Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-0503 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 wider discussion, the number of people who wish to speak, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL May 3, 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 18, 2016 2. Business Meeting of April 19, 2016 VI. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS 1. Annual presentation by Michael Cavallaro of RVCOG 2. Proclamation of May 2016 as National Historic Preservation Month 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. Renewal of telecommunication franchise with Sprint Communications 3. Approval of recommendation from the Public Art Commission to accept the Watershed Cairn by Karen Rycheck 4. Biennium 2015-2017 Third Quarterly Financial Report 5. Liquor license application for Sachta Bakshi dba Oberon's Restaurant & Bar 6. Liquor license application for Jeff Chase dba Ashland Street Market 7. Liquor license application for Jeff Chase dba Siskiyou Blvd. Market 8. Liquor license application for Jatinder Kaur dba Tai Indian Cuisine COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S INEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US IX. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Persons wishing to speak are to submit a "speaker request form" prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Public hearings shall conclude at 9:00 p.m. and be continued to a future date to be set by the Council, unless the Council, by a two-thirds vote of those present, extends the hearing(s) until up to 10:30 p.m. at which time the Council shall set a date for continuance and shall proceed with the balance of the agenda.) 1. Public hearing and approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution adopting a Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document and repealing prior fee Resolution 2015-15" X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council establishing a fee for appeals of administrative decisions" XL NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. Award of professional services contract in excess of $75,000 for the Water Master Plan Update XII. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS 1. Second 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" 2. Second 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" 3. Second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" 4. Approval of a 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" XIII. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS XIV. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title I). COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE BROADCAST LIVE ON CHANNEL 9, OR ON CHARTER CABLE CHANNEL 180. VISIT THE CITY OF ASHLAND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASHLAND.OR.US City Council Study Session April 18, 2016 Page 1 of 3 MINUTES FOR THE STUDY SESSION ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL Monday, April 18, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. Councilor Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, Lemhouse, and Seffinger were present. Councilor Marsh arrived at 6:02 p.m. 1. Public Input - None 2. Look Ahead review City Administrator Dave Kanner reviewed items on the Look Ahead. 3. Affordable Housing Trust Fund potential funding source discussion Housing Program Specialist Linda Reid and Commissioner Rich Rhode from the Human and Housing Services Commission (HHSC) provided the staff report on funding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). Due to the need for affordable housing, Ashland should build 30 units every year. The state system of awarding money to build affordable housing used a fonnula where the major contributor was the local contribution that provided support for agencies seeking funds. Non-interest loans would qualify as a contribution. Council could select one or more funding options presented to address 50% of the need. In general, the area median income for Jackson County, Medford, and Ashland was the same and depended on the measure used. City staff used the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) definition. Rural development used the Department of Agriculture's definition. Oregon Housing and Community Services received all of the federal tax money for the state of Oregon. Cities in the state applied for funds through a competitive process called the Consolidated Funding Cycle. Awarded cities received tax credits as funding and worked with a tax credit broker to sell to a corporation or business who needed tax liability. The City already subsidized permits and waivers. Ms. Reid submitted a document into the record showing what the City waived or deferred for five affordable housing projects resulting in $130,000 in fee waivers annually. Fee waivers were available for voluntarily provided units only and did not include units required through an annexation ordinance. The Systems Development Charge (SDC) waiver program began in 1992 with several single-family homes involved. Each single-family homeowner carried a promissory note on those units and if forgiven or sold out of the program, they paid back those fees with 6% interest. In 2006, the City passed an ordinance and participants can no longer buy out of the program. The Housing Trust Fund allowed flexibility in the types of projects and provided housing to people up to 120% of the area median income. Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) was limited to 80% of the area median income. The HHSC subcommittee who worked on funding options suggested forming a public-private partnership to fund accessory residential units. It would eliminate associated land costs. The HHSC subcommittee identified the following funding options for the AHTF: • Establish an up to I% Construction Excise Tax by the State through Senate B (SB) 1533 • Cap the growth of an existing revenue stream • Direct funds from the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), the Food and Beverage Tax, and/or add a slight increase to the property tax rate or Community Development fees City Council Study Session April 18, 2016 Page 2 of 3 • Commit a portion of the marijuana tax revenue to ATF • Create a tax on E-Cigarettes. The Acquisition Rehab was also a possibility and entailed purchasing homes and remodeling them as affordable housing. Council discussed funding options. Capping revenue sources would create cuts, was complicated and restricted flexibility. Excess from the Food and Beverage tax was proposed for another use, adding the AHTF would be problematic, and increasing property tax was not prudent. Council wanted more information on taxing marijuana and E-Cigarettes, a 1% construction tax on residential and a 2% tax for commercial, increasing community development fees and the minimum amount required to start making a difference in the AHTF. Council would discuss using "TOT and other funding options at their council goals meetings. 4. Mayor's discussion of public art selection process Mayor Stromberg and Management Analyst Ann Seltzer met with Historic Commission members individually and the Public Arts Commission (PAC) in two groups of three regarding the public art selection process. The Mayor explained that serious art, like serious drama and theatre changed the viewer's experience of reality, and was typically met with resistance, alarm, and criticism. Especially when people incorrectly assumed they paid for public art. The Council could not guarantee in advance a proposed piece of art was high quality or properly located. It would always be unpopular with some citizens. He introduced PAC member Max Reinhardt who shared his credentials and agreed to give a presentation on current trends in public art. Suggestions to improve public art selection included: 1. Have the PAC appear before the Historic Commission for input when they were creating a request for qualification (RFQ). 2. Ask the PAC to explore the possibility of requiring 3-D macquets for finalist presentations. 3. If a finalist artist sought historical input, the PAC will enlist the Historic Commission to work with the artist. 4. When concepts for public art were in or near a historic district, the PAC should request written input from the Historic Commission and link presentations of the concept online. This should include but was not limited to specific observations regarding scale, placement, size, and materials. A link to this information would be conveyed to the Historic Commission along with the PAC and Historic Commission's staff liaisons. 5. Historic Commissioners attend any public presentation of public art concepts by the artists rather than relying on renderings and online information. 6. Require the Historic Commission if it has split vote on any recommendations to incorporate majority and minority opinions on any public art recommendation. 7. The PAC will notify the Historic Commission when they intended to make a presentation to Council regarding public art in a historic district. 8. Once the PAC has solicited input fi-om the Historic Commission for an RFQ, by a reasonable deadline, the PAC will not delay a process to incorporate input from the Historic Commission. 9. The Mayor recommended the Council invite the PAC to make a presentation concerning current trends in public art. 10. When Susan Zoccola's second option concept is ready to present to the Council, it should take place in well publicized meeting open to the public with at least 3 similar presentations at different times and locations. The video of the presentation should be posted on the city website with an open city hall topic for public comment. Ms. Seltzer did not agree with this recommendation. Ms. Zoccola was asked to develop a second concept City Council Study Session April 18, 2016 Page 3 of 3 and making presentations on the concept was not included in the contract. However, the PAC had already incorporated that idea into other public art projects. 11. The PAC should verify the second option presented by Susan Zoccola conformed to the specifications of the original RFQ. Staff and Council discussed removing provisions regarding public art in Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 18 Land Use and adding a section to chapter 2.29 Public Art, as well as drafting guidelines. Staff would bring a draft ordinance to a future Study Session for Council discussion. Members of both the PAC and Historic Commission described commission duties and spoke on the process and conflict that occurred between commissions regarding the Gateway art project. Ms. Seltzer and PAC Chair Margaret Garrington would contact Susan Zoccola and ask her if she would come to Ashland and present the concept of the second option for the Gateway project with the knowledge that Ms. Zoccola may decline. City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified Ms. Zoccola was not hired to present but to do art and often artists did not present well. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dana Smith Assistant to the City Recorder City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 1 of 9 MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL April 19, 2016 Council Chambers 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Seffinger, and Marsh were present. Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 7:50 P.11-1. MAYOR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree, Wildfire Mitigation, and Conservation Commissions. He explained there would be no further public comment on the ordinance regarding sidewalk obstruction. For second reading on intrusive solicitation, they would take public comment only on the changes made during first reading. Mayor Stromberg submitted a proclamation for Earth Day 2016 into the record that was read aloud. Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to move Agenda Item XIII 1. Resolution urging the Oregon Legislature to refer to voters a measure creating a publicly funded health care system in Oregon to the May 3, 2016 Council meeting. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Study Session of April 4, 2016, and Executive Session of April 4, 2016 were approved as presented. The minutes of the Business Meeting of April 5, 2016 were approved with the following change to page 8, second sentence under the Discussion regarding the motion to repeal Chapter 2.27 and amend 2.12. The sentence should read, "Councilor Seffinger understood it takes the equivalent of one full time employee to serve on current commissions and did not support using additional staff time for this purpose." SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS Assistant Planner Mark Schexnayder and Historic Commission member Andrew Ladygo provided the annual presentation on the Historic Commission. Commissioner Ladygo explained the Historic Commission reviewed planning actions, building permits, sign permits for structures within the historic district. The Commission worked with develop6rs and property owners to ensure construction and renovation complemented the historic integrity of the district. Over the past year, the Commission reviewed and made recommendations on 23 land use applications, 130 building and sign permits, and made comments on downtown beautification projects, the Gateway art project, and the Theatre Corridor art project. He went on to describe tours that occurred during the 2015 Historic Week event. The Commission recently began looking at updates for the City's Historic Design Standards. The historic marker project was progressing. He announced Historic Preservation Week would occur May 17, 2016 through May 20, 2016 and shared events that would happen throughout the week. The Conlin 1ssion was currently discussing having a presentation when the statue "Iron Mike" returned to the Plaza. PUBLIC FORUM Sara Darby/572 Clover Lane/Explained she was homeless and thanked the City for the shelter nights at Pioneer Hall. She thanked the other shelters, the Ashland Community Resource Center, and all the volunteers for their advocacy for the homeless and submitted a letter of thanks into the record signed by 22 people who were also homeless. Chelsea Davis/595 Elkader Street #115/Explained a pit bull downtown killed her dog and bit her earlier that City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 9 month. She hoped there were ways to make it safer for situations where dogs may be aggressive. She went on to describe the event. Joseph Kauth/1 Corral Lane/Shared his concerns regarding development churches, potential uranium in the rail road district, the threat of noxious weeds and the use of Astro Turf. Jim Wells/321 Clay Street/Previously argued the resolution for the "homeless problem" was through a paradigm shift similar to what birthed the Ashland Forest Resiliency (AFR) project. He went on to explain how the AFR project began. Tawasi/Homeless/Read from the state and federal code of ethics. Nancy Nelson/149 Clear Creek Drive/Spoke on the public health hazard of cigarette butts in regards to fires. She shared a personal story that raised concern about fires caused by cigarettes. 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 Councilor Marsh and Voisin pulled Consent Agenda item #3 for discussion. Councilor Marsh requested a Study Session to discuss the parameters of renting jail beds. Police Chief Tighe O'Meara clarified a crime was either a felony or misdemeanor. Felony convictions could result in incarceration in state prison for more than one year. Misdemeanors were non-felony offenses that could lead to incarceration in a county jail up to one year. Violations were non-criminal sanctions and no one was taken into custody for violations alone. Oregon law allowed a judge to issue a contempt of court warrant when an individual ignored multiple violations. Councilor Seffinger/Lemhouse m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing on the 2016 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award and CDBG Action Plan development Housing Specialist Linda Reid and Housing & Human Services Commission member Rich Rhode presented the report. This year the City had $228,691 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Of those funds, 15% was available for public services projects. The following agencies submitted applications: • $25,000 for the St. Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • $10,000 for Maslow Project for school based Services • $12,664 to Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland for a .5 FTE Lead Resource Navigator • $70,000 for Ashland Supportive Housing energy efficiency renovations for a group home Councilor Rosenthal arrived at 7:50 p.m. Staff reviewed the applications and recommended awarding 2016-2017 CDBG funds as follows: • $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation • $16,665 to the St Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program • $7,143 to Maslow Project for school based services Staff did not recommend funding Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA) because that agency had the least amount of grant administration experience. The City tended to make recommendations that favored City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 9 larger awards to fewer applicants to maximize efficiency and grant administration for both applicants and staff. Commissioner Rhode spoke on behalf of the Housing & Human Services Commission, explained the HHSC had different recommendations than staff and why. HHSC award recommendations: • $12,508 to the St Vincent De Paul Home Visitation • $5,000 to Maslow Project for school based services • $6,300 to Options for Homeless Residents of Ash land to support the lead resource navigator position • $70,000 to Ashland Supportive I fouling for residential home rehabilitation Public Hearing Open: 7:54 p.m. Lacy Renae/330 Glen Street/Maslow Project/Explained she was the program manager and mental health counselor for Maslow Project. She represented Cheyenne Peters, the Ashland based case manager and explained Maslow Project was the only organization in Ashland providing services to homeless youth and described how the program worked. Currently Ashland had 12 unaccompanied youth, 7 seniors with 5 going to college, and 2 conside►•ing Rogue Valley Community College. She read a letter from the former dean of Ashland High School on the dramatic changes Maslow Project program had facilitated. Mary Ferrell/4509 Pinnacle Drive, Medford/Maslow Project/Explained she was the executive director and founder of Maslow Project. According to the National Center of Youth Homelessness, only 25% of homeless students graduated from high school. Oregon state high schools had a 12% graduation rate for homeless students. Maslow Project averaged a 51% graduation rate, graduated 100% of the areas homeless youth last year, and was on track to graduate 100% of the identified homeless seniors this year. Regina Ayars/199 Hillerest/Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland (OHRA)/Was a board member of OHRA. She explained OHRA worked closely with St Vincent De Paul and Maslow Project on the grant OHRA submitted. The $12,664 would pay a portion of the salary of the Ashland Community Resource Center's lead resource navigator. This position managed housing and jobs for those in need in Ashland. The total budget for the project was $53,429 with three primary goals to secure housing for 21 families currently homeless, prevent 32 presently housed families from losing their homes, and secure employment for 21 Unemployed individuals. Duties of the position included case management, volunteer coordinator, and job match coordinator. Charlotte Dorsey/988 Hillview Drive/St Vincent De Paul/Thanked Council for prior CDBG funds and explained the money went to housing homeless people and preventing housed people from becoming homeless. In the past six years, St Vincent De Paul assisted 300 people using only CDBG money. Sue Crader/2957 Barbara Street/Ashland Supportive Ho,using/Explained she was the executive director of Ashland Supportive Housing and Community Outreach (ASH). ASH had operated in Ashland since 1982 and provided residential homes and support services for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. They were requesting funds for a residential home to install a solar energy system, a solar water system, replace attic insulation and cover associated costs. The project bid at $77,125 and they were asking for $70,000 of that cost. A solar system would offset the 40% increase in utility costs ASH had experienced agency wide. Public Hearing Closed: 8:13 p.m. Councilor Voisin motioned 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: 512,508 to St Vincent De Paul-Home Visitation Program, 55,000 to Maslow Project, $6,300 to Options for Homeless Residents of Ashland, and $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing. Motion died for lack of a second. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to direct staff to draft the 2016 Annual Action Plan for the use of City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 9 Community Development Block Grant funds reflecting the award of CDBG funding for the 2016 Program year as follows: $70,000 to Ashland Supportive Housing for residential home rehabilitation, $16,665 to St Vincent De Paul Home Visitation Program, and $7,143 to Maslow Project. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh could not support HHSC's recommendation. The amount of money was too small to spread it across four organizations. She was looking at the maximum impact. Councilor Lemhouse agreed. The organizations awarded had proven themselves over time. OHRA was going through a strategic planning process and he was interested in the outcome. The agencies receiving funds covered three distinctly different points. Councilor Rosenthal added reducing the amounts for St Vincent De Paul and Maslow Project was counterproductive because funding for these organizations also supported OHRA. St Vincent De Paul invested more external funds into Ashland than the City. Maslow Project had a record rate for graduating homeless high school seniors. He would support the motion. Councilor Seffinger wanted Maslow Project to get their full funding. Councilor Morris appreciated St Vincent De Paul and the services they provided and supported the staff's recommendation. Councilor Voisin was disappointed and explained OHRA was Ashland's own non-profit based in town. Each agency also received social services grants from the City and shifting funds to OHRA was not cutting deeply into the amount of money they would receive. Mayor Stromberg noted OHRA and the Ashland Community Resource Center were new ventures and were demonstrating their ability to fulfill a need in the community. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Seffinger, Marsh, Voisin, Rosenthal, Lemhouse, and Morris, YES. Motion passed. 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. Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained the Planning Department and Public Works Department had worked on code changes that effected the airport area and the overlay. He provided a presentation on proposed Airport Code Changes that included: • Aerial photos of the airport • Changes intended to streamline the development review process: o Exempt conventional hangar development from Site Design Review for predetermined hangar locations o Hangar construction subject to a building and zoning permit only o Change building height standard to be consistent with Airport Master Plan methodology (Federal Air Regulations - 77) o Exempt tree trimming or removal mandated for safety reasons by the F.A.A. from Tree Removal Permit process • Housecleaning changes and updates to Comprehensive Plan text: o Add a parking ratio for aircraft hangars - one space per hangar or one space per four aircraft occupying a hangar o Amend Definitions section to include Aircraft Hangar o Adopt the most recent Airport Master Plan as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan o Ashland Municipal Airport - airport Layout Plan 2004-2025 • Airport Layout Plan • Hangar Photos • Height Limits o The current 20-foot height limitation has meant that the last several hangars proposed have required Type 11 Variances because the heights proposed exceeded 20-feet. City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 9 o The changes proposed would allow heights consistent with the underlying zone and federal regulations. • Tree Removal Permit Exemption o Tree trimming or removal at the airport would be given similar exemptions from permitting as those granted for parks and utilities when mandated by the F.A.A. for safety reasons. o Public Works would report to the Tree commission annually on tree trimming activities. • FEMA Flood Plain & Wetlands - Map • Historical Evidence of Flooding - photo Councilor Voisin was concerned the Tree Commission did not vote to approve the Tree Removal Permit exemption. Mr. Molnar did not recall a formal motion at the Tree Commission meeting. Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) Title 18 did not require a recommendation from the Tree Commission. It required legislative actions, a public hearing, and recommendation by the Planning Commission. However, asking for a formal vote from the Tree Commission would not jeopardize any timeline regarding the airport ordinance modifications. Mr. Molnar explained the northeast portion of the airport property currently did not have a plan for use. Passing the ordinance would not preclude any decision Council made regarding the property. The Public Works Department was close to securing a grant to update the Airport Master Plan. The area had potential for employment generating uses, possibly aeronautical, and required a developer to go through the Land Use process. Staff deliberately left that area out of the ordinance due to that potential. Public Hearing Open: 8:36 p.m. Brent Thompson/582 Allison Street/Thought the Tree Commission would have said something if there was a problem with the Tree Removal Permit exemption and subsequently gave tacit approval. He did not support delaying the process to obtain a formal vote from the Tree Commission since it was not required in the code. Public Hearing Closed: 8:38 p.m. Councilor Morris/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of ordinance by title only, "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 to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris explained the airport was different from most other planning actions. It was a master plan zone controlled by the F.A.A. and the City. He thought they had control of tree heights outside the airport and could trim trees in other areas and neighborhoods. It was a good update, supported by the Planning Commission, and should move forward. Councilor Lemhouse agreed with Councilor Morris and Mr. Thompson's testimony regarding the Tree Commission. He did not think it required a formal vote from the Commission. If there was an objection.. the Tree Commission could make it known during second reading. Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the motion and asked staff to bring the exemption for tree removal, Section 5, page 5, to the Tree Commission at their next meeting as an action item. Motion died for lack of a second. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Rosenthal/Marsh m/s 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. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh read minutes from the January 2016 Tree Commission City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 9 meeting that stated Mr. Molnar explained the existing regulations for tree removal near the airport, what the proposed ordinance change involved, and the Tree Commission's support of the update. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, Seffinger, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. 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 City Attorney Dave Lohman reiterated this was not an ordinance about camping and was not a blanket prohibition on blocking pedestrian passageways. It did apply to anyone obstructing pedestrian passageways unless they had a permit from the City. If passed, the ordinance would describe a violation and not a crime. He noted a correction that Section 10.64.020(D) on the Council Communication should read Section 10.64.020(E). The ordinance made the current prohibition on blocking pedestrian passageways with objects also apply to people and banned blocking pedestrian passageways to public or private property adjacent to public sidewalks. It retained the existing exemption for permitted activities and added exemptions for deliveries, medical emergencies, physical or mental incapacitation, public safety, maintenance or construction functions, and waiting in line. The proposed ordinance was constitutional and permissible under Oregon statutes for disorderly conduct. He submitted three alternative definitions of pedestrian passageways into the record and explained each one. Mr. Lohman also distributed a sidewalk usage map, and submitted the document into the record. He described the map and discussed how the alternatives applied with Council. Buskers could perform in the green areas indicated on the map. Alternative 3 or a variation of Alternative 3 would allow more green space for street performers. The five-minute rule for obstructing a passageway was arbitrary. Enforcement was based on the totality of circumstances and officer discretion. If an individual blocking the passageway moved to another area and commenced to obstruct that sidewalk, they had already received a warning and could receive a citation. Ignoring a warning was a clear indication of intent. Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to approve first reading of an ordinance titled "An ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" with the following changes, replace Section 10.64.020 (C) with "As used in this Chapter 10.64 a pedestrian passageway is 1. The Entryway to public or private property from an abutting public sidewalk, 2. The area within 6 feet of the outer edge of any roadway or City owned or controlled fixtures and structures, and 3. That portion of any public walkway that is 6 foot in width," and move to second reading. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the code already restricted dogs and possessions from blocking sidewalks and this added bodies. This will accommodate all different kinds of users. The goal was not to arrest people but make the rules clear and set a standard for civic involvement by all different kinds of people on the streets. Councilor Lemhouse added the intent was clear for everyone. Councilor Lemhouse/Seffinger m/s to amend the motion and amend Section B. under 10.64.020 to read, "Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance or by a conditional use permit or by a special use 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 except in the case of a person or persons with an obvious or stated disability in which case passage must be immediately allowed." DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained people in wheelchairs, walkers, or using canes that signified an impairment or when they did not have the option to go around should require others to move immediately. Councilor Seffinger added she had witnessed a person in a wheelchair having to go into the street due to sidewalk obstruction and supported the amendment. Councilor Morris thought intersections should have 10-feet of open space instead of 6-feet. Mr. Lohman would bring back language regarding the 10- feet of open space for people in wheelchairs for second reading. Councilor Lemhouse was open to staff rewording his amendment. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Marsh, Morris, Rosenthal, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1. City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 7 of 9 Continued discussion on amended main motion: Councilor Rosenthal would not support the motion. The ordinance was not easy to explain. Councilor Morris would support it but had similar concerns that Councilor Rosenthal expressed. Councilor Voisin did not want the police being parents with a stopwatch and measuring device when all it would take was asking a young person to move. She would not support the ordinance. Councilor Seffinger had experiences where passageways were blocked and asking politely did not work. Councilor Voisin explained her experience was the opposite and shared encounters she had during her three years on the Plaza watch. Roll Call Vote on main motion: Councilor Marsh, Morris, Lemhouse, and Seffinger, YES; Councilor Voisin and Rosenthal, NO. Motion passed 4-2. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. 2016 annual appointments to boards, commissions, and committees City Recorder Barbara Christensen explained the Mayor reappointed members that had requested reappointment and there were no new appointments. Ms. Christensen advertised several times in the newspaper, the city website, and Council meeting announcements. Mayo- Stromberg added lie had 6-7 people he needed to interview for some of the vacancies. Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to approve annual appointments to various city commissions as recommended by Mayor Stromberg. DISCUSSION: Councilor Rosenthal would support the motion and thought the process needed an enhanced strategy to obtain more applicants for City commissions. Councilor Seffinger thought it was better to have vacancies than filling them with unqualified people. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS Mayor Stromberg moved Agenda Item #2 regarding the smoking ban to Agenda Item #3. 1. 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" Councilor Seffinger/Morris m/s to approve Ordinance #3123. DISCUSSION: Councilor Seffinger thought the ordinance would make the downtown area more inviting for visitors and community members. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Seffinger, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1. 2. 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" Councilor Morris/Seffinger m/s to approve Ordinance #3124. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris thought it was time to update the code and repeal AMC 2.27. He would have preferred having nine people back on the Planning Commission. Councilor Seffinger added the Planning Commission involved citizen involvement and supported the motion. Roll Call Voter: Councilor Seffinger, Lemhouse, Rosenthal, Morris, Voisin, and Marsh, YES. Motion passed. 3. 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 City Administrator Dave Kanner explained staff sent a letter to 160 downtown businesses inviting them to participate in an online survey or answer four questions regarding a smoking ban via email. They received 33 responses with 61% in support of a ban. Of the responses received, 32% thought it was bad for business, 21% thought it would have little or no impact and 46% thought it would be good for business. Applying the ban only to public sidewalks, the Plaza and Chautauqua Square did not include alleyways and Council may want to include them in the ordinance. If not, alleyways still had to comply with the other provisions City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 8 of 9 in the ordinance. Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed businesses could obtain an exemption from the ordinance. If Council did not include alleyways in the ordinance, they should remove the OLCC exemption from the ordinance. People could smoke anywhere on unenclosed private property. There was a lot of private space downtown that directly abutted public sidewalks that prohibited smoking. Council could add an amendment that prohibited smoking on sidewalks or on public or private property within 10-feet of a sidewalk. The theatre was actually a city tax lot and did not include Hargadine parking lot as previously stated. If Council decided not to approve the ordinance, Mr. Kanner suggested they pass an ordinance that prohibited smoking on the sidewalk abutting City Hall. He explained issues citizens encountered frequently outside City Hall and the complaints they made to Utility Billing staff that were sometimes abusive. Nancy Nelson/149 Clear Creek 9202/Second hand smoke was just as dangerous as first hand smoke and one of the highest carcinogens. She shared her personal experience with secondhand smoke. If the City had issues with ordinance language, they should look at cities with smoking bans and use their wording. Elinor Berman/54 Normal Avenue/Recently asked people to stop smoking in two parks and reminded them that the park was for everyone. That was how she felt about the downtown. She should be able to walk down the sidewalk and not have to encounter smoke. People chose to smoke. She chose not to breathe other's smoke. She appreciated Council for considering a smoking ban. Julie Chertow/1467 Siskiyou Blvd/Owned a business called Essential Wellness that helped people with lung and respiratory issues using essential oils. The store next door closed and a smoke shop opened in its place. Additionally, the owner of Pangea sat at a bench by her shop and chain-smoked and the smoke came into her shop every time a customer opened the door. Another issue was smokers littering the ground with cigarette butts. She supported the ban. Smokers could choose to smoke in their home but not in public. Mr. Kanner clarified the ordinance referenced and adopted the downtown map used to create the enhanced law enforcement area. That map did not include the sidewalk across Ashland Creek between Granite Street and the Plaza or the sidewalk in front of Lithia Park. Including those areas would require amendments. Councilor Seffinger explained outdoor smoke could reach levels of exposure attained indoors and occur within 15-feet of a burning cigarette. Secondhand smoke contained more than 7,000 chemicals including 70 known and probable carcinogens, inhalants, and toxins. Cigarette butts could cause the death of animals, and get into the water supply through streams. Council comments identified that it was important to minimize the impact of second hand smoke on people downtown and create an ordinance easily understood. A suggestion designated Main Street as a no smoking zone, included the Plazas for a one-year trial with potential to extend it further if successful. Another suggestion would prohibit smoking on private property within 10-feet of a public street. Other comments wanted Southern Oregon University included in the ban. There was concern the ordinance may be challenging to explain or enforce. Other concerns regarded accommodating smokers, tobacco addiction, smoking at intersections and potential problems on side streets if only Main Street adopted the ban. Mr. Kanner explained retaining prohibiting smoking 10-feet fi-om a door or window that opened depended on how they wrote the ordinance. The proposed ordinance adopted the indoor clean air act throughout the city and went farther to prohibit smoking on downtown sidewalks, the Plaza, or Chautauqua Square. Councilor Morris/Seffinger m/s to approve first reading by title only 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" and move to second reading and incorporate the three additions as well as the two sidewalks indicated by the City Administrator. DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris understood wanting to start with a small section but was concerned it would push everything to the side streets. This part of downtown was a good place to start and with all the ordinances will most likely be adjusted over time. Councilor Seffinger noted City Council Business Meeting April 19, 2016 Page 9 of 9 the science was there and thought they owed it to the citizens and children. Not only was there a problem with secondhand smoke, there were issues with third hand smoke. Councilor Rosenthal supported the broadest possible prohibition on smoking and supported the motion. Councilor Lemhouse preferred an incremental process but supported prohibiting smoking downtown for all the reasons stated. Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to amend the motion that within one year of the passage of the ordinance that staff return with a report on the effectiveness of the ordinance and include a survey of downtown stakeholders, businesses, and citizens. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse explained staff would replicate the first survey to capture the same pool and give Council the opportunity at that time to make any adjustments. Councilor Marsh supported the amendment. It was important for Council to have a strong vote of support for whatever ordinance they moved forward. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Seffinger, Morris, Rosenthal, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. Councilor Lemhouse motioned if the ordinance passed second reading, staff would come back with a plan for public education and signage for the public and visitors. It was clarified a motion was not needed for this request and staff was already discussing signage and education. Continued discussion on amended main motion: Mayor Stromberg commented all the reasons for doing the ban were legitimate but using the power of regulation and ordinance to t►y to get things to happen in the community should be a last resort. He did not feel they had tried to do an education campaign. People were sensitive to government influencing the public and thought Council should consider tempering their approach. Roll Call Vote on main motion as amended: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Seffinger, Morris, Rosenthal, and Voisin, YES. Motion passed. 4. Approval of a resolution titled, "A resolution of the City Council establishing a fee for appeals of administrative decisions" City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the resolution addressed a problem in the municipal code that hindered a citizen's right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Charging an appellant a $150 non- refundable fee for appeals of administrative decisions was unreasonable. The resolution would change the appeal fee. He displayed a flow chart that explained what was in the resolution. Time ran out on the rneeting and the item was delayed to the May 3, 2016 Council meeting. 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 Item delayed until to May 3, 2016 Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT OF BUSINESS MEETING Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor C n 1 J n 1\ C~ i~ 1 (~~7`Se~ 7~~F~ r C ~tr ~t 1) 1 r J j\v ~J ~^C~ 6 tn' C\ s - /2 ✓v 1jD \ ~ ~ Il ~ ` ~ ~ i~ ,ter ~ ~ i r.\ ~ ~ ~ t ~J ; ~ ~r U, ~ ~y~/~' NJ' ~ G i C ~ H a l~n~l~~y_ N y rc }J ~J•.~ jai vV`~~o ~d o h GJ r.~ 4< l o a C' o`w- :s; `n h.- `~..~~-~\11. ` < as ~U G'1 ` f'~ D qa v~: 1 l / i / \ ` ~1-.~ Ga~ d PG1 C ~l ¶~r~. C j~ ~kpt 3 I "-v' ! FT b d 'S6~ l ~j ; ~ ~ PROCLAMATI~C N , ~ x~ ~ ~ 'o~~?~, • Historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing .i ~v neighborhoods, fostering local pride and m-aintaining community character while _ pp~~ ~~/,f/ .1 enhancing livability. D t, • The historic houses and buildin s of Ashland help make our City unique and i ~~\l~~C~'J ~r b _ q { 1 (Eo~~ provide links with aspirations and attainment of the City's pioneers and their ~I~~C~ descendants. ~J These fine examples of Nineteenth and Twentieth century buildings contribute to an appreciation of our heritage. oo~ Historic preservation is relevant for communities across the nation, both urban ~ ~ C and rural, and for Americans of all ages, all tivalks of life and all ethnic a backgrounds, < ® It is important to celebrate the role of history in our lives and the contributions x ,q made by dedicated individuals in helping to preserve the tangible aspects of the z heritage that has shaped us as a people. National Historic Preservation Month is in May. Ashland has selected May 15 - oo r 21, as Historic Preservation Week. Ashland's celebrations are co-sponsored by )+)~,~C~,~ the City of Ashland's Historic Commission and the National Trust for Historic s~~ Preservation.) ~f'~ NOW THEREFORE the City Council and Mayor, on behalf of the citizens of P ~ r r ~ , v>°~~ " ~ Ashland, do proclaim May, 2016 as J I / ai 1 Nat~®nal Historic Preservation Month S\, ~ t ~Y TF-"r and call upon the people of the City of Ashland t:o join their fellow citizens across p,. ~ ~ 11~r the United States in recognizing and participating in this special observance. - b Dated this 3rd day of May, 2016 ~u G ~J r~~=''~ _ort John Stromber , Ma or t ` f ; ! Barbara Christensen City Recorder ' `Je'll ~ ~~C , ~ I ~ r : v ryr". a~ C.~~ C r d ° o d ~s ° ~ ~ - ~ ° ~ J~~~ o h_ ~ vim. ~ D~~ ~,o ~ ~ v~ a ti"~°. °^-v : (y)<, ?l ~ 4q~~,~`- ° ? S ? ti v ° ~F''~ P . s' ti ° P ? ~r ~ 5 v ° C ~ ~ ~ ti_ DR ~ ~ ~ ~ .6711 ..11 / ~ U -1i ~ r ~ ~ ~~~~J13U1~`J~~;~ ~Ji J\v~1~` r(~3r~~~a`3C~J~JU`f~~~3it)t(,~C'~~.,~r J Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee April 6, 2016 Page 1 of 2 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Gresham Room, Ashland Public Library, 410 Siskiyou Blvd. 1. Call to Order Councilor Rich Rosenthal called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Committee members Sarah Lasoff, Jim Hartman, Isaac Bevers, Louise Shawkat, James McGinnis, Claudia Alick, Stuart Green, Roxanne Biegel-Coryell, Bryah Sohl, Greg Jones were present. Committee member Marni Koopman arrived late. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Rosenthal welcomed the newest members of the committee, Lasoff and Bevers. They each gave some background information. Con2issioner Koopnnan arrived 3:35 p. in. 2. Approval of minutes The minutes of both March 2 and 16 were approved as presented. 3. Public Input James Stephens - His business, Electroquest, specializes in electric vehicles. He stated that Testa is now taking reservations for their new Model 3 car. He thinks this is the tipping point for electric vehicles as this is at a much more reasonable price point, especially with all the incentives available. He has been meeting with Mayor Stromberg to encourage him to consider pre-ording a Testa for himself. 4. Review of Public Involvement Plan Hanks gave an overview of the timeline as presented in the packet. Cascadia will provide the logistics and publicity for the first open house, tentatively scheduled for the week of May 23rd Hanks and Shiplet are working on finding a venue. Group gave venue option suggestions. Hanks asked group if any members want to work with him and Cascadia on outreach/publicity? Alick, Sohl, McGinnis, and Lasoff offered to assist. Group discussed outreach and open house invitation opportunities. Cascadia will directly contact the previoiusly identified stakeholders, City staff and committee members will invite other groups/persons and Cascasdia will do general publicity. Group discussed whether an education component is necessary prior to the first open house. There were concerns with the lack of time before the event. Agreed that while climate trend information presented doesn't necessarily focus on the specific concerns of our community, a teaser may be helpful and a good way to promote the open house. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee April 6, 2016 Page 2 of 2 5. Update on Polling Partnership with Geos Koopman informed the group that Geos is working with SOU to produce a poll to city residents. They are using Eugene's pre-plan poll as an example. Most of poll will relate to level of support for a plan. Current timeline is to have poll results in time for July update to Council on this process. Group discussed polling options and how to best balance scientific data with a more biased poll. Determined it was best to start with the more scientific poll and later expand to on-line, likely biased, information gathering. Group also agreed that the recent polling done at Ashland High School could be used as an appendix to the final Action Plan. 6. Climate Plan Goals and Targets Discussion Group discussed possible boundaries of the plan. Transportation is hard to track and can't be easily regulated in a strong manner but it might be good to have community weigh in at the open house as to whether they want to transportation as part of the plan. Group discussed whether consumption should be part of the plan, as it can't be measured. Group determined that education and, where possible, incentives should be in the plan, but consumption should not part of specifical reduction targets. Group discussed concerns regarding creating goals which are either unrealistic or lacking a mechanism to track. Also discussed concerns with being too focused on carbons, and not on off-set options. Biegell-Coryell stated she wants to have achievable targets and a clear understanding of where we can or can't achieve reductions. Bevers stated that he wants this to not be just about setting a minimum threshold of what we should do but wants it to be about what can have the biggest, possible, impact (be aggressive, but have practical targets). Group determined that we need some early wins to keep the community engaged but that shouldn't prevent long-term, visionary goals from being included. Group would like a suite of options to choose from, ranging from bottom-line state of Oregon targets and going up to visionary, aggressive targets/goals. It is important, however, to keep the plan (and targets) flexible enough to change with technological improvements. Also need to keep in mind how to mitigate any potential negative effects on community members. 7. Next Meeting The next meeting will be April 20 at 5:30 p.m. Group would like to continue the discussion of goals and targets and check in on how the polling process is coming together. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Renewal of Telecommunication Franchise with Sprint Communications FROM: Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is a renewal of a franchise agreement with Sprint Communications. The agreement maintains the same fee schedule and five-year term utilized in the previous agreement. The agreement will take effect on October 1, 2016 and will expire on .tune 30, 2020. The current franchise agreement with Sprint Communications expires on September 20, 2016. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This is a limited use franchise issued under the city's telecommunications ordinance. A limited-use franchise is granted to a telecommunications provider that does not directly serve customers within the city. Compensation for the use of the public right of way has been set by Resolution No. 99-70 and is measured, for this type of grantee, by the number of linear feet of public right of way occupied. The current agreement expires at the end of September 2016 and Sprint Communications requested renewal of the agreement prior to expiration of the current agreement for its own internal planning purposes. The renewed agreement grants the continued use of City right-of-way for 13,000 linear feet of communications infrastructure and will take effect on October 1, 2016. The attached agreement is consistent with provisions set forth in Chapter 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code and associated fees outlined in resolution 99-70. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Revenue from Sprint Communications Company is based on fees set forth in resolution 99-70. In 2015 the annual payment from Sprint Communications was $47,000 which is derived from the original minimum fee of $4,000 from resolution 99-70 and adjusted annually based on the March Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the franchise agreement with Sprint Communications. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the Limited Use Telecommunication Franchise Agreement with Sprint Communications. Page 1 of 2 9:1AW, C I T Y OF ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: 1. Franchise Agreement 2. Resolution 99-70 Pagc 2 of 2 1L, 2016 FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the City of Ashland, an Oregon municipal corporation ("City") and Sprint Communications Company L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Grantee"). RECITALS 1. Pursuant to Federal law, State statutes, and City Charter and local ordinances, the City is authorized to grant non-exclusive franchises to occupy public right-of-way, as defined by Ashland Municipal Code ("AMC") 16.04.040, in order to construct, operate, and maintain a telecommunication system within the municipal boundaries of the city of Ashland ("Franchise Area"); 2. Grantee has requested a franchise to place and operate a telecommunications system, as defined in AMC 16.04.040, within the City's public rights-of-way; and 3. The City has found that Grantee meets all lawful requirements to obtain a franchise, and therefore approves the application. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1: Grant of Franchise. The City hereby grants to Grantee a nonexclusive franchise to use the public rights-of-way with the City to construct, operate and maintain a telecommunication system as a limited use telecommunications Grantee as defined in AMC 16.24.070D. Section 2: Term. The term of this franchise shall be five (5) years from the effective date set in Section 8, unless terminated sooner as provided in this agreement or as provided in Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code. (See 16.20.070) a) The City reserves the right to revise its franchise ordinance(s) at any time to address evolving communications technologies, trends in telecommunications and utility industries, and improved methods of managing public rights-of-way. He City may amend this Agreement upon adoption of revisions to the City's franchise ordinances pursuant to established public notice and comment or other due process, if any, as required under the City's charter, ordinances, and under State law. Section 3: Franchise Area. The Grantee is authorized by this franchise to use public rights-of- way throughout the City, as the City limits may exist now or in the future, for the provision of telecommunications services. Section 4: Performance. (a) During the tern of this Agreement, the Grantee agrees to comply with all lawful terms and conditions of the AMC Title 16, the provisions of which are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. (b) To the extent any lawful City rule, ordinance or regulation, including any amendment to the provisions of the 1 Sprint Franchise 2016 S01~ 0 A,- 1) coq Lao AM C Title 16, is adopted on a jurisdiction-wide basis and is generally imposed on similarly situated persons or entities, the rule, ordinance or regulation shall apply without need for amendment of this Agreement. The City shall provide Grantee notice of any such change in law. Section 5: Franchise Fee. (a) As consideration for the use of the City's public rights-of-way, Grantee shall remit to the City the maximum applicable franchise fee established in AMC 16.24.070 and set by Council resolution. Grantee agrees to pay all amounts by the dates required in AMC 16.24.070 and will be subject to interest and penalties established in the AMC. (b) Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the applicable franchise fee due hereunder may vary based on its telecommunications facilities and/or the telecommunications services provided in the City. With each franchise fee payment Grantee shall submit detailed documentation showing its calculation of the franchise fee paid. (c) The City shall have the right to conduct or cause to be conducted, a special examination of Grantee's payment of franchise fees as related to its operating in the City of Ashland as a limited use telecommunication Grantee as defined in AMC 16.24.070. The Grantee agrees to provide access to current and accurate books, maps, and other records that are deemed directly relevant to calculation of franchise fee payments by the City's officers and/or agents. Grantee shall provide reasonable access during normal business hours, upon no less than fourteen (14) days prior written notice by the City. Any difference of payment and required interest due either the City or Grantee following a special examination shall be payable within thirty (30) days after written notice to the affected party. (d) Payment of the franchise fee shall not exempt Grantee from the payment of any license fee, permit fee, tax or charge on the business, occupation, property or income of Grantee that may be lawfully imposed by the City of any other taxing authority, except as may otherwise be provided in the ordinance or laws imposing such other license fee, permit fee, tax or charge. Section 6: Franchise Nonexclusive. The franchise hereby granted is not exclusive, and shall not be construed as any limitation on the right of the City to grant rights, privileges and authority to other persons, corporations or to itself to make lawful use of the City's public rights-of-way. Section 7: Notices. Unless specifically provided otherwise in AMC Title 16, all notices shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the following addresses or to such other addresses as Grantee or the City may designate in writing: If to Grantee: Sprint Communications Company L.P. Attn: Manager, Real Estate Mailstop: KSOPHTO 101-Z2040 6391 Sprint Parkway Overland Park, KS 66251 With a mandatory copy to: Sprint/Nextel Law Department 2 Sprint Franchise 2016 KA&SIN Attn: Real Estate Attorney Mailstop: KSOPHTO 10 1 -Z2020 Overland Park, KS 66251 If to City: City of Ashland Attn: City Attorney 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Section 8: Effective Date. This Agreement shall take effect on October 1, 2016 and expire on September 30, 2021. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts shall constitute one and the same instrument. CITY OF ASHLAND GRANTEE By: By: Title: Title: 4 ►~ti Co l E-S Date: Date: ~I / l 1A016 3 Sprint Franchise 2016 :':1 N n C) `o a u~ m n m rn v, d U t N yW c H O ~W ~ C .m O O w y w rn Z 1 L CL i F t V 1 } i i j,. ~i P N M Y1 ' L s~ M CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MM1DDlYYYY) 4/1/2017 3121/2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(les) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER Lockton Companies NAMETACT : 444 W. 470 h Street, Suite 900 H Ne EXt : AT Ne Kansas City MO 64112-1906 E-MAIL (816) 960-9000 ADDRESS: INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE INSURER A : Continental Casualty Company 20443 INSURED SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS CO„ LP INSURER B : Aniedcan Casual) Cont an of Readin, PA 20427 14966 6480 SPRINT PKWY INSURER C : Transportation Insurance Company 20494 OVERLAND PARK KS 66251 INSURER D : INSURiER F: INSURER F : _ COVERAGES SPRC003 CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 2699825 REVISION NUMBER: XXXXXXX THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. IL7R TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF PO ICY EXP MM DD/YYYYI M DD LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y NT GL5082521363 4/1'2014 4/1/2017 EACH OCCURRENCE 2,000,000 CLAIMS-MADE rX OCCUR PRE IG ESOEa oNcurrence 250,000 X CONTRACTUAL LIAR. MED EXP An one person) XXXXXXX X *TENANTS LEGAL LIAB PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 2,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 X POLICY JECT F_-1 LOC PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG $ 3,000,000 OTHER $ A AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY N N BUA5092521329 4/1,`2014 4/1/2017 COMeINEDSlNGLELIMIT Ea a. iden $ 2,000,000 X ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ XXXXXXX AUTOWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident $ XXXXXXX HIRED AUTOS AUUTpgWNED PROPER AMAGE Gary ekee ers $ Included UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE S XXXXXXX EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE NO 1 APPLICABLE AGGREGATE $ XXXXXXX DED RETENTION $ $ F WORKERS COMPENSATION r PER OTH- _ B AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY YIN N WC5082521282(RETRO) 41112016 4/1/2017 X STATUTE I ]ER B ANY PROPRIETOR,PARTNERIEXECUTIVE WC5082521296(DEDUC-TLBLE) 4/11201/6 4/1/2017 E.L $ 1,000,000 S OFFIGERIA1Er.iHER EXCLUDED? a NIA WC5082521279 (CA) 4/1%2016 4/1/2017 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT C IMandalory InNHl SGL5082521315(STOPGAP) 4/1,201(1 4/1/2017 E.LOISEASE - FAEMPLDYEF1,000,000 H yes, descniba under 'l DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS W- E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMN 1000 000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached It mare space Is required) *FIRE DAMAGE IS INCLUDED IN BROADER TENANT'S LEGAL LIABILI'fY FORM WITH LIMITS OF $1 000,000 PER OCCURRi:NCE. THE CITY OF ASHLAND ITS ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES ARE ADDI'T'IONAL INSURED AS REQUIRED BY CONTRACT AND SUBJECT TO POLICY TERMS AND CONDITIONS. RE: INSTALLATION, OPERATION & MAINTENANCE OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION See Attachment SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 2699825 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON ATTN: CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY HALL, 20 EAST MAIN STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 A-07 ,.y ACORD 25 (2014101) @108-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SHOULD ANY OF THE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL MAIL WRITTEN NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED WITHIN THE STATED TIME FRAMES OF 30 DAYS, EXCEPT FOR REASON OF NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM AT 10 DAYS. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. Miscellaneous Attachment : M463964 Master ID: 14966, Certificate ID: 2699825 RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEES FOR TELECOMMUNICATION REGISTRATION, APPLICATIONS, CONSTRUCTION, FRANCHISES AND OTHER SERVICES UNDER ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 16; AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 98-24 Recitals: A. The city's telecommunications ordinance adopted in 1998 and codified in Title 16 of the Ashland Municipal Code provides that the city council will set telecommunication franchise fees by resolution. B. Telecommunication franchise fees are established by the city for the purpose of assuring that the city's current and ongoing costs of granting and regulating private access to, and the use of, public rights-of-way are fully compensated by the persons seeking such access and causing such costs and to secure fair and reasonable compensation to the city and its residents for permitting private use of the public right of way. C. Recent amendments to Title 16 require that the council set certain other telecommunication-related fees by resolution, and this resolution is intended to implement such Title 16 requirements. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Registration fee. The registration fee for telecommunication carriers is established in Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) section 16.08.030 as being equal to the license fee for a new business as provided in AMC Chapter 6.04. SECTION 2. Construction Permit Fee. (AMC § 16.12.070). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, prior to issuance of a construction permit for construction within the public right of way, the applicant must pay a permit fee equal to $250.00 or six-tenths of one percent (0.6%) of the estimated cost of constructing the telecommunications facilities, whichever is greater. SECTION 3. Diminished Pavement Life Fee. (AMC § 16.12.075) For any construction requiring pavement cuts within a public right of way, the amount to be paid to reimburse city for the pavement degradation and shortened pavement life that results from such cuts is established as follows: PAGE 1-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications',rate reso d99 wod For Longitudinal Excavations: Age of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $3.50/linear foot of excavation Between 5 and 10 years $3.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $2.00/linear foot Over 15 years $1.00/linear foot For Transverse Excavations: Age of Street Pavement* Fee Less than 5 years $7.00/linear foot Between 5 and 10 years $6.00/linear foot Between 10 and 15 years $4.00/linear foot Over 15 years $2.00/linear foot *The age of the street pavement where excavation occurs will be the period of time since the street surface was resurfaced, overlaid or reconstructed, measured from the fiscal year in which such work was completed to the fiscal year when a permit is issued for the excavation. SECTION 4. Application and Review Fee. (AMC § 16.20.040). Unless otherwise provided in a franchise agreement, the applicant must pay a review fee of $250.00. SECTION 5. Franchise Fee. (AMC § 16.24.070) A telecommunications grantee must pay a franchise fee to the city, through the duration of its franchise, as follows: A. For all grantees except as provided in paragraphs B and C, a fee of 5 percent of gross revenues paid quarterly. The minimum quarterly fee will be $1,000. Gross revenue is defined in section 16.04.0401 of the Ashland Municipal Code. B. The franchise fee for a telecommunication utility shall equal 7% of its gross revenue on exchange access services earned within the boundaries of the city. C. For limited use telecommunications grantees, a minimum annual fee, payable in advance, of $4,000 or $1.22 per linear foot of right-of-way used, whichever sum is greater. This fee will increase annually in July of each year, by multiplying the fee by a fraction, the numerator of which is the CPI Index Figure for the month of March preceding the July in which the fee is to be increased and the denominator of which is the Base CPI Index Figure. As used in this section, "Index" refers to the All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), U.S. City Average, CPI index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. "Base CPI Index Figure" will refer to the Index number indicated for the PAGE 2-RESOLUTION (F:IUSERIPAUL\Telecommunications\rate reso d99.wpd) month of March, 1998, and the "CPI Index Figure" for any other month will refer to the Index number for that month. Beginning July 1, 2001, the fee will be $2.50 per linear foot. This fee will increase annually by the CPI Index as set forth above. The base CPI will be March of 1998. A limited use telecommunication grantee is defined as one whose franchise limits the amount of linear feet the grantee may occupy, or one who has a franchise as of October 1998 for the purpose of long-distance telecommunications. SECTION 6. Resolution 98-24 is repealed. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code U.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of , 1999. '0000100~ Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 1999. ( Catherine M. S aw, Mayor R wed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney PAGE 3-RESOLUTION (F:\USER\PAUL\Telecommunications\rate reso d99.wpd) CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Approval of Recommendation from the Public Art Commission to accept the Watershed Cairn by Karen Rycheck FROM: Ann Seltzer, management analyst, seltzera a~ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Public Art Commission (PAC) recommends the City Council accept the "Watershed Cairn" by Karen Rycheck to the City's public art collection. If approved, the sculpture will be installed along the Bandersnatch Trail in upper Lithia Park. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: This project, spearheaded by the Watershed Art Group (WAG) in collaboration with the PAC, is the second piece of public art for installation along the Bandersnatch Trail. WAG, a community collaborative, aims to inspire, educate and engage community members in the stewardship of the watershed through art. The mosaic totem by artist Karen Rycheck was approved by the PAC at its regular meeting on April 15, 2016. The piece, commissioned by the Watershed Art Group is funded with a grant from the Haines and Friends Foundation. The WAG received four submissions to an RFP developed in conjunction with the Public Art Commission. This piece was chosen by both the WAG and the PAC as the most appropriate for the specific location for both its scale and form. The mosaic totem mimics the form of stacked stones and shows several interrelated ecosystems of the Ashland watershed. The piece will be created and installed later this summer. The group will coordinate with the Public Works Department on the installation of this piece and has had numerous conversations with the City, Forest Service, Parks Commission and AFR on an appropriate location for the sculpture. The site is uphill from the Pacific Fisher piece installed last fall at the beginning of the Bandersnatch Trail. AMC 2.29 addresses the process for the acquisition and placement of public art. Art that is donated to and accepted by the City becomes part of the City's public art collection and the City is responsible for the maintenance of the art. The PAC reviewed the proposal and believes it will enhance the visual landscape of the selected site, will be relatively maintenance free, and meets the guidelines for recommendation as stated in AMC 2.29.130. Page 1 U2 I., Fr CITY OF ASHLAND COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the Public Art Commission's recommendation to accept the mosaic totem by artist Karen Rycheck as part of the City's public art collection. ATTACHMENTS: Concept proposal from artist Karen Rycheck Page 2 U2 L., 9140 Karen Rycheck Ashland Watershed Public Art Call, 2016 1 propose to create a sculptural mosaic totem mimicking the form of stacked stones, showing several interrelated ecosystems of the Ashland Watershed. A common practice I've noticed ever since moving to the Rogue Valley twelve years ago, is that people love to create stone cairns, or markers, along the creeks and trails of the Ashland Watershed and it's surrounding area. Rather than simply creating a large-scale version of a stone cairn, I'm proposing to create a sculpture that carries on this "marking" of space, while giving color to the area and calling attention to the nature found within it. The totem would depict some of the flora and fauna of the Watershed that make it unique and so important to our lives. Beginning with the top piece, I'd mosaic imagery of birds that are native to our area and commonly seen - on one side, the bald eagle against our beautiful skies and on the other, a towhee perched within the branches of a conifer. The second piece would capture the water and fish of Ashland Creek, Bear Creek, and the Watershed using the steelhead and salmon that make them their homes. The third piece would show two species of reptiles found in our area, the rough skinned newt on one side, and the salamander on the other side, hanging out amidst stones, mosses, ferns, and other flora of the creek sides. Finally, the base of the totem would show the conifer forest itself, the mountains around us, and the majesty of the region. The sculptural elements would be constructed of dense foam, formed to resemble large organic rocks, so each would be slightly different in size and shape. These would then be wrapped in several layers of fiberglass mesh and coated with a concrete mix that renders them able to withstand weather and weight. Next, I'd mosaic the surfaces using a combination of materials including freeze proof exterior ceramic tile, glass tile, pebbles, and other materials rated for long-term exterior use. They would be grouted with a urethane grout, which requires little to no maintenance overtime. Each of these sculptural elements would be stacked with smaller real stones between them, adding a more naturalistic feel to the piece. The totem would stand approximately 8 feet high and, when placed within its ravine setting, would draw the eye upward toward the sky and trees, then back down to the grounds surrounding it, creating a feeling of oneness with the cycle of life we all share. Totem ont view Totem back view Karen Rycheck " r _r 1'~+~e'✓c a ..i.+ruw sas°~.s~m'v `m SAP Yom, ~,~4 vi- e . r~ ter' " r n r ;1 x y Ada , ~n.....~•.Tp~p.. + Olt. Al 4 r. T~4wF-: r+e ~ U. ~4 r• Y,~ a< . 7 c, s % r ~ .er , . yt~. x t s - , t~`~ a i ; <r k - + s a l r r a it " •,,,..r. may. + r Y• e ~ T4.-- i . 7 + eta a S a 1 4ke x ; ~ L s ~1 f 4 All ' .qa • iii ~ ti A. IY ,k y Ar I t a ate.. ' X is 46 • i +!s~~~ . s 3 yr t AS j ' . f ' +S fry Y'' r. r ~ 'r ~ y T Lk . . "Irk Jr- low. r - 4ffi . ~ .tea}.... ~ ~ , 1 , 4r f 44 MO. ft%p • ' ` ' • ~_^+-qdcF ~r5i~' eta ~ . ~ a.. ^S y8. ms's '`a ' ? r Koren Ryctck missmosaic Curriculum Vitae ma cs Arc ecturc(instc la s Born 1968, Columbus, Ohio Public Art Commissions/Professional experience 2015 The Horses of Equamore, exterior mosaic handmade ceramic wall installation, Grotto Pizzeria, Talent, Oregon 2015 Lily Pond Mosaic, exterior ceramic paving, McMinnville Public Library, McMinnville, Oregon 2013 Artist assistant, Sturgeon mosaic, exterior smalti paving, Garden of Surging Waves, Astoria, Oregon 2012 History Underfoot: Places of Pride, exterior handmade ceramic mosaic paving installation, Grants Pass, Oregon 2010-2011 Lead Artist/designer, facilitation and volunteer coordination for painted mural, Creating Community: Talent, OR, Talent, Oregon 2009 Exterior mosaic installation, Downtowne Coffeehouse, Talent, Oregon 2004-2005 Lead Artist, Rio Amistad for Illahe Tileworks, exterior handmade ceramic and glass paving, Ashland, Oregon 2004 Life Cycle of the Salmon, exterior handmade ceramic mosaic paving, fabrication and installation for Illahe Tileworks, Oregon Zoo, Portland, Oregon 2000 Interior ceramic mosaic design, fabrication, installation, and sculptural architectural detailing for Artfull Tile and Design, St. Louis, Missouri 1997- 1998 Independent Contractor/Mosaic Artist, interior ceramic mosaic floor installations, City Museum, St. Louis, Missouri Selected Private Commissions 2013 Exterior mosaic medallion and handmade the installation, Talent, Oregon 2013 Mixed media exterior mosaic panels and interior mosaic mirror, Tampa, Florida 2012 Exterior mosaic stair risers, Ashland, Oregon 2012 Exterior handmade tilework and interior stained glass panels, Ashland, Oregon 2010 Interior stained glass panel, The Center for Chinese Medicine, Ashland, Oregon 2010 Interior mosaic panel, Ellicott City, Maryland 2009 Exterior mosaic panel, Ashland, Oregon 2008 Outdoor kitchen/bbq mosaic installation, Ashland, Oregon Curatorial Experience 2010-2013 Curator for 14 separate group shows, Talent City Hall Gallery, Talent, Oregon Selected Exhibitions 2016 Rogue Gallery, Meditations on Daily Splendor: Sarah F Burns, Sarah Fagan, and Karen Rycheck, Medford, Oregon, February-March 2016 Art & Soul Gallery, Rogue Women:Unique Perspectives in Art, Ashland, Oregon, February 2015 Southern Oregon University's Thorndike Gallery, Contemporary Mosaic Art Invitational, Ashland, Oregon, September-October 2015 Rogue Gallery, Rogue Valley Biennial Exhibition, Medford, Oregon, February-April 2014 Illahe Gallery, Fourth Annual Mosaic Invitational, Ashland, Oregon, October 2013 Illahe Gallery, Third Annual Mosaic Invitational, Ashland, Oregon, October 2011 Hanson Howard Gallery, Ashland, Oregon, October-November 2011 Paschal/Tenuta Winery, Cheryl Colwell and Karen Rycheck, Talent, Oregon, Feb-April 2009 Firehouse Gallery, 61 st Annual Southern Oregon Art Show, Grants Pass, Oregon, July MM m Karen Rycheck missmosaic Curriculum Vitae (page 2) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fine art Ceramics Architectural installations 2007 Bilston Craft Gallery, Breakout, Juried International group exhibition of members of the British Association for Modern Mosaics, Wolverhampton, UK, November 2006 High Risk Gallery, Beneath the Surface, Juried International Group Exhibition of the Society of American Mosaic Artists, Chicago, Illinois Education Continuing Professional Development 2015 Mosaic as an Expressive Art Form with Dugald Maclness 2014 Fundamento: Shape +Direction=Flow with Kelley Knickerbocker 2013 Business of Mosaic: Marketing, Pricing and Strategy with Sonia King 2013 Magic of the Maquette with Kim Emerson 2012 Mosaic Portraiture with Carol Shelkin 2010 Abstract Mosaic Intensive Workshop with Lynne Chinn 2006 Designing and Presenting Mosaics for Commissions with Lynne Chinn 2006 Mosaic Art and Design: Feedback, Discussion, & Coaching with Emma Biggs & Sonia King 2006 The Business of Mosaics with Laurel True 2005 Hard Hat Workshop with Eric Rattan Academic 2006 Graphic Design studies, Rogue Community College, Medford, Oregon 1994-1995 Graphic Design studies, St. Louis Community College, Kirkwood, Missouri 1991-1994 Bachelors of Fine Arts, Sculpture, Webster University, Webster Groves, Missouri 1986-1988 Basic Art and Design Studies, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kasnsas Teaching Positions 2016 Mosaic Open Studio Sessions, Workshop Instructor, Talent, Oregon, Jan.-current 2015 Mosaic Intensive for Beginners, Workshop Instructor, Talent, Oregon, July 2014 Mosaic Cutting and Laying Techniques, Workshop Instructor, Ashland Art Center, Ashland, Oregon, April 2014 Mosaic LOVE, Workshop Instructor, Ashland Art Center, Ashland, Oregon, February 2009 Mosaic Intensive for Beginners, Workshop Instructor, Our World Design Studios, Talent, Oregon, September Publications 2012 KDRV.com, First Community Mural Unveiled, August 18 2012 Grants Pass Daily Courier, "Mosaics add colorful splash of history", May 22 2011 Ashland Daily Tidings, "'Miss Mosaic' beautifies valley", October 21 2006 Ashland Magazine, "Mosaic Public Art Flows Through Ashland", Winter 2000 St. Louis Homes and Lifestyles Magazine, "Home of the Year", March Grants 2014 Haines Philanthropic Foundation Grant, Ashland, OR 2006 William T. Colville Memorial Grant, Santa Barbara, CA Professional and Community Affiliations Member Society of American Mosaic Artists miss mosaic mosaic- Member British Association for Modern Mosaics Member Community Built Association 541-621-6239 Volunteer Talent Public Art Committee Co-Chair P.O.BOX 262 Talent, OR 97540 missmosaicgirl@yahoo.com missmosaic.com ?ys d «o- r {j f y1 d , Mosclc Town, 2013 a All r e4 N r Eve, 2011 Karen e-hec - post projects History Undeflook Ploces r` 2012 f i x . The Horses of the 'for 2015 Karen Rycheck - References Darby Stricker 1 10 E. Main St. Talent, OR 97540 541-535-1566 mayorC cityoftalent.orq Steve Fenwick P.O.Box 338 Ashland, OR 97520 541-708-1723 steve@stevefenwick.com Lynn Adamo 2345 Torrey Pines Dr. Bend, OR 97703 503-640-0660 IynnM ynnadamo.com Karen Rycheck - Budget/Timeline Budget Artist design fee: 150 Labor/Fabrication: 2950 Materials: foam board/blocks, cement, fiberglass mesh, steel pole, PVC pipe, foam adhesive, ceramic tile, glass tile, pebbles, stones 400 Transportation/travel: 0 Total: $3500 Proposed Timeline May 5 notification of commission Design/materials gathering May 5-25 Fabrication May 26-Aug 15 Installation anytime after August 16 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Biennium 2015-2017 Third Quarterly Financial Report FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services/Finance Director, lee.tuneberg a ashland.or.us SUMMARY: The Administrative Services Department submits reports to Council on a quarterly basis to provide assurance of budget compliance and for informational and comparative purposes throughout the year. This report is for the "third-quarter" covering January through March 2016 of the two-year budget. Highlights are presented below and the attached statements include comparisons to budget, between years and to other periods. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Financial reports are intended to present information in. formats consistent with the city-wide, department, fund and business activity presentations included in the annual comprehensive financial report. Quarterly reports are prepared by staff to keep Mayor and Council current on the financial conditions of the city. Presenting financial reports on a regular basis allows Council and top management to ask questions and for staff to highlight trends and anomalies and to make recommendations on necessary changes in a timely fashion. Unaudited, detailed balance sheets, revenues and expenditure reports are available for your review in the Administrative Service Department office should Council require any additional information. This report reflects operations to date on the biennial budget. This report covers the nine months' of activities which is three fourths of the first fiscal year (2015-2016) and three eighths of the biennium (2015-2017). Revenues and expenditures are close to projections and variances are reasonable. This report is being sent to the Citizen Budget Committee and may be the basis for questions and answers at the May 12, 2016, meeting. If desired, Council can hold their questions until the committee meeting. The attachments include: A. Summary of Cash and Investments (focus is on the categorization of monies held) B. Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide (focus is on entity.financial reporting) C. Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolutions 2015-19, et al (focus is on budget compliance as amended) D. Statements of Resources, Requirements and Changes in Fund Balance (focus is on fund financial statements presenting both budget compliance and results of operations) Page I of 2 CITY OF ASHLAND Highlights after nine months of operations: 1. Cash balances have improved between years in all but two funds. Most notable are: • The Wastewater Fund has increased in F&B tax proceeds and rate revenue but has not begun capital improvements (a similar condition in Parks CIP); • The large reduction in the Insurance Fund is per budgeted transfers; • Health Benefit claims remain high (a budgeted loan/transfer will be done and reflected in the next quarterly report). • Approximately $23.7 million or 63% of the total $37.7 million is restricted in use. 2. Total resources are $4.9 million ahead of uses to date. This is down a million from the last quarter, in part, reflecting uses of property taxes for operations ahead of property tax distributions in the third quarter. (This is normal.) 3. No amendments to the budget were done this quarter but several are being prepared for May. 4. General Fund miscellaneous revenue is over budget but consistent with the prior year amount and is due to increased amounts (donations or allocations) for public art and fire department services. 5. Central Service Fund expenditures are higher than revenues but are consistent with budgeted projects such as technology and software purchases. Additional information can be made available if so desired by Council. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE GOAL (2015-17) Provide high quality and effective delivery of the full spectrum of city service and governance in a transparent, accessible and fiscally responsible manner. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council accept the quarterly report. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to accept the third quarterly financial report for BN 2015-2017. ATTACHMENTS: Financial Statements Page 2 of 2 I., 1Tr City of Ashland Summary of Cash and Investments March 31, 2016 Balance Balance Change From Fund March 31, 2016 March 31, 2015 FY 2015 General Fund $ 5,953,472 $ 5,197,579 $ 755,893 Community Block Grant Fund 16,859 8,684 8,175 Reserve Fund 364,273 193,208 171,065 Street Fund 5,211, 5,179,358 32,303 Airport Fund 117,930 92,225 25,705 Capital Improvements Fund 2,738,262 1,977,016 761,246 Debt Service Fund 1,145,930 1,033,219 112,711 Water Fund 5,345,212 4,591,394 753,818 Wastewater Fund 6,362,493 5,163,863 1,198,630 Electric Fund 1,624,303 1,591,182 33,121 Telecommunications Fund 205,304 87,112 118,192 Central Services Fund 1,302,607 1,343,847 (41,240) Insurance Services Fund 1,198,646 2;346,865 (1,148,219) Health Benefits Fund 115,041 355,701 (240,660) Equipment Fund 3,089,685 2,747,368 342,317 Cemetery Trust Fund 939,906 916,719 23,187 $ 35,731,585 $ 32,825,339 $ 2,906,246 Parks & Recreation Agency Fund 2,101,882 1,050,635 1,051,247 2,101,882 919,871 1,182;011 Total Cash Distribution $ 37,833,468 $ 33,745,209 $ 4,088,259 Manner of Investment General Banking Accounts $ 1,012,149 $ 721,080 $ 291,669 Local Government Inv. Pool 35,820,118 32,024,129 3,796,589 City Investments 1,000,000 1,000,000 - Total Cash and Investments $ 37,833,468 $ 33,745,209 $ 4,088,259 Dollar Distribution Cash Balance Distribution Central Services, Parks and Insurance and Recreation ,,Is Equipment Funds 5% Claims& Trust 15% Judgments $941,124 $1,003,551 2% Unassigned SDC's 31%, $14,133,033 $6,760,284 37% 9i 18% TOT Tourism Library $99,108 $ 0% Business Type Debt Reserved Asset Forfeited Funds $3,632,337 $29,678 36% All Other (General 10% Other Reserved 0% Government) $11,234,352 44% 30% 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 4/19/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Revenues and Expenditures - City Wide As of March 31, 2016 ( 37.50% of biennium) Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 Resource Summary (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium Revenues Taxes $ 18,212,443 $ 45,305,576 40.2% $ (27,093,133) $ 17,069,325 $ 42,178,084 Licenses and Permits 636,375 1,910,425 33.3% (1,274,050) 1,034,119 1,8727797 Intergovernmental Revenues 2,085,947 13,259,724 15.7% (11,173,777) 1,758,275 6,078.233 Charges for Services - Rate & Internal 41,523,620 109,705,598 37.9% (68;181,978) 38,442,169 97,941,318 Charges for Services - Misc. Service fees 1,329,505 2,980,052 44.6% (1 .1350,547) 1,079,846 2,922,427 System Development Charges 448,046 592,416 75.6% (144,370) 542,296 1,134.394 Fines and Forfeitures 133,553 410,000 32.6% (276,447) 125,316 362,187 Assessment Payments 27,849 520,000 5.4% (492,151) 59,308 126,991 Interest on Investments 155,904 369,358 42.2% (213,454) 126,537 356,651 Miscellaneous Revenues 325,648 1,200,678 27.1% (875.030) 1,030,276 3,141,882 Total Revenues 64,878,888 176,253,827 36.8% (111,374,937) 61,267,466 156,114,964 Budgetary Resources: Other Financing Sources 870,000 26,9351724 3.2% (26,065,724) 674,370 1,838,589 Interfund Loans 490,544 2,571,200 19.1% (2,080,656) 1,014,795 1,684,795 Transfers In 1,093,178 2,456.240 44.5% (1,363,062) 555,398 1,897,442 Total Budgetary Resources 2,453,722 31.963.164 7.7% (29 509 442) 2,244,563 5,420,826 Total Resources 67,332,610 208,216,991 32.3% (140,884,379) 63,512,029 161,535,790 Requirements by Classification Personal Services 21,857,561 61,213,213 35.7% 39,355,652 21,212,663 55,146,073 Materials and Services 33,081,109 92,450,567 35.8% 59,369,458 31,020,442 80,154,005 Debt Service 2,231,979 10,632,044 21.0% 8,400,065 2,518,831 9,220,534 Total Operating Expenditures 57,170,649 164,295,824 34.8% 107,125,175 54,751,936 144,520,612 Capital Construction Capital Outlay 3,631,187 53,228,451 6.8% 49,597,264 5,168,326 14,464,960 Interfund Loans 490,544 2,571,200 19.1% 2,080,656 1,014,795 1.684,795 Transfers Out 1,093,178 2,453,240 44.5% 1,363,062 555,398 1,897,442 Contingencies (Original Budget $3,085,000) - 3,085,000 0.0% 3,085,000 - - Total Budgetary Requirements 1,583,722 8,112,440 19.5% 6.528,718 1,570,193 3.582,237 Total Requirements 62,385,559 225,635,715 27.6% 163,251,157 61,490,455 162,567,809 Excess (Deficiency) of Resources over Requirements 4,947,051 (17,419,724) 128.4% 22,366,775 2,021,574 (1,032,019) Working Capital Carryover 32,934,606 30,632,011 107.5% 2,302,595 33,966,626 33,966,626 Unappropriated Ending Fund Balance $ 37,881,657 $ 13,212,287 286.7% $ 24,669,370 $ 35,988,200 $ 32,934,606 9- Har FYI6 Financial Report xlsx 2 4119/2016 City of Ashland Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2015-19 Amended for Resolution #2015-27 and #2015-30 As of March 31, 2016 ( 37.50% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (9 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015-2017 Used Balance General Fund Administration $ 149,211 $ 645,639 23.1% $ 496,428 Administration - Library 56,587 47,657 118.7% (8,930) Administration - Tourism 31,085 315,901 9.8% 284,816 Administration - Municipal Court 357,611 1,056,830 33.8% 699,219 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 130,885 267,933 48.8% 137,048 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 619,022 1,695,033 36.5% 1,076,011 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 54,582 269,000 20.3% 214,418 Administrative Services - Band 43,398 130,550 33.2% 87,152 Administrative Services - Parks 3,510,000 9,560,000 36.7% 6,050,000 Police Department 4,900,799 13,618,435 36.0% 8,717,636 Fire and Rescue Department 5,508,884 15,870,654 34.7% 10,361,770 Public Works - Cemetery Division 260,108 755,365 34.4% 495,257 Community Development - Planning Division 989,881 2,886,423 34.3% 1,896,542 Community Development - Building Division 531,260 1,459,230 36.4% 927,970 Interfund Loan - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 Transfers 293,080 518,570 56.5% 225,490 Contingency - _ 697,000 0.0% 697,000 Total General Fund 17,436,394 49,860,220 35.0% 32,423,826 Community Development Block Grant Fund Personal Services 18,469 65,420 28.2% 46,951 Materials and Services 127,571 _ 374,378 34.1% 246,807 Total Community Development Grant Fund 146,040 439,798 33.2% 293,758 Reserve Fund Interfund Loan 165,544 850,000 19.5% 684,456 Total Reserve Fund 165,544 850,000 19.5% 684,456 Street Fund Public Works - Ground Maintenance 190,239 494,400 38.5% 304,161 Public Works - Street Operations 2,083,356 12,991,770 16.0% 10,908,414 Public Works - Street Operations Debt 115,073 246,710 46.6% 131,637 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 463,204 1,312,700 35.3% 849,496 Public Works - Storm Water Operations Debt 11,425 25,300 45.2% 13,875 Public Works - Transportation SDC's - 2,956,854 0.0% 2,956,854 Contingency - _ 99,000 0.0% 99,000 Total Street Fund 2,863,298 18,126,734 15.8% 15,263,436 Airport Fund Materials and Services 46,162 460,943 10.0% 414,781 Capital Outlay 1,382 40,000 3.5% 38,618 Debt Service 19,268 77,072 25.0% 57,804 Contingency - 13,000 0.0% 13,000 Total Airport Fund 66,812 591,015 11.3% 524,203 3 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 4/1912016 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2015-19 Amended for Resolution #2015-27 and #2015-30 As of March 31, 2016 ( 37.50% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (9 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015-2017 Used Balance Capital Improvements Fund Public Works - Facilities 646,692 2,820,650 22.9% 2,173,958 Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 1,411,849 3,707,182 38.1% 2,295,333 Transfers 38,981 277,370 14.1% 238,389 Contingency - - 200,000 0.0% 200,000 Total Capital Improvements Fund 2,097,521 7,005,202 29.9% 4,907,681 Debt Service Fund Debt Service 1,355,089 _ 4,270,200 31.7% 2,915,111 Total Debt Service Fund 1,355,089 4,270,200 31.7% 2,915,111 Water Fund Public Works - Conservation 179,228 696,025 25.8% 516,797 Public Works - Water Supply 1,049,527 2,557,935 41.0% 1,508,408 Public Works - Water Supply Debt 8,950 18,971 47.2% 10,021 Public Works - Water Distribution 2,131,408 9,595,707 22.2% 7,464,299 Public Works - Water Distribution Debt 225,466 502,133 44.9% 276,667 Public Works - Water Treatment 853,058 13,941,884 6.1% 13,088,826 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 102,975 281,543 36.6% 178,568 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 11,779 3,170,335 0.4% 3,158,556 Public Works - Debt SDC's 130,208 361,658 36.0% 231,450 Transfer 187,500 500,000 37.5% 312,500 Contingency - _ 170,000 0.0% 170,000 Total Water Fund 4,880,099 33,213,203 14.7% 28,333,104 WasteWater Fund Public Works - Wastewater Collection 1,453,800 5,349,514 27.2% 31895,714 Public Works - Wastewater Collection Debt 54,714 147,457 37.1% 92,743 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment 1,839,660 10,183,710 18.1% 8,344,050 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Debt 186,148 3,237,300 5.8% 3,051,152 Public Works - Reimbursemetns SDC's 5,010 3,691,644 0.1% 3,686,634 Contingency - - 192,000 0.0% _ 192,000 Total Wastewater Fund 3,541,219 22,801,625 15.5% 19,260,406 Electric Fund Administration - Conservation 574,549 1,420,030 40.5% 845,481 Electric - Supply 5,128,210 13,751,887 37.3% 8,623,677 Electric - Distribution 4,778,760 14,041,211 340% 9,262,451 Electric - Transmission 722,063 2,225,945 32.4% 1,503,882 Debt Service 22,664 46,688 48.5% 24,024 Contingency - 279,000 0.0% 279,000 Total Electric Fund 11,226,246 31,764,761 35.3% 20,538,515 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 4 4119/2016 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2015-19 Amended for Resolution #2015-27 and #2015-30 As of March 31, 2016 ( 37.50% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (9 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015-2017 Used Balance Telecommunications Fund IT - Personal Services 490,236 1,343,230 36.5% 852,994 IT - Materials & Services 676,240 2,028,504 33.3% 1,352,264 IT - Capital Outlay 177,523 250,000 71.0% 72,477 Debt - To Debt Service Fund " 209,000 818,000 25.6% 609,000 Contingency - 250,000 0.0% 250,000 Total - Telecommunications Fund 1,552,999 4,689,734 331% 3,136,735 Note: In M & S appropriation Central Services Fund Administration Department 1,209,052 3,314,520 36.5% 2,105,468 Information Technology - Info Services Division 929,429 2,907,638 32.0% 1,978,209 Administrative Services Department 1,791,434 4,867,097 36.8% 3,075,663 City Recorder 377,484 912,590 41.4% 535,106 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,235,622 3,621,822 34.1% 2,386,200 Contingency - _ 125,000 0.0% 125,000 Total Central Services Fund 5,543,021 15,748,667 35.2% 10,205,646 Insurance Services Fund Personal Services 73,524 204,960 35.9% 131,436 Materials and Services 685,077 1,814,790 37.7% 1,129,713 Transfers 569,500 1,069,500 53.2% 500,000 Contingency - _ 390,000 0.0% 390,000 Total Insurance Services Fund 1,328,101 3,479,250 38.2% 2,151,149 Health Benefits Fund Materials and Services 3,653,912 9,580,000 38.1% 5,926,088 Interfund Loan 325,000 650,000 50.0% 325,000 Contingency - _ 500,000 0.0% 500,000 Total Health Benefits Fund 3,978,912 10,730,000 37.1% 6,751,088 Equipment Fund Public Works - Maintenance 981,834 2,961,860 33.1% 1,980,026 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 550,760 1,330,500 41.4% 779,740 Interfund Loan - 965,200 965,200 Contingency - _ 70,000 0.0% 70,000 Total Equipment Fund 1,532,594 5,327,560 28.8% 3,794,966 Cemetery Trust Fund Transfers 4,117 10,800 38.1% 6,683 Total Cemetery Trust Fund 4,117 10,800 38.1% 6,683 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 5 4/19/2016 Schedule of Budgetary Compliance Per Resolution #2015-19 Amended for Resolution #2015-27 and #2015-30 As of March 31, 2016 ( 37.50% of biennium) Biennial to date actuals (9 Biennial Budget Percent Months) 2015-2017 Used Balance Parks and Recreation Fund Parks Division 2,902,619 8,127,847 35.7% 5,225,228 Recreation Division 1,032,151 2,828,630 36.5% 1,796,479 Golf Division 406,722 1,104,650 36.8% 697,928 Transfers - 80,000 0.0% 80,000 Contingency - _ 100,000 0.0% 100,000 Total Parks and Recreation Fund 4,341,492 12,241,127 35.5% 7,899,635 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Personal Services - 189,930 0.0% 189,930 Capital Outlay 189,683 _ 3,817,889 5.0% 3,628,206 Total Parks Capital Improvement Fund 204,678 4,007,819 5.1% 3,803,141 Parks Equipment Fund Capital Outlay 121,382 439,000 27.6% 317,618 Interfund Loan - 40,000 0.0% 40,000 Total Parks Equipment Fund 121,382 479,000 25.3% 357,618 Total Appropriations $ 62,385,559 $ 225,636,715 27.6% $ 163,251,156 9 Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 6 411912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 110 General Fund Taxes $ 16,118,727 $ 38,746,990 41.6% $ (22,628,263) $ 15,116,912 $ 35,933,208 Licenses and Permits 636,375 1,91C 425 33.3% (1,274,050) 1,034,119 1,872,797 Intergovernmental 603,862 1,543.538 39.1% (939,676) 436,532 1,373,375 Charges for Services 1,232,403 3,331.350 37.0% (2,098,947) 1,247,935 3,148,841 Fines 131553 41C.000 32.6% (276,447) 125,316 362,187 Interest on Investments 20,398 6C.000 34.0% (39,602) 15,214 47,932 Miscellaneous 56,470 73.000 77.4% (16,530) 56,625 157,037 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - 126 200 0.0% (126,200) - - Transfer in (Water Fund) 187,500 50',000 37.5% (312,500) - 100,000 Transfer In (Cemetery Fund) 4,117 1' 800 38.1% (6,683) 3,493 9,139 Total Revenues and Other Sources 18,993,404 46,71 ; 303 40.7% (27,718,899) 18,036,146 43,004,516 Administration 149,211 65,639 23.1% 496,428 93,471 357,888 Administration - Library 56587 47,657 118.7% (8,930) 99,926 487,988 Administration - Tourism 31,085 315,901 9.8% 284,816 7,692 47,467 Administration - Municipal Court 357,611 1,056,830 33.8% 699,219 360,115 964,592 Administrative Services - Social Services Grants 130,885 267,933 48.8% 137,048 126,972 254,205 Administrative Services - Economic & Cultural Grants 619,022 11695,033 36.5% 1,076,011 554,184 1,304,744 Administrative Services - Miscellaneous 54,582 269 000 20.3% 214,418 77.884 185,715 Administrative Services - Band 43,398 130,550 33.2% 87,152 42,784 114,017 Administrative Services - Parks 3,510,000 9,561000 367% 6,050,000 4,005,171 8,856,000 Police Department 4,900,799 13,618.435 36.0% 8,717,636 4,769,742 12,316,387 Fire and Rescue Department 5,508,884 15,870,654 34.7% 10,361,770 5,068,963 13,149,854 Public Works - Cemetery Division 260,108 755,365 34.4% 495,257 249,759 663,518 Community Development - Planning Division 989,881 2,886,423 34.3% 1,896,542 932,717 2,547,191 Community Development- Building Division 531,260 1,459,230 36.4% 927,970 500,281 1,327,542 Interfund Loan - 66,000 0.0% 66,000 - - Transfers Out (Debt Service & Cemetery) 293,080 518,570 565% 225,490 192,324 192,824 Contingency - 697.000 0.0% 697,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 17,436,395 49.86,).220 35.0% 32.423.825 17.081.985 42769,932 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,55729 (3,147,917) 149.5% 4,704,926 954,161 234,584 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 3,620,263 3.400.277 106.5% 219,986 3,385,679 3,385.679 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 5.177.272 $ 252.360 2051.5% $ 4 924 912 $ 4.339.841 $ 3 620263 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 737,988 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 4,439,284 9 Mar FY16 Financial Report .Asx 7 4/19/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 250 Community Development Block Fund Intergovernmental $ 127,408 $ 439.798 29.0% $ (312390) $ 21,950 $ 335.060 Total Revenues and Other Sources 127,408 439.798 29.0% (312,390) 21,950 335,060 Personal Services 18,469 65.420 282% 46,952 33,469 67,560 Materials and Services 127,571 374.378 34.1% 246.807 22,016 267,504 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 146,040 439 798 33.2% 293.758 55.485 335,064 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (18,632) - NIA (18,632) (33,535) (4) Fund Balance. Jul 1, 2015 33,797 1 3379700.0% 33796 33,801 33801 Fund Balance Mar 31, 2016 $ 15,165 $ 1 1516502,0% $ 15.164 $ 266 $ 33797 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 15,165 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - 9 Mar FY 16 Fna,oal Repot xlsx &79/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 255 Reserve Fund Interest on Investments $ 8,539 $ 34,000 25.1% $ (25,461) $ 7,043 $ 16,699 Interfund Loan 325;000 65C.000 50.0% (325,000) 250,000 250,000 Transfers In - - WA - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 333 539 684.000 48.8% (25.461) 257,043 266,699 Interfund Loan (Health Benefits Fund) 165,544 85C 000 19.5% 684,456 400.000 900,000 Transfer out - - N/A - - 190,000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 165.544 85C 000 19.5% 684,456 400.000 1.090,000 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 167,995 (160.000) 201.2% 333,995 (142,957) (823,301) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 196,279 204,580 95.9% (8,301) 1,019.580 1,019,580 Fund Balance, Mar 31. 2016 $ 364,274 $ 3=.580 944,2% $ 325.694 $ 876.623 $ 196279 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 364.274 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report Al 9 W9/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 260 Street Fund Taxes $ 29,157 $ 96,700 30.2% $ (67,543) $ 25,973 $ 115,161 Intergovernmental 1.005.023 7,422.136 13.5% (6.417,113) 867,683 2,347,988 Charges for Services - Rates 1,594,065 4,219,700 37.8% (2,625,635) 1,555,815 4,038,568 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 17,803 - N/A 17,803 20.946 57,612 System Development Charges 106,350 133,000 80.0% (26,650) 136,143 245,552 Assessments 27,849 12C 000 23.2/0 (92,151) 59,308 126,991 Interest an Investments 22,869 48,000 41.6% (25,131) 18,930 48,418 Miscellaneous 70,046 106000 70.0% (29,954) 123 213 356,423 Other Financing Sources - 3,306 854 0.0% (3,306,854) - Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,873.161 15,446,390 18 6% (12,573,229) 2,808,011 7,336,713 Public Works - Ground Maintenance 190,239 494 400 38.5% 304,161 - - Public Works - Street Operations 2,198,429 12,991 770 16.9% 10.793,341 1,713,835 5,036,308 Public Works - Street Operations Debt - 246 710 0.0% 246,710 115,673 237,823 Public Works - Storm Water Operations 463,204 1,312 700 353% 849,496 392,259 1,079,458 Public Works - Storm Water Operations Debt 11,425 25 300 45.2% 13,875 11,525 26,317 Public Works - Transportation SDC's - 2,956 854 0.0% 2.956,854 - 91,028 Public Works - Storm Water SDC's - N/A - 2,626 4,670 Public Works - Local Improvement Districts - N/A - Contingency - 99 000 0.0% 99,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2,863.297 18.126734 15.8% 15,263,437 2235 918 6.475.604 Excess (Defciency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 9,864 (2,680,344) 100.4% 2,690,208 572,093 861,109 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,278.231 4.702.624 112.2% 575.607 4417.122 4.417,122 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 288 095 $ 2.022 280 261.5% $ 3,265,815 $ 4.989.216 $ 5,278,231 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 5,288095 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report.Als 10 4/1912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 280 Airport Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 87,912 $ 276,000 31.9% $ (188,088) $ 92,806 $ 274,192 Interest on Investments 559 500 111.8% 59 343 953 Other Financing Sources - 270000 0.0% (270,000) - - Interfund Loan - - N/A - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 88,411 546 500 16.2% (458,029) 93149 275,145 Materials and Services 46,162 460 943 10.6% 414,781 4914 133,293 Capital Outlay 1,382 40.000 3.5% 38,618 - 44,962 Debt Service 19,268 77.072 25.0% 57,804 19,268 77,072 Interfund Loan - - N/A - - 19,000 Contingency - 13.000 0.0% 13,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 66,811 591,015 11.3% 524,204 68.182 274.327 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 21,660 (44515) 148.7% 66,175 24.968 818 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 117,514 114 751 102.4% 2,763 116.696 116 696 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 139174 $ 7C 236 198.2% $ 68,938 $ 141.663 $ 117.514 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 139.173 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9 Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 11 4,1912916 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 410 Capital Improvements Fund Taxes $ 306,389 $ 1,093,400 28.0% $ (787,011) $ 279,395 $ 993,068 Intergovernmental 2,732 - N/A 2,732 - 520,240 Charges for Services - Internal 709.628 2,205 600 32.2% (1,495,972) 696,470 1,857,254 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 3.000 - N/A 3,000 49,531 127,416 System Development Charges 40,900 129416 31.6% (88,516) 44,382 97,839 Interest on Investments 10,371 22,600 45.9% (12,229) 7,966 21,667 Miscellaneous - 22,100 0.0% (22,100) 1,743 47,712 Other Financing Sources 870,000 3.050045 28,5% (2,180.045) - - Transfer In (Insurance Fund) 100.000 100 000 100.0% - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 2,043,019 6,623.161 30.8% (4,580,142) 1,079,487 3,665,195 Public Works - Facilities 646,692 2,820.650 22.9% 2,173,958 936,028 2,109,209 Administrative Services - SDC (Parks) - - N/A - 89,810 - Administrative Services - Open Space (Parks) 1,411,849 3,707.182 38.1% 2,295.333 816,727 Transfers Out (Debt Service Fund) 38,981 271.370 14.1% 238,389 39,581 83,479 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - - N/A - - 1.000 Contingency - 200 000 0.0% 200,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 2097.522 7.005.202 29.9% 4,707.680 1.065,419 3010415 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (54,503) (382.041) 85.7% 327,538 14,068 654.780 Fund Balance. Jul 1, 2015 2,749,486 1,918.994 143.3% 830,492 2.094,706 2,094,706 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 2,694,983 $ 1,536 953 175.3% $ 1,158,030 $ 2,108,774 $ 2,749,486 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,694,983 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9. Mar FY16 Financial Repcd 4. 1 2 419/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 530 Debt Services Taxes $ 479,023 $ 955426 50.1% $ (476,403) $ 477,349 $ 1,019,824 Charges for Services - Internal 767,975 2,308 600 33.3% (1,540,625) 967,975 2,308,600 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 80,283 149 036 53.9% (68,753) 28,367 132,076 Assessments - 400 000 0.0% (400,000) - - Interest on Investments 2,474 20 000 124% (17,526) 2,228 8,161 Miscellaneous - 58 604 0.0% (58,604) 6 6 Transfer In (General Fund & CIP) 331,561 473 940 70.0% (142,379) 231,405 275,303 Other Financing Sources - - N/A - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,661,315 4365606 38.1% (2,704,291) 1,707,331 3,743,970 Materials and Services - - N/A - - 6,294 Debt Service 1,355,089 4,270200 31.7% 2,915,111 1,458,285 3,661,939 Interfund Loan (Central Service Fund) - N/A - 364,795 364.795 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,355,089 4.270,200 31.7% 2,915,111 1,823,080 4,033,028 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 306,226 95406 321.0% 21H20 (115749) (289,058) Fund Balance. Jul 1. 2015 861.560 753,948 114.3% 107.612 1.150.618 1,150.618 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 1.167.786 $ 849 354 137.5% $ 318.432 $ 1.034.869 $ 861.560 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,167,786 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xlsx 13 411912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 670 Water Fund Taxes $ 2 $ - N/A $ 2 $ 17 $ 80 Intergovernmental 14.897 14,000 106.4% 897 7,000 160,220 Charges for Services - Rates 51182,734 13,954,600 37.1% (8,771,866) 4,618,441 11,913,085 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 80,133 - N/A 80,133 72,391 164,472 System Development Charges 223,121 200.000 111.6% 23,121 269,102 597.443 Interest on Investments 22.595 40.800 55.4% (18.205) 18,510 56.607 Miscellaneous 11,192 24.000 46.6% (12,808) 935 34,573 Other Financing Sources - 14990.125 0.0910 (14 990 125) 674,370 1,724 546 Total Revenues and Other Sources 5,534,674 29,223 525 18.9% (23,688,851) 5,660,766 14,651.026 Public Works - Conservation 179,228 696.025 25.8% 516,797 182,236 442,021 Fire - Forest Lands - - N/A - 186,472 889,478 Public Works - Water Supply 1,049,527 2,557 935 41.0% 1,508,408 2,478,868 4,819,863 Public Works - Water Supply Debt 8,950 18.971 47.2% 10,021 21,474 44,787 Public Works - Water Distribution 2,131,408 9,595 707 22.2% 7,464,299 952,838 2,289,201 Public Works - Water Distribution Debt 225,466 502.133 44.9% 276,667 193,039 467,434 Public Works - Water Treatment 853058 13,941 884 6.1% 13,088,826 2,028,690 5,364,675 Public Works - Water Treatment Debt 102,975 281.543 36.6% 178,568 302,174 662.801 Public Works - Improvement SDC's 109,767 3,170.335 3.5% 3,060,568 282,382 507,905 Public Works - Debt SDC's 32,220 361.658 8.9% 329,438 115.958 241,845 Debt Service - 1,417.012 0.0% 1,417,012 - - Interfund Loan - - N/A - 150,000 Transfers (General Fund) 187,500 500.000 37.5% 312.500 - Contingency - 170.000 0.0% 170,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4.880.098 33,213 203 14.7% 28,333,105 6,744,131 15,880,009 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 654,575 (3,989.678) 116.4% 4 .644,253 (1,083,365) (1,22$983) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,208,593 6.061.702 85.9% (853 109) 6.437.575 6,437,575 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 5.863 168 $ 2,072 024 283.0% $ 3.791 144 $ 5.354.213 $ 5.208.593 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 3,733.376 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2.129.792 9. Mar FY16 Financial Repoo Asx 14 4/19/1016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 675 Wastewater Fund Taxes $ 1,225,554 $ 4,264,260 28.7% $ (3,038,706) $ 1,117,577 $ 3,972.266 Charges for Services - Rates 3,812,854 10,787000 35.3% (6,974,146) 3,476,263 8,796,565 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 13,250 - N/A 13,250 13,250 26,500 System Development Charges 77,675 130,000 59.8% (52.325) 92,669 193,560 Interest on Investments 23,876 30.000 79.6% (6,124) 16,913 42,965 Miscellaneous 931 - N/A 931 1.532 6,037 Other Financing Sources - 5,318.700 0.0% (5,318,700) - 114043 Total Revenues and Other Sources 51154,141 20,529 960 25.1% (15,375,819) 4,718,204 13,151,936 Public Works - Wastewater Collection 1.453,800 5,349 514 272% 3,895,714 1,456,566 3,854,489 Public Works Wastewater Collection Debt 54,714 147.457 37.1% 92,743 55,064 151,071 Public Works- Wastewater Treatment 1,839,660 10,183.710 18.10/; 8.344.050 1,801,756 4,980,940 Public Works - Wastewater Treatment Debt 186,148 3,237,300 5.8% 3,051,152 204,372 3,253,029 Public Works - Reimbursements SDC's 5,010 3,691,644 0.1% 3,686,634 15.219 20,331 Public Works - Improvements SDC's 1,888 - N/A (1,888) 15.264 87,507 Debt Service - - N/A - - - Contingency - 192 000 0.0% 192,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3.541.219 22.801.625 155% 19 260,406 3,548,241 12,347,367 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,612,922 (2,271 665) 171.0% 3.884,587 1,169,963 804,569 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 5,095343 _ 4.464697 114.1% 630,646 4,290774 4.290.774 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 6708 265 $ 2.193 032 305.9% $ 4.515 233 $ 5,460138 $ 5.095,343 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 2,655,192 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 4,053,073 9 Mar FY16 Financial Reportxlsx 15 a19i2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 690 Electric Fund Intergovernmental $ 332,026 $ 323000 102.8% $ 9,026 $ 109,110 $ 335,700 Charges for Services - Rates 11,138,908 29.539 358 37.7% (1840,450) 10,540,343 27,210,985 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 143,937 453 686 31.7% (309,749) 114,374 278,280 Interest on Investments 5,598 14 715 38.0% (9,117) 5,547 15,714 Miscellaneous 66,788 322 974 20.7% (256 186) 118.605 288,885 Total Revenues and Other Sources 11,687.257 30,653 733 38.1% (18,966,476) 10887,979 28,129,564 Administration - Conservation 574,548 1,420 030 40.5% 845,482 511,257 1,387,220 Electric - Supply 5,128,210 13,751887 37.3% 8,623,677 4,658,396 12,831,515 Electric - Distribution 4,778,760 14,041211 34.0% 9,262,451 4,668,994 12,558,899 Electric - Transmission 722,063 2,225945 32.4% 1,503,882 708,053 1,876,536 Debt Service 22,664 46 688 485% 24,024 22,800 47,711 Contingency - 279.000 0.0% 279,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 11.226.245 31,764761 35.3% 20 538,516 10,569,500 28 701.941 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 461.012 (1,111,028) 141.5% 1,572,040 318,479 (572,371) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 1,755,163 1.479.265 118.7io 275,898 2,327,540 2,327,540 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 2.216.175 $ 368.237 601.8% $ 1.847.938 $ 2646,019 $ 1.755,163 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 2.216.175 9. Mar FY16 Financial Repo Atd 1 6 4/19/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 691 Telecommunications Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 1,500,994 $ 4,363 565 34.4% $ (2,862,571) $ 1,468,236 $ 3,889,563 Interest on Investments 782 1 943 40.3% (1,161) 892 2,257 Miscellaneous 467 - N/A 467 458 4,750 Interfund Loan 165,544 400 000 41.4% (234 456) - - Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,667,787 4,765 508 35.0% (3,097,721) 1,469,586 3,896,570 Personal Services 490,236 1,343 230 36.5% 852,994 498,726 1,299,335 Materials & Services 676,240 2,028 504 33.3% 1,352,264 664,960 1,764,465 Capital Outlay 177,523 250 000 71.0% 72.477 148,871 297.337 Debt - Transfer to Debt Service Fund 209,000 81 F~ 000 256% 609,000 409,000 818,000 Contingency - 250 000 0.0% _ 250,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,552.999 4.685 734 33.1% 3.136.735 1,721,557 4.179.137 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 114,789 75,774 1515% 39,015 (251,971) (282,567) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 305.058 251 528 121.3% 53,530 587,625 587,625 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 419,847 $ 327 302 128.3% $ 92 545 $ 335654 $ 305 058 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 200 000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 219,847 9. Mar FV 16 Financial Report xlsx 1 7 4/19/201fi City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 710 Central Service Fund Taxes $ 53,592 $ 148,800 360% $ (95,208) $ 52,102 $ 144,476 Intergovernmental - - NIA - - Charges for Services - Internal 4,763,387 13,06E,435 36.4% (8,305,048) 4,553,460 12,037,871 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 175,091 572,330 30.6% (397,239) 152,199 365,186 Interest on Investments 6,238 10,000 62.4% (3,762) 6,573 21,344 Miscellaneous 95,141 250000 381% (154,859) 83,566 219,539 Interfund Loan (Equipment Fund) - 400 000 NIA 400,000 364.795 364,795 Transfer in (Insurance Fund) 417,000 417 000 100.0% - - 90.000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 5,510,450 14,866 565 37.1% (8,556.115) 5,212,695 13,243.212 Administration Department 1,209,051 3,314 520 36.5% 2,105,469 1,098,757 2,797,218 Information Technology - Info Services Division 929.429 2,907 638 32.0% 1,978,209 910,918 2,396,771 Administrative Services Department 1,791,434 4,867 097 36.8% 3.075,663 1,507,171 3,866,706 City Recorder Division 377,484 912 590 414% 535,106 338,216 868,755 Public Works - Administration and Engineering 1,235,622 3,621 822 34.1% 2,386,200 1,248,949 3,266,434 Intefund Loan - N/A - - Contingency - 125000 00% 125,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 5,543 020 15.748,667 35.2% 10,205 647 5,104,011 13.195.884 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (32,571) (882,102) 96.3% 849,531 108,684 47,327 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 900,608 898.651 100.2% 1.957 853,281 851281 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 868,037 $ 16.549 52453% $ 851.488 $ 961.965 $ 900.608 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 575.000 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 293.037 9_ Mar FY16 Financial Report xisx 1 8 411912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 720 Insurance Service Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 548,115 $ 1,560,000 35.1% $ (1,011,885) $ 548,442 $ 1,480,865 Interest on Investments 5,436 13 000 41.8% (7,564) 7.179 16,485 Miscellaneous 11.819 80 000 14.8% (68.181) 607.964 1574,390 Total Revenues and Other Sources 565,370 1,653 000 34.2% (1,087,630) 1,163,585 3,071,740 Personal Services 73,524 204 960 35.9% 131,436 67,755 179,228 Materials and Services 685,017 1,814 790 37.7% 1,129,713 648.628 1,475,087 Transfer Out (Mulitple 4 funds) 569,500 1,069 500 53.2% 500,000 - 500,000 Contingency _ - 390 000 0.0% 390,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,328,101 3,479 250 38.2% 2,151,149 716,383 2154,315 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (762,731) (1,826 250) 58.2% 1,063,519 447,202 917,425 Fund Balance, Jul 1. 2015 1.766.283 1.962 888 900% (196.605) 848.858 848.858 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 1.003.552 $ 136 638 734.5% $ 866 914 $ 1.296.060 $ 1.766.283 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,003.552 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (O) 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xls, 1 9 W912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 725 Health Benefits Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 3,598,829 $ 9,730,000 37.0% $ (6,131,171) $ 3,046,068 $ 8,158032 Interest on Investments 3,004 10,000 30.0% (6,996) 1,676 3,614 Miscellaneous - - N/A - 211.795 Interfund Loan (Reserve Fund) 450.000 0.0% (450,000) 400,000 900,000 Transfer In (Insurance Fund) - 500,000 0.0% (500 000) - 500,000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 3,601,833 10,690,000 33.7% (7,088,167) 3447,744 9773,441 Materials and Services 3,653,912 9,580.000 38.1% 51926.088 3,357,621 9,049,715 Interfund Loan 325,000 650000 50.0% 325,000 250,000 250,000 Contingency - 50C,000 0.0% 500,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 3,978,912 10,730 000 37.1% 6,751,088 3.607.621 9,299,715 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (377,079) (40.000) 942.7% (337,079) (159,877) 473,726 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 473.726 73 370 645.7% 400,356 - Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 96.647 $ 33 370 289.6% 5 63 277 $ (159.877) $ 473726 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 96 647 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 9. Mar FY16 Financial RapW As, V9/2016 2D City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 730 Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 1,465,747 $ 4,538,460 32.3% $ (3,072,713) $ 1,353,295 $ 3,606,929 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 128,006 - NIA 128,006 (4,435) 44,919 Interest on Investments 13,443 35.000 38.4% (21,557) 10,379 31,805 Miscellaneous 6,699 170.000 3.9% (163,301) 28,193 170.026 Interfund Loan (Airport & Water Fund) - 106 000 0.0% (106 000) - 170.000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,613,896 4,849.460 33,3% (3,235,564) 1,387,433 4,023,679 Public Works - Maintenance 981,836 2,961.860 33.1% 1,980,024 809,304 2,084,345 Public Works - Purchasing and Acquisition 550,760 1,330,500 41.4% 779,740 408,427 2,359,891 Interfund Loan - 965,200 0.0% 965,200 Contingency - 70.000 0.0% 70,000 - - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 1,532,596 5,327.560 28.8% 3.794,964 1.217,731 4444,236 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 81,299 (478.100) 117.0% 559,399 169,702 (420,557) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 2,937,106 2,446.794 120.0% 490,312 3,357,663 3.357,663 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 3,018,405 $ 1,968,694 153.3% $ 1,049,711 $ 3 527 364 $ 2.937.106 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 3.018,406 Unassigned Fund Balance $ (0) 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report xk. V912016 21 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 810 Cemetery Fund Charges for Services - Rates $ 17,957 $ 50,000 35.9% $ (32,043) $ 20,447 $ 47.767 Interest on Investments 4117 10,800 38.1% (6,683) 3,493 9.139 Miscellaneous - - N/A - (145) (145) Transfer In (General Fund) 500 1.000 50.0% (500) 500 1.000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 22.574 61 800 36.5% (39,226) 24,294 57.761 Transfers 4,117 10 800 381% _ 6,683 3,493 9,139 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4,117 10,800 38.1% 6,683 3,493 9,139 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 18,457 51 000 36.2% (32,543) 20,801 48,622 Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 922666 923 046 100.0% (380) 874,044 874044 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 941,123 $ 974 046 96.6% $ (32,923) $ 894,847 $ 922,666 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 941.123 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9. Mar FY 16 Financial Rep.,l A,x 1'1 4!1912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 211 Parks and Recreation Fund Intergovernmental $ - $ - NIA $ - $ 6,050 $ 10.589 Charges for Services - Internal 3,510,000 9,560.000 36.70/o (6,050,000) 4,005,171 8,856.000 Charges for Services - Misc. Service Fees 688,001 1,805.000 38.1% (1,116,999) 633,223 1,725.966 Interest on Investments 2,324 14 000 16.6% (11,676) 2,651 9,535 Miscellaneous 6,093 100000 6.1% (93,907) 7,436 47,413 Transfers In (General & Insurance Fund) 52.500 373.500 14.1% (321,000) - Total Revenues and Other Sources 4,258,918 11,852.500 35.9% (7,593,582) 4,654,531 10,649.503 Parks Division 2,902,619 8,127 847 35.7% 5,225,228 2,886,480 7,473,109 Recreation Division 1 .032,151 2,828,630 36.50/0 1,796,479 974,191 2,507,775 Golf Division 406,722 1,104.650 36.8% 697,928 390,967 1,026,426 Other Financing Uses - Transfers - 80.000 0.0% 80.000 320,000 922.000 Contingency 100 000 0.0% 100,000 - Total Expenditures and Other Uses 4341,492 _ 12,241.127 35.5% 7,899,635 4,571.638 11 929,310 Excess(Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses (82,574) (388627) 78.8% 306,053 82.893 (1 279,807) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 503,628 392 641 128.3% _ 110,987 1,783,435 1,783,435 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 421,054 $ 4014 10489.6% $ 417,040 $ 1.866328 $ 503,628 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds - Unassigned Fund Balance $ 421,054 9 Mar FY16 Financial RepA N4/19/2016 23 4/19/2016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 411 Parks Capital Improvement Fund Charges for Services $ 13,137 $ 212.930 6.2% $ (199,793) $ 251,002 $ 316,201 Charges for Services - Internal 1,408.349 - NIA - - Intergovernmental - 3,517,252 0.0% (3,517,252) 309,950 995,061 Interest on Investments 3,146 4 J00 78.6% (854) 1,000 3,356 Miscellaneous - NIA - - 23.441 Transfer In (Park Fund) NIA 320,000 922.000 Total Revenues and Other Sources 1,424,632 31734.182 38.2% (3,717,899) 881,952 2,260.059 Personal Services, - 189,930 0.0% 189.930 - - Materials and Services 14,995 - NIA (14,995) 1,331 1,331 Capital Outlay 189,683 3.817.889 5.0% 3,628,206 954,748 2,437.058 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 204,678 4,00719 5.1% 3,803,141 956,079 2,438.389 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 1,219,954 (273.637) 545.8% 1,493,591 (74,127) (178330) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 209,302 582,254 35.9% (372 952) 387.632 387.632 Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 $ 1.429.256 $ 308 617 463.1 % $ 1.120.639 $ 313,505 $ 209302 Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 1,429,256 Unassigned Fund Balance $ 0 9. Mar FY16 Financial Report x sx 'Z4 4/1912016 City of Ashland Statement of Resources, Requirements, and Changes in Fund Balance March 31, 2016 Biennial Percent Biennial To Date Actuals Budget Collected 2013-2015 (9 Months) 2015-2017 Expended Balance Biennium to Date End of Biennium 731 Parks Equipment Fund Charges for Services - Internal $ 170,625 $ N/A $ 170,625 $ $ Interest on Investments 136 N/A 136 Interfund Loan - 439 000 0.0% - Transfer In (Park Fund) - 80 000 0.0% (80 000) Total Revenues and Other Sources 170,761 519 000 32.9% 90,761 Capital Outlay 121,382 439000 27.6% 317,618 Interfund Loan - 40 000 Total Expenditures and Other Uses 121,382 439,100 27.6% 317,618 Excess (Deficiency) of Revenues and Other Sources over Expenditures and Other Uses 49,379 80 J00 61.7% (30,621) Fund Balance, Jul 1, 2015 - - 0.0% Fund Balance, Mar 31, 2016 S 49,379 $ 80 000 61.7% $ (30 621) $ $ Reconciliation of Fund Balance: Restricted and Committed Funds 49,379 Unassigned Fund Balance $ - 9 Mx FY16 Financial Rep A Asx 25 4!1912016 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Sachta Bakshi dba Oberon's Restaurant & Bar FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a Liquor License Application from Sachta Bakshi dba Oberon's Restaurant & Bar at 45 N Main Street. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a new license - Change in Ownership The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the Council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Sachta Bakshi dba Oberon's Restaurant & Bar. ATTACHMENTS: Liquor license application Page I of I Q Liquor Control Commission O TROL COMMISSION L4t~ U er~1CENSEAPPLICATION Al2plication is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES AC ONS Date application received: Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) Change Ownership ❑ Commercial Establishment Q New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: E3 Caterer © Greater Privilege Q Passenger Carrier Q Additional Privilege (name of city or county) 0 Other Public Location ❑ Other recommends that this license be: 13 Private Club Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied f26-Premises Sales ($100/yr) ? ` . By: Q with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) Q Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: Winery ($250/yr) Other: Title: 90-pp Y AUTHORITY Wheck here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business OLCC USE ~ONL that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application Rec'd by: Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority _ APPLYING AS: Date: ©Limited [I Corporation Vjimited Liability ❑ Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: Yes ❑ No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] J O 2. Trade Name (dba): p c2 a PZ 3. Business Location: `o A a CtL~ ©o.. 2 (number, street, rural route) # (city) (county) (state) (ZJP code) 4. Business Mailing Address:_ Sc2j-y1 ny C~_2',, (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: J L~ ~S ~ -2 - -1 2 ~ (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? Fw-"'Yles Flo r l 7. If yes to whom: GY? I L l Type of License: ~LGL~ t 8. Former Business Name: Lf.) &JL "?"'Iv hive, 9. Will you have a manager? Dyes E3No Name: L 6 l (manager must fill out an Individual History f o6) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? A It (a_, t6l (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: c C. L ~.z ~ C{ t L{ I - G{ - c (name) r (phone number s)) (address) (fax number) ( -&'76 I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC may deny VE Applicant(s) Signature(s) and Date: O -C Date i 5 i ( OO APR bjte016 - - hipnFnRD REWMAL OFFICE CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Jeff Chase dba Ashland Street Market FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb steb(~)iashl and. or. us SUMMARY Approval of a liquor license application from Jeff Chase dba Ashland Street Market at 2371 Ashland Street Market BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a new license - change in ownership The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the Council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Jeff Chase dba Ashland Street Market. ATTACHMENTS: Liquor license application Page 1 of 1 OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: El Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) ag Change Ownership D Commercial Establishment New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: Caterer ® Greater Privilege Passenger Carrier Q Additional Privilege (name of city or county) n Other Public Location Other Private Club IF I IV recommends that this license be: Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied MOff-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: with Fuel Pumps --(t-' (signature) (date) rl Brewery Public House ($252.60) / Name: Winery ($250/yr) j,,-- n Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY OLCC Y ; Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application ec d Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority Date: APPLYING AS: E]Limited corporation Limited Liability []Individuals 90-day authority: XYes ❑ No Partnership Company 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] 0) r L o 2. Trade Name (dba): 1"'t \_CA_ a___~~~-- 3. Business Location: '~~10 s a ~ ~ ~,,a ~Sc (number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: \ _?COD (PO box, number, str et, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: cj~ ~g a -UU 2a. x' 41-$Q? - ~3~21 t)(41 -5%7-1` -15 (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? NYes Flo 7. If yes to whom: & ~~\or "T AS%-,l.u rvA -L,uta~ n-Type of License: n 8. Former Business Name:1 Mc~r: ItSnLn_c>~~ ~2 906CA~k 9. Will you have a manager? MYes 0No Name: Q Inrat~ (manager must rill out an individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? atS\f t (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: (name) ~~y[ A( .7~y~~ (phone/nuum~yber(s)) t,. (address) (fax number) • run% F.IVa 1 u if my answers are not true and complete the OLCC may nderstand that Y a n 1; LA EU4 Applicant(s) Si ture ) and ate: MAR 18 2 816 o Date ` Y o ate M Date ® MEDFORD REGIONabtaFFICE UHLUUVU0U0R CONTROL COMMISSION 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olcc (rev, 0812011) CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Jeff Chase dba Siskiyou Blvd Market FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, ehristebgashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a liquor license application from Jeff Chase dba Siskiyou Blvd Market at 1515 Siskiyou Blvd. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a new license - change in ownership The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the Council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following. The City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Jeff Chase dba Siskiyou Blvd Market. ATTACHMENTS: Liquor license application Page 1 of ] 1r i OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: 0 Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) Change Ownership 0 Commercial Establishment New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: 0 Caterer O Greater Privilege 0 Passenger Carrier Additional Privilege (name of city or county) O Other Public Location Other. ' recommends that this license be: 0 Private Club ® Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ❑ Granted ❑ Denied Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: Kwith Fuel Pumps , (signature) (date) O Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: 10 O Winery ($250/yr) 0 Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY OLCC USE Y JN Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application ecId y: Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority J Date: APPLYING AS: OLimited O Corporation Limited Liability D Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: XYes L3 No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] 2. Trade Name (dba): k-;S \.v F6(-y D *-CLYY&A 3. Business Location: o g1V 6 PisL+ L_rzk ~.IC e. crn~QD (number, street, rural route (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: o-,)P- ~Ao,-t S,0, ne- R-7(-o i (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: 5(4 I Xo-) - al" or *.54 11-22 ? -`99Zj (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? 23Yes []to 7. If yes to whom: 4Lti ►t~~- ~f ~L Type of License: Q a 8. Former Business Name:_ LMw<gil a y (:~_;1LWk4n,r 9. Will you have a manager? ®Yes ONo Name: Z.zS& C_ky tw__ (manager must fill out an Individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? A a;1%Lo na (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: zQT'~- 152~'S7Z,or) (name) (phone number(s)) (address) (fax number) CF.IY. nd E D that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCC maTArrr~ l understa Applicant(s) " nat e(s n te: MAR 2 4 2016 O Date ?'"/Y ® Date Date ® MEDFORD REGIONAcjQgFICE 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olcc CONTROL COMMISSION (rev. 0812011) CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Liquor License Application for Jatinder Kaur dba Taj Indian Cuisine FROM: Barbara Christensen, City Recorder, christeb@ashland.or.us SUMMARY Approval of a liquor license application from Jatinder Kaur dba Taj Indian Cuisine at 31 Water Street. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Application is for a new license - Change in Ownership The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Chapter 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the City's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Chapter 6.32) and has been reviewed by the Police Department. In May 1999, the Council decided it would make the above recommendations on all liquor license applications. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED N/A FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Endorse the application with the following: The City has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The City Council recommends that the OLCC proceed with the processing of this application. SUGGESTED MOTION: Under consent agenda item, a motion to approve liquor license for Jatinder Kaur dba Taj Indian Cuisine. ATTACHMENTS: Liquor license application Page I of I OREGON LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION LIQUOR LICENSE APPLICATION Application is being made for: CITY AND COUNTY USE ONLY LICENSE TYPES ACTIONS Date application received: 0 Full On-Premises Sales ($402.60/yr) 0 Change Ownership 0 Commercial Establishment ® New Outlet The City Council or County Commission: 0 Caterer Q Greater Privilege © Passenger carrier [3Additional Privilege (name of city or county) E30ther Public Location ® Other recommends that this license be: O Private Club ❑ Granted ❑ Denied Limited On-Premises Sales ($202.60/yr) ©Off-Premises Sales ($100/yr) By: with Fuel Pumps (signature) (date) © Brewery Public House ($252.60) Name: © Winery ($250/yr) Other: Title: 90-DAY AUTHORITY OLCC USE ONLY El Check here if you are applying for a change of ownership at a business that has a current liquor license, or if you are applying for an Off-Premises Application Rec'd by: Sales license and are requesting a 90-Day Temporary Authority APPLYING AS: Date:~S~_ []Limited ❑ Corporation Q Limited Liability ❑ Individuals Partnership Company 90-day authority: OYes ❑ No 1. Entity or Individuals applying for the license: [See SECTION 1 of the Guide] DOSANJH HOLDING LLC 2. Trade Name (dba):TAJ INDIAN CUISINE 3. Business Location: 31 WATER ST, ASHLAND JACKSON OR 97520 (number, street, rural route) (city) (county) (state) (ZIP code) 4. Business Mailing Address: 31 WATER ST, ASHLAND OR 97520 (PO box, number, street, rural route) (city) (state) (ZIP code) 5. Business Numbers: 541-488-5900 (phone) (fax) 6. Is the business at this location currently licensed by OLCC? oYes Flo 7. If yes to whom: TAJ INDIAN RESTAURANT LLC Type of License: LIMITED ON-PREMISIS 8. Former Business Name:TAJ INDIAN CUISINE 9. Will you have a manager? Yes QNo Name:JATINDER KAUR (manager must fill out an Individual History form) 10. What is the local governing body where your business is located? CITY OF ASHLAND (name of city or county) 11. Contact person for this application: JATI N DER KAUR 209-981-3908 (name) (phone number(s)) 3503 S PACIFIC HWY MEDFORD, OR 97501 541-897-4441 (address) (fax number) es nPA I understand that if my answers are not true and complete, the OLCCp Appt:kant(s Sign ture(s) and Date: t~ 1 OO Date O APR I'S Zo%ate A 00~ 1 t rl Date l 4 ~ t~tII~ 1-800-452-OLCC (6522) • www.oregon.gov/olcc ,ice trey. oano>>> CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Public Hearing and Adoption of Miscellaneous Fees & Charges for FY 2017 and Repealing Resolution 2015-15 FROM: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services Director, tuneberl@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This public hearing is to consider changes to some of the various fees and charges used by the city. Most remain the same but some are recommended to increase by an inflationary factor. Others are to be adjusted to cover cost of service as recommended by staff. There are a few new charges recommended as well as minor corrections. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: For the last five years the city has annually reviewed miscellaneous fees and charges and adjusted specific items as needed. This process replaced the prior time-consuming approach of considering many separate changes each month or meeting. It does not include annual reviews of utility rates (transportation, storm drain, water, wastewater, electric, or telecommunications changes) which are done separately due to their material nature. It does reduce but does not eliminate the need to bring unique or important other changes to you as timing requires. Approved miscellaneous fees and charges are incorporated within a summary booklet that is intended to be a single user-friendly resource. The booklet improves each year as we centralize and coordinate miscellaneous fees not previously addressed. Attached are the draft booklet and the draft resolution to establish or update the included fees effective July 1, 2016. In some cases there are references to prior resolutions that are not being repealed and the associated charges are presented for information purposes. A good example is the recently approved resolution that increased parking fees and fines. New fees and changes to old ones are presented in bolded red. If an entry is not bolded in red or identified as a new or changed fee it is the existing amount or methodology used for calculation. Also attached are memos from departments explaining significant changes beyond inflationary adjustments. Please note that: 1. Items not approved may come back to Council separately or in this process next year. 2. Not all fees and charges are changing. 3. The booklet includes city and park fees. 4. Utility rates and system development charges are examples of charges that are not incorporated within this process and resolution. Page 1 of 2 !V111611 CITY OF ASHLAND 5. Some of the larger increases relate to "cost of providing the service," as substantiated by the departmental memo, and are intended to have the requester bear the cost. We should expect that there may be some errors and omissions, so staff is requesting through the resolution that the new fee schedule take priority over any disconnects or conflicts with prior resolutions that were not repealed. When such incidents occur, staff will correct them as soon as possible and incorporate the revisions in updates to this new, annual process. Those departments requesting changes are listed below. To assist you in your review, the following proposed changes are attached: • Administrative Services • Community Development • Fire • Parks & Recreation • Police • Public Works COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Administration and Governance Goal: Provide high quality, effective, and efficient city services and governance in an acceptable, collaborative, and fiscally responsible manner. • Ensure on-going fiscal ability to provide desired and required services at an acceptable level. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: These adjustments will fund or help to fund operations, most representing payments for requested services. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve these charges. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of the resolution titled, "A Resolution Adopting a Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Document and Repealing Prior Fee Resolution 2015-15." ATTACHMENTS: Departmental Memos: • Administrative Services • Community Development • Fire • Parks & Recreation • Police • Public Works Resolution Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Document - Draft 2016-17 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF -SHLAND Me o DATE: April 4, 2016 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Administrative Services and Finance Director FROM: Bryn Morrison, Customer Service Division. Manager -t17VV1, DEPT: Administrative Services RE: Update to Miscellaneous Fees and Charges In recognition that fees and charges should be removed from the Ashland Municipal Code (AMC) and approved through a resolution of the City Council, I would like to recommend the fee of $10 to reprint a business license within AMC section 6.04.105 to be included in the Miscellaneous and Fees and Charges resolution. The Administrative Services Department will present to the City Council at an upcoming meeting a request to update several sections of the AMC. Approving this fee within the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges resolution will allow removal from the AMC. The amount the fee is at currently is adequate for this next fiscal year. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT D. L, Tuneberg, Director Tel: 541.488-5300 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.orms CITY OF -ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 14, 2016 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Director of Administrative Services FROM: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Update The Community Development Department is requesting the following updates to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document: 1. Update Planning Fees in accordance with the March 2016 CPI. 2. Add Street Tree Removal Permit Fee. There currently is no charge for a street tree removal permit. The proposal is to charge a fee of $28 for a street tree removal permit, which is the same amount charged for a tree removal permit on private property. Staff estimates that an average of one to two hours is used for each permit including explaining the permitting processing, reviewing the permit, conducting a site visit, completing the permit processing, and answer general public questions about specific street tree removals. The Community Development Department processes an average of 25 to 30 street tree removal permits a year. The annual number of street tree removal permits exceeded this average the past few years and it appears this may be due to the impacts of drought and wind and snow storms over the past several winters. Staff researched ten cities in Oregon and found street tree removal permits ranged from no charge to $175 per tree. Cities such as Eugene and Corvallis do not charge for permits, but have urban forestry departments with arborists on staff to assess tree health for street removal requests and field staff to trim, remove, and replant street trees. 3. Replace current language under Building Division Permit Fees for Commercial and Residential and update with the following language, in accordance with OAR 918-050-0100: "Residential construction permit fees shall be calculated using the following methodologies. (c) Effective January 1, 2009, a structural permit fee for new construction and additions shall be calculated using the ICC Building Valuation Data Table current April 1 of each year, multiplied by the square footage of the dwelling unit to determine the valuation. The valuation shall then be applied to the municipality's fee schedule to determine the permit fee. The plan review fee shall be based on a pre-determined percentage of the permit fee set by the municipality. (A) The square footage of a dwelling, addition, or garage shall be determined from outside exterior wall to outside exterior wall for each level. (B) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 541-488-6006 p. Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,r www.ashland.or.us The square footage of a carport, covered porch, or deck shall be calculated separately at fifty percent of the value of a private garage from the ICC Building Valuation Data Table current as of April 1. (C) Permit fees for an alteration or repair shall be calculated based on the fair market value as determined by the Building Official, and then applying the valuation to the municipality's fee schedule. Commercial construction permit fees shall be calculated using the following methodologies. (c) A structural permit fee shall be calculated by applying the valuation to the municipality's fee schedule with a set minimum fee. Valuation shall be the greater of either. (A) The valuation based on the ICC Building Valuation Table current as of April 1 of each year, using the occupancy and construction type as determined by the Building Official, multiplied by the square footage of the structure-, or (B) The value as stated by the applicant and approved by the building official. (C) When the construction or occupancy does not fit the ICC Building Valuation Data Table, the valuation shall be determined by the Building Official with input from the applicant." 4. Correct error on Grading Fees attachment. Table A of the City of Ashland Grading Fees should be corrected to read: "10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $150 for the first 10,000 yards, plus $25.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof." COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 541-488-5305 51 Winburn Way Fax: 54188-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 .r~ www.ashland.or.us CITY OF Memo ASHLAND DATE: April 13, 2016 TO: Kristy Blackman FROM: (AIXMargueritte Hickman, Division Chief/ Fire Marshal RE: Fire & Life Safety Fee Increases Please adjust the following fees as listed below. Remove ".Photographs" from Report Fees. This is accomplished through the CD/DVD. Add Traveler's Accommodations at the top of the Inspection Fees list with the fee of $35. The Fire Inspection Fees will be increase in accordance with the CPI of 1.4% effective January 1, 2016. I have also included a copy of the fee page with hand marked corrections, with 1.4% increase 2016 rounded up 10,001- Occupancy 0-1,000 1,001-3,000 0-3,000 3,001-10,000 20,000 >20,000 B 35 53 103 154 206 A, E, F, H, I, M, S 53 103 154 206 Number of Units 3-10 11-40 41-70 >70 R, SR 53 103 154 206 Reinspection Fees 3rd 55 4th 108 5th or greater 160 Any research of incidents & files: for up to 30 minutes of research time of incident reports Initial Fee $30 dating back to 2003 and all occupancy records Replace the existing verbiage and add new verbiage in Other fees with the following: New Hydrant Flow Tests - $100 To be charged to the developer or installer. Continued ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE 455 5iskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 /r (541) 482-2770 - Fax (541) 488-5318 TTY: 800-735-2900 PRINTED 017 RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF April 13, 2016 ASHLAND Fire & Life Safety Fee Increases Page 2 Plan Review not requiring a building permit - $65 per hour A minimum of 30 minutes will be charged for any review. Additional Building Division fees for plan reviews and field inspections. When the Building Division assesses additional fees for plan reviews and/or field inspections, nay fire department staff time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their specified rate. Occupancy and/or premise research - $30 initial fee for up to 30 minutes Includes environmental and hazardous materials related requests. Includes incident reports dating back to 2003 and all occupancy records. For research that will take more than 30 minutes to research and prepare the response, fees will be charged as indicated in Section 12 on page 37. Thank you for your assistance with this. ASHLAND FIRE & RESCUE 455 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, OR 97520 (541) 482-2770 • Fax (541) 488-5318 TTY: 800-735-2900 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: March 4, 2016 TO: Lee Tuneberg Cindy Hanks FROM: Kimberley Summers RE: Misc. Fees and Charges The following is the charges for apparel sold at the fire department to have added to our Misc. Fees and Charges document: Coffee Mugs $8.00 Water Bottle $5.00 Fire Dog $10.00 T-Shirt $15.00 Ball Cap $15.00 Sweat Shirts $35.00 Apron $25.00 Misc. Apparel items, prices may vary. 1 Memo f ASHLA DATE: March 25, 2016 TO: Lee Tuneberg FROM: David Shepherd RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges While reviewing the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges for the fire department we noticed that the section titled Fire Fees does not give a true reflection of what is allowed by AMC 15.28.170. The code only allows us to bill for Motor Vehicle Collisions (MVCs), Hazardous Material Incidents (Haz-mat) and Victim Rescues. As such, we feel it would be clearer if we addressed these three areas in the fee schedule. The department utilizes a third party vendor to collect fees when warranted. They have provided us with a national standard that is reflected below. We are asking that the current verbiage be deleted and the following inserted: Fire Med Plus from $95.00 to $99.00 Cost Recovery Fees MVCs with Engine Responses: Basic - Assessment and stabilization $435 Advanced - Basic plus fluid clean-up $495 MVC with Extrication (requires use of specialized equip.) $1305 in addition to above rate Hazardous Materials Incidents: Basic - Incident command, isolate and deny entry, evacuations if needed $700 Haz-Mat 8 Activation with AF&R engine standby (includes 2 personnel) $400 hourly Ilaz-Mat 8 Activation with AF&R ambulance standby (includes 2 personnel) $300 hourly Victim Rescues: Engine Response (per engine) $400 hourly Technical Rescue Team (per person) $50 hourly CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 340 S. PIONEER STREET ASHLAND, OREGON 97520 COMMISSIONERS: Michael Black Mike Gardiner Director Rick Landt Jim Lewis TEL: 541.488.5340 Stefani Seffinger Walk FAX: 541.488.5314 Vanston Shaw parksinfoV ashland.arus MEMORANDUM TO Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director FROM Rachel Dials, Recreation Superintendent DATE April 14, 2016 SUBJECT Fees and Charges of the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission In 2006 the Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission (APRC) set a goal of reviewing fees and charges annually each November. Annual reviews include the Calle Guanajuato, North Mountain Park Nature Center, Ashland Senior Center, adult and youth recreation programs, indoor and outdoor reserved facilities, the Oak Knoll Golf Course, the Daniel Meyer Pool and the Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink. The review process provides a snapshot of the budget and subsidies for programs and services over the previous fiscal year. It also assists the APRC in budget planning and goal setting. The Parks and Recreation Commission has not yet reviewed fees for 2015 as other priorities have taken precedence. APRC fees and charges will come to council as a resolution in the coming months. Any adjustments presented in this memo are the result of corrections in the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document from the previous year. Calle Seating Artisans $5.00 (document says $7.00) Restaurant Seating $7.00 (document says $6.00) Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink Ice Skating Private Lessons $18.00 (document says $10.00) Home of Famous Lithia Park CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: April 17, 2016 TO: Lee Tuneberg, Director of Administrative Services FROM: Sergeant Jim Alderman, Administrative Sergeant RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Update The Ashland Police Department is requesting the following updates to the Miscellaneous Fees and Charges document: Audio Tapes/ICOP Videos We request that Audio Tapes/ICOP Videos category be removed and three new categories added. They should read as follows: Audio Recordings $19.00* Mobil Audio Video Recordings (MAV) $19.00* Body Carnera Video $19.00 * * Any audio or video recording requiring extensive redaction, more than 30 minutes, shall be charged at a rate outlined under Research Fee. Refer to Section 12 on page 37 We are not requesting any rate increases at this time. It should be noted that with the implementation of both In-car Video (MAV) and Body Worn Cameras some of these are videos are extremely long and do require someone to view the video in its entirety for redaction purposes. Page I of 1 2016 Misc fees Memo 2.doc Ashland Police Department Tel: 541 482-5211 1155 East Main Street Fax: 541 488-6008 Ashland Oregon 97520 TTY: 800 735-2900 www.asfland.or.us CITY OF Memo ASHLAND Date: April 14, 2016 From: Tami De Mille-Campos To: Lee Tuneberg RE: Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Please make the adjustments in the FY 2017/2018 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document as shown in the attached documents. On page 27 please remove the following verbiage "*Delete duplicate fee. Collected in the subdivision plat and/or inspection fee*". This was in reference to the change between the 2014 and 2015 document. It served as a one-time remark. The airport ground lease fees are automatically adjusted annually via the January CPI-U. If the CPI-U is negative the ground lease rates stay fixed at the previous year's rate. The Airport Commission then makes recommendations towards adjustments for hangar rentals and tie down fees. The Commission uses the CPI-U as a baseline for discussion along with considering the current waiting list and market conditions at similar airports for rentals before making a final recommendation on adjustments. Engineering Tel: 541/488-5347 20 E. Main Street Fax: 5414488-6006 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800/735-2900 www.ashland.or.us RESOLUTION NO. 2016- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES DOCUMENT AND REPEALING PRIOR FEE RESOLUTION 2015-15 Recitals: A. The City currently has many resolutions and ordinances that establish fees for different departments and activities. B. The City desires to provide all of its miscellaneous fees and charges in one document so citizens can easily determine the costs of city services. C. The City desires to repeal all prior resolutions that establish fees and charges and adopt all fees and charges with one resolution for convenience of its citizenry. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Document, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and establishes the fees and charges for City services. New fees, those not charged before, are not affective until 30 days following date of approval unless otherwise established by Council action. SECTION 2. The following resolution is specifically repealed: Resolution 2015-15 and all other fees and charges inconsistent with the fees and charges set forth herein are repealed. SECTION 3. This resolution was duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of 2016, and takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of May, 2016. John Stromberg, Mayor Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Page I of 1 CITY of ASHLAND ~r MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES DOCUMENT PROPOSED: May 3, 2016 EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2016 ~sNt~ \ ~S 0 REGR AC PARKS AND RECREATION MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES PROPOSED: May 3, 2016 EFFECTIVE: July 1, 2016 - Miscellaneous Fees and Charges page 2 miscellaneous fees & charges Table of Contents CITY OF -AS H LAN D MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES SECTION 1 - Administrative Services/Finance Administrative Billing Charge ..............................................................................................................................Page 8 Initial Business License Application Fee ..............................................................................................................Page 8 Temporary Business License Application Fee ......................................................................................................Page 8 Renewal Application Fee ......................................................................................................................................Page R Late Application Fee .............................................................................................................................................Page 8 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) ..............................................................................................Page 8 Reprint Business License Para 8 Medical Marijuana Dispensary Permit Fees ..........................................................................................................Page 8 Permit Application Fees ........................................................................................................................................Page 8 Permit Renewal Fee ..............................................................................................................................................Page 8 Late Application Fee .............................................................................................................................................Page 8 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) ..............................................................................................Page 8 Utility Billing Administrative Fees .......................................................................................................................Page 9 Reconnection Charge ............................................................................................................................................Page 9 Service Connection ...............................................................................................................................................Page 9 Parking Strilcture Fees Pane 9 Parking Ticket Surcharge (ril)'wi(le) Page 9 Do►vntown Parking Area Fees Page 9 SECTION 2 - City Recorder Copy Fees ............................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Audio Tapes ........................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Liquor Licenses ...................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Taxicab Licenses.. Page 10 Lien Searches ......................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Elections ..............................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Street/Alley Vacations ........................................................................................................................................Page 10 Ambulance ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Annexation ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 10 Research Fee ..........................................................Page 10 SECTION 3 - Community Development Pre-Application Conference Page 11 A(Iministration Actions Page I/ Tlpe 1, II Reviews Page 11 T>,pe III Reviews Page 12 Legislative Amendments .....................................................................................................................................Page 12 Appeals ................................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Solar Access ........................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Community Development Fee ............................................................................................................................Page 12 Copy Fees ............................................................................................................................................................Page 12 Prepared Documents ...........................................................................................................................................Page 12 Research Fee Page 12 Building Permit Fees Page 13 Plan Review Fee for Commercial and Residential ..............................................................................................Page 14 Miscellaneous Fees for Commercial ...................................................................................................................Page 14 Inspection Fees for Commercial and Residential ................................................................................................Page 14 Change of Occupancy Fees .................................................................................................................................Page 14 Residential Plumbing Permit Fees ......................................................................................................................Page 15 Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees .....................................................................................................................Page 15 Residential Mechanical Permit Fees ...................................................................................................................Page 16 Commercial Mechanical Permit Fees ..................................................................................................................Page 16 miscellaneous fees & charges page 3 Table of Contents Electrical Permit Fees .........................................................................................................................................Page 17 Residential Restricted Energy Electrical Pen-nit Fees .........................................................................................Page 17 Renewable Energy Systems ................................................................................................................................Page 18 State of Oregon Surcharge Page 18 Building Pen-nit Refund Policy ...........................................................................................................................Page 18 Excavation/Grading Fees Page 19 SECTION 4 - Electric Temporary Service Drop .....................................................................................................................................Page 20 Meter Charges Page 20 Non Radio Frequency Meter Charges .................................................................................................................Page 20 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee ........................................................................................................................Page 20 Reconnection Charge Page 20 Service Calls .......................................................................................................................................................Page 20 Service Connection .............................................................................................................................................Page 20 Scheduled Work After flours ..............................................................................................................................Page 20 Unauthorized Connection ...................................................................................................................................Page 20 Line Extension Charges ......................................................................................................................................Page 20 ENR Calculations ................................................................................................................................................Page 21 SECTION 5 -Fire Copy Fees Page 22 Report Fees Page 22 Research Fee Page 22 Cost Recover) Page 22 Emergency Medical Services Page 23 Fire and Line Safety Page 23 Plan Checks Page 23 Other Page 23 First Aid/CPR Classes .........................................................................................................................................Page 23 Inspeetion Fees Page 24 Weed Abatement .................................................................................................................................................Page 24 Other - Apparel Items Page 24 SECTION 6 - Information Technology Installation Fees ..................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Disconnect Fees Page 25 Truck Roll ...........................................................................................................................................................Page 25 Field Technician Hourly Rate .............................................................................................................................Page 25 Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate ..................................................................................................Page 25 Non-City Employee Staff Screening ...................................................................................................................Page 25 Fiber Service Installation ....................................................................................................................................Page 25 Ethernet Page 25 Static IP Address .................................................................................................................................................Page 26 Quality of Service Fee .........................................................................................................................................Page 26 Business Augmented Upload Package ................................................................................................................Page 26 Non-Return of Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) Devices ............................................................................Page 26 CATV Seasonal Reconnects & Disconnects .......................................................................................................Page 26 CATV House Amp Fee .......................................................................................................................................Page 26 Utility Billing Lobby Signage Fee ......................................................................................................................Page 26 Cable Modem Rental ...........................................................................................................................................Page26 Non Return of Rented Modem at Closing of Account Page26 Cable Modem Purchase Page26 SECTION 7 - Municipal Court Appeal Transcript Fee Page 27 City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion Page 27 Civil Compromise Costs ......................................................................................................................................Page 27 page 4 miscellaneous fees & charges Table of Contents Compliance Inspection Fee .................................................................................................................................Page 27 Court Appointed Counsel Fees and Charges .......................................................................................................Page 27 Default Judgment ................................................................................................................................................Page 27 Discovery Fees ....................................................................................................................................................Page 27 Diversion by Municipal Court .............................................................................................................................Page 27 Unclassified and Specific Fine Violations ..........................................................................................................Page 27 Extend/Amend City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion ..............................................................................Page 27 Failure to Appear for Bench Trial/Show Cause Hearing ....................................................................................Page 27 Failure to Appeal- for Jury Trial ..........................................................................................................................Page 27 Forfeiture of Security ..........................................................................................................................................Page 27 Mediation of Violation (Municipal Court Mediation) ........................................................................................Page 27 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee ........................................................................................................................Page 27 Court Costs .........................................................................................................................................................Page 27 Expunction ..........................................................................................................................................................Page 27 Show Cause Admission of Alle`(yation .................................................................................................................Page 27 Bench Probation Fee ...........................................................................................................................................Page 27 Warrant ................................................................................................................................................................Page 27 Domestic Partnership Registration ......................................................................................................................Page 27 SECTION 8 - Police Police Reports Page 28 Research Fee .......................................................................................................................................................Page 28 Visa Letters .........................................................................................................................................................Page 28 Finger Print Cards ...............................................................................................................................................Page 28 Photographs (CD) ................................................................................................................................................Page 28 Audio Recordings Page 28 illobil Atitlio Video Recordutgs (AIAV) Page 28 Roth Camera Video Page 28 Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee ........................................................................................................................Page 28 Impound/Tow Fee ...............................................................................................................................................Page 28 Taxi Operator License .........................................................................................................................................Page 28 SECTION 9 - Public Works - Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Copy Fees, Black, White and Color ....................................................................................................................Page 29 Plat & Platt Checks Page29 Public Works/Engirteering Inspections, Permit Etc Page30 GIS Data & Jlappittg .Serf,ices Page30 Sattitat}, Sewer Cortnectiort Fees Page30 Water Conttectitm Fees Page31 Cemetery Fees Page31 Sales of Liners and Markers Pa-e31 Sevott Fees Page31 miscellaneous Fees Page33 Vases Page33 CP1 & F.A'R Calculations Page33 Airport Fees Page33 SECTION 10 - Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Wedding Packages ..............................................................................................................................................Page 36 Group Picnic Rentals ...........................................................................................................................................Page 36 Deposits ...............................................................................................................................................................Page 36 Special Event Fees ..............................................................................................................................................Page 36 Alcohol Fee .........................................................................................................................................................Page 36 General Building Reservations ............................................................................................................................Page 36 Field Usage .........................................................................................................................................................Page 36 Calle .Seating Page 37 Daniel Meyer Pool. Page 37 miscellaneous fees & charges page 5 Table of Contents Youth & Adult Recreation Programs Ashland Rotart, Centennial lee Rink Page 37 Oak Knoll Golf Course Fees Page 37 Community Garden Fees ....................................................................................................................................Page 38 Nature Center School Programs ..........................................................................................................................Page 38 Nature Center Connnnnity Prograrnns Page 38 Oak Knoll Golf Course Wedding Fees ...............................................................................................................Page 38 Maps ....................................................................................................................................................................Page 38 SECTION 11 - List of Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions Parks and Recreation Resolution 2000-29 Page 39 Transportation Resolution 1999-42 .....................................................................................................................Page 39 Sewer Resolution 2006-27 ..................................................................................................................................Page 39 Storm Resolution 2002-15 Page 39 Water Resolution 2006-27 ..................................................................................................................................Page 39 Utilities Rates and Fees List of Resolutions AFN Resohrtion 2010-28 Page 39 Electric Resolution 2015-13 Server Resolution 2015-I0 Page 39 Storm Drain Resolution 2015-11 Page 39 Transportation Resohrtion 2015-12 Page 39 Water Resolution 2015-09 Page 39 SECTION 12 - Research Fee Research Fee Page 40 SECTION 13 - Attachments C'onnurnity Development - Excavation Grading Fees - Exhibit A - Resolution 2006-19 Page 41 page 6 miscellaneous fees & charges Miscellaneous Fees and Charges 09-FF Miscellaneous fees & charges page 7 Section 1-Administration Administration Services/Finance Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Administrative Billing Charge (up to 10%) Per Billing Business License Fees Initial Business License Application Fee Licensee shall pay a prorated fee of $10 for each month, $120.00 for first 2 employees* or portion of a month, remaining in the fiscal year from +$5.00 for each additional the date of the application with a minimum fee of $25.00 employee Applicable to all businesses except for rental properties with fewer than 2 dwellings, pursuant to AMC 6.04.020.A. Temporary Business License Application Fee $25.00 Renewal Application Fee $75.00 for first 2 employees* +$10.00 for each additional Employee Late Application Fee $25.00 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) 10% with a minimum of $25.00 New Reprint Business License 510.00 `Pursuant to AMC 6.04.020.F. Employee. Any individual who performs service for another individual or organization hav- ing the right to control the employee as to the services to be performed and as to the manner of performance. For pur- poses of this ordinance employee also means a licensed real estate sales person or associate real estate broker who engages in professional real estate activities only as an agent of a real estate broker or organization. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Permit Fees Permit Application Fee Initial application - July 1 - June 30 $80.00 Applicant shall pay a prorated fee of $10 for each month, $10.00/month or portion of a month, remaining in the fiscal year, from the date of the application with a minimum fee of $40.00 and an $80.00 maximum. Permit Renewal Fee Due each July 1 $60.00 Late Application Fee After the start of business $25.00 Late Renewal Fee (paid 30 days after the due date) 10% with a minimum of $25.00 page 8 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 1-Administration Utility Billing Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Administrative Fees: Notification of Pending Termination $10.00 Returned Check Charge $35.00 Reconnection Charge: During Business Hours $25.00 After Hours or Holidays $100.00 Service Connection: Normal working hours $10.00 Other Hours or Holidays $100.00 Parking Fees - as per Resolution 2016-03 Parking Structure Fees: 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (or segment) $1.00 $2.00 6:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. (per hour) $1.00 $2.00 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. (maximum) $3.00 $10.00 Parking permit (where applicable in City structure or lot) 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Saturday (unless otherwise posted) $20.00 530.00 Eliminated Downtown Parking Area Fees: Short Term (<30 minutes) unloading from "marked" No charge business vehicle with flashers Daily parking permit (Orange)- 1 st day or fraction of day $10.00/day Additional days (limited to 5 days; no charge on Sunday or $2.00/day federal holidays) • Limit of two per business address at a time • Applicable permits/licenses must be current • Each permit is good for one parking space • Not applicable to handicapped or short term spaces equal to or less than 15 minutes, green loading zones, fire or other restricted areas. miscellaneous fees and charges page 9 Section 2-City Recorder City Recorder Miscellaneous Fees & Charges Copy Fees Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ .20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copies Letter Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Audio Tapes CD/DVD/Cassette $5.00 each Liquor Licenses Temporary Liquor License (processing fee) $10.00 Liquor License (new processing fee) $100.00 Liquor License (change of ownership processing fee) $75.00 Annual Renewal Liquor License $35.00 Taxicab Licenses New Certification application (one-time processing fee) $250.00 Annual Renewal of Certificate $200.00 (per vehicle) Lien Searches (fees set by Ordinance 2385 in 1986) Routine requests $20.00 Rush/Fax Requests $30.00 Elections (amount set by Resolution #2009-05) Required deposit for Citizens Initiative $500.00 Street/Alley Vacations (filing fee set by Resolution 1994-24) Required deposit of filing fee $500.00 Ambulance Annual renewal fee $300.00 Annual ambulance fee (each vehicle) $100.00 Annexation Processing fee for County Department of Assessment $300.00 Research Fee Refer to Section 12, pgs page 10 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Planning/Community Development Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Pre-Application Conference $131.00 S133.00 Administration Actions Final Plat Review: Partitions* $131.00+$10/lot 5133.00+$10/lot Subdivisions* $335.00+$28/lot 5338.00+$28/lot New Sign Permit $131.00+$2.50/sq.ft. 5133.00+$2.60/sq ft Street Tree Removal Permit $0.00 $28.00 Replacement Sign Permit $28.00+$2.50/sq.ft. $28.00+$2.60/sq ft Home Occupation Permits $28.00 Zoning permit (fence, accessory structure, etc.) $28.00 Land Use Approval Extension Request $335.00 $338.00 Lot Line Adjustments $335.00 $338.00 Any other Administrative Action $335.00 $338.00 Type I Reviews Tree Removal Permit $28.00 (not associated with another action) Solar Setback Variance $1,012.00 51,022.00 Amendments to Conditions $1,012.00 51,022.00 Physical & Environmental Constraints Permit $1,012.00 51,022.00 Site Design Review - Accessory Residential Unit $658.00 $664.00 Conditional Use Permit (Type I only) $1,012.00 51,022.00 Variance (Type I only) $1,012.00 51,022.00 Residential Site Review $1,012.00+$67/unit 51,022.00+568/unit Final Plan Performance Standards $1,012.00+$67/unit $1,022.00+$68/unit Land Partitions $1,012.00+$67/unit $1,022.00+$68/unit Commercial Site Review $1,012.00+.5% of 51.022+.5%, of project value** project valuer--` Any other Type I Review $1,012.00 51,022.00 Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities*** $5,000.00 Type II Reviews Conditional Use Permit (Type 11 only) $2,032.00 $2,050.00 Variance (Type II only) $2,032.00 $2,050.00 Outline Plan or Preliminary Plat for Subdivisions $2,032.00+$136/lot 52,050.00+$138/lot Final Plan with Outline $2,705.00+$136/lot $2,730.00+$138/lot Commercial Site Review $2,032.00+.5% (.005) $2,050.00+.5% (.005) of project value** of project valuer Any other Type II Review $2,032.00 $2,050.00 Independent Review of Wireless Communication Facilities*** $5,000.00 *Does not include Public Works review fee. See pg 27. **Project value includes the estimated valuation of all structures (per State of Oregon Building Code), as Nell as all related project site improvements, such as grading, paving. landscaping. bioskvales, etc. ***The initial deposit required with an application for a new wireless communication facility that is not collocated is $5,000, and shall be used by the (continued on next page) miscellaneous fees and charges page 11 Section 3-Community Development (continued) City for the costs of expert review of the application. If any time during the planning application process the account balance is less than $1,000, the Applicant shall upon notification by the City replenish the account so the balance is at least $5,000. The inaximnm total consultant fees to be charged to the Applicant shall be $10,000, and any unused portion of fee will be refunded. Type III Reviews Zone/Comprehensive Plan Map Change $2,705.00 $2,730.00 Comprehensive Plan Change $2,705.00 52,730.00 Annexation $4,070.00 $4,106.00 Urban Growth Boundary Amendment $4,070.00 54,106.00 Anv other Type III Review $3,389.00 53,419.00 Legislative Amendments Comprehensive Plan Map/Large Zoning Map Amendment $4,750.00 $4,792.00 Land Use Ordinance Amendment $4,750.00 $4,792.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $4,750.00 54,792.00 City Sponsored Legislation (City Council Directive) $0.00 Appeals Appeal for initial Public Hearing $150.00 (Building Appeals Board/Detnoliliou ReOetii, Board/Planning (7omunissiou) Appeal for Final Decision of City $325.00 (Planning Commission or City Council) Solar Access Solar Access Permit (not a Solar Variance) $50.00+$10.00 per lot affected Community Development Fee This fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit 1.1% (.011) of Fees at the time of building permit application for all new construction building permits requiring a plan review. per building code definition of valuation Community Development Copy Fees Copy Fees Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $ .20 each Black and White CopiesLetter/Legal Double-Sided $ .40 each Black and White CopiesTabloid Single-Sided $ .40 each Black and White CopiesTabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Prepared Documents Site Design & Use Standards $5.00 Street Tree Guide $5.00 Transportation Element $5.00 Downtown Plans (2001, 1998) $5.00 Street Standards Guide $5.00 Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Code $40.00 Research Fee Refer to Section 12 on page 39 page 12 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Building Division Permit Fees for Commercial and Residential In accordance with OAR 918-050-0100: "Residential construction permit fees shall be calculated using the following methodologies. (c) Effective January 1, 2009, a structural permit fee for new construction and additions shall be calcu- lated using the ICC Building Valuation Data Table current April 1 of each year, multiplied by the square footage of the dwelling unit to determine the valuation. The valuation shall then be applied to the municipality's fee schedule to determine the permit fee. The plan review fee shall be based on a pre-determined percentage of the permit fee set by the municipality. (A) The square footage of a dwelling, addition, or garage shall be determined from outside exterior wall to outside exterior wall for each level. (B) The square footage of a carport, covered porch, or deck shall be calculated separately at fifty percent of the value of a private garage from the ICC Building Valuation Data Table current as of April 1. (C) Permit fees for an alteration or repair shall be calculated based on the fair market value as determined by the Building Official, and then applying the valuation to the municipality's fee schedule. Commercial construction permit fees shall be calculated using the following methodologies. (c) A structural permit fee shall be calculated by applying the valuation to the municipality's fee schedule with a set minimum fee. Valuation shall be the greater of either. (A) The valuation based on the ICC Building Valuation Table current as of April 1 of each year, using the occupancy and construction type as determined by the Building Official, multiplied by the square footage of the structure; or (B) The value as stated by the applicant and approved by the building official. (C) When the construction or occupancy does not fit the ICC Building Valuation Data Table, the valuation shall be determined by the Building Official with input from the applicant." rdance with OAR 918-050-0030, the applicant for a building permit shall provide an estima - struction cos s a f a plication. Permit valuations shall include valu , including mate- rials and labor, for which the perms his estim include the cost of electrical, gas, me- chanical, plumbing, and permanent n sys will also prepare an estimate of the building valuatio a current ICC Valuation table that is pub is ted annually. The permit will be based on the highest of these two estimates. Building Permit Fees Total Value of Work Performed $1.00 to $500.00 $10.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $10.00 for the first $500.00 plus $1.50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $32.50 for the first $2000.00 plus $6.00 for each additional $1000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $170.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $4.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $283.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 and up $433.