management to keep youth engaged in school and promote stability and self-sufficiency for the homeless youth and their families. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective; homeless populations are a presumed benefit population under the CDBG program. • Services to homeless and at-risk populations are an eligible use of CDBG funds. • Maslow's proposal expects to provide services to 100 identified homeless school children currently enrolled in the Ashland School District. • Maslow Project has proven capacity to administer CDBG grant funds-this would be Maslow's fourth year of undertaking this activity in Ashland. • Staff finds that Maslow Project's proposal is consistent with goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the proposed project has a priority ranking of High. Staff sees that Maslow Project's proposal is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity assists in the prevention of homelessness for low-income households. Maslow has successfully administered this program within the Ashland School District for the past four years. Furthermore, this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program and leveraging funding from other sources. Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA)-Building Acquisition Staff has reviewed the Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated plan. 01-11" has requested $12,664 in grant funds to provide .50 FTE support of a staff person to assist homeless and at risk populations with obtaining needed resources such as housing and with finding and securing employment. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national objective. • Services to homeless and at-risk populations are an eligible use of CDBG funds. • OHRA's proposal expects to provide services to 74 homeless and at risk, or unemployed individuals. • OHRA has not previously administered CDBG funding, this would be their first CDBG funded project. • Staff finds that OHRA's proposal is consistent with goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. ~r, Staff sees that OHRA's proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity will assist homeless and at- risk populations with increased resources to obtain housing and employment, by expanding and improving the services available to homeless and at-risk population as well as to aid individuals seeking employment. This activity is expected to leverage several sources of funding that will meet and exceed the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program. Capital Improvement Proposals Ashland Supportive Housing-Special Needs Residential Home Solar Project Staff has reviewed the Ashland Supportive Housing (ASH) proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated plan. ASH has requested $70,000 in grant funds to provide energy efficiency upgrades as part of a larger rehabilitation on a residential group housing unit occupied by five individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This population qualifies under both the presumed benefit population and qualified low-income population. In 2015 ASH was awarded $76,886 in CDBG funding to complete a rehabilitation of this group home, ASI I requested $130K which included the energy efficiency updates proposed in this current application, but had that portion of the project was not recommended for funding due to a recommendation to fund the Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland's capital campaign. • This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) and Presumed benefit national objective. • Rehabilitation and energy efficiency upgrades are eligible uses of CDBG Capital Improvement funds. • This proposal anticipates serving approximately 5 individuals. • Staff finds that the ASH proposal is consistent with priority goals identified in the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Staff sees that ASH proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent with the City of' Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity will assist ASH to better provide services to their service population. This activity meets the 10% leverage requirement of the City of Ashland's CDBG program. ASH has a proven track record of successful CDBG grant administration as well as the administration of other state and federal grant funds. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends award of the 2016-2017 CDBG funds as follows: • $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation • 16,665 to St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • 7,143 to Maslow Project School Based Services Staffs recommendations are based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, agency experience and capacity, and readiness to proceed. / Public Service Projects: In examining the three applications for public service funding (SVDP, Maslow, & OHRA) staff found all three to be needed activities within the Ashland community that would benefit CDBG eligible populations. Both the SVDP program and the Maslow Project have successful track records of administering federal grant funds, providing counseling services, resource referrals and, in the case of the SVDP Home Visitation program, direct financial assistance to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. The Maslow project's proposed activity would continue to benefit homeless populations as well but with an emphasis on homeless children enrolled in Ashland schools. The OHRA proposed activity would provide employment supports, resource referrals, and assistance with finding and obtaining suitable housing options. Unfortunately the public service cap of 15% of Ashland's annual award precludes awarding all three activities the requested amount of funding. Capital Projects: The City received one capital project proposals; Ashland Supportive Housing- Special Needs Residential I Ionic Solar Project. This project qualifies as an eligible use of CDBG fitnds, is ready to proceed and would be able to expend the funds in a timely manner thereby allowing the City to meet its timeliness cap. HUD Timeliness Rule The CDBG program has a stipulation that grant administrators plan for the timely expenditure of funds. This is called timeliness, timeliness refers to how quickly the grantee is able to commit and expend CDBG funding. The program rule for timeliness is that the grantee cannot have more than 1.5 times their annual allocation and any other funds sitting in their line of credit at the U.S. treasury. The analysis for timeliness is calculated 60 days prior to the end of the grantees program year (which is July 1 s` for the City of Ashland.) If a grantee has more than 1.5 times their allocation in their line of credit they will be required to submit a "work out plan" to HUD to explain how the money will be utilized to avoid chronic timeliness issues. A grantee that shows chronic timeliness issues is at risk of having HUD withhold future grants until the grantee can expend existing resources. Due to the City's small allocation, the City reaches the 1.5 timeliness threshold more quickly than most grantees Unexpended allocated 2015 grant funds (approximate amount) $87,826 Unallocated 2015 grant funds $50,000 Reprogrammed Funds $1,710 2016 Allocation $158,726 $298,262 The City can have up to $238,089 in funding in the line of credit until May 1st 2016 at which time the timeliness rule will be triggered. Currently the City has approximately $37,826 in unexpended grant funds from the prior year that are expected to be drawn down before the end of the program year, $101,710 in unallocated funds from the prior year, and an new unallocated grant of $158,726, to be allocated in April, but not awarded or able to be spent until July 1, 2016. Given these amount total $298,262 the City will be over the timeliness threshold on May I" when the timeliness test is run. At that time the City will need to compete a workout plan detailing how the City will proceed with a timely expenditure of the remaining funds. Staff s evaluation and recommendation is based on prioritizing the use of CDBG funds to projects which are ready to proceed and which can expend the funds in a timely manner. /r CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Maslow Project Executive Director's Name(s): Mary Ferrell _ Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) See attached sheet Applicant Mailing Address: 500 Monroe Street Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: Same IRS Classification: 501 (c)(3) public charity Federal Tax ID#: Mission Statement: (may be attached) Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Total Employees: 13 Total Volunteers: 45+ 1 ROJECT F A Hand Up, not a Handout! MASLOW PROJECT NARRATIVE SUMMARY Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Our program provides goal-oriented, wrap-around safety-net and support services to homeless children/teens, ages 0-21, and their families in Jackson County. Maslow Project's overarching goal is to bring enough stability into the lives of the youth we serve, so they are able to remain in school and graduate from high school and transition safely and successfully into adulthood. We deliver services through three primary venues: in school-based programs throughout Jackson County, at our Medford Drop-In Center, and through street outreach. Our services include: (1) Essential & Emergency Needs and Wrap-Around Supportive Services: Hot meals, food boxes, clothing, hygiene supplies, baby supplies, emergency assistance, etc. Link participants to community-based programs and services; (2) Street Outreach: Identify unsheltered youth and families, inform them of community resources/services, (3) Family Advocacy: Connect families with community-based early childhood resources; address any barriers homeless youth have to education (e.g.: transportation to school, access to their school of origin); (4) Case Management: Develop individualized client goal plans, link youth and families with community-based wrap-around supports, assist with accessing emergency/transitional housing, track relevant academic data, assist with post-secondary goals; (5) Enrichment/Harm Reduction Opportunities: e.g.: crisis intervention counseling/art therapy, harm reduction/life skills workshops, Youth Advisory Council (YAC), drop-in art studio; etc. The wrap-around supports Maslow Project provides to at-risk and homeless youth and families - who may be couch surfing, living doubled-up with family or friends, or staying in weekly-rate motels - has a strong preventive component, and can often prevent these vulnerable individuals from ending up on the streets. In addition, our emphasis on stabilizing homeless and at-risk youth so they can focus their attention on staying in school and completing their education is one of the best ways we can set these youth on a path toward financial stability and sustainability. Please see Section 4 of this application for more details. Best Practices - including Positive Youth Development, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES), Trauma-Informed Care and Collaborative Problem Solving - 3 F 2) PROJECT SUMMARY Please see Narrative Summary on previous page. 3) PROPERTY AND PROJECT INFORMATION N/A 4) SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED Services to be Provided: Maslow Project is partnering with the Ashland School District to place a part-time Case Manager in Ashland schools K-12; identifying homeless youth in need of basic needs and supportive services. Our Case Manager provides the following levels of Maslow support services to homeless youth in Ashland: • Essential/Emergency Needs and Wrap-Around Supportive Services: Maslow's school-based Case Manager serves as a "one-stop" point of contact for homeless Ashland youth who need access to basic needs, and provides referrals designed to increase immediate connections to supportive services within the community, including: hot meals, food boxes, clothing, hygiene supplies, sleeping bags, bus tokens, and emergency. These services immediately decrease the instability and stresses faced by homeless youth and also form a stable foundation for youth to build upon in their efforts to remain in school and move toward financial stability and self- sufficiency. • Street/Community Outreach: Maslow staff connect with homeless Ashland youth via community dinners, visiting with community partners (e.g.: food pantry, the ACRC, medical van) or through street outreach efforts; to ensure youth are aware of the services available to them in the community. • Case Management: Our Case Manager helps identify and advocate for high-risk and homeless Ashland youth in need of basic needs and support services: acting as a liaison between youth, agencies, schools, and parents; tracking relevant academic and attendance information; and providing support and mentorship to homeless youth and their families. The Case Manager also works with each youth to identify personal goals and plot a course that will help them achieve those goals. • Enrichment and Harm-Reduction Opportunities: Maslow's Ashland Case Manager connects kids with Positive Youth Development activities, including access to after-school and summer programs; promoting self- sufficiency through encouraging engagement in school, employment, and supportive services while facilitating increased interpersonal skills. By connecting homeless youth to positive social and emotional supports and opportunities, we bring stability into their lives, keep them engaged in school and connected to resources, build resiliency and coping skills, and empower them to work toward their educational goals and independence. Best Practices - including Positive Youth Development, Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACES), Trauma-Informed Care and Collaborative Problem Solving - 5 are woven throughout all of Maslow Project's programs, which are designed to meet our clients "where they are at"; helping them easily enter our programs regardless of their current need or challenges. In addition, Maslow was recognized by the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth as a model for best serving this population in a collaborative child- centric system that integrates school and community-based services (NAEHCY 2008). The services provided through this program align with the following High Priority Goal of the City of Ashland's 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan: Support services for homeless outreach, prevention and transition. Eligible Target Population: The population served through Maslow Project's Ashland program consists of youth between the ages of 0-21 (and their families) residing in Ashland and meeting the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness, who are eligible for public school enrollment or Head Start programs. Homelessness is defined by the McKinney-Vento Act as "any student who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night time residence." This includes couch surfing, doubled-up, living in weekly rate motels, shelters, parks, streets, and campgrounds, or in substandard blight conditions. Children may be unaccompanied or with their parents/guardians. Homeless youth participating in this program are identified in several ways: at point of enrollment in school, by school staff throughout the school year, through self-referral, by Maslow Project outreach staff, and through referrals from partnering agencies. All youth in this population (target: 100 homeless youth) are presumed by HUD to be low or moderate income. In our experience, 100% of the homeless youth and families we serve fall within the "extremely-low income" category, and earn 30% or less of the Area Median Income. 5) WORK PROGRAM & TIMELINE The project outlined in this application is an ongoing program, and will be conducted from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017. Our Case Manager currently works in Ashland schools two days/week, providing Essential/Emergency Needs, Street/Community Outreach, Wrap-Around Supportive Services and Case Management to eligible youth and families, and connecting them to community- based Harm Reduction/Enrichment opportunities as needed. Please see attached project schedule (Form A-2) for more details. 6) FINANCIAL INFORMATION Payroll is based on 0.6 FTE Case Manager compensation. Payroll tax and benefits are estimated at 22% of total wages. These costs are based on actual payroll reports. Payroll costs are based on agency salary schedules. The amount requested from the Ashland Community Development Block Grant represents 30% of the cost for Maslow Project's Ashland Program, and is an essential part of our program support. All other program costs are covered by 6 other funding sources, including administration and overhead. Please refer to Forms B-2 and C for more information. 7) ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING The proposed program delivers the following Federally-eligible activities: Client Services a. The proposed project is within the Ashland City Limits, and will take place at Ashland public schools. b. Clients are classified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento Act. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. As noted above, 100% of the individuals Maslow Project has worked with in Ashland since July 2012 fall into the "Extremely Low Income" category. c. Maslow Project has already secured funding for the project from the following sources: Ashland School District - $8,600, Ashland General Fund Grant - $8,000. d. This is a social service application; sections "d"-"i" are not applicable. 8) AGENCY'S MISSION AND SERVICE HISTORY _ Maslow Project's mission is to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life. We do this by providing resources for basic needs, removing barriers to education and employment, and fostering self-sufficiency in a collaborative and empowering environment. Maslow Project was founded in 2007 in response to the growing critical needs of homeless youth in Medford, Oregon, and received 501(c)(3) non-profit status in 2009. Our organization evolved out of the federally-mandated McKinney-Vento Act, which requires all public school districts to ensure homeless youth have barrier-free school enrollment, transportation to school, and access to their school of origin, regardless of current residence. In July, 2012, Maslow Project began providing basic needs, outreach, case management and enrichment services to homeless Ashland children and teens (aged 0-21), thanks to a $10,000 grant award from the Ashland CDBG Program. We now provide school-based case management and family advocacy services in four school districts in Jackson County (Medford, Ashland, Phoenix/Talent and Rogue River), and provide essential/emergency needs and safety-net services to homeless youth and their families throughout Jackson County. Maslow Project addresses both basic needs and wrap-around case management to ensure a comprehensive response to the systemic challenges associated with youth homelessness. Once these challenges are addressed, youth have the ability to focus on their long-term success and self-sufficiency, rather than immediate or short-term basic survival needs and safety. The wrap-around supports Maslow Project provides to at-risk and homeless youth and families - who may be couch surfing, living doubled-up with family or friends, or staying in weekly-rate motels - has a strong preventive component, and can often prevent these vulnerable individuals from ending up on the streets, by stabilizing them BEFORE they go into housing crisis. Our program uniquely serves the full spectrum of homeless youth and families in Jackson County: infants & toddlers, Spanish-speaking youth and families, school- aged students, and out-of-school youth. We deliver our services with minimal red tape and in an expedited manner: immediately reducing the number of kids who are going hungry or are living in unsafe/unstable situations. Our program also positively impacts the youth receiving essential support services, so that they can more actively engage and participate in school and enrichment activities and become more resilient and self-sufficient individuals; ready for employment, college or adult life. One of the primary strengths of our prograrn is our commitment to working collaboratively with other Jackson County service agencies, schools, businesses, civic organizations, churches, and volunteers to provide a comprehensive service delivery model to reach homeless youth: in schools, in the community, on the streets, and through inter-agency collaborations and referrals. Every year, over a dozen and a half foundations; almost 200 local churches, civic groups and businesses; and over 950 individuals provide financial and in-kind support for Maslow Project's work with homeless Jackson County youth and families. In fact, Maslow has enjoyed the support of 25 Ashland-based organizations, 50 Ashland businesses, and over 200 individual Ashland donors since we began providing services in Ashland in 2012. This strategy not only reflects a high level of community support for our program but is also extremely cost-efficient, minimizes overhead, avoids duplication of services, and ensures that our clients are supported by a web of community-based services. 1 9) SELF-SUFFICIENCY Maslow Project's mission - "to offer every homeless child and youth the probability of success and the opportunity for a better life" - is based upon the concept of promoting self-sufficiency amongst homeless youth. Youth homelessness takes a heavy toll on those it impacts. According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, homeless youth go hungry at twice the rate of other youth, are sick four times more often, and have three times the rate of emotional & behavioral problems. They also have twice the rate of learning disabilities, and are 87% more likely to drop out of school (USDE). These overlapping risk factors combine to create a population that faces multiple, profound barriers to self-sufficiency. By teaching our clients skills like goal-setting and problem solving, and by giving them the opportunity to participate in life skills and workforce readiness workshops, we improve the resiliency of the youth we serve and empower them to become productive and engaged members of our community. Self-sufficiency is a crucial component of resiliency for homeless children and youth, who are capable 8 of fostering uncommon strength and courage in the face of difficult life circumstances. Maslow Project further contributes to the long-term self-sufficiency of the youth we serve by encouraging them to focus on completing their high school educations, and continuing on to college or vocational training programs. Last year, 63% of Maslow Project's case managed high school seniors graduated (with an Ashland graduation rate of 100%); compared to a national graduation rate for homeless high school seniors of 25%, and a statewide graduation rate of just 12%. Our emphasis on stabilizing homeless and at-risk youth so they can focus their attention on staying in school and completing their educations is one of the best ways we can set these youth on a. path toward financial stability and sustainability. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (December 2015), the median weekly earnings for adults with less than a high school diploma is just $488, and their average unemployment rate is 9%. In contrast, the earning rate for adults with a high school diploma increase by 37% (with higher rates of pay as educational attainment increases), and the average unemployment rate drops to 6%. Maslow youth who are interested in pursuing their education beyond high school can also access Maslow Project's Graduate Fund, which was established by one of Maslow Project's Ashland donors. The fund is available to Maslow Project clients throughout Jackson County who have graduated from high school or earned their GED's, and wish to pursue further education; and can be applied to various academically-related needs, including: SAT test fees, college application fees, bus fare, college textbooks, laptop computers, and course tuition. 10) BENEFITS TO EXTREMELY-LOW, LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME INDIVIDUALS The population served through this project consists of children between the ages of 0-21 and their families who reside in Ashland and meet the Federal Education McKinney-Vento definition of homeless, and are eligible for school enrollment. As noted above, all youth in this population are presumed by HUD to be low or moderate income. In our experience, 100% of homeless youth and families we serve fall within the "extremely low income" category, at 30% or less of the Area Median Income. The youth served through Maslow Project's Ashland program (approximately 100 unduplicated individuals during the 2016/2017 school year) will benefit from the following services: • Critical Basic/Emergency Needs and Street Outreach, intended to ensure the safety and stability of youth • Family Advocacy (provided through a separate funding source) to ensure youth are able to enroll in school, remain in their school of origin, have transportation to school, and have access to the supports they need 9 • Case Management that fosters self-sufficiency and helps youth progress toward their goals • Connection to enrichment opportunities and referrals to mental health counseling, DHS and additional community-based wrap-around support services 11) ENSURING MODERATE-INCOME INDIVIDUALS DO NOT BENEFIT TO THE EXCLUSION OF EXTREMELY-LOW OR LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS In order to participate in Maslow Project's program, youth must be identified as homeless under the McKinney-Vento definition of homelessness. Homeless people are presumed by HUD to be principally persons of low and moderate incomes. Enrolled extremely-low or low-income homeless youth qualifying for services always have priority in our program, and will be able to access services regardless of the number of qualifying moderate-income individuals. 12) DEMOLITION OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING N/A F 13) PROJECT FEASIBILITY ] N/A 14) IMPACT ON SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES N/A 15) OTHER MATERIAL Please find attached: a letter of support from Ashland High School, Maslow Project's Board of Directors list, and an Ashland client success story. F 16) CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST & OTHER FORMS The CDBG Application Checklist and Forms A-2, B-2, C and D follow this narrative. 10 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? _ 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required reports and accountability to the City as required by X HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit X required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? it C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage_tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements YesNo N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? _ 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded grants or contracts? _ E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 12 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Completion Date Date Outreach: Maslow's Case Manager will connect 7/1/16 8/31/16 with students - via community dinners, visiting with community partners (food pantry, Resource Center, medical van) or through street outreach efforts - to ensure we stay in contact with homeless Ashland youth during the summer break. 'This is part of an ongoing program, staffing is already in place School Based Case Management: Identify 9/1/16 6/30/17 homeless students, provide services/referrals/basic needs, track academic data, establish client goals Target: 100 youth identified Outcome Goal: (1) 75% of the approximately 45 youth participating in Case Management will demonstrate decreased risk factors and increased protective factors, as measured by our Self- Sufficiency Outcome Scale. (2) 95% of Ashland clients providing feedback through Client Surveys will report a satisfactory or above response. Collect Outcome Data: Student are assessed at 9/1/16 6/30/17 start of case management, mid-year, and at the end of the school year _ _ Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (lE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc.) 13 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $69000 $0 $6,000 Wages (of personal providing direct client $23,345 $10,000 $13,345 services) Materials/Supplies $500 $0 $500 Marketing/Outreach $500 $0 $500 Program Administration CDBG Funds Includes overhead and general staffing necessary to administer the are not program (accounting, management, $2568 available for $2568 grant administration) but that does > > not provide direct benefits to the program client. administration Total Project Cost $32,913 $10,000 $22,913 14 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions) Federal Grants State Grants $8,600---- - - - - Local Grants $8,000 $10,000 By summer 20_1_6 Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts $6,313 FY2016-2017 Applicant - - - Contribution Program Income Loans - Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL - $169600 $16,313 $32,913 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Tentative funds listed above include: Ashland School District: $8,600 (secured) Ashland City General: $8,000 (secured) Ashland CDBG: $10,000 (pending) Community donations: $6,313 (pending - FY2016-2017) 15 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Maslow Project Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department N/A 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title N/A 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 Royal Standley, President - Executive/Program/Development Committees 2 Jamie Hazlett, Vice President - Executive/Development Committees 3 Paul Robinson, Secretary - Executive/Development Committees 4 Amy Zarosinski, Treasurer - Executive/Finance Committees 5 Sharilyn Cano - Program Committee 6 Eric Maxwell - Development Committee 7 Roger Stokes - Finance Committee 8 9 10 11 12 If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. 16 0jET MASLOW PROJECT Board of Directors List Royal Standley, Board President Eric Maxwell, member Financial Planner, Oregon Pacific Financial Business Owner Advisors, Inc 19 Rossanley Drive 210 W. 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Medford, OR 97501 (541) 840-5733 cell (541) 772-1116 work pronmain msn.com (541) 531-1138 cell joined in 2013 rstandley@opfa.com joined in 2011 Amy Zarosinski, Treasurer CPA, KDCO Piels Roger Stokes, Member 640 Superior Ct. Retired business owner Medford, OR 97504-6181 314 Medford Heights Lane (541) 773-6633 Medford, OR 97504 azarosinski@kdcoCPA.com (541) 773-9878 home Joined in 2014 (541) 944-4678 cell rwstokes179gmail.com Sharilyn Cano, Past President Founding member 2009 Human Resources Director, Medford School District Paul Robinson, Secretary 2080 Martin Dr. Retired non-profit and pastor Medford, OR 97501 11 North Keeneway Drive (541) 734-5460 work Medford, OR 97504 (541) 951-0530 cell (541) 840-5640 cell Sharilyn.cano@niedford.kl2.or.us robinsonpau12273@yahoo.com joined in 2010 Joined in 2010 Jamie L. Hazlett, Vice President Revised: July 17, 2015 Attorney at Law 910 E. Main Street Medford, OR 97504 (541) 773-3619 work (541) 326-1097 cell iamiehazlettesgPgmail.com joined in 2011 500 Monroe Street, Medford, Oregon 97501 541-608-6868 ASHLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS JAY HUMMEL BOARD OF DIRECTORS Superintendent DIANE MC CLUSKY JIM WESTRICK Business Manager ERC STRONG 19 EVA SKURATOWICZ SAMUEL BOGDANOVE JOHN WILLIAMS Director of Student Services DENISE ZEVE Inspiring Learning for Life PATTY MICHIELS Director of Curriculum and Human Resources February 4, 2016 Mary Ferrell, Executive Director Maslow Project 500 Monroe Street Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mary, As the Director of Student Set-vices for the Ashland School District, I see the benefit on a daily basis that Maslow Project brings to the students and families in our- District. Without the support that Maslow Project provides to our homeless youth, many of these students would go unidentified and not receive the wrap- around supports they need to stay in school, work toward their goals, and achieve educational success. Maslow Project's Case Manager and Advocate work hard to help Ashland schools identify these vulnerable students and bring stability into their lives; giving them the ability to attend and thrive in school, develop positive life skills and engage in meaningful opportunities that help build confidence, resilience and promote each student's overall wellness and self-sufficiency. On behalf of the Ashland School District, I am happy to write this letter in support of Maslow Project's application to the City of Ashland's Community Development Block Grant. I feel that this program has improved the lives of so many families and children; not only helping to meet their immediate needs, but also providing the intensive supports that help students to stay in school and navigate their way to a more successful and optimistic future. The Ashland School District fully supports our partnership with Maslow Project, and benefits from this partnership on a daily basis. Sinc,orely, / .r tirecto muel R hoof of Silent Services ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 885 SISKIYOU BOULEVARD ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 541-482-2811 FAX 541-482-2185 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Ashland Home Visit Conference, Rogue Valley District Council, St. Vincent de Paul Executive Director's Name(s): Mrs. Socorro Holloway Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: P. O. Box 1663, Medford, OR 97501 Applicant Street Address: 2424 N. Pacific Highway, Medford, OR 97501 IRS Classification: 501 c 3 Federal Tax ID#: Mission Statement: The Rogue Valley District Council of St. Vincent de Paul is dedicated to providing compassionate support and care to the poor and needy in Jackson County, regardless of race, religion, creed, sex, sexual preference or ethnic origin. Although the Society's name is recognized around the world, each Council is locally organized, funded and staffed. St. Vincent's was founded over 180 years ago by a group of Catholic laymen in Paris and we are often thought of as a Catholic organization. While we originated from this Catholic tradition, we are not part of the Catholic Church. We have received funding and in-kind support from several denominations and have volunteers from many faiths. No effort is made to preach, convert or proselytize. Our Council was established in 1982 and provides a 48-bed emergency family shelter, hot lunches six days a week, free groceries, showers and laundry services and social services (counseling, rent, utility and prescription drug payments, help to obtain legal IDs, clothing. home furnishings, camping 1 equipment, etc.) We have a thrift store and ware house, provide school supplies, emergency dental care, health screening and other services. We have no paid employees and rely on 300+ volunteers to provide all our services, saving potentially $500,000 annually. We can assure the City of Ashland that none of its CDBG funds will be used to pay employee salaries or benefits. All of your funds will be used to help slow the growth of homelessness in Ashland or to assist homeless families to achieve housing and self-sufficiency. St. Vincent's Rogue Valley Council has eight Conferences or operating divisions. This proposal specifically describes the activities of the Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference. Total Employees: Zero Total Volunteers: 300+ overall,25 in Ashland II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Rich Hansen Title: Government/Foundation Liaison Phone Number: 541-770-6062 Fax Number: 541-245-2771 E-mail Address: richhansen39@)charter.net III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Decreasing Homelessness in Ashland in 2016 Expected Completion Date: Project is ongoing. Fiscal year is 10/1 /16 - 9/30/17 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 25,500 Organizational Match: $ 80,000 Funds from Other Sources: $ 59,500 Total Project Cost: $ 165,000 2 IV. Project Description St. Vincent's Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference has been helping the needy in our area for over 35 years. We call on families at time of financial crisis to address their immediate problems. In many cases, our primary objective is to help avoid the growth of homelessness by helping clients in danger of losing their homes or apartments. We also help with utility bills, prescription drug costs, food, clothing, transportation, food and other personal needs. CDBG funds are used to expand our rental assistance for Ashland residents only and help them gain self-sufficiency. HUD guidelines give us the flexibility to offer up to three months of assistance with rent and/or deposits. Our team of 25 volunteers responds to calls for help on St. Vincent's Ashland phone line (541-708-5650). The families we see are referred to us by area churches, other non-profits and government agencies. We operate in teams of two, going to clients' homes, campsites or other locations and listening to their stories of financial crisis, observing their living conditions, counseling them on how we and other groups can help them, encouraging them on ways to find permanent jobs and helping them transition from welfare to work. The CDBG funds are only spent on Ashland residents. Overall, about 60% of our clients live in Ashland. For CDBG qualification, we ask for proof of income: jobs, child support, public assistance, unemployment, workers compensation, medical coverage, food stamps, Social Security, disability, etc. One hundred percent of our CDBG clients are at the federal extremely-low, low- and in very few cases moderate-income poverty levels. We do not offer clients direct cash assistance, but intervene with landlords, utilities, pharmacies, etc. to discuss payments. In some cases we may fill their car with gas or give them bus tokens, but we never provide direct cash. We collaborate with the Options for the Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) and their efforts to encourage community outreach programs to provide meals, shelter, food and emergency assistance to our area's growing needy population. When clients' bills are larger than our budget guidelines allow, we contact ACCESS, United Way and a number of Ashland religious denominations, including First Baptist, United Congregational Church, Unitarian Universalist Church, First Presbyterian, Trinity Episcopal and Our Lady of the Mountain. We have also been collaborating with ACCESS through their Ashland Community Resource Center. V. Good Results In our fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2015, St. Vincent's Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference spent $132,399 helping the needy. During that period we made nearly 800 home visits and assisted over 1,400 people - about 850 adults and 550 children. 3 We spent a total of $72,098 for rental assistance helping 285 families or about 900 people. Of this, $18,000 represented the Ashland CDBG grant. We assisted 15 households or 32 people with rent and rental deposits. Of these, 24 were adults and 8 children. Half were homeless when they came to us. Our average assistance to the CDBG group was $1,400 per household. Few needy families have sufficient savings to make the currently very large rental deposit. The full rent becomes the client's responsibility at the second month. In addition to the CDBG funds, we spent about $3,000 of our own funds to help these families pay rental application fees, utility deposits, outstanding rent or utility bills, get valid IDs and sometimes gasoline for people living in their cars. VI. Financial Considerations Our proposed 2016-17 budget is $165,000, about the same as this year. Half of this, $79,500, will come directly from St. Vincent's Rogue Valley Council. The $25,500 we are requesting in CDBG funds will represent about 15 percent of our total budget, so you will receive close to a 6:1 leverage for your funds. Last year, on average, when using our own funds, St. Vincent's spent about $300 per family on rent relief. However, using CDBG funds and applying the HUD formula, we were able to spend about $1,400 per family. This clearly shows the power of the CDBG program for bringing families out of homelessness and helping them become more self-sufficient. It was the City of Ashland's CDBG program that first allowed us to provide a much larger program to help the Ashland homeless get into housing, downsize to less expensive rentals or prevent homelessness altogether. The Ashland rental market has a one percent vacancy rate and therefore rental rates and deposits are very high. Without the CDBG funds our group would not be able to continue assisting families in this manner. Our churches, temples and non-profits are as generous as possible in collaborating with us on rental assistance. However, the amount each of these entities contributes is too small for us to continue without the CDBG program. The HUD program is the key to our success. We have been serving the poor in Ashland for over 35 years and we hope to continue for as long as our help is needed. We attempt to assist as many people as possible. Our limitations are manpower and money. We currently have 25 volunteers in our local group. Two work solely on the CDBG program. We continue to work with other similar organizations in the Ashland community to leverage both our numbers and our financial resources. Our outreach program is ongoing, with no real beginning or end. 4 VII. National and Local Priorities All of our clients are at or below HUD's extremely-low, low- and in a few cases, moderate-income poverty levels. Our CDBG program's goal is to slow or stop the growth of homelessness in Ashland. Therefore, we meet two to the National Objectives - "Primarily benefit low and moderate income persons" and "3. Meet a particularly urgent community need." Similarly, we meet the High Priority Spending Priorities of the City of Ashland Consolidated Plan - "Support services for homelessness outreach, prevention and transition - Rent/Security deposit assistance to prevent or alleviate homelessness and Outreach/direct services to homeless populations." Further, HUD/CDBG Statute 24 CFR 570.21 (e) lists Public Service Rent Subsidies" as an eligible activity. Our CDBG team often remains in contact with a family over an extended period in order to help them transition to self-sufficiency. In 2016-17, the requested $25,500 in Ashland CDBG funds would help us reach an additional 18 families. This will probably require over 100 home visits. From the Jackson County Point-in-Time Homeless Survey we interpret that there are well over 1,000 people in our County without homes. In fact, it might be as high as 2,500. A third of these are children. The survey lists "lack of money to pay rent" as a primary cause of homelessness. Dealing with this growing homeless population has become a key issue in Ashland, St. Vincent's rental assistance program is designed to specifically alleviate this problem. We have a 35-year track record of working with the needy here and hope to continue for many years. The City of Ashland has enabled St. Vincent's to significantly increase its outreach and we hope this partnership can continue. We provide over half the project costs from internal funds and use an all-volunteer staff to provide our services. We believe St. Vincent's presents the City of Ashland with an outstanding way to leverage funds to aid the needy. 5 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background _ Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed pro'ect? 5 Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X -previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required X reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues _ Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X -requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 6 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage tank?_ 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X _ requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? _ 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If es, what is the assessed value of the property? Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Provide rental assistance Ongoing Ongoing Apply to US Bank for funding First Quarter, 2016 Third Quarter, 2016 Recruit new volunteers Ongoing Ongoing Provide utility, Rx, food, Ongoing Ongoing transportation and other assistance Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services 162,000 25,500 136,500 Wages (of personal 0 0 0 providing direct client services) Materials/Supplies 2,000 2,000 Marketing/Outreach 0 0 0 Program Administration 1,000 CDBG Funds 1,000 Includes overhead and general are not staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, available for grant administration) but that does program not provide direct benefits to the client. administration Total Project Cost 165,000 25,500 139,500 8 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions) _ Federal Grants 25,500 2Q, 2016 State Grants 0 Local Grants 20,000 Non Governmental 5,000 3Q, 2016 Grants Donations/Gifts 35,000 3Q, 2016 Applicant 79,500 Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL 995500 65,500 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. 9 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Ashland/Talent Home Visit Conference, Rogue Valley Council, St. Vincent de Paul Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 ( X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department None 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title None 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 See attached 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 _ 12 additional 10 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Executive Director's Name(s): John Wieczorek, President of the Board of Directors. No paid or unpaid Executive Director. Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) ATTACHMENT #1 Applicant Mailing Address: OHRA, PO Box 1133, Ashland Oregon 97520 Applicant Street Address: OHRA, 572 Clover Lane, Ashland Oregon 97520 IRS Classification: 501(C)3 Public Charity Federal Tax ID#: Mission Statement: (may be attached) OHRA is dedicated to providing homeless and low-income residents of Ashland with opportunities to improve their individual situations and leave poverty and homelessness behind. OHRA promotes responsibility for self-care and caring for others, and seeks full inclusion of low-income residents in the life of the community. The Ashland Community Resource Center (ACRC), a_partnership between ACCESS and OHRA, provides the services that enable those in need to become self-sufficient and able to engage as a member of the community. Total Employees: 2 Total Volunteers: 65 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: John Wieczorek Title: Board President, Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Phone Number: 541-482-8230 Fax Number: 541-488-6935 E-mail Address: info@homelessoptions.org 3 III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Housing and Jobs for Those in Need in Ashland Projected Completion Date: This is an on-going project. Funds requested are for use through June 2017 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 12,664 Organizational Match: $ 29,856 Funds from Other Sources: $ 10,909 Total Project Cost: $ 53,429 Application Contents 1) Complete Application Form. COMPLETED 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives This Grant Application requests $12,664 of CDBG Social Services funds for a portion (50%) of the salary of the Lead Resource Navigator for a project entitled: "Housing and Jobs for Those in Need in Ashland." Here is a summary of the Project Budget: $12,664 Funding from this Grant Proposal (50% of Lead Resource Navigator's Salary $29,856 Funding from other OHRA funds (donations and charitable gifts) $ 3,253 Funding from our ACRC Community/Business/Faith Partners $ 7,656 Funding from a 2015 Grant for the Ashland Job Match Program $53,429 Total Project Budget Based on our work in 2015 we feel confident that this project will be able to meet three primary goals: 1. Secure housing for 21 families that are currently homeless 4 2. Prevent 32 presently housed families from losing their housing 3. Secure employment for 21 individuals currently unemployed 3) Property Information NOT APPLICABLE 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). Clients that come to the ACRC are assisted by Resource Navigators who fill out an intake form by interviewing the client to collect information that enables the Resource Navigator to assess what the client's primary and secondary needs are and/or what services are required. The Resource Navigator prioritizes those needs and determines how the ACRC can assist in meeting those needs. Whenever possible the Resource Navigators fulfill the needs of the clients to ensure that their living conditions are improved and that there is timely closure on the client's requirements. All Resource Navigators are volunteers except the Lead Resource Navigator who is a part-time paid employee. This position requires the most knowledge and the individual in the position both provides services to individual clients and acts as a reference for the volunteer Resource Navigators. The Lead Resource Navigator reviews applications and arranges for background checks of new volunteer Resource Navigators. The position also orients, trains and supervises the volunteer Resource Navigators on a daily basis. The position reviews all intake forms prior to permanent client folders being created and data being entered into the statewide Service Point database, which enables tracking and monitoring of clients as they are provided services. The position also coordinates and delivers quarterly volunteer trainings on new procedures and policies. The Lead Resource Navigator manages the "Job Match" program interviewing clients and matching them with available jobs. The position coordinates with the City of Ashland in posting available positions on the "Jobs Match" website. The current Lead Resource Navigator has a BA degree in Human Services with a certification in Conflict Resolution. Many needs/services can be delivered by the ACRC Resource Navigators directly: 5 • , Motel vouchers from our family emergency fund - The ACRC sets aside substantial monies each month ($2,000) to enable us to offer emergency housing for families in need. • Warm clothes and gear - The ACRC has a garment closet of donated clothing and other survival items. Clients can receive needed items. The ACRC also receives new donated sleeping bags, tarps, tents and purchases new winter boots. These items are distributed by the Resource Navigator. • The Dress for Success Program assists clients with clothing, haircuts and transportation to go on job interviews and meet with potential employers. • Assistance in applying for state and federal benefits - Resource Navigators are knowledgeable in applying for social security as well as disability insurance program benefits and assist clients in navigating these processes. • Assistance in applying for a birth certificate, driver's license or state identification card - Without proper identification clients can not apply for eligible benefits or a job. Any cost is either paid for by the ACRC or a community partner. • Creation of a resume - Resource Navigators skilled in resume development assist clients in updating or creating resumes to apply for employment. • Application for a cell phone - Many clients do not have cell phones. There is an on line service that provides free cell phones and limited minutes. Resource Navigators assist clients in applying for a phone. • Bus Passes - The lack of public transportation impacts homeless and low-income people at all levels. They are unable to get to doctors' appointments, job interviews, shelters, community meals, etc. The ACRC since July of 2014 when RVTD stopped donating bus passes, have purchased "Helping Hands" passes. • Mailbox and phone services - Homeless and low income people do not have a permanent mailing address and if they do not have a cell phone, no place for a message to be left for them. There is also a dedicated phone for their use while at the ACRC. Mail is delivered by the post office and guests pick up their mail including prescriptions. 6 Indirect services are provided through our community, faith and business partners. Resource Navigators contact and coordinate outreach to these partners for additional services or funding. All of these services directly and indirectly assist clients in obtaining employment and housing. The Resource Navigators create client files and document intake information and actions taken. The Resource Navigator is the primary point of contact for the clients as they continue using the ACRC. The Resource Navigator documents all services provided by ACRC or community partners. The target audience receiving these services are homeless and low-income - 60% unhoused and 40% housed. These services align with Goal 5.4 of the City Council's 2015-2017 Strategic Plan: 5.4 Encourage the ongoing effectiveness of the Resource Center. 5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks and estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached Form A Project Schedule). A-2 ATTACHED 6)Financial Information Project Budqet Proposed Social Services Grant (50% Lead OHRA Funding OHRA Partners' City of Ashland Job Totals Funding Match Funding Resource Navigator Salary) 1. Resource Navigator $12,664 $12,664 2. Family Emergency $13,631 $3,253 $16,884. Fund 3. Ashland Job Match $7,656 $7,656 Funds 4. OHRA Misc Expenses $1,600 $1,600 Total Financial Budget $12,664 $15,231 $3,253 $7,656 $38,804.00 5. OHRA Volunteers $14,625 $14,625 Total In-kind Budget $0 $14,625 $0 $0 $14,625 Total Budget $12,664 $29,856 $3,253 $7,656 $53,429.00 1. Resource Navigator: 50% of the Lead Resource Navigator's Salary for 30 hours per week for 12 months at a fully loaded hourly rate (workman's comp. + vacation + sick time) 2. Family Emergency Fund: a. OHRA Family Emergency Fund: An estimate of direct family emergency funds used in Lead Resource Navigator's work b. OHRA Partners' Funds: An estimate of directed family emergency funds used in Lead Resource Navigator's work 3. Ashland Job Match Funds: An estimate of Ashland City Grant funds used to remove barriers in securing employment 4. Misc OHRA Expense: Assumes $125 per month of misc. OHRA funds 5. OHRA Volunteers: This is the Federally approved volunteer rate assuming 50% of one volunteer, 5 hours per day, 5 days per week, over 12 months Note: We have not included prorated portions of Overheads such as Rent, Insurance, Utilities and etc. 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding YES- client services 8 General Information a. YES, the project is within the Ashland city limits b. HUD presumes that elderly, handicapped, homeless and persons with mental or emotional disturbances have low or moderate incomes. All ACRC clients meet this criteria with 60% being homeless and extremely low income. c. The project is an on-going project and services are currently being provided using existing grant and donation monies that will expire in June 2016. Note: If this grant is NOT awarded monies will be used from OHRA General Fund to pay for 50% of Lead Resource Navigator's salary. This means that less monies will be available for the Family Emergency Fund and other direct client services. Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information d-i. NOT APPLICABLE 8.) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. OHRA is dedicated to providing the homeless and low-income residents of Ashland with opportunities to improve their life situations by finding housing and employment leaving poverty and homelessness behind. In February 2014 OHRA opened the Ashland Community Resource Center (ACRC), a joint partnership between OHRA and ACCESS. The City of Ashland has provided $100,000 for ACRC operations for 2014 and 2015 with the undertanding that OHRA would develop additional funding resources. Here is how we are doing: • In 2013 OHRA received $1,191 in cash donations and non-city grants • In 2014 OHRA received $44,330 in cash donations and non-city grants • In 2015 OHRA received $60,846 in cash donations and non-city grants Along with financial resources, the following partnerships have been vital to the services we provide to our clients: 17 Community Partners, 9 Faith Community Partners, Business Partners and 65 individual volunteers. (A list of these specific partners and our 2015 results can be found in the attached 2015 OHRA Annual Report.) 9 Our homeless and low income clients receive the following services at ACRC: job search and resume services, housing referral services, case management through volunteer Resource Navigators, personal identity documentation services, mail box services, internet access, printing and various personal services (food, clothing, restrooms, backpack storage, cold weather gear and more). In the middle of 2014, a mobile shower trailer was donated that enabled ACRC to offer showers and laundry twice a week. This is a mobile unit that travels to two locations during the week. During the year 2015, 1838 showers and 550 loads of laundry were provided. ACRC has recently (September 2015) established a "Job Match" Program in partnership with the City of Ashland and a L.eightman-Maxey Foundation grant. Clients are assessed for their job skills and matched with employers who are in need of people to fill jobs. During 2015, the ACRC has provided the following services; 0 723 individuals each in some degree of life stress; financial, physical, emotional, mental and/or addiction (60% homeless 40% housed) 0 42 families were housed each previously living in a place not intended for permanent human habitation; tent, automobile, shelter or outside. 0 63 housed families received rental and/or utility assistance allowing them to remain in their existing homes 0 264 hours of mental health and/or drug and alcohol counseling 0 14 individuals were employed through "Job Match" a newly implemented program (September 2015) between OHRA and the City of Ashland 0 1,838 showers and 550 loads of laundry were provided in the mobile van that delivers these services twice a week at two locations 0 6,175 total number of visits to ACRC. Our goal is to provide a safe, hospitable environment, one that fosters healing. Many guests require multiple visits prior to accepting services. (This number includes repeat visits, often for hospitality only) 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low- moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs? YES 10 Self-sufficiency is a crucial component that allows individuals facing extremely difficult challenges to be more resilient. Homeless and low-income people struggle with maintaining control over the circumstances in their lives. This can bring a level of hopelessness that is hard to overcome. Giving people the skills, the tools the resources they need to overcome their circumstances allows for the hope of a better life to be a possibility. The ACRC offers services that address basic needs (food, clothing, sleeping bags, tents) and support to find housing and employment. The ACRC has helped find employment for 14 individuals since September 2015. There are 10 people on a wait-list waiting for a job to become available. As the "Job Match" Program gains credibility within the community of providing skilled and reliable workers more jobs will become available. The dignity that comes through having a job is powerful and empowering. The ACRC housed 42 families each previously living in a place not intended for permanent human habitation; tent, auto, shelter and outside. 63 housed families received rental and/or utility assistance, allowing them to remain in their existing homes. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. The individuals and families served at the ACRC receive one or more of the following benefits either directly or indirectly to referral to other partners: • Assessment of needs by a Resource Navigator • Referral to on-site or other agency professional services; veterans benefits, mental health, legal counseling • If requested, employment assistance; resume development, skills assessment, job matching, haircuts, interview clothing • Transportation assistance; bus pass, car repair, bus ticket • Warm weather equipment; clothing, tents, tarps, sleeping bags, boots • Rental and/or utility assistance allowing them to remain in their homes • Assistance in applying for affordable housing including financial assistance a. For proposed projects serving a low-income area (i.e. public facility improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: Number of extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals served in the project area on an annual basis. ii In 2015, 723 individuals received services at ACRC beyond hospitality (coffee, food). These services include clothing, camping gear, bus passes, rental assistance, job search. Each person has been interviewed by a Resource Navigator and filled out an intake form or "snapshot." All clients that have been assessed and have a file developed for them are entered into the state Service Point database. This enables clients to be monitored as they use multiple agencies. Individuals and families with moderate incomes do not seek out services at the ACRC. Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis. 723 individuals b. For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families, battered women, people with AIDS, special needs populations, etc.) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. Specify the target population to be served. Extremely-low, low income individuals Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repeated visits or use by the same individuals.) 723 individuals were served during 2015. Of this number 253 were housed and 57 were veterans. Individuals and families with moderate incomes do not seek out services at the ACRC. Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. Percent low and moderate income. Ashland Statistics Source Population: 20,684 US Census Bureau At or below poverty level: 3,764 or 18.2% US Census Bureau Poverty level: HUD Family of four - $23,850 Single adult - $11,670 11) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. 12 Although people served at the ACRC are not asked for proof of their income, they are assessed during the intake process by Resource Navigators as to their ability to pay for needed services. Generally, homeless people are presumed by HUD to be primarily extremely-low to low incomes. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate-income housing to be demolished or converted to another use (see attachment "Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so, explain. NOT APPLICABLE 13) Project Feasibility Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. The Resource Center has the administrative capacity to complete the project. Paid staff (Lead Resource Navigator and Center Director) a. The Resource Center has been in operation since February 2014 and provided many of the services outlined in this project. "The Housing and Jobs for Those In Need In Ashland" is a program with a new "Job Match" component, which is partially funded by the city of Ashland . b. OHRA has a maintenance reserve of $37,092 as of January 2016. c.- h. N/A i. Describe project funding from other resources OHRA Family Emergency Fund which is funded by OHRA General Fund $13,631 OHRA Partners 3,253 City of Ashland Job Match Funding 7,656 OHRA General Fund 1,600 OHRA Volunteers (in-kind) 14,625 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. All projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. NOT APPLICABLE 13 15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, evidence of financial support from other funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. ATTACHMENT #1 List of OHRA Board Members ATTACHMENT #2 IRA 501 c3 Tax Exempt Letter ATTACHMENT #3 List of OHRA Partners ATTACHMENT #4 2015 Annual Report 16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B, & C. 14 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background _ Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all X required reports and accountability to the City as required b HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City X limits? _ 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 15 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3 Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 .or earlier? If year built is known, please specify._ 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? _ 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No - N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLI wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes NoN/A _ 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 16 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals_ Activity Start Date Completion Date House 21 unhoused families Jul 2016 _ June 2017 Enable 32 families to remain July 2016 June 2017 in their homes _ Find employment for 21 July 2016 June 2017 eo le Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 17 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals Fees Architectural/Engineering Legal/Accounting _ Appraisals Lender fees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE 18 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $24,540 $0.00 $24,540 Wages (of personal $27,289 $12,664 $14,625 (OHRA providing direct client Volunteers at services) Federally suggested hourly rate) Materials/Supplies $1,600 $0.00 $1,600 Marketing/Outreach $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Program Administration $0.00 CDBG Funds are Administration Includes overhead and general not available for and Overheads staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, program will be paid by grant administration) but that does administration OHRA and have not provide direct benefits to the client. not been included in the Project Budget Total Project Cost $53,429 $12,664 $40,765 19 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). The following is the current secured, conditional and tentative funding for OHRA Sources Secured Condi- Tentative Commitment tional Date (awarded with conditions Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants $37,500 Social Services Grant from City of Ashland. Remaining portion of $15,000 Grant from City of Ashland for "Job Match" Program Non Governmental Remaining portion of $7,000 Expect to Grants $10,000. Grant from (Ford receive FFF Carpenter Foundation. Family and WF funding Remaining portion of Found. & prior to $10,000 Grant from Washingto 3/1/2016 Leightman Maxey n Federal) Foundation Donations/Gifts $46,096 donations in $55,000 12/31/2016 calendar yr. 2015 (OHRA 2016 charitable giving goal Applicant Contribution _ Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL Approximately Approx. $70,000 funding has $60,000 of been secured for 2016 calendar 2016 is not et secured 20 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Not Applicable 21 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Organization is: Non-Profit 501 C3 DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department NONE 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title NONE 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) ATTACHMENT #1 22 Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (4HRA) DATE: February 16, 2016 TO: Linda Reid, City of Ashland FROM. Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) SUBJECT. Application in Response to the City's 2016 CDBG Social Services Grant RFP Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) is pleased to submit this Application for funding a portion of its mission at Ashland Community Resource Center (ACRC), located on Clover Lane in Ashland, Oregon. OHRA is a 501(c)(3), non-profit organization dedicated to providing the homeless and low-income residents of Ashland with opportunities to improve their life situations and leave poverty and homelessness behind. In February of 2014 OHRA opened the Ashland Community Resource Center as a joint partnership between OHRA and ACCESS. The City of Ashland provided an initial grant of $100, 000 for ACRC operations for 2014 and 2015 with the understanding that OHRA would develop additional funding resources. Here's how we're doing: o In 2013 OHRA received $1,191 in cash donations and non-City grants o In 2014 OHRA received $44,330 in cash donations and non-City grants o in 2015 OHRA received $60,846 in cash donations and non-City grants Along with financial resources, the following partnerships have been vital to the services we provide to our clients: 17 Community Partners, 9 Faith Community Partners, 9 Business Partners (specific names listed in Annual Report) and 65 Individual Volunteers. 'This Grant Application requests $12,664 of CDBG Social Services funds for a portion (50%) of the salary of the Lead Resource Navigator for a project entitled: "Housing and Jobs for Those in Need in Ashland." Here is a summary of the Project Budget: $12,664 Funding from this Grant Proposal (50% of Lead Resource Navigator's Salary) $29,856 Funding from other OHRA funds (donations and charitable gifts) $ 3,253 Funding from our ACRC Community/Business/Faith Partners $ 7.656 Funding from a 2015 Grant for the Ashland City Job Match Program $53,429 Total Project Budget 1 PO Box 1133, Ashland, OR 97520 info cr homelessoptions.org 541-631-2235 Based on our work in 2015 we feel confident that this project will be able to meet three primary goals: ® Secure housing for 21 families that are currently homeless Prevent 32 presently housed families from losing their housing ® Secure employment for 21 individuals currently unemployed In responding to the questions within this Grant Application we have been mindful of the City of Ashland's Strategic Plan. Wherever possible we have attempted to address the City's Strategic Priorities, Implementation Strategies and Outcome Measurement concerns as expressed in that Strategic Plan. Specifically this proposal meets Goal 5.4 of the Strategic Plan, which requests proposals that "encourage the effectiveness of the Resource Center." The proposal also meets the HIGH spending priority thomele'ssd homelessness outreach, prevention 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan; Support Services and transition and the Goal Outcomes of rent/security deposit assistance and direct services to homeless populations. We commit to building on our early successes serving Ashland's homeless and low- income community members. We look forward to your questions and comments. John Wieczorek, President of OHRA Board of Directors, 541-482-8230 Regina Ayars, Member of OHRA Board of Directors, 541-941-8627 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Executive Director's Name(s): John Wieczorek, President of the Board of Directors. No paid or unpaid Executive Director. Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) ATTACHMENT #1 Applicant Mailing Address: OHRA, PO Box 1133, Ashland Oregon 97520 Applicant Street Address: OHRA, 572 Clover Lane, Ashland Oregon 97520 IRS Classifil ti Federal Tax{ ' Mission Statement: (may be attached) OHRA is dedicated to providing homeless and low-income residents of Ashland with opportunities to improve their individual situations and leave poverty and homelessness behind. OHRA promotes responsibility for self-care and caring for others, and seeks full inclusion of low-income residents in the life of the community. The Ashland Community Resource Centeh(AeRC), a-part sen nr hip to between ACCESS and OHRA, provides the services tat become self-sufficient and able to engage as a member of the community. Total Employees: 2 Total Volunteers: 65 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: John Wieczorek Title: Board President, Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Phone Number: 541-482-8230 Fax Number: 541-488-6935 E-mail Address: info@homelessoptions.org III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Housing and Jobs for Those in Need in Ashland Projected Completion Date: This is an on-going project. Funds requested are for use through June 2017 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 12,664 Organizational Match: $ 29,856 Funds from Other Sources: $ 10,909 Total Project Cost: $ 53,429 Application Contents 1) Complete Application Form. COMPLETED 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives This Grant Application requests $12,664 of CDBG Social Services funds for a portion (50%) of the salary of the Lead Resource Navigator for a project entitled: "Housing and Jobs for Those in Need in Ashland." Here is a summary of the Project Budget: $12,664 Funding from this Grant Proposal (50% of Lead Resource Navigator's Salary $29,856 Funding from other OHRA funds (donations and charitable gifts) $ 3,253 Funding from our ACRC Community/Business/Faith Partners 7,65 6 Funding from a 2015 Grant for the Ashland Job Match Program $53,429 Total Project Budget Based on our work in 2015 we feel confident that this project will be able to meet three primary goals: 1. Secure housing for 21 families that are currently homeless 4 2. Prevent 32 presently housed families from losing their housing 3. Secure employment for 21 individuals currently unemployed 3) Property Information NOT APPLICABLE 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). Clients that come to the ACRC are assisted by Resource Navigators who fill out an intake form by interviewing the client to collect information that enables the Resource Navigator to assess what the client's primary and secondary needs are and/or what services are required. The Resource Navigator prioritizes those needs and determines how the ACRC can assist in meeting those needs. Whenever possible the Resource Navigators fulfill the needs of the clients to ensure that their living conditions are improved and that there is timely closure on the client's requirements. All Resource Navigators are volunteers except the Lead Resource Navigator who is a part-time paid employee. This position requires the most knowledge and the individual in the position both provides services to individual clients and acts as a reference for the volunteer Resource Navigators. The Lead Resource Navigator reviews applications and arranges for background checks of new volunteer Resource Navigators. The position also orients, trains and supervises the volunteer Resource Navigators on a daily basis. The position reviews all intake forms prior to permanent client folders being created and data being entered into the statewide Service Point database, which enables tracking and monitoring of clients as they are provided services. The position also coordinates and delivers quarterly volunteer trainings on new procedures and policies. The Lead Resource Navigator manages the "Job Match" program interviewing clients and matching them with available jobs. The position coordinates with the City of Ashland in posting available positions on the "Jobs Match" website. The current Lead Resource Navigator has a BA degree in Human Services with a certification in Conflict Resolution. Many needs/services can be delivered by the ACRC Resource Navigators directly: 5 Z Motel vouchers from our family emergency fund - The ACRC sets aside substantial monies each month ($2,000) to enable us to offer emergency housing for families in need. Warm clothes and gear - The ACRC has a garment closet of donated clothing and other survival items. Clients can receive needed items. The ACRC also receives new donated sleeping bags, tarps, tents and purchases new winter boots. These items are distributed by the Resource Navigator. [Y] The Dress for Success Program assists clients with clothing, haircuts and transportation to go on job interviews and meet with potential employers. FYTI Assistance in applying for state and federal benefits - Resource Navigators are knowledgeable in applying for social security as well as disability insurance program benefits and assist clients in navigating these processes. ® Assistance in applying for a birth certificate, driver's license or state identification card - Without proper identification clients can not apply for eligible benefits or a job. Any cost is either paid for by the ACRC or a community partner. ® Creation of a resume - Resource Navigators skilled in resume development assist clients in updating or creating resumes to apply for employment. Application for a cell phone - Many clients do not have cell phones. There is an on line service that provides free cell phones and limited minutes. Resource Navigators assist clients in applying for a phone. [w] Bus Passes - The lack of public transportation impacts homeless and low-income people at all levels. They are unable to get to doctors' appointments, job interviews, shelters, community meals, etc. The ACRC since July of 2014 when RVTD stopped donating bus passes, have purchased "Helping Hands" passes. Mailbox and phone services - Homeless and low income people do not have a permanent mailing address and if they do not have a cell phone, no place for a message to be left for them. There is also a dedicated phone for their use while at the ACRC. Mail is delivered by the post office and guests pick up their mail including prescriptions. Indirect services are provided through our community, faith and business partners. Resource Navigators contact and coordinate outreach to these partners for additional services or funding. 6 All of these services directly and indirectly assist clients in obtaining employment and housing. The Resource Navigators create client files and document intake information and actions taken. The Resource Navigator is the primary point of contact for the clients as they continue using the ACRC. The Resource Navigator documents all services provided by ACRC or community partners. The target audience receiving these services are homeless and low-income - 60% unhoused and 40% housed. These services align with Goal 5.4 of the City Council's 2015-2017 Strategic Plan: 5.4 Encourage the ongoing effectiveness of the Resource Center. 5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks and estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached Form A Project Schedule). A-2 ATTACHED 7 6)Financial Information Project Budget Proposed Social Services Grant City of Ashland (50% Lead OHRA Funding OHRA Partners' Job Match Totals Resource Funding Funding Navigator Salary) Resource $12,664 $12,664 avigator Family Emergency $13,631 $3,253 $16,884. and _ , Ashland Job Match $7,656 $7,656 unds . OHRA Misc $1,600 $1,600 xpenses Total Financial $12,664 $15,231 $3,253 $7,656 $383804.00 Budget OHRA Volunteers $14,625 $14,625 Total In-kind $0 $14,625 $0 $0 $14,625 Budget _ Total Budget $12,664 $293856 $3,253 $71656 $535429.00 1. Resource Navir?ator: 50% of the Lead Resource Navigator's Salary for 30 hours per week for 12 months at a fully loaded hourly rate (workman's comp. + vacation + sick time) 2. Family Emergena Fund: a. OHRA Family Emergency Fund: An estimate of direct family emergency funds used in Lead Resource Navigator's work b. OHRA Partners' Funds: An estimate of directed family emergency funds used in Lead Re- source Navigator's work 3. Ashland Job Match Funds: An estimate of Ashland City Grant funds used to remove barriers in se- curing employment 4. Misc OHRA Expense: Assumes $125 per month of misc. OHRA funds 5. OHRA Volunteers: This is the Federally approved volunteer rate assuming 50% of one volunteer, 5 hours per day, 5 days per week, over 12 months Note: We have not included prorated portions of Overheads such as Rent, Insurance, Utilities and etc. 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding YES- client services 8 General Information a. YES, the project is within the Ashland city limits b. HUD presumes that elderly, handicapped, homeless and persons with mental or emotional disturbances have low or moderate incomes. All ACRC clients meet this criteria with 60% being homeless and extremely low income. c. The project is an on-going project and services are currently being provided using existing grant and donation monies that will expire in June 2016. Note: If this grant is NOT awarded monies will be used from OHRA General Fund to pay for 50% of Lead Resource Navigator's salary. This means that less monies will be available for the Family Emergency Fund and other direct client services. Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information d-i. NOT APPLICABLE 8.) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit or review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. OHRA is dedicated to providing the homeless and low-income residents of Ashland with opportunities to improve their life situations by finding housing and employment leaving poverty and homelessness behind. In February 2014 OHRA opened the Ashland and Community ACCESST he City of Ashland (ACRC), a joint partnership between OHRA a has provided $100,000 for ACRC operations for 2014 and 2015 with the undertanding that OHRA would develop additional funding resources. Here is how we are doing: [D In 2013 OHRA received $1,191 in cash donations and non-city grants ] In 2014 OHRA received $44,330 in cash donations and non-city grants E] In 2015 OHRA received $60,846 in cash donations and non-city grants Along with financial resources, the following partnerships have been vital to the services we provide to our clients: 17 Community Partners, 9 Faith Community Partners, Business Partners and 65 individual volunteers. (A list of these specific partners and our 2015 results can be found in the attached 2015 OHRAAnnual Report.) 9 Our homeless and low income clients receive the following services at ACRC: job search and resume services, housing referral services, case management through volunteer Resource Navigators, personal identity documentation services, mail box services, internet access, printing and various personal services (food, clothing, restrooms, backpack storage, cold weather gear and more). In the middle of 2014, a mobile shower trailer was donated that enabled ACRC to offer showers and laundry twice a week. This is a mobile unit that travels to two locations during the week. During the year 2015, 1838 showers and 550 loads of laundry were provided. ACRC has recently (September 2015) established a "Job Match" Program in partnership with the City of Ashland and a Leightman-Maxey Foundation grant. Clients are assessed for their job skills and matched with employers who are in need of people to fill jobs. During 2015, the ACRC has provided the following services; 0 723 individuals each in some degree of life stress; financial, physical, emotional, mental and/or addiction (60% homeless 40% housed) 0 42 families were housed each previously living in a place not intended for permanent human habitation; tent, automobile, shelter or outside. 0 63 housed families received rental and/or utility assistance allowing them to remain in their existing homes 0 264 hours of mental health and/or drug and alcohol counseling 0 14 individuals were employed through "Job Match" OHRA and the implemented program (September 2015) City of Ashland 0 1,838 showers and 550 loads of laundry were provided in the mobile van that delivers these services twice a week at two locations 0 6,175 total number of visits to ACRC. Our goal is to provide a safe, hospitable environment, one that fosters healing. Many guests require multiple visits prior to accepting services. (This number includes repeat visits, often for hospitality only) 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low- moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs? YES 10 Self-sufficiency is a crucial component that allows individuals facing extremely difficult challenges to be more resilient. Homeless and low-income people struggle with maintaining control over the circumstances in their lives. This can bring a level of hopelessness that is hard to overcome. Giving people the skills, the tools the resources they need to overcome their circumstances allows for the hope of a better life to be a possibility. The ACRC offers services that address basic needs (food, clothing, sleeping bags, tents) and support to find housing and employment. The ACRC has helped find employment for 14 individuals since September 2015. There are 10 people on a wait-list waiting for a job to become available. As the "Job Match" Program gains credibility within the community of providing skilled and reliable workers more jobs will become available. The dignity that comes through having a job is powerful and empowering. The ACRC housed 42 families each previously living in a place not intended for permanent human habitation; tent, auto, shelter and outside. 63 housed families received rental and/or utility assistance, allowing them to remain in their existing homes. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. The individuals and families served at the ACRC receive one or more of the following benefits either directly or indirectly to referral to other partners: Assessment of needs by a Resource Navigator ® Referral to on-site or other agency professional services; veterans benefits, mental health, legal counseling If requested, employment assistance; resume development, skills assessment, job matching, haircuts, interview clothing ® Transportation assistance; bus pass, car repair, bus ticket ® Warm weather equipment; clothing, tents, tarps, sleeping bags, boots Rental and/or utility assistance allowing them to remain in their homes EK] Assistance in applying for affordable housing including financial assistance a. For proposed projects serving a low-income area (i.e. public facility improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: Number of extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals served in the project area on an annual basis. I1 In 2015, 723 individuals received services at ACRC beyond hospitality (coffee, food). These services include clothing, camping gear, bus passes, rental assistance, job search. Each person has been interviewed by a Resource Navigator and filled out an intake form or "snapshot.'Alclients imo the state Service assessed and have a file developed for them are entered Point database. This enables clients to be monitored as they use multiple agencies. Individuals and families with moderate incomes do not seek out services at the ACRC. Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis. 723 individuals b. For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families, battered women, people with AIDS, special needs populations, etc.) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. Specify the target population to be served. Extremely-low, low income individuals Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repeated visits or use by the same individuals.) 723 individuals were served during 2015. Of this number 253 were housed and 57 were veterans. Individuals and families with moderate incomes do not seek out services at the ACRC. Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. Percent low and moderate income. Ashland Statistics Source Population: 20,684 US Census Bureau At or below poverty level: 3,764 or 18.2% HUD Census Bureau Poverty level: Family of four - $23,850 Single adult - $11,670 11) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate-income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. 12 Although people served at the ACRC are not asked for proof of their income, they are assessed during the intake process by Resource Navigators as to their ability to pay for needed services. Generally, homeless people are presumed by HUD to be primarily extremely-low to low incomes. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause then usemseeeattachmente housing to be demolished or converted to ano "Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so, explain. NOT APPLICABLE 13) Project Feasibility Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. The Resource Center has the administrative capacity complete the project. Paid staff (Lead Resource Navigator and Center Director) a. The Resource Center has been in operation since February 2014 and provided many of the services outlined in this project. The Housing and Jobs for Those In Need in Ashland' is a program with a new Job Match component, which is partially funded by the city of Ashland . b. OHRA has a maintenance reserve of $37,092 as of January 2016. c.- h. N/A i. Describe project funding from other resources OHRA Family Emergency Fund which is funded by OHRA General Fund $13,631 3OHRA Partners 7,656 City of Ashland Job Match Funding 1,600 OHRA General Fund 14,625 OHRA Volunteers (in-kind) 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. All projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. NOT APPLICABLE 13 15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, evidence of financial support from other funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. ATTACHMENT #1 List of Oc RT Board Exempt ATTACHMENT #2 IRA 501 pt Letter ATTACHMENT #3 List of OHRA Partners ATTACHMENT #4 2015 Annual Report 16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B, & C. 14 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit X of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet X HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written X income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial X commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? X 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project X previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all X required reports and accountability to the City as required b HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? X 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? X 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and X land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, X partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? X 6. Does the project comply with current building code X requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility X requirements? 15 C. Environmental Issues Yes No NIA 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built X 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X round flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No NIA 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in X cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLL wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded grants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? X 5. What is the current use of the property? X 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If yes, what is the assessed value of the property? 16 Form A-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Services Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date House 21 unhoused families Jul 2016 June 2017 Enable 32 families to remain July 2016 June 2017 in their homes Find employment for 21 July 2016 June 2017 people Social service providers should list key benchmarks in the table above for their proposed projects (IE hire of personnel, application for further funding, initiation of direct client services, etc) 17 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals Fees - Architectural/Engineering Legal/Accounting _ Appraisals i Lenderfees Construction Loan Permanent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consultant Fee Other TOTAL NOT APPLICABLE 18 Form B-2 To be completed for Social Service Proposals Social Service Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Direct Client Services $24,540 _ $0.00 $24,540 Wages (of personal $27,289 $12,664 $14,625 (OHRA providing direct client Volunteers at services) Federally suggested hourly _ rate) Materials/Supplies $1,600 $0.00 $1,600 Marketing/Outreach $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Program Administration $0.00 CDBG Funds are Administration Includes overhead and general not available for and Overheads staffing necessary to administer the program (accounting, management, program will be paid by grant administration) but that does administration OHRA and have not provide direct benefits to the not been included client. in the Project Budget Total Project Cost $53,429 $12,664 $40,765 19 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). The following is the current secured, conditional and tentative funding for OHRA Sources Secured Condi- Tentative Commitment tional Date (awarded with conditions) Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants $37,500 Social Services Grant from City of Ashland. Remaining portion of $15,000 Grant from City of Ashland for "Job Match" Program Non Governmental Remaining portion of $7,000 Expect to Grants $10,000 Grant from (Ford receive FFF and Carpenter Foundation. Family WF funding Remaining portion of Found. & prior to 3/1/2016 $10,000 Grant from Washingto Leightman Maxey n Federal) Foundation Donations/Gifts $46,096 donations in $55,000 12/31/2016 calendar yr. 2015 (OHRA 2016 charitable giving goal) Applicant Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL Approximately Approx. $70,000 funding has $60,000 of been secured for 2016 calendar 2016 is not yet secured 20 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Not Applicable 21 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) Organization is: Non-Profit 50103 DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department NONE 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Nameffitle NONE 3. Provide the names of each "board member of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) ATTACHMENT #1 22 Attachment #1 OHRA Board of Directors John Wieczorek, Member and President , Real Estate Broker with Gateway Real Estate, 541-482-8230 Montye Male, Member, Secretary, Retired (formerly Vice President for Communications for Weyerhaeuser Corporation), 541-708-0741 Harriet Snyder, Member and Treasurer, Retired (formerly Computer Program Analyst), 541-482-4492 Regina Ayars, Member, Community Liaison, Retired (formerly Director for Software Developer Support, Sun Microsystems), 541-941-8627 Sharon Harris, Member, retired (formerly analyst in the Information Technology field) soon to be business owner of Radicle Oil, a culinary seed oil business, as a means to bring jobs to the underemployed residents of the Rogue Valley and to share proceeds with nonprofits, 208-215-1422 Ken Gudger, Member, Fundraising Chair, Retired (formerly Chairman of the Board and CEO of Global Energy Partners, LLC), 541-531-3472 T1~i.PItY£~! 11I~VUG'lITL': "bU;i"s'3'r"'~6'~.Y -N:UGu"•UU:3 JUIT-11--,301d 08:90 Dh ~'7►R34~=NC AF THE TREFS= ~ ~iTEDn3S SER4ZGf~ p. 0- SOX 2503 4520-1 Cz27CINNA'x"~, OH layer ldeuti.~io~xioYt ~tun~x: 2~;»1693223 Date; JON DLN; ~,90~37,593YSQ23 OPTxoiss For, BONMMS nrSX,=$ OF Contact k~extgen: ln# 95t~44 ASHLWD ANDREA SPECK Contact xslephane t't4uNs9x: P0 BQX 1133 ro ASHr'Vo, Or, 97$20 7 AcCO~%zttjno Period EndixIWt X)ecc m) sx 31 , Tic Qharity Statuso 3,70(b) MM) (vi) Forr, 9-60 RevixeA= Xe s Effc tt~ve bare of sxesaption" aune It, 2012 GOntrjbut,ion ueduatlbxl.ity: Xes Addend= APPIiOS; No Dear Zppi~oant: We e p3.eaeed to itfOrm yeu that *Oft rev.; CW o£ YO= aPPliPa On for tax ~ Pt l txel*t status wIP IULVC datIxt4ned that You .axa ex" CftpmanCril>peibiXt rnevma tax =dex Section 541 CC) (S) of the T;asez~. Revenue Code. ied A you de$~tceib]e ~ e~z ee~sn devises, Uransfere or g f" urid~section 2055, 23,46 ~ de~t~ a ox 2522 of tbez code. Pectsuse rhi$ iOGtez could help zasoive 4anY questions rar rtcazds. gAyAirtg rant' afralr_ Rtaaus, you should keep it in Your De===t O lanf='ions exert undeX section 501(e) (3) bf the Cflde are further Classified as either bp)~xtc uldertthe code seotiozm(ss) I~zted~i dttOrMin*d fthisu are a public ~i X v letcQr. a1t•ase see enclosed PubTieation 4221-M. COkbliaace G114-de for 54110) (3) Pab7.ic ~ iti*s' tor 3,i •1~01Pf ul informati-oa about your responsib_lities as of sincerely, 70 Diraataz, E~cempC Qz~jB.rii: $Cion9 ~14~,04UxC~ Pub~.aC~tion X225-~ Letter 047 TOTAL P.002 6263125061 96'~ P.002 ~t)t#-102424 1122 TOTAL P.002 Attachment #3 OHA Partnerships Community Partners ACCESS Ashland Emergency Food Bank Ashland Food Co-op Ashland Rotary Ashland YMCA The Carpenter Foundation City of Ashland Consumer Credit Counseling Dept of Disability Services Easter Seals Jackson Co. Fuel Committee Jackson Co. Mental Health Jackson Co. Sexual Assault Response Team (JCSART) The Leightinan-Maxey Foundation Oregon Action Rogue Valley Coalition of Governments (RVCOG) Rogue Valley Veterans Services, Senior Protective Services Street Dogs The Listening Post VA & VAHA Faith Communities Ashland First United Methodist Church Ashland United Church of Christ Ashland First Presbyterian Church Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship St Vincent DePaul of Ashland, Medford and Grants Pass Temple Emek Shalom Trinity Episcopal Church Business Partners Food Angels Ashland Umpqua Bank Martolli's Caldera Brewery Shop N Kart Whistling Duck Farm Habitat for Humanity, Re-Store Attachment #1 OHRA Board of Directors John Wieczorek, Member and President, Real Estate Broker with Gateway Real Estate, 541-482-8230 Montye Male, Member, Secretary, Retired (formerly Vice President for Communications for Weyerhaeuser Corporation), 541-708-0741 Harriet Snyder, Member and Treasurer, Retired (formerly Computer Program Analyst), 541-482-4492 Regina Ayars, Member, Community Liaison, Retired (formerly Director for Software Developer Support, Sun Microsystems), 541-941-8627 Sharon Harris, Member, retired, (formerly analyst in the Information Technology field) soon to be business owner of Radicle Oil, a culinary seed oil business, as a means to bring jobs to the underemployed residents of the Rogue Valley and to share proceeds with nonprofits, 208-215-1422 Ken Gndger, Member, Fundraising Chair, Retired (formerly Chairman of the Board and CEO of Global Energy Partners, LLC), 541-531-3472 Attachment #3 OHRA Partnerships Community Partners ACCESS Ashland Emergency Food Bank Ashland Food Co-op Ashland Rotary Ashland YMCA The Carpenter Foundation City of Ashland Consumer Credit Counseling Dept of Disability Services Easter Seals Jackson Co. Fuel Committee Jackson Co. Mental Health Jackson Co. Sexual Assault Response Team (JCSART) The Leightman-Maxey Foundation Oregon Action Rogue Valley Coalition of Governments (RVCOG) Rogue Valley Veterans Services, Senior Protective Services Street Dogs The Listening Post VA & VAHA Faith Communities Ashland First United Methodist Church Ashland United Church of Christ Ashland First Presbyterian Church Rogue Valley Unitarian Universalist Fellowship St Vincent DePaul of Ashland, Medford and Grants Pass Temple Emek Shalom Trinity Episcopal Church Business Partners Food Angels Ashland Umpqua Bank Martolli's Caldera Brewery Shop N Kart Whistling Duck Farm Habitat for Humanity, Re-Store I~ Hrn4flJ 7- -4~ _ INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE DEPAR'TMEN'T' OF THE TREASURY P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Employer Identification Number: Date: JUN 10 2W 61--1693223 DLN: 17053150318023 OPTIONS FOR HOMELESS RESIDENTS OF Contact Person: ASHLAND ANDREA SPECK ID# 95044 PO BOX 1133 Contact Telephone Number: ASHLAND, OR 97520 (877) 829-5500 Accounting Period Ending: December 31 Public Charity Status: 170 (b) (1 (A) (vi) Form 990 Required: Yes Effective Date of Exemption: June 18, 2012 Contribution Deductibility: Yes Addendum Applies: No Dear Applicant: We are pleased to inform you that upon review of your application for tax exempt status we have determined that you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to you are deductible under section 170 of the Code. You are also qualified to receive tax deductible bequests, devises, transfers or gifts under section 2055, 2106 or 2522 of the Code. Because this letter could help resolve any questions regarding your exempt status, you should keep it in your permanent records. Organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code are further classified as either public charities or private foundations. We determined that you are a public charity under the Code section(s) listed in the heading of this letter. Please see enclosed Publication 4221-PC, Compliance Guide for 501(c)(3) Public Charities, for some helpful information about your responsibilities as an exempt organization. Sincerely, Z ~469~ /01*0 ?-4~ Director, Exempt Organizations Enclosure: Publication 4221-PC Letter 947 I V'l P CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application These completed Sheets shall be included as the first pages on all submittals. 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant Organization Name: Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach Executive Director's Name(s): L. Sue Crader Board Member Names (attach separate sheet) Applicant Mailing Address: PO Box 3536, Ashland Oregon 97520 Applicant Street Address: 693B Washington St, Ashland, Oregon 97520 IRS Classification: 501 0 Private Nonprofit Corporation Federal Tax ID#: Mission Statement: (may be attached) The ASH Board and Staff support persons with disabilities to live a rich, fulfilling and productive life with dignity and respect. Total Employees: 36 Total Volunteers: 6 14 II. CONTACT PERSON (designate a contact person who is familiar with the project) Name: Sue Crader Title: Executive Director Phone Number: 541-488-2870 Fax Number: 541-488-2682 E-mail Address: ashinc@ashlandoregon.org III. PROJECT INFORMATION SUMMARY Project Name or Title: Special Needs Residential Home Solar Project Expected Completion Date: December, 2016 Requested CDBG Funds: $ 70,000 Organizational Match: $ 7,125 Funds from Other Sources: $ 0 Total Project Cost: $ 77,125 15 Application Contents A complete proposal shall include a brief narrative summary on applicant letterhead, full project cost, all federal, state and local subsidies requested for the project, proposed ownership entity, phone number and mailing address of contact person for the designated non-profit or certified Community Housing Development Organization. Provide the information listed below numbered and in the order listed so that we can find the required information easily and award full credit for your responses. If the question does not apply to the proposed project write N/A. 1) Complete Application Form (see page 16). Enclosed 2) A project summary including a brief description, project background and a list of project objectives Ashland Supportive Housing (ASH) owns a residence that provides housing for five extremely-low income adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities located at 842 Michelle Avenue, Ashland, Oregon. This home was purchased in 2005 and remodeled for accessibility. In 2015 additional remodeling was done with Community Development Block Grant funds to repair cracked and crumbling concrete and expand the square footage of the communal living space. In the grant written in 2015 a request was made for a solar power installation. This portion of the request was not funded in order to allow funding for all three applications that year. For the 2016 CDBG cycle, ASH is again requesting the funds to complete the solar power installation. This application also includes installation of a solar hot water system and increased attic insulation. The solar hot water system includes panels, an exterior holding tank, and an insulated enclosure for the tank. We have not yet received the bid for the tank enclosure and so are not including its cost in this proposal. This facility uses more water and electricity than the average household due to the needs of our disabled residents. Since completion of the remodel project in 2015, our first utility bill for December totaled more than $600. The following chart illustrates the 40% increase in utility costs in the past 8 years: 16 Utility Costs $21,001 $22,000 $19,357 i $20,000 $19,046 $18,000 - $19,202 $20,548 $16,000 $16,569 $14,000 $15,057 $14,572 $12,000 $10,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 As energy costs continue to grow, revenue from State contracts do not keep pace. Our primary source of income is from the Department of Human Services for the care provided to our residents. We have not had a cost of living increase since 2008. We received a 6% cut in 2009, with the 6% restored in 2013. This year, we received a 4% increase, but it is mandated for staff wages and benefits and cannot be used for rising operational costs. It is up to ASH to develop a plan to curb operating costs and live within our means. As part of the remodel project completed last year we changed the hot water heater from gas to electric and moved the location next to an exterior wall in order to allow for the future installation of solar hot water. We doubled the communal living space, adding an additional 750 sq. ft., which also increases the cost of utilities for this location. Installation of solar energy systems will enhance the financial stability of the agency and provide the positive example of green energy use. This is the only current facility operated by Ashland supportive Housing that has the required Exposure for a solar system. 3) Property and Project Information relating to acquisition, rehabilitation, site clearance, and development (section not applicable for social service applications involving direct services to qualified low- or extremely low- income persons) The house we own at 842 Michelle Ave is in the Old Helman Ranch subdivision. It was built in 1979, and was remodeled at some time before we purchased it in 2005. It has five (5) bedrooms and sits on a 9000 sq. ft. lot near the edge of the subdivision. It is on a single level, with concrete ramps to front, side, and back doors. The house had additional remodeling done in 2015 with a CDBG grant. 17 Provide a map showing the project's location. If the project will serve a specific area, proposed project boundaries should be shown. Map provided in attachments. Describe details regarding any property proposed for acquisition, indicating the following: a) Property location relative to jobs, schools, transportation, shopping and services N/A b) Total floor area of buildings, and size of land site N/A c) Types of residential units, number of each type unit, and total number of bedrooms N/A d) Number of extremely-low, low-, and moderate- income units proposed N/A e) Number of units accessible to the disabled N/A f) Square footage of units and description of amenities such as private balconies or storage areas N/A g) Square footage of common areas such as community or laundry rooms N/A h) Square footage of commercial space, if any N/A i) Year property was built. If pre-1978, will it be occupied by children under the age of six? N/A j) Describe condition of any existing housing proposed for acquisition and any alterations planned. Briefly discuss the total cost of the proposal relative to new construction. construction. N/A 18 k) If the project involves rehabilitation attach a description of the work to be completed. This project proposes to install solar panels to the existing structure. The current roof was examined and determined to be in excellent condition. The electrical panel and conduit from the street are currently being upgraded. Attic insulation will need to be replaced after installation. The solar hot water system will also require roof top panels, an exterior water tank, and an insulated enclosure to house the tank. 1) Describe the target population. Include the suitability of the property for the target population, the tenant selection process, brief description of any residential services and the resources identified to fund the services. The target population is intellectual and developmentally disabled adults who requires support services 24 hours per day and assistance with all activities of daily living. Eligibility is determined by the State of Oregon through Jackson County Developmental Disability Services. Persons found eligible are given a Needs Assessment Survey, which determines what supports are needed and the level of ongoing funding for these supports that will be provided by the State. When there is an opening, referrals are sent to ASH from Jackson County DD Services, which are then screened for an appropriate match with current residents. The applicant then visits the home, meets the current residents, and makes the final decision to accept placement. This property is felt to be suitable for the proposed use as it has served as a residential facility for developmentally disabled adults since 2005. It was inspected and licensed by the State of Oregon at opening, and inspected every two years. The home is single story; fenced; has a fire suppression system in place; is conveniently located in relation to city services; and, is well established in the neighborhood. m) Indicate how many years the property will remain affordable and the mechanism that will be used to ensure the affordability period. Ashland Supportive Housing is licensed as a 24 Hour Residential Facility for Adults with Developmental Disabilities through the State of Oregon Department of Human Services. We have provided this service in Ashland since 1981 and we are firmly established in the community. We expect to continue operations at least 60 years as residential services will continue to be needed by this population. The house at 842 Michelle Avenue is wholly owned by Ashland Supportive Housing and all rehabilitation is being done with the expectation that the current use will continue for the full affordability period. 4) Briefly describe the services to be provided, if any, and describe the eligible target population receiving direct benefit from these services (low-income, homeless, special needs). 19 This facility is a residential home for five Special Needs adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Multiple support staff are present 24/7. All residents are extremely low income and need assistance for all activities of daily living. This includes help with meal preparation, laundry services, personal hygiene, medication administration, and other support services. None of the residents are able to access the community independently. The age range of current residents is from 31 to 78 years of age. Residents are invited to stay for their lifetime; the home has been remodeled to remove architectural barriers in order to allow aging in place. 5) A work program and time line including a complete list of tasks with estimated start and completion of each task (please complete attached Form A - Project Schedule). See Form A - Project Schedule 6) Financial Information A budget describing total cost, cost per task, existing (secured) project funds and unfunded costs. Identify any and all source(s) of funding. This would include other Federal and State grants and loans, monetary donations, in-kind contributions, volunteer labor, donation of materials and supplies, etc. In addition to addressing the questions below please complete attached Form B - Uses of Funding & Form C - Sources of Funding. See attached project budget and detailed construction bids. Provide a detailed financial description of the proposed project, including Rent Schedule, Sources/Uses of Funding and Operating Budget Income/Expense, and utility allowances. See attached operating budget. a) Describe the assumptions used to determine the total project cost. Indicate the sources consulted and how costs were determined. TrueSouth has provided the estimate for the solar installation. The Solar Collection has provided the estimate for the solar hot water system. Innovative construction has provided the estimate for the attic insulation. 20 b) Was consideration given to remaining economic life of the property and potential cost increases such as unanticipated repair or relocation costs? Maintenance costs? Operating costs? (Not applicable for social service applications involving direct services to qualified low- or extremely low- income persons) This property has had extensive remodeling in order to extend its economic life and prevent future major repairs. This residence is considered to have as long a life, if not more so, than other similar residential properties. There will be no relocation costs. See attached budget for operating costs, which includes a line item for general maintenance and repairs. Currently, maintenance costs are covered through the ASH agency budget. Operating costs have been determined by the past ten years of utility and maintenance costs on the property, along with payroll, benefits, and other operating costs as currently incurred is all programs managed by ASH. c) Describe the financial assumptions used to develop the operating budget. Include projected rent increases, other sources of income for operation and maintenance expenses, and inflationary factors. For social service award requests please include financial assumptions relating to increases in wages, materials and overhead, or other costs associated with the proposed activity. ASH has been a provider of residential services for adults with developmental disabilities since 1981. Financial assumptions are based on experience during this time. The State of Oregon conducts a needs assessment survey on all individuals accepted for services. This survey determines the rate that is paid to provider organizations for the cost of care, which includes staffing, facility, and administrative costs. With known funds, ASH sets the operating budget for the agency. ASH seeks additional funds through grants and fundraising for projects and large, unusual expenses. ASH maintains a reserve fund to cover operating expenses in the case of income disruption or exceptional service needs. d) Discuss non-typical expenses or those outside industry standards. None known at this time. e) Attach letters of funding commitment from other sources, if available. ASH currently has the required 10% match. f) Will a property tax exemption be requested for the project? If so, what is the estimated dollar value of the tax 21 exemption over the twenty-year period? Please briefly detail the calculation method used to estimate the value and the process your organization would undertake to obtain the exemptions or appraised value adjustment. (Not applicable for social service applications involving direct services to qualified low- or extremely low- income persons) The property involved currently has tax exempt status which will remain in place. To determine the estimated dollar value of the continuation of the current tax exemption over the next twenty-year period we consulted with the Jackson County Assessors' Office. With a current Maxirnum Assessed Value of $179,950 and adding a 3% increase per year for twenty years, the dollar value of the tax exemption over a twenty year period is $44,723. 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding Will any of the following activities be part of the proposed project? • Property Acquisition No • New Construction (non-residential) No • Removal of Architectural Barriers No • Rehabilitation Costs Yes • Development Costs No • Client Services No • Specification Preparation (Construction/Rehab) Yes • Relocation Benefits (if required) No • Appraisal (for acquisitions) No Federal funding has certain regulatory requirements. The following information is required to determine eligibility for federal funding. General Information a) Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? If not, explain. Yes b) Specify the proposed tenant or client income level; state in terms of percentage below area median for the Medford-Ashland standard metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The current income guidelines are included on page 10 above. Tenants are presumed to be persons of principally low 22 incomes per HUD guidelines as they are all diagnosed with an intellectual/developmental disability. c) Describe any financial or legal commitments made to the project. There are no financial or legal obligations made to this project. Housing Development, Land Acquisition, or Rehabilitation Specific Information d) Will permanent housing units be converted or demolished? If so, how many? N/A e) Is the proposed housing site located in a 100-year flood plain? No f) Has a Level 1 environmental assessment been done for the site? If yes, attach the report. This project does not require an environmental assessment. This home was built after 1978, so no lead paint would have been used in construction. All codes and ordinances will be adhered to. g) Is the proposed housing site located adjacent to a major arterial road or near a railroad? No h) Is the proposed site located adjacent to an aboveground flammable storage tank? No i) Will the proposed project impact historic features? If yes, explain. No 23 8) Briefly describe the agency's mission and service history. The City may request copies of the agency's financial audit of review for the last two years prior to contract signing in order to determine agency's capability to successfully complete the project. The ASH Board and Staff support persons with disabilities to live a rich, fulfilling, and productive life with dignity and respect. ASH has been helping people function in Ashland's community and assisting our clients to engage in work and hobbies since 1981. We provide support at home and in the community for our clients' individual needs while also encouraging independence. The agency currently has 36 employees, and 6 volunteers. ASH pays a living wage to all regular staff, which includes fully compensated medical and dental benefits. 9) Will the project promote self-sufficiency for extremely low-, low- moderate-income families, or individuals with special needs? As a provider of supportive services, ASH has always encouraged our residents to be independent within their capabilities. This home will continue that encouragement. It should be noted that through the needs assessment process by the State each resident or applicant for housing has been determined to require support services on a twenty four hour basis. 10) Please identify how your project benefits extremely low-, low- and moderate-income individuals or individuals with special needs. a) For proposed projects serving a low-income area (i.e. public facility improvements, community center or other neighborhood serving facility), provide the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: • Number of extremely low-, low- and moderate- income individuals served in the project area on an annual basis. • Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis. N/A b) For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families, battered women, people with AIDS, special needs populations, etc.) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. 24 • Specify the target population to be served. Special Needs Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities • Number of low and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. (This count cannot include repeated visits or use by the same individuals.) Five (5) • Total number of individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis. Five (5) • Percent low and moderate income. 100% 11) Briefly describe how your proposal will ensure that moderate- income individuals do not benefit to the exclusion of extremely-low or low-income individuals. All Individuals admitted to 24 Hour Residential Services are intellectually and developmentally disabled and have as their primary income source Social Security and/or Supplemental Security Income. This class is by HUD standards considered to be extremely low-income. 12) Indicate if you expect the project to cause low and moderate- income housing to be demolished or converted to another use (see attachment "Relocation Strategy Guidance"). If so, explain. N/A 13) Project Feasibility Please describe your readiness to proceed concerning whether land use issues have been resolved and whether your organization has the administrative capacity to complete the project proposed. 25 Describe the feasibility of the project: a) Does the applicant have the experience and capacity to complete and or manage the project proposed? Briefly describe applicants' capacity and experience in providing, maintaining and managing housing, particularly low- income housing similar to the proposed project. Ashland Supportive Housing has been managing homes for Special Needs Adults since 1982. Over the last 10 years ASH has purchased, remodeled, and moved our clientele into three homes in the Quiet Village neighborhood. This move and the subsequent remodeling were undertaken to provide greater accessibility and in order to allow our residents to age in place. b) Are the ongoing operating expense and maintenance reserve estimates reasonable? Yes. ASH has successfully operated residential homes in the Ashland community since 1982. Ongoing operating expenses are determined by 34 years of experience. ASH maintains an emergency reserve fund in order to ensure that no disruptions in service will occur. c) Does the applicant have a purchase option on the property, letter of support from the property owner(s), or some other assurance that the property is available for acquisition? The property is owned free of encumbrances by Ashland Supportive Housing. d) Does the project require temporary or permanent relocation and if so have comparable units been identified and costs of relocation been accurately determined? Provide a tenant relocation strategy, cost estimate and existing tenant survey to address federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements which may impact your project. Relocation will not be needed. e) Describe relocation strategy for the project. N/A 26 f) Does the project require land use approvals such as Site Review, Annexation, Zone Change, Minor Land Partition, Demolition, or Conditional Use permits? No land use approvals are needed. g) Has a pre-application been completed with the Ashland Planning Department? A pre-application is not necessary for this project. No land use approval is required. h) What is the condition of any improvements on the property and what is the expected life of the property? Improvements are all in good condition. There is a fire suppression system that is inspected annually. Bathrooms and kitchen are in good condition. The communal living space was remodeled in 2014. New concrete patio, driveway and walkway were poured in 2015. The roof has been examined by TrueSouth Solar and determined to be in good condition for the solar installation. The staff inspects the house monthly for safety hazards and repair needs. We expect this facility to serve us for at least 60 years. i) Describe commitment of project funding from other sources The required matching funds have been set aside for this project. 14) Indicate whether the project will have any negative impacts o n historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. All projects will be subjected to an Environmental Review Report and certain projects depending on scale, i.e. new construction, must undergo an Environmental Assessment. There will be no negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties or the environment. 15) Please attach any other statistical data, letters of support, applicable experience of the sponsor, evidence of financial support from other funding sources, or other material you believe will assist the City in its review of your proposal. Please see attached detailed estimates for the work to be completed. 16) CDBG Application Checklist (see pages 25-26). Attach Forms A, B, & C. 27 CITY OF ASHLAND 2016 Program Year CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit x of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet x HUD Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written x income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial x commitment to a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? x 6. Has the applicant administered a CDBG project x previously? 7. Is your agency willing and able to provide all required x reports and accountability to the City as required by HUD? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? x 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City x limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and x land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, x partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? x 6. Does the project comply with current building code x -requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility x requirements? 28 C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? X 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? X 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified X on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? X 5. If project involves an existing structure, was it built X 1979 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or X near the railroad? 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above X ground flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is X 50 years or older? 9. Will the applicant complete a Phase I environmental X review upon receiving a CDBG award? D. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in x cost? 2. Will the project trigger Davis-Bacon wage X requirements? 3. Will the project trigger BOLT wage requirements? X 4. Does the project involve over $18,703 in City X awarded rants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? X 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? X 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? X F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple X title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? X 3. Is insurance current? X 4. What is the current debt against the property? $0.00 X 5. What is the current use of the property? Special Needs Housing 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? X If es, what is the assessed value of the property? $266,530 29 Form A-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Housing Proposals Activity Start Date Completion Date Site Planning Development Option N/A Site Acquisition N/A Plan Development 02/2016 Pre-application N/A Land Use Approval N/A Construction Plans 02/2016 04/2016 Final Bids 02/2016 04/2016 Contractor Selection 02/2016 07/2016 Building Permits 07/2016 08/2016 Grant applications local N/A state N/A federal 02/2016 07/2016 Non-government N/A other N/A Loan Applications Construction loan N/A Permanent N/A Construction Phase Construction Upon receipt of funds 12/2016 Certificate of Occupancy N/A 12/2016 Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule 30 Form B-1 To be completed for Development or Rehabilitation Proposals Uses of Funding Housing Proposals Total Cost CDBG Request Other Source(s) Acquisition Costs Land N/A Improvements $77,125 $70,000 $7,712 Liens and other Taxes N/A _ Closing costs N/A Off-Site costs N/A Other N/A SUBTOTAL $77,125 $70,000 $7,712 Development Costs Land Use Approvals N/A Building Permits/fees $1000.00 (Include Engineering and Community Development Fees) System Development Charges N/A SDCs Relocation Costs N/A Environmental Report / Lead N/A Based Paint Clearance Soils Report N/A Survey N/A Marketing N/A Insurance Existing insurance Other N/A Fees Architectural/Engineering N/A Legal/Accounting N/A Appraisals N/A Lender fees N/A Construction Loan N/A Permanent Loan N/A Tax Credit Fees N/A Developer Fee N/A Consultant Fee N/A Other N/A TOTAL $77,125 $70,000 $7,712 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment (awarded with Date conditions) Federal Grants $70,000 07/2016 State Grants Local Grants Non-Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts Applicant $7,712 02/2016 Contribution Program Income Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL $7,712 $70,000 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project. Specifically, for any tentative funding sources please provide application dates, award dates and funding availability dates. Community Development Block Grant finds applied for 02/2016. Award date will be by 07/2016, with availability by 09/2016. ASH has set aside $7,712 for this project, and is ready to absorb any cost overruns or unexpected expenses for this project. 32 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501 C3 (X) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name, Job Title and City Department N/A 2. State the name(s) of any current or prior elected or appointed "official", of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title Sue Crader/Executive Director Commissioner, Housing and Human Services Commission 3. Provide the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee (may be attached as a separate Sheet) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 additional If the applicant has provided names in question 1 or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. The Executive Director of Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach, Sue Crader, serves on the Housing and Human services Commission. She has recused herself from any viewing of other applicants and the deliberation process. 30 Special Needs Residential Home Solar Project Full Project Cost: $77,125 Amount Requested from CDBG: $70,000 Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach (ASH), a 501(c)3 private nonprofit corporation, is requesting Community Development Block Grant funds to install a solar energy system, a solar hot water system, and replace attic insulation to upgrade an existing 24 hour Residential Home for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). ASH has provided residential and support services for adults with I/DD in the Ashland community since 1982. This facility is a single family residential home in an Ashland neighborhood that houses five adults. It was purchased by ASH in 2005 and is owned without encumbrances. All of the residents in the home are considered to be extremely low-income, and require support staff on a twenty-four hour basis. Several of the residents have lived with ASH since its inception in 1982. Any available openings are filled by individuals with I/DD by referral process through Jackson County Developmental Disabilities Services, who verify eligibility and income. ASH is dedicated to providing this Special Needs housing in perpetuity. The proposed project consists of: • Installation of a solar electric system: $58,125 • Installation of a solar hot water system: $11,000 • Replace and improve attic insulation: $ 5,000 • Enclosure for water tank, permits, misc. $ 3,000 This project is necessary in order to offset the high costs of electricity at this facility. Our Special Needs residents are often medically fragile, and consume more energy than the average household. As energy costs continue to grow, revenue from State contracts do not keep pace. Programs like ASH have not had a cost of living increase since 2008. Our overall utility costs have increased by 40% since 2008. In order to continue to provide quality services and maintain professional staff at a living wage, ASH must take measures to reduce other operational costs. This project is designed to meet this need. The ownership entity is Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach. The agency contact person for this project is: Sue Crader, Executive Director PO Box 3536, 6938 Washington Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520 Phone: (541) 488-2870 • Fax: (541) 488-2682 • email: ashinc@ashlandoregon.org List of Attachments 1. ASH Board of Directors 2. 501 (c) 3 letter 3. ASH Current Budget 4. Profit and Loss Statement July 2015 through December 2015 5. Project Budget 6. Map of Project Neighborhood 7. TrueSouth Estimate 8. Solar Collection estimate 9. Innovative Construction estimate ASHLAND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING & COMMUNITY OUTREACH BOARD OF DIRECTORS: 2015 Charles "Rick" Rhoades (Since November 2014) (530) 925-4318 (cell) President (2 year term) rickrhoades(abyahoo.com 1825 Siskiyou Blvd., #3 Ashland, OR 97520 Retired Siskiyou Child Care Council Laurel Biegert (Since February 2015) (541) 890-3887 (cell) Vice President (2 year term) clbiegert(cbgmail. corn 1339 Highway 234 Eagle Point, OR 97524 Barbara Mathieson (Since Oct 2013) Treasurer (2 year term) (541) 488-4898 (home) 4898 Highway 66 (541) 261-7271 (cell) Ashland, OR 97520 barbara.mathieson(~iigmail.com Retired English Professor (SOU) Kember Dollarhide (Since Sept 2015) (541) 301-5196 Director onehide(a).aol.com 3003 State Street Medford, OR 97504 Case Manager, JC DD Services Nancy Parker (Since January 2016) (541) 951-1129 Director naparker@mind.net 456 Euclid Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Editor Staff Representative: Zachary Parsons 541-488-3440 (work) 290 W. Nevada putnam97520Cc gmail.com Ashland, OR 97520 Emeritus members: Midge Binnewies (Since May 2004) PO Box 2621 520-075-8493 (cell) Tubac, AZ 85646 midgebinn(a-).msn.com Retired Special Education Teacher Amy Crumme Korth (Since Jan 1992) 1566 E. Nevada St (541) 482-1843 (home) Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 778-2402 (cell) School Cafeteria Manager (retired) amycrummy(,gmail.com OFFICERS L. Sue Crader, Executive Director 2957 Barbara Street (541) 840-2930 (cell) Ashland, OR 97520 Judy Beyer, Assistant Director 522 Bell Road (541) 973-7170 (cell) Talent, OR 97540 OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach 693B Washington Street P.O. Box 3536 Ashland, OR 97520 VOICE: 541-488-2870 FAX: 541-488-2682 Ashwood Inn - Respite House Manager & Community Outreach Manager: Brooks Eakett 1610 Clark Ave. Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-9301 FAX: (541) 488-9303 Lindley House - House Manager: Stephanie Kwiatkowski 842 Michelle Ave. Ashland, Oregon 97520 (541) 482-0366 Miller House - House Manager: Julie Jankowski 290 W. Nevada Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 488-3440 Pinel House - House Manager: Aaron Brockey 135 Almeda Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-9327 Internal Revenue Service Department of the Treasury District Director Date: 2 9 O CT 1982 Employer Identification Number: 0 Accoun Wngerd Ending: June 30 Foundation Status Classification: 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) p Jackson County Board of Advocates Advance Ruling Period Ends: for Severely Handicapped Adults June 30, 1984 547 Clover Lane Person to Contact: Ashland, OR 97520 Ellen Oliver Contact Telephone Number: (206) 442-5106 Dear Applicant: Based on information supplied, and assuming your operations will be as stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined you are exempt from Federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making a final determination of your foundation status under section 509(a) of the Code. However, we have determined that you can reasonably be expected to be a publicly supported organization described in section 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). Accordingly, you will be treated as a publicly supported organization, and not -as a private foundation, during an advance ruling period. This advance ruling period begins on the date of your inception and ends on the date shown above. Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you must submit to us information needed to determine whether you have met the requirements of the applicable support test during the advance ruling period. If you establish that you have been a publicly supported organization, you will be classified as a section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) organization as long as you continue to meet the requirements of the applicable support test. If you do not meet the public support requirements during the advance ruling period, you will be classified as a private foundation for future periods. Also, if you are classified as a private foundation, you will be treated as a private foundation from the date of your inception for purposes of sections 507(d) and 4940. Grantors and donors may rely on the determination that you are not a private foundation until 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period. If you submit the required information within the 90 days, grantors and donors may continue to rely on the advance determination until the Service makes a final determination of your foundation status. However, if notice that you will no longer be treated as a section 509(a)(1) organization is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin, grantors and donors may not rely on this determination after the date of such publication. Also, a grantor or donor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act that resulted in your loss of section 509(a)(1) - status, or acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would be removed from classification as a section 509(a)(1) organization. P.O. Box 21224, Seattle, Washington 981 11 (Over) . Letter 1045(DO) (6-77) If your sources of support, or your purposes, character, or method of operation change, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status. Also, you should inform us of all changes in your name or address. Generally, you are not liable for social security (FICA) taxes unless you file a waiver of exemption certificate as provided in the Federal Insurance Contributions Ac.t. If you have paid FICA taxes without filing the waiver, you should call us. You are not liable for the tax imposed under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). Organizations that are not private foundations are not subject to the excise taxes under Chapter 42 of the Code. However, you are not automatically exempt from other Federal excise taxes. If you have any questions about excise, employment, or other Federal taxes, please let us know. Donors may deduct contributions to you as provided in section 170 of the Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for your use are deductible for Federal estate and gift tax purposes if they meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the Code. You are required to file Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax, only if your gross receipts each year are normally more than $10,000. If a return is required, it must be filed by the 15th day of the fifth month after the end of your annual accounting period. The law imposes a penalty of $10 a day, up to a maximum of $5,000, when a return is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. You are not required to file Federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the Code. If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return on Form 990-T. In this letter, we are not determining whether any of your present or proposed activities are unrelated trade or business as defined in section 513 of the Code. You need an employer identification number even if you have no employees. If an employer identification number was not entered on your application, a number will be assigned to you and you will be advised of it. Please use that number on all returns you file and in all correspondence with the Internal Revenue Service. Because this letter could help resolve any questions about your exempt status and foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown in the heading of this letter. Sinc ely yours, L Distri Director cc: Bruce D. Smith Letter I045(DO) (6-77) true-: SOLAR-ELECTRIC SYSTEM PROPOSAL S O L A R 2/8/16 15-o37P.1 Sue Crader/Ashland Supportive Housing Ashland,OR Dear Sue, With the system we are proposing, you will be reducing your electric bill by 630/0 Not only are you investing in your own electricity production, you are investing in a clean, safe energy source for your family. Guaranteed for 25 yrs and designed for 40+ yrs of service, your solar electric system can be a gift you pass onto your family or an effective way to increase your property value by $49,225 a~ We want you to feel confident in your purchase and ask that you consider the following: We are Southern Oregon's most experienced and largest solar installer Solar is at an all time low cost and incentives/tax credits are slowly decreasing All of our products and craftsmanship are covered by cornprehensive warranties Our systems are designed with a Secured Power supply built in Thank you for thinking about solar and how you make a difference in reducing your energy bill and making an impact on your global community. "..it has been an absolute pleasure to work with the people atTrue South, and we Thank you for your time and consideration, would recommend them whole-heartedly to anyone..." Char Peterson-Medford Wade Bischoff 541.816.1402 1 wade@truesouthsolar.net ftEK.:1-,wq fki~ SOLAR-ELECTRIC SYSTEM PROPOSAL Cash Purchase of Your Project EBMW A Customer Information Utility Bill Reduced System Details /Ashland Supportive System Size kW 14.79 J Panel Solar World SW-290 Ashland,OR 370 # Panels 51 Inverter SMA 700oTL 2o8/240 63% Annual Usage kWh 29,200 Dear Sue, Annual Production kWh 18,385 15.037P.1 2/8/16 Electricity Use Reduced 63% Investment Info Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 15 Year z5 Gross System Cost $58,122 Ashland Rebate $7,395 Net Install Costs $50,727 OR Tax Credit FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Federal Tax Credit V $0 Yearly Energy Savings $2,481 $2,559 $21640 $2,724 $2,810 $3,839 $5,244 Adjusted Annual Net ($48,247) ($44,188) ($40,047) ($35,823) ($33,013) $481 $46,233 System Features * American Made Solar Panel * Largest U.S. Panel Manufacturer m * 160/6 Efficiency * 2Syr Production Warranty *Assembled in Hillsboro r . * Great Entry Level Panel r ~ - - * Meets Buy America Standard [ I`r i Proposal and Contract For Building Construction and Alteration true,,,. SO L A R Proposal# 15-037P.1 Date: 2/8/16 This agreement is between: True South Solar Inc., 258 A St. Ste 1-56, Ashland, OR 97520 800-947-1187 OR CCB# 1899o6 AND Sue Crader/Ashland Supportive Housing System Type: Grid Tied Customer Details: Site Details: System Details: System Placement: Permit: coa Size: 14.790 kW Inverters): outside same Ashland,OR Utility coa Modules: Solar World SW-29o Mains: NE Bedroom-needs 21b 97520 TSRF: 88 # of Modules: 51 Meter: outside same Tilt: 23 Inverter #1: SMA 70ooTL 208/240 Modules: Comp Azimuth: 180/270 Inverter #2 SMA 700oTL 208/240 Roof Type: Comp Inverter #3 N/A Data Monitoring: No Prepared By: Wade Bischoff 1541.816.1402 wade@truesoijthsolar.net Understandings: This contract is executed to fulfill a requirement by the City of Ashland for the purpose of obtaining a reservation of incentive funding for the installation of a photovoltaic system at the job location stated above. This contract is for the installation of a photovoltaic system at the location above. It is estimated that work will begin on the photovoltaic system within 9o days of contract signing. It is also understood that the installation must take place and be inspected within one year of funds reservation approval by the City of Ashland. Due to the necessary delays in starting the project, components and availability may change. In the event that substitution is necessary, every effort will be made to provide goods and products that are equal or greater in value and quality to those stated in the quote. True South Solar Inc. proposes to furnish all material and perform all labor necessary to complete the following: Install Photovoltaic system as described in True South Solar Inc. Proposal listed above. System Install Notes: Secured Power Supply Contract Notes: _ L All of the above work to be completed in a substantial and workmanlike manner according to the drawings, job specifications, terms and conditions agreed upon. The entire amount of the contract to be paid within 1o days after completion and acceptance by the City of Ashland. The price quoted is for immediate acceptance only. Delay in acceptance will require a verification of prevailing labor and materials costs. This offer becomes a contract upon acceptance by True South Solar Inc. but shall be null and void if not executed within 1o days from the date above. Subject to prior approval by the City of Ashland, you are hereby authorized to furnish all materials and labor required to complete the work according to the drawings, job specifications, terms and conditions attached to this proposal, for which we agree to pay the amount above. r true Proposal and Contract For Building Construction and Alteration S O L A R Sue Crader/Ashland Supportive Housing Ashland,OR Cash Gross System Cost(credit card): $59,720.54 If Paid by Check or Cash Discount: $58,122.18 Incentive Amount: $7,395.00 _ Net Install (less ETC)): $58,122.18 _ Down Payment 1o% $5,812.22 _ Balance due at start of install $26,154.98 Net i.o halance due after install: $26,154-98 _ Total lnbtallAmount: $58,122.18 Thank You! Owner Owner Date: 2/8/16 Accepted ByTrue South Solar Inc. Referred By: Address: Notes: 1. PV module prices and avadebility are volatile and can only be guaranteed at time of purchase. Prices quoted are valid fora month after this date: 2. The federal income tax credit (FITC) s 30 %o of eligible costs. 3. Oregon's renewable energy tax credit (RETC) is capped at s6,ooa and allocated at a maximum amount of s1,S0o/year based off of si.So per installed watt. 4. The system must be purchased (deposit paid) by December 31, zoi6 and operational by March 31, 2017, to qualify for 2oi6 Oregon tax benefits. S. The financial analysis is for example only, and should be verified oy yourtar professional for your particulartax situation. 6. The equipment itself is solid state with no moving parts and has a life expectancy of So years for the PV module (7c %cf system cost) and so years for the inverter (120/c of total system cost). Warranties as followed: modules-25 years; inverter(s)-io years, installation-r years. *Confidentiality Notice This document is forthe sole use of the intended re.iplent(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized revieev, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender, and destroy all copies ofthe original document. *Disclaimer: We are not CPAs or lawyers and we are not providing tax advice. Please check with your tax or legal professi:;nal forqualified help. *Please note that this proposal is an estimate and does not guarartee actual system production or savings.The system design may change based on a detailed engineering site audit. Actual system production and savings will vary based on the final system size, design, configuration, urdly rates, .ve other, appl,cable rebates, and your building's energy' usage. Calculation Notes: *Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) rebate is calculated through the ETC Incentive calculator at s.7S/W, capped at s7Soo. ETC payment is made directly to contractor reducing your out-ef-pocket expense. *City of Ashland rebate is calculated as a so.5o/watt incentive with a maximum of s7Soo received by individual or business. * Oregon's Residential Energy Tax Credit (RETC) is based on ODOE's formula for an AC W (DC at STC x 0.70) or si.SoIEC We up to $6,ooo. s1,5oo maximum credit applied per calendar year (s6,ooo credit = s1,5co, $1,500, S2,500, s1,5oo) . RETC can be carried forward 5 years. * The federal income tax credit (FITC) is 3o% of eligible costs (gres system costs minus any cash incentives) and can be taken in year one, or carried forward. * Energy savings is based on so.1o5/kWh in the first year. As electrical energy prices increase, so does the energy savings. A 40/1 annual increase of electricity rates is assumed. It is also assumed that the cash saved per year include a multiplier to accomadate a 25% tax effect from gained income with out taxes from the energy produced by your solar electric system. a) Based on the National Renewabbe Energy Laboratory formula for increased property value being $20 for every dollar saved from solar production. A PV systeri's increase in property value is exempt from property tax. THE SOL LECTION r PO Box 9-95 - Talent, OR 97540 5+1-555-5364 - cAvi8q 5f www.solarcollection.net contact0solarcollection.net Ashland Supportive Housing February 10, 2016 Ashland, OR The following is a proposal and contract to install a Solene Solar Water Heating System at the above address. The SRCC estimates the annual production rating for this system is 2630 KWH in this climate zone . The system would be an active drain back configuration and consist of the following major materials: 2 - 4'x8' Aurora all copper, black chromed copper glazed collectors. (64 sq.ft. total) 2 - Roof mounting systems. 1 - 80 gallon Solar storage tank with heat exchanger I - 12 gallon drain back tank. I - Goldline GL-30 Solar differential controller and sensors. 1- Grundfos circulating pump 1 - Flowmeter, 2 thermometers, and I mixing valve. All Piping and Insulation All labor except potable plumbing and electrical Incentive Processing Included Warranties are: 10 years full on panels by manufacturer. 6 years limited on tanks by manufacturer. 2 years full on balance of system by The Solar Collection. The above system to be installed in a thorough and workmanlike manner for the sum of: Eleven Thousand Dollars (511,000.00). Payment as work progresses, Balance due upon completion. This proposal valid until December 30, 2016 Submitted by: Dated: 2/10/16 Accepted by: Dated: Innovative Construction of Oregon, Inc. Proposal CCB # 103412 F Phone # 541-4827 Date Proposal # Ashland, OR 97520 2117/16 79 Name 1 Address Ashland Sup portive Housing Project subcontractor Item Description Labor & Material material or subcont... Rate Total 17 Insulati... remove loose fill attic 0.00 5,000.00 0.00 5,00.00_ insulation and replace with baits Authorized SiLmature: an acceptance signature acknowledges the receipt of the CCB information notice, consumer protection notice. and the notice of procedure. THANK YOU Acceptance of proposal signature: Date: Thank You Total $5.000.00 City of Ashland, Oregon / Commissions & Committees / Housing and Human Services Commission Housing and Human Services Commission - Minutes View Agenda Thursday, March 24, 2016 CITY OF ASHLAND Ashland Housing and Human Services Commission Draft Minutes March 24, 2016 CALL TO ORDER Chair Josh Boettiger called the meeting to order at 4:30 pm in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development and Engineering Offices located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520. Commissioners Present: Council Liaison Joshua Boettiger Pam Marsh Rich Rhode Heidi Parker SOU Liaison Sue Crader Megan Mercier, absent Sharon Harris Coriann Matthews Staff Present: Commissioners Absent: Linda Reid, Housing Specialist Tom Buechele Carolyn Schwendener, Staff secretary Gina DuQuenne Tom Gunderson APPROVAL OF MINUTES Parker/Rhode m/s to approve the minutes of the February 25, 2016 Housing and Human Services Commission meeting. Voice Vote: All ayes, minutes were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION PRESENTATIONS (CDBG) Before the presentations began the following Commissioners recused themselves from the presentations and discussions. Sharon Harris - Harris acknowledged that she is on the Board of Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland who is a CDBG grant applicant. Sue Crader - Crader is the Executive Director for Ashland Supportive Housing another CDBG applicant. St. Vincent DePaul- Volunteers Charlotte Dorsey, Alice Nagle and Beth Hill, President of the St. Vincent DePaul in Talent, presented their application. Ms. Dorsey expressed her thankfulness for the opportunity to apply for these monies sharing how it has given them the opportunity to help people with needs they otherwise could not have helped. This money has allowed them to focus on two groups in the community, those who are at risk of homelessness and those who are already homeless. Our goal is to work with people to help them attain housing or be able to stay in their current housing, said Ms. Dorsey. Since 2010 the grant has allowed them to work with 298 people, 179 adults and 119 children for a total of 47 households. Ms. Nagel added they could not do this program if it weren't for the support they get from the local churches and the Ashland Community Resource Center. Questions from the Commissioners Do you get any CDBG funds from the City of Talent? No. The needs are there but they do not as a City have the qualifications that allow them to apply for those funds. How much to you adhere to the Ashland Talent area or do you go beyond Ashland with your service? This CDBG grant money we are applying for is used only in the Ashland area, the 97520 zip code. We have created within our own monies some funding in order to help with the Talent area as we do see a need there. With no administrative costs basically its client services the money goes for and it's available per year. Do you run out of money at some point or do you have carry over money? How does it balance out at the end of the year? We usually run out of grant money around December, but then are able to start spending the successive year's grant funds. The money tends to overlap a little each year, so far there has not been a time we ran out of money. What would you do if you weren't awarded the CDBG monies? This has become such a passion we just cannot see it ending, the need is substantial and the match is perfect. It's really unthinkable to see it disappear as it would impact so many people in the City. If the money wasn't awarded from CDBG it would be a blessing from another agency to take up. Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) - John Wieczorek, President of OHRA Board of Directors and Board member Regina Ayars presented the application. Ms. Ayars first acknowledged the partnership within the community, especially with St. Vincent DePaul and Maslow, and how each organization works together referring clients back and forth. Ms. Ayars explained that OHRA is asking for CDBG funds in the amount of $12,664.00 for a portion of the salary of the Lead Resource Navigator for a project entitled: "Housing and Jobs for those in Need in Ashland." This is an existing position in which we are adding services, stated Ayars. The primary responsibilities of this Resource Navigator is case management, volunteer coordinating and job match coordinating. With the grant money the project would be able to meet three primary goals: 1. Secure housing for 21 families that are currently homeless, 2. Prevent 32 presently housed families that are losing their homes and 3. Secure employment for 21 individuals currently unemployed. Ms. Ayars concluded saying that if OHRA does not receive this funding they will continue with the program using the money out of their general fund which then reduces the amount of money they have for the Family Emergency Fund. The Family Emergency Fund is used to insure people who have immediate needs can most often be housed. Mr. Wieczorek conveyed that in the past this position had been supported by two private foundation grants. Because of the additional funding need we are asking for fifty percent of the salary, stated Mr. Wieczorek. This position is vital to the success of the Resource Center helping the clients navigate through the processes. Mr. Wieczorek also acknowledged how well the organizations within the community work together, different skill sets all working towards the same goal. Questions from the Commissioners How are the numbers recorded because clearly the need is huge and St. Vincent DePaul has a number goal in mind they will house and are the numbers you report different? All of our numbers are put into Service Point which is a national data base. The numbers have some overlap because we are helping the same clients. Out of the 60 plus St. Vincent was probably a partner on two thirds of that. Love this hire program. Will this navigator person continue to work with people you connect with because just getting a person a job isn't really enough they need to continue to check in? It is our intent to follow up with our clients said Mr. Wieczorek. We are not however sure how long we will be able to follow up with them. It probably will be determined on a person to person basis. Lee Madsen acknowledged that meeting with clients on a regular basis offers a better chance of keeping them employed. Tina is very good about working with the clients usually meeting with them twice a week. Maslow -Karen Phillips the Development Director of the Maslow Project and Cheyenne Nichols the Ashland Case Manager gave a brief overview of what they do. Our proposal, stated Ms. Phillips, helps us provide our wrap-around support service to homeless youth and their families in the City of Ashland. The overall goal is to bring enough stability into the lives of the youth so that they can remain in school or complete at least their secondary education. We roughly serve approximately 100 homeless youth in Ashland each year and provide case management service to approximately 45 youth. One hundred percent of the individuals we serve are low income. The money we are requesting is roughly thirty percent of our budget for Ashland and will provide the salary of our Ashland case manager. We do not use volunteers for this work because homeless youth face a lot of risks and barriers and our staff is highly trained to be able to provide appropriate services, state Ms. Phillips. We are successful because of the support of the City. Case manager Ms. Nichols called attention to the success rate of the students on their program. One hundred percent of those students graduated. Ms. Nichols explained she does goal based case management. Her goal as a case manager is to work with youth and their families to make sure they have basic needs; food, clothing, shoes, glasses, hygiene supplies, etc. Ms. Nichols asks students what goals they want to accomplish; go to college, improve their attendance, find a safe place to stay, etc. I am here to help facilitate that empowerment within themselves, stated Ms. Nichols. She emphasized they could not do what they do without St. Vincent DePaul and the Resource Center. There are over sixty- seven kids identified in Ashland, the need is there. Questions from the Commissioners Where is your office located? My office is located at Ashland Senior High School. This seems to be an easy place for families to meet me. We have a food pantry there, clothing closet, hygiene products etc. I do check in at the elementary schools as well as the Middle school. I can use the counseling offices at the middle school to meet with students and parents if necessary. noticed there is $6,300 from individual donations. Is that money that comes from Ashland or part of the general fund? Part of the general fund from Maslow. If people donated and want specific money to go to Ashland we honor that but we try to encourage donors to allow us to use the funds where they are most needed. CDBG funds this year are limited and everyone is doing great work, all three agencies. We would love to fund everyone but if we can't totally fund you what would the repercussions of less than complete funding be for you? We are committed to being a presence in Ashland. Depending on other grant funding sources this year we may be able to maintain our hours or if it's necessary we will scale back the level of the program but we are still committed to being a presence in your community. Does the school district increase your allotment as the numbers go up? No it's not based on numbers but service. We also help the school district identify the kids that are available for Mckinney-vento funding. How many days are you in Ashland? Two and I'm available by appointment. Ashland Supportive Housing - Judy Beyer, Assistant Director and Sue Crader, Executive Director of Ashland Supportive Housing gave a brief overview of their application. We are a small private nonprofit corporation in Ashland that provides housing to adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, stated Ms. Beyer. We are applying for capital funds for an installation of a solar energy system including a hot water system and attic insulation upgrade. The total request is for $70,000 and total project cost is $77,125.00. Ms. Beyer added that ASH opened its doors in 1982 and has three homes. All of our residents in the homes are considered low income and require twenty-four hour support which our staff supplies. The main source of our funding is Medicare dollars a small portion from donations and a little bit from the Respite program. This project is important to us because our electrical needs are very high, said Ms. Beyer. Our utility costs are up forty percent since 2008. A grant would help keep our utility costs down and give us more leverage to pay for staff wages. Crader added that their funding from the State of Oregon has been relatively flat since 2008 with no cost of living increase. We need to increase revenue in other ways and reducing our net operating costs will allow us to maintain current staffing. Questions from the Commissioners Your grant was very clearly stated and it helped me understand why your needs are so great. I was surprised to read how many employees you have. Are all those fulltime employees? The majority are fulltime employees. We try not to have many part time positions, we offer full benefits. People can't' live in Ashland on a part time wage. Employees are happier and long term when they are fully supported. We provide support seven days a week twenty-four hours a day to our clients. None of our clients can be home alone or in the community alone. They require a high level or support and it takes a lot of people which also increases the utility use in the homes. Saw the chart of your utilities and it is huge. Once you put in the solar system what will you reduce the amount by, do you know? It is expected to reduce the utilities by sixty-three percent at one site. We do not have the numbers for the hot water system. Ms. Crader said they have gone through many energy audits and are continually looking at ways to reduce our utility bill and this is the best solution we have arrived at. Reid brought to the attention of the Commissioners that this is a part of an application that was brought forward last year. Last year the City did fund the majority of the remodel but removed the solar portion of the project. This year they are applying again to fund this portion of the project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Reid reviewed briefly the numbers and restrictions with the CDBG funding. Reid explained that she mailed out a score sheet to the Commissioners and emphasized that the staff completes the same score sheet. Commissioners DuQuenne and Gunderson were not able to attend tonight's meeting but did receive the applications in advance and completed their scoring. Reid stressed that staff recognizes the applicants are doing amazing work and it takes all of these people to do the work that needs to be done in order to get these great outcomes. Reid said this has been a difficult decision to make. Staff's recommendation was based on evaluation of CDBG eligibility, the City's five year Consolidated Plan Goals, agency experience and capacity and readiness to proceed. The following is staff recommendation; $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation $16,665 to St. Vincent DePaul Home Visitation Program $7,143 to Maslow Project School Based Services The Commissioners discussed the different applications and agreed that all three social service applicants should be funded as well as the capital improvement project for Ashland Supportive Housing. Rhode/Matthews m/s to recommend funding in the amount of fifty percent of the requested amount for each social service applicant and full funding for Ashland Supportive Housing. $5, 000 for Maslow, $6,300 for Options for Homeless Residents, $12,508 for St. Vincent DePaul and $70, 000 for Ashland Supportive Housing. Voice Vote; all ayes, motion passed. The Commissioners thanked all four organizations and expressed their appreciation for the work they do in our Community. HOUSING TRUST FUND SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE Reid reported that the Housing Trust Fund sub-committee has been meeting for a while and met with Finance Director Lee Tuneberg to look at different funding sources. The subcommittee will be going before the City Council at their Study session on March 18th to discuss the needs of the Housing Trust Fund. Committee member Rhode, Reid, Tuneberg, City Administrator Dave Kanner and Bill Molnar the Community Development Director will meet on March 29th at 4.00p.m. The purpose for the meeting is to go over their basic ideas with them and get some feedback before going before the City Council. LIAISON REPORTS Council - Marsh reported that the City is applying to do a land partition at 380 Clay Street where the 2013 Fremont Cottonwood Tree of the Year was determined to be saved. This gives the City the opportunity to have up to sixteen or seventeen affordable housing units developed. The parcel with the tree will be sold separately. Marsh commented that capital improvement money in the past has been used for economic development and the Council is discussing ways in which they may be able to utilize the remaining CDBG money. Reid confirmed that she could issue another RFP for the use of the remainder of funds. Marsh said that the Mayor is putting together a meeting addressing the downtown issues and human services. GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS APRIL 28TH 2016 METTING AGENDA ITEMS Quorum Check - Boettiger will be gone Next month will be election of officers Next meeting is the last meeting for Commissioner Matthews Reid will be attending Senator Merkley's Round table on Affordable Housing next week. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS Next Housing Commission Meeting - 4:30-6:30 PM; April 28, 2016 4:30-6:30 in the Siskiyou Room at the Community Development & Engineering Department located at 51 Winburn Way. - ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. respectfully submitted by Carolyn Schwendener 2016 CDBG application-SVDP.pdf (1236.4KB) E 2-1-~ 2016 CDBG Application-Maslow.pdf (4026.9KB) 2016 CDBG Application-ASH.0 (6707.4KB) 2016 CDBG Application-OHRA.pdf (1941.6KB) PRINT CLOSE CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting First reading of two ordinances modifying the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance as they relate to the Airport Overlay FROM: Derek Severson, Associate Planner, derek.severson(aaashland.or.us SUMMARY The Airport Commission requested code amendments to streamline the permit process to develop aircraft hangars at the Airport through a ministerial review in conjunction with the building permit process and to revise the height limitations and tree trimming and removal activities to reflect current federal regulations. Most of the proposed amendments are geared toward streamlining the approval process for hangars constructed upon predetermined footprints shown in the Airport Layout Plan. An ordinance is also included to amend the text of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to recognize the most recent Airport Master Plan as the guiding document for land use within the Airport Overlay. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Two ordinances are included as part of the code amendments related to the Airport. The first ordinance amends the text of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan to recognize the most recent Airport Master Plan. While the City Council adopted this Plan by motion at a meeting in July of 2006, Ashland's Comprehensive Plan was never amended to reflect the updated plan. The second ordinance amends the land use chapter of the municipal code relating to specific activities in the Airport Overlay. The Airport Commission requested provisions to permit the development of aircraft hangars through a ministerial review in conjunction with the building permit process, as well as revisions to the height limitations and tree trimming and removal activities to reflect current federal regulations. Most of the proposed amendments are geared toward streamlining the approval process, but only for those conventional, executive or T-hangars constructed upon predetermined footprints shown in the Airport Layout Plan. The proposed ordinance changes were presented to the Airport Commission and the Tree Commission at their regular meetings in January of 2016 and to the Planning Commission in March of 2016. The proposed package received recommendations of support from all three of the commissions. The following is a brief summary of each of the proposed ordinances: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments - Ordinance I The text of the Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element - is proposed to be amended in order to identify the most current Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 (October 2005) as the primary document for describing current and future facility needs and airport improvements necessary to Page I of 3 ~r' CITY OF ASHLAND maintain a safe and efficient airport. Additionally, the Airport Master Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 is identified in Appendix "A" of the Comprehensive Plan and adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter X - Transportation. The Airport Master Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 was completed through a grant from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The City's Airport Commission served in the role of Planning Advisory Committee to assist a consultant and city staff in developing the updated plan. The updated plan was presented to the City Council in March and July of 2006, at which time it was adopted as the primary document for guiding future operations and physical improvements to the municipal airport campus. The Airport Master Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, however, was never formally recognized within the text of Ashland's Comprehensive Plan, which is required to be done by ordinance and proposed at this time. Land Use Ordinance Amendments - Chapter 18 - Ordinance 2 The Airport Overlay section of the Land Use Ordinance is proposed to be amended to account for the unique operations of the airport, particularly in the area of public safety, as well as to provide a more streamlined permitting process for construction of aircraft hangars. The following sections of the proposed ordinance summarize the objectives of the draft code amendments. • Section 2 (page 2, 3) - Airport Overlay Regulations Section 2 identifies amended language addressing specific regulations associated with activities in the Airport Overly. The standard addressing the maximum height allowances for structures, trees and other airspace obstruction has been updated to be consistent with methodology outlined in the Plan. Tree trimming and tree removal required for safety reasons mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration is proposed to be exempt from the Tree Removal Permit. Additionally, construction of aircraft hangars in pre-determined locations shown in the Plan document is proposed to be exempt from a land use approval for Site Design Review. • Section 3 (page 3) - Parking Regulations Section 3 proposes to add a specific parking requirement for an aircraft hangar. Parking for aircraft hangars is required either to be located with the hangar or accommodated within a designated vehicle parking area identified on the Airport Layout Plan. Future commercial hangar/building development is required to comply with standard off-street parking standards, generally computed by a formula based upon building square footage. In the case of a basic conventional hangar with no associated commercial use, however, parking developed within, immediately adjacent to or in a designated common parking area will be sufficient to accommodate demand. • Section 4 (pages 4, 5, 6) - Approval by Type of Review Procedure "Aircraft Hangar" is proposed to be amended to add to the list of uses below the Use Categories column. The Airport Layout Plan clearly identifies those areas specifically set aside to accommodate future construction of conventional, executive and T-hangar aircraft hangars. Aircraft hangars generally consist of a pre-engineered metal building design. Development of an aircraft hangar in a pre-determined hangar location would only be subject to ministerial review and approval. This means that as long as the hangar construction occurs at a pre-determined location and consists of materials consistent with Public Works/Airport Commission standards, a land use application with public notice would not be required. Construction of an aircraft hangar Page 2 of 3 I CITY OF ASHLAND would continue to require a building permit and would need to comply with applicable building and fire code requirements. • Section 5 (page 5) - Exemption from Tree Removal The proposed amendment to this section would exempt tree trimming and removal in order to comply with safety reasons identified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as exempt from Tree Removal Permits. In 2006, the Airport Layout Plan identified over 30 trees that were anticipated to be in need of trimming or removal within the planning period. While exempt, the Public Works Department would be required to file an annual report with the Ashland Tree Commission describing tree trimming/removal activities carried out during the previous year. • Section 6 (page 5) - Definitions This section is proposed to be amended in order to add a new definition - Aircraft Hangar. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Council Goal #19 "Ensure that commercial and industrial areas are available for development." FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the requested modifications and first readings of the two ordinances and move them to second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan To Adopt The Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, As a Supporting Document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan," and move it on to second reading. Move to approve first reading by title only of the ordinance titled, "An Ordinance Amending the Ashland Municipal Code 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations, Chapter 18.4.3.040 Parking Ratios, Chapter 18.5.1, Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure, Chapter 18.5.7.020.C, Exempt from Tree Removal Permit and Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions," and move it on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance #1 (Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments) 2. Ordinance #l, Exhibit A: Appendix A "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents 3. Airport Layout Plan Report 2004-2025 4. Proposed Ordinance #2 (Land Use Ordinance Amendments) 5. Airport Commission Meeting Minutes for January 5, 2016 6. Tree Commission Meeting Minutes for January 7, 2016 7. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 8, 2016 Page 3 o1'3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN UPDATE 2004-2025, AS A SUPPORTING DOCUMENT TO THE CITY OF ASHLAND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold line'' through and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan at a duly advertised public hearing on March 8, 2016 and, following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 19, 2016, and on [subsequent public hearing continuance dates]; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland, following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Comprehensive Plan in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Appendix A entitled "Technical Reports and Supporting Documents" is hereby amended to add by reference to Chapter X - Transportation, the Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 attached hereto and as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element [Chapter X] Ashland Municipal Airport segment [Section 10.21.01 ] is hereby amended to include reference to the most recent Airport Master Plan update as follows: 10.21 Air Transportation Ashland Municipal Airport (10.21.01) Ashland Municipal Airport is located on approximately 94 acres, 3 miles northeast of downtown Ashland at the extreme eastern boundary of the city limits. Airport elevation is at 1,894 feet mean sea level (MSL). Access to the airport is provided by Dead Indian Memorial Road, which connects to East Main Street. Interstate 5 is located one-half mile west of the airport, with access provided via Greensprings Highway. The airport is bordered on the east, west and south by sloping valley lands surrounded by rising mountainous terrain. The Ashland Municipal Airport is classed as a general aviation airport by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). General aviation includes every type of civil flying other than the certified air carriers business, commercial, instructional and personal. Ashland Municipal Airport is owned and operated by the City of Ashland under the Department of Public Works. The City holds an operating agreement with a fixed base operator to administer tie-down and hangar rents, fuel flowage fees, etc. The airport was established at its current site in the 1940s. The airstrip was developed by Sumner Parker, a local pilot, and leased to the City of Ashland for use as a public airport. The City continued to lease the property and make improvements to the airfield into the 1960s. In 1964, the City purchased the airstrip and the property surrounding it, and received Federal approval of the site. At that time, the airport was renamed Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. For a complete description of existing airport facilities, see ehapter 3 of the Airport Master Plan. The City, in eooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (OD under a Feder-a! Aviation Administration (FAA) grant, retained SFC Enginee Company to Up Master- -Plan to deter-mine airP.O.Ft faeffifies rA-,eqVUiFed_ .7 adopted the plaft as a to sen,e the vieinity through the year 2012. The-0,0, "'o-ine supporting doeument to the Comiprehensive Plan on Alar-eh 2, 1 The City, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) and with Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 financial assistance throujZh the Airport Improvement Program of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), conducted an update of the Airport Master Plan to determine airport facilities required to serve the vicinity through the year 2025. The City Council adopted the plan as a supporting document to the Comprehensive Plan on May 3, 2016. Aviation demand forecasts from the Airport Master Plan indicate that demand for aviation services will increase durinIZ the current planniny- period. airport operations will gro", at a irelatively modest rate through the year . Based on the forecasts and an inventory of the existing facilities, the plan includes an airport layout and capital improvement plan for recommended airport improvements to meet forecast aviation demand during the 20-year planning period. Recommended improvements include the development of new hangar facilities, aircraft storage and business-oriented aviation activity, addition of airport security fencing around the perimeter of the airport, construction of a helicopter landing area, provision of a non-precision instrument approach, and upgrading of runway edge lighting from low to medium intensity. The Airport Master Plan is the ruling document concerning airport development and is hereby adopted by reference. Any transportation system improvements involving air transportation or development which may impact or be impacted by the Ashland Municipal Airport should consult the Airport Master Plan for the City of Ashland, October 4#9-22005. SECTION 4_ 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 5. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Comprehensive Plan and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article'", "section", or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 1, 4-5) 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 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of , 2016. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions. 1. Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan (2008) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 2. Normal Neighborhood Plan Framework (2015) by Ordinance 3117 on December 15, 2015. Chapter IV, Environmental Resources The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV, Environmental Resources. 1. City of Ashland Local Wetland Inventory and Assessment and Riparian Corridor Inventory (200512007) by Ordinance 2999 on December 15, 2009. Chapter VI, Housing Element The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VI, Housing Element. 1. City of Ashland: Housing Needs Analysis (2012) by Ordinance 3085 on September 3, 2013 Chapter VII, Economy The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter VII, The Economy. 1. City of Ashland: Economic Opportunities Analysis (April 2007) by Ordinance 3030 on August 17, 2010 Chapter X, Transportation The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter X, Transportation. 1 Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 Chapter XII, Urbanization The following reports are adopted by reference as a support document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter XII, Urbanization. 1. City of Ashland: Buildable Lands Inventory (2011) by Ordinance 3055 on November 16, 2011. ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN REPORT ,Y 1 _ ii t CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND9 OREGON CENTURY WEST EAGIIJL•ERING CORP(7RATfOAAron Faegre S Associates 0 Gaze%y & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 Prepared for City of Ashland CITY OF ASHLAND PVr Prepared by David M. Miller, AICP Century West Engineering 6650 SW Redwood Lane, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97224 Tel. (503) 419-2130 Fax (503) 639-2710 www.centurywest.com In Association With Aron Faegre & Associates Portland, Oregon Gazeley & Associates Corvallis, Oregon CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1-1 OVERVIEW 1-2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1-3 SUMMARY OF ALP REPORT FINDINGS/CURRENT CONDITIONS 1-4 SUMMARY OF ALP REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 1-5 CHAPTER TWO INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 2-1 INTRODUCTION 2-1 AIRPORT LOCALE 2-2 CLIMATE 2-2 GEOGRAPHY/GEOLOGY 2-2 Airport History 2-3 AIRFIELD FACILITIES 2-5 Runway & Taxiways 2-8 Aircraft Apron 2-9 Airfield Pavement Condition 2-10 LANDSIDE FACILITIES 2-12 Hangars and Airport Buildings 2-12 Airport Lighting 2-13 AIRSPACE AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 2-14 AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES/SERVICES 2-16 Aircraft Fuel 2-16 Surface Access and Vehicle Parking 2-17 Fencing 2-17 Utilities 2-17 LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING 2-18 AIRPORT SERVICE AREA 2-18 CHAPTER THREE AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS 3-1 INTRODUCTION 3-1 Economy 3-1 Population 3-2 Recent Historic Activity 3-3 REVIEW OF EXISTING FORECASTS 3-7 1990 Airport Master Plan (AMP) 3-7 Oregon Aviation System Plan (OASP) 3-8 FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) 3-9 Updated Forecasts 3-9 Air Traffic Distribution/Design Aircraft 3-10 CHAPTER FOUR AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS 4-1 INTRODUCTION 4-1 1990-2010 Airport Master Plan Overview 4-1 AIRPORT PLANNING OVERVIEW 4-3 Land Utilization 4-5 October 2005 i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Airspace 4-7 Instrument Approach Capabilities 4-7 Airport Design Stamdards 4-9 Runway Safety Area (RSA) 4-14 Runway Object Free Area (OFA) 4-15 Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) 4-16 Taxiway/Taxilane Safety Area 4-16 Taxiway/Taxilane Object Free Area 4-17 Building Restriction Line (BRL) 4-17 Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) 4-17 Aircraft Parking Line (APL) 4-18 Runway-Parallel Taxiway Separation..... 4-19 FAR PART 77 SURFACES 4-19 Approach Surfaces 4-21 Primary Surface 4-22 Transitional Surface 4-22 Horizontal Surface 4-22 Conical Surface 4-23 AIRSIDE REQUIREMENTS 4-23 Runways 4-23 Runway Orientation 4-23 Runway Length 4-24 Airfield Pavement 4-26 Airfield Capacity 4-28 Taxiways 4-29 Airfield Instrumentation, Lighting and Marking 4-29 On-Field Weather Data 4-30 LANDSIDE FACILITIES 4-30 Hangars 4-30 Aircraft Parking and Tiedown Apron 4-32 Air Cargo Aircraft Parking 4-33 Helicopter Parking 4-35 FBO Facilities 4-35 Surface Access Requirements 4-36 SUPPORT FACILITIES 4-36 Aviation Fuel Storage 4-36 Airport Utilities 4-37 Security 4-39 FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 4-39 CHAPTER FIVE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES 5-1 INTRODUCTION 5-1 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 5-1 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS 5-2 Alternative 1 5-3 Alternative 2 5-5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 5-8 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS 5-9 October 2005 ii Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Airport Layout Plan Airspace Plan 5-11 Airport Land Use Plan with 2009 Noise Contours 5-12 CHAPTER SIX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.......... 6-1 AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES 6-2 Short-Term Projects 6-6 Long-Term Projects 6-7 FINANCING OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 6-6 Federal Grants 6-9 State Funding 6-9 Financing the Local Share of Capital Improvements 6-10 CHAPTER SEVEN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 7-1 INTRODUCTION 7-1 NOISE EVALUATION 7-5 Noise Modeling and Contour Criteria 7-7 Noise and Land-Use Compatibility Criteria 7-8 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 7-10 LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1 Airport Data 2-5 Table 2-2 Runway & Taxiway Data 2-9 Table 2-3 Aircraft Apron Data 2-10 Table 2-4 Summary of Airfield Pavement Condition 2-11 Table 2-5 Airport Buildings 2-13 Table 2-6 Airport Lighting 2-14 Table 2-7 Navigational Aids and Related Items 2-15 Table 2-8 Airspace/Instrument Routes/Local Obstructions 2-16 Table 2-9 Public Use Airports in Vicinity 2-19 Table 3-1 2004 Based Aircraft 3-3 Table 3-2 Summary of ODA Activity Counts 3-4 Table 3-3 Summary of Historical Aviation Activity 3-6 Table 3-4 Existing Aviation Forecasts 3-9 Table 3-5 Updated Forecasts 3-12 Table 4-1 Summary of 1990-2010 Airport Master Plan 4-2 Table 4-2 Airport Land Use Configuration 4-6 Table 4-3 Typical Aircraft & Design Categories 4-10 Table 4-4 Airport Design Standards Summary 4-12 Table 4-5 Runway 12/30 Conformance with FAA Design Standards 4-13 Table 4-6 FAR Part 77 4-21 Table 4-7 FAA-Recommended Runway Lengths 4-25 Table 4-8 Summary of Recommended Airfield Pavement Maintenance 4-27 Table 4-9 Apron and Hangar Facility Requirements Summary 4-34 Table 4-10 Facility Requirements Summary 4-40 Table 6-1 20-Year Capital Improvement Program 2005 to 2025 6-4 Table 7-1 Summary of Land Use and Zoning in Vicinity of Airport 7-3 October 2005 iii Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY or Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Iii, Table 7-2 Land-Use Compatibility with DNL ......................................................................................9 Table 7-3 Environmental Checklist ....................................................................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1 Airport Site Map and Existing Facilities 2-6 Figure 2-2 Terminal Area Facilities 2-7 Figure 3-1 Summary of ODA Activity Counts 3-5 Figure 3-2 Summary of ODA Activity Counts & TAF Data 3-6 Figure 3-3 Reference: ODA RENS Counts & 1990 Master Plan Forecast 3-8 Figure 3-4 Updated Based Aircraft Forecast 3-13 Figure 3-5 Updated Aircraft Operations Forecast 3-13 Figure 4-1 BII separation clearance 4-4 Figure 4-2 FAR Part 77 Diagram 4-20 Figure 5-1 Alternative 1 5-6 Figure 5-2 Alternative 2 5-7 LIST OF DRAWINGS Drawing 1 Cover Sheet 5-13 Drawing 2 Airport Layout Plan 5-14 Drawing 3 Airport Airspace Plan 5-15 Drawing 4 Airport Land Use Plan 5-16 October 2005 iv i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter One Introduction ■ CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The City of Ashland, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA), is updating the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Report for Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field (S03). The purpose of the study is to define the current, short-term and long-term needs of the airport. The 2004-2025 Airport Layout Plan Report will replace the Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan completed in 1993.1 Prior master plan recommendations will be reviewed and revised as necessary, to reflect current conditions and any changes in activity, utilization, or facility development that may affect future demand for aviation facilities. Funding for the ALP project was provided through a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Improvement Program grant (90 with a local match (10 provided by the City of Ashland. Overall project coordination was provided by the Oregon Department of Aviation through administration of an FAA multiple airport layout plan grant. The preparation of this document may have been supported, in part, through the Airport Improvement Program financial assistance from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided under Title 49, United States Code, section 47104. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable with appropriate public laws. ' Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan 1990-2010, SFC Engineering (1993). I October 2005 1-1 Introduction Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The primary objective of the Airport Layout Plan Report is to identify current and future facility needs and the improvements necessary to maintain a safe and efficient airport that is economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable. The Airport Layout Plan Report will: • Examine previous recommendations and development alternatives as appropriate to meet the current and projected airport facility needs; • Determine current and future activity acrd facility requirements; • Update the airport layout plan, airspace plan, and land-use plan for the airport and its surrounding areas; and • Schedule priorities of improvements and estimate development costs for the 20-year- planning period. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The public involvement element of the planning process provided opportunities for all interested individuals, organizations, or groups to participate in the project. A list of stakeholders was developed for the project, which included airport users, local citizens, businesses, and local, state and federal government agencies, and community leaders. At the project kickoff, a Joint Planning Conference (JPC) was held for agencies and organizations with a specific interest or responsibility (land use, environmental, natural resources, transportation, etc.) associated with the airport or its vicinity. The purpose of the JPC was to identify any concerns or issues, which needed to be addressed as part of this airport layout plan update. The JPC provided valuable information used in formulating the plan. The City's Airport Commission served in the role of Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) to assist the Consultant and City staff in developing the updated plan. The Commission reviewed and commented on draft work products and provided local knowledge and expertise to the planning process. PAC meetings and additional coordination meetings were held at key points during the study in conjunction with public informational meetings. Following completion of preliminary work products, the Draft ALP Report was prepared to present the culmination of the entire work effort, reflecting the input provided by all participants in the planning process. Following a period of review, all public and agency comments received were integrated into the Final Airport Layout Plan Report and drawing set. i October 2005 1-3 Introduction 1 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates • Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report A SUMMARY OF ALP REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations of previous planning efforts were examined and revalidated or modified as appropriate based on current considerations, FAA-approved activity forecasts and current FAA design standards: 1. A regular periodic schedule of pavement maintenance (vegetation control, crack filling, slurry seals, patching, etc.) should be conducted on airfield pavements to maximize the useful life and optimize life cycle maintenance expenditures. Continued participation in the Pavement Maintenance and Management Program (PMMP), currently administered by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA), is recommended. 2. Current and future design standards for Runway 12/30 are based on FAA airport reference code (ARC) B-I (small aircraft). 3. Runway 12/30 is recommended for pavement rehabilitation early in the current planning period. The north section of the main apron and other hangar taxiways and taxilanes will also require pavement rehabilitation during the current twenty year planning period. 4. The existing north hangar area should be expanded, as needed, to accommodate future demand for T-hangars and conventional hangars. Additional taxilane connections and site preparation will be required to accommodate new hangars as they are developed. 5. Expansion of the main apron is recommended to provide additional aircraft storage capacity for locally-based and itinerant aircraft. The landside area adjacent to north end of the main apron is recommended to be reserved for development of larger conventional hangars for business related use. 6. A new access taxiway is recommended to be extended through the north hangar area; additional hangar taxilanes are reconunended to serve new hangar rows. 7. Additional vehicle access and parking is recommended to serve future aviation and related development to be located at the north end of the main apron. The access road will extend from the existing north airport access road. 8. Fencing should be added along the airport boundary to limit unauthorized human, animal and vehicle access to the airfield. In addition, fencing and electronic (keypad N October 2005 1-5 Introduction Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report combination) gates should be provided to limit access to existing and new apron and hangar areas. 9. Installation of a SuperUnicomTM system or similar system, which combines weather conditions and pilot advisories (favored runway, etc.), is recommended to improve safety for pilots operating at the airport. 10. The City of Ashland and Jackson County should ensure that airport overlay zoning reflects the updated boundaries of the FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces defined in this plan and complies fully with Oregon state law (ORS Ch. 836.600-630). The ordinance language and mapping developed and maintained by the land use jurisdictions should be consistent to ensure overall compatibility. 11. The City of Ashland and Jackson County should ensure through their comprehensive planning that development of rural lands in the vicinity of the airport is compatible with airport activities. Maintaining the Agricultural or Manufacturing zoning in the areas surrounding the airport provides effective land use compatibility with airport operations. Development of new residential areas, or increasing the densities of existing rural residential areas within the boundaries of the protected airspace surfaces of the airport should be discouraged to ensure the long--term viability of the airport as an important transportation facility within the region. 12. The City of Ashland should continue to require that applicants for all leases or development proposals involving construction of structures on the airport demonstrate compatibility with the airport's protected airspace surfaces. The applicant should be required to provide all documentation necessary for the sponsor to obtain "no objection" finding by FAA resulting from the review of FAA Form 7460-1 - Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, prior to approval of ground leases. Any proposal that receives an objection by FAA should not be approved without first addressing FAA concerns. 13. Local (City or County) planning and building officials should require that applicants for all proposed development within the boundaries of the airport overlay zone (as defined by the updated Airport Airspace Plan) demonstrate a finding of "no objection" by FAA resulting from review of proposed development (FAA Form 7460-1) prior to approval of building permits, plats, binding site plans, etc. 14. It is recommended that any proposed changes in land use or zoning within the boundaries of the airport overlay zone be coordinated with the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) to ensure consistency with Oregon airport land use guidelines. October 2005 1-6 Introduction Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER TWO INVENTORY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS INTRODUCTION This chapter documents existing conditions at the airport. Existing airfield facilities were examined during on-site inspections to update facility inventory data collected in prior planning efforts. Updated socioeconomic data will be included in Chapter Three (Forecasts of Aviation Activity). As noted earlier, this Airport Layout Plan Report updates the 1992 Airport Master Plan. As an update of the master plan, this document uses previous information when still relevant, to the greatest extent possible. Both documents were authored primarily by David Miller, AICP. In addition, data from a variety of sources are used in this evaluation: • Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan (SFC Engineering, October 1992) • Ashland Municipal Airport - Master Plan 1980/2000 (Wadell Engineering, Dec. 1982) • Ashland Municipal Airport Pavement Evaluation Maintenance-Management Program (Pavement Consultants, Inc., 2003) • Ashland Municipal Airport - Economic Impact Study (SOSC, 1997) • Oregon Continuous Aviation System Plan - Volume I: Inventory and Forecasts; Volume III: Recommended Development Plan (AirTech, 1997) • Oregon Aviation Plan (Dye Management Group/Century West, © 2000) • FAA Airport Master Record Form (5010-1) • Klamath Falls Sectional Aeronautical Chart; IFR Enroute Low Altitude (L-2) Chart (US DOT Federal Aviation Administration National Charting Office) • Local land use planning documents, zoning ordinances and mapping. October 2005 2-1 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report AIRPORT LOCALE Ashland is located in Southwestern Oregon, approximately 250 miles south of Portland and 12 miles north of the Oregon-California border. Ashland Municipal Airport is located on approximately 94 acres, 3 miles northeast of downtown Ashland. Access to the airport is provided by Dead Indian Memorial Road, which connects to East Main Street. U.S. Interstate 5 is located one-half mile west of the airport, with access provided via Greensprings Highway. CLIMATE Weather conditions play an important role in the planning and development of the airport. Temperature and wind direction directly affect runway length and alignment; cloud coverage and precipitation affect visibility and are primary determinants for navigational aids and lighting. Weather conditions in the Rogue River Valley, because of the protection it receives from its mountainous surroundings, are generally characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Annual precipitation averages roughly 20 inches; however, the mountains protect Ashland from much of the maritime influence of the coastal regions. Occasionally, ground fog will occur in the area, particularly during morning hours in the winter and spring. The average temperature during the winter months is in the mid-40-degree Fahrenheit range, with occasional snows. The summer weather in the area is typically warm with average temperatures in the mid-70- to mid-80-degree range, although temperatures in the 90- to 100-degree range are not uncommon. Most summer rainfall in the area is generally related to thunderstorm activity. GEOGRAPHY/GEOLOGY Terrain in the vicinity of the airport is characterized by sloping valley lands surrounded by rising mountainous terrain. Ashland is situated in the Klamath Mountains on the west side of Bear Creek, a tributary of the Rogue River. Ashland is located at the southern end of the Rogue River Valley, which is an irregularly shaped basin extending south from Sam's Valley to the Klamath Falls Junction area, about five miles southeast of Ashland. The valley extends to the north approximately 15 miles. Emigrant Creek borders the airport near the northeast corner; Neil Creek runs along the western edge of the airport. Ashland Municipal Airport is surrounded by mountainous terrain (west, east and south) rising up to approximately 2,600 feet above mean sea level (MSL) within two miles, and up to 7,600 feet MSL within five miles of the airport. Airport elevation is 1,885 feet MSL. October 2005 2-2 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Bodies of granite rock are relatively common in Southwestern Oregon (a large deposit lies southeast of Ashland). The Jackson County Comprehensive Plan indicates that, to varying degrees, the following metallic minerals are present in the county: gold, silver, uranium, chromite, copper, lead, zinc, tungsten, molybdenum, nickel, platinum, mercury, manganese, and cobalt. Likewise, the Comprehensive Plan identifies coal, oil shale, asbestos, clay, peat, pumice, silica, limestone, and aggregate as nonmetallic minerals present in the county. The soils in the Rogue River Valley area belong to the Xerult family - freely drained Ultisols in areas of Mediterranean-type climate, as is the case in the valley. Many of the valley soils are well-suited to agriculture, and the agricultural acres support the production of fruits, hay, grains, and dairy crops. AIRPORT HISTORY The history of aviation in Ashland is well established, dating back to the early 1920s. Several airfields were utilized in the Ashland area during the early years of aviation. In the late 1940s, an airstrip developed by Sumner Parker, a local pilot, was leased to the City of Ashland for use as a public airport. The Sumner Parker site was located approximately three miles from downtown Ashland and was found to be well suited for aircraft operations. The City continued to lease the property and make improvements to the airfield into the 1960s. In 1963, based on growing community support, the City began to evaluate future development needs of the airport. After establishing an airport committee, a feasibility study was conducted to determine the best location for the local airport. The Sumner Parker Field site was found to be the most feasible, and the City Council authorized negotiations for purchase of the property surrounding the airstrip. Federal approval of the site was received in 1964, and acquisition of the property was completed shortly thereafter. The airport was renamed Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. A number of major airport improvements have occurred at Ashland Municipal Airport since it became a publicly owned facility. In 1968, the runway was paved and lighted; an aircraft parking apron was constructed, and an airport administrative building was constructed. Since the initial development, the runway has been widened to 75 feet, a 190-foot displaced threshold was added to Runway 30, and the parallel taxiway was extended 660 feet to the end of Runway 12. Other improvements include extension of the Runway 12 overrun (safety area); expanded apron and tie- down areas; improvements to vehicle parking and access roadways; construction of maintenance facility; and various landscaping projects. October 2005 2-3 Inventory r Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Improvements made at the airport since the 1992 master plan include: • Replacement of the aviation fuel storage tanks and dispensing system to meet DEQ/EPA regulations. Construction of new hangars • Hangar taxilane & taxiway construction (1995) • Apron construction (north extension - 1995) • Construction of Airport Road • Sky Research Hangar site development, vehicle access road, etc. (2003) • Hangar site preparation (excavation & retaining wall for one new 14-unit T-hangar) • T-Hangar Construction (2004) - 14 unit enclosed T-hangar • North Hangar Taxilane (approximately 480 x 25 feet) • Pavement maintenance and rehabilitation projects • Projects completed in 2004 or 2005 using a 2004 FAA AIP grant: 1. Replacement of existing low-intensity runway edge lighting (LIRL) with medium-intensity (MIRI.) 2. Main Apron (center section) reconstruction and new aircraft wash rack 3. Main Apron (southern sections) overlay 4. Parallel taxiway reflectors 5. New airport electrical building 6. New airport rotating beacon Ashland Municipal Airport is managed by the City of Ashland's Department of Public Works. A nine-member appointed airport commission oversees the operation of the airport. Robert Skinner, Skinner Aviation, the airport's Fixed Base Operator (FBO), is responsible for administering tie-down and hangar rents, fuel flowage fees, freight operations, etc., through an operating agreement with the City. The operating agreement is subject to periodic review and competitive bidding. The City also provides community police and fire protection, planning and zoning, parks and recreation programs, hospital services, and utilities. a October 2005 2-4 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report AIRFIELD FACILITIES Historically, Ashland Municipal Airport has served a variety of general aviation users, including business, commercial, government and recreational aviation. Figure 2-1 provides location and site maps of the airport. Figure 2-2 provides a detail of existing terminal area facilities at the airport. Table 2-1 summarizes airport data. TABLE 2-1; AIRPORT DATA Airport Name/Designation Ashland Municipal Airport (S03) Airport Owner City of Ashland Date Established 1940's National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) General Aviation Airport Category FAA Airport Reference Code: B-I (small aircraft) Oregon Aviation System Designation: Community General Aviation Airport (Category 4 Airport Acreage Approximately 94 Acres (held in fee) Airport Coordinates N 42°11.42' W 122° 39.64' Airport Elevation 1885 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL) Airport Traffic Pattern Left Traffic - 2,900 feet above mean sea level (MSL) Configuration/Altitude yffF i ~ , October 2005 2-5 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates _ W ~r O C O 7 1 N U V a ^ w ?W k F+r W r rk1 ^I f.IO . n 1`a Z W Z 4. -`q 0 Z p Z zU L) U? Z F ro, P t ~ O O 4 O ~ U ~ Z ZW 2 W C~ Uw r U w aLE U LLJ r w 06 r1l CL LL, lid Z z O o U l- CY) LL. W O O& Q Z = ~ t= w Cl) W Q w m J w LL ~ Q w F_ Q • o Q CO Z U _j LD U' w w LL_ 7 Z tL _ L X ce a Q Q u.. > 2 V Q N Q H N ~.'a11 1 $ - O 000000000000 z W N O 7 1 co " N LL; y _ ~ U cn 1 F VJ 0 0 0aw o. J r W ,y J ~LL. t `b U Y /0. L- b ~ a r Z w " - f- yy ~ r5y J U) .r w~ t Z 2 W Q~ { U w _ V_ ao (Dm (Do O° Od aZ w iU U 1. Q ~ N ' - m vu'i O C7 N U Q 05 W w Z) w Ili l x Q w J i O Z U a CY) Z 0 O 0 W = v _ 3 O't Q Z = N w Cl) O O w U Q U Q W _C~ Q w Q Q W o Q _ N Q m W LLj LL (D LL- ~ W ~ Q Z U ~ W ~ W ~ Z_ J ~ J W w X j W a 0 000 000000000 o Z 1 CITY or Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Runway & Taxiways Ashland Municipal has a single 3,603-foot by 75-foot paved and lighted runway. Runway 12/30 is oriented on a 120/300 degree (magnetic) alignment. The threshold of Runway 30 is displaced 190 feet to provide increased obstruction clearance for landing aircraft over trees, structures and vehicles traveling on Dead Indian Memorial Road. The runway has a published weight bearing capacity of 15,000 pounds for aircraft with single wheel land gear configurations. The effective gradient of Runway 12/30 is 1.1 percent. Runway 12/30 has an asphaltic concrete (AC) surface, basic markings, and medium-intensity runway edge lighting (MIRL). The runway is served by a full-length east side parallel taxi way/taxi lane with six connecting exit taxiways. A 2,850-foot section of parallel taxiway extends from the north end of the aircraft apron to the end of Runway 12. The parallel taxiway is 30 feet wide with a 162.5-foot runway separation. An aircraft holding area is located at the north end of the parallel taxiway, adjacent to the Runway 12 threshold. The southern end of the runway is served by a taxilane located along the outer edge of the aircraft apron. This section of taxilane has a slightly reduced runway separation of 150 feet. None of the taxiways are equipped with edge lighting, but reflective edge markers were recently added to the parallel taxiway. Aircraft hold lines are painted on all taxiway connections to Runway 12/30 and are located 125 feet from the runway centerline. This distance corresponds to the outer edges of a 250-foot wide runway obstacle free zone (OFZ) and object free area (OFA) for small aircraft. The parallel taxiway and exit taxiways have yellow centerline striping. Table 2-2 summarizes existing runway and taxiway facilities. During a recent site inventory, Runway 12/30 was observed to be generally in good condition, having recently been sealcoated and repainted. According to available data, the most recent asphalt overlay on the runway was applied in 1984. October 2005 2-8 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 2-2: RUNWAY & TAXIWAY DATA Runway Dimensions 3,603 x 75 feet; 190-foot displaced threshold (Rwy 30) Effective Gradient 1.11% Runway Bearing N 38° 42'50" W Surface/Condition Asphalt/Good* ("Based on 2002 inspection, prior to most recent seaicoat) Weight Bearing Capacity 15,000 pounds - Single Wheel Landing Gear Marking Basic (visual) Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (MIRL) (dusk-dawn automatic switch); Lighting VASI (Rwy 12 & 30) - Variable approach angles (Rwy 12: 3.5-degrees; Rwy 30: 4.0-degrees) (dusk-dawn automatic switch); REIL (Rwy 30) (pilot activated) Signage Location & Directional Signs Wind Coverage All Weather: Estimated 95% at 12 mph; 99.5% at 15 mph. Rogue Valley Int'I- Medford Airport data. Source: NOAA ; 101,163 observations (1948 - 1978) Taxiways Approximately 2,850 x 30 feet with (3) 90-degree exit/connecting taxiways Parallel Taxiway (162.5-foot runway separation). Asphalt surface; centerline stripes; aircraft hold lines at each runway connection. Approximately 1,100 feet (width varies) with (3) 90-degree exit/connecting Parallel Taxilane taxiways (150-foot runway separation). Asphalt surface; centerline stripes; aircraft hold lines at each runway connection. Hangar Taxiway (north) Approximately 570 x 25 feet. Extends from north (east) end of aircraft apron to T-hangars. Hangar Taxiway (south) Approximately 595 x 25 feet (width varies). Extends from aircraft apron to hangars. Aircraft Apron Ashland Municipal has a single large aircraft apron located near the end of Runway 30, which supports aircraft fueling, tiedowns, hangars and occasional cargo/express aircraft parking and ground operations. The apron is approximately 1,500 feet long and varies between 150 and 230 feet deep. The majority of the apron is configured with light aircraft tiedowns. There are currently 72 light aircraft tie-down positions on the apron; 2 parking positions for larger aircraft are located adjacent to north side of the aircraft fuel area. i October 2005 2-9 Inventory I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The aircraft fuel area is located just north of the fixed base operator (FBO) maintenance hangar. Several hangars and related buildings are located along the rear (east) edge of the main apron including the FBO office and maintenance hangar, the Sky Research hangar, and an older T- hangar located at the south end of the apron. Itinerant aircraft parking is located on the apron adjacent to the FBO office and the vehicle parking lot. During a site inventory conducted prior to the summer 2004 rehabilitation project, the aprons were observed to range from very good (north end) to very poor condition (center section), which generally corresponds to the age of the four sections. The southern and center sections of the main apron were rehabilitated in 2004 and are now in excellent condition. The pavements in the poorest condition were reconstructed while others had asphalt overlays applied. An aircraft wash facility was also added adjacent to the aircraft apron and FBO maintenance hangar. The wash facility is designed to capture wash water and pipe it to an existing sanitary sewer line. Table 2- 3 summarizes existing aircraft apron facilities. TABLE 2-3: AIRCRAFT APRON DATA Area Dimensions and Use Main Apron (south section) Approximately 365 x 270' (10,950 square yards) - Aircraft arkin ; hangar frontage. Asphalt Concrete Main Apron (south-center section) Approximately 370 x 230'(9,455 square yards) Aircraft parking. Asphalt Concrete Main Apron (north-center section) Approximately 360 x 230' (9,200 square yards) Li ht aircraft tiedowns, aircraft fueling. Asphalt Concrete Main Apron (north section) Approximately 325 x 140' (5,055 square yards) Li ht aircraft tiedowns. Asphalt Concrete Aircraft Wash Area Approximately 50 x 40' (222 square yards) Aircraft washing. Asphalt Concrete Airfield Pavement Condition As part of the Oregon Aviation System Plan, the Oregon Department of Aviation manages a program of pavement evaluation and maintenance for Oregon's general aviation airports. This evaluation provides standardized pavement condition index (PCI) ratings, pavement features and current conditions. Through the use of MicroPAVER computer software, current pavement condition ratings are entered into the system with the specifics of each pavement section. The program is able to predict the future condition of the pavements if no action is taken (i.e. rate of deterioration) while also identifying the recommended measures needed to extend the useful life of the pavement section. October 2005 2-10 Inventory I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Table 2-4 summarizes airfield pavement conditions for Ashland based on the most recent inspection conducted in November, 20023 . The branch report contained in the pavement study indicates that Ashland currently has more 748,000 square feet (SF) of airfield pavement, which equals approximately 11 acres of surface area. TABLE 2-4: SUMMARY OFAIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITION (NOVEMBER 2002) Pavement Section Design/Age PCI 1 Condition Rating Runway 12/30 1" AC (1984); 2" AC (1983); 8" Aggregate Base (1983) 65 Good north 650-foot section 1" AC (1984); 2" AC (1977); BST (1967); 4.5" Aggregate 63 Good Runway 12/30 38* (south Base (1967); 3" Aggregate Subbase (1967) Poor 190' Parallel Taxiway (north section) 2" AC (1984); 8" Aggregate Base (1984) 64 Good 2" AC w/ Fabric (1989); 2" AC (1974); 4" Aggregate Base Parallel Taxiway (center, section) 86 Excellent (1974); 4" Aggregate Subbase 1974 Exit Taxiways 2" AC (age varies); 8-9' Aggregate Base (tYP•) 36-59 Poor to Good T-Hangar Access Taxiway (north) 4" AC (1995); 7" Crushed Aggregate Base (19951 72 Very Good Hangar Taxilanes (south) 3" AC (1995); 6" Crushed Aggregate Base (1995) 64 Good T-Hangar Taxilanes 4.5" AC (1988); no base 64 Good Main Apron (southern section) 2" AC (2004); 2" AC (1983); 8" Aggregate Base (1983) 59* Good* Main Apron (south-center section) 2" AC (2004); 2" AC (1983); BST (1968); 9" Aggregate 49* Fair* Base(1968) Main Apron (north-center section) 2" AC (2004); 2" AC (1983); BST (1967); 4.5" Aggregate 10* Failed* Base (1967); 3" Aggregate Subbase 1967 Main Apron (north section) 3" AC (1995); 3" Crushed Aggregate Base (1995) 95 Excellent 1. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) scale ranges from 0 to 100, with seven general condition categories ranging from "failed" to "excellent." For additional details, see Oregon Aviation System Plan Pavement Evaluation/Maintenance Management Program for Ashland Municipal Airport " PCI ratings made prior to 2004 pavement rehabilitation projects; current (2005) ratings for these pavements would be expected to range from 95 to 100 (Excellent). 3 Pavement Eva] uation/Maintenance Management Program, Ashland Municipal Airport (2003) i October 2005 2-11 Inventory i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report In the 2002 inspection, Ashland's airfield pavements ranged from "failed" to "excellent," although the average rating of all airfield pavements was 58, which corresponds to "good" condition. Among the airfield pavements rated "poor" or worse include the north-center section of the main apron (failed) and the south end of Runway 30 (poor), both of which have since been fully rehabilitated. The following excerpt from 2002 pavement study summarizes the findings: "The primary distresses observed during the inspection were weathering/raveling, block cracking, longitudinal and transverse cracking, alligator cracking, patching, depressions, rutting, and oil spillage. " The condition of the airfield pavements observed during site visits performed as part of the Airport Layout Plan Update (Winter 2004) were generally consistent with the most recent formal pavement evaluation conducted in November 2002. Updated PCT inspections are normally conducted on three-year intervals; the next inspection for Ashland would likely be conducted in 2005 or 2006 and will reflect significant improvements in overall pavement condition made since the 2002 inspection. LANDSIDE FACILITIES Hangars and Airport Buildings Aircraft hangars on the airport consist of standard T-hangars and conventional hangars. Conventional hangars include the FBO maintenance hangar, the Sky Research hangar/office, the Civil Air Patrol hangar, and an Oregon State Police hangar, and a single conventional hangar adjacent to the north T-hangar. Construction on a new 14-unit T-hangar was completed in late 2004 in the north hangar area, following extensive site preparation (excavation and retaining wall construction). The FBO building houses office space, a pilot waiting area, a small meeting room and restrooms. The Sky Research building, constructed in 2003, combines hangar and office space for the airport-based business. Existing airport buildings are summarized in Table 2-5. October 2005 2-12 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 2-5: AIRPORT BUILDINGS Building Existing Use T-Hangar (14-units) (north hangars) Aircraft Storage Conventional Hangar (11-units) (south end of apron) Aircraft Storage T-Hangar (10-units) (north hangars) Aircraft Storage T-Hangar (10-units) (north hangars) Aircraft Storage Multiple Conventional Hangar (6-units) Aircraft Storage "CAP" Conventional Hangar Aircraft Storage, Civil Air Patrol Operations Conventional Hangar (near south end of apron) Aircraft Storage Conventional Hangar (near south end of apron) Aircraft Storage Conventional Hangar (near south end of apron) Aircraft Storage FBO Building FBO, Restrooms, Office, Pilot/Passenger Areas Conventional Hangar (FBO Maintenance Hangar) Aircraft Maintenance Sky Research Conventional Hangar/Office Commercial Use; Aircraft Storage OSP Conventional Hangar Aircraft Storage Airport Electrical Building Airport Lighting Systems Airport Lighting Ashland Municipal accommodates day and night operations in visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. The airport beacon, lighted wind sock, runway lights, and visual guidance indicators (VGI) on Runway 12/30 operate on dusk-dawn automatic switches. A new airport beacon was installed in 2005, northeast of the FBO building on the east side of the runway. The segmented circle and wind cone are located near the mid-point of the runway on its east side. Runway 12/30 has medium intensity runway lighting (MIRL) with visual approach slope indicators (VASI) on both ends. The MIRL system was installed in 2005 to replace the previous low intensity edge lighting system. Threshold lighting is located at both runway ends and on the displaced threshold for Runway 30. Runway 30 is equipped with runway end identifier lights (REIL), which are two sequenced strobe lights that mark the end of the runway. Overhead lighting is available in the terminal area, fueling area, and adjacent to most aircraft hangars. Table 2-6 summarizes existing airport lighting at Ashland Municipal Airport. October 2005 2-13 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates i CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 2-6: AIRPORT LIGHTING Component Type Condition Runway 12/30 Medium Intensity Runway Edge Lighting (MIRL); Threshold Excellent Lights Taxiway Lighting No Edge Lighting; Edge Reflectors on Parallel Taxiway Excellent Lighted Airfield Signage Location & Directional Signs Good Runway Approach Lighting REIL (Rwy 30) Good Visual Guidance Indicators VASI (Rwy 12 & 30) Good Airport Lighting Airport Rotating Beacon Excellent Fair Li hted Wind Cone AIRSPACE AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Ashland Municipal Airport has no electronic navigational aids or published instrument approaches and operates exclusively under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. As noted above, the runway is equipped with visual landing aids at both runway ends. The airspace surfaces for the runway are based on visual approach capabilities for small aircraft.4 Ashland Municipal is located within an area of Class E airspace with a floor 700 feet above the ground surface. Class E airspace has no mandatory radio communications during VFR conditions. An area of Class E airspace that extends from the surface upward is located approximately 2 miles west of Ashland. This section of airspace is intended to protect instrument procedures at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. The Rogue Valley VORTAC is located approximately 20.7 miles northwest of the airport on the 128-degree radial. Several low- and high-altitude enroute airways connecting to VORTACs in Medford, Klamath Falls, and Fort Jones are located in the vicinity of the airport. However, the minimum enroute altitudes for these airways prevent potential conflicts with local airport flight activity. Table 2-7 summarizes existing navigational aids and related items. 