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof miscellaneous fees and charges page 13 Section 3-Community Development Plan Review Fee for Commercial and Residential Plan Review Fee A plan review fee equal to 65% of the structural permit fee shall be due at application Additional Plan Review Fee $65.00 per hour Special Inspection Agreement (QAA) Review Fee $65.00 per hour Deferred Submittal Fee 651/'o of structural permit fee of deferred submittal valuation with a $50.00 minimum fee Miscellaneous Fees for Commercial Commercial Fire Sprinkler/Fire Suppression/ Total value of work performed (;structural permit Fire Alarm feed Commercial Fire Sprinkler/Fire Suppression/ 651/'o of structural permit fee Fire Alarm Plan Review Note: See appendix for methodology for calculation of valuation for all permit fees utilizing valuation/ value of work Inspection Fees for Commercial and Residential Inspections for which no building permit applies $65.00 per hour; (minimum 1 hour) per inspector Re-inspection Fee $65.00 Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum I hr) $130.00 per hour; per inspector Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and Reapplication Fee (s) $56.00 Demolition Permit Fee (per Building) $65.00 Change of Occupancy Fees Special Inspection: Single Building $65.00 per hour; 1 hour minimum Multiple Buildings or Tenant Spaces in a building or on a single lot $65.00 per building, per inspector, per hour; 1 hour Minimum Special Inspection Report $65.00 per hour Re-issued Certificate of Occupancy No Charge page 14 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Residential Plumbing Permit Fees New Residential Cost Each 1 bathroom/kitchen (includes: first 100 feet of water/sewer lines; hose bibs; ice maker; under floor low-point drains; and rain-drain packages) $285.00 2 bathrooms/1 kitchen $345.00 3 bathrooms/I kitchen $405.00 Each additional bathroom (over 3) $45.00 Each additional kitchen (over 1) $45.00 Remodel / Alterations Remodel / Alterations (minimum fee) $40.00 Each fixture, appurtenance, and first 100 ft of piping $15.00 Miscellaneous Residential Minimum Fee $40.00 Piping or private storm drainage systems exceeding the first 100 ft $22.00 Backflow Assembly $15.00 Residential Fire Sprinkler (include plan review) $2.44 x total square footage of structure = Sprinkler Valuation (use Building Permit Fees Valuation Table on page 13 for fee calculation) Manufactured Dwelling or Pre-Fab Connections to building sewer and water supply $50.00 RV and Manufactured Dwelling Parks Base fee (including the first 10 or fewer spaces) $150.00 Each additional 10 spaces $100.00 Commercial Plumbing Permit Fees Commercial, Industrial, and Dwellings other than one - or two-family Minimum fee $40.00 Each fixture $15.00 Piping (based on number of feet) $0.75/11 Miscellaneous Minimum fee $40.00 Specialty fixtures $15.00 Re-inspection (no. of hrs. x fee per hour) $65.00 Special requested inspections (no. of hrs x fee per hour) $65.00 Medical gas piping Minimum fee $50.00 Valuation $500 to $2,000 $50.00 + $5 per $100 of valuation Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 $125.00 + $18 per $100 of valuation Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 $540.00 + $14 per $100 of valuation Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 $890.00 + $9 per $100 of valuation Valuation greater than $100,000 $1,340.00 + $8 per $100 of valuation miscellaneous fees and charges page 15 Section 3-Community Development Residential Mechanical Permit Fees Mechanical Permit Minimum Fee $50.00 Furnace/Burner including ducts & vents Up to 100k BTU/hr. $12.00 Over l 00k BTU/hr. $15.00 Heaters/Stoves/Vents Unit Heater $15.00 Wood/pellet/gas stove/flue $15.00 Repair/alter/add to heating appliance or refrigeration $12.00 unit or cooling system/absorption system Evaporated cooler $15.00 Vent fan with one duct/appliance vent $7.50 Hood with exhaust and duct $10.00 Floor furnace including vent $15.00 Gas Piping One to four outlets $6.00 Additional outlets (each) $0.75 Air-handling Units, including Ducts Up to 10,000 CFM $10.00 Over 10,000 CFM $15.00 Compressor/Absorption System/Heat Pump Up to 3 hp/l OOK BTU $15.00 Up to 15 hp/500K BTU $25.00 Up to 30 hp/ 1,000 BTU $50.00 Up to 50 hp/1,750 BTU $60.00 Over 50 hp/1,750 BTU $75.00 Incinerator Domestic incinerator $25.00 Commercial Mechanical Permit Fees Minimum Fee $50.00 Total valuation of mechanical system and installation costs 0.5% of valuation Miscellaneous Fees Re-inspection $65.00 Specially requested inspection (per hour) $65.00 Regulated equipment (un-classed) $50.00 page 16 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development Electrical Permit Fees Residential per unit, service included Cost Each 1,000 sq. ft. or less $106.00 Each additional 500 sq. ft. or portion thereof $19.00 Limited energy $25.00 Each manufactured home or modular dwelling service or feeder $50.00 Multi-family residential $45.00 Residential and Commercial-Services or Feeders/installation, alteration, relocation 200 amps or less $63.00 201 to 400 amps $75.00 401 to 600 amps $125.00 601 to 1,000 amps $163.00 Over 1,000 amps or volts $375.00 Reconnect Only $50.00 Temporary Services or Feeders 200 amps or less $50.00 201 to 400 amps $69.00 401 to 600 $100.00 Over 600 amps or 1,000 volts, see services or feeders section above Branch Circuits: new, alteration, extension per panel Branch circuits with purchase of a service or feeder $3.00 Branch circuits without purchase of a service or feeder: First branch circuit $43.00 Each additional branch circuit $3.00 Miscellaneous Fees: service or feeder not included Each pump or irrigation circle $50.00 Each sign or outline lighting $50.00 Signal circuit or a limited energy panel, alteration or extension $50.00 Specially requested inspection (per hour) $65.00 Each additional inspection over the allowable $50.00 Residential Restricted Energy Electrical Permit Fees Fee for all systems* $25.00 Audio and stereo systems Burglar alarm system Doorbell Garage-door opener Heating, ventilation, & air-conditioning systems Landscape lighting & Sprinkler controls Landscape irrigation controls (continued on next page) miscellaneous fees and charges page 17 Section 3-Community Development (continued from previous page) Outdoor landscape lighting Vacuum Systems Each additional inspection $25.00 *For new construction, this permit fee covers all systems listed or can be sold separately. Renewable Energy Systems 5 KVA or less $79.00 5.01 KVA to 15 KVA $94.00 15.01 KVA to 25 KVA $156.00 Wind generation systems in excess of 25 KVA: 25.01 KVA to 50 KVA $204.00 50.10 KVA to 100 KVA $469.00 (continued on next page) (continued) For tii ind generations systems that exceed 100 KVA the permit, fee shall be calcidated in accordance ti,,ith OAR 918-309-0040 Solar generation systems in excess of 25 KVA: $6.25/KVA The permit charge titi,ill not increase beyond the calculation for 100 KVA. Permits issued under this sub-section include three inspections. Additional inspections tii4ll be billed at an hourly rate. Building Permit Reinstatement Fee A building permit expires after a period of 180 days from the date of issue with no inspection activity. To reactivate an expired permit, a fee of $50.00 per construction discipline is required (Building, Plumb- ing, Mechanical, Electrical). *If the sum of the original permit fee subject to reinstatement is less than $50.00, a reinstatement fee equal to half of the value of the original permit fee shall be accessed for permit reinstatement. State of Oregon Surcharge - ORS 455.210(4) State of Oregon permit surcharge is 12% of structural, plumbing, mechanical and electrical components of the overall building permit. Building Permit_ Refund Policy The City Ashland Community Development Department offers partial refunds for building permits that have been issued, have had no inspections performed and have not yet expired (six months from issue date). Refunds for permits that have expired are limited to any Systems Development Charges (SDC's) that were part of the permit fees. The following fees are not refundable • Building Plan Check Fee • Fire Protection Review Fee • 50% of Community Development Fee (maximum equal to Building Plan Check Fee) • 50% of Engineering Development Fee (maximum equal to Building Plan Check Fee) page 18 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 3-Community Development The remainder of the permit fees are refundable. A $50 administrative fee will be subtracted from the eligible refund amount for costs associated with the refund process. Refund amounts can be placed on account for future use and no administrative fees are charged. How to request a refund Submit the following documents to the Community Development Department at 51 Winburn Way: • Approved set of plans (stamped) • Job Inspection card • Letter of refund request signed by applicant/owner with mailing address for refund check The refund will be processed within 30 days of the date of the request letter. Excavation/Grading Fees See attachment 1. Exhibit A, Resolution 2006-19 (page 43) miscellaneous fees and charges page 19 Section 4- Electric Electric Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Temporary Service Drop Single Phase Underground temp 300 amps or less $247.00 Single Phase Overhead temp 300 amps or less $295.00 Three Phase Actual Cost Meter Charges Meter Tests for accuracy Once in twelve months No Charge Two or more times in twelve months $176.00 Meter repairs/replacement (Damaged by Customer) Actual Cost Non Radio Frequency Meter Charges Conversion from Radio Frequency (RF) to Non RF meter No Charge Monthly Fee to manually read Non RF meter No Charge Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee $35.00 Reconnection Charge Normal working hours $25.00 Other hours or Holidays $100.00 Service Calls Once in twelve months No Charge Two or more times in twelve months $203.00 Other hours or Holidays $303.00 Service Connection for Applicant Normal working hours $10.00 Other hours or Holidays $100.00 De-energize Service $254.00 Scheduled work after hours Actual Cost Unauthorized Connection $215.00 Line Extension Charges New Single-Family Residential Service Overhead service in existing developed areas from distribution line to and including meter $580.00 Overhead service upgrade or increased service for 300 amps or less $580.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 20 Section 4-Electric Replacement of service from overhead to underground, 300 amps or less. Customer provides all trenching, conduit, backfilling and compaction as directed by the City. $1,217.00 Underground residential service of 300 amps or less. Customer provides conduit, trenching, back fill, compaction as directed by the City. $697.00 *Underground Distribution Installation Charges: Per Lot less house service and engineering fees. $1,186.00 *Subdivisions of 0 to 20 engineering fee per lot $171.00 * Subdivisions of 21+ engineering fee per lot $259.00 *Three Phase subdivision as required by city per lot $259.00 Any overhead/underground service over 300 amps Actual Cost Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Service Actual Cost **Blower Door Leak Test (gas heat customers only) $75.00 **Duct Leak Test (gas heat customers only) $125.00 * Methodology: Current ENR Rate - Old ENR Rate/Old ENR Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (9515.86-9289.65)/9289.65 = 2.44% Source: Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR) **Electric heat customers = no fee miscellaneous fees and charges page 21 Section 5-Fire Fire Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees Black and White Copy Letter/Legal Single Sided $ .20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Single Sided $ .40 each Black and White Copies Tabloid Double-Sided $ .80 each Color Copy Letter/Legal Single Sided $ 1.50 each Color Copy Tabloid $ 3.00 each Report Fees: Non patient Pre-hospital Care Reports $12.00 for 10 pages or less $15.00 over 10 pages Fire Incident Reports $12.00 for 10 pages or less $15.00 over 10 pages CD/DVD $19.00 per case request Mailing Cost Actual Cost Research Fee Refer to Section 12 on page 40 Fire Cost Recovery uipment *Per Curr Ton State arshal Standardized Cost Schedule Personne *$50.00 per person per hour - 2 Hour in per person Haza aterials Cleanup Actual Cost NEW Cost Recovery Fees MVCs with Engine Responses: Level I MVC - Assessment and stabilization $435 Level 2 MVC - Level I plus fluid clean-up $495 MVC with Extrication (requires use of extrication equipment) $1,305 Hazardous Material Incidents: Level 1- Incident command, isolate and deny entry, evacuations if needed $700 Haz-Mat 8 Activation with AF&R engine standby $400 hourly Haz-Mat 8 Activation with AF&R ambulance standby $300 hourly page 22 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 5-Fire Victim Rescues: Engine Response (per engine) $400 hourly Technical Rescue Team (per person) $50 hourly Emergency Medical Services: FireMed Annual Household Fee-Annual Renewal $55.00 per year FireMed Plus Annual Household Fee-Annual Renewal $95.00 per year $99.00 per year Emergency Medical Service Fee -Aid Call $310.00 per patient Ambulance Base Rate (per current rate schedule) $1,055.44 per patient Ambulance Mileage Rate (per current rate schedule) $14.00 per mile Ambulance Base rate for sit-up patients $527.72 per patient Ambulance Waiting Time $25.00 per 1 /2 hour Ambulance Stand By (2 hour minimum) $100.00 per hour On scene Coordinator $50.00 per hour Extra attendant $45.00 each Ambulance Service Area ]It' 2015 rate schedule Base rates tivill be adjmtsted (in bold) each calendar year by the most current rate schedide posted by the Center for Mech- care/Medicaid Services (CA-1S) that sets the "Ambulance Inflation Factor ether rates and mileage charges will be updated as approved by the County Commissioners. Fire and Life Safety Plan Checks Any Building Permit - 24% of the Building Division Structural Permit Fee and Plan Check Fee New Subdivision or Land Partition - 24% of the Engineering Subdivision Plat Check Fee Other Flow Tests required for new installations will be assessed at $100 per flo Any review require Fire Code, and which does ui ding permit, will be charged at the rate of $50.00 per hour. A m Ye of $25.00 will be assessed to these reviews. When the Buildin D ses additional fees for plan revie ld inspections, any fire a time associated with that activity will be included in their fees at their s New Hydrant Flow Test To be charged to the developer or installer $100.00 First Aid/CPR Classes Basic Life Support (BLS) for Healthcare Providers CPR Class $55.00/person Heart Saver CPR & First Aid Class $55.00/person Heart Saver CPR Class $35.00/person Family and Friends CPR Class $5.00/person miscellaneous fees and charges page 23 Section 5-Fire Inspection Fees Initial Inspection (Re-inspection Included) NEW - Travelers Accommodation $35.00 Occupancy Type "B" 0-1,000 sf. $35.00 1,001-3000 s£ $52.00 $53.00 Occupancy "hype "A, E, F, H, 1, M, S" 0-3,000 sf. + B 1,001-3,000 $52.00 $53.00 Occupancy Type "A,B, E, F, H. I, M, S" 3,001-10,000 s£ $102.00 $103.00 10,001-20,000 sf. $152.00 $154.00 Over 20,000 sf. $203.00 $206.00 Occupancy Type "R, SR" 3 to 10 Units $52.00 $53.00 1 I to 40 Units $102.00 $103.00 41 to 70 Units $153.00 $154.00 Over 70 Units $203.00 $206.00 Non-Compliance after 2"d Inspection Inspection Fee + $54.00 $55.00 Non-Compliance after 3rd Inspection Inspection Fee + $107.00 $108.00 Non-Compliance after 4t" Inspection / Subsequent Inspections Inspection Fee + $158.00 $160.00 Weed Abatement Staff time Refer to Section 12 on page 40 Mailing Cost Actual Cost Weed Abatement by Contractor Actual Cost NEW Other Coffee Mugs $8.00 Water Bottle $5.00 Fire Dog $10.00 T-Shirt $15.00 Ball Cap $15.00 Sweat Shirts $35.00 Apron $25.00 Misc. Apparel items, prices may vary. page 24 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 6-Information Technology Information Technology Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Installation Fees Basic installation-Pre-wired CATV outlets only $ 20.00 (Additional charges for parts and supplies apply) Add Trap ("filter") $10.00 New customer cable modem activation $10.00 Cable Modem $50.00 Refurbished 90 -clay replacement warranty Additional materials $10.00 Over-and-beyond regular installation including multi outlets, outlet plates, additional wiring, replacement of customer damaged outlets. Wi Max standard installation $200.00 Disconnect Fees Disconnect $50.00 Remove Trap (`Filter") $10.00 Truck Roll $35.00 Field Technician Hourly Rate Non-standard work such as advancing troubleshooting, $55.00 non-standard outlets, fishing wire inside walls, etc. Consulting and Technical Support Hourly Rate For support issues not related to AFN infrastructure, performance, $85.00 and reliability. Minimum charge on hour. Non-City Employee Staff Screening Charge for each vendor employee submitted for authorization to Access AFN and City Service Center facilities. $150.00 Fiber Service Installation Overhead served connections Individual Business Case (IBC) & quote Underground served connections IBC & quote Ethernet Transit @ 100 Mbps IBC & quote Transit @ 1000 Mbps IBC & quote miscellaneous fees and charges page 25 Section 6-Information Technology Static IP Address $5.00/mo each Maximum of 5 Static Internet Protocol (JP) addresses* • Minimum level of service for static IP and Quality of Service (QoS) is "CHOICE" or higher service tier. QoS Fee $3.50/mo VOIP (phone) enhancement available with AFN Choice or higher service level through AFN certified Modems. Business Augmented Upload Package (additional 5 Mbps) $15.00/mo Available exclusively on AFN Direct Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) or Small Business Must have current City of Ashland Business License *Addilional fee added to base AFN Direct retail rates on specific packages. Maximum SOHO upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 9 Mbps Small Office/Home Office Business Augmented Upload Package o$80/month Maximum Small Business upload speed with augmented upload service at up to 10 Mbps Small Business Augmented Upload Package a $100.00/ month Non-return of customer premise equipment (CPE) devices $300.00 CPE's must be returned on disconnect date of AFN services. Cable TV (CATV) Seasonal Reconnects & Disconnects $10.00/visit Disconnects & reconnects Service change Install HBO filter CATV House Amp Fee $35.00/each Utility Billinq Lobby Signage Fee $100.00/1110. Cable Modem Rental $5.00/mo. Non Return of Rented Modem at Closing of Account $50.00each Cable Modem Purchase $50.00/each * Resolution 2010-28 (Section 2, page 38) grants Information Technology management ability to set promotional rates. page 26 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 7-Municipal Court Municipal Court Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Court Administration Fees Crime Violation Appeal Transcript Fee $35.00 $10.00 City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion $60.00 N/A Civil Compromise Costs $75.00 N/A Compliance Inspection Fee N/A $25.00 Court Appointed Counsel Fees and Charges Billed ranging from $250 - $600 Default Judgment N/A $15.00 Discovery Fees Imposed in Accordance with Miscellaneous Fees & Police Department Resolutions See Police and City Recorder Fees Diversion by Municipal Court: Classes I-IV, A-D Unclassified and Specific Fine Violations N/A Presumptive Fine Extend/Amend City Attorney Deferred Sentence/Diversion $45.00 N/A Failure to appear for Bench Trial/Show Cause hearing $90.00 $70.00 Failure to Appear for Jury Trial $150.00 N/A Forfeiture of Security $25.00 $25.00 Mediation of Violation (Municipal Court Mediation) N/A $65.00 Non Sufficient Funds Check $35.00 $35.00 Court Costs $35.00 $45.00 Expunction $240.00 $240.00 Show cause Admission of Allegation $25.00 N/A Bench Probation Fee $100.00 N/A Bank Costs Warrant $25.00 Other Domestic Partnership Registration $25.00 All other fees and charges inconsistent with the fees and charges set forth herein are repealed. Nothing in the Resolution is intended to detract from the inherent power of the Court pursuant to general law to im- pose fees and charges established in state law of city ordinance in addition to the fees and charges speci- fied herein. -master miscellaneous fees and charges page 27 Section 8-Police Police Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Police Reports $12.00 for reports 10 pages or less $15.00 for reports over 10 pages Research Fee Refer to Section 12 on page 37 Visa Letters $19.00 Fingerprints Cards $35.00 first card $10.00 each additional card Photographs (CD): $19.00 NEW Audio Recordings $19.00X Mobil Audio Video Recordings (MAV) S19.00Y Body Camera Video $19.00 *Any audio or video recording requiring extensive redaction, more than 30 minutes, shall be charged at a rate outlined under Research Fee. Refer to section 12 on page 40. Non Sufficient Funds Check Fee $35.00 Impound/Tow Fee: $105.00 Cash only Taxi Operator License $20.00 renewal $42.00 new page 28 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Public Works Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Copy Fees Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $0.20 each Black and White Copies Letter/Legal Double-Sided $0.40 each Black and White CopiesTabloid Single-Sided $0.40 each Black and White CopiesTabloid Double-Sided $0.80 each Color Copies Letter/Legal Single-Sided $1.50 each Color Copies Tabloid Single-Sided $3.00 each Existing maps printed in color on HP 1055CM plotter (241b bond Paper) Arch C 18 x 24 3.00 sq. ft. $18.00 Arch D 24 x 36 6.00 sq. ft. $36.00 Arch E 36 x 48 12.00 sq. ft. $72.00 Existing maps or copies of existing maps copied in B&W on Xerox 3030 large format copier (201b bond paper) Arch C 18 x 24 $2.00 Arch D 24 x 36 $3.00 Arch E 36 x 48 $4.00 Note: Maps printed on materials other than the specified bond are double the standard print fee Plat & Plan Checks Subdivision Plats (does not include planning review fee See page 11) $741.00 plus $112.00 per lot $748.00 plus $113.00 per lot Condominium Plats $741.00 plus $112.00 per lot $748.00 plus $113.00 per lot Partition Plats (does not include 24% Fire Department Review Fee) $397.00 $401.00 *441OW a:~eeeeel ills t~l~ 6~#~e~E~z}6ie~ypl{at E1%W9r Engineering Development Fee (this fee is charged concurrently with Building Permit Fees at the time of building permit applications. Applies To all new residential dwelling units and commercial 0.75% of valuation Developments. Remodels, additions and accessory Buildings are not assessed this fee.) miscellaneous fees and charges page 29 Section 9-Public Works Public Works/Engineering Inspections, Permits, etc Subdivision Construction inspection/ 5% Engineer Fee (5% of Public Works Improvement Inspection the public improvement cost) Street or Alley Excavation Permit $200.004- 5202.00+ based on pavement age based on pavement age Encroachment Permit $200.00 5202.00 Miscellaneous Construction Permit $65.00 566.00 (Construction of Curb, sidewalk, driveway Apron, etc.) Dust Suppression Permit $65.00 566.00 Driveway Painting Permit $16.00 (includes a can of paint) Right-of Way Closure-Street $200.00 $202.00 Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(>72 hrs) $65.00 $66.00 Right-of Way Closure-Sidewalk(<72 hrs) $16.00 Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(>72 hrs) $65.00 $66.00 Right-of Way Closure-Parking Space(<72 hrs) $16.00 Block Party $16.00 Sidewalk Dining-Annual Renewal $4.50/sq. ft. (minimum 50 sq. ft) Functional Item-Annual Renewal $65.00 566.00 Special Event Permits (per Resolution 2012-08): $130.00 Base Special Event Permit Fee (plus applicable Fees below) Events that require city staff overtime 60°X0 of city staff O/T Rush Fee (less than 90 days advance notice) $250.00 5252.00 Loaned Functional Item, Pennant Application Fee $135.00 5136.00 Publication Box Per Publication-Annual Renewal $27.00 Special vehicle Permit-Initial Fee $276.00 $278.00 Special vehicle Permit-Annual Renewal $111.00 $112..00 Penalty for No Permit 150% of permit cost Street or Alley Vacation $669.00 5675.00 An administrative fee of 25% will be assessed on all permit refunds. Refunds will not be issued if requested later than one-year following the application date. GIS Data & Mapping Services GIS Hourly Rate $81.00 582.00 Information on Disk $41.00/utility per Quarter section Planning Pre-Application Maps $22.00 Plotting Fee $6.00/square foot New Address Assignment $38.00/address # Street Name Approval Fee $107.00 per street $108.00 per street Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees Sanitary sewer mainline video inspection $334.00 $343.00 (cost based on time and materials) minimum minimum page 30 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Water Connection Fees The installation of all new water services and large taps regardless of size will be charged on a time and materials basis. First Utility Locate at an address No Charge Additional Locates at same address $73.00 $75.00 Water meter re-read Once in 12 months No Charge Each additional re-read in 12 months $33.00 $34.00 Water Meter Field Test $51.00 $52.00 Water Meter Bench Test 3/4" or 1" Water Meter $113.00 $116.00 1 1/2" or 2" Water Meter $212.00 5218.00 Larger Meters Actual Cost Water pressure check once in 12 month No Charge Each additional pressure check in 12 months $41.00 S42.00 Water Chlorination Test -Subdivision retest upon failure (cost based on time and materials) $671.00 $689.00 Water Pressure Test -Subdivision retest up failure (cost based on time and materials) $402.00 5413.00 Cemetery Fees Sales of grave spaces or burial plots: (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) Grave Space -Lawn and Monument Sections $514.00 $519.00 Grave Space -Baby Land $162.00 5163.00 Grave Space -Niches (bronze) $434.00 5438.00 Grave Space -Urn garden $162.00 5163.00 Grave space -Crypt $1,087.00 51,097.00 Sales of liners and markers (fees split, 40% to the cemetery fund & 60% to the cemetery trust fund) Concrete cemetery box, including setting $434.00 $438.00 Concrete liners Cost plus 10% Final inscriptions $158.00 min charge 5159.00 min charge Niche Vases $152.00 $153.00 Grave markers Wholesale cost X 2.5 not to exceed $700.00 Grave marker setting, concrete base $162.00 $163.00 Monticello burial vault (sealed concrete) $1,196.00 51,207.00 Sexton Fees Opening and closing graves, ground $434.00 $438.00 Opening and closing graves, double-deep $488.00 5492.00 Opening and closing graves, infant $162.00 5163.00 Opening and closing crypts $434.00 $438.00 Opening closed crypts $434.00 $438.00 Opening and closing niches $110.00 $111.00 (continued on next page) miscellaneous fees and charges page 31 Section 9-Public Works (continued from previous page) Opening closed niche $110.00 5111.00 Inter cremains in grave spaces $162.00 $163.00 Scattering of cremains $ 110.00 $111.00 Disinterment $1,081.00 $1,091.00 Paid in advance Paid in advance Saturday, Sunday or Holiday burial $434.00 $438.00 Miscellaneous Fees Grave Setup Rental $108.00/occurrence 5109.00/occurrence Tent Rental $54.00/day Perpetual care lots, sold before 1927 $110.00 5111.00 Vases: Galvanized $44.00 *cemetery fees will be subject to a 1.5% finance charge per month if not paid within 60 days of use. All above services will be sold pre-need in installments, interest free, with a minimum payment of one-twelfth of the total sale. 2016 CPI and ENR Calculations Methodology: Current CPI Rate - New CPI Rate/Old CPI Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (238.132-236.119)/236.119 0.9% Methodology: Current ENR Rate - New ENR Rate/Old ENR Rate = % Rate of Adjustment (10242.09-9972.38)/9972.38 = 2.7% CPI used for ENR used for Plat & Plan Checks Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees Public Works/engineering Inspections, Permits, etc. Water Connection Fees GIS Data & Mapping Services Cemetery Fees Ashland Airport Fees Lease type A - City owned - Rentals T-Hangars without doors $180.00 $183.00 T-Hangars with doors vintage $228.00 5231.00 T-Hangars with doors contemporary $286.00* $290.00 Helicopter Hangar $228.00 5231.00 Box Hangar "shell rental" (privately built City owned) 0.28 sq ft/month (building footprint) 0.284 sq ft/month (building footprint) "Amenities" for any City owned hangar Office Space .25 sq ft/month (office space inside dimension) Bathroom .03 sq ft/month (building footprint) Heat .01 sq ft/month (building footprint) • Heat = any upgraded heat source including gas and electric • Building footprint = outside wall dimension Month tie-downs** $47.00 (small) $58.00 (large) $48.00 (small) 559.00 (large) Overnight tie-downs** $7.00 (small) $11.00 (large) page 32 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 9-Public Works Lease type B - Ground Lease - City owned hangars Ground Lease - No minimum footage 20.0¢/sq ft/yr 20.1 ¢/sq ft/yr Lease type C - Ground Lease - Privately owned hangars Privately owned ground lease Minimum footage 60x40 46.8¢/sq ft/yr 47.2¢/sq ft/yr Hangar reservation fees T-Hangar - Basic Fee $100.00; and 75.00 is applied to first months rent Ground Lease Space $2,000.00 Non Refundable space reservation fee* *Reservation fee is valid for a period of 1 year at which time can be renewed for an additional 12 months if pro- gress is shown towards development of a hangar onsite. Specialized Aviation Service Operations (SASO) Fee (Annual) The square footage of the hangar multiplied by 1.6, multiplied by the current B Ground Lease fee rate. A Hanger keeper will have the square footage of the hangar multiplied by 1.0, multiplied by the current B Ground Lease fee rate. Mobile Service Providers (MSP) Airport User Fee (Annual) Basic Fee $350.00 for first two employees, plus $25.00 each additional employee for annual operators. $100.00 for Temporary MSPs (90 days maximum - not renewable). Freight Operation (follows Medford International Airport adjustments annually) Tariff Rate 5.83/1,000 lbs *Additional electrical surcharge of $5.00 per month will be added to this amount. Large aircraft defined as a single engine turbo-prop or multi-engined aircraft with a gross certified aircraft weight of 6000 lbs or Qreater miscellaneous fees and charges page 33 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges page 34 miscellaneous fees & charge Section 10-Parks and Recreation A r h. ~li~ O W ~CP F? EE C?", Section 10 Parks and Recreation Miscellaneous Fees and Charges miscellaneous fees and charges page 35 Section 10-Parks and Recreation Parks Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Wedding Packages Lithia Park Sites $200.00/4 hrs. Group Picnic Rentals Cotton Memorial Area $75.00/4 hrs. Madrone Area $55.00/4 hrs. Top Southern Lawn $55.00/4 hrs. Hillside Picnic Area $55.00/4 hrs. Sycamore Grove $75.00/4 hrs. Brinkworth Area $55.00/4 hrs. Lawn below Upper Duck Pond $75.00/4 hrs. Butler Bandshell $220.00/8 hrs. Deposits Picnic Areas $75.00 Lithia Park Weddings $75.00 Butler Bandshell $150.00 Buildings Security $150.00 (refundable after cleaning) Special Event Fees Special Event Application Fee $25.00 Street Closure Fee $75.00 Park Booth fee $25.00/per booth (max. 10) Alcohol Fee $150.00 (non-refundable) General Building Reservations The Grove Full Facility $41.50/hr. on weekdays $50.00/hr. on weekends The Grove Otte/Petterson $23.00/hr. on weekdays $35.00/hr. on weekends Hunter Park Senior Center $23.00/hr. on weekdays $35.00/hr. on weekends Long Term User Fee $20.00 (at least 6 days/yr) Oak Knoll Golf Course $23.00/hr. on weekdays $35.00/hr. on weekends Pioneer Hall/Community Center $23.00/hr. on weekdays $35.00/hr. on weekends Miscellaneous Equipment Fee $100.00 Electricity Use Fee $25.00 per 4 hours (jump houses & Batting Cages) Field Usage Tournaments $36.50/day each team Ball field Lights $34.00/hr 1 Day per week/season $100.00 page 36 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 10-Parks and Recreation 2 Days per week/season $150.00 3-4 Days per week/season $200.00 5-7 Days per week/season $250.00 Calle Seating Artisans 57.00/sq. foot $5.00/sq.foot (correction) Restaurant Seating 56.00/sq. foot 57.00/sq.foot (correction) Daniel Meyer Pool Youth Adult Admission $3.00 $3.50 Lap Swim $3.00 $3.50 Water Aerobics $4.00 $4.00 Swim Lessons $40!$42548 (age of child/length of lesson) Senior Only Sessions $3.00 (65 and over) Private Lessons 518.00 10 Punch 20 Punch f livIt ' - s1 Correction-moved Open Swim/Lap punch card $25.00/_30.00 $40.00/50.00 (age dependant) Water Aerobics punch card $55.00 Season Pass (age dependant) $165.00/195.00 Youth Recreation Programs 60/40 split with instructor and PRC Adult Recreation Programs 60/40 split with instructor and APRC Ashland Rotary Centennial Ice Rink Youth Admission $3.50 Adult Admission $4.00 Skate Rental $2.50 Adult Hockey Admission $5.50 Youth Hockey Admission $5.00 Adult Hockey Punch Card $50.00 Youth Hockey Punch Card $45.00 Open Skate/Kids Only Punch Card $30.00 Ice Skating Private Lesson $18.00 per 30 mins Helmets $8.00 Group Rental $5.00 Oak Knoll Golf Course Annual Passes: Annual Pass-Single $1,100.00 Annual Pass-Family $1,540.00 Daily Adult Fees (ages 18 to 54) 9 Holes November-February $14.00 March-October $16.00 miscellaneous fees and charges page 37 Section 10-Parks and Recreation 18 Holes November-February $20.00 March-October $24.00 Daily Coupon Rate $10.00 Daily Senior Fees (ages 55 & up) Monday-Friday Only 9 Holes November-February $12.00 March-October $14.00 18 Holes November-February $18.00 March-October $22.00 Daily Junior Fees (apes 8 to 17) 9 Holes Year-Round $5.00 18 Holes Year-Round $10.00 Driving Range One token (35) balls $3.00 Cart Fees (per person) 9 Holes Year Round $10.00 Year Round Senior rate $8.00 18 Holes Year Round $13.00 Community Garden Fees 10x10 $29.00-$34.50 depending on location 10x20 $49.00-$57.50 depending on location 20x20 $75.00-$86.50 depending on location 4x12 $29.00 Refundable Deposit $20.00 Nature Center School Programs $200.00/Class Nature Center Community Programs 70/30 split with instructor and APRC Oak Knoll Golf Course Wedding Fees November-February $1,500.00 - full day November-February $800.00 - half day March-October $750.00 - full day March-October $400.00 - half day Maps City of Ashland Map $3.00 (or 2 maps for $5.00) Watershed Map $3.00 (or 2 maps for $5.00) page 38 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 11-Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions Rates and Charges Set by Separate Resolutions Listed Below System Development Charges (SDCs) Parks and Recreation SDCs -Resolution 2000-29 Transportation SDCs -Resolution 1999-42 Sewer SDCs -Resolution 2006-27 Storm SDCs -Resolution 2002-15 Water SDCs -Resolution 2006-27 Utility Rates and Fees AFN Utility Fees -Resolution 2010-28 Electric Rates - Resolution 2015-13 Sewer Rates -Resolution 2015-10 Storm Drain Fees -Resolution 2015-I1 Transportation Fees -Resolution 2015-12 Water Rates -Resolution 2015-09 miscellaneous fees and charges page 39 Section 12 - Research Fees Research Fee A. The City shall charge a research fee based on the hourly wage of the staff person doing the re search, and the fee shall be billed in fifteen minute increments. The hourly wage used to calcu- late the research fee shall not include the cost of benefits. The City will establish a fee in its an- nual fee resolution that is reasonably calculated to reimburse the City for the actual cost of mak- ing public records available, including locating the requested records, reviewing the records to delete exempt material, supervising a person's inspection of original documents to protect the integrity of the records, summarizing, compiling, or tailoring a record, either in organization of media, to meet the person's request. The City may charge for search time even if it faiils to locate any records responsive to the requestor even if the records located are subsequently determined to be exempt from disclosure. Copies of documents provided by a routine file search of 15-30 minutes or less will be charged at a copy rate established in the annual fee resolution. B. The City may include a fee established to reimburse for the costs of time spent by the city attorney in reviewing the public records. redacting materials from the public records into exempt and nonexempt records. The City fee may also include the cost of time spent by an attorney for the City in determining the application of the provisions of ORS 192.505. C. The City may not establish a fee greater than $25 unless the requester is provided with written notification of the estimated amount of the fee and the requestor confirms in writing that he/she wants the City to proceed with making the records available. D. Prepayment shall be required if the amount of the request is greater than $25. If the actual charges are less than the prepayment, and overpayment shall be refunded. "All of the above resolutions can be found in fill text on the Ott, of Ashland's Website: hap://ashland.or.us page 40 miscellaneous fees and charges Section 13 - Attachments CITY OF -AS H LA N D GRADING FEES General. Fees shall be accessed in accordance with the provisions of this section. Plan Review Fees. When a plan or other data are required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting plans and specifications for review. Said plan review fee shall be as set forth in Table A. Separate plan review fees shall apply to retaining walls or major drainage structures as required. For excavation and fill on the same site, the fee shall be based on the volume of excavation or fill, whichever is greater. Grading Permit Fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the City of Ashland, Building Division as set forth in Table B. Separate permits and fees shall apply to retaining walls or major drainage structures as required. There shall be no separate charge for standard terrace drains and similar facilities. TABLE A - GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES 50 cubic yards or less No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $100.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $125.00 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards $150.00 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards $150.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $25.00 for each additional 10,000 yards or fraction thereof. Other Fees: Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to approved plans $62.25 per hour* minimum charge - one half hour *Or the total hourly cost to the City, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. TABLE B -GRADING PERMIT FEES' 50 cubic yards or less _ No Fee 51 to 100 cubic yards $75.00 101 to 1,000 cubic yards $75.00 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $25.00 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. Other Inspections and Fees: • Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge -two hours) $65.25 per hour • Re-inspection fees $65.25 per hour • Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge - one half hour 2 1 The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project. z Or the total hourly cost to the City, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employees involved. master miscellaneous fees and charges page 41 Miscellaneous Fees and Charges page 42 miscellaneous fees & charge CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting A Resolution Establishing a Fee for Appeals of Administrative Decisions FROM: Dave Kanner, city administrator, dave.kanner@ashland.onus SUMMARY The Ashland Municipal Code, chapter 230, 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 for a 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 11TAW&, 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 IVr 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 $150 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 if requested 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 2.030.020.1-1, 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.E.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 ] 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 tune for the appeal to be heard by the Hearing Officer, place the hearing of the appeal upon the calendar of the Hearing 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 lie or she sees fit. The Hearing Officer' 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 2009; Ord 2992; 2009) _PRIN- y CLOSE] CITY OF SHL D Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Award of a Professional Services Contract in Excess of $75,000 for the Water Master Plan Update FROM: Michael R. Faught, Director of Public Works. Public Works Mike.Faught@ashland.or.us SUMMARY This is a professional services contract with RH2 Engineers for the Water Master Plan update. Public Works staff previously advertised a formal qualifications based selection proposal for the Water Master Plan update. Staff has vetted potential consultants and now recommends entering into a professional services contract with RH2 Engineers. The Council acts as the local contract review board for formally solicited consultant services. If the contract is approved, staff will work with the Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) and the consultant to generate a plan update for the 2020-2030 time period. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: As previously discussed with the Council, Public Works staff recommends updating significant infrastructure plans every five years. The previous Comprehensive Water Master Plan was adopted in April of 2012 and in order to have a plan adopted in 2017, staff must start the project now. Staff budgeted in the FYI 6/17 biennium to conduct a master plan update. At the January 19, 2016, Council meeting, the Council approved the reformation of the Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) to recommend a final plan that is tailored to meet Ashland's needs. AWAC is the citizen body that worked diligently for two years in the development of the previous plan. Staff expects to complete the new plan update within 18 months. Request for Proposal On November 3, 2015, a qualifications based selection proposal for professional services for the Water Master Plan update was advertised on the Oregon Procurement Information Network (ORPIN), in the Daily Journal of Commerce, the Mail Tribune, and posted on the City's website. This solicitation document was developed internally by staff and approved by the Legal Department prior to release. A qualifications selection process entails selecting a consultant solely on their qualifications to perform the proposal's scope of work. Once a consultant is selected, a final scope and associated fee is developed. In addition to updating the master plan the RFP required a separate scope for development of a unified operations and maintenance plan (O&M). The City has needed to unify existing O&M documents into one specific living document that can support all operation activities for the distribution system. These activities include, hydrant testing, system flushing, cross connection control, valve maintenance and critical information regarding the distribution system. Page 1 o1`4 11FAW11 CITY OF -ASHLAND On December 1, 2015, the City of Ashland received six (6) proposals to provide engineering services for the development of the Ashland Water Master Plan update and O&M plan. An approval team of Mike Faught, Director of Public Works; Scott Fleury, Engineering Services Manager; Steve Walker; Water Distribution Supervisor; and Julie Smitherman, Conservation Analyst, completed a comprehensive review of the proposals on December 17, 2015. Each proposal was scored in accordance with the criteria listed in the Request for Proposal document. Scoring was conducted individually and independently by each team member with the scores totaled to determine the top ranked firm. 'the results of the scoring are as follows: CONSULTANT TOTAL SCORE RANK Civil West 381 1 RI-12 Engineers 357 2 Keller Associates 351 3 AECOM 328 4 Carollo 313 5 MWH 250 6 Criteria _ Maximum Score Responsiveness 15 Related Project Experience 25 Project Understanding and Approach 30 Project Team and Resources 30 TOTAL 100 Points After initial scoring was completed Public Works staff decided it was best to move forward with an interview of the top two consultant firms as allowed in the selection process. Interviews were scheduled with Civil West on January 12, 2016, and RH3 January 13, 2016. Civil West was allotted three bonus points for being the highest ranked proposer. The interview team was identical to the team that graded the paper proposals from all consultants. Each interview lasted approximately four and a half hours and each consultant team was provided discussion topics in advance of the interview. The results of the interview scoring are as follows: CONSULTANT TOTAL SCORE RANK RI-12 35.5 1 Civil West 23.75 2 Staff then entered into scope and fee negotiations with RH2. Staff met with RH2 and their team on January 27, 2016, to begin primary negotiations for the project. Through several combined meetings between staff, AWAC and RH2 a final scope and fee was developed. Primary scope items include a focused look at the 2020 to 2030 planning period along with critical analysis of a "one water" concept (an integrated approach that evaluates all potential water sources including snow pack, surface water, Page 2 of 4 !VALIA CITY OF ASHLAND groundwater, water conservation, wastewater recycling, storm water runoff, and dry weather urban runoff, demand forecasting, expansion of TAP to 3.0 MGD, updated capital improvement plan and a financial plan for 2020-2023. In addition to the primary scope items list above, RH2 presented City staff with a conservation cost benefit analysis and climate change water- supply software models developed by Maddaus Water Management at an additional cost of $105,032. These tools can be utilized during the master plan update process and by City staff in perpetuity. A demonstration of the software was presented before AWAC in order for the committee to understand its capabilities and discuss whether or not to recommend including them in the master plan update. After the demonstration AWAC recommended inclusion of the software packages as part of the update. The "Climate Change Water- Supply Simulation Model" developed by Maddaus (costs $52,406) will aid the City on understanding how to increase future water supply availability and lessen clin-iate change effects in preparations for future droughts. As we know and have recently experienced, water supply impacts for our region from climate change are forecasted to be more intense and more frequent. When fully developed the tool will help test which new supply alternatives represent the best investment to help reduce future shortfalls. The tool uses a water balance of forecasted user demand compared with current and future supplies to test decisions under different climate condition scenarios. AWAC will provide feedback and input into the model development. The model can also be used in real-time to help understand the current conditions we face as we respond to each year's water supply conditions. The "Decision Support System for Least Cost Planning Model" (DSS Model) developed by Maddaus (cost $52,626), will present a detailed look at cost effectiveness of various conservation programs the City currently employs along with potential additional programs. This information can then be used to determine what represents the best financial investment for the City with respect to conservation programs and capital improvements. The benefits of everyday water efficiency and conservation by residents and businesses can help defer, delay or downsize expensive new capital investments and save now on energy and chemicals, allowing the City to maximize funds rehabilitation and refurbishing existing infrastructure. The benefits extend beyond water to aid in energy efficiency, reduction of greenhouse gases, and minimizing wastewater treatment, which in turn helps all the residents of the community. AWAC will provide feedback and input into the modeling process. The model can also be used real-time in the staff decision making process and for tracking conservation progress. It will also support the adoption of a conservation program by the City needed for the state-required update to the Water Resources Conservation and Management Plan to be completed in 2017. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 21.3 Re-examine and review master plans and SDCs on a regular basis 2. Promote effective citizen communication and engagement 2.2 Engage boards and commissions in supporting the strategic plan. 4. Evaluate real property and facility assets to strategically support city mission and goals Page 3 of 4 OWr k CITY OF S L D FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The negotiated costs for the RH2 contract are as follows: 1. Water Master Plan Update $153,203 2. Maddaus Software Models $105,032 3. O&M Plan $57,741 Total $315,976 Funds to support the complete project are appropriated in the current biennium. The master plan and associated software program would use allocated SDC monies, while the O&M plan would use allocated monies from the water distribution fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends the Council approve a professional services contract with RI-42 for the Water Master Plan Update and development of a comprehensive O&M plan document. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve a professional services contract with RH2 in the amount of $315,976 for the Water Master Plan Update, Maddaus software models and Operations and Maintenance Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. RH2 Water Master Plan Update/O&M Plan scope of work 2. Qualifications Based Selection Proposal 3. RH2 proposal submittal Page 4 of 4 11Fr EXHIBIT Scope of Work City of Ashland Water Master Plan Update April 2016 Background The City of Ashland (City) has retained RII2 Engineering, Inc., (RH2) to provide an update to its 2012 Comprehensive VaterPlan completed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. The intent of the update is to confirm and evaluate critical water needs, specifically for the 2020 through 2030 planning period. The update will also include requirements for planning, programming, and financing improvements for the Ci.ty's wager system needs and demands, identify said improvements, include a comprehensive and prioritized 20-year Capital Improvement Plan, evaluate water system and engineering staffing needs, and include a specific financial plan for the recominended system and staffing needs, including a water rate model. The Water Master Plan Update (VMPU) will be completed in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rules for Public Water Systems (OAR 333, Division 61). A concerted effort will be made to evaluate the success of the in-place conservation programs and introduce concepts to achieve greater benefit: of the programs. Water supply limitations need to be addressed for the upcoming 2020 to 2030 planning period. `Efficiencies of equipment, options for better supply solutions, and opportunities to address known issues before drought conditions severely impact the City's water availability need to be re-analyzed based on new information. Approach This approach represents the project team's understanding of current goals at this point in time. The approach to the work may change as the project progresses. Some of the work tasks will be completed simultaneously to expedite the project schedule. Tt-ie current goal is for the work to be accomplished generally in the following order, with the realization that solve tasks will have to be rc-evaluated to maintain consistency within the final WMPU document. • Demand Forecasting • Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Analysis • Evaluate Expanding'I'AP Supply to 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD) • Analysis of Mt. Ashland Aquifer Potential • Update Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) • Re-evaluate Financial Plan for the 2020 through 2030 Planning Period • Evaluate a "One Water" Concept The following Scope of Vor k, assumes that the iYIN1PU pr jest will include the work described above and that the deliverables will be standalone documents that add to and rpdale the existingplan. This update will not recreate or review all data in the existing plan, nor include a review and arnalysis of all existing components included in the 2092 plan. Due to the nature of the pr jest, RH2 will Ilse and red; upon existing data, materials, and informalion as-is unless othervi.re described in this Scope of Vork. RH2's scoped effort P)ill be performed up to the hours included in the attached Fee Estimale. If addilional 1 4/25/2016 12:06:17 PM "L:\Botliell\Daca\COAA'S 0\n-l[P 2016\11SA SOn' Watcr Master Plan Update 20160415 - rab edits.docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work fffort is needed, that zvill be mutually determined by the City and 8142. RH2 ivillperform extra work only at the direction of the City. Task 1- Project Management Services Objective: Coordinate With City staff, consultants, and internal team to help control schedule, cost, and final deliverables for t11e project. This role will occur throughout all tasks within this Scope of Work and will be a key component in project completion. Approach: 1.1 Coordinate with City staff. 1.2 Coordinate with involved agencies. 1.3 Attend progress meetings. 1.4 Attend up to five (5) Ashland Water Advisory Colrlmittce (AWAC) meetings. 1.5 Attend up to three (3) City Council meetings. 1.6 Perform project administration and management tasks to help facilitate timely delivery of work products. Assumptions: • RH2's project manager will coordinate communication Through City's pr ject marrader: • 71~e City will respond to requests in a timely manner. • City Council meetin,g attendance by KH2 staff will be limited to three (3) meetings. R142 Deliverables • Regular communication with the City's Project Nlanager either verbally or in writing, as required. • Updated project schedules and budgets provided monthly for project tasks. • Written communication of issues that arise during evaluations. • Preparation of scope of work amendments, as required. • AWAC and Council meeting presentation materials. Task 2 - Introduction and Existing Water System Description Objective: Provide a description of the components of the existing water system. Approach: 2.1 Visit each facility with City staff to collect field information, and observe equipment layouts and existing- conditions. 2.2 Describe the City's water service area and water service agreements. Include plans for expanding the current service area, if any. 2.3 Provide a brief overview of the existing water system operation. 2 4/25/16 12:06 I'M Z:ABothell\Data\COA\S!0\n, lnI 2016\1'SA SOW Water Mister Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 2.4 Describe each pressure zone and existing facilities, including sources of supply, treatment plant, pressure reducing stations, pump stations, pipelines, reservoirs, interdes, and telemetry and supervisory control systems. 2.5 Provide a table of water main inventory that includes total lengths, diameters, materials, and age based on available data. 2.6 Prepare color figures of the following: • Existing Water System; and • Existing System Hydraulic Profile. RH2 Deliverables: • Attendance at one (1) facilities tour with City staff. • Descriptions and figures of existing system components for City review and comment. Task 3 - Level of Service Goals Objective: Review existing level of service goals, policies, and design criteria, and recommend changes to these policies, as necessary. Approach: 3.1 Review existing City standards pertaining to water system level of service, policies, and design criteria. 3.2 Recommend additional or revised policies, as necessary, so that projected future City facilities can meet minimum and acceptable design standards and criteria. 3.3 Summarize each policy and design criteria. RH2 Deliverables • Descriptions of level of service goals, policies, and design criteria for City review and comment. Task 4 - Population and Demand Projections Objective: Review historical water use and forecast fixture water demands of the system. This task will be coordinated with the "Shared Vision Model" climate change analysis to avoid duplication of efforts. Approach: 4.1 Review related planning documents to provide a summary of the impacts or constraints on the water system. Identify existing and projected future land use patterns within and adjacent to the City, and the impacts on existing and planned future facilities and water sources for the water system. 4.2 Prepare a color figure of the City's land use. 4.3 Tabulate monthly totals of metered consumption for each customer class and the average number of accounts in service for each year from 2010 through 2015 based on available information provided by the City. Identify the seasonal variations in consumption for each customer class. 4.4 Tabulate ten (10) to twenty (20) of the largest water users and the total water use of each for the year 2013. 4.5 Tabulate monthly and yearly totals of water supply by source from 2010 through 2015. 3 4/25/16 7206 I'M Z:ABotlicll\Dat;i\COA\S40\\V',\IP 2016\PS_A SOW Water Mwer Plan Update 20160415 - rah editsdocx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 4.6 Calculate per capita demands based on the average day demand (ADD) and water system population data from 2010 through 2015. 4.7 Calculate the number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) within the system based on the water consumption and supply data. 4.8 Identify the total amount of distribution system leakage from 2010 through 2015. 4.9 'T'abulate total consumption of customers within each pressure zone based on the hydraulic model and the parcel-consumption database provided by the City. 4.10 Calculate the system ADD, peak day demand (I'DD), and peak hour demand (PI-ID) from 2010 through 2015. 4.11 Prepare a table of general fire flow requirements of each land use classification and identify buildings with the largest fire flow requirements within the service area. 4.12 Develop 6-year and 20-year demand projections. Demand projections shall be tabulated with and without additional water use reductions from the proposed water conservation program. 4.13 Describe the basis for and results of the existing and future water demand evaluation. Document: the results of the demand analysis in summary tables and the chapter text. Assumptions: • RH2 is erilitled to rely ora the accurag and completeness of aiy data, irformaliora, or malerial..rprovided by the GO or others in relation to this work. RH2 Deliverables: • Descriptions and tables of historic and projected demand data for City review and comment. • Land use color figures in electronic PDF format and one (1) printed version in 11-inch by 17-itich format. Task 5 - Hydraulic Model Update and Calibration Objective: Update and calibrate the current hydraulic model of the City's existing water system. Approach: 5.1 Update the City's existing hydraulic model Nvith recent water system improvements. Add the locations of existing gate valves for use in developing the unidirectional flushing program. Review the model with current water system mapping to check for consistency and completeness. 5.2 Prepare a prelitr-dnaty hydraulic model node diagram. Coordinate With the City to review water system facilities shown in the model. Update the model, as necessary, based on input from the City. 5.3 Update elevation data in the model and compute pipe roughness coefficients from available pipe material and age data to accomplish initial calibration. 5.4 Allocate the existing (2015) demand data among the nodes in the model using a parcel-consumption database provided by the City and customized routines. 5.5 Calculate existing (2015) and 6-year average (2010 to 2015) diurnal curves for the ADD and peak (3) three-day period using how- tank data. Input diurnal curves into the h~Tdraulic water model. 4 4/25/1(,12 06 I'M Y..:\Bothell\Data\COA',S-10\\1'\IP 2010\13SA SOW Water llaster Plan Update 20160415 - rah e&t;.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 5.6 Update facility data into the model for supply sources, reservoirs, and pressure reducing valve (PRN~ stations. Input pump curves developed in the pump condition evaluation. Establish facility settings to reflect current settings and those to be used for the analyses. 5.7 Perform preliminary hydraulic analyses to identify locations for field pressure and hydrant flow tests, and check potential performance at each site. Prepare a template that lists field test locations and data needing to be collected at each test location. Coordinate witli the City to confirm methods and recordkeeping for field tests. 5.8 Attend the hydrant flow tests to confurn that the pressure and flow test objectives are met for the purpose of calibrating the hydraulic model. City staff will operate hydrants, valves, and other water system facilities as directed by RH2. R142 x6ll provide calibrated pitot and pressure gauges for use during the hydrant: flow tests and record the test results. Operational status of facilities will be provided by City staff (in real time or from the City's telemetry system following field testing), including flows into the system from supply sources, and reservoir levels at the start and end of the tests. 5.9 Perform hydraulic analyses to calibrate the model from the field flow and pressure test data for the purposes of steady-state and extended period hydraulic analyses. 5.10 Coordinate with the City to identify sources of inconsistencies between the field calibration data and the modeled results. Inconsistencies may be the result of unknown closed valves in the system or incorrect diameter of water main shown on system mapping or as-builts..Since this item is highly variable in nature, an initial allocation of twenty four (24) hourf of a water modeling sfia alist's time has been included for this task.. If generally accepted industry standards for hydraulic model accuracy cannot be achieved within this initial allocation, RH2 will coordinate with the City to determine the next steps. -11us may include a scope amendment to assist the City in performing additional field flow tests and model calibration analyses. 5.11 Input: the current land use classifications into the model and assign a general planning-level fire flow requirement to each node for comparison of fire flow result:-,. 5.12 Perform steady-state analyses in the hydraulic model to recornmend new PRV and booster pump set points to refine the operation of the water system. I'lre analyses NVrill consider the following elements: • Energy efficiency in the water system; • Adjustments to service pressures to maintain level of service goals; • Improving fire flow system wide and, in particular, to critical service customers as identified by the City (i.e., hospitals, schools, etc.); and, • Pressure zone reconfigurations. 5.13 Coordinate with the City to discuss the results of the optimization analyses and review the feasibility of the proposed operational strategy. Assumptions: • RH2 s pr Ject manager will coordinate communication through City's project manager. • The City will supply meded facility iryormalion to prepay e for lydralilic analyses. 5 4/25/16 1106 PSI 7_ABothell\Data\COa\S40\%y'y[P 2016\PSA SOW Water Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah edit,.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work • A tzvoiity fozrr (24)-Dour allocaliorr pill be arsilmed for tl)e )valor- modeling _~6ecialij-t. If llii.r lime rreedr to be adjllrted due to uufrireseen issuer, RH2 and /be Ciy will discuss a>yzelzdment..r to /bir scope of P)ork,. RH2 Deliverables: • Calibrated WatcrGFNIS(~o hydraulic water model for use in steady-state and extended period hydraulic analyses. • Coordination with the City to rexnew the accuracy of the hydraulic water model and the results of the optimization analyses. Task 6 - Water System Analyses Objective: Evaluate each water system component to identify deficiencies and recommend improvements. Utilize the City's water system hydraulic model to perform pressure and fire flow hydraulic analyses. 6.1 Examine each of the existing pressure zones and identify areas of low and high pressures. Include a table showing each existing zone, each zones maxtrnum and minimum service elevation, and service pressures (at static conditions). 6.2 Calculate the quantity of water supply required for the existing and projected future conditions, and compare those requirerents to the system's existing supply capability. 6.3 Identify and describe supply facility deficiencies. 6A Evaluate booster pump stations and briefly describe deficiencies. 6.5 Calculate the quantity of water storage required for the existing and projected future system and compare those requirements to the existing storage capacity of the system. Storage analyses will be performed for the system as a whole, as well as for individual pressure zones or storage operating areas. 6.6 Identify and briefly describe storage deficiencies. 6.7 Document the hydraulic analysis criteria and hydraulic model settings for the distribution system analyses. 6.8 Using the hydraulic model of the water system, perform a steady-stage hydraulic analysis of the system simulating PHD conditions with no fv:e flows to determine the pressures and flow distribution during this demand condition. 6.9 Perform a steady-state fire flow analysis for each node in the system while simulating PDD to detern-ne the capability of the existing system to provide adequate flows and pressures and identify existing system deficiencies. 6.10 Perform system analyses to evaluate the following: • Expanding TAP to 3 MGD; • Providing a permanent solution for moving water from the Granite Pressure Zone to the Crowson Pressure Zone; • Removing the existing Granite tank and upsizing Crowson II; and • Evaluating the hydraulic grade line associated with the new treatment/clearwell project. 6 4/25/16 12:06 I'\I "Z.:\Bodiell\Data\COA\i40\w\fV 2016\PSA SOV' Water Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 6.11 Input future demand data into the hydraulic model's nodes using the results from the future water demand evaluation. Demand dist2tbcrlion shall be based on eslimales of future arm;11j allocations- provided Gy the ("'if Y- 6.12 Input proposed water system improvements into the model based on the results of the existing system hydraulic analysis and identification of defzeierlcies. 613 Perform a steady-state fire flow analysis for each node in the system while simulating 6-year and 20-year PDD conditions to revie-,v whether the proposed improvements address existing system deficiencies and are sized properly to accommodate for anticipated growth based on meeting the City's policies and design criteria. 6.14 Prepare a table that summarizes the results of the. existing and future system fire flow analyses. 6.15 Identif , and describe distribution system deficiencies and the results of the hydraulic analyses. 6.16 Evaluate and identify deficiencies for the existing water main, PRV stations, interties, and telemetry and supervisory control system. 6.17 Perform an existing system and 6-year system capacity analysis to determine the unused, available system capacity expressed in RRUs. Document the criteria and results of the analyses. 6.18 Meet with City staff to discuss the system analyses, deficiencies, and recommended improvements. 6.19 Prepare color figures showing the results of the pressure and fire flow analyses. 6.20 Document the results of the system analysis in summary tables and the chapter text. Assumptions: • The City will sappy estimates on frsturegro2pth allocations. RH2 Deliverables: • Descriptions, tables, and figures of the water system analyses for City review and comment. • Attendance at one (1) meeting with City staff. • Color figures and GIS shapefilcs containing the results of the existing system PHI) and fire flow analyses in electronic PDF format and one (1) printed version in 11-inch by 17-inch format. Task 7 - Capital Improvement Plan Objective: Describe and schedule improvements to address deficiencies identified in the water system analyses. Prepare planning-level cost estimates for each project identified. Approach: 7.1 Briefly describe water system improvements that have been completed since the last WMPU. 7.2 Prepare a list of proposed water system improvements. Briefly describe each group of related improvements and the purpose/benefit of the improvements. 7.3 Prepare planning-level approximate cost estimates for each improvement based on current industry prices. 7 4/25/16 12:06 PM Z:\Bothell\Data\CO:\\S40\XG'\II' 2016\PS.A SOn' Water blaster Plan Update 20160115 - rah edits.docz City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 7.4 Coordinate with City staff to establish criteria for prioritizing and scheduling improvements. Pfiorili Galion and scheduling zvill consider other scheduled rslilily and trans ,hodalion fir jecls hared on hifoirvation provided by the Cily. 7.5 Schedule improvements based on the results of the prioritization. Prepare up to two (2) modified CIP schedules based on input from the City on the results of the financial analysis. 7.6 Prepare a table of improvements that includes an improvement identification number, a brief description of each improverrrent, the associated cost estimate, and the scheduling of the improvements for the 20-year planning period. 7.7 Describe the criteria and procedures used for prioritizing and scheduling improvements. 7.8 Document. the CIP prioritization analyses in summary tables and the chapter text. 7.9 Prepare color figures of the following: • Proposed Water System Improvements; and • Proposed Improvements Hydraulic Profile. 7.10 Meet: with City staff to discuss the CIP and proposed schedule of implementation. RH2 Deliverables: • Draft CIP tables and figures for City review and comment in digital format. • GIS files containing proposed water main improvements in electronic PDF format and one (1) printed version in 11-inch by 17-inch format.. • Attendance at one (1) meeting with City staff. Task 8 - Ashland Water Availability Evaluation Objective: Rexnew available precipitation, runoff, reservoir storage, and water use data to assess the predictability of water availability. Approach: 8.1 Obtain available copies of 1-iistorical weather and hydrology data. Copies of data may be available from the following sources: • Water storage and water use - City of Ashland; • Stream gauge - City of Ashland, State of Oregon, US Geological Survey, US Forest Service; • Snowpack - Mt. Ashland Ski Area, Natural Resources Conservation Service; and • Weather/Climate -National Weather Set-vice, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. 8.2 Compile historical information into a database for evaluation of long-term trends. Graphically analyze the data for a potential correlation between precipitation, runoff, and reservoir storage. 8.3 Prepare a summary memorandum with the evaluation results. If the data evaluation suggests a useful correlation, provide recommendations for a long-tern-i monitoring approach to support water availability planning. RH2 Deliverables: • Summary memorandum of water supply evaluation results in electronic PDF format and three (3) printed version in 11-inch by 17-inch format. 8 4/25/16 12:06 I'M 7:ABotliell\llata\CQv\S40\xy-111' 201APSA SOW n titer Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work Task 9 - Evaluate "One Water" Approach Objective: Evaluate "One Water" opportunities within the City and provide a framework for future "One Water" opportunities and guidance. This work will be performed in conjunction with Black & Veatch. Approach: 9.1 Prepare internal City draft of a "One Water Approach" document that: engages discussion by the Ashland Water Advisory Ad Hoc Committee (Aw'AC). 9.2 Review comments from the AWAC meeting with City staff. 9.3 Prepare a final "One Water Guiding Principles" document for inclusion in the WNIPU. RH2 Deliverables: • Attendance at one (1) AWAC meeting. • Completed "One Water Guiding Principles" technical memorandum. Task 10 - Executive Summary Objective: Prepare an executive summary to describe the key elements of the NYTIVIPU. Approach: 10.1 Identify the purpose of the WNIPU and summarize the major system characteristics and significant changes since the previous WMPU was completed. 10.2 Briefly describe the key issues in the WMPU. RH2 Deliverable: • Prepare a draft and final executive summary chapter for City review and comment. Task 11- Appendices Objective: Prepare miscellaneous appendices for inclusion in the WMPU. Approach: 11.1 Obtain a State Environmental Policy Act (SF.PA) Checklist and Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) from the City to include in the appendices. 112 Obtain service area and intertie agreements from the City to be included in the appendices. 11.3 Obtain copies of applicable City resolutions/ordinances to be included in the appendices. 11.4 Include copies of Water Facilities Inventory (,Wl) forms. 11.5 Include copies of water right: certificates and permits. 11.6 Include a copy of the most recent Consumer Confidence Report. 11.7 Include copies of water system facilities data, consistency statement checklists, and agency review cotntnents. Deliverables: • Listed appendices for inclusion in the WIVH'U. 9 4/25/16 12:06 PM Z:\Bodiell\Data\CO_\\S40\\\'\fP 2016\11SA SO\\' Watu Master Plan Update 20160417 - rnh editsdocs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work Task 12 - Finalize, Print, and Present Draft WMPU Objective: Prepare a final craft of the WMPU and submit it to review agencies and adjacent: water purveyors. Approach: 12.1 Develop a covet format that includes the WMPU name and revision dale. 12.2 "Transmit electronic copies of the draft WW. .11 documents to the City for review and comment. 12.3 Revise the WMPU based on City review comments. 12.4 Attend one (1) meeting to present the completed WMPU to City staff, City Council, and the public. 12.5 Bind the final WN PU documents and print up to ten (10) sets of the WMPLl with color figures. 12.6 Create an electronic PDFdocument, including all chapters, appendices, and figures of the WMPU. T19c okaronic IYIMPU 1d)lll coiltG in I:!)p6'i-1iiiki- and ail of,*ga,,ii~ lt8mal forzmf drat iUdll beHilly f lnctlonaZ Provide up to five (5) copies of the electronic plan on CD format. 12.7 Submit the final W FPU to the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) drinking water division for its review. RH2 Deliverables: • Up to ten (10) sets of the final WMPU in three-ring binder format and five (5) CDs containing the WIVIPU in electronic PDF format. • Attendance at one (1) meeting to present the final draft WMPU to City staff, City Council, and the public. Task 13 - OHA Review Revisions At the completion of Tasks 1 through 12, the WMPU will be in a final format, ready for review by the regulatory agencies. The number of conitnents, number of meetings, and amount of required WMPU modifications from review by the agencies is difficult to predict. Therefore, 8112 will prepare a separate scope of work and fee estimate to address review comments, review meetings, and final WNIPUI modifications upon receipt of all review comments from Of-LV Task 14 - Re-evaluate Financial Plan for the 2020 through 2030 Planning Period Objective: Review the financial model's consistency with the updated capital program. This work "vin be performed in conjunction with Ilansford F"conornic Services. Approach: 14.1 Update the financial model, including demand projections. 14.2 Evaluate the Financial model accounting for the impacts of water conservation. 14.3 Evaluate relocating the fixed costs to the base fee versus consumption. RH2 Deliverables: • Updated financial model. 10 4/25/16 92:06 I'M %:ABothell\Data\CO A\S-10\\C%NII' 2016\11S A SOW Water \fastcc Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work Task 15 - Shared Vision Planning with Climate Change Objective: Review past climate change planning efforts. Determine if additional planning analysis is feasible and supportive of the WIvIPU. Provide recommendations for the WMPU alternatives for increasing supply reliability in times of drought. This task will be performed in concert with Maddaus Wate1- Management (M`Y1M). Approach: 15.1 Review Drought Report prepared by City, including: • Summary of data and experience in current drought, and document response; • List of recornrnendations to adjust the City's drought plan (i.e., changes in drought cutbacks or approach); • Graph of stream flow hydrology and other data trends to document connection to conservation (Long-germ versus short-term emergency measures), and climate change analyses (frequency and intensity of droughts); • List of adjustments to operations from the current "Water Supply Model" as a result of how the water system functioned in 2013 through 2015 drought conditions; and • Assume a brief summary on impacts to planning efforts and any overall recommendations. 15.2 Inventory the past climate change planning efforts and confirm feasibility of additional planning based on available information. 15.3 Review the Water Supply Model and past climate change modeling efforts. 15.4 Build the Shared Vision model. 15.5 Rexriew and update the model with the most recent drought occurrences and data from the City's drought report. 15.6 Select the future plan that offers the most supply reliability based on information presented that solves the projected "shortfall," in coordination with the City. 15.7 Run model simulations that test revised or new approaches, such as new infrastructure or transfer agreements. 15.8 Present model simulations to the AVVAC showing various solutions and how they function, while discussing each scenario's strengths and weaknesses. 15.9 Summarize findings in a technical inemorandum. Assumptions: • RH2 s project manager- will coordinate communicalion through Ashland's project manager and coordinate M1VM staff work, as needed • The City rvillpre are a drortaht review based on the items above. RI-12 staff will then review and finalise the a'roat;ht plan from the City, including the items listed above. This will include a summag of drought plan eulbacks far inclusion in the, Shared I l'ision Model. • The City willprovide access topast modeling learn and source files. Ary specialised model runs for altered lydrology data sets would be provided by others, and climate chap e factors and hislorical hydrolozy would be provided to MtVIAIJ M requested Microsoft Excel fonvat on a monthly time step. 11 4/25/ 16 12:06 PM Z:ABodiell\Dati\CO A\S40\\C%bIP 2016\1'SA SOW Water Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work • Additional data and sortrce information (seepage and evaporation curves for )-eservoir, etc.) will he provided electronically in lllicrosoft Excel format on a mantbly time step. • The City will satppy clear e~planalions of how ilr operations work on a monthly time step for preparation of the water balance for each alternative water .supply source. This should be on the level of detail that a clear in/then statement could be written into the Shared Vision Model macros to know when what operating decisions are made and the monthly water slrpply availability for each source of sropy. Assume np to three (3) solaces of supply will be modeled. It is assumed that the Shared Vision will e focused on crtrrently available water .rupp# sources. To the extent budget allows, some ve), limited alternativesfir f tt7ire srpplies to be detailed by the City may be added to test in the model. • M6FM 2villprepare the Shared Vision Model u.rirrg best available information. Up to three (3) `what if 'scenarios will be tested on a miilli-year (assumed up to three (3) year) scale drought that will be decided by the City and presented by the City to the AVAC. • To the extent budget is available, it is assumed the Cily will direct the side and mouthy supplyprofile for ary new supply alternatives to be tested in the model (i. e., source alternative). The drought plan stages, conservation level scenarios, and demand forecast will be ready for inclusion in the water balance for model. The scope of the added alternatives and scenario planning will be based on the allowable budget. • The Ciy will have primary ownership forpresenting the model to the AIVAC, with one (1) primary staff person re.ponsible for understanding and "driving" the model and facililaling discussions internally with MIVM in a limited stpporl role. There will be one (1) meeting with M6YlM attendance of the .AV11C and/or City staff to review the Shared Vision Model. The City will prepare a summary presentation with MIVNl input for each 111Y/f1C meeting. Additional meeting may be added based on allowable budget • Following the consensrts of the Shared Vision Model outcomes, MW M will co-author ogre (1) electronic camera-ready technical memorandum to RH2 for distribution. It is assumed that City staff will prepare some background and other appropriate documentation for the text. As budget allows, MIV1Vl will stpport documentation and presentations. It is assumed thatpriorily will beg * ive n to modeling lime its Microsoft Excel as opposed to writing zp documentation. • There will be up to two (2) meetings q f the A IVAC .Additional meetings may be added based on allowable budget. Provided by City: • Following the comment period, the City will prepare one (1) set of consolidated comments and clear direction for updates to the final technical memorandum. • The City will provide access to past modeling team and source files. Any specialized model runs for altered hydrology data sets would be provided by others. RI-12 Deliverables: • Following the comment period, RH2 will prepare one (1) set of consolidated comments and clear direction for updates to the final technical memorandum. 12 4/25/16 12:06 P\1 Z:ABothell\Data\CO.1\S40\\V'\R' 2016\PSA SOW Water Master Plan Update 20160115 - rah cdits.docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work MWM Deliverables: • Data requests. • Brief summary of findings and approach to preparing Shared Vision Model. • Shared Vision Model to simulate scenarios building on output from eater Supply Model. • Draft_ sections and/or review comments on draft and final technical memorandums in catnera-ready electronic format. • MWM will participate in up to five (5) one-hour GOTO meetings to discuss and present to City staff how the model functions and seek input on the design of the model. • Following the consensus of the Shared Vision Model outcomes, MWM will co-autho.t one (1) electronic catnera-ready technical memorandum to PU42 for distribution. • MkXTM will prepare one (1) electronic camera-ready final technical memorandum to RH2 for distribution to the City. • AWAC presentation materials associated with climate change analyses. • Draft and final technical memorandum in camera-ready electronic format. Task 16 - Conservation Program Review and Cost Effectiveness Analysis Objective: Review past conservation efforts. Prepare a cost effectiveness analysis. Recommend shifts in conservation program efforts as warranted by findings and input from City staff and the AWAC. This information will support the update needed for 201.8 Water Management and Conservation Plan that will be finalized in the year 2023. This task will be performed in concert with Maddaus Water Management (M WM) Approach: 16.1 Review conservation program recent efforts and billing information 16.2 Prepare a "Water Use Data Sheet" to benchmark: historical use and agree on "base year" for more normalized planning (non-recession and non-drought baseline, commonly 2007 and 2008). 16.3 City staff will review and screen from library database of measures into a list of an assumed up to 25 measures to be modeled with MWM input. MWM will auto populate the DSS model with measures selected once approved by management and/or discussed With AWAC as determined by the City. 16.4 Review list developed with City staff and AWAC (Conservation/Drought Meeting 1). 16.5 Work with City to prepare cost effectiveness analysis using Decision Support System for Least Cost Planning (DSS Model) and inputted Demand Forecast already pre-approved by the City, as well as the approved measure list: from meeting. Based on training by NAX M, City staff will complete the data input for peer review by MWM. 16.6 Design future conservation goals (5 percent up to 30 percent) with the City using DSS Model "three program scenarios" (i.e., current 5 percent, cost effective program, and another program of City's choosing). 13 4/25/16 12:06 I'M Z:ABothcll\Data\CO.A\S 40\V, \III 2016\PSA SOW Water Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah cdits.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work 16.7 Present findings for buy-in (Conservation/Drought Meeting 2). 16.8 Surnmarize findings in technical inernorandum. 16.9 Train City on model and prepare technical memorandum in support of Ashland's Water Management and Conservation Plan due to the state in 2018. Assumptions: • RH2'.r project lmanger will r,wordinale communicalion lhrough City's pralect manager- and coordinate MIEM staff work as needed. • C,'ity slaff requested to be llavolvecl ira the modelprocesr to be "Lands on will) lheprocess. "Ills assumed the modeling would be a learn e fforfi betlveen City staff and M1VNL Staff will learn to use the &y odel under MI,YIMguidarace and review..A clear list of DSS Model edits will be carefully tracked by 11)e City and MIFM in Excel in tl)e f ant of the model, such that having two parties xorking in the model is a smooth organitied process. • M1"IIM will-Provide traanzllg videwl a Userlvlalwal and up to 1bur (4) hours of training in two (2)4)our sessions. In addiliwi, M IVAII will review with Clty staff n up to f rye (5) GO TO Meetings the DSS model, pfi rdy focused pya on conservalloll program xveasllre desZgn. • Demand forecast will be ilont ill the DSS Model by the Cry stuff that already completed and adopted fol>wat (i. e., Pe (S) year incremaents), ready to be tl)e basis of the modeling effort, and used as a DSS Model input. • MIFA/[ will receive the Data Collection IForkbook andl or provided data and source h formation in Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Vord format, as appropriate. • City will input billing data by cuslower class. This is available for the past 7 to 10_years, >minimum (or for as malt' years back as possible, aligned with billing categories based on user classy cations (i. e., single family, multi family, comlmercial, etc.) provided in Excel format in lbe Data Collection lFork book. • There will be r p to one (1) meelina of the AIY>AC with _MWI'M in attendance, in addilion to the kick-off meetirt4 planned to review the DSS Model results, and present and receive comments on the draft tecbrlical mzemorcrndum. • City will prepare one (1) brif summary presentation (iess than ten (10) Powe&oint slides) for each A_IY~AC meeling. Addilional meetings may be added based on allowable budget. • City will run DSS Model for up to 25 individual conservation measures with Trout and support by MII M staff The City will select the measures, as pall of a measure screening, and provide feedback on individual measure design (rebate value, yearn- program is implemented, etc.) • City will build ap to three (3) conseiwalion program alternatives to be considered (Progra>ns A, B, and C) with different comhilzallans of irrdividiaal measures with M IYIM illpul peerr review. 1 fie programs have been requested to have a possible range of savings from 5 percent up to 30 poi-cent. City will conduct up to three (3) DSS Model runs to incorporate feedback from M1VM on preliminary model results. Ciy )Pill provide brief summary of discussions orfndings by City slgff orAVAC throlldhoul the process to supporlpreparzng tl)e DSS Model. • Following the consensus of the DSS Model olatcomes, City andMVAI staff will togelherprepare one (1) electronic camera-ready tecbrlical memorandum to RH2 for distribution. • Following the commeratperzod, City will. prepare one (1) set q f consolidated comments and clear direction for updates to the final technical memorandum. 14 4/25/16 12:06 PV Z:ABodicll\l)ata\COA\S-10\\V'\II' 2016\I'SA SLAV Water Vaster Plan Updatc 20160415 - nh edits.doee City of Ashland Exhibit A Water Master Plan Update Scope of Work • 061 afrd AlfVAI will prepay e one (1) eledronic camera-rea~~r find! tech>ric~l memorancliam to R HZ for- distribulion. MWM Deliverables: • Data Collection Workbook in IVIS Excel for City staff completion. • DSS Modcl to provide cost effectiveness findings and recommended program. • DSS Model user manual and training videos. live training via Go'Fo Meeting for staff also available if desired. • Review comments and draft sections, draft and final technical memorandums in camera-ready electronic format. Project Schedule R142 will continence with design work in days/weeks/ snonths. It is currently anticipated that building pernut-ready plans will be delivered by will submit an application for the building permit by (date). It is anticipated that building permits will be granted by (date), that bidding will occur by (date), and that construction will commence by (date) and be completed by (date).} 15 -1/25/16 12:06 P\[ Z:ABothell\l7ata\COA\S40\W\[P 2016\1'SA SOW Water Master Plan Update 20160415 - rah edits.docs EXHIBIT XX - PRELIMINARY City of Ashland Water Master Plan Update Fee Estimate Description Total Hours Total Labor Total Subconsultant Total Expense Total cost Task 1 Project Management 97 $ 16,284 $ $ 407 $ 16,691 Task 2 Introduction and Existing Water System Description _ 66 $ 9,523 j $ - S 679 $ 10,202 Task 3 Level of Service Goals 12 $ 1,604 $ - $ 44 $ 1,G48 Task 4 Population and Demand Projections SG $ 12,207 $ $ 519 $ 12,726 Task 5 Hydraulic Model Update and Calibration 145 $ 20,568 $ $ 3,229 $ 23,797 Task 6 Water System Analyses 175 $ 24,985 $ - $ 3,186 $ 28,171 Task 7 Capital Improvement Program 80 $ 11,571 $ - $ 1,235 $ 12,80G Task8 Ashland Water Availability Evaluation 26 $ 4,940 $ - $ 124 $ 5,064 Task 9 Evaluate "One Water" Approach 4 $ 656 $ 11,550 $ _ 16 $ 12,222 Task 10 Executive Summary 1,694 $ _ - $ 47 $ 1,741 Task it Appendices 7 $ 710 $ - $ 30 $ 740 Task 12 Finalize, Print, and Present Draft WMPU 66 $ 8,449 $ - $ 2,139 $ 10,588 Task 13 OHA Review Revisions (TED) $ - $ - $ $ Task 14 Re-evaluate Financial Plan forthe 2020 through 2030 Planning Period 6 $ 1,032 $ 15,750 $ 26 $ 16,808 Task 1S Shared Vision Planning with Climate Change 4 $ 656 $ 51,734 $ 16 $ 52,406 Task 16 Conservation Program Review and Cost Effectiveness Analysis 4 $ 656 $ 51,954 $ 16 $ 52,626 PROJECTTOTAL 790: $ 115,535:: 130,988 $ 11,713 $ 258,235 21aolheC.Gala!GOA\54U\4JMI'1016\PSA FEEV/,co M.Iv Plan Upd:d,2UIGaaa1-MHG,v . ,25201b 10:40AM EXHIBIT RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 2016 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES RATE LIST RATE UNIT Professional 1 $129 $/hr Professional II $138 $/hr Professional III $145 $/hr Professional IV $155 $/hr Professional V $164 $/hr Professional VI $176 $/hr Professional VII $190 $/hr Professional VIII $199 $/hr Professional I X $199 $/hr Technician 1 $78 $/hr Technician II $86 $/hr Technician III $87 $/hr Technician IV $93 $/hr Administrative 1 $63 $/hr Administrative II $74 $/hr Administrative III $90 $/hr Administrative IV $107 $/hr Administrative V $128 $/hr CAD/GIS System $27.50 $/hr CAD Plots - Half Size $2.50 price per plot CAD Plots - Full Size $10.00 price per plot CAD Plots - Large $25.00 price per plot Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11" $0.09 price per copy Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14" $0.14 price per copy Copies (bw) 11" X 17" $0.20 price per copy Copies (color) 8.5" X 11" $0.90 price per copy Copies (color) 8.5" X 14" $1.20 price per copy Copies (color) 11" X 17" $2.00 price per copy Technology Charge 2.50% % of Direct Labor price per mile Mileage $0.540 (or Current IRS Rate) Subconsultants 15% Cost + 1Outside Services at cost 4/251201610:20 not EXHIBIT Scope of Work City of Ashland Operation and Maintenance Plan Update April 2016 Background R1I2 Rngineering, Inc., (RH2) has been retained by the City of Ashland (City) to analyze and update the existing Operation and Maintenance Plan. 71ze intent of the update is to provide validation for and continued evaluation of the City's water- operations. The scope xvill include an evaluation of water system maintenance programs, current maintenance reporting and schedules, and staffing requirements. A concerted effort will be made to evaluate the efficiencies of equipment, water system operational options for efficient functionality, and opportunities to address known maintenance issues to predict and schedule maintenance, replacement, and funding optiont:, prior to imminent failure of equipment. Approach Collect existing data from the City for the facilities, and perform assessments on the equipment data, staffing requirements, recordkeeping, and in-place programs, such as fire hydrant and pump station maintenance. The project goal is to produce an operational document identifying system efficiencies, budget expectations, maintenance schedules and recordkeeping, in an effort to improve operation of the water system. This approach represents the project team's understanding and goals at this point in time and may change as the project progresses. Task 1- Project Management Services Objective: Project management and coordination with City staff, consultants, and internal team to help control schedule, cost, and final deliverables for the project. This role will occur- throughout all tasks within this scope and will be a key component in project completion. Approach: 1.1 Coordinate with City= staff. 1.2 Coordinate with involved agencies. 1.3 Attend progress meetings. 1.4 Complete project contract administration and management tasks to facilitate timely delivery of work products. Assumptions: • RH2 s project manager will coordinate commuyrication througb City's pr ject manager. • 1 he City will respond to requests in a Limey manner • Meetinu attendance by RH2 sta, ff will be limited to three (3) meetings. 1 4/25/2016 2:46:06 I'M ZABothell\Dati\C0A'~S40\0 & M\PSA son' Open: tion and Maintenance Plan Updatc 20160404-docs City of Ashland Exhibit A Operation and Maintenance Plan Update Scope of Work R142 Deliverables: • Communication with the City's Project Manager either verbally or in writing, as requested. • Updated project schedules and budgets provided weekly for project tasks. • Written communication of issues that may arise during evaluations. • Preparation of scope of work amendments, as requested. Task 2 - Water System Operational Planning Objective: Draft guidance about system maintenance, including, flushing, testing, backflow prevention, and staffing. Create a document: to update and track maintenance of the water system, including, but not limited to, pipes, valves, hydrants, pump stations, pressure reducing valves (PRVs), and reservoirs meeting the requitements of the Oregon Health Authority. Approach: 2.1 Review existing data from the City for each facility in the water system. 2.2 Meet `vith City staff to discuss concerns for each element of the plan and the facilities. 2.3 Evaluate the fire hydrant maintenance and replacement program. 2.4 Review the pump station maintenance and replacement program. 2.5 Evaluate the flushing program in conjunction with unidirectional flushing task. 2.6 Assess the valve maintenance. 2.7 Examine water quality monitoring plans. 2.8 Review procedures and recordkeeping program. 2.9 Review and modify list of major equipment, supplies, and chemicals utilized in the water system. 2.10 Evaluate, financial impacts of a radio-read program. Include level of service impacts and upgrade costs of equipment. 2.11 Comment on the general impacts and effects of changing water quality requirements regarding operational and maintenance responsibilities. 2.12 Identify procedures for keeping and compiling records and reports. Provide a general list of records on file and identify where they are kept. 2. 13 Evaluate staffing requirements and document recommendations. 2.14 Identify operational and maintenance improvements. 2.15 Prepare a draft operational plan. 2.16 Review the draft operational plan with the City and review comments from the City staff. 2.17 Prepare final operational plan document. 2 -1/25/16 2A6 P'M 7,:\Bothcll\Data\C0A\S 10\O & M\11SA SONY Operation and Maintenance Man Update 20160104.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Operation and Maintenance Plan Update Scope of Work Assumptions: • Task 2 If a data-tollection and direction-.telling task only. This Task does not include database envy or- progrUmmirrg for an integrated rperalionalplan. Information will be prepared for rise 1'17 a fltryre project to implenaerat asset management software. • Data dalLrered~YO~ra the system analysis srrbtasks mill be ulili.~ed as-is for the database of the existing ystem components. Provided by City: Background information, including: • Staff assignments and workload. • Operational and maintenance guidance documents. • Current cross-connection guidelines. • List of concerns and known issues within the City's water system. • System equipment list, including model numbers and year installed for pumps, PRVs and reservoirs. RH2 Deliverables: • Outline of items to be included in the operational plan. • Draft operational plan. • Final operational plan. Task 3 - Unidirectional Flushing Program Objective: Create a unidirectional flushing program for the City. Approach: 3.1 Perform hydraulic analyses in conjunction with the master plan update to determine the minimum pressures and maximum flushing velocity experienced with the City's existing flushing program. 3.2 Cootdiruate with the City to identify the goals for the updated uniditectional flushing program, including maximum velocity, sensitive customers, and areas of concerti. 3.3 Recommend improvements to the existing unidirectional flushing program per the established goals and to reduce flushing velocities, flushing time, and dirty water complaints. 3.4 Develop field map books showing flushing hydrant, closed valve., and flushing velocities for each hydrant flushing location. RH2 Deliverables: • Unidirectional flushing program field map books. 3 4/25/16 2:46 PM Z:\Botlie1l\Data\C0A\S40\0 & XI\PSA SOW Operation and Maintenance Man update 20160-101.docx City of Ashland Exhibit A Operation and Maintenance Plan Update Scope of Work Task 4 - Cross-connection Control Plan Objective: Document the City's existing cross-connection control plan. Approach: 4.1 Review the City's existing cross-connection control ordinance and developed programs. Evaluate the documents and incorporate elements into the WMPU necessary for consistency with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) Chapter 333, Division 61, Section 0070 regulations. 4.2 Describe the consequences for failing to comply with the cross-connection control ordinance. 4.3 Document the responsibility of each City department for implementing the program and their relationship with one another and with. outside agencies. 4.4 Identify the primary and back-up staff positions delegated to the responsibility of organizing and implementing the cross-connection control program. 4.5 Document procedures for pi-toritizing and conducting surveys of existing facilities to identify existing and potential cross-connections. 4.6 Document guidelines for assessing the degree of hazard and the selection of the appropriate backflow assemblies. 4.7 Describe the recordkeeping system requirements for the cross-connection control plan.. Recommend possible options to increase efficiency and reduce cost. 4.8 Describe the methods or processes that will provide information (public education, etc.) regarding the cross-connection control program to the existing and potential future system customers. 4.9 Document procedures for responding to backflow incidents. RH2 Deliverables: • Completed cross-connection control plan included in the WMPIJ as an appendix. Project Schedule LDCSCrihe project schedule. Sample 'text: RH2 will commence with design work in days/weeks/months. Building permit-ready plans will be delivered by will submit: an application for the building permit by (date). It is anticipated that building permits will be granted by (date), that bidding will occur by (date), and that construction will commence by (date) and be completed by (date).} 4 4/25/16 2:46 PM "L:ABodiell\Data\CO A\S40\0 R \[\PS A SOW Operation and Naintcnance Plan Update 20160401.docx EXHIBIT - PRELIMINARY City of Ashland Operation and Maintenance Update Fee Estimate Description Total Total labor Total Expense Total Cost Hours Task 1 Project Management Services 23 $ 31797 $ 171 $ 3,968 Task 2 Water System Operational Planning 272 $ 36,294 $ 1,146 $ 37,440 Task 3 Unidirectional Flushing Program 76 $ 10,111 $ 1,419 $ 11,530 Task 4 Cross-connection Control Plan 34 $ 4,686 $ 117 $ 4,803 PROJECT TOTAL 405 $ 54,888 $ ' 2,853 ` $ . 57,741 Z:\BothelNData\C0A\S40\0 & WSA FEE 0 and M Plan Update 20160405.x1sm 4!2512016 2:46 PM EXHIBIT' RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 2016 SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES RATE LIST RATE UNIT Professional 1 $123 $/hr Professional II $133 $/hr Professional III $138 $/hr Professional IV $150 $/hr Professional V $159 $/hr Professional VI $170 $/hr Professional VII $183 $/hr Professional VIII $194 $/hr Professional IX $194 $/hr Technician 1 $73 $/hr Technician II $80 $/hr Technician III $82 $/hr Technician IV $89 $/hr Administrative I $57 $/hr Administrative II $69 $/hr Administrative 111 $85 $/hr Administrative IV $101 $/hr Administrative V $122 $/hr CAD/GIS System $27.50 $/hr CAD Plots - Half Size $2.50 price per plot CAD Plots - Full Size $10.00 price per plot CAD Plots - Large $25.00 price per plot Copies (bw) 8.5" X 11" $0.09 price per copy Copies (bw) 8.5" X 14" $0.14 price per copy Copies (bw) 11" X 17" $0.20 price per copy Copies (color) 8-5" X 11" $0.90 price per copy Copies (color) 8.5" X 14" $1.20 price per copy Copies (color) 11" X 17" $2.00 price per copy Technology Charge 2.50% % of Direct Labor price per mile Mileage $0.540 (or Current IRS Rate) Subconsultants 15% Cost + 1Outside Services at cost 4125/20162:42 M0 REQUEST FOR UALIFICA TIONS BASED Q PROPOSALS Water Master Plan Update PROJECT NO: 2015-12 PROJECT TYPE: Engineering Services PROPOSAL OPENING DATE: 2:00 PM, December 1, 2015 CITY PROJECT MANAGER Michael R. Faught PROJECT DURATION 18 month maximum P. IF4M11 CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 20 E. MAIN STREET ASHLAND OR 97520 541/488-534 Table of Contents ADVERTISEMENT ...................................................................................................................................3 SECTION 1 - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 4 1.1: SOLICITATION INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS ......................................................4 1.1.1 Overview 4 1.1.2 Background 4 Reference Documents 5 1.1.3 Definitions 5 1.1.4 Contract Form 6 1.1.5. Business License Required 6 1.1.6 Insurance Requirements 6 1.2 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ............................................................................................7 1.2.1. Proposer Questions 7 1.3 PROTESTS ............................................................................................................................................8 1.3.1 Award Protest Requirements 8 1.3.2 Specification Protest Process 8 1.3.3 Costs and Damages 8 1.4 "PASS / FAIL" PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ....................................................8 1.4.1 Proposal Submission Deadline (Pass / Fail) 8 1.4.1 Terms and Conditions (Pass / Fail) 9 1.4.3 Proprietary Information 9 1.4.4 Laws and Regulations ..............................................................................10 1.5 " REQUIRED" PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ITEMS AND SCORING DEDUCTIONS 10 1.5.1 Page Length Limitation (Required) ............................................................10 1.5.2 Quantity of Proposals (Required) .............................................................10 1.5.4 Minimum Proposal Contents .....................................................................10 SECTION 2.0 - EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION ............................11 2.1 EVALUATION PROCESS ............................................................................11 2.1.1 Proposal Evaluation ..................................................................................12 2.1.3 References ................................................................................................13 2.1.4 Clarifications .............................................................................................13 2.1.5 Non-resident Proposer ..............................................................................13 2.2 SCORING CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................13 2.2.1 Project Understanding and Approach ........................................................13 2.2.2 Project Team and Resources ....................................................................14 2.2.3 Related Project Experience .......................................................................14 2.2.4 Responsiveness ........................................................................................14 2.3 AWARD PROCESS ............................................................................................................................14 2.3.1 Negotiations ..............................................................................................14 2.3.2 Action upon Failure to Execute Contract ...................................................15 2.3.3. Notice of Intent to Award ...........................................................................15 2.3.4. Evaluation Record ...................................................................................15 2.3.5. Right to Protest ........................................................................................15 2.3.6 Award ........................................................................................................15 SECTION 3.0 - SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................................................................15 3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................................................16 3.1.1 Personnel, Materials & Equipment ............................................................16 3.1.2 Safety Equipment .......................................................................................16 3.1.3 Professional Responsibilities .....................................................................16 3.1.4 Project Management .................................................................................16 3.2 TASK SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 16 2012 Master Plan General Breakdown ..........................................................................18 Appendix A: Contract Form Including Exhibit A, Form W-9 and City Of Ashland Living Wage ADVERTISEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND PUBLIC WORKS - QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES The City of Ashland (City) is seeking proposals for professional, engineering, planning and consulting services for development of Project 2015-12 Water Master Plan Update. The project will include but is not limited to the following tasks: • Develop comprehensive project scope and timeline • Update the climate change analysis • Review, analyze, validate and identify gaps in Ashland's existing water master plans and water sources • Evaluate current drought response and curtailment plans • Analyze system staffing needs including, engineering, distribution and treatment • Attend Ashland Water Advisory Committee meetings • Attend City Council meetings • Re-evaluate financial plan for the 2020-2030 planning period • Re-evaluate growth and demand modeling • Evaluate a "one" water concept for Ashland • Evaluate existing and future conservation programs Proposals must be physically received by 2:00 PM, December 1, 2015, in the City of Ashland Engineering Office located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR 97520 or by mail at 20 E. Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520. Please direct all questions in writing to Scott Fleury, Engineering Services Manager at fleurys@ashland.or.Lis. Consultant selection is anticipated to result in the issuance of a contract for engineering services in the form provided in this RFP. Proposal documents are available from the Oregon Procurement Information Network (ORPIN) at http://orpiti.ot-egon.gov/open.dll/welcoi-ne?language=En, Notice #KAI512-2015-12-15. All submittals by the proposer must be in hard copy form. Proposals are limited to eight (8) pages. The proposer must be registered as a Professional Engineer with the State of Oregon. Consultant selection will be based upon weighted criteria as cited in the Request for Proposal document. Standard selection criteria include, but are not limited to: project understanding, project team experience, and response time. The City of Ashland reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive formalities or to accept any proposal which appears to serve the best interest of the City of Ashland. Michael R. Faught, Public Works Director CITY OF ASHLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS QUALIFICATIONS BASED SELECTION - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE: PWE 42015-12 SECTION 1- REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS LI: SOLICITATION INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS 1.1.1 Overview The City of Ashland is requesting proposals for professional engineering services for a Water System Plan (WMP) update. The intent of this project is not a complete re-write or change in methodology, but an update, validation and continued evaluation of critical water needs, specifically for the 2020-2030 planning period. The project will include but is not limited to the following tasks: • Develop comprehensive project scope and timeline • Update the climate change analysis • Review, analyze, validate and identify gaps in Ashland's existing water master plans and water sources • Evaluate current drought response and curtailment plans • Analyze system staffing needs including, engineering, distribution and treatment • Attend Ashland Water Advisory Committee meetings • Attend City Council meetings • Re-evaluate financial plan for the 2020-2030 planning period • Re-evaluate growth and demand modeling • Evaluate a "one" water concept for Ashland • Evaluate existing and future conservation programs In addition, the scope of work for WMP update will include requirements for planning, programming, and financing improvements to the community's water systems. The final update will accurately reflect future water system needs and demands, identify said improvements, include comprehensive and prioritized 20 year Capital Improvement Plan, an evaluation of water system and engineering staffing needs, and a specific financial plan to pay for recommended system and staffing needs that includes a water rate model. The water master update plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Oregon Administrative Rules for Public Water Systems OAR 333 Division 61. 1.1.2 Background The City of Ashland provides the City's Drinking water source supply, water treatment and water distribution to approximately 8,300 service connections. The City's primary raw water supply source is the Mount Ashland watershed which collects into Ashland Creek. The City owns and operates Hosler Dam where Ashland's source water is held in Reeder Reservoir. The water treatment plant is located below Hosler Dam next to Ashland Creek and has a peak flow of 7.5 million gallons per day in the summer and averages 2 million gallons per day (MGD) in the winter months. The water transmission and distribution system consists of 130 miles of water distribution lines, 6 pump stations, 53 pressure reducing devices, and 1115 fire hydrants. There are four distribution reservoirs with 6.65 million gallons of water storage. In addition, the City owns and maintains 334 separate irrigations meters using potable water and 187 irrigation accounts using Talent Irrigation District (TID). Reference Documents The City has posted a series of studies that need to be incorporated into the CWMP updatc. Many of those studies can be reviewed on-line at www.ashland.or.us. Additional documents will be supplied to selected consultant: 2008 Reeder Reservoir Study -J 2002 Water Distribution Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan _ 2001 USFS West Fork Stream Study 2000 USFS Ashland Creek Stream Survey _ 1998 Ashland Creek-Where Living Waters Flow - 1991 Comprehensive Water Plan 2006 Water Supply _ System Master Plan UPdate. Technical Memos 1-4 ~ - - - - - - I - 2009 Independent Part 12 Inspection Report J - - - - 2008 Preparing for Climate Change in the Rogue River Basin of SW Oregon -J 2012 Comprehensive Water Master Plan 2013 Water Management and Conservation Plan 2015 City of Ashland Council Goals 1. 1.3 Definitions For the purposes of this RFP: "Agency" or "City" means City of Ashland. "Council" means City of Ashland City Council "Business days" means calendar days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and all City recognized holidays. "Calendar days" or "days" means any day appearing on the calendar, whether a weekday, weekend day, national holiday, State holiday or other day. "Proposers" - All firms submitting Proposals are referred to as Proposers in this document; after negotiations, an awarded Proposer will be designated as "Consultant". "RFP" means Request for Proposal. "Scope of Work" means the general character and range of services and supplies needed the work's purpose and objectives, and an overview of the performance outcomes expected by Agency. "Services" means the services to be performed under the Contract. "Statement of Work" means the specific provision in the final Contract which sets forth and defines in detail (within the identified Scope of Work) the agreed-upon objectives, expectations, performance standards, services, deliverables, schedule for delivery and other obligations. "Qualification Based Selection" or "QBS" (for the purposes of this RFP) means evaluations and scoring of proposals based on qualifications, experience and project approach, without considering cost. 1. 1.4 Contract Form The consultant selected by City will be expected to enter into a written contract in the form attached to this RFP in Appendix A. The proposal should indicate acceptance of City's contract provision. Suggested reasonable alternatives that do not substantially impair City's rights under the contract may be submitted as outlined under Section 1.4.2. Unconditional refusal to accept the contract provisions will result in proposal rejection. Contract Duration - the maximum duration of the contract is 24 months. Contract Payment - Contingent upon City's need, consultant's performance and the availability of approved funding, City reserves the right to amend the contract (within the scope of the project described in this RFP) for additional tasks, project phases and compensation as necessary to complete a particular project. Proposers are advised that the award and potential dollar amount of the contract under this RFP will be contingent upon approval by the Ashland City Council acting as the Contract Review Board. Payment will be made for completion of, or acceptable monthly progress on, tasks and deliverables in conformance with contract requirements and all applicable standards. The method of compensation will be determined by the City and may be based upon any one or combination of the following methods: • Cost phis fixed-fee, up to a maximum NTE amount • Fixed price for all services, Fixed price per deliverable, Fixed price per milestone • Time and materials, up to a maximum NTE amount (City preferred method) • Price per unit DBE Participation - The utilization of federal funds is not anticipated in this contract and no DBE participation goals will be assigned. Ashland Living Wage Requirements - Consultant's employees must be paid at least the living wage as established by the City of Ashland on June 30, 2015 (14.42 per hour): • For all hours worked under a service contract between their employer and the City if the contract exceeds $20,142.20 or more. • For all hours worked in a month if the employee spends 50% or more of the employee's time in that month working on a project or portion of business of their employer, if the employer has ten or more employees and has received financial assistance for the project or business from the City in excess of $20,142.20. In calculating the living wage for full time employees, employers may add the value of health care, retirement, 401 K and IRS eligible cafeteria plans, and other benefits to the employee's wages. The City of Ashland Living Wage Statement is appended to the sample contract included in the appendix. 1.1.5. Business License Required The selected consultant must have or acquire a current City of Ashland business license prior to conducting any work under this contract. 1.1.6 Insurance Requirements Contractor shall at its own expense provide the following insurance: a. Worker's Compensation insurance in compliance with ORS 656.017, which requires subject employers to provide Oregon workers' compensation coverage for all their subject workers. b. Professional Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for each claim, incident or occurrence. This is to cover damages caused by error, omission or negligent acts related to the professional services to be provided under this contract. c. General Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $2,000,000 for each occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. It shall include contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided under this contract. d. Automobile Liability insurance with a combined single limit, or the equivalent, of not less than $1,000,000 for each accident for bodily injury and property damage, including coverage for owned, hired or non-owned vehicles, as applicable. e. Notice of Cancellation or Change. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew the insurance coverage(s) without 30 days' written notice from the contractor or its insurer(s) to the City. Additional Insured/Certificates of Insurance. Contractor shall name The City of Ashland, Oregon, and its elected officials, officers and employees as additional insurers on any insurance policies required herein but only with respect to contractor's services to be provided under this contract. As evidence of the insurance coverage required by this contract, the contractor shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates prior to commencing work under this contract. The certificate will specify all of the parties who are additional insurers. The consultant's insurance is primary and non-contributory. Insuring companies or entities are subject to the City's acceptance. If requested, complete copies of insurance policies; trust agreements, etc. shall be provided to the City. The contractor shall be financially responsible for all pertinent deductibles, self-insured retentions and/or self-insurance. 1.2 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS 1.2.1. Proposer Questions All inquires, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the services must be submitted in writing to the City's Project Manager listed in the advertisement for this proposal. at 20 East Main Street, Ashland Oregon 97520. All questions must be received not later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal submission deadline. Answers to questions received by City, which are deemed by City to be substantive, will be issued as official addenda to this RFP to ensure that all proposers base their proposals on the same information. When appropriate, as determined by City in its sole discretions, revisions, substitutions or clarification of the RFP or attached terms and conditions, an official addendum to this RFP will be issued. Proposer shall indicate receipt of all issued addenda by attaching a copy of the addendum to the proposal. The addendum will not be included in the total maximum page limit. Any addendum or addenda issued by the City which may include changes, corrections, additions, interpretations or information, and issued seventy-two (72) hours or more before the scheduled closing time for submission of bids, Saturday, Sunday and legal holidays not included, shall be binding upon the proposer. City shall mail registered proposers copies of such addenda. If you have not registered as a proposer you will not receive a mailed copy of the addenda. Failure of the contractor to receive or obtain such addenda shall not excuse them from compliance therewith if they are awarded the contract. 1.3 PROTESTS 1 .3.1 Award Protest Requirements Every proposer who submits a proposal shall be notified of its selection status. Any proposer who claims to have been adversely affected or aggrieved by the selection or any proposer who contends that the provisions of the RFP or any aspect of the procurement process has promoted favoritism in the award of the contract or has substantially diminished competition, must file a written protest to the RFP within seven (7) calendar days after the date of the selection notice. Failure to file a protest will be deemed a waiver of any claim by an offeror that the procurement process violates any provision of ORS Chapter 279A, 27913, 279C the City of Ashland Local Contract Review Board Rules or the City's procedures for screening and selection of persons to perform personal services. 1.3.2 Specification Protest Process Delivery: A proposer must deliver a protest of specifications to the City in writing no later than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal due date as follows: Specification Protest Proposal#: 2015-12 City of Ashland Public Works Department ATTN: Engineering Services Manager 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 Content: A proposer's written protest must include: • A detailed statement of the legal and factual grounds for the protest; • description of the resulting prejudice to the proposer; and • A statement of the form of relief requested or any proposed changes to the specifications. City Response: The City may reject without consideration a proposer's protest after the deadline established for submitting protest. The City shall provide notice to the applicable proposer if it entirely rejects a protest. If the City agrees with the proposer's protest, in whole or in part, the City shall either issue an addendum reflecting its determination or cancel the solicitation. Extension of Closing: If the City receives a written protest from a proposer in accordance with this rule, the City may extend closing if the City determines an extension is necessary to consider the protest and to issue addenda, if any, to the solicitation document. Judicial review of the City's decision relating to a specification protest shall be in accordance with ORS 27913.405. 1.3.3 Costs and Damages All costs of a protest shall be the responsibility of the protestor and undertaken at the protestor's expense. City shall not be liable for the proposer's damages or costs for filing the protest or to any participant in the protest, on any basis, express or implied. 1.4 "PASS / FAIL" PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Each proposal must comply with the following Pass / Fail criteria. Proposals not meeting ALL Pass / Fail criteria shall be rejected. 1 4 1 Proposal Submission Deadline (Pass / Fail) Proposals must be received by the submission deadline as indicated in this RFP and at the address specified. City will not accept proposals submitted by facsimile or electronic mail, nor will it accept proposals submitted after the proposal submission deadline. City is not responsible for and will not accept late or misdelivered proposals. 1.4.1 Terms and Conditions (Pass / Fail) Unless an official addendum has modified or reserved the right to negotiate any terms contained in the contract or exhibits thereto, City will not negotiate any term or condition after the protest deadline, except the statement of work, pricing and calendar with the selected proposer. By proposal submission, the selected proposer agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions as set forth in this RFP and as they may have been modified or reserved by City for negotiation. Any proposal that is received conditioned upon City's acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate will be rejected. 1.4.3 Proprietary Information The City is subject to the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.410 to 192.505), which requires the City to disclose all records generated or received in the transaction of City business, except as expressly exempted in ORS 192.501, 192.502, or other applicable law. Examples of exemptions that could be relevant include trade secrets (ORS 192.501 (2)) and computer programs (ORS 192.501(15)). The City will not disclose records submitted by a Proposer that are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Law, subject to the following procedures and limitations. The entire RFP cannot be marked confidential, nor, shall any pricing be marked confidential. All pages containing the records exempt from disclosure shall be marked "confidential" and segregated in the following manner: • It shall be clearly marked in bulk and on each page of the confidential document. • It shall be kept separate from the other RFP documents in a separate envelope or package. • Where this specification conflicts with other formatting and response instruction specifications, this specification shall prevail. • Where such conflict occurs, the Proposer is instructed to respond with the following: "Refer to confidential information enclosed." • This statement shall be inserted in the place where the requested information was to have been placed. Proposers who desire that additional information be treated as confidential must mark those pages as "confidential"; cite a specific statutory basis for the exemption, and the reasons why the public interest would be served by the confidentiality. Should a proposal be submitted as described in this section no portion of it can be held as confidential unless that portion is segregated as described in the criteria above. Notwithstanding the above procedures, the City reserves the right to disclose information that the City determines, in its sole discretion, is not exempt from disclosure or that the City is directed to disclose by the City's Attorney, the District Attorney or a court of competent jurisdiction. Prior to disclosing such information, the City will notify the Proposer. If the Proposer disagrees with the City's decision, the City may, but is not required to enter into an agreement not to disclose the information so long as the Proposer bears the entire cost, including reasonable attorney's fees, of any legal action, including any appeals, necessary to defend or support a no-disclosure decision. 1.4.4 I.aws and Regulations The proposer is assumed to be familiar with all Federal, State, County or City laws or regulations, which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work or the materials or equipment used or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and no pleas of misunderstanding will be considered on account of ignorance thereof. If the proposer shall discover any provision in these specifications or project information, plans or contract documents which is contrary to or inconsistent with any law or regulations, they shall report it to the City of Ashland in writing. All work performed by the contractor shall be in compliance with all Federal, State, County and local laws, regulations and ordinances. Unless otherwise specified, the contractor shall be responsible for applying for applicable permits and licenses. 1.5 " REQUIRED" PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ITEMS AND SCORING DEDUCTIONS Any items in this Section 1.5 marked as REQUIRED that are incomplete or are not submitted with the proposal will receive a three (3) point scoring deduction for each item and must be submitted within two (2) business days of request by City. Failure to deliver properly completed "REQUIRED" items within two (2) business days of request by City shall result in proposal rejection. COVER SHEET (Required) The proposal must include a completed cover sheet signed by a duly authorized representative empowered to bind the proposer (at least one original signature). The cover sheet shall state the project title, the legal name of the proposer, legal status, federal tax ID number, mailing address, primary contact person for this proposal with email address, telephone number, fax number and the name of the person authorized to sign a contract. Include an original signature, printed name and title and date. 1 5 1 Page Length Limitation (Required) The proposal must not exceed eight (8) pages, excluding cover sheet, any tabs or indexes and references, and any issued addendum. Failure to include addendum within the RFP shall result in a three point scoring reduction. If a proposer submits a proposal exceeding this limit, City will consider the pages up to that allowable number and discard all subsequent pages. One page is defined as: one side of a single 8 '/z" x 1 l " page. Any page over this size will be counted as two (2) pages. Any page or partial page with substantive text, tables, graphics, charts, etc. will be counted as one page. There is no scoring deduction for exceeding the proposal page limitation; however, extra pages will be discarded and will not be considered in the evaluation. 