4 FAR Part 77. Utility aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. I October 2005 2-14 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 2-7: NAVIGATIONAL AIDS AND RELATED ITEMS Type Facilities None on Site Electronic Navigational Aids Nearby Facilities: Rogue Valley (OED) VORTAC (20.7 nm NW) 113.6 MHz Medford MEF Nondirectional Beacon 15 nm NW 356 LHz Instrument Approaches None Weather Observation None Communication Unicom/Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF)(122.8 MHz) The 1994 airspace plan identified large areas of terrain penetration within the horizontal and conical surfaces, particularly to the north, east, and south of the airport. A city survey identified 36 trees as obstructions, primarily along the northwest corner of the airport. Updated survey data will be incorporated into the airspace plan, if available. Local airport traffic pattern altitude is 1,100 feet above ground level (AGL) with standard left traffic. Ashland is located in an area of Class E airspace with floor 700 feet above ground level, although there are no mandatory radio communication requirements during visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. Table 2-8 summarizes notable obstructions, special airspace designations and IFR routes in the vicinity of Ashland Municipal, as identified on the Klamath Falls Sectional Aeronautical Chart. Local airport operations and flight activity is not affected by the noted airspace or obstructions located in the vicinity of the airport. October 2005 2-15 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 2-8: AIRSPACE/INSTRUMENT ROUTES/ LOCAL OBSTRUCTIONS Airspace Item Description Location 4 nautical miles west. Extends from Low Altitude Enroute Victor 287- 8,000 feet mean sea level Rogue Valley VORTAC on a 138-degree Airway minimum enroute altitude (MEA) course to GRENA intersection (with Fort Jones VORTAC 022-degree radial). Low Altitude Enroute Victor 122 - 9,000 feet mean sea level 12 nautical miles north. Connects Rogue Airway minimum enroute altitude (MEA) Valley and Klamath Falls VORTAC on a 098-278 degree course. Class E Airspace Associated with low altitude federal Directly over airport, extends northward to airways 700 feet above round level Medford. Class E Airspace (SFC) Associated with Rogue Valley Southern section begins 2 nautical miles - International-Medford Airport at surface. west of Ashland. Tower 2430' MSL (310 feet AGL) Radio Tower 1.5 miles southeast 2015' MSL Radio Tower (under - Tower 4 miles northwest construction-, AGL elevation unknown 4685' MSL (265 feet AGL - under Tower 8 miles southeast construction Overhead Power Line Major Transmission Lines Within 2 miles (east & west) AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES/SERVICES Aircraft Fuel Ashland Municipal Airport has both aviation gasoline (AVGAS) and jet fuel available for sale. The airport has two aboveground fuel storage tanks (10,000 and 12,000 gallons) that meet all current Oregon DEQ and EPA regulations for spill detection and containment. The aboveground storage tanks were installed to replace older underground tanks. The tanks and fueling facilities are located in the north-center section of the main apron. The 10,000-gallon tank is divided into two 5,000-gallon sections for jet fuel (Jet A) and 80/87 aviation gasoline (AVGAS). 80/87 fuel service is no longer maintained. The FBO indicates that the tank may be modified in the future to expand jet fuel capacity, if demand increases; it would also be possible to use that section of the tank to increase 100LL AVGAS capacity. The second tank has a capacity of 12,000-gallons of 100LL AVGAS. The tanks are owned by the City of Ashland. The airport FBO, Skinner Aviation also maintains two mobile fuel trucks (one jet fuel, one 100LL) with a capacity of approximately 1,200-gallons each. October 2005 2-16 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Surface Access and Vehicle Parking Vehicle access to the airport is provided via Dead Indian Memorial Road, which connects directly to East Main Street/Greensprings Highway. The primary airport access road serves the terminal area and landside facilities on the east side of the runway. A narrow access road extends from the northeast corner of the vehicle parking lot to serve the Sky Research hangar and other development located adjacent to the main apron. Airport Road, located north of the terminal area, also connects to Dead Indian Memorial Road and provides access to aviation development areas and an adjacent residence. No other public access exists elsewhere on the airport. Designated vehicle parking areas are located adjacent to the FBO building and individual hangars on the airport. The recently constructed Sky Research building contains both aircraft hangar space and office space. As a commercial business, vehicle parking and access requirements differ from hangars used primarily for aircraft storage. In 2002, the City of Ashland adopted the Oregon Department of Aviation's (ODA) minimum standards for commercial aeronautical activities established for state-owned category IV airports. The minimum standards provide consistency in fees and practices for commercial aviation operations based on the airport's role as a community general aviation airport. Fencing Fencing at the airport consists of newer sections of chain link along the airport's eastern boundary (adjacent to Dead Indian Memorial Road) and in the terminal area. Other areas of the airport perimeter are fenced with three or four strand wire fencing. Utilities The developed areas of the airport have water, sanitary sewer, electrical and telephone service. Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Ashland; electrical service is provided by Ashland Electric. A 6-inch water line serves the airport, with connection to a line located along Dead Indian Memorial Road. A 600-volt buried electrical line is located adjacent to the airport access road with service extensions provided to individual buildings. The airport storm drainage system includes an underground collection system located along airfield facilities that is routed to storm drain outfall into the adjacent drainage arm of Neil Creek. Public telephone and restrooms are located in the airport FBO building. October 2005 2-17 Inventory i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report LAND USE PLANNING AND ZONING The City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan provides land use guidance for the areas located within the city limits and urban growth boundary. The airport is located within city limits and is subject to city land use and zoning requirements. The lands located west and south of the airport are located within city boundaries, while areas located south and east are located outside city boundaries and are subject to Jackson County regulation. The lands contained within airport boundaries and two adjacent areas (a triangular shaped area located beyond the north end of the runway and the residential property located immediately east of the runway) are designated "Airport" on the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan Map. The airport is currently zoned Employment District (E-1). The E-1 district "is designed to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, or manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses." E-1 zoning has been in place at the airport for many years, although no specific references to airport activities are found in the description of permitted, special permitted or conditional uses (Chapter 18.40.020-040). Airport overlay zoning is maintained by both the City of Ashland and Jackson County. (City of Ashland A-1; Jackson County (AA) Airport Approach (AA) and (AC) Airport Concern. As part of the airport layout plan update, the City and Jackson County should ensure that overlay zoning is updated to be consistent with both current airport planning and Oregon state land use requirements. The airport is surrounded by county zoned rural residential and exclusive farm use zones (north, west and east); city commercial zoning (west) and a large area of city residential zoning (R-1-10) immediately south. Chapter Seven (Environmental Checklist & Land Use) provides a more detailed discussion of surrounding land uses and zoning, including Oregon and FAA land use compatibility guidelines. AIRPORT SERVICE AREA The airport service area refers to the area surrounding an airport that is directly affected by the activities at that airport. Normally a 30 or 60-minute surface travel time is used to approximate the boundaries of a service area. Table 2-9 lists the public airports within a 30 nautical mile radius of Ashland. Despite their relatively close proximity to Ashland, the surface travel times to these airports varies greatly depending on the surface route available. Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, located approximately 15 miles from Ashland accommodates a full range of commercial and business aviation users. Ashland Municipal Airport is categorized October 2005 2-18 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report as a Community General Aviation (GA) airport in the Oregon Aviation System, which means the airport accommodates a variety of general aviation and local business activities. TABLE 2-9: PUBLIC USE AIRPORTS IN VICINITY (WITHIN 30 NAUTICAL MILES) Runway Lighted Fuel Airport Location Dimension feet Surface Runwa Available? Rogue Valley 8,800 x 150 International-Medford 15 NM northwest (primary nvy) Asphalt Yes Yes Airport Klamath Falls 30 NM east 10,301 x 150 Asphalt Yes Yes International (primary Pinehurst State 13 NM southeast 2,800 x 30 Asphalt No No Siskiyou County 26 NM southeast 7,484 x 150 Asphalt Yes Yes Montague-Yreka 28 NM southeast 3,350 x 60 Asphalt Yes Yes M October 2005 2-19 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Three Aviation Activity Forecasts CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report a CHAPTER THREE AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to prepare updated forecasts of aviation activity for the twenty-year planning period addressed in the Airport Layout Plan Update (2004-2024). The updated forecasts will provide the basis for estimating future facility needs at Ashland Municipal Airport. The scope of work for this project suggests use of the most recent Oregon Aviation System Plan (OASP)5 forecasts (1994-2018), with revision as required, to reflect current conditions. Airport master plan6 forecasts (1992-2012) are also available that reflect more airport-specific detail than is provided in statewide aviation forecasts. These forecasts, combined with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) will be compared with actual activity data to determine their applicability for use in this planning update. Once the relevance of existing forecasts is determined, a judgment can then be made regarding their use in developing updated projections for the current twenty-year planning period. Economy The economy of Ashland and Jackson County is relatively diversified, with elements such as tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, and government providing a unique balance in Southern Oregon. In recent years, unemployment rates within the Medford-Ashland area have been slightly lower than the statewide average. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is a major component in the local and regional economy, attracting more than 100,000 visitors to Ashland each year. It has been estimated that the festival contributes roughly $50 million to the local economy in the form of direct and indirect employment, food, lodging, and other consumer spending. Southern Oregon University, a four-year public college, is located in Ashland with approximately 5,300 full-time and part-time students. Agriculture in the Rogue Valley consists 5 Oregon Continuous Aviation System Plan, Volume I Inventory and Forecasts (1997, AirTech). 6 Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan 1999-2010 (SFC Engineering, 1992) October 2005 3-1 Forecasts i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report of a variety of crops, fruit orchards and vineyards. The economic outlook for Jackson County is strong, with future employment growth expected to outpace Oregon's employment growth rate . through 20127 The use of private aircraft for personal and business transportation is a key element in Ashland's economy. With commercial air service available nearby in Medford, Ashland Municipal Airport accommodates general aviation aircraft used by local residents, businesses and visitors. In its role as a community general aviation airport, Ashland Municipal is an important component in the local, regional and statewide transportation system. Population Population growth within Ashland and Jackson County has been moderate in recent years and that trend is expected to continue in the future. Ashland's population in 2004 was estimated at 20,590, while Jackson County's population was estimated at 191,200. s Between the 1990 and 2000 census, the population of Ashland increased by 20 percent, which equals an average annual increase of 1.85 percent. During the same period, Jackson County population increased by nearly 24 percent, which equals an average annual increase of 2.2 percent. The population estimates for 2004 indicate continued growth, although at a slower annual rate (approximately 1.34 percent) for both Ashland and Jackson County since 2000. Long-term population forecasts for Jackson County continue to reflect modest-to-moderate growth. The Oregon Office of Economic Analysis projects Jackson County population will increase 39 percent by 2025 and 63 percent by 2040. These long-term forecasts equate to average annual growth rates of approximately 1.23 percent. The expectation of continued population growth for the community suggests that demand for aviation services at Ashland Municipal Airport will also increase during the current planning period at rates roughly comparable to other socioeconomic indicators. Oregon Employment Department Region 8 Economic Profile 8 Portland State University Center for Population Studies (July 1, 2004) October 2005 3-2 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Recent Historic Activity Based Aircraft The current number of based aircraft at Ashland Municipal Airport is estimated at 89.9 This total appears to be consistent with hangar and aircraft parking capacity added at the airport since the last master plan was completed. Table 3-1 summarizes based aircraft at Ashland Municipal Airport in 2004. TABLE 3-1: 2004 BASED AIRCRAFT ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Aircraft Type 2004 (Estimate) Single Engine Piston 79 Multi-Engine Piston/Turbine 5 Ultralights 3 Helicopters 2 Total 89 Source: FAA 5010/TAF Data Several hangar construction projects have occurred at the airport in recent years that have increased hangar capacity and appear to be closely tied to the increase in based aircraft. The 1990 airport master plan projected a sharp increase in based aircraft early in the planning period (in response to planned hangar construction) followed by moderate growth through the remainder of the planning period. It appears that the initial surge occurred as expected, although subsequent growth has tapered off. The current estimate of 89 based aircraft falls between the 1995 and 2000 forecasts and equates to an annual average growth rate of 1.86 percent versus the 3.2 percent annual forecast rate between 1990 and 2000. It is also recognized that Ashland Municipal Airport has a limited land base and site development constraints (terrain, adjacent creeks, etc.) that limit expansion potential. Since the airport has a relatively limited amount of developable land available for landside facilities (aircraft parking and hangars), the desired mix of hangar types (business use, aircraft storage, etc.) is expected to 9 FAA 5010 Airport Record Form. October 2005 3-3 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Fae9re & Associates ♦ GazeleY & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report affect activity levels. However, any number of changes in local conditions could stimulate based aircraft numbers well beyond historic trends. For this reason, it is important that the airport plan include a facility development program that can quickly respond to market demand. Aviation activity forecasts created in the early 1990s commonly projected annual growth in excess of 2 to 3 percent. However, within Oregon and nationally, annual growth in the range of 0.5 to 1.5 percent are now common. The FAA's long-term forecasts project a very conservative increase the number of aircraft in the U.S. general aviation fleet. The FAA 2001-2015 TAF projects that total airport operations within the Northwest Mountain Region will increase 17.5 percent by 2015, which is an annual average increase of approximately 1.08 percent. Aircraft Operations Aircraft operations estimates for Ashland Municipal Airport are available for seven separate years between 1981 and 2003, through the Oregon Department of Aviation's automated acoustical (RENS) activity counting program. In the absence of air traffic control tower records, RENS counts generally provide the most reliable estimates of activity for uncontrolled airports. The RENS program uses a counting device that is triggered by specific noise level (aircraft engine noise) normally associated with an aircraft takeoff. Four seasonal on-site data samples are normally collected over a twelve-month period (October to October) for use in creating statistically derived estimates of operations. Table 3-2 summarizes the RENS activity counts conducted for Ashland Municipal since 1981. In the period since the last master plan was completed, five separate RENS counts have been conducted. Three of the five counts (1992, 1997 and 1998) were significantly lower (22 to 33 percent) than the 1990 base year air traffic estimate of 19,400 operations. Two counts (1995 and 2003) were slightly higher (4.4 and 7.6 percent) than the 1990 estimate. TABLE 3-2: SUMMARY OF ODA ACTIVITY COUNTS ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 1981 1986 1992 1995 1997 1998 2003 Annual Operations 16,460 15,436 13,110 20,208 15,195 14,753 20,878 Net Increase or Decrease -6.2% -15.1% +54.1% -24.8% -2.9% +41.5% Over Prior Count Source: Oregon Department of Aviation, REVS acoustical counts. J October 2005 3-4 Forecasts 1 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Figure 3-1 depicts the range of RENS counts at Ashland Municipal Airport since 1981. Although there is considerable fluctuation between individual counts, a modest upward trend is visible within the range of counts. Figure 3-2 depicts the RENS counts in relation to historic operations estimates from FAA TAF. The older TAF data is difficult to verify, although the recent TAF data appears to be comparable to the periodic RENS counts, particularly the most recent count completed in October 2003. Table 3-3 compares based aircraft and operations data, which yields an activity ratio which is useful in gauging trends. For the purposes of estimating current air traffic activity, the 2003 RENS count of 20,878 operations is considered to provide a reasonable indicator of current activity. As indicated by the data, aircraft utilization levels reflect fluctuations similar to operations levels. By comparison, based aircraft levels have remained relatively stable, with a modest upward trend over the last 10 to 15 years. FIGURE 3-1: SUMMARY OF ODA ACTIVITY COUNTS ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 30,000 - - - - 1 - c 22,500 - - a) a.. 15,000 - - - _ _ _ - - - - - c c Q 7,500 - - 01 1981 1986 1992 1995 1997 1998 2003 ♦ RENS Counts - - Linear (REVS Counts) i October 2005 3-5 Forecasts i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report FIGURE 3-2: SUMMARY OF ODA ACTIVITY COUNTS & TAF DATA ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 60,000 I W 45,000 c 0 Y cz L cl- 30,000 - - - - c Q 15,000 - -A- - . - i 0 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 200,1 FAA TAF Data ♦ RENS Count TABLE 3-3: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL AVIATION ACTIVITY ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Year Aircraft Operations Based Aircraft Operations Per Data Based Aircraft Source 1981 16,460 71 232 1,2 1986 15,436 53 291 1,2 1992 13,100 82 160 1,2 1995 20,208 83 244 1,2 1997 15,195 83 183 1,2 1998 14,753 83 178 1,2 2003 20,878 89 234 1,2 7 -Period Mean 16,576 78 213 - Data Sources/Notes: 1. ODA RENS Aircraft Activity Counter Program 2. FAA TAF Data (BASED AIRCRAFT) October 2005 3-6 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Ml REVIEW OF EXISTING FORECASTS The existing aviation forecasts for Ashland Municipal Airport are summarized below and in Table 3-4. 1990 Airport Master Plan (AMP) The 1990 master plan forecasts projected based aircraft to increase from 70 to 112 (+60%) by 2010, which equals an annual average growth of 2.38 percent. As noted earlier, the master plan forecasts projected faster growth in based aircraft early in planning period (4.2% AAR: 1990- 1995), followed by moderate growth of (1.78 % AAR: 1995-2010). The current estimate of 89 based aircraft is 15 aircraft below the master plan forecast for 2005. This reflects actual growth of approximately 1.86 percent per year over the 13-year period. Aircraft operations were projected to increase by 59 percent, from 19,400 in 1990 to 30,800 in 2010. This equals an annual average growth of 2.34 percent. The most recent activity count (20,878) conducted in 2002-2003 is approximately 21 to 27 percent lower than the master plan forecasts for 2000 and 2005. As indicated in Figure 3-3, the recent RENS activity counts have consistently fallen below the 1990 master plan operations forecasts, although a modest upward trend is evident. The 1990 master plan forecasts assumed annual population growth to be approximately 1 to 2 percent within the airport's service area. Current population forecasts also reflect modest growth, which indicates that the underlying assumptions related to population growth used in the 1990 forecasts have not changed significantly in recent years. i October 2005 3-7 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report FIGURE 3-3: ODA RENS COUNTS, TAF, 1990 MASTER PLAN FORECAST ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 40,000 - - 30,000 O .r r "r rC15 r r - OcL 20,000 - - - - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - A A a 10,000 - 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 ~A RENS Count - - 1990 Master Flan Fcst. - - TAF Oregon Aviation System Plan (OASP) The 1997 OASP forecasts reflect growth in based aircraft and aircraft operations that are relatively consistent with the 1990 master plan forecasts. Overall, based aircraft and operations at Ashland Municipal Airport were both forecast to increase by 35 percent between 1994 and 2014, which equals an annual average growth of 1.5 percent. Between 1994 and 2014, based aircraft were projected to increase from 72 to 97 and aircraft operations were projected to increase from 20,000 to 26,940. The 2000 Oregon Aviation Plan updated the 1997 forecasts by extrapolating previously defined growth rates out to 2018. For 2018, based aircraft were projected to increase to 103, with aircraft operations increasing to 28,537. The 2004 OASP forecasts of based aircraft (84) and operations (23,330) are within 11 percent of current activity estimates (2003-2004). However, it is interesting to note that the current based aircraft levels are running ahead of forecast, while operations are below forecast levels. The OASP forecasts reflected an aircraft utilization level (277-280 operations per based aircraft) well above historic levels at Ashland. Lower levels of aircraft utilization are evident in the historic activity counts conducted at the airport in recent years. It appears reasonable that this sustained shift should be reflected in updated forecasts. e October 2005 3-8 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report FAA Terminal Area Forecasts (TAF) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains forecasts for Ashland Municipal Airport in the TAF. The TAF projects an increase in based aircraft from 89 (2003 base year estimate) to 106 in 2020. This reflects an increase of 19 percent, which translates into an average annual growth rate of 1.03 percent. The TAF projects aircraft operations to increase from 20,683 (2003) to 23,002 in 2020. The increase of about l l percent translates into an average annual growth rate of 0.63 percent over the twenty-year period. The slower growth projected for aircraft operations compared is also reflected in a gradually declining utilization ratio. It appears that the TAF accurately reflects current activity levels; based on the low rates of growth used in the forecasts, the TAF provides a reasonable baseline projection of future activity. TABLE 3-4: EXISTING AVIATION FORECASTS Source 1994/95 1999/00 2004/05 2009/10 2014/15 2018 2020 Based Aircraft 2003 Estimate: 89 1990 Airport Master Plan 86 96 104 112 - (2,38% AAR) 1997 / 2000 OAS P 72 78 84 90 97 103 (1.5% AAR) TAF (1.03% AAR: 2003-2020) 83 91 95 100 103 106 Aircraft Operations 2003 Estimate: 20,878 1990 Airport Master Plan AAR) 24,000 26,500 28,569 30,800 (2.34% 1997 / 2000 OASP .5% AAR) 20,000 21,670 23,330 25,070 26,940 28,537 (1.5% (0.63 AAR: 2003-2020) 15,436 22,689 20,956 21,638 22,320 22,729 23,002 • Note: Adjacent forecast years (i.e., 1994 OASP and 1995 airport master plan) have combined in this table for convenient comparison. Updated Forecasts Based on the review of existing forecasts, an updated forecast of based aircraft and aircraft operations was developed to reflect airport development potential and the long-term growth expectations for the community and region. The updated forecasts are summarized in Table 3-5. The FAA TAF forecast is also provided for comparison. The updated forecasts are depicted in Figures 3-4 and 3-5. October 2005 3-9 Forecasts i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report M4,1 ► The updated (ALP 2004) forecast of based aircraft ranges from the current 89 aircraft to 125 in 2024. The net increase of 36 aircraft (+40.5%) equates to an average annual growth rate of 1.71 percent. A significant factor in the based aircraft forecasts is the current construction of a new 14-unit T-hangar. The city estimates that approximately 6 to 8 aircraft will be coming to Ashland from other airports; the balance of new hangar spaces are expected to be filled by existing based aircraft that will relocate from other hangars or the aircraft parking apron. Based on the historic waiting list for hangar space, it is expected that any vacancies created in older hangars will be quickly filled. As a result, the 5-year forecast (2009) reflects a sharp increase (15.7%; 3.0% annual average rate: 2004-2009) in based aircraft, with subsequent growth averaging about 1.3 percent annually through the twenty-year planning period. The current composition of the based aircraft fleet is expected to remain relatively consistent, with growth in all aircraft types anticipated. The 2003 estimate of 20,878 operations and 89 based aircraft results in a ratio of 235 operations per based aircraft. An updated forecast of aircraft operations was developed by applying this level of aircraft utilization to the updated based aircraft forecast. For this projection, aircraft utilization is maintained at 235 operations per based aircraft. As indicated in the historic data, aircraft utilization ratios at Ashland have fluctuated widely in recent years. However, for the purposes of projecting future demand, this ratio appears to represent a level of activity that can be sustained through the current planning period as the airport develops its limited land base. The stable ratio reflects a balance between current and recent utilization levels and also reflects the airport's ability to maintain a strong user base through the planning period. Aircraft operations are forecast to increase from 20,878 to 29,375 operations by 2024, which equals an average annual increase of 1.72 percent. However, as with the based aircraft forecast, aircraft operations are expected to respond to the current hangar construction, with subsequent growth averaging about 1.3 percent annually through the twenty-year planning period. Air Traffic Distribution/Design Aircraft The 1990 master plan forecasts assumed local operations accounted for 15 percent of total airport activity and itinerant operations (GA, air taxi, etc.) accounted for 85 percent during the planning period. Local operations include flights that begin and end at the airport (i.e., aircraft within the traffic pattern (touch and go), aircraft operating near the airport, etc.). Other available forecasts for Ashland Municipal Airport reflect similar levels of local aircraft operations (OASP 17%; FAA TAF 10%). In the absence of significant volumes of flight training activity, local operations typically account for relatively low percentage of overall activity. For the purposes of updating the forecasts, the 15% local/itinerant split used in the previous master plan will be maintained for the current planning period. October 2005 3-10 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The 1992 airport master plan identified a turboprop aircraft, such as the Beecheraft 90 and 100 series King Air, as the critical aircraft for Ashland Municipal Airport. These aircraft are included in Airplane Design Group I and Approach Category B (B-1). The B-I category also includes many light twin-engine piston aircraft. By FAA definition, the "design aircraft" must have a minimum of 500 itinerant annual. operations, which at Ashland, is met by a combination of locally based and itinerant aircraft. The airport accommodates larger aircraft (ADG II) on an occasional basis, but at a level well below the FAA's threshold for use as design aircraft. Available runway (length) limits operations by larger turboprops and business jets on warmer days and would generally require significant reductions in operating weights (reduced passenger or fuel loads). The physical site limitations associated with Ashland Municipal Airport are the primary factors that limit activity by larger aircraft. Occasional use of the airport by package carrier aircraft, many of which are included in ADG II, is expected to continue during the planning period. These carriers typically operate single and multi-engine turboprop aircraft (i.e., Beech 99, Cessna Caravan, etc.). Based on historic aircraft activity distributions reported through the RENS program, design aircraft operations at Ashland generally account for about 6 percent of total airport operations. For planning purposes, it is assumed that this level of activity will continue during the current planning period. October 2005 3-11 Forecasts i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 3-5: UPDATED FORECASTS ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Base Year 2009 2014 2019 2024 2004 2004 ALP Forecast (Preferred) Based Aircraft Single Engine 79 91 96 103 110 Multi Engine Piston/Turbine 5 6 6 7 8 Helicopter 2 3 3 4 4 Other (ultralights, etc.) 3 3 4 3 3 Total 89 103 109 117 125 Aircraft Operations Local (15%) 3,130 3,630 3,840 4,125 4,400 Itinerant (85%) 17,748 20,575 21,775 23,370 24,975 Total 20,878 24,205 25,615 27,495 29,375 Average Operations per Based 235 235 235 235 235 Aircraft Operations by Critical Aircraft 1,250 1,450 1,540 11650 1,760 B-1 (piston/turbine twin) FAA TAF Based Aircraft Single Engine 79 84 87 91 92 Multi Engine 5 6 7 8 9 Jet 0 0 0 0 0 Helicopter 2 2 2 2 2 Other 3 3 3 3 3 Total 89 95 99 104 106* Aircraft Operations Local 2,156 2,156 2,156 2,156 2,156 Itinerant 18,527 19,345 20,027 20,709 20,846 Total 20,683 21,501 22,183 22,865 23,002 Average Operations per 232 226 224 220 217 Based Aircraft '2020 TAF V October 2005 3-12 Forecasts i j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report X FIGURE 3-4: UPDATED BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 150 125 - - - - - - - - Q 100 - - - UJ 0000 r r - - 75 50 1990 1995 2000 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 - OASP TAF o Actual 2004 004 ALP J - - 1990 AMP - - - - - - - FIGURE 3-5: UPDATED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT I 35,000 i 30,000 - - i c 0 25,000 - - r r r 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 15, 000 - - - - c Q 10,000 - - - - 5,000 1990 1995 2000 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 - 1990 AMP - GASP - - - - TAF 2004 ALP A Actual l October 2005 3-13 Forecasts i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Four Airport Facility Requirements CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER FOUR AIRPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS INTRODUCTION This chapter uses the results of the inventory and forecast conducted in Chapters Two and Three, as well as established planning criteria, to determine the airside and landside facility requirements through the current twenty-year planning period. Airside facilities include runways, taxiways, navigational aids and lighting systems. Landside facilities include hangars, fixed base operator (FBO) facilities, aircraft parking apron, aircraft fueling, automobile parking, utilities and surface access. The facility requirements evaluation is used to identify the adequacy or inadequacy of existing airport facilities and identify what new facilities may be needed during the planning period based on forecast demand. Options for providing these facilities will be evaluated in Chapter Five to determine the most cost effective and efficient means for implementation. 1990-2010 Airport Master Plan Overview The previous Airport Master Planlo recommended a variety of facility improvements at Ashland Municipal Airport which are summarized in Table 4-1. The previously recommended facility improvements which have not been implemented will be revalidated, modified or eliminated based on the updated facility needs assessment and FAA guidelines. The majority of facility improvements completed during the last ten years have closely followed the recommendations of the 1992 master plan; the implementation of projects has been adjusted to respond to market demand and funding availability. In addition to the projects previously recommended, a new aircraft wash pad was constructed as part of the 2004 apron rehabilitation project. i0 Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan (SFC Engineering, October 1992) i October 2005 4-1 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Ate, TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF 1990-2010 AIRPORT MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND CURRENT STATUS Completed Projects Yes/No Yes * Develop new hangar and apron NW of main apron *Phase I apron expansion) Yes Relocate residential access road Yes Realign north hangar access taxiway Yes * Construct new hangars * new hangars constructed in north & south areas Yes Provide lease areas to accommodate aircraft storage and business-oriented activity Yes * Airport security fencing *east and south boundaty) Yes Remove underground fuel tanks (replace with aboveground tanks Develop west tiedown area; provide pedestrian access (footbridge) over Neil Creek to adjacent NO areas No Locate designated helicopter landing area on new apron No Provide non recision instrument approach Yes * Upgrade LIRL runway edge lighting to MIRL *2004 project) Yes Maintain FBO develo ment/ex ansion reserve Yes * Improve airport circulation roadways *access to Sky Research hangar) Yes * North T-Han ar Taxilanes *one T-hangar taxilane constructed No Acquire avi ation easements for Enlarged R 12 & 30 RPZ No Realign roadway located within R 12 RPZ to provide obstruction clearance No Land Acquisition (Runway 12 approach surface Yes Maintain airfield pavements Yes Lower/Remove trees within R 30 approach No * Taxiway edge lighting MITL (*edge reflectors installed on parallel taxiway in 2004 No PARR . 12 & 30 No Terminal/FBO Building Expansion No* Runway Overla * small section at R 30 end was rehabilitated as art of 2004 apron project) No Parallel Taxiway Overlay Yes * Main Apron Overlay * 2004 project - south and center sections Yes * Utility Extension to hangars * water, electrical extended to new hangar areas). October 2005 4-2 Facility Requirements 1 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report AIRPORT PLANNING OVERVIEW A review of the 1992 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) recommendations and current FAA design standards identifies some minor changes affecting the planning criteria previously used at Ashland Municipal Airport. The 1992 ALP recommended design standards based on Airplane Design Group (ADG) I and Aircraft Approach Category B (Airport Reference Code: B-1). The design aircraft was identified as King Air BE 100 turboprop (existing and future) aircraft, which represented a typical smaller business turboprop weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Runway 12/30 was planned as a utility (visual) runway, which would also support development of a nonprecision instrument approach with visual final approach segments. The existing and future runway protection zone dimensions were 250 x 450 x 1000 feet. According to FAA planning guidelines "the RPZ dimension for a particular runway end is a function of the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum associated with that runway end." Based on current FAA standards, the previously recommended RPZ dimensions are recommended for "Facilities Expected to Serve Small Aircraft Exclusively." Under the FAA's airport planning guidelines a "small airplane" is defined as "an airplane of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight." Under Part 77, utility runways are "constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less." At a length of 3,603 feet, Runway 12/30 is able to accommodate a relatively large percentage of the small aircraft fleet, as defined by the FAA's runway length model (see Airside Requirements section for detailed discussion regarding runway length requirements). Considering the airport's physical site limitations and the anticipated use of the runway use of ADG I (small) design standards appears to be appropriate. ADG I (small) differs from ADG I in a few areas including object free area, aircraft parking line, and parallel taxiway separation dimensions. The option of upgrading facilities to accommodate a wider range of business aircraft is something that most small airports consider during the master planning process. Many turboprops and business jet aircraft are included in ADG II. The dimensional standards associated with ADG II are generally larger than the corresponding ADG I standards. For purposes of evaluating the feasibility of expansion, several of the more demanding ADG II design standards were applied to the existing runway-taxiway system (depicted in Figure 4-1). In particular, accommodating a B-II runway-parallel taxiway separation (240 feet) would require that nearly the entire main apron be relocated to provide adequate clearances. October 2005 4-3 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates y r V q r > 7'90 ^•~~i ~F ~.:h 4~ . p m \ 'i ti ~ .A ~ iS H ~ ~ ~CYf YF y ~ 14 •Fy{ ~J . q~ ,v 1 00 t` S 1 ! ar7 1 ~ y 1' 70 t 1 =a 467 Lo r "0 r Z I _ Z .v y G kl' rm r - f a j J Z `M r If c J v , ~ ~w 11c \ :a Z 30 N"V CITY Of Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report In the case of Ashland Municipal Airport, the potential feasibility of major facility expansion is limited by physical site characteristics including adjacent creeks, public and private roadways, terrain (slope), and developable acreage. The limited land area available to accommodate landside facilities (hangar and apron) would be largely consumed by the relocation of existing facilities, which would significantly limit space to accommodate new tenants. This option would also impact adjacent private properties and drainages. A comparison of the airport's ability to meet specific ADG I and 11 design standards is also provided in Table 4-5, later in the chapter. In addition to the lateral expansion constraints, the length of the runway cannot be significantly increased without property acquisition. The feasibility of upgrading to ADG II standards would also consider the ability to provide adequate runway length to accommodate a wide range of business aircraft. At Ashland, a runway length between 4,300 and 5,000 feet would be required to accommodate most small/medium business jets during warmer months. An option to extend the north end of Runway 12/30 by 600 feet (recommended in the 1982 master plan) was dropped from consideration in the 1992 master plan update. The availability of Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport to accommodate larger business aircraft allows Ashland Municipal Airport to focus on its primary role as a community general aviation airport that can accommodate a wide range of general aviation and limited business aviation activity. Land Utilization The total airport land area consists of approximately 94 acres, which includes the airside area (runway-taxiway system protected areas, etc.), the east landside area (aircraft storage and support facilities), an elevated area (northeast section) of the airport located opposite the north airport access road, and an undeveloped area located on the west side of the airport between the runway and Neil Creek. Table 4-2 summarizes existing airport land uses based on current and previously planned airfield configurations. In its current configuration, the runway and most required clear areas associated with the airside facilities are contained within airport property. The runway protection zones (RPZ) for both runway ends extend beyond airport property and have roads located within their boundaries. The airside areas of the airport account for nearly half of the airport's total land base. October 2005 4-5 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-2: AIRPORT LAND USE CONFIGURATION ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Percentage of Existing Land Use Acreage Total Airport Property (Developed or Reserved) Runway, Parallel Taxiway, Runway 30 Protection Zone, Object Free Area, 45 48% Runway Safety Area, Obstacle Free Zone, Prima Surface. East Landside (Developed or Reserved) Aircraft Apron, Hangars, Vehicle Parking, Access Roads, Undeveloped Land. 33 35% West (Reserved) 7 7% Open Space adjacent to Neil Creek. Northeast (area bordered by airport access road and airport boundary) 9 10% Open Space; future aviation-related or non-aviation development. Total 94 100% 1. Rounded from 94 acres, ALP drawing. The western side of the airport and the northeastern section (outside the airport access road) are not considered to be well suited for aviation development. 'The narrow west side area does not have surface access and it directly borders Neil Creek, which may require development setbacks and mitigation measures to avoid surface runoff. In addition, with aircraft services such as fuel, telephone, and restrooms located on the east side of the runway, developing west side facilities could create the potential for runway crossings (vehicles, pedestrians, etc.). The landside area suitable for supporting aircraft-related development totals approximately 33 acres, of which approximately 60 percent is currently developed. The remaining developable areas are located beyond the north end of the main apron, and east of the rnain apron on the land bordered by Dead Indian Memorial Road and the north airport access road. As proposed in previous planning efforts, the development of these areas will require a combination of excavation, grading and leveling with some gradient incorporated into the pavement designs. The steepest terrain located north of the new 14-unit T-hangar could accommodate additional hangar development, although the amount of excavation and reinforcement on the uphill slope makes that increasingly costly. The small area of land located adjacent to Dead Indian Road, between the north access road and the new T-hangar, may be more readily developable to accommodate non-aviation uses not required aircraft access. Although the undeveloped landside areas are limited at Ashland Municipal Airport, the airport has adequate land to accommodate forecast demand for hangars, aircraft parking and associated facilities. However, if construction of hangars accelerates significantly beyond historic trends i October 2005 4-6 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report A., and 20-year forecast demand, the landside area will soon begin to approach capacity. It may be appropriate to consider options to future property acquisition, or the feasibility of developing facilities on the west side of the runway once the east side reaches full development. Airspace The airspace surfaces depicted on the 1992 Airspace Plan" were based on utility runways and visual approaches. The FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces reflect the ultimate runway dimension. The airport is located in a valley with rising terrain in all directions. Several areas of terrain penetration to the airspace surfaces were depicted on the 1992 plan including large areas located in the horizontal and conical surfaces from the southwest to north sides of the runway. The 1992 Airspace Plan identified 40 specific airspace obstructions in the vicinity of the existing runway. Of the listed obstructions, all but four were trees. Obstruction survey data was provided by the City for the numerous trees located to the sides of the runway. Most of the trees were located along the western (adjacent to Neil Creek) and eastern (adjacent to Emigrant Creek) sides of the runway. The plan recommended trimming about half of the trees, with the action on the remaining obstructions "undecided." The City has removed most trees on airport property in this area, although periodic inspection is required to remove new growth. The utility visual approach surfaces (5,000 feet long; 20:1 slope) for both runway ends appear to be free of terrain penetrations, although roadways are located near each runway end, which create close-in obstructions. The 1992 Airspace Plan indicates that Runway 12 had a "clear 10:1" approach surface (road) and Runway 12 had a "clear 14:1" approach surface (based on the 190- foot displaced threshold to improve obstruction clearance over trees, a building and vehicles traveling on the roadway). The airspace features described in Chapter Two JFR airways, military training routes, etc.) do not affect local airport operation. The airspace structure surrounding Ashland Municipal Airport is uncomplicated and is not expected to constrain future airport development or operation. Instrument Approach Capabilities Ashland Municipal Airport does not currently have a published instrument approach procedure (IAP). As noted earlier, previous airfield/airspace planning for Ashland Municipal has been Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Airspace Plan, SFC Engineering (10/94) r October 2005 4-7 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report based on visual approach surfaces, as defined by FAR Part 77, which historically has been compatible with development of non-precision instrument approaches with circle-to-land (visual) procedures. Recent changes in FAA standards for establishing instrument approaches at small (utility) airports now require that straight-in approach procedures be developed in order to obtain authorization for nighttime use. With the existing "utility-visual" airspace surfaces, a daytime- only non-precision instrument approach could be developed at Ashland. The option of upgrading the airspace to accommodate a straight-in approach to Runway 12/30 would require significant changes in the airfield development configuration and airspace. Chief among these changes would be a requirement to double the width of the runway primary surface (clear area surrounding the runway) to 500 feet. The primary surface must be kept free of obstructions (including parked aircraft). At Ashland, a portion of the aircraft parking area is located within 200 feet of runway centerline. In order to accommodate a wider primary surface, no aircraft parking would be permitted within at least 250 feet of the runway centerline. In addition to the wider primary surface, the need to maintain an unobstructed 7:1 transitional surface slope that extends from the (relocated) outer edge of the primary surface would also affect potential locations for building heights and aircraft parking. Similar to the earlier discussion evaluating the feasibility of upgrading to ADG II design standards, an upgrade to non-precision instrument capabilities would significantly impact existing facilities on the airfield. The existing (north/east) building restriction line (BRL) is located approximately 360 feet from runway centerline. Based on the existing utility-visual airspace surface dimensions, a building height up to 33.5 feet (above runway elevation) can be accommodated at the BRL without penetrating the transitional surface. If the airspace surfaces were upgraded to non-precision instrument, building height clearance at the BRL would be reduced to 15.7 feet. Existing structures would be required to install obstruction lighting, although future hangars would need to be configured to avoid penetrating the transitional surface Aircraft parking positions would also need to be relocated to avoid penetrating the expanded airspace surfaces. With an average tail height of 10 feet, the aircraft parking line (APL) would be located approximately 320 feet from runway centerline. However, the majority of the main apron is located too close to the runway to meet that setback. It would be necessary to develop new apron areas with increased runway separation in order to comply with a 320-foot APL. In addition to the airport site development issues described above, it appears that the high terrain located in the vicinity of the airport may significantly affect instrument approach development options and approach minimums. October 2005 4-8 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Based on the potential impacts on existing landside development areas and overall airport land utilization, it is recommended that Runway 12/30 and the associated airspace surfaces continue to be planned based on visual approaches. Development of a daytime-only non-precision instrument approach can be accommodated with in the existing airfield development and airspace configuration. A detailed airspace (TERPS) assessment would need to be conducted by the FAA to determine the overall feasibility of establishing an approach and the approach and visibility minimums that could be obtained. Local interest in providing on-airport weather data and pilot advisories has led the City to consider acquiring a "SupertlnicomTM" at the airport, which is designed to combine basic weather data and automated advisory information to pilots operating at uncontrolled airports. According to manufacturer data, the small SuperUnicomTM unit is installed next to the airport's wind sock. The system is programmed based on the specific runway configuration of the airport. Weather information is gathered through sensors on the wind sock pole. The information is automatically updated and alerts pilots to significant conditions such as ground fog, crosswinds, wind shear and high density altitude. It also continuously measures current weather data and balances the relative importance of each bit of information against the level of congestion on the Unicom frequency. Airport Design Standards Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular (AC) 15015300-13, Airport Design, serves as the primary reference in planning airfield facilities. FAR Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, defines airport imaginary surfaces, which are established to protect the airspace immediately surrounding a runway. The airspace and ground areas surrounding a runway should be free of obstructions (i.e., structures, parked aircraft, terrain, trees, etc.) to the greatest extent possible. FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13 groups aircraft into five categories based upon their approach speed. Categories A and B include small propeller aircraft, some smaller business jet aircraft, and some larger aircraft with approach speeds of less than 121 knots. Categories C, D, and E consist of the remaining business jets as well as larger jet and propeller aircraft generally associated with commercial and military use; these aircraft have approach speeds of 121 knots or more. The advisory circular also establishes six aircraft design groups, based on the physical size (wingspan) of the aircraft. The categories range from Airplane Design Group (ADG) I, for aircraft with wingspans of less than 49 feet, to ADG VI for the largest commercial and military aircraft. ADG I is further divided into two subcategories: runways serving "small airplanes exclusively" and runways serving aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds. Aircraft with a maximum gross takeoff weight of less than 12,500 pounds are classified as "small aircraft" by October 2005 4-9 Facility Requirements r Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report the FAA. A summary of typical aircraft and their respective design categories is presented in Table 4-3. TABLE 4-3: TYPICAL AIRCRAFT & DESIGN CATEGORIES Aircraft Airplane Design Aircraft Approach Maximum Gross Group Category Takeoff Weight (Lbs) Piper PA-28/32 Cherokee A 1 2,550 Cessna 182 A 1 2,950 Lancair Columbia 300 A 1 3,400 Cessna 206 A 1 3,600 Beechcraft Bonanza A36 A 1 3,650 Cessna 210 A 1 3,850 Beechcraft Baron 55 A 1 5,300 Socata/Aerospatiale TBM 700 A I 6,579 Piper Aerostar 602P B I 6,000 Cessna P337 Skymaster B 1 4,630 Cessna 402 B 1 6,300 Cessna 421 B 1 7,450 Cessna Citation CJ1 (CE525) B 1 10,600 Beechcraft 99 Airliner B 1 11,300 Beechcraft Super King Air 200 B II 12,500 Piper Malibu A II 4,300 Cessna Caravan 1 A 11 8,000 Pilatus PC-12 A II 9,920 Cessna Citation CJ2 (CE525A) B II 12,375 Cessna Citation Bravo (CE550) B II 14,800 Dassault Falcon 20 B 11 28,660 Learjet 60 C 1 23,100 Canadair Challenger C II 45,100 Gulfstream III C 11 69,700 Source: FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 (change 7); Jane's Aircraft Guide; aircraft manufacturer data. October 2005 4-10 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Design Aircraft The selection of the appropriate design standards for the development of airfield facilities is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft that are expected to use the airport. The most critical characteristics are the approach speed and wingspan of the design aircraft anticipated for the airport. The design aircraft is defined as the most demanding aircraft type operating at the airport with a minimum of 500 annual itinerant operations (takeoffs and landings). The 1992 Airport Layout Plan Report12 recommended that facilities at Ashland be planned based on Aircraft Approach Category B and Airplane Design Group I (B-I). The airport currently accommodates predominately Approach Category A or B and Airplane Design Group I aircraft. Most locally based aircraft and itinerant aircraft using the airport on a regular basis are classified as small aircraft, weighing less than 12,500 pounds. Although the airport currently accommodates a limited amount of ADG II activity (weather- diverted cargo/express aircraft and Sky Research Jetstream 31, Caravan aircraft), the volume of activity is thought to be well below the FAA activity threshold of 500 annual itinerant operations. As indicated earlier, upgrading the airport to meet FAA ADG II design standards is not considered highly feasible due to numerous site characteristics. Based on a review of air traffic, site considerations and prior planning recommendations, it is recommended that airport reference code (ARC) B-I (small aircraft exclusively) be selected as the appropriate planning criteria for Ashland Municipal Airport. Airfield design standards for ADG I (small) are summarized in Table 4-4, with ADG I and ADG II design standards (both including larger aircraft 12,500 pounds and above) provided for comparison. A summary of the airport's conformance with the various levels of design standards is presented in Table 4-5. As indicated in the table, Runway 12/30 meets most ADG I (small) design standards, but does not meet most ADG I or ADG II standards for Approach Category A and B aircraft. Based on the existing airfield configuration, past master plan recommendations, current airport activity, and current FAA airport planning/design guidelines the use of design standards based on Aircraft Approach Category B and Airplane Design Group I (small aircraft exclusively) is recommended for Runway 12/30 (Airport Reference Code - ARC B-1 (small). Under FAR Part 77, "utility" airspace surfaces are consistent for runways designed to accommodate with ADG I aircraft. A detailed description of the applicable airport design standards is presented later in this chapter. iz Airport Layout Plan Report for Ashland Municipal Airport (SFC Engineering, October 1992). October 2005 4-11 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-4: AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS SUMMARY (DIMENSIONS IN FEET) Runway 12/30 AG~ flft ADG 12 ADG 113 Standard Existing Conditions (small A&B Aircraft A&B Aircraft exclusively) Runway Length 3,603 3,700/4,3204 3,700/4,3204 5,500/7,0005 Runway Width 75 60 60 75 Runway Shoulder Width 10 10 10 10 Runway Safety Area Width 120 120 120 150 Runway Safety Area Length (Beyond Rwy End) varies 240 240 300 Obstacle-Free Zone Width 250 250 400 400 Object Free Area Width 250 250 400 500 Object Free Area Length (Beyond Rwy End) varies 240 240 300 Primary Surface Width 250 250 500 500 Primary Surface Length (Beyond Rwy End) 200, 200 200 200 Runway Protection Zone Length 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Runway Protection Zone Inner Width 250 250 500 500 Runway Protection Zone Outer Width 450 450 700 700 Runway Centerline to: A Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane Centerline 150/162.5 150 225 240 Aircraft Parking Area Apprx. 185' 125/1956 200/3206 250/3206 Building Restriction Line 360 251' 376' 376' Taxiway Width 30 25 25 35 Taxiway Shoulder Width 10 10 10 10 Taxiway Safety Area Width .49 49 49 79 Taxiway Object Free Area Width 89 89 89 131 Taxiway Centerline to Fixed/Movable Object Apprx. 50' 44.5 44.5 65.5 Taxilane Object Free Area Width 79 79 79 115 Taxilane Centerline to Fixed/Movable Object 39.5 39.5 39.5 39.5 1. Utility (visual) runways (Per FAR Part 77); all other dimensions reflect visual runways and runways with not lower than 3/4- statute mile approach visibility minimums (per AC 150/5300-13, Change 7). RPZ dimensions based on visual and not lower than 1-mile approach visibility minimums. 2. Utility (nonprecision instrument) runways (Per FAR Part 77); all other dimensions reflect visual runways and runways with not lower than 3/4-statute mile approach visibility minimums (per AC 150/5300-13, Change 7). RPZ dimensions based on visual and not lower than 1-mile approach visibility minimums. 3. Larger than Utility (nonprecision instrument) runways (Per FAR Part 77); all other dimensions reflect visual runways and runways with not lower than 3/4-statute mile approach visibility minimums (per AC 150/5300-13, Change 7). RPZ dimensions bases on visual and not lower than 1-mile approach visibility minimums. 4. Runway length required to accommodate 95 and 100 percent of General Aviation Fleet 12,500 pounds or less. 85 degrees F, 38-toot change in runway centerline elevation. 5. Runway length required to accommodate 75 percent large airplane fleet (60,000 pounds or less) at 60 and 90 percent useful load. 85 degrees F, 10-foot change in runway centerline elevation. 6. FAA standard assuming no parallel taxiway / Dimension based on standard parallel taxiway OFA clearance and distance to clear 10-foot aircraft tail height (typ. small single-engine) in transitional surface. 7. Distance to protect standard parallel taxiway object free area and accommodate an 18-foot structure (at the BRL) without penetrating the 7:1 Transitional Surface. October 2005 4-12 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report &A TABLE 4-5: RUNWAY 12130 CONFORMANCE WITH FAA DESIGN STANDARDS Item Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group 1 Airplane Design Group II Small Aircraft Exclusively) A & B Aircraft A & B Aircraft Runway Safety Area Yes Yes No' Runway Object Free Area No' No2 No3 Runway Obstacle Free Zone Yes No4 No4 Taxiway Safety Area Yes No5 Nos Taxiway Object Free Area Yes N05 No5 Building Restriction Line - East Yes6 Yes6 Yes6 Aircraft Parking Line - East Yes No' No' Runway Protection Zones Noe Nos Nob Runway-Parallel Taxiway Separation Yes No No Runway Width Yes Yes Yes Runway Length Nog Nolo No" Taxiway Width (Parallel) Yes Yes No 1. Road/Trees (Rwy 12) 2. Trees (west side); Aircraft parking positions located within ADG I OFA (east side). 3. Trees; mini storage buildings (west); Aircraft parking positions located within ADG II OFA (east side). 4. Parallel Taxiway within OFZ for runways serving large airplanes. 5. Existing Taxiway OFA/SA clearances meet ADG I (small) standards-runway-taxiway separation does not meet higher standards. 6. BRL depicted on 1992 ALP is 187.5 feet (west side) and 277.5 & 360 feet (varies on east side) from runway centerline. 7. Aircraft parking areas penetrate nonprecision instrument airspace (primary or transitional surfaces) and may conflict with FAA-recommended ADG I or ADG 11 parallel taxiway separations. Parallel Taxiway would also require relocation to meet ADG I or ADG 11 runway separation standard; relocation of some aircraft tiedowns also required. 8. Roads located in Runway 12 and 30 protection zones; structures within Rwy 30 departure and arrival RPZs. 9. Per FAA Runway Length Model: Existing runway length is approximately 97 percent of the FAA-recommended length required to accommodate 95% of small aircraft fleet. 10. Per FAA Runway Length Model: Existing runway length is approximately 83 percent of the FAA-recommended length required to accommodate 100% of small aircraft fleet. 11. Per FAA Runway Length Model: Existing runway length is approximately 66 percent of the FAA-recommended length required to accommodate 75% of large aircraft weighing less than 60,000# at 60% useful load. I October 2005 4-13 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Airport Design Standards Note: The airport planning criteria recommended for Runway 12130 at Ashland Municipal Airport are based on the following assumptions: Visual runways and runways with not lower than 3/4 statute mile visibility minimums. Runway protection zones (RPZ) are based on a visibility standard of "visual and not lower than I - mile" for runways expected to serve small aircraft exclusively. All references to the "standards" are based on these approach visibility assumptions, unless otherwise noted. (Per FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13, change 7). Airport Design Standards are based on Airport Reference Code (ARC) B-I (small). The ultimate FAR Part 77 airspace planning criteria is based on "utility" runways with visual approaches. Runway Safety Area (RSA) The FAA defines runway safety area (RSA) as "A defined surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from the runway." Runway safety areas are most commonly used by aircraft that inadvertently leave (or miss) the runway environment during landing or takeoff. By FAA design standard, the RSA "shall be: (1) cleared and graded and have no potentially hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations; (2) drained by grading or storm sewers to prevent water accumulation; (3) capable, under dry conditions, of supporting snow removal equipment, aircraft rescue and firefighting equipment, and the occasional passage of aircraft without causing structural, damage to the aircraft; and (4) free of objects, except for objects that need to be located in the runway safety area because of their function. Objects higher than 3 inches above grade should be constructed on low impact resistant supports (frangible mounted structures) of the lowest practical height with the frangible point no higher than 3 inches. Other objects such as manholes, should be constructed at grade. In no case should their height exceed 3 inches. " October 2005 4-14 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report FLA The recommended transverse grade for the lateral RSA ranges between 11/2 and 5 percent from runway shoulder edges. The recommended longitudinal grade for the first 200 feet of extended RSA beyond the runway end is 0 to 3 percent. The remainder of the RSA must remain below the runway approach surface slope. The maximum negative grade is 5 percent. Limits on longitudinal grade changes are plus or minus 2 percent per 100 feet within the RSA. The airport sponsor should regularly clear the RSA of brush or other debris and periodically grade and compact the RSA to maintain FAA standards. The RSA along the sides and beyond the ends of Runway 12/30 appears to be cleared, graded and free of physical obstructions, within the ADG I (small) dimensions. The new runway edge lights and threshold lights being installed in 2004 (located within the RSA) will be mounted on frangible supports (breakable coupling and disconnect plug). Any future lighting (such as PAPI) located within the RSA will also need to meet the FAA frangibility standard. Runway Object Free Area (OFA) Runway object free areas (OFA) are two dimensional surfaces intended to be clear of ground objects that protrude above the runway safety area edge elevation. Obstructions within the OFA may interfere with aircraft flight in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The FAA defines the OFA clearing standard: "The OFA clearing standard requires clearing the OFA of above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation. Except where precluded by other clearing standards, it is acceptable to place objects that need to be located in the OFA for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes and to taxi and hold aircraft in the OFA. Objects non- essential for air navigation or aircraft ground maneuvering purposes are not to be placed in the OFA. This includes parked airplanes and agricultural operations. " All aircraft parking positions are located outside the OFA. A short section of private road located beyond the end of Runway 12 is located in the outer (north) corner of the OFA. In addition, two obstructions located within the runway primary surface are also located within the OFA. The airspace plan will recommend removal of the primary surface penetrations (trees) and relocation of the road to address the obstructions, which will also clear the OFA. The City should periodically inspect the OFA and remove any objects that protrude into the OFA, particularly brush or trees. October 2005 4-15 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ) The OFZ is a plane of clear airspace extending upward to a height of 150 feet above runway elevation, which coincides with the FAR Part 77 horizontal surface elevation. The FAA defines the following clearing standard for the OFZ: "The OFZ clearing standard precludes taxiing and parked airplanes and object penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that need to located in the OFZ because of their function. " The OFZ may include the Runway OFZ, the Inner-approach OFZ (for runways with approach lighting systems), and the Inner-transitional OFZ (for runways with lower than 3/4-statute mile approach visibility minimums. For Ashland Municipal Airport, only the Runway OFZ is required based on runway configuration and planned approach capabilities. The FAA defines the Runway OFZ as: "The runway OFZ is a defined volume of airspace centered above the runway centerline. The runway OFZ is the airspace above a surface whose elevation at any point is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The runway OFZ extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. " The standard OFZ for runways serving small aircraft is 250 feet wide. This dimension corresponds with the visual approaches for the existing runway and would accommodate non- precision instrument approaches (not lower than 3/ mile approach visibility minimums). The OFZ for Runway 12/30 appears to be free of physical obstructions and meets the small aircraft dimensional standards. The exit taxiways connecting to the runway have aircraft hold lines located 125 feet from runway centerline, which marks the outer edge of the existing OFZ boundary. The holding area at the end of Runway 12 has adequate space to allow aircraft to remain clear of the OF'Z. Taxiway/Taxilane Safety Area The taxiways at Ashland Municipal Airport include a full-length parallel taxiway/taxilane and several access taxiways. The taxiways and taxilanes vary in width (20 to 30 feet) but appear to meet the dimensional standard for ADG I safety areas. The taxiway/taxilane safety areas should be regularly cleared of brush or other debris and periodically graded and compacted to maintain FAA standards. y October 2005 4-16 Facility Requirements I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Taxiway/Taxilane Object Free Area The ADG I taxiway OFA width is 89 feet. All fixture buildings and parked aircraft located along existing/planned taxiways should have a minimum setback (building restriction line and/or aircraft parking line) of at least 45.5 feet, which corresponds to the outer edge of the ADG I taxiway OFA (39.5 feet for the taxilane OFA). The taxi ways/taxi Ianes on the airport appear to meet the dimensional standard for ADG I. A parallel taxilane is located on the southern 1,000 feet of the main apron. The ADG I taxilane object free area is 79 feet; the nearest tiedown positions are located to meet this clearance standard. It has been reported by local pilots that the visual line of sight on the T-hangar access taxiway (located immediately north of the Sky Research hangar) is limited by both the taxiway configuration (90-degree turn) and the Sky hangar. Aircraft taxiing in opposite directions along this taxiway have minimal visual clearance around the hangar when they approach the curve. Options should be considered to add an aircraft holding/bypass area near this corner to allow aircraft to pass without leaving the paved surface. Building Restriction Line (BRL) The 1992 Airport Layout Plan (ALP) depicts a 277.5-foot and 360-foot building restriction line (BRL) on the east side of Runway 12/30. The 360-foot east BRL is located along the entire length of the existing apron and future apron expansion; the 277.5-foot BRL extends along the northeast edge of the airport, which generally coincides with the airport property line. The 1992 ALP did not identify any existing or future airport buildings on the west side of the runway. The east 360-foot BRL will accommodate a 33-foot high building without penetrating the utility/visual runway transitional surface and is clear of the ADG I (small) taxiway object free area. The nearest buildings to Runway 12/30 are located along the rear edge of the main apron, approximately 360 feet from runway centerline. Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) The FAA provides the following definition for runway protection zones (RPZ): "The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is achieved through airport owner control over RPZs. Such control includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Control is preferably exercised through the acquisition of property interest in the RPZ. The RPZ is trapezoidal in October 2005 4-17 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report shape and centered about the extended runway centerline. The RPZ begins 200 feet beyond the end of the area useable for takeoff or landing. " The RPZ dimensions recommended for Runways 12 and 30 are based on "small aircraft exclusively" with approach visibility minimums "visual and. not lower than 1-mile." The 1992 ALP depicted RPZs that are consistent with this facility classification and use. As noted above, RPZs with buildings, roadways, or other items do not fully comply with FAA standards. A review of recent aerial photography for Ashland Municipal Airport identified roadways within both RPZs for Runway 12/30. Runway 30 has a 190-foot displaced threshold to improve obstruction clearance for landing aircraft over trees, structures and vehicles traveling on Dead Indian Memorial Road. A runway end with a displaced threshold has both an arrival RPZ (corresponding to the displaced threshold) and a departure RPZ (beginning 200 feet beyond the runway end). Several off-airport structures are located within the Runway 30 arrival and departure RPZ. The 1992 ALP recommended relocating the private roadway located immediately beyond Runway 12 to improve obstruction clearance. In the event that the road realignment is not pursued, a displacement of the Runway 12 threshold or use of an obstacle clearance approach (OCA) should be defined. If the runway threshold is displaced, an arrival RPZ will also be required. Additional information about the potential use of an OCA on Runway 12 will be provided in the evaluation of facility development alternatives. It is recognized that realigning major surface roads routes located within the RPZs may not be highly feasible. However, where possible, the City/County should discourage development within the RPZs (particularly structures) that is inconsistent with FAA standards. Aircraft Parking Line (APL) The existing aircraft parking areas at the airport are located adjacent to the parallel taxiway/taxilane, approximately 190 to 200 feet from the runway centerline. The 1992 Airport Layout Plan depicts a "future" aircraft parking line (APL) that is 210 feet from runway centerline. If the existing taxi way/taxi lane configuration is maintained, the APL should be revised on the ALP to reflect the corresponding taxi way/taxi lane OFA clearances. The 210-foot section of APL is appropriate to protect the parallel taxiway, however, the APL along the southern portion of the apron would need to be adjusted (inward) to preserve the outer parking positions and to protect the taxilane OFA. Tail heights of 10 feet or less are typical of most light aircraft, although business aircraft often have tail heights ranging from 10 to 25 feet. The section of the APL located adjacent to the south October 2005 4-18 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 11 M4,1 end of the apron (190 feet) would accommodate an aircraft with a 9-foot tail height without penetrating the visual transitional surface. A 210-foot APL would accommodate an aircraft with a 12-foot tail height without penetrating the visual transitional surface. The distances also accommodate standard ADG I (small) parallel taxiway or taxilane separations. Parking locations for larger aircraft should be adjusted accordingly from the APL based on the typical tail height. For example an aircraft with a 15-foot tail height would need to be parked approximately 230 feet from the runway centerline to avoid penetrating the transitional surface. Runway-Parallel Taxiway Separation Runway 12/30 is served by a full-length parallel taxiway/taxilane with a separation of 150 feet (southern taxilane section) and 162.5 feet (taxiway section), which meets the ADG I (small aircraft exclusively) design standard of 150 feet. FAR PART 77 SURFACES Airspace planning for U.S. airports is defined by Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. FAR Part 77 defines imaginary surfaces (airspace) to be protected surrounding airports. Figure 4-2 on the following page illustrates plan and isometric views of the Part 77 surfaces. The 1992 Airport Airspace Plan 13 depicted airspace surfaces that were consistent with visual approach capabilities and utility runways based on an existing/ultimate runway length. For Runway 12/30, the use of "utility" standards based on future visual approach capabilities (per FAR Part 77) is appropriate for defining long-term airspace planning for Ashland Municipal Airport. As noted earlier, this airspace structure is also compatible with development of non- precision instrument approaches with circling procedures (daytime only use). Large areas of terrain penetration were identified within the airspace surfaces, southwest, south, east and north of the runway. Table 4-6 summarizes FAR Part 77 standards with the corresponding runway type and approach capability. 