1 5 2 Quantity of Proposals (Required) Proposers must submit six (6) complete copies of the proposal and one electronic copy in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) in the sequential order of the proposal with a separate folder for any proprietary information. 1 .5.4 Minimum Proposal Contents A. Project Narrative: The narrative should provide a description of the consultant's understanding of the project objectives. B. Preliminary Work Breakdown and Schedule 1. The Consultant shall prepare a preliminary project work breakdown and schedule that anticipates all services required to complete the projects before October 1, 2018. The Proposal shall include a graphic Gant-chart style schedule of major work tasks with project milestones and estimate of time required to complete each task. C. The Preliminary Statement of Work (SW) 1. The Preliminary Statement of Work should outline phases of work and the relationship of the proposed tasks to meet the objectives of the project. It should include proposed methods of investigation, analysis, and design as appropriate. Key elements shall include: a. An expanded outline of all work tasks b. Detailed work schedule for each major task, including time frames and durations of each task. c. List all proposed sub-consultants, including their planned scope of work, key project staff and references (contact names, phone numbers, and email addresses). d. Description organized by task of City's anticipated role to assist in the development of the plan. Include specific deliverables needed from the City. D. After the winning proposal has been selected, the preliminary work breakdown and schedule for services will be used to negotiate and prepare the final budget and scope of services that will be submitted as the Statement of Work attached to the City's standard contract for Engineering Services. Invoices requesting payment shall be prepared monthly. Payment will be made as a percentage of completion of each task. The City's fiscal year ends on June 30th, and all work completed up to that date must be billed no later than July 5th. It is of particular importance that work or services rendered are paid out of the budget for the same fiscal year in which the services are budgeted and the service is rendered by the City. Therefore, costs associated with contractors' or subcontractors' work or services rendered under the direction or direct or indirect control of the proposer are also subject to the invoicing requirement listed above by June 30th of each year. By April 15th, the proposer shall submit an estimate of anticipated billings up to June 30th of that year. The proposer shall assume that there will be no opportunities to increase the total cost of the sum of all work tasks, but that costs may be shifted from one task to another after tasks are completed. The City's budgeting process does not provide a means to readily change the total project budget, and proposers must be clear that increases in the project budget will not be available after the Statement of Work has been accepted. Proposers are responsible to ensure that every effort is made to anticipate potential additional costs brought about by the project. SECTION 2.0 - EVALUATION PROCESS AND CONSULTANT SELECTION 2.1 EVALUATION PROCESS The City shall select consultants as provided in ORS 279C. 110 to provide services on the basis of the consultant's qualifications for the type of professional service required. Proposer will be selected in a manner to accommodate the Department's scope and schedule and budget objectives for a particular project. Screening and selection procedures may include considering each candidate's: 1. Specialized experience, capabilities and technical competence, which the candidate may demonstrate with the candidate's proposed approach and methodology to meet the project requirements; 2. Resources committed to perform the work and the proportion of the time that the candidate's staff would spend on the project, including time for specialized services, within the applicable time limits; 3. Record of past performance, including but not limited to price and cost data from previous projects, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cost control and contract administration; 4. Ownership status and employment practices regarding minority, women and emerging small businesses or historically underutilized businesses; 5. Availability to the project locale; 6. Familiarity with the project locale; and 7. Proposed project management techniques. a) If the screening and selection procedures a Department creates under subsection A.4.a) result in the Department's determination that two or more candidates are equally qualified, the Department may select a candidate through any process the Department adopts that is not based on the candidate's pricing policies, proposals or other pricing information. b) The Department and the selected candidate shall mutually discuss and refine the scope of services for the project and shall negotiate conditions, including but not limited to compensation level and performance schedule, based on the scope of services. The compensation level paid must be reasonable and fair to the Department as determined solely by the Department. c) If the Department and the selected candidate are unable for any reason to negotiate a contract at a compensation level that is reasonable and fair to the Department, the Department shall, either orally or in writing, formally terminate negotiations with the selected candidate. The Department may then negotiate with the next most qualified candidate. The negotiation process may continue in this manner through successive candidates until an agreement is reached or the Department terminates the consultant contracting process. 2.1.1 Proposal Evaluation City will review proposals for conformance with the "Pass / Fail" and "REQUIRED" criteria identified in Sections 1.4 and 1.5. Proposals meeting all Pass / Fail criteria will be forwarded to an evaluation committee that will independently review, score and rank proposals according to the scoring criteria set forth in Section 2.2. The outcome of the evaluation process may, at the City's sole discretion result in: a) Notice to proposers of selection or rejection for contract negotiations and possible award; b) Further steps to gather additional information for evaluation (e.g. checking references, notice of placement on an interview list, requesting clarification); or c) Cancellation of the RFP and either reissuance of the RFP in the same or a revised form or no further action by the City with respect to the RFP. City may reject any or all proposals and may cancel this RFP at anytime if doing either would be in the public interest as determined by the City. City is not liable for any costs a proposer incurs while preparing or presenting the proposal or during further evaluation stages. All proposals will become part of the public record file without obligation to the City of Ashland. 2 .1.2 Interviews / Follow-up Questions A process of interviews and/or follow-up questions shall be conducted and scored for the top two proposers at the discretion of the City. When the interview/follow-up process is conducted, the following will apply: • The City will conduct the interview/follow-up process with the top two proposers previously scored and considered to be the most qualified proposer(s) to perform the potential Scope of Services. The City may conduct more than one interview at its sole discretion. o Interviews will require physical attendance at City's offices. All sub-consultants requested by the City must also attend the interview(s) o Follow-up questions (if developed) will typically be sent via email to proposer(s). Written answers to any follow up questions must be returned within 14 calendar days of date of mailing. An e-mail confirmation of receipt of any follow-up questions shall be sent by the consultant to the City's Project Manager. • A minimum of three (3) evaluators will score the interviews/follow-up questions. • The interviews/follow-up questions will have a maximum score of ten (10) points per evaluator. • An additional three (3) points will be awarded to the No. 1 ranked proposer based upon the evaluation of the initially submitted RFP's. An additional two (2) points will be awarded to the proposer- ranked No. 2; unless the point spread between the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked proposers is greater than ten (10) points. In this case; no additional points will be given to the No. 2 proposer. No additional points will be awarded to proposers ranked below No. 2 and chosen to be part of the interview/follow-up process. 2.1.3 References City does not intend to score references, but may contact references (by phone, email or fax) to verify information provided in proposals. 2.1.4 Clarifications City may require any clarification it needs to understand the proposer's proposal. Any necessary clarifications or modifications which are in the best interest of City may be made before the proposer is awarded a contract and some or all of the clarifications or modifications may become part of the final contract. Clarifications may not be used to rehabilitate a non-responsive proposal. 2.1.5 Non-resident Proposer In determining the most responsive proposer, City shall, for the purpose of awarding the contract, add a percent increase to the score of a non-resident proposer equal to the percent, if any of the preference given to the score in the state in which the proposer resides. "Resident proposer" of Oregon means a proposer that has paid unemployment taxes or income taxes in this state during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding submission of the proposal, has a business address in this state and has stated in the proposal that the proposer is a "resident proposer" of the State of Oregon. The undersigned represents him/her self in this proposal to be either a Resident or a Nonresident proposer by completing the appropriate blank below. • The proposer is or is not a resident proposer as defined in ORS 279A.120 2.2 SCORING CRITERIA Scoring will be based upon the following described categories. The proposer must describe how each of the requirements specified in this RFP are met. Responses should be clear and concise. 2 2 1 Project Understanding and Approach Maximum Score 30 points Demonstrate a clear and concise understanding of the scope of work being requested in this RFQ and summarize the approach and methodology proposed to meet the project requirements. Indicate any familiarity the Consultant has with the City's water system. Provide a description of your management approach and quality assurance activities, including a description of your process for coordinating work with the City and your approach for minimizing errors and omissions during design and construction. 2.2.2 Project Team and Resources Maximum Score 30 points Describe the experience and qualifications of proposed project manager (including sub consultant staff). Provide information regarding key staff members (including sub-consultant staff) who are anticipated to perform services. Describe team member's roles, specialized expertise and relevant project experience of key staff. Indicate availability and commitment of key personnel for this project. Also, include a brief description of the proposer's project resources (including new and innovative equipment, software, etc.) to be used on this project. (Any changes in the staff assigned to the project will require City approval). 2.2.3 Related Project Experience Maximum Score 25 points Include descriptions of similar projects. Include schedule and cost information, change orders, project outcomes and customer feedback received (if any). Include references (name, title, phone, email). 2.2.4 Responsiveness Maximum Score 15 points This criterion relates to how quickly the consultant can respond to City's requests/inquiries. The Proposer must demonstrate how time will be managed; describe Proposer's office locations and how they can cost-effectively complete this project. Include a description of how the Consultant will provide services from a remote location (if applicable). Describe how Proposer intends to ensure responsiveness during design, construction, and subsequent ongoing support services. Criteria Max. Score 2.2.1. Project Understanding and Approach 30 2.2.2 Project Team and Resources 30 2.2.3 Related Project Experience 25 2.2.4 Responsiveness 15 xxx NOTE: Do not include any information about price, pricing policies or other pricing information including the number of hours proposed for the services required, expenses, hourly rates, or overhead. 2.3 AWARD PROCESS 2.3.1 Negotiations Following the evaluation process, The City will begin contract negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer. The matters subject to negotiation shall be limited to the following: 1. Comprehensive Scope of Services and Statement of Work; 2. The Proposer personnel committed to the Project; 3. Project Schedule; 4. Professional fees, including reimbursable expenses; 5. Agreement to contract terms. 2 3 2 Action upon Failure to Execute Contract In the event that a contract cannot be negotiated with the highest ranked Proposer, negotiations will be permanently discontinued, and the City will start contract negotiations with the next highest ranked Proposer. Nothing in this RFP shall restrict or prohibit the City from canceling the solicitation at any time. 2.3.3.Notice of Intent to Award Based on successful negotiations with the highest ranked Proposer, the City will issue a Notice of Intent to Award a contract. 2.3.4. Evaluation Record A record will be made of all criteria evaluation ratings and all other grounds upon which selection of the Proposer is made. The final evaluation record will be available upon written request. 2.3.5. Right to Protest An adversely affected or aggrieved Responsive Proposer must exhaust all avenues of admin- istrative review and relief before seeking judicial review of the City's selection or Contract award decision. 1. Protest of Proposal Specifications: A proposer- who believes the proposal scope of work or specifications are unnecessarily restrictive or limit competition may submit a protest, in writing, to the Manager. To be considered, protests must be received at least ten (10) days before the proposal closing date. Envelopes containing protests should be marked as follows: Proposal Specification Protest Proposal Title Closing Date and Time 2. Protest of Award: The award by the City shall constitute a final decision of the City to award the contract if no written protest of the award is filed with the City within seven (7) calendar days of the Notice of Intent to Award. The written protest shall specify the grounds upon which the protest is based. In order to be an adversely affected proposer with a right to submit a written protest, a proposer must be next in line for award. The City will not entertain a protest submitted after the time period established in this rule. 2.3.6 Award The City will consider award of the project based on the Manager's recommendation and will authorize the Manager to execute a contract. The contract will be awarded to the proposer who, in the opinion of the City, is the most qualified, and meets all required specifications. The City may reject any proposal not in compliance with all prescribed public procurement procedures and requirements and may reject for good cause any and all proposals upon a finding of the City that it is in the public interest to do so. The City also reserves the right to waive any informality in any proposal and to delete certain items listed in the proposal as set forth herein. SECTION 3.0 - SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 3 1 1 Personnel Materials & Equipment: The Consultant shall provide qualified and competent personnel and shall furnish all supplies, equipment, tools and incidentals required to accomplish the work. All materials and supplies shall be of good quality and suitable for the assigned work. 3.1.2 Safety Equipment: The Consultant shall provide and use all safety equipment including, but not limited to hard hats, safety vests and clothing required by State and Federal regulations and Department policies and procedures. 3.1.3 Professional Responsibilities: The Consultant shall perform the work using the standards of care, skill and diligence normally provided by a professional in the performance of such services in respect to similar work and shall comply with all applicable codes and standards. 3.1.4 Project ManaVement: The Consultant and the City staff will meet as required during project duration. The objectives of the meeting will include reviewing the scope, budget, schedule and deliverables. The Consultant will be responsible to: 1. Organize and manage consultant project team and coordinate with city project manager and City staff. 2. Prepare monthly invoices and progress reports including the following: • Work Completed during the Month by work task as a percentage of completion. • Needs for Additional Information, Reviews, or Changes to the Scope of Work. • Scope, Schedule, and Budget Issues and Changes. 3.2 TASK SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: The following describes the major tasks and requirements specific to those tasks. WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Objective To conduct a detailed update to the adopted 2012 comprehensive water master plan. The intent of this water master plan update is to evaluate Ashland's water needs from 2020 to 2030. This evaluation should include the same elements (population forecasting, demand analysis, financial plan with rate analysis, supply evaluation, conservation analysis, climate change modeling, etc) as outlined in the 2012 master plan. In addition, a "one water" evaluation shall be included along with analysis of the City's current drought response plan and evaluation of Mt. Ashland aquifer. The master plan update shall be consistent in chapter development with current adopted plan. Chapter layout discussed below is associated with current master plan content. All items discussed below are expected to be in addition to the update of the existing master plan for the 2020-2030 planning horizon. The previously developed and calibrated system model will be provided. The City expects to make no changes to the current master plan CIP within the 2012- 2020 window. The City has previously established an Ashland Water Advisory Committee (AWAC) that will be reconvened for the master plan update to act as the technical advisory committee. It is expected the consultant will host monthly meetings with city staff and AWAC to discuss project information and analysis outcomes during the update process. Consultant will be responsible for preparing agendas and meeting minutes. Consultant will also be required to present findings before the public and the City Council. Critical information that shall be included in the update, but not limited to the following: • Analysis of a one water concept for the City of Ashland including discussion on regulatory issues. • Review of City's current drought response plan along with recommendations for improvement if warranted. • Analysis of the current 2.13 MGD TAP emergency system for future water supply needs as it relates to updated forecast of supply and demand. Analysis will also include additional water rights needs associated with TAP as a supply source. Currently the TAP supply is generated for a 1000 acre-ft water permit from Lost Creek Reservoir. • Analysis of the Mt. Ashland watershed aquifer potential. • Analysis and recommendations towards phase II of the proposed new 2.5 MGD water treatment plant. • Analysis of micro-hydro power generation potential within the City's distribution system • Reeder Reservoir water quality analysis including sediment removal options to increase reservoir impoundment and improve water quality (nutrient removal). • Evaluation of a financial plan for the 2020-2030 planning period for Capital and infrastructure maintenance needs. Updated master plan shall also incorporate cost of service study that is currently underway. • Evaluation of conservation programs as a continued long term supply option for the City. o Evaluate cost effectiveness of current conservation programs o Evaluate cost effectiveness for a rebate program associated with graywater improvements • Update the climate change analysis including new data associated with severe drought associated with the City's water supply. • Update supply demand models through the planning period, including the Normal Ave. neighborhood plan build out. • Staffing needs analysis including distribution, treatment and engineering. • Distribution system updates including; o Radio read meter program cost benefit analysis o Scada radio replacement options and fiber alternatives o Cost benefit of providing TID water to the backside of City's irrigation canal In addition to updating the master plan components for the 2020-2030 time period the consultant shall develop an all encompassing operations and maintenance (O&M) living document for the distribution system and its associated appurtenances. City to provide input and data regarding development of O&M document. O&M document shall include but is not limited to: • Cross connection program • Hydrant maintenance and replacement program • Pump station maintenance and replacement program • Flushing program • Valve maintenance 2012 Master Plan General Breakdown: CHAPTER 1 - EXISTING SYSTEM 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 OWNERSHIP 1.3 SERVICE AREA 1.4 EXISTING SUPPLIES 1.5 EXISTING FACILITIES 1.5.1 Pipes 1.5.2 Storage Facilities 1.5.3 Pump Stations 1.5.4 Pressure Reducing Valve Stations 1.5.5 Pressure Zones 1.5.6 Existing Water Treatment Plant 1.6 SYSTEM OPERATIONS CHAPTER 2 - LOS GOALS 2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW 2.3 WCRS LEVEL OF SERVICE GOALS 2.4 CWMP LEVEL OF SERVICE GOALS 2.4.1 Distribution System Piping 2.4.2 Pump Stations 2.4.3 Storage CHAPTER 3 - POPULATION AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS 3.1 INTRODUCTION 3. 1.1 Historic and Projected Populations 3.1.1.1 Historic Population 3.1.2 Projected Population 3.2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED DEMANDS WITHOUT CONSERVATION 3.2.1 Historical Demands 3.2.2 Projected Demands without Additional Water Conservation CHAPTER 4 - WATER CONSERVATION 4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 LEVEL OF SERVICE GOALS 4.3 CURRENT CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 4.4 HISTORICAL WATER SAVINGS THROUGH CONSERVATION 4.4.1 Per Capita Demands 4.5 UNACCOUNTED FOR WATER 4.6 WATER USE PATTERNS 4.6.1 Customer Categories 4.6.2 Indoor Versus Outdoor 4.7 COMPARISON WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES 4.8 CONSERVATION AND CURTAILMENT GOALS 4.8.1 Conservation Goals 4.8.1.1 Monthly Demands with Varying Conservation Levels 4.8.1.2 Maximum Day Demands 4.8.2 Curtailments 4.9 POTENTIAL NEW CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 4.10 RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 5 - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS 5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 5.3 SERVICE AREAS 5.3.1 Service Area Demands 5.4 FINISHED WATER STORAGE 5.4.1 Operational Storage 5.4.2 Fire Flow Storage 5.4.3 Emergency Storage 5.4.4 Combined Storage Requirements 5.4.5 Storage Criteria Adjustments 5.4.5.1 Criterion 2 - 1.0 x MDD 5.4.5.2 Criterion 3 - Reliable Supply Capacity 5.4.5.3 Criterion 4 -Nested Emergency and Fire Flow 5.4.5.4 Summary of Varying Emergency Criteria 5.4.6 Identification of Storage Deficiencies 5.4.7 Storage Improvements 5.4.7.1 Alsing Service Area Expansion 5.4.7.2 Crowson Reservoir II 5.4.7.3 Loop Road Reservoir 5.5 PUMPING CAPACITY 5.5.1 Pumping Improvements 5.5.2 Connect South Mountain & Park Estates Service Areas 5.5.3 New Park Estates Pump Station 5.6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PIPING 5.6.1 Hydraulic Model Update and Calibration 5.6.2 System Analysis Results 5.6.2.1 Pressure at Peak Hour Demands 5.6.2.2 Fire Flow Availability 5.6.3 Recommended Projects 5.6.3.1 Crowson Reservoir 11 5.6.3.2 Park Estates Pump Station 5.6.3.3 Pipe Improvement Projects 5.6.4 Resulting Deficiencies after Improvements CHAPTER 6 - WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT 6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 6.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 6.3.1 DWP Cyanobacteria Guidelines 6.4 WATER QUALITY MONITORING 6.5 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 6.6 WATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION 6.6.1 Chlorination 6.6.2 Taste and Odor Control 6.6.3 Treating Seasonal Cold and Turbid Water 6.6.4 Water Treatment Following Wild Fires 6.6.5 TID as a Raw Water Source 6.6.6 Minor Capital Improvements CHAPTER 7 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 7.1 INTRODUCTION 7. 1.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions 7.2 CAPITAL PROJECTS 7.2.1 Water Supply S-1 FERC Dam Security and Telemetry Improvements S-2 FERC Dam Spillgate Upgrades S-3 FERC Structural Stability Analysis S-4 FERC Part 12 Hosler Dam Safety Inspection S-5 Ashland Creek West Fork Bridge Construction S-6 Reeder Reservoir Silt Removal S-7 Reeder Reservoir Study Implementation S-8 Reeder Reservoir Access Road TMDL Compliance S-9 Reeder Reservoir Variable Depth Intake S-10 TID Terrace Street Pump Station Improvements S-11 TID Canal Piping S-12 Test Existing High Capacity Wells S-13 Water Conservation Smart Controller Pilot Project S-14 Water Conservation Management Plan S-15 Emergency TAP Pipeline and Pump 7.2.2 Treatment & Storage 7.2.3 Distribution 7.2.4 Pipelines 7.3 CIP SUMMARY 7.4 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 8 - OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND RESPONSIBILITY 8.3 WATER SYSTEM STAFFING 8.3.1 Water Treatment Plant Staff 8.3.2 Water Distribution System Staff 8.4 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION & ENGINEERING STAFF 8.4.1 Staffing Needs 8.4.2 Conservation Staff 8.5 SYSTEM OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL 8.5.1 Pipe Replacement Program 8.6 EMERGENCY RESPONSE OPERATIONS 8.7 SAFETY 8.8 CROSS-CONNECTION CONTROL PROGRAM 8.9 SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT 8.10 RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING 8.11 CUSTOMER SERVICE 8.12 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 9 - FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 9.1 INTRODUCTION 9.2 REVENUE STABILITY 9.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FUNDING 9.3.1 Development of Revenue Requirements 9.3.2 Revenue Requirements Forecast & Results 9.3 .3 Modeling of Water System Revenue Requirements 9.3.3.1 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 9.3.3.2 Capital Improvement Plan Funding Strategy 9.3.3.3 Water Operating Fund Cash Flow Management 9.3.3.4 Water Capital Fund Cash Flow 9.3.4 Revenue Requirements 9.3.5 Water Rate Profile 9.4 SDC UPDATE 9.4.1 Background 9.4.2 SDC Calculation 9.4. _3 Proposed Total Water SDC 4<J 1frvVIII it~i r I~ P ~I E N PNR S P L S SC I E N T I STS S - •1~ / Fla Proposal for the City of Ashland WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE (2015-12) I Dear Mr. Faught, RH2 Engineering is pleased to submit our proposal to assist with the City of Ashland's Water Master Plan update. We are confident that our team will add value to your project, and are excited about the opportunity to continue working with you and your staff. RH2 has successfully prepared numerous water master plan updates similar to yours. In the last 5 years alone, we have prepared more than 20 plan updates. Our team is intimately familiar with the specific requirements of your water supply and the critical issues that you face in your system. This existing knowledge will allow us to update your water master plan in an effective and efficient way. Jeff Ballard, PE We have selected a team of experienced and highly-qualified professionals to assist the Project Manager City. This team was put together based on each specific critical item that you would like and Primary Contact evaluated in the plan update. As a project manager I have successfully managed many 541.665.5233 x5412 water utility projects and, as you are already aware from previous projects that I have jballardCdrh2.com completed with you, am readily available to respond to your needs. Our senior project engineer, Michele Campbell, PE, has worked on more than 25 water master plans and will expertly review the plan and provide guidance to the team. We have teamed with Black & Veatch to provide support for water supply, water quality, and climate analysis. Catherine Hansford has been recruited to prepare a detailed financial analysis, and Maddaus Water Management will contribute drought response, water conservation planning, and demand forecasting. Both RH2 and Catherine are currently working on other water system infrastructure projects with you and your staff, and will share this invaluable knowledge with the rest of the team. All of the work will be managed in our Medford office, 13 miles away from the City of Ashland. This allows us to quickly respond in person as necessary. We understand that this is an update and that you do not want to recreate the plan, but rather to assess the course you are proceeding on and identify any needed corrections. We have researched the critical issues that you want to address, and LEGAL NAME OF PROPOSER believe we can provide you the fresh look and shrewd assessment you are seeking. RH2 Engineering, Inc. This proposal details our expertise and our approach to this update, demonstrating why RH2 is uniquely qualified to take on this project. LEGAL STATUS Oregon Corporation Thank you for the opportunity to submit our qualifications. We look forward to hearing from you about the project. If you have any questions or would like additional FEDERAL TAX ID information, please contact me at 541.665.5233 or jballard@rh2.com. 91-1108443 Sincerely, MAILING ADDRESS C G~o 3523 Arrowhead Drive Suite 200 Jeff Ballard, PE Medford, OR 97504 Project Manager RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 800.720.8052 1 WWW.RH2.COM PROJECT NARRATIVE AND APPROACH PROJECT NARRATIVE AND APPROACH: RH2 has assembled a team of experts that are very HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE familiar with the critical items associated with your Water Once preliminary demand forecasting has been Master Plan Update (WMPU). The members of the team completed, RH2 will begin working on updating and have worked closely together on previous projects calibrating the hydraulic model for the water system. and/or have worked directly with the City of Ashland. RH2 recently updated the hydraulic model to its current Jeff Ballard will be the local point of contact and will state. This work experience has given us incomparable work seamlessly with the other members of the team knowledge of your current model and distribution to provide local knowledge and availability, as RH2 has system. While completing the analysis on your existing demonstrated on past projects. Members of our team system, we learned the intricacies of the system, which are also very familiar with presenting information to the has enabled us to make recommendations for improving City staff and Council in a very concise, clear manner. the operations of the distribution system. RH2 offers our clients water model calibration services ` y ® • existing knowledge that are second to none. We maintain our own field Ut _ will utilize E> testing devices that provide assurance in the accuracy m • " system to • of the testing. As a realistic representation of the actual ° needed to familiarize operation of the system, the resulting calibrated model IV s • therefore will give implementation-level detail and accuracy to your ® - • • the • ° _ WMPU. We believe that calibration is one of the best • in • the j. investments and insurance policies that a municipality can make, as the models are used to develop multi-million dollar projects through the capital improvement plan. Our team will begin by working with City staff to gain a complete understanding of the goals and DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSES level of analysis desired for each of the critical items Analysis of the current 2.13 MGD TAP emergency system associated with the WMPU. The first course of action for future water supply will be performed by RH2 early will be to work towards establishing accurate demand on in the project as a continuation of the work we began forecasting for the planning period. We will utilize last summer. Our understanding of the challenges and the DSS Model, which prepares long-range, detailed benefits that this new water supply creates from the demand projections. The purpose of the extra detail is Regional Booster Pump Station to the Crowson pressure to enable a more accurate assessment of the impact of zone are unrivaled. Our team will tie together the water efficiency programs on demand. This item will be evaluation of TAP, micro-hydropower, the new 2.5 MGD revisited continually throughout the project, taking into water treatment plant, and TID utilization into one account impacts of updated information that we gain integrated analysis. These projects should be analyzed through the development of the conservation program in conjunction with each other to verify that we are not evaluations and growth planning. Our team will establish missing opportunities within the system as a whole. a smooth and timely process that allows us to evaluate the changing conditions without accruing unnecessary One possibility for coordinating analyses includes costs. The final capital improvement planning schedule removing the Granite Street Tank, increasing the size will be driven primarily by this process. of Crowson II to cover the storage reduction, installing DSS MODEL APPROACH DATA COLLECTION 0 Agency Info . Model Setup ■ • . Consumption Data . Historical Demographics ` - • • • Projections RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT NARRATIVE AND APPROACH a pump station to move water up the gradient in an FINANCIAL ANALYSIS emergency, and in turn, creating power delivering water Hansford Economic Consulting (HEC) has been selected down to the Granite Zone under normal operation. The to work on the financial evaluation for the project. HEC long-term cost benefit of this option can be evaluated is presently working with the City on the current cost efficiently with the team that we have established. of service study, and will seamlessly input new data derived from the WMPU directly into the financial model Black & Veatch's Hydropower and Hydraulic Structures to evaluate the fiscal impacts derived from each of the group executes small and large micro-hydropower recommended projects that come out of the plan. HEC projects from initial site investigation through feasibility ~,,,~ill also assist with all of the cost benefit analyses for studies, permitting, and into final design and full-scale the project, including the work associated with the water implementation. For the Ashland master plan, Black & conservation program. Veatch will begin by evaluating the complete system to determine optimum locations for potential energy WATER CONSERVATION recovery. We will initially focus on the outlet from a new HEC has worked previously with Maddaus Water Crowson II reservoir into the Granite zone, and at up to Management, Inc., (MWM), who will be reviewing ten PRV locations throughout the system between the Crowson and Granite zones. the conservation programs and provide drought management input. Both HEC and MWM are very WATER TREATMENT ANALYSES excited to have the opportunity to work collaboratively on another project together. MWM is very familiar with The City currently serves its customers high-quality the Rogue Valley and recently worked with RH2 on drinking water that meets all federal and state the Southern Oregon Municipal Water Conservation regulations. However, both the Reeder Reservoir Strategy completed for the Cities Water Coalition. This and Talent Irrigation District (TID) supplies have been local experience will accelerate their ability to review the affected in the past by algal blooms and a recent plan and make recommended improvements by utilizing increase in taste and odor episodes. These events are their understanding of the regional climate, water use difficult for the existing treatment plant to effectively patterns, and the recent drought conditions. manage given the site footprint constraints and the operational limitations imposed by the adjacent power MWM will quantitatively analyze water use patterns by generating facility (i.e., absence of a direct, unbranched customer category, with an indoor/outdoor comparison, raw water line to the WTP to move pre-oxidant closer to providing output for the master planning effort on the reservoir). monthly demands with varying conservation scenarios (levels), maximum day demands, and added curtailment in times of drought. The analysis will include a review ® • • e d subconsultants of the 2013 Water Management and Conservation Plans recommendations and a discussion with City ® • and other team ,z staff regarding the guidebook released in March 2015 J -11 sea lessiv act as by the State of Oregon to make sure that the Master part s e to Plan and the Conservation Management plan are well _ coordinated. The results from the conservation analysis tr ; s e e project. r'~t f will incorporate all the items requested for Chapter 3 and 4 in the RFQ for inclusion in the Master Plan, and can be provided as a stand alone report if requested by the City. Currently, the City has CIP funding allocated to construct a new 2.5 MGD water treatment plant. This ONE WATER EVALUATION plant's conceptual design is intended to meet summer The purpose of a One Water evaluation is to perform demands. It also presents an excellent opportunity for a city-wide water balance, which will identify potential the City to better handle taste and odor episodes and sources beyond the traditional surface water supply comply with potential future regulations pertaining to in Ashland Creek/Reeder Reservoir. The One Water cyanotoxins and other contaminants that are currently concept includes an integrated approach that evaluates being evaluated by the Environmental Protection the entire water cycle and identifies all potential Agency. Our team will help evaluate the previous sources of water, including snow pack, surface water, recommendations against current and future regulatory groundwater, water conservation, wastewater recycling, updates, as well as potential water quality changes in stormwater runoff, and dry weather urban runoff. Ashland's source waters. RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 2 PROJECT NARRATIVE AND APPROACH WATER QUALITY water management decisions made in an uncertain RH2 staff have been previously involved in the critical future. They are familiar with a range of tools and issues associated with the water quality in Reeder methodologies that may inform the planning process Reservoir. Bob Willis worked with Jacob Kahn in 2008 depending on a client's particular needs. As part of to draft one of the original comprehensive reports planning efforts such as the City's WMPU, they can defining the water quality challenges in the reservoir. In provide recommendations for implementing climate an effort to continue this collaborative work, we reached resiliency into current water planning updates. out to Jacob and have discussed at length with him the Recommendations often include establishing climate challenges and plans associated with the water quality tracking protocols, identifying indicators of climate and possible alternatives. It is our understanding that trends, and setting trigger levels for adaptive measures. the City intends to hire Jacob under a separate contract so he can bring his expansive knowledge of the existing data to the table. During conversations with Jacob, it - • • • came to our attention that the team would need to have _ someone available to complete a hydrologic study of the reservoir to better determine all influences on the • • • • • reservoir, which in turn impact the nutrient loading in the • • • ' • • water body. Our team includes this specialized expertise and we will work collaboratively with Jacob to supply him with the It is recognized that the City of Ashland was able to information that he needs to better define his analysis generate a significant response by their water users and recommendations. One item to consider is that new to reduce their consumption by 30 percent under options have potentially become available to dramatically voluntary curtailment. These tasks will be handled expand opportunities with the addition of the TAP collaboratively by Black & Veatch and MWM. A drought intertie. It is now possible to take the reservoir offline response plan will be constructed as a framework for to complete more substantial work towards sediment monitoring and managing situations that may require and nutrient removal in the reservoir by supplying water water use restrictions, accompanied with thresholds for from the TAP source. This same scenario could be used progressive action. to enable more substantial modifications to the existing treatment plant to address existing process concerns. We reviewed the Preliminary Groundwater Supply and ASR Evaluation report prepared by GSI in 2010 and found that the study indicated that the potential to develop a large, sustainable supply from the aquifers in the • ® ® " • • ° rs have Mt. Ashland watershed are low to very low. Therefore, - - water with it is recommended that a conceptual cost evaluation be ® ® - , - • • - completed using the findings and recommendations from previous studies to determine if it might be cost-effective - • ® U_ r • to further explore aquifer potential as compared to other ® ® • potential water supply options. .t i ,sqo uin! a~ 4 fix. • {r' ST PRV CLIMATE CHANGE ANALYSIS Climate change analysis, drought planning and analysis 4► of the Mt. Ashland aquifer are critical items for this. WMPU. We are proposing very qualified professionals ~..omm_ ~2 at MASTER i ST PRV ST, P. RV I' METER K that have exceptional recent experience working in ~ 0' $037th "+NE 86th ST8 , California dealing with these exact topics. The vast AVEPRV w 116thAUEP, • . it 'o o m S ERA 8500'114th SSt majority of Oregon has not had to address these issues wr,ErERKZAVENEPRV to the extent that our southern Oregon communities m have. Our team members have been through the process and have developed a proven approach. Black & Veatch regularly conducts climate resiliency M::° 410 6ih T and climate change analyses to inform critical City of Kirkland fire flow heat map RH2 ENGINEERING, INC 3 PROJECT NARRATIVE AND APPROACH; PRELIMINARY WORK BREAKDOWN AND SCHEDULE O&M EVALUATION becomes available to the customer. This ties into RH2 has included team members that have extensive much more than just your distribution system, as this backgrounds in public water system management. These tool allows the customer to make valuable short-term individuals have decades of experience dealing with decisions that enhance your conservation program distribution systems, O&M documentation, and staffing capabilities. The key to a successful O&M manual is to needs. We are very capable of providing the information create what the operators need and want. Regulatory that you need to make sound decisions. requirements establish the need for a document. Operators establish the need for a useful, accessible, We have completed numerous cost benefit analyses and updateable document that helps them streamline associated with radio read meters and will utilize this the operation of the utility. To fully understand what past experience to minimize the cost of the evaluation. the operators want, we will hold involved strategy Our experience has shown that for a plan like this to meetings to combine their input and our knowledge of be as effective as possible, it is important to place a what is possible to create a document that meets the very high value on the information that instantaneously requirements of both the regulators and the crew. D NO, MI =r"Im. We have reviewed the tasks identified in the RFQ and and input by City staff for data gathering and discovery have prepared a preliminary schedule outlining the on the front end of the task. Once data gathering is duration and timing of each critical task. This schedule is complete, our team will begin efforts on the work plan highly flexible, and we look forward to meeting with you and prepare a preliminary deliverable at the 50-percent to better define the scope of each item so we can refine completion mark. At this point, we will reconvene the schedule and time commitments. Working together, with City staff to refine each analyses and confirm our we will create a final schedule that meets your time direction prior to completion of the final deliverable. This frames and spreads City staff involvement across the process will allow everyone to continue to be updated 18-month time period to avoid burdening your existing throughout the project, and is a proven approach workloads. The final schedule will be developed from a employed in previous master plan projects to deliver an strategy/planning meeting that will set the critical path exceptional product in a short time frame. and milestones. Most tasks will require involvement APR Water Source Protection, Updates, and Alternatives Reeder Reservoir Water Quality i E SEEM Climate Change Analysis One Water Concept Drought Response Mt. Ashland Aquifer Conservation Program Evaluation i Operational Evaluation Analysis of Micro-Hydro Within Distribution Staffing Needs Analysis Distribution System Updates/Hydraulic Analysis 0&M Manual - System Supply Alternatives Current 2.13 MGD TAP Emergency Supply Analysis Phase II of Proposed 2.5 MGD WTP Analysis Evaluation of Financial Plan Supply and Demand Model Updates 4 RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT TEAM PROJECT TEAM Our organizational chart is broken into the three major task areas that this project will address. Our team resources, major subtasks, and representative projects are all shown, to give an idea of the depth and breadth of our team and experience. Brief summaries of our key team members' roles and experience are included on the following pages, and full resumes are included in the appendix. Additional support staff will be utilized for this project and are not listed due to space limitations. Once we further define the scope, support staff will be assigned and submitted to the City for review and approval. PrWAA4M&1 CITY OF -ASHLAND RICK BALLARD, PE JEFF BALLARD, PE Principal-in-Charge Project .g- g+ o ' g` o~ o f Vii), Bob Willis, P€, RH2 Ed Olson, PE, RH2 Michele Campbell, PE, RH2 System Planning Operational Evaluation Lead Master Planning and Hydraulic Modeling Black & Veatch Evan Malepsy, PE, RI-12 Zach Schrempp, EIT, RI-12 Technical Resource Water Rights Hydraulic Modeling Staff Engineer • Maddaus Water Management Dennis Kessler, PE, RI-12 Dan Malhum, PE, RH2 Conservation Specialist 0&M Expert Supply Treatment Expert Jacob Kahn Black & Veatch Hansford Economic Consulting (Direct hire by the City) Technical Expert Financial Analysis Black & Veatch Technical Resource > One water concept > Analysis of micro-hydro within > Current 2.13 MGD TAP > Drought response distribution emergency supply analysis > Mt. Ashland Aquifer > Staffing needs analysis > Phase II of the proposed > Reeder Reservoir water quality > Distribution system updates 2.5 MGD WTP analysis > Conservation program evaluation > 0&M manual > Evaluation of financial plan > Climate change analysis update > Supply and demand model updates • One Water LA 2040 Plan, Phase I, City • Duff WTP Flocculation/Sedimentation • Water Master Plan Updates for the of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Basin Expansion, Medford Water Cities of Richland, Arlington, Kirkland, • (Black & Veatch) Commission (Black & Veatch) and Marysville (RH2) • Short-Term Drought Analysis, City of • Bend Water Supply Project, • TAP Emergency Intertie Hydraulic Oklahoma City (Black & Veatch) Hydropower Generation Options Modeling and Design (RH2) • Rehabilitation of Walnut Canyon and Hydrogeneration Economic • Water Rate Study and Transportation Reservoir, City of Anaheim, CA Evaluation, City of Bend, OR Utility Fee Study, City of Ashland (Black & Veatch) (Black & Veatch) (Hansford) • Demand Forecast Update, Castaic • Long-Term Water Supply Study, Lake Water Agency (Maddaus) City of Salem, OR (Black & Veatch) RI-12 ENGINEERING, INC. 5 PROJECT TEAM AVAILABILITY AND .ROLE AND SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TEAM MEMBER Role: Project Manger. Jeff has 14 years of experience in municipal design > 30% Available engineering and facility planning. He manages RI-12's southern Oregon > 15% Commitment staff and works with the project engineers to deliver projects and meet for this project the goals and requirements of the jurisdictions. Jeff is creative, and > 14 years of strives to implement innovative ideas to solve challenging problems. He experience Jeff Ballard, PE is very accessible and will be the primary point of contact for this project. Role: Principal-in-Charge. In his role as a director and principal-in-charge > 74% Available for RI-12, Rick actively participates in projects to the level necessary > 2% Commitment to support the project team and client. His considerable design and for this project planning expertise, in addition to his innovative and creative approach > 27 years of to complex problems, is one of the many reasons that clients continue to experience Rick Ballard, PE request his involvement on projects. Role: System Planning. Bob serves as the technical expert or project > 85% Available manager for major management studies and designs of groundwater, > 2% Commitment 7.. water treatment, pipeline, pump station, and hydropower projects. Bob for this project was a Chief Engineer with the Portland Water Bureau and worked on > 41 years of nearly all aspects of a water utility. Bob was principal engineer or project experience manager for several major projects for Ashland, including water quality Bob Willis, PE studies for the Reeder Reservoir, and hydropower modifications. Role: Technical Support. Ed has 44 years of experience in the design, > 80% Available _ operation, and maintenance of municipal water systems. As engineer > 3% Commitment i►,`" and manager for two large utilities, he has completed numerous facility for this project plans, operational studies, and water rates studies. Ed also has extensive > 44 years of experience in the planning and design of reservoirs, pump stations, water experience Ed Olson, PE treatment facilities, and distribution mains. Role: Water Rights. Evan has worked on numerous water rights projects > 60% Available throughout southern Oregon. He has built relationships and works closely > 4% Commitment with both the local watermaster and the staff at the state level regarding for this project all facets of water rights. Evan is very familiar with navigating the process > 13 years of associated with water rights obtained from Lost Creek Reservoir. experience Evan Malepsy, PE Role: Master Planning and Hydraulic Modeling. Michele is experienced > 51% Available in hydraulic modeling, engineering planning, and design. Her background > 10% Commitment includes various municipal engineering planning efforts, including for this project more than 25 water master plans. Michele effectively bridges the gap > 16 years of between engineering, planning, and design to guide her clients in making experience Michele Campbell, PE financially responsible investments towards their aging infrastructure. Role: Hydraulic Modeling Staff Engineer. Zach is a staff engineer at > 50% Available RI-12 and has worked on a variety of projects, including water and sewer > 17% Commitment system modeling and planning. He has experience with a variety of for this project engineering software, including WaterCAD, WaterGEMS, Infowater, SewerCAD, ArcGIS, Civil3D, and AutoCAD. > 2 years experience Zach Schrempp, EIT Role: O&M Expert. As a utility engineering manager for the Portland > 85% Available Water Bureau, Dennis oversaw engineers responsible for planning and > 2o /o Commitment implementing the Capital Program. This included direct management for this project responsibility for large capital programs and large complex projects. He 38 years of has extensive experience leading multi-disciplinary teams to develop experience Dennis Kessler, PE master plans, engineering analyses, designs of water facilities. RI-12 ENGINEERING, INC. " PROJECT TEAM AVAILABILITY AND .O AND SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TEAM MEMBER Role: Supply Treatment Expert. Dan is the head of RH2's Water > 67% Available Treatment Group and oversees complex, cutting-edge facility projects > 4% Commitment that include well development and rehabilitation, groundwater and for this project 41~ surface water treatment, and wastewater planning and improvements. For the past 19 years, Dan has expanded RH2's treatment experience, giving > 19 years of our company the breadth and depth to meet all of our clients' needs for experience Dan Mahlum, PE water solutions. Maddaus Water Management - Role: Demand Forecasting and > 20% Available Conservation Review. MWM will prepare a cost-effectiveness analysis > 5% Commitment using a review of current programs, assessment of water losses, for this project / review historical per capita demand trends, and comparison with other > 20 years of communities based on a list agreed upon by the City. MWM proposes to Lisa Maddaus refine the City's conservation goals using the DSS Model. experience Hansford Economic Consulting - Role: Financial Analysis. Catherine's > 20% Available passion for water resources coupled with her education and career in > 5% Commitment economics complement one another. In this era when the link between for this project water and economic vitality becomes more evident and stressed, Catherine draws on her experience to assist with decision making for the > 15 years of Catherine Hansford best use of scarce resources and making appropriate financial planning. experience Black & Veatch - Role: Water System Planner. Michael has 35 years > 20% Available of experience conducting and supervising work related to integrated > 5% Commitment water resource management, watershed management, and regulatory for this project strategy and negotiation. He was recently the Senior Project Advisor for One Water LA 2040 Plan. He specializes in the growing field of e > 35 experience of watershed management and has assisted numerous watershed groups to experience Michael Drennan collaboratively define and accomplish their mission. Black & Veatch - Role: Treatment Process Lead. Benjamin has designed > 25% Available and conducted a number of desktop, bench-scale, and pilot scale > 15% Commitment evaluations for treatment process selection and optimization, corrosion, for this project and general water quality within treatment plants and distribution > 10 years of systems. He has conducted jar testing for removal of organics, turbidity, and oxidation of inorganic compounds. He has designed and conducted experience Benjamin Klayman, PE bench scale tests for taste and odor removal, using bench scale ozone generation equipment. Black & Veatch - Role: Treatment Plant Lead. Patrick is an expert in the > 40% Available management, design, and study of water treatment and supply projects > 10% Commitment and, hydroelectric generation projects. He has managed and designed for this project c drinking water plant upgrades, intakes and fish screens, individual > 22 treatment processes, pump stations and pipelines, drinking water experience of reservoirs, and hydroelectric projects. experience Patrick Van Duser, PE Black & Veatch Role: Water System Plan. Kliton is an expert in water > 10% Available supply studies, hydraulic structure modeling, and regional facility master > 5% Commitment planning. He managed the evaluation of the potential cooperative use of for this project raw water, water treatment, and finished water conveyance facilities for > 20 years of Denver Water, Aurora Water, and South Metro Water Supply Authority. Klinton Reedy experience RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. / PROJECT EXPERIENCE IN Ll The following Water Master Plan Update projects were CITY OF MARYSVILLE completed by our team members, and each one was RH2 performed hydraulic analyses to optimize the completed on time and within budget. system's hydraulic operation and reduce operating expenses. We completed pump testing and energy CITY OF RICHLAND evaluations and used the results for input into the RH2 identified improvements that would significantly operational strategy. Our team also performed hydrant improve the water quality of the water system, including flow tests and EPS model calibration, and utilized creating one-way circulation through areas under pressure transducer recorders to evaluate hydraulic development to force the exchange of water in the transients in the system. Our recommendations included outlying reservoirs, resulting in reduced water age, pump and control valve staging, which reduced overall improved chlorine residual, and optimization of fire flow source production costs by 16 percent. capabilities. We also analyzed interties with the Cities of > Schedule: In progress, completion in March 2016 Kennewick and West Richland, as well as a new Yakima > Project Cost: $218,217 (estimated) River crossing for reliability. > Schedule: Completed June 2010; > Change Orders: NA 2016 update in progress > Customer Feedback: Client is pleased with the > Project Cost: $210,000 (for 2009 update) work product prepared to date. > Change Orders: NA > Customer Feedback: Client was pleased with the work product and selected RH2 to perform the second update, scheduled for completion in 2016. CITY OF KIRKLAND `rte We have assisted the City of Kirkland with their Water Master Plan updates for the past 17 years. Since the last update, improvements have been installed and other system developments shifted demand centers, changing the fire flow capacity in various areas. RH2 provided system optimization analyses to maximize the available fire flow by modifying operational setpoints of Hydrant testing for the City of Marysville the system's facilities and PRVs. > Schedule: Completed June 2015 CITY OF ARLINGTON > Project Cost: $151,211 RH2 prepared the 2004 and 2010 Water Master Plans, > Change Orders: NA as well as a 2015 update. We performed detailed demand forecasts and modeled demand centers based > Customer Feedback: Client was pleased with the on new zoning. Results from true pump condition work product and selected RH2 to also prepare testing were incorporated into the CIP scheduling. their General Sewer Plan in 2016. Our team collected and compared actual field fire flow and pressure data with model results. The calibrated 14tH AVE model predicts actual field data results with an average TIPRV 4 ] accuracy of 98 percent. We also developed a kmz file to overlay the fire flow analyses results into Google Earth for easy viewing by City staff. > Schedule: Completed July 2015 r.. FF• -Y 1F 4 M1,lSTE r> 1;~EPk > Project Cost: $75,000 F 1, 1, > Change Orders: NA Customer Feedback: Client was satisfied with the o„.~• j~ final work product. Kirkland fire flow heat map RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. i T ' RI-12 ENGINEERING Jeff Ballard, PE Rick Ballard, PE e Bob Willis, PE Ed Olson, PE .r~ Evan Malepsy, PE Michele Campbell, PE A' Zach Schrempp, EIT y Dennis Kessler, PE Dan Mahlum, PE HANSFORD ECONOMIC CONSULTING E~ _c Catherine Hansford M MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT Lisa Maddaus BLACK AND VEATCH t. Michael Drennan y Benjamin Klayman, PE Patrick Van Duser, PE Klinton Reedy RI-12 ENGINEERING, INC. PROJECT TEAM RESUMES 91 y. Jeff has 14 years of experience in municipal design engineering and construction management fields. He manages the RH2's southern Oregon design staff and works with the project engineers to ensure that projects meet the goals and requirements of the jurisdictions. Jeff is creative, and strives to implement innovative ideas and construction practices that do not accrue additional costs. Over the past 10 years with RH2, Jeff has worked collaboratively with Oregon EDUCATION cities to meet the cities' engineering needs. As the contract City Engineer BS Civil Engineering for three cities, he recognized the need to make use of available funding Oregon Institute of from grants and loans and design projects that are compatible with funding Technology limitations and meets the client's needs. His creative approach to funding, 2001 which utilizes his understanding of city finances and state laws, enables him to take advantage of available funding to complete projects in ways that most LICENSES engineers cannot accomplish. This work takes a strong relationship between public works staff, city finance, and engineering staff. Licensed Professional Engineer During his recent years with RH2, Jeff has gained an appreciation for the State of Oregon challenges faced by many small cities. Representing smaller communities requires specialized expertise, and Jeff possesses the necessary skills AFFILIATIONS to represent cities in any public works related matter. He takes pride in understanding individual city goals and developing ways to meet those goals American Council in a collaborative, cost-effective manner. Engineering Companies s American Public Works Association REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE American Water Works Association • TAP Emergency Intertie Project, City of Ashland Professional Engineers of • Alsing Reservoir Water Quality Improvements Analyses, City of Ashland Oregon • Highway 99 Waterline Replacement, City of Central Point EXPERIENCE • Tolo Waterline Extension Evaluation, City of Central Point 14 years of experience 10 years at RH • Vilas Reservoir and Pump Station, City of Central Point • Water System Master Plan, City of Central Point • Bay Street Waterline, City of Florence • Booster Pump Station Analysis, Hydraulic Calculations and Construction Feasibility Report, City of Florence • Fern Valley Interchange Waterline Replacement, City of Phoenix • Rogue River Tank Siting Study, City of Rogue River • Highway 99 Waterline Replacement, City of Talent • RBPS Pump Station Evaluation, Cities of Talent, Ashland, and Phoenix RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 10 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES RIMBALLARD, fir, 5 Rick has been working in the municipal consulting engineering business for 27 years and has a diverse background in all aspects of the design and implementation of water, wastewater, drainage, and street improvement projects. Rick has completed engineering projects in five western states and spent the past 19 years working with a variety of RH2 clients across Washington and Oregon. In his role as a director and principal-in-charge for RH2, Rick actively EDUCATION participates in projects to the level necessary to support the project team BS Civil Engineering and client. His considerable design and planning expertise, in addition to his University of Idaho innovative and creative approach to complex problems, is one of the many 1988 reasons that clients continue to request his involvement on projects. LICENSES REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Licensed Professional Engineer State of Washington • TAP Emergency Intertie Project, City of Ashland State of Oregon • Alsing Reservoir Water Quality Improvements Analyses, City of Ashland AFFILIATIONS • Domestic Water System Replacement, Peshastin Water District American Society of • Indian Road Reservoir, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Civil Engineers • City of Sultan 632 Zone Booster Pump Station Improvements, Trane USA, Inc. Water Environment Federation • Cedarhome Well Retrofit, City of Stanwood • Union Hill South Booster Pump Station, Union Hill Water Association EXPERIENCE • Wenatchee Avenue Water Main Replacement, City of Wenatchee 27 years of experience 19 years at RH2 • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Arlington • Comprehensive Water Plan, City of Sultan • Water and Sewer General Services, City of Sultan • 2012 Water System Plan Update, City of Kirkland • Alternative Water Source Investigation, Town of Eatonville . Well Screen Reconstruction, Northeast Sammamish Sewer & Water District • Des Moines Treatment Plant On-site Sodium Hypochlorite Generation, Highline Water District RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 11 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES :MINIM I&M 011%ft, VAN* Bob is the Northern Oregon Regional Manager and has served as the technical expert or project manager for major management studies and designs of groundwater, water treatment, pipeline, pump station, and hydropower projects for municipal utilities for the last 41 years. Bob worked for 28 years in various engineering and management positions with the Portland Water Bureau. His responsibilities with the Bureau involved nearly all aspects of a water utility, including service as Chief Engineer. Bob has EDUCATION designed or been responsible for the design of hundreds of miles of pipelines MS Civil Engineering from sewer collection mains, water distribution mains to 96-inch-high pressure (Environmental Engineering), conduits. His work included customer relations, public information, and utility Stanford University planning for all aspects of a public utility. Several projects included the design 1971 and permitting of water and sewer treatment systems of all sizes, major road BS Civil Engineering additions and improvements, storm drainage systems, property acquisitions, California State University at building design and seismic upgrades, and emergency planning. Chico 1970 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE LICENSES Licensed Professional • Water Supply Alternatives Study, City of Bend Engineer • Catastrophic Emergency Plan, Eugene Water & Electric Board State of California State of Oregon • Water Treatment Plant Improvements, City of Ashland Licensed Professional • UV Basis of Design Report, City of Portland Water Bureau Surveyor State of Oregon • Water Master Plan and Joint Modeling Study, Medford Water Commission and City of Central Point AFFILIATIONS • Water Master Plan, City of Phoenix American Water Works Association • Tank Siting Study, City of Rogue River National Rural Water • Myrtle Creek Reservoir, City of Myrtle Creek Association • Complete Water System Design, Shady Cove Water Works National Society of Professional Engineers • Groundwater Development Program, City of Portland Water Bureau Professional Engineers of Oregon Water Environment Federation EXPERIENCE 41 years of experience 3 years at RI-12 RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. " PROJECT TEAM RESUMES j Ed has 44 years of experience in the design, operation, and maintenance of municipal water systems. As engineer and manager for two large utilities, he has completed numerous facility plans, operational studies, and water rates studies. Ed also has extensive experience in the design and construction of reservoirs, pump stations, control system upgrades, water treatment facilities, transmission mains, and distribution mains. EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE BS Civil Engineering University of Idaho . Vilas Reservoir and Pump Station, City of Central Point 1971 • Water System Master Plan, City of Central Point LICENSES • Reservoir Siting Study, City of Ashland Licensed Professional Engineer • Water Treatment Plant Upgrades and Two Transmission Main Projects, State of Oregon City of Ashland • Myrtle Creek Reservoir, City of Myrtle Creek AFFILIATIONS • Rogue River Tank Siting Study, City of Rogue River American Water Works Association • Water System Master Plan, City of Phoenix • 0.50 MG Main Storage Reservoir and Treatment Plant, EXPERIENCE Shady Cove Waterworks 44 years of experience 10 years at RH2 • Southeast Reservoir, Medford Water Commission • Utility Manager, Medford Water Commission • Principal Engineer, Medford Water Commission • Westside Transmission Main, Medford Water Commission • Duff Water Treatment Plant Expansion, Medford Water Commission • Utility Engineer, City of Roseburg • 24-inch Roseburg Transmission Main, City of Roseburg District Engineer, Municipal Utility Engineering, General Waterworks Corporation • Winchester Water Treatment Plant Expansion, City of Roseburg • Roseburg Transmission Main Pumping Station, City of Roseburg RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 13 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES .1194301g:111 a I z 14 4:4 Michele has been a dynamic contributor to RH2 since 1999, and is committed to providing creative and cost-effective strategies for complex engineering challenges. Highly experienced in hydraulic modeling, engineering planning, and design, she functions as a key team member for RH2. She is an expert in pump selection and condition assessment and in the promotion of energy-efficient pump strategies. Her background includes various municipal engineering planning efforts, including more than 25 water system plans, as well as general sewer plans, emergency management plans, and detailed, project-specific plans. EDUCATION BS Civil and Environmental Michele effectively bridges the gap between engineering, planning, and design Engineering to guide her clients in making financially responsible investments towards their University of Washington aging infrastructure. This often requires a holistic perspective that promotes 2000 designs meeting the existing project goals and budget, while facilitating future infrastructure or operational improvements. Michele serves as an advocate in LICENSES the industry for an understanding between sustainability and affordability. Licensed Professional Engineer State of Washington REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE State of Oregon • Coordinated Water System Plan, Whatcom County AFFILIATIONS • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Kirkland American Society of Civil • Comprehensive Water System Plan, Stevens Pass Utility District Engineers American Water Works • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Arlington Association • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Stanwood EXPERIENCE • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Snohomish 16 years of experience • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Sultan 16 years at RH2 • Comprehensive Water System Plan, Manchester Water District • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Richland • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Fife • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Cashmere • Pump Station 4R, City of Blaine • Sunset Heights Hydraulic Analyses, City of Bellingharn • Water Pump Station Condition Analyses, Seattle Public Utilities • Horizon View #3 Booster Pump Station, City of Bellevue • Supply Station No. S2 Improvements, Cities of Kirkland and Redmond • Hazard Mitigation Plan, Shoreline Water District • Water System Energy Efficiency Study, Bonneville Power Administration • Bryant Well No. 1 Treatment Plant, City of Stanwood • Sewer Comprehensive Plan, City of Sultan RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 14 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES IT Mki ii Evan is a project engineer working directly with local jurisdictions, utility companies, and developers on a variety of private and public works projects. He has earned a reputation for providing innovative solutions that result in lower project costs while maintaining functionality. Evan's civil engineering experience includes roadway design, sewer and water main design, stormwater modeling and design, utility coordination, field inspection, construction support, and bid document and specification EDUCATION preparation for a diverse mix of construction projects. He has also coordinated BS Civil Engineering with clients to communicate and incorporate public concerns and ideas into Montana State University projects. Evan strives to provide quality designs that clients can be proud of. 2002 His projects are consistently completed at or near the original bid amount. In addition to civil engineering, Evan has recently worked on numerous LICENSES water rights projects throughout the southern Oregon region. Evan has built Licensed Professional relationships and works closely with both the local Watermaster and the Engineer staff at the state level regarding all facets of water rights. Some of the recent State of Oregon water rights projects Evan has worked on include: managing water rights for Certified Water a quasi-municipal water system, claims of beneficial use for private and public Rights Examiner clients, water right transfers for irrigation and domestic use, and water right State of Oregon research and mapping for large ranch owners and real estate brokers. AFFILIATIONS REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Professional Engineers of Oregon • TAP Emergency Intertie Project, City of Ashland EXPERIENCE • Gebhard Road Waterline, City of Central Point 13 years of experience • Peninger Road Waterline, Phase I and II, City of Central Point 8 years at RH2 • Fern Valley Interchange Waterline Replacement, City of Phoenix • 4th Street Waterline Improvements, City of Phoenix • Municipal Water Right Extensions, City of Phoenix • Newberry Subdivision Street, Storm and Water Main Improvements for the City of Oregon City Water System Mapping, City of Phoenix • Highway 99 Waterline Replacement, City of Talent • Water Management and Conservation Plan, City of Talent • Ongoing Ranch Mapping, B Bar K Ranch • Water Rights Assistance: City of Central Point, Shady Cover Waterworks, City of Ashland, numerous private clients RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 15 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES 1 Oki a i!A 113 4 1 an 0 4 k, Lei I z I al Zach is a staff engineer at RI-12 and has worked on a variety of projects, including water and sewer system modeling and planning, well efficiency analyses, lift station analyses, infiltration and inflow analysis/ reduction studies, sewer and stormwater conveyance design, and trenchless sewer rehabilitation. He has experience drafting plan sets, writing specifications, estimating costs, scheduling projects, reviewing contractor submittals, and providing construction observation. EDUCATION Zach has experience with a variety of engineering software, including BS Civil Engineering WaterCAD, WaterGEMS, Infowater, SewerCAD, ArcGIS, Civi13D, and AutoCAD. University of Washington 2013 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE LICENSES • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Arlington Engineer-in-Training • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Kirkland State of Washington • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Lynden EXPERIENCE • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Marysville 2 years of experience • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Stanwood 2 years at RI-12 • Comprehensive Water System Plan, City of Sultan • Comprehensive Water System Plan, Stevens Pass Mountain Resort • Coordinated Water System Plan, Whatcom County • Sewer System Planning, Douglas County Sewer District • TAP Waterline Hydraulic Modeling, City of Ashland • Tyee Well Pump Analysis, Highline Water District • Well #3 Replacement, Peshastin Water District • South Carnpus Lift Station Predesign Report, University of Washington • Navy Yard City Wastewater Facilities Conveyance Improvements Predesign Report, Kitsap County Public Works • Bayshore and Washington Utility Improvements Project, Kitsap County Public Works • Suquamish Phase I Sewer Rehabilitation, Kitsap County Public Works • 2014 Manhole Repairs/2014 Storm and Sewer Repairs/2014 CIPP Sewer Repairs, Paine Field • Andover Park West to Andover Park East Sewer Repair and Central Business District Sewer Restoration, City of Tukwila • 42nd Avenue South Wastewater Bypass and Sewer Main Replacement, Valley View Sewer District • East Marginal Way Emergency Storm, Valley View Sewer District RI-12 ENGINEERING, INC. -F16 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES t Dennis is a senior project manager specializing in drinking water projects. He has more than 40 years of experience leading, managing, and providing technical guidance on a variety of engineering and construction projects. As a utility engineering manager for more than 20 years, he oversaw a staff of engineers responsible for planning and implementing the Capital Program for the Portland Water Bureau, one of the largest northwest water utilities. This role included direct management responsibility for large capital programs and larger more complex projects including oversight of consulting and engineering staff delivery EDUCATION on the full range of potable water facilities. Dennis has extensive experience BS Engineering leading multi-disciplinary teams to develop master plans, engineering analysis, Oregon State University designs and construction management of water facilities. His work has 1973 included coordination with multiple government agencies, wholesale contract negotiations, customer relations, public information, permitting and development LICENSES of engineering standards for all aspects of water systems. Licensed Professional Engineer REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE State of Oregon - TAP Emergency Intertie, City of Ashland AFFILIATIONS • Transmission Main Cathodic Protection, City of Roseburg American Water Works Association WORK PERFORMED WHILE AT PORTLAND WATER BUREAU EXPERIENCE • Chlorine Disinfection and Chlorine Residual Maintenance Study, 38 years of experience Joint Water Commission 2 years at RH2 • Thompson Pump Station, Tualatin Valley Water District • Bull Run - Fish Flow Piping, Portland Water Bureau • Well 38 Groundwater Well Site and Pumping Facility, Portland Water Bureau • Scholls Ferry Road Bridge Water Line Relocation, City of Beaverton • Willamette River Crossing Study, Portland Water Bureau • Infrastructure Master Plan, Portland Water Bureau • Fanno Basin: Multnomah Section Water Main, Portland Water Bureau • Water System Design Standards, Portland Water Bureau • Downtown/Transit Mall and 1-205 Light Rail Transit - Water Utility Protection, Portland Water Bureau • Operations Facility Master Plan, Portland Water Bureau • Bull Run Dam No. 2 Spillway Pool, Portland Water Bureau • Climate Change on the Bull Run Watershed, Portland Water Bureau • Infrastructure Master Plan, Portland Water Bureau RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 17 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES Dan is the head of RH2's Water Treatment Group and oversees complex, cutting-edge facility projects that include well development and rehabilitation, groundwater and surface water treatment, and wastewater planning and improvements. For the past 19 years, Dan has expanded RH2's treatment experience, giving our company the breadth and depth to meet all of our clients' needs for water and wastewater solutions. Dan is involved in every aspect of the projects he manages, from pilot studies EDUCATION and preliminary design to construction management, startup, and testing BS Chemical Engineering services. As a result, he effectively directs the conceptual planning of a University of Washington facility knowing what will be successful after construction is complete and the 1996 operations phase begins. LICENSES REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Licensed Professional - Engineer State of Washington • Wastewater Treatment Facility Replacement, City of Cashmere State of Oregon • Wastewater Treatment Facility Replacement, Snoqualmie Indian Tribe AFFILIATIONS • On-Call, O&M, Capital Projects For Wastewater Treatment Facility, American Institute of City of Lynnwood Chemical Engineers • On-Call, O&M, Capital Projects For Wastewater Treatment Facility, American Water Works Douglas County Sewer District Association On Call, O&M, Capital Projects For Wastewater Treatment Facility, Pacific Northwest Clean Hartstene Pointe Water-Sewer District Water Association ATEC Water Treatment Facility Backwash Handling Improvements, Water Environment City of Lacey Federation • Southwest Well 1A Water Treatment Facility, City of Yelm EXPERIENCE • McMicken Heights Well and Treatment Plant, Highline Water District 19 years of experience 19 years at RH2 Tyee Well and Treatment Facility, Highline Water District • Bryant Well Treatment Facility, City of Stanwood • Central Well Water Treatment Facility, City of Sumner • Crest Reservoir, Treatment Facility, and Booster Pump Station Water Treatment Engineer, Northeast Sammamish Sewer and Water District • Water Treatment Plant Improvements, Skagit County PUD No. 1 • Well 31 Pump Station, City of Lacey • System Wide Chlorination, City of Lacey • Water Treatment Facility, Town of Eatonville RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 18 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES CATHERINE HANSFORD 111111111 I Catherine's passion for water resources coupled with her education and career in economics complement one another. In this era when the link between water and economic vitality becomes more evident and stressed, Catherine draws on her experience to assist with decision making for best use of scarce resources and make appropriate financial planning. EDUCATION Catherine provides clients analyses of current and projected economic MS Agricultural Economics conditions using key social and economic indicators. She is particularly University of Nevada, Reno sensitive to the public process required for economic development and land reuse plans. Catherine assists public agencies to match budgets with level of BS Rural and Environmental service needs for public: safety, transportation, and other major infrastructure Economics anticipated to support economic development. University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCE 15 years of experience • Water Rate Study and Transportation Utility Fee Study, City of Ashland • Water Resource Plan (portions), Truckee Meadows Water Authority • Water Conservation Plan, Truckee Meadows Water Authority • Water Demand Projection for the Rodeo Grounds Project, June Lake Public Utility District • ET Controller Pilot Study, Truckee Meadows Water Authority • Residential Water Demand Study, Truckee Meadows Water Authority • Water, Wastewater and Solid Waste Rate Studies, City of Livingston • Wastewater Rate Study, Woodbridge CSD • Water, Domestic Wastewater and Industrial Wastewater Rate Studies, City of Escalon • Water Rate Study, City of Turlock • Wastewater Rates Analysis, City of Riverbank • Wastewater Revenue Program, City of Colusa • Water Rate and Sewer Rate Studies, City of Newman • Water and Wastewater Utility Rate Study, City of St. Helena • Wastewater Rates and Capacity Charges Study, South Placer Municipal Utility District • Water Rate Study, Donner Summit Public Utility District • Retail and Wholesale Water Rates Study, Truckee Meadows Water Authority RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 19 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES EDUCATION LISA MADDAUS, PE MS Civil Engineering University of California iq~pii 111~~pii~ 11 2001 BS Civil Engineering University of California 1995 Lisa will prepare a cost-effectiveness analysis using a review of current programs, assessment of water losses, review historical per capita demand trends, and LICENSES comparison with other communities based on a list agreed upon by the City. Licensed Professional Maddaus Water Management proposes to refine the City's conservation goals Engineer using the DSS Model. State of California EXPERIENCE REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE 27 years of experience • 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Water Demand Analysis and Water Conservation Measures Update, Sonoma Marin Water Saving Partnership • Water Use Efficiency Strategic Plan, Santa Clarita Valley Family of Water Suppliers • Demand Forecast Update Project, Castaic Lake Water Agency • Water Conservation Master Plan, City of Santa Cruz, California • Water Use Statistics Comparison Study, City of Sacramento • Population Assessment and GPCD Review, Castaic Lake Water Agency • Water Conservation Analysis, Santa Barbara • Agency Water Resources Development and Management Plan West Slope Update, El Dorado County Water • Water Conservation Master Plan and Training, Cambria Community Services District, California • Water Conservation Plan, City of Sacramento, California • Water Conservation Pilot Planning Study, Water Conservation Program Plan, Procedures Manual, Honolulu Board of Water Supply (BWS), Hawaii • Regional Water Efficiency Program Management, Regional Water Authority, California • Climate Change Analysis Report and Drought Preparedness Plans, El Dorado County Water Agency and El Dorado Irrigation District, California RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 20 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES MICHAEL DRENNAN, PE, BLACK & VEATCHL Michael has 35 years of experience conducting and supervising work related to integrated water resource management, watershed management, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting, and regulatory strategy and negotiation. He provides leadership in the development of integrated sustainable solutions that help communities meet their water resource, water quality and public infrastructure needs, while protecting and enhancing their natural ecosystems. Micheal specializes in the growing field of watershed management and has assisted numerous watershed groups to collaboratively EDUCATION define and accomplish their mission. He has dedicated his career to developing BS Chemical Engineering practical solutions that provide community benefits as well as regulatory University of Washington compliance. He has a successful track record bringing diverse stakeholders 1996 together and helping them to align on a united purpose with win-win results. LICENSES Licensed Professional REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Engineer State of California One Water 2040 Plan, Phase I, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation Contract Manager and Senior Project Advisor. The One Water LA 2040 is a comprehensive plan being developed by the City of Los Angeles AFFILIATIONS to manage water in a more sustainable way, and identify synergies for American Society of collaboration within the City and other agencies related to wastewater Civil Engineers facilities, watersheds, water facilities and water resources. The plan will also address a number of emerging challenges and new conditions, including California's severe drought, reduced reliability of imported EXPERIENCE water supply, rising prices of imported water from Metropolitan Water 35 years of experience District of Southern California; climate change, sea-level rise; and MS4 Permit requirements. One Water LA also set out to cast a wider public stakeholder net and engage all City departments and relevant regional agencies in the development of this approach for sustainable water management. One Water LA is being developed in two phases. Working closely with public stakeholders, Phase 1 is being used to developed a vision for the plan, a set of objectives and guiding principles. Phase 1 also initiated in-depth discussions with City departments and regional agencies on integrated water management. • Enhanced Watershed Management Plans, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation • Integrated Resources Plan and Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California • Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering, Los Angeles, CA • Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, California, Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Los Angeles County, CA • Watershed Management Plan, City of Santa Monica, CA • Sun Valley Watershed Management Project, Los Angeles County DPW, Los Angeles, CA RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 21 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES 1E1Muw13Z1m ums, Ben joined Black & Veatch in the Water Treatment Technology group after y7 completing his PhD at Montana State University. He has designed and conducted a number of desktop, bench-scale, and pilot scale evaluations for ' treatment process selection and optimization, corrosion, and general water quality through the treatment plant and out in the distribution system. He has conducted jar testing for removal of organics, turbidity, and oxidation of inorganic compounds. He has designed and conducted bench scale tests for taste and odor removal, using bench scale ozone generation equipment. He EDUCATION has additionally designed, commissioned, and operated numerous pilot and PhD Environmental full-scale water treatment plants employing reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, Engineering MF/UF, ozone, and sand filtration technologies. Montana State University 2007 BS Civil and Environmental REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE Engineering University of California Water Treatment Plant Optimization Study, City of Folsom, CA 1998 Process Engineer. Responsible for finalizing the WTP optimization report and development of the protocol for challenge testing the full scale LICENSES filters at higher loading rates. The 50 MGD plant includes rapid mix, Licensed Professional pre-treatment with one conventional and two Actiflo basins, dual media Engineer filtration, and free chlorine disinfection using sodium hypochlorite. State of Oregon • Water Quality and Microbiological Evaluation, Portland Water Bureau Lead Process Engineer. Design of a holistic water quality monitoring AFFILIATIONS program to document existing baseline distribution system water quality American Water and microbiological activity as it relates to lead release in a municipal Works Association water distribution system. Assess the location, extent, and impact of water quality, nitrification, and general microbial activity on lead release in the distribution system and household plumbing materials. Organize technical EXPERIENCE advisory panel and coordinate input from five globally-recognized experts. 10 years of experience Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives, Washington Family Ranch, 8 years at Black & Veatch Antelope, OR Lead Process Engineer. Conducted an evaluation of treatment alternatives for compliance with the SWTR and LT2ESWTR for a system previously classified as groundwater but re-classified as under the influence of surface water. The evaluation of UV and cartridge filtration considered Young Life's current and future water objectives. The criteria for evaluation included capital and operating costs, footprint/building requirements, operations and maintenance requirements, and compatibility with existing well pump and other water facilities. • Duff WTP 65 MGD Flocculation/Sedimentation Basin Expansion, Medford Water Commission • Ceramic Membrane Treatment Plant Feasibility Study, El Dorado, KS • Lead Corrosion Mitigation Study, Clackamas River Water, Clackamas, OR • Distribution System Water Quality Evaluation, City of Glendale, AZ RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 22 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES :7!1 Oki [$I !Tal M Mill 11M *1 With 22 years of experience, Patrick is expert in the management, design, and study of water treatment and supply projects, hydroelectric generation projects, and construction management services. He has managed and designed drinking water plant upgrades, water system intakes and fish screens, individual treatment processes, pump stations and pipelines, drinking water reservoirs, and hydroelectric projects. Patrick applies innovation and team building to tailor specific solutions for EDUCATION successful delivery of complex projects on tight schedules. This expertise was MS Mechanical Engineering honed on water intake projects requiring multiple agency permitting, multiple University of Washington stakeholder approval and construction work during limited duration in-water 1992 work periods. He has experience in a variety of conventional water treatment BS Engineering and disinfection processes and has assisted on full-scale WTP start-up activities. Harvey Mudd College He has conducted water treatment pilot studies on numerous source waters 1990 in the Pacific Northwest. Patrick has delivered several projects via CM/GC and is well-versed in alternate forms of project delivery and pre-procurement for meeting tight schedules including CM/GC, Design-Build, and EPC. LICENSES Licensed Professional Engineer REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE State of Washington State of Oregon Medford Water Commission, Duff WTP Pretreatment Expansion, Medford, OR AFFILIATIONS Project Manager. Responsible for delivery of predesign, design National Engineers Week and construction services on expansion of the Robert A. Duff WTP Portland Region Event pretreatment processes from 45 MGD to 65 MGD, including designing for Planning Committee future first-time winter operations and the higher turbidity and TOC levels present. Project design included new sedimentation basins with plate B&V Intake and Screenings settlers, sludge removal and re-designed effluent weirs and improvements Technical Committee to rapid mix, chemical feed, solids handling and flocculation processes. AWWA PNWS Bench-scale testing of pre-ozonated water during summer and wintertime NW Oregon Subsection conditions was performed. Construction began in 2015. • Tigard Water Partnership, Pumping and Storage Components and River EXPERIENCE Intake Pump Station, Lake Oswego, OR Project Manager. Responsible for overall delivery of three of the six 21 years experience projects in the LOTWP program: 38 MGD River Intake Pump Station, 12 years at Black & Veatch 3.5 MG Waluga 2 Reservoir, and 20 MGD Bonita Pump Station. Hands- on project manager for the 38 MGD RIPS project that constructed a 85-foot-tall oval concrete intake tower with ISI-type rotating tee- screens, four 400 HP vertical turbine pumps, water quality sampling and a 26-foot-wide access bridge. Led coordination with the Program Management Team and Permitting Team, Sponsors and eight key subconsultants including during the very tight predesign schedule to meet the permitting deadline. Construction was completed in 2015. • Bull Run Dam No. 2 Towers Improvement Project, Portland Water Bureau • Geren Island Water Supply Study, City of Salem • Water Quality Corrosion Study, Portland Water Bureau • Water Loss Study,Portland Water Bureau RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 23 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES Klinton is an expert in water supply studies, hydraulic structure modeling, and regional facility master planning. He managed the evaluation of the potential cooperative use of raw water, water treatment, and finished water conveyance facilities for Denver Water, Aurora Water, and South Metro Water Supply Authority. EDUCATION REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE MS Civil Engineering Integrated Water Supply Operating Strategies City of Aurora, CO Colorado State Project Manager. Evaluated various integrated operating strategies 1999 comparing advantages and disadvantages of utilizing various mixes of BS Civil Engineering low total dissolved solids and high total dissolved solids water supply Arizona State University blend ratios. A plan was developed to achieve target water qualities, 1995 minimize operations costs, and maximize the availability of water during drought conditions. • Colorado River Basin Study, US Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV LICENSES Deputy Project Manager. The project included utilizing the scenario Licensed Professional planning process to identify a range of potential water demands for the Engineer entire Colorado River Basin and those areas adjacent to the basin that State of California are dependent on Colorado River water. The project included hydrologic State of Colorado investigations of surface water availability with and without the impacts of climate change. A range of potential supply versus demand imbalances AFFILIATIONS was identified and Kilton took the lead role in identifying and evaluating American Society of options for resolving the imbalances. Key options evaluated included: Civil Engineers water conservation, optimization of the existing system, water reuse, new surface water supplies, new groundwater supplies, aquifer storage and recovery, and desalinated water supplies. EXPERIENCE • Integrated Systems Yield Modeling, Aurora Water, Aurora, CO 20 years of experience Project Manager. As part of the Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency 20 years at Black & Veatch Project (WISE Project) Klinton led a team of B&V modeling professionals that were tasked with developing a computer model that could replicate key aspects of the Aurora Water raw water system. After calibration against other Aurora Water models, the tools were used to identify improvements projects required to meet interim and long-term demands for the Aurora service area and to meet contract water deliveries to the South Metro Water Authority. • Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency Partnership Study, Aurora Water, Denver Water, and South Metro Water Supply Authority • South Platte Water Supply Investigation, Denver Water, Denver, CO • 2009 Finished Water Distribution System Plan, Colorado Springs Utilities • Water Supply Plan, City of Fountain, CO RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 24 a F I.rc~ • i0= .^=e pop R•(•~ .yam ♦ rr.~u.ra .rats.. UQ NE 12.1`sfS7~8 •s bd a~ etc 106th AVE NEAPRV ~ o' ~ a s` • E . e VIM sr. ~D p.bj 10412 NE 116th~ST PRV rte, ; e~. y z r• • ~ i B ® s i i i ~ i i, o City of Richland Water Master Plan Update City of Kirkland Water Master Plan Update 10661 PDRR CREEKD PRV City of Arlington Water Master Plan Update GREE s City of Marysville Water Master Plan Update 10318th AVE PRV 9033 NE 100th ST PRV 13486th ST PRV) ~ ~ r248h - k; x7 I _STPRV SuP,RU e r r '803 71 h AVE PRV Flop, V ~ o y' o 0 hr, o °s 0`0 •y'rao s • • C* P' 0, 10 6th ST • S PR' s` ~a> • < °Q. 1 Q 512 E th ST PRV i i , s r n u y 6 p 111 h PL NE V r r ~ r`~ O ?NDS i ~QTH VE , NEE PRV,• RI-12 ENGINEERING, INC. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE KEY ELEMENTS WATER MASTER PLAN ✓ Assumption of New Service Area ✓ Water Quality Analysis RH2 assisted the City of Richland with their 2009 Water Master Plan, and was ✓ Reliability Evaluation recently selected to complete the 2015 update. ✓ Water Rights Analysis We were recently selected to assist Richland with their Water Master Plan ✓ Optimization Analyses update for the second time. As part of the 2009 update, we addressed new regulations that were not in effect at the time of the previous water system PROJECT TEAM plan. We also analyzed interties with the Cities of Kennewick and West Richland, as well as a large new service area in south Richland, and a new Paul Cross, PE Yakima River crossing for reliability. Our team performed a detailed water rights Ryan Peterson, PE evaluation and proposed recommendations for fully utilizing existing water Michele Campbell, PE rights and developing wells in south Richland. Ryan Withers, PE Our team identified improvements that would significantly improve the water CLIENT CONTACT quality of the water system, including creating one-way circulation through areas under development to force the exchange of water in the outlying Pete Rogalsky reservoirs, resulting in reduced water age, improved chlorine residual, and Public Works Director optimization of fire flow capabilities. 509.942.7558 COMPLETION DATE June 2010; 2016 update in progress - ~ , _ WIERTIE WTH NEST RICHLAND _ ZJ~ \ , n T~ t ~R. .r> i `C 3} ) I f i i 44 Y Z INTERIIES WTHCITv I M OF KENNEWCK INTERTIE WTH }m CITIES ESTATES Existing water system map RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 26 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE KEY ELEMENTS WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE7' ✓ Plan Update ✓ Optimization Analyses ✓ CIP Development We have consistently provided expert water system planning knowledge and and Prioritization high-quality deliverables, which prompted Kirkland to retain us for their last ✓ Demand Forecasts three plan updates. ✓ Model Calibration We have assisted the City of Kirkland with their Water Master Plan updates for the past 17 years. A portion of the City of Redmond water system was recently PROJECT TEAM transferred to Kirkland, so as part of the update, RH2 updated the hydraulic model, demand analyses, O&M needs, and GIS system mapping. Since the last Tony Pardi, PE update, improvements have been installed and other system developments Michele Campbell, PE shifted demand centers, changing the fire flow capacity in various areas. RH2 Ryan Withers, PE provided system optimization analyses to maximize the available fire flow by Barney Santiago, PE modifying operational setpoints of the system's facilities and PRVs. We also Zach Schrempp, EIT provided fire flow results at every node in a spatially defined geodatabase format compatible with Kirkland's current GIS mapping suite. CLIENT CONTACT Greg Neumann' 1080811 sm Water Division Manager crNEPRV . 10661 FORBES 425.587.3910 r CREEK DR PRA. COMPLETION DATE ~ AV 2015 WT& 8TH:.I 103 18th ! ST W PRV}L¢ AVE PRV d► 1033 NE ♦ 100th FP RV a; 1348 6th - • S PR ♦ R ~ c.r7, 48th • y w ASTER ST, P ST FRv METER K3 • ' ~ ~ e I B03 7th - ~NE 86th ST & llc~ AVE PRV 116th AVE PRV, ~p -o' b obb MA.ST,ER 8500 114th • #o 0 i oo.METR 2_AVENErPRV o es moo. m • Fire flow heat map RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 27 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE KEY ELEMENTS WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE ✓ Model Update ✓ Demand Projections ✓ CIP Development RI-12 prepared the 2004 and 2010 Comprehensive Water System Plans, as well as a 2006 Supplemental Plan to address revised growth estimates. Our team analyzed all facets of the system, which has 5,100 customer accounts, PROJECT TEAM 4 pressure zones with 7 pressure reducing stations, 2 reservoirs, and a direct Michele Campbell, PE filtration water treatment plant. We performed detailed demand forecasts Zach Schrempp, EIT and modeled demand centers based on new zoning and commercial centers. Kenny Schonberger, PE Incorporated results from true pump condition testing, which identified the immediate need to replace their WTP pumps, into CIP scheduling. CLIENT CONTACT As part of this plan, we performed a detailed water rights evaluation, which James X. Kelly, PE included evaluating a newly discovered water right that was not previously Public Works Director analyzed. This task also involved summarizing the implications of the 360.403.3505 2003 Municipal Water Law, performing water rights evaluations comparing availability with projected demand, and providing recommendations for fully COMPLETION DATE utilizing existing water rights. 2015 RI-12 also performed extensive hydraulic modeling that involved updating the hydraulic model database, including water main material and year of construction information. We collected and compared actual field fire flow and pressure data with model results and the calibrated model predicts actual field data results with an average accuracy of 98 percent. To come to these results, we performed fire flow analyses at more than 800 locations throughout the system. This calibration also included performing hydraulic analyses of distribution and transmission mains before and after the selection of improvements. Our team was also able to provide solutions for continued growth, which included transferring development rights from new lands outside of existing service area, and created a kmz file to overlay the fire flow analyses results into Google Earth for easy viewing by City staff. RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 28 REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE KEY ELEMENTS WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE ✓ Model Calibration, EPS Analyses ✓ Water Quality Analyses RH2 performed hydraulic analyses to optimize system hydraulic operation and ✓ Pump Condition Testing reduce operating expenses. To accomplish this, our team completed pump ✓ System Optimization testing and energy evaluations and used results for input into the operational Analyses strategy. We also performed hydrant flow tests and EPS model calibration and utilized pressure transducer recorders to evaluate hydraulic transients in system. Our recommendations included pump and control valve staging, which PROJECT TEAM reduced overall source production costs by 16 percent. Tony Pardi, PE Michele Campbell, PE Andy Dunn, LG, LHG Barney Santiago, PE" Ryan Withers, PE 17 CLIENT CONTACT z Ryan R. Morrison Project Engineer 360.363.8285 F COMPLETION DATE In progress 2015 Hydrant testing RH2 ENGINEERING, INC. 29 CITY OF -AS H LA N D Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Second 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 a 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, as well as other specific areas 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 adopted (as amended) on first reading at the Council's April 19, 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. Amendments adopted on April 19 also prohibit smoking in downtown alleyways, on any public or private property within 10 feet of a public sidewalk, on the tax lot that includes the public walkway known as the Theater Corridor, on sidewalks on Winburn Way fronting Lithia Park and on the sidewalk on North Main Street between Granite Street and the Plaza. Page 1 of 2 ~r CITY OF ASHLAND Staff recommends additional amendments prior to adoption on second reading. These amendments, which are attached to this Council communication, include replacing the definition of enclosed area with a more current definition taken verbatim from Oregon Administrative Rules 330-015-0030(8); adding a section regarding penalties for violation; and amending 9.30.020, subsection A, deleting alleyways and clarifying that the prohibition on tax lot 901 applies to the Theater Corridor but not to the Thomas Theater. At the April 19 business meeting, the Council requested that staff prepare a marketing plan for educating the public about this smoking ban. An outline of this marketing plan is attached and staff will be prepared to discuss this with the Council at your meeting. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: 7. Keep Ashland a family-friendly community. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Some outlay of funds would be required for signage downtown and other elements of the marketing plan should the Council choose to adopt this ordinance. This expenditure would likely be in the range of $5,700 to $6,000 if all elements of the plan are implemented. Funds are available in the Administration Department budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the suggested amendments and recommends adoption of this ordinance on second reading. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move approval of second 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." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance as amended on first reading Suggested amendments for second reading Marketing plan outline Page 2 of 2 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 Annotated to show deletions and additions made by amendment at first reading. Deletions are lined throtto and additions are 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 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 930 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. Ordinance No. Page 1 of 4 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 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 or on any public or private property within ten (10) feet of a sidewalk in Downtown Ashland, i on the Citv property commonly referred to as the Theater Corridor Walkway (Assessor's Map no. 391E09BC, Tax Lot 9011 on the sidewalk on North Main Street between Granite Street and the Plaza on sidewalks on Winburn Way abutting Lithia Park, 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 Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 A. The owner or person in charge of a hotel 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 S5,000 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: 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 bus* ner in Downtown Ashland may It 11-fls Of AW 9.30.020A exempt .16,il Pill be for a period of one year and may renewed upon-irv- applieation. 4) The exem Awn shall the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. I all not mitigate or otherwise alter the smokin on in AIM-Coznr»nu 6) An exempted business or A de and maintain a eig*rette disp )sal eontainer in H4 "f +l'n business. _C a eo to n must be l . " P"I n `m the City Administrator. fHr dvising that smoking is prohibited in downtown,kshland, but is per titted in front of the business T , eonsistent with all other-pfovisions of the Ashland M nieip l 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. 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", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re-lettered, provided however Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 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 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 Amendments to the Smoking Ordinance: Lp\ 1. In Section 15 replace the definition of "Enclosed Area" with the following: "Enclosed area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is enclosed on two or more sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows, exclusive of doors, passageways or gaps. If no ceiling is present, "enclosed area" means all space that is included by three or more sides by permanent or temporary walls or windows, exclusive of doors, passageways or gaps. 2. At the end of section 1, add the following to the proposed code language: 9.30.050 Penalties for Violation Violations of this chapter are Class IV violations as described in AMC 1.08. 3. In Section 1, 9.30.020, subsection I amend to delete the reference to alleyways and modify the prohibition relating to the Theater Corridor. The revised subsection would read as follows: 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 or on any public or private property within ten (10) feet of a sidewalk in Downtown Ashland, = alle ,ay in Downtown shl on the Citv property commonly referred to as the Theater Corridor Walkway (Assessor's Map no. 391E09BC, Tax Lot 901) except for that portion of the property controlled by leasehold right of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival (commonly known as the Thomas Theater), on the sidewalk on North Main Street between Granite Street and the Plaza, on sidewalks on Winburn Way abuttin Lithia Park n the Plaza, or on the area at the corner of East Main Street and South Pioneer Street know as Chautauqua Square. t~50 C Smoking Ban - effective June 2016 Awareness Campaign Key Audiences • Downtown visitors ✓ OSF patrons ✓ Diners ✓ Shoppers ✓ Street People/Travelers • Downtown Businesses/Hotels and Motels • Citizens of Ashland • Visitors to Ashland • Members of City boards, commissions and committees • City employees Goals • Broad awareness of the downtown smoking ban. Strategies Develop a multi-media awareness campaign utilizing a variety of tools Actions 1) Signs will be affixed to utility poles, hip wall along Theater Corridor etc. a. No smoking or vaping/No smoking within 10 feet of a sidewalk 2) Moveable signs placed in planters along Main Street/Lithia Way, tree wells where possible, Plaza, available for businesses for their flower boxes a. Variety of small moveable signs (6"x9") with four different messages no smoking/vaping, no open containers, no public consumption of marijuana, no unvaccinated dogs 3) Letter to downtown business explaining the ordinance with map 4) Letter to hotels and motels explaining the ordinance with map 5) Card stock handout a. Distribute to lodging businesses to make available to their customers b. Ask OSF to place in members lounge c. Provide to Chamber Note: It is important we don't inadvertently insult out- residents and visitors who do smoke. The handout message will include not only where folks can't smoke but where they can smoke. Polite smokers don't want to bother others and don't want to be bothered by others. 6) Print advertising 7) JPR underwriting 8) Dave K on Jefferson Exchange? 9) City website, July newsletter 10) Other? Guestimate Costs Small Moveable signs approximately $1500- $2500 (design and printing) JPR approximately $1500 (3 x per week for 6 weeks) Print Advertising $1200 Handouts $500 TOTAL: $5700-$6000 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Second reading of two ordinances modifying the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Ordinance as they relate to the Airport Overlay FROM: Bill Molnar, Director of Community Development, bill.rnolnar a,ashland.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 amendn-ients 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 Pagc ] of 3 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 Pen-nit. 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. Pagc 2 of 3 ~r CITY OF ^AS H LA N D Construction of an aircraft hangar 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 second readings of the two ordinances. SUGGESTED MOTION: Move to approve second 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." Move to approve second 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." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance 91 (Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments) 2. Ordinance #1, 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 of 3 1r 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 lined 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 frilly 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 Firefiyhters 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 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. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Ordinance No. Page 1 of 3 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 10.2 1.01 ] 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 e-h-apter- e€ the Airport Master Plan. The City, i ition with the Oregon Department of Tir-anspor-ttition (ODOT+, under- a Fo.der-al. Aviation Administration (FAA) grant, retained SFC Enginee i Company to update the Airport Alaster- Plan to determine airpoirt faeffities irequir-ed to serve the vieinit~, through the yenir 2012. The Cit~, Couneil adopted the plan a supporting doeument to the Compirehensive Plan on A4ar-eh 2, . The City, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA) and with financial assistance through the Airport Improvement Program of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), conducted an update of the Airport Master Plan to Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 determine airport facilities required to serve the vicinity through the year 2025. The City Council adopted the plan as a supportinlZ 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 during the current planninI4 period. airport opeirations will grow at a r-elatively 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 Reviewed as to form: David Lohman, City Attorney Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A Appendix A: Technical Reports and Supporting Documents City of Ashland, Oregon Comprehensive Plan Periodically, the City may choose to conduct studies and prepare technical reports to adopt by reference within the Comprehensive Plan to make available for review by the general public. These studies and reports shall not serve the purpose of creating new city policy, but rather the information, data and findings contained within the documents may constitute part of the basis on which new policies may be formulated or existing policy amended. In addition, adopted studies and reports provide a source of information that may be used to assist the community in the evaluation of local land use decisions. Chapter II, Introduction and Definitions The following reports are adopted by reference as a supporting document to the Ashland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter ll, 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 si a lr~'4i CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND, OREGON t1*11!~StEERING TURY WEST CORPORATION Aron Faegre & Associates 0 Gaze%y 6 Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Update 2004-2025 Prepared for City of Ashland CITY OF ASHLAND I~Ir 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 C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1-1 OVERVIEW 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 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 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 i 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 ......................................................................................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 r JL- C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report mrlail 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 1 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report OVERVIEW Ashland Municipal Airport is located in southern Jackson County and is included in the "Core System of Airports" in the Oregon Aviation Plan (OAP).2 Core system airports are defined as having "a significant role in the statewide aviation system." The Airport is included in the "Community General Aviation Airport" category (Category 4) based on its current functional role. Community airports typically accommodate a wide range of general aviation users and local business activities. Local airport activity includes business and general aviation users and visitors to Ashland and the surrounding area. Community airports are significant components in the statewide transportation system and often generate both direct (employment, etc.) and indirect economic benefits for the local community or region. Commercial-related aviation businesses, such as fixed base operators, aerial applicators and aircraft maintenance shops create employment and provide vital services within a large geographic area. For smaller communities without commercial air service, general aviation airports provide additional options for business and personal travel. The availability of a safe, well-maintained general aviation airport is often a key factor in a business decision to locate in, or serve a small community. The Airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), administered by the FAA. NPIAS airports are eligible for federal funding of improvements through FAA programs such as the current Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA requires that all NPIAS airports periodically update their airport plans to maintain effective long- term planning. This project will enable the Airport to meet the FAA's requirement to maintain an up-to-date plan. The Airport provides convenient general aviation and business aviation access to this area, with the nearest commercial air service about 20 minutes away in Medford. It is noted that Ashland is often fog-free when other airports in the Rogue Valley are fogged in. As a result, Ashland provides a reliable weather alternate for a variety of business and general aviation aircraft, including the numerous small package and express carrier (FedEx, UPS, etc.) flights that operate at Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport daily with single and twin-engine turboprop aircraft. 2 Oregon Aviation Plan (Dye Management/Century West), © Oregon Department of Transportation 2000. i October 2005 1-2 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 and 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. October 2005 1-3 Introduction I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport -AS H LAND Airport Layout Plan Report SUMMARY OF ALP REPORT FINDINGS/CURRENT CONDITIONS 1. Ashland Municipal Airport - Sumner Parker Field is owned and operated by the City of Ashland, Oregon. 2. The Airport is categorized as a "Community General Aviation Airport" in the 2000 Ore og_n Aviation Plan and is included in Oregon's core system of airports, which denotes its significance in Oregon's aviation system. 3. The Airport is included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS), making it eligible for federal funding through the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 4. The Airport has a single paved and lighted runway (3,603 feet by 75 feet) with a full- length parallel taxiway on its east side. The Runway 30 threshold is displaced 190 feet. 5. The airfield facilities are generally designed to meet FAA Airport Design Group (ADG) I standards associated with small fixed wing aircraft. However, some facilities (runway width, pavement strength, etc.) are designed to accommodate larger aircraft. 6. Runway 12/30 has a pavement strength rating of 15,000 pounds for aircraft with single wheel landing gear configurations. 7. Airfield lighting currently includes medium intensity runway edge lights (MIRL) and runway threshold lights, visual approach slope indicators (VASI) on Runways 12 and 30, runway end identifier lights (REIL) on Runway 30, and the airport beacon. 8. Landside facilities (aircraft parking apron, hangars, etc.) are located on the east side of the runway. 9. The most recent air traffic data provided by ODA (Acoustical Counting Program) is for 2003, which estimated 20,878 annual operations at the airport. The airport had 83 based aircraft listed on the most recent FAA TAF Based Aircraft Data (2001). 10. The Airport operates under day and night visual flight rules (VFR) and does not currently have instrument approach capabilities. 11. Aviation fuel (AVGAS, Jet A) and aircraft maintenance services are available at the airport. October 2005 1-4 Introduction i j Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report MR46 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 recommended 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 M 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 m, 15. The City of Ashland should adopt the Airport Layout Plan Report and drawings in a timely manner to guide airport activities. The City of Ashland and Jackson County should also adopt the Airport Layout Plan Report and drawings for incorporation into local/county comprehensive and transportation planning. 16. The City of Ashland should continue coordination with FAA to evaluate proposed uses for approximately 9 acres of airport property located near the northeast corner of the airport, on the north side of the north airport access road. If aviation-related development does not prove feasible, the City may wish to request that FAA release the restrictions on the property, which could permit selling the land with proceeds invested in the airport. 17. An updated obstruction survey should be performed to verify location and heights of obstructions in the vicinity of the runway, particularly within the FAR Part 77 primary, approach and transitional surfaces. 18. The City of Ashland should initiate the recommended improvements and major maintenance items in a timely manner, requesting funding assistance under FAA and other federal or state funding programs for all eligible capital improvements. i October 2005 1-7 Introduction I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates r Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Two Inventory of Existing Conditions 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) 0 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 CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report AM 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. I October 2005 2-2 Inventory i 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 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y 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 (MIRL) 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. October 2005 2-4 Inventory i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY 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-1 (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 r - 7 October 2005 2-5 Inventory Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates W ~ O ~ O 7 11i _ ~ ~A~ ~ - c~ ~ ~ w s z # ~ cn 1 ~ ~ - ~i4 / ;wart ,;tip r f { i ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ . i` I~ ~ ~ y Z f s .a~. _ 5, , ~ ~ ~ t, a i M ~ 3 I~ k - 0 r. ti ~ - ~ ) A i 1"~1 J a/ 4~ L r Y. ' ` C ^ 0 \ z 4rft u~l, o ~ ~ ~ V ,5, '~i~ r" Fi.~~:ir ~ i~4 + r^ 1} ~ 1 r~ rxl Jig , ~ ~ .i' :i ~~.r .1 P ~.5:~ ~ 4 ~t A l ~ ~1 g " a~ LL t~ t,> r e' ~rv y 2 Z. c ~ 0 ``I W Q ~ ~ 0 l ~ U y ~ _Z i~ ° i ~ ~ W C~ 4~ ~ W 1 t F ~ ~ ..n ~ I{y ~ `y~~ _ U~ , ~ -°j~ ~I _ iaZ m ; ~ 'I t ~ ~ ~'t „ ~ N U ~ t ;C ~ ~ i•--1;r ij 191µi ~ ,s . / % V~ 7 i Q LL 7~ i ! ~ ~ ~ WW a I Q ~ ~ ~ 1 ` I 5~ X Q ~ w Q it ~,L, ~ ~ O Z 0 V Q ~ I,C~~`~I ~ , v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~._._~.J~1- ~ .