13 Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan; Airport Airspace Plan (Drawing 2), SFC Engineering (May, 1994) October 2005 4-19 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE --i A o o , ,A T4 i ..~-04-Q'I •1 T.1 T• o - 01 C-. A 7.1 1 TI 17 HORIZONTAL SURFACE. 130 FEET ABOVE ESTABLfSMEO AIRPORT i ELEVATION- o 0 0 e 20.1 CONICAL SURFACE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (FEET) DIM ITEM VISUAL IaAtWAY INSTRON-PRMSION RULENT RVMWAY PRECISION INSTRUmENT A e A C O RUNWAY WIDTH OF PRIMARY SURFACE AND A APPROACH SURFACE WIDTH AT LSO SOO 300 300 t,000. 1,000 INNER END, 5 000 a RAOfUS OF HORIZONTAL SURFACE S 00 3,000 3,000 10,000 10,000 10 000 VISUAN NON- PRECISION 000 APPROMST UM NT APPROACH WSTRUM~ A A 0 APPROAGN C APPROACH SURFACE WIDTH AT ENO 1,250 2,000 3,500 4,000 14.000 D APPROACH SURFACE LENGTH 5,000 5,000 5.000 10,000 10,000 • I E APPROACH SLOPE 20.1 20-1 20•I 34.1 34.1 • 1 A- UTILITY RUNWAYS / e- RUNWAYS LARGER THAN UTILITY C- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 MILE D- VISIBILITY MFNIMUMS AS LOW AS 3/4 VILE gyp- t PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH SLOPE 15 30.1 FOR INNER 10,000 FEET AND 40-1 ■OR AN ADDITIONAL 40,000 FEET o CONICAL SURFACE PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH VISUAL OR NON PRECISION APPROACH 2 C (SLOPE-E) s0 pop ~ „oRlzowTaL wRrla ~ 170•lAOVE ESil~lillCO AIRPORT ELEVATION Ado / .y RUNWAY CENTERLINES A ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECTION A-A 6 77°25 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES DESIGNED BY: DM FIGURE CENTURY WEST %fiNGINEERING CORPORATION 6650 S.W, Redwood Lane, Su4te 300 DRAWN BY: JLM FAR PART 77 DIAGRAM Portland, A_2 503-419-2130 ph.- ne 4 503-639-2710 fax L•~L SCALE: NITS www.mnturywestx- CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report PI& TABLE 4-6: FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE SURFACES ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Item utility visual Width of Primary Surface 250 feet Radius of Horizontal Surface 5,000 feet Approach Surface Width at End 1,250 feet Approach Surface Length 5,000 feet Approach Slope 20:1 1. Utility runways are designed for aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Approach Surfaces Runway approach surfaces extend outward and upward from each end of the primary surface, along the extended runway centerline. As noted earlier, the dimensions and slope of approach surfaces are determined by the type of aircraft intended to use the runway and most demanding approach planned for the runway. The 1992 Airspace Plan depicted future utility (visual) runway approach surfaces with slopes of 20:1. Three obstructions were identified within the 20:1 approach surfaces for Runway 30 and one obstruction was identified in the Runway 12 approach. Dead Indian Memorial Road passes under the Runway 30 approach surface, approximately 630 feet from the runway end; vehicles traveling on the roadway penetrate the 20:1 approach surface by approximately 15 feet. Trees located approximately 1,141 feet from the runway end were identified as the controlling obstruction for Runway 30. The airspace plan recommended trimming/removing the trees to eliminate the obstruction. A building located approximately 900 feet from the end of Runway 30 was also identified as an obstruction. Any structures penetrating FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces should be marked with obstruction lighting. A private road crosses the Runway 12 approach surface approximately 230 feet from the runway end; vehicles traveling on the roadway penetrate the 20:1 approach surface by 10 feet. The 1994 ALP recommended realigning the private road to improve obstruction clearance in the Runway 12 approach. October 2005 4-21 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Primary Surface The primary surface is a rectangular plane of airspace, which rests on the runway (at centerline elevation) and extends 200 feet beyond the runway end. The primary surface should be free of any penetrations, except items with locations fixed by function (i.e., VASI, runway or taxiway edge lights, etc.). The primary surface end connects to the inner portion of the runway approach surface. The recommended primary surface for Runway 12/30 is based on utility/visual runway standards (250 feet wide). It appears that the primary surface is generally free of obstructions, with the exception of small areas near the end of Runway 30 (both sides) and a small area on the west side of Runway 12 (the southern 700 feet The runway's close proximity to the adjacent creeks may prevent a full-width primary surface that is free of obstructions (stream embankments, trees, brush, etc.); however the primary surface should be maintained to best clearance standard possible. Transitional Surface The transitional surface is located at the outer edge of the primary surface, represented by a plane of airspace that rises perpendicularly at a slope of 7 to 1, until reaching an elevation 150 feet above runway elevation. This surface should be free of obstructions (i.e., parked aircraft, structures, trees, etc.). The 1992 Airspace Plan depicted numerous transitional surface penetrations--mostly trees located along the two creeks that border both sides of the runway. City staff indicates that most trees located within airport property have been removed or lowered; however, many of the trees located off airport property remain in place. During a recent visual inspection of the airport several large trees were observed to penetrate the transitional surfaces. The residence located nearest the runway on the east side was identified as a transitional surface obstruction on the 1992 airspace plan. Any structures penetrating FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces should be marked with obstruction lighting. Horizontal Surface The horizontal surface is a flat plane of airspace located 150 feet above runway elevation. Based on the "utility" runway designation, the outer boundary of the Runway 12/30 horizontal surface is defined by two 5,000-foot radii, which extend from the runway ends (the intersection point of October 2005 4-22 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report the extended runway centerline, the outer edge of primary surface, and the inner edge of the approach surface). The outer points of the radii for each runway are connected to form an oval, which is defined as the horizontal surface. The 1992 Airspace Plan depicted areas of terrain penetration within the horizontal surface, southwest, south, east and north of the runway. The elevation of the horizontal surface is based on the published elevation of the airport (1,885 feet MSL), plus 150 feet (2,035 feet). Conical Surface The conical surface is an outer band of airspace, which abuts the horizontal surface. The conical surface begins at the elevation of the horizontal surface and extends outward 4,000 feet at a slope of 20:1. The top elevation of the conical surface is 200 feet above the horizontal surface and 350 feet above airport elevation. Large areas of terrain penetration were identified within the conical surface on the 1992 Airspace Plan southwest, south, east and north of the runway. A radio tower is also identified as an obstruction near the outer edge of the conical surface, southwest of the runway, at an elevation of 2,423 feet AiRSIDE REQUIREMENTS Airside facilities are those directly related to the arrival and departure and movement of aircraft: • Runways • Taxiways • Airfield Instrumentation and Lighting Runways The adequacy of the existing runway system at Ashland Municipal Airport was analyzed from a number of perspectives including runway orientation, airfield capacity, runway length, and pavement strength. Runway Orientation The orientation of runways for takeoff and landing operations is primarily a function of wind velocity and direction, combined with the ability of aircraft to operate under adverse wind conditions. When landing and taking off, aircraft are able to maneuver on a runway as long as Y October 2005 4-23 Facility Requirements j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report the wind component perpendicular to the aircraft's direction of travel (defined as crosswind) is not excessive. For runway planning and design, a crosswind component is considered excessive at 12 miles per hour for smaller aircraft (gross takeoff weight 12,500 pounds or less) and 15 miles per hour for larger aircraft. FAA planning standards indicate that an airport should be planned with the capability to operate under allowable wind conditions at least 95 percent of the time. The 1992 ALP included a wind rose that was based on observations recorded at Medford-Jackson County Airport between 1948 and 1978. The 1992 master plan states "...detailed wind data for Ashland is not currently available. The previous master plan (1983) utilized Medford wind data to approximate coverage at Ashland. " Wind coverage on Runway 12/30 is considered to be adequate (estimated at approximately 95 percent at 12 miles per hour and 99.5 percent at 15 miles per hour). Runway Length Runway length requirements are based primarily upon airport elevation, mean maximum daily temperature of the hottest month, runway gradient, and the critical aircraft type expected to use the runway. A summary of FAA-recommended runway lengths for a variety of aircraft types and load configurations are described in Table 4-7. Runway 12/30 accommodates predominantly small aircraft (less than 12,500 pounds) operations. Since the airport accommodates limited activity from aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, the current evaluation of runway length requirements should be based on the FAA's model for "small airplanes." A summary of the typical runway length requirements for large aircraft weighing less than 60,000 pounds and some specific smaller business jets is also provided for comparison. Based on local conditions and the methodology outlined in AC 150/5325-4A, Runway 12/30 can currently accommodate approximately 92 percent of the small airplane fleet under the conditions common during a typical summer day in Ashland. A runway length of 3,700 feet is required to accommodate 95 percent of small airplanes (12,500 pounds or less maximum gross takeoff weight) with 10 or less passenger seats; a length of 4,320 feet would be required to accommodate 100 percent of small airplanes, which would include most business class twin-engine piston, turboprop and light jets weighing less than 12,500 pounds. October 2005 4-24 Facility Requirements j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-7: FAA-RECOMMENDED RUNWAY LENGTHS (From FAA Computer Model) Runway Length Parameters for Ashland Municipal Airport • Airport Elevation: 1,885 feet MSL • Mean Max Temperature in Hottest Month: 85 F • Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation: 38 feet • Existing Runway Length: 3,603 feet Small Airplanes with less than 10 seats 75 percent of these airplanes 3,090 feet 95 percent of these airplanes 3,700 feet 100 percent of these airplanes 4,320 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more seats 4,550 feet Large Airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these airplanes at 60 percent useful load 5,500 feet 75 percent of these airplanes at 90 percent useful load 7,000 feet 100 percent of these airplanes at 60 percent useful load 6,150 feet 100 percent of these airplanes at 90 percent useful load 8,960 feet Selected Aircraft Types: Cessna Citation CJI (6-7 passengers / 1 crew 10,600# MGW) 5,030 feet** Cessna Citation CJ2 (6-7 passengers / 1 crew 12,375# MGW) 4,350 feet** Cessna Citation Bravo (7-11 passengers 12 crew 14,800# MGW) 4,730 feet** Takeoff distances based on maximum gross weight and conditions listed above, passenger and/or fuel loads may be reduced based on aircraft operating weight limits. 1. FAR Part 25 Balanced Field Length at maximum certificated takeoff weight (accelerated/stop distance). Cessna Citation runway length requirements based on 15 degrees flaps, 86 degrees F, MGTw, distance to 35 feet above the runway; data provided by manufacturer (Cessna Citation Flight Planning Guides). The most recent (1992) Airport Layout Plan does not recommend an increase in runway length. This represented a significant change from the previous (1982) ALP that recommended a runway length of 4,300 feet. The issues associated with runway extension were extensively discussed by staff, the planning advisory committee and other members of the community during the last master plan update. Based on concerns over property acquisition, noise, and the potential for attracting larger aircraft, the issue was ultimately dropped from consideration and was not maintained as a recommendation on the 1992 ALP. The practical limitations of the airfield site October 2005 4-25 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report also limit runway expansion beyond its current length. Barring a change in development priorities, it is recommended that the existing runway length (3,603) be maintained. The existing width of Runway 12/30 is 75 feet, which exceeds the ADG I standard (60 feet) and meets the ADG II standard (75 feet), although no change in width is recommended. The existing runway width will accommodate both existing and forecast air traffic through the twenty year planning period. Airfield Pavement According to the data contained in the 2002 pavement condition report,14 Ashland Municipal Airport pavements ranged from "failed" to "excellent." Table 4-8 summarizes the five-year maintenance program recommended for Ashland Municipal Airport and additional pavement maintenance items anticipated during the current twenty-year planning period. The rate of deterioration of airfield pavements increases significantly as they age. A regular maintenance program of vegetation control, crackfilling, and sealcoating is recommended to extend the useful life of all airfield pavements. For planning purposes, it is assumed that the useful life of most airfield pavements is approximately 20 years; however, the useful life can be significantly reduced if routine maintenance is performed on a less frequent basis. In some cases, the intervals between asphalt overlays or reconstruction can exceed 20 years depending on level and type of use, weather conditions and design of the pavement and underlying base course. Vegetation removal and crackfilling should be performed annually; sealcoats should be applied on 5- or 6-year intervals. It was noted in the inventory chapter that some of the pavement plan's recommended 5-year projects have been completed (or are now underway) since the 2002 inspection including a slurry seal on the runway and overlay/reconstruction on the main apron. 14 Pavement Consultants Inc. (11/2002 inspection). October 2005 4-26 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-8: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED AIRFIELD PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE Other Recommended Pavement Section 5-Year Recommended Maintenance Maintenance During 20- Year Planning Period' Mill & Overlay (2005) Runway 12/30 (slurry seal applied in 2003; mill/overlay Slurry Seal (2011) deferred) Slurry Seal (2017) Reconstruct (2003): Southern 190' (overlay of Slurry Seal (2023) this section com feted in 2004 _ Overlay (2006) Parallel Taxiway Slurry Seal (2003) (deferred) Slurry Seal (2010) Slurry Seal (2015) Slur Seal 2020 Slurry Seal (2007) Slurry Seal (2010) Main Apron (South Section) Slurry Seal (2016) (Overlay completed in 2004) Slur Seal 2022 Overlay (2004) Slurry Seal (2010) Main Apron (Center Section) Slurry Seal (2016) (Overlay completed in 2004) Slur Seal 2022 Main Apron (North-Center Reconstruct (2004) Slurry Seal (2010) Section) (Reconstruct completed in 2004) Slurry Seal (2016) Slur Seal 2022 Slurry Seal (2013) Main Apron (North Section) Slurry Seal (2003) (deferred) Slurry Sea( (2018) Overlay 2015 South T-Hangar Slurry Seal (2010) Apron/Taxilanes Slurry Seal (2003) (deferred) Overlay (2015) Slur Seal 2021 North Hangar Slurry Seal (2010) NoTath Ha/Taxilanes Slurry Seal (2003) (deferred) Overlay (2015) Slur Seal 2021 1. The dates identified for long-term pavement maintenance assume that all deferred 5-year maintenance recommended in Years 1 and 2 (2003-2004), will be completed by 2006 with all subsequent schedules based on 5 year intervals for slurry seals and rehabilitation timing based on 2002 PCI ratings. Runway 12/30 The 2002 PCI report rates the runway "very good," with the exception of the southern 190-foot displaced threshold section, which was rated "poor." The report indicates that without the recommended maintenance, the runway rating will decline to "fair" and the southern section would be in "very poor" condition by 2012. The PCI report recommended a milling and overlay for the main section of the runway in Year 3 (2005). A reconstruct of southern 190-foot (displaced threshold) was recommended in Year 1 (2003). As noted earlier, the runway was sealcoated in 2003, which will allow the previously recommended milling and overlay project to i October 2005 4-27 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report be deferred for a limited time. The 2004 pavement rehabilitation project included an asphalt overlay on the south end of the runway (eastern half only - approximately 350 feet). The existing published pavement strength of 15,000 pounds (single wheel) is adequate to accommodate regular operations with all small aircraft. The FAA standard pavement strength of runways designed to accommodate small aircraft exclusively is 12,500 pounds for aircraft with single wheel landing gear configurations. Parallel Taxiway The 2002 PCI report rates the parallel taxiway as "excellent" (center section) and "good" (north section). The report indicates that without the recommended maintenance, the taxiway rating will decline to "good" by 2012. The PCI report recommended a slurry seal for the entire parallel taxiway in Year 1 (2004). According to historic pavement data, the existing parallel taxiway surface was applied in 1984 (north section) and 1989 (center section); based on normal useful life, it is anticipated that the entire parallel taxiway will require an asphalt overlay within the next five years. Aircraft Aprons The 2002 PCT report rates the four sections of main apron pavement ranging from "failed" to "excellent." The PCI report recommended slurry seals for the southern (Year 5) and northern (Year 1) apron sections, with reconstruction or overlay recommended for the center sections of the main apron (Year 2). The 2004 pavement rehabilitation project included work on the southern and south-center sections of the apron (asphalt overlay) and the north-center section (reconstructed). Hangar Taxiway /~ilanes In the 2002 PCI report, the hangar taxiway/taxilane pavements ranged from "very good" to "excellent." The PCI report recommended slurry seals for all of the hangar taxi way/taxi] anes in year 1 (2003). Airfield Capacity The capacity of a single runway with a parallel taxiway typically ranges between 60 to 90 operations per hour during visual flight rules (VFR) conditions. The existing runway-taxiway configuration provides efficient movement for aircraft and is expected to remain well below capacity during the twenty-year planning period based on forecast demand. October 2005 4-28 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Taxiways Runway 12/30 is served by a full-length parallel taxi way/taxi lane on the east side. As noted earlier, the existing runway-taxiway separation meets ADG I (small) standards. The width of the parallel taxiway is 30 feet, which exceeds the ADG I standard of 25 feet. The aircraft holding area located at the Runway 12 end on the east parallel taxiway allows pre- departure aircraft checks and run-ups to be conducted without blocking taxiway access to the runway for other aircraft. The taxilane located adjacent to the Runway 30 threshold also allows pre-takeoff checks, although the clearance between the adjacent aircraft parking positions is minimal. Airfield Instrumentation, Lighting and Marking Runway 12/30 has medium-intensity runway edge lighting (MIRL), standard for general aviation runways. Runways 12 and 30 are equipped with visual approach slope indicators (VASI). Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) is the primary visual guidance system currently used at general aviation airports. Replacement of the VAST units should be expected during the current twenty-year planning period as the VASI units reach the end of their useful life or replacement parts become more difficult to obtain. Runway 30 is equipped with runway end identifier lights (REILS). REILs consist of two sequenced strobes that provide rapid and positive identification at the approach end of the runway. REILs improve utilization of the runway during nighttime and poor visibility condition and are recommended for instrument runways without approach lights. A REIL would also be recommended for Runway 12 to improve safety for landing in conjunction with development of an instrument approach, particularly if a circle-to-land procedure is developed. The parallel taxiway has edge reflectors. Based on the relatively low level of nighttime operations, it is anticipated that edge lighting will not be required. Overhead lighting is available in most aircraft hangar and apron areas. Additional flood lighting is recommended for all expanded operations areas for improved utilization and security. Runway 12/30 has basic runway markings (white runway numbers, centerline stripe, displaced threshold), which are appropriate for current and anticipated use. Recommended taxiway markings consist of yellow centerline stripes and aircraft hold lines located at each taxilane connection to the parallel taxiway and at each exit taxiway connection between the runway and parallel taxiway. October 2005 4-29 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report On-Field Weather Data The airport does not have automated weather observation system (AWOS/ASOS) or 24-hour human observation. An AWOS would provide pilots with on-site weather information and would also enable the airport to accommodate aircraft licensed under FAR Part 135 (air taxi/charter) for future instrument approaches, if developed for the airport. Even as a VFR airport, Ashland's location on north edge of the Siskiyou Mountains combined with the localized ground fog that is common in Medford creates a need for reliable local weather data for a potentially wide range of users. If supported, an AWOS/ASOS site should be identified on the airport that meets the system installation criteria (required clearances, etc.). As noted earlier, the City is currently considering acquiring a SuperUnicomFm, or similar system that provides basic weather data and pilot advisory information. Although this type of system does not normally provide certified weather data, the acquisition costs are significantly lower and installation is relatively simple. LANDSIDE FACILITIES The purpose of this section is to determine the space requirements during the planning period for landside facilities. The following types of facilities are associated with landside aviation operations areas: • Hangars • Aircraft Parking and Tiedown Apron • Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Facilities Hangars In Spring 2005, Ashland Municipal Airport had 18 hangars including 4 T-hangars (42 spaces); 12 small/medium conventional hangars; and 2 large commercial hangars (Skinner Aviation and Sky Research). It is estimated that the 17 hangars have capacity of approximately 72 aircraft, which represents about 80 percent of the estimated 89 based aircraft. Based on the interest in developing additional hangar space at the airport, it is anticipated that the percentage of based aircraft stored in hangars will increase during the current planning period. The recently constructed 14-unit T-hangar is expected to attract new aircraft from other airports and accommodate locally based aircraft stored in tiedowns. October 2005 4-30 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report For planning purposes, it is estimated that the percentage of the airport's locally based aircraft stored in hangars will be maintained at approximately 80 percent during the current planning period. It is anticipated that the level of hangar utilization will reflect both newly arriving aircraft and aircraft currently located at the airport (parked on tiedown aprons). The rate of hangar utilization assumed in this facility requirements evaluation is based on the level of interest expressed by local pilots in having new hangar space constructed at the airport. It is also assn ned that all existing hangar space is committed and future demand will need to be met through new construction. A planning standard of 1,500 square feet per based aircraft stored in hangars is used to project gross space requirements. As indicated in the aviation activity forecasts, the number of based aircraft at Ashland Municipal Airport is projected to increase by 36 aircraft during the twenty- year planning period, although demand for hangars will also be partially driven by existing aircraft. Based on projected hangar utilization levels, long-term demand for new hangar space hangars is estimated to be 42 spaces, or approximately 63,000 square feet. The projected hangar needs are presented in Table 4-9. F .R ..h a yv_ -s00 0 00! M October 2005 4-31 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Individual aircraft owners needs vary and demand can be influenced by a wide range of factors, often beyond the control of an airport. For this reason, it is recommended that an additional hangar development reserve be identified to accommodate any unanticipated demand. Reserves should be established to accommodate a combination of conventional hangars and T-hangars. Aircraft Parking and Tiedown Apron Aircraft parking apron should be provided for locally based aircraft that are not stored in hangars and for transient aircraft visiting the airport. The existing aircraft apron has approximately 77 light aircraft tiedowns and 3 larger aircraft parking positions. During recent airport visits, 25 to 40 aircraft have typically been observed parked on the aprons. The estimated 40 percent of locally based aircraft currently parked on an apron would account for approximately 35 aircraft, with the remaining aircraft believed to be transient. As noted earlier, it is anticipated that as the percentage of based aircraft stored in hangars at the airport increases the percentage of aircraft parked on the apron will decrease. Based on the assumption that locally based aircraft apron parking demand will gradually decline from 40 percent to 20 percent during the planning period, the long-term forecast of 125 based aircraft will require 25 local tiedown positions. However, since the projections of demand are dependent on the availability of new hangar space, which cannot be assured, it would be appropriate to maintain enough parking to account for changes in activity patterns. The combined demand for locally based and itinerant parking can be monitored to determine when demand for additional parking capacity becomes sufficient to warrant apron expansion. Locally based aircraft tiedowns are planned at 300 square yards per position. FAA Advisory Circular 15015300-13 suggests a methodology by which itinerant parking requirements can be determined from knowledge of busy-day operations. At Ashland Municipal Airport, the demand for itinerant parking spaces was estimated based on 30 percent of busy day itinerant operations (30% of busy day itinerant operations divided by two, to identify peak parking demand). By the end of the twenty-year planning period, itinerant parking requirements are estimated to be 16 light aircraft tiedowns. The FAA planning criterion of 360 square yards per itinerant aircraft was applied to the number itinerant spaces to determine future itinerant ramp requirements. In addition to light aircraft parking positions, the airport accommodates itinerant business aircraft. Initially, two parking (drive through) spaces capable of accommodating a typical business aircraft would be adequate to accommodate periodic demand. The business aircraft parking should be located near the FBO to enable convenient passenger loading/unloading and access to fueling and other services. i October 2005 4-32 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The aircraft parking area requirements are summarized in Table 4-9. As noted in Table 4-9, the existing parking capacity of the apron exceeds projected demand. However, the narrow configuration of the existing apron and the potential development of additional hangars along the back edge may eliminate several existing tiedowns. In addition, any reconfigurations on the existing apron to accommodate designated air cargo or helicopter parking areas may reduce the number of light aircraft tiedowns available. As with aircraft hangars, reserve areas should be identified to accommodate unanticipated demands for aircraft parking, which may exceed current projections. A development reserve area equal to 50 percent of the 20-year parking demand will provide a conservative planning guideline to accommodate unanticipated demand, changes in existing apron configurations, and demand beyond the current planning period. The location and configuration of the development reserves will be addressed in the alternatives analysis. Air Cargo Aircraft Parking As noted earlier, Ashland occasionally accommodates air cargo/express activity when aircraft are unable to land in Medford fog conditions. Although the demand is intermittent, when conditions prevent landing at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, several single-engine and multi- engine turboprop aircraft typically divert to Ashland during the normal morning or afternoon delivery or pick-up schedules for express packages. The parking demand typically varies between one and five aircraft, depending on the amount of time spent on the ground and the individual aircraft flight schedules. To accommodate this demand, the airport should have a designated parking area for these aircraft that provides convenient aircraft and ground support vehicle access. Since the demand is only occasional, these parking positions could also be used by the FBO to accommodate other itinerant aircraft parking; the aircraft could be quickly moved on days when Medford weather conditions were marginal. Initially, three designated parking positions would be adequate to accommodate most demand, with other space reserved for temporary overflow demand. The parking positions should be configured to allow powered drive-through (taxiing) with adequate clearance between aircraft to allow ground service vehicles to park adjacent to the aircraft for loading/unloading. J October 2005 4-33 Facility Requirements II Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-9: APRON AND HANGAR FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Item Base Year 2009 2014 2019 2024 (2003/04) Based Aircraft (Forecast) 89 103 109 117 125 Aircraft Parking Apron (Existing Facilities) Light Aircraft Tiedowns 72 Larger Aircraft Parking 2 Total Apron Area 34,880 sy Projected Needs (Demand)' Itinerant Aircraft Parking 22 spaces / 24 spaces / 25 spaces / 27 spaces / (@ 360 SY each) 7,920 sy 8,640 sy 9,000 sy 9,720 sy Locally-Based Tiedowns 31 spaces / 27 spaces / 23 spaces / 25 spaces / (@ 300 SY each) 9,300 sy 8,100 sy 6,900 sy 7,500 sy Business Aircraft Parking 2 spaces / 2 spaces / 2 spaces / 3 spaces / Demand (@ 625 SY each) 1,250 sy 1,250 sy 1,250 sy 1,875 sy Cargo Aircraft Parking Spaces2 3 spaces / 3 spaces / 3 spaces / 3 spaces / (@ 700 SY each) 2,100 sy 2,100 sy 2,100 sy 2,100 sy Itinerant Helicopter Parking 2 spaces / 2 spaces / 2 spaces / 3 spaces / (@ 1,200 SY each) 2,400 sy 2,400 sy 2,400 sy 3,600 sy Total Apron Needs 60 spaces 58 spaces 55 spaces 61 spaces 22,970 SY 22,490 SY 21,650 SY 24,795 SY Aircraft Hangars (Existing Facilities) Existing Hangar Spaces 72 spaces (estimated) Projected Needs (Demand) a (New) Hangar Space Demand (c 1,500 SF per space) +14 spaces / +10 spaces / +12 spaces / +6 spaces / (Cumulative 20-year projected 21,000 sf * 15,000 sf 18,000 sf 9,000 sf demand: 42 spaces / 63, 000 SF)' 14-unit T-hangar constructed in 2004 to accommodate initial forecast hangar demand (noted in 2009) included in projected space requirements- 1. Aircraft parking demand levels identified for each forecast year represent forecast gross demand, which may be accommodated through a combination of existing and future parking areas. 2. Cargo aircraft parking demand is occasional (weather diverted flights from Medford); the parking positions would be used by other aircraft when cargo aircraft parking is not required. 3. Hangar demand levels identified for each forecast year represent the net increase above current hangar capacity. October 2005 4-34 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates * Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Helicopter Parking Ashland Municipal Airport accommodates occasional itinerant helicopter activity. It is recommended that a designated helicopter parking area be located on the apron with adequate separation from fixed wing tiedowns. Initially, it appears that two designated parking positions would be adequate to accommodate periodic demand. FBO Facilities The FBO building has an office, classroom space, restrooms, and pilot and passenger waiting areas. FBO facility requirements are driven primarily by market conditions and the particular needs of the FBO and its customers. Because future FBO facility needs are difficult to quantify, the best planning approach is to identify development reserves that could accommodate new or expanded FBO facilities. The 1992 ALP identifies the area directly adjacent (north) of the current FBO hangar as a development reserve for an expanded FBO hangar. Replacement or renovation of the existing FBO building may also be desired in the future. Although the current site has limited space for expansion, it appears to be the most centrally located site adjacent to the vehicle parking area and access road. ~i fTIM A F7 M October 2005 4-35 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Although it appears unlikely that Ashland Municipal Airport will be able to support more than one FBO during the current planning period, the airport should be capable of accommodating an additional FBO, should that interest develop. In order to meet FAA grant assurances, the airport needs to provide equal access to prospective tenants, without discrimination. However, in the event that interest in establishing a new FBO occurs, the airport's minimum standards guidelines for fixed base operators (FBO) should define the minimum services that would be required. Surface Access Requirements Surface access to the airport via Dead Indian Memorial Road appears to be adequate for the planning period. Extensions from the north access road will be required to serve new hangar and apron developments. A driveway serves the Sky Research hangar from the north end of the vehicle parking area. Other hangar areas on the airfield are accessed from internal roadways and taxilanes. The vehicle parking area adjacent to the aircraft apron has approximately 35 designated spaces, which combined with parking available adjacent to individual hangars, appears to be adequate for most user needs. However, the potential demand for employee and customer parking spaces adjacent to the Sky hangar may exceed the space currently available adjacent on the south side of their hangar. Options to expanding vehicle parking adjacent to the commercial hangar areas on the airport should be addressed in the alternatives analysis. The requirements for providing designated vehicle parking areas adjacent to hangars vary greatly at small airports. A planning standard of 0.5 to 1.0 vehicle parking spaces per based aircraft is often used to estimate parking demand levels for non-commercial hangars. Future commercial hangar developments should be planned to meet the City of Ashland's parking requirements for commercial businesses within the E-1 zone. For larger hangars, a formula based on the square footage of the building is often used to determine vehicle parking requirements. This is a common approach for establishing off-street parking in most communities. SUPPORT FACILITIES Aviation Fuel Storage As noted previously in the inventory chapter, the airport has two aboveground fuel storage tanks (10,000 and 12,000 gallons) that meet all current Oregon DEQ and EPA regulations for spill detection and containment. The 10,000-gallon tank is divided into two 5,000-gallon sections for jet fuel (Jet A) and 80/87 aviation gasoline (AVGAS). 80/87 fuel service is no longer i October 2005 4-36 Facility Requirements i j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report maintained. The FBO indicates that the tank may be modified in the future to expand jet fuel capacity, if demand increases; it would also be possible to use that section of the tank to increase 100L,L AVGAS capacity. The second tank has a capacity of 12,000-gallons of 100LL AVGAS. The airport FBO, Skinner Aviation also maintains two mobile fuel trucks (one jet fuel, one 100LL) with a capacity of approximately 1,200-0gallons each. The frequency of restocking AVGAS would be expected to increase as aircraft activity increases. The existing capacity appears to be adequate to accommodate future demand; the ability to reconfigure the 10,000-gallon tank to accommodate additional jet fuel or 100LL AVGAS provides additional flexibility. ~i.I' ~ I t3 xt ~ • Airport Utilities and Land Development Needs The developed areas of the airport have water, sanitary sewer, electrical and telephone service. The existing utilities on the airport appear to be adequate for current and projected needs, although future expansion of hangars facilities and development of additional lease areas will require extensions of electrical and water service; demand for sanitary sewer and telephone service may also occur in the new development areas, particularly for commercial or business tenants. In addition to aviation use development (hangars, aircraft parking, etc.), portions of the airport have previously been identified for development of aviation-related (non-aircraft access) uses. The 1992 ALP identified the area located near the northeast corner of the airport as future October 2005 4-37 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport -,S H LAND Airport Layout Plan Report aviation-related development. This area is physically separated from existing and proposed aircraft use areas by the north airport access road, which makes aircraft access difficult. In addition, the rising terrain creates significant development constraints that would require extensive excavation in order to develop the highest areas of terrain. Options for designating this area for future "non-aviation" development could be considered as a way to generate additional airport revenues that could support airport maintenance, operation and development of new aviation facilities. However, since the parcel was acquired with an FAA airport grant, the FAA establishes specific limits on allowable uses. Because of this limitation, the FAA has recently indicated that non-aviation uses would not be allowed, regardless of the acknowledged physical site constraints. The following excerpt is from a recent email communication with FAA regarding the area in question following an inquiry by the Consultant on acceptable land uses: David Miller, AICP, Century West Engineering: "If converting the airport land to "non- aeronautical" use is not acceptable to FAA, is it possible for the sponsor- to sell the land and have the proceeds go into the airport fund or reimburse FAA for some portion of the original grant for the land purchase?" Don Larson, FAA Seattle ADO: "...it is allowable that the sponsor could sell a portion of grant- acquired land (such as the area in question), if released by FAA, and reinvest the proceeds back into the airport. However, there would have to be a benefit to civil aviation (FAA's call) on such an action. The entire parcel was originally acquired, probably because this portion would have been an uneconomic remnant to the previous owner if it had been excluded from the purchase. For the same reason, it is questionable whether it would be marketable now, given its size, shape and lack of access from the airport (access from the airport road would not be allowed, since it and the land it's on were AIP funded, but only from Dead Indian Memorial Road). Besides, we encourage an airport to hang on to its property, even that which may not be able to generate revenue. As I said in my comments letter, the airport could still use it for admin or maintenance facilities, and maybe even for aviation- related businesses that don't require direct airfield access. " It is recognized that the market potential of these areas will be determined largely by the services that are available on site. Extending electrical, water and sanitary sewer service may be possible from existing airport service lines, which could also serve new aviation tenants. However, the economic feasibility of extending utilities to new airport development sites should be evaluated in relation to the overall revenue generation and/or cost recovery potential. October 2005 4-38 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 'I Security The airport has standard chain-link fencing located along its eastern boundary (adjacent to Dead Indian Memorial Road) with wire fencing in other areas. Additional chain link fencing with vehicle gates is located adjacent to the aircraft apron and vehicle parking lot. There are no major security concerns at the airport, although providing chain-link fencing and gates along exposed areas of airfield activity is recommended to reduce unauthorized human access. A vehicle control issue has been identified near northwest corner of the terminal area vehicle parking lot where access roads extend to the Sky Research hangar and the north T-hangar area. The aircraft taxiway that serves the upper hangar area is also located near this point and runs immediately adjacent to the driveway serving the Sky hangar. Vehicles reportedly use the taxiway (occasionally) to access the main apron; the absence of aircraft or vehicle pullouts along the taxiway creates the potential for conflicts between aircraft and vehicles. The separation between the hangar taxiway and the driveway serving the Sky hangar is not adequate to locate fencing along its entire length without creating an obstruction to the taxiway object free area (44.5 feet from taxiway centerline). However, installing an electronic vehicle gate at the entrance to the upper hangar area may reduce use of the taxiway by vehicles such as express cargo delivery vans or other traffic that is not compatible with taxiing aircraft. The airport sponsor also identified the need to upgrade overhead lighting in this area. Additional overhead flood lighting should be provided around the aircraft parking apron, fueling area, and hangar areas to maintain adequate security. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY The projected twenty-year facility needs for Ashland Municipal Airport are summarized in Table 4-10. As noted in the table, the primary facility requirements are largely focused on developing apron and taxiway improvements and new hangar space on the airport. Maintaining and replacing existing pavements represents a significant ongoing facility need. The forecasts of aviation activity contained in Chapter Three anticipate modest-to-moderate growth in activity that will result in specific airside facility demands. The existing airfield facilities have the ability to accommodate a significant increase in activity, with targeted facility improvements. For the most part, the need for new or expanded facilities, such as aircraft hangars, will be market driven, although there will be significant costs associated with site preparation, utility extensions, and taxiway construction. October 2005 4-39 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report :3 TABLE 4-10: FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY Item Short Term Long Term Runway 12130 Runway Overlay/Reconstruct ' Pavement Maintenance' Pavement Maintenance Periodic Obstruction Survey/Tree Removal Periodic Obstruction Survey/Tree Removal Parallel Taxiway Overlay Parallel Taxiway Pavement Maintenance' Taxiways to New Hangar Areas Hangar Taxilanes Pavement Maintenance' Aircraft Aprons Overlay (North Section of Main Apron) Pavement Maintenance' Pavement Maintenance' Expand Main Apron based on demand for Expand Main Apron business aircraft, cargo and helicopter Apron Development Reserves parking Hangars Business/Commercial Hangars and Conventional Development Areas and Additional Hangar Develop T-hangar Development Reserves Hangar sites (market demand) Navigational Aids PAPI (Rwy 12 & 30) and Lighting Flood Lighting (a/c parking & hangar REIL (Rwy 12) areas) Additional Flood Lighting As Required AWOS or SUPERUNICOM Fuel Storage None None FBO Facilities Renovation/Replacement of FBO Bldg. FBO Building/Apron Expansion Reserve Reserve for 2nd FBO Utilities Extend Electrical, Water and Sanitary Sewer to new development areas, as Same needed Roadways & Vehicle Extend Internal Access Roads to new Parking facilities; vehicle parking adjacent to Same commercial hangars Security Airport Fencing; Electronic Vehicle Gates Same Flood Lighting 1. Vegetation control, crackfill, sealcoat (fog seals, slurry seals) to be conducted on regular intervals. October 2005 4-40 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Five Airport Development Alternatives CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER FIVE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION This chapter presents development alternatives for accommodating the forecast demand and facility needs defined in the previous chapters. As noted in the facility requirements evaluation, long-term planning for Ashland Municipal Airport will continue to be based on small single- and multi-engine aircraft included in airplane design group I (ADG 1), as defined in the last airport master plan. Based on the recommendations of the previous master plan and the site characteristics of the airport, runway extension options will not be considered at this time. Therefore, the primary focus of this alternatives evaluation will be to address current and long- term landside needs, including hangars, aircraft parking and associated improvements. The process of evaluating new development options began by reviewing the recommended facility configurations from the 1992 airport layout plan (ALP) and more recent facility configurations developed by the Airport Commission and city staff. The landside improvements made at Ashland Municipal Airport have generally followed the guidance provided by the 1992 ALP, although minor changes in roadway alignments and hangar configurations were subsequently added through the refinement of concepts that normally occurs as part of design and construction. The evaluation and refinement of updated development options extended over a period of several months, which ultimately resulted in the selection of a preferred alternative that was integrated into the updated ALP. The second section of this chapter contains the updated airport layout plan drawings. SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Two terrain-related issues have been factored into the alternatives evaluation: first, development of aircraft related items (taxiways, hangars, etc.) in the upper portion of the landside area (northeast corner) requires extensive excavation and slope reinforcement. The excavation and reinforcement of the uphill slope required to develop the new 14-unit T-hangar significantly increased the cost of the project for the city. Cutting deeper into the hill will require greater October 2005 5-1 Airport Development Alternatives i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report excavation and larger areas of slope reinforcement. Based on the comparatively higher development costs associated with the upper hillside, the most cost-effective approach will be to first develop the lower sections of the landside area. In addition, developing the upper area for aviation uses would require the relocation of the existing airport access road to allow direct aircraft access. However, as readily developable aviation use areas eventually become scarce, it may be possible to recover the higher site preparation costs through a ground lease or hangar space rental rates and consider the road relocation issue. Based on forecast demand for hangar space, it appears that the lower areas have adequate capacity to meet needs well into the twenty- year planning period. The second terrain consideration is related to the city's preference to align future hangar rows along the slope (parallel to the runway). The 1992 ALP depicted future rows of hangars oriented perpendicular to the runway, with the lower slope being graded to provide a relatively level development area. By orienting the hangar rows and taxilanes along the slope, the development can be more easily terraced, and the grading required on the slope can be determined by the main access taxiway design (FAA gradient limitations). This design preference has been integrated into both of the preliminary development options. PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS Note: The preliminary development alternatives narrative text and graphics presented in this section are as originally presented and have not been modified based on the alternatives evaluation process. The evolution from the preliminary alternatives to a preferred alternative is described in the following sections and the results of that evaluation process are depicted on the airport layout plan drawing, also presented later in this chapter. While the preliminary development alternative figures provide an historical record of the development options considered, they do not necessarily reflect the configuration ultimately incorporated into the preferred alternative. The airport layout plan drawing reflects the final recommended configuration for the preferred alternative. The conceptual options are intended to encourage an open discussion of development needs and priorities through a collaborative process between the consultant, city staff, members of the airport commission, the FAA and airport users. The process will allow the widest range of ideas to be considered and the most effective facility development concept to be defined. Through the process of evaluating preliminary concepts, a preferred alternative will emerge that can best accommodate all required facility improvements. The refinement of the preferred alternative will continue as it is integrated into the airport layout plan drawing. A brief summary I October 2005 5-2 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report of each alternative is presented on the following pages and are also presented graphically at the end of the chapter. Two preliminary options are presented to address future facility needs. Both options use the areas located immediately north of the main apron for apron expansion and large hangar site development. T-hangars and smaller conventional hangars are added further back from the lower apron areas. Most of the new hangar development areas will be accessed from an extension of the north airport access road, although the existing access from the terminal area will be maintained. Improved fencing and electronic controlled vehicle access gates are recommended within the development area to limited vehicle access on hangar taxiways, taxilanes and the aircraft apron. Alternative i Note: Preliminary Development Alternative I proposed non-aviation uses for specific portions of the airport. However, through subsequent review, the FAA indicated that non- aviation development within these areas would not be permitted. Accordingly, the proposed non-aviation development in the preliminary alternative was not incorporated into the preferred alternative or depicted on the final airport layout plan. However, the references to proposed non-aviation developments originally contained in this section have not been removed in order to better illustrate the progressive process of evaluation, leading to development of the preferred alternative. Alternative 1 continues a northern expansion of existing facilities in the airport's landside area. Although some leveling was completed as part of the site preparation for the new 14-unit T- hangar, the middle and upper portions of the sloping terrain will require additional grading to create a moderately level development area. As proposed, the new hangar development areas would be served by a new taxiway that extends from near the corner of the existing north hangar taxiway (north of the Sky Research hangar). Two small/medium conventional hangars are depicted on the north side of the northern-most existing hangar taxilane. These hangar sites would require moderate excavation; however, the existing taxilane access makes the sites immediately useable. A new main access taxiway would extend up the slope, with individual taxilanes located between hangar rows. A taxiway section would connect to the north T-hangar area to reduce congestion on the existing single taxiway that serves the area. An aircraft holding area is also proposed near the taxiway curve (northeast of the Sky hangar) to enable taxiing aircraft to avoid congestion at the convergence of several separate taxiways. It has been noted that aircraft taxiing around the October 2005 5-3 Airport Development Alternatives i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport -AS H LAND Airport Layout Plan Report Sky hangar do not have an extended visual line of sight to see other taxiing aircraft (around the 90-degree turn and hangar) which occasionally results in aircraft meeting nose-to-nose. The holding area would allow aircraft to pass without leaving the paved surface. In this option, the main apron is extended in a linear configuration to accommodate additional light aircraft tiedowns, helicopter parking, and several larger commercial/corporate hangars. Due to the limited depth of development area, the apron would abut the parallel taxiway with aircraft parking positions located outside the taxiway object free area. (minimum 44.5 feet from taxiway centerline). The hangar sites are located along the back of the apron with west facing hangar doors; the southern most hangar site could accommodate a south- or west-facing door. The light aircraft tiedowns are oriented along the parallel taxiway in a double row (tail-to-tail). This tiedown configuration provides unobstructed aircraft access to the large hangars from the apron. A new vehicle access road and vehicle parking areas are proposed immediately east of the large hangar row. Additional vehicle parking is provided adjacent to the hangar areas and existing access road. A portion of the existing north airport access road that serves the adjacent residences would be realigned slightly to accommodate the northern-most hangar site. This option includes a non-aviation or aviation-related development area on the opposite side of the north airport access road. The steepest area located between the north airport access road and the new T-hangar is identified as a potential non-aviation or aviation-related development area. The site could accommodate a wide variety of uses, although due to the location of the access road and rising terrain, the area is not considered highly suitable to provide direct aircraft access. The development potential of this area may provide additional revenue that could contribute to the cost of operating, maintaining and developing the airport. As depicted, the site could accommodate an airport-compatible commercial or industrial park development that would be consistent with the airport's employment (E-1) zoning. Access to the site would be provided from the north airport access road. Extending utilities to serve the proposed development areas will be evaluated based on the cost of the providing the services desired. Extension of water (fire protection) and electrical service may be adequate for some tenants, although other tenants may also require sanitary sewer. This option also includes some minor changes in aircraft parking configurations on the existing apron. Two air cargo parking positions are identified near the southwest corner of the terminal area vehicle parking lot. The existing row of light aircraft tiedowns would be eliminated, although the parking positions would be available when not in use by the cargo aircraft (occasional weather diversions from Medford). Ideally, these positions would be maintained as itinerant parking for business aircraft that would not be used when cargo activity was anticipated. The option includes improvements to the existing access road and the addition of an electronic October 2005 5-4 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report IFAUA gate at the southwest corner of the parking lot. Support vehicles would have immediate access to the parking positions and could exit the apron from the same gate or at the gate located adjacent to the fixed base operator (FBO). Other terminal area improvements include development of a commercial hangar immediately north of the FBO maintenance hangar. The airport FBO, Skinner Aviation has expressed an interest in constructing a new maintenance hangar in this site. An aircraft wash pad will be constructed in this area as part of the 2004 apron rehabilitation project. A small vehicle eking area is identified behind the hangar site, which would be accessed from the existing lane serving the Sky Research hangar. A designated area for ultralight storage is identified at the south end of the main apron. Several small storage units could be accommodated in this area while remain outside the runway protection zones (RPZ) for Runway 30. Alternative 2 Note: As with the previous alternative, Alternative 2 proposed non-aviation uses for specific portions of the airport, which were subsequently eliminated from consideration. The references to proposed non-aviation developments originally contained in this section have not been removed in order to better illustrate the progressive process of evaluation, leading to development of the preferred alternative. Alternative 2 provides similar facilities in slightly different configuration. The configuration of the smaller hangars and the taxiway system is very similar to Alternative 1. However, the configuration of the larger commercial hangars and the main apron expansion differs considerably. In this option, the commercial hangar development extends inward behind the main apron, rather than the linear row of hangars proposed in Alternative 1. The "L" shaped expansion of the main apron provides additional flexibility to accommodate air cargo and helicopter parking and light aircraft tiedowns on the outer portion of the main apron and additional tenant parking directly in front of the hangars. Two rows of large hangars face inward toward the extended aircraft apron (approximately 200 feet wide). This configuration requires that the access road extension be located further into the development area, which eliminates the western row of small conventional hangars identified in Alternative 1. Vehicle parking areas are identified adjacent to the commercial hangars. Air cargo support vehicle access is provided via the north airport access road with an electronic gate located at the north end of the apron. The remaining elements of Alternative 1 have been maintained in Alternative 2. i October 2005 5-5 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates .1~ ®I I1J ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O 8 ~s 1 ~yy y ~R f m X A 'O CO A n== O m n 2 O X o ~Z =Z n y z< z< m D Z D D r A N r rn A m D o %q t r c-Zn C a _ i O O➢ G) O A- i p C ~O z0 D~ O D D m O m z Z C C Z 1 D m vX_i D o ;4 rn m 1n C C G7 C 2 C X 2 m A Z r m -n m y C C rn D C G) D m G1 m m C m Z y O M O (Al C m A A Z t o ~ p A~ C G7 cn cn r A C Sc - N S - m C -~n-i O _ ~ A Z ~ ~ m G7 m m m ' m m r) tnZ o ; 0 v Z R i 4t,• n0 000 W 4~ 0 0O~F ,.l . M L z Z C: :z O o cn 10 3 Y,f U~ r~p"~ Q 3 zg r ~ a s m `d Z > f1 } G m > m r .4 > m;u rro 00 Lq m n~ I~~ ~ 000000000000 8 r"'i D m Z in Z C 2 D rn -0 D Cl -I 0 D O O< D2 < O N 2A z, 'Q >z m G7 Om A Gz O D m Z T py 1'~ G7 -i x v D n v D 4 0 ` N i p m O n O G) O 7O p 1= I'i1 Q A O Z O v D C Z m X Z 8 \i~~~ W Z m O Z n A T O C T r z I~D 7p~ A C C rn 1 m m 'Ti mp o D }l`~ 3 ~ ~ G7 p 'm C ~ m Z Z vx-i t YIII~ O 1 pp ;a 6 O C-) C T m m M Z m C D m m T A D D =i 70 0 j 1 cn to r A C C x m mm m e 80 Ol~ 5J N- ~A z ng i S) m m ~ z zoo z C zoo ao 'ge 0 of o , A g r n im c ;u z > > n s r m > a ~J N m r N `i1 r v 00 C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Based on their review of the options presented, the City of Ashland Airport Commission and staff supported a preferred alternative that contained the following elements: • The landside (apron and hangar) development depicted in preliminary alternative 1, with specific modifications to accommodate a combination of hangar types and sizes. The rows of hangars will be aligned parallel to the runway to minimize site preparation necessary to accommodate hangars in the lower section of the development area. General grading will be required on the lower sections of the landside area and more extensive excavation will be required in the upper sections of the development area; • Extend taxiway access into the north hangar area, connecting to the existing taxiway system; taxilanes will be developed to provide access to individual hangar rows; an aircraft holding area would be developed adjacent to the main access taxiway to address potential congestion as the volume of taxiing activity increases within the north hangar area; • Extend the main apron in phases in its current dimensional (width) configuration based on demand for aircraft parking and large hangar development; development of future air cargo parking positions is recommended for the north end of the apron; • The hangar lease area located along the future section of the main apron is reserved for large conventional hangars and business-related tenants; • The hangar row and taxilane configuration reflects the physical limitations of the site; hangar rows are planned for specific types of hangars (i.e., one-sided box hangar, T- hangar, etc.), although specific building dimensions can be determined (with adequate taxiway/taxilane object free area clearance) based on tenant needs. • Vehicle access and parking for the north hangar area and expanded main apron will be extended from the north airport access road; • Based on market opportunities, develop the northeast portion of the airport (located on the north side of the north airport access road) in aviation-related use. Due to sloping terrain and the location of a main airport access road, providing aircraft access to this area is not currently considered practical. However, since the airport land base is relatively limited, overcoming these constraints may become more feasible over time as readily- developable areas are exhausted. The FAA has also indicated that if a benefit to civil aviation can be demonstrated, the City could sell the land (if released by FAA) if the i October 2005 5-8 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report proceeds were reinvested in the airport. This issue will be addressed through future coordination between the City and FAA. • Expand south end of the main apron for ultralight and small aircraft parking, based on demand; and • Maintain ARC B-I (small aircraft) airport design standards and utility runway designation for airspace planning purposes. Based on all comments provided, the input was incorporated into the airport layout plan drawing. The preliminary conceptual development options presented in this chapter illustrate the progressive process of alternatives evaluation and do not necessarily reflect the final preferred configuration of facilities depicted on the airport layout plan that resulted from the overall review process. Additional detail has been added to the ALP drawing for future aircraft apron, hangar and access road configurations. The draft set of airport layout plan drawings is presented at the end of this chapter. AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN DRAWINGS The options that were considered for the long-term development of Ashland Municipal Airport were described in the Alternatives section of this chapter. This evaluation resulted in the selection of a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative has been incorporated into the airport layout plan drawings, which are summarized in this section. The set of airport plans, which is referred to in aggregate as the "Airport Layout Plan" (ALP) has been prepared in accordance with FAA guidelines. The drawings illustrate existing conditions, recommended changes in airfield facilities, existing and recommended property ownership, land use, and obstruction removal. The ALP set is presented at the end of this chapter: • Drawing I - Cover Sheet • Drawing 2 -Airport Layout Plan • Drawing 3 -FAR Part 77 Airspace Plan • Drawing 4 - Airport Land Use Plan with 2009 Noise Contours Airport Layout Plan The Airport Layout Plan (ALP) presents the existing and ultimate airport layout and depicts the improvements that are recommended to enable the airport to meet forecast aviation demand. Airport vicinity and location maps, and data blocks for the overall airport and the runway are presented on the ALP. A declared distances table, legend of symbols and line types, and October 2005 5-9 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report VL&A building/facility table (with corresponding numbers depicted on the airport layout plan drawing) are also provided. The improvements depicted on the ALP reflect all major airfield developments recommended in the twenty-year planning period. Decisions made by the City regarding the actual scheduling of projects will be based on specific demand and the availability of funding. Long-term development reserves are also identified on the ALP to accommodate potential demand that could exceed current expectations or could occur beyond the current twenty-year planning period. The major items depicted on the ALP are summarized below: • The existing runway and parallel taxiway are maintained; • Expansion of the main apron (north section) is divided into three phases to accommodate variable demand for parking and landside lease development; • Continued development of the north hangar area including new taxiway extension, development of hangar rows, and new hangar taxilanes; • Development of access road and vehicle parking to serve the new north landside development area; • Minor expansion of the main apron (south end) to accommodate light aircraft and ultralight parking; • infill development of aircraft hangars within existing landside areas with taxiway access or apron frontage; • An "Aviation-Related Development" area is depicted near the northeast corner of the airport. This area (approximately 9 acres) is physically separated by an existing access road and has several physical site limitations that prevent aircraft access. Note 4 on the drawing indicates that future development of this area will be coordinated with FAA and that sale of the property is one option that may be considered. Projects such as maintenance or reconstruction of airfield pavements, which are not depicted on the ALP, are described in the Capital Improvements Program, in Chapter Six. i October 2005 5-10 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Airspace Plan The FAR Part 77 Airspace Plan for Ashland Municipal Airport was developed based on Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. The Airspace Plan provides the plan view of the airspace surfaces, profile views of the runway approach surfaces, and a detailed plan view of the runway approach surfaces. This information is intended to define and protect the airspace surfaces from encroachment due to incompatible land uses, which could adversely affect safe airport operations. By comparing the elevations of the airspace surfaces with the surrounding terrain, an evaluation of potential obstructions to navigable airspace was conducted. The airspace surfaces depicted for Ashland Municipal Airport reflect the ALP-recommended (ultimate) runway length of 3,603 feet for Runway 12/30. Based on the current and planned use of B-I (small aircraft) design standards, Runway 12/30 will be designed for use by aircraft weighing 12,500 pounds and less, which places it in the "utility" category under FAR Part 77. Both runway ends are planned based on visual approach capabilities. As noted in the facility requirements analysis, this airspace configuration is also compatible with development of a non- precision instrument approach with a circling procedure that is authorized for daytime use only. A 5,000-foot horizontal surface radius is used for each runway end to protect future visual approach capabilities. Large areas of terrain penetration are identified within the horizontal surface and conical surface north, south and southeast of the runway. No terrain obstructions are identified within the runway approaches, primary surface or transitional surfaces. However, numerous trees are located near the runway, many of which appear to penetrate the primary and transitional surfaces, particularly near the Runway 12 end. A private road located near the end of Runway 12 creates an obstruction to the standard FAR Part 77 20:1 approach surface. Use of a Type B Obstacle Clearance Approach (OCA) is recommended for the visual runway end, consistent with the guidelines contained in FAA AC 150/5300-13 (appendix 2). The OCA 20:1 slope begins at the runway threshold, rather than 200 feet beyond the runway, which provides adequate obstruction clearance for landing aircraft. The obstruction table depicted on the drawing lists 41 items, most of which were listed on the 1992 airspace plan. Although some tree removal has been conducted, the consultant was not able to clearly determine which of the listed items were removed or lowered. It is recommended that the City perform an updated obstruction survey to document the location and elevation of all items within the boundaries of the runway approach, primary and transitional surfaces. 1 October 2005 5-11 Airport Development Alternatives r Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The approach surface plan and profile drawing provides additional detail for the runway approaches and the runway protection zones. The profile view depicts existing and future 20:1 approach surfaces, in addition to the 20:1 OCA for Runway 12. Airport Land Use Plan with 2009 Noise Contours The Airport Land Use Plan for Ashland Municipal Airport depicts existing zoning in the immediate vicinity of the airport. The area surrounding the airport is predominately zoned agricultural, although areas of rural residential zoning are located in the vicinity of the airport (primarily east, west and south), within one to two miles. Noise exposure contours based on the 2009 forecasts of aircraft activity are depicted on the Land Use Plan. The noise contours were created using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM). Data from activity forecasts and aircraft fleet mix are combined with common flight tracks and runway use to create a general indication of airport-generated noise exposure. The noise contours are plotted in 5 DNL increments starting at 55 DNL. The size and shape of the contours is consistent with the airport's runway utilization and aircraft traffic. Although limited areas of residential development exist in the vicinity of the airport, sparse development patterns appear to have prevented significant levels of aircraft noise exposure to more densely populated areas. Local planning authorities should discourage land use patterns that would increase population densities in the vicinity of the airport, particularly beneath the runway approach surfaces. See Chapter Seven for a detailed description of the noise analysis. It is recommended that the City of Ashland and Jackson County update airport overlay zoning to reflect the boundaries of the FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces, consistent with the updated airport layout plan. October 2005 5-12 Airport Development Alternatives i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates L D K z 0- D O O -<~-z-O-< i f i p Q`mil - I Y ,I O / A 9 0 41 ,I v v R t. z z n DN -C c= ~ Z D D D C7 Cn ~ T p v V 0 U) O = FTI O O m m ~ O ~mC) O Z 5 -u P-l O rn Cj CD O o z O J z C c C ~ Z Z~ n Ow~~ Z a az m ' 7 a~Z z n -a X{ e- = O ~ 3~N8g oC)0C) 'p C) .0h, 0 zI-~ o cf) ~ 000Z mn ~ ~ O O z o ~ ~ O,Z m~zOCZan',. a°~~ 03 0 8 p o° F D $ 6 i ~$~8 m '9K I o? O g ~o g °s=~ \ y li R~ "o g Zo 2 O ~3gLt' R ~f~><F~,9., f \\i b~ Y# AFB L"+A Z6 m~O OpC, ~ I a~g ~ ~ ~ ling e /~~I I I I t] O'o - I - I - =I= - °I c\\ I T i'• r L I aw I I IS n _ T m A Zn €L Lz3z 0~ AI - i fz°~ mo°P p a~ p °m°° °08 RZ~oH Uo ail °O~ m$z~ o ~oo~ ~HO~, Z;: y o~oc IO T~~Tpm n °p;x-m z om o o° p c0 mmy a Nm ° O-x > BIZ AFy zD I f ~I ~ o000 ~idog ~pm go m n ~6~n~o > D 1 I o ms Ho zgz~ ~ o - m~ J p r- \ zsi \ n O ° ; ° ~O I~ v 3~ _ v ~I -ns ` J Logo 60 O m° oz~ opz N- 1 II ~ zs ~7' I a ~i I _ 6 i o SS S 5~ c' z £ - R > D S I I D fi_ N o~ 90 . ~ 4m? a, ~ •ti 3I~ ~w ~ ~ m~ I ~ I I I C I a~ m Z m 4 \ \ m 35~~9-YI - '1 r a r37 ° g n N o Q 09 7~~ 1 a of , Zmsm ;°Z~ oR o rJ - = `m'~ 3 W `boo _zUxxx €H F i ae K O - n O z b . i i - z N O I` ~o ;I 310~~ 2 3 Z C 6 I c it - II r > Jill 0 m ~TJ 1" ca ~V a~~= - - - - i 000 , 000000®000000000 m N l,. ■ ~m J,. n O A o n n 9b~ g c 2?