~e~L_L ~ ~'~i~ ~i' J p D w Z = ~ U= QN , m ~ ' ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U Q U Q ~ ~ '%;yr ~.r Z Q ~ w w Qca w Q ~ ~ ~ w Q ~ ~ ~ ~ • Z ~ U U ~ w Z Z ~ ~ ~ U ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~i ~ Q ~ X ~ w Q Y ~ w ~ w w ~ a'~. -a d ~ ~ ~ Q Q LL LL ~ = f11 Q fn Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ''i, a , J'' 4-~- 1~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ r r r 1 ~.J--,~ f _ ~-1 " U ~ . J ✓ ~ W N ~ O ~ I ~ II r- w ~ Q ~ 1 r VI ~ 0 aQw ,~~x~ a ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ w ~Y ~ ~ ~M Y ~ ~ ~I ~ i.~T U F ~ ~ `may ~f..~ ~~I.s w 0 ~x ~ ~ ~ a , i w k ~ t1~ J as MG r' ~ r` ~ r j re ~ r , ~ ~ ~ w ~S: ~F M~, ~ s. ~ .f ~ ~ ~ w . r, ° r- x M F 'T. x X. p 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 O d ~ r ~ 1. Tyr-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,r - k ~ , t ~ ~ I AI ~~~M ~ ~ p 0 r W a, ~ , ~ ~ F ~ ih . ~ t ~ ~ ~ r~ v w~r~ j} ~ V ~ yy , e ~ ! W ~ ~ ~ ~ U w 3 ~~I U,_ =r d~ tn~tn~ i VO oO r - 0~ aZ °i~, - P, ~ ~ w w ~ U c~> Q ~ u- N - m uWi ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~11~~ ~ M ~ Q W J liiii O ~ ~ ~ Z Q U .r M } ~ Q Z J 4.. Q ~',S st ~ 3 Q ray v N~ ~ O~~ U Q U Q~ 1~1 ~ w Q ~ J ~ N ~ ~ Q ~ Q m ~ ~ J L ~o?~c~~og~ Z z~ U w U W = Z U~ ~ ~ W ~ ?C to Q ~ ~ i~ ~ aQ. Q ~ Q ~ ~ > = vii Q vii Q ~ 5 a~ • ~ ~ 000 00 00 00 ° ~ ~ Q .t~ o } Y - o Z CITY OF 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 taxiway/taxilane 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. i October 2005 2-8 Inventory k 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 sealcoat) 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. Approximately 595 x 25 feet (width varies). Extends from aircraft apron to Hangar Taxiway (south) 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. October 2005 2-9 Inventory 1 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report I I~ 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) Light 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 C1 T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Kai Table 2-4 summarizes airfield pavement conditions for Ashland based on the most recent . The branch report contained in the pavement study inspection conducted in November, 20023 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 OF AIRFIELD PA VEMENT CONDITION (NOVEMBER 2002) Pavement Section Design/Age PCI , Condition Rating Runway 12130 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 Base (1967); 3" Aggregate Subbase (1967) 38* (south 1 90 Poor ' Parallel Taxiway (north section) 2" AC (1984); 8" Aggregate Base (1964) 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 Poorto Good T-Hangar Access Taxiway (north) 4" AC (1995); 7" Crushed Aggregate Base (1995) 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` 2" AC (2004); 2" AC (1983); BST (1968); 9" Aggregate Main Apron (south-centersection) 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 Evaluation/Maintenance Management Program, Ashland Municipal Airport (2003) i October 2005 2-11 Inventory 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 PCI 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 (VAST) 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 (REEL), 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 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 IS, 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. i 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 Valley and Klamath Falls VORTAC on a Airway minimum enroute altitude (MEA) 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 i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report rMiA 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. i October 2005 2-17 Inventory i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report ri .A 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 Mras 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 rwy) 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 t 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 r C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 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 2012.' 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 191,200.8 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. 7 Oregon Employment Department Region 8 Economic Profile $ 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 PistonlTurbine 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 Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Ir, 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, RENS acoustical counts. i October 2005 3-4 Forecasts I 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 - 22,500 - - - - - - - - CL . - - - _ _ - 15,000 C M Q 7,500- - 0 - - - - - - - I 1981 1986 1992 1995 1997 1998 2003 REVS Counts - - Linear (REVS Counts) J - 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 j 60,000 45,000 c 0 c~ a~ ~ 30,000 - c 15,000 - - - - - 0 . . . . . 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 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 :'i. 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 C I T Y 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 - - - - - ~ OcL 20,000 - Q 10,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 e RENS Count - - 1990 Master Plan 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. i October 2005 3-8 Forecasts Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY 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 11 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 (2.38 % AAR) 86 96 104 112 1997 / 2000 OASP (1.5% AAR) 72 78 84 90 97 103 TAF (1.03% AAR: 2003-2020) 83 91 95 100 103 106 Aircraft Operations 2003 Estimate: 20,878 1990 Airport Master Plan (2.34% AAR) 24,000 26,500 28,569 30,800 1997 / 2000 OASP 20,000 21,670 23,330 25,070 26,940 28,537 (1.5% AAR) TAF (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~, 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 1 CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report The 1992 airport master plan identified a turboprop aircraft, such as the Beechcraft 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-I). The B-1 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 Il, 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 mall 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 1,650 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 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 FIGURE 3-4: UPDATED BASED AIRCRAFT FORECAST ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 150 I - - - - - - I 125 - - - j a 100 - r 75- - z I 50- - - - - - --T-- -r 1990 1995 2000 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 - 1990 AMP - OASP - - - - TAF A Actual 2004 ALP FIGURE 3-5: UPDATED AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FORECAST ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT 35,000- - - - 30,000 - - - - - - 25,000 ~ ~ l r r r r r. r r r - - 20,000 - - - - - - - - - - I c 15,000 - - c 10,000 - - - 5,000 1990 1995 2000 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 - - 1990 AMP - - - - TAF 2004 ALP A Actual s October 2005 3-13 Forecasts 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 Plan10 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. 10 Ashland Municipal Airport Master Plan (SFC Engineering, October 1992) i October 2005 4-1 Facility Requirements r Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 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 1 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 boundary) 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 development/expansion reserve Yes * Improve airport circulation roadways *access to Sky Research hangar) Yes * North T-Han ar Taxilanes *one Than gar 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 Overlay * 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). i October 2005 4-2 Facility Requirements I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 1., 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] 00 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 i ~ '~.~~nt fie. ~i~~~• ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ \ ~ ti ~~r Y~, ~~3 r ~ 'ti w ~n k f~q~i rT~'n a ~ \ ~ * i~ r ~ ti + 'alt ~ i rT' ~ ~~•i. ~L. r ~ .k 4ti+'+i >a'FS } --V~~ A ,rat' \~~~?,~.~5.~ ~ ti. l r ~ Y a , lJ7, fy',t'•,, ~ z4: ' ;~1~5~~1 ~f 1~1~ % i~ ~'S ~ ` r ~ f ~ ~ ~r'1~ 1 r ~ +,,,s~ : try _.'I.~ ~ l".~ ~i!!r ' ' a~ ~ t q ~.ri~ ~ ~ ` I. 1 ♦ ~ ."a_a `1 ~Y, Lv3 fir) ~ X~r ~^~SS~'r\. ~'1'.' ~~h ru~~. 1~~ S` ~r...~~',Ct' r•~,~; ~dr~ Ir 4t r td e ~ A,a ~..i' F," .~1, 1 I s. ,f G /r >r yr ` , ) , mow. s ~ ~ t ~ ~ I ; ~ ly v .~rtis~ ~ w ~r ~ ' ~ ~ i 'e~ ~ ~ t~ TT ~ L~ t~ as 7. Y ? J ~f 7 1~ ~ Z ~ H xl/~ ~ I~ ~T.:L `C'~). t h F ~f~ 1L Y f,. ~f~. a9 , j ~ ~.r. i~ ~ i r W W j~ _ ~ i~iM , ~ ~ ;''r I ~ lip Ly ~ . . / .7:+ 4r~ _ 1~ 1. l~ k- t 1 J r'r 11^ r~. ~ a ? ~ ~ ~ r'I W' ~I t(/~-fig.- r F' 1~'. , ' i I ~ ' .,fit'' ~ a a t. h ~+,j ~ ~ if'-` ~ ,i 1 v ~ ri I 4'~" t. d I err, r ~S .nri' .~r ,~h ~ ~ _ ~ ~ , ~ .r . ~ ~ ~ : ~ r ~ ~ w M , _ ,S~ :ice 1 .1~~~ A~ • l~ r ~ r~~~` ~•C 7 ~I l ` f, a ~ ~ r ,~Il, ~f` / Ia / f ~hx ~ ~.L~~r~ l ,`1.., I~ ~ ~ ' k ~ r it ~^r"'.~ .I(r~r `i!C i "yam ~ y c' ~ 1 ~ ,w 1 ~ Klcr ~1 \1 4 fY J I r''. ~ ~ ~ .rr ~a~v Z?, t~ "pk 4 5577rilci F' 1/~~ y e :iP 1'n~Sa 9~2~~~ri~' ►A ~ ~ G~` ~A~~~~ ~ .'vK~ f~+, .t _ J t it r 1 t ~ vR~~ I { 1 1,~.~` t 1 j -x L r 7• F. 1 .c n;'i I j~ ,qu Sa v. y1 ~ r ,f a~+ ~ .fir. i I I FyF.x; `~5~~'~' i l 'r,~~ ~r ,rfr r y~~. ~ r r ~ ~Nr ,p. ' 4 ~ 9 r ti Sy~ V ~ t y t+ '~ti„ t ~ r< ~ / ~ 'd`.Y i CAI , 2~'~'~93''' V, h tit ~ ~ 1 ,~ta , ~„J t~ ~ !Cdr ) i ~r, i~ ~ ~!~~'S,' O~t >t V ,,fir {/J/+/1.5pSdy w ~ C~" i - ~ f t- ~j;r~~~ y~ ~ ~ ~ , i 11 ' ~ j.~ w `^Y`= r 4 II ,r, Are ar ~ ud; ~ l ~ ~~,r, ~ ~ , r ~ ` h x u,~ V t g l~ I rr. ~ r)y ~ y ' ~ ~ ~ . r. ` . ,~~,j1j' ' ,y Yy,.~ ` .1 ' . ` , Y r r . ! ~ 3 d w .C ` ~ r~r. ~ ~ i ✓y4,1 \ r^}~~`1L1'~c. vr~ r «d t 4~; ,I ~ ~ 1~..~ f' 1/ ,7* ~~.K 5 ~1`s~.;""S~jt~ r '/'1 ~i' 4 i.~~;~, .irk ny, „~~iy,45`~~R~(i'~` ZSI 4' I'' : r^ R 11 ~ ~ ~ ~~I 1 ~ y"S"*r~a ,r cr i''~wr~i5`~~+'~ ~I~~i~ ~ ~c1~'i ,.i , p ~'k, ~i z + i~ ~A. r~t~',~~' ? 'fd >f • i 'a , 1 r '4~1 Y , ; w 1 . 'gy'p- ~a'\~, ~ 'nt'' ~ r\ V I n'W'~. r 'v , ~rw 3x.i1 ya r ~ yb L j r r ~ ~ Q ~r~~j~~ - ' /c~,. ~ :~'Ir ~rN~.ct~~.yC{r~~~"t'yM a •''~}~1 O { fi 7 1 ` ~ ;1 , 1 ty ~~r~1zz~~'' r .yq~~+ '~;w , a2 ~t1 r = ~ i ~~~v ~1~ irt1 t t ~,t ~f~ t l~',~~.I ~ ~~''+y`~ \~,u\ ~~r 6rf r,' ,\l r1~ Yl ~ ~ r f . ';5t ` tia,~k !-L~\~~\ ,"a~ ~ u, rfr~ ~ N ~t~,~ ~ll"GG~~~ i Kp~../ f 1 ~,.i F ~:~i~l '~1, 1~'~~~ ~K mH ' f { 1,. ,I'~ ~ v~ ,{'ts~"~ rY,' r/ ~ '1~~ ~~~"~~~1~~'~-^" to ~ yC"~ ~ ~ ~y"'4,0;~ ~ /r ~ ~ ' ~ ~+f~svy'~'~ vat ~-Y't >7~ yt' ~ 1 J ~ t^ 7y J'>6 yr,.rr~ S j~ ~ O '1(~ rn .p _r, / I ~'q ~r, ~.+2sb~G 4fra~ ~ ✓~\1. 7 ) Ft`s, ~ /i ~ i ~1 ~6 'k ~i ~ Y~ ~t- / $ \ .,.rl~ ,i~.'. e, N r a ~ ~ rr, r II \ \ 11 • O W , J K1' ,-r ,a . s o- i ~ 3 ti ~ br~{ , '.!R 4 i~ N ~ , r ~ 11 ~ ~ f 1 ~ r it ~ _ _ 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 II 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 11 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 Airside (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) 33 35% Aircraft Apron, Hangars, Vehicle Parking, Access Roads, Undeveloped Land. 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 main 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 October 2005 4-6 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY or Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 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 (IFR 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 I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY 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/cast) 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 "SuperUnicomTM" 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 Unicorn 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 150/5300-13 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) 1, 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 i 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 1 6,579 Piper Aerostar 602P B I 6,000 Cessna P337 Skymaster B I 4,630 Cessna 402 B I 6,300 Cessna 421 B 1 7,450 Cessna Citation CJ1 (CE525) B 1 10,600 Beechcraft 99 Airliner B I 11,300 Beechcraft Super King Air 200 B II 12,500 Piper Malibu A II 4,300 Cessna Caravan 1 A II 8,000 Pilatus PC-12 A II 9,920 Cessna Citation CJ2 (CE525A) B 11 12,375 Cessna Citation Bravo (CE550) B II 14,800 Dassault Falcon 20 B II 28,660 Learjet 60 C I 23,100 Canadair Challenger C II 45,100 Gulfstream III C II 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-1). 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. 12 Airport Layout Plan Report for Ashland Municipal Airport (SFC Engineering, October 1992). M 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 ADC? 1' z 3 Standard (small aircraft ADGcI &B DG~iroreft Existing Conditions exclusively) A Aircraft 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 11,000 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: 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 2517 3767 3767 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-foot 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. i October 2005 4-12 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-5: RUNWAY 12130 CONFORMANCE WITH FAA DESIGN STANDARDS Item Airplane Design Group I Airplane Design Group ! Airplane Design Group 1l Small Aircraft Exclusively) A & B Aircraft A & B Aircraft Runway Safety Area Yes Yes No' Runway Object Free Area No' Noe No3 Runway Obstacle Free Zone Yes N04 No4 Taxiway Safety Area Yes Nos Nos Taxiway Object Free Area Yes Nos N05 Building Restriction Line - East Yes6 Yes6 Yes6 Aircraft Parking Line - East Yes No' No' Runway Protection Zones Noe Noe 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 II parallel taxiway separations. Parallel Taxiway would also require relocation to meet ADG I or ADG II 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 WE 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 The recommended transverse grade for the lateral RSA ranges between 1'/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/a 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 OFZ. Taxiway/Taxilane Safety Area The taxiways at Ashland Municipal Airport include a full-length parallel taxi way/taxil ane 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. October 2005 4-16 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Irk Taxiway/Taxilane Object Free Area The ADG I taxiway OFA width is 89 feet. All future 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/taxilanes 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 3050-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 BRI 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 taxiway/taxilane 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 I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report A4, 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) i October 2005 4-19 Facility Requirements i Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates OBJECTS AFFECTING NAVIGABLE AIRSPACE ~A r -A p •1 T•r 1• A T•r Inr n 'r HORIZONTAL SURFACE ISO FEET ABOVE ESTABLISHED AIRPORT ELEVATION. 0 r 20•I CONICAL SURFACE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS (FEET) DIAL ITEM VISUAL RUNWAT OISTRUMENT RUNWAY PRECISION IYSTRUMENT A ! A C D RUNWAY WIDTH OF PRIMARY SURFACE AND A APPROACH SURFACE WIDTH AT 250 S00 S00 S00 1,000. 1,000 INNER END, 000 5 RADIUS OF HORIZONTAL SURFACE 5,000 5,000 5,000 110,000 10 000 10 ,000 5 NON- PRECISION VISUAL DO APPROACH INSTRUMENT APPROACH PRECISION INSTRUY J. A B A C B DLE APPROAGI APPROACH SURFACE WIDTH AT ENO 1,250 1,500 2.000 3.500 4,000 111.000 APPROACH SURFACE LENGTH 5,000 13,000 5.000 10,000 10,000 • APPROACH SLOPE 20•1 20-1 20.1 34.1 34.1 A- UTILITY RUNWAYS / B- RUNWAYS LARGER THAN UTILITY C- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS GREATER THAN 3/4 MILE D- VISIBILITY MINIMUMS AS LOW AS 314 MILE •o • PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH SLOPE 13 30.1 FOR INNER 10.000 FEET AND 40.1 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 40,000 FEET o CONICAL SURFACE PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH VISUAL OR NON PRECISION APPROACH L C (SLOPE-E) 1Q i 0~ ~ NOAIZ OAt7AL SgAiAQ 130'A20VE E3TllL1SNEI) AMPVRT ILEVA110■ \t ADO i 1 7 'cy ~y - ` e RUNWAY CENTERLINES A 2 ISOMETRIC VIEW OF SECTION A-A 6 77.25 CIVIL AIRPORT IMAGINARY SURFACES DESIGNED BY: DM FIGURE ENGINEERING CORPORATION FAR PART 77 DIAGRAM CENTURY WEST DRAWN BY: JLM 6650 S.W. Redwood Lane, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97224 4-2 503-419-2130 phone • 503-639-2710 fax www,cen}urywE9T,COm SCALE: NTS CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report TABLE 4-6: FAR PART 77 AIRSPACE SURFACES ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Utility Item (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 r October 2005 4-22 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates i CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report ~I 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 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Fae9re & 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 ' Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Fae9re & Associates ♦ GazeleY & Associates j CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report Ia, 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 11 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" 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 j 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 completed in 2004 Overlay (2006) Parallel Taxiway Slurry Seat (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 Seal (2018) Overlay 2015 South T-Hangar Slurry Seal (2010) Apron/Taxilanes Slurry Seal (2003) (deferred) Overlay (2015) Slur Sea! 2021 North Hangar Slurry Seal (2010) Taxiways/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 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 PCI 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 Taxi way/Taxilanes In the 2002 PCI report, the hangar taxi way/taxilane pavements ranged from "very good" to "excellent." The PCI report recommended slurry seals for all of the hangar taxi way/taxi lanes 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 C I T Y 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 VASI 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 (REELS). REILs consist of two sequenced strobes that provide rapid and positive identification at the approach end of the runway. REELs improve utilization of the runway during nighttime and poor visibility condition and are recommended for instrument runways without approach lights. A REEL 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 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report it 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 SuperUnicomTM, 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 -AS H LAND Airport Layout Plan Report Rr, 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 assumed 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. g; ~ "9 Y ;v --..oo 0 00! M October 2005 4-31 Facility Requirements 1 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 1' 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 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 (@ 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. I 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. by Y ` F October 2005 4-35 Facility Requirements Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates C I T Y 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 100LL 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-gallons 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. ~4 day i '1 ~ h 's. a 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 ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 3 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 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 r Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 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 t 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 I), 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 a 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 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 1 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 i October 2005 5-3 Airport Development Alternatives I Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND 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 VA& 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 parking 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. October 2005 5-5 Airport Development Alternatives Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates 1 ~ I I a F.F ~ ~ a fyt. .tea. / \ rS ~ •r y ~ ~ 1 i~l .'~i ~ `may, •.~i' • a ~ s• ~ \ `lI ` . ' ~ I t ` r ~ I' ~ ~ ~ ~ ii~NH~~~~T~F1~Yj~''~W'~~Iyy~ r~ ^a{t xl ' ~ • ` . ~ a.;~ ~1! ~r - y I, .t ~ ~ ~ 'r J "1 ~ t r ~~YM1 ~+y' x.. I'T ' _ I ~ ~ ^ ' ' ;•r Ta I A IYr 1 v a7 ~ - x..+k+ yr- 1 ~ t~~L ;~'~r .1 '~;+,++.ir ,R . 4rr~ f < ~ y i • t a ~ t~If t $ e r~ V a ,'•r I I I ~ I. a~'* . Irt a L, r } t 1 Y ' r ~ i 7 4 ! _ ~ , R t '.Y ~ • r ii ' ~ P,~,•~ 6~y~;iy ~ 1 t ?r~ ~I t ti4r~♦ f' ,~I~ff r y h r( S~,I,ItT ~'r t .a .4 • . ~Frg `yam t l~.jt/ k ' _,L t , . ( +'r ~ a~y ! 1f r ~ ! ~ r'~ . ? ' . it a r4 ~ Y+ tr'r ¢"s •+1 ~"~r1<a+ a, h t'i ~ ; i ~!1~r.a 1 Y_ n • 6 :.✓t wr 7 .ti[' h r ~i r ~ ~ t r r t o A d;~ 1r ~ T xt1A/,1 ~Y ~ 1 ! r ~ 4 p' }I I I, . ~ ~ ~ ,Y TI I ~ 1 ' ~ r i ~ ~ i ' ~ S`1 1f \ J +s~1~ ~a11T; •r~ a . . s_. I p1akl,Ji.. '¢•r fl.r~ al.~t ~r (~~'`s' ! tl' L r 1't~~ JJ N ~ • • ~p r ~ v • • a ~ ' ~ _ ~ , • alp • • . ;r a ~ v~ h r ~ i;5' Ill I~ I 5 ~l~~y I 1. I a ".[.rt ~.s r ~r ~ { ~ f:. air r M ~ f+ ~ 1 'v•~ s• t.,~ rl e'1t 4,!y,q i1,~, r ~1~►~ r~Yr ~l iffiM'r +rt~~,t,,~r r, j 4~ ~ v ~ + t , S~iY 6 ~ ~ a &.~i iY~~y'x, ~ t'xM!j ~ ~f' _r ~~1~; ` k.r'y: ' ~ t k 4 a k i~~1a~.i ~ ri• d Y • • a • ~ T p 1 'C `y'~• ~r - 4` . 4 I ~ V 7 r• x 'rr+~ r ~ r`r~ff ~ F~.! 1:,, '<c ~ 4 ~p y 1 `~Pa ~ CR I ~ , ~Jr'.tYPr 14* vi :~lf~~ .sue.-r.s-rr~.~`. 1 I{..~.~y1 ~l~ ~ ~aa r k' / ,R yr~y~'~* ~E' • + a • ! I'! i~ . ~1~ ~ `~',~~lll 1 ~ 6~.'' x ( r y ~ fi.~.u~ f•~yyC ~ rf,rr; },1 ~~i`3r,~ ~:1~},~•+ ~ ni' , ~I ~I J1~~c~rW~ ' r . a-I'u ~I i I ' ~ ~ 1' 1 ~IRi O 0~. i. I~ II Inr G()~ ~ ; L ~ • qr iii p t~1~ I~ } ~ ' g~. - -1r rf j `~I F ~ a'. ,.t~i . ~ ~l`.. r ii I'~'r i.lr~c~o'n'~ '1 _r • V ~rrttt~~ ~'D p(t.. ~ { :.1' : 14i~'II I~ r, ''i rp;~ ° ° ~ JI I'~ ~ ~'~'i~'c". r ; . I Fe ~ n~ i • ~ fC'=~ I 1 ~ L li i: i ~ r r Iy~J , ~T 1 'i II ~~„yt y~ - I ~ ` bi,. _ ~ - • ~.i i I i * • • ~ ~ µ i M ~I ' . ~ I *.I ~ 6 'a ~ ~ ('J a I I +vrn~ Tr. ' ' - --~~_..dw.. ~ "~`r....., ' 1 • , f r r I f ,3 r i {I I i t ~ r' t'` .:,r,. ~ Cam'. x~' _ _ ~ I, ~ ~ I (I/~! / w " ~Vrl _ _ r.' 4 !!r.y' v ~ T '~~~a' i a 1[r•, ~ 1 a 1 , 1, a'c,~ I I~ ~ t al 1 Y 1~[T~r, 1 ' ~ .,t I yj ~7 ~f_ ;pI/p 11 ~`1 M¢; I~~I e~'I I ai `a ~ •.ai~ I~~~~, xT r _ a a I •I ~ .,~~r ~ i 1 : -~6f~ .,~i,~rj c, ~li~ ~'1~~.~~ r~ ' I~I~' is # a ~ 1 ~ - , ! ~'.I N ~I~'. i~ {•I ~ II r, ~o'~. I 1 rl .1t~'' II ' II or~~ . f ~ ` :S . r ~ ~ a 'tr I rl V~;_.I II ~ ~-.c~ Ti Ib'i.. e' ~ IK~L I l .~{,d lT I I:^fr Mw.~a ~•Ft I I ~ L- t~ ~ llr~~i; iPl~ r~ kl,j I x I 9.. 'roc ~ S- :a.; 1 r • Y y l 1 r' l' ry t it I I ? ~ a i 1 411 a~ `~7 1 I I la~~ u,'7~ F 1 ~r i , ~ 1.:111 I i II `:_r,~,.c,... r ' R r 1 ~ . 'TI ~ \ \ .'~~1~ ICI ~~I 14.'~ t - r' S § rt ~ ,1 ~ J_ i ~ ~ II I' 1 ' f ~ S ~ ~ fl'(• ~A r is w lc J Y I' - ob : •n ~ ~J ~ t.~ ' r r I -~,,la s•. Y - < ~ a -a'~3`'i ty ~ ~C :iC 1111 I~. ~Oi~Y ~ ~ 1 v • ' ~ : ~ ~ L r ,r °c''~l I i I I r~'>,n~cl~ iy~r s' '3 tv;yr( • ~ , - T. .'.a. ~1' ~q C' ~ t~"~-'~~ I I ~ 1 ~c . ua't ~6d'' ~ . ~ t +r,' • a ~ e ~ ~r r 1t _ , ~ '',r, i` 1 . o~ 4. ~ 1. A ~ ( w+ I • v4 i "t i~ ,g ~ : r• 0 I I I, ~ , ~r'• fir''"~ ..n , ♦ i4., "~~''1 ~~°•~4\, C, `~1 4 ~~//"'fi„ ~M r7:'r~rr~.,, a, `s ~ ~ ~ ~ / •'.1-~ J ~ ~ '~It{Y a_{,, ra~,4'~~~~ ~ti1 4]r"R.n• / i~ c~i ~n~lr. ~'1' Y f ~ i' r. ~.,~f,.~1y, ,'i, ~.`~y~i.;;~~''r~>~'~E~/1 I II ~~='i~~s'~'Q~I-:' L: arl a T , . , ` i;. • e+~ Y'1 i f r ~ •I i~,-un~ 9~vil 4 iS~ L`Y, a ♦?f r a ~ y r Ij- 1~ 'T ~'~i. ~~~11.~ /I.~ _.~JI ~ ` y1 1,"~.L 4J''1Y J 1 r'r I ~ ~ ~ 'Ays It t` ~,,'x. r.. .,>~•}s ,rr.-. I j sy. ~S 1 1.~ ~ ~1 ;:~'~r 49L ~ /~.•r r .000 0.. 1 ~ C ~ ' I 1 ~ \ ~ t tar {~•.•4 ~/1 ~ ~ } „ i • 1 I . y ` ~ ~r1 r 1.'. 1 i ,1. i . II r ~ i -el r t I~-• a a- a ~l } ~ i 1 'rl t ' ~C 1. 1 a ~1~J CS a r a~y^~1 w ~",F ' ~ 1`► > 1' • ft ~ . + ar 4 h r a • ~"r, r y . a "'RRR~~~ c n1 r ,f Y ~ r* . ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 • ~ { y 1 ~ • / b ~ } i t.. ~ iyj~'~ I i 1 x ' 1 ' 'r ,y1 ~ ~ ' ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a o Q ~ o a~ ~ , ~ a w ~ li N ~ _ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~(I r1 I' ~ ~I. ~ g~:.: ~'QZ d~~l 1 Feeg j ~ 7 ~ ~ a z M _ ~ ~}~1.-¢ Fge$d F.1 '1.'yF' ^ OpO 14 r r F/~f B ~j 4 ~i~. „ ,,,i~/ ~ ~~i o~~ ~ F,,,~ ~ boo ~J d ~ ~ ~~r~ J ~1 ~ ~ 5 ~ Yl J) ~ ~ 1~' I y~ _ r 3~u ,wf~' o~~ w ~N , , °z~~ (a r t s ~ gLLo ~ ~ ~ w '~r.,. ~ ~ ~ ~ .yam. a o ~ G F ova h r 9 ~ ~0z ~ 0 oa~ . ~ ~ r w z ~ o~z ~ 'II rarnn r W V \ , ~FZ ~_:i e yf. ~ ~ G~~rr 6 Z \ 1. b~ 1 I ~1 ~ g F ® rr, ~w~ M"` a, , ~ "ry W a O i} ti rr.~rr r ~Qz ~O ` ~s • ~ ~ z ~ o DU _ vi ~ ~ ~ r~ w ~ U ® ~ WW j 1 Z ~ g s, ~ ~ ~ o X 0 w ~ ~ ~ Ow w ~ v~i Q U' w Q ~ w ~ WO Q¢ ~ 0 0 Z ~ O w Q~~ I=- Q w~~ Q~ oo w w ~4 w cn Z oc 0 cn 0 w ° g w Q Z- Z ~ ac ~ 0 Z x 0 Z ~ Y L1 Q OZ Ow ~ ~ .p Q w ~ ~ ~ w ~ J ~ p Q a Q ~w Q ~ ~ o cn cn Z ~ ~ ~ z Q u u 'z Q ~ ~ zU z~0 3 0 ~ ~ 0 2 U J O z w U w ~ O~ O~ w 00000000000 r',.~ Ik~ s ~ ~ CITY 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 M October 2005 5-8 Airport Development Alternatives I 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 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. 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 mall 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. October 2005 5-11 Airport Development Alternatives 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 i"" O • W ~ ° O z ~ ~ o ~ 0~ .I Zo w I- ~ ~ x n ° Z iifi V~ l(~ z W~ o a ~ ~n a LLJ r O ~ P ~ o~ ~ "v° c~ o o a Z~~ 4~ z z ~ 00 ~ ~ Z W _ I- w3 0~ z ~ Z ZN~N ' m ~ O P v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ uW • ~ z ~z Way ~ w~a~ = Z ® _ ~/t W 0 ~ ~~a~ w >~cn~ Z = o~~~ Q ~ cn ~Q~a a W W W~ ~N~~- z U z-~~ z-~ .._f ~ _ ~ a iil ~ , s ~ ~1~ ~ 0 0 ~.i ~ i --fG' C ~ ~ .nl~ ~ ; ~ I i~ ~ ~ LLj r - I i i r't ~ if tl n I ~ . • . I ,,r _ r ~ ~ _ ~ _ - i i ~ s ' eq 3 ~ ~ I~~ f~ o a~ ~ ~ ~ ( S°I Ir ^ , ~.r lye ~ ~ •m Ir'~ ~ ~ nf~~ ~.n ~ m yy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ti ~ ~ I::_ ~f a,,.~'J~, _ zwlg~ a Gt ,~,~,,tl,~Sy~9.~ ••y ~ - „ ~ 11 x• ~ "'h. ~m„'nM .e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i f/R.U ~ ti fe 5 fi ( ~t s w :I:~ i m _ I _ _ i! f' q ~ l tr ~ i~ . ~ I i , ~ I .9r:. I r~' x , ii ? i-U-Z-f->- ~Qd JOUQ~-OZ ~QO_. >r z _ ~ ~ o ;~~~2~ 1 lI o ~ n~ ~ ~ F z~ I I U Z 4 ~ ~ II ~ J f aQd N_ ~ Z • r Ill ~j ~n ~ ` ~ Wz o- % I ^3 Cl O w Z -Doti ~ N / } + r 1 ~ Q x ~ _ O as ~ lI) ~ z / /~~3=0 ~ ° ~ tV ~r {I s dam / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s III I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 a ~ '~I p II ~ Z a z o ~ o~~ w~ ~ o , ,I'~ ~ I ~ 7 r 7 Y Z Q ~ Q ~ z ~ ~ z ~ ~ 5 z ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1w W F- H ~ °Qp` 0 4° o paZ ~ ~ = Q ° 5 ~ ~ z W m 4 ~ / ~ li I, LL U ¢ w aQ _ U a a ~ _ ~ 3 z ~ ~S ~ aa pZ ~Q a Q ~ ~ ~ 0 ~I Nz m~~ l! I~ O Z a Q~Q ~aa ¢ O J Q O N a r Q ~I 1 a U u ° w U Z Z a ~ Z ~ U ~ w G U 'WF"~ ~ _ ~1)j QQ l/ V ~Y W a ~ U > C7 U' w % ' ~ =<~x~' % I ~ ~ Q 00000000ooooocoo~oo ~~m.~ ~ ~ v I I~'I Q W ~ ~ ~ ~~v 1 II a 0 I ~ ~ v~j Y I ~ - ~ I, ~ - ~ ,;I I I ~ T / i % '--fir, ~-~y ~ ~ ~ I- w w w w w w w w w w w w W~ iay w w 0 i ~ /~I-T,1 9~ ~ ~ w/ Oaa ~ ~ ~I f Q O a ; -T~ t; ~ ; I z ~ i~ I I I ~ _ I, II ~ g ~ ~ I I ~ ;~~~:,'~~~w ~~,~o~ ~~~~~M,I~IfI ~II~~~ ~ < n ' ' I / ~ i N _r 11 I~1 I r~ ` I t iv ~ ~ v ~ ° ~ ~ ~ a I I mM ~ ~~.v' ~o~ ~n N I ~ 9 1 I I +n ~ Flo \r \I li i IYs Q Jm ! I II m I N N ~ ~ \ m~ a i ~ ~ I ~ ~ 1 1 j ~ I l _ T I w- l ~ w ~ ~ I 1 w w I F 3 3 T- J I\ ~ ''II~~ 11^^ ~ ~ ~~v ~ V ~ 1~ -w I ~ ~ III ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ /^N 4rU3~ N~h JVVK ~I \I _ OJ a I 11 I: ~ ,I~ Q Z N W Z J N U^ N N m w w Z Z 0 \ ~ Y \ \J / aS I. Z ~ x~ J~ZZ~ xxx~z~~OO~j \ \ ` ✓ I 3 ~ v by I I 9 ~ I, 3 N ~ ~ °o °N °v a° °a >I m ^ W y v vii ~,~~~-'1~~1 i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a N a m (I I F ~ o f ( 1 , a ~ N ~vv v v ~ ~Jt.~.~.1 ~ III ' - 1 ^ I I ~I ~I ~ ~ v I I / I os I 1 I \ I _ ~ a N O \ \ I I ~ N N ~ \ / I \ ; ~ I g 5 v v I:~:':~: I a ~ I I ~ ~ I \ ~ i I O N o N o. a ~ T~-T i I 'l I ~ = / 8 ~ 0 d va J ,--r~,~~~ ~ I ~ p \ P aO v a~~~'. v I~i II I ~ a ~ I~ O W ~-1 NIL A O v p'! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a v vv'~ \ v I 4~ I I I ; _N t ~ I I ~ I F Z ^ ~ w ~ ° vv~`~~.vvw`vv~!"~'. ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ I IFS ~ y qa Z Z W o \ ~ ~ M I:) I ~'~'r''h ~ I I \ ~•Eo.ryF ~ u7 w a w O m - ~ 1 t~ ~ \ l~ ~ 9 0 0 ~ ~ p (7 ~ 0 ° ~ 0 U ~ m \ ` ~ vv I ~ I I i 'iI~~~I:I:I:~ :a I z I ~ _ ~ ~ ' aQ ~ { 0 N ° Q ~ ~ ~ ~ I al rc.~:;...,..; ~ ~ I I `III i E U Z a Z Z ~ N a 0 Z IL ~ " I F; ~ I ~ I ~'g~~~EE' W a \ I) f o ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ z ° ~ ~L ~ II ~ `v v~~ I E;I :-i;i;`:,i~ ~i ~ I i ( 1 I I ~ tl~~o m w w Q w W a Q Z p w w v~ ~ I -a + ;,7:;. W I q ~ o ~ ' 1 i I I ZZ~ ~ O ~w~yy.yyt.t~ ~awa_Ox w ~ ~m II/~ 1 ~v~~v r~ ~ 1'I ..~.,F~!~ ~ ~ ~ I I,~~,~~ Wigs ~ U L L U} Y) W J J f U Y V) Q I \ Vol ~~Z~Z~Waaaa u a a a a z \ v` ~ ~ ~~~~r- Bo ~ww ~0333~~~~? o ; 3 Oz /~~I ~.......a.-~ ~I n I ~ ~ ° Z as»a ZZZ ~r> a Z H~ ~ ~ I// A Il w w w 6 Q 7 ❑ 7 ~ m a Q a ~ r ~ ^J / / ~I~I,,,~.'c~-' ~ ~ I c7 IW~ w a a a a Q a a a 0 0 0 Z Q a r ~ v `I \ -ljli. \k~~... -W ~ I ~ , \~,11 ~ !~1 ~ p ~www w wm l`\\\\\ \~:fl"o ~ C i f I) t I / W'awwww aoi7 v]v11r7 v] w ~ Irk '1 ~ I ~ I 1 WW ~W~ }w m~ Jl ~ \ \\'~~S I ~ I, I D~ ~ i~ W~ m z OU V ~ ~ , ,%9~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y I v J ~.v ~ j i 1, A j ~ ~ Z io in io in 0 ~ ~ vv vv 11./ ~ o I ~ ~ ~ f ~ _ I I I 7 I~ Z z ~ o \ ro M m m ~ a ~ v~ v ~ ~ ~ I ~ _ ~ I - ~ ~I I rl I ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ I I u~~~ ~ W wwww w I ~ Ili ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ `f i~~~ ~i L~~ ~ l~ ~^mg _ U NS~~~~ U \1 °a I x al~ ~ ~I II ~,li Oa ~ ~ ~ z~c~N ~ ~N~ ~ ^w a ''\\\\I J ^I In I m I~ ~ lr III / Q 4 u, F-mZ^~w~Q~ow Q Q I A A I$ I ❑ _~^M,~^~m~ e 3. z ~ ~v~A~~I. ~ I ~ ~gz~ H ~~oooo ~ -~,~,~~I,~~ ~~~j ll1 ~ I~~ ~~I ~ / 'v,~,!~II~~l1 a ~ I ~x o Ewa I v~;. I ~ ; I~~~~~~~ ,I 1+ NSWN ~N 0~-~, ~~z~ m~m~ i I ~ ~iae ~ I %w~~~ _ ~ yZ m~ w~o~ ~~~w ~ \ I I a U o a Q °0°0 zd~~ ps'zet ~ I ~ it v' ~ Q ~ ~w~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ U Q i ~ _ ~ a ~ W I- U w ~ , A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ A ~ o p ~ Sa w~ w ~ w w 3~ w~ w° w 6 a w \ = I I l ~ z n- O N ° p_ w OZ w \ ~ l ~1 ~ ❑ r ~ h❑- w Q~ U ~ prvi ~m wW~i1 ~WO> ~I ~ ^ a \ i~ ~ Z a l- a~ 0 Z ~ / Q ~ ~ ° as ~ \ \ i ) I ~a ~w 0 Q 00~ gO <Oww "'~aw \ I I~ \ Q _ a r I I i Q ~ ~ in~ >a U w ~Q Q =a 0 aOm> amaa \ t Z~I"aU~ W a "'°ui wa,`j JZ~ fwOQ 0 Ou' ~ ~ > U U a U a~ r ° 0 ~ ~I I I ~i, Q Z 0 Z~rii~ w Z >UOZ Irl7 QW'~ ZrZ'n~ W~Ww I C ~ ~ G ~w`Z a w ~I, C~HQ t-.-p N J W22 ~ ~U V ~ / ~ ~ ~ r- pp w ~ II a ~ ~r o^~ s 0~ o awr pFww OZ fn Zoa wQa wO~3 w°pa I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ t' AZ 1~ QQ K U I a° (7 r a~z~ as ~ l rv ~ I I f1, / ~ w O I a s U' \ Z C w ~ W w° w ~r- ~ r r3 ~ w 3Z ❑o3x 1 . , I'i I I ~ ' I l~ W ~ ~ ~ www H o- >Z ~ w ~ ~ I Il ~ ~ F- a ~Cfa a ~aa0 I OO~Z 77,, r x t'u~w OU- ( i~ ~ ' 1 I I~\ ~ ❑ Q g~7O~ O~SO OZ Y OZ Q 5~w az3 uZ.°[]Z aU?3 \ / W ~ i I III W ~ Q a Q~ 0~ a oae ~ Q U Z ~i ~ I I _ Q a°ava~zaag ~z ~ N m v ~ ~ ) I ~ ~ ~ r-t-6~ y .i.Ol ~ \ ~ O I ~ \ o i ~ ~ ~ Q w ~ ~ O ~a I I I ~ ( ~ I w ~ ~ w I w ~ ~ ~ t. I' 5 I I I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~'~I ~ ~0 7 ~ ~ ~ _ ' I I ~ 1',~~ w _ *I 3 I ~ I ~ ~ - --I. V I I ~ Q z zQ~ I I ~I I ~ ~ ~~~o ~ w ~ } 0~0 N 1 1 I ~ NZ ~~N I E€ I ~ ~ W - C ~ o I \ I ~ w w .w Ib 1 ~ , win w c i r J J I Z a~ Z~ LL SE 3g I I m Q I ❑ S E Z I ❑ ~ ~ wY ~g~ W I o °~~f . ~ Zia ~Ti I I i ~ ~ -aP>~ ~ - - ~ 'ti \ I z m ~ ~ ~ ~ g I ~3u~ ~ ~u s ~ I d 2 ~ ~ ~1 "~w3~0~d~0'~ a~ ~;°r` ~ ~I ~ ~ I o W~p m,Z~2~~ 0 ~ p ~ I W I ~I o W ~ a~~~+ ® ~ N en ~ ~ \ s \ 0 4 I N WO~u W W ! I U Zo ~ ~ 3 ~ i \ \ ~ 'II a ~~~~Q m W 4 L ~ ~V ~°L Q \ ~ ~ wJ ~~❑~~uh~ W J r +o QK~ 6, ~j Z ....w0 oq, +N Mn a c~` \ z~~._~ ~J' QQ ~~a~WW~4a~ Z w W ~Q 0 N nZ U ~ \ ~ Z UI UI O~gZ~~ QtiUz 0~ 7 0 Z 0~ W Z ~ a vl ~ ~ / ~~~gx ~?~eQZO~Q FF 9 W _ 4 '3` ~ W UZ~.r~~gq~ GOZ^'U a ~ W ~ Ua i nA 8 ~ ~ZO e < O~~IOOOOk'~'0 y~a~iQw~rL~~Q ~ U p V~ I ~s & \ ~odZO^ E~~ o za~a~j Zasu °~°~~LLoo~o3~~ 0 9°~ I~ =~<Sx~ N °wQ~~g~zZ wU'}U' ~rYu'wY°rNQ? pl N Z 0 F'° ( p~Nwl 0~~0~ ZW~ E?<z O3Gaaz~OJ ~ w 00 szz / ~a~s~m ~~Wu-~~o J ° ° ~ Q N W JQ~~W Wp~ U~~~a~~~m~~~O,nzQ z CUQ ~t~? ~ I W~Wa~''WOu LLmamQa aOO a 'Ua0.> 3 6 LL i m r a~ a l-- ~ ~ I ~~~~~mOZa Z O ~ Z LL ELEVATION (FEEn Z ■ °o °o 0 o b¢ ~ 0 _ ry a o P °m o p N M N p N ~ - ~U.w ~ _._T ~OC)S p a.~a ~ U w,-, j Q o N ,n i ~~Q, Ow ~ ~ lWi W L r,~,~q ~ ~o= ~ 0606 0¢ 0 i<L ~ ~0C ~J JL. y Q w ~ vE, i~ o ~0 COa O Ua ti ~ r.; o W ~ \ J~~ 0~~ 000E ~ 0 0 ~ E a W ~ ~ W WWQ ~ w d a g 7 w Z z J 0 Z J a ~ O r) d Z V W ~z~x ,:;~'~~~x o wo ~g ~ 0 00 ..moo z u~Z " ,\ON~.. ,\,ON~ W II o p°d ~ ~ ~ J LL ZF~~~ zG~~~ ~ o~ ~Z oooa ~ ~ h ~o ~ Q W d ~~-X~ ~ ,~~mo~ Z,~ ~ 0; w o w w 0 0 0 ~ z - ~NX(~N~- _ OO NN JW ~ ~0 ?Z>T Z Z Z O a Y W1SNm • ~~a;>Nmf UQ ~~C, y as LL QO ~ ~ , , O U tY ~ a ~ ~ ~ N YIr ~ ~ ,n w ii .a. ~ ~ ~ 0 000 l W Z r 00 ~ ~ , in.,' 0 000 ~ 0 Z o N ~ ti~ ~ 0 Z a a n(„{ a~ Z r „i` ~ lJ Oyr=a~ 0~++ ai 7 V/ ' o ~n 8'7881'l3 0 a v g~ Z~ m m ~ OE AVMNf18 dN3 `)NIISIX3 ~ o o ~ 0 ~ Z ` ~ OlOHS38H103JVIdS10 ~Obl ~ N ~ ~ ~ oy, Vii, ~ I I ~pW ~ p _ I ~ o OW ~ r ~ 1 K z I z ~ ~ z y' ~Q ~m~~`oZ j Z ~ ~ J ~~~~~~b ~0 y~ Q l~\ ~ ~ ~ ^o Fn ' !'~I w ^ ~U ~inhi..-bh 0~ Z u' 0 ~n~~✓i ~ w/ m 1 m~ ,1kk ~ O qz ~ X ~ ~ ~ N N M ~ M f'1 Q ~ O K~ U ' + f~rr .~1-; '~.I, 3f't~l ~ ~ O O W p~ ~Uw ;ti ~ 8m' e ll~,.' M ~ J b~~oivry~4 0°P' Yp^ > m~roavM u7 f w m~~mmo,~ 1=~~ D Z ~ r1 ~ jr W • d'St'Bl'13 ~ l" 00 '~~u ~ ~ w ~ . ~ ~ t Ll AYMNfI~ ON3 ONIISIX3 0 ~ ~ ~ o ' ~'N~ 1(I, 71r I ~ ~I ~ N M ~ d ~~'sb~' ~ ~ o~, o i ~ ~ oooo~o g a ~ I oool N ~ Z Z""°"~ ~~o Z o ~ p ~ Z. ~ c w w ~Z ~ a;~ ti V~~ OOOL °o w ~ ` ~~~o ~^V 0 y~0~ ~ WQ ~F ! ~\a N~..-. wN ry0'`e J~ r 3 ~g~;aB N N . ~ c, oooE o ~Q ~z o r89~~~ ~ o F x 0 2 cnz 6~ t ~ a V1~Np~ ~ ~ O w w w w~ O 0 ~Z ~F~ p ~7 h 0`7~~"~07~ ~qy ~g~ w O = 2A ; f ~AI,S 0004 °o p m ~ ^'m~o. o V~~ ~ O romr:mrovQ \ 8 i oUQ ~ i Z❑ w _ ~ m ~ OOOS p ' ~ b b t7 b b (u3di NOi1Vld73 C Z Q J J (n ~ ~ Q ~ ~ a L~ rL w Z j ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~Q a ~ O ug v 'o 0~0 ~ ~~papppoooooooppooppooppwppppopop Q E O~ooooo00000ooooopooooo0000000000 y~ i'^ W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W Z p Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z qZ o ~u~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o~~,ooooo00000000000000000000000000 ~o°~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Q a ~ ~ Jr f~ y a00aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa qi// u, r ~ ~ r-ZZ~rrr~r-~~~r•~~~r-1'~~~r~~Fr-r~~rr~r~~ ~ - ~ i o Z ~ ~~'~I- ~ ~ i ~I ~ ~r~° ~ ~ ~ u~`~ i ~ I~ 1 ~ Q ~ ~ w~ ~ F- 11 Q ~ 1V 'f ~ I i f- 0 d 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 w w 0 0 0 w w w w w Q Q J cp,~ "~b'~ ~li ~ ~t0 zrzzzzzz>>zzzzzzzzzzzzaz>rzzz>}>}} ~ ~ 1 l f / ~y~ Q P~ I'Ui ~ ` o ~ O ~ a Q z Q ~ I i i J ~I; ~ ~ ~,1~ ~s~ I ~ r. / \,1 N WN w Z ~ Q Q K ~ / + 1 W. 00~ , W w , F- i' I ~ i. "•i ~ ~ O ~ F L~J ~ Q U I- Q j~ I /~'1 w" 7. ~^b ooobbooooobbooobo~obboobboobboob U1 z ~ ~ `1 (J ~I .~5 ~ ~ U Q ~ i ~ j ~L Z j ~ f , ~ r h. ~ f~ ~ ~ ❑ a ~I ii p~ " i W Q t1 1 r 2} ~~,I. ~ ~ U w I~ r 1 C 4- 1 o Z o o ( b b b o a b Q ~ ii~1 i ~ Q Q~ t 1 1 ° tiq ) o vii 0 w a ~ ~ ~ N N n °m n n a ud.. i p ~ f O LL si ~ f1 ~ o i ~ l~ Ju~,s I ~ W' 2~ I~Z ' ~ i ` , ~ > ~1 uy ~ 4 f7 m ~ %7 ~ ~ ,F r. ZU ~ w w °f oe u: x oC ~ z oC oe ~ K of K K a' oe m m of rc of oC 4' oC K ue m a oc K of n' U z Q ~ ~ p ~ 4h~ 1 i m~j,~ ~~i54~//'~'1 aFV "~o~~iainor.r.mhi.ivonFo~~om~nbginininin~bb~r` ~ w~ W~U ~ 1 ! 1\ ~ .i V ~ 4 ) pr ~ aJ N O P O P O V7 V1 `0 O N N ~0 t~ O P Q M N 1~1 Q m a N Q O: N e d ~O n Z ~ l P ~J r u_ ~ jCYii w f~ ~r 4 ~ L~, 1I~E~ V~ CI N f~l I`1 (O I7 PI f~l N N N N N N N N N N ~ N N N ~ Z w UQ 4~ r Q i i ~ ~ y ~ H 1~ ~ i V p W~` u p u. N ~ Q O i % O ~ `r~pr' '~.e avf I OW'0~N ~'~y~ t~`~ C Z~^Q ~ J~:'~ i `.b ~uy ~iU ~y~®~.ivOim~t. :M(~m~~r~i ~7m7>~,~nr _ w~i.,,. m G ~ 1 p, ~ 4 ~,ry' Flo bbmmmf i.Aai.ioaNinn~o;own<iniva~obdoinb~3~f~i..- mO7w~vUi ~ Q ~ ry 'O'p,~P Vj ^ j ~ f ~ l M l tl ~ O t l ri N J ~ < m O Vl N f'1 N t9 ~0 m O P m ~ M M O C. yG f~l l7 Ih 0f f~ I~ Vf YpI ~ yP P " I N;r=J ' Z~pC fr P.. V4~ ~ .O NJIq~ a N F N P N 9 N : ~ ~0 ~ ~(I V1 N Vi V1 7 N N ~ N V Y V1 V7 V1 Vt I(1 N ~ GI O fO N N A] f~l V m m Q7 _ ~'si ~ Lc._ F.\N 14// g~ r aPammmmm mm mN(Owmmromm wmmmm i.-- ~ I I I ~ ~tt1:; ~;r ~ ~ %a:l ¢ 0 0 0 ~ a~~ uwt~ 1 n i ~ Z a owt O r .#a', P J ~,.q. ~~yi ~ UUUOOOOOOOOOQ0000000000000000 000 ~w'~W"~ p~ ~ =prA ~ .ii ¢¢¢tttttttttttttttttttttttttt>}CCt o ° o ~~5 i~ v~: IN i a O O O w a w w ,n w~ vy h w N ~n in h N n ti m w~~ w~~~~ ~ rn w z j Z~~~ ~ ~ i. ,~~i f yQ\U ~ rx oeoeZ Z ZZ Z Z Z ZZ ZZ Z~~ ZZ z ~ n r. ~q1``P~,~\ i ,paipr ~ ~d~d~~~~~rti~~~rrr~r-~r-rH~rrr rFf-aah-rt- ~LLso~<~u~~u ~ ~ f l~c~,~ ~ NIQ N12., ?pA~O~., #`~N,. I~~~aW~~$ ~ ~ l.' i it J ~ti~~1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I Ay V 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~y~FUIU~`0 l t Ns ~Q~U 1 ~ ~ r g t, ~ n h 4 ~ ,tom f i, h ~ ~ ~ I?~7 dz0~¢ I - ~ u ~Z LL~ZpO~H`¢'0 1S.' I, _ ~ ~ uw~ ~ ~ 1wy Ww w w 11w~ w w w Ww Ww Hwy Hwy w uw~ Ww Ww w w w Ww µw~ Hwy Ww twy Ww w w {w~ w Hwy Hwy Z ~ ~ NZ a ~1 U 1 ~~1 _ _ ~ r~. ~ ~ ~ C`' g K 7 0 oC oC 0~ ~a Y owf owf ~ cL oC OL R' ~ oC oC 1 owC ~n ~n LL IY oC 1' C' oC ~n ~a oC 0~ oL tlC ~ ~ s ~ ~ ul ~ Z a I : I ! (1 F- m Of 1- H 1- 1- r H F- 1- 1- h r H F 1- H F- 1- 1- f- F- F- F~ H h F- 1- r Qq~ W a ~ ~ 0 ~ Z i II ~ ~ ,F~ l ' ~ , s 'Q I ~ ° V ~ Z y~j 1 n WW ~'~`i p o.-Nmv~n•or.mao~Nmvhanmao~Nroo ,~qyy~~°~~ww° . i'• ~ i~ r~ \ Z N M Q N ~0 ^ 9 P ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N Pl l'1 cal m (o w p w~ ~ F F~ p. 1 ~ i i / t I a'f - , S 'a ~ ~ Z O ~ r i Z ~ / J~ J`l~a^r~~ `rP i y~ N a z ~ i~ x r %i~' `1 i) ~r { f ~l' / .i,',i ~ L ~ i i~, ~s. ~ vii r, ~ 1-O ' r i ~ ~ 'I i '.J R ~ G O W O ' l 1 r ~ ~ r 3~fl U~ ' I W. w / ~ rr~,~ r f',~,t I f r O LL 4: O c' ~ . w ~ _ a ~ = N ~ ~ QLL ~ ~ . ti , ~ ~~J' - Q W ~ Z ~~r ~ , ~ 0 r ~;ir V r-', ~ ~ ~ \N Tr a Mkt, 1 tl • ~ N ) I ~ ~ W 1 , o I 1r ,Iii ~ O 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ` \r~ ~ n L{. ~ ..5 1t„ 1`"` I ;'ll ~ ~rin '.f i ~ r r1 / 'r•!e s ~f~+" y ~ ~ I ~ t~ .F f ~ ~tli ~ ~ iJ ~ r I~i~r'I 6 .1~ /4 r ~ ~ S"~ ~ \ Ol r;' y ,ICI V r~ .~f~ r ~.,i. I r ! Id' ' ~ ~ ~ t i > , r ~i~r ~ %/i~~ ~r~ t ~ i i~/'~~//G,~~ W, i d "!l f-- i ~~f.l' r~,l ~ rj r 1~(~{, r7 ~r i ll,~". ~ ' A 'Y' I I i 1 ~ , ti~ d l ( / ' l.S, r ~ y<" 0.~*~,~! ~ r en/ ,r n5 ~i h 4Y~~~~~ ~I l~~ w 5~r~~'~'t~i. Z ~i, u1.. /1 r ~r ~Y i V ~ ~ ~ ~v 1 1 Sri ~ S 3 y ~ r ~ ! ~'t ~ O ;:J 'fir ~ ~ - t r d ~r• S~ ~ ~ r y ~ r i ,1~~~.~ ~ T J 1 . ~ ,.n: ~ ~ t( ~ r~ I'~', ~ t~ ` / /,VF+ .'r. ^ 1 4 ~ ~ / t V r~ f,~ ~l r~~ /l ~S Ul LL f ~ r 1~ \r.r~ lO4,rJ *J+~./ I. ~ 1i~9 ~ 6~1~ r' J. ~1c~J}~' ~ fi\'r e~:,:~ ~ ~ \ r v v r....~ I ~,f ~ ~ it d! ~C 1 I ~ I'" ~*h'1~ r ~ y~ h ;o ~ ~j , ~ 1 ! ~ r ~ O r • /11 ~ !^4~ ' ~ •~LL C/~~,~0/w~ I i . 1 1 I `~fr I w ~ ~~A~ ~ S i ~ rt° ~ ~ ` rr r I r r ~ • ^ M ti t,S a ,S ~ t/~.~'i ~ ~ i r\ •1'(, ~ f~~~, ,"V'~ 'S// N~~},uti ~~r'ar,~S r~ I ~ 1 ~ 1 , i 8 ~ Z i do k t e h 'h: ~ \ ~ 7l r % Ii~,' ti / ~*1 s ~ O L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lr r 4'~ • 'k.1 ~ i ) I i it r ~ o ' .rk4 ~ i' ~ 1 ~,~I ri t ` ~ ~ ~i '"l\~~p li•r t{~~~ y w In/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ae ~ 1 W~ r N' ~r ~ r .N'~y 1 1 y 4~ t h a} ~ ~ ~ti ~ .V .'~4'~ ~ ~ ~~fi~ 1 4 f* ~ s It f ~ F D EPI/~. W r ~ . tl~ r ~ c,_ ~ .'f ~~:.b~t'~~ ~nti.~, '~r~'~ j h~ ~ ° ~~~~,~E ~.~1 - ' i r S ~yI y t ~ n R ~ r h ~ fi U7 , err , t ~ . , z:g i 5,:~ t, ~i I / 1 ~ ~ ~i i \ /y~ ~r 1 ~ 1 ~ V, ~ / \ I r 47 1'.1 ' ~ ^ ~ ~ 1% III e, r I LL , r~ . d . ~5~., err' i.~ ~ z t ` r 11 4 ~ N~, ~ ~ h r ~ i ~ r CL w z r...,.... t ~ ~ h _ n Q _ n - , ~ r ~ ~ ~ C~ o i.,,-~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I;~~'~r Iz ! a -r N a L1. ~ f.~. W l ' , ; ty; ~ Ir ~ S j ~r~l s~ r L~L/ Ct't~ i ' ~ ~ f r~" S ~P f ~ ~ o a o r 0 Q Q w i~. ' l'' 7 ] O ~ O W w Y 3 Q ~ ~ Q w ~ w (7 ~ Z w - W w ~ Q Q w z N Z ~ Ul ° z ~ ¢ 0 IwLZ j a a J ~ ~ a a ~ a ~ Q a Oa = ~ ~ a Zo T ° G 0~ ~ J UZ 3 ~ W z z~> wO ~ LL o - oNJ N❑ w w 0 w z~f =~z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? p Q z3 za° 0 ~ w w =03 Z Z a ~ Z Q - o ~ w~u ~ °o 0 0 ❑ r p z ° 4 o f o w a Z } Q N o ~ ~ 0 ~Z ~ } m ~ ~Z o~'~ ~ o ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ z ~ 3 ~ o mao°~~~ `y u a u JJ ~ Q O ~ } ~ W W ❑ ❑ ° ~ ~ L w Z O W ~ ~ U O ~ Z ,U Q O W Z a m ° ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ❑ ❑ ~ O N ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ = p ~z ~ ~ z g °z = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a o ~ ~ o W °z s ' ~ ° ~ a ~ . ~ 00y ~ ~y waz ~y~ Z O T ~ ~ } } J_ J_ _J ~ J J Z p ~ Z W w ~ ❑ ~ ~ ❑ ~ ~ R' Z ~ ~ Z ~ a ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ _W 2 W O ~ ~ ~mn ~ Fm~ FN- ~ ~ ~ K ~SSj ~ 3 ? Z Q ° ZO 0 F w QLL 0 ❑ w n. ~ 0 W W g ZVVV~ ~ .((~(w p❑ U Q ~ (7 O W W W W W Z ~ LL W O } ~ W Q} ~ N V7 ~ U ~ l~~ ~ W ~ a ~ F0 ~ Z z O w O~ R)~qs• " rz' J ~ W J Z ~ ~ 3 J ~n ~Jn ~ ~ H ~ ~ 0 ~FA ~ J O ~ ~ U ~ J R' N SF' (a N ~ OC W'-' UO = NQ ~~~~i~Z OV C~~~ O T } Z U~ V V ❑ J J J ❑ 4 U 2' W ❑ rA J } O } a O ~a 0 p Z Z Z j>> 0 0 ~ ° o~ O ~ w w ~ u~ 0~~~ }o wg u ~ g~Q~o~~~~ Z F' U N ~ J J w v~ in N ~ ~ U ❑ w Z tin O Z U ~ ~ 0 ~ u: w w ~ _ 0 _ x 0 3 O a Q oO z~ ~ ~a z3"3~~~~~~u n Y O^ ~3°z~~o°~' 0 ~ ~ ~ In ~ U ~ O zp ~o Q °da ~ gLgakQ~~ O Q ~~SL~K❑o~ Q Q ❑ o ~g7~~~~~ U I ( ~ ~ I~ I M N M P ti ~ In ~ (0 ~ o~ LLN zd aw wz w zg& ~ U fY w QQ Zr~r LL ZZ❑❑ ~`~aQ2 ~w ~U O Q~ w&ZOOwH~0 0 0 0~ V w 0 wy ~ }}a Z ZQgV (n Z~ w tw Oa~~'~~~Za w v u❑ g$wQ sg _z a~ w Z n ro v ~~LL Owraul w~ ^ ~~-qU awaw w ~~=~~moza 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. 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 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 future 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 Local Project Qty. Unit Unit $ Total EliFAA gible 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 5ifbtot`al Yeair 1 2„ $61149b ` $86;616 $30,875: 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 SubtoaC '`Year 3'~~ $2f$,40Q $207,480_ `$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 ~«'z4Yf-`t~:`~ r?1~;, - r'„- y M~ sJ t'„Stx', ~ r ~:~r ~ y : _,Subotali,Year;4 Y }$2436DD Y $219,240.: $24,360' 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 Total Short Term Projects $1,429,790 $1,328,606 $101,18 i October 2005 6-4 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report mill 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 (existing) Hangar 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 PAR - R 12 & 30 2 ea $60,000 $120,000 $108,000 $12,000 Main Apron new - phase 1 Slur Sea! 2012 4,400 SY $3.60 $15,840 $14,256 $1,584 North new Hangar Taxilanes SlurSeal 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) 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) LF $18.00 $41,400 $37,260 $4,140 Main Apron new - phase 2 Slur Seal 2015 3,600 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 Slur 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 Slurry 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 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 1.2/30 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 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 taxi lanes/taxi ways 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.). • 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 (REEL) 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 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. October 2005 6-10 Financial Management and Development Program Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates Ashland Municipal Airport Airport Layout Plan Report Chapter Seven Environmental Checklist - A C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport SHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report E", 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 permitted, 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 Century West Engineering ♦ Aron Faegre & Associates ♦ Gazeley & Associates CITY 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 dwellin s 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 I & 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. For 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 flighty. 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 salve 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 (SEU10) ) Leqn = 10 log (N,, x 10 ((SEL+10)/10) ) 86,400 86,400 If SEL equals the same measured sound exposure level for each computation, and if Nd = 10 daytime flights, and Nn = I 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 r 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. 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 C I T Y OF Ashland Municipal Airport ASHLAND Airport Layout Plan Report 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 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 / Soeio- projects. YES Economic Area is in attainment for air quality; no change in current Air Quality conditions is anticipated. NO 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(t) October 2005 7-14 Environmental Checklist E 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 Communities Construction Impacts, Water Quality sections of YES 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 i October 2005 7-15 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 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. October 2005 7-16 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 terms 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 commercial 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 II: 49 feet up to, but not including 79 feet Group III: 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 lindted 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 or 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-military) 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 arc 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 12,500 lbs. 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 (IC,S). 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. Nondireetional 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. Rotorcraft - 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 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 Croup/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 Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 feet Runway protection zone at other runway end: Width 200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 feet Width 1200 feet from runway end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 feet Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 feet 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 Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 feet 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 line on-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 Firefiizhters, 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 duality 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 fiilly 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. Alaximum height of 7 trees or other airspaee obstr eti ns shall be 'fin 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.C.10. 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 Parking Spaces by 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 s . 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 re uirements 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 Plannin 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 I Chapter 18.5.7 Variance Type I or II 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 - Type II Section 18.3.11.080 Hardship Exception 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 http://www.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display-Minutes&AMID=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: 9:31AM 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 7t11 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 A 4 4/13/2016 11:05 AM - ity of Ashland, Oregon _ Agendas And Minutes littp:/hN,N r, v.asfiland.oi-.us/Agendas.asp?Display =Minutes&AN/IID=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 DEQ. 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 )f4 4/110.016 11.05 AM ity of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes htti)://Nv4~,w.ashland.or.us/Agendas.asp?Display Ntinutes&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. pfd 4/1V20M II -OS AM ~ity of Ashland, Oregon - Agendas And Minutes littp:/hvww.ashland.or.us/Agenclas.asp?Display =Minutes&AN4ID=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 OTHER: 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 :)f 4 4/13/2016 11:05 AM Y Y, CITY OF -ASHLAND ` 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 (Aces) 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 lE 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 (Calocedrus decurrens) of approximately 20-inches DBH. The applicant has previously applied to remove the tree, which was denied because there was no arborist report in the application. This current application includes an arborist report that states the tree is a hazard and should be removed. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial; ZONING: C-1; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1 E 14BA; TAX LOT: 100 Commissioner Oxendine wanted to see the full report the arborist used to determine the subject tree as a hazard. There was a lengthy discussion between the commissioners concerning what constitutes an "arborist report". The commissioners felt an arborist report needs to be a full ISA Tree Risk Assessment, performed by a certified arborist. Furthermore, they noted the concern of conflict of interest when the consulting arborist is also the arborist submitting a bid for removal. Moreover, due to concerns of liability, the Commission approved the plans as submitted. 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 trees have an approximate diameter at breast height (DBH) of 12 inches. The application includes an arborist report that recommends removal. Both of the trees on the site were listed as being preserved as part of the landscape plan for the original Conditional Use Permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residential; ZONING: R-1-7.5; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 16AA; TAX LOT: 100. Commissioner Oxendine mentioned this is the "ideal" tree removal permit as the applicants are removing dying trees and asking for suggestions for mitigation. Roland suggested the property owners stay away from conifers due to sunlight constraints and recommend the following tree varieties as mitigation trees: ginkgo, Japanese maple, English Oak, Wedding Bells. John/Oxendine 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 Woodworks, Inc. DESCRIPTION: A request to remove four trees to accommodate a previously approved housing development. One of the trees, a cedrus atlantica, is in the footprint of a proposed building. The other trees to be removed, all pinus pondersas, are to be removed because of poor health and proximity to other trees. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Multi-Family Residential; ZONING: R-2; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 1E 14CA; TAX LOT: 7808, 7807, 7806, and 7805. The applicant, Alan Sandler and a representative from Raven Woodworks, was present to represent their proposal. A neighbor of the project was also present to express his concern over the removal of the cedrus atlantica. Oxendine mentioned it would be a shame to loss the Cedrus atlantica, noting its general rarity and presence on the site. Oxendine stated the tree should be 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 (PA#2014-00307), 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-l; ASSESSOR'S MAP: 39 lE 05 CD; TAX LOT: 41803 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 Respecifidly submilled 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 mis 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, #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 mis 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 May 3, 2016, Business Meeting Second Reading of An Ordinance Amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways FROM: David Lohman, city attorney, david.lohman@ashland.onus SUMMARY The purpose of this ordinance amendment is to minimize blockage of pedestrian passageways by outlawing unpermitted obstructions by persons - in addition to the already-existing prohibitions on unpermitted obstructions by objects and dogs. At its April 19, 2016 business meeting, Council voted to approve first reading of a version that has been modified for second reading as shown in the attached version and described briefly below. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Amendment of the City's current ordinance on obstruction of pedestrian passageways has been discussed by Council as a possible measure for reducing the incidence of offensive conduct on public property in Ashland. The version presented for second reading has the following main features: • A Findings and Purpose section to make clear that the proposed Council enactment is a targeted response to a significant City problem. • A prohibition on intentional exclusive occupation of a pedestrian passageway for longer than a reasonable period of time and in no event longer than 5 minutes and a requirement to immediately cease blocking the way of a person with an ambulatory disability. Note that this provision has been significantly modified in the ordinance version presented for second reading. Text proposed to be deleted is shown in stricken-through text within brackets and highlighted in red; text proposed to be inserted is shown within brackets and highlighted in yellow. These proposed modifications stem partly from suggestions by several councilors to better accommodate persons in wheelchairs. The change of the allowable blockage time from 5 minutes to "no longer than a reasonable period of time, and in no event longer than 5 minutes" reflects staff reconsideration and warrants further discussion. • Citation only after distinct indication of intent to obstruct a pedestrian passageway, which can be shown by continuing to obstruct a pedestrian passageway after having been warned of the possible violation by a law enforcement official. • Specific exceptions from application of the ordinance, three of which have been added to the ordinance version presented for second reading (shown within brackets and highlighted in yellow in Section 10.64.020E). • A maximum fine of $138.00, plus applicable fees. • "Pedestrian passageway" includes: o Entryways to public or private property from an abutting public sidewalk; Page 1 of 2 Irr CITY OF ASHLAND o The portion of a public sidewalk that is within 6 feet of the outer edge of any roadway, within 6 feet of any City owned or controlled fixture or structure; or within 10 feet of any crosswalk. o An area of unobstructed passage 6 feet in width on any sidewalk, walkway, or path improved to City standards. At first reading, Council approved a revision of the definition of "pedestrian passageway" to make it clearer than had been originally proposed. The portion of the definition Council specifically voted to include as 10.64.020C(2) is now proposed to be revised (shown in the stricken-through text within brackets and highlighted in red). Responding to a suggestion from at least one Councilor, staff has also included in the attached version those areas within 10 feet of any crosswalk. The attached version further revises the definition of pedestrian passageway as shown in 10.64.020C(3). Text proposed to be deleted is shown in stricken-through text within brackets and highlighted in red; text proposed to be inserted is shown within brackets and highlighted in yellow. This proposed revision is intended to clarify that walkways such as Chautauqua Park and Old Masonic Walkway which the City does not classify as sidewalks - as well as private sidewalks improved to City standards, are to be included in the definition of a pedestrian passageway. The proposed changes from the version of the ordinance presented at first reading will, of course, be read aloud at second reading. The excerpts to be read aloud are those highlighted in red or yellow and enclosed in brackets in the attached version of the ordinance, with deletions noted by stricken-through text highlighted in red. COUNCIL GOALS SUPPORTED: Public Safety 23. Support innovative programs that protect the community. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance following consideration of whether to adopt the suggested revision of Section 10.64.020C(3). SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve second reading by title only of an ordinance titled, "An Ordinance amending AMC Chapter 10.64 Obstructing Sidewalks and Passageways" [til,ith the following changes...] and adopt the ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Page 2 of 2 !VALAR 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 lifted through and additions are bold underlined. WHEREAS, Article 2. Section 1 of the Ashland City Charter provides: Powers of the City. The City shall have all powers which the constitutions, statutes, and common law of the United States and of this State expressly or impliedly grant or allow municipalities, as fully as though this Charter specifically enumerated each of those powers, as well as all powers not inconsistent with the foregoing; and, in addition thereto, shall possess all powers hereinafter specifically granted. All the authority thereof shall have perpetual succession. WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.64.010A, first enacted in 1968, currently prohibits using public streets and sidewalks for selling, storing, or displaying merchandise or equipment, with exceptions for specific permitted uses. WHEREAS, Ashland Municipal Code Chapter 10.64.01 OC, 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 4 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 aggregation of objects, animals, and people on City sidewalks, walkways and entryways to private and public buildings from City sidewalks. SECTION 10.64.010 10.64.020 Obstructing Passageways A. Except as otherwise permitted by ordinance or by a conditional use permit or by a special event permit, no person shall use a street or public sidewalk for selling, storing, or displaying merchandise or equipment. B-. The provisions of this seetion shall not apply to the delive", of merehandise o the property abutting on the street or sidewalli upon whieh the merehandise o n4 is loeated removes the m ehandise or equipment within a reasonable time. publie sidewalli whieh restriets the elear passageway for pedestrians to less than eight feet, exeept when the sidewalk. is less than eleven feet in width, then the measure shall be six feet-~ or place any objeet on a publie sidewalli at a street eorner or within five feet of the eurb return. B• "Fiji -cc tit I ,It& IjL"'-tktt." .1&.t"t k"j" - .-loI I& I I t. I "j I, t I q I It I J 1900 t %;".,I I stj tj.y- 101 1. T tj Il t t I, f I It;; V I IJ t I & %,I I tz~ it It 11 AJ I I I. t S I I I I I I I jNo person shall obstruct travel on a pedestrian passageway for longer than a reasonable period of time, and in no event longer than 5 minutes, by exclusively occupying or placing an object or animal thereon with the intent to interfere with free pedestrian passage. Anyone blocking a pedestrian passageway must cease doing so immediately after observing or otherwise having been made aware that a person with an ambulatory disability is waiting for obstruction-free travel thereon.] C. As used in this Chapter 10.64, a pedestrian passageway is: 1. The entryway to public or private property from an abuttin public sidewalk; 2. The area of a ublic sidewalk that is (a) within 6 feet of the outer edge of any roadway, (b) within 6 feet of Ordinance No. Page 2 of 4 CG~ any City owned or controlled fixture or structure, or within 10 feet of any crosswalk; and 3, An area of unobstructed passage 6 feet in width on an sidewv~ftlk ~Valkwa or path improved to City standards. N4_~ 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 020C if the person continues obstructing a pedestrian passageway after having once been informed or warned by a law enforcement official of the conduct proscribed in this chapter. E. Exceptions. The provisions of Section 10.64.02B shall not a 1 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 aCity-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; [6 Sitting on a bench shown on the City's Downtown Sidewalk Usage Map; 7 Permitted by ordinance or by a conditional use permit or by a special event permit to temporarily block a pedestrian passageway; or 8 Exercising the constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech or assembly. 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 I 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. Ordinance No. Page 3 of 4 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 4 of 4 CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication May 3, 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@ashland.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 1 of 2 IWALAR CITY OF -ASHLAND ATTACHMENTS: Draft resolution Page 2 of 2 11TAWA 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. At the November 8, 2016 election, the advisory question in the ballot title in attached Exhibit A shall be submitted to the electors of Ashland for their "yes" or "no" vote. Section 2. The City Recorder shall cause to be delivered to the Elections Officer of Jackson County, Oregon, not later than 61 days prior to the November 8, 2016 election notice of the City's referral of the advisory ballot question and all that is required to ensure that the ballot title as shown Exhibit A complies with County and State requirements for submittal to Ashland electors in the November 8, 2016 election. Section 3. The City Recorder shall give notice of receipt of the ballot title and notice of electors' right to petition for review of the ballot title as provided in the laws of the State of Oregon and the charter and ordinances of the City of Ashland. Section 4. The City Attorney is authorized to modify the text of the ballot title and explanatory statement shown to comply with any rules, procedures or practices of the Elections Officer of Jackson County to implement the requirements of Oregon Law. Page 1 of 2 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 Reviewed as to form: David H. Lohman, City Attorney Page 2 of 2