$ x i z 0 a- o d z >t 4P# N yq~~~WO~~ : u v'-° o am ~o°'. ua u v=oamva via ~,u=oam ~a U> w O ~ I It y F F 0o r ~ 5~z`z ~3~ ~3 aa~aaa aa~ aaa ~a 333:_aa>>> ° J n3~~€ zoz00 zozobZooo00ooodo0oo~aoooo oooOnQ ' o n I o7 {I y '914 u a Q a 4 N w ..1 5 W Y 4 4 y 1 W 4 9 4 I4 ~ r I I ~ ~ ~ I ~!I ~ 1:0,: I - - Dl olnz 9QQU UU'S~u .w,Sv W nib r.~ ~~r~ l,. .~~11 s \ '8~ 2h a _ ~ ao c&°c.acQ oSaz; ' ' 1'~ 'd ion. I lo ~ r z m II a~ z o r n I L. I Q o 0 4 9 0 Z c n l/1 - - Q Q 4 o c 4 G o 4 4 4 4 0 " Q C7 - S < m~zzz 33 mz~~zzz zzzzzzz oz D D N OOONU O N o 000000000000 O D 0000010 ~l O e e e P e i e e e a e~ e' z > 0 oo°°° ooo°°°°° anA ~m~m~~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm°~ o o a o v o 0 0 o v v o v o 0 0 o a a o 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 o a° 0 O o 0 0 0 o a o o a o o o o a° a a o o v o v o z o m z a ~F ~F ~F ~F ~F M- M- M- ~1- % >f ~F ~F ~F ~F ~F ~F >f * >F * * * >F >F >f z < 6 A < C7 i ~o ~ O I X D O r < i r- Z J ELEVA70N (FEET) 5000 > 71 (Y, ono r B s S 4000 i_ 17y'.. p2 z 4~ga m m A t S:Z t'r r C gm Oz in O x f,i N jra~ 06,6 0 3000 / no02~ 9 ~°•.9Tr g~m n~ ~On*°ti E~~D i 2000 sn' ° : € Z. icy P~4// ` Zg z i~ Oz 0 ' 1000 g . Y f u N Q cl~ 0 - EXISTING END RUNWAY 12 1(I r 0 0 ~~Jy ZZa m EL 1845.1' 1 9 _ F a 0 y 4$ N m m a - e ~Om T m<ti - s. A n y ~1 m T 7p cy g O zN D ~ Nn~~ T00 Z ! CO O c° ~g r Z ' 1 z' ° - CO n z m z it °z mz ~o s T ° c o0 To m v 1., 0 D lvo DlsRUCEOn1RESrIOID ~Z ~0 cS °m EL 7883.0 r~ n'. D v m ~o p0 EXISTING END RUNWAY 30 TO S EL 1884.8' 8,,o- > H i 0 ! C ~ cziz w4~~~ N ~z_ ° A 000 f n > - 0 1000 a ) M n - n N9 _NsA . o _ <=m o mm mQN°ti mD 3 N 000`~ow ~o oy xp~~ 2000 h yc o~ ~~~u~~~ r n o ~o um Qyo.~ x or. ~m 0 °~m' z ?1 m z.. m z TgTa "o Pa 3000 o Ti~° ~~~s m ° )r m ~s \ 0 n irF g n 4000 ry 0m i' c 0 ~ n AiIA _ ° Sow i O ° o m - N S ~ 4 4 4 Q - ' Q (1334) NOLLVA313 A a' z URI =8 03 mo mco ~~~~T~ I I ° T I r \J I 1 J I 1 J I 1 Z1 o~ g o~ ~g ° C cn f7 I O J O J w tv w U, cn J O ccnn o6 O O° 0 -n m H ~A o ~ z p m s s o F o n ° ° n 3 3 N c n o z ~ o< o° n ` o Z< o z o o c c m z z 0 z o 0 33RD a o S "m z o ` z ` n °c c m m m F F g z m 'A m g mo z zz a i" n y N z 3: o O zf _ m o m c o o 0 o o x o A a m x c m c n o v o a o p Z o m N m z z z z o z o° cz 02 n - o z z z O ° o p` n ° Szi OF, 0 8 8 8 Z _ x Z ~m m z ID O L~ 00 I O O Z o o oz y m ~O ➢ z rr p i ~ O n n ~ ~ Z z ° J1 C T pz F > c L < o z a y// m ➢ 1 m ~ icn / m ti• Jl rr^^ \ `I F~ l 8^ 1 q ° r , v f s of pp M / w / 7jp J ~ A Itly~y Yi'F >~.0..~ ~ '1 t"+\1'' 1 J,' t I(.11\/ F,. N°o ~ ~gl ~$~li ~ S~Kf9Yl~ ay `~`1 fV~r\~-',/^~]\>I' / 3 \'.1 •.2 a V Aii~ ~ ~ may." ~~~1 ~ f ~ •y• ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ , ° N S ~ Ai1~ rtn s.. 0 ,j fir; _ Z 1 m1/ 1.. z z / al m /j: - ~ Ir~I~ _ ~ ~~lr ~ i• / ,ice -i; O~ ic C N \1 / / \ r / cn CO) C!n: Z r m NIL i . 0 4V Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Six Financial Management and Development Program CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER SIX FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The analyses conducted in the previous chapters have evaluated airport development need based on forecast activity and the associated facility requirements. One of the most important elements of the master planning process is the application of basic economic, financial and management rationale so that the feasibility of the implementation can be assured. The amount of local and outside funding (state, federal, etc.) that will be available during the current twenty-year planning cannot be guaranteed. In cases when the overall capital needs of an airport exceed available funding, projects will be deferred until funding can be obtained. In this situation, it is particularly important to establish and maintain priorities so that completion of the most essential improvements is assured. Historically, the primary source of funding for major capital projects at the airport has been federal aviation trust fund monies with local matching funds provided by the City. Hangar construction, which has not been eligible for FAA funding in the past, has been funded locally by the City (T-hangars) and private tenants (conventional hangars). Utility improvements at the airport are also not typically eligible for FAA funding and have been locally funded. The maintenance of airfield pavements ranges from very minor items such as crack filling to fog seals or patching. Minor pavement maintenance items such as crackfilling are not included in the capital improvement program, but will need to be undertaken by the City on an annual or semi- annual basis. The Pavement Management Program (PMP) managed by the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) provides funding assistance for airfield pavement maintenance on established multi-year cycles. This program is intended to preserve and maintain existing airfield pavements in order to maximize their useful lives and the economic value of the pavement. As noted earlier, several short-term pavement maintenance projects are identified for Ashland Municipal Airport in the current PMP, which will require local matching funds. M October 2005 6-1 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND COST ESTIMATES The analyses presented in Chapters Four and Five, described the airport's overall development needs for the next twenty years. Estimates of project costs were developed for each project based on 2005 dollars. A 30 percent contingency overhead for engineering, administration, and unforeseen circumstances has been included in the estimated component and total costs. In future years, as the plan is carried out, these cost estimates can continue to assist management by adjusting the 2005-based figures for subsequent inflation. This may be accomplished by converting the interim change in the United States Consumer Price Index (USCPI) into a multiplier ratio through the following formula: X I Where: X = USCPI in any given future year Y = Change Ratio I = Current Index (USCPI) USCPI 193.3 (1982-1984 = 100) March 2005 Multiplying the change ratio (Y) times any 2005-based cost figures presented in this study will yield the adjusted dollar amounts appropriate in any future year evaluation. The following sections outline the recommended development program and funding assumptions. The scheduling has been prepared according to the facility requirements determined earlier. The projected staging of development projects is based upon anticipated needs and investment priorities. Actual activity levels may vary from projected levels; therefore, the staging of development in this section should be viewed as a general guide. When activity does vary from projected levels, implementation of development projects should occur when demand warrants, rather than according to the estimated staging presented in this chapter. In addition to major development projects, the airport will require regular facility maintenance. October 2005 6-2 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report A summary of development costs during the twenty-year capital improvement plan is presented in Table 6-1. The twenty-year CIP is divided between short-term and long-term projects. The table provides a listing of the major capital projects included in the twenty-year CIP, including each project's eligibility for FAA funding. The FAA will not generally participate in vehicle parking, utilities, building renovations or projects associated with non-aviation developments. Some changes in funding levels and project eligibility were included in the current Airport Improvement Program (AIP) legislation (extends through FY 2007). FAA funding levels have been increased from 90 percent to 95 percent, although the FAA indicates that a return to the previous 90 percent funding level may occur in fixture bills. Therefore, for planning purposes, FAA-eligible projects beyond 2007 are estimated based on a 90 percent level of FAA funding. The general aviation entitlement funding level is established up to $150,000 per year, with a maximum rollover of four years. Projects such as hangar construction or fuel systems, which have not traditionally been eligible for funding, are currently eligible, although the FAA indicates that this category of project would be funded only if there were no other project needs at a particular airport. Based on the overall facility needs and anticipated levels of federal funding, it has been assumed that hangar construction will not rely on FAA funds. The short-term phase of the capital improvement program includes the highest priority projects recommended during the first five years. Long-term projects are expected to occur beyond the next five years, although changes in demand or other conditions could accelerate or slow demand for some improvements. As with most airports, pavement related improvements represent the largest portion of CIP needs at Ashland Municipal Airport during the current planning period. A 2004 AIP project replaced the runway edge lighting system and rehabilitated the majority of the main apron in 2004 and 2005. October 2005 6-3 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 6-1: 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2005 TO 2025 Project Qty. Unit Unit $ Total FAA Local Cost* Eligible Short Term Projects Years 1-5 2005-2006 Runway 12/30 - Mill & Overlay, Visual Mkgs 30,025 SY $18.00 $540,450 $513,428 $27,023 Slurry Seal Main Apron (existing - north section) 9,400 SY $3.60 $33,840 $32,148 $1,692 Slurry Seal North Hangar Taxiway/Taxilanes 12,000 SY $3.60 $43,200 $41,040 $2,160 5uttotal ':Rear 12„ G, 1't, $611,49 $5869616 $30;87.5 2007 Slurry Seal South Hangar Taxilanes 4,000 SY $3.60 $14,400 $13,680 $720 Construct North Hangar Area Main Taxiway (700x35') 2,700 SY $40.00 $108,000 $102,600 $5,400 Construct North Hangar Area Taxilanes (2) 2,400 SY $40.00 $96,000 $91,200 $4,800 Subtotal, ',`Year 3 S ? < , . ; aE. ;$218,400 $20i,48U $10;920,' 2008 Su erUnicom 1 LS $45,000 $45,000 $40,500 $4,500 Obstruction Survey & Tree Removal 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $13,500 $1,500 Parallel` Taxiway - Overlay 15,300 SY $12.00 $183,600 $165,240 $18,360 { ~ K,7A:~ r ~ ~'Y i~ 4 :..,7 :M I 4/,L'''4 f • I Y ~ 1 1 SJ L hL`~. .jL 'f! S 4t ~ Sub otaj~ Year„4 } µ f z; x;$243}600 `$219,240 4;360. 2009 Terminal Area Fencing & Electronic Vehicle Gate (T- Hangar access) 200 LF $18.00 $11,100 $9,990 $1,110 Construct North Apron Access Road & Parking 3,800 SY $30.00 $114,000 $102,600 $11,400 North Hangar Area Fencing (w/ 2 elect. vehicle gates) 1,900 LF $18.00 $49,200 $44,280 $4,920 Main Apron Expansion - Phase 1 (north area) 4,400 SY $40.00 $176,000 $158,400 $17,600 i 77-7,77 - a» 3 r sr tag i - - p ; . Subtotal ,Yeairk5r .rg_r ti:~:' r_,x$35,0;3 $315,270,f $35;030; Total Short Term Projects $1,429,790 $1,328,606 $101,18 October 2005 6-4 Financial Management and i Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 6-1 (CONTINUED): 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2005 TO 2025 Project Qty. Unit Unit $ Total Cost* FAA Eligible Local Lon Term Projects Years 6 - 20 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - south section 2010 15,900 SY $3.60 $57,240 $51,516 $5,724 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - center section 2010 7,200 SY $3.60 $25,920 $23,328 $2,592 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - north section 2011 9,400 SY $3.60 $33,840 $30,456 $3,384 Slur Seal Runway 12/30, Visual Mks 2011 30,025 SY $3.60 $108,090 $97,281 $10,809 Slur Seal North existin Han ar Taxilanes 2011 12,000 SY $3,60 $43,200 $38,880 $4,320 Security Overhead Lighting (pole mounted flood lights) 10 ea $5,000 $50,000 $45,000 $5,000 North Han ar Area Site Preparation (upper section 50,000 CY $8.00 $400,000 $360,000 $40,000 North Non-Aviation Development Area Site Pre aration/Excavation 10,000 CY $8.00 $80,000 $0 $80,000 North Development Area - Water Extensions 1,500 LF $55.00 $82,500 $0 $82,500 North Development Area - Sanitary Sewer Extensions 1,500 LF $50.00 $75,000 $0 $75,000 North Hangar Area Taxilane access upper hangar row 1,900 SY $40.00 $76,000 $68,400 $7,600 Terminal Area Access Road and Vehicle Pk g. Overlay 3,200 SY $12.00 $38,400 $34,560 $3,840 FBO Building Renovation 1,200 SF $40.00 $48,000 $0 $48,000 PAP! - R 12 & 30 2 ea $60,000 $120,000 $108,000 $12,000 Main Apron new - phase 1 Slur Seal 2012 4,400 SY $3.60 $15,840 $14,256 $1,584 North new Hangar Taxilanes Slur Seal 2012 5,100 SY $3.60 $18,360 $16,524 $1,836 Slur Seal South Hangar Taxilanes 2013 4,000 SY $3.60 $14,400 $12,960 $1,440 Slur Seal Parallel Taxiway 2013 15,300 SY $3.60 $55,080 $49,572 $5,508 Main Apron Expansion - Phase 2 3,600 SY $40.00 $144,000 $129,600 $14,400 Airport Fencing west side of airport) 5,200 LF $18.00 $93,600 $84,240 $9,360 Main Apron Expansion south end 3,000 SY $40.00 $120,000 $108,000 $12,000 Airport Fencing northeast side of airport) 2,300 LF $18.00 $41,400 $37,260 $4,140 Main Apron (new - phase 2) Slurry Seal (20153,600 SY $3.60 $12,960 $11,664 _$1,296 Overlay North (existing) Hangar Taxilanes 2015 12,000 SY $12.00 $144,000 $129,600 $14,400 Overlay Main Apron (existing - north section 2015 9,400 SY $12.00 $112,800 $101,520 $11,_280 Slurry Seal Main Apron (existing - south section 2016 15,900 SY $3.60 $57,240 $51,516 $5,724 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - center section 2016 7,200 SY $3.60 $25,920 $23,328 $2,592 Overlay South Hangar Taxilanes (2017) 4,000 SY $12.00 $48,000 $43,200 $4,800 Slur Seal Runway 12/30, Visual Mks 2017 30,025 SY $3.60 $108,090 $97,281 $10,809 North new Hangar Taxilanes Slur Seal 2018 7,000 SY $3.60 $25,200 $22,680 $2,520 Obstruction Survey & Tree Removal 1 LS $15,000 $15,000 $13,500 $1,500 REIL Rw 12 1 ea $25,000 $25,000 $22,500 $2,500 North Airport Access Road Overlay 3,300 SY $12.00 $39,600 $35,640 $3,960 Main Apron new - phase 1 Slur Seal 2018 4,400 SY $3.60 $15,840 $14,256 $1,584 Slur Seal Parallel Taxiway 2019 15,300 SY $3.60 $55,080 $49,572 $5,508 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - north section 2020 9,400 SY $3.60 $33,840 $30,456 $3,384 Main Apron Expansion - Phase 3 3,600 SY $40.00 $144,000 $129,600 $14,400 Main Apron new - phase 2 Slur Seal 2021 3,600 SY $3.60 $12,960 $11,664 $1,296 October 2005 6-5 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Slur Seal North (existing) Hangar Taxilanes 2021 12,000 SY $3.60 $43,200 $38,880 $4,320 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - south section 2022 15,900 SY $3.60 $57,240 $51,516 $5,724 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - center section 2022 7,200 SY $3.60 $25,920 $23,328 $2,592 Slur Seal Runway 12/30, Visual Mks 2023 30,025 SY $3.60 $108,090 $97,281 $10,809 Slur Seal South Hangar Taxilanes 2023 4,000 SY $3.60 $14,400 $12,960 $1,440 Main Apron new - phase 1 Slur Seal 2024 4,400 SY $3.60 $15,840 $14,256 $1,584 North new Hangar Taxilanes Slur Seal 2024 7,000 SY $3.60 $25,200 $22,680 $2,520 Slur Seal Main Apron (existing - north section 2025 9,400 SY $3.60 $33,840 $30,456 $3,384 Slur Seal Parallel Taxiway 2025 15,300 SY $3.60 $55,080 $49,572 $5,508 North Residential Access Road Realignment 400 LF $30.00 $12,000 $10,800 $1,200 Main Apron new phase 3 Slur Seal 2025 3,600 SY $3.60 $12,960 $11,664 $1,296 Total Long Term Projects $3,020,170 $2,461,203 $558,967 I T TOTAL SHORT & LONG TERM PROJECTS $4,449,960 $3,789,809 $660,152 Project costs include 30% engineering and contingency. Dates listed for specific projects are general estimates intended to assist in long-term capital planning - actual dates will vary depending on funding and facility needs. Short-Term Projects The majority of short-term projects at Ashland Municipal Airport are pavement-related items. The pavement surface courses on both Runway 12/30 and the parallel taxiway are now more than 20 years old and will require rehabilitation early in the planning period. A small section of the runway (at the Runway 30 end) was resurfaced as part of the 2004 apron rehabilitation project. New pavement markings will be required on both the runway and taxiway once they are resurfaced. Several slurry seal projects are also recommended for existing pavements in the short-term period: • North section of the main apron; • North hangar area taxi ways/taxi lanes; • South hangar area taxilanes. Recommended new construction items include the extension of a taxiway to serve the north hangar area. The new taxiway will extend approximately 700 feet from the existing taxiway located near the north corner of the Sky Research hangar, continuing to the northeast before turning southeast and connecting to the taxiway located adjacent to the north T-hangars. Two October 2005 6-6 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report additional stub taxilanes are recommended initially to serve a new T-hangar site. A third stub taxilane is planned for later in the planning period to serve the upper-most row of hangars in the new development area. The planned hangar configuration accommodates two lower rows of T- hangars and an upper row of conventional hangars or executive hangars built partially into the slope. Based on the steepness of the terrain in the upper portion of the hillside, it is anticipated that some hangars may be designed to provide vehicle parking and public access on the upper level, with the hangar floor designed to access the adjacent taxiway at a lower elevation. These mixed-use hangars would be particularly well suited for small businesses that require both aircraft storage and operational space. Additional sites for small/medium conventional hangars area located adjacent to the existing northern most T-hangar and in the row behind the Sky Research hangar. The timing of development for new hangars on the airport will be dependent on market demand and the timing of other necessary improvements (surface access, site preparation, taxiway access, etc.). Minor site preparation (grading, etc.) will be required for the initial development (lower section) of the north hangar area. More substantial site preparation, including excavation, will be required to develop the upper portions of the hangar area. Due to the anticipated costs of site preparation, the staging of development will utilize the more readily developable areas first, before proceeding with developing the upper hangar areas when market demand is sufficient to justify the investment in site preparation. The first phase of expansion of the main apron and the associated surface access improvements are included as short-term projects. However, the precise timing of the apron expansion may be affected by actual demand for larger business related conventional hangars. It is anticipated that the lease area located immediately adjacent to the main apron will accommodate 4 to 6 large conventional hangars. An access road extension and new vehicle parking areas will be developed behind the hangar lease lots to provide adequate public access and vehicle parking. All public access to the new landside developments located along the northern end of the main apron and in the north hangar area will be served from the existing north airport access road. The City has indicated that acquiring a SuperUnicomTM, or similar system for the airport is considered a high priority improvement to provide basic local weather conditions and pilot advisories. Long-Term Projects The recommended long-term projects at Ashland Municipal Airport include the following: • Airfield pavement preservation, resurfacing and reconstruction. This includes periodic slurry seals for all airfield pavements on a six-year cycle. Asphalt overlays will be i October 2005 6-7 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report required for any existing pavements not rehabilitated in the short-term period. These include the existing north and south hangar taxilanes/taxiways and the north section of the main apron. • Site preparation, including excavation of upper portion of north hangar area (approximately 50,000 cubic yards). • New pavement construction associated with airside and landside facilities (Main Apron North Expansion Phases 2 and 3; and South End Expansion based on demand; taxiway/taxilane extensions). • Relocation of the segmented circle in conjunction with north end apron expansion. • Building construction (hangars, FBO hangar, etc.). 0 Airport security fencing (northeast, west property line; terminal area; north hangar area) and electronic vehicle gates. • Asphalt overlays on north and south airport access roads and vehicle parking areas. • Precision approach slope indicators (PAPI) to replace existing VASI on Runways 12 and 30; runway end identifier lights (REIL) on Runway 12. • Realignment of an on-airport section of the existing residential access road to accommodate Phase 3 expansion of main apron. Pavement related projects listed in the CIP are listed in relative priority based on a general timeline. The actual timing for these projects may need to be periodically adjusted based on the City's need to accelerate or defer projects based on a variety of considerations. The specific years listed are intended to provide a general guide for project planning and illustrate the repetitive nature and substantial investment required in maintaining airfield pavements. i October 2005 6-8 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report FINANCING OF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Federal Grants A primary source of potential funding identified in this plan is the Federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP). As proposed, approximately 85 percent of the airport's 20-year CIP will be eligible for federal funding. Funds from this program are derived from the Aviation Trust Fund, which is the depository for all federal aviation taxes collected on such items as airline tickets, aviation fuel, lubricants, tires, aircraft registrations, and other aviation-related fees. These funds are distributed under appropriations set by Congress to all airports in the United States that have certified eligibility. The funds are distributed through grants administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under current FAA guidelines, the City receives 95 percent participation on eligible projects. Ashland Municipal Airport is eligible under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) to receive discretionary grants and general aviation entitlement grants. Under the current authorization, the airport may receive up to $150,000 per year in the GA entitlement grants. The future availability of the GA non-primary entitlement funding is dependent on congressional reauthorization and may change during the planning period. However, based on current legislation, these grants have become a very significant source of FAA funding for general aviation airports. Airports may combine up to four years of GA entitlement funding for projects. As noted earlier, a return to the previous 90 percent level may occur in the next federal funding bill. For planning purposes, FAA-eligible projects beyond 2007 in the CIP are estimated based on a 90 percent level of FAA funding. Discretionary grants are also available to fund larger projects that require additional funding. The constraints of AIP funding availability will dictate in large part, the actual schedule for completing airport improvement projects through the planning period. As a result, some projects included in the twenty-year CIP may be deferred beyond the twenty-year time frame. State Funding The Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) manages a pavement maintenance funding program to enable regularly-scheduled investment in airfield pavements. The program funds pavement maintenance and associated improvements (crack filling, repair, sealcoats, etc.), which have not traditionally been eligible for FAA funding. The PMP may also be expanded to include pavement overlays. ODA also provides limited funding assistance through its Financial Y October 2005 6-9 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Assistance to Municipalities (FAM) grant program. FAM grants are available for amounts up to $25,000 per year, with varying levels of local match required. Financing the Local Share of Capital Improvements As currently defined, the locally funded portion of the CIP is approximately 15 percent. For local airport sponsors, one of the most challenging aspects of financial planning is generating enough revenue to match available state or federal grants for large projects. As noted earlier, FAA AIP grants usually represent the single largest source of funding for major capital projects. As currently defined, the local share for projects included in the twenty year planning period is estimated to be just under $650,000, which includes the local 5% match for AIP-funded projects, utility extensions and some non-aviation related site preparation. Hangar construction has not been included in the CIP; hangars at the airport have historically been funded both by the City and through private tenants. Recent changes in AIP legislation allow some FAA funding to be used for hangar construction, however, this type of development is considered to be a much lower priority than airfield improvement projects. The FAA has indicated that they would consider a funding request only in cases where there were no other higher priority project needs outstanding. Since the projected twenty-year cost of improving and maintaining airport facilities exceeds current AIP funding levels, it appears unlikely that the City could justify a request for FAA funding for hangar construction any time in the near future. i October 2005 6-10 Financial Management and i Development Program j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Seven Environmental Checklist CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report CHAPTER SEVEN ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Environmental Checklist is to identify any physical, social and environmental conditions of record which may affect the ability to undertake future improvements at Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field. In comparison to an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the project scope for this review is limited, and focuses on gathering and summarizing information of record from the applicable local, state and federal sources pertaining to the existing conditions of the subject site and its environs. The scope of the review research does not involve extensive professional interpretation of the information, in-depth analyses, or the more comprehensive follow-up correspondence and inquiries with affected agencies and persons that is normally associated with an EA or EIS. All research activities, including correspondence, data collection and documentation, proceeded under the provisions of FAA Order 5050.4A, The Airport Environmental Handbook, which is intended to implement the requirements of Sections 1505.1 and 1507.3 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This report briefly addresses each potential impact category identified by Order 5050.4A as to be investigated under the EIS or EA processes, and is comprised of a narrative and table summarizing the consultant's findings under each investigation heading or potential impact category. In instances where a particular potential environmental impact type does not appear to exist or apply to the subject project, the table is noted accordingly, and little or no discussion appears in the narrative section of the report. Included below is a brief summary of the impact categories in which potentially significant impacts were identified, or appear to be possible, and where notable ecological or social conditions appear pertinent to the future development of this facility. As discussed in Chapter Two of this report, the airport is located in southwestern Jackson County, three miles northeast of downtown Ashland, but within the Ashland Urban Growth Boundary and City limits. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) encompasses some additional properties adjacent to the airport which are not within the City limits; more specifically, a single- family residence immediately east of the airstrip, zoned Jackson County Rural Residential, 5 acre October 2005 7-1 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report minimum (RR-5); an extensive area northeast of the end of Runway 12, also zoned Jackson County RR-5; and Jackson County rural residential and commercial lands immediately west and south of the airport (zoning RR-5 and Commercial General, CG). In addition, a small area of RR-5, and an area of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zoning, also occur within the UGB, southwesterly of the end of Runway 30, across Dead Indian Memorial Road, and immediately east of the airfield, northeast of the fore-mentioned dwelling, respectively. The airport site is zoned City of Ashland Employment District (E-1). The E-1 district "is designed to provide for a variety of uses such as office, retail, or manufacturing in an aesthetic environment and having a minimal impact on surrounding uses." E-1 zoning has been in place at the airport for many years, although no specific references to airport activities are found in the description of pennitted, special permitted or conditional uses (Chapter 18.40.020-040). The consultant recommends that the City develop airport-friendly zoning for the property, consistent with ORS Chapter 836.610 and related requirements of the State of Oregon. This could be accomplished through either amendment of the existing, E-1 Zone description, to permit aviation and related development and activities outright, or through the creation of a new airport zone. Since the State has effectively frozen periodic review requirements through at least 2007, the City should pursue this change through a legislative zoning code and map amendment as soon as possible. Creation of a new airport zone, in particular, would bring the City's zoning map and code into more substantial compliance with the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, which currently provides a distinct "Airport" designation for the subject and select abutting urbanizable lands. Land uses surrounding the Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field are predominantly riparian corridors; rural and resource related, single family dwellings; commercial, and limited industrial uses. A mini-storage facility is located just southwest of the airport. The airport is bordered on the north by Emigrant Creek, on the south and west by Neil Creek, while the two converge immediately northwest of airport property, about 350 feet off the end of Runway 12, to form Bear Creek. Dead Indian Memorial Road, which connects to Airport Road, also links with Greensprings Highway 66 for accessing Interstate 5, and with East Main Street for downtown access. Chapter Two notes a tower which encroaches upon critical airspaces as located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site, and major overhead power transmission lines within two miles east and west of the airstrip also create hazards to safe aviation operations. The landing threshold for Runway 30 is displaced 190 feet to provide increased clearance over obstructions located within the runway approach. No other land use compatibility issues are of concern. October 2005 7-2 Environmental Checklist i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The nearest solid waste disposal / transfer site is located approximately 5 miles from the airfield. Aside from the riparian corridors associated with the creeks, no known bird attractants are located nearby. Land uses and zoning abutting the airport are described in Table 7-1. TABLE 7-1: SUMMARY OF LAND USE AND ZONING IN VICINITY OF AIRPORT Land Use Zoning Airport Site: City of Ashland Employment District (E-1) North: Agriculture, Jackson County Rural Residential, 5 Acre Minimum (RR-5), Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Resource related dwellings EFU South: Dead Indian Memorial Road, Rural Residential and EFU, Jackson County Rural Residential, 1 Acre Minimum (RR-00) Resource Related Dwellings, Limited Industrial Uses SW Jackson Count Commercial General CG East: Emigrant Creek Agriculture, EFU, RR-5 Resource related dwellings West. Bear Creek (NW) Neil Creek Single-family residences RR-5, E-1 Agriculture, EFU Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 836.600 through 836.630 addresses the appropriate zoning and protection of Oregon's airports and their surroundings. Under the statute, height restrictive zoning and, to some extent, use-restrictive zoning, are indicated as necessary components affecting land uses in the immediate vicinity of a public airport. An Airport Overlay Zone, which protects necessary airspaces and limits incompatible uses in proximity to an airfield, is the primary means of ensuring the compatibility of surrounding land uses with operations of a general aviation airstrip. Both the City of Ashland and Jackson County have airport overlay language in their respective land use documents; however, neither jurisdiction illustrates the overlays on their zoning maps, as provided in the case of the City of Ashland by staff planners, and, in the case of the County, as viewed on the official Jackson County website. Following completion of the airport layout plan update, the City and Jackson County should ensure that overlay zoning mapping is updated to be consistent with both current airport planning and Oregon state land use requirements. October 2005 7-3 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report In addition to ensuring quality and cohesive mapping of all of the areas affected by the required Airport Overlay and related safety zones in both the City and County jurisdictions, the existing respective City and County overlay code sections and other applicable zoning and transportation plan languages must also be reviewed and amended to ensure full compliance with ORS Chapter 836. Among the provisions of this statute are the following (Please note: This is not intended to be a comprehensive summation of this legislation. Additional requirements may apply to this site under the cited or related statutes): OAR 660-13-160(.1) Requires jurisdictions to update Plan, land use regulations at Periodic Review to conform with provisions of this statute, or at next update of Transportation System Plan, per OAR 660-12-0015(4) and OAR 660-12-0045(2)(c)&(d). If more than one local government is affected by the Airport Safety Overlay (see below), a Coordinated Work Program for all jurisdictions is required, concurrent with timing of Periodic Review (or TSP update) for the jurisdiction having the most land area devoted to the airport use(s). An Inter- Governmental Agreement is one potential mechanism for complying with the requirement for a "coordinated work program" between concerned jurisdictions under this section. As owners of the facility and the jurisdiction with the most land area devoted to the airport, the City of Ashland should initiate these discussions. (8) Adopt map delineating Safety Zones, compatibility zones, and existing noise impact boundaries identified by OAR 340-35. See also OAR 660-13-0070(1) and Exhibits 1 & 2 to Division 13. Beyond ensuring applicable mapping depicts required safety zones, etc., consistent with the above, jurisdictions must ensure corresponding code language is also compliant. This Airport Layout Plan Update Report will provide the information and graphics for incorporating into the City and County zoning data and mapping files in order to establish compliance with the requirement for mapping "noise impact boundaries." Additional analyses, safety and compatibility zone designations and mapping may likely be necessary to establish full conformity with this section. OAR 660-13-0070(2): Review future development in Airport Safety Overlay for compliance with maximum height limitations. As stated, the consultant recommends that the County and City adopt and enforce height limitations, and other Airport Safety Overlay zoning implementation language, or where already existing, ensure that this is consistent with this and other applicable state laws and federal regulations. In addition to Airport Hazard Overlay requirements described above, OAR 660-13-0040(1)-(3) also requires that jurisdictions adopt a map of existing and planned airport improvements. The consultant recommends that a general review be performed of all County and City Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan language and mapping pertaining to the subject airport and its y October 2005 7-4 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report immediate environs, to compare those with the requirements of ORS Chapter 836.600-630 for airport compatibility. Any amendments to the City's and County's codes, Plans and or maps necessary in order to demonstrate compliance should be affected. It is further recommended that this Airport Layout Plan be adopted as part of the Transportation Elements of the respective City of Ashland and Jackson County Comprehensive Plans. Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field has historically been utilized for business, commercial, government, and recreation purposes. Improvements will accrue positive social and socio-economic impacts through the creation of jobs and enhancement of the performance of the facility. Increased safety and security are among the key expected benefits of the preferred alternative. It is noted that, although the prior Airport Master Plan recommended perimeter fencing be established, this has not yet been completely achieved. Existing perimeter fencing should be augmented or replaced as necessary to establish airport security fencing for the site's entire perimeter, to protect neighbors, wildlife, and airport operations from undue conflicts. NOISE EVALUATION Noise is sometimes defined as unwanted sound. However, sound is measurable, whereas noise is subjective. The relationship between measurable sound and human irritation is the key to understanding aircraft noise impact. A rating scale has been devised to relate sound to the sensitivity of the human ear. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is measured on a "log" scale, by which is meant that for each increase in sound energy level by a factor of 10, there is a designated increase of 1 dBA. This system of measurement is used because the human ear functions over such an enormous range of sound energy impacts. At a psychological level, there is a rule of thumb that the human ear often "hears" an increase of 10 decibels as equivalent to a "doubling" of sound. The challenge to evaluating noise impact lies in determining what amount and what kind of sound constitutes noise. The vast majority of people exposed to aircraft noise are not in danger of direct physical harm. However, much research on the effects of noise has led to several generally accepted conclusions: • The effects of sound are cumulative; therefore, the duration of exposure must be included in any evaluation of noise. • Noise can interfere with outdoor activities and other communication. • Noise can disturb sleep, TV/radio listening, and relaxation. October 2005 7-5 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report • When community noise levels have reached sufficient intensity, community wide objection to the noise will likely occur. Research has also found that individual responses to noise are difficult to prediCt15. Some people are annoyed by perceptible noise events, while others show little concern over the most disruptive events. However, it is possible to predict the responses of large groups of people - i.e. communities. Consequently, community response, not individual response, has emerged as the prime index of aircraft noise measurement. On the basis of the findings described above, a methodology has been devised to relate measurable sound from a variety of sources to community response. It has been termed "Day- Night Average Sound Level" (DNL) and has been adopted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for use in evaluating noise impacts. In a general sense, it is the yearly average of aircraft-created noise for a specific location (i.e., runway), but includes a calculation penalty for each night flight. The basic unit in the computation of DNL is the sound exposure level (SEL). An SEL is computed by mathematically summing the dBA level for each second during which a noise event occurs. Foy example, the noise level of an aircraft might be recorded as it approaches, passes overhead, and then departs. The recorded noise level of each second of the noise event is then added logarithmically to compute the SEL. To provide a penalty for nighttime flights (considered to be between 10 PM and 7 AM), 10 dBA is added to each nighttime dBA measurement, second by second. Due to the mathematics of logarithms, this calculation penalty is equivalent to 10-day flights for each night flight16 A DNL level is approximately equal to the average dBA level during a 24-hour period with a weighing for nighttime noise events. The main advantage of DNL is that it provides a common measure for a variety of different noise environments. The same DNL level can describe an area with very few high noise events as well as an area with many low level events. 15 Beranek, Leo, Noise and Vibration Control, McGraw-Hill, 1971, pages ix-x. 16 Where Leq ("Equivalent Sound Level") is the same measure as DNL without the night penalty incorporated, this can be shown through the mathematical relationship of: Leqd = 10 log ( Nd x 10 (SEvlo) ) Leq" = 10 log( N, x 10 «SEL+IO>/lo) ) 86,400 86,400 If SEL equals the same measured sound exposure level for each computation, and if Nd = 10 daytime flights, and N" = 1 night-time flight, then use of a calculator shows that for any SEL value inserted, Leqd = Leq,. October 2005 7-6 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Noise Modeling and Contour Criteria DNL levels are typically depicted as contours. Contours are an interpolation of noise levels drawn to connect all points of a constant level, which are derived from information processed by the FAA-approved computer noise model. They appear similar to topographical contours and are superimposed on a map of the airport and its surrounding area. It is this map of noise levels drawn about an airport, which is used to predict community response to the noise from aircraft using that airport. DNL mapping is best used for comparative purposes, rather than for providing absolute values. That is, valid comparisons can be made between scenarios as long as consistent assumptions and basic data are used for all calculations. It should be noted that a line drawn on a map by a computer does not imply that a particular noise condition exists on one side of the line and not on the other. These calculations can only be used for comparing average noise impacts, not precisely defining them relative to a specific location at a specific time. 2009 Airport Noise Contours The noise contours depicted on the Airport Land Use Plan drawing in Chapter Five are plotted in 5 DNL increments starting at 55 DNL based on the 2009 forecast activity levels. The size and shape of the contours is consistent with the airport's runway utilization and overall volume of aircraft traffic. Runway 30 is the primary landing and departure runway, which results in contours extending beyond the end of Runway 12 over a longer distance, reflecting the flatter climb profiles of aircraft takeoff. In general, it appears that there are no significant land use compatibility conflicts within the areas defined by the noise contours. Although limited areas of residential development exist, the sparse development patterns in the vicinity of the airport appear to have prevented significant levels of aircraft noise exposure to densely populated areas. Local planning authorities should discourage land use patterns that would increase population densities in the vicinity of the airport, particularly beneath the runway approach surfaces. The 2009 55 DNL noise contour extends approximately 3,500 feet beyond the end of Runway 12 and approximately 1,800 feet beyond the end of Runway 30. The areas located beyond the runway ends are predominantly agricultural and sparsely populated lands. The area immediately north of the runway is developed in vineyards and other agricultural uses; the area immediately south of the runway contains sparsely developed commercial and residential land uses and agricultural lands. Limited areas of residential development exist along the sides of the runway, within 300 to 600 feet. Portions of these areas appear to be located within the 60 or 65 DNL contours. Portions of the 2009 60 and 65 DNL contours extend beyond airport property beyond both runway ends and along the sides of the runway and the relatively narrow airport property area. i October 2005 7-7 Environmental Checklist i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report At the Runway 12 end, the 60 DNL contour extends approximately 1,000 feet beyond the runway end over an unpopulated agricultural area. At the Runway 30 end, the 60 DNL extends approximately 300 feet beyond the runway, mostly within airport property. The 65 DNL contour ends within about 200 feet of each runway end, although areas of 65 DNL appear to extend over adjacent properties, some of which currently accommodate low-density residential use. An off- airport mini storage development located within 200 feet (southwest) of the end of Runway 30 appears to be partially located within the 60 and 65 DNL contours. The 2009 70 and 75 DNL noise contours appear to be contained within airport property Residential development within the 65 DNL and higher noise contour is not recommended and should be discouraged. The sparsely developed land uses in the vicinity of the airport suggest that noise compatibility will not be a significant issue during the planning period. However, since perceived noise impacts are not limited to areas with significant levels of noise, care should be taken by local land use authorities to avoid creating potential long-term land use incompatibilities in the vicinity of the airport by permitting development of incompatible land uses such as residential subdivisions within areas of moderate or higher noise exposure. Under federal guidelines, all land uses, including residential, are considered compatible with noise exposure levels of 65 DNL and lower. Airport management should actively encourage local and transient pilots to avoid direct overflights of residential areas through wherever possible. Noise and Land-Use Compatibility Criteria Federal regulatory agencies of government have adopted standards and suggested guidelines relating DNL to compatible land uses. Most of the noise and land-use compatibility guidelines strongly support the concept that significant annoyance from aircraft noise levels does not occur outside a 65 DNL noise contour. Federal agencies supporting this concept include the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Aviation Administration. Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, of the Federal Aviation Regulations, provides guidance for land-use compatibility around airports. Table 7-2 presents these guidelines. Compatibility or non-compatibility of land use is determined by comparing the noise contours with existing and potential land uses. All types of land uses are compatible in areas below 65 DNL. Generally, residential and some public uses are not compatible within the 65-70 DNL, and above. As noted in Table 7-2, some degree of noise level reduction (NLR) from outdoor to indoor environments may be required for specific land uses located within higher-level noise contours. Land uses such as commercial, manufacturing, some recreational uses, and agriculture are compatible within 65-70 DNL contours. October 2005 7-8 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 7-2: LAND-USE COMPATIBILITY WITH DNL Yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) In Decibels Land Use Below Over 65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85 Residential Residential, other than mobile homes & transient lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N N N Mobile Home Parks Y N N N N N Transient Lodgings Y N(1) N(1) N(1) N N Public Use Schools Y N(1) N(1) N N N Hospitals and Nursing Homes Y 25 30 N N N Churches, Auditoriums, and Concert Halls Y 25 30 N N N Governmental Services Y Y 25 30 N N Transportation Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) Y(4) Parking Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Commercial Use Offices, Business and Professional Y Y 25 30 N N Wholesale and Retail-Building Materials, Hardware and Farm Equipment Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Retail Trade--General Y Y 25 30 N N Utilities Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Communication Y Y 25 30 N N Manufacturing and Production Manufacturing General Y Y Y(2) Y(3) Y(4) N Photographic and Optical Y Y 25 30 N N Agriculture (except livestock) and Forestry Y Y(6) Y(7) Y(8) Y(8) Y(8) Livestock Farming and Breeding Y Y(6) Y(7) N N N Mining and Fishing, Resource Production and Extraction Y Y Y Y Y Y Recreational Outdoor Sports Arenas, Spectator Sports............ Y Y(5) Y(5) N N N Outdoor Music Shells, Amphitheaters Y N N N N N Nature Exhibits and Zoos Y Y N N N N Amusements, Parks, Resorts and Camps Y Y Y N N N Golf Courses, Riding Stables and Water Recreation Y Y 25 30 N N Y (Yes) Land-use and related structures compatible without restrictions. N (No) Land-use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited. NLR Noise Level Reduction (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise attenuation into design and construction of the structure. 25, 30 or 35 Land uses and structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR or 25, 30, or 35 dB must be incorporated into design and construction of the structure. NOTES: October 2005 7-9 Environmental Checklist i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 1. Where the community determines that residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor Noise Levels Reduction (NLR) of at least 25dB and 30dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB; thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation and closed windows year-round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. 2. Measures to achieve NLR of 25 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 3. Measures to achieve NLR of 30 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 4. Measures to achieve NLR of 35 dB must be incorporated into the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received office areas, noise sensitive areas, or where the normal noise level is low. 5. Land-use compatible, provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed. 6. Residential buildings require an NLR of 25. 7. Residential buildings require an NLR of 30. 8. Residential buildings not permitted. SOURCE: Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, dated January 18, 1985. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A summary of the environmental checklist items and preliminary findings is presented in Table 7-3, at the end of the chapter. Information from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality web page indicates that air quality in the area is officially rated as "good" (see appendices). No significant increase over existing levels of air and/or surface traffic is anticipated under the Preferred Alternative. No adverse impact is anticipated in regard to air quality. Water quality impacts are always a concern with any construction project, and especially when considering uses and sites where potentially hazardous materials, such as aviation fuel, fire retardants, de-icing agents, and/or agricultural chemicals are involved. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) routinely recommends for airport projects that, at a minimum, investigations be performed which document past agricultural spraying practices, aviation fuel storage facilities, and other potential sources for adverse water quality impacts associated with past, present and potential future activities at the site. Agricultural and/or forestry-related chemical operators and airport sponsors must ensure that wash down, collection, treatment and storage areas and devices comply with Oregon Administrative Rule 340-109 and all applicable environmental standards. In this case, there are the concerns that customarily are associated with petroleum fueling areas and activities, and specific interest in ensuring the quality of any water which is permitted to enter any of the creeks in the area. If any wastewater is currently being distributed to a septic drain field, Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-044 may apply, and may require an October 2005 7-10 Environmental Checklist i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report VA, Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit from DEQ. In addition to the requirement for securing wastewater permits for washing, maintenance, or deicing areas, the sponsor must secure a National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for any project affecting one acre or more of land, and keep current NPDES permits on hand for discharging any storm water runoff. The airport's existing storm water drainage includes an underground collection system which ultimately routes filtered storm water through a branch of Neil Creek. During construction, adherence to the applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards; observance of DEQ's "Best Management Practices for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities" (2000); and compliance with the guidelines of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, are all advised to further protect against adverse water quality impacts. As of April 15, 2001, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, SHPO, requires considerable documentation be provided by any party inquiring about the existence of significant cultural resources in a given location. The new procedure requires such information as architectural classification, window and roof types of all structures within the study area; if they may be considered as a resource; dates of any alterations; and "Significance Statements" for all types of resources. SHPO has provided specific forms, "Section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act) Documentation Forms" and "Section 106 Level of Effect Forms", for use in making such a request. This level of investigation surpasses the scope of this ALP Update Report. During preliminary stages of this study process, the consultant forwarded a letter to the Confederated Tribes of Rogue Indians. No response was received as of this writing. A City planning official indicated no historic sites were located on the airport property. If any historic or cultural resources are discovered during construction, the sponsor will be responsible for immediately notifying SHPO, the Tribes, and the other appropriate authorities. Work would be required to be halted until the physical extent and relative cultural significance of the resource(s) could be identified, and a protection plan developed and implemented, if warranted. No response to mailings concerning this project was received by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Protection of surface waters from adverse impacts of development, including but not limited to silting and sedimentation, and obtaining a comprehensive inventory of the storage of hazardous waste materials on-site, to protect against surface water contamination, typically list as the primary concerns discussed by ODFW in a setting such as the subject. The consultant recommends that a comprehensive inventory of hazardous wastes handled, stored or otherwise periodically or otherwise present be provided to ODFW and DEQ for their information. October 2005 7-11 Environmental Checklist i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report A search of the database of the Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center revealed salamanders, toads and frogs which are species of concern to either the State of Oregon or Federal government, and which may occur in the project vicinity. Among other notable species which may occur in the area are: the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, listed as Threatened; Lewis's Woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis, a species of concern to the state and US; Coho and Chinook Salmon, winter and summer run Steelhead Trout; three different species of bats; the Northwestern Pond Turtle, Emys marmorata marmorata, which is a species of concern; three snakes; a snail, a thistle, and various other forms of flora which are considered "sensitive- critical" by the State of Oregon. Please see the attached database report for more information concerning these substantial numbers of plants and animals which could potentially be affected by the preferred alternative. In addition to the above, the US Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one bird and one fish species as "Threatened" Species which may be affected by an airport improvement project at this location. The Bald Eagle, or Haliaeetus leucocephalus, and the Coho Salmon, South Oregon / Northern Californian Coast, Oncorhynchus kisutch, are reported within proximity to the project site. In addition, one invertebrate, the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Branchinecta lynci, is another Threatened species listed as possibly occurring in the vicinity. An Endangered plant, Gentner Mission Bells, Fritallaria gentneri, is also listed by USFWS. USFWS also brings to the sponsor's attention numerous species of concern suspected of inhabiting the environs around and including this airport site, including seven species of bats; seven additional species of birds; amphibians and reptiles discussed above and inventoried by the Oregon Natural Heritage Database; as well as the Pacific Lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, the Coastal Cutthroat Trout, Oncorhynchus clarki clarki; a bumblebee, a grasshopper, and three species of plants. Species of concern are described by the USFWS as "Taxa whose conservation status is of concern to the Service, but for which further information is still needed." The USFWS correspondence states a Biological Assessment is required for "construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) which are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities," the USFWS' correspondence continues, "the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to the Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether they may affect listed and proposed species." Consistent with the above, a biological evaluation appears warranted in this instance, to protect the sponsor against liability associated with potential impacts upon these and / or other sensitive species. October 2005 7-12 Environmental Checklist I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Iiu, According to a review of the US Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), wetlands in the immediate area of the facility which are most likely to warrant protection from adverse impacts of the preferred alternative are limited to Emigrant Creek, Neil Creek, and Bear Creek. These are Riverine (related to rivers, creeks, or streams) wetlands with some Palustrine ("fresh open water") resources associated with them. As a safe harbor approach, it is generally recommended that development maintain a minimum of thirty to fifty foot setback from wetlands of these types, if feasible. Development activities which would impact a wetland resource by filling or removing greater than fifty cubic yards of materials must be preceded by any necessary permit(s) from the Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL) and/or US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), as applicable. 100 year floodplains associated with the neighboring creeks affect the extreme northerly and the entire westerly and southwesterly portions of the airport property. Any development in the floodplain must comply with applicable City of Ashland Flood Plain Management ordinance requirements, and finished floors of any structures must be a minimum of one foot above the established base flood elevation. Terminal area development has thus far occurred outside of the mapped floodplain. Soils on the site are Medford silty clay loam, Central point sandy loam, and Carney clay. Because no federal lands are proposed to be committed or otherwise involved in the Preferred Alternative, the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) does not apply to this proposal, and no further analysis under this impact category is necessary to demonstrate compliance with NEPA. No conversion of farm land is contemplated under the preferred alternative. Silt fences, runoff diversion tactics, and storm water detention are commonly implemented in similar construction projects, and should be utilized for any project on the airport in order to minimize adverse impacts of development related activities. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370- 10 provides additional measures which are advised to be implemented to minimize adverse impacts of airport construction activities. In addition, DEQ's 2000 publication "Best Management Practices for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities" should be followed during all phases of the project. Please see the above-related discussion regarding water quality impacts. October 2005 7-13 Environmental Checklist I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 7-3: ASHLAND MUNICIPAL Potential AIRPORT - SUMNER PARKER FIELD Further Action Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Needed? Category Existing Conditions / Comments Noise No significant areas of population within 65 or above NO noise contours. Local governments must adopt and Map Airport Overlay Zoning, planned improvements, ensure consistency of Compatible zoning provisions with State law. Future uses in the YES Land Use vicinity must have the burden of demonstrating compatibility with aviation and compliance with ORS Ch. 836.600-630. Expected to be positive, as is typical with airport Social / Socio- projects. YES Economic Area is in attainment for air quality; no change in current NO Air Quality conditions is anticipated. Any wastewater distributed to a septic drain field may require application for an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit from DEQ. DEQ requires surface storm water runoff be contained, treated, prior to discharge to any natural drainage system, water body. NPDES Permit; maintaining maximum physical separation Water Quality between construction and sensitive waterways, adherence YES to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10 required. Document to DEQ, ODWF any chemicals stored on site. For fuel or agricultural chemical storage and handling, see Water Quality section of this Environmental Checklist, observe compliance with DEQ requirements. Surface water quality is of concern. Special Land No parks, recreation areas, or refuge areas per Uses, DOT Act this section affected. NO Section 4(f) October 2005 7-14 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 7-3: ASHLAND MUNICIPAL Potential AIRPORT - SUMNER PARKER FIELD Further Action Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Needed? Category Existing Conditions / Comments Historic, Records no longer provided by SHPO. Halt construction Architectural, if resources discovered, notify identified tribes, SHPO of Archaeological, all development plans. POSSIBLE and Cultural Resources ODFW concerned primarily with water quality impacts Biotic as they relate to the three nearby creeks. See YES Communities Construction Impacts, Water Quality sections of Environmental Checklist narrative. Several Threatened, Endangered, and Species of Concern Endangered and were identified as occurring in vicinity. A Biological Threatened Evaluation is recommended. Please see narrative. YES Species According to National Wetlands Inventory Maps Wetlands produced by the USFWS, Neil, Emigrant, and Bear POSSIBLE Creeks are the only jurisdictional wetlands likely to warrant protection. Avoidance, where feasible, of development activities in Floodplain flood plain is advised. Where unavoidable, comply with YES local and federal permitting and construction requirements. Shoreline Not Applicable to this facility. NO Management Coastal Barriers Also Not Applicable. NO Wild and Scenic Not Applicable. NO Rivers Public airport improvement projects on private lands are Farmland exempt from Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) NO Energy Supply No adverse impacts anticipated. and Natural NO Resources t October 2005 7-15 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 7-3: ASHLAND MUNICIPAL Potential AIRPORT - SUMNER PARKER FIELD Further Action Impact ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Needed? Category Existing Conditions / Comments Light Emissions No hazards reported by local planners or operators, upon and Glare inquiry. No analysis of existing light emissions which POSSIBLE might pose potential hazards to aviation performed. Creeks, other surface and ground water systems must be considered and protected from contamination during the Solid Waste handling of waste materials. Development under the YES Impacts Preferred Alternative would not considerably increase production of waste at the facility, except during construction phase. Temporary impacts will accrue during construction phase. Of particular concern is any runoff which might Construction make its way to Neil, Emigrant, or Bear Creeks via the Impacts Neil Creek tributary, surface or groundwater flow, or YES other means. Adherence to the provisions of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10 should preclude foreseeable adverse impacts. y October 2005 7-15 Environmental Checklist Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Glossary of Aviation Terms ■ The following glossary of aviation terns was compiled and edited by David Miller, AICP for use in aviation planning projects. Accelerate Stop Distance Available (ASDA) - The length of the takeoff run available plus the length of a stopway, when available. Agricultural Aviation - The use of fixed-wing or rotor-wing aircraft in the aerial application of agricultural products (i.e., fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). Air Cargo - All conunercial air express and air freight with the exception of airmail and parcel post. Air Carrier/Airline - All regularly scheduled airline activity performed by airlines certificated in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR Part 121). Air Taxi - Operations of aircraft "for hire" for specific trips, commonly referred to an aircraft available for charter (FAR Part 135). Aircraft Approach Category - A grouping of aircraft based how fast they come in for landing. As a rule of thumb, slower approach speeds mean smaller airport dimensions and faster speeds mean larger dimensions from runway widths to the separation between runways and taxiways. The aircraft approach categories are: Category A - Speed less than 91 knots; Category B - Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots Category C - Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots Category D - Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots Category E - Speed 166 knots or more Aircraft Operation - A landing or takeoff is one operation. An aircraft that takes off and then lands creates two aircraft operations. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) - International aviation organization. Airplane Design Group - A grouping of airplanes based on wingspan. As with Approach Category, the wider the wingspan, the bigger the aircraft is, the more room it takes up for operating on an airport. The Airplane Design Groups are: Group I: Up to, but not including 49 feet Group H: 49 feet up to, but not including 79 feet Group 111: 79 feet up to, but not including 118 feet Group IV: 118 feet up to, but not including 171 feet Group V: 171 feet up to, but not including 214 feet Group VI: 214 feet up to, but not including 262 feet GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 2 Airport - A landing area regularly used by aircraft for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo, including heliports and seaplane bases. Airport Improvement Program (AIP) - The funding program administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with user fees which are dedicated to improvement of the national airport system. This program currently provides 95% of funding for eligible airport improvement projects. The local sponsor of the project (i.e., airport owner) provides the remaining 5% known as the "match." Airport Layout Plan (ALP) - The FAA approved drawing which shows the existing and anticipated layout of an airport for the next 20 years or so. An ALP is prepared using FAA design standards. Airport Reference Code (ARC) - An FAA airport coding system. The system looks at the types of aircraft which use an airport most often and then based upon the characteristics of those airplanes (approach speed and wing span), assigns a code. The code is then used to determine how the airport is designed and what design standards are used. An airport designed for a Piper Cub (an aircraft in the A-I approach/design group) would take less room than a Boeing 747 (an aircraft in the D-V approach/design group). Airport Reference Point (ARP) - The approximate mid-point of an airfield that is designated as the official airport location. Airports District Office (ADO) - The "local" office of the FAA that coordinates planning and construction projects. Staff in the ADO is typically assigned to a particular state, i.e., Oregon, Idaho, or Washington. The ADO for Oregon, Washington and Idaho is located in Renton, Washington. Airspace - The area above the ground in which aircraft travel. It is divided into corridors, routes, and .restricted zones for the control and safety of traffic. Alternate Airport - An airport that is available for landing when the intended airport becomes unavailable. Required for instrument flight planning in the event that weather conditions at destination airport fall below approach minimums (cloud ceiling or visibility). Annual Service Volume (ASV) - An estimate of how many airplanes and airport can handle based upon the number and types of runways, the aircraft mix (big vs. small, etc), and the weather conditions. Annual service volume is one of the bench marks used to determine when an airport is getting so busy that a new runway or taxiway are needed. Approach End of Runway - The end of the runway a pilot tries to land - could be thought of as the "landing end" of the runway. Which end a pilot uses depends upon the winds. Pilots almost always try and land into the wind and will line up on the runway that best aligns with the wind. Approach Surface - Also FAR Part 77 Approach or Obstacle Clearance Approach - An imaginary (invisible) surface which rises off the ends of a runway which must be kept clear to provide airspace for an airplane to land or take off in. The size of the approach surface will vary depending upon how big and how fast the airplanes are, and whether or not the runway has an instrument approach for landing in bad weather. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 3 Apron - An area on an airport designated for the parking, loading, fueling, or servicing of aircraft (also referred to as tarmac and ramp). ARFF - Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, i.e., an on airport response required for certificated commercial service airports (see FAR Part 139). Automated Surface Observation System (ASOS) and Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) - Automated observation systems providing continuous on-site weather data, designed to support aviation activities and weather forecasting. AVGAS - Gasoline used in airplanes with piston engines. Avigation Easement - A form of limited property right purchase that establishes legal land use control prohibiting incompatible development of areas required for airports or airport-related purposes. Based Aircraft - Aircraft stationed at an airport on an annual basis. Used as a measure of activity at an airport. Capacity - A measure of the maximum number of aircraft operations that can be accommodated on the runways of an airport in an hour. Ceiling - The height above the ground or water to base of the lowest cloud layers covering more than 50 percent of the sky. Charter - Operations of aircraft "for hire" for specific trips, commonly referred to an aircraft available for charter. Circle to Land or Circling Approach An instrument approach procedure that allows pilots to "circle" the airfield to land on any authorized runway once visual contact with the runway environment is established and maintained throughout the procedure. Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) - A frequency used by pilots to communicate and obtain airport advisories at an uncontrolled airport. Conical Surface - One of the "FAR Part 77 "Imaginary" Surfaces. The conical surface extends outward and upward from the edge of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 to a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. Critical Aircraft - Aircraft which controls one or more design items based on wingspan, approach speed and/or maximum certificated take off weight. The same aircraft may not be critical to all design items. Crosswind - When used concerning wind conditions, the word means a wind not parallel to the runway or the path of an aircraft. Sometimes used in reference to a runway as in runway 7/25 is the crosswind runway" meaning that it is not the runway normally used for the prevailing wind condition. Decision Height (DH) - For precision instrument approaches, the height (typically in feet or meters above runway end touchdown zone elevation) at which a decision to land or execute a missed approach must be made by the pilot. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 4 Displaced Threshold - A runway threshold (landing point) that is located at a point other than the runway end. Usually provided to mitigate close-in obstructions to runway approaches for landing aircraft. DNL - Day-night sound levels, a method of measuring noise exposure. Enplanements - Domestic, territorial, and international revenue passengers who board an aircraft in the states in scheduled and non-scheduled service of aircraft in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce and includes intransit passengers (passengers on board international flights that transit an airport in the US for non-traffic purposes). Entitlements - Distribution of Airport Improvement Plan (Alp) funds from the Airport & Airways Trust Fund to commercial service airport sponsors based on enplanements or cargo landed weights. Also, Non-Primary General Aviation Entitlements now incorporated in AIP funding for general aviation airports. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) - The FAA is the branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation that is responsible for the development of airports and air navigation systems. FAR Part 77 - Federal Aviation Regulations which establish standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace. FAR stands for Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 refers to the section in the regulations, i.e., #77. FAR Part 77 is commonly used to refer to imaginary surfaces, the primary, transitional, horizontal, conical, and approach surfaces. These surfaces vary with the size and type of airport. FAR Part 139 - Federal Aviation Regulations which establish standards for airports with scheduled passenger commercial air service. Airports accommodating scheduled passenger service with aircraft more than 9 passenger seats must be certified as a "Part 139" airport. Airports that are not certified under Part 139 may accommodate scheduled commercial passenger service with aircraft having 9 passenger seats or less. Final Approach Fix (FAF) - The fix (location) from which the final instrument approach to an airport is executed; also identifies beginning of final approach segment. Final Approach Point (FAP) For nonprecision instrument approaches, the point at which an aircraft is established inbound for the approach and where the final descent may begin. Fixed Base Operator (FBO) - An individual or company located at an airport providing aviation services. Sometimes further defined as a "full service" FBO or a limited service. Full service FBOs typically provide a broad range of services (flight instruction, aircraft rental, charter, fueling, repair, etc) where a limited service FBO provides only one or two services (such as fueling, flight instruction or repair). Fixed Wing - A plane with one or more "fixed wings," as opposed to a helicopter that utilizes a rotary wing. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 5 Flight Service Station (FSS) - An office where a pilot can call (on the ground or in the air) to get weather and airport information. Flight plans are also filed with the FSS. General Aviation (GA) - All civil (non-inilitary) aviation operations other than scheduled air services and non-scheduled air transport operations for hire. Glide Slope (GS) - For precision instrument approaches, such as an instrument landing system (ILS), the component that provides electronic vertical guidance to aircraft. Visual guidance indicators (VGI) define a glide slope (glide path) through a series of colored lights that are visible to pilots when approaching a runway end for landing. Global Positioning System (GPS) - GPS is a system of navigating which uses satellites to establish the location and altitude of an aircraft. The FAA recently embraced GPS as a system with potential for application in traveling from point A to point B as well as for use in making landing approaches. Height Above Airport (HAA) - The height of the published minimum descent altitude (MDA) above the published airport elevation. This is normally published in conjunction with circling minimums. High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) - High intensity (i.e., very bright) lights are used on instrument runways where landings are made in foggy weather. The bright runway lights help pilots to see the runway when visibility is poor. Hold/Holding Procedure - A defined maneuver in controlled airspace that allows aircraft to circle above a fixed point (often over a navigational aid or GPS waypoint) and altitude while awaiting further clearance from air traffic control. Home Built Aircraft - An aircraft built by an amateur; not an FAA Certified factory built aircraft. Horizontal Surface - One of the FAR Part 77 Imaginary (invisible) Surfaces. The horizontal surface is an imaginary flat surface 150 feet above the established airport elevation. Its perimeter is constructed by swinging arcs (circles) with a radius of 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or general; and 10,000 feet for all other runways from the center of each end of the primary surface and connecting the adjacent are by straight lines. The resulting shape looks like a football stadium. It could also be described as a rectangle with half circles on each end with the runway in the middle. Initial Approach Point of Fix (IAP/IAF) - For instrument approaches, a designated point where an aircraft may begin the approach procedure. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) - IFR refers to the set of rules pilots must follow when they are flying in bad weather. Pilots are required to follow these rules when operating in controlled airspace with visibility (ability to see in front of themselves) of less than three miles and/or ceiling (a layer of clouds) lower than 1,000 feet. Instrument Landing System (ILS)- An ILS is a system used to guide a plane in for a landing in bad weather. Sometimes referred to as a precision instrument approach, it is m designed to provide an exact approach path for alignment and descent of aircraft. Generally consists of a localizer, glide slope, outer marker, middle marker, and approach lights. This type of precision instrument system is being replaced by Microwave Landing Systems (MLS). GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 6 Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) - Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from clouds, and ceiling less than minima specified for visual meteorological conditions. Instrument Runway - A runway equipped with systems to help a pilot land in bad weather. Itinerant Operation - All aircraft operations at an airport other than local, i.e., flights that come in from another airport. Jet Fuel - Highly refined grade of kerosene used by turbine engine aircraft. Landing Area - That part of the movement area intended for the landing and takeoff of aircraft. Landing Distance Available (LDA) - The length of runway which is available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane landing. Left Traffic - a term used to describe which side of a runway the airport traffic pattern is located. Left traffic indicates that the runway will be to the pilot's left when in the traffic pattern. Left traffic is standard unless otherwise noted in facility directories at a particular airport. Large Aircraft - An aircraft that weighs more than 12,5001bs. Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) - GPS-based instrument approach that utilizes ground- based systems to augment satellite coverage to provide vertical (glideslope) and horizontal (course) guidance. LAAS approaches have the technical capabilities to provide approach minimums comparable to a Category I and H instrument landing system (ILS). The FAA indicates that a LAAS system can support approaches to multiple runways and potentially multiple airports within a range of approximately 30 nautical miles. Local Operation - Aircraft operation in the traffic pattern or within sight of the tower, or aircraft known to be departing or arriving from flight in local practice areas, or aircraft executing practice instrument approaches at the airport. Localizer - For precision instrument approaches, such as an instrument landing system (ILS), the component that provides electronic lateral guidance to aircraft. LORAN C - A navigation system using land based radio signals which allows a person to tell where they are and how fast they are moving, but not how high you are off the ground. (See GPS) Magnetic Declination - also called magnetic variation, is the angle between magnetic north and true north. Declination is considered positive east of true north and negative when west. Magnetic declination changes over time and with location. Runway end numbers, which reflect the magnetic heading/alignment (within 5 degrees occasionally require change due to declination. MALSR - Medium-intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway alignment indicator lights. An airport lighting facility which provides visual guidance to landing aircraft. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 7 Medevac - Fixed wing or rotor-wing aircraft used to transport critical medical patients. These aircraft are equipped to provide life support during transport. Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL) - Runway lights which are not as intense as HIRLs (high intensity runway lights). Typical at medium and smaller airports which do not have sophisticated instrument landing systems. Microwave Landing System (MLS) - An instrument landing system operating in the microwave spectrum, which provides lateral and vertical guidance to aircraft with compatible equipment. It was touted as the replacement for the ILS but never achieved this status. Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) - The lowest altitude in a nonprecision instrument approach that an aircraft may descend without establishing visual contact with the runway or airport environment. Minimums - Weather condition requirements established for a particular operation or type of operation. Missed Approach - A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach cannot be completed to a landing. Missed Approach Point (MAP) - The defined location in an nonprecision instrument approach where the procedure must be terminated if the pilot has not visually established the runway or airport environment. Movement Area - The runways, taxiways and other areas of the airport used for taxiing, takeoff and landing of aircraft, i.e., for aircraft movement. MSL - Elevation above Mean Sea Level. National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The NPIAS is the federal airport classification system that includes public use airports that meet specific eligibility and activity criteria. A "NPIAS designation" is required for an airport to be eligible to receive FAA funding for airport projects. Navigational Aid (Navaid) - Any visual or electronic device that helps a pilot navigate. Can be for use to land at an airport or for traveling from point A to point B. Nondirectional Beacon (NDB) - Non-Directional Beacon which transmits a signal on which a pilot may "home" using equipment installed in the aircraft. Non-Precision Instrument (NPI) Approach - A non-precision instrument approach provides horizontal (course) guidance to pilots for landing. NPI approaches often involve a series of "step down" sequences where aircraft descend in increments (based on terrain clearance), rather than following a continuous glide path. The pilot is responsible for maintaining altitude control between approach segments since no "vertical" guidance is provided Obstruction - An object (tree, house, road, phone pole, etc) that penetrates an imaginary surface described in FAR Part 77. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 8 Obstruction Chart (OC) - A chart that depicts surveyed obstructions that penetrate an FAR Part 77 imaginary surface surrounding an airport. OC charts are developed by the National Ocean Service (NOS) based on a comprehensive survey that provides detailed location (latitude/longitude coordinates) and elevation data in addition to critical airfield data. Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) - A user fee charged by public agencies controlling a commercial service airport can charge enplaning passengers a fee facility charge. Public agencies must apply to the FAA and meet certain requirements in order to impose a PFC. Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) - A system of lights located by the approach end of a runway that provides visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing. The lights typically show green if a pilot is on the correct flight path, and turn red of a pilot is too low. Precision Instrument Runway (PIR) - A runway served by a "precision" instrument approach landing system. The precision landing systems allows property equipped airplanes and trained pilots to land in bad weather. Precision Instrument Approach - A precision instrument approach is a system which helps guide pilots in for a landing in thick fog and provides "precise" guidance as opposed to a non-precision approach that is less precise. Primary Runway - That runway which provides the best wind coverage, etc., and receives the most usage at the airport. Primary Surface - One of the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, the primary surface is centered on top of the runway and extends 200 feet beyond each end. The width is from 250' to 1,000' wide depending upon the type of airplanes using the runway. Procedure Turn (PT) - A maneuver in which a turn is made away from a designated track followed by a turn in an opposite direction to permit an aircraft to intercept the track in the opposite direction (usually inbound). Relocated Threshold - A runway threshold (takeoff and landing point) that is located at a point other than the runway end. Usually provided to mitigate nonstandard runway safety area (RSA) dimensions beyond the end of a runway. Rotoreraft - A helicopter. Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) - These are distinctive flashing lights that help a pilot identify the runway. Runway Object Free Area (OFA) - A defined area surrounding a runway that should be free of any obstructions that could in interfere with aircraft operations. The dimensions for the OFA increase for runways accommodating larger or faster aircraft. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) - An area off the end of the runway that is intended to be clear in case an aircraft lands short of the runway. The size is small for airports serving only small airplanes and gets GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 9 bigger for airports serving large airplanes. The RPZ used to be known as a clear zone - which was a good descriptive term because you wanted to keep it clear. Runway Safety Area (RSA) A prepared ground area surrounding a runway that is intended to accommodate inadvertent aircraft passage without causing damage. The dimensions for the RSA increase for runways accommodating larger or faster aircraft. Segmented Circle - A system of visual indicators designed to show a pilot in the air the direction of the traffic pattern at that airport. Small Aircraft - An aircraft that weighs less than 12,500 lbs. Straight-In Approach - An instrument approach that directs aircraft to a specific runway end. T-Hangar - An aircraft storage hangar that resembles the shape of a "T." Takeoff Distance Available (TODA) - the length of the takeoff run available plus the length of clearway, if available. Takeoff Run Available (TORA) - the length of runway available and suitable for the ground run of aircraft when taking off. Threshold - The beginning of that portion of a runway that is useable for landing. Tiedown - A place where an aircraft is parked and "tied down." Surface can be grass, gravel or paved. Traffic Pattern - The flow of traffic that is prescribed for aircraft landing, taxiing, or taking off from an airport. Transitional Surfaces - One of the FAR Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces, the transitional surface extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the extended runway centerline at a slope of 7:1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. Transport Airport - An airport designed and constructed to serve large commercial airliners. Portland International and SEATAC are good examples of transport airports. Utility Airport - An airport designed and constructed to serve small planes. Aurora State Airport in Oregon, Nampa Airport in Idaho, or Arlington Airport in Washington are examples of utility airports. Vertical Navigation (VNAV) - vertical navigation descent data or descent path, typically associated with published GPS instrument approaches. The use of any VNAV approach technique requires operator approval, certified VNAV-capable avionics, and flight crew training. Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) - A system of lights located by the approach end of a runway which provides visual approach slope guidance to aircraft during approach to landing. The lights typically show some combination of green and white if a pilot is on the correct flight path, and turn red of a pilot is too low. GLOSSARY OF AVIATION TERMS Page 10 Visual Flight Rules (VFR) - Rules that govern the procedures to conducting flight under visual conditions. The term is also used in the US to indicate weather conditions that are equal to or greater than minimum VFR requirements. In addition, it is used by pilots and controllers to indicate type of flight plan. Visual Guidance Indicator (VGI) - Equipment designed to provide visual guidance for pilots for landing through the use of different color light beams. Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VAST) and Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) defined above are examples. Waypoint - A specified geographical location used to define an area navigation route or the flight path of an aircraft employing area navigation. Wide Area Augmentation System (WARS) GPS-based instrument approach that can provide both vertical (glideslope) and horizontal (course) guidance. WAAS-GPS approaches have the technical capabilities to provide approach minimums nearly comparable to a Category I instrument landing system (ILS). Wind Rose - A diagram indicating the prevalence of winds from various directions in relation to existing or proposed runway alignments. Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report APPENDIX FAA Airport Design Printouts ZZJ ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT AND RUNWAY DATA Airport elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1885 feet Mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month . . . . . . . 85.00 F. Maximum difference in runway centerline elevation . . . . . . . . 40 feet Length of haul for airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 500 miles Wet and slippery runways RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 30 knots . . . 360 feet Small airplanes with approach speeds of less than 50 knots . . . 950 feet Small airplanes with less than 10 passenger seats 75 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3090 feet 95 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . 3700 feet 100 percent of these small airplanes . . . . . . . . . . . . 4320 feet Small airplanes with 10 or more passenger seats . . . . . . . . . 4550 feet Large airplanes of 60,000 pounds or less 75 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 5500 feet 75 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 7000 feet 100 percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 6170 feet 100 percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 8980 feet Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds . . . . . . . . Approximately 5670 feet REFERENCE: Chapter 2 of AC 150/5325-4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, no Changes included. ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT DESIGN AIRPLANE AND AIRPORT DATA Aircraft Approach Category B Airplane Design Group I (Small Airplanes Exclusively) Airplane wingspan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.99 feet Primary runway end approach visibility minimums are visual exclusively Other runway end approach visibility minimums are visual exclusively Airplane undercarriage width (1.15 x main gear track) . . . 14.95 feet RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY WIDTH AND CLEARANCE STANDARD DIMENSIONS Airplane Group/ARC Runway centerline to parallel runway centerline simultaneous operations when wake turbulence is not treated as a factor: VFR operations with no intervening taxiway . . . . . . . . . . 700 feet VFR operations with one intervening taxiway . . . . . . . . . 700 feet VFR operations with two intervening taxiways . . . . . . . . . 700 feet IFR approach and departure with approach to near threshold 2500 feet less 100 ft for each 500 ft of threshold stagger to a minimum of 1000 feet. Runway centerline to parallel runway centerline simultaneous operations when wake turbulence is treated as a factor: VFR operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2500 feet IFR departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2500 feet IFR approach and departure with approach to near threshold 2500 feet IFR approach and departure with approach to far threshold 2500 feet plus 100 feet for each 500 feet of threshold stagger. IFR approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3400 feet Runway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane centerline . 149.5 150 feet Runway centerline to edge of aircraft parking . . . . . . . 125.0 125 feet Runway width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 feet Runway shoulder width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 feet Runway blast pad width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 feet. Runway blast pad length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 feet Runway safety area width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 feet Runway safety area length beyond each runway end or stopway end, whichever is greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 feet Runway object free area width . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Runway object free area length beyond each runway end or stopway end, whichever is greater . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 feet Clearway width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 feet Stopway width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 feet Obstacle free zone (OFZ): Runway OFZ width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Runway OFZ length beyond each runway end . . . . . . . . . . . 200 feet Inner-approach OFZ width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Inner-approach OFZ length beyond approach light system 200 feet Inner-approach OFZ slope from 200 feet beyond threshold . . . 50:1 Inner-transitional OFZ slope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:1 Runway protection zone at the primary runway end: Width 200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Width 1200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 feet 1000 feet Length . Runway protection zone at other runway end: Width 200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Width 1200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 feet 1000 feet Length . Departure runway protection zone: Width 200 feet from the far end of TORA . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Width 1200 feet from the far end of TORA . . . . . . . . . . 450 feet 1000 feet Length . Threshold surface at primary runway end: Distance out from threshold to start of surface . . . . . . . 0 feet Width of surface at start of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . 250 feet Width of surface at end of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . . 700 feet Length of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2250 feet Length of rectangular section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2750 feet Slope of surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20:1 Threshold surface at other runway end: Distance out from threshold to start of surface . . . . . . . 0 feet Width of surface at start of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . 250 feet Width of surface at end of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . . 700 feet Length of trapezoidal section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2250 feet Length of rectangular section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2750 feet Slope of surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20:1 Taxiway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane centerline 68.8 69 feet Taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object . . . . . . . 44.3 44.5 feet Taxilane centerline to parallel taxilane centerline . . . . 63.9 64 feet Taxilane centerline to fixed or movable object . . . . . . 39.4 39.5 feet Taxiway width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.0 25 feet Taxiway shoulder width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 feet Taxiway safety area width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.0 49 feet Taxiway object free area width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.6 89 feet Taxilane object free area width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.8 79 feet Taxiway edge safety margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 feet Taxiway wingtip clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.8 20 feet Taxilane wingtip clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 15 feet REFERENCE: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, including Changes 1 through 4. ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT DECLARED DISTANCE LENGTHS (feet) Aircraft Approach Category B Airplane Design Group I (Small Airplanes Exclusively) Runway 12 approach visibility minimums are visual exclusively Runway 30 approach visibility minimums are visual exclusively Runway 12 and 30 Runway length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3603 3603 Stopway length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 Clearway length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 Runway safety area length beyond the stop end of runway . . . . . 240 240 Runway object free area length beyond the stop end of runway 240 240 The following distances are positive in the direction of aircraft operations and negative in the opposite direction: Distance from: the departure end of runway to the beginning of clearway . . . 0 0 the departure end of runway to the beginning of departure RPZ 200 200 the approach end of runway to the start of takeoff . . . . . . 0 0 the approach end of runway to the threshold . . . . . . . . . 0 190 the end of approach RPZ to the approach end of runway 200 200 The following lengths are standard RSA and ROFA lengths: Runway safety area length to be provided: beyond the stop end of ASDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 beyond the stop end of LDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 before the approach end of LDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 Runway object free area length to be provided: beyond the stop end of ASDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 beyond the stop end of LDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 before the approach end of LDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 240 The following declared distances are for Approach Category A and B airplanes of 12,500 pounds or less maximum certificated takeoff weight exclusively. Runway 12 Runway 30 (feet) (feet) Takeoff run available (TORA) 3603 3603 Takeoff distance available (TODA) 3603 3603 Accelerate-stop distance available (ASDA) 3603 3603 Landing distance available (LDA) 3603 3413 Usable stopway length 0 0 Distance from the stop end of LDA to runway end 0 0 Distance from the departure end of TORA to RPZ 200 200 Distance from the approach RPZ to the threshold 200 390 REFERENCE: Appendix 14 of AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, including Changes 1 through 4. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 18.3.7.030 AIRPORT OVERLAY REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 18.4.3.040 PARKING RATIOS, CHAPTER 18.5.1, TABLE 18.5.1.010, SUMMARY OF APPROVALS BY TYPE OF REVIEW PROCEDURE, CHAPTER 18.5.7.020.C, EXEMPT FROM TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND CHAPTER 18.6.1.030, DEFINITIONS Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are bold lined throu-gh and additions are in bold underline. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the above referenced grant of power has been interpreted as affording all legislative powers home rule constitutional provisions reserved to Oregon Cities. City of Beaverton v. International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local 1660, Beaverton Shop 20 Or. App. 293; 531 P 2d 730, 734 (1975); and WHEREAS, Chapter X - Transportation - of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan identifies the Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 as the guiding document concerning airport development. WHEREAS, a stated goal of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan is to provide efficient and effective movement of goods, services and passengers by air, rail, water, pipeline and highway freight transportation while maintaining the high quality of life of Ashland. WHEREAS, a stated policy of the Ashland Comprehensive Plan is encourage review of development proposals within the Airport Overlay Zone to ensure compatibility with the Ashland Municipal Airport. WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance states that the Airport Overlay is intended to be applied to properties that are within close proximity to the Ashland Airport, where aircraft are likely to be flying at relatively low elevations. Further, the zone is intended to prevent the establishment of airspace obstructions in such areas through height restrictions and other land use controls. Application of the overlay zone does not alter the requirements of the parent zone except as specifically provided herein. Ordinance No. Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, the City of Ashland Planning Commission considered the above-referenced recommended amendments to the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinances at a duly advertised public hearing on March 8, 2016, and following deliberations, recommended approval of the amendments by a vote of 6-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland conducted a duly advertised public hearing on the above-referenced amendments on April 19, 2016; and following the close of the public hearing and record, deliberated and conducted first and second readings approving adoption of the Ordinance in accordance with Article 10 of the Ashland City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ashland has determined that in order to protect and benefit the health, safety and welfare of existing and future residents of the City, it is necessary to amend the Ashland Municipal Code and Land Use Ordinance in manner proposed, that an adequate factual base exists for the amendments, the amendments are consistent with the comprehensive plan and that such amendments are fully supported by the record of this proceeding. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitations are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Chapter 18.3.7.030, Airport Overlay Regulations section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations A. Residential uses are not permitted, unless approved pursuant to chapter 18.5.4 Conditional Use Permits. B. feet. The maximum height of structures, trees or other airspace obstructions shall comply with the FAR 77 Height Restrictions, which limit height as a conic section in relation to the runway and its approach as detailed in the adopted Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan's "Airspace Plan", and shall not exceed the height allowed in the underlying zoning. C. All planning actions will require, as a condition of approval that the applicant sign an agreement with the City agreeing that airport noise is likely to increase in the future and that they waive all rights to complain about airport noise. D. Activities associated with tree trimming or removal are exempt from tree removal permit requirements as provided in AMC 18.5.7.020.610. The City may top any tree that is in excess of those maximum heights listed in section 18.3.7.030.B, or locate appropriate lights or markers on those trees as a warning to the operators of aircraft. E. No use shall be made of land or water within any of this zone in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise create a hazard which may in any way endanger the landing, takeoff, or Ordinance No. Page 2 of 6 maneuvering of aircraft using the airport. F. Construction or assembly of an aircraft hangar is exempt from Site Design Review 18.5.2.020, but requires approval of a Ministerial Action/Permit. The permit is to verify that the proposed hangar is within a pre-determined location identified in the adopted Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan for conventional, executive or T-hangars, and is constructed in compliance with Ashland Municipal Airport design and material standards. SECTION 3. Chapter 18.4.3.040, Parking Ratios section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Table 18.4.3.040 - Automobile Parkin Spaces b Use Use Categories Minimum Parking per Land Use (Based on Gross Floor Area; fractions are rounded to whole number.) Institutional and Public Categories One space per hangar or one space per four aircraft occupying a Aircraft Hangar - Ashland hangar, whichever is greater. Parking spaces shall be provided Municipal Airport within the hangar or within designated vehicle parking areas identified in the adopted Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan Clubs, Fraternity and Sorority 2 spaces for each 3 guest rooms; in dormitories, 100 sq. ft. shall be Houses; Rooming and equivalent to a guest room. Boarding Houses; Dormitories Daycare 1 space per two employees; a minimum of 2 spaces is required. Golf Courses Regular: 8 spaces per hole, plus additional spaces for auxiliary uses. Miniature: 4 spaces per hole. Hospital 2 space per patient bed. Nursing and Convalescent 1 space per 3 patient beds. Homes _ Public Assembly 1 space per 4 seats Religious Institutions and 1 space per 4 seats. Houses of Worship Rest Homes, Homes for the 1 space per 2 patient beds or 1 space per apartment unit. Aged, or Assisted Living Schools Elementary and Junior High: 1.5 spaces per classroom, or 1 space per 75 sq. ft. of public assembly area, whichever is greater High Schools: 1.5 spaces per classroom, plus 1 space per 10 students the school is designed to accommodate; or the requirements for public assembly area, whichever is greater Colleges, Universities and Trade Schools: 1.5 spaces per classroom, plus 1 space per five students the school is designed to accommodate, plus requirements for on-campus student housing. SECTION 4. Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure in Chapter 18.5.1 - General Review Procedures, section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. Page 3 of 6 Table 18.5.1.010 - Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure Planning Actions Review Applicable Regulations Procedures Access to a Street/Driveway Ministerial Chapter 18.4.3 Approach Annexation Type III Chapter 18.5.8; See Oregon Revised Statute 222. _ Aircraft Hangar with no Ministerial Chapter 18.3.7.030 associated commercial use Aircraft Hangar in conjunction Type I or II Chapter 18.5.2 with another use Ordinance Interpretation Type I or II Chapter 18.1.5 Ordinance Text Amendment Type III Chapter 18.5.9 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Type III Chapter 18.5.9 Conditional Use Permit Type I or II Chapter 18.5.4 Conversion of Multifamily Dwelling Ministerial Section 18.2.3.200 Units into For-Purchase Housing Exception to Site Development and Type I Subsection 18.5.2.050.E Design Standards Exception to Street Standards Type I Subsection 18.4.6.020.B.1 Extension of Time Limit for Ministerial Section 18.1.6.040 Approved Planning Action Fence Ministerial Section 18.4.4.060 Hillside Standards Exception Type I Subsection 18.3.10.090.H Home Occupation Permit Ministerial Section 18.2.3.150 Land Use Control Maps Change Type II or III Chapter 18.5.9 Legal Lot Determination Ministerial Chapter 18.1.3 Modification to Approval Ministerial Minor Modification Per original Chapter 18.5.6 Major Modification Review Non-Conforming Use or Structure, Ministerial or Chapter 18.1.4 Expansion of Type I Partition or Re-plat of 2-3 lots Preliminary Plat Type I Chapter 18.5.3 Final Plat Ministerial Chapter 18.5.3 Minor Amendment Ministerial Subsection 18.5.3.020.G Performance Standards Option Outline Plan Type II Chapter 18.3.9 Final Plan Type I Chapter 18.3.9 Minor Amendment Ministerial Subsection 18.5.3.020.G Physical and Environmental Type I Chapter 18.3. 10 Constraints Permit Ordinance No. Page 4 of 6 Table 18.5.1.010 - Summary of Approvals by Type of Review Procedure Planning Actions Review Applicable Regulations Procedures Property Line Adjustments, Ministerial Chapter 18.5.3 including Lot Consolidations Sign Permit Ministerial Chapter 18.4.7 Site Design Review Type I or II Chapter 18.5.2 Solar Setback Exception Type I Chapter 18.4.8 Subdivision or Replat of >3 lots Preliminary Plat Type II Chapter 18.5.3 Final Plat Ministerial Chapter 18.5.3 Minor Amendment _ Ministerial Subsection 18.5.3.020.G _ Tree Removal Permit Type l Chapter 18.5.7 _ Variance Type I or 11 Chapter 18.5.5 Water Resources Protection Zone - Type I Section 18.3.11.060 Limited Activities and Uses _ Water Resources Protection Zone Type I or II Section 18.3.11.070 Reduction Water Resources Protection Zone - Hardship Exception Type II Section 18.3.11.080 Zoning District Map Change Type II or III Chapter 18.5.9 SECTION 5. Chapter 18.5.7.020.0, Exempt from Tree Removal Permit section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: 10. Those activities associated with tree trimming or removal at the Airport, within the Airport (A) overlay zone for safety reasons, as mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration. The Public Works Department shall provide an annual report to the Tree Commission outlining tree trimming activities and reporting on tree trimming activities that were carried out in the previous year. SECTION 6. Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions section of the Ashland Municipal Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: Aircraft Hangar (including Conventional, Executive and T-Hangar). A building structure designed to hold aircraft and associated equipment and materials in protective storage, generally built of metal, but other materials such as wood and concrete are also used. SECTION 7. Severability. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 7. 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 Ordinance No. Page 5 of 6 Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions, and text descriptions of amendments (i.e. Sections 1- 2, 5-6) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(C) of the City Charter on the day of 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 Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 6 of 6 ,ity of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes littp://www.ashland.oi•.us/Agendas.asp?Display=MiiiLItes&AM1D-6255. City of Ashland Oregon / Commissions & Committees / Airport Commission Tuesday, January 05, 2016 ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION January 5, 2015 MINUTES Members Present: David Wolske, Alan DeBoer, Bill Skillman, Lincoln Zeve, Susan Moen, William Butler and Sherm Lucas Staff: Scott Fleury Members Absent: Alex Censor, Bob Skinner and Stefani Seffinger Guests: Doug Burman, George Schoen, Mike Bull, John Shute and Renee Dowlin 1. CALL TO ORDER: 9:31 AM 2.AGENDA ITEM ADDITIONS: 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 1, 2015, motion by Wolske for approval of minutes as written, 2nd by Moen, minutes approved. 4.01-D BUSINESS: A.Airport Zoning: Staff informs Commission final code language with appropriate changes is part of the packet. Staff explains the schedule includes planning staff presenting the final update before the Tree Commission on the 7th and then to the Planning Commission at the end of January or early February and on to the Council for final approval. Staff expects the code process to be wrapped up by April. B.FBO Lease: No change, staff still waiting for update from Legal with a time frame for completion. Lohman is working on critical items for the City Council and is has not had time to finish the lease document. C.Webcams: Zeve and staff have been communicating back and forth regarding the webcams. The recommendation is to purchase and install two new wireless webcams and network them into the City's site. Staff will purchase the recommended webcams and get them to Zeve for installation. Zeve has been working with specific individuals through the high school for this project. D.Drones and Signage: Butler hands out multiple informational sheets on drones 4/13/2016 11:05 AM -ity of Ashland, Wegon - Agendas And Mintites http:Hw«"N~ashIand.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display-Minutes&AM]D=6255. and continues discussion from previous month. Documents include "notice of proposed rulemaking", and "Academy of Model Aeronautics Aircraft Safety Code". Butler states the FAA regulates all airspace and local entities do not have the power to override their rules. Butler states the public comment period for the proposed rulemaking closed in April of 2015 and there were 4300 comments, the URL for the comments is on one of the handouts. Butler would like group to look at handouts and continue discussion at next meeting. Burhman stated he has seen multiple articles in the paper over the past month discussing drones. Renee (JVation) stated that the Washington Department of Transportation has a developed a working group to discuss the issues. 5.NEW BUSINESS: A.Airport Good Neighbor Items: Skinner absent from meeting, no updates. B.Storm Drain 1200z Permit: Staff informs Commission the zinc exceedance for the storm water permit has triggered the requirement for action. Zinc is most likely coming from the galvanized structures onsite. Only one of the two outfalls tested has developed an exceedance. Staff has hired a consultant who assisted with the development of an appropriate response letter for DECD. Staff and the consultant believe the action plan was developed will eliminate any future zinc exceedances. The plan will include intercepting the storm drain line at the southern end of the runway and plugging it, then installing a culvert across the taxiway that will allow the storm drainage to flow from south to north in the bioswale infield area. The expectation is most of the stormwater discharge will be absorbed into the soil. The schedule includes a bit of surveying, engineering and construction. The total project should be completed by November of 2016. C.Airport Day Planning Subcommittee: Staff would like to start the planning process with the whole group or a subcommittee group. Moen states we should check with Science Works to make sure "Tinker Fest" does not occur on the same weekend this time before choosing an actual date. Moen will find out date and report back to Commission at next meeting. All those interested will meet after next meeting to start the planning process and choose an appropriate date. D. Facility Projects: Staff introduces Kaylea Foster the City's new facility project manager who will be assisting on all types of facility projects. Commission voices their frustration on response times associated with getting things completed, specifically items that have a potential liability issue. 6.FBO REPORT(S): A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports: Skinner not in attendance to discuss. B. Maintenance Updates: Commission would like to see the Junipers down the 4/110.016 t > -n5 AM if 4 "it), of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes http://hA,ww.ashlatid.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display=Minutes&AMID=6255. entrance road removed and a landscape improvement plan developed. 7.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A.Brown Bag: Staff asked Diana to change email chain from Wolske to Butler who is the chair. If Butler cannot attend he will forward to Commission to see if someone can take his place. Commission agrees attendance is important. B.Transportation Commission: No update. C.Medford Airport: No Update. D.Action Item List: 1. Airport Zoning/Riparian Restoration: No change. 2. Paving of dirt areas around the hangers: No change. 3. Entrance Sign Replacement/Animal Signs/ Highway 66 Sign: No Change. a. Security and access signs (Skinner/Brim to review). 4. Hangar Enclosure Project (Staff to work with Skinner): Staff working with Mockeridge Engineering and believes the City's new low risk insurance contract could work in this instance. 5. Transportation to & from airport: No change. 6. Self Fueling Permit: Waiting on signed copy from Brim Aviation. 7. Fire Extinguisher Installation/ Hangar Numbering: Staff to contact Skinner and discuss installation by his staff. 8. Roof Action Plan: Staff to track down status of project as Dale Peters has retired. 4/1117.016 11 -OS AN 'ity of Ashland, Oregon Agcndas And klinutes httl):/lwwtiv.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display-Minutes&.AMID=6255 9. ODA inspection improvements and Tie Down Chain Repairs: No Updates. 10. Security System Improvements: No Updates. 11. Web Cam Improvements: Zeve working with high school on improvements. New webcams to be purchased and installed. 12. Update Airport Narrative page and links: Staff/Commission to perform quarterly review of website and update as necessary. E.Airport Users Group: No Updates OTH ER: The meeting of the JC airport commission is the third Monday of the month at 12:00 PM. NEXT MEETING DATE: January 5, 2016 beginning at 9:30 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 10:57 AM PRINT CLOSE 4/13/2016 11:05 AN/ CITY OF w. ASHLAND ~t. TREE COMMISSION MINUTES January 7, 2016 CALL TO ORDER 6:00 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room of the Community Development and Engineering Services building located at 51 Winburn Way. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Approval of December 3, 2015 regular meeting minutes. • Approval of December 10. 2015 Study Session meeting minutes (Wild Fire Ordinance). Commissioners Roland/Oxendine m/s to approve the minutes as submitted. Voice vote: All AYES. ANNOUNCEMENTS & LIAISON REPORTS • City Council Liaison Councilor Voisin updated the Commission on the Council's agenda and topics. • Parks & Recreation Liaison Baughman gave an update on the recent storm's impact on many trees throughout the City's parks. • Community Development Liaison Heck informed the Commission the City was recertified as Tree City USA and announced that the tree of the year for 2015 is the Oak tree on Normal Avenue. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained to the Commission that this tree is in the public right of way and may be subject to removal because of a identified railroad crossing that has been in the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) for several decades. Molnar encouraged the Commission to formalize the Tree of the Year program and to create criteria to nominate and select appropriate specimens for Tree of the Year designation. PUBLIC FORUM (For items not on the agenda) Welcome Guests - No one present spoke at public forum. TYPE I REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02255 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 630 Siskiyou Boulevard APPLICANT: Stanley Elliott DESCRIPTION: A request to remove two Maple (Acer) trees at the subject property. The first Maple Tree located at the Northeast corner of the primary dwelling is approximately one foot from the structure and exhibiting soil heave, surface rooting, and root rot. The second Maple Tree located on the West side of the dwelling shows similar issues also including surface rooting, mechanical injury, and mildew. The arborist notes that these defects can cause tree root and trunk base failure with the risk increased significantly due to the trees proximity to the dwelling. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 09DB; TAX LOT: 3900. Commissioner Oxendine disagreed with the arborist report, which was seconded by Roland. Both Commissioners stated there was no disease or rotting of the subject trees. However, the Commission recognized the hazard the trees presented due to their location in proximity to the house. Roland/Oxendine m/s to approve plans as submitted, noting that the approval was not because of disease but rather proximity to the house, and recommended mitigation trees to each tree that is proposed to be removed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02312 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2350 Ashland Street OWNER/APPLICANT: Jalaram Hospitality LLC DESCRIPTION: A request to remove an Incense-Cedar (Caloce drus tree currech) wof approximately 20-inches DBH. The applicant has previously applied to remove denied because there was no arborist report in the application. This current application includes an arborist report that states the tree is a hazard a~sComm e removed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: rcial; ZONING: C-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 14BA; TAX LOT: 100 ect Commissioner Oxendine wanted to see the full report the arborist used determine cerhe s what tree as a hazard. There was a lengthy discussion between the commissioners m constitutes an "arborist report". The commissioners felt an arborist report needs to be a full the concern of Tree Risk Assessment, performed by a certified arborist. Furthermore, they noted conflict of interest when the consulting arborist is also the arborist submitting plans of for removal. Moreover, due to concerns of liability, the Commission approved the p n Oxendine/Roland m/s to approve plans as submitted with a mitigation requirement that will equal the canopy coverage of the stature cedar tree that will now be removed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02369 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 543 S Mountain Ave OWNER/APPLICANT: Peace House DESCRIPTION: A request to remove two Birch trees on the east side of the building. Both as application includesed as trees have an approximate diameter at breast height (DBH) of 12 inches. The arborist report that recommends removal. Both of the trees on the site were 1 being p part of the landscape plan for the original Conditional Single Permit. Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNA ble Family ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOT: 100. suggested applicants are Commissioner Oxendine mentioned this is the "ideal" tree removal permit as the property removing dying trees and asking for suggestions for mitigate g tree owners stay away from conifers due to sunlight constraints and recommend t eJ llowin ohn/Oxendine varieties as mitigation trees: ginkgo, Japanese maple, English Oak, g Bells. m/s to approve plans as submitted with mitigation trees, one per each tree removed. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02381 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 903 and 905 Bellview OWNER/APPLICANT: Oregon Architecture/Raven four Woodworks, t e toaccommodate a previously approved DESCRIPTION: A request to remove housing development. One of the trees, a cedrus atlantica, is in the footprint of a pro p ~ eeddbuillding. The an proximity to other trees to be removed, all pinus pondersas, are to be removed tbFamily Residential; ZONING: R-2; other trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 14CA; TAX LOT: 7808, 7807, 7806, and 7805. was presen The applicant, Alan Sandler and a representative from Raven Woodworks, concern overt the represent their proposal. A neighbor of the project was also present to express removal of the cedrus atlantica. Oxendine mentioned it would be a sh ated to loss the Cedrbe the tree s atlantica, noting its general rarity and presence on the site. Oxendine stated preserved and deserves a tree protection zone. The Commission was not supportive of removing the Cedrus atlantica, tree number 11 on the site plan. However, they were okay with the removal of the proposed Pinus ponderosas. Oxendine/Battistella m/s to approve the removals of the Pinus ponderosas, but not the Cedrus atlantica, which they recommended has a tree protection zone at the drip line of the tree and that all site work within the protection zone to be supervised by a certified arborist. Furthermore, if any roots are to be cut, they shall be cut clean by the certified arborist. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02301 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 777 Oak Street APPLICANT: Martha Howard-Bullen DESCRIPTION: A request to remove a 50+ inch diameter at breast height Black Cottonwood at the southeast corner of the subject property. The applicant has expressed concerns of the tree falling down and has obtained two arborist reports that claim the tree is a hazard. In a former planning action (PA42014-00307), preserving the subject tree was listed as a reason for granting a Water Resource Protection Zone Reduction permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-10; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 04CA; TAX LOTS: 2707. The applicants, Laurie Sager and Martha Howard-Bullen, were in attendance to represent their application. Sager brought forth a new arborist report by Tom Meyers, who was the original consulting arborist of the project. Meyers' latest report noted a lightning strike and stated the tree is a hazard and should be removed. Oxendine recommended the fallen logs be used as wildlife habitat in the creek corridor. Battistella/John m/s to approve the plans as submitted. TYPE II REVIEWS PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015-02287 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 123 Clear Creek Drive APPLICANTS: John Fields/Clear Creek Investments LLC OWNERS: Clear Creek Investments LLC & Cooper Investments LLC DESCRIPTION: A request for Site Design Review approval to construct four two-story mixed-use buildings, consisting of leasable ground-floor office space and eight residential dwelling units on the second floors, and one two-story office building for the property located at 123 Clear Creek Drive. The request would also modify, the previously approved Clear Creek Village Subdivision by further subdividing Lot 8 under the Performance Standards Options Chapter to create five new buildable lots to accommodate the proposed development. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Employment; ZONING: E-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05 CD; TAX LOT: #1803 Oxendine recommended all newly planted trees have deer guards (black plastic - "AM Leonard") and mentioned the pear trees will not be well suited for the site. Roland recommended quercus rubras and hornbeams instead of the pear trees, further noting the rubras will need sun protection. Oxendine/Roland m/s recommend approval of the plans as submitted with the aforementioned recommendations. NEW BUSINESS/ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS • Airport Code Changes. Director Molnar updated the Commission on what the existing regulations are for tree removal near the airport and what the proposed ordinance change will involve. The Commissioners were in support of the update. • City street tree removal process. Director Molnar gave an update on the City's process for street tree removal. Heck handed out the emails sent by Mr. Whitall for the Commission to review. There was a lengthy discussion on the process and how to modify in order to ensure significant trees are preserved if at all possible and to not repeat an incident similar to the 338 B Street removal. One suggestion was to have a city arborist to inspect trees and evaluate private arborist reports. In the interim, there was a discussion to see if Peter Baughman from Ashland Parks could help out. There was a call to update the Street Tree Removal Form and to include standards from the ISA Risk Assessment form. Oxendine discussed the certifications for arborists and explained they, are many and not all are the same. Roland mentioned liability concerns for the Tree Commission as well as the City for disputing an arborist report. Molnar ended the discussion stating all future Street Tree Removals will be reviewed by him or the Planning Manager and that "significant trees" (greater than 18-inches d.b.h.) will be reviewed by the City Administrator. • Updating the Street Tree Guide. No Discussion at this meeting. • Updating the AMC to include "Historic Houses" as areas of concern for tree preservation. No Discussion at this meeting. • FireWise landscaping plant list. No Discussion at this meeting. • Proposal to the City of Ashland to look at funding for a City arborist position. No Discussion at this meeting. • Development of a tree preservation fund (through payment in lieu of mitigation). No Discussion at this meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS • Tree of the Year program • Arbor Day 2016 ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: February 4, 2015 Respectfully submitted by Zechariah Heck CITY OF -ASHLAND ASHLAND PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES MARCH 8, 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 Derek Severson, Associate Planner Debbie Miller April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Melanie Mindlin Haywood Norton Roger Pearce Absent Members: Council Liaison: Lynn Thompson Greg Lemhouse NEW BUSINESS A. Update on Council's discussion of the Citizen Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC). Community Development Director Bill Molnar provided the background information on the CPAC. He explained this 16 member committee was formed in 1981 to address Statewide Goal #1 for citizen involvement. One of the committee's primary responsibilities was updating the city's comprehensive plan, but after that work was completed the mayor and council shifted to more specialized committees to maintain compliance with Goal #1. Mr. Molnar stated while the CPAC has not been active for over 20 years, it is still referenced in the comprehensive plan. The city council recently evaluated this and directed staff to officially remove CPAC from the books and have the Planning Commission take over those duties for citizen involvement. Council Liaison Greg Lemhouse explained this issue was brought forward by a single councilor but the majority of the council does not support reactivating the CPAC. Instead they felt the Planning Commission is the proper body to take on any issues the CPAC would have handled. Commissioner Mindlin stated this may be motivated by people's perception that there is insufficient public involvement in Ashland. She added the CPAC was responsible for certain actions the Planning Commission does not do, such as public outreach and publicizing issues, Commissioner Dawkins stated part of the problem is that a decade ago the Daily Tidings had a reporter on staff who attended all city meetings and got the word out on public issues and actions. He stated the local newspaper is now owned by a foreign entity and it is very difficult to get them to run articles ahead of hearings, and if there is any coverage at all it is often after a decision has been made. Mr. Molnar recommended they discuss this issue further at the Planning Commission's annual retreat in May. ANNOUCEMENTS Mr. Molnar announced the March study session has been cancelled and the Planning Commission's annual retreat has been scheduled for May 14. He added staff has been in discussion with the mayor regarding a joint meeting with the city council to discuss the wildfire lands ordinance and the public hearing for the ordinance will be pushed back so that this joint meeting can occur. AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATES Commissioner Dawkins stated the Downtown Parking Management & Circulation committee is nearing the end of their work. They are currently reviewing reducing East Main Street to two lanes from Helman to Gresham through the downtown; Ashland Planning Commission March 8. 2096 Page 9 of 3 eliminating the "Beaver Slide"; and adding new lights at Pioneer and Oak. Dawkins stated when their work is done their recommendations will go to the city council for review and approval and a new city commission will be formed to oversee the ongoing work. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of minutes. 1. February 9, 2016 Regular Meeting. 2. February 23, 2016 Study Session. Commissioners Miller/Brown m/s to approve the Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained from voting on the minutes of February 9, 2016. PUBLIC FORUM Joseph Kauthl1 Corral Lane, #131Stated public involvement is essential and is pleased to hear the commission is discussing this. Mr. Kauth recommended the city form a committee to tackle invasive noxious weeds, including tall poison hemlock and puncture vine, and stated land that used to provide shelter and food for wildlife is being destroyed. Huelz Gutcheon12253 Highway 99/Recommended the city form a safety commission made up of members who do not drive cars. He stated there are hundreds of bicycling hazards in town and the people responsible for designing the city's corridors and not taking bicyclists into enough consideration. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Adoption of Findings for PA-2015-02203, 868 A Street. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Dawkins/Pearce m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2015-02203. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained. Motion passed 5-0. B. Adoption of Findings for PA-2016-00041,1465 Webster. No ex parte contact was reported. Commissioners Brown/Dawkins m/s to approve the Findings for PA-2016-00041. Voice Vote: all AYES. Commissioner Norton abstained. Motion passed 5-0. LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING A. PLANNING ACTION: PA-2015.01487 DESCRIPTION: An Ordinance amending the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Ashland Municipal Airport - Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025, as a supporting document to the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan; and an Ordinance amending the Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18.3.7.030 Airport Overlay Regulations, Chapter 14.4.3.040 Parking Ratios, Chapter 18.5.1, Table 18.5.1.010, Summary of Approvals by type of review procedure, Chapter 18.5.7.020.C, Exempt from tree removal permit, and Chapter 18.6.1.030, Definitions. Assistant Planner Derek Severson provided a presentation on the proposed changes to the airport overlay zone. He explained the proposed ordinance would: • Adopt the most recent Master Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan; • Provide a ministerial review process for permitting conventional hangars; • Add a parking ratio for conventional hangars; • Change the height limitations from the current 20 ft. maximum; and • Allow tree trimming or removal for safety reasons as mandated by the FAA without requiring permits. City Engineer Scott Fleury commented on the Airport Commission's long term plans, including drainage way enhancements and riparian restoration. He stated they are especially interested in the Neil Creek border and would like to remove some of Ashland Planning Commission March 8, 2016 Page 2 of 3 the taller trees and bring in new, low growth materials. He added they are also in the process of creating a landscape plan and removing the junipers and replacing them with something more appropriate. Staff was asked to clarify the language on page 2 that requires property owners to sign an agreement and waive their rights to complain. Mr. Fleury explained this is an existing provision and applies to the whole overlay. He stated Jackson County has similar requirements and the intent is to make property owners aware they are purchasing in an airport zone and there will be associated noise. Commissioner Mindlin closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Deliberations and Decision Commissioners Pearce/Brown m/s to recommended council's approval of PA-2015-01487. Roll Call Vote: Commissioners Pearce, Miller, Brown, Dawkins, Norton, and Mindlin, YES. Motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by, April Lucas, Administrative Supervisor Ashland Planning Commission March 8; 2016 Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting First Reading of An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways FROM: David Lohman, city attorney, d avid. lohman(a-) nd.or.us SUMMARY Obstructing pedestrian passageways with objects or dogs is already prohibited by City of Ashland 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 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 10.64.020D 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. This definition in the proposed ordinance amendment is an improved version of that presented at the April 5 meeting - in a further effort to make it simpler and clearer. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Public Safety 23. Supporl innovative progr-arms that protect the community. 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" [with the following changes...] and move the ordinance on to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 2 of 2 Irr 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 -throug# 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 10.64.01 OA, 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 10.64.01OC, 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 ranges 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 atu4mation of objects, animals, and people on City sidewalks, walkways and entryways to private and public buildings from City sidewalks. SECTION 10.64.019 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 to the delivery of merehandise 0 is loeated r-emoves the merehandise or equipment within a reasonable time. publie sidewalk whieh restriets the elear passageway for pedestrians to less than eight feet, ♦.A~,vlJl 1111 excepthV11 the side alli less than 'mil, feet in width, the the measure shall be six f + or plaee afty objeet on a publie sidewalk at a street eorner or within five feet of the eurb 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 object or animal thereon for longer than 5 minutes with the intent to interfere with free passage 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 10.64.020B 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 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 ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting 2016 Annual Appointments FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb a'ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of the Mayor's recommendations for the annual appointments to the various Commissions and Committees. Only reappointments are being considered at this time. New appointments will be brought to Council at a future meeting. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The ending term for most commission/board members is April 30, 2016. Proper notice was made in our local newspaper and the City's website on the vacancies. Appointments are 3-year appointments with terms ending April 30, 2019, with the exception of the Planning Commission which are 4-year appointments with terms ending April 30, 2020, and the Band Board which are l -year terms. Airport Commission - 9 members (Connnission fill lvith these reappointments) Reappointment: William Skillman, Lincoln Zeve and Susan Moen Band Board - 7 members (Commission full with these reappointments) _Reappointment - Ling Helphand, Don Bieghler, David Hoxie, Ed Wight, Sylvia Schmeling, Tim McCartney and Bruce Dresser Buildings Appeal Board- 6 members (Commission full with these reappointments) Reappointment - John Fields and Date Shostrom Conservation Commission - 5 members (two seats still open tivith this reappointment; one is School District liaison seat and one is public open seat) Reappointment - Marni Koopman Forest Lands Commission - 7 members (one seat still open with these reappointments) Reappointment - Frank Betlejewski, John Williams Park Liaison - Matt Miller Historic Commission - 9 members (one seat still open with these reappointments) Reappointment - Terry Skibby, Keith Swink and Kerry Kencairn Dale Shostrom - reappointment Sam Whitford - reappointment PaE,e 1 of 2 !VALAAR CITY OF ASHLAND Housin & Human Services Commission - 9 members (one seat still open with these reappointinettts) Reappointment - Rich Rhode and Sue Crader PlanninI4 Commission - 7 members (Cotmnission full irith these reapp0intt7tet1ts) Reappointmcnt - Michael Dawkins, Melanie Mindlin and Troy Brown Public Arts Commission - 7 members (Commission fitll ivith these reappointments) Reappointment - Max Reinhardt and Robert Block-Brown Transportation Commission - 7 member (Commission fall irith these reappointments) Reappointment - Sue Newberry and Corinne Vieville Tree Commission - 7 members (two seats open) No reappointments Wildfire Mitigation Commission - 7 members (one seat still open tirith these reappointtnents) Reappointment - Ron Parker and Doug Kay COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: None SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the annual appointments to the various City Commissions as recommended by Mayor John Stromberg. ATTACHMENTS: None. Page 2: of 2 ~r CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Second 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@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The attached proposed ordinance would prohibit solicitation in two circumstances in ,.vhich the solicited person could feel undue pressure to make a contribution. 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 here for second reading has been modified to reflect the decision Council made on First Reading at the April 5, 2016 business meeting to eliminate a proposed prohibition on seeking or making contributions from or by an occupant of a vehicle. As proposed for Second Reading, the ordinance would prohibit requesting a donation of money or other items from persons seated at an outdoor or indoor area of a restaurant and from persons within 20 feet of an automatic teller machine for the entrance to a financial institution. A person could not be cited for violation of this ordinance unless the person continues the proscribed solicitation after having been notified by a law enforcement officer that such conduct is unlawful. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Public Safety 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community. 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 passed first reading with changes at the April 5, 2016 meeting. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve second 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" [with the following changes...] and adopt the ordinance. Page 1 of 2 IIVML4611 CITY Of ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 2 of 2 191AW11 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 lined thro and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, The 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. 2. 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. 3. To retain the unique character of Ashland, preserve its status as a tourist attraction, foster commercial and cultural activity, and ensure the safety of residents and visitors, the City has a significant governmental interest in reasonable, specific 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. Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 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 dininjj 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. B. 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. C. Exceptions. Section 10 130 020A does not apply to solicitations related to business on the subject premises which is being conducted by or with approval from the owner or the lawful tenants of the premises. 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. 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 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 Ordinance No. CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Second 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 c)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 of 2 LVI IVA& CITY OF -AS H LA N D 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 (CC]) 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. ]'his 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 efkcth,e citizen commzmication and engagement _STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends adoption of this ordinance as proposed SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval on second 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." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance For additional information, please see the Council Communication of April 5, 2016. Page 2 oi'2 9` 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 the 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 repealed 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 0) 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 1 o4'3 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 PlanninI4 Commission as Committee on Citizen Involvement A. T'he Planning Commission is desil4nated as the Committee for Citizen Involvement (CCI) The CCI shall monitor and evaluate City responsibility rep-ardine Goal I 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 plannin1l, assisting in the implementation of the citizen involvement program, and evaluatint4 the process beiny, 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 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 Strornberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting First Reading of an Ordinance Creating AMC Chapter 9.30 to Prohibit Smoking in Places of Employment, in Enclosed Areas Open to the Public, and in Downtown Ashland FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is an ordinance that codifies the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act (ORS 433.835 et seq.) into the Ashland Municipal Code. Doing so allows the Ashland Police Department to enforce the provisions of the Act, which is otherwise enforced by local public health departments and property owners. The Indoor Clean Air Act prohibits smoking or the use of inhalants in all public places and places of employment. Public places are defined as any enclosed area open to the public. In addition this ordinance prohibits smoking or the use of inhalants on public sidewalks and in the plaza or Chautauqua Square in downtown Ashland. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At Councilor Seffinger's request, the Council at its November 2, 2015, study session, discussed the potential for an ordinance to limit or prohibit smoking in downtown Ashland. At the conclusion of that discussion, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that codifies the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act (ORS 433.835, et seq). By codifying the state law the Ashland Police Department can enforce the terms of the act as a violation of the city code. In a nutshell, the Indoor Clean Air Act does the following: 1. Smoking or the use of inhalants is prohibited in any public place or a place of employment except in designated smoking areas as defined in the clean air act. A public place means any enclosed area that is open to the public. Designated areas typically relate to sleeping rooms in hotels and motels where smoking is permitted. 2. Smoking is prohibited within 10 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open and ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area of a public place or a place of employment. The ordinance as currently drafted and first presented to the Council at the February 16, 2016, business meeting, goes beyond the Indoor Clean Air Act in two important respects. First, it prohibits smoking or the use of inhalants on public sidewalks, or on the plaza or Chautauqua Square in downtown Ashland. Downtown Ashland is defined in AMC chapter 10.120, the persistent violator ordinance. In addition, the ordinance provides a means by which holders of an Oregon Liquor Control Commission license can apply for a limited exception to the downtown smoking ban in order to allow smoking in front of their establishments. Page 1 of 3 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND The Council took no action at its February 16 meeting, but requested that staff conduct a survey of downtown businesses to determine the level of support for this ordinance. Pursuant to that direction, staff sent a letter to 160 downtown businesses, explaining this ordinance and requesting participation in an on-line survey. Four businesses e-mailed their responses directly to us and 28 business participated in the on-line survey. The final tally is as follows: • 61 % support the ban, 39% oppose. • 52% are not at all concerned about the impact on employees, residents or tourists, 14% are somewhat concerned, 14% are concerned and 21 % are very concerned. • 32% think it will be bad for business, 21 % say it will have little or no impact and 46% say it will be good for business. A copy of open-ended comments is attached. There's a strong difference of opinion among the types of businesses. Of the eight respondents who identified themselves as restaurants, five oppose the ban five think it will be bad for business (only one thinks it will be good) and five are very or somewhat concerned about the impact. The 18 retail businesses are fairly evenly split on all of the questions. The six respondents who identified themselves as personal service unanimously support the ban, five are not at all concerned about the impact and four think it wit 1 be good for business. Since the February 16 meeting and the conclusion of the survey, staff has identified a number of issues and suggested amendments to this ordinance for Council consideration. First, downtown alleyways are not included in the ordinance as an area in which smoking is prohibited. In many communities, alleyways are defined as a shared sidewalk and street space. That is riot the case in Ashland, where our municipal code defines an alley as a street. The Council should decide whether to include alleyways in the smoking ban or leave the ordinance as is. Second, staff recommends eliminating the exception for OLCC-licensed businesses, which we believe will be extremely difficult to administer and enforce. What's more, if smoking is to be permitted in alleyways, we believe that provides a reasonable venue for patrons and employees who wish to smoke. Next, for reasons that are not clear, the downtown map that is part of the enhanced law enforcement area ordinance excludes the sidewalk on N. Main St. between Granite Street and the Plaza and on Winburn Way abutting Lithia Park. Staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to include these sidewalks with the smoking ban. Finally, the ordinance allows smoking on unenclosed private property downtown, much of which directly abuts public sidewalks on which smoking would be prohibited, thus defeating the purpose of this ordinance, which is to protect pedestrians from tobacco smoke. Therefore staff recommends that the ordinance be amended to state that smoking is prohibited on public sidewalks or on public or private property within 10 feet of a public sidewalk. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Some outlay of funds would be required for signage downtown should the Council choose to prohibit smoking downtown. This expenditure would likely be relatively small; certainly less than $3,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Page 2 of'3 ,17r CITY OF ASHLAND Staff requests a Council decision on whether alleys should be included in the ordinance as a public space in which smoking is banned and recommends approval of this ordinance on first reading with the amendments suggested above. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval on first reading by title only of an ordinance, as amended, creating AMC Chapter 9.30 to prohibit smoking in places of employment, in enclosed areas open to the public and in downtown Ashland, and moving the ordinance to second reading. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Open-ended comments from business survey Results from Open City Hall smoking ban topic Page 3 o1 *3 ~r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CREATING AMC CHAPTER 9.30 TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, IN ENCLOSED AREAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND IN DOWNTOWN ASHLAND WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, the exposure to secondhand smoke is known to cause cancer and other chronic diseases such as heart disease, asthma and bronchitis. WHEREAS, reducing exposure to smoke on public property with concentrated pedestrian activity, in enclosed areas open to the public, and in places of employment in the City of Ashland would benefit the well-being of its citizens. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 9.30 is hereby added to read as follows: 9.30.010 Definitions The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section. A. "Cigar bar" has the meaning provided in ORS 433.835(1). B. "Downtown" has the meaning provided in AMC 10.120.010(B)(1). C. "Enclosed area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is enclosed on three or more sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows, exclusive of doors or passageways, that extend from the floor to the ceiling. D. "Inhalant" means nicotine, a cannabinoid or any other substance that is in a form that allows the nicotine, cannabinoid or substance to be delivered into a person's respiratory system by inhalation and is not approved by, or emitted by a device approved by, the United States Food and Drug Administration for a therapeutic purpose. E. "Inhalant delivery system" means a device that can be used to deliver nicotine or cannabinoids in the form of a vapor or aerosol to a person inhaling from the device. F. "Place of employment" means every enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer that employees frequent during the course of employment, including but not limited to work areas, employee lounges, vehicles that are operated in the course of an employer's business that are not operated exclusively by one employee, rest Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4 rooms, conference rooms, classrooms, cafeterias, hallways, meeting rooms, elevators and stairways. "Place of employment" includes privately-owned and publicly-owned enclosed areas where volunteers perform work typically done by employees. "Place of employment" does not include a private residence unless it is used as a child care facility as defined in ORS or a facility providing adult day care as defined in ORS 410.490. G. "Plaza" means the area bounded by and including East Main Street, North Main Street, and Winburn Way. H. "Smoke shop" means a business that is certified with the authority, as a smoke shop pursuant to the rules adopted under ORS 433.847. 1. "Smoking instrument" means any cigar, cigarette, pipe or other instrument or inhalant delivery, system used to smoke tobacco, marijuana or any other inhalant. 9.30.020 Smoking Prohibited A. Except as allowed in AMC 9.30.040, a person may not smoke, aerosolize or vaporize an inhalant or carry a lighted smoking instrument in a place of employment, in an enclosed area open to the public, on any sidewalk in Downtown Ashland, on the Plaza, or on the area at the corner of East Main Street and South Pioneer Street known as Chautauqua Square. B. A person may not smoke, aerosolize or vaporize an inhalant or carry a lighted smoking instrument within 10 feet of the following parts of places of employment or enclosed areas open to the public: 1) Entrances; 2) Exits; 3) Windows that open; and 4) Ventilation intakes that serve an enclosed area. C. A person may not smoke or carry any lighted smoking instrument in a room during the time that jurors are required to use the room. 9.30.030 Smoke Free Place of Employment A. An employer shall provide a place of employment that is free of tobacco smoke for all employees. B. Except in those places described in AMC 9.30.040A to E, an employer shall post signs that provide notice of the provisions of ORS 433.835 to 433.875. 9.30.040 Exemptions from Smoking Prohibition A. The owner or person in charge of ahotel or motel may designate up to 25 percent of the sleeping rooms of the hotel or motel as rooms in which smoking is permitted. B. Smoking of noncommercial tobacco products for ceremonial purposes is permitted in spaces designated for traditional ceremonies in accordance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. 1996. C. Smoking is permitted in a smoke shop. D. Smoking is permitted in a cigar bar that generated on-site retail sales of cigars of at least $5,000 for the calendar year ending December 31, 2006. E. A performer may smoke or carry a lighted smoking instrument that does not contain tobacco while performing in a scripted stage, motion picture or television production if: Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 1) The production is produced by an organization whose primary purpose is producing scripted productions; and 2) Smoking is an integral part of the production. F. A business or property owner in Downtown Ashland may apply annually for an exemption to the provisions of AMC 9.30.020A subject to the following: 1) An application for an exemption must be made on a form approved by the City Administrator. 2) The exemption may be granted only to those businesses and properties licensed to serve alcoholic beverages by the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. 3) The exemption shall be for a period of one year and may be renewed upon re- application. 4) The exemption shall apply only between the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. 5) The exemption shall not mitigate or otherwise alter the smoking prohibition in AMC 9.30.020B. 6) An exempted business or property must provide and maintain a cigarette disposal container in front of the business. Such container must be of a type and design approved by the City Administrator. 7) An exempted business or property must provide signage inside the business or property advising that smoking is prohibited in downtown Ashland, but is permitted in front of the business or property, consistent with all other provisions of the Ashland Municipal Code. SECTION 2. Savings. Notwithstanding this amendment/repeal, the City ordinances in existence at the time any criminal or civil enforcement actions were commenced, shall remain valid and in full force and effect for purposes of all cases filed or commenced during the times said ordinances(s) or portions thereof were operative. This section simply clarifies the existing situation that nothing in this Ordinance affects the validity of prosecutions commenced and continued under the laws in effect at the time the matters were originally filed. SECTION 3. Severabilitv. The sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses of this ordinance are severable. The invalidity of one section, subsection, paragraph, or clause shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, subsections, paragraphs and clauses. SECTION 4. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Sections 2-3) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. 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 Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 4 of 4 Additional Responses Survey Smoking Ban March 14, 2016 the only smoking I ever see happening is by transients 3/11/2016 1:51 PM I'm not worried about how it effects the businesses. I am concerned how enforcing this law would be a waist of tax payers dollars. Not to mention, those tax payers who smoke who paid for those sidewalks. 3/9/2016 3:19 PM terrible idea. Police are thirl already, they need to concentrate on more important issues. It is hard not to see this as an attempt to deal with undesirable travelers on the street corners. I don believe this would help at all, just filrther polarize the community. What are full tirne employees who work downtown supposed to do on their 10 minute break, take a cab out of town for a cigarette and get back within 10 minutes? Ha! This is just the tip of the iceberg of reasons not to support this idea. Normally I'd give the benefit of a doubt and call the idea "well intended" but in this case I don't think it's appropriate. BTW I'm a non-smoker, hate the filthy things. 3/9/2016 2:36 PM It is very difficult to give staff smoke breaks which we are required to do so by law in the downtown. I have two business and would be a negative impact for me. 3/5/2016 1:06 PM Then entrance to my practice is next door to the Beau Club, and smokers gather outside the entrance to our stairwell which always smells like smoke. I would be so happy to have the ban. So much healthier for my clients and me. 3/8/2016 10:04 AM As a nonsmoking business owner in downtown Ashland, I am in favor of no smoking on any sidewalk, street, alley. In addition, any areas open to the public, such as, parks, the plaza and area Shakespeare should be smoke free. I believe if a business provides allowed to mokingin those (patio) that is approved by OIJA, patrons and employees should smoke designated areas. 3/7/2016 2:30 PM One way to reduce the smoking, is to raise smoking age to 21. This is a very broad area. If you are outlawing just on sidewalks then yes. If it is private residents, restaurants,bars and business's with patio's then no. Another thought is No Smoking until 10pm. 3/7/2016 1:59 PM This proposed ban seems to be an underhanded way of dealing with the "street people" issue. erm This is a terrible idea. Remember, there is high taxation on liquor and toba that will hes tong tress effect will have a negative impact on many downtown businesses. revenue from locals in our city. 3/2/2016 7:33 PM While I do not like smoking and dislike the smell of cigarettes I have to say that this will greatly affect my business in a bad way. I have staff that smoke out back during their shifts and customers who smoke out front during their stay. I think this will negatively affect my bottom line even though I do not sell cigarettes. If this ban is put into action I do hope that there are provisions for bars and that they do not hold true only for night time since I open in the morning and the majority of my business day is during daylight hours. Thank you. 3/1/2016 5:47 PM We think that having a smoking ban in the entire downtown area would make it easier to enforce (than the 10 foot rule), create a healthier enviromnent, and by eliminating cigarette waste, make our town more beautiful. 3/1/2016 11:55 AM We are a retail business with the IPub nearby. Crowds of people stand out front smoking all day and evening with smoke wafting in our direction. Its not healthy. 2/29/2016 10:55 PM We can't leave our doors open because of people walking by smoking both cigarettes and marijuana. Many of our clientele comes from health conscious Calififorria towns where smoldng is banned. They are surprised to see so many smokers downtown. 2/29/2016 10:49 PM We have had many negative comments from our out of town guests regarding the smoke filled Ashland sidewalks. 2/29/2016 10:31 PM As a downtown retail business owner, I think a smoking ban would help with the loitering panhandlers, and anything that helps with that is good. I do however think bars and restaurants might have a harder time with annoyed patrons that smoke. 2/29/201.6 12:25 PM This is heavy handed. I do not smoke. I am anti smoking. But this too much. Should we ban cars from downtown due to exhaust? 2/29/2016 9:56 AM The proposed ordinance is unfriendly to tourist. It goes overboard. The current 10 feet prohibition from entrances and open windows is adequate. 2/26/201.6 3:27 PM We have an upstairs office with smokers in the alley below. The second hand smoke and smell is a huge problem on a daily basis 2/26/2016 1:43 PM it would be great. We smell smoke from our aim's in our building. we would love it. 2/26/2016 1:36 PM I don't want it to negatively impact tourism, as tourism is the life blood of Ashland. I really do not know what kind of impact a ban would have. 2/26/2016 12:47 PN2 Ban cars in the doNvntown area too. They make far more pollution than a handful of cigarette smokers. This proposal is fascist and absurd. Sorry but occasional smells of cigarettes in the breeze is not a "serious and deadly health threat". 2/26/2016 12:31 PM Downtown Smoking Ban 'ow do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? All On Forum Responses sorted chronologically As of April 12, 2016, 1:32 PM s with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily presentative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdem 3cracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban 'ow do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Introduction t its February 2nd meeting, the City Council will consider an ordinance that writes the Oregon Indoor Clean A ct ORS 433.835, et seq) into the Ashland Municipal Code. By codifying the state law, the Ashland Police epartment can enforce the terms of the act as a violation of the city code. Otherwise, enforcement of Clean ( it Act is the responsibility of property owners or tenants and the county Health Department. First, it prohibits he ordinance as drafted goes beyond the Indoor Clean Air Act in two important respects. net, in AMC chaptE -noking or the use of inhalants anywhere in downtown AshlandDowntown shows how downtown Ashland is 0.120, the persistent violator ordinance. (Click here to see a map that ed in the Code.) In addition, the ordinance provides a means by which holders of an Oregon n Liqu arllow efi n ontrol Commission license can apply for a limited exception to the downtown smoking ban in -poking in front of their establishments. itherwise, the basic terms of the Clean Air Act and this proposed ordinance are as follows: . Smoking or the use of inhalants is prohibited in any public place or a place of empl ymenedxa ea that is ope ace mea esignated smoking areas as defined in the Clean Air Act. llin plotels andnmotels where smoking is ) the public. Designated areas typically relate to sleeping rooms ermitted. . Smoking is prohibited within 10 feet of entrances, exits, windows that open and ventilation intakes that serve n enclosed area of a public place or a place of employment. o take a minute or two to read the ordinance (CLICK HERE) and then answer a few questions: On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 2 http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban 'ow do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? As of April 12, 2016, 1:32 PM, this forum had: attendees: 203 )n Forum Responses: 47 lours of Public Comment: 4.3 'his topic started on January 19, 2016, 6:51 AM. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 3 c ^ -4a Iz) PNA httpi//www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Responses Ihat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? Nnswered 47 Skipped 0 air all ashland bad ban cigarette don downtown enforce nd from good hand idea indoor l i e m more much non-smoker one Irdinance other people proposal proposed public S second SMo e smoker smokingso supportt think those too who ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? answered 43 Skipped 4 allowed around ban bar bars business businesses ;ould d does don downtown exception exceptions front ow laws like make one ordinance out outside people really S ►ee seems Sidewalk smell smoke smokers smoke ng standing t they ,iose what which re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? %nswered 30 Skipped 17 On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - - . - - 1 10 one http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 4 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? above area areas ashland ban businesses cigarettes :ompletely dodoes don downtown drop enacted exception from gel ealth include larger like ordinance other outside penalty ) u b l i C rid S smoke s m o k i ngt take them th i n k those too UP water Yho whole On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 5 c -1 ~ ...,1 1 o 1)ma 1 39 PM http:Nwww.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? ~hristy Frenzen inside Ashland January 23, 2016, 12:24 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? -n a non-smoker. It's easy for me to say "Great! No more smoking and cigarette butts downtown!" But, ,,alistically, this would be an enforcement nightmare and likely ticket people who are already the target of oth& )ublic safety" ordinances. Occasionally I am exposed to second hand smoke and don't find it pleasant. I am Iso exposed to other irritants I find much more unpleasant, and much more common: leaf blowers (noise, dus- nd exhaust) and automobiles. Could we please ban driving downtown? ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? an ordinance is passed, such an exception would be a reasonable accommodation. However this would mak nforcement even more difficult and perhaps, in practice, negate the intended effect of the ordinance. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? 1 like to suggest an appropriate penalty for the depositing of cigarette filters (the butts of commercial garettes) onto the ground. These filters end up in streams and larger water bodies by the billions (trillions?) 'orld-wide. Their toxins measurably contribute to water pollution. Fish ingest them. It's not too much to ask -pokers to find a trash can or just stuff it in your purse or pocket. The penalty for the littering of a cigarette butt Auld be 2 hours of community service picking up litter downtown. I would happily volunteer to supervise this hase of enforcement. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - or„a 1-19 pM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 6 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? my Titus inside Ashland January 21, 2016, 7:12 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown ,shland? ad idea. It targets the homeless. The traffic causes more pollution than cigarettes. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? don't see the logic behind the exception. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? o. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 7 c ?nip 139 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? ynne Hasselman inside Ashland January 21, 2016, 4:39 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? xcellent--fully support banning all smoking in downtown Ashland. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o exceptions for OLCC businesses. .re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 8c n.,.ii l') 9mF 132 PM httpa/www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? can Whalen outside Ashland January 21, 2016, 3:14 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? s a non-smoker, I find the smell of cigarette smoke disgusting, but a ban on smoking in public is going too far. ly momentary discomfort of smelling cigarette smoke does not outweigh the right of an individual to smoke. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? the ban were enacted, this provision would render it ineffective as almost every other business in downtown shland is a bar. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? he ordinance should not be enacted at all. After submitting my response, it says I am located outside of Ashland. I am NOT residing outside of Ashland. ie in Ashland city limits. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 9 c ..f e-0 19 ?n1F 1:32 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? amantha Stovall inside Ashland January 21, 2016, 1:56 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? approve! ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? think that is a must. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically Page 10 c n...1i 1') ?()Jr, 1-32 PM http:!/wvow.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? orise treiger outside Ashland January 21, 2016, 10:47 At /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? sere are too many restrictions on our lives and although I am not a smoker and don't condone it, I feel that if ameone wants to smoke outside, it's their right to do so. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - 1- 1.0o DNA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 11 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? oyce Stanley outside Ashland January 21, 2016, 5:55 Al that is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ounds good at first if you are against smoking, but it might be difficult to enforce given the proposed Kceptions. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? gain, sounds good, but what if a person is standing in front of The Black Sheep, which has received an xception and that person wanders a foot left, in front of Flower Thyme? Could they then be arrested? Likely tat the smokers will learn which businesses have an exception and gravitate to those locations. And what bout wind direction? What if you are standing downwind outside a business that doesn't have the exception ould you prosecute? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? ither ban it or don't, no exceptions. Because it will be bordering on the ridiculous with the number and :)mplexity of the exceptions. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - .....1 -11 - http://\Aww.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 12 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? ouise Pare inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:49 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown ,shland? an't agree ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? ood re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? rop it On Forum Responses sorted chronologically gyn. http://www.peakdemociacy.com/3361 Page 13 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? eanne Greene inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 8:01 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? bsolutely! Ashland is behind the times in this respect. Second hand smoke is toxic to those around the ^noker and cannot be compared with someone drinking alcohol. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? as, no exceptions. It would be good to eliminate the people standing around on the sidewalk outside throwin, ieir butts on the ground. It is awful to have to walk past several smokers and smell that smoke. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically 'MA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 14 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? pril Rosenthal inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 7:11 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? anning smoking in Ashland would send an important message to the public, both residents and visitors, that -poking is unhealthy and should not be tolerated in public. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? moking is a leading cause of many diseases and does not discriminate where it starts to adversely affect eople's lives. It should make no difference banning smoking in bars or anywhere else where the public Dngregates. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? Ashland cares about the health of it's citizens, it will take a stand to keep people safe and ban smokers and, ierefore, prevent the detrimental effects of secondhand smoke. No exception should be made to OLCC -ensed businesses. Banning smoking will not hurt these businesses. More non-smokers will patronize these usinesses. Be brave and take a stand, Ashland! On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 15 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? na Dickenson inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 7:04 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? as ban it ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o exceptions re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? 0 On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy,com/3361 Page 16 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Deana Lynn inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 6:23 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? agree! Great idea! ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? his exception should not be allowed. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically ' -1. http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 17 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Michael Clark inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 5:06 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? think it is a very bad idea. Indoor smoking bans make a lot of sense and smokers accepted that. Now we say :)u can't smoke outside either? What about all the workers downtown who want a smoke on their break? This Funds like a puritanical or judgemental regulation. Complaining about second hand smoke that one xperiences for a few seconds walking by is ridiculous. Who is going to enforce it? It has the potential to lead tc Dnfrontations. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? ow about an ordinance that requires a smoker to move 10 feet away from someone who asks them too. They 'ould be required to say please under penalty of law. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - ,-70 onn http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 180 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? "hristine Ducey inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 4:28 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? believe the city council should vote in favor of the proposal. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? believe we should allow it with the provision that if it is unworkable it can be reconsidered. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - - . - 1- ,.90 and http://www.peakdemccracy.com/3361 Page 19 o' Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Donald politis inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 4:27 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? an all smoking. Don't need to be walking downtown and have smoke blown in my face ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o exceptions re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically -a I-I) PKA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 20 o Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? om Burnham inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 4:00 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? lK By me ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o, ban smoking in all business ,re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? 0 On Forum Responses sorted chronologically -1a 1 11) PhA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 21 o Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? im Rible inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 3:15 PI that is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? reat idea. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o. ,re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically . - 1 'Q' http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 22 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? esse Philips outside Ashland January 20, 2016, 3:14 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? xcellent! ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? 's ok with me. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically °A" http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 23 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Michael Church inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 2:48 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? it is legally defensible I am in favour. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? .re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? i On Forum Responses sorted chronologically MA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 24 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Devon Ivie inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 2:43 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? his is an example of Ashland's liberalism leading to authoritarianism. This is NOT okay and infringes on one's eedoms. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? bsolutely awful let people live their lives. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? et rid of it entirely this is completely unconstitutional. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically . .,,,,c 1.117 vnn http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 25 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? ndrew Kubik inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 1:53 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? re always supported indoor bans and campaigned for them in several states. They serve a legitimate public ealth purpose. However, I think the present outdoor smoking restrictions are sufficient as long as they are nforced. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? would support the present restrictions, which normally address proximity to buildings, businesses, etc. xceptions tend to favor certain businesses over others, which really isn't fair. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? think we need to guard against the urge to 'legislate' lifestyle here in Ashland. I know other cities (particularly I California) have enacted complete outdoor smoking bans, but I'm really uncomfortable with ideas like that. ife isn't perfect and there are those who want to have a smoke outside. I don't think there's anything wrong 'ith that. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - " onir I-,Aq PM http://www.peakdemocracy_com/3361 Page 26 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Meredith Yox outside Ashland January 20, 2016, 1:03 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ove it. We recently moved to Ashland and was shocked when we visited over the summer at the number of eople smoking on the sidewalk outside of businesses. We frequently would cross the street with our children not be forced to inhale second hand smoke. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? -n concerned about certain businesses being able to apply for an exception, does that mean restaurants coul( pply for an exception and people could then smoke in front of that restaurant? I feel it should be across the oard not allowed. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 27 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? eresa Safay inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 12:52 PI that is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? -3m a non smoker, and completely hate the stench of smoke. I do not agree with this new rule, because nforcing current law should be sufficient. Most of the sidewalks in Ashland are less than 10 feet wide, so no ne should be smoking on any sidewalk. Cannabis is already illegal to smoke in public, so enforce the law. W, re a tourist town, and over regulating could be a deterrent to much needed summer business ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? he current laws maintain that no one should smoke within 10 feet of a business. These laws need to be riforced regardless of the type of business. I smell pot everywhere downtown. Why are the state laws not eing followed? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? rop it. Follow the current state laws On Forum Responses sorted chronologically A-A 10 I)ma 1.39 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 28 c Downtown Smoking Ban -!ow do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? lien babin inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 12:51 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? o. Smoking areas, yes! Complete ban - NO! Impossible to enforce (referring ESP. To tickets issued & ripped p by travelers) Costly to enforce ...more enforcement employees needed.... ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? o people that participate in another unhealthy activity sanctioned by the state are allowed to smoke? RINKING while med mj users are not already legally banned? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? esignated smoking areas general public easily can avoid! On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemDcracy.com/3361 Page 29 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? anessa Houk inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 12:36 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? don't smoke and hate being around smoke, but I am concerned that such a ban would be a tool to target isenfranchised people. For that reason, I am against the ban. The other concern I have is that strong perfume nd other odors can be just as offensive. Why not include that too? ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? you are going to do a ban, (and I am against one), I'd guess it makes sense to keep the bars out of it. ,re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? o. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3369 Page 30 a Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? amila Elliott outside Ashland January 20, 2016, 12:29 PI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ad idea. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? /hat's the point of a ban, there is at least one if not several of those per block. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? is unenforceable and a waste of time. Get rid of it altogether. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 31 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? laya Ketani inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 11:58 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? E)s Yes and Yes. I actually contacted the City Councilwoman who initiated this and offered to help work for this litiative. It has been determined to be an environmental hazard with bands of people now smoking. Second nd third hand smoke is dangerously harmful. It is considered the number one cause of Sudden Infant Death yndrome, and cities with no public smoking have 1/3 less heart disease. We are not only breathing in the garette residue but through the lungs of those smoking. It has become intolerable for my body, which is Ilergic to a specific chemical that is put in cigarettes. Consider what it is doing to all of our health and our iildren's health. We each have civil liberties, and why should those of us who choose to not smoke be jbjected to the poisons of others who do. I feel very strongly about this, and there is no argument to the Dntrary that will sway me. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? bsolutely No Exceptions. It is a new world. This is not a unique idea. Other cities have accomplished this iccessfully, and so can Ashland. Point those businesses to the cities and studies that show how it was done i ieir town. Get the research and data and share it. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? s a Hypnotherapist, Biofeedback and Somatics Specialist, I work with clients who have serious medical .sues, even dying, because of their smoking or toxic exposure. Why wait. City wide ban. Save lives! On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http:(Iwww.peakdemccracy.com/3361 Page 32 o'. Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Darlene Southworth inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 11:57 Al that is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ood idea ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? eally, this defeats the entire ban because groups of people stand on the sidewalk outside of bars and smoke. .re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically 11 - http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 33 o Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? ric Grace inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 11:35 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? like the idea. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? oes this mean that people that are at bars in towns that they can step outside and smoke? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? oes this include smoking marijuana and cigarettes and cigars? Does it include vapor cigarettes? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 34 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? imothy Nobles inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 10:25 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? don't smoke, never have, don't like smelling smoke, and I oppose the ordinance because it restricts personal eedom and provides an excuse for harassing people. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? passed, it should have this exception, but I oppose the ordinance because it's a petty imposition on personal eedom. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 35 a Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? iane newell meyer inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 10:05 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? would love to see smoking banned everywhere! A being realistic, I know that I may not get my wish. Maybe, like California, we could have a 20' ban from any indow or door. I hate it especially in parking lots. It should be banned in those RVTD bus shelters as well. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? love that the state law bans smoking in these establishments now. Even here, extending the smoking ban to 0' from 10' might be a solution. 10' from a door or window is a joke. Like I said, I would love to never smell a garette the rest of my life! re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? s I said above. 20' from a door or window anywhere in town. it would help with other locations, like at Shop n art area, the shopping center, near the Dollar store, etc. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 36 o' Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? enjamin Root inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 10:04 AI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? don't smoke and have never smoked tobacco products and don't smoke cannabis products. I hate smoking! /e become so wonderfully used-to the low levels of smoking in our society in general, and Ashland in specific recent years (remember restaurants in the '70s?) that I am sometimes caught off-guard when getting a whiff n the public sidewalk. It's a disgusting surprise these days. hat said, I'm totally against this ordinance. I think it restricts people's freedom and is specifically a cloaked ttack on the homeless population and recreational marijuana use. I want diversity of character in my Dmmunity, not a sterilized homogenized upper-middle-class disney-land community. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? ctually, these areas of exception are some of the most-disgusting locations of smoking concentration ...so hat's the point of the ordinance? Packs of smokers blocking the sidewalk in front of the Beau Club and Mhatevers. Even if you can squeeze through the drunks, you still have to pass through their cloud. And they !ave butts all over the trash-can lids to steep into stinky brown skuz in the next rain. ut again, if this concentration of smoking is going to stay anyway, why have an ordinance that will negatively ffect the random tourist, skate punk, or Medfordite who tries to visit our town? Back off on the laws singling oL ie socially undersireables. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? rop the ordinance completely. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 37 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? usan Marsden inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:57 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown ,shland? think this is a good idea. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? J prefer a clean ban, but I understand that some business owners have a legitimate concern. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - - -1 NA http://www.peakdemacracy.com/3361 Page 38 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Doug Viner inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:54 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? support the idea of codifying the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act (ORS 433.835, et seq); however, I oppose both roposed extensions. egarding the first extension, I'm not a smoker - and I really don't like cigarette smoke - but I think that the irrent act is a fair compromise. In my opinion, the proposed extension to ban all smoking downtown goes toc ir. "Can't we all just get along?" ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? oppose it. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? es: Scale it back to comply with the Oregon Indoor Clean Air Act (ORS 433.835, et seq) *without* extensions On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - - I +.01 -A http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 39 of Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? -nitzi miles inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:46 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? lh sure, let's keep saying "no" to everything. No dogs in the parks, no music leakage from downtown clubs, nc ees, no grass, no fun on Halloween. First we kick smoking out from inside bars and restaurants, now we kick ie unfortunate addicts off the curbs, too? Ashland has more prohibitions than freedoms lately. PS--I don't -poke, I don't like it, I don't condone it. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? ow about NO MORE PILES OF RULES?!! How about addressing nuisance PEOPLE and THEIR behaviors ether than put further restrictions on tourists and patrons who keep downtown business going by actually pending MONEY instead of lying around on the sidewalk harassing innocent bystanders? A whiff of smoke 'on't kill anyone. But, BTW, it sets a lovely example for young people to see a bunch of drunks hanging arounc utside a bar huffing tobacco. I deplore that idiotic practice. I think businesses should have the right to decide i iey will permit smoking. Don't like it? Don't go there. Simple as that. But essentially setting an example out on to street like a billboard is really, really stupid. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? on't. Do. It. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - , - DNA http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 40 a Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? am Whitford inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:22 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ,O FOR IT! ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? moking needs to be banned in our city! re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - - ' -A http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 41a Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? Robert Bestor inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:09 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? :)o much government. What's next, a ban on high fat dishes served in Ashland restaurants? ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically _ -I . 11 one http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 42 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? R K inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 9:05 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? 1pposed. I think this is over-regulatory and a waste of time and money (for what it's worth, I'm a non-smoker). s another responder said, it's "a solution in search of a problem" ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? to (see above) re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? ie change would be to scrap the whole thing (see above) On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - . 11 -1. http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 43 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? eter Nystrom inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 8:41 AI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? -n a non-smoker, but this is a classic "Solution in search of a problem". If we need to codify the Oregon Indoor lean Air Act (as written) in order to enforce it, fine. The proposed "enhancements" would have limited positive ffect(s) and are clear examples of regulatory overkill. This is the highest priority for our limited public ealth\safety resources and tax dollars? ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? the Council adopts the proposed ordinance then allowing limited exceptions seems fine. ,re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? o. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically „ -4cz 1 .Qq Pnn http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 44 of Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? "huck Keil inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 8:27 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? avorable ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? ess favorable .re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? iclude a larger area, the whole city. We have lots of retail outside of downtown. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically " 1 °A^ http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 45 of Downtown Smoking Ban dow do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? im Bachman inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 8:24 AI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? strongly support this ordinance. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? don't think smoking should be allowed on the public side walks in front of OLCC licensed businesses at any -ne of day. Designated outdoor smoking areas on the buisnesses' property would make sense since users of iat space would be voluntarily exposing themselves to secondhand smoke. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? he rest of the ordinance seems reasonable and in the interest of public health. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically . 11 - http://www.peakdemocracy,com/3361 Page 46 c Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? UIL Moore inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 8:02 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? s smoking is one of the most destructive habits a person can have, I support this proposed ban in an effort o shland to become a healthier town. This will serve to propel more smokers to quit and produce better air uality for all. Of course, when we get smoky air from the fires, we can laugh about the smoking ban. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? 's sad to see people clustered around outside furtively smoking, dumping their butts on the sidewalk. I'd prefe c)t to see this exception. After all, why should drinkers have the right to smoke? What's the logic in that? re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? you include the exception, be sure that ash trays and sidewalks are cleaned up. On Forum Responses sorted chronologically ^ ~http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 47 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? wami Snatchyerbucks inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 7:08 AI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown ,shland? think this ban would have an overall negative effect. I am not a smoker. I detest the smell and in the few case: hen someones cigarette smoke bothered me I simply moved or asked them to go somewhere else. Ashland Iready has a pretty bad reputation for over-regulating people and this ban would do no good except to ;inforce that reputation. I appose continually regulating people and hope the city and chamber of commerce ill rethink this silly plan. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? he reason our beaches are covered with cigarette buts is because we banned indoor smoking and now veryone smokes in the streets and instead of putting their buts in ashtrays which are emptied into the garbag( tey end up in our streams and beaches. If people can't smoke in or around the bars, business will suffer and :)u will have a lot of upset business owners. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? !uit creating new ordinances and trying to regulate everyone! Who do you folks think you are? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically ^http://www.peakderrocracy.coml3361 Page 48 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? -ielga Motley outside Ashland January 20, 2016, 6:54 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown shland? ven though I've been a non smoker all my life, I find this proposal excessively controlling of public behavior. It also another way to criminalize the homeless travelers who hang around in the downtown. This should NOT e declared to be issued from "the people of Ashland", as the decision can be made by a very few (city :)uncil) for all people. It promises to be a major problem for tourists who may not be aware of the ordinance. Duld lead to needing to hire more people for enforcement. This reminds me of laws in an oppressive police :ate. The people who are addicted to smoking harm themselves more than others. Smoking outside is nough protective measure for the non-smoking public. Think of all the other toxic substances that are getting sewed into the air (like fumes from cars and trucks). If Ashland passes this ordinance, it will be the laughing :ock of the nation and open itself up to lawsuits from the ACLU - and deservedly so. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? /ell, since the downtown is dependent on serving liquor and having bars it would be necessary to make this xception. Otherwise you'd wipe out the tourism business. Will people have to have a home, have to be in the Nn private car, or have money to be in a bar in order to smoke downtown? Let's not forget about the exceptio iven to motels. This ordinance goes too far with its efforts to control and penalize. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? rop the entire ordinance and stop trying to control the public in those areas. The whole designation of the owntown as a special legal code area is so offensive!! On Forum Responses sorted chronologically . - 1 .10 onn http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 49 of 1-1 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? erome Nitzberg inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 6:42 AI /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? eems like a good proposal. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? eems reasonable. re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically ~f A-fl 19 ?016. 1:32 PM http:/Jwww.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 50 of Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? eter Finkle inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 5:25 AI that is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown .shland? /bile I like the intention of the proposal, I think banning outdoor smoking is excessive. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? eems like people would just gather in clumps in front of those businesses, which might be as bad as, or worn ian, current clumps of people in the sidewalks. ,re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? 0 On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 51 Downtown Smoking Ban -low do you feel about a smoking ban downtown? teve Weyer inside Ashland January 20, 2016, 5:23 Al /hat is your general reaction to this proposal and to the idea of banning smoking in downtown ,shland? legal, I'm generally in favor of it to improve air quality for pedestrians. I assume this applies to recreational iarijuana & e-cigarettes too? Maybe it'll decrease litter also. ow do you feel about the ordinance provision for a limited exception for OLCC licensed businesses? ow many such businesses are there? this could tend to concentrate same number of smokers in more laces, though if exception areas were in back rather than at main entrances, that could reduce impact. .re there other changes to the ordinance you'd suggest? On Forum Responses sorted chronologically - 1- - http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3361 Page 52 of CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting A Resolution Establishing a Fee for Appeals of Administrative Decisions FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner a ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Ashland Municipal Code, chapter 2.30, establishes a uniform process for appeals of administrative decisions. These are typically decisions made by a department director regarding interpretation and application of various parts of the Municipal Code. AMC 2.30 establishes a fee of $150 for such appeals, which may, at least arguably, create an unreasonable barrier to appeal fora citizen who feels aggrieved by an administrative decision. However, the Code also allows the Council to establish a different fee by resolution. This resolution provides a variable-cost fee structure that hinges on whether the appellant waives his/her right to a written or mechanical record of the hearing. An appellant who does so and who does not request that the appeal be heard by an outside third party would pay no fee. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the January 5, 2015, study session, staff reviewed with the Council a list of ordinance updates that had been identified internally as necessary to keep the Ashland Municipal Code current. Staff identified the $150 appeal fee as one item in need of change. As explained at the study session, an appeal fee of that magnitude could be viewed as a barrier to citizens who wish to exercise their constitutional right to petition the city for the redress of grievances. In addition, there is value to the city in having appeals addressed at an administrative level rather than having them all come to the Council, where time and energy is better devoted to policy level matters. Staff had originally considered a rewrite of AMC 2.30 to consolidate all codified appeals processes into a single code chapter. That ordinance would also have addressed the appeal fee issue. However, staff has now determined that this course of action is probably not feasible, although this does not prevent the city from acting on appeal fees. AMC 2.30.020.C states "Appeal Fees shall be set at $150 for each decision appealed, and may be adjusted by Resolution of the Ashland City Council." Therefore, this resolution is presented in lieu of an ordinance rewrite of the entire code section. A resolution to adjust appeal fees was presented to the Council at the February 16, 2016, business meeting. Council expressed concern about a provision in the resolution that would require an appellant to pay a $50 fee if the City requests that the appeal be heard by an outside party not affiliated with the City. This revised resolution clarifies that the appeal fee is $0 if the appellant waives his/her right to a written or mechanical record of the proceedings, regardless of whether the appeal is heard by the City Administrator or an outside party. Thus, this resolution puts the appellant in control of whether there will be a fee for their appeal and what the fee will be. Page 1 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None likely. Appeals are extremely rare. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this resolution. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council establishing a fee for appeals of administrative decisions." ATTACHMENTS: Resolution AMC 2.30 Page 2 of 2 ~r RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS RECITALS: A. The Ashland Municipal Code, Chapter 2.30, establishes a uniform administrative appeals process, wherein a citizen who feels aggrieved by the decision of a department head or director can appeal that decision to a hearings officer (city administrator). B. AMC 2.30.020.C states that, "The appellant shall pay a nonrefundable appeals fee to facilitate the appeal. Appeal Fees shall be set at $150 for each decision appealed, and may be adjusted by Resolution of the Ashland City Council." C. The Council finds that a non-refundable fee of S150 may constitute an unreasonable barrier to the Constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 2.30.020.C of the Ashland Municipal Code, the City Council of the City of Ashland establishes the following fee schedule for appeals of administrative decisions: • $50 for appeal heard by the City Administrator or an outside party not affiliated with the City of Ashland if requested by the City, if the appellant does not waive his or her right to a written or mechanical record of the proceedings as established in AMC 2.30.020.E.5; • $100 or actual cost per AMC 2.030.020.H, for appeal heard by an outside party not affiliated with the City of Ashland ifrequested by the appellant and the appellant waives his or her right to a written or mechanical record of the proceedings as established in AMC 2.30.020.E.5; • $150 or actual cost per AMC 2.030.020.14, if appellant requests that the appeal is heard by an outside party not affiliated with the City of Ashland and the appellant does not waive his or her right to a written or mechanical record of the proceedings as established in AMC 2.30.020.F.5; • $0 for appeal heard by the City Administrator or an outside party not affiliated with the City of Ashland if requested by the City, in which the appellant waives his or her right to a written or mechanical record of the proceedings as established in AMC 2.30.020.E.5. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this - day of _ 2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Page 1 of 2 Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2 2.30 Uniform Administrative Appeals Process 2.30.010 Definitions A. City Recorder. The person holding the position of city recorder for the City of Ashland. B. Day. Unless otherwise specified "Days" means calendar days. C. Department Head. The person holding the position of department head for any department of the City of Ashland, or any agent, employee, or designee of the Department Head authorized to perform the duties of the Department head by express written delegation of the Department Head. D. Director. The person holding the position of director for any department of the City of Ashland, or any agent, employee, or designee authorized to perform the duties of the director by express delegation of the director. E. Hearing Officer. The City Administrator or an outside party not affiliated with the City of Ashland that is hired or selected by the City Administrator or City Attorney to conduct an appeals proceeding. (Ord 2971 2008) 2.30.020 Administrative Appeals Process Any person aggrieved by the decision of a Department Head or Director may appeal such action to a Hearing Officer through the following procedures if the Ashland Municipal Code chapter granting the City Department Head or Director authority to make the decision expressly authorizes use of this appeals process. Land use decisions subject to AMC Chapter 18 shall not be subject to the appeals process in this Chapter. Appeals processes are as follows: A. A person appealing the Department Head' s or Director' s action shall, within 10 Days of such action and mailing of written notice, file a written notice of appeal with the City Recorder. The written notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, a statement of the authority or jurisdiction for the appeal, a statement of the appellant' s standing or right to be heard, the nature of the decision being appealed, a short and plain narrative statement including the reason(s) the original decision is alleged to be incorrect, with reference to the particular sections of the Ashland Municipal Code involved„ and the result the appellant desires on appeal. B. The City Recorder shall fix the time for the appeal to be heard by the Hearing Officer, place the hearing of the appeal upon the calendar of the Heating Officer, and notify the appellant in writing of the time fixed no less than ten days prior to that time, unless the appellant agrees to a shorter time. C. The appellant shall pay a nonrefundable appeals fee to facilitate the appeal. Appeal Fees shall be set at $150 for each decision appealed, and may be adjusted by Resolution of the Ashland City Council. D. The parties shall be entitled to appear personally and by counsel and to present such facts, evidence and arguments as may tend to support the respective positions on appeal. E. The Hearing Officer shall afford the parties an opportunity to be heard at an appeal hearing after reasonable notice. The Hearing Officer shall take such action upon the appeal as he or she sees fit. The Hearing Offeer' s decision shall be the final decision of the City, and it shall be issued in writing. The Hearing Officer shall at a minimum: 1) At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings officer shall explain the relevant issues involved in the hearing, applicable procedures and the burden of proof. 2) At the commencement of the hearing the hearings officer shall place on the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning any relevant and material fact in issue at the hearing which was made to the officer outside the official proceedings during the pendency of the proceeding. The parties shall be notified of the substance of the communication and the right to rebut the communication. Notwithstanding the above, the Parties are prohibited from engaging in ex parte communications with the hearing officer. 3) Testimony shall be taken upon oath or affirmation of the witnesses. 4) The Hearings officer shall insure that the record developed at the hearing shows a full and fair inquiry into the relevant and material facts for consideration for the issues properly before the hearings officer. 5) A verbatim, written or mechanical record shall be made of all motions, rulings and testimony. The record need not be transcribed unless requested for purposes of rehearing or Court review. The City shall require a deposit for costs of transcription or a copy of such transcription. 6) Written testimony may be submitted under penalty of false swearing for entry into the record. All written evidence shall be filed with the City recorder no less than (5) five working days before the date of the hearing. 7) Informal disposition may be made of any case by stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order or default. F. The action of the Department Head or Director shall be stayed pending the outcome of an appeal properly filed pursuant to this section. G. Failure to strictly comply with the applicable appeal requirements, including but not limited to the required elements for the written notice of appeal, time for filing of the notice of appeal, and payment of the applicable appeal fee, shall constitute jurisdictional defects resulting in the summary dismissal of the appeal. H. If the appellant loses on appeal, the appellant will be held financially responsible for the cost to the City of Ashland for the appeal, including but not limited to the cost of hiring an independent Hearing Officer. (Ord 2971 2008; Ord 2992; 2009) PRINT CLOSE CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication April 19, 2016, Business Meeting Resolution Urging the Oregon Legislature to Refer to Voters a Measure Creating a Publicly Funded Health Care System in Oregon FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner gashland.or.us SUMMARY Councilor Voisin has requested a resolution to place on the November 2016 ballot a measure to urge the 2019 Oregon Legislature to refer to a state-wide ballot a measure creating a publicly funded health care system in Oregon. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Councilor Voisin was contacted by the citizen organization, Health Care for All Oregonians, requesting a resolution be placed on the November 2016 ballot by the Ashland City Council to request that the Oregon Legislature refer to a future ballot a measure creating a publicly funded health care system in Oregon. Per AMC 2.04.030, "Any Councilor may place any item on the Council's business meeting agenda provided that preparing the matter for Council consideration does not require more than two hours of staff time, including policy research and document drafting. The addition proposed by a Councilor for the agenda of a particular upcoming business meeting must be delivered to the City Administrator no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to that Council meeting. The City Administrator shall determine the order of business of the item. The Mayor may defer the item until a later meeting if the agenda of a particular meeting is already lengthy or if, in the Mayor's sole judgment, the matter is not time-sensitive, but in no case shall the Mayor- defer the item to an agenda that is more than three months beyond the date requested by the Councilor submitting the item. Council members will endeavor to have subjects and any materials they wish considered submitted prior- to finalization of the Council packet." COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 1. Leverage our regional and state relationships to increase effectiveness in relevant policy arenas FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the resolution titled, "A resolution authorizing the citizens of Ashland to urge the Oregon Legislature, in the 2019 session, to refer to the voters a measure creating a publicly funded health care system serving everyone in Oregon." Page I of 2 !FAW&A CITY OF -AS H LA N D ATTACHMENTS: Draft resolution Page 2 of 2 IFr RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITIZENS OF ASHLAND TO URGE THE OREGON LEGISLATURE, IN THE 2019 SESSION, TO REFER TO THE VOTERS A MEASURE CREATING A PUBLICLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM SERVING EVERYONE IN OREGON RECITALS: A. Whereas, there are many components that contribute to good health, including the ability to respond to sickness, disease and injury; and B. Whereas, achieving the goal of living a healthy life is impossible without access to affordable health care; and C. Whereas, health care should be available to everyone; and D. Whereas, the lack of available health care is a barrier to opportunity, success and quality of life; and E. Whereas, Oregonians should not be divided between those who can afford to be healthy and those who cannot; and F. Whereas, Oregonians should not be divided between those who have hopes and dreams and those whose sickness, disease or injury robs them of their hopes and dreams; and G. Whereas, the Oregon Legislature in 2013 authorized a financing study regarding the design of a proposed healthcare system that meets the mandate of ORS 41.018, which states, "It is the intention of the legislative assembly to achieve the goals of universal access to an adequate level of high health care at an affordable cost." THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The people of the City of Ashland urge the Oregon Legislature, in the 2019 session, to refer to the voters a measure creating an equitable, comprehensive, affordable, high quality, publicly funded health care system serving everyone in Oregon. The system should be transparent and accountable, involve meaningful public participation, and be affordable for families, businesses, and society. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Page 1 of 2 Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2